Divisions in the Church of Corinth
Today's text is available online here: 1 Cor. 1:10-17.
Anyone watching news clips today of violent bloody battles in the Middle East between Sunni and Shiite Muslims sees clearly that violent confrontations between members of opposing religious factions within a single religion are by no means confined to one religion. True, the only example in history of such bloody fighting between rival Christian sects dates back centuries ago to the Thirty Years War in Europe.
But non-bloody conflicts within rival groups of Christians is as old as the Corinthians. Such conflicts do not result in real killings and physical maiming. But they tear the very fabric of love that Jesus and Paul both taught was that which binds all believers together as one. This is why, when I read of bitter recriminations between Christian groups (Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants), it saddens me. Not because we should not argue in a civil and loving way for what we believe to be God's truth, but because it is usually not done that way, and only ends in making the walls between us even higher.
Even sadder, though, are such conflicts based not upon a serious difference in interpreting Scripture—which might be more understandable—but on what human leader or teacher to follow. This was the kind of situation that was brewing in Corinth in Paul's absence, and which was brought to his attention by some members of the "household of Chloe". These may be slaves of Chloe's sent to Paul as messengers.1
In good pastoral style, Paul gives them a positive goal (v. 10) before he points out their failure (v. 11-17). The goal (or "appeal") is that they "agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought". He doesn't go on at this point to explain why the unity is important. He simply urges it. A father, finding his children fighting, normally does not take the time to explain why they must stop fighting: he just grabs them and says "Stop fighting!" But of course, he may then add: "You are brothers! Brothers are suppose to love each other, and stand up for each other."
Elsewhere, Paul gives reasons for unity and solidarity within the Christian communities. They were exposed and vulnerable in a pagan world, and some of the more extreme members of the Jewish synagogues were just looking for a chance to attack and eliminate them. In a letter to the church at Philippi he once wrote “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27 NIV).
Instead, many among the Corinthian believers were contending about whose way of interpreting the message and sacrifice of Jesus was best. Chloe's house-church members apparently told Paul that one group said “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas’”; still another, “I follow Christ.” We don't know if they gave him the names and numbers of each group. Paul certainly doesn't mention it. He would not be flattered by being having the largest group! Apollos was a very learned and erudite Jewish convert to the gospel of Jesus, who was extremely knowledgeable in the Old Testament, as well as skilled in public argumentation. Paul, on the other hand, while he knew the Scripture well, was—by his own admission—not a polished speaker. A third group followed Cephas, which means Peter. Apollos had visited Corinth; Peter had not. But believers who had immigrated to Corinth from the eastern lands—especially Jerusalem—could easily have heard him often speak. His reputation as the chief of the Twelve would naturally have impressed believers.
Some interpreters believe that these groups corresponded to the social classes to which the believers belonged in secular society. If so, Paul's and Apollos' groups may have been for the lower classes, Cephas (as one of the Jerusalem "pillars") the middle class, and "Christ" the true social elite of the city! How horribly ironic, since Christ would have wanted this least of all!
Paul does not defend his own right to lead his "church-plant" over these rivals who have sprung up after his departure. He will eventually remind them that they may have had many teachers, but only one "father" in the gospel, Paul himself (4:15). But for now his concern is that they see the devilish sin of putting human leaders ahead of the Lord Jesus himself. Paul was no "Vicar of Christ", nor was Peter, nor Apollos. He uses his own name as the example to be criticized, when he writes: “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1Corinthians 1:13-17 NIV).
We may get just a tiny glimpse of what Paul thought lay at the root of the problem, when he says that he avoided using sophisticated philosophical language ("words of human wisdom") when he preached in Corinth. His reason was, that a genuine conversion—turning from our society's other religious ideas, values and priorities, to faith in Jesus and his sole lordship over one's ideas about God, life and morals—can only be brought about by a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in making the death of Jesus for our sins ("the cross of Christ") real and convincing. The use of persuasive philosophy, to his mind, produced only a shallow attraction to Christian teaching, something sham and weak that would never stand the test of persecution for the sake of the gospel. Paul may have even experimented with the other approach himself, only to find the results meager and unsatisfying. Some interpreters—I happen not to agree with them—think he did so at his last stop before arriving initially at Corinth. It was at Athens, where on Mars Hill (Areopolis) to an audience of philosophers he argued in their own terms for the gospel (Acts 17). But we need not hold that interpretation of Acts 17 in order to agree that Paul had somewhere, perhaps through bitter experience, concluded that the best approach was the simple one, the same one that Jesus himself used, a quiet and clear explanation of the truth about Jesus.
Brothers and sisters, what can we learn from this? Paul wrote later in 1 Cor 1:26 "Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth." Certainly that is still true of us today, is it not? How many of us would claim to be impressive by our wealth or achievements? But that is not what Jesus calls us to be! He calls us to be the servants of the needs of others—like he himself was. He calls us to confront evil boldly with words of truth, but not with anger and hostility. Our message of the gospel will be believed because we love, serve, and pray, as well as testify to its truthfulness. Our greatest desire should be to please Jesus, to be his faithful and good servants. If we are, we will be fruitful in changing the thinking of those around us about our Lord.
Today's text is available online here: 1 Cor. 1:10-17.
Anyone watching news clips today of violent bloody battles in the Middle East between Sunni and Shiite Muslims sees clearly that violent confrontations between members of opposing religious factions within a single religion are by no means confined to one religion. True, the only example in history of such bloody fighting between rival Christian sects dates back centuries ago to the Thirty Years War in Europe.
But non-bloody conflicts within rival groups of Christians is as old as the Corinthians. Such conflicts do not result in real killings and physical maiming. But they tear the very fabric of love that Jesus and Paul both taught was that which binds all believers together as one. This is why, when I read of bitter recriminations between Christian groups (Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants), it saddens me. Not because we should not argue in a civil and loving way for what we believe to be God's truth, but because it is usually not done that way, and only ends in making the walls between us even higher.
Even sadder, though, are such conflicts based not upon a serious difference in interpreting Scripture—which might be more understandable—but on what human leader or teacher to follow. This was the kind of situation that was brewing in Corinth in Paul's absence, and which was brought to his attention by some members of the "household of Chloe". These may be slaves of Chloe's sent to Paul as messengers.1
In good pastoral style, Paul gives them a positive goal (v. 10) before he points out their failure (v. 11-17). The goal (or "appeal") is that they "agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought". He doesn't go on at this point to explain why the unity is important. He simply urges it. A father, finding his children fighting, normally does not take the time to explain why they must stop fighting: he just grabs them and says "Stop fighting!" But of course, he may then add: "You are brothers! Brothers are suppose to love each other, and stand up for each other."
Elsewhere, Paul gives reasons for unity and solidarity within the Christian communities. They were exposed and vulnerable in a pagan world, and some of the more extreme members of the Jewish synagogues were just looking for a chance to attack and eliminate them. In a letter to the church at Philippi he once wrote “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27 NIV).
Instead, many among the Corinthian believers were contending about whose way of interpreting the message and sacrifice of Jesus was best. Chloe's house-church members apparently told Paul that one group said “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas’”; still another, “I follow Christ.” We don't know if they gave him the names and numbers of each group. Paul certainly doesn't mention it. He would not be flattered by being having the largest group! Apollos was a very learned and erudite Jewish convert to the gospel of Jesus, who was extremely knowledgeable in the Old Testament, as well as skilled in public argumentation. Paul, on the other hand, while he knew the Scripture well, was—by his own admission—not a polished speaker. A third group followed Cephas, which means Peter. Apollos had visited Corinth; Peter had not. But believers who had immigrated to Corinth from the eastern lands—especially Jerusalem—could easily have heard him often speak. His reputation as the chief of the Twelve would naturally have impressed believers.
Some interpreters believe that these groups corresponded to the social classes to which the believers belonged in secular society. If so, Paul's and Apollos' groups may have been for the lower classes, Cephas (as one of the Jerusalem "pillars") the middle class, and "Christ" the true social elite of the city! How horribly ironic, since Christ would have wanted this least of all!
Paul does not defend his own right to lead his "church-plant" over these rivals who have sprung up after his departure. He will eventually remind them that they may have had many teachers, but only one "father" in the gospel, Paul himself (4:15). But for now his concern is that they see the devilish sin of putting human leaders ahead of the Lord Jesus himself. Paul was no "Vicar of Christ", nor was Peter, nor Apollos. He uses his own name as the example to be criticized, when he writes: “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1Corinthians 1:13-17 NIV).
We may get just a tiny glimpse of what Paul thought lay at the root of the problem, when he says that he avoided using sophisticated philosophical language ("words of human wisdom") when he preached in Corinth. His reason was, that a genuine conversion—turning from our society's other religious ideas, values and priorities, to faith in Jesus and his sole lordship over one's ideas about God, life and morals—can only be brought about by a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit in making the death of Jesus for our sins ("the cross of Christ") real and convincing. The use of persuasive philosophy, to his mind, produced only a shallow attraction to Christian teaching, something sham and weak that would never stand the test of persecution for the sake of the gospel. Paul may have even experimented with the other approach himself, only to find the results meager and unsatisfying. Some interpreters—I happen not to agree with them—think he did so at his last stop before arriving initially at Corinth. It was at Athens, where on Mars Hill (Areopolis) to an audience of philosophers he argued in their own terms for the gospel (Acts 17). But we need not hold that interpretation of Acts 17 in order to agree that Paul had somewhere, perhaps through bitter experience, concluded that the best approach was the simple one, the same one that Jesus himself used, a quiet and clear explanation of the truth about Jesus.
Brothers and sisters, what can we learn from this? Paul wrote later in 1 Cor 1:26 "Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth." Certainly that is still true of us today, is it not? How many of us would claim to be impressive by our wealth or achievements? But that is not what Jesus calls us to be! He calls us to be the servants of the needs of others—like he himself was. He calls us to confront evil boldly with words of truth, but not with anger and hostility. Our message of the gospel will be believed because we love, serve, and pray, as well as testify to its truthfulness. Our greatest desire should be to please Jesus, to be his faithful and good servants. If we are, we will be fruitful in changing the thinking of those around us about our Lord.
1. This is the view of Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians [1983], pp. 59, 63, and 217 (n. 54). If so, as Meeks points out (p. 217, n. 54), it would mean that Chloe was one of the few "influential" and "noble" members of the congregation that Paul alludes to in 1 Cor. 1:26.
No comments:
Post a Comment