Paul’s preaching in Corinth

My speech and my proclamation were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.

Some charismatics take these words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 2.4-5 to reinforce their emphasis on charismatic acts such as healing, prophecy, and the other “manifestation” gifts, particularly in the proclamation of the gospel. The implication is that mere Christian teaching is lacking in power and in fact amounts to a potential distraction unless backed up by miracles.

When we look at Acts, however, the picture we get of the Corinthian situation is somewhat different. In Corinth we see Paul laboring long and hard at teaching, with words, making arguments day after day to those in the synagogue: “Every sabbath he would argue in the synagogue and would try to convince Jews and Greeks” (18.4); “…Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ” (18.5). He is admonished by the Lord in a dream to do something very specific: ” ‘Do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent…’ ” (18.9). In obedience and faith, Paul “…stayed there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them” (18.10). He was persecuted, as Gallio described, because of a mere “matter of questions about words and names and [Jewish] law” (18.15) — in short, matters of teaching.

If Paul wrought miracles in Corinth, it is a wonder itself that they are not mentioned, since this very aspect of ministry is claimed as characteristic of his ministry in Ephesus in the very next chapter. If his message were boosted by a few prophecies, words of knowledge, etc., this would be surprising given his adamant statements in 2.1-2 and 3.1-3 that he was forced to simplify his message dramatically, stripping away special revelation (the “mystery”) because they were “unspiritual”.

I am not really trying to prove that there were absolutely no supernatural demonstrations worked in Corinth. Rather, I wish to problematize the idea that Paul’s description of his preaching at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 2.4-5 was a reference to signs and wonders. The answer is in looking at the context of these verses, specifically the several preceding verses immediately prior.

For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe . . . For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one​ might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, in order that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in​ the Lord.”

When I came to you, brothers and sisters,​​ I did not come proclaiming the mystery​​ of God to you in lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom,​ but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.

1 Cor 1.19-2.5

We’re hearing Paul’s response to the criticism of his Corinthian opponents who claim to be wise and who claim that Paul’s teaching was weak and ineffective. Paul is telling the church that God has turned the tables to the effect that weakness has been vindicated and words of wisdom are now indicative of foolishness. He uses this to suggest that the weakness of his preaching was itself the proof of the “spirit and power” behind what he taught them. He’s acknowledging that whoever’s come behind him seeking to undermine his work in Corinth might well have a silver tongue, but turning it upon them by suggesting that this is a sign of their foolishness instead. Notice 1.27: “But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise.” In what possible sense are miracles/prophecies “the foolishness of the world”? Paul is not saying in 2.4, “I used proof of spirit and power instead of teaching and proclamation,” but “The teaching and proclamation I offered” – recall Acts 18 – “did not come by way of persuasive wisdom (strength), but by way of the proof of spirit and power (weakness).” It’s Paul at his rhetorical best, dripping with irony because of the sophistication of his argumentation (despite its so-called weakness).

Finally, look at a few verses I omitted from the above block quote, 1.22-24: “For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.” His argument is this: the foolish message of Christ crucified is God’s way of fulfilling the Jews’ demand for miracles (since Christ is “the power of God”) and the Greeks’ desire for persuasive oratory (since Christ is “the wisdom of God”). Reading it the way these charismatics do, you’d have Paul in 2.5 contradicting his whole carefully laid argument, saying in effect, “…so that your faith might rest not on what the Greeks desire (wisdom), but what the Jews demand (a sign of power).” Rather, “We didn’t want your faith to be in signs and wisdom, but the message of the gospel which alone is truly powerful and wise.”

Tagged with:
Recent Posts:
  • Josh H.

    I try to adhere closely to audience relevance when I interpret the scriptures. So at this point I can’t really argue with you about 1 Cor. 2:4-5.

    But it is true, however, that Paul (and Peter, and John) used signs and wonders at various times for the means of evangelism (the man at the gate Beautiful for example). Also, you may have read where Herb referenced a statement by Paul in Romans:
    18 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ” Romans 15:18-19

    It is clear that at various times (for whatever reason), God in His sovereignty chose to use signs and wonders in evangelism. And I believe He still does, though perhaps not every time. And this is one of the scandals of the charismatic movement at large. The signs/wonders are exalted and the gospel is left out. The demonstration of the power of God (or manifestations of the Spirit or whatever) should be followed by an invitation. Peter’s sermon early in Acts should be our model.

    • I’m not disagreeing that God is said to have confirmed the ministry of the Apostles through miracles (Acts 19.11, for instance).

      The thing to remember about the miracles of Acts is that even the Apostles seemed to be performing incidental (on the spot, not planned) miracles that only incidentally arouse people’s interest such that their hearts are opened to the gospel. John and Peter at the Gate Beautiful were just walking by; Paul was trying to stop the slave girl’s pestering. As far as I know, there are no clear examples of their performing miracles in order to get people to believe: “Hey come here! Do you believe in Jesus? *Shazam!* Now do you believe in Jesus?”

      …God in His sovereignty chose to use signs and wonders in evangelism. And I believe He still does, though perhaps not every time.

      Certainly not every time — hardly at all in fact. Of all the conversions throughout church history, the number of those accompanied/confirmed by signs and wonders has unquestionably been a tiny minority. Yet in Acts, the Apostles are shown performing miracles ten or eleven times throughout the Roman world. Could it have been because they were Apostles? Why an entire book is devoted to their acts and does not mention so much as a single miracle from those they converted, even though this would have been good evidence of their authority? This would explain why miracles completely pass off the scene by the late first century such that no writer secular or Christian ever (until quite recently) describes miracles or claims of miracles as hallmarks of Christianity.

      So many charismatics act as though we should expect miracles to precede, even to motivate conversion. But if such miracles were so commonplace as many charismatics would have us believe, why would Paul have even appealed to signs and wonders as evidence of his apostolic authority? “Big deal, Paul — I just gave someone a word of knowledge in the check-out line. You’re real special.”

      If charismatics can indeed perform the kind of wonders that draw multitudes to the gospel like we see in Acts, I’d certainly like to see it. They couldn’t seem to keep a lid on the miraculous stuff we see in Acts; nowadays, I hear a lot of “persuasive wisdom” about why it should happen, and how it has happened to someone else somewhere else. As I have heard you remark before, I wish they’d stop talking about it and start doing it.

  • Josh H.

    I try to adhere closely to audience relevance when I interpret the scriptures. So at this point I can’t really argue with you about 1 Cor. 2:4-5.

    But it is true, however, that Paul (and Peter, and John) used signs and wonders at various times for the means of evangelism (the man at the gate Beautiful for example). Also, you may have read where Herb referenced a statement by Paul in Romans:
    18 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ” Romans 15:18-19

    It is clear that at various times (for whatever reason), God in His sovereignty chose to use signs and wonders in evangelism. And I believe He still does, though perhaps not every time. And this is one of the scandals of the charismatic movement at large. The signs/wonders are exalted and the gospel is left out. The demonstration of the power of God (or manifestations of the Spirit or whatever) should be followed by an invitation. Peter’s sermon early in Acts should be our model.

    • I’m not disagreeing that God is said to have confirmed the ministry of the Apostles through miracles (Acts 19.11, for instance).

      The thing to remember about the miracles of Acts is that even the Apostles seemed to be performing incidental (on the spot, not planned) miracles that only incidentally arouse people’s interest such that their hearts are opened to the gospel. John and Peter at the Gate Beautiful were just walking by; Paul was trying to stop the slave girl’s pestering. As far as I know, there are no clear examples of their performing miracles in order to get people to believe: “Hey come here! Do you believe in Jesus? *Shazam!* Now do you believe in Jesus?”

      …God in His sovereignty chose to use signs and wonders in evangelism. And I believe He still does, though perhaps not every time.

      Certainly not every time — hardly at all in fact. Of all the conversions throughout church history, the number of those accompanied/confirmed by signs and wonders has unquestionably been a tiny minority. Yet in Acts, the Apostles are shown performing miracles ten or eleven times throughout the Roman world. Could it have been because they were Apostles? Why an entire book is devoted to their acts and does not mention so much as a single miracle from those they converted, even though this would have been good evidence of their authority? This would explain why miracles completely pass off the scene by the late first century such that no writer secular or Christian ever (until quite recently) describes miracles or claims of miracles as hallmarks of Christianity.

      So many charismatics act as though we should expect miracles to precede, even to motivate conversion. But if such miracles were so commonplace as many charismatics would have us believe, why would Paul have even appealed to signs and wonders as evidence of his apostolic authority? “Big deal, Paul — I just gave someone a word of knowledge in the check-out line. You’re real special.”

      If charismatics can indeed perform the kind of wonders that draw multitudes to the gospel like we see in Acts, I’d certainly like to see it. They couldn’t seem to keep a lid on the miraculous stuff we see in Acts; nowadays, I hear a lot of “persuasive wisdom” about why it should happen, and how it has happened to someone else somewhere else. As I have heard you remark before, I wish they’d stop talking about it and start doing it.