On the other pole, Welborn attributed the divisions “to a power struggle, not a theological controversy” . He compared Paul’s terminology with that used by Greco-Roman historians to argue that personality-centered politics within the church may resemble the surrounding society where aligning oneself to an apostolic figure would give added clout and prestige to one’s own agenda. Munck also cautioned against seeing these groups as separate theological fragments.
In a rebuttal to Baur, Grosheide argued against the supposed Paul-Peter rift by pointing out that it was Peter who first preached to Gentiles. At the Jerusalem Council, both men were on the same side (Acts 15) and had same coworkers in Silas and Mark. There is also little evidence to associate Apollos of Alexandria with Philo’s Hellenistic philosophy and emphasis on wisdom. We do know that he is eloquent in speech and learned in Scripture, only knew of the baptism of John before being more fully taught by Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:24).
The divisions were most probably internal because the different groups were still one church and still met for Holy Communion (11:17ff.). If there were theological controversies like that in Galatia, Paul was not one to shun away from heresy to preserve his reputation or for the sake of not rocking the boat. But here in Corinth, Paul did not attack or defend any groups, not even the party that claimed to follow him. He went out of his way to represent Apollos as a fellow worker in the gospel (3:6-9). If Apollos was responsible for the divisions, it would be odd that Paul himself would urge him to visit the Corinthians (16:12). The fact that he was unwilling to do so at that time is probably an attempt to distance himself from the party associated to his name. Perhaps against his will, some believers were boasting and taking pride over against another on the basis of their favorite teachers (4:6) and an adversarial attitude towards the founder, Paul.
Although there is still no clear evidence that doctrinal splits existed, it is not merely a matter of petty squabble. Paul can still criticize all the groupings without going into the details of each partisan difference because “the community still exists as a whole and all the groups recognize the traditional creed. This of course is presupposed in 11:23 ff and 15:3 ff.”
However, what was wrong about the Christ party? Chrysotom disputed the existence of such a party. The slogan “I belong to Christ” could be added by Paul to reduce the other three slogans to absurdity. However, the parallelism of the phrasing and the difficulty in finding a logical link between verse 12 and verse 13 probably indicated that there was a fourth group. We could only guess what they stood for. Perhaps, they claimed to know Christ without the mediation of preachers or what Lutgert called an elitist, quasi-gnostic “spiritual enthusiasm”. Just as some take pride in their favorite preacher, some caused divisions by taking pride in the opposite, cynical direction. If so, then Paul’s rhetorical question in verse 12: “Is Christ divided?” would make more sense. It would have a similar effect as what Paul said elsewhere in 2 Corinthians 10:7: “If anyone is confident that he belongs to Christ, he should consider again that we belong to Christ just as much as he.” The believers were all baptized into one body of Christ (12:12-13). When they belong to Christ, then all things – whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world of life or death or the present or the future – are already theirs so there is no ground for boasting (3:21).
The second rhetorical question, “Was Paul crucified for you?” pointed them back to the gospel. It was Christ who gave Himself up for their sins (15:3). By doing so, he took away the ground for boasting in the “Paul group” that claimed allegiance to him. It was not Paul who died on the cross for them, but Christ. Instead of criticizing the other groups first, Paul deliberately avoided being made a pawn in their game of partisanship.
The last rhetorical question turned on baptism, the rite of initiation: “Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” (1:13) According to Barrett, baptism into the name of Christ indicated “it is under the authority of Christ that baptism takes place, and… the person baptized becomes a property of Christ.” Paul does not own or lord it over their faith. Perhaps there were some mistaken notions of a special mystical relationship between the person who performed the baptism and the baptized, Paul was glad that circumstances were such that he did not baptize many of them except Crispus and Gaius. As an afterthought, he recalled having baptized the household of Stephanas but the omission could have been a “deliberate gambit to underline how unimportant it is who baptized whom”. In verse 17, Paul stressed that his primary calling was to preach the gospel and not to perform baptisms, further downplaying the issue of who performed the rite. As a preacher of the gospel, he did not rely on eloquent words of ‘human wisdom’ that elevates self-reputation and distracts attention from the power of the cross of Christ. It was not wisdom per se that he finds incompatible with the gospel. He would not gain the assent of listeners with superficial rhetorical tricks rather than substance that really transforms.
Applications
As the world becomes increasingly fragmented with violent conflicts, the church faces the challenge to be an alternative community of reconciliation and peacemaking. Our witness suffers if sectarian divisions based on personalities, petty doctrinal differences or hyper-spiritual independence continue to characterize the Body of Christ. There is a place for making a courageous stand when grievous errors threaten unity in the gospel like what Paul did in Galatians. However, partisanship and boasting centered on gifted leaders only breed jealousy and strife.
We need to be reminded that these ministers serve in different capacities according to what the Lord has called them, and our ultimate allegiance lies in Christ alone who died for our redemption and into whose Body we have been baptized. Our ecclesiology cannot be content with merely abstract unity in an invisible church, but actively seek to express it visibly in concrete terms. When Martin Luther learnt that some Protestants were being called Lutherans, he captured the heartbeat of Paul by registering this protest, “What is Luther? The teaching is not mine. Nor was I crucified for anyone… How did I, poor stinking bag of maggots that I am, come to the point where people call the children of Christ by my evil name?”
Bibliography
1. I & II Corinthians, The New Century Bible Commentary, F. F. Bruce, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2001
2. 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, David E. Garland, Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, 2003
3. 1 Corinthians, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leon Morris, Inter-Varsity Press: Grand Rapids, 1985
4. A Commentary On The First Epistle To The Corinthians, C. K. Barrett, Hendrickson Publishers: Massachusetts, 1987
5. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermenia – A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, Hans Conzelmann, Translated by James W. Leitch, Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1975
6. First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Gordon Fee, Eerdmans Publishing: Grand Rapids, 1987
7. First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, The International Critical Commentary, Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, T & T Clark: Edinburgh, 1982
8. The First Epistle To the Corinthians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament, F. W. Grosheide, Eerdmans Pubishing: Grand Rapids, 1953
9. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Greek New Testament Commentary, Antony C. Thiselton, Eerdmans Publishing: Grand Rapids, 2000
10. The Letters to the Corinthians, William Barclay, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954.
In a rebuttal to Baur, Grosheide argued against the supposed Paul-Peter rift by pointing out that it was Peter who first preached to Gentiles. At the Jerusalem Council, both men were on the same side (Acts 15) and had same coworkers in Silas and Mark. There is also little evidence to associate Apollos of Alexandria with Philo’s Hellenistic philosophy and emphasis on wisdom. We do know that he is eloquent in speech and learned in Scripture, only knew of the baptism of John before being more fully taught by Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:24).
The divisions were most probably internal because the different groups were still one church and still met for Holy Communion (11:17ff.). If there were theological controversies like that in Galatia, Paul was not one to shun away from heresy to preserve his reputation or for the sake of not rocking the boat. But here in Corinth, Paul did not attack or defend any groups, not even the party that claimed to follow him. He went out of his way to represent Apollos as a fellow worker in the gospel (3:6-9). If Apollos was responsible for the divisions, it would be odd that Paul himself would urge him to visit the Corinthians (16:12). The fact that he was unwilling to do so at that time is probably an attempt to distance himself from the party associated to his name. Perhaps against his will, some believers were boasting and taking pride over against another on the basis of their favorite teachers (4:6) and an adversarial attitude towards the founder, Paul.
Although there is still no clear evidence that doctrinal splits existed, it is not merely a matter of petty squabble. Paul can still criticize all the groupings without going into the details of each partisan difference because “the community still exists as a whole and all the groups recognize the traditional creed. This of course is presupposed in 11:23 ff and 15:3 ff.”
However, what was wrong about the Christ party? Chrysotom disputed the existence of such a party. The slogan “I belong to Christ” could be added by Paul to reduce the other three slogans to absurdity. However, the parallelism of the phrasing and the difficulty in finding a logical link between verse 12 and verse 13 probably indicated that there was a fourth group. We could only guess what they stood for. Perhaps, they claimed to know Christ without the mediation of preachers or what Lutgert called an elitist, quasi-gnostic “spiritual enthusiasm”. Just as some take pride in their favorite preacher, some caused divisions by taking pride in the opposite, cynical direction. If so, then Paul’s rhetorical question in verse 12: “Is Christ divided?” would make more sense. It would have a similar effect as what Paul said elsewhere in 2 Corinthians 10:7: “If anyone is confident that he belongs to Christ, he should consider again that we belong to Christ just as much as he.” The believers were all baptized into one body of Christ (12:12-13). When they belong to Christ, then all things – whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world of life or death or the present or the future – are already theirs so there is no ground for boasting (3:21). The second rhetorical question, “Was Paul crucified for you?” pointed them back to the gospel. It was Christ who gave Himself up for their sins (15:3). By doing so, he took away the ground for boasting in the “Paul group” that claimed allegiance to him. It was not Paul who died on the cross for them, but Christ. Instead of criticizing the other groups first, Paul deliberately avoided being made a pawn in their game of partisanship.
The last rhetorical question turned on baptism, the rite of initiation: “Were you baptized into the name of Paul?” (1:13) According to Barrett, baptism into the name of Christ indicated “it is under the authority of Christ that baptism takes place, and… the person baptized becomes a property of Christ.” Paul does not own or lord it over their faith. Perhaps there were some mistaken notions of a special mystical relationship between the person who performed the baptism and the baptized, Paul was glad that circumstances were such that he did not baptize many of them except Crispus and Gaius. As an afterthought, he recalled having baptized the household of Stephanas but the omission could have been a “deliberate gambit to underline how unimportant it is who baptized whom”. In verse 17, Paul stressed that his primary calling was to preach the gospel and not to perform baptisms, further downplaying the issue of who performed the rite. As a preacher of the gospel, he did not rely on eloquent words of ‘human wisdom’ that elevates self-reputation and distracts attention from the power of the cross of Christ. It was not wisdom per se that he finds incompatible with the gospel. He would not gain the assent of listeners with superficial rhetorical tricks rather than substance that really transforms.
Applications
As the world becomes increasingly fragmented with violent conflicts, the church faces the challenge to be an alternative community of reconciliation and peacemaking. Our witness suffers if sectarian divisions based on personalities, petty doctrinal differences or hyper-spiritual independence continue to characterize the Body of Christ. There is a place for making a courageous stand when grievous errors threaten unity in the gospel like what Paul did in Galatians. However, partisanship and boasting centered on gifted leaders only breed jealousy and strife.
We need to be reminded that these ministers serve in different capacities according to what the Lord has called them, and our ultimate allegiance lies in Christ alone who died for our redemption and into whose Body we have been baptized. Our ecclesiology cannot be content with merely abstract unity in an invisible church, but actively seek to express it visibly in concrete terms. When Martin Luther learnt that some Protestants were being called Lutherans, he captured the heartbeat of Paul by registering this protest, “What is Luther? The teaching is not mine. Nor was I crucified for anyone… How did I, poor stinking bag of maggots that I am, come to the point where people call the children of Christ by my evil name?” Bibliography
1. I & II Corinthians, The New Century Bible Commentary, F. F. Bruce, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2001
2. 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, David E. Garland, Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, 2003
3. 1 Corinthians, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leon Morris, Inter-Varsity Press: Grand Rapids, 1985
4. A Commentary On The First Epistle To The Corinthians, C. K. Barrett, Hendrickson Publishers: Massachusetts, 1987
5. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermenia – A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, Hans Conzelmann, Translated by James W. Leitch, Fortress Press: Philadelphia, 1975
6. First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Gordon Fee, Eerdmans Publishing: Grand Rapids, 1987
7. First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians, The International Critical Commentary, Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, T & T Clark: Edinburgh, 1982
8. The First Epistle To the Corinthians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament, F. W. Grosheide, Eerdmans Pubishing: Grand Rapids, 1953
9. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Greek New Testament Commentary, Antony C. Thiselton, Eerdmans Publishing: Grand Rapids, 2000
10. The Letters to the Corinthians, William Barclay, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1954.
Comments