Paul spent a year and a half in Corinth preaching the gospel. He was an ambassador for Christ; so he refused to be distracted from “the testimony of God” (1 Cor 2:1). He is an example to all of Christ’s ambassadors in every age. Their preaching must come from the same mould; they must pass on to their hearers the testimony of God and nothing else. Paul makes clear the focus of his preaching: “Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Cor 2: 2). Here too Paul is a pattern for all ages; preachers must emphasise particularly the great truth that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, that He therefore had to suffer the cursed death of the cross, and that there is no other saviour. These ambassadors for Christ must also, of course, make clear man’s desperate need of salvation because of sin; indeed they are to make known the whole testimony that God has given in His Word.
But this article focuses on a point Paul makes about his preaching: he did not come to Corinth “with excellency of speech or of wisdom” (1 Cor 2:1). Charles Hodge comments: “As speech and wisdom are here distinguished, the former probably refers to the manner or form, and the latter to the matter of his preaching. It is neither as a rhetorician nor as a philosopher that he appeared among them.”
But why did Paul preach as he did? Why did he not allow himself to imitate the well-known orators of his day? Would it not have made his sermons more interesting, more compelling? He was clear that he must focus attention on “Jesus Christ, and Him crucified”. To follow the oratorical fashions of his time would distract his hearers’ attention from this vital subject and redirect their attention to himself. He even performed very few baptisms; Christ had sent him, “not to baptize, but to preach the gospel . . . lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” (1 Cor 1:17). Thus, if Paul felt that for him to administer this divine ordinance might divert attention from the more central ordinance of preaching, then clearly any attempt to introduce human ornamentation into the content or presentation of that preaching was fraught with danger. It was highly likely to make the preaching ineffective and this was a risk that Paul would not take. No more may we.
When churches see that their preaching is not producing the effects they are looking for, they may search around for other means that will produce better results. And so they turn to discussion, debate, and even drama and dance. Now, even apart from the fact that these are not means which God has appointed for use in public worship (clearly discussion and debate in other contexts is another matter) these are likely to make “the cross of Christ . . . of none effect” by distracting from the unique prominence that the preaching of the Word should have in ministering to the spiritual needs of sinners.
Paul knew that God could be trusted to bless the means He has appointed. It was not for Paul to devise other means or even to attempt to “improve” the divinely-appointed means by the use of human techniques. In Athens, people might refer contemptuously to Paul as a “babbler”; elsewhere the Gentiles might consider his preaching of the cross “foolishness” and the Jews might see it as something that causes people to stumble. Hodge notes that “to present to them one crucified as a malefactor as their Messiah, was the greatest possible insult”. But, for Paul, the opinions of those who rejected God’s testimony did not ultimately matter.
Paul knew that “unto them which are [effectually] called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ [is] the power of God, and the wisdom of God”. He knew that the preaching of the cross is effective whenever God is pleased to bless it. And he had seen much blessing follow it even in such a wicked city as Corinth. Paul lists some of their more flagrant sins and then adds: “Such were some of you: but ye are washed” (1 Cor 6:11). The plain, unadorned preaching of “Jesus Christ and Him crucified” had been applied to their souls by the Holy Spirit. And this success of the gospel was according to the Lord’s promise to Paul in a vision: “Be not afraid, but speak, and hold not thy peace . . . for I have much people in this city” (Acts 18:9) – many elect souls who were to be brought into the family of God by means of Paul’s preaching.
But such gospel blessing was not confined to Corinth. In Thessalonica too, many sinners found the Saviour; they “turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; and to wait for His Son from heaven” (1 Th 1:9,10). We can safely assume that in Thessalonica, as in Corinth, Paul eschewed the oratorical flourishes that he described as “excellency of speech”. But the Holy Spirit was at work; that was why sinners turned to God from idols. So, when Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, he was glad to acknowledge: “Our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance” (1 Th 1:5). The fact that people in Thessalonica were assured that God’s testimony to sinners was absolutely true, and therefore submitted to its authority, was evidence that the Holy Spirit was at work in their hearts. Paul could not bring about such submission.
If, as probably did happen, he was able to convince some hearers, perhaps through the excellency of his speech, that Christianity is true, they experienced no more than an intellectual change. There could be no change of heart; there could have been no exercise of saving faith. But it was otherwise with those on whom the Holy Spirit worked savingly; they believed to the saving of their souls. Having so often seen such effects, Paul was “not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth” (Rom 1:16). The truth itself – the plain, unsophisticated preaching of the cross – has power. Accordingly, besides being dishonouring to the Holy Spirit, “excellency of speech” is unnecessary.
If God was to be glorified, it had to be seen that the operative power in the salvation of sinners was divine – the power of the Holy Spirit, not that of any human being. This was what God had ordained. Paul states emphatically that “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor 1:21). It is God’s will to use means in applying to sinners the blessings of the gospel, but the means He has chosen in His wisdom are despised – considered foolish – by the world. God must have the glory in it all, not man. Preachers must not take glory to themselves when their hearers are converted, and the temptation to do so would be all the greater if preachers were to succumb to the folly of making a display of their excellency of speech. But the gospel does not need such a display; the subject matter is itself altogether glorious; it is, in Paul’s own words, “the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (1 Tim 1:11).
It has to be said that this is not an age when excellency of speech is a major problem; public speakers today generally use plain language; politicians would be mocked if they spoke in any other way. But, within the Church, many are ignoring the testimony of the all-wise God and are proclaiming human ideas instead, while others mix God’s testimony with human ideas. God will never honour such preaching.
God is still the same. The power of the Holy Spirit remains unchanged. But we do not see large numbers of sinners gathered in to God’s kingdom today. We must recognise that God is sovereign in giving His blessing, and also in withholding it. And we must recognise that the world is under judgement today, and the most solemn of judgements is to withhold the Holy Spirit. Yet, even in an age like this, we are not to pass by these words as if they could not apply to us: “Thus saith the Lord God; I will yet for this be enquired of by the house of Israel, to do it for them; I will increase them with men like a flock” (Ezek 36:37). May we then, by God’s grace, pray earnestly that He would do such wonders of grace today as when the testimony of God was proclaimed in Corinth without “excellency of speech or of wisdom”.