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.