BIG IDEA:
CHURCHES NEED TO BE UNIFIED AROUND THE SIMPLICITY AND POWER OF THE GOSPEL MESSAGE (THE CROSS OF CHRIST) RATHER THAN LOYALTY TO ONE PARTICULAR PREACHER
INTRODUCTION:
Divisions in the church undermine our testimony and replace submission to Christ with prideful agendas. The ministry gifts have been given to the church for the glorification of Christ – not for the formation of preacher fan clubs. The temptation is to divert our dependence upon our invisible Lord to some visible impressive figure. But we all need to focus our attention on the substance of the gospel message – especially on the cross of Christ which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes. Too often churches strive for unity by trying to galvanize loyalty around the leadership of one strong leader personality instead of focusing dependence upon the true Head of the Church. Our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified for all of the elect to bring us spiritual life and gift all of us all with the privilege of mutual ministry that can bring great glory to God. We need strong preachers and dynamic leadership – but that leadership must always be channeling our devotion and dependence to Christ in a unified focus. That is why the proper functioning of the plurality of elders is such an essential cornerstone to the health and vitality of the local church.
Craig Blomberg: Paul introduces in verses 10–17 the key for promoting unity and avoiding divisiveness — focusing on Christ rather than exalting human leaders. In so doing, we are driven to the cross, which should also promote humility rather than arrogance and rivalry. When we recognize the cross and all it stands for — the atoning, substitutionary sacrifice of the God-man for sinners in need of salvation, vindicated by his bodily resurrection and exaltation — we have identified the cluster of complementary and fundamental truths that must forever form the core of Christian faith.
Dan Nighswander: This letter has one overarching purpose: to persuade the Christians in Corinth to come together in faith and action and purpose, united by their spiritual connection in Christ (1:2, 4 et al.). Paul pleads, exhorts, appeals, urges, and implores them to do so.
The body of the letter begins with a statement that sets out its intention. The rhetorical name for this statement is the thesis statement. In this case, it is not an idea to be argued and defended but rather an outcome that Paul seeks. Some scholars believe that 1:10 is a thesis statement for the first four chapters only, but Margaret Mitchell (198–200) has argued persuasively that it serves as a thesis statement for the entire letter. She shows that it is characteristic of deliberative argument that the thesis statement should lay out a desirable course of action, which in this case is a call for stability and unity among the believers. The thesis statement uses politically loaded terms and, characteristic of Paul’s theological anchor, appeals to our Lord Jesus Christ as the basis for that course of action.
Paul Gardner: Main Idea: Paul expresses his dismay at the lack of unity in the church and pleads with the Corinthians that they should be united in thought and purpose. Nothing less than this is required by the gospel of the cross of Christ that Paul has preached among them.
I. (:10) UNITY IN CHRIST IS THE GOAL FOR HIS CHURCH
A. Appeal to Church Unity (viewed as Family Unity)
“Now I exhort you, brethren”
Making an urgent appeal to them as a family member
Paul Gardner: Here it seems most likely that Paul is using the word with a connotation of “firm encouragement.” In a firm but loving manner, reflecting the gift and calling of apostleship that is specifically his, he desires to build the Corinthians up in Christ. He will later argue that the grace-gifts, such as prophecy, are given so people can learn from each other and be built up and “encouraged” (παρακαλέω; 14:31). This is how he approaches those to whom he writes. Here the word is translated “urge” to communicate not harsh rhetoric from the one with power but the firm request of one who loves his family.
B. Authority for Church Unity = the Head of the Body
“by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”
C. Affirmation of Church Unity – Requires a certain mindset
- Positive: Stay on the Same Page
“that you all agree”
Doug Goins: The first positive appeal is that they agree, or literally, that they all speak the same thing. This term is an idiom from classical Greek. It was always used to describe political parties or communities that were free from factions; all agreed on what the party platform was, and there was no competition. We commonly hear the same kind of language today from Democrats and Republicans who call for party unity, because disunity undermines their effectiveness. So Paul is calling the Corinthian Christians to make up their differences and let go of their party slogans.
John MacArthur: For a local church to be spiritually healthy, harmonious, and effective, there must, above all, be doctrinal unity. The teaching of the church should not be a smorgasbord from which members can pick and choose. Nor should there be various groups, each with its own distinctives and leaders.
Dan Nighswander: It would be wrong to assume from the repeated use of same that Paul wanted to achieve uniformity of thought and of action. Rather, he wanted to restore relationships that had been severed through divisions. We should think of the musical term harmony, not unison. Thus it is appropriate to speak, as Mitchell does, of the “rhetoric of reconciliation.”
- Negative: Avoid Choosing Up Sides
“and that there be no divisions among you”
Roy Ciampa: The fundamental theme of the letter is sounded in 1:10. . . Everything that follows, especially in 1 Corinthians 1:11 – 4:21, must be understood as an elaboration of this appeal. Paul, writing to a community torn by divisions (schismata), calls for unity. . . Paul had left the Corinthian community in a relatively harmonious condition; now he has learned, to his dismay, that quarrels are splitting the church.
Anthony Thiselton: A key word in this passage is splits (v. 10; Greek schismata). We risk losing the point if we translate the Greek by a more formal word such as divisions, for these are not divisions of doctrine. Welborn observes that the problem is “a power struggle, not a theological controversy” (Politics and Rhetoric, p. 7). The word split (in the Greek) denotes a tear in a fishing net that needs to be mended (Mark 1:19), or a rending apart that has to be “put back to order” (2 Cor. 13:11). The word may be used metaphorically of a political divide. In the Fourth Gospel the preaching of Jesus provokes a split among the crowd of hearers (John 7:43; 9:16). It is very serious when splits or tears appear in the church. Since Paul calls the church Christ’s body, it is almost as if this power play tears apart the limbs of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27; cf. 11:18).
David Garland: The proclivity toward factiousness was present in Corinth long before Paul appeared, and the new converts apparently continued to manifest this competitive spirit in their interactions with their fellow believers after their conversion. Several factors contributed to a party-minded spirit: social stratification, personal patronage, philosopher/student loyalty, and party loyalties fostered by urban alienation (Oster 1995: 50). The rips in the fabric of their unity (cf. 12:25) could have been caused by any number of things and should not be attributed solely to theological differences.
- Positive: Exercise Harmonious Discernment
“but that you be made complete in the same mind
and in the same judgment.”
MacArthur: The basic idea is that of putting back together something that was broken or separated so it is no longer divided. The term is used in both the NT and in classical Gr. to speak of mending such things as nets, broken bones or utensils, torn garments, and dislocated joints. Cf. Ro 16:17; Php 1:27.
Anthony Thiselton: Paul does not require uniformity or replication in every detail of doctrine, but a noncompetitive attitude that sets aside all hint of power play. J. B. Lightfoot suggested “free from factions” or “making up differences” (Notes, p. 151). Polyphonic harmony does not require dull unison but contributes to the beauty and coherence of the whole. The thrusting, competitive culture of the city of Corinth since its refounding as a Roman colonia in 44 B.C. makes it all the more certain that competitive power play on the part of one group against another was the root problem in the church.
II. (:11-13) UNITY IS COMPROMISED BY FOCUSING LOYALTY ON A PARTICULAR PREACHER RATHER THAN ON CHRIST
A. (:11) Report of Divisions in the Church at Corinth
“For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people,
that there are quarrels among you.”
Dan Nighswander: The Corinthians had sent Paul a letter (7:1) in which they named several questions on which they invited Paul to comment [What the Corinthians Wrote, p. 372]. They expected the three men entrusted to carry the letter—Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17)—to elaborate on the questions and to fill Paul in on other matters happening in the assembly [What the Delegation Reported, p. 374]. . .
for Paul’s reliance on a report from her people to carry the weight of his argument, it was necessary for him to believe that she and her people were credible sources of information and would be recognized as such by the assembly. By naming his independent source, Paul served notice to the congregations that they could not restrict or control the information he received and that he would address the shameful behaviors the members did not want him to know about as well as the more “respectable” issues that they had identified.
Mark Taylor: Some think that since Paul was in Ephesus at the time of the writing of the letter, Chloe may have been a wealthy Asian with business interests that required her representatives to travel to Corinth. We do not know for certain that she was a believer, but it is probable since she had a presence in Corinth and was known to the church, even if through her business agents. The report itself regarding the Corinthian quarrels does not come from Chloe but rather from her household.
Adewuya: The gravity of the divisions is shown in the use of the word “contention” (Greek eris). In its original usage, it always referred to disputes that endanger the church. The word points to quarrels and is the hot dispute, the emotional flame that ignites whenever rivalry becomes intolerable. It is listed as one of the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:20 of which Christians should have no part.
B. (:12) Repetition of Misdirected Allegiance
- Widespread Problem
“Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying,”
Points out to us today the natural human tendency of all of us to want to align our dependence with some visible, appealing figure. This was not some isolated problem affecting just pockets of people in the church. Everyone was at fault regarding this issue (or at least it was widespread enough that Paul was not just singling out some isolated groups).
Daniel Akin: What do I mean by the phrase “cult of personality”? The Merriam-Webster Dictionary says it refers to when “a public figure (such as a political leader) is deliberately presented to the people of a country as a great person who should be admired and loved” (“Cult of Personality”). Most discussions relate the concept to politics, often with negative connotations. Tragically, this idolization of a person can work its way into the church with devastating consequences. Churches might put a person on a pedestal that belongs only to Jesus.
Adewuya: The point is, the Corinthians were in danger of giving to mere human leaders that ultimate allegiance which belongs to Christ alone, as their only Savior. As Paul will put it in 4:1, the Corinthians should think of Paul and his fellow apostles simply as servants of Christ, to whom the mysteries of God are committed and who are responsible to him.
Mark Taylor: What is crystal clear is that a party spirit plagued the church in Corinth, and their boasting in men contradicted the very essence of the gospel. The root problem was pride, the worst of sins, especially for those identified with a crucified Christ.
- Loyalty to Paul
“‘I am of Paul,’”
This must have been especially distasteful to the Apostle Paul who found that his preaching of Christ had not produced the desired effect of dependence upon Christ.
Roy Ciampa: That Paul himself had been unaware of the existence of a “Paul party” — indeed, that he thoroughly disapproves of such an idea — shows that these slogans have probably arisen spontaneously within the Corinthian church, without any direct encouragement from the leaders whose names were being bandied about. Despite many scholarly speculations, it is not possible to assign a distinct ideological program to each of these factions. Indeed, Paul’s remarks here suggest that the emergent factions may be created more by personal allegiance to particular leaders than by clearly defined theological differences.
David Garland: The Paul group is assumed to be composed of loyalists to Paul who formed to counter the developments of other groups that tended to denigrate him. They affirmed his special role as father, planter, and builder of the community. If it consisted only of those baptized by Paul, it would have been comparatively small, though presumably comprising the leading households. If such a group exists, Paul is not gratified that they champion him. He does not try to strengthen their hand but undercuts supporters and rivals alike.
- Loyalty to Apollos
“and ‘I of Apollos,’”
Roy Ciampa: Apollos, according to Acts 18:24–28, was a learned Jew from Alexandria who was deeply grounded in Scripture and who “taught accurately the things concerning Jesus” with great passion and eloquence. He had already been operating as a Christian preacher at Ephesus before coming into contact with representatives of the Pauline mission.
David Garland: Is it coincidental that Paul’s references in this section to baptism (1:14–17; 3:6), rhetorical eloquence (1:17–25; 2:1–4), spirituality (2:6–16), and building on another’s foundation (3:10–15) correlate with the description of Apollos in Acts?
- Loyalty to Cephas
“and ‘I of Cephas,’
David Garland: Murphy-O’Connor (1996: 277) surmises that the members of this group were Jewish converts who found it difficult to assimilate into a predominantly Gentile community.
Gordon Fee: Whatever some meant when they said, “I follow Cephas,” it had not brought about theological divisions in the church. Despite the opinions of many, not a single item in 1 Corinthians explicitly suggests a Judaizing faction in the church; and in the one issue that might point to such, namely that of food sacrificed to idols (chaps. 8–10), Paul explicitly says that those who are “defiled” by the Corinthian “gnostics” are people who had formerly been accustomed to idols (8:7) and are therefore clearly Gentiles. This is not to say that Peter had not left his mark on some in the church, but it does not seem to have been an indelible, or visible, theological mark. More likely there is a personal allegiance factor here, involving some who had been converted and baptized under his ministry, or perhaps the issue is related to Paul’s apostleship vis-à-vis that of Peter.
- False Spirituality
“and ‘I of Christ.’”
This problem presupposes that the believers at Corinth were exposed to large doses of ministry from multiple preachers.
Roy Ciampa: Most puzzling is Paul’s disapproving reference to those who say “I belong to Christ.” Is that not what every Christian should say? In context, it would seem that some of the Corinthians must have been claiming Christ as their leader in an exclusivistic way (“We are the ones who really belong to Christ, but we’re not so sure about you”). Such a claim might be coupled with a boastful pretension to have direct spiritual access to Christ apart from any humanly mediated tradition. Indeed, it is not hard to see how some of the Corinthians might have developed just such a position on the basis of Paul’s own preaching (cf. Gal. 1:11–12). Paul sees, however, that when “I belong to Christ” becomes the rallying cry of one contentious faction within the church, Christ is de facto reduced to the status of one more leader hustling for adherents within the community’s local politics.
Doug Goins: The fourth party named was the Christ party. These were the purists, those who sounded the most spiritual. It was probably the worst of the four parties. There was a self-righteous smugness about these folks. They basically said, “We don’t need human leaders at all. Jesus is the head of the body, and we’ll just listen to him. We’re not going to listen to Paul or Apollos or Peter.” This group would have been religiously intimidating in the life of that fellowship, claiming superiority in Bible study and prayer and worship. These were folks you would have heard saying, “The Lord spoke to me on this matter….” They were spiritual elitists who were unwilling to submit themselves even to the apostolic authority that Jesus Christ had defined and put in place for the church. They were just as divisive as the other three groups.
Another Option:
Jeffries: There may or may not have been a “Christ” faction at Corinth. “There was absolutely no punctuation in Greek manuscripts and no space whatever between words. [1 Corinthians 1:12] may well not describe a party at all. It may be the comment of Paul himself. Perhaps we ought to punctuate like this: ‘I am of Paul; I am of Apollos; I am of Cephas — but I belong to Christ!’ It may well be that this is Paul’s own comment on the whole wretched situation. “If that is not so and this does describe a party, they must have been a small and rigid sect who claimed that they were the only true Christians in Corinth. Their real fault was not in saying that they belonged to Christ, but in acting as if Christ belonged to them. It may well describe a little, intolerant, self-righteous group.”
– William Barclay: The Letters to the Corinthians
But Morris says the Greek structure makes this alternative interpretation unlikely.
C. (:13) Response to the Problem Focuses on Centrality of Jesus Christ
David Garland: Paul attempts to undermine this partisan spirit with three questions. The questions underscore the lunacy of exalting one leader over another when they all have been called into the fellowship of Jesus Christ (1:9).
- Unity of Christ – Proper Focus on the Person of Jesus Christ
“Has Christ been divided?
David Prior: The wholeness of Christ — Paul is asking the Corinthians, with all their division, ‘Do you suppose that there are fragments of Christ that can be distributed among different groups? If you have Christ, you have all of him. Jesus cannot be divided.’ We cannot have half a person, as though we said: ‘Please come in, but leave your legs outside.’ This, incidentally, throws light on such common phrases as ‘wanting more of Christ’. It cannot be; we should rather be allowing Christ to have more of us. We are the disintegrated ones whom Christ is gradually making whole, so that we become more like him – integrated and entire. The same argument applies to wanting more of the Holy Spirit. If he is personal, a Person, than we either have him living within us or we do not; again, our desire and prayer should be for the Holy Spirit to have more of us. . .
On these three grounds – the wholeness of Christ, the cross of Christ and the Lordship of Christ – Paul appeals to the Christians at Corinth to express their God-given unity in Jesus Christ. We, like Paul, are under orders to proclaim the gospel (17), and so to preach it that in no way do we detract from the cross of Christ. It is very easy to do the latter, notably when we pander to the wisdom of the world.
- Cross of Christ – Proper Focus on the Substitutionary Atonement of Christ
“Paul was not crucified for you, was he?”
Paul Gardner: Paul will expound the impact of the message of the cross in more detail in vv. 18–25, but here he reminds his readers that the defining event for Christians, and for the existence of the church itself, was the death of Christ. Elsewhere Paul elaborates upon the death of Christ “for us,” but all would have known that in his death Christ paid the price for the sin of believers. As he died on the cross, he represented all his people, and in the sacrifice of his life for the sin of his people, he took upon himself the judgment they deserved. Only Christ was crucified, and therefore he alone is the redeemer, the sacrifice, and the head of the church. For those who have found salvation in Christ, it is an absurdity therefore to call themselves followers of some local church leader, however prominent or great such a person might be. In today’s world, which also lays much store in status and in the charismatic styles of certain church leaders, this is an extremely powerful reminder of what the church is all about. It is about following the one who was crucified for us and alone is Lord in the church. It is for this reason that Christians are baptized into his name rather than into anyone else’s.
David Prior: We all come together to the Lord’s Table as sinners redeemed by his blood; we there acknowledge the disunity caused through our sin and guilt, then gratefully and joyfully celebrate our unity in forgiveness and cleansing. There is no single truth more eloquent or productive of true unity between Christians than the cross of Christ.
- Baptism in the Name of Christ – Proper Focus on the Meaning of the Symbolism of the Sacraments of the Church Commanded by Christ
“Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
Sad that this area of baptism has developed into one of the most divisive areas in the church.
Roy Ciampa: Paul regards this situation as scandalous. Consequently, he poses a series of biting rhetorical questions (v. 13). The first of these questions (“Has Christ been divided?”) would be more precisely translated, “Has Christ been divided up and parceled out?” The community’s dissension has created an absurd situation, Paul suggests, in which Christ is treated as a commodity or a possession to be haggled over. Thus, the one body of Christ (an image that will appear explicitly later in the letter) has been fragmented into interest groups. Even more telling are the next two questions, which make the point that no merely human preacher can ever be the basis for the church’s faith and unity. The form in which these questions are posed in the Greek indicates that they are rhetorical questions that demand a negative answer: “Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or you weren’t baptized in the name of Paul, were you?” The community’s life before God depends entirely on Jesus’ death on a cross (cf. 11:26; 15:1–3), and the Lord into whose dominion the community has been transferred in baptism is Jesus Christ alone. The church is saved and sustained only in the name of Jesus. When this truth is kept clearly in focus, petty rivalries and preferences for different preachers are seen in their true light: They are simply ridiculous.
David Prior: To be baptized in (eis, literally ‘into’) the name of someone was to have one’s life signed over to that person, to come under his authority and to be at his beck and call. Paul makes the self-evident point that the Corinthians had, in baptism, become the possession of Jesus Christ — and of nobody else. He was clearly very sensitive to the possibility of people regarding themselves as his own disciples.
Mark Taylor: That Paul repudiates personal allegiances by asking rhetorically, “Was Paul crucified for you?” and “Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” is not at odds with his later instruction to “imitate me” (4:16; 11:1). In all instances he is turning their focus to Christ. Paul’s qualification in 1:17 that Christ sent him to preach the gospel, “not with words of human wisdom,” sets the stage for his exposition of God’s wisdom versus human wisdom in 1:18 – 4:13.
III. (:14-17) UNITY IS PROMOTED BY FOCUSING ON THE CENTRAL MISSION OF THE CHURCH = THE PROCLAMATION OF THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL IN ALL OF ITS SIMPLICITY AND POWER
A. (:14-16) The Central Mission Is Not: Trying to Compete For Disciples
“I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the
household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.”
Craig Blomberg: Here is perhaps another clue to the nature of the rivalries: these young Christians may have been idolizing the particular leaders who first brought them to the Lord. We know Apollos preached in Corinth after Paul did (Acts 19:1), and it is quite possible that Peter or some of his disciples did as well. Crispus is most likely the synagogue ruler of Acts 18:8. Gaius is almost certainly the host of the church whom Paul praises in Romans 16:23 (and to be distinguished from the recipient of 3 John). Of Stephanas we know nothing else except that which is told in 1 Corinthians 16:15–17.
David Garland: I propose another view to explain the inclusion of these two names. Possibly, these two wealthier men were at the root of the controversy as leaders of house churches. It is hard to imagine how persons with their wealth and influence did not have something to do with the disputes. They came from different backgrounds—one Jewish, the other a Gentile God-fearer—and this difference may have fueled strife. By mentioning them by name as those whom he baptized in Corinth, Paul may be reminding these two men of the circumstances of their coming to faith in Christ (cf. Philem. 19). They are both on the same level. He employs a strategy of indirectness to maneuver delicately around sensitive and perhaps bruised egos to avoid causing them to lose face publicly and to promote rapport.
B. (:17) The Central Mission Is: the Proclamation of the Gospel =
Focused on the Cross of Christ
- The Apostolic Priority = Preaching the Gospel
“For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel”
The church can so easily be diverted from its fundamental mission.
This section is not to minimize the proper importance of baptism. Paul is not saying that the believers did not need to be baptized – only that he did not need to be the one administering it.
Charles Ryrie: Though Paul did baptize some, it is clear from this statement that he did not consider baptism necessary for salvation.
Adewuya: Was Paul saying that baptism was unnecessary in verses 14–17? Absolutely not. One should by no means interpret or understand these verses as such. Paul simply placed the proper emphasis where it belongs — that is, the preaching of the gospel (see v. 17).
Robert Gundry: But why did Paul baptize anybody at all if Christ didn’t send him to baptize people? The question is wrongly framed. Baptism as such isn’t at issue. Baptism in Paul’s name is at issue. Christ didn’t send him to gain a personal following by baptizing people; but he did send Paul to proclaim the gospel, which has to do with “the cross of the Christ,” not with anything having to do with Paul. (Incidentally, “send” is the verbal counterpart of “apostle” in 1:1.) Both philosophy (which means “love of wisdom”) and eloquence (“speech”) were highly prized—indeed, celebrated—in Greece and throughout Greco-Roman culture. So if Paul had proclaimed the gospel with eloquently expressed wisdom (“wisdom of speech”), a Corinthian audience would have attributed their conversions to his abilities as a philosopher and orator and for that reason would have declared subservience to him en masse. As it was, only a fraction of believers had, against his intention, declared subservience to him.
- The Apostolic Methodology = The Foolishness of Preaching – Simplicity of Spiritual Wisdom
“not in cleverness of speech”
Contrast this with present day marketing emphasis in evangelicalism;
The wisdom of the world accomplishes nothing for the sake of Christ.
Dan Nighswander: With the qualification that he preached not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power (1:17b), Paul introduces the first of his arguments with the Corinthian assembly: the cross of Christ, not human wisdom — however brilliantly articulated — is the central value of Christian faith.
Paul Gardner: Looking now at what Paul says in this passage and how he contrasts this “wisdom of speech” with the “word of the cross” (v. 18) and the “wisdom of God” (v. 21), we see that Paul is arguing that the gospel itself simply turns the way that the world views wisdom on its head. The cross of Christ, understood as the “gospel” — the full revelation of God in Christ — carries within itself the ultimate “wisdom,” that is, the mind and plan of God for this world. It also carries within itself the “power of God” (v. 18). Human teachers and preachers are but the vessels that carry God’s powerful message. Clever rhetoric will simply serve to obscure the power of God’s word. To elevate the manner of delivery is to give a profile to the one who preaches, and this is not the focus of the gospel. Conversely, to elevate the content (the “wisdom of God”), which is the plan of God in Jesus Christ, inevitably diminishes the human voice that brings the message. Therefore, in sending Paul to preach the gospel, Christ gave him a task that, as with John the Baptist before him, would mean that he would always be decreasing while Christ would always be increasing (John 3:30). No doubt Paul would have joined with John in saying, as Christ was exalted, “This joy of mine is now complete” (John 3:29 ESV).
- The Power of the Cross
“so that the cross of Christ would not be made void”
Tragic when believers do not apply the message of the gospel with its freedom from the bondage of sin to their own everyday lives; a divided church is a weak and powerless church
Charles Hodge: During the apostolic age, and in the apostolic form of religion, truth stood immeasurably above external rites. The apostasy of the church consisted in making rites more important than truth.
Daniel Akin: The power is in the preaching of the cross! If an impressive delivery overshadows the preaching of the good news, then the cross will be emptied of its power. The power of salvation is never in the messenger. The power of salvation is always in the message, the gospel, the cross of Christ.
Mark Taylor: For Paul, the effectiveness of proclamation lay not in the manipulative rhetorical devices of the speaker but rather in the persuasive message of the cross proclaimed in the power of the Spirit (2:1–5).