From: Steven Lo Vullo (slovullo@mac.com)
Date: Sun Apr 07 2002 - 06:03:51 EDT
on 3/31/02 11:22 PM, Matt Eby at ebymatt@yahoo.com wrote:
> Interestingly, John Crysostom (_hom. 9 in 1 Cor._) asserted this verse
> to mean that the man will be preserved in the fire of hell, so that he
> will not experience annihilation! I would actually agree with your
> conclusion concerning the meaning of this verse, albeit a bit
> differently. I don't think the solution lies in the force of the
> future indicative alone, but rather in the force of the future
> indicative *when qualified by an adverb*.
This assumes a "solution" is necessary. I think most people, considering the
grammatical, syntactical, and lexical features of the sentence itself,
wouldn't perceive a problem that *needs* a solution. It seems to me the text
is not really so cryptic as to require such a novel explanation as you offer
below.
Before beginning, I must say I find your wording above to be somewhat
ambiguous. On the one hand, the phrase "*the* future indicative" perhaps
means "the future indicative in question." But on the other hand, "when
qualified by *an* adverb" seems to indicate that ANY future indicative
qualified by ANY adverb may gratuitously be transformed into a
quasi-conditional clause. But I presume that most people, including you,
would never dream of going through such contortions as those below whenever
a future verb with an adverbial modifier is encountered, so I am assuming
you mean to indicate that this type of tricky grammatical maneuvering is
reserved for "special" occassions.
> Take Jesus' statement in Matthew 19:23:
>
> AMHN LEGW hUMIN hOTI PLOUSIOS DUSKOLWS EISELEUSETAI EIS THN BASILEIAN
> TWN OURANWN ("Truly I say to you that a rich [man] will enter into the
> kingdom of heaven with difficulty [lit. as an adverb, 'hardly'--or even
> 'difficultly']").
>
> Jesus here is *not* asserting that a rich man *will* in fact enter the
> kingdom of heaven. He is rather asserting the *manner* in which such a
> man will--*if* indeed he does: *with difficulty*. (Jesus goes on to
> pronounce this to be impossible with men in fact [v. 26])! Thus the
> adverb DUSKOLWS is a very powerful qualifier to the future EISELEUSETAI
> in this passage--it functions practically as a conditional clause.
Your above wording is again ambiguous. You don't make clear whether DUSKOLWS
alone or DUSKOLWS with EISELEUSETAI functions as a quasi-conditional clause.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you mean both together,
since an adverb, like DUSKOLWS, alone functioning as a quasi-conditional
clause seems to me slightly more incredible than the alternative.
Though I have read and reread your above paragraph, I cannot even perceive
the faintest silhouette of an actual argument for the idea that an adverb
makes a future tense verb "practically a conditional clause." I can reach no
other conclusion than that we have only your bare *assertion* that DUSKOLWS
in some esoteric way makes EISELEUSETAI function in this way. You offer no
evidence or argumentation at all. Not one undisputed occurrence is adduced.
You proffer the verse as if the meaning you attach to it is self-evident,
though you have in essence manufactured a conditional sentence out of thin
air.
But let's, for the sake of argument, assume what you are asserting is true,
i.e., DUSKOLWS EISELEUSETAI is a quasi-conditional clause. If so, in your
above comments you have reversed the protasis and apodosis required by your
own assertion. You stated that it is DUSKOLWS that *makes* EISELEUSETAI
practically conditional. So, under your scenario, DUSKOLWS must be construed
with the putative protasis. This being the case, the condition must be, "If
a rich man enters the kingdom of heaven with difficulty," rather than "if
indeed he does [enter the kingdom of heaven]," as you paraphrase above. So,
contrary to your your own paraphrase, what you actually leave us with is,
"If a rich man enters the kingdom of heaven with difficulty, he will indeed
enter the kingdom of heaven." I don't think I need to point out that this is
superfluous and practically tautological.
As for the text itself, of course Jesus isn't averring that "a rich man
*will* in fact enter the kingdom of heaven," if what you mean by that is
that any *particular* rich man will in fact enter the kingdom of heaven. The
referent isn't any specific rich man, as the anarthrous PLOUSIOS makes
clear. The saying is gnomic, i.e., it expresses an axiom. Though no
particular person is in view, the idea is that a person *such as this* can
be expected to enter the kingdom of heaven with difficulty at some time in
the future (cf. Matt 6.24 for this gnomic use of the future indicative with
an indefinite subject). DUSKOLWS doesn't negate the maxim, it only expresses
the *manner* in which a person such as this can be expected to enter the
kingdom of heaven in the future. While Jesus' main purpose here is not to
assure the disciples that people from the class designated "rich" will enter
the kingdom of heaven, it is nevertheless assumed that people from that
particular class WILL, though with difficulty.
> Now look again at 1 Cor 3:15:
>
> AUTOS DE SWQHSETAI hOUTWS DE hWS DIA PUROS ("And he himself will be
> saved but thusly: as through fire").
You invite us to "now look again" at 1 Cor 3.15 as if the bare assertion
made about Matt 19.23 has actually proven or illustrated something
substantive that we can apply to the text under consideration, or as if we
will find some amazing resemblance between the two sentences, which are
really quite different. In fact, as I will show, the adverbial modifier DIA
PUROS doesn't even modify the explicit SWQHSETAI, but an elliptical form of
SWiZW, either the future SWQHSETAI understood in the compound clause with
hOUTWS, or SWiZETAI, a present passive understood in the comparative clause
with hWS. Not only that, but the contexts are quite different as well.
> hOUTWS here acts as a proleptic adverb, refering to the adverbial
> phrase hWS DIA PUROS, qualifying AUTOS DE SWQHSETAI (as you said). But
> I don't think at all that Paul is assuring that such a man (whose
> "work" is burnt up) will be saved. Rather, he is asserting the
> *manner* in which such a man will be--*if* indeed he is: he himself
> must survive the test of fire (not just his "work"). And the
> implication of vv. 16-17 is that such a man *will not* pass the test.
Well, at least you seem to ackowledge that the text doesn't actually SAY,
"If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be
saved through fire, IF he is saved, but he won't be, because he must survive
the test of fire, but he won't, because his work will be burned up, so he
will be too." These are ideas IMPORTED into the text. Now, would you mind
sharing with us the alchemic technique whereby an axiomatic (gnomic)
statement of a future event is transformed into a quasi-conditional clause
by an adverbial phrase in a compounded clause or its subordinate that
indicates the MANNER of the FULFILLMENT of the action of an implied verb?
This is nothing more than wishful thinking and a whole lot of what I can
only describe as grammagination. As with Matt 19.23, no evidence of this
effect of a adverbial phrase on a verb (in this case not necessarily future
anyhow) is offered. I note that the new element that was gratuitously
slipped in here is that of denial or negation. Apparently vv. 15 and 17 were
thrown into the ring and v. 17 walked away with the KO.
Just a few more observations on your above comments before we move on:
First, just as with Matt 19.23, you have failed to take seriously your own
assertion, i.e., that the adverbial modifier (DIA PUROS) somehow makes a
verb function as a quasi-conditional clause. Again: If it is the adverbial
modifier that creates the condition, it itself must be part of the
conditional clause. So we would not have, "If he is saved, he will be saved
through fire," but, "If he is saved through fire, he will be saved." Again,
as with Matt 19.23, this is superfluous and tautological. Of course if
someone is save through fire he will be saved! How could it be otherwise?
Second, the construction hOUTWS ... hWS, as BDAG (2) recognizes, functions
correlatively. It means "thus ... as," and hOUTWS and hWS function in their
respective clauses here with an understood form of SWiZW. So, in our
passage, "but he himself will be saved, but THE WAY he WILL BE saved is AS a
man is saved through fire." There is nothing in the hOUTWS ... hWS
construction to support your understanding of this passage.
Third, it must be recognized that neither hOUTWS nor hWS DIA PUROS are
direct qualifiers of SWQHSETAI, as you claim above. So DIA PUROS does NOT
necessarily even qualify a *future* tense verb, as seems to be taken for
granted in your comments. I notice you left out the punctuation (comma) in
your above quote of what are, in fact, at least TWO separate clauses. That's
OK; the original didn't have a comma. But the comma of UBS4 and NA27
indicates something you have apparently overlooked: AUTOS DE SWQHSETAI is a
clause all its own. It is not directly qualified by anything. It is a simple
statement of what we can expect to happen in the future to such a person as
is in view here: "If anyone's work is burned up ... he himself will be
saved." DE (after hOUTWS) is an adversative conjunction joining AUTOS DE
SWQHSETAI to hOUTWS DE. The latter (hOUTWS DE) is not complete without an
implied SWQHSETAI, understood from the previous clause. It is the *implied*
SWQHSETAI that is qualified by hOUTWS. In turn, the comparative clause
marked by hWS (hWS DIA PUROS) is dependent on hOUTWS DE [SWQHSETAI]. Some
form of SWiZW, ISTM, must also be be understood with this comparative clause
(something like hWS [ANQRWPOS SWiZETAI] DIA PUROS). Neither of these clauses
in any way serve to make AUTOS DE SWQHSETAI conditional. They only specify
the MANNER in which this event will be carried out, by way of COMPARISON.
The resulting idea is: "If anyone's work is burned up, he himself WILL BE
saved, but the WAY he will be saved is LIKE someone is saved through fire."
Far from lending assurance to careless teachers that using cheap materials
is no big deal (as you seem to indicate this understanding of the passage
does), this text functions rhetorically as a warning that such work will be
in vain, and that tragic loss of reward will ensue. When one takes seriously
the function of reward in the NT, it is apparent that this IS a big deal.
But I digress.
Fourth, there is simply nothing in this sentence that makes the claim you
do, that "he himself must survive the test of fire (not just his 'work')."
This is, in fact, exactly the opposite of what the text (without the
grammagination and the importing of the ideas of other verses) actually
avers. Read in a straightforward way, it says that if a person's WORK is
burned up (EI TINOS TO ERGON KATAKAHSETAI), he himself WILL BE SAVED (AUTOS
DE SWQHSETAI). Then an appended clause with its subordinate simply states,
by means of COMPARISON, the MANNER in which he WILL BE saved. The testing of
WORKS is the clear statement of vv. 13 and 14 as well. And you have not even
dealt with AUTOS, which is emphatic and functions to contrast the loss of
reward (ZHMIWQHSETAI) with the salvation of the one who loses the reward
("He will suffer loss [of reward, cf. v. 14], but HE HIMSELF will be
saved"). It seems to me that the identification of the one who destroys the
temple of God and is destroyed (v. 17) with the one whose work is of low
quality and burned up, though he himself is saved (v. 15) not only lacks any
explicit connection, but also relies on the enlistment of v. 17 in an
abortive attempt at trumping the natural sense of the language of v. 15.
This is not to mention the screaming contradition between AUTOS DE SWQHSETAI
(v. 15) and FQEREI~ TOUTON hO QEOS (v. 17) when the two classes of worker
are equated and "mere" grammar is taken seriously.
Fifth, it is apparent, from your insistence that the type of *person* in
view here is somehow tested by fire, that you have overlooked the function
of hWS in the comparative clause dependent on hOUTWS DE [SWQHSETAI]. This is
not a description of a literal process that the careless builder actually
will go through. It is a *comparison* with an occurence from everyday life,
i.e., a person being save from a burning house. This clause does not
indicate that the carelss builder WILL go through fire, only that the
experience will be LIKE a person saved through fire. It is a simile. AS
ain't IS. In context, the point of connection between the simile and the
reality is that in both cases the referents are saved but lose all else. The
man escaping a burning home is safe, but everything he has worked for has
gone up in smoke. Likewise, the careless builder is saved, but all he has
worked for has come to naught, since it was not "fireproof." IN NEITHER CASE
is the referent burned up by the fire.
> I have yet to find a commentary that deals satisfactorily with Paul's
> clear allusion to the LXX of Malachi 3:2-5, 19-24 (NA27 notes the
> parallel in the margin of v. 13). There the prophet talks about the
> coming "Day" (judgment) in terms of a refiner's fire--wherein it is the
> *righteous* who are tested as gold and silver (Mal 3:3) and the wicked
> who are regarded as stubble to be consumed (3:19). Paul mentions the
> same elements in his metaphor (the "Day," "fire," etc.).
The reason it is hard to find a commentary that "deals satisfactorily" with
the "clear allusion" to Mal 3.2-5, 19-24 probably has to do with the fact
that the passage is not critical in *interpreting* 1 Cor 3. Your comments
indicate that you have not simply determined there is an allusion, but that
you have interpreted 1 Cor 3 as if it actually IS Mal 3! Noting a possible
allusion is one thing; allowing the work from which the allusion was *taken*
to totally govern the interpretation of the passage in which it is *used* is
quite another. After all, an allusion is "an implied or indirect reference"
(Webster's). Using a few words from another work does NOT translate into
directly and completely incorporating the ideas of that work. Most skilled
commentators understand this, hence the terrible dearth of commentaries that
do not deal extensively with the proposed connection.
But even if we DID allow Mal 3 to influence our interpretation of 1 Cor 3,
the result would be the OPPOSITE of your view of 1 Cor 3.15. The Lord coming
to his temple and refining and purifying the Levites (who held the teaching
office, Mal 2.6f.) so that pleasing offerings could be presented to the Lord
would actually parallel the testing of the work of the teachers of 1 Cor 3
and the burning up of the "dross" of inferior teaching so that pleasing
offerings could be made to the Lord. By your own admission, those of Mal
3.2-5 ("the righteous," as you say) are distinguished from those of vv.
19-24. The former would correspond both to the careful teacher of 1 Cor 3.14
(whose work is tested by fire and remains) *and* the careless teacher of 1
Cor 3.15 (whose dross is burned away and who is purified, though he himself
is saved), while the latter would correspond to those in 1 Cor 3.17 who
"destroy" the temple of God and are subsequently themselves destroyed.
Suffice it to say there is nothing in Mal 3 that contradicts what I have
said about 1 Cor 3.15, or that would prompt us to adopt far-out grammatical
solutions in an attempt to somehow "square" 1 Cor 3 and Mal 3. But all this
goes well beyond the scope of B-Greek, since none of it has anything to do
with the grammar and syntax of 1 Cor 3.15 anyway.
> What do I think Paul is saying? He is mixing the Old-Testament
> "temple" and "refiner's fire" metaphors. Those involved in the
> ministry of the gospel should be careful how they build alleged
> converts onto God's temple, the church. Jesus Christ himself is the
> foundation. If Apollos (or anyone else) accepts (or presents the
> gospel in such a way that it allows/draws) false brothers into the
> church, they are corrupting God's temple, which in the end will be
> (metaphorically) tested with fire at the final judgment. Those who are
> found to have corrupted God's temple via introducing false disciples
> will find their "work" (i.e. their converts) "burnt up." Subsequently
> they themselves will be put to the fiery test, which they will
> inevitably fail; since they corrupted God's temple, God will "corrupt"
> them (3:17). (It is not at all unusual to refer to people as building
> materials in the church [cf. Matt 16:18; Gal 2:9; Eph 2:19-22; 1 Peter
> 2:4-8; Rev 3:12; 21:14]. Elsewhere Paul refers to the Corinthians as
> his "work" [1 Cor 9:1] and is quite concerned about the church's purity
> [1 Cor 5:1-13; 2 Cor 11:2-3; etc.]).
Well, the above comments reflect exactly the problem I was talking about
earlier--allowing one text to control another, so that the latter is not
viewed at all in its own right.
There is simply nothing in 1 Cor 3 about teachers building converts "onto" a
temple, or accepting or introducing false converts into the congregation.
The issue is TEACHING, as the whole context of 1 Cor 3 (as well as the
broader context) shows. This idea of building converts "onto" a temple
misses the overall picture Paul is painting.
I think a quick "tour" of this passage will easily show that the "work"
(ERGON, vv. 8, 14) in view is the preaching and teaching of those *such as*
Paul and Apollos (cf. 1 Cor 4.6), who will receive an eschatological "wage"
(MISQON, v. 8) commensurate to the quality of the work performed. The
Corinthians are both a "field" (GEWRGION) in which the gospel was planted
(EFUTEUSA) by Paul and which was later "watered" (EPOTISEN) by the teaching
of Apollos, and a "building" (OIKODOMH), the foundation of which was laid by
Paul's preaching of the gospel and which is being "built up" (spiritually
edified) by others. A careful consideration of the developement of the
passage makes this clear.
When Paul says he "planted" and Apollos "watered" (EFUTEUSA ... EPOTISEN, v.
6), he is saying the same thing he says in vv. 10ff. (that he laid the
"foundation" of Jesus Christ and that others were "building" on that), but
with a different metaphor. His "planting" was the preaching of the gospel.
Thus, when he says Apollos "watered" he can mean nothing else but that
Apollos taught additional truth that went, at least to some degree, beyond
the "foundational" message preached by Paul. Surely Paul is not saying that
he planted the ACTUAL PERSON Jesus Christ rather than the message of Jesus
Christ and that Apollos sprinkled converts on top of him! That preaching and
teaching is in view here in v. 6 is confirmed by what immediately precedes
in v. 5: Paul and Apollos are DIAKONOI DI' hWN EPISTEUSATE ("servants
through whom you believed"). What they believed was obviously what Paul
planted and what Apollos watered. So, then, when in v. 9 Paul says, QEOU
GEWRGION, QEOU OIKODOMH ESTE ("you are God's field, God's building") he does
NOT mean that PEOPLE are being sprinkled onto the field or that PEOPLE are
being affixed to the building. They ARE the existent field and building.
They are NOT the water and the building materials! He means that they are
(or should be) the object of the growth producing "water of the word" as
well as the object of the work of "building up" (spiritual edification) of
those, such as Apollos, who teach in the church.
What follows beginning in v. 10 is nothing less than a development of the
"planting" and "watering" motif, but with a different meataphor. The
transition comes in v. 9, where the "field" (GEWRGION), i.e., *the whole of
the Corinthian congregation itself*, is described also as a "building"
(OIKODOMH), also *the whole of the Corinthian congregation itself*.
Taking up the "building" metaphor, Paul says he, like a "wise master
builder" (SOFOS ARCITEKTWN), "layed a foundation" (QEMELION EQHKA), which
was Jesus Christ (vv. 10-11). Following your suggestion (that the issue is
not teaching, but building people "onto" the temple), we would have to
assume that what Paul is saying here is that he himself installed THE ACTUAL
PERSON Jesus Christ as the foundation of the church! But what Paul obviously
means, in context, is that he heralded the foundational truths of the
gospel. This alludes to earlier declarations made by Paul, such as the
following:
1 Cor. 2.1-2: And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with
superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him
crucified."
1 Cor 3.1-2: And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men,
but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink,
not solid food; for you were not yet able [to receive it].
The simple message of "Jesus Christ and him crucified" was the "milk" Paul
gave the Corinthians to drink and the "foundation" he laid. He did NOT
install THE ACTUAL PERSON Jesus Christ as the foundation; rather, he
heralded the basic gospel message about Christ. Thus, when he says in v. 10
that he laid a foundation and ALLOS DE EPOIKODOMEI ("another is building on
[it]"), he means the same thing he meant when he talked of his "planting"
and Apollos' "watering": that he brought the foundational message, and
another is augmenting that message with additional teaching. It is TEACHING
that is represented by the water and building materials, not PEOPLE. Just as
when he spoke of himself "planting" and Apollos "watering" he did not mean
that he planted the ACTUAL PERSON Jesus Christ, and that Apollos was adding
PEOPLE to Christ or the church as water, so, likewise, when he speaks of
himself laying the foundation of Jesus Christ and another building on it, he
does not mean that he installed the ACTUAL PERSON Jesus Christ as a
foundation of the church and that others were adding PEOPLE to Christ or the
church as building materials! Thus, everything that follows in vv. 12ff.
must be viewed through THIS lense, and NOT through the lens of the other
"proof-texts" you have garnered from far removed contexts, which, at any
rate, are similarly misunderstood. Just matching up words does not prove
anything; the words themselves and their meaning and significance must be
interpreted according to the peculiar context in which they are found,
rather than be forced into a preconceived grid from another context.
While the primary focus at this point in the letter is the wisdom of God and
its ministry as opposed to the wisdom of the world and its presence in the
Corinthian community, there is, at the same time, the additional, implied
idea in the "building" metaphor that the church "grows" as a result of the
exercise of a wise teaching ministry, but does not profit from foolish
ministry incorporating the wisdom of the world. But the idea here is NOT
numerical growth or decrease; rather, it is that the church is "under
construction" in the sense we mean when we say something like, "Our church
isn't perfect; we're still under construction." We don't mean by that that
there are still converts to be added to our number (though that may be true
enough), but that there is need for further spiritual growth. There is a
close connection between "planting" and "watering"/ "foundation-laying" and
"building" and the spiritual growth and edification of the church (cf. v.
7). The existing Corinthian assembly is viewed both as a planted field that
needs the water of the word in order to grow spiritually and as a "work
under construction" that needs the quality building materials of the word in
order to be built up spiritually. The "building" activity in view in 1 Cor
3, what we would call "edification," comes to the fore later in the letter.
Compare OIKODOMH (v. 9), EPOIKODOMEI (vv. 10 [2x], 12), and EPOIKODOMHSEN
(v. 14) with the later development of Paul's concern for "building-up" the
church in the following passages:
1 Cor 8.1: hH GNWSIS FUSIOI, hH DE AGAPH **OIKODOMEI**.
Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
1 Cor 10.23: PANTA EXESTIN ALL' OU PANTA SUMFEREI; PANTA EXESTIN ALL' OU
PANTA **OIKADOMEI**.
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable; all things are
lawful, but not all things build up.
1 Cor 14.3-5: hO DE PROFHTEUWN ANQRWPOIS LALEI **OIKODOMHN** KAI PARAKLHSIN
KAI PARAMUQIAN. hO LALWN GLWSSH hEAUTON **OIKODOMEI**; hO DE PROFHTEUWN
EKKLHSIAN **OIKODOMEI**. QELW DE PANTAS hUMAS LALEIN GLWSSAIS, MALLON DE
hINA PROFHTEUHTE; MEIZWN DE hO PROFHTEUWN H hO LALWN GLWSSAIS EKTOS EI MH
DIERMHNEUH, hINA hH EKKLHSIA **OIKODOMHN** LABHi.
But one who prophesies speaks to men for building-up and exhortation and
consolation. One who speaks in a tongue builds up himself; but one who
prophesies builds up the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues,
but [even] more that you would prophesy; and greater is one who prophesies
than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may
receive building-up.
1 Cor 14.12: hOUTWS KAI hUMEIS, EPEI ZHLWTAI ESTE PNEUMATWN, PROS THN
*OIKODOMHN** THS EKKLHSIAS ZHTEITE hINA PERISSEUHTE.
So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual [gifts], seek to abound for
the building-up of the church.
1 Cor 14.17: SU MEN GAR KALWS EUCARISTEIS ALL' hO hETEROS OUK
**OIKODOMEITAI**.
For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not built up.
1 Cor 14.26: TI OUN ESTIN, ADELFOI? hOTAN SUNERCHSQE, hEKASTOS YALMON ECEI,
DIDACHN ECEI, APOKALUYIN ECEI, GLWSSAN ECEI, hERMHNEIAN ECEI; PANTA PROS
**OIKODOMHN** GINESQW.
What is [the outcome] then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a
psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an
interpretation. Let all things be done for building-up.
It becomes apparent throughout the course of the letter that the problem in
the church of Corinth was not so much "false disciples" being "introduced,"
but the spiritual immaturity of those *already there*. This is the context
of 1 Cor 3. The Corinthians were "babies" (NHPIOIS, 3.1) who had not matured
beyond the ability to drink the "milk" (GALA, 3.2) of the simple gospel
message Paul had originally preached. The general problem was not the
introduction of "false converts," but the stunted growth of those who had
been there from the beginning! One of the solutions was to "water them" and
"build them up" with quality teaching. Those who "watered" to maturity the
seed in the field and "built" on the "foundation" with quality teaching that
brought about the spiritual "building-up" of the church would recieve a
reward; those who built on the foundation of the true gospel of Christ with
inferior teaching that left the Corinthians in their immature state would
lose their reward. It is important to note that BOTH were building on the
ONE foundation, Jesus Christ (vv. 12-13). The man who builds with wood, hay,
and straw is not positively *destroying* the foundation or the building. He
just isn't building on it properly and making it strong. He is not denying
the gospel of Christ, he just isn't augmenting it properly to the
edification of the church. This is why he will still be saved, but without a
wage for his work, which was defective. The person in view in v. 17,
however, positively destroys the church, no doubt in an attempt to lay
another foundation (vv. 10-11). This is why he will be destroyed.
What is truly ironic about your interpretation is that, if true, Paul
himself is guilty of introducing "wood, hay, straw" to the Corinthian
community! He was the one who "planted" the seed that established the
community in the first place (v. 6). The "fleshly" (SARKINOS) people of the
Corinthian church were none other than the people Paul himself had
"introduced" to the church (vv. 1-4). They were his "work" (TO ERGON, 9.1).
By your accounting, he should be destroyed, since he himself built these
"fleshly" (SARKINOS, vv. 1, 3) people "onto" (as you say) God's temple!
In light of the above, it should not be surprising that the "work" (TO
ERGON, vv. 13 [2x], 14, 15), is clearly NOT the activity of introducing or
appending converts, true or false, to the church. It is the work of
preaching and teaching that God uses for the salvation and spiritual growth
of his people. It is important, once again, to interpret according to
context so that we are precise in our expression. According to v. 8, the
"labor" (KOPON) for which a "wage" (MISQON, cf. v. 14) is "received"
(LHMYETAI, cf. v. 14) is none other than "planting" (hO FUTEUWN) and
"watering" (hO POTIZWN), which, as we have already seen, is paralleled by
"laying a foundation" and "building" in vv. 10ff., and is none other than
the work of preaching and teaching. There is not so much as a hint that the
KOPOS/ ERGON of this section is the introduction of converts to the church,
or that, if the converts somehow prove to be false, the person who thus
introduced them will be destroyed! What is tested by the fire is the quality
of the preaching or teaching. Those who do a good, quality job of preaching
or teaching will receive a due wage; those who do not will not be paid.
As for 1 Cor 9.1, it is hard to understand why you would think it supports
your view. There is not a hint of any such idea as building converts "onto"
a temple. The semantical force of ERGON here is clearly "result of work." In
fact, this verse is the "poster child" used by Louw-Nida for the very
meaning I propose:
"ERGON, OU n: the result of someone¹s activity or work ‹ 'workmanship,
result of what has been done.' OU TO ERGON MOU hUMEIS ESTE EN KURIWi; 'are
you not the result of what I have done in the Lord?' 1Cor 9:1."
The NIV well brings out the sense:
"Are you not the result of my work in the Lord?"
The idea is that his preaching the gospel as an apostle of Christ, his
"planting" and "foundation-laying," if you will, resulted in their
salvation. There is nothing here to contradict the idea that the building
materials in 1 Cor 3 represent teaching, and that it is this teaching that
will be tested by fire.
> So what is the "wage/reward" (1 Cor 3:14)? IMO, nothing other than
> eternal life--the "crown that will last forever" (1 Cor 9:25). Paul
> elsewhere denies his entitlement to any wage/reward other than the
> grace of apostleship--which for Paul is its own reward (1 Cor
> 9:16-18)--and also speaks of his congregations themselves as his
> "crown" (1 Thess 2:19-20; Phil 4:1). The man who "suffers loss" finds
> the product of his earthly labors (his supposed converts) burnt up,
> while he himself is then tested (and ultimately judged) by the fire.
> This interpretation is also consistent with James' statement that those
> who are teachers "will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1).
Well, I think this only illustrates how trying to equate the ideas found in
two dissimilar contexts on the basis of a "word-match" only tends to destroy
the ideas of both. The fact is that Paul not only DOES NOT deny his
entitlement to "any wage/reward other than the grace of apostleship" in
9.16-18 (as if he were *owed* the *grace* of apostleship!), but he quite
clearly asserts his "right" (EXOUSIA, vv. 4-6, 12, 18) to get his living
from the preaching of the gospel. He *voluntarily* forgoes this right in
order that no hindrance be caused to the gospel of Christ (v. 12). In the
context of ch. 9 Paul is talking about his right to monetary support in his
preaching of the gospel. It is THAT which he voluntarily forgoes, not
eschatological reward. And the context makes clear that his reward for
giving up his right to monetary support, i.e., the preaching of the gospel
without charge, is also temporal, since it is received when he preaches or
offers the gospel without charge (9.17, 18). It is a reward in this life.
This in no way proves Paul had no expectation of eschatological reward for
service. In fact, he clearly states in 1 Cor 3.8 that the one who plants
WILL receive a reward. Since he himself *planted* (3.6-8), how shall we not
conclude that he will receive an eschatological reward? As for the rest of
the above proof-texts, none of them has anything to do with what is being
considered in 1 Cor 3. In fact, if we put them together as if they explain
one another, we end up with hopeless contradictions. For example, you say
the "crown" is at the same time "eternal life" and "his congregations."
Which is it? The fact is that the metaphor is used differently in each
respective context. Also, the idea of eternal life *owed* to evangelists if
their converts prove true is, frankly, bizarre. As for the "imperishable
wreath" (FQARTON STEFANON) of v. 25, nothing is said here about eternal
life. It is the imperishability (FQARTON) of the REWARD (STEFANON, "wreath,"
not "crown") that is in view, not the imperishability of the person. You
have simply assumed it is talking about eternal life.
The hard, cold, grammatical fact is that the future tense verbs of 1 Cor
3.14-15 rule out any such idea of reward in 1 Cor 3 as you have suggested
above. The acute problem with this view is demonstrated when we closely
compare v. 14 with v. 15 and assume your idea that MISQOS means "eternal
life." When we read the verses substituting "eternal life" for "wage," the
result is, well, convoluted. Let's first compare the sentences in question,
taking note of those words in v. 14 that are understood in v. 15:
1 Cor 3.14: EI TINOS TO ERGON MENEI~ hO\ EPOIKODOMHSEN, MISQON LHMYETAI.
If anyone's work shall remain which he has built, he shall receive a wage.
1 Cor 3.15: EI TINOS TO ERGON KATAKAHSETAI [hO\ EPOIKODOMHSEN], [MISQON]
ZHMIWQHSETAI, AUTOS DE SWQHSETAI, hOUTWS DE [SWQHSETAI] hWS [ANQRWPOS
SWiZETAI] DIA PUROS.
If anyone's work shall be burned up [which he has built], he shall suffer
loss [of wage], but he himself shall be saved, but [he shall be saved] as [a
man is saved] through fire.
It is clear from the parallel structure and contrastive nature of these two
sentences that hO\ EPOIKODOMHSEN and MISQON are understood in v. 15 from
their use in v. 14. If we take your suggestion that MISQON is "eternal
life," we end up with an intolerable contradiction: someone suffering loss
of eternal life and yet he himself being saved! "If anyone's work is burned
up, he will suffer loss of eternal life, but he himself will be saved."
This, I think, highlights the problem of equating MISQOS with eternal life.
And there is simply no reason to take SWQHSETAI as conditional, as you
suggested earlier.
Actually, the way MISQOS is used in 1 Cor 3 lends itself nicely to the idea
of eschatological wages for service that may vary from person to person. In
v. 8 we read: hO FUTEUWN DE KAI hO POTIZWN hEN EISIN, hEKASTOS DE TON IDION
MISQON LHMYETAI KATA TON IDION KOPON. Though the one who plants and the one
who waters are "one" (hEN), and "co-workers" (SUNERGOI, v. 9), each will
receive a wage geared personally to him that will be commensurate with the
work performed, as hEKASTOS ... TON IDION MISQON LHMYETAI KATA TON IDION
KOPON indicates. In relation to work performed from person to person, the
wage may differ considerably (cf. Luke 19.11ff.)
Now let's, in one grand finale, using all the suggestions you have given,
read v. 15:
"If anyone introduces people to the church who are burned up, he shall
suffer loss of eternal life, but he himself shall be saved, if he is saved,
but he won't be, because he must pass the test of fire, which he won't
because those he has introduced to the church have been burned up, so he
will be burned up as well."
Now really, does this bear any resemblance to the simple and straightforward
sentence with which we have to do? When we read, "he shall suffer loss of
eternal life, but he himself shall be saved, if he is saved, but he won't
be," does this not make Paul sound like someone who is confused and cannot
make up his mind about what he really wants to say?
I'm not sure what has driven this understanding of the passage, but I don't
think it is much less subjective than John Chrysostom's suggestion with
which you began your post.
============
Steven Lo Vullo
Madison, WI
slovullo@mac.com
---
B-Greek home page: http://metalab.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [jwrobie@mindspring.com]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-327Q@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:23 EDT