1 Corinthians 4

CHAPTER IV

VI. God’s Faithful Stewards, chapter 4

Since all of the Corinthian teachers are ministers of God (3:5), and since also the Corinthian congregation is God’s, the rating of these ministers belongs to God. The Corinthians dare not, therefore, set up human standards of their own that are derived from some worldly wisdom of theirs, whereby to rate these ministers. They must do as Paul does: abide by God’s judging.

Paul, Apollos, and Peter were faithful. The distinctions which the Corinthians made between them were based on other points, unwarranted points. This fact explains why Paul does not discuss the question regarding unfaithful teachers who preach and teach false doctrine. All that needs to be said on this point is stated in 3:16, 17. In 4:5 Paul writes: “and then each one shall have his praise from God,” and says nothing about blame. So he here deals only with the faithful. In other connections Paul tells us that we ourselves are, indeed, to judge preachers and teachers, and if they bring false doctrine, we are to withdraw from them and separate ourselves. Rom. 16:17.

1 Corinthians 4:1

1 Thus let a man consider us as Christ’s attendants and stewards of God’s mysteries.

The οὕτω is not correlative to ὡς: “so … as,” and we do not translate as our versions do: “so account of us as,” etc. With verbs of judging (here λογίζεσθαι) we naturally have predicate objects (here “attendants and stewards”), and we have ὡς (“consider us as,” etc.) or may not have it (“consider us attendants,” etc.). “So” is not needed to magnify “as.” Moreover, this οὕτω introduces the sentence with a strong accentuation, which cannot be the case if it is to be regarded as a correlative of the very slight ὡς. Finally, the two emphatic genitives “of Christ” and “God’s” in a marked way point back to the same strong genitives occurring in 3:23. Therefore οὕτω = “thus,” as just stated in 3:23. Just as and in the manner as, οὕτω, the Corinthians belong to Christ, and Christ to God, the apostles on their part (ἡμᾶς with emphasis) “as,” ὡς, attendants and stewards belong to both Christ and God.

In 3:5, “ministers through whom you believed,” stresses the relation of the apostles to the Corinthians, here Paul points out their relation to God. It is characteristic of Paul to complete a thought thus. “Us,” which is fully stated in the Greek and placed before the verb, is emphatic while ἄνθρωπος, which is minus the article, is very similar to the indefinite man in German. The verb means “consider,” but this is a considering that is due, not to mere feeling, liking, or casual impression, but to a careful estimation of the reality. The Corinthians are not considering what their teachers actually are, for they are advancing them as heads of parties, which they are not.

They are to consider them as “Christ’s attendants,” for that is what they really are. While etymologically ὑπηρέτης = Ruderknecht, underrower in a galley, this specific meaning had become lost, and to the Greeks the term meant only an attendant or helper who assists a higher master. In this case Christ is that master. Every apostle and every minister and pastor is only an underling, a helper, or an attendant of Christ. His sole function is to take orders and at once and without question to execute them. His will is only that of his Master.

More people than just the Corinthians should remember that truth. Too many attendants deal with the Lord’s orders as they themselves please, they pervert them so as to suit themselves and their congregations; and too many congregations themselves issue orders to the attendants as if the latter were their attendants and not the Lord’s.

In order to emphasize the significance of this position of the ministers Paul adds a second designation: “stewards.” An οἰκονόμος is often a slave to whom his master and owner entrusts property which he is to administer. In this instance God is the master. Compare the slaves or δοῦλοι mentioned in the two parables Matthew 25:14 and Luke 19:13; Joseph in Gen. 39:4; the oikonomos in Luke 16:1, who, however, does not appear as a doulos. No special difference is intended by making the attendants belong to Christ and the stewards to God, and this differentiation does not indicate a subordination of Christ to God, for these attendants and stewards are the same persons, and their ownership by Christ and by God indicates equality. In the case of the stewards a special genitive is needed, for they must administer property in order to be classed as stewards. The genitive “God’s mysteries” names the property, namely God’s gifts for our salvation as embodied in the gospel. These are mysteries, for man’s wisdom knows nothing about them.

In both terms “attendants” and “stewards,” the prominent idea is that of complete subordination to a master, and in the latter also that of special accountability. A helper merely takes his orders and at once carries them out without question. A steward also takes his orders and carries them out in due process, and then returns and renders his account. He works, as it were, by himself, in the absence of his lord, who trusts him to this extent. But he is always and fully accountable. He dare not deviate in the slightest from his orders, nor try to improve upon those orders with wisdom of his own in order to please others.

Again, more people than just the Corinthians should remember that truth. Too many stewards change their orders to please themselves and their congregations; and too many congregations act as though they owned these stewards and as though they are accountable only to them. Because the day of reckoning has not yet come, all concerned feel secure; but this security is a false security.

Since he is entrusted with valuable properties, a steward naturally ranks higher than a mere attendant, although both are slaves. This steward who is set over the mysteries of God possesses a corresponding dignity with which men may not interfere, and, having received his trust from God, even God thereby honors him as the incumbent of this office. Thus “attendant” points to lowliness, and “steward” to dignity, and both combined indicate how the Corinthians are to regard their ministers. Yet both men are slaves, are owned by their Lord who uses them as he wills, to whom all their labor and all results of their labor belong, and who, after their services have been rendered, owes them neither wages nor reward.

1 Corinthians 4:2

2 Our answer to the textual question involved in the first words of this verse is to adopt the reading that is best attested: ὧδελοιπὸνζητεῖταιἐντοῖςοἰκονόμοις, ἵναπιστόςτιςεὑρεθῇ. In this case, then, it is required in the stewards that one be found trustworthy.

The adverb ὧδε means “here,” namely “in this case” of the slaves just mentioned. We may regard λοιπόν as a mere particle that is equivalent to “then”; or we may make it stronger, equivalent to the German uebrigens. It then points to the one remaining consideration to be mentioned in this connection. Paul has, however, used two designations in v. 1, “attendants and stewards”; now he intends to disregard “attendants” and to consider the higher term “stewards” in the sequel. For this reason he adds the epexegetical phrase “in the stewards” and uses the article of previous reference: the stewards just referred to in v. 1. We may paraphrase Paul’s thought: You Corinthians are to consider us apostles and ministers as attendants and stewards of the Lord.

Very well, yet, especially as far as these stewards are concerned, you must note the general rule which naturally applies also to them as stewards. And then Paul states that rule: the thing sought in such stewards is “that one be found trustworthy or reliable.” In his characteristic manner Paul combines the plural “in these stewards” with the singular “that one be found faithful,” any one of them. The singular suggests that each one of them should ask himself: “Am I a reliable steward?”

The subfinal ἵνα clause is the subject of ζητεῖται, “it is required,” it is sought. One may, of course, say that also an attendant ought to be found faithful. But this type of servant works under the eye of his master. The steward is placed over some estate at a distance from his master’s presence and makes periodic reports. Hence the aorist εὑρεθῇ, which is suitable only to a situation of this kind. “Trustworthy” means: so that his master may completely rely on him. The word is to be viewed wholly from the master’s standpoint: “trustworthy” in the judgment and according to the verdict of the master. Our heavenly Master makes no mistake in judging the trustworthiness of the ministers to whom he has entrusted the gospel and the church.

In this connection we decline to wrestle with a supposed discrepancy, namely that Paul seems to speak only regarding the divine stewards and again seems to state only a general principle that is applicable to any and to all stewards, human or divine. Paul does not suspend us between these alternatives. Nor need we strike out the phrase “in the stewards” and thus reduce Paul’s statement to the general principle indicated. Paul combines the general principle with the specific application in the case of the stewards regarding whom he speaks.

The verb ζητεῖν is used with reference to judicial inquiry in regard to a certain point, here the point of faithfulness. Thus it corresponds well with the verb ἀνακρίνειν, which is used in much the same way although it generally has the broader meaning of a general judicial inquiry. Other things, too, may be sought in a steward: ability, experience, and the like, but faithfulness is the indispensable qualification.

1 Corinthians 4:3

3 With an emphatic ἐμοί Paul now specifies by directing attention to himself, but only as an example of the entire class indicated in “stewards” and most certainly not as an exception to the rule mentioned in v. 2. Now to me it is a very small matter that I be subjected to judicial examination by you or by any human court; yea, I do not judicially examine even mine own self.

Since Christ and God alone are Paul’s masters, these alone have the authority to examine and to judge him. The phrase εἰςἐλάχιστον takes the place of a predicate nominative; it resembles the Hebrew with le although it is more in accord with the older Greek idiom, R. 458. The superlative ἐλάχιστον is elative, “a very small matter,” R. 670. This phrase conveys only the idea that an inquiry into Paul’s conduct on the part of the Corinthians is a small matter to him subjectively: mich beruehrt es sehr wenig, to me it is a small item. Objectively it would, of course, be a graver matter. Only when men follow the example of the Corinthians and act as though they are a minister’s sole judge can we say with Paul that their judgment is a small matter to us, and we can do this because we consider only the judgment of Christ. Only when a congregation exercises its proper right and truly applies the Lord’s Word to a pastor’s teaching and to his conduct must he not only submit to the investigation but also regard it as a matter of utmost gravity.

The subfinal ἵνα clause is also the subject of the sentence: “that I be subjected, etc., is a small matter,” etc. The verb ἀνακρίνειν, which is used thrice in succession, means “to institute a juridical inquiry” and the passive means “to be subjected to such an inquiry.” Thus Annas attempted to examine Christ although he lacked the authority to do so, and Christ refused to submit to his probing, John 18:9, etc. Pilate also examined Christ, and the Lord submitted to his examination, John 18:33. The procedure implied in ἀνακρίνειν always precedes the activity indicated by κρίνειν, rendering the verdict which may be either guilty or not guilty (compare Pilate’s verdict).

After stating that an investigation which the Corinthians may choose to inaugurate matters little to Paul he at once extends the thought; whether he be tried by the Corinthians “or by any human court,” concerns him little. The noun ἡμέρα is here used in a technical sense and has the force of Gerichtstag, it is like our day in court. The emphasis is on “human” court in contrast with an investigation by the divine court; and every such human court is implied, for no article is used. Being the Lord’s steward, Paul is amenable only to his Lord. He goes even a step farther: “yea, I do not judicially examine even mine own self.” The ἀλλά is not adversative but copulative, R. 1186: “yea.” We should rather expect to find the emphasis placed on the subject by means of a weighty “I” or “I myself,” instead of this it is placed on the object: “even mine own self” I do not submit to such an inquiry.

A fine point is involved. Of course, if Paul were to investigate himself he, too, would be only a human court and not his own real and final judge. That he would not usurp such a position even when judging himself goes without saying. What Paul intends to say reaches beyond this self-evident thought and declares that, as regarding himself, he finds no occasion or reason for subjecting himself to an introspective judicial inquiry. The reason is stated in v. 4.

1 Corinthians 4:4

4 For I am conscious of nothing against myself; yet hereby I am not justified; but he that judicially examines me is the Lord.

Judicial examinations are usually not held unless some evidence of guilt appears. Why, then, as γάρ explains, should Paul place himself under such an inquiry? Paul declares that in regard to his apostolic administration of the mysteries of God he is conscious of no dereliction. While he refers particularly to his faithfulness in the office of preaching, teaching, and administering the gospel entrusted to him, this necessarily involves his general conduct as a Christian. Paul lived pure in heart and life. He was not sinless, but he conducted himself in such a way that his conscience, guided by the light of the Word and the Spirit, could not find cause for rebuking him.

In 3:10 Paul calls himself “a wise architect.” He repeats that thought here from a different viewpoint. And he does so with due Christian pride and assurance, without a false note of any kind.

We see this clearly when we note that Paul at once adds: “but hereby I am not justified,” acquitted and pronounced innocent and guiltless. The passive δεδικαίωμαι implies that Christ is the one proper judge to whom Paul is answerable. Paul turns from an investigation that is instituted by and a verdict that is rendered by the Corinthians or by any other human court to the divine judge and the divine court, for he adds: “but he that judicially examines me is the Lord.”

This turn in Paul’s thought should not be overlooked. There is a vast difference between the action of a human court and that of the divine court as far as the Lord’s ministers and, we may add, as far as any believer is concerned. To them human courts, investigations, and findings are but “a very small matter,” in reality altogether nothing, when such courts are influenced by wrong notions such as the poor wisdom of the Corinthians. But the Lord’s court is an entirely different matter to them.

The verb δικαιοῦν is always forensic: “to pronounce a verdict of acquittal,” and hence it never means “to make just” (examine C.-K. at length in regard to this term). Note also the tense and its implication: “I have not been justified,” namely by a verdict rendered in the past, a verdict that now continues to stand to my credit.

When Paul says that, although knowing nothing against himself, he is not already acquitted by the Lord he does not mean that he is still in uncertainty in regard to his final acquittal by the Lord or that he does not trust his own conscience regarding this acquittal, since conscience may, indeed, err. What he means is that the final verdict which the Lord will pronounce is still a matter of the future.

Nor is Paul speaking about his δικαίωσις or acquittal at the moment when faith was kindled in his heart, for of this acquittal he and every Christian is so sure that, as long as faith continues, each must declare with all divine assurance: δεδικαίωμαι, “I have been and am acquitted!” He is speaking about the final divine acquittal at the last day which, coming after all his apostolic work is done, shall render the Lord’s public sentence upon it before the whole world of men and of angels. This verdict, Paul writes, is still outstanding. It will be rendered by the real judge in the case: “he that judicially examines me is the Lord.” The adversative δέ contrasts this judge with the Corinthians, with any human court, and even with Paul himself.

The substantivized present participle ὁἀνακρίνων characterizes the Lord as the judge to whom the function of making judicial inquiry into Paul’s conduct of his office rightly belongs, to whom Paul therefore also submits. The tense of the participle says nothing as to the time when this judge acts in this capacity. At the right time and in the right way this judge makes his investigations.

This statement of Paul’s does not intend to indicate that all ministers are to be given a free hand to do what they think is right until the Lord at last judges them. What Paul says is that men must not usurp the Lord’s judgment seat and judge the Lord’s ministers according to their own wisdom. Paul does not for one moment judge himself in this way. Yet the Corinthians were judging their ministers in this manner. Men do it to this day. Even ministers judge themselves in this way.

Paul certainly examined and judged himself, for he writes: “I am conscious of nothing against myself.” He cannot say this unless he has examined himself most carefully. Paul has the Lord’s own Word, that very Word which will judge Paul at the last day, John 12:48. After examining himself according to that Word Paul finds no dereliction in himself. This is not strange since Paul conducts his entire ministry with an eye only to abiding true to that Word.

Paul is far from appealing only to his own consciousness and to his own conscience in contrast with the judgments which the Corinthians were pronouncing concerning him. Conscience may be asleep, ignorant, misled in some way. The man who appeals only to his conscience when he is confronted by the Word and swears that he is “just as conscientious as you are” is only putting his own conscience upon the judgment seat of the Lord and of his Word. At Worms Luther made his appeal: “My conscience is bound in the Word of God!” So our consciences, too, must be bound by the Word, by every part of it; not by some man’s interpretation or twisting of the Word, not by some manipulations of the Word which I myself may contrive, but by the Word as it really is, as it “goeth forth out of my mouth,” Isa. 55:11. Such conduct retains the Lord in the seat of the supreme judge. If we do that we can smile at the human courts that try to pre-empt the Lord’s throne.

But even this appeal to a conscience so bound is proper only when one is dealing with men. No true minister would think of making it when he is dealing with the Lord, for he and his Word are one. Like Paul, he acknowledges: “Hereby I am not yet acquitted.” This does not, however, imply that his acquittal is thereby still in doubt. Such an acknowledgment is merely a confession that my own consciousness of complete faithfulness to the Word is not yet my acquittal. It is my blessed assurance that I shall most surely be acquitted at that day. The acquittal itself is granted and can be granted only by the Lord: “then shall each one have praise from God,” v. 5.

1 Corinthians 4:5

5 With ὥστε, “therefore,” “consequently,” Paul draws the practical conclusion from what has been said, and he does this in the form of an admonition to the Corinthians. Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who also will light up the hidden things of the darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then each shall have his due praise from God.

The ἀνακρίνειν to which Paul has referred naturally issues in a κρίνειν, the pronouncement of a verdict that is either favorable or unfavorable. When the apostle forbids the latter, the former is also thereby forbidden, for it would be pointless to subject a minister to an investigation that would not lead to a decision. The kind of judging which Paul forbids in regard to himself and to any teacher in the church is that indicated in v. 4, which assumes that the teachers are subject to the congregation as constituting the final authority. Only when a teacher teaches and practices contrary to the Word has the congregation the right both ἀνακρίνειν and κρίνειν, and then such an investigation and such a judging in no wise usurp Christ’s authority but only vindicate the authority of Christ’s Word against a man who is violating that Word. Nothing of this kind had, however, occurred in Corinth, hence Paul does not discuss this angle of the subject.

By πρὸκαιροῦτι, “something out of season” or “untimely,” Paul indicates the kind of judging in which the Corinthians were indulging. Against this Paul warns. The entire thought is this: As far as I am concerned, any investigation you may institute matters very little; I certainly perform no such investigation of myself since Christ is my investigator; consequently I urge you not to judge anything about me untimely. If we may infer what lies back of them from Paul’s words, it would be this: the Paul faction lauded Paul over against Apollos and against Peter while the Apollos and the Peter factions found all manner of fault with Paul. Paul’s admonition is directed against both proceedings. While he personally paid no attention to this kind of praise or blame, the worst feature about it was that the Corinthians were acting in a way that was highly derogatory to Christ who gives his differing gifts and opportunities to his “stewards,” who knows what is in their minds and hearts as they do their work, and who will apportion their rewards to them in due time.

Every verdict rendered before this time is both illegal and invalid; it could emanate only from some foolish person who is not a properly constituted judge although he pretends to be such a one. “Before the time” is denned by “until the Lord come,” which is a brief statement but one that certainly points to the real “day” when the Lord will officiate as the judge of all. And his judgment will be not only one that is legal but also one that is truly competent, for he will do what none of the Corinthians and what no human court can possibly do: “who also will light up the hidden things of darkness.” When it is used with a relative καί = “also” and ushers in a point that is pertinent to what has just been said.

Paul has been using only voces mediae, neutral terms: ἀνακρίνειν and κρίνειν. He has also referred only to himself in order to exemplify the object of investigation and the pronouncing of a verdict. Now he goes a step farther. For “the hidden things of darkness” refers to the Corinthians and their secret motives for judging him as well as to himself and to his own motives. The genitive “of the darkness” is usually understood to refer only to a darkness which hides something from human eyes. Yet in the New Testament “the darkness” constantly signifies the evil power which as such must shun the light (φῶς, compare φωτίσει).

It has that meaning here. Christ will illumine with light not only “the hidden things” not seen by our eyes at present but also “the hidden things of the darkness,” the wrong things that now seek the cover of the evil darkness. And such evil things may be found not only in the teachers whom the Corinthians judge but also in their own hearts when they practice this untimely and uncalled for judging. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,” 2 Cor. 5:10. Paul does not say that the Corinthians are included in this darkness, but such a deduction lies on the surface.

A second specification regarding what the Lord will do by his absolutely competent judgment is added: “and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts.” “Counsels” is again a neutral term, for these counsels may be either good or evil in their nature. They will be made manifest, namely as what they are. This is the effect of φωτίζειν, pouring light upon them. The Greek conception of “heart” is not like that of the English. To the latter it is chiefly the seat of the feelings, but to the former it is the central organ of the entire conscious personality which determines its thinking, feeling, and willing, especially the latter. We may translate: die Willensregungen des Herzens. This does not, however, refer only to the tendencies and the stirrings that fail to eventuate into volitions but also to the inclinations and the motives that lie at the secret roots of our volitions whether we ourselves are fully conscious of them or not.

Paul uses the plural “of the hearts” although he has spoken directly only of himself (“me” at the end of v. 4). He, of course, refers to himself only as an example of an entire class. This plural is a hint also to all of the Corinthians and is aimed also at their motives both when elevating and when faulting Paul (Apollos, Peter). In these two clauses we thus have a description of the Lord’s ἀνακρίνειν. It is certainly competent in a way that is utterly impossible to a human court.

While the double relative clause gently includes the Corinthians, Paul’s chief interest lies in the Lord’s “stewards.” He therefore closes this paragraph with the assurance: “and then each shall have his due praise from God,” or: “his due praise shall come to each,” etc. He speaks only about praise, for the teachers particularly concerned are himself, Apollos, and Peter, and in no way does Paul anywhere cast blame or even the suspicion of it on these other men. As to others who may be unfaithful and those who may receive no reward at all enough is said in 3:12–17.

The article, ὁἔπαινος, indicates the praise or divine commendation that is due to each “steward,” compare Luke 19:17–19. This will differ; but even he who receives the least will be overwhelmed by its greatness. “From God” reads as though Paul implies that this is a gift of grace from God’s hand. Both Christ and God are named as judge in the Scriptures, but Θεός is to be understood in the sense of the Triune God. Let the Corinthians, then, by party wranglings not try to exalt one man and to detract from another. That is sorry business, does grave injustice and harm, and interferes with the Lord.

1 Corinthians 4:6

6 Both the address “brethren” and the character of the following show that a new paragraph is introduced, one that is closely connected with the foregoing. Paul has thus far restrained his feelings and has written quite calmly and rather objectively; now the floodgates of his emotion are thrown open. Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes in order that in our persons you might learn this thing of not going beyond what has been written, (namely) that you may not be puffing yourselves up, one man in favor of the one against the other.

Paul has been writing about himself and about Apollos, but this has been done by a kind of transfer, Paul and Apollos do not need any of the things Paul has written, the persons who need all of this are the Corinthians. The verb μετασχηματίζω means to alter the σχῆμα or form. Paul and Apollos are in perfect accord and well understand their holy office; the trouble lies entirely on the side of the Corinthians who pit the one against the other and understand aright the office of neither. For this reason Paul thus far wrote about himself and Apollos διʼ ὑμᾶς, “on account of you,” the Corinthians.

Paul’s purpose in using this transfer is: “that in our persons you might learn” a certain thing. The emphasis is on ἐνἡμῖν, “in us,” “in our persons,” using Paul and Apollos as examples (ἐν with persons = “in the case of”). Paul associates himself with Apollos because both are persons from whom the Corinthians might well learn how to act. The aorist μάθητε means: actually learn. What Paul intended the Corinthians to learn is marked by τό, and this article substantivizes μὴὑπὲρἃγέγραπται, “not beyond what has been written” (on the tense compare 1:19). An ellipsis occurs after μή. This is a common idiom in the Greek and one which must be completed when the thought is rendered into English: “not (to go or to think) beyond what has been written.”

Some think that Paul is merely quoting a proverb or at least a well-known saying; but such a proverb or such a saying has never been found. And to what writing would a proverb or a saying refer by the phrase “beyond what has been written”? This could not be the Scriptures; it would have to be some other writing—which leaves us completely at sea. Now the next clause gives us some information in regard to the substance of “what has been written,” beyond which the Corinthians must not go. It is the admonition that they should be duly humble and not be puffed up when contending about persons. We know, too, that Paul constantly uses γέγραπται, “it has been written,” when he refers to the Old Testament writings.

Yet we see that he here quotes no special Old Testament statement but refers only in general to “what has been written” and merely indicates what this is in the next clause. Hence we conclude that Paul is phrasing this admonition in his own words when he urges the Corinthians not to go beyond what all of them know is written in the Old Testament Scriptures, which urges us in so many ways not to be proud or contentious.

The thing that is written, which Paul wants the Corinthians to observe in their conduct, is this that no one should puff himself up “in favor of one person as against another person,” proudly boasting that Paul in his favorite and never Apollos or Peter; and vice versa, either Apollos or Peter. This is exactly what the Corinthians were doing with their party slogans. Paul now rebukes the Corinthians directly, without further resort to a transfer that would soften his words. The New Testament has several instances where ἵνα with the indicative present is employed, and this is one of them, R. 984; and in this instance ἵνα is subfinal, for it states what is written and is to be observed by the Corinthians, which fact may explain the use of the indicative with this ἵνα.

The present tense φυσιοῦσθε points to a course of conduct which the Corinthians are to avoid: they are never at any time to act in this manner. The very idea of puffing oneself up has a ludicrous touch—that is what a frog does when he croaks. Paul often combines the plural with the singular; here that you Corinthians refrain from puffing yourselves up, one man talking in favor of one person and against the other person. What applies to all is to be observed by each one. In the Greek the two phrases are emphatic by position, one by being placed before, the other after the verb.

1 Corinthians 4:7

7 Three pointed questions now puncture the bubble of Corinthian pride. This is done in order to bring these foolish people down to the level of a proper Christian humility. The connective γάρ points to the reasons that the Corinthians should not puff themselves up; γάρ is to be referred to all the questions. The reason lies in the self-evident answers implied in the questions. Who maketh thee to differ? means: differ so that thou hast an advantage over others. “Who in the world gave thee a preference over others? Nobody! Thou dost only imagine such preference.” The full implication is: “Who, by his authoritative acknowledgment, gave thee the right to consider thyself superior to others so that they must look up to thee and admire thee?” By the use of the second person singular “thou” Paul retains both the second person and the singular which he had employed in the last clause of v. 6.

The question is, of course, not general as though any kind of an advantage were referred to, and it is not to be answered in this general way. It rests on the concrete idea of puffing oneself up by boasting of following one great teacher in contrast with others who are esteemed as being inferior. Who gave thee this advantage? Thou gavest it to thyself. Thou dost foolishly invent it so as to be able to throw out thy chest and to boast. The Corinthians would prefer to have better apostles than other Christians had—how they would then boast!

If they were living today they would demand no less than an archbishop. Now nobody gives thee a preference like that; you Corinthians are all alike and on the same level with all other Christians. Just as Paul and Apollos are not boasting, the one claiming that he is better and higher than the other, so the Corinthians should not imagine that they had an advantage when some of them followed Paul and others followed Apollos.

The first question deals with an imaginary possession, the second with an actual possession which one may misuse for puffing himself up. And what hast thou that thou didst not receive? The context again yields the sense. What hast thou of saving knowledge and of wisdom, of repentance, of faith, of love, and of Christian virtue, that was not given thee and that thou didst not merely receive? Thus they had also been given the teachers, Paul, Apollos, and others, through “whom all this grace was conveyed to them, to all of them equally.

The aorist “didst receive,” points to the fact. Simply by receiving it each one of the Corinthians obtained what he now has. The moment he looks at his actual possessions in this true light as an unmerited gift that was dropped into his lap by a gracious hand above he will kiss that hand and never think of boasting. If God used a Paul, an Apollos, a Peter, that, too, is a part of his grace and gift and reason enough for thanks and not for puffed-up pride.

Hence Paul adds the third question which really expands the second. Now if thou didst also receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou didst not receive it?

The καί does not have the concessive force of “although” thou didst receive it; it is only a strengthening of the verb: if thou “also” didst receive it and obtain it only in this way. The Corinthians ought to praise and to thank God in proper humility instead of boasting as though what they have is due, not to a gracious gift from God, but to some superiority in themselves. It is surely reprehensible to receive something and then to act as though one had not received it. And it is more reprehensible to boast and to glory. Paul does not need to specify that all that the Corinthians actually had, whether it was much or little, they had as separate individuals received from the Lord alone. The agency which the Lord had used in making them the recipients of his gifts, especially Paul and Apollos, is quietly taken for granted. This agency will strike them with terriffic force in a moment.

1 Corinthians 4:8

8 The three questions asked in v. 7 are short and have the intention of puncturing their bubble of pride and the further intention of bringing the Corinthians down to the level of true Christian humility. But they needed still more. Already you are filled full; already you grew rich; without us you reigned; and would, indeed, that you reigned in order that we, too, might get to reign with your help!

This is irony and sarcasm (R. 1148 and 1198, etc.), but the Corinthians fully deserved it; it is a bitter medicine but one that is good for healing their disease of unwarranted pride. Luther comments: “Paul mocks them, for he means the opposite of what he says.” One must understand the Greek in order to catch fully the scathing force of Paul’s rebuke. It has become popular today to decry irony and sarcasm as being unbecoming to preachers and to Christian writers. The use of these weapons is deemed an evidence of the flesh and not of the spirit. Yet Paul beyond question employs them here, which means that they, indeed, have their proper place in spite of the delicate souls who would rule them out.

The first three parallel statements have no connectives. They are heaped up in a swift climax. The asyndeton adds life and movement and is frequently found in impassioned discourses, R. 428. The two ἤδη, “already,” lend a peculiar force to the first two statements so that we might translate: “Think of it, already you are filled full!” “Think of it, already you have grown rich!” These prideful Corinthians, Paul implies, act as though they are already in the great kingdom to come instead of realizing that they are still in this poor, miserable world. Full satiety, riches, and honor are three blessings promised in the coming eon to the hungry, the poor, and the despised, compare the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount. The Corinthians boasted, each with his own party, as if they were already at this goal.

Paul’s crushing irony is intensified when he presently describes himself and his fellow apostles as being the actual outcasts of the world. See how far these pupils have left their poor teachers behind—of course, in their own imagination! Behold what their “wisdom” has done for them!

Why, you are already filled full, κεκορεσμένοι, from κορέννυμι, “to satiate.” Who can feed you more? Changing the figure: You have already grown rich. Who can offer you more? And then the climax by means of a third figure: You have already attained royalty and have come to reign as kings. Who can offer you a crown? The perfect participle marks a present condition, and the two verbs in the aorist are ingressive and indicate the entrance upon a condition.

A new turn appears in the third statement; instead of repeating “already” Paul introduces the significant phrase “without us,” the poor apostles. Paul writes as though he marvelled at their ability: All of this you have achieved without us! In some way you secured a better wisdom than we have to offer, one that has carried you up so wonderfully high! There is a special sting in this emphatic phrase “all without us.” Silly people to act as though they had left Paul, Apollos, and Peter far behind, the very men from whom they had obtained everything they really had!

Paul is sarcastically describing their φυσιοῦσθαικατὰἑτέρου, “puffing themselves up against another.” He is bitterly castigating their foolish illusions. Christ and the gospel wisdom do appease our hunger and our thirst, do make us spiritually rich (1:5), do make us kings and priests unto God and Christ, but not in the manner which the Corinthians exhibited, so that we become puffed up with fleshly pride and spend our time in boastful wrangling. Christ and the gospel will also eventually lead us to the fullness, riches, and royal glory of heaven, but only silly Christians act as though they had already attained that height.

A quick turn is made with καί. The Corinthians are staging such a pitiful sham; would that they had the reality: “and would, indeed, that you reigned!” And now, after this sigh, the sting contained in the phrase “without us” is made to penetrate still deeper, for Paul adds with a climax of irony: “in order that we, too, might get to reign with your help,” have just an humble little place by your side! Now, poor apostles that we are, we have no opportunity to procure anything so ennobling by efforts that we know how to put forth. “Otherwise children have part in the position of their fathers, and disciples are not above their teachers; here, however, no other way remains for the teachers if they, too, would already be in a glorious state than to wish, to be allowed to have part in what the disciples have attained for themselves or imagine they have attained.” Ph. Bachmann. “Thus the roles have been exchanged: he, the apostle, their ‘father,’ must from his lowliness see to what dizzy heights they have attained.” J. Weiss. Note that ὄφελον, which γε strengthens, is used like a particle, in this case with the indicative, an aorist because the wish relates to the past while an imperfect would relate to the present although in both cases the wish is unfulfilled, R. 923, 841, 1004, 1148, etc. The abutting of the two pronouns ἡμεῖςὑμῖν makes the two clash; and σύν with the verb together with the subject “we,” “we with your help,” is the opposite of the previous phrase “without us.”

The conviction that Paul should not and could not employ irony in his writings leads to the attempt to understand this passage accordingly. The futility of this attempt is seen in the climax of Paul’s words, where he speaks of the royal reign. In order to eliminate the irony at this point the two verbs ἐβασιλεύσατε must be understood in different senses: the first referring to reigning in this life, the second to reigning in the life to come. If Paul intended to make this difference he would himself have indicated it by adding the necessary modifiers to bring about this effect. Lacking such an indication on his part, we are compelled to take both verbs in the same sense. In the second place, the order of the pronouns, first “we, too,” and then “with your help,” would have to be reversed, for in the heavenly kingdom the Corinthians could reign only with the apostles, and not the apostles with the Corinthians. So the irony remains.

1 Corinthians 4:9

9 Moreover, the irony continues as δωκῶγάρ indicate. This γάρ cites the reason for Paul’s wish: For in my opinion the condition of the apostles is such that to be privileged to rule by your help would seem very desirable to them. This humble δωκῶ, “it seems to me,” which states only as Paul’s opinion what is in truth an astounding fact, namely the pitiful condition of the apostles, cuts into the rash pride of the Corinthians the more. For if the Corinthians were what they imagine themselves to be, how high and mighty ought the apostles not to be ranked and be entitled also to rank themselves? Well, this is Paul’s opinion of the apostles. For, it seems to me, God set forth us, the apostles, as the lowest, as men sentenced to die, since we were made a theatrical spectacle for the world, both to angels and to men.

Paul does not need to draw on his fancy when he is saying this about himself and about his associates. What he states is the cold and deliberate fact although the Corinthians seem to forget it. They are also oblivious of the truth that certain serious implications concerning themselves are contained in that fact. Here, too, the quality of Paul’s irony begins to become plain. In flows out from a burning heart, one that is itself deeply hurt, and it wounds others with stinging facts, not in order to revenge itself upon them, but in order to save them from falseness by the full energy of the truth.

The first stress is on “God,” for it is he who did this astounding thing with the apostles; the Corinthians did something quite different in regard to themselves. The main stress is, however, on the implied comparison between the apostles and the Corinthians. “Is the lofty height on which you think you stand a height that is divinely real? Us, it seems to me, God has treated differently.” Us, the apostles, who may well expect and be expected to stand as first and as highest, “sitting on twelve thrones,” Matt. 19:28, God set forth to be the last in the sense of “lowest.” The verb states the fact that, having made us the lowest of all, he showed this publicly. “Us, the apostles,” and “lowest” are placed together in striking contrast. And Paul at once states in what sense the apostles were last and lowest: “as men sentenced to die,” as criminals condemned, like Christ, to capital punishment. If we should ask what people constitute the dregs of society we should think first of criminals under the shadow of the gallows. Can a more terrific contrast be imagined between the self-exalted Corinthians and these apostles regarding whom the world thought that they were not fit to live?

The ὅτι clause at once proves that the apostles were set forth as men who were fit only to die the death of criminals: “since we were made (or have become) a theatrical spectacle for the world,” θέατρον, a public exhibition, when we were led to execution so that the world might gaze upon us. Paul refers to flogging, stoning, other violent abuse, including killing; the latter especially when we remember that the Roman world made public exhibitions of the executions which took place in the amphitheaters.

The term “world” is explained by the double apposition “both angels and men.” These are the spectators. The angels are most likely mentioned first because they are higher and are able to see more of the apostolic suffering, much that is hidden from men. Regarding the angels we, too, know that they are deeply interested in the elect whom they are sent to serve (Heb. 1:14). Besides, the angels are interested in the course of the gospel on earth. “Men” are hostile and coldly indifferent.

1 Corinthians 4:10

10 Now come the bitter antitheses: We—You—what a difference! We, fools for Christ’s sake; but you, smart in connection with Christ. We, weak; but you, strong. You, refulgent, but we, disgraced.

The Greek has no copulas, and the English translation is weakened when they are inserted. Each contrast is like a blow. “We, fools for Christ’s sake” because for his sake and for that of the gospel we cast aside all human wisdom and as a consequence are rated as ignoramuses and know-nothings. “But you, smart in connection with Christ,” φρόνιμοι klug, sagacious, prudent, here with a questionable touch; “wise” in our versions is too good a word. O yes, they still maintain connection with Christ, but as smart people who know how to use even Christ for their advantage, gescheute, aufgeklaerte Christen, Meyer.

Paul could not write a second διὰΧριστόν, “for Christ’s sake.” The contrast in the phrases is emphatic: “for Christ’s sake” and “in connection with Christ.” The Corinthians are not ready to forego and to lose all for him in order to gain all in him. They seek to cling to him with one hand and to the world and its wisdom with the other hand. Smart people, indeed! In this instance the phrase ἐνΧριστῷ has a decidedly qualified meaning, which is quite different from the sense in which Paul otherwise regularly employs it, namely to express a wholehearted union and communion with Christ. The translation offered by our versions: “wise in Christ” tends to mislead.

“We, weak,” but scarcely in a physical sense but rather in the sense of the unimpressive, negligible because we scorn to use the cheap means which impress men and win their admiration and their applause but are content for our success to rely only on the hidden power of the gospel. “But you, strong,” full of strength and wholly able, Kraftmenschen, competent to make a powerful impression by wielding the mighty wisdom to which the world always yields.

The sudden inversion, “you” first and “we” last, is due to Paul’s intention to continue his writing in v. 11 by giving additional information in regard to the “us.” The inversion is by way of transition to the following. “You, refulgent,” ἔνδοξοι, enveloped in glory, already crowned, as it were, with a halo about your heads, men stooping before you and humbly accepting your every word. This describes their reigning as kings, v. 8. “But we, disgraced,” left utterly without honor among men, deprived of even common human respect, men who can be spoken of and treated with the lowest contempt. Human wisdom exalts before the world, divine wisdom is served with contempt by the world.

Paul in no way vindicates himself. This is quite remarkable, for in other connections he asserts that he is nevertheless an apostle, that God is nevertheless with him and upholds and honors him. No heroic note is sounded in the midst of these sad, minor chords. This tends to produce a far greater effect. Besides, a higher note would mislead the Corinthians. If after all that he has said Paul would now claim to be high, great, and honored in God’s sight, the Corinthians could easily misuse such a claim. They might in the first place discount all that he writes concerning being so low, and they might secondly after all justify their own pride by persuading themselves that their pride, too, was after the pattern given them by Paul.

1 Corinthians 4:11

11 The terms Paul employed thus far were quite general and were drawn from the broad categories of wisdom, power, and honor. He now proceeds to fill these categories with specific particulars by setting down a catalog of cold facts. Even to this present hour we both hunger and thirst and are naked and are cuffed and are homeless, and we labor, working with our own hands.

The Corinthians are “already” in a grandiose state, but in contrast with that “already” the apostles are in a deplorable state “even to this present hour.” We apostles, Paul would say, have not as yet come as far as you Corinthians; you are “already” on the height, we poor apostles are still “to this present moment” down in the depths.

The wording itself does not indicate whether the six statements are to be divided into three groups of two each or into two groups of three each. The latter is in all likelihood preferable, for then the statements would better accord with the third group of three members listed in v. 12. We thus have a total of nine statements, three groups of three members each.

Because of their extensive and continued travel, so often only on foot, over wide, uninhabited stretches and much arid territory the apostles often go hungry and thirsty, and their shoes and their clothing are worn out. The Taurus passes were crossed repeatedly. In 2 Cor. 11:26 Paul mentions his journeyings, perils in rivers, perils of robbers, perils in the wilderness, perils in the sea, hunger, thirst, cold, and nakedness. Lack of sufficient clothing, especially during inclement weather, is thus mentioned repeatedly. The linguistic point, whether to read γυμνητεύειν or γυμνιτεύειν, belongs to the textual critics.

“We are cuffed” or buffeted means struck with the fists on the body or the face as slaves and criminals were frequently abused by brutal men. This was the height of indignity. The term can scarcely apply to official scourgings, it refers rather to uncalled-for, vulgar, physical abuse, Acts 14:19, etc. “We are homeless,” ἀστατοῦμεν (to be ἄστατος), without a fixed abode, shifting about constantly. This term implies even more: as they traveled from place to place after having broken with their Jewish past and connections and yet not having become Gentile, the apostles found no welcome in any of the new places to which they came. We may recall the Jewish hostility experienced in Corinth itself.

The addition: “We labor, working with our own hands,” is used as an indication of dishonor. The adjective ἰδίαις is stronger than the possessive pronoun “our own” hands; as it does generally throughout the New Testament so it here, too, conveys the idea that the apostles are compelled to earn their own living by means of their own hard manual labor. In other connections Paul speaks of this feature of his life, not as a mark of shame, but as indicating a means of personal independence. Here the note of irony still continues, for Paul speaks from the viewpoint of the puffed-up Corinthians. Nor should we overlook the bitterness conveyed in all of the specifications here laid before the Corinthians. Why should Paul endure all these arduous privations for the sake of such unworthy and such thankless people as the Corinthians?

1 Corinthians 4:12

12 There is a change of tone in the final group of statements, each consisting of a participle and a verb. Being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we hold out; being defamed, we speak kindly. The thought expressed is, however, not the idea that Paul and his fellow apostles do not allow these sufferings to affect them, but rather that they rise superior to them through nobleness of mind. Paul still follows the note struck in ἀτιμία, comparing the low condition of the apostles with the lofty idea which the Corinthians have of themselves. So little do the apostles resemble the proud Corinthians that they do not meet reviling by hurling back into the throat of their enemies their own wicked allegations but rather by replying with the Christian meekness ordered by the Lord, Luke 6:28: “Bless them that curse you.”

“Being persecuted” can so early in Paul’s career scarcely refer to any of the official pagan persecutions, for these came at a later period, it rather has in mind the Jewish outbreaks of violence against the apostles because they were regarded as traitors to the law, Gal. 5:11; 6:12. “Being persecuted, we hold out,” ἀνεχόμεθα, “hold up” under the infliction with quiet patience by simply suffering what men impose without complaining, defending, or retaliating. This noble course frequently encourages the persecutors to continue their wicked actions against men who seem helpless and defenseless and who fail to strike back. But even then: ἀνεχόμεθα.

1 Corinthians 4:13

13 The reading δυσφημούμενοι has less textual support than the far commoner βλασφημούμενοι. The exceptional character of the former, which Paul uses only here, argues strongly for its genuineness. But what is meant by παρακαλοῦμεν? It cannot be regarded as indicating an action of love, for the entire context does not deal with this theme but with that of abject lowliness. The sense cannot, then, be: we entreat God for our slanderers; or: wir reden troestlich; or: geben bittende Worte, “intreat” (our versions), beg our vilifiers to desist. The verb must here mean beguetigen. “Being defamed,” we are not angry, make no retort in kind, resort to no violent measures in counteroffense such as people use who are concerned solely about their own honor; we simply “go on speaking kindly.” Paul is throughout laying emphasis upon the voluntary humility that displays itself in this way, a humility which the world considers cowardly or even despicable. Indeed, the apostles seem far beneath the Corinthians in every way.

All verbs and all participles found in v. 11, 12 are in the present tense, which indicates customary and usual action such as marks a definite course of conduct. This tense is open, i.e., the conduct indicated goes on indefinitely and extends even into the future. The three circumstantial participles used in v. 13 express the minor action, while the finite verbs express the major actions. The important feature is the fact that under the circumstances indicated the apostles “bless, hold out, speak kindly.” Paul uses many word patterns which form an interesting study. In v. 13 the first and the third verb end in -οῦμεν and thus even rhyme; see similar arrangements in Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 13:8, and elsewhere.

Only when v. 12 is not taken as a reference to heroic actions on the part of the apostles but to despised lowliness does the concluding statement of v. 13 properly follow. Like the rubbish heap of the world did we become, the offscouring of all men, until this moment.

All of the preceding present tenses describe the general and continued state of the apostles; now the positive aorist states the fact of their deepest degradation. It has actually come to the point where no other comparison adequately describes the condition of the apostles; they had become a heap of rubbish, the very offscouring of humanity. The arrangement of the words is remarkably impressive. “Until this moment” is strikingly placed at the end and reverts to the phrase used at the beginning of the entire catalog in v. 11: “even to this present hour.” These two phrases are the staples between which the chain swings. The two figurative terms “rubbish heap” and “offscouring” have the emphatic positions, the one before the verb, the other after it, without a connective. While the aorist tense of the verb registers a fact it does so without emphasis. Thus Paul brings description of the apostles to a dramatic close.

The term “rubbish heap,” περικαθάρματα (plural), from καθαίρω, to clean or to remove by cleaning, denotes the mass of sweepings and litter that is gathered together when one cleans up “all around” (περί), R. 618. The second term, περίψημα (singular), means “offscouring,” that which is removed by scouring a filthy object, ψάω. The two genitives are placed chiastically, the one after its noun, the other before it. Both are subjective, but, like δικαιοσύνηΘεοῦ in Rom. 1:17, of the estimating subject, “righteousness in the eyes of God”; thus “a heap of rubbish in the eyes of the world,” and “offscouring in the eyes of all men.”

Luther translates: ein Fluch der Welt und ein Fegopfer aller Leute. He has the second term define the first. The term κάθαρμα (and perhaps also περικάθαρμα, although this is not certain) was used in a ritual sense with reference to one who gave himself as a sacrifice in order to remove from the community some stain for which the gods were visiting some plague or some other calamity upon the city or the country. Only a man who was so wretched as to have no more use for his life could be obtained for this purpose. He would feast for a year on white bread, figs, and cheese until the day for the sacrifice arrived and would then be offered up. This is the idea back of Luther’s translation Fluch or curse. Whether the second term περίψημα also had such a ritual meaning cannot be ascertained; Luther assumed that it had.

But Paul scarcely had such a thought in mind in this connection. He was certainly not feasting for a time in order to die when that happy time should be past. Christ gave his life in vicarious sacrifice for the world and not Paul and the apostles. While περικάθαρμα is extensively used in the sense of “wretch” and a good-for-nothing fellow, this meaning is altogether general. Paul uses the plural in the case of the first figurative term and the singular in the case of the second; if he had sacrifices in mind, both terms would necessarily be plural. Finally, the two genitives cannot mean that the world and all men offer the apostles as sacrifices in order to ward off some calamity from themselves; yet if the figure of sacrifices is retained, these genitives could have no other meaning.

Our versions make πάντων neuter: “of all things,” but it is synonymous with “of the world” and thus must mean “of all men,” masculine. It is characteristic of Paul’s style to use a singular and then to resume the thought with a plural that has the same general sense, or vice versa. In this very sentence we have two pairs of plurals and singulars that are arranged chiastically: like the rubbish heaps (plural) of the world (singular), the offscouring (singular) of all men (plural). Paul has reached the limit; beyond these debasing terms even he cannot go.

These are the stern and the shameful realities regarding the apostles, and they are content to be treated in this manner. What an object lesson for the Corinthians, “that in us you might learn not to go beyond what has been written,” 4:6!

1 Corinthians 4:14

14 Coming to the closing paragraph of the first part of his letter, Paul makes no application of what he has written but leaves that task to the Corinthians themselves. He at once states why he writes with such deep feeling, namely to warn them (v. 14) as their father (v. 15, 16) who has sent them a messenger, (v. 17) and who plans to come to them in person. As we understand the character of Paul the assumption is unwarranted that in v. 6–13 Paul works himself up to a high pitch of feeling and then, having cooled off and perhaps waiting until the next day, writes v. 14, etc., in a calmer mood. Some also state that in this new paragraph Paul seeks to make amends for the cutting expressions which he has used in the one that precedes. A good answer to such an assumption would be that, when we write hastily and say too much, we tear up what we have written and write more carefully. The fact is, however, that Paul never lets his feelings run away with him, and when he writes with deep emotion and even employs irony he exercises perfect control of himself in every word and follows only the loftiest spiritual purpose.

Thus he continues: Not as shaming you am I writing these things, on the contrary, as admonishing my beloved children. The present tense “I am writing” makes the impression that Paul simply continues writing without an interval of time between the paragraphs. The two present participles repeat this idea. Both are circumstantial and state facts, and, as is often the case with regard to participles, carry the main idea that is to be conveyed. It is self-evident that Paul is writing; the main point of his writing is the fact that he is not shaming but admonishing so that he could have simply said: “I am not shaming you but admonishing my beloved children.” For this reason οὑ is used with the first participle instead of μή, which makes the negation clear-cut as is proper in stating a fact, R. 1137. This οὑ has even a literary touch; Paul has used about a dozen participles with οὑ.

The position of the two participles, one at the beginning, the other at the very end, likewise indicates that Paul is stating facts. Paul thus tells the Corinthians what he is doing when he writes as he actually does and not merely what he intends to do when he writes. The Corinthians are not to put their interpretation upon Paul’s words and impute this or that wrong intention to them but are to accept as fact what Paul is stating with his words.

This answers the view that the participles express purpose or aim, for only future participles are regularly thus employed, R. 877, and present participles only rarely, and then never with the negative οὑ. Yet, even if a purpose could be found in these participles so as to have them read: “not in order to shame you but in order to admonish you,” this would not in the least be an admission on Paul’s part that he at first did intend to shame the Corinthians and that he is now sorry for this intention and seeks to make at least rhetorical amends by now saying that his intention is to admonish his beloved children. The Corinthians may, indeed, feel ashamed under the lash of Paul’s irony; they certainly have reason to feel thus. Paul is, however, engaged in something that is far more important than merely making them ashamed, he is offering them Christian admonition. Shame touches only the feelings, admonition reaches the heart.

The verb νουθετεῖν means to appeal to the mind (νοῦς plus τίθημι), hence in this sense “to admonish,” or in the present instance “to warn.” The companion term is παιδεύειν, to discipline a child. Compare the corresponding nouns found in Eph. 6:4 on this distinction. Superficially regarded, Paul’s ironical expressions might sound like disciplinary castigation; understood in the proper way, they are full of appeals to the mind, full of meaning to reach the heart with earnest warning. Moreover, this is parental warning which is addressed to the Corinthians “as my beloved children.” Here and in the following verse Paul explicitly denies that his sharp words emanate from an “unfatherly” spirit and are lacking “love” as is sometimes asserted.

1 Corinthians 4:15

15 Paul even stresses the point of his paternal relation to the Corinthians. For though you have ten thousand slave guardians in Christ, yet not even many fathers; for I alone begot you in Christ Jesus through the gospel. This is the fact that Paul never for a moment forgets. Because the Corinthians are his own children, he is free to speak to them with sharp and stinging words; if they were strangers, his words might be resented.

A παιδαγωγός is a slave who has charge of the son of a wealthy family, leads him to school, and sees to it that the son conducts himself properly; hence not “instructor” (A. V.), or “tutor” (R. V.), but “slave guardian.” Paul refers to these guardians only incidentally and negatively as not being fathers in order to make prominent his own special relation to the Corinthians. We thus have no right to stress unduly the fact that these guardians were slaves, nor should we lay stress on whatever dislike the boys may have had for the guardians that attended them. Paul speaks of these guardians as being a blessing and compares it with the greater blessing of having a father.

Although the Corinthians have ten thousand slave guardians, they yet have not even many fathers. Paul speaks with an hyperbole both in the use of the extravagant number “ten thousand” and in the far lesser number “many” (instead of “several”). Like the rest of the hyperboles found in the Scriptures, this one, too, does not mislead but only enhances the effect of the thought that whatever many guardians one may have he certainly can have only one father. Of course, “in Christ” or “in connection with Christ” is added, for Paul is speaking only of spiritual relationships; and while the phrase appears only as a modifier of “guardians” it must be supplied also with “fathers.”

No invidious comparison with Apollos or another of the Corinthian teachers is here made; the great number “ten thousand” completely excludes that possibility. So also does ἐὰνἔχητε, “though you may have,” which includes all the teachers who in future years may serve the Corinthian church. Paul speaks as he did in 3:6, where he distinguishes the one who plants from the one who waters; and as he did in 3:10, where he speaks of himself as having laid the foundation and of others who build on that foundation. Moreover, Paul delights in associating himself with his fellow workers by means of the pronoun “we,” 3:8, 9.

“For I alone begot you” explains Paul’s exceptional relation to the Corinthians. Because this “I” is written out in the Greek it is emphatic, and it is made still more so by its juxtaposition with “you”: ἐγὼὑμᾶς, and by its strong contrast with the idea of “many fathers”; hence we translate “I alone.” Paul carefully qualifies this strong statement concerning himself: “in Christ Jesus” he begot the Corinthians. This emphatic phrase is, however, not intended to designate this begetting as being spiritual, the opposite of mere natural begetting. The contrast implied is not one between a spiritual and a fleshly begetting but between the presence and the absence of Christ, ἐν, “in union,” not apart from Christ. This phrase describes the blessed nature of this begetting. It implies that apart from Christ, Paul could have begotten nothing. Because Paul “begot” the Corinthians, therefore his is the peculiar and the specific relation of being a spiritual father to the Corinthians, and in the nature of the case they can have but one such father.

Paul is not thinking specifically of conversion. “I alone begot” is not equivalent to “I converted”; for others who succeeded Paul also converted many. “I begot” is a new figure for the “I laid a foundation” used in 3:10. He was responsible for the very first conversions, and this fact makes him the “father” and the Corinthians “my beloved children.”

The one medium through which Paul attained this was the gospel. The phrase “through the gospel” is so important because there are some who tend to ascribe such begetting to spiritual contact with strong Christian personalities. Not the greatness of Paul’s spirituality started the Corinthian congregation but the strong and efficacious power of the gospel of which Paul was the humble bearer, 2:1–5. Therefore to consider the mention of the gospel rather superfluous in this connection and only an indelicate way of indicating what kind of begetting is meant, is wide of the mark. Nor is the figure destroyed or weakened by the addition of the phrase “through the gospel,” it is interpreted.

Here we have one of those numerous cases in the Scriptures in which a metaphor and its literal interpretation are woven together like threads of gold and of silver as when David says: “The Lord (literal) is my shepherd (metaphor)”; or Jesus himself: “I (literal) am the vine (figure); ye (literal) are the branches (figure).” Trench calls this Biblical allegory. Only when we remember passages such as 1 Pet. 1:23–25 can we see the effectiveness of Paul’s word: “I begot you through the gospel.”

1 Corinthians 4:16

16 Paul very properly continues with οὗν, “therefore,” for children should normally be like their father. We say normally, for the idea of possible vicious fathers is foreign to the context. I admonish you therefore, be imitators of me, compare 11:1. The little enclitic μου has no accent whatever, and none can be supplied for it from any source. This means that Paul is not contrasting himself with the slave guardians mentioned in v. 15 or with anyone else and telling the Corinthians: “Imitate me and not the others.” The emphasis is on “imitators” and on the verb “be and continue to be” (present tense and thus durative); the implied contrast is failure to be what Paul thus enjoins. Compare Gal. 4:12; Phil. 3:17; 2 Thess. 3:9 in regard to this admonition.

One might be inclined to think that Paul urges the Corinthians to pattern after his humble spirit and his lowliness of mind in accord with the picture he paints of the apostles in v. 11–13. Yet he adds no modifiers to his admonition but leaves it quite broad and general. In what respect the Corinthians are to pattern after Paul he indicates in v. 17, where he tells them that Timothy was sent to them to remind them of “my ways,” “even as I teach everywhere in every church.” Paul’s gospel teaching is the pattern which the Corinthians are to reproduce in their midst.

1 Corinthians 4:17

17 For this reason I sent to you Timothy who is my child beloved and faithful in the Lord, who shall remind you of my ways in Christ, even as I continue to teach everywhere in every church.

The doctrine produces the conduct; the objective gives birth to the subjective. Paul’s beloved children in Corinth will be and will continue to be like the father who founded their congregation if they abide by his original teaching. Gerade deshalb (for this very reason) Paul sent Timothy to Corinth with certain instructions. According to 16:10 Timothy went on his mission before Paul began to write this letter and was to arrive in Corinth after this letter had been delivered to Corinth. Thus Paul informs the Corinthians in regard to his coming. It seems that Paul had received both the information which Chloe’s people brought regarding the Corinthian factions (1:11) and also the letter which the Corinthians themselves had sent him after Timothy had left Ephesus.

The instructions which he gave Timothy were general and not specific, he had told him simply to remind the Corinthians of the truths which Paul taught constantly and everywhere so that they, too, might adhere to them more closely. After Timothy had left Ephesus, all this new and disturbing information in regard to the Corinthians reached Paul, and he hastens to write this letter, calculating that it will reach Corinth before Timothy arrives there. The bearer of the letter would go by sea; Timothy was traveling far more slowly by land.

The first relative clause: “who is my child beloved and faithful in the Lord,” merely describes Timothy in an affectionate way. “My child,” like the similar term used in v. 14, is taken to mean that Paul had converted Timothy although Acts 14:6 does not mention his conversion, and in Acts 16:1 Luke refers to him as already being a Christian. He helped Paul and Silvanus found the Corinthian congregation, 2 Cor. 1:19. Paul vouches for his trustworthiness in the Lord and desires that the Corinthians receive him with all confidence.

While the first clause and its present tense are merely explanatory, the second and its future tense, like the Attic usage of this tense, convey purpose: “who shall remind you,” etc., R. 960, 989. The verb ἀναμιμνήσκειν regularly governs two accusatives. What does Paul mean with “my ways”? Do they signify Paul’s conduct and manner of life so that the Corinthians were to remember Paul’s actions and to copy them? Such a view would disregard the question as to whether Paul’s ways were really the right ways, were actually in accord with the true norm of right. Paul would never take the answer to this question for granted.

The Old Testament constantly uses the Hebrew equivalent for αἱὁδοί in the objective sense: the ways that God has marked out in his Word. These divinely prescribed ways Paul had made his own, and he calls them “mine” only in this sense. Note the use of the singular in Acts 9:2; 1 Cor. 12:31; 2 Pet. 2:2, “the way of truth”; and the plural in Rev. 15:3, “righteous and true are thy ways.” The modifier “in Christ” is emphatic and important. These ways are Paul’s teachings and his church practice in union with Christ, and not one of them ever wanders away from Christ.

“Even as” does not describe the manner in which Timothy is to do this reminding in Corinth, for the point of this clause is the substance of Timothy’s reminding. This clause is a somewhat loose apposition to “my ways”: “even as I teach,” etc.; or we may supply “my ways”: “even as I teach these ways everywhere in every church.” The verb is durative: “as I go on teaching,” for Paul does not go to one congregation and teach and practice there in one way and then to another place to teach and to practice differently. He does not make his ministry in one locality give the lie to that in another place.

This is the trouble with some ministers today. No; already in this verse Paul after a manner enunciates the principle that was later to become famous: quod apud omnes et ubique. In no way does he ever violate the catholicity of the church. There is a silent reproof in this final clause. Paul teaches one and the same truth always and everywhere, his doctrine and his church practice never varied. But the Corinthians needed Paul’s messenger to remind them of this teaching. They were wavering, perhaps already actually deviating from “the ways” which they, like the rest, had been taught. A sad commentary on their supposed progress.

1 Corinthians 4:18

18 Paul’s mission of Timothy as also the letter he is now writing are only stopgaps; he intends to go to Corinth in person. So Paul adds a continuative δέ and writes regarding his own coming. Now some are puffed up as though I were not coming to you. The aorist “did become puffed up” intends to state the fact and shows that Paul is fully informed about this inflated talk of “some.” Who they are the Corinthians, of course, know, for they have heard their talk; we can only surmise that they were some of the members who boasted about their “wisdom.” Their wish may have been father to their thought, for they would rather that Paul might not come.

Since δέ is placed far back in the sentence between the participle and its subject, μοῦπρὸςὑμᾶς is brought together: “I to you.” These persons say: “Paul is not coming to us.” They mean: “He knows better than to come to us.” The present ἐρχομένου is due to the fact that the Greek retains the original tense when the change to indirect discourse is made, for these persons said: “Paul is not coming.” Paul states this as their opinion: “as though,” ὡς. It was no innocent opinion, for those who voiced it puffed themselves up (a reminder of v. 6) when they were doing so and made themselves appear important and pretended that Paul had not the courage to face them. Paul refers to what these puffed-up people say, because, having sent Timothy to Corinth, he does not wish this action of his to be misunderstood as though he himself is afraid to come. Whether others had made the contrary assertion that Paul would certainly come, Paul does not intimate.

1 Corinthians 4:19

19 These people are sadly mistaken. Paul is not a coward as far as facing opposition in Corinth or elsewhere is concerned. But I will come shortly to you if the Lord will; and I will know, not the word of them that are puffed up, but the power.

Since the verb is placed so emphatically forward, we may even translate: “I will indeed come!” How “shortly” 16:8 states, namely at the time of the following Pentecost (the Jewish festival). Thus he actually gives the date. Paul intends to start in a few weeks. Yet he adds “if the Lord will” (a condition of expectancy with the aorist of a definite volition on the Lord’s part), not as though there were a doubt as to Paul’s plan regarding his coming, but because he submitted to his great master Christ in all his movements.

Nor does Paul leave an uncertainty regarding the object of his coming. He is coming to face these very people who are now so blatant, to take their exact measure. “I will know,” γνώσομαι, really know, what is in them. The perfect participle has its natural sense which implies a present condition: have been and thus are now still puffed up. He will pay no attention to what they may say in their pride, but will find out τὴνδύναμιν, what genuine power is behind what they say. We immediately learn why he makes this sharp distinction.

1 Corinthians 4:20

20 For not in connection with (mere) word is the kingdom of God, on the contrary, in connection with power. We should note the expression: οὑκἐν … (ἐστί), ἀλλʼ ἐνκτλ., which means neither “consists in,” “rests on,” nor “is conditioned by”; for ἐν denotes the accompanying circumstance, which in this case happens to be also a mark of recognition. Wherever the kingdom of God reaches down among men it is accompanied, not merely by words (like the science and the wisdom of men), but by power from on high, the power of divine grace, and by that power we may also “know” and recognize it. For this reason Paul intends to look for this “power” among these proud people (“some”) in Corinth when he arrives among them.

In these two phrases ἐν has much the same force as the ἐν in v. 21, ἐνῥάβδῳ, except that it here also gives a mark of recognition. The preposition is not Hebraistic. The negative οὑ denies the phrase “in connection with word,” over against which ἀλλά places the positive opposite “in connection with power.” The danger confronting “some” in Corinth is the fact that Paul will find in them none of this power of the kingdom; he will meet only words, assertions, empty display, sham power. For we must add that the power of the kingdom, by which it is also always easily recognized, produces true faith, true confession, true love, and a galaxy of true Christian virtues. As far as the charismatic gifts are concerned, these belong to the minor effects and evidences.

With “the kingdom of God” Paul reverts to v. 8: “you reigned,” ἐβασιλεύσατε, where he referred to the imagination of the proud Corinthians who thought that in them already in this life the glory of the kingdom is displaying itself by means of their great wisdom, etc. Paul asserts that “the kingdom of God” exists and reaches down into the earth and manifests itself in power. This divine kingdom must, however, not be conceived after the analogy of earthly kingdoms. These are to be found where the people are, for the people constitute these earthly kingdoms apart from the earthly king; for when he dies or abdicates, the kingdom still continues to exist. But the kingdom of God does not in this manner consist of the communion of saints or of the church. God’s kingdom exists where God is to be found, with all the power of his grace in Christ Jesus, and there alone.

To be sure, true believers will also be found there, but only because God produces them with the power of his grace. We enter this kingdom only because God’s saving power transforms us in a wonderful way and makes us partakers of his kingdom.

When Paul, therefore, says that he will know “the power” of these puffed-up Corinthians he does not refer to a power of their own but to this divine gospel power of God. He would know whether they truly possess this. Paul knows about no power that we have “for furthering the kingdom of God.” This modern, pietistic way of thinking and speaking about the kingdom is foreign to him, for no man can further or build God’s kingdom. God alone sends, furthers, and consummates his kingdom. Or we may say, this kingdom builds itself through its own inherent power.

1 Corinthians 4:21

21 Paul is coming to Corinth? How do the Corinthians want him to come? What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod or with love and a spirit of mildness? They may have their choice. Paul is ready to come in either way. Regarding τί with only two alternatives see R. 737. The two prepositions ἐν indicate accompanying circumstance and are similar to v. 20: “provided with a rod,” etc., R. 589. “Rod” is figurative for severe chastisement as a father may chastise “children,” v. 14. The subjunctive ἔλθω is employed because of the rhetorical question: “Shall I come?” R. 928, bottom; 930, second paragraph. The tense is due to the nature of the act. The future indicative could also have been used.

The alternatives which Paul places before the Corinthians are “the rod” and “love and a spirit of mildness.” Do they want severity or loving mildness? The latter is possible only in the event that they repent. But is it right ever to use the rod of severity? Paul certainly implies that it is. In fact, this phrase, “coming with a rod,” intends to meet every challenge that “some” in Corinth may have in mind to offer Paul. The degree of severity with which Paul may strike depends, of course, on the kind and the degree of the opposition to the truth which he may meet. If this opposition proves incorrigible, he will use the rod even to the extent of expulsion from the congregation. Thus “rod” is intended as a warning.

More frequently a question is asked in regard to “love.” If Paul came with a rod, would he come without ἀγάπη? This question, however, confuses the thought. Paul is not writing about love in general which extends to all men, even to the wicked, but about his paternal love which is restricted to “my beloved children,” v. 14, who as such children accept the admonition of their father. This father love cannot be bestowed upon those who repudiate their father, who persist in their evil cause, who must thus be expelled from the family in Christ. God loves all men, also the wicked; but God loves his children in a specific way, namely as his children, and because of this love he bestows all the fatherly gifts upon them, which he cannot bestow upon the wicked in the very nature of the case.

Does πνεῦμαπραΰτητος signify the Holy Spirit? Then Paul would write at least “mildness of the Spirit.” Since “love” is a quality that is found in Paul’s heart, this “spirit” must also be such a quality, and the genitive “of mildness” is qualitative and equal to but stronger than “a mild spirit.” Moreover, in Scripture analogy the Holy Spirit is never a person with whom we operate. Finally, it is quite impossible to parallel the Holy Spirit with a rod or stick.

Paul has reached the end of the first great part of his letter. We see that he constantly operates with the realities, the actual facts, and not only with a few of them but with all of them. These facts he pits against the shams, the pretenses, and the pride that rests upon them. He expects the facts to win. If they do not, so much the worse for those who spurn them. We note Paul speaking with calm objectivity, fully conscious of the great realities he is presenting. Again we see Paul moved with deep feeling, showing a great heart that is quivering with sorrow and with pain, yet his emotions are ever under perfect control. The power and the effect of his words are beyond question, in fact, they still continue. God’s Spirit still speaks through these immortal words.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.