JSNT 7 (1980) 41-60

41

"As babes in Christ" - Some proposals regarding 1 Corinthians 3fl-3. Rev. Dr. J. Francis, Division of Religion and Philosophy, Sunderland Polytechnic/ Tyne and Wear The purpose of this study is to enquire how the image of the child is used at 1 Cor.3.Iff in the context of Paul's argument. That it occurs in a context of criticism is clear, but we must examine how it functions within that criticism and serves Paul's argument at that point. Paul in 1 Corinthians is dealing with a problem that had arisen in the handing on of the gospel; that is to say, the gospel had been preached and had been accepted, and yet in the understanding and assimilation of its meaning the Corinthians had gone astray. His question at 4.7 is crucial - "what have you that you have not received? And if you have received it why boast as if you had not?" He is vexed at their failure to understand and interpret what he had imparted to them, a failure that is amply shown by the way in which their grasp of the gospel is reflected in their lives. Moreover Paul is faced with the problem that some at least within the congregation were calling in question his authority as an apostle in the first place (1.1, 2.Iff, 4.18 cf 2 Cor.10.10, 9.Iff.).(It is noteworthy that his concern for the unity of the congregation is such that he condemns even those who would support himself in a factional way, 1.12ff, 3.4ff, 3.22.) Whatever be the precise nature of the trouble at Corinth/l/,the Corinthians seem to have gone beyond or over interpreted what Paul had said, allowing such spiritual enthusiasm both to disrupt the congregation and to call in question Paul's authority as an apostle. Paul for his part it would seem, is wrestling with a paradox that his readers as those who had been baptised and had received the Spirit (1.13ff, 10.2ff cf 2.12) were yet behaving in an unspiritual manner/2/. We may however advance further than this to see that Paul is in fact, especially in chapters one to three, putting forward the nature of life in the Spirit over against a false spirituality, since his opponents would claim to be very much "in the Spirit" through their enthusiasm and their exulting in the more

42

JSNT 7 (1980)

spectacular gifts of the Spirit (1.5 cf 4.8). As an essential part of his task, Paul sums up the gospel he had imparted to them as Christ crucified (1.17ff, 2.2 cf 1.23 /3/). The gospel centred on the Cross provides Paul with the means of making a contrast at a fundamental level between God's wisdom and the foolishness of the Corinthians. The foolishness of the Cross puts an end to all human endeavour at self-made ways of salvation. In so far as the Corinthians were boasting in their own wisdom they were setting up their own standard of salvation and thus displacing the wisdom of God. They were in fact boasting in the flesh and setting at naught God's grace and truth revealed in the Cross. In keeping with such enthus iasm the Corinthians admired those who could proclaim their "knowledge" in rhetorically pleasing and persuasive manner (1.5). Paul in contrast rejoices in his lack of rhetorical skill simply because it allows the truth and strength of the gospel to appear the more effective (2.4). If this brief summary of the situation is accurate, one wonders whether that interpretation of 3.Iff which regards the function of the child image in Paul's criticism as "failure to progress" is accurate. Thus it is argued/4/ that Paul here is requiring the Corinthians to press on from an initial and elementary grasp of the faith to a more mature knowledge in the deeper things of the gospel (cf Hebrews 5.Uff, 6.Iff). Having been brought into the sphere of faith they have learned the rudiments of the gospel, chiefly the Word of the Cross, but now they must advance to the mature wisdom that Paul himself knows and which he can only impart to the mature (2.6ff). Paul there fore is criticising them not for being babes but for remaining so, and for not progressing to deeper understanding. Certainly support for such an interpretation may be found in Stoic thought/5/. Pythagoras is said to have divided his pupils into two groups, babes (vifauou) and mature (); Epictetus asks "are you like children still unwilling to be weaned from mother's milk and to reach out for stronger food?" Discourses ii.16.39; and Philo remarks that "milk is food for babes () but wheaten cakes are for the mature (*)" De Agrie.9. It is clear that Paul with his imagery of babes (vifauou) and the distinction in diet is moving in the same general orbit of ideas, and hence it could be argued that grades of instruction will correspond to stages of growth and advancement.

Francis: "As babes in Christ"

43

He therefore chides his readers for not being advanced enough to move on to maturity and to receive higher instruction reserved for the (2.6). He himself is their teacher (v 2 "I fed you" hinting at a note of authority through the fleeting image of the nurse cf Gal.4.19), their father in the gospel (4.15 cf Rom. 2.20 ), but his pupils have become stunted in their growth. One wonders, however, if this intepretation is wholly sat isfactory, and if in fact it does justice to the severity of Paul's argument at this point and to the gravity of the problem which he is confronting. In so far as Paul is prepared to agree that the Corinthians had been enriched in every way, lacking in nothing (1.5,7, 4.8), this makes any idea of "failure to advance" difficult. Would Paul indeed have praised them thus if it was a matter of being stunted in their growth? Again, the idea that Paul is urging his readers to press on to deeper knowledge is difficult since they with their enthusiasm and thirst for wisdom were no doubt claiming to have done precisely that! He would scarcely urge them to do what they were so adept at doing, with unfortunate consequences. As an alternative interpretation, we shall argue that Paul is rebuking his readers not because they are babes still, and had not progressed further, but because they were in fact being childish, a condition contrary to being spiritual. The image of the child points therefore not to an early stage of growth in the faith to be left behind as one progresses to deeper things, but to a state of immaturity incompatible with that of spiritual understanding. Paul's criticism is not about failure of pro gression but failure of comprehension. Thus the contrast between "babes" and "spiritual men" is not so much that the readers should press on to a higher understanding, reserved for the mature, over against an initial elementary knowledge, but rather that the readers as Christians andas recipients of the Spirit should realise the fulness of what they have received and so learn to live mature spiritual lives. In Paul's writings, the child as an image of insight and understanding seems to occur in two forms. Firstly, the des cription of babe () is invariably pejorative in tone and thus echoes the prevailing opinion of the Ancient World. Thus 1 Cor.13.11 describes the contrast between this life and the life of the world to come, as different as the world of the child is from that of the adult. The point is not the gradual growth

44

JSNT 7 (1980)

from the one to the other but of contrast, just as v9-10 is not the gradual filling out of the partial to the complete but the contrast between what is imperfect and temporal and what is per fect and eternal. 1 Cor.14.20 shows Paul's irony that if the Corinthians insist on being childish then at least let them be so in matters of evil. The description used is that of child (, only here) rather than babe, but the meaning is the same as v20b "being a babe" () signifies. By contrast the true Christian (like the good Stoic) is one who is mature in understanding. At Gal.4.2ff the babe image is used to depict man under bondage to the principalities and powers. The opposite here is sonship and freedom through the gift of the Spirit. In Christ one is no longer in a state of (cf Col.2.20). At Ephes.4.14 there is again a contrast rather than continuity between being as a child and growing to mature manhood in Christ. Children (vifauou) are those who are fickle and unstable, easily led astray, whereas the mature Christian grows into the fulness of Christ through the knowledge of the truth in love. Rom.2.20 briefly describes the teacher as "teacher of babes" and here "babes" is equated with the foolish, those in darkness, and as being a guide to the blind. 1 Thess.2.7 is uncertain. If vtfuuou is read, then it recalls Paul's first preaching of the gospel to the Thessalonians when they were but babes in their ignorance of the truth of Christ, and he is here as it were identifying him self with them (cf 1 Cor.9.19). If "gentle" be the preferred reading, then it enhances the special care Paul feels for them, expressed in the images of the nurse (2.7) and father (2.11). For Paul, therefore, it would seem that the description of "babe" (vfauos) means generally "unskilled", "untutored", the opposite of having mature understanding of the faith. Mention of Paul as nurse or father, however, brings us secondly to the other form of the child image used in his writings. Here the word * is invariably used, and Paul sees himself as his readers' father in the gospel or as their nurse whom he feeds and nourishes (1 Cor.4.14ff, 2 Cor.6.13, Gal.4.19, 1 Thess.2.7, 11, Phil.2.22, Phil.10). Characteris tically such imagery denotes the special care and affection which Paul feels, and occurs only in those letters to churches that he himself had founded. The background to such imagery is to be found at least in part in the widespread use of milk as signifying instruction and education, and in the idea that a teacher may be thought of as a father who begets children through instruction/6/.

Francis: "As babes in Christ"

45

We shall now in what follows examine the relation between these two forms of the child image in 1 Cor.3.Iff - in so far as Paul says that he "fed" them (v2), the image of the nurse is here implied, and he refers to his role as father explicitly at 4.14ff. How indeed are the Corinthians thought of in terms of their being both "babes" and "children", and how is Paul's authority under stood accordingly? The phrase "as babes in Christ" (3.1) has been variously understood both in terms of its constituent words and its func tion in the verse as a whole. What in fact is .the relationship between "babes" and "in Christ", and how is the description related to the preceding argument through the particle "as" ()? For those who would argue here for a gradation of teaching, of basic instruction for beginners and a more advanced wisdom for the mature, "babes in Christ" refers to the readers as beginners in the faith in the sense of newly baptised Christians. W. Grundmann/7/interprets "babes" here in light of the 'newly be gotten babes"( "* *) of 1 Peter 2.2, and the des cription therefore is of Christians who have failed to advance beyond a basic knowledge and have in fact "become stuck". Thus "wahrend 1. Petr. das Wort der Milch vergleicht, die Wachstum schafft, hat das Bild der Milch hier die Bedeutung der Anfangs grunde des christlichen Glaubens, denen in der 'Weisheit Gottes im Geheimnis unter den Volkommenen' die feste Speise gegenbersteht, die den Vollkommenen entsprechend ist."/8/ With reference to the "babe" image in Paul generally, "er zeigt die Gefahr des Zurckbleibens, die Gefahr der ausbleibenden Reife an."/9/ Whether 1 Peter is in fact based on a baptismal homily is disputed, /10/nor is it certain that 1 Peter 2.2 must refer to newly baptised Christians. However, from our survey of the use of vifauo in Paul, vtfuuos at least would seem to indicate not so much a "foundation stage" as it were of authentic existence, but a state incompatible with proper and mature understanding, akin to being untutored and ignorant (cf Hebrews 5.13 and the description of vifauos as ). Again C. Morrison/11/traces a connection between 3.1 and the sayings of Jesus about children in the Gospels. For him the difference between "babes" here and Matt.11.25/Luke 10.21 is due not to a different understanding of the child derived from dif ferent sources and influences, but to a different situation and responsibility. Whereas for Jesus childhood status and rep entance are closely related (Matt.18.3), from the point of view of the church Christians having repented and become as little

46

JSNT 7 (1980)

children must now grow and mature. Thus it is argued that "while Jesus offered children as a standard of repentance, Paul appears to lament now and again that certain Christians are not yet grown up."/12/ In similar terms but from another perspective and under standing, J.M. Robinson hints/13/that the description of "babes" in the Q logion was known to the Corinthians and was being used by them in some way. It is uncertain however, how well Paul was acquainted with Jesus' view of the child, and more particularly whether such a saying as Matt.11.25 was known to the Corinthians or to Paul. Certainly the Q saying and 1 Cor.1.9 (quoting Is. 29.14) both mention and ?, and Paul's idea of God's wisdom revealed in foolishness is broadly in keeping with the context of the Q saying of the secret of God's Kingdom revealed to the lowly. Yet despite the similarities, Paul's thought seems to be controlled very much by Stoic categories in the interaction between childhood and maturity, and he correspondingly operates with a different understanding of . In examining the phrase "as babes in Christ" care must be taken to distinguish between baptismal (divine) regeneration, begetting through instruction (4.15) and the image of the child ( 3.1) as an image of understanding. The first need not concern us here; Paul does not make use of this terminology but prefers the more orthodox rabbinic description of recreation, and in any case, in view of 1.14ff, it would seem that he is not concerned with baptism as such but rather with the understanding of the gospel as reflected in the true baptismal life of the believer (1.26ff cf 6.11). Again, 1.17 would seem to show that the description of the readers as "babes" at 3.1 has to do not with being born again at baptism but with the understanding of the gospel as Paul proclaimed it. Moreover, we should distinguish between 3.1-2 and 4.15; "as babes I gave you milk to drink" and "I begat you through the gospel". In both phrases we are dealing with Paul's authority. 3.1, as we have seen, hints at the image of the nurse, but this need not mean that Paul "begets" his readers so that they become babes in Christ whom he feeds on elementary teaching (the Cross) and subsequently when capable on more advanced matters. Rather at 4.15 with reference to the image of begetting through instruc tion and of imitating it is that Paul uses. It is in fact preferable to take the image of the child and the nurse at 3.1 and that of the child and the father at 4.15 as parallel. The one perhaps deals, as we shall see, with an attack on his

Francis: "As babes in Christ"

47

authority, the other with his right to assert it. Thus the images are related in this way that by being Paul's true children (?) in the gospel they cease to be babes (vifauot) in worldly ways. There is no hint at all that the readers ever cease to be his children or that he ever relinquishes his special care for them as their "father". At 4.8 Paul is not so much declaring that they do not need him any more (indeed he seems to be poking fun at their independent endeavours) as expressing a wish that they would come to share, along with him, true understanding of the gospel he had preached. J. Weiss in his commentary/14/noted that the contrast with "babes" (3.1) is not "mature", as we might at first expect, but "spiritual". U. Wilckens, who supports the interpretation of stages of knowledge in the dietary distinction, that can only be understood by the Christian who has advanced toward maturity, agrees that the correlate to * is (2.6 cf 2.10ff). However the widespread contrast between "mature" (*) and "juvenile" (vifauog) is briefly made behind the primary antithesis of "spiritual/fleshly (). Thus "babes in Christ" are those who have not progressed sufficiently beyond the rudiments for Paul to be able to tell them of more advanced insights in the gospel. It would seem however, that at 2.6ff Paul is not dealing as yet with the "intra-church" trouble at Corinth, but having raised the matter at l.lOff, prefaces all he wants to say with a general contrast between the gospel and the world, between the way of God revealed in the Cross and the way of man who boasts in his own esteem./15/ The content of 2.6ff (cf 2.13) is linked to 3.1 through the common -, but talk of God's wisdom for the mature is not the mention of "higher" teaching, but the same message of the gospel considered under another aspect. Indeed Paul has prepared for this other perspective at 1.24 and 1.30. Thus it is Christ Crucified who is God's wisdom. This suggests then that the mature, in the context of Paul's argument at 2.6ff, refer to all Christians. So Schnackenburg says "It does not refer to any tiny elite group of "initiates" (even if this term in this verse does echo the language of the 'gnosis'); rather it envisages all Christians, in so far as they show themselves to be 'teleioi', i.e., in so far as they allow the divine Spirit to operate and become effective in them"./16/ And Weiss remarks " sind alle Christen in denen der Geist lebt"./17/ In 2.10-16 the various mentions of "we" therefore include all Christians and hence the Corinthians also (cf vl2) in as much

48

JSNT 7 (1980)

as all have received the Spirit and are able to discern what God has given them in the gospel. Opposed to the "we" are the rulers of the age (v8) and psychic or natural men (vl4) who have no under standing of God's wisdom. This idea of the Spirit indwelling in the person and so making him mature recalls at least in part the Stoic view that maturity is a matter of orientation toward the goal or that is set. Over against the child who is fickle and unstable is the mature man who is making progress, given wholly to the pursuit of philosophy and the call to a noble and coherent life/18/. Correspondingly for Paul, the Christian orientated toward the goal of Christ should allow the word of the Cross to rule within him through the Spirit and so live a mature life. The contrast therefore of "babes" at 3.1 not with "mature" but with "spiritual" is of some significance. Here Paul takes all that he has said about the contrast between God's way and the world's and applies it to the Corinthian situation when first he came to them (3.1-2 cf 2.Iff). At that time when first he spoke to them they knew nothing of the gospel or of God's purpose in Christ. But Paul's lament is not that, but now having listened to and accepted that gospel they had failed to understand it, and by adhering still to worldly ways they had not allowed the Spirit to work within them. The Corinthians of course claimed to be very much spiritually minded, but for Paul the Cross is the stan dard of God's wisdom and signals the end of all boasting in one self. Exulting in spiritual prowess is for Paul a misunderstand ing of the Spirit's power governed as it is by the gospel and the message of the Cross. At 14.20 childishness and maturity are here brought into direct contrast. Over against 3.1 Paul is not rehearsing the situation when first he came to them, but is proposing to treat them as those who fully understand the worth of all that he has been saying - let them therefore realise what has been given to them and what they now have and so be mature, and if they must be childish (and one senses Paul's irony here) let them be so concerning the ways of worldly thought and conduct (cf 3.18). We must now ask (a) how the description of the readers as is related to their being called "fleshly",/19/and (b) how their childishness is related to their being . (a) It is possible to take the description of babes in Christ as a lessening of the censure that Paul could not address them as spiritual but only as fleshly people. Thus Prof. Barrett remarks that the phrase is really a "qualification" - "to call his readers

Francis: "As babes in Christ"

49

'fleshly' is to imply that they are completely outside the Christ ian way and this is to go too far .,. Mature the Corinthians certainly are not, but they may be described as babes in Christ: that is they are not heathen, but Christian: but they have only just made a beginning in the Christian life"./20/ So also W. Grundmann remarks "d.h. er spricht ihnen das Christsein nicht ab, tadelt sie aber wegen des Fehlens des pneumatischen Wachstums.n/2l/ Paul however is still rehearsing the situation when first he came to Corinth, dealing with the state of affairs at that point, and his criticism as such does not begin until v2b. The gravity of his criticism is that the Corinthians still persist in worldly ways. Thus H. Preisker aptly remarks ", , (1 Cor.3.Iff, 14.10) entsprechen einander... Wie unmndige, wie Kinder kommen die Korinther vor, die ungetauft und darum ohne Pneuma sind"./22/ Childishness is for Paul a state outwith the gospel, a state ruled by the wisdom of the world and not the wisdom of God revealed in the Cross. Does this mean therefore that Paul is denying the Corinthians' Christian existence and calling them simply pagans? No, indeed, for this would be to deny all the work that he had done with Apollos and others, and it would be to deny his authority as an apostle having preached the gospel, then to care and look after them. The severity of Paul's criticism and the dilemma in which he stands is seen in that if the Corinthians persist in their errors, then they are making all that had been done amongst and for them of no avail, and are in grave danger of calling in question their whole existence in Christ. As Schnackenburg puts it "that is the paradox of his remarks, a paradox we are not allowed to resolve: they are pneumatics and yet they are not; they can and ought to recognise God's wisdom and yet they grasp it not, for the precise reason that they fancy themselves in possession of wisdom and boast of it"./23/ Paul however, for all their immaturity does not deny their Christian status but on the contrary expects them to realise what he is saying and the profound importance of it. If is not a softening of then (b) how are we therefore to understand and interpret the s as being ? Perhaps one could translate "babes although in Christ" or "immature despite their fellowship in Christ", but this is difficult in view of the fact that they have obviously been blessed in Christ (1.5ff). If we may recall here the image of the teacher at Rom.2.20 as "teacher of babes", we may suggest that Paul is looking back to the occasion of his first preaching

50

JSNT 7 (1980)

the gospel (1.13ff, 2.1), and furthermore he may be countering a charge of weakness on his own part (1.17, 2.Iff cf 2Cor.10.10). At that time when first he came amongst them they were but men of the world, so to speak, whom in the nature of the case he could not call spiritual. Happily they had believed his preaching and has accepted the gospel. Now he calls them to a fresh real isation of what they had received so that they might indeed live in effect as mature men turned towards God's goal or in Christ. We may accordingly follow J. Weiss/24/and take "in Christ" here not in its deep mystical sense but in a more neutral or loose fashion. Thus the phrase can in places become simply "Christian" (Rom.16.3, 16.9-10, 1 Cor.4.10 cf 2 Cor.5.13, Gal.1.22, Col.1.4) in a way similar to that in which the phrase "in the Lord" can be used (Rom.16.8, 11, Col.3.18, 20, 1 Cor.7.39 though the phrase there could equally refer to an exhortation to remember the Lord's will whatever one does). Accordingly it would be possible to translate "immature, Christianly speaking" or "immature from the Christian ( ) point of view". The phrase itself sums up the situation when Paul first came and passes over into paradox and focusses Paul's criticism when the Corinthians having accepted Christ continue to live i.e. when they continue to behave in a fleshly manner despite having received the Spirit. The distinction in diet therefore between milk and solid food should find its context not so much in the readers' intel lectual progress, as if it were a matter of failure to grow from a basic to an advanced level, as in Paul's authority and the ability of the Corinthians to accept the implications of what he had already imparted to them. Thus the fleeting mention of Paul as "nurse" refers, as we have seen, to the particularly close relationship which Paul feels as an apostle toward those whom he has personally evangelised, a point that recurs at 4.20 in the description of himself as their father. The problem of the dis tinction in diet at 3.Iff hinges on the fact that if, as we have argued, wisdom is essentially the same as the word of the Cross and this is what Paul had given to the Corinthians at the begin ning (1.17ff, 2.Iff), nevertheless wisdom is not suitable for beginners. In seeking a solution to this dietary distinction we may attempt to explain it in one of three ways: (a) in terms of an actual distinction in the teaching content (b) in terms of Paul's own understanding of himself and his teaching (c) in terms of the Corinthians' understanding of Paul and his teaching.

Francis: "As babes in Christ"

51

(a) Certainly in Stoic thought, as we have seen, a distinction may be found between milk as elementary teaching and solid food as weightier matters for the mature. However, a simple comparison may not fit easily into the context of Paul's argument here: 1) In Stoic thought, it would seem that the contrast between babes and mature is weighted very much toward the latter/2^ i.e. the whole emphasis is not so much upon elementary matters as a necessary foundation but on the acquisition of the true virtues, to which the former (babes/milk) act as but a foil. Moreover, it would seem that the child and mature man are related far more in terms of contrast that of continuity, and correspondingly in exhortations to live a mature life the diet of milk is not the first step, so to speak, on the road to mature matters, but a foil to emphasise the solid nourishment of real knowledge. In view, however, of the centrality of the Cross for Paul as the end of all human wisdom in the sense of man-made ways of achieving salvation, it would seem very difficult to say that it is "mere milk" in the sense of its being but the prelude to or contrast with more important matters. Prof. Barrett remarks that wisdom "rests on the word of the Cross but is a development of this, of such a kind that in it the essential message of the simple preaching of the Cross might be misused or perverted by the inexperienced. Essentially it differs in form rather than content, as meat and milk are both food, though differently constituted."/26/ This certainly allows one to maintain a distinction and yet connection between the elements of the diet and to the way in which the hearing of the gospel is then elaborated and developed in experience. Yet one wonders if this does justice to what Paul is saying here, for this is precisely what the Corinthians had themselves done, having through the elaboration of the first preaching perverted the message of the Cross. The argument however would not seem to be how a simple message can be developed in more elaborate understanding, as solid food from milk, but rather about an assessment of Paul's message when first he came to them and about its relevance still for them. This would seem to be confirmed by the image of the building (3.9-15) to which he turns via the image of gardening (3.6-9)./27/ The point is not one of growth and development which are both necessary and inevitable but of how such growth is consonant with the foundation that had been laid. 2) It would seem strange that Paul in trying to demolish factions within the church should himself set up distinctions in

52

JSNT 7 (1980)

the faith. He is not of course denying progress in the faith, as the gardening and building images show, but for him maturity is a matter not of quantitative nor of secret knowledge but of orien tation in the Spirit toward the goal or of Christ. In this regard the Christian who is ruled by the Spirit through the gospel (summed up in the Cross) is acting maturely. 3) The passage in 2.6ff as we have seen, does not deal with higher teaching for the mature but with the contrast between God's way and that of the world. It is not until 3.1 that Paul returns (from 1.26ff) to face the intra-church situation, having outlined as a basis for what he is about to say the contrast between God's wisdom and the world's. 4) Paul as an apostle knows of no other teaching than "Christ crucified", summing up from the tradition (15.Iff) the way of God's dealing with men. Certainly he is aware of varieties of teaching in 3.12ff, but all are to be related to and judged by the foundation message. Thus there is no higher wisdom than this, and this is both the content of the gospel through which he "begat" them and in which as their "father" he urges them to imitate him (4.14ff cf 11.1). Arguments that would suggest that of course Paul could not give them higher wisdom because his readers are still obviously immature are not convincing since (14.20 cfl.4ff, 4.8ff) he treats his readers as mature and responsible people in his letter. He does not rehearse what they already know, but applies what they know from their experience as Christians to the present circumstances so that they can see for themselves how the gospel they had received then is valid and relevant for the present. (b) Alternatively we may turn to Paul himself and locate the meaning of the dietary distinction here. Some time ago, W.L. Knox argued in an influential way that Paul's experience at Athens led him to reassess his gospel in the sense of adapting it more suitably to the subtleties of Greek argument./28/ On his first visit to Corinth what he had given them had been milk, an ele mentary version, albeit one that matched his abilities at that time. The solid food was in fact a better adapted gospel, born of greater experience in the niceties of philosophical thought. A full critique of this particular perspective would take us too far afield from our subject, but it does not seem to provide a satisfactory solution here. It is doubtful if this interpre tation can do justice to the censure of Paul's words in the dis tinction between /^ and . Knox

F r a n c i s : "As babes i n C h r i s t "

53

argues that the censure is to be explained in terms of the Corinthians' pride in their gifts whereas Paul is reminding them that what he had first preached to them had been elementary (as seen through his subsequent fuller understanding of Greek rhetoric). Yet equally one could argue that his condemnation of wisdom in human terms was a complete reaction against the subtleties of Greek philosophy as a result of the Areopagus experience. Whatever be the exact influence on Paul of that experience, the crux of the matter in 1 Corinthians would seem to be not a change of perspective in Paul himself so much as the way in which his readers had changed the gospel he had given them through fleshly behaviour. Another solution is advanced by A. Robertson/29^who argues that while there is indeed a distinction in diet, the answer lies in Paul himself. As a good teacher he gives a little instruction at a time according to the readers' abilities - "the wise teacher proves himself to be such by his ability to impart what is simple and yet gives insight into the full instruction that is to follow". This again however weights the distinction in favour of stages of knowledge and of content of teaching. It also runs counter to the way in which the word of the Cross is basic not as a first step in instruction but as the controlling factor in all understanding. (c) We may however tentatively suggest a third answer to this issue. In so far as the context of 3.Iff deals at least in part with the understanding of Paul's authority, a solution will involve something of Paul's own self understanding but also the Corinthians themselves. Paul at 1.17 and 2.4 seems to be countering a charge that he was a poor orator and that his message was correspondingly weak, and we may therefore take 3.1 with 2.Iff as part of his defence. Certainly it would seem that the Corinthians' love of wisdom operated at the level both of admiration of oratorical skill and of the evaluation of the gospel according to worldly standards. Indeed it was part of Paul's concern that their emphasis on rhetoric showed how much they valued the gospel in a worldly fashion. Paul for his part is glad that the power of the gospel does not depend on the skill of the preacher, since it allows the decisiveness of his message to be imparted the more fully (1.17, 2.5 cf 1.31, 4.9ff, 2 Cor.11.6, 13.3ff). Again, the "we" of 2.16b has an emphasis as if Paul was making a firm reply to something his opponents were claiming for themselves; and since Paul's gospel and his authority as an apostle are closely

54

JSNT 7 (1980)

connected (cf 1.1, 2 Cor.1.1), the "we" would refer both to himself and to those who in obedience to him follow or ought to follow him. Much of the imagery of chapters three and four are concerned with Paul's authority as an apostle. On the one hand he is proud of his having been the one to evangelise them, and consequently he feels a strong personal care for them (4.14ff, 2 Cor.10.8ff, 15ff, 11.Iff), but on the other hand he will not tolerate misunderstanding of that authority by its being reduced to mere human comparison, whether it be unfavourable or favourable (1.12ff, 3.4, 21). These chapters, beginning with the image of the nurse (3.1) and concluding with that of the father (4.14ff) deal with the delicate relationship between the gospel and his commission as an apostle, and with how that relationship is to be understood. Again, the mention of the factions twice in Chapter 3, at v4 and v22, seems to bind the imagery of the chapter together, linking it through the summary of wisdom and folly (vl8ff) to the whole of the preceding discussion. The images in these chapters seem to move in a curve. Paul's authority and his special care for the Corinthians is hinted at in the fleeting reference to the nurse (3.2). However that authority had been misunderstood (3.4). He and those who worked with him are really servants. This would seem to have the force on the one hand of showing that he was in the employ of someone else and consequently his authority is not self derived, and on the other that he has no independent importance of his own. The thought is then continued through the image of gardening (cf 2 Cor. 10.15ff) where the power of God working through the person is emphasised, together with the fact that it is the same power of God that is at work through people and therefore they cannot be set at variance with one another. Here again in this image the emphasis is on the apostle's having no importance of his own, but the fact that he and others are employed (v9) would suggest also that they have a responsibility in the exercise of their duties. The mention of being God's fellow workers would again further the ideas of being servants together with fellowship and not rivalry in that service (taking v9a as fellow workers in the service of God rather than fellow workers with God). The theme of Paul's authority but an authority which is not self-made continues in the image of the building. Here Paul is certainly the master builder but paradoxically he can lay only the foundation that has been given him to lay. The fact that it

Prancis: "As babes in Christ"

55

was he who laid the foundation remains of importance to him (3.10 cf 1.1, 4.15, 2 Cor.1014, 11.2ff) and yet what matters is the relationship of the building to the foundation whatever be the pattern and texture of its growth. As in the note of reward in the gardening image at v9, so here the emphasis would again be on responsibility in the fulfilment of one's task, together with the idea that what matters is one's relationship to the foundation rather than to others in the building process. Hence Paul and others have a responsibility to God for the Corinthians, and it is a common responsibility which makes the setting up of factions not only irrelevant but false. From the building image the dis cussion then moves to a reminder that as God's building they are His Temple, and then through a summary of the contrast between wisdom and foolishness to the further denial that human com parison amounts to anything (3.22). In Chapter four, the dis cussion continues on the theme of authority, clarifying the servant image of 3.5 ( changed to ) in terms of Paul's being not man's but God's servant and stressing the hard ships endured in that service in contrast to the Corinthians' self satisfied state. Finally at 4.14ff Paul mentions the image of the father which again, as in the image of the nurse, empha sises his special concern for them and the exercise of his authority in the work of the gospel. If we are correct in assuming that 3.1-2a deals with the situation when Paul first came to them, turning to actual criti cism in 3.2bff, then we may suggest a solution to 3.Iff arising out of a difference in context and circumstance between Paul's first visit and his present writing to them, together with a criticism of his message and authority on the part of some of the Corinthians which had built up. We may surmise that his approach must have been different certainly between his first coming to Corinth and his subsequent dealings with the Corinthians. When first he came, the situation would have been quite "new", as it were, and without precedent. Then later he could and did look back to discuss matters in relation to the warmth of the Christian life that had sprung up as a result of their having believed the gospel he had preached. Paul of course can remain aware of the former background of the Corinthians (6.11) contrasting it with the experience of the Christian life they had received and urging them to live accordingly (cf4.7). Thus the diet would refer in reality to the same event but looked at from different perspectives in terms of attitude and approach. Paul when first he came preached the gospel "de novo" but thereafter could refer to and build upon the experience of the Christian life based upon the

56

JSNT 7 (1980)

acceptance of his message. In contrast to the first occasion (milk) there was a warmth and texture (solid food) attaching now to their relationship, even though Paul would wish it to be truly realised in their hearts and lives that he might share the gospel in all its fullness with them ( 3.1/\5 3.3cf 1.4 /4.8 ). Consequently the dietary distinc tion does not turn upon a difference in teaching content but a difference in experience between ignorance of the gospel's exis tence and the hearing of it and belief in it. In this sense Paul's first preaching was not an elementary instruction but of necessity did not have the warmth of mutual fellowship which could only follow upon believing acceptance of the message he was proclaiming. Paul is not concerned that they have failed to progress in knowledge, indeed it would seem that they had gone too far, but had failed to understand the gospel in relation to their life together within the church. It is to this basic awareness that Paul would recall them, as their nurse/father, in terms of their having believed the gospel and their having entered into the experience of fellowship in Christ. Throughout the letter generally, Paul seems to be confronting those who claimed special knowledge of God, interpreting this in an enthusiastic manner to the detriment of the church (1.5, 8.1, 13.2, 8, 15.34 cf 6.12, 10.23). That Paul says he could not give them solid food would then be an attack not simply on their pride in knowledge but on their enthusiastic experiences attendant upon such knowledge, since for him the gospel rightly understood is creative of the true experience of fellowship throughout the church. In so far as there would be a difference in situation between Paul's first coming and subsequent dealings with the Corinthians, the issue at 3.Iff would seem to be not a gradation of teaching, nor even the gradation of teaching appropriate to different stages of exper ience, but of how true understanding of the gospel can be rooted in its intended purpose in the life and experience of the believer. The Corinthians from their point of view, looking back and relating what Paul had given them to their own thirst for know ledge and enthusiastic experiences, saw his gospel as very weak and watery. In this sense also their subsequent experience of the Christian message as they had come to understand and interpret it informed their appreciation of Paul and his proclamation. What Paul had said together with the manner in which he said it and hence his authority as an apostle had all been questioned. To this extent Paul seems at first to agree with them in that he admits to feeding them milk. However, the agreement is really devastating criticism since the Corinthians have really passed

Francis: "As babes in Christ"

57

judgement on themselves. Paul could not,when first he came and evangelised them, speak within a prior context of Christian understanding and experience, that was for them to discover and enter into on acceptance of his message, but that they still see his message as milk is proof of the wordliness and weakness of their own spiritual experience. That Prful can appear to agree with his opponents' view only to criticise or qualify it is a technique used at various points in the letter e.g. 1.17, 2.1, 6.12, 10.23. Therefore if his gospel seemed weak then the fault lay in the Corinthians themselves who were being very immature in adhering to worldly wisdom. It was obvious that they had not grasped the gospel as Paul had intended it, since in their eyes as in the world's it was simply foolishness.

Conclusion We have been seeking to understand what Paul means by his contrast between "babes" and "mature" in 1 Cor.3, Iff. We have suggested that an interpretation along the lines of "failure to progress" does not do justice to the situation at Corinth nor to the severity of Paul's criticism of his readers. Paul is faced with the paradox that the Corinthians having believed and accepted his gospel yet behave in an unspiritual manner. The issue is not whether the Christian develops and progresses from the initial context of faith, but of how he does so, and how the content of faith given to him and appreciated by him then can continue to illumine and direct his experience. So Paul chides his readers not for failure to advance their understanding (some were exceedingly proud of their knowledge), but for failing to allow what they had known and realised to be true to inform their on-going Christian life. So great was this failure that it was calling in question their very existence in Christ. What therefore is at stake is not a failure of progression but a failure of basic comprehension. Maturity is possible for every Christian who has received the Spirit, and Paul is urging the Corinthians to grow in the sense of realising afresh what they have received. Thus the word of the Cross, at the heart of the message he had preached to them, should continue to inform their Christian experience, signifying as it does the end of all boasting in oneself and the preferrment of one another in love.

58

JSNT 7 (1980)

1.

For a discussion see N.A. Dahl "Paul and the Church at Corinth according to 1 Cor.1-4" in Christian History and Interpre tation Studies for J. Knox, Cambridge 1967, pp.313-335. Also W.G. Kummel Introduction to the New Testament London 1966, p.202ff; A.C. Thiseleton "Realised Eschatology at Corinth" N.T.S. 24 (1977-78) 510-526. So R. Schnackenburg "Christian Adulthood according to Paul" C.B.Q. 25 (1963), 354-370, esp. p.359. Dahl "Paul and the Church at Corinth" p.332; G. Bornkamm "On the Understanding of Christian Worship" in Early Christian Experience London 1969, pp.161-179, esp. p.166. So many commentators ad loc. See also W. Grundmann "Die 0 in der urchristlichen Parnese" N.T.S. 5 (1958-59), 188-205. For examples see J. Weiss Erster Korintherbrief Gottingen 1925, p.xviiiff, p.72ff; T.D.N.T. 1 p.646 "" (Schlier); cf J. Dupont Gnosis Louvain 1949 pp. 151-152; W.L. Knox St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles Cambridge 1939 p.111. For the use of the imagery in Philo see R.A. Horsley "How can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? Spiritual elitism at Corinth" NftYUm TEflt^B*wtiaM volxx fase.3, 203-231. . Sanh. 19b, cf 99b; Quintillian Institutio Oratoria Book 2 ix.iff. See also generally T.D.N.T. 1 p.646ff, C. Montefiore and H. Loewe A Rabbinic Anthology London 1938, ppl63-164, 180190; cf Odes of Solomon xix.lff. At Qumran we find the image of nurse and father combined where the Teacher (presumably) regards himself as father and nurse and the community as his children, 1QH 7.20-21. "Die 0" p.190. "Die 0" p.191. "Die 0" p.201.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7. 8. 9.

10. See particularly R.P. Martin "The Composition of 1 Peter in recent study" Vox Evangelica 1962, 29-42; J.. Elliott "The Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Step child: 1 Peter in recent research" J.B.L. (1976), 243-54.

Francis: "As babes in Christ"

59

11. "Baptism and Maturity" Interpretation 17 (1963), 387-401. 12. "Baptism and Maturity" p.396. 13. Trajectories through Early Christianity Philadelphia 1971, p. 40. 14. Erster Korintherbrief p.74 15. See Schnackenburg "Christian Adulthood" p.356ff. 16. "Christian Adulthood" .357; Kampen 1959, p.184.
17

see also P.J. du Plessis Tlelos

Erster Korintherbrief p.71

18. See J.N. Sevenster Paul and Seneca Leiden 1961, p.l44ff. 19. It is doubtful if a firm distinction can be maintained here between (vi) and (v3). See C K . Barrett First Corinthians (2nd edition) London 1971, p.79, H. Conzelmann Erster Korintherbrief Gottingen 1969, p.89. J.B. Lightfoot remarks that " implies more of a rebuke though the less strong word in itself". Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul London 1895, .185. Thus Paul in moving from his description at the time of evangelisation refers to the current situation in v3ff and hence is a heightening of . Contrast J. Weiss Erster Korintherbrief p. 8990. 20. First Corinthians p.34; see also H. Conzelmann Erster Korintherbrief p.89-90. 21. "Die 0" p.191. 22. Das Ethos des Urchristentums Gtersloh 1949, .132. 23. "Christian Adulthood" p.358. 24. Erster Korintherbrief p.72; "Paulinische Probleme ii" T.S.. 69 (1896) 7-33, esp. pp.14-15; The History of Primitive Christianity London 1937, ii, pp. 468-469. Equally at 4.17 "in the Lord" with reference to Timothy as Paul's child could also be used in "non mystical" fashion, but as we have argued the concept and context of "child" here differs from that of

60

JSNT 7 (1980)

24. contd.

"babe".

25. cf Epictetus Discourses II xvi, 25 "Children indeed when they cry a little because their nurse has left forget their troub les as soon as they get a biscuit. Would you have _ u s _ re semble children? No, by heaven! For I claim we should be influenced in this way not by a biscuit but by true judge ments"; Discourses III xix, 1 " For it is being a child to be unmusical in things musical, to be unlettered in things literary, to be uneducated in life." 26. FirstCorinthians p.81. 27. Play on "beget"/"build" is common in Jewish literature. See T.D.N.T. iv "" (Jeremas), p.270; J.M. Ford "Thou art 'Abraham' and upon this Rock " Heythrop Journal 6 (1965) 289-301, esp. p.296ff; J.D.M. Derret "The stone the builders rejected" Stud. Evang. 4, 180-186. 28. St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles Cambridge 1939, p.Ill ff. 29. A. Robertson and A. Plummer First Epistle to the Corinthians Edinburgh 1911, p.52ff. Quintilian in keeping with his view of the necessity of a sound education criticises any tendency to "wean" a pupil too early - "Nay, I would urge teachers too like nurses to be careful to provide softer food for still undeveloped minds and to suffer them to take their fill of the milk of more attractive studies." Institutio Oratoria Book 2, iv.5).

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.