Was St. Paul a Poor Preacher?

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 07-31-19 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Posted on July 31, 2019July 31, 2019 by Msgr. Charles Pope

Was St. Paul a Poor Preacher?

For many years, the image I had of St. Paul was that of a bold evangelist who went from town to town teaching and preaching powerfully about Christ. I envisioned his audience mesmerized as he preached and took on his opponents.

I ultimately altered my view a bit based on scriptural descriptions, some of which we are currently reading in the Office of Readings. I have no doubt that he was a brilliant theologian. Paul was reputed to have been one of the greatest students of one of the greatest rabbis of the time, Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). I also do not question his zeal for Christ, and I can picture that fervor reflected on his face as he preached and taught. However, it would seem that Paul was not in fact recognized as a particularly gifted preacher. Consider the following texts from Scripture:

• • Now I myself, Paul, urge you through the gentleness and clemency of Christ, I who (you say) am humble when present in your midst, but bold toward you when absent … (2 Cor 10:1)

The key element to glean from this passage is that people regarded Paul as rather humble in person but in contrast quite bold and assertive in his letters. This does not paint the picture of a bold, fearsome preacher.

• • For someone will say, “His [Paul’s] letters are severe and forceful, but his bodily presence is weak and his speech contemptible” (2 Cor 10:10).

Here is even clearer evidence that some (though surely not all or even most) thought of Paul’s presence and preaching as weak and of no account. The Greek phrase λόγος ἐξουθενημένος (logos exouthenhmenos), translated here as “speech contemptible,” can also be translated as “words or speech of no account,” or “words or speech to be despised.” Of course, because Paul himself is reporting this, he may well be exaggerating the perception of his preaching out of a kind of humility. However, this is further evidence that Paul may not have been a highly gifted or bold preacher, at least from a worldly perspective.

• • For I think that I am not in any way inferior to these “superapostles.” Even if I am untrained in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; in every way we have made this plain to you in all things (2 Cor 11:5-6).

The identity of the “superapostles” is debated, but there is wide agreement that it does not refer to the twelve apostles chosen by Christ. Rather, Paul is likely alluding to itinerant preachers of the time, most of whom were well known for their oratorical skills. Some of them may have been Judaizers who opposed Paul, but it would seem that they could draw a crowd. Perhaps they are somewhat like the revivalists of today. Paul seems to acknowledge that he is not a great speaker but refuses to concede that he is inferior to anyone in knowledge of the faith.

• • For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the cleverness of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning (1 Cor 1:17).

Paul claims no “clever” oratorical skill; rather, he underscores his lack of eloquence to emphasize that the power is in the cross of Christ.

• • On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. … Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “He’s alive.” Then he went upstairs again and broke bread (Acts 20:7-11).

Luke describes Paul as talking “on and on.” The sermon seems to have put the young Eutychus right to sleep, and results in his falling three flights to his death. Paul runs down and raises him from the dead. (All in a night’s work, I guess!) Paul then goes back upstairs to complete the Mass. It is a humorous and touching anecdote in many ways, but it is also a story that illustrates the somewhat soporific effect of Paul’s preaching.

So, it would seem that Paul did not possess great oratorical. This is somewhat surprising given his astonishing missionary accomplishments, but we must avoid superficiality in understanding the power of God’s Word. The power is in God; the battle is His. We may prefer to listen to skilled speakers, but God can write straight with crooked lines and make a way out of no way. If God could speak through Balaam’s donkey (see Num 22:21), He can speak through us, too.

Avoiding Superficiality – As a priest, I work hard to develop my preaching skills because I think the people of God deserve this. In the end, though, none of us should ignore the fact that God can speak in and through the humblest of people and in the most unlikely circumstances. Paul may not have had the rhetorical skills we think he should have had, but he was blessed with many other gifts. He was a brilliant theologian, had amazing zeal and energy, and was committed enough to walk thousands of miles and endure horrible sufferings so that he could proclaim Christ crucified and risen. Paul was also a natural leader and one of the most fruitful evangelizers the Church has ever known. We tend to prize oratorical skill and force of personality, but there is obviously more to evangelizing effectively than eloquence and charisma.

Our culture—particularly since the advent of television, radio, and the Internet—has come to focus primarily on personal magnetism and the ability to “turn a phrase.” The ability to communicate well is surely a great gift, but there are many others as well. In valuing certain gifts over others, we risk injustice and superficiality. The Church needs all our gifts.

What gifts do you have? God can use them!

[RegulatorCountry]

Wait, Paul was a Catholic priest performing mass?

I’ve been assured here in the past that Paul was a nut, probably suffering from epileptic seizures instead of having visions from God. In fact, there was a fairly sizable faction here on FR at one time that called all Protestants “Paulistinians” and claimed that Protestants were not Christian.

So, what gives? I just can’t seem to keep up with the Roman spin on things. Just constant flapdoodle, if it’s not hating Martin Luther it’s turning right around and loving him because he said something vaguely RC-sounding.

It makes no sense.

[MHGinTN]

Since you are so vested in believing the Catholic interpretation of the Last Supper, let's look at the actually descriptions given my eyewitnesses and the ones who faithfully wrote down the eyewitness reports.

Luke 22:14And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. 15And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16For I tell you I will not eat itb until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. 18 For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. Here you need a bit of knowledge of the Passover meal, where the covenant blood of the sacrifice is poured out when the lamb is sacrificed. The blood was NEVER eaten / drunk.

See also Matthew 26"26-30, Mark 14:22-26, 1 Cor 11:17-34. Jesus calls the change, the upgrade, to the Passover A Remembrance for what He was about to accomplish, going to the Cross as OUR Passover Lamb. Note once again that the blood from the slain Passover lamb collected in a cup was NEVER drunk for that would violate the Command from God to NEVER through ALL their generations ( which would include the generations of the Apostles and disciples) eat the blood. The blood was poured out, as Jesus poured out the wine used to symbolize His Blood poured out for them and us.

[MHGinTN]

Satan desires chaos. It will never make sense based upon the source ...

[Mom MD]

I take God at His word as well. We receive His Body and Blood in with and under the bread and wine which remain bread and wine.

[Iscool]

Refuting the assertion that the Mass is not the body and blood.

There is not a single piece of evidence anywhere that Jesus turns bread and wine into his flesh and blood...Jesus never said he would do it...Jesus never told anyone to do it...Paul never mentions it...In fact after the supposed conflaggeration they still called it bread and wine...

And without any instruction on how to create such a transaction, how long do you figure it took for Catholic priests to come up with a formula to supposedly make it happen...And how did they prove to themselves that they were successful???

I'll bet when Jesus told them this bread is my flesh and this wine is my body, drink and break the bread and eat it, Peter took a bite of the bread and sad, 'Nat, this is still bread and wine...

One thing that is missing is this world changing, life changing miracle of miracles is the word BEHOLD...Something of that magnitude is definitely worthy of a Behold...

Behold, this bread and wine is now my body and blood...

Gen_8:13  And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry.

Gen_9:9  And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;

Gen_11:6  And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Just sayin'...

[grey_whiskers]

Hey, didja ever think that when it was called the *New* Testament, some of html(*) tags got updated?
Jesus did not have his blood smeared on the lintel, either. And the Christians were not required to eat Communion all dressed like they were about to dash out the door, either, like in the OT.
Oh, yeah, the original Passover lambs didn’t get to rise from the dead on the 3rd day, either.
The correspondence is not exact.

(*) “heavenly text markup language”

[daniel1212]

There are Pauline epistles where Paul says he wasn’t much of a talker.

Just what epistles does Paul express this reticence to speak? Any notable reticence is actually contrary to what we read about Paul:

And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. (Acts 9:20)

And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. (Acts 14:12)

Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly given to idolatry. Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. (Acts 17:16-17)

And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7)

When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. (Acts 20:11)

And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? (Acts 23:2-3)

And others where he contrasts himself to false apostles and says the Kingdom does not consist in talk, but in power...

Rather, the contrast has nothing to do with volume of words, but the contrast btwn speech and power:

But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (1 Corinthians 4:19-20)

Your response is actually an argument for comparing scripture with scripture, rather than just supporting your priest and church. And whose idea of Paul as one who was not a gifted bold preacher is not that of sound exegesis, but an example of eisegesis.

Pope states that Paul being "humble when present in your midst, but bold toward you when absent … (2 Cor 10:1) is contrary to the picture of a bold, fearsome preacher, yet Paul is shown to be one who "spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him." (Acts 9:29) "Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles." (Acts 13:46) "And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the king dom of God." (Acts 19:8)

Rather than Paul being humble/base when present meaning he lacked boldness and preaching power, this refers to his weak physical demeanor in holy faer of God, of one who "determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified," "And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: (1 Corinthians 2:2,4)

Pope also cites "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with the cleverness of human eloquence, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its meaning" (1 Cor 1:17) as meaning that Paul lacked eloquence, yet pope ignores that it is not eloquence that Paul reproves, but the cleverness it is employed for.

And if Paul was the author Hebrews, which Trent said he is, then even if polished by an inspired recorder, it can hardly be said that he lacked eloquence.

Finally, Pope even sees Eutychus falling to sleep as illustrating "the somewhat soporific effect of Paul’s preaching," yet the speech was hours long, and continued until midnight(!), and no one else is said to sleep, and it is hardly surprising someone would not, no matter who was preaching.

Maybe Pope wants to excuse the soporific effect of the typical Rc priests 10 minute sermonette, but this one is a clear case of reading into Scripture that which is contrary to sound research.

Pope sees the accusation that Paul's speech was contemptible” (2 Cor 10:10) as "further evidence that Paul may not have been a highly gifted or bold preacher," yet which was actually spoken by his enemies and foes of the gospel, and which hardly comports with the inspired record of Paul's responses, preaching and its effects. and the disparaging words about Paul's speech being "contemptible” (2 Cor 10:10) is said by enemies,

[Luircin]

Or did Luther take that out of your Bible?

***

How annoying that you keep on thinking that’s a kill shot when it’s not true.

Luther didn’t take any books out of the Bible. Catholicism didn’t even have an infallible canon until after Trent.

Why else would Cardinal Cajetan refer to the that Luther did as not canonical when he was writing about them?

[Luircin]

Curse random deletion.

Refer to the same books that Luther did as non canonical.

[ealgeone]

Pretty sure that’s a mortal sin in Roman Catholicism though not the NT. What fear there must be for the Roman Catholic in their denomination. No wonder they fall for apparitions promising to avoid the eternal fire if they wear an idol.

[grey_whiskers]

Your response is actually an argument for comparing scripture with scripture, rather than just supporting your priest and church. And whose idea of Paul as one who was not a gifted bold preacher is not that of sound exegesis, but an example of eisegesis.

Well, you're getting a bit closer.

I'm not comparing scripture with scripture, but Protties' loudmouth, poke-their-finger-through-your-chest, foaming at the mouth, semi-randomly-highlighted, bolded, underlined, listed in walls-of-text whether they are in context or not, to other scriptures which seem to have got left out of the sound and light show when they post.

You'd think it was a pickup truck commercial or something.

[MHGinTN]

Try telling The Lord Christ that when you meet Him at the Great White Throne Judgment. He used the Passover to establish His Remembrance. I doubt you are more Holy than Christ, so run along.

[MHGinTN]

It’s the Catholic form of taqquiya, like the Mormon tactic of lying for the lord.

[100American]

It was a Jewish dinner called the Passover Seder celebrating their release from Egypt. at the end of it Jesus broke bread and shared a cup of wine. This is fact and in the NT and to your question the Bible is and will always will be my Sacred guide to my relationship with God through the Holy Spirit, not a Religion established afterwards, Use a study Bible that has both the Hebrew and Greek dictionary built in so I can get to the true meaning of the passages by researching the original language used in their creation and that provides tremendous insight.

It was NOT a Catholic ritual nor a mass

The RCC may have taken this event and wrapped a “Mass” around it but in the original actual event it was post Seder (Passover Dinner)

So unless you have something besides trying to convince me that the Catholic Church is the only real church ever further discourse bears no fruit.

[100American]

In rememberance of me, of course he said it and his body was to be broken as was the bread symbolizing life and His blood which aligns with Scripture where it is written “without the shedding of blood there is no remittance for sin”

He was the perfect Passover Lamb that can and did provide Redemption for our sins and his body was broken (although none of his bones were) and his blood shed on the cross. This event is called the Last Supper, not Mass. No icons, costumes or other regalia needed, and it was in a house not a Cathedral.

We are redeemed as it tells us in John 3:16 “And whomsoever shall believe in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life” That provides redemption through his sacrifice for us. I am the way and the truth and the Life, NO MAN comes unto the Father except by me

So unless we accept this and Him as our Lord and Savior we have no redemption, no forgiveness

[grey_whiskers]

Oh he already knows, I don’t have to tell Him.

[MHGinTN]

Don't take the mark when it is commanded to you sooner rather than later, regardless of what magic apparitions are served up with the mark ceremonies.

[Mark17]

So unless you have something besides trying to convince me that the Catholic Church is the only real church ever further discourse bears no fruit.

+1

[daniel1212]

The silence continues, and thus we have a poster contending for a RC church with an unknown pope.

[Rainwave]

Jesus said “Where two or more are gathered in my name I am in the midst thereof” so why when they say “this is his body...this is his blood” ect, in communion can a believer just know that the presence of the spirit of the Lord is there, wheather literally or symbolically does it really matter? Do we have to know every little thing about God, to have to question everything or we don’t believe? Where does faith come in then? I doubt I’ll ever understand the concept of the trinity, but I believe that God is three persons; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit... but yet all three are totally One and not just seperate “parts” of the One? That water-ice- steam comparison just doesn’t do the argument justice