How to Avoid Separating the Sheep from the Sheep

INTRODUCTION (Read 1 Cor. 1:1-31)

We are going to continue our journey in studying the ancient church that could be likened to the Las Vegas of the ancient world. Being a culturally diverse city, Corinth was full of different ethnic, social, and religious groups that provided plenty of opportunities for sin. Just as many churches today embrace and feed off of the sinful aspects of the culture they are in, so the church of Corinth mirrored the sinful culture of Corinth. In our previous teachings in chapter one we have already seen that the disease of sin had infected this young church to such an extent that they questioned Paul’s apostolic authority and had begun to become boastful (cf. 1 Cor. 14:37 and all of 2^nd Corinthians). By way of review, the virulent mixture of secular and pagan influences that infected the Church of Corinth promoted lone-ranger individualism and boasting about spiritual gifts, it led to an arrogance that questioned Paul’s apostolic authority, it created a sinful cultural accommodation and compromise of the gospel to their society, and many other things that are but mirrors of what occurs in many evangelical churches today. Paul contradicted this from the beginning of his letter by reinforcing the idea that he is an apostle of Jesus (1:1) and that the grace both he and they experienced comes from God and is dispensed by God (1:3). In verses 4-9, we have seen that our focus should be the same as Paul’s, namely, that God’s powerful calling of us to salvation, our spiritual gifts, and our fellowship with Jesus and His people is all of God, through God, and to God and none of it comes from us. Therefore, it is impossible to boast in anything because it’s all a gift of God anyways. We are the undeserving and eternally grateful recipients of His mercy, grace, and good pleasure and it is our joy to spread this grace everywhere for the supremacy of God and for the joy of all peoples.

Paul was no stranger to controversy, schism, and factiousness. He was a hateful, controversial, and murderous man before his conversion and he rebuked Peter for his factiousness after his conversion (Acts 26:9ff; Gal. 2:11-14). The lack of unity that has often plagued the church is nothing new. We see it rearing its ugly head in the ancient church of Corinth, right in the middle of the first century with the 12 apostles still present. This is because where you have sinful people; you’ll have areas of disagreement that will make for potential division, especially when the “law of love” does not reign supreme in the lives of professing believers (Rom. 13:10; Gal. 6:2). When selfishness, envy, boasting, and strife have gone to seed, there can be no room for a “meeting of the minds” (Phil. 2:4-5). John MacArthur rightly states,

. . . believers are continually tempted to fall back into lives of self-will, self-interest, and general self-centeredness. At the heart of sin is the ego, the self-will, self-interest, and general self-centeredness. At the heart of sin is the ego, the “I”. Self-centeredness is the root of man’s depravity, the depravity into which every person since Adam and Eve, except Jesus Christ, has been born. Even Christians are still sinners – justified, but still sinful in themselves. And when that sin is allowed to have its way in our flesh, conflict is inevitable. When two or more people are bent on having their own ways, they will soon be quarreling and arguing, because their interests, concerns, and priorities, sooner or later will conflict. There cannot possibly be harmony in a group, even a group of believers, whose desires, goals, purposes, and ideals are generated by their egos.[1]

With Dr. MacArthur’s thoughts in mind, let us turn our attention to verses 10-17 under the following points:

I. An Apostolic Plea for Unity (v. 10).

II. A Problem with Quarrels (vv. 11-12).

III. An Overlooked Principle (v. 13).

IV. A Powerful Message (vv. 14-17).

TEACHING/APPLICATION

I. An Apostolic Plea for Unity (v. 10).

Verse 10, Now I exhort you, brethren, 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. – Paul appeals to them as “brethren”, thus showing that he is interested in softening his rebuke without reducing the seriousness thereof. And so, for the sake of maintaining the intimate unity and fellowship around the gospel, a unity that only the Spirit can produce in the heart of a regenerated Godlover, Paul appeals to them as brothers. This type of appeal doesn’t come down to us as an appeal in the form of a bare-naked law, but instead it originates from an attitude of grace because only grace can produce this type of unity. Because they were called into fellowship with God’s Son, they were spiritual brethren, and brethren should and can demonstrate a love that gives yield to quarreling and instead evidences the presence of the new heart by being “made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” (Ezek. 36:25-27 cf. Heb. 8:10).

When Paul says that he wants them to be “. . . made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” he doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone should think and operate the same way in the church. Quite the contrary, as Fee notes, “Although the words ‘mind’ and ‘opinion’ . . . imply that at least they must agree on the fundamental nature of the gospel . . . they do not thereby imply that in the Christian faith unity demands uniformity; the argument for the need of diversity in chap. 12, not to mention Paul’s argument in Gal. 2:10, rules that out.”[2] So what does Paul mean when he wants them to have the same mind and the same judgment? He provides his own answer when he says, “that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you.” The word “division” is schismata, from whence we get our English word “schism”. This word describes a tearing, or a rending[3] in the church caused by people who have divided opinions over different church leaders. Their quarrelling created divisions in the church, and Paul’s solution is that this “torn-apart” church be “knit-together” by focusing on their unity around the gospel message (cf. v. 17).

Questions for reflection: (1) Professing evangelical Christians are known for surrounding themselves with particular Bible teachers and preachers that tell them what they want to hear. Is this a bad thing? If so why, if not why? (2) What is the difference between a Biblical unity and a legalistic uniformity? What are the pros/cons of either one? (3) What should be the unifying theme for all Christian ministry according to Paul in verse 17?

II. A Problem with Quarrels (vv. 11-12).

Verses 11-12, For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. 12 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.” – Various people in the Corinthian church aligned themselves with their own well-respected leaders and it created divisions and was destroying unity. They were separating the sheep from the sheep. Jesus spoke about separating the sheep from the goats (Matt. 25:33) or separating the wheat from the tares (Matt. 13:30) at the end of the age. These passages are images of believers being separated from non-believers at the final judgment. Sadly, many followers of Jesus seem to be more interested in separating the sheep from other sheep. This desire to separate the “true” sheep from other sheep didn't start recently, and we can look at other parts of the New Testament to see that professing believers were practicing sheep separation:

^NAU Galatians 2:12-13 For prior to the coming of certain men from James, [Peter] used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision. ¹³ The rest of the Jews joined him in hypocrisy, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

^NAU 3 John 9-10 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. ¹⁰ For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.

In each case above, these examples of “sheep separation” were corrected by the writers of Scripture. These negative examples are balanced by the many positive encouragements that we find in Scripture to walk in unity, to fellowship with one another, to build one another up instead of attempting to destroy one another so that we can follow our own lusts. Nevertheless, in spite of the many warnings and exhortations from Scripture, we continue to think that it is our duty to separate ourselves from other “sheep” who are not exactly like us in every particular way and to make it worse, we think that we have the right to choose which things are important and which things are not. Now, as a disclaimer, I must clearly state that in order for us to have fellowship with other professing believers, they (and we) must hold to the biblical gospel, lest we be eternally condemned (Gal. 1:6-9). To make it even simpler, there can be no Christian fellowship if there are no gospel-believing Christians to have fellowship with. This means what we can’t share Christian fellowship with Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, or any other unbeliever, but only born-again believers. According to God’s word, that is where the line for fellowship should be drawn (cf. 2 Corinthians. 6:14-18).

However, many Christians often shun fellowship with gospel-loving and gospel-defending Baptist, Paedobaptist, charismatic (gasp!), and other born-again, blood-washed brethren because they want to determine for themselves who they should and should not listen to and learn from. This type of thinking displays a similar arrogance that the Corinthians possessed, especially when modern believers wrongly think that since others have differences with them on certain peripheral “doctrines” that this somehow means that they have the right to determine who they can and cannot have fellowship with. Friends, when we unnecessarily separate ourselves from our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ and cut off any opportunity of learning from them, we are doing what Paul condemned in 1 Corinthians 12:21. When comparing the different yet necessary members of the church with the different yet necessary parts of the human body, Paul said, “And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you.” Paul is saying that this is so wrongheaded. Sadly, many professing Christian preachers encourage this type of behavior by telling Christians to avoid many gospel-loving people because of relatively minor doctrinal differences between them. And so, being like Diotrephes, they love to be reckoned first among their followers instead of doing what Paul did by gently rebuking the idea that there were people attaching themselves to him! This type of thinking breeds what I call the “True-Church Syndrome”, a nasty situation that occurs when a group of people become so disillusioned by the minor doctrinal disagreements amongst Christians that they end up convincing themselves that they are the only ones on earth who are the true church.[4]

Questions for reflection: (1) Since Paul sought unity in the Corinthian church, according to 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 where should we be willing to draw the line doctrinally when it comes to withholding Christian fellowship? (2) How do we avoid unnecessarily separating ourselves from other Christians with whom we may not quite see eye to eye on everything? (3) According to 1 Tim. 4:13, what can be done within the Christian church at large to avoid disunity and keep “the same mind and the same judgment”? (4) What should gospel-loving Christians do to avoid the “True-Church syndrome?

III. An Overlooked Principle (v. 13).

Verse 13, Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? - Paul reduces their argument to absurdity by asking “was I crucified for you?” or “were you baptized in my name”? This type of question is rhetorical, and is designed to stop the mouth of anyone who would try to create a “Paul-party”. Since they were not baptized into the name of Paul, they could not therefore be “of Paul”. A believer should never allow anything or anybody to destroy the unity of the church. Paul wanted to preach the gospel without compromise, but he didn’t want anyone boasting that they were his disciples. He wanted to bring men to Christ, not to himself.[5] A divided church is not a characteristic of what a Christian church should be. Paul knew this and it is why he said the following throughout his letters:

^NAU 1 Corinthians 6:17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

^NAU 1 Corinthians 12:12-13 For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. ¹³ For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

^NAU Romans 12:5 so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another.

^NAU Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; ⁵ one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ⁶ one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.

Today, just like in the first century, when God’s people develop a party-spirit and fight and quarrel against one-another, they bring reproach upon the name of Christ because they are separating the sheep from the sheep and swearing allegiance to men. Christ died to make them one, and instead of creating unnecessary divisions, they should all seek unity around the revealed will of God found in Scripture and learn how to discuss their minor differences in theology like incurable God-Lovers.

IV. A Powerful Message (vv. 14-17).

^NAU 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, ¹⁵ so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. ¹⁶ Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. ¹⁷ For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. – Paul thanks God that he baptized so few so that no one could rightly say that they could be identified so closely with him that they could try to justify creating a sect after his name.[6] Paul was repulsed by the idea of having a sect within the church that claimed allegiance to him or any other church leader. This idea was so repulsive to him because that type of allegiance should be reserved only for Jesus.

Paul’s makes it clear that his purpose was not to go around baptizing people, but to preach the powerful, life-changing message of the gospel. As much as he emphasizes baptism in his writings[7], Paul makes a sharp distinction between baptism and the gospel in verse 17. In this verse it is clear that Paul does not believe that water baptism effects salvation, but only God does that by the power of His Spirit working in the preaching of the gospel. So Paul wants to go out of his way to make a clear distinction between the two things, lest the Corinthians (and us) think that baptism, in and of itself, in an ex opere operato fashion somehow automatically puts us in a right relationship with God. Baptism is the necessary faith-response to the preaching of the gospel, but it itself, is not the gospel.

Paul says that Christ sent him to preach the gospel “not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.” I take him to mean that he wants to preach the gospel without appealing to what the Corinthians had so highly-prized as a mark of divine wisdom, namely the Hellenistic concept of wisdom, which highly valued smooth speeches, golden-tongued rhetoric, and eloquent displays of oratorical skill. Paul wanted the content of his preaching to be God’s wisdom instead of man’s wisdom (i.e., “the word of the cross” in v. 18) and he wanted the form or manner of delivery to be free of eloquent, enticing, and ear-tickling displays of oratorical fancy when he says in 2:1-5, “And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. ² For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. ³ I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, ⁴ and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, ⁵ so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”[8]

Questions for reflection: (1) Why was Paul thankful that he only baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas? (2) Why was it important that Paul ask them whether or not they could be baptized into his name? (3) Why does Paul make such a sharp distinction between baptism and the gospel? Why is this important for us now? (4) What are some of the potential problems with having a pastor with great oratorical skill and command of the language?

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, there is no question that the contemporary church is fragmented and divided in a way similar to that of the first-century church of Corinth. If a party-spirit abounds, with those who are born-again being unwilling and unable to listen to and learn from one another, then unity will be impossible. Just as the Corinthians needed to be focused on the word of the cross as found in the word of God so as to minimize the fleshly displays of dissension, confusion, and disputation that plagued the church in their day, we need to follow Paul’s advice as well. Prayer, humility, and a willingness to listen carefully to a fellow brother or sister is the order or the day so that the mind that is in Christ Jesus can also be in us (Phil. 2:5). It may be a tall order, but it is a biblical order, an order that we are reminded of by brother Paul elsewhere in his writings, “Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God” (Rom. 15:7).

---

[1] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: 1 Corinthians, (Chicago, ILL: Moody Press, 1984). 24.

[2] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1987), 53.

[3] For good illustrations of the type of usage of schismata as contained in 1 Cor. 1:10, see John 7:40-43; 9:16; 10:19-21 where various groups are said to be divided over the identity and significance of Jesus.

[4] For a specific example of this type of thing, see here: http://www.atruechurch.info/

[5] MacArthur, 32.

[6] Crispus was the synagogue leader in Corinth who was converted under Paul’s ministry (Acts 18:8) and Gaius was most probably the Corinthian “host” to whom Paul refers in Romans 16:23.

[7] See for example, Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11-15.

[8] Fee, 64-65.