Father,

As we begin to study how Paul handles the Corinthian problem of growth, show us your will, and keep us anchored to the unfailing word of truth. Help us apply Bible principles and apply newly formed wisdom to our relationships. We want to give you the power, glory and praise, and tell everyone who will listen. Amen.

Key Word : divisions

The Apostle Paul now considers the first major burden upon his heart, the Corinthian divisions. The apostle will not leave it until he writes these words in, (1 Cor 4:21), "What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?" Facts reported by servants from Chloe's house have given him cause for concern as described in(1:10-17).

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.

His initial words here are an appeal for unity, to be perfectly joined together. A versatile Greek word, used here of the adjustment of parts of an instrument, of the setting of bones by a physician, of the mending of nets, is also used by Galen who uses it for a surgeon's mending a joint and Herodotus for composing factions. See 2 Cor 13:11; Gal 6:1 as well as of the outfitting of a ship for a voyage. The appeal Paul uses here is adjusting to each other, with a view towards unity.

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.

The words "which are of the household" are not in the Greek, though they correctly interpret the Greek, "those of Chloe." Whether it is the children, the kinsfolk, or the servants of Chloe we do not know. It is uncertain also whether Chloe lived in Corinth or Ephesus, probably Ephesus because to name her in Corinth might get her into trouble. Already Christianity was working a social revolution in the position of women and slaves. The name Chloe means tender greenness and was one of the statements concerning, Demeter, the goddess of agriculture. Contentions or erides in English, unseemly wranglings (as opposed to discussing), that were leading to the schisms.

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.

The party of Apollos suggests a group who preferred the more polished style and rhetoric of Apollos. The party of Cephas apparently doubted Paul's credentials, preferring the link with Jerusalem by Peter. The ones who were of Christ disdained all connections with the others, thus becoming a party themselves. Still a fourth group in recoil from the use of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, and with "a spiritually proud utterance" that assumes a relation to Christ not true of the others. "Those who used this cry shout out loud their common watchword as their own identity".

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

By asking these rhetorical questions Paul gets to the heart of the matter with his Corinthian brethren.

Is Christ divided? Can Christ be split into different sects and parties? Has He different and opposing value systems? Is the Messiah to appear following different persons? Was Paul crucified for you?

As the Gospel proclaims salvation is through the crucified Christ only, has Paul poured out his blood as atonement for our sins? This is impossible, for Christ’s disciples we should be, who has bought us by his blood.

Were we baptized in the name of Paul? To be baptized in, or into the name of one, implied that the baptize person was a disciple of him into whose name, religion, etc., he was baptized. As if he said: Did I ever attempt to set up a new religion, one founded on my own authority, and coming from myself?

On the contrary, has Paul not preached Christ crucified for the sin of the world; and called upon all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, to believe on Him?

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

It is clear that he does not depreciate baptism here; he simply puts it in its proper place, as a symbolic act pointing to the real fact of identification with Christ by faith. The prominence and importance of these two may explain why Paul baptized them.

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

Paul feels that already some in Corinth were laying emphasis on the person who baptizes someone, whether Peter or some one else. It is to be recalled that Jesus himself baptized no one (John 4:2) to avoid this very kind of controversy.

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

Paul calls Stephanus a first-fruit of Achaia, (1 Cor 16:15) and so earlier than Crispus and he was one of the three who came to Paul from Corinth (1 Cor 16:17), clearly a family that justified Paul's personal attention.

Paul casts no reflection on baptism, for he could not with his conception of it as the picture of the new life in Christ (Rom 6:2-6), but he clearly denies here that he considers baptism essential to the remission of sin or the means of obtaining forgiveness.

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.

But to preach the gospel alla (NT:235) euangelizesthai (NT:2097). This is Paul's idea of his mission from Christ, as Christ's apostle, to be a gospelizer. This led, of course, to baptism, as a result, but Paul usually had it done by others as Peter at Caesarea ordered the baptism to be done, apparently by the six brethren with him (Acts 10:48). Paul is fond of this late Greek verb from euangelion (NT:2098) and sometimes uses both verb and substantive as in 1 Cor 15:1 "the gospel which I gospelized unto you."

Not in wisdom of words ouk (NT:3756) en (NT:1722) sofia (NT:4678) logou (NT:3056). Note ou (NT:3756), not mee (NT:3361) (the subjective negative), construed with apesteilen (NT:649) rather than the infinitive. Not in wisdom of speech (singular). Preaching was Paul's forte, but it was not as a pretentious philosopher or professional rhetorician that Paul appeared before the Corinthians (1 Cor 2:1-5). Some who followed Apollos may have been guilty of a fancy for external show, though Apollos was not a mere performer and juggler with words. But the Alexandrian method as in Philo did run to dialectic subtleties and luxuriant rhetoric (Lightfoot).

In Paul's preaching the Cross of Christ is the central theme. Hence, Paul did not fall into the snare of too much emphasis on baptism nor into too little emphasis on the death of Christ. This expression shows clearly the stress which Paul laid on the death of Christ, as a crowning point of a life ordained for salvation"