Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 1:2

"unto the church of God which is at Corinth, [even] them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, their [Lord] and ours:" — 1 Corinthians 1:2 (ASV)

Introductory Notes Continued from Verse 1... (At the end of the Introduction, see Verse Notes for 1 Corinthians 1:1–2)

V. — DIVISIONS OF THE EPISTLE

The divisions of this epistle, as of the other books of the Bible, into chapters and verses, are arbitrary and often not ideally made. See the Introduction to the Notes on the Gospels. Various divisions of the epistle have been proposed to present a proper analysis to the mind. The division submitted here is one that arises from the previous statement of the scope and design of the epistle and will furnish the basis of my analysis. According to this view, the body of this epistle may be divided into three parts, namely:

1. The discussion of irregularities and abuses prevailing in the church at Corinth, of which the apostle had incidentally learned by report, chapters 1–6.

2. The discussion of various subjects that had been submitted to him in a letter from the church, and of points that grew out of those inquiries, chapters 7–14.

3. The discussion of the great doctrine of the resurrection of Christ—the foundation of human hope—and the demonstration arising from that doctrine that the Christian religion is true, and the hopes of Christians well founded, chapter 15. (See the "Analysis" prefixed to the Notes.)

VI. — THE MESSENGERS BY WHOM THIS EPISTLE WAS SENT TO THE CHURCH AT CORINTH, AND ITS SUCCESS

It is evident that Paul felt the deepest concern for the state of things in the church at Corinth. Apparently, as soon as he had heard of their irregularities and disorders through the members of the family of Chloe (1 Corinthians 1–2), he had sent Timothy to them, if possible, to repress the growing dissensions and irregularities (1 Corinthians 4:17). In the meantime, the church at Corinth wrote to him to ascertain his views on certain matters submitted to him (1 Corinthians 7:1); and the reception of this letter gave him the opportunity to address at length the subject of their disorders and difficulties.

Yet he wrote the letter under the deepest concern about the manner of its reception and its effect on the church: For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote to you with many tears, etc. (2 Corinthians 2:4). Paul had another object in view which was dear to his heart, and which he was diligently working to promote: the collection he proposed to take up for the poor and afflicted saints at Jerusalem. (See Barnes on Romans 15:25).

This object he wished to press at this time on the church at Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:1–4). Therefore, to ensure the success of his letter and to facilitate the collection, he sent Titus with the letter to the church at Corinth, with instructions to have the collection ready (2 Corinthians 7:7–8, 13, 15). Titus was requested to finish this collection (2 Corinthians 8:6). With Titus, Paul sent another brother, perhaps a member of the church at Ephesus (2 Corinthians 12:18), a man whose praise, Paul says, was in all the churches, and who had already been designated by the churches to carry the contribution to Jerusalem (2 Corinthians 8:18–19).

By turning to Acts 21:29, we find it incidentally mentioned that Trophimus an Ephesian was with Paul in Jerusalem, and undoubtedly this was the person designated here. This is one of the undesigned coincidences between Paul's epistle and the Acts of the Apostles, of which Dr. Paley has made so much use in his Horae Paulinae in proving the genuineness of these writings.

Paul did not deem it necessary or prudent for him to go to Corinth himself but chose to remain in Ephesus. The letter to Paul (1 Corinthians 7:1) had been brought to him by Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Corinthians 16:17); and it is probable that they accompanied Titus and the other brother who bore Paul's reply to their inquiries.

The success of this letter was all that Paul could desire. It had the effect of repressing their growing strife, restraining their disorders, producing true repentance, and removing the person who had been guilty of incest in the church. The whole church was deeply affected by his reproofs and engaged with hearty zeal in the work of reform (2 Corinthians 7:9–11).

The authority of the apostle was recognized, and his epistle read with fear and trembling (2 Corinthians 7:15). The act of discipline he had required for the incestuous person was inflicted by the whole church (2 Corinthians 2:6). The collection he had desired (1 Corinthians 16:1–4), and regarding which he had boasted of their liberality to others and expressed the utmost confidence that it would be liberal (2 Corinthians 9:2–3), was taken up according to his wishes. Their disposition on the subject was such as to bring him great satisfaction (2 Corinthians 7:13–14).

However, Paul was not aware of the success of his letter, nor of their disposition to take up the collection, until he had gone into Macedonia, where Titus came to him and gave him information of the happy state of things in the church at Corinth (2 Corinthians 7:4–7, 13). Never was a letter more effectual than this was, and never was authority in discipline exercised in a more effective and successful way.

VII. — GENERAL CHARACTER AND STRUCTURE OF THE EPISTLE

The general style and character of this epistle are the same as in the other writings of Paul. See Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans. It displays the same strong and robust style of argument and language, the same structure of sentences, the same rapidity of conception, the same overpowering force of language and thought, and the same characteristics of temper and spirit in the author.

The main difference between the style and manner of this epistle and the other epistles of Paul arises from the scope and design of the argument. In the Epistle to the Romans, his object led him to pursue a closely reasoned and connected argument. In this epistle, a large portion is occupied with reproof, and it provides an occasion to consider at once the authority of an apostle and the spirit and manner in which reproof is to be administered.

The reader of this epistle will inevitably be struck by the fact that it was no part of Paul's character to show indulgence to sin, that he had no design to flatter, that he neither "cloaked nor concealed transgression," and that in the most open, firm, and direct manner possible, it was his purpose to rebuke them for their disorders and to repress their growing irregularities.

At the same time, however, there is full opportunity for the display of tenderness, kindness, love, charity, and for Christian instruction—an opportunity for expressing the deepest feelings of the human heart—an opportunity which Paul never allowed to pass unimproved. Amidst all the severity of reproof, there is the love of friendship; amidst the rebukes of an apostle, the entreaties and tears of a father. And here we contemplate Paul, not merely as the profound reasoner, not simply as a man of high intellectual endowments, but as showing the feelings of a man and the sympathies of the Christian.

Perhaps there is less difficulty in understanding this epistle than the Epistle to the Romans. A few passages indeed have perplexed all commentators and are to this day not understood. See 1 Corinthians 5:9; 1 Corinthians 11:10; 1 Corinthians 15:29.

But the general meaning of the epistle has been much less the subject of differing interpretations. The reasons have probably been the following:

1. The subjects here are more numerous, and the discussions more brief. There is, therefore, less difficulty in following the author than where the discussion is lengthy, and the manner of his reasoning more complicated.

2. The subjects themselves are far less abstruse and profound than those introduced into the Epistle to the Romans. There is, therefore, less liability to misconception.

3. The epistle has never been made the subject of theological warfare. No system of theology has been built on it, and no attempt made to press it into the service of abstract dogmas. It is mostly of a practical character; and there has been, therefore, less room for contention regarding its meaning.

4. No false and unfounded theories of philosophy have been attached to this epistle, as have been to the Epistle to the Romans. Its simple sense, therefore, has been more obvious; and no small part of the difficulties in the interpretation of that epistle are absent from this one.

5. The apostle's design has somewhat varied his style. There are fewer complicated sentences and fewer parentheses—less that is abrupt and broken, and elliptical—less that is rapid, mighty, and overpowering in argument. We see the point of a reproof at once, but we are often greatly embarrassed in a complicated argument. The fifteenth chapter, however, for tightness and strength of argument, for beauty of language, for tender pathos, and for commanding and powerful eloquence, is probably unsurpassed by any other part of the writings of Paul, and unequaled by any other composition.

6. It may be added that there is less in this epistle that opposes the natural feelings of the human heart and that humbles the pride of the human intellect than in the Epistle to the Romans. One great difficulty in interpreting that epistle has been that the doctrines relate to those high subjects that rebuke the pride of man, demand prostration before his Sovereign, require the submission of the understanding and the heart to God's high claims, and throw down every form of self-righteousness.

   While substantially the same features will be found in all the writings of Paul, yet his purpose in this epistle led him to dwell less on those topics than in the Epistle to the Romans. The result is that the heart more readily acquiesces in these doctrines and reproofs, and the general strain of this epistle; and as the heart of man has usually more agency in the interpretation of the Bible than the understanding, the obstacles in the way of a correct exposition of this epistle are proportionately fewer than in the Epistle to the Romans.

The same spirit, however, which is required for understanding the Epistle to the Romans, is demanded here. In all Paul's epistles, as in all the Bible, a spirit of candor, humility, prayer, and industry is required. The knowledge of God's truth is to be acquired only by toil and candid investigation. The mind that is filled with prejudices is rarely enlightened. The proud, unhumbled spirit seldom receives benefit from reading the Bible or any other book. He acquires the most complete and the most profound knowledge of the doctrines of Paul, and of the Book of God in general, who comes to the work of interpretation with the most humble heart and the deepest sense of his dependence on the aid of that Spirit by whom originally the Bible was inspired. For the meek will he guide in judgment, and the meek will he teach his way (Psalms 25:9).

END OF Introductory Notes:

Verse 1. Paul, called to be an apostle. See Barnes on Romans 1:1.

Through the will of God. Not by human appointment or authority, but in accordance with the will of God and His command. That will was made known to him by the special revelation granted to him at his conversion and call to the apostleship (Acts 9). Paul often refers to the fact that he had received a direct commission from God and that he did not act on his own authority. Compare Galatians 1:11-12; 1 Corinthians 9:1–6; 2 Corinthians 11:22–33; 2 Corinthians 12:1–12. There was a special reason why he commenced this epistle by referring to the fact that he was divinely called to the apostleship. It arose from the fact that his apostolic authority had been called in question by the false teachers at Corinth. That this was the case is apparent from the general strain of the epistle, from some particular expressions (2 Corinthians 10:8–10), and from the fact that he takes such great pains throughout the two epistles to establish his Divine commission.

And Sosthenes. Sosthenes is mentioned in Acts 18:17 as the chief ruler of the synagogue at Corinth. He is there said to have been beaten by the Greeks before the judgment seat of Gallio because he was a Jew, and because he had joined with the other Jews in arraigning Paul, and had thus produced disturbance in the city. See Barnes on Acts 18:17.

It is evident that at that time he was not a Christian. When he was converted, or why he left Corinth and was now with Paul at Ephesus, is unknown. Why Paul associated him with himself in writing this epistle is not known. It is evident that Sosthenes was not an apostle, nor is there any reason to think that he was inspired. Some circumstances are known to have existed respecting Paul's manner of writing to the churches, which may explain it:

1. He was accustomed to employ an amanuensis or scribe in writing his epistles, and the amanuensis frequently expressed his concurrence or approbation in what the apostle had dictated. See Barnes on Romans 16:22.

   Compare Colossians 4:18, The salutation by the hand of me Paul; 2 Thessalonians 3:17; 1 Corinthians 16:21. It is possible that Sosthenes might have been employed by Paul for this purpose.

2. Paul frequently associated others with himself in writing his letters to the churches, himself claiming authority as an apostle, and the others expressing their concurrence (2 Corinthians 1:1). Thus in Galatians 1:2, All the brethren who were with him are mentioned as united with him in addressing the churches of Galatia (Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Thessalonians 1:1).

3. Sosthenes was well known at Corinth. He had been the chief ruler of the synagogue there. His conversion would, therefore, excite a deep interest; and it is not improbable that he had been conspicuous as a preacher. All these circumstances would render it proper that Paul should associate him with himself in writing this letter. It would be bringing in the testimony of one well known as concurring with the views of the apostle and do much to conciliate those who were disaffected towards him.

Unto the church of God which is at Corinth. For an account of the time and manner in which the church was established in Corinth, see the Introduction, and See Barnes on Acts 18:1-17.

The church is called the church of God because it has been founded by His agency and was devoted to His service. It is worthy of remark that although great disorders had been introduced into that church, that there were separations and erroneous doctrines, and though there were some who gave evidence that they were not sincere Christians, yet the apostle had no hesitation in applying to them the name of a church of God.

To them that are sanctified. To those who are made holy. This does not refer to the profession of holiness but implies that they were in fact holy. The word means that they were separated from the mass of heathens around them and devoted to God and His cause. Though the word used here, hgiasmenoiv, has this idea of separation from the mass around them, yet it is separation on account of their being in fact, and not in profession merely, different from others and truly devoted to God. See Barnes on Romans 1:7.

In Christ Jesus. That is, by en the agency of Christ. It was by His authority, His power, and His Spirit that they had been separated from the mass of heathens around them and devoted to God. Compare John 17:19.

Called to be saints. The word saints does not differ materially from the word sanctified in the earlier part of the verse. It means those who are separated from the world and set apart to God as holy. The idea that Paul introduces here is that they became such because they were called to be such.

The idea in the earlier part of the verse is that this was done by Christ Jesus; here he says that it was because they were called to this privilege. He doubtless means to say that it was not by any natural tendency in themselves to holiness, but because God had called them to it.

And this calling does not refer merely to an external invitation, but it was that which was made effectual in their case, or that on which the fact of their being saints could be founded. Compare 1 Corinthians 1:9. See 2 Timothy 1:9: Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, etc.; 1 Peter 1:15; See Barnes on Romans 1:6, See Barnes on Romans 1:7; See Barnes on Romans 8:28; See Barnes on Ephesians 4:1; See Barnes on 1 Timothy 6:12; See Barnes on 1 Peter 2:9.

With all, etc. This expression shows:

1. That Paul had the same feelings of attachment to all Christians in every place; and,

2. That he expected that this epistle would be read, not only by the church at Corinth, but also by other churches. That this was the uniform intention of the apostle regarding his epistles is apparent from other places. Compare 1 Thessalonians 5:27: I charge you by the Lord, that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren.Colossians 4:16: And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans. It is evident that Paul expected that his epistles would obtain circulation among the churches; and it was morally certain that they would be soon transcribed and be extensively read. The ardent feelings of Paul embraced all Christians in every nation. He knew nothing of the narrowness of exclusive attachment to sect. His heart was full of love; and he loved, as we should, all who bore the Christian name and who showed the Christian spirit.

Call upon the name of Jesus Christ. To call upon the name of any person, in Scripture language, is to call on the person himself. Compare John 3:18. See Barnes on Acts 4:12.

The expression, to call upon the name, epikaloumenoiv, to invoke the name, implies worship and prayer; and proves:

1. That the Lord Jesus is an object of worship; and

2. That one characteristic of the early Christians, by which they were known and distinguished, was their calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus, or their offering worship to Him. That it implies worship, see Barnes on Acts 7:59; and that the early Christians called on Christ by prayer, and were distinguished by that, see Barnes on Acts 7:59, and compare Barnes on Acts 1:24; Barnes on Acts 2:21; Barnes on Acts 9:14; Barnes on Acts 22:16; See Barnes on 2 Timothy 2:22.

Both theirs and ours. The Lord of all—both Jews and Gentiles—of all who profess to be Christians, of whatever country or name they might have originally been. Difference of nation or birth gives no preeminence in the kingdom of Christ, but all are on a level, having a common Lord and Savior. Compare Ephesians 4:5.