Perishable and Imperishable?: Reconsidering the Building Materials in 1 Corinthians 3:12

By W. Tyler Sykora and Eckhard J. Schnabel

The purpose of this book is to re-examine Paul's list of building materials in 1 Cor 3:12 in order to propose that all of the materials should be understood as good and necessary for adequately building in Paul's construction metaphor (1 Cor 3:9-17). Contra the traditional interpretation, which argues that the materials should be broken into two groups of three, namely, three imperishable building materials (gold, silver, and precious stones) and three perishable building materials (wood, hay, and stubble), Paul's argument concerning the building materials listed in 1 Cor 3:12 is not focused on which materials one uses to build (perishable or imperishable), but rather how one builds (i.e., quality construction with the materials/church members one has). This reading helps the church (and its leaders) understand that all the building materials (church members) are absolutely essential to building of the church. It also emphasizes that leaders of the church must seek to build well with the "folly" of the gospel and not build their ministries upon themselves.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Aug 11, 2023
• ISBN: 9781666778465

W. Tyler Sykora

W. Tyler Sykora is the chief of staff in the office of the president and assistant professor of biblical studies at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also a pastor at Liberty Baptist Church in Liberty, Missouri.

Book preview

1

Laying the Foundation

Introduction

The apostle Paul was an effective communicator, and a significant part of his effectiveness is seen in the numerous metaphors that he used all throughout his epistles.¹ From treasure in jars of clay (2 Cor. 4:7) to describing the church as the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27), Paul used specific and relevant pictures to supplement his communication to his intended audience. For the modern reader, some of Paul’s metaphors are more easily grasped than others. Yet, for the ancient reader to whom Paul wrote, his metaphors would have been clearly understood, and they would have served as a powerful picture of what he was intending to say. Therefore, one does well to examine Paul’s metaphors in detail, and the present book aims to contribute to this wider project. The subject of this book is to rightly understand an aspect of one of Paul’s metaphors, namely, how to understand the building materials in his construction metaphor found in 1 Corinthians 3:9–17. For the sake of clarity, the text will be cited in full. Paul writes:

. . .You are. . .God’s building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.²

The history of interpretation concerning Paul’s list of building materials in 1 Corinthians 3:12 has largely been monolithic.³ In short, the six building materials have been split into two groups of three, namely, three imperishable building materials (gold, silver, and precious stones) and three perishable building materials (wood, hay, and stubble). Paul, according to this view, calls the builders in the church at Corinth to build with imperishable materials and not perishable. But this book will call into question that scheme of classification.

The Statement of the Problem(s)

The traditional interpretation stated above is not without its problems. In fact, while holding to the traditional interpretation, Herbert Gale outlines four difficulties associated with Paul’s construction metaphor. He writes:

It must be recognized that Paul, in several ways, has created with language drawn from his original architectural analogy a further picture that does not conform to architectural reality. (

1

) The use of nothing but noncombustible building materials can hardly be regarded as the determining criterion of sound workmanship; yet this must be assumed in this section if the language is taken seriously. . .(

2

) In actuality the quality of work done on a building is not, normally at least, tested by fire. . .(

3

) When workmen are employed, their compensation is not dependent upon

–

and does not await

–

the test of survival through fire. (

4

) The list of materials given in v.

12

is not such as would be expected if Paul were thinking of actual building procedures.⁴

Therefore, in light of these problems, Gale concludes:

Since the architectural picture that Paul presents includes elements that are thus not true to actual fact, the purpose in Paul’s use of the analogy, therefore, cannot have been to say, in effect: What is true in architecture is also true in regard to the subject under consideration. This must be ruled out by the simple fact that much has been said is not true in architecture.⁵

More recently, Anthony Thiselton has stated two of the same concerns forthrightly. He writes, Building quality does not normally turn on whether materials are combustible, and penalties within contracts do not generally relate to the effects of fire.⁶ In other words, a building’s construction was not tested by being set on fire to see how it would weather the flame, and ancient builders were fined for late work, shoddy work, etc. but not for whether their work was more or less flammable.⁷

How does Thiselton respond to these difficulties? He follows the work of Gale⁸ who argues that this is a broad image or analogy, not a point-by-point allegory⁹ and, as a result, details should not be pressed uniformly or in isolation from the main points.¹⁰ In other words, the metaphor at some point or another breaks down, and we cannot press the details too much because exact one-to-one correspondence ends with unintelligibility. Rather, we must focus on the big picture–the major points of contact–and avoid missing the forest for the trees.

But is there a better solution to understanding the building materials in Paul’s construction metaphor? Is it true, as Gale states, that Paul’s construction metaphor is not consistent with what we know from ancient architecture? Or is there an understanding of the building materials, and Paul’s construction metaphor as a whole, that results in a far more cohesive and consistent interpretation? It will be argued in this book that there is, in fact, a better way to interpret Paul’s list of building materials in 1 Corinthians 3:12.

Thesis

The present writer will argue that a proper understanding of the socio-cultural context of Paul’s construction metaphor in 1 Corinthians 3:9–17 reveals that all six building materials in 1 Corinthians 3:12 are good and necessary to adequately build. Consequently, this book will also argue that the building materials themselves represent the people from various walks of life found within the church at Corinth. Paul’s argument concerning the building materials listed in 1 Corinthians 3:12, therefore, is not focused on which materials one uses to build (perishable or imperishable), but rather how one builds (i.e., quality construction with the materials/church members one has).

Summary of Chapters

In order to defend this thesis, the following steps will occur. First, in the remainder of this chapter, the history of interpretation concerning how to understand Paul’s list of building materials will be considered. As mentioned above in the introduction, most interpreters have held that the building materials should be divided into two groups, namely, perishable and imperishable. This survey will set the stage for the entire book by examining the history of interpretation beginning with the early church fathers and extending through the modern era. In the modern era, it will be demonstrated that one’s interpretation of the building materials is largely affected by the supposed background of Paul’s metaphor.

The second chapter’s purpose is twofold. First, it serves as an introduction to metaphor. Before one can argue for the correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:9–17, especially of its construction metaphor, one must first define the concept of metaphor. Second, chapter 2 also argues for how to best approach Paul’s construction metaphor in 1 Corinthians 3:9–17. This section will (a) overview the two most prominent metaphor theories, (b) argue that the Systemic Functional Linguistics theory is most appropriate for interpreting metaphors found in Scripture, and (c) use a methodology developed by Eric Turner to argue that Paul used an active metaphor in 1 Corinthians 3:9–17.¹¹

Since, as it is argued in chapter 2, Paul’s construction metaphor is an active metaphor, properly understanding context is essential for interpretation. Therefore, chapter 3 will be dedicated to situating Paul’s construction metaphor (3:9–17) in its socio-cultural and literary context. Here it will be argued that Paul uses a complex construction metaphor which appeals to aspects of both Jewish and Greco-Roman concepts to communicate to a mixed congregation made up of both Jews and Gentiles. This argument does not mean that the metaphor would have had different meanings to a Jew or a Gentile. Rather, it is to argue that there are aspects of Paul’s metaphor that are dependent upon Greco-Roman concepts and aspects that are dependent upon Jewish concepts. This argument will be conducted, first, by inspecting the Greco-Roman concepts appealed to in the construction metaphor and then, second, by examining the Jewish concepts appealed to in the construction metaphor.

In chapter 4, each of the six building materials will be examined from an ancient construction perspective, especially a Greco-Roman one. It will be demonstrated that all the materials named in 1 Corinthians 3:12 could be used in a variety of ways, and this fact will help to establish that Paul was giving a general overview of several useful building materials in v. 12.

In chapter 5, potential objections will be raised regarding the thesis that all the building materials in 1 Corinthians 3:12 are good and necessary for construction. In responding to these objections, two proposals will be set forth: one by Eckhard Schnabel¹² and the other an original proposal by the current author.

Finally, chapter 6 will present a summary of the entire book and then offer two directly related implications.

As stated above, the appropriate starting point for rightly understanding Paul’s building materials in 1 Corinthians 3:12 is to understand what has been said concerning the building materials throughout the history of interpretation. To the state of the question, we now turn.

State of the Question

The Early Church

The earliest known interpreters of 1 Corinthians 3:12 agree that the building materials are meant to be divided into two groups, namely, the imperishable building materials (gold, silver, and precious stones), and the perishable building materials (wood, hay, and straw). In a homily at the beginning of the third century, Origen said:

Each of us, when we received the word of the gospel, received Jesus Christ as the foundation, so that in everything we do and say and think we may build on this foundation. If, then, we have good thoughts and intentions, we build with gold. If we speak in a pure way, uttering every word in a holy fashion, then we build as if with silver. If every action we do is good, then we build with precious stones, and God judges both the value and the quality of the stones. If, however, after the foundation is lain, I act sinfully, my serious sins will be wood, the lesser sins will be hay and even smaller ones will be straw.¹³

Origen draws a distinction between the building materials seeing the list as a scale of descending value, gold being the finest building material and the subsequent materials being less and less desirable.

Cassiodorus, writing around the fifth century, frames the discussion around honor and dishonor, yet with the same distinctions of perishable and imperishable materials. He says, There are three types of honor in the church: good, better, and best, and three types of dishonor: bad, worse, and worst. These are compared to wood, hay, and straw.¹⁴ He later continues his discussion by noting two facts. First, each one’s work will be tested by fire; and second, the result of that testing on the materials will be that Gold and silver are made brighter in the fire; wood, hay, and straw will burn up.¹⁵ Once again, the durability of the materials is the main feature of the text. In more concise fashion, Pelagius comments that Gold, silver and precious stones will survive the fire of judgment, but wood, hay and straw will be burned up.¹⁶

Even though this selection is only a sampling of figures from the early church, these three early church figures are representative of the common view that distinguishes between the building materials as perishable and imperishable.

The Reformation

Moving on from the early church, commentators slightly before or during the Reformation do not deviate from their forefathers. John Colet, a Christian humanist and friend of Martin Luther’s well-known opponent, Erasmus, wrote:

These ministers expertly build up people in both wisdom and good conduct in a manner befitting the foundation—that is on the true and firm Christ—and through their building they achieve a lasting and most beautiful structure, with stones of gold, silver, and precious jewels all cemented together. Because of this patient constancy, the building will fear no harm from its adversaries, and in its illustrious beauty, it will please both God and God’s friends. By contrast, those who rely on their own ingenuity and think they can of themselves bring some new thing into the church are actually building a structure that is out of proportion to and unworthy of the foundation (that is, Christ), and is displeasing to God and dishonorable to the church. This is a building of wood, hay, and stubble; it is a building false, fragile, and perishable. The attacks of the enemy easily shatter it and, on the Day of the Lord, that testing fire of God will demolish it.¹⁷

Once again, the building materials are divided into two groups of three based upon their durability. Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples, another humanist theologian from France and precursor to the Protestant Reformation, argued along the same lines. Commenting on 1 Corinthians 3:13–15, he writes:

The first builders were the apostles, who laid the foundation. Many others succeeded them, building on their foundation with doctrine that was holy and pure, just as gold, silver, and precious stones are pure and untainted. Others built with wicked teachings and poisonous seductions, which are described as wood, hay, and straw (all of which are combustible).¹⁸

In line with the perishable and imperishable thought, Lefèvre d’Étaples describes the imperishable materials as teaching with untainted doctrine, while the teachings tainted with wickedness were represented by the perishable, combustible materials. Finally, John Calvin, agreeing with Lefèvre d’Étaples, also believes that the building materials represent doctrine and that the six materials should be divided into two groups. He comments on v. 12 saying:

Paul uses the terms gold and silver and precious stones to refer to doctrine that is worthy of Christ and that is a superstructure compatible with its foundation. . . And it follows on the other hand that the terms wood, hay, and stubble designate doctrine that does not conform to the foundation, the sort of thing fabricated in the human brain that is then thrust forward as an oracle of God.¹⁹

The survey so far, reveals a monolithic view regarding the building materials of 1 Corinthians 3:12. All sources imply a distinction between good and bad materials.

The Modern Era

Entering the modern era, the conversation becomes more nuanced, and this nuance is largely based upon the background one presupposed in addressing 1 Corinthians 3:9–17. There are four common views, and each will be considered in turn below.

The Temple of Solomon

The first, and most pervasive, view is that Paul is alluding to the temple of Solomon as his primary background for 1 Corinthians 3:9–17. A prominent defender of this view is Gordon Fee, who states:

It is probably not irrelevant that gold, silver, and costly stones recur regularly in the OT to describe the building materials of the temple. Therefore, Paul does not have some fabulous building in view, but the OT description of Solomon’s temple, thus anticipating the (very important) imagery to follow—that what is being built (= the church in Corinth), as will be spelled out shortly (vv.

16–17

), is in fact God’s own temple there, in the midst of all other places (temples or otherwise) for the worship of pagan deities.²⁰

Following the interpretation of Fee, Brian Rosner and Roy Ciampa add that it is not only Solomon’s temple that is in view here, but it is also the end time temple seen in Malachi 3–4:

The major Old Testament background to Paul’s comparison of the Corinthians to a temple in

3

:

10–17

is Solomon’s garden-like Temple and the end-time temple of Malachi

3–4

. In terms of specific connections, Paul echoes Isaiah

3

:

3

in

3

:

10

,

1

Chronicles

29

:

2

in

3

:

10

, and Malachi

3

:

2–3

in

3

:

12–15

. As God’s temple (

3

:

16

), the Corinthians are the antitype of the imposing temple of Solomon and the fulfillment of Malachi’s vision of an end-time temple.²¹

When discussing v. 12, both commentaries divide the materials between perishable and imperishable.²² Fee comments that "Some materials endure fire while others are consumed. His [Paul’s] concern, then, is not with the individual items, but with the imperishable quality of some over against the others.²³ Similarly, Rosner and Ciampa say that While the six building materials are probably listed on a ‘scale of descending value,’ Paul’s point is simply that some endure in fire (gold, silver, costly stones), while others are consumed (wood, hay, straw)."²⁴

The Testament of Abraham

A second view is put forth by Charles Fishburne who believes that Paul is drawing on the Testament of Abraham.²⁵ In the Testament of Abraham, the archangel Michael explains to Abraham a scene of judgment that he has just witnessed in which an angel named Puruel tests the work of men with fire held in his hands:

If the fire burns up the work of any man, immediately the angel of judgement takes him and carries him away into the place of sinners, into the bitterest punishment. But if the fire tests the work of any man and does not destroy it, this man is justified, and the angel of righteousness takes him and carries him up to be saved, in the lot of the just. And thus, most righteous Abraham, all things among all men shall be tested by fire and balance.²⁶

The obvious similarities of judgment through fire lead Fishburne to believe that Paul was likely drawing on this text in 1 Corinthians 3:10–15. What is crucial, however, is the date ascribed to the Testament of Abraham. Concerning the date, there is far from a scholarly consensus, and several scholars have argued for a second century AD date. If this date were true, then the Testament of Abraham would be dependent upon Paul.

Providing a proper date and assessing the likelihood that Paul drew upon the Testament of Abraham is beyond the scope of this chapter. What is pertinent to see is that Fishburne also implies a distinction in the value of building materials. He says, "Although other men are building on the foundation which he [Paul] has laid, they must be careful how they build, for their work will be tested in the fire, and the Day will disclose its true quality of workmanship and material."²⁷ Even though Fishburne does not specifically mention the words ‘perishable’ or ‘imperishable,’ he speaks of the fire testing the quality and material, thus suggesting a distinction between the perishable and imperishable.

No Particular Background

A third view,²⁸ put forth by Harm Hollander in 1994, is that Paul is not drawing on any background in particular for 1 Corinthians 3:10–15.²⁹ According to Hollander, endeavors to discern the background of the text miss its point entirely. He writes:

It does not seem wise to ask whether Paul meant something in particular by gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and straw. Nor is it appropriate to ask whether all these materials were really in use as building materials at that time, or whether Paul has some fabulous building in mind or was perhaps thinking of Solomon’s temple with its gold, silver and precious stones. All that seems completely irrelevant here. The apostle just wants to stress that there are excellent builders, who stimulate the Christian community and work hard for the promotion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (those who use the best materials: gold, silver and precious stones) and that there are less qualified, less stimulating people (those who use inferior materials: wood, hay and straw).³⁰

As Hollander argues, the essential step for understanding 1 Corinthians 3:10–15 is to see Paul’s emphasis on careful building and the necessity of using the best materials.

Additionally, he points out that the materials are separated between perishable and imperishable: It was a matter of common knowledge that gold and silver are imperishable materials which are not consumed by fire but are instead refined. . ., while Wood, hay and straw, also belong closely together. They were known as materials that are easily consumed by fire.³¹ So, once again, even if Paul had no particular background in mind, the conclusion concerning the materials is to divide them into perishable and imperishable categories.

Greco-Roman Construction

The fourth and final view is that Paul is drawing primarily from Greco-Roman construction practices. This view emerged in 1988 when Jay Shanor published an article titled, Paul as Master Builder: Construction Terms in 1 Corinthians. In this article, Shanor compares an inscription of the fourth century BC, from Arcadian Tegea, to 1 Corinthians 3:9–17. Shanor demonstrates that the inscription and Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:9–17 have strong ties in both concept and vocabulary. In the inscription, the builders must be careful to complete their contracts in a timely and proficient manner, or they will be subject to fines. As Shanor says, Just as the contractors were bound by clear restrictions in the temporal building, so Paul enjoins his fellow-labourers to exercise care in the manner and quality of their work on the eternal temple.³² Additionally, the inscription’s vocabulary is similar to Paul’s. Both passages discuss different jobs (έργων), consequences for damage (φθήρων) done to the work, and fines (ζαμίαυ) for improper work.

When it comes to the building materials, Shanor concentrates on what they represent (people or doctrine), rather than trying to determine whether they are perishable or imperishable. He does tip his hand, however, in saying, "The strength of his [Paul’s] appeal for quality rests upon his certainty that both the manner of approach to the work (πώς) and the durability of the materials will be subjected to final examination."³³ It can be said, therefore, that Shanor also divides the building materials into perishable and imperishable categories.³⁴

Arguing from the same Greco-Roman construction background, two recent scholars have diverged from the monolithic view concerning how to understand the building materials. First, in his 2002 commentary 1 and 2 Corinthians, David Gill writes concerning v. 12:

All buildings need a foundation, but once that has been established the superstructures can be built from a range of materials. At the bottom end is the simple house of mud-brick, which used hay or straw as a binding agent; the house would be equipped with wooden doors and lintels. . .At the other end of the scale are the major public buildings, which could have gilded features or other metallic attachments. These buildings were made of stone. A particularly wealthy benefactor might bring in marble over some distance to enhance a building; this may be hinted at by the costly stones.³⁵

As is clear from this citation, Gill believes that all the materials are useful for construction; yet he allows that the materials do represent a scale concerning the costliness of the building being constructed. As Gill continues to comment on the rest of Paul’s construction metaphor, it becomes clear that though he diverges from the monolithic view when describing the building materials, he understands the metaphor in standard fashion: The fire, which is a Jewish image for what will happen on that day, will reveal whether the superstructure of the building–that is, the body of believing Christians at Corinth–has been built with gospel or worldly wisdom material.³⁶ In other words, building on the cheaper side of the scale with inferior materials amounts to building with worldly wisdom.

Second, in 2018, Eckhard Schnabel released his German commentary Der erste Brief des Paulus an die Korinther. Concerning the building materials in v. 12, he writes, Paul names two groups of three materials each, classified according to their preciousness (as well as their combustibility): Gold, silver, precious stones, and wood, hay or straw. The enumeration begins with the most valuable (gold) and ends with the cheapest building material (straw).³⁷ While his division of the materials into two groups, plus his comment on combustibility, lead one to assume that he will endorse the traditional interpretation, Schnabel also notes how the various materials were widely used in construction:

Only wood was used for the constructions of the building, along with stones and bricks. Gold, silver and precious stones were used for decoration, wood for the roof and hay and straw for plastering. When Paul thinks of concrete buildings, the materials gold (χρυσός), silver (ἄργυρος) and precious stones (λίθος τίμιος) refer to a palace or to a richly furnished private villa; the precious stones in this context are a reference to expensive marble floors and to marble cladding. Wood (ξύλον) was used for the roof structure and for doors and windows. Hay (χόρτος) and straw (καλάμη) can be understood as raw products that were "processed into higher-quality building materials before being used in house construction, which were then used to consolidate or seal a roof or to make