While in Ephesus, Paul writes 1 Corinthians early in AD 57. He had established this church about 5 years earlier during his second missionary journey and, since, had received disturbing reports of factions in the church, sexual misconduct, corrupt observance of the Lord’s supper, abuse of spiritual gifts, and misunderstandings regarding the resurrection and some of the other basic teachings he had given them. The source of these reports seem to be from the sons of one Chloe (1:11), mentioned by name as Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus (Stephanas in 1:16, all three in 16:17) and who were the ones that had delivered a letter to Paul from the church asking certain questions (7:1), and had also supplied additional information regarding problems in the church that were not included in the letter (16:17).
You may remember Corinth was located on the Mediterranean Sea, was a wealthy trading center, a Roman colony and had attracted a diverse population of Romans, Greeks and Jews from various points of the Mediterranean world. This cultural diversity and the religious (mostly pagan) influences created an atmosphere of unrestrained idolatry and immorality. Given these facts, it’s no surprise the church at Corinth had a difficult time transitioning from the licentiousness many of them had always known, to the Christ-like life Paul had taught. His letter was to give instruction that would restore balance in the church.
One of the more important issues Paul deals with in this letter is the divisiveness. I say, more important, because it is the first issue he deals with in chapter 1. This divisiveness in some ways illustrates the cultural diversity of this church. There were four factions that had developed. One was loyal to Paul, probably because he had taught them for a year and a half and had naturally formed a relationship with some based on a true appreciation of his ministry to them.
Another group followed Apollos. These were most likely the Greeks, who would have recognized his eloquence, cultured demeanor, knowledge and zeal (Acts 18:24-26). Previously, we had met Apollos in Ephesus (18:24), but he went to Achaia, the southern Greek province where Corinth is located (18:27). And to be clear, there is no evidence that Apollos desired a following or that his ministry in Corinth was anything but honest and upright.
Yet another group identified with Cephas (Peter). This would have been the Jews, who recognized Peter as the apostle whose ministry and calling was focused on them (Galatians 2:7). There’s no real evidence Peter ever visited Corinth, though some try to make a case for it, to more easily explain how there could be a faction there that was loyal to him.
Then, finally, there was the fourth group who rejected all three men and claimed to follow only Christ. At last, we see a group displaying some spiritual discernment, refusing to focus on human abilities, personalities or positions.
This can be very subtle, but carefully consider what is illustrated here at least in part. There are too many professing Christians today who tend to identify their church not by the God they purport to serve, but the man who leads them. And too often they support an institution built by the sheer will, talents and entrepreneurial skills of that man. One of the failures of religious institutions from the very beginning has been that they promote the veneration of traditions, rituals, doctrinal statements, outward (often demonic) manifestations or their charismatic leaders, instead of God. But, there can be a vast difference between knowing about God (and it can be based on factual truth or pure deception) and actually knowing Him, as Jesus clearly taught (Matthew 7:21-23, Luke 13:24-28).
Back to Paul’s rebuke concerning the divisions. Notice in verse 13 Paul is diplomatic in referring to Christ not being divided and to himself not being crucified or baptism being in his name. The reason for this is that I believe Paul did not want to even hint that either Apollos or Peter was in any way responsible for these factions. The following passage in verses 14-17 has been covered several times in past lessons and is where Paul realizes the temporary nature of water baptism and determines not to practice it any longer.
Then Paul launches his comparison between human wisdom and the preaching of the cross with this, “For the message of the cross is pure absurdity to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God. Isaiah has rightly said, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and will frustrate the learning of the learned. So where does that leave the one who thinks he’s wise, or the well educated, or the one who understands the ways of the world? Isn’t God going to expose all this pretentious nonsense? The world with all its knowledge failed to recognize God. That’s why God in His wisdom uses the things that the world thinks are foolish to guide those who trust in Him on their way to salvation.” (I Corinthians 1:18-21, compare also verses 26-29)
Let me emphasize an important point here. In verse 19 above you will see the verb “being saved”, where the KJV and some others have “are saved”. This is from sozo, which means, to be spiritually and eternally delivered, and the NIV and Amplified Bible (among some others) correctly render the present, passive participle found here “being saved” (compare also 2 Corinthians 2:15). This verb tense is always used to illustrate repeated, continuous action. Deliverance or salvation is not presented in scripture as an immediate, accomplished fact; instead, it is an ongoing process over time that requires that continuous, repeated action.
Probably the most quoted verse in the Bible is the KJV rendering of John 3:16, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” But what many people don’t understand is the verb “believeth” is a present participle, again, illustrating repeated, continuous action (it’s the same in verse 18 and other places). When followed by the preposition eis (unto, in or on), it illustrates a continuing relationship of confidence or trust. There are far too many religious institutions that present deliverance or salvation as a quick, easy process of simple, one-time belief, or they stray even farther from the truth and present it as membership in the institution, submitting to some form of baptism or adhering to a certain doctrinal statement.
If that is the case, they need to explain Philippians 2:12-13 where Paul encourages that church to “continue working out your own salvation with fear and trembling”, or 2 Peter 2:2 that says, “Like newborn babies, crave that pure spiritual milk, so that by it you can grow up in your salvation.” Then there’s Matthew 10:22 where Jesus says, “All men will hate you because of Me, but the one who remains faithful to the end will be delivered.”
And, if you can’t tell by now, I’ve jumped up on my soapbox and gone to preaching again. Earlier I said there is a vast difference between knowing about God and actually knowing Him. In references above (1st paragraph, page 2) from Matthew 7 and Luke 13, Jesus says “depart from Me, I never knew you”. If Jesus says, “I never knew you”, that means you never knew Him. Those statements by Jesus clearly point out the fact that religious activity does not constitute salvation, nor is it the proof of a relationship. However, many would say they have a relationship with God based on their religious activity.
A personal relationship with God cannot be defined any differently than a relationship with another person. It can only develop over time through personal interaction between the two parties and then must be maintained by continuing interaction. Jesus illustrated that in His relationship with the Father and the writers of the Gospel accounts (with the help of the Holy Spirit) faithfully recorded it for us.
Jesus makes it crystal clear time spent alone with God is the essential activity of having a relationship with Him. Read, again, His instructions to us regarding prayer in Matthew 6:5-15 and carefully make note of the hypocritical actions of the religious types who want to believe they can have a relationship with God based on their public displays of self-righteous pretense. Jesus is always our example and He spent time alone with the Father (see Matthew 14:23 and Luke 6:12).
Now I’ll get back on subject. Let me explain Paul’s argument comparing human wisdom with the foolishness of preaching the cross. We’ll look at it from a cultural viewpoint (the argument is pointed directly to the divisions comprised of the Jews and Greeks, verses 22 and 24). It was foolish to the Jews, as they fully expected their Messiah to come as a mighty conqueror who would rid their lands of Roman rule. And, they stumbled at a crucified Christ Who threatened their Mosaic traditions and rituals. Then, the Greeks could not understand the need for salvation based on the crucifixion of a Judean criminal; they were far too smart to fall for that.