…but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. (1 Thessalonians 1:5b)
Paul is aware that God has chosen the Thessalonians for salvation because of his consciousness of divine power when he preached, and because of the their deep conviction about and genuine reception of the gospel (v. 4-6).
Preaching is the means by which God summons to himself the elect, that is, those whom he has chosen for salvation. His power regenerates the elect who come under the preaching of the gospel, and gives them faith in Christ. Because not all who hear the gospel are among the elect, God’s power might not operate in a saving manner every time the gospel is preached, or it might not operate in a saving manner toward everyone in an audience.
The gospel is never void of power, since “it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Romans 1:16), but only the chosen ones will receive a change of mind, so that they will recognize Christ as the power and wisdom of God. Paul explains, “Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:22-24).
The “power” in verse 5 refers to the Holy Spirit’s influence at work through the apostle’s preaching to effect change in the minds of the hearers. Miracles is an integral part of evangelism (Romans 15:18-19; Hebrews 2:3-4), but by “power,” the New Testament writers sometimes have in mind the influence of the Holy Spirit, as in his divine power to convert sinners.
Since 1 Corinthians 2:4 parallels 1 Thessalonians 1:5, we should study it to better understand both verses.
The entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 2 has been distorted by many anti-intellectual commentators. For example, Paul says in verse 2, “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” From this, some make the ludicrous assertion that Paul decided to suppress his knowledge of theology and skill in argumentation in his preaching.
First, the expression, “Jesus Christ and him crucified,” does not restrict the content of Paul’s preaching to Christ’s crucifixion. Indeed, it refers to a central theme of the gospel message, that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3). But as 1 Corinthians 15 indicates, Paul also told the Corinthians about Christ’s resurrection when he preached the gospel to them. The truth is that “Jesus Christ and him crucified,” “the message of the cross,” and other such phrases are designations for the whole biblical gospel and worldview. Several aspects of Christianity may receive emphasis at the beginning, but Paul did not preach only a simple message with little regard for the comprehensive set of doctrines forming the Christian faith. Rather, he says that he preached “the whole will of God” (Acts 20:27) to his hearers.
Throughout 1 Corinthians 1 and 2, Paul does not say that the Christian message is less intellectual or rational, or that the gospel has no claim to intellectual respectability, but his concern is to emphasize that the content of revelation differs from non-Christians philosophy and that the method of delivery differs from non-Christian speakers. The content of the gospel is superior to the product of human speculation, since the gospel comes from God’s wisdom. And the method of delivery is also superior, in that it consists of plain speech, accompanied by the power of the Spirit to convince and to convert people, rather than mere sophistry that relies on confusion and deception to persuade.
Our purpose for coming to 1 Corinthians 2 requires us to focus on verses 4 and 5: “My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.”
The Greeks had tremendous admiration for oratory eloquence, so much so that at times it caused them to ignore the substance of what was said. The “wisdom” (1 Corinthians 1:22) they so respected “often degenerated into meaningless sophistries.” The sophists, scorned by Plato, were those who would argue for whatever position the situation demanded. Their blatant disregard for truth allowed them to become debaters for hire, that is, to argue for whatever position that they were paid to defend. Some compare them with present-day lawyers.
The sophists did not offer sound reasoning, but their arguments were fallacious and deceptive. Their philosophical discourses were based on dubious human speculation. Thus as Paul defends his apostleship, he writes, “I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way” (2 Corinthians 11:6). The Christian faith is not based on speculative philosophy, but divine revelation, on knowledge taught by God.
The “wisdom” of the Greeks led them to despise the message of the cross, since it appeared to them a message of defeat, so that Paul writes, “We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Corinthians 1:23), but there is salvation is no other message. The statement, “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2), refers to the gospel’s contrast against non-Christian thinking, and not an anti-intellectual strategy of evangelism. Paul is noting that he preached a message that was contrary to the people’s cultural and spiritual disposition, and since the message was not founded on human speculation in the first place, he did not speak as the sophists did, but instead relied on God’s power to convince the hearers.
Paul deliberately slips into philosophical terms in verse 4, asserting that his preaching was shown true, not by speculative and fallacious arguments, but by the “demonstration” of the Spirit. This is unlike the “manifestation” of the Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:7. The word indicates a logical proof, as in philosophy and geometry, rather than the idea of exhibition. The English translation is appropriate, since “demonstration” denotes a “logical proof in which a certain conclusion is shown to follow from certain premises.” His point is that he insisted on presenting a message that was based on divine revelation instead of one that was based on human speculation.
Bullinger writes, “Here, it denotes the powerful gift of divine wisdom, in contrast with the weakness of human wisdom.” This is the issue at hand. Paul’s preaching differs from the orators both in method and content, but his arguments are nevertheless logical and persuasive. Unlike the fallacious “proof” of the sophists, the apostle provides sound “proof” for his message that is powerful to effect conversion in his hearers.
One part of Vine’s definition on the word “demonstration” is problematic. It says, “a ‘showing’ or demonstrating by argument, [apodeixis] is found in 1 Cor. 2:4, where the apostle speaks of a proof, a ‘showing’ forth or display, by the operation of the Spirit of God in him, as affecting the hearts and lives of his hearers, in contrast to the attempted methods of proof by rhetorical arts and philosophic arguments.”
It is correct that apodeixis means “demonstrating by argument,” and it is true that the “showing forth” is not a visible “manifestation” as in 1 Corinthians 12:7, but it is the operation of the Spirit’s power “as affecting the hearts and lives of his hearers.” It is also true that Paul contrasts his approach against “the attempted methods of proof by rhetorical arts.” In this case, rhetoric indeed denotes, “artificial eloquence; language that is showy and elaborate but largely empty of clear ideas.” Any speech is rhetoric in the sense that it is verbal communication or discourse, and as such Paul engages in it, but unlike the philosophers, his arguments are free from sophism. The definition is acceptable to this point. Paul’s approach differs from those who employed “mere rhetoric,” since he preaches a message with true and coherent content without using fallacious arguments to deceive his hearers into agreeing with him.
However, Vine then contrasts Paul’s speech against “philosophic arguments,” and this can be misleading. If “philosophy” is the “theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe,” then Christianity is certainly a philosophy. Scriptural teachings indeed produce a worldview, or “a comprehensive…philosophy or conception of the world and of human life.” Unless Vine means “sophistic” when he says “philosophic,” his contrast between Paul’s demonstrations and “philosophic” arguments is false. That is, Scripture indeed addresses “philosophic” issues, using sound “philosophic” arguments, but unlike human philosophy, these arguments are not fallacious or “sophistic.” We should contrast Christianity against sophistry, and not against philosophy as such.
Paul tells the Corinthians that he preached the way he did “so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power” (1 Corinthians 2:5). As with 1 Thessalonians 1:5, “The main point is that the whole is God’s work. The Corinthians were made Christians by divine power.” Since the power in both places refer to “the powerful operation of the Spirit, bearing witness with and by the truth in our hearts,” “men’s wisdom” and “God’s power” do not necessarily refer to the object of faith – that which the person believes – but rather the means by which faith is generated. We may understand the verse to say, “with the result that your faith should not exist by the wisdom of men, but by the power of God.”
Some charismatics assert that 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 indicates a change in Paul’s missionary strategy. They say that Paul was at first a failure as a missionary, because he would enter one place after another to preach at and argue with the people there, and invariably he would encounter resistance and persecution, so much so that before he could make many converts or before the gospel could take root, he would have to leave for another place, where the same thing would happen again. As he entered Corinth, he finally resolved to cease relying on his own intellect and education, but to depend on the power of the Spirit instead, that is, the power to work miracles. Therefore, the lesson is that we should not argue with people, but we should depend on the Holy Spirit, and practice evangelism through the use of signs and wonders.
Recall the summary of Paul’s second missionary journey in the first chapter of this commentary. There I emphasized several points about Paul’s method and its effects in preparation for answering this false interpretation of 1 Corinthians 2:1-5. I will make several observations here on the basis of the summary provided earlier. First, Paul’s method of preaching and argumentation was effective, as indicated by significant conversions and established churches. Second, the false interpretation assumes that success in ministry means the absence of persecution, or even that a miracle ministry might prevent persecution. But this contradicts the teachings and examples of Jesus and the apostles. If it is acknowledged that a ministry that is accompanied by signs and wonders can nevertheless be persecuted and expelled from a place, then one cannot cite this as evidence that Paul’s method was a failure because he was persecuted and expelled. Third, Paul worked miracles even before he reached Corinth. Fourth, contrary to the false interpretation, he continued his method of preaching and argumentation in Corinth (Acts 18:4).
It would seem that the false interpretation is motivated by an anti-intellectual bias, and asserted in the face of biblical passages that stand in direct contradiction to it. A ministry of signs and wonders is indeed legitimate, and the apostles exercised such a ministry, but this does not mean that argumentation is excluded. The two do not contradict or exclude each other.