1 Corinthians 1:14-17

‘I thank God that (or with some good MSS ‘I give thanks that') I baptised none of you, except Crispus and Gaius, lest any man should say that you were baptised into my name. And I baptised also the household of Stephanas. Apart from these I do not know whether I baptised any other. For Christ did not send me to baptise, but to preach the Gospel, not in wisdom of word, lest the cross of Christ should be rendered void.'

For Crispus see Acts 18:8. For Stephanas 1 Corinthians 16:15; 1 Corinthians 16:17. The latter's household is called ‘the firstfruits of Achaia', thus he may have been Paul's first convert in that area, which was why he baptised him and his household. The influence of a man on his household is here stressed. It is doubtful if they were baptised unwillingly (compare Acts 16:32 where it is stressed that they all believed).

He is now grateful that he had himself baptised so few for it avoided the danger that any would consider that he baptised men in his own name. With these words Paul for ever puts baptism into its rightful place, important but secondary. Baptism does not save, nor is it the Gospel. It was not his first consideration. We learn here that the effective power of Christ to save does not directly work through baptism, although it results in baptism. It is the word of the cross which saves, through proclamation that does not need to contain human methods of persuasion. Then once that word has done its work and brought men to salvation, working effectively in their hearts, they reveal their response by being baptised and by living in accordance with Christ's teaching.

‘I thank God that I baptised none of you, except --.' It is clear from this that Paul in his ministry mainly left the work of baptising to others. He was the instrument of God to bring men to salvation through His preaching of Christ. Baptism followed as a separating off from the world, as an open declaration of faith by those who were converted, and as a response to God and means of declaring that they were now dead to the world and alive to God (Romans 6:4). It depicted that those baptised were now drenched with the Spirit and members of the body of Christ, and in many it was the final seal on their burgeoning faith, resulting in their final reception of the Spirit. It depicted that they were one together in Christ (compare 1 Corinthians 10:2 in context). But it was not the saving instrument. It was a picture of what had happened, or what was happening within them, of what God had done in delivering them, portrayed by a physical act and a further spiritual response in front of the world. But it was the word of the cross which saved. Otherwise Paul would have delighted in baptising as many as he could. If it was as central as some see it he would have made it central in his ministry.

It may well be, of course, that he had a policy of allowing converts to be baptised by local elders as a symbol of unity in the local situation, but not solely so as witness the ones he had baptised. So it was not a matter on which he had strong principles. But his words make clear that it was not to him of prime importance in the bringing about of salvation. It is noteworthy that who baptised people is regularly not stressed (compare Acts 2:41; Acts 8:12; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:47). They are seen thereby as partaking with all Christians in the widespread baptism with the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5; Acts 1:8; Acts 2). They are baptised because the word of God has been seen to be effective within them. This is not to suggest that baptism is not important. It simply indicates that it is not all important, that its function is as the earthly seal of the heavenly work, but that it does not itself bring about the initial salvation.

‘For Christ did not send me to baptise, but to preach the Gospel.' This puts Matthew 28:18 in perspective. When Christ sent His disciples ‘to make disciples of all the nations', the resulting baptism was important but secondary. Like Paul they preached the power of the cross and the crucified One, and it was this that brought men to Him. Then they were baptised and were taught all that Christ had commanded. Both the latter were important, and their importance must not be diminished, but they were not the saving instrument. They were acts carried out on those who had become disciples, as open acts of response, commitment and obedience, demonstrating that they had entered into the sphere of the Spirit because they had been saved and had chosen to become disciples, not as the effective means by which they first became disciples, although in those days closely linked with it.

‘To preach the Gospel.' He recognised that it is the preaching and message of the cross that saves, through the inworking of the Spirit, and that alone. It is interesting that Paul does not consider baptising people as ‘preaching the Gospel', rather he makes a contrast between the two. The Gospel, the saving message of Christ, is not found in baptism (even though its results are proclaimed in baptism). It is found in the message of One Who died for the sins of the world Who calls men to respond in faith and trust and receive forgiveness through the blood that He shed and life through receiving the Spirit of God. And it is that response which results in ‘salvation', a salvation wrought by God. This is wonderfully illustrated in Acts 10:36.

‘Not in wisdom of word, lest the cross of Christ be rendered void (or made of no effect).' But note that it is the proclaiming of the Good News that saves, not the wisdom of the words used. He did not try to woo men with words like the philosophers in the schools did. He did not try to persuade them to accept his theories. It is always man's idea that people can be persuaded to become Christians just as they can be persuaded to become, say, fishermen. But this is not so, says Paul. Those so ‘persuaded' are not saved. They have been won by eloquence. The essential power of the cross has been negated. Those who are converted merely through clever words, or emotional manipulation, may put on an outward show, but they may not have become His or experienced the power of His cross. Men won through clever words may never have really entered into ‘the word of the cross'. What was of prime importance was that men saw clearly the significance of the cross, and of Christ the crucified One, for their salvation. For entry into salvation was through that and that alone.

That is not to say that clear explanation and emotion in the light of the message are to be derided, for the former is helpful and the latter understandable. Only that in the end it is the message of what Christ has done for men on the cross, coming home to the heart and resulting in effective response, that alone will save. And without this the preaching is spiritually ineffective. Thus Paul sought to make sure that his message was an effective one that would accomplish this, and carefully avoided anything that might detract from it.

‘Not in wisdom of word.' The emphasis here is on wisdom revealed through words. Some great philosophers were famed for their wisdom, and many followed their teachings and eloquently used them to convince men to hold certain positions and attitudes. People of many nations were swayed by them. But this was not to be so with the Gospel. Paul wanted not swayed men but saved men. The Gospel was the message of the effectiveness of the power of the cross and of the One Who died there and rose again. If this was hidden by eloquence, or men were ‘converted' without reference to it, then its effect could not be achieved and it was thus rendered void. And whatever resulted would not be true salvation. The cross, which alone can save, would be negated. If men hear our words, and are impressed with what we say, and yet do not come to appreciate the significance of the cross, we have given them ‘wisdom of word' and not the ‘word of the cross', the word of the Gospel. And they will be lost, and we will be to blame.

‘Lest the cross of Christ be made void (or of none effect).' In other words excluded by men's eloquence and therefore ineffective. The verb keno-o means ‘to empty' (here ‘of effect'), ‘to render void', ‘to make of no effect'. If it is not its message that comes home to the heart all else is useless from a Christian point of view. It is the Christian message to which all else is secondary.

This was part of the danger of looking to individual preachers. Men would begin to turn their eyes from Christ crucified to something less.