FOR THE MESSAGE of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.
26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”
2:1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.
FIRST CORINTHIANS 1:18–2:5 EXPLAINS verse 17b—how genuine, full-orbed Christianity stands opposed to the fundamental values of a fallen, sinful world but provides the necessary antidote to the self-centered factionalism of the Corinthians. First Corinthians 1:18–25 puts forth the essential contrast between God’s wisdom and the wisdom of the world. First Corinthians 1:26–2:5 then defends Paul’s claim that the true gospel is the message centered on the cross, by appealing to the Corinthians’ own experience, both in their pre-Christian background (1:26–31) and in their reception of Paul’s initial ministry among them (2:1–5).
First Corinthians 1:18 provides the thesis sentence which sums up the point of the first paragraph of this section (vv. 18–25). Verse 19 supplies scriptural support for Paul’s thesis. Verses 20–25 then begin to explain why the world so roundly rejects the cross-centered gospel and why the Corinthians should nevertheless believe it.
Paul’s thesis affirms that there are only two kinds of people in the world—those in the process of perishing and those in the process of being saved (v. 18). Each will respond to the gospel message in diametrically opposite ways. Verse 19 quotes Isaiah 29:14 for support, from a context in which the prophet is proclaiming God’s intentions to judge Israel for her superficial and hypocritical religion. “Frustrate” in this verse comes from a word that means “reject, refuse, ignore, make invalid, set aside, break.”1 Verse 20a rebukes the seemingly learned. “Wise man,” “scholar,” and “philosopher” are intended to be roughly synonymous; the latter two are more literally “scribe,” and “debater,” respectively.2 Paul may be intending to address both Greek and Jewish wise men with his labels.3
Verse 20b makes it clear that Paul is not disparaging Christian wisdom, intelligence, scholarship, or philosophy; indeed 2:6–16 will expound the appropriate wisdom for believers. Rather, he is predicting the ultimate demise of the sages, legal experts, and orators “of this age” or “of this world”—parallel expressions for sinful humanity apart from Christ.
Verse 21 explains how the state of affairs of verse 18 came about. People in their fallen, worldly wisdom rejected God, so God confirmed humanity in its rebellion with a plan of salvation that would seem foolish (cf. Rom. 1:18–32). But in his omniscience, he had anticipated this all along, so that the whole plan itself was “in the wisdom of God.”
Verse 22 then specifies two key ways major ethnic groups of Paul’s world found Christianity foolish. Many Jews looked for dramatic, miraculous confirmation of Jesus’ claims, which he refused to give (e.g. Matt. 12:38–42). Many Greeks considered speculative philosophies the highest human ideals, with their concomitant emphasis on rhetoric, esoterica, and elitism. For such people, the cross was a stumbling-block (literally, “scandal”) and foolishness (v. 23). Many Jews viewed the crucifixion as ultimate proof that Jesus had been cursed by God for some sin of his own (Deut. 21:23). Many Greeks found numerous aspects of the story of Christ’s death foolish—a suffering God, the ideal of perfect order destroyed, a criminal Messiah, and a way to God not based on human speculation.
But those whom the Spirit of God touches and convicts, from whatever ethnic background, will find in the cross both godly wisdom and power to transform their lives (v. 24). That the gospel seems foolish by human standards should not count against it. Surely one should expect the ways of an omniscient and omnipotent God to be far above human ways. Hence, the NIV correctly fills in the ellipses of verse 25, which more literally reads, “for the foolishness of God is wiser than humans and the weakness of God is stronger than humans.” That which is least clever or powerful of all about God still greatly surpasses the most stupendous achievement of humanity.
First Corinthians 1:26–31 contrasts the status of most of the Corinthians in their society when they were first saved (“called”). Not many were among the seemingly wise philosophers or rhetoricians; not many were powerful (“influential”) in the government, military, or religious circles; not many were born into wealthy families (v. 26). Many slaves and freedmen had made their way to Corinth. Although the majority of people in the church were not from the most destitute strata of society (see Introduction, pp. 19–20), they were outside the circle of the strong and mighty. Hence, Paul could term them “the foolish,” “the weak,” and “the lowly” (vv. 27–28), in direct opposition to the three attributes of verse 26.
Then Paul adds the perspective of the powerful on such people—they are “despised” and “things that are not.” Yet these are the people God for the most part chose to be saved, to shame the wise and strong and to “reduce to nothing” (NRSV) people who claim to be something. In short, he removes any grounds for boasting in one’s self-sufficiency (v. 29). And if the world deems people unfortunate who cannot boast about their own accomplishments, blessings in Christ far more than compensate. In him, believers receive true wisdom: the wisdom of the cross and all its benefits (v. 30)—right standing before God (“righteousness”), moral cleansing (“holiness”), and rescue from slavery to sin (“redemption”). Christians can properly boast, not in their own achievements, but in the Lord (v. 31), as in Jeremiah 9:24, the verse Paul quotes here. This quote interestingly follows a verse that declares, “Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches” (Jer. 9:23). And those are precisely the three categories Paul has enunciated in 1 Corinthians 1:26.4
Paul’s references to boasting, both positive and negative, form an important motif throughout his letters. Boasting about oneself played a crucial role in Greco-Roman sophistry and in secular leadership more generally.5 Some philosophers criticized its most self-serving forms; others applauded its rhetorical flourishes. Most all agreed that the one form of boasting that was usually justified was boasting in one’s weaknesses. This theme takes on special prominence in Paul’s correspondence with Corinth, especially in 2 Corinthians 10–13.6
First Corinthians 2:1–5 rounds out this section by reminding the Corinthians of the content and style of Paul’s own ministry when he was with them. “Superior” in verse 1a probably modifies both “eloquence” and “wisdom.” Paul does not deny that he tried to present his message in as compelling a form as possible, merely that by the world’s standards he was at best ordinary. Second Corinthians 10:10 confirms this understanding, as Paul notes that some in Corinth claim that “in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.” Early manuscripts are fairly evenly divided between “the testimony” and “the mystery” in verse 1b. If the latter is what Paul wrote, then it paves the way for the term’s reappearance in verse 6, but the former is perhaps slightly more likely original. Verse 2 cannot be taken absolutely as if the only doctrine Paul taught on was the crucifixion (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3–8, in which the resurrection proves equally crucial) but refers rather to its centrality in his preaching. At Corinth, in particular, the church needed to embrace more of the humility of the cross and tone down the triumphalism of the resurrection.7
Verse 3 underlines Paul’s sense of personal inadequacy and dovetails with the Lord’s reassurance to him not to be afraid (Acts 18:9–10). His “weakness” here may also allude to the thorn in his flesh (2 Cor. 12:7)—some persistent physical ailment. The “wise and persuasive words” of verse 4 must again refer to worldly wisdom and persuasion, since they are contrasted with “the Spirit’s power.” Verse 5 restates the rationale for his strategy, complementing the contrast between 1:29 and 31. We might paraphrase Paul’s intent in verses 4–5 as follows:
Though my speech and my proclamation persuaded you so that you have πίστις [faith], your πίστις is not a γνῶσις [knowledge] gained through rhetoric which swayed you on the basis of the opinions of those who are honored as possessing superior, wise eloquence. Rather, your faith is grounded on something far more sure than clever arguments based on opinion. Your faith is based on the most absolute form of proof—the sure proof of God’s Spirit and power.8
In short, the Corinthians came to faith by focusing on the cross of Christ which seemed so foolish to every one else. They must now return to that focus rather than splitting the church by magnifying human leaders.
Bridging Contexts
THE PROBLEMS THAT Paul addresses in this passage recur in almost every society, because they reflect human nature and not merely conditions of specific cultures. The self-centeredness that is at the heart of rejecting “Paul’s gospel” is the essence of human sin. As a result, numerous timeless principles emerge from this text. Paul raises three questions in particular, the answers to which must be balanced by Paul’s further teaching in 2:6–3:23: (1) Should Christians seek to possess wisdom? (Answer: Only if it is cross-centered—cf. 1:18–2:5 with 2:6–16); (2) Do Christians with godly wisdom merit any special status? (Answer: no, but they will receive greater praise on Judgment Day—cf. 1:26–31 with 3:1–23); (3) Can we recognize true wisdom through our speech? (Answer: Yes, if it points people to the cross; no, if it revels in its own rhetoric—2:1–5).9
Verses 18–25 counterbalance the remarkable successes in Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–41) or in Thessalonica twenty years later (1 Thess. 1:4–10) and remind us that we cannot expect all or perhaps even a majority of people to respond positively to the gospel. Conversely, if Christianity becomes too popular, we had better check to make sure we have not so diluted it that the offense of the cross has been removed.
This paragraph puts apologetics in its proper place too. Compelling arguments for the faith must always be formulated, but only the convicting work of the Spirit will ever use them to bring people to Christ. In neither preaching nor apologetics is the scandal of the cross an excuse for putting unnecessary stumbling blocks, such as tactlessness or lovelessness, before people. But Murphy-O’Connor offers the salutary reminder that “any attempt to make the gospel palatable by bringing it into line with the tastes of those to whom it is preached distorts it, because in this case the criterion is made the expectations of fallen humanity.”10 In so doing, it loses its power.
Because the wisdom Paul rails against is “of the world” (v. 20), nothing in this paragraph may be taken as grounds for anti-intellectualism. Yet Paul surely stands staunchly against godless intellectualism. Verses 21–25 point out that such godlessness may take three different forms, each increasingly more subtle. People may simply reject God outright (v. 21). Or they may look for him in the wrong places, demanding miraculous signs or engaging in speculative philosophies (vv. 22–23). Or they may remake him in their own image, not recognizing the qualitative difference between God and humanity (v. 25). With respect to signs, God may choose to grant them in hopes that people will thereby believe (John 20:31), but he seldom if ever supplies them on demand, and he insists that people have enough evidence for belief without them (John 20:29).
Verse 21 presents an interesting triad of agents of salvation and damnation. To begin with, humans are directly accountable for their own destinies: “The world through its wisdom did not know him,” while the saved are “those who believe.” Next there is the intermediate agency of “what was preached” versus rival methods purporting to save or claiming salvation unnecessary. But ultimately all is ascribed to God (“since in the wisdom of God …”). Consistently in Scripture the doctrine of election allows God to be sovereign without compromising human freedom or responsibility. Indeed, God’s elective purposes are effected precisely through such free activity—in the proclamation of the word.
Overall 1:18–25 demonstrates a close congruence between the Corinthians’ claims to religious wisdom and the wisdom that is in fact the domain of fallen humanity.11 False religion, especially that which masquerades as Christianity, is as vacuous as utter secularism and more dangerous because it hides its true colors. Paul stops short of making this equation complete, since the Spirit has taken up residence in these believers. But he offers a stern reminder that “the cross thus stands as the final negation of all human attempts to attain God. Its truth cannot be achieved through the best of human intellect and strength but must be received as a gift in the humble submission of faith and trust.”12
The rich and powerful of every era in church history love to point out that the logical inference of verses 26–31 is that if not many were wise, influential or wealthy, then a few must have been. We have noted earlier (pp. 19–20) that more of the Corinthians might have been tolerably well off than in many of the early churches. But all this is the opposite of Paul’s main thrust here. Of course, it is possible to be rich and Christian, but frequently at the times the church has been least compromised with culture and politics, the majority of believers have not come from the upper classes of the world.13 From the pre-Constantinian era to the Radical Reformation, from religiously motivated immigration to America in past centuries to the rapid spread of Christianity in the Two-Thirds World today, this trend has proved surprisingly recurrent. For it is precisely the well-to-do who are often likely not to sense any need for God, because they believe they can buy or manipulate their way into meeting all their needs.14
Conversely, Scripture nowhere guarantees salvation for all people under a certain socioeconomic level. But it does consistently reflect God’s special concern for the poor, oppressed, and marginalized people of the world. James 2:5 parallels 1 Corinthians 1:26–31 in pointing out the sociological makeup of much of early Christianity. But when God “chose the poor” they were also “those who loved him,” who recognized their need for help and their personal inadequacy and hence turned to the true and living God. One of the key Hebrew terms for “poor,” the anawim, combines precisely these two elements—material poverty and spiritual piety.15 Historically, Christians have had to guard against the twin errors of spiritualizing “the poor,” as if they could include the materially wealthy, and of politicizing the term, as if salvation could be claimed apart from explicit faith in Christ.
First Corinthians 2:1–5 must be read in its larger context to avoid serious misrepresentations of Paul in particular and Christianity in general. Rhetorical criticism is increasingly demonstrating how well-trained in literary artistry Paul was. Verse 1 cannot be taken absolutely, because 1 Corinthians itself is very carefully crafted, using numerous devices designed to try to persuade Paul’s readers of his message.16 Paul is thus “willing to employ human eloquence, for this is intrinsically neutral, as long as it remains subservient to the message of the Gospel and the divine work of the Spirit.” But even in this qualified use he distances himself from many of his contemporaries, as he argues “against that method of preaching which employs literary figures not as a means to convey better the message of the Gospel, but as ornamentations intended to please and amuse the congregation.”17 Nor does this paragraph give preachers the right not to prepare their messages thoughtfully. But it reminds us that homiletical techniques alone do not prepare us to preach with spiritual power. Only when the Spirit first convicts us from a given text do we then have the right to preach it to others.
First Corinthians 2:2 must not be taken as any kind of reversal of policy from Paul’s frustrations with a poor reception in Athens, inasmuch as Acts 17:22–31 actually stands as a masterful model of the effective contextualization of the gospel. But urban philosophers are not normally a receptive audience for the Christian message, so only a few respond positively there. Verses 3–5 play a central role in formulating a theology of Paul’s preaching. To “proclaim” is to act as a herald and authoritatively declare the news, in this case with the authority of the Lord. “But because God’s authority is not obvious, as measured by human standards, the preacher as herald stands in a vulnerable position. Preaching is thus a weak medium both in content and form.”18 Still, it demonstrates its power as people are saved and churches established.
The contrasts in 1:18–2:5 may be summed up in terms of a theology of glory versus a theology of the cross. The former leads to equations between true Christianity and specific political parties or agendas, material wealth, or heavy-handed leadership. The latter seeks to bind up the broken-hearted, empower the disenfranchised, and love the unlovely of our world.19 In short, 1:18–2:5 drives people to the level ground at the foot of the cross. If we really understand that Christ experienced the agony that we deserved to suffer, how can we possibly exalt ourselves or any other human leaders?
As we turn to apply this passage today, we must ask who in our world are the high and mighty, inside or outside the church, and stop to see if they are truly using their power for selfless purposes. We must also identify the downtrodden, again both Christian and non-Christian, and see if we are paying them ample and appropriate attention. Some poor, for example, are as self-centered as some rich. On the other hand, we must beware of seeking to help only “the worthy poor,” since God never waits for any of us to be worthy before he helps us.20 Above all, we should look for ways to communicate the centrality of Christ’s atoning death in compelling fashion to contemporary cultures.
Contemporary Significance
ONE WONDERS HOW much contemporary preaching is in fact cross-centered. Ours is an age of user-friendly, seeker-sensitive techniques for church growth. Some of these techniques affect only the form and not the substance of the gospel, but others are more suspect. Many people have rejected human sin and personal accountability for evil actions in favor of passing the blame onto corrupting societal influences. Such people have an acute need to hear the true meaning of the crucifixion of Christ. Positive thinking and possibility thinking perhaps have a limited place for people with an overly poor self-image,21 but they do not adequately substitute for repentance and trust in Jesus.
Such counter-cultural attitudes will, of course, continue to be branded as foolish, even by some within the church. Secular and liberally minded religious scholars as well as self-taught philosophers and gurus stand at the forefront of the crowds that most consistently mock evangelical Christianity. They tolerate every bizarre and immoral ideology conceivable but refuse to include born-again Christians in their antidiscrimination campaigns. We should not be surprised, but we should avoid the constant peril of trying to imitate secular standards of wisdom in striving to make our Christian institutions closely resemble their secular counterparts. An overemphasis on professionalism in the pastorate, scholarship as the dominant criterion for jobs in higher education, purely market-driven strategies for church growth, and therapeutic models of Christian counseling that deliberately avoid prayer, Bible study, and confession of sin all illustrate the dangers of such imitation. In each case, something takes center stage away from a frank admission of our spiritual impotence apart from the crucified Christ working through us.22
The contemporary church also struggles to formulate a balanced theology of signs and wonders. Chapters 12–14 will expand on this theme, but the very least that must be said here is that we dare never try to put God in a box, either by demanding that he must work a miracle (or claiming that if he doesn’t somebody obviously had inadequate faith) or by pretending to know that he no longer does work miracles!23 Parallels to the Greek lust after wisdom emerge directly in modern-day Gnosticism, reflected in various branches of the New Age movement,24 and indirectly in our degree-hungry society, saturated also with self-help seminars and studies for those who want more informal education.
The same standards for popularity—wisdom, power, and money—remain in our culture. These determine who receives adulation from their peers in our schools. They form the heart of the lure of most advertising campaigns. And their inroads into the church must always be thwarted. Much Western Christianity has fallen to a “suburban captivity” which domesticates the gospel and loses the central focus of the Scriptures on the spiritually and physically poor and needy of this world. Healthy churches will combat this trend by expending significant portions of their budgets and personal attention on evangelism and social action, locally and globally, in balanced combinations.25 And 1:30 directs our attention to another pair of priorities that cannot be divorced—correct knowledge and correct behavior. Too many today, both inside and outside of the church, more closely resemble the ancient Greek philosophers who drove a wedge between inward spirituality and outward morality.
First Corinthians 2:1–5 forces us to raise the question of styles of Christian preaching and leadership. Fundamental matters of the faith require forceful proclamation; peripheral ones, more tentative affirmation. The authority of the Word must not be supplanted by authoritarian styles of proclamation and administration. Highly polished turns of phrase must never overwhelm the clarity and correctness of the essential message. In many large and gifted congregations, we need more worship and less performance.
It is interesting to compare possibly the three greatest evangelists in North America during the last 150 years—D. L. Moody, Billy Sunday, and Billy Graham. Neither Moody nor Graham was known for impressing audiences with lofty rhetoric; frequently their sermons were deemed simplistic. Sunday was known for a flashy style, but he still preached a very basic gospel message. But all three centered on the cross and the need for personal conversion. As a result, they gave encouragement to millions of “down-and-outers,” and countless came to the Lord through their preaching.
On the other hand, Western missions is still recovering from an imperialist, triumphalist perspective that often failed to treat indigenous Christians in other lands, or the poor and minorities in our own inner cities, as equals. But for those in every part of our world who feel deeply their own inadequacy, Paul gives great encouragement that God can use even them in powerful and mighty ways as they rely not on themselves but on his strength.26