Talking Points Part One

1 Corinthians 1: 10-17 GJW
But I urge you brothers through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that all of you might speak in one accord and there not be any schisms within you all but that you might continue being united one in your thoughts and opinions. For it was made known to me through Cloe’s people concerning you that wrangling arguments are going on in your midst. I am saying this because separately, each one says, “I myself am of Paul”, “but I with Apollos”, “but I with Cephas”, “but I with Christ”. Has Christ been divided, Paul wasn’t crucified for you nor into the name of Paul were you baptized? I give thanks that not one of you I baptized except Crispus and Gauius so that certain ones of you might not say that into my name you were baptized. Oh, but I also baptized the house of Stephen. As to the rest I don’t know another one I baptized. For Christ did not send me to baptize but to evangelize without wise words in order that the Cross of Christ might not be emptied.


A talking point is a focus of discussion, a set of items that you or your team are determined to make central to conversations you enter. We have Republican talking points such as the lack of experience Senator Obama has in governing and we have Democratic talking points such as the connection between President Bush and Senator McCain. Talking points are used to keep critics from addressing the weak parts of your argument and to accentuate your strengths. Talking points are an agreed upon approach to addressing issues that may be controversial.

Apparently the Corinthian church had its own Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians and Socialists. They were the: Paul, Apollos, Cephas and the Christ parties. Now commentators have developed a multitude of creative platforms these four different groups may have adopted. Barclay contended that the Paul Party was comprised of Gentile believers who lived lawlessly. The Apollos Party was a group of intellectuals who were turning Christianity into a philosophy like Buddhism rather than a living faith. Cephas Party was the Jewish Christians who promoted the Law and made little of grace. The Christ Party was a collection of Christians who thought they were the only true church. Now the only difficulty I have with this quite fascinating and logical explanation is that nowhere in the text do we find a hint of this. In fact, Paul’s complaint with the factions has nothing to do with doctrine, teaching or practice. To try to assess what was wrong with each group completely misses the point.

Paul did not critique the Apollos Group for being sophists, never attacks the Cephas Group for pushing circumcision and certainly doesn’t tongue lash the Paul group for being too lax on practice. He does later make much of the immorality in the church and blasts them for suing each other but there is not a hint of quadrangular setting straight the doctrines of the parties. His attack is entirely based upon their splitting from one another. He uses the almost grotesque image of Jesus torn into pieces as rhetorical proof of their lunacy. Several hundred years before, in the early days before the nation of Israel became a monarchy, an Israelite and his concubine were threatened by the perverted Benjaminites of Gibeah. When the man sent out his concubine to the crowd in response to their threats, she was raped through the night and eventually died as a result. Furious with what they had done, the man cut up his dead concubine into twelve parts and sent the body parts of his slave girl out on donkeys throughout Israel to raise up the righteous wrath of his countrymen. Needless to say, it worked. Paul knew of the story and its horror all too well for he was a Benjaminite and the occurrence was a dark blight on his ancestral background. The terrible image of Christ cut up like that and sent out was intended to disgust and shock the church.

We are so accustomed to splits and divisions and spin-offs that we have a most difficult time taking this passage at face value. We seem to have an inherent need to find out what was wrong with the factions. What were they doing that caused the split(s)? Where had they drifted from right doctrine? Now we know from church history that there were plenty of theological rifts that nearly tore the church asunder. From the Palagians to the Gnostics, there were a slew of cultic teachings infiltrating the church. Paul himself fought against the Judaizers and their effort to destroy the work of Grace. But this furious reprimand of Paul had nothing to do with setting straight bad doctrine. It was an attack against the church way of life. Paul had absolutely nothing bad or good to say about whatever arguments and counter arguments were being cast about for the various factions. He just despised the splits.
To Be Continued