EXEGETICAL PAPER ON 1 CORINTHIANS 3:5-17

___________________

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. Jay E. Smith

Dallas Theological Seminary

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

NT335 The Epistle of 1 Corinthians

__________________

by

Joshua Milton-Steven Francis

September 2016

File# 262

Word Count: 5,115

 2

1 Corinthians 3:5-17

Central Idea

The result of a proper understanding of the nature and identity of both the Church,

and its leaders is unity; that is, a marked lack of arrogance which leads to strife and

jealousy.

Exegetical Outline

I. A recognition of their leaders as united servants of God is the means by which the

Corinthians can cease their striving (3:5-9).

A. The reason leaders arent worthy of being exalted one over another is that

they are mere servants in their work (5-7)

B. The reason leaders should not be pitted against one another is that they are

united in their work (8-9).

II. A recognition of the Church as the construct and Abode of God is a further means

by which the Corinthians can cease their striving (3:10-17).

A. The nature of the labor of each leader will be revealed only by means of

fire on the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ(10-15).

B. The reason God takes his own evaluation process so seriously is that the

Corinthian church is a part of the Temple of the Spirit of God, set apart for

His habitation (16-17)

 3

VERSE BY VERSE COMMENTARY ON 1COR. 3:5-17

A Corrected View: The Identity of the Church and Its Leaders

(5:22-33)

Right at the outset of Pauls letter to the Corinthians, he raises the issue of the

division that had been reported concerning their church; namely, that some were claiming

allegiance to Paul, others Apollos, others Cephas, etc. etc. (1:12). Paul expresses

thankfulness that he had not worsened such arrogant strife by baptizing many of them in

the first place, as he was sent to primarily (nearly exclusively) preach the gospel, and that

in simplicity of speech and presentation, accompanied by the power of God (1:14-17).

This assertion leads Paul into a lengthy exposition on the differences between the wisdom

of the world (rhetoric, 1:18-2:5) and the wisdom of God (Christ and Him crucified, 2:6-

3:4), which included what sort of people can understand which sort of wisdom, and the

means by which they understand it1. Chapter three, verse four though, brings this

discussion on wisdom back around to where Paul started: the divisiveness of the

Corinthian church. He has thus established that, while the Corinthians were saved, and

thus had the Spirit and should have been able to grasp the Wisdom of God, their

divisiveness suggested that they were in fact fleshly people, without the Spirit. For if they

had the Spirit, surely they would not have been characterized by strife (3:3). Pauls

exhortation to them was all the way back in 1:10, agree[let there] be no divisions

among you but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment,

1
Ciampa-Rosners evaluation is very helpful: If in 1:18-3:4 Paul blames [their] factionalism
on their failure to reflect on the entailments of the gospel of a crucified Messiah, [here] he adds that they
had not truly grasped the nature of Christian leadership, (Roy Ciampa and Brian Rosner, The First Letter
to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan; Cambridge, U.K.:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010, 142).
 4

By the time Paul reaches 3:5, he is ready to give specific correction to some of the

erroneous viewpoints of the Corinthians that was enabling them to arrogantly puff up one

leader over another. Paul does this by using two word pictures. The first he uses is the

picture of the Church of God as a farm (3:5-9), by which he addresses the Corinthians

wrong view of Church leaders as superior and divided against one another. The second

picture he uses is a picture of the Church as a building (3:10-15) of God (which he later

links to the reality of the Church as the Temple of the Spirit [3:16, 17]), chastising the

Corinthians for presuming to have had the knowledge or authority necessary to evaluate

the contributions of church leaders.

Some of this may not seem at first to be Pauls explicit intent. However, the

following context must be taken into account when tracing Pauls reasoning. This is so

because in 4:6, Paul states clearly his intention in sharing these images. I have

figuratively applied these things to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you

may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in

behalf of one against the other. This cues the reader to the fact that Paul, in the

beginning of chapter four, is explaining his images from chapter three. This will be made

more clear after the exposition of the passage.

I. Leaders as United Servants (3:5-9)

Paul begins this section by directly addressing some of the boastful claims of the

Corinthians; I am of Apollos, I am of Paul. This gives Paul the opportunity to

confront them with the erroneous thinking that leaders of the church were superior

beings, meant to be elevated and compared to others. At the same time, it gives him

opportunity to address the nature of those leaders works as a united labor.

 5

A. Mere Servants (5-7)

5) Paul begins with a rhetorical question, What then, is Apollos, and what is Paul,

forcing the Corinthians to carefully consider what it is theyre doing when they elevate

their leaders to celebrity status. The very phrasing of the question prepares the reader for

his answer, as he didnt merely ask who, but what ()2 is Apollos or Paul. His

answer is that they are , servants, which Paul often uses to speak of himself

and his coworkers.3 Paul has no need to distinguish that they are servants of God, as it

is implicitly understood from the preceding context. While Paul begins to build his first

image (that of the field), he first describes his and Apollos roles as servants ( [the

genitive pronoun indicating means or channel]) through whom you came4 to believe.

As an agent of such an important mission, Paul is hardly denigrating this servant role in a

general sense, merely in comparison to the masters role, and whatever elevated role the

Corinthians were attempting to give them. The thrust of the logic here is in the next

phrase, which locates the Lord as the one who chose and appointed (gave) those

servant roles to each particular leader. It may even be within Pauls intent here to

communicate that the Lord apportioned the role of those who believed as well, though

such seems to be beyond his purpose in the immediate context.

2
As Thistelton suggests, the textual evidence for the masculine pronoun , who (p46, C,
D, F, G), while early, is also the easier reading, as its more normal to use a masculine pronoun with
personal names. While the would be the more uncommon use here, it also fits the thrust of Pauls answer
better, and is likely the original reading, (Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The
New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 2000, 299).
3
2 Cor. 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Rom. 16:1; Col. 1:7, 23, 25; 4:7; Eph. 3:7; 6:21; 1 Tim. 4:6
4
The force of the aorist suggests ingressive action here, (Anthony C. Thistelton, The First
Epistle to the Corinthians, 300).
 6

6) In verse six, Paul really begins to build his metaphor, I planted, Apollos watered,

but God causes the growth. While the first two verbs are aorist ( and ),

likely conveying the events of Pauls first preaching of the gospel in Corinth, and of

Apollos coming to Corinth to continue his work, the third verbs imperfect form

stands in contrast, denoting Gods continuing work throughout it all. Ministers come and

go, but Gods own work continues.5 This pictures Paul and Apollos as having very

different tasks as servants, but both being important to the overall work. Ultimately

though, it reveals their impotency, locating God as the true source of growth, as is made

clear in verse seven.

7) The use of the strong inferential marks the first application of this farm

analogy. It is Pauls answer to his rhetorical question of verse 5. What is Apollos? What

is Paul? Not only are they mere servants as in 5b, but the one who plants is not anything,

nor the one who waters. Of course, the use here is rhetorical. It is not that they are

literally inconsequential, but compared to God who causes the growth6 (7b), they are as

nothing. It is ultimately God alone. The message to the Corinthians is that they need to

focus on God alone, for God alone saves and sanctifies- it is only God who makes things

grow!7

5
Anthony C. Thistelton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 302.
6
Fee sees the phrase the one who makes grow as appositional to God. (Gordon D. Fee,
The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Edited by Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, Gordon D. Fee, and Joel B.
Green. Revised Edition. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI;
Cambridge, U.K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2014, 141).
Wallace though, sees here the adjectival participle, the growth-causing God, making the
phrase look almost more like an inherent characteristic of God, (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar
Beyond the Basics, 618).
7
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 141.
 7

B. One in Unity (8-9)

8) After Paul clearly establishes the reality of the lowly position of himself, Apollos,

and any other coworker in the ministry of the church, and establishes that they performed

and continue to perform differing tasks, he briefly asserts that the one who plants and

the one who waters (are one). Scholars debate whether one here means one in

status or one in purpose. Thiselton treats the subject well (and concisely)8, giving support

that the Greek is purposefully open, but as verse 5b states, there is differentiation between

laborers, as the Lord gave to each. This is reiterated too in 8b. While the laborers are

united in their goal and probably status, they will be recompensed separately according to

their individual labors.

9) Having mentioned rewards for the different laborers based on their labors, Paul

uses an explanatory , reiterating that all of these servants are coworkers of God,

and then begins to transition metaphors, moving from that of the field and its workers

(you are Gods field, Gods building). Theres some discussion over whether Paul

means that the laborers labor alongside God,9 or for/under/belonging to God.

However, Pauls argument that God is preeminent and the laborers are mere servants (and

have a wage awaiting them [8b]), by comparison nothing next to God, would strongly

suggest that the genitive use of God here suggests possession. Beyond the logic of the

argument, in all three terse statements of verse nine, the name of God is in the emphatic

position, reading more like, Gods servants we are, being coworkers; Gods field, Gods

8
Anthony C. Thistelton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 303.
9
As in ESVs Gods fellow workers.
 8

building, you are.10 Such emphatic positioning seems to strongly preclude the idea that

the laborers labor with or alongside God. Fee may also be right here when he suggests

that Paul is offering new slogans to the church at Corinth, to replace their misguided

slogans of I am of Paul. Their new motto might better be said, we are Gods field.

II. The Church as Construct of God and Abode of the Spirit (10-17)

Having addressed the Corinthians inflated view of their leaders and teachers with

the metaphor of the field, Paul makes a transition in verse ten to the metaphor of the

building (these two images can also be found together in Jer. 1:10; 18:9; and 24:6). With

this transition comes a shift in purpose. Whereas his first image was used to show the

lowliness of the laborers along with their unity of goal, Paul now moves to show that

within their unity, they are distinct (10b) and will be evaluated as such (12-15). Along

with this distinction, Paul begins to build his argument that Gods laborers cannot be

truly evaluated by anyone other than God, who will himself wait for the Day of the Lord

for such an evaluation (13-17). At the end of his metaphor, Paul focuses it in by

brusquely reminding the Corinthians that they are indeed the Temple of God, which is

why God evaluates so strictly (16-17).11

It is significant that Paul shifts focus from himself and Apollos, speaking only of his

own act in laying the foundation briefly, before moving in to multiple statements about a

general third person pronoun ( once [v. 10]; once [v. 11]; three times

10
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 143.
11
Collins too, sees the Temple imagery as a continuation of the building imagery, rather
than a separate image altogether, (Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, Sacra Pagina Series, v. 7. ed.
Daniel J. Harrington. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1999, 148).
 9

[vv. 10, 13 (2x)]; three times [vv. 12, 14, 15].12 This shift brings the focus on to any

individual that has influence on the building up or tearing down of the church, and would

ultimately include every member of the church, as every individual surely contributes one

thing or another to the body they join13 (12:4-31).

A. The Work Evaluated on the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ (10-15)

10) Paul begins with the assertion that he laid the foundation of this building (much

like his claim to be the father of the Corinthians [4:15]), which is Jesus Christ (11).

While this is not a claim to have been the sole minister through whom all came to faith

(as he locates both himself and Apollos as those through whom you came to belief,

3:5), it is a claim to have been the primary worker to have begun the gospel ministry in

Corinth, by the preaching of Christ and him crucified. Paul again though locates God as

the one with the authority and power to achieve such building, according to the grace

given to me. While there are not an abundant number of MSS witnesses to the omission

of the genitive of God, (p46 81. 1505 pc b f vgmss; Cl) it is most likely original, as it is

far more likely that scribes added the text for clarification rather than removed it for any

reason. In either case, it would be clear that Paul intends the reader to understand that the

grace to lay the foundation of the gospel did come directly from God.

12
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 146.
13
So Blomberg, (Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, The NIV Application Commentary. Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994, 79) and Garland, (David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker
Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003, 115).
 10

Pauls simile , as a wise master-builder, continues his play on

the term wisdom throughout this passage, asserting once again that he does speak a

wisdom, but a wisdom not of this world; Christ and him crucified.

Paul then moves on to speak only of the others and the anyone who are currently

building upon that foundation. He first states simply that some other is building (the

present tense should preclude the idea that it is Apollos in view, as he was not in Corinth

at the time [16:12]), and follows it with the general warning that that builder should take

care how he is building. Concerning the content of that building process, Paul will use

imagery in verse twelve, but it seems that the actual application would be preaching and

instruction.14 Before explaining further, Paul goes back to speaking of the foundation in

a rather confusing manner.

11) Beginning with a causal , he states that no one is able to lay another

foundation (other than Jesus Christ). If it is true that it is impossible, then the builder

hardly need take care. Fee probably has the right of it, in that its a bit of an intrusion,

and should be understood as explaining that the reason builders need to take care is the

nature of the foundation, namely, Jesus Christ.

12) Moving now to further explain his warning, Paul offers up the six materials that

might be used by anyone building on the foundation. The exegete should avoid

allegorizing the materials, sticking instead to the plain sense of the warning as revealed in

the next few verses. The six materials Paul lists are gold, silver, precious stones (or

gems), wood, hay, or stubble. Some point to the building materials as an anticipation of

the image of the Temple (16-17) because of the materials Solomon was to use in his

Temple; gold for the things of gold, silver for the things of silver, bronze for the things
14
David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 115.
 11

of bronzewood for the things of wood, besides great quantities of onyxall sorts of

precious stones and marble in abundance, (1 Chronicles 29:2). While this is tempting,

the exposition of the materials needs to be driven by Pauls further imagery in vv. 13-15.

As such, Pauls imagery includes a winnowing by fire. In other words, the inflammable

materials are worthy, the flammable are unworthy. Even Solomons Temple, with all of

its wood would fail this test. Thus, there are two categories, the flammable (wood, hay

and stubble) and the inflammable (gold, silver, precious stones).15 There may also be an

element of worth in the testing, as Paul doesnt use bronze or any other more common

metal. He uses valuable building materials in the inflammable category, but even this

may be asking more of the image than Paul intended, as the thrust of his meaning is not

verse twelve, so much as what comes after.

13) Here, Paul states his main point (and then refines it in vv. 14 and 15). His point

here is that the distinct contributions of each of Gods laborers will be evaluated, each

ones work will become clear. Subsidiary points are that the timing of that evaluation

will be on the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the16 Day will show it, which means it

is God who will be doing such judging, and that the laborer will be affected personally.

After his plain statement that the quality of the work will be revealed, the

explanatory establishes that it will happen on the Day of the Lord.17 He immediately

answers the unstated question, why then with the causal , because the day is

revealed in fire, with the coordinating conjunction , finishing the explanation, and

15
So Thiselton, (Anthony C. Thistelton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 300).
16
a par excellence use of the article, (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996, 222).
17
The Day refers to the Day of the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 1:8; 5:5).
 12

the fire itself will prove (, test18) what sort each ones work is. In other

words, Paul is establishing for the Corinthian church that no human is able to properly

evaluate the contributions of the various leaders (or tutors) of the church, as only the test

of fire can reveal it. This fire will burn on the Day of the Lord.

It is important to note here that the fire is a fire on the Day of the Lord. It is not the

fires of purgatory. Verse thirteen is cited as the single NT verse used by the Roman

Catholic church to support the concept of purgatory, (though many Catholic scholars are

coming to agree that such use of the verse is not valid). This is a failure to recognize that

the fire is an event, not beginning before that Day, nor lasting beyond. The fire is also

clearly a fire of testing in order to prove, or show value, not the fires of purification as

would be necessary in the purgatory viewpoint.

14) Paul then elaborates the distinction between the varying results of this test,

with two first class conditional sentences. The first conditional sentence reflects the

positive result of the proving test, if (and lets assume it is so, for the sake of argument)

anyones work, which he built, remains (on that Day), then he will receive reward. No

obvious reward is spoken of in the most narrow context, though as Fee points out, the

text only affirms its certainty.19 Commentators are quick to point out though that

immediately following, chapter four speaks of a reward being praise from God, (4:5). It

is also important to note that Paul is not speaking of the reward of salvation, as will be

made clear in the next verse. While Blomberg seems to lean too close to the concept that

18
Walter Grundmann, , ., in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed.
Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 1964), 255-60.
19
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 154.
 13

God is rewarding believers here for their personal piety after salvation,20 others rightly

point to the specific context as indicating rewards for the positive investments a laborer

makes to the corporate Church body.

15) In the next first class conditional sentence, the opposite test result is explained.

If anyones work is burnt down (in that Day), then he will suffer loss but will himself be

saved, though only as through fire. The reflexive pronoun marks that the laborer

himself (or herself) is not in danger of losing salvation. It is only the dross that he built in

to the Church that is annihilated. The laborer will suffer some sort of loss, and severely

enough that there will be evidence of that loss, but he will be saved nonetheless. As many

point out, the phrase but only as through fire, is very like brand plucked from the

burning (Amos 4:11), which may be to say, it had become an idiom that meant more or

less, escaping by the skin of ones teeth. This comparison though may lose some of the

vividness of the punishment. It is not just that there was a close call, or a last second

dodge. It is more severe. Not only did the laborer barely escape the destruction, but his

clothes show the markings of the flame, his hair is singed, and the smell of smoke is in

the air. The warning is severe. It is likely as severe a warning Christians ever receive

concerning the condition in which they enter the Kingdom (though many seem to argue

the next two verses fill this role).

Unfortunately, pop-theology (particularly in Sunday schools and youth groups) often

applies this passage in a very individualistic manner. Teachers often challenge youth to

consider what kind of movies theyre watching, music theyre listening to, and friends

theyre hanging out with. Their challenge to their students is to be careful what kind of

20
Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, 74.
 14

dross they are building their temple with (applied in the most personal,

individualistic way possible), and to be sure to fill their time with the kind of life events

that will stand the test of Gods fire on the Day of the Lord. Their final warning is that

when the student passes through that fire, they arent going to want to come out smelling

like smoke. Others may take a step in the right direction and warn their youth to be

careful what kind of influence they are on their friends, because surely they wouldnt

want their friends to make it through smelling like smoke. Very rarely in such venues

do teachers properly apply the warnings. It is not that the building will enter smelling

like smoke. It is that the builder will do so. It is not that the building is an individual

believer (though an argument can be made that as a member of the Church, the warning

still stands). The building is the Church as a corporate entity. It is definitely not that an

individual believer needs to be careful how they build into their own spiritual lives. It is

that every believer who presumes to invest in or build up the corporate body in one

manner or another must beware how they do so, because not only will their work be burnt

to the ground, they too will suffer the touch of the flames.

B. A Special Possession (16-17)

In the final two verses of this imagery, Paul seems to take a step back from his

current trajectory. Most view these verses as a third, separate image, giving an even

stricter judgment for those who are so divisive in the church that they go so far as to

destroy it.21 However, it seems likely that it is an explanation for the truth being

conveyed in the second image (that of the building).22 In essence, Paul is saying, indeed,

21
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 157.
 15

you are a building, and not just any building, but the Temple of God, set apart by him

and for him! And for this reason, he jealously guards you and would even destroy anyone

who presumed to destroy you! In this case, it is not a more severe warning to the

Corinthians that their divisiveness will lead to their destruction.23 It is instead a general

axiom that any false teacher working toward the destruction of the Corinthians will in

fact be destroyed. Such false teachers must be a separate category from the Corinthians,

as surely this destruction must be a more severe punishment than that found in verse

fifteen, and thus reserved for non-Christians. Paul doesnt speak to the Corinthians as

non-Christians, but as to brothers and sisters.

16) Paul begins this axiom with the brusque rhetorical question Do you not know?

The implication is that they indeed know, and he knows they know. It is a truth that he

clearly expects them to have grasped already. The term used for temple, , is oft-times

the term used to speak specifically of the sanctuary itself (the deitys dwelling-place) as

opposed to the , which would have signified the temple grounds along with the

sanctuary. The view here is that the local church at Corinth is the actually dwelling place

of deity, as made clear following the coordinating conjunction , in that the Spirit of

God actually dwells in your midst. Most commentators point to the use of the second

person plural24 as an indication that Paul is speaking to the corporate body and not

individual believers within that body. However, this seems to ultimately be a

misunderstanding of Pauls use of second person plurals, as in 1 Corinthians 6:19, in spite

22
Ciampa-Rosner interestingly sees the three images of chapter three as a development of a
single picture of a garden-temple that is carried throughout the rest of the book, (Roy Ciampa and Brian
Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, 157ff).
23
contra Fee, (Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 157).
24
Garland, (David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 120). Thiselton, (Anthony C. Thistelton, The
First Epistle to the Corinthians, 316). Collins, (Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, 160).
 16

of the use of the second person plurals, the commentators all point to the opposite

conclusion based on context. That is, in chapter six, it is recognized that Paul is speaking

of each individual as being a temple of the Holy Spirit, in spite of the use of the plural. So

too, here in chapter three, the use of the plural is not the conclusive evidence everyone

seems to suggest it is (after all, how else would Paul speak to a group of people, even

when he desires to speak truth concerning the individuals within the body). Rather, it is

the context (that the church as a whole is a single field, a single building, yea, a single

temple) that demands the conclusion that Paul is speaking of the local church body as the

temple, and not the individual believers within it. Thus, it is still best to render the final

phrase of verse sixteen in your midst, rather than in you.

It is also important to note that Paul is asserting that the local church really is the

dwelling place of the Spirit. In other words, Paul is not speaking apocalyptically, nor is

he spiritualizing apocalyptic imagery.25

17) Finally, Paul gives what is possibly his greatest warning, in the form of another

first class conditional sentence. If anyone destroys the temple of God, then God will

destroy him.26 He follows this warning with another explanatory , For the temple of

God is holy, which you are. Too many exegetes tie this warning to the Corinthians

boastful arrogance and divisive in-fighting. The problem with such an understanding

should be clear. In one breath, Paul states his profound threat, which seems to clearly be a

much more severe threat than that found in vv. 13-15, and in the next breath, states that

his readers are the holy (sanctified) abode of the Spirit of the Living God. Instead of

25
contra Conzelmann, (Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, ed. George W. MacRae,
Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, 77).
26
An example of lex talionis, i.e. an eye for an eye.
 17

seeing this final warning then as a threat to the Corinthians, it should be seen as a promise

of hope. He is reminding them of the special place they hold in the plan of God, and that

God will jealously protect them, so much so, that he will destroy those who attempt to

destroy them. It is this promise which should stand as a reminder that if God will destroy

destroyers, then surely he will also do as Paul just previously stated. He will punish the

shoddy builders and reward the careful builders.

Some attempt to argue that (destroy) means damage, and point to 1st

century building contracts.27 In the first place, if this were the case, than the warning

would only be a repetition of v. 15. In the second place, the weight of the evidence rests

on the meaning destroy.28 Second Corinthians 7:2 and 11:3 may also speak to the

actual destruction of the church.

Pauls point here is that the church at Corinth has been set apart by God for his

special use. He has built it up as the abode of his own Spirit. He will defend it against its

enemies (16-17), he will keep his builders accountable (10-15), he is the one to be loyal

to for the work of his servants (5-9).

Conclusion

As mentioned in the introduction, the imagery Paul uses in chapter three is clarified

by Pauls own explanation in chapter four; 1regard usas servants of Christ and

stewards (3:5-7). 2 it is required that one be found trustworthy (3:8, 10, 13-15). 3-5 a

27
Raymond F. Collins, First Corinthians, 161.
28
Gnther Harder, , ., in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed.
Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1964), 102.
 18

small thing [to] be examined by youorevenmyselfthe one who examines me is

the Lord (3:13). These verses must be read in this light as 4:6 states so explicitly that

this was Pauls intention, These thingsI have figuratively applied to myself and

Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that

no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other. One of the more

significant results of this connection is Pauls own interpretation and application of his

imagery, which he givers in 4:5. His interpretation of the Day is when the Lord

comes, and the fire not only burns (disclose[s]), but first bring[s] to light the things

hidden. He identifies the evaluated work of 3:13 as being closely tied to the motives of

mens hearts. So to understand chapter three as only speaking to the content or quality of

a leaders teaching and doctrine would be to err. Paul is talking about weighing much

more than that. He also slightly clarifies the reward of chapter three as praisefrom

God, though even that could be a broad, very general description. This could of course

be words of praise spoken by God, well done my good and faithful servant. But the

language is generic enough that Paul may have had something else in mind. Finally,

significantly, Paul also provides an application for this imagery. It is not only that the

Corinthians ought to regard leaders as servants (3:5-9; 4:1), or that those who contribute

to the building up of the church must do so with care (3:10-15; 4:2), or to rest easy in the

knowledge that God zealously defends his church (3:16-17), but it is also that they ought

to refrain from passing judgment (and then elevating or denouncing) over issues that only

God can discern, which should prevent them from arrogantly boasting in any leader over

another.
 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. Revised and edited by Frederick W. Danker. 3rd ed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Blomberg, Craig. 1 Corinthians. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1994.

Ciampa, Roy and Brian Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. The Pillar New
Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 2010.

Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina Series, v. 7. edited by Daniel J.

Harrington. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier, 1999.

Conzelmann, Hans. 1 Corinthians. edited by George W. MacRae. Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1975.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary
on the New Testament. Revised Edition. edited by Ned B. Stonehouse, F. F.
Bruce, Gordon D. Fee, and Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2014.

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003.

Grosheide, F.W. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1953.

Grundmann, Walter. , . In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,

edited by Gerhard Friedrich, translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol.
2, 255-60. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1964.

Harder, Gnther. , . In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited

by Gerhard Friedrich, translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. vol. 9, 93-
106. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1974.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Greek
Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing, 2000.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1996.
 20