2. The true relation between Paul and Apollos (3:5–9)
D. Misunderstanding of leadership (3:1–9)
1. Baby Christians (3:1–4)
The conduct of the Corinthians shows that they have not progressed in the faith, but are still ‘infants’.
1. The affectionate address Brothers softens the rebuke Paul is about to make; he must make it, but he makes it in love. In the days of the mission in Corinth he had not been able to address them as spiritual; in those early days the kind of maturity he has just been speaking about had not been possible. The converts had been worldly (sarkinos, which means ‘fleshy, (made) of flesh’, BAGD), which Paul explains as mere infants in Christ. There was nothing wrong in this at that time. It is inevitable that those who have just been won for Christ should be mere infants in Christ. Maturity comes from growth and development. It takes time. Beginners in the faith cannot be mature.
2. Paul taught them then in accordance with their position as ‘infants’. It is not possible to speak ‘wisdom among the mature’ (2:6) when addressing potential converts and new converts. Paul gave them then milk, not solid food (cf. Heb. 5:12; 1 Pet. 2:2). He did not push the infant believers beyond their capacity, but gave them the teaching that was suited to their state. There was nothing blameworthy in their being ‘not yet ready for it’. But it is otherwise when he says you are still not ready. Indeed (all’ oude) is a strong expression ‘used to introduce an additional point in an emphatic way’ (BDF 448(6)). The present situation is different. It was all very well for the Corinthians to have been in the position of ‘infants’ when they actually were ‘infants’. But they should have outgrown that state long since.
3. Paul gets to the root of the matter with his accusation that they are still worldly. He has changed his word for worldly from sarkinos (v. 1) to sarkikos. The -inos termination means ‘made of …’; thus tablets ‘made of stone’, lithinos, are contrasted with those ‘made of flesh’, sarkinos (2 Cor. 3:3). The -ikos ending rather means ‘characterized by …’; we see it in psychikos of the ‘natural’ man and pneumatikos of the ‘spiritual’ man (2:14–15). The difference between sarkinos and sarkikos is like that between ‘fleshy’ and ‘fleshly’ (cf. Lenski, ‘ “fleshy,” and you cannot help it; “fleshly,” and you can but do not help it’). The more thoroughgoing word is sarkinos, but there is no blame attaching to it as applied to those who are young in the faith. But sarkikos, ‘characterized by flesh’, when used of those who have been Christians for years, is blameworthy. The mature believer is pneumatikos, ‘characterized by spirit’. To be characterized instead by flesh, as the Corinthians were, is the very opposite of what Christians should be. ‘Flesh’, of course, as often in Paul, is used in an ethical and moral sense. It indicates the lower aspects of human nature (cf. Rom. 13:14; Gal. 5:13, 19; Eph. 2:3, etc.).
The accusation is made specific: there is jealousy and quarrelling. The former word means basically something like ‘zeal’, ‘ardour’. It is usually ranked as a virtue by classical writers, and sometimes also by New Testament writers (e.g. 2 Cor. 7:7; 11:2). But this temper all too easily leads to envy and the like, and characteristically the New Testament writers use the word for that evil thing that is one of ‘the works of the flesh’ (Gal. 5:20). For quarrelling, cf. 1:11. Both terms point to self-assertion and unhealthy rivalries. Whereas Christians should be considerate of others (cf. Rom. 12:10), the Corinthians were asserting themselves (cf. 4:8). Paul asks whether this is not worldly (sarkikos), and acting like mere men. This last expression means ‘like natural men’ (2:14).
4. For gives the reason for this. When is the indefinite hotan, ‘whenever’; each time such an affirmation is made Paul’s point is demonstrated over again. It is not clear why he repeats the catch-cries of only two of the parties, but it may be significant that he selects those of Apollos (who might be thought to be close to him, cf. 4:6), and himself. Again he asks, are you not mere men? (Moffatt, ‘what are you but men of the world?’). Their outlook is that of worldly wisdom, not that of Spirit-filled men. Paul has been hammering away at this ever since he introduced the matter of the dissensions (1:10–12). The divisions were a standing witness to the worldly mentality of the Corinthians, not to their spiritual perception. Where they should have been ‘spiritual’ (2:15) or ‘mature’ (2:6), they were but ‘fleshly’.
2. The true relation between Paul and Apollos (3:5–9)
Paul proceeds to develop the thought that people like himself and Apollos are no more than servants, depending on one another and on God. It is God who brings about spiritual growth.
5. The neuter What (cf. ‘anything’, v. 7) where we expect ‘Who’ takes attention away from the persons of the preachers and concentrates it on their functions. Servants translates diakonoi, a term which originally meant a table waiter. It came to be used of lowly service generally, and in the New Testament it is often used of the service that any Christian should render to God. In time it was applied to one of the regular orders of the ministry, the deacon, but this is not an example of that use. The term stresses the lowly character of the service rendered and ridicules the tendency to make much of preachers. Who would set servants on pedestals? The real work is done by God; Paul and Apollos are no more than instruments through whom he does his work. These ministers could work only ‘as the Lord gave’ to them.
6–8. The process is likened to agriculture. Paul planted and Apollos watered (the same verb as that rendered ‘gave’ in v. 2), but neither made the plants grow. The comparative unimportance of their work is clear. It is only God who made it grow. This verb is imperfect, whereas those for planting and watering are aorist. The work of Paul and Apollos is viewed as completed, but God’s activity in giving the increase goes on.
Having established this important point, Paul proceeds to draw conclusions. Neither the planter nor the waterer is important (Conzelmann says this breaks up the Paul and Apollos parties; ‘Both lose their heads’!). The attention of the Corinthians should have been fastened on God, who alone effects all spiritual work, and not on his unimportant instruments. Further, there is an essential unity between planter and waterer. Obviously the work of neither can be successful without that of the other. So far from being rivals, Paul maintains that he and Apollos have one purpose (really, ‘are one’). This does not minimize their distinctive contributions; Paul goes on to point out that each has his own responsibility. Each will receive his own ‘wage’ (so, rather than be rewarded for misthos; BAGD defines the word as ‘pay, wages’; cf. Luke 10:7), and that according to his own labour. Only God, of course, can determine what the ‘wage’ will be; it is not for us to try to work out who is deserving of more! Notice further that the criterion is not ‘his success’, nor ‘how he compares with others’, but his own labour.
9. Three times in this verse the word God comes first: ‘God’s fellow-workers are we; God’s field, God’s building are you.’ This puts strong emphasis on the divine action. Ministers and those they serve are no more than God’s instruments. All is of God and all belong to God. The Greek translated we are God’s fellow-workers could be understood as ‘we are partners working together for God’ (GNB), which would suit the context very well. Despite its attractiveness, however, we should probably not accept it, for the more natural way to understand the Greek is God’s fellow-workers (cf. Mark 16:20). It is a startling expression, which sets forth in striking fashion the dignity of Christian service. As someone has said, ‘Without God, we cannot; without us, he will not.’
The word for field, geōrgion, occurs only here in the New Testament. It can mean field (‘farm’, Orr and Walther; ‘garden’, NEB), or the process of cultivation. There is a similar ambiguity about oikodomē, building, which may signify the edifice or the process of erection. Either sense is suitable here. Paul may be saying that the Corinthians are the field, the building, in which God is at work, or that they are that work in cultivation and building. Incidentally, the metaphor of building is a favourite one with Paul, but it is not often found in the New Testament outside his writings.