I Cor 1:10-18; Division in the House (in Corinth)

"Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters. 12 What I mean is that each of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.” 13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power. 18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

I. Introduction

The frustrating but rather amazing thing about the NT Epistles is that they represent, as it were, but one side of a telephone conversation--and the other side isn't available to us. Yet even in their "incompleteness" they are the Word of God to the Church and to individuals. I can state the issue even more baldly--not only do we only hear one speaker (sometimes we can hear the muffled voice of the other--that is, the Corinthian Christians) but we don't really understand much of the history of the relationship that preceded this call to which we listen. We are in the dark on so many of the most basic questions regarding the Church in Corinth, such as: (1) How large was the Church?; (2) Who were some of its leaders? (3) What was the "mental world" of some of the converts to Christianity?; (4) What precisely was their economic condition? (5) How did they make their money? (6) Did the preaching of Christ cause division among families in Corinth? (7) Did someone else try to plant a "rival" congregation in Corinth or did some others try to take the Church in a different direction than Paul desired? And then, the more theological or hermeneutical questions: (8) How does Paul's very specific advice, for example about offering meat to idols, have an application to us today, except through the most general of principles--i.e., don't cause another to stumble...? (9) What are the spiritual gifts as Paul speaks of them? Is the list in ch. 12 meant to be an exhaustive catalogue? (10) How do we try to relate the message of I Cor. to ourselves today when the conditions and debates in the 1st century, e.g., the question of the resurrection of believers, aren't really "big issues" for us today?

You get my "drift," I am sure. We have, as it were, fragments of insight and information in I Cor. That is all. But the fragments are like broken pieces gathered up by disciples and, when collected, make ten or eleven baskets of shards, much like the fragments gathered up after Jesus fed the multitude. So, it must be with an attitude of humility and expectation that we approach this passage today. We hear only "echoes" of what must have been happening, but the echoes are enough to nourish us in our understanding of faith.

In this passage there are four things worth mentioning: (A) Paul's appeal to the Church (v. 10); (B) the divisions in the congregation (vv. 11-12); (C) Paul's questions to the congregation (v. 13); and (D) The nature of the apostolic preaching (vv. 17-18). Let me briefly mention points worth discussing if you will be examining this passage.

II. Paul's Appeal to the Church (v. 10)

There is a certain tenderness, desperation and authority that characterizes Paul's appeal at the beginning of our passage. He "begs" them (the best translation of parakaleo); he appeals to them on the basis of common standing in Christ (adelphoi--brethren); he brings in the "trump card" of Christ's name. What seems to be the problem? Well, the church is in danger of schism. The Greek word schisma appears in this verse, and it isn't clear from the language of the text if the church is already divided into opposing and antagonistic camps or if the tendency and danger of this happening is in view. Just as we base our uncertainty on incomplete information, so Paul only had access to the report of Chloe's people (1:11) and a letter that had come from the Corinthians to him, asking him for advice on several issues. Possibly Paul doesn't even know how bad the splits were in the congregation.

Paul urges them to "say the same thing" and to be restored in the "same mind" and in the "same opinion." Ah, there may be something from the earlier verses (1:3-9) that helps us understand Paul's exhortation. He had just finished commending the congregation for its knowledge and spiritual gifts (1:5,7). As one commentator (CK Barrett) sagely points out, schisms are most apt to happen when the focus of the congregation's attention is on issues of giftedness and abstract philosophy or knowledge. Plumbers or shoemakers, to be sure, might argue among themselves, but their task in life is to produce useful products. On the other hand, those whose life is centered around ideas and gift demonstration or cultivation probably tend to get into "fights" with each other. Indeed, if you are a true thinker, you actually look forward to some of these intellectual tussles. It is what makes life interesting.

What does it actually mean that Paul exhorts them to be "of the same mind?" Is that possible? The verb he uses in v. 10, katartizo, is significant. It is translated as "you be united," but it really is a much richer word than that. It is a term used in medical vocabulary to express setting of a bone that has been broken; it has a political significance (Herodotus) meaning the elimination of civil discord; it is used by Mark (1:19) to describe the disciples sitting in a boat mending their nets. Thus, the meaning of katartizo is much fuller than simply "being united." It expresses the notion here that things be set in order, that the "bones" of the Body of Christ be gently restored or carefully mended. This, is Paul's concern with the congregation.

III. The Divisions in the House (vv. 11-12)

After using the word schisma in v. 10 to describe the rending or tearing of the community, Paul uses a word to describe the divisions in these verses that is unique to him--eris (strife; it is also the name of the Greek goddess of discord). He posits the existence of four tendecies or inclinations in the congregation. Because we know so little of what was actually going on in the church, we are in no position to know either what these groups "stood for" or how adamantly they held up one authority over the others. In any case, the report has come to Paul that there are erides in Corinth, and they center around some really "big" names: Paul himself, Apollos, Cephas (Peter), and Jesus. What might it have meant to be a member of the "Paul faction" in the church? We don't really know, but it probably bothered Paul to be so recognized. We know that Apollos is one who is said to have "watered" the congregation (3:6), and so one might assume that he came in after Paul had departed. We also know from elsewhere in Scripture that Apollos was from Alexandria. Though we can't say that everyone from Alexandria was touched by the Greek philosophical spirit of that city (the contemporary Jewish philosopher Philo has left us several volumes of his Platonizing interpretations of the Pentateuch), if Apollos did bring this spirit it would account for Paul's ambiguous attitude towards "wisdom" in I Cor. On the one hand, Paul is proud that the congregation has received all wisdom; he also says that the purpose of his ministry was to impart a wisdom to believers (2:12ff.). Yet, in I Cor. Paul is plainly skeptical about the claims of those who speak all othe time of wisdom. Love builds up, but wisdom just puffs up. We don't know the content of this "wisdom," but we can tell it is a potentially explosive idea, an idea that might divide believers from each other.

If Apollos probably represented "Greek wisdom" as refracted through Hellenistic Judaism, the party of "Cephas" was probably characterized by an adherence to or commitment to Jewish law. This isn't really a speculative statement--we know from Galatians, for example, that Peter/Cephas represented the Church of Jerusalem or, at least, was sensitive to the demands of the Church in the definition of the Gospel. To what extent did one have to be a Jew before becoming a Christian? And, what observations of the Jewish law had to be adopted/practiced in order to be a faithful Christian? Those were the concerns of the pro-Judaism early Christians. And, as for the "party" of Christ, well, we have no idea what this meant, either--it could have been the claim of some who wanted to have nothing to do with all the claims and counter claims in Corinth, and just confess a commitment to "Christ alone." We don't know.

IV. Paul's Rhetorical Questions (v. 13)

We know so little, but the problem felt by Paul seemed to be so large. And so, as a way of trying to bring people to their right minds, he asks a series of rhetorical questions. It is interesting that the first question is not preceded by the typical particle (me in Greek) which tips off the reader to the fact that it is a rhetorical question. This has led some scholars to postulate that the first words of v. 13 should be taken as a statement or, if a question, a question where the answer is "up in the air". "Is Christ parceled out?" Well, maybe he is, since Paul himself will say later that the gifts of the Spirit are divided to believers for the common good (12:7). Against this interpretation, however, is Paul's insistence that all be "of the same mind" in v. 10. But perhaps he still is unsure about the role that unity and diversity, and its expression in different groups, will play in the early Church. In any case, however, Paul is glad that he hasn't baptized many of the Corinthians, lest they make him into some kind of spiritual guru or party favorite and wear their baptism as a badge of honor.

V. Paul's Preaching (vv. 17-18)

The bottom line in this all, however, is Paul's proclamation of the Gospel. He tells us elsewhere in his letters that people accused him of not being impressive in person. Rather than trying to imitate the soaring intellectual cadences, perhaps of someone like Apollos, he takes refuge in the "foolishness" of the Gospel. He doesn't preach the Gospel in lofty or eloquent words of wisdom (even though his letters are pretty amazing documents), and he makes a virtue out of his lack in this area. The Gospel depends for its power not on the convincing demonstration of eloquence but on the cross of Christ. The vulnerability faced by Christ is the vulnerability faced by the preacher--whose words are unimpressive when considered from the perspective of the academics and wise people of the age.

Paul's declaration of the nature of Christian preaching ought to challenge us to ask ourselves what we believe is the nature of our preaching. How do we let the message of Christ come across? Are we those who are more comfortable speaking in "wise" tones? Or, is the message we preach just a simple, straightforward message of human need, divine provision and human gratitude? In any case, just as we have this message, as Paul himself will say, in "clay jars" (II Cor. 4:7), we have a most wonderful and powerful message for the world. Resolve to preach that message this year as if your life depended on it!

3235