Is the Christ divided? has Paul been crucified for you? or have ye been baptised unto the name of Paul?
Paul has just named the slogans splitting the church at Corinth. He answers them with three short questions, and each one exposes what a party name claims about Christ, His cross, and baptism.
The first question carries its own answer. Everyone who belongs to Christ belongs to the same Christ, and no group can split Him between them.
"Is Christ divided?" asks the indignant apostle. Is He not the Head of that one body the church to which they all belonged? It is a whole Christ to whom all His own belong and who Himself belongs to all. To think of dividing Him would be as irrelevant as absurd. They might divide, not He: what an inconsistency if they valued Him!
The bond that holds Christians together is a Person, not a preference. People can form other bonds, but they cannot cut Him in pieces.
The Apostle condemns their sectarianism by asking, "Is Christ divided?". We are called into a fellowship of which Christ is the bond. We may, alas, form other fellowships with some other bond, but we cannot divide Christ.
One group at Corinth had said, "I am of Christ." That slogan sounds like the safe one. Paul's question shows it was not.
But what about those who were saying, "and I of Christ"? Were they the approved ones — those refusing men's ways and walking in the Spirit? Clearly they were not, for the Apostle censures them with the others. He then asks at once, "Is Christ divided?" — which implies that this is just what they were doing. They were dividing Christ, for their "I" was only the "I" of a faction. Now it is quite true that all the saints are "of Christ," or "Christ's." The last verse of 1 Corinthians 3 says so, because it uses the same expression. But there it is "you," and that meant the whole church at Corinth, not just a faction. This saying, "I of Christ," was really worse than saying, "I of Paul," or "I of Apollos," or "I of Cephas."
The second question moves from Christ's person to His cross. No leader's name can carry that weight.
Then he condemns their clericalism by asking, "Was Paul crucified for you?". Paul refused to be exalted into a false position as a centre of gathering for God's people. The only true centre of gathering for the people of God is the One Who has proved His claim over them by being crucified for them. Paul, however much he loved the people of God, had not been crucified for them. He will not take the place in the affections of God's people that belongs to the crucified One alone. ... In exalting their favourite teachers, and seeking distinction for themselves by following them, they were glorying in men rather than in the Lord, in the gifts rather than the Giver.
The third question turns to baptism. Baptism puts a name on a person, and Paul asks whose name that is.
The influence is blinding wherever people let the first man take the place of the Second. Apostles and others have died, yes, been crucified, but Christ alone died for us. And it is to Him we have been baptized, not to the twelve apostles, still less to other men.
This shaped how Paul worked. He kept his own hands clear of anything that could tie converts to himself.
How carefully he had worked at Corinth, baptising very few, so that no one could say that he had baptised to his own name. His work was to preach the gospel, not to baptise. He was to call souls to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, not to make disciples who took his name. John the Baptist had disciples called after him. Paul avoided all that for himself, for what was right in John's day would have been wrong in Paul's day.
Notice how Paul argues. He measures division by what no Christian could ever accept.
Every Christian must be shocked at the thought of Christ being divided, of Paul being crucified for him, or of being baptized in the name of Paul. But the Holy Spirit declares that the divisions of the Corinthians are just as shocking as these suggestions. In fact, nothing could justify their divisions except the truth of these suggestions.
- Undivided. Christ is Head of the one body; His people may split, but no one can share Him out among rival camps.
- Uncrucified. No teacher, however loved, died for you — so no teacher has the right to stand at the centre of His people.
- Unnamed. You were baptized to Christ's name alone; Paul baptized very few, so no one could say he baptized to his own name.
- Unspared. The party saying "I am of Christ" was censured with the rest, because its "I" was still the "I" of a faction.
- Unanswerable. A party name would only be right if Christ were divided, or if Paul had been crucified for you.
I thank God that I have baptised none of you, unless Crispus and Gaius,
The church at Corinth was splitting into rival followings named after men. Paul answers by counting how few people he had baptized there — and thanking God for it.
The thanks make sense once you see what a long list would have handed the factions.
There were divisions at Corinth. Because baptism makes disciples, the apostle was glad to think that he had baptized only two out of the whole number, Crispus and Gaius. That was too few for a party, or to allow people to think that he had been making disciples of his own.
Paul is not just avoiding gossip. He is refusing a position that belongs to someone else.
Paul refused to let anyone lift him into a false position as a centre of gathering for God's people. The only true centre of gathering for the people of God is the One Who has proved His claim over them by being crucified for them. Paul, however much he loved the people of God, had not been crucified for them. He will not take the place in the affections of God's people that belongs to the crucified One alone... Nor had Paul made himself a centre of gathering by baptizing to the name of Paul.
Crispus and Gaius were real people with a history in Corinth. Crispus led the synagogue there and came to faith with his whole household, while the crowds who believed alongside him were baptized by others.
It is not a small thing that the Holy Spirit singles out the name of any man for everlasting record in Scripture. So "Crispus" is mentioned as believing the Lord. This counts all the more because he had been "the ruler of the synagogue". And not only this: "his entire household" believed too, though nothing is said of their baptism... 1 Corinthians 1:14 says the apostle baptized him, but not a word about his house. Yet surely they too accepted His testimony and were baptized — though not by the apostle, who did very little of it, as he tells the Corinthians. The Lord kept him from any appearance of personal prominence.
Paul thanks God, not himself. He credits the small number to the Lord's ordering, not his own planning.
But the apostle owns the good hand of the Lord in ordering things. In fact Paul had baptized only a very few out of the many Corinthians who heard the gospel, believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8). Had he baptized most of them, it might have given a stronger excuse to those who used his name at Corinth. But there can be little doubt that those he did baptize were among those who had stood more faithful to the Lord there than others.
If baptism were the thing that gives new life, this verse becomes impossible to explain.
So he does not hesitate to thank God that he had himself baptized so few at Corinth. That would be an impossible thing to give thanks for, if baptism is the means of new birth. In that case the man who loved God and man would rejoice more, the more he baptized. On the other hand, this puts no real slight on Christian baptism. It is our burial with Christ into death, the appointed outward sign of subjection to Him who died for us and rose again.
Thanking God for baptizing few is not the same as dropping baptism.
It is true that he was sent "not to baptize but to preach the gospel" (1 Corinthians 1:17). If people made more of the servant than they should, he was thankful he had baptized none but a very few. That way no one could say he baptized in his own name. Still, he did baptize. And when good and strong reasons kept him from carrying out the ordinance himself, he made sure someone else did — one of his fellow workers.
- Divided. Corinth was splitting into groups named after men. Paul answers by showing he gave no one grounds to name a group after him.
- Too few. Two people out of a whole church is not enough for a party — that is why he gives thanks.
- Not his. Only the One crucified for them has a claim to be their gathering centre; Paul will not take a place that is not his.
- God's ordering. He thanks God, not himself. The small number was the Lord's arrangement, not the apostle's foresight.
- Not new birth. If baptism gave life, no one who loved souls could be glad he had baptized few. Yet baptism keeps its honoured place as the sign of burial with Christ.
that no one may say that I have baptised unto my own name.
Paul has just asked whether anyone was baptized in his own name. Here he says why he left most of the baptizing at Corinth to others: so that no one could ever claim his name.
One writer explains the phrase by comparing it with Israel's baptism to Moses.
There is little question that baptism to Moses brought the people into association with Moses, under his authority. In the same way, baptism to the name of the Lord Jesus brought people onto ground where His authority was supreme. It also placed them among those who acknowledged that authority.
So if Paul had baptized large numbers at Corinth, a party could have formed around his name.
Paul would not let himself become a rallying point for believers.
Paul refused to be exalted into a false position as a centre of gathering for God's people. The only true centre of gathering for the people of God is the One Who has proved His claim over them by being crucified for them. Paul, however much he loved the people of God, had not been crucified for them. He will not take for himself the place in the affections of God's people that belongs to the crucified One alone.
One writer connects Paul's thanksgiving with the news that had reached him about Corinth.
Paul writes his first letter to the Corinthians after learning that divisions were starting among them. He is thankful that he had not baptized enough of them to form a party for himself.
Paul gives the credit to God, not to his own foresight. One writer sees the Lord's hand in how the numbers fell out.
The apostle recognizes the good hand of the Lord in ordering things. In fact Paul had baptized only a very few of the many Corinthians who heard the gospel, believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8). Had he baptized the whole crowd, it might have given a more solid excuse to those who claimed his name at Corinth.
The same writer presses this thanksgiving to its conclusion, then guards the true value of baptism.
He does not hesitate to thank God that he had baptized so few himself at Corinth. That would be an impossible thing to give thanks for if baptism were the means of new birth. In that case the man who loved God and man must rejoice more, the more he baptized. On the other hand, this puts no real slight on Christian baptism. It is our burial with Christ into death, the appointed outward sign of subjection to Him who died for us and rose again.
One writer draws a practical rule for those who take the gospel into new places.
But he must give no excuse to those who would accuse him of making disciples of his own. So it is better for him to let others do the baptizing when they are available. This appears to be the teaching of 1 Corinthians 1:14-15. One is glad to see an evangelist stand aside and let the elders of the assembly attend to the matter wherever this is possible. The evangelist's great duty is to preach the gospel.
The habit of wearing a man's name did not stop at Corinth. One writer sets against it the names Scripture actually gives believers.
Instead of the Babel of many names, Scripture gives us only the One Name. It is a name above every name (Philippians 2:9), the beautiful name (James 2:7, Greek), and it is put on all God's people without distinction: the name of Christ. They are called Believers (Acts 5:14), Disciples (Acts 9:1), Christians (Acts 11:26), and Saints (Ephesians 1:1). But not one of these names is ever used to mark off one part of the Body of Christ from another. On the contrary, they serve as links to bind them all together.
- Name. To be baptized to a name is to come under its authority. That is why Paul made sure no one could say it of him.
- Cross. Only the One crucified for them has a claim on believers. Paul was not, so he refused to be a rallying point.
- Few. Paul had baptized so few Corinthians that no following could gather around him. That small number is the point of his thanksgiving.
- Hand. Paul thanks God, not himself. The Lord arranged events so that Paul's name gave no one an excuse.
- Gospel. No one could thank God for baptizing few if baptism gave life. The preacher's great duty is the gospel; the sign is best left to other hands.
Yes, I baptised also the house of Stephanas; for the rest I know not if I have baptised any other.
Paul has just thanked God that he baptized hardly anyone in Corinth, so no one there could claim his name — then one more name comes back to him. This afterthought raises three questions: where baptism ranks, who Stephanas was, and how an inspired writer could say he did not remember.
Paul recovers this fact late, and only with effort.
Notice the care with which he recovers, in verse 16, the half-forgotten case of "the household of Stephanas." Notice too the effort of memory it cost him to recall the fact. This shows in the clearest way that the Spirit puts baptism well below faith. That does not mean this passage, rightly weighed, gives the least support to those who belittle baptism and treat it as a merely outward ceremony.
The small number came from the Lord's ordering, and it left his admirers at Corinth without an excuse.
Its solemn meaning comes from the truth it stands for. It does not come from the standing or power of the one who baptizes, nor from any quality in the one baptized, whatever the Lord's will may be about either. But the apostle owns the Lord's good hand in arranging it this way. Many Corinthians heard the gospel, believed and were baptized (Acts 18:8), yet Paul had in fact baptized only a very few of them. If he had baptized most of them, those who used his name at Corinth would have had a more solid excuse.
Paul thanks God that he baptized few people. That thanksgiving tells us what baptism does not do.
So he freely thanks God that he had baptized so few at Corinth himself. No one could give thanks like that if baptism were the means of new birth. In that case a man who loved God and people would rejoice more, the more he baptized. On the other hand, this puts no real slight on Christian baptism. Baptism is our burial with Christ into death, the appointed outward sign that we are subject to Him who died for us and rose again.
The one name Paul does recall belongs to one of the earliest converts in Achaia, the region around Corinth.
A Christian convert at Corinth. Paul baptized him and his household. He was "the firstfruits of Achaia." 1 Cor. 1:16; 1 Cor. 16:15, 17.
Later in the same letter, this house is known for more than its baptism.
The house was not only baptized; they also "devoted themselves to the service of the saints." Here was a house given over completely to the interests of the Lord Jesus. So the house of Stephanas guarded and cared for all His interests.
The word is broad. It covers more than the parents.
The people who live in a house under one head. This includes the wife and children, and also servants, who were usually slaves. Gen. 15:2-3; Luke 12:42; Acts 10:7; Phil. 4:22. We read of the baptism of whole households. Acts 16:15; 1 Cor. 1:16.
Commentators differ on what follows. Some read verse 14 beside verse 16 and see young children — too young to belong to the assembly, the gathered church:
Notice how strong verse 14 is: in the assembly Paul had baptized no one except Crispus and Gaius. Yet he adds that he also baptized the household of Stephanas. So this household was not in the assembly, though Stephanas himself was. What other explanation is there than that the household was children too young to be in the assembly?
Others hold that the household passages settle nothing either way:
Generous and thoughtful men on all sides admit that the households of Scripture decide nothing here. There may have been no infants. Or, if there were, people could still call the household baptized without counting them, because of the nature of the case. We hear of people baptized, men and women, but not of children.
Paul admits a gap in his memory. So what does it mean that he wrote by inspiration?
Inspiration does not mean the writer became all-knowing or incapable of error. It means the Holy Spirit so controlled his writing that it carried the truth with no error mixed in, and carried it perfectly for His own purpose. So He could hold back full recall on one point here, or a direct command from the Lord on another point, as in chapter 7. There is nothing inconsistent in that.
- Forgotten — Paul has to reach for this fact, and the effort shows that baptism ranks below faith.
- Few — the Lord arranged that Paul baptized only a handful, leaving no material for a party carrying his name.
- Glad — he thanks God for baptizing few; no one could give such thanks if baptism gave new birth.
- Household — the word covers wife, children and servants; commentators differ over infants, and this house later gave itself to serving the saints.
- Inspired — the gap in Paul's memory costs nothing; the Spirit controlled his writing to carry the truth without error.