1st Corinthians Lesson 5

1st Corinthians 1 Part 2

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Listen to Lesson Audio:

---

Lesson Transcript

Introduction and Review

Welcome to our class on 1 Corinthians. Please be turning to chapter 1. When we ended last time, we were looking at verses 11 and 12. And I won’t read those again, but please look at verses 11 and 12. We were about halfway through our discussion of those two verses.

We had talked about Chloe and we had also talked about some of the possible causes of the divisions that Paul is describing there and that he’s about to describe in a little more detail. And we were about halfway through that discussion.

Brother Seifert’s lesson tonight on Philippians is a perfect introduction to this chapter because you’ll recall from Philippians, Paul was talking about one spirit and one mind and one accord, walking by the same rule, walking with the same mind. These things were lacking here in the city of Corinth, in the church in Corinth. And Paul is about to talk about that.

The Priority of Division as a Problem

It’s interesting when we think of all the problems that are in the church in Corinth. Which problem did Paul start off with? Was it the man living with his father’s wife? No. Was it the gulf between the haves and the have nots? No. Was it the misuse of spiritual gifts? No.

Was it disorder in the assembly? No. Was it lawsuits between brethren? Nope. Was it people trying to justify their own sexual immorality? Not that one. Was it meat offered to idols? Nope.

Paul started off with the problem of division in the congregation there at Corinth. That’s just how serious that problem was and is, and we need to view it the same way God does, with the same type of seriousness.

House Churches as a Possible Cause

We ended our last lesson thinking about to talk about another possible cause for the division. And what that cause is, are the so-called house churches there in Corinth. I think that may have been another cause of the division.

Well, the first question is: well, how do we know that there were multiple house churches in Corinth? And the short answer is, we don’t know for sure. But there is some circumstantial evidence.

Evidence for House Churches in Corinth

We know there was at least one house church in Corinth because Paul mentions one when he wrote Romans while in Corinth in Romans 16, verse 23. We’ve mentioned this before. He says, “Gaius, mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you,” referring there in Corinth. So apparently, at some times, the entire congregation was able to meet there in the house of Gaius.

But there’s some evidence that they did not meet there all the time. First, houses at that time were not that large, even for the wealthy people. So perhaps at times the congregation can meet in one house. But if the congregation got very large, it would have been difficult for them all to meet together in the same house.

Also, we know from 1 Corinthians 16:19 and Romans 16:5 that Aquila and Priscilla hosted the church in their house, in Ephesus and in Rome. They were also in Corinth, so it seems likely to some that perhaps they were doing the same thing in Corinth and also hosting a congregation in their house, or at least a part of it.

Third, in 1 Corinthians 14, verse 23, Paul writes, “If therefore the whole church be come together into one place,” which suggests perhaps that there were times when the whole church was not able to come together and meet in one place, since he starts off with the word “if.”

The Nature of These Assemblies

Now, whether they did or did not meet in multiple house churches, I mean, that’s not an important point for us today. But here’s the point. Some people have argued they did, and they’ve then used that to argue that we should also meet in house churches. So let’s pause for a moment and look at that issue.

Was it a good thing or a bad thing in Corinth that they may have had to assemble in these separate groups sometimes, in separate homes, and not be able to assemble together? Well, I think first we should note that these separate assemblies, there’s really no evidence that they would have been separate congregations.

It seems like that I think they would have had the same elders just meeting in these separate little groups out of necessity. Paul, for example, addresses it as a single church, a single congregation, in chapter 1, verse 2, “the church which is at Corinth.” And we know that they sometimes met together. We just read that verse in 1 Corinthians 14:23.

So, what I think we have here is a single congregation in the city of Corinth that sometimes is able to meet together. But at other times they are forced to meet in these separate groups, perhaps in these separate house churches. It might be a similar situation if today something happened to our building. And while it was being fixed or repaired, we didn’t have a place to meet all together. So we would have to perhaps split up during that period when our building’s being repaired. I think it’s a similar situation to that.

Potential Problems from House Church Model

You know, and even if they had one eldership, perhaps the elders were a little divided here. We’re about to look at these divisions, and there could have been some divisions among the eldership there. If they were meeting in these separate houses, then that may have been the source for some of these rivalries that we’re about to talk about here.

Perhaps one of the house churches had hosted Paul, and another had hosted Apollos, and another had hosted Peter. And then that led to these divisions that we’re looking at here in verse 12. We’ve already discussed the prominent role that secular teachers enjoyed in the city of Corinth and how that was kind of spilling over into the church there. That may have been the cause of it here.

Critique of Modern House Church Advocacy

But very often today you hear people advocating a return to what they call the house church model. Even if it means that large buildings sit empty, often on Sunday night, while people split up into these house churches.

F. LaGard Smith, you may have heard of him, pretty well-known member of the church. Here’s what he’s written on this subject. “The question for us,” he says, “is whether the house church was a divinely intended arrangement or merely a historical happenstance owing to economic necessity, the pressures of persecution, or perhaps the lack of available public meeting places.”

And he also says he argues in favor of what he calls “the spontaneous informality of the house church arrangement.” And he says it is “mind-boggling,” that’s a quote, “to think that a congregation of two or three hundred members could worship as the early disciples must have.”

Response to F. LaGard Smith’s Arguments

Well, let me tell you, I’ve read a lot by F. LaGard Smith, and sometimes he does a good job. He really missed the boat on this one. Really. Let’s just pause for a moment and look at each of his statements there.

First, his first question. He says, “Well, you know, I don’t know if it’s divinely ordained or just because of persecution or because they were poor or because there wasn’t anything available.” Well, we know there was persecution. We know that most of them were poor, many of them were slaves. We know there was a lack of public meeting places they could use, unless they were prepared to rent out the local idol worship. Paul, and Paul is going to deal with that question later in the letter.

So, you know, if we know each of the things that F. LaGard Smith says are true, then doesn’t that make that second option more likely that they were being forced to split up, and it wasn’t some divine pattern that we’re intended to follow.

What’s the second thing he said there? He says, “Well, he thinks this spontaneous informality of the house church model is really a great thing.” Didn’t Paul deal with the spontaneous informality in chapter 14? Isn’t that the very thing he dealt with? And how did he end there by saying, “Let all things be done decently and in order”? So I don’t think Paul was putting the divine stamp on spontaneous informality. I think it’s just the opposite.

And finally, F. LaGard Smith says, “well, it’s just mind-boggling to think that they would worship the same way we did, or we do today.” Well, how does it differ? They prayed, we pray, they sang, we sing, they gave, we give, they partake the Lord’s Supper, we partake the Lord’s Supper, they proclaim the word, we proclaim the word, they read the scriptures, we read the scriptures. Where are these mind-boggling differences? I don’t see them.

Warning About Following Corinthian Example

Those who use 1 Corinthians to advocate that we should split up into house churches need to consider the following point very, very carefully. If we follow the Corinthians’ example and split up into these house churches, then should we be surprised if we experience the same problems the Corinthians experienced? If we experience the same divisions and the same cliques and the same problems that they experienced? If we do the same thing they did, we may experience the same problems they experienced.

I think they would have loved to have always been able to meet together. But they weren’t able to, and I think that may have caused some of these problems. We should thank God every day for this wonderful building that we have to meet together in and to worship Him together. Because this has not been a blessing that God’s people have enjoyed throughout all the centuries.

Benefits of Meeting Together

The house church model is the perfect model for those who would love to divide and conquer, isn’t it? You know, I have a really good friend who is a member of a congregation that I think we would probably refer to as an anti-congregation, but it’s not anti-cooperation, which is why we often use the word. It’s anti-Bible school. You may have met some of the people that are in that group, and their concern is really not as much Bible school, but it’s that everyone meet together. Everyone meet together and not split up.

Now I think they are completely wrong to bind that on people. And I also think they are wrong in how they then extrapolate that to Bible class. But with that said, I think there are some benefits to all meeting together, as we do here at Fleetwood. We meet together both for class and we meet together for our worship service, and we don’t divide up into small groups. And again, I don’t—that should not be bound on anyone, but I think there are some benefits that we enjoy because of that here.

False teachers, for example, love to begin in small groups and then spread to larger groups. That’s much harder to do when everything that is said in worship service or in Bible class is heard by everybody. And that’s the way we have it here.

You know, I think if tomorrow we were given some giant building and we were able to move into some building with thousands of rooms or whatever and split up into Bible classes and do—I think we would lose something from what we have here at Fleetwood. I really think we would lose something from what we have. And I think it’s another blessing that we’re able to all meet together and study and study together.

Evidence Against Exclusive House Church Practice

One last point on this. There is some evidence that early Christians did not just meet in people’s homes. Sometimes you hear the House Church movement say that. “Well, they all just met in people’s homes. They never met anywhere else.”

Well, I would turn them over to places like Acts 2:46, for example, that talks about them meeting in the temple, meeting in the synagogue. I think in the very early history of the church, before the big antagonism started, that I think they did meet some in the temple and some in the synagogue.

Also, I’d turn you back to 1 Corinthians 14:23. Because I think that suggests that perhaps they weren’t meeting in someone’s home. That’s where an unbeliever walks into the assembly. Remember that discussion? And walks in and is kind of confused about what’s going on? It’s easier to think of an unbeliever walking into some type of a public hall, and they had those back then, as it would be for some unbeliever just to stroll into someone’s home. So I think that’s another indication, perhaps, that they were not always meeting in homes.

Just one approved instance of the early church meeting in something other than a house is enough for us to know that, that’s not a divinely ordained pattern. I think we can know that from other reasons as well, but that would certainly be one way to show it.

The Four Parties in Verse 12

That’s probably more than we needed to say on the house church movement, but this is where people turn when they try to split a congregation up into house churches. Let’s look now at the four parties, is what they’re called, that are listed there in verse 12.

And they’re introduced with these slogans, which is interesting because as we study 1 Corinthians, we’re going to see a lot of slogans. The Corinthians were apparently really big on slogans. They had these little catchphrases and slogans and things. We’re going to see them all throughout the letter. And we see some here already: “I am of Paul,” “I am of Apollos,” “I am of Cephas,” “I am of Christ.” Let’s look at each of these groups. And I’m going to refer to them, as most commentators do, by the word “party.”

The Paul Party

So let’s look first at the Paul party. The people in this group were probably those who had been baptized in response to the teaching of the Apostle Paul. They were likely the charter members of the church there in Corinth. And they had probably all known Paul personally.

Most likely they were primarily Gentiles, although we know Paul certainly had some very notable Jewish conversions there. We’ve already mentioned some of them. I think most of these were probably Gentiles in this group. And they very likely stressed the freedom that we have in Christ as a reaction to those in perhaps another group we’ll talk about in a moment who may have been trying to bind people to the law of Moses. It’s the same kind of conflict we see elsewhere in the New Testament, often between Gentile and Jew.

Perhaps they were proud of their status as the longstanding charter members of the group, and they may have even kind of looked down on these more recent converts. You know, maybe they emerged as a reaction to the others. You know, Paul had been gone now for several years. And maybe when these divisions started to form, some of them said, “Well, let’s go back to what Paul said. Let’s go back to look at what Paul had said.” And they then centered their teaching around the things that Paul had done there.

You know, when the cliques emerged, they were absolutely correct that some type of restoration was needed to go back. But like many of the Protestants do today, they didn’t go back far enough, right? They needed to go back even past Paul back to what—the word, what the Bible said. Of course, they didn’t have the entirety of the scriptures, but they had some letters at that point. So, anyway, I think that may have been the reaction they had here.

Now the very last thing Paul wanted in Corinth, though, the very last thing, was a Paulite. He didn’t want people saying, “I am of Paul,” a Paulite. He has no word of approval for this group, even though they’re named after him, right? I mean, it’s not like, “well, the Paul group’s okay, but let me talk about these other groups.” He had no word of approval for the Paulites. He condemned their division just as he did with the other groups.

The Apollos Party

The Apollos party. Now Acts 18 and 19 tells us about Apollos, very interesting figure in Scripture. We know he came from Alexandria in Egypt, which we of course know was a very respected university town in the Mediterranean. Tarsus was no mean city, but it was no Alexandria. Alexandria was well known everywhere as being the town of the educated, the town of the university, town of the library.

When Apollos came to Corinth with all of his intellectual ability, with his speaking ability, with his knowledge of the Old Testament scriptures, with his powerful confrontations with the Jews, it’s no wonder he started to attract a personal following. And he did. I mean, Apollos was a lot more like the other teachers, the secular teachers in Corinth, than Paul was. In fact, we know from 2 Corinthians 10:10 that Paul seems to have lacked all of this. He didn’t seem to have this electrifying presence that Apollos had.

Now, Apollos was from Alexandria, as I mentioned. And that city had a reputation with regard to the Scriptures. They had a reputation for allegorizing the scriptures and finding very complicated and difficult meanings from seemingly simple passages in the Scripture.

Let me give you an example. The Epistle of Barnabas, which came from Alexandria, it’s not inspired. It goes back to Genesis 14, verse 14, and Genesis 18, verse 23, and says, “okay, Abraham had 318 people that he circumcised. 318 people.” They say, “okay, well, the Greek letter for 18, they use letters as symbols for numbers, is iota, followed by eta, two Greek letters. And those are the first two letters in the name of Jesus. And the Greek for 300 is the letter tau, which is the shape of a cross.” So they said, “Aha, the 318 people that were circumcised is a foreshadowing of the crucifixion of Jesus.”

I mean, it’s just angels dancing on the head of a pin. But that’s what they were known for. So, you know, I’m not saying Apollos necessarily did that, but that was probably where he came from. And my guess is he may have given some kind of obscure allegories like that at times.

And most commentators see this party as perhaps something of an intellectual elite in the city of Corinth. Like “we’re of Apollos. And he is the great intellectual from Alexandria, who’s the powerful speaker,” and etc., etc., and kind of looking down their nose at the other groups.

We know Apollos didn’t stay very long in Corinth, but apparently it was long enough for him to develop a following and for them to start contrasting him with Paul and for him to become the chosen guru of some of the people that were living there and in the congregation there.

Now let me say right here that we have no indication at all that Apollos in any way approved of this. Or Peter, who we’re going to look at next. In fact, Paul’s other references to Apollos suggest the opposite’s the case. I mean, Apollos was there for a time and then left, and that’s probably when this started. I think if Apollos had been there, he would have reacted just like Paul did and said, “Look, we can’t have this division, this split,” as I think Peter would have if he’d been there at the time.

The Peter (Cephas) Party

So let’s look at the Peter party or the Cephas party. These are most likely Jewish Christians as opposed to the Gentiles in the Paul party. You know, we said before, and it’s been noted before, that if God had wanted more than one church, he would have had a Jewish church and Gentile church. Because then we could have lost half the New Testament. I mean, so much of the New Testament deals with that problem. And it was so important for those groups to come together.

And so, if God had wanted two churches, he would have split them right at the beginning. But there’s only one church. And that shows us that it was so important. And, you know, if you go read Ephesians 2, for example, it talks about the peace. That’s peace between Jew and Gentile in the church. It’s so important. You go back to Isaiah 2, where it talks about the peace there. That’s the same peace. That’s the peace between the Jew and the Gentile in the church, in Christ.

So, the fact that in Corinth we were starting to see the Gentiles and the Jews split up, no, that’s just the opposite of what they need to be doing. They need to be coming together. But in Corinth, it looks like a separate Jewish congregation, a separate Jewish clique division was emerging.

Now, some commentators say, “oh, Peter never went to Corinth.” No, Peter went to Corinth, right? We know Paul was there. He had a Paul party. We know Apollos was there. He had an Apollos party. How can we have a Peter party without Peter being in Corinth? We know he was there. I think we also know that from 1 Corinthians 9:5. Corinthians seem to be aware that Peter traveled with his wife. How would they know that if he hadn’t shown up with his wife? Peter was there for some period of time, long enough to get a following going, and then he left, and then you had the clique develop.

You know, I think there’s also evidence in this letter of this Jewish legalism. I think we see it with regard to food offered to idols. I think we see it elsewhere. I think that was probably being driven by the Peter Party.

The Christ Party

Then we get to the Christ party. I like what one commentator said about the Christ party. He said, “Strange as it may seem, the party about which we know the least, which may not even have been a party, has become the major preoccupation of a large mass of New Testament scholarship.”

Which, you know, if you read commentaries, you know that commentators write the most on subjects about which we know the least. And that certainly seems to have been the case with the Christ Party. Nearly every problem that surfaces in this letter, there’s some commentator that says, “Aha, that’s the Christ Party,” this kind of nebulous group mentioned here in verse 12.

Now, some argue that there was no Christ Party. They say the slogan “I am of Christ” was Paul’s own slogan that was in response to the other three slogans. It’s possible. There’s no punctuation in the original Greek, so it’s hard, we can’t look for the comma or the period there. And while it’s true that every Christian should say “I am of Christ,” I think the context of the phrase here suggests it’s a party. There’s a group there. Just like the other three, we now have a fourth group that has their own slogan, and they’re saying “I am of Christ.” I think that’s the much more likely view.

And should it really be surprising to anyone in today’s world that there could be a denomination wearing the name of Jesus Christ? We see them around us, don’t we? And that seems to have been the case here with this division. They called themselves the Christ Party, “I am of Christ.”

Well, you know, some say, “oh no, this Christ party was approved by Paul.” That is, they say Paul was saying that they should all join the “I am of Christ” party and leave the Paul, Apollos, and Peter parties. I don’t see that distinction in verse 12. All the parties seem to be treated alike. I don’t see Paul approving of one and disapproving of the others. I think the context suggests the Christ party, whatever it was, was just as wrong as the other three parties, the other three divisions.

If the Apollos party was the super intellectual elite, the Christ Party very likely considered themselves the super spiritual elite. This group may have even contributed to the rise of Gnosticism in the church at Corinth. It may have even come from the mystery religions that we know were present in Corinth.

It’s interesting when we look at Clement of Rome. Clement of Rome wrote a letter in AD 95, you know, forty years after this was written. It’s not an inspired letter, but we do have it. And he mentions each of the parties except the Christ party. Doesn’t mention it. Perhaps by that time the Christ party had drifted so far away that they weren’t even a member of that congregation anymore. Maybe they had formed their own super spiritual group. Maybe they had departed that far that Clement of Rome, writing 40 years later, didn’t even mention them.

You know, I think one final theory about this Christ party that fits well with what Paul’s about to talk about is that perhaps this Christ party wanted Christ, but did not want the cross of Christ. And we know that was the case with the Gnostics, which will be a much bigger problem later that John, for example, will deal with in his epistles.

Paul will remind these Corinthians in verse 18, “the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” We can’t separate Christ from the cross. We can’t separate ourselves from the cross. We’re supposed to take up our own cross and follow Him. The cross is the power of God. And perhaps this group wanted Christ but didn’t want the cross of Christ. And that’s a possibility. Paul’s certainly about to emphasize the importance of the cross.

Connection to Modern Denominationalism

Very often today, the comparison is made between these divisions here in Chapter 1 and denominations in our own day and age. And I think that comparison is a good one. The reason why denominations are wrong is the same reasons why these divisions are wrong. People calling themselves after someone’s name, like “I am of Luther.” The same reason wrong here in chapter one.

I think we see the beginning of it, don’t we? The splitting up into groups and having various slogans, different creeds and different people and focused on man instead of focused on God. Isn’t that the start of the denominational mess that we see around us today?

Well, what about the Christ Party? Could there be a denomination that bears the name of Christ? Could there even be a denomination somewhere that calls itself the Church of Christ? Yeah, could be. I think there is.

The Church of Christ is just that, the church that belongs to Christ. It’s not a man-made organization. God adds people to it when they’re saved. So are there no saved people outside the Church of Christ? How could there be? How could there be? If God is adding people to the church of Christ, the church that belongs to Christ, to the Lord’s church when they’re saved, then, by definition, all of the saved people are in the church of Christ, the church that belongs to Christ.

But if there’s a group somewhere out there that calls itself the Church of Christ, but believes it’s just one of many churches, then by definition it’s a denomination. That’s what a denomination is. And it falls under the same condemnation we see here in chapter 1.

A Parable About Understanding

You know, it reminds me of a story. It was a preacher’s story, so we’re not sure if it’s true, but it’s a preacher’s story. But here’s the story: A large, prominent denomination in town, it says, was raising money from the community businesses to build a new building. So they were going door to door to the businesses, saying, “Give us money, we’re going to build a new building here in town for our large denomination.”

And they approached a man who was a Christian, a member of the Lord’s Church, and he made them this offer. He said, “I will give you $1,000 toward your fund if you put a sign in front of your new building that says this is the Church of Christ.” And the guy said, “Well, we can’t do that. We’re a blank church.” And he filled in the name of his denomination.

And so the businessman said, “Okay. I’ll still give you $1,000. All you have to do is put up a sign that says this is not a Church of Christ.” When you understand that joke, you understand the undenominational nature of the Church of Christ, don’t you?

Paul’s Response in Verse 13

The result of these cliques was that they had caused everybody to take their eyes off of Jesus. You don’t see them focusing on the Lord here, even the Christ party. And it’s to that one true focus that Paul returns his attention in verse 13.

“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

Paul made a very strong appeal for unity in verse 10, and he makes three very powerful arguments against disunity here in verse 13.

Argument One: The Wholeness of Christ

Argument number one: the wholeness of Christ. “Is Christ divided?” Paul asks. Literally, he’s asking, “has Christ been parceled out?” That’s the Greek. The church is the body of Christ. If we think the church can be divided, then we must believe the body of Christ can be just parceled out to these various groups. If you have Christ and you have all of Christ, He can’t be divided. His body can’t be divided. His church can’t be divided.

Argument Two: The Cross of Christ

Argument number two, the cross of Christ. “Was Paul crucified for you?” That question is even more vivid. The cross of Christ was the focus of Paul’s message when he first preached to them, 1 Corinthians 2:2. And Paul calls them back to that focus. It was Jesus who suffered and died to free them from their sins. Not Paul, not Apollos, not Peter.

This question, I think, also explains why the Lord’s Supper is so important to our unity. Paul is going to make that exact point in 1 Corinthians 10:17. “For we being many are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one bread.” The cross of Christ reminds us who we are, reminds us who we belong to. Division occurs when we forget that.

I’m not your brother because I’m as good as you are. I’m not your brother because I know as much as you do. I’m your brother because of what Jesus has done for both of us, how we’ve responded to that beautiful gospel message. The cross of Christ is the foundation of our unity.

Argument Three: Our Baptism into Christ

For Paul, baptism and the cross were inseparable. And so he next turns his attention to baptism. That’s argument number three. Our baptism into Christ. He asks, “Were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

To be baptized into the name of someone in the Greek meant to give your life over to that person, to come under the authority of that person. “In the name of,” in the Greek, means “into the possession of.” Titus 2:14 says that God purified unto himself a people for his own possession. That transfer occurred at our baptism. That’s where the transfer of possession occurred. That’s where the translation of Colossians 1:13 occurred.

We become members of Christ’s blood-bought church when we are baptized. And Paul reminds us of that in chapter 6. We’re not our own. We’ve been bought with a price. Paul points to baptism as the linchpin of our unity. It’s at baptism we’re born again. It’s at baptism that we become of the household of God.

How can I call someone my brother or my sister if they’re not in my family? That’s what it means to be a brother and a sister, to be in the same family, to be in the same household of God, to be born again into that family. We’re brothers and sisters in Christ because we’ve all been born again into the same family. That’s why we’re brothers and sisters. Baptism is of foundational significance to our unity because it is at our baptism that that unity begins.

An Important Assumption

We’re about to look at some verses that some have used to belittle the role of baptism in God’s plan. Before we look at those verses, let’s note one very important point about verse 13. Paul takes it for granted that all of these Corinthian Christians had been baptized into Jesus Christ. He takes it for granted, right? I mean, there’s never even a question. That’s the basis of the argument. You’ve all been baptized into the same body, so therefore you should be unified. That’s assuming they’ve all been baptized.

He assumes that because he knew it was true. They’d all been baptized. There were no non-baptized Christians in the first century, and there are none today.

Paul’s Personal Baptismal Practice (Verses 14-17)

Verses 14 through 17. “I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius, lest any should say that I had baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanus. Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.”

Why does Paul turn his attention to baptism? We’ve talked about that. But I think one reason also is that some commentators think that the driving force behind some of these factions must have been the identity of the person who baptized them. Some have been baptized by Paul, some have been baptized by Apollos, some by Peter, or by the teaching of these people. Certainly not the case with the Christ party, but it may have been the case with the other three.

Those baptized by Paul were no doubt filled with great pride. “I was baptized by the Apostle Paul.” You know, it may have deflated them somewhat to realize Paul has no recollection of the event, except for a few people. You know, there must have been additional sources of the division, but I think that was probably a pretty big one.

You know, we still see some of that today. “Well, I was baptized by Brother So-and-so.” I mean, I don’t think that’s too far away from saying, “I am of brother so-and-so,” right? I mean, you know, who baptized you is not important, it’s that you have been baptized. That’s what’s important.

Looking Ahead

Next week, we’re going to start off looking at why Christ did not send Paul to baptize. And is baptizing different from preaching the gospel? We’ll look at that next week.

One other thing we’ll look at next week is this memory lapse. Some people have pointed to the memory lapse in verse 16 to say, “well, I guess, how can the Bible be inspired if Paul had a memory lapse?” We’ll look at that next week too.

Thank you very much for your attention. Have our closing prayer.