1 Corinthians 1:12

12. Now this I say—Now what I mean to say is this. The preceding general report is to be expanded into its particulars.

Every—Rather, each one of you. Paul’s each is not to be pressed as absolutely including the whole, as the same word every does not, 1Co_4:5. It signifies individuals generally.

I am of—The present paragraph furnishes a glimpse of the divisions in the apostolic Church, on which see our note on Act_15:6, and the notes to which reference is there made. As in most cases, the partisanships were based partly upon personal preferences, especially so in the instances of Paul and Apollos, who had both been at Corinth, and who essentially agreed in their views; and partly upon the principles the persons were held to represent, as specially in the case of Peter and Christ, who had neither been at Corinth. The leaders who were named participated not in the partisanships of these their professed followers.

Of Paul—Paul mentions himself first; partly as their known founder, and partly to lead the way in rebuking the partisans who used and abused his name. The followers of Paul, of course, maintained the non-necessity of circumcision and the ritual for salvation, and the complete oneness of Jew and Gentile in the new Church. There may have been a tendency to Marcionism; that is, in addition to the rejection of the Jewish ritual, there may have been a predisposition to reject the Old Testament—to hold the Jehovah of the Old Testament to be a malignant being inferior to the true God, and to base Christianity, as a separate religion, on it own sole foundation.

Of Apollos—Though Apollos’ style of oratory was much more rhetorical than that of Paul, yet his theology was doubtless the same. He was taught Christianity by Paul’s dear friends and pupils, Aquila and Priscilla, and his intimate friendship for the apostle remained unbroken. Yet some tinge to his views there may have been derived from Alexandrian influences. Such tinge we recognize in the book of Hebrews; and something resembling it in the writings of John, both gospel and epistles.

Cephas—The name of Peter in the colloquial Hebrew of the day, (the Syriac or Aramaic,) signifying rock, of which Petros (Peter) was the Greek equivalent. See note on Mat_16:18. According to the best readings the form Cephas is used in the following places: Joh_1:42; 1Co_1:12; 1Co_3:22; 1Co_9:5; 1Co_15:5; Gal_2:9; Gal_1:18; Gal_2:10; Gal_2:14. It is uniformly used in the Syriac (Peshito) version, and uniformly, as a Jew, by St. Paul. The Petrine party at Corinth were, probably, mostly Jews. They were inclined to question Paul’s apostleship, to exalt themselves above their uncircumcised brethren, to maintain the value of the ritual, and the extremists among them tended to Ebionism.

Of Christ—It seems, at first, strange that the special advocates of Christ should lie under the apostle’s condemnation. But in our own age and country we have a special sect of Christians, who profess the name, but deny the deity, of Christ. Many rationalists at the present day, who reject evangelical doctrines, profess special reverence for Christ. That is, they admire the moral sayings of Jesus, especially the sermon on the mount, while the doctrines of his Godhead, his substitutional atonement, etc., they reject. So this sect of Christ probably rejected the apostles, and professed to be admirers and followers of the traditional sayings of Christ. They approved his ethics, but rejected the doctrines outlined in the Gospels, and more fully expanded in the epistles. They were probably Christianized rationalists from the Greek side of the Church.

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

1:12 The Christians in Corinth had formed factions loyal to different Christian leaders, but the leaders themselves do not seem to have been in conflict. Paul, as the one who had first brought the Good News to Corinth, would receive the loyalty of some. • Apollos, now with Paul (see 16:12), was an eloquent Alexandrian Jew who had become a powerful Christian evangelist and had ministered in Corinth (see Acts 18:24–19:1). He attracted followers because of his skillful oratory (perhaps in contrast to Paul) and his ability to interpret Scripture. • Peter: Greek Cephas; see also Matt 16:18; John 1:42 Peter was the primary early evangelist to the Jews. He represented a more traditional Jewish perspective and had a gift for speaking in front of crowds (see Acts 1:15-22; 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 10:34-43). • I follow only Christ: This might refer to a group who disavowed allegiance to any human authority and viewed themselves as more holy than others.

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

1Co 1:12. Λέγει, says) in a boasting manner; 1Co 1:31, ch. 1Co 3:21-22.—Παύλου, of Paul) a gradation [ascending climax], in which Paul puts himself in the lowest place. Kephas, Paul and Apollos were genuine ministers and teachers of the truth, to boast of one of whom above the rest was in a greater degree unlawful, than if a believer of Corinth had said that he was a Christian belonging to Paul, with a view to distinguish himself from the followers of the false apostles.—Κηφᾶ, of Kephas) Peter does not seem to have been at Corinth, ch. 1Co 4:6, and yet he was held there in high esteem, and that too justly; but some, however, abused it [this esteem for Peter into a party cry], and the apostle Paul detests this Petrism, which afterwards sprang up so much more rankly at Rome, just as much as he did Paulism. How much less should a man say, or boast, I am of the Pope.—ἐγὼ—Χριστοῦ, I—of Christ) These spoke more correctly than the others, 1Co 1:2; 1Co 3:23, unless they despised their ministers, under this pretext, ch. 1Co 4:8.

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

1Co_1:12. Now what I mean (by this ἔριδες ἐν ὑμῖν εἰσι) is this (which follows), that, etc. Regarding the explicative λέγω, common also in Greek writers, comp Gal_3:17; Rom_15:8. Calvin and Beza understand it, making ΤΟῦΤΟ retrospective: I say this, because, etc. But, not to speak of the less suitable meaning thus attained, τοῦτο in all parallel passages points invariably forward (Gal_3:17; Eph_4:17; 1Co_7:29; 1Co_15:50), except when, as in 1Co_7:35, Col_2:4, a clause expressive of design follows.

ἕκαστος] Each of you speaks in one of the forms following. Comp 1Co_14:26. Chrysostom says aptly: Οὐ ΓᾺΡ ΜΈΡΟς, ἈΛΛᾺ ΤῸ ΠᾶΝ ἘΠΕΝΈΜΕΤΟ Τῆς ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑς Ἡ ΦΘΟΡΆ.

Nothing is to be supplied with the genitive Παύλου Κ.Τ.Λ[178], for εἶναί τινος means to belong to any one, addictum esse. See Seidl. a[179] Eur. El. 1098; Ast. Lex. Plat. I. p. 621; Winer, p. 184 [E. T. 243 f.].

Κηφᾶ] The Jewish name (כֵּיפָא) is so usual with Paul (1Co_3:22, 1Co_9:5, 1Co_15:5, and see the critical remarks on Gal_1:18) that it is only in Gal_2:7-8 that we find Πέτρος employed by him; hence the less may we regard Κηφᾶ here as taken directly from the lips of the Jewish Petrine party (Estius).

The order of the four names is historical, following that in which the parties successively arose.

For a connected review of them and the relative literature, see Introd. § 1. The following remarks may be added from the exegetical standpoint: (1) The Χριστοῦ and 1Co_1:14 ff. invalidate at once the theory held by the Fathers (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and others, see Räbiger, krit. Unters. p. 9) and many of the older commentators, including Michaelis, and based principally on 1Co_4:6, that the three first names were fictitious merely, and used in order to avoid bringing forward by name the real heads of the parties. (2) There can be no reduction of the number of the parties below four, although many attempts have been made to bring together not only the partisans of Paul and of Apollos (as having but a formal difference), but also the Petrine and the Christine parties (J. E. Chr. Schmidt, Bibl. f. Krit. u. Exeg. I. p. 91; Baur in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1831, 4, p. 61 ff., and in his Paulus, I. p. 291 ff., ed. 2; also Billroth, Lechler, and others); or elsewhich, however, is merely a drawing of them together in formto reduce the four to two main parties, the apostolic and the Christine (Neander, Jaeger, and Schenkel); or, lastly, by exegetical expedients (Räbiger), either to get rid of the Christ-party altogether (see below), or at least to take them out of the list of parties by assuming that they were approved of by the apostle (Schott, with older interpreters). Paul, in fact, sets forth quite uniformly four definite diversities of confession standing in contrast, and then shows in 1Co_1:13 how sad and how preposterous this state of division was.

In the face of this manifest mode of reckoning and disposing of the parties by the apostle himself in this passage, several theories, respecting more particularly (3) the Christ-party, must be dismissed as untenable. Among these is (a) the view repeatedly brought forward from the days of Chrysostom:[180] Mentionem eorum propterea fecit una cum illis, quod, cujusnam generis essent dissidia inter Cor. excitata, perspicue explicare non poterat, nisi ita, ut diceret, alios hunc, alios illum praeferre doctorem, aliis (recte quidem, 1Co_3:23) se Christi sectatores simpliciter appellantibus (Schott, Isag. 233). With respect to this, it is to be observed that 1Co_3:23 implies not the justification of those λέγοντες· ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, but the truth of the idea,[181] from the abuse of which that fourth party arose which in the passage before us appears under a precisely similar condemnation to that of the other three. (b) The theory invented by Baur[182] in behalf of the antagonism between Paulinism and Petrinism (comp also Lechler, p. 386): that the same party called themselves both ΤΟῪς ΚΗΦᾶ, because Peter had the primacy among the apostles of the Jews, and also ΤΟῪς ΧΡΙΣΤΟῖ, because they held direct connection with Christ to be the main mark of true apostleship, and therefore counted Paul far behind the other apostles;[184] that the Christ-party, in fact, were the most thoroughgoing disciples of Peter (comp Billroth and Credner, Einl. sec. 132; also Reuss, and especially Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 25 f.). (c) The opinion of Becker, that the Christine party were Jewish-Christians, who had attached themselves to the followers of Peter that had come from a distance to Corinth, but, as having been converted by Paul and Apollos, had called themselves not after Peter, but after Christ. (d) Räbigers view, according to which the Christ-party is purely a creation of the exegetes, ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ being the utterance common to the three parties; so that all, indeed, professed allegiance to Christ, but the strife between them consisted in this, that they made participation in Christ dependent on different teachers, each holding that they, inasmuch as they belonged to a particular teacher, had the real and true Christ,a better Christ than the others. This explanation, if we judge in accordance with the preceding elements in 1Co_1:12, is an exegetical impossibility. It has been already well said by Calovius: Et illi, qui a Christo Christianos se dicebant, quatenus ab aliis sese per schisma separabant, illo nomine sibi solum appropriato, schismatis rei erant. Since they are ranked, just as the others, under the category of the σχίσματα and ἔριδες (1Co_1:10-11), and their fault is set before them as before the others, 1Co_1:13, by μεμέρ. ὁ Χριστός, we cannot even characterize them, with Eichhorn, as neutrals.

To name Christ as their Head was so extremely natural for a party who, as contrasted with the others, wished to keep themselves free from all authority of human teachers (see Introd. § 1; also Rückert, Bleek, Einl., Hofm. 16 f.), that there is no need whatever for any attempt at a different explanation; such as Eichhorns imagination, that they rested upon the sayings of Jesus in the Protevangelium; or the view of Grotius, Witsius, Wetstein, and Ziegler, that they had heard Christ themselves,[186] or at least their founder had (if the former, how disproportionately small must their number needs have been! and if the latter, they would surely have named themselves after their founder, since Peter, too, was a personal disciple of Christ). Equally undeserving of acceptance is Storrs view (Opusc. II. p. 252 ff.), adopted by Rosenmüller, Krause, Hug, Heydenreich, and Flatt (comp also Bertholdt, Einl. VI. p. 3319), that they had called themselves τοῦ Χριστοῦ, as followers of James the brother of Christ. This is an empty conjecture, not to be supported by 1Co_9:5, 1Co_15:9; and it has, besides, especially this against it, that the followers of the venerated James would have had no ground, as distinguished from the other parties, for not calling themselves οἱ τοῦ Ἰακώβου or οἱ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου, and that James also would have been mentioned with the rest in 1Co_3:22, as well as in Clem. 1 Cor. 47, if the Christ-party had not referred themselves directly to Christ.

This claim, moreover, of a direct relation to Christ as regards His exclusive authority, found its sufficient ground and justification in the general acquaintance with the doctrine and work of Christ, which was owing to the living presence of the gospel tidings in the churches. There is no evidence in the Epistles themselves of any other and peculiar connection with the Lord being laid claim to by the Christ-party. This holds especially of Schenkels view, that the Christ-party, consisting of Jewish-Christians from Asia Minor with theosophic training, had asserted a supernatural connection with Christ through visions and revelations, their spiritual condition consequently having its analogues at a later date in Cerinthus, Marcion, the Montanists, and the like; and that this party had its continuation in those who opposed the presbyters in Clements Epistle. Schenkels theory (defended also by Grimm in the Lit. Bl. zur allg. Kirchenzeit. 1851, No. 82) bases itself especially on the passages 1Co_9:1; 2Co_10:7; 2Co_12:1. To explain these, however, there is no need to suppose any allusion to theosophic opponents, or any reference to the Christ-party at all, since Paulmore especially if they had been a party standing in such (fanatical) antagonism in point of principle to himselfwould have combated them directly and in detail, and that in the section of the Epistle which deals expressly with the party-divisions (down to 1Co_4:21).[188] And to connect them with the opponents of the presbyters in Clement is all the more arbitrary, because that writer, while finding a parallel to the factions which he blames in the parties of Paul, Apollos, and Peter, makes no reference whatsoever to the Christ-party,a silence which is eloquent enough to make us hesitate in ascribing to them any such extreme and dangerous character as some have lately imputed to them, and to incline us rather to the view of their fundamental principle being one in itself sound, but perverted in its application by party-spirit. In addition to de Wette, Lutterbeck, and Maier, Goldhorn and Dähne agree in substance with Schenkel, seeking amidst differences in detail to prove the existence of Jewish-Alexandrian philosophy in the Christ-party; just as Kniewel (comp Grimm) regards them as forerunners of the Gnostics. According to Ewald, they are the adherents of some unknown teacher of Essene views, who, founding, doubtless, on some special evangelic writing, and in accordance therewith exalting the example of Christ personally above all else, disapproved of marriage; they were, in truth, the first Christian monks and Jesuits.[190] But it is very doubtful whether the rejection of marriage in chap. 7 should be traced precisely to the Christ-party; and, apart from this, there is not in the Epistles to the Corinthians a single vestige of the phenomena of Essene Christianity, or in particular of Essene asceticism, as at Rome and Colossae; while, on the other hand, the rejection of marriage does not appear among the Romans and Colossians who held Essene views. Comp on 1Co_7:1.

Lastly, after this examination of the different views entertained regarding the Christ-party, the question whether they were Jewish (as commonly held) or Gentile Christians answers itself to this effect, that they were composed of both elements, as also were the adherents of Paul and of Apollos. For we have not the slightest ground for assuming that, when the division in the church arose upon matters turning on the respect due to individual men, it was either Jewish Christians alone, or Gentile Christians alone, who gave themselves to the idea of renouncing the acknowledgment of any human teacher, and seeking instead to be τοῦ Χριστοῦ. This holds good in particular against Neander, who makes the Christ-party to be Gentile Christians, of a certain philosophic culture and of rationalistic tendency, to whom Christ appeared as a second, perhaps greater, Socrates, but who could not bring themselves to accept the doctrine of Christ in the form given to it by the apostles, and sought rather by philosophic criticism, which they exercised also on the doctrine of the resurrection (chap. 15), to separate, possibly with the help of a collection of the sayings of the Lord, the pure teaching of Christ from the mass of received material. In how totally different a way must Paul have come forward against any such syncretistic rationalism! See, besides, in reply to this, Beyschlag, p. 220 ff. Altogether, there were but few men of philosophic training who had come over to Christianity at Corinth (1Co_1:26); and those who had at least a philosophic tendency found the food for which they sought with Apollos. And it is a groundless assumption to maintain that what Paul says against worldly wisdom (chap. 1Co_1:2) is spoken with a polemic reference to the Christ-party (this in opposition to Schenkel, Jaeger, Goldhorn, Dähne, Kniewel, and others); see, on the contrary, chap. 3 and 1Co_4:6. In like manner, too, it is arbitrary, and in any case unsafe to proceed, from the point at which Paul passes from discussing the state of division in the church to speak of other existing evils (from chap. 5 onwards), to apportion the latter among the several parties, and by this method, as well as by means of expressions and details from the second Epistle, to depict the character more especially of the Christ-party, whom Jaeger[192] makes in this manner to appear in the most damaging light, while Osiander[193] treats them prejudicially in another way, finding in them the originators of sectarian Ebionitism. Beyschlag, too, in his investigation, proceeds by the same uncertain path, putting together the characteristics of the Christ-party especially from the second Epistle. According to him they were Judaists, although free from Judaistic errors in doctrine, who depreciated the apostle Paul, but prided themselves on their Hebrew origin, their labours and sufferings for Christ, their more precise historical acquaintance with and information regarding Christ, whom they had known personally, as also on their visions and revelations of Him. In connection with this view, Beyschlag is forced to assume that it was only in the interval between the first and second Epistle that the Christ-party had developed such keen and personal antagonism to the apostle,an assumption made also by Hilgenfeld. If, notwithstanding this development of hostility, they are to be taken as Judaists free from Judaistic anti-Pauline doctrine, we stand confronted by a complete anomaly in the history of the antagonism between the Judaistic and the Pauline currents in the apostolic church, so far as that is known to us from other quarters. And it seems the less possible to explain this anomaly by the supposition of a cunning reticence on the part of the persons in question, the more we see how bitter and passionate their opposition to Paul must have been, and the more we find it difficultconsidering their cunningto perceive why they should not have contented themselves with making common cause with the Petrine party, instead of forming a distinct faction of their own.

[178] .τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.

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

[180] He, however, holds that Paul added ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ καὶ οἴκοθεν (i.e. ἀφʼ ἐαυτοῦ, as Theophylact has it), βουλόμενον βαρύτερον τὸ ἔγκλημα ποιῆσαι καὶ δεῖξαι οὕτω καὶ τὸν Χριστὸν εἰς μέρος δοθέντα ἕν, εἰ καὶ μὴ οὕτως ἐποίουν τοῦτο ἐκεῖνοι. Comp. also Theodoret, who lays stress on the special wisdom of this procedure.

[181] The rightness of the confession: ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, considered in and by itself, explains also why Clement, 1 Cor. 47, mentions only the other three parties and not the Christ-party as well. He is speaking against the attachment to human party-leaders. He might indeed, in some way suitable to the connection of his exhortation, have brought in the Christine party (which he doubtless would have done, if they had been as bad as they have been made out to be of late), but there was no necessity for his doing so. Hence it is unwarrantable to infer (with Räbiger) the non-existence of a special Christine party from its non-mention. Origen also does not quote the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ with the rest of the passage in one instance, although he does in another.

[182] See Beyschlag, p. 225 ff.Hilgenfeld (see his Zeitschr. 1865, p. 241) calls Baurs dissertation of 1831, the ancestral stronghold of our whole criticism. If so, it is a ruin, like so many other ancestral strongholds. It could not so much as stand firm against the simple words ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, into which Baur put a meaning as if Paul lad written: ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων Χριστοῦ. The confession ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ necessarily transcends all apostolic authority, and excludes it.

[184] Comp. Hilgenfeld, who holds that they were immediate disciples of Christ, who sought to establish the exclusive authority of the original apostles, denying to Paul he Χριστοῦ εἶναι. See also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 165 f.

[186] This view is taken up again by Thiersch, d. Kirche im apost. Zeitalter, p. 143 ff. He regards the Christ-party as personal disciples of Christ, who had come to Corinth from Jerusalem and probably also from Rome, with Pharisaic views, proud of their Hebrew descent and of their having known Christ in the flesh, disputing the apostle ship of Paul, etc.

[188] The force of this argument is doubtless evaded by the assumption, that the leaders of the party had probably not developed their hurtful influence until after the arrival in Corinth of our first Epistle. But this is simply an unwarranted evasion.

[190] According to Ewalds Gesch. d. apost. Zeit. p. 506 f., ed. 3, they readily allowed themselves to he carried away by the zeal for the law of their Pharisaic brethren, and became a support for their position. Those of the Christ-party with Pharisaic tendencies were joined, too, by some who boasted that they had once known Christ Himself familiarly, nay, that they had seen Him when risen from the dead, so that they laid claim to apostolic estimation.

[192] He depicts them as wealthy Jewish Christians, familiar with Greek science, who professed attachment to the spirit of Christianity alone, but concealed under this mask lawlessness and immorality, and were deniers of the resurrection.

[193] Originating, according to him, from the Petrine party, they had, while holding fast to the idea of Christ being the Supreme teacher, fallen into a one-sided way of considering only His appearance as a man on earth, and more especially His teaching, and of allowing the theocratic aspect of the Lords life and work to pass more out of sight.

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 1:12 . “But I mean this ( τοῦτο δὲ λέγω ), that each one of you is saying (instead of your all saying the same thing, 10), ‘I am of Paul (am Paul’s man),’ ‘But I of Apollos,’ ‘But I of Cephas,’ ‘But I of Christ’!” ἕκαστος , distributive, as in 1Co 14:26 : each is saying one or other of these things; the party cries are quoted as from successive speakers challenging each other.

The question of the FOUR COR. PARTIES is one of the standing problems of N.T. criticism. It is fully examined, and the judgments of different critics are digested, by Gd [146] ad loc [147] ; see also Mr [148] -Hn [149] , Einleitung , § 3; Weiss’ Manual of Introd. to the N.T. , § 19. After all, this was only a brief phase of Church life at Cor [150] ; P. had just heard of it when he wrote, by the time of 2 Cor [151] a new situation has arisen. The three first parties are easy to account for: (1) The body of the Ch., converted under P.’s ministry, adhered to its own apostle; P. valued this loyalty and appeals to it, while he condemns its combative expression, the disposition of men “more Pauline than Paul himself” (Dods) to exalt him to the disparagement of other leaders, and even to the detriment of Christ’s glory. (2) Apollos ( cf. Act 18:24 ff.) had preached at Cor [152] , in the interval since Paul’s first departure, with brilliant effect. He possessed Alexandrian culture and a graceful style, whereas P. was deemed at Cor [153] ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ (2Co 11:6 ). Some personal converts Ap. had made; others were taken with his genial method, and welcomed his teaching as more advanced than P.’s plain gospel-message. Beside the more cultured Greeks, there would be a sprinkling of liberally-minded Jews, men of speculative bias imbued with Greek letters, who might prefer to say Ἐγὼ Ἀπολλώ . Judging from this Ep., the Pauline and Apollonian sections included at present the bulk of the Church, divided between its “planter” and “waterer”. Ἀπολλώς , of Attic 2nd decl., is probably short for Ἀπολλώνιος . (3) In a Judæo-Gentile Church the cry “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” was certain to be met with the retort, “But I of Kephas!” Conservative Jewish believers, when conflict was afoot, rallied to the name of the preacher of Pentecost and the hero of the Church’s earliest victories. The use of Κηφᾶς , the Aramaic original of Πέτρος , indicates that this party affected Palestinian traditions. Some of them may, possibly, have been Peter’s converts in Judæa. Had Peter visited Cor [154] , as Dionysius of Cor [155] supposed (Euseb., Hist. Eccles. , ii. 125: Weiss and Harnack favour the tradition), the event would surely have left some trace in these Epp. Judging from the tenor of the two Letters, this faction was of small account in Cor [156] until the arrival of the Judæan emissaries denounced in 2 Cor., who found a ground of vantage ready in those that shouted “I am of Kephas”. In both Epp. P. avoids every appearance of conflict with Peter ( cf. 1Co 9:5 , 1Co 15:5 ). (4) The Christ party forms the crux of the passage: ( a ) After F. C. Baur, οἱ Χριστοῦ has been commonly interpreted by 2Co 10:7 : “If any one is confident on his own part that he is Christ’s ( Χριστοῦ εἶναι ), let him take this into account with himself, that just as he is Christ’s, so also are we”. Now P.’s opponents of 2 Cor. were ultra-Judaists; so, it is inferred, these οἱ Χριστοῦ must have been. But the Judaisers of 2 Cor. presumed to be “of Christ” as His ministers, apostles (1Co 11:13 ; 1Co 11:23 ), deriving their commission (as they maintained P. did not) from the fountain-head; whereas the Christ-party of this place plumed themselves, at most, on being His disciples (rather than P.’s, etc.): the coincidence is verbal rather than real. Upon Baur’s theory, there were two parties at Cor [157] , as everywhere else in the Church, diametrically opposed a Gentile-Christian party, divided here into Pauline and Apollonian sections, and a Jewish-Christian party naming itself from Kephas or Christ as occasion served. Later scholars following Baur’s line of interpretation, distinguish variously the Petrine and Christine Judaists: ( [158] ) Weizsäcker associates the latter with James; ( [159] ) Reuss and Beyschlag see in them strict followers of the example and maxims of Jesus as the διάκονος περιτομῆς , from which Peter in certain respects deviated; ( γ ) Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Hausrath, Sm [160] , think they had been in personal relations with Jesus (it is quite possible that amongst the “five hundred” of 1Co 15:5 some had wandered to Cor [161] ); ( δ ) Gd [162] strangely conjectures that “they were Gnostics before Gnosticism , who formulated their title οἱ Χριστοῦ , after the fashion of Cerinthus, in opp [163] not merely to the names of the apostles, but even to that of Jesus! ” He identifies them with the men who cried “Jesus is anathema” (1Co 12:2 : see note). This notion is an anachronism, and has no real basis in the Epp.

[146] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. Ép. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[147] ad locum , on this passage.

[148] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

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

[150] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[151] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[152] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[153] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[154] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[155] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[156] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[157] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[158] A(ntiochena), in Blass, a fair rough copy of St. Luke.

[159] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.

[160] P. Schmiedel, in Handcommentar zum N.T. (1893).

[161] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[162] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. Ép. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[163] opposite, opposition.

( b ) 1Co 3:22 f. (see notes, ad loc [164] ) supplies a nearer and safer clue to the interpretation; this is the Apostle’s decisive correction of the rivalries of 1Co 1:12 . The human leaders pitted against each other all belong to the Church (not this teacher or that to this section or that), while it belongs without distinction to Christ , and Christ, with all that is His, to God . The catholic Ὑμεῖς Χριστοῦ swallows up the self-assertive and sectarian Ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ . Those who used this cry arrogated the common watchword as their peculium; they erred by despising, as others by glorying in men. “ Ἐγὼ Χριστοῦ ad eos pertinet qui in contrariam partem peccabant; i.e. , qui sese unius Christi ita dicebant, ut interim iis per quos quos Deus loquitur nihil tribuerent” (Bz [165] ); similarly Aug [166] , Bg [167] , Mr [168] , Hf [169] , El [170] , Bt [171]

[164] ad locum , on this passage.

[165] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).

[166] Augustine.

[167] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[168] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[169] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).

[170] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .

[171] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).

( c ) The Gr [172] Ff [173] , followed by Cv [174] , Bleek, Pfleiderer, Râbiger, and others, saw in the Ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ the true formula which P. approves , or even which he utters propriâ personâ . But the context subjects all four classes to the same reproach. It is a sufficient condemnation for the fourth party that they said “I am of Christ,” in rejoinder to the partisans of Paul and the rest, lowering His name to this competition.

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

[173] Fathers.

[174] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .

( d ) Hn [175] , finding the riddle of the “Christus-partei” insoluble, eliminates it from the text ; “we are driven,” he says, “to explain the Ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ as a gloss, which some reader of the original codex inscribed in the margin, borrowing it from 1Co 3:23 as a counter-confession to the Ἐγὼ μὲν Παύλου κ . τ . λ .”

[175] 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.

1Co_1:12

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.

This explains the nature of these contentions. In almost all the apostolic churches there were contentions between the Jewish and Gentile converts. As Paul was the apostle of the Gentiles, and Peter of the Jews, Gal_2:8 it is probable that the converts from among the Gentiles claimed Paul as their leader, and the Jewish converts appealed to the authority of Peter. It is plain from the contents of this and of the following epistle, that these contentions were fomented by false teachers, 2Co_11:13; that these teachers were Hebrews, 2Co_11:22 and that they endeavored to undermine the authority of Paul as an apostle. The two principal parties in Corinth, therefore, were Gentiles calling themselves the disciples of Paul, and Jews claiming to be the followers of Peter. The Gentile converts, however, were not united among themselves. While some said, we are of Paul; others said, we are of Apollos. As Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew, distinguished for literary culture and eloquence, it is probable that the more highly educated among the Corinthian Christians were his peculiar followers. Apollos is a shortened form of Apollonius, as Silas is of Silvanus. The first governor of Egypt appointed by Alexander bore that name; and probably on that account it became in that country so exceedingly common. As the Judaizers objected to Paul that he was not an apostle, these followers of Apollos undervalued him as a preacher. He was neither a philosopher nor a rhetorician after the Grecian school. We shall find the apostle defending himself against both these classes of objections. Who those were who said, we are of Christ, it is not so easy to determine. It is plain that they were as much to blame as the other parties mentioned. They must therefore have claimed some peculiar relation to Christ which they denied to their fellow believers, 2Co_10:7. Whether this exclusive claim was founded, as some suppose, on the fact that they had themselves seen and heard Christ; or whether they asserted their superior and more intimate relation to him on some other ground, is altogether uncertain. It would appear from the frequency with which Paul speaks of certain persons in Corinth glorying in the flesh, and in appearance, that this party claimed some peculiar external relation to Christ, and that their views of him were carnal, or worldly.

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

The matter I would say to you, is this.

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

this I say--this is what I mean in saying "contentions" (Co1 1:11).

every one of you saith--Ye say severally, "glorying in men" (Co1 1:31; Co1 3:21-22), one, I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollos, &c. Not that they formed definite parties, but they individually betrayed the spirit of party in contentions under the name of different favorite teachers. Paul will not allow himself to be flattered even by those who made his name their party cry, so as to connive at the dishonor thereby done to Christ. These probably were converted under his ministry. Those alleging the name of Apollos, Paul's successor at Corinth (Act 18:24, &c.), were persons attracted by his rhetorical style (probably acquired in Alexandria, Co1 3:6), as contrasted with the "weak bodily presence" and "contemptible speech" of the apostle. Apollos, doubtless, did not willingly foster this spirit of undue preference (Co1 4:6, Co1 4:8); nay, to discourage it, he would not repeat his visit just then (Co1 16:12).

I of Cephas--probably Judaizers, who sheltered themselves under the name of Peter, the apostle of the circumcision ("Cephas" is the Hebrew, "Peter" the Greek name; Joh 1:42; Gal 2:11, &c.): the subjects handled in the seventh through ninth chapters were probably suggested as matters of doubt by them. The church there began from the Jewish synagogue, Crispus the chief ruler, and Sosthenes his successor (probably), being converts. Hence some Jewish leaven, though not so much as elsewhere, is traceable (Co2 11:22). Petrism afterwards sprang up much more rankly at Rome. If it be wrong to boast "I am of Peter," how much more so to boast I am of the Pope!" [BENGEL].

I of Christ--A fair pretext used to slight the ministry of Paul and their other teachers (Co1 4:8; Co2 10:7-11).

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 12. Every one of you saith] It seems from this expression that the whole Church at Corinth was in a state of dissension: they were all divided into the following sects

1. Paulians, or followers of St. Paul;

2. Apollonians, or followers of Apollos;

3. Kephians, or followers of Kephas;

4. Christians, or followers of Christ.

See the introduction, sec. v.

The converts at Corinth were partly Jews and partly Greeks. The Gentile part, as Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, might boast the names of Paul and Apollos; the Jewish, those of Kephas and Christ. But these again might be subdivided; some probably considered themselves disciples of Paul, he being the immediate instrument of their conversion, while others might prefer Apollos for his extraordinary eloquence.

If by Kephas the apostle Peter be meant, some of the circumcision who believed might prefer him to all the rest; and they might consider him more immediately sent to them; and therefore have him in higher esteem than they had Paul, who was the minister or apostle of the uncircumcision: and on this very account the converted Gentiles would prize him more highly than they did Peter.

Instead of Christ, χριστου, some have conjectured that we should read κρισπου, of Crispus; who is mentioned 1Co 1:14. And some think that χριστου, of Christ, is an interpolation, as it is not likely that Christ in any sense of the word could be said to be the head of a sect, or party, in his own Church; as all those parties held that Gospel, of which himself was both the author and the subject. But it is very easy to conceive that, in a Church so divided, a party might be found, who, dividing Christ from his ministers, might be led to say, "We will have nothing to do with your parties, nor with your party spirit; we are the disciples of Christ, and will have nothing to do with Paulians, Apollonians, or Kephians, as contradistinguished from Christ." The reading κρισπου for χριστου is not acknowledged by any MS. or version.

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

12. I say then, etc. Some think there is here an instance of μιμησις, imitation, as if Paul were here repeating their expressions. Now, although the manuscripts differ as to the particle ὅτι, I am of opinion that it is the conjunction (because) rather than the relative (which), so that there is simply an explanation of the preceding statement in this sense. “My reason for saying that there are contentions among you is, because every one of you glories in the name of some individual.” It will, however, be objected, that in these words there is no appearance as yet of contention. My answer is, that where there are jarrings in religion, it cannot but be that men’s minds will soon afterwards burst forth in open strife. For as nothing is more effectual for uniting us, and there is nothing that tends more to draw our minds together, and keep them in a state of peace, than agreement in religion, so, on the other hand, if any disagreement has arisen as to matters of this nature, the effect necessarily is, that men’s minds are straightway stirred up for combat, and in no other department are there more fierce contendings. Hence it is with good reason that Paul brings it forward as a sufficient evidence of contention, that the Corinthians were infested with sects and parties.

I am of Paul He makes mention here of Christ’s faithful servants — Apollos, who had been his successor at Corinth, and Peter himself too, and then adds himself to their number, that he may appear to plead not so much his own cause as that of Christ. In any other point of view it is not likely that there were any parties that espoused the separate interests of ministers joined together by a sacred agreement. He has, however, as he afterwards mentions, transferred to himself and Apollos what was applicable to others; and this he has done, in order that they might more candidly consider the thing itself, viewing it apart from respect of persons. It will, however, be replied, that he makes mention here even of those who professed that they were of Christ Was this, too, worthy of blame? I answer, that in this way he shows more fully what unseemly consequences result from those depraved affections, when we give ourselves up to men, as in that case Christ must be acknowledged merely in part, and the pious have no alternative left them, but to separate themselves from others, if they would not renounce Christ.

As, however, this passage is wrested in various ways, we must endeavor to ascertain more minutely what Paul intends here. His object is, to maintain Christ’s exclusive authority in the Church, so that we may all exercise dependence upon him, that he alone may be recognized among us as Lord and Master, and that the name of no individual be set in opposition to his. Those, therefore, that draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:30,) with the view of splitting the Church into parties, he condemns as most destructive enemies of our faith. Thus then he does not, suffer men to have such pre-eminence in the Church as to usurp Christ’s supremacy. He does not allow them to be held in such honor as to derogate even in the slightest degree from Christ’s dignity. There is, it is true, a certain degree of honor that is due to Christ’s ministers, and they are also themselves masters in their own place, but this exception must always be kept in view, that Christ must have without any infringement what belongs to him — that he shall nevertheless be the sole Master, and looked upon as such. Hence the aim of good ministers is this, that they may all in common serve Christ, and claim for him exclusively power, authority, and glory — fight under his banner — obey him alone, and bring others in subjection to his sway. If any one is influenced by ambition, that man gathers disciples, not to Christ, but to himself. This then is the fountain of all evils — this the most hurtful of all plagues — this the deadly poison of all Churches, when ministers seek their own interests rather than those of Christ. In short, the unity of the Church consists more especially in this one thing — that we all depend upon Christ alone, and that men thus occupy an inferior place, so as not to detract in any degree from his pre-eminence.

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.

(12) Now this I say.—Better, What I mean is, that, &c. The following words, “every one of you saith,” show how party-spirit pervaded the whole Christian community. It may be well to mention here briefly what we may consider to have been the distinctive characteristics of the factions which called themselves respectively the party of Paul, of Cephas, of Apollos, and of Christ.

1. ST. PAUL places first that section of the Church which called themselves by his name—thus at the outset showing that it is not for the sole purpose of silencing opponents, or from a jealousy of the influence of other teachers, that he writes so strenuously against the disturbances in the Corinthian community. It is the spirit of separation and of faction which he condemns—rebuking it as strongly when it has led to the undue exaltation of his own name, as when it attempted to depreciate his gifts and ministry as compared with those of Apollos or of Cephas. He thus wins at once the attention and confidence of every candid reader. The Pauline party would no doubt have consisted chiefly of those who were the personal converts of the Apostle. Their esteem for him who had been the means of their conversion, seems to have been carried to excess in the manner in which it displayed itself. This would be increased by the hostility which their opponents’ disparagement of the Apostle naturally excited in them. They allowed St. Paul’s teaching of the liberty wherewith Christ made them free, to develop in them an unchristian license and a mode of treatment of others essentially illiberal, thus denying by their actions the very principles which they professed to hold dear. They “judged” and “set at nought” (Rom_14:10) brethren who could not take so essentially spiritual a view of Christianity, but who still clung to some of the outward forms of Judaism.

2. APOLLOS was a Jew of Alexandria—“an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures.” He came to Ephesus during St. Paul’s absence from that city, and taught what he knew of the “things of the Lord.” While here, he was instructed further in “the way of God” by Aquila and Priscilla, he having previously only the inadequate knowledge which was possessed by disciples of John (Act_18:24-28). Having preached in parts of Achaia, he came to Corinth. That he came there after St. Paul we may conclude from the Apostle’s reference to himself as having “planted,” and Apollos having “watered” (1Co_3:6), and again to himself as having “laid the foundation” (1Co_2:10). To Corinth Apollos brought with him the arts of the rhetorician, and the culture of a Greek philosopher; and while preaching Christ crucified, these gifts and knowledge rendered him more acceptable than St. Paul had been, with his studied simplicity of style, to a certain class of intellectual and rationalising hearers in Corinth. When Apollos left, a section of the Church unduly magnified the importance of his gifts and of his manner of teaching. They did so to the depreciation of the simplicity of the gospel. This all led to the development of evils which we shall see more in detail in our examination of 1Co_1:18-31 and 1 Corinthians 2. It ought to be remembered that Apollos was in no sense “the founder of a party.” It was the exaggeration and perversion of Apollos’ teaching, by some of the converts, that really founded the party. To the end he and Paul remained friends. He was probably with the Apostle while the Epistle was being written, and (1Co_16:12) refused, even when St. Paul suggested it, to go so soon again to Corinth, lest his presence should in the least tend to keep that party-spirit alive; and when, ten years (A.D. 67) later, the Apostle writes to Titus, he exhorts him “to bring Apollos on his journey diligently, that nothing be wanting to him” (Tit_3:13).

3. The third faction in Corinth professed themselves followers of ST. PETER—or, as he was always called, “Cephas.” This was the name by which our Lord addressed him in Mat_16:18, and by this name (and not by his Greek name, Peter) he would have been spoken of by the Apostles and early Christians. In the New Testament writings he is designated most frequently Peter, as his Greek name would be more intelligible to the larger world for which these writings were intended. This faction of the Corinthian Church still clung to many Jewish ceremonial ideas, from which St. Paul was entirely free. They seem not to have quite passed through the cloud. They exalted St. Peter as more worthy of honour than St. Paul, because he had personally been with Christ, and been called “Cephas” (rock) by Him. They insinuated that St. Paul’s supporting himself was not so dignified as the maintenance of St. Peter and others by the Church, in accordance with their Lord’s command (1Co_9:4-6; 2Co_11:9-10); and they unfavourably contrasted St. Paul’s celibacy with the married state of St. Peter, and of “the brethren of the Lord” (1Co_9:5). It is probable that their animosity towards St. Paul was not a little increased by the knowledge that there were certain matters in which he considered St. Peter to be in error, and “withstood him to the face” (Gal_2:2). To the detailed difficulties and errors of this section of the Corinthian Church reference is to be found in the 1Co_7:1 to 1Co_11:1.

4. There was still one other party or faction which dared to arrogate to themselves the name of CHRIST Himself. These over-estimated the importance and value of having seen Christ in the flesh, and despised St. Paul as one who had subsequently joined the Apostolate. Contempt for all human teachers was by them exalted into a virtue. Their greatest sin was that the very name which should have been the common bond of union, the name by the thought and memory of which the Apostle would plead for a restoration of unity, was degraded by them into the exclusive party-badge of a narrow section. We do not find any very definite and detailed allusion to this section in this Epistle, though in the second Epistle a reference to them can be traced in 1Co_10:7. There is no need for such at any length. Their condemnation is written in every chapter, the whole of the Epistle is a denunciation of the spirit of faction—of the sin of schism—which in their case reached a climax, inasmuch as they consecrated their sin with the very name of Christ. Such, briefly, were the four schisms which were rending the Corinthian Church. We might call them—1, The Party of Liberty (PAUL); 2, The Intellectual Party (APOLLOS); 3, The Judaizing Party (CEPHAS); 4, The Exclusive Party (who said, “I am of CHRIST”).

(12) I of Christ.—It has been suggested that this is not the designation of a fourth party in the Church, but an affirmation by the Apostle, “I am of Christ,” in contradistinction to those referred to before, who called themselves after the names of men. But in addition to the fact that there is no change in form of expression to indicate a change of sense, we find evident traces of the existence of such a party (1Co_9:1; 2Co_10:7).

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

12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul] The idea of some commentators that there were defined parties in the Apostolic Church under the leadership of Apostles and their Master, a Paul-party, a Peter-party, a Christ-party, is refuted by ch. 1Co_4:6, where St Paul plainly states that he had replaced the names of the antagonistic teachers at Corinth by that of himself and Apollos, in order to secure his rebukes from assuming a personal form.

Apollos] See Act_18:24-28. From this passage we gather that he was a Hellenistic Greek, of the school of philosophical Judaism which flourished at that time at Alexandria, and was an admixture of the doctrines of the Platonic philosophy with those of the Jewish religion. It is possible that he may have been a disciple of the celebrated Alexandrian teacher Philo, who was contemporary with the Apostles. Learned and zealous, he could not be confined within the bounds of any particular school, but diligently acquainted himself with all the movements which sprang up in the Jewish Church. Thus he became a disciple of John the Baptist, whose doctrines had been widely spread abroad by that time (Act_19:1-3), and as his fervent spirit was allied with the gift of eloquence, he speedily endeavoured to communicate to others the new light he had received. He is described as being ‘accurately instructed in the things concerning the Lord,’ although he knew ‘only the baptism of John.’ By this we are not to understand a perfect knowledge of the system of Christianity, or it would have been impossible for Aquila and Priscilla to have explained it to him ‘more accurately.’ His knowledge was probably confined to the Baptist’s witness to Christ as the Messiah, to the more general moral teaching of Christ, as contained in the first three Gospels, and to those remarkable glimpses of the inner mysteries of God’s kingdom (see Mat_3:9; St Joh_3:27-36, and compare St Joh_8:39; Rom_2:28-29; Rom_9:7) which our Gospels shew the Baptist to have had. But with that deeper teaching as a whole, confided by Christ to His disciples, and afterwards given to the world in the preaching and writings of the Apostles, and in the Gospel of St John, he had no acquaintance when he came to Ephesus. Endowed with this knowledge through the instrumentality of Aquila and Priscilla, he became an effective preacher of the Gospel, and filling St Paul’s place when the latter had left Corinth, ‘he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ’ But disgusted possibly by an attempt on the part of some (see note on ch. 1Co_16:12) to set him up as a rival to St Paul, he left Corinth and returned to Ephesus, and we know not whether he ever visited Corinth again.

Cephas] See St Joh_1:42.

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 this I say that everyone of you saith,.... This the apostle affirms not upon his own personal knowledge, but upon the credit of the report the house of Chloe had made unto him; and his meaning is not that every individual member of this church, but that many of them, and the far greater number of them, were in the following factions, some being for one minister, and some for another: one part of them said,

I am of Paul; he had been instrumental in their conversion: he had baptized some of them, and first laid the foundation of a Gospel church among them; was a solid, brave, and bold preacher of the Gospel, and was set for the defence of it; wherefore he was the minister for them, and they were desirous of being called and distinguished by his name: but there was another party that said,

and I of Apollos; in opposition to Paul, whom they despised, as a man whose aspect was mean; his bodily presence weak, made no figure in the pulpit; his speech low and contemptible; his discourses plain, not having that flow of words, and accuracy of expression, as Apollos had; who was an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, who coming to Corinth after the Apostle Paul, many were taken with his way of preaching; he was the preacher for them, and they chose to be called after him, and in distinction from others: whilst another company of them said,

and I of Cephas; or Peter, in opposition both to Paul and Apollos; who with them were new upstart ministers, in comparison of Peter, who was with Christ from the beginning, and saw his miracles, and heard his doctrines; and, besides, had the apostleship and Gospel of the circumcision, on which account they highly valued him; for these must be supposed to be the converted Jews among them, who still retained a regard to the ceremonies of the law; wherefore they fixed on Peter as their minister, and to be called by his name: but others said,

and I of Christ; which some take to be the words of the apostle, declaring who he was of, and for, and belonged unto; intimating that they, as he, should call no man father, or master, on earth, or be called by any other name than that of Christ. Others consider them as the words of the Corinthians, a small part of them who were very mean and contemptible, and therefore mentioned last, who chose to be known and called by no other name than that of Christians; but I rather think that these design a faction and party, to be condemned as the others. These were for Christ, in opposition to Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, and any other ministers of the word. They were for Christ without his ministers; they were wiser than their teachers; they were above being under any ministrations and ordinances; as the others attributed too much to the ministers of the Gospel, these detracted too much from them, and denied them to be of any use and service. Some persons may be, in such sense, for Christ, as to be blame worthy; as when they use his name to deceive men, or divide his interest.

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

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.

Ver. 12. And I of Christ] q.d. I care neither for Paul nor Apollo, &c. As some say today, they are neither Papists nor Protestants, but Christians, that is, just nothing, flat atheists. Heraclius the emperor being imprudently carried away by some bishops into the opinion of the Monothelites, when that heresy was afterwards condemned by the Council of Jerusalem, the emperor, being ashamed to recant, became a mere neutralist, and held neither one way nor another. And have we not some like-minded among us, who are yet to choose their religion; resolving to resolve on nothing, because (forsooth) there are so many sects and controversies, and such differences in opinion, and contradictions of preachers, therefore they will suspend, serve God (as they call it), and not trouble themselves to know which side hath the better? But these might know, 1. That truth is but one and the same; Christi tunica est unica, Christ’s coat is seamless, his truth single, and at good agreement with itself. 2. That we have a most sure word, 2Pe 1:19, sure, and sufficient to perfect the man of God; and that Non est litigiosa iuris scientia sed ignorantia, as the lawyers used to say, it is not too much knowledge, but the ignorance of the Scriptures that begets strife. 3. That God’s elect have a promise to be taught of God, to be kept from being finally deceived; to be brought to a certainty and full assurance of what they should hold, so evidently and clearly will God by his Spirit speak to their consciences, that they shall hold fast the faithful word, though they cannot answer every cavil and be unmovable as the centre, as Mount Zion that cannot be stirred. Mat 24:24; Joh 10:4-5 Job 22:21; 1Th 1:5; Joh 7:17; 1Jn 2:20; Psa 19:7; Pro 1:4; Isa 52:6; Joh 6:45.

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 this I say - This is what I mean; or, I give this as an instance of the contentions to which I refer.

That every one of you saith - That you are divided into different factions, and ranged under different leaders. The word translated “that” ὅτι hoti might be translated here, “because,” or “since,” as giving a reason for his affirming 1Co 1:11 that there were contentions there. “Now I say that there are contentions, because you are ranged under different leaders,” etc. - Calvin.

I am of Paul - It has been doubted whether Paul meant to affirm that the parties had actually taken the names which he here specifies, or whether he uses these names as illustrations, or suppositions, to show the absurdity of their ranging themselves under different leaders. Many of the ancient interpreters supposed that Paul was unwilling to specify the real names of the false teachers and leaders of the parties, and that he used these names simply by way of illustration. This opinion was grounded chiefly on what he says in 1Co 4:6, “And these things, brethren, I have ‘in a figure’ transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes,” etc. But in this place Paul is not referring so particularly to the factions or parties existing in the church, as he is to the necessity of modesty and humility; and in order to enforce this, he refers to himself and Apollos to show that even those most highly favored should have a low estimate of their importance, since all their success depends on God; see 1Co 3:4-6.

It can scarcely be doubted that Paul here meant to say that there were parties existing in the church at Corinth, who were called by the names of himself, of Apollos, of Cephas, and of Christ. This is the natural construction; and this was evidently the information which he had received by those who were of the family of Chloe. Why the parties were ranged under these leaders, however, can be only a matter of conjecture. Lightfoot suggests that the church at Corinth was composed partly of Jews and partly of Gentiles; see Acts 18. The Gentile converts, he supposes, would range themselves under Paul and Apollos as their leaders; and the Jewish under Peter and Christ. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter particularly the apostle to the Jews Gal 2:7; and this circumstance might give rise to the division. Apollos succeeded Paul in Achaia, and labored successfully there; see Act 18:27-28. These two original parties might be again sub-divided. A part of those who adhered to Paul and Apollos might regard Saul with chief veneration, as being the founder of the church as the instrument of their conversion, as the chief apostle, as signally pure in his doctrine and manner; and a part might regard Apollos as the instrument of their conversion, and as being distinguished for eloquence. It is evident that the main reason why Apollos was regarded as the head of a faction was on account of his extraordinary eloquence, and it is probable that his followers might seek particularly to imitate him in the graces of popular elocution.

And I of Cephas, Peter; - compare Joh 1:42. He was regarded particularly as the apostle to the Jews; Gal 2:7. He had his own speciality of views in teaching, and it is probable that his teaching was not regarded as entirely harmonious with that of Paul; see Gal 2:11-17. Paul had everywhere among the Gentiles taught that it was not necessary to observe the ceremonial laws of Moses; and, it is probable, that Peter was regarded by the Jews as the advocate of the contrary doctrine. Whether Peter had been at Corinth is unknown. If not, they had heard of his name, and character; and those who had come from Judea had probably reported him as teaching a doctrine on the subject of the observance of Jewish ceremonies unlike that of Paul.

And I of Christ - Why this sect professed to be the followers of Christ, is not certainly known. It probably arose from one of the two following causes:

Either that they had been in Judea and had seen the Lord Jesus, and thus regarded themselves as particularly favored and distinguished: or, More probably because they refused to call themselves by any inferior leader, and wished to regard Christ alone as their head, and possibly prided themselves on the belief that they were more conformed to him than the other sects.

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

Chloe was a Christian woman of Corinth. Apollo is the person mentioned, Acts xviii. 24. &c. Cephas is St. Peter, so called in the Syriac tongue. (Bible de Vence)

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).

Every one here signifieth no more than many of you, or several of you; so 1Co 14:26; from whence, those that think they have such a mighty argument from Heb 2:9, where is the same particle to prove Christ’s dying for all individuals, may undeceive themselves, and find that they have need of better arguments to prove their assertion.

I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ: we may from hence observe, that the divisions amongst the Corinthians were not in matters of faith, but occasioned from their having men’s persons in admiration. This was probably caused either from God’s making of Paul the instrument of some of their conversion, Apollos the instrument of others’ conversion, and Peter the instrument of others’, or else from the difference of their gifts. Of this Apollos we read, Act 18:24; he was a Jew of Alexandria, who (as may be seen there, 1Co 1:28) mightily convinced they, and that publicly, and probably was as useful to the Corinthians. One minister of Christ may be justly preferred to another. We ought to honour those most whom God most honoureth, either by a more plentiful giving out of his Spirit, or by a more plentiful success upon their labours; but we ought not so far to appropriate any ministers to ourselves, as for them to despise others. We are not bound to make every minister our pastor, but we are bound to have a just respect for every minister, who by his doctrine and holy life answereth his profession and holy calling.

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

Now this I mean; in other words, "what I mean is this." Their "contentions" are defined to be equivalent to "religious partisanships; "antagonistic adoption of the names and views of special teachers. Each one of you saith. That party spirit ran so high that they were all listed on one side or another. None of them were wise enough and spiritual minded enough to hold aloof from parties altogether. They prided themselves on being "uncompromising" and "party men." Saith; in a self-assertive way. (1Co_3:21) I am of Paul. He shows his indignation at their partisanship by first rebuking those who had used his own name as a party watchward. He disliked Paulinism as much as Petrinism (Bengel). All the Corinthians would probably have been in this sense Paulinists but for the visits of subsequent teachers. At present the Paul party consisted of those who adhered to his views about Gentile freedom, and who liked the simple spirituality of his teaching. St. Paul rose above the temptation of considering that party spirit is excusable in our own partisans. He reproves factiousness even in the party of freedom. And I of Apollos. Apollos personally was absolutely loyal and honourable, but his visit to Corinth had done mischief. His impassioned oratory, his Alexandrian refinements, his allegorizing exegesis, the culture and polish of his style, had charmed the fickle Corinthians. The Apollonians were the party of culture. They had, as we see from later parts of the Epistle, exaggerated St. Paul"s views, as expounded by Apollos, into extravagance. Puffed up with the conceit of knowledge, they had fallen into moral inconsistency. The egotism of oratorical rivals, the contemptuous tone to wards weaker brethren, the sophistical condonations of vice, were probably due to them. Apollos, as we see by his noble refusal to visit Corinth under present circumstances, (1Co_16:12) was as indignant as St. Paul himself at the perversion of his name into an engine of party warfare. (On Apollos, see Act_18:24-28 Act 19:1Ti Act_3:13) Nothing further is known respecting him, but he is the almost undoubted author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which proves that he was of the school of St. Paul, while at the same time he showed a splendid originality in his way of arriving at the same conclusion as his teacher. I of Cephas. The use of the Aramaic name (1Co_3:22 1Co_9:5 1Co_15:6; Gal_2:9) perhaps, shows that these Petrinists were Judaizers. (though it should be added that St. Paul only uses the name "Peter" in Gal_2:7, Gal_2:8) They personally disliked St. Paul, and questioned his apostolical authority. Perhaps the extravagances of the "speaking with tongues" arose in this party, who recalled the effects of the outpouring of the Spirit after Peter"s great sermon on the day of Pentecost. And I of Christ. We trace the origin of this party to one man in particular, (2Co_2:7) who was, or professed to be, an adherent of James, and therefore one of the more rigid Judaizers. He may have been one from the circle of Christ"s earthly relatives one of the Desposyni, (see 1Co_9:5) and, like St. James, may have had views resembling those of the Essenes and Ebionites. If so, he was probably the author of the questions about celibacy and marriage; and perhaps he prided himself on having seen "Christ in the flesh." This party at any rate, like some modern sects, was not ashamed to degrade into a party watchword even the sacred name of Christ, and to claim for a miserable clique an exclusive interest in the Lord of the whole Church. It is the privilege of every Christian to say, "Christianus sum;" but if he says it in a haughty, loveless, and exclusive spirit, he forfeits his own claim to the title. This exclusive Christ party is, perhaps, specially alluded 2Co_10:7-11. The view of Chrysostom, which takes these words to be St. Paul"s remark I belong.to Christ," is untenable, and would make trim guilty of the very self-assertiveness which he is reprobating.

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

Now this I say - That is, what I mean is this: there are various parties among you, who set themselves, one against an other, in behalf of the several teachers they admire. And I of Christ - They spoke well, if they had not on this pretense despised their teachers, chap. iv, 8 Perhaps they valued themselves on having heard Christ preach in his own person.

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

Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ .

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.

12. Now this I say. I explain more fully what I mean. He shows that there were four existing parties: A Pauline party, clinging to the founder of their church; a party of Apollos, who were probably carried away by their admiration of his Alexandrian philosophy; a party of Judaizer, who claimed to be following Peter, called here by his Hebrew name of Cephas; and a fourth party, who claimed to turn away from all these human leaders, and to be only of Christ.

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.

Each one of you says

Paul is expressing a general attitude of division.

Is Christ divided?

Paul wishes to emphasize the truth that Christ is not divided but one. "It is not possible to divide Christ in the way you are doing!" (See: Rhetorical Question and Active or Passive)

Was Paul crucified for you?

Paul wishes to emphasize that it was Christ, not Paul or Apollos, who was crucified. This can also be translated in active form. AT: "It certainly was not Paul whom they put to death on the cross for your salvation!" (See: Rhetorical Question and Active or Passive)

Were you baptized in the name of Paul?

Paul wishes to emphasize that we all are baptized in the name of Christ. This can also be translated in active form. AT: "It was not in the name of Paul that people baptized you!" (See: Rhetorical Question and Active or Passive)

in the name of Paul

"In the name of" here is a metonym for "by the authority of." AT: "by Paul's authority" (See: Metonymy)

translationWords

Paul

Apollos

Peter

Christ

crucify

baptize

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

12. λέγω δὲ τοῦτο. The force of this is well given by the A.V. Now this I say, and still better by the R.V. (especially if transposed) Now I mean this.

ἕκαστος ὑμῶν. This is not to be pressed literally. It is a Hebraism for ‘the great majority of you.’

ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου. The idea of some commentators that there were defined parties in the Apostolic Church under the leadership of Apostles and their Master, a Paul-party, a Peter-party, a Christ-party, is refuted by ch. 1Co 4:6, where St Paul plainly states that he had replaced the names of the antagonistic teachers at Corinth by those of himself and Apollos, in order to secure his rebukes from assuming a personal form.

Ἀπολλώ. See Act 18:24-28. From this passage we gather that he was a Hellenistic Greek, of the school of philosophical Judaism which flourished at that time at Alexandria, and was an admixture of the doctrines of the Platonic philosophy with those of the Jewish religion. It is possible that he may have been a disciple of the celebrated Alexandrian teacher Philo, who was contemporary with the Apostles. Learned and zealous, he could not be confined within the bounds of any particular school, but diligently acquainted himself with all the movements which sprang up in the Jewish Church. Thus he became a disciple of John the Baptist, whose doctrines had been widely spread abroad by that time (Act 19:1-3), and as his fervent spirit was allied with the gift of eloquence, he speedily endeavoured to communicate to others the new light he had received. He is described as being ‘accurately instructed in the things concerning the Lord,’ although he knew ‘only the baptism of John.’ We are not to suppose by this that he had a perfect knowledge of the system of Christianity, or it would have been impossible for Aquila and Priscilla to have explained it to him ‘more accurately.’ His knowledge was probably confined to the Baptist’s witness to Christ as the Messiah, to the more general moral teaching of Christ, as contained in the first three Gospels, to a grasp of the spiritual meaning of the O. T., such as is displayed by Philo and the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews (who may have been Apollos himself), to the facts of the Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension, though without a clear comprehension of their spiritual significance, and to those remarkable glimpses of the inner mysteries of God’s kingdom (see Mat 3:9; Joh 3:27-36, and compare Joh 8:39; Rom 2:28-29; Rom 9:7) which our Gospels shew the Baptist to have had. But with that inner teaching as a whole, as confided by Christ to His disciples, and afterwards given to the world in the preaching and writings of the Apostles, and in the Gospel of St John, he had no acquaintance when he came to Ephesus. Endowed with this knowledge through the instrumentality of Aquila and Priscilla, he became an effective preacher of the Gospel, and filling St Paul’s place when the latter had left Corinth, ‘he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ.’ But disgusted possibly by an attempt on the part of some (see note on ch. 1Co 16:12) to set him up as a rival to St Paul, he left Corinth and returned to Ephesus, and we know not whether he ever visited Corinth again. See also Tit 3:13.

Κηφᾶ. See Joh 1:42.

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.

12.] λέγω δὲ τοῦτο ὅτι,—not, ‘I say this because,’—but (see reff.) I mean this, that …

ἕκαστ. ὑμ. λέγ.] The meaning is clear, but the form of expression not strictly accurate, the ἕκαστος being a different person in each case. Accurately expressed it would run thus, ὅτι πάντες τοιοῦτό τι λέγετε, ἐγώ εἰμι Π., ἐγὼ Ἀπολ., ἐγὼ Κηφ., ἐγὼ χριστοῦ,—or as De W., ὅτι πάντες λ., ὁ μέν, ἐγώ εἰμι … ὁ δέ, ἐγὼ κ.τ.λ.—Respecting the matter of fact to which the verse alludes, I have given references in the Prolegg. § ii. 10, to the principal theories of the German critics, and will only here restate the conclusions which I have there (ib. parr. 5-9) endeavoured to substantiate: (1) that these designations are not used as pointing to actual parties formed and subsisting among the Corinthians, but (2) as representing the spirit with which they contended against one another, being the sayings of individuals, and not of parties (ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει): q. d. ‘You are all in the habit of alleging against one another, some your special attachment to Paul, some to Apollos, some to Cephas, others to no mere human teacher, but barely to Christ, to the exclusion of us his Apostles.’ (3) That these sayings, while they are not to be made the basis of any hypothesis respecting definite parties at Corinth, do nevertheless hint at matters of fact, and are not merely ‘exempli gratia:’ and (4) that this view of the verse, which was taken by Chrys., Theodoret, Theophylact, Calv., is borne out, and indeed necessitated, by ch. 4:6 (see there).

ἐγὼ … Παύλου] This profession, of being guided especially by the words and acts of Paul, would probably belong to those who were the first fruits of, or directly converted under, his ministry. Such persons would contend for his apostolic authority, and maintain doctrinally his teaching, so far being right; but, as usual with partisans, would magnify into importance practices and sayings of his which were in themselves indifferent, and forget that theirs was a service of perfect freedom under one Master, even Christ. With these he does not deal doctrinally in the Epistle, as there was no need for it: but involves them in the same censure as the rest, and shews them in ch. 2, 3, 4 that he had no such purpose of gaining personal honour among them, but only of building them up in Christ.

ἐγὼ Απολλώ] Apollos (Act 18:24 ff.) had come to Corinth after the departure of Paul, and being eloquent, might attract some, to whom the bodily presence of Paul seemed weak and his speech contemptible. It would certainly appear that some occasion had been taken by this difference, to set too high a value on external and rhetorical form of putting forth the gospel of Christ. This the Apostle seems to be blaming (in part) in the conclusion of this, and the next chapter. And from ch. 16:12, it would seem likely that Apollos himself had been aware of the abuse of his manner of teaching which had taken place, and was unwilling, by repeating his visit just then, to sanction or increase it.

ἐγὼ Κηφᾶ] All we can say in possible explanation of this, is, that as Peter was the Apostle of the circumcision,—as we know from Gal 2:11 ff. that his course of action on one occasion was reprehended by Paul, and as that course of action no doubt had influence and found followers, it is very conceivable that some of those who in Corinth lightly esteemed Paul, might take advantage of this honoured name, and cite against the Christian liberty taught by their own spiritual founder, the stricter practice of Peter. If so, these persons would be mainly found among the Jewish converts or Judaizers; and the matters treated in ch. 7-11:1, may have been subjects of doubt mainly with these persons.

ἐγὼ δὲ χριστοῦ] A rendering has been proposed (Estius, al.) which need only be mentioned to be rejected: viz. that Paul having mentioned the three parties, then breaks of, and adds, in his own person, ἐγὼ δὲ (Παῦλος), χριστοῦ (εἰμι) [not of any of these preceding]. Beza represents this as Chrysostom’s view, but it is not: οὐ τοῦτο ἐνεκάλει, ὅτι τὸν χριστὸν ἑαυτοῖς ἐπεφήμιζον, ἀλλʼ ὅτι μὴ πάντες μόνον. οἶμαι δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ οἴκοθεν αὐτὸ προστεθεικέναι βουλόμενον βαρύτερον τὸ ἔγκλημα ποιῆσαι, καὶ δεῖξαι οὕτω καὶ τὸν χριστὸν εἰς μέρος δοθέντα ἕν, εἰ καὶ μὴ οὕτως ἐποίουν τοῦτο ἐκεῖνοι:—(Hom. iii. p. 16 f.):—meaning by οἴκοθεν, not, as his own sentiment, but of his own invention, to shew them the inconsistency of their conduct. The words seem to apply to those who make a merit of not being attached to any human teacher,—who therefore slighted the apostleship of Paul. To them frequent allusion seems to be made in this and in the second Epistle, and more especially in 2Co 10:7-11.

For a more detailed discussion of the whole subject, see Prolegg. as above, and Dr. Davidson’s Introd. to the N. T. ii. 222 ff.

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

12. λέγω δὲ τοῦτο ‘Now I mean this’: but perhaps the force of the δέ is best given by having no conjunction in English; ‘I mean this.’ The τοῦτο refers to what follows, as in 7:29, 15:50, whereas in 7:35 it refers to what precedes, like αὕτη in 9:3.

ἕκαστος. This must not be pressed, any more than in 14:26, to mean that there were no exceptions. No doubt there were Corinthians who joined none of the four parties. It is to be remembered that all these party watchwords are on one level, and all are in the same category of blame. Championship for any one leader against another leader was wrong. St Paul has no partiality for those who claim himself, nor any respect for those who claim Christ, as their special leader. Indeed, he seems to condemn these two classes with special severity. The former exalt Paul too highly, the latter bring Christ too low: but all four are alike wrong. That, if such a spirit showed itself in Corinth at all, Paul, the planter, builder, and father of the community, would have a following, would be inevitable. And Apollos had watered (Act 18:27, Act 18:28), and had tutored Paul’s children in Christ. His brilliancy and Alexandrian modes of thought and expression readily lent themselves to any tendency to form a party, who would exalt these gifts at the expense of Paul’s studied plainness. “The difference between Apollos and St Paul seems to be not so much a difference of views as in the mode of stating those views: the eloquence of St Paul was rough and burning; that of Apollos was more refined and polished” (F. W. Robertson)*.

Κηφᾶ. Excepting Gal 2:7, Gal 2:8, St Paul always speaks of Κηφᾶς, never of Πέτρος. He was unquestionably friendly to St Paul (Gal 2:7-9; and vv. 11-14 reveal no difference of doctrine between them). But among the Jewish or ‘devout Greek’ converts at Corinth there might well be some who would willingly defer to any who professed, with however little authority (Act 15:24), to speak in the name of the leader of the Twelve. “His conduct at Antioch had given them all the handle that they needed to pit Peter against Paul” (A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of Paul, p. 187). There is no evidence, not even in 9:5, that Peter had ever visited Corinth. It is remarkable that, even among Jewish Christians, the Greek ‘Peter’ seems to have driven the original ‘Kephas’ (Joh 1:43) out of use.

Χριστοῦ. The ‘Christ’ party may be explained in the light of 2Co 10:7, 2Co 10:10, 2Co 10:11, and possibly 11:4, 23 (compare 11:4 with Gal 1:6), where there seems to be a reference to a prominent opponent of St Paul, whose activity belongs to the situation which is distinctive of 2 Cor. From these passages we gather that, when 2 Cor. was written, there was a section at Corinth, following a leader who was, at least for a time, in actual rebellion against St Paul. This section claimed, in contrast to him, to belong to Christ, which was virtually a claim that Christ belonged to them and not to him; and this claim seems to have been connected with a criterion of genuine Apostleship, namely, to have known Christ in the flesh, i.e. during His life on earth. Doubtless the situation in 2 Cor. goes beyond that which is presupposed in this Epistle. But ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ here must not be divorced from the clearer indications there. Those who used the watchword ‘of Christ’ were probably more advanced Judaizers than those who used the name of Kephas, to whom they stood related, as did the anti-Pauline Palestinian party (Act 21:20, Act 21:21) to Kephas himself. The ‘parties’ at Corinth, therefore, are the local results of streams of influence which show themselves at work elsewhere in the N.T. We may distinguish them respectively as St Paul and his Gospel, Hellenistic intellectualism (Apollos), conciliatory conservatism, or ‘the Gospel of the circumcision’ (Kephas), and ‘zealots for the Law,’ hostile to the Apostleship of St. Paul. These last were the exclusive party.* See Deissmann, Light from the Anc. East, p. 382.

We need not, therefore, consider seriously such considerations as that ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ was the cry of all three parties (Räbiger, misinterpreting μεμέρισται); or that St Paul approves this cry (Chrysostom, appealing to 3:22, 23); or that it is St Paul’s own reply to the others; or that it represents a ‘James’ party (in which case, why is James not mentioned?); or that it marks those who carried protest against party so far as to form a party on that basis. In 3:23 St Paul says ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ most truly and from his heart; that is true of all: what he censures here is its exclusive appropriation by some, To say, with special emphasis, ‘I am of Christ,’ is virtually to say that Christ is mine and not yours.

In Act 18:24 and 19:1, א, Copt. have ‘Apelles,’ while D in 18:24 has ‘Apollonius.’ The reading ‘Apelles’ seems to be Egyptian, and goes back to Origen, who asks whether Apollos can be the same as the Apelles of Rom 16:10.

For a history of the controversies about the four parties, see Bachmann, pp. 58-63.

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

Now this I say [λεγω δε τουτο] . A familiar classical formula : What I mean is this. Rev., Now this I mean. This usually refers to what follows. Compare Gal 3:17; Eph 4:17.

I am of Paul and I of Apollos. The repeated de and, expresses the opposition between the respective parties. The followers of Apollos preferred his more philosophical and rhetorical preaching to the simpler and more direct utterances of Paul. Others ranged themselves under the name of Peter.

Cephas. Aramaic for Petrov Peter. See on Joh 1:42. It is Paul 's usual name for Peter, Petrov occurring only Gal 2:7, 8. Peter would be the rallying - point for the Judaizing Christians, who claimed him as the apostle of the circumcision. The state of the Corinthian church offered the most favorable ground for Paul 's Jewish - Christian adversaries, who took advantage of the reaction created by the looser views and practice of Gentile Christians, and by the differences of opinion on important questions, to press the necessity of legal regulation, and of ceremonial observances in non - essentials.

Of Christ. Many modern authorities hold that Paul thus designates a fourth and quite distinct party. This view rests mainly on the form of statement in this verse, and has no support in the epistle. The peculiar characteristics of this party, if it were such, can only be conjectured. It seems more probable that those who were "of Christ" belonged to the party of Peter : that they were native Jews, coming from abroad with letters of recommendation to Corinth, representing themselves as ministers and apostles of Christ, and using His name as the watchword under which they could most successfully prosecute their opposition to Paul and the gospel which he preached. The allusion in this verse would therefore link itself with those in the tenth and eleventh chapters of the second epistle.

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

Vv. 12. Calvin has translated, “I say this because...;” but it is more natural to make the τοῦτο, this, refer to the following ὅτι: “When I speak of contentions, I mean this that...” The phrase, Every one of you saith, is of course inexact; for every member of the Church did not pronounce the four watchwords. Paul thus expresses himself to indicate that the sin is general, that there is not one among them, so to speak, who has not in his mouth one of these formulas. The four are presented dramatically and in the form of direct speech; we hear them, as it were, bandied from one to another in the congregation. Their painful character appears first from the ἐγώ, I, put foremost,—there is a preponderance of personal feeling,—then from the δέ, which is evidently adversative: but,—there is the spirit of opposition,—finally and chiefly, from the names of the party leaders. Some ancient commentators supposed that the apostle had here substituted the names of eminent men for the obscure names of the real party leaders, to show so much the better how unjustifiable such rivalries are. The passage 1Co 4:6 is that which induced Chrysostom, and others after him, to make so unnatural a supposition. But we shall see that this verse gives it no countenance.

The apostle puts in the forefront the party which takes name from himself; he thereby gives proof of great tact, for by first of all disapproving of his own partisans, he puts his impartiality beyond attack. It has been supposed that in the enumeration of the four parties he followed the historical order in which they were formed; but from the fact that Paul was the founder of the Church, and that Apollos came after him, it does not follow that Paul’s party was formed first and that of Apollos second; we must rather suppose the contrary. Paul’s partisans had only had occasion to pronounce themselves as such, by way of reaction, against the exclusive partiality inspired by the other preachers who came after him. We have indicated in the Introduction, p. 22 seq., how we understand these opposite groups to have been formed. We cannot concede the least probability to the suppositions of Heinrici, who ascribes to Apollos a Gnostic and mystic tendency, and particularly views on baptism of the strangest kind. From the fact that he arrived at Ephesus as a disciple of John the Baptist, we have no right to conclude, with this theologian, that Apollos established a special bond of solidarity between the baptized and their baptizer like that which, in the Greek mysteries, united initiated and initiator! Heinrici goes the length of supposing that to Apollos and his party is to be ascribed the practice alluded to 1Co 15:29, of baptizing a living Christian in place of a believer who died without baptism! Is it possible to push arbitrariness further? This has been well shown by Hilgenfeld (Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1880, p. 362 seq.). What distinguished Paul from Apollos, according to 1Co 3:5 seq. and 1Co 4:6, could not be an essential difference, bearing on the substance of the gospel; it could only be a difference of form such as that indicated by the words, “I have planted, Apollos watered, and God gave the increase.” By his exegetical and literary culture, acquired at Alexandria, Apollos had gained for Christ many who had resisted Paul’s influence; perhaps Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue during Paul’s stay, was of the number. If it is so, we can better understand how the apostle was induced to associate this person’s name with his own in the address of the letter.

We have already said that the existence of a Cephas-party does not necessarily imply a visit of Peter to Corinth. Personal disciples of this apostle might have arrived in the city, or Jewish Christians from Corinth might have met Peter at Jerusalem, and on their return to Achaia they might have reported that this apostle differed from Paul in continuing personally to keep the law, though without wishing to impose it on Gentile converts. The Aramaic name Cephas is perhaps a proof of the Palestinian origin of the party.

As to the last watchword, the Greek Fathers, and Calvin, Mosheim, Eichhorn, Bleek among the moderns, think that it, according to the apostle, gives the true formula by which Paul would designate those whom he approves. Mayerhoff and Ebrard go even the length of thinking that by the word I, Paul means to designate himself: “But as for me, Paul, this is my watchword: I am of Christ, and of Christ only!” The symmetry of the four formulas evidently excludes these interpretations. The fourth comes under the censure which falls on the three preceding, “Every one of you saith...,” and it is this one above all which gives rise to the following question,—“Is Christ divided?” There was really then a fourth party which claimed to spring directly from Christ, and Christ alone, without having need of any human intermediary. As Paul adds not a single detail regarding this party, either in this passage or in the rest of the Epistle, the field of hypothesis is open, and we shall consecrate to the much discussed question the appendix to be immediately subjoined.

Some commentators seem to us to have exaggerated the character of the division, by supposing that the different parties no longer met in common assemblies, and that the rending of the Church into four distinct communities was an accomplished fact. The contrary appears from the passage 1Co 14:23, where Paul speaks of the assembling together of the whole Church in one and the same place, and even from the term ἔριδες, contentions, which would be too weak in that case. On the other hand, Hofmann has far too much attenuated the importance of the fact mentioned when he reduces it to hostile pleadings in the meetings of the Church, arising from the personal preference of each group for that servant of Christ who had contributed most to its edification. Undoubtedly the external unity of the Church was not broken, but its moral unity was at an end, and we shall see that the disagreement went much deeper into the way of understanding the gospel than this commentator thinks.

Otherwise, would the apostle have spent on it four whole chapters? It has often been attempted to distribute the numerous subjects treated by the apostle in our Epistle among these different parties, as if they had been furnished to him, one by one party, another by another. These attempts have not issued in any solid result. And we must say the same of the most recent attempt, that of Farrar. This critic sees in the Apollos-party the precursors of Marcion and of the Antinomian Gnosticism of the second century; in the Peter-party, the beginning of the anti-Pauline Ebionism of the Clementine Homilies. Finally, in the Christ-party, an invasion of Essenism into Christianity, which continued later. The division which Farrar makes of the questions treated by Paul among those different tendencies is ingenious, but lacks foundation in the text of the Epistle.

The party called “those of Christ.”

We have already set aside the opinions of those who take the fourth formula to be the true Christian profession approved by the apostle, or the legitimate declaration of a group of believers, offended by the absorbing partiality of the other groups for this or that teacher.

I.

The opinion which comes nearest this second shade is that developed by Rückert, Hofmann, Meyer, Heinrici, and to a certain extent by Renan, according to whom the fourth party, pushed by the exclusive preferences of the others, was carried to the opposite extreme, and declared itself independent of the apostolate in general, putting itself relatively to Christ in a position absolutely equal to that of Paul or Peter. “Some,” says Renan, “wishing to pose as spirits superior to those contentions, created a watchword sufficiently spiritual. To designate themselves they invented the name ‘Christ’s party.’ When discussion grew hot..., they intervened with the name of Him who was being forgotten: I am for Christ, said they” (Saint Paul, p. 378). It is for them, it is held, that Paul calls to mind, 1Co 3:22, that if the Church does not belong to the teachers who instruct it, the latter are nevertheless precious gifts bestowed on it by the Lord. Nothing simpler in appearance than this view. An extreme had led to the contrary extreme; partiality had produced disparagement. It was the rejection of apostolical authority as the answer to false human dependence. We should not hesitate to adopt this explanation, if certain passages of Second Corinthians, which we shall afterwards examine, did not force us to assign graver causes and a much graver importance to the formation of this party; comp. especially 2Co 10:7; 2Co 11:22-23.

II.

Have we to do, as Neander once thought, with Corinthians of a more or less rationalistic character, with cultivated Greeks who, carried away by enthusiasm for the admirable teachings of Christ, and especially for His sublime moral instructions, conceived the idea of freeing this pure gospel from the Jewish wrapping which still veiled it in the apostolic preaching? In order to make faith easy for their countrymen, they tried to make Jesus a Socrates of the highest power, which raised Him far above the Jesus taught by the Twelve, and by Paul himself. It is against this attempt to transform the gospel into a pure moral philosophy, that it is said the apostle conducts the polemic 1Co 1:18-24, and 1Co 3:18-20. This hypothesis is seductive, but the passages quoted can be explained without it, and the Second Epistle proves that the party those of Christ had not its partisans at Corinth among converted Gentiles, but in Palestine, among Christians of Jewish origin and tendency.

III.

This is recognised by some commentators, such as Dähne and Goldhorn; these seek the distinctive character of this fourth party in the elements of Alexandrine wisdom, which certain Jewish doctors mingled with the apostolic teaching. We shall no doubt discover the great corruptions introduced by the Judaizing heads of the Christ-party into the evangelical doctrine. But it is impossible to establish, by any solid proof whatever, the Alexandrine origin of these new elements.

IV.

So Schenkel, de Wette, Grimm have pronounced for a more natural notion. According to them, the heads of this party founded their rejection of the apostolic teaching and the authority of their own on supernatural communications which they received from the glorified Christ, by means of direct visions and revelations. Similar claims were put forth a little later, as we know, among the Judaizing teachers of Colosse; why should they not have existed previously in Asia Minor, and thence invaded the Churches of Greece? To support this opinion, there has been alleged chiefly the way in which Paul dwells on that transport even to the third heaven, which had been granted to himself (2Co 12:1 seq.); and it is thought that he meant thereby to say: “If these men pretend to have had revelations, I have also had them, and still more astonishing.” But this would be a mode of argument far from conclusive and far from worthy of the apostle; and we shall see that those teachers probably did not come from the land of mysticism, Asia Minor, but from that of legal Pharisaism, Palestine.

V.

This is now recognised by most critics. No doubt we do not see the Judaizing teachers who are concerned here presenting themselves at Corinth, exactly as they did formerly at Antioch and in Galatia. They understood that to gain such men as the Greeks of Corinth, they must avoid putting forward circumcision and gross material rites. But they are nevertheless servants of the legal party as formed at Jerusalem. To be convinced of this, it is enough to compare the two following passages of 2Co 10:7 : “If any one trust to himself that he belongs to Christ (Χριστοῦ εἶναι, lit. ‘to be Christ’s’), let him of himself think this again, that as he is Christ’s, so are we Christ’s.” To whom is this challenge addressed? Evidently to persons who claim to be Christ’s by a juster title than the apostle and his partisans, precisely like the men who specially call themselves those of Christ in the First Epistle. And who are they? The second passage, 1Co 11:22-23, informs us: “Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool); I am more.” They were then Jewish believers who boasted of their theocratic origin, and who sought to impose, by means of their relations to the mother Church, on the young Churches founded by Paul in the Gentile world, no doubt with the intention of bringing them gradually under the yoke of the Mosaic law.

But in what sense did such men designate themselves as those of Christ?

1. Storr, Hug, Bertholdt, Weizsäcker suppose that they took this title as coming from James, the head of the flock at Jerusalem, known under the name “the Lord’s brother;” and that it was because of this relationship between James and Jesus, that they boasted of being in a particular sense men of Christ. But this substitution of Christ’s name for that of James is rather improbable, and this explanation could in any case only apply to the few foreign emissaries who came from Palestine, and not to the mass of the Corinthian party which was grouped around them.

2. According to Billroth, Baur, Renan, these people were the same as “those of Cephas.” They designated themselves as those of Peter when they wished to denote their human head; as those of Christ when they wished to declare the conformity of their conduct with that of the Lord, who had constantly observed the law, and had never authorized the abolition of it, which Paul preached. In reality, the third and fourth party were thus only one; its double name signified, “disciples of Peter, and, as such, true disciples of Christ.”

In favour of this identification, it is alleged that in a dogmatic point of view the two first parties, that of Paul and that of Apollos, also formed only one. But we have proved without difficulty the shade which distinguished the partisans of Apollos from those of Paul, and though it did not bear on dogmatic questions, we cannot confound these two parties in one, nor consequently can we identify the last two parties so clearly distinguished by the apostle. Besides, nothing authorizes us to ascribe to Peter a conception of the gospel opposed to that of Paul. We know, from Galatians 2, that they were agreed at Jerusalem on these two points: that believers from among the Gentiles should not be subjected to the Mosaic rites, and that believers from among the Jews might continue to observe them. But we know also from the same passage, that there was a whole party at Jerusalem which did not approve of this concession made to Paul by the apostles. Paul distinguishes them thoroughly from the apostles and from James himself, for he declares that if he had had to do only with the latter, he might have yielded in the matter of the circumcision of Titus; but it was because of the former, to whom he gives the name of “false brethren, brought in,” that he was obliged to show himelf inflexible in his refusal. There was therefore a profound difference in the way in which the circumcision of Titus was asked of him by the apostles on the one hand, and by the false brethren on the other. The former asked it of him as a voluntary concession, and in this sense he could have granted it; but the latter demanded it as a thing obligatory; in this sense the apostle could not yield without compromising for ever the liberty of the Gentiles. Consequently, beside Peter’s followers, who, while observing the law themselves, conceded liberty to the Gentiles, there was room for another party, which, along with the maintenance of the law for the Jews, demanded the subjection of the Gentiles to the Mosaic system. What more natural than to find here, in those of Christ, the representatives of this extreme party? We can understand in this case why Paul places those of Christ after those of Peter, and thus makes them the antipodes of his own party.

Far, then, from finding in our passage, as Baur and Renan will have it, a proof of Peter’s narrow Judaism, we must see in it the proof of the opposite, and conclude for the existence of two classes of Jew-Christians, represented at Corinth, the one by Peter’s party, the other by Christ’s.

3. Schmidt has thought that the Judaizers, who called themselves those of Christ, were those who allowed the dignity of being members of the kingdom of Christ, the Messiah-King, only to the Jews and to those of the Gentiles who became Jews by accepting circumcision. In this explanation the strict meaning of the term Χριστός, Messiah, must be emphasized. But it seems evident from our two Epistles that the Judaizing emissaries at Corinth were wise enough not to demand circumcision and the Mosaic ritual from the believers there, as from the ignorant Galatians.

4. Reuss, Osiander, Klöpper think those emissaries took the name of those of Christ, because they relied on the personal example of Jesus, who had always observed the law, and on certain declarations given forth by Him, such as these, “I am not come to destroy the law,...but to fulfil it;” and “Ye have one Master, Christ.” Starting from this, they not only protested against Paul’s work, but also against the concessions made to Paul by the Twelve. They declared themselves to be the only Christians who were faithful to the mind of the Church’s Supreme Head, and on that account they took the exclusive title, those of Christ. This explanation is very plausible; but, as we shall see, certain passages of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians lead us to ascribe a quite special dogmatic character to the teaching of those of Christ; and it would be difficult to understand how, while wishing to impose on the Corinthians Christ’s mode of acting during His earthly life, they could have freed them, even provisionally, from circumcision and the other Mosaic rites.

5. Holsten and Hilgenfeld suppose that the title, those of Christ, originated in the fact that these emissaries had been in personal connection with Jesus during His earthly life. They were old disciples, perhaps of the number of the Seventy formerly sent out by Christ, or even His own brothers; for we know from 1Co 9:5 that these filled the office of evangelist-preachers. Persons who had thus lived within the Lord’s immediate circle might disparage Paul as a man who had never been in personal connection with Him, and had never seen Him, except in a vision of a somewhat suspicious kind. There is mention, 2Co 3:1, of letters of recommendation with which those strangers had arrived at Corinth. By whom had those letters been given them, if not by James, at once the Lord’s brother and head of the Church of Jerusalem?

In answer to this view, we have to say that if James acted thus, he would have openly broken the solemn contract of which Paul speaks (Gal 2:5-10), and taken back in fact the hand of fellowship which he had given to this apostle. Holsten answers, indeed, that it was Paul who had broken the contract in his conflict with Peter at Antioch; and that after that scene James felt himself free to act openly against him. But supposing—what we do not believe—that Paul went too far in upbraiding Peter for his return to the observance of the law in the Church of Antioch, there would have been no good reason in that why James should retract the principle recognised and proclaimed by himself, that of the liberty of the Gentiles in regard to the law. What has been recognised as true does not become false through the faults of a third.

6. As none of these explanations fully satisfy us, we proceed to expound the view to which we have been led. We shall find ourselves at one partly, but only partly, with the result of Beyschlag’s studies, published by him in the Studien und Kritiken, 1865, ii., and 1871, iv. We have seen, while refuting Baur’s opinion, that there existed even at Jerusalem a party opposed to the Twelve, that of the “false brethren, brought in,” whom Paul clearly distinguishes from the apostles (Gal 2:4; Gal 2:6). They claimed to impose the Mosaic law on Gentile converts, while the Twelve maintained it only for Christians of Jewish origin, and the further question, whether these might not be released from this obligation in Churches of Gentile origin, remained open. We think that this ultra-party was guided by former members of the priesthood and of Jewish Pharisaism (Act 6:7; Act 15:5), who, in virtue of their learning and high social position, regarded themselves as infinitely superior to the apostles. It is not therefore surprising that once become Christians, they should claim to take out of the hands of the Twelve, of whom they made small account, the direction of the (Christian) Messianic work, with the view of making this subservient to the extension of the legal dispensation in the Gentile world. Such were the secret heads of the counter mission organized against Paul which we meet with everywhere at this period. It had now pushed its work as far as Corinth, and it is easy to understand why the portion of the Church which was given up to its agents, distinguished itself not only from the parties of Paul and Apollos, but also from that of Peter. They designated themselves as those of Christ, not because their leaders had personally known Jesus, and could better than others instruct the Churches in His life and teaching,—who in these two respects would have dared to compare himself to Peter or put himself above him?—but as being the only ones who had well understood His mind and who preserved more firmly than the apostles the true tradition from Him in regard to the questions raised by Paul. They were too prudent to speak at once of circumcision and Mosaic rites. They rather took the position in regard to converted Gentiles which the Jews had long adopted in regard to the so-called proselytes of the gate. And moreover—and here is where I differ from Beyschlag—when they arrived on Greek soil, they certainly added theosophic elements to the gospel preached by the apostles, whereby they sought to recommend their teaching to the speculative mind of the cultivated Christians of Greece. It is not without cause, that in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul speaks, 1Co 10:5, of “reasonings exalted like strongholds against the knowledge of God,” and of “thoughts to be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,” and that, 1Co 11:3, he expresses the fear that the Corinthians are allowing themselves to be turned away from the simplicity which is in Christ, as Eve let herself be seduced by the cunning of the serpent. Paul even goes the length of rebuking the Corinthians, in the following verse, for the facility with which they receive strange teachers who bring to them another Jesus than the one he has proclaimed to them, a Spirit and a gospel different from those they have already received. Such expressions forbid us to suppose that the doctrine of those emissaries was not greatly different from his own and that of the Twelve, especially from the Christological standpoint (another Jesus). There is certainly here something more than the simple legal teaching previously imported into Galatia. It was sought to allure the Corinthians by unsound speculations, and Paul’s teaching was disparaged as poor and elementary. Hence his justification of himself, even in the First Epistle, for having given them only “milk and not meat” (1Co 3:1-2). Hence also his lively polemic against the mixing of human wisdom with the gospel (1Co 3:17-20). All this applied to the preaching of those of Christ, and not in the least to that of Apollos. We do not know what exactly was the nature of their particular doctrines. It did violence to the person and work of Jesus. Thus is explained perhaps Paul’s strange saying, 1Co 12:3, “No man speaking by the Spirit of God saith: Jesus is accursed!” The apostle is speaking of spiritual manifestations which made themselves heard even in the Church. There were different kinds of them, and their origin required to be carefully distinguished. The truly Divine addresses might be summed up in the invocation, “Jesus, Lord!” While the inspirations that were not Divine terminated—though one can hardly believe it—in declaring Jesus accursed! Such a fact may however be explained when we call to mind a doctrine like that professed by the Judaizing Christian Cerinthus, according to which the true Christ was a celestial virtue which had united itself to a pious Jew called Jesus, on the occasion of His baptism by John the Baptist, which had communicated to Him the power of working miracles, the light from which His doctrines emanated, but which had abandoned Him to return to heaven, before the time of the Passion; so that Jesus had suffered alone and abandoned by the Divine Being. From this point of view what was to prevent one pretending to inspiration from exclaiming: “What matters to us this crucified One? This Jesus, accursed on the cross, is not our Christ: He is in heaven!” It is known that Cerinthus was the adversary of the Apostle John at Ephesus; Epiphanius—on what authority we know not—asserts that the First Epistle to the Corinthians was written to combat his heresy. It is remarkable that this false teacher was Judaizing in practice, like our false teachers at Corinth. But it is by no means necessary to suppose that it was exactly this system which Paul had in view. At this epoch many other similar Christological theories might be in circulation fitted to justify those striking expressions of Paul: “another Jesus, another Spirit.” Thus the name of Christ, in the title which these persons took, those of Christ, would be formulated, not only in opposition to the name of the apostles, but even to that of Jesus. Let us mention, by way of completing this file concerning those of Christ, the apostle’s last word, 1Co 16:22, a word certainly written with his own hand after the personal salutation which precedes: “If any man love not the Lord, let him be anathema!” It is the answer to the “Jesus anathema!” of 1Co 12:3.

We adopt fully, therefore, the words of Kniewel (Eccl. Cor. vetustiss. dissentiones, 1842), who has designated those of Christ as “the Gnostics before Gnosticism.”

There remains only one question to be examined in regard to those of Christ. In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians Paul twice speaks of persons whom he designates as οἱ ὑπερλίαν ἀπόστολοι, that is to say, “the apostles transcendentally” or “archapostles” (1Co 11:5 and 1Co 12:11), and whom he puts in close connection with the Christ-party. Baur alleges that he meant thereby to designate the Twelve ironically as authors of the mission carried out against his work by their emissaries arrived at Corinth. We have here, according to him, the most striking testimony of the directly hostile relation between Paul and the original apostles; it was they, and James in particular, who furnished those disturbers with letters of recommendation. On this interpretation rests Baur’s whole theory regarding the history of primitive Christianity. But this application is inadmissible for the following reasons:—

1. The Twelve had recognised in principle Paul’s preaching of the gospel among the Gentiles, and had found nothing to add to it; they had moreover declared his apostleship to have the same Divine origin as Peter’s; this is narrated by Paul, Gal 2:1-10. How should they have sent persons to combat such a work?

2. If the expression “archapostles,” which Paul evidently borrows from the emphatic language of the party recruited by those persons at Corinth, referred to the Twelve, who in that case must have been considered as being an apostle in the simple sense of the word? Obviously it could only be Paul himself. His adversaries would thus unskilfully have declared an apostle the very man whose apostleship they were contesting!

3. In the passage, 2Co 11:5, Paul says, “he supposes he is not a whit behind the archapostles, for though he be rude in speech (ἰδιώτης), he is not so in knowledge.” Now it cannot be held that the Twelve were ever regarded at Corinth as superior to Paul in the gift of speech, first because they had never been heard there, and next because they were themselves expressly characterized as ἀγράμματοι and ἰδιῶται (Act 4:13).

4. The apostle gives it to be understood ironically (1Co 12:11 seq.) that there is a point undoubtedly in which he acknowledges his inferiority as compared with the archapostles, to wit, that he has not, like them, been supported by the Church. Now it is certainly of the Church of Corinth that he is speaking when he thus expresses himself; this appears from 1Co 11:20, where he describes the shameless conduct of those intruders toward his readers. As yet the Twelve had not been at Corinth; it is not they, but the newcomers whom Paul designates by this ironical name.

5. How could St. Paul, justly asks Beyschlag, in this same letter in which he recommends a collection for the Church of the saints (that of Jerusalem), designate men sent by that Church and by the apostles, as “servants of Satan whose end will be worthy of their works” (1Co 11:14-15)?

Hilgenfeld and Holsten have themselves given up applying the expression archapostles to the Twelve. Agreeably to their explanation of the term, those of Christ, they apply it to those immediate disciples of Christ, such as the Seventy or the brothers of Jesus, from whom the party had taken its name, and whom the apostles had recommended to the Corinthians. But this comes nearly to the same, for the brothers of Jesus were at one with the apostles (1Co 9:5). And besides, how would those of Christ have contrasted their leaders as archapostles with Peter himself?

There remains only one explanation. These archapostles are no other than the emissaries of the ultra-Judaizing party, of whom we have spoken. Their partisans at Corinth honoured them with this title, to exalt them not only above Paul, but above the Twelve. We have already explained how this was possible: their object was to break the agreement which was established between the Twelve and Paul; and the letters of recommendation which they had brought were the work of some one of those high personages at Jerusalem who sought to possess themselves of the direction of the Church.

In the following verses, the apostle summarily condemns the state of things he has just described, and defends himself from having given occasion to it in any way. Edwards thinks he can divide the discussion which follows, thus: condemnation of the parties by the relation of Christianity: 1, to Christ, 1Co 1:13 to 1Co 2:5; 1 Corinthians 2, to the Holy Spirit, 1Co 2:6 to 1Co 3:4; 1 Corinthians 3, to God, 1Co 3:5-20; 1 Corinthians 4, to believers, 1Co 3:21-23. But such tabulation is foreign to the apostle’s mind. His discussion has nothing scholastic in it. The real course of the discussion will unfold of itself gradually.

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.