about divisions that were not mentioned in the letter, or more likely, he received this news from the letter (and perhaps their elaboration of it) that they read to him. In ancient papyri letters the passive reporting used here normally refers to written rather than oral information.89
In 1:11 the word for discord (ἔρις) Philo uses to describe sophist rivalries (Mut. 10; Her. 246).90 Eris is also the name of the goddess of discord. In Greek mythology she creates a golden apple with the inscription, “For the fairest,” and presents it as a gift at a wedding feast. Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite, goddesses at the feast, quarrel over which one of them should have the apple. Zeus instructs them to ask the noble-bred Paris of Troy to decide which goddess is the fairest, and he chooses Aphrodite who had bribed him with the promise of giving him beautiful Helen, wife of Menelaus the Mycenaean.91 When Paris abducts Helen, this ignites the entire tragedy of the Trojan War. As anyone in the ancient Mediterranean informed by this story would know, the potential damage that discord might initiate is virtually immeasurable! Eris now threatened the church in Corinth.92
Rivalry in this congregation centers on members claiming I am of Paul, and others, I am of Apollos, and still others, I am of Cephas.93 Various attempts have been made to identify these groups.94 Some important observations we suggest are as follows. First, except perhaps for the last claim, I am of Christ, these allegiances do not appear to be Paul’s invention of Corinthian divisions.95 He repeats the first two claims in 3:4 and the first three in 3:22. Had Paul invented these, his repetition would only serve to irritate the Corinthians who knew their own state of affairs better than Paul. They would doubtless contest his repeated claims of these alliances if they were not true. Second, there is no clear evidence that Paul, Apollos, or Cephas instigated or encouraged these allegiances. The Corinthians probably instigated this rivalry themselves, which stems from their lack of maturity as well as worldly influences. Third, this problem does not seem to involve well-established parties who have drawn their lines in the sand over distinctive theological positions.96 The congregation members are being vocal about their preferences for one leader over the other, which as chapters 1–4 unfold, has more to do with prestige, persona, and oratory skills than the doctrines these leaders teach.
Why wouldn’t Paul commend members who respected his apostolic authority when claiming, I am of Paul? Context reflects that they or their rivals or both expressed their loyalty with strife and derision against other members who did not share their sentiment. They may have quarreled with those who affirmed, I am of Apollos. The two groups apparently argued over who was the better minister (3:4–9; 4:1–6). If Acts 18:24—19:1 correctly portrays Apollos as an eloquent and forceful speaker, his supporters in Corinth likely argued that he was the better orator.97 Paul does not appear to have any problem with Apollos’ eloquent style; his problem is with Corinthian evaluations of that style in competition with other styles, such as his own. Comparisons of this sort provoke strife, arrogance, and encourage status seeking, as explicated in chapters 1–4. Paul challenges them instead with the radically different perspective that apostolic proclamations are centered on weakness and humility characterizing Christ’s crucifixion, and they operate with Spirit-endowed wisdom (1:18—2:16).
Paul repeats the third claim I am of Cephas (Peter) again in 3:22,98 which steers us away from accepting the allegiance as purely invention. If a faction relates to this leader it probably did not consist of many members; otherwise, we might expect Paul to discuss Peter as much as he does Apollos in later chapters (cf. 4:6). We can safely rule out the antiquated view that the apostles from Jerusalem or proselytizers in the name of Peter stirred up this contention in Corinth.99 Earlier discords that Paul experienced in Jerusalem and Antioch with the circumcision party and Peter (Gal 2:1–15) are not problems in Corinth. If he were still in contention with Peter, we could surmise that Paul would not have mentioned him favorably in 9:5 and 15:5. A small minority of Corinthians may have regarded Peter’s apostleship to be more authoritative than Paul’s because Peter knew the pre-Easter Jesus personally and led the original witnesses (e.g., Acts 1–2). Perhaps he recently visited Corinth with his wife and left a positive impression (9:4–5).100
Unlike the other claims, I am of Christ is not repeated again. Is Paul referring to maverick members who reject all human leaders and listen only to Christ, whether by adhering only to Jesus’s oral teachings or listening to his words allegedly through visions, prophecy, or some other charismatic experience? This is possible, but given that Paul ultimately supports this allegiance by affirming that the Corinthians belong to Christ (3:23; 6:15, 20), it may be better to suggest that this particular claim is Paul’s own invention.101 If so, this is an ironic twist that ends the string of claims by redirecting Corinthian thought to the perspective that all of them belong to Christ. This naturally leads to the rhetorical question Is Christ divided? The picture presented here invites the congregation to view its members in solidarity as one corporate body in Christ. Contrariwise their divisions evoke an image of Christ’s body being dismembered. The feet no longer claim to be part of the same body with the hands. The ears no longer claim to be part of the same body with the eyes. Christ’s limbs are being split apart.102 The rhetorical force of this question thus prompts the response, “No, Christ is not split up!”
The subsequent questions and context of 1:13–17 recall the Corinthians’ conversion (1:2) and present the ironic image of Paul being crucified for them and they being baptized into his name. These questions expect the reply, “No, it was Jesus, not Paul, who was crucified for us and we are baptized in Jesus’s name!” Our apostle plays down the importance of his own role by claiming that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius and the household of Stephanas (Acts 18:8; Rom 16:23; 1 Cor 16:17).103 The households of Crispus and Gaius may be included though not mentioned.104 Paul’s trivialization may suggest that members thought themselves superior to others based on the prominence of the minister who had baptized them.105 Perhaps in their new faith they still assumed from mystery religions that ceremonies of initiation created a special bond between the initiator and the one initiated.106 Prior to their conversion some of them may have participated in such cults (cf. 12:2). The result in any case spelled tragedy—one of the very things that united unrelated Jews and Gentiles into one body as siblings in Christ had become a rallying point for divisions (1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:27–28). This problem prompts Paul to make the unusual assertion that Christ sent me not to baptize but to proclaim the gospel about Christ crucified. Exactly who he baptizes is unimportant, for Paul is called to proclaim the gospel rather than perform baptisms (9:16; 15:1; Gal 1:15–16; Rom 15:20).107 This sense of priorities is important for the Corinthians to know because they have a “tendency to magnify the messengers and miss the message.”108
Even the very message of the gospel Paul must qualify so that it, too, does not become a pawn of these divisions through preferences over which minister proclaims it. The gospel he
