Faith, Work, and Economics
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 59, No. 2 - Spring 2017
Managing Editor: W. Madison Grace II
Paul’s Theology of Preaching: The Apostle’s Challenge to the Art of Persuasion in Ancient Corinth. By Duane Litfin. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2015. 400 pages. Paperback, $32.00.
Duane Litfin is the president emeritus of Wheaton College where he served for seventeen years, having previously served as senior pastor of First Evangelical Church in Memphis, TN. Litfin has for many years written and lectured on Paul’s theology of preaching. This latest effort is a popularization of his more technical St. Paul’s Theology of Proclamation (1994). The structure of the book is straightforward. The first part discusses the content and form of Greco-Roman rhetoric. The second part elucidates Paul’s theology (philosophy) of rhetoric and this theology’s relationship to Paul’s preaching. The third part concludes with application to preaching and contemporary ministry.
Litfin’s thesis is that Paul repudiates the use of the traditional (rhetorical) means of persuasion common in the Greco-Roman tradition, a tradition that was influential and popular in Corinth. Paul rejects it because of the presuppositions associated with this tradition, namely, that it was based on a natural (and not supernatural) paradigm. To be clear, Litfin argues that this rejection is primarily referring to what is best described as “evangelistic preaching,” that is, preaching to unbelievers. Nevertheless, in preaching the gospel, Paul wanted to ensure that initial conversion, or “persuasion,” was of the Holy Spirit, and therefore Paul rejected Greco-Roman means of persuasion.
Litfin begins in Part One by surveying the general rhetorical milieu of Greco- Roman culture. Chapter 1 gives an excellent introduction to the history of rhetoric for readers who may not be familiar with the traditions and canons of rhetoric. In Chapter 2, Litfin identifies persuasion as the goal of ancient rhetoric; persuasion was the “persistent object of ancient rhetoric” (74). Chapters 3–4 are Litfin’s analysis of the power of rhetoric and reach of rhetoric. In Chapter 5, Litfin analyzes the genius of rhetoric, noting that ancient rhetoric “focused on how to adjust to the exigencies of the rhetorical situation so as to achieve a predetermined result. The key to this process was effective audience adaptation” (88).
Rhetoric’s power, reach, and genius led to the rewards of rhetoric (chapter 8) and the “potential rewards for eloquence were unrivaled” (109). In Litfin’s analysis, rhetoric in the Greco-Roman tradition was a prized and treasured pastime. This was no different in Corinth, a Hellenistic city which valued rhetoric. This, Litfin contends, is part of the controversy to which Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 1–4. Thus, Paul’s concern is not that they have abandoned the gospel, but that they are evaluating Paul’s preaching from a natural perspective. “Paul actually assumes a basic agreement with the Corinthians on theological matters and uses this agreement to explain and defend his modus operandi as a preacher” (160). It is also in this first part where Litfin introduces his “Great Equation of Rhetoric.” In this great equation, ancient rhetoric placed the focus on results. The “persuader’s efforts were inherently results driven” (114).
In the second part, Litfin turns his attention to Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 1–4, a pivotal passage in developing Paul’s theology of preaching. Litfin proceeds systematically through Paul’s argument in what amounts to an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 1–4. According to Litfin, Paul refuses to be results driven. In the language of rhetoric, Paul left the work of “persuading” or pistis-creating to the Holy Spirit. Litfin concludes that Paul assumed the role of a herald. The assumption of this role relieved the preacher from creating results. Litfin’s second part is an astute and balanced exegesis of 1 Corinthians 1–4.
Part of Litfin’s argument is that Paul uses language that he sees as purposefully not the technical language of rhetoric. Instead, according to Litfin, Paul uses common and everyday words. This is perhaps the weakest part of Litfin’s argument. He argues that Paul’s normal, non-technical language is the Apostle’s way of making a very serious point. It is worth quoting in full.
It is too seldom recognized, much less appreciated, that the verbs Paul uses to describe his public speaking . . . are decidedly non-rhetorical. No self-respecting orator used such verbs to describe his own modus operandi. Thus, even though they deal with the subject of human communication, such verbs play no significant role in the rhetorical literature. This is understandable because the essential form of communication they describe is very different from that of the orator; in fact, at its core it is the antithesis of rhetorical behavior (184).
Litfin makes much of the fact that Paul uses ordinary language (and strongly suggests other NT scholars should do the same). Were this Litfin’s only point, his argument would be very weak. Taken in concert with the rest of the context and Paul’s argument, at the very least it seems more likely that Paul made such a conscious decision. For Litfin, the decision supports the argument, but in reality the argument supports the likelihood of Paul’s decision.
Central to Litfin’s argument is that Paul not only was addressing the content of his preaching but also the form of his preaching. Litfin argues this from his understanding of the word kerygma. He writes, “In fact, it appears that this term was specifically chosen by the Apostle to keep both content and form before his readers, stressing not only what Paul proclaims (his message), but also what he simply proclaims (its form)” (198). Litfin therefore sees in this Paul’s repudiation of rhetoric for the sake of persuading. In other words, Paul’s theology of preaching determines, for him, not only what he says but how he says it. In the Great Equation of Rhetoric, the constant that never changes was Paul’s proclamation of the gospel. Thus, the focus is not results driven but faithfulness driven. Paul seeks to be a faithful herald.
In the third part, Litfin synthesizes and applies Paul’s argument against the backdrop of ancient rhetoric. His conclusion is that by “limiting himself to the role of the herald, Paul could be confident that the results he saw were not based on his own power as a persuader” but on the work of the Spirit (265). Litfin argues that Paul’s theology of preaching is rooted in his presuppositions. Paul’s “modus operandi as a herald was required by his theological presuppositions” (270). Litfin abstracts Paul’s presupposition into a model for ministry. There are numerous appendices, and it is somewhat confusing that the “Implications for Preaching” are included in Appendix Four as well the broader implications for ministry in Appendix 5.
Litfin’s work is designed to be less technical and therefore reach a broader audience. He accomplishes this by keeping technical notes boxes that are clearly marked off. This allows one to read the larger text for the main argument. Litfin’s work is a gentle introduction to the field and history of rhetoric, even if it risks being greatly over-simplified. Overall, Litfin’s argument is comprehensive and convincing. For any pastor or student seeking to develop their theology of preaching, and theology of ministry in general, Litfin’s work is requisite reading.
