1Co 1:10-16 . Exhortation to unity (1Co 1:10 ), statement of the character of their party-division (1Co 1:11-12 ), and how wrong it was (1Co 1:13-16 ).

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

1Co 1:10 to 1Co 4:21 . First section of the Epistle: respecting the parties, with a defence of the apostle’s way of teaching .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

SECOND DIVISION
REPROOF OF DEFECTS AND FAULTS
I. Exhortation to unity and rebuke of party spirit

1Co 1:10-17

10Now [But8] I beseech [exhort9] you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but [rather10] that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind [ sentiment] and in the same judgment. 11For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which [who] are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for11 you? or were ye baptized in [into: ] the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized 15none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any [In order that no one12] should say that I had baptized in [ye were baptized into13] mine own name. 16And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides I know not whether I baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The connection may be understood thus: I thank my God for his work of grace among you, and in view of his faithfulness am confident that the work, Christ [or Gods] has begun, he will perfect. You, nevertheless, I exhort, that ye consider carefully what is required for the fulfilment of this work, and remove whatsoever shall hinder it.

1Co 1:10. The Exhortation.I exhort you brethren.A friendly, winning address, which, as an evidence of his fellowship in the faith and his equality with them in it, imparts to his exhortation the character of an entreaty. This is also implied, in the Greek . Paul often adds the term: brother, when he has an earnest word to utter. (1Co 7:29; 1Co 10:1; 1Co 14:20). Meyer. The : but, introduces the transition from his exhibition of the bright side of the church to the reproof of its dark side. It is as if he said: For much in you I have to thank God, but there is much in you which I have to censure. Neander.By the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.It is thus he strengthens his exhortation and presents a motive for compliance.[The name of Christ was the bond of union and the most holy thing by which they could be adjured. Stanley.]. The force of it lay in this, that they all acknowledged Jesus Christ to be their Lord, and so professed themselves to belong to one and the same Master; and in this the obligation to unity was unmistakably indicated. Similar instances are found in Rom 15:30; Rom 12:1; 2Co 10:1.The contents and aim of the exhortation are expressed in the several clauses which set forth the same leading thoughts in several relations [and they are introduced by : in order that, which points not only to the import but also to the intent of the exhortation. See Winer, LIII. 6.]That ye all speak the same thing.By this he means: give expression to their inward accord and harmony of sentiment. It is precisely the opposite of the conduct mentioned in v. 12. They were with one voice to avow their allegiance to the one Lord, to the exclusion of all divisive party-watchwords. This is obvious from the following negative clausethat there be no divisions among you.Inasmuch as he is not treating here of dissentions in doctrine, but of divisions arising from adherence to different leaders, and from peculiar modes of apprehending and applying doctrine, we are not to regard him as insisting upon an exact uniformity of profession in the essential points of doctrine and life. [The word used for divisions is , lit.: schisms. These, in their ecclesiastical sense, are unauthorized separations from the church. But those which existed at Corinth were not of the nature of hostile sects refusing communion with each other, but such as may exist in the bosom of the same church, consisting in alienation of feeling and party strifes. Hodge.]But rather that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.The inward positive side implied in the previous negative one. [The original word for joined together is from : to repair, to mend, to reunite and make perfect what has been broken. It were natural therefore to suppose an allusion here to the broken condition of the church which needed to be reunited and to translate the word as in the text literally. So Alf. and Hodge and Stanley, who says that was the acknowledged phrase in classical Greek for a reconciler of factions. Calvin takes the word to signify: fitly joined together, just as the members of the human body are joined in most admirable symmetry, thus furnishing a picture of what the church should be. Kling however, following the Vulgate and Theoph. prefers the derivative sense of: perfect, and makes it=.] That wherein they were to be united is given in two words and . The former embraces that peculiar mode of thought and of viewing life which lays the foundations for the moral judgment and moral self-determination. So in 1Ti 6:5; 2Ti 3:8. Comp. Beck, Bibl. Seelenlehre, 51; Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. 139. The latter is power of knowledge, understanding, spirit, also sense, disposition, as well as insight obtained, view, opinion, conviction, also resolve, design, aim; view expressed=counsel, proposition. The two must here be distinguished. Only it cannot be readily decided which denotes the side of thought and judgment, and which that of will and disposition. Since, however, is used elsewhere in this Epistle to signify view, and counsel (see 1Co 7:25; 1Co 7:40, also 2Co 8:10), perhaps it would be best to take it here also in a theoretic acceptation=view, conviction. [In the New Testament it always means judgment and opinion. When the two words are used together, the former is most naturally understood of feeling, a sense in which the word mind is often used by us. Hodge. Disposition and opinion. Alford].

1Co 1:11. Explains the occasion and motives for the exhortation, while the disgrace of it is softened by the fraternal address.For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them of Chloe.Sad reports had reached him, and he names his authorities in advance. What relation these persons sustained to Chloe, whether children, or servants, or other members of her household, cannot be ascertained from the text, Paul names his informants without reserve in order to obviate suspicion. Besser. Concealment and mystery sow distrust and destroy love. Burger. This Chloe must at all events have been a woman well known to the Corinthian brethren, either as a resident at Corinth, so that her people had come from thence to Corinth, or as a resident at Ephesus, so that these persons had learned of the state of things at Corinth during a visit there.that there are contentions among you.; discords, wranglings, which would inevitably lead to separations, to a rent in the Church, if not arrested in season. [Here he sets forth in severer phrase what he had more gently intimated in the word schisms above, and shows its evil and bitter character.]

1Co 1:12. Fuller explanation. Now this I mean.: this, as commonly, points to what follows (1Co 7:29; 1Co 15:50), not to what precedes. That every one of you saith: (i.e.) has one or other of the following speeches in his mouth. Alike use of ; every one, appears in 1Co 14:26. [Winer says, There is no brachilogy here. In these four statements Paul intended to comprehend all the declarations current in the chapter regarding religious partisanship. Each adherent of the respective sections used one of the following expressions]. Saith boastfully. Bengel. He here vividly sets before us the several partisans, as they step out side by side, or in opposing ranks, each announcing the name of the leader he followed. It is as if he saw or heard them thus arraying themselves As they were wont to do at the school, so here they acted in the Church. Besser.I am of Paul,(i.e.) I belong to him as my head or spiritual father. The Genitive of ownership or dependence. The order of mention is most readily explained by supposing it to correspond with that of the rise of the parties. According to Neander, Paul follows the order of particular relationship, since the Apollos-party was only a fraction of the Pauline. The idea of a climax (Bengel), Paul in his humiliation putting himself at the bottom, is superfluous and improbable. Altogether groundless, however, and without any indication in its favor, yea, directly contrary to 1Co 1:14, is the opinion of the old expositors, that Paul used these names at random by way of a cover to the real leaders whom he had in mind. See the statement made respecting these parties and their rise in 2 of the Introduction. The Pauline party naturally stands first, since the Church depended on Paul as its founder, and that portion which clave to Paul land his ways, (after a fraction had defected to Apollos), must beregarded as the original party.I of Apollos,(a shortened form for Apollonius). He was just as little disposed to act the part of leader, as was Paul. This may be seen from the fact that notwithstanding the urgent solicitation of Paul, he positively declined to visit Corinth at that time. This was no doubt with a view to avoid giving any fresh fuel to the strife which had already sprung up. (Comp. 1Co 4:6; 1Co 16:12). Respecting him see Act 18:24 etc.; Act 19:1; also Osiander on our passage [and Smith, Bible Dict.]. That he was a humble man, one who did not pride himself upon his culture, one of the few wise after the flesh, who had been early called (1Co 1:26) and had sanctified their science by faith in Christ, to whom they made it subservient, is clear from his willingness to be instructed by those simple mechanics, Aquila and Priscilla. Far from wishing to outbid Paul for influence and popularity, he labored only to confirm believers by a cautious reference to the Prophecies of the Old Testament. We find him once more mentioned commendatorily in Tit 3:13. Highly probable is the suggestion, first made by Luther, and afterwards ably advocated by Bleek, that he was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Osiander calls this Epistle a most noble monument, both of his genius, which harmoniously combined human culture and Divine illumination, and of his style of doctrine, which was directed mainly to the work of atonement, and to the illustration of the fulfilment of the Old Covenant in the New, &c.I of Cephas,(i. e.) Peter, without doubt. It was his Aramean name, found also at ix. 5; xv. 5; Gal. ii. 9. Whether the party following him adopted this name, because they derived it through Jewish emissaries out of Syria, or be cause it seemed to them, more sacred as coming from the mouth of our Lord (Joh 1:42), or because the Shibboleth of a vernacular word sounded more imposingly, we are not able to decide. It is more probable that the Jewish name was the more common one with Paul. Only once in Gal 2:7 ff, do we find him using the Greek name: Peter.I of Christ.As a supplement to what was said in the Introduction on this point, see Meyer in loco. We here give the main particulars. First, according to a fair exegesis it must be maintained that the parties were four in number. A like needless and inadmissible is the attempt to resolve them, either into two essentially identical pairs (as Baur does, who distinguishes between that of Paul and that of Apollos only in form, and takes that of Christ to be the same as that of Peter, which only assumed this cognomen because it deemed a genuine Apostleship dependent on personal connection with Christ, or which, as Beeker thinks, consisted of native Jewish converts connected with the Petrinists that had come in from abroad, but had Called themselves Christians because they had been converted by Paul and Apollos); or into two main parties: that of the Apostles and that of Christ, the three first adhering to Apostles or Apostolic teachers, and the fourth going back immediately to Christ (as Neander and others do); or into three parties, in such a way as either to set that of Christ as the only rightly disposed one, in contrast with the others as sectarian, see iii. 23, (as Schott and the Greek expositors); or to assign the designation of Christ to the three parties in.common who all professed themselves Christs, but who desired to have their participation in him regarded as dependent on their connection with this or that teacher (as Rbiger: I belong indeed to Christ, but it is as a Pauliner and am nevertheless a true Christian). But Calovus hit the truth long ago, when he said even those who called themselves Christians from Christ were guilty of schism, since they separated themselves from the rest in a schismatic spirit and insisted on appropriating this term to themselves alone. To this we may add what Flacius writes, Under the pretext of Christs name they scorned all teachers and would have, nothing to do with them, pretending that they were wise enough for themselves without the aid of other instructors. For there was sin on both sides, either by exalting Church teachers too much or by appreciating them too little. As soon as the knowledge of Christ came to be established in the Church, there may have been persons, who, in opposition to an over-estimate of all human instrumentalities, held to an independent Christianity, and so were easily brought to look away from these instrumentalities altogether, and with utter contempt of their worth and authority, fell into the way of asserting their exclusive dependence upon Christ, and so, priding themselves on this point, got to regard themselves as his sole genuine disciples, and tried to pass for such. To seek for this class exclusively among Jewish or among Gentile converts (the philosophically educated to whom Christ appeared like a second perhaps higher Socrates, and who, despising the Apostolic form of the doctrine of Christ, sought to refine it by philosophical criticism. Neander) is altogether unwarranted. The few philosophically educated Gentile converts could easily have satisfied themselves with the tendencies of the Apollos party. Nor are we justified in tracing to these the beginning of Gnosticism or Ebionitism, or in charging upon them a looseness in morals and a denial of the doctrine of the resurrection. According to Roman Catholic expositors, the party of Apollos were in danger of falling into a false spiritualism which volatilized the positive contents of Christianity; the party of Peter contained the germs of the later sect of Ebionites; and the type of the party of Christ was an ecclesiastical liberalism.

1Co 1:13. The reproof, in the form of questions which expose the absurdity of the partisanship just charged.Is Christ divided ?There is a doubt whether this should be read as a question or as a simple declaration. Meyer and others [likewise Stanley following Lachmann] take it as an emphatic assertion of the lamentable results of the aforenamed divisions: Christ has been divided! torn up into various sect-Christs instead of being, entirely and undividedly the Christ common to all! Since each of the exclusive parties claimed to have him, their conduct was virtually a rending of Christ. But ever since Chrysostom, commentators have generally regarded the words as a question. This would be more conformable to the analogy of the other clauses, and be just as forcible. Besides the subsequent question is of different import, so that it is not to be expected he would connect the second to the first with an or, as in the case of the third which is but a correlate to the second. This is what Bengel means. The cross and baptism claim us for Christ. The correlatives are, redemption and self consecration.To the sound consciousness of a true Christian who knows but one Christ, the bond of universal fellowship, such partisanship is a contradiction. It involves a division of Christ against himself, since the parties, who exclude each other, all think to have him. Hence the question, Is Christ divided? Is there a Pauline, an Apollonian, a Petrine, a Christian Christ? Thus we apply the question to all parties alike; and not, merely to the fourth, as Baur does, who takes Paul to imply, that the name of Christ employed as a party designation was the most significant evidence, that they by their sectarianism, had rent Christ in pieces. Every party, he says, must still, as a Christian party, have thought to have Christ. If then there were but one proper Christ-party, it followed that the one Christ, in whom all distinctions ought to vanish, was rent asunder (Tb. Zeitschrift, 1836, s. 4). It is clear in this case that the clause is not to be taken as a question. Under the term Christ, we are to undertsand not the Church as a mystical body of Christ (Estius, Olsh.), still less Christian doctrine, the Gospel (Grotius), but the Person of Christ, as the Head of the Church, in opposition to all party leaders. This is evident from the following questions, in which the exclusive right of Christ as Lord over His redeemed ones, and their obligations to Him as having been baptized into His name, are set forth: Was Paul crucified for you?Lit: Paul surely was not crucified for you; was He? [The question is introduced here with the negative Particle . Meyer adduces this as an argument to prove that the previous clause which is without , is consequently to be read differently, as a declaration. To this Alford replies, that the introduces a new form of interrogation respecting a new person, viz. Paul; and that it was natural for solemnitys sake to express the other question differently. In the majesty of Christs person is set against the unworthy insinuation conveyed in: is dividedin , the meanness of the individual Paul is set against the triumph of Divine love implied in was crucified for you.] With the strictest impartiality, which here appears as the truest prudence, he rebukes first the partisan attachment to his own person, and makes those, who set him up as their leader, to feel his painful disapproval of their course. Such persons while boasting of their connection with him, were as assigning to him a position which belonged to Christ alone. They were acting on the supposition that he had suffered for them, an act which was the ground of their belonging to Christ, who through His sacrifice for sinners had acquired the right to their undivided devotion (comp. 2Co 5:15). [If (as Socinianism alleges) the sufferings of Christ were merely exemplary, there would be no such absurdity or simplicity, as St. Paul here assumes to exist, in comparing the sufferings of Christ to the sufferings of Paul Words]. To this ground of claim there corresponds the question expressing and confirming their personal objection.Or were ye baptized unto the name of Paul?That is: was the name of Paul called over you at your baptism, as though he were the person to whom you pledged yourselves, and in whom ye believed and whom you professed as your Lord and Saviour? This is certainly the sense, although the baptism into the name may be regarded primarily as submersion into it as a persons life element; so also as an introduction into fellowship with the party named as into an essential ground of salvation; or as immersion in reference to him, so that the obligation to profess faith in that which is expressed by the name is indicated (comp. on Mat 28:19). The fact that Paul puts his name for all the rest proves how ingenuously he was opposed to all this party spirit, and how humbly he was anxious that Christs name should not be prejudiced through his own Neander.

1Co 1:14-16. I thank God that I baptized none of you.The Apostle recognizes as a thank worthy Providence that he had been kept, for the most part, from administering baptism, since he had thereby obviated all appearance of intention to bind the baptized to his own person, an appearance which certainly would have arisen had he here acted contrary to his usual custom elsewhere;but Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, converted through Paul (Act 18:8),and Gaius, certainly not the one of Derby (Act 20:4), but the same as that Gaius mentioned in Rom 15:23, a man of distinction, who entertained Paul, and with him the Church, either by furnishing his house as a place for meeting, or by receiving there such of the Church as wished to visit Paulin order that no one should sayBy this is expressed not the design of the Apostle, but the Divine intention in ordering his conduct in such a way.While writing he recalls another exception, perhaps from information derived from Stephanas himself, who was with him.And I baptized also the household of Stephanasthe family whom in 1Co 16:15 he calls the first fruits of Achaia. includes also the domestics. [Under the old dispensation, whenever any one professed Judaism, or entered into covenant with God, as one of his people, all his children and dependents, that is, all to whom he stood in a representative relation, were included in the covenant, and received its sign. In like manner, under the Gospel, when a Jew or Gentile joined the Church, his children received baptism and were recognized as members of the Christian Church Hodge]. In order to avoid all blame for want of frankness he adds, besides I know not whether I baptized any other.[Inspiration, although it rendered him infallible, did not make him omniscient]. It will be seen that he baptized only the first converts, afterwards, when these multiplied, he transferred the business to helpers, possibly also to deacons, to whose functions this in course belonged. In like manner Peter (Act 10:48). On this point he next proceeds to explain himself more fully by stating the veiw he took of his office.

1Co 1:17.a For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel.Sent: a plain allusion here to his office as The appointment to this office did indeed include the work of baptizing (Mat 28:19). But in Mar 16:15, as well as in Luk 24:47; Act 1:8, and Joh 15:27, the work of preaching, of bearing testimony concerning Christ, appears to be the chief calling of an Apostle. And so it was in the calling of Paul (Act 9:15; Act 22:15; Act 26:16-18 comp. Gal 1:16). The preaching which awakened faith, was the proper entrance upon the work of Christ, who indeed never Himself baptized but only through His disciples (Joh 4:2). [The main thing in the commission was to make disciples. To recognize them as such by baptism, was subordinate, though commanded, and not to be safely neglected. In the Apostolic form of religion, truth stood immeasurably above external rites. The Apostasy of the Church consisted in making rites more important than the truth Hodge].Whether we are to assume here, as Calvin does, an ironical hit intended at the opposers, who employed the easier function to gain adherents, may be doubted. The supposition that they did so, is, at least, uncertain. The word : to evangelize, in classic usage, and commonly in the Old Testament, like employed to denote the announcement of all sorts of good news, is in the New Testament used solely in regard to the good tidings, by way of preminence, the proclamation of salvation in Christ, and the fulfilment of the promises and the perfect revelation of divine grace before prepared (Isa 40:9; Isa 52:7; Isa 60:6; Isa 61:1, &c.The contrast in not,but, is not to be weakened into a comparative, not so much as. Baptism was not the object of his commission, although it was allowed to him. (Act 9:15; Act 9:20; Act 22:15; Act 26:16-18.)

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The Church is essentially one, as a body subject to Jesus Christ, the one perfect Lord and Head, who has an absolute right over all its members by virtue of His complete self-offering in their behalf, and to whom they are absolutely bound by being taken up into fellowship with Him, as the element of their life and the sole ground of their salvation. It can properly be divided no more than Christ Himself can be divided. [This unity consists of onenesss of sentiment, of conviction and of speech. That is, there must be an inward and an outward unity, an invisible and a visible unity; the former manifesting itself in the later, the latter sustained by the former. The pretence of the one is not sufficient without the other.See this. whole matter exhaustively discussed by Baxter on Catholic Unity, Reasons for Christian Unity and Concord, The Catholic Church Described, Practical Works, vol. 4.; Litton On the Church of Christ, B. 2. part 2. chap. 1; John M. Mason, Complete Works, vol. 2. p. 265; Emmons Works, vol. 2. sec. 13].

2. All sectarianism arising out of an inordinate preference for favorite teachers is a sin. It raptures this unity by limiting Christs right over us and our subjection to Him. It concedes to a mere man, to his peculiar opinions and ways and doctrines, something of that power and importance which belong to Christ alone; inasmuch as it binds men, and would fain bind all, to these objects, as if on these our whole salvation depended; causes them to move in these as the very element of their existence; draws to these their entire devotion, and so makes a human personality with all its individuality and singularity an essential mediator of spiritual life, which comes alone by truth and grace.

3. The proper view of Christ and of the instrumentalities He employs in their relation to Him is the true antidote against schismatical tendencies. Christ is the fountain-head of truth and grace, in whom all fulness dwells, and from whom all believers, whether teachers or taught, derive their spiritual excellencies; Where this truth is recognized, there there can be no inordinate devotion to human agencies. These agencies can be regarded only as the various imperfect rays of the One Light, which, so far from detaining us by themselves, should conduct us up to the source from whence they stream. Yet just as little does it become us to despise these human agencies, and withdraw into our own particular knowledge and experience of Christ, as though we were sufficient unto ourselves. Rather it must appear to us that, the more superabundant and glorious the fulness of Christ is, the greater must be the necessity for numerous and manifold vessels to take it up, from various sides and according to their several capacities, and to present it to others in ways suited to their manifold necessities, so that persons shall be most easily led, one through one and another through another, into a participation of the riches of Christ, according to their several aptitudes and needs.

But the more this is done in truth the more open does a person gradually become to other aspects of Christ and to other organs of His, And this will lead us, on the one hand, to a just estimate of these organs themselves, and, on the other hand, to modesty of deportment and to a loving regard for such as were first led to Christ and edified by this or that teacher. And while the interested adherence to one particular aspect of Christ leads to a division of the one Christ in our feelings, and then to a rupture of the Church into parties, which deny to each other the full and proper enjoyment of salvation, and shut themselves up against each other in those aspects of the life and character of Christ which have been exhibited to them through the several organs they have chosen, the procedure we have been advocating conducts at last to a perfect unity of conviction and sentiment, which, precluding all division, makes itself known in unity of speech, wherein the manifold voices confessing the one all-embracing, all-suffering Christ, blend in harmony. This is a catholicity which is to be found as little in Romish Christianity as in the coagulations of a Lutheran or Calvanistic specialty.
4. [Sectarianism; its nature and origin; a historical survey of it in its existing aspects]. The tendency to sectarianism lies in human selfishness and stubbornness of opinion, in conceit and egoism. Sectarianism does not consist in holding fast to our profession for conscience sake, but in using our own form of doctrine or religion as a means for exalting ourselves and for ruling over or opposing others. And this is not confined to leaders alone. That sectary who does not feel strong or courageous enough to take the lead, will at least join himself with ambitious devotion to some other person better able to do it, in whose honor and glory he may share. But Christianity refuses to be sectarian at all. How then, it may be asked, do existing divisions comport with it? They arise, under the Providence of God, out of the diversity of human opinions. Only, these denominations ought not to hate one another, but they ought to plant themselves on the one common ground, Christ, and recognize each other there.The one Christ can have but one doctrine and one church. But under the hands of men Christianity disintegrates into parties. From this arises a necessity for our choosing that party which seems to us the purest and most Christian. Parties were unavoidable. God suffered them that they might become instrumental in exciting Christians to greater zeal, to mutual purification, and to the exercise of kindly forbearance towards each other. Toleration is a word which should not be spoken among Christians; for toleration is a very proud, intolerant word. Heubner.

Our confessions (Greek, Romish, Evangelical, with all their divisions) are, on the one hand, historical necessities; they resulted from the gradual working out of Christian ideas or principles, such as the Theocratic, the Hierarchical, and the Protestant, which is the principle of freedom, subject only to the word of God. On the other hand, they result from the disturbance occasioned by sin in the development of Christian truth and life. This is true even in respect to their national forms: the Greek, the Roman, the German, and the mixture of the latter with Roman and other elements. Hence the petrifaction of the first principle (theocratic) in the Oriental Greek Church; of the second (the hierarchical) in the Occidental Romish Church, so that the third (the Protestant) came to an independent form in the sphere of German life, diiferencing itself only according to national peculiarities. In one place there was a rigid adherence to the letter, accompanied with great intellectual acumen and force of will; and in another larger freedom prevailed, associated with greater breadth and depth of spirit and sentiment. But on the part of both (the Reformed and the Lutheran) communions, the influence of the two first principles was again felt, and the result was a stiffening of life and form, which showed itself in the former case in an ever-increasingly superficial adherence to the letter of the Bible, and in the latter case in an external induration of a form of doctrine,which was originally free, and which asserted the freedom of the religious personality (justification by faith),until at last in both spheres a false freedom usurped the throne, a subjectivity emancipated from all obligations to the word of God; in other words, rationalism. And now the only proper return to unity can be effected by attaining unto the knowledge of the truth of the several principles above mentioned, and by fusing down in our living consciousness the stiff forms of the past, and with these the truth of all that has been transmitted to us, through a deeper penetration into the word, or rather into Christ Himself, who is the kernel and substance of the written Word; and through a more humble, self-denying appropriation of Him in our lives. Such a return is at the same time an advance towards the true union, which the spirit of God will create by the harmonious combination of diversities.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

1. The Apostolic exhortation to unity, addressed to a church torn by factions, and suited to Christendom at the present time. 1. Its matter: a. To speak the same thing, unity of confession; b. on the ground of unity of sentiment and views. 2. The motive of such unity: the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; a due regard for the interest all have in Him according as He has given Himself to be known, experienced and enjoyed by them (1Co 1:10-13).

2. The wrong of parties in Christendom; a, so far as they subordinate Christ to human leaders or put these literally into His place; b. so far as they are servilely dependent on such leaders and take pride in them; c. so far as they exclude, scorn and hate each other: d. so far as they boast of their partisanship in vain self sufficiency, and seek to glorify themselves and their leaders in it (1Co 1:12-13).

3. The proper conduct of a teacher towards such as are devoted to him: a. that he perpetually points them away from himself to Christ (1Co 1:10), while he never forgets that he and they alike are indebted to Christ for everything (1Co 1:13); b. that he ever keeps in view the main object of his calling, to preach Christ (1Co 1:17).

1Co 1:13-14. As the Corinthians made it a matter of great moment by whom they were baptized, instead of considering into whom they had been baptized, so now multitudes put a greater stress upon the party by whom they are confirmed, that into what and to what they are confirmed (Bibl. Wrterb., II. 79.)

Starke: 1Co 1:10. The noblest virtue which can befit Christians is brotherly union through the bond of love (Col 3:14), and this because of Christs command (Joh 13:34) and of his prayer (Joh 17:11), after the example of the Apostolic Church (Act 4:32) and the manifold exhortations of the Apostles (Php 2:1; 1Pe 3:8; Eph 4:2). Lange:The unity of the church is certainly much insisted on and very important. Yet we must take care not to prescribe one for another a form or a name according to our own opinions, especially in incidentals which do not belong to the fundamentals of faith. In these respects there must be variety of judgment. It is enough if we agree in all matters essential to salvation. Hed. (1Co 1:11):What a shame! Rending asunder the body of Christ! Who perpetrates the mischief? Not the peacemakers, not the confessors and friends of Christ, but the zealots without knowledge; those who love profane and vain babblings; impure spirits who preach Christ of contention. O man, study the precept which inculcates the restoration of the erring in a spirit of meekness (Gal 6:1) and exercise thyself therein. 1Co 1:11.Teachers should not believe every report, but should ascertain facts before they reprove. To give information at proper quarters from a desire to effect reform is no sin; only let care be taken not to exaggerate. 1Co 1:12.Honor is due to ministers, but they must not be served as lords. To call oneself Lutheran by way of distinction from the Papists or those belonging to other denominations, without adhering to Luther as authority, is not improper; but to do this in a sectarian spirit is just as wrong as it was for the Corinthians to say, I am of Paul. 1Co 1:13.The death of Christ is alone meritorious; no saint can merit anything for himself, much less have his merits imputed to others. 1Co 1:14-15.The care of Gods Providence over us can best be recognized in the issues of events, which is then to be acknowledged with reverence and gratitude even in the smallest particulars.

1Co 1:10. Burger: Speak the same thing; unnecessary, capricious deviation from the established forms of doctrine is a violation of the spirit of unity and love.

[There are many sore divisions at this day in the world among and between the professors of the Christian religion, both about the doctrine and worship of the Gospel, as also the discipline thereof. That these divisions are evil in themselves and the cause of great evils, hinderances of the Gospel, and all the effects thereof in the world, is acknowledged by all; and it is doubtless a thing to be greatly lamented that the generality of those who are called Christians are departed from the great rule of keeping the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. He who doth not pray always, who is not ready with his utmost endeavor to remedy this evil, to remove this great obstruction of the benefit of the Gospel is scarce worthy the name of a Christian. John Owen.]

[1Co 1:13. Calvin: Paul crucified for you!This passage militates against the wicked contrivance of Papists by which they attempt to bolster up their system of indulgences. For it is from the blood of Christ and the martyrs that they make up that imaginary treasure of the church which they pretend is dealt out by means of indulgences. Here, however, Paul in strong terms denies that any one but Christ has been crucified for us. The martyrs, it is true, died for our benefit, but (as Leo 14 observes) it was to furnish an example of perseverance, not to procure for us gifts of righteousness.]

1Co 1:14-17. [If the doctrine of baptismal regeneration be correct, Paul was instrumental in saving but few souls. Certainly the commission of modern Romish missionary seems to read the reverse of St. Pauls. He is sent to baptize, not to preach the Gospel.]

Footnotes:

[8]1Co 1:10.[: but, introduces a contrast to the thankful assurance just expressed.Alf.]

[9]1Co 1:10.[; obsecroa mixture of entreaty and command.Stanley.]

[10]1Co 1:10.[: but rather.Hartung, Parlikellcher, 1:171.]

[11]1Co 1:13.[Instead of some MSS. B. D.* have , but is in A. C. D.***E. F. G. L. and also in Cod. Sin.Words.]

[12]1Co 1:15.[ ; carries here a telic force.]

[13]1Co 1:15.Instead of , which is to he accounted for from its occurring in the next verse, Lachmann and Tischendorf [and Alford and Wordsworth] in accordance with the best authorities read .

[14]Leo the great ad Palstinos, Ep. 31. See the passage cited in full, Calvins Inst. (Lib. 3. cap. 5. 10.

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

(10) Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (11) For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. (12) Now this I say, that everyone of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. (13) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? (14) I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; (15) Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. (16) And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. (17) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

I would rather seek for grace from God the Spirit, to improve what the Apostle here observed on the contentions which brake out in the Corinthian Church, in relation to the present infirmities of the Lord’s people, than enter into an enquiry of what nature those contentions were. Certain it is, that the purest Churches have their spots, and too often, from the imperfection of all things here below, the Lord’s children fall out by the way. Instead of entering into the discussion, whether those divisions are about infant or adult baptism, kneeling or sitting in services, partiality to ministers, or forms of worship; I would beg the Reader to observe with me, the method Paul took to heal those quarrels. Paul did I say? not so, it is not Paul but God the Holy Ghost who speaks by Paul. His is the office to glorify Christ, and here he hath done it most blessedly. All that is done, or can be done to bless the Church, to heal divisions, and to unite the whole body in love, can only be in Christ, the glorious Head from whom all grace flows, and in whom all blessings are found. And where faith in Christ is in true lively actings upon his Person, blood, and righteousness, there will be found a common principle knitting and uniting the whole body together. It is worthy our closest observation, that in that sweet recommendatory prayer of the Lord Jesus, in which before his death, the Lord committed the whole body the Church into his Father’s hands to keep, and from whom Jesus had received it; this formed a most earnest part, and for which the Lord again and again repeated his desire, that his Church might be kept in sweet concord and union. Holy Father, (said Jesus,) keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are. And the Lord puts up again the same request three times more in the after part of the same chapter, Joh_17:11; Joh_17:21-23 . And it is truly blessed to observe, how the Apostles of this divine Lord, followed the same steps in praying for, and earnestly studying to accomplish the unity of the Church. See Rom 15:5-6 ; Phi 2:1-2 ; Col 3:12 ; 1Pe 3:8 ; 1Jn 4:7-12 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Ver. 10. That there be no divisions ] To break unity in the Church is to cut asunder the very veins and sinews of the mystical body of Christ.

By the name of our Lord ] Which is like to suffer by your dissensions, and whereof you ought to be as tender as of treading upon your parents that begat you.

Perfectly joined ] Schisms disjoint men; yea, shake them out of their senses, and frighten them out of their wits, 2Th 2:2 . See Trapp on “ 2Th 2:2 “

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

10. ] introduces the contrast to the thankful assurance just expressed.

. . , as , Rom 12:1 ; “as the bond of union, and as the most holy name by which they could be adjured.” Stanley.

(reff.) not only introduces the result of the fulfilment of the exhortation, but includes its import.

contrast to of 1Co 1:12 , but further implying the having the same sentiments on the subjects which divided them: see Phi 2:2 .

] here implies but rather , as in Thuc. ii. 98, , . Hartung Partikellehre, i. 171, gives many other examples. is the exact word for the healing or repairing of the breaches made by the , perfectly united . So Herod. v. 28, , .

(reff.), disposition , (do.), opinion .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

10 4:21. ] REPROOF OF THE PARTY-DIVISIONS AMONG THEM: BY OCCASION OF WHICH, THE APOSTLE EXPLAINS AND DEFENDS HIS OWN METHOD OF PREACHING ONLY CHRIST TO THEM.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 1:10-17 a . 3. THE REPORT ABOUT THE PARTIES, AND PAUL’S EXPOSTULATION. Without further preface, the Apostle warns the Cor [121] solemnly against their schisms (1Co 1:10 ), stating the testimony on which his admonition is based (1Co 1:11 ). The four parties are defined out of the mouths of the Cor [122] (1Co 1:12 ); and the Ap. protests esp. against the use of Christ’s name and of his own in this connexion (1Co 1:13 ). In founding the Church he had avoided all self-exaltation, bent only on fulfilling his mission of preaching the good news (1Co 1:14-17 a ).

[121] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[122] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1Co 1:10 . “But I exhort (appeal to) you, brothers:” the reproof to be given stands in painful contrast ( ) with the Thanksgiving. It is administered “through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,” which the Ap. has invoked so often (see note on 8); all the authority and grace of the Name reinforce his appeal, “that you say the same thing, all (of you),” instead of “saying, each of you, I am of Paul,” etc. (1Co 1:12 ). , “a strictly classical expression used of political communities which are free from factions, or of diff [123] states which entertain friendly relations with each other” (Lt [124] ). , in 2Co 13:11 , etc., is matter of temper and disposition; , of attitude and declaration: the former is opposed to self-interest, the latter to party zeal. On the weakened use of after (purpose passing into purport) see Wr [125] , pp. 420 ff.: more frequently in P., as in cl [126] usage, this vb [127] is construed with the inf [128] ; so always in Acts; with regularly in Synoptics. For the meanings of see 1Co 4:13 .

[123] difference, different, differently.

[124] J. B. Lightfoot’s (posthumous) Notes on Epp. of St. Paul (1895).

[125] Winer-Moulton’s Grammar of N.T. Greek (8th ed., 1877).

[126] classical.

[127] verb

[128] infinitive mood.

“And (that) there be not amongst you (clefts, splits),” defines negatively the . The schism (see parls.) is a party division within the Church, not yet, as in eccl [129] usage, a culpable separation from it; (1Co 1:11 ) signifies the personal contentions , due to whatever cause, which lead to ; (1Co 11:18 f.: see note) are divisions of opinion , or sects founded thereupon (Act 5:17 , etc.), implying a disagreement of principle. The schism is a rent in the Church, an injury to the fabric ( cf. 1Co 3:17 , 1Co 12:25 ); hence the further appeal, reverting to the positive form of expression, “but that you be well and surely (pf. ptp [130] ) adjusted” ( coagmentati , Bg [131] ) “the exact word for the healing or repairing of the breaches caused by the ” (Al [132] ). has a like political sense in cl [133] Gr [134] (Herod., iv. 161; 1Co 1:28 , in opp [135] to ); “the marked classical colouring of such passages as this leaves a much stronger impression of St. Paul’s acquaintance with cl [136] writers than the rare occasional quotations which occur in his writings” (Lt [137] ). “In the same discernment ( ), and in the same judgment ( )”: “ geht auf die Einsicht, auf das Urtheil” (Hn [138] ); gnom is the application of nous in practical judgment (see parls.). P. desiderates that and (see Thucyd., 2:97, 8:75; Aristot., Polit. , 1Co 1:6 ; 1Co 1:10 ; Demosth., 281. 21) in Christian matters, which will enable the Church to act as one body and to pursue Christ’s work with undivided strength.

[129] ecclesiastical.

[130] participle

[131] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[132] Alford’s Greek Testament .

[133] classical.

[134] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.

[135] opposite, opposition.

[136] classical.

[137] J. B. Lightfoot’s (posthumous) Notes on Epp. of St. Paul (1895).

[138] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 1:10-17

10Now 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. 11For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. 12Now 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.” 13Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. 16Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17For 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.

1Co 1:10 “Now” This is an adversative. Paul begins the main body of the letter.

“I exhort you” This phrase was both tender and tough. It was a call to appropriate living as well as an authoritative challenge. Paul often used this term (cf. 1Co 1:10; 1Co 4:16; 1Co 16:15; 2Co 2:8; 2Co 5:20; 2Co 6:1; 2Co 10:1; 2Co 12:1; 2Co 12:8; 2 Cor. 15:30; Eph 4:1; Php 4:2; 1Th 4:10; 1Ti 1:3; Phm 1:9-10). See full note at 2Co 1:4-11.

SPECIAL TOPIC: COMFORT

“brethren” Paul uses the term “brethren” or “brother” often. Even though Paul had to exhort this congregation with strong words they still are his brothers and sisters in Christ.

Paul often uses this term to signal a new subject, but in this book he also uses it to signal the oneness of this church with both Paul and the other churches.

“by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” In Jewish life the name represented one’s character and authority. Here the Phillips translation caught the essence “by all that our Lord Jesus Christ means to you.”

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE NAME OF THE LORD

“that you all agree” There are two present active subjunctives in Paul’s purpose (i.e., hina) clause.

1. that there may not continue to be dissensions (present active subjunctive)

2. that they may (present active subjunctive) be having been knit together (i.e., perfect passive participle, which makes this a periphrastic).

These subjunctives add a note of contingency. There were divisions and these factions were not knit together. The necessary attitudes and actions to maintain unity are listed in Eph 4:2-3.

Paul’s desire for this church reflects Jesus’ prayer in Joh 17:11; Joh 17:21-23, “that they may be one, even as We are.” This is also the thrust of Eph 4:1-6. Unity (not uniformity) is crucial for a healthy, growing, Great Commission church (cf. Php 1:27). Lack of unity results in blinded minds (cf. 2Co 3:14; 2Co 4:4; 2Co 11:3).

“there be no divisions among you” This term (i.e., schismata) was used in Koine Greek of factious political parties (cf. Act 14:4; Act 23:7). We get the English word, “schism,” from this Greek term. This was one of the major problems in this church (cf. 1Co 11:18-19; 1Co 12:25). These divisions were based on

1. believers’ personal preference for certain leadership skills (i.e., rhetoric)

2. believers’ pride and jealousy over spiritual gifts

3. believers’ recognition of economic categories (i.e., rich and poor)

4. believers’ prejudice over social rank (i.e., slave and free)

5. believers’ racial pride (i.e., Jew and Gentile)

6. believers’ jealousy or pride over marital status (i.e., married and unmarried)

7. believers’ pride over intellectual prowess (i.e., first century educational elitism, sophists)

In many ways this emphasis on arrogance, pride, dogmatism, and personal preference describes the modern church’s denominational confusion. Each group claims to be number one following their human leaders (i.e., Luther, Calvin, Arminius, Wesley, etc.). Each group thinks they exclusively reflect God’s mind. Oh, the continuing need for humility and teachability. All those who continually call on Jesus’ name are His church!

“that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment” The Today’s English Version (TEV) translation has “completely united with only one thought and one purpose.” That purpose is the Kingdom of God, the gospel, the Great Commission, personal holiness, not personal biases, preferences, or agendas!

1Co 1:11 “Chloe’s people” We know nothing about this lady except that perhaps she was a member of the church at Corinth or at least her workers were members. Her name was a nickname for the agriculture goddess, Demeter. Her servants are one source of Paul’s knowledge about the problems which had developed within the house churches at Corinth. See Introduction, VI. A.

“that there are quarrels among you” This same term (i.e., eris) is listed in fruits of the flesh in Gal 5:20, which characterizes fallen, angry, selfish people. It is also listed in several other Pauline lists of sins (cf. 1Co 3:3; 2Co 12:20; 1Ti 6:4). It should never, never characterize the church of Jesus Christ!

1Co 1:12 This seems to be a list of the factions (i.e., Paul’s group, Apollos’ group, Peter’s group, Jesus’ group). Much has been made of the characteristics of the leaders (i.e., Paul = freedom party, which included Gentiles by faith alone; Apollos = philosophical party; Cephas = Jewish traditionalist or legalistic party, cf. 2Co 11:18-33); Christ = those of special rank, calling, giftedness, or spirituality (cf. possibly 2Co 12:1). However, there is no certain information in the NT about the theology or motivation of each group. These leaders themselves were not factious. It was the groups at Corinth who claimed them as their champions who were factious.

“Apollos” This was a highly educated and eloquent preacher from Alexandria, Egypt. He was in Corinth (cf. Act 18:24 to Act 19:1), but he refused to go back (cf. 1Co 16:12). He was just the kind of leader this church was drawn to.

“Cephas” This is the Aramaic equivalent to the Greek name, Peter. It is uncertain if Peter was ever in Corinth. If not, this may reflect a “Judaistic” party (cf. Galatians and possibly 2 Corinthians).

“I of Christ” It is uncertain if this is Paul’s reaction to the leader-oriented factions or another factious group who claimed only Christ as their leader. Clement of Rome, who wrote to Corinth in A.D. 95 (i.e., I Clem. 48) does not mention a Christ’s party, although he does mention the other factious groups. This supports the view that this may be an exclamation by Paul. They may choose to acknowledge and follow human leaders, but he lifts up and belongs to Christ alone!

Other scholars have supposed that this may have been a group that claimed a special knowledge of Jesus or a special revelation from Jesus or a special relationship to Jesus (i.e., an elite, Gnostic-type faction). But again, this is uncertain and mere speculation. There is so much we do not know about the first and second century church.

1Co 1:13 This verse records Paul’s horrified reaction. “Has Christ been cut up?” This is a perfect passive indicative, implying Christ has been and remains divided by the attitudes and actions of these factions at Corinth. If this is a question, then a “yes” response is expected.

The Papyri manuscript which was written in the A.D. 200’s, has a textual variant, “Christ cannot be divided” (but this papyri has been damaged and the text is unsure). The most ancient and reliable Greek uncial manuscripts, , A, B, C, D, F, and G, delete the negative and, thereby, make this (1) a question; (2) an exclamation; or (3) a statement. The UBS4 gives the shorter text an A rating (certain).

“Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul” These are Paul’s emphatic statements of Christ’s supremacy (i.e., depreciating himself) possibly addressed to these factious groups or at least the group that was called by his name. This question expects a “no” answer.

1Co 1:14 “Crispus” This is the person mentioned in Act 18:8 who was the leader of the synagogue in Corinth who accepted Christ. Act 18:8 also mentions that he was baptized along with his household (cf. 1Co 1:16). Apparently Paul performed this “household” baptism. In the ancient world when the head of the household converted, usually the entire house converted. This would normally include the children and servants, if there were any. For my full note see Act 16:5 online at www.freebiblecommentary.org .

“Gaius” This person may be the one mentioned in Rom 16:23, in whose house the church at Corinth met. His full Roman name would be Gaius Titus Justus.

1Co 1:16 “Stephanas” This is the person mentioned in 1Co 16:15; 1Co 16:17. He was one of the three church members who brought a letter from the church to Paul at Ephesus. See Introduction, VI. A.

1Co 1:17 “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach” This is not meant to disparage baptism, but to react to the factious spirit in the church of Corinth that was lifting up certain leaders. However, this statement does indicate that baptism was not seen as a “sacramental” agency of grace. It is surprising that some interpret Paul’s writings in a sacramental sense when in all his writings he specifically mentions the Lord’s Supper only once in 1 Corinthians 11 and baptism twice, in Rom 6:1-11 and Col 2:12. However, baptism is the will of God for every believer:

1. it is the example of Jesus (Mat 3:13-17)

2. it is the command of Jesus (Matt. 28:28-30)

3. it is the expected, normal procedure for all believers (Romans 6; Act 2:38)

I do not believe it is the channel for receiving the grace of God or the Spirit. It was that public opportunity for new believers to express their faith in a very public and decisive way. No NT believer would ask, “Must I be baptized to be saved?” Jesus did it! Jesus commanded the church to do it! Do it!

SPECIAL TOPIC: BAPTISM

NASB”not in cleverness of speech”

NKJV”not with wisdom of words”

NRSV”not with eloquent wisdom”

TEV”without using the language of men’s wisdom”

NJB”not by means of wisdom of language”

The term sophia (i.e., cleverness or wisdom) in 1Co 1:17-24 is used in its human orientation (i.e., worldly wisdom, human wisdom, fallen wisdom). Human eloquence and/or wisdom cannot take the place of God’s good news in Christ’s substitutionary death. The power is in the message, not in the messenger (i.e., not even in Paul, cf. 2Co 10:10; 2Co 11:6). A segment of this church prided themselves in rhetoric (see Bruce W. Winter, Philo and Paul Among the Sophists). A group of Jewish-oriented false teachers will later come to Corinth and attack Paul for his lack of rhetorical speaking skills in 2 Corinthians 10-13. No flesh will glory before God (cf. 1Co 1:29; Eph 2:9).

“so that the cross of Christ would not be made void” If humans could save themselves through their actions or intellect, then Christ’s death would not have been necessary! But, they could/can not! The power of the cross is God’s complete provision through Christ. Everything that needs to be done for the whole world to be saved is finished, complete, and available in the life, teachings, death, resurrection, ascension, and coming again of Christ, to which humans can only respond/receive by faith.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

Now = But.

beseech = exhort. App-134.

that = in order that. Greek. hina.

speak = say.

no = not. App-105.

divisions. Greek. schisma. Elsewhere, 1Co 11:18; 1Co 12:25. Mat 9:16 (rent). Mar 2:21 (rent). Joh 7:43; Joh 9:16; Joh 10:19. Hence Engl. “schism”.

among. App-104.

perfectly joined together = -fitted, or perfected. Figure of speech Pleonasm. App-6. See App-125.

judgment = opinion. App-177.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

10-4:21.] REPROOF OF THE PARTY-DIVISIONS AMONG THEM: BY OCCASION OF WHICH, THE APOSTLE EXPLAINS AND DEFENDS HIS OWN METHOD OF PREACHING ONLY CHRIST TO THEM.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 1:10.[3] , Now) The connection of the introduction and discussion: You have [already sure] the end and your hope, maintain also love. Brethren, is a title or address suitable to the discussion, on which he is now entering.-) by. This is equivalent to an adjuration.- , of the Lord) Paul wishes that Christ alone should be all things to the Corinthians; and it is on this account, that he so often names Him in this chapter.- , ye may speak the same thing) In speaking they differed from one another; 1Co 1:12.-, divisions) antithetic to , joined together: comp. Mat 4:21. Schism, a division of minds [sentiments]: Joh 7:43; Joh 9:16.-, in the mind) within, as to things to be believed.-, judgment) displayed, in things to be done. This corresponds to the words above, that ye [all] speak [the same thing].

[3] , I exhort) Though they required reproof, he employs a word, that takes the form of exhortation.-V. g.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 1:10

1Co 1:10

Now I beseech you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,-Paul, as a brother in Christ, tenderly entreats them from God, speaking for Jesus Christ and by his authority (2Co 5:20), [not to let any other name eclipse the name of Jesus Christ, by making it a rallying point around which to gather.]

that ye all speak the same thing,-To speak the same thing is to speak only as they were taught by the Holy Spirit, with which he had told them they had been richly endowed.

and that there be no divisions among you;-They were divided over their favorite teachers or ministers. [The divisions which existed in Corinth were not of the nature of hostile sects refusing communion with each other, but such as may exist in the bosom of the same congregation, consisting in alienation of feeling and party strife.]

but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment.-To be of the same mind and the same judgment must be practical among Christians, else Paul would not have urged it. But it is practical only when all follow the things taught by the Lord. By deferring our judgment to his teaching and following the same we can be one. When we change things which God directs or add things not taught by God, we will differ and divide. In any matter not taught by God involving no fidelity to his laws or to institutions, each must defer to the other.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Lecture 3

Baptized Unto Whose Name?

1Co 1:10-17

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect, (vv. 10-17)

We have seen that God has established a wonderfully blessed fellowship here on earth into which He has called His saints: God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto [or into] the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. The fellowship of Gods Son is that communion of saints embracing all believers everywhere, all who have been washed from their sins in the precious blood of Christ and are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Men have formed denominations, and so the visible church of God is, in our day, divided into a great many different factions, and unhappily, some of these factions are very markedly un-Christian in their attitude toward others. Yet in all real Christian groups there are those who belong to the fellowship of Gods Son and who, I am sure, are often troubled and distressed as they think of the way Christians are divided among themselves. I have heard people justify these denominational divisions by saying that each one represents a different regiment in the army of the Lord. As you have in the army the cavalry, the infantry, the artillery, the air corps, and the engineers, so we have all these different denominations, and each one can choose for himself just which one he prefers, for taking them all together they represent the one army of the Lord. This is a very comfortable way of looking at it if one does not want to have his conscience exercised by present-day conditions, but the fact of the matter is that Scripture tells us that divisions are the work of the flesh. It is not the Spirit of God who divides His people into these different groups. It is the work of the flesh in believers that leads them thus to separate one from another into different companies. You say, What shall we do under such circumstances? Shall we leave them all and start another company? In what sense would you then be better than they? This would simply add one more to the many divisions of Christendom. What shall we do? Shall we not recognize the fact that in spite of mans divisions there remains one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling (Eph 4:4), and so welcome all real believers who hold the truth of God as fellow members with us in the body of Christ and thus endeavor to rise above the spirit of sectarianism and denominationalism which prevails in so many places.

It is not denominationalism directly, however, that the apostle is rebuking in this passage. It was rather incipient divisions in the local church; for these Corinthian believers were not as yet separated from one another into various sects. But in the one local church in Corinth there were different cliques and factions, and so there was dissension and trouble. They were losing sight of the blessedness of true Christian fellowship.

Notice how the apostle addresses them, Now I beseech you, brethren. How in keeping that is with grace. Where grace rules, I command, becomes, I beseech. I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. The admonition is to refrain from murmuring and complaining and from factiousness in the local assembly of Christ in order that all may be bound up in the same mind and in the same judgment. Of course, the Spirit of God speaking through the apostle does not attempt to force all believers to look at everything from exactly the same standpoint. That will never be. No two people ever see the same rainbow. If you stood near me looking at a rainbow, you would see it differently from what I would, because you would be a little away from me and get a slightly different view, and then, too, my eyes are very astigmatic and yours may be perfect. How foolish it would be for us to stand there and quarrel about the rainbow, about its tints, and so on. Rather let me say, I am so glad you are able to see it so much more clearly than I, that with your perfect eyes you can get so much better a view of it than I with my astigmatic vision. And you can think kindly of me and say, Well, I hope the day may come when you will be able to see as clearly as I do. That is the way the apostle puts it in his letter to the Philippians, If in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto youWhereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing (3:15-16). We do not see eye to eye even as we read the Scripture. So much depends on our education, on our cultural standards, on our environment. We often misunderstand statements of Scripture because of not being more familiar with the languages in which the Bible was originally written.

You say, But it says we are to be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. How can that be if we do not all see eye to eye about everything? If we were to insist that we could have no real fellowship unless we did this, I am afraid our church fellowship would become a very small circle indeed. I do not know where you could find a dozen people who see eye to eye on everything. We have all laughed at the old Quaker who left one meeting-place after another, and finally someone said to him, Well, what church are you in now?

He said, I am in the true church at last.

How many belong to it?

Just my wife and myself, and I am not sure about Mary sometimes.

It would simmer down to that if we could not have fellowship with any except those who see things exactly as we do. But what about the same mind? We have the mind of Christ. The same mind-that is the lowly mind, the subject mind, the mind that was displayed in Jesus. You may look at things one way and I look at them differently, but if we have the mind of Christ we are not going to quarrel, but will get along in real happy fellowship considering one another and praying for one another. And then, the same judgment-what does that mean? We read that we are to increase in knowledge and in all judgment. That does not mean judging one another, but it means discernment.

Every believer has the Spirit of God dwelling within him to give him discernment, and when things come up about which we differ, if we depend upon the guidance of the Spirit of God, He will give the discernment we need. I am afraid some of us never get very far in real discernment, and the reason is that we neglect the study of our Bibles. We are called a royal priesthood. In the Old Testament times no man was allowed to be a priest who had a flat nose. What does the nose speak of? It speaks of discernment. Some dish is brought to you and you smell it. You have discerned that there is something wrong with it and do not want to eat it.

Out among the Navajo Indians they had a peculiar idea about the nose. One old Navajo said to me, Long Coat, where is the mind located?

I said, It functions through the brain.

No, he said, it is the nose.

Why do you say that?

Well, when you want to go anywhere, doesnt your nose settle it first and then you follow it? When you come to a corner, your nose turns first and then the rest of you goes after it, and when you want to know whether to eat a thing, dont you use your nose first to find whether it is suitable?

He was a wise Navajo. The nose does speak of discernment, and a flat-nosed priest was one who could not discern, and God said that he could not serve. I am afraid many of us as believers are flat-nosed. We are taken up with almost anything that seems to have some scriptural backing, and we listen to all kinds of teaching, and pay little attention to the careful study of the Word of God. People say, I go anywhere; I listen to everything, for I can get a little good out of everything. If you do this, you will soon lose all ability to discern the truth as it is in Jesus. It is barely possible that one could so train his digestive powers as to get nourishment out of sawdust, but why eat that when you can eat good substantial oatmeal? And what is the use of going after all kinds of fads and follies when you can have the pure unadulterated Word of God? Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (Joh 8:32).

Now the apostle gives one of his reasons for writing this letter. It hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Observe first, the apostle has heard a bad report about these Corinthians. He writes them about it and tells them exactly who brought the bad report. He would have no sympathy with these anonymous letter-writers who write, Dear Pastor: Perhaps you do not know it, but there is a woman in the church doing very prominent work who is a thorough hypocrite. I hope you will see that she is disciplined. Sincerely yours, A lover of Christ. The apostle would never pay any attention to a thing like that, nor would he have any sympathy with the person who came to him and said, Brother Paul, I am sorry to speak to you about this, but there is one of our brethren-dont for anything say that I told you-but Mr. So and So, oh, Brother Paul, it is perfectly dreadful-I do hope you will do what you can-but dont give him the least idea that I told you. I think Paul would say sternly, What business do you have coming to me slandering a brother when you are not willing to face him openly about it? And so when they sent a bad report to Paul regarding these Corinthians, he wrote them about it and said, I received this report from the house of Chloe. If it is not true, the house of Chloe would have to face the fact that they had been guilty of libeling the Corinthians. In this case it was true, but Paul is straightforward about it and said, It hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you-there was division right in the local assembly of Corinth. Then he uses an illustration to show what he means. Every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

I am of Paul-Paul, the teacher. I like real Bible teaching, I do not have much use for this other kind of thing, I am not interested in evangelism and exhortation. I like Brother Paul, for he feeds my soul-I am of Paul. And another said, I am of Apollos. Apollos was an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures. I like a man who can stand up and give a wonderful oration, a man who can give a great address winding up with a marvelous peroration that almost brings you out of your seat. That is the man for me. I am not concerned about these dry Bible teachers, I want something to thrill my blood and stir my soul. And then others said, I am of Cephas. I like these practical men, these exhorters, Cephas, the man who over and over again used the words, I stir you up. And then others said, Well, you may have Paul and Apollos and Cephas, but I am of Christ. I am not interested in any one else. I do not need any man to teach me, I am of Christ, and I do not recognize any of the rest of you. Stand by, for I am holier than thou. Have you ever seen that crowd? They are the most conceited of all.

Those were not the actual names that were used. In 4:6 we read, These things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. Paul is saying, You see, I have simply used this figuratively. It was not actually Paul and Apollos, it was men in their local group, and they were saying, Well, I am for this brother and I am for this other one, and another, I am of Christ and am not interested in any of the rest of them. And so Paul put in his own name and that of Apollos and Cephas to illustrate how wrong this was. And then he asks the question, Is Christ divided? Is it only a little group who are of Christ? Even those who sometimes say, I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, if they are truly converted, are all of Christ. And so no one group should arrogate that distinction to themselves.

Was Paul crucified for you? What does he mean by that? I am not to take any man and make his name the head of a party, I am to remember that the fellowship to which I belong is that of the One who was crucified for me. We owe a great deal to Paul. I think after I have seen the Lord Jesus Christ and my father and mother, the next one I want to see is the apostle Paul. I want to have a good talk with him and tell him how much the messages he left on record have meant to me. But Paul was not crucified for me. He helped to give me a better understanding of the One who was crucified for me and so I value his ministry.

Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Why does he put this question? The only One that I am to recognize as the Head of the church of God is the One in whose name I was baptized. Do not get the idea as some have that the apostle Paul was putting a slur on baptism, that he meant to imply that baptism was an unimportant thing, eventually to have no further place in the church of God. He is recognizing it as a tremendously important thing when he bases his argument upon it. When you became a Christian, in whose name were you baptized? In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Very well then, you belong to Him. Recognize the entire fellowship of which He is the Head, but do not try to make His name the head of a party and do not make the names of His servants the heads of parties, but recognize that the only real Head is Christ.

Because of the fact that these Corinthians were making so much of individuals, Paul says, I am very thankful as I look back that I personally did not do the baptizing in many cases. He is not saying, I am thankful that you were not baptized. They were baptized. We read, Many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized. Their baptism followed their believing. But he says, I am very thankful, since you are so given to party spirit, that so few of you can say, I have been baptized by Paul. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crisp us [he was the ruler of the synagogue] and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And he adds, And I baptized also the household of Stephanas. Evidently Stephanas was not with them at this time because he was one who ministered elsewhere. We read in the last chapter of this epistle, verse 17, I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied. Stephanas, apparently, was a traveling preacher. Elsewhere Paul tells us that the household of Stephanas had addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints (1Co 16:15). Finally he said, Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Now he gives his closing argument: For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. Observe, he is not saying that he was not commissioned to baptize, but he is saying that he was not sent to make baptism the important thing. He was sent to preach the gospel. As an apostle he went out preaching, and when any believed the gospel they were baptized. This is the opposite to the great church systems of today and also of Roman Catholic missions. Where Catholicism goes it is its first business to get as many infants together as possible and baptize them, but the apostle says that he was not sent to do that, he was sent to preach the gospel, and when they believed that gospel, they were baptized.

There are many things that are right and proper in their own sphere which must, of necessity, occupy much of a preachers time, but it was not to do these things he was set apart as a servant of God and sent into the world. He was ordained of God to preach the gospel. And so with Paul. His great ministry was making Christ known, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. He did not depend upon mere human oratory or rhetoric, but on the power of the Holy Spirit enabling him in all simplicity to present to the people a crucified, risen, ascended, and returning Christ, that all hearts might be taken up with Him and men be brought to put their trust in Him. That is the thing that unifies. As Christ is presented to the hearts of Gods people they are drawn together, they are drawn to Him, they are occupied with Him, their glorious Head.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

2. Contrasts. Chapter 1:10-4).

CHAPTER 1:10-31.

1. Divisions rebuked. (1Co 1:10-16).

2. The Cross of Christ, the Power of God. (1Co 1:17-31).

The section which begins, after the introductory words, with the tenth verse and ends with the fourth chapter, shows a number of contrasts. There is the contrast of the fact that they were called into the one fellowship. The fact of being called into the fellowship of Gods Son, as members of the one body is contrasted with their divisions. There is the contrast of the preaching of the cross, which is foolishness to them that perish, but the power of God to those who are saved. The wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world are likewise contrasted. Jews and Gentiles, what they require and seek are seen in their contrast with those who believe. Every chapter makes these contrasts and through them the blessed truth of the Gospel and the walk of the Saints of God is fully brought out.

As the introduction to the epistle reveals, all believers have one Lord to whom they belong, and God has called all into the one fellowship, the fellowship of His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. No other name is to be owned by His people, but all must be united in that blessed name, and obedience yielded to Him. He therefore beseeches them in that name to present a united confession and testimony that ye all speak the same thing; an unmarred fellowship in the Spirit that there be no divisions among you; and such a oneness of mind and judgment which becomes those who are one in Christ that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. And why this exhortation? Because those of the house of Chloe had given to Paul the information that contentions had arisen among them. He mentioned the source without giving the names of the individuals. Those of the house of Chloe were no doubt deeply spiritual and much exercised over these contentions and the dishonor done to the name of the Lord Jesus. And these contentions, which threatened serious schisms in the one body were connected with teachers, the chosen instruments of the Lord. Some said, I am of Paul; others, I of Apollos; another party, I of Cephas. Instead of sitting at the feet of the One, who alone is worthy and is the teacher of His people, they scattered and divided themselves among the different teachers, given by the Lord to the church. It was the beginning of sectarianism, which has been such a curse to the people of God. It did not begin in the blessed assembly of Philippi, nor among the Saints in Ephesus, but among the puffed up, worldly-minded Corinthians. Partyism, sectarianism, is the fruit of the flesh (Gal 5:20). How it has multiplied in Christendom, the evil fruit it has borne, the apostasy which is fostered by it, we need not point out, for all spiritually minded Christians are acquainted with it.

But a fourth party said, I of Christ. Piously they said, we do not acknowledge Paul, Apollos or Cephas; we call ourselves after Christ. They made Him the head of a party, and put His teaching in contrast with the teachings of the chosen vessels of the Lord, through whom He made known His will. It was only a pretext to discredit the ministry of Paul and the other Apostles. That last named contention was perhaps the worst.

And so the inspired Apostle asks, Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Christ was crucified for them and in His Name they had been baptized. In their contentions they were doing wrong to the Person of Christ and to His blessed work. And water baptism is especially mentioned by him. He thanked God, that he had baptized none of them, but Crispus and Gaius, as well as the household of Stephanas. Baptism has been and is a prominent source of the division of the body of Christ. Ritualism has made of it a sacrament which saves and none can go to heaven without it. Other sects make it likewise a necessary act for salvation. Still others teach that water-baptism is the appointed means by which a believer becomes a member of the church, the body of Christ. It is not water-baptism by which a believer becomes a member of the body of Christ; the Holy Spirit alone can do this and does it with every believer (1Co 12:13). Others have gone into the other extreme and reject water-baptism entirely. The Apostle did not do this. The solemn assumption, by the newly born believer, of the name of Jesus as his Lord (as it is done in baptism) was an act both too important and of too solemn and precious a significance to be regarded lightly by an inspired Apostle. Then the Apostle states his commission. He was not sent by His Lord to baptize. His great mission was to preach the Gospel. Baptism would surely follow a true reception of his testimony, but that, with all other resulting effects, is kept distinct from the positive and vital work of God by His own Word. We may notice a real difference between the Apostolate of Paul and that of the eleven, as defined at the close of Matthew. The latter were sent expressly to baptize. Paul was not.–Pridham on Corinthians.

1Co 1:17-31 unfold the Gospel which he was sent to preach, the Cross of Christ and the power of God to salvation made known by that Cross. He preached that Gospel not with wisdom of words. All that was attractive to the natural man, such as rhetoric, beautiful language, enticing words, was avoided by the Apostle. He was rude in speech (2Co 11:6); he did not preach with enticing words (1Co 2:4). He feared that in any way the power of the Cross of Christ should be made void. He had a complete, a perfect confidence in the Gospel and knew it needed not human embellishment and human schemes to make it effective. All human efforts by rhetoric, sentimental claptrap methods, aim to stir up and to direct the emotions and sympathies of the natural man.

The preaching of the Cross is foolishness to those that are perishing. Unto us who are being saved it is the power of God, for it saves us from the guilt of sins, the power of sin itself and ere long from the presence of sin in our homegoing. And those who are perishing in rejecting the Cross of Christ were never so numerous as today. To the Christian Scientist–the Unitarian–the Destructive Critic– the new Religionist and others, the preaching of the Cross is foolishness. And the world with all its boasted learning and wisdom did not think of the Gospel and its wonderful plan and power. The nations who boasted of culture and wisdom even in their highest form groped in the dark, and instead of discovering how man can be saved and brought back to God, were dragged down deeper and deeper into sin and despair. And thus God made foolish the wisdom of this world. Therefore the men who today turn their backs upon the Gospel and speak of philosophy, science and wisdom, turn to foolishness once more, which will lead them into the blackness and darkness forever. The preaching of Christ crucified was to the Jews a stumblingblock, and to the Greeks foolishness, because the Jews required a sign and the Greeks sought after wisdom, but the Cross puts human pride and glory into the dust. And what Jews and Greeks rejected and treated as foolishness is the power and wisdom of God. What men considered foolishness, a crucified Christ, is therefore wiser than men, for it gives to the believer what the wisdom of the world cannot supply. And the weakness of God, which is Christ crucified through weakness, is more powerful than men; man is saved by it. Thus the charge of Jews and Gentiles, that the cross is foolishness, that it is weakness, is repudiated and the foolishness and weakness of man is thereby demonstrated and laid bare.

And that no flesh should glory in His presence, God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and the weak things to confound the things which are mighty. He hath chosen the base things, the despised things and the things which are not to bring to naught the things that are. Therefore not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called. God in His sovereignty takes up that which is foolish and weak to manifest His power. How fully this is evidenced by experience. And the believer is always in the safe place, if he is in the place of self-abasement, self-effacement and weakness. Of Him are we in Christ Jesus who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption; that according as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. It is all of God, and all in Christ, and nothing of us or in ourselves. Christ is the wisdom of God.

Christ is made unto us wisdom from God; and thus with Christianity, for faith, every cloud is lifted. The wisdom that is from God is a casket of priceless jewels; in which the redeemed one finds, not only liberty, but marvelous enrichment. How much is contained in just those three words, righteousness, sanctification and redemption! And they are in an order of progressive fulness, by which we enter more and more into the heart of God.–Numerical Bible.

Righteousness in Christ is that of which Romans so fully speaks. Our guilt is gone. Righteousness is on our side, covering the believer. The believer is justified by His blood and by faith in Him and fully accepted in the Beloved. And Christ is the believers sanctification. The work of Christ has separated us unto God; but the believer is also sanctified by the Spirit of God, the Spirit of holiness. In Christ we are holy and walking in the Spirit, obedient to His Word, the believer manifests in his conduct the fact that he is set apart to God. Redemption looks forward to the future, when the believer shall be glorified, and be conformed to the image of the Lord. Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus. Therefore the believer has nothing to glory in himself, but he glories in the Lord. And all this put to shame the Corinthians who made so much of the wisdom of this world and were puffed up.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

divisions

(Greek – , a cleft, or rent).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

I beseech: 1Co 4:16, Rom 12:1, 2Co 5:20, 2Co 6:1, 2Co 10:1, Gal 4:12, Eph 4:1, Phm 1:9, Phm 1:10, 1Pe 2:11

by the: Rom 15:30, 1Th 4:1, 1Th 4:2, 2Th 2:1, 1Ti 5:21, 2Ti 4:1

that ye: Psa 133:1, Jer 32:39, Joh 13:34, Joh 13:35, Joh 17:23, Act 4:32, Rom 12:16, Rom 15:5, Rom 15:6, Rom 16:17, 2Co 13:11, Eph 4:1-7, Eph 4:31, Eph 4:32, Phi 1:27, Phi 2:1-4, Phi 3:16, 1Th 5:13, Jam 3:13-18, 1Pe 3:8, 1Pe 3:9

divisions: Gr. schisms, 1Co 11:18, 1Co 12:25, Mat 9:16, Mar 2:21, Joh 7:43, Joh 9:16, Joh 10:19,*Gr.

Reciprocal: Exo 26:24 – and they shall be coupled together above Exo 36:10 – General Exo 36:29 – coupled Jos 22:15 – General 1Ch 12:17 – knit Ezr 3:1 – as one Isa 52:8 – see Eze 1:9 – joined Eze 11:19 – I will give Mar 3:24 – General Joh 17:11 – that Joh 17:21 – they all Act 15:25 – being 1Co 8:7 – there Eph 4:13 – we all Phi 2:2 – that Phi 2:14 – disputings Phi 2:20 – I have Phi 4:2 – that Col 2:19 – knit 2Ti 2:22 – peace Heb 12:14 – Follow

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

0

1Co 1:10. The apostle now approaches one of the serious defects referred to in the “general remarks,” that of divisions. This is not a formal or bodily division, but one of sentiment that causes contention and strife. That is why he specifies the mind and judgment in his exhortation, to the end that all would speak the same thing. The mind means the faculty of reason, and judgment denotes the conclusions arrived at with the mind. The apostle beseeches them all to be united in sentiments.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

The evil done by undue exaltation of preachers 10-17.

1Co 1:10. I beseech you… by the name of our Lord Jesus Christa touching appeal at the outset to that Name which is above every name, not to let any other name eclipse it, by making it a rallying point around which to gather.

That there be no divisions among you (Gr. schisms)not in the modern sense of that word, implying outward Church rupture, but in the sense rather of schools of religious thought, feeling, or taste, occasioned by attaching undue importance, or giving undue prominence to particular truths, or particular ways of conceiving them, to peculiarities of the preacher, and such like.

That ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and . . . Judgmentnot as if all must view everything alike, but that all should look at Divine truth with that simplicity of mind and heart which would secure unbroken harmony amidst that diversity in the shades of thought and feeling which constitutional diversity and different training never fail to beget. This is that like – mindedness which we find elsewhere commended, as in Rom 15:2, Php 2:2, and which, next to truth itself, is of priceless value, alike in churches, in families, and in all kinds of society.

1Co 1:11. For it hath been declared unto me … by them … of Chloemembers either of her family or of her household; she herself being otherwise unknown, though no doubt occupying a prominent position in the Church of Corinth.

That there are contentions among youthe nature of which is next explained.

1Co 1:12. Now this I mean, that each one… saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephasthe Aramaic name given to Simon when first called (Joh 1:43), its Greek equivalent being Petros, both words meaning rock, or stone. Singularly enough, in the three other places of this Epistle where he is mentioned, this Aramaic form, Cephas, is used (1Co 3:22, 1Co 9:5, 1Co 15:5), not Peter; and in Galatians also it is four times used (1Co 1:18, 1Co 2:9; 1Co 2:11; 1Co 2:14).and I of Christ.

Note.These few words have given rise in Germany to a prodigious deal of speculation, and been made the basis of a new theory even of Christianity itself, as well as of the date, objects, and credibility of several of the books of the New Testament. In combating these wild theories, great research, learning, and ability have been called forth. But, after all, the question, What are the divisions here referred to? may be brought within very narrow limits. That Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and Christ were meant to represent four distinct and conflicting Christianities is demonstrably false. First, as to Paul and Apollos, is it credible that he who said that even an angel from heaven would deserve to be accursed who should preach a different Gospel from his own (Gal 1:8-9), and who to these very Corinthians denounced the corrupters of the Gospel as ministers of Satan (2Co 11:2-4; 2Co 11:13-15), would say of Apollos that he only watered what he himself had sown at Corinth (1Co 3:6), and would hold him up as one of Christs gifts to the Church (1Co 3:21-23)? Apollos, too, had come to Corinth fresh from the teaching of Priscilla and Aquila (Act 18:24-28), whom Paul calls his helpers in Christ Jesus (Rom 16:3); and did he come to contradict what he had just been taught? Wherein, then, did Paul and Apollos differ? They differed in their mode of setting forth the same truths. Paul so dreaded the passion for the wisdom which reigned at Corintha wisdom which sacrificed substance to formthat he resolvedto eschew all oratorical art, determining to know nothing at Corinth save Jesus Christ and Him crucified. And so sensitive was he on this point that he was with them in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. But Apollos, an Alexandrian Jew, a learned man, and probably well acquainted with Alexandrian philosophy and rhetoric, would bring to Corinth no mean gifts; and being mighty in the Scriptures and fervent in spiritnot to say in the glow of newly-discovered views of the truthwould naturally throw into his expositions and appeals some of those very qualities which Paid had eschewed. Certainly his entrance made a great impression, for he helped them much which had believed through grace, powerfully confuting the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ (Act 18:27-28). Perhaps he deemed it rightbecoming all things to all men, that by all means he might gain someto give free scope to all his gifts and culture in the service of the truth. In this case it is easy to see how a one-sided admiration of the man might spring up, and a contrast be drawn to the disadvantage and disparagement of their father in the faith. In reply to this it might have been said, with much truth, that the method of Apollos, had the ground been first broken by him, would probably have yielded no fruit, and that all his success, under the great Husbandman, was owing to the ground having been first broken roughly and tremulously by him whom some were beginning to disparage. But Paul had his advocates at Corinth, jealous for their father in the faith, whose vast range of thought and wonderful insight into Scripture would be held up, perhaps, with as much of a party spirit as in those who cried up Apollos.

Next, as to Cephas, it is true that Paul had once a dispute with him (Gal 2:11-16); but this had to do with his acting, not at all with his teaching; or, rather, that while his teaching was right, his acting on a certain occasion had not been in accordance with it, but had been too much of a trimming character.[1] The whole difference, intellectual and theological, between these two great apostles-over and above method, form, and stylelay in their point of view and breadth of conception. The natural gifts of the one towered far above those of the other, and even of most men; and the former had a varied training and wide opportunities which the latter never enjoyed. As Peters one theme was Jesus as the Christ of the Old Testament, so his labours were almost exclusively among the Jews. Indeed, on one occasion, when ministering to a whole company of Gentile converts, and baptizing them without circumcision, he seemed out of his proper element, and afterwards apologised for what he had done as a thing forced on him by Divine direction. In his speeches and in his Epistles we find no Pauline breadth of view and no Apollonian grace of method; but we do find in his speeches a grand simplicity and directness of manner, a concentration of thought, and a heroism of character; and in his First Epistle such a chastened and unctuous spirit as has made it dear to every Christian heart; while in his Second we find all his early fire kindling up afresh as he writes of those who, at that utter stage of the Church, were undermining its faith and staining its purity. Such a type of Christianityso distinct from that both of Paul and Apolloswould make the name of this apostle and the character of his ministry well enough known at Corinth, though, up to this time at least, he had never been (here. Still we hardly think there is ground to conclude that there was an actual Cephas-party at Corinth. It remains only to ask, Was there a Christ-party there? That amidst the dissensions in that Church some would lift up an indignant protest against all such partisanship, as obscuring the glory of the one Master, is conceivable enough; nor is it improbable that some of these might hold up Christs personal teaching in contrast with that even of His apostles. But in the absence of even a hint that such a party did exist (which 2Co 10:7 has been groundlessly thought to point to), we cannot regard it as having a shadow of probability. To us, in short, it appears that the Corinthians ranged themselves under two names only, their first and second teachers, to whom respectively they owed the existence and the consolidation of their Church; that Cephas is introduced only to vary the illustration; and that Christ is added to crown the absurdity of such mischievous partisanship. Indeed, such disputes only too readily spring up still in churches with distinguished but differently gifted preachers.

[1] We waive all reference to Peters high encomium on Paul. 2Pe 3:15-16, as that Epistle is rejected as spurious by those whom we here combat.

1Co 1:13. Is Christ divided?[1] The point of this question does not lie in the rending of the Church (as is the view of Estius, Olshausen, etc.), nor in the dividing of Christ Himself into parts (Osiander, Alford, etc.), but it is whether Christ divides with His own preachers the honour of being Lord and Master of the converts.

[1] Lachmann points this clause indicativelyChrist is dividedand Meyer, Stanley, and Alford assent to this; because (as they hold), if the sense had been interrogative, the negative particle should have preceded. But this is disproved by chap. 1Co 10:22 and 2Co 3:1, where in the first of two questions, to which a negative answer is expected, this particle is not inserted.

Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptised into the name of Paul? Here the apostle, purposely sinking Apollos and Cephas, puts himself modestly in the forefront to expose the repulsiveness as well as absurdity of the thought which alone could justify such exaltation of men. (Note here the place assigned to the Cross, as the central and vital feature of Christs work; baptism into His name simply setting its seal to this.)

1Co 1:14. I thank God (it was so ordered) that I baptized none of you save Crispusthe ruler of the synagogue (Act 18:8); an event in the Jewish community at Corinth of such importance as to justify a deviation from his usual practice of baptizing by deputy. On the same principle Peter seems to have acted on one memorable occasion (Act 10:48).

And Gaius, We read of a Gaius, or Caius, of Macedonia (Act 19:29), of Derbe (Act 20:4), and of Corinth (here), under whose roof the Epistle to the Romans was written (Rom 16:23). The Third Epistle of John also is addressed to Gaius the beloved. The two last, if we may judge from the uncommon hospitality ascribed to them, seem to be identical; and possibly all four were the same person.

1Co 1:15. Lest any one should say that ye were baptized into my name. Thankful he is that he is able to give them undeniable proof of the absence of all self-seeking on his part, little thinking when at Corinth that he should ever have occasion to recall the fact.

1Co 1:16. And I baptised . . . any otherI am wrong; I did baptize one other family, that of Stephanas; but if I baptized any more it has escaped me. The easy freedom with which this is expressed is plainly intentional, to show how insignificant he all along held such a circumstance to be.

1Co 1:17. For Christ seat me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.

Note.Would the apostle have so written if in and by baptism a new life were imparted to the soul? It is no answer to this to say that the agent is of no consequence; it is the ordinance itself: for it is the comparative unimportance of the ordinance itself which is thus emphatically expressed. Adult believers are indeed said to wash away their sins in baptism (Act 22:16), and to be baptized into newness of life (Rom 6:3-6); but since believing always came first, and it was in believing that they received their new life (Joh 20:31; Eph 1:13),and Peter grounded the right of Cornelius and his company to be baptized upon their having already received the Holy Ghost as well as themselves who were Jewish believers (Act 10:47-48),it is perfectly clear, unless we are to put the effect for the cause, that the baptism of adults could only be said to wash away their sins and impart new life, as a symbolical expression and open declaration that they were believers first (Act 2:41), and as such already in a state of reconciliation and newness of life. This alone explains the minimizing and almost contemptuous way in which baptismalbeit a Divine ordinanceis here referred to.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

These words are a pathetical exhortation to a most important duty.

In which observe, 1. The duty itself directed and exhorted to; and that is, unity and unanimity amongst Christians: this is three-fold, the unity of the head, of the heart, and of the tongue: the unity of the head, and that is an unity in judgment and opinion; the unity of the heart, is an unity in love and affection; and the unity of the tongue, in an unity in language and expression, when we speak all the same things, and with one mouth, as well as with one mind, glorify God.

Observe, 2. The powerful arguments here enforcing this duty: the first is an apostolical observation, I beseech you; he that had authority to command, has the meekness to entreat, and in a supplicatory way to beseech.

The second is, the nearness of the relation, I beseech you brethren; an endearing expression, and full of affection: they were brethren by place and nation, and brethren by faith and profession, owning the same God, professing the same religion, animated by the same Spirit, encouraged by the same promises, partakers of the same hope, and heirs of the same glory.

The third argument is, the name he beseeches in, and that is Christ’s: I beseech you by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; that is, “I adjure you for his sake, and his authority, by all that he had done, suffered, and purchased for you. If you have any reverence for his authority as a sovereign, if you have any regard for his undertaking as a Saviour, look that there by no divisions amongst you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment.”

Observe, 3. That so exceedingly was the apostle’s heart set upon this duty, that in both his epistles to the Corinthians he presses them very earnestly to the love and practice of it; here, in his first epistle and first chapter; and in his second epistle and last chapter: Be of one mind, live in peace, &c.

From whence note, That the apostle makes this exhortation to unity among Christians the alpha of his first epistle, and the omega of his last; ’tis the first duty which he commends to their consideration in the former epistle, and the last which he recommends to their care and practice in the latter epistle; intimating thereby unto us, that this unity in judgment and affection is the first and last thing to be respected among Christians, as being both the beginning and perfection of Christianity.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

A Plea to End Divisions

Christ’s name was used nine times by Paul in the first nine verses of 1Co 1:1-31 . He was shown to be good and important to the Christian. In the tenth verse, his name is used for its authority ( Mat 28:18 ). The speech of all Christians should be completely in agreement with that revealed through the Holy Spirit. Paul did not want any “divisions,” which would be splits, gaps, or tears. Instead, he wanted them to be “perfectly joined together,” which means to repair as one might a broken instrument or set a bone like a doctor. Christians should have the same purpose, or mind, and be of the same opinion, or judgment ( 1Co 1:10 ; Joh 17:20-23 ). Assuming everyone is guided by Christ’s authority, such an end should easily be achieved.

Reports had come to the apostle of “contentions,” or strife, quarreling, rivalry and wrangling, going on among the Corinthian brethren. They had gone so far as to form different groups claiming to follow Paul, Apollos, Peter and Christ. Apollos had worked with these people after Aquila and Priscilla showed him “the way of God more perfectly” ( Act 18:24-28 ; Act 19:1 ). Ordinarily, all Christians should follow Christ. However, some may have formed a sect following Christ. These would not hear messengers sent from Christ ( 1Co 1:11-12 ; Luk 10:6 ).

The church is Christ’s body (12:12-13, 27; Eph 1:22-23 ). Christ bought that body with his blood ( Act 20:28 ). Paul asked if that body could be cut into pieces and given to various men to lead. Jesus became the author of salvation by his death on the cross ( Heb 2:9-10 ; Php 2:5-11 ). Paul was saying they should only follow Jesus who was their redeemer. The one into whose name one is baptized is recognized as the one in whose power he resides. Also, the baptizing would be done by his authority ( 1Co 1:13 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

1Co 1:10. Now I beseech, , I exhort you, brethren You have faith and hope, secure love also; by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ That endearing name, infinitely preferable to all the human names in which you glory. The apostle intending, says Locke, to abolish the names of the leaders, whereby the parties distinguished themselves, besought them by the name of Christ. Indeed, as the same writer observes, the apostle scarcely ever makes use of a word or expression which hath not some relation to his main purpose. That ye all speak the same thing That ye agree both in your judgments and expressions concerning the doctrines of the gospel: or, that you do not unnecessarily and unkindly contradict each other, but rather maintain a peaceful and loving disposition toward each other. And that there be no divisions Greek, , schisms, among you No alienation of affection from each other, and no factions or parties formed in consequence thereof: but that ye be perfectly joined together , perfectly united, or knit together, in the same mind and in the same judgment Touching all the great truths of the gospel; waiving unnecessary controversies, debating those which are necessary with temper and candour, and delighting to speak most concerning those great and excellent things, in which, as Christians, you cannot but be agreed, and which, if duly considered, will cement your hearts to each other in the strictest and most tender bonds. It was morally impossible, considering the diversities of their educations and capacities, that they should all agree in opinion; nor could he intend that, because he does not urge any argument to reduce them to such an agreement, nor so much as declare what that one opinion was in which he would have them agree. The words must therefore express that peaceful and unanimous temper, which Christians of different opinions may and ought to maintain toward each other; which will do a much greater honour to the gospel, and to human nature, than the most perfect uniformity that can be imagined. Doddridge. In short, the meaning is, that in our deliberations we should yield to each other from mutual affection, and from a love of peace. Accordingly the heathen moralists describe true friendship as cemented by the same inclinations and aversions: Idem velle, et idem nolle, &c.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

BODY OF THE Epistle. 1:10-15:58.

I. The Parties in the Church of corinth. 1:10-4:21.

EWALD has well stated the reason why the apostle puts this subject first, of all those he has to treat in his Epistle. He must assert his apostolical position in view of the whole Church, before giving them the necessary explanations on the subjects which are to follow.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Now I beseech you [a voice of entreaty], brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ [a voice of authority, enforced by threatened judgment (1Co 4:21). In this Epistle Paul has already used the name of Jesus nine times, thus emphasizing its virtue before he uses it as the symbol of supreme authority: as Chrysostom says, “he nails them to this name”], that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. [The pride of Corinth showed itself largely in philosophical conceit, and the citizens who vaunted their superior intelligence were divided into sects, of whom Aristotle, Plato, Zeno, Epicurus, and later philosophers, were the heads. The church became inflated with this same intellectual vanity, and apparently sought to make Christianity the rival of philosophy by exalting her humble teachers to be heads of religio-philosophical sects, and rivals of Christ himself. As to this sinful condition the apstle gives an injunction, covering three points: 1. Unity of speech. 2. Unity of organization. 3. Unity of mind and judgment. They may be treated in their order as follows: 1. Paul first strikes at their speech, because then, as now, speculative discourses, philosophical dissertations, unscriptural reasonings, vapid dialectics for display’s sake, etc., had become a fruitful cause of division. It is this speculative, argumentative spirit which genders confessions and creeds. 2. He strikes next at the divisions themselves, as the finished, completed evil complained of. But the divisions which he censures were mere parties in the church, not sects disrupting it, nor organized denominations professing to be “branches of the church.” These greater divisions, and hence greater evils, came centuries later. 3. He proposes unity of mind and judgment as the ideal condition–the condition in which he had left them, and to which he would now restore them. The “mind” represents the inner state, the “judgment” the outward exhibition of it in action. In all this, Paul bespeaks not a partial, but a perfect, unity. “Perfected together” is a very suggestive phrase. Perfection of knowledge brings unity of thought and action, but defective understanding results in division. If one body of men, therefore, grows in truth faster than another, the tardiness of the latter tends to divide. All should grow and be perfected together. Hence, it becomes the duty of the growing disciple to impart his knowledge, and the correlative duty of the ignorant disciple to freely receive it.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

10. But I exhort you, brethren, through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you may all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you, but that you may be perfected in the same mind and in the same disposition; not judgment, as E.V., which is a mentality and variant as the diversities of human intellect. We are not to be alike intellectually, but spiritually, in the fact that the Holy Spirit in regeneration has given us the mind of Christ, subduing the carnal mind and utterly destroying it (Rom 6:6), so that all truly sanctified people have only the mind of Christ, and consequently they all have the same mind and the same disposition, i. e., they are meek and lowly in heart and go about doing good like their Master, yet they are all liable to differ in judgment. In this verse we see that Christian perfection is Gods preventive of ecclesiastical schisms. Perfection is from the Latin facio, make, and per, complete. Hence it means made complete. Christ came to destroy the works of the devil (1Jn 3:8). Hence when sin is destroyed we are made perfect, becoming what the New Testament denominates a perfect Christian. Where Christian perfection becomes the normal experience, religious schisms all collapse and evanesce. Hence all the divisions in the kingdom of God were born of depravity and die with it.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

1Co 1:10-17. The Party Spirit in the Church.Apparently Paul had only just heard of the parties, they were, therefore, a new development and not of long standing. He deals with them first, not as the gravest abuse, but because they were uppermost in his mind. The passage raises problems of great difficulty which cannot be solved with any certainty. In Greek cities party spirit often ran high alike in politics and in sport. Probably this lay at the root of the parties in the church, rather than any doctrinal difference; though a line of cleavage which was primarily personal might naturally bring with it an accentuation of doctrinal divergence which would have its effect in the grouping of the parties. The party of Paul held loyally by the founder of the community. The party of Apollos (Act 18:24-28) had been captivated by the eloquence and perhaps the philosophic gift of the brilliant Alexandrian. Since both had worked in Corinth it has been argued that Peter also must have visited that city. In face of Pauls silence this is improbable. If his adherents had come into personal contact with him it would presumably have been in Palestine or on one of his mission journeys. They would pit him against Paul and Apollos as senior to both, the venerated leader of the apostolic band, the foremost representative of the mother church. They would insist on his claims as far outweighing those of Paul, who had never known Jesus and had been a bitter persecutor of the church.

The most difficult problem is that created by the reference to the Christ party. The Tubingen criticism took its rise in 1831 with F. C. Baurs famous article on The Christ Party in Corinth. He virtually reduced the four parties to two, the Judaising called by the names of Peter and Christ, the anti-Judaising calling themselves after Paul or Apollos. Such a reduction contradicts the plain meaning of the text. Moreover, Baurs general scheme of early Church History has been universally abandoned. The proof that the Christ party was to be identified with Pauls Judaistic opponents rested mainly on 2Co 10:7; but this is too general to justify the inference, and Pauls opponents in 2 Cor. made higher claims than are implied in our passage. If a Judaistic faction had already been at work in the church, Paul must have fought it; his experience of the havoc such a faction would work was too bitter for him to neglect it. Yet we get no polemic against the Peter or Christ party on the score of any legalist propaganda. It has been held by some scholars (Schenkel, Godet, W. F. Slater, and Ltgert) that the Christ party made a distinction between Christ and Jesus similar to that made by Cerinthus (p. 916). Christ was the heavenly being who descended upon the man Jesus but left Him before His crucifixion. This view gains some support from the question, Is Christ divided? and the cry Jesus Anathema, which may have been uttered in the Christian assemblies but which Paul says can be uttered by no one who speaks in the Spirit (1Co 12:3*). There is no need to find this sense in either phrase. Such a tendency Paul would have attacked explicitly, for it cut at the root of his teaching. Whatever the Christ party was, its significance lay in the fact that it was an expression of party spirit: had it involved repudiation of the Crucified, Paul must have regarded it as displaying a much darker and more dangerous temper. None of the parties seems consciously to have renounced the Gospel. The view that there was no Christ party at all has been held in various forms. The only form which deserves attention is that which regards the words, but I of Christ as a gloss, written on the margin by some reader who wished to affirm the true Christian attitude. The difficulties, however, do not warrant recourse to so drastic a measure as the deletion of the words. Possibly the party consisted of those who had known Jesus during His earthly life, though we should perhaps have expected, I of Jesus rather than I of Christ. Possibly their watchword expressed their dislike of the position accorded to human leaders, and disowned every leader but Christ. Since, however, this intrinsically sound attitude apparently falls under the same blame as the rest, they must have asserted their freedom from partisanship in a partisan way.

Paul appeals to them by the sacred name of their common Lord to cultivate unity and heal their divisions, that they may be harmonious in temper and opinion. He says this because he has learnt from Chloes people that they are wrangling with each other, all boasting that they belong to this leader or that, Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Christ. Is Christ, who should be all, made one part out of four? Can Paul be treated as if he were the crucified Redeemer, into whose allegiance they had been baptized? Factious enthusiasm might have betrayed them into so profane an estimate of him who had baptized them. Well may he thank God that he has given them so little occasion! Crispus and Gaius were the only cases. Oh yes, he corrects himself, he baptized the household of Stephanas also, but he cannot recall any others. For it was not his mission to baptize (Apollos as a former disciple of John the Baptist may have laid stress on its administration by the teacher), that could be left to a subordinate for it needed no gift; Pauls apostolic function found its fit and congenial expression in preaching the Gospel. Brilliant preaching, however, probably called forth the special admiration felt for Apollos. Paul accordingly explains that the effective power of the Gospel does not lie in its eloquence or its philosophical presentation. These tend to empty it of its meaning since they distract attention from the central fact, the Cross of Christ. Indeed the Cross is just the contradiction of the worlds wisdom.

1Co 1:11. Paul had not learnt of the factions from the deputation sent by the Church (1Co 16:17 f.) but from another source. Chloe was presumably a business woman (not necessarily herself a Christian), probably settled in Ephesus, who had sent slaves to Corinth; these were Christians, and on their return brought back the unpleasant news. If they had belonged to Corinth, Paul would hardly have exposed them to reprisals by this disclosure.

1Co 1:13. Is Christ divided? a question not an exclamation (mg.), but the verb does not here mean dismembered, torn asunder by the factions, each securing a part, but made a part instead of the whole, degraded to the level of Paul, Apollos, and Cephas.The last clause implies that baptism was into the name of Jesus, the earliest form.

1Co 1:16. The oversight in 1Co 1:14, corrected in 1Co 1:16, negatives any idea of mechanical inspiration. It would be profane to suppose that the Holy Spirit could inadvertently make a misstatement in one sentence and correct it in the next. Stephanas was with Paul (1Co 16:17) and may have noticed the omission as Paul dictated. Had Paul been writing, he would have made the necessary insertion in 1Co 1:14.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 10

Speak the same thing; be harmonious.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

DIVISION I

ABOUT THE CHURCH-PARTIES CHAPTERS 1:10-4.

SECTION 2 HE HAS HEARD OF THEIR DIVISIONS CH. 1:10-17A

But I exhort you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ that you may all speak the same thing, and there may not be among you divisions, but you may be fully equipped in the same mind and in the same opinion. For it has been declared to me about you, my brothers, by them of Cloe, that there are strifes among you. I mean* (* Or, say.) this, that each of you says, I am a follower of Paul, but I, of Apollos; but I of Cephas; but I, of Christ. Christ has been divided. Was Paul crucified on your behalf? Or, for the name of Paul were you baptized? I thank God that not one of you I baptized, except Crispus and Gaius; lest any one should say that for my name you were baptized. And I baptized also the house of Stephanas. For the rest I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to announce good news.

This Epistle is a reply to a letter from Corinth (1Co 7:1) asking advice on sundry matters. But other matters more serious than these and apparently not mentioned in the Corinthian letter, Paul has heard of, and must deal with, before he begins to answer these less important questions. Of these more serious matters, he mentions first and at great length the church-parties. This subject he introduces in 2, by an exhortation to harmony, 1Co 1:10; tells them what he has heard, 1Co 1:11-12; shows its impropriety, 1Co 1:13; and expounds his own contrary conduct, 1Co 1:14-17 a.

1Co 1:10. Brothers: exact term used for the sons of one human father. Paul supports his earnest and affectionate appeal (Rom 15:30; Rom 16:17) by mentioning that one great Name (1Co 1:2, cp. Rom 1:5) which awakens in all Christians the deepest emotions of love and gratitude, which all Christians profess and seek to exalt among men, and which should be a bond of union to the universal church.

Speak the same thing: opposite of each of you says etc., 1Co 1:12.

Divisions: separations arising naturally from expressed differences of opinion.

Fully-equipped: quite ready for use or service: akin to thoroughly furnished, 2Ti 3:17. Same word in Rom 9:22,

made-ready for destruction. It is frequently used of that which has been damaged, and thus made unfit for use: e.g. Mat 4:21, mending their nets; Ezr 4:12, set up the walls. It was used by the Greeks for the removal of faction in the state: e.g. Herodotus, bk v. 28.

The same mind: same mental faculty of looking through (Rom 1:20) things seen to their inward essence, naturally leading to the same opinion (1Co 7:25; 1Co 7:40) in matters of detail. Only those churches and Christians who are filled with a spirit of harmony and who look at the various details of church life in the light of an earnest desire for the general good, are fully equipped for their work and conflict.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

1:10 {12} Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that {13} ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be {i} perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

(12) Having made an end of the preface, he comes to the matter itself, beginning with a most grave testimony, as though they should hear Christ himself speaking, and not Paul.

(13) The first part of this epistle, in which his purpose is found, to call back the Corinthians to brotherly harmony, and to take away all occasion of discord. So then this first part concerns the taking away of divisions. Now a division occurs when men who otherwise agree and consent together in doctrine, yet separate themselves from one another.

(i) Knit together, as a body that consists of all its parts, fitly knit together.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

A. Divisions in the church 1:10-4:21

The first major problem that Paul addressed was the divisions that were fragmenting this church.

". . . this opening issue is the most crucial in the letter, not because their ’quarrels’ were the most significant error in the church, but because the nature of this particular strife had as its root cause their false theology, which had exchanged the theology of the cross for a false triumphalism that went beyond, or excluded, the cross." [Note: Idem, The First . . ., p. 50.]

Triumphalism is the belief that Christians are triumphing now over sin and its consequences to the exclusion of persecution, suffering, and some human limitations. It is sometimes, and it was in Corinth, an evidence of an over-realized eschatology, which is that we have already entered into certain blessings of salvation that really lie ahead of us in the eschaton (end times). Prosperity theology is one popular form of triumphalism.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

II. CONDITIONS REPORTED TO PAUL 1:10-6:20

The warm introduction to the epistle (1Co 1:1-9) led Paul to give a strong exhortation to unity. In it he expressed his reaction to reports of serious problems in this church that had reached his ears.

"Because Paul primarily, and in seriatim fashion, addresses behavioral issues, it is easy to miss the intensely theological nature of 1 Corinthians. Here Paul’s understanding of the gospel and its ethical demands-his theology, if you will-is getting its full workout.

". . . the central issue in 1 Corinthians is ’salvation in Christ as that manifests itself in the behavior of those "who are being saved."’ This is what the Corinthians’ misguided spirituality is effectively destroying.

"Thus three phenomena must be reckoned with in attempting a theology of this Letter: (1) Behavioral issues ( = ethical concerns) predominate. . . . (2) Even though Paul is clearly after behavioral change, his greater concern is with the theological distortions that have allowed, or perhaps even promoted, their behavior. This alone accounts for the unusual nature of so much of the argumentation. . . . (3) In every case but two (1Co 11:2-16; chaps. 12-14), Paul’s basic theological appeal for right behavior is the work of Christ in their behalf." [Note: Idem, "Toward a Theology of 1 Corinthians," in Pauline Theology. Vol. II: 1 & 2 Corinthians, pp. 38-39.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

1. The manifestation of the problem 1:10-17

The surface manifestation of this serious problem was the party spirit that had developed. Members of the church were appreciating their favorite leaders too much and not appreciating the others enough. This was really a manifestation of self-exaltation. They boasted about their teachers of wisdom to boast about themselves.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

By exhorting his readers in the name of their Lord Jesus Christ, Paul was putting what he was about to say on the highest level of authority. This is the tenth reference to Jesus Christ in the first ten verses of the epistle. Clearly Paul was focusing the attention of his audience on Christ, who alone deserves the preeminence. The Corinthians were to regard what he was about to say as coming from the Lord Himself.

"That the true source of the Corinthians’ illicit behavior is bad theology-ultimately a misunderstanding of God and his ways-is evident from the beginning, especially with Paul’s use of crucifixion language in 1Co 1:10 to 1Co 2:16." [Note: Idem, "Toward a . . .," p. 41.]

Bad theology usually lies behind bad behavior. There was already disagreement among members of the congregation, but there was not yet division in the sense of a church split. Paul urged his original readers to unite in their thinking. The Greek word katartizo, translated "made complete," describes the mending of nets in Mar 1:19. Paul wanted them to take the same view of things, to have the same mind (cf. Php 2:2), and to experience unanimity in their judgment of what they needed to do.

"The gospel that effects eschatological salvation also brings about a radical change in the way people live. This is the burden of this letter and the theological presupposition behind every imperative. Therefore, although apocalyptic-cosmological language is also found, salvation is expressed primarily in ethical-moral language. [Note: Ibid., p. 47.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)