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!

[Wonder Warthog]

"Sorry, but nowhere in Holy Scripture is communion the re-crucifixion of Jesus Christ. That was the invention of Satan and his roman church."

"This is My Body....This is My Blood". In Scripture. From God's own lips. The Catholic Church teaches nothing about "re-crucifixion"...that is totally a Protestant distortion.

[daniel1212]

More superficiality by pope, and or bias against Paul.

So, it would seem that Paul did not possess great oratorical.

Which means that the recorded words of Paul's preaching are not examples of great convicting oratory, often resulting in acceptance of persecution, or the words were substantially edited to be so. Which do you want to choose?

Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent. For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning him. And though they found no cause of death in him, yet desired they Pilate that he should be slain. (Acts 13:26-28)

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. (Acts 13:33)

Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you. (Acts 13:38-41)

And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. (Acts 13:44-45)

And they called Barnabas, Jupiter; and Paul, Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with the people. Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out, And saying, Sirs, why do ye these things? We also are men of like passions with you, and preach unto you that ye should turn from these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein: Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness. And with these sayings scarce restrained they the people, that they had not done sacrifice unto them. (Acts 14:12-18)

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. (Acts 17:22-31)

[daniel1212]

“Paul then goes back upstairs to complete the Mass.” What is that I am always reading from FR Catholics about opinion sneaking in as if evidentiary thus not valid? The passage says Paul broke bread. PERIOD.

Indeed, and thus we both have an attack on Paul as a preacher as well as an attempt to convert him into being a Catholic priest, which separate sacerdotal class simply did not exist in the NT church .

[daniel1212]

The "breaking of bread" IS the Mass, PERIOD. The problem with Protestants is they don't believe the Bible, despite their constant "protestation" that it is the whole basis of their worship.

Really? So just where do we see distinctive Catholic teachings manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/deformation_of_new_testament_church.html#Table

Just where do we see the distinctive Catholic Eucharist in Acts - or any-where in the rest of the NT record - that of priests (only) conducting it, and offering it as a sacrifice for sins, and presenting it as spiritual food? Where?

More, by God's grace:

The Lord's Supper: metaphorical commemoration or the consumption of the metaphysical "real" body and blood of the Lord Jesus?

(Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. Catholic teaching on the Eucharist

2. Metaphorical versus literal language

3. Supper accounts and John 6: Conformity to Scripture, and consequences of the literalistic interpretation.

4. 1Cor. 10,11

5. The Lord's Supper in the record and descriptions of the New Testament church

6. Purely literal versus the contrived Catholic interpretation

7. The nature of the Catholic metaphysical explanation

8. The Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice for sins

9. Absence of the sacerdotal Eucharistic priesthood

10. Metaphorical view of Jn. 6 is not new.

11. Endocannibalism

12. Conclusion

[daniel1212]

Which is why "Sola Scriptura" is invalid. The record of the early Church Fathers is completely clear on the origin and practice of the Mass from the very earliest historical records we have. "I can't find it in Scripture" is a complete copout.

You mean you hold the uninspired words of men, as determined by your self-proclaimed "one true church" (RC or the competition, the EO ) and the uninspired words of popes and councils, as being the determintive standard for what the NT church believed, versus the only wholly inspired-of-God and substantive record of what the New Testament church believed (Scripture)?

While we are at it,

1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written/Scripture?"
3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings await the church and require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and sure record of what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards sources of express Divine revelation, and which materially provides for such things as were listed above?
11. What wholly inspired oral source has spoken to man the public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?

[daniel1212]

Scripture is VERY clear on this, in words given by Christ himself. "If you do not eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood, you do not have life within you."

I see; so to be consistent with the literal understanding of such which Caths insist is the correct one, you must conclude that those who deny the Catholic "Real Presence" and do not partake of it do not and cannot have spiritual life within them, nor eternal life, unless they believe and practice as Catholics do concerning this. Do you confirm or deny this and why? No special pleading or equivocation ("i.e. I am not the one to judge who is saved") here please.

[daniel1212]

Was he right when he said: Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong [or sin boldly], but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.

It was full context. Just like the Bible was full context before Luther tossed out books he didn’t like.

No, it was not understanding such hyperbole in full context, for which see this FR thread, Did Luther say, “Be a sinner and sin boldly” ?
https://web.archive.org/web/20140528104851/http://tquid.sharpens.org/sin_boldly.htm ^ | 2005 | James Swan - you really want to avoid being classed as another uncritical parroter of specious RC polemics:

Moreover, as invoked by haters of Luther such statements do not reflect what he formally taught by such statements as

Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

This is what I have often said, if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit. If the tree is green and good, it will not cease to blossom forth in leaves and fruit. It does this by nature. I need not first command it and say: Look here, tree, bear apples. For if the tree is there and is good, the fruit will follow unbidden. If faith is present works must follow.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:340-341]

“We must therefore most certainly maintain that where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 246, footnote 99]

if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341-342]

“This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him. It goes to the foundation and there accomplishes a renewal of the entire man; so, if I have previously seen a sinner, I now see in his changed conduct, manner and life, that he believes. So high and great a thing is faith.”[Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341]

“For it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present. [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:40]

if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead...And St. Peter says, Ye are to be as faithful, good shepherds or administrators of the manifold grace of God; so that each one may serve the other, and be helpful to him by means of what he has received, 1 Peter 4:10. See, here Peter says the grace and gifts of God are not one but manifold, and each is to tend to his own, develop the same and through them be of service to others.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:244]

In addition, upon hearing that he was being charged with rejection of the Old Testament moral law, Luther responded,

And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours. Martin Luther, ["A Treatise against Antinomians, written in an Epistolary way", http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html]

More http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Reformation_faith_works.html

[daniel1212]

No. I'll leave that to you protestants, including Jorge Bergoglio. There's no telling what y'all will come up with next.

So if Bergoglio is not the valid pope, then who is or last was ? If you cannot answer this, then forget about contending for your church, for what kind of RC church has an unknown earthly head?

[daniel1212]

The Mass originated with Jesus Christ at the Last Supper. Is there some reason you do not believe the Bible’s story of the Last Supper?

Again, here are many, by the grace of God.

[grey_whiskers]

Even the people who He first said it to got offended at it.
Jesus then said, are you offended at *that*? What if you saw the Son of Man ascend where he was before?

I conclude it wasn’t mere metaphor.

[grey_whiskers]

There are Pauline epistles where Paul says he wasn’t much of a talker. And others where he contrasts himself to false apostles and says the Kingdom does not consist in talk, but in power...

[daniel1212]

Is there some reason you do not believe the Bible’s story of the Last Supper?

Meaning as contorted by Catholicism, see above .

[MHGinTN]

You are wrong but you must be allowed to spittle forth for the education of others who read your errors and see them through spiritual discernment.

[ealgeone]

So if Bergoglio is not the valid pope, then who is or last was ? If you cannot answer this, then forget about contending for your church, for what kind of RC church has an unknown earthly head?

[grey_whiskers]

Cardinal Sicola should’ve been Pope. (Say the title & name out loud, it’ll wash down your “popecorn.”)

[MHGinTN]

The poster doesn’t want the True meaning / proper meaning. He wants to believe the Catholic explanation because his pride needs that working for eternal life Catholicism meme. Pride in self works is at the heart of the blindness ... and Jesus will give them the same treatment he gave the unbelievers, seekers after signs and magic. He will leave them to their blasphemies.

[MHGinTN]

“Mommy he’s looking at me! Make him stop.” LOL, no fool like an old fool. Context means more than one paragraph, but reading the entire series of exchanges removes the power of the Catholic Blasphemy.

[MHGinTN]

JESUS told you "where two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Spiritually He is present when two or more gather in His name. He mentioned nothing about 'gathered together to eat my flesh and drink my blood by a magic act of Catholic Priests.

While you believe the god of Catholicism changes his mind, The God does not. There are no plan Bs with the God in Whom is no shadow of turning.

[ConservativeMind]

Paul is easily the best writer of all the NT books.

Paul evinces passion, logic, and earnestness.

[ConservativeMind]

There is no Catholic that can honestly answer those questions without showing the Catholic church as completely wrong.

That is a solid list of pointed questions.