1 Corinthians 3:13

The same figure continues. The edifice before being inhabited by the Master must pass through the proof of fire, in which the materials of bad quality will be reduced to ashes, but from which the good materials will come forth intact.

Commentators are mostly at one in our time in applying the day of which the apostle speaks to the epoch of the Lord's advent. Grotius thought of the meaning of the Latin dies in the phrase dies docebit: “time will show.” Neander also held that the history of the Church is the grand means of putting to the proof the doctrines of teachers. Calvin, adopting a similar interpretation, understands by the day the time when true Christian knowledge comes out in its clearness; as happened, for example, at the epoch of the Reformation. But it is impossible to prove that this meaning, with its different shades, can be that of the term the day. Others have applied it to the date of the destruction of Jerusalem, because this event was particularly suited to dissipate in the Church the Jewish opinions which Paul was combating; but what Paul combats in this whole passage is worldly wisdom rather than theocratic prejudices. St. Augustine thought of the day of affliction which puts to the proof the reality of the inner life; and Hofmann, of Antichrist's great persecution, which will bring victory to the good, defeat to the bad. It seems that such was the meaning already given to our passage by the author of the Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων (the doctrine of the twelve apostles) in the second century; for in chap. 16 the warning, “Watch,” is first founded on the calamities of the last days, and next the author adds: “Then will appear, like a Son of God, the seducer of the world, and the race of men will come εἰς τὴν πύρωσιν τῆς δοκιμασίας (into the burning of trial),” words which can only be taken from our passage. But, when that day is referred to in Scripture, it is more distinctly qualified; comp. Ephesians 6:13 (the evil day); Hebrews 3:8 (the day of temptation); 1 Peter 2:12 (the day of visitation); Revelation 3:10 (the hour of trial), etc. It is therefore more natural to abide by the first meaning: the day of Christ, when the separation will be made between believers themselves; comp. 1 Corinthians 1:8, 1 Corinthians 4:5.

The manifestation which will take place at that time will be effected by means of fire. Many, and Meyer himself, seem to take this word in its literal sense, quoting as parallel 2 Thessalonians 1:8, where the Lord is represented as coming from heaven with flames of fire. But it must not be forgotten that the building to be proved exists only figuratively, and that consequently the fire which is to put it to the proof can only be also a figurative fire. The term therefore can only denote here the incorruptible judgment pronounced by the omniscience and consuming holiness of the Judge who appears. His Spirit will thoroughly explore the fruit due to the ministry of every preacher. When, in the Apocalypse, the judgment is described which the Lord passes on the Seven Churches, it is said in connection with that of Thyatira (Rev 2:18): “These things saith the Son of God, who hath eyes like unto a flame of fire.” The look of a holy man may become an insupportable fire to the wicked, how much more that of the Lord! This penetrating look will then separate between what is real, solid, indestructible, and what is only transient, apparent, factitious. The subject ordinarily assigned the verb ἀποκαλύπτεται, is manifested, is that of the preceding proposition, the day: “The day of Christ is manifested with fire or by fire. But then it seems no more possible to take the term fire in the figurative sense. Others take as subject that of the first proposition of the verse, the work: “The work is manifested by means of fire.” But this sense leads to an intolerable tautology with the following proposition; the apostle does not so repeat himself. Bengel and Osiander understand as subject, the Lord; but to reach this subject we must go back to 1 Corinthians 3:11; then it is difficult to suppose that Paul would have said: “The Lord is manifested with fire.” Is it not better to take ἀποκαλύπτεται in the impersonal sense? “For it is by fire that manifestation takes place,” that is to say, that things are manifested as what they really are. This proposition enunciates not a fact, but a principle; hence the verb in the present ἀποκαλύπτεται, which contrasts with the two futures the preceding (δηλώσει) and the following (δοκιμάσει).

The ὅτι, because, supposes the principle recognised, that judgment, of which fire is the emblem, accompanies the day of the Lord.

From this principle flows the consequence enunciated in the last proposition. If the pronoun αὐτό is authentic, which is read after πῦρ by the Vatic. and three other Mjj., it may be taken as relating to the fire: “the fire itself,” that is to say: the fire in virtue of its own proper nature; or what seems simpler, it should be taken in relation to the work, ἔργον, and made the object of δοκιμάσει : “the fire will attest it, the work, so as to bring out what it is” (ὁποῖόν ἐστι).

The double result of this putting to the proof is described in 1 Corinthians 3:14-15.