BIG IDEA:
CHILDISH SECTARIANISM IS AN UNNATURAL STATE FOR THE BELIEVER AND STUNTS SPIRITUAL GROWTH
INTRODUCTION:
Mark Taylor: In 3:1 Paul drops the comparison between the “man without the Spirit” (natural man) and the “spiritual man” (2:14–15) and pinpoints a different contrast between those who are “spiritual” and those who are “worldly—mere infants in Christ.” That he is addressing believers is clear from the designation “in Christ.” The Greek term translated “man without the Spirit” is reserved for unbelievers and refers to those who do not accept the things of the Spirit of God, who consider spiritual things as foolishness, and who are not able to know the things of God (2:14). Paul does not say that the Corinthians are not spiritual, only that he was not able to speak to them as spiritual. In principle they are spiritual by virtue of their reception of the Spirit of God, but in practice the designation “spiritual” is not an appropriate term for them in their present condition. In context the opposite of “spiritual” is “infant,” which means that “spiritual” is synonymous with “mature” (2:6). Paul is seeking to adjust their attitudes and change their behavior. As a direct application of his exposition of God’s wisdom for the mature (2:6–16), Paul retorts that he cannot speak to them as spiritual (mature) because of their childish behavior evidenced by their jealousy and quarrels.
David Prior: We have already noted Paul’s lament (1) that the church at Corinth was not in any sense spiritual. ‘For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body’ – yes; ‘and we were all made to drink of one Spirit’ – yes (12:13). But following the Spirit’s direction, walking in the Spirit’s power, demonstrating the unity of the Spirit? Certainly not. The Corinthians themselves reckoned that they were very spiritual, that they were wise and mature Christians, not least because of a multiplicity of spiritual gifts on view in their life together. But Paul is firm: And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people. He does not hesitate to call them brothers and sisters, but he has to call them also people of the flesh (1, 3), merely human (4). In fact, he calls them infants; babes in Christ, certainly, but still in their nappies (or ‘diapers’, as Americans say), hardly able to speak any words at all in terms of real wisdom from above.
Adewuya: Imagine an adult, a grown person, who behaves like a baby! A person who has never developed, who is growing old, but not growing up! Imagine further that the lack of growth is neither genetic nor forced upon the person. Rather, it is actually an intelligent choice to remain a baby! To choose to never grow! Imagine, if you will, a fifty-year-old woman turning up for work with a bib around her neck, a pacifier in her mouth, and her favorite toy underneath her arm! What would it be like to see a sixty-five-year-old man surrounded by toys? Ridiculous, one would say. And so it is. What Paul says in this chapter is worse than these examples. The Corinthians have the power of God, the gifts of the Spirit, and the riches of grace, all at their disposal. But they willingly refused to grow and to mature. They chose to remain as babes.
Daniel Akin: Many have misunderstood these verses. So, let me provide a simple list of what they mean and what they don’t mean. Let’s start with what they don’t mean:
- They don’t mean you can accept Jesus as Savior but reject him as Lord.
- They don’t mean you will never bear tangible fruit as a Christian.
- They don’t mean you can become an unbelieving believer.
- They don’t mean you can live your Christian life no differently than a non-Christian.
- They don’t mean you can sit on the throne of your heart with Christ at your feet.
- They don’t mean that though we are saved without works, we may have a faith without works.
Now, here’s what they mean:
- Christians can be slow to mature in their faith without proper nourishment.
- Christians can sometimes act like spiritual babies when they should act like spiritual adults.
- Christians need to be reminded of the basics of the gospel even as they grow in their depth of understanding the gospel. The gospel is both milk and meat!
- Nominal Christianity is inauthentic Christianity.
- Spiritual backsliding is possible, but it should not be permanent (see 1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:16-21).
Paul Gardner: In 3:1–4 Paul shows that their jealousy and divisions are unacceptable and are behavior that belongs to the world of the flesh rather than the world of God’s Spirit. To do this Paul introduces a new contrast. Now the spiritual people themselves are referred to as “babies” (3:1; νήπιος). The contrast formerly was between those who were believers (the spiritual) and those who are not (the unspiritual). Now this contrast is between what spiritual people (believers) ought to be, and how they actually appear in Corinth. They are part of the family, but they have a lot of growing up to do!
Anthony Thiselton: [Paul] is pointing out that their competitive, self-seeking jealousy and strife undermine and contradict evidence of the Holy Spirit’s sanctifying activity in their lives, and their identity as people of the cross. Since they are self-contradictory, Paul can describe them only in self-contradictory language, as if they did not possess the Spirit at all. They contradict their baptism into the cross and their transformation through the Spirit. They remain centered on [them]selves and behaving like any merely human person (v. 3b). They indulge in destructive power play: “I, for one, am one of Paul’s people”; “I, for my part, am for Apollos” (v. 4).
i. (:1) SOME BELIEVERS REMAIN SPIRITUAL INFANTS IN THE AREA OF DISCERNMENT FOR AN EXTENDED TIME
A. Context = Family of Christ – not talking about unbelievers here
“And I, brethren,”
David Garland: For the first time in the letter he criticizes the church directly and sharply, but he cushions his rebuke by addressing them as brothers and sisters (cf. 1:26, 2:1), which conveys solidarity (Kistemaker 1993: 100).
B. Capacity for Discernment Not Consistent With Spirituality and Maturity
“could not speak to you as to spiritual men,”
C. Capacity for Discernment Limited by Carnality and Immaturity
“but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ.”
Gordon Fee: The word used here, sarkinoi, emphasizes especially their humanness and the physical side of their existence as over against the spiritual. The change to sarkikoi (v. 3) only adds to the blow. They were not only “of the flesh” when Paul first was among them, but even now their behavior is “fleshly,” a word with clear ethical overtones of living from the perspective of the present age, therefore out of one’s sinfulness. Furthermore, sarkinos is not a synonym for the psychikos used a few sentences before (2:14). The change is deliberate. The adjective psychikos had just been used to describe the person totally devoid of Spirit, who could not even follow Paul’s present argument because the whole would be folly to such a person. Because the Corinthians had received the Spirit, he could not call them psychikoi — even if they were acting that way. So the shift to sarkinoi is fitting in every way. He avoids accusing them of not having the Spirit altogether, but at the same time he (with bite, to be sure) forces them to have to face up to their true condition.
II. (:2-3a) FLESHLY LIVING LIMITS ONE’S ABILITY TO PROCESS DEEPER SPIRITUAL TRUTHS
A. Restricted to a Diet Appropriate for an Infant
“I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not able to receive it.”
John MacArthur:
“milk” — Not a reference to certain doctrines, but to the more easily digestible truths of doctrine that were given to new believers.
“solid food” – The deeper features of the doctrines of Scripture. The difference is not in kind of truth, but degree of depth. Spiritual immaturity makes one unable to receive the richest truths.
Alternate View:
Mark Taylor: Commentators understand the comparable metaphors of “milk” and “solid food” differently, depending on the interpretation of the content of Paul’s “wisdom for the mature” (see 2:6). The metaphor itself was commonly employed in the ancient world to refer to elementary versus advanced teaching, an image that depicted progression in knowledge. In the New Testament the metaphor carries this apparent sense in Heb 5:12–14 (cf. also 1 Pet 2:2). If the same holds for 1 Cor 3:2, then milk represents Paul’s initial missionary preaching centered on the cross and solid food portrays more advanced teaching, God’s wisdom that unveils the meaning of the cross.
Others suggest, however, that this meaning is difficult to maintain contextually in 1 Corinthians. In other words, the view that Paul’s initial instruction in the gospel (milk) proclaimed the cross and that the Corinthian’s behavior prevented him from moving to more extensive, advanced instruction misses Paul’s intention. To be sure, the Corinthians failed to make progress, but it was not a failure of knowledge but a failure to comprehend and incarnate the wisdom of the cross. The evidence for this was their strife and jealousy. By referring to “solid food” Paul uses their language that means that the contrast in this case is not between two different diets but between “the true food of the Gospel (whether milk or meat), and the synthetic substitutes which the Corinthians have preferred.” Paul knows only one kind of wisdom, Christ and him crucified. It is not that Paul does not or cannot give them wisdom in the form of solid food; it is that they do not recognize what he gives them to be wisdom. Paul wants them to abandon their present behavior so that they can appreciate the milk for what it really is, “solid food.”
B. Problem is Fleshly Living
“Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly”
John Piper: So what is it about a person that makes them unable to digest solid food? It’s pride. Or to put it positively, the organ that properly digests solid food is humility. As long as a person is still largely influenced by a spirit of self-exaltation he is not able to digest solid food. The throat of pride is too narrow and unpliable to handle the solid food. . .
What then is solid food? Notice that it is not something that takes more intellect to grasp. What it takes is less jealousy and strife, less pride and self-assertion. The solid food is not for smart people. It’s for humble people — people who have stopped pursuing the pleasures of self-confidence and self-exaltation and self-determination – people who now want only to boast in the Lord and give him all the glory for whatever good there is in the world and in their lives.
John MacArthur: There is no difference at all between the truths of a spiritual milk diet and a spiritual solid food diet, except in detail and depth. All doctrine may have both milk and meat elements.
III. (:3b-4) SECTARIANISM DERIVES FROM JEALOUSY AND PRODUCES STRIFE IN THE CHURCH – DESTROYING UNITY AND STUNTING SPIRITUAL GROWTH – CHECK OUT WHETHER YOU HAVE THE SPIRIT
A. Signs of Carnality
- Root Indicators: Jealousy
“For since there is jealousy”
David Garland: Paul lists jealousy (ζῆλος, zēlos) and strife (ἔρις, eris) as companion works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20) and as works of darkness, things that gratify the desires of the flesh (Rom. 13:12–14). Treating the church community as an arena in which to maneuver and advance their personal status reveals that they are controlled by human motives (cf. 15:32) and the purely human order of things (κατὰ ἄνθρωπον περιπατεῖτε; kata anthrōpon peripateite? literally, “are you not walking according to man?”). They act no differently from the rest of Corinthian society (Winter 2001: 40). He exploits a common theme that factionalism is a “human failing” (M. Mitchell 1993: 82), which then testifies to their spiritual deficiency. A divided spiritual community is, for Paul, untenable.
- Surface Indicators: Strife
“and strife among you,”
Signs of the Holy Spirit would be in contrast to these traits:
- – the Holy Spirit glorifies Christ, not the individual
- – the Holy Spirit promotes peace and unity in the body
Ray Stedman: Now the mark of spiritual babyhood, Paul says, is “jealousy and strife.” Where you have Christians who are still baby Christians and who are all too long in that condition, you will always have divisions, factions, strife, and breaking into little cliques and groups in the Church. This arises out of a sense of competition.
B. Carnality Should Trigger an Examination of Whether You Possess the Spirit
- Fleshly = Unnatural State for the Believer
“are you not fleshly,”
- Not Manifesting the Spirit = Danger Zone
“and are you not walking like mere men?”
Mark Taylor: For the Corinthians to behave in this manner is “acting like mere men” (3:3), a phrase that is repeated in 3:4 and is the equivalent of “walking according to the flesh.” Paul stops short of calling them “natural” (cf. 2:14, “the person without the Spirit”), but his use of the term “man” comes close. They are acting no different from people who belong to the world, human beings who tend toward strife and envy. Factionalism gives evidence of a fleshly mindset rather than the “mind of Christ” (2:16).
C. (:4) Sectarian Spirit Makes Us No Different Than the World of the Unsaved
“For when one says, ‘I am of Paul,’ and another, ‘I am of Apollos,’
are you not mere men?”
John Piper: But let’s not treat continued immaturity as unimportant. It could be a sign that no true spiritual life was ever present and that the professing Christian is only a natural man after all. This is very rarely for us to decide. But it is our responsibility to warn the careless drifter, as Peter says to make his calling and election sure, by trusting in Christ TODAY and following him in the obedience of faith.
Adewuya: Verse 4 brings us back to the actual state of the Corinthian Christians, with their divisive preferences for individual apostles and ministers. Paul’s example of himself and Apollos, who shared in the ministry at Corinth (Acts 18:1–28), was needed to show the Corinthians that they had a distorted view of the Lord’s work. Whenever they thought of God’s work in terms of belonging to or following a particular Christian worker, they were simply acting on the human level and taking sides just as the world does. The Corinthians were probably captivated by the outward manners of Paul and Apollos, rather than their teaching. Apollos was more eloquent than Paul. Their preferring one to another on such an account proved that they were merely human—led by their senses and mere outward appearances, without being under the guidance either of reason or grace.