Jesus was not divided

JESUS WAS NOT DIVIDED
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
1 Corinthians1:13 Is Christdivided? Was Paul
crucifiedfor you? Were you baptized into the name of
Paul?
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
Divisions
1 Corinthians 1:13
J. Waite
The "contentions" in the Church at Corinth, the report of which had reached
St. Paul, and which he here rebukes, were probably not the outgrowth of
definite party divisions, but were individual differences as to who among the
greatChristian leaders should receive superior honour. They were individual
strifes, however, that might develop into very serious divisions - schisms
(σχίσματα)that would utterly rend asunder the fellowship of the Church. It
must have been deeply painful to the apostles that they should thus be setin
rivalry with one another, as if they were seeking the ends of their own vain
ambition, and still more that their names should be permitted in any way to
obscure the glory of the Name of their Divine Master. "Is Christ divided?"
The question suggests -

I. THE ESSENTIALUNITY OF CHRIST. Considerdifferent aspects ofthis
unity. As it regards:
1. His own person. In him we see the blending of the Divine and human in one
glorious personality, the balance and harmony of all conceivable forms of
moral excellence. No discordin his being, no flaw in his character, no failure
in his life; he stands before us in every light, on every side, a complete,
symmetrical, and perfectwhole.
2. His redeeming purpose and the means by which he effects it. He comes to
deliver men from the power of evil, to turn them from their iniquities, to
restore them to fellowship with God. The end he seeks is the same for all.
"There is no distinction; for all have sinned," etc. (Romans 3:22-24). And as
all human distinctions are lostin the common need of salvation, so in Christ
the same possibility of goodis placedwithin the reach of all: "As through one
trespass the judgment came unto all men," etc. (Romans 5:18). There is but
one gospelmessage,and it is "the power of God unto salvation to every one
that believeth."
3. The life with which he inspires those who receive him. In whomsoeverit
dwells this life is always one - one in its affections and energies, inthe laws of
its development, in the fruit it bears, in the ends to which it leads. The
inspiration of a common spirit life is the grand uniting principle amid endless
individual diversities. "By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body," etc.
(1 Corinthians 12:13).
4. His authority as the sole Head of the Church. There can be no divided
authority. In the very nature of things, Christ can own no rival. The body can
have but one living head, the source of informing, guiding, and controlling
power. Its ownunity lies mainly in the recognitionof this: "One Lord, one

faith, one baptism," etc. (Ephesians 4:5, 6; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 1 Corinthians
12:5).
II. THE EVIL OF EVERYTHING THAT VIOLATES THIS UNITY. The
divisions of the Church of Corinth were deprecatedby the apostle as an
offence againstthe fundamental principles and laws of the Christian
fellowship. All such divisions have certain marked features of evil.
1. They exalt that which is subordinate and accidentalat the expense of the
vital and supreme. The form of truth is placedabove the spirit, doctrine above
life, the instrument above the power, appearancesabove realities, the shadow
above the substance - creeds, systems, men, above Christ (1 Corinthians 3:4,
5). Examine them closely, and you find that all "contentions" in the Church
mean this.
2. They engendermutual animosities which are destructive of the fellowship
of a common life. Here lies the heart and core of the evil. Mere outward
diversities are not so much to be dreaded. Schismis a thing of the spirit. It lies
not in the formal separations that consciencemaydictate, but in the fierce
antagonisms that may unhappily, but not necessarily, grow out of them.
Sectarianismconsists notin the frank outspokenassertionofindividual
convictions, but in the bitterness and uncharitableness with which one
consciencemay assertitselfagainstall other consciences.So that the very
spirit of schism may inspire that passionfor uniformity which would suppress
individual liberty of thought and speechand action. The true schismatics are
these who by their intolerance create divisions. Whatevertends to check the
flow of spiritual fellowship violates the law of Christ. We do well carefully to
watchagainstthe estrangementofheart that difference of religious opinion
and ecclesiasticalpractice too often generates, "giving diligence to keepthe
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace"(Ephesians 4:3).

3. They bring public dishonour on the Name of Christ. That Name is the
symbol of a Divine reconciliation - the reconciliationofman to man, as well as
man to God. But in this case it is made the cause of separations. Christcame
to bind men togetherin a true brotherhood; but thus he is made a "divider."
"Where jealousyand factionare there is confusion and every evil work"
(James 3:16). And thus the very essentialprinciple and purpose of the
Saviour's mission is falsified, and occasionis given to the enemy to blaspheme.
Few things have a more disastrous effectin discrediting the Christian cause
than the bitterness of contending parties in that Church which is "the pillar
and ground of the truth."
4. They squander and dissipate energies that ought rather to be devoted to
active service in the Lord's kingdom. Think of the waste ofspiritual force
these divisions involve! If half the enthusiasm mere partisanship has
engenderedhad been expended on some real substantialwork for the goodof
humanity and the glory of God, how blessedthe results might have been! In
one sense, ofcourse, allzeal for truth, however subordinate the position of the
particular truth may be, is for the goodof humanity and the glory of God; but
to be contending for the maintenance of comparatively trivial points of
difference in violation of the spirit that ought to harmonize all differences, and
of the grand responsibilities of the Christian calling, is to be guilty of "tithing
the mint and the anise and the cummin, to the neglect of the weightier matters
of the Law."
III. THE CURE FOR THESE EVILS. There is but one cure - to keepChrist
in all the glory of his being and the supremacy of his claims habitually before
our minds, and to open our hearts freely to the inspiration of his Spirit. This
will raise us above the littleness and meanness of party strife. A lofty objectof
contemplation and a high moral purpose must needs have an elevating and
ennobling influence on the whole man. It will subdue within us all base
affections, will rebuke our personalvanity, will enlarge our sympathies, will
chastenour lesserenthusiasms. We shallnot be in much danger of helping by

our influence to violate the unity of the greathousehold of faith, when our
souls are filled with the full orbed glory of the undivided Christ. The
expansive Spirit he gives will teachus to say, "Grace be with all them that
love our Lord Jesus Christin sincerity." - W.
The apostolicalexhortationto unity
J. Lyth, D. D.
I. WHAT IT INCLUDES — unity.
1. In confession.
2. In spirit.
3. In object.
II. HOW IT IS ENFORCED — by the name of Christ, implying —
1. His will.
2. His authority.
3. His claims on our love and obedience.
(J. Lyth, D. D.)

Unity of sentiment
N. Emmons, D. D.
I. THE REASONS WHY CHRISTIANS SHOULD THINK ALIKE UPON
RELIGIOUS SUBJECTS.
1. God has given them an infallible rule of faith. His Word contains a
complete system of Divine truth. That being the case, there is a plain propriety
in His requiring them to believe that it is a complete system, and also to
believe all the particular truths which compose the system.
2. That rule of faith is sufficiently plain and intelligible to every capacity. All
who are capable of knowing that they are the creatures ofGod are equally
capable of knowing what He has required them to believe concerning Himself,
their own character, their present situation, and their future state.
II. THE OBJECTIONSWHICH HAVE BEEN URGED AGAINST THIS
UNPALATABLE DOCTRINE.
1. The great and visible diversity in the intellectual powers and external
circumstances ofChristians. But unity of sentiment does not require equality
of knowledge. As one star differs from another star, so angels will differ from
saints, and saints from eachother in glory. But their difference in knowledge
will not create any diversity of opinions respecting the same subjects. Saints
will agree with angels so far as their knowledge extends;but so far as it fails,
they will wait for further light.
2. The wide difference in the educationof Christians. But since they have the
Word of God in their hands, it is in their power to bring their own opinions

and those of their instructors to an infallible standard, and to decide for
themselves what they ought to believe or to disbelieve.
3. The right of private judgment. It is readily granted that every Christian has
a right to collectevidence, and after that, to judge according to the evidence.
But. he has no right to examine and judge under the influence of prejudice,
and form his opinion contrary to reasonand Scripture.
4. That in Romans 14. the apostle allows Christians to differ in their religious
sentiments, and only exhorts them to view their difference with a candid and
charitable eye. But this only applies to the Mosaic rites, whichwere things
indifferent, and which might be observed or neglectedunder a sense ofduty.
But he reminds them that they must all stand before the judgment-seat of
Christ, where their opinions as well as actions would be either approved or
condemned.
III. THE TRUTHS WHICH NATURALLY FLOW FROM THE SUBJECT.
If God does require Christians to believe alike upon religious subjects, then —
1. It is not a matter of indifference what religious sentiments they embrace.
2. They have contracteda greatdeal of guilt from age to age by embracing
and propagating error.
3. Christians who are united in the belief of the truth have a right to blame
those who think differently from them upon religious subjects.

4. There appears to be no propriety in attempting to unite them in affection,
without uniting them in sentiment.
5. It seriouslyconcerns all who acknowledgethe truth and divinity of the
gospelto use every proper method to become entirely united in sentiment.(1)
For this purpose, therefore, let them freely and candidly examine the various
points in which they mutually differ.(2) There are various considerations
which urge Christians to cultivate a sentimental union among themselves.(a)
It will directly tend to unite them in affection. We find that those who agree in
art or science commonlyfeel a mutual attachmentarising from their
concurrence in opinion. And a unity of faith never fails to produce a mutual
esteemand affection among Christians.(b) The sure word of prophecy
predicts the future peace and harmony of the Church as resulting from the
knowledge ofthe truth.(c) By uniting in sentiment, Christians will remove one
of the strongestprejudices of unbelievers againstthe Bible.(d) They will
strengthen and animate one another in promoting the cause ofChrist.
(N. Emmons, D. D.)
Divisions in the Church
A. F. Kirkpatrick, M. A.
Hardly five years had lapsed since Paul had first preachedthe gospelat
Corinth, when he is constrainedto write to his converts, now in the language
of fatherly entreaty, now in the language ofthe sharpestrebuke, and that
though he can still give thanks to God with unfeigned gratitude for the growth
of their faith in Christ. What then is the fault which causes him such keen
anxiety? It is not heresy, it is not apostasy, it is not open separationfrom the
Church of Christ: it is a matter which we might be inclined to regard as far
less momentous than any of these:it is the growthand spread of party spirit
within their body. They are degrading the names of the apostles into

watchwords ofdivisions. Christ is divided! indignantly exclaims St. Paul. You
are rending His body asunder, you are severing the members which cannot
exist in isolation. The harmonious combination of manifold parts, all
subservient to one end and united by one Head; this is the essentialidea of the
physical body. The same law holds in the mystical body of Christ. Disregard
the Divine order, and the result canonly be death. This division into parties is
no venial offence, no pardonable enthusiasm for the teachers whosenames
you thus dishonour: it is the ruin of the unity for' which Christ prayed, "That
they all may be one." It is a work of the flesh: the outcome of the evil
propensities of your unrenewed nature.
I. WHAT ARE THE CAUSES OF PARTY DIVISIONS?
1. The ultimate cause lies, I believe, in a radicalmisapprehension of the nature
of truth. God's truth is infinite. Man's mind is finite. It is in the nature of
things impossible that we with our limited capacities shouldcomprehend the
whole of truth. All that we can do is to graspsome fragments, here a little and
there a little: truth indeed sufficient for our personalnecessities,if we seek
aright in faith and patience, but immeasurably falling short of the reality. Our
views of truth are therefore partial, disjointed; and it is inevitable that men
with minds differently trained should apprehend different parts and different
aspects ofthe truth. This variety is not of itself an evil. Farfrom it. Such
different views are complementary, not antagonistic. As God's truth was
revealedto man "in many parts and in many fashions," so only in "many
parts and in many fashions" can it be graspedand interpreted by man. Only
as the ages rollon, and eachgenerationcontributes its share towards the final
result, are we slowlylearning the grandeur of the gospel. Differences are not
to be ignoredor dissembled, but frankly acknowledged:"combinationin
diversity," it has been said, is the characteristic feature of the Church of
Christ, and it must be the characteristic feature of every organisationwhich
truly represents that Church. Combination in diversity is a characteristic
feature of Holy Scripture. It needs the records of four Evangelists to give a
true portraiture of the Sonof Man in His earthly ministry. We are not to
regard one as more faithful than another, not to take any one as in itself

complete, but to find in the harmony of all the true delineation of that
perfection which we can only realise by contemplating it in its severalparts.
St. Paul and St. James, St. Peterand St. John, eachoffer to us different
aspects ofthe truth; one is the apostle of faith, another of works;one of hope,
another of love; but if they have eachsome specialgrace orduty upon which
they insist, it is not to the neglector exclusion of other graces andduties: nor
are we to pit them one againstthe other.
2. Thus we see that various schools ofthought are necessaryfor the full
representationof truth. They supply, moreover, "that antagonismof
influences which is the only realsecurity for continued progress." Butschools
of thought are painfully liable to degenerate into parties. We naturally and
rightly concentrate ourattention upon that fragment of truth which we have
realisedfor ourselves to be true and precious:gradually we grow to think that
this is the whole of truth. We divide the swelling river of truth into a thousand
paltry runlets, and eachcries, Come drink at my stream, for it, and it alone, is
pure and uncontaminated. Well for us, then, if the waterof life is not
evaporatedand lostamid the sands of the barren desertof strife.
3. Forthe next step is easy. We affirm that because others see not with our
eyes, they are enveloped in the mists of dangerous error; resistance to their
tenets becomes a duty, and in the fiercenessofcontroversycharity is
forgotten, and the party contentions of the Christian Church become a
spectacle thatprovokes the scornful laugh of devils and moves our angelic
watchers to tears. The absence ofhumility, the strength of self-will, the spirit
that desires victory rather than truth, all contribute to the direful result, and
the imperfection of our knowledge is perverted by our sinful folly into the
source of incalculable mischief to ourselves and those around us.
4. Especiallyin days of revival of religious life is there dangerof party
contentions. Convictionis intense, enthusiasm unbounded, old truths are

resuscitated, new truths apprehended, and eachindividual cherishes his own
discovery, and proclaims it as the one vital element of truth to the exclusionof
others in reality no less important.
5. The use of party phraseology, too, tends to accentuate the difference
betweenvarious schools ofthought. "By this means over and above all the
real differences of opinion which exist, a fresh cause ofseparationis
introduced among those who would perhaps be found, if their respective
statements were candidly explained, to have in these tenets no real ground for
disunion."
6. Extremes begetextremes: if one set of men form themselves into an
exclusive party, with narrow views and aims, the almost certain consequence
is that those who are of the opposite way of thinking will form a party to resist
them. But it is a faithless expedient. "Throughstrife, and not by strife, the
Church of God has passedupon her way."
II. WHAT ARE THE EVILS ARISING FROM PARTY DIVISIONS?
1. Party spirit causes the decay of spiritual life: for love is the breath of life,
and where love is not, life must wither and die. But how can the gentle breezes
of love co-existwith the fierce burning blasts of the sirocco ofcontroversy? As
eachparty circle moreover ceases to hold communion with its neighbours, and
feeds more exclusively upon its ownlimited truths, there is peril that even
these will grow to be lifeless, and become petrified into hard unmeaning
formulas. Not loss of knowledge andnarrowness ofsympathy alone, but even
death, may be the consequenceofisolation.

2. Party spirit is a grievous hindrance to the growth of God's kingdom. This it
is which breeds distrust betweenthe clergyand the laity, and opens that gap
which we are sometimes told is daily widening. When shall we learn that the
kingdom of God does not consistin a phraseology, but in "righteousness,
peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost" ?
3. Party spirit is a waste of strength.
4. Party divisions are a stumbling-block to weak ,believers. Whatare we to
think when we see men whose personalcharacters are equally estimable
denouncing one another with unmitigated bitterness?
5. Party divisions are a laughing-stock to unbelievers. "See how these
Christians love one another," is the scornful taunt. And thus we lose that
testimony of an united Church which was the ideal contemplated by our Lord.
III. WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES FOR PARTYDIVISIONS?
1. The fundamental bond of religious unity is this: "Ye are Christ's." Not
primarily in outward organisation, howevervaluable, not in creeds, however
necessary, but in living union with our Head.
2. Another remedy is to be found in the frank recognitionthat in the Church
of Christ variety is not only not wrong, but natural and necessary;because the
views of any one individual or group of individuals can be at bestbut partial
embodiments of the whole truth. When we maintain that our partial view is
the complete and only true one, it is as if the dwellers in the valleys round
some mighty mountain, a Mont Blanc or a Matterhorn, should meet and

compare their ideas of its size and form: and because these ideas do not tally,
and the outlines of its slopes and peaks and precipices are differently
describedby each, should forthwith deny the identity of the objectof their
argument; or impeach the veracity of their neighbours, and part with angry
and embittered feelings.
3. A candid and patient examination of the views of those who differ from us
will do much to moderate party spirit. Men of undeniable honesty,
conscientiousness, zeal, holiness, differ from us. Why is this? They cannot be
entirely in the wrong. No holy life is basedentirely upon false premises. No
system rests altogetherupon a lie.
4. Once more, a remedy for divisions is to be found in practicalco-operation
whereverpossible.
5. If controversyshould unfortunately be unavoidable, as it may be on some
occasions,and for some individuals, we must take heed that it is conducted
with calm sobriety, temperate reason, and with the desire of truth, not
success. Butit is a perilous resource:far healthier for us if we canabstain
from entangling ourselves in it. "Pray for the peace ofJerusalem:they shall
prosper that love thee."
(A. F. Kirkpatrick, M. A.)
Division in the Church contrary to the spirit of Christ
J. Lyth, D. D.
Because—

I. CONTRARYTO THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST. Christhere by His
servant —
1. Exhorts to unity in
(1)Confession;
(2)Spirit;
(3)Judgment.
2. Condemns all disunion.
II. INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR OBLIGATIONS TO CHRIST. Divisions
—
1. Arise from sinful attachment to persons, interests, or opinions.
2. Divide the body of Christ.
3. Transferthe honour due to Him to another.
(J. Lyth, D. D.)

Like-minded
An eminent preachersays:"I was walking some weeks agoin a beautiful
grove, the trees were distant apart, and the trunks were straight and rugged.
But as they ascendedhigher the branches came closertogether, and still
higher the twigs and branches interlaced. I saidto myself, our Churches
resemble these trees; the trunks near the earth stand stiffly and rudely apart;
the more nearly toward heaven they ascend, the closerand closerthey come
together, until they form one beautiful canopy, under which men enjoy both
shelter and happiness. Then I thought of that beautiful prayer of the Saviour,
'That they all may be one.'Those who have the Spirit of Christ, who go about
always doing good, will be like-minded."
Divisions, how to heal
W. Baxendale.
When so much had been done at Marburg to effectan agreementbetween
Luther and the Helvetians, Zwingle and his friends, he magnanimously
resolvedthat they should not make larger grants for peace, norcarry away
the honour of being more desirous of union than he. He suggestedthatboth
"the interestedparties" should "cherishmore and more a truly Christian
charity for one another," and earnestlyimplore the Lord by His Spirit to
confirm them in "the sound doctrine."
(W. Baxendale.)
The evil and danger of schism
T. Boston, D. D.
The Church of Corinth was now lying bleeding of her wounds, given her not
by enemies, but by her own children. The apostle applies himself to the curing
of this rent and brokenChurch in this most pathetic exhortation to unity.
Note —

I. THE COMPELLATION, "Brethren."
1. A kindly compellation, whereby he endeavours to insinuate himself into
their affections;for it is hard for faithful ministers to get people's affections
kept where once divisions enter.
2. An argument for unity: he minds them that they are brethren; and it is a
shameful thing for brethren to fall out by the ears (Genesis 13:8;Genesis
45:24).
II. THE OBSECRATION, "Ibeseechyou, by the name," &c. Paul turns a
petitioner for the Church's peace, and begs of them, as he did of the jailor
(Acts 16:28), that they would do themselves no harm, but lay by the sword of
contention; and that it might have the more weight, he interposeth the name
of Christ. It is as much as if he had said —
1. As ye have any regard to the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Prince
of Peace, who hath so often enjoined unity and brotherly love to His followers,
beware of divisions.
2. As ye love the Lord Jesus, as ye tender His honour and glory, let there be no
divisions among you; for the name of Christ sadly suffers by your contentions.
III. THE MATTER OF HIS EXHORTATION.
1. He exhorts them to unity of principles, "that ye all speak the same thing";
for now some were crying one thing, some another, like that confused

multitude (Acts 21:34), till some of them came at length to deny the
resurrection(chap. 1 Corinthians 15.).
2. He dehorts them from schisms, which properly signifies a cutting in a solid
body, as in the cleaving of wood. Thus the one Church of Corinth was rent
into divers factions, some following one, some following another; therefore
says the apostle, "Is Christ divided?" Where will you get a Christ to head
your different and divided party? Through these divisions, it would seem,
from 1 Corinthians 11:33, they had separate communions, they would not
tarry for one another. The apostle also taxeth their divisions as carnal (1
Corinthians 3:3), where the word "divisions" properly signifies separate
standing, where one party stand upon one side, and anotherparty on another
side — such dissension, whereinone separate one from another.
3. He exhorts them to amend what was amiss already among them in that
matter, to be perfectly joined together, in opposition to their contentions and
divisions. The word in the original is very emphatic, and signifies —(1) To
restore disjointed members into their proper places again(Galatians 6:1). It is
a metaphor from chirurgeons setting members or joints again.(2)To establish
in the state to which a person or thing is restored;and so it denotes a firm
union betwixt the members of that Church as a body, and withal he adds here
the bonds of this union, the same mind, that is, the same heart, will, and
affections, as the word mind is taken (Romans 7:25), and the same judgment
or opinion anent matters; if the last cannotbe got, yet the first may.
IV. FROM THE WORDS WE DRAW THESE FOLLOWING DOCTRINES:
1. That schismis an evil incident to the Churches while in this world.

2. That professors oughtto beware of it, as they tender the authority and
honour of our Lord Jesus Christ.
3. Where schism enters into a Church, there will be greatheats, people
contradicting one another in matters of religion.
4. That howeverhard it be, yet it is possible to geta rent Church healed.
5. That it is the duty of all Church members to endeavourthe unity of the
Church, and the cure of schisms;and particularly, it is the duty of disjointed
members to take their own places in the body again.
6. That schisms, as they are grievous to all the sons of peace, so they are in a
specialmanner heavy and afflicting to faithful ministers of the gospelof peace.
(T. Boston, D. D.)
It hath been declared.., by them which are of the house of Chloe that there are
contentions among you.
Contentions in the Church
J. Lyth, D. D.
I. HOW THEY ARISE. Out of undue attachments to persons or opinions.
II. HOW THEY SHOULD BE REPRESSED.

1. Notby seeking the triumph of one party over the other, or by the absolute
sacrifice ofprivate opinion.
2. But by exalting these points in which all agree, and cultivating one mind
and spirit.
III. WHY THEY SHOULD BE REPRESSED— for the sake ofChrist.
1. His body is one and undivided.
2. He was crucified for us.
3. We are baptized into His name.
4. None other has any claim upon us.
(J. Lyth, D. D.)
The factions
M. Dods, D. D.
I. THERE WERE FOUR PARTIES IN THE CHURCH AT CORINTH.
1. Those who held by Paul himself. They owedto him their salvation; and
having experiencedthe efficacyof his gospel, they thought that there was no
other efficacious mode of presenting Christ to men. So probably they fell into

the mistake of all mere partisans, and became more Pauline than Paul, and
were in danger of becoming more Pauline than Christian.
2. Those who were grouped round Apollos, who wateredwhat Paul had
planted. He fitted the gospelinto their previous knowledge, andshowedthem
its relations to other faiths, and openedup its ethical wealthand bearing on
life. His teaching was not opposedto Paul's, but supplementary of it; and 1
Corinthians 16:12 shows that there was no jealousybetweenthe two men.
3. Those who gloried in the name of Cephas, the apostle of the circumcision,
whose name was usedin oppositionto Paul's as representing the original
group of apostles who adhered to the Jewishlaw. Extreme Judaizers would
find in this party a fruitful soil.
4. That which named itself "of Christ." From 2 Corinthians 10:7-12:18, it
would appear that this party was led by men who prided themselves on their
Hebrew descent(1 Corinthians 11:22), and on having learned their
Christianity from Christ Himself (1 Corinthians 10:7). They claimed to be
apostles ofChrist (1 Corinthians 11:13) and "ministers of righteousness" (1
Corinthians 11:15); but as they taught "another Jesus,""anotherspirit,"
"anothergospel" (1 Corinthians 11:4), Paul does not hesitate to denounce
them as false apostles.
II. THE APOSTLE HEARS OF THESE PARTIES WITH DISMAY. What,
then, would he think of the state of the Church now? There was as yet in
Corinth no outward disruption; and indeed Paul does not seemto contemplate
as possible that the members of the one body of Christ should refuse to
worship their common Lord in fellowshipwith one another.

1. The evils attaching to such a condition of things may no doubt be unduly
magnified; but the mischief done by disunion should not be ignored. The
Church was intended to be the grand uniter of the race;but instead of this,
the Church has alienatedfriends; and men who will do business and dine
together, will not worship together. Had the kingdom of Christ been visibly
one, it would have been without a rival in the world. But instead of this the
strength of the Church has been frittered away in civil strife. The world looks
on and laughs while it sees the Church divided over petty differences while it
ought to be assailing vice, ungodliness, and ignorance. And yet schismis
thought no sin.
2. Now that the Church is broken into pieces, the first step towards unity is to
recognise thatthere may be realunion without unity of external organisation.
The human race is one;but this unity admits of numberless diversities. So the
Church may be truly one in the sense intended by our Lord, one in the unity
of the Spirit and the bond of peace, though there continue to be various
divisions and sects. As amidst all diversities of government and customs it is
the duty of States to maintain their common brotherhood and abstain from
tyranny and war, so it is the duty of Churches, howeverseparate in form of
government, to maintain and exhibit their unity.
3. There may be real union without unity in creed. This unity is desirable;and
Paul entreats his readers to be of one mind.(1) True, the Church has gained
much by difference of opinion. Were all men to be agreedthere might be a
danger of truth becoming lifeless for want of the stimulus, and doctrine has
been ascertainedand developedin answer to error.(2)But as a visitation of
cholera may result in cleanliness, but no one desires that cholera may come;
and as opposition in Parliament is an acknowledgedservice to the country, yet
eachparty desires that its sentiments become universal; so, too,
notwithstanding every goodresult which may flow from diversity of opinion
regarding Divine truth, agreementis what all should aim at.(3)But what
truths Me to be made terms of communion? The answeris, the Church of

Christ is formed of those who are trusting to Him as the power of God unto
salvation. He is in communion with all who thus trust Him, whether their
knowledge be greator small; and we cannot refuse to communicate with those
with whom He is in communion. No doctrinal error, therefore, which does not
subvert personalfaith in Christ should be allowedto separate Churches. Paul
was contemplating Christ, and not a creed, as the centre of the Church's
unity, when he exclaimed, "is Christ divided?" In all Christians and all
Churches the one Christ is the life of each. And it is monstrous that those who
are virtually united to one Personand quickenedby one Spirit should in no
way recognise theirunity. It is with something akin to horror that Paul goes
on to ask, "Was Paulcrucifiedfor you?" He implies that only on the death of
Christ canthe Church be founded. Take awaythat and the personal
connectionof the believerwith the crucified Redeemer, and you take awaythe
Church.
III. From this casualexpressionof Paul we see HIS HABITUAL ATTITUDE
TOWARDS CHRIST.
1. He was never slow to affirm the indebtedness of the young Christian
Churches to himself: he was their father, but he was not their saviour. Not for
one moment did he suppose that he could occupy towards men the position
Christ occupied. Betweenhis work and Christ's an impassable gulf was fixed.
And that which gave Christ this specialplace and claim was His crucifixion.
Paul does not say, Was Paul your teacherin religion, and did he lead your
thoughts to God? did Paul by his life show you the beauty of self-sacrifice and
holiness? but "Was Paulcrucified for you?"
2. It was not, however, the mere fact of His dying which gave Christ this place,
and which claims the regard and trust of all men. Paul had really given his life
for men; but Paul knew that in Christ's death there was a significance his own
could never have. It was net only human buy Divine self-sacrificethat was

there manifested. Through this death sinners find way back to God and
assurance ofsalvation.
3. This unique work, then — what have we made of it? Paul found his true life
and his true self in it. It filled his mind, his heart, his life. This man, formed on
the noblestand largesttype, found room in Christ alone for the fullest
development and exercise ofhis powers. Is it not plain that if we neglectthe
connectionwith Christ which Paul found so fruitful we are doing ourselves
the greatestinjustice, and preferring a narrow prison-house to liberty and
life?
(M. Dods, D. D.)
The apostle's view of party spirit
DeanStanley.
Paul denounces it as a sin in itself irrespective of the right or wrong opinions
connectedwith it; and the true safeguardagainstit is the recollectionofthe
greatbond of fellowshipwith Christ which all have in common. "Christianus
mihi nomen est," saidan ancient bishop in answerto some such distinction;
"Catholicus cognomen."
1. The first duty of the apostle was to lose himself entirely in the cause he
preached. The most important details or forms were so insignificant in
comparisonthat Paul spoke ofthem as though he had no concernwith them.
How often in later ages have the means and institutions of the Church taken
the place of the end! Antiquity, novelty, a phrase, a ceremony, a vestment,
eachhas in turn overbalancedthe one main objectfor which, confessedly, all
lowerobjects are inculcated. To all these casesthe apostle's answerapplies,
"Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel."

2. The sin of the Corinthians consistednot in the mere adoption of eminent
names, but in the party spirit which attaches more importance to them than to
the greatcause whichall goodmen have in common. Even the sacredname of
Christ may thus be desecrated;and as the apostle rebukes those who said, "I
am of Christ," no less than those who said "I am of Paul," &c., so our Lord
refused to take the title of "good" (Luke 18:19), and "baptized not, but His
disciples" (John 4:2). If the holiest Name can thus be made a party
watchword, if Christianity itself can thus be turned to the purposes of a
faction, much more may any of its subordinate manifestations. The character
of our Lord is distinguished from all others by the factthat it rises far above
any localor temporary influences, and also that it has, for the most part,
escaped, evenin thought, from any associationwith them. So the characterof
the apostle, althoughin a lower measure, vindicates itself in this passagefrom
any identification with the party which called itself after his name; and is a
true example of the possibility of performing a greatwork, and labouring
earnestlyfor greattruths, without losing sight of the common ground of
Christianity, or becoming the centre of a factious and worldly spirit.
3. It is by catching a glimpse of the wild dissentions which raged around the
apostolic writings that we canbest appreciate the unity and response of those
writings themselves:it is by seeing how completely the dissentions have been
obliterated, that we canbest understand how marked was the difference
betweentheir results and those of analogous divisions in other history. We
know how the names of and , of Francis and Dominic, of Luther and Calvin,
have continued as the rallying point of rival schools;but the schools ofPaul
and Apollos and Cephas, which once wagedso bitter a warfare againsteach
other, were extinguished almost before ecclesiasticalhistoryhad begun. Partly
this arose from the nature of the case. The apostles couldnot have become
founders of systems, even if they would. Their power was not their own, but
another's. "What had they that they had not received?" Ifonce they claimed
an independent authority their authority was gone. Greatphilosophers,
conquerors, heresiarchs leave their names even in spite of themselves. But
such the apostles couldnot be without ceasing to be what they were;and the
total extinction of the parties which were called after them is in fact a

testimony to the Divinity of their mission. And it is difficult not to believe that
in the greatwork of reconciliationof which the outward volume of the Sacred
Canon is the chief monument, they were themselves not merely passive
instruments, but active agents;that a lessonis still to be derived from the
record they have left of their own resistance to the claims of the factions which
vainly endeavoured to divide what God had joined together.
(DeanStanley.)
Sects and parties
J. Lyth, D. D.
I. THEIR MANIFOLD VARIETY occasioned —
1. By the peculiarities of human nature in general.
2. Nationaldifferences.
3. Personaldifferences.
4. Attachment to individuals, as in the text.
II. THEIR UNITY still possible, there should be —
1. One language, one mind.

2. One judgment on fundamental principle.
3. Especiallyone faith in the crucified Jesus.
4. And one baptism into His name.
(J. Lyth, D. D.)
The dissensions ofthe early Church
J. Lyth, D. D.
I. HOW THEY ORIGINATED.
1. In the disputes of the Jewishand Gentile Christians.
2. Hence one was of Peterand another of Paul — those of Christ and of
Apollos appear to have been modifications of these.
II. WHO WERE THE PROMOTERSOF THEM?
1. NotPaul or Peter, &c.
2. Notthe peaceablydisposed, or those who loved Christ above all things.
3. But —

(1)Some who unduly idolised the human in religion.
(2)Ignorant persons, who had zeal without knowledge (Romans 10:2).
(3)Contentious persons, who would have their own way (Philippians 1:16).
III. WHAT WAS THE EFFECT?
1. Christ was divided.
2. His claims forgotten.
3. Some human idol exalted in His place.
(J. Lyth, D. D.)
Every one of you saith, I am of Paul... and I of Christ.
The factious affecting one pastorabove another
T. Fuller, D. D.
We may, and must, give a Benjamin's portion of respectto those who excelin
age, pains, parts, and piety; but the lavishing by wholesale allhonour on one,
and scarce retailing out any respectto the other, is what Paul reproves.

I. THE MISCHIEFS THAT ARISE FROM THIS PRACTICE.
1. Dissentionbetwixt ministers. As the Grecians (Acts 6:1) murmured against
Abe Hebrews, so ministers feel aggrievedthat people pass them by
unregarded. Perchance the matter may fly so high as it did betwixt Moses and
Aaron (Numbers 12:2). It will angernot only Saul, a mere carnal man, but
even those that have degrees ofgrace to say, "He hath convertedhis
thousands, but such an one his ten thousands."
2. Dissensionamongstpeople. Like the women that pleaded before Solomon(1
Kings 3:22), they contend "The living minister is mine; he that hath spirit and
activity: but the dead minister is thine; he cometh not to the quick, he
toucheth not the conscience.""Nay," saiththe other, "my minister is the
living minister, and thine is the dead one. Thy pastoris full of the fire, of ill
tempered and undiscreet zeal; 'but the Lord was not in the fire': whilst my
minister is like to a 'still voice'; staunching the bleeding-hearted penitent, and
dropping the oil of the gospelinto the wounded conscience."
3. Rejoicing to wickedmen, to whose ears our discords are the sweetest
harmony. Let not the herdsmen of Abraham and Lot fall out, whilst the
Canaanites are yet in the land.
4. Greatdishonour to God Himself. Here is such looking on the ambassador
that there is no notice takenof the king.
II. TO PREVENT THESE MISCHIEFS, BOTHPASTORSAND PEOPLE
MUST LEND THEIR HELPING HANDS.

1. I begin with the pastors.(1)Those who have the thickestaudiences.(a)Let
them not pride themselves with the bubble of popular applause, often as
carelesslygottenas undeservedly lost. Have we not seenthose who have
preferred lungs before brains, and sounding of a voice before soundness of
matter? Let princes count the credit of their kingdoms to consistin the
multitude of their subjects:far be it from a preacherto glory when his
congregationswells by the consumption of the audience of his neighbour.(b)
Let them discourage immoderate admiration. When St. John would have
worshipped the angel, "See thou do it not," saith he: "worship God." Know
thou who lovestto glut thyself with people's applause, it shall prove at the last
pricks in thy eyes and thorns in thy side — because sacrilegiouslythou hast
robbed God of His honour.(c) Let them labour also to ingratiate every
deserving pastor with his own congregation. It was the boon Saul beggedof
Samuel, "Honour me before my people." And surely it is but reasonwe
should seek to grace the shepherd in the presence ofhis flock.(2)I come now
to neglectedministers, whilst others, perchance less deserving, are more
frequented. Never fret thyself, if others be preferred before thee. They have
their time; they are crescents in their waxing, fall seas in their flowing: envy
not at their prosperity. Thy turn of honour may come next. One told a
Grecianstatistwho had excellently deservedof his city, that the city had
chosenfour-and-twenty officers, and yet left him out. "I am glad," said he,
"the city affords twenty-four abler than myself." And let us practise St. Paul's
precept, "by honour and dishonour, by goodreport and disreport," and say
with David, "Lord, here I am; do with Thy servant as Thou pleasest."
2. By this time, methinks, I hear the people saying, as the soldiers to John
Baptist, "But what shall we do?"(1)Ever preserve a reverent esteemof the
minister whom God hath placed over thee. For, if a sparrow lighteth not on
the ground without God's especialprovidence, surelyno minister is bestowed
in any parish without a more peculiar disposing;and surely their own pastor
is best acquainted with their diseases, andtherefore bestknoweth to apply
spiritual physic thereunto. And as God's Word hath a generalblessing on
every place, so more particularly is it blessedto parishioners from the mouth
of their lawful minister. Let not therefore the stranger, who makes a feastof

setpurpose to entertain new guests, be preferred before thy own minister,
who keeps a constanttable, feeding his own family. Wherefore let all the
Ephesians confine themselves to their Timothy; Cretians to their Titus; every
congregationto their proper pastor. As for those whose necessaryoccasions
do command their absence from their flocks, letthem see to it that they
provide worthy substitates.(2)Letthem not make odious comparisons betwixt
ministers of eminent parts. It is said of both Hezekiah(2 Kings 18:5) and
Josiah(2 Kings 23. 25) that there were none like them. The Holy Spirit prefers
neither for better, but concludes both for best; and so amongstministers,
when eachdiffers from others, all may be excellentin their kinds. As, in
comparing severalhandsome persons, one surpassethfor beauty of face;a
second, for a well-proportioned body; a third, for comeliness ofcarriage:so
may it be betwixt severalpastors. One's excellencymay consistin the
unsnarling of a known controversy;another, in plain expounding of
Scripture; one, the bestBoanerges;another, the best Barnabas:our
judgments may be best informed by one, our affections moved by a second,
our lives reformed by a third. Grant some in parts far inferior to others:was
not Abishai a worthy captain, though he attained not to the honour of the first
three? And may not many be serviceable in the Church, though not in the first
rank?(3)Entertain this for a certain truth, that the efficacyof God's Word
depends not on the parts of the minister, but on God's blessing, on His
ordinance.
(T. Fuller, D. D.)
Sects and parties
J. Lyth, D. D.
I. HOW FAR ARE THEY RIGHT? As far as they —
1. Stand upon the common foundations of Christ.

2. Busy themselves to save souls and not to make proselytes.
3. Esteem, love, and help eachother.
4. Exhibit a holy emulation in exalting Christ.
II. WHEN ARE THEY WRONG?
1. When they exalt party names and differences above Christ.
2. When they are slavishly attachedto their party, and make it the great
objectof their zeal.
3. When they note and despise others and exclude them from their fellowship.
4. When they seek to glorify their party above all others.
(J. Lyth, D. D.)
Is Christ divided?
"Is the Christ made a share
Canon Evans.

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

2. His offices.
3. His salvation.
4. His Church.
(W. W. Wythe.)
The differences among Christians no objection to Christianity
J. Walker, D. D.
I. HOW IT IS THAT MEN COME TO DIFFER IN MORALS AND
RELIGION. Almost every action, character, ordoctrine, on which we are
calledupon to make up an opinion, is more or less complex; that is to say, has
more than one side or aspect. It does not follow that one is true, and the other
false:both may be true; that is, faithful representations ofthe same reality,
only under different aspects. I am not aware of a single vicious actionwhich
was ever held as right, unless, in the circumstances,it really had a goodor
plausible side, on which alone, from some cause, it was contemplated, the
whole action being judged by this one side. The same accountis also to be
given of the origin of most of our differences in religious doctrine when
sincerelyentertained. Take, forinstance, what is perhaps the most
fundamental difference of all, the different opinions which have prevailed
respecting human nature. Who does not know that man actually appears
under all these various aspects? — sometimes but little lower than the angels,
and sometimes but little better than a fiend. Hence the most extreme and
contradictory views on this subject are so far well founded as this, that they
are faithful representations of real phases ofhuman nature, the error
consisting not in misconceiving some single phase, but in judging our whole

nature by that alone. And so it follows, that what we callerrors are not so
much false as partial views of the reality.
II. Such being the origin and nature of most religious differences, it will next
be in order to inquire ON WHAT GROUNDS THEY CAN BE REGARDED
AS A REASON OR OCCASION FOR SCEPTICAL, CYNICAL, OR
DESPONDING THOUGHTS. In the first place, do they afford us any reason
or pretext for denying the trustworthiness or competencyof the human
faculties? Certainly not. Could we be induced to regardthe objectunder
preciselythe same lights and aspects, we shoulddoubtless see it alike; and
better still, could we be induced to regard the object under all lights and
aspects, we shoulddoubtless not only see it alike, but see it as it is.
Accordingly, the differences among Christians are not to be construed into
evidence of the incompetency of the human faculties in themselves considered,
but only of their partial application. When we begin our inquiries respecting
any subject, we must begin, of course, by looking at it on one side: our views
must be partial at first; hut it does not follow that they must always continue
so. What, indeed, is progress in any inquiry but the gradual enlargement of
our views? And hence the acknowledgedfact, that thought and study, and a
more generous culture, tend to dissolve differences and bring men together.
To those, therefore, who think to find arguments for scepticismor despairin
the divisions of Christians, and who are ready to pronounce the partial views
which prevail as worthless, and mutually destructive of eachother, the answer
is plain. First, even the most partial of these views are worth a great deal; for
they are partial views of an all-important truth, and as such contain much
that is enduring and eternal. Again, as the error of these views grows mainly
out of their being partial, it is one which must be expectedto pertain to the
first stages ofevery inquiry, but gradually disappear as the inquiry goes on.
Finally, though the time may never come on earth when the multitude of
partial views will be lost in a single all-comprehensive view, still this knowing
"in part," and the trials and responsibilities which pertain to such a condition,
may be essentialto the discipline which is to fit us for that world, where "that
which is in part shall be done away." Admitting all this, however, I ask, then,
what there is in controversy — I do not say to condemn, for, considering how
they are often conducted, there is enough in them, Heaven knows, to

condemn, but to excuse in lookers-oneither indifference or unbelief?
Certainly of themselves they do not argue indifference or unbelief, but the
contrary. An age of controversyis pre-eminently an age of faith; a man is not
likely to dispute earnestly unless he believes in something, and attaches
importance to it. Besides, how is it in other things? Name, if you can, a single
interesting subjectof inquiry which has not given occasionto controversy.
The world is as much divided and estrangedon scientific and political and
philanthropic questions as on religious questions. But do men hence infer that
there is no such thing as truth in any of these matters, or that we have no
faculties to discoverit? God forbid! Obviously, therefore, it cannotbe
controversy, as such, that is objectedto in this connection, but something
peculiar to religious controversy. First, it is said that controversyis well
enough where it really has the effectto help forward the truth, or to diffuse
and establishit; but in religion it does neither, leaving every question just
where it found it. I reply, that even if this were so, it would not be to the
purpose: it would follow, indeed, that controversyis of no use in religion, and
ought to be avoided; but it would not follow that religion itself is of no use, or
that controversyhas made it of less use or less certain. But the whole
statementis erroneous. Who has yet to learn the invaluable services of
discussionand controversyin settling the laws of evidence on which the
genuineness and authenticity of the SacredBooksdepend, and the laws of
interpretation by which their import is determined? To discussionand
controversywe also owe it, that the Christian doctrines generallyhave been
unfolded, clearedup, and re-stated. Again, religious controversyis objectedto
because ofits asperities and spirit of denunciation, which on such a subject
are peculiarly odious, creating in some minds an invincible disgust for religion
itself. That religious controversy, even among Christians, sometimes assumes
the characterhere given to it, I confess;but it is easyto see that it is not
because Christians are Christians, but because Christians are men, having the
weaknessesand imperfections of men. Once more. A vague notion exists, I
believe, in some minds that the honour of Godis somehow compromisedby
the disgracefulaltercations to which Christianity has given birth. The fact
that He does not interfere to suppress them creates a feeling of uneasiness and
distrust, as if the revelation were not in reality from Him. Such persons would
do well to remember that God gives us truth, as He gives us everything else,

not to our acceptance,but to our acquisition. Even the truths of revelation are
expectedto do us as much goodby exercising our fairness of mind, and our
love of truth, in the acceptanceandinterpretation of His Word, as by the light
they give. To the question, then, Which among the various partial and
discordant views you are to adopt, this is my answer — Adopt your own; hold
fast your own. Allowing others to have their views, be faithful and just to your
own view; endeavouring, of course, to enlarge it from day to day, but
adhering to it, meanwhile, and reverencing it, as one view at leastof truth,
and of that side of truth which is turned towards you, and which, therefore,
you must be presumed to be most concernedto know. Above all, remember
that, though we are divided, Christ is not.
(J. Walker, D. D.)
Was Paul crucified for you?
Was Paul crucified
F. Tucker, B. A.
I. THE OCCASION OF THIS QUESTION — the divided state of the Church
at Corinth. Mark the peculiar ground of contention(ver. 12). Paul was the
founder of the Church; and some of the older members might naturally feel
peculiarly attachedto him. Apollos succeededPaul — a man of more finished
eloquence;and some, who joined the Church under his ministry, might, as
naturally, become attachedto him. Peterwas especiallythe apostle to the
Jews, andthe Jewishconverts would prefer him. Others affectedto disparage
all, and said, "We are of Christ." Surely it was a most unhappy state of things
to make one preacherclash with another, and to appear to make any of them
clashwith Christ. So Paul says, "Is there a separate Saviourfor eachof the
four parties? for that is what you seemto mean"; then adds, "Was Paul
crucified for you?"
II. THE TRUTH INVOLVED IN THE QUESTION.

1. Some one had been crucified for them. That was a factwhich none of their
divisions could pretend to deny. But who was this crucified One? Was it Paul?
No! It was the Master, not the servant. And Christ was crucified for us! He
had no guilt of His own to suffer for. The poor thief at His side made this
acknowledgment, and prophecy had explained it 700 years before — "He was
wounded for our transgressions," &c.
2. And this was the most memorable factin His history. To talk about the
blood of Christ offends certainpeople's taste, and is out of keeping with their
theology. But what is the theologyof the Bible? The tabernacle and the temple
ran with blood; for "without shedding of blood there was no remission of sin."
So in the New Testamentwe read that our Lord "took the cup," and said,
"This is My blood," &c. And Peterreminded his fellow-believers, "Ye were
redeemedwith the precious blood of Christ," and John wrote, "The blood of
Jesus Christ, God's Son, cleansethus from all sin." And the reasonof all this
is clearly given. Sin is a thing which a just and holy Ruler of the universe
cannot pass by. It must be punished — if not in us, in another in our stead.
And the grand messageofthe gospelis, that God has laid on Christ the
iniquity of us all — so that "in Him we have redemption through His blood,"
&c. Now if this be so, the most memorable thing in the history of Christ is —
that He "was crucified for us!"
3. Such clearlyis Paul's teaching. Talk too much of the blood of Christ? (1
Corinthians 2:2). The theme distastefuland offensive? (Galatians 6:14; cf. 1
Corinthians 8:23).
III. THE FORCE OF THE QUESTION. Whatclaim have I upon you
compared with that of Christ? Notice the delicacyof the apostle's mind, He
might have askedthe same with regard to Peteror Apollos.

1. Paul had some claim upon them, for it was he who first brought the gospel
to them. And what Corinthian believer but was bound to bless the apostle's
name? And don't you sometimes bless it, English believer? Have you not felt
that the Apostle Paul has been one of your best friends?
2. But now I hear him saying, "Don't talk of me — talk of nay Master. What
claims have I upon you compared with His? It was not I that was your
Substitute — I needed a substitute as much as you. You Corinthians talk of
me and of Apollos as useful preachers. Who are we but ministers by whom ye
believed, even as the Lord gave to every man. 'We preach not ourselves, but
Christ Jesus the Lord,'" &c. And so you Englishmen talk of me as one whom
you are bound to revere and love. But look up immensely higher! up, where
angels bow before a Lamb as it had been slain! There's your bestFriend! Give
Him your deepestreverence, your warmestlove! "Was Paulcrucified for
you?"
3. The text is suitable, by way of warning, to these days when the tendency is
to mingle Christ up with other famous teachers. And doubtless eachof them
has taught the world what had previously been forgotten. But can any
Christian put them on a level with our Lord? I shudder at the thought! "Is
Christ divided?" Is there one Saviour for the Chinese, and anotherfor the
Indian, and another for the Arab? Was Confucius crucified for sinners? — or
Buddha? — or Mahommed? Nay, brethren! Stand fastin the faith. "There is
none other name," &c. "Otherfoundation can no man lay."
(F. Tucker, B. A.)
Jesus the only Saviour of men

Canon Liddon.
This question was intended to startle Paul's readers. They had been split up
into separate groups, designatedby names representing ideas which ought
never to be separated, viz., Christian freedom, Christian philosophy, Church
authority and organisation, and personaldevotion to Christ. But these Greeks
carried their old mental habits into the Church. For ages they had identified
eachshade of opinion in philosophy with the name of an individual teacher. It
was natural for them to look at Christianity as an addition to the world's
thought, which admitted of being treatedas other systems. Moreover, religion
is differently apprehended and presented by different minds. The one Truth
which Peter and Paul and Apollos preachedwas presented in different forms.
The fault of the Corinthians lay in treating a difference in the way of
presenting truth as if it were a difference in truth itself. To them Paul, &c.,
were the teachers ofdistinct religions. Nay, more, the holiest Name of all was
bandied about among the names of His messengers. Hence the pain which
finds vent in the question, "Was Paulcrucified for you?" This question —
I. SUGGESTSTHE DIFFERENCEBETWEEN THE DEBT WHICH
CHRISTIANS OWE TO CHRIST AND THAT WHICH THEY OWE TO
THE MOST FAVOURED OF HIS SERVANTS.
1. It was no slight debt which the Corinthians owedto the apostle — their
conversion, their Church, their knowledge aboutsubjects of the highest
interest to man; his nature, God's nature and relations, and the eternal future.
It was a debt which could never be repaid. But the apostle suggests its utter
relative insignificance by his question, "Was Paulcrucified for you?"
2. Notthat St. Paul had taught the Corinthians the faith of Christ without
suffering (1 Thessalonians 2:2;Acts 18:5, 6, 12-17). But all such sufferings had
differed in kind from that which was glancedatby the question, "Was Paul
crucified for you?"

3. His relation to Christ was altogetherunlike that which existed between
pupils and their Master, e.g., betweenand . To St. PaulChrist was not merely
the author of Christianity, but its subject and its substance. St. Paul was not
indeed crucified; he was beheaded some years later, as a martyr for Christ.
But excepting the testimony which he thus bore to the truth he preached, his
death was without results to the world. He was beheadedfor no one. And had
he been crucified at Corinth, the sin of no single Corinthian would have been
washedawayby his blood. Do, teach, or suffer what he might, he was but a
disciple.
II. TELLS US WHAT IT WAS IN THE WORK OF CHRIST WHICH HAD
THE FIRST CLAIM ON THE GRATITUDE OF CHRISTIANS.
1. NotHis miracles. They were designed, no doubt, to make faith in His Divine
mission natural and easy. They were more: frequently works of mercy than of
power. They were actedparables. But others also have workedmiracles. And
the miracles of Christ have not touched the heart of the world more than His
words.
2. NotHis teaching. Certainly no human speechwill eversay more to the
consciencethan did the Sermon on the Mount, or more to the heart than did
the discourse in the supper-room. Yet He Himself implies that what He did
would have greaterclaims on man than what He said.
3. NorHis triumph over death at His resurrection. Certainly that was the
supreme certificate of His Divine mission. But the claim of the Resurrection
upon our gratitude is so great, because itis intimately bound up with the
tragedy which had precededit.

4. But His Cross (vers. 23, 24; 1 Corinthians 2:2; Galatians 6:14), on which He
reminds us of our utter misery and helplessnessuntil we are aided by His
redeeming might (John 15:13; 1 Peter2:24; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Revelation
1:5; Romans 3:25; Ephesians 1:7; 2 Corinthians 5:18-20;Hebrews 2:17). To
expand, connect, explain, justify these aspects ofHis atoning death is no doubt
a labour of vast proportions. But in their simple form they meet every child
who reads the New Testament, and they explain the hold of Christ crucified
on the Christian heart. And we understand the pathos and the strength of the
appeal, "Was Paul crucified for you?"
III. ENABLES US TO MEASURE THE TRUE WORTHOF EFFORTSFOR
IMPROVING THE CONDITION OF MANKIND.
1. We may well thank God that He has put it into so many hearts to support
institutions and enterprises so rich in their practicalbenevolence. But when it
is hinted that efforts of this kind satisfyall the needs of man, we are obligedto
hesitate. The needs of the soul are at leastas real as those of the body. The
pain of the conscience is at leastas torturing as that of the nerves. The
invisible world is not less to be provided for than the world of sense and time.
We are sometimes almostpressed, in view of the exaggeratedclaims of a
secularphilanthropy, to ask whether this or that benevolentperson was
crucified for the poor or the suffering.
2. In like manner, when Renantells that we should all be much better if we
would give increasedtime and thought to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, we
naturally listen. That Marcus Aurelius was marked by eminent excellences
must be frankly granted. But literary infidelity has done this man a wrong by
the very excessesofhis panegyric. For we cannotbut ask whether his
characteristic virtue was more than a socialluxury; whether it had the
slightesteffectupon the degradedmultitudes who lived close to his palace;
whether it prevented him selecting as his colleague a worthless trifler, or from

bequeathing his responsibilities to a profligate buffoon; whether it even
suggesteda scruple respecting his cruel persecutions of Christians. These are
questions which history may be left to answer. And her judgment would make
another question only more grotesque than profane — "Was Marcus Aurelius
crucified for you?"
3. Yes; only One ever was crucified out of love to sinners, and with a will and
powerto save them. The faith which St. Paul preachedprotects societyagainst
dangers which are inseparable from human progress at certain stages.For
this faith in Christ crucified addressesitselfto eachof those poles of society,
which, when left to the ordinary selfishimpulses of human nature, tend to
become antagonistic. To the wealthy and the noble the figure of the crucified
Saviour is a perpetual preacherof self-sacrifice forthe sake ofthe poor and
needy; and to the poor it is no less a perpetual lessonof the beauty, the
majesty of entire resignation. Thus does the truth which is at the very heart of
the Christian creedcontribute most powerfully to the coherence and well-
being of society;and we live in days when societyis not able to dispense with
its assistance.
(Canon Liddon.)
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius.
Paul's modesty
Prof. Beet.
This is a beautiful trait of Paul's character. Mostpreachers delightto take a
prominent part in the public receptionof their converts. But Paul saw the
danger of this, as tending to exalt the preacher in men's eyes. He therefore
purposely (ver. 15) and systematicallyplaced himself on such occasionsin the
background.(cf. Acts 10:48). This he could wellafford to do because of the
greaterhonour, given to him, of preaching the gospeland thus leading men to

Christ. He wishedmen to think, not of the successfulpreacher, but of Him
whose professedservants the baptized ones were. How different was the aim
of those who wrote Paul's name on the banner of their party! Paul thanks God
for his own conduct. Forevery good actionis prompted by God, and enriches
the actor.
(Prof. Beet.)
COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(13) Is Christ divided?—Better, Christ is divided. Christ, in the communion of
the Church, is rent, torn in fragments by you. The mention of the sacredname
as a party-cry makes the Apostle burst into that impassioned exclamation.
Then there is a momentary pause, and the Apostle goes back from his sudden
denunciation of the “Christ” party, to those whom he had originally selected
for typical treatment, viz., those who bore his own name, the two streams of
thought, as it were, mingling and rushing together;and he asks (with a mind
still full of the burning indignation arousedby the mention of the name of
union as a symbol of disunion), “Was Paulcrucified for you?” “Was your
baptism in the name of Paul?” To eachof which the answermust of necessity
be “No.”
Paul being the founder of the Church, these questions apply more forcibly to
the others also.
BensonCommentary
1 Corinthians 1:13-16. Why do you not all saythe same thing, namely, I am of
Christ, 1 Corinthians 3:23. Is Christ divided? — Did one Christ send Paul,
and another Apollos, to preach the gospelto you? Is not one and the same

Christ preachedto you by us all? or is his body divided? See 2 Corinthians
11:4. Was Paul — Or any other but Christ Jesus;crucified for you — That
you should be baptized into his death, as Christians are into the death of
Christ? that is, engagedby baptism to be conformed to his death, by dying to
sin and to the world. As if he had said, Are your obligations to me, or to any
other apostle or Christian minister, equal or comparable to those which you
are under to our common Master? to him who died for us upon the cross? He
mentions himself, as it was leastinvidious to do so;though the applicationwas
equally just as to every other instance. The apostle’s questionhere implies,
that the sufferings of Christ have an influence in saving the world, which the
sufferings of no other man have, or can have. Or were ye baptized in the name
of Paul —
By his authority, and dedicatedto his service? To be baptized in or into the
name of any person is, as Locke observes,“to enter himself a disciple of him
into whose name he is baptized, with professionto receive his doctrine and
rules, and submit to his authority: a very good argument here, why they
should be calledby no one’s name but Christ’s.” In this sense the Israelites
are said, 1 Corinthians 10:2, to have been baptized into Moses, inthe cloud,
and in the sea. I thank God — Who so ordered it in the course ofhis
providence: it is a pious phrase for the common one, I rejoice:that I baptized
none of you, but Crispus and Gaius — Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue
at Corinth, and among the first of the Corinthians who were convertedby
Paul, Acts 18:8 : Gaius, or Caius, was the person with whom the apostle
lodged when he wrote his epistle to the Romans, Romans 15:23. Both of them
were persons of eminence. The other Corinthians may have been baptized by
the apostle’s assistants,Silas, Titus, and Timothy. Lest any should say I had
baptized in my own name — In order to attach the persons baptized to myself,
and cause them to acknowledgeme for their head. Also the household of
Stephanas — Who, according to Theophylact, was a person of note among the
Corinthians; and his family seemall to have been adults when they were
baptized, being said, 1 Corinthians 16:15, to have addicted themselves to the
ministry of the saints. I know not — That is, it does not at present occurto my
memory; whether I baptized any other — “Here the apostle intimates that he

is not speaking by inspiration, but from memory. He did not remember
whether he baptized any more of the Corinthians. The Spirit was given to the
apostles indeed to lead them into all truth; but it was truth relative to the plan
of man’s salvation, which was thus made known to them, and not truth, like
the facthere mentioned, the certain knowledge ofwhich was of no use
whateverto the world.”
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
1:10-16 In the greatthings of religionbe of one mind; and where there is not
unity of sentiment, still let there be union of affection. Agreementin the
greaterthings should extinguish divisions about the lesser. There will be
perfect union in heaven, and the nearer we approachit on earth, the nearer
we come to perfection. Paul and Apollos both were faithful ministers of Jesus
Christ, and helpers of their faith and joy; but those disposed to be contentious,
broke into parties. So liable are the best things to be corrupted, and the gospel
and its institutions made engines of discord and contention. Satan has always
endeavouredto stir up strife among Christians, as one of his chief devices
againstthe gospel. The apostle left it to other ministers to baptize, while he
preachedthe gospel, as a more useful work.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
Is Christ divided? - Paul, in this verse, proceeds to show the impropriety of
their divisions and strifes. His generalargument is, that Christ alone ought to
be regarded as their head and leader, and that his claims, arising from his
crucifixion, and acknowledgedby their baptism, were so pre-eminent that
they could not be divided, and the honors due to him should not be rendered
to any other. The apostle, therefore, asks, withstrong emphasis, whether
Christ was to be regardedas divided? Whether this single Supreme Head and
Leader of the church, had become the head of different contending factions?
The strong absurdity of supposing that, showedthe impropriety of their
ranging themselves under different banners and 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 one
could have, and that those sufferings were in factthe specialitywhich

distinguished the work of Christ, and rendered it 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 renewedand pardoned. That
work was so pre-eminent that it could not have been performed by another.
And as they had all been saved by that alone;as they were alike dependent on
his merits for salvation, it was improper that they should be torn into
contending factions, and ranged under different leaders. If there is anything
that will recallChristians of different names and of contending sects from the
heat of strife, it is the recollectionofthe fact that they have been purchased by
the same blood, and that the same Saviour 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.
Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul - Or, "into," or "unto" the name of
Paul; see the note at Matthew 28:19. To be baptized "into," or "unto" anyone
is to be devoted to him, to receive and acknowledge him as a teacher,
professing to receive his rules, and to be governedby his authority - Locke.
Paul here solemnly reminds them that their baptism was an argument why
they should not range themselves under different leaders. By that, they had
been solemnly and entirely devoted to the service ofthe only Saviour. "Did I
ever," was the implied language of Paul, "baptize in my own name? Did I ever
pretend to organize a sect, announcing myself as a leader? Have not I always
directed you to that Saviour into whose name and service you have been
baptized?" It is remarkable here, 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 disparaged, ortheir talents and influence to be undervalued, as a
jealous rival would have done; but he numbers himself first, and alone, as
having no claims to be regardedas a religious leaderamong them, or the
founder of a sect. Even he, the founder of the church, and their spiritual
father, had never desired or intended that they should callthemselves by his
name; and he thus showedthe impropriety of their adopting the name of any
man as the leaderof a sect.

Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
13. Is Christ divided?—into various parts (one under one leader, another
under another) [Alford]. The unity of His body is not to be cut in pieces, as if
all did not belong to Him, the One Head.
was Paul crucified for you?—In the Greek the interrogation implies that a
strong negative answeris expected: "Was it Paul (surely you will not say so)
that was crucified for you?" In the former question the majesty of "Christ"
(the Anointed One of God) implies the impossibility of His being "divided." in
the latter, Paul's insignificance implies the impossibility of his being the head
of redemption, "crucifiedfor" them, and giving his name to the redeemed.
This, which is true of Paul the founder of the Church of Corinth, holds
equally goodof Cephas and Apollos, who had not such a claim as Paul in the
Corinthian Church.
crucified … baptized—The cross claims us for Christ, as redeemed by Him;
baptism, as dedicatedto Him.
in the name—rather, "into the name" (Ga 3:27), implying the incorporation
involved in the idea of baptism.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
How came these parties? There is but one Christ, but one that was crucified
for you, but one into whose name, into a faith in whom, and a professionof
whom, you were baptized. Peterbaptized you into the name of Christ, so did
I; I did not list those whom I baptized under any banner of my own, but under
Christ’s banner. The Head is but one, and the body ought not to be divided.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
Is Christ divided?.... Some read the words as an assertion, "Christis divided";
that is, his body, the church, is divided by such factions and parties; though in

some copies the note of interrogation, is put before the clause, and so to be
rendered, "is Christ divided?" no; his human body was not to be divided; a
bone of him was not to be broken, John 19:36;the seamlessgarmenthe wore
was not to be rent asunder, John 19:23;nor is his mystical body, the church,
to be torn in pieces by schisms and divisions; nor is anyone part of his Gospel
different from, or opposite to anotherpart of it; his doctrine is the same as
preachedby one minister and another, and is all of a piece, uniform and
harmonious. Christ is not divided from his Father, not in nature; though he is
to be distinguished from him, yet not to be divided; he is one in nature with
him, though he is a distinct person from him; nor is he, nor canhe, or will be
ever separatedfrom him; nor is he to be divided from him in his works and
actions, with whom he was jointly concernedin creation, providence, and
grace;and such are to be blamed as dividers of Christ from the Father, who
talk of Christ to the exclusion of the Father, or to the dropping and neglectof
any of his acts of grace;as his everlasting love to his chosenones, the eternal
electionof them in Christ, the covenantof grace made with him, and the
instance of his grace in the gift and mission of his Son: nor is Christ divided
from himself, not in his nature and person; the two natures, human and
divine, are united in one person; they are to be distinguished, and not to be
confounded, yet not to be separatedas to wake two distinct persons:nor in his
offices;a whole Christ is to be received; Christ in his kingly as wellas in his
priestly office;to claim him as a Saviour and disownhim as a King, is
dishonourable to him; it is to make one end of his death void, as much as in
such lies, which is, that he may be Lord of dead and living; and argues a
carnalselfish spirit, and that faith in him is not right: such are to be blamed
for being for Christ, and as dividers of him, who talk of being saved by him,
and yet would not have him to rule over them. Nor is he divided from his
Spirit, not from the person of the Spirit; he is to be distinguished from him as
a person, but is one in nature with him; nor from his gifts and graces, which
he has as man and Mediatorwithout measure; nor from the work of the
Spirit; for it is his grace the Spirit of God implants in the hearts of men: it
comes from him, it centres in him, it makes men like him, and glorifies him;
such who cry up Christ, and cry down the work of his Spirit upon the soul,
are to be blamed for being for Christ, and to be reckoneddividers of them as
much as in them lies: nor is Christ divided from his church and people; there

is a close union betweenthem, and he dwells in them, and among them; and
they are to be blamed that talk of Christ, and never meet with his saints in
public service and worship: nor is he divided from his ministers, word, and
ordinances;Christ is the sum of the ministry of the word; the ordinances are
instituted by him; he submitted to them himself, and is the substance of them,
and has promised his presence in them to the end of the world: and what God
has put together, let no man put asunder,
Was Paul crucified for you? no; he had taught them another doctrine;
namely, that Christ was crucified for them, that he died for their sins, and had
bought them with the price of his own blood; and therefore they were not to
be the servants of men, or to call any man master, or to be calledby his name,
or any other man's, only by Christ's, who had redeemedthem by his blood; so
that they were not their own, nor any other's, but his, and ought to glorify him
with their souls and bodies, which were his,
Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul; no; but in the name of the Father, of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The apostle did not pretend to be the author
of a new revelation, or the propagatorof a new religion, but was a preacherof
the Gospel, and an administrator of the ordinances of Christ; wherefore he
baptized not in his ownname, but in the name of Christ: to whose worship
and service suchas are baptized are devoted, and not to the service of men,
and therefore not to be called after their names.
Geneva Study Bible
{15} Is Christ divided? was {16} Paul crucified for you? or were ye {17}
baptized in the name of Paul?
(15) The first reasonwhy divisions ought to be avoided: because Christ seems
by that means to be divide and torn in pieces, who cannotbe the head of two
different and disagreeing bodies, being himself one.

(16) Another reason:because theycannot without greatinjury to God so
depend on men as on Christ: which thing those no doubt do who allow
whateversome man speaks, anddo it for their own sakes:as these men
allowedone and the very same Gospelbeing uttered by one man, and did
loathe it being uttered by another man. So that these factions were calledby
the names of their teachers. Now Paulsets aside his own name, not simply to
grieve no man, but also to show that he does not plead his own cause.
(17) The third reasontakenfrom the form and end 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 certainteachers, and despises others, he forsakes Christ:
for if he holds Christ as his only master, he would hear him, no matter who
Christ taught by.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
1 Corinthians 1:13. Μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός] affirmative (with Lachmann and
Kniewel; so τινές as early as Theodoret), not interrogatory(as commonly
taken), setting forth the tragicalresult of the aforesaidstate of party-division,
1 Corinthians 1:12, and that with arresting emphasis from the absence ofany
connective particle: Christ is divided! i.e. in place of being whole and
undivided, the One common Christ of all, He is broken up into different
party-Christs! Such, that is to say, is the actualappearance ofthings when, of
severalparties mutually exclusive of one another, eachseems to have its own
separate Christ.[194]The reproachhere conveyedsuits the Christ-party also
(againstRäbiger), just as forming a party, but not them alone (Hofmann). The
interrogatory rendering, common since Chrysostom:Is Christ divided? taken
as a question of surprise, has nothing againstit linguistically (see esp.
Valckenaer, II. p. 71 f.), but it is liable to the objectionthat it is only with the
following μή that the text gives us to recognise the beginning of the

interrogative address. Had Paul intended μεμέρ. ὁ Χ. as a question, it would
have been most natural for him in the flow of his discourse to carry on the
same form of interrogation, and say: ἢ Παῦλος ἐστ. ὑπ. ὑμ. The text, I may
add, gives no warrant for interpreting Χριστός of the corpus Chr. mysticum,
i.e. the church (Estius, Olshausen, and others; τινές in Theodoret), or even of
the doctrina Chr., which is not varia et multiplex (Grotius, Mosheim, Semler,
Morus, Rosenmüller).
μὴ Παῦλος κ.τ.λ[195]]Paulsurely was not, etc. From this point on to 1
Corinthians 1:16 the incongruous nature of the first party-confessionof faith
is speciallyexposed. Bengelaptly remarks:“Crux et baptismus nos Christo
asserit;relata:redimere, se addicere.” The two questions correspondto the
mutual connectionbetweenbelieving and being baptized.
ὑπέρ] on behalf of, in the sense of atonement.[196]Compon Galatians 1:4;
Ephesians 5:2.
ΕἸς ΤῸ ὌΝΟΜΑ] in reference to the name, as the name of him who is to be
henceforth the object of the faith and confessionofthe individual baptized.
Comp on Matthew 28:19 and Romans 6:3.
There was no need of a single word more regarding the first of these two
questions; the answerto it was so self-evident. But as to the second, the apostle
has some remarks to make, 1 Corinthians 1:14-16.
[194]The conceptionis not that Christ is broken up into parts or fragments,
so that the one party should possessthis, the other that, part (see Baur, de
Wette, Rückert, Calvin, etc., with Chrysostomand Theophylact);for each
party gave itself out as the possessorofthe whole Christ, not simply of a part,

He standing to it in the relation of its Lord and Head. To this conception
corresponds, too, the ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ, instead of which it would not have been
necessarythat it should run, ἐμοῦ ὁ Χριστός, as Hofmann objects.
[195].τ.λ. καὶ τὰ λοιπά.
[196]Lachm. reads περὶ ὑμῶν, instead of ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, following only B D*;too
weaklyattested, and deserving of rejectionalso on this ground, that Paul
always uses ὑπέρ (even in 1 Thessalonians 5:10)where the death of Christ is
placed in relation to persons, for whom He died. Comp. on 1 Corinthians 15:3,
which is the only certain passagein Paul’s writings where ὁπέρ (occurs with
an abstractterm. See also WieseleronGalatians 1:4.
Expositor's Greek Testament
1 Corinthians 1:13. In his expostulationP. uses, with telling contrast, the first
and lastonly of the party names: “Is the Christ divided? Was Paul crucified
on your behalf? or into the name of Paul were you baptised?” Lachmann,
W.H[176], Mr[177], Bt[178], readμεμέρισται ὁ Χ. as an exclamation:“The
Christ (then) has been divided!”—torn in pieces by your strife. But μερίζω
(here in pf. of resultful fact) denotes distribution, not dismemberment (see
parls.): the Christian who asserts “Iam Christ’s” in distinction from others,
claims an exclusive part in Him, whereas the one and whole Christ belongs to
every limb of His manifold body (see 1 Corinthians 12:12; also 1 Corinthians
11:3, Romans 10:12;Romans 14:7-9, Ephesians 4:3 ff., Colossians 2:19). A
divided Church means a Christ parcelledout, appropriated κατὰ μέρος. ὁ
Χριστὸς is the Christ, in the fulness of all that His title signifies (see 1
Corinthians 12:12, etc.).—While μεμέρισται ὁ Χ.; is Paul’s abrupt and
indignant question to himself, μὴ Παῦλος ἐσταυρώθη;(aor[179]ofhistorical
event) interrogates the readers—“Is it Paul that was crucified for you?” From
the cross the Ap. draws his first reproof, the point of which 1 Corinthians 6:20
makes clear, “Youwere bought at a price”: the Cor[180]therefore were not

Paul’s or Kephas’, nor some of them Christ’s and some of them Paul’s men,
but only Christ’s and all Christ’s alike.
[176]Westcottand Hort’s The New Testamentin Greek:Critical Text and
Notes.
[177]Meyer’s Critical and ExegeticalCommentary (Eng. Trans.).
[178]J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).
[179]aoristtense.
[180]Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
The cross was the ground of κοινωνία Χριστοῦ (1 Corinthians 1:9, 1
Corinthians 10:16); baptism, signalising personalunion with Him by faith, its
attestation(Romans 6:3); to this P. appeals asking, ἢ εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Παύλου
ἐβαπτίσθητε;His converts will remember how Christ’s name was then sealed
upon them, and Paul’s ignored. What was true of his practice, he tacitly
assumes for the other chiefs. The readers had been baptised as Christians, not
Pauline, Apollonian, or Petrine Christians. Paul’s horror at the thought of
baptising in his name shows how truly Christ’s was to him “the name above
every name’ (Php 2:9; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:5).
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
13. Is Christ divided?] Some editors read this affirmatively, “Christ is
divided,” instead of interrogatively as in the text. But the latter is preferable.
St Paul would ask if Christ, into Whose Name the whole Church has been

baptized, and Whose Body(Ephesians 1:23) the whole Church is, can thus be
split up into portions, and eachportion appropriated by one of the parties he
has mentioned.
was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?]Rather,
into the name of Paul. To baptize ‘into’ a name signifies something more than
to baptize in a name. Had St Paul used the latter phrase here, he would have
been rebuking those Christians who calledthemselves disciples of any other
but Christ. But he is also reminding them that the ‘Name’ of Christ, standing
as it does for Himself, is the only way of salvation, that Christ is the only Head
of the Church, and he disclaims any attempt to claim for himself that close
connectionwith the inner life of all who profess belief in Christ, which is the
prerogative of Christ alone. Cf. St Matthew 28:19; Acts 3:16; Acts 4:12.
Bengel's Gnomen
1 Corinthians 1:13. Μεμέρισται, has [Christ] been divided?) Are then all the
members not now any longerunder one Head? And yet, since He alone was
crucified for you, is it not in the name of Him alone that ye have been
baptized? The glory of Christ is not to be divided with His servants;nor is the
unity of His body to be cut into pieces, as if Christ were to cease to be one.—
μὴ) Lat. num:[4] it is often put in the secondclause of an interrogation; ch. 1
Corinthians 10:22; 2 Corinthians 3:1.—ἘΣΤΑΥΡΏΘΗ—ἘΒΑΠΤΊΣΘΗΤΕ,
was crucified—ye were baptized) The cross and baptism claim us for Christ.
The correlatives are, redemption, and self-dedication.
[4] It expects a negative answer. “Was it Paul (surely you will not sayso) that
was crucified for you.” This illustrates the subjective force of μὴ (i.e. referring
to something in the mind of the subject); whilst οὐκ is objective.—ED.
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 13. - Is Christ divided? Has Christ been parcelled into fragments? "Is
there a Pauline, a Petrine, an Apollonian, a Christian Christ?" Whether you

call yourselves Liberals, or Intellectualists, or Catholics, or Bible Christians,
your party spirit is a sin, and all the worse a sin because it pranks itself out in
the guise of pure religious zeal. This is more forcible than to take the clause
affirmatively:" Christ has been parcelledinto fragments." In either ease we
see" the tragic result of party spirit." Was Paul crucified for you? Again he
rebukes the partisanship which attacheditself to his own name. This showeda
splendid courage and honesty. The introduction of the question by the
negative μὴ expresses astonishedindignation: "Canyou possibly make a
watchwordof the name of a mere man, as though he had been crucified for
you?" This outburst of feeling is very important, as proving the immeasurable
distance which, in Paul's own view, separatedhim from his Lord. It is also
instructive to see how St. Paul at once denounces the spirit of party without
deigning to enter into the question as to which party of these wrangling
"theologians"was mostor leastin the right. He did not choose to pander to
their sectarianspirit by deciding betweentheir various forms of aggressive
orthodoxy. Into the name (comp. Matthew 28:19).
Vincent's Word Studies
Is Christ divided? (μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός)
Some of the best expositors render as an assertion. Christhas been divided by
your controversies.He is broken up into different party Christs. This gives a
perfectly goodand forcible sense, and is favoredby the absence of the
interrogative particle μὴ, which introduces the next clause. Divided: so
portioned up that one party may claim Him more than another. Christ has the
article. See on Matthew 1:1.
Was Paul crucified for you? (μὴ Παῦλος ἐσταυρώθη ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν)
A negative answeris implied. Paul surely was not, etc. For is ὑπέρ on behalf
of, not περί on accountof, as some texts.

In the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα)
Rev., correctly, Into the name. See on Matthew 28:19. Of Paul as the name of
him whom you were to confess. The order of the original is: Was it into the
name of Paul that ye were baptized?
STUDYLIGHTRESOURCES
Adam Clarke Commentary
Is Christ divided? - Can he be split into different sects and parties? Has he
different and opposing systems? Or, is the Messiahto appearunder different
persons?
Was Paul crucified for you? - As the Gospelproclaims salvationthrough the
crucified only, has Paul poured out his blood as an atonement for you? This is
impossible, and therefore your being calledby my name is absurd; for his
disciples you should be, alone, who has bought you by his blood.
Were ye baptized in the name of Paul? - To be baptized in, or into the name of
one, implied that the baptized was to be the disciple of him into whose name,
religion, etc., he was baptized. As if he said: Did I ever attempt to setup a new
religion, one founded on my own authority, and coming from myself? On the
contrary, have I not preached Christ crucified for the sin of the world; and
calledupon all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, to believe on Him?

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliography
Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:13". "The Adam Clarke
Commentary". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/1-
corinthians-1.html. 1832.
Return to Jump List return to 'Jump List'
Albert Barnes'Notes onthe Whole Bible
Is Christ divided? - Paul, in this verse, proceeds to show the impropriety of
their divisions and strifes. His generalargument is, that Christ alone ought to
be regarded as their head and leader, and that his claims, arising from his
crucifixion, and acknowledgedby their baptism, were so pre-eminent that
they could not be divided, and the honors due to him should not be rendered
to any other. The apostle, therefore, asks, withstrong emphasis, whether
Christ was to be regardedas divided? Whether this single Supreme Head and
Leader of the church, had become the head of different contending factions?
The strong absurdity of supposing that, showedthe impropriety of their
ranging themselves under different banners and 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 one
could have, and that those sufferings were in factthe specialitywhich
distinguished the work of Christ, and rendered it 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 renewedand pardoned. That
work was so pre-eminent that it could not have been performed by another.

And as they had all been saved by that alone;as they were alike dependent on
his merits for salvation, it was improper that they should be torn into
contending factions, and ranged under different leaders. If there is anything
that will recallChristians of different names and of contending sects from the
heat of strife, it is the recollectionofthe fact that they have been purchased by
the same blood, and that the same Saviour 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.
Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul - Or, “into,” or “unto” the name of
Paul; see the note at Matthew 28:19. To be baptized “into,” or “unto” anyone
is to be devoted to him, to receive and acknowledge him as a teacher,
professing to receive his rules, and to be governedby his authority - Locke.
Paul here solemnly reminds them that their baptism was an argument why
they should not range themselves under different leaders. By that, they had
been solemnly and entirely devoted to the service ofthe only Saviour. “Did I
ever,” was the implied language of Paul, “baptize in my own name? Did I ever
pretend to organize a sect, announcing myself as a leader? Have not I always
directed you to that Saviour into whose name and service you have been
baptized?” It is remarkable here, 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 disparaged, ortheir talents and influence to be undervalued, as a
jealous rival would have done; but he numbers himself first, and alone, as
having no claims to be regardedas a religious leaderamong them, or the
founder of a sect. Even he, the founder of the church, and their spiritual
father, had never desired or intended that they should callthemselves by his
name; and he thus showedthe impropriety of their adopting the name of any
man as the leaderof a sect.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.

Bibliography
Barnes, Albert. "Commentaryon 1 Corinthians 1:13". "Barnes'Notes onthe
Whole Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/1-
corinthians-1.html. 1870.
Return to Jump List return to 'Jump List'
Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the
name of Paul?
In Paul's dealing with the parties, it should be discerned that this triple
question was designedto expose and correctthe sin of the three groups
glorying in people, but they do not castthe slightestreflection upon those who
were "of Christ," who could have given the proper response to Paul's
question. The other three groups, however, would have been forcedto confess
that neither Paul, Apollos, or Peterhad been crucified for them, and that they
had not been baptized into any of those three names. As McGarveyobserved,
"We should note how inseparably connectedin Paul's thought were the
sacrifice ofthe cross and the baptism which makes us partakers ofits
benefits."[17]
ENDNOTE:
[17] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on First Corinthians (Cincinnati:
Standard Publishing Company, 1916), p. 54.

Jesus was not divided

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was not divided

Similar to Jesus was not divided (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Jesus was not divided