1 Corinthians. B. J. Oropeza
Читать онлайн книгу.
on judgment day (4:4). They become holy saints at conversion (1:2) and yet complete sanctification is experienced at the second coming (1 Thess 5:23). They are presently redeemed from sin (1 Cor 6:20; 7:23; Rom 3:24) and yet look forward to the redemption of their mortal bodies via resurrection (Rom 8:23). The now and not yet component of these benefits are complementary to what it means to be currently in the process of being saved (1 Cor 1:18).
God’s Power Rather Than Rhetorical Wisdom (2:1–5)
Paul continues in wisdom discourse to present himself as a role model of weakness and humility related to the cruciform life in the passage. Through use of antithetical statements and anaphora (“and I in . . . and in . . . and in . . . ” 2:3) he contrasts worldly wisdom with the message of the cross and power of God’s Spirit. The Corinthians are reminded about the first time Paul visited them (cf. Acts 18:1–18): he did not come to them with superiority of eloquence or of wisdom. A comparison of 2:1, 4, and 1:17 makes clear that Paul is referring to an excess of rhetorical eloquence when speaking. In these verses “speech” (λόγος) and “wisdom” (σοφία) are combined, proclamation is the subject, and Paul disavows the form of speaking described.151 His thought in 2:1 comes close to Eunapius’s description of Maximus the Neoplatonist—this sophist being puffed up with pride and “superabundant eloquence” despised logical proof (Vit. 475 cf. 470).152
The persuasive words of wisdom in 2:4 adds the thought of persuasion that captures the central aim of rhetorical discourses (Aristotle Rhet. 1.1.14; Longinus, Subl. 44.1; Philostratus Vit. soph. 1.498).153 Paul’s message instead disclosed the mystery of God (2:1).154 This refers to the divine plan of salvation,155 and for Paul that plan finds its center in the message of the cross. When he first preached to them he decided to know nothing among them; that is, he regarded nothing to be of primary importance in his gospel except Jesus Christ and him crucified (2:2).156 His coming to their city and preaching in this manner contrasts sophists entering a town and expecting to be greeted by enthusiastic crowds, invited to declaim in their midst, and followed by young men desiring to become their students (Dio Chrysostom Or. 47.22; Aristides Or. 51.29–34; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.571–72).157
Paul’s presence among the Corinthians exemplified weakness . . . fear and much trembling.158 This description conflicts with that of sophists who are typically characterized by confidence, courage, good looks, great rhetorical skills, and a commanding presence (see Excursus). Paul’s weakness, fear, and trembling characterize instead the type of stage fright experienced by nervous orators (cf. Cicero De or. 1.xxvi.120; xxvii.123). Speakers might show signs of being intimidated by their audiences by blushing, perspiring, stuttering, or trembling (Seneca Lucil. 11; Pliny Ep. 7.17).159 A prime example of this is when Demosthenes, whose reputation of masterful eloquence was renowned, speaks in the presence of Philip of Macedon. Instead of exuberating great confidence, the famous orator was frightened out of his wits and even collapsed before the monarch, failing to continue his speech (Aeschines Fals. leg. 21–22, 34–35). It is quite plausible to suggest that Paul showed bodily signs of weakness or nervousness when speaking; in later correspondence some Corinthians consider his bodily presence to be weak and his speeches detestable (cf. 2 Cor 10:10; 11:6). His weakness would seem to indicate a person of lowly status, the way Plutarch describes poor speakers who are ugly, servile, needy, dishonored, and unlearned, unlike wise sages who are eloquent, handsome, wealthy, and learned (Frat. amor. 485D; cf. 485A; Seneca Lucil. 11).160 But if Paul was perceived negatively, his weakness extends beyond preaching and persona to include also what he personally experienced as a result of his preaching.161 In Corinth Paul apparently feared external opposition to his messages (Acts 18:9–13). Likewise, personal inadequacies both on and off stage may have plagued him due to this city’s size, reputation, Roman influence, and potpourri of intimidating people (cf. 1 Cor 16:10).
Raymond Pickett rightly affirms that our apostle takes on the posture of someone who “deliberately failed to measure up to the standards of rhetorical excellence.”162 His self-deprecation in 2:1–4a has the aim of subverting Corinthian adoration of human wisdom in 2:4b–5 branded by orators whose method of operation centered on forceful rhetorical demonstrations.163 Differently, Paul’s proclamation involved demonstration of the powerful Spirit.164 His preaching connoted “proof consisting in possession of the Holy Spirit and miracle-working power.”165 The Corinthians are to recall such phenomena so that their faith may not rest in clever human wisdom, but in the power of God.166 It is through the apostle’s weakness that spiritual power is greatly manifest. Power in weakness reflects Christ’s own crucifixion, which gave way to resurrection and becomes the catalyst unleashing God’s Spirit on Christ’s followers to convict, transform, and work miracles among them. Paul’s messages possess such power, which become tokens of the divine authenticity of his ministry and apostleship (1 Thess 1:5; 2:13; Gal 3:5; Rom 15:18–19; cf. 1 Cor 4:20–21).167 These words promote a different kind of wisdom in which miracle and prophetic discourse are blended. If Zech 4:6–10 is being alluded to here, Paul’s renovated meaning through this text is that the building up of the Corinthians as the temple of God is accomplished not by human might nor by rhetorical power but by God’s powerful Spirit.168 Hence, the Corinthians should not measure a leader’s worth based on status or rhetorical skill but on the value of spiritual preaching and power manifest through weakness.169
Excursus: Paul’s Rhetoric against the Sophist Deliveries
Scholars frequently notice an apparent tension with Paul’s use of rhetoric to criticize Corinthian attraction to rhetoric. Among the various ways this issue is addressed, it makes good sense to suggest that Paul rejects only certain aspects of rhetoric.170 More particularly, he disdains rhetoric when coupled with certain sociocultural values such as status seeking, and especially manifest in the form of a speaker’s delivery. Our apostle comes against a type of rhetoric that characterizes the sophists in Plato’s Gorgias. Their speeches stressed form, superficiality, and showmanship over philosophical content. Paul, however, stresses spiritual knowledge about Christ as the proper content of his messages (2 Cor 11:6; cf. 1 Cor 2). It will turn out that certain Corinthians show contempt for the apostle’s speeches and physical presence (2 Cor 10:10). This way of scrutinizing preachers already seems to be a problem in 1 Cor 1–4, perhaps prominently by the faction loyal to Apollos (see 1:12), and that is why Paul promotes a different way of perceiving wisdom and proclamation.
Doubtless the Corinthians learned how to criticize oratory performances by listening to many sophists and philosophers who preached publicly in their city. This may have conditioned them to place too much value on the actual appearance and performance of orators, known in rhetorical handbooks as delivery (one of the five components of rhetoric).171 In Lives of the Ten Orators, when asked what is most important