rwp 1Corinthians:1:10-17 SEEK
Seeker Overlay ON
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 \
leg
te ,
i ,
te kat
rtismenoi \,
though expressed only once . {
All speak } (\
leg
te 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 kat
rtismenoi \).
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 } (\
gn
m
i \). "
Of these words \
nous \
denotes the frame or state of mind , \
gn
m \
the judgment ,
opinion or sentiment ,
which is the outcome of \
nous \" (
Lightfoot ).
rwp @
1Corinthians:1:11 @{
For it hath been signified unto me } (\
ed
l
th
gar moi \).
First aorist passive indicative of \
d
lo \
and difficult to render into English .
Literally ,
It was signified to me . {
By them of Chloe } (\
hupo t
n Chlo
s \).
Ablative case of the masculine plural article \
t
n \,
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 \
Apoll
s \ (
Acts:18:24 |),
probably abbreviation of \
Apoll
nius \
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 |). \
C
ph \
is the genitive of \
C
ph
s \,
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 estaur
th
huper hum
n ;\).
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 ebaptisth
te ;\).
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
t
i the
i \).
See verse 4 |,
though uncertain if \
t
i the
i \
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 eip
i \).
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 sophi
i 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
ken
th
i 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 ).