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.
Who then is Apollos, and who Paul? Ministering servants, through whom ye have believed, and as the Lord has given to each.
The Corinthians had lined up behind their favourite preachers. Paul does not defend his own standing. He asks what he and Apollos really are. His answer — servants, and only what the Lord gave them — changes how we think about gifted people in the church.
Paul did not name the men the Corinthians were following. He used his own name and Apollos's instead.
The apostle was grieved to the heart over the state of things in Corinth. The Spirit led him to rebuke the saints there. Their self-will and their foolish personal preferences were destroying their unity. To be able to speak more plainly, and even vehemently, he transferred these things in a figure to himself and to Apollos. He could not well ask, "Who is this leader or that?" — people would charge him with envy. But he could ask, "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed?" and stir up no opposition.
The problem goes deeper than admiring the wrong man. Boasting in any man grows from the same root as self-importance.
Boasting in men, however blessed they may be, belongs to the flesh, just as much as self-assertion does. Both are shoots off the same tree. Some men are set up as heads of schools. How could they accept such a false position, for themselves or for their followers, if their eye is single to Christ? And if it is not, can they be trusted?
Paul answers with a word of service, not of rank. It takes back the position the Corinthians had given these men.
First, the Apostle asks, "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos?" The Corinthian assembly had been lifting these gifted men into the false position of party leaders. Yet they were, after all, only "ministering servants" by whom the Corinthians had believed.
This does not sideline the servant. It puts the honour where it belongs and puts the message to the test.
When someone sends a messenger with a message, it is most unfitting to give the messenger a place of high honour. Respect him for his message, and weigh his message with care. Do not give him the honour that belongs only to his master. Check his message closely: is it simply and only the word of the master, faithfully given?
Paul says the Corinthians believed through these men. Their faith came by these servants, but it rests somewhere else. That one word separates two kinds of ministry.
This true-hearted faithful servant of Christ sought only to bring the souls of his hearers into direct personal contact with God Himself. He did not seek to link them to Paul. "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed." The aim of all false ministry is to attach souls to itself. So the minister is exalted, God is shut out, and the soul has no divine foundation to rest on. True ministry, as seen in Paul and Moses, has one blessed aim: to attach the soul to God. Then the minister gets his true place — simply an instrument; God is exalted; and the soul is settled on a sure foundation that can never be moved.
Paul does not flatten the servants into sameness. He traces the difference back to the Giver. That leaves no ground for comparison.
Was there no difference, then, between Paul and Apollos? As the Lord gave to each. What room is there for boasting about men? Why not boast in the Lord who gave to each? They had thought little about this. Grace unites. Flesh divides and scatters — flesh taken up with this man or that, sometimes, as here, unable to find anything except in its favourites... The fact is that the Lord gives in different ways, nothing that is not good for building up, nothing in vain. It is not His way to form a class of labourers all alike, but to work differently through each one.
A gift from the Lord is not the same as the natural ability of the person who carries it.
Notice the difference between the spiritual gift and the natural capacity of the person... The gifts differed in measure (compare 1 Cor. 3:5), and they were related to natural capacity. For instance, where the Lord makes a man an evangelist, he will be able to address an audience and not have to write out his sermon. But no cultivating of natural ability could turn it into a gift from Christ.
- Servants, not centres. Corinth made its teachers into party leaders. They were only servants through whom people believed.
- Given, not achieved. Each man had only what the Lord assigned to him. No amount of training turns natural ability into a gift from Christ.
- Through, not in. Faith came by their preaching, but it rests on God. Ministry that ties souls to itself leaves them with no foundation.
- Difference without rivalry. The Lord works through each servant in a different way. Ranking favourites throws away the variety He gave.
- Honour the message. Respect the messenger for his message. Test whether it is his Master's word. Keep for the Master the honour that is His alone.
*I* have planted; Apollos watered; but God has given the increase.
Corinth had split into rival groups, each named after a favourite preacher. Paul answers with a picture from farming: one man plants, another waters, and neither can make anything live. So what is a servant worth, and who produces the result?
(Older translations say "gave the increase" where the ESV says "gave the growth." The quotes below use the older wording.)
Paul is not giving a gentle lesson on teamwork. He is pulling down the habit of gathering a following around a man.
Boasting in men, however blessed those men may be, comes from the flesh, just as much as pushing yourself forward does. The two are branches of the same tree. How could men who are set up as heads of schools accept such a false position, for themselves or for their followers, if their eye is truly fixed on Christ alone? And if it is not, can they be trusted? … Grace unites. Flesh divides and scatters.
The verse uses two verbs, not one. Planting and watering are different jobs.
Third, not all of these servants had the same service. In a field, one man plants and another tends the plants, but God alone can make the plants grow. So in the Lord's service, God may use Paul to win converts and Apollos to care for the converts, but God alone can give life and spiritual growth.
The word "but" in the verse is a hard stop. You can measure effort and skill. No one can manufacture the result.
God does His own work. He chooses and equips His workers as He wills. If Paul plants or Apollos waters, the work of both is in the power of the One who has given to each, and the increase comes from His sovereign will. So boasting has no place in the work of ministry, just as it has no place in the faith that justifies a sinner. Neither the planter nor the waterer is anything, for both might labour and the result be a blight instead of a blessing.
If God gives the growth, then serving Him is an honour that carries no credit.
We must always keep in mind that God is the doer of the works done on the earth. If He is pleased to use us, let us never forget that we are only instruments, as helpless and powerless as a poker. No doubt we have enjoyment in the work; but we are not dealing now with the question of enjoyment, but of ability. If any real work is done, God is the doer of it. To Him be all the glory.
This is why Paul answers a question about himself by disappearing from it.
Paul hides himself. He had received great revelations from the Lord, and he had a wide range of knowledge. Yet the moment he sees the spirit of setting Paul up creeping in, he says, "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase." … If he had put himself forward, Christ would not have been seen.
The Corinthians set Paul and Apollos against each other. The verse has them working the same field, one after the other.
Paul's founding of the church at Corinth certainly involved hard work and struggle. Apollos would not have watered it with the refreshing ministry of the Word without serious spiritual effort. But they were both servants of one Master. They were united in their labours, not rivals, as the factions at Corinth would make them. And the Corinthians were not told to reward them according to their own estimate of their value. God would do this, according to their labour, after their labour was finished.
A farmer who leaves the growth to God must also accept God's timing.
Let us cast the seed into the ground and leave the increase to God, who alone can give it. Like the farmer, let us wait patiently for the early rain and the latter rain. It is no use poking the seed with a revival stick. The word of God will never take root that way.
- Plant — Paul's labour was real. The verse never belittles the work, only the claim attached to it.
- Water — Apollos did a different job on the same field. That makes the two men colleagues in turn, not rivals to rank.
- But — one small word breaks the chain. Both men could labour and still get a blight, because growth is not in the worker's hands.
- God — He chooses His servants, equips them, and gives the increase. So boasting has no place in ministry, and none in the faith that justifies.
- Increase — the harvest is His to give and the reward His to judge. That frees the worker to wait, and to stay out of sight so that Christ is seen.
So that neither the planter is anything, nor the waterer; but God the giver of the increase.
Paul has just called himself and Apollos farmhands in a field, and now he gives the result: the workers are nothing, and God is everything. Behind it lies a crisis at Corinth, where believers were forming fan clubs around their favourite preachers. (The quotations below say "increase" where the ESV says "growth.")
Paul is not being modest for its own sake. He is treating a sickness in the church. Believers had grouped themselves around their favourite teachers.
Paul found it unbearable — a heartbreaking sorrow, we might say — that a servant's name should come between the Lord and His people. It did not matter how distinguished that servant was.
What drew them to these men was talent, and that was the mistake.
They were captivated by the brilliant mind of this one, or the flowing eloquence of that one, or the pushing energy of a third. They should have seen them simply as "ministers" or "servants." These men did have different qualities and different gifts, but even these came "as the Lord gave to every man" (1 Cor. 3:5). So instead of glorifying the Lord who had gifted and enabled them, they glorified the servants, who were only instruments or vessels...
The word "nothing" is not an insult to the labourer. It measures him against the one thing he cannot do.
If God gives the increase, then the servants count for very little by comparison. Yet the Corinthians had been lifting them out of their place. Without God they were nothing and their service useless.
Faith leaves a sinner nothing to boast about, and the same holds for the preacher and his work.
God does His own work. He chooses and equips His agents at His will. If Paul plants or Apollos waters, both work by the power of Him who has given to each. The increase comes from His sovereign will. So boasting has no place in the true work of the ministry, just as it has no place in the faith that justifies a sinner. Neither the planter nor the waterer is anything. Both might labour, and the result be a blight instead of a blessing. Only God, who commands the increase, is anything.
Ask who deserves the praise when a job is done with a tool.
Who thinks of praising the poker? Who would say, "My, what a marvellous poker!" It is not the lifeless poker but the living hand that does the work. True, the hand uses the poker; but the poker is useless without the hand.
If God alone gives growth, no technique or pressure can force results.
What can the sower do to make the corn grow while he sleeps? The seed grows, but "he does not know how." I wish that all workers in the gospel paid more attention to passages like 1 Cor. 3 and Mark 4. Let us cast the seed into the ground and leave the increase to God, who alone can give it. Like the farmer, let us wait patiently for the early rain and the latter rain. It is no use poking the seed with a revival stick. The word of God will never take root that way.
Being "nothing" does not cancel the worker's labour. It only moves the judgment of it out of human hands.
Though the servants are one, "each shall receive his own reward according to his own labour." The reward will not match the position man may have given the servant. It will not match man's thoughts about his service either. It will match God's estimate of his labours.
Because the increase belongs to God, so do the workers. No party can claim them.
Whoever the servants may be, they belong to God in direct responsibility. In this sense they are not the church's, and still less a party's... They are God's fellow-labourers. He gave them, they do His work, they answer to Him in everything, and in the end they give Him an account.
- Cause. Divisions at Corinth grew from admiring gifted men rather than the Lord who gifted them.
- Cure. Paul reduces himself and Apollos to nothing. No servant's name may stand between the Lord and His people.
- Reason. Planting and watering are real work. But life is not in the worker's hands: he may labour and still get a blight instead of a blessing.
- Practice. Sow the seed and leave the growth to God — pressure and technique cannot make the word take root.
- Result. The worker is nothing in himself. Yet he is God's fellow-labourer, answerable to Him and rewarded by God's estimate, not man's.
But the planter and the waterer are one; but each shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
At Corinth, some made Paul the head of a party and set up Apollos as his rival. Paul answers by placing the two men side by side as workers on one field. Then he says who fixes their pay, and how.
Corinth turned gifted men into favourites. This verse takes that rivalry apart.
Though their work differs, the servants "are one". By making them leaders of parties, the Corinthian assembly was setting them against one another. But neither can do without the other. However varied the gifts, as servants they are one.
Older translations sharpen the phrase: not just "one", but "one thing".
"He who plants and he who waters are one thing." Here he puts ministry, or ministers, together as "one thing." The result is that God alone matters.
The Corinthians were busy ranking their teachers. Paul takes that job out of their hands.
They were united in their work, not rivals, as the factions in Corinth would make them. And no one told the Corinthians to reward them by their own estimate of their value. God would do that, according to their labour, once their labour was finished.
That raises a second question: what does God measure?
Though they are one as servants, "each shall receive his own reward according to his own labour". The reward will not match the position people gave the servant. It will not match what people thought of his service. It will match God's estimate of his work.
Being "one" does not blur the workers into a crowd. Older translations read "his own reward according to his own labour", and that little word own guards the person.
Neither one counts for anything in himself. Both are one in the source of their shared ministry. Yet each keeps his own individuality, both in his responsibility and in his reward. Notice how clearly the apostle states the settled, unbreakable link between service and reward. From Jesus down, this principle holds… The work and its reward will match each other. Each worker will receive according to his own toil.
If rewards differ, are some believers more accepted than others? Commentators answer by separating two things that people mix up.
As for acceptance, we are in Christ, all accepted alike — all to be conformed to the image of the Son — all having Christ for our righteousness. Paul cannot have a more perfect righteousness or a higher glory. But besides this, saints have the privilege of service. They are the vessels of God's love to others… By grace we do receive the reward of labour, and every man his own reward according to his own labour… In short, righteousness is in Christ, the same for all; God rewards service.
Where does that difference show? Writers point to the coming kingdom.
In the kingdom, as we are taught in the parable (Luke 19), one is to have authority over ten cities, another over five. But the Father's house stands far above such differences, and all His children share it with Christ alike. It answers, not to their services, but to His redemption, His infinite love and His glory.
Reward can ruin service if it becomes the reason for serving. Yet it still has a place.
Pay never drives the service of love. God does not put reward before the soul as the motive for doing anything. But when we meet difficulties on the path of service, He sets the crown before us to encourage us to keep going.
- One. Paul sets planter and waterer together as one thing. Rivalry between servants has nothing left to feed on, and God alone matters.
- Own. Being one does not erase the person. Each keeps his own responsibility and his own reward, matched to his own toil.
- God's estimate. What people thought of a servant fixes nothing. God weighs the labour itself, and His estimate sets the reward.
- Grace, then service. Every believer has the same righteousness in Christ. Service is what God rewards — one servant over ten cities, another over five.
- A crown, not a wage. Reward is never the reason to serve. God holds out the crown to keep the servant going when the path gets hard.
For we are God's fellow-workmen; ye are God's husbandry, God's building.
Paul is writing to a church splitting into fan clubs around its teachers — some for Paul, some for Apollos. Verse 9 answers the whole quarrel with three claims of ownership. The workers belong to God. So do the field and the house they work on.
The stress in the first clause does not fall on the workers but on whose they are. One writer weighs what that one word means for the workers and for Corinthian pride:
How cheering this is to the despised but faithful, self-denying and gracious workers! How humbling to Corinthian vanity! It never took into account the one principle the Spirit gives here for the divine and lasting reward. "For we are God's fellow workers. You are God's field, God's building." Whoever the servants may be, they are directly responsible to God — not, in this sense, to the church, and still less to a party. They are God's fellow workers. He gave them, they do His work, and they answer to Him in everything. In the end they must give Him an account. The emphasis rests on "God's."
Commentators differ on how to read the phrase. Some take it to mean workmen who belong to God and serve under Him. They warn against the older rendering, "labourers together with God":
We are not fellow-workers with God, but under Him. We are His fellow-workers, but in entire subjection to Him, in no way on a level with Him. The wording in the Authorised and Revised Versions of 1 Cor. 3:9 and 2 Cor. 6:1 is ambiguous and dangerous. Many have read it as putting God and His servants on the same level. Read that way, it is evil and presumptuous.
Others read it as a real partnership, and find nothing improper in it:
God's only reward is the doing of His will. The Spirit of adoption leads the feet of God's true children in the steps of Jesus, and so makes them co-workers with Him in His work. It is a wonderful thing to say, but it fits the character of our calling perfectly; for through redemption God calls us into the fellowship of His own Son.
Both pictures in the verse had two men attached to them, and each man had his own task:
Each, however, had his own distinctive work. In the field, Paul planted and Apollos followed to water the young plants. In the building, Paul was the wise architect who laid the foundation, and Apollos built on it. Their work was different, but their aim was one... So God keeps both unity and variety among His servants, and no one is to be set against another.
The two images are not repetition. One writer draws out what each picture is for, and what follows for anyone tempted to wear a party label:
They are "God's field" and "God's building". The first picture is a field, where there is fruit, or increase, for God. The second is a temple, where the Spirit of God lives and where there is light for people... The truth Paul used to meet and condemn divisions in those early days still condemns the divisions of Christendom today. If we realise that we belong to God, that we are "God's field" and "God's building", we will refuse to be called by any party name.
If the church is God's building, the next verses ask the obvious question: who builds, and with what?
Building pictures the raising up of a spiritual house for God, and Christ is its Builder... Others build too, but only as His instruments. Paul calls himself "a wise master builder", or better, "architect", because he laid the foundation of the church well, and that foundation is Christ. The workers are warned about the material they use in building a house for God. Unsuitable materials will not stand the test of fire. Then the builders suffer loss: they see their work burned up and lose their reward.
Everything in the verse is God's. So the servant's account is with Him, and both flattery and blame lose their hold:
If it is a question of tillage — it is God's field; or if it is a building, it is God's building — God's temple... This principle makes you independent of everybody. It clears you of every influence but one: "I have to do with God. I must answer to God." It makes no difference whether people praise me or criticise me.
- God's workers. The servants are not rivals or party leaders. They belong to God, He gave them, and they answer to Him.
- God's field. The saints are His field, and what He looks for from it is fruit — increase for Himself.
- God's building. The same people are His house, where His Spirit lives and light shines out for others to see.
- God's materials. Everyone who builds on the one foundation answers for what he uses. Fire will test it, and poor work loses its reward.
- God's verdict. Because all three are His, His workers wear no name but His, and no praise or blame from people needs to weigh with them.