1 Corinthians 1:10-17

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

1 Corinthians 1:10. I beseech you... by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ a 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... Judgment not 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 Romans 15:2; Philippians 2:2, and which, next to truth itself, is of priceless value, alike in churches, in families, and in all kinds of society.

1 Corinthians 1:11. For it hath been declared unto me... by them... of Chloe members 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 you the nature of which is next explained.

1 Corinthians 1:12. Now this I mean, that each one... saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas the Aramaic name given to Simon when first called (John 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, 1 Corinthians 9:5; 1 Corinthians 15:5), not ‘Peter;' and in Galatians also it is four times used (1 Corinthians 1:18 1 Corinthians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 2:11; 1 Corinthians 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 (Galatians 1:8-9), and who to these very Corinthians denounced the corrupters of the Gospel as ‘ministers of Satan' (2 Corinthians 11:2-4; 2 Corinthians 11:13-15), would say of Apollos that he only ‘watered' what he himself had ‘sown' at Corinth (1 Corinthians 3:6), and would hold him up as one of Christ's gifts to the Church (1 Corinthians 3:21-23)? Apollos, too, had come to Corinth fresh from the teaching of Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:24-28), whom Paul calls his ‘helpers in Christ Jesus' (Romans 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 Corinth a wisdom which sacrificed substance to form that he resolved to 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 spirit not to say in the glow of newly-discovered views of the truth would 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' (Acts 18:27-28). Perhaps he deemed it right ‘becoming all things to all men, that by all means he might gain some' to 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 (Galatians 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 style lay 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 Peter's 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 Christianity so distinct from that both of Paul and Apollos would 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 Christ's 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 2 Corinthians 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 r eference to Peter's high encomium on Paul. 2 Peter 3:15-16, as that Epistle is rejected as spurious by those whom we here combat.

1 Corinthians 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 indicatively ‘Christ is divided' and Meyer, Stanley, and Alford assent to this; because (as they hold), if the sense had been interrogative, the negative particle υή should have preceded. But this is disproved by chap. 1 Corinthians 10:22 and 2 Corinthians 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 Christ's work; ‘baptism into' His name simply setting its seal to this.)

1 Corinthians 1:14. I thank God (it was so ordered) that I baptized none of you save Crispus ‘the ruler of the synagogue' (Acts 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 (Acts 10:48).

And Gaius, We read of a Gaius, or Caius, of Macedonia (Acts 19:29), of Derbe (Acts 20:4), and of Corinth (here), under whose roof the Epistle to the Romans was written (Romans 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.

1 Corinthians 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.

1 Corinthians 1:16. And I baptised... any other ‘I 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.

1 Corinthians 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 (Acts 22:16), and to be baptized into newness of life (Romans 6:3-6); but since believing always came first, and it was in believing that they received their new life (John 20:31; Ephesians 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 (Acts 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 (Acts 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 baptism albeit a Divine ordinance is here referred to.