I Corinthians 1:10-18

I Corinthians 1:10-18 (NRSV)

¹⁰ 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 Corinthians 1:10-18, a discussion of dissension within the community, is the beginning of the first major section of this letter that focuses on divisions and scandals, in 1:10-6:20. In 1:10-4:21, Paul delivers his choicest rhetoric against the divisiveness shattering the community and calls for unity to prevail. Paul will begin by focusing on false loyalty or a party spirit, illustrating and elaborating on the dangers to a Christian community of schism, division and disunity. The greatest challenge of this community is to overcome dissension and division in order to present a united front of faithfulness to the world. As a skilled orator, Paul crafts a guarded argument in this passage against those who would challenge either his authority or the integrity of the Corinthian faith community itself.

I Corinthians 1:10-17, a discussion of dissension within the community, is the beginning of the first major section of this letter that focuses on divisions and scandals, in 1:10-6:20. In 1:10-4:21, Paul delivers his choicest rhetoric against the divisiveness shattering the community and calls for unity to prevail. Paul will begin by focusing on false loyalty or a party spirit, illustrating and elaborating on the dangers to a Christian community of schism, division, and disunity. The greatest challenge of this community is to overcome dissension and division to present a united front of faithfulness to the world. As a skilled orator, Paul crafts a guarded argument in this passage against those who would challenge either his authority or the integrity of the Corinthian faith community itself.

In I Corinthians 1: 10-13, the formal, thanksgiving portion of his epistle now concluded, Paul immediately "appeals" to his Corinthian brothers and sisters. Paul laments the division of the church. He juxtaposes such competing units with true unity. He asserts the basic indivisibility of Christ himself. ¹⁰ Now I appeal (Παρακαλῶ beseech, please in the sense of begging, suggesting strong and urgent entreaty or plea[1]) to you, brothers and sister. Typically, Paul addresses the members of the Corinthian Christian community with language borrowed from family relationships, language found far more frequently in Paul’s letters than anywhere else in the New Testament. Based on the pattern of the Roman patriarchal household, it was inevitable that such language would come in time to support (if not establish) hierarchical relationships in what had almost certainly originally been more egalitarian communities (cf. 1 Corinthians 14:34; 1 Timothy 3:4; Titus 2:5, 9). If one reads closely the household rules we find in Paul, he seeks to mitigate modify the hierarchical structure of the household as found in society with sense of the mutuality of the Christian version of the household. Paul couches his urgent appeal by, in the sense of agency rather than instrumental, the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (II Thessalonians 3:6), expressing the claim to speak with the authority of Christ through the will of Christ. The notion of the apostle as pleading on behalf of Christ is not as though Paul is representing an absent Christ, but in a way that the exalted Lord is now effecting through the reconciliation of believers.[2] Such language lends weight to the appeal he is making. Paul distinguishes instructions and exhortations of his own (e.g., I Corinthians 7:10, 12, 25) from those he perceived to be based on teachings of Jesus (e.g., I Corinthians 11:23; 14:37), and his invocation of the name of Jesus maintains this distinction while simultaneously enhancing the moral authority of his own opinions. Paul pleads that all of you be in agreement (κατηρτισμένοι, knit together, to complete thoroughly as in repairing or adjusting), in Aristotle, indicating two groups had settled a war, and, here is the content of the appeal, that there be no divisions (σχίσματα) among you, but that you be united in the same mind (νοῒ) and the same purpose (γνώμῃ, judgment). All of this, I think we can agree, is easier said than done. Yet, if we visit congregations enough, we quickly feel the difference between health and the dysfunction of infighting. The agreement desired is the same outlook and value system.  Unity excludes schism.  If one has a choice of heresy or schism, choose heresy. In that way, you leave the church to its ways and you develop your own way of belief and life. From the perspective of the church, you are guilty of a wrong opinion or way of life. If you choose schism, you have chosen to tear and divide the body of Christ.[3] A "common mind" is sensitive to the nature and will of God. This terminology makes it sound as though Paul is trying to achieve political unity more than quiet the personal and theological storms rocking the assembly. In fact, one could say that the overarching theme of the entire letter is unity. Paul’s response to this problem will consume a considerable portion of I Corinthians (e.g., 3-4; 8:1-11:1; 11:17-34; 12-14). However, as much as Paul desires unity, one must not achieve this goal "at any cost." Setting out his argument in a series of opposites, what must ultimately triumph is a correct understanding of Christ and the genuine gospel message. Paul introduces three “opposites” in this passage. ¹¹ For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people (those of Chloe, cf. Romans 16:10, where the same Greek construction is used for “those who belong to the family of Aristobulus”). We do not know Chloe apart from this context. One might think of her as a trader. One might also think the church met in her home. In the ancient world, the household was an extended group of people in some way dependent on the head of the household. They were business clients, slaves, and extended family members. Such is the nature of the people from Chloe, a woman of sufficient means to establish an identity with Paul and the Christian communities associated with him. She is a widow, given she is the head of the household rather than her husband. She was a wealthy businesswoman who supported the missionary activity of Paul in Ephesus, Corinth, and elsewhere. We know so little, however, that since the report does not come from Chloe, it may simply mean she was a tolerant pagan head of a household that had fallen under the influence of the preaching of Paul. People from Chloe have reported that there are quarrels (ἔριδες) 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.” Apollos was an Alexandrian convert from Judaism, schooled in rhetoric and biblical exegesis, who proved an effective witness to Christ in Ephesus and Corinth (Acts 18:24-28). Paul describes him as a coworker in God’s “field” of the Corinthian church (3:5-9; the Greek word translated “servants” in v. 9 is actually “fellow workers”) and a fellow servant, with Paul, of Christ (3:22; 4:6). People held him in considerable esteem. Others say, “I belong to Cephas,” There is no indication that Cephas/Peter ever visited Corinth, which suggests that the teachings attributed to prominent followers of Jesus were disseminated by members of their respective schools. It would be natural, given the depiction of the relationship between Peter and Paul in Acts, for Paul to mention Peter in the context of Corinthian factionalism. A close student of the New Testament and the early church at least needs to ponder whether Paul and Peter represent competing leadership circles within the early church and that the Pauline circle would eventually prevail. However, such a notion needs to have the modification that the communities surrounding Peter, Paul, and John find their way into the canon. Regardless of the potential for difference and conflict, the church determined an underlying unity that it considered their writings sacred. Others say, “I belong to Christ.” In their brief history, people accepted the authority of various church leaders of the time. One might also think of the usage today of teachers who seem to gather a following. Yet, Paul will stress the wrongheaded quality of adhering to a favorite teacher rather than establishing the true teaching foundations in this community. In the Supper of the Lord, we refer to the harsh reality of the brokenness of the body of Christ for us, based upon I Corinthians 11:24. Christians have broken the body of Christ again in their party-spirit and hate-filled speech toward each other and even toward Christians of the past. Let us be clear. There is no reason why everyone should be Christian in the same way and every reason to leave room for differences, but if all the competing factions of Christendom were to give as much of themselves to the high calling and holy hope that unites them as they do now to the relative inconsequentialities that divide them, the church would look more like the rule of God for a change and less like an ungodly mess.[4] Our call is to respond to Christ, not to a human agenda. Our call is to close the gap between what we are and what God wants of me. We need to empty ourselves and let the risen Lord fill us with the divine agenda. Such a prayer is unsettling because it calls us to let go of self and our agenda and trust that Christ will come in and fill us with a divine purpose.[5] It is truly unsettling to let go of our personal agendas and allow Jesus to come in and take over. We rightly wonder what he will he ask of us. Paul uses his own name to demonstrate just how foolish it is to put faith in a human name or group. It is speculative to conclude that these groups were theological parties within the early church.  Paul seems almost amused by the loyalties some Corinthians are investing in a certain name. ¹³Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? It matters who was raised from the dead, namely, the crucified.[6]  Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? Here are a set of rhetorical questions. We need to stress the importance of the unity of the church, to which one can link the fellowship of the Lord’s Supper. For our ears, such an affirmation of unity is difficult, given that we live in the period of the divided church and denominationalism. Yet, such a statement makes it important for the church and its leaders to find ways of affirming unity within the diversity of the global church.[7] One conclusion is that such identification of various parties within the Corinthians Christian community seems to have its root in baptism.

In I Corinthians 1: 14-16, Paul focuses on the wrong-headed notion of boasting about adherence to a favorite teacher rather than establish true teaching foundations in this community. ¹⁴ I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus (Acts 18:8 says he was a synagogue official whose household Paul baptized) and Gaius, (the name is in Acts 19:29; 20:4; Romans 16:23; III John 1 as well) ¹⁵ so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. ¹⁶ (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas (also 16:15). The correction indicates that Paul is dictating the letter. Strangely, Paul says that beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) Paul shows little interest in keeping statistics. This text suggests the possibility that baptism in the name of Jesus may have preceded the Trinitarian formula.[8] Although Paul would certainly not have repudiated Christian baptism per se (cf. Acts 18:8, above), he may not have attached the same degree of importance to that initiation ritual as some of his contemporaries and followers. It should be noted in this regard that the so-called “Great Commission” to baptize is found only in Matthew 28:19; none of the other gospels includes baptism at such a pivotal moment in the narrative of Jesus’ life. Paul’s words concerning baptism may also reflect an early division of labor among various functionaries in the Christian movement, with some specializing in preaching, others in liturgy (including baptizing), others in administration, others in charitable works, etc. Whatever Paul’s understanding of baptism in general may have been, the situation in Corinth, and the role baptism played in it, was his overriding concern, and he may be expressing simple relief that he personally played so small a role in what had developed into a deleterious situation in one of his churches. Some members of the Corinthian community were taking the notion of an evangelist filled with the spirit of Christ perhaps too literally, with the result that the evangelist became so important as an emissary for Christ that those he baptized began to identify themselves with the evangelist rather than with (or in addition to) Christ. Such misplaced loyalty was undoubtedly encouraged by the necessary dependence of the new Christians at Corinth on the evangelists who had proselytized them. In this dependence, perhaps excessive, the neophytes may have misunderstood, as Paul himself elsewhere insisted on strict adherence to his teachings and warned against being led astray by other evangelists (e.g., I Corinthians 4:15-17; 11:2, 23; 14:37-38; 15:2; 16:1; II Corinthians 11:1-15; Galatians 1:6-9; etc.).

We live in the denominational age of the church. I believe it has allowed for greater freedom and mobility that has allowed the church of Jesus Christ to accomplish its mission. Yet, it can also breed a divisive and hostile spirit within the body of Christ. In the midst of so many divisive forces, and we unite? 

The basis of one of the sermons of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism in England, received attacks from many quarters. His response was to deliver a sermon concerning what we as Christians do when we disagree with one another.  In part of that sermon, this is what he said:

But although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union; yet need it prevent our union in affection?  Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike?  May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion?  Without all doubt we may.  Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences.  These remaining as they are, they may forward one another in love and in good works.[9]

 

Our differences may be deep enough that we cannot be in the same organization and organized by the same denominational discipline. Yet, we should be able to unite in our love for each other as children of God. The churches need to beware of the temptation to refuse love, especially if one uses spiritual motives to do so. People who claim to love God can also release themselves from the obligation to love the other. Such people have become spiritually sterile. They remain in their inert and stunted little circle of abstract, petty concerns involving themselves and a few others as sterile as themselves.[10]

 

In I Corinthians 1:17-18, Paul takes issue with the love of wisdom versus the foolishness of the true gospel. I need to point out that this passage shows that baptism itself did not unite the church at Corinth. Later (Chapter 10), he will point to divisions around the Supper of the Lord. He points us to the basis of our unity in the cross of Christ. Paul reminds us of what is special about Christianity. Its special feature is Jesus as the Christ, the one who is the source of life in creation, as well as the one who reconciles and redeems creation. Churches of every generation must freshly know and acknowledge this truth. Christ is ultimately decisive, definitive, archetypal for the relationship of human beings to God, to fellow human beings, and with society.[11] ¹⁷ For Christ did not send me to baptize (what about Matthew 28:19 and his discussion of baptism in Romans 6?) but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom (possibly an acknowledgment of the lack Paul feels when compared to Apollos), so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power. He was not afraid to distinguish between his limited abilities and the power of that which he teaches. His disavowal of eloquent wisdom may point to the difference between him and Apollos. If so, it suggests that while eloquent, the grasp that Apollos had of the message may not have been as refined as his technique. ¹⁸ For the message [λόγος]about the cross is foolishness [μωρία] to those who are perishing, but to us who God is saving, it is the power of God. Why is the word about the cross so foolish, utterly offensive to both Jews and Greeks? Well, for one thing, there was no worse way to die. Romans flogged victims just short of death, then nailed their hands and feet to the wood. Crucifixion proved to be particularly effective in subduing restless colonies, thus the Romans used it widely in Judea. Though widely used, classical Roman literature downplays its role, stressing that government authorities used only on barbarians and then, only in the most rebellious of them.  In crucifixion, it was not only the physical pain, but also government authorities hanging up a body naked for all to see and mock. No wonder that crucifixion was especially popular torture for robbers, rebels, and other disturbers of the peace. A crucified Messiah? Bonhoeffer is right in saying, "It is no small thing that God allows himself to be pushed out of the world on a cross." To worship the crucified? Imagine driving by a building that has a hangman's noose on its sign out front. If you were a Jew, Greek, or barbarian, I think you would find it rather foolish for folk to assemble to worship that. While Paul does not speak of the gospel of reconciliation, he will write of the word of the cross, which is describing the gospel. [12] Paul begins his discussion with a look back to the cross. Paul is saying that God has showed up in this world in the strangest way possible – the cross of Jesus Christ. In fact, he is willing to summarize his message and preaching as focused on the cross. That message is the story of self-sacrifice of a man whom believers accept as Son of God.  For a population concerned with making as much economic and social headway as possible in the fluid culture of Corinth, holding up the defeatist symbol of the cross seemed stupid and self-defeating. Yet, the preaching of the cross sets in motion the power of God. Such preaching is just words, is it not? German philosopher Lessing spoke of "the ugly broad ditch" that separates the event of Jesus Christ in this time from our contemporary appropriation of that event in our time. How, asked Lessing, can one event in one time be accessible to us in our time? How does the distant “then” become a “now?” The gospels typically solve this dilemma by proclaiming cross and resurrection together. "He was crucified, dead and buried, and rose from the dead," we say in the Creed. Time does not trap the resurrected Christ, as if he were a man of the first century but not our own. God has raised him from the dead. Paul preaches this in places like Romans. But here, to the Corinthians, Paul grounds salvation, not so much in resurrection but in preaching, in the "word of the cross." He does not mention resurrection. He replaces resurrection by a word. He replaces cross-resurrection by cross-word. It is the word of the cross that makes Christ present. An amazing claim for words, do you not think? Thus, we can say that here, Bultmann was right to say that Jesus rises into preaching. Paul is claiming that the saving power comes to us in preaching. I have heard lousy sermons. I have given my share of them. Yet, we give attention to the preached word because we have seen the power of God in something so vulnerable and foolish as preaching. Frankly, preaching seems so powerless to do any good. Sermons are just words. If preaching the word of the cross gives it power to save, this must mean power to break the grip of sin on the life and imagination of people and to bring us to God. The word of the cross is just that dramatic. The cross, of course, is the supreme event, a divine intrusion and disruption.

---

[1] Some sense of the urgency Paul attached to the matter is contained in his “appeal” to the brothers and sisters (v. 10), where he uses a word that in Modern Greek is translated “Please.” One of the handicaps of such formal translations as the NRSV is that phrases such as “I appeal to you” or “I beseech you” have lost much of the emotional content they once had, even in English, and Paul’s appeal concerning divisions is anything but a formality.

[2] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 440.

[3] If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy. For as a heretic, you are only guilty of a wrong opinion. As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time.--Episcopal Bishop Peter J. Lee of Virginia, citing the late Princeton Theological Seminary president, James I. McCord. Reported by Julia Dunn, "Heresy better idea than schism?" The Washington Times, January 31, 2004.

[4] -Frederick Buechner, "Denominations," Whistling in the Dark: An ABC Theologized (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1988), 33, 35.

[5] Joseph Cardinal Bernardin in his book, The Gift of Peace

[6] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 344.

[7] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 325.

[8] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 240.

[9] (John Wesley, "Catholic Spirit," Sermon XXXIX, p. 381).

[10] -Thomas Merton, Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1968), 122.

[11] -Hans Kung, On Being a Christian (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1976), 123.

[12] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 455.