 |  |
The immaturity of these believers made the devil's work of splitting them so easy.
Those who ranged themselves under the name of Apollos were possibly those who
admired rhetoric and the polished style of this leader. One can well understand those
who rated the gift of tongues highly, being attracted by Apollos who was an "eloquent
man" (Acts 18: 24), coming from Alexandria, a centre of Jewish rhetoric. Those who
followed Peter were doubtless the Judaists who followed the Jewish law and ceremonial
and the link with Jerusalem. Others chose the name of Christ, and while this appears
better on the surface, they were equally condemned with the other factions, including
those who said "I am of Paul". It may be that the Christ followers were those who took
the attitude that the words of Christ spoken when on earth were more important than
those of apostles, an attitude that many adopt today, forgetting that it was the same Christ
who later spoke from heaven (Heb. 12: 25) through His servants, just as He had spoken
on earth. To turn away from them, was to turn away from Him. "Perfectly joined
together" (katartizo) was a technical word for setting a broken bone. It is used in
Mark 1: 19 for the mending of nets, and in Gal. 6: 1 for the restoration of a brother
overtaken in a fault. The Apostle insists that these divisions must end and that they
should be restored to unity of mind and opinion.
Spiritual gifts do not automatically lead to a spiritual state of mind. No church in the
N.T. had such an abundance of gifts as the church at Corinth, yet no other assembly
equaled it for carnality and division. As a result Paul had to say:
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even
as unto babes in Christ' (3: 1).
This condition made it impossible for them to advance in the knowledge of the truth:
"I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it,
neither yet now are ye able" (3: 2).
He seeks to bring home to the Corinthians the true meaning of what was happening,
by asking a series of rhetorical questions: "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for
you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" He adds: "I thank God that I baptized
none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own
name. And I baptized the household of Stephanas, besides (that) I know not whether I
baptized any other".
Here and in verse 17 the Apostle clearly shows the place that water baptism had in his
ministry, which certainly was not in the forefront. He was glad he had only baptized a
few of them and could not even remember how many! The last thing any truthful critic
could say of Paul was that he was careless or unmindful of things pertaining to the truth
or the special ministry with which Christ had entrusted him. If water baptism had the
importance that many sects have put upon it, these words would have been impossible.
Verse 17 is explicit:
"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."