When studying the Pauline letters, readers encounter a figure who is both polarising and complex in identity and self-presentation. Wanamaker (2003:119) characterises Paul as acutely aware of his apostolic authority, which he believed conferred upon him a position of superiority over the churches. He equated the rejection of his commands with being rejected by God (1 Cor 14:37–38). According to Seesengood (2009:14), Paul was a vigorous individual, possessing a sharp intellect and physical fitness that enabled him to traverse the diverse terrains of the Middle East. He fervently preached the gospel in unfamiliar regions and endured intense persecution for his missionary efforts.

Paul’s writings and oratory are marked by eloquence and literary skill. He engages with contemporary thought while masterfully exegeting the scriptures of the Old Testament to draw upon them for authority (Sanders 2015:132). The issue that this study will address, as highlighted by Haslebacher (2012) and Schreiner (2016), becomes particularly significant when considered in this context. Their perspectives illuminate the challenges scholars face in understanding Paul, which constitutes a complex issue worthy of examination.

Haslebacher (2012:141–142) contends that Paul’s teachings are contextually bound, suggesting that their applicability to contemporary situations differs significantly from their relevance in the first-century church. He argues that much of Paul’s discourse was occasion specific, addressing particular issues faced by early Christian communities and therefore should not be regarded as normative directives for present-day contexts. In contrast, Schreiner (2016:163) engages with Haslebacher’s perspective but ultimately dismisses it, suggesting that Haslebacher misrepresents Paul. He asserts that scholars who interpret Paul as patriarchal have largely exhausted the arguments available within the existing data. Consequently, he claims that no new or persuasive contributions can be introduced to this debate. This dialogue between Haslebacher and Schreiner underscores the ongoing contention regarding the interpretation of Paul’s writings and raises critical questions about the relevance and adaptability of his teachings in contemporary discourse.

This article asserts that dialogues such as those between Haslebacher and Schreiner are essential for identifying gaps through which scholars can contribute meaningfully to the field. For instance, while Haslebacher acknowledges the universality of the biblical canon – particularly regarding Paul’s application of Old Testament events to his first-century audience – his interpretation effectively projects contemporary situations onto ancient texts, rendering his argument fluid and context dependent. This raises concerns about the relevance of Haslebacher’s 2012 assertions today, reflecting the interpretative lens he applies to Paul’s writings. Such a stance implies a position that is difficult to substantiate, suggesting that Paul’s words continually evolve in meaning as they are reinterpreted in varying contexts. This reading of Paul borders on anachronism² and ethnocentrism.³

Moreover, Schreiner’s (2016) assertion that no new insights can be advanced regarding Paul’s interpretively challenging texts presents a perspective that could stifle robust scholarship. This claim necessitates a response, as it may inhibit further exploration and understanding of Paul’s writings, underscoring the need for ongoing scholarly dialogue and reinterpretation within the field.

The issue surrounding Paul in this article is twofold: on the one hand, he is a polarising figure whose views are often perceived as problematic or incompatible with modern and future societal values; on the other hand, his teachings have long been understood to convey fixed meanings. This article argues that Paul’s words hold discernible, applicable and relevant significance for contemporary society, as Goede and Vorster (eds. 2022:v) assert that interpretive approaches and methodologies are crucial in addressing current societal issues. This aligns with the broader objective of interpreting Paul’s writings in a manner that speaks to modern concerns while simultaneously presenting a complex portrayal of Paul that defies objective understanding (Tolmie 2004:36). By employing a novel methodological interpretation that has yet to be applied across all of Paul’s letters, this study aims to illuminate the existing debates surrounding his writings. Such an approach may facilitate a deeper comprehension of Paul’s intentions and rhetorical strategies, ultimately enriching scholarly discourse and offering fresh insights into his contributions to early Christian thought.

Paul’s letters, disputed and undisputed, have significantly facilitated scholarly engagement, prompting extensive examination of their contents since their inception. These writings have also greatly contributed to the development of robust methodologies aimed at uncovering the depth of their meaning and contextual applications relevant to readers across various eras. Given the vast array of existing methodologies, it is nearly impossible to satisfactorily fathom, examine and compare them all. In this article, two methodological-hermeneutical approaches are considered and recognised for their substantial contributions to the scholarly discussion of New Testament texts (Cornelius & Kukuni 2024:1). By focusing on these specific hermeneutical-methodologies, this study seeks to enhance understanding of Paul’s writings and their enduring relevance, thereby making a valuable contribution to the fields of rhetorical criticism and multi- and inter-disciplinary studies. This approach aims to deepen insights into the complexities of Paul’s rhetoric and its implications for contemporary theological discourse.

On the one hand, some scholars employ the grammatical-historical critical method of interpretation to analyse 1 Corinthians 3:1–4, investigating the ancient historical context that prompted Paul’s writing (Bartholomew 2015; Fee 2014; Kaiser & Silva 2007; Zuck 1991). This approach aims to reconstruct the ways in which the text was understood within its original cultural and social setting. By examining these historical aspects, interpreters can gain valuable insights into the issues at hand, which are crucial for a comprehensive understanding and interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:1–4. Such contextual awareness not only enriches the reading of the passage but also elucidates the complexities of Paul’s message as it relates to the concerns of the Corinthian church.

On the other hand, some scholars approach Paul’s letters through the lens of rhetorical interpretation, where two contesting rhetorical methodologies have emerged in recent scholarship regarding the most effective means to understand these texts. Firstly, some scholars employ the ancient or classical method of interpretation to analyse Pauline writings (Mitchell 1991; Schüssler-Fiorenza 1987; Witherington 1995; Wuellner 1979). This approach often focuses on the rhetorical techniques and conventions of the time, aiming to uncover the persuasive strategies Paul employed. Secondly, a segment of scholars who favour classical rhetoric have begun to advocate for a more nuanced approach that moves away from an over-reliance on traditional rhetorical frameworks. They suggest that drawing insights from contemporary rhetorical theories can enrich the interpretation of Pauline letters (Collins 2016; Cornelius 2024). This shift highlights the potential for interdisciplinary dialogue, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of Paul’s rhetorical strategies and their implications for his audience.

A third group of scholars eschews both the grammatical-historical method and the classical rhetorical method of interpretation, advocating for a complete departure from these approaches. They critique the use of classical rhetoric, arguing that it imposes an inappropriate framework onto the text, forcing it into ancient rhetorical categories that may not align with Paul’s original intent. In their assessment of the classical rhetorical method, these scholars caution against the risks of imposing contemporary interpretative biases on texts that Paul did not aim to engage with in such terms (Genade 2015; Prinsloo 2024; Snyman 2009; Tolmie 2005; Van der Merwe 2013). Consequently, they propose a text-centred approach to rhetorical interpretation, which prioritises the text itself in constructing an understanding of the author’s dominant rhetorical objectives and the persuasive strategies employed to engage the audience. This method allows for a more nuanced analysis that remains grounded in the text’s inherent meanings and contexts, facilitating a clearer understanding of Paul’s rhetorical intentions.

Having reviewed these existing hermeneutical-methodologies, this article seeks to offer a nuanced rhetorical approach for interpreting 1 Corinthians 3:1–4, specifically addressing the gaps identified in the literature. One significant gap is the tendency within the text-centred rhetorical criticism to overlook the incorporation of socio-historical background into interpretations of biblical texts. Snyman (2016:2) asserts that the rhetorical situation fundamentally differs from the historical context, suggesting that understanding the latter does not necessarily aid in the rhetorical interpretation of scriptural texts. Prinsloo (2022:1–2) concurs, arguing that a text-centred rhetorical approach effectively captures the author’s intent within the passage, while reliance on socio-historical contexts or classical rhetoric may not provide the exegete with the necessary insights. By emphasising a text-centred methodology, this study aims to enrich the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:1–4, illuminating Paul’s rhetorical strategies and intentions in a manner that resonates with contemporary readers.

Contra Prinsloo (2022) and Snyman (2016), Cornelius and Kukuni (2024:7) have begun to demonstrate a nuanced approach to the rhetorical interpretation of Pauline letters, effectively incorporating the socio-historical background of the text alongside ancient rhetorical strategies and text-centred methodologies. In their analysis of 1 Corinthians 12:31b–13:3, they highlight Paul’s use of the ancient Greco-Roman persuasion technique of pathos as a means to influence the Corinthians’ judgement by engaging their emotions in his communication (Cornelius 1998:51). This observation suggests that while Paul may not have strictly adhered to the classical rhetoric of his day, he nonetheless adapted certain elements for his purposes (Cornelius 1998; Cornelius & Kukuni 2024:7; Hendrick 2005:61). Furthermore, an examination of Paul’s disgust with philotimia – the lust and love for honour – cannot be fully understood without considering the socio-historical background and its impact on the Corinthian church. Finney (2010:28) notes that philotimia was an intricate part of the social fabric of Greco-Roman Corinth, significantly influencing the lifestyle and values of the Corinthian believers. This interplay of emotional appeal and socio-historical context underscores the complexity of Paul’s rhetorical strategies and highlights the importance of a comprehensive interpretative framework.

The question of whether Paul utilised ancient Greco-Roman rhetoric in his persuasive efforts necessitates an inquiry into whether he received formal education in the classical rhetoric of his time. Scholars remain divided regarding the extent of Paul’s knowledge in this area, as evidenced by the classical rhetorical handbooks that were standard in formal training. On the one hand, scholars such as Mitchell (1991:6), Martin (1999:52), Heil (2005:4), Biatoma (2010:2) and Schellenberg (2013:6) argue that the rhetorical elements present in Paul’s letters indicate a familiarity with Greco-Roman rhetoric. Mitchell (1991:6) posits that the prevailing method for composing ancient letters was rooted in classical rhetoric, suggesting that Paul’s epistles should be examined through this lens. Heil (2005:4) and Schellenberg (2013:6) contend that even if Paul did not receive formal schooling in Greco-Roman rhetoric, he likely encountered ‘generic rhetoric’, enabling him to employ rhetorical techniques akin to those of someone with formal training. Martin (1999:52) and Biatoma (2010:2) further assert that Greco-Roman rhetoric was part of the curriculum in educational institutions of the time, inferring that Paul must have obtained a sufficient education in this regard. Heil (2005:4) concludes that while Paul adapted rhetorical strategies, his writings exhibit characteristics suggesting that he may not have been formally trained in classical rhetoric. This leads to the implication that it would be exceedingly difficult for an individual without formal rhetorical training to adeptly modify such techniques for personal use, thereby raising important questions about the nature and depth of Paul’s rhetorical capabilities.

Conversely, some scholars, such as Forbes (2016:151) and Hughes (2016:95), contend that Paul did not employ rhetoric in a formal, technical sense, suggesting that such formal rhetorical training was not an essential component of his approach. This perspective indicates a mode of writing more characteristic of individuals who lacked formal education in classical rhetoric (Thúren 2001:100–104). Porter and Deyer (2016:108, 157) assert that while Paul likely did not receive formal training in Greco-Roman rhetoric, his exposure to rhetorical practices enabled him to incorporate certain techniques in a manner that, while not strictly adhering to classical norms, still served his persuasive aims effectively. This adaptability allowed Paul to engage an audience who did not require formal rhetorical knowledge to be influenced by his writings. Forbes (2016:214) further posits that when comparing Paul’s letters to ancient rhetorical forms, they do not depict him as a practitioner of formal rhetoric. Instead, Paul wrote primarily for ordinary laypeople who could grasp his message without needing a deep understanding of Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions. Additionally, Forbes observes that the letters addressed to Christian communities were intended for public reading, often carrying polemic elements, which differentiates them from the conventional forms outlined in Greco-Roman epistolary theory. This contextual consideration reinforces the notion that Paul’s rhetorical strategies were tailored to his audience’s needs and capacities rather than adhering strictly to formal rhetorical standards.

Despite the divergent conclusions among scholars regarding Paul’s formal education in Greco-Roman rhetoric – an education that Porter (1997:565–567) considers improbable – Forbes (2016:213–214) presents a compelling argument that rhetorical analyses of Paul’s letters can yield valuable hermeneutical insights. Forbes (2016:213–214) suggests that while employing rhetoric to interpret Paul’s writings may be hermeneutically viable, such interpretations must remain anchored in the historical context to ensure they resonate with the contemporary audience as they did with the original audience. This suggestion is advantageous for readers who are not formally trained in rhetoric, as it allows them to engage with Paul’s letters without the necessity of such training. It thereby enhances the sense of empowerment they may derive from independently discovering the meaning of the text. Simultaneously, it implies that the interpretation of Paul’s letters should neither be constrained by Greco-Roman rhetorical conventions with which he did not fully align, nor should his letters be understood as having been produced within that framework. This perspective necessitates that scholars engaging in rhetorical analysis of Paul’s letters develop a nuanced interpretive methodology that considers the socio-historical situation of both Paul and his audience, alongside the rhetorical stylistic devices he employed to persuade them. By doing so, scholars can achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the texts, allowing for insights that respect both the rhetorical context and the original intent of Paul’s message.

This article presents an integrated approach to the rhetorical-critical interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:1–4. It operates within the broader field of rhetorical criticism by interpreting how Paul sought to persuade the Corinthians through rhetorical strategies and stylistic devices. Rather than adhering to a single rhetorical model, this study utilises classical rhetorical persuasive devices alongside a text-centred interpretation that focuses on Paul’s dominant rhetorical objectives within the passage. Additionally, the socio-historical background of 1 Corinthians will be examined to provide further insights into Paul’s persuasive techniques. In this way, the article positions itself as a pioneering effort, incorporating a multidisciplinary-integrative approach to the interpretation of a Pauline text, thereby offering fresh perspectives on Paul’s rhetorical practices and their implications for understanding his engagement with the Corinthian church.

To achieve this objective, firstly, this article will delineate the socio-historical approach that will be employed in the analysis, focusing specifically on issues pertinent to 1 Corinthians 3:1–4. The scope of this examination will be deliberately limited to those socio-historical factors that directly impact the interpretation of the text. Secondly, the article will detail how classical persuasion strategies will be utilised in interpreting the focus text, providing a framework for understanding Paul’s rhetorical techniques. Thirdly, it will outline the text-centred rhetorical methodology that will guide the interpretation. Overall, while integrating these approaches, the structure of this article will follow the steps that constitute a text-centred rhetorical interpretation, effectively merging the previously mentioned methodologies. This integrated framework will be referred to as a text-generated-persuasion-interpretation (TGPA), thereby offering a comprehensive and coherent lens through which to analyse Paul’s rhetorical engagement with the Corinthian church.

These steps include:

The dominant rhetorical strategy is to be understood similarly to how the point of the passage is identified.

The rhetorical situation that prompted the writing of 1 Corinthians will be examined in accordance with the principles of TGPA. As previously stated, Snyman (2016:2) argues that the rhetorical situation surrounding the writing of 1 Corinthians can be discerned from the text itself, without the necessity of external socio-historical background. He contends that the socio-historical background and rhetorical situation are not equivalent but rather mutually exclusive, asserting that the rhetorical situation is constructed solely by the author and embedded within the text (Snyman 2016:2). In slight contrast to Snyman, this article suggests that understanding the socio-historical background is essential for interpreting the rhetorical nuances of the text.

In particular, 1 Corinthians 3:1–4 falls within the broader context of 1 Corinthians 1–4, which should be regarded as a single cohesive unit, with Paul addressing the issue of philotimia – the lust and love for honour – within the Corinthian community. Finney (2010:28) was among the first to identify philotimia as a dominant concern in ancient Greco-Roman society, observing that it profoundly influenced the mindset of nearly every member of the Corinthian community and served as a lens through which they understood their social existence.⁴ By integrating an analysis of both the rhetorical situation and the socio-historical context, this study aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of Paul’s rhetorical strategies and their implications for his audience.

Beset by an insatiable lust and love for honour, the Corinthians were riven with schisms over personalities. For them, associating with a particular leader signified alignment with individuals they esteemed highly. Paul first rebuked them for this synkrisis [comparing two people to each other for the purpose of judging them and choosing one who is deemed superior] Witherington (1995:130). Paul initially addresses this behaviour in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 and then continues to discuss it in 1 Corinthians 3:3-4, stating:

This personality cult arises from their desire to affiliate with a particular influential preacher. However, Paul distances himself and the other preachers from the Corinthians’ conduct by asserting that they are all equals – mere men and servants of God enabled by God to preach the gospel (1 Cor 3:5; 1 Cor 4:1). This emphasis on an anti-philotimia stance provides crucial insight into the rhetorical strategies he employs as he navigates and responds to this prevailing cultural ethos within the church. In this context, the lust for honour is replaced by a commitment to equality and the edification of one another.

This section will provide a detailed examination of the dominant rhetorical strategy employed by Paul, alongside the supportive strategies that underpin his argumentation. Furthermore, it will interpret the types and nature of arguments utilised, as well as the rhetorical techniques implemented to enhance the effectiveness of Paul’s dominant rhetorical objective. By doing so, this interpretation aims to uncover the nuances of Paul’s persuasive discourse and its relevance in today’s socio-cultural context.

The dominant rhetorical strategy of 1 Corinthians 3:1–4 can be summarised as endeavouring to explain why individuals characterised by worldly tendencies cannot attain the mind of Christ. This is exemplified in his assertion: ‘Now I, fellow believers, was not able to speak to you as spiritual ones, but as worldly ones, as infants in regard to Christ’ [‘Κἀγώ, ἀδελφοί, οὐκ ἠδυνήθην λαλῆσαι ὑμῖν ὡς πνευματικοῖς ἀλλʼ ὡς σαρκίνοις, ὡς νηπίοις ἐν Χριστῷ] (1 Cor 3:1). Here, Paul articulates a critical distinction: the wisdom of the cross is discernible only to those who are spiritually mature, who recognise that the significance of the revelation transcends the speaker’s eloquence (Mihaila 2009:26).

Paul’s corrective stance is specifically directed towards the Corinthians, who, due to their immaturity and desire for honour referred to as ‘philotimia’ have erroneously equated the wisdom of the cross with oratorical skill. This misapprehension has further contributed to divisions within the church, a reflection of the party slogans mentioned in 1:12. In doing so, the Corinthians fail to align their behaviour with the identity that Paul has previously attributed to them in the letter’s introduction, placing them in a precarious position within the community. Thus, Paul’s rhetorical strategy not only addresses the immediate concerns of the Corinthian church but also seeks to realign their understanding of true spiritual wisdom and communal identity.

Paul could have condescended to or vilified some members of the community involved in the dissentions; however, he instead chooses to employ what this article identifies as a supportive rhetorical strategy, presenting himself as a nurturing parent. Some scholars interpret Paul’s designation of the Corinthians as ‘worldly ones’ [σαρκίνοις] as shocking, given that they perceived themselves as ‘spiritual ones’ [πνευματικοῖς]. However, the argument presented herein is that Paul utilises the rhetorical technique of shock and surprise by adopting the metaphor of parenthood, alluding to the care he proposes to offer to his beloved children. Instead of being androcentric, Paul employs a feminine image. McNeel (2014:2) points to 1 Thessalonians 2:7, where Paul states that he and his co-workers cared for the Thessalonians ‘as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children’ [ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα]. In 1 Corinthians 3:2, Paul alludes to breastfeeding the Corinthians instead of giving them solid food, a role traditionally fulfilled by women in antiquity.⁵ Additionally, in 1 Corinthians 15:8, Paul startlingly refers to himself as an ἔκτρωμα: premature birth, abortion, miscarriage (McNeel 2014:2).

These anti-patriarchal metaphorical portrayals of himself are imbued with persuasive intent, encouraging the Corinthians to reconsider their worldly, fleshly thoughts and behaviours in the light of his perspective. This perspective resonates with feminist scholars, who underscore the untold injustices perpetuated by unchecked-patriarchy – specifically, the harmful gendered norms that, when left unchallenged, serve to perpetuate systemic discrimination and oppression against women, thereby contributing to the widespread subjugation of women throughout history. Patriarchy not only promotes discrimination against women and inequality between men and women (Malina 2002:38), but it is also toxic, harming societies and facilitating unspeakable violations of women’s rights and dignity (Cornelius 2022:1). To effect meaningful change, it is crucial to accurately identify the mechanisms of patriarchy, enabling us to advance the noble cause of its transformation or eradication. Paul was aware that the Corinthians’ behaviour resembled a request for patriarchy – the domination of one individual over another. Hence, he presents himself as a nurturing parent rather than a domineering iconic figure.

According to Daly (1985:4), patriarchy is a system designed to favourably serve men and provide them with a licence to dominate women. Greco-Roman patriarchy, as noticed by Bartchy (1999:68), disoriented the social upbringing of males, luring them into a disastrous system. Bartchy (1999) observes that boys were raised to be aggressive and taught from an early age to strive for honour, effectively encouraging philotimia. Failing to attain honour or an upper-class lifestyle brought shame upon men and their families. Bartchy’s (1999:69, 77) examination of the structure of patriarchy is enlightening; if this was the case, it presents a sharp contrast to Jesus, who broke down these walls of division by associating with the despised and marginalised in society.

Similarly, Paul followed Jesus in dismantling patriarchal ideologies by teaching that followers of Jesus are one family and should relate in a horizontal manner – where the strong empower the weak and all spiritual gifts edify the whole church (1 Cor 12:7). Feminism encompasses a myriad of forms, with feminist ideas and theories exhibiting considerable complexity. Within biblical studies, some feminists do not perceive Paul as inherently patriarchal, attributing such interpretations instead to the hermeneutical approaches employed to understand the letters ascribed to him (Visser 2016:124–127). Cornelius (2022:1) contends that the oppressive patriarchal system should not be ascribed to the New Testament itself but rather to the interpretative frameworks that have often reinforced patriarchal structures.

Concerning Paul, whose writings are frequently cited as promoting patriarchy, Cornelius (2022:3–4) argues that Jesus exemplified inclusivity by treating both men and women equally. In this light, Paul, as a follower of Jesus, was similarly revolutionary in his extension of inclusivity towards women. Therefore, we can conclude that Paul served as an instrument of social change, much like Jesus, and was unafraid to challenge entrenched societal norms, including patriarchy. Identifying the nuances of patriarchal structures and their various manifestations is essential for society’s efforts to eradicate this stereotypical framework that victimises women (Cornelius 2022:1; Daly 1985:15). Additionally, while patriarchy primarily harms women, scholars are increasingly recognising its negative impact on men as well – an issue that Paul opposed (Cornelius 2022:1; Fradet 2018).

In the ancient world, high rates of infant mortality caused by illness, warfare and complications during childbirth rendered the mother-child and midwives’ relationship essential for survival (Ibita 2024:86–97). Mothers, midwives and nurses played critical roles not only in providing nutrition through breast milk but also in delivering vital affectionate care. Ibita (2024:86–87) notices that midwives underwent rigorous training to handle complex birth situations. They were required to be physically and mentally prepared to support pregnant women through challenging labours, neonatal care, gynaecological issues and delivery processes.

Home births were often considered the safest option for experienced midwives who possessed the necessary tools, such as birthing chairs, to facilitate safe deliveries and mitigate the risks of maternal and infant mortality (Dansen 2011:296). This perspective is echoed by Paul, who extends caregiving beyond the traditional roles of mothers and nurses, encompassing a broader community of caregivers involved in the birthing process and nursing of babies. In 1 Corinthians 3:2, Paul states, ‘I gave you milk to drink’ [γάλα ὑμᾶς ἐπότισα]. Louw and Nida (eds. 1995:253) interpret the terms ‘to give to drink’ [ποτίζω] and ‘milk’ [γάλα] as specifically referring to human milk, thereby highlighting the significance of breast milk in this context. This interpretation underscores the nurturing aspect of the term, suggesting that Paul’s reference to ‘milk’ [γάλα] serves as a metaphor for spiritual sustenance, similar to that provided by a mother to her child.

By employing this metaphor, Paul conveys his nurturing role towards the Corinthians, emphasising the significance of maternal care and the foundational role of nurturing in both physical and spiritual development. While some scholars interpret Paul’s position as one of domination, suggesting that he diminishes the Corinthians by relegating them to dependence on him as a maternal figure, such readings overlook the nuanced intent of his language. Notably, these metaphors are also found in the Old Testament; for example, Psalm 103:13 states, ‘as a father has compassion on his children, so Yahweh has compassion on those who fear Him’ [כְּרַחֵם אָב עַל־בָּנִים רִחַם יְהוָה עַל־יְרֵאָיו]. This verse describes God’s nurturing qualities and suggests that Paul’s allusion to scripture serves as a rhetorical persuasive tool – an argument based on the authority of scripture to persuade his audience. Tolmie (2004:108) argues that Paul employs argument based on authority of scripture as a foundational element in his reasoning, thereby strengthening his assertions and fostering a sense of unity among his audience, linking them to a collective identification with those who uphold a reverential view of scripture.

Moreover, in 1 Thessalonians 2:7, where a textual variant exists that is beyond the scope of this article, Paul characterises himself as both an infant and a nursing mother, dependent on and nurtured by a mothering God. This duality illustrates the nuanced manner in which he crafted his self-presentation. While it is possible to view Paul’s critique of the Corinthians as addressing immature children who were overly dependent and not yet matured, it must be acknowledged that the aural reception of his writing would not have sounded apathetic. Because of the supportive argument of ethos, his rhetorical objective of presenting himself as a nurturing parent should strengthen the perception of Paul as a caring figure rather than merely confrontational (Collins 2016:139). In order to further scholarly discourse, it is essential to engage with the multifaceted nature of Paul’s thought. When, through the employment of a rhetorical stylistic device, he adopts a pro-feminist stance – one that would be incongruent with a patriarchal outlook, as demonstrated in 1 Corinthians 3:1–4 – it becomes crucial to acknowledge that patriarchal worldviews do not unambiguously permeate his writings. This complexity necessitates a nuanced approach to interpreting his theological and rhetorical strategies.

To elucidate and enhance his persuasion, Paul employs five rhetorical techniques, some of which are well established while others are innovative. Notably, certain techniques have not been applied to the analysis of 1 Corinthians 3:1–3 in the existing literature. Therefore, the use of these techniques within the novel methodology proposed in this study represents a first. This approach aims to uncover how Paul’s rhetorical choices function to strengthen his persuasive objective and nurture the Corinthians. By integrating both familiar and new rhetorical strategies, this methodology seeks to provide deeper insights into the dynamics of Paul’s communication and its impact on his audience and how he should be understood today. The five rhetorical techniques are honorific referencing, emphatic and contrast, ellipsis, progression and erotesis or rhetorical question.

Paul employs this rhetorical technique, which Genade (2015:187) first identified in Titus. Notably, it has not been recognised in 1 Corinthians by any scholar prior to this study. Honorific referencing functions as the opposite of the rhetorical technique of vilification, wherein pejorative language is used. Through honorific referencing, Paul aims to strengthen and stabilise the existing relationship between himself and the believers; hence, he bestows honour upon them by calling them, for example, ‘church of God’ [ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ] and ‘called as saints’ [κλητοῖς ἁγίοις]. Paul honours women by alluding to nurturing as something he has learned from them and from midwives. Honorific references denote something that has no higher authority; thus, Paul suggests in 1 Corinthians 3:2 that there is no higher form of nurturing than motherly care, which is uniquely feminine.

In the first century, nurses and midwives were often permitted by mothers to play this nurturing role on their behalf because they were strong and managed to do only what women were tasked with (Ibita 2024:84, 86–87). If Paul were truly patriarchal – seeking to uphold such a view – then those who advocate this perspective bear the burden of explaining why he would give this honour to women rather than using a patriarchal reference. By employing allusion, a technique that refers to authority (Lanham 1991:viii), it would be peculiar for Paul to use a technique that points to the authority of strong women if he held a low view of them. Moreover, to argue that Paul misappropriates what is rightfully a feminine quality for his own benefit would amount to argumentatio ad absurdum.

Paul begins this section with one of his distinctive rhetorical techniques to enhance his persuasion, subsequently augmenting that technique with another. In this instance, he starts with the emphatic and resumptive ‘I’ [κἀγώ], which serves to reinforce the ‘I’ embedded in the verb ‘was able’ [ἠδυνήθην]. Collins (2016:142) observes that while the ‘I’ initially addresses the apostrophic ‘brothers and sisters’ [ἀδελφοί].⁶ Paul returns to the language of ‘I’ in this pericope, having previously abandoned it during his rebuke of the Corinthians. This use of ‘I’ appeals to a sense of familial unity that Paul deliberately seeks to establish as the foundation for how he is to be read and understood.

It is noteworthy that he also employs contrast or antithesis, indicated by the strong adversative conjunction ‘but’ [ἀλλ]. This technique alludes to those Corinthians who considered themselves ‘spiritual’ [πνευματικός] while, in reality, they were ‘worldly’ [ἀλλʼ ὡς σαρκίνοις]. By using the emphatic ‘I’ to describe the Corinthians as carnal, Paul contrasts their self-perception of spiritual maturity with their actual state. This approach is not negative but nurturing (Collins 2016:143), as he refers to them as ‘infants in Christ’ [νηπίοις ἐν Χριστῷ].

In the second verse of 1 Corinthians 3, Paul employs ellipsis, suggesting that the second verbal phrase may appear unnecessary. He states regarding their inability to receive solid food, ‘you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are still not able’ [οὔπω γὰρ ἐδύνασθε. ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ ἔτι νῦν δύνασθε]. Collins (2016:143) provides insight into this duplicate verbal phrase, which may seem purposeless. Paul uses it to communicate to the Corinthians that he recognises their need for milk rather than solid food. Rather than viewing this as pejorative, it can be interpreted as Paul assuring the Corinthians that he understands their need for milk as infants, and it is indeed milk that he intends to provide. Although he may feel dejected by their lack of maturity, he is willing to bear with them and offer pastoral care by presenting the feeding of milk in a positive light.

Paul does not negate the fact that they are engaging in behaviour uncharacteristic of Christians; thus, they are unspiritual and blind to their condition despite regarding themselves as spiritual. According to Fee (2014:132), Paul remains hopeful that they possess the Spirit, who will enable them to mature, ensuring that his nurturing efforts will not be in vain.

The rhetorical technique of progression serves multiple purposes. In 1 Corinthians 3:1–4, it fulfils a dual role. The first purpose is to amplify Paul’s rhetorical objective of explaining why some Corinthians were not growing towards spiritual maturity. The second purpose is to expand the idea that his proposals for nurturing their growth are realistic (Lanham 1991:9). Consequently, as the Corinthians are presented with the image – or apparent accusation – that they require milk and are not as wise and spiritual as they assert, they should heed the immediate solution Paul provides as a path towards maturity (Fee 2014:133). While Paul concludes that the Corinthians’ inability to receive solid food is because of their own shortcomings, which contradicts their claims of spirituality, he ultimately leaves them with a gospel solution in the form of a rhetorical question.

The rhetorical question is one of the most well-known rhetorical devices. Its simplicity and the ease with which it can be answered by most people do not diminish its persuasive effectiveness. On the contrary, it serves as an empowering device that can neutralise a tense situation, such as that presented in 1 Corinthians. By prompting the audience to engage with the question and arrive at the answer themselves, they are more likely to attribute their insights to their own reasoning rather than to Paul (Lanham 1991).

As an example of erotesis, the rhetorical question implies an answer but does not lead the hearer to an overt response; rather, it invites them to engage in critical thinking and decision-making. Lanham (1991:69) also identifies other forms of rhetorical questions, such as epiplexis, which aims to rebuke the audience, and ratiocinatio, which involves reasoning. In this latter form, the question posed encourages self-reflection and leads to a logical conclusion regarding a problem, facilitating correction. In the peroration of 1 Corinthians 3:1–4, elements of erotesis, epiplexis and ratiocinatio are clearly evident in Paul’s rhetorical strategy.

Fee (2014:136–137) and Collins (2016:143) suggest that the rhetorical questions posed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:3–4 reference aspects he has already addressed earlier. A key point is Paul’s assertion that spiritual individuals do not display the ‘carnal’ behaviour evident among the Corinthians. The term ‘spiritual people’ [πνευματικοῖς] refers to those who are transformed and conduct themselves in accordance with the Spirit (Fee 2014:136). Furthermore, Paul employs the metaphor of ‘walking’ [περιπατεῖτε], which may signify one’s daily spiritual health. In this context, ‘walking’ represents a process of maturation or a stage of growing up.

This metaphor of walking is frequently used in Scripture to illustrate the relationship believers are meant to have with God and to describe their spiritual lives. It implies direction, purpose and a continuous journey towards spiritual maturity. By invoking this imagery, Paul encourages the Corinthians to reflect on their current state and strive for growth in their faith, thereby reinforcing his call to move beyond their present immaturity.