Likewise, Paul's metaphors in 1 Cor. 3 contribute to a number of theological themes within the NT. His reference to "meat" or "solid food" as a picture of spiritual instruction finds a parallel in Jesus' words to Satan in the wilderness: "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). The word of God is solid spiritual food, as is his will, so that maturity has to do with obedience to the express will of God. Jesus, like Paul, ties together the concepts of eternally enduring spiritual food with the work and the will of God: "My food [meat, NKJV] is to do the will of Him who sent Me and to accomplish His work" (John 4:34). The writer of Hebrews expresses precisely the same thought concerning milk and solid food as does Paul: "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food" (Heb. 5:12).
Along related lines, the fact that Paul and Apollos are merely "servants through whom you believed" is in keeping with the larger NT principle of leadership exemplified in servanthood, as taught by Jesus: "...and whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant...for even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:42-45). Peter likewise defines pastoral leadership in terms of service, exampleship and humility (1 Pet. 5:1-5). It comes as no surprise, then, that Paul sees limited intrinsic value in his and Apollos' respective labors: "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth" (v. 6). Spiritual growth is ultimately an act of divine grace: "God causes the growth....You are God's field." Jesus taught the same principle in the parable of the growing seed: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who casts seed upon the soil; and he goes to bed at night and gets up by day, and the seed sprouts and grows - how, he himself does not know" (Mark 4:26-27). Elsewhere Jesus portrays the relationship of his disciples with himself as that of branches to a vine, and concludes, "apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). Paul indicates that the only worthwhile works of men are those which will pass the test of eternal judgment, and so he captures the essence of Jesus' teaching on eternal priorities: "But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also" (Matt. 6:20-21). Most importantly, Paul emphasizes the preeminence of Jesus Christ himself as the single, ultimate foundation of our faith and our hope of heaven. This truth is reflected throughout the Bible, from the many messianic glimpses of Christ in the OT to the close of the book of Revelation. "Therefore thus says the Lord God, 'Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, tested stone, a costly corner stone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes will not be disturbed'" (Isaiah 28:16).
This study on Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 3 has proven revelatory for me personally, as it runs counter to some of my own long-standing theological assumptions. For years I was taught (and I firmly believed) that following strong, centralized church leadership was the essence of NT discipleship - a mark of maturity and the key to unity in the church. Even the text of 1 Cor. 3 was interpreted for me within the presupposed context of a hierarchical NT church structure and a "discipleship" program to go with it. For instance, Paul's denunciation of factions in the church was sometimes read as a general call to unity. In turn, this unity was thought to have been achieved through submission to Paul's leadership and teachings. Consequently, by a subtle shift of emphasis it was believed that one of the functions of the leader is to enforce unity or agreement with his doctrine by appeals to his own authority. Such teachings may be found in the writings of Hobbes and Machiavelli, or even early church fathers such as Ignatius, but not in the NT. Paul in effect says precisely the opposite, that an undue focus on a man (even himself) is an indication of carnality, and will eventually lead to dissensions and factions in the body of Christ. The highest function of church leadership is not to enforce a false unity based on its own authority, but to encourage a true unity by leading men to the higher authority of Jesus Christ himself.
Application
As an American myself, I can't help but notice that Paul's audience, the church community in Corinth, exhibited a number of general characteristics in common with those of postmodern America. The Corinthians lived in (and were clearly influenced by) a permissive social culture, especially as pertains to sexual expression, yet they tended to pride themselves on their spirituality. As a result, they tended to separate spirituality from truth. The result was a false spirituality evidenced by gifts, manifestations and "tolerance" rather than by faith or love or obedience. Much of what passes for Christianity in America bears a remarkable similarity to the pseudointellectual, pseudospiritual religion of the Corinthian church. For example, the Corinthians actually boasted of their permitting of sexual immorality in the church, apparently taking great pride in their broad-minded acceptance of other lifestyles. Paul rebuffed this mindset, exposing it as arrogance rather than humility and a dangerous leaven bound to eventually spread throughout the church: "Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?" (5:6)
Like Americans, the Corinthians were part of a self-driven litigious society, preferring action in the courts to forgiveness and general civility (6:1-7). Intellectually, they viewed the resurrection of Christ is "spiritual" terms, suggesting that whether Christ rose bodily from the dead is literally immaterial. By extension, they didn't seem too concerned over the fundamental identity of Jesus Christ. Many so-called believers even in Christian churches assert the same, that what matters is not whether Jesus is really God, or whether he really did miracles or rose from the dead, but the usefulness of his ethical teachings. Again, there seems to be little distinction between their philosophy and that of the surrounding secular world. Paul countered that the resurrection of Christ is the historical basis of our faith, so that if Christ did not in fact rise our faith is to no purpose (15:13-17). On another front, the conservative evangelical Christian