1 Corinthians 1:12

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

Are there three sinful parties in view in this passage, or four? Despite the numerous opinions to the effect that "I of Christ" denotes a sinful division no less than the other slogans, this student cannot agree that there was ever anything wrong with a follower of the Lord claiming to be "of Christ." The glib assertions of many to the effect that the Christ party was a self-righteous little group insisting that they alone had the truth are as ridiculous as they are unsupported by any solid evidence whatever. Paul himself declared that he was "of Christ" (2 Corinthians 10:7); and, indeed, the evidence is strong enough that he made such a declaration in this verse, the final "AND I OF CHRIST" being the words not of a faction at Corinth but of the blessed apostle himself. Guthrie admitted that "I belong to Christ could be Paul's own corrective comment."[12] William Barclay punctuated the verse thus: "I am of Paul; I am of Apollos; I am of Cephas - but I BELONG TO CHRIST."[13] As Adam Clarke expressed it, "It is not likely in any sense of the word that Christ could be said to be the head of a sect or party in his own church."[14] Macknight, commenting on "and I of Christ," said, "Chrysostom thought this was said by Paul himself to show the Corinthians that all ought to consider themselves the disciples of Christ."[15] Any other interpretation of this passage cannot be made to fit.

What was wrong with the first three of these slogans? Those who were using them were glorying in people; but then it follows as a certainty that those who were saying "and I of Christ" were glorying in the Lord. Thus, the uniform construction of the four slogans which is made the basis of construing them all as sinful becomes the positive reason for denying it. It is impossible to make glorying in Christ a parallel sin with glorying in men, the latter being condemned by Paul and the glorying in Christ being commanded. It should be remembered that all of the speculative descriptions of these various groups are unsupported by a single line in the New Testament. Shore's comment that "a faction dared to arrogate to themselves the name of Christ,"[16] on the basis of having seen and heard Christ preach personally, is an example of unscholarly guessing, apparently engaged in for the purpose of imputing blame to those who were doing exactly what they should have done in affirming that they were indeed "of Christ." Would to God that all people, even as Paul, were "of Christ."

The three schismatic groups which were glorying in the names of people have had their counterparts in all ages. Such conduct then, as it still is, was sinful. Paul moved at once to show how ridiculous is the device of glorying in human teachers.

[12] Ibid. p. 1054.

[13] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 17.

[14] Adam Clarke, Commentary (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1831), New Testament, Vol. II, p. 192.

[15] James Macknight, Apostolical Epistle, with Commentary and Notes (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969), Vol. II, p. 22.

[16] T. Teignmouth Shore, Ellicott's Commentary on the Holy Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1959), Vol. XII, p. 290.