Verses 1 – 3

Paul wrote this letter to the church in Corinth. A man by the name of Sosthenes helped him compose this letter. Who was the co-author? Sosthenes was most likely an elder in the Jewish synagogue in Corinth while Paul was there, according to Acts 18:17. Sosthenes was beaten by a local mob in the presence of Gallio the Roman govenor, who chose not to intervene in what he regarded as a religious dispute (Acts 18:12-17). He apparently became a Christian before the end of Paul’s work in Corinth. He must have travelled from Corinth to Ephesus to visit Paul with the delegation of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor. 16:17-18).

When Paul addresses the church in Corinth he reminded them that they had been sanctified. Sanctification means to be set apart for exclusive use, dedicated, or consecrated. Sanctification is a process the produces an inward transformation that results in purity, moral rectitude, and an outward life of goodness and godliness. The Corinthians church needed to be reminded of this vision of themselves so they could appreciate what they would read in the later chapters of this letter. The Corinthians church had not been behaving in a morally pure manner in some areas of their fellowship.

Verses 4 – 9

Paul wanted the church to understand from the beginning of this letter that this document was a friendly statement. The letter contained criticism and rebuke, but these negative forms of communication were being offered for friendly reasons. So, Paul clearly affirms in these verses his positive attitude toward the Corinthian church.

Paul is thankful for the church in Corinth. Paul recognized the fact that the Lord had enriched the church in many ways. For example, Paul clearly recognized the presence of many positive spiritual gifts in that fellowship. He also affirms his confidence that God will continue to bless that church.

Verses 10 – 12

This is the key paragraph in the first four chapters of this letter. Paul introduces the first problem that he will address. It is the problem of division within the local church.

Paul, Apollos, and Peter (Cephas) had all preached in the pulpit of this church. Paul preached in Corinth for the first two year’s of that church’s existence. Apollos preached in Corinth after Paul left that city (Acts 18:27 – 19:1).

The case for Peter’s presence in Corinth is circumstantial. About the time Paul began his first missionary journey Peter was arrested in Jerusalem. Herod planned to put Peter to death (Acts 12). God sent an angel to free Peter from prison, and Peter had to leave Jerusalem and go into hiding to save his life (Acts 12:17). Peter returned briefly to Jerusalem after Herod died (Acts 15). But he did not remain long. By the end of Paul’s third missionary journey there is no sign of Peter’s presence in Jerusalem (Acts 21:17-20). We know that Peter did mission work in the region of Asia Minor around the Black Sea (1 Peter 1:1). We know he went to Rome (1 Peter 5:13 where "Babylon" = "Rome" as per Revelation 17:1-10). Anyone travelling from the Black Sea area to Rome would most likely pass through Corinth.

Each of these three evangelists had a unique style of communicating Jesus. Paul was a Jewish man who had grown up in a Roman city. He understood both Jewish and Gentile perspectives. He could communicate the message of the Jewish Messiah in Gentile terms. Apollos was a Jew who grew up in Alexandria, Egypt. He had a natural gift of eloquence, and he most likely received a high level of education in rhetoric. He could communicate to people in a clear, logical, and forceful manner. Peter was an uneducated man from Galilee. He had no background in the larger world of Rome or Egypt. He was a bold man with great courage. His style of communication must have been very Jewish in style and forceful in manner.

The Corinthian Christians were impressed that these three men were all followers of Jesus, but each had a unique way of communicating the message of Jesus. How were they to understand this diversity in the Christian movement?

The Corinthians lived only a few miles away from Athens. Athens had become one of the intellectual capitals of the world. It was the home of the world’s most famous Philosophers. The Corinthians were very familiar with the philosophical schools of Athens, and they looked to that paradigm as a basis for understanding the uniqueness among the Christian evangelists.

Let us first examine the Athenian paradigm and then compare it to the three Christian evangelists.

The first famous philosopher of Athens was Socrates. He was the father of Greek philosophy. Plato and Aristotle were his disciples. They, in turn, established their own flavors of philosophical thinking. Out of their movements came other wise men like Epicurus (Epicureanism), Zeno of Citium (Stoicism), Zeno of Elea (Skepticism), and Philo of Alexandria (Neoplatonism).

All Greeks who had an interest in wisdom would pay homage to Socrates just as all Christians would give their faith to Jesus. But Greeks would listen to the various teachings of diverse philosophers and select the one school of thinking that appealed the most to them. So, one Greek might say, "I am of Plato", another might say, "I am of Epicurus", and yet a third might say, "I am of Zeno of Citium". In the same way, one Christian man might be more attracted to the Paulene style of Christian teaching, another to Apollos, and yet another to Peter.

Greek philosophers looked upon the various divisions of thinking as being a positive thing. Men were proud to be affiliated with various schools of thinking. So, why not have a similar system in the church. They apparently tried to apply the philosophical paradigm to the church.

What did one group mean when they said, "I follow Christ"? In our modern ears that sounds like the best viewpoint for any Christian to affirm. However, you will notice that Paul does not compliment this group. Those who claim to follow Christ were analogous to the students of philosophy who would affirm, "I follow Socrates". Socrates was the father of all the diverse schools of philosophy that flowed from Athens. Followers of Socrates were not advocates of unity among students of philosophy – they were yet another faction. They saw themselves as being "purists" (holding to the original thinking of the father of Greek philosophy before later generations superimposed their own thinking). Those who claimed to follow Christ must have had a similar attitude about themselves.

Paul makes a direct appeal for unity. He does not want diverse tastes in styles of preaching to harm the unity of all believers.

Verses 13 - 17

Paul uses the subject of Christian baptism to demonstrate the futility of trying to divide the church into diverse segments based on personal preference for styles of preaching. All Christians share a common baptism, so why should they not share a common fellowship. Nobody is baptized into the name of Paul, or Apollos, or Peter. All are baptized into Christ. So, all should be one.

Paul said that he did not baptize very many people in Corinth. What does that mean? Acts 18:8 tells us that many people in Corinth became Christians. Apparently Paul’s associates performed most of the baptisms. Paul is happy that he did not personally baptize many people so that people could not even pretend that they had been baptized into the name of Paul.

Verse 17 is a pivotal verse in this section of First Corinthians. Paul makes a transition from this short discussion about baptism to the next focus on the subject of how we should not compare Christianity to philosophical movements.

Verse 17 begins with a statement that has confused many people. He says, "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel…" What does this statement mean?

The most radical supporters of the doctrine of salvation by faith (instead of salvation by works) claim that baptism does not save because they think of baptism as a work of merit. So, these people claim that Paul was saying that God did not send Paul to baptize because baptism was to be understood as being unimportant to our salvation just as circumcision is not important to our salvation.

But at this point in Paul’s letter, he is not concerned with the issue of the importance of baptism. His focus is on the unity of believers. His comments on baptism are designed to help us understand our unity in Christ.

Paul’s primary mission was to preach the gospel. Baptism was not Paul’s primary mission. Baptism was the responsibility of those who heard the gospel. On the day of judgment God will not hold Paul responsible for his failure to baptize every man, woman, and child in Corinth. God will reward Paul for his success in bringing the gospel to Corinth.

When Paul brought the gospel to Corinth, he did not declare the Good News using the logical paradigms of human wisdom (man-made philosophy). Paul understood the teachings of human philosophy (Acts 17:16-18), but he did not adapt its paradigms as bases for explaining Jesus. Why not? For fear that if he did preach the gospel on the bases of human philosophy that he would negate the power of God in the cross of Christ. The implication of this verse is that if Paul did not compare the gospel to human philosophy, then the Corinthians should not use man-made philosophy as a basis for justifying their divisive practices.