Commentary First Corinthians,

 JULY 16, 2012
Commentary on First Corinthians
By: Tom Lowe
Topic #2: The Problem of Divisions, 1 Corinthians 1.10-4.21

 

 

Lesson 2.1: Divisions and Wisdom
 Scripture 1 Corinthians 1.10-1.17

 

1 Cor 1.10-17 (KJV)
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.


Introduction to Lesson 2.1

One of the principal objectives of this letter was to correct the problems which had arisen in the Corinthian church; the first one the apostle mentions is the divisions which existed there. He urges the members of that church to come together and form bonds of unity (v. 10). Why did he do it? He had received information from one of the members he trusted who told him about the discord that was taking place (v. 11). These divisions occurred when the members began to align themselves with different religious teachers who became party leaders (v. 12). The sin and silliness of such divisions is obvious, because a church that has several religious leaders who embrace different religious convictions cannot be centers of unity. These so-called leaders had not benefitted the church, and its members did not profess allegiance to them in baptism (v. 13). These divisions arose for a couple of reasons; first, they had forgotten the common relationship which all Christians have with Christ; and second, they had a misconception  of the relationship which believers should have with their religious teachers. Paul expresses his gratitude that he had not given any of them an opportunity to misinterpret his intentions. He had baptized so few of them that no one could suspect him of wanting to make himself the head of the church or the leader of a party (vs. 14–16). Paul informed them of his real objective, which didn’t include baptizing anyone, but was simply to preach the Gospel to them (v. 17).


Commentary

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

Now I beseech you, brethren,
The apostle is aware of the many blessings bestowed on this church, which he mentioned in the preceding chapter, and now he proceeds to talk about the divisions and disagreements which were creating problems there; and in the kindest manner he pleads with them to take the proper steps to prevent rifts among them. Observe: he does not use his power and authority as an apostle of Jesus Christ to place them under rules and commands meant to regulate their behavior, which he might have done. Instead, he implores them to avoid disputes and any association that might cause a split within the church; and he treats them with loving-kindness, even calling them his brethren, as they were in a spiritual sense, being children of the same Father, members of the same body, and partakers of the same grace.

In the next verse we discover that he heard about the problems in the Corinthian church from someone in the household of a woman named Chloe (see Chloe; A Founding Mother of the Faith). The first thing he learned was that divisions and strife had arisen in the church, and that is what he is concerned with in this chapter. Those divisions had been caused by the influence of philosophy, and the ambition for respect and honor, and the eloquence of the preaching of the Corinthian teachers. He discusses this at length in 1 Corinthians 1:17-31, and 1 Corinthians 11. There he shows that the gospel did not depend for its success on the reasoning of philosophy, or the persuasiveness of eloquence.
 
by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
He makes his request in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, which he accurately concluded must carry weight and influence many of them, and to whom that name must be dear and precious, since they were called by Him. It shows, that he was not acting in his own name, and seeking his own reward; but was concerned for the name of Christ, and for His honor, which could be damaged by their conflict.
By the name. By the authority of His name; or it is a gesture of respect to Him as the common Lord of all; or it is on account of their infinite obligations to His mercy for calling them into such a wonderful state of salvation.

of our Lord Jesus Christ—whom Paul wishes to be all in all to the Corinthians, and therefore he names Him often in this chapter.

The reasons why Paul appeals to His name and authority here may be the following:
1. Christ should be regarded as the supreme Head and Leader of all the church. It was improper, therefore, that the church should be divided into portions, and its different parts enrolled under different banners.
2. "The whole family in heaven and earth" should be "named" after him (Ephesians 3:15), and should not be named after inferior and subordinate teachers. The reference to "the venerable and endearing name of Christ here stands beautifully and properly opposed to the various human names under which they were so ready to enlist themselves."-Doddridge. "There is hardly a word or expression that he [Paul] makes use of, but with relation and tendency to his present main purpose; as here, intending to abolish the names of leaders they had distinguished themselves by, he beseeches them by the name of Christ, a form that I do not remember he elsewhere uses."-Locke.
3. The main thing which Christ had enjoyed about his church was unity and mutual love, John 13:34[1], 15:17[2]; and for this he had most earnestly prayed in his memorable prayer, John 17:21-23[3]. It was good for Paul to appeal to the name of Christ—the sole Head and Lord of His church, and to reprimand those responsible for the divisions and strife which had arisen at Corinth.
4. Paul establishes his authority when he says; I beseech you … by the name of our Lord. Their reverence and love for Christ should induce them to yield obedience to the apostle. Since Paul’s own integrity has been called into question, he appeals to the authority of Christ.

that ye speak the same thing,
Still talking about the Corinthian church, he tells them to acknowledge the same truths, and express them with the same words; which shows the necessity and usefulness, of confessions and articles of faith, being made and agreed to by members of churches; and which should be drawn up in a form that uses words that are both sound and recognizable; new words and phrases shouldn’t be introduced, since that is often the means of bringing in new doctrines, and of raising disagreements and hostility; but using the same words to express truth is a very proper and prudent way to prevent them.

Christians should endeavor to be of the same mind, and to say the same things, in order to prevent divisions, which always hinder the work of God. On every essential doctrine of the Gospel all genuine Christians must agree. This general agreement is all that the apostle can have in mind, since no one would expect that everyone would perfectly agree in their views of all the minor points of religion. There are too many personal experiences that effect a man’s thinking and forms his opinions. Therefore, when there is not a unity of opinion, there must be a union of affections. Agreement on the greater things should extinguish all feuds and divisions about minor ones. Paul hints at the origin of these contentions; pride lies at the bottom and causes conflict and divisions. “Only by pride cometh contention” (Prov 13:10, KJV).

and that there be no divisions
"No schisms," in the Greek. If there were none, and all "were perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment," all would "speak the same thing."  There would be no variation in what they have to say. It is evident, from what follows, that, while the Corinthians had not separated into various church organizations, they had formed several parties within the church. Organized sects, claiming to be "branches of the church," were unknown till centuries later.  Today, many new churches begin as a split from the home church.

 No divisions—all divisions into contending parties and sects are contrary to the will of Christ; and by reference to the perfect unity which is the ideal for Christian relationships, Paul highlighted the broken fellowship which had marred the body of Christ in Corinth. Christ’s church was to be regarded as one, and indivisible, and not to be split into different factions, and arranged under the banners of different leaders (John 9:16[4], 1 Corinthians 11:18[5]).

among you;
Divisions within a congregation are usually caused by so-called improvements in doctrine, or worship; by forming new schemes of religion, new articles of faith, and modes of discipline.

but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
This is how every church should be; there should not only be love and affection between Christ’s Christians, such as existed between the first Christians, who were, of one heart and of one soul; but there should be agreement about both doctrine and discipline. Such an agreement is absolutely necessary to the peace, comfort, and well being of a church; for how should "two", and much less more than two, "walk together", unless they are "agreed?" (Amos 3:3 ).

but that ye be perfectly joined together. The word used here for "perfectly joined together," means to restore, mend, or repair that which is rent or disordered; to amend or correct that which is morally evil and erroneous, Galatians 6:1[6]; to render perfect or complete; to fit or adapt anything to its proper place, so that it shall be complete in all its parts, and harmonious; and therefore to compose and settle controversies, to produce harmony and order. Here, the apostle evidently desires that they should be united in their affection for one another and in their point of view; that every member of the church should occupy his appropriate place, like every member of a well-proportioned body, or part of a machine, has its appropriate place and use. See his wishes more fully expressed in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31.

But—"but rather."

perfectly joined together—the opposite word to "divisions." It is applied to healing a wound, or repairing a hole in fabric. This expression comes from a versatile Greek word, meaning "to adjust the parts of an instrument, the setting of bones by a physician, or the mending of nets." The general meaning would appear to be "put the broken unity back together"; and consequently, by the use of such an expression Paul states by implication the disunity of the church in Corinth.

in the same mind and in the same judgment.
The meaning is the view taken by the understanding, and the practical decision arrived at, as to what is to be done. The mind refers to things to be believed: the judgment is displayed outwardly in things to be done.

In the same mind cannot mean that they were to be united in precisely the same shades of opinion, which is impossible; but that their minds were to be predisposed towards each other with mutual good will, and that they should live in harmony.

 

11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

For it hath been declared unto me, of you, my brethren,
Just in case the advice the apostle had just given was thought to be impertinent and needless, and to be based upon groundless suspicions and jealousies of his, he indicates that he not only had some hints of their contentions (conflict, disagreements) and divisions, but he knew about the whole affair because a trusted friend had written to him about it. He knew all the disturbing details and the situation was clear to his mind; he had no reason at all to doubt the truth of this information; nor could they deny it, the proof was too strong, the evidence was undeniable.

He calls them my brethren, which was a token of the love and high regard he had for them, and his deep interest in their welfare, even as he prepares to administer a needed rebuke.
 
by them which are of the house of Chloe.
Some will say that Chloe was the name of a city in Cappadocia; but it is generally accepted by most commentators that it was the name of a woman. Horace mentions a woman with this name several times, and so does Martial.  Pausanias calls the goddess Ceres by the same name; she is the goddess of husbandry; the word signifying green grass of the field. The person the apostle speaks of was a woman that probably lived at Corinth, was a member of the church there, and was the head of a wealthy family; whom some suppose to have been the wife of Stephanas, and the mother of Fortunatus and Achaicus. It is likely that she became upset at the growing animosities, and disturbances causing divisions there. She wrote to the apostle, and gave him a complete account of the internal strife and divisions she was personally aware of, and then she asked him to use his power and influence as the Lord’s apostle to put a stop to it. Paul mentions this family by name, to show that he had not over reacted to some idle tale, received reports from someone with an axe to grind, or from only one person, but none of those things apply, because he had heard it from a family with a good reputation; and who could have no other interest in the matter, than the good of the church, and the glory of God.

The Corinthians also "wrote" to the apostle (1 Corinthians 7:1[8]), consulting with him concerning certain subjects; marriage, the eating of things offered to idols, the decorum to be observed by women in religious assemblies. But they didn’t say a word about the atrocities and turmoil that had crept in among them. That information reached Paul from other sources. That’s why his language when addressing those evils is, "It hath been declared unto me;" or "It is reported commonly" (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2[9]).He says all this before he refers to their letter, which shows that the letter did not give him any hint of those evils, which is an indication of its genuineness. Observe his prudence: He names the family, to show that his allegation is not without authority: he does not name the individuals, since that might place them in danger. He quietly implies that the information should have come to him directly from their leaders; after all they had formally consulted with him about matters of less importance.

This is the only mention of Chloe in the New Testament, making it impossible to solve the question of who she might have been. But most commentators agree she was a woman (probably a Christian) whose business interests caused her representatives (those in her household) to travel between Ephesus and Corinth. Paul is writing this letter from Ephesus, where these people from Chloe's household have visited him and told him about what is happening in the Corinthian church. These members of Chloe’s household could have been servants or her husband and children (1 Corinthians 16.17[10]), and they could have been the ones who carried the letter from the Corinthian church. But there is no evidence of this being the case.

Chloe
A Founding Mother of the Faith
Paul’s letter to the Corinthian church addresses the influences of their pagan culture. The apostle is disturbed that members of Chloe’s household have reported among believers disputes which threaten to divide the local body at Corinth. Regardless of whether or not Chloe was from Corinth, she was certainly well known by the Corinthians.
The term “household” could mean immediate members of her family, fellow-worshipers of the church meeting in her house, or servants belonging to her. Whether those in Chloe’s household were involved in the disputes or merely relating details about the group is uncertain. They did report the matter to the apostle Paul.
Little is known about Chloe, but Paul called her by name. This passage supports the fact that Paul had many women as friends and he esteemed them as co-heirs in the gospel. In contrast to their places in secular society, women were considered to be valuable and influential participants in the building up of the Christian church.

that there are contentions among you;
 The Corinthian church suffered from quarreling and conflict. This conflict made them divide up into "parties" or "cliques," each party having its own "leader." These are the voices of the competing parties:
i. "I am of Paul": There was the "Paul Party," who declared "We are following in the footsteps of the man who founded our church, the apostle Paul. We're the ones really right with God!"
ii. "I am of Apollos": There was the "Apollos Party," who declared "We are following in the footsteps of a man who is great in power and spiritual gifts, and an impressive man. We're the ones really right with God!" (Acts 18:24-25[11])
iii. "I am of Cephas": There was the "Peter Party," who declared "We are following in the footsteps of the man who is first among all the apostles. Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and he's our man. We're the ones really right with God!"
iv. "I am of Christ": There was the "Jesus Party," who declared "You all are so carnal, following after mere men. We are following in the footsteps of no one less than Jesus Himself. We're the ones really right with God!"
v. It is possible there was not an actual "Paul Party" or "Apollos Party" or "Peter Party" or "Jesus Party" at Corinth. Later in this letter, Paul writes that he transferred to himself and Apollos what was applicable to others (1 Corinthians 4:6[12]). The actual Corinthian factions may have been centered around people in the congregation, not the different apostles who ministered to them. Even if this is the case, the picture fits. Paul may be "changing the names to protect the innocent," or to show mercy to the guilty!
vi. The Corinthians' boasting about their "party leaders" was really boasting about themselves. It wasn't so much that they thought Apollos was great, but that they were great for following him.

Though division is ungodly, it is not wrong to make distinctions between churches and ministers. God has made different churches and different ministries with different callings and characters, because the job of preaching the gospel is too big for any one group.
i. I thank God that there are so many denominations. If there were not men who differed a little in their creeds, we would never get as much gospel as we do. God has sent different men to defend different kinds of truth; but Christ defended and preached all the truth. Christ's testimony was perfect.
ii. It is one thing to prefer one minister to another, but we cannot divide into cliques behind one minister or another. One minister of Christ may be rightly preferred to another. We ought to honor those the most whom God honors the most, either through giving him more of His Spirit, or by blessing his labors with success; but we should take care not to place our ministers on a pedestal and give them too much honor, because they are likely to fall off that pedestal, since they are mere men. We are not bound to think of every minister as our pastor, but we are bound to respect every minister, who by his doctrine and holy life lives up to his profession and holy calling.

 Jesus does not belong to any one "party.” These cliques that form in our churches ignore the truth of unity over all diversity in the church, even if they were all in the name of spirituality. Spiritual elitism is repulsive, no matter whose name it is practiced in. There was an old, contentious Quaker who went from one church to another, never finding the "true" church. Someone once said to him, "Well, what church are you in now?" He said, "I am in the true church at last." "How many belong to it?" "Just my wife and I, and I am not sure about her sometimes."

Even more foolish than "dividing Jesus" is to center parties in the church around men: Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? When Paul puts it like this, it shows how foolish it is to focus on anyone but Jesus.

Contentions— Altercations; produced by the divisions. Once they are divided, they must necessarily have contended (challenged the other party and competed against them), in order to support their respective parties.


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.

Now this I say, that everyone of you saith,
The apostle did not come to know about this churches problems from his own personal knowledge, but from the report he received from the house of Chloe; and he doesn’t include every individual member of this church, but many of them, and probably most of them, were split into the following factions, some being for one minister, and some for another. There appears to have been four rival parties. Those who professed to follow Paul; who was perhaps the most inspirational teacher. Then there were those who professed to follow Apollos, the gifted orator from Alexandria. Others claimed to follow Peter, or Cephas as he is called in the text. These may have been Judaists or, more likely, they were those who preferred Peter because he represented more authority, since he was with Christ in His earthly ministry. Then there were those who renounced all the others, and claimed only Christ. What special advantage this last party claimed is not certain. But they were as much bigoted and clannish as the others since they degraded the Lord to the level of a party leader. They acted like Christ died for only them, and that is wrong: “And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again” (2 Cor 5:15; KJV). The problem in this church was that they were not following this edict of the Holy Spirit or these words of Paul; “That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord” (1 Cor 1:31; KJV). They were glorifying men; one saying, I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollos. It is not that they formed definite parties, but they individually betrayed the spirit of unity by causing controversy in the name of their favorite teachers. Paul will not allow himself to be flattered even by those who made him their favorite. These probably were converted under his ministry. Those claiming to follow Apollos, Paul's successor at Corinth, were persons attracted by his metaphorical style (probably acquired in Alexandria), as contrasted with the "weak bodily presence" and "contemptible speech" of the apostle. Apollos, I assume, did not willingly foster this spirit of undue preference:  “And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another” (1 Cor 4:6; KJV); and, to discourage it, he would not repeat his visit just then: “As touching our brother Apollos, I greatly desired him to come unto you with the brethren: but his will was not at all to come at this time; but he will come when he shall have convenient time” (1 Cor 16:12;KJV).

I will stop at this point in this rather wordy explanation to give you three reasons for why divisions within a church body is wrong and hurts the cause of Christ:
1. The first reason why divisions ought to be avoided is because Christ seems by that means to be divide and torn in pieces. How can one person be the head of two different and disagreeing bodies?
2. Another reason is because they cannot without doing great injury to God; depend on men like they can on Christ.  They applaud when their favorite speaks the Gospel, but when another speaks the same Gospel, they loathe it. So these factions were called by the names of their teachers. Now Paul will instruct them not to show partiality to his name, not simply to keep from upsetting someone, but to show that he does not plead his own cause.
3. The third reason is taken from the act of baptism, in which we make a promise to Christ, calling also on the name of the Father, and the Holy Spirit. Therefore, although a man does not fall from the doctrine of Christ, yet if he depends upon certain teachers, and despises others, he forsakes Christ: but if he clings to Christ as his only master, he will hear him, no matter whom the word of Christ is taught by.

I am of Paul;
It has been questioned whether Paul meant to affirm that the different factions had actually taken the names which he identifies here, or whether he uses these names as examples, or to show the absurdity of their placing themselves under different leaders. Many of the ancient interpreters thought 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 for illustration. This opinion was based chiefly on what he says in 1 Corinthians 4:6: "And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes," etc. However, that may not be correct, because in this place Paul is not referring principally 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 whom God has highly favored should have a low estimate of their importance, since all their success depends on Him; (See 1 Corinthians 3:4-6[13]). Without a doubt, what Paul meant to say here is that there were factions within the church at Corinth, who were called by his name as well as that of Apollos, of Cephas, and of Christ. This is taking the sentence literally; and this was evidently the information which he had received from those who were of the family of Chloe. As to why the parties were formed under these leaders, 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 presumes, would place themselves under Paul and Apollos as their leaders, and the Jewish converts would position themselves under Peter and Christ. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter was primarily the apostle to the Jews (see Galatians 2:7[14]); and this circumstance might give rise to the divisions. Apollos succeeded Paul in Achaia, and had a successful ministry there: “And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18:27-28; KJV). Verse 18.24 identifies this man as “a certain Jew named Apollos…” These two original parties might be subdivided. A part of those who were loyal to Paul and Apollos might regard Paul with reverence, since he was the founder of the church, an apostle of Jesus Christ, he had a hand in their conversion, and his doctrine and conduct were extraordinarily pure. Another part might regard Apollos as the instrument of their conversion: he baptized some of them and was a preacher celebrated for his eloquence; was a solid, brave, and bold preacher of the Gospel, and they would look upon him as the head of their party.

and I of Apollos;
They quarreled about their ministers. Paul and Apollos were both faithful ministers of Jesus Christ, and contributed to their faith and joy: but those who were inclined to be quarrelsome broke into parties, and put their ministers at the head of their factions: some were advocates for Paul, perhaps because he was the most inspirational and spiritual teacher; others were advocates for Apollos, perhaps because he was the most eloquent speaker; some Cephas, or Peter, perhaps out of respect for his age, or because he was the apostle of the circumcision; and some were for none of them, but were devotees of Christ only. So, as it often happens, the best things in the world are corrupted, and the gospel along with its institutions, which are in perfect harmony are made the engines of disagreement, conflict, and fighting. This is not a criticism of our religion, but a very sad evidence of the corruption and depravity of human nature. Note, How far will pride carry Christians who are in opposition to one another! So far as to put Christ and his own apostles at odds, and make them rivals and competitors

and I of Cephas;
The church at Corinth had its beginning in the Jewish synagogue; Crispus being the chief ruler, and Sosthenes his successor (probably), were converts. That's why some Jewish leaven, though not as much as sprang up in Rome, is traceable to the Church there: Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I (2 Cor 11:22 ). Some were devoted to Peter, and opposed to both Paul and Apollos, whom they considered upstart ministers, by comparison to Peter, who was with Christ from the beginning, and saw his miracles, and heard his doctrines; and, besides, he had the apostleship and Gospel of the circumcision, and on this account they greatly appreciated him. It is supposed that this faction consisted of the converted Jews, who still retained a fondness for the ceremonies of the law: Peter was their minister, and they were called by his name.

Peter expressed his own peculiar views when teaching, and it is probable that his teaching was not regarded as entirely harmonious with that of Paul (See Galatians 2:11-17). Paul taught among the Gentiles 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 that he taught the observance of Jewish ceremonies, unlike Paul.

If it is wrong to boast "I am of Peter," how much worse is it to boast “I am of the Pope!"

 and I of Christ;
Some say these are the words of the apostle, declaring who he was of, and for, and belonged to; indicating that they, like him, should call no man on earth father, or master, or be called by any other name than that of Christian. Others consider them to be the words of the Corinthians, a small part of them who were very poor and objectionable and therefore mentioned last. They chose to be known and called by no other name than that of Christian; but I think that these were a faction and party that should be condemned along with the others. It’s true they were for Christ, but at the same time they were opposed 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 authority or regulation. The other factions attributed too much to the ministers of the Gospel, but these diminished and devalued them, and denied they were of any use and benefit. Some people who are for Christ may be guilty of using his name to deceive men.

We can’t know for certain why this sect professed to be the followers of Christ, but it was probably due to one of the two following causes:
(1) Either they had been in Judea and had seen the Lord Jesus, and as a result regarded themselves as exceptionally favored and distinguished; or,
(2) Most likely, because they refused to call themselves by the name of 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.

So, the question we should ask ourselves is this; “Are there three sinful parties in this verse, or four?” Despite the numerous opinions to the effect that "I of Christ" represents a sinful separation no less than the other slogans, this student cannot agree that there was ever anything wrong with a follower of the Lord claiming to be "of Christ." The persuasive assertions of many to the effect that the Christ party was a self-righteous little group insisting that they alone had the truth are as ridiculous as they are uncorroborated by any solid evidence. Paul himself declared that he was "of Christ:" “Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's” (2 Cor 10:7; KJV). Certainly, the evidence is strong enough that he made the declaration in this verse: the "AND I OF CHRIST" are not the words of a faction at Corinth but of the blessed apostle himself. William Barclay interpreted the verse this way: "I am of Paul; I am of Apollos; I am of Cephas - but I BELONG TO CHRIST." I am convinced that these are the words of Paul; However, I am also of the opinion that there was a faction in the church that was just as adamant about being “of Christ,” as the other factions were about being of their particular minister. How I wish that everyone could say along with Paul; “I am of Christ.”

This explains the nature of these quarrels. In almost all the apostolic churches there were quarrels between the Jewish and Gentile converts. It is apparent from the contents of this and of the following letter that these quarrels were instigated by false teachers (2 Corinthians 11:13[15]); that these teachers were Jewish (2 Corinthians 11:22[16]); 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.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

 The grounds for our allegiance to Christ are, first, that he is the Christ, the Son of the living God; second, that he has redeemed us; third, that we are consecrated to him in baptism. All these grounds are unique to Christ. There is no other being in the universe to which believers have a relationship with other than their common Lord. Therefore, there is one Christ, one redeemer, one baptism; Christians cannot be divided without violating the bond which binds them to Christ. The triple question, which is verse 13 was intended to expose and correct the sin of the three groups glorying in people, but they do not cast the slightest reflection upon those who were "of Christ," who are the only ones that could have given the proper response to Paul's question. The other three groups, however, would have been forced to confess that neither Paul, Apollos, nor Peter had been crucified for them, and that they had not been baptized into any of those three names.

Is Christ divided?
"Is Christ divided?" no; His human body was not to be divided; not one of His bones was to be broken, (John 19:36[17]; Psalms 34:20[18]); the seamless garment He wore was not to be rent asunder (torn), (John 19:23, 24[19]); nor is His mystical body, the church, to be torn in pieces by splits and divisions; nor is any part of His Gospel different from, or opposite to another part of it; His doctrine does not change from one minister to another (at least it shouldn’t). Christ is not, cannot be, or will He ever be divided from His Father; they have the same nature, despite the fact that He is a distinct person. And He cannot be divided from Him in His works and actions; He and His father were jointly involved in creation, providence, and grace. Christ’s two natures, human and divine, are united in one person; they are distinctly different, and are not to be confused, yet they are not to be separated like two distinct persons. Also, He cannot be divided from His Spirit; He and His Spirit are distinctly different persons, but they have the same nature, gifts and graces. The Spirit of God implants His grace in the hearts of men: it comes from Him; it makes men like Him, and glorifies Him. Christ cannot be divided from His church and people; there is a close union between them, and He dwells in them.

In this verse, Paul cries out “Is Christ divided?” and then he proceeds to show the indecency of their divisions and strife. His general argument is, that Christ alone ought to be regarded as their Head and Leader, and that His claims, arising from His crucifixion, and acknowledged by their baptism, were so unsurpassed that they could not be divided, and the respect due to Him should not be given to any other. The apostle therefore asks whether Christ was to be regarded as divided. Whether this single supreme Head and Leader of the church had become the Head of different opposing factions? The absolute absurdity of supposing that, showed the unseemliness of their aligning themselves with different leaders.
 
Was Paul crucified for you?
This question implies that the crucifixion of Christ had an influence in saving them which the sufferings of no other person could have, and that those sufferings were in fact the peculiarity which distinguished the Work of Christ, and caused it to be of so much value. The atonement was the grand, crowning work of the Lord Jesus. It was through this that all the Corinthian Christians had been transformed and pardoned. That work was so superlative that it could not have been performed by another. And since they all had been saved by that alone-they were all equally dependent on his merits for salvation-it was inappropriate that they should be split into contending factions, and located under different leaders. If there is anything that will call back Christians with different labels and of competing factions from the heat of strife, it is the recollection of the fact that they have been purchased by the same blood, and that the same Savior died to redeem them all. If this fact could be kept before their minds, it would put an end to angry strife everywhere in the church, and produce universal Christian love.

Paul was not out-of-line when he asked, Was Paul crucified for you?, because he had taught them a better doctrine; to be exact, that Christ was crucified for them, that he died for their sins, and had bought them with the price of his own precious blood; and therefore they were not to be the servants of men, or to call any man master, or to be called by his name. They belong to Him, because the Father has given them to Him; they are to be called Christians, because only Christ redeemed them by his blood; so that they were not their own, nor any other's; therefore, they ought to glorify him with their souls and bodies, which were his.

Their answer had to be an emphatic “no,” because Paul, the founder of their church, had not been crucified, and Cephas and Apollos could not make such a claim either. The glory of Christ then is not to be divided between him and his servants; neither is the unity of the body to be torn asunder, seeing that Christ is still one.

Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul;
Here, Paul solemnly reminds them that their baptism was an argument why they should not place themselves under different leaders; because it was by baptism that they had been firmly and entirely devoted to the service of the only Savior. The implied language is "Did I ever, baptize in my own name? Did I ever pretend to organize a sect, and say that I am its leader? Haven’t I always lead you to that Savoir into whose name and service you have been baptized?" I think it is remarkable that Paul refers to himself, and not to Apollos or Peter. He does not insinuate that the claims of Apollos or Peter were to be ridiculed or that their talents and influence were overrated, as a jealous rival would have done; but he lists only himself, as if he could serve as a bad example. Even though he was the founder of the church, and their spiritual father, he had never desired or intended that they should call themselves by his name; and in this way he showed the impropriety of their adopting the name of any man as the leader of a sect.

Locke said, “To be baptized into, or unto any one, is to be devoted to him, to receive and acknowledge him as a teacher, professing to receive his rules, and to be governed by his authority. But there is only One true authority in this matter, and He said: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matt 28:19; KJV). The apostle did not make-believe he was the author of a new revelation, or the emissary of a new religion, but was a preacher of the Gospel, and an administrator of the ordinances of Christ; as such he baptized no one in his name; but those he personally baptized were devoted to the worship and service of Christ, and not to the service of men, and therefore, they are not to be called by their names.

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

In Verses 14-16, the apostle gives an account of his ministry among them.

I thank God that I baptized none of you
The Alexandrian copy and the Syriac version reads thus, "I thank my God"; it’s not that the apostle disliked the ordinance of baptism, or the actual doing of it; and much less that he thought it was wrong for him to perform it; and he was not displeased with those persons who wanted to be baptized by him; but on the contrary, he rejoiced when new converts submitted to it; but when some persons in the church at Corinth accused him of baptizing in his own name and then aligning those New Christians under his banner, he was very thankful that the majority of them were baptized by deacons or other ministers. For the reason why Paul did not baptize many, see 1 Corinthians 1:17.  As a general rule, baptizing was a job assigned to the deacons—“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days” (Acts 10:48)—rather than to the apostles, whose responsibility it was to establish and oversee the churches. The deacons had a better opportunity to give the new converts the preliminary instructions to baptism.

Apparently, some of the Corinthian Christians (probably those of the "Paul Party") made a big deal of the fact that they had been baptized by Paul, and that became one of the issues that was dividing the church.

Preaching was more important to Paul that Baptizing, but he was not opposed to baptizing. It is apparent from this attitude that baptism is not essential to salvation. If it were, that is, if the teaching of baptismal regeneration were true, then Paul could never thank God that he baptized so few in Corinth, and he, as an evangelist, could never say Christ did not send me to baptize. If he thought it was essential he would have kept track of those he baptized, as he did his converts; he would not have said: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other (v. 16). Also, I do not think he was a sacramentalist, because when he says, I thank God that I baptized none of you, it clearly shows that he did not consider baptism essential to salvation or the means to obtaining forgiveness.

It is also evident from this passage that the individual doing the baptizing doesn't really affect the validity of the baptism. Those baptized by the great apostle Paul had no advantage over those baptized by some unknown believer. The power of baptism is in the spiritual reality it represents.

but Crispus and Gaius.
Chrispus was the chief ruler of the Jewish synagogue at Corinth, who upon hearing the apostle, and believing in Christ, was baptized by him (Acts 18:8[20]);and the latter was a very generous and hospitable man, and was the apostle's host while he was at Corinth (Romans 16:23[21]).

These two were probably among the first Corinthian converts by Paul, who founded the church. Dr. Lightfoot observes: "If this be Gaius, or Caius, to whom the third epistle of John was written, which is very probable when the first verse of that epistle (3 John 1) is compared with Romans 16:23, then it will appear probable that John wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians. I wrote, he says, unto the Church—What Church? Certainly it must have been some particular Church which the apostle has in view, and it probably was the Church where Gaius himself resided. And if this is true, we may look for Diotrephes (3 John 9) in the Corinthian Church; and the author of the schism of which the apostle complains.”


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

Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
The Alexandrian copy, and the Vulgate Latin version, and some others, read, "lest anyone should say that ye were baptized in my name"; and the Ethiopic version renders it, "that ye might not say we have been baptized in his name". This gives the real reason behind why the apostle was so thankful he had baptized so few of the members of this church, which he states as “in case either some should rebuke him for having done it in his own name, and for desiring to be honored for doing it; or incase others should believe that since they were baptized by him, they should also be called by his name and belong to his sect. But this was not something that Paul wanted to happen, and God made sure that it would not happen.

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

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas
Before this he said he had baptized only Crispus and Gaius; but here he corrects himself, and remarks that he had also baptized the household of Stephanas, who is thought by the Greek writers to be the jailer, who was converted and baptized by the apostle at Philippi, but was now living in Corinth, and had become famous and a person useful to the apostle. At this point, it should be noted that this incident does not in any way support infant baptism, because first it must be proved that there were infants in this family, and that they were baptized.  Then again, it is obvious that the household of Stephanas consisted of adult, converted, and very helpful persons; they were the first fruits of Achaia, and were engaged in the ministry of the saints: “I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints,)” (1 Cor 16:15; KJV). Paul is saying that Stephanas and his family have been enthusiastic, fixated followers of Christ; they were the main supporters of the work of God in Achaia, and Paul’s first converts there.   He was one of the three messengers sent to inform the apostle of the state of the church in Corinth, and to deliver the letter that Chloe wrote to him.

I stated in the paragraph above that this incident doesn’t support infant baptism, but out of fairness to those who believe and support this practice, I would like to make the following comments: 
1. Household. The family. The word comprises the whole family, including adults, domestics, slaves, and children. Epenetus is supposed to be one of this family.
2. It was the custom, for the apostles to baptize the entire household, whatever the age might be, including domestics, slaves, and children. The head of a family gave up the entire household to God.
3. Under the old dispensation, whenever anyone professed Judaism or entered into covenant with God as one of his people, all his children and dependants, that is, all whom he represented, were included in the covenant and received circumcision as its sign. In the same way, under the Gospel, when a Jew or Gentile joined the Christian church, his children received baptism and were recognized as members of the Christian church—“And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway” (Acts 16:33; KJV).
4. The three statements that precede this one do not support either infant baptism or household baptism, since; once again we have no proof that the baptism was intended to provide salvation or forgiveness of sins. It’s more probable that it was for church membership. Also, those that were baptized could have been truly saved. See verse 14 under the heading “I thank God that I baptized none of you,” for additional comments.

Besides,
that is, "besides" the above mentioned persons,
 
I know not whether I baptized any other;
What Paul means to say may simply be, "I know who I baptized there; but I don’t know who of the original members of the church at Corinth may have moved away, or died; I don’t know who might have moved to Corinth from other places where I have preached and baptized, and consequently I cannot know whether I have baptized some of your present membership." It is evident, however, that if he had baptized any others, the number was small.

Could Paul have thanked God for his own neglect of duty? That’s not how these verses are to be understood; the proper interpretation is that, in view of the present circumstances within the church at Corinth, he is grateful that he baptized so few of them, because some there are claiming that he had baptized in his own name, made disciples for himself, and set himself up as the head of a sect. The truth is, he left it up to other ministers to baptize, while he applied his efforts to more useful work, and filled up his time with preaching the gospel. He thought his job was to preach, because preaching was more important than baptizing. He had assistants that could baptize when no one else was available, but there were none that could preach as well as he could; that’s why he says, Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. The primary business Paul performed among them was to preach the gospel and that was more important than baptizing (v. 17), the cross (v. 18[22]), Christ crucified, v. 23[23]. 


17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

In this verse, Paul speaks of his method of preaching the gospel: Not with (the) wisdom of words, the enticing words of man’s wisdom: “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Cor 2:4; KJV). And not with a flourish of oratory consisting of philosophical language which the Greeks were so proud of, and there were many in the Corinthian Church who preferred this type of preacher; and consequently aligned themselves with them and opposed the ministry of the apostle. He did not preach the gospel in this manner, for fear that the cross of Christ should be of no effect, because the success of such preaching might be attributed to the powerful oratory of those who spread it, and not to the plain doctrine of a crucified Jesus, which would diminish or overshadow the honor of the cross.

For Christ sent me not to baptize,
Some think the apostle is referring to his particular mission from Christ, (Acts 26:16[23]) in which no mention is made of his administering the ordinance of baptism; but no doubt he had the same mission the rest of the apostles had, which was to baptize as well as preach; and indeed, if he had not been sent at all to baptize, it would have been unlawful for him to have administered baptism to any person at all; but, as we have mentioned before, Paul believed his main activity should be preaching Christ crucified to a lost world. As for baptizing, he left that work to those preachers who traveled with him, or who followed him from place-to-place.

Paul doesn’t mean to belittle baptism; he highly regarded it and he praised it in his Roman epistle: Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?...Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life; (Romans 6:3-4, KJV). He baptized some of his first converts; and would have baptized more, except he and the other apostles decided that their principle mission was to give their time and energy to preaching the Gospel, starting churches, and overseeing the churches in general. Actually, I would be surprised if Paul was physically able to do much baptizing, because from what I have learned his appearance was unimpressive, suggesting that he was physically weak. As far as we know, Jesus did not baptize anyone, and that is backed up by John’s Gospel: When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,…(Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)…He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee (John 4.1-3; KJV). See verses 14-16, for more on Paul’s teaching on baptism.
sent me--literally, "as an apostle."

but to preach the Gospel:
By now, it should be sufficiently evident that baptizing was considered to be an inferior function, and although every minister of Christ is qualified to administer it, the apostles had more important work. Preparing these adult heathens for baptism by the continual preaching of the word was of much greater consequence than baptizing them when they had been prepared to receive and profit by it. Paul was an extremely well-qualified preacher of the Gospel, because God had given him gifts that enabled him to be very effective. This was what he was sent to do, rather than the other, and he did it "not with wisdom of words".

not with wisdom of words,
Paul had been educated in Jewish learning at the feet of Gamaliel, but when preaching the Gospel of Christ crucified he laid aside his learning. He preached a crucified Jesus in plain language, and told the people that that Jesus who was crucified at Jerusalem was the Son of God and Savior of men and that all who wanted to be saved must repent of their sins, and believe in him, and submit to his lordship and laws. This truth didn’t need to be dressed-up in fancy words; it had its own majestic light that outshined everything else, and accomplished its purposes by divine authority and through the operation of the Holy Spirit, without any human assistance. The plain preaching of a crucified Jesus was more powerful than all the oratory and philosophy of the heathen world.

Paul’s method of preaching was opposed by a sect among the Jews called the Karaites who espoused a technique called Scholastic divinity, or the art of debate, and that may be what he is referring to here—those who speak with "wisdom of words". He declares he was not sent with, or to preach with, words of man's wisdom, with human eloquence and oratory, with great swelling words of vanity, but in a plain, humble, modest manner; this is the reason the false teachers despised him, and attempted to tear down his ministry: but he chose this way and manner of preaching for a reason, as we will see in the next line.

It is good that we remind ourselves that when God was about to publicize his laws he chose Moses as the instrument, who appears to have been handicapped by some natural impediment in his speech, so that Aaron his brother was obliged to be his spokesman to Pharaoh; and that, when God had resolved to publish the Gospel to the Gentile world he uses Paul who  describes himself in a very disparaging way—“Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you…… For his letters, say they, are weighty and powerful; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible” (2 Cor 10:1, 10; KJV).

Dio Chrysostom described the Greek wise men this way: “They croak like frogs in a marsh; they are the most wretched of men, because, though ignorant, they think themselves wise; they are like peacocks, showing off their reputation and the number of their pupils as peacocks do their tails. With this rather comical description in view, it could be that Paul used the word "wisdom" in a sarcastic sense, and in this phrase it means the same as today’s word "gobbledegook.”

lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect;
Paul is telling us to “be careful,” because certain preaching methods weaken the message and make the cross of Christ ineffective. There are styles that tickle men’s ears and fancies with the eloquence of speech, the sophistication of diction, and accuracy of expression, the cadency of words, and the beauty of the oration, so that the true use, end, and design of the doctrine of a crucified Christ is defeated; because the success of the ministry is attributed to the force of enticing words, and the strength and persuasion of oratory, and not to the force of divine power applying the doctrine of the cross to the hearts of sinners. Think about the apostle’s preaching; if he had either substituted human wisdom for the doctrine of the cross, or had presented that doctrine as a philosophy, his preaching would have been powerless. It would lose its divine element and become nothing more than human wisdom. Whatever obscures the cross deprives the Gospel of its power. The preaching of the gospel depends for its success on the simple power of its truths, conveyed by the Holy Spirit to the hearts of men; and not on the skill of the preacher.

How sobering this is! The great gospel of Jesus Christ, the very power of God unto salvation - made empty and ineffective through the pride and cleverness of men! This danger was constantly on the mind of the apostle Paul, and should be constantly on the mind of any preacher or teacher.

Paul here through this and the two following chapters, expounds a new dialogue—the effect of philosophy on the gospel. The reasons why he introduces this topic, and dwells upon it at such length, are not obvious, but are thought to have been the following:
1. He had incidentally mentioned his own preaching, and that he had been set apart for that purpose.
2. His authority had been called into question by the false teachers at Corinth.
3. The basis of this, or the reason why they undervalued him, was probably, that he had not spoken with the eloquence of manner and the graces of oratory which they held in such high regard.
4.  They had depended upon their charm, graceful rhetoric, and subtle implementation for success in captivating the Greeks.
5. In every way, therefore, the high regard they had for rhetoric and philosophy in the church, had tended to bring the pure gospel into disregard; to produce factions; and to destroy the authority of the apostle. It was necessary, therefore, to thoroughly examine the subject, and to expose the real negative influence of philosophy.

cross of Christ--the essence and substance of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 1:23[23], 2:2[25]),

be made of none effect--literally, "be made void" (Romans 4:14[26]); namely, by men thinking more of  setting forth the Gospel with human reasoning and eloquence, than of the Gospel of Christ crucified itself; the sinner's only remedy, and God's highest exhibition of love.


  _____________________            
[1] John 13:34 (KJV) A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
[2] John 15:17 (KJV) These things I command you, that ye love one another
[3] John 17:21-23 (KJV) That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
[4] John 9:16 (KJV) Therefore said some of the Pharisees, This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Others said, How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles? And there was a division among them.
[5] 1 Cor 11:18 (KJV) For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
[6] Gal 6:1 (KJV) Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
[7] Luke 6:40 (KJV) The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.
[8] 1 Cor 7:1 (KJV) Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. The Corinthians in their letter had probably asked questions which tended to belittle marriage, and had implied that it was good to break it off when engaged or married to an unbeliever.   good -- that is, “fitting,” because of "the present distress"; that is, the unsettled state of the world in general and the Corinthian church in particular, and the likelihood of persecutions tearing rudely asunder those bound by marriage ties. Heb 13:4, in opposition to ascetic and Romish notions of superior sanctity in celibacy, declares, "Marriage is HONORABLE IN ALL." Another reason why in some cases celibacy may be a matter of Christian expediency is stated in 1Co 7:34, 35, "that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction." But these are exceptional cases, and in exceptional times, such as those times Paul lived in.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
[9]   1 Cor 5:1-2 (KJV) It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.  And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
[10] 1 Cor 16:17 (KJV) I am glad of the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus: for that which was lacking on your part they have supplied.
[11] Acts 18:24-25 (KJV) And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. Verses 24, 25. a . . . Jew named Apollos -- a contraction from Apollonius. born at Alexandria -- the celebrated city of Egypt on the southeastern shore of the Mediterranean, called after its founder, Alexander the Great. Nowhere was there such a fusion of Greek, Jewish, and Oriental custom, and an intelligent Jew educated in that city could hardly fail to manifest all these elements in his mental character. eloquent – a product of his Alexandrian culture. and mighty in the scriptures -- his eloquence enabling him to express clearly and enforce skillfully what, as a Jew, he had gathered from a diligent study of the Old Testament Scriptures. came to Ephesus – we do not know what his errand was. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord . . . knowing only the baptism of John -- He was instructed, probably, by some disciple of the Baptist, in all of John's teaching concerning Jesus, but no more: he had yet to learn of the new light which the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost had thrown upon the Redeemer's death and resurrection; as appears from Ac 19:2, 3. being fervent in the spirit -- His heart warm, and conscious, probably, of his gifts and attainments, he burned to impart to others the truth he had himself received. he spake and taught diligently -- rather, "accurately" (it is the same word as is rendered "perfectly" in Ac 18:26).
[12] 1 Cor 4:6 (KJV) And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.
[13] 1 Cor 3:5-6 (KJV) For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
[14] Gal 2:7 (KJV) But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
[15] 2 Cor 11:13 (KJV) For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
[16] 2 Cor 11:22 (KJV) Are they Hebrews? so am I. Are they Israelites? so am I. Are they the seed of Abraham? so am I.
[17] John 19:36 (KJV) For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
[18] Psalms 34:20 (KJV) He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.
[19] John 19:23-24 (KJV) Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.
[20] Acts 18:8 (KJV) And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. Crispus the chief ruler of the synagogue—this person held an office of considerable consequence; and therefore his conversion to Christianity must have been very galling to the Jews. The chief ruler of the synagogue presided over all the assemblies, interpreted the law, decide what things were lawful and unlawful, punished the unruly, excommunicated the rebellious, legitimatized marriages, and issued divorces.
[21] Romans 16:23 (KJV) Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus a brother. Gaius mine host—Gaius in Greek is the same as Caius in Latin, which was a very common name among the Romans. St. Luke (Acts 19:29) mentions one Gaius of Macedonia, who was exposed to much violence at Ephesus in the tumult excited by Demetrius the silversmith against St. Paul and his companions; and it is very possible that this was the same person. He is here called not only the host of St. Paul, but also of the whole Church: that is, he provided lodging for the apostles who came from different places, as well as the messengers of the Churches. All made his house their home; and he must have been a person with considerable property to be able to afford this expense; and of much piety and love for the cause of Christ, or else he would not have employed his property in this way.
[22] 1 Cor 1:18 (KJV) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For the preaching of the cross—The doctrine of the cross is the doctrine that proclaims salvation to a lost world through the crucifixion of Christ. To those who believe this doctrine of Christ crucified is the power of God to their salvation; it is divinely effective to deliver them from all the power, guilt, and pollution of sin.
[23] 1 Cor 1:23 (KJV) But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But we preach Christ crucified. Not merely Christ, but Christ Crucified; a Crucified Savior. Unto the Jews a stumbling-block. Because they had an entirely different conception of the Christ. Yet it was predicted that he would be “a stone of stumbling” (Matt 21:42). Unto the Greeks foolishness. It seemed to the Greeks that a person who died such a disgraceful death could not be divine.
 [24] Acts 26:16 (KJV) But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee. To make thee a minister—one who is under the guidance and authority of another; an assistant, or servant. So Paul was to act solely under the authority of Jesus Christ. And a witness—A martyr. Though this word literally means a witness, yet we apply it only to such persons as have borne testimony to the truth of God at the hazard and expense of their lives. In this sense, also, ancient history states St. Paul to have been a witness; for it is said he was beheaded at Rome, by the command of Nero.
[25] 1 Cor 2:2 (KJV) For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. I determined not to know any thing among you—satisfied that the Gospel of God alone could make you wise unto salvation, I determined to teach nothing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified, as the foundation of all true wisdom, piety, and happiness. I shall proclaim no other doctrine among you.
[26] Romans 4:14 (KJV) For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: For if they which are of the law be heirs—If the blessing is to be earned by obedience to the law. faith is made void—the whole divine method is subverted.

 

Contact Us with your questions and comments!

 There are 5 websites by this author:

http://harmonyofthegospels.yolasite.com (Life of Christ)

http://teachingsermonsforpastorsandlaymen.yolasite.com (sermons)

http://theepistlesofpaul.yolasite.com (Titus and Jude)

http://paulsepistletotheromans.yolasite.com (Romans)

http://theperiodofthejudges.yolasite.com (Judges)

Please review them and use them as the Lord leads you.

May God bless His precious word!!

Make a Free Website with Yola.