1 Corinthians 1:12

Now this. mean, that each one of you saith,. am of Paul; and. of Apollos: and. of Cephas; and. of Christ.

'Now this. mean' -defining the divisions of 1 Corinthians 1:10-11.

'each one of you saith' -indicating that the vast majority in the Corinthian Church were involved.

'I am of' -'I belong to' (RSV); 'I am. follower of' (Gspd); 'Paul certainly is my leader' (Ber); 'I am Paul's person'. (Fee)

'Apollos' -had preached here after Paul's departure (Acts 18:27; 1 Corinthians 16:12)

'Cephas' -the Aramaic name given Simon by Jesus (John 1:42)

Points to Note:

1. We must realize that Paul, Peter and Apollos had nothing to do with this division. They all preached the same gospel (Galatians 1:9; Galatians 2:1; Acts 15:7). There existed no rift between any of them. (1 Corinthians 16:12; 2 Peter 3:15 "our beloved brother Paul")

'It is to be noted that the great figures of the Church who are named.. had nothing to do with these divisions. There were no dissensions between them. Without their knowledge and without their consent their names had been appropriated by these Corinthian factions. It not infrequently happens that. man's so-called supporters are. bigger problem than his open enemies.' [Note:. Barclay p. 16]

'The views of many commentators which describe Peter as preaching for Judasitic faction, Apollos as preaching. doctrine of philosophy and Alexandrian fanciful interpretations, and Paul as preaching. universal gospel conflicts with the facts. One must not forget that Peter was the first to preach to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1) and that Apollos was mighty in the Scriptures (Acts 18:24). Furthermore, the position which puts these men as leaders of different, warring parties would destroy what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3:4. The problem was one caused by the Corinthians and not by the different preachers.' [Note:. Willis p. 32]

2. The Corinthians were childish (1 Corinthians 3:1ff). They had to have their own "gang". There had to be someone or something which "belongs to us".

3. They were affected by their environment. On every corner there was. school of someone or other. They had become accustomed to picking and choosing between philosophers or gurus. When they came into the Body of Christ they brought their background with them. [Note:. McGuiggan p. 30]

'The Corinthians had been used to witnessing itinerant philosophers come and go in their cities, who built up small bands of students who adopted and propagated their views. They had simply viewed the gospel as. new type of wisdom philosophy and the preachers as competitive philosophers.' [Note:. Willis p. 31]

4. Considering the line of reasoning in chapter 1 Corinthians 3:1-10, where Paul narrows down the issue between just the "Paul party" and the "Apollos party". We could infer that the "Peter party" was very small in Corinth.

'and. of Christ' -has generated quite. bit of discussion among commentators. The best suggestions seem to be:

a. Some have viewed this phrase as Paul's own response. 'and. (Paul, in contrast to your following men). follower of Christ'. 'But. belong to Christ' (Barclay p. 17)

b. It could of described. group that properly used the right designation, but with the wrong motives. 'Their real fault was not in saying that they belonged to Christ, but in acting as if Christ belonged to them. It may well describe. little, intolerant, self-righteous group.' (Barclay p. 17) 'Here are some people who form no distinct group at all, but who in their own attempt to rise above the rest...have fallen into their own brand of spiritual elitism that makes them no better than the others.' (Fee p. 59)