Original Meaning

VERSE 10 BEGINS the actual body of the letter, which falls into two main parts—Paul’s response to information about the Corinthians, which he has heard by word of mouth (1:10–6:20) and his reply to a letter the Corinthians sent him (7:1–16:4).

In the first half, Paul refers to four problems he has heard about that are plaguing the Corinthian church—factions (1:10–4:21), incest (5:1–13), lawsuits (6:1–11), and sexual immorality more generally (6:12–20). The members of Chloe’s household, an otherwise anonymous but presumably Corinthian family, have brought him news of the first of these problems (1:11). These emissaries, possibly the same as Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (16:17), probably also described the latter three problems, because in 7:1 Paul shifts to matters about which the Corinthians had written him.

Paul deals with the first of the four problems at greatest length, perhaps because the Corinthian divisiveness to varying degrees underlay all the other problems. First Corinthians 1:10–17 states the essential problem (rival factions) and Paul’s essential solution (an appeal for unity). First Corinthians 1:18–4:21 will unpack why that unity is so crucial and how it can become possible. This section in essence gives four methods for achieving unity: focusing on the cross of Christ (1:18–2:5), understanding true spiritual wisdom (2:6–16), recognizing the fundamental equality of all believers (3:1–23), and treating Christian leaders appropriately (4:1–21).

Paul’s basic appeal for unity (v. 10) involves several key expressions. He exhorts the church in the “name” (power or authority) of Jesus that all of them “agree,” literally meaning that they all “say the same thing.” They must abolish “divisions,” a political term for rival parties or factions.1 They should become “perfectly united,” a verb probably better rendered “restored to unity,”2 in “mind” and “thought,” terms that include the ideas of counsel and choice. Together these two expressions embrace volition as well as cognition.

Verses 11–12 then elaborate the nature of the Corinthian factions: people are quarreling because they are aligning themselves with different Christian leaders. We do not know anything about Chloe except that it is a woman’s name, often used among the well-to-do. It is natural to assume she was a member of the church in Corinth; those in her household could well have been her sons or slaves. Some have speculated that she was a leader of some kind in the church. But we do not even know for sure that she was a Christian, and it is just barely possible that she lived in Ephesus, and the messengers from her had traveled to Corinth and returned back to Paul with this news.

The reasons for the rival alignments are not much clearer. In light of the dispute between Peter and Paul in Antioch (Gal. 2:11–14), many have seen a theological debate here too between a more legalistic and a more law-free gospel. Apollos, we know from Acts 18:24–28, was a gifted orator. Perhaps those inclined to be impressed with lofty rhetoric and speculative wisdom rallied around him. But there is little evidence that Paul, Peter, and Apollos were themselves at odds with one another at this point. And the disparity between the “haves” and the “have-nots” at the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34) suggests that a polarization along the lines of rich (with Apollos?) and poor (with one or more of the other party leaders?) may have been an even more fundamental factor in the divisions (see Introduction, p. 20).

Worth noting also is the fact that three of the four parties were not aligning themselves with Paul. His authority was seriously in jeopardy with a sizable number in the church. Was the Christ-party one that nobly refused to over-exalt any human leader, or had it too become factious? Its inclusion with the rest would suggest the latter. Similarly, Paul does not seem to be pleased that any are clinging to his name as a point of contention with the others. If the church in Corinth was comprised of multiple house-congregations meeting in different parts of town, the seeds of rivalry could have been sown by those geographical divisions as well.

Paul’s initial reply to these reports consists of three rhetorical questions all implying the answer “no” (v. 13). Christ is not divided, so how can his people be? Neither Paul nor any other human leader was crucified for the world’s sins, so how can these Christians so exalt merely mortal authorities? Christian baptism was into the “name” (again implying power or authority) of Jesus (Acts 2:38), not into the names of Paul, Peter, or Apollos. Verses 14–16 then expand on this last observation as Paul tries to recall how many people he baptized in Corinth. The answer is few.

Here is perhaps another clue to the nature of the rivalries: these young Christians may have been idolizing the particular leaders who first brought them to the Lord. We know Apollos preached in Corinth after Paul did (Acts 19:1), and it is quite possible that Peter or some of his disciples did as well. Crispus is most likely the synagogue ruler of Acts 18:8. Gaius is almost certainly the host of the church whom Paul praises in Romans 16:23 (and to be distinguished from the recipient of 3 John). Of Stephanas we know nothing else except that which is told in 1 Corinthians 16:15–17.

Baptism played a prominent role in the life of the early church, as the outward ritual signifying repentance from sin and initiation into the Christian community. Still, as throughout the New Testament, it takes a back seat here to the ministry of proclamation and the response of conversion. By saying Paul did not baptize many, he must mean that he delegated this responsibility to others. The reference to Stephanas’ “household” (v. 16) recalls the household baptisms of Acts 16:15 and 32. Verse 17a must thus be taken as referring to relative priorities. Paul’s primary calling was to preach rather than to baptize.

Verse 17b introduces the thought that will form the main idea of 1:18–2:5. The focus of Christian proclamation must remain clearly centered on the message of the crucifixion rather than baptism or any other doctrine, however important in its own right it may be. “Words of human wisdom” correctly interpret the more literal “wisdom of a word,” with “human” being used to refer to that which is merely “human” and therefore separate from the divinely transforming message of the atonement.3 Paul is surely stressing that

there can be no room for pyrotechnic displays of rhetorical virtuosity such as were offered by the traveling sophists who could be heard in the market places of any Mediterranean city. Such oratorical skill would leave his hearers gaping at his cleverness and rob the cross of its force.4

But even when Greco-Roman rhetoric was not this flowery, it still was based on a fundamentally anti-Christian worldview that Paul could not accept—enshrining the beautiful and powerful people of that day in a position of social power.

Bridging Contexts

PRINCIPLES FOR DEALING with divisions emerge from several parts of this passage and can apply in many cultures. By beginning with an “appeal,” Paul avoids the twin errors of demanding his way and not addressing the problems at all. Any authority he has comes solely from “our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 10). First-century churches operated neither by autocratic decisions imposed by ecclesiastical authorities nor by a simple majority vote. Acts outlines the ideal with its repeated references to decisions the church made only when they were “in one accord” (Gk. homothumadon—cf. Acts 1:14; 4:24 [cf. v. 32]; 15:25).

Paul does not side with one particular faction; this would exacerbate the problem. Instead, he is after whatever it takes to dispel factiousness and create harmony. But he cannot be requesting unanimity of perspective on every issue nor requiring uniformity of action, inasmuch as his emphasis on the diversity of spiritual gifts in chapters 12–14 precludes demands for Christian “cloning.” Cooperation, mutual concern, peaceful coexistence, edification in love—all these are the positive antidotes to divisiveness.

Paul most likely refrained from spelling out the nature of the factional alignments because his audience already knew what they were. But the omission was undoubtedly providential. By leaving unspecified the contents of the rival positions, we are enabled to generalize broadly when we come to apply the text. If we knew with certainty, for example, that the Cephas party were Judaizers, we might be tempted to apply Paul’s teaching only to analogous groups today. As it stands, Paul remains committed to unity despite numerous brands of strife, and in applying this passage we need to see that his principles transcend the specific conflicts.5

But we may still highlight particularly close parallels to our best guesses at what each group represented. Legalism has quenched growth in many Christian circles down through the centuries. The temptation to elevate form over substance seems equally timeless. Always there will be faithful followers of a church’s founder, but they may prove as divisive in clinging to tradition as the more avant-garde. Similarly, churches that reject the labels that link denominations with human founders (e.g., Lutheran, Wesleyan, Mennonite) have often become as denominational or even sectarian in their exclusive claims to serve Christ only (e.g., Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints).

Paul’s reminder of the uniqueness of the atonement in verse 13 remains beneficial against periodic rival claims. More specifically, given the amount of detail he devotes to it, we find throughout verses 13–17 a crucial warning against elevating baptism to the level of importance that only salvation should occupy.

On the one hand, baptism played a more central role in the early church than it often has in certain Protestant traditions. It closely followed on the heels of conversion (e.g. Acts 8:36), and biblical writers often used the word baptism as a metonymy (one object substituted for a closely related object) for repentance itself (e.g. Rom. 6:3–4). And even the most articulate exponents of infant baptism will admit that there is no clear biblical evidence for such a practice, that it is more a theological corollary from other doctrines, developed after the first generation of church life.6 The one specific item we learn from Acts about household baptisms, for example, comes in the story of the Philippian jailer in which Luke implies that all were old enough to “believe” (Acts 16:34).

On the other hand, right here in 1 Corinthians Paul makes plain that baptism itself does not regenerate or guarantee salvation (1 Cor. 10:1–12). And when it becomes divisive, as it apparently had at Corinth, then it has been unduly stressed. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration (that one must be baptized to be saved) is unbiblical. So too is the establishment of rigid boundaries between baptists and paedobaptists that prevent loving, vibrant, cooperative ministry for kingdom causes.

Verse 17 paves the way for the discussion that ensues and sets up a contrast that will take two forms: (1) that which is obviously merely human versus that which is clearly from God; and (2) that which claims to be Christian—but is at best immature and at worst downright false because it is not cross-centered—versus genuine, mature Christianity with the crucifixion at its heart. What would have stunned the Corinthians, as it has many would-be believers ever since, is Paul’s claim that their brand of Christianity falls into the category of the immature and possibly even false.

In short, Paul introduces in verses 10–17 the key for promoting unity and avoiding divisiveness—focusing on Christ rather than exalting human leaders. In so doing, we are driven to the cross, which should also promote humility rather than arrogance and rivalry. When we recognize the cross and all it stands for—the atoning, substitutionary sacrifice of the God-man for sinners in need of salvation, vindicated by his bodily resurrection and exaltation—we have identified the cluster of complementary and fundamental truths that must forever form the core of Christian faith. We also recognize how most other doctrines recede into the periphery, most notably the external signs of inward truths, such as baptism. We should resolve not to let these less central matters erect barriers to fellowship and service among God’s people in his world.

Contemporary Significance

ONE CAN SCARCELY reflect at length on verses 10–17 without raising serious questions about the history of Christian denominationalism. There have no doubt been times when certain wings of the church have become so heretical or disobedient that faithful disciples of our Lord have had to distance themselves and start afresh. Protestants have often pointed to the Reformation as the classic example of this, although some church historians wonder what would have happened if Luther had worked more patiently within the Roman Catholic Church for another generation, given the winds of change heralded already by Erasmus and arguably stifled by Luther’s tactical intransigence.

But surely the majority of Christian denominations, particularly the numerous subgroups into which most of the major branches of Protestantism have split, have been spawned at least as much by personal rivalry, animosity, and a spirit of intolerance, often along geographical or ethnic lines. As Snyder puts it, “Theological plurality has not been as much a problem as alienating behavior, a behavior which has developed a sense of uncompromising rectitude on the part of some people.”7

The disunity of the church of Jesus Christ remains one of the greatest scandals which compromises its witness today. In John 17, Jesus prayed that his disciples might be united. In Ephesians 3, Paul expounds the unity of the church across the greatest sociological divisions of the ancient Middle East—Jew versus Gentile. The evangelistic potential of a united church extends to the most powerful anti-Christian forces in the universe (Eph. 3:9–10). The only way this unity can have an impact on a non-Christian world is for it to be visible.

Church should be a place where people who have no other natural reason for associating with each other come together in love, but instead it often remains the most segregated aspect of Western society today.8 Whatever benefits homogeneous groupings have for certain kinds of outreach, a fully mature congregation should integrate people of disparate races, nationalities, socioeconomic strata, and societal status.9 It should probably also strive to determine as little as possible by a fifty-one percent vote but utilize a consensus approach to crucial decisions, in which a substantial majority of members can agree and in which others can agree to subordinate their interests to the will of the majority.10

Whatever forces work within a given congregation to promote rivalries around human leaders, divisions over matters not fundamental to preserving the true gospel of Jesus must be lovingly but firmly dissipated. Today this may often mean that generation gaps and disputes over philosophies of ministry can be settled by having alternate services and programs for different groups within a congregation. Still, a far more powerful witness occurs when people agree to learn to sing music they don’t naturally like and support activities that are not their highest priorities. Church leadership in return should seek a blend of ministries and experiences in worship that sooner or later addresses the needs of all in one unified body.

The Christian celebrity phenomenon presents great hazards as well, creating “groupies” who hang on every word (or song) of radio and television preachers or singers without testing their messages against the Scriptures as carefully as they do those of their own pastors and leaders.

The contemporary ecumenical movement, particularly within the World Council of Churches, has scared many evangelicals away from creating new visible, external structures to display Christian unity. Certainly Paul would never have tolerated the popular “lowest common denominator” form of ecumenism that promotes only what all professing Christians can accept. But this is not the goal of the WCC, and not a few evangelicals have participated in it.

What is more, conservative Christians have excelled at creating parachurch organizations with doctrinal statements that preserve the fundamentals of the faith while allowing full participation of some members of virtually every Protestant church. With renewal movements in Catholic and Orthodox circles, some parachurch organizations will also admit certain members of these branches of Christendom. But if we recognize this distinction between the fundamentals and the peripherals of the faith outside the institutional church, how much more ought we not to recognize it within the church?

Views on baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the millennium or the rapture, women in ministry, spiritual gifts, and numerous other items should not stand in the way of intensive networking and cooperation among a wide variety of churches in a given community or region for the larger purposes of the kingdom.11 Many new church plants, like older but growing congregations, are removing denominational labels from their buildings and advertising in favor of a “community church” identity. Interdenominational congregations frequently grow better than those that remain restricted by outmoded forms of ministry they have inherited from their denominations. Others remain affiliated but play down potentially divisive denominational allegiances. All these models need to be imitated and multiplied.12

Denominations should seriously consider the possible advantages of merging with their closest cousins and then ask the tougher questions about those issues that divide them from more distant kin. The Church of South India stands as a testimony from the twentieth century of how disparate denominations could formally merge without compromising the fundamentals of the faith. The indigenous church in China after the Communist Revolution demonstrated the necessity and vitality of obliterating most Western denominational distinctions, though not surprisingly they created some new ones of their own.

Missions organizations working in the least evangelized parts of the world regularly sense the need to cooperate and join forces. Recent efforts have even shared donor databases.

When will the institutional church, and particularly the church in the individualized West, put away its petty squabbling and begin to demonstrate this biblically mandated unity more visibly? Not a few unbelievers ancient and modern have rejected the gospel on the grounds that a religion as visibly divided as Christianity could scarcely reflect the truth!