WHAT KIND OF WORDS EMPTY THE CROSS OF ITS POWER?

PAUL’S REFERENCE TO “ELOQUENT SPEECH”

IN 1 CORINTHIANS 1:17

David Niblack

A RESEARCH PAPER

Chicago, Illinois

May 2005

 “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with

 words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”

Introduction

In 1 Corinthians 1: 17, Paul explains that he is charged “to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” [1]   The phrase sofi,a| lo,gou (sophia logou, translated above as “eloquent wisdom”) has generated much scholarly discussion.  What precisely did it mean to the Corinthian audience? [2]   A proper interpretation is relevant for two reasons.  First, the lens through which this phrase is understood largely governs the interpretation of the first four chapters of the book. [3]  Secondly, 1 Corinthians 1:17 is a defining verse in establishing a NT theology of preaching. [4]   Words are instruments for communicating the Gospel, yet apparently words can also empty the gospel of its power.  Understanding what Paul means by sofi,a| lo,gou is vital for avoiding “emptying the cross of its power” and nullifying biblical preaching of its central purpose.  This paper will show that Paul’s phrase sofi,a| lo,gou in 1 Corinthians 1:17 is a reference to Greco-Roman rhetoric that located its basis of persuasion in worldly philosophy rather than the message of Christ crucified.  By doing this, the basis for a New Testament theology of preaching founded upon the inherent power of the message of Christ crucified will be supported from the meaning of 1 Corinthians 1:17 in its original context. 

One of the difficulties in interpreting 1 Corinthians 1:17 is that it is nearly impossible to accurately interpret the phrase sofi,a| lo,gou exclusively within the text of 1 Corinthians.  Hence the exegetical questions can only be answered by a careful examination of the historical and cultural context in which Paul wrote. [5]    When doing so, scholars fall into four general camps of interpretation. [6]   First is the view that sofi,a| lo,gou is simply a indication of ornate speech and is purely a reference to rhetoric as form.  This interpretation has significant problems, and the overwhelming majority of current scholarship rejects rhetoric in 1 Corinthians as mere form. [7]   For example, Pogoloff writes: “Again and again we find scholars underestimating the importance of the meaning of sofi,a| lo,gou as rhetoric because they understand rhetoric as not more than mere form.” [8]   The main argument against this position is that Paul himself frequently uses rhetoric throughout the epistle [9] and it would be illogical for him to condemn rhetoric and employ it at the same time.  Also, v. 17 is the introduction to the major antithesis between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God that spans the next four chapters, and it does not seem likely that Paul would use sofi,a as merely “skillful language” while introducing such a significant teaching. [10]   For these reasons, rhetoric as mere form will not be considered as a viable interpretation. 

The second view holds that sofi,a| lo,gou is a reference to Gnostic wisdom that had infiltrated the church at Corinth.  The research for this view was largely inaccessible [11] and has been nearly eclipsed by more recent scholarship that demonstrated that Corinth in Paul’s day was far less Gnostic than once believed. [12]  

The third view interprets the phrase as a reference to a Jewish wisdom tradition that is represented by Philo of Alexandria and Apollos.  The fourth view is that “eloquent wisdom” refers to Greco-Roman rhetoric which was more than mere form, and was constructed upon Greek philosophy and Roman oratory.  These two views are the most pertinent to the thesis of the paper and thus will be discussed in greater detail.    

Sofi,a| lo,gou as Jewish Salvation Wisdom

James A. Davis maintains that the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians “may be convincingly, coherently and consistently interpreted over and against the background of early post-Biblical Jewish wisdom.” [13]  In this view, wisdom was heavenly wisdom and, as such, was both a means of salvation and a means of eloquent speech, [14] and Paul is responding to this idea by stating that the Jewish understanding of wisdom is not a means of salvation or eloquence because salvation lies solely in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.  

The primary source documents that support a Jewish wisdom background begin with the Old Testament and are also found in the writings of Philo, The Book of Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon.  These will be briefly noted, and then several arguments will show how the Jewish wisdom literature fits in the context of 1 Corinthians 1:17.  The Jewish Wisdom proponents argue that the idea of eloquent speech as a result of divine wisdom can be seen in the book of Proverbs.  Horsley draws numerous parallels between Proverbs and 1 Corinthians on the subject of wisdom as eloquent speech. [15]   Written around 180 B.C, The Book of Sirach taught of a heavenly wisdom rooted in a true knowledge of the law, producing eloquent speech. [16]    Wisdom was a major theme in the teaching of Philo, and this wisdom was centered upon a true understanding of the law.  Philo was an accomplished orator and debater, and yet he zealously rejected the rhetoric of the sophists of his day.  For Philo, eloquence was a display of wisdom that was concerned primarily with obtaining virtue by the law of God. [17]  He rejected the rhetoric of the sophists, not because rhetoric was wrong in itself, but because it “set rhetoric against virtue.” [18]  Furthermore, Philo saw himself above the ordinary sophists and philosophers [19] because “mere sophistry could not be confused with true (Jewish) wisdom.” [20]

This teaching was popular by Paul’s time, and Davis, Winter, and others interpret the “eloquent wisdom” of v. 17 as referring to this wisdom.  Four arguments are used to support this position.   First, Paul’s criticism of the themes of eloquence, wisdom, and inspiration make most sense in the light of a Jewish background. [21]    Paul’s argument that begins with the opening antithesis is to “mark off his sofi,a …from an exclusively Torah-centered sofi,a” [22]    Paul’s argument for the wisdom of God against the wisdom of the world that he develops for four chapters is not ultimately a critique of a form of communication, but rather the heresy that there was a sofi,a vthat contained salvific wisdom and eloquent language. 

Secondly, the factionalism that Paul was writing against in Corinth was most likely caused by competing sects of Jewish Sophia Christology. [23]   Wilkens writes that the problem in 1 Corinthians was a kind of Jewish Sophia myth in which sofi,a was translated as an eschatological blessing misconstrued in judiazed Gnostic categories [24] .   

Thirdly, the terminology Paul uses does not imply secular Greek philosophy, but rather a Hellenized form of Judaism.  Horsley notes that the phrases, “wisdom of the world” vs. the “wisdom of God” are “hardly to be taken at face value as references to (secular) Greek philosophy but are rather polemical references to heavenly Sophia.” [25]

Finally, Apollos forms a connection between the Jewish wisdom of Philo and the audience at Corinth.  Both Philo and Apollos were from Alexandria, and Apollos was known as an eloquent man. [26]  Because of Apollos’ background in Alexandria, it is likely that his eloquence would have been rooted in the Philonic teaching of heavenly Sophia and not Greco-Roman rhetoric. [27]  

For these reasons, the Wisdom view holds that Paul’s reference to sofi,a| lo,gou is best translated as a reference to the Jewish concept of wisdom popularized by the Sirach, Philo, and Apollos.  For Paul, Christ is the revolutionary display of the wisdom of God, and so Paul forcefully decries that such “wisdom” would empty the cross of its power.  

“Wisdom of Words” as Greco-Roman Rhetoric

The fourth view, the rhetorical view, interprets Paul’s phrase, “eloquent wisdom” as a reference to the contemporary rhetoric that originated in the Greek culture and was popularized in the Roman society as a means of persuasive public discourse. [28]   It is easy to create a caricature of Roman rhetoric that is far from the reality that existed in Paul’s day and which makes rhetoric out to be something of mere form. [29]   For this reason, it is necessary to give a brief survey of the Greco-Roman concept of rhetoric, giving special attention to the use of the word sofi,a as it relates to public speech.  Building on this data, several arguments will show how the Greco-Roman rhetorical situation fits into an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 1:17ff. 

Survey of Greco-Roman Rhetoric

Rhetoric as eloquent speech was born in Athens, [30] the heart of the Hellenistic culture.  Oratory and rhetoric grew as an expression of the developing philosophy and became one of the most respected displays of the discipline, “the crown jewel of a classic education.” [31]   M. L. Clarke writes that “[the] Hellenistic culture was above all things a rhetorical culture, and its typical literary form was the public lecture.” [32]   Brian Peterson summarizes that “to be part of the Hellenistic culture meant to have ears trained for the ways of persuasive speech.” [33]   The rhetorical methods developed by the Roman culture were a sophisticated speech theory built on Greek philosophical wisdom.  To show this, two primary source authors, Aristotle and Quintilian, will be cited to demonstrate how they understood the role of rhetoric in public discourse.  

Aristotle, born in 384 BC, was an influential figure in developing and defining Greek rhetoric. [34]   Plato had criticized rhetoric on the ground that it did not have its own subject, and was simply parasitic to philosophy. [35]   Aristotle responded by defining rhetoric as “the possible means of persuasion in reference to any subject whatever.” [36]  By giving this definition, Aristotle proposed that rhetoric was not simply a sophisticated kind of flattery, but rather the discovery of something in a subject that makes it persuasive. [37]   Thus Aristotle focused on the logical content of the rhetorician, and argued that the goal of rhetoric was to produce compelling arguments based on logical and plausible deductions. [38]   A rhetor was not simply someone who spun words to impress people, but someone who had a significant amount of prior knowledge to make his speech convincing. [39]  Thus, one of those most influential in defining the Greek concept of rhetoric did not see it as simply the use of words, but rather as the expression of rational Greek philosophy. 

A second figure influential in creating the context that Paul interacts with in I Corinthians is Quintilian of Rome.  Quintilian (born 40 AD) is an important figure because he was a close contemporary of Paul and was, according to Litfin, “Rome’s greatest rhetorical teacher.” [40]  He was highly influenced by the rhetorical theory of Cicero [41] who developed the first standard of Roman rhetoric. [42]  The theory of rhetoric evolved as it emerged from the Greek culture into the Roman, and grew to be more focused on the glory it could bring to the orator.    This glory was still achieved by a demonstration of the Greek concept of rhetoric as an application of philosophy and logic. [43]   Quintilian wanted to defend rhetoric against the idea that rhetoric was simply an art of words.  To do this, he emphasis the virtue and intelligence of the speakers and not simply the results he produced. [44]  In addition, form and content were inseparable for Quintilian, and it was the marriage of logical content with virtuous character in the speaker that produced true oratory. [45]  

Connecting Greco-Roman Rhetoric and 1 Corinthians 1-4

Given this background there are four arguments demonstrating that Paul’s usage of sofi,a| lo,gou specifically refers to Greco-Roman rhetoric. 

                  First, Corinth was a Greek city under the political rule of Rome.  The city would have been highly influenced by rhetorical standards of the Roman society. [46]   Fee remarks that Corinth “was a predominantly Gentile community” and was more Hellenistic than Jewish. [47]    Thus, when Paul uses the word sofi,a his audience would not understand it as a reference to a Jewish concept of salvific wisdom.  The Hellenistic Corinthians would connect Paul’s phrase sofi,a| lo,gou with the rhetorical wisdom of Rome.    

Secondly, in the context of 1 Corinthians, Paul attacks rhetoric as an in-depth “philosophy of persuasion” based on worldly wisdom.  Paul’s use of sofi,a| lo,gou introduces the reader to the larger contrast of wisdom-- the wisdom of God vs. the wisdom of the world.  Contrary to the Wisdom view, this does fit well with the Greco-Roman understanding of rhetoric as the mixture of worldly wisdom and persuasive speech.  As demonstrated above, the Roman concept of rhetoric rested upon the logical power of strong arguments.  Good rhetoric was based on a worldly wisdom that was at one time “virtuous” and yet glorified the eloquence of the speaker. [48]    This explains why Paul draws the major antithesis between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God to explain why his preaching cannot rest on “wisdom of words.”

Thirdly, the exegesis of the first chapter of 1 Corinthians shows that Paul is responding to personal rivalries based on social status which correspond to the social status influence of the Greco-Roman rhetoric.  Paul writes the epistle to respond to the factionalism that has endangered the church.  Greco-Roman rhetoric, by its glorification of the speaker, created factualism and rivalries. [49]    Paul responds by showing that his “wise speech” is utterly different than that of the Romans.  Both the content and the form of his speech are characterized by the cross, which excludes all potential for a speaker to claim glory for himself.  By its very nature, the “word of the cross” destroys factionalism and personal boasting because it trumps all human wisdom. 

Fourthly, the lexical meaning of  sofi,a| can be translated in light of the extensive usage in Roman and Greek literature rather than of against a Jewish literature background.   Sofi,a| in connection with speech was a common term in Greek and Roman literature.  From Homer to Nestor, Aristotle, Plutrarch and Diodorus Siclus (who was a contemporary with Paul), sofi,a| meant a philosophical wisdom or speculative “religions” thought. [50]  BDAG defines sofi,a| lo,gou as “cleverness of speaking,” which points toward a rhetorical interpretation based on philosophical content [51] and not Jewish-wisdom.  Similarly, Timothy Lim points out that in the Pauline corpus, sofi,a| means either “rhetoric, human speculation or Christ,” [52] which leaves little room for the introduction of a new concept of sofi,a| as Jewish wisdom. 

A Critical Evaluation of the Views

The Jewish-Wisdom approach and the Greco-Roman approach attempt to connect their rhetorical situation to the Corinthian epistle. They are similar in that a) both argue that sofi,a| produced factionalism, b) 1:17 is the introduction of Paul’s contrast between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world, and this fits with the respective view’s larger wisdom ideology that Paul attacks, and c) both argue that the lexical meaning of sofi,a| fits into their position.  In these areas, both views can fit into the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 1:17. 

However, there are three areas in which the Greco-Roman view is a considerably better fit than the wisdom view.  First, there is stronger research to demonstrate that the church at Corinth was influenced by a Hellenistic worldview rather than heretical Jewish-Wisdom teaching. [53]    The presence of Apollos in Corinth is significant, especially since he was known as an eloquent man. [54]  However, as a Hellenistic Jew his Jewish background would not disallowed his fluency in the Greek culture and rhetoric. [55]   In the account of the founding of the Corinthian church, there are elements that support the idea of a Greco-Roman rhetorical culture and not a Jewish wisdom. [56]  Corinth, as a predominantly Greek church, lends itself to evidence that the usage of sofi,a| was a Greco-Roman philosophy. [57]  

Secondly, Paul’s language in 1 Corinthians 1-4 does not appear to be the typical response he would use if he were attacking the Jewish-Wisdom teaching that taught that salvation could be found through a Torah-centered sofi,a|.  Davis and Horsley demonstrate that the Jewish-Wisdom teaching infiltrating Corinth was influenced by Philo and was teaching a brand of salvation through wisdom. [58]   But if this were the case, Paul would have mentioned the false teaching that he is defeating. [59]   In the entirety of 1 Corinthians 1-4, Paul does not once mention the Torah.  This stands in contrast with other Pauline texts in which Paul defends the cross against the Judiazers, and is forcefully clear in the inability of the law compared with the work of Christ. [60]       

Thirdly, there is a stronger parallel between the Greco-Roman wisdom literature and eloquent speaking than there is in Jewish-Wisdom literature.  Eloquent speech was one of the main goals of Greek wisdom. [61]   In contrast, eloquent speech as an expression of wisdom only scantly exists within the Jewish-Wisdom literature.  Davis attempts to show that Philo taught that eloquent speaking was a demonstration of the salvific Jewish heavenly wisdom.  But Davis does not show that this connection was central to Philo’s teaching, or more importantly, that Philo’s emphasis on eloquence was not simply due to his Hellenistic background.  Philo could have been mixing the Greco-Roman emphasis on eloquence with his Jewish-wisdom teaching on salvation. 

Conclusion

In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul defends his method of preaching against Roman rhetoric which relied on philosophy and oratorical charm to persuade its listeners.  The crux of the arguments lies in the discovery of what cultural background gives the proper light to Paul’s phrase “sofi,a| lo,gou.”   Because of a greater depth of research, more consistency in the vocabulary of Paul, and the lack of any mention of the Law in Paul’s argument, the Greco-Roman interpretation is a better interpretive background than the Jewish-Wisdom view.   By gaining a clearer understanding of the philosophy of Roman rhetoric as the background of 1 Corinthians, the reader should see how Paul contrasts the persuasive methods of the secular culture with the method of the cross.  What was once the compelling philosophical oratory and Aristotelian persuasion could be likened to the modern-day setting to the persuasive power of visual effects used on a screen, marketing and branding campaigns, or a professionally-styled prosperity “wisdom” if used as a basis for persuasion in a way that jeopardizes the message of the cross. [62]    Communicators of the gospel must speak persuasively, and in doing this they may employ modern techniques and styles of communication (such as PowerPoint and screen-based visual effects) but they must use these techniques with a different goal than the non-Christian speaker.  While the secular speaker merely seeks to persuade the will of his listeners, the Christian speaker persuades by urging his listeners to understand the objective facts of who Christ is and what He did.  The Christian speaker is interested in changing a listener’s will only in so much as the listener has understood the message of Christ crucified.   Form must enable the clarification and communication of right content and right content must enable the working of God to bring persuasion and change.   

Paul’s words are serious and sobering in today’s situation.  The persuasion of the cross does not exist in the form of wisdom that the world employs.  Unlike any other speech content, the Gospel message has inherent power.  This is not because the words themselves are supernatural, but because God has chosen the message of the cross as the object to which his elect will respond.  First Corinthians 1:17 does not undermine the tools of rhetoric, words, form, or wisdom in the hands of a preacher.  Rather, it reveals the singular goal for which they are to be employed:  proclaiming Christ crucified.  Only then will the cross be kept “full of its power” and the preacher humbled in seeing that the power of human persuasion (rhetoric) is a feeble substitute for the power of God.