1 Corinthians 4:6 and reading back into chapters one to four(fictitios factions?)

[Eoghan]

Almost to a man the commentators read 4:6 and say that Paul was really aiming at false teachers who were "going beyond what was written" and introducing novel teachings into their preaching. If this was who he was aiming at then what about the divisions mentioned in chapter one: Paul, Apollos,Cephas and 'Christ'? The view taken is that these 'factions' are a literary device that Paul is using to allow these false teachers to save face. This they say is what Paul "owns up to" in verse 6.

[BIBLE]1 Corinthians 4:6[/BIBLE]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the commentators but Seth Yi (sermonaudio) lumps all four factions together. My question is do we as a reformed community agree with this or...

...do we notice that Paul names four factions in chapter one but focuses on his relationship with Apollos to illustrate the way two preachers can be cooperative in their ministry. I am reminded of the Tron in the time of Eric Alexander when we has an "assistant". There we definitely had two preachers cooperating. I imagine that some churches, particularly in the US have more than one preacher. (Charles Bonadies I have just realised shares the preaching at Suber Road) Paul mentions four factions in chapter four but only deals with himself and Apollos. This allowed room for FF Bruce to speculate that he was deliberately avoiding Cephas with whom he had some differences. I think that misreads the flow. Four factions are mentioned because there were four. Paul focuses on himself and Apollos because they were the best example of close and amicable cooperation, Cephas after all was a visitor from another sphere of ministry (Apostle to the Jews).

The 'Christ' party is intriguing and I would suggest must have had a leader distorting the message. The Paul, Apollos and Cephas factions likewise must have had their advocates in the absence of these actual leaders. Paul's run-in with Judaisers was with people professing to come from Cephas rather than genuinely being sent by him "under orders".

So which way do you lean and what else would you add to this conversation?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think you have a basically accurate picture, whether your own or drawn from other teachers. For my part, I don't think there's much "face-saving" interest in what Paul writes, although he does love this congregation, and doesn't want to hurt anyone unnecessarily.

It doesn't seem much related to "Reformed" theology perse to have an opinion on whether the factions/names of ch.1 are specific parties, or a more amorphous and general malaise in the church, not quite at the point of hard divisions and fracturing--but heading that way in the absence of correction. Choosing and elevating a teacher (even Christ!) for the purposes of pitting his "opinions" against another minister and his wrong opinions, is itself the root problem in whatever way it presents itself. We might do best reserving judgment on the form of the party spirit, realizing that Paul is writing to a distant situation in which trends and terms have been relayed to him about the conditions there. His words can be interpreted as addressing either.

There are no "opinions" in the church. Even to think of Christ's doctrine as his own "genius" is patently wrong, not least for which he CLEARLY stated that his doctrine was not his own! But it was his Father's. So, if all true teaching is based on what is written (as analogous to the firm mind of God), then the rest is style and emphasis and other superficial issues. Those may at times be significant enough to warrant some questioning, but in the final analysis they are not ultimate issues, not issues worth taking or creating offense over. The question "What does the Bible actually teach," is unavoidable. Paul later acknowledges that "there must be factions" (11:19) so that the truth will come out, and people will know who are genuinely "approved" by God as the true ministers.

Paul's effort is to get people away from focus on personalities, meaning the preacher and his style and his charisma and his (real or supposed) emphases; that instead they might focus on the substance of revelation, in particular its fixed objective form in a written text.

I think when Paul refers to himself and Apollos, 4:6, he's thinking back not to ch.1, where he deplored the factionalism, defined somewhat vaguely I suspect by the naming of names. I think it's questionable if Peter ever set foot in Corinth, so any faction there purporting to claim him as a founder I think has some other basis than his preaching presence. I don't believe there is reference here to division between Paul and Peter.

Paul's main thought is immediately informed by chs.2-3, where the focus is on the Spirit and the Word. See 2:9, 2:13ff; this is not "ecstatic" Spirit-instruction; but as the beginning of ch.3 shows, it is elementary Christian teaching and preaching forever tied to the inscripturated Word. Again, at the end of ch.3 additional emphasis on the Word as heavenly wisdom, v19, "for it is written...," followed immediately v20, "and again [it is written]...."

3:5 singles out Paul and Apollos together as "ministers through whom you believed." And what was the nature of their ministry? Strict preaching of the Word. So what Paul says in 4:6 is that neither of them were engaged in, or interested in fostering, a personality driven ministry having any kind of focus on themselves. Paul "applies" his principle FIRST to himself and Apollos, that neither was desirous to "go beyond what was written." And therefore, they should have been sufficient examples to the congregation not to adopt such interests, or foster such.