1 CORINTHIANS 1:10-16
THIS FIRST ESSAY IS COMPOSED of four sections that are as follows:
1.1. The Problem: Divisions, Baptism and the Cross (1:10-16)
1.2.The Wisdom and Power of God: The Cross (1:17–2:2)
1.3.The Wisdom of God: Revealed Through the Spirit (2:3-16)
1.4. Christian Unity: Paul, Apollos and Cephas as One (3:1–4:16)
Having invoked the tradition in his introduction, Paul is ready to present the first problem he wants to discuss with them, which has to do with serious divisions in the church (note italics above). After naming the problem (1.1) he sets to work at once building a theological base out of which a solution to that problem can be found (1.2 and 1.3). He then returns to the problem in the light of that theology (1.4). The problem (1.1) is set out in figure 1.1(1).
Using ring composition, Paul opens with three positive cameos that are then matched (in reverse order) with three negatives. At the end of the homily he adds an aside.
The center is a point of special emphasis. He urges them to unite, not fight.
1:10I appeal to you, brethren, | JESUS IS OUR LORD | |
| by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, | Name—of Jesus |
|
|
|
2. | that all of you agree | DIVISIONS |
| and that there be no divisions among you, |
|
|
|
|
3. | but that you be united in the same mind |
|
| and of the same judgment. | MUST UNITE |
|
|
|
4. | 11For it has been reported to me, my brethren, |
|
| by Chloe’s people, that there is quarreling among you. | NOT FIGHT |
|
|
|
5. | 12What I mean is that each one of you says, |
|
| “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” |
|
| or “I am of Christ.” 13Is Christ divided? | DIVISIONS |
|
|
|
6. | Was Paul crucified for you? | JESUS DIED FOR YOU |
| Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? | Name—of Paul? |
(aside 1:14-16) 14I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; 15lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. 16I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else. | ||
Figure 1.1(1). Divisions in the church: Paul, Apollos and Cephas as competitors (1 Cor 1:10-16)
Cameo 1 begins with “I appeal to you” (parakaleo). This verb is used to describe the father in the parable of the prodigal son as he goes out to reconcile his older son standing defiantly in the courtyard of the family home (Lk 15:28). It is a strong word that indicates a deep desire for reconciliation. Paul “entreats them” “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” They were baptized using this latter phrase or something close to it. Also, as noted, the full phrase “our Lord Jesus Christ” occurs four times at the beginning of chapter 1 and is not heard again until the conclusion of chapter 15. Its repetition is a strong call for unity.
The declaration “I appeal to you—in the name…” is Paul’s strongest theological appeal. In cameo 2 he requests them to “say the same thing,” that is, to agree, with no divisions (literally skhisma [schism: no splits]). Rather, he calls on them to “agree,” literally “fit together” (kat-artizo). The language is that of a tentmaker or indeed, of a brass-maker. Pieces of canvas must “fit together” or the tent will leak. If the canvas “splits,” the tent is worthless. Corinth was famous for its brass work (13:1-13). No one will buy a brass pot with a handle that does not fit tightly to the pot. Paul summons (cameo 3) his readers to be of the same “mind” and the same “purpose/intention.”1 People with differences can work together if they have the same purpose. Paul wants all of them to think along the same lines, and to have a united purpose.
He then turns from his intended goals for their life together, and faces them with the present reality by naming names (cameo 4). The family of Chloe must have been prominent and respected or Paul would not have revealed his source. The divisions within the church were serious. The word here translated “quarreling” is the Greek word Eris, who was “a goddess who excites to war.”2 In Greek mythology Eris’s brother was Aris, the Greek god of war. Aris in turn was the equivalent to Mars, the Roman god of war.3 In Greek the word eris was also used to depict “battle-strife.”4 With such language, Paul was not discussing a “little misunderstanding” but rather bitter quarreling and contention. There was a battle raging in Corinth. What was the root of it all?
In cameo 5, Paul identifies four parties in the church. Chrysostom argues that Paul is really talking about known leaders in the church in Corinth and their followers, but that Paul “makes his argument less severe, not mentioning by name the rude dividers of the Church, but concealing them, as behind a sort of masks [sic], with the names of the Apostles.”5 This is a thoughtful suggestion. To call the leaders of the various factions by name would have inflamed the situation and put Chloe into an impossible position. What then was Paul talking about?
Having lived for decades in multicultural Middle Eastern communities, I know that ethnic divisions run deep. As far as we know there was no successful “melting pot” ideology in the ancient world. The city of Corinth was destroyed in 146 B.C. by the Romans for having opposed them, and then in 44 B.C. it was reborn as a Roman colony to facilitate the movement of goods across the isthmus of Corinth and as a center of trade. As a commercial town composed of various ethnic communities it was thriving in the first century, and the three groups that would have naturally dominated the young Christian community would have been the Romans, the Greeks and the Jews.
Writing to a church in the largest Roman colony in the empire, Paul would have triggered unnecessary hostility in the wider community if he had written, “In our new fellowship, Romans, Greeks and Jews are all equal.” In Corinth the Romans were inevitably at the top of the pecking order. The town was in Greece, so the Greeks would have been second. As powerless foreigners the Jews would naturally have been at the bottom of that three-some. A rough equivalent might be an American military base in Germany. On the base, the Americans run everything. The Germans who work there would be second, and any Turkish guest workers would be third. Paul was a Roman citizen. Apollos was Greek and Paul refers to Peter as “Cephas,” using his Jewish name. Romans would naturally prefer Roman leadership. Greeks wanted to listen to a native Greek speaker and Jews would naturally lean toward a Jewish leader, especially if he “was from Galilee or Judea” and thereby “from the home country.” Their various ethnic loyalties were quite likely causing serious tension in the church and Paul may well have been referring to those loyalties. Bishr ibn al-Sari thinks Paul added his name to the list “to demonstrate that it was not necessary for anyone to call himself a follower of Paul.”6 What then of the fourth party?
A group in the church claimed “we are of Christ” and that phrase implies, “The rest of you are not ‘of Christ.’ We alone can claim that identification.”Many churches have a small clique of people who consider themselves “the true believers.” They are not sure of the salvation of their pastor, but they are praying for him! Self-righteousness is usually on display in such groups and dealing with them can be extremely difficult. Perhaps something of this same dynamic was present in Corinth and elsewhere. Paul continues,
6. | Was Paul crucified for you? | JESUS DIED FOR YOU |
| Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? | Name—of Paul? |
Assuming the centrality of Christ, and denying that he seeks any party loyalty to himself, Paul rings “the big bells” by invoking baptism and the cross. Each is given special prominence. Their unity is anchored in these two realities. Who died for us? In whose name were we baptized? The shift from the singular to the plural is significant. Each is saying “I am of Paul,” etc. But Paul asks, “Who was crucified for you [pl.]?” They are a community united around a cross and for Paul their baptism is profoundly related to that cross.
He then appears to have added an aside of the type that is outside of the rhetorical structure of the passage. This is called a katacrusis and is as follows:
14I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; 15lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. 16I did baptize also the house-hold of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.
This fascinating “aside” mentions “Stephanas” who was the first convert in the province and whose name reappears at the very end of the epistle. He and his friends brought written messages to Paul in Ephesus and most probably carried the finished epistle back to Corinth.
This appears to be the way Paul writes when he is not following prophetic models. Second Corinthians is full of this kind of composition. Verses 14-15 make a statement. Verse 16 “dribbles on” indicating something that he forgot to mention in the first part. He baptized one household—perhaps others—he can’t remember. After this very human aside, Paul is ready to discuss the central event that can bring them together—the cross.
The following high points are prominent in this brief homily.
Breaking into ethnic enclaves is unacceptable. Furthermore, loyalties to individuals is not an excuse for breaking the unity of the church. Their leaders are not adequate centers of primary loyalty.
No group in the church has the right to claim that they alone are loyal to Christ.
They are “called by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2) and in that name they can find their unity (1:10).
Baptism and the cross also call them together.
The question is not “Who is my leader?” but rather, “Who died for us?”
With the problem of this first essay stated boldly, Paul turns to the cross in the shadow of which their divisions can be eclipsed (1:17–2:2).