1 Cor 1:10. Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing and that there be no schisms among you, but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment.
I beseech you, therefore, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ—by that name which is for you above all things venerable and lovable—that you think the same things, and that harmony of minds be shown by concord of speech, and that you do not, on every occasion, form parties within the Church. Rather, be compacted and united, like a body which is perfect when all its members are suitably joined together and animated by the same spirit. Let your mind be the same, the affection of your hearts the same, and your wills conspire together in one accord. He does not reprove them for holding different opinions concerning the dogmas of faith, but because they quarreled and contended about their teachers. “The sense of the preaching is one,” he says, “but the affection is not one.” He therefore exhorts them that, thinking and feeling the same things, they should not be divided, nor rashly contend about those who preside over them.
1 Cor 1:11–12. For it has been signified to me concerning you, my brethren, by those who are of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
It has been reported to me by those who belong to the household of Chloe, a devout matron, that there are contentions among you—that is, conflicts and verbal disputes. The Apostle’s prudence here is remarkable: he names the household so as to show that he did not receive this from an uncertain rumor but from trustworthy persons, yet he does not name individuals, lest he stir up envy against them.
Now this I say: that each one of you says, that is, what I mean is that party-spirit exists among you, some saying, “I indeed am of Paul,” a disciple and follower of Paul, the Apostle and Doctor of the Gentiles; another, “I am of Apollos,” of the more eloquent preacher; another, “I am of Cephas,” that is, of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, by whom I was instructed and baptized. This may well have been said by Jews who had been converted to the faith of Christ while Peter was preaching at Rome, and who then came to Corinth and settled there. Another says, “But I am of Christ,” which is a voice of truth, not of schism.
Saint John Chrysostom, Theodoret, and other Greek commentators think that St Paul, by a figurative manner of speech, under the names of those who rightly and sincerely preached Christ—namely Paul himself, Apollos, and Cephas—designated the pseudo-apostles and leaders of factions, so that his rebuke might be less harsh and offensive, since he kept silent about the names of those who were actually dividing the Church. They gather this from the Apostle’s words later in chapter 4, verse 6: “These things, brethren, I have transferred to myself and Apollos for your sake, that you may learn in us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up one against another for one.” As if the Apostle wished to say: if it is not lawful to glory contentiously in the names of Paul, Apollos, and Cephas, and to form parties in the Church, much less is it lawful to do so in the names of others.
Yet although this interpretation is probable, the other need not be rejected; rather, the two should be joined together. For the first, which is more common and obvious, is confirmed by the Apostle’s own words in chapter 3, verses 21–22: “Let no one glory in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas. But you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” It is also confirmed by St Augustine (On the Unity of Baptism against Petilian, ch. 5): “In the times of the Apostles, those who said, ‘I indeed am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas,’ although they did so not in the names of impious men but of saints, nevertheless made impious schisms. This was their own detestable fault. That they knew Christ to have been crucified for them and that they were baptized in His name was not an error of theirs, but a divine gift bestowed upon them.”
1 Cor 1:13. Is Christ divided?
Is Christ preached as one by Paul, another by Apollos, another by Cephas? Is not the same Gospel announced by all? Why, then, have you torn Christ asunder and divided His body? Or has Christ divided the Church, taking one part for Himself and giving another part to your teachers? Was Paul crucified for you? The same must be said of Apollos and Cephas. Did Paul, by dying on the cross, redeem you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? That is, were you baptized by the authority, power, and merit of Paul? Was the baptism by which you were immersed and consecrated instituted by Paul, and does it have from him the power of forgiving sins and conferring grace? Was it perfected by invoking Paul’s name, so that you should take your name from him?
1 Cor 1:14–15. I thank God that I baptized none of you, except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that you were baptized in my name.
I give thanks to God, whose providence brought it about that I baptized no one at Corinth except Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, and Gaius, my host, lest—perhaps unwillingly—I should have given occasion for the error and sin into which many of you fell, clinging excessively to those by whom they were baptized, as though transferred into their name, and thus making parties in the Church. For it is desirable, as St Thomas observes, that holy men ensure that others do not take occasion of error or sin from the good works they do. And because the Corinthians had fallen into this error of naming themselves after their baptizers, saying, “I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas,” as though they had been baptized in their names, he therefore gives thanks that such an error did not arise from his own ministry.
1 Cor 1:16–17. I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.
That is, the family of Stephanas, a man well known among the Corinthians. As for the rest, I neither affirm nor deny that I baptized anyone else, because in particular matters memory sometimes slips and fails.
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to evangelize—not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ be made void.
Christ did not send me principally to baptize, nor is this the chief and primary function of my apostleship, but to preach the Gospel. Truly, He commanded both when He said, “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Yet preaching is more excellent than baptizing. Baptizing is easy for all who are adorned with the honor of the priesthood, but preaching belonged to few, to whom God granted this gift. This is the truly and properly apostolic office. Therefore the Apostle says, “Christ did not send me to baptize, but to evangelize,” that is, He sent me more to preach than to baptize. Similar expressions occur in Jeremiah 7:22, Hosea 6:6, and Matthew 9:13: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice,” that is, mercy rather than sacrifice.
Not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ be made void—that is, not with refined discourse drawn from secular doctrines, nor with affected eloquence, lest the teaching concerning Christ crucified be deprived of the glory of its power and efficacy. As if he were to say: if I were to use that secular eloquence and verbal flattery, the power of the Crucified would not be manifested. For all would think that those who believe had been won over by eloquence and rhetorical skill. But the very lack of polish in the preachers, conquering those who boast of eloquence, openly shows the power of the Cross.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment