5.4. The
Function of 6:9–11
5.4.1. Who are the ἄδικοι?
This leads us into 6:9–11. Taken alone these verses serve to
rearticulate the group dichotomy, with its ethical and eschatological boundary
(reiterating 5:7b–8 and 6:2–3). They serve both to remind the believers that at
their baptism they were called out of one lifestyle, and corresponding fate, to
another, and to point out the present difference between ingroup and outgroup
in regard to eschatology and ethics. In the context of the surrounding ethical
discussion (5:1–7:40) it is easy to see how such a reminder serves to underline
the command to adopt a different mode of behaviour (the imperative for
Christian ethics), and to regulate interaction with outgroup members (part of
the content of Christian ethics).
However, many commentators seem to pay too little attention to the
function of this passage in the specific context of 6:1–8, often preferring to
concentrate on the origin of the vice list, or the theology of baptism, or the
details of the sins themselves. Our interest here is specifically in its
contextual function. The natural question here is: who are the ἄδικοι to whom Paul refers? There seem to be
two, perhaps not mutually exclusive, ways of answering that question, which
will lead us to two, perhaps not mutually exclusive, ways of viewing the
function of the passage.
First we may take ἄδικοι as a reference back to the ἄδικοι of 6:1 to whom Paul, at the outset, forbade believers to have
recourse for judgment. If taken this way, the passage serves as a closing
rationale for the avoidance of litigation before outsiders. After a digression
to suggest even disputes settled internally are undesirable (6:7–8), Paul
returns to the initial point of his attack—the transgressing of the group
boundary by setting up outsiders as judges. The rationale for avoiding pagan
judges is precisely the status that they have as members of the ἄδικοι group: outside judges lack the positive
eschatological fate of the believers; they will not ‘inherit the kingdom’. Thus
just as the eschatological role of judging the world gave believers a
competency to be judges of βιωτικά among fellow believers in the present (6:2–3), so the fact that
unbelievers do not inherit the kingdom underlies their eschatological
difference and thus their incompetence to be judges between believers. But Paul
now additionally brings in the ethical boundary marker to underline the
negative status of outsiders and to stress the differential between them and
believers. He does so by pointing out that believers, as those who are ‘washed,
justified and sanctified’, are set apart from both the ethical identity and the
eschatological fate of the ἄδικοι. The terms chosen verbally echo the group designations: ἁγιάζω—made a ἅγιος; δικαιόω—unmade an ἄδικος.
This introduction of the ethical boundary marker was prefigured in the group
designations that Paul selected in 6:1. ἄδικος/ἅγιος carries the same
sinner/sanctified dualism as 6:9–11. Thus the group boundary underlies the
proscribed inter-group behaviour (using pagan judges). Only believers have been
made δίκαιος, the basic
quality required for judging.
Secondly we may take ἄδικοι with reference to those who commit ἀδικία mentioned in the previous verse, and thus
the whole as a warning against this type of behaviour.18 Thus Paul
continues with the thought of 6:8 rather than returning to 6:1–6. Paul now
engages in a clever play with concepts and words where ἀδικέω ἄδικος and δικαιόω (6:8, 9, 11) are used to stress both
group status and corresponding behaviour differences.
The three verbs used to indicate the change of status are most
revealing. Paul states ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε, terms almost
impossible to translate into English without losing their function and semantic
connections with other terms in the passage. Despite attempts to understand a
theological significance in the choice and order of these verbs, they are best
understood as being selected for the particular context.22 Although
all three are conversion metaphors, all carry specifically ethical overtones.
They are emphasizing the change of status which, in Paul’s mind, is not here
primarily eschatological (from those who will not inherit, to those who will
inherit), but ethical (from being numbered among those indicated by the vice
list, to being a new people set apart). Additionally, the last two terms are
particularly remarkable. ἡγιάσθητε
relates to the status of being a ἅγιος, and ἐδικαιώθητε
to no longer being an ἄδικος.
Hence Paul reminds the Corinthians that their identity as either an ἄδικος or ἅγιος is formed in behavioural change. This at the very least should warn
us against reading ἄδικος
and ἅγιος as static
designations of identity or standing before God (unjustified/saints), which
merely carry ethical imperatives. Rather these terms function as much as
behaviour labels as do πόρνος,
λοίδορος and so on. Thus
if one commits ἀδικία
one cannot be said to be ἡγιάσθῆναι,
or ἐδικαιωθῆναι, and one may
be said to be an ἄδικος
and not a ἅγιος. Here is a grave
warning to those engaging in such activity.
5.4.2. The Perseverance of the ἅγιοι
As Gundry Volf states: ‘no doubt … Paul intends vv. 9–11 to exercise a
reforming influence on his readers’ conduct’. Paul links their behaviour to the
status, ethical and eschatological, of the outside world from which they have
been delivered. In doing so he shows how inappropriate it is. The question is:
is Paul merely reminding them that they have been delivered from this status of
vice and disinheritance, and that as such their behaviour is inappropriate and
constitutes a defeat (an imperative flowing from a certain indicative)? Or is
he warning them that there is a real danger that those (believers) who practise
ἀδικία may actually
revert to the status and fate of the ἄδικοι?
Gundry Volf objects to the notion that Paul is motivating the
believers by hinting at the possible loss of salvation, for a number of
reasons. First, that this would have Paul, in the same passage, asserting that
believers will judge the world (6:2), and putting that eschatological role in
doubt. The eschatological superiority presupposes the triumph of the believer.
This objection, however, does not hold up. Eschatological judgment is
explicitly a property of the ἅγιοι which does not in itself preclude the notion that one could cease to
be a ἅγιος.
Gundry Volf’s second objection is that Paul does not actually say that
the Corinthians are in danger of losing their eschatological inheritance, but
that the ἄδικοι will not inherit
the kingdom.
The designation ἄδικοι
belongs to conventional terminology used in vice lists (cf., e.g., Luke 18:11),
where it denotes unbelievers. In keeping with this conventional usage, in the
present context οἱ
ἄδικοι is synonymous with
οἱ ἀπιστοι … The view that Paul warns the
Corinthians indirectly not to become ἄδικοι, however, requires the term to change meanings in the context:
whereas it refers strictly to unbelievers at 6:1, at 6:6 [sic] it would have to mean ‘wrongdoers including believers’. Since
such a change in meaning is doubtful, the Corinthians could be included in οἱ ἄδικοι only if they are not Christians at all
but actually ἀπιστοι.
There are a number of problems here. As we have seen, οἱ ἄδικοι is not ‘conventional terminology’ for
unbelievers! It is not Paul’s usual term for outsiders, appearing uniquely in
6:1 and 6:9. Gundry Volf claims that
it is used in vice lists, but the example she cites of Lk. 18:11 is in fact the
only time it appears in a vice list in the entire New Testament, and here it
appears to mean ‘swindler or cheat’ rather than unbeliever.27 She
may be right to criticize Barrett who suggests that ἄδικοι functions here in a ‘strictly moral
sense’. It is most certainly a group designation as well (as in 6:1). But it is
not clear that it functions any less as a moral designation than other vice
labels that denote the outgroup (πόρνοι, πλεονέκται, εἰδωλάτραι, λοίδοροι, μέθυσοι).
The problem is with reading 6:1 as merely a static theological
designation (ungodly, unjustified) and failing to see that it is also an
ethical behavioural designation. If 6:1 is read with an ethical inference, then
there is no need to postulate a change in meaning at 6:9, in order to see a
threat that those who ἀδικεῖτε
may become ἄδικοι. The view that
such a warning would mean that ἄδικοι would have to mean ‘wrongdoers including believers’ misses the point,
for the point is precisely that, if one becomes an ἄδικος by sharing in their ethics and thus their
fate, by definition one would not be a believer.
Gundry Volf concedes that 6:9 may possibly be a warning. However, she
argues that Paul would be threatening ‘some Corinthians whose conduct makes him
suspect false profession of faith’. The problem with this is that if, on basis
of their behaviour, Paul believes some in the community may not truly be πιστοί, why does he not either call them to
faith, or for the community to expel them (as with the immoral man)? But
rather, Paul threatens such individuals in order to ensure a change in behaviour. This suggests that Paul does
not only see wrong behaviour as revealing ‘false profession’, but is warning
that wrong behaviour endangers one’s status as insider, and that a timely
change in behaviour may avert this danger. If there is a warning here, it is to
those believers who ἀδικεῖτε,
calling them to desist lest they share the fate and status of the ἄδικοι.
There is, if read as a warning, a certain parallelism between ch. 5
and ch. 6. He who committed πορνεία was redefined as a πόρνος and thus no true ἀδελφός. Now he who commits ἀδικία is in danger of being redefined as an ἄδικος and thus no true ἅγιος. There is however a significant
difference. The man committing πορνεία is a πόρνος
thus an outsider, not to be rebuked but excluded, while those committing ἀδικία are warned, as those who are at present
still members of the community. (Alistair Scott May, The Body of
the Lord: Sex and Identity in 1 Corinthians 5-7 [Journal for the Study of
the New Testament Supplement Series 278; London: T&T Clark International,
2004], 87-91)
