This passage of Paul's first epistle to the church at Corinth has prompted much discussion down through church history. The context of the preceding ten verses is really quite simple: Paul is discussing the problems that exist in the Corinthian congregation. He has used harsh words with them, referring to them as "men of flesh" and "infants in Christ." He refers to the strife and jealousy that exists among them. He zeroes in on their partisanship: the fact that they are saying "I am of this Christian leader or that one." He reminds them that leaders are but servants of the Lord, and that it was the Lord that even gave those servants the opportunity to preach the gospel to them. He writes in verse 6, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth." God used Paul and Apollos as means, but the growth was caused by God, not by the Christian leaders themselves. At this point then Paul begins to speak of the role Christian leaders have in the work of the Church. Note his words:

8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

Verse 8 provides the first reference to "reward," and it is clearly in the context of the Christian leaders who labor in the work of ministry. It will be significant to note that the phrase "receive a reward" in verse 8 is identical in terminology to the same phrase in verse 14. Since in this context we know that the planting and watering mentioned goes back to Paul and Apollos, the topic remains consistent throughout this passage. Paul then speaks of himself and Apollos as "God's fellow workers," and they labor in this high calling in God's field. He uses two terms, field and building, but picks up only on the second, "God's building." A fellow worker of God works in building God's building, and that building is the church.

Sungenis: This is Dr. White's first attempt in his essay at reducing the context to one of "ministers of the gospel." His purpose in doing so is to confine the exegesis to actual ministers of the gospel (e.g., priest, elder, bishop, ordained minister, or whatever Dr. White's concept of a special class of people who preach and teach the gospel). In this way, he attempts to eliminate the remaining members of the Corinthian church as being at least part of the subject matter of the passage. He does this so that he can make 1 Corinthians 3 a "special" passage that deals only with one subject - the accomplishments and failings of ordained ministers of the gospel, not the accomplishments and failings of everyone in the Corinthian church.

In making a "special" category of "ministers," Dr. White is trying to pave a way for himself to dismiss the Roman Catholic interpretation, which applies the passage to everyone in the Corinthian church, since Catholicism holds that everyone is subject to Purgatory for their sins. But Dr. White's attempt is futile. Paul does not mention "ministers" (or any such term) as being the focus of his remarks in 1 Cor 3:15. Granted, the "ministers" (whoever they are) may play a chief role in the propgation of the gospel, but they are not the only ones in the church who propagate the gospel. Everyone in the church, in one form or another, spreads the gospel. In 1 Corinthians 12-14, for example, Paul mentions that each of the Corinthian members have a gift of the Holy Spirit for the "building up of the church" (14:12, 26). Thus it is no coincidence that the Corinthians are abusing these gifts in 1 Cor. 12-14, matching the very same abuse of the gifts displayed in 1 Cor 1-4, the chapters that surround the verse in question, 1 Cor 3:15.

I must also point out 1 Cor 4:6 where Paul says: "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another." Notice that Paul says that he and Apollos, even though their names were used throughout the discourse (See 1 Cor 1:12-13; 3:5; 3:22), were being used only as figures of the men in the Corinthian church. But is there anywhere in this verse, or any verse in the context under discussion, where Paul singles out only the ordained "ministers"? The answer is No. Paul's remarks are to the whole Corinthian church at large. Even in 1 Cor 5, when Paul is rebuking them for not excommunicating the man living with his father's wife, Paul makes no mention of "ministers" as those solely responsible. He merely says "you" (5:1-13). Paul uses the same reference "you" in 1 Cor 6 when he is speaking about not taking a fellow Christian to court; and in 1 Cor 7 when he is speaking about rules for marriage. There is no shift from "ministers" to "parishioners." If this were not the case, then most, if not all, of the Corinthian epistle would be written only to ordained ministers, which we know is not the case.

Finally, the most damaging evidence against Dr. White are his own words. Here is what he says of the identity of the people addressed in 1 Cor 3 in his book The Roman Catholic Controversy: "What is judged is the type of works the Christian has done. Sins and their punishments are not even mentioned...It simply says that the Christian's works are judged for their own merit...For the Christian, the idea of not being able to present to his Lord works that were done for the proper motivation, works that were built with gold, silver, and precious stones, is a terrifying one indeed...It is no light matter to stand before the judgment throne of Christ!..." (pages 193-194).

Notice how Dr. White refers to these people only as "Christians," not as Christians who are "ministers." In fact, in the whole section that Dr. White devotes to 1 Cor 3 in The Roman Catholic Controversy, he NEVER mentions a specific category of "ministers" as the focus of the passage. Also notice Dr. White's reference to the "judgment throne of Christ" in direct connection with the judgment of 1 Cor 3. In other words, Dr. White is admitting that 2 Cor 5:10 and Rom 14:10-12, both of which specify the "judgment throne of Christ," are identical to 1 Cor 3:13-15. That being the case, then Dr. White must also admit that the judgment of 1 Cor 3:13-15 includes ALL Christians, not just Christian "ministers," since both 2 Cor 5:10 and Rom 14:10-12 say that ALL Christians will stand before Christ at this judgment.

2 Cor 5:10 says: "10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade men.."; and Rom 14:10-12 says: "But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, "As I live says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God. So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God." (from the NASB - Dr. White's favorite translation of the NT).

White: This then brings us to the main passage. Verses 10-15 give us an illustration of how weighty it is to minister in the church, and how God will someday manifest the motivations of the hearts of all those who have engaged in that work. Then in verses 16-17 Paul adds a further warning, speaking of God's certain judgment upon those who do not build, but instead tear down, or destroy. There is an obvious movement between 10-15 and 16-17, for in 10-15 the metaphor remains the construction of a building upon a foundation; in 16-17 this switches to the metaphor of the temple of God, already constructed.

Sungenis: Dr. White has created a false dichotomy, which is easily disproven. 1 Cor 3:9 says "you are God's building." 1 Cor 3:16 says "you are God's temple." Thus the "building" is also "already constructed," just as the temple. Thus, Dr. White's argument falls victim to the fallacy of anachronism. Furthermore, one can easily see in comparing 3:9 and 3:16 that the Corinthian people make up both the "building" and the "temple." There is no difference, except that Paul introduces a change in the metaphor. We also find in 1 Cor 3:11 that Jesus Christ is called the "foundation" of the building. But is not Jesus Christ also the foundation of the "temple"? He's the one who said "destroy this temple and I will raise it in three days."

All in all, there is only one reason why Paul specifies the "temple" in 1 Cor 3:16-17. He wants to show the Corinthians that, even though he uses the metaphor of a building, this is no ordinary building. This is the very temple of God; thus those who destroy it will be destroyed. Any Corinthian Christian astute enough to read the relevant passages in the Old Testament would know that when Paul mentions the "temple" he is speaking about something very sacred. Paul often directed the Corinthians to the Old Testament in this way. Take a good look at the examples he uses in 1 Cor 10:1-12. You will see that Paul speaks about the same kind of judgment against apostates as he does in 1 Cor 3:17. In the context of 1 Cor 1-4, Paul quotes SIX times from the Old Testament (1:19; 1:31; 2:9; 2:16; 3:19; 3:20) to teach the Corinthains against the false wisdom they were embracing. The contexts of each of these Old Testament passages also speak about God destroying such perverters of the faith.

White: Further, in 10-15 the "certain ones" are those who are indeed building upon the foundation, even if they have less than perfect motivations or understanding; the certain one in verses 16-17 is not building anything at all, but is instead tearing down and ruining what has already been built. This distinction is important as well, as we shall see.

Sungenis: Two points: First, where does the passage mention "less than perfect motivations"? It seems that Dr. White is trying to prime the pump, suggesting interpretations that he will try to use later to support his viewpoint of the passage. Second: Is Dr. White trying to tell us that the man who builds with "wood, hay, and straw" is not destroying the temple, at least to some degree? If in 1 Cor 3:10 Paul tells them "each man must be careful how he builds" does not this mean that if one builds with faulty materials that the structure of the building will be compromised, at least to some degree? If it is compromised then it is being destroyed, to some degree. Or is Dr. White going to tell us that the man can compromise the "building" but not the "temple," even though both the "building" and the "temple" are specified to be the people of the Corinthian church in both 3:9 and 3:16, respectively? What kind of exegesis is this? It is nothing more than a desperate attempt to divide the context to his own liking so that he can support his particular interpretation of the passage.

White: 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Paul continues the context, insisting that by God's grace he has laid a foundation, knowing that others would build upon that same foundation. This foundation, of course, refers to the work of ministry in building up the church that he has engaged in. But there is an element of personal responsibility that is part of ministry in Christ's church: a man must be "careful" how he builds upon the foundation, which Paul reminds us is holy. The only foundation of the church is Jesus Christ Himself. So just as we are to have an attitude of fear and trembling when considering that it is the holy God who is at work within us, working out our salvation (Philippians 2:12-13), so the minister is to recognize that ministry in the church is a holy task, and he must "look well" (a literal understanding of the Greek) upon how he goes about this work. This leads to further expansion upon this thought in the following section.

Sungenis: Again, notice how Dr. White keeps injecting the words "minister" or "ministry" into the context, even though Paul never mentions the words, or any words akin to them.

White: 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.

The first thing to see in v. 12 is that we are still talking about the same group: Christian workers.

Sungenis: Now Dr. White uses "Christian workers." Why the general reference, as opposed to saying "ministers"? Are not all the people in the church "Christian workers"? Did not the Holy Spirit give everyone gifts so as to be "Christian workers" (cf., 1 Cor 12:1-31)?

White: Those under discussion build upon the foundation. We will see that in vv. 16-17 Paul refers to a different group, those who do not build, but instead tear down.

Sungenis: Dr. White hasn't proved this at all. He just assumes it to be true, and expects you to accept it without proof. If you want to read about how men can destroy the people of God by using faulty building materials, read the companion passage in Ezekiel 13:10-16 and 22:28-30. Are not the "false visions," "false miracles" and "divining lies" of Ezekiel's time akin to the "miraculous signs" sought by the Jews, and the "false wisdom" sought by the Greeks, the very people who make up the Corinthian church? (cf, 1 Cor 1:22).

And if anyone thinks that 1 Cor 1:22 is not relevant to our discussion, then why does Paul pick up the same theme of "false wisdom" in 1 Cor 3:18-20, THE VERY PASSAGES IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING 1 COR 3:17 WHICH SPEAKS ABOUT THOSE WHO "DESTROY" THE TEMPLE OF GOD? You see, the overwhelming problem Dr. White faces is that 1 Cor 3:10-17 is right smack in the middle of a context which speaks about "false wisdom" from start to finish. Starting from 1:11-12 which speaks about the divisions in the church, through 1:18-2:16 and 3:18-22 which speaks about false wisdom and the false emulation of men, the passage under discussion, 1 Cor 3:10-17, which comes right in between the aforementioned verses, has NO OTHER CONTEXT TO WHICH ONE CAN APPEAL FOR AN INTERPRETATION. 1 Cor 3:10-17 is filled with metaphors that beg for interpretation. There is only one place from which that interpretation can be derived - the non-metaphorical language of 1 Cor 1-4.

If, as Dr. White claims, 1 Cor 3:16-17 is speaking about an entirely different group of people, then those two verses stick out like a sore thumb, since their teaching would come out of nowhere, with no context to support their appearance, and none with which to identify them. What is really happening is that Dr. White is desperate to separate 1 Cor 3:16-17 from the rest of the context, for that is the only way he can divide the "destroyer" in verse 17 from the faulty builder of verse 15, and he must do so in order to deny the doctrine of Purgatory.

White: So we have one group who build upon the one foundation, but with different quality "materials." Now obviously, the terms gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay and straw, are all figures of speech, metaphors. Christian leaders are not known for having an abundance of gold, silver, or precious stones, let alone is the "building" being done here a literal activity either. These are terms referring, as Paul himself puts it, to "the quality of each man's work." Some labor selflessly and in obscurity with motivations pure and honorable, while others have mixed motivations, tinged to a lesser or greater degree by selfishness and vainglory (cf. Phil 2:3-4).

Sungenis: Once again, Dr. White injects the concept of "motivations" into the text, but the text does not single out motivations as the criterion for what is judged. Now, one might say, "Well, are not bad motivations the same as building with faulty materials"? Yes, of course, but what Dr. White is trying to do is make motivations THE ONLY point at issue, as opposed to every other kind of sinful act. You see, in order for his interpretation to pan out, Dr. White not only must make a credible division between verses 10-15 and 16-17, he must also make a division in what kind of faulty building material we are talking about. Dr. White must, in some way, divide "motivations" from "sins," since it is his theological belief that a Christian cannot be judged for "sins," but he can be judged for "bad motivation." He has committed himself to this interpretation in his book The Fatal Flaw, written in 1990.

Here is what he said on pages 179-180: "...What is judged is the sort or kind of works the Christian has done. Sins, and their punishments, are not even mentioned." White reaffired the same thing in his more recent book The Roman Catholic Controversy, page 194, saying, "Yet we must strongly affirm that this judgment is not a judgment relative to sin but to works and rewards." (Note: I want you to remember this, since later on in his essay Dr. White changes this viewpoint. He later says that bad motivations ARE sins, but that Paul does not use these sins as a reason for judgment in 1 Cor 3).

Irrespective of what Dr. White's view really is, Paul nowhere specifies "motivations" as opposed to sins. For example, would one say that the "jealousy" and "strife" mentioned in the same context (1 Cor 3:3) are "bad motivations" or sins? Is the seeking of miracles and false wisdom "bad motivations" or sins? (1 Cor 2:22-25; 3:18-22). Are the divisions caused by jealousy and false wisdom merely "bad motivations" or sins? (1 Cor 1:11-12). Do you know anywhere in his writings where Paul calls any of these things "bad motivations" as opposed to sins? If you're honest, the answer is a resounding NO. Now, read the following remarks by Dr. White and notice how many times he mentions the word "motivations," seeking to condition your mind to the idea that Paul is only concerned about motivations.

White: During this lifetime we cannot necessarily know which Christian leaders, even within the bounds of orthodox teaching and practice, are doing what they do with motivations that are pleasing to God. But Paul is reminding us that such will not always be the case: God will reward those who have labored diligently for His glory in that day when all the secrets of men's hearts will be revealed.

Paul says that each man's work "will become evident, for the day will show it." The nature of the Christian minister's work will be plain and clear: the lack of clarity that exists during this lifetime will no longer cloud our vision at the judgment. What a tremendously sobering thought for those who labor in building upon the foundation of Jesus Christ! God, who searches the hearts, will reveal our true motivations on that day!

The revelation of whether one's ministerial works are precious and lasting, or surface-level and temporary, will be accomplished "by fire." Obviously, fire differentiates, at the most basic level, between gold and wood, silver and straw, precious stones and stubble. The precious elements withstand the fire's presence, whereas the others are consumed in their entirety. Given that it has already been established that gold and silver, etc., are figures for the quality of men's works, so it follows inexorably that "fire" refers to a testing that makes its verdict as clear as the destruction of wood, hay, and stubble by the raging flames of a fire. The works that were not done to God's glory are destroyed, while those works having the proper character pass through unharmed.

14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

The context continues, unbroken. Note the repetition of the preceding concept of "building" on the "foundation." If a man's work, built upon the foundation of Christ in the church, remains in the presence of the judgment of God, he receives a reward. But in direct parallel, if another worker's labors are burned up, he will suffer loss. The opposite of the reception of a reward is to suffer loss. The Greek term Paul uses is translated by the vast majority of recognized translations as "suffer loss," and there is a reason for this. Despite the fact that you can render the term as "punish," its normative meaning, especially in the NT, refers to experiencing the opposite of gain (i.e., loss), and often what is not gained is found in the immediate context of the words use. For example:

More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, (Philippians 3:8 )

Obviously, this does not mean Paul has been "punished," but has "suffered the loss" of all things. The same is true in Jesus' use of the term:

"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16:26, see also Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25)

In 1 Corinthians 3:15, the term is used in a context that provides a direct correlation to the term: the one whose work remains receives a reward, so the one whose work is burned up does not, hence, they suffer loss (for further information on this word, see TDNT 2:888).

1 2 3 4 5