Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 3

CHAPTER 3

The design of this chapter is substantially the same as the previous one. It is to reprove the pride, the philosophy, and the vain wisdom on which the Greeks so much relied, and to show that the gospel was not dependent on that for its success, and that such reliance had been a significant cause of many of the contentions and strifes that had arisen in the church at Corinth.

The chapter is mainly concerned with an account of his own ministry with them and seems designed to meet an objection that either was made or could have been made by the Corinthians themselves, or by the false teacher who was among them. In 1 Corinthians 2:12–16, he had affirmed that Christians were in fact under the influence of the Spirit of God, that they were enlightened to a remarkable degree, and that they understood all things pertaining to the Christian religion.

To this, it either was or could have been objected that Paul, when among them, had not instructed them fully in the more deep and abstruse points of the gospel, and that he had confined his instructions to the very rudiments of the Christian religion. The false teachers who had formed parties among them had probably taken advantage of this, pretending to carry the instruction much further and to explain many things Paul had left unexplained. This led to the division into parties. Paul therefore found it necessary to state why he had confined his instructions to the rudiments of the gospel among them—and this occupies the first part of the chapter (verses 1-11).

The reason was that they were not prepared to receive higher instruction but were carnal, and he could not address them as being prepared to enter fully into the more profound doctrines of the Christian religion. The proof that this was so was found in the fact that they had been distracted by disputes and strifes, which demonstrated that they were not prepared for the higher doctrines of Christianity.

He then reproves them for their contentions, because it mattered little by what means they had been brought to the knowledge of the gospel, and there was no reason for their strifes and sects. ALL success, regardless of the instrument, was to be traced to God (1 Corinthians 3:5–7); and the fact that one teacher or another had first instructed them, or that one was more eloquent than another, should not be the foundation for contending sects.

God was the Source of all blessings. Yet, to show the real nature of his own work and to meet the whole of the objection, he goes on to state that he himself had done the most important part of the work in the church. He had laid the foundation, and all the others were merely building the superstructure upon it.

And much as his instructions might appear to be elementary and unimportant, yet they had been given with the same skill an architect shows who labors to ensure the foundation is well laid and firm (1 Corinthians 3:10–11). The others who had succeeded him, whoever they were, were only builders upon this foundation.

The foundation had been well laid, and they should be careful how they built on it (1 Corinthians 3:12–16). The mention of this fact—that he had laid the foundation, that this foundation was Jesus Christ, and that they had been built upon it as a church—leads him to the inference (1 Corinthians 3:16–17) that they should be holy as the temple of God. The conclusion from the whole is:

1. That no one should deceive himself, of which there was so much danger (1 Corinthians 3:18–20); and
2. That no Christian should glory in men, for all things were theirs. It did not matter who had been their teacher on earth; all belonged to God. They had a common interest in the most eminent teachers of religion, and they should rise above the petty rivalries of the world and rejoice in the assurance that all things belonged to them (1 Corinthians 3:21–23).

And I, brethren (1 Corinthians 3:1). (See 1 Corinthians 2:1). This is designed to meet an implied objection. He had said (1 Corinthians 2:14–16) that Christians were able to understand all things. Yet, they would recall that he had not addressed them as such but had confined himself to the more elementary parts of religion when he came among them.

He had not entered upon the abstruse and difficult points of theology—the points of speculation in which the subtle Greeks so greatly delighted and which were so characteristic of them. He now states the reason why he had not done so: a reason most humbling to their pride, but it was the true reason, and faithfulness demanded that it be stated.

It was that they were carnal and not qualified to understand the deep mysteries of the gospel. The proof of this was unfortunately all too evident: their contentions and strifes clearly showed they were under the influence of carnal feelings and views.

Could not speak unto you as unto spiritual (1 Corinthians 3:1). "I could not regard you as divested of the feelings which influence carnal people, the people of the world, and I addressed you accordingly. I could not discourse to you as to far-advanced and well-informed Christians. I taught you the rudiments only of the Christian religion." He refers here, undoubtedly, to his instructions when he founded the church at Corinth (see 1 Corinthians 2:13–15).

But as unto carnal (1 Corinthians 3:1). The word carnal here (Greek: sarkikoi) is not the same as the word in 1 Corinthians 2:14 translated as natural (Greek: psychikos). That word refers to someone who is unrenewed, wholly under the influence of their sensual or animal nature, and is never applied to Christians. This word is applied here to Christians—but to those who still have much of the remains of corruption and who are imperfectly acquainted with the nature of religion: babes in Christ.

It denotes those who still showed the feelings and views that pertain to the flesh, evident in these unhappy contentions, strifes, and divisions. The works of the flesh are hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, envyings (Galatians 5:19–21), and these they had shown in their divisions. Paul knew that their danger lay in this direction, and he therefore addressed them according to their character.

Paul applies the word to himself in Romans 7:14: but I am carnal. Here it denotes that they were still under the influence of the corrupt passions and desires that the flesh produces.

As unto babes in Christ (1 Corinthians 3:1). This means as to those recently born into His kingdom and unable to understand the more profound doctrines of the Christian religion. It is a common figure of speech to apply the terms infants and children to those who are weak in understanding or unable, for any reason, to comprehend the more profound instructions of science or religion.

I have fed you with milk. Paul here continues the metaphor, which is derived from the custom of feeding infants with the lightest food. Milk here evidently denotes the more simple and elementary doctrines of Christianity—the doctrines of the new birth, of repentance, faith, and so on. This same figure occurs in Hebrews 5:11-14 and also in classical writers. See Wetstein.

And not with meat. Meat here denotes the more sublime and mysterious doctrines of religion.

For hitherto. Formerly, when I came among you and laid the foundations of the church.

Not able to bear it. You were not sufficiently advanced in Christian knowledge to comprehend the higher mysteries of the gospel.

Neither yet now, etc. The reason why they were not then able, he immediately proceeds to state.

For you are still carnal. Though you are Christians and are, for the most part, friends of God, yet your divisions and strife show that you are still, to some degree, under the influence of the principles that govern the people of this world. People who are governed solely by the principles of this world show a spirit of strife, rivalry, and contention; and to the extent that you are engaged in strife, to that same extent you show that you are governed by their principles and feelings.

For whereas. In proof that you are carnal, I appeal to your contentions and strife.

Envying. zhlov. Zeal; used here in the sense of envy, as it is in James 3:14, 16. It properly denotes any fervour of mind (from zew) and may be applied to any exciting and agitating passion. The envy referred to here was that which arose from the superior advantages and endowments that some claimed or possessed over others. Envy everywhere is a fruitful cause of strife. Most contentions in the church are somehow usually connected with envy.

And strife. Contention and dispute.

And divisions. Dissensions and quarrels. The margin correctly renders it factions. The idea is that they were split up into parties, and that those parties were embittered with mutual recriminations and reproaches, as they always are in a church.

And walk as men. The margin notes, according to man. The word walk is often used in the Scriptures in the sense of conduct or act. You conduct yourselves as people—that is, as people commonly do; you show the same spirit that the great mass of people do. Instead of being filled with love, of being united and harmonious as members of the same family should be, you are split up into factions as the people of the world are.

Who then is Paul, and so on. (See 1 Corinthians 1:13).

Why should a party be formed that would be named after Paul? What has he done or taught that should lead to this? What eminence does he have that should induce anyone to call themselves by his name? He is on a level with the other apostles; and all are merely ministers, or servants, and have no claim to the honor of giving names to sects and parties. God is the fountain of all your blessings, and whoever may have been the instrument by whom you have believed, it is improper to regard them as in any sense the fountain of your blessings, or to arrange yourselves under their name.

But ministers. Our word minister, as currently used, does not express the proper force of this word. When we apply it to preachers of the gospel, we do not usually consider the original sense of the word and the reasons why it was given to them. The original word diakonoi properly denotes servants, in contrast to masters (Matthew 20:26; Matthew 23:11; Mark 9:35; Mark 10:43), and naturally denotes those who are in an inferior rank of life.

They did not have command or authority but were subject to the command of others. It is applied to preachers of the gospel because they are employed in the service of God, because they go at his command, and are subject to his control and direction. They do not have original authority, nor are they the source of influence or power.

The idea here is that they were merely the instruments or servants by whom God conveyed all blessings to the Corinthians; that they, as ministers, were on a level, were engaged in the same work, and that therefore it was improper for them to form parties that would be called by their names.

By whom. Through whom, di ōn, by whose instrumentality. They were not the original source of faith but were merely the servants of God in conveying to them the knowledge of that truth by which they were to be saved.

Even as the Lord gave to every man. God is the original Source of faith, and it is by his influence that anyone is brought to believe. (See Romans 12:3, 6).

There were diversities of gifts among the Corinthian Christians, as there are among all Christians. And it is here implied:

1. that all that anyone had was to be traced to God as its Author;
2. that he is a Sovereign, and dispenses his favors to all as he pleases;
3. that since God had conferred those favors, it was improper for the Corinthians to divide themselves into sects and call themselves by the name of their teachers, for all that they had was to be traced to God alone.

This idea, that all the gifts and graces which Christians had were to be traced to God alone, was one that the apostle Paul often insisted on; and if this idea had been kept before the minds and hearts of all Christians, it would have prevented no small part of the contentions in the church, and the formation of no small part of the sects in the Christian world.

I have planted. The apostle here compares the establishment of the church at Corinth to the planting of a vine, a tree, or grain. The figure is taken from agriculture, and the meaning is obvious. Paul established the church. He was the first preacher in Corinth; and if any distinction was due to anyone, it was to him rather than to the teachers who had labored there subsequently. However, he regarded himself as worthy of no such honor as to be the head of a party, for it was not himself, but God who had given the increase.

Apollos watered. This figure is taken from the practice of watering a tender plant, or of watering a garden or field. This was particularly necessary in eastern countries. Their fields became parched and dry from their long droughts, and it was necessary to irrigate them by artificial means. The meaning here is that Paul had labored in establishing the church at Corinth, but that subsequently Apollos had labored to increase it and to build it up. It is certain that Apollos did not go to Corinth until after Paul had left it (see Acts 18:18, 27).

God gave the increase. God caused the seed sown to take root and spring up, and God blessed the irrigation of the tender plants as they sprang up and caused them to grow. This idea is still taken from the farmer. It would be vain for the farmer to sow his seed unless God should give it life.

There is no life in the seed, nor is there any inherent power in the earth to make it grow. God only, the Giver of all life, can quicken the germ in the seed and make it live. So it would be in vain for the farmer to water his plant unless God should bless it.

There is no living principle in the water, no inherent power in the rains of heaven to make the plant grow. Water is indeed suited for this, and the seed would not germinate if it were not planted, nor grow if it were not watered; but the life is still from God.

He arranged these means, and He gives life to the tender blade and sustains it. And so it is with the word of life. It has no inherent power to produce an effect by itself. The power is not in the naked word, nor in the one who plants, nor in the one who waters, nor in the heart where it is sown, but in God.

But there is a fitness of the means to the end. The word is adapted to save the soul. The seed must be sown, or it will not germinate. The truth must be sown in the heart, and the heart must be prepared for it—as the earth must be plowed and made mellow—or it will not spring up.

It must be cultivated with assiduous care, or it will produce nothing. But still, it is all of God, just as much as the yellow harvest of the field, after all the toils of the farmer, is of God. And as the farmer who has a proper understanding will take no praise to himself because his corn and his vine start up and grow after all his care, but will ascribe all to God's unceasing, beneficent agency, so will the minister of religion, and so will every Christian, after all their care, ascribe all to God.