John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 1

Paul, called to be an Apostle. In this manner Paul proceeds in almost all the introductions to his Epistles, with the aim of procuring authority and favor for his doctrine. He secures the former for himself from the position that God had assigned to him, as an Apostle of Christ sent by God; and the latter by testifying his affection toward those to whom he writes.

We much more readily believe the person whom we look upon as regarding us with affection and as faithfully endeavoring to promote our well-being. In this salutation, therefore, he claims authority for himself when he speaks of himself as an Apostle of Christ, and that, too, as called by God, that is, set apart by the will of God. Now, two things are required for anyone who would be listened to in the Church and would occupy the place of a teacher: he must be called by God to that office, and he must faithfully apply himself to carrying out its duties.

Paul here lays claim to both. For the name Apostle implies that the individual conscientiously acts as an ambassador for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19) and proclaims the pure doctrine of the gospel. But as no one ought to assume this honor for himself unless he is called to it, he adds that he had not rashly intruded into it but had been appointed to it by God.

Therefore, let us learn to consider these two things together when we wish to determine what kind of people we should esteem as ministers of Christ: a call to the office, and faithfulness in carrying out its duties. For just as no one can lawfully assume the designation and rank of a minister unless he is called, so it would not be enough for anyone to be called if he does not also fulfill the duties of his office.

For the Lord does not choose ministers so that they might be silent idols, or exercise tyranny under the pretext of their calling, or make their own caprice their law.

Instead, He at the same time defines what kind of people they should be, binds them by His laws, and finally, chooses them for the ministry. In other words, His purpose is, first, that they may not be idle, and second, that they may keep themselves within the limits of their office.

Therefore, just as apostleship depends on the calling, so the one who would be considered an apostle must show himself to be truly so. Indeed, so must everyone who demands that credit be given him, or that his doctrine be listened to. For since Paul relies on these arguments to establish his authority, the conduct of anyone who would think to have any standing without such proofs would be worse than impudent.

However, it should be observed that it is not enough for anyone to display the title to a call to the office, along with faithfulness in carrying out its duties, if he does not actually give proof of both. For it often happens that no one boasts more arrogantly of their titles than those who lack the reality; just as in former times the false prophets, with lofty disdain, boasted that they had been sent by the Lord.

Indeed, even today, what else do the Romanists make a clamor about but “ordination from God, and an inviolably sacred succession even from the Apostles themselves,” while, after all, it appears that they lack those things of which they boast?

Therefore, what is required here is not boasting, but reality. Now, since the name is assumed by good and bad alike, we must come to the test, so that we may determine who has a right to the name of Apostle and who does not.

As for Paul, God attested his calling by many revelations and afterward confirmed it by miracles. His faithfulness must be evaluated by this: whether or not he proclaimed the pure doctrine of Christ. Regarding the twofold call—that of God and that of the Church—see my Institutes.

An Apostle. Although this name, according to its etymology, has a general meaning and is sometimes used in a general sense to denote any kind of minister, yet, as a special designation, it applies to those who were set apart by the Lord’s appointment to proclaim the Gospel throughout the whole world.

Now, it was important that Paul should be counted in that number for two reasons:

1. First, because much more respect was given to them than to other ministers of the gospel;

2. Secondly, because they alone, properly speaking, had authority to instruct all the Churches.

By the will of God. While the Apostle is accustomed to cheerfully acknowledge himself indebted to God for whatever good he has, he does so especially regarding his apostleship, so that he may free himself from all appearance of presumption. And certainly, just as a call to salvation is of grace, so also a call to the office of apostle is of grace, as Christ teaches in these words:

Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,
(John 15:16)

Paul, however, at the same time indirectly suggests that all who attempt to undermine his apostleship, or in any way oppose it, are contending against an appointment of God.

He makes no useless boast of honorary titles here; instead, he intentionally vindicates his apostleship from malicious slander.

For since his authority must have been sufficiently established in the eyes of the Corinthians, it would have been unnecessary to make particular mention of “the will of God,” if wicked men had not attempted by indirect means to undermine that honorable rank which God had assigned him.

And Sosthenes our brother. This is the Sosthenes who was ruler of the Jewish synagogue at Corinth, whom Luke mentions in Acts 18:17. His name is added for this reason: the Corinthians, knowing his passion and steadfastness in the gospel, could not help but hold him in deserved esteem. And therefore, it is even more to his honor to be mentioned now as Paul’s brother than formerly as ruler of the synagogue.

To the Church of God which is at Corinth. It may perhaps appear strange that he should give the name of a Church of God to a multitude of people who were infested with so many disorders, that Satan might be said to reign among them rather than God.

It is certain that he did not mean to flatter the Corinthians, for he speaks under the direction of the Spirit of God, who is not accustomed to flatter. But among so many pollutions, what appearance of a Church remains? I answer, the Lord having said to him, “Fear not: I have much people in this place” (Acts 18:9–10); keeping this promise in mind, he conferred upon a godly few so much honor as to recognize them as a Church amid a vast multitude of ungodly people.

Further, notwithstanding that many vices had crept in, and various corruptions both of doctrine and conduct, there were, nevertheless, certain signs still remaining of a true Church. This is a passage that should be carefully observed, so that we may not require that the Church, while in this world, should be free from every wrinkle and stain, or immediately pronounce unworthy of such a title every society in which everything is not as we would wish it.

For it is a dangerous temptation to think that there is no Church at all where perfect purity is not to be seen. For the person who is prepossessed with this notion must necessarily in the end withdraw from all others, and look upon himself as the only saint in the world, or set up a peculiar sect in company with a few hypocrites.

What ground, then, had Paul for recognizing a Church at Corinth? It was this: that he saw among them the doctrine of the gospel, baptism, the Lord’s Supper—signs by which a Church should be judged. For although some had begun to have doubts as to the resurrection, the error not having spread over the entire body, the name of the Church and its reality are not thereby affected.

Some faults had crept in among them in the administration of the Supper; discipline and propriety of conduct had very much declined. Despising the simplicity of the gospel, they had given themselves up to show and pomp, and in consequence of the ambition of their ministers, they were split into various parties.

Despite this, however, inasmuch as they retained fundamental doctrine—as the one God was adored among them and was invoked in the name of Christ, as they placed their dependence for salvation upon Christ, and had a ministry not altogether corrupted—there was, on these accounts, a Church still existing among them.

Accordingly, wherever the worship of God is preserved intact, and that fundamental doctrine of which I have spoken remains, we must without hesitation conclude that in that case a Church exists.

Sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints. He mentions the blessings with which God had adorned them, as if by way of reproaching them, at least if they showed no gratitude in return. For what could be more shameful than to reject an Apostle through whose instrumentality they had been set apart as God’s special possession?

Meanwhile, by these two epithets, he points out what sort of people should be considered among the true members of the Church, and who they are that rightly belong to her communion. For if you do not by holiness of life show yourself to be a Christian, you may indeed be in the Church, and pass undetected, but you cannot be of it.

Hence all must be sanctified in Christ who are to be reckoned among the people of God. Now the term sanctification denotes separation. This takes place in us when we are regenerated by the Spirit to newness of life, so that we may serve God and not the world. For while by nature we are unholy, the Spirit consecrates us to God.

However, as this is accomplished when we are engrafted into the body of Christ, apart from whom there is nothing but pollution, and as it is also by Christ, and not from any other source that the Spirit is bestowed, it is with good reason that he says that we are sanctified in Christ, inasmuch as it is by Him that we cleave to God, and in Him become new creatures.

What immediately follows—called to be saints—I understand to mean: As you have been called to holiness.

It may, however, be taken in two senses. Either we may understand Paul to say that the ground of sanctification is the call of God, inasmuch as God has chosen them (meaning that this depends on His grace, not on the excellence of people); or we may understand him to mean that it accords with our profession that we should be holy, this being the design of the doctrine of the gospel.

The former interpretation appears to suit the context better, but it is of no great consequence in which way you understand it, as there is an entire agreement between the two following positions: that our holiness flows from the fountain of divine election, and that it is the end of our calling.

We must, therefore, carefully maintain that it is not through our own efforts that we are holy, but by the call of God, because He alone sanctifies those who were by nature unclean.

And certainly it appears to me probable that when Paul has pointed out, as it were with his finger, the fountain of holiness thrown wide open, he mounts up a step higher, to the good pleasure of God, in which Christ’s mission to us also originated. However, as we are called by the gospel to harmlessness of life (Philippians 2:15), it is necessary that this be accomplished in us in reality, so that our calling may be effectual.

It will, however, be objected that there were not many such among the Corinthians. I answer that the weak are not excluded from this number, for here God only begins His work in us and little by little carries it forward gradually and by successive steps.

I answer further that Paul deliberately looks rather to the grace of God in them than to their own defects, so that he may put them to shame for their negligence if they do not act accordingly.

With all that call. This, too, is an epithet common to all the pious; for as it is one chief exercise of faith to call upon the name of God, so it is also by this duty chiefly that believers are to be assessed. Observe, also, that he says that Christ is called upon by believers, and this affords a proof of His divinity—invocation being one of the first expressions of Divine homage.

Hence invocation here by synecdoche (κατὰ συνεκδοχήν) denotes the entire profession of faith in Christ, as in many passages of Scripture it is taken generally for the whole of Divine worship. Some explain it as denoting mere profession, but this appears to be inadequate and at variance with its usual meaning in Scripture.

The little words nostri (ours) and sui (theirs) I have put in the genitive, understanding them as referring to Christ, while others, understanding them as referring to place, render them in the ablative. In doing so I have followed Chrysostom. This will, perhaps, appear harsh, as the expression in every place is introduced in the middle, but in Paul’s Greek style there is nothing harsh in this construction.

My reason for preferring this rendering to that of the Vulgate is that if you understand it as referring to place, the additional clause will be not merely superfluous but inappropriate. For what place would Paul call his own? Judea, they understand him to mean; but on what ground? And then, what place could he refer to as inhabited by others?

“All other places of the world” (they say). But this, too, does not fit well. On the other hand, the meaning that I have given it is perfectly suitable; for, after mentioning all that in every place call upon the name of Christ our Lord, he adds, both theirs and ours, manifestly to show that Christ is the one common Lord, without distinction, of all that call upon Him, whether they are Jews or Gentiles.

In every place. This Paul has added, contrary to his usual manner, for in his other Epistles he mentions in the salutation only those for whom they are designed.

He seems, however, to have intended to anticipate the slanders of wicked people, so that they could not allege that, in addressing the Corinthians, he assumed a confident air and claimed for himself an authority that he would not venture to assert in writing to other Churches.

For we shall see presently that he was unjustly loaded with this reproach too, as though he were preparing little nests for himself in order to shun the light, or were withdrawing himself in a clandestine way from the rest of the Apostles.

It appears, then, that expressly to refute this falsehood, he places himself in a commanding position, from which he may be heard from afar.

Grace be to you and peace. For an explanation of this prayer, my readers should consult the beginning of my Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 1:7), for I do not willingly burden my readers with repetitions.

I give thanks to my God. Having in the salutation secured for himself authority from the position assigned him, he now endeavors to gain acceptance for his teaching by expressing his affection for them. In this way he soothes their minds beforehand, so that they may listen patiently to his rebukes.

He persuades them of his affection for them by the following signs: his showing as much joy in the benefits bestowed upon them as if they had been conferred upon himself, and his declaring that he holds a favorable opinion of them and has good hopes for them regarding the future.

Furthermore, he qualifies his congratulations in such a way as to give them no occasion to be puffed up, as he attributes to God all the benefits that they possessed, so that all the praise may return to him, since they are the fruits of his grace. It is as if he had said, “I congratulate you indeed, but in such a way as to ascribe the praise to God.”

His meaning, when he calls God his God, I have explained in my Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 1:8). As Paul was not prepared to flatter the Corinthians, neither has he commended them on false grounds.

For although not all were worthy of such commendations, and though they corrupted many excellent gifts of God by ambition, yet it was not fitting for him to despise the gifts themselves, because they were, in themselves, deserving of commendation. Furthermore, as the gifts of the Spirit are conferred for the edification of all, he rightly enumerates them as gifts common to the whole Church. But let us see what he commends in them.

For the grace, etc. This is a general term, for it includes blessings of every kind that they had obtained through the gospel. For the term grace here denotes not the favor of God, but by metonymy (μετωνυμικῶς), the gifts that he freely bestows upon people.

He immediately proceeds to specify particular instances, when he says that they are enriched in all things, and specifies what those all things are: the doctrine and word of God. For in these riches it is fitting for Christians to abound; and we ought also to esteem them more highly, and regard them as all the more valuable, to the extent that they are usually disregarded.

I have preferred to retain the phrase in ipso (in him), rather than translate it per ipsum (by him), because in my opinion it has more expressiveness and force. For we are enriched in Christ, since we are members of his body and are grafted into him; indeed, being made one with him, he makes us share with him in everything that he has received from the Father.

Even as the testimony... Erasmus offers a different rendering, to this effect: “that by these things the testimony of Christ was confirmed in them;” that is, by knowledge and by the word. The words, however, convey another meaning, and if they are not distorted, the meaning is clear: that God has sealed the truth of His gospel among the Corinthians, to confirm it.

Now, this might be done in two ways: either by miracles or by the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit. Chrysostom seems to understand this as referring to miracles, but I understand it in a broader sense. First of all, it is certain that the gospel is properly confirmed in our experience by faith, because it is only when we receive it by faith that we set to our seal that God is true (John 3:33). And though I admit that miracles ought to carry weight in confirming it, yet we must look higher for the origin—namely, that the Spirit of God is the earnest and seal.

Accordingly, I explain these words in this way: that the Corinthians excelled in knowledge, since God had from the beginning made His gospel effective among them. This was not merely in one way, but by the internal influence of the Spirit, by the excellence and variety of gifts, by miracles, and by all other helps. He calls the gospel the testimony of Christ, or respecting Christ, because its entire substance tends to reveal Christ to us,

In whom all the treasures of knowledge are hid (Colossians 2:3).

If anyone prefers to take it in an active sense, on the ground that Christ is the primary author of the gospel, so that the Apostles were nothing but secondary or inferior witnesses, I will not strongly oppose it. I feel better satisfied, however, with the former exposition.

It is true that a little later (1 Corinthians 2:1), the testimony of God must, beyond all controversy, be taken in an active sense, as a passive meaning would not be at all suitable. Here, however, the case is different. Furthermore, that passage strengthens my view, as he immediately adds what this is: to know nothing but Christ (1 Corinthians 2:2).