Intending to speak to them more strictly, he declares beforehand that he beseeches them by Christ. I, he says, cannot ask you alone, but I take for help the name of the Lord, in whose name you are called Christians, and which you have offended by wishing to be called by the names of men. Let it put you to shame!

So that you all speak the same thing, and there will be no divisions between you.

What do I beseech you for? For all of you to agree and not to be divided. For what is divided, although it would seem that instead of one it becomes many, in reality it is not done by many (for what is the use of a body divided into many parts?): in it unity is lost. Thus, he very emphatically called divisions what happened between them; by this word clearly shows how miserable their condition was.

But that you may be united in one spirit and in one thought.

He said above, that you should all say the same thing. Therefore, lest it should be thought that agreement consists only in words, he adds: in one spirit, that is, I beseech you to agree also in thoughts. But many people think differently about one subject, and differently about another; therefore he added: united in one spirit. Further, many are in agreement in the way of thinking, but differ in the disposition of the will (for example, when we have the same faith, but are not united to each other by love, then, although we think alike, we differ in the disposition of the will). Therefore, having said, "In one spirit," he added, "And in one thought," that is, that they should not disagree either about faith or about the disposition of the will.

For from the household of Chloe it has become known to me concerning you, my brethren.

In order not to be locked up, he brings witnesses, and so that it does not seem that he is inventing them, he calls them, saying: from the household of Chloe (there was a house in Corinth, called Chloe). He also calls them brethren: for though their sin was manifest, there was nothing to prevent them from being called brethren. However, he did not say who exactly had informed him, but pointed to the whole house in general, so as not to arm them against those who had notified.

That there are disputes between you.

When he reveals what he hears from others, he uses the milder expression of disputes, but when he speaks in his own person, he calls the same thing divisions (v. 10), which is much worse than disputes.

I understand what you say, "I am Paul"; "I am Apollos"; "I am Cephanes"; "but I am of Christ."

Not some say it, but you. However, the Corinthians did not say so, but the Apostle gives such a turn of phrase, wishing to show that if it is unforgivable to be called Paul's and Cephanes', then even more so - from the names of others. I am Cephanes. He mentioned Peter after himself, not in order to exalt himself, but to give him a greater preference, just as he mentioned Christ later. In general, in matters that should not be, he first mentions his own person. And I am Christ's. He reproaches not because they say, "And I am of Christ," but because not everyone says so: or, rather, he added this on his own behalf, wishing to make the reproof more powerful and to show that in this case Christ also is assimilated to one part, although the Corinthians did not do this.

Was Christ divided?

Why did you divide Christ? Why did they tear His body asunder? Speech full of anger. Are there some words that Christ is divided? understood thus: did Christ divide the Church from people and took one part for Himself, and gave the other to them?

Did Paul fall apart for you?