1 Corinthians 1:11-17 - Christ Divided

Introduction

I remember the first time I ever heard two Christians debate each other on a point of doctrine. I had heard Christians argue before, but this was different. These two guys had different perspectives about how to interpret and how to apply the Bible… and they had both thought this thing through really well. I was fascinated!

Not only were they thoughtful about their own view, but they also listened well to each other… and they responded with relevant arguments to answer each other’s objections and critiques. That conversation was about 20 years ago, and it stands out in my mind as one of the most impactful moments of my young Christian life, because it helped me to learn at least a few good lessons.

One, Christianity is far more doctrinally rich and intellectually stimulating than I had ever imagined. Two, good Christians can have dramatically different views on important theological and practical matters. And three, disagreement does not have to mean division or fighting… both of those guys who argued with each other that day later the same evening preached the same gospel and called sinners to repent and believe in Christ.

Today, we are continuing our study of 1 Corinthians, a letter written by the Apostle Paul to a scandalous church. We will learn more today about what divided them, and we will also focus again on the central message that should have been their source and basis of unity.

Scripture Reading

1 Corinthians 1:10–17 (ESV)

10 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.

11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 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.”

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Main Idea:

Division among a local church is absurd, since the cross of Christ is that message which powerfully unifies all believers.

Sermon

1. An Absurd Report (v11-13)

Last Sunday, we gave our full attention to v10, which is Paul’s basic appeal for this whole letter. Today, we are getting into the details of the situation in the church of Corinth. Why did Paul “appeal” to them in the “name of our Lord Jesus Christ” to “agree” and to be “united in the same mind and the same judgment” (v10)? Well, he called them to agreement and unity because he had gotten a report that they were divided and fighting.

Verse 11 tells us that Paul had received a “report” from “Chloe’s people” that there was “quarreling among” the Corinthian Christians. The “report” was not mere gossip or tattling. It was an “informed” (NIV) “report” which came to Paul because he always wanted to know how the churches were doing (Acts 15:36). And the “people” who brought Paul the “report” were “from” (NIV) or “of” (KJV) “Chloe” (v11). The phrase literally translates: “those of Chloe” (NA28).

Now, this is the only time Paul ever mentioned a “Chloe,” so we can only speculate about who she might have been. It does seem likely that she was a woman of some wealth, and that her “people” were servants or employees who traveled from Corinth to Ephesus and back for the purpose of business. Whoever these “people” were, they do seem to have been known well enough among the church of Corinth that Paul was able to mention them in passing.

The “report” itself was that there was “quarreling” or “rivalry” (HCSB) or “contentions” (KJV) among the “brothers” or church members in Corinth (v11). And, for Paul, this was absurd. How can brothers in Christ, members of God’s household, those who are indwelt by God’s Spirit and share in the fellowship of the saints… How in the world can these people be “quarreling” or “contentious” among themselves?!

The absurdity of this situation is on clear display in v13, when Paul asked, “Was Paul crucified for you?” We will get more into the meaning of “crucified for you” in point 3, but for now we can already see how ridiculous and bizarre it would be for anyone to think that Paul could stand in the place of Christ. “Is Paul the Messiah?” “Has Paul brought you into the family of God?” “Did Paul justify your guilty souls and promise you his resurrection on the last day?”

These, of course, are ridiculous questions, and to answer them with a “Yes” would be absurd… but that’s exactly the answer Paul implies in v13: “Is Christ divided?” Now, on theological and conceptual grounds, the obvious answer is “No! Of course, Christ is not divided! Nor can He be.” In fact, the very unity which joins every Christian from all time and space is Christ.

Because there is one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all who call upon His name have “peace” with God (1 Cor. 1:3) and “guiltlessness” on the last day (1 Cor. 1:8)… and because all Christians are brought into “the fellowship” of Jesus Christ… it is ridiculous to think that the visible body of Christ in the world – a local church – could be divided among “quarreling” factions.

But was Christ’s body in Corinth “divided”? Yes! Absurdly, and very practically, the answer is “yes”!

This, it seems to me, is exactly Paul’s point in asking the first of three rhetorical questions in v13. “Is Christ divided?” (v13)… Well, He isn’t truly divided, and He ought not be divided, but yes, in point of fact, in Corinth, Christ was evidently divided. The church of Corinth was testifying to one another and to the watching world that Christ Himself is divided and quarrelsome.

Now, this is absurd… “Christ” cannot be “divided” any more than “Paul” could have been “crucified” for sinners (v13). But that’s what the church members in Corinth were displaying. They were dividing up and competing with one another over who they were “following” or literally who they were “of” (12).

As I briefly mentioned last week, among the one church of Corinth, each member was claiming a smaller tribe or clique or in-group. Some were saying, “I am of Paul” (v12). Others were saying, “I am ofApollos” (v12). Still others were saying, “I am of Cephas” (v12). And some were saying, “I am of Christ” (v12).

And all of these claims to personal connection with one leader or another most likely had something to do with their experience of baptism… which leads us into point number 2…

2. A Body Divided (v14-16)

At the end of v13, we see a third rhetorical question: “were you baptized in the name of Paul?” And then “baptism” shows up 5 more times in the next 4 verses. There is no doubt that baptism is an important concept in this short passage, but this is the only place I know of in the Bible where baptism is set in negative light… Here, Paul was glad that he did not baptize (v14), and Paul clearly says baptism was not the center of his ministry among the church in Corinth (v17).

It must be, then, that baptism was out of order or being misunderstood and misapplied in Corinth… so much so that one of the two ordinances which Jesus gave the New Testament Church was not a positive but a negative.

When you think about it, this is no surprise. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are the unifying signs of a true local church, but Corinth was a divided church. Therefore, it is no surprise that Corinth was getting it wrong on both baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Their unbiblical practice of baptism is emphasized in our passage this morning, and we will see just how badly they were doing with the Lord’s Supper in chapters 10 and 11.

Friends, I want to stop for just a moment here to ask you to really think about something with me. Do you believe that baptism can ever be a bad thing? Can baptism be misunderstood to such a degree that it turns into a negative… at least for a time, or for this person, or among a particular church?

If you don’t believe that baptism should ever be withheld, or if you don’t believe that teaching and understanding must come before baptism, or if you don’t believe that baptism has a clear definition and purpose in the life of a church, then you’re probably going to have a hard time walking through this passage with me.

I guess what I’m saying is, this thread I’m tugging on this morning is weaved throughout a whole tapestry of Christian doctrines and teaching. What is a Christian? What is conversion? What is a church? And what is the church’s mission? These are all interconnected, and baptism runs through all of them.

I will do my best to offer explanations and make my argument as we go, but if you have questions about any of this, then let’s talk more after the service.

Ok, let’s get back into the text… Paul’s question at the end of v13 sent him down a memory path, where he remembered baptizing “Crispus and Gaius” (v14)… and then he also remembered baptizing “Stephanas” and his “household” or “family” (v16)… and finally Paul admitted that he could not remember baptizing “anyone else” (v16).

I appreciate these verses for so many reasons, and I (for one) can relate to Paul’s candid memory problems here. Many times, I’ve said “none” or “never,” and sure enough, there was that one time… and (oh, yeah) that other time too… Well, at least I can’t remember any more exceptions…

I want to deal with these three verses (14-16) in three ways today… Think of these as three subpoints under point number 2 in my sermon. First and second, I want to deal with matters that are not central to our passage, but which may cause some heartburn for some of us in the room – (1) “household” doesn’t mean babies; and (2) Christian baptism is baptism in the “name” of Christ. Third, I will try to explain and make some application of the baptismal problem in Corinth.

First, “household” (v16) does not mean babies… Sorry to my paedobaptist friends. The fact is that the word translated “household” (οίκος or οίκον) can refer to everyone under a given man or woman, including children, grandchildren, servants, and everything else. But every single time the New Testament offers us some detail as to the qualifications for baptism, it always includes repentance and belief (two sides of the same biblical coin).

For example, in Acts 18, when “Crispus” (probably the same one Paul mentioned in v14 of our text)… when “Crispus… believed in the Lord,” his “entire household” believed as well (Acts 18:8). And Acts 18 also says that “many of the Corinthians” responded in the same way as Crispus… “hearing Paul,” they “believed and were baptized” (Acts 18:8). The combination is belief and baptism, and the two are joined together as a Christian response to the gospel. Several other examples will demonstrate this same thing as you read through the book of Acts.

Therefore, believers are the ones who get baptized. Sometimes entire households believe and are baptized, but we never read in the New Testament about a single baby who was baptized on the basis of a parent’s belief.

Furthermore, brothers and sisters, when we read in the New Testament that a “household” was baptized, we must not assume that there must have been babies included in the event simply because there might have been babies included in the term itself. We must let what the Bible does say about baptism shape what we think about what it does not say.

Second (while we’re on the subject of baptism), see how Paul rejects the idea that anyone in Corinth could claim that they had been “baptized in [Paul’s] name” (v14; cf. v13). This didn’t mean that Paul didn’t baptize any of them; he listed at least three people and a “household” that he did remember baptizing! But overseeing a baptism did not mean that the one being baptized was somehow especially attached to Paul or to Paul’s name… But, why? Because implicit throughout our passage this morning is the explicit teaching of the New Testament… that Christian baptism is baptism in the “name” of Christ!

On the day of Pentecost, at the first public presentation of the gospel, after Christ’s ascension to the right hand of the Father, Peter concluded by telling his hearers, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). And this directive from Peter is no contradiction to the way Jesus phrased it in Matthew 28.

Jesus said that existing disciples are supposed to baptize new disciples “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19). And neither the triune phrase in Matthew 28, nor the repeated phrasing throughout the book of Acts (“in the name of Jesus”) are intended as a magic verbal formula (i.e., “you must say these words in this sequence when you baptize”). Instead, these passages are emphasizing the authority of Christ and the promise of Christ and the union with Christ which all culminate in the ordinance of baptism.

In baptism, (1) individual believers become partakers in the visible kingdom of Christ, (2) existing Christians affirm new Christians, and (3) Christians become united with one another… all sharing the same belief or trust in the promises of God… and all united under the authoritative name of their common Lord.

In other words, to be baptized in the “name” of Christ is to be baptized on the authority of Christ… to be united with the only Christ or Messiah or Savior promised by the triune God… and to be publicly affirmed as a new Christian by a visible body of Christ in the world.

“Paul” and “Apollos” and “Cephas” [or Peter] might have been doing the baptizing in Corinth, but the believers they baptized were all united under the “name” of Christ and not under the names of those who baptized them… which gets us into this final subpoint of this lengthy middle section of my sermon.

Third, the church of Corinth was getting baptism all mixed up. Instead of thinking about it as a unifying observance (in which every church member participated as a unified body under the name of Christ), they were treating baptism as consumers and making it an opportunity to claim some spiritual lineage that was better than someone else’s.

We know that Paul and Apollos were both preachers/teachers in Corinth at some different points (Acts 18:1 and Acts 19:1, respectively). Paul planted the church there, and Apollos came along afterward. As for Peter, the Bible doesn’t explicitly tell us, but it is very likely that Peter preached and taught in Corinth as well. Paul mentioned Peter or “Cephas” in chapter 3 as a teacher from whom the Corinthians had already received benefit.

At any rate, the point Paul was making here was that the Corinthian Christians were acting the same way that their unbelieving neighbors were acting outside the church. They were dividing up along social and economic and political lines, and they were even (in some way or another) pointing to the minister who oversaw their baptism as a sort of celebrity name that could identify their in-group… “I’m with Paul!” or “I’m with Peter!” or “I’m with Apollos!”

The most recent and emotionally-charged way we’ve seen this division along various lines in our own culture was during the height of the Covid pandemic and the public marches of 2020. Every local church was trying to figure out what to do in March of 2020. Pastors were watching the news, reading government guidance, and talking with people among their own church as well as others in an effort to formulate a plan.

Every pastor I know felt a strong conviction that the local church should gather in-person on the Lord’s day. We all believed that this was not optional, like a matter of convenience. But we also heard worrying reports that gatherings of any kind could prove to be fatal, especially for the elderly and those who had some sort of immunity issue. And different pastors and churches made different good-faith decisions, based on multiple complicated factors.

But some pastors and some church members across America decided that their decision about what to do in response to Covid was theChristian thing to do. Some celebrity church leaders even made it a matter of either Christian courage or Christian love. “Are you a faithful Christian or a sellout?” or “Are you a loving Christian or a Covid-denier?”

The same thing happened with the riots and marches that took place in the summer of 2020. When George Floyd died in police custody, millions of Christians thought and felt all sorts of things. And some Christians believed that there was an opportunity to “weep with those who weep,” while others believed that the riots and marches had nothing to do with the death of George Floyd or racial injustice generally. Either way, some Christians shouted, “Can you believe that so-and-so didn’t publicly denounce racial violence?” And others said, “Can you believe that so-and-so won’t publicly back the blue?”

Now, I’m not saying that Christians should not think through the issues related to Covid or to political organizing or to racial violence… Indeed, Christians should think deeply about such things, and we should each be convinced in our own minds about what we believe is right and good… But I am saying that it’s heartbreaking to know that some (maybe many?) churches in America closed their doors because church members could not abide gathering with other Christians who might think differently.

Friends, there just is not any Bible passage that will give us a straight line from a fundamental Christian doctrine to an exclusive Christian application on a whole host of issues in a given culture. The Bible does give us principles we ought to carefully and thoughtfully apply in all of life, but good Christians – Christians who believe the same gospel and love the same Jesus and gather as members of the same church – can have starkly different views of a specific situation.

In Corinth, there wasn’t another church down the street… church members couldn’t just join a different church where everyone looked like them and thought like them and talked like them… so they simply divided up along social and economic and political lines within the one church.

Friends, this is absurd. Christians who are united under Christ have a unity that supersedes and transcends social status. It’s bigger than economics, and it’s more important than politics. If the gospel is not just for one social group or another, if the gospel is not just for the poor or for the wealthy, if the gospel is not just for political conservatives or progressives, then Christians must not divide or quarrel or be contentious about such things.

We can and should live in the world as it is, we should try our best to live consistently as Christians in whatever social or economic situation we find ourselves, and we should participate politically in a way that we believe honors Christ and promotes true human flourishing in the world. But we should not demand that our fellow church members think and speak and act the same as us on matters where good Christians can disagree.

It seems to me that the future of our own culture will probably make this more and more obvious… but if we cannot divide over these things, then what will unite us?

That’s where we’re going in point number 3…

3. A Powerful Gospel (v17)

Verse 17 is the climax of our passage this morning. It is here that Paul contrasts the worldly and consumeristic mindset of the Corinthians with the powerful gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is here that we see the heart of the gospel emphasized in rich, biblical language.

Paul said in v17 that “Christ did not send [him] to baptize.” That is, Paul’s mission was not to record a bunch of “decisions for Jesus.” He wasn’t merely interested in sending an exciting newsletter to the churches who sponsored him. Neither was it Paul’s mission to have a bunch of Christians name him as their “spiritual father.” Paul wasn’t trying to gain a crowd or make a name for himself.

Instead, Paul’s mission was to “preach the gospel” (v17).

Now this single phrase is packed with theological and practical significance! We know that Paul did not mean that all he wanted was evangelistic meetings, since he planted churches in every town where he saw sinners converted. So too, we know that Paul did not mean that the gospel of Christ has no implications for Christian living. According to Paul, Christian converts were not only supposed to “believe in Jesus,” they were also to follow and obey Jesus for the rest of their lives (in every detail), which is what the letter of 1 Corinthians is all about.

What Paul was getting at here is the centrality of preaching of the gospel for every aspect of Christian conversion and Christian living. It is the gospel of Christ that converts sinners! It is the gospel of Christ that unites repenting and believing sinners! And it is the gospel of Christ provides the ongoing corrective to divisive Christians, who sometimes talk and act like their unbelieving neighbors!

But it is not just any old gospel that will do such things… It is a message of good news that centers on the “cross of Christ” and not on “words of eloquent wisdom” (v17)! Both of these features of the biblical gospel are important for our consideration this morning, and both of these are points of contention in American evangelicalism today.

First, let’s consider “the cross,” and then the “wisdom of words” (KJV).

The “cross of Christ” is shorthand for all that Jesus did in His dying for guilty sinners like you and me. In v18, Paul calls this message “the word of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18). And it is the message that is “folly” or foolishness “to those who are perishing,” but, Paul says, “to us who are being saved” this message “is the power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18).

It was at the “cross of Christ” where God “reconciled” sinners to Himself (Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20)! It was at the “cross of Christ” where God “canceled the record of debt that stood against” believers (Col. 2:14)! It was at the “cross of Christ” where Jesus “endured the… shame” of being counted under the curse of God (Heb. 12:2), so that He could “justify” guilty sinners and offer “redemption” by/through “his blood” (Rom. 3:24-25)!

Friends, all of this is Bible and church language to say that Jesus died in the place of sinners. You don’t necessarily need to know the fancy words, but all of us are in desperate need of understanding this concept. There is only one hope that we have as we are confronted with the reality that we will all stand before God on the last day and give an account of the life we’ve lived.

Not one of us is righteous in God’s sight, and yet perfect righteousness is what God demands. In those moments when we are honest with ourselves, we know that we are guilty. We have sinned against God in numerous ways every day of our lives, and we know that if God were to judge us on the basis of our good deeds or our moral living, then we would be utterly condemned. Our good deeds are too few, and none of us have lived the sort of life that we would be glad to display for all to see. Just think of those things we’ve done in the dark, behind closed doors, or when we thought we could get away with it.

But the good news of the gospel invades our hopeless situation and speaks a better word! The gospel teaches us that the righteous God of the universe has stepped into human history and done the work that we simply cannot do for ourselves. He has offered a sacrifice, an atonement, a propitiation, which satisfies God’s judgment against us and grants to us the gift of blessing instead of cursing.

Charles Spurgeon said, “There is one word that every true servant of Christ must be able to speak very distinctly; and that word is substitution. I believe that substitution is the key-word to all true theology;—Christ standing in the place of sinners, and numbered with the transgressors because of their transgressions, not his own;—Christ paying our debts, and discharging all our liabilities. This truth involves, of course, our taking Christ’s place as he took ours, so that all believers are beloved, accepted, made heirs of God, and in due time shall be glorified with Christ forever.”[i]

If you’re here this morning, and you want to know what Christianity is all about, then this is it! This is the beginning of the Christian life, and it is the motive and basis of Christian living. This good news that centers on the “cross of Christ” is what new Christians believe; it is where old Christians find their rest and hope; and it is where all Christians are united in joy and peace and brotherly love… as we await that day when we shall be glorified with the Savior who died for us.

This, then, is the meaning of the “cross of Christ” in our passage, but Paul says here that there is a way that such fantastic news may be “emptied of its power” (v17) or “made of none effect” (KJV) or “become useless” (NET). Let’s conclude our time this morning by briefly thinking about how we might avoid such a terrible effect.

In v17, Paul says that “preaching the gospel” with “words of eloquent wisdom” would “empty” the “cross of Christ” of its power. But does this mean that preachers should strive to sound unwise or unintelligent or inarticulate? No, of course not. What Paul is saying here is that the messenger that tries to make himself the center of attention, rather than the message of the gospel, will inevitably become the empty message.

It's been said, “What you win them with, is what you win them to.”

Brothers and sisters, no amount of dazzling persuasion will convince any sinner to turn to Christ in repentance and faith. No gimmick will bring a dead sinner to life in Christ. No special event, no relevant technique, and no celebrity speaker will be able to convert your unbelieving friends or family.

In fact, Paul’s argument here seems to indicate that those who are drawn to events or techniques or celebrities (rather than the genuine message of the gospel) may not actually be Christian at all… since their attraction is to the messenger, and not to the message of the cross.

Friends, the Apostle Paul heard an awful report that the church of Corinth was divided and quarreling. He heard that they were divided among themselves, competing with one another for status, and making much of their own in-group over another. Paul’s response was a letter of exhortation, urging them to see the absurdity of what they were doing, and calling them to focus their attention on the heart of Christianity – the cross of Jesus Christ.

May God help us to avoid senseless division and to focus ourselves on the cross of Christ as well.

Endnotes

[i] C. H. Spurgeon, “Preaching Christ Crucified,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 56 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1910), 484.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012.

Chrysostom, John. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. Edited by Philip Schaff. Logos Research Edition. Vol. 12. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series. New York, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1889.

Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Logos Research Edition. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.

New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. Logos Research Edition. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995.

Sproul, R. C., ed. The Reformation Study Bible: English Standard Version (2015 Edition). Logos Research Edition. Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2015.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Logos Research Edition. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009.

The Holy Bible: New International Version. Logos Research Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.

The NET Bible First Edition. Logos Research Edition. Biblical Studies Press, 2005.

Vaughan, Curtis, and Thomas D. Lea. 1 Corinthians. Logos Research Edition. Founders Study Commentary. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2002.