2:1 When I Came to You. on His Initial Trip to Corinth C. A.D. 51 (Ac 18). (CSB)

FIRST CORINTHIANS

Chapter 2

When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.

2:1 When I came to you. On his initial trip to Corinth c. a.d. 51 (Ac 18). (CSB)

Cf Ac 18:1–17; Paul’s second missionary journey (TLSB)

ἐλθών … ἦλθον οὑ—Literally, “having come … I did not come.” The aorist participle ἐλθών here denotes an action simultaneous with the action of the main verb ἦλθον. It is known as the aorist participle of identical action. Paul is contrasting his approach on arriving in Corinth with the coming of a sophist displaying his eloquence. (CC p. 81)

God’s decision to save the world through the lowly message of the cross (1:18–25) had been illustrated by his calling so many lowly people to form the Corinthian church (1:26–31). With the words “and I” (κἀγώ), Paul now introduces a second illustration: himself. The “weak” and “foolish” nature of the Gospel had also been illustrated by the lack of showiness in his own preaching (2:1–2) and personal bearing (2:3) in the early days of his ministry among the Corinthians. (CC p. 83)

H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 54, notes that “Paul frequently looks back upon the beginnings of his work in a particular community, in proemia (1 Thess 1:5; Phil 1:5), but also elsewhere (1 Thess 2:5ff; Gal 4:13).” (“The ‘proemium’ is, following the profane epistolary style, an established element at the beginning of Paul’s epistles” [p. 25].) (CC p. 83)

with eloquence or superior wisdom. See note on 1:17. Perhaps Apollos (Ac 18:24–28) had influenced the Corinthians in such a way that they were placing undue emphasis on eloquence and intellectual ability. (CSB)

καθ’ ὑπεροχήν—Literally, “according to superiority” of speech or wisdom. κατά here means “in accordance with.” In nonbiblical Greek, the verb ὑπερέχω does not mean merely to excel, but “to rise above,”“to tower [over],”“to surpass.” The LXX uses the verb for Daniel “surpassing” all the wise men of Babylon (Dan 5:11). In the NT both the noun and the verb are applied to the superior position of rulers (participles of ὑπερέχω in 1 Pet 2:13 and Rom 13:1; ὑπεροχή in 1 Tim 2:2) Aristotle applied ὑπεροχή to the sense of superiority felt by the eloquent speaker. (CC p. 81)

λόγου ἣ σοφίας—Hering says that eloquence and wisdom (λόγος and σοφία) “refer respectively to the arts of the rhetorician and philosopher.” (CC p. 81)

In contrast to most Greek orators and philosophers, Paul declined to show off his skill as a speaker or debater. He had not come to Corinth “with superior eloquence or wisdom” (2:1). The words “eloquence” and “wisdom” echo 1:17, where Paul said Christ had not sent him to preach the Gospel with sophisticated eloquence (ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου). Unlike the rhetoricians of his day, the sophists, Paul refused to rely on rhetorical technique or any other worldly strategy for making an impression. (CC p. 83)

Winter has argued “that one of the underlying problems of the Corinthian church was its reliance on the Sophist movement.” The “second sophistic” movement of the first century a.d. was not concerned so much with philosophy as with the ability “to speak convincingly … in legal, business, religious, and political contexts.” The movement had enormous influence throughout the Mediterranean world. Winter believes Paul framed his argument in 1 Corinthians 1–4 to counter sophist claims. For people impressed by the sophists, the rhetoric of Apollos held special appeal. See B. Winter, “Are Philo and Paul Among the Sophists? A Hellenistic Jewish and a Christian Response to a First Century Movement” (Ph.D. dissertation, Macquarie University, 1988, cited by D. A. Carson, D. Moo, and L. Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, 281–82). Winter spells out in detail how 1 Cor 2:1–5 employs “a distinct constellation of rhetorical terms and allusions” (ὑπεροχή, σοφία, δύναμις, λόγος, ἀπόδειξις, πίστις) which “show that [Paul’s] modus operandi was a calculated anti-sophistic stance adopted to replace conviction derived from sophistic rhetorical wisdom with confidence in the power of God” (Philo and Paul among the Sophists, 147–61, quotes on p. 155). Cf. also A. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth, 36–39; J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, 152–54. (CC p. 83)

With regard to “superior eloquence” (2:1), R. Hays, First Corinthians, 37, makes this apt comment: “In our increasingly postliterate age, rhetorical eloquence of a classical sort is no longer highly valued, but self-presentation is. Image has become everything.” With regard to “superior … wisdom” (2:1), Wayne Meeks once remarked on the penchant of some scholars to “place a premium on cleverness” (“How My Mind Has Changed [or Remained the Same],” an oral presentation at the Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting in Chicago in 1994). (CC p. 83)

To the extent he relied on such human things to “carry the day,” he would be hiding the weakness and offensiveness of the cross—which is its power! (CC pp. 83-84)

If in his presentation of the Gospel Paul were to rely on any superior skill he may have acquired in rhetoric or philosophy, this would be tantamount to allowing arrogant human reason, which Luther calls “Frau Hulda,” the devil’s whore, to intrude herself into the domain of faith. Cf. B. Gerrish, Grace and Reason: A Study in the Theology of Luther (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1979). (CC p. 84)

Thus he did not mind if, by his opponents’ standards, he lacked rhetorical skill (2 Cor 11:6), for it was his consistent goal to present the Gospel mystery in a simple, sincere, and straightforward manner which would commend its truth to everyone’s conscience (2 Cor 1:12; 4:2; 1 Thess 2:1–12). (CC p. 84)

D. A. Carson, The Cross and Christian Ministry, 34–35, warns against misinterpretations of Paul’s rejection of rhetoric:

It would be entirely improper to infer that Paul was an incompetent speaker, a bad communicator. … What Paul avoided was artificial communication that won plaudits for the speaker but distracted from the message. Lazy preachers have no right to appeal to 1 Corinthians 2:1–5 to justify indolence in the study and careless delivery in the pulpit. These verses do not prohibit diligent preparation, passion, clear articulation, and persuasive presentation. Rather, they warn against any method that leads people to say, “What a marvelous preacher!” rather than, “What a marvelous Savior!” (CC p. 84)

TESTIMONY ABOUT GOD – The English versions are also evenly balanced. KJV, NKJV, NIV, and RSV opt for “testimony” (cf. NEB “attested truth”). JB has the noncommittal “what God has guaranteed.” On the other hand, GNB has “secret truth,” Phillips “secret purpose,” and two recent versions return to “mystery” (NRSV, NJB). In favor of “mystery” is its key role in Paul’s theology (occurring twenty-one times in NA27) and especially in the context of this chapter, where it introduces the discussion of “the deep things of God” (2:10; cf. 2:7–10; 4:1, “mysteries of God”). μαρτύριον, on the other hand, appears only five times in Paul, and in the other four places it is never followed by τοῦ θεοῦ. (CC p. 82)

Paul spent 18 months in Corinth testifying that the Christ was Jesus (Ac 18:5, 11). (TLSB)

2:2 The heart of the Gospel is Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, “the power of God” (1:18). Paul contrasted his simpler, focused missionary message with the more complex ideas of other teachers (e.g., Apollos, Cephas). (TLSB)

I RESOLVE – ἔκρινα—This does not necessarily mean that in coming to Corinth from his disappointing visit to Athens Paul “resolved” to adopt a new approach which did not rely so much on rhetoric and philosophy. Fee explains that “to say ‘I resolved’ means nothing more than that he purposed to continue his regular practice (cf. Gal. 3:1).” His resolve may have been sharpened by recent experiences with “flatterers” and “man pleasers” in Thessalonica (1 Thess 2:1–10). It may have been sharpened even more by his determination to distance himself from the sophists. Upon arrival in a city, a sophist would sometimes declaim on a topic suggested by the audience in order to show off his eloquence and win their approval. Paul’s topic had long been predetermined by his commission to preach only Christ crucified. (CC p. 82)

know nothing … except Jesus Christ. Paul resolved to make Christ the sole subject of his teaching and preaching while he was with them. (CSB)

This does not mean that Paul was totally lacking in rhetorical and debating ability. As a writer, he was a stylist of note. It would seem, however, that this was not matched by his ability as a speaker, a deficiency which seemed all the greater in comparison with the eloquence of Apollos. Paul’s critics, at least, considered him a poor speaker, claiming that while “his letters are weighty and strong, … his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible” (2 Cor 10:10; cf. 2 Cor 11:6). (CC p. 84)

R. Hays, First Corinthians, 35–36, comments: “Interestingly, the words weak and contemptible are two of the words that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 1:27–28 to describe the vehicles that God has chosen to shame the strong and privileged.” (CC p. 84)

In conceding his deficiencies as a speaker, Paul’s concern is clearly not to depreciate these gifts; they have their proper place in helping the preacher convey his message persuasively.(CC p. 84)

Here this Latin saying applies: “abusus non tollit usum” (“the abuse does not remove the use”). Some preachers may make too much of their rhetorical and homiletical skills, but this does not mean these skills do not have their proper place. (CC p. 84)

But the preacher must resist the urge to draw his hearers’ attention to himself. Paul’s passion throughout his ministry, including the eighteen months in Corinth, had been to help his audience concentrate on the message of “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2). Nothing could be allowed to overshadow or distract from that Gospel. (CC p. 84)

Cf. P. Brunner, Worship in the Name of Jesus, 265: “In the moment in which … the gift of eloquence becomes so conspicuous in the language of a sermon that attention is riveted to this language as such, this eloquence has ceased to be spiritual.” (CC p. 84)

Paul’s policy statement is a powerful corrective to any tendency which displaces Christ and his Gospel from the center of Christian faith and witness. All programs and methods focused primarily on human efforts to impress are hereby called into question. The Gospel, as Paul proclaimed it, directs us away from ourselves: it is the Gospel concerning God’s Son (Rom 1:1–3). To proclaim Christ is the church’s only essential task (Col 1:28). As Walther stated, this Gospel of Christ crucified should have general predominance in all Christian preaching and teaching. (CC pp. 84-85)

The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel, thesis 25: “The Word of God is not rightly divided when the person teaching it does not allow the Gospel to have a general predominance in his teaching” (p. 4). (CC p. 85)

Some have suggested that as he reflected on his earlier ministry in Athens (Acts 17:16–34), Paul concluded that his outreach there had been unsuccessful because he had relied too much on his knowledge of Greek philosophers and poets. (CC p. 85)

An influential proponent of this idea was Sir William Ramsay. In one of his early books, St. Paul the Traveller (pp. 145, 252–53), Ramsay saw Paul’s determination to know nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified at Corinth as a new approach arising out of his disappointment at Athens. Later, however, in The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day (pp. 109–12) Ramsay “acknowledged that he had failed to take into consideration Paul’s adaptation of the gospel message to different classes of hearers—tradesmen at Corinth and philosophers at Athens—and that his address before the Areopagus should be considered as typical of his method of speaking to educated Hellenic audiences” (W. W. Gasque, Sir William M. Ramsay: Archaeologist and New Testament Scholar, 42). Cf. also the discussion in G. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 92. (CC p. 85)

There are, however, no indications in Luke’s account of the Athenian ministry that Paul’s strategy had been ill-advised. Rather, Luke’s extensive report of the Areopagus sermon suggests he saw it as a model for missionary proclamation to pagans, just as the Pisidian Antioch sermon is a model sermon to Jews (Acts 13:16–41). (CC p. 85)

G. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 92, is probably correct in stating this: “If any contrast is implied in the words ‘I resolved,’ it would be with the wandering sophists and orators, with whom he is now being compared, rather than with his own preaching before and after Athens.” (CC p. 85)

Jesus Christ. See 1:30. (CSB)

him crucified. See 1:17–18, 23. (CSB)

2:3 IN WEAKNESS – Paul’s weakness and that of his hearers emphasized God’s power. (TLSB)

FEAR…TREMBLING – There was violent opposition to his message from the Jews in Corinth (Ac 18:12–17). Paul was meek, perhaps also recalling the beating, rioting, and indifference he experienced on the mission trip (Ac 16:16–17:34). (TLSB)

Jesus Christ had been crucified “in weakness” (2 Cor 13:4). In solidarity with his Lord, Paul too had carried out his ministry in suffering and weakness (1 Cor 2:3; Phil 3:10). Not only was Paul’s presence as a public speaker unimpressive (2 Cor 10:10), but he suffered recurrent attacks of a debilitating malady (Gal 4:13; cf. 2 Cor 12:7). (CC p. 85)