Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 1:13
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
13. Is Christ divided? ] Some editors read this affirmatively, “Christ is divided,” instead of interrogatively as in the text. But the latter is preferable. St Paul would ask if Christ, into Whose Name the whole Church has been baptized, and Whose Body (Eph 1:23) the whole Church is, can thus be split up into portions, and each portion appropriated by one of the parties he has mentioned.
was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? ] Rather, into the name of Paul. To baptize ‘into’ a name signifies something more than to baptize in a name. Had St Paul used the latter phrase here, he would have been rebuking those Christians who called themselves disciples of any other but Christ. But he is also reminding them that the ‘Name’ of Christ, standing as it does for Himself, is the only way of salvation, that Christ is the only Head of the Church, and he disclaims any attempt to claim for himself that close connection with the inner life of all who profess belief in Christ, which is the prerogative of Christ alone. Cf. St Mat 28:19; Act 3:16; Act 4:12.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Is Christ divided? – Paul, in this verse, proceeds to show the impropriety of their divisions and strifes. His general argument is, that Christ alone ought to be regarded as their head and leader, and that his claims, arising from his crucifixion, and acknowledged by their baptism, were so pre-eminent that they could not be divided, and the honors due to him should not be rendered to any other. The apostle, therefore, asks, with strong emphasis, whether Christ was to be regarded as divided? Whether this single Supreme Head and Leader of the church, had become the head of different contending factions? The strong absurdity of supposing that, showed the impropriety of their ranging themselves under different banners and leaders.
Was Paul crucified for you? – This question implies that the crucifixion of Christ had an influence in saving them which the sufferings of no other one could have, and that those sufferings were in fact the speciality which distinguished the work of Christ, and rendered it of so much value. The atonement was the grand, crowning work of the Lord Jesus. It was through this that all the Corinthian Christians had been renewed and pardoned. That work was so pre-eminent that it could not have been performed by another. And as they had all been saved by that alone; as they were alike dependent on his merits for salvation, it was improper that they should be torn into contending factions, and ranged under different leaders. If there is anything that will recall Christians of different names and of contending sects from the heat of strife, it is the recollection of the fact that they have been purchased by the same blood, and that the same Saviour died to redeem them all. If this fact could be kept before their minds, it would put an end to angry strife everywhere in the church, and produce universal Christian love.
Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul – Or, into, or unto the name of Paul; see the note at Mat 28:19. To be baptized into, or unto anyone is to be devoted to him, to receive and acknowledge him as a teacher, professing to receive his rules, and to be governed by his authority – Locke. Paul here solemnly reminds them that their baptism was an argument why they should not range themselves under different leaders. By that, they had been solemnly and entirely devoted to the service of the only Saviour. Did I ever, was the implied language of Paul, baptize in my own name? Did I ever pretend to organize a sect, announcing myself as a leader? Have not I always directed you to that Saviour into whose name and service you have been baptized? It is remarkable here, that Paul refers to himself, and not to Apollos or Peter. He does not insinuate that the claims of Apollos or Peter were to be disparaged, or their talents and influence to be undervalued, as a jealous rival would have done; but he numbers himself first, and alone, as having no claims to be regarded as a religious leader among them, or the founder of a sect. Even he, the founder of the church, and their spiritual father, had never desired or intended that they should call themselves by his name; and he thus showed the impropriety of their adopting the name of any man as the leader of a sect.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 13. Is Christ divided?] Can he be split into different sects and parties? Has he different and opposing systems? Or, is the Messiah to appear under different persons?
Was Paul crucified for you?] As the Gospel proclaims salvation through the crucified only, has Paul poured out his blood as an atonement for you? This is impossible, and therefore your being called by my name is absurd; for his disciples you should be, alone, who has bought you by his blood.
Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?] To be baptized in, or into the name of one, implied that the baptized was to be the disciple of him into whose name, religion, c., he was baptized. As if he said: Did I ever attempt to set up a new religion, one founded on my own authority, and coming from myself? On the contrary, have I not preached Christ crucified for the sin of the world and called upon all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, to believe on Him?
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
How came these parties? There is but one Christ, but one that was crucified for you, but one into whose name, into a faith in whom, and a profession of whom, you were baptized. Peter baptized you into the name of Christ, so did I; I did not list those whom I baptized under any banner of my own, but under Christs banner. The Head is but one, and the body ought not to be divided.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
13. Is Christ divided?intovarious parts (one under one leader, another under another) [ALFORD].The unity of His body is not to be cut in pieces, as if all did notbelong to Him, the One Head.
was Paul crucified foryou?In the Greek the interrogation implies that astrong negative answer is expected: “Was it Paul (surely youwill not say so) that was crucified for you?” In the formerquestion the majesty of “CHRIST”(the Anointed One of God) implies the impossibility of His being”divided.” in the latter, Paul’s insignificanceimplies the impossibility of his being the head of redemption,”crucified for” them, and giving his name to the redeemed.This, which is true of Paul the founder of the Church ofCorinth, holds equally good of Cephas and Apollos, who had not such aclaim as Paul in the Corinthian Church.
crucified . . . baptizedThecross claims us for Christ, as redeemed by Him; baptism, as dedicatedto Him.
in the namerather,”into the name” (Ga3:27), implying the incorporation involved in the idea ofbaptism.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Is Christ divided?…. Some read the words as an assertion, “Christ is divided”; that is, his body, the church, is divided by such factions and parties; though in some copies , the note of interrogation, is put before the clause, and so to be rendered, “is Christ divided?” no; his human body was not to be divided; a bone of him was not to be broken, Joh 19:36; the seamless garment he wore was not to be rent asunder, Joh 19:23; nor is his mystical body, the church, to be torn in pieces by schisms and divisions; nor is anyone part of his Gospel different from, or opposite to another part of it; his doctrine is the same as preached by one minister and another, and is all of a piece, uniform and harmonious. Christ is not divided from his Father, not in nature; though he is to be distinguished from him, yet not to be divided; he is one in nature with him, though he is a distinct person from him; nor is he, nor can he, or will be ever separated from him; nor is he to be divided from him in his works and actions, with whom he was jointly concerned in creation, providence, and grace; and such are to be blamed as dividers of Christ from the Father, who talk of Christ to the exclusion of the Father, or to the dropping and neglect of any of his acts of grace; as his everlasting love to his chosen ones, the eternal election of them in Christ, the covenant of grace made with him, and the instance of his grace in the gift and mission of his Son: nor is Christ divided from himself, not in his nature and person; the two natures, human and divine, are united in one person; they are to be distinguished, and not to be confounded, yet not to be separated as to wake two distinct persons: nor in his offices; a whole Christ is to be received; Christ in his kingly as well as in his priestly office; to claim him as a Saviour and disown him as a King, is dishonourable to him; it is to make one end of his death void, as much as in such lies, which is, that he may be Lord of dead and living; and argues a carnal selfish spirit, and that faith in him is not right: such are to be blamed for being for Christ, and as dividers of him, who talk of being saved by him, and yet would not have him to rule over them. Nor is he divided from his Spirit, not from the person of the Spirit; he is to be distinguished from him as a person, but is one in nature with him; nor from his gifts and graces, which he has as man and Mediator without measure; nor from the work of the Spirit; for it is his grace the Spirit of God implants in the hearts of men: it comes from him, it centres in him, it makes men like him, and glorifies him; such who cry up Christ, and cry down the work of his Spirit upon the soul, are to be blamed for being for Christ, and to be reckoned dividers of them as much as in them lies: nor is Christ divided from his church and people; there is a close union between them, and he dwells in them, and among them; and they are to be blamed that talk of Christ, and never meet with his saints in public service and worship: nor is he divided from his ministers, word, and ordinances; Christ is the sum of the ministry of the word; the ordinances are instituted by him; he submitted to them himself, and is the substance of them, and has promised his presence in them to the end of the world: and what God has put together, let no man put asunder.
Was Paul crucified for you? no; he had taught them another doctrine; namely, that Christ was crucified for them, that he died for their sins, and had bought them with the price of his own blood; and therefore they were not to be the servants of men, or to call any man master, or to be called by his name, or any other man’s, only by Christ’s, who had redeemed them by his blood; so that they were not their own, nor any other’s, but his, and ought to glorify him with their souls and bodies, which were his.
Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul; no; but in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The apostle did not pretend to be the author of a new revelation, or the propagator of a new religion, but was a preacher of the Gospel, and an administrator of the ordinances of Christ; wherefore he baptized not in his own name, but in the name of Christ: to whose worship and service such as are baptized are devoted, and not to the service of men, and therefore not to be called after their names.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Is Christ divided? ( ;). Perfect passive indicative, Does Christ stand divided? It is not certain, though probable, that this is interrogative like the following clauses. Hofmann calls the assertory form a “rhetorical impossibility.” The absence of here merely allows an affirmative answer which is true. The fourth or Christ party claimed to possess Christ in a sense not true of the others. Perhaps the leaders of this Christ party with their arrogant assumptions of superiority are the false apostles, ministers of Satan posing as angels of light (2Co 11:12-15).
Was Paul crucified for you? ( ;). An indignant “No” is demanded by . Paul shows his tact by employing himself as the illustration, rather than Apollos or Cephas. Probably , over, in behalf of, rather than (concerning, around) is genuine, though either makes good sense here. In the Koine encroaches on as in 2Th 2:1.
Were ye baptized into the name of Paul? ( ;). It is unnecessary to say
into for rather than
in since is the same preposition originally as and both are used with as in Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48 with no difference in idea (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). Paul evidently knows the idea in Mt 28:19 and scouts the notion of being put on a par with Christ or the Trinity. He is no rival of Christ. This use of for the person is not only in the LXX, but the papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions give numerous examples of the name of the king or the god for the power and authority of the king or god (Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 146ff., 196ff.; Light from the Ancient East, p. 121).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Is Christ divided? [ ] . Some of the best expositors render as an assertion. Christ has been divided by your controversies. He is broken up into different party Christs. This gives a perfectly good and forcible sense, and is favored by the absence of the interrogative particle mh, which introduces the next clause. 78 Divided : so portioned up that one party may claim Him more than another. Christ has the article. See on Mt 1:1.
Was Paul crucified for you? [ ] . A negative answer is implied. Paul surely was not, etc. For is uJper on behalf of, not peri on account of, as some texts.
In the name [ ] . Rev., correctly, Into the name. See on Mt 28:19. Of Paul as the name of him whom you were to confess. The order of the original is : Was it into the name of Paul that ye were baptized ?
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Is Christ divided?” (Greek memeristai ho christos) “Has Christ been divided?” A rhetoric question, as this is, simply affirms that the contention over ministers is not of Christ.
2) “Was Paul crucified for you?” Paul chides the brethren by the further rhetoric question, “Paul was not crucified for you – Was he?” No, he was only an apostle of (sent by) Jesus Christ and a servant to the Corinth church.
3) “Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul.” (Greek he eis to onoma Paulou ebaptisthete;) the Greek term “eis to onoma” means “with reference to the authority of” Paul you were not baptized, were you? The rhetoric-implied answer is “absolutely not.” Paul was a great man, but not to be an object of worship or contention. Baptism is to be administered only in the name or by the authority of Jesus Christ, Mat 19:20.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
13. Is Christ divided? This intolerable evil was consequent upon the divisions that prevailed among the Corinthians: for Christ alone must reign in the Church. And as the object of the gospel is, that we be reconciled to God through him, it is necessary, in the first place, that we should all be bound together in him. As, however, only a very few of the Corinthians, who were in a sounder condition than the others, (64) retained Christ as their Master, (while all made it their boast that they were Christians,) Christ was by this means torn asunder. For we must be one body, if we would be kept together under him as our head. If, on the other hand, we are split asunder into different bodies, we start aside from him also. Hence to glory in his name amidst strifes and parties is to tear him in pieces: which indeed is impossible, for never will he depart from unity and concord, because “He cannot deny himself” (2Ti 2:13.) Paul, therefore, by setting before them this absurdity, designs to lead the Corinthians to perceive that they are estranged from Christ, inasmuch as they are divided, for then only does he reign in us, when we have him as the bond of an inviolably sacred unity.
Was Paul crucified for you? By two powerful considerations, he shows how base a thing (65) it is to rob Christ of the honor of being the sole Head of the Church — the sole Teacher — the sole Master; or to draw away from him any part of that honor, with the view of transferring it to men. The first is, that we have been redeemed by Christ on this footing, that we are not our own masters. This very argument Paul makes use of in his Epistle to the Romans (Rom 14:9,) when he says,
“
For this end Christ died and rose again, that he might be Lord both of the living and the dead.”
To him, therefore, let us live and die, because we are always his. Also in this same Epistle (1Co 7:23,)
“
Ye are bought with a price: be not ye the servants of men.”
As the Corinthians, therefore, had been purchased with the blood of Christ, they in a manner renounced the benefit of redemption, when they attached themselves to other leaders. Here is a doctrine that is deserving of special notice — that we are not at liberty to put ourselves under bondage to men, (66) because we are the Lord’s heritage. Here, therefore, he accuses the Corinthians of the basest ingratitude, in estranging themselves from that Leader, by whose blood they had been redeemed, however they might have done so unwittingly.
Farther, 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 (67) that they make up that imaginary treasure of the Church, which they tell us is dealt out by means of indulgences. Thus they pretend that the martyrs by their death merited something for us in the sight of God, that we may seek help from this source for obtaining the pardon of our sins. They will deny, indeed, that they are on that account our redeemers; but nothing is more manifest than that the one thing follows from the other. The question is as to the reconciling of sinners to God; the question is as to the obtaining of forgiveness; the question is as to the appeasing of the Lord’s anger; the question is as to redemption from our iniquities. This they boast is accomplished partly by the blood of Christ, and partly by that of the martyrs. They make, therefore, the martyrs partners with Christ in procuring our salvation. 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 (68) observes) it was to furnish an example of perseverance, not to procure for us the gift of righteousness.
Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Here we have a second argument, which is taken from the profession of baptism; for we enlist ourselves under the banners of him in whose name we are baptized. We are, accordingly, bound (69) to Christ, in whose name our baptism is celebrated. Hence it follows that the Corinthians are chargeable with perfidy and apostasy, if they place themselves under subjection to men. Observe here that the nature of baptism resembles a contract (70) of mutual obligation; for as the Lord by that symbol receives us into his household, and introduces us among his people, so we pledge our fidelity to him, that we will never afterwards have any other spiritual Lord. Hence as it is on God’s part a covenant of grace that he contracts with us, in which he promises forgiveness of sins and a new life, so on our part it is an oath of spiritual warfare, in which we promise perpetual subjection to him. The former department Paul does not here touch upon, because the subject did not admit of it; but in treating of baptism it ought not to be omitted. Nor does Paul charge the Corinthians with apostasy simply on the ground of their forsaking Christ and betaking themselves to men; but he declares that if they do not adhere to Christ alone — that very thing would make them covenant-breakers.
It is asked, what it is to be baptized in the name of Christ? I answer that by this expression it is not simply intimated that baptism is founded on the authority of Christ, but depends also on his influence, and does in a manner consist in it; and, in fine, that the whole effect of it depends on this — that the name of Christ is therein invoked. It is asked farther, why it is that Paul says that the Corinthians were baptized in the name of Christ, while Christ himself commanded (Mat 28:19) the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I answer, that in baptism the first thing to be considered is, that God the Father, by planting us in his Church in unmerited goodness, receives us by adoption into the number of his sons. Secondly, as we cannot have any connection with him except by means of reconciliation, we have need of Christ to restore us to the Father’s favor by his blood. Thirdly, as we are by baptism consecrated to God, we need also the interposition of the Holy Spirit, whose office it is to make us new creatures. Nay farther, our being washed in the blood of Christ is peculiarly his work; but as we do not obtain the mercy of the Father, or the grace of the Spirit, otherwise than through Christ alone, it is on good grounds that we speak of him as the peculiar object in view in baptism, and more particularly inscribe his name upon baptism. At the same time this does not by any means exclude the name of the Father and of the Spirit; for when we wish to sum up in short compass the efficacy of baptism, we make mention of Christ alone; but when we are disposed to speak with greater minuteness, the name of the Father and that of the Spirit require to be expressly introduced.
(64) “ Mieux avisez que les autres;” — “Better advised than the others.”
(65) “ Combien c’est vne chose insupportable;” — “How insufferable a thing it is.”
(66) “ Addicere nos hominibus in servitutem “ — “ de nous assuiettir aux hommes en seruitude;” — “To give ourselves up to men, so as to be in bondage to them.” Calvin very probably had in his eye the celebrated sentiment of Horace, (Epistle 1 50:14,) “ Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri;” — “Bound to swear allegiance to no master,” while enforcing the sentiment by a powerful consideration, to which the heathen poet was an entire stranger. — Ed.
(67) “ Du sang de Christ, et des martyrs tous ensemble;” — “From the blood of Christ, and of all the martyrs together.”
(68) Leo, ad Palaestinos, Epistle 81. The passage alluded to above is quoted at large in the Institutes. (Volume 2.) “Although the death of many saints was precious in the sight of the Lord, (Psa 116:15,) yet no innocent man’s slaughter was the propitiation of the world. The just received crowns, did not give them; and the fortitude of believers produced examples of patience, not gifts of righteousness; for their deaths were for themselves; and none by his final end paid the debt of another, except Christ our Lord, in whom alone all are crucified, all dead, buried, and raised up.” Leo, from whose writings this admirable passage is extracted, was a Roman bishop, who flourished in the fifth century, and was one of the most distinguished men of his age. He was a most zealous defender of the doctrines of grace, in opposition to Pelagianism and other heresies. — Ed.
(69) “ Obligez par serment;” — “Bound by oath.”
(70) “ Syngrapha (the term employed by Calvin) was a contract or bond, formally entered into between two parties, signed and sealed by both, and a copy given to each.” Cic. Verr. 1:36. Dio. 48:37. It is derived from a Greek term συγγραφὴ (a legal instrument or obligation.) Herodotus 1:48; and Demosthenes 268:13. Π. στεφ. — Ed
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(13) Is Christ divided?Better, Christ is divided. Christ, in the communion of the Church, is rent, torn in fragments by you. The mention of the sacred name as a party-cry makes the Apostle burst into that impassioned exclamation. Then there is a momentary pause, and the Apostle goes back from his sudden denunciation of the Christ party, to those whom he had originally selected for typical treatment, viz., those who bore his own name, the two streams of thought, as it were, mingling and rushing together; and he asks (with a mind still full of the burning indignation aroused by the mention of the name of union as a symbol of disunion), Was Paul crucified for you? Was your baptism in the name of Paul? To each of which the answer must of necessity be No.
Paul being the founder of the Church, these questions apply more forcibly to the others also.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
13. Christ divided The Christ here is the Christ of 1Co 1:30, the embodiment of an entire redemption and all connected blessings. Is, then, this Christ whole and one, and the one on whom the Corinthians can be of one mind, (1Co 1:10,) or is he torn in pieces; each party having a part, or slice, of their own?
Paul crucified Your true Lord and Master was crucified for you; can Paul show his cross as a claim on your allegiance?
For you This clearly implies that Christ suffered for us as no saint or martyr ever suffers for us. He suffered, then, not merely as an example, or simply for our benefit, but in a far higher sense.
Baptized in the name Rather, into the name or authority of Paul, so as to be rightly called by his name. Baptized here expresses the import of the rite, consecrated. Note, Rom 6:3.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptised into the name of Paul?”
Paul now attacks their divisions at their root. There is only one Jesus Christ, and to Him, and to Him alone, should all look. It is not a question of either/or. The messenger is nothing. Christ is pre-eminent. He was the One Who was crucified for them. He was the One into Whose name they had been baptised. Let them then unite in Him and look only to Him, for from Him alone comes the grace and power to deliver. No man can give this power. Without His working men of God have no effectiveness whatsoever in things pertaining to God, and their words, while stirring men’s emotions, will have no real spiritual power. Let all then proclaim and look to Christ.
‘Is Christ divided?’ The Oneness of Christ should stress the need for them to be one in Him (see 1Co 10:4; 1Co 10:16-17; 1Co 12:12-27). All is centred on Him. He cannot be divided up.
‘Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptised into the name of Paul?’ That they should look to Paul or anyone else is the second absurdity. It was Christ Who was crucified for them. It was Christ into Whose name they were baptised. It was from Him that came all spiritual benefits. It was from Him that they had received life, and had received the Holy Spirit. How foolish then to look to Paul, or anyone else.
This is not to doubt that due respect should be paid to those who minister the word of God in their place, but the moment they seek to draw attention to themselves, or begin to think themselves as something, or to draw men away from the whole church of Christ because of the exclusivity of their message, or the moment Christians begin to fall out through loyalty to one man of God or another, or to their message, or esteem them in such a way that disunity is caused in the body of Christ, then too much respect is being paid to them, and their relatively inferior place in the scheme of salvation is being overlooked. If they are godly men it is to Christ that they direct men’s thoughts. It is to Christ and Christ alone that men must look, both for salvation and in respect to their whole manner of living. It is with Him that they must be taken up. It is He that they must venerate. Christ must be all. And then they will also be at one with their fellow Christians. They must beware of hiding Christ behind themselves. In the words of John the Baptiser, every godly minister says, “He must increase, and I must decrease” (Joh 3:30). He points away from himself to Christ.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Exhortation to Unity Paul explains to the church that there is unity in Christ, and that he never came with the intent of gathering followers after himself. He came only to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 1Co 1:14
“Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are theseOf Pergamus, GainsOf the church of AEginae, Crispus.” ( Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 7.4.46)
Gaius is mentioned two others times in other Scriptures in reference to Macedonia and Corinth.
Act 19:29, “And the whole city was filled with confusion: and having caught Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul’s companions in travel, they rushed with one accord into the theatre.”
Rom 16:23, “ Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.”
The Apostolic Constitutions states that there was a man by the name of “Gains” who became the bishop of the church at Pergamus.
“Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are theseOf Pergamus, Gains. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me.” ( Constitutions of the Holy Apostles 7.4.46)
It is very possible that this was the same person mentioned in John’s third epistle (1Co 1:1).
3Jn 1:1, “The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth.”
It is interesting to note that the name of Demetrius (3Jn 1:12) is mentioned next to the name of Gaius in this passage from the Apostolic Constitutions.
1Co 1:14 Comments – If we refer to Rom 16:23 we find the names of Gaius and Erastus, for Paul wrote this epistle of Romans from the city of Corinth. Paul states in 1Co 1:14 that he baptized these same two individuals. Paul’s decision to baptize them may have stem from the fact that they were people of rank and importance in the city.
Rom 16:23, “Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother.”
1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
1Co 1:16 1Co 1:16
1Co 16:15-18, “I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas , that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,) That ye submit yourselves unto such, and to every one that helpeth with us, and laboureth. I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied. For they have refreshed my spirit and yours: therefore acknowledge ye them that are such.”
1Co 7:1, “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
1Co 16:8, “But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.”
Paul’s reference to baptizing the household of Stephanas in 1Co 1:16 is testimony of household salvation. We read in the book of Acts how the household of Lydia and the Philippian jailer, as well as the household of Cornelius, were also saved.
Act 16:15, “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.”
Act 16:31, “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
Cornelius in Act 10:44-48
Illustrations – It is difficult for us in the western culture to understand household salvation. This is because we as individuals are much less bound to our relationships as a family. My wife’s family, who are Filipinos demonstrated household salvation when her father became a Muslim for a few years. The only member of this family that did not covert was my wife, and that was because we were married. She later brought them back to Jesus Christ, but it was a family decision although the father made the decision. We see in the households of Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer and Stephanas that their households followed in the faith “from their hearts” in this collective decision to follow Christ. It means that they all gave their lives to Jesus Christ together and were genuinely saved, something that would rarely happen in the more independent Western cultures.
God can save entire households. This is also illustrated in the stories of Noah, Lot, Joseph, and Rahab. It is seen in the first Passover, when the angel Passover every home where the blood was applied, saving all members of that household from judgment.
Exo 12:22-23, “And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning. For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.”
1Co 1:17 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.
1Co 1:17
Pleasing man with fair speeches is a companion to preaching a powerless message. This is where preachers compromise. The danger is to be more dedicated to a denomination, or a group of colleagues, than to the Word of God.
1Co 1:17 “not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect” – Comments Paul came to them preaching not (in a wisdom-type of word or message) (1Co 1:17), but (the word, or message, of the Cross) (1Co 1:18). Thus, Paul is contrasting the message of human wisdom or reason with the message of the transforming power of the Cross of Jesus Christ.
1Co 1:17 Comments Paul now points to the cross of Calvary to bring everyone back to unity and one mind, and to mend the divisions that are in the church.
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
1Co 1:13. Was Paul crucified for you? As if he had said, “Are your obligations to me equal or comparable to those which you are under to our common Master? To him who died for us upon the cross?” He mentions himself, as it was least invidious to do so; though the application was equally just as to every other instance. See ch. 1Co 3:6 the word , rendered in, properly signifies into: so the French translate it here. The phrase , to be baptized into any one’s name, or into any one, means, solemnly by that ceremony to enter himself a disciple of him into whose name he was baptized; with profession to receive his doctrine and rules, and submit to his authority: a very good argument here, why they should be called by no one’s name but Christ’s. See Locke.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 1:13 . ] affirmative (with Lachmann and Kniewel; so as early as Theodoret), not interrogatory (as commonly taken), setting forth the tragical result of the aforesaid state of party-division , 1Co 1:12 , and that with arresting emphasis from the absence of any connective particle: Christ is divided! i.e. in place of being whole and undivided, the One common Christ of all, He is broken up into different party-Christs ! Such, that is to say, is the actual appearance of things when, of several parties mutually exclusive of one another, each seems to have its own separate Christ. [194] The reproach here conveyed suits the Christ-party also (against Rbiger), just as forming a party , but not them alone (Hofmann). The interrogatory rendering, common since Chrysostom: Is Christ divided? taken as a question of surprise, has nothing against it linguistically (see esp. Valckenaer, II. p. 71 f.), but it is liable to the objection that it is only with the following that the text gives us to recognise the beginning of the interrogative address. Had Paul intended . . as a question, it would have been most natural for him in the flow of his discourse to carry on the same form of interrogation, and say: . . . The text, I may add, gives no warrant for interpreting of the corpus Chr. mysticum , i.e. the church (Estius, Olshausen, and others; in Theodoret), or even of the doctrina Chr. , which is not varia et multiplex (Grotius, Mosheim, Semler, Morus, Rosenmller).
. . [195] ] Paul surely was not , etc. From this point on to 1Co 1:16 the incongruous nature of the first party-confession of faith is specially exposed. Bengel aptly remarks: “Crux et baptismus nos Christo asserit; relata: redimere, se addicere.” The two questions correspond to the mutual connection between believing and being baptized .
] on behalf of , in the sense of atonement. [196] Comp on Gal 1:4 ; Eph 5:2 .
] in reference to the name , as the name of him who is to be henceforth the object of the faith and confession of the individual baptized. Comp on Mat 28:19 and Rom 6:3 .
There was no need of a single word more regarding the first of these two questions; the answer to it was so self-evident. But as to the second , the apostle has some remarks to make, 1Co 1:14-16 .
[194] The conception is not that Christ is broken up into parts or fragments , so that the one party should possess this , the other that , part (see Baur, de Wette, Rckert, Calvin, etc., with Chrysostom and Theophylact); for each party gave itself out as the possessor of the whole Christ, not simply of a part, He standing to it in the relation of its Lord and Head. To this conception corresponds, too, the , instead of which it would not have been necessary that it should run, , as Hofmann objects.
[195] . . . .
[196] Lachm. reads , instead of , following only B D*; too weakly attested, and deserving of rejection also on this ground, that Paul always uses (even in 1Th 5:10 ) where the death of Christ is placed in relation to persons, for whom He died. Comp. on 1Co 15:3 , which is the only certain passage in Paul’s writings where (occurs with an abstract term. See also Wieseler on Gal 1:4 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Party Spirit
1Co 1:13
How comprehensive were all the questions put by the Apostle Paul! How instinctively and therefore instantaneously he always went to the root of the matter! He knew nothing about evasion or double-dealing of any kind; he had no part or lot in anonymous insinuations or statements. We have seen that he gave up his authority for assuring the Corinthians that there were divisions and contentions of many kinds in that tumultuous Church. Now he draws the attention of the Church to the one all-determining inquiry, What is Christ’s relation to the Church? Everything must stand or fall by the reply to that inquiry. One only wonders that this was a Church at all. That is the mystery of grace. This is a departure from our little mechanical prejudiced conceptions of a Church. We have seen what culture did for Greece, if Corinth may be taken as representing that classic land. Culture led away from God. Culture had its prayer; but in the streets of Corinth public, prayer was offered that the gods would increase the number of the prostitutes. Culture without humility, culture without a cross shadowing it, what is it but selfishness, vanity, idolatry? Yet Paul finds a Church here, calling it the Church of God. We are too pedantic in our classification. We should look at the manhood rather than at the mere circumstances limiting and qualifying it. The king is not named by any one appellation. Charles the First was not the king; the king was within him. He was still to be prayed for as the king. We look at his little doings, his mischief-makings, his vanities, ambitions, tergiversations, and grow eloquent in our condemnation about him. But all that has nothing to do with the king; the king is there, whether for the moment he be devil or angel; both these classifying terms must be dropped, and the term “king,” royal and significant, must stand, whoever for the moment the man may be who debases the office. So with the Church of God; we must look at the ideal Church, at the thing signified. We are not the Church, else what a poor Church it were! Take out littleness and ignorance, our selfishness and vanity, our bigotry and self-idolatry, and how the enemy might make merry over us as the Church! How he might fling our prayers in our face, and echo our songs with a suggestive cadence! The fool would not be foolish only, but unjust. He does not know whereof he affirms. The Church of God is within; an invisible, spiritual, ideal germ: an outline shaped in clouds, and yet to be realised as it were in the granite and rocks of eternity. So the man is within the man. Say not you will judge the poor creature by his conduct, for then no gaol would be large enough to hold so much wickedness; then no asylum would be large enough to accommodate such overflowing and immeasurable imbecility. You do not see the man; only God sees him: he is better than he appears to be, if sometimes he is worse than the surface would enable us to conclude. So we repeat the sacred doctrine we have already ventured to lay down that God is judge: he knows whether we are his kings and priests and Church, or whether we are refuse and offal, living and hopeless offences.
Amongst the deprivations and general debasements of the Church at Corinth there was one which may be designated by the term Party Spirit “Every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.” There were denominations within the denomination. Within an apparently united Church there were all kinds of sects, all degrees of animosity, all temperatures of virulence. Paul will not have this. He will at all events extricate himself from this prostitution of his name. Saying nothing of Apollos or Cephas, he says, “Was Paul crucified for you?” No man came so near to being crucified for the Church. How he approaches the Son of God! In self-surrender, in pious obliteration, how nearly he is on the very Cross of his Lord! Yet between Paul’s crucifixion and Christ’s there lies an infinite distance of significance. There can be but one Christ; his robe is seamless, his crown fits no other brow; he is the one Lord, he cannot be divided. Yet every day we are trying to divide him. Party spirit was not the blemish of Corinthian ecclesiastical society alone; party spirit is rife to-day. Party spirit is not truthful. A religious party man cannot speak the truth. When he is most vehement he is most perjured. Who can tell exactly what his opponent believes? and who can state in words, which his opponent would accept, his opponent’s exact position? Or who, by some happy chance hitting upon the very words, can utter those words in the tone which an opponent would adopt and endorse? The party man need not intentionally tell lies; he simply can hardly help doing so. His prejudice beclouds his vision, his bias turns him away with a kind of significant haughtiness or revulsion from the man whom he is attempting to represent. We have heard a theologian declare that there is a band of men newly risen who declare that it is safe for men to die in their sins. This statement has been made by a man of celebrity, by a man of capacious and ardent mind. Now refer the statement to the parties implicated and say, Do you teach that it is safe for men to die in their sins? They redden with anger, they flush with indignant shame, that such a travesty of their views should have been perpetrated. Yet they are all honourable men. The accuser did not mean to falsify, but his prejudice was larger than his reason, his fury overwhelmed his temper, and he showed how dangerous a thing it is to pick out words for other men when the attempt is to express the deepest convictions of the soul. It is not safe for men to die in their sins; it is not safe for men to live in their sins; it is not safe for men to have any sympathetic relation to sin. How tremendous the blasphemy to insinuate that any Christian man could suppose that it was safe for men to die in their sins! If this calumny has not yet defiled our English communications, let us be grateful that we are separated from it at least by the width of the Atlantic. Party spirit is not sincere. This is the more notable because it appears to be awfully in earnest. Sincerity is a larger term than may at first be supposed; it involves and connotes many elements of judgment, honesty, sense of what is due to man, to truth, to God. It is possible to be sincere at one point, and to be there even burningly severe to be there even scorchingly earnest; but for want of a proper width and range of judgment it is possible also to lose the one burning point of sincerity. Distinguish between sincerity and bigotry. Sincerity should be large, should be calm, should be refined, should have the Divine power of patience, and the Divine attribute of hope. Madness may be a form of sincerity; it is not the less an expression of insanity and a guarantee of danger. Party spirit is not acceptable. It wounds the very Lord it attempts to serve. Jesus Christ will have nothing to do with our parties; he died for the world; he tasted death for every man, and he only knows the meaning of that all-involving expression “every man.” We hastily pronounce the words, but he had eternity to think them over, and he has eternity in which to redeem his meaning when he bowed his head in death for every man. Our little impatience, our self-extinguishing, self-exhausting vehemence, our professed regard for truth at the expense of the larger human feeling, may be well-intentioned tributes, but he never allows them to be laid acceptably upon his altar. We have not a divided Christ; we have a united and indivisible Lord.
What is the explanation of difference? for difference is to be tolerated, and is to be recognised with thankfulness; only difference need not by any irresistible compulsion become party spirit. We have seen how the Apostle Paul maintained the right of diversity, gloried in diversity, showed how diversity and unity are perfectly compatible. What is the explanation of rational, healthy, useful difference? The explanation is that no man can see all the truth, and no one man can represent the totality of God’s thought. We are all needed. The mischief is that we separate one testimony from another, and regard as an integer that which after all may be but the smallest of fractions. Peter read something that Paul had written, and he said, “These things are hard to be understood.” Did he then expel Paul? Nay verily; for in the very confession that Paul had written some things hard to be understood, Peter described him as “our beloved brother Paul,” that great, strange, sometimes almost unbalanced and wild mind, that genius that hovered near the eternal throne and snatched notes from angelic music, and came and told the Church with more or less of incoherence what he had seen and heard; Peter did not understand him; did not profess to stand shoulder to shoulder with that man, but he had grace enough to describe him as “our beloved brother Paul.” Probably the Apostle Paul may have heard something of this, for when he comes to define his own ministry and function, he distinctly says, “my gospel.” There is a sense in which that is true of every man. Each man has his own view of God, his own conception of truth and duty, his own little light of hope. These are incommunicable gifts. Man is put in trust of some individuality of faith; it is enough if in his stewardship he be found faithful. We should gain much if we could realise the fact that each man has what he may honestly and modestly denominate his own gospel; that is to say his own view of the Gospel, his own way of explaining the Gospel, his own delight in the Gospel; let each man speak out of his own consciousness and his own experience, and what is lacking in monotony will be made up in individuality; and individuality properly construed and regulated is the guarantee of spiritual energy in the Church.
The Apostle James will write a letter and will dwell upon works; he will have works done; he will have an industrious and self-attesting Church; he will demand every day an account of the acts of yesterday. John will follow James, and will write of love. Where, then, is the Church? In Peter? No. In Paul? No. In James? No. In John? No. Where is the Church? In all of them. The organ is not a flute or trombone, clarionet or bassoon. What is it? All of them; and more still, and all worked from a centre, and all inspired by a common knowledge, and all united in expressing lofty, martial, pensive, comforting, or rousing music. You have not heard the Gospel if you have only heard one man preach it. The Gospel is infinitely larger than any one man’s little brain. We have only heard the Gospel when we have read all the Evangelists and all the Apostles. Otherwise only one writer would have been required to write the Bible. Moses, might have done it, or Ezekiel; Paul might have written the whole of the New Testament, or John; but God required the truth to be presented from every possible point of view, and each man comes into this great treasure-house to take out of it that which he most particularly needs for the moment. Is justification by faith? Yes. Is justification by works? Yes. Is predestination taught in the Bible? Yes. Is free will taught in the Bible? Certainly. You must study the proportion of faith; you must grasp the philosophy of revelation, and you must live and move and have your being in the Divine rhythm. You cannot snatch at heaven’s prizes: you must live long before you begin to see how far away the horizon is, and yet what a wondrous part it plays in defining issue and boundary. Some minds can only be approached along doctrinal lines. You must come to them with philosophies, theologies, high speculations and debates. Blessed be God, such minds are few in number. Other minds could only be secured in sacred custody and imprisonment for Christ by proceeding along sympathetic lines. You come to them with offers to dry away the stains of sorrow, to bind up the broken heart, to make the grave tremble with immortality. Then you touch the heart, and fire the imagination, and excite the feelings with holy and rational ecstasy. Other minds can only be approached along what may be termed selfish lines. You must give them a good substantial heaven and hell to begin with; you must guarantee that they are going to heaven wherever anybody else is going to. Then they say, This is definite! So it is; it is extremely definite. The number of the selfish is large; they do not care for high reasoning, for noble sentiment, for broad and generous interpretation of things. They want to be assured that somebody else will burn for ever and ever, and ever and ever; and then they will feel comfortable. Even they may be converted! Do not let us limit the grace of God. Even people who have a selfish heaven may become chastened and ennobled by the long-continued action of the Spirit of God, until they shall feel that heaven is here, and hell is here; and they will speak of the one with holy rapture, and of the other with pain, ill-concealed, but not the less expressive and instructive; they will feel that all these things must be left in the hands of the living Father, who alone knows all about the case, and who will do justly, though he turn the wicked into perdition. The man of one view always has an advantage over the broad-minded man. We have heard how formidable an opponent the man of one book is; that is to say, he knows that one book so thoroughly that he cannot be caught at a mischance or misadventure in the reading and interpretation of it. Other men may know a hundred books, but they may not know the hundred books so well as this man knows the one book; therefore he is thought to be formidable. So with the man who has but one idea in theology, or in Christian thinking, whatever its name may be. He is vehement on that point; there he burns like an oven; he is not troubled with doubt, because he is not troubled with indigestion; he is not aware that the horizon is larger than his house, it only appears to be so to eyes that cannot distinguish between differences. The glazier has less difficulty than the telescope maker. What difficulty can a glazier have? But the telescope maker, how he studies, calculates, polishes, adjusts, enters into the mystery of distance, and light, and optics; how he is a mathematician before he is an instrument-maker; through what hard words he passes to the simplicity of his conclusion! This would be very satisfactory, only oftentimes the glazier mistakes himself for the telescope-maker. We need the Pauline mind; we cannot understand it, but we feel that it is a master mind, and we, so to say, nestle up towards our beloved brother-father Paul, saying to him, with look if not with words, You know how it is; pray for us; we cannot understand all your words, but verily it is God that justifieth you, that sanctifieth you, that enlighteneth you; we know it; oh, take care ever of us, put your pastoral arms around us, play the shepherd to our poor wandering life, for we know the wolf is after us, and we need a huge man’s strength to enfold us in security.
What was Paul’s method of meeting all this party spirit? It was a method characteristic of his mind. It was comprehensive, theological, profound, noble. Instead of saying, “What are your differences? and let me see if I can adjust them,” he brushes them all away, and says, “Was Christ divided?” it is Christ you are misrepresenting, it is Christ you are misunderstanding, it is Christ you are putting to shame; I will not hear your contentions, I will magnify my Lord. The Cross of Christ was the standard of judgment as well as the centre of observation, and everything depended upon men’s relation to the Cross of Christ. What is the reason of that reference? This, that Crucifixion is the central idea in the Church. The Cross measures all things, determines all things, and ought to rule all things; and he who has accepted the doctrine of Christ’s Crucifixion has by so much entered upon the practice of his own. That is the holy secret, that is the Divine discipline; not that I have only to look at my crucified Lord as a distant spectacle, I have to reproduce his Crucifixion in my own heart as a personal experience. Christ’s work was the atonement; my work is its acceptance, and obedience to its spirit. I have to be crucified with Christ, and to have no self. When I gave myself to Christ I gave myself wholly; he would not take part of me it was a complete surrender. So now as to who is to be first, or second, or last, we have no time for such mechanical and frivolous inquiries; each is to be first in love, first in prayer, first in obedience.
Then the Apostle associates this great Christian act with the mystery of the personality and sovereignty of God, as we have already seen. How often does the word of God occur in these introductory verses: “It pleased God”; “after that in the wisdom of God”; “the power of God”; “the wisdom of God”; “the foolishness of God”; “the workings of God”; “but God hath chosen”; “God hath chosen.” Before this noble utterance, how mean is the contention of Corinthian partisanship; how Paul and Apollos and Cephas drop out of view when the Apostle comes to set forth the right perspective, and the right relation of Divinity, revelation, duty, and destiny. We must get back to great principles if we would get back to profound peace. Paul has his place; Apollos has his function; Cephas we cannot do without, for he burned, and in his glowing energy he warmed and inspired us all. But even Christ, as we have seen, may itself become a party name. We may crucify the Son of God afresh in using a great name for little purposes. That is debasement, that is decoronation to use the signet of God in stamping our private epistles, to use the name of Christ to pass into the currency of the Church some ill-moulded name of our own. Where there is doubt there should be silence; where there is uncertainty there should be love; where the doctrine is too high for us we should clasp hands, saying, “Brothers, the doctrine is above us far, we cannot attain its gleaming height; but we can pray, we can love, we can wait.” A Church that adopts that attitude need never put itself to the shame of defending its own orthodoxy. It is enough for such a Church that it can live.
Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Ver. 13. Baptized in the name ] Gr. “Into the name,” so as to be called by my name. Those then that will needs be called Franciscans, Lutherans, &c., do after a sort disclaim their baptism, and become renegades from Christ.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
13. ] Some (Lachmann has so printed it) take . as an assertion, ‘ Christ has been divided (by you),’ or, as Chrys. mentions, . . But it is far better to take it, as commonly, interrogatively: Is Christ (the Person of Christ, as the centre and bond of Christian unity not, the Gospel of Christ (Grot., al.), nor the Church of Christ (Estius, Olsh.): nor the power of Christ (Theodoret), i.e. his right over all) divided (not in the primary sense (Meyer, Exo 1 ), against Himself, as Mar 3:24-25 , where we have , but ‘ into various parts , one under one leader, another under another, which in fact would amount, after all, to a division against Himself)? The question applies to all addressed , not to the only, as Meyer, Exo 1 . In that case . would mean ‘Has Christ become the property of one part only?’ as indeed Dr. Burton renders it.
Meyer urges against the interrogative rendering, that the questions begin immediately after, with . But we may fairly set against this argument, that the introduces a new form of interrogation respecting a new individual, viz. Paul: and that it was natural, for solemnity’s sake, to express the other question differently. In , the Majesty of Christ’s Person is set against the unworthy insinuation conveyed by , in ., the meanness of the individual, Paul, is set against the triumph of divine Love implied in . . . Two such contrasts could hardly but be differently expressed.
. . . . .] Surely Paul was not crucified for you? By repudiating all possibility of himself being the Head and of their church, he does so fortiori for Cephas and Apollos: for he founded the Church at Corinth. On . . see Mat 28:19 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 1:13 . In his expostulation P. uses, with telling contrast, the first and last only of the party names: “Is the Christ divided? Was Paul crucified on your behalf? or into the name of Paul were you baptised?” Lachmann, W.H [176] , Mr [177] , Bt [178] , read . as an exclamation: “The Christ (then) has been divided!” torn in pieces by your strife. But (here in pf. of resultful fact) denotes distribution , not dismemberment (see parls.): the Christian who asserts “I am Christ’s” in distinction from others, claims an exclusive part in Him, whereas the one and whole Christ belongs to every limb of His manifold body (see 1Co 12:12 ; also 1Co 11:3 , Rom 10:12 ; Rom 14:7-9 , Eph 4:3 ff., Col 2:19 ). A divided Church means a Christ parcelled out , appropriated . is the Christ , in the fulness of all that His title signifies (see 1Co 12:12 , etc.). While .; is Paul’s abrupt and indignant question to himself, ; (aor [179] of historical event) interrogates the readers “Is it Paul that was crucified for you?” From the cross the Ap. draws his first reproof, the point of which 1Co 6:20 makes clear, “You were bought at a price”: the Cor [180] therefore were not Paul’s or Kephas’, nor some of them Christ’s and some of them Paul’s men, but only Christ’s and all Christ’s alike.
[176] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.
[177] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
[178] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).
[179] aorist tense.
[180] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
The cross was the ground of (1Co 1:9 , 1Co 10:16 ); baptism , signalising personal union with Him by faith, its attestation (Rom 6:3 ); to this P. appeals asking, ; His converts will remember how Christ’s name was then sealed upon them, and Paul’s ignored. What was true of his practice, he tacitly assumes for the other chiefs. The readers had been baptised as Christians , not Pauline, Apollonian, or Petrine Christians. Paul’s horror at the thought of baptising in his name shows how truly Christ’s was to him “the name above every name’ (Phi 2:9 ; cf. 2Co 4:5 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Is Christ divided? The omission of me, with the question, implies that the answer must be affirmative. “He is indeed. “Compare 1Co 12:12-25. You are rending Him.
was Paul, &c. ? The me here requires a negative answer.
for = on behalf
baptized. App-115.
in = into. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
13.] Some (Lachmann has so printed it) take . as an assertion,-Christ has been divided (by you),-or, as Chrys. mentions, . . But it is far better to take it, as commonly, interrogatively: Is Christ (the Person of Christ, as the centre and bond of Christian unity-not, the Gospel of Christ (Grot., al.),-nor the Church of Christ (Estius, Olsh.): nor the power of Christ (Theodoret), i.e. his right over all) divided (not in the primary sense (Meyer, ed. 1), against Himself, as Mar 3:24-25, where we have , but into various parts, one under one leader, another under another,-which in fact would amount, after all, to a division against Himself)? The question applies to all addressed, not to the only, as Meyer, ed. 1. In that case . would mean Has Christ become the property of one part only? as indeed Dr. Burton renders it.
Meyer urges against the interrogative rendering, that the questions begin immediately after, with . But we may fairly set against this argument, that the introduces a new form of interrogation respecting a new individual, 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 by ,-in .,-the meanness of the individual, Paul, is set against the triumph of divine Love implied in . . . Two such contrasts could hardly but be differently expressed.
. . …] Surely Paul was not crucified for you? By repudiating all possibility of himself being the Head and of their church, he does so fortiori for Cephas and Apollos: for he founded the Church at Corinth. On . . see Mat 28:19.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 1:13. , has [Christ] been divided?) Are then all the members not now any longer under one Head? And yet, since He alone was crucified for you, is it not in the name of Him alone that ye have been baptized? The glory of Christ is not to be divided with His servants; nor is the unity of His body to be cut into pieces, as if Christ were to cease to be one.-) Lat. num:[4] it is often put in the second clause of an interrogation; ch. 1Co 10:22; 2Co 3:1.–, was crucified-ye were baptized) The cross and baptism claim us for Christ. The correlatives are, redemption, and self-dedication.
[4] It expects a negative answer. Was it Paul (surely you will not say so) that was crucified for you. This illustrates the subjective force of (i.e. referring to something in the mind of the subject); whilst is objective.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 1:13
1Co 1:13
Is Christ divided?-This was said in condemnation of their divided state. To divide and rend the church of Christ into parties is to divide Christ. The church is his spiritual body, to establish which he sacrificed his fleshly body. Then it is a greater sin to divide the church of Christ than it was to pierce and mutilate his fleshly body. He who introduces things not required by God, that cause division and strife, is guilty of the strife. All the divisions in the churches arise over the introduction of teachings, orders, and institutions not ordained of God. Hence the followers of Christ cannot divide-cannot introduce things not required by God.
was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?-That is, they should be followers of none, save him who died to redeem them, and into whose name they had been baptized. He does not mention Apollos, but shows the folly of human leaders by showing the sin of following himself instead of Christ. [To be baptized into the name of signifies to be baptized while engaging henceforth to belong to him in whose name the rite is performed. In the name is summed up all that is revealed regarding him who bears it, consequently all the titles of his legitimate authority. Baptism is therefore a taking possession of the baptized on the part of the one whose name is invoked on him. Never did Paul think for a moment of arrogating to himself such a position in relation to those who were baptized by him.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Christ: 2Co 11:4, Gal 1:7, Eph 4:5
Paul: 1Co 6:19, 1Co 6:20, Rom 14:9, 2Co 5:14, 2Co 5:15, Tit 2:14
or: 1Co 1:15, 1Co 10:2, Mat 28:19, Act 2:38, Act 10:48, Act 19:5
Reciprocal: 1Ki 16:21 – divided Mat 23:8 – one Joh 4:2 – General Act 8:16 – only Act 16:15 – when Act 18:8 – hearing 2Co 4:5 – we Gal 6:4 – and not
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 1:13. The three questions in this verse require negative answers. In is from EIS which means “into” the name of another, that was supposed to have been accomplished by the ordinance of baptism.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 1:13-16. Why do you not all say the same thing, namely, I am of Christ, 1Co 3:23. Is Christ divided? Did one Christ send Paul, and another Apollos, to preach the gospel to you? Is not one and the same Christ preached to you by us all? or is his body divided? See 2Co 11:4. Was Paul Or any other but Christ Jesus; crucified for you That you should be baptized into his death, as Christians are into the death of Christ? that is, engaged by baptism to be conformed to his death, by dying to sin and to the world. As if he had said, Are your obligations to me, or to any other apostle or Christian minister, equal or comparable to those which you are under to our common Master? to him who died for us upon the cross? He mentions himself, as it was least invidious to do so; though the application was equally just as to every other instance. The apostles question here implies, that the sufferings of Christ have an influence in saving the world, which the sufferings of no other man have, or can have. Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul
By his authority, and dedicated to his service? To be baptized in or into the name of any person is, as Locke observes, to enter himself a disciple of him into whose name he is baptized, with profession to receive his doctrine and rules, and submit to his authority: a very good argument here, why they should be called by no ones name but Christs. In this sense the Israelites are said, 1Co 10:2, to have been baptized into Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea. I thank God Who so ordered it in the course of his providence: it is a pious phrase for the common one, I rejoice: that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue at Corinth, and among the first of the Corinthians who were converted by Paul, Act 18:8 : Gaius, or Caius, was the person with whom the apostle lodged when he wrote his epistle to the Romans, Rom 15:23. Both of them were persons of eminence. The other Corinthians may have been baptized by the apostles assistants, Silas, Titus, and Timothy. Lest any should say I had baptized in my own name In order to attach the persons baptized to myself, and cause them to acknowledge me for their head. Also the household of Stephanas Who, according to Theophylact, was a person of note among the Corinthians; and his family seem all to have been adults when they were baptized, being said, 1Co 16:15, to have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. I know not That is, it does not at present occur to my memory; whether I baptized any other Here the apostle intimates that he is not speaking by inspiration, but from memory. He did not remember whether he baptized any more of the Corinthians. The Spirit was given to the apostles indeed to lead them into all truth; but it was truth relative to the plan of mans salvation, which was thus made known to them, and not truth, like the fact here mentioned, the certain knowledge of which was of no use whatever to the world.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 13. Is the Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Several editors (Lachmann, Westcott, and Hort) and commentators (Meyer, Beet) make the first proposition an indignant affirmation: Christ then among you is rent, lacerated! But the transition to the following questions does not in that case seem very natural. It is more simple to see here a question parallel to the two following, these being intended to show the impossibility of the supposition expressed by the first. The term the Christ denotes the Messiah in the abstract sense, that is to say, the Messianic function, rather than the person who filled the office. The latter would certainly be designated by the name of Jesus or by the word Christ without article. How, besides, could we suppose the person of Christ divided into four? Paul means,is the function of Christ, of Saviour, and founder of the kingdom of God divided between several individuals, so that one possesses one piece of it, another, another? Taken in this sense, the question does not refer only to the fourth party, but to the other three. Are things then such that the work of salvation is distributed among several agents, of whom Jesus is one, I another? and so on. Edwards explains thus: Is not that which is manifested of the Christ in Paul at one with that which is manifested of Him in Apollos, etc….? Do not these elements form all one and the same Christ? The meaning is good, but one does not see how in this case the censure applies to the fourth party, which the question, thus understood, seems on the contrary to justify. It is evident the word, Christ, cannot be applied with Olshausen to the Church, nor with Grotius to the doctrine of Christ.
The form of the first question admitted of a reply in the affirmative or negative; that of the two following (with ) anticipates a negative answer, serving as a proof to the understood negative answer which is evidently given to the first: Paul was not, however, crucified for you, was he, as would be the case if a part belonged to him in the work of salvation? He might have put the same question in regard to Apollos and Cephas; but by thus designating himself he naturally disarms the other parties.
The first question relates to the function of Saviour, the second to that of Lord, which flows from it. Edwards well indicates the relation between the two. The cross has made Christ the head of the body. By baptism every believer becomes a member of that body. The reading of the Vatic., , cannot be preferred to that of all the other documents: . This signifies in behalf of. The idea, in the place of, which would be expressed by , is included in it only indirectly. It is by substitution that the benefit expressed by has been realized. To be baptized in the name of…signifies: to be plunged in water while engaging henceforth to belong to Him in whose name the external rite is performed. In the name there is summed up all that is revealed regarding him who bears it, consequently all the titles of his legitimate authority. Baptism is therefore a taking possession of the baptized on the part of the person whose name is invoked over him. Never did Paul dream for an instant of arrogating to himself such a position in relation to those who were converted by his preaching. Yet this would be implied by such a saying as, I am of Paul.
And not only could it not be so in fact, but the apostle is conscious of not having done anything which could have given rise to such a supposition.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Is Christ divided? [the church is called the “body of Christ” (1Co 12:12-13; 1Co 12:27), and Paul asks if that body can be cut in pieces and parceled out to human leaders] was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul? [Paul shows the disinterestedness of his rebuke by centering it more especially upon those who had honored him as their leader, thus showing, as Bengel says, that “he disliked Paulinists as much as he did Petrinists.” Jesus became the Author of our salvation, and the head of the church through suffering upon the cross (Heb 2:10), and Paul, in order to be his rival, should not only have been crucified for his followers, but his sacrifice should have been as efficacious for the cleansing of sin and the procuring of salvation as was Christ’s. This was, of course, preposterous. Again, if Paul was incompetent as the head of a religious body, his followers also had not properly qualified themselves as his disciples, for they had not been baptized into Paul’s name, but being baptized into Christ they had put on Christ (Gal 3:27), and, becoming thus members of Christ, how could they belong to Paul? What Paul thus spoke of himself could be said with equal force of either Apollos or Cephas.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 13
The meaning seems to be, Can you divide your one master, Christ, so as to make of him many masters, to lead you in separate divisions?–or Will you leave your Savior, and place yourselves under mere human leaders?
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 1:13. Christ has been and is divided, suggesting by of Christ but applicable to all the parties; and showing their sad result. All the parties, even that which prided itself in His Name, had been practically tearing to pieces the Master they professed to serve; and continued to do so. Christ shows Himself, and speaks, to men, and works out His purpose of mercy, through the lives and lips of His people, who are His body, (1Co 12:27,) and His representatives. The practical influence of Christ upon the world is proportionate to their oneness of aim and effort: for this oneness is evidently not human but divine. Consequently, whatever divides Christians, lessens Christ’s influence upon the world; by presenting to men a practically mutilated, and therefore comparatively ineffective, Saviour. The practical identity of Christ and His people will often meet us. Cp. 1Co 12:12, So also is Christ.
With good taste Paul chooses his own name as an example of the impropriety of making men heads of church-parties. The evident surprise of this question betrays the infinite difference, in his view, between Christ’s death for men and the deadly peril to which Paul constantly exposed himself for the salvation of men. This difference can be explained only by the great Doctrine of Rom 3:24-26.
On your behalf: Rom 5:6.
Crucified, baptized: the greatest events in the history of the church, and of the individual; (cp. Rom 6:3;) and most closely connected.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
1:13 {15} Is Christ divided? was {16} Paul crucified for you? or were ye {17} baptized in the name of Paul?
(15) The first reason why divisions ought to be avoided: because Christ seems by that means to be divide and torn in pieces, who cannot be the head of two different and disagreeing bodies, being himself one.
(16) Another reason: because they cannot without great injury to God so depend on men as on Christ: which thing those no doubt do who allow whatever some man speaks, and do it for their own sakes: as these men allowed one and the very same Gospel being uttered by one man, and did loathe it being uttered by another man. So that these factions were called by the names of their teachers. Now Paul sets aside his own name, not simply to grieve no man, but also to show that he does not plead his own cause.
(17) The third reason taken from the form and end of baptism, in which we make a promise to Christ, calling also on the name of the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore although a man does not fall from the doctrine of Christ, yet if he depends upon certain teachers, and despises others, he forsakes Christ: for if he holds Christ as his only master, he would hear him, no matter who Christ taught by.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
This last group was using Christ as the name of a party within the church. This in a sense cut Him off from the other members of the church. Such an idea was unthinkable, and by stating it Paul showed its absurdity.
Next Paul addressed his own supporters. How foolish it was to elevate him over Christ since Christ did what was most important. Note the central importance of the Cross in Paul’s thinking. Paul’s followers had not submitted to baptism in water to identify with Paul but with the Savior. This reference shows how highly Paul regarded water baptism. It is God’s specified way for the believer to identify publicly with his or her Lord (Mat 28:19; cf. Act 8:16; Act 19:5; Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27). It implies turning over allegiance to the one named in the rite.