rwp - 1Corinthians:1:10-17

rwp@1Corinthians:1:10 @{Now I beseech you} (\parakal de humas\). Old and common verb, over 100 times in N.T., to call to one's side. Corresponds here to \eucharist\, {I thank}, in verse 4|. Direct appeal after the thanksgiving. {Through the name} (\dia tou onomatos\). Genitive, not accusative (cause or reason), as the medium or instrument of the appeal (2Corinthians:10:1; strkjv@Romans:12:1; strkjv@15:30|). {That} (\hina\). Purport (sub-final) rather than direct purpose, common idiom in _Koin_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp.991-4) like strkjv@Matthew:14:36|. Used here with \legte, i, te katrtismenoi\, though expressed only once. {All speak} (\legte pantes\). Present active subjunctive, that ye all keep on speaking. With the divisions in mind. An idiom from Greek political life (Lightfoot). This touch of the classical writers argues for Paul's acquaintance with Greek culture. {There be no divisions among you} (\m i en humin schismata\). Present subjunctive, that divisions may not continue to be (they already had them). Negative statement of preceding idea. \Schisma\ is from \schiz\, old word to split or rend, and so means a rent (Matthew:9:16; strkjv@Mark:2:21|). Papyri use it for a splinter of wood and for ploughing. Here we have the earliest instance of its use in a moral sense of division, dissension, see also strkjv@1Corinthians:11:18| where a less complete change than \haireseis\; strkjv@12:25; strkjv@John:7:43| (discord); strkjv@9:16; strkjv@10:19|. "Here, faction, for which the classical word is \stasis\: division within the Christian community" (Vincent). These divisions were over the preachers (1:12-4:21|), immorality (5:1-13|), going to law before the heathen (6:1-11|), marriage (7:1-40|), meats offered to idols (1Corinthians:8-10|), conduct of women in church (11:1-16|), the Lord's Supper (11:17-34|), spiritual gifts (1Corinthians:12-14|), the resurrection (1Corinthians:15|). {But that ye be perfected together} (\te de katrtismenoi\). Periphrastic perfect passive subjunctive. See this verb in strkjv@Matthew:4:21| (Mark:1:19|) for mending torn nets and in moral sense already in strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:10|. Galen uses it for a surgeon's mending a joint and Herodotus for composing factions. See strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11; strkjv@Galatians:6:1|. {Mind} (\noi\), {judgment} (\gnmi\). "Of these words \nous\ denotes the frame or state of mind, \gnm\ the judgment, opinion or sentiment, which is the outcome of \nous\" (Lightfoot).

rwp@1Corinthians:1:11 @{For it hath been signified unto me} (\edlth gar moi\). First aorist passive indicative of \dlo\ and difficult to render into English. Literally, It was signified to me. {By them of Chloe} (\hupo tn Chlos\). Ablative case of the masculine plural article \tn\, by the (folks) of Chloe (genitive case). The words "which are of the household" are not in the Greek, though they correctly interpret the Greek, "those of Chloe." Whether the children, the kinspeople, or the servants of Chloe we do not know. It is uncertain also whether Chloe lived in Corinth or Ephesus, probably Ephesus because to name her if in Corinth might get her into trouble (Heinrici). Already Christianity was working a social revolution in the position of women and slaves. The name {Chloe} means tender verdure and was one of the epithets of Demeter the goddess of agriculture and for that reason Lightfoot thinks that she was a member of the freedman class like Phoebe (Romans:16:1|), Hermes (Romans:16:14|), Nereus (Romans:16:15|). It is even possible that Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus (1Corinthians:16:17|) may have been those who brought Chloe the news of the schisms in Corinth. {Contentions} (\erides\). Unseemly wranglings (as opposed to discussing, \dialegomai\) that were leading to the {schisms}. Listed in works of the flesh (Galatians:5:19f.|) and the catalogues of vices (2Corinthians:12:20; strkjv@Romans:1:19f.; strkjv@1Timothy:6:4|).

rwp@1Corinthians:1:12 @{Now this I mean} (\leg de touto\). Explanatory use of \leg\. Each has his party leader. \Apoll\ is genitive of \Apolls\ (Acts:18:24|), probably abbreviation of \Apollnius\ as seen in Codex Bezae for strkjv@Acts:18:24|. See on Acts for discussion of this "eloquent Alexandrian" (Ellicott), whose philosophical and oratorical preaching was in contrast "with the studied plainness" of Paul (1Corinthians:2:1; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:10|). People naturally have different tastes about styles of preaching and that is well, but Apollos refused to be a party to this strife and soon returned to Ephesus and refused to go back to Corinth (1Corinthians:16:12|). \Cph\ is the genitive of \Cphs\, the Aramaic name given Simon by Jesus (John:1:42|), \Petros\ in Greek. Except in strkjv@Galatians:2:7,8| Paul calls him Cephas. He had already taken his stand with Paul in the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:7-11; strkjv@Galatians:2:7-10|). Paul had to rebuke him at Antioch for his timidity because of the Judaizers (Galatians:2:11-14|), but, in spite of Baur's theory, there is no evidence of a schism in doctrine between Paul and Peter. If strkjv@2Peter:3:15f.| be accepted as genuine, as I do, there is proof of cordial relations between them and strkjv@1Corinthians:9:5| points in the same direction. But there is no evidence that Peter himself visited Corinth. Judaizers came and pitted Peter against Paul to the Corinthian Church on the basis of Paul's rebuke of Peter in Antioch. These Judaizers made bitter personal attacks on Paul in return for their defeat at the Jerusalem Conference. Songs:a third faction was formed by the use of Peter's name as the really orthodox wing of the church, the gospel of the circumcision. {And I of Christ} (\eg de Christou\). Still a fourth faction in recoil from the partisan use of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, with "a spiritually proud utterance" (Ellicott) that assumes a relation to Christ not true of the others. "Those who used this cry arrogated the common watchword as their _peculium_" (Findlay). This partisan use of the name of Christ may have been made in the name of unity against the other three factions, but it merely added another party to those existing. In scouting the names of the other leaders they lowered the name and rank of Christ to their level.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:13 @{Is Christ divided?} (\memeristai ho Christos;\). Perfect passive indicative, Does Christ stand divided? It is not certain, though probable, that this is interrogative like the following clauses. Hofmann calls the assertory form a "rhetorical impossibility." The absence of \m\ here merely allows an affirmative answer which is true. The fourth or Christ party claimed to possess Christ in a sense not true of the others. Perhaps the leaders of this Christ party with their arrogant assumptions of superiority are the false apostles, ministers of Satan posing as angels of light (2Corinthians:11:12-15|). {Was Paul crucified for you?} (\M Paulos estaurth huper humn;\). An indignant "No" is demanded by \m\. Paul shows his tact by employing himself as the illustration, rather than Apollos or Cephas. Probably \huper\, over, in behalf of, rather than \peri\ (concerning, around) is genuine, though either makes good sense here. In the _Koin_ \huper\ encroaches on \peri\ as in strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:1|. {Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?} (\eis to onoma Paulou ebaptisthte;\). It is unnecessary to say {into} for \eis\ rather than {in} since \eis\ is the same preposition originally as \en\ and both are used with \baptiz\ as in strkjv@Acts:8:16; strkjv@10:48| with no difference in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). Paul evidently knows the idea in strkjv@Matthew:28:19| and scouts the notion of being put on a par with Christ or the Trinity. He is no rival of Christ. This use of \onoma\ for the person is not only in the LXX, but the papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions give numerous examples of the name of the king or the god for the power and authority of the king or god (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 146ff., 196ff.; _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 121).

rwp@1Corinthians:1:14 @{I thank God} (\eucharist ti thei\). See verse 4|, though uncertain if \ti thei\ is genuine here. {Save Crispus and Gaius} (\ei m Krispon kai Gaion\). Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth before his conversion (Acts:18:8|), a Roman cognomen, and Gaius a Roman praenomen, probably the host of Paul and of the whole church in Corinth (Romans:16:23|), possibly though not clearly the hospitable Gaius of strkjv@3John:1:5,6|. The prominence and importance of these two may explain why Paul baptized them.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:15 @{Lest any man should say} (\hina m tis eipi\). Certainly sub-final \hina\ again or contemplated result as in strkjv@7:29; strkjv@John:9:2|. Ellicott thinks that already some in Corinth were laying emphasis on the person of the baptizer whether Peter or some one else. It is to be recalled that Jesus himself baptized no one (John:4:2|) to avoid this very kind of controversy. And yet there are those today who claim Paul as a sacramentalist, an impossible claim in the light of his words here.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:16 @{Also the household of Stephanas} (\kai ton Stephan oikon\). Mentioned as an afterthought. Robertson and Plummer suggest that Paul's amanuensis reminded him of this case. Paul calls him a first-fruit of Achaia (1Corinthians:16:15|) and so earlier than Crispus and he was one of the three who came to Paul from Corinth (16:17|), clearly a family that justified Paul's personal attention about baptism. {Besides} (\loipon\). Accusative of general reference, "as for anything else." Added to make clear that he is not meaning to omit any one who deserves mention. See also strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:1; strkjv@1Corinthians:4:2; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:11; strkjv@2Timothy:4:8|. Ellicott insists on a sharp distinction from \to loipon\ "as for the rest" (2Thessalonians:3:1; strkjv@Phillipians:3:1; strkjv@4:8; strkjv@Ephesians:6:10|). Paul casts no reflection on baptism, for he could not with his conception of it as the picture of the new life in Christ (Romans:6:2-6|), but he clearly denies here that he considers baptism essential to the remission of sin or the means of obtaining forgiveness.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:17 @{For Christ sent me not to baptize} (\ou gar apesteilen me Christos baptizein\). The negative \ou\ goes not with the infinitive, but with \apesteilen\ (from \apostell, apostolos\, apostle). {For Christ did not send me to be a baptizer} (present active infinitive, linear action) like John the Baptist. {But to preach the gospel} (\alla euaggelizesthai\). This is Paul's idea of his mission from Christ, as Christ's apostle, to be {a gospelizer}. This led, of course, to baptism, as a result, but Paul usually had it done by others as Peter at Caesarea ordered the baptism to be done, apparently by the six brethren with him (Acts:10:48|). Paul is fond of this late Greek verb from \euaggelion\ and sometimes uses both verb and substantive as in strkjv@1Corinthians:15:1| "the gospel which I gospelized unto you." {Not in wisdom of words} (\ouk en sophii logou\). Note \ou\, not \m\ (the subjective negative), construed with \apesteilen\ rather than the infinitive. Not in wisdom of speech (singular). Preaching was Paul's forte, but it was not as a pretentious philosopher or professional rhetorician that Paul appeared before the Corinthians (1Corinthians:2:1-5|). Some who followed Apollos may have been guilty of a fancy for external show, though Apollos was not a mere performer and juggler with words. But the Alexandrian method as in Philo did run to dialectic subtleties and luxuriant rhetoric (Lightfoot). {Lest the cross of Christ should be made void} (\hina m kenthi ho stauros tou Christou\). Negative purpose (\hina m\) with first aorist passive subjunctive, effective aorist, of \keno\, old verb from \kenos\, to make empty. In Paul's preaching the Cross of Christ is the central theme. Hence Paul did not fall into the snare of too much emphasis on baptism nor into too little on the death of Christ. "This expression shows clearly the stress which St. Paul laid on the death of Christ, not merely as a great moral spectacle, and so the crowning point of a life of self-renunciation, but as in itself the ordained instrument of salvation" (Lightfoot).