Who was Chloe in the Bible?

Verse 11. "For it has been declared unto me," etc. The frank and express mention here made of the source of the evil tidings which had reached him is worthy of one whose glory it was to walk by the rule of simplicity and godly sincerity, whether in the world or in the Church.7 Of the house of Chloe, and of those members of it who, Joseph-like,8 had brought to their spiritual father their brethren's ill report, we read nothing further in Scripture. To their lasting honour it is that they are here noticed as having communicated to the apostle what had marred their own fellowship with these disunited and factious confessors of the name of Christ. Their own better state may be inferred from the very nature of their report. What grieved them was indeed the working of one of the commonest of natural principles, that of carnal emulation. They shunned, however, and denounced it as something utterly at variance with the new and holy calling which they had received.

Nor does the apostle hesitate to write on the information which he had received (and indeed it was too plain and precise in its character to doubt its accuracy), nor to tell them its trustworthy source. A godly woman's household might be a particularly good means of ascertaining; as it also gives warrant for another day. It is the same apostle who, if he reprobates silly women laden with divers lusts, shows how a Phoebe or a Persis, a Prisca and a Mary, an Evodia and a Syntyche, should be valued and cared for. He can here write with full confidence of what he had learnt from Chloe's household.

The divisions were as yet within the assembly, not rents from it, but they tended to this end, as we are expressly told in 1 Corinthians 11:18-19. No conclusion can be less well founded than that the separation into denominations is lawful, while an evil spirit within is the sin; for this schismatic working is evil most of all because it leads those who are heady and unsubject to that worst result. It is assumed here that the assembly has not compromised Christ by unholy tolerance of false doctrine or any such evil as would make it a duty to disown those who would retain the title when they have forfeited its true character.

Alas! at Corinth the saints seem to have been largely infected with party spirit. "But I say this that one says I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ:" this last to my mind as intelligible as any of the others; for the wrong was not in any of those named, but in such as set up their names out of their own vanity and love of opposition. And the worst of all, I doubt not, was that party which plumed itself on its superior spirituality. They had done with men.† Paul, Apollos, Cephas, were beneath their aspirations. Not the servants, but the Master was their watchword. They disliked the high claims, especially of Paul. For their part they would cleave to the Lord's own precept: one is your teacher, one your leader, and all ye are brethren. Thus not infrequently does self-exaltation among Christians disguise itself unconsciously (and unconsciously, because the state is bad, and the heart too long away from the Lord in practice); whereas it is evident that he who really loves and bows to the Lord does for this very reason honour His servants for their work's sake, and according to the place He has set them in. The corruption of the best thing is truly said to be the worst; and so it was here where the specious plea of such as abjured all but Christ might seem to be the only thing right and spiritual in Corinth, divided as the assembly was. How important it is, and now as then, to judge righteous judgment, not according to appearances!

As the introduction to the epistle reveals, all believers have one Lord to whom they belong, and God has called all into the one fellowship, the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. No other name is to be owned by His people, but all must be united in that blessed name, and obedience yielded to Him. He therefore beseeches them in that name to present a united confession and testimony "that ye all speak the same thing"; an unmarred fellowship in the Spirit "that there be no divisions among you"; and such a oneness of mind and judgment which becomes those who are one in Christ "that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." And why this exhortation? Because those of the house of Chloe had given to Paul the information that contentions had arisen among them. He mentioned the source without giving the names of the individuals. Those of the house of Chloe were no doubt deeply spiritual and much exercised over these contentions and the dishonor done to the name of the Lord Jesus. And these contentions, which threatened serious schisms in the one body were connected with teachers, the chosen instruments of the Lord. Some said, "I am of Paul"; others, "I of Apollos"; another party, "I of Cephas." Instead of sitting at the feet of the One, who alone is worthy and is the teacher of His people, they scattered and divided themselves among the different teachers, given by the Lord to the church. It was the beginning of sectarianism, which has been such a curse to the people of God. It did not begin in the blessed assembly of Philippi, nor among the Saints in Ephesus, but among the puffed up, worldly-minded Corinthians. Partyism, sectarianism, is the fruit of the flesh (Galatians 5:20). How it has multiplied in Christendom, the evil fruit it has borne, the apostasy which is fostered by it, we need not point out, for all spiritually minded Christians are acquainted with it.

Chlo’e - Verdant

After he had left that city, endeared to him by so many ties formed between himself and his converts, for households embraced the truth (Acts 18:8; 1 Cor. 1:16), it was no wonder that communications were kept up between them and him; and when questions arose in their midst which they did not seem able to solve, it was not unnatural that they should write to Paul respecting them. (1 Cor. 7:1.) Private friendships had been formed, which bore fruit, as evidenced by the visit to him of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:17), who personally ministered to his need. But they were not the only people who visited him, or brought him news about the assembly at Corinth. There were those of the house of Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11), whom he mentions, from whom he had heard of the sad state of the assembly. That moved him to write this letter to them whilst he was at Ephesus. (1 Cor. 16:8.) It is a letter dealing with the state of things among them, and divides itself into two great parts. From 1 Cor. 1 to 1 Cor. 6 we have certain disorders of which he had heard, exposed, and corrected. From 1 Cor. 7 to 1 Cor. 16 Paul is chiefly occupied in answering questions which they had put to him in writing.

After returning from his second missionary journey Paul started his third journey. During this journey he remained in Ephesus for three years. This is probably when he came to know more details than the ones mentioned earlier on. From the First Epistle to the Corinthians we learn that his information was based on two sources. Firstly he had heard of the contentions among the Corinthians by them which were of the house of Chloe (1 Cor. 1:11). Secondly, the Corinthians had written a letter to Paul asking various questions which had been in their minds (1 Cor. 7:1; compare chap. 8:1; 12:1; 16:1).

When the Apostle Paul wrote his first letter to the Corinthians the divisions that existed among them were of an incipient nature and not as yet open and avowed breaches. Twice does the apostle speak of "divisions" (1 Cor. 1:10; 1 Cor. 3:3; 1 Cor. 11:18). Once he uses the word "heresies" (1 Cor. 1:19), and once he speaks of "contentions" (1 Cor. 1:11). They were forming parties or schools of opinion — which is what the word "heresies" means — and those, of course, gave rise to contentions and divisions. Yet the divisions were found amongst them when they came together "in the church" or "in assembly" (1 Cor. 11:18), so that they evidently maintained outward unity, though these sad cleavages or rents were present.

It is worthy of note that the divided state of the Corinthians was brought under Paul's notice by a report which reached him, and that in taxing them with it he plainly stated who his informants were, and also was quite specific in the charge he brought against them. How often have reports concerning the low estate or wrongdoing of some of the saints of God been brought by their fellow-believers, who having poured forth their tale have at once tried to bind down the one who has listened to their complaint to absolute silence as to their names! They are wishing to bring the charge, but not willing to put their name to it, so that should it be unfounded or only partly correct their responsibility may not be brought home to them. It was not thus with these believers "of the house of Chloe."

Nor did the apostle permit the point of his charge to be lost in vague generalities of a sort that are fairly easy to establish and very difficult to deny. He made his charge quite clear. "Now this I say," or "But I speak of this," — that each of you say, "I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." They were turning into party leaders men whom they esteemed to be great.

It was not that they were actually ranging themselves under the banners of Paul or Apollos or Peter, as 1 Cor. 4:6 shows. With Christian delicacy the apostle avoided mentioning the real names of the men who were making themselves into, or being made by the Corinthians, into party leaders. He spoke "in a figure," and transferred the matter to himself and to Apollos, desiring that in that way they might learn the lesson not to be puffed up for one man against another. The men they were really puffed up for, were either men of note in their own local assembly, or possibly some of the false and Judaizing workers who got amongst them, as 2 Cor. 11 shows.

Divisions — i.e., schisms or parties — always lead to contentions. God's desire is that we should be united in one mind and judgment. Though at a distance, tidings of the sad state of the Corinthians had reached Paul's ears, and he dealt faithfully with them. At the same time he plainly stated whence his information came. The house of Chloe could not lay information against them and yet remain anonymous, saying, "Don't let anyone know that we told you!" So also Paul himself avoided all vague and indefinite charges. He was quite explicit and definite in his statement, as indicated by the words, "Now this I say … " If such safeguards were always observed when charges must be brought, it would be well.

How good it is when our children turn to the Lord Jesus as their Saviour and follow Him as their Lord. We gladly attribute it to God’s grace and yet we as parents have a responsibility to teach them the terms of the gospel. Noah is an example to every believing father today: ‘moved with fear’ he ‘prepared an ark for the saving of his house’ (Heb. 11:7). His family not only learned the truth he preached but saw him practise it, and this had a profound effect on them. When no one else in the world took his warnings of judgment seriously, his wife, his sons and their wives accompanied him into the ark and were saved. In Acts we read that ‘Crispus the ruler of the synagogue’ in Corinth ‘believed in the Lord with all his house’ (18:8). God loves to save families, as we find several times in Acts (see 16:31). But it is especially encouraging to read the references to households of believers who treasured the things of the Lord and devoted themselves to the interests of His people. Take ‘those of the house of Chloe’ (1 Cor. 1:11) who were so grieved at the divisions in Corinth they informed the Apostle Paul as the only one they knew who could help resolve the situation. That took some courage because he had to name them in his letter. Then there is ‘the house of Stephanas … the first-fruits of Achaia’ who ‘devoted themselves to the saints for service’. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to be ‘subject to such’ (1 Cor. 16:15–16). Why? Because they were addicted to the welfare of an even more wonderful family of whom we are all part: God’s family. In 2 Timothy 1:16–17 the apostle seeks mercy for ‘the house of Onesiphorus’. How many times had this family spared its head so he could stay in Rome to refresh Paul? One too many because it seems he was now in trouble for not being ‘ashamed of [Paul’s] chain’ and seeking him out ‘very diligently’. Onesiphorus’ family had been doing this kind of thing for years because, reading on, we discover he had rendered much service in the past, in Ephesus (v. 18). Now it looked as if they were going to make the supreme sacrifice.

Space forbids pursuing this happy subject in the Epistles — the houses of Stephanus, of Aquila and Priscilla, of Chloe, truly a "green herb" in the arid conditions of Corinth, and of many others all furnishing help, encouragement and maybe challenge to us in our day.