SERMON: “The Fix for Church Cliques” (1 Cor. 1:10–17)





The Fix for Church Cliques” (1 Cor. 1:10–17)

Series:               “1 Cor: Holiness from Messes” #4     Text:                 1 Corinthians 1:10–17

By:                    Shaun Marksbury                         Date:                Sept. 28, 2025

Venue:              Living Water Baptist Church            Occasion:             AM Service

 

I.              Introduction

I don’t know if you have ever been to a church were you haven’t felt welcome.  Sometimes, the reason is undefinable because the people seem friendly enough to each other — you just feel like an outsider.  Being the good Christian, you might tell yourself that you’re simply uncomfortable in this new environment.  So, you try again for the next few weeks, enjoying the teaching, but hardly anyone talks to you.  The friendliness you first observed in others seems contained within the same friend-groups.  It reminds you of high school.

This phenomenon is normal in the world, as we find people we’re comfortable with and prefer their company.  In the church, though, we should be much more open to a broader range of people, finding unity in Christ above all.  It’s unfortunate when we find churches that aren’t concerned about bearing one another’s burdens or fellowshipping with one another, but some churches are comprised of smaller social clubs that each require their own invitation — cliques, in other words.

Of course, this can be the case on the larger scale.  We can see Christians following movements that span multiple churches and denominations.  They can be built on preferences like music styles or on deeper matters, like doctrine.  Either way, they can create the same division within local congregations.

Paul had heard about such cliques forming in Corinth, and they were growing to the point of fracturing the church.  With such a concern, we might have expected him to begin addressing it with v. 1 (or at least v. 3).  Instead, he began with comforting words to avoid being too harsh due to his love for this congregation — he’s thankful for it!  Also remember: He began with both the cause for their unity as well as their capability for it.

This morning, we’re considering how we can avoid divisions and factions in the church.  We’ll note three aspects of them in this passage.  First, we’ll hear the command against cliques (vv. 10–11), that we’re to be unified.  Second, we’ll understand the character of cliques (vv. 12–13), how they took shape in Corinth and in other contexts.  Third, we’ll focus on the cure for cliques (vv. 14–17), which is simply the message of Christ.  Let’s consider how we can be unified as a church as we turn to the first point:

II.           First, Hear the Command against Cliques (vv. 10–11)

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

As we’ve noted before, they have what they need for unity in Christ, but there are divisions among them.  So, Paul begins with an exhortation, which is a strong appeal or urging for change.  The Greek word here, parakaleō, means “to call to one’s side.”[1]  When someone is going in the wrong direction, we may “exhort” them to follow us down the right path. 

Note how he does this.  He addresses them as brothers or “brethren” (NASB 95).  This is a term of affection that unites him with his readers.[2]  Paul isn’t being adversarial with his readers;[3] he loves them as family in Christ.

Yet, he presses this exhortation.  He urges them “by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  Now, this certainly invokes Christ’s authority, perhaps also the Apostle Paul’s own authority in Christ.  Yet, considering that this is the tenth reference to Christ in the first ten verses, Paul is likely emphasizing Christ as the source and focus of unity.  In other words, he’s appealing to their shared reverence for Jesus Christ.  Paul appeals not just on his apostolic authority but on their common Lord, reminding them of the One who unites them.

Now, until this point, we’ve only considered that there is an exhortation, and we can treat this like a kind command.  Yet, we haven’t considered what Paul wants them to do.  That comes with the word “that;” what follows is what we call a purpose clause[4] — and it is threefold.  Paul wants them to “all agree,” that there be “no divisions” among them, and that they “be made complete” (“in the same mind and in the same judgment.”   Let’s consider each part of this.

First, Paul says that they should all agree.  This literally means “that you all speak the same thing.”  It's an idiom from Greek political life,[5] urging harmony in speech and testimony.  In a divided church, their words reflect discord, so they should seek unity in expression.  This doesn’t mean that they can only say one thing ever again, but that they should all agree to say that there should be no divisions among them.

That’s the second aspect to this command — he heard that there were divisions (v. 11; cf. 11:18).  The term “no divisions” translates schismata, from schizō, meaning to split or rend.[6]  Perhaps you’ve heard a term similar to that in either theology or slang; it’s used elsewhere for torn nets (Matt. 9:16) or moral dissension (John 7:43).  Here, it describes factions within the church — not full separations but cliques causing quarrels.  As A.T. Robertson explains, “These divisions were over the preachers (1:12–4:21), immorality (5:1–13), going to law before the heathen (6:1–11), marriage (7:1–40), meats offered to idols (8 to 10), conduct of women in church (11:1–16), the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34), spiritual gifts (12–14), the resurrection (ch. 15).” [7]  Paul wanted these divisions to end.

Before we move from that, it’s easy to get the wrong message here.  I’ve seen churches teach that, because theology and doctrine can be divisive, they won’t teach it.  Paul is going to teach a lot of doctrine in this letter, though!  In fact, as the MacArthur Study Bible notes here, “Both weak commitment to doctrine and commitment to disunity of doctrine will severely weaken a church and destroy the true unity.  In its place, there can be only shallow sentimentalism or superficial harmony.”[8]  Paul is going to call them to unity in Christ’s message, so the command for “no divisions” here is a call for greater education in the church.

Look at what he says next: they should “be made complete.”  This is a term that means to mend or restore, like repairing nets (Matt. 4:21).[9]  In this case, it’s a uniting of factions, specifically in Christ.  We’ll come back to that when we’re talking about the solution, but note that this is unity of mind and judgment — both of which require understanding.  In other words, they need to share a conviction.[10]

That’s a lot on v. 10, but it was essential for understanding what Paul is addressing.  In v. 11, he reveals his source — reports from “Chloe’s people.”  We don’t know exactly who she was — perhaps a prominent Christian, and those from her household inform Paul as to problems in Corinth.[11]  They stated that the divisions had led to “quarrels,” which Paul later lists as works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20).[12]  This isn’t gossip but loving concern to see a problem corrected, and Paul takes up the call with his exhortation.

As one commentary notes, “These Corinthians are copying their worldly culture by dividing.”[13]  They imported this into the church, so Paul calls them to a different mindset.  When we find quarreling and division, we must put off the worldly and put on the unity of Christ. 

Of course, it helps to understand why we might have these factions in the first place.  That brings us to the next point:

III.        Second, Understand the Character of Cliques (vv. 12–13)

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

Paul gives us context for the quarrels here as he says, “Now I mean this.”  He’s giving us a glimpse into the cliques that are forming, which he revisits this in 3:4.  He says that each one of them are involved, which probably is hyperbolic to state the widespread problem in Corinth.[14]  Some say one thing, others another, dividing the church into four factions.

The first is what we could call the “Paul party.”  They might have tried to honor him in stating this, especially as they saw other factions forming in their church.[15]  Paul was the founder of the church, after all, and his was a Gentile ministry for people like them.  Perhaps there was even some theological disagreement that gave rise to this Paul party, but it didn’t stay there.[16]

This was a problem.  As one commentary notes, “There is probably no pastor of a church with any history behind it who has not discovered a Paul-party of this kind within his congregation. They have taken their eyes off the Lord in the passage of time and are consequently always harking back to ‘the good old days’.”[17]  They think back to what was, and they are not unified in Christ.

Paul wasn’t flattered; he was displeased with this.  They missed his message by turning loyalty into division.  He will press this in just a moment, but there are other divisions to note.

Second, “I of Apollos” introduces the “Apollos party.”  He was an eloquent Alexandrian Jew (Acts 18:24–19:1), taught in Corinth after Paul.[18]  His followers, likely educated Corinthians, must have admired his speaking skills.[19]  But this was more than just having differing tastes in a preacher.[20]  This faction was misusing Apollos’s name.  

Third, Paul says, “I of Cephas,” Peter's Aramaic name.  This “Peter party” formed even though it doesn’t appear that Peter ever visited Corinth.  Yet, Judaizers who claimed Peter may have come to Corinth and were pitting the Corinthian Christians against Paul (cf. Gal. 2:11–14).[21]  There’s no biblical evidence that lasting strife existed between Peter and Paul, but this group, perhaps Pharisee converts, emphasized Peter’s role.

Legalism, like food laws, fueled division.  Perhaps they saw Paul as being too free, and they desired a more strict adherence to the letter of the Law.  There are Christians who do this today, attempting to bind the conscience of other Christians without biblical warrant. [22]  Whenever people start majoring on opinions, they represent a growing faction not dissimilar to the “Peter party.”

The fourth faction may initially seem to be a corrective to all of this.  The “Christ party” claimed superiority, arrogantly assuming to have some spirituality that others lack.[23]  It’s a “Jesus juke” that’s quite alive in today’s churches, where some condemn others for following “men” while still fostering an elitism themselves in Christ’s name.  They may also claim a “hot line” to God that gives them an air of superiority.[24]  This certainly isn’t the way of Christ.

Paul makes that clear in the next verse.  Paul poses three rhetorical questions, each of which expects a definite “no.”[25]  Christ has not been divided, as though His body and presence are in fragmented pieces that some can gather more of than others; no leaders can claim to have more of Christ than others.[26]  Moreover, Paul certainly wasn’t crucified for them, so they shouldn’t be looking to man over Christ.  Finally, of course, we are baptized not in the name of man, but in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19).

Cliques happen when Christians become prideful over others.  They see their teachers as superior than others, or they see their spirituality in Christ as superior.  So, let’s not build our religious lives around pastors, styles, or ourselves.  Let’s instead focus on following Christ, bringing us to the final point.

IV.        Third, Focus on the Cure for Cliques (vv. 14–17)

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name.  Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other.  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.

It’s apparent in these verses that some of the factions were formed around those who baptized them.  Paul finds this offensive, and he goes into thar more here.  He wants them to redirect their eyes to Christ. 

He thanks God here, not for the Corinthian faith this time, but for the fact that baptized few of them.  This may see strange, but again, he sees how they are forming their clubs.  He says he baptized “none... except Crispus and Gaius.”  Crispus was a converted synagogue ruler (Acts 18:8), and Gaius hosted Paul (Rom. 16:23).  Paul is happy that so few could say they were baptized in my name,” which is obviously the wrong focus.

Still, it seems strange.  If Paul was preaching Christ, why would he be baptizing so few?  In Baptist circles sometimes, it’s expected that you can report numbers — number of decisions for Christ, number of rededications, and number of baptisms.  However, Paul likely delegated this task like Christ did; the apostles typically liked to allow the local church to take the lead on church matters like baptism.[27]  Paul gives a bigger reason in v. 17 that we’ll discuss in a moment.

First, in v. 16, Paul adds one more set of names — “the household of Stephanas.” Almost an afterthought, Paul mentions them because they are among his first converts in the region.[28]  It’s funny how some look at this as evidence that we should baptize infants today, presuming that there would have been an baby in Stephanas’s house that Paul baptized with the rest.  However, the text doesn’t say that, give evidence that we should baptize infants, or that baptism should come for those who have not confessed faith in Christ.

Paul does imply that baptism is less important than gospel preaching.  First, it was a low enough priority that he did not remember if he had baptized others.  Certainly, as one commentary notes, Paul “clearly denies here that he considers baptism essential to the remission of sin or the means of obtaining forgiveness.”[29]  That’s why he shies away from the importance of baptism.

What are Paul’s standing orders?  He says it’s not to baptize!  As MacArthur says, “This verse does not mean that people should not be baptized... but that God did not send Paul to start a private cult.”[30]  Paul has a primary objective; baptism is secondary.

Paul's mission is evangelism (Acts 26:16–18).  The very term “proclaim the gospel” focuses on proclaiming good news.  This verse shows us clearly that baptism and belief in the gospel are touching but separate categories.

Paul says something else that will become important for the rest of the chapter.  He says that his gospel proclamation was not in “cleverness of speech” or “wisdom of word.”  Paul avoids rhetorical flair valued so highly in Corinth. [31]  He contrasts worldly wisdom with the cross (1:18–2:16), warning that the message might be made empty.  The cross — Christ's crucifixion and atonement — is central.  Diluting it with cleverness renders it ineffective.[32]  (This Is a reminder to evangelists and preachers alike to avoid trying to be too “clever.”)

The cure is the gospel message.  It humbles us before God, reminding us of our need and His grace.  As we reflect upon our forgiven sins, we can also extend forgiveness to others rather than hold on to faction-causing grudges.  So, prioritize the cross in ministry.

V.           Conclusion

As one commentary notes, Paul appeals for unity on three grounds, “the wholeness of Christ, the cross of Christ and the Lordship of Christ”[33]  We're under orders to preach the gospel without detracting from the cross.  True wisdom is in Christ, not worldly divisions.

So, let's reject cliques or any kind of factionalism.  If divisions exist, repent and reconcile. May we be one, as Christ prayed (John 17:21).

 



[1] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), 1 Co 1:10.

[2] Ronald Trail, An Exegetical Summary of 1 Corinthians 1–9, (Dallas, TX: SIL International, 2008), 30–31.

[3] David K. Lowery, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, 1985, 2, 508.

[4] Robertson.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] John MacArthur Jr., Ed., The MacArthur Study Bible, electronic ed., (Nashville, TN: Word Pub., 1997), 1729.

[9] Robertson,.

[10] F. Alan Tomlinson, CSB Study Bible: Notes, 2017, 1812.

[11] Robertson, 1 Co 1:11.

[12] Andrew David Naselli, Romans–Galatians, 2020, X, 232.

[13] Ibid., 233.

[14] Trail, 35–36.

[15] David Prior, The Message of 1 Corinthians: Life in the Local Church, The Bible Speaks Today, (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 31.

[16] Ibid., 30.

[17] Ibid.

[18] J. I. Packer, Wayne Grudem, and Ajith Fernando, Eds., ESV Global Study Bible, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 1607.

[19] Prior, 32.

[20] Robertson, 1 Co 1:12.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Prior, 33.

[23] Robertson.

[24] Prior, 34.

[25] David K. Lowery, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, 1985, 2, 508.

[26] John D. Barry, Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, Michael S. Heiser, Miles Custis, Elliot Ritzema, Matthew M. Whitehead, Michael R. Grigoni, and David Bomar, Faithlife Study Bible, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012, 2016), 1 Co 1:13.

[27] Lowery.

[28] Barry, et. al., , 1 Co 1:16.

[29] Robertson, 1 Co 1:16.

[30] MacArthur, 1730.

[31] Packer, et. al., 1608.

[32] Tomlinson.

[33] Prior, 38.


Popular posts from this blog

SERMON: “Call to Repentance” (James 4:7–10)

SERMON: “Ambition without Arrogance” (James 4:13–17)

SERMON: “State of the Church in 2025” (Rev. 3:1–6)