Graduate 116: 1 Corinthians 1:10-2:5

This is where things start to settle down as far as the length of individual entries in this blog series on 1 Corinthians goes. On the one hand, I just don't have the time to go into the same level of depth, with every four verses, as I did with the first nine verses of chapter one. And on the other hand, while the length of those first entries was, absolutely, an expression of my enthusiasm about the material I was dealing with, sustaining that pattern for the long haul must become tiresome quickly, both for author and reader. I think that the themes covered in the first two entries in this series are absolutely crucial. Keep in mind what Paul says about the identity of the Corinthians--their calling, their hope in God, the gifts and confirming signs that they have received. But as we move forward into this next chapter, I will probably focus on a relatively small number of points that struck me particularly and leave it at that.

[Inserted after finishing the post: Nevermind what I said above. I forgot that once I start writing, I really get into it. This entry is quite as long and overloaded as any that I've posted. Ha ha!]

After Paul's opening greeting and thanksgiving (1:1-9), the next major section extends from 1:10-4:21. This large section should, I think, be divided into four large sub-sections: 1:10-2:5; 2:6-3:4; 3:5-4:5; 4:6-4:21.

This is how Paul begins this section:

"Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and "I of Christ." " (vv.10-12)

This is the background, then. Paul has received word from servants or other members of Chloe's household of "quarrels" within the Church of God at Corinth. What exactly is the nature of these quarrels? Well, they seem to be centered around particular leaders within the larger Christian community. Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles and author of this letter. Apollos is a Jewish convert to Christianity who is renowned as a powerful teacher of the gospel. (Acts 18:23-28) Cephas is the Jewish name of the Apostle Peter. It is unlikely that each faction has the willing support of its namesake; Apollos and Cephas, no less than Paul, would be appalled to hear about the Corinthian's conduct. But there is frankly little beyond this that can be dependably inferred about the issues that have given rise to these quarrels.

This is important to keep in mind, for there is a strong tendency (within the scholarly literature) to speculate about what exactly is the thing that divides the Corinthians. Barrett, for instance, makes the following observation: "Disunity is fundamentally a matter of mind and opinion, that is, of doctrine, and it is here that restoration and reconciliation must take place; neither at this point nor later does Paul suggest that the church can be mended by ecclesiastical politics." (Barrett, 42) I think that Barrett is partly right and partly wrong in his assessment; at least, I think he does not see the whole picture. Disunity is a matter of mind and opinion, but it runs much deeper than doctrine, and, I believe, Paul speaks to that deeper issue.

One way of reading Paul's response is as a corrective to incorrect doctrine or incorrect teaching; we will see later how his response focuses primarily on the cross of Christ. But is it likely that anyone following Apollos or Cephas could fail to see this as a central and pivotal doctrine? And what is to be made of the group that describes itself as being "of Christ"? If the dividing issue is one of doctrine then surely those who follow and teach "Christ" are correct; but Paul criticizes them right alongside all the other groups.

What is important to understand, at this point, is that we really are not in a position to know exactly what issue is driving the Corinthian Christians apart. Maybe it is doctrinal, maybe it is stylistic (Apollos is a great orator), maybe it is ethnic (Cephas is the apostle to the Jews), maybe it is something else. It's not even certain that the divisions have been reified into well-defined parties; Paul may be describing trends or tendencies in the church. Fee summarizes the basic point well: "...the exact nature of this quarreling and how it took shape in the community are matters on which far more certainty is expressed in the literature than is actually warranted by what is explicitly in the text." (Fee, 55-56)

Now one may be tempted to count this a disadvantage to the twenty-first century interpreter of the text, but I think that it is not. If Paul had specified a particular issue, we might make the mistake of thinking that his response is intended to address that issue uniquely; because Paul does not specify a particular issue, we can more readily see that his response has application for many different kinds of cases of divisions. Of course divisions are not foreign to the churches of today. Many are full of (and sometimes even constituted or identified by) divisions and factions. Theological and denominational issues separate us. Age, race, economic status, and even gender often divide us. Perspectives on worship, preaching, leadership structure, order-of-service, division of responsibilities, missions, community and world outreach, politics, and social justice can all define groups and agendas that we either accept or reject.

Keeping these realities in mind can help us to see how Paul's words apply to us and our lives. It can also provide a helpful lens for understanding a part of this passage that seems to have puzzled many scholars--what is meant by those who claim to be "of Christ". Again, this is particularly puzzling if we take the controversy to be primarily doctrinal. But if not, then other possibilities present themselves.

Have you ever been in or observed a discussion among Christians on some church issue. One person prefers one perspective while another likes something different. A third person tries to reconcile the two but ends up only disagreeing with both. Sometimes a person will enter the conversation, perhaps, attempting to be helpful, and assert something to the following effect: "Well I think Jesus would do this," or "Well Jesus said it should be like this," or "Jesus did it this way so that's how we should do it." Sometimes this can be helpful, but oftentimes invoking the name of Jesus is just another way of bolstering one's own position. The name of Jesus, after all, trumps every other; but if it is used in this way, then it is just another weapon in the dialectician's arsenal. The person who invokes the name in this way has not really done anything to resolve the conflict but only added more fuel to the fire.

Fee seems to agree with this interpretation when he says, "In the long run the popular view may still be the best one: here are some people who form no distinct group at all, but who in their own attempt to rise above the rest, those boasting in mere men, have fallen into their own brand of spiritual elitism that makes them no better than the others." (Fee, 59)

--

Whatever the particular issue that divides the people--be it teaching content, teaching style, or other ground of allegiance to particular spiritual leaders--they are defending themselves by appeal to certain authorities or figureheads. Some appeal to Paul, others to Apollos, others to Cephas, and others even to Christ himself. The authorities are different, but the attitude of all the members is the same across the board. They are playing the exact same game (so to speak) and it is that game, fundamentally, that Paul challenges.

How does Paul challenge and respond to the Corinthians?

"Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, that no man should say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void." (vv. 13-17)

Paul uses himself as the example and exposes the absolute absurdity of the Corinthians placing so much weight and confidence on mere men. The centrality of Christ (which was first raised in the first nine verses of the chapter) is again emphasized here; and not just the centrality of the person of Christ, but of His crucifixion.

That Paul speaks, at some length here, about baptism suggests that it is one of the sources of division within the Corinthian church. It is not at all unthinkable that some people might count themselves more spiritual for having been baptized by a particularly prominent Christian teacher or apostle. And baptism is an extremely important Church practice. This makes Paul's treating it with so little regard all the more poignant and forceful as a refutation of the Corinthians' misguided attitude. His lapse and recovery (what one friend of mine referred to as his 'senior moment') in v.16 further highlight the small weight that he accords to baptism when compared with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Paul concludes his discussion of baptism by stating emphatically, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel". This seems like it would make a nice conclusion to Paul's argument, insofar as his goal is to draw the Corinthians' focus away from their various leaders to the person and gospel of Jesus Christ. But this basic interpretation still leaves untouched that group of people who claim to be "of Christ". How can Paul be turning their attention away from Christ to Christ? Why, also, does he add these details about the character of his preaching ministry--"not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void." Why does Paul emphasize that his preaching does not involve "cleverness" (sophia, Gk. wisdom)? Why would such cleverness make the cross of Christ void? What then do these have to do with resolving the quarrels and divisions within the Corinthian church?

How does the cross of Christ undercut the motivation that drives people toward divisions and quarrels? This is the question that will occupy us in thinking about the remainder of this section.

Again, if the Corinthians' issues were primarily doctrinal, it would be enough for Paul to reinstate the teaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that would take care of the problem. But he numbers among the problematic factions a group that claims to be "of Christ". It doesn't make sense to correct a group that teaches Christ by telling them to teach Christ. So teaching content (i.e. doctrine) is probably not the issue in this church. Yet, Paul continues to emphasize the cross of Christ. How then does the cross of Christ speak to the problems in this church? What are the problems in this church (i.e. the sources of the divisions)? It has been suggested above that elitism and boasting are significant factors. Keep these in mind as we piece together the various parts of this passage.

--

We asked earlier, "Why does Paul emphasize that his preaching does not involve "cleverness" (sophia, Gk. wisdom)?" and "Why would such cleverness make the cross of Christ void?" Paul begins to answer these question in v. 18.

"For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.' " (vv.18-19, bold-face added)

[I have highlighted the beginning of two Reason Clauses in the preceding quotation. Learning to recognize these can be very helpful for understanding the structure and the flow of Paul's thought. Reason clauses are generally marked by "For...", or "Because...", or "[In order] that...". I will not explicitly draw your attention to them later in the text, but I would recommend keeping your eye out for them. In this passage (1:10-2:5) I think the most important Reason Clauses appear in 1:17, 19, 25, 31; and 2:5. If you review this note, you may see that I've structured it, broadly, around these five clauses.]

This passage begins a series of contrasts drawn between wisdom and foolishness, power and weakness. Why would cleverness (i.e. wisdom) make the cross of Christ void? Because the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. It does not make sense in terms of the wisdom of the wise, which God has set about overturning. These images are expanded in the following material:

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." (vv. 20-25)

Paul draws this series of parallels between the "wisdom of the wise," "the cleverness of the clever," "the wisdom of the world," and the wisdom of men. It might be helpful to think about these as the wisdom that follows the pattern of the human order. He makes it clear that the world, through its wisdom, did not succeed in coming to know God. Instead, God chose the foolish things of the world to be the vehicle of his self-revelation and salvation. What does it mean that the cross of Christ is foolishness to the world? Paul offers two cases as examples--the Jews' desire for signs and the Greeks' quest for wisdom. Both of these are examples of the wisdom of the world--of the wisdom that follows the human pattern.

The Jewish people had very particular Messianic expectations. Repeatedly throughout the gospels, we see how their expectations clashed with Jesus' understanding of His own purpose and calling. They wanted a military leader; He came as a suffering servant. They wanted someone who would save the Jewish people; He planned to save the world. They wanted a deliverer who would feed their physical hunger; He came to feed their spiritual hunger. They believed that only the very religious and very devout could find God's favor; He opened the doors of the Kingdom of God to tax-gatherers, prostitutes, Samaritans, Gentiles, the afflicted, the impoverished, and the destitute. They wanted Him to perform signs to authenticate His ministry; He maintained that if they would only look to the prophecies contained in their own Scriptures, they would see that He was the fulfillment of God's promise to them. They were constantly frustrated because Jesus did not meet their expectations nor satisfy their needs--because He did not come to meet their expectations or to satisfy their perceived needs but to offer them what they really needed, if only they would accept it.

The Greeks (and the Gentile nations more generally) also had certain ideas about what a savior of the world would look like. Though they may not have been waiting for and anticipating the arrival of a long-awaited messiah, they knew what to look for in a leader. Someone powerful and strong, charismatic and good-looking, a person of great learning, intelligent and shrewd, someone whom men would follow, someone who would promote trade, defend against foreigners, and guide the people to prosperity. What would they say of a man who claimed to be the King of the Jews and ended his life on earth in the most humiliating way conceivable--execution by crucifixion?

The prophet, Isaiah, spoke of Jesus' sacrifice almost seven hundred years before it took place. This is what he said:

"Who has believed our message?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,
And like a root out of parched ground;
He has no stately form or majesty
That we should look upon Him,
Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him.
He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hid their face,
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
Surely our griefs He Himself bore,
And our sorrows He carried;
Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten of God, and afflicted.

"But the LORD was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand." (excerpts from Isaiah 53)

"Who has believed our message?" Who is going to believe this?--that the one whom we considered of no account, even the one whom we thought God had cursed, is actually the very one whom God will exalt to the very highest. This is the foolishness of the cross. The Jews believed that those who died that death were accursed of God. The Roman government never crucified Roman citizens; crucifixion was a death too lowly and was reserved for non-Roman criminals. And God chose this very means to be the source of salvation for everyone who would receive it. The cross of Christ is foolishness to those who are perishing and foolishness to the world and its wisdom; but to those who are being saved--to those who will receive it--it is the power and the wisdom of God.

Why would God choose to reveal Himself and make salvation available to all in this way? Paul gestures toward the answer to that question in the next part:

"For consider your calling, [again, speaking to the Corinthians] brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are, that no man should boast before God. But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, that, just as it is written, 'Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord.' " (1:26-31)

The same pattern that we see exemplified in the cross appears in the experience of the Corinthians. Not many of them were wise or mighty or noble by the world's standards and estimations; yet God chose to save them. If God had offered a salvation modeled after the pattern of the world, how many of them could have hoped to receive it and be saved?

How many can win the approval of the spiritual elite? How many can measure up to high standards of personal conduct? How many can hope to be free of life's scars and bruises, which are so often interpreted as signs of God's DIS-favor? How many can achieve complete material self-sufficiency and prosperity, which is so often interpreted as a sign of God's favor? So many are excluded under such a system. So many are denied admittance through no fault of their own.

Jesus takes the opposite approach: He opens the gates of the Kingdom to anyone who will enter. Regardless of their spiritual or material impoverishment, regardless of their ignorance or stupidity, regardless of their history, their brokenness, their pathetic condition--Jesus opens the gates of the Kingdom to receive them. The elite of the world scoff at this scheme. They refuse to enter a Kingdom where they will be on equal footing with the dejected of the world; they will only accept a system in which their status and achievements are recognized and set them apart from the rest. It is their own pride and arrogance that excludes them from the Kingdom.

This is why God chooses to reveal Himself and make salvation available to all in this way: "that no man should boast before God." There is no room for boasting before God, because God has done everything. Jesus Christ, alone, is our wisdom from God, our righteousness, our sanctification, and our redemption.

Now how does this point connect back to Paul's larger purpose in addressing the problem of divisions within the Corinthian church? He has just reminded them about how their own salvation is rooted in the work of God in Christ Jesus--a gospel that is foolishness to the world. He has impressed on them the fact that God is in the business of nullifying the wisdom of the world. Why remind them of this? Perhaps because their very conduct and attitude exemplify the thinking and pattern of the world's wisdom.

What is the source of quarrels and divisions and factions? In Bible study, one person pointed out that divisions arise when we take our eyes off of Jesus and get caught up in our own agendas. What does that mean--to get caught up in our own agendas? It means that we lose sight of how our work or ministry fits into the larger picture of what God is doing. We become single-minded--not about doing God's work, but about pushing our project or program. Perhaps we become so closely identified with it that any opposition or criticism becomes construed as a personal attack. Then defensiveness sets in and competition and power-struggles.

Not only do we lose sight of how our ministry fits into God's larger plan; we also lose sight of the fact that God is the one who sustains and maintains that ministry. (Remember what we said about boasting and arrogance earlier.) Pretty soon we are carrying the burden of responsibility. If something's to be done right, then I'm the one to do it. If it fails, that's a reflection on me, so it must not fail (and generally failure means not measuring up to some human standard of success).

These are some of the characteristics and causes of factions. Very likely similar factors played a part in the divisions that arose in the Corinthian church. They are rallying around prominent figures like Paul and Apollos and Cephas. As a result, they are opposing one another. Paul reminds them that they don't need to do that. They don't need to ally themselves with particular figures; they don't need to oppose one another; they don't need to be in competition. The fact that they are doing these things means that they have forgotten the proper basis of their salvation and of their relationships to and within the Church. That basis is the cross of Jesus Christ--which undercuts all entitlement to boasting and to placing confidence in human figures or resources.

A couple different applications come to mind, before turning to the last portion of this text. One comes to mind in thinking about the differences between parties/coalitions and the Church of Christ. Why do we form parties/coalitions? One reason: because there's strength in numbers. When a group of people come together for a common cause, there is more power (for instance, to bring about change) than there is in any one individual. But this is not so with the Church. There is no more power in a church of 10,000 than there is in one solitary life that is committed to following God--because the source of power in both cases is one and the same: Jesus Christ. I am reminded of a line from an Adventures in Odyssey episode (for those who are familiar with that radio program): "You, plus Jesus, are always a majority." One might ask: "Then why should we bother meeting in communities?" The answer: because that's how we grow, that's how we mature, that's also where and when and how we can serve, and encourage and be encouraged. Make no mistake: the body of Christ--the Church--is extremely important, but it is not important for the reason that many of the world's parties and coalitions are important--because they provide strength in numbers or safety in numbers. Our confidence does not lie in numbers, it does not lie in the size of our budget, it does not lie in our achievements, it does not lie in any of the things that are commonly thought to be sources of confidence; it does lie in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. So there is no room for boasting, there is no room for competition; there is only unity to be found in the cross of Christ.

(Second application:) Understanding this can also be a source of incredible freedom, because we no longer feel the pressure of having to support our own ministry or defend it against others or guarantee its positive results. It's helpful for me to remember, as I prepare to lead Bible study that while I want to be prepared and competent in the material, ultimately, the only way that anyone is going to get anything out of it is if God does some work. It is a manifestation of the grace of God that my words even reach the ears of and are understood at all by the people to whom I am speaking. Suppose that one evening things really don't go well; maybe there are unusual distractions, or maybe I don't have the answers to the questions that are being asked, or maybe people just aren't into the material. If I believe that I am responsible to bring results from this ministry, then I will leave that study frustrated and angry and hurting. If I believe that God is the one ministers--often in ways that I cannot and will not be able to see--then I can be okay, even when things don't go "just right". And, of course, when I don't feel that it's all up to me, I tend to be much more gracious with people who are working with me, with people who interrupt me, etc. I can let go of the reins and allow God to lead where He will.

This is just what Paul has done with the Corinthians. After illustrating his point by appeal to the Corinthians own experience, he then uses himself, again, as an illustration:

"And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. And my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." (2:1-5)

Over and over Paul is emphasizing this theme. In response to the problem of divisions within the church of Corinth, Paul brings the Christians' attention and focus back to the cross of Jesus Christ. Exemplified in that cross is the Great Reversal that is the pattern of God's interaction with the world. There are numerous examples of it [the Great Reversal] littered throughout the Old Testament. It's greatest manifestation is in the cross itself. And examples of it can also be found in the Corinthians own experience and in the teaching ministry of Paul. God has chosen the weak and foolish things of the world to reveal Himself and to bring about salvation. He has done it this way just so that even the weak and the foolish can obtain salvation. He has also done it in this way so that no one should have any ground for boasting or placing confidence in his own power or strength or cleverness. Also, as we see in v.5, so that "your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." Paul did not employ clever devices or persuasive wisdom in his preaching; if he had, then there might well have been grounds for people to place their confidence in Paul. Then the cross of Christ would have been made void. (Recall this point from earlier.) Since he didn't, there is no warrant for placing confidence in him, but only in the Spirit and power of God.

Fee makes a nice point about applying Paul's words to modern-day preaching: "What he [Paul] is rejecting is not preaching, not even persuasive preaching; rather, it is the real danger in all preaching--self-reliance. The danger always lies in letting the form and content get in the way of what should be the single concern: the gospel proclaimed through human weakness but accompanied by the powerful work of the Spirit so that lives are changed through a divine-human encounter. That is hard to teach in a course in homiletics, but it still stands as the true need in genuinely Christian preaching." (Fee, 96-97)

The issue that Paul has been addressing in this passage is self-reliance. Or reliance on human wisdom, strength, and power. When we place our confidence in those things, factions invariably emerge, because other people (who are placing confidence in different people's wisdom, strength, or power) come to threaten our source of confidence and security. In recalling the Corinthians' attention back to the cross of Christ, Paul is undercutting the motivation for their factions and divisions. If only they will remember that the truth source of strength and security and wisdom is Jesus Christ, they will not feel threatened by one another or feel the need to resort to parties/coalitions to secure their interests. After all, Jesus was not preoccupied with securing his interests (see Phil. 2) and he has been exalted to the very highest place. Will not God take care of us as well if we will only rely on Him?

What are some of the ways in which you've bought into the wisdom of the world. Do you find yourself evaluating yourself, your church, your friends by God's standards or by the standards of the world? What are the marks of a successful sermon? Of a successful church service? Of a successful ministry? How do you know that you're well-off? How do you know that you're right with God? What do you look for in friends? In mentors? In teachers?

Here's one rather interesting example. A friend of mine shared with me in a discipleship group how he came to realize how much money was defining his life and his friendships. A couple nights a week, he would like to take dinner at a restaurant with friends; so he would ask around and those friends who wanted to come would come and those who didn't wouldn't. But over time, he realized, that he was spending more time with only some of his friends and not with others. The reason: because only some of them could afford to eat out regularly. My friend didn't have anything against people with less money--but he realized that the pattern of his life was such that it excluded certain people who didn't have enough money to eat out a lot. And it took a little bit of extra effort to change that pattern of behavior so that he was investing in all of his friendships and relationships and not just that one subset. Sometimes loving like God loves means stepping out of our comfort zone like my friend did. Again, there's nothing wrong with enjoying time with friends at restaurants, but sometimes these patterns of life can impact our relationships in subtle ways that we don't immediately recognize.

What about those of you who are in ministry. Are you often stressed? Are you very frustrated when things don't go exactly as you plan? Do you become very angry with people who don't fulfill their obligations? How are you measuring success in your ministry? Do you find yourself often comparing yourself to others? Are you worrying constantly about how things will work out in your particular area? Do you feel threatened by anyone who opposes you? How well do you take criticism? What would happen if God were to call you away from that ministry? What if God were to allow that ministry to fall to pieces?

All of these are issues that Paul addresses as he challenges the factors that are motivating the Corinthians to divisions and quarrels. He reminds them, and us, of the centrality of the cross of Christ that reminds us that God alone is in control and will take care of us no matter what. As a result there is no room for boasting; there is also no room for worrying. God is taking care of everything and if only we will place our complete confidence in Him, He will show Himself to be a stable and secure and solid foundation.

--

God is in this place,
And that reality, seen and understood by the grace of God in Christ Jesus through the work of the Holy Spirit, makes all the difference in the world.