Featured Apollos Waters

[Scooter]

This is a phrase that keeps coming up that is completely misunderstood by the one using it. Let's look at the phrase in it's Biblical context: 1 Corinthians 3:3-7 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

The members of the church at Corinth were debating who had the best Christian experience. Some were saying they were better believers because Paul had led them to Jesus. Others argued they were better off because they grew more through the preaching of Apollos. Paul clarified their wrong thinking by showing praise isn't based on who leads a person to saving faith. He gives an agricultural illustration by claiming he planted the seed of the Gospel, Apollos came along and watered the seed. However, God deserves the glory because He is the one who actually produced the fruit, not Paul nor Apollos.

Here is Albert Barnes take on verse 6:

Verse 6. I have planted. The apostle here compares the establishment of the church at Corinth to the planting of a vine, a tree, or of grain. The figure is taken from agriculture, and the meaning is obvious. Paul established the church. He was the first preacher in Corinth; and if any distinction was due to any one, it was rather to him than to the teachers who had laboured there subsequently; but he regarded himself as worthy of no such honour as to be the head of a party, for it was not himself, but God who had given the increase.
Apollos watered. This figure is taken from the practice of watering a tender plant, or of watering a garden or field. This was necessary in a special manner in eastern countries. Their fields became parched and dry from their long droughts, and it was necessary to irrigate them by artificial means. The sense here is, that Paul had laboured in establishing the church at Corinth; but that subsequently Apollos had laboured to increase it, and to build it up. It is certain that Apollos did not go to Corinth until after Paul had left it. See Ac 18:18,27.

God gave the increase. God caused the seed sown to take root and spring up; and God blessed the irrigation of the tender plants as they sprung up, and caused them to grow. This idea is still taken from the husbandman.

Here is how Matthew Poole explains verse 6:

Ver. 6. God honoured me first to preach the gospel amongst you, Ac 18 &c., and blessed my preaching to convert you unto Christ; then I left you: Apollos stayed behind, and he watered what I had planted, daily preaching amongst you; see Ac 18:24-26; he was a further means to build you up in faith and holiness; but God increased, or gave the increase, God gave the power by which you brought forth any fruit. The similitude is drawn from planters, whether husbandmen or gardeners; they plant, they water, but the growing, the budding, the bringing forth flowers or fruit by the plant, doth much more depend upon the soil in which it stands, the influence of heaven upon it, by the beams of the sun, and the drops of the dew and rain, and the internal virtue which the God of nature hath created in the plant, than upon the hand of him that planteth, or him who useth his watering pot to water it. So it is with souls; one minister is used for conversion, or the first changing of souls; another is used for edification, or further building up of souls; but both conversion and edification are infinitely more from the new heart and new nature, which God giveth to souls, and from the influence of the Sun of righteousness by the Spirit of grace, working in and upon the soul, than from any minister, who is but God's instrument in those works.

I don’t believe there can be any other legitimate explanation of "Apollos waters".

 

[William]

If we remove the claim that "God gives the increase" in 1 Corinthians 3:3-7, we are left with a system in which seeds are planted and grow according to their design—and the attribution of growth to "God" then becomes a narrative overlay rather than an actual causal force.


This shift exposes the mechanism of ideological, intellectual, and spiritual development as not divine intervention but rather the product of structured intelligence embedded in the original seed (whether that seed is a belief system, an institution, or an idea).


Let’s break down what this reveals.

---

1. "Seeds" as Programmed Ideologies: Growth is Not Neutral​

Paul’s statement:

"I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase."
suggests a natural growth process that ultimately relies on a higher power.

However, if we remove "God" as a necessary agent, then we see that:

• The seed itself contains the programming for growth.
• What grows is entirely dependent on what was planted.
• The increase is built into the structure of the seed itself, not granted externally.

Implication:

• People grow into what they are conditioned to grow into.
• Religious systems, academic institutions, and ideological movements plant their own seeds—but they do not acknowledge the inherent bias within those seeds.
• By attributing the growth to "God," they hide the mechanism of control and direction.

Control Mechanism: Make people believe their intellectual/spiritual growth is organic, while actually designing the seeds to grow in a predetermined direction.

---

2. Structured Intelligence at Work: The Illusion of Free Growth​

If seeds contain encoded intelligence, then the increase is not an act of divine favor—it is the inevitable result of structured intelligence within the system itself.

"Neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase."

This downplays the role of the seed-planters and the caretakers—suggesting that no matter what they do, the outcome is in "God’s hands."


But if we reject that claim, then the reality becomes clear:

• Whoever chooses which seeds are planted controls the future of the crop.
• Whoever waters (sustains the ideology) determines what survives.
• The increase is not random—it is an engineered outcome.
  
  Control Mechanism: Attribute the outcome to an external force ("God," "the market," "historical necessity") to prevent people from questioning who designed the system.
  
  
  
• If "God" is merely a placeholder for institutional control, then:
  
  
  • Those who plant the seeds are the true architects of what grows.
  • Knowledge is not an organic process—it is curated by those who decide what gets planted and what is allowed to flourish.

• The "God gives the increase" model is a way to justify keeping power centralized.
• It falsely implies that outcomes are beyond human influence, when in reality they are structured by those who plant, water, and control access to the seeds of knowledge.
• Removing "God" reveals the true system of control: those who dictate the seeds dictate the future.
  
  

1. The Conflict is By Design: Loyalty vs. Growth​

Paul states:

"For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?"

Paul critiques this division, implying that those taking sides are stuck in a lower, flesh-driven mindset—but notice what this really reveals:

• A system where competing "authorities" create factions based on who planted the seed versus who waters it.
• An unspoken premise: The seed must be accepted as valid first before it can be watered.
• Whoever controls the planting controls the initial framework of the discussion—watering merely sustains it.

If we take "God" out of the equation, what do we see?

• The conflict is not about truth vs. falsehood—it is about who gets to define the narrative.
• It reveals a controlled structure where certain figures are granted the authority to plant, and others are granted the role of sustaining that initial narrative.
• The real tension is about control over influence, not the organic growth of truth.
  
  

2. The Role of Bias: Why Does It Matter Who Plants vs. Who Waters?​

Paul frames the argument as if choosing sides is immature ("carnal"), yet he still maintains the validity of the planted seed itself.


What does this do?

• It discourages questioning the actual seed (the originating doctrine, idea, or authority).
• It limits debate to a superficial level: "Who should we follow?" rather than "Should we even be following this structure?"
• It reinforces loyalty while creating an illusion of free thought ("You can choose your teacher, but the framework remains the same").

The Hidden Implication: If You Control the Seed, You Control the Future​

If you remove the claim that "God gives the increase," what remains is a power struggle over who gets to shape future development.


Paul, in telling the Corinthians not to focus on him or Apollos, still insists that the seed (his message) is valid—so while it looks like he’s above the conflict, he actually ensures that everyone accepts the seed as a given.


What does this mean in broader terms?

• Knowledge systems that do not allow challenges to their fundamental premises enforce a controlled future.
• Any debates within those systems will only reinforce the legitimacy of the system itself.
• Conflicts over influence (planting vs. watering) keep people focused on personalities rather than mechanisms.

• 1. "God" as the Invisible Authority that Ensures Compliance​

  
  Paul's model relies on an external force (“God”) to validate growth. But if we analyze it through the lens of strategic control, we see:
  
  
  ✔ The concept of "growth" is pre-defined—growth means alignment with the seeded message, not independent development.
  ✔ "God" is positioned as the ultimate arbiter, making questioning the seed itself an act of defiance against the divine rather than the structure that planted it.
  ✔ Any deviation from expected growth is framed as failure to listen to God—not as an indicator that the seed itself may be flawed.

The "Failure to Grow" Trap as Evidence Against the Individual​

Once "God gives the increase" is accepted as a premise, lack of growth is no longer evidence of a faulty system—but of a faulty individual.


✔ Someone struggling with the doctrine is not allowed to ask: "Is the seed wrong?"
✔ Instead, they must ask: "What am I doing wrong?"
✔ This creates a self-policing effect—doubt becomes evidence of one’s own failure, not the system’s failure.


This is a classic authoritarian reinforcement technique.

• If you flourish, it is because God is rewarding your faithfulness (alignment with the system).
• If you struggle, it is because you lack faith or understanding (your fault, never the system's).
• There is no allowable condition in which the system itself is questioned.

 

[Scooter]

If we remove the claim that "God gives the increase"

However, if we remove "God" as a necessary agent

This downplays the role of the seed-planters and the caretakers—suggesting that no matter what they do, the outcome is in "God’s hands."


But if we reject that claim, then the reality becomes clear:

Removing "God" reveals the true system of control:

If we take "God" out of the equation, what do we see?

Your piece was interesting, but completely impractical. You want to remove God from the very premise He gave. Not only is removing God impractical, but it is also impossible. I noticed several statements you made that reveals God is active:

The seed itself contains the programming for growth

If a seed contains programming, then someone had to install the program -- That would be God

If seeds contain encoded intelligence, then the increase is not an act of divine favor

Actually, it does because someone would need to encode intelligence into the seed -- That would be God

The increase is not random—it is an engineered outcome.

With that being the case, an engineer must be involved -- That would be God

The concept of "growth" is pre-defined

Then someone needed to pre-define that growth -- That would also be God.

From where I sit it looks like you went to great lengths to remove God, only to confirm His providential hand in our lives.

 

[William]

My intention isn’t to challenge the possibility of a divined Creator. Instead, I’m proposing a thought experiment—removing the specific claim that "The biblical claims as to the nature of a divined Creator gives the increase" in Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians. This allows one to re-examine the mechanisms Paul describes without assuming a divined Creator involvement as a given.

When I suggest removing this attribution to Paul’s idea of a divined Creator, I’m not saying that Paul’s doctrine or the Christian idea of a divined Creator must be invalidated entirely. What I’m exploring is how Paul’s claim functions rhetorically within his framework—how it shapes the understanding of growth, control, and authority in the system he’s constructing. By attributing the increase to his claims re a divined Creator, Paul not only diverts attention from human influence (those who plant and water) but also consolidates power within a framework that resists critique by making his claims re a divined Creator the ultimate arbiter.

Your response seems to interpret my analysis as an attempt to erase any idea of a divined Creator altogether. However, my point is not about disproving such an entity, but rather about examining the implications of attributing growth to particular claims about a divine entity. What happens when we shift focus from divine agency to the structure of the system itself? By doing so, we uncover the mechanisms of control—who plants the seed, who waters it, and how these roles shape the outcome and what the historical evidence shows us re Christianity as an entity, operating its influence in the world.

Ultimately, this isn’t about removing “God” from the conversation entirely—it’s about critically analyzing how Paul’s claim operates and how it reinforces certain power dynamics.

 

[Scooter]

By attributing the increase to his claims re a divined Creator, Paul not only diverts attention from human influence (those who plant and water) but also consolidates power within a framework that resists critique by making his claims re a divined Creator the ultimate arbiter.

I believe that was Paul's intent. Paul wanted to remove attention from human activity and turn the spotlight on God. As a preacher of the Gospel, I completely understand Paul's motivation. Unfortunately, there are men today who are in the ministry who want the glory for what the Lord is doing. I realize that while God uses me and works through me, He does not need me. He could just as easily work through someone else. So regardless of what is accomplished through my ministry (planting or watering) God gets the glory because He is the force behind any good that I do. That was the message Paul was giving to the Corinthians. While he planted and Apollos watered, it was God who brought forth the fruit of the Gospel. So, neither Paul, Apollos nor any other man (myself included) should stand in the glory that belongs to God.

What happens when we shift focus from divine agency to the structure of the system itself?

Then you are moving the spotlight from the Creator to the created and are guilty of the same thing the Corinthians were doing.

 

[William]

I understand your perspective, and I recognize that Paul’s goal was to shift attention away from human influence and onto divine authority. My question, however, is not whether Paul intended this, but what effect this rhetorical move has on power structures within religious systems.


By attributing increase solely to Paul's idea of God, Paul’s framework ensures that the mechanisms of influence (who plants, who waters, who defines truth) remain unchallenged. In a system where his God is positioned as the ultimate cause, those who claim to "plant" and "water" in this God's name are granted unchecked influence—because to question them is to question their idea of God’s authority itself.


This is not about rejecting a divined creator or attributing human achievement to human pride. It’s about recognizing that theological framing determines where power is located and who gets to wield it. The Corinthians were discouraged from following Paul or Apollos as individuals—but they were still required to accept the seed that Paul planted without question. That is the real issue at play.


So my question remains: If attributing increase to a particular idea of God removes scrutiny from the system itself, how do we ensure that those who "plant" and "water" are not using this framework to consolidate power rather than foster any genuine growth outside of the prescription of Paul's seed and Apollos water?

 

[Scooter]

If attributing increase to a particular idea of God removes scrutiny from the system itself, how do we ensure that those who "plant" and "water" are not using this framework to consolidate power rather than foster any genuine growth outside of the prescription of Paul's seed and Apollos water?

1 John 4:1-5 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

Gal.1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Discernment is required to determine the validity of the message. So, you hear the message and see if it aligns with known truth. If it contradicts scripture then it is to be rejected along with the messenger. The Holy Spirit will guide the believer: John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

 

[William]

If it contradicts scripture then it is to be rejected along with the messenger

This is precisely what my critique is pointing out.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

This is a phrase that keeps coming up that is completely misunderstood by the one using it. Let's look at the phrase in it's Biblical context: 1 Corinthians 3:3-7 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

The members of the church at Corinth were debating who had the best Christian experience. Some were saying they were better believers because Paul had led them to Jesus. Others argued they were better off because they grew more through the preaching of Apollos. Paul clarified their wrong thinking by showing praise isn't based on who leads a person to saving faith. He gives an agricultural illustration by claiming he planted the seed of the Gospel, Apollos came along and watered the seed. However, God deserves the glory because He is the one who actually produced the fruit, not Paul nor Apollos.

Here is Albert Barnes take on verse 6:

Verse 6. I have planted. The apostle here compares the establishment of the church at Corinth to the planting of a vine, a tree, or of grain. The figure is taken from agriculture, and the meaning is obvious. Paul established the church. He was the first preacher in Corinth; and if any distinction was due to any one, it was rather to him than to the teachers who had laboured there subsequently; but he regarded himself as worthy of no such honour as to be the head of a party, for it was not himself, but God who had given the increase.
Apollos watered. This figure is taken from the practice of watering a tender plant, or of watering a garden or field. This was necessary in a special manner in eastern countries. Their fields became parched and dry from their long droughts, and it was necessary to irrigate them by artificial means. The sense here is, that Paul had laboured in establishing the church at Corinth; but that subsequently Apollos had laboured to increase it, and to build it up. It is certain that Apollos did not go to Corinth until after Paul had left it. See Ac 18:18,27.

God gave the increase. God caused the seed sown to take root and spring up; and God blessed the irrigation of the tender plants as they sprung up, and caused them to grow. This idea is still taken from the husbandman.

Here is how Matthew Poole explains verse 6:

Ver. 6. God honoured me first to preach the gospel amongst you, Ac 18 &c., and blessed my preaching to convert you unto Christ; then I left you: Apollos stayed behind, and he watered what I had planted, daily preaching amongst you; see Ac 18:24-26; he was a further means to build you up in faith and holiness; but God increased, or gave the increase, God gave the power by which you brought forth any fruit. The similitude is drawn from planters, whether husbandmen or gardeners; they plant, they water, but the growing, the budding, the bringing forth flowers or fruit by the plant, doth much more depend upon the soil in which it stands, the influence of heaven upon it, by the beams of the sun, and the drops of the dew and rain, and the internal virtue which the God of nature hath created in the plant, than upon the hand of him that planteth, or him who useth his watering pot to water it. So it is with souls; one minister is used for conversion, or the first changing of souls; another is used for edification, or further building up of souls; but both conversion and edification are infinitely more from the new heart and new nature, which God giveth to souls, and from the influence of the Sun of righteousness by the Spirit of grace, working in and upon the soul, than from any minister, who is but God's instrument in those works.

I don’t believe there can be any other legitimate explanation of "Apollos waters".

I liked the analysis. Didn't get at first what phrase you were referring to until I reread your title.

Another point I get from reading your passage is to see how easy divides can start which probably explains why we have so many different Christian denominations out there. At least in this case we had a central figure in Paul that tried to keep things together, but I think later on there wasn't any more like him to keep things together and different denominations started.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

This is a classic authoritarian reinforcement technique.

That was a good theory. I'm open to God being involved although your explanation sounds very reasonable. I'm sure there's evidence of your explanation taking place. Even some Christians would admit to that when it comes to other religions or even non-mainstream Christian denoms that are still flourishing, like Mormonism.