1 Corinthians 2:12-3:3

We are still discussing the problem of sectarianism—this was one of the problems within the Corinthian church. But Paul has shown that this problem sprung from the Corinthians not fully understanding God's plan—this emphasis on individual preachers misses the point of the gospel in the first place. This kind of emphasis is more like the way the world thinks than the way a Christian should think. They were using man's wisdom instead of the true wisdom, which comes only from God. This was symptomatic of a deeper problem.

To understand this section, we have to consider everything Paul has said leading up to this point. Throughout chapters 1 and 2, we have had this contrast between God's way and man's way; between God's wisdom and man's wisdom. At the end of the last section, Paul specifically linked God's wisdom with His Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that reveals the thoughts and plans of God.

Here in verse 12, Paul makes that extremely personal. We have received the Spirit. What spirit? A spirit that makes a difference between us and the rest of the world—it is the Spirit of God. We have received this spirit, and it was given for a purpose—that we might understand the things of God. Paul says that God has freely given us these things, these truths. God has lavished His wisdom on us, even going so far as giving us His Spirit so that we can understand and make use of it.

The question is: who is “we”? Who is that God has given His Spirit? Obviously, in a sense, it is all Christians—that is a point we will come back to later—but here, Paul seems to mean specifically himself and the other apostles. At least, verse 13 seems to zero in on that idea because Paul speaks of preaching and teaching. He had received truth from God, and he taught it to others, not using the means and methods suggested by human wisdom but according to the words taught by the Holy Spirit. Most commentators think here Paul is outlining the doctrine of inspiration—that he and the other apostles, in writing the scriptures, and perhaps even in their preaching, were given words directly from God so that their words could be truly said to be the word of God. On that argument, verse 13 refers specifically and solely to the apostles. But since we, today, in preaching and teaching, use their words (as recorded in the Bible), we are still, indirectly, speaking the words which the Holy Spirit teaches.

The ending phrase of this verse--“comparing spiritual things with spiritual”--is debated. Some give it the idea that the very words used in preaching are spiritual, suited to the spiritual truths they communicate. However, the NET Bible translates it: “explaining spiritual things to spiritual people.” Paul had been given wisdom by the Spirit—and he passed that knowledge on to those who had the capacity to hear. This translation makes sense because it connects to the rest of what Paul is saying here.

In verses 14 and 15, Paul introduces two kinds of man; the natural man and the spiritual man. The natural man seems to refer to the unregenerate, to the man who is only what nature has made him, who has not been remade by God into something more. As for the spiritual, you have to remember the context—throughout this passage (and the one before), Paul has been talking about the Spirit of God—so the spiritual man is someone who is in tune with God, one who has received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God. And I think this contrast between these two types of man echoes the other contrasts we have been seeing throughout these chapters—the natural man is the one who would use man's ways, who would trust in human skill and reject God's way, who would believe human wisdom as opposed to true wisdom.

Look at what Paul says here specifically about the natural man: that he does not receive the things of the Spirit of God; he cannot know them. The true wisdom Paul talked about in the last section is something this natural man cannot learn because he lacks the necessary capacity. A man without the Spirit cannot really understand spiritual things.

Consider the idea of word painting—when an artist will use words of varying shades or colors in order to paint a picture. Suppose a man was looking at one of those pictures, but his eyesight was too bad to see the fine details clearly, so he assumes that the painting is just a normal painting. If someone came up to him and started discussing the message written on the painting, he wouldn't understand. It would be foolish to him. He doesn't have clear enough eyesight to see the words and doesn't even know that there are words to be seen. In a sense, he and the other man (who has clear sight and knows what the painting is) are looking at two different pictures. His view of the painting as a painting might be accurate in so far as it goes, but he would be completely in the dark in regards to the words that comprise it.

I use that illustration because there are people in the world who make a career out of studying the Bible, who read and teach others about it. But they do not believe it to be a message from God, but merely a collection of human writings like any other. They can study it for years without ever really hearing the message it contains because that's not what they're looking for. Their knowledge might be accurate—it might sometimes even be more accurate than that of an uneducated Christian—but they are completely in the dark about the real message because they don't even think there is a real message.

In that illustration, the problem was merely an honest mistake. But not knowing God's message means not knowing God, and not knowing God is a spiritual problem. The spiritual man may not understand everything about the Bible, but because he has a relationship with the Author, his understanding of it will be truer than the understanding of the natural man who takes it at face value.

Or, let's use a different analogy. I could buy a book on karate and read it from cover to cover. I could collect a whole library of books on karate and research all of them till I reached a point where I had extensive knowledge about karate. In a sense I would know a lot about karate—but in another sense, I would no nothing. Because that kind of knowledge is not the same as the knowledge you get by actually doing something. Reading about a kick or a chop is not the same as actually performing it. But the first kind of knowledge is the only kind I could ever have because I don't think I have the physical capacity to actually learn karate, not at this stage of life. And without that capacity, my knowledge would always be partial and incomplete. So, you can learn a lot about Christian truths by reading the Bible or listening to sermons, but that knowledge will be partial and incomplete without the spiritual life to which those truths belong.

Finally, I think there is another, perhaps simpler reason why the natural man does not understand spiritual things. And that it is just because he doesn't want to. Paul says that the natural man “receiveth not” spiritual things. Other translations put it that he “rejects” them. Barnes gives this paraphrase: “That is, he rejects them as folly; he does not perceive their beauty or their wisdom; he despises them. He loves other things better.” Without a love for the things of God, he has no reason even to try to understand them. And the attempt to teach him will often end badly. Any of you who have children or were once children may be able to attest to this principle: it is very easy to misunderstand something when you don't want to understand it.

So, we have this principle—that the natural man does not receive spiritual things. Now, we have to keep all of this in context. Remember what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 2:6: “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought.” This wisdom Paul mentions here seems to connect with the spiritual things he is talking about in these verses. And he says this wisdom is something he taught to those who are 'perfect'--which, at the very least, means those who are converted, those who are Christians. 

So, this is my understanding of this—the basic gospel, the story of Christ and what it means to us—that is something even the sinner can understand, though perhaps even there it is because of the awakening power of the Spirit. Even a toddler can learn numbers and letters. But it is only the spiritual man, the man in contact with and under the control of the Holy Spirit, who can understand the deeper truths of Christianity. The natural man could not understand them, at least on a personal level, and most of the time, he doesn't even want to.

The preaching of the gospel may seem like foolishness, but it is the gateway to wisdom. Within Christianity, there is a field of wisdom to rival anything in the Greek philosophers. This isn't readily apparent to the outsiders because only the spiritual man can fully understand it. So we can say that the natural man is blinded; he lacks the capacity to fully understand spiritual things.

But what can we say about the spiritual man? He IS able to learn spiritual things; he is able to learn the things given to us of God which are spiritually taught. In verse 15, Paul says that the spiritual man: “judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” The word translated “judge” in this verse doesn't mean to judge in the sense of condemning or passing judgment against. Strong defines it as: “to scrutinize, i.e. (by implication) investigate, interrogate, determine:--ask, question, discern, examine, judge, search.” (#350) In other words, the spiritual man in a position to search and examine the things of God. He has a knowledge, a capacity that the natural man does not have. The statement that he is judged by no man seems to mean that just as the natural man cannot understand spiritual things, so he cannot understand spiritual men. The actions, ideas, and attitudes of the spiritual man will be a blank mystery to the natural man.

In Isaiah 40,  the prophet is giving us a picture of God's transcendence—of the vast gulf that exists between mankind and God—of how much more powerful and wiser God is. Among other things, we have this: “Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?” (Isaiah 40:13-14)

God's knowledge and wisdom are infinitely more than ours. No man could give God advice; no man could teach God. His thoughts are high above ours. In verse 16, Paul references this verse, but then he adds the startling contrast: “But we have the mind of Christ.” There is a vast chasm between God's knowledge and man's. But in a very limited sense—solely because of grace and God's Spirit—the spiritual man is on God's side of the gulf. No man can teach or instruct God, but the spiritual man is taught and instructed by God. The spiritual man has given a part of God's knowledge so that, in this sense, he can say that he does know the mind of the Lord.

This phrase, “the mind of the Lord,” is often used by preachers to refer to knowing God's will for their sermon. But here, the phrase has a broader meaning, and it is not reserved specifically for preachers. All those within this 'spiritual' group have the mind of Christ—through the Spirit, they have an understanding and knowledge of God's will. I don't think this should be interpreted as meaning that the spiritual man is omniscient or infallible. But he does have a different source of knowledge, a different perspective. He is able to see things that the natural man, by in large, does not. He can receive the true wisdom of the gospel.

All of this leads up to the sharp contrast of verse: “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual.” There was true wisdom in the Gospel; there were great truths that the spiritual man could receive—but Paul could not give them to the bulk of the Corinthian church. He compares it to feeding a baby—he could only give them milk and not solid food. 

So, does this mean that the Corinthian church—or at least that portion of it that Paul addresses here—was in the 'natural' category—were they hypocrites or backsliders? No, because in verse 1, he refers to that as “babes in Christ,” And to be “in Christ” is a typical Pauline term for a Christian. A baby human is very different in capacity and ability from an adult human, but it is still human and not something else. (Also, though this is a subjective argument, I find it difficult to think Paul would not have had much stronger words to say if these people were out-and-out sinners.)

This means that there must be some other state besides that of the natural and the spiritual--there must be a group of people who are Christians (and therefore not natural men) who nevertheless are not fully spiritual either. Paul refers to this state as carnal.

What can we say about the carnal state? The carnal man is unable fully to understand spiritual things. Like the natural man, he lacks the spiritual discernment or aptitude to receive the deeper truths of God. That is the point of the metaphor about milk and meat. Paul had to temper his preaching to their spiritual infancy.

This is speculation, but perhaps part of the sectarian debates within the church had to do with which preacher was wisest, which could bestow the best wisdom, and who could best proclaim the deeper theological and philosophical truths of God. And Paul is saying: “You people aren't ready to hear those truths from any preacher. You need to fix your ears before you start worrying so much about who speaks best.”

This doesn't mean that the carnal man is completely ignorant of all spiritual truth; it does mean that he lacks the full perception and ability to understand which the spiritual man. And perhaps this largely means that they lack the maturity and commitment to listen to that truth. 

So, we have established the spiritual man has the perception or capacity to receive spiritual truth because he has received the Spirit of God. If the carnal man lacks that perception, is it because he does not have the Spirit of God? Is the carnal state one completely lacking a relationship with the Spirit? No: because just a few verses later, still dealing with this same controversy, Paul exhorts the Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 3:16: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?”

We said before that this carnal state is separate from the natural state. In other words, the natural man is the unregenerate, the sinner, while both the carnal man and the spiritual man are Christians; both are 'in Christ' in some sense or degree. And on that topic, we have Romans 8:9: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Again, later in 1 Corinthians, when dealing with the unity of the church, Paul writes this: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:12-13)

All Christians, in some sense, have a relationship with the Holy Spirit. Daniel Steele put it: “There is no state of grace independent of the indwelling Holy Spirit...” (Steele, “The Wesleyan Doctrine of Holiness as Defined by Daniel Steele,” The Allegheny Wesleyan Methodist 74, no. 12 (December 2012): 9) And yet, having said all that, there is clearly some kind of problem here; we can put it that in the carnal state, there is some sort of inhibitor or retardant in the soul the prevents the carnal man from taking full advantage of the Spirit's blessings. The carnal state is a mixed state, which has some of the attributes of the spiritual man but also some of the natural man.

And for this reason, it is problematic. And yes, this word is overused in modern social discourse, but what I mean is that this carnal state leads to problems—it is the source of wrong actions and wrong attitudes. This is verse 3: Paul points to the fact that there was envying, strife, and divisions among them as proof that they were carnal. Those were the type of behaviors that shouldn't exist among spiritual men, and therefore, proves that they were carnal. These were symptoms.

Behind the whole debate about preachers and the problem of sectarian the church was having, there was a deeper problem of attitude—an attitude that was too worried about superficial things, about appearing at the best, at self-satisfaction and vainglory. And that attitude was a symptom of a carnal state. This doesn't necessarily mean that all men within the carnal state act in these ways or that it is not possible even this state to act better than this—but it does mean that such an attitude probably traces back to a carnal state. Not everyone who gets sick throws up, but throwing up is always a sign of some kind of sickness.

Remember that I said the carnal state is a mixed state and has some of the attributes of the natural man. And because of that, it leads to actions and attitudes which reflect the natural man. That is the end of verse 3, Paul lists out the problems the church was facing and then adds that they were walking as men. 'Walking' in the New Testament is often used to refer to the way we live, our actions and attitudes. So to say that they were walking as men means that they were acting like normal people; they were acting just like anyone else. This sort of strife and struggle is what you expect in any organization. For examples, see modern politics. It is normal and to be expected—anywhere except in the church. Christians ought to behave better. I was going to say that Christians shouldn't have these problems, but I'm not sure that's true—what is true is that Christians should be able to overcome them. And at this point, the Corinthian church was not overcoming them.

Back when we started this series, we looked at 2 Corinthians 6:16-17: “And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” Here, Paul is picturing the Christians as something distinct and unique, something that stands out from and apart from the world at large. Overall, the problem in Corinth is that they weren't doing that—many of their actions and attitudes and thought patterns were more like those of sinners outside the church than of Christians. I said that one of the main themes of 1 Corinthians was the idea of learning to think and live like Christians. Obviously, part of that is education; hence why Paul wrote a letter. But part of it is spiritual, and I suspect that a lot of the issues the Corinthians were facing—and not just the particular problem of sectarianism—trace back specifically to this—to the fact that many within the church were in this carnal state and therefore were walking as men.

But perhaps the most important statement here is the beginning of verse 3: “For ye are yet carnal.” This means that this state is TEMPORARY. Paul did not take this carnal state as a matter of course, as some unfortunate but unavoidable reality. The implication is clearly that the Corinthians could have, we might say, should have been out of this state—they ought to have been spiritual and not carnal.

This means that the carnal state is not synonymous with being human. Being a human being with a fallen body and a fallen mind brings with it a number of problems and temptations—things that we will not face in the Resurrection when we are remade with perfect bodies. But that is not what the carnal state refers to. This also means that the spiritual state is not something reserved for some select Christians--for preachers or apostles. The implication is that any Christian can and should attain it.

It is temporary, and to me, the tone here suggests that Paul is a little impatient or at least disappointed by the fact that the Corinthians were still in this state. He used the analogy that this state is like infancy. Perhaps this is taking the analogy too far, but it may be that the idea is this—it is natural and harmless for the Christian to be in this carnal state at some point, just like it is natural and harmless for a human to be a baby at some point; however, it becomes concerning when a Christian does not move beyond this point like it is concerning when a human baby does not develop beyond babyhood.

So the Corinthians were in this state; they were carnal rather than spiritual. This was a problem thatled to the fact that they were having this problem of sectarianism. And it was a temporary state—at least, a state which ought to have been temporary. Clearly, Paul's desire was for them to move beyond it.

And yet, he doesn't say anything more about it. After verse 3, he moves back to the subject of sectarianism and doesn't touch this point again, at least not directly, though some of his teachings may be indirectly point back to this.

Why is that? Perhaps it is just a symptom of Paul's usual somewhat disjointed method of writing. Perhaps my breakdown is completely wrong, and I'm putting way too much emphasis on this. But I suggest another possibility.

How is a Christian to move beyond this carnal state? What is the cure for it? Paul doesn't describe it here. However, Paul seems to touch on this same subject in Romans. In Romans 7, he describes a state that seems to parallel the carnal state here. There he refers to it as the law of the “flesh”--flesh being connected to the word 'carnal'. And there he does describe how to escape or move beyond this state.

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Romans 8:3-4) There Paul points to the primary thing—it is the atonement provided by the life, death, and resurrection of Christ which allows freedom from the carnal state; it allows the Christian to be truly spiritual. That is God's side. What is our side? John seems to deal with this same issue in his first epistle, and he gives this answer: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9) John speaks of confessing, but I think this implies something even more important: faith. The Christian must have faith that God can deliver them and cleanse them from the carnal state. And also by implication, they must be humble enough to admit that they have a problem and need God's help.

So, the transition between the carnal state and the spiritual state is achieved on God's side through the benefits of the atonement applied to the soul by the Holy Spirit—and on man's side, it comes by coming to God in faith and humility.

And all of that may sound familiar because that's exactly the same way the transition from the sinner to the Christian occurs—at its core, all spiritual life and progress happens through this formula. If the Corinthians knew anything at all about spiritual things, they knew this. And perhaps that is the reason Paul doesn't bother explaining it. They didn't need a methodology explained; they just needed to be encouraged to do it.