What do you think?
Rate this book
Paul's Theology of Preaching: The Apostle's Challenge to the Art of Persuasion in Ancient Corinth
"We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." When Paul preached about the crucified and risen Jesus Christ to the church at Corinth and elsewhere, did he follow the well-established rhetorical strategy of his day or did he pursue a different path? And what does that mean for the preaching of the church today? Through a detailed analysis of 1 Corinthians 1-4, Duane Litfin explores the rhetorical context of Paul's preaching and his own understanding of his task as a preacher. What is revealed in this investigation is a sharp distinction between Greco-Roman rhetorical strategies, which sought to persuade, and Paul's theology of preaching, which was based on the model of an obedient herald. This revised and expanded version of Litfin's previous St. Paul's Theology of Proclamation will provide insight to those engaged in Pauline and New Testament studies, rhetorical theory, and Greco-Roman studies. Moreover, by offering a better understanding of Paul's method as well as the content of his declaration concerning "the power and wisdom of God" revealed in Jesus, this book will help preachers as they undertake the ongoing task to "preach Christ crucified."
400 pages, Paperback
First published July 5, 2015
9 people are currently reading
40 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
December 4, 2020
Persuasive
The author is sometimes over complicating but builds a solid case to differentiate between classical rhetoric and the Pauline approach.
The author is sometimes over complicating but builds a solid case to differentiate between classical rhetoric and the Pauline approach.
July 19, 2015
The argument of Paul’s Theology of Preaching can be broken up into two steps:
1)Begin by showing the distinctives of Greco-Roman rhetoric.
2)Show How Paul’s first four chapters in 1 Corinthians is meant to address preaching done in view of Greco-Roman Rhetoric.
The fundamental assumption behind Greco-Roman Rhetoric is that the audience + the speaker’s efforts can yield a fixed Result. The result or the goal in this equation is to convince the audience of a particular position. Classical rhetoric was utilitarian and goal oriented. Paul on the other hand insisted that the equation was not a fixed formula. Unlike the rhetorician Paul did not perceive his goal to be the convincing of an audience. He insisted that creating faith was the role of the Holy Spirit. To usurp the Spirit’s role, was to empty the cross of its saving power.
The first model is what Lifitin calls the natural paradigm, the second model is what he calls the Pauline paradigm. Under the natural paradigm the speaker is a persuader, but under the Pauline paradigm the speaker is a herald.
The Herald does not ask “What must I do/say to achieve a specific result?” Rather the question asks “What is God calling me to be and do?” Success is the goal of the former, whereas faithfulness is the goal of the latter.
This however does not invalidate the herald’s desire to speak with excellence. According to Lifitn there are 5 steps or levels within human persuasion (278): attention, comprehension, yielding, retention, and action. The herald is focused on the first two steps in the process: attention and comprehension. Thus even Paul understood and embraced the need of the herald to adapt in order to gain a hearing and communicate clearly the message he was entrusted with.
There are some practical implications to this Pauline model. The most important is that faithfulness is the primary role of the minister (whether a speaker or not a speaker). Or as Lifitn says about the Pauline model: “It asks not how can I achieve some preset result? But, What is Christ calling me to be and what is he calling me to do?.... The Pauline model is obedience driven.
Liftin presents a long and very detailed argument for his position. He devotes a substantial amount of text to classical rhetorical theories and a large amount of text to the exposition of 1 Corinthians 1-4. At the end he offers some of the practical implications of this study. Overall it is an insightful book, though it might better serve preachers if it were presented in a condensed form. For myself, it wasn’t a groundbreaking idea, though it was a good reminder that my call as a preacher is not to convince anybody but to work hard to communicate clearly and compellingly while letting the Holy Spirit do his work of changing hearts.
1)Begin by showing the distinctives of Greco-Roman rhetoric.
2)Show How Paul’s first four chapters in 1 Corinthians is meant to address preaching done in view of Greco-Roman Rhetoric.
The fundamental assumption behind Greco-Roman Rhetoric is that the audience + the speaker’s efforts can yield a fixed Result. The result or the goal in this equation is to convince the audience of a particular position. Classical rhetoric was utilitarian and goal oriented. Paul on the other hand insisted that the equation was not a fixed formula. Unlike the rhetorician Paul did not perceive his goal to be the convincing of an audience. He insisted that creating faith was the role of the Holy Spirit. To usurp the Spirit’s role, was to empty the cross of its saving power.
The first model is what Lifitin calls the natural paradigm, the second model is what he calls the Pauline paradigm. Under the natural paradigm the speaker is a persuader, but under the Pauline paradigm the speaker is a herald.
The Herald does not ask “What must I do/say to achieve a specific result?” Rather the question asks “What is God calling me to be and do?” Success is the goal of the former, whereas faithfulness is the goal of the latter.
This however does not invalidate the herald’s desire to speak with excellence. According to Lifitn there are 5 steps or levels within human persuasion (278): attention, comprehension, yielding, retention, and action. The herald is focused on the first two steps in the process: attention and comprehension. Thus even Paul understood and embraced the need of the herald to adapt in order to gain a hearing and communicate clearly the message he was entrusted with.
There are some practical implications to this Pauline model. The most important is that faithfulness is the primary role of the minister (whether a speaker or not a speaker). Or as Lifitn says about the Pauline model: “It asks not how can I achieve some preset result? But, What is Christ calling me to be and what is he calling me to do?.... The Pauline model is obedience driven.
Liftin presents a long and very detailed argument for his position. He devotes a substantial amount of text to classical rhetorical theories and a large amount of text to the exposition of 1 Corinthians 1-4. At the end he offers some of the practical implications of this study. Overall it is an insightful book, though it might better serve preachers if it were presented in a condensed form. For myself, it wasn’t a groundbreaking idea, though it was a good reminder that my call as a preacher is not to convince anybody but to work hard to communicate clearly and compellingly while letting the Holy Spirit do his work of changing hearts.
February 12, 2016
A very dense and technical read (warning: a large measure of ancient Greek) yet broken up into short chapters. The author starts with a wonderful historical overview of ancient Greco-Roman rhetoric in order to better grasp the context the Apostle Paul entered when he spoke in Corinth, then it launches primarily into understanding the 1 Corinthian 1-4 text in which Paul defends his method of preaching, and finally a series of articles and appendices on implications of Paul's theology of proclamation over and against the art of persuasion. There are also over 30 excurses on various topics in which the author refers to other commentators and interacts with them in agreement or disagreement. While incredibly well researched and thoughtfully constructed both in terms of ancient and modern application, I was still left with more questions to wrestle with about the implications of this study for today's preacher and evangelist.
May 11, 2024
Few things are more exciting than developing a view on your own that seems to run counter to those of everyone you come across, and then to unexpectedly find a scholar who not only agrees with you but has proven your view more thoroughly than you have. I teach classical rhetoric at a Christian college and over the years have struggled with the Apostle Paul's claim in 1 Cor. 1:17-2:5 that his preaching was "not with words of eloquent wisdom" but "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power." In classical education circles especially, Christians tend to understand Paul as rejecting sophistry here--a kind of perverted rhetoric that views persuasion as the highest end at the expense of specious reasoning--but not "true" rhetoric as exemplified by men like Aristotle or Quintilian. Or they say Paul is rejecting not classical rhetoric per se but relying on one's own rhetorical ability rather than on God (with the assumption that so long as one is ultimately trusting God to change hearts, one can and should utilize classical rhetoric in the pulpit).
But the more I studied this passage and delved deeper into classical rhetoric, theology, epistemology, church history, and so on, the less persuaded I became of this view, until I eventually came around to believing that what Paul is rejecting here is not some perverted type of rhetoric but classical rhetoric at its best. He is rejecting utilizing the traditional "means of persuasion" (ethos, pathos, logos) to engender belief in Christ, rooted in appeals to character, emotion, and probabilistic reasoning. Instead, he utilizes a completely counterintuitive method that seems like "foolishness" to the learned--mere proclamation. And not just any proclamation, but proclamation of the wildest claims imaginable--that a god-man was crucified for the sins of the world, was risen, and is now Lord of all. Who would believe such a thing on the basis of mere assertion? We would demand ample evidence, either miracles ("Jews demand signs") or sophisticated arguments ("Greeks seek wisdom"), but Paul instead relied on something out of the control of any man--the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, "so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."
I'm convinced that most lovers of classical education have not fully come to grips with what Paul is saying. Many are willing to acknowledge the supernatural element but still want to leave room for classical rhetoric in the pulpit. It is an offense to those who have spent so much time, money, and effort learning this wisdom to suddenly be told not to use it, especially when the gospel by nature is to be heralded via SPEECH. Surely a gospel accompanied with ample ethos, pathos, and logos is preferable to one without it! "Hold my beer," says the Apostle Paul.
Much confusion around this passage comes from a lack of understanding about what classical rhetoric entails. It is not simply "communication" (in which case, it would be impossible to communicate any message without it), nor is it merely a matter of style. Litfin provides a decent summary of the classical rhetorical tradition, with accompanying historical context, and then dives into a fine exposition of 1 Cor. 1-2. Some sections are treated more briefly than I would have liked. For example, while he spends much time on persuasion per se, he spends relatively little time on how ethos, pathos, and enthymeme bring it about, and how we might expect Paul to utilize them if he were using classical rhetoric. Nevertheless, he provides excellent footnotes that touch on these matters in greater depth for those wishing to track them down.
Moreover, his critique primarily deals with evangelistic preaching (i.e. preaching the gospel to nonbelievers), which he takes to be Paul's main concern here. Whether classical rhetoric is appropriate in the more common Sunday preaching that is addressed to BELIEVERS, he leaves open. I wish he addressed this in more depth. I also wish he would have addressed the question of whether classical rhetoric is appropriate in matters adjacent to the preaching of the Word, such as church polity, doctrinal debates, apologetics, etc. I'm inclined to think so. I also wish he would have provided more ample quotations from church fathers supporting his views. He provides many quotations, but most are used to illustrate how the church historically failed to come to grips with the import of these passages. But I've personally come across a number of passages from church fathers that support his interpretation (not the least from Calvin). Lastly, I wish Litfin delved deeper into 2 Corinthians, which contains a lot of evidence to support his position.
Even so, I've done a lot of searching through books and theological journals and have not come across a finer treatment of this question.
But the more I studied this passage and delved deeper into classical rhetoric, theology, epistemology, church history, and so on, the less persuaded I became of this view, until I eventually came around to believing that what Paul is rejecting here is not some perverted type of rhetoric but classical rhetoric at its best. He is rejecting utilizing the traditional "means of persuasion" (ethos, pathos, logos) to engender belief in Christ, rooted in appeals to character, emotion, and probabilistic reasoning. Instead, he utilizes a completely counterintuitive method that seems like "foolishness" to the learned--mere proclamation. And not just any proclamation, but proclamation of the wildest claims imaginable--that a god-man was crucified for the sins of the world, was risen, and is now Lord of all. Who would believe such a thing on the basis of mere assertion? We would demand ample evidence, either miracles ("Jews demand signs") or sophisticated arguments ("Greeks seek wisdom"), but Paul instead relied on something out of the control of any man--the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit, "so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God."
I'm convinced that most lovers of classical education have not fully come to grips with what Paul is saying. Many are willing to acknowledge the supernatural element but still want to leave room for classical rhetoric in the pulpit. It is an offense to those who have spent so much time, money, and effort learning this wisdom to suddenly be told not to use it, especially when the gospel by nature is to be heralded via SPEECH. Surely a gospel accompanied with ample ethos, pathos, and logos is preferable to one without it! "Hold my beer," says the Apostle Paul.
Much confusion around this passage comes from a lack of understanding about what classical rhetoric entails. It is not simply "communication" (in which case, it would be impossible to communicate any message without it), nor is it merely a matter of style. Litfin provides a decent summary of the classical rhetorical tradition, with accompanying historical context, and then dives into a fine exposition of 1 Cor. 1-2. Some sections are treated more briefly than I would have liked. For example, while he spends much time on persuasion per se, he spends relatively little time on how ethos, pathos, and enthymeme bring it about, and how we might expect Paul to utilize them if he were using classical rhetoric. Nevertheless, he provides excellent footnotes that touch on these matters in greater depth for those wishing to track them down.
Moreover, his critique primarily deals with evangelistic preaching (i.e. preaching the gospel to nonbelievers), which he takes to be Paul's main concern here. Whether classical rhetoric is appropriate in the more common Sunday preaching that is addressed to BELIEVERS, he leaves open. I wish he addressed this in more depth. I also wish he would have addressed the question of whether classical rhetoric is appropriate in matters adjacent to the preaching of the Word, such as church polity, doctrinal debates, apologetics, etc. I'm inclined to think so. I also wish he would have provided more ample quotations from church fathers supporting his views. He provides many quotations, but most are used to illustrate how the church historically failed to come to grips with the import of these passages. But I've personally come across a number of passages from church fathers that support his interpretation (not the least from Calvin). Lastly, I wish Litfin delved deeper into 2 Corinthians, which contains a lot of evidence to support his position.
Even so, I've done a lot of searching through books and theological journals and have not come across a finer treatment of this question.
June 9, 2017
A dear friend of mine sent it as a gift about Christmas time. After three months I finally got around to reading it and was elated with this thoughtful treasure trove! The gem I’m referring to is the paperback, “Paul's Theology of Preaching: The Apostle's Challenge to the Art of Persuasion in Ancient Corinth.” Here are 400 pages of careful expeditions into the ancient development of rhetoric and expansive reflections on 1 Corinthians 1.18-4.21. This masterful historical and theological work is penned by Duane Litfin, author and previous president, the seventh, of Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL. It is a compilation, expansion and reworking of his doctoral thesis, articles and speeches from the past decades. The book is ideally suited for preachers, liturgists and homiletics professors.
The first third of “Paul’s Theology of Preaching” spends a whole nine chapters delving and deciphering ancient Greco-Roman rhetoric. Litfin cites a wide variety of sources from Isocrates to Cicero to Augustine. The middle portion of the material methodically works through and works out 1 Corinthians 1.18-4.21, showing the apostolic distinction between “words of eloquent wisdom” (1.17) and the “word of the cross” (1.18). The final section and five appendices delve into applications of Paul’s principle.
The aim of “Paul’s Theology of Preaching” is to explore “the origins of a crucial Pauline insight for ministry” (20). Specifically, how the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 1.18-4.21) saw Christian preaching differ from classic rhetoric, why it mattered and why it still matters. Litfin tirelessly builds the case that “Paul’s difficulty was not that” the principles of classic rhetoric “were inherently immoral but that they were dependent on an essentially human dynamic” (358). That “essentially human dynamic” is the emphasis on doing what it takes to get the desired results. The author’s contention is that the ancient rhetoricians took the persuader’s stance – playing to the audience to get them to yield, whereas Paul saw his task as being a herald – proclaiming the Gospel and calling for repentance and faith without falling into the trap of nickels and nose; “The success of the herald cannot therefore be determined by measuring the listener’s acceptance of (yielding to) the message. It can only be measured by the degree to which the herald has satisfied the commissioner’s instructions” (280).
The gift of “Paul’s Theology of Preaching” was quite timely as I was beginning a new sermon series on 1 Corinthians. Though at times the historical aspects were beyond my ken and specialization, all together the work has been a valuable asset in my studies. And beyond the immediate research and preparations, it has been a constructive companion as I think, and rethink, my vocation as a preacher/pastor. Without hesitation I commend this book!
The first third of “Paul’s Theology of Preaching” spends a whole nine chapters delving and deciphering ancient Greco-Roman rhetoric. Litfin cites a wide variety of sources from Isocrates to Cicero to Augustine. The middle portion of the material methodically works through and works out 1 Corinthians 1.18-4.21, showing the apostolic distinction between “words of eloquent wisdom” (1.17) and the “word of the cross” (1.18). The final section and five appendices delve into applications of Paul’s principle.
The aim of “Paul’s Theology of Preaching” is to explore “the origins of a crucial Pauline insight for ministry” (20). Specifically, how the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 1.18-4.21) saw Christian preaching differ from classic rhetoric, why it mattered and why it still matters. Litfin tirelessly builds the case that “Paul’s difficulty was not that” the principles of classic rhetoric “were inherently immoral but that they were dependent on an essentially human dynamic” (358). That “essentially human dynamic” is the emphasis on doing what it takes to get the desired results. The author’s contention is that the ancient rhetoricians took the persuader’s stance – playing to the audience to get them to yield, whereas Paul saw his task as being a herald – proclaiming the Gospel and calling for repentance and faith without falling into the trap of nickels and nose; “The success of the herald cannot therefore be determined by measuring the listener’s acceptance of (yielding to) the message. It can only be measured by the degree to which the herald has satisfied the commissioner’s instructions” (280).
The gift of “Paul’s Theology of Preaching” was quite timely as I was beginning a new sermon series on 1 Corinthians. Though at times the historical aspects were beyond my ken and specialization, all together the work has been a valuable asset in my studies. And beyond the immediate research and preparations, it has been a constructive companion as I think, and rethink, my vocation as a preacher/pastor. Without hesitation I commend this book!
Want to read
March 25, 2023Per Matthew Pinson, as quoted in his message at FORUM23 (3.25.2023)
December 5, 2015
Paul’s Theology of Preaching by Duane Litfin is one of the most important works on the subject of preaching I have read in some time. This book in its current form really serves as the summation of much of Litfin’s life work on the issue of Paul’s self-understanding of the task of preaching.
Litfin warns the reader early on that there will be a temptation to skip the first section of the book, which addresses the background understanding of rhetoric which was enthroned in the Greco-Roman world, and proceed straight to parts two and three. This work indeed stands as a whole, and one cannot fully appreciate the thought of Paul and the allure of rhetoric if one bypasses the first section. This work in many way serves as an indictment of what passes as preaching in many evangelical circles.
This work demolishes the idea that Paul merely feigned a rejection of rhetoric, Paul was utterly convinced that any results he could manufacture through rhetoric would not be genuine. Building on the analysis of Paul’s understanding of preaching found in 1 Corinthians 1-4 which is found in the second section, Litfin draws out the implications for the church today in the third section. Litfin says concerning Paul’s paradigm, “This contrast represents a fundamental shift from a results-driven to an obedience-driven approach to ministry. For those who take Paul’s argument seriously, this insight requires a profound reorientation of one’s focus, not only in one’s approach to preaching, but in one’s approach to Christian ministry in general (321).”
This book will challenge much of what is being promoted in regards to models of preaching and ministry in evangelical circles. This book will lead the reader to Paul’s conclusion that we are utterly dependent upon the strength and power of God in proclaiming the unadorned message of the cross, and that any effort on our part to make it more palatable or attractive is in essence a denial of the message itself
Disclosure: I received this book free from IVP for providing this review. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wa....
Litfin warns the reader early on that there will be a temptation to skip the first section of the book, which addresses the background understanding of rhetoric which was enthroned in the Greco-Roman world, and proceed straight to parts two and three. This work indeed stands as a whole, and one cannot fully appreciate the thought of Paul and the allure of rhetoric if one bypasses the first section. This work in many way serves as an indictment of what passes as preaching in many evangelical circles.
This work demolishes the idea that Paul merely feigned a rejection of rhetoric, Paul was utterly convinced that any results he could manufacture through rhetoric would not be genuine. Building on the analysis of Paul’s understanding of preaching found in 1 Corinthians 1-4 which is found in the second section, Litfin draws out the implications for the church today in the third section. Litfin says concerning Paul’s paradigm, “This contrast represents a fundamental shift from a results-driven to an obedience-driven approach to ministry. For those who take Paul’s argument seriously, this insight requires a profound reorientation of one’s focus, not only in one’s approach to preaching, but in one’s approach to Christian ministry in general (321).”
This book will challenge much of what is being promoted in regards to models of preaching and ministry in evangelical circles. This book will lead the reader to Paul’s conclusion that we are utterly dependent upon the strength and power of God in proclaiming the unadorned message of the cross, and that any effort on our part to make it more palatable or attractive is in essence a denial of the message itself
Disclosure: I received this book free from IVP for providing this review. The opinions I have expressed are my own, and I was not required to write a positive review. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/wa....
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews