"…with eloquence or superior wisdom…"

In Paul's day, speaking well publicly was the center of much higher education. Similar to American Idol, a speaker's audience would judge his speaking ability. If he was a great speaker, he would collect followers who wanted to learn from him and sponsors who wanted to support him. The crowds would often make or break an aspiring speaker's career, much like audience size and numbers of seminars make or break a motivational speaker's career today. In a day without internet, television, podcasts, etc., the public speech was as much entertainment as it was work.

The official study of speaking was called rhetoric. There were three kinds of rhetoric designed to accomplish different purposes: forensic or judicial (for those practicing law), deliberative (for those urging the public to take a particular course of action), and epideictic (for those giving funeral speeches, introducing or praising political or public figures, etc.). There was some overlap among these three types of speeches.

Speech making, whichever purpose one was trying to accomplish, used a variety of techniques to arouse the listeners' sympathy or anger. After all, the speaker was trying to convince his audience of something and emotions often aid that purpose.

If a speaker could make a name for himself, he would enjoy wealth and fame. It was unthinkable for a famous public speaker to reject money for their services. If someone wouldn't take patronage (support from rich sponsors) or money from students, then that proved to the people of that day that the speaker was not very good.

One of the things the Corinthian Christians troubled themselves with was dividing themselves into camps based on the public speaking ability of their Christian teachers like Paul and Apollos. Apollos was a very good public speaker, he knew the Scriptures well, and he was overflowing with the Holy Spirit (Acts 18.24-25). He had followed Paul at Corinth and did his part to help build up the church there. Unfortunately, some of the Corinthians decided to think of him merely as a famous speaker and to do so as a means of dividing themselves against others in the church.

Paul, though a very educated man, decided to be a "straight-shooter" when it came to preaching about Jesus. He didn't use fancy speaking techniques or sad stories about puppy dogs to move the Corinthians to follow Jesus (2.1). From an American Idol contest standpoint, Paul refused to "perform" or to turn the gospel into entertainment. Some of the Corinthians, therefore, decided to vote him off. Neither did Paul accept patronage from anyone in the Corinthian church (9.1-19). On these two counts alone, a worldly minded Corinthian Christian (3.1-4) would judge Paul as a loser and ignore what he taught. This kind of person would also distance themselves from other Christians who thought Paul was a great speaker.

I like to listen to an entertaining speaker as much as the next person. It takes a lot more work to listen to a stumbling, unprepared speaker than it does to one who speaks forcefully and entertainingly. There is also a difference in being entertaining and just being entertainment. I believe there should be both substance and ability in Christian preaching. If I had to sacrifice one, though, I would "vote off" ability in favor of substance. What a person says in the name of Christ is way more important than how a person says it.

Those of us speaking before the church need to be prepared, assertive, and plain spoken. We can use stories because Jesus used stories. We can never forget, however, that we are speaking on behalf of Christ and that always means we do our best, both in content and in presentation.

The lesson for all of us is to be people who listen first to what is said and to judge its merit based on content. This is how we avoid the temptation to follow false teachers who speak well but preach spiritual poison.