In 1 Corinthians 1-2, Paul argues that God has inverted the world’s thinking by choosing the foolish to humble the wise and the weak to humble the strong. The one who is in Christ has the Spirit of God and the Mind of Christ and ought to be thinking differently than the world, especially when it comes to leadership within the Church.
Unlike Greek and Roman philosophers, the Christian should not think of themselves as a disciple of any teacher or leader, nor should a leader think they are developing prestige or honor by attracting many followers. In contrast to the way the world thinks, the one who is in Christ ought to think of themselves as co-workers busy at work in God’s service.
Paul is primarily addressing the leaders of the church. This is, in fact, the longest discussion of the relationship between church leaders and their congregations in the New Testament (Ciampa and Rosner, 1 Corinthians, 142). The leaders of the church at Corinth are not like leaders in the Roman world who are adored and honored. The leaders of the Christian communities are co-workers in God’s service. If they think of themselves as worthy of higher honors and adoration, then they are not fit to be God’s co-workers. This has far-reaching implications for contemporary Christian leadership throughout the world. Too many Christian leaders assume they are due some special honor from their congregations or demand respect beyond that of a humble servant.
Divisions over leadership are immature (3:1-4 ). The church at Corinth is not maturing as it should have; they are not “spiritual” yet; they are still “fleshly.” Spiritual (πνευματικός) refers to a person who has the Holy Spirit, someone who is led by the Spirit of God. “People of the flesh” (σάρκινος) refers to the fact that they are still thinking as they did before they came to faith in Christ. The noun refers to physical human attributes, often the weakness of the flesh (contrasted with spiritual life; Rom 7:14; 2 Cor 1:12).
The irony is that the church at Corinth made the most use of the gifts of tongues and prophecy of the Spirit in the New Testament (Garland, 1 Corinthians, 109). It is possible members of the church thought of themselves as “spiritual” because the manifestation of the Spirit characterized their worship. They are not spiritual simply because they have those spiritual gifts.
In this section, Paul uses the metaphor of caring for a child. When he was with the church, he fed them milk, since that was appropriate for a child. But as a child matures, they are ready for solid food. Paul’s point here is that the church is not progressing toward maturity in a normal way; they are spiritually stunted and still need “milk, not solid food.”
Everyone has an idea of what the “meat” is as opposed to the “milk.” Usually it is “the hard doctrines I understand, but you do not because I am more spiritual than you are.” First, this cannot be a “secret doctrine” Paul holds back until people are more mature. There is no secret or hidden teaching Christianity holds back until people can handle it. 1 Corinthians 2 made this point very clear: the secret mysteries of God have already been revealed!
Second, Paul’s point is not that there is a mix of spiritual and unspiritual in the church at Corinth. The whole church is immature and infantile in their thinking because they have these divisions. It is not that Apollos, their teacher, is highly advanced spiritually and the others are lagging behind. Because there are divisions, the whole church is not growing properly.
Third, Paul is not exhorting the “slow people” to catch up, but the whole church to come together in unity and grow spiritually. He is not pointing fingers at individuals in the church who are bringing the average down; he is saying the local manifestation of the Body of Christ at Corinth is stunted and not growing properly. The whole Body has to grow, not just a part.
This view of church leadership has the potential to transform how a local church carries out ministry. In fact, there are many examples of selfless leaders humbly serving their congregations. How could Paul’s vision for the Corinthians change the way churches function? How does the milk-meat metaphor work when applied to church leadership in a modern context? Is “meat” always “hard doctrine”? Should we only ordain people to ministry who properly understand Calvinism?
The difference between milk and meat is not Calvinism. It is whether we can discern right from wrong (Heb 5:14).
The hallmark of maturity is not knowledge – whether of doctrine or anything else. It is whether we are doers of the word (Jam 1:22-25).
Heb 6:1-2 lays out the six things that are considered milk (elementary teaching):
1. Repentance from dead works
2. Faith toward God
3. Baptisms (washings)
4. Laying on of hands
5. Resurrection of the dead
6. Eternal judgement
I am not a Calvinist, and thus don’t consider Calvinist doctrine to be even milk, but Paul lays out the above list of six as the mere basics.
The Calvinism line was a snarky conclusion to generate discussion…Check this out:
https://readingacts.com/2018/01/30/leaving-elementary-teachings-behind-hebrews-61-3/
It was not intended to be snarky. It was intended to suggest that “the doctrines of grace” address only two of the above items. It is thus incomplete milk, at best. Whether it is false milk is a completely different discussion and one that I will decline to engage in since I don’t think that is the purpose of this site.
No, I was the snarky one in the last line of the original post; I apologize if you thought I was calling you a snark.
You are fine. My point was understanding the intricacies of a complex theological system is not necessarily a qualification for ministry.
Detailed theological training should not be a qualification for serving – particularly service that doesn’t involve teaching or heavy discernment and application of doctrine. Too many Christians warm the seats Sunday after Sunday and never do much besides demanding to be “fed”. The result is much like our physical bodies: spiritual obesity.
I heard something fascinating about a week ago that gave me reason to pause. I have not fully come to a decision about whether I agree with it, but it certainly made me think. It concerned the choosing of the seven deacons in Acts 6. While Stephen was clearly a man of incredible character and maturity, it is interesting that the matter of who the seven would be was put to a vote of the whole congregation (Acts 6:2-6) – which appears to have still been in its infancy and populated by at least some that were immature. This teacher’s contention was that this selection method (democratic vote by the whole church) was a huge mistake and would later cause serious problems because the same Nicholas selected for deaconship here would later become the father of Nicolaitanism – a doctrine that Jesus used extremely strong words to condemn. This teacher felt that the information given about Nicholas – that he was a proselyte from Antioch – is significant and means he had a background in paganism prior to his conversion to Judaism and then eventually Christianity. And this paganism showed up later in Nicholas’s doctrines as he gained more influence. Hard to know – but fascinating to ponder nevertheless.
It makes one wonder if observing such problems from a distance perhaps made Paul especially keen to instruct Timothy with the list of qualifications in 1 Tim 3 – particularly v6 about not being a brand-new believer. And then a later admonition in 5:22 to not lay hands on people too quickly.
I think this can be seen a lot today with pastors. Just because they are in higher powers, they automatically assume that they are more spiritual than those who aren’t in certain positions at church. Especially the really big churches, which are something I try to avoid since I think they tend to have more, theatrical pastors. A message we recently learned during church was praying, in the book of John 17, how do our prayers glorify God? But we also talked about how we can be more unifying. That’s what Paul mentions; he wants everyone in the church to be together as one, with God as the center. The church was not formed with higher and lower roles, everyone is equal, everyone has a role. I feel like we have moved away from what churches should be. There is so much corruption within them more and more, and you don’t hear about one church, it’s multiple. There’s even a church down the road auctioning a car. That must be some PR stunt because I have also heard that Pastor is very sketchy and cult-like. Our churches should be more unifying, not saying they aren’t, but they can do better. How can we be more unifying, and how can we learn from the church of Corinth to where we can all grow spiritually, and lead away from being earthly? How can our own pastors grow with us? I think 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 would be a good passage to dive into, of how we ourselves can still see how we are too tied into this world, and we need to grow spiritually and unified.
I believe that Paul’s assertion of his humble position and equality among church leaders represents the barrier-crushing example of Christ. He later states in Chapter 11 verse 1: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”. While this may seem like a bragging or boast, the purpose of his assertions is to eliminate the temptation of seeking leadership positions on behalf of honor and authority. It was obvious that individuals were claiming authority over one another on behalf of various church leaders, such as Peter, Apollos, and Paul himself (1:12-13). Paul’s point is that their own authority was given on behalf of Christ, and likewise there should be no division, since all should be united in Christ (v. 30-31). This temptation of seeking positions for the sake of honor and authority was found in both Greco-Roman culture and Jewish culture and is clearly even true to our own culture (Longenecker, 2014, pg. 117). It is a natural byproduct of mankind’s fallen nature and is in stark contrast to Christ’s life and sacrifice.
The topic of “milk” as opposed to “meat” is clearly a reference to the lack of understanding of doctrine that the Corinthian church had, which led to spiritual immaturity and a dangerous perversion of authority in the church. I do not believe that “meat” is always a “hard doctrine” but a progression of understanding after spiritual growth of “milk”. It is certainly dangerous when men go seeking for “hidden doctrine” and extrapolate it in search of “meat”. Martin Luther extensively condemns Erasmus for his doctrine of human freewill as a “hidden doctrine” in Luther’s work “The Bondage of the Will”. From Luther’s perspective, Erasmus was seeking a doctrine from his own intellectual assertions, instead of using his spiritual discernment to seek what was obvious from Scripture.
I find it interesting that Paul calls out the whole Church as opposed to just one part. It really drives home how important unity is in the body. I think that better growth happens when we work together. I think the Milk/Meat metaphor can very easily be applied to the church today. I think the problem in churches today (specifically in the bigger ones) is the leaders not leading by example. They are teaching one thing and at the same time are going home and living in sin. Churches fall apart because the pastors aren’t a living example of who Christ really is. I honestly think we need to be more strict with who we are allowing to be pastors in our churches. For example, a man that maybe doesn’t understand every single deep doctrinal issue to the fullest extent, but lives a life that glorifies God would be much more suited to be a pastor than a man who knows about deep doctrinal issues but goes home and cheats on their wife every night. To me, it is more important that people are being an example of Christ than just simply saying a lot of really big words. I understand that theology is important, but you can have good theology and still be a bad person and not live that theology. However, in a perfect world we would just have a bunch of mini Jesus’ preaching that way they had good theology and they are good people.
I like the way you put it P Long and also agree that the divisions within the church are holding them back from growing spiritually. It is as if they laid out a snare for themselves and got caught in it. Paul alludes to this issue of division in chapter 1:10-17. People in the church were baptized and taught by different leaders: Paul, Apollos, Cephas, to name a few. Because of this, conflict stirred within the church which held them back from being fruitful for Christ.
We see this similarly happen within the church even today! People will grow up in a home that is baptist or maybe they were raised in a non-denominational church, whatever upcoming they come from, and christians will argue with each other on who is right and what pastor preaches the best sermons and so on. We will argue and lose friendships over the simplest of things. Someone may allow alcohol in their home, but their brother or sister in christ could have struggled with alcohol in the past, creating a stumbling block for the person. Paul encourages in Romans 14 that believers would not lead their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ to stumble, inevitably leading into sin. In the same way Paul encourages us to not cause each other to stumble, which can lead to division, he also reminds us of who the true leader and uniter of our faith is: Jesus Christ. He is the head of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12), and he is the one who can help us work through our divisions, which then we can focus on spiritually growing as one church, one body. Furthermore, the spiritual process of growing comes from the Lord (1 Cor 3:7)
The most fascinating point to your post was showing how even though the Corinthian church seemed to manifest the spiritual gifts more than anyone else, Paul still confronts them as being people in the flesh. This is very hard for me to wrap my mind around, raising many questions. Why would the Holy Spirit manifest himself in a church where leadership was so out of line? The first thought that popped in my head was that external expression does not always mean manifestation of the gifts. For example, I am sure I could go into many hyper-charismatic churches and see “speaking in tongues” and the “Holy Spirit” working, even though they are contradicting orderly worship. Was this the case in the Corinthian church? Were people abusing the freedom they have in Christ? Or were they so influenced by culture they were truly confused and didn’t know how to do things? Paul shifts to show the contrast from fleshly mindset to spiritual mindset. In verses 3–4, he exposes the congregants for petty disagreements, and in verses 8–9 shows how they ought to view God as the one who grows and each other as fellow workers in his plan.
Paul’s confrontation in chapter three highlights the honor and shame culture that we have spoken about in class and read about in A Week in the Life of Corinth. Why was there this disagreement upon who everyone is following, whether Paul, Apollos, or Christ? It is very possible that these factions in the church were influenced by the Corinthians’ pursuit of honor. You could imagine a person who says, “I follow Paul, the great teacher and founder of the church who stayed with us for 18 months.” While another might say, “Well, I follow Apollos, the impressive teacher and rhetorician who is among us.” These micro-groups, following Paul or following Apollos, might have been seen as more honorable to follow one than the other. This certainly has something to do with Paul’s “milk” and “meat” metaphors. He has to clear the confusion in verse 7 that Apollos and himself, Paul, are nothing! And only God, the one who grows, is to be followed. Needless to say, I think that after Paul left Corinth, it seemed the church still had many issues with balancing the participation in cultural practices and bringing those practices into the church. Most likely leading to Paul’s condemning reality check of immaturity, things that Paul spent 18 months teaching and showing them were not stewarded well by the leaders, disappointing Paul. As to the meat being the “deeper doctrines,” I’d say the plain reading of this text expresses that Corinthians need to focus and get back to the orderly worship that they ought to do. Paul brings this up later in chapters 12–14. Once this is done correctly, maybe Paul can write 3 Corinthians regarding limited atonement, although I think his teaching point would be that you need to read between the lines quite a bit to find that belief in Scripture.
First off I think Paul’s reprimand of the Corinthian church would apply to the vast majority of church congregations around the United States today. The vast majority of church goers are there for a simple check on the list for their weekly lives. It’s hard to be considered spiritual if this is all you are doing in your Christian walk. The hard part of applying Paul’s vision to the local church today is how individualistic we are as Americans. The community aspect of church has really lost itself in time. I think Paul’s vision would first have to unite the church in the way it is not currently. Aspects of individualism would start to go extinct. I do not think that these would disappear completely. The Church would be assessed as a congregation not individuals. The Idea as said by Phil Long in his is to come together in unity and grow spiritually as one church body rather than individuals.
This is where the aspect of milk and meat come into play. Where does church leadership even start with this concept? I would say these things do not necessarily mean light or hard doctrine. What church leadership is going to have to do is thoughtfully and prayerfully determine where the congregation is at. I think if this is intertwined with Paul’s goal then the spirituality of the church will grow. This is not possible without unity.
I do not think we should only ordain people into ministry who understand Calvinism. Although I think if more people truly understood Calvinism that there would be less Calvinistic preachers.