Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one should say that I had baptized you into my own name. (I also baptized the household of Stephanas; besides them, I don’t know whether I baptized any other.) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Good News—not in wisdom of words, so that the cross of Christ wouldn’t be made void.
Show the surrounding paragraph
1 Corinthians 1:13-17 sits inside this longer paragraph.
Now I beg you, brothers, through the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been reported to me concerning you, my brothers, by those who are from Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” “I follow Apollos,” “I follow Cephas,” and, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one should say that I had baptized you into my own name. (I also baptized the household of Stephanas; besides them, I don’t know whether I baptized any other.) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Good News—not in wisdom of words, so that the cross of Christ wouldn’t be made void. For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are dying, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Parallel Translations
-
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul?
I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius,
so that no one should say that I had baptized you into my own name.
(I also baptized the household of Stephanas; besides them, I don’t know whether I baptized any other.)
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Good News—not in wisdom of words, so that the cross of Christ wouldn’t be made void.
-
Ys Christ devided? was Paul crucified for you? ether were ye baptised in the name of Paul?
I thanke God that I christened none of you but Crispus and Gayus
lest eny shulde saye that I had baptised in myne awne name.
I baptised also the housse of Stephana. Forthermore knowe I not whether I baptised eny man or no.
For Christ sent me not to baptyse but to preache the gospell not with wysdome of wordes lest the crosse of Christ shuld have bene made of none effecte.
Show all 3 translations
-
Is Christ deuided? was Paul crucified for you? either were ye baptized into the name of Paul?
I thanke God, that I baptized none of you, but Crispus, and Gaius,
Lest any should say, that I had baptized into mine owne name.
I baptized also the houshold of Stephanas: furthermore knowe I not, whether I baptized any other.
For CHRIST sent me not to baptize, but to preache the Gospel, not with wisdome of wordes, lest the crosse of Christ should be made of none effect.
Examined in Scripture Analysis
Contradictions (1)
Questions where the Bible appears to say two different things, with the passages on each side set together.
Cross-references (42)
- 1 Corinthians 2:1 (v17) When I came to you, brothers, I didn’t come with excellence of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
- 1 Corinthians 2:13 (v17) We also speak these things, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with…
- Ephesians 4:5 (v13) one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
- 2 Corinthians 11:4 (v13) For if he who comes preaches another Jesus, whom we didn’t preach, or if you receive a different spirit, which you didn’t receive, or a…
- 2 Peter 1:16 (v17) For we didn’t follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were…
Show all 41 cross-references
- 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 (v17) My speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith…
- 2 Corinthians 10:10 (v17) For, “His letters”, they say, “are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech is despised.”
- Acts 2:38 (v13) Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you will…
- Acts 18:8 (v14) Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his house. Many of the Corinthians, when they heard, believed and were…
- Acts 10:48 (vv13, 17) He commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay some days.
- John 4:2 (v17) (although Jesus himself didn’t baptize, but his disciples),
- Acts 19:5 (v13) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
- Romans 16:23 (v14) Gaius, my host and host of the whole assembly, greets you. Erastus, the treasurer of the city, greets you, as does Quartus, the brother.
- 1 Corinthians 10:2 (v13) and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
- 1 Corinthians 16:15 (v16) Now I beg you, brothers—you know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have set themselves to serve…
- 2 Corinthians 4:2 (v17) But we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by the…
- Acts 26:17-18 (v17) delivering you from the people, and from the Gentiles, to whom I send you, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light…
- 1 Corinthians 16:17 (v16) I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus; for that which was lacking on your part, they supplied.
- 2 Corinthians 5:14-15 (v13) For the love of Christ constrains us; because we judge thus, that one died for all, therefore all died. He died for all, that those who…
- 2 Corinthians 10:3-4 (v17) For though we walk in the flesh, we don’t wage war according to the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty…
- 2 Corinthians 11:6 (v17) But though I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not unskilled in knowledge. No, in every way we have been revealed to you in all things.
- Matthew 28:19 (v13) Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
- Acts 16:15 (v16) When she and her household were baptized, she begged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and…
- Acts 16:33 (v16) He took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes, and was immediately baptized, he and all his household.
- Galatians 1:7 (v13) but there isn’t another “good news.” Only there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the Good News of Christ.
- Acts 8:16 (v13) for as yet he had fallen on none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of Christ Jesus.
- Romans 14:9 (v13) For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
- 1 Corinthians 1:15 (v13) so that no one should say that I had baptized you into my own name.
- 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 (v13) Or don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were…
- Titus 2:14 (v13) who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify for himself a people for his own possession, zealous for…
- John 3:28-29 (v15) You yourselves testify that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent before him.’ He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but…
- John 7:18 (v15) He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
- 1 Corinthians 1:4 (v14) I always thank my God concerning you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus;
- 1 Corinthians 14:18 (v14) I thank my God, I speak with other languages more than you all.
- 2 Corinthians 2:14 (v14) Now thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumph in Christ, and reveals through us the sweet aroma of his knowledge in every place.
- 2 Corinthians 11:2 (v15) For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy. For I married you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ.
- Ephesians 5:20 (v14) giving thanks always concerning all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God, even the Father;
- Colossians 3:15 (v14) And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body, and be thankful.
- Colossians 3:17 (v14) Whatever you do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father, through him.
- 1 Thessalonians 5:18 (v14) In everything give thanks, for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus toward you.
- 3 John 1:1-4 (v14) The elder to Gaius the beloved, whom I love in truth. Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be healthy, even as your soul…
41 distinct cross-references across this passage (42 total citations).
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this passage (26 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 On vv13, 14, 17 13. Is Christ divided? This intolerable evil was consequent…
13. Is Christ divided? This intolerable evil was consequent upon the divisions that prevailed among the Corinthians: for Christ alone must reign in the Church. And as the object of the gospel is, that we be reconciled to God through him, it is necessary, in the first place, that we should all be bound together in him. As, however, only a very few of the Corinthians, who were in a sounder condition than the others, retained Christ as their Master, (while all made it their boast that they were Christians,) Christ was by this means torn asunder. For we must be one body, if we would be kept together under him as our head. If, on the other hand, we are split asunder into different bodies, we start aside from him also. Hence to glory in his name amidst strifes and parties is to tear him in pieces: which indeed is impossible, for never will he depart from unity and concord, because “He cannot deny himself” (2 Timothy 2:13.) Paul, therefore, by setting before them this absurdity, designs to lead the Corinthians to perceive that they are estranged from Christ, inasmuch as they are divided, for then only does he reign in us, when we have him as the bond of an inviolably sacred unity.
Was Paul crucified for you? By two powerful considerations, he shows how base a thing it is to rob Christ of the honor of being the sole Head of the Church — the sole Teacher — the sole Master; or to draw away from him any part of that honor, with the view of transferring it to men. The first is, that we have been redeemed by Christ on this footing, that we are not our own masters. This very argument Paul makes use of in his Epistle to the Romans (Romans 14:9,) when he says,
Read full note →
“For this end Christ died and rose again, that he might be Lord both of the living and the dead.”
To him, therefore, let us live and die, because we are always his. Also in this same Epistle (1 Corinthians 7:23,)
“Ye are bought with a price: be not ye the servants of men.”
As the Corinthians, therefore, had been purchased with the blood of Christ, they in a manner renounced the benefit of redemption, when they attached themselves to other leaders. Here is a doctrine that is deserving of special notice — that we are not at liberty to put ourselves under bondage to men, because we are the Lord’s heritage. Here, therefore, he accuses the Corinthians of the basest ingratitude, in estranging themselves from that Leader, by whose blood they had been redeemed, however they might have done so unwittingly.
Farther, this passage militates against the wicked contrivance of Papists, by which they attempt to bolster up their system of indulgences. For it is from the blood of Christ and the martyrs that they make up that imaginary treasure of the Church, which they tell us is dealt out by means of indulgences. Thus they pretend that the martyrs by their death merited something for us in the sight of God, that we may seek help from this source for obtaining the pardon of our sins. They will deny, indeed, that they are on that account our redeemers; but nothing is more manifest than that the one thing follows from the other. The question is as to the reconciling of sinners to God; the question is as to the obtaining of forgiveness; the question is as to the appeasing of the Lord’s anger; the question is as to redemption from our iniquities. This they boast is accomplished partly by the blood of Christ, and partly by that of the martyrs. They make, therefore, the martyrs partners with Christ in procuring our salvation. Here, however, Paul in strong terms denies that any one but Christ has been crucified for us. The martyrs, it is true, died for our benefit, but (as Leo observes) it was to furnish an example of perseverance, not to procure for us the gift of righteousness.
Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Here we have a second argument, which is taken from the profession of baptism; for we enlist ourselves under the banners of him in whose name we are baptized. We are, accordingly, bound to Christ, in whose name our baptism is celebrated. Hence it follows that the Corinthians are chargeable with perfidy and apostasy, if they place themselves under subjection to men. Observe here that the nature of baptism resembles a contract of mutual obligation; for as the Lord by that symbol receives us into his household, and introduces us among his people, so we pledge our fidelity to him, that we will never afterwards have any other spiritual Lord. Hence as it is on God’s part a covenant of grace that he contracts with us, in which he promises forgiveness of sins and a new life, so on our part it is an oath of spiritual warfare, in which we promise perpetual subjection to him. The former department Paul does not here touch upon, because the subject did not admit of it; but in treating of baptism it ought not to be omitted. Nor does Paul charge the Corinthians with apostasy simply on the ground of their forsaking Christ and betaking themselves to men; but he declares that if they do not adhere to Christ alone — that very thing would make them covenant-breakers.
It is asked, what it is to be baptized in the name of Christ? I answer that by this expression it is not simply intimated that baptism is founded on the authority of Christ, but depends also on his influence, and does in a manner consist in it; and, in fine, that the whole effect of it depends on this — that the name of Christ is therein invoked. It is asked farther, why it is that Paul says that the Corinthians were baptized in the name of Christ, while Christ himself commanded (Matthew 28:19) the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I answer, that in baptism the first thing to be considered is, that God the Father, by planting us in his Church in unmerited goodness, receives us by adoption into the number of his sons. Secondly, as we cannot have any connection with him except by means of reconciliation, we have need of Christ to restore us to the Father’s favor by his blood. Thirdly, as we are by baptism consecrated to God, we need also the interposition of the Holy Spirit, whose office it is to make us new creatures. Nay farther, our being washed in the blood of Christ is peculiarly his work; but as we do not obtain the mercy of the Father, or the grace of the Spirit, otherwise than through Christ alone, it is on good grounds that we speak of him as the peculiar object in view in baptism, and more particularly inscribe his name upon baptism. At the same time this does not by any means exclude the name of the Father and of the Spirit; for when we wish to sum up in short compass the efficacy of baptism, we make mention of Christ alone; but when we are disposed to speak with greater minuteness, the name of the Father and that of the Spirit require to be expressly introduced.
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 On vv13, 14, 17 Another reason: Because they cannot without great injury to…
Another reason: Because they cannot without great injury to God so hang of men as of Christ: which thing no doubt they do, which allow whatsoever some man speaketh, even for his person’s sake: as these men allowed one selfsame Gospel being uttered of one man, and did loathe it being uttered of another man. So that these factions were called by the names of their teachers. Now Paul setteth down his own name not only to grieve no man, but also to showeth it he pleadeth not his own cause.
The third reason taken of the form and end of Baptism, wherein we make a promise to Christ, calling on also the Name of the Father and the holy Ghost. Therefore although a man does not fall from the doctrine of Christ, yet if he hang upon some certain teachers, and despise others, he forsaketh Christ: for if he hold Christ his only master, he would hear him, teaching by whomsoever.
Read full note →
The first reason why schisms ought to be eschewed: because Christ formeth by that means, to be divided and torn in pieces, who cannot be the head of two divers and disagreeing bodies, being himself one.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv13–17 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you?…
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Ver. 13. Baptized in the name] Gr. "Into the name," so as to be called by my name. Those then that will needs be called Franciscans, Lutherans, &c., do after a sort disclaim their baptism, and become renegades from Christ.
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 On vv13–17 How came these parties? There is but one Christ,…
How came these parties? There is but one Christ, but one that was crucified for you, but one into whose name, into a faith in whom, and a profession of whom, you were baptized. Peter baptized you into the name of Christ, so did I; I did not list those whom I baptized under any banner of my own, but under Christ’s banner. The Head is but one, and the body ought not to be divided.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On v14 Observe here, 1. That though baptizing were God’s ordinance,…
Observe here, 1. That though baptizing were God’s ordinance, and St. Paul, as Christ’s minister, had commission and sufficient authority to baptize, yet the providence of God so ordered, that he baptized very few, lest any should say he baptized in his own name.
Observe, 2. That among those few he baptized, here is a whole household mentioned, The household of Stephanas.
Read full note →
Where learn, That as Abraham, and others under the Old Testament, were to bring their households into covenant with God by circumcision, so did those that had households under the New Testament endeavour to bring their whole families into God’s covenant by baptism. The gaoler and his house, Lydia and her house, Stephanas and his household, are all baptized.
Observe, 3. The comparison here made betwixt baptizing and preaching, and the preference given to the one before the other: Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach; that is, rather to preach than to baptize: this was his great business, his principal work; though baptizing was within his commission, yet it was not that, but preaching the gospel to convert souls to Christ, that he was called after such a wonderful manner, and endued with such extraordinary gifts for the performance of. It is neither wise, nor safe, to cry up one ordinance of God above another, but to have them all in estimation, and none more than the preaching of the gospel, which is one principal part of our commission.
Observe, 4. The manner after which Christ sent St. Paul to preach the gospel: Not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect; that is, not attracting and drawing men to the faith by the power of human eloquence, lest the doctrine of Christ should be rendered suspected by such a pompous way of preaching.
Plain truths, without art and varnish, may be conveyed with more warmth and vigour to the conscience, than all the charms of human eloquence from the most fluent and popular tongue. The way and manner of St. Paul’s preaching was grave and serious, pious and ardent, plain and profitable. With what brevity, without darkness; with what gravity, without affectation; with what eloquence, without meretricious ornament, were St. Paul’s discourses! solidly instructing men in the great and necessary duties of the gospel, and furnishing them with arguments and motives to a good life, and this in such a plain and familiar manner, that the success and prevalency of his preaching appeared to be of God, and not of man.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv14, 17 Here the apostle gives an account of his ministry…
Here the apostle gives an account of his ministry among them. He thanks God he had baptized but a few among them, Crispus, who had been a ruler of a synagogue at Corinth (Act 18:8), Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, besides whom, he says, he did not remember that he had baptized any. But how was this a proper matter for thankfulness? Was it not a part of the apostolical commission to baptize all nations? And could Paul give thanks to God for his own neglect of duty? He is not to be understood in such a sense as if he were thankful for not having baptized at all, but for not having done it in present circumstances, lest it should have had this very bad construction put upon it - that he had baptized in his own name, made disciples for himself, or set himself up as the head of a sect. He left it to other ministers to baptize, while he set himself to more useful work, and filled up his time with preaching the gospel. This, he thought, was more his business, because the more important business of the two. He had assistants that could baptize, when none could discharge the other part of his office so well as himself. In this sense he says, Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not so much to baptize as to preach. Note, Ministers should consider themselves sent and set apart more especially to that service in which Christ will be most honoured and the salvation of souls promoted, and for which they are best fitted, though no part of their duty is to be neglected. The principal business Paul did among them was to preach the gospel (Co1 1:17), the cross (Co1 1:18), Christ crucified, Co1 1:23. Ministers are the soldiers of Christ, and are to erect and display the banner of the cross. He did not preach his own fancy, but the gospel - the glad tidings of peace, and reconciliation to God, through the mediation of a crucified Redeemer. This is the sum and substance of the gospel. Christ crucified is the foundation of all our joys. By his death we live. This is what Paul preached, what all ministers should preach, and what all the saints live upon.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv13, 14, 15, 17 Is Christ divided?.... Some read the words as an…
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,
Read full note →
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.
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 On vv13–17 Is Christ divided - Are not all the members…
Is Christ divided - Are not all the members still under one head? Was not he alone crucified for you all; and were ye not all baptized in his name? The glory of Christ then is not to be divided between him and his servants; neither is the unity of the body to be torn asunder, seeing Christ is one still.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv13–17 Verse 13. Is Christ divided?] Can he be split…
Verse 13. 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.
Read full note →
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, c., 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?
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv13, 17 1Co 1:13-16. Why do you not all say the…
1Co 1:13-16. Why do you not all say the same thing, namely, I am of Christ, 1Co 3:23. Is Christ divided? — Did one Christ send Paul, and another Apollos, to preach the gospel to you? Is not one and the same Christ preached to you by us all? or is his body divided? See 2Co 11:4. Was Paul — Or any other but Christ Jesus; crucified for you — That you should be baptized into his death, as Christians are into the death of Christ? that is, engaged by baptism to be conformed to his death, by dying to sin and to the world. As if he had said, Are your obligations to me, or to any other apostle or Christian minister, equal or comparable to those which you are under to our common Master? to him who died for us upon the cross? He mentions himself, as it was least invidious to do so; though the application was equally just as to every other instance. The apostle’s question here implies, that the sufferings of Christ have an influence in saving the world, which the sufferings of no other man have, or can have. Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul —
By his authority, and dedicated to his service? To be baptized in or into the name of any person is, as Locke observes, “to enter himself a disciple of him into whose name he is baptized, with profession to receive his doctrine and rules, and submit to his authority: a very good argument here, why they should be called by no one’s name but Christ’s.” In this sense the Israelites are said, 1Co 10:2, to have been baptized into Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea. I thank God — Who so ordered it in the course of his providence: it is a pious phrase for the common one, I rejoice: that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius — Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue at Corinth, and among the first of the Corinthians who were converted by Paul, Act 18:8 : Gaius, or Caius, was the person with whom the apostle lodged when he wrote his epistle to the Romans, Rom 15:23. Both of them were persons of eminence. The other Corinthians may have been baptized by the apostle’s assistants, Silas, Titus, and Timothy. Lest any should say I had baptized in my own name — In order to attach the persons baptized to myself, and cause them to acknowledge me for their head. Also the household of Stephanas — Who, according to Theophylact, was a person of note among the Corinthians; and his family seem all to have been adults when they were baptized, being said, 1Co 16:15, to have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. I know not — That is, it does not at present occur to my memory; whether I baptized any other — “Here the apostle intimates that he is not speaking by inspiration, but from memory. He did not remember whether he baptized any more of the Corinthians. The Spirit was given to the apostles indeed to lead them into all truth; but it was truth relative to the plan of man’s salvation, which was thus made known to them, and not truth, like the fact here mentioned, the certain knowledge of which was of no use whatever to the world.”
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv13–17 Is Christ divided? - Paul, in this verse, proceeds…
Is Christ divided? - Paul, in this verse, proceeds to show the impropriety of their divisions and strifes. His general argument is, that Christ alone ought to be regarded as their head and leader, and that his claims, arising from his crucifixion, and acknowledged by their baptism, were so pre-eminent that they could not be divided, and the honors due to him should not be rendered to any other. The apostle, therefore, asks, with strong emphasis, whether Christ was to be regarded as divided? Whether this single Supreme Head and Leader of the church, had become the head of different contending factions? The strong absurdity of supposing that, showed the impropriety of their ranging themselves under different banners and leaders.
Was Paul crucified for you? - This question implies that the crucifixion of Christ had an influence in saving them which the sufferings of no other one could have, and that those sufferings were in fact the speciality which distinguished the work of Christ, and rendered it of so much value. The atonement was the grand, crowning work of the Lord Jesus. It was through this that all the Corinthian Christians had been renewed and pardoned. That work was so pre-eminent that it could not have been performed by another. And as they had all been saved by that alone; as they were alike dependent on his merits for salvation, it was improper that they should be torn into contending factions, and ranged under different leaders. If there is anything that will recall Christians of different names and of contending sects from the heat of strife, it is the recollection of the fact that they have been purchased by the same blood, and that the same Saviour died to redeem them all. If this fact could be kept before their minds, it would put an end to angry strife everywhere in the church, and produce universal Christian love.
Read full note →
Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul - Or, “into,” or “unto” the name of Paul; see the note at Mat 28:19. To be baptized “into,” or “unto” anyone is to be devoted to him, to receive and acknowledge him as a teacher, professing to receive his rules, and to be governed by his authority - Locke. Paul here solemnly reminds them that their baptism was an argument why they should not range themselves under different leaders. By that, they had been solemnly and entirely devoted to the service of the only Saviour. “Did I ever,” was the implied language of Paul, “baptize in my own name? Did I ever pretend to organize a sect, announcing myself as a leader? Have not I always directed you to that Saviour into whose name and service you have been baptized?” It is remarkable here, that Paul refers to himself, and not to Apollos or Peter. He does not insinuate that the claims of Apollos or Peter were to be disparaged, or their talents and influence to be undervalued, as a jealous rival would have done; but he numbers himself first, and alone, as having no claims to be regarded as a religious leader among them, or the founder of a sect. Even he, the founder of the church, and their spiritual father, had never desired or intended that they should call themselves by his name; and he thus showed the impropriety of their adopting the name of any man as the leader of a sect.
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 On vv13, 14, 17 Was Paul crucified for you? Though says St. Augustine…
Was Paul crucified for you? Though says St. Augustine brothers may die for brothers, yet the blood of no martyr is shed for the remission of a brother’s sin. See also St. Leo the Great, serm. xii. de pass. Dom.
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).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v17 A. Repugnant to the predelictions of both Greeks and…
II. THE TRUE METHOD OF PREACHING
A. Repugnant to the predelictions of both Greeks and Jews
Read full note →
1Co_1:17-25
17Not with [in ἐν] wisdom of words, [discourse15] lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18For the preaching [discourse] of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God. 19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of 20the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this16 world [the world]? 21For after that [since]17 in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased 22God by the foolishness of preaching18 to save them that believe. For [since both]19 23the [om. the] Jews require a sign, [signs]20 and the [om. the] Greeks seek after wisdom: But we [on the contrary]21 preach Christ crucified, unto the [om. the] Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the [om. the] Greeks [Gentiles ἔθνεσι]22 foolishness; 24But unto them which are called, [these, the called]23 both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
[The connection.—from the mention of his commission, especially to preach the Gospel, the Apostle takes occasion, as it were incidentally, to set forth the manner in which this work was to be done. The topic thus introduced has however a direct bearing upon the previous one, for he handles it in a way both to vindicate his own course to which some had taken exception, and also to rebuke those tendencies, which, in their antagonism to a pure Gospel, had engendered contention and schism. Of the mode of transition to this theme Bengel remarks: “I doubt whether it would be approved by the rules of Corinthian eloquence. Therefore the Apostle in this very passage is furnishing a specimen, so to speak, of apostolic folly, and yet the whole is arranged with the greatest wisdom.”]
1Co_1:17 b–21. [The proper mode of preaching described first negatively].—Not in wisdom of speech.—οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου. It is better to join this clause to the word “preach” just preceding, than to the main statement “Christ sent me.” [As to the meaning there are three distinct interpretations. 1. That of Calvin and others, who place the stress on “speech,” and understand by the phrase ornate and artificial discourse in contrast with plain homely speech. The objection to this is that it fails to give due weight to the word “wisdom,” which is used by the Apostle in a strict sense throughout the chapter, and is the special object of his animad version. 2. That of Olshausen, who takes it to denote “word-wisdom,” i.e., “a wisdom in appearance and not in reality,” an interpretation which de Wette justly styles “sonderbar.” 3. That of Storr and Flatt, de Wette and Hodge, who, taking the emphasis to be on “wisdom,” and understanding it of the subject-matter, suppose the Apostle to be repudiating here all connection with heathen philosophy. But to this it may be replied that such repudiation was wholly gratuitous, for no one would imagine that in preaching the Gospel he would be likely to employ the speculations of a secular Wisdom 4. That of Meyer and Kling, who while emphasizing “wisdom,” understand it as referring to the form of discourse. According to this, what the Apostle asserts is that he was not to preach the Gospel in a philosophical manner, making it a matter of science rather than a vital power for the heart and conscience. In such a case the Genitive would be used analogously to the Hebrew construction, where the first noun in construction qualifies the second. Hence “wisdom of discourse” would be=philosophic discourse. See Nordheimer Heb. Grammar B. III. 1 Corinthians 5. § 801. 2.] So Neander “Σοφία λόγου=σοφία ἐν ̓τῷ λέγειν, not wisdom absolutely, but the wisdom of dialectic demonstration.” Indeed it is not to be denied that in the course of this paragraph both σοφία and λόγος are used also in relation to the subject matter, and that this is always more or less affected by the mode of exposition. Unquestionably it makes a difference whether the subject matter is first vitally apprehended by the spirit and then creates its own form of expression for itself, or whether a form foreign and unsuitable is forced upon it, drawn from other spheres of life and thought; in other words whether the Gospel is proclaimed naturally in its divine excellence and simplicity, or whether, taken up under the conceptions of an alien philosophy, and arrayed in the rhetoric and dialectics of a people still unsanctified (like the Greeks for example), it be thus presented to the mind. An instance of the latter kind occurred not only in the Gnosis of the heretics, but also to a certain degree in that of the Alexandrian Church of a later period. And probably it was with an eye to the beginning of such a tendency in the party of Apollos that the Apostle affirmed that, according to the will of the Great Commissioner, it devolved on him not to preach the Gospel “in wisdom of speech.” And the expression means nothing else than: not in the style of a philosopher trained in the rhetoric and dialectics of the schools, [but in that of a witness, bearing testimony to the great facts in and through which God had chosen to reveal himself. The reason for this was], lest the Cross of Christ be made of none effect.—Κενωθῇ, become empty, void; here according to the connection: be robbed of its power and influence. By “the Cross of Christ” we understand that death of Christ upon the cross by which we are redeemed and reconciled to God. This is the centre and kernel of all Gospel preaching, by the power of which sinners are delivered from the tyranny of sin, and restored to a new and divine life. And this cross, he says, would be bereft of all efficiency for such results were it set forth in the forms of philosophy, inasmuch as in this way it would serve only to call out the assent of the intellect or awaken an aesthetic pleasure, while the flesh, that is, the corrupt natural life of the selfish heart, would remain unaffected. But let the cross only be held up before that heart in its divine simplicity, and it would then display an energy destructive of this life. Through it the flesh with its affections and lusts would be crucified. (Gal_5:24). But although this blessed result is obtained by means of preaching or doctrine, yet it does not follow from this that we are to make “the cross” here equivalent to “the doctrine of the cross, or to the doctrine of Christ crucified.” Rather the relation which this clause sustains to the foregoing implies that here we are to understand the simple fact itself held up in its own native majesty and power. [Whatever obscures or diverts attention from this deprives, it to that extent of its power].
1Co_1:18. [The position thus taken he proceeds to explain and substantiate from obvious facts.—For the preaching (lit: word λόγος) of the cross is to them that perish folly, but to those that are saved, ourselves, it is the power of God.—Here the force of the argument is to be found in the second member of the antithesis. The first is introduced merely as a concession to a supposed objection. The Corinthians might retort, “The cross of Christ rendered without effect by wisdom of speech! Why, your method of preaching is not half so taking and effectual as the one you denounce.” This the Apostle concedes, but limits its applicability only to a certain class, to those who are in the way of sin and are going to destruction. ‘These,’ he says, ‘are blind. They have no sense of sin, and gee not therefore the wisdom of the cross. To them it is folly. But while to them I acknowledged it is such as you say, yet to those who are in the way of salvation, the cross is a thing of power. They see its meaning. They feel its disenthralling and life-giving influences. And it is by what you see of its effect among these that you must judge of it”]. Accordingly that to which this divine power is ascribed, “the word of the cross,” must be regarded as Gospel-preaching in its simplest and most unadorned style, the earnest exhibition of the great act of redeeming love directly to the heart, without human accessories. It is not the doctrine about the cross, but the word which presents the cross itself in its concrete form and in its plain and pungent application to human conditions. It is of this he predicates a divine power. But this power is manifested only among such as are saved—a thought which is brightened by the foregoing contrast. In both clauses the sign of the Dative “to” means “in their judgment.” But in the one case it is a judgment proceeding from a blinded mind, in the other a judgment founded upon blessed experience. In reference to the first see 2Co_4:3-4; to both 2Co_2:15-16. To the former it seems absurd to have the fact of Christ’s death nakedly held before them as the ground of all salvation—to hear a voice from the cross calling unto them “Look unto me and be saved,” because they see no rational connection between cause and effect here. These are “the lost,” i.e., they are excluded from all participation in the blessedness and glory of God’s kingdom, and are doomed to bitter anguish and disgrace. (See 2Th_1:9; Rev_21:8; Rev_22:15; Mar_9:43). In contrast with this appears the state of salvation, that is, a deliverance from this doom, (see Luk_6:9; Mat_18:11; Jam_4:12) which includes also a share in the blessedness and glory of God’s kingdom. (Comp. 2Ti_4:18; Rom_5:10; Rom_8:21). There are here, then, two classes of persons contrasted in relation to their final lot. For the purpose of designating them uses P. the present participles (ἀπολλυμένοις—σωζομένοις) as the ones best suited, since time is not taken into account. It is therefore not “the present for the future” for the purpose of indicating the certainty of the lot contemplated, nor yet does the present denote the progressive development in the condition of the parties. Nor yet would it be in place here to introduce the idea of predestination, as Rückert does, taking the terms to denote the divinely appointed destiny of two classes, for with Paul this idea never occurs in any such way as to exclude the idea of a free self-determination, (comp. 2Th_2:10; Act_13:46) since to all pro founder contemplation the work of God and the act of man in the genesis and development of faith are inseparably one. “This only must be conceded that the Apostle’s mode of expression is grounded upon a τρόπος παιδείας; a mode of teaching peculiar to him. Paul delights to refer back everything at once to the divine superintendence. Only in this reference the human receptivity or non-receptivity is at the same time included.” Neander. On “the power of God” see Rom_1:6 where the Gospel is said to be “the power of God to every one that believeth.” The contrast between “folly” and “power” is certainly not a strict one, but nevertheless a true one. As the former implies that the Gospel is, according to the judgment of those that perish, a weak thing, so does the latter imply that it is to the others, a manifestation of divine wisdom; or, as the idea of folly excludes that of power, so does the idea of power presuppose that of wisdom.
1Co_1:19. Confirmation adduced from Scripture. “For it is written [“This formula with its following citations is found only in those Epistles of Paul which were addressed to churches in which there was a large admixture of Jewish converts. It does not occur in those written to the Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, which were composed almost entirely of Gentile converts. This coincidence between the History in Acts and the character of the Epistles is evidence of the genuineness of both.” Words.] I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and bring to naught the prudence of the prudent.”—This Divine declaration is taken from a prophecy of Isaiah, which culminates in an announcement of salvation through the Messiah. (Isa_29:14, comp. 1Co_1:17 ff.), and, as the result and penalty of the hypocritical conduct of the Jewish people, proclaims the downfall of the wisdom of their wise ones and the vanishing of the understanding of the prudent, so that this wisdom and understanding should contribute nothing towards their deliverance in the day of evil. This judicial threatening on the part of God was incontrovertibly fulfilled in the times of the New Testament. The wisdom of the ungodly proves unfit for apprehending the Gospel salvation. In reference to this it loses all its availability and appears as nothing worth. The citation is not literal, though, according to the sense, exact. [It is taken from LXX. with slight variation: ἀθετήσα for κρύψω, and αὐτοῦ omitted twice. “The prophet makes use of neuter verbs, while Paul turns them into the active form by making them have a reference to God. They are however perfectly the same in meaning. “Wisdom perishes,” but it is by the Lord’s destroying it. “Prudence vanishes,” but it is by the Lord’s covering it over and effacing it.—The application of this to the subject in hand is this: The Lord has been wont to punish the arrogance of those who, depending on their own judgment, think to be leaders to themselves and others; and if this happened among a people whose wisdom the other nations had occasion to admire, what will become of others?” Calvin]. In reference to this subject see the words of Christ: Mat_11:25 ss.; also 1Co_15:7-8.
1Co_1:20. [The Apostle’s triumphant challenge for disproof of this declaration.—Where is a wise? where is a scribe? where is a disputer of this world?—The designations here are all anarthrous, and Meyer, de Wette, Kling, all translate as above. Alford, Stanley, Hodge, Barnes, insert the article. The difference in meaning is plain, though not important. In the one case the inquiry is after the person mentioned, q. d., ‘Where is a wise man to be found?’ as though he were not. In the other the question is, ‘What has become of him conceding that he exists?’ The latter better suits the drift of the text.—There is a question also as to whether these words likewise are cited from the Old Testament. There is something like them to be found in Isa_33:18, uttered “in a burst of triumph over the defeat of Sennacherib,” and Stanley considers them as taken from thence. But as the Apostle is here evidently speaking in his own name, we can regard his language as no more than an undesigned imitation of that of the Prophet—a lingering echo of it freely reproduced to suit a present purpose. He is here appealing in his own name to existing facts by way of confirmation. Where is the wise? etc. So Calvin]. They have vanished. They pass for nothing in the Divine economy. So far as it is concerned, they are as if they had never been. His mode of challenge occurs also elsewhere with Paul (1Co_15:55; Rom_3:27; Rom_3:29; Rom_3:31.)—The last attributive: “of this world,” belongs, although not grammatically, (since the questions are rapid and abrupt), yet logically, to all the three terms, and describes those mentioned as belonging to the lower stage of human development, the Præ Messianic period. This old world, so far as it seeks to maintain itself still, even after that which is perfect has come in Christ, shows itself to be perverse and at enmity with God; yea, as in itself evil, because pervaded with error and sin. Comp. Gal_1:4, “from the present evil world.” Here the term rendered “world” is a αἰών and more properly denotes a period of time, an age of the world. The antithesis to this is αἰὼν ἐκεῖνος or μέλλων: that age, or: the coming age. (הַבָּא עוֹלָם). This is a course of existence founded on the redemptive work of Christ, and includes in itself all the impulsive forces and power of the new life. Until the end of “this age,” the “coming age,” will be in a germinal state, enclosed and restricted within the envelope of the present; but then it will burst into open manifestation as the sole reality. The αἰὼν οὗτος: present age, is identical with ὁ κόσμος: this world. The only distinction is that the latter designates the sphere of life itself as one essentially godless and corrupt in its on-goings, especially the human race as alienated from the life of God, while the former indicates the period of time through which it continues. Hence in Eph_2:2 we see the two united in one phrase. αἰὼν τοῦ κόσμου τούτου: the course of this world. The present age, as the period of the rule of sin and error, has for its god or governing principle the devil, as in 2Co_4:4 he is denominated ‘the god of this world,’ and in Joh_12:31 ‘the archor or ruler of this world.’ In so far now as the Jews also in their hostility to the perfect revelation of God in Christ, by which they became blinded to the nature of earlier revelations, also (2Co_3:14 ff.) belonged to this corrupt age, and inasmuch as in the progress of this discussion the Jewish element also is brought up to view, we shall be obliged to understand by the “wise” here mentioned, Jewish as well as Pagan sages, (not the one or the other exclusively); and since the Apostle afterwards speaks of wisdom only, it may be well perhaps to take the term “wise” in a general sense as denoting all those who were devoted to the higher science, or at least pretended to be such; and the other two terms as specific, “the scribe” denoting the wisdom-seekers among the Jews—and “the disputer,” the like among the Greeks. Such appropriation of the terms is supported by the fact that according to the uniform usage of the New Testament (Act_19:35 alone excepted) “scribe” is the designation of the Jewish learned class. But the other term, συζη τητής, which is best translated: “disputer” (comp. συζητεῖν Mar_8:11 ff.; συζήτησις Act_15:2; Act_15:7; Act_28:29), and hence denotes a class of persons who make disputing their business and have facility in it, can be only incidentally applied to the Sophists then widely spread throughout the Hellenic world. So Meyer. But would it not be more suited to the rhetorical character of the passage to make no such disposition of terms, but merely to abide by the general fact that the Apostle had in his eye men who boasted of their learning and science and ready abilities, and as masters of the truth looked down contemptuously upon the masses—men who were to be found among the Jews as well as among the Greeks,—and that only in the word “scribe” there is a prevailing reference to the Jew? [Stanley, who takes 1Co_1:20 as a modified citation from Isa_33:18, says “These expressions acquire additional force by a comparison with the Rabbinical belief that the cessation of Rabbinical wisdom was to be one of the signs of the Messiah’s coming ‘see the quotations from the Mishna in Wetstein ad loc.), and that this was expressly foretold in Isa_33:18. Analogous to this was the belief of Christians that the oracles of the heathen world ceased on the birth of Christ”].
The challenge is strengthened by a further question—hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?—i.e. actually demonstrated that it is not what it professes to be; but rather, folly—unreason, stupidity, incapacity for knowledge in relation to the highest matters. [“We must here carefully notice these two things that the knowledge of all the sciences is mere smoke, where the heavenly science is wanting; and man with all his acuteness is as stupid for obtaining of himself a knowledge of the mysteries of God as an ass is unqualified for understanding musical harmonies.—Paul (however) does not expressly condemn either man’s natural perspicuity, or wisdom acquired from practice and experience, or the cultivation of mind obtained by learning; but only declares that all this is of no avail for acquiring spiritual wisdom.—We must restrict what he here teaches to the specialties of the case in hand.” Calvin].
1Co_1:21.—Shows why and how it was that God had made foolish the wisdom of this world.—For since in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching [κήρνγμα, not κήρυξις, not so much the preaching as the thing preached, though not without an implication of the former] to save them that believe.—The relation of the premise to the conclusion is that of a sequence, divinely ordained in the way of punishment [rather of mercy], so that in the first man’s guilt [rather guilty impotence, see below], is assigned as the ground of what is stated in the other. From this we perceive the incorrectness of Rückert’s view, who, snuffing predestination everywhere, explains the phrase “in the wisdom of God” to mean: “in virtue of God’s wisdom, its leading and appointment.” Neither does it consist with the relation of the two clauses to explain it of the wisdom of God’s plan of salvation in the Gospel (Mosheim and others); for the refusal to recognize this wisdom was not anything to which the divine determination spoken of in the second clause could be referred, as to something definitely concluded upon. To this it must be added that from the very beginning, before the disposition of men in relation to it could be ascertained, the preaching of the Gospel had for the world the appearance of folly. The case is entirely different in 1Co_2:6. Rather we must here understand a reference to something prior to Christ, to certain exhibitions of Divine wisdom previous to the revelation made in Christ, in and through which man could or ought to have discerned God,—to its sway in nature and history, and indeed not merely to that revelation alluded to in Rom_1:18 ff; Act_14:17; Act_17:24 ff, but also to the ordinances of this wisdom in the guidance of the covenant-people, who, because of their unbelief (with the exception of the “election,” Rom_11:7), belonged together with the world. Neander, on the contrary, discovers here only a contrast instituted between revelation and the religion of reason, and regards the wisdom of the Greeks as the particular object of whose relation to Christianity the Apostle is treating. But this interpretation is opposed by the fact that in the 1Co_1:22-24 closely connected by ἐπειδή: since, with v. 21, Paul three times expressly states that by “the world,” in v. 21, not only the heathen but also the Jews are intended. But does not the declaration in reference to the heathen that, they “did not know God” conflict with Rom_1:21 where it said that ‘when they knew God they glorified him not as God?’ We must here distinguish between that sense of a God forced upon the mind by a revelation of God, a merely passive religious notion, the ineffectualness of which is set forth even in the passage above referred to, and that living knowledge of God, which involves communion with Him, and which is the thing here denied of the world and which, had the world possessed, it would have qualified the world for the comprehension of that more perfect revelation in Christ which was to be the fulfilment and consummation of all that had gone before, so that had this knowledge existed such a decree of God as is affirmed in the second clause would not have been made, nor would the preaching of the Gospel have been to them foolishness. The “wisdom” then, “through” which the world knew not God (διὰ τῆς σοφίας), denotes that intelligence by means of which the knowledge of God ought to have been attained, but was not. It is the appropriate organ of the human mind, sharpened by culture, through which God is perceived and recognized as He displays Himself in His wisdom; in other words, the eye for discerning God’s light. But this proved itself disqualified for its proper end, since the world, the possessor of this wisdom, had become alienated from the truth and love of God, and hence perverted and darkened by error and sin. The translation, “on account of their wisdom,” as though this was the cause of their not perceiving God would require the accusative (διὰ τὴν σοφ αν). It might still be questioned whether the phrase “through wisdom” does not refer like the previous one to the wisdom of God, so that it has its corresponding antithesis in the phrase, “through the foolishness of preaching.” This is Bengel’s view. “In the wisdom of God, i.e. because the wisdom of God was so great. By wisdom, namely, that of preaching, as is evident from the antithesis, by the foolishness of preaching.” So, too, Fritsche (Hall, Lit. Zeit. 1840). “After that, in the wisdom of God, i.e. while God allowed His wisdom to shine forth, the world did not recognize God, through the wisdom made available for them by God, then God resolved to choose means of directly the opposite kind. In setting forth the antithesis here, it occurred to him to emphasize strongly the wisdom of God, which failed of attaining its end.” But all things considered, the view carried out by us merits the preference, and the repetition of “the wisdom of God” must always appear somewhat artificial.24
The judgment [rather the merciful pleasure] of God towards a world not recognizing Him in consequence of its own sin, is introduced by the phrase εὐδόκησεν ὁ θεός,—God was pleased—hence “concluded,” “determined.” It indicates here not so much the freedom or pure favor, from which the resolve proceeded, as the suitableness of his proceeding to the end contemplated, or to the circumstances of the case. We find it first among the later Scripture writers, and most commonly in the Sept. In the New Testament it occurs chiefly in Paul (Rom_15:26; Gal_1:15 ff.). In reference to the expression and thought comp. Luk_10:21. The world had shown itself incapable of discerning God in His wisdom through its wisdom. Therefore God found it good no more to appeal to human wisdom by the manifestations of His wisdom, but by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe,—i.e., by a proclamation, the contents of which carried the impress of folly, or must need appear foolish to the world as it was. This was to deliver from sin and wrath, and introduce to everlasting blessedness those who should believe in what was declared. In other words, the determination was, to appeal to faith instead of to reason. [So Hodge: “The foolishness of preaching means the preaching of foolisness, i.e., the cross.” But is there not an allusion to the nature of the preaching itself as being distinct from philosophical disquisition in the simplicity of its method. Preaching is heralding, proclaiming facts and messages, a foolish matter for those who delight in the subtleties and arguments of philosophy.] From this it is clear [?] that the phrase “through foolishness of preaching” does not furnish, as might appear to be the case at first sight, the contrast to the phrase “this wisdom,”25 but to the other, “in the wisdom of God;” and the antithesis to “this wisdom” is to be sought in “them that believe.” Faith is pure receptivity, and as such is directly the opposite of all endeavors after knowledge by the unaided powers of the intellect, such as are peculiar to human wisdom. It is the humble acceptance and appropriation of the testimony concerning Christ crucified, in spite of all the objections which the understanding of the natural man may urge against the doctrine of salvation, and in the utter renunciation of one’s own opinions, and in the entire repudiation of predominant theories. In the act of believing there are united, therefore, both humility and courage. Finally, there is still another correspondence in the words “know” and “save.” Knowledge ought to lead to salvation (comp. Joh_17:3). Not knowing, therefore, hindered the obtaining of salvation.
1Co_1:22-24. Modein which the Apostle fulfilled the good pleasure of God expressed in 1Co_1:21.—Since both Jews require signs and Greeks seek after wisdom, we therefore on the contrary preach Christ crucified.—[So Kling translates the passage. But there is a question here as to the construction. This verse, like the previous one, begins with ἐπειδή. It may therefore be taken as a parallel to that, (so Hodge, Meyer), resuming the thought and amplifying it (so Stanley), and like the preceding having a protasis26 and apodosis (as Kling); or it may be joined by ἐπειδή directly to the previous clause, and regarded as explanatory of what is said of the “foolishness of preaching” being the means of saving believers (so Alford, Calvin, Rückert, de Wette). In this case the second clause instead of being an apodosis would be directly dependent on ἐπειδή, and the rendering would be:—Since, or seeing that, while both Jews require signs and Greeks seek after wisdom, we on the other hand preach Christ, etc.—This seems to us the most natural rendering. See Winer, P. 3 § 65: 6. But Kling rejects it as “the less suitable.” According to his view], what the protasis states is the result of “not knowing God” (1Co_1:21); what the apodosis states is the judicial procedure corresponding to it as carried out in “the foolishness of preaching,” viz., a refusal to yield to vain demands for wisdom, and the counter preaching which appears to those making these demands as absurd, but which to believers proves to be the power of God and the wisdom of God. The ἐπειδή introduces a case well known and made out: since indeed; the δέ (after ἡμεῖς) is used also elsewhere in the apodosis after ἐπεί and ἐπειδή to make the antithetic relation of this clause the more prominent: therefore, on the contrary (comp. Meyer on this passage). This construction is favored by the parallelism between the protasis and apodosis in 1Co_1:21, and those here found. The και,—και: both,—and, unite here classes alike in one respect, i.e., in the unwarrantableness of their demands, but otherwise diverse, and they belong not exclusively to the subjects mentioned (Jews and Greeks), but serve to connect the two clauses in one whole: “since it is so, that both Jews require signs and Greeks seek wisdom.” Jews and Greeks here represent two classes of men according to their peculiar characteristics. Hence they are mentioned without the article. It is as if he said “since people like the Jews seek, etc.” The Greeks here as in Rom_1:16, and elsewhere, stand as pars pro toto, for the Gentiles generally, who, according to the most probable reading, are mentioned afterwards in 1Co_1:23. They are the people who best represent the whole multitude of nations (έθνη) found outside of the covenant relation with God, and who, in respect of culture and language, prepared the whole civilized world for Christianity; just as the Jews, scattered among them all, did the same thing in respect of religion, being freighted with the promise which was to be fulfilled in Christ. It was among these two nations that Christianity had its first sphere of operations,—the Jews, who had the first claim to announce the fulfilment of that promise which had been preserved, and of that hope which had been awakened by them (comp. Act_13:46; Act_3:25; Rom_1:16; Rom_15:8), and the Greeks, who had carried out the work of human culture in science and art, and had, as it were, taken the whole civilized world in possession, and so had furnished the most perfect form for the human appropriation of the truth of revelation, and so the richest receptivity for the life and truth which were in Christ, and which were fitted to ensure them the most perfect satisfaction. But in both alike did Christianity encounter peculiar obstructions. The Jews clave to the external form of revelation, the miracle; and they did this to such a degree as to insist on having it before their eyes in its most striking, dazzling form, as the condition of their acceptance of the truth. They thus betrayed their fundamental unbelief and disaffection for the truth which rebuked their sin, humbled their pride, and demanded of them entire self-denial. This is what is meant by their “seeking after a sign,” or, according to another reading, “signs.” (Comp. Joh_4:48; and Mat_12:38; Mat_16:4; Luk_11:16; Joh_2:18; Joh_6:30). (Meyer, Ed. 3.) “Signs, that is, miraculous tokens, by which Jesus, whom the Apostles asserted to be risen from the dead and ascended on high, should prove Himself to be the Messiah. These they still called for, inasmuch as the miracles of His earthly career had lost for them all evidencing power, in consequence of His crucifixion”). The Greeks, on their part, had been captivated by the outward show and glitter of their civilization. Whatever did not appear before them under the name of a new philosophy (comp. Act_17:19 ff.), or was not sustained by philosophic proof, or was not set forth with logical and rhetorical art, this they refused to accredit; and by insisting on wisdom only in a form agreeable to them, they likewise betrayed their unbelief and their aversion to that Divine truth which required a mortification of their vain self, with all its pride of science and art, and which demanded a humble surrender to a revelation in Christ that infinitely surpassed all their attainments. Thus on both sides, in modes diverse and conditioned by their peculiar histories, did the same opposition arise to the preaching of the Gospel which held up to their faith the one Christ, who was declared to have secured the salvation of mankind, and built up the way to regal glory, not through wondrous miracles, according to the demand of the Jew, nor through such wisdom as wisdom-seekers sought, but by suffering the shameful death of a malefactor. Thus did the preaching of the Apostles and their associates (ἡμεῖς) concerning a crucified Messiah, their public proclamation of this fact and its significance in all simplicity, prove for the Jews a stumbling block, i.e., an offence, a hinderance to faith, the occasion of a fall, something causing them to err (comp. πρόσκομμα Rom_9:32 ff.). A person hanging on the accursed tree presented such a contrast to all their desires for some glorious exhibition of power (such as destruction to their enemies, etc.), that they could do no otherwise than reject Him. [“They could have tolerated Christ on the mount, but not Christ on the cross.”—A. Butler].—For the Greeks (Gentiles) foolishness.—That salvation could come to the world through a crucified Jew appeared to them plainly absurd. It was an instrumentality utterly inadequate to the end proposed. Thus while to the Jews such a person was an object of horror, as one accursed of God, to the Gentiles he was an object only for scorn and contempt. (Comp. Act_23:18-32; Luk_23:36-41). To this, however, there is a noble contrast.
But unto these—the called—Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.—This clause might be taken to depend on “we preach,” so that this would be repeated in thought, and “Christ the wisdom of God” form an antithesis to “Christ crucified” with its adjuncts: We preach Christ as crucified, who for the Jew is a stumbling block, etc., but to those who are called we preach Christ as the power of God. Bengel appears to suggest this, when to “Christ” he adds “with his cross, death, life, kingdom,” and says further, “When the offence of the cross is overcome, the whole mystery of Christ lies open.”—But the course of thought would be more simple if we put “Christ crucified” directly in opposition with what precedes: “We preach a crucified Messiah who to the Jews is a stumbling block, etc.—but to them who are called, Christ—the power of God.” By it then is signified, that He, the crucified one, at whom the Jews stumble, is to the called, the Anointed of God, (Messiah, Christ),—the One in whom the promise of a heavenly king is fulfilled, the Power of God, etc. This corresponds also to the expression respecting the “word of the cross” in 1Co_1:18. The αὐτοῖς: to these serves to give prominence to “the called” as the chief persons in the case, who occupy a positive relation to “the crucified,” and enjoy an experience corresponding to it. It points at the same time to those already mentioned, to “them that believe,” 1Co_1:21, and to the “saved,” 1Co_1:18; and while the first of these terms designates their subjective position towards the Gospel, the second shows the advantage they derive from it. The term “called” indicates the Divine ground on which they stand. (On κλητόι: called, comp. 1Co_1:2). By the addition of: both Jews and Greeks he gives us to understand that in the purpose of grace denoted in their calling the separation hitherto existing between these parties had been removed. (Comp. Rom_9:24; Rom_10:12).—the power of God and the wisdom of God.—Here we have the antithesis to “stumbling block” and “foolishness.” While the Jews were asking how a person crucified and accursed could possibly be the Saviour of Israel, how one so utterly devoid of strength could be able to overthrow all hostile power, and the Greeks were deeming it absurd to expect salvation from one who came to so miserable an end, the chosen of God were, on the contrary, experiencing and confessing that from this very crucified Redeemer there issued a Divine power, the power of a heavenly life and peace, a renewing, sanctifying, beatific power, such as could be found in nothing creaturely, and that accordingly Christ was the possessor of such a Divine power, that in Him there existed a Divine wisdom that was capable of solving the hardest problems, of lighting up the darkness that rested on the ways of God, of fulfilling God’s noblest purposes of bringing men back from all their wanderings into the path of life and of introducing them at last to their final destination.
1Co_1:25. A general proposition, substantiating what has just been said.—Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God mightier than men.—The phrase “foolishness of God” is not to be taken too abstractly, as if it meant the Divine folly. The Apostle is evidently here speaking from a human point of view and implies merely that which appears foolishness in God. He here has in mind God’s dealings with men in the Gospel, such as the procuring of salvation through the crucifixion of Christ, and other things connected therewith, which in the judgment of self-styled wise men of this world, who measure every thing by the measure of their fancied wisdom, appeared contrary to reason. Now of this apparent foolishness of God he affirms that it surpassed in real wisdom all men however wise they seemed to be in their own sight, or were held to be by others, or whatever they might be able to reason out or imagine. In a similar manner we must interpret the following expressson, the weakness of God—By this he means a Divine scheme which seemed weak to those who held merely to physical force and boasted in that (for instance, the, procuring of redemption through one subjecting himself to the humiliation of death on the cross), but which in fact is stronger than men, i.e., exerts a mightier power than they with all their imagined strength and prowess. Bengel adds: “Although they may appear to themselves both wise and strong, and wish to be the standards of wisdom and strength.” Thus interpreted, it would be needless to construe the words “than men” as involving a figure of speech in which a comparison instituted with a person or thing as a whole, properly applies only to a part of it, or to some quality in it, as though they meant: “than the wisdom of men,” or “than the strength of men.” Both interpretations, however, amount to the same thing.—There is still another construction suggested by what follows, viz.: that by the foolishness and the weakness of God are meant the persons themselves who are “called” (1Co_1:24), who experience Christ crucified as “the wisdom of God and the power of God,” so that they in consequence become Divinely wise and strong, and are thus enabled as the foolishness and weakness belonging to God to surpass men, i.e. that portion of the race who remain out of Christ in wisdom and power. “The thought is this—Human nature delights in doing great things. God, on the contrary, in His earthly dispensations always appears weak and small at the first, and not until afterwards reveals the overwhelming power that is concealed in His instrumentalities.” Neander.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Christ and His cross—Christ crucified.—This is the clear light from Heaven, which comes to scatter all the darkness of man’s sinful life. This is the key to all the riddles of a history that has been deranged and confused by falsehood and sin. All God’s revelations in the Old Testament, his ordinances, institutions, promises, judgments and blessings here reach their fulfilment and find their real explanation. All the hints of truth current among heathen nations—all their sighing and striving after the knowledge of God and communion with Him, all attempts to get rid of the consciousness of guilt, to atone for sin and to effect a perfect restoration to Divine favor—all the labor of the wise to discover a clue for the great labyrinth of human life—in short every thing which glimmered as a ray of light here and there in this darkness, obtains in Christ its proper goal; and in so far as it at last leads to the apprehension of this perfect light and salvation, it has been not in vain. Here is the “power of God” which in place of a thousand-fold yet vain endeavor on the part of man is able to insure a true Divine life, an undisturbed peace, an all pervading sanctification—spreading from the inmost centre of a heart that embraces the holy, forgiving love of God,—and an invincible patience and steadfastness combined with the serenest tranquillity amid all the plagues, diseases, adversities and conflicts which may assail us from within and without. Here, too, is the wisdom of God. From this the deepest problems of human knowledge and human activity receive light, so that they can be recognized in their truth and in the goal to which they tend; and right methods of solution for them may be attained. Here the eternal thoughts of God, and the thoughts of man which spring up responsive to these out of the inmost truth of the human heart through the operation of the all-enlightening Logos, encounter each other. Here redeeming love with its wondrous plan of forgiveness and regeneration meets the manifold devices and strivings of man for the removal of guilt and, the acquisition of the chief good, and gives them a perfect satisfaction.
2. Christ and His cross—as confronting the world.—But the more this revelation of God in a crucified Saviour surpasses all the doings of man hitherto, the less can it be measured by the standard of truth and goodness existing among men, the less can it come within the scope of their ordinary conceptions. Where, therefore, the heart has not been renewed by a surrender to the truth foreshadowed by its mysterious need and corresponding to it, and so no change has been wrought in the whole course of thought, there this revelation remains an incomprehensible mystery; and where to the indolence, which refuses to stir out of the old beaten track, there is added an arrogant pride, which, with arbitrary exaggeration and embellishments insists on making what already exists the measure of the new and rejects whatever does not suit the demands thug originated, there, it is certain, that the revelation of God will be violently opposed. And this will be so much the more sure to occur, when, for the sake of presenting a contrast with the vain parade of carnal self in adhering to what is externally imposing and brilliant, and in cleaving to its own productions which seem so beautiful and fair, the revealed truth and grace are constrained to show themselves in an unpretending form, putting contempt upon the proud display of might by assuming a lowly aspect of weakness and setting at naught a lofty pretentious wisdom by wearing the guise of foolishness in order to lift humanity thereby out of the vanity of its conceited claims, and out of the arbitrariness of its own devices and endeavors, into the experience of a true divine power and wisdom.—But the cross and its preaching, which prove such a stumbling block and foolishness to those who are bound up in their vain conceit becomes to those who obey the heavenly calling in faith and who in the mortification of self with all its foolish conceits and pretensions yield themselves to the influences of the grace and truth in Christ, and in so doing experience its enlightening, sanctifying and beatific power, the wisdom of God and the power of God. Thus it happens that men with all their wisdom and power remain far inferior to what belongeth unto God, however foolish and weak it may seem.
3. “1 Col_1:22-24 afford us a point of observation which enables us to survey Church History in clearest light. The Apostles found two distinct tendencies setting in in strong hostility to the Gospel, the desire for miracles, and the conceit of wisdom. These two tendencies show themselves repeatedly through all times. A false, one-sided supernaturalism and a false one-sided rationalism are ever in rivalry with each other either to resist the Gospel in open enmity or to disturb and corrupt it by secretly insinuating themselves into it. It may be said that all external opposition and all internal peril to the Gospel resolve themselves at last into these two opposite principles. So long as a pure Gospel withstands and excludes these it will succeed in satisfying the genuine human needs lying at their foundation and in thus quieting them on both sides. This proves itself to be the true wonder-working power before which all other miracles must pale, and the true wisdom of God before which all other wisdom must be put to shame, and thus does it exhibit itself in both ways as the absolute Religion.” Neander.
4. [Since it is “to the called” that the Gospel proves “the power of God and the wisdom of God,” by bringing them at last to believe and be saved, it follows that the difference in the effects produced by the Gospel, so that on the one hand it appears to some as an offence and to others as foolishness, but to others still as a means of salvation, is all owing to the calling of God—his effectual calling.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1. The cross of Christ is made of none effect by cunning words or the wisdom of speech.—For the wisdom of speech Isaiah 1, on the one hand scholastic wisdom which a. culminates only in knowledge, not in reformation; b. gives no satisfaction on the chief point, Religion; c. being in constant strife with itself evermore corrupts rather than improves; 2. On the other hand an artificial rhetoric, which springs not from the heart or from zeal for a cause known to be true, but aims only to dazzle and please, and by this means to persuade. But a mode of proceeding so altogether unworthy of heavenly truth robs the cross of Christ of its peculiar power; since a. the attention is turned away from the subject to the speaker, and so the heart is diverted and betrayed into vanity; b. and everything is viewed according to its fitness to delight; c. and the effect is ascribed not to the power of the truth presented but to the eloquence displayed. After Heubner.
2. The preaching of the cross. 1, is foolishness for those who are lost. a. Who are these? They are such as are hardened in their own guilt—such as follow their own perverted sense and will not accept of truth or consent to self-humiliation, so that humanly judging there is nothing to be hoped for from them. b. Why is the preaching of the cross foolishness for them? Because to the world, which insists on its own importance, everything appears absurd which fells its pride, destroys its meritoriousness and conflicts with its wisdom and righteousness. 2, is a wisdom of God unto us who are called.—The believer who permits himself to be saved, awakened and enlightened by the spirit of God, finds in the cross a divinely derived and divinely operating power, which draws the heart into peace with itself and with God, fills it with holy love, and strengthens it with a new power of life; and he recognizes therein a wisdom far surpassing all human thought and sense. After Heubner.
3. The vanity of scholastic wisdom or the judgment of God upon conceited worldly wisdom.—1. It effects nothing, because it aims only at show and not at improvement. 2. God allows it to be betrayed into folly and shame, because it seeks to be wise and strong without God, without prayer and piety. 3. Christianity exposes it in all its barrenness, since, while Christianity renews humanity, worldly wisdom perishes in its own schools, and is unable to maintain its own progress. After Heubner.
4. The causes of the rejection of the Crucified.—1. The Jewish desire for whatever was striking, imposing and externally mighty; 2. The Gentile conceit of wisdom and a vain misculture; 3. The pride of both which sought to comprehend God, but which would not enter into the apparently weak and foolish ways and means of his economy. After Heubner.
5. The preaching of the cross has with those who are saved a threefold effect. 1. It shames, inasmuch as man crucified Christ with his sins; for a long time did not recognize him; did not honor or thank him; and was willing so long to tolerate the sins which nailed Him to the cross. 2. It humbles, by reminding us of Christ’s own love, in that He, the Great God, died for us poor worms, and did so much for us when we were utterly worthless. It inclines us also to benevolence towards all men who differ from us only in this, that we are sinners saved, while they can and may yet be saved. 3. It awakens, gives power and life, so that we not only are ready and inclined, but also are enabled to love God, and to prove our love by works.
6. The Cross of Christ is an offence to all men who think that a good life will ensure them a happy end. These are the enemies of the Cross in the midst of Christendom. They worship it externally; they take pride in it, but in fact they hate the doctrine of the Cross. They cannot accept the truth that Christ has become our Redeemer and that we are saved out of sheer mercy, so that the holiest, the most pious, the most liberal, the most upright man is just as far from Heaven as the most miserable sinner, and that there is but one way for all. To the wise and prudent the cross of Christ is foolishness. The truth that Christ died for us they regard as a fable. There are persons even among [nominal] believers who take it as a compliment if they are said not to believe. Yet should one accuse them of holding the truth, and yet of living in untruthfulness, disobedience and ingratitude towards God, it would be the same as if he pronounced them deliberate villains. Oh! could they but once hear the Gospel in a way to pierce their
hearts they would certainly ask, What shall we do? Let the doctrine of the Cross be once made vital in the soul, then would there be no need of exhortation, alarm and threatening in view of this or that judgment. It would be sufficient to say, “The Saviour died for me.” If we are in trouble for our sins, and the hope of salvation vanishes, and the voice comes, “Christ has died and earned salvation for us,” how the heart not only seizes but holds fast to the declaration! How the truth penetrates like a divine power into the soul which can never be lost or forgotten! Then are our sins buried in the depths of the sea; they can no more tyrannize over us. Then we need sin no more. Such is the effect of the Word of the Cross in them that believe. Gossner.
Hedinger:—Power, wit, all human work and counsel corrupts faith, misleads in the church, and hinders the efficacy of the means of grace. In divine things, the more foolish anything seems to the world, the better it is. “Wisdom, wisdom, ready understanding, science, learning out of a thousand books!” Such is the cry of the world. An evil sound is it in the churches and in the schools. One thing is needful—one book, one Christ.
Starke:—The Gospel has a differencing effect according to the character of the persons who hear and use it. Mankind are divided into two classes: 1. Unbelievers; they are such as live on, without caring for their salvation, either in security or hypocrisy; each word and work of theirs is a step toward Hell. 2. Believers; they are those who are in daily concern about their salvation; and this is with them so vital a point that even when unmoved by efforts from abroad, while in the midst of their labors or talk, they are not easily repelled from it (1Co_1:18). Wisdom is in itself something divine, and before the fall the image of God in man consisted in it (Col_3:10); and even now the inclination to know and learn something is a remnant in us of this divine image. But if our natural wisdom profits us but little now, and is every where scandalized, this is the fault, not of wisdom, but of our corrupted reason and understanding. None of the loftiest and most learned of this world ought to be ashamed of the simplicity of the Gospel, for God Himself, the, highest and wisest of all, let Himself down to it. Sufficient is it for us that an infinite power resides in the Cross to deliver us out of all our deep depravity, (1Co_1:21).—God can never suit people. One will have it this way and another that. Shame on you! God does as it pleases Him (Mat_11:16 ff.). Men always delight in what is strange, lofty, conspicuous. Instead of desiring that God’s name alone should be praised they seek themselves in every thing. They look either at power, wealth, faculty, or at learning, prudence, dexterity. Both are means to greatness, but they prove hinderances in the kingdom of God. (1Co_1:22).—God will remain unsurpassed in His words and works (Psa_78:41), but their wisdom and strength are vain. The world makes wisdom to consist in much learning which secures honor and regard. But a believer considers it the height of wisdom to know that he is a poor sinner, becomes justified and saved only in deepest humility. The greatest power consists in being able to overcome ourselves and the kingdom of Satan. God can put to shame all the devices of the craftiest and all the might of the greatest in this world. Why wilt thou fear? Look to God! He can and will give thee enough for all things (1Co_1:25).
H. Rieger:—Let him who would even now, by the preaching of the Cross, awaken a sense of the Cross in the hearts of men, and thereby coöperate for their salvation, not seek for assistance from the fickle arts of worldly wisdom, but let him observe what renders himself humble, and subdued, and what he can thus convey with a tender spirit to others, and let him shun every thing which on the contrary tends to puff himself up and wherewith he is tempted to court the favor of men.
[Spencer: (1Co_1:21).—“Some Christian ministers sometimes think to do Christianity a very good service by philosophizing it to make it keep up with the times. In all this they do Christianity no other service than rob it of its power by robbing it of its peculiarity, and do no other service to the ‘philosophic minds’ which they say they would influence, than just to mislead them and keep them away from true faith in Christ and reliance on his great atonement.
Every thing is coming to be philosophized. Many a minister in the pulpit—shame on him—betrays his trust to the Bible and his God by teaching religion very much as if it were a new matter of reason, and human progress, and human discovery, instead of taking God’s Word as his authority and instructor, and uttering in the ears of the people like the old prophets, Thus saith the Lord God. Beware of such proceedings. They tend to infidelity. Learn duty from God. The Bible is safe. Philosophy is blind.”]
[Robertson:—“Men bow before talent even if unassociated with goodness, but between these two we must make an everlasting distinction. When once the idolatry of talent enters, then farewell to spirituality; when men ask their teachers, not for that which will make them more humble and God-like, but for the excitement of an intellectual banquet, then farewell to Christian progress. Here also St. Paul again stood firm. Not Wisdom, but Christ crucified. St. Paul might have complied with these requirements of his converts, and then he would have gained admiration and love, he would have been the leader of a party, but then he would have been false to his Master—he would have been preferring self to Christ.”]
Footnotes:
[15]1Co_1:17.—[ἐν σόφίᾳ λόγου might be rendered: in philosophic discourse.]
[16]1Co_1:20.—The τούτου of the received text is undoubtedly transferred from the preceding. Lachmann and Tischendorf reject it according to the best authorities.
[17]1Co_1:21.—[ἐπειδή is not temporal but illative.—Alf.]
[18]1Co_1:21.—[κηρύγματις: passive noun, the thing preached both in contents and in form.]
[19]1Co_1:22.—ἐ͂πειδη και. it may be rendered: “For both,” but Kling translates as above.]
[20]1Co_1:22.—The plural σημεῖα is better attested: whether it is internally the more probable may be doubted.
[21]1Co_1:23.—[δὲ after ἐπειδή expresses contrariety.]
[22]1Co_1:23.—ἔθνεσι is decidedly better attested than the received ’Ελλησι which arose out of 1Co_1:22; 1Co_1:24.
[23]1Co_1:24.—[“αὐτοις δὲ τοῖς κλητοῖς; the αὐτοῖς serves to identify the called with the believers, 1Co_1:21.”—Alf.]
[24][Kling has hardly done justice to the view which he calls Rückerts, and stigmatizes as Predestianationism. There certainly is no little plausibility, and much fair ground in Scripture for interpreting. “in the wisdom of God” All the movements of the ante-Christian period were unquestionably so disposed by Providence as to prepare the way for the coming, and the reception of Christ. And why may it not have been a part of the Divine plan to allow the world to try its own wisdom, and test its capacities to the utmost, in order that its utter inefficiency for discovering God, and finding out a means of salvation, might be fully proved and thus that consciousness of ignorance and inability be awakened, which is one of the first conditions of simple faith in revelation? Paul hinted at this very truth in his speech at Athens (Act_17:26-27). “And hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth; and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if happily they might feel after Him and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us.” This interpretation carries therefore a legitimate and Scriptural sense, and it is preferred by Alf., Barnes, Poole, and most American sermonizers.
But there is still another interpretation, worthy of consideration, as having the advantage of giving to the important word “wisdom” a uniformity of meaning throughout the entire passage. What Paul is here controverting is the fondness for philosophic speculation so characteristic of the Greeks, and which in the Corinthian Church was threatening to destroy the practical nature of Christianity, and turn it into another scheme of philosophy. This tendency, or rather its products, the Apostle calls “wisdom” (σοφία), and it is, as he says, something he would not indulge in, however pleasing to the Corinthian temper. One reason for this was, the utter inefficiency of all philosophy in the matter of religion. He does not condemn it absolutely, but relatively to the ends in view. This, therefore, it became him distinctly to state, which he does in 1Co_1:20-21, may be paraphrased thus: “For since in its speculations concerning God, the word through speculation and philosophy did not know God, it pleased God through “the announcement of the simple facts of the Gospel, which to a speculative mind seems like folly; to save those who accept them in mere faith.” We thus take σοφία=φιλοσοφία, make τοῦ θεοῦ the objective Genitive, and interpret the whole phrase “in the wisdom of God,” as denoting the sphere of thought in reference to which the Apostle was speaking. This was in fact theosophy, a word compounded of just the ones here associated. The antithesis then in the two clauses would be between philosophy and preaching, between scientific knowledge and faith, accepting the simple proclamation of the Gospel ].
[25][One would suppose that the naturalness and indeed inevitableness of this contrast would have shown the incorrectness of Kling’s interpretation. (See Winer, part 3 sect. 47. d.) Paul means here to set the simple “testimony of Jesus” over against “philosophy” or “wisdom,” and the method of faith over against the method of reason. In all that follows he is correct.]
[26][Rob. in Lex. observes that ἐπειδή is never used in the protasis.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv13–17 Is Christ divided?--into various parts (one under one leader,…
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.
Read full note →
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.
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 On vv13–17 13. Christ divided—The Christ here is the Christ of…
13. Christ divided—The Christ here is the Christ of 1Co_1:30, the embodiment of an entire redemption and all connected blessings. Is, then, this Christ whole and one, and the one on whom the Corinthians can be of one mind, (1Co_1:10,) or is he torn in pieces; each party having a part, or slice, of their own?
Paul crucified—Your true Lord and Master was crucified for you; can Paul show his cross as a claim on your allegiance?
Read full note →
For you—This clearly implies that Christ suffered for us as no saint or martyr ever suffers for us. He suffered, then, not merely as an example, or simply for our benefit, but in a far higher sense.
Baptized in the name— Rather, into the name or authority of Paul, so as to be rightly called by his name. Baptized here expresses the import of the rite, consecrated. Note, Rom_6:3.
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 On vv13–17 13. Is Christ divided?] Some editors read this affirmatively,…
13. Is Christ divided?] Some editors read this affirmatively, “Christ is divided,” instead of interrogatively as in the text. But the latter is preferable. St Paul would ask if Christ, into Whose Name the whole Church has been baptized, and Whose Body (Eph_1:23) the whole Church is, can thus be split up into portions, and each portion appropriated by one of the parties he has mentioned.
was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?] Rather, into the name of Paul. To baptize ‘into’ a name signifies something more than to baptize in a name. Had St Paul used the latter phrase here, he would have been rebuking those Christians who called themselves disciples of any other but Christ. But he is also reminding them that the ‘Name’ of Christ, standing as it does for Himself, is the only way of salvation, that Christ is the only Head of the Church, and he disclaims any attempt to claim for himself that close connection with the inner life of all who profess belief in Christ, which is the prerogative of Christ alone. Cf. St Mat_28:19; Act_3:16; Act_4:12.
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 On vv13, 14, 16, 17 (13) Is Christ divided?—Better, Christ is divided. Christ, in…
(13) Is Christ divided?—Better, Christ is divided. Christ, in the communion of the Church, is rent, torn in fragments by you. The mention of the sacred name as a party-cry makes the Apostle burst into that impassioned exclamation. Then there is a momentary pause, and the Apostle goes back from his sudden denunciation of the “Christ” party, to those whom he had originally selected for typical treatment, viz., those who bore his own name, the two streams of thought, as it were, mingling and rushing together; and he asks (with a mind still full of the burning indignation aroused by the mention of the name of union as a symbol of disunion), “Was Paul crucified for you?” “Was your baptism in the name of Paul?” To each of which the answer must of necessity be “No.”
Paul being the founder of the Church, these questions apply more forcibly to the others also.
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 On vv13–17 Is Christ divided? Has Christ been parcelled into fragments?…
Is Christ divided? Has Christ been parcelled into fragments? "Is there a Pauline, a Petrine, an Apollonian, a Christian Christ?" Whether you call yourselves Liberals, or Intellectualists, or Catholics, or Bible Christians, your party spirit is a sin, and all the worse a sin because it pranks itself out in the guise of pure religious zeal. This is more forcible than to take the clause affirmatively:" Christ has been parcelled into fragments." In either ease we see" the tragic result of party spirit." Was Paul crucified for you? Again he rebukes the partisanship which attached itself to his own name. This showed a splendid courage and honesty. The introduction of the question by the negative mh expresses astonished indignation: "Can you possibly make a watchword of the name of a mere man, as though he had been crucified for you?" This outburst of feeling is very important, as proving the immeasurable distance which, in Paul"s own view, separated him from his Lord. It is also instructive to see how St. Paul at once denounces the spirit of party without deigning to enter into the question as to which party of these wrangling "theologians" was most or least in the right. He did not choose to pander to their sectarian spirit by deciding between their various forms of aggressive orthodoxy. Into the name. (comp Mat_28:19)
Divisions.
Read full note →
The "contentions in the Church at Corinth, the report of which had reached St. Paul, and which he here rebukes,.were probably not the outgrowth of definite party divisions, but were individual differences as to who among the great Christian leaders should receive superior honour. They were individual strifes, however, that might develop into very serious divisions schisms (scismata) that would utterly rend asunder the fellowship of the Church. It must have been deeply painful to the apostles that they should thus be set in rivalry with one another, as if they were seeking the ends of their own vain ambition, and still more that their names should be permitted in any way to obscure the glory of the Name of their Divine Master. "Is Christ divided?" The question suggests
I THE ESSENTIAL UNITY OF CHRIST. Consider different aspects of this unity. As it regards:
1. His own person. In him we see the blending of the Divine and human in one glorious personality, the balance and harmony of all conceivable forms of moral excellence. No discord in his being, no flaw in his character, no failure in his life; he stands before us in every light, on every side, a complete, symmetrical, and perfect whole.
2. His redeeming purpose and the means by which he effects it. He comes to deliver men from the power of evil, to turn them from their iniquities, to restore them to fellowship with God. The end he seeks is the same for all. "There is no distinction; for all have sinned," etc.. (Rom_3:22-24) And as all human distinctions are lost in the common need of salvation, so in Christ the same possibility of good is placed within the reach of all: "As through one trespass the judgment came unto all men," etc.. (Rom_5:18) There is but one gospel message, and it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.
3. The life with which he inspires those who receive him. In whomsoever it dwells this life is always one one in its affections and energies, in the laws of its development, in the fruit it bears, in the ends to which it leads. The inspiration of a common spirit life is the grand uniting principle amid endless individual diversities. "By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body," etc.. (1Co_12:13)
4. His authority as the sole Head of the Church. There can be no divided authority. In the very nature of things, Christ can own no rival. The body can have but one living head, the source of informing, guiding, and controlling power. Its own unity lies mainly in the recognition of this: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," etc. (Eph_4:5, Eph_4:6; 1Co_8:6 1Co_12:5)
II THE EVIL OF EVERYTHING THAT VIOLATES THIS UNITY. The divisions of the Church of Corinth were deprecated by the apostle as an offence against the fundamental principles and laws of the Christian fellowship. All such divisions have certain marked features of evil.
1. They exalt that which is subordinate and accidental at the expense of the vital and supreme. The form of truth is placed above the spirit, doctrine above life, the instrument above the power, appearances above realities, the shadow above the substance creeds, systems, men, above Christ. (1Co_3:4, 1Co_3:5) Examine them closely, and you find that all "contentions" in the Church mean this.
2. They engender mutual animosities which are destructive of the fellowship of a common life. Here lies the heart and core of the evil. Mere outward diversities are not so much to be dreaded. Schism is a thing of the spirit. It lies not in the formal separations that conscience may dictate, but in the fierce antagonisms that may unhappily, but not necessarily, grow out of them. Sectarianism consists not in the frank outspoken assertion of individual convictions, but in the bitterness and uncharitableness with which one conscience may assert itself against all other consciences. So that the very spirit of schism may inspire that passion for uniformity which would suppress individual liberty of thought and speech and action. The true schismatics are these who by their intolerance create divisions. Whatever tends to check the flow of spiritual fellowship violates the law of Christ. We do well carefully to watch against the estrangement of heart that difference of religious opinion and ecclesiastical practice too often generates, "giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace". (Eph_4:3)
3. They bring public dishonour on the Name of Christ. That Name is the symbol of a Divine reconciliation the reconciliation of man to man, as well as man to God. But in this case it is made the cause of separations. Christ came to bind men together in a true brotherhood; but thus he is made a "divider." "Where jealousy and faction are there is confusion and every evil work". (Jam_3:16) And thus the very essential principle and purpose of the Saviour"s mission is falsified, and occasion is given to the enemy to blaspheme. Few things have a more disastrous effect in discrediting the Christian cause than the bitterness of contending parties in that Church which is "the pillar and ground of the truth.
4. They squander and dissipate energies that ought rather to be devoted to active service in the Lord"s kingdom. Think of the waste of spiritual force these divisions involve! If half the enthusiasm mere partisanship has engendered had been expended on some real substantial work for the good of humanity and the glory of God, how blessed the results might have been! In one sense, of course, all zeal for truth, however subordinate the position of the particular truth may be, is for the good of humanity and the glory of God; but to be contending for the maintenance of comparatively trivial points of difference in violation of the spirit that ought to harmonize all differences, and of the grand responsibilities of the Christian calling, is to be guilty of "tithing the mint and the anise and the cummin, to the neglect of the weightier matters of the Law.
III THE CURE FOR THESE EVILS. There is but one cure to keep Christ in all the glory of his being and the supremacy of his claims habitually before our minds, and to open our hearts freely to the inspiration of his Spirit. This will raise us above the littleness and meanness of party strife. A lofty object of contemplation and a high moral purpose must needs have an elevating and ennobling influence on the whole man. It will subdue within us all base affections, will rebuke our personal vanity, will enlarge our sympathies, will chasten our lesser enthusiasms. We shall not be in much danger of helping by our influence to violate the unity of the great household of faith, when our souls are filled with the full orbed glory of the undivided Christ. The expansive Spirit he gives will teach us to say, "Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. W.
The unique relation of Christ to the Church.
This is set forth because there was a manifest disposition at Corinth to make Christ a mere party leader. Some said, "I of Christ;" as if Christ stood on the same plane as Paul, Apollos, or Cephas. Bring out, with varied illustration, two points.
I THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN A TEACHER"S RELATION TO THE CHURCH AND CHRIST"S RELATION TO IT. Christ"s teaching is original, man"s is derived. Christ"s authority is supreme, man"s is only delegated. Christ is the Church"s Foundation, the human teacher is but a workman engaged in the superstructure. Both teach, both bear authority, both are builder"s. The glory of the human teacher is that he can be a "coworker together with Christ." In some sense human teachers may think of themselves as filling the vacant earth sphere of the great Teacher, and carrying on his gracious mission. See Paul"s plea," Now then we are ambassadors for Christ." So far as they bear the Master"s spirit, speak the Master"s truth, and carry out the Master"s will, we give them all honour, attention, and obedience for their Master"s sake. We are "followers of them so far as they follow Christ.
II THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A TEACHER"S RELATION TO THE CHURCH AND CHRIST"S RELATION TO IT. There are important distinctions and differences in the things in which both agree. And there are positive distinctions, things in which Christ stands absolutely alone. No other was "crucified for us." Into no other "name" were we "baptized." The relative positions of Christ and the ministry are indicated by the figures of the Shepherd and the under shepherds. The careful and constant preservation of Christ"s unique position in the Church, and relation to it, is the secret of the maintenance of all Church order, unity, and peace. R.T.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On v17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to…
1Co_1:17-31
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.
Read full note →
Pauls preaching
I. It exalted the Cross of Christ as the central element of the gospel. The apostle does not teach that truths associated with the details of Christian belief and living are not proper themes for the pulpit; nor that ritualistic observances are of no importance; nor that he considered as naught the human wisdom seen both in logic and skill; what he meant was that the gospel as the means of salvation revealed by God was everywhere the burden of his message. Neither church observances nor creeds, nor mans philosophy can become a substitute for this essential truth.
II. It made the agency of God essential in causing the Cross of Christ to have saving power.
1. Paul gives the reason of man its proper place in the apprehension of the truth, and the truth so apprehended its proper place as connected with regeneration; but he never teaches that the truth alone, however fully understood, will secure salvation. Being saved is not an intellectual process only, even though the sacrifice of Christ be the truth considered. Only when made the power of God through the attending influence of the Holy Ghost does it save.
2. Pauls preaching insisted that this Divine agency can render the weak--
(1) Able to appropriate the gospel in its saving power. The pride of high station and marked ability would not avail, but the humility of confessed unworthiness and dependence upon him who would attract Gods favour and incline its possessor to accept the Saviour He has provided. Hence, the poor, the ignorant, the wicked, the child, will find no barriers around the Cross when they turn toward it for help.
(2) Useful in throwing over opposition and causing the gospel to triumph (1Co_1:27, &c.).
III. It declared that the result of the gospels proper presentation must be that God, and not men, will have all the glory (1Co_1:29; 1Co_1:31). Conclusion: Pauls preaching declares--
1. That true salvation is the penitent and trustful acceptance of the crucified Christ.
2. That true religion is loyalty to God. (J. Exells, D. D.)
The true work of the preacher
Paul sought to teach that there were different functions which belonged to the officers of the Church. Some were to serve tables, some to administer the ordinances. He did not cast contempt on the ordinances, but declared that he had a special work appointed him.
I. The office of the preacher arose with the Saviour. There were instructors previously. The prophets were much more teachers than predictors. The Rabbis when Christ was upon earth were teachers. Christs method of teaching was utterly different. Outwardly it was the same--He went from place to place, He taught sitting, &c.; but the interior contents of His teaching were very different. Christ spake with authority; so does every man who speaks from the roots and fundamental elements of truth.
II. Preaching is teaching in a vitalising way ethical truths--truths which ally men to God and to each other. They must be taught so as to breathe the life of Him who teaches. They must carry personal power.
III. It is not to be thought that this function of the Christian Church has ceased even in liberally educated and cultivated sections of society. Let us look closely and ask, Is the function of the preacher temporary? Will it ever pass away? There is one element belonging distinctively to the preacher which will for ever give him a place and function which can never change: the bringing of the truth home to men in a living form. In the light of this observe the genius and the sphere of preaching--
1. From this sphere are excluded largely the higher forms of theological speculation, for it is not possible to bring these home to men in a living way. His distinctive business is to deal with those truths which he can take into his consciousness, and, having given to these a personal expression from himself, send them forth living truths. His proper sphere is ethical truth. That which men most need to know is how to love God and man perfectly. This is his whole duty. To teach this duty is the sphere of the preacher.
2. This includes every condition of mankind.
3. From this it appears that no man is a true preacher whose chief business is the organisation of worship, the conduct of Church affairs, or mere pastoral administration. The true preacher is the utterer of truth.
4. Then as no man can represent in himself every form of the human mind, or have a full conception of all truth, the preacher must necessarily be a partialist. The robin sings as a robin, bluebirds as bluebirds. One man has large power of imagination, another overflowing emotion, &c. All are fragmentary preachers. No man was ever built large enough to preach the whole of God.
5. Pride, vanity, and unspiritual life will effectually prevent the preacher becoming personally, experimentally, a presentation of the truth to the people. (H. W. Beecher.)
Preaching
I. It has been ordered by Divine wisdom that the gospel should, as much as possible, avail itself of the ordinary channels of communication and influence in spreading through the world.
II. The secret of the power of preaching.
1. It conveys far better than any other vehicle the affirmation of the whole man--his whole nature, his whole experience--to the matter which he desires to communicate.
2. It brings into play all the affinities, sympathies, and affections of the being, and is therefore a most powerful instrument in arriving at the truth.
3. So much is true of all preaching. But in the preaching of the gospel there is a source of special power--the principle of representation the power and right to speak to men in the name of God. (J. Baldwin Brown, B. A.)
Pauls preaching
1. Observe, Paul does not say we preach Christ as if the declaration of the personal dignity of the God-man were all. Neither does he emphasise the crucified as if the setting off of the death of Jesus as that of a martyr and for an example were enough. But he combines the two. The dignity of the Christ was needed to give efficacy to the sacrifice on the Cross, and the sacrifice on the Cross was required to complete the work of the Christ.
2. In the prosecution of his work Paul met with three classes, each of which treated his message in a peculiar fashion. The Jew and the Greek, without trying the gospel on themselves, rejected it--the one for its lack of power and the other for its lack of wisdom; but the third class, acting on the only true philosophical principle of proving the matter by personal experiment, found in it both the power of God and the wisdom of God. Nowadays it is sturdily insisted on that nothing shall be received save that which rests on the basis of observation and experiment, but that is all the gospel asks; and here we see that those who reject it are those who refuse to put it to the test. Which of the two classes is the more scientific? The Baconian philosophers should not hesitate as to the reply. Christ crucified is--
I. The power of god.
1. Yes, but this power is not physical like the might of an army; nor material, like that which is connected with a development of matter; nor mechanical, as derived from any sort of mechanism, but dynamical, as exerted by spirit upon spirit. It is power unto salvation. It is not therefore to be tested by material gauges, as one measures the pressure on a steam-boiler, or estimates the horse-power of an engine. We are to look for its operation in the human heart. Its trophics are in character, and its results are in life.
(1) Take it in the case of an individual, and the transformation wrought on such men as Paul, and Augustine, and John Newton, may well illustrate its reality and efficacy.
(2) Take it in the case of communities, and Christianity has either implanted or stimulated regard for the personality of the weakest and the poorest; respect for women; the absolute duty of each member of the fortunate classes to raise the unfortunate; humanity to the child, the prisoner, the stranger, the needy, and even the brute; unceasing opposition to all forms of cruelty; the duty of personal purity; the sacredness of marriage; the necessity of temperance.
2. But are we quite sure that it is the power of God? Yes, for there are only two spiritual powers in the world--that of evil and that of good. Very evidently, therefore, a result like that of the conversion of a man, and the revolution of society, from evil to good, must be traced up to God. Man cannot do it for himself, for as water cannot rise above its level, so the soul cannot change its nature by its own efforts. And what one man cannot do for himself, the aggregate of men cannot do for the race. They had four thousand years given to them in which to make the experiment, and here (verse 21) is the result.
II. The wisdom of God.
1. Wisdom is manifested in the choice of such means as are best adapted to the production of the end. The problem to be solved in the salvation of men is, How shall a sinner be forgiven without weakening the sanctions of morality and giving encouragement to evil? Now the race vainly wrestled with that for four millenniums; but the despair of humanity is the opportunity of God, for in Christ crucified we are shown a just God and a Saviour.
2. Wisdom is seen in the securing of different ends by one and the same means. So salvation is not merely forgiveness; it is also regeneration and growth in holiness. Its highest result is character, and the renovation of that is produced by the Holy Ghost. Now the dispensation of the Holy Spirit would have been impossible save for the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross; while, again, the love of Christ, as manifested in His sacrifice on the Cross, is the great means used by the Spirit for the regeneration and sanctification of the believer. Conclusion: From all this four inferences follow. If Christ crucified is the power of God unto salvation, then--
1. Any sinner may be saved through faith in Him.
2. There is no other way of salvation.
3. When men are saved through this means the whole glory of their salvation is due to God.
4. If we would see such results from our preaching as those which followed Pauls, we must preach the same gospel, Christ crucified. This is the gospel for our age, because it is the gospel for all the ages. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
The gospel as preached by Paul
I. There is a gospel to be preached. Amid all the diversities of doctrine and ritual there are some things which must be found in all Christian preaching: that Christ alone can save men; that He can save any man and all men; that He saves men completely and for ever. No man can be said to preach the gospel who does not make these thoughts central and controlling. He may preach very important and helpful truth; but until he makes Christ the ground, the motive, and the end of his teaching, he is not a preacher of the gospel. The gospel is good news. It is not the publication of the moral law. It is not telling men what they ought to be and do. The ministry of Christ was not needed to teach that lesson. Conscience proclaims it, and universal experience confirms it. It is not equivalent to the affirmation of the eternal and universal Fatherhood of the Holy One. It implies this, but it is more. That consoling thought is imbedded in the Old Testament. Paul affirmed more than that. In his preaching the person of Christ assumes central and permanent prominence. In Him the law of God is fulfilled and honoured. In Him the love of God leaps from the heavens to the earth links itself with the burden and guilt of humanity, challenges the powers of darkness and the might of death, achieving a practical and eternal victory. Fear rules paganism, hope smiles in the Old Testament, assurance is the ringing keynote of the gospel. So much for the contents of the gospel. It is crowded into this sentence: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
II. But does the world need such a message? Can we not get along fairly well without it? That is the very question which Paul discussed in Rom_1:1-32. What does the world need? Righteousness. That secured and the millennium would be there. But the one thing most needed is the thing most difficult to create and promote. It cannot be said that there has been any lack of earnest attempts. Confucius, Sakya-Muni, Zoroaster, and Socrates, tried to supply the want. But the multitudes were deaf to their appeal; and Rome at the zenith of her culture was but a veneered brutality. And mightily endowed as Judiasm was it failed to achieve even its own reformation. The men who boasted in the law trampled upon it every day. A mightier hand than that of Socrates, or of Moses, was needed to save the world. A more than human hand, though nerved by an inspired heart, must smite the ranks of evil.
III. But granting that the world needs just the help which the gospel declares has been brought to it. will even this secure the desired result? To this we can only answer, first, if it does not then God is clearly and hopelessly defeated, for a greater than Christ cannot, come to the rescue; and second, if Christ be what the gospel affirms Him to be, the triumph of righteousness is a foregone conclusion. Hence the tone of victory in the New Testament is always in the present tense. Thanks be unto God who giveth us the victory. This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. This is our highest assurance. It receives impressive confirmation in the historical triumphs of Christianity. Its moral conquest of the civilisations of Rome and Greece are unquestioned. Its restraining and reorganising energy during the Middle Ages is freely admitted. Its profound and salutary influence upon modern life is beyond cavil; but there is a more direct and living proof of its power. Hundreds among you can bear testimony to the grace of salvation in Jesus Christ. What the gospel has done for you it can do for all. (A. J. F. Behrends, D. D.)
The gospel neither ritual nor philosophy
I. A large class of minds like to make a superstition out of their religion. Mere words addressed to the understanding and the heart appear too feeble, too immaterial. They long to be set in rapport with the superhuman in some realistic way. Establish some sign. Paul, generalising from what he saw before his eyes, calls this demand of human nature Jewish; but it is common everywhere. It has penetrated every religion from the days of the Chaldeans downwards. One after another Judaism, Buddhism, Parseeism, Mohammedanism, Christianity, have succumbed to this demand for material signs. Each of them has degenerated into a system of ceremonial and stooped to pander to the sensuous taste of its devotees.
II. There is in man a tendency, not So widespread, but nobler than the vulgar bent to superstition--after intellectual satisfaction and an exhaustive knowledge of truth.
1. No sooner had Christianity appeared than this appetite seized upon it, questioned it, thought to find in it what it had failed to find elsewhere. Generalising, again, Paul termed this the Greek habit of mind. The Greek, he says, searches after philosophy; but it is as little exclusively Greek as the bias to superstition is exclusively Jewish. In our day it is no less profound, unsuitable, or eager than it ever was. Men claim that it shall be as systematic, exhaustive, and demonstrable as a science; that it shall help to answer the unanswered problems of existence; that it shall abjure all pretensions to be supernatural; that every one of its facts be found explicable on natural grounds; and that its boasted virtue to save shall prove as intelligible as the action of any other truth upon human minds.
2. Follow out this conception of Christianity to its issues, and what have you? Not a genuine revelation from heaven; not the advent of a Divine power to save; but simply some very beautiful and elevating truths, discerned first by a certain Jew of Palestine and by him added to the worlds treasure-house of thought, yet competing with many discoveries of more modern times. Is it not to some such appraisement of the gospel that a great deal of modern discussion among the learned is tending? Nay, is there not a way of preaching and defending the gospel--such a way as Paul avoided in speculative Corinth--which actually invites men to rate its value as low as this among the rival systems of human wisdom?
3. Against such a misconception of the essence of the gospel, what is St. Pauls protest? It is true, he seems to say, the gospel is a rational word, and not a magical rite. It is spoken truth, and it acts, like truth, through the misunderstandings of men. But, for all that, it is not a philosophy. With abstract truth it has little to do; but it proclaims Jesus the Messiah, and proclaims Him as crucified for the sins of men. Its real character is this--it is a, testimony from God which we are not called upon to discuss so much as to credit. It is in this, accordingly, that its power lies. For power it unquestionably possesses. Only not the mere power of wisdom, but the quiet personal power of the Speakers authority and the Speakers love. Speculate about this and it may seem in your sagacious eyes folly. But cease to criticise and be humble enough to believe it, to surrender yourself to Him who speaks; then it will prove itself to be Divinely wise and strong in your experience. It will work in you as no human wisdom works; it will save you as no intellectual system saves.
4. On this side also I think a faithful Church needs just now to speak out in clear tones. It is not the first time in the history of our faith that the gospel has been like to lose its characteristic spirit by evaporation. Treat it as you treat an ordinary system of thought, and you end (as Paul feared to end) by making the Cross of Christ of none effect. You miss its very essence as a gospel. For what makes it to be a gospel? Just this, that it is Gods own record of His peculiar way of having mercy upon sinners. It is a plain, practical, personal appeal from our reconciling Father to each wandered soul among us; or it is nothing. (J. Oswald Dykes, D. D.)
The foolishness of preaching
As Paul repudiates the idea that he had given any countenance to the founding of a Pauline party, it occurs to him that some may say, True enough, he did not baptize; but his preaching may more effectually have won partisans than even baptizing them into his own name could have done. And so Paul goes on to show that his preaching was not that of a demagogue or party-leader, but was a bare statement of fact, garnished by absolutely nothing which could divert attention from the fact either to the speaker or to his style. Paul explains to the Corinthians--
I. The style of preaching he had adopted while with them
1. His time in Corinth, he assures them, had been spent, not in propagating a system of truth which might have been identified with his name, but in presenting the Cross of Christ. In approaching them he had necessarily weighed in his own mind the comparative merits of various modes of presenting the gospel, and he well knew that a new philosophy clothed in elegant language was likely to secure a number of disciples. And it was quite in Pauls power to present the gospel as a philosophy; but he determined not to know anything among them save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
2. Paul then deliberately trusted to the bare statement of facts and not to any theory about these facts. In preaching to audiences with whom the facts are familiar, it is perfectly justifiable to draw inferences from them and to theorise about them. Paul himself spoke wisdom among them that were perfect. But what is to be noted is that for doing the work proper to the gospel, for making men Christians, it is not theory or explanation, but fact, that is effective. It is the presentation of Christ as He is presented in the Gospels which stands in the first rank of efficiency as a means of evangelising the world. The actor does not instruct his audience how they should be affected by the play; he so presents the scene that they instinctively smile or find their eyes fill. Those onlookers at the crucifixion who beat their breasts were not told that they should feel compunction; it was enough that they saw the Crucified. So it is always; it is the direct vision of the Cross, and not anything which is said about it, which is most effective in producing penitence and faith.
3. The very fact that it was a Person, not a system of philosophy, that Paul proclaimed Was sufficient proof that he was not anxious to become the founder of a school or the head of a party. And that which permanently distinguishes Christianity from all philosophies is that it presents to men, not a system of truth to be understood, but a Person to be relied upon. Christianity is for all men and not for the select, highly educated few; and it depends therefore not on exceptional ability to see truth, but on the universal human emotions of love and trust.
II. Why he had adopted this style.
1. Because God had changed His method (verse 21).
(1) Even the wisest of the Greeks had attained only to inadequate and indefinite views of God. To pass even from Plato to the Gospel of John is to pass from darkness to light. Plato philosophises, and a few souls seem for a moment to see things more clearly; Peter preaches, and three thousand souls spring to life.
(2) That which, in point of fact, has made God known is the Cross of Christ. No doubt it must have seemed mere lunacy to summon the seeker after God away from the high speculations of Plato to a human form gibbeted on a malefactors cross. None knew better than Paul the infamy attaching to that cursed death, but he knew also its power (verses 22-24). As proof that God was in their midst the Jews required a demonstration of physical power. Even at the last it would have satisfied them had Christ stepped down from the Cross. The Cross seemed to them a confession of weakness, and was a stumbling-block they could not get over. And yet in it was the whole power of God for the salvation of the world. For the power of God that is required to draw men to Himself is not power to alter the course of rivers or change the site of mountains, but power to sympathise, to sacrifice self, to give all for the needs of His creatures. It is this love of God that overpowers men and makes it impossible for them to resist Him.
2. Paul appeals to the elements of which the Church was actually composed.
(1) It is plain, he says, that it is not by anything generally esteemed among men that you hold your place in the Church (verse 26). It is not men who by their wisdom find out God and by their nobility of character commend themselves to Him; but it is God who calls men, and the very absence of wisdom and possessions makes men readier to listen to His call (verses 27-29). It is all Gods doing now; it is of Him are ye in Christ Jesus. Human wisdom had its opportunity and accomplished little; God now by the foolishness of the Cross lifts the despised, &c., to a far higher position than the wise and noble can attain by their might and their wisdom.
(2) Paul thus justifies this method by its results. The Cross may seem a most unlikely weapon with which to accomplish great things, but it is God who uses it, and that makes the difference. Hence the emphasis throughout this passage on the agency of God. But for this reason also all ground of boasting is removed from those who are within the Christian Church.
(3) In Pauls day this argument from the general poverty and insignificance of the members of the Christian Church was readily drawn. Things are changed now; and the Church is filled with the wise, the powerful, the noble. But Pauls main proposition remains: whoever is in Christ Jesus is so, not through any wisdom or power of his own, but because God has chosen and called him. And the practical result remains. Let the Christian, while he rejoices in his position, be humble.
3. Paul avers that had he used enticing words of mans wisdom the hearers might have been unduly influenced by the mere guise in which the gospel was presented and too little influenced by the essence of it. He feared to adorn the simple tale lest the attention of his audience might be diverted from the substance of his message. He was resolved that their faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Here again things have changed since Pauls day. The assailants of Christianity have put it on its defence, and its apologists have been compelled to show that it is in harmony with the soundest philosophy. It was inevitable that this should be done; but Paul considered that the only sound and trustworthy faith was produced by direct personal contact with the Cross. And this remains for ever true. (M. Dods, D. D.)
The true minister of Christ
I. His commission.
II. His paramount work.
1. Not to baptize, much less busy himself with a thousand other things.
2. But to preach the gospel.
III. His prescribed methods.
1. Not with wisdom of words.
2. But simply, plainly, pointedly.
IV. His motive.
1. That nothing might hinder.
2. But everything promote the effect of the Cross of Christ. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
The aim of the ministry
In a village church in one of the Tyrolese valleys, we saw upon the pulpit an outstretched arm, carved in wood, the hand of which held forth a cross. We noted the emblem as full of instruction as to what all true ministry should be, and must be--a holding forth of the Cross of Christ to the multitude as the only trust of sinners. Jesus Christ must be set forth evidently crucified among them. Lord, make this the aim and habit of all our ministers. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
The Cross of Christ of none effect
I. The cross of christ is an instrument intended and adapted to produce a certain effect. So far as man had to do with it it was intended to abase a prophet whom many honoured, to kill as a malefactor a Man whose great fault was that He had no fault at all. So far as God had to do with it, it was intended to be a Divine force. The Cross of Christ is to be a Divine force with an effect retrospective, aspective, and prospective.
1. The Cross fulfilled the first promise; it was the good thing of which the sacrifices were a shadow; it was the event toward which the course of all events had tended.
2. The Cross cast a long, deep shadow upon the Holy Land; its peculiar people; its priesthood, temple, and ritual; a night-of-death shadow to cover a time of change in which old things would pass away and all things become new.
3. The Cross shed light into the darkness of the world, and indicated those stirrings of the Divine mercy which terminated in the proclamation of salvation to the world. As matter of history, since the Cross of Christ has begun to take effect, it has caused religious systems hoary with age, and rooted by ten thousand fibres in the hearts of the people to be laid aside as worn-out garments. It has spread civilisation over many nations; it has been a key to unlock the treasures of all useful knowledge; it has elevated art, widened commerce, removed the fetters from the slave; it has founded hospitals and schools, checked the harsh government of rulers, quelled the anarchy of subjects, restored woman to her primitive position, imparted peace and joy to the home, exalted nations, and is now both the light and leaven of the world. The Cross of Christ alone saves.
II. Paul speaks of the cross being made of none effect.
1. To make the sun of none effect would send our world back to chaos, but this ruin would be--
2. Small compared with negativing the Cross of Christ. And Paul tells us that if he had exhibited the Cross with wisdom of words, it would have been powerless in his hands. He cannot mean intelligible and acceptable words; for without such the Cross could not be manifested at all. By wisdom of words is meant the artifices of rhetoric, &c. If the Cross were a jewel to be hoarded and hid I would make its bed in wool; but as it is a gem to be used let me see it as it is. If the Cross were an inferior gem I might add to its worth and beauty by the setting; but as its value is beyond price, let its surroundings be as simple as possible. The question is not, however, one of taste, but of utility. Shall we mingle with our daily bread that which will deprive us of its nutritive effect?
3. The Cross is made of none effect when--
(1) It is made identical with the crucifix, as though the Cross were nothing more than His crucifixion. The crucifix to the vulgar eye puts exclusively forward the bodily sufferings of Christ, and its effect is to bring us into sympathy with them. This is the effect of painting, poetry, and music, when employed upon the same subject. But the Cross of Christ is not an example of suffering merely, but the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world.
(2) False doctrine and speculation concerning it are taught. The effect of the Atonement is in itself, not in its philosophy. And if the attempt at explanation fail, and the philosophy be false, I exhibit a cross framed by my own vain imagination. Then, what have I done? I have led men from living waters to the appearance of a fountain in shining sand.
(3) It is exhibited without a personal recognition of its claims. That which you say about it will not be believed unless it appears important and true, and it cannot appear real and momentous except as exhibited in faith. Faith begets faith.
(4) Its requirements are multiplied and complicated. It saith, Come to Me; Look to Me; Believe in Me. If we surround it with a long and difficult creed; if we clothe it with an elaborate ritual; if we plant it in the shrine of a particular ecclesiastical polity, and require men to come to it, by these we make it of none effect.
(5) There is lack of faith in its power. It is impotent in the hand of an unbeliever. Our faith does not affect the value and efficacy of the Cross in the eye of God; but it does in the eye of man.
(6) When it is used for objects foreign to itself. Ecclesiastics have used it to satisfy their ungodly ambition; political rulers as an engine of government; private individuals as a, spy in a camp uses the password, and prejudice has been raised against it.
Conclusion:
1. What is the effect of the Cross of Christ upon yourselves?
(1) Child of Christian parents, you have been directed to it ever since your eyes opened to see. Other things have had effect. The scenes of your early life; the books you have read; the companions with whom you associated, &c. And what has been the effect of the Cross of Christ? It has repelled you or attracted you. Repelled you! The magnet of the eternal mercy repelled you!
(2) Pupil of a Christian school!
(3) Hearer of Christian preaching and possessor of Holy Scripture, unless you are saved by it you will be damned by it. Christian brethren, what is its daily effect upon your hearts and lives? Are you crucified with Christ? Is its effect to captivate your heart; to command your energies; to sanctify your life?
2. What is the effect of the Cross in your hands? We more than fear that Christians and Churches of Christ have done much to make the Cross of Christ of none effect. (S. Martin.)
The worlds greatest blessing and its greatest evil
I. The greatest blessing in the world--the Cross of Christ. By the Cross of Christ the apostle did not mean of course the timber on which Christ was crucified, or any imitation of that in wood, &c. He uses the word as a symbol, as we use the words Crown, Court, Bench, &c. He meant the eternal principles of which the Cross of Christ was at once the effect, the evidence, and the expression--i.e., all that we mean by the gospel. And this is the greatest blessing in the world to-day. Look at it
1. As a revealer. All true theological doctrine and ethical science come to us through the Cross. It is the moral light of the world.
2. As an educator. The Cross is to the human soul what the vernal sunbeam is to the seed; it penetrates, warms, quickens, and brings all its latent powers out to perfection.
3. As a deliverer. The Cross bears a pen to cancel the sentence, a balm to heal the wound, a weapon to break the fettering chain. Such, and infinitely more, is the Cross. What would human life be without it? A voyage without a compass, chart, or star.
II. The greatest evil in the world. Making this Cross of none effect, i.e., so far as its grand mission is concerned. Some effect it must have; it will deepen the damnation where it does not save. We are unto God a sweet savour, &c. This tremendous evil is--
1. Painfully manifest. Intellectually, socially, politically, it has confessedly done wonders for mankind; but morally, how little! How little genuine holiness, disinterested philanthropy, self-sacrificing devotion to truth and God, Christliness of life!
2. Easily explained. The apostle indicates one way, viz., by wisdom of words, i.e., gorgeous rhetoric. The Church has done it by
(1) Its theologies. In its name it has propounded dogmas that have clashed with reason and outraged conscience.
(2) Its polity. It has sanctioned wars, established hierarchies, which have fattened on the ignorance and poverty of the people.
(3) Its spirit. The spirit of the Cross is self-sacrificing love, the spirit of the Church has been to a great extent that of selfishness, greed, ambition, and oppression. Malrepresentation of Christ by the Church is the instrument that has made the Cross of none effect.
3. Terribly criminal. It is wonderful that man has the power thus to pervert Divine institutions and blessings; but such power he has. He forges metals into weapons for murder, he turns breadcorn into liquids to damn the reason and the souls of men. A greater crime you cannot conceive. Were you to turf, all bread into poison, make the flowing rivers pestiferous, quench the light of the sun, mantle the stars in sackcloth, you would not penetrate an evil half so enormous as that of making the Cross of Christ of none effect. Conclusion:
1. What is the spiritual influence of the Cross on us? Has it crucified unto us the world?
2. What are we doing with the Cross? Are we abusing it or rightly employing it? (D. Thomas, D. D.)
The Cross neutralised by theories about it
The force of κενὸς (cf. 1Co_15:14; Rom_4:14) may be conveyed by the words empty of content, unreal, not having objective existence, consisting only of opinions, sentiment speculation. The Cross of Christ is a real cause in the moral order of things. To substitute a system of notions, however true and ennobling, for the fact of Christs death, is like confounding the theory of gravitation with gravitation itself. (Principal Edwards.)
The preaching which the apostle condemns as ineffective
I. Scholastic preaching, which--
1. Aims only at the intellect, not at the heart.
2. Gives no satisfaction on the main point--religion.
3. Deals with philosophical speculations which injure rather than edify.
II. Rhetorical preaching.
1. Which proceeds not from a zeal for the truth, but from a desire to please.
2. This unworthy mode of dealing with Divine truth robs the Cross of its effect, because it diverts the attention from the truth to the speaker and distracts the heart--because it excites a craving for merely intellectual gratification--because the impression produced is referred to the ability of the preacher and not to the truth itself. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv13, 14, 16, 17 13. Is Christ divided? The church is “the Body…
13. Is Christ divided? The church is “the Body of Christ” (12:12, 13). Can that body be cut into parts, and these assigned to human leaders? Was Paul crucified for you? The cross binds us to Christ alone. By baptism we are baptized in Christ's name, into his death, and into Christ (Rom. 6:3).
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.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On v17 17. “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but…
17. “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” Here we see clearly and demonstratively that while water baptism in some way or other with reference to quantity, quality, subject, manner, or administrator has been the bone of contention among the religious denominations through all ages, and really the hot-bed of schisms, here you see plainly that, instead of deserving such prominence in the gospel economy, it is in fact no part of the gospel, and never was, but merely incidental to it — right in its place, but no part of the thing itself; hence, utterly unessential to salvation. This is clearly tenorable from Paul’s discrimination between baptism and the gospel. If it had been a part of the gospel, Paul never could have said, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” “not in wisdom of word, in order that the cross of Christ may not be made empty.” Why is the cross the great salient fact in the plan of salvation? Because on it Jesus made the atonement and redeemed the world from sin, death and hell. Such is the historic truth of the cross. Again, because all of His followers must go with Him to the cross, be nailed to it and die; i. e., just as the humanity in Him, though sinless, died on the cross for sin, so must the sinful humanity in us i. e., Adam the first, die on the cross; otherwise we never can follow our risen Savior up to heaven. This is the experimental truth of the cross. Hence we find that even Romanism does not make the cross too prominent. It is all right to show it up externally in order that our senses may assist our faith. But the trouble with them is they stop with the externalities, retaining only the historic doctrine of the cross, having lost sight of the experimental, which is the essence, and is indispensable to salvation. Many Protestants clamor constantly about water baptism, which you see plainly here from this irrefutable truth is no part of the gospel, but merely incidental to it, and hence not necessary to salvation; whereas they make nothing of the cross, which is really everything.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
F. W. Grant 1903 · Public Domain On v17 Section 2. (1Co 1:17-31.)
Section 2. (1Co 1:17-31.)
The Cross in its twofold aspect.
Read full note →
The apostle now enters at once upon his theme, Christ, unknown by the world, the cross His emblem, whom it was impossible to commend to the world, therefore, by any means other than the "demonstration of the Spirit" to the convicted soul. Yet this Cross is at once the inlet of all wisdom to him who understands it, -the knowledge of itself and of God; the actual meeting of the need which it has discovered. Thus it is true wisdom, -not that barren wisdom of the world which fails man just where needed most, but that which under the severest test becomes the most conspicuous.
1. The apostle’s disclaiming here of being sent to baptize is in perfect harmony with what has just been said of the connection of baptism with the Kingdom rather than the Church. Certainly those who received their commission from the risen, but not yet ascended Christ, could not have spoken in this way. Sent to baptize they were, and by Him who grounds it upon all power committed to Him, that is, upon the Kingdom that is His (Mat 28:18-19). He who was distinctly sent from Christ in glory, and declares himself to be in an especial manner the minister of the Church (Col 1:25), to whom was committed the administration of that till then unknown mystery (Eph 3:6-9), expressly denies baptism to have a place in that distinct commission! And this is the more noteworthy, because with regard to the Lord’s Supper, which he might have received, like baptism, from those who were apostles before him, but which is plainly connected with this administration, he says emphatically that he had "received from the Lord" that which he delivered to them: this too in this very same epistle in which he denies his having received baptism in this way from Him, and which is an epistle for the authoritative regulation of the Church on earth (1Co 14:37).
But he was also minister of the completed gospel (Col 1:23); and this is what he turns to speak of now. Christ had not sent him to baptize, but to preach the gospel -the glad tidings of a love now going out towards all, and in which his own heart went out in sympathetic gladness. Yet here it was the word of the Cross he carried, an ominous word of humiliation, suffering and penalty endured; and which, if endured for men, yet declared their condition who could be saved only by such a sacrifice. Here, therefore, no mere wisdom of words would suffice. That would be ignoring the very condition for which the Cross was alone the remedy. It was not a mere misunderstanding which wise words would remove, but a heart away from God which had declared itself in lace of the wondrous revelation of God in Christ: men have both seen and hated both Christ and His Father. And men, according to Scripture, are the same everywhere; this condition is not an exceptional one, but, "as in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man."
What use, then, of mere appeals to man, when Christ has Himself appealed, to get no answer but the Cross? The very "word of the Cross is to those that are perishing foolishness;" while indeed to those who are being saved "it is the power of God." Yes, the power of God; but then this alone can be trusted to work in it. The wisdom of the wise is brought to an end; the understanding of the man of understanding set aside: did any of them, with whatever wisdom they might have, excogitate the gospel? or produce any equivalent to the gospel? They had had ample time to do it, if they could. The nations that had once known God, had, in fact, spite of that knowledge, glorified Him not as God, nor been thankful for the knowledge, as the apostle tells the Romans; and this was the secret of the idolatry which covered the earth with hideous forms, the reflection of the lusts which warred in their members. What could be expected of those who had thus turned their backs on God, and conjured up gods not to meet the need of conscience, but to satisfy the impulses of their depravity?
God indeed, as we know, never left Himself without witness, -never meant to leave man to the mere blind gropings of a darkened intellect. Apart from the witness of external nature which is everywhere, somewhere the light was shining all the time. In the midst of the most cultivated nations of antiquity, and at the headquarters of their commercial traffic, -in close intimacy with Egypt, (upon whose bestial gods was executed once a judgment which resounded far and near,) -and in turn with Phoenicia, Syria, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, there was a people who held in their hand the revelation of God, progressing with the onward march of the generations that went by. But this was not what they craved or would receive. Thus in the self-chosen darkness their wisdom ripened till in Greece, the land of the typical Gentile, in the midst of those who professedly sought after wisdom, it produced its fairest blossoms and its ripest fruits. The wisdom of God was pleased to give ample time for the development. As in Israel under law it was to be proved that man was without strength and ungodly, so amongst the Gentiles was it to be proved that the world by wisdom knew not God. Then, when the need was fully shown, which could not else be met at all, "it pleased God by the foolishness of the preaching" -not of preaching as a method, but of the thing preached in human estimation -"it pleased God to save those that believe."
2. Not merely to Gentile philosophy, which in its very designation was a "pursuit of wisdom," but to the legal Jew no less, the cross was naturally the very opposite of what he looked for. The Jew, as we see in the Gospels, demanded signs -significant wonders. And such indeed was the Cross, the mightiest that could be; but what child of the law could accept one in which the law itself was against the sufferer, -the curse of the law upon him? Doubtless they had read of One despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, upon whom Jehovah laid the iniquity of others, and with whose stripes they are healed. Yes, but was not that Israel suffering for the sins of the world? So have they turned the edge of conviction from themselves to weave out of texts like these a subtle web of self-righteousness in their own defence. But how indeed could they think of their glorious Messiah as in the place of one made an offering for sin? How little could they imagine that in all this reasoning they were but fulfilling the prophecy they were perverting, -"He was despised, and we esteemed Him not!"
The reason why to the Greeks it was foolishness was at bottom the same -intense blindness as to man’s condition and the enormity of sin before a holy God. Their gods came down to earth indeed, and in forms lower than the human; but it was in pursuit of their own lusts and passions, as vehement and unrestrained as any that could be found in man. Here was a setting forth of "new gods" indeed, which at once proclaimed a new estimate of sin, and swept aside under its condemnation all their rabble of dishonored deities. Were indeed all these to be replaced with that gaunt Figure of rejection and death, outcast by these contemptible Jews themselves?
But if such then were the message, what hope in announcing it? None but in God’s new-creative call, the call of the gospel certainly, but the gospel made good in the soul by the mighty energy of the Holy Spirit. Many heard and hear the universal gospel-call, only to reject it; but to all those called according to the word of the apostle here, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. It is a call effectual as God can make it, -"not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance" (1Th 1:5); the result being a veritable new birth: for we are "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever; and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you" (1Pe 1:23; 1Pe 1:25).
Thus the "foolishness of God" -what with men may be considered that -approves itself by its blessed fruit in those in whose hearts, opened by divine grace, it has been received effectually, an incoming of light and joy and peace which nothing else can avail to bring. "The foolishness of God is wiser than men," whatever may be the form of the philosophy he favors; and the "weakness of God," -Christ "crucified through weakness," -"is more powerful than men."
3. If such then is the true character of world-wisdom, such its contradiction to all that is genuinely this, it is but the consequence to be expected, that the calling of God will not be characteristically of those wise according to the flesh, or mighty, or noble. He has, in fact, put upon the most conspicuous developments of the world-spirit the brand of His reprobation. He chooses the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and its weak things to shame its might, and things ignoble and despised, things that are naught in men’s eyes, to bring down to naught all things in the world together, that no flesh may glory in the presence of God. Alas, it is this "great Babylon that we have builded" that exalts man to his shame, and drives him out in result among the beasts that know not God, to be more bestial than they. We must accept this abasement that God may be able indeed to exalt us, and enrich us in our poverty with the riches of One self-impoverished to enrich us. In this way man is blessed indeed, and God is glorified.
We who believe are in Christ Jesus, -filled up in all His fulness; and the wisdom which here we find manifests itself as truly that by its power to meet and put away all the disastrous consequences of the fall, and bring in an overcompensation of blessing that is indeed divine. And this is what the form of the sentence here conveys; "righteousness, as well as sanctification, and redemption," being the distinguishing blessings that are found in the wisdom that is from God, and which manifest its truly divine character.*
{*So the margin of the R.V., though ungrammatically, "both."}
It will be found also upon examination that the words stand in the order needed to bring out their relation to the fall; to that, let us remember, which began man’s pursuit of wisdom, away from God. Still, "vain man will be wise, though be be born a wild ass’s colt." No wonder if he should sadly lose his way. Yet in all this, supreme above it all, God works out His purposes of blessing, using even the evil itself to do so. For, if wisdom were hoped for by man from the knowledge of good and evil, this (which indeed was always designed for him by God, and which he had no need to take from Satan) is in fact overruled in such a way as to give him the deepest possible apprehension of these that (one may suppose) the creature could have; and thus, in the redeemed, to bring about a fuller conformity to the mind of God, than perhaps a being unfallen could attain. No angel could in this way by reason of use have his senses exercised to discern both good and evil." And the very presence of the evil in us after new birth is a fact whose import seems to lie in the same direction.
At the best, a wisdom of this kind could not, however, by itself solve any one of the most serious questions which perplex men, and will perplex them, apart from revelation. And this is what distinctly the book of Ecclesiastes is designed to show. Wisdom there is the object of the most earnest search by one who had special human wisdom given him by God, so as to be wiser than all men beside; and with riches and power back of it all, to carry out, as far as mail might go, his experiments. But the wail goes up from this eager seeker of what he prized and longed for: "I said I will be wise, but it was far from me." Death baffles him. The seal upon a fallen condition cannot be broken by that which induced the fall. "Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward? or the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? . . . As thou knowest not the way of the spirit . . . so thou knowest not the works of God that worketh all." Revelation must come in then; and here what joy to realize how it has indeed come in!
Christ is made unto us wisdom from God; and thus with Christianity, for faith, every cloud is lifted. The wisdom that is from God is a casket of priceless jewels; in which the redeemed one finds, not only liberty, but marvelous enrichment. How much is contained in just those three words, "righteousness, sanctification and redemption!" And they are in an order of progressive fulness, as we shall see, by which we enter more and more into the heart of God.
Righteousness is the first need of the sinner, and which we see symbolically met in that robe which death furnished to cover the nakedness which was the first felt need in Eden. "I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself." Yet God had made him naked, not like any beast of the earth with its protective covering, but safe in the purity of his uprightness, open to the light and not ashamed. How all was altered now! The consciousness of guilt was upon him: the law of sin was already in his members; and God Himself recognizes the impossibility of restoring that lost innocence; he must have a covering, and a better one than any that he can invent with all his power of invention. Who could imagine that death, the penalty upon him, was to be that which should provide him with this? Yet we know that this is indeed the truth. The penalty must be endured, if the sinner is to be justified before God. Righteousness for him is not in any impossible work of his hands, or new life lived, but in the first place by the death of Him of whom all the sacrificial law spoke -whom it foreshadowed. The blood of the sacrifice -token of the life poured out -was that which was offered to God for the acceptance of the offerer; and we are thus "justified by His blood," every charge against us is refused, His resurrection from the dead being the assurance of the demand met, and thus the public sentence of justification of every one that believeth in Jesus.
But this is negative merely, -there is no imputation of guilt, and that is all; and it is not all that God has done for us; we have not in this yet reached the robe of righteousness, which death indeed must obtain for us, but which goes beyond the mere putting away of sin, and gives us a positive standing in the presence of God. Christ is not merely negative but positive righteousness to us. We stand in Him, in the value that He has for God, who has achieved, not merely for us but for Him also, that which has glorified Him in all His attributes. In His death all that we were by nature and practice both was branded and set aside, -"our old man crucified with Him," -and we are accepted in the Beloved, in that unchangeable perfection which is His, living because He lives. He is the Priest that offered for us, to whom belongs the skin of the burnt-offering (Lev 7:8); and here we are brought back as it were to Eden, to see whence those skins that covered the first sinners of mankind were derived. How from the beginning did the eye of God contemplate the coming Redeemer in His sufferings and the glories that should follow!
Yet, however wonderful this righteousness, more is needed and more provided for us in Christ. God could not merely cover the nakedness of a sinner, while leaving him still the sinner that he was before. Man fallen was corrupt as well as guilty; and Christ is made unto us not only righteousness but also sanctification.
Now sanctification is spoken of in two different ways in Scripture: we are sanctified positionally, and we are sanctified practically, -by the blood and by the Spirit of Christ; as the blood with the oil upon the blood consecrated the priest of old (Exo 29:20-21). Positionally, as is evident, it is the blood of Christ which has set us apart to God. And this is what sanctification means, setting apart to God. The Lord thus speaks of sanctifying Himself when He is going to take a new position as Man with God: "For their sakes," He says, "I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth" (Joh 17:19). This was no spiritual change in the Lord, which it were blasphemy to think; it was simply a new place that He was taking for us God ward. Upon this too our sanctification, positionally and practically, depends. He is gone in to God as Man. Entitled ever to such a place by virtue of all that He was, His own personal perfection, He is now gone in for men; and therefore, "By His own blood He entered in once into the holy place. having obtained eternal redemption" (Heb 9:12). Thus He enters as our Representative, and the blood that He has shed sets us apart, or sanctifies us, to God, in the power of His finished work, "we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb 10:10). Thus the conscience is effectually purified, the worshiper once purged having no more conscience of sins (Heb 9:13-14; Heb 10:2); a thing how absolutely necessary for practical sanctification, for which we must be near to God: there is no possible place of distance from sin but in nearness to God.
Practical sanctification has its two factors in the new birth, and the operation of the Spirit through the Word upon the believer, taking of the things of Christ to show them to him. In new birth Christ is our life, and thus we have a nature capable of responding to the Word ministered to it, although still and ever the Spirit’s work is necessary to make the Word good in the hearts of the children of God.
But being born again, it is Christ once more, as apprehended by the soul in what He personally is, and in the place in which He is, who is the power for sanctification. And herein is the wisdom of God in Him fully and wonderfully displayed. He who has put away our sins and set our consciences at rest in the presence of God, has thus laid hold upon our hearts, and won us for Himself and for God, revealed in Him, for ever. Christian life -what only can be called so -is thus love’s free and happy offering to Him who has loved us: "He died for all, that they which live should no more live unto themselves, but unto Him that died for us, and rose again."
Let us notice that "rose again;" for if our hearts are thus Christ’s, where is Christ? In heaven. And where then are our hearts? That is the power for practical holiness, an object -the Object -for our hearts outside the world, outside the whole scene of temptation and evil. We have not to look about in the world, to see what of good we can perchance find in it: Christ is in heaven. Holiness is for us by heavenliness. How simply and in what perfect wisdom has God provided for us by the power of an absorbing affection, the Object withdrawn from us, outside the world, and becoming thus the goal of a pilgrim’s heart and a pilgrim’s steps!
And now, finally, what is "redemption"? This is the last of the three things found, according to the apostle, in this wisdom. of God in Christ. What then is redemption? It is God’s love acting from itself, and for itself, to satisfy itself at personal cost, in getting back that which has been alienated from Him, and which yet He values. It is more than purchase, or even repurchase; for this might be, not because of its value to myself, but to give it away again, or for some other reason. But redemption is for oneself, the getting back for oneself what one’s own heart values, -the value of which is known by the price that one is willing to pay for it. Redemption brings out thus the heart of the redeemer.
And in Eden, amid all the goodness with which he was surrounded, man, taught of Satan, had learned to suspect the goodness of God. There and then he had lost God: for He is not God, if He is not good. Since then, naturally, "there is none that seeketh after" Him, -that believes there is anything in Him for which to seek Him. Natural religions are religions of fear and self-interest only, and men’s gods are the image of their own corruptions. God must reveal Himself; and how gloriously has He done this! Not goodness merely to man innocent in Eden, but infinite love to those who in Christ could see and hate Him. "God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son." Christ is the redemption-price that shows the heart of the Redeemer; this wondrous gift, the Father’s heart told out in transcendent righteousness, and holiness, and love.
Nor can we forget that redemption has yet to show its power in the transformation of the body itself; that in the image of Christ fully we may enjoy the blessedness that is ours in Him for ever. Then indeed shall he that glorieth glory in the Lord; and the full blessing of the creature shall be found when He alone is glorified by all.
F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (4th ed., 1903) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On vv13–17 Is Christ divided? [the church is called the "body…
Is Christ divided? [the church is called the "body of Christ" ( 1Co_12:12-13 ; 1Co_12:27 ), and Paul asks if that body can be cut in pieces and parceled out to human leaders] was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul? [Paul shows the disinterestedness of his rebuke by centering it more especially upon those who had honored him as their leader, thus showing, as Bengel says, that "he disliked Paulinists as much as he did Petrinists." Jesus became the Author of our salvation, and the head of the church through suffering upon the cross ( Heb_2:10 ), and Paul, in order to be his rival, should not only have been crucified for his followers, but his sacrifice should have been as efficacious for the cleansing of sin and the procuring of salvation as was Christ's. This was, of course, preposterous. Again, if Paul was incompetent as the head of a religious body, his followers also had not properly qualified themselves as his disciples, for they had not been baptized into Paul's name, but being baptized into Christ they had put on Christ ( Gal_3:27 ), and, becoming thus members of Christ, how could they belong to Paul? What Paul thus spoke of himself could be said with equal force of either Apollos or Cephas.]
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.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On v17 The Wisdom of God and the Foolishness of Men.
The Wisdom of God and the Foolishness of Men.
The foolishness of the Gospel-message:
Read full note →
v. 17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; not with wisdom of words, lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
v. 18. For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
v. 19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
The apostle here characterizes his office, trying to make it clear to the Corinthian Christians wherein the ministry of the Gospel really consists. He says of himself that Christ did not send him, did not entrust him with the office of an apostle, for the purpose of baptizing, but for that of preaching the Gospel. The appointment to this office did indeed include the work of administering Baptism, Mat 28:19. Incidentally, however, the work of preaching, of bearing testimony of Christ and His atonement, was the chief calling of the apostle. Without the Word of the Gospel the Sacraments have no efficacy. "Without the Word of God the water is simple water and no Baptism. " The function of administering the sacrament of Baptism follows from the greater function, that of spreading the Gospel-message. "In the command to preach the command to baptize is included in this way, that he who is called to preach the Gospel is also empowered to baptize; but, on the other hand, not every one that is empowered and has the right to baptize thereby also is qualified and called to preach. Therefore Paul can say that Christ had not sent him to baptize, without thereby undervaluing Baptism as a means of grace. The actual performance of the act of baptism, which belongs to the office of the Church, Mat 28:19, the apostles could have carried out through others, Act 10:48; See Joh 4:1-2, who were their hands and Christ’s in this service. But the preaching of the Gospel, through which alone the practice of baptizing is made possible, they could indeed carry on in fellowship with others, but they could not personally omit this function or have it done only through a delegation of preachers, for they were trumpets in the world of nations and lights in the darkness."
The apostle now shows wherein the true power of the Gospel consists, first from the negative side: Not in wisdom of speech, not in the rhetorical argumentation of Greek philosophy, lest the cross of Christ be rendered void, without effect. To clothe the preaching of the Cross in the words of man’s wisdom, to seek for great oratorical effect in teaching its glorious truths, is not only not doing a service to the message of Christ, but it is fraught with the greatest danger to the Gospel, it works harm; it shuts off the power of the divine message. The true Gospel-preacher is not to stand before his congregation primarily as an orator trained in the art of rhetoric, but as a witness of Christ, bearing testimony to the great facts in and through which God has chosen to reveal Himself to men. The doctrine of the justification of a poor sinner, whose center is the cross of Calvary, is bereft of its efficiency by any deliberate display of art, which brings forward the person of the messenger rather than his message. In many modern churches in which the Gospel of Christ is occasionally, incidentally, mentioned, the very intellectual or esthetic pleasure which the hearers feel under the sway of the speaker’s artful eloquence will tend to shut off the influence of the Gospel contained in the minister’s message.
This assertion Paul now supports by a fact from experience: For the Word of the Cross is to them that are lost foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. The Word of the Cross includes the account of all that was done for the entire world on the cross, the message of reconciliation through the work performed on the cross by the Redeemer. And this Word, this Gospel, is to them that perish, that are on the way to perdition, folly; their considering it so is the cause of their being lost; their reason, their wisdom, their entire sinful nature, rises in opposition to a message which is so utterly at variance with the pride of man, and therefore they do not receive the benefit of its assurance. But on the other hand, that same Word is to them that are saved, that is, to us believers, the power of God unto salvation. The believers of all time know that the Cross of Christ, the message of the crucified Christ, is a saving power. In the statement of the facts of the redemption of the world lies the power of the Gospel, not in any man’s way of presenting them. And the very fact that we have experienced the power of the Word in our own hearts is to us a testimony of our salvation.
For the fact that the wisdom of this world, in regarding the Gospel-preaching folly, paves the way for its own damnation, Paul adduces a Scripture-passage: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the prudent I will frustrate, Isa 29:14. Just as the wisdom of the Jews, which relied upon shallow cunning, was brought to naught in the days of the prophet, just as their hypocrisy and lip-service resulted in their rejection, so the wisdom of him that believes himself to be exceptionally rich in understanding according to the standard of this world, and with supercilious haughtiness despises the message of the Cross, will be frustrated. "Gentile and Jewish wisdom, united in the rejection of the Gospel, are coming to a like breakdown; and Paul draws a powerful warning from sacred history. " And the warning must be sounded today as strongly as it ever was in the history of the world.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv14, 17 none of you, except
none of you, except
"only"
Read full note →
Crispus
He was a synagogue ruler who became a Christian. (See: How to Translate Names)
Gaius
He traveled with the Apostle Paul. (See: How to Translate Names)
This was so that no one would say that you were baptized into my name
Here "name" represents "authority." This means Paul did not baptize others because they may claim that they became Paul's disciples. This can be stated in active form. AT: "For some of you might have claimed that I baptized you to make you my disciples" (See: Metonymy and Active or Passive)
the household of Stephanas
This refers to the family members and slaves in the house where Stephanas, a man, was the head. (See: How to Translate Names)
translationWords
baptize
household
know
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 On vv13, 14, 16, 17 1:13 Paul asks three rhetorical questions, all expecting the…
1:13 Paul asks three rhetorical questions, all expecting the obvious answer, “no.” Christian devotion is to be given to Christ, not to his messengers.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.