Expositional Imposters (Expanded)

Mark, at the time Paul and Luke commended the Bereans, Paul was already midway on one of his missionary journeys. So he’d proven himself years since, and had moreover been established as an Apostle by no less than Christ and the Holy Spirit, but the Bereans are still commended for keeping him honest. In the same way, Christ commends people who ask Him the tough questions. Paul is commended for keeping Peter honest vis-a-vis the Gentiles. Scripture commends no such notion of “leave the man alone” as you state. Prophets were subject to rebuke (and death) for false prophecy; why on earth would we insulate a pastor from rebuke from exercising his position poorly?

Many thanks for yet another false accusation as well, Mark. Hint; just because someone says the pastor ought to be accountable to the congregation for how he exercises his office (that’s standard congregational polity, Mark) does not mean he’s taking every opportunity to nit-pick.

All you have to do is stop. You are accusing me of all kinds of ridiculous things.

[Bert Perry] Tom, so you’re telling me that the Bereans examined very carefully the premises Paul took from Scripture, but paid no attention to the logical forms/syllogisms Paul used on combining his references into his conclusions? And then, despite the fact that establishing the Christian faith from the Old Testament is a far more complex task than most pastors attempt today, the Bereans made no attempt to understand the communication tools Paul consistently uses to communicate these concepts?

Bert, this will be the last time I interact with you on this topic.

To answer your question, Acts 17:11 says NOTHING about the Bereans examining Paul’s “logical forms/syllogisms.” For you to insist that it does is eisegesis. Did Paul use “logical forms/syllogisms” in his presentation to the Bereans? We don’t know because Scripture doesn’t say. What we do know is that Paul used the OT to present Jesus as the crucified Messiah to the Jewish diaspora and to persuade them to believe the gospel (cf. Acts 28:23).

If you (again) put the first few chapters of 1 Corinthians in context, what is really being said is that the message of the Gospel doesn’t resemble the discussions of the philosophers on the Areopagus; that’s precisely what Paul describes in chapter 1. You can only get to your position by taking 1 Cor. 2:1 completely out of its context , by ignoring the definition of Strong’s 3925, and for that matter by ignoring the rhetorical tools that are clearly described being used by Christ, John the Baptist, the Apostles, the prophets, and others in Scripture.

Bert, having just studied and preached through 1 Corinthians 1-3 myself, I’m aware of the context. The Corinthian Christians were enamored with Greek philosophy and oratorical and rhetorical skill. In particular, the Corinthians attempted to assess Paul’s message and preaching style based on the practices of itinerant philosophers. Paul’s response to the Corinthians was that human wisdom, whether it be rhetorical skill or human philosophy, invalidates the cross of Christ. Paul certainly desired to present the message of Christ crucified in a persuasive fashion, but he himself was a poor communicator by the standards of his day (cf. 2 Cor. 10:10). In other words, Bert, you probably would not have voted for Paul to be your teaching elder because he did not meet your norms for “logical forms/syllogisms.”

As for using the Strong’s concordance, I’d encourage you to look elsewhere for your Greek and Hebrew word studies. Strong’s is not a scholarly reference and can be very misleading.

The question is about Paul’s oratorical skills, not his logical acumen. Logic is in the realm of content. No one questions Paul’s knowledge and exceptional skill in organizing the content of his message. Paul himself insisted that his knowledge was superior to that of others, but he also conceded that his oratory was weak.. T Howard is exactly right that Paul was considered deficient in the standards of rhetoric of his day. The only question in my mind is whether we would have made a similar judgment about Paul’s verbal communication skills, or if we would have considered them good. In other words, was Paul’s “deficiency” due to cultural norms of his day that would not prevail in ours?

To put the same issue another way, sermons consist of content and delivery. Content involves the topic or text under consideration, the information chosen to expound the text or topic, the structure used to organize this material, along with an introduction and conclusion. Logic falls into the category of content, the order in which the material is presented, the persuasion used to convince others. Delivery is the manner in which the content is communicated verbally. If the content is published in written form, there is no delivery to consider, only content. Paul’s content was superior. His delivery is the issue being questioned.

I think Paul’s delivery was pretty good! I especially like Acts 13:9-11!

I have long been puzzled by Paul’s critics and even Paul himself grading his delivery as weak. The descriptions I read in the book of Acts look very effective to me. Still, there has to be a reason why Paul’s delivery was considered weak by some. When others criticized his message, Paul corrected them, and insisted his message was solid. But when his delivery was criticized, Paul conceded the point. I can’t solve this conundrum. That’s why I’ve concluded that Paul’s delivery was effective and powerful, but his style avoided the oratorical flourish of the conventions of his day. Paul tells us that this was deliberate on his part to keep from confusing the effect of the message with the power of the speaker’s style and personality. I think I would have liked Paul’s preaching style, but that’s simply speculation since I haven’t heard him, and neither has anyone else. We have only the descriptions and criticisms of some of his contemporaries, and they indicate a mixed verdict.

I think Paul’s delivery was pretty good! I especially like Acts 13:9-11!

Acts 13:9-11 (and other places) are transcripts that are all about content. They tell us nothing about his voice quality, pitch, pace, pause, etc. i can’t see any scriptural way to determine anything about Paul’s actual delivery, It may be that he simply avoided rhetorical flourishes. it may be that he had a gravelly voice that was hard to listen to. It may be that he spoke really fast or that he spoke in monotone. There is simply no way to know.

We do know the cautions he gave about presentation.

….that the vast majority of what we think of as “verbal” communication lies in factors outside the actual words. So we really cannot, reasonably speaking, separate the content and logic from his delivery.

Regarding Paul, what we know about his delivery is that when speaking at the Areopagus, when addressing the Bereans, and elsewhere, he managed to get his point across well enough to be flogged five times, stoned a time or two, start riots in multiple cities, and persuade the Areopagus to consider him again and the Bereans to do an extensive study of the Tanach to verify or refute his ideas. That includes premises, logic, and delivery, really.

Regarding 1 Cor. 1:2, Paul makes very clear that he’s referring, really, to the Greek habit of deferring to impressive sounding philosophers in the same way we defer to impressive sounding politicians like Mr. Obama. In 2 Cor. 10, the context is that Paul is arguing against the tendency to see some Apostles as more Apostle than others, and verse 11 makes clear that he does not see himself as timid in person—in other words, the accusations of his detractors are more “wishful thinking” by those who want to ignore him than reality. It’s a lot like the politicians of today pulling little stunts on Twitter and elsewhere to deceive the easily fooled “low information voter.”

In other words, I don’t see Paul as giving cautions about the importance of presentation at all, but rather what he’s doing is drawing a difference between legitimate communication techniques and propaganda techniques.

[G. N. Barkman]

To put the same issue another way, sermons consist of content and delivery. Content involves the topic or text under consideration, the information chosen to expound the text or topic, the structure used to organize this material, along with an introduction and conclusion. Logic falls into the category of content, the order in which the material is presented, the persuasion used to convince others. Delivery is the manner in which the content is communicated verbally. If the content is published in written form, there is no delivery to consider, only content. Paul’s content was superior. His delivery is the issue being questioned.

The three modes of ancient Geek and Roman rhetorical persuasion were ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos is the reputation of the speaker. Pathos is the emotion and passion the speaker uses to deliver his message. Logos is the content and reasoning the speaker uses in his message. Based on my reading of Paul and by his own admission, he probably lacked pathos and was heavy on logos. Based on what Paul writes in 2 Corinthians, his critics often attacked his ethos as well. As it relates to style, it appears Paul lacked and purposely avoided eloquence in his preaching.

We have to remember that since the 5th Century BC and Empedocles, the Greeks (and later the Romans) made rhetoric an art form and held regular contests (like American Idol) to award the best, most eloquent speakers, known as sophists. These guys then traveled around the Greek city states (and later the Roman empire) gaining students and charging “tuition” for their services. This is what some accused Paul of doing (cf. 1 Thes. 2:3-13). So, Paul went out of his way to avoid speaking and acting like a sophist.

This is an actual video of the Apostle Paul, preaching.

[TylerR]

This is an actual video of the Apostle Paul, preaching.

Well, there is Acts 20:7-12. :)

That was a very helpful explanation. I think it clarifies the puzzling evidence perfectly.

And yes, Bert, it is possible to separate the words of the message from verbal delivery. That’s what we have with printed sermons. (How often when reading a sermon have I wished I could actually hear the preacher deliver the sermon.. It would add a missing element, and if the preacher had an effective preaching style, a new and powerful dynamic.)