1 Corinthians 1:10

1Co_1:10-16

Now I beseech you … that ye speak the same thing, and that, there he no divisions among you.

The apostolical exhortation to unity

I. What it includes--unity.

1. In confession.

2. In spirit.

3. In object.

II. How it is enforced--by the name of Christ, implying--

1. His will.

2. His authority.

3. His claims on our love and obedience. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Unity of sentiment

I. The reasons why Christians should think alike upon religious subjects.

1. God has given them an infallible rule of faith. His Word contains a complete system of Divine truth. That being the case, there is a plain propriety in His requiring them to believe that it is a complete system, and also to believe all the particular truths which compose the system.

2. That rule of faith is sufficiently plain and intelligible to every capacity. All who are capable of knowing that they are the creatures of God are equally capable of knowing what He has required them to believe concerning Himself, their own character, their present situation, and their future state.

II. The objections which have been urged against this unpalatable doctrine.

1. The great and visible diversity in the intellectual powers and external circumstances of Christians. But unity of sentiment does not require equality of knowledge. As one star differs from another star, so angels will differ from saints, and saints from each other in glory. But their difference in knowledge will not create any diversity of opinions respecting the same subjects. Saints will agree with angels so far as their knowledge extends; but so far as it fails, they will wait for further light.

2. The wide difference in the education of Christians. But since they have the Word of God in their hands, it is in their power to bring their own opinions and those of their instructors to an infallible standard, and to decide for themselves what they ought to believe or to disbelieve.

3. The right of private judgment. It is readily granted that every Christian has a right to collect evidence, and after that, to judge according to the evidence. But he has no right to examine and judge under the influence of prejudice, and form his opinion contrary to reason and Scripture.

4. That in Rom_14:1-23. the apostle allows Christians to differ in their religious sentiments, and only exhorts them to view their difference with a candid and charitable eye. But this only applies to the Mosaic rites, which were things indifferent, and which might be observed or neglected under a sense of duty. But he reminds them that they must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, where their opinions as well as actions would be either approved or condemned.

III. The truths which naturally flow from the subject. If God does require Christians to believe alike upon religious subjects, then--

1. It is not a matter of indifference what religious sentiments they embrace.

2. They have contracted a great deal of guilt from age to age by embracing and propagating error.

3. Christians who are united in the belief of the truth have a right to blame those who think differently from them upon religious subjects.

4. There appears to be no propriety in attempting to unite them in affection, without uniting them in sentiment.

5. It seriously concerns all who acknowledge the truth and divinity of the gospel to use every proper method to become entirely united in sentiment.

(1) For this purpose, therefore, let them freely and candidly examine the various points in which they mutually differ.

(2) There are various considerations which urge Christians to cultivate a sentimental union among themselves.

(a) It will directly tend to unite them in affection. We find that those who agree in art or science commonly feel a mutual attachment arising from their concurrence in opinion. And a unity of faith never fails to produce a mutual esteem and affection among Christians.

(b) The sure word of prophecy predicts the future peace and harmony of the Church as resulting from the knowledge of the truth.

(c) By uniting in sentiment, Christians will remove one of the strongest prejudices of unbelievers against the Bible.

(d) They will strengthen and animate one another in promoting the cause of Christ. (N. Emmons, D. D.)

Divisions in the Church

Hardly five years had lapsed since Paul had first preached the gospel at Corinth, when he is constrained to write to his converts, now in the language of fatherly entreaty, now in the language of the sharpest rebuke, and that though he can still give thanks to God with unfeigned gratitude for the growth of their faith in Christ. What then is the fault which causes him such keen anxiety? It is not heresy, it is not apostasy, it is not open separation from the Church of Christ: it is a matter which we might be inclined to regard as far less momentous than any of these: it is the growth and spread of party spirit within their body. They are degrading the names of the apostles into watchwords of divisions. Christ is divided! indignantly exclaims St. Paul. You are rending His body asunder, you are severing the members which cannot exist in isolation. The harmonious combination of manifold parts, all subservient to one end and united by one Head; this is the essential idea of the physical body. The same law holds in the mystical body of Christ. Disregard the Divine order, and the result can only be death. This division into parties is no venial offence, no pardonable enthusiasm for the teachers whose names you thus dishonour: it is the ruin of the unity for which Christ prayed, That they all may be one. It is a work of the flesh: the outcome of the evil propensities of your unrenewed nature.

I. What are the causes of party divisions?

1. The ultimate cause lies, I believe, in a radical misapprehension of the nature of truth. Gods truth is infinite. Mans mind is finite. It is in the nature of things impossible that we with our limited capacities should comprehend the whole of truth. All that we can do is to grasp some fragments, here a little and there a little: truth indeed sufficient for our personal necessities, if we seek aright in faith and patience, but immeasurably falling short of the reality. Our views of truth are therefore partial, disjointed; and it is inevitable that men with minds differently trained should apprehend different parts and different aspects of the truth. This variety is not of itself an evil. Far from it. Such different views are complementary, not antagonistic. As Gods truth was revealed to man in many parts and in many fashions, so only in many parts and in many fashions can it be grasped and interpreted by man. Only as the ages roll on, and each generation contributes its share towards the final result, are we slowly learning the grandeur of the gospel. Differences are not to be ignored or dissembled, but frankly acknowledged: combination in diversity, it has been said, is the characteristic feature of the Church of Christ, and it must be the characteristic feature of every organisation which truly represents that Church. Combination in diversity is a characteristic feature of Holy Scripture. It needs the records of four Evangelists to give a true portraiture of the Son of Man in His earthly ministry. We are not to regard one as more faithful than another, not to take any one as in itself complete, but to find in the harmony of all the true delineation of that perfection which we can only realise by contemplating it in its several parts. St. Paul and St. James, St. Peter and St. John, each offer to us different aspects of the truth; one is the apostle of faith, another of works; one of hope, another of love; but if they have each some special grace or duty upon which they insist, it is not to the neglect or exclusion of other graces and duties: nor are we to pit them one against the other.

2. Thus we see that various schools of thought are necessary for the full representation of truth. They supply, moreover, that antagonism of influences which is the only real security for continued progress. But schools of thought are painfully liable to degenerate into parties. We naturally and rightly concentrate our attention upon that fragment of truth which we have realised for ourselves to be true and precious: gradually we grow to think that this is the whole of truth. We divide the swelling river of truth into a thousand paltry runlets, and each cries, Come drink at my stream, for it, and it alone, is pure and uncontaminated. Well for us, then, if the water of life is not evaporated and lost amid the sands of the barren desert of strife.

3. For the next step is easy. We affirm that because others see not with our eyes, they are enveloped in the mists of dangerous error; resistance to their tenets becomes a duty, and in the fierceness of controversy charity is forgotten, and the party contentions of the Christian Church become a spectacle that provokes the scornful laugh of devils and moves our angelic watchers to tears. The absence of humility, the strength of self-will, the spirit that desires victory rather than truth, all contribute to the direful result, and the imperfection of our knowledge is perverted by our sinful folly into the source of incalculable mischief to ourselves and those around us.

4. Especially in days of revival of religious life is there danger of party contentions. Conviction is intense, enthusiasm unbounded, old truths are resuscitated, new truths apprehended, and each individual cherishes his own discovery, and proclaims it as the one vital element of truth to the exclusion of others in reality no less important.

5. The use of party phraseology, too, tends to accentuate the difference between various schools of thought. By this means over and above all the real differences of opinion which exist, a fresh cause of separation is introduced among those who would perhaps be found, if their respective statements were candidly explained, to have in these tenets no real ground for disunion.

6. Extremes beget extremes: if one set of men form themselves into an exclusive party, with narrow views and aims, the almost certain consequence is that those who are of the opposite way of thinking will form a party to resist them. But it is a faithless expedient. Through strife, and not by strife, the Church of God has passed upon her way.

II. What are the evils arising from party divisions?

1. Party spirit causes the decay of spiritual life: for love is the breath of life, and where love is not, life must wither and die. But how can the gentle breezes of love co-exist with the fierce burning blasts of the sirocco of controversy? As each party circle moreover ceases to hold communion with its neighbours, and feeds more exclusively upon its own limited truths, there is peril that even these will grow to be lifeless, and become petrified into hard unmeaning formulas. Not loss of knowledge and narrowness of sympathy alone, but even death, may be the consequence of isolation.

2. Party spirit is a grievous hindrance to the growth of Gods kingdom. This it is which breeds distrust between the clergy and the laity, and opens that gap which we are sometimes told is daily widening. When shall we learn that the kingdom of God does not consist in a phraseology, but in righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost ?

3. Party spirit is a waste of strength.

4. Party divisions are a stumbling-block to weak ,believers. What are we to think when we see men whose personal characters are equally estimable denouncing one another with unmitigated bitterness?

5. Party divisions are a laughing-stock to unbelievers. See how these Christians love one another, is the scornful taunt. And thus we lose that testimony of an united Church which was the ideal contemplated by our Lord.

III. What are the remedies for party divisions?

1. The fundamental bond of religious unity is this: Ye are Christs. Not primarily in outward organisation, however valuable, not in creeds, however necessary, but in living union with our Head.

2. Another remedy is to be found in the frank recognition that in the Church of Christ variety is not only not wrong, but natural and necessary; because the views of any one individual or group of individuals can be at best but partial embodiments of the whole truth. When we maintain that our partial view is the complete and only true one, it is as if the dwellers in the valleys round some mighty mountain, a Mont Blanc or a Matterhorn, should meet and compare their ideas of its size and form: and because these ideas do not tally, and the outlines of its slopes and peaks and precipices are differently described by each, should forthwith deny the identity of the object of their argument; or impeach the veracity of their neighbours, and part with angry and embittered feelings.

3. A candid and patient examination of the views of those who differ from us will do much to moderate party spirit. Men of undeniable honesty, conscientiousness, zeal, holiness, differ from us. Why is this? They cannot be entirely in the wrong. No holy life is based entirely upon false premises. No system rests altogether upon a lie.

4. Once more, a remedy for divisions is to be found in practical co-operation wherever possible.

5. If controversy should unfortunately be unavoidable, as it may be on some occasions, and for some individuals, we must take heed that it is conducted with calm sobriety, temperate reason, and with the desire of truth, not success. But it is a perilous resource: far healthier for us if we can abstain from entangling ourselves in it. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee. (A. F. Kirkpatrick, M. A.)

Division in the Church contrary to the spirit of Christ

Because--

I. Contrary to the doctrine of Christ. Christ here by His servant--

1. Exhorts to unity in

(1) Confession;

(2) Spirit;

(3) Judgment.

2. Condemns all disunion.

II. Incompatible with our obligations to Christ. Divisions--

1. Arise from sinful attachment to persons, interests, or opinions.

2. Divide the body of Christ.

3. Transfer the honour due to Him to another. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Like-minded

An eminent preacher says: I was walking some weeks ago in a beautiful grove, the trees were distant apart, and the trunks were straight and rugged. But as they ascended higher the branches came closer together, and still higher the twigs and branches interlaced. I said to myself, our Churches resemble these trees; the trunks near the earth stand stiffly and rudely apart; the more nearly toward heaven they ascend, the closer and closer they come together, until they form one beautiful canopy, under which men enjoy both shelter and happiness. Then I thought of that beautiful prayer of the Saviour, That they all may be one. Those who have the Spirit of Christ, who go about always doing good, will be like-minded.

Divisions, how to heal

When so much had been done at Marburg to effect an agreement between Luther and the Helvetians, Zwingle and his friends, he magnanimously resolved that they should not make larger grants for peace, nor carry away the honour of being more desirous of union than he. He suggested that both the interested parties should cherish more and more a truly Christian charity for one another, and earnestly implore the Lord by His Spirit to confirm them in the sound doctrine. (W. Baxendale.)

The evil and danger of schism

The Church of Corinth was now lying bleeding of her wounds, given her not by enemies, but by her own children. The apostle applies himself to the curing of this rent and broken Church in this most pathetic exhortation to unity. Note--

I. The compellation, Brethren.

1. A kindly compellation, whereby he endeavours to insinuate himself into their affections; for it is hard for faithful ministers to get peoples affections kept where once divisions enter.

2. An argument for unity: he minds them that they are brethren; and it is a shameful thing for brethren to fall out by the ears (Gen_13:8; Gen_45:24).

II. The obsecration, I beseech you, by the name, &c. Paul turns a petitioner for the Churchs peace, and begs of them, as he did of the jailor (Act_16:28), that they would do themselves no harm, but lay by the sword of contention; and that it might have the more weight, he interposeth the name of Christ. It is as much as if he had said--

1. As ye have any regard to the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, who hath so often enjoined unity and brotherly love to His followers, beware of divisions.

2. As ye love the Lord Jesus, as ye tender His honour and glory, let there be no divisions among you; for the name of Christ sadly suffers by your contentions.

III. The matter of his exhortation.

1. He exhorts them to unity of principles, that ye all speak the same thing; for now some were crying one thing, some another, like that confused multitude (Act_21:34), till some of them came at length to deny the resurrection (chap. 15.).

2. He dehorts them from schisms, which properly signifies a cutting in a solid body, as in the cleaving of wood. Thus the one Church of Corinth was rent into divers factions, some following one, some following another; therefore says the apostle, Is Christ divided? Where will you get a Christ to head your different and divided party? Through these divisions, it would seem, from 1Co_11:33, they had separate communions, they would not tarry for one another. The apostle also taxeth their divisions as carnal (1Co_3:3), where the word divisions properly signifies separate standing, where one party stand upon one side, and another party on another side--such dissension, wherein one separate one from another.

3. He exhorts them to amend what was amiss already among them in that matter, to be perfectly joined together, in opposition to their contentions and divisions. The word in the original is very emphatic, and signifies--

(1) To restore disjointed members into their proper places again (Gal_6:1). It is a metaphor from chirurgeons setting members or joints again.

(2) To establish in the state to which a person or thing is restored; and so it denotes a firm union betwixt the members of that Church as a body, and withal he adds here the bonds of this union, the same mind, that is, the same heart, will, and affections, as the word mind is taken (Rom_7:25), and the same judgment or opinion anent matters; if the last cannot be got, yet the first may.

IV. From the words we draw these following doctrines:

1. That schism is an evil incident to the Churches while in this world.

2. That professors ought to beware of it, as they tender the authority and honour of our Lord Jesus Christ.

3. Where schism enters into a Church, there will be great heats, people contradicting one another in matters of religion.

4. That however hard it be, yet it is possible to get a rent Church healed.

5. That it is the duty of all Church members to endeavour the unity of the Church, and the cure of schisms; and particularly, it is the duty of disjointed members to take their own places in the body again.

6. That schisms, as they are grievous to all the sons of peace, so they are in a special manner heavy and afflicting to faithful ministers of the gospel of peace. (T. Boston, D. D.)

It hath been declared.., by them which are of the house of Chloe that there are contentions among you.--

Contentions in the Church

I. How they arise. Out of undue attachments to persons or opinions.

II. How they should be repressed.

1. Not by seeking the triumph of one party over the other, or by the absolute sacrifice of private opinion.

2. But by exalting these points in which all agree, and cultivating one mind and spirit.

III. Why they should be repressed--for the sake of Christ.

1. His body is one and undivided.

2. He was crucified for us.

3. We are baptized into His name.

4. None other has any claim upon us. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The factions

I. There were four parties in the Church at Corinth.

1. Those who held by Paul himself. They owed to him their salvation; and having experienced the efficacy of his gospel, they thought that there was no other efficacious mode of presenting Christ to men. So probably they fell into the mistake of all mere partisans, and became more Pauline than Paul, and were in danger of becoming more Pauline than Christian.

2. Those who were grouped round Apollos, who watered what Paul had planted. He fitted the gospel into their previous knowledge, and showed them its relations to other faiths, and opened up its ethical wealth and bearing on life. His teaching was not opposed to Pauls, but supplementary of it; and 1Co_16:12 shows that there was no jealousy between the two men.

3. Those who gloried in the name of Cephas, the apostle of the circumcision, whose name was used in opposition to Pauls as representing the original group of apostles who adhered to the Jewish law. Extreme Judaizers would find in this party a fruitful soil.

4. That which named itself of Christ. From 2Co_10:7-18; 2Co_11:1-33; 2Co_12:1-18, it would appear that this party was led by men who prided themselves on their Hebrew descent (1Co_11:22), and on having learned their Christianity from Christ Himself (1Co_10:7). They claimed to be apostles of Christ (1Co_11:13) and ministers of righteousness (1Co_11:15); but as they taught another Jesus, another spirit, another gospel (1Co_11:4), Paul does not hesitate to denounce them as false apostles.

II. The apostle hears of these parties with dismay. What, then, would he think of the state of the Church now? There was as yet in Corinth no outward disruption; and indeed Paul does not seem to contemplate as possible that the members of the one body of Christ should refuse to worship their common Lord in fellowship with one another.

1. The evils attaching to such a condition of things may no doubt be unduly magnified; but the mischief done by disunion should not be ignored. The Church was intended to be the grand uniter of the race; but instead of this, the Church has alienated friends; and men who will do business and dine together, will not worship together. Had the kingdom of Christ been visibly one, it would have been without a rival in the world. But instead of this the strength of the Church has been frittered away in civil strife. The world looks on and laughs while it sees the Church divided over petty differences while it ought to be assailing vice, ungodliness, and ignorance. And yet schism is thought no sin.

2. Now that the Church is broken into pieces, the first step towards unity is to recognise that there may be real union without unity of external organisation. The human race is one; but this unity admits of numberless diversities. So the Church may be truly one in the sense intended by our Lord, one in the unity of the Spirit and the bond of peace, though there continue to be various divisions and sects. As amidst all diversities of government and customs it is the duty of States to maintain their common brotherhood and abstain from tyranny and war, so it is the duty of Churches, however separate in form of government, to maintain and exhibit their unity.

3. There may be real union without unity in creed. This unity is desirable; and Paul entreats his readers to be of one mind.

(1) True, the Church has gained much by difference of opinion. Were all men to be agreed there might be a danger of truth becoming lifeless for want of the stimulus, and doctrine has been ascertained and developed in answer to error.

(2) But as a visitation of cholera may result in cleanliness, but no one desires that cholera may come; and as opposition in Parliament is an acknowledged service to the country, yet each party desires that its sentiments become universal; so, too, notwithstanding every good result which may flow from diversity of opinion regarding Divine truth, agreement is what all should aim at.

(3) But what truths Me to be made terms of communion? The answer is, the Church of Christ is formed of those who are trusting to Him as the power of God unto salvation. He is in communion with all who thus trust Him, whether their knowledge be great or small; and we cannot refuse to communicate with those with whom He is in communion. No doctrinal error, therefore, which does not subvert personal faith in Christ should be allowed to separate Churches. Paul was contemplating Christ, and not a creed, as the centre of the Churchs unity, when he exclaimed, is Christ divided? In all Christians and all Churches the one Christ is the life of each. And it is monstrous that those who are virtually united to one Person and quickened by one Spirit should in no way recognise their unity. It is with something akin to horror that Paul goes on to ask, Was Paul crucified for you? He implies that only on the death of Christ can the Church be founded. Take away that and the personal connection of the believer with the crucified Redeemer, and you take away the Church.

III. From this casual expression of Paul we see his habitual attitude towards Christ.

1. He was never slow to affirm the indebtedness of the young Christian Churches to himself: he was their father, but he was not their saviour. Not for one moment did he suppose that he could occupy towards men the position Christ occupied. Between his work and Christs an impassable gulf was fixed. And that which gave Christ this special place and claim was His crucifixion. Paul does not say, Was Paul your teacher in religion, and did he lead your thoughts to God? did Paul by his life show you the beauty of self-sacrifice and holiness? but Was Paul crucified for you?

2. It was not, however, the mere fact of His dying which gave Christ this place, and which claims the regard and trust of all men. Paul had really given his life for men; but Paul knew that in Christs death there was a significance his own could never have. It was net only human buy Divine self-sacrifice that was there manifested. Through this death sinners find way back to God and assurance of salvation.

3. This unique work, then--what have we made of it? Paul found his true life and his true self in it. It filled his mind, his heart, his life. This man, formed on the noblest and largest type, found room in Christ alone for the fullest development and exercise of his powers. Is it not plain that if we neglect the connection with Christ which Paul found so fruitful we are doing ourselves the greatest injustice, and preferring a narrow prison-house to liberty and life? (M. Dods, D. D.)

The apostles view of party spirit

Paul denounces it as a sin in itself irrespective of the right or wrong opinions connected with it; and the true safeguard against it is the recollection of the great bond of fellowship with Christ which all have in common. Christianus mihi nomen est, said an ancient bishop in answer to some such distinction; Catholicus cognomen.

1. The first duty of the apostle was to lose himself entirely in the cause he preached. The most important details or forms were so insignificant in comparison that Paul spoke of them as though he had no concern with them. How often in later ages have the means and institutions of the Church taken the place of the end! Antiquity, novelty, a phrase, a ceremony, a vestment, each has in turn overbalanced the one main object for which, confessedly, all lower objects are inculcated. To all these cases the apostles answer applies, Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.

2. The sin of the Corinthians consisted not in the mere adoption of eminent names, but in the party spirit which attaches more importance to them than to the great cause which all good men have in common. Even the sacred name of Christ may thus be desecrated; and as the apostle rebukes those who said, I am of Christ, no less than those who said I am of Paul, &c., so our Lord refused to take the title of good (Luk_18:19), and baptized not, but His disciples (Joh_4:2). If the holiest Name can thus be made a party watchword, if Christianity itself can thus be turned to the purposes of a faction, much more may any of its subordinate manifestations. The character of our Lord is distinguished from all others by the fact that it rises far above any local or temporary influences, and also that it has, for the most part, escaped, even in thought, from any association with them. So the character of the apostle, although in a lower measure, vindicates itself in this passage from any identification with the party which called itself after his name; and is a true example of the possibility of performing a great work, and labouring earnestly for great truths, without losing sight of the common ground of Christianity, or becoming the centre of a factious and worldly spirit.

3. It is by catching a glimpse of the wild dissentions which raged around the apostolic writings that we can best appreciate the unity and response of those writings themselves: it is by seeing how completely the dissentions have been obliterated, that we can best understand how marked was the difference between their results and those of analogous divisions in other history. We know how the names of Plato and Aristotle, of Francis and Dominic, of Luther and Calvin, have continued as the rallying point of rival schools; but the schools of Paul and Apollos and Cephas, which once waged so bitter a warfare against each other, were extinguished almost before ecclesiastical history had begun. Partly this arose from the nature of the case. The apostles could not have become founders of systems, even if they would. Their power was not their own, but anothers. What had they that they had not received? If once they claimed an independent authority their authority was gone. Great philosophers, conquerors, heresiarchs leave their names even in spite of themselves. But such the apostles could not be without ceasing to be what they were; and the total extinction of the parties which were called after them is in fact a testimony to the Divinity of their mission. And it is difficult not to believe that in the great work of reconciliation of which the outward volume of the Sacred Canon is the chief monument, they were themselves not merely passive instruments, but active agents; that a lesson is still to be derived from the record they have left of their own resistance to the claims of the factions which vainly endeavoured to divide what God had joined together. (Dean Stanley.)

Sects and parties

I. Their manifold variety occasioned--

1. By the peculiarities of human nature in general.

2. National differences.

3. Personal differences.

4. Attachment to individuals, as in the text.

II. Their unity still possible, there should be--

1. One language, one mind.

2. One judgment on fundamental principle.

3. Especially one faith in the crucified Jesus.

4. And one baptism into His name. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The dissensions of the early Church

I. How they originated.

1. In the disputes of the Jewish and Gentile Christians.

2. Hence one was of Peter and another of Paul--those of Christ and of Apollos appear to have been modifications of these.

II. Who were the promoters of them?

1. Not Paul or Peter, &c.

2. Not the peaceably disposed, or those who loved Christ above all things.

3. But--

(1) Some who unduly idolised the human in religion.

(2) Ignorant persons, who had zeal without knowledge (Rom_10:2).

(3) Contentious persons, who would have their own way (Php_1:16).

III. What was the effect?

1. Christ was divided.

2. His claims forgotten.

3. Some human idol exalted in His place. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Every one of you saith, I am of Paul … and I of Christ.--

The factious affecting one pastor above another

We may, and must, give a Benjamins portion of respect to those who excel in age, pains, parts, and piety; but the lavishing by wholesale all honour on one, and scarce retailing out any respect to the other, is what Paul reproves.

I. The mischiefs that arise from this practice.

1. Dissention betwixt ministers. As the Grecians (Act_6:1) murmured against Abe Hebrews, so ministers feel aggrieved that people pass them by unregarded. Perchance the matter may fly so high as it did betwixt Moses and Aaron (Num_12:2). It will anger not only Saul, a mere carnal man, but even those that have degrees of grace to say, He hath converted his thousands, but such an one his ten thousands.

2. Dissension amongst people. Like the women that pleaded before Solomon (1Ki_3:22), they contend The living minister is mine; he that hath spirit and activity: but the dead minister is thine; he cometh not to the quick, he toucheth not the conscience. Nay, saith the other, my minister is the living minister, and thine is the dead one. Thy pastor is full of the fire, of ill tempered and undiscreet zeal; but the Lord was not in the fire: whilst my minister is like to a still voice; staunching the bleeding-hearted penitent, and dropping the oil of the gospel into the wounded conscience.

3. Rejoicing to wicked men, to whose ears our discords are the sweetest harmony. Let not the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot fall out, whilst the Canaanites are yet in the land.

4. Great dishonour to God Himself. Here is such looking on the ambassador that there is no notice taken of the king.

II. To prevent these mischiefs, both pastors and people must lend their helping hands.

1. I begin with the pastors.

(1) Those who have the thickest audiences.

(a) Let them not pride themselves with the bubble of popular applause, often as carelessly gotten as undeservedly lost. Have we not seen those who have preferred lungs before brains, and sounding of a voice before soundness of matter? Let princes count the credit of their kingdoms to consist in the multitude of their subjects: far be it from a preacher to glory when his congregation swells by the consumption of the audience of his neighbour.

(b) Let them discourage immoderate admiration. When St. John would have worshipped the angel, See thou do it not, saith he: worship God. Know thou who lovest to glut thyself with peoples applause, it shall prove at the last pricks in thy eyes and thorns in thy side--because sacrilegiously thou hast robbed God of His honour.

(c) Let them labour also to ingratiate every deserving pastor with his own congregation. It was the boon Saul begged of Samuel, Honour me before my people. And surely it is but reason we should seek to grace the shepherd in the presence of his flock.

(2) I come now to neglected ministers, whilst others, perchance less deserving, are more frequented. Never fret thyself, if others be preferred before thee. They have their time; they are crescents in their waxing, fall seas in their flowing: envy not at their prosperity. Thy turn of honour may come next. One told a Grecian statist who had excellently deserved of his city, that the city had chosen four-and-twenty officers, and yet left him out. I am glad, said he, the city affords twenty-four abler than myself. And let us practise St. Pauls precept, by honour and dishonour, by good report and disreport, and say with David, Lord, here I am; do with Thy servant as Thou pleasest.

2. By this time, methinks, I hear the people saying, as the soldiers to John Baptist, But what shall we do?

(1) Ever preserve a reverent esteem of the minister whom God hath placed over thee. For, if a sparrow lighteth not on the ground without Gods especial providence, surely no minister is bestowed in any parish without a more peculiar disposing; and surely their own pastor is best acquainted with their diseases, and therefore best knoweth to apply spiritual physic thereunto. And as Gods Word hath a general blessing on every place, so more particularly is it blessed to parishioners from the mouth of their lawful minister. Let not therefore the stranger, who makes a feast of set purpose to entertain new guests, be preferred before thy own minister, who keeps a constant table, feeding his own family. Wherefore let all the Ephesians confine themselves to their Timothy; Cretians to their Titus; every congregation to their proper pastor. As for those whose necessary occasions do command their absence from their flocks, let them see to it that they provide worthy substitates.

(2) Let them not make odious comparisons betwixt ministers of eminent parts. It is said of both Hezekiah (2Ki_18:5) and Josiah (2Ki_23:25) that there were none like them. The Holy Spirit prefers neither for better, but concludes both for best; and so amongst ministers, when each differs from others, all may be excellent in their kinds. As, in comparing several handsome persons, one surpasseth for beauty of face; a second, for a well-proportioned body; a third, for comeliness of carriage: so may it be betwixt several pastors. Ones excellency may consist in the unsnarling of a known controversy; another, in plain expounding of Scripture; one, the best Boanerges; another, the best Barnabas: our judgments may be best informed by one, our affections moved by a second, our lives reformed by a third. Grant some in parts far inferior to others: was not Abishai a worthy captain, though he attained not to the honour of the first three? And may not many be serviceable in the Church, though not in the first rank?

(3) Entertain this for a certain truth, that the efficacy of Gods Word depends not on the parts of the minister, but on Gods blessing, on His ordinance. (T. Fuller, D. D.)

Sects and parties

I. How far are they right? As far as they--

1. Stand upon the common foundations of Christ.

2. Busy themselves to save souls and not to make proselytes.

3. Esteem, love, and help each other.

4. Exhibit a holy emulation in exalting Christ.

II. When are they wrong?

1. When they exalt party names and differences above Christ.

2. When they are slavishly attached to their party, and make it the great object of their zeal.

3. When they note and despise others and exclude them from their fellowship.

4. When they seek to glorify their party above all others. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Is Christ divided? or

Is the Christ made a share?

Is He not a whole, but only a part co-ordinate with three others? Is He no longer the complete circle around which is assembled in its oneness the Corinthian Church, regarding Him from all sides as the One Saviour? but is He reduced to a single quadrant of that circle, the other quadrants being Paul, Apollos, and Cephas? If this be true the startling inference is that Christ, being a Saviour to His own, the other three leaders are subordinate saviours, each to his own adherents; and so I ask you, while I shrink from the thought (such is the force of the Greek), was Paul (to take as an instance the first named of the three heads) crucified for you? Or were ye baptized? &c. And yet this is the conclusion, absurd as it is monstrous, nay, blasphemous, to which you are drifting on the waves of party opinions and professions. Wherefore I beseech you, by that Name which is above every name, the Name of Him who is our Lord, who is the Christ, the one Saviour of all, that divisions die among you, and that union and harmony revive in the pure atmosphere of sameness of view and purpose, leading to sameness of confession. Another translation slightly diverging from the above, but finally converging with it in the same logical connexion is this--Apportioned is Christ? Assigned as a portion is He? The word portion here denotes relation rather to its own claimant or appropriator than to other co-ordinate parts. The claimant of Christ as its own portion exclusively is in this instance, of course, the last-named party of Christ. If this be the more correct rendering, an underlink of connection between Apportioned is Christ? and Was Paul crucified for you? must be mentally supplied; an intermediate flash of thought so obvious that time would have been wasted in wording it. This silent link is expressed by the clause in italics: if the Christ, the one Saviour, has become the heritage of one party, what is to become of the salvation of the other three? Was Paul crucified for you, &c. (Canon Evans.)

Is Christ divided in

1. His person.

2. His offices.

3. His salvation.

4. His Church. (W. W. Wythe.)

The differences among Christians no objection to Christianity

I. How it is that men come to differ in morals and religion. Almost every action, character, or doctrine, on which we are called upon to make up an opinion, is more or less complex; that is to say, has more than one side or aspect. It does not follow that one is true, and the other false: both may be true; that is, faithful representations of the same reality, only under different aspects. I am not aware of a single vicious action which was ever held as right, unless, in the circumstances, it really had a good or plausible side, on which alone, from some cause, it was contemplated, the whole action being judged by this one side. The same account is also to be given of the origin of most of our differences in religious doctrine when sincerely entertained. Take, for instance, what is perhaps the most fundamental difference of all, the different opinions which have prevailed respecting human nature. Who does not know that man actually appears under all these various aspects?--sometimes but little lower than the angels, and sometimes but little better than a fiend. Hence the most extreme and contradictory views on this subject are so far well founded as this, that they are faithful representations of real phases of human nature, the error consisting not in misconceiving some single phase, but in judging our whole nature by that alone. And so it follows, that what we call errors are not so much false as partial views of the reality.

II. Such being the origin and nature of most religious differences, it will next be in order to inquire on what grounds they can be regarded as a reason or occasion for sceptical, cynical, or desponding thoughts. In the first place, do they afford us any reason or pretext for denying the trustworthiness or competency of the human faculties? Certainly not. Could we be induced to regard the object under precisely the same lights and aspects, we should doubtless see it alike; and better still, could we be induced to regard the object under all lights and aspects, we should doubtless not only see it alike, but see it as it is. Accordingly, the differences among Christians are not to be construed into evidence of the incompetency of the human faculties in themselves considered, but only of their partial application. When we begin our inquiries respecting any subject, we must begin, of course, by looking at it on one side: our views must be partial at first; hut it does not follow that they must always continue so. What, indeed, is progress in any inquiry but the gradual enlargement of our views? And hence the acknowledged fact, that thought and study, and a more generous culture, tend to dissolve differences and bring men together. To those, therefore, who think to find arguments for scepticism or despair in the divisions of Christians, and who are ready to pronounce the partial views which prevail as worthless, and mutually destructive of each other, the answer is plain. First, even the most partial of these views are worth a great deal; for they are partial views of an all-important truth, and as such contain much that is enduring and eternal. Again, as the error of these views grows mainly out of their being partial, it is one which must be expected to pertain to the first stages of every inquiry, but gradually disappear as the inquiry goes on. Finally, though the time may never come on earth when the multitude of partial views will be lost in a single all-comprehensive view, still this knowing in part, and the trials and responsibilities which pertain to such a condition, may be essential to the discipline which is to fit us for that world, where that which is in part shall be done away. Admitting all this, however, I ask, then, what there is in controversy--I do not say to condemn, for, considering how they are often conducted, there is enough in them, Heaven knows, to condemn, but to excuse in lookers-on either indifference or unbelief? Certainly of themselves they do not argue indifference or unbelief, but the contrary. An age of controversy is pre-eminently an age of faith; a man is not likely to dispute earnestly unless he believes in something, and attaches importance to it. Besides, how is it in other things? Name, if you can, a single interesting subject of inquiry which has not given occasion to controversy. The world is as much divided and estranged on scientific and political and philanthropic questions as on religious questions. But do men hence infer that there is no such thing as truth in any of these matters, or that we have no faculties to discover it? God forbid! Obviously, therefore, it cannot be controversy, as such, that is objected to in this connection, but something peculiar to religious controversy. First, it is said that controversy is well enough where it really has the effect to help forward the truth, or to diffuse and establish it; but in religion it does neither, leaving every question just where it found it. I reply, that even if this were so, it would not be to the purpose: it would follow, indeed, that controversy is of no use in religion, and ought to be avoided; but it would not follow that religion itself is of no use, or that controversy has made it of less use or less certain. But the whole statement is erroneous. Who has yet to learn the invaluable services of discussion and controversy in settling the laws of evidence on which the genuineness and authenticity of the Sacred Books depend, and the laws of interpretation by which their import is determined? To discussion and controversy we also owe it, that the Christian doctrines generally have been unfolded, cleared up, and re-stated. Again, religious controversy is objected to because of its asperities and spirit of denunciation, which on such a subject are peculiarly odious, creating in some minds an invincible disgust for religion itself. That religious controversy, even among Christians, sometimes assumes the character here given to it, I confess; but it is easy to see that it is not because Christians are Christians, but because Christians are men, having the weaknesses and imperfections of men. Once more. A vague notion exists, I believe, in some minds that the honour of God is somehow compromised by the disgraceful altercations to which Christianity has given birth. The fact that He does not interfere to suppress them creates a feeling of uneasiness and distrust, as if the revelation were not in reality from Him. Such persons would do well to remember that God gives us truth, as He gives us everything else, not to our acceptance, but to our acquisition. Even the truths of revelation are expected to do us as much good by exercising our fairness of mind, and our love of truth, in the acceptance and interpretation of His Word, as by the light they give. To the question, then, Which among the various partial and discordant views you are to adopt, this is my answer--Adopt your own; hold fast your own. Allowing others to have their views, be faithful and just to your own view; endeavouring, of course, to enlarge it from day to day, but adhering to it, meanwhile, and reverencing it, as one view at least of truth, and of that side of truth which is turned towards you, and which, therefore, you must be presumed to be most concerned to know. Above all, remember that, though we are divided, Christ is not. (J. Walker, D. D.)

Was Paul crucified for you?--

Was Paul crucified?

I. The occasion of this question--the divided state of the Church at Corinth. Mark the peculiar ground of contention (verse 12). Paul was the founder of the Church; and some of the older members might naturally feel peculiarly attached to him. Apollos succeeded Paul--a man of more finished eloquence; and some, who joined the Church under his ministry, might, as naturally, become attached to him. Peter was especially the apostle to the Jews, and the Jewish converts would prefer him. Others affected to disparage all, and said, We are of Christ. Surely it was a most unhappy state of things to make one preacher clash with another, and to appear to make any of them clash with Christ. So Paul says, Is there a separate Saviour for each of the four parties? for that is what you seem to mean; then adds, Was Paul crucified for you?

II. The truth involved in the question.

1. Some one had been crucified for them. That was a fact which none of their divisions could pretend to deny. But who was this crucified One? Was it Paul? No! It was the Master, not the servant. And Christ was crucified for us! He had no guilt of His own to suffer for. The poor thief at His side made this acknowledgment, and prophecy had explained it 700 years before--He was wounded for our transgressions, &c.

2. And this was the most memorable fact in His history. To talk about the blood of Christ offends certain peoples taste, and is out of keeping with their theology. But what is the theology of the Bible? The tabernacle and the temple ran with blood; for without shedding of blood there was no remission of sin. So in the New Testament we read that our Lord took the cup, and said, This is My blood, &c. And Peter reminded his fellow-believers, Ye were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, and John wrote, The blood of Jesus Christ, Gods Son, cleanseth us from all sin. And the reason of all this is clearly given. Sin is a thing which a just and holy Ruler of the universe cannot pass by. It must be punished--if not in us, in another in our stead. And the grand message of the gospel is, that God has laid on Christ the iniquity of us all--so that in Him we have redemption through His blood, &c. Now if this be so, the most memorable thing in the history of Christ is--that He was crucified for us!

3. Such clearly is Pauls teaching. Talk too much of the blood of Christ? (1Co_2:2). The theme distasteful and offensive? (Gal_6:14; cf. 1Co_3:23).

III. The force of the question. What claim have I upon you compared with that of Christ? Notice the delicacy of the apostles mind, He might have asked the same with regard to Peter or Apollos.

1. Paul had some claim upon them, for it was he who first brought the gospel to them. And what Corinthian believer but was bound to bless the apostles name? And dont you sometimes bless it, English believer? Have you not felt that the Apostle Paul has been one of your best friends?

2. But now I hear him saying, Dont talk of me--talk of nay Master. What claims have I upon you compared with His? It was not I that was your Substitute--I needed a substitute as much as you. You Corinthians talk of me and of Apollos as useful preachers. Who are we but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man. We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, &c. And so you Englishmen talk of me as one whom you are bound to revere and love. But look up immensely higher! up, where angels bow before a Lamb as it had been slain! Theres your best Friend! Give Him your deepest reverence, your warmest love! Was Paul crucified for you?

3. The text is suitable, by way of warning, to these days when the tendency is to mingle Christ up with other famous teachers. And doubtless each of them has taught the world what had previously been forgotten. But can any Christian put them on a level with our Lord? I shudder at the thought! Is Christ divided? Is there one Saviour for the Chinese, and another for the Indian, and another for the Arab? Was Confucius crucified for sinners?--or Buddha?--or Mahommed? Nay, brethren! Stand fast in the faith. There is none other name, &c. Other foundation can no man lay. (F. Tucker, B. A.)

Jesus the only Saviour of men

This question was intended to startle Pauls readers. They had been split up into separate groups, designated by names representing ideas which ought never to be separated, viz., Christian freedom, Christian philosophy, Church authority and organisation, and personal devotion to Christ. But these Greeks carried their old mental habits into the Church. For ages they had identified each shade of opinion in philosophy with the name of an individual teacher. It was natural for them to look at Christianity as an addition to the worlds thought, which admitted of being treated as other systems. Moreover, religion is differently apprehended and presented by different minds. The one Truth which Peter and Paul and Apollos preached was presented in different forms. The fault of the Corinthians lay in treating a difference in the way of presenting truth as if it were a difference in truth itself. To them Paul, &c., were the teachers of distinct religions. Nay, more, the holiest Name of all was bandied about among the names of His messengers. Hence the pain which finds vent in the question, Was Paul crucified for you? This question--

I. Suggests the difference between the debt which Christians owe to Christ and that which they owe to the most favoured of His servants.

1. It was no slight debt which the Corinthians owed to the apostle--their conversion, their Church, their knowledge about subjects of the highest interest to man; his nature, Gods nature and relations, and the eternal future. It was a debt which could never be repaid. But the apostle suggests its utter relative insignificance by his question, Was Paul crucified for you?

2. Not that St. Paul had taught the Corinthians the faith of Christ without suffering (1Th_2:2; Act_18:5-6; Act_18:12-17). But all such sufferings had differed in kind from that which was glanced at by the question, Was Paul crucified for you?

3. His relation to Christ was altogether unlike that which existed between pupils and their Master, e.g., between Plato and Socrates. To St. Paul Christ was not merely the author of Christianity, but its subject and its substance. St. Paul was not indeed crucified; he was beheaded some years later, as a martyr for Christ. But excepting the testimony which he thus bore to the truth he preached, his death was without results to the world. He was beheaded for no one. And had he been crucified at Corinth, the sin of no single Corinthian would have been washed away by his blood. Do, teach, or suffer what he might, he was but a disciple.

II. Tells us what it was in the work of Christ which had the first claim on the gratitude of Christians.

1. Not His miracles. They were designed, no doubt, to make faith in His Divine mission natural and easy. They were more: frequently works of mercy than of power. They were acted parables. But others also have worked miracles. And the miracles of Christ have not touched the heart of the world more than His words.

2. Not His teaching. Certainly no human speech will ever say more to the conscience than did the Sermon on the Mount, or more to the heart than did the discourse in the supper-room. Yet He Himself implies that what He did would have greater claims on man than what He said.

3. Nor His triumph over death at His resurrection. Certainly that was the supreme certificate of His Divine mission. But the claim of the Resurrection upon our gratitude is so great, because it is intimately bound up with the tragedy which had preceded it.

4. But His Cross (verses 23, 24; 1Co_2:2; Gal_6:14), on which He reminds us of our utter misery and helplessness until we are aided by His redeeming might (Joh_15:13; 1Pe_2:24; 2Co_5:21; Rev_1:5; Rom_3:25; Eph_1:7; 2Co_5:18-20; Heb_2:17). To expand, connect, explain, justify these aspects of His atoning death is no doubt a labour of vast proportions. But in their simple form they meet every child who reads the New Testament, and they explain the hold of Christ crucified on the Christian heart. And we understand the pathos and the strength of the appeal, Was Paul crucified for you?

III. Enables us to measure the true worth of efforts for improving the condition of mankind.

1. We may well thank God that He has put it into so many hearts to support institutions and enterprises so rich in their practical benevolence. But when it is hinted that efforts of this kind satisfy all the needs of man, we are obliged to hesitate. The needs of the soul are at least as real as those of the body. The pain of the conscience is at least as torturing as that of the nerves. The invisible world is not less to be provided for than the world of sense and time. We are sometimes almost pressed, in view of the exaggerated claims of a secular philanthropy, to ask whether this or that benevolent person was crucified for the poor or the suffering.

2. In like manner, when Renan tells that we should all be much better if we would give increased time and thought to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, we naturally listen. That Marcus Aurelius was marked by eminent excellences must be frankly granted. But literary infidelity has done this man a wrong by the very excesses of his panegyric. For we cannot but ask whether his characteristic virtue was more than a social luxury; whether it had the slightest effect upon the degraded multitudes who lived close to his palace; whether it prevented him selecting as his colleague a worthless trifler, or from bequeathing his responsibilities to a profligate buffoon; whether it even suggested a scruple respecting his cruel persecutions of Christians. These are questions which history may be left to answer. And her judgment would make another question only more grotesque than profane--Was Marcus Aurelius crucified for you?

3. Yes; only One ever was crucified out of love to sinners, and with a will and power to save them. The faith which St. Paul preached protects society against dangers which are inseparable from human progress at certain stages. For this faith in Christ crucified addresses itself to each of those poles of society, which, when left to the ordinary selfish impulses of human nature, tend to become antagonistic. To the wealthy and the noble the figure of the crucified Saviour is a perpetual preacher of self-sacrifice for the sake of the poor and needy; and to the poor it is no less a perpetual lesson of the beauty, the majesty of entire resignation. Thus does the truth which is at the very heart of the Christian creed contribute most powerfully to the coherence and well-being of society; and we live in days when society is not able to dispense with its assistance. (Canon Liddon.)

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius.--

Pauls modesty

This is a beautiful trait of Pauls character. Most preachers delight to take a prominent part in the public reception of their converts. But Paul saw the danger of this, as tending to exalt the preacher in mens eyes. He therefore purposely (verse 15) and systematically placed himself on such occasions in the background (cf. Act_10:48)

. This he could well afford to do because of the greater honour, given to him, of preaching the gospel and thus leading men to Christ. He wished men to think, not of the successful preacher, but of Him whose professed servants the baptized ones were. How different was the aim of those who wrote Pauls name on the banner of their party! Paul thanks God for his own conduct. For every good action is prompted by God, and enriches the actor. (Prof. Beet.)

Christian baptism

contains two things: something on the part of God, and something on the part of man. On Gods part it is an authoritative revelation of His paternity: on mans part it is an acceptance of Gods covenant. In 1Co_10:1-2 St. Paul expresses the meaning of baptism as symbolising discipleship. When the Israelites passed through the Red Sea they cut themselves off for ever from Egypt, so that, figuratively speaking, in that immersion they were baptized unto Moses, for thereby they declared themselves his followers, and left all to go with him. And so, just as the soldier who receives the bounty money is thereby pledged to serve his sovereign, so he who has passed through the baptismal waters is pledged to fight under the Redeemers banner against sin, the world, and the devil. And so Paul argues thus: To whom were ye when baptized? To whom did you pledge yourselves in discipleship? If to Christ, why do ye name yourselves by the name of Paul? If all were baptized into that one Name, how is it that a few only have adopted it as their own? Upon this we make two remarks.

I. The valve and blessedness of the sacraments.

1. They are authoritative signs and symbols. There is very much contained in this idea; e.g., in some parts of the country it is the custom to give and receive a ring in token of betrothal; but that is very different from the marriage-ring. It is neither authoritative, nor has it the sanction of the Church. It would have been perfectly possible for man to have invented another symbol of the truth conveyed in baptism, and then it would not have been authoritative, and consequently it would have been weak and useless.

2. They serve as the epitomes of Christian truth. Antinomianism had crept into the Roman Church. Paul meets this by an appeal to baptism (Rom_6:1-4). And again, in reference to the Lords Supper, in the Church of Corinth that sacrament had become a feast of gluttony and a signal of division. This error he endeavours to correct by reference to the institution of the Supper itself: The bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the body of Christ? The single loaf, broken into many fragments, contains within it the symbolical truth, that the Church of Christ is one. Here, in the text, St. Paul makes the same appeal: he appeals to baptism against sectarianism, and so long as we retain it, it is an everlasting protest against every one who breaks the unity of the Church.

II. The peculiar meaning of the sacrament. There are those who believe and teach that men are born into the world children of the devil, and who hold that the instrument for their conversion into Gods children is baptism; and believe that there is given to the ministers of the Church the power of conveying in that sacrament the Holy Spirit, who effects this wondrous change. If a minister really believes he has this power, then it is only with fear and trembling that he should approach the font. But if this view be true, then the apostle thanked God that he had not regenerated any, that he had not conveyed the Spirit of God to any one but Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 1:10. Now I beseech, παρακαλω, 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, σχισματα, 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 — Κατηρτισμενοι, 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.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

1Co_1:11.—“I hear; for, though you have written me about many things (1Co_7:1), yet you said nothing about this!” Them of … Chloe.—The bearers of the Corinthian letter? Or residents in Ephesus, who had heard from Corinth? Cannot be decided.

1Co_1:12.—“To speak plainly, I say that,” etc. Every one of you.—“You are all involved, all to blame.”

1Co_1:13.—Retain the question, “Is Christ [the personal Christ, not the mystical] divided?” For the exact meaning, choose between, (a) did each party claim the whole, and sole, possession of Christ? or (b) did they, less uncharitably, so rend Him in pieces among them [cf. the connected word used of His garment, Mat_27:35] as to allow that all did possess a share, but proclaiming their own to be largest and chief? We may hope the latter. But the figure should not be overpressed. Paul crucified?—Contrast the holy horror here with the grateful recognition in Gal_4:4, “Ye received me … as Christ Jesus,” i.e. “You could hardly have made more of me if I had been Christ Himself.” Paul too popular with one party!

1Co_1:14.—“It so happened that,” etc. “God so ordered it that,” etc. “I see now why. Thank God, only two of you—yes! [Stephanas and] his family also—can say, “Paul baptized me!”Crispus.—Act_18:8. Gaius.—I.e. Caius (Rom_16:23), from whose house the Epistle to the Romans was written and sent. Two men whose conversion was of exceptional importance in the history of the work in Corinth, and so Paul baptized them.

1Co_1:16. The household of Stephanas.—The first souls he won in Corinth; the first handful of his harvest in that field, as he gratefully remembers that “Epænetus my beloved” was in that of Asia Minor (Rom_16:5). No happier memory for a minister than that of his first soul! No wonder that Paul did baptize Stephanas! [i.e. presuming that he did; he does not say so expressly].

1Co_1:17. Words.—Connect or compare with “utterance” (1Co_1:5) and “word” (1Co_1:18); same word, in singular number, in all three. Of none effect.—Void (R.V.); “emptied” of its power. If the words overlay the cross and hide it, if it be wrapped in, as it were, a non-conducting envelope of “wise” putting and rhetorical expression, the only real power in the message is nullified. (See the Homily for this, and more.) Note, Are being saved (R.V.).

HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.—1Co_1:10-17

I. There may be an over-valuation of men [ministers].

II. There may be an over-valuation of baptism [representative in this, perhaps, of Christian ordinances generally].

I. Men over-valued.—

1. All these deserved much esteem and consideration and affection at the hands of the Corinthians. Certainly Paul did, and his successor Apollos. To these, particularly to Paul, very many of the Corinthians “owed their own selves also” (Phm_1:19). No other man can ever take quite the same place in a Christian’s memory and affection as does he who led him to the light, and to Christ. It is no wonder that the man who finds the ministrations of an Apollos—“eloquent, and mighty in the Scriptures,” and greatly filled with the Spirit—to be very effectual in the sustaining and education of his religious life, should set his Apollos on a high place in his thought and prayers and love. The grateful, intelligent love of those to whom a ministry is a perpetual grace and assistance, is a help to the minister himself, and a reward not to be despised, next to the smile of his Master. Even Cephas did a real and glorious work for the Church; in many respects complementary to that of Paul. No need to exalt Paul by disparaging Peter. All this affectionate, loyal bonding of ministry and people is a great blessing and a great help to both preacher and people. Paul very gratefully remembers in Galatia, with a remembrance not without a pang as he thought of the manifest and rapid change, “Ye received me … as Christ Jesus” (Gal_4:14). If, that is, he had been the Master instead of the servant, he could scarcely have had a warmer welcome. [This loyalty and affectionate devotion may, similarly, and within the same limits, rightly be extended to the special branch of the Christian Church to which a man owes the awakening and the cultivation of his spiritual life. And, by a very natural application of the same principle, the special form of “Gospel,” or the special type of Truth, “under” which a Christian man has grown up to his present knowledge and strength of Christian character, may well call forth and gather to itself a devotion of grateful support, until a man proudly and affectionately ranges himself under the denominational banner of Calvin or of Wesley, of Cephas or of Paul.]

2. But they were receiving more than their due; though probably Cephas was as blameless as were Paul and Apollos, and not more responsible for the sinful partisanship which chose his name for its banner, than were they for the use made of their own. Certainly not even Galatians 2 gives any warrant for supposing any sort of personal feeling between the two men. That the Galatians should have welcomed Paul almost as if he had been Paul’s Lord, was one thing; that the Corinthians should exalt and fight for him or for any other human teacher as if it were for the very Lord Himself, was quite a different matter. It had been innocent and natural affection which, with a stretch of language easily understood, he had recalled so gratefully when writing to the Galatians. The partisan devotion which he so strongly rebukes at Corinth was such as could hardly have been greater if (horrescit referens) Paul himself were their crucified Saviour, or if their baptism had pledged them to him in covenant bond.

3. It was idolatrous.—No, there is but one HEAD and KING, ruling over all alike; “Christ is not divided.” There is but one PRIEST, He who is Priest and Victim, Ambassador and Intercessor, in unapproachable, incommunicable, dignity; “Paul is not crucified for them.” There is but one Teacher, into obedience to whom they were baptized; Paul and the rest are only teachers at secondhand, witnesses, reporters, of what they have first heard from Him. The special theological system of one’s Church, the favourite, or distinguishing, doctrine of one’s best-loved teacher, must not be exalted into unchallengeable, Divinely authoritative, dogma. It must always be held subject to its accordance with the teaching of the Highest Authority. Neither over the intellect nor over the conscience has any man the final authority which belongs to Christ alone, speaking in the Word and through the Spirit. And if belonging to any particular Church, or accepting its creed, and “sitting under” its orthodox ministry, should subtilely become to the soul almost a ground of hope or even of assurance of salvation, it would go perilously near to trusting in a “Paul crucified.” A faithful and wise minister of Christ will point his people to Christ and away from himself; he will stand clear of everything like strife and partisanship, even though he be innocently the cause of it, and an exaggerated desire to honour him be the occasion; he will keep the great object of his calling steadily in view, and not even “baptize,” if that be made to mean too much by over-zealous and very ill-advised friends (1Co_1:13-17). [One’s Church and one’s creed in like manner must be helps to Christ, and may not arrest on the way, and detain for themselves, devotion and allegiance which belong of right to Christ alone.] [Note how the Baptist was content to be nobody—only “a Voice.” “Listen to me, but look at Him; go to Him. Behold the Lamb” (Joh_1:23; Joh_1:36). “We preach Christ Jesus as the Lord; ourselves as your servants” (2Co_4:5).] [Note also that there may be a partisanship “for Christ,” forsooth, which is as narrow and unholy as that for Paul or Apollos.] [Allegiance to Christ unites the Church (1Co_1:10); allegiance to man divides it.]

II. Baptism over-valued.—The possibility of this is a matter of inference from what Paul states had been his own line of action. That man may be over-valued is matter of direct assertion. But it may be fairly gathered from his own declaration that he very rarely baptized a convert, that to him the ordinance did not occupy the place which some would give it—a thing necessary to salvation, and only to be administered by a man belonging to a special order. [Peter did not himself baptize the souls he had gathered in the house of Cornelius. “He commanded them to be baptized” (Act_10:48). Indeed, they were hardly of his ingathering at all; the Spirit fell upon them and did His work, before Peter had scarcely more than begun his address (Act_10:41).] For an incidental and purely personal reason, indeed, Paul actually “thanks God” that not many at Corinth could say that his hands had administered baptism to them. It must not be under-valued. Paul would not have left his converts unbaptized altogether. From no New Testament writer do we learn better and more fully the covenant theology which underlies baptism, and especially that of the children. It must neither be exalted into a necessary means of a real salvation, nor emptied of all significance except that of a mere dedicatory service with an element of thanksgiving. “Baptized into the name of Paul” (like “baptized unto Moses,” 1Co_10:2) would, if such a thing had been possible, have meant much more than that. The startling suggestion of such a parallel case may serve to expound what “baptized in the name of Christ” would mean to Paul. Every Jewish, or Mahometan, or heathen, father understands very well that to allow his child to be baptized means more than a simple dedication to the God of the Christian worship. Between the Lord of the Covenant and the subject of the ordinance it sets up a covenant bond, binding on both sides, officially recognising the rights, and (so to speak) registering the claim, of the baptized one to all the grace of the Christian scheme. The Master had said, “Go ye and make disciples … baptizing them … teaching them,” etc. Both are obligatory. But at least Paul clearly ranked the teaching before the ordinance, if for any reason (as was, in fact, the case at Corinth) choice must needs be made. He relied for tho fulfilment of the “marching orders” of the Church, for the execution of his own part of the work, rather upon securing the response of the intelligence and heart to the instruction and appeal of the preacher. A mere baptism of the unconscious infant or the indifferent adult, and much more the wholesale baptism of Saxons or Indians, are no fulfilment of the Church’s commission. No ordinance, however binding, or significant, or precious and really helpful, can take the place of such a “preaching of the Gospel”—in all the round of that by no means “simple” function!—as secures the attention, and wins the assent, and conquers the heart.

SEPARATE HOMILIES

1Co_1:17. The Kenosis of the Cross.—[Literally, “should be made empty”; same verb as in the important Php_2:7, “He emptied Himself” (in connection with which see how Paul, for his own salvation’s sake, “emptied himself,” Php_3:4-10). See also the thought of this second member of 1Co_1:10 expanded and homiletically dealt with under chap. 1Co_2:1-5.] Paul folt the danger of—

I. Scholastic preaching.—[Which met the demand of “Greek” type of mind for “wisdom.”]

1. Such as aims at the intellect rather than the heart; and gives no satisfaction to the man who wants practical direction and help how to live righteously; and deals with speculations and discussions “which minister” [provide and excite further “questions” and discussions in endless evolutionary succession] “questionings, rather than a dispensation” [var. lect., for “edification”] “of God which is in faith” [1Ti_1:4].

2. Such discussions of “the Cross” and Christianity have their time and place and value. As things are, Apologetics are a necessity, and the apologists need to be furnished with all wisdom of words and thought. As men’s minds are, oven “the saved” will speculate in reverent pondering upon themes which indeed touch them most closely where the Christian system tells of, and brings to them, immediate safety, peace, holiness for a guilty, unholy man, but which also in other directions broaden out and reach away into regions of almost illimitable vastness. At one end the Gospel answers promptly and distinctly the urgent question, “What must I do to be saved?” At the other it touches questions wide as the whole created universe. [E.g. What is the relation of the Incarnation and of the Cross to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, to the unnamed and unknown (possible, probable) inhabitants of other worlds than ours? (Eph_3:10). How widely has Sin diffused its effect? (“Peace in heaven,” Luk_19:38, may only have been a not very intelligent or significant cry of the populace. But Col_1:20 speaks expressly of “reconcitation” of “things in heaven.)]

3. The urgent matter is salvation. To the preacher and to the sinner this must stand first. The wisdom of scholastic preaching “makes void the Cross” when it takes the first place, or is the only thing offered by the preacher, or desired and welcomed by the man. [Illustration.—A company of Israelites in danger, or actually bitten by serpents, though not yet feeling much of the effect of the deadly bite, are standing around the serpent uplifted by Moses in the wilderness (Joh_3:14). They ask, “Tell us, Moses, what is the exact connection between that brazen thing up there and these serpents down here, and between it and the poison in our system, which is to be healed by looking at it. Tell us, analyse for us, the modus operandi of our looking and of the curative action of that up yonder.” (They want “a theory of the Atonement,” and an exposition of “the connection between faith and pardon or holiness.”) “Tell us something about this poisonous substance which has been injected into our veins. What is its action? How did the serpents secrete it? Where did the serpents come from? Why did the Creator make or tolerate such creatures?” (They want “a Doctrine of Sin,” and to hear something about “the Origin and Permission of Evil.”) If Moses had gratified this intellectual curiosity, and engaged in long, subtle discussion in the direction of their desire, there would have been the danger that his hearers should have dropped one by one and died, at the very foot of “the pole,” died in sight of God’s symbol, and pledge, and means, of Victory over death, and of Healing for the poison. Thus they and Moses together would have made “the Uplifting of the Serpent of none effect.” (Cf. the related thought, not word, in Gal_2:21, “then Christ is dead in vain,” gratuitously.)] “Look to the Cross first, and be saved; then speculate to your heart’s content, if only it do not divert your attention from the Cross.”

4. For the danger is not at an end when the soul has been to the Cross and found salvation. The natural heart loves the discussion and the speculation. [See how the Samaritan woman at Sychar was no sooner closely pressed about the sins of her past life, than she turned off the conversation to a speculative topic, an interesting matter of discussion, which this “prophet” could perhaps resolve for her. “Ought men to worship on Gerizim, or ought we all to go to Jerusalem?” (Joh_4:18-20); anything rather than sin, her own sin, its guilt, its peril!] And whilst the work of faith and of the Cross is only begun when the soul has first found it “the power of God unto salvation”; whilst “salvation” is a continuous thing, needing a continuously renewed efficacy of the Cross and its atonement; there is ever the danger lest the heart should fly off to speculations and inquiries which please the intellect, and do not offend the pride of the sinful heart, or disturb its peace. The professor of apologetics, the student of that Christianity which is the grandest of all philosophies, “the widsom of God,” may do their work, and may lay it under noble contribution for the service of the Gospel. But the preacher has in hand a narrower, more immediate and urgent, affair. He dares not ordinarily deal with such “wisdom of words,” lest he keep his dying sinner speculating, instead of believing, as he stands at the Cross, and so the Cross and its Offering for sin have been for that man “emptied” of all efficacy. Bishop Butler, with his Analogy and even his Sermons, are wanted. They strengthen the faith of those who do believe, and turn aside for them many an intellectual assault, giving them the helpful knowledge, moreover, that they are not believing in some scheme of teaching unworthy of the mind of man, not to say, of God. But Bishop Butler must not arrest the sinner on his way to the Cross, nor steal away his attention and interest in it, after he has found his way there. [It is hardly within any fair extension of Paul’s thought, to take in the very real case where the Cross is “emptied” of its meaning as a reconciliation, or a propitiation, or a vicarious sacrifice.]

II. Rhetorical preaching.—[Such as meets the demand of the “Jews” type of mind for a “sign.”]

1. Paul knew his Corinthians; he knew man’s heart. There is something not unworthy about the Intellectual, Scholastic preaching, though it may ensnare souls and hold them back from making the most urgent use of the cross of Christ. It does at least bear witness to a Godlike capacity, which is the honour of man, and to which it endeavours to make response. But the preaching that is only words, words, words, beautiful words, words which please the love of beautiful sound, words which are the lovely clothing of perhaps a meagre or imperfect Gospel, or even that clothe very beautifully nothing; the craving for beauty of presentation first, and at all events, whether the thought be true, or poor, or perilous; both are distinctly on a lower level. He is snared by the very nobility of human nature whom “wisdom of thought” turns away, or keeps back, from the cross of Christ. But he is of smaller calibre to whom little or nothing matters if only the preaching be “well put.” Never mind what the song is all about, if only the preacher “have a pleasant voice, and can play well on his instrument, and the song be lovely” (Eze_33:32). They have no serious purpose to “do the words.” Woe to the preacher of the Cross, who to please them, or to please himself, makes more of the manner than the matter; who never presses home the lessons of the hearers’ sinfulness, but is content if he can engage their attention, and please their fancy. He may even so “preach the Cross”—not by any means leaving it out altogether—as that the one thing which makes impression upon his hearers is the beauty of his preaching. [So Louis XIV. shrewdly discriminated between his two great pulpit orators, one of whom made him think of the preacher, whilst the other made him think of himself.] Few preachers will deliberately lay themselves out thus to win applause for their sermons. But all should keep in view the danger to their unsaved hearers. And the danger to themselves also; for the preacher’s own heart would naturally love the reward of human applause; it is more pleasant to have men’s good word and goodwill, than to hear that they say: “He is too good, too earnest, too strict for me. He is always preaching about sin. ‘I hate him, for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil’ (Ahab, of Micaiah, 1Ki_22:8).” Every man will use his own gift; but an Apollos will need to take care that himself never stands before and obscures Christ, or arrests on the way to Christ the soul which urgently needs “the Cross” and its salvation. Intellect and oratorical gifts, both may indeed be gloriously used as consecrated means to a sacred end. But the human heart tends, in preacher and hearers, to make them the end, and to ask for no more, but to rest in these. [“The wisdom of which St. Paul speaks appears to have been of two kinds: speculative philosophy, and wisdom of words—eloquence. Men bow before talent, even if unassociated with goodness; but between the two we must make an everlasting distinction. When once the idolatry of talent enters, then farewell to spirituality; when men ask their teachers not for that which will make them more humble and Godlike, but for the excitement of an intellectual banquet, then farewell to Christian progress.… St. Paul might have complied with the requirements of his converts, and then he would have gained admiration and love—he would have been the leader of a party, but he would have been false to his Master—he would have been preferring self to Christ” (Robertson).] [This is no new danger: “In an age of decadence the form of the idea is esteemed far more highly than the idea itself. The surfeited soul, like the surfeited palate, craves the piquant, the highly dressed.… The noblest thoughts pass unheeded, unless surcharged with ornament. The Fathers of the Church have repeatedly pointed out this intellectual epicurism as one of the great obstacles to the progress of Christianity. The noble language of the pagan philosophers seemed to Justin Martyr a bait which would decoy many souls to death. Celsus … heaps his most biting sarcasms on the vulgarity of the form by which, according to him, truth is degraded in the Gospel, on the incorrectness and barbarisms of the style of the Sacred Writings, and on their want of logical force. He exaggerates, … yet he represents the repugnance of the ‘Greek’ to a book, which, like the lowly Redeemer whom it revealed to the world, made no pretence to the glory or excellency of human wisdom. Greece had drunk draughts too intoxicating to appreciate the purity of the living water. Those only who were thirsting for pardon and peace drew near to the Divine fountain. It had no charms for the epicureans of philosophy and art” (Pressensé, Early Years. The Martyrs, 7, 8).] Christ emptied Himself that He might save. Paul emptied Himself that he might be saved. Scholastic preaching may so empty the Cross of meaning, or divert attention from its meaning; rhetorical preaching may so deaden all the force of its appeal; that the Cross cannot save.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 [γνώμῃ 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: εἰς] 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 God’s] 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 παρακαλῶ. “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 δε: 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 ἵνα: 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 clause—that 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 σχίσματα, 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 καταρτίζειν: 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 “καταρτιστήρ 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=τέλειοι.] That wherein they were to be united is given in two words νοῦς and γνώμη. 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, γνώμη 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.—ἔριδες; 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.—τοῦτο: 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 ἕκαστος; 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 Christ’s, but who desired to have their participation in him regarded as dependent on their connection with this or that teacher (as Räbiger: “I belong indeed to Christ, but it is as a Pauliner and am nevertheless a true Christian”). But Calovïus 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 Christ’s 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 (Tüb. 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 μή. Meyer adduces this as an argument to prove that the previous clause which is without μή, is consequently to be read differently, as a declaration. To this Alford replies, “that the μή introduces a new form of interrogation respecting a new person, viz. Paul; and that it was natural for solemnity’s sake to express the other question differently. In μεμέρισται ὁ χριστός the majesty of Christ’s person is set against the unworthy insinuation conveyed in: “is divided”—in μή Παῦλος ἐσταυρώθη ὑπερ ὑμῶν, 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 person’s 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 Christ’s 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 Paul—in order that no one should say—By 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 Stephanas—the family whom in 1Co_16:15 he calls “the first fruits of Achaia.” οἶκος 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: ἀπέστειλεν a plain allusion here to his office as ἀπόστολος 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 εὐαγγελίζεσθαι: to evangelize, in classic usage, and commonly in the Old Testament, like בִּשֵּר 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 preëminence, 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; Emmon’s 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 Christ’s 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. Wörterb., 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 Christ’s 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 God’s 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. Paul’s. He is sent to baptize, not to preach the Gospel.]

Footnotes:

[8]1Co_1:10.—[“δέ: but, introduces a contrast to the thankful assurance just expressed.”—Alf.]

[9]1Co_1:10.—[παρακαλῶ; “obsecro—a mixture of entreaty and command.”—Stanley.]

[10]1Co_1:10.—[δὲ: but rather.—Hartung, Parlikellcher, 1:171.]

[11]1Co_1:13.—[“Instead of ὑπὲρ some MSS. B. D.* have περὶ, but ὑπὲρ is in A. C. D.***E. F. G. L. and also in Cod. Sin.”—Words.]

[12]1Co_1:15.—[ϊνα μή τις εἴπῃ; ἵνα carries here a telic force.]

[13]1Co_1:15.—Instead of ἐβάπτισα, 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 ἐβαπτίσθητε.

[14]Leo the great ad Palæstinos, Ep. 31. See the passage cited in full, Calvin’s Inst. (Lib. 3. cap. 5. §10.

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 God’s 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 believer’s 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.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A Reproof of Disharmony. 1Co 1:10-16

v. 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.

v. 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.

v. 12. 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.

v. 13. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

v. 14. I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius,

v. 15. lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

v. 16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

The apostle takes up at once the question which caused him the deepest concern in the congregation at Corinth, that of the threatening disruption. He beseeches them, he exhorts them, he most earnestly begs them, as brethren, his brethren and brethren among one another. He bases his pleading upon the soundest foundation: Through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because the name, the honor, of Jesus is involved in all the actions of the Christians, they must be doubly careful in all their actions. The hallowing of the name of God and of Christ requires that we at all times keep it unstained, unblemished, by any behavior which might bring disgrace to Him. Therefore Paul asks the Corinthians that they all say the same thing; there should be such perfect accord and harmony of sentiment that in their confession of faith before men their agreement may always be voiced. He demands unity for union, not an ignoring of fundamental differences by equivocal confessions. If a creed is purposely so worded as to include or admit both true and false interpretations, it will not aid the cause of Christian harmony. But Paul wants unity and union on the basis of the truth, lest there be among them clefts, splits, schisms, and thus divisions be found among them in spite of the fact that they are united in an outward organization. Instead of that, they should be well and surely adjusted, held together in a bond of perfect unity, in the same discernment and in the same judgment. They should have the proper view of all conditions and circumstances pertaining to the belief and work of the Church, and they should rest their judgment upon this correct understanding; they should form their opinion from the right disposition, Act 4:32. As the Christians are one heart in the faith, so they should be one mouth in confession. But where there are breaches of opinion, due to false thinking and reasoning, there the perfect interrelation and harmony of all the members of the Church is out of the question.

The apostle now names the witnesses, upon whose testimony he bases his admonition: For it has been made known to me concerning you, my brethren, by them of Chloe that there are personal contentions among you. Paul had received definite information, it had been disclosed to him as a fact. Chloe may have been a freed-woman belonging to the congregation at Ephesus, but also well known in Corinth, the members of whose household had been in the latter city and brought their report from first-hand knowledge. So the apostle knew about the personal wranglings which were threatening to disrupt the Corinthian congregation; for, naturally, the difference of opinion would lead to contentions in the effort to establish various opinions. Note that Paul, in spite of these conditions, yet addresses the Christians at Corinth as his brethren. The apostle says wherein these strifes consisted: But I mean this, I have reference to this fact, that each of you individually says, I am of Paul; but I of Apollos; but I of Cephas; but I of Christ. As the Corinthians saw it in the schools of their heathen philosophers, so they applied it in their pride and self-conceit to the Christian congregation: they formed parties and called themselves after the name of their favorite teacher. Paul had been the first teacher of the Gospel at Corinth, and, as the apostle to the heathen, had preached the truth with all fervor. Next had come Apollos, whose brilliant gifts of oratory had naturally impressed a great many of the members. Both of these teachers undoubtedly emphasized the universality of the grace of God in Christ, as they were obliged to do in order to gain the Gentiles for Christ. But soon came the Judaizing teachers, who wanted the Jewish ceremonial law introduced in all congregations, probably arguing with a great show of plausibility for their position. And while the contention was at its height, a number of members that had not yet been involved formed their own party, sanctimoniously taking their name from Christ Himself and denying to the others true discipleship. The result of the entire quarrel was that each party claimed for itself the only true position and despised all the others. Note that a feature of the movement was the adherence to a name and that it was nourished entirely by party spirit. Not one of them arose in defense of a fundamental principle of Christian truth.

Paul, therefore, takes hold of the matter in no uncertain terms: Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or have you been baptized into the name of Paul? A divided Christ means a Christ appropriated in parts, to each one his several bit, in this case in four parts, each faction claiming His truth for itself. Surely that cannot be the intention of the Corinthian Christians; this point they surely did not consider in their wrangling! And the thought foremost in the mind of Paul is that his readers had become members of the Church by faith in the Cross, in the atonement of Christ, which had been sealed to them in Baptism. The very idea as though Paul had been crucified for them is monstrous in his eyes. And the thought as though any of them had been baptized into his name and thus become consecrated to his person, is perfectly abhorrent to his humility. "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 Christ’s name should not be prejudiced through his own. " He could not bear to be placed upon a pedestal by such as did not trust solely in the Gospel preached by him, but made their boast of the dubious distinction that they called themselves after the name of such an excellent preacher.

It is with a feeling of relief that Paul cries out: I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that you were baptized into my name. However, I did baptize also the household of Stephanas but I baptized no one else, so far as I know, vv. 14-16. Because the very suggestion of a party spirit based upon personal preferences appears horrible and hideous to him, Paul regards it as a veritable dispensation of Providence that so few people had been baptized by him personally in Corinth. Crispus and Gaius had been among his earliest converts, Act 18:8; Rom 16:23, and now that he thought of it, he remembered also that Stephanas with his entire household had received baptism at his hands; but he could recall no other instance. And this fact, that only so few had been baptized by him personally, is a source of much satisfaction to him, lest anyone should, under the conditions now obtaining in Corinth, bring the accusation against him that his intention had been to bind them to his person and to form a party named after him. Note the deep humility of the great apostle, as well as his carefulness of expression, lest he be under suspicion.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1:10–15:58 The body of the letter is devoted to Paul’s advice on specific problems and questions that had arisen in the Corinthian church.

1:10-17 The Corinthian believers were arguing over which of the leading evangelists (Paul, Apollos, Peter) was best. Paul rebukes them for their quarreling and worldly comparisons. As a minister of Christ and the Good News, he and the others are all channels through whom God works (see 3:1–4:7).

1:10 dear brothers and sisters: Literally brothers. This generic, traditional term of affection is used to address members of the same family, both male and female. • I appeal to you: Paul motivates them by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, not by his own authority. • authority (literally name): In Jewish thought, a person’s name carried the weight of the person’s authority and reputation. • Let there be no divisions: His desire was not simply that they avoid divisiveness, but that they be so filled with the Spirit of Christ that they would be of one mind, united in thought and purpose (cp. Phil 2:2).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

1Co 1:10.[3] Δὲ, 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.—διὰ) by. This is equivalent to an adjuration.—τοῦ Κυρίου, 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.—τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε, ye may speak the same thing) In speaking they differed from one another; 1Co 1:12.—σχίσματα, divisions) antithetic to κατηρτισμένοι, joined together: comp. Mat 4:21. Schism, a ‘division’ of minds [sentiments]: Joh 7:43; Joh 9:16.—νοΐ, in the mind) within, as to things to be believed.—γνώμῃ, judgment) displayed, in things to be done. This corresponds to the words above, that ye [all] speak [the same thing].

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

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_1:10. Exhortation, however, lest ye miss this end of your calling, exhortation I give to you, etc.

ἀδελφοί] winning and tender form of address, often introduced by Paul just at the point where he has a serious word to speak. 1Co_1:11; 1Co_7:29; 1Co_10:1; 1Co_14:20, al[155]

ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ὈΝΌΜΑΤΟς Κ.Τ.Λ[156]] by means of the name, etc., while I point you to the name of Christ, which, in truth, constitutes the one confession of all His disciples, and thereby set before you the motive to follow my exhortation. Comp Rom_12:1; Rom_15:30; 2Co_10:1; 2Th_3:12. Were the meaning ex mandato Christi (Heumann, Semler, Ernesti, and Rosenmüller), it would be expressed by ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ. (1Co_5:4; 2Th_3:6, al[158]).

ἵνα] design, and in this form of conception, contents of the παρακαλῶ, as in 1Co_16:12; 1Co_16:15; 2Co_8:6; 2Co_9:5; 2Th_2:17, and often in the Synoptic Gospels.

τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε] agreement of confessional utterance, as opposed to the party-confessions of faith, at variance with each other, 1Co_1:12. Luther renders it appropriately: einerlei Rede führet. The consensus animorum is only expressed in the sequel (ἦτε δὲ κατηρτισμ. κ.τ.λ[159]); in the first instance it is the outstanding manifestation of the evil that Paul has in view. This in opposition to Erasmus, Grotius, Estius, Wolf, and many others, including Heydenreich and Billroth, who explain the phrase of this inward agreement, which Paul would have known well how to express by τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν (Rom_15:5; Php_2:2; 2Co_13:11), or in some similar correct way, and which, even in such passages as Thuc. v. 31. 5, Polyb. ii. 62, is not expressed, but presupposed. More expressive still is Polyb. v. 104. 1 : λέγειν ἓν καὶ ταὐτό, to speak one and the same thing.

καὶ μὴ ᾖ ἐν ὑμ. σχίσματα] the same thought in prohibitive form (comp Rom_12:14, al[161]), but designating the evil forbidden more generally, according to its category.

ἦτε δὲ Κ.Τ.Λ[162]] δέ, but rather, but on the contrary (see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 171; Klotz, a[163] Devar. p. 360; Baeuml. Partik. p. 95), introduces what ought to be the case instead of the forbidden καὶ μὴ κ.τ.λ[164]

ΚΑΤΗΡΤΙΣΜΈΝΟΙ] fully adjusted, established in the right frame (Vulg. perfecti; Theophyl. τέλειοι). Comp 2Co_13:11; Gal_6:1; Heb_13:11; 1Pe_5:10; Luk_6:40. When there are divisions in a society, the ΚΑΤΆΡΤΙΣΙς is wanting (2Co_13:9; comp ΚΑΤΑΡΤΙΣΜΌς, Eph_4:12); hence Greek writers also use ΚΑΤΑΡΤΊΖΕΙΝ in speaking of the establishment of right relations by the removal of disunion (as here), sedition, or the like, Herod. v. 28. 106; Dion. Hal. Antt. iii. 10. Whether any figurative reference, however, of κατηρτ. to the original sense of ΣΧΊΣΜΑΤΑ, fissurae, be intended (to make whole and good again what was broken or rent, comp Mat_4:21; Mar_1:19; Esdr. 1Co_4:12-13; 1Co_4:16; Herod. v. 106), as Bos, Elsner, Valckenaer, Pott, Heydenreich, and others think, and as Luther, Calvin (apte cohaereatis), and Beza (coagmentati) express by their renderings, may be doubted, because Paul does not more precisely and definitely indicate such a conception; while, on the other hand, it was exceedingly common to use ΣΧΊΣΜΑ absolutely, and without special thought of its original material reference (Mat_9:16), to denote dissidium (Joh_7:43; Joh_9:16; Joh_10:19; 1Co_11:18, and even 1Co_12:25).

ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ νοῒ Κ.Τ.Λ[168]] the sphere, in which they were to be κατηρτ. Comp Heb_13:21. Νοῦς and γνώμη differ as understanding and opinion. Through the fact, namely, that Christians in Corinth thought differently (νοῦς) on important matters, and in consequence of this difference of thinking, formed in a partisan spirit different opinions and judgments (γνώμη), and fought for these against each other, the τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν was wanting and σχίσματα prevailed. In opposition to this, the Corinthians were to agree together in Christian thinking[170] and judging; the right state of things was to establish itself among them in ὁμονοεῖν and ὉΜΟΓΝΩΜΟΝΕῖΝ (Thuc. ii. 97; Dem. 281. 21; Polyb. xxviii. 6. 2). In ἜΡΙΔΕς, 1Co_1:11, we have the manifestation of the opposite of both of these, of Christian sameness of thought and opinion. That sameness, therefore, does not preclude the friendly discussion of points of difference in thought and judgment, with a view to mutual better understanding and the promotion of harmony, but it doubtless does preclude party-differences and hostility. Ἀμφισβητοῦσι μὲν γὰρ καὶ διʼ εὔνοιαν οἱ φίλοι τοῖς φίλοις, ἐρίζουσι δὲ οἱ διαφοροί τε καὶ ἐχθροὶ ἀλλήλοις, Plat. Prot. p. 337 B. Many other interpreters take γνώμη as referring to the practical disposition (to love); whereas νοῦς denotes the theoretical understanding. See Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, who says: ὅταν γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν πίστιν ἔχωμεν, μὴ συναπτώμεθα δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἀγάπην, τὰ μὲν αὐτὰ νοοῦμεν, διϊστάμεθα δὲ κατὰ τὴν γνώμην. But this separation between theory and practice is quite arbitrary; and ΓΝΏΜΗ never means in the N. T. disposition, but always (even in Rev_17:13; Rev_17:17) sententia, judicium. Comp the classical Τῆς ΑὐΤῆς ΓΝΏΜΗς ΕἾΝΑΙ, to have one and the same view, Thuc. i. 113, iii. 70. Eur. Hec. 127: ἐκ μιᾶς γνώμης, Dem. 147. 1 : ΔΙᾺ ΜΙᾶς ΓΝΏΜΗς ΓΊΝΕΣΘΑΙ, Isocr. Paneg. 38: τὴν αὐτὴν ἔξχειν γνώμην, Plat. Alc. 2, p. 139 A. The converse: ἐγένοντο δίχα αἱ γνώμαι, Herod. vi. 109.

[155] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[156] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[158] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[159] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[161] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[162] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[163] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[164] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[168] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

[170] The sense of disposition is wrongly attributed to νοῦς (Rückert, Neander, Maier). This is not the case even in Rom_1:28; Rom_12:2; Eph_4:17; see in loc.

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).

1Co_1:10 to 1Co_4:21. First section of the Epistle: respecting the parties, with a defence of the apostles way of teaching.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

1Co 1:10 . “But I exhort (appeal to) you, brothers:” the reproof to be given stands in painful contrast ( δέ ) 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 ). Τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν , “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] ). Τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν , in 2Co 13:11 , etc., is matter of temper and disposition; τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν , of attitude and declaration: the former is opposed to self-interest, the latter to party zeal. On the weakened use of ἵνα after παρακαλῶ (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 ἵνα regularly in Synoptics. For the meanings of παρακαλῶ 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 σχίσματα (clefts, splits),” defines negatively the ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες . The schism (see parls.) is a party division within the Church, not yet, as in eccl [129] usage, a culpable separation from it; ἔριδες (1Co 1:11 ) signifies the personal contentions , due to whatever cause, which lead to σχίσματα ; αἱρέσεις (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 σχίσματα ” (Al [132] ). καταρτίζω has a like political sense in cl [133] Gr [134] (Herod., iv. 161; 1Co 1:28 , in opp [135] to στάσις ); “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 ( νοΐ ), and in the same judgment ( γνώμῃ )”: “ νοῦς geht auf die Einsicht, γνώμη auf das Urtheil” (Hn [138] ); gnomé is the application of nous in practical judgment (see parls.). P. desiderates that ὁμονοεῖν and ὁμογνωμεῖν (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 Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Vv. 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.” — The δέ is not adversative: it is the transition particle by which Paul passes from thanksgiving to rebuke. — By the address ἀδελφοί, brethren, he puts himself by the side of his readers, and appeals to their affection in view of the serious censure which he has to pass on them. He rests his exhortation on the revelation made to him and the knowledge which they have of the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ; such is the meaning of the term ὄνομα, the name. The word Lord implies His authority; the name Jesus Christ calls up the memory of all the tender proofs of Divine love displayed in Him who bore the name. It is the eleventh time that the name Jesus Christ appears, and we are at the tenth verse!

The following exhortation bears on three points. The first, τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν, to speak the same thing, is the most external. The phrase includes an allusion to the different formulas enumerated 1Co 1:12.

The two other points relate to the inward conditions of community of language; the first is negative: that there be no schisms, divisions into different camps, bringing with them opposing watchwords. What a view is here of a Church divided into distinct parties! The other condition is of a positive nature: it is the perfect incorporation of all the members of the Church in a single spiritual organism. The term καταρτίζειν denotes, in the first place, the act of adjusting the pieces of a machine with a view to its normal action; hence the equipment of a workman for his work (Eph 4:12); then, in the second place, the rectification of a disorganized state of things, such as the reestablishment of social order after a revolution, or the repairing of an instrument (Mar 1:19: fishing-nets). Order being disturbed at Corinth, we might here apply the latter meaning. But in this case Paul would rather have used the aor. κατηρτίσθητε δέ than the perfect which denotes the stable condition. The first signification is also somewhat more delicate. Paul does not mean, “that ye be reconstituted,” as if he thought them already disorganized, but, “that ye may be in the state of a well-ordered assembly.” How so? He indicates this in the two following terms: by the agreement of the νοῦς and that of the γνώμη. These two words are often distinguished by making the first apply to knowledge, the second to practical life. This distinction, without being false, is not however sufficiently precise; the νοῦς, as is shown in 1Co 2:16, denotes the Christian way of thinking in general, the conception of the gospel in its entirety; the γνώμη, according to 1Co 7:25, refers rather to the manner of deciding a particular point, what we call opinion, judgment. The apostle therefore desires that there should be among them, in the first place, full harmony of view in regard to Christian truth, and then perfect agreement in the way of resolving particular questions. The conjunction ἵνα shows that in his mind the matter in question is rather an object to be attained than a duty which he expects to be immediately realized; it is the state to be aspired after, for the honour of the name of Jesus Christ, whatever may be the sacrifices of self-love and of interest which such an aim may demand of each. After this introduction the apostle comes to the fact which gives rise to this exhortation.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Of the Divisions in the Church of Corinth 1Co_1:10-16

As one of the principal objects of this epistle was to correct the evils which had arisen in the church of Corinth, the apostle adverts, first, to the divisions which there existed. He exhorts the members of that church to unity, 1Co_1:10. The reason of that exhortation was the information which he had received concerning their dissensions. 1Co_1:11. These divisions arose from their ranging themselves under different religious teachers as party leaders, 1Co_1:12. The sin and folly of such divisions are manifest, in the first place, because Christ is incapable of division. As there is one head, there can be but one body. As there is but one Christ, there can be but one church. And in the second place, because religious teachers are not centers of unity to the church. They had not redeemed it, nor did its members profess allegiance to them in baptism, 1Co_1:13. These divisions, therefore, arose, on the one hand, from a forgetfulness of the common relation which all Christians bear to Christ; and, on the other, from a misapprehension of the relation in which believers stand to their religious teachers. Paul expresses his gratitude that he had not given any occasion for such misapprehension. He had baptized so few among them, that no man could suspect him of a desire to make himself the head of the church or the leader of a party, 1Co_1:14-16.

1Co_1:10

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.

There is but one exhortation in this verse, which is expressed first in general terms, that ye all say the same thing; and is then explained in the negative form, that there be no divisions among you; and then positively, that ye be perfectly joined together.

By the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. out of regard to Christ, Rom_12:1, Rom_15:30; 2Th_3:12. Their reverence and love of Christ, and regard for his authority as their Lord, should induce them to yield obedience to the apostles exhortation. It was not out of respect to him, but out of regard to Christ they should obey. This renders obedience easy and elevating. To say the same thing (τὸ αὐτὸ λέγειν) is a phrase of frequent occurrence to express agreement. It may be so understood here, and then the following clauses are explanatory. Or, it may be understood in reference to 1Co_1:12, of outward profession. Do not say I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, but all say the same thing. The former explanation appears the more natural.

And that there be no divisions among you, literally, schisms. The word (σχίσμα) means,

1. A rent, as in a garment, Mat_9:16.

2. Difference of opinion, Joh_7:43.

3. Alienation of feeling, or inward separation.

4. In its ecclesiastical sense, it is an unauthorized separation from the church.

The schisms 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 church, consisting in alienation of feeling and party strifes.

But (that) ye be perfectly joined together. The original word (καταρτίζω) means to repair, or to mend, Mat_4:21, to reduce to place, as a dislocated limb; to render complete, or perfect (ἄρτιος); then figuratively, to restore or set right those in error; to prepare, to render perfect. Hence in this place the sense may be, That ye be perfect, as the Vulgate renders it; or, that ye be united, as in our translation; or, that ye be reduced to order. The context shows that the idea of union is what the apostle intended. They were not to be divided, but united. This union was to be both in mind and in judgment (νοῦς and γνώμη). The former term may refer either to the intellect or feelings. The latter in the New Testament always means judgment or opinion. When the words are united, the former is most naturally understood of feeling, a sense in which the word mind is often used by us. The unity which Paul desired was a union in faith and love. Considering the relation in which Christians stand to each other as the members of Christ, dissensions among them are as inconsistent with their character, as conflict between the members of the human body.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Having made an end of the preface, he cometh to the matter itself, beginning with the most grave obtestation, as though they should hear Christ himself speaking and not Paul.

Knit together, as a body that consisteth of all his parts fitly knit together.

The first part of this Epistle, wherein his purpose is to call back the Corinthians to brotherly concord, and to take away all occasion of discord. So then this first part concerneth the taking away of schisms. Now a schism is when men which otherwise agree and consent together in doctrine, do yet separate themselves one from another.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Here the apostle enters on his subject.

I. He extorts them to unity and brotherly love, and reproves them for their divisions. He had received an account from some that wished them well of some unhappy differences among them. It was neither ill-will to the church, nor to their ministers, that prompted them to give this account; but a kind and prudent concern to have these heats qualified by Paul's interposition. He writes to them in a very engaging way: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; if you have any regard to that dear and worthy name by which you are called, be unanimous. Speak all the same thing; avoid divisions or schisms" (as the original is), "that is, all alienation of affection from each other. Be perfectly joined together in the same mind, as far as you can. In the great things of religion be of a mind: but, when there is not a unity of sentiment, let there be a union of affections. The consideration of being agreed in greater things should extinguish all feuds and divisions about minor ones."

II. He hints at the origin of these contentions. Pride lay at the bottom, and this made them factious. Only of pride cometh contention, Pro 13:10. They quarrelled about their ministers. Paul and Apollos were both faithful ministers of Jesus Christ, and helpers of their faith and joy: but those who were disposed to be contentious broke into parties, and set their ministers at the head of their several factions: some cried up Paul, perhaps as the most sublime and spiritual teacher; others cried up Apollos, perhaps as the most eloquent speaker; some Cephas, or Peter, perhaps for the authority of his age, or because he was the apostle of the circumcision; and some were for none of them, but Christ only. So liable are the best things in the world to be corrupted, and the gospel and its institutions, which are at perfect harmony with themselves and one another, to be made the engines of variance, discord, and contention. This is no reproach to our religion, but a very melancholy evidence of the corruption and depravity of human nature. Note, How far will pride carry Christians in opposition to one another! Even so far as to set Christ and his own apostles at variance, and make them rivals and competitors.

III. He expostulates with them upon their discord and quarrels: "Is Christ divided? No, there is but one Christ, and therefore Christians should be on one heart. Was Paul crucified for you? Was he your sacrifice and atonement? Did I ever pretend to be your saviour, or any more than his minister? Or, were you baptized in the name of Paul? Were you devoted to my service, or engaged to be my disciples, by that sacred rite? Did I challenge that right in you, or dependence from you, which is the proper claim of your God and Redeemer?" No; ministers, however instrumental they are of good to us, are not to be put in Christ's stead. They are not to usurp Christ's authority, nor encourage any thing in the people that looks like transferring his authority to them. He is our Saviour and sacrifice, he is our Lord and guide. And happy were it for the churches if there were no name of distinction among them, as Christ is not divided.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Now--Ye already have knowledge, utterance, and hope, maintain also love.

brethren--The very title is an argument for love.

by . . . Christ--whom Paul wishes to be all in all to the Corinthians, and therefore names Him so often in this chapter.

speak . . . same thing--not speaking different things as ye do (Co1 1:12), in a spirit of variance.

divisions--literally, "splits," "breaches."

but--"but rather."

perfectly joined together--the opposite word to "divisions." It is applied to healing a wound, or making whole a rent.

mind . . . judgment--the view taken by the understanding, and the practical decision arrived at [CONYBEARE and HOWSON], as to what is to be done. The mind, within, refers to things to be believed: the judgment is displayed outwardly in things to be done [BENGEL]. Disposition--opinion [ALFORD].

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 10. Now I beseech you, brethren] The apostle having finished his introduction comes to his second point, exhorting them to abstain from dissensions, that they might be of the same heart and mind, striving together for the hope of the Gospel.

By the name of our Lord Jesus] By his authority, and in his place; and on account of your infinite obligations to his mercy in calling you into such a state of salvation.

That ye all speak the same thing] If they did not agree exactly in opinion on every subject, they might, notwithstanding, agree in the words which they used to express their religious faith. The members of the Church of God should labour to be of the same mind, and to speak the same thing, in order to prevent divisions, which always hinder the work of God. On every essential doctrine of the Gospel all genuine Christians agree: why then need religious communion be interrupted? This general agreement is all that the apostle can have in view; for it cannot be expected that any number of men should in every respect perfectly coincide in their views of all the minor points, on which an exact conformity in sentiment is impossible to minds so variously constituted as those of the human race. Angels may thus agree, who see nothing through an imperfect or false medium; but to man this is impossible. Therefore men should bear with each other, and not be so ready to imagine that none have the truth of God but they and their party.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10. Now I beseech you, brethren Hitherto he has handled the Corinthians mildly, because he knew that they were much too sensitive. Now, however, after preparing their minds for receiving correction, acting the part of a good and skillful surgeon, who soothes the wound when about to apply a painful remedy, he begins to handle them with more severity. Even here, however, as we shall still farther see, he uses great moderation. The sum is this: “It is my hope that the Lord has not in vain conferred upon you so many gifts, so as not to have it in view to bring you to salvation, but you ought at the same time to take heed lest graces so distinguished be polluted by your vices. See, then, that you be agreed among yourselves; and it is not without good reason that I call for agreement among yourselves, for I have been informed that you are in a state of disagreement, amounting even to hostility, and that there are parties and contentions raging among you, by which true unity of faith is torn asunder.” As, however, they might not perhaps be sufficiently aroused by mere exhortation, he uses earnest entreaty, for he adjures them, by the name of Christ, that, as they loved him, they should aim at promoting harmony.

That ye all speak the same thing In exhorting them to harmony, he employs three different forms of expression: for, in the first place, he requires such agreement among them that all shall have one voice; secondly, he takes away the evil by which unity is broken and torn asunder; and, thirdly, he unfolds the nature of true harmony, which is, that they be agreed among themselves in mind and will. What he has placed second is first in order, — that we beware of strifes. For from this a second thing will naturally follow, — that we be in harmony; and then at length a third thing will follow, which is here mentioned first, — that we all speak, as it were, with one mouth; a thing exceedingly desirable as a fruit of Christian harmony. Let us then observe, that nothing is more inconsistent on the part of Christians than to be at variance among themselves, for it is the main article of our religion that we be in harmony among ourselves; and farther, on such agreement the safety of the Church rests and is dependent.

But let us see what he requires as to Christian unity. If any one is desirous of nice distinctions — he would have them first of all joined together in one mind; secondly, in one judgment; and, thirdly, he would have them declare in words that agreement. As, however, my rendering differs somewhat from that of Erasmus, I would, in passing, call my readers to observe, that Paul here makes use of a participle, which denotes things that are fitly and suitably joined together For the verb καταρτιζεσθαι itself (from which the participle κατηρτισμένος comes) properly signifies, to be fitted and adjusted, just as the members of the human body are connected together by a most admirable symmetry.

For sententia (judgment) Paul has γνώμην: but I understand it here as denoting the will, so that there is a complete division of the soul, and the first clause refers to faith, the second to love. Then only will there be Christian unity among us, when there is not merely a good agreement as to doctrine, but we are also in harmony in our affections and dispositions, and are thus in all respects of one mind. Thus Luke bears witness to believers in the primitive Church, (Acts 2:46,) that they had “one heart and one soul.” And without doubt this will be found wherever the Spirit of Christ reigns. When, however, he exhorts them to speak the same thing, he intimates still more fully from the effect, how complete the agreement ought to be — so that no diversity may appear even in words. It is difficult, indeed, of attainment, but still it is necessary among Christians, from whom there is required not merely one faith, but also one confession.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(10) Now I beseech you, brethren.—With these words the Apostle introduces the topic which is indeed one of the chief reasons of his writing this Epistle (see Introduction), viz., the PARTY-SPIRIT existing in the Corinthian Church. The treatment of this subject occupies to 1Co_4:20. It is important to remember that the factions rebuked by St. Paul were not sects who separated themselves from the Church, but those who within the Church divided themselves into parties, each calling itself by the name of some Apostle whose teaching and practice were most highly esteemed. The nature and cause of these divisions we shall understand as we consider the Apostle’s exhortation to unity, and his rebuke of the spirit which gave rise to them.

By the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.—By his previous remark that they had been called unto “the communion” of this Holy Name, the writer has led up to the mention of Christ’s name—not in the form of an adjuration, but as reminding them of it. That very name adds strength to his exhortation to “speak the same thing”—i.e., to call themselves by this one name, and not each (as in 1Co_1:12) by a different designation, and that there should be no “schisms” among them. The word translated “divisions,” signifies literally a “rent,” in which sense it occurs in Mar_2:21 (“the rent is made worse”), and is used three times in St. John’s Gospel in the sense of schism or difference of opinion (Joh_7:43; Joh_9:16; Joh_10:19). See Note on Joh_7:43, as to the moral application of the word having probably come from Ephesus; and the idea of a tear or rent is carried on in the words, “be perfectly joined together,” which in the original signifies the repair of something which was torn, as in Mat_4:21 we have the word rendered “were mending their nets.” The church at Corinth presents to the Apostle’s mind the idea of a seamless robe rent and torn into pieces, and he desires its complete and entire restoration by their returning to a united temper of mind and judgment as to word and deed.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10–17. Rebuke of the Divisions in the Corinthian Church

10. I beseech you, brethren] The Apostle now enters on the subject of the divisions among his Corinthian converts, for which his introduction (see next note) was intended as a preparation.

by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ] St Chrysostom says that the reason why the name Jesus Christ appears so often in the introduction (it occurs eight times in nine verses) is the desire to censure indirectly the schisms existing in the Corinthian Church by reminding its members of Him in Whom they were made one, and Whose name told of nothing but love and peace.

and that there be no divisions among you] The margin has ‘schisms,’ the original σχίσματα. But the recognized theological sense of the word ‘schisms’ renders it unsuitable here, where the idea is rather that of divisions in, than separation from, the Church.

but that ye be perfectly joined together] The Apostle is hardly to be supposed here to require absolute unity of opinion, a thing impossible among men, but rather that mutual affection which would knit the disciples together in all essentials, and would prevent all acrimonious discussion of non-essentials. The word rendered joined together is literally fitted together, as the fragments in a piece of mosaic, in which each minute portion exactly fills its proper place.

in the same mind and in the same judgment] The word translated mind, which is kindred with the Latin nosco and our know, has the signification in the N. T. (1) of the organ of perception, mind, intellect, (2) of the perception which is the result of the action of that organ understanding, and (3) of the intellectual conviction which the understanding imparts. The latter is the meaning here. For an example of (1) see ch. 1Co_2:16 and note; of (2) see Rev_13:18. In Rom_7:25 it would seem to have (4) a meaning which includes moral as well as intellectual qualities. The word rendered judgment does not mean judicial sentence, but like judgment in English it is often equivalent to opinion. See ch. 1Co_7:25; 1Co_7:40; 2Co_8:10. It is rendered advice in the latter passage.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now I beseech you, brethren,.... The apostle having observed the many favours and blessings bestowed on this church, proceeds to take notice of the divisions and contentions which were fomented in it; and in the most kind and tender manner entreats them to take every proper step to prevent schisms among them: he does not use his apostolical power and authority, or lay his injunctions and commands upon them, which he might have done, but most affectionately beseeches them; styling them brethren, as they were in a spiritual relation, being children of the same Father, members of the same body, and partakers of the same grace, and is a reason why they should not fail out by the way: and this obsecration is made

by the name of the Lord Jesus; which he wisely judged must have its weight and influence on many of them, to whom that name must be dear and precious, and which they called upon and were called by; and shows, that he was not acting in his own name, and seeking his own profit; but was concerned in and for the name of Christ, and for his honour and interest, which lay at stake by their contentions. His earnest request to them is,

that ye speak the same thing; profess the same truths, and express them in the same words; which shows the lawfulness, yea, necessity and usefulness, of confessions and articles of faith, being made and agreed to by members of churches; and which should be drawn up in a form of sound words, and abode by; for the introducing of new words and phrases is often the means of bringing in new doctrines, and of raising great contentions and animosities; wherefore using the same words to express truth by is a very proper and prudent expedient to prevent them:

and that there be no divisions, or schisms

among you; which are generally made by innovations in doctrine, or worship; by forming new schemes of religion, new articles of faith, and modes of discipline: but

that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment; which regards not only the sameness of love and affection, to one another, being, as the first Christians were, of one heart and of one soul; but their agreement in their judgments and sentiments, of both doctrine and discipline; and such an entire harmony and symmetry among them, as in the members of the body, where each member and bone being in their proper place, exactly answer to, and tally with each other; and which is the most effectual way to speak the same things, and so bar against all schisms and divisions; and such an agreement is absolutely necessary to the peace, comfort, and well being of a church; for how should "two", and much less more, "walk together", unless they are "agreed?" Amo 3:3.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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"}

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now I beseech you, brethren - In this verse the apostle enters on the discussion respecting the irregularities and disorders in the church at Corinth, of which he had incidentally heard; see 1Co 1:11. The first of which he had incidentally learned, was that which pertained to the divisions and strifes which had arisen in the church. The consideration of this subject occupies him to 1Co 1:17; and as those divisions had been caused by the influence of phi osophy, and the ambition for distinction, and the exhibition of popular eloquence among the Corinthian teachers, this fact gives occasion to him to discuss that subject at length 1Co 1:17-31; in which he shows that the gospel did not depend for its success on the reasonings of philosophy, or the persuasions of eloquence. This part of the subject he commences with the language of entreaty. “I beseech you, brethren” - the language of affectionate exhortation rather than of stern command. Addressing them as his brethren, as members of the same family with himself, he conjures them to take all proper measures to avoid the evils of schism and of strife.

By the name - By the authority of his name; or from reverence for him as the common Lord of all.

Of our Lord Jesus Christ - The reasons why Paul thus appeals to his name and authority here, may be the following:

(1) Christ should be regarded as the Supreme Head and Leader of all his church. It was improper, therefore, that the church should be divided into portions, and its different parts enlisted under different banners.

(2) “the whole family in heaven and earth should be named” after him Eph 3:15, and should not be named after inferior and subordinate teachers. The reference to “the venerable and endearing name of Christ here, stands beautifully and properly opposed to the various human names under which they were so ready to enlist themselves” - Doddridge. “There is scarcely a word or expression that he (Paul) makes use of, but with relation and tendency to his present main purpose; as here, intending to abolish the names of leaders they had distinguished themselves by, he beseeches them by the name of Christ, a form that I do not remember he elsewhere uses” - Locke.

(3) The prime and leading thing which Christ had enjoined upon his church was union and mutual love Joh 13:34; Joh 15:17, and for this he had most earnestly prayed in his memorable prayer; Joh 17:21-23. It was well for Paul thus to appeal to the name of Christ - the sole Head and Lord of his church, and the friend of union, and thus to rebuke the divisions and strifes which had arisen at Corinth.

That ye all speak the same thing - “That ye hold the same doctrine” - Locke. This exhortation evidently refers to their holding and expressing the same religious sentiments, and is designed to rebuke that kind of contention and strife which is evinced where different opinions are held and expressed. To “speak the same thing” stands opposed to speaking different and conflicting things; or to controversy, and although perfect uniformity of opinion cannot be expected among people on the subject of religion any more than on other subjects, yet on the great and fundamental doctrines of Christianity, Christians may be agreed; on all points in which they differ they may evince a good spirit; and on all subjects they may express their sentiments in the language of the Bible, and thus “speak the same thing.”

And that there be no divisions among you - Greek, σχίσματα schismata, “schisms.” No divisions into contending parties and sects. The church was to be regarded as one and indivisible, and not to be rent into different factions, and ranged under the banners of different leaders; compare Joh 9:16; 1Co 11:18; 1Co 12:25.

But that ye be perfectly joined together - ἦτε δὲ κατηρτισμένοι ēte de katērtismenoi. The word used here and rendered “perfectly joined together,” denotes properly to restore, mend, or repair that; which is rent or disordered Mat 4:21; Mar 1:19, to amend or correct that which is morally evil and erroneous Gal 6:1, to render perfect or complete Luk 6:40, to fit or adapt anything to its proper place so that it shall be complete in all its parts, and harmonious, Heb 11:5; and thence to compose and settle controversies, to produce harmony and order. The apostle here evidently desires that they should be united in feeling; that every member of the church should occupy his appropriate place, as every member of a well proportioned body, or part of a machine has its appropriate place and use; see his wishes more fully expressed in 1Co. 12:12-31.

In the same mind - νοΐ̀ noi; see Rom 15:5. This cannot mean that they were to be united in precisely the same shades of opinion, which is impossible - but that their minds were to be disposed toward each other with mutual good will, and that they should live in harmony. The word here rendered “mind,” denotes not merely the intellect itself, but that which is in the mind - the thoughts, counsels, plans; Rom 11:34; Rom 14:5; 1Co 2:16; Col 2:18. Bretschneider.

And in the same judgment - γνώμη gnōmē. This word properly denotes science, or knowledge; opinion, or sentiment; and sometimes, as here, the purpose of the mind, or will. The sentiment of the whole is, that in their understandings and their volitions, they should be united and kindly disposed toward each other. Union of feeling is possible even where people differ much in their views of things. They may love each other much, even where they do not see alike. They may give each other credit for honesty and sincerity, and may be willing to suppose that others “may be right,” and “are honest” even where their own views differ. The foundation of Christian union is not so much laid in uniformity of intellectual perception as in right feelings of the heart. And the proper way to produce union in the church of God, is not to begin by attempting to equalize all intellects on the bed of Procrustes, but to produce supreme love to God, and elevated and pure Christian love to all who bear the image and the name of the Redeemer.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

That there is no schism....contentions, &c. To hinder these, was the chief design of this letter; one saying, I am of Paul, &c. each party bragging of their master by whom they had been baptized, and made Christians. I am of Apollo, the eloquent preacher, and I of Cephas, the head of the apostles, and of the whole Church; whilst others, the only party not to be blamed, contented themselves with saying, and I am of Christ. --- Is Christ divided? Is not your salvation, is not your justification in baptism, and all gifts from him? (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

By the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, is as much as, by Christ, by the authority of Christ, for this is his will; or, by the love which you bear to the Lord Jesus Christ, who hath so often recommended to you peace with, and brotherly love towards, one another.

That ye all speak the same thing; that in matters of doctrine you all speak the same thing (for it is capable of no other sense); and that you neither be divided in sentiments or opinions, nor yet in affection, that there may be no divisions among you; which is also further evidenced by the last phrase, being joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. A union in affection is the necessary and indispensable duty of all those that are the disciples of Christ, and such a duty as not only concerns Christians of the same nation, with relation one to another, but also Christians of all nations, and may be attained, if by our lusts we do not hinder it. A union in opinion, as to the fundamental truths of religion, is (though not so easy, yet) what the church of God hath in a great measure arrived at. But for a union in every particular proposition of truth, is not a thing to be expected, though we all are to labour for it: God hath neither given unto all the same means, nor the same natural capacities.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10. Beseech—The apostle begins with supplication, but he will end with self-assertion and even menace, 1Co_4:18-21. It is not as such a leader that he will serve; yet on the proper basis, the basis of the cross, (1Co_1:18,) as himself a complete imitator of Christ, and as their special founder and father, (1Co_4:15,) he will claim their following of himself.

Brethren—As in spite of their shortcomings they still were. By—Rather, through.

The name—This powerful name has thus far been nine times mentioned; so that, as Chrysostom well says, “He nails them to this name.” And, we add, the very purpose of nailing to this name is to substitute it as the basis of his apostolic authority, instead of any sectarian leadership.

Speak the same thing—Not that there should be a forced unity of talk where there was no unity of thought. That can be only by insincerity; or, as among Papists, by despotism. But, as he will further say, their unity of speaking must be based on their unity of mind. For at bottom there was a unity, Christ and his cross; and all their partisan talk was simply the superfluous result of diverging in puerile pride and loquacity from that deep and holy centre. Deep, central, praying piety is the true healer of Church strifes.

No divisions—No σχισματα, schismata, schisms. Schism is, here, a division in a Church rather than a departure from it; as heresy, at the present day, is a departure from true Christian doctrine.

Mind—Interior mental state.

Judgment—Exterior purpose, as exhibited in action and practice.

It is curious that Ignatius, years afterward, quotes in substance this verse, yet reversing the order of thought and words: “That in one common obedience ye be united in the same mind and the same judgment, and all speak the same thing.” Paul proceeds from external speech to internal mind; Ignatius proceeds from mind to the resulting speech. The cause of Paul’s beginning with speech was, that it was the talk of the parties that had been reported to him. If people will cease their quarrelsome talk, that may stop their quarrelsome feeling.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vers. 10-17. Party spirit at Corinth. This subject is pursued in various forms to 1Co_4:21.

Now. The particle implies the transition from thanksgiving to reproof. Brethren. This very title involves an appeal to them to aim at unity among themselves; and St. Paul, like St. James (v. 10), uses it to soften any austerity which might seem to exist in his language. (1Co_7:29 1Co_10:1 1Co_14:20, etc.) Through the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ; that is, by the whole idea of Christ"s being and office the strongest bond of union between true Christians. (see the powerful appeal Eph_4:1-6) That ye all speak the same thing; that is, "that ye may all with one mind and one mouth glorify God". (Rom_15:6) They were doing the very reverse each glorifying himself and his party (ver. 12). Divisions (scismata); " schisms" used of bodies within the Church, not of separatists from it. (1Co_11:18) The word is only used in this special sense in this Epistle. In Mat_9:16 and Mar_2:21 schisma means "a rent;" in John, (Joh_7:43 Joh 9:16 Joh_10:16) "a division of opinion." There would be little or no harm in the schismata so far as they affected unessential points, if it was not their fatal tendency to end in "contentions" (erides) and "factions". (haireseis, 1Co_11:19) Corinth was a place where such divisions would be likely to spring up, partly from the disputatious vivacity and intellectual conceits of the inhabitants, partly from the multitudes of strangers who constantly visited the port, partly from the numerous diversities of previous training through which the various sections of converts had passed. Perfected together; literally, repaired, reunited. In the same mind and in the same judgment; that is, in what they think and believe (noi), and in what they assert and do (gnwmh). The exhortation, "be of one mind," in every sense of the word, was as necessary in the ancient as in the modern Church (Rom_15:5; 2Co_13:11; Php_1:27; 1Pe_3:8)

Vers. 10-13.

The importance of spiritual unity.

I beseech you, brethren, by the Name of our Lord," etc. Here the apostle comes to the grand object of writing this letter: it was to put an end to that party spirit that had riven the Church at Corinth into conflicting divisions. His remarks on this subject continue to 1Co_4:20. There are two things here which show the transcendent importance which he attached to spiritual unity

(1) his solemn exhortation, and

(2) his earnest expostulation.

I HIS SOLEMN EXHORTATION. "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing," etc. What union does he seek? Not ecclesiastical union, conformity to the same system of worship. Not theological union, conformity to the same scheme of doctrine. Such unions cannot touch hearts, cannot weld souls. They are the union of the various parts of the machine, not the union of the branches of a tree.

1. The unity he seeks is that of spiritual utterance. "That ye all speak the same thing." Not the same thing in letter, but in life. Let the utterances be as varied as all the notes in the gamut, but let love, like the keynote, tune them into music.

2. The unity he seeks is that of unity of soul. "That ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." These include unity of the supreme sympathy and aim. Of such unity Christ alone is the Centre. Creeds divide; Christ unites. According to the laws of mind, all that love Christ supremely, though separated in person by distances immeasurable, are one in heart, one as planets are one, revolving round the same centre. This is the union that Paul sought; this is Divine socialism. No wonder that he was solemn in his entreaties. "In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ" he asks it.

II HIS EARNEST EXPOSTULATION. Divisions or schisms were rife and rampant in the Church at Corinth at this time. Some person of the name of Chloe, unknown to us, but evidently well known to Paul and his contemporaries of the Corinthian Church, brought these divisions under Paul"s notice, told him of the contentions. We must, I suppose, assume that this Chloe was a good character, although, as a rule, the most unamiable persons are the most ready to parade the imperfections of others. Now, what were the divisions against which he protests? "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," etc. Their divisions consisted in rabid preferences for certain ministers. One party set up Paul as pre-eminent; another party set up Apollos as unapproached in excellence; others Cephas, or Peter; and others gave Christ the pre-eminence, and they were right. Now, to put down these divisions, these schisms, Paul expostulates with great vehemence. "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" Party spirit has been the greatest curse to Christianity; it has filled Christendom with conflicting sects. Alas! that any professed minister of the gospel should defend the existence of separate sects and Churches. How often have I heard preachers on platforms compare the different denominations to regiments in the same army! Do regiments in an army fight one with another, and do they misinterpret the grand purpose of the campaign? However, so long as men have vested interests in sects, and live by denominations, I fear nothing but the crash of doom will destroy sectarianism.

Vers. 10-17.

Divisions in the Church condemned.

The formative idea of the chapter is now brought into full view, viz. "There are contentions among you," and it is prefaced by the statement of a principle, to which St. Paul earnestly directs the attention of the Corinthians, viz. "that they be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment," or "perfected together," the stress being laid, as before, on their corporate or organic character as a Church. These warring divisions were not matters merely or chiefly personal, but they involved the very heart and soul of the Christian community. No doubt their partisanship in the supposed interest of Paul, Apollos, and Peter, ay, of Christ himself, was very hurtful to them as individuals. But the point he urges is that their partisanship was a disjunction of their unity, and hence that this unity, which was designed to grow into perfection, was arrested by strife. And just here St. Paul strikes the great fact that men of the outside world judge of Christianity much more by the Church in its totality than by instances of individual character in the Church. History is full of exemplifications of this truth, from the times of Julian and Coleus to the age of Voltaire and Rousseau. Nor should this surprise us; for evidently there is a philosophy in it, however much the philosophy is abused by the wit and devices of men. Individuals are "members one of another," members of the body; but the body is the Church, and the organic life of the Church is the Divine witness to the glory of Christ made visible through the Church to the world. How quickly the apostle rises into fervid utterance, and how compact his words! "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" If his services to the Corinthian Church are to be perverted in this way, St. Paul can only thank God that he baptized but a few of them. At the moment, St. Paul hastens to assert his own high manhood by an utter refusal to be made an object of partisanship, and he does this in the only method possible to his argument, by confessing his obligations to Christ who had sent him "to preach the gospel. L.

Vers. 10-17.

Divisions in the Church.

How numerous these have been since Paul wrote! How many of them springing directly from human weakness, folly, or wickedness! How alien to the true spirit of Christianity, and to the prayer of Christ they all may be one"!

I A GREAT EVIL. Cause of:

1. Weakness. Cooperation hindered. Strength expended in opposing each other instead of sin and Satan. Great opportunity offered for Satanic attack. Unity is strength; division is weakness.

2. Scandal. The contempt of the world is not only experienced, but largely deserved. The Head of the Church is dishonoured. The renovator of society shows its own need of renovation. Satan has achieved a triumph in the very Church founded to overthrow him.

3. Unchristian feeling. Unity begets more love; division more hate. Church quarrels have often proved most bitter. A united Church is an Elim, a divided Church a Marah.

4. Hindrance to unbelievers. Conversions are stayed by Church divisions. Men seeking peace hesitate to cast in their lot with those who are flying at one another"s throats. The strait gate is sometimes quite blocked up by bickering, quarrelling Christians. A crucified Christ invites, and a divided Church repels, the sinner. Men can find plenty of division, estrangement, hate, and fight in the world, without troubling to enter the Church. Church division is a serious stumbling block to the unbeliever, and often causes him to continue an unbeliever.

II ARISE FROM VARIOUS CAUSES.

1. Frequently, as among some at Corinth, from favouritism towards leaders in the Church. This favouritism may be:

(1) In respect of personal qualities or position. Apollos was eloquent and captivating; Paul spiritual and simple; Cephas had peculiar charm through his long association with Christ, and represented the Jewish element to the minds of the Corinthians. Instead of enjoying all the teachers in common, folly suggested division and monopoly, and thus loss all round.

(2) In respect of real or supposed doctrinal tendencies. Some at Corinth, having a love for "wisdom of words" and the philosophies of men, would with their old and only half discarded beliefs pleading powerfully, incline towards the brilliant scholar of Alexandria, who might seem to favour a more rationalistic system than that of Paul. Others, with Jewish prejudices still strong, might shelter themselves under the name of Cephas, as they attempted to combine Christianity and Judaism by a large sacrifice of the former. Then, as now, men asked themselves what doctrines they liked, and held to these. Instead of seeking "the mind of the Lord," we are very prone to seek our own minds; and then, what wonder if there be "divisions among us"? If truth were sought instead of manufactured, how much more unity of doctrine and practice there would be in the Church of Christ!

(3) Through the carnal disposition to exalt the servant unduly, losing sight of the Master. It is easier to follow men than to follow Christ. There is a good deal of the heathen in us: we love to have a god whom we can see. We are much like the Israelites when Moses went up into the mount; and it is not, therefore, very surprising if we soon discover that our new teacher and guide is a gorgeous and resplendent calf. Only Christ is fit to be supreme in our life. Directly we put men in his place, we begin to follow that which is imperfect, and we draw its imperfection upon and into ourselves.

2. Sometimes, as with one section at Corinth, from repudiation of all earthly leaders. "We are not of Paul, or of Apollos, or of Cephas; we are of Christ." This position has been assumed in later times. It possesses not a little plausibility, but investigation discloses its true character. One has well said of the Corinthian section, "It was in no Christian spirit that they set up their claim to be of Christ." That love to Christ is more than suspicious which ignores his accredited servants. It is no great compliment to a king to reject his ambassador. The apostle could say, "We are ambassadors for Christ." Christ has a ministry which is not to be ignored. As Christ"s servants are never to be put in Christ"s place, so the place of Christ"s servants is not to be made void. Not improbably these who claimed to be "of Christ" claimed to be the only Christians in Corinth. It is possible to cry, "Lord, Lord!" very loudly, and to have none of the Spirit of Christ. That man could know nothing truly of Christ who failed to recognize in the Apostle Paul a true servant of the great Master.

III HOW TO BE DEALT WITH.

1. In a spirit of meekness. "I beseech you not "I command you." Assumption and arrogance widen the breach.

2. In love. "Brethren not reprobates, outcasts, heretics. Hard words make hard hearts.

1. With discretion,. Paul shows discretion in not mentioning Cephas or Apollos after ver. 12. He does not object more to the parties under their names than to the one under his own. It is most suggestive that he appears to castigate his own party chiefly. He objected to all parties. For himself, he wanted only his legitimate position. To rebuke our own followers for

2. following us unduly and factiously is indeed a sign of grace in the heart, and of heavenly wisdom too.

3. With candour. "Concealment and mystery sow distrust and destroy love.

1. By turning thoughts towards Christ. A hidden Christ makes a divided Church. If we saw the Master more clearly, we should see the right place of the servants better. Paul beseeches, not for his own sake, but for Christ"s sake. He did not fear that this would encourage those who said, "We are of Christ." He showed them the real Christ. This was the best medicine for their spiritual ailment. They had been making a Christ to go before them. Many false Christs are worshipped and served.

2. By argument. The reasonableness of unity. Paul urges that Christ is not and cannot be divided, and that if the Corinthians are Christ"s, they should not be divided either. As there is only one Head of the Church, there should be only one body. By divisions Christ will seem to be rent asunder. Teachers are not centres of unity; for perfect unity there can be but one centre that is, Christ.

3. By taking a blameless course one"s self. Paul will do nothing to foster division. In his condemnation, as we have seen, he sacrifices his own party first, and ridicules the idea of the undue exaltation of himself: "Was Paul crucified for you?" Many try to heal Church divisions by abasing their opponents and exalting themselves. Paul is singularly clear in this matter; he sharply rebukes those who would transform Paul into Pope. Avoiding every occasion of increasing the evil, he rejoices that he has not baptized many Corinthians, lest this should be wrested into an attempt to acquire pre-eminence, and consequently dishonour fall upon the pre-eminent Christ. Some Church divisions may seem necessary: for example, when professors walk disorderly or embrace erroneous views. It may be then our duty to separate; yet we should preserve the spirit of charity, and seek to be most loyal to Christ. But how many Church divisions are more or less after the Corinthian type! H.

Vers. 10-17.

The factions at Corinth.

The word translated "divisions" is the original of our word "schism," which means a "rent" as in a garment, and then a division in a society or a separation from it. These internal divisions had begun to show themselves at Corinth, if not in the form of regularly defined parties, at least as forces that were moving in that direction, and which, if not checked, might soon lead to open rupture. On what principles these divisions rested, we are left to gather from the watchwords of each.

1. The Paul party would consist for the most part of those who were the firstfruits of the apostle"s labours at Corinth, and who asserted his full apostolic authority. Not content with this, they had ranged themselves under his name in opposition to others. They seem to have boasted of their liberty in respect of some things which gave offence to more scrupulous consciences, such as eating things sacrificed to idols, and to have treated uncharitably the more contracted views of the Jewish Christians.

2. The Apollos party is named after Apollos, who came to Corinth shortly after Paul"s departure. He was "a Jew, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures"; (Act_18:24) and from his education in his native city he was probably well acquainted with Greek philosophy and literature. Hence his style of teaching was more learned and rhetorical than Paul"s, and it attracted the more cultured among the Corinthians, who began to contrast it with the simple, unadorned style of the apostle. Agreeing in doctrine and spirit, the two teachers differed only in gifts and manner of teaching; but this did not prevent the would be philosophers and rhetoricians of Corinth from using the eloquent Alexandrian"s name as a party watchword.

3. The Cephas party was mainly composed of Jewish converts, unlike the two previous parties, which were made up of Gentiles. In it we recognize the representatives of that Judaizing tendency which Paul had so frequently to combat. Bringing with them their notions of Jewish prerogative, they sought to impose the Law of Moses even on Gentile converts, and to bind about the neck of Christianity the yoke of legalism. It was natural for this party to call themselves after the apostle of the circumcision, and to contrast his eminence among the twelve with the position of Paul; while they sought to make compulsory the stricter practice of their favourite apostle, in opposition to the greater freedom allowed by the apostle of the Gentiles.

4. The precise character of the Christ party is more difficult to determine. The most likely view is that they rejected all human authority, refusing to acknowledge Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or any other eminent teacher, and calling themselves simply by the name of Christ. They did this, however, in such a way as to degrade that Name to the shibboleth of a sect, and were thus as guilty as the others whom the apostle here condemns. Among the parties of our own day there are not wanting those who disparage an accredited ministry, and call themselves simply "Christians." In view of these factions consider

I THE EVIL OF PARTY SPIRIT. The existence of parties and differing schools of thought in the apostolic Churches leads us to search for some root in human nature whence they spring, and this we find in the limitations and varieties of mental constitution. No single mind can take in the whole of Divine truth so as to hold it in proper balance. There is sure to be a projection of one portion to the comparative obscuring of others, a looking only at one side of the sphere while the other is out of view.

Witness the variety to be found among the apostles. While there is no contradiction in the views of truth presented in their writings all teaching the same fundamental doctrines we cannot read them without observing that each lays stress on a different portion of the truth from the others. The difference between Paul and James, e.g., is so evident that not a few shallow readers have pronounced them irreconcilable; while a comparison of both with John reveals other characteristics equally peculiar. And what is true of these inspired teachers is true of the Church in all ages. Christianity does not obliterate individuality. The Holy Spirit works on the lines already laid in nature, and thus the foundation is prepared for varying types of doctrine and life. This diversity is not a thing to be deplored, but rather to be rejoiced in. How high a purpose it is fitted to serve, our Lord showed in selecting apostles, each one of whom was different from his fellows. It needed minds of different hues to transmit the different rays of which the pure light is composed. And God still makes use of the many types of mind to hold up before the Church the many aspects of truth, thus enriching the general body of Christ and preventing it from becoming narrow and one sided. This is the use of different schools and parties in the Church. They serve to give expression to the many sidedness of the Christian faith and life. But how readily does this natural and useful diversity give rise to hurtful divisions in the body of Christ! We must not confound the factious spirit which Paul denounces with an enlightened attachment to one particular branch of the Church. We may prefer that branch to others because it appears to us the most scriptural in doctrine, government, and worship, without denying to other branches the marks of a true Church, or overlooking the part they play as members of the one body. Party spirit consists in elevating that which is peculiar to our own sect above that which is common to us with others, and thereby unchurching them. The progress of the kingdom of God in the earth is made subordinate to the success of our own denomination or faction. The spirit that wrought such mischief at Corinth has been busy in the Church ever since. The divisions of Christendom are the scandal of Christianity. It is not merely that the Church is everywhere split up into sections, but that this has led to party strife and jealousy. How much bitterness of feeling has it engendered! how much unchristian speaking! Men glory in their distinctive shibboleths more than in the great doctrines of grace which are our common heritage. The guns of one division of Christ"s army are too often directed against another division, instead of being turned against the foe.

II ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT.

1. The Head of the Church is One. "Is Christ divided?" There is no schism in Christ the Head; why should there be in the body? Why rend asunder that which was intended to be one? The members of the human body have different functions to discharge, but the one does not deny to the other its due place in the body. (1Co_12:12, etc.) So with the members of Christ"s Church; all belong to the same body, which owns the same Head. The spirit of faction breaks up this unity into a monster of many bodies and many heads. There is but one Head and one body one Christ and one Church.

2. Salvation is not due to human teachers. "Was Paul crucified for you?" Do you owe your redemption to him? If not, why should you call yourselves by his name? Party spirit raises the party name above that of the common Lord, thus putting the servant in the Master"s place. It gives undue prominence to men, and virtually leads to idolatry. He who died for us must have no other put by his side, and no name but his own called over his chosen and ransomed Church.

3. Party spirit is opposed to the true significance of baptism. "Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" The baptismal formula (Mat_28:19) implies that all thus baptized are to be regarded as devoted to him whose sacred Name is pronounced over them. It involves a vow of perpetual allegiance. The administrator of the ordinance, even though he is an apostle, is of no consequence in the case. Paul thanks God that it was so ordered that he baptized only a few persons at Corinth, and that thus no pretext was afforded for calling themselves by his name. His mission was not to baptize, but to evangelize. Baptism, therefore, is hostile to party spirit, since we are not baptized into the name of man, but into the Name of the Three One. Hence, like the sister sacrament, it is a symbol and pledge and expression of the unity of the Church. That brother, from whom you differ so widely, was baptized into the same thrice holy Name as yourself. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism". (Eph_4:5)

III EXHORTATION TO UNITY. The apostle is not content with a negative, but sets before them the positive duty of unity.

1. Unity of mind. "That ye be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment" (ver. 10). Oneness of disposition and oneness of view, in opposition to the division that prevailed. This is to be cultivated by all Christians. It was a characteristic of the early Church: "And the multitude

2. of them that believed were of one heart and soul". (Act_4:32) When the same Spirit is dwelling in men"s hearts, it will appear in unity of sentiment, opinion, and purpose with regard to religion.

3. Unity of utterance. "That ye all speak the same thing." The inner unity should find an outward expression. Hence the utility of confessions of faith as a testimony to the truth held in common, and an evidence of unity in the faith. Short of this, however, there is implied harmony in the utterances of the Church as opposed to the party cries that were heard at Corinth. Men that are at heart one should take care lest their public statements convey an opposite impression. In every free and healthy Church there will be more or less discussion, in which difference of opinion on matters non essential will be revealed; but this should be conducted in such a way as "to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace". (Eph_4:3) There may be a saying the same thing in Paul"s sense, while there is no mechanical uniformity of expression.

1. A powerful motive to unity. "I beseech you through the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ." That Name is dear to all Christians, whatever other titles they may give themselves, and a regard to it is the strongest reason that can be urged for any course of conduct. If we love Christ and seek his glory, let us cease from strife, and regard all believers as our brethren. What Christian heart can resist such pleading? B.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now I exhort you - Ye have faith and hope; secure love also. By the endearing name of our Lord Jesus Christ - lnfinitely preferable to all the human names in which ye glory. That ye all speak the same thing - They now spoke different things, ver. 12 And that there be no schisms among you - No alienation of affection from each other. Is this word ever taken in any other sense in scripture? But that ye be joined in the same mind - Affections, desires. And judgment - Touching all the grand truths of the gospel.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

divisions

(Greek - σχίσμα, a cleft, or rent).

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 God’s 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.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

10–17. Now I beseech you, brethren, etc. How earnest and imploring is the Apostle's exhortation that they should maintain unity! That ye all speak the same thing. Have no distinctive party declarations. This is violated in the modern sectarian symbols and confessions. That there be no divisions. “No schisms,” in the Greek. If there were none, and all “were perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment,” all would “speak the same thing.” There would be no variance in their declarations. It is evident, from what follows, that, while the Corinthians had not separated into various church organizations, they had formed several parties within the church. Organized sects, claiming to be “branches of the church,” were unknown till centuries later.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul reminds the Corinthian believers that they are to live in unity with each other and that the message of the cross of Christ, not baptism by people, is what saves.

brothers

Here this means fellow Christians, including both men and women.

through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ

"Name" here is a metonym for the person of Jesus Christ. AT: "by means of our Lord Jesus Christ" (See: Metonymy)

that you all agree

"that you live in harmony with one another"

that there be no divisions among you

"that you do not divide into separate groups among yourselves"

be joined together with the same mind and by the same purpose

"live in unity"

Chloe's people

This refers to family members, servants, and others who are part of the household of which Chloe, a woman, is the head.

there are factions among you

"you are in groups that quarrel one with another"

translationWords

name

lord

Jesus

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

10–17. REBUKE OF THE DIVISIONS IN THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH

10. παρακαλῶ δὲ ὑμᾶς. See ch. 1Co 14:31, note. The Apostle now enters on the subject of the divisions among his Corinthian converts, for which his introduction (see next note) was intended as a preparation.

διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. St Chrysostom says that the reason why the name Jesus Christ appears so often in the introduction (it occurs eight times in nine verses) is the desire to censure indirectly the divisions existing in the Corinthian Church by reminding its members of Him in Whom they were made one, and Whose name told of nothing but love and peace. Such is also his object in reminding them that they have been called to share (εἰς κοινωνίαν) in Jesus Christ. See last verse.

τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε. Cf. Rom 15:5-6; 2Co 13:11. As the context shews, it does not refer to doctrine, but to the general absence of a contentious spirit. See Php 2:2-3, and Cicero Phil. I. ‘una mente et voce inter se consentire.’

σχίσματα. The margin of A.V. has ‘schisms.’ But the recognized theological sense of the word ‘schisms’ renders it unsuitable here, where the idea is rather that of divisions in, than separation from, the Church. See note on ch. 1Co 11:18.

κατηρτισμένοι. The Apostle is hardly to be supposed here to require absolute unity of opinion, a thing impossible among men, but rather that mutual affection which would knit the disciples together in all essentials, and would prevent all acrimonious discussion of nonessentials. The word rendered joined together in A.V. is literally fitted together, as the fragments in a piece of mosaic, in which each minute portion exactly fills its proper place. See Schleusner, Lexic. s. v. Our word perfect has a very similar sense. Cf. Heb 10:5; also Herod. 1:106 κεῖνα πάντα καταρτίσω ἐς τωὐτό.

ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ νοῒ καὶ ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ γνώμη. The word translated in A.V. mind, which is kindred with the Greek γινώσκω, the Latin nosco and our know, has the signification in the N. T. (1) of the organ of perception, mind, intellect, (2) of the perception which is the result of the action of that organ, understanding, and (3) of the decision to which the understanding comes. The latter is the meaning here. For an example of (1) see ch. 1Co 2:16 and note; of (2) see Rev 13:18. In Rom 7:25 it would seem to have (4) a meaning which includes moral as well as intellectual qualities, γνώμη is usually employed in the sense of opinion. But it has also the sense of purpose or consent. See Polybius, Bell. Pun. III. 13 μιᾷ γνώμῃ κυρίαν ἐποίησαν τὴν τῶν στρατοπέδων αἵρεσιν. There, as here, the decision of the mind is meant, rather than the opinion upon which it was formed. See note on κατηρτισμένοι. The Apostle is speaking, not of opinion, but of consent precedent to action.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

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

διὰ τ. ὀν., as διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, Rom 12:1: “as the bond of union, and as the most holy name by which they could be adjured.” Stanley.

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

τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε—contrast to λέγει ἐγὼ μὲν … ἐγὼ δὲ … ἐγὼ δὲ … ἐγὼ δέ of ver. 12,—but further implying the having the same sentiments on the subjects which divided them: see Php 2:2.

ἦτε δέ] δέ here implies but rather, as in Thuc. ii. 98, ἀπεγίγνετο μὲν αὐτῷ οὐδὲν τοῦ στρατοῦ, … προσεγίγνετο δέ. Hartung Partikellehre, i. 171, gives many other examples. καταρτίζω is the exact word for the healing or repairing of the breaches made by the σχίσματα,—perfectly united. So Herod. v. 28, ἡ Μίλητος … ἐπὶ δύο γενεὰς ἀνδρῶν νοσήσασα ἐς τὰ μάλιστα στάσει, μέχρι οὗ μιν Πάριοι κατήρτισαν.

νοΐ (reff.), disposition,—γνώμη (do.), opinion.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

10-17. Do be united. I have been informed that there are contentions among you productive of party spirit. It was against this very thing that I so rarely baptised.

10 But I entreat you, Brothers, by the dear name of our Lord Jesus Christ, into fellowship with whom you were called by God Himself, do be unanimous in professing your beliefs, and do not be split up into parties. Let complete unity be restored both in your ways of thinking and in your ultimate convictions, so that all have one creed. 11 I do not say this without good reason: for it is quite clear to me, from what I was told by members of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions and wranglings among you. 12 What I mean is this; that there is hardly one among you who has not got some party-cry of his own; such as, “I for my part stand by Paul,” “And I for my part stand by Kephas,” “And I stand by Apollos,” “And I stand by Christ.” 13 Do you really think that Christ has been given to any party as its separate share? was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or was it to allegiance to Paul that you pledged yourselves when you were baptized? 14 Seeing that you thus misuse my name, I thank God that not one of you was baptized by me, excepting Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and my personal friend Gaius. 15 So that God has prevented any one from saying that it was to allegiance to me that you were pledged in baptism. 16 Yes, I did baptize the household of Stephanas, my first converts in Achaia. Besides these, to the best of my knowledge, I baptized no one. 17 For Christ did not make me His Apostle to baptize, but to proclaim His Glad-tidings:—and I did this with no studied rhetoric, so that the Cross of Christ might prevail by its own inherent power.

In these verses (10-17) we have the facts of the case. The Apostle begins with an exhortation to avoid dissensions (v. 10), then proceeds to describe (11, 12) and to show the impropriety of (13-17) their actual dissensions. Quorum prius salutem narraverat, postmodum vulnera patefecit (Herv.).

10. παρακαλῶ δέ. ‘But (in contrast to what I wish to think, and do think, of you) I earnestly beg.’ Παρακαλεῖν, like παραιτέομαι (Act 25:11), suggests an aim at changing the mind, whether from sorrow to joy (consolation), or severity to mercy (entreaty), or wrong desire to right (admonition or exhortation). The last is the sense here. The word is used more than a hundred times in N.T.

ἀδελφοί. Used in affectionate earnestness, especially when something painful has to be said (7:29, 10:1, 14:20, etc.). It probably implies personal acquaintance with many of those who are thus addressed: hence its absence from Ephesians and Colossians.

διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος. We should have expected the accusative, ‘for the sake of the Name.’ The genitive makes the Name the instrument of the appeal (Rom 12:1, Rom 12:15:30; 2Co 10:1): cf. ἐν ὀνόματι, 2Th 3:6. It is not an adjuration, but is similar to διὰ τ. κυρίον Ἰησοῦ (1Th 4:2). This appeal to the one Name is an indirect condemnation of the various partynames.

ἵνα. This defines the purport rather than the purpose of the command or request, as in Mat 4:3, εἰπὸν ἵνα οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ἄρτοι γένωνται.

τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε. The expression is taken from Greek political life, meaning ‘be at peace’ or (as here) ‘make up differences.’ So Arist. Pol. III. iii. 3, Βοιωτοὶ δὲ καὶ Μεγαρῆς τὸ αὐτὸ λέγοντες ἡσύχαζον, and other examples given by Lightfoot ad loc. Cf. τὸ αὐτὸ φρονεῖν (Rom 15:15; Php 2:2), and see Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 256. The πάντες comes last with emphasis. St Paul is urging, not unison, but harmony. For his knowledge of Greek writers see 15:34; Rom 2:14; Act 17:28.

μὴ ᾖ. ‘That there may not be,’ as there actually are: he does not say γένηται.

σχίσματα. Not ‘schisms,’ but ‘dissensions’ (Joh 7:43, Joh 9:16), ‘clefts,’ ‘splits’; the opposite of τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες.

κατηρτισμένοι. The word is suggestive of fitting together what is broken or rent (Mat 4:21). It is used in surgery for setting a joint (Galen), and in Greek politics for composing factions (Hdt. 5:28). See reff. in Lightfoot on 1Th 3:10. cf. 2Co 13:11; Gal 6:1; Heb 13:21; apte et congruenterinter se compingere (Calv.).

νοΐ … γνώμῃ. Νοῦς is ‘temper’ or ‘frame of mind,’ which is changed in μετάνοια and is kindly in εὔνοια, while γνώμη is ‘judgment’ on this or that point. He is urging them to give up, not erroneous beliefs, but party-spirit.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

I beseech [παρακαλω] . See on consolation, Luk 6:24. The word occurs more than one hundred times in the New Testament.

Divisions [σχισματα] . See on Joh 10:19. In classical Greek used only of actual rents in material. So in Mt 9:16; Mr 2:21. In the sense of discord, see Joh 7:43; Joh 9:16; Joh 10:19. Here, faction, for which the classical word is stasiv : division within the christian community. The divisions of the Corinthian church arose on questions of marriage and food (1Co 7:3, 5, 12); on eating, meat offered to idols (1Co 8:7; 1Co 10:20); on the comparative value of spiritual endowments, such as speaking with "tongues" 79; on the privileges and demeanor of women in the assemblies for worship (xi. 5 - 15); on the relations of the rich and the poor in the agape or love - feasts (xi. 17 - 22); and on the prerogatives of the different christian teachers (i. 12, 13; 1Co 3:3 - 22).

Perfectly joined together [κατηρτισμενοι] . Rev., perfected together. See on Mt 21:16; Luk 6:40; 1Pe 5:10. Carrying on the metaphor in divisions. Not of individual and absolute perfection, but of perfection in the unity of the Church.

Mind [νοι] . See on Rom 7:23.

Judgment [γνωμη] . See on Rev 17:13. The distinction between mind and judgment is not between theoretical and practical, since nouv mind, includes the practical reason, while gnwmh judgment, has a theoretical side. Rather between understanding and opinion; nouv regarding the thing from the side of the subject, gnwmh from the side of the object. Being in the same realm of thought, they would judge questions from the same christian stand - point, and formulate their judgment accordingly.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.