I have a hard time with a lot of either/or questions. Case in point, someone special to me texted a question about a passage in 1 Corinthians. Here is my response (you'll notice I never answered the question, so I will at the end of this paste):
you asked: In 1 Corinthians 1.25, “Is Paul suggesting God has weaknesses or is it just a figure of speech?”
Well, the way the question is worded, it’s difficult to choose between those options.
Let’s start with the letter. Paul is writing to the Corinthian church. He had spent much time in Corinth (1.5 years) where he worked as a tentmaker and used free time to announce ‘the message.’ He attempted to reason with Jewish synagogue members and was somewhat successful in convincing some (Sosthenes was the Synagogue ruler who was beaten at one point by the Jews who were against Paul, and is with Paul at the time he wrote the letter). Paul also eventually left the synagogue and spoke to the Gentile Corinthians instead when the Jews would have none of it. He was successful in persuading some Gentiles as well. After he left he eventually met up with Apollo who was from the philosophical ‘mecca’ of Alexandria and was himself very well educated. He probably spoke and reasoned very well. After being set straight in a few details of what God had done and was doing in the world now, he went to Corinth and had some influence there.
And so the letter opens with Paul thanking God for the giftedness they had received in excelling in rhetoric and wisdom. Only, there were some problems: the church had become divided and made Paul and Apollo banners to which to rally, against each other. They even, it seems, were priding themselves in their wisdom and rhetoric, and somehow putting Paul on the outside, suggesting these characteristics were lacking in him, his message, or his presentation. And so the letter, full of irony, begins: he uses incredibly gifted rhetoric to convince them that rhetoric is not what matters, and solid reasoning and wisdom to demonstrate that human wisdom is folly, or saying he doesn’t care how he is judged by them when it is SO obvious he really does care, and 2 Corinthians makes it clear he took it quite personally. It’s beautifully ironic and a masterpiece of literature.
With the context set, on to your question. The passage (and it’s predecessors) reads: “Jews are looking for signs and Greeks seek wisdom, yet we proclaim a crucified King—this is a stumbling block for the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles, but to the called ones (both Jew and Greek) . . . King—God’s power and God’s wisdom, since God’s foolish thing is wiser and God’s weak thing is stronger than humans . . . “ (NIV mistranslates this last bit).
Paul is making multiple contrasts that he reiterates both before and after this passage, gradually elaborating and eloquently making his point. The most important bit for evangelicals to grasp is the meaning of the crucifixion (I single out evangelicals because (1) that is our perspective and (2) their hyper-individualistic focus and pietistic reading of the Scripture misses the plain reading of the text so often). Not in some abstract “to take away the sins of the world” way, either. John cares about those abstractions. Paul doesn’t, or at least he doesn’t write about them. The crucifixion was a political and moral event: it was capital punishment specifically relegated (although Rome loved to make exceptions) for treason, for those who desired the overthrow of the Empire. It was shameful to be crucified and brought disgrace. Furthermore, it was the proper (to their way of thinking) end for failed coups. Those who attempted a revolt were crucified, and, this is important, it was a sign that they had failed. Obviously. Who can win a war against the state when he is dead, especially a disgraceful death by capital punishment. (Later in the letter he deals with another politico-religious meaning: Jesus died in place of Israel for her disobedience to the Covenant and subsequent Exile, but that is not in view here.)
For Paul to go around ‘proclaiming’ that a new king is now ruling, and it isn’t Caesar (‘Oh, and by the way, he happened to have died by capital punishment for treason, but that’s OK, now he’s alive again’) was ridiculous, foolishness. Caesar was obviously in charge and didn’t he just demonstrate it by (through his governors, of course) crushing that little rebellion and its leader? So in one sense God’s foolish thing is the message that a crucified pretender to kingship is actually the new ruler who will judge Israel and destroy it’s temple and then conquer the Empire as well.
If you read on, however, you find that Paul has another sense for God’s foolish and weak things: it is the Corinthian believers themselves. He writes for them to remember what they used to be (before believing the foolishness? before being trained well by Apollo?): they were nothing special. In fact, some of them were dealt with in society as if they didn’t have existence. But, he says, they (foolish and weak from a societal perspective) are what God will use to show up the supposedly strong and abolish the ‘existing ones’ who rule for their own pleasure and purposes and neglect to acknowledge the existence of the ruled ones.
So, the Jews are watching for a sign to alert them that it’s time for Revolution, the rally cry of the next would-be messiah (there were quite a few around then) and the Greeks relished in their philosophy and wisdom that couldn’t possibly see what good could come from something as disgraceful as crucifixion, so banal and unsophisticated, but Paul was presenting them with what they were not looking for, instead it was a message that was foolish and weak and powerless. That, Paul insists, is where God’s power and wisdom has been and is being revealed. God is upending the world. And so—Paul is leading the Corinthian readers—this is how you ought to think of yourselves: weak things being used to display God’s power, foolish things being used to demonstrate God’s wisdom, the despised and ‘non-existent’ that will soon show the power of true existence and abolish current ruling orders (the rulers of ‘this’ age that was passing). So . . . ought you to be divided as you are with boasts of wisdom, rhetoric, special clubs who claim to follow specifically one of the proclaimers of the message (and later on he’ll discuss charismatic expressions being divisive).
Well, I’m tired. I hope this is clear. I’m going to post it to the blog. Even though I’m too tired to proof it. feel free to write back or comment on the blog.
Love,
Eric
To answer the question: yes, God has weaknesses. In Paul's letter they are (1) the message of a crucified King and (2) the Corinthian believers.
