The Pulpit Commentary — 1 Corinthians — Section 8

heen conjectured that 8kphnnas, Fortunatus, Hebrews, which proves that he was of the nnd Aclmicus,Gnrinthi!Lns wl,o were now with school of St. Paul, while at the same time St. Paul at Ephesus (eh. xvi. Hi), may have he showed a splendid originality in his way Leen Chloe's slaves or freedmen. Conten- of nrri ving at the same cone! usion as his tions. 'fhcse are the works of the flesh teacher. I of Cephas. The use of the Ara- {2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v. 20; 1 Tim. vi. 4). maic name (eh, iii. 22; ix. 5; xv. 6; Gal. ii. The condition of the Church was the same 9), perhaps, shows that these Petrinists were when St. Clement of Rome wrote to them. Judaizers (though it should be added that He had still to complain of the "strange St. Paul only uses the name " Peter" in ,m<l alien and, for the elect of Goel, detest- Gal. ii. 7, 8). They personally disliked able and unholy spirit of faction which a St. Paul, and questioned his apostolical few rash and self-willed persons kindled to authority. Perhaps the extravagances of such a pitch of dementation" (' Ep. ad Cor. i.'). the "speaking with tongues" arose in this Ver.12.-Nowthialmean; in other words, party, who recalled the effects of the out- "what I mean is this.'' 'fheir "contentions" pouring of the Spirit after Peter's great are defined to be equivalent to "religious sermon on the day of Pentecost. And I of partisanships;" antagonistic adoption of the Christ. We trace the origin of this party to names and views of special teachers. Each one man in particular (Z Cor. ii. 7), who was, one of you saith. That party spirit ran so or professed to be, an adherent of James, and high that they were all listed on one side or therefore one of the more rigid J udaizers. another. None of them were wise enough and He may have been one from the circle of spiritual-minded enough to hold aloof from Christ's earthly relatives--0ne of the Des- parties altogether. They prided themselves posyni (see eh. ix. 5), and, like St. James, on being "uncompromising" and "party may have had views resembling those of the men.'' Saith; in a self-assertive way (eh. Essenes and Ebionites. If so, he was probably iii. 21). I am of Paul. He shows his the author of the questions about celibacy and indignation at their partisanship by first marriage ; and perhaps he prided himself on rebulring those who had used his own name having seen "Christ in the flesh." This as a party watchward. He disliked Paulin- party at any rate, like some modern sects. i.sm as much as Petrinism (Bengel). All was not ashamed to degrade into a party the Corinthians would probe1bly have been watchword even the sacred name of Christ, in thi~ sense Pa.ulinists but for the visits of and to claim for o. miserable clique an ex- subsequent teachers. At present the Paul clusive interest in the Lord of the whole pa1iy consisted of those who a.dhered to his Church. It is the privilege of every Chris- views about Gentile freedom, and who lik_ed tian to say, " Christiauus sum;" but if he the simple spirituality of his teaching. St. says it in a haughty, loveless, o.nd eJ:clusirn Paul rose above the temptation of consider- spirit, he forfeits his own claim to the title. ing that party spirit is excusable in our own This exclusive Christ party is, perhaps, partisans. He reproves factiousness even specially alluded to in 2 Cor. x. 7-11. The in the party of freedom. And I of Apollos. view of Chrysostom, which takes these word~ Apollos personally was absolutely loyal and to be St. Panl'd remark-" But I belong to honourable, but his visit to Corinth had Christ,'' is untenable, and would make him done mischief. His itapassioned oratory, guilty of the very self-assertiveness which his Alexandrio.n refinements, his allegorizing he is reprobo.ting. ~xegesis, the culture a.nd polish of his sty le, Ver, 13.-le Christ divided 1 Has Christ hu,d charmed the fickle Corinthians. The been parcelled into frngments? " Is then, Apollonians were the party of culture. o. Pauline, o. Petrina, an Apollonian, o. They had, as we see from le1ter parts of the Christian Christ?" Whether you co.II Epistle, exaggerated St. Po.ul's views, as yourselves Libero.ls, or lntellectualists, or expounded by Apol!os, into extmvagance. Catholics, or Bible Christie1ns, your party Puffed up with the c-0nceit of knowledge, they spirit is a sin, and all the worse a sin be- had fa.lien into morn! inconsistenoy. The cause it pmnks itself out in the guisu of egotism of oratorical rivals, the contemptuous pure religious zeal. This is more forcible tone towards weaker brethren, the sophistical tho.n to take the clause affirmatively:" Christ condonations of vice, were probably due to has been parcelled into fragments." In either them. Apollos, as we see by his noble oase we see" the tragic result of party spirit." refusal to visit Corinth under present cir- Was Pa.ul oruoified for you l Ago.in he cumstances .(eh. xvi. 12), was o.s indignant rebukes the partisanship which attached as St. Paul himself at the perversion of his itself to his own name. This showed o. ne1we into o.n engine of pa1-ty warfare. (On splendid courage a.nd honesty. 'fhe. intro- A polios, see Acts xv iii. 24--28 ; xix. 1 ; duction of the question by the negalivo µ.11 'fitus iii. 13.) Nothing further is known expresses ustonished incliguaL!on: "Can you l'Ospectiug him, but he is tho almost possibly make a watch word of the na,.ne _of " undoubted e1uthor of the Epistle to the mere man, !IS though he had been crucified 6 TIIE FmST EPISTLE 'l'O THE CORINTHIANS. [en. r. 1-31.