11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are1 contentions

among you.

1 Ch. iii. 4-6; 21-23; iv. 6.

shall be complete in all its parts, and harmonious, Heb. xi. 3; and thence to compose and settle controversies, to produce harmony and order. The apostle here evidently desires that they should be united in feeling; that every member of the church should occupy his appropriate place, as every member of a well proportioned body, or part of a machine, has its appropriate place and use. See his wishes more fully expressed in ch. xii. 12 31. In the same mind (vôi). See Rom xv. 5. This cannot mean that they were to be united in precisely the same shades of opinion, which is impossible, but that their minds were to be disposed towards each other with mutual good will, and that they should live in harmony. The word here rendered mind, denotes not merely the intellect itself, but that which is in the mind-the thoughts, counsels, plans. ch. ii. 16. Rom. xi. 34; xiv. 5. Col. ii. 18. (Bretschneider). ¶ And in the same judgment (yvun). This word properly denotes science, or knowledge; opinion, or sentiment; and sometimes, as here, the purpose of the mind, or will. The sentiment of the whole is, that in their understandings and their volitions, they should be united and kindly disposed towards each other. Union of feeling is possible even where men differ much in their views of things. They may love each other much, even where they do not see alike. They may give each other credit for honesty and sincerity, and may be willing to suppose that others may be right, and are honest even where their own views differ. The foundation of christian union is not so much laid in uniformity of intellectual perception as in right feelings of the heart. And the proper way to produce union in the church of God, is not to begin by attempting to equalize all intellects on the bed of Procrustes, but to produce

me.

Of the contentions existing in the church at Corinth, it is evident that the apostle had not been informed by the letter which the church had sent to him. See ch. vii. 1. Comp. the Introduction. He had incidentally

heard of their contentions. ¶ My brethren. A token of affectionate regard, evincing his love for them, and his deep interest in their welfare, even when he administered a needed rebuke. Of the house of Chloe. Of the family of Chloe. It is most probable that Chloe was a member of the church at Corinth, some of whose family had been at Ephesus when Paul was, and had given him information of the state of things there. Who those members of her family were, is unknown. Grotius conjectures that they were Stephanus, Fortunatus, and Achaicus, mentioned in ch. xvi. 17, who brought the letter of the church at Corinth to Paul. But of this there is no certain evidence; perhaps not much probability. If the information had been obtained from them, it is probable that it would have been put in the letter which they bore. The probability is that Paul had received this information before they arrived.

12. Now this I say. This is what I mean; or, I give this as an instance of the contentions to which I refer. ¶ That every one of you saith. That you are divided into different factions, and ranged under different leaders. The word translated that (87) might be translated here, because, or since, as giving a reason for his affirming, ver. 11, that there were contentions there. Now I say that there are contentions, because you are ranged under different leaders,' &c.—(Calvin). ¶ I am of Paul. It has been doubted

1 2 Cor. xi. 4. Gal. i. 7. Eph. iv. 5. whether Paul meant to affirm that the parties had actually taken the names which he here specifies, or whether he uses these names as illustrations, or suppositions, to show the absurdity of their ranging themselves under different leaders. Many of the ancient interpreters supposed that Paul was unwilling to specify the real names of the false teachers and leaders of the parties, and that he used these names simply by way of illustration. This opinion was grounded chiefly on what he says in ch. iv. 6. But in this place Paul is not referring so particularly to the factions or parties existing in the church, as he is to the necessity of modesty and humility; and in order to enforce this, he refers to himself and Apollos to show that even those most highly favoured should have a low estimate of their importance, since all their success depends on God. See ch. iii. 4-6. It can scarcely be doubted that Paul here meant to say that there were parties existing in the church at Corinth, who were called by the names of himself, of Apollos, of Cephas, and of Christ. This is the natural construction; and this was evidently the information which he had received from those who were of the family of Chloe. Why the parties were ranged under these leaders, however, can be only a matter of conjecture. Lightfoot suggests that the church at Corinth was composed partly of Jews and partly of Gentiles. See Acts xviii. The gentile converts, he supposes, would range themselves under Paul and Apollos as their leaders; and the jewish under Peter and Christ. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, and Peter particularly the apostle to the Jews, Gal. ii. 7; and this circumstance might give rise to the division. Apollos succeeded Paul in Achaia, and laboured successfully there. See Acts xviii. 27, 28. These two original parties might be again subdivided. A part of those who adhered to Paul and Apollos might regard Paul

with chief veneration, as being the founder of the church, as the instrument of their conversion, as the chief apostle, as signally pure in his doctrine and manner; and a part might regard Apollos as the instrument of their conversion, and as being distinguished for eloquence. It is evident that the main reason why Apollos was regarded as the head of a faction was on account of his extraordinary eloquence, and it is probable that his followers might seek particularly to imitate him in the graces of popular elocution. ¶ And I of Cephas. Peter. Comp. John i. 42. He was regarded particularly as the apostle to the Jews. Gal. ii. 7. He had his own peculiarity of views in teaching, and it is probable that his teaching was not regarded as entirely harmonious with that of Paul. See Gal. ii. 11-17. Paul had everywhere among the Gentiles taught that it was not necessary to observe the ceremonial laws of Moses; and, it is probable, that Peter was regarded by the Jews as the advocate of the contrary doctrine. Whether Peter had been at Corinth is unknown. If not they had heard of his name, and character; and those who had come from Judea had probably reported him as teaching a doctrine on the subject of the observance of jewish ceremonies unlike that of Paul. ¶ And I of Christ. Why this sect professed to be the followers of Christ, is not certainly known. It probably arose from one of the two following causes. 1. Either that they had been in Judea and had seen the Lord Jesus, and thus regarded themselves as particularly favoured and distinguished; or, 2. More probably because they refused to call themselves by any inferior leader, and wished to regard Christ alone as their head, and possibly prided themselves on the belief that they were more conformed to him than the other sects.

13. Is Christ divided? Paul, in this verse, proceeds to show the impropriety of their divisions and strifes.

1 Acts xviii. 8. 2 Rom. xvi. 23. 3 John 1.

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 honours 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 peculiarity 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 rent 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. Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul. Or into, or unto the name of Paul. See Note, Matt. xxviii. 19. To be baptized into, or unto any one 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 organise 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 the spiritual father, had never desired or intended that they should call themselves by his name. The apostle thus showed the impropriety of their adopting the name of any man as the leader of a sect.

14. I thank God, &c. Why Paul did not himself baptize, see in ver. 17. To him it was now a subject of grateful reflection that he had not done it. He had not given an occasion for the suspicion that he had intended to set himself up as a leader of a sect or party. ¶ But Crispus. Crispus had been the chief ruler of the synagogue at Corinth. Acts. xviii. 8. ¶ And Gaius. Gaius resided at Corinth, and at his house Paul resided when he wrote the epistle to the Romans. Rom. xvi. 23. It is also possible that the third epistle of John was directed to this man. See 3 John 1. And if so, then probably Diotrephes, 3 John 9, who is mentioned as one who loved "to have the pre-eminence," had been one cause of the difficulties at Corinth. The other