11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you.12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[
b]”;still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?
^to rightly divide the word of Truth for proper application, what do we thinking of 1 Cor 1:11-13
Or what is Paul trying to say
“Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. 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 (this had become a corporate attitude)
is saying, 'I am of Paul,' and 'I of Apollos,' and 'I of Cephas,' and 'I of Christ.' Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
1. The context of this agreement is very clearly defined and does not suggest compromise in order to maintain peaceful existence. That is not at all what Paul is suggesting. Paul is calling them to unity on the basis of revealed meaning regarding baptism. The Church is not to be comprised of fractured parties, no matter what the issue. In this particular instance, it was the issue of who had baptized whom. This had become a problem because the result was polarizing. This had produced feelings of bitterness, resentment, anger, hatred, malice, mistrust, and ill-will.
2. These divisions had been the result of reassigning meaning to baptism as a revealed symbol. Paul called them to be of the same mind regarding baptism but the foundation of this
“same mind” was
not to be defined by any one of these fractured parties but by revelation. It is God alone who assigns meaning to revealed symbols. God has already assigned meaning to baptism and we do not have a right to change the meaning of this symbol.
3. What was the error in the meaning they had linked to baptism?
To them, baptism had become a symbol of partisan identity. What I mean by partisan is that baptism for them had come to mean an adherence to, or support of a particular person or a particular group that was not in keeping with its revealed purpose of this symbol.
a. They had represented their baptism as devotion to the individual by whom they had been baptized whether directly or indirectly. Some linked their devotion to Paul, some to Apollos, some to Peter, and some to Christ.
b. Paul demonstrates the foolishness of this by arguing that they were not baptized
“into the name of” any of these men. The reassignment of meaning to baptism had created a class division within the Church. There was an element of misplaced pride and superiority among them in claiming to be baptized by Paul, or Peter, or Apollos. Even those who claimed to be baptized of Christ had apparently boasted a superiority over the others because Paul was addressing them as well. What they were missing was the fact that all of them had been baptized into Christ and the instrument of that baptism was of absolutely no importance. It was on this basis that they should have been united rather than divided into four different camps.
c.
“Into the name of” defines ownership. Neither Paul, Apollos, nor Peter possessed ownership of any of those whom they had baptized nor did they demand their devotion. They had all been baptized into the name of Christ. Jesus is the one who has ownership, no matter who baptized them, and he does not share ownership – Christ is not divided. They had been baptized into the possession of the one who was crucified for them. They were to wear the name of the one to whom they belonged, not Paul's, not Apollos’, and not Peter's. Their agreement concerning the symbolism of baptism must all be rooted in its revealed meaning. When this was done, this would dissipate the divisions among them over who had been baptized by whom. That would be rendered meaningless. Division is what happens when we change the meaning of revealed symbols because when we displace revealed meaning, everyone is then free to assign his own interpretation to revealed symbols and we are NEVER allowed to do this.
1
