1 Corinthians 1:10-12

‘Now I beg you, brothers, through 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 perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment For it has been signified to me about you, my brothers, by those of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you says, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos”, and “I of Cephas”, and “I of Christ”.

Paul now brings up the first thing he has against them as a result of what he has been told by some familiar with the Corinthian church. And that is that they are in danger of splitting up into philosophical groups depending on which particular preacher's message they favour, or on who baptised them (1 Corinthians 1:13), selecting out aspects of their message which were not central and treating them as though they were. This was clearly not just a matter of having a favourite preacher, but of falling out with others over the details and feeling themselves superior because of the name they connected themselves with, the secondary docrines they seemed to emphasise, and the way such presented the Christian message. They were in danger of forming separate groups and hiving off from the rest, and missing the main point of that message, the word of the cross and of the Crucified One. The church in Corinth could easily slip back into being a group of philosophical sects and lose the world view.

This would seem to be because they had favourite pet secondary slants on doctrines which they overstressed and associated with either Paul, Apollos or Peter (Cephas), which made them feel that the others were not really Christians, or were very inferior Christians, because they did not agree. Some even said ‘I of Christ'. These also seem to be considered to be at fault, possibly suggesting that they expressed their superiority haughtily in unchristian fashion and division, seeing themselves as superior, and causing further dissension, but probably also because they had their own strong ideas which depended on stressing only the earthly life and teaching of Jesus over against the teaching of the Apostles and of Paul and the further revelation given to the Apostles, boasting that they stuck firmly to the simple words of Christ, and needed nothing more, ignoring the essentials of the cross and the resurrection. Paradoxically 1 Corinthians 15:12 may actually have in mind this group.

Paul foresaw the great danger that, in becoming separated off they would all cease to trust in the resurrected Christ (chapter 15) and Him the crucified One, and would begin to trust rather only in the secondary teachings presented by one or another, seen as ‘wisdom' teaching and accepted as such to the exclusion of the grand picture. Their faith would become second hand and thus unreal. They would become simply members of another wisdom sect (1 Corinthians 1:17) rather than proclaimers of the Gospel.

‘Brothers.' The word is significant here. He is reminding them that they are all members of Christ's family and in that family are brothers. They should therefore appreciate and love one another. Note that Paul here does not say ‘my' brothers (contrast 1 Corinthians 1:11) showing that he is here stressing that the Corinthians are brothers to each other.

‘Through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.' In other words through what Christ essentially is. It is in Him and what He is that they are one. He is turning their thoughts to the One they should be concentrating on as the Lord of all, and reminding them of what Jesus Christ Himself had said on the issue of unity (John 17:20). Unless their faith is centred in Him it is nothing. This citing of Jesus Christ in this way was a favourite approach of Paul's. Compare ‘by our Lord Jesus Christ' (Romans 15:30); ‘by the meekness and gentleness of Christ' (2 Corinthians 10:1); ‘in the Lord Jesus Christ' (1 Thessalonians 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:12). It was because of their relationship and privileged position in Him that they should respond.

‘That you all speak the same thing.' In other words that they speak with one voice and present a united front to the world and to young Christians, demonstrating that they are united in Christ and at one with Him and with each other, as Jesus Himself had taught them (John 17:21), thus focusing all attention on Christ. Private discussion on secondary is fine, but public dissension is inimical, for it divides Christ and should be kept out of church meetings.

‘And that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.' Internally too they are to be at peace with one another, agreeing on the major central truths and being careful to differ in love on secondary interpretations. They are to concentrate on Jesus Christ and Him crucified, Who He is revealed to be and what He came to do. Thus they will have the same mind and the same judgment both on the central truths of the Gospel and on how they should react on secondary matters. This will result in their being ‘perfected together', having a full unity. Then the world will see one message, one Christ, one people.

‘That you be perfected together.' The verb katartizo means to make complete, put in order, restore, put into proper condition, make fully trained. Thus Paul wants them to be put right and ‘fully trained' and taught in the Gospel, made perfectly at one. He wants them to be seen as a fully united body, all acting in unison.

‘It has been signified (revealed, shown) to me.' Paul is not speaking in the abstract. He has had specific information about their divisions, their disputes and their arguments.

‘By those of Chloe.' Chloe was a Greek female name meaning ‘verdant'. It was associated with the cult of Demeter, thus it has been suggested that Paul had learned his information from members of that cult. However the name is not intrinsically pagan and there is no reason why it should not have been borne by a very important lady or by a prominent Christian lady (although it was not she who reported it, but her household). It may thus indicate that Chloe was a well known and influential person whose family members, or more probably her servants, possibly as a result of business trips to Corinth, had communicated with Paul about the situation in Corinth, his naming of them being to demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of his knowledge. It is possible that she did not actually live in Corinth as in that case such a revelation of her name by Paul would only cause even more division. Possibly she or her household had visited the church and been disturbed at what they had observed. But Paul assumes that all will recognise their impartiality.

‘I am of Paul -- Apollos -- Cephas (Peter) -- Christ.' Paul may have used these names simply as examples (1 Corinthians 4:2). It is clear that he honoured them all. Note the ascending order of importance (in Paul's eyes), with himself lowest. He demonstrates great respect for them. But it is possible that the teaching of Apollos, as an Alexandrian, who was thus used to allegorising the Scriptures, had in this respect differed from Paul's, although both had taught the same central message. Thus could have grown up the literal school and the allegorical school. Or some may have been carried away by Apollos' eloquence (Acts 18:24). Those who claimed the name of Peter may have done so as a result of their response to preachers from Jerusalem who claimed Peter's authority and preached with a Jewish-Christian emphasis, without necessarily preaching Peter's full message or observing Peter's emphases. They may have laid greater emphasis on Jewish aspects and have appealed especially to Jewish Christians. But if so there is no suggestion that it had become a specific problem, only that it was causing ‘division' by diverting loyalties by exalting secondary matters. Those ‘of Christ' may have insisted on limiting their understanding only to His actual words, and have scorned the ‘expanded' teaching of Peter and Paul, rejecting their interpretations, and even the interpretations of the Apostles as a whole.

So Paul here expresses his longing and desire that they put such thoughts aside and concentrate on the full Christian message of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord. The preachers are to be nothing. He as Christ crucified is to be everything.

The remainder of the letter does not suggest that this had reached the stage where any were specifically in conflict with essential teaching. Thus it would seem that Paul was seeking to nip a dangerous tendency in the bud rather than having to combat heresy. He was fighting neglect and not specific heresy. He did not want them to deteriorate into a number of wisdom schools, with Christ becoming secondary, or simply another wisdom teacher.