1 Corinthians 1:10–13

He was an apostle. He had taught them about Christ, and he had brought them to birth through the gospel. Even so, he appeals to them here by that name which touches the believer most closely, and speaks most solemnly even to the person who only professes to believe. That name is the centre of unity, as the Holy Spirit is its bond. If anything could bring his appeal home to their souls, that name would. He is jealous for the honour of Him, their Lord, whom their quarrels compromised. In these rival schools with their misguided leaders, where was the witness to the fellowship of God's Son?

First, Paul urges that they "all speak the same thing." For it is wrong speaking that is the beginning of division. If we are inclined to "speak our mind," let us remember first that "we have the mind of Christ" (1 Cor. 2:16), and be watchful that it is His mind that moves our tongues. If this is true, we shall "all speak the same thing." Our speaking will have one agreed goal, moving in the same steady direction.

In other passages, translators render forms of the verb "perfect" from Hebrews 13:21 as "mending" (Matt. 4:21), "restore" (Gal. 6:1), and "united" (1 Cor. 1:10). A note on the last of these explains it: every member has its own place, and together they make a whole. If broken, they are restored to one complete whole.

Would the apostle have been satisfied with the same outward confession alone? By no means. But that is where he begins, following the wisdom of the Spirit who guided him. Then he adds, "that there be no divisions among you" — their party cries were the expression of those divisions. Lastly he begs that they may be "made perfect" (see Eph. 4:12 as well as 2 Cor. 13:9), or "wholly united," in the same mind and in the same judgment. He does not mean the will by this... for nous means the mind viewed as the thinking faculty, while gnōmē is the opinion or judgment that it forms. He wanted them to have careful, intelligent thought. They were weakest where they were proud or vain, as people usually are.

Nothing is more dangerous than trying to blunt the edge of Scripture so as to escape a wound to our own consciences. The apostle does not say, "I beg you all to speak different things in a friendly way." He says, "I beg you that you all speak the same thing." He does not say, "Keep your divisions friendly." He says, "Let there be no divisions among you." He does not say, "Let there be peace among people of different minds and different judgments." He says, "Be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

This party spirit among them had its source not in the Spirit of God, but in the flesh. It did not glorify the Lord; it exalted man. They thought more about Paul and Apollos, and about their persons and talents, than about the Lord Jesus Christ. This is how sectarianism began, as the fruit of the flesh. And the remedy for it is "seeing no man but Jesus only."

If all were walking in the Spirit, we should be perfectly joined together, in the same mind and in the same judgment. There would be no occasion for a divided judgment. Believers may indeed grasp divine truth in different measures. Some see further than others. But if the same Spirit controls all, all look in the same direction.

Paul learned of the divided state of the Corinthians through a report that reached him. When he charged them with it, he plainly said who had told him, and he was quite specific about the charge. How often do fellow believers bring reports about the low state or the wrongdoing of God's people! They pour out their tale, then at once try to bind the listener to absolute silence about their names. They want to bring the charge, but not to put their name to it. Then, if it proves unfounded, or only partly right, the responsibility never comes home to them. It was not like this with these believers "of the house of Chloe."

False reports have done great harm among Christians! We all admit that it is wrong to raise them. Do we all realise the wrong of receiving them? An argument or dispute arises among Christians. Someone brings an evil or belittling report about the person on the other side. How tempting it is to accept it at once as certainly true, when after all it is a false report. Examine any evil report with care and check it before you accept it. We do well to note the care Paul took over reports of evil at Corinth — see 1 Corinthians 1:11 and 11:18.

The apostle does not hesitate to write on the information he had received. It was too plain and precise for him to doubt that it was accurate. Nor does he hesitate to tell them where it came from — a trustworthy source. A godly woman's household might be a very good way of learning the truth, then and in our own day too.

We read nothing further in Scripture about the house of Chloe. Like Joseph, some of them brought their brothers' bad report to their spiritual father. It is to their lasting honour that they are noticed here. They told the apostle what had spoiled their own fellowship with these divided and quarrelsome people who claimed the name of Christ. The very nature of their report shows their own better state. What grieved them was one of the commonest of natural principles at work: carnal rivalry. They kept clear of it, and condemned it as something completely at odds with the new and holy calling they had received.

When Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians, the divisions among them were only beginning. They were not yet open, declared breaks. They were forming parties or schools of opinion — that is what the word "heresies" means — and those, of course, gave rise to contentions and divisions. Yet the divisions showed up when they came together "in the church" or "in assembly". So they clearly kept up outward unity, even though these sad splits or tears were there.

No conclusion could be less well founded than this: that splitting into denominations is lawful, and that only an evil spirit within is the sin. This schismatic working is evil most of all because it leads the headstrong and unsubmissive to that worst result. … At Corinth the believers seem to have been largely infected with party spirit. The wrong was not in any of the men whose names they used, but in those who set up those names out of their own vanity and love of opposition. And the worst party of all, I have no doubt, was the one that prided itself on being more spiritual than the rest.

They had encouraged schools of teaching, and these produced divisions. Pupils lined themselves up under different teachers and called themselves by those teachers' names. But who were the teachers they ran after, who allowed this and, worse, encouraged it? We ask in vain. Their names were as familiar then as household words, and they have perished. The names of God's faithful servants of the same period — Paul, Apollos and Cephas — remain to this day.

Paul himself avoided all vague and indefinite charges. He was explicit and definite, as the words show: "What I mean is that …" It would be good if people always took such care when they have to bring a charge.

They had encouraged schools of teaching, and these produced divisions. Pupils lined themselves up under different teachers and called themselves by those teachers' names. But who were the teachers they ran after, who allowed this and, worse, encouraged it? We may ask, but we ask in vain. Their names were once as familiar as household words, and they have perished. The names of God's faithful servants from the same time — Paul, Apollos and Cephas — remain to this day.

The apostle goes on to expose the root from which divisions spring. On one side they were lifting gifted servants of the Lord into a false position as centres of gathering. That is the evil principle of clericalism. On the other side they were forming themselves into parties around these servants, and so starting the evil of sectarianism.

In the light of 1 Corinthians 4:6, we may assume that the real offenders were local leaders, and that Christian delicacy led the apostle to use his own name, together with those of Apollos and Cephas, instead of the names of the actual men. The names he does use are significant. For the Corinthians, Paul had been the evangelist and Apollos the teacher, and the Lord called Cephas to a pastoral ministry, as John 21 shows. It is almost certain that some will prefer the earnest evangelist, some the eloquent, clear-headed teacher, and others the kind pastor. The trouble comes when people magnify the men who have these gifts and turn them into leaders of parties.

Those who said, "I follow Paul," lost Apollos and Cephas. Those who said, "I follow Cephas," lost Paul and Apollos. Why not benefit by all the gifts that an ascended Lord has seen fit to give to His church? The church is a whole.

Someone may ask, what about those who disowned all men as leaders and said, "I follow Christ"? These were really worse than the others. They were trying to make Christ the leader of a party and to ignore the gifts that Christ had given. They assumed they were more spiritual than everyone else. They claimed they could do without the ministry of others, and they pretended to own Christ for themselves alone.

Anyone who truly loves and bows to the Lord will, for that very reason, honour His servants for their work's sake, and according to the place He has given them. People rightly say that the corruption of the best thing is the worst. So it was here. The church in Corinth was divided, and the plausible plea of those who disowned everyone but Christ could look like the only right and spiritual thing there. How important it is, now as then, to judge rightly, and not by appearances!

God calls all of us into the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Once we understand that clearly, we will reject every sect and party. No one will then say, "I follow Christ," and shut out other saints, for all are of Him; and Christ is not divided.

"Is Christ divided?" asks the indignant apostle. Is He not the Head of that one body the church to which they all belonged? It is a whole Christ to whom all His own belong and who Himself belongs to all. To think of dividing Him would be as irrelevant as absurd. They might divide, not He: what an inconsistency if they valued Him!

The Apostle condemns their sectarianism by asking, "Is Christ divided?". We are called into a fellowship of which Christ is the bond. We may, alas, form other fellowships with some other bond, but we cannot divide Christ.

But what about those who were saying, "and I of Christ"? Were they the approved ones — those refusing men's ways and walking in the Spirit? Clearly they were not, for the Apostle censures them with the others. He then asks at once, "Is Christ divided?" — which implies that this is just what they were doing. They were dividing Christ, for their "I" was only the "I" of a faction. Now it is quite true that all the saints are "of Christ," or "Christ's." The last verse of 1 Corinthians 3 says so, because it uses the same expression. But there it is "you," and that meant the whole church at Corinth, not just a faction. This saying, "I of Christ," was really worse than saying, "I of Paul," or "I of Apollos," or "I of Cephas."

Then he condemns their clericalism by asking, "Was Paul crucified for you?". Paul refused to be exalted into a false position as a centre of gathering for God's people. The only true centre of gathering for the people of God is the One Who has proved His claim over them by being crucified for them. Paul, however much he loved the people of God, had not been crucified for them. He will not take the place in the affections of God's people that belongs to the crucified One alone. ... In exalting their favourite teachers, and seeking distinction for themselves by following them, they were glorying in men rather than in the Lord, in the gifts rather than the Giver.

The influence is blinding wherever people let the first man take the place of the Second. Apostles and others have died, yes, been crucified, but Christ alone died for us. And it is to Him we have been baptized, not to the twelve apostles, still less to other men.

How carefully he had worked at Corinth, baptising very few, so that no one could say that he had baptised to his own name. His work was to preach the gospel, not to baptise. He was to call souls to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, not to make disciples who took his name. John the Baptist had disciples called after him. Paul avoided all that for himself, for what was right in John's day would have been wrong in Paul's day.

Every Christian must be shocked at the thought of Christ being divided, of Paul being crucified for him, or of being baptized in the name of Paul. But the Holy Spirit declares that the divisions of the Corinthians are just as shocking as these suggestions. In fact, nothing could justify their divisions except the truth of these suggestions.