DOES PAUL SAY THERE MUST BE DIVISIONS?

This question was brought home to me recently when a speaker at the Preachers-Elders Workshop in Abilene, referring to 1 Cor. 11:19, argued that divisions are necessary in order to keep the church pure. He put it stronger than that, even insisting that Paul is commanding us to divide the congregation, driving out those in error, in order to be faithful. I had suppressed this unlovely thought only to have it revived by a letter from a devoted sister in the Lord, who was telling me of a separation of a number of members from her congregation, people who left out of concern for the changes that had occurred. Then she wrote: “The members who remain are truly delightful and inspirational (Paul did say, didn’t he, that ‘there must be divisions among you so that the genuine can be known?)”

One only needs to read 1 Cor. 11:19 in several of the versions to see that there is ground for such an interpretation, even though the Abilene speaker went entirely too far with his deductions. The New English Bible reads, “Dissensions are necessary if only to show which of your members are sound,” and the King James says, “There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be manifest among you.” The Revised Standard renders it, “There must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized,” while The Jerusalem Bible puts it, “There must no doubt be separate groups among you, to distinguish those who are to be trusted.”

If the apostle is really saying what he appears to be saying, the conclusion has to be that divisions are a means of accomplishing God’s intention for the church and that we can hardly expect to be without them. Is Paul really saying that the faithful in a congregation become evident only in the face of faction? Must we have the sectarian spirit on the part of some in order to show the fidelity of those who can be trusted?

This would be strange teaching for one who has listed heresies (sects) among the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:20) and who had already told the same church that “there are to be no schisms among you (Col. 1:10). Would he now be saying that divisions are to he expected after all (though perhaps not approved per se), for this is how we can tell who is faithful and who is not? And would he dare to say that we must have sects, even to the point of driving the “unfaithful” away, in order to be the true church?

What then is he saying and what does he mean?

It is my view that Phillips stands almost alone in his understanding of what the apostle is saying. It is rare for me to reject the majority of the scholars and stand with the minority. But I believe Phillips’ translation catches the meaning of Paul’s language better than those quoted above and I will explain why. But first his rendition of 1 Cor. 11:19, along with the previous verse.

For first, when you meet for worship I hear that you split up into small groups, and I think there must be truth in what I hear. For there must he cliques among you or your favorite leaders would not be so conspicuous.

The meaning is entirely different from the other versions. Schonfield’s Authentic New Testament is close to Phillip’s: “Obviously there must be some variations among you, that those who are particularly worthy among you may be distinguished.” It is a question of who does the approving of those “which are approved” (KJV), or who does the recognizing of “those who are genuine” (RSV). If it refers to God recognizing or approving the faithful, made evident by the sectarian spirit of others, then the King James and the other versions are right. If it refers to those who have elevated their own leaders, then Phillips (and perhaps Schonfield if we read him right) has the right interpretation.

The Greek term dokimos, used here for “those which are approved,” does not resolve the difficulty, for it is used of approval of both God (Tim. 2:15) and man (1 Cor. 16:3). As every interpreter knows, we are left to the context and to the treatment of the subject in other scriptures in our search for truth.

The King James rendition is put in its best light by Moffatt, who in his commentary translates the words, “There must be parties among you, if genuine Christians are to be recognized,” for he refers to the fact that Paul has already condemned partyism, and he insists that he is doing so no less in this passage. Paul is using irony, says Moffatt, as if to say that misbehavior is inevitable, human nature being what it is, and so God can even take sectism and use it to His glory by allowing it to make it clear who the faithful are. And so he has Paul saying something like: “It’s consoling, at any rate, to think that such disorders show who is loyal and truly reverent!”

Surely the context shows that the apostle could never seriously suggest that partyism is anything more than an horrendous evil. The Corinthians sought to form sects around men, whether Cephas or Apollos or Paul or Christ, and the faction that said, “We are of Christ,” were as sectarian as the rest of them. Paul had to say to them, “Surely Christ has not been divided among you!” He explained to them that so long as they said things like “I belong to Paul,” they were of the flesh and could not be addressed as spiritual people (1 Cor.3:1). Never would he, therefore, see something as carnal as partyism as having any beneficial effect at all upon the body of Christ. And I do not see him using irony as much as I see him speaking directly to the condition that existed. I would paraphrase him something like this.

I hear that in your assemblies you are terribly divided (or schismatic) in your competition over men. This being the case, which I have no reason to doubt, you must also be torn asunder by partyism (heresies), for this always happens when men are exalted over Christ.

Or I would translate the sentence in question as: It has to follow that you are split into sects; otherwise we would not be hearing so much about those that you exalt.

Paul is definitely using two different words in describing the evil at Corinth. He hears that there were schismata (schisms), meaning divisions or tears, such as a crack in a wall or a rip in a garment. This would mean that the congregation is rent and torn by strife, but not necessarily broken apart. Since there is schism (and he does not question the rumors), then there is sure to come an open breach in the form of sects, which is the word haireseis. Cracks in the dam will eventually lead to the wall breaking apart, he is saying. One leads to the other. And since they have made such a big deal out of some of their leaders, splitting up over this one or that one, it is predictable enough that it will get even worse, so that what was once the Body of Christ will be a bunch of warring sects, completely separated from each other and competing with one another. This is what I see him saying.

All this notwithstanding, the church through the centuries has behaved as if the scriptures do indeed command us to divide into sects. The brother in Abilene stated what our people have long practiced. We must divide the church in order to confirm our loyalty. It is better to split a church rather than allow diversity of viewpoint over the millennium or the organ. Many congregations have started with the rationale that “the faithful” must leave the main group and start a loyal church. And we can always quote Paul, “There must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.” And thus the one who “sows discord among brothers,” which the Bible says is one of the seven things that God hates is made a defender of the faith and a preserver of the truth, when in fact he is often no more than a party hero.

And so we must also demur from our sister’s view that a separation of a part of the Body is a confirmation that those who remain are the genuine ones. It indicates no such thing. Nor does it take factions to identify those who are approved of God. Congregations should be planted, organized, nourished in the faith, and pass on from this earth to become a part of the family of God in heaven without there ever being a schism or a sect of any description. And all this time God will not be confused as to who the faithful are. He does not need an occasional faction so as to identify his true children! It would come nearer being the other way: factions make it clear who the sectarians are!—The Editor