4. The trials endured by the apostles (4:8–13)
F. The preachers’ lowly place (3:18–4:13)
1. Worldly wisdom is foolishness (3:18–23)
Paul further rebukes the divisions in the Corinthian church by showing that the preachers, whom they have set up so high, are really very lowly. He leads up to this with a further treatment of the ‘foolishness’ of worldly ‘wisdom’, a subject which has occupied him already and which is important enough to be treated again. The things of God are not to be estimated in accordance with the rules of the philosophers.
18. Paul calls for realism: Do not deceive yourselves (this verb occurs in Paul six times and nowhere else in the New Testament). The present imperative suggests that some were in fact deceiving themselves; they should stop it. Clearly some of the Corinthians saw themselves as wise in attaching themselves to a particular teacher. But such ‘wisdom’ accords with the standards of this age, a transient affair as the word itself hints. In the Greek ‘among you’ immediately precedes ‘in this age’; the two are set in contrast. The believer is both in the church and in the world, but his relationships to the two are different. Paul counsels the reader to become a ‘fool’ so that he may become wise. If anyone is to have genuine spiritual insight he must become what the world calls ‘a fool’. True wisdom is found in renouncing ‘the wisdom of this world’ (cf. 2:14–15).
19. Paul had asked, ‘Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?’ (1:20). He returns to the thought with his assertion that the world’s wisdom is foolishness in God’s sight. He comes back to this again and again. The worldly-wise, whom the Corinthians held in such high esteem, are totally unable to understand ‘the wisdom of God’ (1:24), though the humblest believer can appreciate it. God’s wisdom is for ever hidden from the wise of this world; their wisdom is but foolishness where it counts, i.e. in God’s sight. Is this Paul’s private opinion? Not at all. Scripture says so. Paul quotes Job 5:13 in a version differing from LXX and which may be his own translation from the Hebrew. Panourgia, craftiness, originally meant ‘a readiness to do anything’. From this it developed a meaning rather like our ‘cunning’; it might be used in a good sense, but the bad sense tended to predominate. Paul is not minimizing the capacity of the worldly-wise within their own field. But he stoutly denies that their craftiness is of any value when they stand before God. ‘Though craftiness may deceive men, it cannot deceive God’ (Hillyer).4
20. In the second quotation (Ps. 94:11) it is not certain whether Paul has substituted the wise for ‘men’ to bring out the best that the world can do, or whether he is quoting from a manuscript which no longer survives. His point is that God knows the thoughts of every one. Nothing can be hidden from him. Moreover he knows the emptiness of such thoughts; they are futile (mataioi; ‘without result’, ‘fruitless’). The ‘wise’ are unable to effect any solid achievement. The end result of their vaunted wisdom is futility. It is all concerned with things that pass away.
21–22. Paul turns the thoughts of the Corinthians away from the wisdom of men that had meant so much to them; no more boasting about men! For Paul there was a legitimate place for boasting (1:31), but he does not find it in men. The Corinthians were glorying in the creature; the Christian glories in the Creator.
Paul, however, does not develop his argument in that direction. Rather he reasons, ‘Why do you limit yourselves by claiming that you belong to a particular teacher? Do you not realize that all teachers, indeed all things that are, belong to you in Christ?’ So far from enriching themselves by staking their claim to exclusive rights in one teacher, the Corinthians were impoverishing themselves. They were cutting themselves off from greater treasures that were really theirs. Paul says All things are yours, not simply ‘all Christian teachers’. He puts no limit to their possessions in Christ (cf. Rom. 8:32, 38–39). Diogenes Laertius could say, ‘all things belong to the wise’ (vii. 125), but Paul’s horizon is broader. He is not confining himself to the things of this world (as Diogenes was), as his next words show.
The apostle particularizes by referring first to the three teachers to whom the Corinthians claimed to belong. So far from being outstanding people at the head of large and influential parties, the teachers are yours. They belong to those whose ministers they are (‘minister’=‘servant’; see on v. 5). In a lyrical passage Paul goes on to assure his friends that they possess all things, present or to come. The world (kosmos) is the ordered physical universe (here the word is not used in the ethical sense). We find the clue to the references to life and death in Paul’s saying, ‘to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain’ (Phil. 1:21). Life in Christ is the only real life. And Christ has overcome death, so that for the Christian it is not disaster but ‘gain’ (cf. 15:55–57), though to the unbeliever it is the end of everything. Thrall comments, ‘Every possible experience in life, and even the experience of death itself, belongs to Christians, in the sense that in the end it will turn out to be for their good.’ The present and the future add up to an impressive total. Paul does not mention the past, perhaps because we were not responsible for it and we can do nothing about it. But it is otherwise with the present and the future. These belong to the Christian; he rejoices to co-operate with the purpose of God in both. Paul rounds off his list of our possessions with the comprehensive all are yours.
23. But he does not stop there. Believers have great possessions, certainly. But only because they are Christ’s. We should probably translate de by ‘but’ (JB) rather than and. Paul is not adding another to the list of possessions, but by contrast turning to responsibilities (cf. 6:19–20). Believers should live lives of service befitting those who ‘are Christ’s’ (NIV has you are of Christ, but the possessive is like that in the previous verses); their lives should tell forth what they are. The self-assertiveness of the Corinthians was out of character for Christians. They were acting as though they were their own masters, whereas they really belonged to Christ.
The passage reaches its climax with ‘Christ is God’s’. We have noticed more than once how Paul sets Christ on a level with the Father. This passage does not contradict such teaching, for Paul is not speaking of Christ as he is in his essential nature, but with reference to his saving work. He does not lose sight of the deity of the Son. But he does not lose sight either of the truth that the Son became man, and took a lowly place that he might bring about our salvation. There is a strong statement of this subordination in 15:28. There, as here, the thought is that the Son did indeed take a place among men when he took upon him to deliver man. He, too, is God’s.
2. God’s commendation is what matters (4:1–5)
From the glorious possessions of the Corinthians Paul turns to the preachers. He shows that the judgment of men on ministers (and ‘men’ includes the partisan Corinthians) is of no importance. It is before God that they stand or fall, and only God is able to give a true and valid judgment on them.
1. So then roots the argument in what has just been said. Given these truths about Christian service, certain things follow about the apostles. People should see them as servants of Christ, where servants is not the word used in 3:5 (diakonos), but hypēretēs (which Paul uses only here). It meant originally an ‘underrower’, i.e. one who rowed in the lower part of a large ship. From this it came to signify service in general, though generally service of a lowly kind (‘subordinates’, NEB), and subject to direction. The preachers are also those entrusted with the secret things of God. Those entrusted with translates oikonomoi, a term which refers to the person who supervised a large estate (‘administrators’, Héring; ‘managers’, Goodspeed). Unless he was to be a slave to his slaves, a rich landowner had to find someone to do the routine work of running the estate. This deputy was called an oikonomos (cf. Luke 16:1). He held a responsible position; he was set over others and directed the day-to-day affairs. But he was subject to a master and was often a slave. Then in relation to the master he was a slave, but in relation to the slaves he was the master. For secret things (mystēriōn) see on 2:7. The sphere of the preachers’ responsibility is God’s revelation.
2. Paul appeals to contemporary practice with regard to oikonomoi. In the nature of the case the work of such a man was not closely supervised; if the master was to check up on everything he might as well do the job himself. The prime requirement in an oikonomos accordingly was that he be faithful (‘trustworthy’, NEB). This applies to all believers, not just apostles, as we see from the use of the word of Christians generally (1 Pet. 4:10).
3. ‘To me’ comes first in the Greek with emphasis; Paul contrasts his attitude to that of the Corinthians. They valued human judgments highly; Paul dismissed them. The preachers were indeed the servants of the Corinthians, but the Corinthians were not their masters. Their only Master is God. So it is a very small matter what the Corinthians think of them, or for that matter what anyone else thinks of them (cf. Rom. 14:4). Am judged renders the verb anakrinō, used in 2:14f. (where see notes). Strictly it means not final judgment, but the critical preliminary examination that leads up to that judgment (Moffatt, ‘cross-question’). Paul is not interested in any preliminary human sifting; he prefers to await the Judge. Human court translates a curious expression meaning literally ‘human day’ (cf. Acts 28:23). It is found on an amulet of the second or third century (cited in BAGD), but as far as I know nowhere else. ‘Day’ seems to point us to a day of judgment (cf. 3:13; cf. also our ‘day in court’). Paul is saying that it matters little to him whether people pass a judgment on him or not. ‘This does not mean that he was not hurt by their criticism, but that he was not moved by it’ (Wilson).
He takes this to its logical conclusion; his own judgment is irrelevant. It is, of course, very difficult to make an accurate assessment of one’s own achievement, and Paul’s point is that in any case it does not matter. His own views about himself are as irrelevant as are those of anyone else. The Christian is to be judged by his Master. Introspection is not the way forward. Often people think that they know exactly what their spiritual state is and just what their service for God has effected. The result may depress beyond reason or exalt beyond measure; neither is relevant. It is not the task of the servant to pass such judgments, but rather to get on with the job of serving the Lord. This does not, of course, mean that there is no place for times of heart-searching and self-scrutiny with a view to more whole-hearted and more efficient service. It is the attempt to anticipate the verdict of the Lord that Paul is condemning.
4. NIV omits ‘for’ (gar) which ties this in with the preceding argument. Paul is not aware of any great matter in which he has failed in his Christian service, but he does not rest his confidence in that. Make me innocent translates dedikaiōmai, a legal word which means ‘acquitted’ (JB), ‘declared “not guilty” ’. Paul delights to use it of the believer’s standing in the sight of God; it is the ordinary word for ‘justify’. Here it is probably not used in this technical sense; rather Paul is saying that the verdict on whether he had been faithful in his ministry was given by the Lord, not his own conscience. Judges is anakrinō once more. While there is no emphasis here on the preliminary character of the judging, it accords with the meaning of this verb that the final judgment does not appear until the next verse. The Lord, as commonly in Paul, denotes the Lord Jesus (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10).
5. Arising from all this is an exhortation not to judge (krinō) prematurely. The use of mē with the present imperative may imply that the Corinthians had been engaging in this activity. ‘Stop judging’ is then the force of it. Till renders heōs an with the subjunctive, a construction that means that the coming of the Lord is certain, but the time is unknown. The Lord’s judgment will be perfect, for he will bring to light what is hidden in darkness. Quite often in the New Testament darkness has an ethical significance and Paul may thus be referring to evil deeds. But here it seems better to take it of all those deeds which in this present darkness are kept hidden. The motives of men’s hearts (‘the most inward intentions of the inner life’, G. Schrenk, TDNT, i, p. 635) are the secret desires and drives, good and bad alike. Only the Lord’s judgment can take account of these secret things (cf. Rom. 2:16), and this is the judgment that counts. Anyone who is praised then has praise from God, the only praise that matters. Conzelmann sees this praise as ‘a question of reward, not of merit’ and notes that the word is used by magistrates. From (apo) denotes the source and thus the finality of the judgment. It comes from God. There can be no appeal against it.
3. Learn from Paul and Apollos (4:6–7)
Paul has been speaking about the function of ministers, more particularly of himself and Apollos. It might be thought that he was addressing his remarks primarily to such preachers, laying down how they should think of themselves and their work. But this is not so. His concern has been to teach the Corinthians and he proceeds to make this clear.
6. This use of the verb translated applied (meteschēmatisa) is unique. The word means ‘to change the form of’, ‘to transform’ (Phil. 3:21); it may be used of disguising oneself (2 Cor. 11:13–15). Here the meaning appears to be that Paul has done something like use a figure of speech (the noun schēma is often used of a rhetorical figure): ‘I have given this teaching of mine the form of an exposition concerning Apollos and myself (BAGD cf. Phillips, ‘I have used myself and Apollos above as an illustration’). Paul’s concern for the Corinthians comes out in the affectionate address, brothers, and the affirmation that what he has done is for your benefit.
Paul amplifies this with a statement of his purpose, though unfortunately what he says is not clear to us (Conzelmann says that the Greek is ‘unintelligible’ and Héring and others delete it). NIV reads smoothly, but it has inserted the verb go which is absent from the text. Paul is saying something like ‘that you may learn in us the “not beyond what is written” ’. The article points to the following words as a well-known saying, possibly one used by the Corinthians or by Paul when he was at Corinth. Either way, it was a catch-cry familiar to both Paul and his readers. ‘What is written’ employs the formula Paul generally uses when quoting holy Scripture. The problem is that there is no passage in the Old Testament that runs exactly like this. Accordingly some have suggested a reference to some other writing. On the basis of the papyri Parry argues for the sense, ‘ “not to go beyond the terms,” i.e. of the commission as teacher’; cf. GNB, ‘Observe the proper rules’. This is possible, but it is more likely that Paul is referring to Scripture, even though he does not cite a particular passage. M. D. Hooker thinks he is referring to the quotations he has just made (3:19–20); the Corinthians, by adding ‘their philosophy and rhetoric’ to the simple gospel, were going beyond ‘what is written’ (NTS, x, 1963–64, pp. 127–132). Paul is saying that, by considering what he has said about Apollos and himself, they will learn the scriptural idea of the subordination of man. Uniformly the Bible elevates God. The Corinthian emphasis on the teachers meant that they were thinking too highly of men. Paul does not want them to take pride in one man over against another. There is a sense in which Christians may legitimately rejoice in the leadership given by their spiritual men. But when they find themselves so much in favour of one leader that they are against another they have overstepped the bounds. This is the evil of partisanship. The verb take pride (physioō, ‘to be puffed up’) occurs six times in this letter (again in 4:18, 19; 5:2; 8:1; 13:4), once in Colossians, and nowhere else in the New Testament. Evidently Paul regarded it as particularly appropriate in the case of the Corinthians. They, more than others, were addicted to the sin of pride. What is party spirit other than oneself writ large?
7. Paul’s you is in the singular; he is addressing his remarks to an imaginary Corinthian who has become ‘puffed up’. The verb makes … different (diakrinei) means first, ‘to put a difference between’, and then, ‘to regard as superior’. It is probably the latter use here (cf. Robertson and Plummer). The rhetorical question is followed by a second which reminds them that they have no native endowment that they did not receive from God, and this by a third which points to the stupidity of boasting about what is, after all, a gift given by God and in no sense a personal achievement. It is the point made in the rejection of worldly wisdom all over again. By the standards of the world the Corinthians may have had something to boast about. But Christians do not accept the standards of the world. They realize that in themselves they are nothing. They owe everything to the grace of God. There is no place at all for such worldly activities as boasting.
4. The trials endured by the apostles (4:8–13)
Paul turns from his explanation of principles to show something of the lowliness of the apostles as seen in the many trials they had to endure. He does this in the form of a contrast between their wretched lot and the comparative ease of the Corinthians. The result is an impassioned and incisive piece of prose, with irony so biting that some have felt that Paul can scarcely be addressing the church as a whole. They point out that there is nothing like it elsewhere in the entire letter and suggest that here he has in mind the leaders only. But this is a precarious inference. There is no indication at all that Paul is addressing a different audience here. The whole church would hear the letter read, and, in the absence of some mark of a change of addressees, would take it as meant for them all.
8. You have all you want (kekoresmenoi este) translates a verb that is used properly of food (e.g. Acts 27:38). It denotes satiation (LB, ‘you already have all the spiritual food you need’), a feeling of satisfaction. In contrast to those on whom Jesus pronounces a blessing (‘Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness’, Matt. 5:6), the Corinthians felt no lack. The next two verbs, you have become rich and you have become kings both indicate that the Corinthians felt themselves secure and in want of nothing, a dangerous state (cf. Rev. 3:17; contrast Rom. 8:17). Moffatt appositely cites the Stoic catch-cry (taught by Diogenes): ‘I alone am rich, I alone reign as king’; cf. also Philo, ‘the kingdom of the Sage comes by the gift of God’ (On Abraham, 261). Far from the Corinthians having progressed in the Christian faith, they were approximating to the Stoic ideal of self-sufficiency. Some take without us to mean ‘without our help’, but in view of the second part of the verse it means rather ‘without our company’. The Corinthians thought that they had attained a position to which neither Paul nor the other apostles dared lay claim. Paul expresses the wish that they really were in the royal position they imagined. Then perhaps he and his associates might be linked with them in this splendour! The construction Paul employs implies that the wish has not been fulfilled: ‘Would that you did reign (though in fact you do not)’ is the sense of it.
9. This brings us to the actual plight of the apostles. Paul thinks of God as having set them where they were. He is not railing at some cross fate, but calmly accepting what God has done. The repeated references to the present (down to v. 13) shed light on the hardships Paul had to endure at Ephesus (cf. 16:8; Acts 19:23ff.). The verb has put (apedeixen) conveys the thought that it is owing to divine action that they are in the place where they are; God has appointed them to this position. The imagery is derived from the arena, as Moffatt’s rendering brings out, ‘God means us apostles to come in at the very end, like doomed gladiators in the arena!’ Epithanatious, condemned to die, is a rare word, and apparently refers to condemned criminals who were often paraded before the public gaze as objects of derision. They are a spectacle (theatron means ‘theatre’, and thus ‘what one sees at a theatre’). The apostles are exhibited on a vast stage, for they are a spectacle to the whole universe (kosmos), to angels as well as to men (for the angels as spectators of human happenings cf. 11:10; John 1:51; 1 Tim. 3:16; 5:21; 1 Pet. 1:12, etc.). The combination angels and men embraces the totality of personal existence.
10. Paul steadily brings out what is involved in being made a public spectacle. His first point is that the apostles are fools for Christ. Once again he directs attention to the incompatibility between what the world counts as wisdom and what Christians esteem. Paul has referred to this more than once, but this time he introduces a startling contrast by asserting that the Corinthians are so wise in Christ! His word for wise (phronimos) is different from that used hitherto in this letter (sophos). There is no great difference in meaning (Conzelmann speaks of ‘rhetorical variation’), though it is possible that by using a different word he puts some difference between his readers and the worldly-wise he has castigated earlier. But it is also possible that he is hinting that ‘this Church is on dangerously good terms with the world’ (Findlay). He means not that the Corinthians were actually wise, but that they claimed treasures of wisdom which Paul could not claim for himself. Similarly they held themselves to be strong and honoured (endoxoi, ‘eminent’, ‘glorious’), whereas Paul knew himself to be weak (2:3; cf. 2 Cor. 10:10; 12:10), and dishonoured (cf. 2 Cor. 11:24–25; his word is atimos, ‘without honour’, sometimes used of those deprived of citizenship).
11. Paul now drops comparisons and concentrates on the hardships suffered by the apostles. He is not thinking of the distant past, but of what happens to this very hour. The apostles lacked food (which is in sharp contrast to ‘you have all you want’ in v. 8), drink, and clothing. They were brutally treated, where Paul’s word (kolaphizō) is that used of the ill-treatment accorded Jesus (Matt. 26:67). K. L. Schmidt sees it as indicating insult as well as maltreatment (TDNT, iii, p. 819 n. 5,).
12. On several occasions Paul refers to the fact that he earned his own living (e.g. 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8; cf. 1 Thess. 4:11). This is all the more significant in that the Greeks despised all manual labour, thinking of it as fit only for slaves. He is referring to really hard work; his verb indicates labour to the point of weariness. In the middle of this verse Paul changes his construction and turns attention to the reaction of the apostles to the hardships they experienced. They are cursed (another word used about Christ, 1 Pet. 2:23), but their response is we bless (cf. Matt. 5:38–45; Luke 6:27–36, especially v. 28). They are persecuted, but simply endure it.
13. When they are slandered they answer kindly. Such conduct did not commend itself to the Greeks, for whom it was evidence of pusillanimity, a lack of proper manliness. Throughout this whole passage Paul emphasizes the contradiction between the values of the Christian and the worldly-wise Greek. He reaches his climax with two very expressive terms, translated scum and refuse. The former, the plural perikatharmata means ‘things removed as the result of cleaning all round’. It is the refuse after a thorough cleaning, the filth that is thrown out. It does not differ greatly from refuse, peripsēma, which is simply a little more precise. It is ‘that which is wiped off by rubbing all round’. Because the removal of filth has the effect of cleansing, both words came to have the derived meaning of ‘propitiatory offering’, that offering that cleanses from sin. It was not used of sacrifices in general, but of human sacrifices which were offered in some places. We might think this would give the words a noble tinge, but not so. The people who were sacrificed were those who could most easily be spared, the meanest and most worthless in the community. On perikatharma F. Hauck says three strands meet, ‘the expiatory offering, that which is contemptible, and that which is to be thrown out’ (TDNT, iii, p. 431), while G. Stählin finds that peripsēma among other things suggests that they ‘were poor and useless people … who threw away their own lives … in a ridiculous way’ (TDNT, vi, p. 90). Paul’s point then is that the apostles were regarded as the most contemptible of people (cf. Lam. 3:45). Up to this moment (which comes last in the Greek) once more brings out the point that his sufferings were not past history. He was describing the present position of the apostles. The Corinthians might claim a splendid place, but Paul was under no illusion about the place reserved for such as him in this world.