Corinthians A.3.1 - Aw, Grow Up!

Chapter 3.1

Paul opens a new comparison in verse 1: the difference between spiritual Christians and carnal Christians. My Bible notes on verses 1-4 state "Although the Corinthians were Christians, they were not fully spiritual (v. 1); they did not live in full obedience to the Spirit." I do not believe that is the sense in which Paul is using pneumatikois ("spiritual people"). Just as in 2:14 where he used psuchikos to describe the person who is motivated primarily by their intellect or some other facet of their soul, i.e. the soul-driven person, so now he uses pneumatikois to describe the person who is motivated primarily by their spirit, i.e. the spirit-driven or spirit-ruled person. And yet, here in v. 1, Paul tells the Corinthians he could not speak to them as spirit-driven or spirit-ruled people, but as carnal (sarkikois), i.e. body-driven or body-ruled. It was not even their intellect that was driving them but rather their desire for physical experience. I can't even say "pleasures," because the physical experience is not always pleasant: it sometimes involves pain, anger, envy, jealousy, discord, and strife. And yet these are as much a part of the physical experience as the pleasurable sensations. True, they are transmitted to and processed by the soul, but they are centered in the body.

Because of this tendency on their part to focus in this area, Paul calls them "babes" (nepiois) or infants in Christ. Now, Paul had spent considerable time among them (about 18 months) and then had gone on to other endeavors, and yet, in his absence, things had not progressed but rather had gone downhill, as he proceeds to detail. Thus, he says, he was not able to and still is not able to give them solid food (spiritually) but must feed them milk; nutritious, nonetheless, but lacking substance. He is still having to address issues that are usually in the arena of dealing with brand-new Christians, those who don't know any better, those who are striving to overcome old habits of their heathen ways and become more mature in Christ, able to crawl, some to walk, not an infant who must be carried everywhere by an adult. And the symptoms of their infancy? Personality cults (vs. 4).

Within the body at Corinth, they had splintered into clubs or cliques built around different teachings and teachers. Some aligned themselves with Paul, the original source of their introduction to the Gospel. Others had found new ideas and fresh "fire" in the teachings of Apollos, the fireball preacher from Alexandria. When he first came to Corinth, he really stirred the people up, but Aquilla and Priscilla had to take him under their tutelage to straighten out some of his theology. Still, a following developed around him. Others had taken their allegiance even further back and decided they wanted to associate with the original apostle, Peter.

Does this sound like anything today? What about the different denominations? Weren't they built around some person and their personality? True, it often coincided with their reception of revelation; for example, Martin Luther's revelation of salvation by grace; the Wesley's rescission of Anglican abuses; Calvin's concepts of predestination. Even more contemporaneously, what are the megachurches except personality cults around an individual, e.g. Jakes, Hinn, et al? True, they afford the opportunity to accomplish much more on a much larger scale, but having been part of such an effort, I can attest that there is lots of baggage that goes along with that kind of effort, and not much of it is positive. It becomes difficult to discern, after a while, what is gold, silver, and precious stones as opposed to wood, hay, and straw (v. 12).

Corinthians A.1.1

Paul's letter is very well organized and follows a very clear outline that is broken up, in my Bible's notes, into three distinct parts. Part 1, which begins in chapter 1 and extends through chapter 4, is written in answer to a report of divisions from the household of Chloe. Part 2 covers chapters 5 and 6 and deals with reports to Paul of fornication and other problems of relationships in the church body. Part 3 covers answers to their questions in a letter they sent to Paul and goes from chapter 7 to the end.

Chapter 1

After greetings of grace and a prayer of thanksgiving, he jumps right into the water in verse 10. They had splintered into personality cults around Paul, Peter, and Apollos. It seems like even then, people tended to align themselves with the speaker at least as much as what was spoken. It's not even about the denomination so much anymore but how "charismatic" or dynamic the leader is. Sure, you'd have to have a strong personality to manage a mega-ministry (if that's what God really wanted you to do), but Paul reminds them in and around verse 26 that God's ways are different. Look around you in Church some Sunday. How many movers and shakers do you see? How many rocket scientists sit next to you? Is the church full of leaders? The concept is almost ludicrous, because the fact is if you get to know some of the people in your congregation, you'll find they are just simple folk who love Jesus. The Kingdom of God is not built on our strength but rather our weakness so that God's strength would be pre-eminent. It seems almost a contradiction to build a ministry around someone simply because they have a strong personality, yet there seems to be a symbiotic relationship between those who want to follow and those who want to be followed. Paul says, in response to this, "Don't follow me: follow Jesus!"

Further, Paul points to three misunderstandings at the core of their divisions. First is their misunderstanding of the Gospel message. They are trying to fathom it through their intellect, but the Gospel is not about Earthly wisdom. It is Heavenly wisdom, and there is a distinct difference. The Greeks had two words for "word": most people are familiar with "logos." It's the word used by the Apostle John in his Gospel to describe Jesus as the "logos made flesh"; however, the second form is "rhema" or "revealed word." Romans 10:17 brings this out in a very familiar yet little understood passage, "So then faith (pistis) comes by hearing (akoe), and hearing by the word (rhematos) of God. The Apostle Peter, in his second letter, points this out in chapter 1, verses 19 through 21: "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed [or We also have the more sure prophetic word], which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, 'but holy men of God spoke [or but men spoke from God] as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.'" Peter is comparing the written word to the voice he heard from Heaven when he was on the mountaintop with James, John, and Jesus at the transfiguration. He says the written word is more sure than that voice of God that he personally heard. Here's the second point from this: if "men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," what's the best frame of reference from which to interpret Scripture? If the Holy Spirit inspired it (Paul calls it "God-breathed" in his second letter to Timothy), then certainly the Holy Spirit is the best one to interpret it. When this happens, the logos becomes rhema which leads to hearing and hearing and hearing which leads to faith.