Spiritual men—the ones who have received the Spirit of God and have been instructed by Him—have God’s own wisdom. Even though natural men—those without God’s Spirit—think the gospel of a crucified Christ is folly, spiritual men are able to discern all things, including the world- and history-altering results of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Spiritual men have “the mind of Christ,” they have the lenses to put everything in perspective in light of the cross.

A problem happens, however, when a man with the mind of Christ doesn’t look at things with that mind. 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, confronts these sorts of Christians for acting all too human. They are acting like mere men rather than acting like spiritual men. We might call them carnal Christians. Our word “carnal” comes from Latin carnis “of the flesh” which is the genitive of caro “flesh, meat.”

All the evidence in the context signals that Paul is talking to Christians. He just referred to natural men, to those who aren’t believers, those who won’t accept the things of the Spirit of God. But in this paragraph he addresses his readers directly as “brothers” in the first sentence, and this fits with all the titles he’s used for them since the beginning of the letter. They may be infants, but they are infants “in Christ.” In the following paragraph, he and Apollos are “servants through whom you believed.” There are no qualifications; these are Christians.

But they were not acting like Christ. What’s worse, they thought that they were the spiritually mature ones. Paul’s words sting, but the Corinthians needed it. Their life together in the gospel was at stake. And if they couldn’t see how the word of the cross affects their selfish ambition and preference over preacher, how would they see the wisdom of the cross in other areas of their lives?

In 1 Corinthians 3:1-4 we see three characteristics of carnality.

Carnality Diminishes Capacity for Gospel Meat (verses 1-3a)

There is a threefold not being able in these initial sentences. Paul was not able to address them in a certain way, they were not able to receive what he said, and in fact they are still not able to receive it if he tried now. What it was is what it still is, and it’s not good.

And I, brothers, was not able to speak to you as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. This goes all the way back to Paul’s initial preaching in Corinth, preaching that they received, but only up to a certain level. They are brothers , and they are in Christ , but they were not spiritual , not in the fulness of maturity. “Spiritual” is the key word in chapter 2. The spiritual understand the things freely given by God; they discern all things, and it all starts with recognizing the wisdom of the cross. The Corinthians got it, but with limitations.

They weren’t spiritual but people of the flesh . This is not the same Greek word as used in 2:14 for the “natural” man. The natural man is ψυχικὸς, this man is σαρκίνος. It’s an adjective about things belonging to the physical, material realm. There is a similar word used twice in verse 3, σαρκικός, which overlaps in meaning with σαρκίνος but maybe emphasizes that it characterized them. They were “fleshy” and even now are “fleshly.”

At the time Paul was with them they were infants in Christ , and the diet he fed them was according to their capacity. I fed you with milk, not solid food , and that was because you were not ready for it . It was too hard to chew. Before we talk about the two types of food, note that it hadn’t gotten better. And even now you are not yet ready, for you are still of the flesh . It’s an adverb party: even…now…not…yet…still. By this time, some three or more years after Paul’s visit, what had been a more understandable immaturity is less acceptable. Being childlike is one thing, being childish is another.

What does Paul mean to compare between milk and solid food ? At first it might seem to indicate different truths, as in, milk refers to simple truths and solid food refers to more complex truths. Milk is Doctrine 101, solid food is all the way up to footnote in the appendix of a ThD thesis. But is the contrast between a four spiritual laws gospel arithmetic and Supralapsarian trigonometry? Was Paul concerned that they weren’t ready for advanced systematic theology?

That may be true, but it’s not what in this passage. It isn’t that doctrines such as predestination or the Trinity aren’t to be shared until later (actually, the truth of the Trinity is required up front for every disciple, Matthew 28:19. And Jesus regularly talked about the Father’s electing purposes with crowds of unbelievers, John 6, John 10).

The solid food is the deep wisdom of God, and that meaty-wisdom is known in the word of the cross. But it’s the same “word,” the same cross, as milk and meat. The milk of the gospel is received like a hungry infant. Spiritual newborns see that Christ made sacrifice for their salvation. They look to the cross in faith, and that’s good. But the mature also see their salvation for sake of making sacrifice like Christ. By faith they live out the cross, which is solid food. Infants want what they want for themselves, which is okay up to a certain point, but those growing up by the Spirit give of themselves.

It is not dissimilar to the admonition given by the author of Hebrews:

For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. (Hebrews 5:12–14)

The solid food for the mature belongs not as much with acquired information but rather with acquired practice. The milk/meat doctrines are the same but the implications of those doctrines is not. The problem with the Corinthians was not that their sentences were full of grammatical or theological mistakes. The problem with the Corinthians was that they were denying the word of the cross by their all too human behavior. They puffed themselves up as Someones. They put their favorite preachers on pedestals. They thought they were connected to special and impressive people, making themselves out to be the important. And they showed themselves to be spiritual infants with a diminished capacity to taste the deep things of God.

“the self-centered competitive naiveté which characterizes young children who have not yet learned to respect the interests of the Other will lead to misjudgments about the quality and required methods of Christian proclamation and teaching.” (Thiselton)

There are some truths that are harder to pronounce, but the issue for the Corinthians is that they weren’t living according to a spiritually mature perspective.

How do we know if we are being carnal? The rest of the paragraph answers.

Carnality Lives in Selfish, Striving Desires (verse 3b)

Paul asks a confronting question: For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh and behaving only in a human way? The NASB makes the fact more clear, “For since there is…among you.” It’s not a question of whether or not there was jealousy and strife, but a question of if they realized what the reality of strife among them meant.

Jealousy is defined in one Greek dictionary as “intense negative feelings over another’s achievements or success” (BAGD). Our English word jealous is rooted in the Latin word zelosus, which itself comes from the Greek word, zealos (ζῆλος). Strong, even overpowering feelings, of discontent or resentment toward what someone else has, possessions or position or recognition, is a sign of carnality. It is the way of man to be upset when Self doesn’t get his/her way.

The second word strife is “engagement in rivalry, especially with reference to positions taken in a matter” (BAGD). It is angry or bitter disagreement over fundamental issues, like which Self should be served first. Jealousy is the water boiling in the pot, strife is the mess on the stove when it boils over. These conflicts manifest themselves in direct confrontation, in sideways criticism, in backdoor digs. It might look like complaining to another friend, or getting a parent on your side, or writing a post online flaming the one you wish you could be like.

These show someone is of the flesh , σαρκικός not just σαρκίνος as in verse 1.

The difference between the two terms is: “fleshy,” and you cannot help it; “fleshly,” and you can but do not help it. “Fleshy,” you carry a bad load but will soon be rid of most of it; “fleshly,” you follow a bad norm and refuse to get rid of it. (Lenski)

This is behaving in a human way . It could be translated, “walking according to man.” Walking is the typical metaphor for conduct become habits. Walking is especially used in the wisdom writings of the Old Testament such as Proverbs. We’re not to walk in the way of evil, but to walk in the way of insight (9:6) and integrity (10:9) and uprightness (14:2) and wisdom (28:26).

Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool,
but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.
(Proverbs 28:26)

The way of man is egocentric passions that are at war within and without. Jealousy and selfish ambition is a “wisdom” that is “earthly, unspiritual, demonic” (James 3:15-16), manish, hellish.

Carnality Expresses Itself through Division (verse 4)

This final question in the paragraph provides a particular example of their carnality. Jealousy births strife that alienates. For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? Paul returns to 1 Corinthians 1:12 where he started his concern over their quarreling. This is only one expression of selfish desires, but it is the one he tackled first.

This time Paul only mentions two groups, those “of Paul” and those “of Apollos.” The reason he doesn’t mention the Cephas group and the Christ group is because he’s about ready to describe those who personally worked among the Corinthians (3:5-4:7). There is no evidence that the apostle Peter ever went to Corinth, and certainly Jesus did not. Both Paul and Apollos did, and Paul will demonstrate that they worked together on the same side though they didn’t do their work at the same time.

Dividing over which pedestaled preacher (of the cross) you believe will elevate your own status to the highest degree is carnal. It is being merely human or, “all too human” (Revised English Bible). It is based on carnal standards and has carnal ends. He asks the Corinthians, “Are you not just men?” It really is all too human.

Conclusion

Carnal Christians not only exist, but they are the ones who are sure it is not describing them. Carnal Christians exist, but it’s not okay. Since that means it could happen to us, how are we to know? We look for evidence of striving jealousy and then the rotten fruit of division.

There are at least two ways to be inconsistent: unbelievers can behave like believers should (but can’t explain it), believers can behave like unbelievers (but shouldn’t).

Application of carnality extends to quarrels over music style, dividing over favorite ministry outreach, strife over method of doing anything (schooling, parenting).

As believers we have a new principle AND expectations based on that spiritual power. Those who teach us have responsibility to observe and confront based on those expectations.

If we can’t put gospel preaching in its proper perspective, how will we get the rest of the letter? There is more to come about church discipline, marriage and divorce, business contracts, food, and spiritual gifts. We will learn what it looks like to walk according to the Spirit but we won’t be ready for it if we are walking according to man.