Commentary - 1 Corinthians 1:10-17

Bird's-eye view

In this opening salvo, Paul gets right to the heart of the matter in Corinth. This is a church that is gifted, blessed, and enriched in Christ (vv. 4-7), but it is also a church that is coming apart at the seams. The central problem is factionalism, a carnal contentiousness that threatens to tear the body of Christ limb from limb. Paul’s great concern is to call them back to the central reality that grounds all true unity: the cross of Jesus Christ. He confronts their party spirit head-on, dismantling their petty allegiances by pointing them to the one allegiance that matters. The gospel is not a philosophy to be debated by rival schools of thought; it is a declaration of what God has done in Christ. And that one great act, the crucifixion of the Lord of glory, is what defines the people of God. Any other standard for identity is a deviation into folly.

Paul’s argument is straightforward. He exhorts them to unity in mind and judgment (v. 10), identifies the source of his information about their quarrels (v. 11), and then names the slogans of their factions (v. 12). He then demolishes the very premise of their divisions with a series of sharp, rhetorical questions that recenter everything on Christ and His cross (v. 13). He even expresses thanks that his own ministry of baptism had been limited, lest anyone mistake the sign for the substance and enlist him as a faction leader (vv. 14-16). He concludes by clarifying his apostolic commission: he was sent not to gather a following through baptisms, but to preach the gospel. And this gospel must be preached in a particular way, not with clever rhetoric that appeals to worldly wisdom, but with a plain declaration of the cross, lest its power be nullified (v. 17).

Outline

Context In 1 Corinthians

This passage immediately follows Paul’s opening thanksgiving, and the shift in tone is jarring. He has just finished thanking God for the grace given to the Corinthians in Christ, for their enrichment in speech and knowledge, and for the fact that they lack no spiritual gift (1:4-7). But this commendation serves as a backdrop for the sharp rebuke that is to come. The Corinthians were spiritually wealthy, but they were acting like paupers, squabbling over trifles. Their giftedness had become a source of pride and division, not unity. This section (1:10-17) sets the stage for the entire letter. The problem of division is the presenting symptom of a deeper disease: a failure to understand and apply the gospel of the cross to every area of life. Paul will go on to address a whole host of issues, lawsuits, sexual immorality, marriage, food offered to idols, disorders in worship, and doctrinal confusion about the resurrection, but they all trace back to this fundamental disunity, which is itself a denial of the cross.

Verse by Verse Commentary

v. 10 Now I exhort you, brothers, 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.

Paul begins not with a suggestion, but with an exhortation, a strong pastoral command. And notice the authority by which he speaks: "by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ." This isn't Paul's personal preference for a tidy church. This is a command rooted in the very authority of the King. He calls them "brothers," reminding them of their fundamental unity as a family before he rebukes them for acting like enemies. The goal is twofold. Negatively, "that there be no divisions among you." The Greek word is schismata, from which we get our word schism. It means rips or tears in a garment. The church is to be a seamless robe, but the Corinthians were tearing it to shreds. Positively, he calls them to be "made complete", to be knit together, mended like a torn net, "in the same mind and in the same judgment." This is not a call for bland uniformity where everyone thinks the exact same thoughts. Rather, it is a call for a shared worldview, a common biblical framework for thinking about everything. It is a unity of principle, a shared understanding of the gospel that enables them to apply the same standard of judgment to all the various issues they face. Unity is not an optional extra; it is a gospel imperative.

v. 11 For I have been informed concerning you, my brothers, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you.

Paul is not dealing in vague rumors. He has received a credible report from "Chloe's people." We don't know who Chloe was, but she was likely a prominent woman in the church, perhaps a businesswoman whose employees or family members traveled between Corinth and Ephesus, where Paul was. He names his source, not to stir up trouble, but to be direct and honest. He is not being a busybody; he is being a pastor. And the report is that there are "quarrels" among them. The word here is erides, meaning strife, contentions, rivalries. This isn't just healthy disagreement; it's the kind of wrangling that comes from pride and selfish ambition. Again, he calls them "my brothers," softening the rebuke with a term of endearment. He loves them, which is precisely why he must confront their sin.

v. 12 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.”

Here Paul specifies the nature of the quarrels. They have devolved into personality cults, forming factions around their favorite teachers. Paul, Apollos, and Cephas (Peter) were all faithful ministers of the gospel. Paul had founded the church (Acts 18). Apollos was an eloquent and powerful preacher who had watered what Paul planted (Acts 18:24-28). Cephas was the apostle to the Jews. There was nothing wrong with appreciating these men, but the Corinthians had turned their preferences into party slogans. They were using God's faithful servants as banners under which to wage their carnal wars. The last group, "I of Christ," might seem spiritual, but in this context, it was likely the most arrogant faction of all. They were claiming a direct line to Jesus that bypassed the apostles He had appointed, a kind of super-spiritual individualism that disdained all human authority. It was just another flavor of pride, cloaked in piety.

v. 13 Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

With three sharp, rhetorical questions, Paul blows their factions out of the water. First, "Has Christ been divided?" The question is absurd, and meant to be. The church is the body of Christ. If the church is divided, then it means you are trying to divide Christ Himself. You cannot tear the body apart without doing violence to the Head. Christ is one, and therefore His people must be one. Second, "Was Paul crucified for you?" This strikes at the heart of the matter. The basis of our unity is not a shared preference for a preacher, but a shared redemption by a Savior. Only one person was crucified for their sins, and it wasn't Paul, or Apollos, or Peter. It was Christ. To rally around a man is to forget the cross. Third, "Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" Baptism is the sign of our initiation into the covenant community, our identification with the triune God. It is a sign of allegiance to Christ, not to the man who happens to be holding your head under the water. To pledge allegiance to Paul would be to commit idolatry at the font. These questions expose the theological bankruptcy of their divisions.

v. 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,

Paul now illustrates his point from his own ministry. He is actually thankful that his role in baptizing was minimal. This is not to denigrate baptism itself, Paul clearly upheld the sacrament. But in this specific, overheated context, he is glad he didn't provide more ammunition for the personality cults. Crispus was a former ruler of the synagogue (Acts 18:8), and Gaius was Paul's host (Rom. 16:23). These were prominent early converts, but Paul's point is that his baptizing ministry was limited.

v. 15 so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.

Here is the reason for his thankfulness. God, in His providence, protected Paul's ministry from being co-opted by the factionalists. If he had baptized hundreds, the "Paul party" would have had what they thought was concrete evidence for their superiority. But Paul wants to make it clear that baptism unites us to Christ, not to a minister. The sign points away from the man administering it and toward the Christ who ordained it.

v. 16 Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.

Paul, writing with integrity, corrects himself. He remembers another baptism, the household of Stephanas, who were the "firstfruits of Achaia" (1 Cor. 16:15). This mention of a household baptism is significant, as it includes more than just the head of the house, which has implications for how we understand covenant succession. But his main point is his uncertainty. "I do not know whether I baptized any other." This is not a sign of apostolic senility. It's a sign of his priorities. He wasn't keeping a scorecard. Who baptized whom was not the main thing. The main thing was the gospel.

v. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to proclaim the gospel, not in wisdom of word, so that the cross of Christ will not be made empty.

He concludes the section by stating his primary commission. Again, he is not setting baptism against the gospel. They are part of a whole. But his unique apostolic calling was to be a pioneer missionary, a herald of the good news. And the way he proclaimed that gospel was crucial. He did not come with "wisdom of word," or clever, sophisticated rhetoric designed to impress the cultured Greeks. To do so would be to "make empty" the cross of Christ. The power is not in the preacher's eloquence or philosophical prowess. The power is in the message itself, the stark, offensive, glorious news of a crucified Messiah. Worldly wisdom and the cross are antithetical. One relies on human cleverness, the other on divine power. To dress up the cross in the robes of human wisdom is to strip it of its saving power. The Corinthians were enamored with the wisdom of the world, and that was the root of their divisions. The only cure was to be brought back to the foolishness of the cross.

Application

The Corinthian disease is perennial. The temptation to divide the church over personalities, styles, and secondary doctrines is ever-present. We must constantly ask ourselves the same questions Paul asked. Is our allegiance to Christ, or to a particular "brand" of Christianity? Is our identity found in the cross, or in our association with a particular pastor, author, or movement? Unity is not something we can put on auto-pilot; it must be diligently pursued. This requires humility, a willingness to prioritize the gospel over our personal preferences, and a rugged commitment to being of the "same mind and judgment" on the essentials.

Furthermore, this passage is a potent warning against a consumeristic approach to church life. The Corinthians were treating their leaders like rival philosophers, picking and choosing based on who had the best rhetoric or the most appealing personality. We do the same when we church-shop for the pastor with the best jokes, the band with the best sound, or the programs that best suit our felt needs. The church is not a marketplace of religious goods and services. It is the body of a crucified and risen King.

Finally, we must recover Paul's central focus. The power for unity, for holiness, and for mission is not found in our clever strategies or our cultural savvy. The power is in the cross. We are sent not to be impressive, but to be faithful. We are called to proclaim a simple message: Christ was crucified for sinners. That message, in its unadorned simplicity, is the power of God unto salvation. Any attempt to "improve" it with the wisdom of this age is to empty it of its power. Let us therefore resolve, with Paul, to know nothing among ourselves except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.