Here is why: Each of the metaphors Paul uses in 1 Cor 3:10-17 have a corresponding meaning in reality. Paul gives us a hint of this in 1 Cor 3:11 when he reveals that Christ is the corresponding meaning in reality to the metaphor of the "foundation." He also reveals in 1 Cor 3:9 that the Corinthians are the corresponding meaning in reality to the "building." In 1 Cor 3:16 he reveals the same about the "temple." Thus, with these clues, we then begin to assign meanings to the other metaphors Paul uses in 1 Cor 3:10-17. Dr. White has already engaged in this himself. He said that the "work" represented the work of a Christian minister (although I was quick to point out that nowhere in the context does Paul confine the context to one of ordained ministers). Similarly, he said that the gold, silver and precious stones represented the good work of the minister, while wood, had and straw represented work with bad "motivations" (although I was quick to point out that Paul does not distinguish between "motivations" and "sins" in the context).

In the same way, the words "suffer loss" have a corresponding meaning in reality. What is that meaning? Is it merely "suffering loss"? If it was, then the metaphor would remain as a metaphor, rather than being interpreted as a soteriological reality, as is "foundation," "building" or "temple."

And here is where Dr. White's interpretation gets rather sticky. Earlier he told us that the "loss" refers to the natural opposite of "reward." Here's what he actually said:

White: "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."

Sungenis: Notice that Dr. White equates "suffer loss" with "loss of reward," rather than, as 1 Cor 3:15 actually says, "If any man's WORK is burned up he will suffer loss." In other words, if we follow the metaphor that Paul has developed, the text does not say that the "loss" is a loss of reward, but a loss of work - the work that he did in building the building. It is the work that is destroyed by the fire, not the reward. Paul could have easily said, "If any man's work is burned up he will lose his reward," but he didn't. So why does Dr. White force such an interpretation on the text? Because Dr. White's theology demands that such a man forever be deprived of the reward, but Catholicism does not, since Catholicism says that the man of 1 Cor 3:15 does not lose his reward, rather, it is only temporarily delayed, since he must first pass through the fire in order to attain that reward, which is his salvation. That is why 3:15 says "he will be saved."

Now, as far as interpreting the metaphor of "suffering loss" into a soteriological reality (as Paul did with the "foundation," "building" and "temple"), we have some very interesting evidence in favor of the Catholic interpretation of temporal punishment. In a previous rebuttal to Dr. White on Purgatory (www.catholicintl.com/Answer_to_Dr_White_on_1Cor3.htm), I refered to several Protestant lexicons which say that the ultimate meaning of the metaphor "suffer loss" in 1 Cor 3:15 refers to some form of punishment. Below are the references I cited:

a) Louw-Nida Lexicon: #02949:38.7: zemioomai: "to be punished, with the implication of suffering damage - to be punished, to suffer punishment. zemiothesetai "but if anyone's work is burned up he will suffer punishment" 1 Cor 3:15. It is also possible to understand zemioomai in 1 Cor 3:15 as meaning simply ‘to suffer loss.'"

Notice that Louw-Nida's first, or primary, definition of zemioomai in 1 Cor 3:15 is "suffer punishment."

b) Walter Bauer' Lexicon states: "zemioo...2. be punished (Lysias 31, 26 al.; Dit., Or. 669, 40; Ptebt. 5, 92; Pro 19:9; Jos., Ant. 15, 16) 1 Cor 3:15. – Astumpff, TW II 890-4. M-M." (page 338).

Notice that Bauer places 1 Cor 3:15 as the example of where zemioo has the meaning of "be punished."

c) The UBS Greek Dictionary states: "zemioo, passive, lose, forfeit, suffer loss; be punished (1 Cor 3:15)"

Notice how the UBS puts a semicolon after suffer loss, thus considering the meaning of "be punished" the primary meaning of 1 Cor. 3:15.

d) Liddell and Scott Greek lexicon, along with the meaning of "suffer loss" and "to fine," states: "2. generally, to punish, Id., Thuc."

Interestingly enough, these lexicons concur with the LXX usage of "penalty" and "punishment" in legal and non-legal contexts, in the six uses of the Greek verb zemioo: Ex 21:22; Dt 22:19; Pr 17:26; 19:19; 21:11; 22:3; and seven uses of the Greek noun zemia: 2Kg 23:33; Er 7:26; Pr 22:3; 27:12; 1Ed 1:36; 8:24; 2Mc 4:48. Of these, Ex 21:22 and Pr 19:19 have the identical morphology as zemiothesetai of 1 Cor 3:15 (indicative, future, passive, 3rd, person, singular) and are translated "punished" (from the Hebrew anash, which means "fine," "punish," or "penalty").

Now, is this some 'Catholic papal thumper' telling you that "suffer loss" in 1 Cor 3:15 refers to "punishment"? Obviously not. None of the above authors ever claimed to be Catholic, nor were the translators of the LXX Catholics. But I couldn't help but notice that, even though I listed these lexical references in my previous rebuttal to Dr. White (which has been on our website for several months), he failed to mention any of them in this present essay.

White: We are reminded, however, that despite the seriousness of the loss of reward for the Christian worker, we are still talking about those who have found salvation in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. Paul tells us that despite suffering loss, these are saved, "yet so as through fire." This in no way makes the judgment of the motivations [Sungenis' emphasis] of Christian workers a trivial matter: it is obvious that for Paul, who himself faced this test, it was not. But it also safeguards against the misuse of his teaching. No one can argue that one's salvation is based upon the works one does: this is not his teaching here, nor anywhere else. A man is justified before God by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to him, and the imputation of the man's sin to Christ, the perfect substitute, who bears in His body the sins of His people upon Calvary (Romans 3:20-4:8). But this is not his subject here. The context has remained constant: the revelation of the motivations [Sungenis' emphasis] of the hearts of Christian workers.

In a perfect world it would not be necessary to go beyond the mere exegesis of the text to understand Paul's meaning and intention. But we do not live in such a world. In God's providential wisdom, we live in a time when the church must struggle against false teaching and false teachers (Acts 20:24ff). Specifically, the truth of God's sovereign grace is attacked by Roman Catholicism, and its man-centered sacramentalism. One of the most egregious attacks upon the finished nature of Christ's work on Calvary is the dogma of purgatory. We have often engaged in debate on this topic (see, for example, the debate against Fr. Peter Stravinskas on this topic, May, 2001). Rome attempts to enlist this passage in support of its doctrine, but in the process engages in gross eisegesis of the text, missing its plain meaning, and inserting concepts utterly foreign to Paul's theology.

Sungenis: As we have seen, it is, quite ironic, Dr. White who has done the very thing for which he has accused Catholicism ("...engages in gross eisegesis of the text, missing its plain meaning, and inserting concepts utterly foreign to Paul's theology"). And for the record, Catholicism does not attack the "sovereign grace" of God. If you want to read a debate between Dr. White and I on this subject, please go to www.catholicintl.com and scroll down the homepage to the bottom and click on the debates regarding Predestination.

White: Just a few items should be noted that, in light of the preceding comments, should be sufficient for any person not committed to the ultimacy of Roman authority.

First, the passage is about Christian workers, not all the Christian faithful.

Sungenis: Really? Where does Paul make that distinction? Who among those who are Christians are not also "Christian workers"? Who in the Corinthian congregation did not receive a gift of the Spirit for the furtherance of the gospel?

White: Next, the passage says nothing about the purification of individuals. Works are tested in this passage. Rome teaches souls are purified from the temporal punishment of sins by suffering satispassio in purgatory: but there is nothing about temporal punishments, satispassio, or suffering of individuals for their sins, in this passage. All these are extraneous to the text itself.

Sungenis: "Nothing about temporal punishments"?? Then I suggest Dr. White contact the authors of the Louw-Nida lexicon, the Liddell and Scott lexicon, the Walter Bauer lexicon, and the UBS Greek Dictionary, and tell them that assigning the word "punishment" to 1 Cor 3:15 is a Catholic invention, totally extraneous to the text of 1 Cor 3, and that it further smacks of the doctrine of Purgatory. (That might be hard, since none of the above authors believed in Purgatory).

White: Further, the insertion of the Roman concepts into the passage turns it on its head. Remember, those with works of gold, silver, and precious stones (i.e., Christian workers who had godly motivations) appear in this passage: their works are subject to the same testing as the others. If this "fire" is relevant to purgatory, then are we to assume that even those with godly motives "suffer"? Are there no saints involved in building upon the foundation?

Sungenis: This is a classic case of begging the question or circular reasoning. Dr. White engages in this form of argumentation quite often. He hasn't proved that "godly motives" are Paul's concern, or only concern, in 1 Cor 3, yet he keeps referring to it as fact. This is what happens when you get just one thing wrong in your exegesis - everything else is effected by it. Unfortunately, Dr. White is showing us what building with wood, hay and straw is all about, for he is giving us a classic example of it in the kind of exegesis he is advancing.

White: But most telling is this: the fire of which Paul speaks reveals. It does not purge. If this were the fire of Rome's purgatory, it would not simply demonstrate that gold is, in fact, gold, or hay is truly hay. The sufferings of purgatory are supposed to sanctify and change a persons soul, enabling them to enter into the very presence of God! If this passage supported Rome's position, it would speak of purifying the gold, making it more pure, spotless, precious, and ready for God's presence. It would speak of the fire removing wood or other "impurities" from a person's soul, not simply telling us that the works a Christian minister did were or were not done with God's sole glory in mind. But the text speaks of a revelation of the quality of a man's work, which is wholly incompatible with Rome's use of the passage.

Sungenis: Here's what happens in 1 Cor 3:15, and it is perfectly compatible with Catholic teaching on Purgatory: (1) the man's work is burned up by the fire, yet (2) the man himself is saved by passing through the same fire. In fact, in the Greek, the word "yet so" (NASB, and many other translations) is the adverb houtos. Adverbs modify verbs. The verb in the verse is sozo ("saved"). In other words, the adverb tells HOW the man is saved. In this passage, the adverbial clause is "yet so as by fire." Thus, HOW will the man be saved? The adverbial clause tells us: BY PASSING THROUGH THE FIRE. Hence, in the same way the works had to pass through the fire to determine their quality, thus, the man himself must pass through the fire. If there is dross in him, the fire will remove it, just as the fire removed the bad materials from the building it burned. Its really very simple. Rome's view is wholly compatible with Scripture. Since "fire" is used in this way in other Scriptures (1 Pt 1:7, 17) it fits like a glove here in 1 Cor 3:15.

White: Modern Roman Catholics have started to move away from the term "fire" (though this was, inarguably, what attracted the attention of Rome to the passage in the first place), and seek to focus more upon the suffering of a loss, so that only the second group is seen as being relevant to purgatory. Of course, this is made possible by the constant repetition of the assertion, "Rome has never officially declared the meaning of this passage, nor that there is fire in purgatory, nor that purgatory is a place, nor that we experience time in purgatory..." etc and etc. The fact that one can go into history and determine with great clarity what was taught and believed only a few centuries ago does not seem to matter.

Finally, it should be noted that in Roman Catholic theology, a person sent to purgatory has already been judged to be in need of further purging (sanctification) before entering into the presence of God. Yet, there is no mention of such a judgment here; in fact, most RC interpretations see this as the judgment itself.

Sungenis: What? Is Dr. White looking for the word "judgment" in 1 Cor 3:15? And just because the word "judgment" is not used this gives Dr. White the right to decide that no judgment is involved? That is not the proper way to exegete Scripture. First, it is clear from the mention of "the day" (with the Greek article for emphasis pointing to a particular "day"), that the whole context is speaking about when the workers will be judged. Paul elaborates on this judgment in the very next chapter in 1 Cor 4:5, saying that Christ will disclose the things hidden in darkness. Second, 2 Cor 5:10 says that Christ will judge the good and bad deeds of men, as does Romans 14:10-12, Matt 16:27; Rev 22:11-12, et al. So, is there any difference between the judgment of 1 Cor 3:13-17 and the judgment of 1 Cor 4:5 and 2 Cor 5:10? No, all are talking about Christ's judgment of men, on that Day. The only difference in 1 Cor 3:15 is that in order for the man to come out on the positive end of this judgment and be "saved," he must "pass through the fire."

White: An Example From Roman Catholic Scholarship: The Jerome Biblical Commentary

A fascinating example of the divide between what the text says and what a Roman Catholic needs it to say is provided by the Jerome Biblical Commentary. Note the interpretation provided by this Roman Catholic source:

10. Developing the metaphor, Paul describes his ministry and the responsibility of all who follow him, as they build upon the foundation he has laid.11. Christ, as the unique foundation, may be an allusion to Is 28:16 or Ps 118:22 (cf. Eph 2:20 and 1 Pt 2:6-8). This Christ, Preached by Paul, dwells in the hearts of the faithful (Eph 3:17) and communicates his Spirit to them. Succeeding preachers must take care how they build on this foundation.13. the Day: The Lord's Day when Christ returns as victorious judge (1 Thes 5:4). fire: It is to test the quality of various building materials. Fire is the customary biblical metaphor describing the might and majesty of the divine judgment. it: Probably the neut. pron. auto refers to ergon, "work." The fire tests the work, destroying what is of poor quality and perishable.14. A wage will be paid only for good, durable work.15. The man whose work will not endure the searching test of judgment will suffer a loss. Like one escaping from a burning house, he will be saved, but his work and his reward will be lost. This metaphor clearly teaches the responsibility of ministers of the gospel, who will be rewarded or punished for the manner in which they have fulfilled their ministry. That the preacher will be saved implies that his sins were not serious and have not ruined the Christian community, because God destroys such a one.

To this point all is well: the Roman Catholic exegete follows the text, sees the context, recognizes the meaning of the words. But since Rome has defined more than this in her teachings, something must be said about purgatory:

Sungenis: Since Dr. White agrees with the above interpretation, I take it, then, that Dr. White agrees with the above statement from the Jerome Biblical Commentary: "That the preacher will be saved implies that his sins were not serious and have not ruined the Christian community, because God destroys such a one." If that is the case, then Dr. White has just admitted that the works of building with wood, hay and stubble are "sins," and sins that "were not as serious." This contradicts his remarks in his book The Fatal Flaw (pages 179-180) that the bad works are not sins, but merely bad "motivations."

White quoting the JBC: Although the doctrine of purgatory is not taught in this passage, it does find support in it. The metaphor suggests an expiatory punishment—which is not damnation—for faults that, although not excluding salvation, merit punishment. When Paul wrote this epistle he was still hoping for the coming of the Lord's Day in his lifetime. Consequently, he locates this expiatory punishment at the final judgment.

Where does one find the basis, in the exegesis offered by the commentary itself, for the assertion that there is an "expiatory punishment" in the passage, especially when this involves, in the Roman context, the punishment of the person and not an examination of the works he performed? All of the elements of Rome's concept of purgation, including temporal punishments, satispassio, etc., are absent from both the text and the interpretation offered by the commentary itself, and yet we have the unfounded assertion that while the text does not teach purgatory, purgatory finds support within the text.

Sungenis: The obvious answer is that the metaphors of the text need to be interpreted. As I said earlier, Paul already gave us a hint to this line of interpretation when he told us in 3:11 that the "foundation" is Christ, and in 3:9 that the "building" represents the Corinthians. In the same way, we do not leave standing the metaphor "If his work is burned he will suffer loss" without an interpretation. Dr. White interpreted the metaphor as representing the man losing his personal reward, but I pointed out that the text does not mention the word "reward" in 3:15. Rather, the man "suffers loss" because his work is burned up. And at this point, we assign soteriological meanings to these metaphors just as Paul did to the word "foundation" and "building."

We already saw from the context that the "wood, hay and straw" point to the false allegiances and false wisdom that the Corinthians were using to build the church (cf. 1 Cor 1-4). We see that the "fire" of 3:15, as it is portrayed in 3:13, refers to Christ's disclosure of the work of the man. We know from other texts that "fire" can either refer to eternal and unquenchable fire in Hell (Mark 9:44), or it can refer to a purging of impurities from the Christian (1 Peter 1:7; 4:12). Which one is Paul using in 1 Cor 3:15? Obviously, it can't refer to eternal fire, because the man is eventually "saved" from the fire. It can only refer to a temporary fire, since he eventually comes out of the fire. Dr White, on the other hand, has no answer to what the fire represents beyond the metaphor itself, since there is nothing in his theology that corresponds to a temporary fire.

Knowing that the fire is temporary, we then surmize that the word "saved" in 3:15, although in the metaphor refers to the man being saved from being burned up with the building, in reality, refers to the man receiving salvation in Christ. Note again, that the metaphors cannot be kept as metaphors. They must be interpreted. Similarly, we must interpret the metaphor of "suffer loss." As a metaphor it refers to losing the work which was built, but as a soteriological reality, it refers to the detriment the man suffers, or the penalty he will incur. That penalty is that he must pass through the fire in order to be saved. And that is precisely why the four aforementioned Greek lexicons all state that the metaphor of "suffer loss" in 1 Cor 3:15 is best represented by punishment.

White: Robert Sungenis' Attempt to Connect 1 Corinthians 3 with Purgatory

Not long after his conversion to Catholicism, Robert Sungenis wrote an article for the November/December, 1994 issue of The Catholic Answer (the article has been distributed widely on the Internet; here is one location: http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/prgtry01.htm). In it he attempts to conform the passage to the teachings of the Roman magisterium. In light of the above exegesis, a brief review of his comments is most useful.

For Protestants, 1 Corinthians 3:15 certainly ranks as one of the Pauline passages of which Peter comments in his second epistle: "In his writings there are some things hard to understand . . ."

This simply is not true. The passage is not difficult at all, and without the insertion of anachronistic Roman Catholic concepts that developed centuries later, there really would not be any meaningful question about its teaching.

The idea that Christ will someday judge the work of the Christian to determine its value, and that some Christians will suffer for their bad works done on earth but still be saved by fire, presents some difficult and complex ideas of Pauline theology that do not mesh well with the Protestant concept of justification by faith alone.

Mr. Sungenis, it should be remembered, swung from the Boston Church of Christ to the views of Harold Camping to Presbyterianism, all in a relatively short space of time. Hence, his recollections of what Protestants "believe" is often rather fuzzy, and hence inaccurate.

1 2 3 4 5