Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 1:16
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
16. Stephanas ] Probably the bearer of the Epistle. He is mentioned in ch. 1Co 16:15; 1Co 16:17.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And I baptized also the household – The family. Whether there were any infants in the family, does not appear. It is certain that the family was among the first converts to Christianity in Achaia, and that it had evinced great zeal in aiding those who were Christians; see 1Co 16:15 – From the manner in which Paul mentions this, it is probable that Stephanas did not reside at Corinth when he was baptized, though he might have subsequently removed there. I baptized none of you 1Co 1:14. – that is, none of those who permanently dwelt at Corinth, or who were members of the original church there, but Crispus and Gaius – but I baptized also the family of Stephanas, now of your number – Or it may mean, I baptized none of you who are adult members of the church, but Crispus and Gains, though I also baptized the family of Stephanas. If this be the true interpretation, then it forms an argument to prove that Paul practiced household baptism, or the baptism of the families of those who were themselves believers. Or the expression may simply indicate a recollection of the true circumstances of the case – a species of correction of the statement in 1Co 1:14, I recollect now also that I baptized the family of Stephanas.
Household – oikon. The house; the family. The word comprises the whole family, including adults, domestics, slaves, and children. It includes:
- The men in a house, Act 7:10; 1Ti 3:4-5, 1Ti 3:12;
- Domestics, Act 10:2; Act 11:14; Act 16:15, Act 16:31; 1Ti 3:4;
- The family in general; Luk 10:5; Luk 16:27.
Bretschneider. It was the custom, doubtless, for the apostles to baptize the entire household, whatever might be the age, including domestics, slaves, and children. The head of a family gave up the entire household to God.
(That adult domestics and slaves were baptized without personal profession or other evidence of faith, is incredible. The word oikon indeed includes domestics as well as children, out while the latter must have been admitted on the profession of their parents, it is reasonable to suppose that the former would be received solely on their own.)
Of Stephanas – Who Stephanas was, is not known. The Greek commentators say that he was the jailor of Philippi, who, after he had been baptized Act 16:33, removed with his family to Corinth. But of this there is no certain evidence.
Besides – Besides these.
I know not … – I do not know whether I baptized any others who are now members of that church. Paul would, doubtless, recollect that he had baptized others in other places, but he is speaking here particularly of Corinth. This is not to be urged as an argument against the inspiration of Paul, for:
- It was not the design of inspiration to free the memory from defect in ordinary transactions, or in those things which were not to be received for the instruction of the church;
- The meaning of Paul may simply be, I know not who of the original members of the church at Corinth may have removed, or who may have died; I know not who may have removed to Corinth from other places where I have preached and baptized, and consequently I cannot know whether I may not have baptized some others of your present number. It is evident, however, that if he had baptized any others, the number was small.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 16. The household of Stephanas] From 1Co 16:15, we learn that the family of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, probably converted and baptized by the apostle himself. Epenetus is supposed to be one of this family. See Clarke on Ro 16:5.
I know not whether I baptized any other.] I do not recollect that there is any person now residing in Corinth, or Achaia, besides the above mentioned, whom I have baptized. It is strange that the doubt here expressed by the apostle should be construed so as to affect his inspiration! What, does the inspiration of prophet or apostle necessarily imply that he must understand the geography of the universe, and have an intuitive knowledge of all the inhabitants of the earth, and how often, and where they may have changed their residence! Nor was that inspiration ever given so to work on a man’s memory that he could not forget any of the acts which he had performed during life. Inspiration was given to the holy men of old that they might be able to write and proclaim the mind of God in the times which concern the salvation of men.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
He correcteth himself, remembering that he also baptized the household of Stephanas, which (1Co 16:15) he calleth the first-fruits of Achaia, a family that had addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other; he did not remember that he had baptized any more at Corinth, though it is very probable he had baptized many more in other parts of the world, where he had been travelling.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
16. household of Stephanas“Thefirst-fruits of Achaia,” that is, among the first convertedthere (1Co 16:15; 1Co 16:17).It is likely that such “households” included infants (Ac16:33). The history of the Church favors this view, as infantbaptism was the usage from the earliest ages.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And I also baptized the household of Stephanas,…. The same name with “Stephanios”, or “Stephanio” in Pliny e. Before he says he had baptized none but Crispus and Gaius; but recollecting things, he corrects himself, and observes, that he had also baptized the household of Stephanas, who by the Greek writers is thought to be the same with the jailer baptized by the apostle at Philippi, but was now removed from thence to Corinth, and was become a famous and useful man there. No argument can be formed from the baptism of his household in favour of infant baptism, since it must be first proved that he had any infants in his family, and that these were baptized; and if his household and the jailer’s are the same, it is certain that his household were such who were capable of having the word of God spoke to them, and who actually did believe in God. And if they were not the same, yet it is clear that this household of Stephanas consisted of adult, converted, and very useful persons; they were the firstfruits of Achaia, and had addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints, 1Co 16:15.
Besides, that is, the above mentioned persons,
I know not whether I baptized any other; meaning at Corinth, for he might have baptized, and doubtless did baptize many more in other places, for anything that is here said to the contrary: of this he would not be positive; for though he might fully know, and well remember, on recollection, who, and how many, were baptized by him with his own hands there, yet he could not tell but that some persons might have removed thither, and become members of the church in that place, who had been baptized by him elsewhere.
e Nat. Hist. l. 7. c. 48.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Also the household of Stephanas ( ). Mentioned as an afterthought. Robertson and Plummer suggest that Paul’s amanuensis reminded him of this case. Paul calls him a first-fruit of Achaia (1Co 16:15) and so earlier than Crispus and he was one of the three who came to Paul from Corinth (16:17), clearly a family that justified Paul’s personal attention about baptism.
Besides (). Accusative of general reference, “as for anything else.” Added to make clear that he is not meaning to omit any one who deserves mention. See also 1Thess 4:1; 1Cor 4:2; 2Cor 13:11; 2Tim 4:8. Ellicott insists on a sharp distinction from “as for the rest” (2Thess 3:1; Phil 3:1; Phil 4:8; Eph 6:10). Paul casts no reflection on baptism, for he could not with his conception of it as the picture of the new life in Christ (Ro 6:2-6), but he clearly denies here that he considers baptism essential to the remission of sin or the means of obtaining forgiveness.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
And I baptized also. Another exceptional case occurs to him which he conscientiously adds. The de and has a slightly corrective force.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And I baptized also.” (Greek ebaptisa de) “But, moreover, or indeed I baptized also” (in addition to Crispus and Gaius) – Paul did the immersion, or was the physical administrator.
2) “The household of Stephanas,” (Greek ton Stephana oikon) “the Stephanas household or family,” saints much endeared to Paul in the Corinth church, 1Co 16:17.
3) “Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.” (Greek loipon) “For the rest or beyond these” (Ouk Oida) “I Perceive not,” (ei tina allon ebaptisa) “if any other I baptized or immersed”. The term “if any other” here used by Paul indicates his concession that, though inspired, he did not claim absolute knowledge or acquaintance with every member in the Corinth church after his separation from them for near three years. He could have immersed some other member of their church who formerly resided in another place but had since moved to their fellowship. Such language here used by Paul suggests his absolute language integrity under inspiration.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(16) Stephanas.The mention of Stephanas and his household was, from the words preceding, evidently a subsequent correction by the Apostle. He had forgotten them, and was reminded of it possibly by Sosthenes, who was writing from his dictation, and would naturally have known the fact, for Stephanas was the firstfruits of Achaia (1Co. 16:15), and Sosthenes had been chief ruler of the synagogue (Act. 18:17) when Paul had been brought before Gallio, deputy of Achaia. Stephanas himself was at Ephesus with St. Paul when this letter was written, and doubtless in daily intercourse both with him and with Sosthenes (1Co. 16:17). Finding how his memory had failed him on this point, the Apostle adds, And I know not, &c. (i.e., I dont remember) so as to prevent any cavil from hypercritical opponents.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
16. Also Stephanas Paul had hastened to give his reason before he had finished his catalogue; and he now adds the household of Stephanas, Stephanas himself, of course, included. He may, in this writing, have been reminded by Stephanas, who, being one of the delegates sent from Corinth was with Paul at the present writing in Ephesus. 1Co 16:17.
I know not Of the limitations to inspiration see our notes vol. i, p. 345, 1; also on Act 27:22; Act 27:24.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 1:16. Besides, I know not, &c. This expression of uncertainty as to such a fact, is by no means inconsistent with that inspiration wherewith the Apostles of our Lord were endued; which certainly was neither continual, nor reached to every accident and circumstance in life. The office of baptism was probably in general assigned to inferiors, as requiring no extraordinary abilities. The proper office of an apostle was not so much to perform the ceremony of baptism with his own hands, as to attend constantly to the work of preaching the Gospel. See the next verse, and Burnet on the 27th Article.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 1:16 . Another Corinthian family baptized by him occurs to his mind. He adds it conscientiously, and then cuts off any possibility of his being reproached with untruthful omission by . . [201] Regarding Stephanas, we know nothing save from 1Co 16:15 ; 1Co 16:17 .
is the simple ceterum, otherwise, besides that . Comp 2Co 13:11 ; 1Th 4:1 ; frequent in Greek writers also after Polybius.
[201] . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Ver. 16. Whether I baptized any ] His colleagues belike did it (while he was otherwise busied), with a particular examination and instruction in those principles,Heb 6:2Heb 6:2 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
16. ] He subsequently recollects having baptized Stephanas and his family (see ch. 1Co 16:15 ; 1Co 16:17 ), perhaps from information derived from Stephanas himself , who was with him: and he leaves an opening for any others whom he may possibly have baptized and have forgotten it. The last clause is important as against those who maintain the absolute omniscience of the inspired writers on every topic which they handle .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
also, &c. = the household of Stephanas also.
Stephanas. Compare 1Co 16:15, 1Co 16:17.
besides = for the rest. Greek. loipon. Neut. of loipos. App-124.
know. App-132.
whether = if. App-118.
other. App-124.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
16.] He subsequently recollects having baptized Stephanas and his family (see ch. 1Co 16:15; 1Co 16:17),-perhaps from information derived from Stephanas himself, who was with him:-and he leaves an opening for any others whom he may possibly have baptized and have forgotten it. The last clause is important as against those who maintain the absolute omniscience of the inspired writers on every topic which they handle.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 1:16.[5] , for the rest [as to what remains]) He is very anxious to be accurate in recording the facts as they occurred.- , I do not know) It does not occur to my memory without an effort.- , if any) i.e. I have baptized no one else, or scarce any other; comp. the following verse. He left it to the memory of the individuals [themselves to say], by whom they were baptized.
[5] , the house of Stephanas also) viz. the first fruits of Achaia, 1Co 14:15. The rest of the believers at Corinth may have been baptized by Silvanus, Timotheus, Crispus, Gaius, or at least by the members of the family of Stephanas.-V. g.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 1:16
1Co 1:16
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas:-The household of Stephanas were the first fruits of Achaia. (1Co 16:15). Because it is said that Paul baptized the households of Stephanas, Lydia, and the jailer (Act 16:15; Act 16:34), some endeavor to prove that infant baptism was practiced in the apostolic age, on the ground that these families contained infants and that when Paul baptized the household he must have baptized the infants. But that these three persons, one a woman in business of whose husband nothing is said, had infant children is far from certain. Nor does the phrase baptized the household make it certain that the infants, if there were any, were baptized. [For we are told that the nobleman believed, and his whole house (Joh 4:53); that Crispus believed in the Lord with all his house (Act 18:8); that the jailer rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God (Act 16:34); that Cornelius feared God with all his house (Act 10:2); and that the house of Stephanas… is the first- fruits of Achaia, and that they have set themselves to minister unto the saints (1Co 16:15). But this by no means implies that in these five houses there were no infants, or that infants believed the gospel, feared god, or rejoiced but that those capable of understanding the gospel believed it and rejoiced. Just so in reference to baptism. Consequently these passages render no aid whatever to those contending for infant baptism.]
besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.-[Paul guards against the statement being taken absolutely, so that any slight error in it could be used against him. The Spirit was given to the apostles to lead them into all the truth (Joh 16:13); but it was truth relative to mans salvation which was thus made known to them, and not truth like the fact here mentioned, the certain knowledge of which was of no use to the world.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
household: 1Co 16:15, 1Co 16:17, Act 16:15, Act 16:33
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 1:16. Paul did not place much stress on the question of who personally does the baptizing, consequently he seems to have overlooked this case in verse 14. Household is from OIKOS, and in the King James Version it has been rendered by house 102 times, home 4, household 3, temple 1. The first definition in Thayer’s lexicon is, “an inhabited house.” We know the inhabitants of Stephanas’ house were old enough to believe on the Lord, for Act 18:8 shows that such were the ones baptized.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Jesus Christ, Wisdom from God
So, Paul said, not many of those who would be called wise, or powerful or noblemen followed Jesus. Most uprisings are successful because the upper crust leaders join and the lowly commoners follow. Christianity appealed to the lowly and spread to those wrapped up in self. Remember, the disciples were common fisherman ( 1Co 1:26 ).
God, as in the case of Gideon, used means man would not use to accomplish his purposes. Thus, man finds it harder to credit the means and seeks the power behind the means (see Psa 8:2 ; Jas 2:5 ). “God has chosen” those of lowly birth. God also chose things which are not. As Pulpit Commentary points out, the word “not” means things that men did not even think of as existing. Men thought of the cross as “base” or lowly. They thought of Christ as dead, or nonexistent, but he was chosen as the one to display God to the world instead of any other fleshly messenger. McGarvey and Pendleton say “flesh” represents ministers and instruments God uses. They further suggest that “glory” means to “take pride in himself, and aspire to be head of a faction.” All the glory should go to God ( 1Co 1:27-29 ; Mat 5:16 ; 2Co 4:7 ).
We get into Christ’s body by obeying God. If we listen to Jesus, great wisdom will be ours ( Mat 12:42 ). “Righteousness” is the right relation to God brought about by believing and obeying Jesus ( 2Co 5:21 ). Vine says “sanctification” is “separation to God.” Vine says “redemption” is “the deliverance of the believer from the presence and power of sin, and of his body from bondage to corruption.” So, as McGarvey and Pendleton point out, we should not glory in the preacher who brought the message, but in the One who planned our salvation ( 1Co 1:30-31 ; Jer 9:23-24 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Vv. 16. The apostle all of a sudden recollects a third exception. Stephanas was one of the three deputies from Corinth who were with Paul precisely at that time.
By the words, besides I know not…, Paul guards against any omission arising from a new slip of memory. Those who make the inspiration of the Holy Spirit go directly to the pen of the sacred writer, without making it pass through the medium of his heart and brain, should reflect on these words.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas [this man, being then present with Paul in Ephesus, probably reminded the apostle of his baptism]: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. [Inspiration did not make the apostle remember such matters.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 16
Household; family.–I know not, &c.; that is, I do not recollect. When he mentioned Crispus and Gaius in the 1 Corinthians 1:14, he seems to have supposed that they were all, though the case of the family of Stephanas afterwards occurred to him. This circumstance, as well as his not being entirely sure that there might not have been even one or two other cases, shows that the nature of the inspiration of the sacred writers was such that it did not interfere with or suspend the ordinary operations of the mind. Its province was to direct and to guide, not to supersede, the natural faculties.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 1:16. Another exception in Paul’s custom.
House: Mat 10:13; Mat 12:25 : the household, including wife, children, and servants. The family of Stephenas, as of Crispus, (Act 18:8) joined its head in accepting the Gospel: 1Co 16:15. Perhaps even before Paul came they were like Cornelius (Act 10:2) who feared God with all his house. The importance of the conversion of this family, which was the beginning (1Co 16:15) of the church in Achaia, moved Paul to baptize it personally, and perhaps all together. Stephanas seems to have been (1Co 16:17) one of the bearers of the letter to which this Epistle was a reply. How little we know the interesting memories awakened in Paul’s mind by the names of Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanas!
That Paul is said to have baptized the three households of Lydia and the gaoler (Act 16:15; Act 16:33) and Stephanas, has been appealed to in proof that he baptized infants; on the ground that these three families probably contained infants, and that when Paul baptized the household he must have baptized the infants. But that these three persons, one a woman in business of whose husband nothing is said, had infant children, is far from certain; and is a very unsafe basis for argument. Nor does the phrase, baptized the house, make it certain that the infants, if there were any, were baptized.
For we are told (Joh 4:54) that the courtier of Capernaum believed, himself and his whole house: so did (Act 18:8) Crispus and probably (Act 16:34) the gaoler: Cornelius (Act 10:2) feared God with all his house: the house of Stephanas was (1Co 16:15) a firstfruit of Achaia. But this by no means implies that in these five homes there were no infants, or that the infants believed the Gospel or feared God; but simply that those capable of understanding the Gospel believed it.
Just so in reference to baptism. Paul’s readers knew whether he was accustomed to baptize infants. If he was, they would infer that in these cases he baptized the infants, if there were any. If he was not, they would interpret his words to mean that he baptized all who were of suitable age. We are told expressly that three entire households, one (Joh 4:53) probably containing servants, believed the Gospel. Even now it sometimes happens that a whole family seeks admission to the church. And such cases must have been far more frequent when the Gospel was first preached. No doubt other families besides that of Cornelius were groping their way towards the light, and were ready to hail its appearance. Consequently, these passages render no aid to determine whether the apostles baptized infants.
Dr. Whedon, under Act 16:34, supposes that all the gaoler’s household were infants (!!!), and that their faith was implied in his. Under Act 16:15, he quotes approvingly Dr. Schaff, who asserts five cases of baptized households and in proof quotes passages of which two are seen in a moment to be actually against him. Dr. S. adds: It is hardly conceivable that all the adult sons and daughters in these five (he ought to have said three) cases so quickly determined on going over with their parents to a despised and persecuted religious society. I understand him to mean that the fact that the household was baptized makes it inconceivable that it contained adult children. But we are told that three men believed with all their houses: and we cannot conceive this to mean that the faith of infants was implied in their father’s faith. Schaff and Whedon say that the baptized households are given merely as examples: but of this they give no proof whatever.
I do not know etc.; implies that Paul’s practice had not been so strict as to exclude the possibility of other exceptions. His uncertainty is not inconsistent with the divine authority of the New Testament. The Holy Spirit did not think fit to quicken his memory in this matter to the point of certainty. But this uncertainty, which Paul acknowledges, does not imply uncertainty or error in matters of which he speaks with confidence.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
The members of Stephanus’ family were the first converts in the Roman province of Achaia (1Co 16:15). It was unimportant to Paul whom he personally baptized; he was not keeping score. This is clear because he temporarily forgot that he had baptized these people. As he continued to write, the Lord brought them to mind.
"Paul casts no reflection on baptism, for he could not with his conception of it as the picture of the new life in Christ (Rom 6:2-6), but he clearly denies here that he considers baptism essential to the remission of sin or the means of obtaining forgiveness." [Note: A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 4:76.]