1 Corinthians 3
LenskiCHAPTER III
IV. God’s Co-Workers, 3:1–9
Paul begins with the “wranglings” (ἔριδες) found in Corinth, 1:10, and points out their absurdity in a preliminary way. Then he adds the paragraphs concerning the character of the gospel as foolishness and as wisdom and concerning its reception by the apostles through revelation and inspiration. On the basis thus laid Paul now proceeds to settle completely with the Corinthian wranglings.
1 Corinthians 3:1
1 As he did in the first paragraph of chapter 2, Paul again reaches back to the time when he first worked in Corinth, but he does so only briefly in oder to compare the present state of the Corinthians with their beginnings in the faith, a comparison that must fill them with shame, for they still act like babes, babes who have not grown up. This is bound to hurt their pride, but Paul intends that it should. He calls them “brethren”—shall we say baby-brethren? And I, brethren, was not able to speak to you as to spiritual but only as to fleshy people, only as to babes in Christ.
The historical aorist takes us back into the past when the Corinthians were beginners in the faith, and the aorist infinitive sums up the speaking and the preaching of Paul at that time. The pronoun “I” is emphatic, for the apostle was their preacher at that time. The Corinthians were beginners in those early days and as such could not then be treated as πνευματικοί, real spiritually minded people, but only as σάρκινοι, people still fleshy in their way of thinking and acting and not able, like a truly spiritual man, to judge aright all things, 2:15. Paul does not fault the Corinthians for this early condition of theirs, for he adds the apposition “as babes in Christ.” We must all be “babes” at first in the natural course of our spiritual development. There is something tender in the term, and it implies maternal solicitude on Paul’s part and motherly care in helping these babes to grow up and to become strong and mature spiritually. Thank God that the Corinthians were converted by Paul’s preaching and were united to Christ in faith and thus began their Christian career!
While νήπιοι, “babes,” removes all blame, it still suggests an unsatisfactory condition of immaturity that ought soon to pass away. This suggestion is even stronger in the word σάρκινοι, “fleshy.” Paul does not use ψυχικοί (2:14) to describe this early state of the Corinthians, for this term denotes people who are totally devoid of the Spirit, who therefore cannot be “in Christ.” The term σάρκινος = σὰρξὤν and names the substance of which one is composed, “fleshy.” A person of this kind may be “in Christ” as Paul here states regarding the Corinthians when they were still beginners in the faith, yet such a one ought to change from this condition as soon as possible. To have too much flesh is to have too little of the spirit or the new life in Christ. Unless the flesh is greatly reduced and the spirit increased, the latter will soon be smothered and killed. While the spirit is at first naturally weak like a babe it must soon grow strong in order to maintain itself, and the stronger it grows, the better.
1 Corinthians 3:2
2 Paul tells the Corinthians: “When you were still quite fleshy and babes in Christ as to the spirit, mere ABC scholars in the faith, I had to treat you as such in order to make you grow, and I did so.” Milk I gave you to drink, not meat, for not yet were you able.
Milk is for babes, they cannot digest solid food. This is a case of zeugma, R. 1201, for the verb “I gave you to drink” is proper only with “milk” and not with “meat,” solid food. Paul does not intend to say that these two figurative terms are to designate two groups of gospel doctrines, milk doctrines and meat doctrines. It is an erroneous deduction that preachers ought to withhold certain doctrines from beginners in the faith because these are too hard for their spiritual stomachs to digest. Some carry this idea so far that they think that certain doctrines are fit only for preachers and for theologians and not at all for ordinary church members. The doctrines of predestination and conversion have been treated in this manner.
But all that Christ and Paul say about these and about other doctrines they address to all the members of the church. Paul always preached “all the counsel of God,” Acts 20:27. Paul does not distinguish between two sets of doctrines but between two modes of presenting all doctrines. In fact, like Christ, he used more than two modes, for in every case he took into consideration the spiritual development of his hearers. See how Jesus uses one mode in Matt. 18:22 and then a far simpler one in the attached parable. He proceeds thus in many instances and condescends to reveal the most marvelous things of the gospel “unto babes,” Matt. 11:25.
After saying in v. 1: “I was not able,” Paul now adds in explanation: “for you were not yet able.” Paul’s inability was not due to lack or inefficiency in himself but to the spiritually undeveloped condition of the Corinthians. When saying “not yet” Paul implies that the Corinthians would advance beyond the beginner’s stage in due time. Also that he would gladly have offered the Corinthians solid food had they been ready to receive this form of food.
Paul speaks about the early days of the Corinthians with the two aorists. With the present tense he now suddenly turns and strikes home with a severe rebuke regarding their present condition: nay, not even now are ye able. During all this time the Corinthians had been proud of their ability. Had Paul not preached mightily in their midst, and was he not followed by the great Apollos? Did Paul not acknowledge the great spiritual wealth God had given them (1:5)? How can Paul, then, now say a thing so severe as this?
Paul knows how the Corinthians will wince under this lash, but he is far from administering it as he does and then trying to soften the hurt. Instead of following such a procedure he at once proves conclusively that the Corinthians are actually still fleshy and babes, far behind the state they should have attained. Although boasting of being able during all this time, they are still unable. At one time they were naturally immature without special blame; now their immaturity is a different matter. Regarding ἀλλά as being confirmatory and continuative see R. 1185, etc.: “yea.” “Now” is cumulative: this inability persists contrary to nature and to expectation.
1 Corinthians 3:3
3 Paul’s proof for the unnatural inability of the Corinthians is as direct as is his startling charge: for you are yet fleshly, for whereas among you there is jealousy and wrangling, are you not fleshly and are you not walking after the manner of men?
Paul repeats the charge “you are yet fleshly” and then proves it. He makes a fine distinction when he now calls the Corinthians σαρκικοί. At one time, in their early days, they were σάρκινοι, still largely made up of flesh because their spiritual part was still in the infant stage. They could then not help it, they were “fleshy” in heart, mind, and life and yet giving promise that they would soon outgrow that stage. But something has interfered with their development, Paul finds that they are now σαρκικοί (κατὰσάρκαὤν), “fleshly,” people who ought to obey the true spiritual norm and yet by a choice of their own obey the norm of the flesh. The difference between the two terms is: “fleshy,” and you cannot help it; “fleshly,” and you can but do not help it. “Fleshy,” you carry a bad load but will soon be rid of most of it; “fleshly,” you follow a bad norm and refuse to get rid of it.
Paul approves of neither condition but cannot especially blame them for the former whereas he must decidedly blame them for the latter. Our versions erase the difference by using one word, “carnal,” as a translation of both Greek terms.
But is this carge of still being fleshly in thought and in act true in regard to the Corinthians? Paul makes them answer for themselves. He asks two questions, the answers to which are implied as being self-evident because the facts they point out are undeniable. “For whereas there is among you jealousy and wrangling, are you not fleshly,” etc.? The Corinthians cannot deny it. By ζῆλος, “jealousy” or “envy,” Paul refers to the vice of the heart which loves to lower another and to exalt self. Its natural product is ἔρις, “wrangling” or “strife,” 1:11, compare Gal. 5:20.
Is it not a fact, Paul asks, since you Corinthians have these vices in your midst, that you are still fleshly? And Paul explains just what he means by fleshly by adding to his question: “and are you not walking after the manner of men?” With κατὰἄνθρωπον he indicates the norm of this their wrong conduct, the norm which animates man as a mere man and as such is far from God and contrary to the norm he requires us to obey. Men who are “spiritual” (2:15) follow a different norm, one that leads to love and to peace.
1 Corinthians 3:4
4 A second question, which contains a second γάρ, proves that envy and strife do, indeed, exist among the Corinthians. For, whenever one says: I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are you not mere men? Does this not show that you are just common, unregenerate men like those in the world, you who act so much like them? “Are you not (mere) men?” explains the previous question in regard to walking “after the manner of men.”
The Corinthians may have expected a different kind of proof, for they may not have considered their contentions such a serious matter. For when they wrote to Paul they never mentioned a word on this subject. Paul’s words must, therefore, have struck them rather forcefully. Really serious faults in the church quite frequently make little or no impression on the members while lesser failings stir them up. The Pharisees were meticulously concerned about tithing mint and cummin and left undone the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith, Matt. 23:23. Envy and strife are always deplorable.
Spirituality does not thrive in such an atmosphere. To seek honor for men, and to seek honor from men whereas Christ should be all in all, is courting deadly danger. To put men into rivalry with Christ and to glorify men at the cost of Christ, whether this be done consciously or unconsciously, is to assail Christ himself. If we only always had a Paul to step in with the full corrective gospel power!
We see that Paul repeats the slogans of only two of the four Corinthian parties. Perhaps these were the most prominent or the worst although this is a surmise. The other two are, of course, not innocent. See the discussion of 1:12.
1 Corinthians 3:5
5 In 1:11, 12 Paul states the fact of the wrong existing in Corinth. He repeats this in a fuller and more telling way in 3:1–4. Then in 1:13, etc., Paul corrects the wrong. He does the same in 3:5, etc., but his correction now probes to the very bottom. As he did in chapter one, he begins with questions and then with οὗν connects these questions with the proof for the Corinthians’ wrong which he has just offered. What, then, is Apollos? and what is Paul? Ministers through whom you believed, and each as the Lord gave to him.
The Corinthians are making party heads of these men and each party glorifies its man to the detriment of Christ and the gospel. Now what (not “who,” A. V.) are these men? And Paul again names them. The Corinthians ought to know, and this knowledge should have prevented them from elevating men as they did. These men are only the Lord’s διάκονοι, both equally only his servants.
Paul does not say δοῦλοι, for this term stresses the feature that the servant’s will is subservient to the Master in all things. When Paul calls himself and Apollos διάκονοι, “ministers,” he has in mind the beneficial service they rendered the Corinthians. Then he at once states the chief feature of that service: “through whom you believed.” The aorist may be ingressive: “came to believe”; it may also be constative, summing up the entire activity of believing on the part of the Corinthians.
For such benefit received the Corinthians may well hold Paul and Apollos in grateful remembrance. But Paul is also concerned to have them remember that the real source of their blessings is the Lord. “Through whom” characterizes Paul and Apollos as being no more than causae instrumentales in the Lord’s hands. The Lord alone is the causa efficiens in working and in preserving faith. Paul modestly places Apollos on a par with himself when he states what service they rendered the Corinthians. Although Paul alone founded the congregation he seeks no special honor for himself above that accorded to others.
Because Paul and Apollos are only the Lord’s ministers, therefore also any difference in the service which these two rendered the Corinthians is due to the Lord. So Paul adds: “yea (καί, cumulative) to each as the Lord gave.” It was he who portioned out to Paul and to Apollos what each did in Corinth. Most assuredly then, all credit and all glory for what was thus achieved in Corinth belongs to no man but to the Lord. Both men did strenuous work in Corinth, yet Paul considers all of this work as a gift to him and to Apollos, a gift that called for their joint gratitude.
There were, of course, differences between these two men and between the measure of their work and their success, but this, too, was due to the Lord and to his giving. In this simple and true way Paul draws the eyes of the Corinthians away from men, including himself, and fixes their gaze on God. His own pure heart, which is free from all envy and jealousy, reaches out to the hearts of the Corinthians in order to impart the same purity to them. Away with all invidious comparisons! What each of us is able to do in the church is an undeserved gift from the Lord’s hands. Bend the knee and give him thanks!
1 Corinthians 3:6
6 How did the Lord employ Paul and Apollos in Corinth? I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growing. The Lord graciously granted to Paul the work of originally planting the Corinthian field while to Apollos he graciously granted the work of watering what had been planted. These activities on the part of these two men are, of course, not mutually exclusive, but it is not necessary to stress that fact in this connection. In these very terse statements, which are even without connectives, it is sufficient to touch upon only the major feature of each man’s work. To plant, to water—these activities belong together. One is as necessary as the other.
One must know the Orient in order to understand how vital for constant growth watering is in areas where no rain falls during the entire summer. The planting done at Corinth was not intended to produce a quick, transient crop that is grown in the damp winter season; it was rather like the planting of trees and of vines that need the water courses (Ps. 1:3) the year ’round. So in Paul’s imagery planting and watering are complementary. Each man did what the circumstances made necessary and natural.
But God’s activity belongs in an entirely different class: he, and he alone, did what neither of these men or any man could do, he “caused the growing.” A man can place the seed into the ground or set out young plants in the soil, a man can keep that soil moist in one way or in another, but what man is able to cause the growing? If God does not cause it, it will never be caused. This fact the Corinthians should have considered, and their party wranglings would have been an impossibility.
In v. 5 Paul says that the Lord (Christ) assigned each minister his work, here he says that God made things grow. Both are divine acts, evidence that Christ and God are of equal power and of equal majesty. The change of tenses is important. The two aorists: “I planted,” “he watered,” point into the past—the men did their little work and are gone. So it is still: each performs his little instrumental task and leaves. When he is describing God’s activity Paul writes the imperfect ηὕξανεν which refers to an act begun in the past but going on and on indefinitely, for the tense is open and sets no terminus. Paul and Apollos have left Corinth, God is still there and causing the growing. Why quarrel about men when the Corinthians should unite in praising God?
1 Corinthians 3:7
7 So, then, neither the one planting is anything, nor the one watering, but only the one causing the growth, God. This is the only correct conclusion. Men are nothing, and God is not only something (τι) but, as the contrast implies, he is everything. “God” is placed emphatically at the end. The three present participles are qualitative and describe the persons with reference to the action in which they engage.
1 Corinthians 3:8
8 Paul carries this comparison of men with God, namely of men as God’s ministers compared with God as their Lord, to its very climax. Now the one planting and the one watering are one, and each according to his own labor shall receive his own wages. Δέ is continuative, “now.” Whatever differences may appear between him who plants and him who waters disappear the moment we look from men to God. These men fuse together and form ἕν, “one thing,” one unit. The very idea of separating them and pitting one against the other vanishes into thin air. This tiny word ἕν is the final refutation of the dangerous differences which the Corinthians are making their party slogans.
There are, of course, differences between the Lord’s ministers. Does he not send one to plant and another to water? This, too, is his business. But even greater differences appear, particularly in the κόπος, the hard and tiring labor which each performs. Some throw their whole heart into their labor, some have much harder tasks to perform, greater burdens to bear, some are called to labor longer than others. Hence another difference appears: they shall receive different wages.
Well, then, is this at least not some justification for the Corinthians when they made efforts to establish differences between their ministers? The very opposite is true. For the “wages” which each worker shall receive as his own are not the concern of men but the supreme concern of God. What a mistake the Corinthians are guilty of when they usurp this function of God’s, when one wretched party tries to exalt one man against another, and a second party exalts the other man! If the Corinthians will only follow Paul’s example and look to God, all such dangerous proceedings on their part will stop. Each minister shall receive his “wages” of grace at the hand of his gracious and generous Master.
Matt. 19:27–29.
“His own wages” makes plain that there will be a difference; this is the one indicated in the parable of the Talents and in that of the Pounds. And the norm or rule which the Lord will apply in apportioning these different wages is expressed in the phrase “according to his own labor.” “His own wages” and “according to his own labor” have the two emphatic positions in the sentence. The two parables mentioned show that in all cases the wonderful wages will so exceed the labor of each servant that each will be utterly astonished at the reward which he receives from his magnanimous Lord. In comparison with such wages the little glory which some misguided party in Corinth would bestow becomes a farce.
1 Corinthians 3:9
9 The fact that this apportionment of wages is a matter that belongs wholly to God the double statement with γάρ establishes. For God’s co-workers are we; God’s husbandry, God’s building, are you.
The emphasis rests on the three possessives: “God’s … God’s … God’s.” Two of these declare that even the Corinthians are God’s. His are the laborers, his the field with its planting, his the building. Paul does not write co-laborers, for God works but never labors; so he writes “co-workers.” The preposition σύν found in the noun connects God’s ministers with him and not these ministers with each other save as they are all equally joined with him. “We,” of course, refers only to Paul, to Apollos, and to men in the ministry (διάκονοι), and we cannot extend it so as to apply it to Christians generally. The Christian ministry is still a distinct office. Behold the honor which Paul here bestows upon this office! Full of labor though it be, it makes us co-workers with God.
Yet this truth involves much more: all that these workers plant, water, and build is likewise God’s, and God’s alone. The Corinthians are a vineyard that is planted and tilled by God’s workers and belong to God. There is no σύν in this statement, nor in the one that says that the Corinthians are God’s building. This marks the difference. Paul tells the Corinthians: We ministers belong to God as his fellow workers, you, the congregation, belong to him only as his field and his building. The holy office is something more than ordinary membership in the congregation.
The Corinthians acted as if these ministers were theirs, to be measured and weighed at pleasure, to be exalted or to be lowered, to be rewarded with praise or to be chastised with criticism. Paul takes these ministers out of their hands, they are God’s, doing his work under his special call and commission.
While he thus pronounces these ministers to be God’s he at the same time states that the Corinthians, too, are God’s, but they are such as the fruit and result of this joint work of God and of his ministers. This truth lies in the two designations γεώργιον, the land with its planting, and οἰκοδομή, the building. There can be no vineyard or other planted field unless someone first works and plants it; nor can there be a building great or small unless someone first erects it. In a subordinate way Paul could say: You Corinthians are our field, our building. But this would be stating only a small part of the truth. The ministers are only God’s humble instruments and no more.
The real Worker back of them is God himself, and so the entire result is his, supremely his. A double motive must, then, deter the Corinthians from their party cries and contentions: 1) they are misusing God’s ministers who because of their very office belong to God; 2) they are thereby untrue to themselves who as the very product of this ministry also belong to God.
A second figure is introduced at the end of this verse by the term “God’s building,” which forms a link of transition to the next paragraph, in which this new figure and its rich features are to be elaborated.
V. God’s Building, 10–23
If the Corinthians will cease to be fleshly and will look upon their true ministers as God’s own ministers, if they will realize that God himself will reward each one rightly, they will never tolerate party strife, and they will even rightly view themselves as a product of God’s ministry and thus as God’s congregation. But back of this party strife in Corinth lies the unholy desire to introduce human wisdom and thus to corrupt the very gospel itself. No minister has as yet stressed this human wisdom in Corinth, at least Paul does not intimate such a state of affairs. But where this pseudo-wisdom is admired by a congregation, there is danger that ministers will be sought who will cater to this dangerous appetite. Instead of building with imperishable truth some may build with perishable material or even forsake the true foundation altogether. This is the danger to be guarded against. “Let each man take heed how he is building.” The congregation is to be God’s own temple, and woe to him who builds so as to make it anything else!
Let no man be mislead by this false wisdom and fall into God’s condemnation. Such is the trend of this section, which is dominated by the figure of a building which is advanced to that of a temple, v. 10–17. The section closes with admonition and assurance, v. 18–23.
1 Corinthians 3:10
10 Paul begins with the work that was done in Corinth when the congregation was founded and was built up in the true faith. Now, however, no prominence is given to the persons who did this work. While Paul himself laid the foundation he alludes to himself only incidentally when he mentions this part of the work and uses no emphatic ἐγώ, and when he is speaking about the continuance of the work he mentions only the fact that it was done by “another,” ἄλλος, whoever this may be, and mentions no name or names. Somebody had to begin the work; it was Paul who did it although God could just as well have sent someone else. Likewise, somebody had to go on with the work; it was, we know, especially Apollos who did this although God could have found somebody else. It is the character of the work that Paul wants the Corinthians to note and not the persons whom God employed.
According to the grace of God given to me as a wise architect I laid a foundation, and another builds thereon. Paul disclaims any special credit for starting the work at Corinth. The fact that he was enabled to do so was due entirely to God, was in harmony with his undeserved favor toward Paul, and was in the nature of a pure gift granted to him. In this way Paul regards his own labor in Corinth. He sees only God’s “grace” and gift (the aorist participle to express the single past act of bestowal) for which he is truly grateful. That is what he wants the Corinthians to see likewise. The Paul party in Corinth will collapse the moment this is done, and all other parties will likewise disappear.
God’s grace and gift consisted in the fact that “as a wise architect I laid a foundation.” Paul’s meaning is plain: he first placed Christ and the true gospel into the hearts of the Corinthians. Of course, nobody builds without a foundation. The wisdom of Paul consisted, not in laying a foundation, but in laying the right one in the right way. The little word “wise” intends to recall all that Paul said in chapter two regarding the gospel as the true, divine wisdom. While he calls himself a “wise architect” he is not thinking of some wonderful quality of his own mind and intellect but of the true gospel wisdom made his by revelation (2:10). The pride and the satisfaction expressed in the adjective “wise” are pure and holy, for they rest altogether on the consciousness of possessing God’s revealed wisdom.
We meet this adjective again in 4:4 and in other utterances of Paul’s. He knew what he had and with what he worked, and he did not merely assert that what he had was the real wisdom as is the case with many ἄσοφοι who boast of having the genuine gospel merely to justify themselves. Thus also Paul was sure of his great reward, Acts 20:27; 2 Tim. 4:6–8.
When Paul adds “and another builds thereon” he is giving utterance to a statement that lies in the very nature of the case. A foundation is laid but once, after that the erection of the building itself proceeds. The verb used here really means: another “does the upbuilding.” This figure illustrates the entire work of increasing the outward number and the inward faith of the congregation. When Paul writes ἄλλος, “another,” this word is to be taken in a general sense like our “somebody else.” For this reason he employs an aorist to describe his own work which is past and a present durative tense to indicate the work of building which goes on indefinitely and is going on even now as Paul writes these lines.
That also shows the pertinence of the admonition: And let each take heed how he builds thereon! When he calls himself a “wise architect” Paul renders a verdict on his past work of laying the foundation. That was rightly done and is entirely finished. But the building operation is still in full progress and is in the hands of somebody else. It will go on even after Paul is dead. Even now Paul has reason to fear that some of this present work is not being done aright. Hence this admonition and the instruction regarding wise and regarding unwise building.
1 Corinthians 3:11
11 When Paul demands that every man who is engaged in the work of building in Corinth test his work most carefully, he by no means exempts himself and the work he did in laying the foundation in Corinth. Such an exemption would place him in a class by himself and thus lend support to the Paul party in Corinth, the very consummation Paul would avoid. No; Paul’s work, like that of all his successors, must be tested just as theirs is, for they, all of them, are the Lord’s διάκονοι. For this reason Paul states the explanation (γάρ): For, as regards foundation, no one can lay another beside that lying already, which is Jesus Christ. This is the test to which Paul submits his own work in Corinth. All true building of the church, whether it includes starting a congregation or only continuing one already started, must be in perfect harmony with the one divine foundation which, once laid by God, now lies forever.
When Paul writes that he “laid a foundation” in Corinth he means only that he began the work in that place. Laying a foundation in this sense is in contrast with the erecting of the superstructure. And both expressions used in v. 10 apply to one locality only, which is in this instance Corinth. A vaster thing is meant by the one and only foundation that Paul says is “lying,” κείμενον, a present tense, lying permanently and forever. Paul says nothing about him who laid this foundation or how it was laid. There is no need for these details.
The Corinthians must bear in mind especially that no second foundation like unto this can ever be laid by anyone. They shall also note what this foundation is, namely “Jesus Christ.” When this is understood, all the work of the Lord’s διάκονοι, whether it consist of starting a congregation or of later building it up, can be adequately tested, and it can be determined whether such work is really genuine or not.
What had Paul done in Corinth when he there “laid a foundation”? “As a wise architect” he established the hearts of the Corinthians on the one and only foundation, Jesus Christ. All that Paul taught, preached, and practiced in Corinth was done to this end and to this end alone. All of the Corinthians must needs testify to this effect. Paul, therefore, makes no empty claim when he terms himself a wise architect, he states a fact. What Paul had thus begun, others continued, but their work is now called “building” work. And this is to be tested by the same standard.
If it establishes the hearts of the Corinthians more and more on the one and only foundation Jesus Christ, if all teaching, all preaching, and all practice serve this end alone, then this work, too, is that of wise architects, true successors of Paul. But recent developments among the Corinthians raise a doubt on this score. For that reason Paul writes these paragraphs, the doubt must be removed.
Our versions translate as though Paul had written: ἄλλονγάρθεμέλιον, “other foundation” no one can lay; whereas Paul writes: θεμέλιονγὰρἄλλον, “as regards foundation, another no one can lay.” The emphasis is on the first word, θεμέλιον, which is either an accusative absolute or an adverbial accusative. When it comes to foundation, Paul says, there is only one, and no one can lay a second. We may translate παρά other “than” that (already) lying; or another “beside” that (already) lying. It is a question whether ἄλλον is comparative or not. Paul intimates that someone may, indeed, try to lay a new and a different foundation, that he may even think that he has done so and persuade others to think so also, but the very idea is an impossible absurdity. To forsake this one and only foundation in any way is fatal.
In this connection “Jesus Christ” is inclusive and not exclusive, not even partitive. His entire person and all his work are the foundation that lies fixed and solid forever. He is not merely the center to which something else may be added; he is both center and circumference. His name does not represent only a few doctrines such as one or another age may deem “vital,” but includes all the teachings of Scripture, whether you and I deem them vital or not. This foundation, which is Jesus Christ, is objective, “lying” as such before all of us. All other alleged foundations are subjective, i.e., imaginary; they are like the sand referred to in Christ’s conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount.
1 Corinthians 3:12
12 Paul now tells us what he has in mind when he utters his warning that we must take heed how we build. Yes, there are differences among the architects or builders, not the foolish and the wrong differences which the Corinthians think they see, but actual and grave differences such as they ought to see lest in Corinth they build in a wrong way or even wreck the temple of God. Paul considers three classes of builders: 1) those who are truly wise (v. 10); 2) those who are unwise and introduce wrong material although they do not leave the foundation; 3) those who are fools and destroy God’s temple. The eventual fate of these three classes Paul also indicates. This presentation leaves the question untouched as to what a congregation ought to do with a διάκονος or “minister” who uses faulty material in building or starts to wreck God’s temple. There is no reason to enter upon this question in the case of the Corinthians since all their διάκονοι had been faithful men. The Scriptures answer this question in other connections.
Now (δέ, continuative) if anyone builds on the foundation gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay, stubble, each one’s work shall be made manifest.
The indefinite “anyone” does not intend to say that one individual builder uses all of these different materials for the structure he erects but, as the distributive “each one’s,” ἑκάστου, shows, that one builder uses one kind of these materials, another builder a different material. In decidedly different ways, then, the architects may build on the “foundation, Jesus Christ.”
The materials used may range all the way from gold to stubble. Paul marks six gradations without using an “or” to indicate a division of the six, yet the fact that he intends to enumerate two groups is perfectly plain because of the great inherent difference in value between the materials named in the two groups. In the one group we have gold, silver, and costly stones, than which there is no more valuable material; in the other we have pieces of wood, hay, and stubble, than which there is no cheaper material. It will not do, then, unduly to stress the manner of building by laying all the emphasis on πῶς, “how,” in v. 10 and at the same time assume that all six materials may be used equally in building on the “foundation” just so the manner be right. Such an interpretation loses sight of the test by fire to which each man’s structure must eventually submit, v. 13. Moreover, if the manner of building is the chief consideration and the material used only an incidental feature, why does Paul mention all these different materials in such a marked way, and why does he say nothing at all about differences regarding the manner of building? As far as manner is concerned, that exhibits itself in the material which the builder chooses and deems fit for the superstructure to be erected on this grand foundation which is Christ.
Some builders use only precious material; but there is a difference even in their choice, namely between gold, silver, and costly stones. Silver is less valuable than gold, and lovely marble less valuable than silver. Yet these three are evidently intended to represent material that harmonizes as it should with the great and precious foundation. Likewise, hay is even poorer than ξύλα, pieces of wood picked up here and there, and stubble is altogether unfit. Who would think of placing material of this type on such a glorious foundation? When Paul descends to stubble, the matter becomes wholly ridiculous in its impossibility. All this is plain when one considers the figurative terms placed side by side. But more must be said.
While Nero built a Golden House in Rome, this was not constructed entirely of gold. We know of no silver house that man ever built. Fine marble structures and wooden houses or huts are frequent, even grass-covered huts are found among savages, but not even a hut was ever built out of stubble. Paul, therefore, does not intend to list actual building materials such as men use. For in this connection “gold” does not mean that some gold was used for ornament only, but that the structure was built of gold throughout; no man ever used this metal to such an extent. And at the other extreme “stubble” does not mean that some stubble was used and worked into clay brick for instance, (Exod. 5:12), but that the structure was made of stubble throughout; no man ever attempted to use such material for constructing even the meanest hut. We fail to understand Paul’s figures aright when we take them as a reference to materials which men actually use. “If one builds gold … stubble” assumes that one does this, but such an assumption is contrary to what men actually do in ordinary life.
We here have an instance in which the common human actualities are disregarded and only the spiritual are thought of. Jesus employs similar illustrations. No man ever did or would do what Jesus says the owner of the vineyard did in the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen: send one set of servants after another to such murderous men and at last send even his son. As a story of human events it is impossible. What of it? just so it pictures what Jesus desires. In the same way Paul writes about a man who builds an entire structure out of gold and again one entirely out of stubble.
But what does this figurative language mean? Two interpretations are offered. The one lets these six materials denote persons for the reason that the foundation is the person Jesus Christ and because the church consists of persons. But this interpretation contains a flaw. We may, indeed, conceive of a minister who receives into his congregation a crowd that is made up of all sorts of people that only nominally profess Christianity. Such a thing is done often enough at present.
Such congregational material might be termed wood, hay, and stubble. But we cannot conceive that, when these persons perish in the judgment fire, the man who accepted these persons and of them built up his congregation should himself in the end escape, “he himself shall be saved,” v. 15. If these materials denote persons, then the builder who uses persons who are fit to be termed wood, hay, and stubble must himself also perish with this combustible material.
The other interpretation lets these six materials denote doctrines or rather the substance of the teaching employed by the ministers of the church. Thus gold, silver, and costly stones are the teaching of the “wisdom” of the gospel which is full of the everlasting ἀλήθεια or truth; wood, hay, and stubble are teachings and church practices that are devoid of this wisdom and this truth. A similar illustration uses, not, indeed, the building, but the foundation, in one case the rock of Christ’s words or teachings, in the other sand or the disregard of Christ’s teachings.
The view that the building erected on the foundation Jesus Christ is not a doctrinal structure but one that is composed of the souls of men is unsatisfactory. The teachings here referred to are not systems of doctrine that are set down in books but kinds of teaching that are put into men’s minds and hearts, which there fore produce certain results in their lives. We need think only of Corinth where some were inclined to use the wood, hay, and stubble of human wisdom as the choicest kind of teaching with which to fill the hearts of the people. Paul still calls them brethren, but this kind of teaching filled Paul with alarm for all who received it in any way. We ourselves find pastors and people who admire such wood, hay, and stubble in teaching and in church practice (which is itself the strongest kind of teaching since actions speak louder than words) as though it were gold, silver, and costly stones. Because of ignorance some misapprehend what the Scriptures teach, or they have been taught incorrectly.
That is so much wood that will never stand the judgment fire. Some go farther. They justify what the Scriptures condemn and teach men accordingly. This is hay, or, worse still, wretched stubble, outrageous stuff to connect with Jesus Christ. The fire will devour it in a flash.
Two things must be remembered about this correct interpretation: 1) that the foundation is not abandoned when wood, hay, and stubble are built into the church; 2) that such building is by no means without the gravest danger, both for those who are builders and for those who are being built. For it is but a step from using the wrong material, mistaking wood, hay, and stubble for gold, silver, and valuable stone, or thinking them equal to these, to changing to a wrong foundation, losing the true Christ, and accepting one who is self-made in order the better to match the admired wood, hay, and stubble.
1 Corinthians 3:13
13 The protasis: “if one builds,” followed by the future in the apodosis: “shall be made manifest,” is a condition of reality. While the building process goes on, much deception remains, also much self-deception in regard to the true character of the materials that are used. Not even the gold is always recognized as what it is, to say nothing of the lesser silver, or still lesser costly stone. But “each one’s work shall be made (or become) manifest” in the end so that all deception or even doubt shall disappear.
The statement with γάρ explains this: for the day shall declare it because it is revealed in fire; and each one’s work, of what sort it is, the fire itself shall test.
“The day,” ἡἡμέρα with the definite article and no further modifier, means the great final day of judgment that is so often named in the Scriptures. The object of δηλώσει, “shall declare” or make plain, is ἑκάστουτὸἔργον, “each one’s work,” which naturally becomes the implied subject of ἀποκαλύπτεται, “is revealed.” It is not the day that is revealed, the day merely “comes,” ἔρχεται, as the Scriptures say. Each man’s “work” is what he actually built up on the foundation. How the day of judgment shall make that plain, as well as why this day does it as no previous day has done, the clause with ὅτι states. Each builder’s work “is revealed” as just what it is. The agent implied in the verb is God.
This revelation is intended for the whole world of men and of angels, the builder himself being, of course, included. Here men may deceive themselves and others but they shall not be so successful in the final apocalypse.
“In fire” is figurative for “in judgment,” namely the absolutely righteous judgment of God. The point of comparison in “fire” is not its light but its consuming power. The materials mentioned prepare for this figure, for three are incombustible, and three are combustible. The consuming power of this divine fire appears in other Scripture utterances, 2 Thess. 1:8; Heb. 12:29; Deut. 4:24; Mal. 3:2. Fire separates precious metal from dross and destroys sham and falseness and leaves truth and reality. Paul uses three verbs to indicate what the final day with its judgment upon every builder’s work shall bring: make plain—be revealed—test or test out.
The making plain shall be brought about by a testing out, δοκιμάζειν. A thing is tested or proved to determine whether it is genuine. So also a person may be tested as to whether he is fit for an office or whether he is what he ought to be, C.-K. Here the medium, “the fire itself,” indicates the method that is used in the last great test.
1 Corinthians 3:14
14 If anyone’s work shall abide which he built up, he shall receive wages. Paul retains the idea of “wages” mentioned in v. 8 and says that they shall be awarded for work that proves to be genuine and carefully defines this work by means of the relative clause “which he built up.” Such a clause does not appear in the next verse which records the fate of the spurious work. The aorist is in place, for the work is completed when it comes to the final test. The condition is again one of reality which agrees with Paul’s objective presentation in v. 12 and again in v. 15. In regard to the genuine work Paul writes that it “shall abide” in the sense that it shall remain undamaged by the fire of testing; thus he keeps the figure and also the reality back of the figure. To think of a fire that is so intense as to melt gold and silver and to spall or burst marble and other costly stones is to overdo Paul’s figure.
The fact that the “wages” mentioned are entirely a gift of grace need not be stated after a phrase like that found at the beginning of v. 10. Yet these wages are duly promised to all faithful teachers and preachers of the gospel; Rev. 4:4; 11:18; 1 Cor. 9:17; 2 John 8; Dan. 12:3. They consist in higher degrees of glory and in the delightful eternal contemplation of the work these builders have wrought by the Lord’s grace.
1 Corinthians 3:15
15 The absence of a connective heightens the contrast between the two parallel statements. If anyone’s work shall be burned up, he shall suffer loss though he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire. The impossibility of letting τὸἔργον refer to the persons gathered into the church is obvious. The verb κατακαίω, to burn up completely, to be consumed, the opposite of μένειν, to abide, excludes the very idea, for in no sense can persons burn up. “The work” is the ignorant, mistaken, non-genuine teaching, all of it being sticks of wood (ξύλα, plural), or only hay, or, still worse, stubble. This burns up because there is no divine reality in it. The figure does not, however, change so that fire and burning up now denote God’s wrath. Paul still speaks of the divine judgment, and this burning up denotes the complete rejection of the work of the unwise builders, their teaching and all that they thought they had accomplished in men’s hearts through it.
For the builder the result is: “he shall suffer loss.” All to which he devoted his life shall be suddenly swept away. He shall stand bare where he might have had so much. Hence there is, of course, no thought of wages for him, and this is the great loss. Many great “works” shall thus go down in ashes in the judgment and be absolutely disowned by the Lord. Many proud builders who were acclaimed by men while they lived and were honored with great tributes when they were buried shall hang their heads when all their work becomes nothing in the fire test. But many a humble preacher, of whom nobody made much in life, shall shine at that day because he wrought gold, silver, and precious stones.
Though it strikes us as strange, Paul nevertheless writes regarding the unwise builder: “he himself shall be saved.” This is due to the fact that, despite his wretchedly faulty work, despite even the very stubble of his teaching, he remained on the great “foundation Jesus Christ.” It is a manifestation of wondrous grace on God’s part that such a foolish builder should be allowed to escape although he is stripped of the glory of the faithful. “Yet as through fire” indicates the narrow escape. He is like a man who flees from a burning building, is badly frightened, and saves nothing but his life. Even here “fire” means divine judgment. The picture seems to be somewhat on this order: this builder stands in the house of his work, and when the judgment-fire strikes and devours it, he rushes out. Who wants to spend all his life in the ministry and then end in such a way?
Two things are now, however, clear. The teaching of wood, hay, and stubble cannot signify heretical doctrines such as subvert the very foundation of faith in Christ. They are perhaps vacuous teachings that do not deserve the name of doctrines at all, human notions added to the gospel. They are actually sectarian doctrines that are false and dangerous enough and yet do not destroy the cross as such. Paul says throughout that the unwise builder builds something, wrong though it is, on the foundation. In the second place, although Paul avoids all mention of the hearers of this kind of teaching, the only fair conclusion we can draw in regard to them is that, like their teacher, they, too, escape as through fire.
While Paul himself contrasts only two builders, one whose work shall remain, and one whose work shall be burned up, additional possibilities are at least suggested. One may build a structure that is made entirely of gold and not use silver at all; another may use only silver, still another only costly stones. Or, one may build with some gold, etc., and yet foolishly add some wood, etc., and thus lose some of his wages. Let us all strive with all our might to use as much gold as possible!
Paul’s word regarding fire is used by the Catholics as proof for their doctrine of purgatory. But this fire is restricted to the last day; it is not a fire of purgation but of final judgment; it is intended for the builders and only by a deduction for certain unwise Christians.
1 Corinthians 3:16
16 The third possibility follows. The first two Paul treats altogether objectively by refraining from all direct personal reference. The third he states subjectively by even asking the Corinthians a direct question in regard to themselves. The first possibility is that a teacher builds upon the foundation in a true way (gold, etc.); the second that a teacher builds on it in a false way (wood, etc.). The third is, however, not building at all (the idea of this figure has been exhausted) but the opposite of building, φθείρειν, destroying and wrecking. Let us note in this connection that the line between using wrong material in building and the terrible work of destroying the divine structure is quite faint and easily crossed with fatal results.
In presenting the final possibility Paul advances the idea with which he began when he spoke of the “foundation” and of the building which the builders erect thereon. He did not immediately state what this structure is. With an effective asyndeton and a question which is directed to the Corinthians he now does this. Do you not know that you are God’s sanctuary, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? The question as such and its point in regard to the “sanctuary” intend to startle. The form of the question takes for granted that the Corinthians do know what Paul asks. The force of the question is to have the Corinthians vividly recall what they know because of its great importance in the present connection.
No article is needed with ναός, for only one such sanctuary now exists even as only one existed in Israel. We must distinguish this ναός, the structure containing the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, from the ἱερόν which included all the courts and all the structures on the Temple hill. Even in the Old Testament the people who used the Temple of God were themselves considered the real temple of God. When Paul calls the Corinthians God’s sanctuary he does not mean that each congregation is a separate temple-sanctuary so that there are many such sanctuaries. On the contrary, God’s people are one spiritual temple or sanctuary, and wherever God’s people are, there that sanctuary is found.
With an explicative καί Paul at once explains how he comes to call the Corinthians “God’s sanctuary,” which is a term that certainly places them on a very high level: “and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you.” The basic and self-evident proposition is this: where God dwells, there is his sanctuary. He is, indeed, everywhere by virtue of his omnipresence but he does not “dwell,” οἰκεῖ, everywhere. As one adopts an οἶκος as his home, so God dwells with and in his people. This is the specific gracious presence that is always mediated by Word and Sacrament, for which the Scriptures employ the most beautiful imagery, which is summarized by the church in the term unio mystica. God’s indwelling separates, sanctifies, sets apart for himself all who are thus honored and blessed.
It is true that the unio mystica is personal for each believer, and yet Paul’s phrase “in you” includes the entire congregation as a unit. The divine indwelling unites into one all who are thus blessed; it does not separate except from the world, it joins together. The divine indwelling is ascribed to all three persons of the Godhead, John 14:17, 23, for the opera ad extra sunt indivisa. When this act is ascribed, as is done in this case, to the Spirit, we may recall that his office and his function are to sanctify us unto God.
1 Corinthians 3:17
17 The erection of gold, etc., and of wood, etc., on the foundation Jesus Christ includes all the teaching of the builders, that by which they begin to gather people together to form a congregation like Paul’s laying the foundation in Corinth, v. 10, and that of building up such a congregation outwardly and inwardly. These teachers are, therefore, properly pictured as architects or builders, and their work as erecting some kind of structure on the great foundation. When Paul now proceeds to speak about destroying God’s sanctuary he can no longer use the figure of builders who erect something, for to destroy and to wreck are the very opposite of building up. This damnable work is also restricted to the actual sanctuary of God that true builders have already erected. For this reason Paul first focuses the attention of the Corinthians upon themselves as being the sanctuary of God built up by his own work and by that of other true builders. And then with a sudden turn he focuses the eyes of the Corinthians on this nefarious work of tearing down what has been built up in Corinth with such great labor.
If anyone destroys the sanctuary of God, him shall God destroy, for the sanctuary of God is holy, since of such kind are you. The structure of the conditional sentence is chiastic in the Greek, which brings the two verbs sharply together and lends them great emphasis. We are unable to duplicate this in English. The sense of the two verbs φθείρει and φθερεῖ is therefore identical. We cannot translate as the A. V. does: “If any man defile, etc., him shall God destroy.” We translate: “If anyone destroys, him shall God destroy.”
Paul does not say how he conceives this destroying. We shall not go far wrong when we say that, if the Corinthians themselves are God’s sanctuary because of the indwelling of the Spirit, he destroys this sanctuary, be he teacher or layman, who by lies and deceptions drives the Spirit out of the hearts of the Corinthians and fills them with the spirit of the world. The man who does this nefarious work cannot possibly have the Spirit in his own heart. On this fearful work compare Matt. 18:6, 7. Yet Paul is not intimating that in Corinth anyone has advanced to this third stage, that of wrecking the faith and the godly life of the Lord’s people, but he issues a grave warning nevertheless. The future tense “shall destroy,” like the futures occurring in all the previous statements in v. 13–15, refers to the last day although it does not, of course, exclude any preliminary judgments which God may deem it necessary to inflict.
The severity of this final judgment, namely destruction in hell, is justified by the addition “for the sanctuary of God is holy,” separated from the world and entirely set apart for him. This is the worst among human crimes, nefas, a monstrous deed. What Paul writes about it is general and in this sense objective although v. 16 already lends a subjective touch. Paul intensifies this touch into a direct application to the Corinthians when he adds the relative clause with οἵτινες. But this relative is unusual. Does οἵτινες mean simply οἵ?
Even then the remarkable attraction in number from the singular antecedent ναός (ἅγιος) to the plural predicate ὑμεῖς would remain and call for an explanation. Moreover, the one relative cannot be substituted for the other. R. 960 says: “There is an argument in οἵτινες.” We cannot translate in the easy fashion: “which (sanctuary) ye are,” as our versions do. This loses even the decided emphasis on “you.” We must render: “since of such kind are you.” The indefinite relative οἵτινες is causal and includes “since,” which makes plain what Robertson means by saying it contains an argument.
Paul’s statement really involves a syllogism. Major premise: Whoever destroys the sanctuary of God, God will destroy him, for his sanctuary is holy. Minor premise: You Corinthians are holy and God’s sanctuary. Conclusion, implied: Whoever destroys you, God will destroy him. The verb φθείρειν may mean either “destroy” or “corrupt” as the context determines. We have no English verb that has this double sense. The German renders it well: Wer den Tempel verdirbt, verderben wird den Gott, which even retains the chiasm of the Greek wording.
1 Corinthians 3:18
18 The last clause in v. 17 prepares the way for the admonitions which now follow. They contain the practical deductions which the Corinthians should carry into effect. Paul might have used the connective οὗν, “therefore.” Let no one deceive himself. If anyone thinks he is wise among you in this world age, let him become a fool in order that he may become wise.
Paul intends this not only for the teachers in Corinth but for all the Corinthians, for “no one” and “anyone” obtain their range from “you” in v. 17; and μηδείς is regular because μή is the negative with imperatives, R. 1170. The danger to be found in Corinth is that some, many, possibly even all may deceive themselves with respect to the entire subject which Paul is discussing, that of wisdom, of teachers, and of the kind of work which they do. By using the singular “no one,” etc., Paul appeals to each individual personally; compare the same singular in v. 21.
Without a connective Paul states what he means by this self-deception and at the same time points out how to escape its snare: “If anyone thinks (δοκεῖ, sibi videtur, sich etwas darauf einbildet, has the conceit) he is wise among you.” This is the great danger: one may have the conceit that he is truly wise when he in reality is the very opposite. The phrase “in this world age” does not modify “wise” as though Paul describes this person as thinking himself “wise in this world age.” He thinks he is spiritually wise among the Corinthians. It is Paul who appends the phrase “in this world age” to the entire sentence: in this world age a man may flatter himself that he has the true wisdom whereas all that he possesses is what he has obtained from this world age. He is surely badly deceived, for his wisdom is altogether imaginary.
To this man Paul says: “let him become a fool,” μωρός as far as this deceptive world wisdom is concerned. Let him discard this wisdom, have himself called “a fool” by the adherents of this wisdom, yea, appear as “a fool” to himself for doing so “in order that he may become wise” in the true sense of the word through the everlasting wisdom of Jesus Christ, which is far above anything connected with this transient world age. In this admonition Paul presents the very heart of all that he has discussed thus far. This practical deduction each of the Corinthians is to make for his own person and his own life. In this connection it is quite immaterial whether he considers himself wise in the world’s wisdom or wise in adhering to some teacher whom he foolishly rates as wise in regard to this wisdom.
But the real danger that lurks in this conceit of deeming oneself wise is not so much in being filled (subjectively) with a false idea concerning oneself but in the fact (objectively) that this worldly wisdom detracts from Christ and thus destroys that on which all salvation and all true wisdom depend, namely the cross of Christ, 1:17. Hence also the way in which to escape the dangers of this conceit is not by trying to supplement the world’s wisdom by adding some of the wisdom of Christ to it, or vice versa, but only in utterly casting aside the spurious wisdom, in no longer holding to any of it, and thus in actually becoming a fool.
And yet such a one will not, after all, be a fool, for by the way indicated one will achieve the inner attitude for really appropriating Christ and will actually attain (γένηταισοφός, the aorist indicating actuality) the true wisdom. Note the sharp oxymoron between μωρός and σοφός and the masterly exactness with which every word is placed. In this statement of Paul’s there is, of course, no repudiation of the genuine results of science in any department as far as these pertain to our earthly life, but there is a complete repudiation of any and of all hypotheses, theories, and speculations, scientific, philosophic, or popular, which lord it over Christ and the Scriptures.
1 Corinthians 3:19
19 In a simple but highly effective way γάρ proves that Paul’s injunction is correct: For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. And this finding is in turn substantiated by the Scriptures which tell us how God treats those who are worldly wise: For it has been written (see 1:19): He taketh the wise in their craftiness, Job 5:13, to which a second proof is added with the words “and again” (it is written). Instead of following the translation of the LXX: “Who captures wise men in (their) understanding” Paul translates the Hebrew with more exactness: Er, der die Weisen in ihrer Verschmitztheit erhascht.
A πανοῦργος is capable of anything in an evil sense, hence the abstract noun = “craftiness.” To be taken in craftiness as when a crafty scoundrel or criminal is arrested, is to be exposed and then, of course, to be punished accordingly. It is crafty reasoning by which the “wise” put their sham wisdom across and rob men’s souls of Christ and of true wisdom altogether or in part. The fact that God catches them in the very act and exposes all their craftiness is factual evidence that his wisdom completely outranks theirs, and nothing is more convincing than a fact.
1 Corinthians 3:20
20 Paul adds Ps. 94:11: The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless. Both the Hebrew and the LXX have “of men” while Paul has the interpretative translation “of the wise.” The Lord “knows” means that he recognizes their reasonings as just what they are. These διαλογισμοί of the worldly wise are the thoughts at which they arrive, ihre Ueberlegungen. What the Lord sees is that all their carefully thought-out conclusions are ζιάταιοι, ineffectual. They do not reach the goal and in this sense are “useless”; κενοί would be “hollow” like an empty nut, without substance. The ineffectiveness of these wise men is illustrated by the schemes, plots, and tricky questions of the Lord’s enemies, by which they tried to entangle him.
Jesus always saw completely through their cunning and frustrated their designs with a word or two. So again God’s wisdom exposes the wise men as fools. His wisdom and his judgment alone prevail. Let the Corinthians keep that in mind and not deceive themselves by admiring worldly wisdom, whether it is found in their own minds or in the teachers who may offer their “reasonings” to the church.
21, 22) What is the proper conclusion to be drawn from all this? Wherefore let no one glory in men. This sums up all nicely for the Corinthians and does so in just the form they need. At the beginning of a new sentence ὥστε is only an inferential conjunction, R. 949, and not hypotactic. The admonition given in v. 18: “Let no one deceive himself,” and this one found in v. 21: “Let no one glory in men,” are a pair. This self-deception consists in glorying in men; and any glorying in men is self-deception. To glory in men, καυχᾶσθαι, means to boast about them, their qualities, teachings, and wisdom in any measure or degree apart from Christ and the wisdom of the gospel. The Corinthians were on the way to that type of glorying.
Yet the reason which Paul appends for his injunction is surprising: For all things are yours, (and then he lists in v. 22) whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, and then again, and now wonderfully effective: all yours. Does it seem at first glance as though the statement that Paul, Apollos, and Cephas belong to the Corinthians justifies the existence of different parties in Corinth? That view will be dropped when the mind catches the force of Paul’s statement, which adds much more to these men than the Corinthians have ever considered. They are divided into wrangling parties, each vaunting itself in regard to only one man, and thus in the most foolish way each party makes itself wretchedly poor when the Lord who is infinitely generous bestows upon them all these men with all the precious gospel for which they stand and so much more in addition that the Corinthians cannot grasp it all. Why literally “all things” are theirs! And they should fall down on their knees and worship the Lord who makes them so gloriously rich. Philosophers, too, love the proposition: Omnia sapientis esse; but what an inferior idea they have of “all things” and of “the wise man” who thinks they are his!
Paul would, of course, at once say what he means by “all things.” And since his mind is divinely inspired, he reaches out beyond the immediate range of the thought which he has been elaborating. Yet the new wealth which he suddenly enumerates to the Corinthians is not something that is heterogeneous to the wisdom that has been his great theme. He neither digresses nor runs off on a tangent. This divine σοφία whose praises he sings actually reaches out to all that he now mentions and includes nothing less.
There is first the group of the three significant men whom the blind party spirit in Corinth pitted against each other, Paul, Apollos, and Cephas. Christ is omitted in a marked way, for Christ cannot and dare not be mentioned as occupying the same level with men. Nor dare he be named as one in a list of men, although such a list might include the greatest of men. How foolish to pit these men against each other when all three of them, including all that divine grace had bestowed upon each of them, belonged equally to the Corinthians! Yet they did not, indeed, belong to them in order that they might boast about them but rather in order that they might accept them with humble thanks.
Next to the three men which form one group is placed the second: the world, life, and death. No article is needed with κόσμος, for there is only one “world,” which here does not mean “the unbelieving world” but the ordered universe which God himself has created and into which he has placed us. In a sense in which the pagan σοφοί with their unspiritual and merely carnal minds never understood it this wonderful cosmos belongs to the Christians in Corinth. Nor does Paul mean merely that the world is only ideally theirs, and that the reality of its possession lies in the eon to come. Through the wisdom of Christ we see the universe as it actually is, namely God’s creation; we find his power, wisdom, and beneficence in all its creatures; we receive a thousand earthly blessings in this world from the hand of God, as many as our lives can hold; upheld by his grace, we serve him in this world and faithfully work for his glory. Thus the world is ours. And no worldly sophist can say the same.
“Life and death” might appear as a pair like “things present and things to come,” but they belong in the same group with the cosmos. For this is ζωή, the divine life principle, the spiritual life in Christ Jesus which is born of the living Word in regeneration. “Life” in this sense cannot be paired with “death” as its counterpart, for temporal death is only the transfer of our ζωή from this earthly cosmos to the abode of God, heaven. The wise of this world know nothing of this “life” in Christ, they concern themselves only with the life of their earthly existence, the ψυχή which animates their bodies. Yet the spiritual life comes to us in this world as it came to Paul in Damascus. Who can utter all the blessedness that this life includes? Thanks be to God that it is ours!
And with it also “death,” the release from all sin, temptation, evil with which we wrestle now because the cosmos, great and wonderful though it is, has been invaded by Satan. The Christian falls asleep in Jesus, and so “death is ours” as a blessed end.
The last two constitute a pair, ἀνεστῶτα, the things that have already set in and are now here, and μέλλοντα, the things that are about to be. A third cannot be added, for there is nothing beyond “the things to come,” otherwise Paul would have added it. “Present things” are all those that surround us here in time as long as we live (ἀνεστῶτα, perfect tense, but the perfect forms of this verb are always used in the sense of the present), all the objects, situations, events, and experiences that we meet. The best commentary is furnished by Paul himself in Rom. 8:28, 32.
Present things are ours because they bring us good. “It is as if this multitude of servants surrounded us and on bended knees held out their precious offerings to us. Some of these servants like pain, injury, sickness, grief, and death may at first have a strange look to us who do not know our own royalty sufficiently. It is God who commissions them all and makes each one bring us some blessing so that as kings unto God we shall lack nothing.” Kings and Priests, by the author, page 26. The term μέλλοντα refers to the αἰὼνμέλλων, the heavenly eon about to come, and denotes all that shall be ours in eternal life. Both terms are terms of time and yet as neuter plurals denote that which fills these concepts of time. No tongue can tell what the things that are about to come will be.
“All yours!” Paul writes. The thought overwhelms one with blessedness. Paul’s eyes are clear, they see and glory in all this wealth. The Corinthians should also see it and glory with him. Then all their bickerings will die out and be swept away like a fog.
These lines cannot be considered abstractly, without personal reference to the Corinthians, because both at the beginning and at the end Paul writes all are “yours.” The view of pagan Greeks and Latins that the wise man (philosophically wise) rules all things should not be found in Paul’s words, for “are yours” denotes possession and not domination. The universe, for instance, is ours, but we do not rule it. Paul’s conception of the cosmos differs in toto from that of the philosophers; read Rom. 8:38. The beauty and the rhythm of this wonderful passage from Paul’s pen have been made visible even to the eye. If curved lines are drawn to enclose these lines, we have the tracing of a lovely vase:
) All things are yours Whether present, or coming
The first line has one unit. The second and the third lines each have three units. The fourth line has two units. The fifth line has one unit. The base line, the bottom of the vase, has a pair of units. These two verses are a part of the basis of Luther’s famous essay Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen.
1 Corinthians 3:23
23 Christ is significantly not named along with Paul, Apollos, and Cephas. He now receives his place. But not in the form: “Christ is yours,” as though he can in any way be ranked with these other possessions. No; the reverse is true. Although the Corinthians have all these possessions, they are themselves a possession: And you are Christ’s. This genitive “Christ’s” shows plainly that the previous genitive “yours” includes no thought of ruling, which is clinched by the final statement: “and Christ is God’s,” which cannot express rule.
Wonderfully blessed are we with all our spiritual and all our earthly possessions, yet exceeding all these possessions is the blessing that envelops them all, that we ourselves are Christ’s possession. Here is the true slogan which abolishes all others: ὑμεῖςΧριστοῦ. “You” means all of the Corinthians as one body. This wipes out the “I” in the old slogans, one individual over against the others, which was also the fault of the so-called Christ party.
When God is reached, the cumulation attains its climax. And Christ is God’s is at times used in support of subordinationism, and even when it is not so used this statement seems to make Christ lower than God. The answer is, however, not that the term “Christ” points only to the human nature (which is not accurate), of which it may, indeed, be said that God is above it. “Christ” denotes office, “The Anointed One,” anointed to be prophet, high priest, and king for us, he is incarnate, indeed, yet both God and man. And Θεός is the Triune God. This makes plain that Paul’s statement does not deal with the inner relation of the first and second persons of the Godhead. So also εἶναιτινος always denotes possession and not rank and subordination. In all that pertains to his redemptive office and his work Christ belongs to God, for God sent him, anointed him, glorified him, and thus Christ is God’s.
“Are yours” involves, first of all, the objective reality which is the basic feature of this possession. For all things are ours only by a gracious granting on the part of God. We are likewise Christ’s by his gracious election (1:27, 28) and adoption. And again Christ is God’s only because of God’s great mission. Secondly, “are yours” involves a subjective acceptance and appropriation. We must take and use “all things” as the Grantor intends so that we remain wholly Christ’s and in no way disturb our relation to him.
If this relation is disturbed or broken, all things are no longer ours as God intends. This extends even to God. For we are to leave Christ as he truly is, namely God’s, and thus are we to be his and not to turn Christ into something else by notions of our own, viz., making him a party head and his holy name a party slogan. Thus Paul gently corrects the Christ party in Corinth by implication.
Sound, true, and blessed will remain all taking on our part from Christian teachers and all other taking from God, all joy in Christian teachers and all other joy that God grants us, when all this becomes an expression of our belonging in Christ to God. Ph. Bachmann.
R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.
C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.