unity

Pastoral elders should make decisions on the basis of unanimous agreement. Not even a three-fourths vote should carry a motion. No decision should be made without total one-mindedness, no matter how long that takes. Because the Holy Spirit has but one will, and because a church must be in complete harmony with His will, the leaders must be in complete harmony with each other in that will. The congregation then is to submit to the elders because it has confidence that the elders’ decisions are made under the Spirit’s direction and power. Because they believe the elders are one in the Spirit, the congregation is then determined to be one with the elders. There may be struggle in coming to this kind of unity, as there was in Corinth—but it is here mandated by the Spirit Himself through Paul.¹

The Things that Divide a Church

¹⁰ Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. ¹¹ For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. ¹² Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of 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 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. ¹⁶ Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. ¹⁷ For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

—1 Corinthians 1:10–17

Immediately following his opening words of encouragement, Paul begins with the problem of division within the fellowship of the church. The fact that he puts this problem first and continues the discussion for four chapters indicates that he feels it is of great importance.

There is nothing subtle or indirect in the way he approaches the problem. First, he states the problem as a fact that exists and not as a rumor. Paul is too careful in his dealing with the truth to bother with some unsubstantiated bit of gossip. Second, he gives the original source of the information. Some feel that “those of Chloe’s household” (v. 11) is a reference to a slave who belonged to a lady named Chloe. Undoubtedly he had substantiated what they had shared with him by conversations with others, possibly those who had brought him the letter from the church at Corinth. Third, to show how intimate his knowledge was of the different factions in the church he repeats their divisive slogans, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ” (v. 12). This is a classic picture of a person dealing responsibly with a problem. In less than sixty words Paul states the problem, identifies his source, and repeats precisely and forthrightly what has been told him about the problem. But it is Paul’s attitude and approach that is so remarkable. His words and his actions reveal that he is speaking as a Christian brother in behalf of Christ. What a perfect model for Christian confrontation!

From my many years in the ministry I have observed that the church of our day admires the spiritual courage of leaders such as Paul but it falls far short of copying their style of dealing with serious problems. We have such an anemic picture of Christian love that we avoid writing or saying anything that might upset someone or hurt his or her feelings. So concerned are we to avoid any issue which creates tension that we bury our heads in the sand and don’t even bother to learn what the issues are. And our pathological fear of taking a firm and loving stand for Christ and His church has given us such finely tuned instincts for arbitration that we are deluded into thinking that we can reconcile any people or any ideas.

I can just picture the chairman of one of our “peace at any price” committees trying to counsel the apostle Paul along these lines: “Paul, this is risky for you. You already have some people in that church who are critical of you, and this will just add fuel to the fire. You’ve been gone three years and don’t realize how much the church has changed. Sure, there are some problems, but this isn’t the way to deal with them. Your spelling out the issues will surface all sorts of destructive feelings and will end up adding to the problem rather than solving it. Besides, what the church really needs to unite it is a big project, like a major building campaign.” Sound familiar?

It will be helpful for us as we seek to fulfill our own church mission today to examine the likely thinking of the several groups that were dividing the Corinthian church, but it is highly significant that Paul was able to write one letter to the whole church and all the various factions were able to listen. Had conditions deteriorated so they could no longer have fellowship with each other or worship together, it would have been much more difficult for the problem of division to be handled. There has been among biblical scholars a continuing discussion as to the significance of the various groups that were splintering the church. The more traditional interpreters give the following characteristics.

The “Paul group” consisted of the church’s “charter members.” They were most likely Gentile converts, so one of the tenets of their faith would center on the freedom they had in Jesus Christ. They took great pride in the fact that they were in the church from the beginning.

It is easy for me to identify with the feelings of the Corinthian “old-timers,” for the church where I have most recently been the pastor is eighty years old. And even though none of its charter members is still living today, there are people who were there when the fifth pastor was called in 1918. Quite naturally, they feel very special about their tenure in the church. In a similar way, this “Paul group” felt very special because they had been converted under the preaching of the apostle himself, and those whom he had baptized wore the fact as a badge of distinction.

As we reflect on the characteristics of our churches today, almost 2,000 years later, it is interesting to note that this charter or “old-timers” group is usually very much in evidence. They are good people who are easy to love and are sometimes referred to as “the salt of the earth.”

The “Apollos group” probably consisted of those church members who were especially drawn to the powerful preaching of Apollos. In Acts 18:21–28 he is described as being from Alexandria, eloquent and mighty in the Scriptures, fervent in spirit, and bold. Because he “knew only the baptism of John” Aquilla and Priscilla became responsible for updating his knowledge and understanding. When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the province of which Corinth was the capital, he was given a letter urging the Christian brethren there to receive him.

Conjecture as to the nature of this group is drawn heavily from Apollos’ place of birth. Alexandria was a city of vigorous intellectual activity and whose biblical scholars delighted in interpreting Scriptures by use of allegorizing. They could infer amazing meanings in what appeared to be the simplest verses. The combination of a fervent spirit and homiletical flair had strong appeal to this particular group.

The “Cephas group” was most likely made up of the Jewish Christians who had deep roots in the faith of their fathers. There is no indication that Peter ever visited Corinth, but he was undoubtedly looked up to by these Jewish Christians because of his identity with the church in Jerusalem. Members of this group were probably not too comfortable with the church members who had been converted out of paganism and who paid no attention to Jewish customs.

People with deep religious roots, like the Cephas group, always make a great contribution to the stability of the church at any time and in any place.

There is no general agreement as to the identity of the “Jesus group.” Some feel that this may not have been a group at all but believe that by speaking of those who said “I am of Christ” Paul may have been making his own comment about the whole wretched situation. Paul could have been separating himself from all of the groups by stating with a bit of irony in his wording that he would rather identify with the Lord than with any of the Lord’s servants. Though we have no indication as to what may have been its distinction, most likely the “Jesus group” was a fourth faction within the fellowship of the church.

In studying this passage of Scripture it is important that we not consider it as merely a lesson in church history. Instead, these verses should be examined in terms of our churches today, for in the Corinthian church we see a prototype of many contemporary churches, all of which carry the potential for division. Sometimes the differences are ignored, not taken seriously, or glossed over, but they are real and they are there and we need to face them forthrightly and with courage.

Several years ago I taught 1 Corinthians to a group in our church on successive Wednesday nights. As we studied these particular verses, I was forced to think about all the differences within the church which had the potential of being divisive. While I labeled these groups differently, there was a great similarity between this inner-city church of the late twentieth century and the one in first-century Corinth. For example, there is always the potential of tension between the senior adults and their needs and the young marrieds and their demands. There is quite a disparity between the interests of the old-timers and the newcomers, between those who work with internationals and those who feel the congregation ought to be homogenous. There is usually the potential for misunderstanding between those who want an authoritarian pastor and others who demand freedom and openness for lay persons. And then, of course, there is a group who wants to minister and another whose major emphasis is on evangelism.

Our first clue to Paul’s understanding of the Corinthian church problem comes in the word he used for “division” in verse 10 and for “contentions” in verse 11. The verb form used in verse 10 indicates that the divisions were already present. Schisma is the Greek word for “cleft” or “division.” It is used in the Gospels to depict a tear in a garment (Mark 2:21; Matt. 9:16), and it is used by John to describe the different opinions about Christ (John 7:43). A more picturesque word is erides in verse 11, translated “contention.” The ancient Greeks used the word in their literature to mean battle strife, rivalry, and both political and domestic strife. The fact that Paul used the word in Galatians 5:20 to describe a work of the flesh which was opposed to all God was seeking to do would indicate how serious he viewed the problem to be.

The refutation of the divisions in the church that Paul introduces in verses 12–17 is picked up and developed in great detail in the first four chapters of the letter. It should be noted from the beginning that Paul did not direct his argument against any one faction but against all of the groups. He even refuted those to whom he was the hero by asking, “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1:13). However, Paul does not get involved in either the beliefs or the practices of any of the groups but attacks the spirit of partisanship which he feels could ultimately divide the church. His larger concern was the quarrelsome spirit to which their differences had given birth. He uses his strongest argument first when he asks, “Is Christ divided?” (v. 13). The assumed answer is “no” with the inference that “your spirit is about to divide that which cannot be divided.”

Paul introduced this passage with the clear goal for the fellowship of the church: “that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (v. 10). He was not calling for uniformity of thought and action but for oneness of spirit. Later in the letter Paul will lead the church to celebrate the diversity of gifts, but here he was still calling for that spirit which binds the body of Christ together and allows it to perform its function. Those who have for a long time observed with a loving eye the actions of different churches have seen congregations deal with grave matters on which there were vigorous and differing opinions and come through it as stronger churches with a more loving fellowship. On the other hand, such observers have also seen the fellowship of other congregations torn and permanent scars inflicted over matters so trivial that in years to come the participants would have a hard time even remembering which side they were on in the argument. The difference between the two is that the first were able to preserve a oneness of spirit in the midst of differences. The church should prize the spirit which Christ has given her and take seriously any threat to its essential unity²

The Plea: Doctrinal Agreement

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. (1:10)

Exhort comes from the Greek parakaleō, the verb root of paraklētos, the “Helper” (or Comforter) of John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7 and the “Advocate” of 1 John 2:1. The basic meaning is that of coming alongside someone in order to help. Paul wanted to come alongside his Corinthian brothers and sisters in order to help correct their sins and shortcomings. He used the same word in writing Philemon. After noting that he had the right to order Philemon to forgive the slave Onesimus and send him back to Paul, the apostle says, “Yet for love’s sake I appeal [parakaleō]to you” (Philem. 9; cf. 10).

Likewise he appealed to the Corinthians. He had been careful to establish his apostolic authority in the opening words of the letter. But now he appeals to them as brothers. In so doing he moderates the harshness, without minimizing the seriousness, of the rebuke. They are his brothers and each other’s brothers, and should act in harmony as brothers.

They had all been “called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ” (1:9) and are now being lovingly exhorted by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to agree, to eliminate divisions, and to be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. Because they were one in fellowship with their Lord, they should be one in fellowship with each other. Their unity in Jesus Christ was the basis for Paul’s appeal for unity among themselves. As in many of Paul’s letters, believers’ identity with Christ is the pad from which he launches his call to holy living.

Christ’s name represents all that He is, His character and His will. To pray “in Jesus’ name” is not to expect God to bow to our wishes or demands simply because we use that phrase. To pray in His name is to pray in accordance with His Word and His will. Jesus said to pray, saying, “Hallowed be Thy name.… Thy will be done” (Matt. 6:9–10). Christ’s Word, which perfectly reflects His character and His will, forms the supreme basis for all Christian behavior. What we think, say, and do is right or wrong not primarily because of its effect on us or on others but because it does or does not conform to Christ and bring honor to Him. Our behavior as believers has its most direct relationship to Jesus Christ. When we sin or complain or quarrel, we harm the church and its leaders and our fellow believers. We also put a barrier between unbelievers and the gospel. But worst of all, we bring dishonor to our Lord.

When the Ephesian elders came to Miletus to meet Paul on his way to Jerusalem, he admonished them to “be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28). He was saying to them, “Don’t lose sight of Whose you are and Whose they are. You all belong to Jesus Christ and are precious to Him. You are overseers on the Lord’s behalf.”

The emphasis in this passage, written to a local church, is on the unity of the local assembly of believers, not on the mystical unity of the universal church—as is the emphasis, for example, in Ephesians, which was a general letter without local reference. Nor is Paul talking about denominational unity. He is saying that there should be unity within the local congregation, that you should all agree.

That seems to be an impossible standard. Yet the Lord Himself commanded His followers to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48), and what could be more humanly impossible than that? In the name and power of Christ that standard is possible. So is this one. God does not give His standards on the basis of human ability but on the basis of divine provision. He does not accommodate them to human limitations, much less to human inclinations and desires. No matter how impossible the idea may seem, all believers in a local church are to be in agreement about the things of God.

In the Greek, that you all agree is literally, “that you all speak the same thing,” as in the King James Version. Nothing is more confusing to new Christians, or to unbelievers who are considering the claims of Christ, than to hear supposedly mature and informed Christians tell conflicting things about the gospel, the Bible, or Christian living. And few things are more devastating to a church than everyone having his own ideas and interpretations about the faith, or of the congregation being divided into various factions, each with its own views.

For a local church to be spiritually healthy, harmonious, and effective, there must, above all, be doctrinal unity. The teaching of the church should not be a smorgasbord from which members can pick and choose. Nor should there be various groups, each with its own distinctives and leaders. Even if the groups get along with each other and tolerate each other’s views, doctrinal confusion and spiritual weakness are inevitable. Unfortunately some churches today, and even some seminaries, have just that sort of doctrinal and ethical selectivity. They often have unity on a social and organizational level—but doctrinally, ethically, and spiritually they are confused and confusing. They hold to no certainties, including the certainties and absolutes of Scripture. They have no lasting or binding commitments. One does not make permanent commitments to temporary beliefs. Many people, of course, including some professing Christians, do not want absolutes in doctrine or ethics, simply because absolute truths and standards demand absolute acceptance and obedience.

As far as God’s truth is concerned, there cannot be two conflicting views that are right. Obviously, we cannot know dogmatically what is not fully or clearly revealed (Deut. 29:29). But God is not confused or self-contradictory. He does not disagree with Himself, and His Word does not disagree with itself. Consequently Paul insists that the Corinthians, and all believers, have doctrinal unity—not just any doctrinal unity, but unity that is clearly and completely based on God’s Word. He appeals to them in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is, there must be agreement in Him, in His will, in His Word.

Many of the factions in the Corinthian church, as in some parts of the church today, had unity within their own groups but not unity with other believers in Jesus Christ. Paul’s call for agreement was not agreement on just any basis but agreement in God’s revealed truth, given by and consummated in Jesus Christ and completed through the teaching of His apostles. “Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained” (Phil. 3:15–16). The standard was the apostolic doctrine which Paul personally had related to them and exemplified among them (v. 17), just as the teaching he had given the Corinthians was as “an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God” and “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Cor. 1:1; 2:4).

The word divisions translates the Greek schismata,, from which we get schism. In the physical sense the meaning is “to tear or rip,” that is, to separate, as in Matthew 9:16 (“tear”). Metaphorically it means to have a difference of opinion, a division of judgment, a dissension. Once when Jesus was preaching in Jerusalem the people listening to Him could not agree on who He was. Some thought He was the great prophet, some that He was the Christ, and some that He was just an ordinary man making extraordinary claims. Consequently, John reports, “There arose a division [schisma] in the multitude because of Him” (John 7:43). Still today there are divisions because of disagreements as to who Christ is, even among those who go by His name.

The most serious divisions a church can have are those involving doctrine. In closing his letter to the Romans Paul warned, “Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them” (Rom. 16:17). Those who teach anything contrary to Scripture are not serving Christ but themselves and their own interests. In matters on which Scripture is not explicit there is room for difference of opinion. But in the clear teachings of the Bible there is no room for difference, because to differ with Scripture is to differ with God. On those things a church must agree.

I believe there are even some things, though not specifically taught in Scripture, about which the church should be of one mind when the elders and pastors have come to agreement on it. Otherwise there will be confusion in the local church and often division and factions. Members will tend to line up with the teachers and leaders with whom they agree, and they will soon become like the Corinthians, who were of Paul, Apollos, Peter, or Christ (1 Cor. 1:12). There was no doctrinal disagreement among those teachers; the division was one of personality or style preference on the part of the Corinthians—a popularity contest. Because Paul ranked them with the other factions, we know that even those claiming to be loyal only to Christ were really loyal only to their own opinions.

I also believe there must be agreement in the decision-making process of the local church leadership and that their decisions should be accepted and followed by other church members, especially by those, such as teachers, who are in positions of responsibility and influence. These decisions do not, of course, have the same authority as Scripture. But if they are consistent with what Scripture teaches and are sought in prayer, they should be followed by everyone in the church for the sake of harmony and unity. A good word for those who seek unity in the leadership of the church’s life and practice is found in Philippians 1:27, where Paul exhorts believers to stand “firm in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel.”

Obviously the key to unity in doctrine and decisions is having godly leaders who are united themselves in the will of the Spirit. Men who are not close to the Lord and well-taught in His Word cannot possibly recognize or agree on sound doctrine or make sound decisions. Without knowing God’s Word they cannot perceive error, even when they want to. The only sure way to identify a counterfeit bill is to compare it with one known to be genuine. Only Scripture-taught, Spirit-led men are able to guide a church into the unity of truth and protect it from error. If a church does not have that kind of men, no form of leadership will work spiritually. Such men are God’s men and they represent Jesus Christ. Christ rules the church through them, and their decisions should be agreed with and followed. Such men are able to lead the church in the unity of faith and practice which the New Testament consistently demands (cf. Heb. 13:7). They are able to guide a congregation in being complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. But if they are not united, the people will not be either.

Made complete is the Greek katartizō, used in classical Greek as well as in the New Testament to speak of mending such things as nets, bones, dislocated joints, broken utensils, and torn garments. The basic meaning is to put back together, to make one again something that was broken or separated. Christians are to be made complete (“perfectly joined together,” KJV), both internally (in the same mind) and externally (in the same judgment). In our individual minds and among ourselves we are to be one in beliefs, standards, attitudes, and principles of spiritual living.

The epistles have nothing to say about the role of the congregation in church government, but a great deal to say about the role of its leadership. “We request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work” (1 Thess. 5:12–13). Only when its leadership is right can a congregation be right. They will never be perfect or infallible, but godly men are Christ’s instruments for leading and shepherding His people. They have the right to lead the congregation and to make decisions for them in the Lord, and they are to be respected, loved, and followed in the Lord. “Obey your leaders,” we read in Hebrews, “and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with grief, for this would be unprofitable for you” (13:17).

God’s people are to follow, not quibble with and question, godly leaders who are one in mind as to God’s Word and will. In God’s order a congregation is to be under the rule of its leaders just as children are to be under the rule of their parents. That is God’s way.

Being of the same mind and … the same judgment rules out grudging or hypocritical unity. Unity must be genuine. We are not simply to speak the same thing, while keeping our disagreements and objections to ourselves, making a pretense of unity. Unity that is not of the same mind and judgment is not true unity. Hypocrites will add to a congregation’s size but they will take away from its effectiveness. A member who strongly disagrees with his church leadership and policy, not to mention doctrine, cannot be happy or productive in His own Christian life or be of any positive service to the congregation.

It is not that believers are to be carbon copies of each other. God has made us individual and unique. But we are to be of the same opinion in regard to Christian doctrine, standards, and basic life-style. The apostles themselves were different from one another in personality, temperament, ability, and gifts; but they were of one mind in doctrine and church policy. When differences of understanding and interpretation arose, the first order of business was to reconcile those differences. Ego had no place, only the will of God.

When, for example, the Judaizing controversy became serious in Antioch, “the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders concerning this issue” (Acts 15:2). At what has come to be called the Jerusalem Council the issue was discussed, prayed about, and settled; and the decision was put in letter form to be circulated among the churches involved (vv. 6–30). It was not an arbitrary ruling made by a group of influential and persuasive men. It was a decision made by godly apostles and elders in accordance with God’s revealed will and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Those leaders were able to say of their decision, “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (v. 28). We can be sure that many of the Judaizers were not convinced or pleased, for the problem continued to plague the early church for many years. But for faithful believers the issue was settled and “they rejoiced because of its encouragement” (v. 31). That is why the qualifications for elders are spiritual (1 Tim. 3:1ff.; Titus 1:5ff.).

Pastoral elders should make decisions on the basis of unanimous agreement. Not even a three-fourths vote should carry a motion. No decision should be made without total one-mindedness, no matter how long that takes. Because the Holy Spirit has but one will, and because a church must be in complete harmony with His will, the leaders must be in complete harmony with each other in that will. The congregation then is to submit to the elders because it has confidence that the elders’ decisions are made under the Spirit’s direction and power. Because they believe the elders are one in the Spirit, the congregation is then determined to be one with the elders. There may be struggle in coming to this kind of unity, as there was in Corinth—but it is here mandated by the Spirit Himself through Paul.

Unity has always been God’s way for His people and a source of blessing to them. “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell together in unity” (Ps. 133:1). At the end of the great discourse on Christian liberty in his letter to the Romans, Paul prayed, “Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus; that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God” (15:5–7). Since Christ is of one mind about us we should be of one mind with and about each other. Luke reports that shortly after Pentecost “the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul” (Acts 4:32). Paul encouraged the Philippians to make his “joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose” (2:2). Among God’s wonderful gifts to His people are oneness in mind, love, accord, voice, purpose, and spirit.

The purpose of unity first of all is to glorify God. Unity will always bless a congregation and be a joy to its leaders (Heb. 13:17), but its primary aim is God’s glory. Just as Christ accepted us to the glory of God, we accept each other and the rule of our leaders to His glory. We should always, therefore, be “diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3).

The source of unity is the Lord Himself. We are called to preserve it and we are able to destroy it, but we are not able to create it. The unity of the church is already established by the Holy Spirit. We can only keep it or harm it. It is kept by doing “nothing from selfishness or empty conceit,” but with humility counting others better than ourselves (Phil. 2:3). If an issue arises that we feel needs attention, we should carefully and lovingly present our views to those involved or to those in authority, but without pride or contention. Vanity and self-will are almost always the causes of divisions and factions in a congregation—and in every other group. We keep unity by not insisting on our own way, by avoiding squabbles and bickering, and by putting the interests of our Lord and of His people above all else.

The Parties: Loyalty to Men

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.” (1:11–12)

Paul had ministered in Corinth for a year and a half. He then sent Apollos to be the second pastor. Apparently a group of Jews in the church had been saved under Peter’s (Cephas’s) ministry. Parties soon developed in the names of each of those men. Paul learned of the factions through Chloe, probably a prominent person in the Corinthian church who had written or come to visit Paul in Ephesus. The first two groups each had their favorite former pastor, the third had a strong loyalty to Peter, and the fourth, probably the most pious and self-righteous, seemed to think they had a special claim on Christ. They had the right name but it is clear from Paul’s accusation that they did not have the right spirit. Perhaps like some “Christ only” groups today they felt they had no need for human instructors—despite the Lord’s specific provision for and appointment of human preachers, teachers, and other leaders in His church (1 Cor. 1:1; 12:28; Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 1:11; etc.).

Each group was vocal in its opinions and had its own shibboleth, its own slogan of identity and implied superiority. “I am of Paul,” “I of Apollos,” “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” These were the great teachers of the early years, around whom people gathered and through whom they were given the saving message. People clung to the man who had evangelized and taught them, and then pitted their group against the groups loyal to the other leaders. Often, as with the Corinthian church, leaders about whom such factions center are not responsible for the division. Many times they are not even aware of it. When, however, leaders do know of and even encourage groups that have a special loyalty to them, those leaders are doubly guilty. They not only participate in factionalism but allow it to center on themselves.

The inevitable result of such party spirit is contention, quarrels, wrangling, and disputes—a divided church. It is natural to have special affection for the person who led us to Christ, for a pastor who has fed us from the Word for many years, for a capable Sunday school teacher, or for an elder or deacon who has counseled and consoled us. But such affection becomes misguided and carnal when it is allowed to segregate us from others in the church or to decrease our loyalty to the other leaders. It then becomes a self-centered, self-willed exclusiveness that is the antithesis of unity.

Spirituality produces humility and unity; carnality produces pride and division. The only cure for quarreling and division is renewed spirituality. In my experience the most effective means of correcting a contentious, factious person is to share with him selected Scripture passages on carnality and its evidences, to confront him directly with the cause of his sin.

The Principle: Oneness in Christ

Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1:13)

The central principle of Paul’s argument is that believers are one in Christ and should never do anything that disrupts or destroys that unity. No human leader, no matter how gifted and effective, should have the loyalty that belongs only to the Lord. Paul began his letter by establishing his authority as an apostle. But he wanted no part of the faction named for him. He had never been crucified for anyone. No one was ever baptized in his name. His authority had been delegated to him and was not his own, and his purpose was to bring men to Christ, not to himself.

A Christian church that is divided is a contradiction. “One who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him” (1 Cor. 6:17). “For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (12:12–13). “We, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Rom. 12:5). “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:4–6). To be divided in Christ’s Body is a violation of our redeemed nature and is in direct opposition to our Lord’s will. In His longest recorded prayer, Jesus interceded for those who were His and who would be His. Included was His beautiful appeal for their unity, “that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me. And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one” (John 17:21–22).

When the Lord’s people quarrel and dispute and fight, they reflect against the Lord before the world, they weaken His church, and worst of all they grieve and put to shame the One who bought them—who died to make them one in Him. The Father is one, the Son is one, the Spirit is one, and the church is one.

The Priority: Preaching the Gospel

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. (1:14–17)

Crispus was the leader of the synagogue in Corinth when Paul first ministered there and was converted under the apostle’s preaching. His conversion led to that of many others in the city (Acts 18:8). Since the letter to the Romans was written from Corinth, this Gaius was probably the Corinthian “host” to whom Paul refers in Romans 16:23. The apostle was grateful that he had personally baptized only those two and a few others.

Jesus did not baptize anyone personally (John 4:2). To have been baptized by the Lord Himself would have brought almost irresistible temptation to pride and would have tended to set such people apart, whether they wanted to be or not. As an apostle, Paul faced a similar danger. But he also had another: the danger of creating his own cult; and so he declared, I thank God … that no man should say you were baptized in my name.

As already mentioned, it is not wrong to have special affection for certain persons, such as the one who baptized us, especially if we were converted under his ministry. But it is quite wrong to take special pride in that fact or pride in any close relationship to a Christian leader. Paul was not flattered that a group in Corinth was claiming special allegiance to him. He was distraught and ashamed at the idea, as he had already said: “Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1:13). “How could you even think of showing a loyalty to me,” he was saying, “that belongs only to the Lord Jesus Christ?” He wanted no cult built around himself or around any other church leader.

Paul was not certain of the exact number he had baptized in Corinth. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. This comment gives an interesting insight into the inspiration of Scripture. As an apostle writing the Word of God, Paul made no errors; but he was not omniscient. God protected His apostles from error in order to protect His Word from error. But Paul did not know everything about God or even about himself, and was careful never to make such a claim. He knew what God revealed—things he had no way of knowing on his own. What he could know on his own, he was prone to forget. He was one of us.

Another reason for Paul’s baptizing so few converts was that his primary calling lay elsewhere. 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. He was not sent to start a cult of people baptized by him. Jesus had personally commissioned him: “For this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you; delivering you from the Jewish people and from the Gentiles, to whom I am sending you, to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, in order that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me” (Acts 26:16–18). His calling was to preach the gospel and bring men to oneness in Christ, not in baptizing to create a faction around himself.

As we each have the right priority in our lives, we too will be determined to serve the Lord in truth and in unity, not living in the carnality and confusion of dissension and division.³

1 MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1984). 1 Corinthians (pp. 29–30). Chicago: Moody Press.

2 Chafin, K. L., & Ogilvie, L. J. (1985). 1, 2 Corinthians (Vol. 30, pp. 29–34). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Inc.

3 MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (1984). 1 Corinthians (pp. 25–33). Chicago: Moody Press.