December 18, 2015 1 Corinthians 2:12 – 3:11
Download discussion questions: 1 Corinthians 2_12-3_11 Spirit & flesh
After reading through this passage, one of the questions we considered was the “tone” of Paul’s writing here. What emotional atmosphere comes through in these verses? Several opinions were offered: frustration, urging, coaxing, cajoling, even scolding. Paul sounds like a hopeful parent who knows his child can do better, or a teacher who knows the student is not reaching his full potential.
The potential that Paul desires for the Corinthians is clear, to know and experience “the things freely given by God” (2:12). He knows the key to those blessings is true spirituality: taught by the Spirit (2:13) and recognized by spiritual appraisal (2:15; other suggestions for “appraisal” were discernment or judgment or evaluation). In short, Paul wants them to grow into the category of “spiritual men” (and presumably spiritual women) as he repeatedly uses the term (2:15; 3:1).
He sharpens what he means by “spiritual” by using several contrasting descriptions. The “natural” man (2:14) is a completely different category, neither accepting nor even understanding God’s message. But other descriptions apply to the Christians Paul is addressing in the church at Corinth, “men of flesh” and “infants in Christ” who may have gone past the “natural man” in a basic understanding and acceptance of the Gospel, but have not progressed. They are stuck in the milk stage of development (3:2), as Paul continues his “infant” metaphor.
Our group discussed what characterizes infants and their diet of milk. As it happens, my wife and I were with a young couple with an infant the evening before, and I had a first-hand report of what that looked like. The baby was just beginning the transition to solid food, so the mother gave her a small infant bite, something like a Cheerios cereal (but specially designed for infants). The baby immediately frowned and spit it out as an unpleasant change, a foreign object that was very un-milk-like. The infant had no interest in change. Milk was fine, so why try anything else? She didn’t know that solid food would provide more nutrients and other dietary necessities. If she could have understood that the bite of cereal was preparing her for even better fare (like steaks), she might have been more interested. Like many Christians, the infant was happy with the status quo and had no interest in trying something more challenging.
We discussed what might motivate an infant (literal or figurative) to move to solid food. Hunger was the first suggestion, or seeing the potential benefit. Even the taste of the solid food could be quite motivating. Perhaps we infant adults don’t always take the solid food offered to us because we are not hungry enough or we are happy to coast in our Christian life. We see no benefit or flavor in what the Bible has to say to us. We are happy with the “fleshly” interests (or “worldly” in other translations) that occupy our minds. We are quite comfortable with the way things are, so we are not really attracted to anything more of “the things freely given by God.”
One of the group members pointed out that after Paul has described the problem in figurative terms (fleshly men, infants, milk drinkers), he gets down to very specific, practical terms: “jealousy and strife” (3:3). By God’s standards, one of the best measures of our spirituality is our relationships. We may be able to quote Scripture and teach well (and lead Bible study discussion groups!) but the best gauge of how God’s Spirit is at work in our hearts is what might be described as “relational holiness.”
Apparently this issue has been on Paul’s mind ever since the beginning of the letter. He returns to the same specific symptom of his opening exhortation (1:10) and the factionalism that was dividing the church: “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos” (3:4). That kind of rivalry and comparison is at the heart of what he describes as “fleshly” (3:3, twice, once before and once after the charge of “jealousy and strife”). He says that such relational sin sums up what it means to be “mere men” in contrast to being led by God’s Spirit.
Paul describes how such divisive loyalties miss the distinction between form (Paul preaches this way, Apollos preaches that way) and substance (they both preach the Gospel). He uses an agricultural picture of planting and watering (repeated a total of three times) to make the point. Like a profitable crop, the growth of the Gospel is not ultimately dependent on the farmer or the preachers, but on the work of God. God is the One who changes hearts, and the fact that He chose to use Paul or Apollos (or Billy Graham or Pastor Smith) should not be a distraction. The Lord gives the opportunity (3:5) to a particular individual to share His message that He then uses. The relational damage done by focusing on the form instead of the substance of the message has been Paul’s theme since the beginning of the letter.
But then, in verse 9, he suddenly changes the picture when he tells the Corinthians, “you are God’s field, you are God’s building.” Why the abrupt change? The rest of the passage (and well into the next section that we will examine at our next group meeting) continues that building metaphor, even elevating it to a temple (3:16). As one member suggested (lest we make the interpretation more complicated than Paul intended), maybe he knew that some of his readers were farmers, and some were city dwellers, and each group would understand the different pictures. After the many images he used at the beginning of the passage (milk, infants, men of flesh, natural men) it is easy to imagine Paul’s thinking in that way, to use a variety of pictures to make his message as clear as possible.
It is also possible that the change was very intentional, not just for his audience, but also to make a subtle point. The image of the field (and planting and watering) clearly describes a scenario that we have little control over. Our efforts in planting and watering are important, but the repeated message is unambiguous: God causes the growth. On the other hand, we understand buildings. We know formulas for computing the load on a beam and how to make the roof waterproof and make the floorplan efficient. Perhaps Paul is using the field image to emphasize God’s providential part in building His kingdom, and the building image to emphasize the importance of our part. “Be careful” how you build on the foundation (3:10), and be sure you have the right foundation to start with (3:11).
God’s sovereign work is never to be an excuse for sloth or carelessness on our part. Paul’s words that “neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything” (3:7) might tempt us to dismiss any effort of ours, but Paul’s new image eliminates that wrong interpretation. Part of God’s supreme work is the grace He gives, such as making Paul a “master builder” (3:10). Our role is to recognize both the field and the building aspects of God’s kingdom, being the best builders we can be while recognizing that the results do not depend on our hard work or superior skill, but on God, the One who changes hearts.