Sermon Tone Analysis

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.