December 4, 2015 1 Corinthians 1:14-31
Download discussion questions: 1 Corinthians 1_14-31 foolishness
Download structural outline: 1 Corinthians 1_14-31 ‘For’ outline
After Paul’s opening concern and exhortation (1:10) about the divisions in the church, he moves to what seems to be another topic which still applies today. Some teachers or preachers are better or more skilled than others. Some use more sophisticated language or convincing arguments. Perhaps Paul’s train of thought is connecting the two issues. It might be that the divisions in the Corinthian church (“I am of Paul. I am of Apollos.”) were based on teaching style of the different teachers. Luke records in Acts 18:24 that Apollos was eloquent and “mighty in the Scriptures.” Later Paul hears that some in the same church were quite unimpressed by his speaking ability (2 Corinthians 10:10). As is the case today, the believers at Corinth may have been more influenced by style instead of content, form over substance. (“Let’s go to that other church. The pastor is much more entertaining.”)
One person in our discussion group suggested that Paul sounds a bit defensive when he points out the limited number of people he baptized (v. 14-16). It is as if he is saying, “These divisions are not my fault. You have done this yourselves in your popularity-based factions.” This might be another example of the issue of Paul’s authority. He raised that question in the first words of the letter, and we will see it as a recurring theme in his Corinthian correspondence.
A part of the Observation phase of our study looked at the frequency of “connecting” words (“So that”, “For”, “Because”) that link ideas and show a careful sequence of thinking, and “transition” words (“But”, “Now”) that indicate a contrast or slight change in the direction of his reasoning. Marking those repeated words can help provide more of an overall picture of the argument Paul is making. One example of using those words to outline the passage is included in the downloadable document “1 Corinthians 1:14-31 ‘For’ outline”. The text laid out in that form is often helpful in seeing the reasons and conclusions of Paul’s logic. We will return to the consideration of Paul’s logic and reasoning a little later.
Our discussion also considered the possibility that the tendency to follow certain styles or fashions of preaching and teaching was not limited to orthodoxy. The Jews were impressed by signs,[1] and the Greeks loved philosophy (v. 22). A clever and persuasive speaker can often twist truth and manipulate Scripture to arrive at very un-Scriptural conclusions. Things haven’t changed much from first-century Corinth to twenty-first century America. We like novelty and ingenious interpretations. (Because we have the completed canon, we have an incredible advantage over the Corinthians. Good, inductive, methodical Bible study is essential to separate old orthodoxy from novel heresy.) Dramatic signs and intricate reasoning can be alluring. “Jesus loves me, this I know” is fine for young children, but we mature, sophisticated adults want something more complicated, more exciting, more philosophically stimulating.
What does Paul promote instead of signs for Jews and wisdom for Gentiles? He sums up his message in two words: “Christ crucified,” (his own more complicated, exciting, philosophically stimulating version of “Jesus loves me, this I know”). His message (which is God’s message) is offensive and ridiculous to many listeners (v. 23). But Paul’s intent is clear. He most of all wants to see results from the power of God (v. 18, 24) and to avoid any diversion from the death of Christ (v. 17b, 23a). Novel inventions and clever illustrations and eloquent language have a dangerous potential. That kind of teaching may obscure the true source of power in God and the central message of the cross. Even worse, a winsome, compelling presentation can disguise false teaching.
But what about Paul? He makes his case for “foolishness” over wisdom and simplicity over cleverness. From reading this part of his letter, one would think wisdom, philosophy, and logic were undesirable. Yet he uses a very logical, persuasive line of reasoning to make the case he is presenting. Does his method negate his message? Is Paul logically and rationally telling the Corinthians not to use logic and reason? Paul’s words don’t sound like the foolishness that he is promoting.
This brings us back to style and content, form and substance. Paul is not suggesting that we abandon logic or philosophy (or Christian apologetics, or systematic theology) in order to intentionally appear foolish. His point is that we must never depend on style or form to overshadow the content and substance of the message: Christ crucified. Paul’s writing is filled with clear logic and persuasive argument in order to provide the clearest possible presentation of what “Christ crucified” means. (For example, John Piper calls the first half of the book of Romans “the solid logic of heaven.”[2]) To suggest that Paul dismisses logic or philosophy or reasoning would be to undermine most of his writing in the New Testament. Paul was careful to present his message in a way that was not likely to be misunderstood. Those who rejected that message would not have the excuse that they really didn’t understand because Paul was so unclear.
But neither did Paul want people to accept the message (from him or Cephas or Apollos or anyone else) based on only the form or style. A sentimental sermon may bring people to tears and generate promises of good intentions to live better. But without a clear and engaging presentation of the logic of the Gospel there can be no genuine acceptance of Christ crucified.
We discussed a very freeing aspect of Paul’s message. The power of God (mentioned twice in this brief passage) must be our focus instead of cleverness or logic or eloquence. One member mentioned the felt the pressure of sharing the Gospel: I have to get this right so the person will understand. Paul’s message is clear. We should do everything we can to get the message (the content, the substance) right. We should certainly make the best presentation we can, using logic, philosophy, and clear, articulate speech. Paul’s warning for us would be that we never let our concern about form outweigh the substance of our message. That gives us the freedom to make the clearest presentation of Christ crucified while we rely on the power of God.
Form must not be the focus when we present the Gospel to others. The other side of the coin is also important. How does form affect how we hear the message from others? Just as we must not let a style of teaching or preaching we like cloud our judgment about questionable content, we must also not ignore valuable substance just because the form is not to our taste.
One of our group is also one of the pastors in the church. He shared a distinct example from last Sunday’s worship service. During the offering, the worship leader’s solo was in hip-hop style (quite out of character from our normal worship repertoire). The pastor in our discussion group commented on the critical emails he received shortly after the service. The criticism was exclusively about the form, with no comment about the substance. The content was good, but was not heard by some people because of the form. I confess that I was not drawn to the hip-hop style. It took me a minute or so to start concentrating on the lyrics on the screen, to focus on the value of the substance instead of on my distaste for the form. Form can become the focus whether the substance is good or bad. Either way, our goal must be to never allow form to overshadow the substance of the Gospel.
[1] One of the repeating themes in the Gospel of John discussion group, also blogged on this site:
[2] http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-solid-logic-of-heaven-holds, accessed December 5, 2015.
While I cannot document the statement, I remember reading as a young Christian about an example from a secular law school that used those chapters in Romans as an example of clear reasoning.