The Priority of the Gospel
1) The Quarreling
a) With verse 12, Paul further elaborates what he means in verse 11 about quarreling. The quarreling is between factions that have developed around popular church leaders. One group says I follow Paul, another Apollos, another Cephas, and still another Christ. What exactly differentiated these groups from one another we cannot be sure, and a lot of ink has been spilled trying to argue one case against another.
b) Regardless, factions have formed around four key figures, Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ.
i) We of course know who Paul is.
ii) Apollos is brought to our attention in Acts 18:24ff. ***Acts 18:24-26 – “Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in Spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”
(1) Jew
(2) Learned man
(3) Thorough knowledge of the Scriptures
(4) Instructed in the way of the Lord
(5) Fervent in spirit
(6) Spoke and taught things accurately the things concerning Jesus
(7) Priscilla and Aquila explain God more accurately to him
(8) Acts 19:1 tells us he went to Corinth
iii) Cephas
(1) John 1:42 – “He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’ (which means Peter).” ESV
(2) Whether or not Peter ever made it to Corinth is unknown. Certainly, many would know who he is and perhaps some present at the church of Corinth had been baptized by him previously.
iv) We know who Christ is
(1) It is surprising to see some who are citing this slogan, “I follow Christ” and what’s more to have Paul gently chide them for doing so.
(2) Perhaps the best understanding here is there 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.
v) So these are the four factions that Paul mentions. There is nothing in the text to suggest that the persons named lent any support to such factions forming around them. Clearly Paul does not support it and we know that Christ would not. 1 Corinthians 16:12 suggests that Apollos was not guilty in any way. Of Peter and his presence nothing can be known.
vi) No matter how good the intentions of these groups, Paul lumps them all together and chides them for their absurdity, even those who follow Paul and Christ. They are assigning too much social importance to church leaders. In chapter three Paul points out that such quarreling is “not of Christ” and is “worldly” and “of the flesh.”
vii) I do not think the quarreling revolves around theological issues. Paul actually encourages factions when the opposite actually teaches a gospel that fundamentally contradicts his (Gal. 1:6-9; 2:11; 5:10-12; 6:12-13; 2 Cor. 11:4, 13-15). He does not compromise theological issues for the sake of unity. His concern with these groups seems to lie elsewhere.
viii) The most obvious point in this verse is the glaring emphasis on individuality that Paul finds so problematic in this community. The ‘I’ is repeated for emphasis to show that they suffer from an ‘I’ disease that is not physical. Why ‘I’ when they are all a part of Christ’s body?” The church of Corinth is struggling because of radical individuality.
c) We’ve all seen such factions around popular leaders before and they occur very easily. John Piper wisely comments on this verse –
i) There is the great danger of taking pride in knowing and being associated with important people. Most of us feel like nobodies in a world where the media are constantly holding up the desirability of being well known. So the way millions of people try to satisfy this desire is to line up behind someone who is somebody. Teenagers may put posters of him or her on their walls. We may read all their books. We may listen to their radio programs or watch their TV programs. We may go to their churches, take their classes, get on their mailing lists, and get so familiar with their teaching and their ways of doing things that we begin to idealize them and even absolutize them. The effect of this vicarious ego trip is that anyone who is not on the same bandwagon is generally looked down on, and the result is the emergence of factions and schisms and splits.
ii) If that is a kind of derivative ego boost through someone else's importance, there is an opposite reaction that has the very same root of pride. There are those who are very defensive and reactionary about any kind of influence coming from a Christian leader. So if you've learned something helpful from a book or sermon or lecture or radio message (not at all absolutizing the source, just appreciating it), and you try to tell this kind of people about it, they will immediately impute to you some kind of hero worship or herd mentality. And they will feel the need to make it very clear that they do not believe everything that teacher says because they are more critical and independent and cautious than you are. And that too is destructive of unity.
iii) And so there are two forms of pride in the church when it comes to Christian leadership—one wants to ride the coattail of a leader to a kind of vicarious glory; and the other is a kind of anti-authoritarian, suspicious, skeptical, often cynical attitude that wants to make clear to everybody that it is not part of the herd. Both tend to destroy the unity of the church.
iv) So the nature of the disunity at Corinth is basically a kind of boasting or pride that expresses itself in playing off one teacher against another and getting strokes from having some kind of special relationship with the teacher they think is superior.
v) There is nothing wrong with appreciating godly church leaders. That is why God has given them to the church, so they can further your love and appreciation for Christ and others. The problems come when you begin to steer toward absolutism and say, “well so and so said it, so I believe it. It must be right” or when you follow these leaders for prestige and power. Scripture is the only thing you can treat as absolute, no church leader and Christ alone deserves all prestige and majesty. We know this, and I think the Corinthian church knows this. They just needed to be reminded.
d) The effect of such factions in a church cannot be measured, but it is obvious the whole church was affected. While certainly not everyone in the church was involved with these factions, it is impossible not for everyone to be affected in some manner.
e) Their quarreling has to stop and they need to realize their oneness in Christ. It is to this end that Paul moves on to by pointing out the absurdity of their slogans in verses 12-17.
2) The Absurdity
a) Verse 13 has three questions in it, all expected to be answered with an emphatic “no.”
i) You can hear the rhetorical sarcasm in Paul’s voice as you read it.
ii) With these three questions Paul is pointing out in very clear terms the sheer absurdity and folly of those who are following mere men.
b) The answer to the first question, “Is Christ divided” is clearly no. Christ is not divided but from how the Corinthians are acting one would have good reason to wonder.
c) The answer to the second question, “Was Paul crucified for you?” obviously expects a negative answer. Paul was not crucified for their sake neither did any of the other leaders die to expiate their sin. Human leaders are not the source of our redemption, Christ alone is the source because Christ alone was crucified for sinners. No human leader even comes close to the glory of our crucified Christ.
d) The final question, “Were you baptized into the name of Paul” also expects a negative answer and allows Paul to make a transition from their absurdity to the essence of the Christian faith, Jesus Christ.
e) Paul will mention baptism six times in verses 13-17, beginning with the question, “were you baptized into the name of Paul” and ending with the comment “for Christ did not send me to baptize” in verse 17. Now that is a surprising statement, is it not? You don’t expect to hear Paul say that. He also says he is “thankful” he did not baptize very many of you. What is to be understood about these statements and Paul’s discussion of baptism in these verses then? They seem to go against the rest of Scripture’s teaching regarding baptism!
i) Did not Christ command the disciples to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19)?
ii) Does he not assume the baptism of all believers in Romans 6:3 when he wrote, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” and again in Colossians 2:12 he writes, “having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God…”
iii) Additionally, Paul himself was baptized immediately following his conversion, and he immediately baptized Lydia and the Jailer’s household’s upon their conversion in the city of Philippi so we know Paul feels quite strongly about the need to be baptized. So what is going on in these verses?
f) What are we to make of these odd statements by Paul?
i) First, as is clear from the preceding verses, Paul is not criticizing or downplaying the importance of baptism. To do that would be to deny Christ’s teaching making him a false apostle.
ii) Second, Paul tells us why he did not baptize too many of them and left it up to either Silas or Timothy to do in verse 15, “so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.”
(1) To be baptized “into the name of” someone means that the one baptized has turned over allegiance, has given himself, to the one named.
(a) Paul had tremendous authority in the early church, so there was always a risk that he be idolized and those he baptize become proud of being Paul’s convert.
(b) Paul being ever mindful that that he does not do anything to detract from the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and the cross, just simply did not baptize too many to guard against wrong allegiances and pride by account of being baptized by him.
(c) It is evident that this is already happening from verse 12.
iii) Third, Paul is making it absolutely clear that what is important is not who baptized you but in whose name you were baptized. He is downplaying the significance of the one who performs the baptism.
(1) Corinthians would have held a somewhat magical view of baptism. With such a view they perhaps also held in high regard those who baptize them.
(2) In these verses Paul will disabuse them altogether of the importance of the person doing the baptizing and at the same time puts into proper perspective this initiatory rite whereby one in faith responded to the gospel and thus gave oneself totally to Christ.
(3) Garland says, “Paul’s question assumes that they were baptized into the name of Christ, which signifies a transference from the dominion of this world into God’s kingdom, where the believer finds forgiveness, love, sacredness, and fellowship with those who have renounced the world’s values and practices. It also signifies a unique relationship to Christ and all he experienced in his death and resurrection. It means that they now belong only to Christ and are one in him. Baptism “into Paul’s name” would signify nothing but an idolatrous attachment to a mortal” (53).
(4) Certainly none of them were baptized into the name of anyone but the name of Jesus Christ, so that is where their allegiance is to be.
(5) Of the names listed, Crispus is the Jewish synagogue ruler mentioned in Acts 18:8. Gaius is to be identified with the Gaius of Romans 16:23 who is “host to me and to the whole church.” Verse sixteen is oddly stated. It is like Paul suddenly remembered as he was writing (or perhaps his memory is jarred Stephanas himself (1 Cor. 16:15-17).
(6) Then to cover his tracks he says, “beyond this I do not remember…”
(7) Why this strange way of saying all of this? It is a deliberate attempt to underline how unimportant it is who baptized whom.
iv) On a side note, though Paul is not here in this passage developing a theology of baptism, he does that elsewhere, there are two additional things we learn about baptism here that should be pointed out.
(1) Paul does not understand baptism to effect salvation. The preaching of the cross does that when it is accompanied by the effectual work of the Holy Spirit.
(2) It would be quite wrong to say that baptism is a secondary matter. Baptism comes after the hearing of the gospel, but it does so as the God-ordained mode of faith’s response to the gospel
3) The Priority
In verse 17, Paul tells us the priority of his ministry at Corinth and the priority for the Corinthian church, that is the gospel. Paul says, “Christ did not send me to baptize, Christ sent me to preach the gospel!” That is the priority, that is the main concern, that is of utmost precedence. It is not church leaders, it is not who baptized who, it is the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Corinthians knew this, they had just lost perspective, and Paul needs to jolt their memory a little bit.
He also is clear what he means by the preaching of the gospel. It is not preaching full of human wisdom, lest the cross be emptied of its power. Words of human wisdom are connected with winning arguments and impressing an audience by rhetorical display rather than content.” Paul is saying his preaching of the gospel was not to impress them with clever, skilled, educated, or rhetorically sophisticated speech. Paul’s preaching of the gospel was not with manipulative words. Why would he say this?
Paul is taking aim at the Apollos party. Remember Apollos is described as this learned man with great knowledge of the Scripture and rhetorical ability. Apparently, many were following the coattails of Apollos because of his great skill and sophisticated speech. This is not to say anything about Apollos. Paul regards him well. He is taking aim at those who pursue Apollos just because he is a good speaker. Those who follow Apollos just because he is a great speaker are emphasizing form over content, style over function. They are getting some kind of sick ego-boost out of the manner of preaching instead of the substance of the preaching.
How ironic that is. We are to glory in the cross of Christ and the power of God displayed there, we are to boast in no one save Jesus Christ, through the cross we are made one people of God, and here the Apollos party is boasting in the one who preaches about Christ and are causing divisions and strife and hot contentions with others over it! That has got to be the epitome of self glory and pride, seeking your own glory out of the cross. Truly, that is to empty the cross of Christ of all its power.
Paul does not preach with words of human wisdom, but with words of the Christ, the wisdom of God and we will get to that next week.
To preach for one’s own glory and reputation and applause is completely antithetical to the cross. To preach so you can attract attention to yourself and your abilities is the essence of human pride and self exaltation. To follow a leader who does so is absurd and lunacy!
The power of preaching is not how it is preached, though that is important, Paul does not want us to throw attention to detail out the window, but the power of preaching is the truth of what is said.
Preaching the cross, Paul articulates in 1:18-25 invites derision, not applause. In the cross, God seeks not human ovations but sorrow. What is inspired is not the preacher but the word that is preached. To Paul it is contemptible to think that preachers could ever exploit the proclamation of one who was crucified as a means to upgrade their own worldly status. That’s sick, and I am sick of preaching that seeks emotional appeal without touching spiritual depth and having great substance. I am sick of preaching that is smoke and mirrors. May the Lord fill his churches with preachers who preach the glory of the cross and the power of God displayed in the wisdom of Christ!
We do not want people to be swayed by the preachers golden tongue, but to be converted by the power of the cross. The power of the cross is the person Jesus Christ, not how well one talks about him! Talk about missing it completely! One does not preach the cross to win the admiration of the audience. The goal is to have them look up in awe at the cross, which implants new ideas and uproots old ways of interpreting divine and earthly reality.
Thiselton comments, “to treat the gospel of the cross of Christ as a vehicle for promoting self-esteem, self-fulfillment, and self-assertion turns it upside down and ‘empties’ it of all that it offers and demands.”
The priority then for a quarreling church is the power of the gospel.