But [the] natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him; and he cannot know [them] because they are spiritually discerned;
This verse cuts the human race in two: the man born with only natural life, and the man who has the Spirit of God. The problem is not that God's things are too hard to follow; the natural man has nothing in him that can take them in.
So who does Paul mean? The answer covers every person from birth, and learning does not move anyone out of the class.
By the "natural man" the apostle means man as he is born and grows up, without being born of God or the Holy Spirit given to him. He may be very learned, scientific, intellectual and refined. Still, until the Spirit gives him life, he is the natural man. He does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for to him they are folly. Nor can he learn them and make them his own, grasping their truth, because they are spiritually discerned. He does not have the Spirit of God, since he does not believe in Christ.
Behind "natural" stands one Greek word. It tells us where a man's life comes from.
The adjective ψυχικός, animal, appears in 1 Corinthians 2:14; 15:44, 46; and James 3:15. Its meaning may present some difficulty when applied either to a man's moral condition or to his body. We think it well, then, to note what the word points to in these passages. It points to that which, like the first Adam, lives by having a soul, and not by the mighty energy of the Holy Spirit.
So why can he not know them? The answer is a missing sense.
A blind man does not know for himself what the beautiful colours of a flower are. He has no sense of sight to perceive this loveliness of God's handiwork. Our power for discerning divine things lies in having the Spirit of God within us, who is like eyes to our souls. … The simplest believer on earth, with the Spirit of God within him, knows more of God's things than the wisest of men without the Spirit. The natural man may sit in judgment on God's Word and God's character. But to the Christian his pride is like that of a council of deaf men giving their opinion on harmony.
That has a hard edge for anyone who reviews the Bible as a critic:
He is not speaking of any special class of men. He means man in his unconverted state, man without the Spirit of God… it is man in nature, whether he is a learned philosopher or an ignorant clown. He cannot know the things of the Spirit of God. How then can he form or give a judgement about the word of God?
The verse leaves no middle ground. Even sincere religion can fall on the wrong side of the line.
In the Spirit's estimate there is no place for the large group who in practice waver between two opinions. Not to receive the witness of God is to reject it. … Knowing the gospel, and even agreeing with its truth in the mind, is not the same thing as receiving it. … A religious profession may be quite sincere, and yet the person making it is still a natural man.
God makes Himself known morally. That is what man's conscience refuses to face.
Man's thoughts differ so far from God's that man can see nothing but foolishness — even in the most wonderful display of God's saving power. No wonder. If man is to know God at all, he must know Him morally. But men's consciences shrink from looking at God in His moral character… We must know God, not as fallen man can understand Him, but as He has revealed Himself. Only the soul taught by the Spirit can grasp this.
Commentators add a caution: having the Spirit and being spiritual are not the same thing.
We do well to remember that it is the "spiritual", not simply the one who has the Spirit, who discerns all things. A man must, of course, have the Spirit to be spiritual. But being spiritual means a condition in which a man is under the control of the Spirit. Such people discern all things, yet they themselves are discerned by no one.
- Source. "Natural" means a life drawn from the soul alone — the life of the first Adam, not the power of the Holy Spirit.
- Scope. It covers every man as born, philosopher and labourer alike. Learning changes nothing while the Spirit is missing.
- Sense. Missing the Spirit is like missing sight. The simplest believer knows more of God's things than the wisest man without Him.
- Stance. Not receiving is rejecting. There is no neutral seat, and even sincere religion can leave a man in this class.
- Shift. Only God's work changes this: new birth and the gift of the Spirit. Then the man under the Spirit's control discerns all things.
but the spiritual discerns all things, and *he* is discerned of no one.
Paul has just described the natural man, who cannot receive the things of God's Spirit. Now he turns to the opposite case: a believer who can weigh everything, yet whom no one else can weigh.
Everything turns on the word "judges." One writer points to the plainer word in the margin of a reference Bible:
The word "judges," occurring twice in verse 15, is just the word "discerns," as the margin of a reference bible shows. Read discerns and the sense is clearer. It is only the spiritual believer who has spiritual eyesight to see all things clearly.
Another writer traces the term Paul uses:
The simple form of the word means "to judge." Anakrisis was the technical term for the inquiry or preliminary investigation that comes first.
The word does not just mean "Christian." The same letter later says some believers are still of the flesh, and that difference decides who enjoys this promise:
"The spiritual person" does not describe every believer, for some believers are "of the flesh," even though they have the Spirit of God (ch. 3:1). It refers to those who in practice depend upon the leading of the Spirit, as every believer ought to. A believer who is of the flesh will not discern all things. Some of his thoughts may be spiritual, but the flesh is so mixed in with them that his outlook will be confused. But the one who is spiritual discerns all things… He is a puzzle to men, for he thinks and acts on a different level, not driven by self-centeredness, but by a genuine regard for the glory of God.
This discernment is not sharper human reasoning. It belongs to the Spirit who lives in the believer and directs him:
The Holy Spirit in man is a real and divine power. But He also works morally, and in the understanding of the person in whom He lives. The spiritual man discerns all things. All means are at his disposal. He judges all things. He takes notice of all things when needed, according to the Spirit and by His direction. It is not his reason which judges; he judges spiritually of all things. He judges himself instead of pretending to judge God, as if he had a capacity independent of Him.
That order matters. No one can separate right judgment from being spiritual:
If a man is spiritual, he judges all things, and he must be spiritual to judge. If he is not spiritual, he cannot judge; but if he is spiritual, he first judges himself.
The second half of the verse follows from the first. The same Spirit who makes his judgment sound also shapes a life others cannot read:
The power of the Spirit in him makes his judgment true and just. But it also gives him motives and a way of life that make no sense to anyone who does not have the Spirit.
Kelly connects this standing to what the apostle goes on to quote from the prophet Isaiah:
It is because of the Spirit of God that the believer now stands in such an astonishing place. He can discern all things, yet no man can discern him. How foolish, then, for any believer in Corinth or anywhere else to long for human wisdom! What makes it even more striking is what the apostle adds from Isaiah 40:13. There the prophet insists on the supremacy of the Lord's understanding. He is unsearchable Himself, yet He searches everything. The Christian is just as independent of man's measuring and teaching in divine things, and this comes through the Spirit of God dwelling in him.
One writer notes the apostle using this judgment on ordinary matters of home life:
He applies the judgment of the Spirit in him to circumstances of the most domestic character. This is how he judges all things. He is only a looker-on, so he can calmly see what those caught up in it cannot… A great principle may be at stake in a very small matter.
Some read Jesus' words "Judge not" as cancelling this verse. Commentators answer that the two speak of different things:
The Lord does not blame spiritual discernment of people or things at all. It is a clear and weighty privilege of the Christian, for his own guidance and for the help or warning of others… What the Lord warned the disciples against is the bad habit of fault-finding. It so often leads people to suspect evil motives without grounds, against the holy instincts of love.
- Discern, not condemn. The word means to examine and discern, so the verse gives the believer spiritual eyesight, not a judge's bench.
- Spirit-led, not merely saved. The promise belongs to the believer who depends on the Spirit in practice. Where the flesh mixes in, the outlook blurs.
- Self first. The one who judges all things starts by judging himself. The Spirit directs that judgment; his own reasoning does not.
- Down to the smallest matter. He stands outside the situation, so he sees calmly what those inside it cannot. A great principle can hang on a very little thing.
- Unreadable to others. His motives and his way of life make no sense to anyone without the Spirit. That is why no one can judge him.
For who has known the mind of [the] Lord, who shall instruct him? But *we* have the mind of Christ.
Paul has just said that the natural man cannot receive the things of the Spirit. The spiritual man discerns everything. Paul now ends the argument with a challenge from the prophet: no one has known the Lord's mind well enough to instruct Him. His answer sounds almost too large to be true.
The closing question is a quotation. The prophet used it to show how far God's understanding rises above human reach.
What makes it even more striking is the quotation the apostle adds from Isaiah 40:13. There the prophet insists that the Lord's understanding is supreme, as he had already insisted on His endless goodness and power. No one can search Him out, yet He searches everything: "who has measured the Spirit of the Lord, and who, as His counsellor, will teach Him?" In divine things the Christian is just as free from man's measuring and teaching, and this comes through the Spirit of God living in him.
The question expects the answer "no one." What follows is not a boast about natural ability but about a gift.
In verse 15 the Apostle tells us that "the spiritual discerns all things". This does not mean that they know the mind of the Lord by nature, or that they can instruct Him. But the Lord has given believers His Spirit and teaches them. So they can say, "We have the mind of Christ."
Writers point to the word Paul uses for "mind". It means the power by which a person thinks.
When it comes to thinking as God thinks, Paul uses a very strong word: "But we have the mind of Christ." Others have pointed out that the word for "mind" here means "the same thinking capacity". The marvel is that we have the thinking capacity "of Christ." We can understand divine things with the same kind of mind as Christ. We have this by having the Spirit Who searches the depths of God.
This does not put the believer on a level with his Lord.
So Paul writes — not to the Ephesians or the Philippians, but even to the Corinthians — "We have the mind of Christ." He means the intelligence of Christ, the capacity of spiritual understanding. Of course we do not have it in the same measure as the Lord. He had, and was Himself, the wisdom of God, and that without limit. We have nothing except in Him and by Him, and so only in dependence on Him.
The mind of Christ is not a store of divine knowledge handed over to us to keep on our own.
In the last verse we have the same contrast with the Old Testament: "For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" The prophet's challenge gets its answer: "But we have the mind of Christ." If I have Christ's mind, I have the thoughts that are in it and all that they include. We do not have the divine mind in the abstract. We have the Holy Spirit living in us, and then comes all the revelation of the mystery.
This is presented as something new, and one writer draws the line sharply between Christians and Israel — using Joseph, the son of Jacob who read God's meaning before others saw it.
The mind of Christ is more than the works or the ways of God in judgment. It is all His counsels in Christ… So we have the mind of Christ — as Joseph, before he was exalted, was the interpreter of God's revelations… But it is never said that Israel has the mind of Christ. They will see the displays of His power, and will recognise and celebrate them. But is that having the mind of Christ as we have it? The Egyptians knew what Joseph knew when the things came. But did they have the mind of Joseph?
The mind of Christ is a right to be used. Others will say that using it takes too much upon yourself.
Do you value such a gift? Do you value your right to bring every person and everything to be judged by the mind of Christ that is in you? Religion that comes from the flesh tells you that judging this way takes too much upon yourself. Religion that comes from faith tells you that this is exactly your proper place.
A possession left unused makes the claim hollow.
"But we have the mind of Christ." Marvellous, precious declaration of fact! Having the Spirit of God, this is the revelation of the mind of Christ. The believer has this. Then he should certainly seek to make use of it in daily experience. If not, he is not "spiritual."
- Question: Isaiah asks who has measured God's mind well enough to teach Him. The answer is no one. That makes what Paul says next startling.
- Gift: The believer does not reach the answer by himself. The Lord gives him His Spirit and teaches him, so he can say he has the mind of Christ.
- Capacity: The word points to the power of thought itself — the same kind of mind as Christ for divine things. But never in His measure, and only in dependence on Him.
- Reach: We do not hold divine knowledge in the abstract. The Spirit lives in us and opens up the thoughts of Christ — something never said of Israel.
- Use: Use this mind. Weigh every person and everything by it, and expect others to say you take too much upon yourself.
And *I*, brethren, have not been able to speak to you as to spiritual, but as to fleshly; as to babes in Christ.
Paul has been describing the person taught by the Spirit of God. Now he turns to the Corinthians with a painful admission: he could not speak to them on that level. They were real Christians, yet "of the flesh," and still infants.
Paul is not just sorting people into believers and unbelievers. He has a third description in view, and it applies to Christians.
It is quite a mistake to suppose that all Christians are "spiritual" in the sense that term carries in chapter 2. Chapter 3 uses it the same way. In both it means those who are not merely given life, but who walk, feel, and judge in the Spirit. The error lies in supposing that the apostle looks at only two classes. In truth he speaks of three: the natural man, the carnal, and the spiritual. The last two are Christians, but in a different state. For "babes in Christ" points not to a recent conversion, but to a lack of growth.
This has a practical edge for how you read other believers.
You have three things: carnal men, natural men, and spiritual men. You may meet a person you cannot agree with because, although he has the Holy Spirit, his practical state is "carnal," yet not "natural." When the apostle calls the Corinthians carnal, he means the particular state of certain Christians who ought to be up to the measure of their standing, but are not.
The complaint is that the Corinthians had never moved on from infancy. One word in an older translation of the next verse fixes the point: "hitherto," meaning "not yet."
The word "hitherto" in this passage shows that they had never yet been in any other condition; they had remained in the condition of babes. The Hebrews are somewhat similar, but with this difference: they had advanced, and then gone back to the state of babes.
That prolonging of infancy is exactly what Paul names carnality.
Of course there is a stage in our Christian life when we are rightly and necessarily "babes." The apostle John writes to these (1 John 2). But Paul rebuked the Corinthians for staying in that state, and for them carnality was the true name for dragging it out.
The Corinthians would not have called themselves undeveloped. But what they admired gave them away.
The apostle now gives the reason why he pressed only the elementary truths of Christ on the Corinthians: their own state. They were not spiritual but fleshly. What a blow to their self-satisfaction! If they were only babes in Christ, what other food would suit them? That craving for the world's wisdom, that admiration of it, was the sure evidence. Flesh delights in what is of man, while the Spirit gives us to enjoy what is of God.
Paul does not leave "of the flesh" as a vague charge. He points to the factions in Corinth.
Here, then, the Holy Spirit clearly teaches that sects and divisions are not of God but of man. They are the results of unspirituality, carnality, and walking as men. Yet Christians defend them as the result of man's nature. "We are only walking as men," they say. "If you are walking as men," replies the apostle, "you are carnal, and I cannot speak to you as spiritual."
Paul had more to give and could not give it.
To make progress in the things of God, two things seem necessary. First, a moral condition of soul able to receive. Second, an exercised state of mind. With the Corinthian believers the first was so lacking that the apostle could not set the deep things of God before them. The Ephesian saints, however, were in a very different state. So the apostle could gladly set before them the eternal purposes, ways and mysteries of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. All of this he had to withhold from the Corinthians.
Withholding was not coldness. It was care, and it carries a warning for anyone who teaches.
Far from denying it, he admits their suggestion was true. He had only brought elementary truths before them. They were not in a condition to bear more. This is full of practical meaning and importance at all times. We may do souls great damage by presenting high truths to those who need the simplest basics of divine truth.
- Three states. Paul names three — the natural man, the carnal, and the spiritual. The last two are both Christians. They differ in practical state, not in whether they have the Spirit.
- Cause. Their appetite for human wisdom kept them small. Flesh delights in what is of man; the Spirit gives enjoyment of what is of God.
- Symptom. Envy, strife and party names are not neutral human nature but the visible fruit of that carnality.
- Cost. A soul unable to receive gets milk. Paul poured the deep things out on the Ephesians, but held them back from Corinth.
- Remedy. Being a babe is a right beginning, not a resting place. The rebuke falls on staying there. Love feeds each soul what it can bear.
I have given you milk to drink, not meat, for ye have not yet been able, nor indeed are ye yet able;
Paul has just called the Corinthians "infants in Christ." Now he explains what that cost them: his teaching had to stay at the level of milk. The verse raises two questions — what was held back, and whose fault it was.
The Corinthians thought highly of their own wisdom. They felt Paul's preaching was too basic. He agrees with the complaint and turns it against them.
These Corinthians had a very high opinion of themselves, so he must tell them plainly why he does not open out these deep things. They themselves were not fit; they were only babes. What! the polished Greek believers no more than babes! ... Far from denying it, he admits their suggestion was true. He had only put elementary truths before them. They were not in a condition to bear more. In practice this has real meaning and importance at all times. We can do great damage to souls when we give high truths to people who need the simplest basics of divine truth.
The milk was not empty teaching. One writer compares this verse with Hebrews 5 to see what Paul taught at Corinth, and what he could not.
Compare these words with the close of Hebrews 5. That helps us see how far the apostle's earlier teaching at Corinth reached. The doctrine of saving grace ... had certainly been the staple of his ministry. And while he stayed with them they had thrived on his words; but in his absence things had changed. They had grown, but not in the knowledge of the Saviour or of themselves. The knowledge that puffs up was plentiful among them, but God's wisdom was hard to find there. ... Paul felt unable to give them the solid food of God's purposes. He could not open up the mystery of Christ to people whose undisciplined hearts would have found it a snare rather than a blessing.
Holding truth back is not the same as hiding it.
There may indeed be times when some companies of the Lord's people are not in a condition to appreciate the deep truths of God. The Corinthian assembly was such a case (1 Corinthians 3:2). But there was no secrecy about the truths they were not ready for.
The force of the verse sits in its timeline. Paul says they were not ready then, and he adds that they are still not ready now. Older translations read "hitherto" where the ESV has "not yet."
The word "hitherto" in this passage shows that they had never yet been in any other condition. They had remained in the condition of babes. The Hebrews were in a somewhat similar state when the apostle wrote to them. There was this difference: the Hebrews had advanced, but had afterwards gone back to the state of babes.
At Corinth there had been no advance to lose.
The block was not a shortage of ability. Corinth had gifts in abundance.
It is true they were not natural men who do not have the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14). Nor were they spiritual men walking according to the Spirit. Yet the Apostle has to say, "Are you not of the flesh?" They were believers, having the Spirit, but walking according to the flesh. How humbling it is to discover what is possible. A believer can be enriched with all speech and knowledge and gift, and be "full" and "wise in Christ" and "strong" (1 Cor. 4:8-10). Yet in the sight of God he can be carnal, or spiritually undeveloped — like a babe that has stopped growing, and so unable to take in the rich, spiritual food that God has provided for His people.
One writer draws a sharp lesson from Paul's regret.
It is clear in this case that the apostle fed these believers with "milk" because of their bad condition. He regretted having to do it. Had they been responding better to God's grace and love in redemption, he would have fed them with solid food, and not with milk. To assume, then, that the saints need "milk" is to assume they are in a Corinthian state. To make provision for it is even to encourage the very condition all should regret. We learn too that the ministry suited to one assembly may be completely unsuited to another. ... Nothing is plainer than this: it would be a complete mistake to deal out Ephesian truth to a Corinthian assembly, or Corinthian truth to an Ephesian assembly.
The problem at Corinth was not milk, but milk that never ended.
- Diet — Milk is the elementary truths. Solid food is God's purposes and the mystery of Christ, which Paul had to leave unopened at Corinth.
- Diagnosis — The limit was in the hearers, not the teacher. They had never once moved past the babe stage.
- Deception — Gifts and self-confidence hid the problem. A church rich in speech and knowledge can still be a babe that has stopped growing.
- Disclosure — Paul withheld depth but hid nothing. He told them plainly that more existed and why they could not take it.
- Duty — Milk given with regret is care; milk that never ends is harm. Teachers must read the state of souls; hearers must grow past the bottle.
for ye are yet carnal. For whereas [there are] among you emulation and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk according to man?
Paul is writing to real believers, yet he says they act just like people of the world. How can someone truly converted still be "of the flesh," and why do jealousy and quarrelling prove it?
The word Paul uses does not put the Corinthians outside the family. One writer draws a careful line. On one side stands a person never born again. On the other stands a believer who still finds the flesh attractive.
It is not that the Corinthian saints were "natural" men, for that would imply they were not born of God. The apostle does not say or mean this. He says they were "carnal," or "fleshly": flesh still had attractions for them. It was not judged, detected in principle, or hated in all its forms and degrees. They still valued what was of man — wisdom, ability, or eloquence — as such. They had no adequate sense of nature's worthlessness in divine things.
Paul's charge sounds mild at first. It was not.
He charges them with walking as men. How remarkable such a reproach is! Walking as men! Why, one might ask, how else could they walk? Many a Christian today would feel the same difficulty: why should walking as men be a reproach? To the proud but poor spirits at Corinth, it must have been a clap of thunder. Yes, walking as men is a departure from Christianity. It is giving up the distinctive power and place that belongs to us.
Another writer marks off what the phrase does not mean.
Don't we all, and necessarily, walk as men? Not in the sense the expression is used here. Walking as men means without reference to God and His wisdom and teaching, the flesh unjudged.
Paul names jealousy first, then strife. That order matters: the quarrel is the symptom, envy is the disease.
In their practical ways they walked as natural men. Instead of serving one another in love, as saints should, they were envious of one another. Like men of the world, they tried to equal or outdo each other in knowledge and in the use of gifts. Envy was the root of all their strife. Perhaps there is no greater power for evil in the world than envy. Envy led to the first murder, when Cain rose up against his brother and killed him. Envy led to the greatest murder too, when the Jews killed the Prince of life. We read that Pilate "knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up."
People defend party spirit by saying it is just how people are. Paul turns that defence into the verdict.
Here the Holy Spirit teaches clearly that sects and divisions are not of God but of man. They are the result of unspirituality, carnality, and walking as men. Yet Christians defend them as the result of man's nature. "We are only walking as men," they say. The apostle replies, "If you are walking as men, you are carnal, and I cannot speak to you as spiritual." What a fearful gap between the thoughts of Christians and the thoughts of Christ!
One writer turns this on the most confident readers first.
Those who make the loudest boast of walking in the truth are often the most sectarian in spirit and practice.
Their state set a limit on what Paul could teach them.
Envy and strife are works of the flesh. While these things were present among them, they showed a state of soul that faithful warning might help. But more doctrinal knowledge would only damage it further. There was indeed a dead stop to their growth in grace while this spirit reigned among them. For although God's gifts were with them in abundance, He was not honoured in His gifts.
The remedy is not more information but a different power directing the life.
As a warning, we should always remember this: when we are not walking in the Spirit, the flesh will surely assert its power and show itself. This is why Paul writes elsewhere, "Walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh."
- Three states, not two. Natural means not born of God. Carnal and spiritual both describe Christians. The difference is which power governs them.
- Envy is the root. Jealousy over gift and standing comes first; strife and parties are what grow out of it.
- "As men" is the charge. It means living without reference to God, with the flesh left unjudged. That surrenders what makes a Christian distinct.
- Growth stops. While that spirit rules, deeper teaching would harm rather than feed. So it waits.
- Self-judgment restarts it. Judge the flesh instead of excusing it, and walk by the Spirit. That is the road back.
For when one says, *I* am of Paul, and another, *I* of Apollos, are ye not men?
The Corinthians were not divided over doctrine but over preachers, and Paul treats their slogans as a symptom of something wrong in them. Why does favouring one teacher over another prove an unspiritual state, and what were these believers losing by it?
Paul does not ask about their knowledge or their gifts. He looks at how they talk about their teachers. One writer explains what "walking as men" means here:
They were not spiritual but carnal (3:1). How could Paul tell? It was very simple: 'Are you not carnal, and walk as men?' (3:3). Don't we all have to walk as men? Not in the sense the words are used here. Walking as men means living without reference to God and His wisdom and teaching, with the flesh unjudged. This was the deeper reason for the party spirit and contention among them.
Translations differ at the end of this verse. Some read "are you not carnal?" Others read "are you not men?" The ESV has "are you not being merely human?" One writer sharpens the point: the reproof is not that they behaved like bad men, but that they behaved like men at all.
The apostle rebukes them for walking not merely as bad men, but "according to man." They lined up under their new favourites, forgetting Christ and abusing their own mercies received through His servants. "Are you not men?" he says, protesting in anger against such a state of things. They were saints and ought to walk as such.
The problem was not that they listened to Paul or Apollos. It was that they accepted a teaching because of who said it:
These Corinthian saints fed this spirit of rivalry. They attached themselves to certain gifted teachers. They followed them closely and accepted all they said — not always because it was the truth according to the word of God, but because a favourite teacher had said it. Each one then defended his favourite teacher, and that led to strife, and strife to divisions. Two evils followed: one was sectarianism, which set aside the truth of the church, the other clericalism, which set aside Christ as the Head of the church.
The habit was not new to them. They carried the party ways of the schools of men into the church, and only changed the names:
Rivalry and strife were works of the flesh, not fruits of the Spirit. Their existence among them showed how little they walked in self-judgment. It was the party work they were used to in the schools of men. Certainly party zeal for Paul or Apollos was no better than for Plato or Aristotle.
One writer traces how the rivalry spreads from one person to the next:
The evidence of their fleshliness was in their rivalry, strife, and factions. The spirit of rivalry is so contrary to Him who, though He is Himself the Highest, has come among us "gentle and lowly in heart." And of course, when one person makes a fleshly effort to reach a high place, it wakes the fleshly resentment of another. Strife follows, and it breaks the people of God into factions.
Those who took sides also robbed themselves:
They stood in the way of their own spiritual growth by encouraging the forming of parties. They also robbed themselves of the value and profit of gifts the Lord had given for building up. If we take up only one line of teaching and follow only one teacher, we lose the benefit we might get from the other gifts given to men.
The remedy is not fewer teachers, but room for all of them:
There are different kinds of workmen, and different lines of truth. It is our happy privilege, and indeed our holy duty, to recognise and rejoice in them all. To be puffed up for one against another is to be "carnal and walk as men." To run down any of Christ's servants is to run down the truth he carries, and to forsake our own mercies.
- Symptom — The slogans are Paul's evidence, not his subject. How believers talk about their teachers shows whether the flesh is judged.
- Diagnosis — "Walking as men" means acting without reference to God and His wisdom, with the flesh left unjudged. The shame is that saints were living on that level at all.
- Root — Rivalry is the opposite of the One who came gentle and lowly. One person's push for a high place stirs another's resentment, and factions follow.
- Damage — Following only one favourite teacher stunts growth and robs you of gifts the Lord gave for building up. Two evils grow from it: sectarianism and clericalism.
- Cure — Recognise and rejoice in every workman and every line of truth. Running one down means losing the truth he carries and forsaking your own mercies.