保羅說自己不用智慧的言語傳福音，好像他拒絕使用修辭來傳講信息，然而，Karl A. Plank 發現保羅使用修辭，還以反諷修辭作為建構福音信息的核心。對於Plank 的觀察，筆者也發現保羅確實使用修辭來處理哥林多教會的問題，但是，筆者認為主要的修辭風格不是反諷，而是吊詭修辭。反諷修辭是指作者的實際意思恰是字面的反面意義；吊詭修辭則是作者同時保留字面的正反兩面，藉著這種正反共存的矛盾衝突，引導讀者尋找隱藏在這正反共存之後的真理。從這定義中，我們發現吊詭修辭也具有反諷的功能，因為它也保留了字面的相反意義。因此，當我們進行分析時，必須判斷保羅是否保留字面意思，如果只有反面意思，就是反諷修辭；如果同時又保留字面意思，那就成為吊詭修辭。透過修辭批判的論據分析，筆者發現保羅在哥林多前書三章18 節至四章21 節以十字架的吊詭作為立論的範型，採用豐富的吊詭修辭作為勸告的策略，一方面藉著吊詭修辭的反諷效果顛覆哥林多教會的觀點，另一方面同時又藉著正反共存的矛盾引導他們思考隱藏的真理。保羅以基督十字架的吊詭作為判準，勸哥林多教會棄絕地位的追求，效法保羅為基督的緣故成為愚拙、軟弱與卑微，按著各人從上帝領受的恩賜，彼此配搭，同心合意地建造教會

Paul claims that he does not preach the Gospel through words of wisdom, thus seemingly rejecting the use of rhetoric in preaching. But Karl A. Plank has pointed out Paul’s masterful use of rhetoric, noting that the center of Paul’s Gospel was even constructed using the rhetoric of irony. Building on the insights of Plank, I will show that Paul dealt with issues in Corinth through the use of rhetoric; nevertheless, I will propose that the major rhetorical device he uses is paradox rather than irony. The rhetoric of irony can be defined as a way of speaking in which the speaker really intends to express the opposite of the verbal meaning, whereas the rhetoric of paradox can be defined as a way of speaking in which the speaker simultaneously preserves both the verbal meaning and the opposite of the verbal meaning. Through the combination of contradictory meanings, the speaker guides the audience to explore the truth which is hidden behind this contradiction. From these definitions, we can deduce that paradox also includes the function of irony, because it expresses the opposite of verbal meaning in addition to preserving the verbal meaning. Therefore when we analyze texts, we must judge whether Paul completely rejected the verbal meaning or not. If Paul exclusively expressed the opposite meaning, then that would be rhetoric of irony; if Paul simultaneously kept both the verbal and the opposite meaning, then that would be rhetoric of paradox. Through a rhetorical analysis of the basis of Paul’s argument, I find that Paul established the paradox of the cross as the paradigm of his argument in 1 Cor 3:18– 4:21. He applied the richness of the rhetoric of paradox as his strategy of persuasion. On the one hand Paul subverted the point of view of the Corinthians through the ironic part of the paradox, while on the other hand encouraging them to consider the hidden truth of the cross by his use of the tension between affirmation and contradiction inherent in paradox. Paul established the paradox of the cross as a major criterion to persuade the Corinthians to forsake their longing for status, to imitate Paul in being foolish, weak, and humble for the sake of Christ, and to cooperate with each other to build community according to their respective gifts.