In my 1&2 Corinthians class last week we were discussing the issue(s) of division at Corinth and were tying to find near-contemporary equivalents of the issue Paul mentions.
Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:10-16 says:
“I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
As evidently seen from the text, the issue here is one of division (c.f. 1 Corinthians 3:3-4). But the question is what is the division over? Currently I’m reading Kenneth E. Bailey’s magnificent work on 1 Corinthians Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians. Every time I open up a book written by Bailey, whether this or his Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, my mind is blown by his meticulous scholarship. Bailey does his homework. Back to the issue of division. He notes that Corinth was a melting pot in the Roman Empire. He goes on and says that “the three groups [Paul's Crew - The Romans, Cephas's rabbis and Apollos's philosophers] that would have naturally dominated the young Christian community would have been the Romans, the Greeks, and the Jews.” The basis of his argument stems from the different citizenships for the individuals mentioned in the text: Peter (he uses Cephas because it is his Jewish name), himself and Apollos.
The issue I find with this interpretation is the very fact that Christ is seamlessly mentioned after the other names. This wouldn’t seem to make sense if you subscribe solely to his interpretation. To me, it seems like the division might be over multiple issues. Like most relationships that have division, it begins with one issue of division, but later forms into a relationship that has multiple issues of division.
Because Christ is mentioned, I tend to think that there is more going on here than just ethnic and citizen based division. It seems to be over doctrine, too. Because the church at Corinth clearly had people practicing the spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 1:7), it wouldn’t be a stretch to say people believed to have revelation from Jesus, perhaps even such revelation that caused them to think they had apostolic authority, much like Paul himself. The reason for assuming this is the very fact of the Pauline formula throughout this and his letter to the Philippians. It’s clearly one of Christ<Me<You. “Follow me as I follow Christ (1 Corinthians 11).”
Kenneth E. Bailey, Paul through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2011), 69-70.
Although I had never considered it through the lens of ethnic divisions that does make a lot of sense. We know in Rome the Jew-Gentile division was strong. In Galatians we see something similar with Paul-Cephas (Gentile and Jewish Christianity). But I agree with you that it is probably not that simple since neither were the divisions in Rome and Galatia. In other words, whatever influence ethnicity had on the division it was likely compounded by a variety of doctrinal differences as well.
As far as the mention of Christ, I think the traditional interpretation makes the most sense: some group(s) thought they would rise above the divisions appealing directly to their relationship with Christ himself. Of course, this causes even more splinter groups since to say “I go straight to Christ” means one is competing with Paul who claims to know Christ, and Peter, and Apollos, and whoever else throws in their hat.
In my experience, people say that it is a theological issue, but that theological issue often masks other issues (culture, race, class, etc.)
I would think it is likely (but speculation) that regardless there is probably more than one issue that is really at play.
Confessionalism is the error: Anyone who identifies themselves as a ‘Calvinist’ or ‘Arminian’ is committing the same error the Corinthians. (In Corinth the believers were asserting the value of their baptism based upon who had baptised them. Paul pointed out that the value of baptism was not the baptiser but the blood of the one who they were being baptised in. This was their confessionalism)
We are baptised in Christ, not Calvin or Arminius. We may happen to agree with how Calvin or Arminus interpreted scripture, but the goal is not to agree with other humans or to be like them, rather the goal is to be like Christ and understand Him (whatever others think). As fervent as Calvin or Arminius are (or others), they are both mere men, and their personal doctrines have little worth compared to the doctrine of Christ even if they ‘seem’ to provide clarity on the bible.
To hold anyone accountable to doctrinal interpretation (or articulation) is to elevate that doctrine to the same level as the bible. Even if one agrees with some particular theologian, at best, their theology is flawed. The only theologians who ultimately speak with authority are the ones recorded in the bible. There must always be room for the individual believer to subject themselves to their concious [Rom 14:5] even if it goes against well known theologians. Failure to allow for this (in a charitable way) is what stifles the effective work of the Holy Spirit.
I’ve also noted that “seamless” interposition of Christ’s “group”, seeming to imply a parallel with the named apostles and leaders. Seems to me either a pathetic elevation of the merely human leaders of the church, or a ignorant degradation of Christ. It’s intriguing to me to consider the distinctions of the leaders mentioned: “I follow Paul,” (the apostle of outreach to Greeks, freedom from Mosaic law, etc.,) “I follow Apollos,” (Alexandrian, prob. a great, classic-style rhetorician), “I follow Cephas,” (the traditional, observant Jew), or, “I follow Christ.” (Straight to the top, Jesus-and-me-alone theology, no need or desire for merely human leaders, etc.) Seems to imply theological, ethnic, and cultural, (and perhaps ethical) distinctions all the way around.
I wonder if the same spirit doesn’t work in the church today when we are tempted to closely identify ourselves with one particular preacher/teacher/theologian/movement over another, and then spend our energies defending our distinctives and pointing out our “rival’s” deficiencies, instead of promoting unity.
Thanks for the posting!
The division seems to be against Paul (Chapter 4 says he is being judged by them). I would agree, from what I’ve read, that the matter is quite complex (and mysterious) as well. We hear explicitly identified parties in this opening chapter, but later, not so much.
I’m thinking Hellenistic culture has a big influence to whatever the situation was (identifying with a solicited rhetorician, exalting sophia/sophos, etc) and that the division is caused by some sort of syncretism between Christian discipleship and Greek sophism, in a situation where the Gospel is being choked out by human boasting, rhetoric and philosophy.
Not to simplify the mystery of what we are attempting to exegete, but I find this similar division alive and well in the Church today, as we have 100,000 denominations, independent churches and this rampant desire for individualism.
@Ken I missed your comment. I think you were reaching for some of the same conclusions as I.
@James:
It is worth pondering how we are like the Corinthians. Our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters find us evangelicals to be quite similar! Of course, we maintain we have the right to worship uniquely and differ on a variety of doctrines while maintaining Christian unity. I guess the question is how can we have unity in diversity or unity that allows for difference and if we do this how to we allow for difference without allowing anything and everything to be considered “Christianity”?
Glad to see a post from you Dan!
I was thinking how even today some professed allegiances to certain ethnic divisions typically comes with certain stereotypical doctrinal followings. The issue does not seem as simple as “They are divided between Romans with Paul, Jews with Cephas, Greeks with Apollos…” but multi-layered, maybe reflecting something similar to, “the Jews who profess following (or baptism by?) Cephas hold to similar beliefs as the Jewish Christians found in Galatia.” So the ethnic division implies different theological leanings. Of course as you have pointed out, how do those who “follow Christ” follow the trend of these categories? So is possibly the point of them confessing Christ, they try to rise above the categories but seem to do so in some prideful manner.
Contemporary equivalents would probably lean more towards doctrinal division, but there is an element of ethnic division that is pretty easily seen in modern church. For instance, in many of the modern churches I have been to there is not a whole lot of reflection of the outside community demographics. The staff is all white, mostly if not exclusively male, the congregation is pretty much all white around the same age, etc.
Pingback: Is genuine unity achievable? « Near Emmaus
Good question, Brian. I see you started a new post on that topic.
I like how you have phrased the fundamental problem of both unity and diversity.
Daniel,
I agree that there is more going on here than simply ethnic squabbles. I think Charles Talbert’s approach to this passage is helpful. Talbert points out that the three questions in the passage are answered in reverse order. So Paul immediately answers whether the Corinthians were baptized in the name of Paul in 1:14–16. Paul then answers the question of whether Paul was crucified for them in 1:17–3:4. The question “Is Christ crucified” is answered in 3:5–4:7. Reading that section as a whole seems to indicate that the division was over whose spiritual leadership one was better under. (Google Books has a preview of Talbert on this entire section; just Google “Charles Talbert Reading Corinthians” [no quotes].)
Today, we might think of it in terms of subscribing to doctrines, denominations, or even preachers! It becomes quite easy to hold up one’s favorite above another to the detriment of the body. Of course, Paul never states or implies one should not follow Peter or Apollos. What one needs to realize is that Paul, Apollos, and Peter are all working for the benefit of the church and that all belong to Christ. I might apply it in that one can subscribe faithfully to something like Arminianism or Calvinism, Catholic or Quaker, Rob Bell or John Piper, so long as one is edified by them and in turn causes them to edify the rest of the body.
@JohnDave: Are you saying that there’s a chiastic structure to this? Something like 1, 2, 3, 3′, 2′, 1′ ?
Daniel: That’s exactly how Talbert sees it. 1) Is Christ divided, 2) Was Paul crucified for you? 3) Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? are answered by 3′) 1:14–16, 2′) 1:17–3:4, 3′) 3:5–4:7. It looks to make the best sense of 1:10–4:7.
Pingback: Resources for 1 Corinthians 3:3 - 4