SEV Biblia, Chapter 1:13
¿Est dividido el Cristo? ¿Fue colgado en el madero Pablo por vosotros? ¿O habis sido bautizados en el nombre de Pablo?
Clarke's Bible Commentary - 1 Corinthians 1:13
Verse 13. Is Christ divided?] Can he be split into different sects and parties? Has he different and opposing systems? Or, is the Messiah to appear under different persons? Was Paul crucified for you?] As the Gospel proclaims salvation through the crucified only, has Paul poured out his blood as an atonement for you? This is impossible, and therefore your being called by my name is absurd; for his disciples you should be, alone, who has bought you by his blood. Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?] To be baptized in, or into the name of one, implied that the baptized was to be the disciple of him into whose name, religion, &c., he was baptized. As if he said: Did I ever attempt to set up a new religion, one founded on my own authority, and coming from myself? On the contrary, have I not preached Christ crucified for the sin of the world; and called upon all mankind, both Jews and Gentiles, to believe on Him?
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 13. Is Christ divided ? etc.] Some read the words as an assertion, Christ is divided; that is, his body, the church, is divided by such factions and parties; though in some copies mh , the note of interrogation, is put before the clause, and so to be rendered, is Christ divided? no; his human body was not to be divided; a bone of him was not to be broken, ( John 19:36 Psalm 34:20); the seamless garment he wore was not to be rent asunder, ( John 19:23,24); nor is his mystical body, the church, to be torn in pieces by schisms and divisions; nor is anyone part of his Gospel different from, or opposite to another part of it; his doctrine is the same as preached by one minister and another, and is all of a piece, uniform and harmonious. Christ is not divided from his Father, not in nature; though he is to be distinguished from him, yet not to be divided; he is one in nature with him, though he is a distinct person from him; nor is he, nor can he, or will be ever separated from him; nor is he to be divided from him in his works and actions, with whom he was jointly concerned in creation, providence, and grace; and such are to be blamed as dividers of Christ from the Father, who talk of Christ to the exclusion of the Father, or to the dropping and neglect of any of his acts of grace; as his everlasting love to his chosen ones, the eternal election of them in Christ, the covenant of grace made with him, and the instance of his grace in the gift and mission of his Son: nor is Christ divided from himself, not in his nature and person; the two natures, human and divine, are united in one person; they are to be distinguished, and not to be confounded, yet not to be separated as to wake two distinct persons: nor in his offices; a whole Christ is to be received; Christ in his kingly as well as in his priestly office; to claim him as a Saviour and disown him as a King, is dishonourable to him; it is to make one end of his death void, as much as in such lies, which is, that he may be Lord of dead and living; and argues a carnal selfish spirit, and that faith in him is not right: such are to be blamed for being for Christ, and as dividers of him, who talk of being saved by him, and yet would not have him to rule over them. Nor is he divided from his Spirit, not from the person of the Spirit; he is to be distinguished from him as a person, but is one in nature with him; nor from his gifts and graces, which he has as man and Mediator without measure; nor from the work of the Spirit; for it is his grace the Spirit of God implants in the hearts of men: it comes from him, it centres in him, it makes men like him, and glorifies him; such who cry up Christ, and cry down the work of his Spirit upon the soul, are to be blamed for being for Christ, and to be reckoned dividers of them as much as in them lies: nor is Christ divided from his church and people; there is a close union between them, and he dwells in them, and among them; and they are to be blamed that talk of Christ, and never meet with his saints in public service and worship: nor is he divided from his ministers, word, and ordinances; Christ is the sum of the ministry of the word; the ordinances are instituted by him; he submitted to them himself, and is the substance of them, and has promised his presence in them to the end of the world: and what God has put together, let no man put asunder. Was Paul crucified for you? no; he had taught them another doctrine; namely, that Christ was crucified for them, that he died for their sins, and had bought them with the price of his own blood; and therefore they were not to be the servants of men, or to call any man master, or to be called by his name, or any other mans, only by Christs, who had redeemed them by his blood; so that they were not their own, nor any others, but his, and ought to glorify him with their souls and bodies, which were his. Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul ; no; but in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The apostle did not pretend to be the author of a new revelation, or the propagator of a new religion, but was a preacher of the Gospel, and an administrator of the ordinances of Christ; wherefore he baptized not in his own name, but in the name of Christ: to whose worship and service such as are baptized are devoted, and not to the service of men, and therefore not to be called after their names.
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 10-16 - In the great things of religion be of one mind; and where there is no unity of sentiment, still let there be union of affection. Agreement in the greater things should extinguish divisions about the lesser. Ther will be perfect union in heaven, and the nearer we approach it of earth, the nearer we come to perfection. Paul and Apollos both wer faithful ministers of Jesus Christ, and helpers of their faith and joy but those disposed to be contentious, broke into parties. So liable ar the best things to be corrupted, and the gospel and its institution made engines of discord and contention. Satan has always endeavoured to stir up strife among Christians, as one of his chief devices agains the gospel. The apostle left it to other ministers to baptize, while he preached the gospel, as a more useful work.
Greek Textus Receptus
μεμερισται 3307 5769 V-RPI-3S ο 3588 T-NSM χριστος 5547 N-NSM μη 3361 PRT-N παυλος 3972 N-NSM εσταυρωθη 4717 5681 V-API-3S υπερ 5228 PREP υμων 5216 P-2GP η 2228 PRT εις 1519 PREP το 3588 T-ASN ονομα 3686 N-ASN παυλου 3972 N-GSM εβαπτισθητε 907 5681 V-API-2P
Vincent's NT Word Studies
13. Is Christ divided? (memeristai o Cristov). Some of the best expositors render as an assertion. Christ has been divided by your controversies. He is broken up into different party Christs. This gives a perfectly good and forcible sense, and is favored by the absence of the interrogative particle mh, which introduces the next clause. 78 Divided: so portioned up that one party may claim Him more than another. Christ has the article. See on Matt. i. 1.Was Paul crucified for you? (mh Paulov estaurwqh uper umwn). A negative answer is implied. Paul surely was not, etc. For is uJper on behalf of, not peri on account of, as some texts.
In the name (eiv to onoma). Rev., correctly, Into the name. See on Matt. xxviii. 19. Of Paul as the name of him whom you were to confess. The order of the original is: Was it into the name of Paul that ye were baptized?
Robertson's NT Word Studies
1:13 {Is Christ divided?} (memeristai ho cristos;). Perfect passive indicative, Does Christ stand divided? It is not certain, though probable, that this is interrogative like the following clauses. Hofmann calls the assertory form a "rhetorical impossibility." The absence of me here merely allows an affirmative answer which is true. The fourth or Christ party claimed to possess Christ in a sense not true of the others. Perhaps the leaders of this Christ party with their arrogant assumptions of superiority are the false apostles, ministers of Satan posing as angels of light (#2Co 11:12-15). {Was Paul crucified for you?} (me paulos estaurwqe huper humwn;). An indignant "No" is demanded by me. Paul shows his tact by employing himself as the illustration, rather than Apollos or Cephas. Probably huper, over, in behalf of, rather than peri (concerning, around) is genuine, though either makes good sense here. In the _Koin_ huper encroaches on peri as in #2Th 2:1. {Were ye baptized into the name of Paul?} (eis to onoma paulou ebaptisqete;). It is unnecessary to say {into} for eis rather than {in} since eis is the same preposition originally as en and both are used with baptizw as in #Ac 8:16; 10:48 with no difference in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 592). Paul evidently knows the idea in #Mt 28:19 and scouts the notion of being put on a par with Christ or the Trinity. He is no rival of Christ. this use of onoma for the person is not only in the LXX, but the papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions give numerous examples of the name of the king or the god for the power and authority of the king or god (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 146ff., 196ff.; _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 121).
