Folks, (Nijay here), we are continuing a Friday Substack series on 1 Corinthians. Dr. Timothy Brookins is a great historian and biblical scholar, and author of several books including the **brand new** Eerdmans title REDISCOVERING THE WISDOM OF THE CORINTHIANS: PAUL, STOICISM, AND SPIRITUAL HIERARCHY (2024). Tim was kind enough to agree to do a 6-part series introducing some of the key ideas and insights from his scholarship on the background and context of 1 Corinthians. This is PART 3. For PART 1, CLICK HERE, PART 2, CLICK HERE.
Paul and His Philosophical School in Corinth
Dr. Timothy Brookins
Part 3: Corinthian Wisdom and God’s Wisdom
My final exegetical chapters of my book (chs. 6-8) cover 1 Cor 3:1-4:21. Here I depart from more common readings in at least two important ways. First, I do not think that Paul here transitions away from the issue of “wisdom” as he reintroduces the divisions and the figure of Apollos (1:10a-17). Although the terminology itself returns only in 3:18-23, the theme of two “wisdoms” remains in view throughout chapters 3-4. Second, I do not think that Paul lays blame here on Apollos as a “wise man” who “laid another foundation” and in this way is “destroying” the church.
Not Spiritual and Mature
The transitional verses of 3:1-3 show how closely the problem of the Corinthians’ wisdom relates to their factions. The Corinthians (the “wise”) consider themselves “mature” (τελειοί) and “spiritual” (πνευματικοί); but as they are divided they prove themselves, in fact, to be the opposite. Their contentious behavior is “immature,” and indeed, “fleshly.”
In mentioning the church’s divisions now a second time (cf. 1:10-12) Paul, curiously, drops the names of Cephas and Christ (some say, “I am of Cephas,” and others, “I am of Christ”) and refers only to loyalists of himself and Apollos (3:4). That this modification exposes the real problem as one between two parties rather than four is a possible explanation, but not the only one—and in any case, it seems unpreferable given that it directly contradicts Paul’s introduction of the parties in 1:12. The more critical question is why Paul spends the next five verses talking about his and Apollos’ respective roles in Corinth (3:5-9); and it is only five verses, as we will see.
Paul and Apollos as Co-Builders
1 Corinthians 3:5-9 is a good example of how interpretive trends can override exegesis. Interpreters commonly see Paul here attempting to undermine Apollos’ standing in the Corinthian church by emphasizing the latter’s subordinate role (“I planted, but Apollos watered”), with Paul fearing that he had lost his grip on the church he had founded. It is difficult to understand why an interpretation that uses as a key to the passage something ostensibly hidden beneath the text should be preferred over one based on what Paul appears actually to assert. Paul indicates that he and Apollos are “one” (3:8) and were “co-workers” (3:9), acting in cooperation in ministering to the church, but that God caused the fruit of their work. They appear to be two believers working in harmony. Do vv. 10-17 suggest differently?
The Wise Man and What He Builds
The next paragraph (3:10-17) does nothing to support the view that Paul believes Apollos to have had a deleterious effect on the community; in fact it does the opposite. First, Apollos’ name drops out of the discussion and is now replaced with indefinite pronouns referring to “some (such) person” (τις) or “each person” (ἕκαστος). Second, it makes little sense for Paul just to have described he and Apollos, together, as “coworkers,” who built God’s “building” of the church (3:9), and one verse later to blame Apollos for “laying a different foundation” (3:10-11). Third, whereas throughout vv. 5-9 Paul had described the work of himself and Apollos in the past (aorist) tense, he now describes the work of the “someone” who is “laying another foundation” in the present tense. Fourth, Paul reveals in 3:18-23 the agent of this destructive work as the “wise man.” Why identify the “wise man” now as Apollos when we already know that this was a Corinthian self-designation, while Paul has never hinted that this title applied to the former? Fifth, Paul indicates that such a person is now “among” the Corinthians (ἐν ὑμῖν, 3:18); Apollos, however, is not (16:12). All of this confirms that the more straight-forward reading of 3:5-9 is the correct one. Apollos is not the wise man destroying the church. The Corinthian wise man—with his alternative “wisdom,” which is not in fact wisdom—is.
Condemnation of Comparison
1 Corinthians 4 now further clarifies why Paul has discussed himself and Apollos. They are two believers who work together in service to the church and in harmony with each other. In this they are positive exemplars for a church divided and invested in a wisdom of honor and distinction of status. In short, the Corinthians espouse the wisdom of the world, the apostles the wisdom of God.
This theme unites the material in 4:1-14. Just as Paul described himself and Apollos in 3:9 as “co-workers,” now in 4:1 he continues to apply the same titles to both (“assistants” and “stewards” of the mystery of God); and again the titles are servile. The ensuing verses need not allude to the Corinthians’ comparative evaluations of Paul and Apollos. Rather, these verses allude to the Corinthians’ comparative evaluation of themselves with others. The Corinthians, then, should consider, as Paul does, that only God’s judgment matters, not one’s standing in comparison with their peers. Paul is an example of proper conduct: he does not even judge himself—let alone others.
In case the audience has any doubts at this point that Paul’s intent in appealing to himself and Apollos is to set them forth as an example, he tries to clarify in 4:6. The interpretive problems in this verse are numerous, but I think the correct sense is, “I have changed the terms of discussion, mutatis mutandis, from you all to myself and Apollos” (6a), so that you might learn “in us” (6b). That is, your relationships are the problem. I set forth our relationship an example to imitate. By the apostles’ example, Paul suggests, the Corinthians will learn how not to boast (6d), that is, how not to compare themselves one (εἷς / ἑνός) with another (τοῦ ἑτέρου).
The Opposing Wisdoms of the Wise and of the Apostles
This very point actually carries right through vv. 7-8. Some Corinthians boast as if what they have is properly their “own” and not received from God. Paul has spiritual qualities in mind. From v. 8 until the end of the paragraph in v. 13, Paul goes on to develop a contrast between the Corinthians on the one hand and he and the apostles on the other, representing in each, respectively, the two different wisdoms that he has been contrasting since chapter 1. The Corinthians represent the worldly wisdom that values honor-seeking and distinction of status, the apostles the self-abasing wisdom embodied most perfectly in Christ-crucified.
A Final Appeal to Example
Finally, Paul’s appeal to his example as a model to imitate—the theme of much of 3:5-4:14—is expressed in no uncertain terms: be my imitators (4:16).
In the final verses of chapters 1-4, Paul addresses, not the Corinthians’ offense that he won’t return to them (a hypothesis on which entire reconstructions have been based), but his caution to them that accountability will be forthcoming: take care that I don’t arrive unexpectedly and find you still smug in your self-assurance.
Stoicism in 1 Corinthians 1-4
As in my previous post, I’ve here prioritized the main lines of my exegesis, and I’ve not been able to include discussion of the Stoic features either of the discourse or of the Corinthians’ own position. The Corinthians’ sub-Stoicism will be the subject of my next two posts.
If you appreciated this post, subscribe to Engaging Scripture so you can make sure to get PART 4 directly to your email inbox! Dr. Brookins will offer further explanations and proofs for his approach.
I am really enjoying this series. Thank-you!
I have always understood that Paul and Apollos are two believers working in harmony. So I’m glad you are arguing that, “They are two believers who work together in service to the church and in harmony with each other. In this they are positive exemplars for a church divided and invested in a wisdom of honor and distinction of status.”
The scholarship of recent decades which has argued that the factions in Corinth were divided over whether Apollos was wiser (and greater) than Paul, strikes me as unsound in that it lacks the humility which Paul is calling us to emulate and embrace.
In my experience, people who are motivated by fleshly pride and ambition will read those qualities into the apostles and the prophets even though those qualities do not appear in the apostles and prophets.
1 Cor 2:14-15 (NMB)
For the natural man does not perceive the things of the Spirit of God. For they are but foolishness to him. Nor can he perceive them, because they are spiritually examined. But he who is spiritual evaluates all things. Yet he himself is judged by no man.