Text in red are my additions. Translated using ChatGPT.
d.) With good reason, therefore, the Apostle employed a simple method of teaching at Corinth (1 Cor 2:1–5).
Up to this point the Apostle has explained the rationale of his apostolic mission; now, in this section, he shows that the method of teaching he employed at Corinth was in harmony with that mission, and at the same time he vindicates the great usefulness of his own simple preaching.
1 Cor 2:1. And I (ἐγώ—I also, or rather I myself as well, χἀγώ, in keeping with what the nature of the apostolic mission required), when I came to you, brothers, did not come with sublimity of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of Christ.
By testimony of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 1:6), or better in this place the testimony of God, that is, testimony about God, who revealed himself in Christ, or the testimony which God bore through the Apostles concerning Christ, is meant—as is clear—the Gospel, which ought not to be proclaimed in the wisdom of word. Now it is proclaimed in the wisdom of word if it is proposed καθ᾽ ὑπεροχὴν λόγου ἢ σοφίας (“according to the excellence or pre-eminence of speech or wisdom”), that is, in an eloquent and learned discourse. For this reason Paul, when he came to Corinth, wished “neither to display eloquence nor to use foreign arguments” (Chrysostom).
1 Cor 2:2. For I judged not myself to know anything among you, except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
Whether we join the negation with the nearer verb (I did not judge, that is, I pretended to know nothing—which some moderns prefer), or with the other verb (I decided to know nothing), or even with the pronoun (I decided not to know anything—nothing else), is of no importance, since the sense always remains the same. Although elsewhere Paul had proposed higher doctrines in a more elevated manner, and at Athens had disputed with Stoics and Epicureans, and before the Areopagus had shown himself not unskilled in profane learning (Acts 17:17ff.), nevertheless, when he came to Corinth, among the Corinthians (inter vos), he did not wish to show that he knew anything other than Jesus Christ and him crucified. In what broad sense these words are to be understood is shown by 1 Cor 11:23ff. and 1 Cor 15:3ff., where he recalls to mind certain teachings he had delivered to the faithful at Corinth; but here he proposed simple doctrines: he narrated the life of Jesus, showed that he was the Christ (Acts 18:5), and dwelt especially on the exposition of his Passion, by which he redeemed us, and on the demonstration of his Resurrection, “announcing only those things which were more manifest and lower in Christ, not the profound reasons of the Incarnation” (Thomas Aquinas). To such simple doctrine “sublimity of speech or wisdom” was not suited; therefore he had to abstain from it.
Yet even if a speaker brings forward only simpler matters, if he speaks boldly and assertively, his confidence can still sweep weaker hearers along with him. Paul, however, even from this manner of teaching abstained at Corinth.
1 Cor 2:3. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
What Paul’s disposition of soul was at that time we learn from the words by which God had to strengthen him: “Do not be afraid, but speak and do not be silent, because I am with you, and no one shall lay hands on you to harm you, for I have many people in this city” (Acts 18:9). Before coming to Corinth, he had spent several weeks at Athens, disputing in the synagogue with the Jews, with philosophers in the marketplace, and speaking in the Areopagus; but the fruit of such great labors had not been abundant (Acts 17:33). What wonder, then, if he arrived at Corinth sad and distressed? There, moreover, he immediately encountered new difficulties and continuous contradictions and persecutions from the Jews, which he clearly recognized he could not overcome by his own strength alone. Considering, therefore, on the one hand the great labor he had to undertake, and on the other his own weakness, which he had shortly before experienced, he felt himself weak and unequal to so great a task. From this arose that timidity which he expresses in this verse. What Paul means by weakness is made clear from 2 Corinthians (2 Cor 10:10; 2 Cor 11:6; 2 Cor 12:10). Fear and trembling signify that anxiety of soul which the prospect of a great imposed labor or even of imminent danger provokes in a humble or frail man (cf. 2 Cor 7:15; Eph 6:5; Phil 2:19). Hence not without reason many interpreters explain this verse by reference to the persecutions Paul endured at Corinth (Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others; Hervaeus, Thomas Aquinas, Justinian, Lapide, etc.; many non-Catholics as well). Less correctly do others think that only the Apostle’s humility is expressed here, and quite erroneously do a few non-Catholics interpret these words of some illness or bodily infirmity.
Thus affected by this timidity, the Apostle could not sweep his hearers along with him—and all the less so because he did not make use of rhetorical arts.
1 Cor 2:4. And my word—“by which I instructed certain individuals privately and individually”—and my preaching—“by which I taught publicly” (Thomas)—were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of spirit and power.
By persuasive words (πειθοῖς) of human wisdom—the kind by which rhetoricians and sophists strive not so much to demonstrate their positions as to attract hearers to them—or, according to another reading, “persuasion (πειθοῖ) of human wisdom,” is fittingly contrasted demonstration (or rather proof) of spirit and power. For ἀπόδειξις (“demonstration”) is a sure proof of a matter, made by adducing arguments (cf. ἀποδεικνύναι in Acts 9:22; 17:2; 1 Cor 4:9). This demonstration, however, has as its author spirit and power, that is, the power of the Holy Spirit, who “in an ineffable way infused faith into the hearers” (Chrysostom), who therefore enlightened Paul by his power so that he spoke those things by which he convinced his hearers, and at the same time disposed the hearts of the listeners by his grace so that they gave faith to the Apostle’s words.
1 Cor 2:5. So that your faith might not be (might not rest) on the wisdom of men, which, since it can deceive and be deceived, is a weak foundation, but on the power of God, that is, on divine grace, which, since it proceeds from the power of God, is aptly called the power of God.
We consider, with Chrysostom and many others, that spirit and power form a hendiadys. All agree that by spirit the Holy Spirit is meant; but how the expression spirit and power, or power of the Holy Spirit, is to be understood is disputed. Some understand by spirit the explanation of Old Testament prophecies (Origen, Contra Celsum I.9; Justin, Calvin, etc.); others, spiritual gifts (charismata) conferred by Paul through the imposition of hands (Hervaeus, Thomas, Lyra, Dionysius, Cajetan, Calvin); others, “the sublimity and abundance of doctrine” or “the force and efficacy” granted to Paul as he spoke by the Holy Spirit (Thomas, Lapide, Justinian, etc.). By power or virtue of the Holy Spirit most think miracles are meant, by which Paul confirmed his preaching (Chrysostom, Theodoret, and others; the Glossa ordinaria, Thomas, Lyra, Dionysius, Cajetan, Estius, Calvin, Rambach). Misled by the Latin term (virtutis = power, strength), a few understand virtuous works. It is certain that Paul often confirmed his preaching by miracles and that the faithful converted by him frequently received charisms; but that he should here speak of these signs as the principal marks of his preaching, immediately after having equated Jews seeking signs with Gentiles seeking wisdom, seems improbable. If one does not accept a hendiadys with us, he will suitably explain spirit according to the third opinion, as divine grace assisting Paul to convince his hearers, and power as the interior grace by which the listeners were moved to receive the proposed doctrine by faith. Moreover, our explanation is already hinted at by Theophylact following Chrysostom: “I had a demonstration in the Holy Spirit, who in some ineffable way infused faith into the hearers through the gracious ministry of the word.” Many modern Catholic commentators hold the same view, and many non-Catholics agree, while others prefer one of the interpretations listed above.
“You will ask,” says Estius, “if the Apostle neglected persuasive words, why do not all preachers of the word of God imitate him in this?” He answers that “this is the ordinary way of persuading and moving minds, that words carefully composed for that purpose be employed; therefore they ought not to be neglected unless it is clear that God wishes to move men to what is salutary for them by another means, as it pleased him in the beginning, through the Apostles, to preach the Gospel in simple and unadorned speech and to convert the nations.” These points are true, but they contribute little to the explanation of this passage, because they assume that the Apostle always and everywhere employed the same method of teaching; yet at Athens he did use persuasive words before the Areopagus, and in disputing with Stoics and Epicureans he likely did not refrain from arguments of human wisdom. With great emphasis he repeatedly insists in these few verses: “when I came to you … I judged not to know anything among you … I was with you in weakness.” By a singular providence, therefore, God so arranged matters that at Corinth—in a city that gloried as much in wisdom as in wealth—it might be shown more clearly and more evidently that the Gospel does not need human means for its propagation.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment