Lessons #17 and 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +
+ comments given in the actual exposition not in the note. +
+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +
+ CEB = Common English Bible, ESV= English Standard Version, +
+ GWT = God’s Word Translation, ISV = International Standard Version, +
+ NAB=New English Bible, NASB= New American Standard Bible, +
+ NEB= New English Bible, NET = New English Translation, +
+ NLT = New Living Translations NJB = New Jerusalem Bible, +
+ NJV = New Jewish Bible, TEV = Today’s English Version. +
+AMP = Amplified Bible, UBS = United Bible Society +
+ 3. Notes have not been edited for grammatical errors. +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division among the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:10-17)
... 11 My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
The message of this passage we started to consider in our last study is: Guard against division in this local church. This message, we indicated is to be expounded with three propositions. A first proposition, we stated in our last study, is that division is possible in any local church, as demonstrated in the local church in Corinth. We indicated also that there are two ways we know for certain that there was division in the local church in Corinth. The first is the appeal of Apostle Paul to the church that is introduced in the first sentence of 1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers. So, we begin with the second in today’s study.
A second way we are certain of the division that exists in the local church in Corinth is the report of strives among them the apostle received. It is this report that is given in verse 11 My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. This sentence although is our second way of being certain of the division in the local church in Corinth provides a reason the apostle made his appeal to the Corinthians. This explanation is not apparent because the translator of the NIV did not explicitly translate in verse 11 a Greek conjunction (gar) that is translated “for” in many of our English versions. The Greek conjunction is used here to provide the basis of the apostle’s appeal. In effect, it is because of what is stated in this sentence that the apostle was certain of the division in the local church in Corinth, that is, among those he addressed in the phrase my brothers.
The apostle used the word “brothers” a second time to convey that there is a bond between him and those he addressed. His use of this word this second time is probably to continue to emphasize to the Corinthians that they together with him belong to the same family of God in Christ. Furthermore, his use of the word may be his way of getting the Corinthians to think of their relationship with each other so that they recognize the importance of unity among them since unity is that which is to be appreciated among brothers, as the psalmist implied in Psalm 133:1:
How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!
That aside, the use of the word “brothers” is also intended to show that the apostle has a brotherly concern for the church in Corinth because of the division that exists among them.
It is possible that the Corinthians would have wondered how the apostle came to his knowledge of the information he had that caused him to appeal for unity in the church. This is particularly the case, because this epistle indicates that the Corinthians wrote the apostle with questions that troubled them but made no mention of this particular problem. This is probably either because of blind arrogance in that they did not want the apostle to know of their division or because they did not recognize their division as an important issue. Regardless of their reason for not bringing this matter of division to the apostle, he proceeded to explain his source of information of their division. You see, the Holy Spirit could have directly revealed to the apostle the problem in Corinth but that is not the case here; instead, God used human beings to bring to the apostle’s attention the information regarding the division in Corinth. It is this human source that is given in the phrase of 1 Corinthians 1:11 some from Chloe’s household. Literally, the Greek reads by the ones of Chloe that refers to those with an undefined relationship with Chloe. The most we can say is that they are members of Chloe’s household since in the ancient world members of a person’s household included the immediate members of the family and slaves or servants of the head of the household. In this specific situation, if the members of the household were slaves, it is probably that they were freed before they came to the apostle or if they were still slaves then they were accompanied by freed people to where Paul was although it is most likely that they were free persons because of the risk of entrusting a slave to another for a long trip. Anyway, the individuals involved were associated with Chloe in a manner not specified but could be inferred, as we explained. The apostle did not want the Corinthians to think he was making up the charge, so he mentioned the source of his information. The apostle did not withhold the source because of the identification he gave. Often when people are unwilling to be cited as source of information, it may be because they are not telling the truth or because they are cowards. Hence, if a person is unwilling to stand behind any information, then you should not take that person seriously unless there is another way to verify the information the individual provides. We know that the apostle has no problem revealing the source of his information to believers he wrote for he did so with the Colossians, as we can gather from Colossians 1:7–8:
7 You learned it from Epaphras, our dear fellow servant, who is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf, 8 and who also told us of your love in the Spirit.
The phrase some from Chloe’s household in 1 Corinthians 1:11 is an important one because of the charge the apostle wrote in the verse that we will get to shortly. Why is that important, you may ask? It is because the apostle concluded that the report he received as true. How could the apostle be sure of the reliability of the information he received? It is because he indicated that there were at least two individuals that gave the report since the literal Greek phrase is the ones of Chloe implying at least two individuals. The apostle was acquainted with the Scripture that forbids accepting something as true without at least the testimony of two or more independent witnesses, as for example, in his quotation of the Scripture that requires this in 2 Corinthians 13:1:
This will be my third visit to you. “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”
Since the apostle recognized the importance of establishing the truthfulness of a matter by two or more witnesses, it was important for him to indicate that there were at least two witnesses that reported the information he gave hence the word some of the NIV. The apostle’s example here is important for us. We should be careful of accepting someone’s report as true without a second independent witness since people could conspire to give false witnesses about a given issue. Anyway, the apostle wanted the Corinthians to recognize he had reliable information from those who are members of Chloe’s household.
Who is Chloe? There is not enough information to be definitive of the identity of the person described as Chloe. The Greek implies that Chloe was a woman, that is all we know with certainty. Nevertheless, some hold the view that she was a wealthy woman from Corinth while others are of the opinion she was a wealthy Ephesian woman whose members of her household went to Corinth on a business trip but being Christians, they associated with the Corinthians, so they learned of the division they reported to Paul. We cannot be certain of her identity. She was probably well known in Corinth for the apostle to refer to her. She may or may not be a Christian. We do not know, but we can be sure that the local church in Corinth knew about her to warrant the apostle mentioning her in this epistle.
Be that as it may, the apostle was probably emphatic that he received information from humans instead of directly from the Holy Spirit. We say this because of the manner the apostle began verse 11. It is not a normal practice to begin a Greek sentence with a verb, as the apostle did in verse 11, unless the author wants to emphasize the action associated with the Greek verb in question. The action in view is given in the verbal phrase have informed.
The word “informed” is translated from a Greek verb (dēloō) that may mean “to reveal, to show,” as it is used by Apostle Paul in referencing the evaluation of believer’s work in final evaluation of believers, as stated in 1 Corinthians 3:13:
his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work.
The word may mean to make something clear by explanation, hence means “to explain, clarify, make clear”, as it is used by Apostle Peter referencing his coming death as the Lord Jesus made clear to him in 2 Peter 1:14:
because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 1:11, the sense of the word is to impart knowledge of some fact or state of affairs or event and so means “to be informed.” The apostle meant that those who are presumably members of the household of Chloe had given him a rundown of the state of affairs in the local church in Corinth.
The state of affairs conveyed to the apostle is concerned with evidence of division in the local church as indicated in the last clause of 1 Corinthians 1:11 there are quarrels among you.
The word “quarrels” is translated from a Greek word (eris) that may refer to conflict resulting from rivalry and discord and so means “discord, strife, dissension” as it is used to describe the vices believers should not be involved in Romans 13:13:
Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy.
The word may mean expressing differences of opinion, with at least some measure of antagonism hence means “quarrel, dispute”, as in Titus 3:9:
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
Both meanings overlap that there can be no strict distinction between them. In our passage of 1 Corinthians 1:11, the sense is that of bitter disagreement between conflicting opinions so there is strife that is demonstrated in quarrels, that is, exchange of strong words but not physical violence. When there is a bitter disagreement because of conflicting opinions then there cannot be unity. Thus, the apostle indicates that he was informed that there was such a situation in Corinth. It is for this reason that he indicates that there was division among them and so he appealed to them to come to the point where such is healed. In any event, a first proposition of the message we are considering is division is possible in any local church as demonstrated in the local church in Corinth. This division or lack of unity shows up in bitter disagreement that leads to strife or verbal fights, that is, quarreling. This strife or quarrel is concerned with who was their spiritual leader and teacher. This bring us to the second proposition of our message.
A second proposition of the message of this passage we are considering is that division often takes the form of partisanship, that is, a firm adherence to a person or cause or party. Although the word “partisanship” is not directly used in our passage but that is what is meant in declaration of Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
The translators of the NIV indicate that the apostle provided explanation of what the quarrels or strives were all about since they began the verse with the clause What I mean is this: One of you says which literally the Greek reads Now I say this, because each of you says. This is because we have a Greek conjunction (de) that often is translated “but” or “and”; however, in this context, it is used to provide an explanation. It is for this reason that our English versions began verse 12 in such a way to reflect that the apostle is providing an explanation as reflected in the NIV or in as in the NET that began the verse as Now I mean this. In effect, the apostle explained the nature of the quarrels among the Corinthians.
The explanation of the apostle regarding the nature of the quarrel or strives among the Corinthians is introduced in the Greek with a Greek conjunction (hoti) that in our verse is subject to two possible interpretations. It may be interpreted as a marker of discourse content whether direct or indirect in which case it may be translated “that” or a quotation mark is used. Another interpretation is to consider it as a marker of course or reason with the meaning “because.” Either meaning makes sense in that the apostle introduced the content of what the Corinthians were saying, that is, his explanation of the nature of the quarrel or strives among them or that the reason for stating there is quarrel among them is what they were saying. Regardless of which interpretation is adopted in the translation of the verse, the point remains that the Greek conjunction is used to introduce the nature of the quarrel or strives among the Corinthians although not necessarily the detail.
The apostle before providing the nature of the quarrel or strives among the Corinthians implies that whatever it was, was rampart in the local church to warrant the charge of division about which he wrote them. This implication is reflected in the sentence of 1 Corinthians 1:12 One of you says. The word “one” of the NIV is how the translators interpreted a Greek word (hekastos) that means “every, each.” In our verse, the sense is “everyone” implying that the apostle was saying that the problem was so pervasive that it is almost as if everyone is involved although in reality not everyone in the absolute sense is involved or that the apostle used it to exaggerate the pervasiveness of the nature of the quarrel or strives among them in what he was about to explain.
His explanation regarding the quarrel or strives among the Corinthians is that it is partisan in nature. This means that majority of the Corinthians were firm adherents to persons that the apostle mentioned in his explanation. A major problem of partisanship is that anyone that exhibits it is usually involved in blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance. You can see this with party politics where people of one party never admits that a member is wrong even when it is clear to everyone. They do everything to defend their party instead of being truthful. In some cases, you hear people say, that they know the person is wrong, but they still support the individual. Such a position is one that only a person that is prejudiced and unwilling to follow the truth takes. Wherever this partisanship exists, it usually leads to quarrels or strives or unreasonable arguments. It is this kind of thing that the apostle indicates was taking place among the Corinthians. They were arguing about individuals who were their spiritual leaders and teachers.
To convey the point that the Corinthians were involved in partisanship, the apostle cites the persons some of them gaves allegiance, beginning with himself as in the sentence of 1 Corinthians 1:12“I follow Paul” which is an interpretative translation, though a good one, since literally, the Greek reads I on the one hand am of Paul. The word “follow” of the NIV is translated from a Greek word (eimi) that may mean “is” in the sense of “to mean”, as in Matthew 9:13:
But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”
The expression learn what this means is more literally learn what is. The Greek word may mean “to be, exist”, as it is used in Romans 4:17:
As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.” He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
Although our word, used twice in Romans 4:17, is translated “are” and “were” in the NIV, the sense in its first usage is that of “to exist” as reflected in the NET that rendered the clause things that are not as though they were as the things that do not yet exist as though they already do. The Greek word may mean “to belong” as it is used by Apostle Paul to indicate that anyone who does not have the Holy Spirit does not belong to Christ, as stated in Romans 8:9:
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
The word may mean “to represent, stand for”, as in Galatians 4:25:
Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children.
Of the various meanings of the Greek word used, it is probably the meaning “to belong” that the apostle meant as reflected in many of our English versions that translate the sentence of 1 Corinthians 1:12 I follow Paul as I belong to Paul or I am with Paul.
It really does not matter which word that is used in our English versions, the question is; what is it that the apostle intended to convey in the literal translation I am of Paul? It seems that the apostle would have meant that some of the Corinthians would be claiming to be his disciples in the sense of being adherents to his teaching or that the kind of Christianity they subscribe to is that preached by Apostle Paul. We say this because the apostle warned of those in Ephesus that may distort the truth to draw disciples to themselves, as we read in Acts 20:30:
Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
His caution here to the Ephesians would suggest that the apostle feared that believers could accept the teachings of false teachers and make those their central object of allegiance. Thus, it is probably that those who were saved through the preaching of the apostle may believe they have the real thing while the others do not. It is also possible that the nature of the dispute is due to quoting those mentioned in the passage we are considering. In other words, when some of them pointed to certain truths in the Christian faith, they may be saying something like “according to Paul” which is then interpreted as meaning that Paul is the only real teacher of the word of God.
A second personality that some of the Corinthians belonged in the sense of claiming to be the adherents of his teaching is Apollos as in the sentence of the NIV of 1 Corinthians 1:12 I follow Apollos. Apollos was a Jewish Christian born and educated in Alexandria with excellent knowledge of the OT Scripture but at first was deficient in his knowledge of the Christian teaching so that he was helped by Aquilas and Priscilla when he was in Ephesus, as we read in Acts 18:24–26:
24 Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
He worked in Corinth as evident first in the narrative of Acts 19:1:
While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul took the road through the interior and arrived at Ephesus. There he found some disciples
Of course, his work in Corinth is attested from the fact that he was one of the personalities that some of the Corinthians associated with in the passage we are considering, that is, in 1 Corinthians 1:12. It seems also that Apollos went to Crete that warranted the apostle requesting Titus to assist him as in Titus 3:13:
Do everything you can to help Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way and see that they have everything they need.
This notwithstanding, we really do not know what those who associate themselves with Apollos said as to their reason for associating with him or his teaching.
A third personality that the Corinthians used as the object of their partisanship is Peter that is described in the sentence of 1 Corinthians 1:12“I follow Cephas.” Someone may say, that this sentence makes no reference to Peter, but it does because Cephas is the same person as Peter. We know this from our Lord’s statement recorded in John 1:42:
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).
Hence, there is no doubt that Cephas refers to Peter. Apostle Paul’s mention of Peter to the Corinthians would suggest that he must have visited Corinth sometimes during his ministry although we have no such record or that those who associated with his name could be Jews who moved sometime from Jerusalem to Corinth. That aside, the fact is that Peter was known by some of those in the local church in Corinth. Again, we do not know what was the specific teaching of Apostle Peter that caused some to consider him their spiritual leader and teacher.
The final personality some of the Corinthians mentioned as those who they were His disciples is the Lord Jesus as in the sentence I follow Christ.” It seems that there was faction that indicated the others were wrong because they were associating themselves with those who preach Christ instead of Christ Himself. Therefore, they asserted that it is wrong to be associated with any other teacher than the master Himself. This being the case, they were certain all the other believers were wrong. In any event, the fact that Corinthians grouped themselves along personalities was a sign of partisanship. For, there is no need for believers in Christ even to think that their fellow believers are not disciples of Christ or followers of His teaching probably because they cited a teacher of the word of God. The point of the apostle is that there is no reason for partisanship as he made clearer later.
As we consider this partisanship that is found in Corinth, we may think that this sort of thing does not happen in our local churches. It does. How, you may ask? It is through forming of cliques in the sense that there are those who are bound together because they have a common interest in the local church, such as those who think that their pastors are not correct in what they teach or those who do not like the personality of their pastors. It could be a group that are not pleased with the teaching of their pastor, and so they criticize him while forming their own little group that in some situations try to run off their pastors. Of course, there is also a sense that many local churches operate like the Corinthians because of denomination. This happens when believers are more loyal to their denomination than they are about truth. These believers defend whatever is dear to their denomination at the expense of the truth given in the word of God. They take their denominational teaching as that which cannot be changed regardless of how such is against the Scripture. Believers who do that are not different from the Corinthians that we are considering their partisanship.
There is another way that the partisanship in Corinth is applicable to us. It is the case of believers segregating themselves based on their ethnicity. When this happens, there is division in the body of Christ. Believers may not recognize this to be the case, but it is. This is because when those who are believers engage in this sort of thing, they are focusing on ancestry that involves persons. Hence, whenever there is segregation of Christians based on their ethnicity they have done the same thing as the Corinthians.
Anyway, the second proposition of the message of this passage we are considering is that division often takes the form of partisanship. It is therefore important that believers should be careful of partisan spirit in that they find themselves pitting one pastor against another or one spiritual leader against another. In keeping with the message that believers should guard against division in the local church, it is important that you avoid anything that would cause one spiritual leader to become a cult personality so that blind allegiance to such an individual would cause problem in the local church. In other words, believers should be loyal to truth and not personality as we find in political arena. This brings us to the third proposition of the message we are considering.
A third proposition of the message of this passage is that division can be avoided by focusing on Christ and not on human personalities. Focusing on Christ requires understanding of three facts derived from the passage we are considering. A first fact is that the nature of Christ as a divine being means He cannot be divided as we divide material objects or that He cannot be assigned to any specific group. The implication is that division in Christ is something foreign to His body, the church. It is this fact that is presented in the question of the first question of the apostle in 1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided?
The word “divided” is translated from a Greek word (merizō) that means to separate into parts, hence it is used for sharing inheritance or money as per the person that requested Jesus to help divide his inheritance with his brother in Luke 12:13:
Someone in the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.”
The word can be used in dividing something that is not material such as one’s attention or interest or devotion. Thus, it is the word used to describe the difference in degree of devotion to the Lord between the married and those single in 1 Corinthians 7:34:
and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.
A married man or woman who is a believer is concerned not only with devotion to the Lord but also to the spouse, making the person to have in a sense a divided devotion. The Greek word may mean to make an allotment. Thus, it may mean “to distribute” as that is the sense of the word in Jesus’ miracle of feeding of at least five thousand persons in Mark 6:41:
Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people. He also divided the two fish among them all.
The fish was not merely divided but it was divided and distributed to the people. The word may mean “to deal out, assign, apportion” as it is used in 2 Corinthians 10:13:
We, however, will not boast beyond proper limits, but will confine our boasting to the field God has assigned to us, a field that reaches even to you.
In our passage of 1 Corinthians 1:13, our Greek word is used in the sense of “to apportion” so that the assertion of the apostle in the question we are considering is that Christ has not be apportioned to any group since He is God. Thus, the apostle asked his question to make the Corinthians recognize how foolish it is to be involved in partisanship. It is important for believers to recognize that division is not normal in the body of Christ since there is one Lord of the church. No one can claim Him exclusively since He is so great that all believers can share His love and attention at the same time. He is not like a human being that can only be in one place at one time and can satisfy one person at a time. The Lord Jesus can satisfy millions of believers at the same time with His presence so there is no need for anyone to claim a monopoly of Him. That division in the church, the body of Christ, is abnormal does not mean that division does not exist outside the church. For after all, Jesus Christ indicated that He brought division of the type that will exist between believers and unbelievers in the same family, as in Luke 12:51:
Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.
Division is expected but along the line of faith. In other words, those who believe in Christ will be divided from those who do not. Among believers, there should be no division since the church of Christ is one. Thus, it is wrong for believers to describe their local church in terms of ethnicity since Christ cannot be divided or apportioned to any group as to say this is a “White church” or “a Black church” or “Chinese church” since there is one church of Christ. This aside, the first fact the Holy Spirit through the apostle intended for the Corinthians and so all of us to recognize is that the nature of Christ as a divine being means He cannot be divided as we divide material objects or apportioned to any special group of believers. The implication is that division in the body of Christ is incompatible with God’s word.
A second fact that is necessary to avoid division in the church is that no ordinary human being died for the church; instead, it is Christ Jesus who died for us. It is this fact the apostle stated in the second question of 1 Corinthians 1:13 Was Paul crucified for you?
Apostle Paul chose to use himself in this question probably because most of the Corinthians having been converted through the apostle’s ministry, must have considered him the most important personality relating to the preaching of the gospel that most of them claim to be those who adhere to his teaching in contrast to Apollos and Peter. There is probably a second reason the apostle used himself in the question; it is because when he introduced the partisanship among the Corinthians, he listed himself first as the figure around whom some grouped themselves. This being the case, it is fitting for him to use himself in the question that is intended to cause the Corinthians to recognize that no human being is important in the Christian faith as to form a group around the individual.
We stated that no ordinary human being died for the church although in the question we are considering the apostle used the word “crucify.” This is because the word “crucify” reminds believers of the death of Christ on the cross. It is true that the Greek word (stauroō) translated “crucified” may in some contexts have the meaning “to destroy” as it is used by the apostle in describing the fate of the sinful nature for those who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ in Galatians 5:24:
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires.
However, the overwhelming meaning of the Greek word is for executing someone by nailing to a cross. Thus, putting of Jesus to death is by means of crucifying Him, as demanded by the Jewish authority and people, as recorded in John 19:6–7:
6 As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”
But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.” 7 The Jews insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”
Thus, it is by crucifixion that Jesus Christ was put to death. The point is that the apostle intended in his question for the Corinthians to recognize that no human being died for them to provide them eternal life. Therefore, it would be wrong to group themselves around any person that is involved in the preaching of the gospel. His point is that when believers group themselves around given individuals or teachers to the point that they think that those who do not join them in their admiration of a given teacher must not belong to Christ is to be mistaken. This is because only Christ died for us and He must be the central focus of our admiration and worship. We should not be enthralled by any human being to the point we forget that such an individual at best is God’s instrument to carry out the gospel message and at worst case is a sinner who has received forgiveness of sins like every other believer whose sins have been forgiven. Anyway, the second fact we must remember to help avoid division is that no human being died for our sins, but Christ did.
A third fact to remember to help us avoid division in the local church is that water baptism is not performed by any human name as per the apostle’s question in the third question of 1 Corinthians 1:13 Were you baptized into the name of Paul?
Water baptism as instructed by the Lord Jesus Christ is to be performed using the name of the three persons of Godhead, as we read in Matthew 28:19:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Some denominations contend that water baptism should only be carried out using the name of Jesus Christ. They do so primarily because several references to water baptism in Acts imply that it was done in the name of Jesus Christ. Let us consider these passages. The first concerns water baptism mentioned in Apostle Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost, where he gave the invitation for people to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, according to Acts 2:38:
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
The second passage refers to the water baptism of the Samaritans who believed through the preaching of Philip, the evangelist, as stated in Acts 8:16:
because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
The third passage that refers to water baptism is when Peter preached to the Gentiles gathered in Cornelius house, those who were saved were baptized into the name of Jesus, as we read in Acts 10:48:
So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
The fourth passage that involves water baptism recorded in Acts is that of the disciples in Ephesus that knew only of John’s baptism that responded to Apostle Paul’s message and so were baptized, as recorded in Acts 19:5:
On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
These passages do not necessarily tell us the formula used in the water baptism, and so we cannot conclude that it is only the name of Lord Jesus was used as a formula for water baptism. We say this firstly because the reoccurring verbal phrase be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus should be understood, as suggested by the UBS handbook, to mean “be baptized as a believer in Jesus Christ” or “be baptized as a follower of Jesus Christ.” Secondly, because there are other references to water baptism that the name of Jesus was not referenced. For example, we are simply informed that Paul was baptized without giving us the formula used in Acts 9:18:
Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized,
The truth is that there is no reason to assert that the early church did not follow the formula specified in Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 28:19 since we do not have an actual record of the formula used in the baptism in Acts. If anything, we are inclined to believe that the early church followed the formula the Lord Jesus gave. We say this because the Didache (An early Christian text called “the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”) indicates that the formula to be used in water baptism is the same as that the Lord Jesus gave in Matthew 28:19, as described in chapter 7 of the Didache:
7. But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. 2But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. 3But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 4But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.[1]
Be that as it may, Apostle Paul intended the Corinthians to recognize that it is foolish to be involved in any kind of partisanship since they were not baptized into his name. But what is it that the apostle meant in the question Were you baptized into the name of Paul? Well, we are out of time, so we pick up this question in our next study.
01/26/18
[1] Lightfoot, J. B., & Harmer, J. R. (1891). The Apostolic Fathers (p. 232). London: Macmillan and Co.