Lessons #19 and 20
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ 1. It is best to use this note after you have listened to the lessons because there are +
+ comments given in the actual exposition not in the note. +
+ 2. The Bible abbreviations are as follows: CEV =Contemporary English version, +
+ CEB = Common English Bible, ESV= English Standard Version, +
+ GWT = God’s Word Translation, ISV = International Standard Version, +
+ NAB=New English Bible, NASB= New American Standard Bible, +
+ NEB= New English Bible, NET = New English Translation, +
+ NLT = New Living Translations NJB = New Jerusalem Bible, +
+ NJV = New Jewish Bible, TEV = Today’s English Version. +
+AMP = Amplified Bible, UBS = United Bible Society +
+ 3. Notes have not been edited for grammatical errors. +
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Division among the Corinthians (1 Cor 1:10-17)
... 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
We ended our last study as we were considering the third fact to remember to help us avoid division in the local church which is that water baptism is not performed by any human name as per the apostle’s rhetorical question in the third question of 1 Corinthians 1:13 Were you baptized into the name of Paul? We raised the question of what the apostle meant in the question Were you baptized into the name of Paul? This we promised to answer in our study today. The question is tantamount to what the apostle meant to convey in the verbal phrase baptized into the name of Paul. To understand what the apostle meant, let us consider the key words used in the passage.
A first key word is “baptized” which is translated from a Greek word (baptizō) that has several meanings. The word may mean “to wash, purify” in a ceremonial manner so that something is purified. It is in this sense that the word is used to express the surprise of a Pharisee when Jesus did not wash His hands before meal in Luke 11:38:
But the Pharisee, noticing that Jesus did not first wash before the meal, was surprised.
The word may refer to the use of water in a religious ceremony for purpose of renewing or establishing a relationship with God so means “to plunge, dip, wash, baptize.” Thus, it was used in this sense of the dedicatory cleansing associated with the ministry of John the Baptist, as in John 3:23:
Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized.
It is in this sense that the word is used in the Christian ritual of initiation into the community of believers after Jesus’ death, as for example, in Acts 8:12:
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
The Greek word may mean “to baptize, to plunge” in the sense of causing someone to have an extraordinary experience. It is in this sense that the word is used by Jesus Christ to describe His death on the cross that He would experience, as stated in Luke 12:50:
But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!
The sentence I have a baptism to undergo of the NIV is more literally I have a baptism to be baptized which is an idiom that means to be overwhelmed by some difficult experience or ordeal. Thus, “baptize” may mean to experience something extraordinary which in this passage in Luke refers to the death of Christ on the cross. In our passage of 1 Corinthians 1:13, it is in the sense of the Christian ritual of initiation that the apostle used it.
The second key word is “name” that is translated from a Greek word (onoma) that can refer to the proper name of a person, that is, the distinctive designation of a person or an object as in the identification of the apostles of Jesus Christ in Matthew 10:2:
These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;
The word may mean “person, people” with the possible implication of existence or relevance as individuals, as it is used in Revelation 3:4:
Yet you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their clothes. They will walk with me, dressed in white, for they are worthy.
The phrase a few people is literally a few names. Related to this meaning of “person” is the sense of “authority” since the name of a person can represent that person himself, his authority, and all he is and does. Thus, to do anything in or by the name of a person or using the person’s name implies the person’s authority. It is with this meaning of “authority” that our Greek word is used in Jesus’ question to the Jews in John 10:25:
Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father’s name speak for me,
The phrase in my Father’s name refers to the authority of the Father, that is, the reason some English versions such as the CEV and the TEV rendered the phrase as by my Father’s authority. It is this sense of “authority” that the Jewish authorities used our word to question Apostle Peter regarding the authority he used in healing the crippled man, as we read in Acts 4:7:
They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?”
The UBS handbook on this passage suggests that the expression what name may be translated “by whose authority” or “who gave you the right”, implying that our Greek word may mean “authority.” The Greek word may mean “category” in the sense of the classification under which one belongs or based upon an implied designation for a class of entities. Thus, it is this meaning of our Greek word that is used in the Lord’s promise to those who are kind to prophets in Matthew 10:41:
Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward.
The clause who receives a prophet because he is a prophet is literally who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet. But according to standard Greek English lexicon (BDAG), it can be translated whoever receives a prophet within the category ‘prophet’, i.e. because he is a prophet, as a prophet. Our Greek word may mean recognition accorded a person on the basis of performance, hence means “reputation, fame, name”, as it is used to describe some members of the local church in Sardis in Revelation 3:1:
“To the angel of the church in Sardis write: These are the words of him who holds the seven spirits of God and the seven stars. I know your deeds; you have a reputation of being alive, but you are dead.
The sentence you have a reputation of being alive is more literally you have a name that you are alive. In our passage of 1 Corinthians 1:13, our Greek word is probably used in the sense of a person and all that the person is and does. This is because the apostle had mentioned in verse 12 the various individuals that were the objects of partisanship among the Corinthians. Thus, it is not merely their names that lead to an individual identifying with the ones named but what a given individual does, such as teaching. Hence, we contend that the word “name” in verse 13 refers to a person, his authority, and all associated with the individual.
The third key word in 1 Corinthians 1:13 is the preposition “into” that is translated from a Greek word (eis) with different meanings. In our passage, there are two possible meanings. It could mean “into, in” or “with reference to, with respect to.” However, it seems to me that the apostle used the Greek preposition with the meaning “with reference to, with respect to” as we will justify when we offer our interpretation of the verbal phrase baptized into the name of Paul we are considering.
Anyway, our consideration of the key words used in the verbal phrase we are considering leads us to interpret what Paul means in verbal phrase baptized into the name of Paul. We begin by stating what the apostle did not mean before we state what he meant. He did not mean that the Corinthians were put in union with him which will be the case if we take the Greek preposition to mean “into, in.” For in the passages, where the apostle intended for us to understand baptism in form of putting someone in union with Christ, he did not use the word “name” with the Greek preposition that may mean “into, in” or “with reference to, with respect to”, as we find, for example, in Romans 6:3:
Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
Here, being baptized into Christ means being put in union with Him as signified by believers’ water baptism just as they were put in union with His death. Having stated what the apostle did not mean in the verbal phrase baptized into the name of Paul, we now interpret what he meant. He meant that the Corinthians were not baptized with reference to his person. In effect, the apostle says to them that he did not preach himself to them before they were baptized, implying that their baptism has no reference to him. This interpretation is justified because in the Greek phrase where the three key words, we have considered, were used with respect to Jesus Christ implied that the person of Jesus was first preached to those baptized. Our phrase baptized into the name was used to describe the baptism of the Samaritans when Philip preached the gospel message to them that centered on the person of Jesus Christ. It was as they responded to the message about Jesus Christ that they were baptized, as we read in Acts 8:16:
because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
The fact that Jesus Christ was preached to the Samaritans is implied in the passage we cited previously, that is, Acts 8:12:
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Preaching the name of Jesus Christ is preaching His person as the Messiah. Thus, it is after preaching Him and the people believed that they were baptized. Thus, to be baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus implies being baptized with referencing the person of Jesus Christ. Another passage that the three key words used in 1 Corinthian 1:13 we examined were used is in Acts 19:5:
On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
The context indicates that the disciples Apostle Paul met in Ephesus knew only about the baptism associated with the preaching of John the Baptist. So, the apostle preached Christ to them, as implied in Acts 19:4:
Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”
It was after preaching the person of Jesus Christ that the disciples in Ephesus mentioned in the context were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. The implication is that it is after referencing the person of Jesus Christ and believing in Him that these individuals were baptized. Hence, our interpretation that when Apostle Paul wrote the question given in 1 Corinthians 1:13 Were you baptized into the name of Paul? he meant to say that he did not preach himself so that it could be thought that they were baptized with reference to his person. The implication is that they could not assert that they were his followers as apparently some of them were claiming. Hence, the point we are considering which is that one way to avoid division in the local church is to recognize that water baptism is not performed by referencing any human other the Lord Jesus Christ.
To drive home his point that the Corinthians were not baptized after the preaching of himself but of the person of Jesus Christ, the apostle denied baptizing them with few exceptions. It is this denial that he stated in the first part of 1 Corinthians 1:14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you.
According to the translation of the NIV that followed some earlier Greek manuscripts, the apostle did not mention the object of his thankfulness since that is missing in them, but it is implied that the object of his heartfelt gratitude is God as reflected in some of our English versions that followed some later Greek manuscripts that contained the word “God.” Nonetheless, that God is the object of the apostle’s thankfulness is implied. This we can establish by considering the sentence I am thankful that is translated from a Greek verb (eucharisteō) that may mean to show that one is under obligation hence “to be thankful, to feel obligated to thank.” This meaning is one that is found in diplomatic documents where one is obligated to reciprocate favor rendered. This meaning of feeling of indebtedness is probably intended in the apostle’s use of the word in referencing Aquila and Priscilla in Romans 16:4:
They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.
The clause Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them is more literally for which not only I am thankful, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. The implication is that the apostle is grateful to the husband and wife team. This being the case, then this is the only passage in the Greek NT that the Greek word is used with human as the object. The object of its other occurrences is God. Apostle Paul used it in offering thanks to God before meal, as we read in Acts 27:35:
After he said this, he took some bread and gave thanks to God in front of them all. Then he broke it and began to eat.
By the way, it is certainly to God the Father that our Greek word is used as that will be in keeping with the fact that Jesus Himself offered thanks to the Father before the miracle of feeding the thousands in Matthew 15:36:
Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people.
It is true that the object of the thanksgiving in the clause when he had given thanks is not specified but we can be certain that it is to God the Father that Jesus offered His thanks in this passage. This we can deduce from the fact that when Jesus offered thanks in prayer it is to the Father, according to John 11:41:
So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, “Father, I thank you that you have heard me.
It is to God the Father that the Apostle Paul directed his thanksgiving, as we can gather from Ephesians 5:20:
always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Most of the time, the apostle offered thanks to God, as for example, in Romans 1:8:
First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.
This passage and others like it is probably the reason the word “God” is inserted in the later Greek manuscripts of the passage of 1 Corinthians 1:14 that we are considering. That aside, the phrase my God in Romans 1:8 refers to God the Father for two reasons. God the Father is usually the One addressed in prayer as implied in the pattern prayer the Lord taught His disciples in His Sermon on the Mount. Furthermore, Jesus Christ is mentioned in this passage as the channel of offering thanks to God. Thus, we should expect that it is to God the Father that the thanksgiving in view was directed. Anyway, it is our assertion that our Greek word, except for Romans 16:4 where the object of thanksgiving could be a human, is overwhelmingly used with God as its object. This statement, of course, implies that Jesus Christ is God since He was the recipient of thanksgiving during His earthly ministry, as recorded in Luke 17:16:
He threw himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him—and he was a Samaritan.
The point is that whether stated or not, the object of giving thanks, based on the Greek word used in our passage of 1 Corinthians 1:14, is God. Consequently, when the apostle wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:14 I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you, the object of his thanks is God.
The apostle’s thankfulness to God concerns His working in him so that he did not baptize most members of the local church in Corinth with the exceptions he mentioned first in the sentence of 1 Corinthians 1:14 I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius.
Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth. The apostle’s reference to him is to be understood that he was cited as the head of his household since, the apostle baptized not only him but those of his household, as we can infer from Acts 18:8:
Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.
True, Luke (human author of Acts) did not specifically mention that Crispus was baptized but that is implied. Not only is it implied that the apostle baptized Crispus but also that of his entire household who believed. This we can infer from the mention of baptizing the household of Stephanas in 1 Corinthians 1:16 that we will get to shortly. Furthermore, it seems to be the pattern of the apostle to baptize a household once the head and the members of the household respond to the gospel message. We say this because when Lydia believed she was baptized along with members of her household who presumably believed, as recorded in Acts 16:14–15:
14 One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. 15 When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.
In another occasion that involved the Philippian jailer, after his salvation, the apostle baptized him and his household, as we can infer from Acts 16:33:
At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.
Hence, we contend that although the apostle did not mention the household of Crispus that he baptized members of his household that were saved and so his reference to Crispus should be understood as a reference to him and his household.
The next person the apostle mentioned is Gaius that apparently lived in Corinth during his ministry. We do not know anything about him since, unlike, Crispus, he was not mentioned as one who was converted during the apostle’s ministry in Corinth. In fact, the name is used to describe several believers. There is the Gaius who was the apostle’s traveling companion from Macedonia, as we read in Acts 19:29:
Soon the whole city was in an uproar. The people seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia, and rushed as one man into the theater.
There was a Gaius from Derbe mentioned in Acts 20:4:
He was accompanied by Sopater son of Pyrrhus from Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe, Timothy also, and Tychicus and Trophimus from the province of Asia.
There was the Gaius to whom Apostle John directed his third epistle as stated in 3 John 1:
The elder, To my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in the truth.
It seems that the Gaius mentioned in our passage of 1 Corinthians was the one Apostle Paul was living with when he wrote the epistle to the Romans, as implied in Romans 16:23:
Gaius, whose hospitality I and the whole church here enjoy, sends you his greetings.
Erastus, who is the city’s director of public works, and our brother Quartus send you their greetings.
If we are correct that the Gaius the apostle mentioned in his epistle to the Romans was the same person mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:14, then the apostle was living with him when he wrote his epistle to the Romans. The implication is that for Gaius to demonstrate hospitality to the apostle and the church suggests that he also had his household baptized like Crispus. In effect, the apostle might have mentioned him as the head of his household that he baptized. We are saying that when the apostle mentioned Gaius, he was thinking not only of him but also members of his household as those he baptized in keeping with the pattern we have observed of the apostle baptizing all the believers of a given household.
The thankfulness of the apostle to God for not baptizing members of the local church in Corinth except for the few exceptions he has mentioned so far and will mention shortly was because of what could have been said by the members of the local church in Corinth. The thing they could have said but were unable to say is given in the clause of 1 Corinthians 1:15 so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.
The conjunction “so” that begins verse 15 is translated from a Greek conjunction (hina) that has several usages. It can, for example, be used as a marker of explanatory clause with the translation “that is, namely.” It may be used a marker of the content of discourse, especially if purpose is implied leading to the translation “that.” It can also be used as a marker of purpose with the translation “in order that” but in our context, it is used as a marker of result hence may be translated “so that, as a result.” In effect, the apostle stated the result that would have been expected if he had baptized many of the believers in Corinth. The result is that they could then claim they were baptized with reference to the apostle’s person as in the verbal phrase baptized into my name.
In any case, the apostle mentions another group of believers he baptized in Corinth in the sentence Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Although the apostle mentioned Stephanas and his household last, he and his household were probably the first the apostle baptized. We say this because Stephanas was the first convert in the Roman province of Achaia, according to 1 Corinthians 16:15:
You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. I urge you, brothers,
Achaia was a Roman province that included most of southern and central Greece, with its capital in Corinth. Thus, when the apostle indicated the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia that means they were the first converts in Corinth and so we can infer they were the first to be baptized by the apostle. The fact the apostle mentioned him and his household last may be because he was with the apostle when he wrote this epistle to the Corinthians, as implied in his assertion of 1 Corinthians 16:17:
I was glad when Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus arrived, because they have supplied what was lacking from you.
Because Stephanas was with the apostle when he wrote this epistle, his mind focused on those in Corinth that he did not mention Stephanas but as he reflected on believers he knew in Corinth, he remembered Stephanas, so he mentioned him and his household last.
The apostle declaration Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas implies that God’s election applies to a household. By this I mean that it seems that if a parent is an elect that his children would also be of the elect. True, we do not have a direct statement to this implication but the phrase the household of Stephanas leads us to this conclusion. This is because we have already noted that when the apostle baptized an individual who was the head of a household that members of the household were said to have believed and so were baptized. This was the case with that of the Lydia, the Philippian jailer, and that of Crispus in the passage we cited previously, that is, Acts 18:8:
Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.
This pattern of referring to the entire household believing in the Lord and so were baptized leads me to conclude that God’s election would include those of the same household. This means that although a child of the parents of the elect may not yet be a believer that we would expect that that child will one day be saved.
Be that as it may, the apostle declared that only those he has mentioned so far in this section of 1 Corinthians that we are studying are those he recollected baptizing. It is this recollection that he stated in last clause of 1 Corinthians 1:16 beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.
This statement of the apostle may raise a question in the minds of some individuals as how the apostle could not remember if he baptized anyone else if he wrote under the control of the Holy Spirit. The answer to such a question is to remember that inspiration implies that the final thing written down is exactly what the Holy Spirit wants the human author to express. The situation of the apostle not recalling of any other person that he might have baptized is a declaration of that which is truthful. Thus, when he wrote down that he did not remember, inspiration implies that the Holy Spirit ensured that what the apostle said regarding his memory was truthful. What the apostle said should not be taken as invalidation of the Lord’s promise regarding the Holy Spirit in John 14:26:
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
This promise concerns teaching or God’s word taught to an individual and not any other event that takes place in a believer’s life. Thus, we cannot because of what the apostle stated of not remembering any other person he might have baptized imply that what he wrote was not inspired. If anything, the apostle’s assertion refutes the theory of those who think that inspiration means that God the Holy Spirit dictates to the human authors what to write. There is no doubt that there were instances where it seemed the Lord dictated to prophets what to write but that was not the case, only that inspiration means that when the prophets who have received God’s word wrote, they wrote down exactly what God intended for them to write as was the case with Prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 30:2:
"This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you.
This passage appears to be a dictation, but it is not. For if Jeremiah wrote under dictation he would have written as God spoke to him but the implication here is that he wrote what God spoke to him after God had finished speaking and so what he wrote could hardly be considered a dictation. A true case of dictation involved Jeremiah using a scribe, as in Jeremiah 36:15-18:
15 They said to him, "Sit down, please, and read it to us." So Baruch read it to them. 16 When they heard all these words, they looked at each other in fear and said to Baruch, "We must report all these words to the king." 17 Then they asked Baruch, "Tell us, how did you come to write all this? Did Jeremiah dictate it?" 18 "Yes," Baruch replied, "he dictated all these words to me, and I wrote them in ink on the scroll."
That aside, dictation is not the normal way that God the Holy Spirit guided the human authors to write down the words of our Scripture. The Holy Spirit controlled them in such a way that the words they wrote were exactly what He wanted them to pen down. This is what the Holy Spirit tells us as to how we received our Scripture in 2 Peter 1:20-21:
20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
The point is that when the apostle wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:16 beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else, the Holy Spirit guided him to write truthfully what was the situation. The fact that he wrote under the guidance of the Holy Spirit did not change his human personality or knowledge so that he would not forget something. He merely wrote truthfully and so what he wrote does not mean that his epistle was not inspired.
The apostle having mentioned those he recollected baptizing, made a statement to the Corinthians that may be understood as an explanation for what he said about not baptizing many of the Corinthians or that what he stated is an important point or that he was transitioning to another topic. These interpretations are due to the possible meanings of the Greek word translated “for” that began verse 17
The word “for” that began verse 17 is translated from a Greek conjunction (gar) that has several usages. For example, it can be used as a marker of cause or reason with the translation “for.” It may be taken as marker of inference hence may be translated “so, then.” It may also be used as a marker of clarification and so may be translated “for, you see.” Under this usage the Greek conjunction may be used to signal an important point or to indicate a transition into something else in which case it may be translated “now” or left untranslated. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, the conjunction could be used either for explanation or for introducing an important point that in effect conveys the sense of transitioning into another topic. While it is possible that the apostle could have explained the reason, he did not baptize most of the Corinthians, it is more likely that he wanted to direct their attention to the important point he stated next that is an introduction to another topic he was about to focus in his epistle.
The important point of the apostle is that his primary function was to preach the gospel of Christ as he stated in 1 Corinthians 1:17 Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel. This sentence has been taken by some as a justification for not practicing water baptism. There is nothing in this passage that supports that position; instead, the apostle is concerned with putting things in the right perspective. When he stated that Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach he was thinking more of his personal commission to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ that did not make any reference to water baptism, as we read in Acts 26:15–18:
15 “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ “‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
Thus, the apostle intended to convey that his commission was primarily that of preaching the gospel message. This does not mean that he should not baptize anyone in keeping with the Lord’s instruction in the commission given to the church regarding preaching the gospel, instructing, and baptizing believers. No! As we have been emphasizing, the apostle wants the Corinthians to know that water baptism was not on top of his commission but preaching of the gospel message. He knew it was part of the instruction of the church to baptize converts but that that was not his priority. He simply focused on preaching the gospel. If the apostle meant to say that water baptism has ceased or should not be practiced, then it is difficult to understand why he should baptize those he mentioned. Thus, his point was simply that his focus is that of preaching the gospel and not that of baptism.
Evidently, the apostle understood that he could not delegate the preaching of the gospel to anyone else, but that water baptism could be delegated to others. In other words, the apostle realized that others could carry on the function of water baptism while he focused on preaching the gospel. His understanding that someone else could carry on water baptism instead of himself may be rooted in two examples he certainly was aware. The first example is Jesus’ preaching of the gospel without baptizing anyone but delegated that to His disciples, according to John 4:1–2:
1The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, 2 although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples.
The second example was that of Peter who after preaching the gospel to Cornelius and those assembled with him and upon the outpouring of the Spirit upon the believers, ordered them to be baptized, as recorded in Acts 10:48:
So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
This passage indicates that Peter himself did not baptize the new converts but delegated that responsibility to the believers who accompanied him from Joppa to Cornelius’ house. These two examples that Paul was aware would have caused him not to be personally involved in water baptism except for unusual situations. Hence, it is not that he felt that water baptism should not be practiced but that it was not the primary focus of his commission, which is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The preaching of the gospel that the apostle was commissioned to carry out was not something to be done relying on human intelligence or oratory. It is this fact that he stated in the phrase of 1 Corinthian 1:17 not with words of human wisdom or more literally not with wisdom of speech since there is no word “human” in the Greek text but it is the way the translators of the NIV wanted to convey to the English readers regarding what is meant with the word “wisdom” in this passage.
The word “wisdom” is translated from a Greek word (sophia) that means the capacity to understand and, as a result, to act wisely. Therefore, there are two kinds of wisdom conveyed with the Greek word. There is the natural wisdom or insight that is obtained through education as that which Moses acquired by his training as an adopted member of the royal family of Egypt as stated in Acts 7:22:
Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action.
There is also that wisdom that is given directly by God to those who are in close relationship with Him that is mentioned, for example, in the apostle’s prayer for the Colossians, as we read in Colossians 1:9:
For this reason, since the day we heard about you, we have not stopped praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding.
Certainly, the apostle could not be referring to spiritual wisdom that God gives but to the natural wisdom that humans obtain through education. This wisdom that is acquired from training could result in one being able to communicate effectively to others as implied in the phrase words of human wisdom of the NIV or more literally wisdom of speech.
The use of the word “speech” is because the Greek uses a word (logos) that is concerned with communication. It may mean “word” as it relates to utterance. It may mean “message, instruction, teaching” as that given through the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12:8:
To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit,
It is in the sense of “speech” that the word is used in 2 Corinthians 8:7:
But just as you excel in everything—in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in complete earnestness and in your love for us—see that you also excel in this grace of giving.
His denial of being a great or a clever speaker as the Greeks understood oratory is that the effectiveness of the gospel message does not depend on human ability but on God’s power. It is this that he conveyed in the last clause of lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. The phrase the cross of Christ refers to the death of Christ on the cross. The death of Christ on the cross is so powerful in its effect so that forgiveness of sins is extended to anyone who believes in Christ. In effect, the impact of Christ’s death is so powerful that it is not a matter of how one presents the gospel that is important as the impact of the gospel because of the death of Christ. If the preaching of gospel message depends on clever speech, then the gospel message will be deprived of its power or impact. You see, there is no independent word “power” in the Greek but it is essential to convey the apostle’s point since the word “emptied” is translated from a Greek word (kenoō) that here means to cause to be without result and so means “to destroy, render void or of no effect” hence in our context, it means “to cause to loss of power.” Again, if the effectives of the gospel message depends on oratory or well-reasoned speech then the power of the death of Christ on the cross is destroyed or rendered ineffective.
In any event, as we end our consideration of this section of 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, let me remind you of the central message that we have considered, which is, Guard against division in this local church. In expounding this message, we have also presented three propositions. A first proposition is division is possible in any local church as demonstrated in the local church in Corinth. A second proposition of the message of this passage we are considering is that division often takes the form of partisanship. A third proposition of the message of this passage is that division can be avoided by focusing on Christ and not on human personalities. Keep these in your mind as you think of the message, that is, Guard against division in this local church.
02/02/18