1Corinthians:1:10-17

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 ).

Seeker Overlay: Off On

Bible:
Bible:
Book: