John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 1:13

"Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?" — 1 Corinthians 1:13 (ASV)

Is Christ divided? This intolerable evil resulted from the divisions that existed among the Corinthians, for Christ alone must reign in the Church. And as the object of the gospel is for us to be reconciled to God through him, it is first necessary that we all be bound together in him.

However, since only a very few of the Corinthians, who were more sound than the others, retained Christ as their Master (while all boasted that they were Christians), Christ was, by this means, torn apart. For we must be one body if we are to be kept together under him as our head.

If, on the other hand, we are split apart into different bodies, we also stray from him. Therefore, to glory in his name amidst conflicts and factions is to tear him in pieces. This, indeed, is impossible, for he will never depart from unity and concord, because He cannot deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13). Paul, therefore, by presenting this absurdity to them, intends to lead the Corinthians to perceive that they are estranged from Christ, since they are divided; for then only does he reign in us, when we have him as the bond of an inviolably sacred unity.

Was Paul crucified for you? By two powerful considerations, he shows how contemptible it is to rob Christ of the honor of being the sole Head of the Church—the sole Teacher—the sole Master; or to take away any part of that honor from him, in order to transfer it to men. The first is that we have been redeemed by Christ on this basis: that we are not our own masters. Paul uses this very argument in his Epistle to the Romans (Romans 14:9), when he says:

For this end Christ died and rose again, that he might be Lord both of the living and the dead.

To him, therefore, let us live and die, because we are always his. Also in this same Epistle (1 Corinthians 7:23):

Ye are bought with a price: be not ye the servants of men.

Therefore, since the Corinthians had been purchased with the blood of Christ, they, in a way, renounced the benefit of redemption when they attached themselves to other leaders. Here is a doctrine deserving special notice: we are not at liberty to put ourselves in bondage to men, because we are the Lord’s heritage. Therefore, he accuses the Corinthians here of the most contemptible ingratitude, in estranging themselves from that Leader by whose blood they had been redeemed, however unwittingly they might have done so.

Furthermore, this passage counters the wicked scheme of Papists, by which they attempt to support their system of indulgences. For they create that imaginary treasure of the Church—which they tell us is distributed through indulgences—from the blood of Christ and the martyrs.

Thus they claim that the martyrs, by their death, merited something for us in God’s sight, so that we may seek help from this source to obtain the pardon of our sins. Indeed, they will deny that they are therefore our redeemers; but nothing is more clear than that the one follows from the other.

The question concerns reconciling sinners to God; the question concerns obtaining forgiveness; the question concerns appeasing the Lord’s anger; the question concerns redemption from our iniquities. They boast that this is accomplished partly by the blood of Christ and partly by that of the martyrs.

Therefore, they make the martyrs partners with Christ in procuring our salvation. Here, however, Paul strongly denies that anyone but Christ has been crucified for us. It is true, the martyrs died for our benefit, but (as Leo observes) it was to provide an example of perseverance, not to procure the gift of righteousness for us.

Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? Here we have a second argument, which is drawn from the profession of baptism; for we enlist ourselves under the banners of him in whose name we are baptized. Accordingly, we are bound to Christ, in whose name our baptism is celebrated.

Hence, it follows that the Corinthians are chargeable with treachery and apostasy if they place themselves in subjection to men. Observe here that the nature of baptism resembles a contract of mutual obligation. For as the Lord by that symbol receives us into his household and introduces us among his people, so we pledge our fidelity to him, that we will never afterward have any other spiritual Lord.

Therefore, as on God’s part it is a covenant of grace that he makes with us, in which he promises forgiveness of sins and a new life, so on our part it is an oath of spiritual warfare, in which we promise perpetual subjection to him. Paul does not address the former aspect here, because the subject did not allow for it; but in discussing baptism, it ought not to be omitted. Nor does Paul charge the Corinthians with apostasy simply because they forsook Christ and turned to men; rather, he declares that if they do not adhere to Christ alone—that very action would make them covenant-breakers.

It is asked, what it is to be baptized in the name of Christ? I answer that this expression does not simply imply that baptism is founded on Christ’s authority, but that it also depends on his influence and, in a way, consists in it; and, finally, that its whole effect depends on this: that the name of Christ is invoked in it.

It is further asked why Paul says that the Corinthians were baptized in the name of Christ, while Christ himself commanded (Matthew 28:19) the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. I answer that in baptism the first thing to be considered is that God the Father, by planting us in his Church by his unmerited goodness, receives us by adoption into the number of his sons.

Secondly, since we cannot have any connection with him except through reconciliation, we need Christ to restore us to the Father’s favor by his blood. Thirdly, since by baptism we are consecrated to God, we also need the work of the Holy Spirit, whose role it is to make us new creatures.

Moreover, our being washed in the blood of Christ is distinctively his work; but since we do not obtain the Father’s mercy or the Spirit’s grace otherwise than through Christ alone, it is for good reasons that we speak of him as the distinct object in view in baptism, and more particularly connect his name with baptism.

At the same time, this by no means excludes the name of the Father and of the Spirit; for when we wish to summarize briefly the efficacy of baptism, we mention Christ alone; but when we are inclined to speak with greater detail, the names of the Father and the Spirit need to be expressly introduced.