Now I mean this, that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” and, “I follow Christ.”
Parallel Translations
-
Now I mean this, that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” and, “I follow Christ.”
-
And this is it that I meane: how that comelie amonge you one sayeth: I holde of Paul: another I holde of Apollo: the thyrde I holde of Cephas: the four ye I holde of Christ.
-
Nowe this I say, that euery one of you saith, I am Pauls, and I am Apollos, and I am Cephas, and I am Christs.
Cross-references (14)
Passages linked to 1 Corinthians 1:12 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Matthew 23:9-10 Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ.
- John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas” (which is by interpretation, Peter).
- 1 Corinthians 3:21-23 Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come. All are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.
- 1 Corinthians 3:4-6 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” aren’t you fleshly? Who then is Apollos, and who is Paul, but servants through whom you believed, and each as the Lord gave to him? I planted. Apollos watered. But God gave the increase.
- 1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brothers, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to think beyond the things which are written, that none of you be puffed up against one another.
- 1 Corinthians 7:29 But I say this, brothers: the time is short, that from now on, both those who have wives may be as though they had none;
- 1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we no right to take along a wife who is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?
- 1 Corinthians 15:5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
- 1 Corinthians 15:50 Now I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood can’t inherit God’s Kingdom; neither does the perishable inherit imperishable.
- 1 Corinthians 16:12 Now concerning Apollos, the brother, I strongly urged him to come to you with the brothers; and it was not at all his desire to come now; but he will come when he has an opportunity.
- 2 Corinthians 9:6 Remember this: he who sows sparingly will also reap sparingly. He who sows bountifully will also reap bountifully.
- Galatians 2:9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, those who were reputed to be pillars, gave to Barnabas and me the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision.
- Acts 18:24–19:1 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by race, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus. He was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, although he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside, and explained to him the way of God more accurately. When he had determined to pass over into Achaia, the brothers encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. When he had come, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace; for he powerfully refuted the Jews, publicly showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ. While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus and found certain disciples.
- Galatians 3:17 Now I say this: A covenant confirmed beforehand by God in Christ, the law, which came four hundred thirty years after, does not annul, so as to make the promise of no effect.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (18 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain 12. I say then, etc. Some think there is…
12. I say then, etc. Some think there is here an instance of μιμησις, imitation, as if Paul were here repeating their expressions. Now, although the manuscripts differ as to the particle ὅτι, I am of opinion that it is the conjunction (because) rather than the relative (which), so that there is simply an explanation of the preceding statement in this sense. “My reason for saying that there are contentions among you is, because every one of you glories in the name of some individual.” It will, however, be objected, that in these words there is no appearance as yet of contention. My answer is, that where there are jarrings in religion, it cannot but be that men’s minds will soon afterwards burst forth in open strife. For as nothing is more effectual for uniting us, and there is nothing that tends more to draw our minds together, and keep them in a state of peace, than agreement in religion, so, on the other hand, if any disagreement has arisen as to matters of this nature, the effect necessarily is, that men’s minds are straightway stirred up for combat, and in no other department are there more fierce contendings. Hence it is with good reason that Paul brings it forward as a sufficient evidence of contention, that the Corinthians were infested with sects and parties.
I am of Paul He makes mention here of Christ’s faithful servants — Apollos, who had been his successor at Corinth, and Peter himself too, and then adds himself to their number, that he may appear to plead not so much his own cause as that of Christ. In any other point of view it is not likely that there were any parties that espoused the separate interests of ministers joined together by a sacred agreement. He has, however, as he afterwards mentions, transferred to himself and Apollos what was applicable to others; and this he has done, in order that they might more candidly consider the thing itself, viewing it apart from respect of persons. It will, however, be replied, that he makes mention here even of those who professed that they were of Christ Was this, too, worthy of blame? I answer, that in this way he shows more fully what unseemly consequences result from those depraved affections, when we give ourselves up to men, as in that case Christ must be acknowledged merely in part, and the pious have no alternative left them, but to separate themselves from others, if they would not renounce Christ.
Read full note →
As, however, this passage is wrested in various ways, we must endeavor to ascertain more minutely what Paul intends here. His object is, to maintain Christ’s exclusive authority in the Church, so that we may all exercise dependence upon him, that he alone may be recognized among us as Lord and Master, and that the name of no individual be set in opposition to his. Those, therefore, that draw away disciples after them (Acts 20:30,) with the view of splitting the Church into parties, he condemns as most destructive enemies of our faith. Thus then he does not, suffer men to have such pre-eminence in the Church as to usurp Christ’s supremacy. He does not allow them to be held in such honor as to derogate even in the slightest degree from Christ’s dignity. There is, it is true, a certain degree of honor that is due to Christ’s ministers, and they are also themselves masters in their own place, but this exception must always be kept in view, that Christ must have without any infringement what belongs to him — that he shall nevertheless be the sole Master, and looked upon as such. Hence the aim of good ministers is this, that they may all in common serve Christ, and claim for him exclusively power, authority, and glory — fight under his banner — obey him alone, and bring others in subjection to his sway. If any one is influenced by ambition, that man gathers disciples, not to Christ, but to himself. This then is the fountain of all evils — this the most hurtful of all plagues — this the deadly poison of all Churches, when ministers seek their own interests rather than those of Christ. In short, the unity of the Church consists more especially in this one thing — that we all depend upon Christ alone, and that men thus occupy an inferior place, so as not to detract in any degree from his pre-eminence.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain The matter I would say to you, is this.
The matter I would say to you, is this.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 12 Now this I say, that every one of…
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Ver. 12. And I of Christ] q.d. I care neither for Paul nor Apollo, &c. As some say today, they are neither Papists nor Protestants, but Christians, that is, just nothing, flat atheists. Heraclius the emperor being imprudently carried away by some bishops into the opinion of the Monothelites, when that heresy was afterwards condemned by the Council of Jerusalem, the emperor, being ashamed to recant, became a mere neutralist, and held neither one way nor another. And have we not some like-minded among us, who are yet to choose their religion; resolving to resolve on nothing, because (forsooth) there are so many sects and controversies, and such differences in opinion, and contradictions of preachers, therefore they will suspend, serve God (as they call it), and not trouble themselves to know which side hath the better? But these might know, 1. That truth is but one and the same; Christi tunica est unica, Christ’s coat is seamless, his truth single, and at good agreement with itself. 2. That we have a most sure word, 2Pe 1:19, sure, and sufficient to perfect the man of God; and that Non est litigiosa iuris scientia sed ignorantia, as the lawyers used to say, it is not too much knowledge, but the ignorance of the Scriptures that begets strife. 3. That God’s elect have a promise to be taught of God, to be kept from being finally deceived; to be brought to a certainty and full assurance of what they should hold, so evidently and clearly will God by his Spirit speak to their consciences, that they shall hold fast the faithful word, though they cannot answer every cavil and be unmovable as the centre, as Mount Zion that cannot be stirred. Mat 24:24; Joh 10:4-5 Job 22:21; 1Th 1:5; Joh 7:17; 1Jn 2:20; Psa 19:7; Pro 1:4; Isa 52:6; Joh 6:45.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Every one here signifieth no more than many of…
Every one here signifieth no more than many of you, or several of you; so 1Co 14:26; from whence, those that think they have such a mighty argument from Heb 2:9, where is the same particle to prove Christ’s dying for all individuals, may undeceive themselves, and find that they have need of better arguments to prove their assertion.
I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ: we may from hence observe, that the divisions amongst the Corinthians were not in matters of faith, but occasioned from their having men’s persons in admiration. This was probably caused either from God’s making of Paul the instrument of some of their conversion, Apollos the instrument of others’ conversion, and Peter the instrument of others’, or else from the difference of their gifts. Of this Apollos we read, Act 18:24; he was a Jew of Alexandria, who (as may be seen there, 1Co 1:28) mightily convinced they, and that publicly, and probably was as useful to the Corinthians. One minister of Christ may be justly preferred to another. We ought to honour those most whom God most honoureth, either by a more plentiful giving out of his Spirit, or by a more plentiful success upon their labours; but we ought not so far to appropriate any ministers to ourselves, as for them to despise others. We are not bound to make every minister our pastor, but we are bound to have a just respect for every minister, who by his doctrine and holy life answereth his profession and holy calling.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain Now this I say that everyone of you saith,....…
Now this I say that everyone of you saith,.... This the apostle affirms not upon his own personal knowledge, but upon the credit of the report the house of Chloe had made unto him; and his meaning is not that every individual member of this church, but that many of them, and the far greater number of them, were in the following factions, some being for one minister, and some for another: one part of them said,
I am of Paul; he had been instrumental in their conversion: he had baptized some of them, and first laid the foundation of a Gospel church among them; was a solid, brave, and bold preacher of the Gospel, and was set for the defence of it; wherefore he was the minister for them, and they were desirous of being called and distinguished by his name: but there was another party that said,
Read full note →
and I of Apollos; in opposition to Paul, whom they despised, as a man whose aspect was mean; his bodily presence weak, made no figure in the pulpit; his speech low and contemptible; his discourses plain, not having that flow of words, and accuracy of expression, as Apollos had; who was an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, who coming to Corinth after the Apostle Paul, many were taken with his way of preaching; he was the preacher for them, and they chose to be called after him, and in distinction from others: whilst another company of them said,
and I of Cephas; or Peter, in opposition both to Paul and Apollos; who with them were new upstart ministers, in comparison of Peter, who was with Christ from the beginning, and saw his miracles, and heard his doctrines; and, besides, had the apostleship and Gospel of the circumcision, on which account they highly valued him; for these must be supposed to be the converted Jews among them, who still retained a regard to the ceremonies of the law; wherefore they fixed on Peter as their minister, and to be called by his name: but others said,
and I of Christ; which some take to be the words of the apostle, declaring who he was of, and for, and belonged unto; intimating that they, as he, should call no man father, or master, on earth, or be called by any other name than that of Christ. Others consider them as the words of the Corinthians, a small part of them who were very mean and contemptible, and therefore mentioned last, who chose to be known and called by no other name than that of Christians; but I rather think that these design a faction and party, to be condemned as the others. These were for Christ, in opposition to Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, and any other ministers of the word. They were for Christ without his ministers; they were wiser than their teachers; they were above being under any ministrations and ordinances; as the others attributed too much to the ministers of the Gospel, these detracted too much from them, and denied them to be of any use and service. Some persons may be, in such sense, for Christ, as to be blame worthy; as when they use his name to deceive men, or divide his interest.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain Now this I say - That is, what I…
Now this I say - That is, what I mean is this: there are various parties among you, who set themselves, one against an other, in behalf of the several teachers they admire. And I of Christ - They spoke well, if they had not on this pretense despised their teachers, chap. iv, 8 Perhaps they valued themselves on having heard Christ preach in his own person.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 12. Every one of you saith] It seems…
Verse 12. Every one of you saith] It seems from this expression that the whole Church at Corinth was in a state of dissension: they were all divided into the following sects
1. Paulians, or followers of St. Paul;
Read full note →
2. Apollonians, or followers of Apollos;
3. Kephians, or followers of Kephas;
4. Christians, or followers of Christ.
See the introduction, sec. v.
The converts at Corinth were partly Jews and partly Greeks. The Gentile part, as Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, might boast the names of Paul and Apollos; the Jewish, those of Kephas and Christ. But these again might be subdivided; some probably considered themselves disciples of Paul, he being the immediate instrument of their conversion, while others might prefer Apollos for his extraordinary eloquence.
If by Kephas the apostle Peter be meant, some of the circumcision who believed might prefer him to all the rest; and they might consider him more immediately sent to them; and therefore have him in higher esteem than they had Paul, who was the minister or apostle of the uncircumcision: and on this very account the converted Gentiles would prize him more highly than they did Peter.
Instead of Christ, χριστου, some have conjectured that we should read κρισπου, of Crispus; who is mentioned 1Co 1:14. And some think that χριστου, of Christ, is an interpolation, as it is not likely that Christ in any sense of the word could be said to be the head of a sect, or party, in his own Church; as all those parties held that Gospel, of which himself was both the author and the subject. But it is very easy to conceive that, in a Church so divided, a party might be found, who, dividing Christ from his ministers, might be led to say, "We will have nothing to do with your parties, nor with your party spirit; we are the disciples of Christ, and will have nothing to do with Paulians, Apollonians, or Kephians, as contradistinguished from Christ." The reading κρισπου for χριστου is not acknowledged by any MS. or version.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain Now this I say - This is what I…
Now this I say - This is what I mean; or, I give this as an instance of the contentions to which I refer.
That every one of you saith - That you are divided into different factions, and ranged under different leaders. The word translated “that” ὅτι hoti might be translated here, “because,” or “since,” as giving a reason for his affirming 1Co 1:11 that there were contentions there. “Now I say that there are contentions, because you are ranged under different leaders,” etc. - Calvin.
Read full note →
I am of Paul - It has been doubted whether Paul meant to affirm that the parties had actually taken the names which he here specifies, or whether he uses these names as illustrations, or suppositions, to show the absurdity of their ranging themselves under different leaders. Many of the ancient interpreters supposed that Paul was unwilling to specify the real names of the false teachers and leaders of the parties, and that he used these names simply by way of illustration. This opinion was grounded chiefly on what he says in 1Co 4:6, “And these things, brethren, I have ‘in a figure’ transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes,” etc. But in this place Paul is not referring so particularly to the factions or parties existing in the church, as he is to the necessity of modesty and humility; and in order to enforce this, he refers to himself and Apollos to show that even those most highly favored should have a low estimate of their importance, since all their success depends on God; see 1Co 3:4-6.
It can scarcely be doubted that Paul here meant to say that there were parties existing in the church at Corinth, who were called by the names of himself, of Apollos, of Cephas, and of Christ. This is the natural construction; and this was evidently the information which he had received by those who were of the family of Chloe. Why the parties were ranged under these leaders, however, can be only a matter of conjecture. Lightfoot suggests that the church at Corinth was composed partly of Jews and partly of Gentiles; see Acts 18. The Gentile converts, he supposes, would range themselves under Paul and Apollos as their leaders; and the Jewish under Peter and Christ. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter particularly the apostle to the Jews Gal 2:7; and this circumstance might give rise to the division. Apollos succeeded Paul in Achaia, and labored successfully there; see Act 18:27-28. These two original parties might be again sub-divided. A part of those who adhered to Paul and Apollos might regard Saul with chief veneration, as being the founder of the church as the instrument of their conversion, as the chief apostle, as signally pure in his doctrine and manner; and a part might regard Apollos as the instrument of their conversion, and as being distinguished for eloquence. It is evident that the main reason why Apollos was regarded as the head of a faction was on account of his extraordinary eloquence, and it is probable that his followers might seek particularly to imitate him in the graces of popular elocution.
And I of Cephas, Peter; - compare Joh 1:42. He was regarded particularly as the apostle to the Jews; Gal 2:7. He had his own speciality of views in teaching, and it is probable that his teaching was not regarded as entirely harmonious with that of Paul; see Gal 2:11-17. Paul had everywhere among the Gentiles taught that it was not necessary to observe the ceremonial laws of Moses; and, it is probable, that Peter was regarded by the Jews as the advocate of the contrary doctrine. Whether Peter had been at Corinth is unknown. If not, they had heard of his name, and character; and those who had come from Judea had probably reported him as teaching a doctrine on the subject of the observance of Jewish ceremonies unlike that of Paul.
And I of Christ - Why this sect professed to be the followers of Christ, is not certainly known. It probably arose from one of the two following causes:
Either that they had been in Judea and had seen the Lord Jesus, and thus regarded themselves as particularly favored and distinguished: or, More probably because they refused to call themselves by any inferior leader, and wished to regard Christ alone as their head, and possibly prided themselves on the belief that they were more conformed to him than the other sects.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Chloe was a Christian woman of Corinth. Apollo is…
Chloe was a Christian woman of Corinth. Apollo is the person mentioned, Acts xviii. 24. &c. Cephas is St. Peter, so called in the Syriac tongue. (Bible de Vence)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain this I say--this is what I mean in saying…
this I say--this is what I mean in saying "contentions" (Co1 1:11).
every one of you saith--Ye say severally, "glorying in men" (Co1 1:31; Co1 3:21-22), one, I am of Paul; another, I am of Apollos, &c. Not that they formed definite parties, but they individually betrayed the spirit of party in contentions under the name of different favorite teachers. Paul will not allow himself to be flattered even by those who made his name their party cry, so as to connive at the dishonor thereby done to Christ. These probably were converted under his ministry. Those alleging the name of Apollos, Paul's successor at Corinth (Act 18:24, &c.), were persons attracted by his rhetorical style (probably acquired in Alexandria, Co1 3:6), as contrasted with the "weak bodily presence" and "contemptible speech" of the apostle. Apollos, doubtless, did not willingly foster this spirit of undue preference (Co1 4:6, Co1 4:8); nay, to discourage it, he would not repeat his visit just then (Co1 16:12).
Read full note →
I of Cephas--probably Judaizers, who sheltered themselves under the name of Peter, the apostle of the circumcision ("Cephas" is the Hebrew, "Peter" the Greek name; Joh 1:42; Gal 2:11, &c.): the subjects handled in the seventh through ninth chapters were probably suggested as matters of doubt by them. The church there began from the Jewish synagogue, Crispus the chief ruler, and Sosthenes his successor (probably), being converts. Hence some Jewish leaven, though not so much as elsewhere, is traceable (Co2 11:22). Petrism afterwards sprang up much more rankly at Rome. If it be wrong to boast "I am of Peter," how much more so to boast I am of the Pope!" [BENGEL].
I of Christ--A fair pretext used to slight the ministry of Paul and their other teachers (Co1 4:8; Co2 10:7-11).
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 12. Now this I say—Now what I mean to…
12. Now this I say—Now what I mean to say is this. The preceding general report is to be expanded into its particulars.
Every—Rather, each one of you. Paul’s each is not to be pressed as absolutely including the whole, as the same word every does not, 1Co_4:5. It signifies individuals generally.
Read full note →
I am of—The present paragraph furnishes a glimpse of the divisions in the apostolic Church, on which see our note on Act_15:6, and the notes to which reference is there made. As in most cases, the partisanships were based partly upon personal preferences, especially so in the instances of Paul and Apollos, who had both been at Corinth, and who essentially agreed in their views; and partly upon the principles the persons were held to represent, as specially in the case of Peter and Christ, who had neither been at Corinth. The leaders who were named participated not in the partisanships of these their professed followers.
Of Paul—Paul mentions himself first; partly as their known founder, and partly to lead the way in rebuking the partisans who used and abused his name. The followers of Paul, of course, maintained the non-necessity of circumcision and the ritual for salvation, and the complete oneness of Jew and Gentile in the new Church. There may have been a tendency to Marcionism; that is, in addition to the rejection of the Jewish ritual, there may have been a predisposition to reject the Old Testament—to hold the Jehovah of the Old Testament to be a malignant being inferior to the true God, and to base Christianity, as a separate religion, on it own sole foundation.
Of Apollos—Though Apollos’ style of oratory was much more rhetorical than that of Paul, yet his theology was doubtless the same. He was taught Christianity by Paul’s dear friends and pupils, Aquila and Priscilla, and his intimate friendship for the apostle remained unbroken. Yet some tinge to his views there may have been derived from Alexandrian influences. Such tinge we recognize in the book of Hebrews; and something resembling it in the writings of John, both gospel and epistles.
Cephas—The name of Peter in the colloquial Hebrew of the day, (the Syriac or Aramaic,) signifying rock, of which Petros (Peter) was the Greek equivalent. See note on Mat_16:18. According to the best readings the form Cephas is used in the following places: Joh_1:42; 1Co_1:12; 1Co_3:22; 1Co_9:5; 1Co_15:5; Gal_2:9; Gal_1:18; Gal_2:10; Gal_2:14. It is uniformly used in the Syriac (Peshito) version, and uniformly, as a Jew, by St. Paul. The Petrine party at Corinth were, probably, mostly Jews. They were inclined to question Paul’s apostleship, to exalt themselves above their uncircumcised brethren, to maintain the value of the ritual, and the extremists among them tended to Ebionism.
Of Christ—It seems, at first, strange that the special advocates of Christ should lie under the apostle’s condemnation. But in our own age and country we have a special sect of Christians, who profess the name, but deny the deity, of Christ. Many rationalists at the present day, who reject evangelical doctrines, profess special reverence for Christ. That is, they admire the moral sayings of Jesus, especially the sermon on the mount, while the doctrines of his Godhead, his substitutional atonement, etc., they reject. So this sect of Christ probably rejected the apostles, and professed to be admirers and followers of the traditional sayings of Christ. They approved his ethics, but rejected the doctrines outlined in the Gospels, and more fully expanded in the epistles. They were probably Christianized rationalists from the Greek side of the Church.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 12. Now this I say, that every one of…
12. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul] The idea of some commentators that there were defined parties in the Apostolic Church under the leadership of Apostles and their Master, a Paul-party, a Peter-party, a Christ-party, is refuted by ch. 1Co_4:6, where St Paul plainly states that he had replaced the names of the antagonistic teachers at Corinth by that of himself and Apollos, in order to secure his rebukes from assuming a personal form.
Apollos] See Act_18:24-28. From this passage we gather that he was a Hellenistic Greek, of the school of philosophical Judaism which flourished at that time at Alexandria, and was an admixture of the doctrines of the Platonic philosophy with those of the Jewish religion. It is possible that he may have been a disciple of the celebrated Alexandrian teacher Philo, who was contemporary with the Apostles. Learned and zealous, he could not be confined within the bounds of any particular school, but diligently acquainted himself with all the movements which sprang up in the Jewish Church. Thus he became a disciple of John the Baptist, whose doctrines had been widely spread abroad by that time (Act_19:1-3), and as his fervent spirit was allied with the gift of eloquence, he speedily endeavoured to communicate to others the new light he had received. He is described as being ‘accurately instructed in the things concerning the Lord,’ although he knew ‘only the baptism of John.’ By this we are not to understand a perfect knowledge of the system of Christianity, or it would have been impossible for Aquila and Priscilla to have explained it to him ‘more accurately.’ His knowledge was probably confined to the Baptist’s witness to Christ as the Messiah, to the more general moral teaching of Christ, as contained in the first three Gospels, and to those remarkable glimpses of the inner mysteries of God’s kingdom (see Mat_3:9; St Joh_3:27-36, and compare St Joh_8:39; Rom_2:28-29; Rom_9:7) which our Gospels shew the Baptist to have had. But with that deeper teaching as a whole, confided by Christ to His disciples, and afterwards given to the world in the preaching and writings of the Apostles, and in the Gospel of St John, he had no acquaintance when he came to Ephesus. Endowed with this knowledge through the instrumentality of Aquila and Priscilla, he became an effective preacher of the Gospel, and filling St Paul’s place when the latter had left Corinth, ‘he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ’ But disgusted possibly by an attempt on the part of some (see note on ch. 1Co_16:12) to set him up as a rival to St Paul, he left Corinth and returned to Ephesus, and we know not whether he ever visited Corinth again.
Read full note →
Cephas] See St Joh_1:42.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (12) Now this I say.—Better, What I mean is,…
(12) Now this I say.—Better, What I mean is, that, &c. The following words, “every one of you saith,” show how party-spirit pervaded the whole Christian community. It may be well to mention here briefly what we may consider to have been the distinctive characteristics of the factions which called themselves respectively the party of Paul, of Cephas, of Apollos, and of Christ.
1. ST. PAUL places first that section of the Church which called themselves by his name—thus at the outset showing that it is not for the sole purpose of silencing opponents, or from a jealousy of the influence of other teachers, that he writes so strenuously against the disturbances in the Corinthian community. It is the spirit of separation and of faction which he condemns—rebuking it as strongly when it has led to the undue exaltation of his own name, as when it attempted to depreciate his gifts and ministry as compared with those of Apollos or of Cephas. He thus wins at once the attention and confidence of every candid reader. The Pauline party would no doubt have consisted chiefly of those who were the personal converts of the Apostle. Their esteem for him who had been the means of their conversion, seems to have been carried to excess in the manner in which it displayed itself. This would be increased by the hostility which their opponents’ disparagement of the Apostle naturally excited in them. They allowed St. Paul’s teaching of the liberty wherewith Christ made them free, to develop in them an unchristian license and a mode of treatment of others essentially illiberal, thus denying by their actions the very principles which they professed to hold dear. They “judged” and “set at nought” (Rom_14:10) brethren who could not take so essentially spiritual a view of Christianity, but who still clung to some of the outward forms of Judaism.
Read full note →
2. APOLLOS was a Jew of Alexandria—“an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures.” He came to Ephesus during St. Paul’s absence from that city, and taught what he knew of the “things of the Lord.” While here, he was instructed further in “the way of God” by Aquila and Priscilla, he having previously only the inadequate knowledge which was possessed by disciples of John (Act_18:24-28). Having preached in parts of Achaia, he came to Corinth. That he came there after St. Paul we may conclude from the Apostle’s reference to himself as having “planted,” and Apollos having “watered” (1Co_3:6), and again to himself as having “laid the foundation” (1Co_2:10). To Corinth Apollos brought with him the arts of the rhetorician, and the culture of a Greek philosopher; and while preaching Christ crucified, these gifts and knowledge rendered him more acceptable than St. Paul had been, with his studied simplicity of style, to a certain class of intellectual and rationalising hearers in Corinth. When Apollos left, a section of the Church unduly magnified the importance of his gifts and of his manner of teaching. They did so to the depreciation of the simplicity of the gospel. This all led to the development of evils which we shall see more in detail in our examination of 1Co_1:18-31 and 1 Corinthians 2. It ought to be remembered that Apollos was in no sense “the founder of a party.” It was the exaggeration and perversion of Apollos’ teaching, by some of the converts, that really founded the party. To the end he and Paul remained friends. He was probably with the Apostle while the Epistle was being written, and (1Co_16:12) refused, even when St. Paul suggested it, to go so soon again to Corinth, lest his presence should in the least tend to keep that party-spirit alive; and when, ten years (A.D. 67) later, the Apostle writes to Titus, he exhorts him “to bring Apollos on his journey diligently, that nothing be wanting to him” (Tit_3:13).
3. The third faction in Corinth professed themselves followers of ST. PETER—or, as he was always called, “Cephas.” This was the name by which our Lord addressed him in Mat_16:18, and by this name (and not by his Greek name, Peter) he would have been spoken of by the Apostles and early Christians. In the New Testament writings he is designated most frequently Peter, as his Greek name would be more intelligible to the larger world for which these writings were intended. This faction of the Corinthian Church still clung to many Jewish ceremonial ideas, from which St. Paul was entirely free. They seem not to have quite passed through the cloud. They exalted St. Peter as more worthy of honour than St. Paul, because he had personally been with Christ, and been called “Cephas” (rock) by Him. They insinuated that St. Paul’s supporting himself was not so dignified as the maintenance of St. Peter and others by the Church, in accordance with their Lord’s command (1Co_9:4-6; 2Co_11:9-10); and they unfavourably contrasted St. Paul’s celibacy with the married state of St. Peter, and of “the brethren of the Lord” (1Co_9:5). It is probable that their animosity towards St. Paul was not a little increased by the knowledge that there were certain matters in which he considered St. Peter to be in error, and “withstood him to the face” (Gal_2:2). To the detailed difficulties and errors of this section of the Corinthian Church reference is to be found in the 1Co_7:1 to 1Co_11:1.
4. There was still one other party or faction which dared to arrogate to themselves the name of CHRIST Himself. These over-estimated the importance and value of having seen Christ in the flesh, and despised St. Paul as one who had subsequently joined the Apostolate. Contempt for all human teachers was by them exalted into a virtue. Their greatest sin was that the very name which should have been the common bond of union, the name by the thought and memory of which the Apostle would plead for a restoration of unity, was degraded by them into the exclusive party-badge of a narrow section. We do not find any very definite and detailed allusion to this section in this Epistle, though in the second Epistle a reference to them can be traced in 1Co_10:7. There is no need for such at any length. Their condemnation is written in every chapter, the whole of the Epistle is a denunciation of the spirit of faction—of the sin of schism—which in their case reached a climax, inasmuch as they consecrated their sin with the very name of Christ. Such, briefly, were the four schisms which were rending the Corinthian Church. We might call them—1, The Party of Liberty (PAUL); 2, The Intellectual Party (APOLLOS); 3, The Judaizing Party (CEPHAS); 4, The Exclusive Party (who said, “I am of CHRIST”).
(12) I of Christ.—It has been suggested that this is not the designation of a fourth party in the Church, but an affirmation by the Apostle, “I am of Christ,” in contradistinction to those referred to before, who called themselves after the names of men. But in addition to the fact that there is no change in form of expression to indicate a change of sense, we find evident traces of the existence of such a party (1Co_9:1; 2Co_10:7).
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain Now this I mean; in other words, "what I…
Now this I mean; in other words, "what I mean is this." Their "contentions" are defined to be equivalent to "religious partisanships; "antagonistic adoption of the names and views of special teachers. Each one of you saith. That party spirit ran so high that they were all listed on one side or another. None of them were wise enough and spiritual minded enough to hold aloof from parties altogether. They prided themselves on being "uncompromising" and "party men." Saith; in a self-assertive way. (1Co_3:21) I am of Paul. He shows his indignation at their partisanship by first rebuking those who had used his own name as a party watchward. He disliked Paulinism as much as Petrinism (Bengel). All the Corinthians would probably have been in this sense Paulinists but for the visits of subsequent teachers. At present the Paul party consisted of those who adhered to his views about Gentile freedom, and who liked the simple spirituality of his teaching. St. Paul rose above the temptation of considering that party spirit is excusable in our own partisans. He reproves factiousness even in the party of freedom. And I of Apollos. Apollos personally was absolutely loyal and honourable, but his visit to Corinth had done mischief. His impassioned oratory, his Alexandrian refinements, his allegorizing exegesis, the culture and polish of his style, had charmed the fickle Corinthians. The Apollonians were the party of culture. They had, as we see from later parts of the Epistle, exaggerated St. Paul"s views, as expounded by Apollos, into extravagance. Puffed up with the conceit of knowledge, they had fallen into moral inconsistency. The egotism of oratorical rivals, the contemptuous tone to wards weaker brethren, the sophistical condonations of vice, were probably due to them. Apollos, as we see by his noble refusal to visit Corinth under present circumstances, (1Co_16:12) was as indignant as St. Paul himself at the perversion of his name into an engine of party warfare. (On Apollos, see Act_18:24-28 Act 19:1Ti Act_3:13) Nothing further is known respecting him, but he is the almost undoubted author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, which proves that he was of the school of St. Paul, while at the same time he showed a splendid originality in his way of arriving at the same conclusion as his teacher. I of Cephas. The use of the Aramaic name (1Co_3:22 1Co_9:5 1Co_15:6; Gal_2:9) perhaps, shows that these Petrinists were Judaizers. (though it should be added that St. Paul only uses the name "Peter" in Gal_2:7, Gal_2:8) They personally disliked St. Paul, and questioned his apostolical authority. Perhaps the extravagances of the "speaking with tongues" arose in this party, who recalled the effects of the outpouring of the Spirit after Peter"s great sermon on the day of Pentecost. And I of Christ. We trace the origin of this party to one man in particular, (2Co_2:7) who was, or professed to be, an adherent of James, and therefore one of the more rigid Judaizers. He may have been one from the circle of Christ"s earthly relatives one of the Desposyni, (see 1Co_9:5) and, like St. James, may have had views resembling those of the Essenes and Ebionites. If so, he was probably the author of the questions about celibacy and marriage; and perhaps he prided himself on having seen "Christ in the flesh." This party at any rate, like some modern sects, was not ashamed to degrade into a party watchword even the sacred name of Christ, and to claim for a miserable clique an exclusive interest in the Lord of the whole Church. It is the privilege of every Christian to say, "Christianus sum;" but if he says it in a haughty, loveless, and exclusive spirit, he forfeits his own claim to the title. This exclusive Christ party is, perhaps, specially alluded 2Co_10:7-11. The view of Chrysostom, which takes these words to be St. Paul"s remark I belong.to Christ," is untenable, and would make trim guilty of the very self-assertiveness which he is reprobating.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain 12. Now this I say. I explain more fully…
12. Now this I say. I explain more fully what I mean. He shows that there were four existing parties: A Pauline party, clinging to the founder of their church; a party of Apollos, who were probably carried away by their admiration of his Alexandrian philosophy; a party of Judaizer, who claimed to be following Peter, called here by his Hebrew name of Cephas; and a fourth party, who claimed to turn away from all these human leaders, and to be only of Christ.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain Now this I mean, that each one of you…
Now this I mean, that each one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ .
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 Each one of you says
Each one of you says
Paul is expressing a general attitude of division.
Read full note →
Is Christ divided?
Paul wishes to emphasize the truth that Christ is not divided but one. "It is not possible to divide Christ in the way you are doing!" (See: Rhetorical Question and Active or Passive)
Was Paul crucified for you?
Paul wishes to emphasize that it was Christ, not Paul or Apollos, who was crucified. This can also be translated in active form. AT: "It certainly was not Paul whom they put to death on the cross for your salvation!" (See: Rhetorical Question and Active or Passive)
Were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Paul wishes to emphasize that we all are baptized in the name of Christ. This can also be translated in active form. AT: "It was not in the name of Paul that people baptized you!" (See: Rhetorical Question and Active or Passive)
in the name of Paul
"In the name of" here is a metonym for "by the authority of." AT: "by Paul's authority" (See: Metonymy)
translationWords
Paul
Apollos
Peter
Christ
crucify
baptize
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 1:12 The Christians in Corinth had formed factions loyal…
1:12 The Christians in Corinth had formed factions loyal to different Christian leaders, but the leaders themselves do not seem to have been in conflict. Paul, as the one who had first brought the Good News to Corinth, would receive the loyalty of some. • Apollos, now with Paul (see 16:12), was an eloquent Alexandrian Jew who had become a powerful Christian evangelist and had ministered in Corinth (see Acts 18:24–19:1). He attracted followers because of his skillful oratory (perhaps in contrast to Paul) and his ability to interpret Scripture. • Peter: Greek Cephas; see also Matt 16:18; John 1:42 Peter was the primary early evangelist to the Jews. He represented a more traditional Jewish perspective and had a gift for speaking in front of crowds (see Acts 1:15-22; 2:14-40; 3:12-26; 4:8-12; 10:34-43). • I follow only Christ: This might refer to a group who disavowed allegiance to any human authority and viewed themselves as more holy than others.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.