1Cor 1:12, 3:4-5 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 12. 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" οτι might be translated hers because or since , as giving a reason for his affirming 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 , "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 favoured should have a low estimate of their importance, since all their success depends on God. See . 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 . 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, ; and this circumstance might give rise to the division. Apollos succeeded Paul in Achaia, and laboured successfully there. See . These two original parties might be again subdivided. A part of those who adhered to Paul and Apollos might regard Paul 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. Comp. . He was regarded particularly as the apostle to the Jews, . He had his own peculiarity of views in teaching, and it is probable that his teaching was not regarded as entirely harmonious with that of Paul. See . 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: (1.) Either that they had been in Judea and had seen the Lord Jesus, and thus regarded themselves as particularly favoured and distinguished; or, (2.) 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. (&) "I say" "I mean" (a) "of Apollos" (b) "of Cephas"

1 Corinthians 1:12

Verse 12. 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" οτι might be translated hers because or since, as giving a reason for his affirming 1Cor 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 1Cor 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 favoured should have a low estimate of their importance, since all their success depends on God. See 1Cor 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 laboured successfully there. See Acts 18:27,28. These two original parties might be again subdivided. A part of those who adhered to Paul and Apollos might regard Paul 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. Comp. Jn 1:42. He was regarded particularly as the apostle to the Jews, Gal 2:7. He had his own peculiarity 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:

(1.) Either that they had been in Judea and had seen the Lord Jesus, and thus regarded themselves as particularly favoured and distinguished; or,

(2.) 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.

(&) "I say" "I mean" (a) "of Apollos" Acts 19:1 (b) "of Cephas" Jn 1:42

1 Corinthians 3:4-5

Verse 4. For while one saith, etc. 1Cor 1:12.

(c) "I am of Paul" 1Cor 1:12 Verse 5. Who then is Paul, etc. 1Cor 1:13. Why should a party be formed which should be named after Paul? What has he done or taught that should lead to this? What eminence has he that should induce any to call themselves by his name? He is on a level with the other apostles; and all are but ministers, or servants, and have no claim to the honour of giving names to sects and parties. God is the fountain of all your blessings, and whoever may have been the instrument by whom you have believed, it is improper to regard them as in any sense the fountain of your blessings, or to arrange yourselves under their name.

But ministers. Our word minister, as now used, does not express the proper force of this word. We, in applying it to preachers of the gospel, do not usually advert to the original sense of the word, and the reasons why it was given to them. The original word διακονοι denotes, properly, servants, in contradistinction from masters, (Mt 20:26, 23:11, Mk 9:35, 10:43;) and denotes those of course who are in an inferior rank of life. They had not command, or authority, but were subject to the command of others. It is applied to the preachers of the gospel, because they are employed in the service of God; because they go at his command, and are subject to his control and direction. They have not original authority, nor .are they the source of influence or power. The idea here is, that they were' the mere instruments or servants by whom God conveyed all blessings to the Corinthians; that they as ministers were on a level, were engaged in the same work, and that therefore it was improper for them to form parties that should be called by their names.

By whom. Through whom, διων, by whose instrumentality. They were not the original source of faith, but were the mere servants of God in conveying to them the knowledge of that truth by which they were to be saved.

Even as the Lord gave to every man. God is the original Source of faith; and it is by his influence that any one is brought to believe. Rom 12:3,6. There were diversities of gifts among the Corinthian Christians, as there are in all Christians. And it is here implied,

(1.) that all that any one had was to be traced to God as its Author;

(2.) that he is a Sovereign, and dispenses his favours to all as he pleases;

(3.) that since God had conferred those favours, it was improper for the Corinthians to divide themselves into sects, and call themselves by the name of their teachers, for all that they had was to be traced to God alone. This idea, that all the gifts and graces which Christians had were to be traced to God alone, was one which the apostle Paul often insisted on; and if this idea had been kept before the minds and hearts of all Christians, it would have prevented no small part of the contentions in the church, and the formation of no small part of the sects in the Christian world.

(d) "even as the Lord" Rom 12:3,6, 1Pet 4:11.