1 Corinthians 4:6-21

Throughout the first several chapters of 1 Corinthians, Paul has been dealing with the issue of sectarianism within the church. The Corinthian church was splitting up into parties based around individual leaders, particularly Paul and Apollos. This passage is Paul's final exhortation on the subject. Paul had talked about his responsibility as minister of the gospel; here he talks about the Corinthian's responsibility.

We've talked about this throughout this section. These parties in the church were forming around Paul and Apollos—not that either man was actively involved in the matter, but people were splitting into parties based on which preacher they preferred. And at first, you might think: what's so wrong with that? Both Paul and Apollos were good men who were teachers of the truth. What's wrong with a little hero-worship if the heroes are worthy? In this passage, Paul makes a point of showing that there is respect that is due to preachers, so what was wrong with the attitude of the Corinthians?

The problem was that they were putting a wrong stress on these men—they were thinking of men "above that which is written." There is debate about the exact meaning of that phrase, but the general meaning is that we shouldn't give any human a greater value than they actually possess. Some think it means we shouldn't exalt any man above God's word, which is the real source of truth.

And because the Corinthians were giving undue exaltation to their leaders, this, in turn, led them to be puffed up towards one another. They gave too much value to Paul and Apollos and then transferred that value to themselves as members of their party. William Burkitt summarizes it: “It is too usual when people have a very great and high esteem of the ministers of Christ, to overvalue themselves by reason of their relation to them and dependence upon them; and whilst they honour and magnify some, to vilify and disesteem others."

This sectarian attitude was wrong. The Corinthians are being exhorted to turn away from it. And in this passage, we see the reasons why.

We see the first reason in verse 7: as Christians, we recognize that everything we have is a gift from God. Suppose a group of students is in a class and, on a given day, receive a grade for their work. Even assuming that all the students receive a passing grade, there will be differences and comparisons. The students who get A's can boast about their superiority over those who had A-'s. The A-'sers will, in turn, look down on the B's and so on. But suppose it was a different kind of class—where the students received a passing grade simply for attendance. In that case, there could be no comparison or competition. You couldn't really say 'I attended' better or worse than someone else. This isn't an exact comparison, but the general idea is this: what we receive without our own effort or merit cannot logically be the ground of competition or boasting. (I added the word 'logically' to that sentence because I realize some people still try to boast about such things; as the Corinthians were boasting of their grace and their conversion.) This echoes a point Paul made earlier. He reminded the Corinthians that many of them were considered foolish or base people—not the kind of people anyone would expect God to care about. And yet God had chosen them: “That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” (1 Corinthians 1:29-30) That is the point: everything we have, we have received, and therefore, we cannot boast or compare ourselves to others. Everyone is level at the foot of the cross.

The second reason given is the example of the apostles, given in verses 8-13. There is debate about whether Paul is speaking specifically of himself or of all the apostles. Either meaning works: I think Paul is referring to all the apostles but is using himself as a type or prime example.

Throughout this passage, we see that the apostles suffered many things; they were men who experienced hardship and trials. For convenience's sake, we can break the headships down into three groups: First, they faced physical hardships. 

In verse 11, Paul speaks of going without proper food and water or sufficient clothing. He says they were buffeted. To 'buffet' is an archaic term meaning to beat or strike repeatedly. The Greek word means to strike with a fist and is the term used for the punishment of a slave. It can be used metaphorically to refer to any rough treatment or unpleasant circumstances—but given the life of Paul, it could just as easily be literal.

In addition to all this, he had no certain dwellingplace—for most of his journeys, Paul had no home of his own and had to depend on others for a place to stay. Robertson refers to the apostles as “spiritual hobos.” I started to wonder about this—did Paul have to just hope people would offer him a home? This kind of charity was more common in the first century—Holiday Inn had not yet been invented, even if Paul could have afforded it. Peter exhorts his readers: “Use hospitality one to another without grudging.” (1 Peter 4:9) We use the word hospitality in a general sense, but the literal idea of the word is to give someone a place to stay. This was the kind of charity that Paul had to count on. Perhaps sometimes, he slept in the open: “And like the prophet, my pillow a stone.”

Next, they experienced social hardships. Verse 12 speaks of having to labor with his own hands. The Greek here implies hard work, working until you are tired. This would connect to the physical suffering—and the necessity of the work would connect to the need for food, drink, clothing, and shelter. But physical labor was also seen as a negative by many in Greek society. They saw that as something 'low'--something for 'lesser men'. A man with Paul's mind could have been a great scholar or philosopher if he had wanted to, but instead, he was willing to be looked down on as a manual laborer.

Jameson-Fossit-Brown points out an interesting connection here. In verse 11, Paul says that all these things were true 'even unto this present hour.' This could mean that this was just the general state of things. But we know that Paul was writing this letter from Ephesus. And later, Paul will speak to the leaders of the church in Ephesus, reminding them of his time there: “Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.” (Acts 20:34)

Having to work hard for a living, especially when you are doing it merely to finance your real work—that isn't an easy thing and, as I said, was somewhat looked down upon at the time. But there was something far worse. They were 'reviled' and 'defamed'--both mean to be insulted, accused of being or doing something wrong. And they were 'persecuted'--subjected to mistreatment, whether physical or social. The word in Greek has the idea of 'chasing away'. Everywhere they went, there were some who wanted to chase them off, to reject them, even to hurt them.

Paul says that they were as the filth of the world and the offscouring of all things. 'Offscouring' means something brushed or scraped off. To put this in a modern idiom: the apostles were treated like dirt by the world. Obviously, there were some exceptions, but by and large, the apostles were cut off and looked down upon by the 'normal' people of the world. They were outsiders and not in a positive sense.

Finally, the apostles faced psychological hardships. And maybe that's not quite the right word, but what I mean is that there were internal hardships that came with these external hardships. They did not have the recourse to the coping methods the normal man would have. In some sense, they could not defend themselves from these problems.

We just mentioned how other people treated the apostles, as laid out in verses 12 and 13. But notice how the apostles responded to such attacks. When they were reviled, they blessed. They returned good words for bad words. They responded to unkindness with kindness. When they were persecuted, “we suffer it.” The word 'suffer' in English has two different means. Usually it means to go through trouble or hardship. But it can also mean to allow or permit—when we say that someone 'does not suffer fools gladly'--it means that they will not put up with a foolish person or allow them around. I bring that up, because in this verse, both meanings work. The idea of the Greek word is to put up with or bear. He allowed the persecution he endured—he suffered his suffering. In other words, instead of retaliating, he accepted his lot. He also says that when they were defamed, they intreated. To 'intreat' means to ask someone to do something, almost, to beg. This could mean that when others attacked, they had no recourse but to ask them to stop. Or it could refer to praying to God for help. NET Bible renders it: “When we are verbally abused, we respond with a blessing, when persecuted, we endure, when people lie about us, we answer in a friendly manner.”

The point of all this is to show that apostles, facing some of the worst the world had to offer in the treatment of other people, had no direct recourse. They did not have the defense of bitterness or revenge, which buoy up most men in similar circumstances. Now, of course, this is the right and proper attitude—it is the attitude that we as Christians are supposed to have, and so it is the best in the long run. But my point is that it isn't an easy thing, and it was the thing the apostles had to do. They had to walk the roughest road with (humanly speaking) the weakest shoes. Like David, they fought the giant without the aid of Saul's armor, though—like David—they had the power of God on their side.

In verse 10, Paul says that the apostles were fools, weak, and despised. Some commentators think Paul is being sarcastic and saying the opposite—that the apostles WERE NOT fools, etc. And clearly there is a certain sense of irony in this passage. But given the rest of the context, I think he is being serious—at the very least, this is how the apostles seemed to many people—as something silly, ineffectual, and contemptible. That is how it looked to the world. That is seemingly how it looked to some within the church. Perhaps sometimes, that is how it looked to the apostles themselves. 

The apostles faced all these hardships. This is something we should be familiar with. But what does all that have to do with the point at hand? What does this have to do with sectarianism?

To understand, we have to go back to verse 8: Paul tells the Corinthians: “ye are full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us.” Commentators point out that there is a progression there—from satisfaction, like a man at a feast, to wealth, and finally to royalty. Clearly, in this case, Paul is being sarcastic because he goes on: “I would to God ye did reign.” The Corinthian church thought that, spiritually speaking, they were in a good state. The members of the various sects were puffed up against one another, thinking they were better off spiritually than their neighbors. They were very much like another church in the New Testament: "Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” (Revelation 3:17) They had a false idea of their own status—they thought they were better off than they were. They were arguing about who had climbed highest when none of them was even off the ground.

And this attitude of boasting and self-promotion was so wrong when compared to the attitude of the apostles. In verse 8, Paul speaks of them as if they were kings. In verse 9, he says that God had put the apostles last, as it were appointed to death; that they were made a spectacle. Barclay thinks this is a reference to the Roman Triumph. A Triumph was an occasion when a successful general would be honored after his war. The general would ride through the streets of Rome in a parade, crowned with glory and praise. And then, at the back of the parade would be enemies who had been captured in the war and would be sent to die in the arena. 

The Corinthians were crowning themselves, but Paul was content with the lot God had given him, the lot of suffering and dishonor and death. Paul says they were a spectacle—that is, someone put on stage or in an arena. This probably references the Romans' penchant for public execution. But I see a double meaning in it—they were also a spectacle in the sense of being an example. The Corinthians had seen Paul and what he suffered at Corinth. Perhaps Apollos had suffered similar things as well. And yet, instead of being willing to suffer the comparatively small humiliation it would take to get along with one another, they were being puffed up and bringing division.

And, again, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I think there may be another layer to this idea. After saying that the Corinthians were like kings, Paul adds, “I would to God ye did reign, THAT WE ALSO MIGHT REIGN WITH YOU.” There is disagreement about the meaning of this, but I can't help but wonder if Paul means this: if the Corinthians had really been as far advanced spiritually as they thought they were, that would have been a source of great joy to Paul. Even if he was suffering his own problems in Ephesus, he would have felt like a king to see the Corinthians making progress in the faith. Whether or not that is the meaning of this phrase, that is definitely an attitude Paul had: when Timothy brought news of the good standing of the Thessalonians, Paul gave this response: “Therefore, brethren, we were comforted over you in all our affliction and distress by your faith: For now we live, if ye stand fast in the Lord. For what thanks can we render to God again for you, for all the joy wherewith we joy for your sakes before our God.” (1 Thessalonians 3:7-9) John put the matter even more succinctly: “I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.” (3 John 4)

So what does any of that have to do with the point at hand? It means this: Paul (and the other apostles) worked so hard and suffered so much. They did it mainly for God, of course, but also they did it for the sake of their converts, for people like the Corinthians. Their work was unselfish; it was for others. And while their main reward was from God, yet in a sense, it was worth it all if people believed and became good Christians.

Their attitude was altruistic and charitable—that attitude is the opposite of the proud and self-centered attitude of sectarianism. The Corinthians were boasting themselves as spiritual, but if they had truly been spiritual, they would have an attitude of self-sacrifice like that of the apostles, and, even more, like that of their master.

This leads us directly to the third reason Paul gives; before he spoke of the general example of the apostles, here he appeals directly to the personal connection between himself and the Corinthians.

Verses 7-13 could be read in a harsh and caustic tone. But verse 14 makes Paul's attitude clear. He was a critic but not a troll. He had a purpose in his words—he did not want to tear them down but warn them of the fact that they were tearing themselves down.

But the main point I want to draw out here is that Paul's attitude and relation to them was one of a father to his children. Verse 14: “As my beloved sons I warn you.” But this was more than just an attitude. In verse 15, Paul makes it clear that he was to them a father in Jesus and through the gospel. He had founded the church; he had been instrumental in leading many of them to faith. Many of them were Christians, specifically because of Paul. He had a special relation to them which others do not. 

He says that they had many 'instructors' but not many fathers. The word instructor in Greek is paidagogos—the paidagogos was a man employed in caring for the sons in a family, keeping an eye on them, giving them some basic training, and seeing that they got to school. But the point is that they were not the father; they watched over and helped the children of other men. The Corinthians had many leaders—perhaps too many, too many people who thought they could guard and help the church—but they did not have so many people who were a father to them like Paul.

He goes further in verse 16: he tells them to be followers of me. That could be translated literally: be imitators of me; mimic me. Just as a father sets an example that his children try to follow, so Paul was setting an example for the Corinthians. He had even sent Timothy to Greece in hopes that he would come to Corinth and remind them of the things Paul had taught them.

This passage is difficult because, at first sight, it almost seems like Paul is contradicting everything he has been saying for the last four chapters. He started out by saying how foolish it would be to exalt one man over another, yet here he seems to be exalting himself over others; it's as if he really were encouraging those who said: “I am of Paul.”

However, the key phrase to notice in verse 16: Paul says he wanted Timothy to remind them of “my ways WHICH BE IN CHRIST.” That is the key. As he will say later: “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:1)

The point is this. Paul had a special relation to the Corinthian church that most of their leaders did not have. Even Apollos, for all the good he had done for the church, did not have the same claim that Paul did. If ANYONE could have called for their personal allegiance, if there had been any human-based party within the church, then it should have been Paul's. Paul recognizes that he does have authority over them, but he uses that authority not to build himself up but to exalt the ways of Christ.

A good father tries to set an example for his son, but he doesn't want his son literally to become him. He tries to be a good man so his son will be a good man, not to simply be a carbon copy of his father. Paul tried to set an example for the Corinthians, not so they could become like Paul, but so they could become like Christ. Paul may have called on his authority, but he used it to point to Christ. And any good leader in the church should do the same. Sectarianism divides the church; a focus on Christ should unite it.

In verses 14-17, Paul puts himself as an example, as a father. In verses 18 and following, he builds off this idea to give his final argument against sectarianism—the reality of discipline.

Paul, as an apostle and as the founder of the church, still saw himself as having responsibility for it. This letter was one fruit of that responsibility—he was trying to correct the problems within the church. And it was his intention to shortly visit them, and try to set things right in person.

There seems to have been some movement within this church to disparage Paul, whether this was a fruit of the partisan movement or something else that intersected with it. And the rest of this epistle was calculated to create a few more enemies. Paul couldn't be sure that they would listen to him, especially when all he could do was send a letter.

That was why he wanted to come in person. In verse 18, he says some were puffed up, overconfident in the belief that Paul wouldn't come—that they were safe from a personal encounter. Jameson-Fossit-Brown points out that “A puffed-up spirit was the besetting sin of the Corinthians.” They were overconfident in themselves, both in their relation to God and to Paul.

But Paul is clear that, Lord willing, he will come. There were some in the church who were setting themselves up as leaders—we have spoken of these parties in the church. They were formed around Paul and Apollos and Peter, but those men weren't actually involved—so probably there were individuals in the church who were acting as leaders for the movements. These may be the ones who were puffed up—they spoke good words. But Paul, when he came, would come with power—Paul was God's minister, and he worked for God's kingdom with power and not merely with words. He had power—a spiritual power, though it may also include the power to work miracles. 

Here we have the echo of the beginning of this whole discussion back in 1 Corinthians 1:17-18: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” The gospel is the power of God for salvation; mere human eloquence and wisdom are not powerful enough to save a single soul. Paul had the power of God. The very attitude of the sectarians proved that they were still too carnal to understand that power.

Paul ends this with a final question: when he came, would it be with love and gentleness: or would he have to get a little rough with them? The choice was up to them—it would depend on how they responded to the rebuke of this letter. Barclay writes: “The love of Paul for his children in Christ throbs through every letter he wrote; but that love was no blind, sentimental love; it was a love which knew that sometimes discipline was necessary and was prepared to exercise it. There is a love which can ruin a man by shutting its eyes to his faults; and there is a love which can end a man because it sees him with the clarity of the eyes of Christ.”

This sectarian attitude was wrong and was a symptom of a deeper spiritual issue. And now it comes down to this choice—will they go on in the wrong way, or will they do what's right? And while this deals specifically with the issue of sectarianism, I think this really speaks to the whole letter. Paul wrote all of this not simply to criticize but to build up the church—to show them their faults so they could correct them.

In the end, the choice was up to them. Just as, even for us today, when we realize—through scripture, through preaching, or through internal understanding—that we are in the wrong, the choice is on us. “What will ye?” What will we do with the truth? Will we act on it or resist? That is one of the central questions of 1 Corinthians.