God's Elect or World's Elite? XXVI

As we have seen, the Corinthians, including believers in Corinth, put a lot of importance upon rhetoric and the art and science of persuasion. This was due to Greek culture and Sophist influence. We have seen how Paul in Corinthians (and elsewhere also) has much to say about logos, about speech and rhetoric, about oratory. We have seen how Paul teaches that believers, God's elect, though not trained in public speaking, and though coming generally from the poor unsophisticated classes, are nevertheless superior in speech in comparison to unbelievers, including the world's best speakers. The believer is superior to the world's elite as much in logos as they are in power, riches, wisdom, and knowledge, as we have seen. Believers are "enriched in all logos."

We have already seen how there is tremendous power in words and speech to effect human belief and behavior. "Death and life are in the power of the tongue." Words can do much harm and they likewise can do much good. In this chapter we will begin by looking at "corrupt communication," the speech of con men and deceivers, of the Sophists, and then we will look further at the good and healthy speech, the sanctified conversation, the rhetoric, of believers in Jesus, of those who speak and teach the truth, especially about God, his works, about human existence, and about salvation through the promised "seed of the woman."  

The Heart The Source Of Speech

"O generation of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart brings forth good things (in his speech): and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. But I say unto you, That every idle word (Greek 'rhema' meaning a verbal communication) that men shall speak, they shall give account (logos) thereof in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words (logos) you shall be condemned." (Matt. 12: 34-37)

"Evil men," which is a description of all who are not believers, of men who have an "evil heart," reveal themselves to be such by their speech. Likewise, "good men" with "good hearts" reveal themselves to be good men by their speech. In the above teaching of our Lord focus is on the most important aspect of good speech and that is to have a good heart. Correct the heart and the speech will also be steadily corrected. The heart should control the tongue.

Notice the two ways in which the KJV translators translated the Greek word logos in the above, i.e. as "give account," that is, give a verbal defense and explanation, and as "words" (logoi, plural form of logos). Notice also the addition of other Greek words for speech, "laleo" ('speak'), "rhema" ('word'), "logos" ('give account' and 'words'). 

Further, the above words of the Lord about the speech of evil men versus that of good men are in keeping with the words of Solomon that we have cited more than once - "death and life are in the power of the tongue." Jesus said both justification and condemnation were in the power of one's words. Words reflect the condition of the heart and reveal belief or unbelief and thus determine eternal destiny.

Bridled Tongues

"If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridles not his tongue, but deceives his own heart, this man's religion is vain." (Jam. 1: 26)

"Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasts great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindles! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell. For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of mankind: But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceeds blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be. Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter? Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh." (Jam. 3: 5-12)

The world's best elite speakers and orators, though they often choose their words carefully when they speak publicly, yet it is not always so. Their private conversation is often not so. They may bridle what they say when speaking publicly (when it is in their best interest to do so) but even the best rhetoricians of the unbelieving world cannot bridle or tame their tongue. They often lack self control in what they say, especially in private talk. The best infidel orators were very good at blasphemy and evil speaking. Hitler is a good example. In his public orations he could be very self controlled and deliberate. Yet, in private and small group settings he would rant with unbridled tongue, having no self control over what he said. Passion often takes control of the tongue. 

There are others of the more vulgar and baser sort of persons who regularly curse and swear and speak in the most unbridled manner. They also have no self control or restraint over their speech. They spontaneously utter whatever they are thinking, and without little fear of the consequences. Their thoughts being evil, so too are their unrestrained words. They become provocative in speech, bullies with words. Said the Psalmist: "Who sharpen their tongue like a sword, and bend their bows to shoot their arrows, even bitter words." (Psa. 54: 3)

The believer is one who has been given divine power to bridle his tongue (although he fails in completely exercising that power in control of his words). Believers, like all men, must battle with being careless in speech, with being too hasty to speak, with speaking without thinking. So James admonished believers, saying "be swift to hear" but "slow to speak" and "slow to wrath." (James 1: 19) Solomon asked: "Do you see someone who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for them." (Prov. 29: 20) To speak without thinking, to speak spontaneously from emotional excitement, is not wise but foolish. Intellect and knowledge should control the tongue, not the emotions. On this too we will have more to say later.

Consider how the above words of James, about the unbridled nature of the tongue of evil men and of its power to destroy, reminds us again how death, destruction, and condemnation, are in the determining power of the tongue. 

Corrupt Speech

"Let no corrupt communication (logos) proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." (Eph. 4: 29)

The Sophists were famous for their argumentative skills, their "ability to make the weaker (worse) argument appear the stronger (better)." They were so good that they could convince the naive that black was white and good was evil, and vise versa. They could justify any vice or crime, being good at making excuses. They could debate one side of a question just as well as the other. They were advocates for hire, paid spokesmen for schools, governments, lofty persons, causes, etc. 

They were very good at circumlocution, at the use of "red herrings" and other diversionary tactics to divert the attention of an audience. They were very good at using flattery in persuasion. They were very good at choosing "emotive" words in their audience addresses, at appealing to emotion (pathos) rather than to logical argument (logos). 

They often relied much on "ethos" in their persuasive speaking, affirming that their credibility as popular speakers was sufficient reason to believe the speaker's message. Ethos, as we will see, does often lend credibility to the speaker's message or discourse. Thus, a doctor may say something about medicine and say "I'm a doctor, you can believe what I say." This can be a powerful argument though it should never be relied upon by itself. Doctors can be wrong. The audience hearing discourse should rely mostly on the logos, the rational and logical argument, for deciding the truthfulness of the discourse and its propositions. 

"Corrupt logos," therefore, denotes unhealthy and unwholesome talk, useless speech, deceiving words, vain talk, etc. It is "filthy talk." Paul speaks of it in these words: "Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks." (Eph. 5: 4) "Foolish talking" is from the Greek word "morologia" and it is the only time used in the new testament. It means silly or stupid talk, "moronic logos." "Filthiness" is from the Greek word "aischrotes" and is also the only time it is used in the new testament. It denotes filthy talk, obscene language, indecent conversation, a rotten word, and such like. It denotes shameful talk, what is deformed and deranged. Such talk does not "edify," that is, it does not build up or construct, but rather destroys. It is "profitless speech," discourse that is no good, does not produce good, is not productive. It is "vain talk," what is of no use, empty of substance. 

Good speech, on the other hand, says the apostle, "ministers grace to the hearers." We will have more to say about "grace" and "graciousness," along with charm and charisma, in the next chapters, but for now we may say that Paul is affirming by the above words that good Christian speech imparts grace, that is, it seeks to give to the audience a quality that adds delight or pleasure, a winning quality, an attractiveness that invites a favorable reaction. Good speech produces good thoughts, ideas, and feelings, and its purpose is to improve people, not to tear them down.

Sophistic Smooth Talk

"by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive." (Rom. 16: 18 NIV)

Two of the "rhetorical devices" used by successful (popular) speakers among the Sophists are "smooth talk" and "flattery." "Smooth words" is from the Greek "chrestologia" (from "chrestós" meaning "kind, obliging" with "lego" meaning "to say") and means "fair or kind speaking," or "smooth and plausible address which simulates goodness, mixed with eloquent and attractive speech involving pleasing rhetorical devices." We may well call it "fancy talk."  

"Flattering speech" is from the Greek "eulogia" from eú (good, well) with logos (word) and is the word that gives us our English word “eulogy.” Thayer defines it as "praise, laudation, panegyric, fine discourse, polished language." The speech of the Sophist con artists was in "language artfully adapted to captivate the hearer." The effect is to "deceive" or fool an audience.

By "hearts of the naive" he means the "simple minded," the innocent and unsuspecting listeners. In modern language we speak in a similar manner about the gullibility of common folk in saying "there is a sucker born every minute." People are vulnerable and easily duped by smooth talkers. Such professional speakers see the population as unwary, as "easy prey."  

Believers, speaking from good hearts made so by the power of the word and Spirit of God, speak good things, things that edify, and have no intention to deceive but rather to undeceive. Believers and honest men do not use "rhetorical devices" as do the Sophists. Said Paul: "For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness." (I Thess. 2: 5) But, the Sophists and spokesmen for hire do in fact have many pretexts behind their words. They are very good at flattery, at "buttering up" an audience. Of this practice we have a description in the Psalms. "His speech was smooth as butter, yet war was in his heart; his words were softer than oil, yet they were drawn swords." (Psa. 55: 21)

No one should be able to hear a sermon by a gospel minister and conclude that they are flatterers. They tell people that they are born evil, that they are evil in their thoughts and lives, that they are doomed to eternal torment unless they repent. That is anything but flattery. In Ben Franklin's autobiography we have this observation on the preaching of the revivalist George Whitefield:

"In 1739 arriv’d among us from England the Rev. Mr. Whitefield, who had made himself remarkable there as an itinerant Preacher. He was at first permitted to preach in some of our Churches; but the Clergy taking a Dislike to him, soon refus’d him their Pulpits and he was oblig’d to preach in the Fields. The Multitudes of all Sects and Denominations that attended his Sermons were enormous and it was [a] matter of Speculation to me who was one of the Number, to observe the extraordinary Influence of his Oratory on his Hearers, and how much they admir’d and respected him, notwithstanding his common Abuse of them, by assuring them they were naturally half Beasts and half Devils. It was wonderful to see the Change soon made in the Manners [behavior] of our Inhabitants; from being thoughtless or indifferent about Religion, it seem’d as if all the World were growing Religious; so that one could not walk thro’ the Town in an Evening without Hearing Psalms sung in different Families of every Street." (See here)

Thus, preachers do not flatter sinners but are rather "frank" (bold) with them. Sophists on the other hand are "mealy-mouthed," meaning they are afraid to speak frankly and straightforwardly. They are deceptive and devious in their speech. That is because their words are intended as traps for gullible people. Said Solomon: 

"A man that flatters his neighbor spreads a net for his feet." (Prov. 29: 5) He also warned that "a flatterer works much ruin." (Prov. 26: 28) 

Lots of popular impostors in the pulpit are very good at flattering an audience, unlike Whitefield, unlike the apostles. Paul spoke of the corrupt speech of the world's elite talkers, of the Sophist rhetoricians and their "rhetorical devices," their deceptive talk, in these words:

"And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words." (Col. 2: 4 kjv)

What is meant by "enticing words"? Other translations give "fine sounding arguments" (NIV), "well crafted arguments," (NLT) "smooth rhetoric," (Berean) "persuasiveness of speech," (American Standard) "fancy talk," (Contemporary English) "nice sounding rhetoric." (International Standard) 

Sophistic Debating

We in earlier chapters have already spoken much about Paul's reference to the "disputers of this age." In chapter four I wrote how the Greek word for "disputers" is "syzētētēs," being the only time it is used in the new testament, and meant "a learned disputant, sophist." We saw how the world's elite talkers have been put to silence by God, by the preaching of salvation through the gospel of Christ. We saw how very few of this class of the world's elect, its elite, became believers, and how they generally opposed most vehemently the preaching of the gospel. 

We have seen how Paul confronts the Sophist debaters, along with elitist philosophy, in his Corinthian epistles, especially the first. He was able to confound these wise men and their lofty beguiling speech, and to leave them speechless. Many of them, because they could not resist the wisdom of God's spokesmen, ended debate and took to the use of physical force and violence to stop the speech of the apostles and the church's first evangelists. The same is true in our day. People who cannot win the debate try to destroy their opponents and to shut their mouths. 

Sophist disputers and debaters are guilty of arguing for things that they did not generally believe in. They lacked conviction for what they were paid to advocate and defend. They were good at manipulating facts, like many high paid lawyers in our day. For their professional "sales jobs" they are highly paid. Sophists taught young men "the dark arts of argument and rhetoric." They were skilled in "rhetorical trickery." One modern confessed Sophist, one who teaches debate and argumentation, wrote (emphasis mine):

"In a weird way I’ve ended up being the modern equivalent of a Sophist. I teach young people how to argue for a living, seeking to make them more persuasive with no regard to truth. I even sell it to them on the basis it will allow them to bluff their way through interviews and meetings. Competitive debating makes people better and better at manipulating the truth to whatever end they are assigned. We train people to never compromise on a position, to treat an argument as about winning and losing, not the pursuit of truth. So am I a bad person? Is everyone who engages in debating?" (here)

That is a good definition of the Sophist mentality as it regards the purpose of persuasive speech. The best Sophists today are in marketing and they are highly paid for their ability to persuade people to buy products that they really do not need and are told not much about in the sales pitches. Politicians also are very good at being "sophistic" in their retorts and speeches. They can "talk people into" things with ease and cunning. The good Sophist has an arsenal of rhetorical and argumentative devices at his disposal and there are many books explaining them and imparting knowledge of how to use them skillfully. 

The same author says:

"Rhetoric in the classical sense includes stylistic elements entirely separate from the content of a speech. Speaking in the right tone and rhythm, clever turns of phrase, being charismatic, being funny, stirring up the anger of a crowd, etc. Using which one could make a bad argument, delivered well, seem better than a good argument delivered badly."

Hitler was very good at "tone and rhythm" as any professor in oratory and speech communication will acknowledge. So too are many preachers. And, as far as "stylistic elements" are concerned, the Sophist is an expert in their use. They generally have a wide vocabulary and are skilled in the choice of words, much like a poet. They know how to "turn a phrase," how to appear "charismatic," how to stir the emotions with humor, or to incite anger with emotive words and symbols. They also use "stagecraft" as a very useful aid in persuasive speaking. Examples can be seen in Hitler's massive rallies, such as the ones at Nuremberg, where all kinds of paraphernalia, pomp and circumstance, pageantry, flags, symbols, mottoes, music, etc. were used to "set the stage" for the oration. We see the same kind of rhetorical means used by politicians at rallies, and of some preachers in crusades and revival meetings.

The Christian & Debating

Many Christians think that the bible condemns debating. The only time in the KJV bible that the new testament speaks of "debate" it is in a negative context (Rom. 1: 29), in a list of sins. But, this is unfortunate for the bible does not condemn proper debate, argumentation, and heated discussion. In fact the bible is filled with examples of believers debating with their opponent's. So also did the Lord himself, although his debates were short lived because his opponents could not answer him and took to violence as a way to overcome his mighty words. In fact, it can well be proven how the bible actually commands the believer to give rational verbal defense (apologia) for his beliefs, as we have seen. Jude admonished believers to "contend earnestly for the faith" (1:3) which may be translated as "strive or contend in debate." Contend implies an opponent and the arena is in speech or debate, what we gentlemanly prefer to call "discussion." 

"Debate" in Romans 1: 29 is from the Greek word "eris" and is better translated as "verbal strife," with the negative idea of "contentiousness," cantankerousness, quarrelsomeness, disagreeableness, and manifesting hostility by "arguing" via hollering and yelling, by attacking the character of one's opponent (ad hominems), by deflection, by the use of "red herrings" and other ways of fallacious reasoning. That type of debate and argumentation is what is condemned. But, it does not condemn all debate. 

Paul was a mighty debater. Luke says that Paul on one occasion "vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ." (Acts 18: 28) What did he do? He answered all the objections and arguments against what he was teaching and proclaiming and left them silenced. "Vigorously" means with force, with power. The Greek word is only used here in the new testament. The word "publicly" refers obviously to public debate, where both sides speak and answer each other. 

In the next chapter we will look at the good speech of believers, and of charisma, and at ethos, pathos, and logos as parts of the persuasion art.