1 Corinthians

Friday, 21 March 2014

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. 1 Corinthians 1:17

In Matthew 28:19, 20 we read what is known as the Great Commission – “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.”

However, this doesn’t mean that Paul is being disobedient in his words to the Corinthians. Rather, he has already indicated that he baptized some at Corinth and surely others elsewhere. In addition to this, there are those who are evangelists, there are those who disciple, there are those who serve in other ways, etc. Even Jesus is noted as not being the one to baptize others during His ministry. This is seen in John 4:1, 2 – “Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John ² (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples).”

Paul’s primary mission then wasn’t to baptize. He probably had others do this. It was time consuming, especially because full immersion baptism is what the Bible implies. Also, it is intended to follow acceptance of Christ. Paul, as an evangelist, would move often whereas those in the church would be available to baptize new converts at a convenient time and location, even if Paul moved on. And also, as he already noted in his previous comments, baptizing people can lead to divisions and strife. This would be especially so if a competent visitor came to town. If he was gaining converts and baptizing them also, then there would be a division in allegiances; something that actually occurred at Corinth even without baptisms being added in.

Rather than being one who baptized, Paul said his commission was “to preach the gospel.” And this is what he tirelessly did. The record of Acts especially shows that Paul preached to kings, jailers, nobles, and common folk. He preached at an open-air stadium and in synagogues. He preached with words and he preached with actions. He preached to Jew and he preached to Gentile. He met each person on their level and he never missed the chance to tell the wondrous news of salvation through Jesus Christ. This was his main calling and the motivation behind his very life.

And as he preached, he did so “not with wisdom of words.” In other words, he used the common language and experiences of those around him. It is noted that the Greeks were a society of deep philosophy and mental contemplation. They were often practiced in smooth oral deliveries and were able to tie in high emotional peaks in order to capture the attention and hearts of their listeners. This is very common in modern churches once again. There is an appeal to emotion and there is a high value placed on flashy deliveries and impressive effects to pull the audience in.

But Paul dismissed these tactics. The message of Christ isn’t one of philosophical depth or emotional manipulation. It is a message of the consequences of sin and the mercy of God in dealing with those consequences through the cross of His own Son. For this reason, Paul dismissed the dramatic “lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.” In other words, if people can be satisfied in their lives without the cross, then that satisfaction would seemingly negate the need for it. But the cross demonstrates that there are real consequences for sin and that a real penalty is therefore demanded.

Paul’s only desire was that his message would be clearly and competently stated so that those who heard it wouldn’t be misdirected by a false gospel and a belief that the cross was somehow unnecessary for them. In fact, Paul’s desire to stick to the very basics when transmitting his message made him appear extraordinarily boring. In his second letter to the Corinthians, we read this from his hand –

“For his letters,” they say, “are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible.” 2 Corinthians 10:10

This almost sounds like a theologian who is locked away in a library and only comes out once in a while to share his new discoveries – “weighty and powerful” letters, but “contemptible” speech because he never bothered with training in flashy oration. But this is exactly what is needed in our Christian world today, not ostentatious sermons with showy backdrops, but sound theology and words directed to Jesus and His work.

Life application: There is one Lord and one gospel. The good news is that Jesus Christ went to the cross to pay our sin debt and that there is no other way to heaven than through His work. Sin has real consequences that must be considered in light of His cross. Let us not get so caught up in the hype of a gaudy church presentation that we miss the wonder of God’s word.

Lord, I’d rather hear a monotone discourse explaining Your word, than hear the finest speaker on earth who would tickle my ears and give me no instruction from the pages of the Bible. Thank You for preachers who lack flash, but profess Your glory. Bless them and prosper them in their souls. Amen.

Thursday, 20 March 2014

Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 1 Corinthians 1:16

As Paul is putting forth his thoughts for the epistle, he realizes that when he had just stated that, “I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius…” wasn’t exactly correct. And so he amends his thoughts here using the Greek term de. As Vincent’s Word Studies indicates, “The de … has a slightly corrective force.” It would then be something like writing, “I only like chocolate ice cream. Oh, and I also like vanilla and strawberry too.” It isn’t an untruth, but a thought based on reflection.

In the process of his thoughts came the reminder of “the household of Stephanas,” and suddenly he realized that he had “also baptized” them. In 1 Corinthians 16:15, Paul will call the household of Stephanas “the firstfruits of Achaia.” They had readily come to Christ at the first preaching of the gospel and Paul had baptized them. Because it was at such an early point, certainly before any formal church or meeting place had been established, it had slipped his mind. Then, to ward off any other omissions as intentional deceit, he finally adds in, “Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.”

There could have been someone that he had simply forgotten about. Maybe there was someone there in Stephanas’ household that wasn’t a member of the family or servants who could later state that what Paul said wasn’t accurate. He has thus preempted such a charge. In the coming verse, he will explain further the reason for his detailed words concerning baptism.

This is a good verse to stop and consider what “household” means in connection with “baptism.” This is especially needed because the doctrine of “infant baptism” is often tied to this and several other verses because the term “household” seems all inclusive. The word rendered “household” is oikos and generally covers the two greater concepts of a) a house, the material building, and (b) a household, family, lineage, nation. Depending on the context, it refers to any of the following: descendants, families, family, home, homes, house, household, households, itself, palaces, or place.

In Titus 1:10, 11 Paul makes the following statement –

“For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain.”

Speaking of those who are disruptive and destructive, he says that they “subvert whole households.” In this, he uses the adjective translated as “whole” in order to show that entire households can be swept up into false teachings. If the term “households” was intended as all-inclusive for baptism (including infants), one would think that a similar adjective would be used. Being baptized into the faith is surely as important as being apostatized!

Therefore, the term “household” which is a general term, should be considered in a general sense unless it is accompanied by an adjective to further refine what is being stated. It is only a presupposition at best to state that infant baptism is intended by passages such as this one. Further, because baptism reflects a personal commitment to the Lord, it should be on the more conservative interpretation of “household” that an interpretation should be made; it is general in nature, not specific and all-inclusive.

Finally, the wording in today’s verse which shows that Paul isn’t completely sure of a matter (meaning who he had baptized) in no way diminishes the doctrine of “divine inspiration.” Just because something isn’t known by the human author of an epistle has no bearing on whether or not the Holy Spirit knows. There are ten jillion times ten jillion things (and more!) known to the Holy Spirit which are unknown to any human. What He chooses to include in His word is at His prerogative, including human failings and uncertainties.

Life application: Seemingly insignificant verses found in the Bible often contain some of the most theologically important concepts for us to consider. As you read the Bible, take time to think on “why” certain things are mentioned and why the Holy Spirit allowed their inclusion in the Bible. Don’t listen to liberal-minded scholars who would try to diminish the importance of what is stated, but think on what God is conveying to you. Every word is pure and perfect and is given to us to learn more about God’s wonderful plan for us.

O God, I often read Your word and wonder why certain things are included in it. Some things seem harsh, some seem confusing, and some seem without purpose. It is at these times that I know I need to stop and consider why You would include them. When I attempt to look at things from the greater perspective, I often realize that what I thought at first was wrong… Instead, I see things from a different way and realize that every word is so perfectly placed. What a wondrous joy it is to read and think on Your word. Thank You for it, O God. Amen.

Wednesday, 19 March 2014

…lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 1 Corinthians 1:15

Paul had a unique commission which transitioned the church from almost a solely Jewish entity into one which was quickly growing in gentile converts. At some point, a majority of gentiles would inevitably exist, thus the church would be considered a gentile entity. And this would have been brought about by the instruction and writings of Paul. If he were to have been out baptizing people in large numbers, others who disliked this move to gentile predominance could easily make the charge that Paul had baptized these people into his own name.

Thus, this would become “the church of Paul” regardless of whether he directed the disciples to Christ or not. As noted in verses 10 and 12, such divisions exist in today’s church. Rightly or wrongly, we identify ourselves among a host of lines. Some are by name – “I am a Lutheran.” Some are by doctrine – “I am a Baptist.” Some are by a member of the Godhead other than Jesus, “I belong to the Church of the Holy Spirit.”

Within the church there is misdirection, there is division, and there is boasting in individual names. Paul tried to waive this type of thing off from the start by not making the work of Christ about himself. Instead, he proclaimed Christ and made his sole boasting in the cross of Christ (Galatians 6:14). In some ways, divisions are inevitable and even healthy. When Paul and Barnabas divided over an argument, they were able to accomplish twice the work that had previously been done.

Dividing from a church because it is straying from the truth of Christ is a good thing. However, in the process of division, care needs to be taken that the division doesn’t produce another idol. Paul’s example is one that will keep such things from occurring. His continuous boasting in Christ is the right approach at all times and in all seasons!

Life application: He who boasts, let him boast in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Lord Jesus, help me to continuously and forever redirect my heart to You. It is You alone who fulfilled the Scriptures, died for me, and was resurrected to life again. If I am to boast in another’s preaching, may it only be because he preaches about You. May the song on my lips be one which brings You honor. And may my every step be one securely planted on the truth of Your superior word. Amen.

Tuesday, 18 March 2014

I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius… 1 Corinthians 1:14

In what seems an unusual statement at first, Paul notes his great thanks to God that he didn’t baptize any of those at Corinth with the exception of a few he will name. He will give the reason in the verses ahead though and we will see that it bears directly on what he has said in the previous three verses concerning divisions and contentions.

If Paul was the one to have baptized all of these people, then those who were instigating the contentions could state that he was setting himself up as some type of figurehead to be more greatly honored or followed. Instead however, he pursued his job without looking for the notoriety that he could have attached to it by being the “chief baptizer” of the flock.

Baptism is one of the most precious and memorable moments in a believer’s life and it certainly is an honor to participate in the baptism of someone. This is why families often gather around, pictures are taken, and special care is often used to decide who will get the honor of conducting the rite. It could be comparable in importance to choosing who will marry a couple or perform a funeral.

Regarding this highly notable honor of conducting baptisms, Paul states that “I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius.” Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth as is noted in Acts 18:8 –

“Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.”

This baptism by Paul certainly made sense. As the ruler of the synagogue and a person in a prominent position to convince others of the truth of the gospel, he himself would then be qualified to perform the rite on others. It would make no sense to not baptize him because then who would do so? But once he was baptized, then he could take over this solemn responsibility for the others who chose Christ.

Concerning Gaius, there is a Gaius seen in Acts 19 during a time of trouble in Ephesus. Then, a “Gaius of Derbe” is noted in Acts 20. Paul notes a Gaius in Romans 16:23 also. And finally, there is a Gaius to whom the letter 3 John is written to. The Gaius being referred to by Paul here is certainly the one mentioned in Romans and he may be the one whom John wrote to. He was Paul’s host and so he probably baptized him personally because of the care he had taken for him as his host.

As a side note to Paul’s statement here, baptism in the New Testament always follows conversion. The doctrine of “infant baptism,” though going back to very early times, is not a scriptural tenet. The claim by adherents to infant baptism is that it is comparable to the Old Testament rite of circumcision. This is a complete misreading of the precept and cannot be so identified with any teaching in the Bible.

Abraham first believed God and then he was given the rite of circumcision for those who followed him. As Abraham is the example of justification by faith, it only follows that those who are justified by faith will receive their external sign after, not before, that justification. Paul’s writings in 1 Corinthians, and his statements even here in the first chapter, fully support the concept of baptism only after faith in Christ.

Life application: In whatever capacity we serve the Lord, as an evangelist, a teacher, a preacher, or whatever, it should be for the honor of the Lord, not to promote self notoriety. Paul is an excellent example to follow in this. He was constantly redirecting those around him to Jesus. In the end, the Lord sees our works and will reward us for them.

Lord, thank You for the many opportunities You place in our path to serve You. Help us to keep our eyes open for these moments and not to let them slip by. Remind us that we have such a short time to walk here and to tell others about You. Let us not look back in regret at missed opportunities to lead others to You while we have the chance. This I pray to Your glory. Amen.

Monday, 17 March 2014

Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 1 Corinthians 1:13

Based on the divisions which have arisen in the church at Corinth which were noted in the previous verse, Paul now asks, “Is Christ divided?” Is there one head of the church or not? If there is, then why are we making divisions which don’t actually exist within the body? Is it right to follow after a teacher, preacher, apostle, pope, etc. as if that person was the object of our faith? The answer is obviously “No.”

But there is another consideration to the opening of this verse, Vincent’s Word Studies notes that “Some of the best expositors render [this] as an assertion.” In other words, and based on the structure of the Greek, they place this not as a question – “Is Christ divided?”, but as a statement of fact – “Christ is divided.” The Corinthians had already lost the object of their faith and they had already brought the divisions. Now, it was up to Paul’s instructions to return them to the proper path. In order to do this then, he continues with the second thought of the verse – “Was Paul crucified for you?”

His question is rhetorical and it demands a negative response. The cross of Jesus Christ is the only acceptable crucifixion for the sins of anyone, including Paul. The crucifixion of Paul would have simply been the end of Paul without the crucifixion of Christ. And Christ was not only crucified for Paul, but He was crucified for all. To somehow place an allegiance in Paul only diminishes the importance of the cross of Christ. Only He was sinless and only His blood can atone for the sins of the world.

What follows then is another rhetorical question, with another obvious “No” for a response. “Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” If Paul wasn’t crucified for anyone, then no one was baptized in the name of Paul! Baptism is a picture of the work of Christ. One is immersed as a picture of the death (which resulted from the crucifixion) of Christ. Paul wasn’t crucified for anyone; Paul didn’t die for anyone; therefore, no one was baptized into Paul.

The work of God in resurrecting Jesus is the second half of the picture of baptism. One isn’t merely submersed and left under the water. They are raised out of the water as a picture of the newness of life found in the resurrection of Christ. Paul’s newness of life came from Christ. And the same is true with anyone who has been reborn by the Spirit. Therefore to “follow Paul” or to “follow Calvin” or to “follow Pope Francis” is simply nuts. Only Christ has accomplished the work necessary to save a soul.

Life application: Let us not divide Christ, but let us always honor Him alone. At best, let us acknowledge the instruction of others without exalting them in an unnecessary way.

Lord God, thank You for Jesus my Lord. Because of His cross I am granted His sinless perfection. Through His death I am restored to You. And in His resurrection I stand justified and sure of eternal life in Your presence. Now Lord, grant me the willing heart and desire to live up to that which I have received. Help me to reflect the glory which is found in Christ and to share this good news with the world. Thank You for Jesus! Amen.