What I mean is that each one of you says, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apol′los,” or “I belong to Cephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

λέγω δὲ τοῦτο ὅτι ἕκαστος ὑμῶν λέγει· ἐγὼ μέν εἰμι Παύλου, ἐγὼ δὲ Ἀπολλῶ, ἐγὼ δὲ Κηφᾶ, ἐγὼ δὲ Χριστοῦ.

Early Fathers

St. John Chrysostom (349-407)

Homilies on First Corinthians

That each one of you says, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas. I say, contentions, says he, I mean, not about private matters, but of the more grievous sort. That each one of you says; for the corruption pervaded not a part, but the whole of the Church. And yet they were not speaking about himself, nor about Peter, nor about Apollos; but he signifies that if these were not to be leaned on, much less others. For that they had not spoken about them, he says further on: And these things I have transferred in a figure unto myself and Apollos, that you may learn in us not to go beyond the things which are written. For if it were not right for them to call themselves by the name of Paul, and of Apollos, and of Cephas, much less of any others. If under the Teacher and the first of the Apostles, and one that had instructed so much people, it were not right to enroll themselves, much less under those who were nothing. By way of hyperbole then, seeking to withdraw them from their disease, he sets down these names. Besides, he makes his argument less severe, not mentioning by name the rude dividers of the Church, but concealing them, as behind a sort of masks, with the names of the Apostles.

I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas. Not esteeming himself before Peter has he set his name last, but preferring Peter to himself, and that greatly. He arranged his statement in the way of climax, (κατὰ αῦξησιν) that he might not be supposed to do this for envy; or, from jealousy, to be detracting from the honor of others. Wherefore also he put his own name first. For he who puts himself foremost to be rejected, does so not for love of honor, but for extreme contempt of this sort of reputation. He puts himself, you see, in the way of the whole attack, and then mentions Apollos, and then Cephas. Not therefore to magnify himself did he do this, but in speaking of wrong things he administers the requisite correction in his own person first.

5. But that those who addicted themselves to this or that man were in error, is evident. And rightly he rebukes them, saying, You do not well in that you say, 'I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas.' But why did he add, And I of Christ? For although these who addicted themselves to men were in error, not surely (οὔδε που Bened. οὐ δήπου Savil.) those who dedicated themselves unto Christ. But this was not his charge, that they called themselves by the Name of Christ, but that they did not all call themselves by that Name alone. And I think that he added this of himself, wishing to make the accusation more grievous, and to point out that by this rule Christ must be considered as belonging to one party only: although they were not so using the Name themselves.

Later Commentaries

George Leo Haydock (1774-1849)

Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary: 1 Corinthians

Chloe was a Christian woman of Corinth. Apollo is the person mentioned, Acts xviii. 24. &c. Cephas is S. Peter, so called in the Syriac tongue. V.