First Corinthians 1:1 says, “Paul, a called apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Sosthenes the brother.” An apostle is a sent one. Paul was such a one, not self-appointed but called by the Lord. His apostleship was authentic (9:1-5; 2 Cor. 12:11-12; see also 2 Cor. 11:13; Rev. 2:2), having the authority of God’s New Testament government (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10). Based upon this position with this authority, the apostle wrote this Epistle, not only to nourish and build the saints in Corinth, but also to regulate and adjust the church there.
It is worthwhile to compare the way Paul refers to his apostleship in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus with what he says in 1 Corinthians. In 1 Timothy 1:1 Paul says that he was an apostle of Christ Jesus according to the command of God and of Christ Jesus. In 2 Timothy 1:1 he speaks of himself as an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus. In Titus 1:1 and 2 Paul says that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of God’s chosen ones, and the full knowledge of the truth which is according to godliness, and in the hope of eternal life. First Corinthians 1:1 emphasizes two matters pertaining to Paul’s apostleship, that Paul was a called apostle of Christ Jesus and that he became an apostle through the will of God.
That Paul was a called apostle indicates that he was not self-selected or self-appointed, that his apostleship was not initiated from himself. Since Brother Nee’s book The Normal Christian Church has appeared in print, many have begun to regard themselves as apostles who are actually self-chosen ones. Paul, on the contrary, was a genuine apostle, a called apostle. He certainly did not have the intention to be a sent one of Christ Jesus. Instead, as one devoted to Judaism, he intended to persecute those who called on the name of the Lord. But one day, on the way to Damascus, the Lord appeared to him, and he received God’s calling. He was called to be an apostle by the ascended Christ. Hence, his apostleship was initiated not from himself, but from the Christ in the heavens.
In 1:1 Paul says that he was an apostle through the will of God. The will of God is His determination for the carrying out of His purpose. Through this will Paul was called to be an apostle of Christ. This assertion strengthens his apostolic position and authority. In other Epistles Paul also tells us that he was an apostle through the will of God (2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1). The will of God here is related to God’s administration, to God’s government. Paul was called according to God’s will and under God’s administration to carry out God’s New Testament economy. This is a matter of great significance. Paul was appointed and called according to God’s will to carry out His administration.
Because Paul was called to be an apostle according to Christ’s initiative and through the will of God for the carrying out of His administration, Paul had both the position and authority of God’s sent one. Thus, he had the ground to write this Epistle. First Corinthians, therefore, is not simply a book of teaching; it is also a book of authority. For example, in 4:21 Paul asks the Corinthians, “What do you want? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of meekness?” As a called apostle through the will of God, Paul had the position and authority of an apostle.
In 1:1 Paul not only refers to himself but also mentions Sosthenes the brother. Probably this Sosthenes was not the same person as the Sosthenes in Acts 18:17. That Sosthenes was a ruler of the synagogue in Corinth when Paul was persecuted there. This Epistle was written in Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:8) not long after the apostle left Corinth. This Sosthenes, as a brother in the Lord, must have joined the apostle in his traveling ministry. The mention of him here strengthens Paul’s apostleship and indicates the principle of the Body.
In 1:2 we have the receivers of this Epistle. It was written to “the church of God which is in Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints.” The church of God! What an expression! It is not the church of Cephas, of Apollos, of Paul, nor of any practice or doctrine, but of God. In spite of all the division, sin, confusion, abuse of gifts, and heretical teaching in the church in Corinth, the apostle still called it the church of God, because the divine and spiritual essence which makes the assembled believers the church of God was actually there. Such a spiritual address by the apostle was based on his spiritual view in looking upon the church in Christ. Such a simple address alone should eliminate all division and confusion both in practice and in doctrine.
In verse 2 Paul speaks of “the church of God which is in Corinth.” The church was constituted of the universal God, but existed in Corinth, a definite locality on this earth. In nature the church is universal in God, but in practice the church is local in a definite place. Hence, the church has two aspects: the universal and the local. Without the universal aspect, the church has no content; without the local aspect, it is impossible for the church to have any expression and practice. Hence, the New Testament stresses also the local aspect of the church (Acts 8:1; 13:1; Rev. 1:11).
Paul’s description of the church is marvelous. However, Christians have not paid adequate attention to it. The church is the church of God, for it is constituted of the divine nature. The expression “the church of God” indicates that the church has the nature of God, that it is constituted of the element of God. Therefore, the church is of God. This is the universal aspect of the church. But the church which is of God is also local. In this case, it is the church of God in Corinth.
In this one verse we see both the universal aspect and the local aspect of the church. The universal aspect refers to the constitution, nature, and content of the church, and the local aspect refers to the expression and practicality of the church. If we have only the local aspect, but not the aspect of the church being of God, we shall have only an outward formality. We shall be lacking the inward reality. But if we have only the universal aspect, but not the local aspect of the church in a particular locality, we shall have the reality but not the practicality. On the one hand, the church is constituted of God; on the other hand, the church is expressed in a particular locality.
Not many Christian teachers have seen these two aspects of the church. In their writings, some may speak concerning the church of God, and others may say something about the church being in Corinth. But we need to be impressed that the description of the church in 1:2 includes the two aspects of the church, the universal and the local. We also must understand that the universal aspect refers to the nature and content of the church and that the local aspect refers to the practicality and expression of the church. We today must have both aspects. We must be the church of God in a certain locality, for example, in Anaheim, Vancouver, or Philadelphia. We should be universal as well as local, and local as well as universal. We all should be able to say that we are from the church of God in a particular place. When someone asks you to what church you belong, you should say that you belong to the church of God in your particular locality. In the Lord’s recovery we have the universal church expressed and practiced in particular localities.