1 Corinthians 1:13 Ulasan

In this chapter we have, I. The preface or introduction to the whole epistle (Co1 1:1-9). II. One principal occasion of writing it hinted, namely, their divisions and the origin of them (Co1 1:10-13). III. An account of Paul's ministry among them, which was principally preaching the gospel (Co1 1:14-17). IV. The manner wherein he preached the gospel, and the different success of it, with an account how admirably it was fitted to bring glory to God and beat down the pride and vanity of men (Co1 1:17 to the end).

This chapter contains the general inscription of the epistle, the usual salutation, and a special thanksgiving for blessings received; after which the apostle intimates the occasion of his writing, the divisions about their ministers, which gives him an opportunity of discoursing concerning the nature, end, use, and efficacy of the preaching of the Gospel. The inscription is in Co1 1:1, in which an account is given of the persons concerned in this epistle; and first of Paul, the only inspired writer of it, who is described by his name, by which he went among the Gentiles; by his office, an apostle of Jesus Christ; and by the manner in which he came into it, being called to it not through any merit of his own, but through the sovereign will and pleasure of God: and next mention is made of Sosthenes, a brother minister of the Gospel, who was with the apostle, and joined in the salutation of the church, to whom the epistle is written; who are described, by their general character, a church of God; by the place of their abode, and seat of their church state, Corinth; and by their special characters, sanctified in Christ by election, and saints through the effectual calling; and with them are joined all other saints in Achaia, that belonged to them and the apostle, that called upon the name of the Lord; and then follows the salutation in Co1 1:3, usual in all the epistles; after that a thanksgiving to God for the grace they had by Christ in general, Co1 1:4, and particularly for their gifts of utterance and knowledge, which were plentifully bestowed upon them, Co1 1:5, and were a confirmation to them of the Gospel of Christ, Co1 1:6, and by which it appeared, that they were not behind other churches in these things; and are commended for their waiting for the coming of Christ, Co1 1:7, by whom the apostle assures them, they would be so confirmed in the mean while, as to be presented blameless by him in that day, Co1 1:8, of which they might be assured from the faithfulness of God, who had called them to communion with Christ, Co1 1:9, upon which he exhorts them to unity of affection and judgment, for this end, that there might be no schisms among them; and this he does in a way of entreaty, and that by the name of Christ, and from the consideration of their being brethren, Co1 1:10, suggesting hereby, that there were divisions among them: and signifies, that he had good reason to believe it, having had an account of them from a family of repute among them, Co1 1:11, and then expressly mentions what their differences were about, namely, their ministers, Co1 1:12, and uses arguments to dissuade them from their dividing principles and practices; showing, that one was their Lord and master, Christ, who was crucified for them, and in whose name they were baptized, and not his ministers, Co1 1:13, and since some among them made an ill use of their having been baptized by the apostle, he is thankful that he had baptized no more of them, and mentions by name those that he had baptized, Co1 1:14, and gives a reason for it, taken from the principal end of his mission by Christ, which was to preach the Gospel, and not only or chiefly to baptize, Co1 1:17. The manner in which he was sent to preach, and did preach it, is observed by him, not in the words of human wisdom; and that for this reason, lest either the Gospel should be of no use, or the effect of it should be ascribed to a wrong cause; and then be obviates an objection that might be made to this way of preaching, that hereby the Gospel would be brought into contempt; to which he answers, by granting that it would be, and was reckoned foolishness by them that were blinded and were lost; and by observing on the other hand, that it was effectual to saving purposes to others, Co1 1:18, and though the former sort might be the wise and prudent of this world, this need seem no strange thing, since the infatuation of such persons is no other than what was foretold would be, as appears from a testimony out of Isa 29:14, cited in Co1 1:19, upon which some questions are put, and inquiries made, after men of wisdom and learning, whose wisdom God made foolish, Co1 1:20, the reason of which was, because they did not make a right use of their natural wisdom in the knowledge of God, wherefore it was his pleasure to save men by means esteemed foolishness by them, Co1 1:21, and these wise men, who accounted the preaching of the Gospel foolishness, are distinguished into two sorts, Jews and Gentiles; the one requiring miracles to confirm it, the other seeking wisdom in it, Co1 1:22, but finding neither, though there were really both, the preaching of a crucified Christ was a stumbling to the one, and folly to the other, Co1 1:23, though those that were called by grace from among them, whether Jews or Gentiles, had different sentiments of it, and of Christ preached in it, in whose esteem he was the power and wisdom of God, Co1 1:24, the reason of which was, because there are superior wisdom and power in Christ and his Gospel, which the apostle, an ironical concession, calls the foolishness and weakness of God, to the wisdom and power of men, Co1 1:25, and instances in the effectual calling and conversion of the Corinthians, who for the most part were not the wise, the mighty, and noble, Co1 1:26, but the foolish, weak, and base; and the end of God, in the call of such, was to draw a veil over and bring to confusion the wisdom and power of men, Co1 1:27, and also that no creature whatever should dare to glory before him, Co1 1:29, but the true object of glorying in is pointed at, the Lord Jesus Christ; and the reason of it, all blessings of grace being in him, and from him, is suggested, Co1 1:30, so that whoever glories, should glory in him, Co1 1:31.

Is Christ divided?.... Some read the words as an assertion, "Christ is 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, Joh 19:36; the seamless garment he wore was not to be rent asunder, Joh 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 another part of it; his doctrine is the same as preached by 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 can he, or will be ever separated from him; nor is he to be divided from him in his works and actions, with whom he was jointly concerned in 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 neglect of any of his acts of grace; as his everlasting love to his chosen ones, the eternal election of them in Christ, the covenant of 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 separated as to wake two distinct persons: nor in his offices; a whole Christ is to be received; Christ in his kingly as well as in his priestly office; to claim him as a Saviour and disown him 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 carnal selfish 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 Mediator without 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 reckoned dividers of them as much as in them lies: nor is Christ divided from his church and people; there is a close union between them, 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 called by his name, or any other man's, only by Christ's, who had redeemed them 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 propagator of a new religion, but was a preacher of the Gospel, and an administrator of the ordinances of Christ; wherefore he baptized not in his own name, but in the name of Christ: to whose worship and service such as are baptized are devoted, and not to the service of men, and therefore not to be called after their names.

"Is Christ divided?" What he saith comes to this: "Ye have cut in pieces Christ, and distributed His body." Here is anger! here is chiding! here are words full of indignation! For whenever instead of arguing he interrogates only, his doing so implies a confessed absurdity. But some say that he glanced at something else, in saying, "Christ is divided:" as if he had said, "He hath distributed to men and parted the Church, and taken one share Himself, giving them the other." Then in what follows, he labors to overthrow this absurdity, saying, "Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" Observe his Christ-loving mind; how thenceforth he brings the whole matter to a point in his own name, shewing, and more than shewing, that this honor belongs to no one. And that no one might think it was envy which moved him to say these things, therefore he is constantly putting himself forward. Observe, too, his considerate way, in that he saith not, "Did Paul make the world? did Paul from nothing produce you into being?" But only those things which belonged as choice treasures to the faithful, and were regarded with great solicitude - those he specifies, the Cross, and Baptism, and the blessings following on these. For the loving-kindness of God towards men is shewn by the creation of the world also: in nothing, however, so much as by the condescension through the Cross. And he said not, "did Paul die for you?" but, "was Paul crucified?" setting down also the kind of death. "Or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" Again, he saith not, "did Paul baptize you?" For he did baptize many: but this was not the question, by whom they had been baptized, but, into whose name they had been baptized! For since this also was a cause of schisms, their being called after the name of those who baptized them, he corrects this error likewise saying, "Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" "Tell me not," saith he, "who baptized, but into whose name. For not he that baptizeth, but he who is invoked in the Baptism, is the subject of enquiry. For this is He who forgives our sins." And at this point he stays the discourse, and does not pursue the subject any further. For he saith not, "Did Paul declare to you the good things to come? Did Paul promise you the kingdom of heaven?" Why, then, I ask, doth he not add these questions also? Because it is not all as one, to promise a kingdom and to be crucified. For the former neither had danger nor brought shame; but the latter, all these. Moreover, he proves the former from the latter: for having said, (Romans 8:32) "He that spared not His own Son," he adds, "How shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" And again, (Romans 5:10) "For if when we were enemies we were reconciled unto God by the death of His Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved." This was one reason for his not adding what I mentioned. The one were in promise; the other had already come to pass.

By believing different things about Christ, the people have divided him. One person thought that Christ was a mere man, another that he was only God. One says that he was foretold by the prophets, while another denies it.Paul starts with himself, so that nobody will think that he is disparaging the status of others. If Christ died for us, how can we attribute his grace and blessing to men, thereby doing him a grave injustice?

"Is Christ divided?" Why have you divided Christ? Why have you torn apart His body? A speech filled with anger. Some, however, understood the words "is Christ divided?" in this way: has Christ divided the Church from the people and taken one part for Himself, while giving the other part to them? "Was Paul crucified for you?" By this he refutes their unreasonable behavior, and mentions his own name, so that they would not think he mentioned the names of others out of envy. He did not say: did Paul create or bring you from non-being into being? But, what is much more, showing the ineffable love of Christ for mankind, he speaks of the cross. He also did not say: "did Paul die," but: "was crucified," pointing thereby to the supposed dishonor of the death. "Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" And I, he says, baptized many, but in the name of Christ. He speaks of baptism because the cause of the division was also that they called themselves by the names of those who baptized them. But the point is not who baptized, but in whose name one baptizes; for it is Christ who forgives sins, not the one who baptizes.

Then when he says, Is Christ divided, he gives the reason for this warning that there should be no schisms and contentions among them: first, on the part of baptism; secondly, on the part of doctrine (v. 17b). As to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the mistake which follows from their contention; secondly, why that mistake follows (v. 13b); thirdly, he dismisses a false surmise (v. 14). He says, therefore: I have said that everyone of you says, I belong to Paul; from which it follows that Christ is divided. This can be understood in one way as though he were saying: Inasmuch as there is contention among you, Christ is divided from you, because He dwells only in peace: "His place is in peace" (Ps 76:3); "Your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God" (Is 59:2). But it is better understood of him as saying: Inasmuch as you believe that a baptism performed by a better minister is better, it follows that Christ, Who principally and interiorly baptizes, is divided, i.e., differs in His power and effect, depending on the differing ministers. But this is false, because it says in Eph (4:5): "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." An even better interpretation is to understand the Apostle as saying that inasmuch as you attribute to others the things that are exclusively Christ's, you divide Christ by forming many Christs, which is contrary to what is stated in Matt (23:10): "One is your master, Christ"; "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God and there is no other" (Is 45:22). For it should be noted that there are two powers proper to Christ in the sacrament of baptism: One is the divine power, by which He and the Father and the Holy Spirit cleanse from sin interiorly. This cannot be communicated to any creature. The other is the power proper to His human nature, which is the power of excellence in the sacraments and consists of four things: one is that He instituted the sacraments; the second is that He can produce the effect of the sacraments without the sacraments; the third is that the merit of His passion works in baptism and the other sacraments; the fourth is that the sacraments are conferred by calling on His name. Now he could have shared this power of excellence with His ministers and particularly the fourth, namely, that baptism be consecrated in their names, but He reserved it for Himself; otherwise schism would arise in the Church, for people would suppose that there are as many baptisms as baptizers. According to Augustine this is why John the Baptist confessed that he did not know whether Christ would keep this power for Himself. Then when he says, Was Paul crucified, he shows that their mistake follows from their error of supposing that there are diverse baptisms, depending on the different baptizers; for this would be so, if baptism derived its power from the baptizers and not from Christ alone. He shows this in two ways. First, on the part of Christ's passion, in virtue of which baptism works, as it says in Rom (6:3): "Know you not that all who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death?" Accordingly, he says: Was Paul crucified for you? As if to say: Were Paul's sufferings the cause of our salvation, so that baptism depends on him for its saving power? As if to say: Certainly not. For Christ alone is the one by Whose sufferings and death our salvation is wrought: "It is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish" (Jn. 11:50); "One has died for all" (2 Cor 5:14). On the other hand, the Apostle seems to say the opposite in Col (1:24): "I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, the church." I answer that Christ's sufferings benefited us not only by their example: "Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow in his steps" (1 Pt 2:21), but also by their merit and efficacy, inasmuch as we have been redeemed and sanctified by his blood: "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood" (Heb 13:12). But the sufferings of others benefit us only as an example: "If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation" (2 Cor 1:6). Secondly, he shows the same thing from the power of Christ's name invoked in baptism; hence he adds: or were you baptized in the name of Paul? As if to say: No. For as it is stated in Ac (4:12): "There is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved." Hence, too, Is (26:8) says: "Your name and your remembrance are the desire of the soul." But it seems that men are not baptized in Christ's name, for it is commanded in Matt (28:19): "Teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The answer is that in the early Church, because Christ's name was much hated, the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit to baptize in the name of Christ. Yet, as Ambrose says, the whole Trinity is understood in the name of Christ. For "Christ" means anointed, which implies not only the Son Who is anointed, but the anointing itself, which is the Holy Spirit, and the one who anoints, namely, the Father as Ps 45 (v.8) says: "God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows." But now that Christ's name is great among the Gentiles from the rising of the sun to its setting (Mal 1:11), the Church uses the formula first instituted by Christ, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, everyone baptized in this form is baptized in the name of Him Who is truly Son of God: "That we may be in his true Son, Jesus Christ" (1 Jn. 5:30). Furthermore, all faithful are baptized in the name of Christ; hence they are called Christians, for "as many of you as have been baptized in Christ alone, have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27). Therefore, if the sufferings of Christ alone [si solius Christi passio], if the name of Christ alone [si solius Christi nomen], confers the power to be saved on the baptized, then it is from Christ alone [verum esse proprium esse Christo] that baptism has the power to sanctify. Consequently, anyone who attributes this to others divides Christ into many parts.

The salutation of Paul and Sosthenes, Co1 1:1, Co1 1:2. The apostolical benediction, Co1 1:3. Thanksgiving for the prosperity of the Church at Corinth, Co1 1:4. In what that prosperity consisted, Co1 1:5-9. The apostle reproves their dissensions, and vindicates himself from being any cause of them, Co1 1:10-17. States the simple means which God uses to convert sinners and confound the wisdom of the wise, etc., 18-21. Why the Jews and Greeks did not believe, Co1 1:22. The matter of the apostle's preaching, and the reasons why that preaching was effectual to the salvation of men, Co1 1:23-29. All should glory in God, because all blessings are dispensed by Him through Christ Jesus, Co1 1:30, Co1 1:31.

Is Christ divided? - Can he be split into different sects and parties? Has he different and opposing systems? Or, is the Messiah to appear under different persons? Was Paul crucified for you? - As the Gospel proclaims salvation through the crucified only, has Paul poured out his blood as an atonement for you? This is impossible, and therefore your being called by 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 set up 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 called upon all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, to believe on Him?

THE INSCRIPTION; THANKSGIVING FOR THE SPIRITUAL STATE OF THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH; REPROOF OF PARTY DIVISIONS: HIS OWN METHOD OF PREACHING ONLY CHRIST. (1Co. 1:1-31) called to be--Found in some, not in others, of the oldest manuscripts Possibly inserted from Rom 1:1; but as likely to be genuine. Translate, literally, "a called apostle" [CONYBEARE and HOWSON]. through the will of God--not because of my own merit. Thus Paul's call as "an apostle by the will of God," while constituting the ground of the authority he claims in the Corinthian Church (compare Gal 1:1), is a reason for humility on his own part (Co1 15:8, Co1 15:10) [BENGEL]. In assuming the ministerial office a man should see he does so not of his own impulse, but by the will of God (Jer 23:21); Paul if left to his own will would never have been an apostle (Rom 9:16). Sosthenes--See my Introduction. Associated by Paul with himself in the inscription, either in modesty, Sosthenes being his inferior [CHRYSOSTOM], or in order that the name of a "brother" of note in Corinth (Act 18:17) might give weight to his Epistle and might show, in opposition to his detractors that he was supported by leading brethren. Gallio had driven the Jews who accused Paul from the judgment-seat. The Greek mob, who disliked Jews, took the opportunity then of beating Sosthenes the ruler of the Jewish synagogue, while Gallio looked on and refused to interfere, being secretly pleased that the mob should second his own contempt for the Jews. Paul probably at this time had showed sympathy for an adversary in distress, which issued in the conversion of the latter. So Crispus also, the previous chief ruler of the synagogue had been converted. Saul the persecutor turned into Paul the apostle, and Sosthenes the leader in persecution against that apostle, were two trophies of divine grace that, side by side, would appeal with double power to the Church at Corinth [BIRKS].

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 answer is 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, "crucified for" them, and giving his name to the redeemed. This, which is true of Paul the founder of the Church of Corinth, holds equally good of 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 dedicated to Him. in the name--rather, "into the name" (Gal 3:27), implying the incorporation involved in the idea of baptism.