Original Meaning

THUS FAR IT might seem that Paul has little positive to say about “wisdom,” introduced in 1:24. This section corrects this impression but clarifies that beneficial wisdom must be compatible with the truths of Christianity. He develops this point by contrasting two different pairs of people: Christians versus non-Christians (2:6–16) and spiritual Christians versus worldly Christians (3:1–23). There is a wisdom that all Christians have by the mere fact that they have the Spirit living in them, but it is appropriated only when they yield themselves to the Spirit rather than act in accordance with the desires of the flesh—their fallen human nature.

While there is a foolishness to the gospel (1:18–25), there is also a wisdom that the Corinthians must understand in order to overcome their divisiveness. The content of that wisdom remains a profoundly cross-centered Christianity (recall 1:23). First Corinthians 2:6–10a introduces the theme of this wisdom and its acceptance by believers and rejection by unbelievers (parallel to the contrasts of 1:18–25). Verses 10b–16 then elaborate those responses by contrasting those who have the Spirit with those who do not.

The “mature” of verse 6a are the opposite of “the rulers of this age” (v. 6b) just as Paul’s “message of wisdom” (v. 6a) contrasts with the “wisdom of this age” (v. 6b). Because those who are not mature are unbelievers, the mature in this context must be all Christians, at least in principle, and not just some elite group of believers. But the irony is that the Corinthians are not living according to this reality but as if they were still unsaved and in the grip of the world’s values.

The “rulers” refer at least to the religious and political authorities of the day, comparable to Caiaphas and Pilate, who crucified our glorious Lord (v. 8). But they may also refer to demonic powers behind the opposition to the gospel (cf. Eph. 2:2, in which Satan is the “ruler of the kingdom of the air”).1 “Coming to nothing” at the end of verse 6 thus refers to the ultimate transience of this age and its powers (cf. NRSV: “doomed to perish”).

“God’s secret wisdom” (v. 7a) is literally “wisdom in a mystery.” But the word mystery in the New Testament most commonly refers to components of the gospel once hidden but now revealed.2 The concept of a crucified Messiah was not clearly understood in Old Testament times and was still not grasped in Paul’s day by those who rejected Jesus (v. 8). But this should not cause surprise; Isaiah himself had prophesied unexpected wonders surrounding God’s coming salvation for his people (Isa. 64:4; 52:15, quoted and paraphrased in v. 9). And all along God had planned these wondrous events for the benefit of those who would respond positively (v. 7b). The Holy Spirit who brings people to Christ now reveals to them what once was unknown (v. 10a).

The contrast between those who possess the Spirit and those who do not (vv. 10b–16) begins with a syllogism—a three-part argument in which two premises, if true, logically entail a particular conclusion (vv. 10b–12). (1) The major premise observes that only a person’s own spirit or mind knows that individual’s thoughts unless he or she chooses to disclose them to someone else (v. 11a), an affirmation which is true for God as well as humanity (vv. 10b, 11b). “Search” (v. 10b) thus equals “knows the thoughts of” (v. 11b). (2) The minor premise reiterates that Christians have God’s Spirit living in them (v. 12a). “The spirit of the world” (v. 12a) refers to fallen, human nature and ideologies, not to anything more directly demonic. (3) The conclusion logically follows then that Christians can know God’s thoughts, at least to the extent that his Spirit graciously reveals them (v. 12b).

Verses 13–16 reiterate the fundamental contrast of 1:18–2:5. “Human” wisdom (v. 13a) must thus refer to that which is merely human, that is, unregenerate. Verse 13b is notoriously difficult to translate but the NIV has probably captured it. The margin gives the next most likely rendering: “interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual people.”3 Fortunately the overall sense remains intact on either reading (cf. 1 Thess. 4:9).

“The man without the Spirit” (v. 14) interprets the adjective psychikos, from the noun psyche, meaning “soul” or “life.” The KJV is well-known for its translation, “the natural man.” In other words, this is a person in his ordinary, unredeemed state of earthly existence, which he inherited from the Fall. Such a person “does not accept” Christian truths. This phrase makes it clear that the “understanding” described in verse 14b is not primarily cognitive but volitional.

Conversely, the “spiritual man” (v. 15a) simply refers to the person with the Spirit, and, hence, to any Christian (cf. 12:13). “Makes judgments” comes from the same verb as “discerned” and helps to interpret it. Believers have the ability to bring God’s perspective to bear on every aspect of life.4 Verse 15b must be interpreted in light of the entire context: Christians are not subject to any merely human evaluation, that is, one that does not take God’s perspective into account. But Paul may also be anticipating his argument in 4:3–5 that even evaluation by fellow believers is provisional; the only judge who ultimately counts is God. Verse 16 rounds out the passage by quoting Isaiah 40:13 on the inscrutability of God’s ways, but it echoes the thought of verses 7 and 10–12 that some of this mystery has now been removed in the Messianic age, in which the Spirit brings Christ’s thoughts to believers by living in them.

Bridging Contexts

HERE APPEARS PAUL’S third method for heeding his appeal to heal the wounds of divisiveness (1:10–17). In addition to the first two methods—Christians must concentrate on what is going right (1:1–9) and on Christ and him crucified (1:18–2:5)—now Paul advocates that they focus on true godly wisdom (2:6–16). In this section, Paul uses numerous technical terms that the Corinthians employed to justify their spiritual elitism (“wisdom,” “mature,” “secret,” “spiritual”) and redefines them so that they include that which is available to all believers.5 Therefore, one of the keys to applying this section is to understand accurately how Paul himself reapplied these terms and then how they can be translated into today’s world.

Clearly Paul wants to insist that “all Christians are potentially perfect or mature in Christ, though only some are actually what all ought to be.”6 Paul’s redefinitions should therefore preclude a common misunderstanding of the text which affirms that he is establishing two categories of believers related to their knowledge or giftedness. In 3:1–4, he will introduce terminology to distinguish two kinds of Christians, but the contrast there is between “carnal” and “spiritual,” not “natural” and “spiritual.” In other words, he will use the term spiritual more narrowly in chapter 3 than in chapter 2. Here we must avoid the hermeneutical error of interpreting a passage in light of what its author has not yet said and therefore may not yet be thinking. In 2:6–16 the spiritual (or mature) person is the one who accepts the crucified Christ as Savior, over against natural (and therefore immature) person who rejects him. Christians’ behavior in any age needs to match their status; they must learn the truth that “we never … move on from the cross of Christ—only into a more profound understanding of the cross.”7

If the rulers of this age include demonic forces, then verse 6 offers an important qualification of Romans 13:1–7. Government may be ordained by God, but non-Christian rulers can likewise do the devil’s bidding. Hence, believers may be caught in the dilemma of having to obey God rather than human authorities (Acts 5:29; cf. Dan. 1, 3, 6). But Christians can take heart that even the most powerful of godless authorities will ultimately be eternally condemned and stripped of all their ability to harm God’s people.

The secret of verses 7–8 is clearly an “open secret” for all believers. Verse 9 must be interpreted in light of verse 10: what once was inconceivable has now been revealed. Hence every use of these verses to justify the promotion of some esoteric knowledge not known to the church at large is wholly unjustified. So too verse 9 may not fairly be applied to Christ’s second coming in order to support the latest, fanciful reconstruction of end-time events. Neither may it legitimately be attributed to support the latest human plans or proposals which seem to diverge from consensus wisdom in the church. Indeed, verse 10a warns against all attempts to reach God through human speculation.

Verses 10b–12 have often been held to teach more about the doctrines of human nature and the Holy Spirit than Paul intended. To be sure, there are valid inferences to be drawn here. A person’s “spirit” (usually synonymous in the New Testament with one’s “soul”) is the invisible, immaterial part of a human being which survives the death of the body. But during life, and after being reunited with one’s resurrection body, one’s spirit is integrally related to the material aspect of human existence. Put simply, there is an ultimate dichotomy between body and spirit/soul in every human but a fundamental interrelatedness of both elements. Hellenistic philosophy often neglected the latter; contemporary psychology often ignores the former. 8

That God’s Spirit parallels human spirits in revealing thoughts demonstrates too that the Holy Spirit is an integral part of the Godhead, with characteristics of a person, and not simply a force. Yet all these anthropological and pneumatological observations are at best corollaries from what Paul teaches and not his primary focus. Still less is there any reference or legitimate inference to a doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture in these verses. In context, Paul’s point is just that only an individual knows his or her own unexpressed thoughts, so that the only way we can commune with God and know his thoughts is through his indwelling Spirit. And even then, we may learn only what he chooses to disclose (“what God has freely given”—v. 12b).

The contrasts in verses 13–16 have received widespread abuse in the history of the church. As with 1:18–20, they cannot be used to legitimate anti-intellectualism, although they certainly oppose all forms of godless intellectualism. Nor do they justify attempts at interpreting God’s will, including his revelation in the Scriptures, apart from standard, common-sense principles of hermeneutics.

These verses do remind us, however, that a sympathetic reading of Scripture or assessment of Christianity, namely, that which is at least open to the premises of the existence of God and of his salvation made available through faith in Christ, are necessary prerequisites for understanding biblical religion at its deepest levels.9

But the Spirit never teaches that which is contrary to the plain meaning of passages interpreted in their original historical and literary contexts. And this meaning is accessible to anyone—believer or unbeliever—willing and able to put in the necessary study time.10 Many non-Christians, skilled in the biblical languages and in ancient history and literature, can tell us what specific passages of Scripture mean every bit as adequately as the best Christian commentators, and often better than some less competent Christian interpreters. The “understanding” these non-Christians do not possess is what the Bible consistently considers to be the fullest kind of understanding: a willingness to act on and obey the word of God (cf. v. 14a).

Verse 15 too is susceptible to severe misunderstanding. Even in this same letter, Paul will elsewhere command believers to judge the flagrantly disobedient in their midst (5:3–5), to evaluate those who claim to bring words from the Lord (14:29), and to examine themselves to see if they are behaving appropriately enough to take the Lord’s Supper (11:27–32). Here, therefore, he is thinking primarily of being unjustly evaluated by non-Christians (or by Christians employing worldly standards), who have no authority to criticize believers for their misbehavior, since they themselves do not accept the standards they employ in making their judgments. Christians, on the other hand, may legitimately evaluate the truth or error of non-Christian beliefs and behavior, although their primary concern should be to keep their own house in order (5:12–13).

Contemporary Significance

THIS SECTION OF Paul’s letter “has endured a most unfortunate history of application in the church…. Almost every form of spiritual elitism, ‘deeper life movement,’ and ‘second blessing’ doctrine has appealed to this text,” even though each of these is “nearly 180 degrees the opposite” of Paul’s intent.11 This sad trend continues, especially in sectarian circles which stress certain doctrines not widely accepted in Christianity as a whole (for example, Mormonism12) and in some charismatic circles that relate the secret wisdom of verses 6–10a to special experiences of certain spiritual gifts.

But attitudes of elitism are far more pervasive. In an age of specialization, we are bombarded by claims that the key to a happy, healthy Christianity, individually or corporately, is to be found in some new technique of evangelism, practice of certain spiritual disciplines, strategy for church growth, self-help therapy, Sunday-school curriculum, form of music or style of worship, and on and on. When these so-called “keys” pit their agendas against the majority of believers’ beliefs and practices and move away from the humbling, central focus on the cross of Christ, they have become elitist and potentially divisive and must be rejected.

So too the church has become increasingly populated by single-issue people, analogous to single-issue voters in the political arena. One person constantly clamors for apologetics to be taught as the cure for all the church’s ills; another repeatedly insists that foreign missions must overshadow every other commitment. A third is captivated by the writings of a famous Christian celebrity and promotes them as if they never erred. A fourth harps on nothing but social activism.

This list could be extended indefinitely, but it illustrates how factions and ultimately heresies begin—when one aspect of God’s agenda for humanity is so emphasized that other crucial, balancing aspects are ignored. That so many Christians today tolerate such imbalance is an indictment of the lack of effective, comprehensive, week-in and week-out teaching ministries of our local congregations, a lack which leaves believers feeling that they need seminars and specialists to teach them what they have become convinced they could not otherwise learn on their own.13

Verses 10b–16 call us to walk the narrow path between the equally dangerous swamps of hyper-intellectualism and anti-intellectualism. In general, the evangelical church continues to fall off more often into the latter; the liberal church, more often into the former. But key exceptions cut across both major traditions. In scholarly circles, academic study of Scripture has often replaced faith, even in more conservative arenas. Or at least we compartmentalize religious truth and forget “to stress that Christ is the principle of coherence in every department of life.”14

On the other hand, at the grass roots level, many laypeople even in liberal churches continue to read the Scriptures without a grasp of sensible hermeneutics. Overall, anti-intellectualism is probably the more prevalent danger: “too often in discussions that affect us all, the church has played the role of the frightened, insecure institution and not that of the people who gather weekly to worship the God of all true wisdom.”15

William Barclay’s definition of the person without the Spirit (psychikos) remains both timeless and timely. This kind of individual “lives as if there was nothing beyond the physical life and there were no needs other than material needs.” Such a person “thinks that nothing is more important than the satisfaction of the sex urge” and thus “cannot understand the meaning of chastity.” One “who ranks the amassing of material things as the supreme end of life cannot understand generosity,” and one “who has never a thought beyond this world cannot understand the things of God.”16 Surely sexual immorality, materialism, and atheism prevail even more pervasively in our Western world today than in mid-twentieth-century Scotland where Barclay first penned these words.

Verses 14–16 also call us to steer a central course between two extremes. The first is a form of evangelism and missions that believes that if only we use the right methods and arguments, people will have to respond in faith. The second is a naive individualism that claims to have “hot-lines” to heaven apart from what has been consensus truth throughout the history of the church.

The constant use of the first-person plural throughout this passage is deliberate. Paul shares with the most immature Corinthian that which all Christians today therefore share: an ability to commune with God, understand his will, and make sense of the foundational truths of Scripture.17 It is deeply ironic that the generation with the greatest number of accurate, understandable translations of the Bible, replete with study helps from brief annotations to massive commentaries, should be one of the most biblically illiterate societies in the history of the church. When we are dependent on a handful of prominent leaders, we then become unable to reject false teaching or to discipline immoral behavior by our favorite authorities.

If Christians form an interdependent community, then we must admit that much of the wisdom that most closely approximates what Paul commended is found today in the Two-Thirds World. Here the humble circumstances of impoverished and marginalized Christians often leave them little option but to center on the crucified Christ. Affluent believers would do well to read and listen to their poorer brothers and sisters and to learn from their perspectives on biblical wisdom, which are often obscure to those who fall, by global standards, into the categories of the rich and powerful (recall 1:27).

The Spencers’ words emerge out of just such a dialogue and merit careful consideration: “The spiritual person is one who lives out Christ crucified,” which includes “turning away from a life of excessive wealth and being ready to be despised or thought irrelevant if necessary to promote God’s reign.” Hence, “the oppressed Christians of this world in South and North America and elsewhere may well be more ‘spiritual’ than those Christians considered successful by the world because they are already nearer to imitating Paul’s example.” What is more, “true oppression will not lead to the pitfall of arrogance, another deception of the world. To hear God’s Spirit we must live a prophetic life, always ready to follow our crucified Lord; and we must always listen to others who live such lives.”18