Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel ] “Even the less earned can baptize perfectly, but perfectly to preach the Gospel is a far more difficult task, and requires qualifications which are far more rare.” Augustine.
not with wisdom of words ] Rather discourse, as in 1Co 1:5. Here the matter of the discourse as well as its expression is meant, though the latter is probably the predominant idea. For it is impossible to study the philosophy of the Apostolic and post-Apostolic period without seeing how much it consisted of word-play.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
For Christ sent me not to baptize – That is, not to baptize as my main business. Baptism was not his principal employment, though be had a commission in common with others to administer the ordinance, and occasionally did it. The same thing was true of the Saviour, that he did not personally baptize, Joh 4:2. It is probable that the business of baptism was entrusted to the ministers of the church of inferior talents, or to those who were connected with the churches permanently, and not to those who were engaged chiefly in traveling from place to place. The reasons of this may have been:
(1) That which Paul here suggests, that if the apostles had themselves baptized, it might have given occasion to strifes, and the formation of parties, as those who had been baptized by the apostles might claim some superiority over those who were not.
(2) It is probable that the rite of baptism was preceded or followed by a course of instruction adapted to it, and as the apostles were traveling from place to place, this could be better entrusted to those who were to be with them as their ordinary religious teachers. It was an advantage that those who imparted this instruction should also administer this ordinance.
(3) It is not improbable, as Doddridge supposes, that the administration of this ordinance was entrusted to inferiors, because it was commonly practiced by immersion, and was attended with some trouble and inconvenience, while the time of the apostles might be more directly occupied in their main work.
But to preach the gospel – As his main business; as the leading, grand purpose of his ministry. This is the grand object of all ministers. It is not to build up a sect or party; it is not to secure simply the baptism of people in this or that communion; it is to make known the glad tidings of salvation, and call people to repentance and to God.
Not with wisdom of words – ( ouk en sophia logou). Not in wisdom of speech, margin. The expression here is a Hebraism, or a form of speech common in the Hebrew writings, where a noun is used to express the meaning of an adjective, and means not in wise words or discourse. The wisdom mentioned here, refers, doubtless, to that which was common among the Greeks, and which was so highly valued. It included the following things:
(1) Their subtle and learned mode of disputation, or that which was practiced in their schools of philosophy.
(2) A graceful and winning eloquence; the arts by which they sought to commend their sentiments, and to win others to their opinions. On this also the Greek rhetoricians greatly valued themselves, and this, probably, the false teachers endeavored to imitate.
(3) That which is elegant and finished in literature, in style and composition. On this the Greeks greatly valued themselves, as the Jews did on miracles and wonders; compare 1Co 1:22. The apostle means to say, that the success of the gospel did not depend on these things; that he had not sought them; nor had he exhibited them in his preaching. His doctrine and his manner had not been such as to appear wise to the Greeks; and he had not depended on eloquence or philosophy for his success. Longinus (on the Sublime) enumerates Paul among people distinguished for eloquence; but it is probable that he was not distinguished for the graces of manner (compare 2Co 10:1, 2Co 10:10), so much as the strength and power of his reasoning.
Paul here introduces a new subject of discourse, which he pursues through this and the two following chapters – the effect of philosophy on the gospel, or the estimate which ought to be formed in regard to it. The reasons why he introduces this topic, and dwells upon it at such a length, are not perfectly apparent. They are supposed to have been the following:
(1) He had incidentally mentioned his own preaching, and his having been set apart particularly to that; 1Co 1:17.
(2) His authority, it is probable, had been called in question by the false teachers at Corinth.
(3) The ground of this, or the reason why they undervalued him, had been probably, that he had not, evinced the eloquence of manner and the graces of oratory on which they so much valued themselves.
(4) They had depended for their success on captivating the Greeks by the charms of graceful rhetoric and the refinements of subtle argumentation.
(5) In every way, therefore, the deference paid to rhetoric and philosophy in the church, had tended to bring the pure gospel into disrepute; to produce faction; and to destroy the authority of the apostle. It was necessary, therefore, thoroughly to examine the subject, and to expose the real influence of the philosophy on which they placed so high a value.
Lest the cross of Christ – The simple doctrine that Christ was crucified to make atonement for the sins of people. This was the speciality of the gospel; and on this doctrine the gospel depended for success in the world.
Should be made of none effect – Should be rendered vain and ineffectual. That is, lest the success which might attend the preaching of the gospel should be attributed to the graces of eloquence, the charms of language, or the force of human argumentation, rather than to its true cause, the preaching of Christ crucified; or lest the attempt to recommend it by the charms of eloquence should divert the attention from the simple doctrines of the cross, and the preaching be really vain. The preaching of the gospel depends for its success on the simple power of its truths, borne by the Holy Spirit to the hearts of people; and not on the power of argumentation, and the charms of eloquence. To have adorned the gospel with the charms of Grecian rhetoric, would have obscured its wisdom and efficacy, just as the gilding of a diamond would destroy its brilliancy. True eloquence, and real learning and sound sense, are not to be regarded as valueless; but their use in preaching is to convey the truth with plainness; to fix the mind on the pure gospel; and to leave the conviction on the heart that this system is the power of God. The design of Paul here cannot be to condemn true eloquence and just reasoning, but to rebuke the vain parade, and the glittering ornaments, and dazzling rhetoric which were objects of so much esteem in Greece. A real belief of the gospel, a simple and natural statement of its sublime truths, will admit of, and prompt to, the most manly and noble kind of eloquence. The highest powers of mind, and the most varied learning, may find ample scope for the illustration and the defense of the simple doctrines of the gospel of Christ. But it does not depend for its success on these, but on its pure and heavenly truths, borne to the mind by the agency of the Holy Spirit.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Co 1:17-31
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.
Pauls preaching
I. It exalted the Cross of Christ as the central element of the gospel. The apostle does not teach that truths associated with the details of Christian belief and living are not proper themes for the pulpit; nor that ritualistic observances are of no importance; nor that he considered as naught the human wisdom seen both in logic and skill; what he meant was that the gospel as the means of salvation revealed by God was everywhere the burden of his message. Neither church observances nor creeds, nor mans philosophy can become a substitute for this essential truth.
II. It made the agency of God essential in causing the Cross of Christ to have saving power.
1. Paul gives the reason of man its proper place in the apprehension of the truth, and the truth so apprehended its proper place as connected with regeneration; but he never teaches that the truth alone, however fully understood, will secure salvation. Being saved is not an intellectual process only, even though the sacrifice of Christ be the truth considered. Only when made the power of God through the attending influence of the Holy Ghost does it save.
2. Pauls preaching insisted that this Divine agency can render the weak–
(1) Able to appropriate the gospel in its saving power. The pride of high station and marked ability would not avail, but the humility of confessed unworthiness and dependence upon him who would attract Gods favour and incline its possessor to accept the Saviour He has provided. Hence, the poor, the ignorant, the wicked, the child, will find no barriers around the Cross when they turn toward it for help.
(2) Useful in throwing over opposition and causing the gospel to triumph (1Co 1:27, &c.).
III. It declared that the result of the gospels proper presentation must be that God, and not men, will have all the glory (1Co 1:29; 1Co 1:31). Conclusion: Pauls preaching declares–
1. That true salvation is the penitent and trustful acceptance of the crucified Christ.
2. That true religion is loyalty to God. (J. Exells, D. D.)
The true work of the preacher
Paul sought to teach that there were different functions which belonged to the officers of the Church. Some were to serve tables, some to administer the ordinances. He did not cast contempt on the ordinances, but declared that he had a special work appointed him.
I. The office of the preacher arose with the Saviour. There were instructors previously. The prophets were much more teachers than predictors. The Rabbis when Christ was upon earth were teachers. Christs method of teaching was utterly different. Outwardly it was the same–He went from place to place, He taught sitting, &c.; but the interior contents of His teaching were very different. Christ spake with authority; so does every man who speaks from the roots and fundamental elements of truth.
II. Preaching is teaching in a vitalising way ethical truths–truths which ally men to God and to each other. They must be taught so as to breathe the life of Him who teaches. They must carry personal power.
III. It is not to be thought that this function of the Christian Church has ceased even in liberally educated and cultivated sections of society. Let us look closely and ask, Is the function of the preacher temporary? Will it ever pass away? There is one element belonging distinctively to the preacher which will for ever give him a place and function which can never change: the bringing of the truth home to men in a living form. In the light of this observe the genius and the sphere of preaching–
1. From this sphere are excluded largely the higher forms of theological speculation, for it is not possible to bring these home to men in a living way. His distinctive business is to deal with those truths which he can take into his consciousness, and, having given to these a personal expression from himself, send them forth living truths. His proper sphere is ethical truth. That which men most need to know is how to love God and man perfectly. This is his whole duty. To teach this duty is the sphere of the preacher.
2. This includes every condition of mankind.
3. From this it appears that no man is a true preacher whose chief business is the organisation of worship, the conduct of Church affairs, or mere pastoral administration. The true preacher is the utterer of truth.
4. Then as no man can represent in himself every form of the human mind, or have a full conception of all truth, the preacher must necessarily be a partialist. The robin sings as a robin, bluebirds as bluebirds. One man has large power of imagination, another overflowing emotion, &c. All are fragmentary preachers. No man was ever built large enough to preach the whole of God.
5. Pride, vanity, and unspiritual life will effectually prevent the preacher becoming personally, experimentally, a presentation of the truth to the people. (H. W. Beecher.)
Preaching
I. It has been ordered by Divine wisdom that the gospel should, as much as possible, avail itself of the ordinary channels of communication and influence in spreading through the world.
II. The secret of the power of preaching.
1. It conveys far better than any other vehicle the affirmation of the whole man–his whole nature, his whole experience–to the matter which he desires to communicate.
2. It brings into play all the affinities, sympathies, and affections of the being, and is therefore a most powerful instrument in arriving at the truth.
3. So much is true of all preaching. But in the preaching of the gospel there is a source of special power–the principle of representation the power and right to speak to men in the name of God. (J. Baldwin Brown, B. A.)
Pauls preaching
1. Observe, Paul does not say we preach Christ as if the declaration of the personal dignity of the God-man were all. Neither does he emphasise the crucified as if the setting off of the death of Jesus as that of a martyr and for an example were enough. But he combines the two. The dignity of the Christ was needed to give efficacy to the sacrifice on the Cross, and the sacrifice on the Cross was required to complete the work of the Christ.
2. In the prosecution of his work Paul met with three classes, each of which treated his message in a peculiar fashion. The Jew and the Greek, without trying the gospel on themselves, rejected it–the one for its lack of power and the other for its lack of wisdom; but the third class, acting on the only true philosophical principle of proving the matter by personal experiment, found in it both the power of God and the wisdom of God. Nowadays it is sturdily insisted on that nothing shall be received save that which rests on the basis of observation and experiment, but that is all the gospel asks; and here we see that those who reject it are those who refuse to put it to the test. Which of the two classes is the more scientific? The Baconian philosophers should not hesitate as to the reply. Christ crucified is–
I. The power of god.
1. Yes, but this power is not physical like the might of an army; nor material, like that which is connected with a development of matter; nor mechanical, as derived from any sort of mechanism, but dynamical, as exerted by spirit upon spirit. It is power unto salvation. It is not therefore to be tested by material gauges, as one measures the pressure on a steam-boiler, or estimates the horse-power of an engine. We are to look for its operation in the human heart. Its trophics are in character, and its results are in life.
(1) Take it in the case of an individual, and the transformation wrought on such men as Paul, and Augustine, and John Newton, may well illustrate its reality and efficacy.
(2) Take it in the case of communities, and Christianity has either implanted or stimulated regard for the personality of the weakest and the poorest; respect for women; the absolute duty of each member of the fortunate classes to raise the unfortunate; humanity to the child, the prisoner, the stranger, the needy, and even the brute; unceasing opposition to all forms of cruelty; the duty of personal purity; the sacredness of marriage; the necessity of temperance.
2. But are we quite sure that it is the power of God? Yes, for there are only two spiritual powers in the world–that of evil and that of good. Very evidently, therefore, a result like that of the conversion of a man, and the revolution of society, from evil to good, must be traced up to God. Man cannot do it for himself, for as water cannot rise above its level, so the soul cannot change its nature by its own efforts. And what one man cannot do for himself, the aggregate of men cannot do for the race. They had four thousand years given to them in which to make the experiment, and here (verse 21) is the result.
II. The wisdom of God.
1. Wisdom is manifested in the choice of such means as are best adapted to the production of the end. The problem to be solved in the salvation of men is, How shall a sinner be forgiven without weakening the sanctions of morality and giving encouragement to evil? Now the race vainly wrestled with that for four millenniums; but the despair of humanity is the opportunity of God, for in Christ crucified we are shown a just God and a Saviour.
2. Wisdom is seen in the securing of different ends by one and the same means. So salvation is not merely forgiveness; it is also regeneration and growth in holiness. Its highest result is character, and the renovation of that is produced by the Holy Ghost. Now the dispensation of the Holy Spirit would have been impossible save for the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross; while, again, the love of Christ, as manifested in His sacrifice on the Cross, is the great means used by the Spirit for the regeneration and sanctification of the believer. Conclusion: From all this four inferences follow. If Christ crucified is the power of God unto salvation, then–
1. Any sinner may be saved through faith in Him.
2. There is no other way of salvation.
3. When men are saved through this means the whole glory of their salvation is due to God.
4. If we would see such results from our preaching as those which followed Pauls, we must preach the same gospel, Christ crucified. This is the gospel for our age, because it is the gospel for all the ages. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
The gospel as preached by Paul
I. There is a gospel to be preached. Amid all the diversities of doctrine and ritual there are some things which must be found in all Christian preaching: that Christ alone can save men; that He can save any man and all men; that He saves men completely and for ever. No man can be said to preach the gospel who does not make these thoughts central and controlling. He may preach very important and helpful truth; but until he makes Christ the ground, the motive, and the end of his teaching, he is not a preacher of the gospel. The gospel is good news. It is not the publication of the moral law. It is not telling men what they ought to be and do. The ministry of Christ was not needed to teach that lesson. Conscience proclaims it, and universal experience confirms it. It is not equivalent to the affirmation of the eternal and universal Fatherhood of the Holy One. It implies this, but it is more. That consoling thought is imbedded in the Old Testament. Paul affirmed more than that. In his preaching the person of Christ assumes central and permanent prominence. In Him the law of God is fulfilled and honoured. In Him the love of God leaps from the heavens to the earth links itself with the burden and guilt of humanity, challenges the powers of darkness and the might of death, achieving a practical and eternal victory. Fear rules paganism, hope smiles in the Old Testament, assurance is the ringing keynote of the gospel. So much for the contents of the gospel. It is crowded into this sentence: Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
II. But does the world need such a message? Can we not get along fairly well without it? That is the very question which Paul discussed in Rom 1:1-32. What does the world need? Righteousness. That secured and the millennium would be there. But the one thing most needed is the thing most difficult to create and promote. It cannot be said that there has been any lack of earnest attempts. Confucius, Sakya-Muni, Zoroaster, and Socrates, tried to supply the want. But the multitudes were deaf to their appeal; and Rome at the zenith of her culture was but a veneered brutality. And mightily endowed as Judiasm was it failed to achieve even its own reformation. The men who boasted in the law trampled upon it every day. A mightier hand than that of Socrates, or of Moses, was needed to save the world. A more than human hand, though nerved by an inspired heart, must smite the ranks of evil.
III. But granting that the world needs just the help which the gospel declares has been brought to it. will even this secure the desired result? To this we can only answer, first, if it does not then God is clearly and hopelessly defeated, for a greater than Christ cannot, come to the rescue; and second, if Christ be what the gospel affirms Him to be, the triumph of righteousness is a foregone conclusion. Hence the tone of victory in the New Testament is always in the present tense. Thanks be unto God who giveth us the victory. This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. This is our highest assurance. It receives impressive confirmation in the historical triumphs of Christianity. Its moral conquest of the civilisations of Rome and Greece are unquestioned. Its restraining and reorganising energy during the Middle Ages is freely admitted. Its profound and salutary influence upon modern life is beyond cavil; but there is a more direct and living proof of its power. Hundreds among you can bear testimony to the grace of salvation in Jesus Christ. What the gospel has done for you it can do for all. (A. J. F. Behrends, D. D.)
The gospel neither ritual nor philosophy
I. A large class of minds like to make a superstition out of their religion. Mere words addressed to the understanding and the heart appear too feeble, too immaterial. They long to be set in rapport with the superhuman in some realistic way. Establish some sign. Paul, generalising from what he saw before his eyes, calls this demand of human nature Jewish; but it is common everywhere. It has penetrated every religion from the days of the Chaldeans downwards. One after another Judaism, Buddhism, Parseeism, Mohammedanism, Christianity, have succumbed to this demand for material signs. Each of them has degenerated into a system of ceremonial and stooped to pander to the sensuous taste of its devotees.
II. There is in man a tendency, not So widespread, but nobler than the vulgar bent to superstition–after intellectual satisfaction and an exhaustive knowledge of truth.
1. No sooner had Christianity appeared than this appetite seized upon it, questioned it, thought to find in it what it had failed to find elsewhere. Generalising, again, Paul termed this the Greek habit of mind. The Greek, he says, searches after philosophy; but it is as little exclusively Greek as the bias to superstition is exclusively Jewish. In our day it is no less profound, unsuitable, or eager than it ever was. Men claim that it shall be as systematic, exhaustive, and demonstrable as a science; that it shall help to answer the unanswered problems of existence; that it shall abjure all pretensions to be supernatural; that every one of its facts be found explicable on natural grounds; and that its boasted virtue to save shall prove as intelligible as the action of any other truth upon human minds.
2. Follow out this conception of Christianity to its issues, and what have you? Not a genuine revelation from heaven; not the advent of a Divine power to save; but simply some very beautiful and elevating truths, discerned first by a certain Jew of Palestine and by him added to the worlds treasure-house of thought, yet competing with many discoveries of more modern times. Is it not to some such appraisement of the gospel that a great deal of modern discussion among the learned is tending? Nay, is there not a way of preaching and defending the gospel–such a way as Paul avoided in speculative Corinth–which actually invites men to rate its value as low as this among the rival systems of human wisdom?
3. Against such a misconception of the essence of the gospel, what is St. Pauls protest? It is true, he seems to say, the gospel is a rational word, and not a magical rite. It is spoken truth, and it acts, like truth, through the misunderstandings of men. But, for all that, it is not a philosophy. With abstract truth it has little to do; but it proclaims Jesus the Messiah, and proclaims Him as crucified for the sins of men. Its real character is this–it is a, testimony from God which we are not called upon to discuss so much as to credit. It is in this, accordingly, that its power lies. For power it unquestionably possesses. Only not the mere power of wisdom, but the quiet personal power of the Speakers authority and the Speakers love. Speculate about this and it may seem in your sagacious eyes folly. But cease to criticise and be humble enough to believe it, to surrender yourself to Him who speaks; then it will prove itself to be Divinely wise and strong in your experience. It will work in you as no human wisdom works; it will save you as no intellectual system saves.
4. On this side also I think a faithful Church needs just now to speak out in clear tones. It is not the first time in the history of our faith that the gospel has been like to lose its characteristic spirit by evaporation. Treat it as you treat an ordinary system of thought, and you end (as Paul feared to end) by making the Cross of Christ of none effect. You miss its very essence as a gospel. For what makes it to be a gospel? Just this, that it is Gods own record of His peculiar way of having mercy upon sinners. It is a plain, practical, personal appeal from our reconciling Father to each wandered soul among us; or it is nothing. (J. Oswald Dykes, D. D.)
The foolishness of preaching
As Paul repudiates the idea that he had given any countenance to the founding of a Pauline party, it occurs to him that some may say, True enough, he did not baptize; but his preaching may more effectually have won partisans than even baptizing them into his own name could have done. And so Paul goes on to show that his preaching was not that of a demagogue or party-leader, but was a bare statement of fact, garnished by absolutely nothing which could divert attention from the fact either to the speaker or to his style. Paul explains to the Corinthians–
I. The style of preaching he had adopted while with them
1. His time in Corinth, he assures them, had been spent, not in propagating a system of truth which might have been identified with his name, but in presenting the Cross of Christ. In approaching them he had necessarily weighed in his own mind the comparative merits of various modes of presenting the gospel, and he well knew that a new philosophy clothed in elegant language was likely to secure a number of disciples. And it was quite in Pauls power to present the gospel as a philosophy; but he determined not to know anything among them save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
2. Paul then deliberately trusted to the bare statement of facts and not to any theory about these facts. In preaching to audiences with whom the facts are familiar, it is perfectly justifiable to draw inferences from them and to theorise about them. Paul himself spoke wisdom among them that were perfect. But what is to be noted is that for doing the work proper to the gospel, for making men Christians, it is not theory or explanation, but fact, that is effective. It is the presentation of Christ as He is presented in the Gospels which stands in the first rank of efficiency as a means of evangelising the world. The actor does not instruct his audience how they should be affected by the play; he so presents the scene that they instinctively smile or find their eyes fill. Those onlookers at the crucifixion who beat their breasts were not told that they should feel compunction; it was enough that they saw the Crucified. So it is always; it is the direct vision of the Cross, and not anything which is said about it, which is most effective in producing penitence and faith.
3. The very fact that it was a Person, not a system of philosophy, that Paul proclaimed Was sufficient proof that he was not anxious to become the founder of a school or the head of a party. And that which permanently distinguishes Christianity from all philosophies is that it presents to men, not a system of truth to be understood, but a Person to be relied upon. Christianity is for all men and not for the select, highly educated few; and it depends therefore not on exceptional ability to see truth, but on the universal human emotions of love and trust.
II. Why he had adopted this style.
1. Because God had changed His method (verse 21).
(1) Even the wisest of the Greeks had attained only to inadequate and indefinite views of God. To pass even from Plato to the Gospel of John is to pass from darkness to light. Plato philosophises, and a few souls seem for a moment to see things more clearly; Peter preaches, and three thousand souls spring to life.
(2) That which, in point of fact, has made God known is the Cross of Christ. No doubt it must have seemed mere lunacy to summon the seeker after God away from the high speculations of Plato to a human form gibbeted on a malefactors cross. None knew better than Paul the infamy attaching to that cursed death, but he knew also its power (verses 22-24). As proof that God was in their midst the Jews required a demonstration of physical power. Even at the last it would have satisfied them had Christ stepped down from the Cross. The Cross seemed to them a confession of weakness, and was a stumbling-block they could not get over. And yet in it was the whole power of God for the salvation of the world. For the power of God that is required to draw men to Himself is not power to alter the course of rivers or change the site of mountains, but power to sympathise, to sacrifice self, to give all for the needs of His creatures. It is this love of God that overpowers men and makes it impossible for them to resist Him.
2. Paul appeals to the elements of which the Church was actually composed.
(1) It is plain, he says, that it is not by anything generally esteemed among men that you hold your place in the Church (verse 26). It is not men who by their wisdom find out God and by their nobility of character commend themselves to Him; but it is God who calls men, and the very absence of wisdom and possessions makes men readier to listen to His call (verses 27-29). It is all Gods doing now; it is of Him are ye in Christ Jesus. Human wisdom had its opportunity and accomplished little; God now by the foolishness of the Cross lifts the despised, &c., to a far higher position than the wise and noble can attain by their might and their wisdom.
(2) Paul thus justifies this method by its results. The Cross may seem a most unlikely weapon with which to accomplish great things, but it is God who uses it, and that makes the difference. Hence the emphasis throughout this passage on the agency of God. But for this reason also all ground of boasting is removed from those who are within the Christian Church.
(3) In Pauls day this argument from the general poverty and insignificance of the members of the Christian Church was readily drawn. Things are changed now; and the Church is filled with the wise, the powerful, the noble. But Pauls main proposition remains: whoever is in Christ Jesus is so, not through any wisdom or power of his own, but because God has chosen and called him. And the practical result remains. Let the Christian, while he rejoices in his position, be humble.
3. Paul avers that had he used enticing words of mans wisdom the hearers might have been unduly influenced by the mere guise in which the gospel was presented and too little influenced by the essence of it. He feared to adorn the simple tale lest the attention of his audience might be diverted from the substance of his message. He was resolved that their faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Here again things have changed since Pauls day. The assailants of Christianity have put it on its defence, and its apologists have been compelled to show that it is in harmony with the soundest philosophy. It was inevitable that this should be done; but Paul considered that the only sound and trustworthy faith was produced by direct personal contact with the Cross. And this remains for ever true. (M. Dods, D. D.)
The true minister of Christ
I. His commission.
II. His paramount work.
1. Not to baptize, much less busy himself with a thousand other things.
2. But to preach the gospel.
III. His prescribed methods.
1. Not with wisdom of words.
2. But simply, plainly, pointedly.
IV. His motive.
1. That nothing might hinder.
2. But everything promote the effect of the Cross of Christ. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
The aim of the ministry
In a village church in one of the Tyrolese valleys, we saw upon the pulpit an outstretched arm, carved in wood, the hand of which held forth a cross. We noted the emblem as full of instruction as to what all true ministry should be, and must be–a holding forth of the Cross of Christ to the multitude as the only trust of sinners. Jesus Christ must be set forth evidently crucified among them. Lord, make this the aim and habit of all our ministers. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
The Cross of Christ of none effect
I. The cross of christ is an instrument intended and adapted to produce a certain effect. So far as man had to do with it it was intended to abase a prophet whom many honoured, to kill as a malefactor a Man whose great fault was that He had no fault at all. So far as God had to do with it, it was intended to be a Divine force. The Cross of Christ is to be a Divine force with an effect retrospective, aspective, and prospective.
1. The Cross fulfilled the first promise; it was the good thing of which the sacrifices were a shadow; it was the event toward which the course of all events had tended.
2. The Cross cast a long, deep shadow upon the Holy Land; its peculiar people; its priesthood, temple, and ritual; a night-of-death shadow to cover a time of change in which old things would pass away and all things become new.
3. The Cross shed light into the darkness of the world, and indicated those stirrings of the Divine mercy which terminated in the proclamation of salvation to the world. As matter of history, since the Cross of Christ has begun to take effect, it has caused religious systems hoary with age, and rooted by ten thousand fibres in the hearts of the people to be laid aside as worn-out garments. It has spread civilisation over many nations; it has been a key to unlock the treasures of all useful knowledge; it has elevated art, widened commerce, removed the fetters from the slave; it has founded hospitals and schools, checked the harsh government of rulers, quelled the anarchy of subjects, restored woman to her primitive position, imparted peace and joy to the home, exalted nations, and is now both the light and leaven of the world. The Cross of Christ alone saves.
II. Paul speaks of the cross being made of none effect.
1. To make the sun of none effect would send our world back to chaos, but this ruin would be–
2. Small compared with negativing the Cross of Christ. And Paul tells us that if he had exhibited the Cross with wisdom of words, it would have been powerless in his hands. He cannot mean intelligible and acceptable words; for without such the Cross could not be manifested at all. By wisdom of words is meant the artifices of rhetoric, &c. If the Cross were a jewel to be hoarded and hid I would make its bed in wool; but as it is a gem to be used let me see it as it is. If the Cross were an inferior gem I might add to its worth and beauty by the setting; but as its value is beyond price, let its surroundings be as simple as possible. The question is not, however, one of taste, but of utility. Shall we mingle with our daily bread that which will deprive us of its nutritive effect?
3. The Cross is made of none effect when–
(1) It is made identical with the crucifix, as though the Cross were nothing more than His crucifixion. The crucifix to the vulgar eye puts exclusively forward the bodily sufferings of Christ, and its effect is to bring us into sympathy with them. This is the effect of painting, poetry, and music, when employed upon the same subject. But the Cross of Christ is not an example of suffering merely, but the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world.
(2) False doctrine and speculation concerning it are taught. The effect of the Atonement is in itself, not in its philosophy. And if the attempt at explanation fail, and the philosophy be false, I exhibit a cross framed by my own vain imagination. Then, what have I done? I have led men from living waters to the appearance of a fountain in shining sand.
(3) It is exhibited without a personal recognition of its claims. That which you say about it will not be believed unless it appears important and true, and it cannot appear real and momentous except as exhibited in faith. Faith begets faith.
(4) Its requirements are multiplied and complicated. It saith, Come to Me; Look to Me; Believe in Me. If we surround it with a long and difficult creed; if we clothe it with an elaborate ritual; if we plant it in the shrine of a particular ecclesiastical polity, and require men to come to it, by these we make it of none effect.
(5) There is lack of faith in its power. It is impotent in the hand of an unbeliever. Our faith does not affect the value and efficacy of the Cross in the eye of God; but it does in the eye of man.
(6) When it is used for objects foreign to itself. Ecclesiastics have used it to satisfy their ungodly ambition; political rulers as an engine of government; private individuals as a, spy in a camp uses the password, and prejudice has been raised against it.
Conclusion:
1. What is the effect of the Cross of Christ upon yourselves?
(1) Child of Christian parents, you have been directed to it ever since your eyes opened to see. Other things have had effect. The scenes of your early life; the books you have read; the companions with whom you associated, &c. And what has been the effect of the Cross of Christ? It has repelled you or attracted you. Repelled you! The magnet of the eternal mercy repelled you!
(2) Pupil of a Christian school!
(3) Hearer of Christian preaching and possessor of Holy Scripture, unless you are saved by it you will be damned by it. Christian brethren, what is its daily effect upon your hearts and lives? Are you crucified with Christ? Is its effect to captivate your heart; to command your energies; to sanctify your life?
2. What is the effect of the Cross in your hands? We more than fear that Christians and Churches of Christ have done much to make the Cross of Christ of none effect. (S. Martin.)
The worlds greatest blessing and its greatest evil
I. The greatest blessing in the world–the Cross of Christ. By the Cross of Christ the apostle did not mean of course the timber on which Christ was crucified, or any imitation of that in wood, &c. He uses the word as a symbol, as we use the words Crown, Court, Bench, &c. He meant the eternal principles of which the Cross of Christ was at once the effect, the evidence, and the expression–i.e., all that we mean by the gospel. And this is the greatest blessing in the world to-day. Look at it
1. As a revealer. All true theological doctrine and ethical science come to us through the Cross. It is the moral light of the world.
2. As an educator. The Cross is to the human soul what the vernal sunbeam is to the seed; it penetrates, warms, quickens, and brings all its latent powers out to perfection.
3. As a deliverer. The Cross bears a pen to cancel the sentence, a balm to heal the wound, a weapon to break the fettering chain. Such, and infinitely more, is the Cross. What would human life be without it? A voyage without a compass, chart, or star.
II. The greatest evil in the world. Making this Cross of none effect, i.e., so far as its grand mission is concerned. Some effect it must have; it will deepen the damnation where it does not save. We are unto God a sweet savour, &c. This tremendous evil is–
1. Painfully manifest. Intellectually, socially, politically, it has confessedly done wonders for mankind; but morally, how little! How little genuine holiness, disinterested philanthropy, self-sacrificing devotion to truth and God, Christliness of life!
2. Easily explained. The apostle indicates one way, viz., by wisdom of words, i.e., gorgeous rhetoric. The Church has done it by
(1) Its theologies. In its name it has propounded dogmas that have clashed with reason and outraged conscience.
(2) Its polity. It has sanctioned wars, established hierarchies, which have fattened on the ignorance and poverty of the people.
(3) Its spirit. The spirit of the Cross is self-sacrificing love, the spirit of the Church has been to a great extent that of selfishness, greed, ambition, and oppression. Malrepresentation of Christ by the Church is the instrument that has made the Cross of none effect.
3. Terribly criminal. It is wonderful that man has the power thus to pervert Divine institutions and blessings; but such power he has. He forges metals into weapons for murder, he turns breadcorn into liquids to damn the reason and the souls of men. A greater crime you cannot conceive. Were you to turf, all bread into poison, make the flowing rivers pestiferous, quench the light of the sun, mantle the stars in sackcloth, you would not penetrate an evil half so enormous as that of making the Cross of Christ of none effect. Conclusion:
1. What is the spiritual influence of the Cross on us? Has it crucified unto us the world?
2. What are we doing with the Cross? Are we abusing it or rightly employing it? (D. Thomas, D. D.)
The Cross neutralised by theories about it
The force of (cf. 1Co 15:14; Rom 4:14) may be conveyed by the words empty of content, unreal, not having objective existence, consisting only of opinions, sentiment speculation. The Cross of Christ is a real cause in the moral order of things. To substitute a system of notions, however true and ennobling, for the fact of Christs death, is like confounding the theory of gravitation with gravitation itself. (Principal Edwards.)
The preaching which the apostle condemns as ineffective
I. Scholastic preaching, which–
1. Aims only at the intellect, not at the heart.
2. Gives no satisfaction on the main point–religion.
3. Deals with philosophical speculations which injure rather than edify.
II. Rhetorical preaching.
1. Which proceeds not from a zeal for the truth, but from a desire to please.
2. This unworthy mode of dealing with Divine truth robs the Cross of its effect, because it diverts the attention from the truth to the speaker and distracts the heart–because it excites a craving for merely intellectual gratification–because the impression produced is referred to the ability of the preacher and not to the truth itself. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 17. For Christ sent me not to baptize] Bp. Pearce translates thus: For Christ sent me, not so much to baptize as to preach the Gospel: and he supports his version thus-“The writers of the Old and New Testaments do, almost every where (agreeably to the Hebrew idiom) express a preference given to one thing beyond another by an affirmation of that which is preferred, and a negation of that which is contrary to it: and so it must be understood here, for if St. Paul was not sent at all to baptize, he baptized without a commission; but if he was sent, not only to baptize but to preach also, or to preach rather than baptize, he did in fact discharge his duty aright.” It appears sufficiently evident that baptizing was considered to be an inferior office, and though every minister of Christ might administer it, yet apostles had more important work. Preparing these adult heathens for baptism by the continual preaching of the word was of much greater consequence than baptizing them when thus prepared to receive and profit by it.
Not with wisdom of words] . In several places in the New Testament the term is taken not only to express a word, a speech, a saying, c., but doctrine, or the matter of teaching. Here, and in 1Th 1:5, and in several other places, it seems to signify reason, or that mode of rhetorical argumentation so highly prized among the Greeks. The apostle was sent not to pursue this mode of conduct, but simply to announce the truth to proclaim Christ crucified for the sin of the world; and to do this in the plainest and simplest manner possible, lest the numerous conversions which followed might be attributed to the power of the apostle’s eloquence, and not to the demonstration of the Spirit of God. It is worthy of remark that, in all the revivals of religion with which we are acquainted, God appears to have made very little use of human eloquence, even when possessed by pious men. His own nervous truths, announced by plain common sense, though in homely phrase, have been the general means of the conviction and conversion of sinners. Human eloquence and learning have often been successfully employed in defending the outworks of Christianity; but simplicity and truth have preserved the citadel.
It is farther worthy of remark, that when God was about to promulgate his laws he chose Moses as the instrument, who appears to have laboured under some natural impediment in his speech, so that Aaron his brother was obliged to be his spokesman to Pharaoh; and that, when God had purposed to publish the Gospel to the Gentile world-to Athens, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome, he was pleased to use Saul of Tarsus as the principal instrument; a man whose bodily presence was weak, and his speech contemptible, 2Co 10:1; 2Co 10:10. And thus it was proved that God sent him to preach, not with human eloquence, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect but with the demonstration and power of his own Spirit; and thus the excellence of the power appeared to be of God, and not of man.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; baptism was not his principal work, not the main business for which Paul was sent; it was his work, otherwise he would not have baptized Crispus, or Gaius, or the household of Stephanas, but preaching was his principal work. It is very probable others (besides the apostles) baptized. It is hard to conceive how three thousand should in a day be added to the church, if Peter had baptized them all, Act 2:41. The apostle goes on, telling us how he preached the gospel, and thereby instructing all faithful ministers how they ought to preach.
Not with wisdom of words, or speech. Wisdom of words must signify either what we call rhetoric, or logic, delivering the mysteries of the gospel in lofty, tunable expressions, or going about to evidence them from rational demonstrations and arguments. This was the way (he saith) to have taken away all authority from the doctrine of the cross of Christ: Divine faith being nothing else but the souls assent to the Divine revelation because it is such, is not furthered, but hindered, by the arguing the object of it from the principles of reason, and the colouring of it with high-flown words and trim phrases. There is a decent expression to be used in the communicating the will of God unto men; but we must take heed that we do not diminish the authority of Gods revealed will, either by puerile flourishings of words, or philosophical argumentation.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
17. Paul says this not todepreciate baptism; for he exalts it most highly (Ro6:3). He baptized some first converts; and would have baptizedmore, but that his and the apostles’ peculiar work was to preach theGospel, to found by their autoptic testimony particular churches, andthen to superintend the churches in general.
sent meliterally, “asan apostle.”
not to baptizeeven inChrist’s name, much less in my own.
not with wisdom of wordsorspeech; philosophical reasoning set off with oratoricallanguage and secular learning, which the Corinthians set so unduea value upon (1Co 1:5; 1Co 2:1;1Co 2:4) in Apollos, and the wantof which in Paul they were dissatisfied with (2Co10:10).
cross of Christthe sumand substance of the Gospel (1Co 1:23;1Co 2:2), Christ crucified.
be made of noneeffectliterally, “be made void” (Ro4:14); namely, by men thinking more of the human reasonings andeloquence in which the Gospel was set forth, than of the Gospelitself of Christ crucified, the sinner’s only remedy, and God’shighest exhibition of love.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
For Christ sent me not to baptize,…. Some think the apostle refers to his particular mission from Christ, Ac 26:16 in which no mention is made of his administering the ordinance of baptism; but no doubt he had the same mission the rest of the apostles had, which was to baptize as well as preach; and indeed, if he had not been sent at all to baptize, it would have been unlawful for him to have administered baptism to any person whatever; but his sense is, that baptism was not the chief and principal business he was sent about; this was to be done mostly by those preachers of the word who travelled with him, or followed after him: he was not sent so much about this work,
but to preach the Gospel; for which he was most eminently qualified, had peculiar gifts for the discharge of it, and was greatly useful in it. This was what he was rather sent to do than the other, and this “not with wisdom of words”. Scholastic divinity, or the art of disputation, is by the f Karaites, a sect among the Jews, called
, “wisdom of words”: this the apostle seems to refer to, and signifies he was not sent with, or to preach, with words of man’s wisdom, with human eloquence and oratory, with great swelling words of vanity, but in a plain, humble, modest manner; on which account the false teachers despised him, and endeavoured to bring his ministry into contempt with others: but this way and manner of preaching he chose for this reason,
lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect; that is, either lest men’s ears and fancies should be so tickled and pleased with the eloquence of speech, the elegancy of diction, and accuracy of expression, the cadency of words, and beauty of the oration, with the manner, and not with the matter of preaching, and so the true use, end, and design of the doctrine of a crucified Christ be defeated; or lest the success of the ministry should be attributed to the force of enticing words, and the strength and persuasion of oratory, and not to the energy of divine power attending the doctrine of the cross.
f Sepher Cosri Orat. 5. Sign. 15, 16. fol. 277. 2. 278. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Efficacy of the Gospel; The Character of the Gospel. | A. D. 57. |
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.
We have here,
I. The manner in which Paul preached the gospel, and the cross of Christ: Not with the wisdom of words (v. 17), the enticing words of man’s wisdom (ch. ii. 4), the flourish of oratory, or the accuracies of philosophical language, upon which the Greeks so much prided themselves, and which seem to have been the peculiar recommendations of some of the heads of the faction in this church that most opposed this apostle. He did not preach the gospel in this manner, lest the cross of Christ should be of no effect, lest the success should be ascribed to the force of art, and not of truth; not to the plain doctrine of a crucified Jesus, but to the powerful oratory of those who spread it, and hereby the honour of the cross be diminished or eclipsed. Paul had been bred up himself in Jewish learning at the feet of Gamaliel, but in preaching the cross of Christ he laid his learning aside. He preached a crucified Jesus in plain language, and told the people that that Jesus who was crucified at Jerusalem was the Son of God and Saviour of men, and that all who would be saved must repent of their sins, and believe in him, and submit to his government and laws. This truth needed no artificial dress; it shone out with the greatest majesty in its own light, and prevailed in the world by its divine authority, and the demonstration of the Spirit, without any human helps. The plain preaching of a crucified Jesus was more powerful than all the oratory and philosophy of the heathen world.
II. We have the different effects of this preaching: To those who perish it is foolishness, but to those who are saved it is the power of God, v. 18. It is to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but unto those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God,1Co 1:23; 1Co 1:24. 1. Christ crucified is a stumbling-block to the Jews. They could not get over it. They had a conceit that their expected Messiah was to be a great temporal prince, and therefore would never own one who made so mean an appearance in life, and died so accursed a death, for their deliverer and king. They despised him, and looked upon him as execrable, because he was hanged on a tree, and because he did not gratify them with a sign to their mind, though his divine power shone out in innumerable miracles. The Jews require a sign, v. 22. See Matt. xii. 38. 2. He was to the Greeks foolishness. They laughed at the story of a crucified Saviour, and despised the apostles’ way of telling it. They sought for wisdom. They were men of wit and reading, men that had cultivated arts and sciences, and had, for some ages, been in a manner the very mint of knowledge and learning. There was nothing in the plain doctrine of the cross to suit their taste, nor humour their vanity, nor gratify a curious and wrangling temper: they entertained it therefore with scorn and contempt. What, hope to be saved by one that could not save himself! And trust in one who was condemned and crucified as a malefactor, a man of mean birth and poor condition in life, and cut off by so vile and opprobrious a death! This was what the pride of human reason and learning could not relish. The Greeks thought it little better than stupidity to receive such a doctrine, and pay this high regard to such a person: and thus were they justly left to perish in their pride and obstinacy. Note, It is just with God to leave those to themselves who pour such proud contempt on divine wisdom and grace. 3. To those who are called and saved he is the wisdom of God, and the power of God. Those who are called and sanctified, who receive the gospel, and are enlightened by the Spirit of God, discern more glorious discoveries of God’s wisdom and power in the doctrine of Christ crucified than in all his other works. Note, Those who are saved are reconciled to the doctrine of the cross, and led into an experimental acquaintance with the mysteries of Christ crucified.
III. We have here the triumphs of the cross over human wisdom, according to the ancient prophecy (Isa. xxix. 14): I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?1Co 1:19; 1Co 1:20, All the valued learning of this world was confounded, baffled, and eclipsed, by the Christian revelation and the glorious triumphs of the cross. The heathen politicians and philosophers, the Jewish rabbis and doctors, the curious searchers into the secrets of nature, were all posed and put to a nonplus. This scheme lay out of the reach of the deepest statesmen and philosophers, and the greatest pretenders to learning both among the Jews and Greeks. When God would save the world, he took a way by himself; and good reason, for the world by wisdom knew not God, v. 21. All the boasted science of the heathen world did not, could not, effectually bring home the world to God. In spite of all their wisdom, ignorance still prevailed, iniquity still abounded. Men were puffed up by their imaginary knowledge, and rather further alienated from God; and therefore it pleased him, by the foolishness of preaching, to save those that believe. By the foolishness of preaching–not such in truth, but in vulgar reckoning.
1. The thing preached was foolishness in the eyes of worldly-wise men. Our living through one who died, our being blessed by one who was made a curse, our being justified by one who was himself condemned, was all folly and inconsistency to men blinded with self-conceit and wedded to their own prejudices and the boasted discoveries of their reason and philosophy.
2. The manner of preaching the gospel was foolishness to them too. None of the famous men for wisdom or eloquence were employed to plant the church or propagate the gospel. A few fishermen were called out, and sent upon this errand. These were commissioned to disciple the nations: these vessels chosen to convey the treasure of saving knowledge to the world. There was nothing in them that at first view looked grand or august enough to come from God; and the proud pretenders to learning and wisdom despised the doctrine for the sake of those who dispensed it. And yet the foolishness of God is wiser than men, v. 25. Those methods of divine conduct that vain men are apt to censure as unwise and weak have more true, solid, and successful wisdom in them, than all the learning and wisdom that are among men: “You see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called, v. 26, c. You see the state of Christianity not many men of learning, or authority, or honourable extraction, are called.” There is a great deal of meanness and weakness in the outward appearance of our religion. For, (1.) Few of distinguished character in any of these respects were chosen for the work of the ministry. God did not choose philosophers, nor orators, nor statesmen, nor men of wealth and power and interest in the world, to publish the gospel of grace and peace. Not the wise men after the flesh, though men would apt to think that a reputation for wisdom and learning might have contributed much to the success of the gospel. Not the mighty and noble, however men might be apt to imagine that secular pomp and power would make way for its reception in the world. But God seeth not as man seeth. He hath chosen the foolish things of the world, the weak things of the world, the base and despicable things of the world, men of mean birth, of low rank, of no liberal education, to be the preachers of the gospel and planters of the church. His thoughts are not as our thoughts, nor his ways as our ways. He is a better judge than we what instruments and measures will best serve the purposes of his glory. (2.) Few of distinguished rank and character were called to be Christians. As the teachers were poor and mean, so generally were the converts. Few of the wise, and mighty, and noble, embraced the doctrine of the cross. The first Christians, both among Jews and Greeks, were weak, and foolish, and base; men of mean furniture as to their mental improvements, and very mean rank and condition as to their outward estate; and yet what glorious discoveries are there of divine wisdom in the whole scheme of the gospel, and in this particular circumstance of its success!
IV. We have an account how admirably all is fitted, 1. To beat down the pride and vanity of men. God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise–men of no learning to confound the most learned; the weak things of the world to confound the might–men of mean rank and circumstances to confound and prevail against all the power and authority of earthly kings; and base things, and things which are despised–things which men have in the lowest esteem, or in the utmost contempt, to pour contempt and disgrace on all they value and have in veneration; and things which are not, to bring to nought (to abolish) things that are–the conversion of the Gentiles (of whom the Jews had the most contemptuous and vilifying thoughts) was to open a way to the abolishing of that constitution of which they were so fond, and upon which they valued themselves so much as for the sake of it to despise the rest of the world. It is common for the Jews to speak of the Gentiles under this character, as things that are not. Thus, in the apocryphal book of Esther, she is brought in praying that God would not give his sceptre to those who are not, Esth. xiv. 11. Esdras, in one of the apocryphal books under his name, speaks to God of the heathen as those who are reputed as nothing, 2 Esdras vi. 56, 57. And the apostle Paul seems to have this common language of the Jews in his view when he calls Abraham the father of us all before him whom he believed, God, who calleth those things that are not as though they were, Rom. iv. 17. The gospel is fitted to bring down the pride of both Jews and Greeks, to shame the boasted science and learning of the Greeks, and to take down that constitution on which the Jews valued themselves and despised all the world besides, that no flesh should glory in his presence (v. 29), that there might be no pretence for boasting. Divine wisdom alone had the contrivance of the method of redemption; divine grace alone revealed it, and made it known. It lay, in both respects, out of human reach. And the doctrine and discovery prevailed, in spite of all the opposition it met with from human art or authority: so effectually did God veil the glory and disgrace the pride of man in all. The gospel dispensation is a contrivance to humble man. But, 2. It is as admirably fitted to glorify God. There is a great deal of power and glory in the substance and life of Christianity. Though the ministers were poor and unlearned, and the converts generally of the meanest rank, yet the hand of the Lord went along with the preachers, and was mighty in the hearts of the hearers; and Jesus Christ was made both to ministers and Christians what was truly great and honourable. All we have we have from God as the fountain, and in and through Christ as the channel of conveyance. He is made of God to us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (v. 30): all we need, or can desire. We are foolishness, ignorant and blind in the things of God, with all our boasted knowledge; and he is made wisdom to us. We are guilty, obnoxious to justice; and he is made righteousness, our great atonement and sacrifice. We are depraved and corrupt; and he is made sanctification, the spring of our spiritual life; from him, the head, it is communicated to all the members of his mystical body by his Holy Spirit. We are in bonds, and he is made redemption to us, our Saviour and deliverer. Observe, Where Christ is made righteousness to any soul, he is also made sanctification. He never discharges from the guilt of sin, without delivering from the power of it; and he is made righteousness and sanctification, that he may in the end be made complete redemption, may free the soul from the very being of sin, and loose the body from the bonds of the grave: and what is designed in all is that all flesh may glory in the Lord, v. 31. Observe, It is the will of God that all our glorifying should be in the Lord: and, our salvation being only through Christ, it is thereby effectually provided that it should be so. Man is humbled, and God glorified and exalted, by the whole scheme.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
For Christ sent me not to baptize ( ). The negative goes not with the infinitive, but with (from , , apostle).
For Christ did not send me to be a baptizer (present active infinitive, linear action) like John the Baptist.
But to preach the gospel ( ). This is Paul’s idea of his mission from Christ, as Christ’s apostle, to be
a gospelizer . This led, of course, to baptism, as a result, but Paul usually had it done by others as Peter at Caesarea ordered the baptism to be done, apparently by the six brethren with him (Ac 10:48). Paul is fond of this late Greek verb from and sometimes uses both verb and substantive as in 1Co 15:1 “the gospel which I gospelized unto you.”
Not in wisdom of words ( ). Note , not (the subjective negative), construed with rather than the infinitive. Not in wisdom of speech (singular). Preaching was Paul’s forte, but it was not as a pretentious philosopher or professional rhetorician that Paul appeared before the Corinthians (1Co 2:1-5). Some who followed Apollos may have been guilty of a fancy for external show, though Apollos was not a mere performer and juggler with words. But the Alexandrian method as in Philo did run to dialectic subtleties and luxuriant rhetoric (Lightfoot).
Lest the cross of Christ should be made void ( ). Negative purpose ( ) with first aorist passive subjunctive, effective aorist, of , old verb from , to make empty. In Paul’s preaching the Cross of Christ is the central theme. Hence Paul did not fall into the snare of too much emphasis on baptism nor into too little on the death of Christ. “This expression shows clearly the stress which St. Paul laid on the death of Christ, not merely as a great moral spectacle, and so the crowning point of a life of self-renunciation, but as in itself the ordained instrument of salvation” (Lightfoot).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Should be made of none effect [] . Lit., emptied. Rev., made void. Compare is made void, Rom 4:14, and the kindred adjective kenon, kenh vain, ch. 14 14. The nucleus of the apostolic preaching was a fact – Christ crucified. To preach it as a philosophic system would be to empty it of its saving power, a truth which finds abundant and lamentable illustration in the history of the Church.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “For Christ sent me not to baptize, For Christ (Greek apesteilen) “commissioned” or sent me not (personally) to baptize or immerse. Only the church, commissioned by Christ, has authority to baptize or immerse. And the administration is administered by whatever person the church authorizes, pastor, missionary, or laymen, if the church has no pastor, missionary, or deacon, Mat 28:18-20.
2) “But to preach the gospel.” (Greek alla) “But”, strongest adversative in the Greek and English language, (euangelizesthai) “to evangelize.” This certifies that immersion or water baptism is not a requisite or condition to evangelism or obtaining salvation. It is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for our sins, according to the Scripture, not an instrument, means, or agency by which salvation is obtained, 1Co 15:1-4; Rom 1:16.
3) “Not with wisdom of words.” Greek ouk en sophia logou) “not having its source in wise or cunning words.” The gospel is not a cunning fable of words woven without integrity, devised for deception, but good news with evidentiary testimony of truth designed for man’s salvation, 1Pe 1:16.
4) “Lest the cross of Christ.” (Greek hina me) “In order that not” (ho stauros) “the cross of Christ” referring to its meaning and implications of punishment for man’s sins Gal 6:14; Eph 2:16; Col 1:20.
5) “Should be made of none effect.” (Greek kenothe) “might or should be made -mad appear of no effect, void or vain” – if baptism, apparently one of the things over which the Corinthians were contending, had had any power or part in saving souls from hell, Paul asserts that such would render the cross of Christ void, vain, or of none effect -Yet it is declared that “He bare our sins in His body on the tree,” not in baptism. Baptism, as a burial, pictures the gospel, according to the Scriptures, Rom 6:4-5; Col 2:12; 1Pe 3:21.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
17. For Christ sent me not. He anticipates an objection that might, perhaps, be brought against him — that he had not discharged his duty, inasmuch as Christ commands his Apostles to baptize as well as teach. Accordingly he replies, that this was not the principal department of his office, for the duty of teaching had been principally enjoined upon him as that to which he should apply himself. For when Christ says to the Apostles, (Mat 28:19, Mar 16:15,) Go, preach and baptize, he connects baptism with teaching simply as an addition or appendage, so that teaching always holds the first place.
Two things, however, must be noticed here. The first is, that the Apostle does not here absolutely deny that he had a command to baptize, for this is applicable to all the Apostles: Go and baptize; and he would have acted rashly in baptizing even one, had he not been furnished with authority, but simply points out what was the chief thing in his calling. The second thing is, that he does not by any means detract here, as some think, from the dignity or utility of the sacrament. For the question here is, not as to the efficacy of baptism, and Paul does not institute this comparison with the view of detracting in any degree from that; but because it was given to few to teach, while many could baptize; and farther, as many could be taught at the same time, while baptism could only be administered to individuals successively, one by one, Paul, who excelled in the gift of teaching, applied himself to the work that was more especially needful for him, and left to others what they could more conveniently accomplish. Nay farther, if the reader considers minutely all the circumstances of the case, he will see that there is irony (71) tacitly conveyed here, dexterously contrived for making those feel acutely, who, under color of administering a ceremony, endeavor to catch a little glory at the expense of another’s labor. Paul’s labors in building up that Church had been incredible. There had come after him certain effeminate masters, who had drawn over followers to their party by the sprinkling of water; (72) Paul, then, giving up to them the title of honor, declares himself contented with having had the burden. (73)
Not with wisdom of words There is here an instance of anticipation, by which a twofold objection is refuted. For these pretended teachers might reply that it was ludicrous to hear Paul, who was not endowed with eloquence, making it his boast that the department of teaching had been assigned to him. Hence he says, by way of concession, that he had not been formed to be an orator, (74) to set himself off by elegance of speech: but a minister of the Spirit, that he might, by plain and homely speech, bring to nothing the wisdom of the world. Now, lest any one should object that he hunted after glory by his preaching, as much as others did by baptism, he briefly replies, that as the method of teaching that he pursued was the farthest removed from show, and breathed nothing of ambition, it could give no ground of suspicion on that head. Hence, too, if I mistake not, it may readily be inferred what was the chief ground of the controversy that Paul had with the wicked and unfaithful ministers of the Corinthians. It was that, being puffed up with ambition, that they might secure for themselves the admiration of the people, they recommended themselves to them by a show of words and mask of human wisdom.
From this main evil two others necessarily followed — that by these disguises (so to speak) the simplicity of the gospel was disfigured, and Christ was, as it were, clothed in a new and foreign garb, so that the pure and unadulterated knowledge of him was not to be found. Farther, as men’s minds were turned aside to neatness and elegance of expression, to ingenious speculations, and to an empty show of superior sublimity of doctrine, the efficacy of the Spirit vanished, and nothing remained but the dead letter. The majesty of God, as it shines forth in the gospel, was not to be seen, but mere disguise and useless show. Paul, accordingly, with the view of exposing these corruptions of the gospel, makes a transition here to the manner of his preaching. This he declares to be right and proper, while at the same time it was diametrically opposed to the ambitious ostentation of those men. (75) It is as though he had said — “I am well aware how much your fastidious teachers delight themselves in their high-sounding phrases. As for myself, I do not simply confess that my preaching has been conducted in a rude, coarse, and unpolished style, but I even glory in it. For it was right that it should be so, and this was the method that was divinely prescribed to me. ” By the wisdom of words, he does not mean λογοδαιδαλία, (76) which is mere empty talk, but true eloquence, which consists in skillful contrivance of subjects, ingenious arrangement, and elegance of expression. He declares that he had nothing of this: nay more, that it was neither suitable to his preaching nor advantageous.
Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect As he had so often previously presented the name of Christ in contrast with the arrogant wisdom of the flesh, so now, with the view of bringing down thereby all its pride and loftiness, he brings forward to view the cross of Christ. For all the wisdom of believers is comprehended in the cross of Christ, and what more contemptible than a cross? Whoever, therefore, would desire to be truly wise in God’s account, must of necessity stoop to this abasement of the cross, and this will not be accomplished otherwise than by his first of all renouncing his own judgment and all the wisdom of the world. Paul, however, shows here not merely what sort of persons Christ’s disciples ought to be, and what path of learning they ought to pursue, but also what is the method of teaching in Christ’s school. “ The cross of Christ (says he) would have been made of none effect, if my preaching had been adorned with eloquence and show.” The cross of Christ he has put here for the benefit of redemption, which must be sought from Christ crucified. Now the doctrine of the gospel which calls us to this, should savor of the nature of the Cross, so as to be despised and contemptible, rather than glorious, in the eyes of the world. The meaning, therefore, is, that if Paul had made use of philosophical acuteness and studied address in the presence of the Corinthians, the efficacy of the cross of Christ, in which the salvation of men consists, would have been buried, because it cannot come to us in that way.
Here two questions are proposed: first, whether Paul here condemns in every respect the wisdom of words, as opposed to Christ; and secondly, whether he means that eloquence and the doctrine of the gospel are invariably opposed, so they cannot agree together, and that the preaching of the gospel is vitiated, if the slightest tincture of eloquence (77) is made use of for adorning it. To the first of these I answer — that it were quite unreasonable to suppose, that Paul would utterly condemn those arts which, it is manifest, are excellent gifts of God, and which serve as instruments, as it were, to assist men in the accomplishment of important purposes. As for those arts, then, that have nothing of superstition, but contain solid learning, (78) and are founded on just principles, as they are useful and suited to the common transactions of human life, so there can be no doubt that they have come forth from the Holy Spirit; and the advantage which is derived and experienced from them, ought to be ascribed exclusively to God. What Paul says here, therefore, ought not to be taken as throwing any disparagement upon the arts, as if they were unfavorable to piety.
The second question is somewhat more difficult, for he says, that the cross of Christ is made of none effect if there be any admixture of the wisdom of words I answer, that we must consider who they are that Paul here addresses. The ears of the Corinthians were tickled with a silly fondness for high sounding style. (79) Hence they needed more than others to be brought back to the abasement of the cross, that they might learn to embrace Christ as he is, unadorned, and the gospel in its simplicity, without any false ornament. I acknowledge, at the same time, that this sentiment in some respects holds invariably, that the cross of Christ is made of none effect, not merely by the wisdom of the world, but also by elegance of address. For the preaching of Christ crucified is simple and unadorned, and hence it ought not to be obscured by false ornaments of speech. It is the prerogative of the gospel to bring down the wisdom of the world in such a way that, stripped of our own understanding, we show ourselves to be simply docile, and do not think or even desire to know anything, but what the Lord himself teaches. As to the wisdom of the flesh, we shall have occasion to consider more at large ere long, in what respects it is opposed to Christ. As to eloquence, I shall advert to it here in a few words, in so far as the passage calls for.
We see that God from the beginning ordered matters so, that, the gospel should be administered in simplicity, without any aid from eloquence. Could not he who fashions the tongues of men for eloquence, be himself eloquent if he chose to be so? While he could be so, he did not choose to be so. Why it was that he did not choose this, I find two reasons more particularly. The first is, that in a plain and unpolished manner of address, the majesty of the truth might shine forth more conspicuously, and the simple efficacy of his Spirit, without external aids, might make its way into the hearts of men. The second is, that he might more effectually try our obedience and docility, and train us at the same time to true humility. For the Lord admits none into his school but little children. (80) Hence those alone are capable of heavenly wisdom who, contenting themselves with the preaching of the cross, however contemptible it may be in appearance, feel no desire whatever to have Christ under a mask. Hence the doctrine of the gospel required to be regulated with this view, that believers should be drawn off from all pride and haughtiness.
But what if any one should at the present day, by discoursing with some degree of elegance, adorn the doctrine of the gospel by eloquence? Would he deserve to be on that account rejected, as though he either polluted it or obscured Christ’s glory. I answer in the first place, that eloquence is not at all at variance with the simplicity of the gospel, when it does not merely not disdain to give way to it, and be in subjection to it, but also yields service to it, as a handmaid to her mistress. For as Augustine says, “He who gave Peter a fisherman, gave also Cyprian an orator.” By this he means, that both are from God, notwithstanding that the one, who is much the superior of the other as to dignity, is utterly devoid of gracefulness of speech; while the other, who sits at his feet, is distinguished by the fame of his eloquence. That eloquence, therefore, is neither to be condemned nor despised, which has no tendency to lead Christians to be taken up with an outward glitter of words, or intoxicate them with empty delight, or tickle their ears with its tinkling sound, or cover over the cross of Christ with its empty show as with a veil; (81) but, on the contrary, tends to call us back to the native simplicity of the gospel, tends to exalt the simple preaching of the cross by voluntarily abasing itself, and, in fine, acts the part of a herald (82) to procure a hearing for those fishermen and illiterate persons, who have nothing to recommend them but the energy of the Spirit.
I answer secondly, that the Spirit of God, also, has an eloquence of his own, but of such a nature as to shine forth with a native luster peculiar to itself, or rather (as they say) intrinsic, more than with any adventitious ornaments. Such is the eloquence that the Prophets have, more particularly Isaiah, David, and Solomon. Moses, too, has a sprinkling of it. Nay farther, even in the writings of the Apostles, though they are more unpolished, there are notwithstanding some sparks of it occasionally emitted. Hence the eloquence that is suited to the Spirit of God is of such a nature that it does not swell with empty show, or spend itself in empty sound, but is solid and efficacious, and has more of substance than elegance.
(71) “ Ironie, c’est a dire, mocquerie;” — “Irony, that is to say, mockery.”
(72) “ Seulement en les arrousant d’eau: c’est a dire, baptizant;” — “Simply by sprinkling them with water, that is to say, baptizing.”
(73) “ Toute la charge et la pesanteur du fardeau;” — “The whole charge and weight of the burden.”
(74) “ Vn Rhetoricien ou harangueur;” — “A Rhetorician, or declaimer.”
(75) “ Ces vaillans docteurs;” — “Those valiant teachers.”
(76) The term λογοδαιδαλία properly denotes speech ingeniously contrived. It is compounded of λογος (speech) and Δαιδαλος (Daedalus,) an ingenious artist of Athens, celebrated for his skill in statuary and architecture. Hence everything that was skilfully contrived was called Daedalean. See Lucr. 4. 555, and 5. 235; Virg. G. 4. 179; and Aen. 7. 282. — Ed
(77) “ Eloquence et rhetorique;” — “Eloquence and rhetoric.”
(78) “ Vne bonne erudition, et scauoir solide;” — “Good learning, and solid wisdom.”
(79) “ Les Corinthiens auoyent les oreilles chatouilleuses, et estoyent transportez d’vn fol appetit d’auoir des gens qui eussent vn beau parler;” — “The Corinthians had itching ears, (2Ti 4:3,) and were carried away with a silly eagerness to have persons that had a good manner of address.”
(80) “ Les humbles;” — “The humble.”
(81) “ Ni a offusquer de sa pompe la croix de Christ, comme qui mettroit vne nuee au denant;” — “Nor to darken the cross of Christ with its empty show, as if one were drawing a cloud over it.”
(82) “ Brief, a seruir comme de trompette;” — “In short, to serve as a trumpet.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(17) Not to baptize.Preaching was eminently the work of the Apostles. The deacons used to baptise (Act. 10:48). The mention of the preaching of the glad tidings affords an opportunity for the Apostle stating in vindication of himself why that, and not philosophy, was the subject of his preaching, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. Such, and not inability or ignorance, was the grand cause of his simplicity.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
17. Sent ’ , the word whence apostle is derived. Note on Mat 10:2. Christ apostled me not to baptize. Baptizing was not named in his apostolic commission. Act 9:15; Act 22:15; Act 26:16-18; Gal 1:16. Yet baptism was included in the commission of the twelve, (Mat 28:19,) to be done, doubtless, either by themselves or by subordinates appointed.
Wisdom of words Not hereby meaning skill in speech; nor, as Olshausen, “word-wisdom;” nor philosophical discourse; but wisdom or philosophy which is the subject of words or discourse by philosophers. This will appear in our progress. The Greek word here rendered wisdom, , sophia, is the last half of the word , philosophia, philosophy; and means throughout this chapter precisely the same thing, except that the former signified wisdom, and the latter, signifying love of wisdom, was the more modest profession for a sage to make. Both terms mean that system of thought, originated by the intellect of deep thinkers, which assumes to decide on the origin of all things, the existence of God, and the nature and destiny of man. The systems were admired for their profundity, and men divided into sects and schools following different leaders of thought, just as the Corinthian Christians were following different leaders. That such is the meaning of the word here is plain from 1Co 1:22, where the sophia is expressly affirmed to be that which was the object of the search of the Greeks. In its best form this sophia was the nearest approach to true religion that the unaided reason of man could attain. Yet, source of pride and partisanship as it was to the intellectual Gentile world, the apostle triumphs in declining a similar homage from the Church, and in abasing sophia to the bottom, and placing the cross at the summit. Not but that there was a value and a grandeur positively in the Greek sophia. It was only as it came in competition with the cross, as a substitute for the Gospel, as a means of enlightenment and salvation to men, that it was to be abased; just as all things belonging to mere man must be abased before that which is truly of God. Hence the sophia, with all of its human nobility, power, and pretension, must all be trampled in the dust when the triumphs of the cross were approaching. Socrates and Plato were illustrious men; their philosophies were a noble product; but when they come into collision with Christ and his cross into what nothingness must they not sink!
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
The Wisdom of God and the Foolishness of Men.
The foolishness of the Gospel-message:
v. 17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel; not with wisdom of words, lest the Cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
v. 18. For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
v. 19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. The apostle here characterizes his office, trying to make it clear to the Corinthian Christians wherein the ministry of the Gospel really consists. He says of himself that Christ did not send him, did not entrust him with the office of an apostle, for the purpose of baptizing, but for that of preaching the Gospel. The appointment to this office did indeed include the work of administering Baptism, Mat 28:19. Incidentally, however, the work of preaching, of bearing testimony of Christ and His atonement, was the chief calling of the apostle. Without the Word of the Gospel the Sacraments have no efficacy. “Without the Word of God the water is simple water and no Baptism. ” The function of administering the sacrament of Baptism follows from the greater function, that of spreading the Gospel-message. “In the command to preach the command to baptize is included in this way, that he who is called to preach the Gospel is also empowered to baptize; but, on the other hand, not every one that is empowered and has the right to baptize thereby also is qualified and called to preach. Therefore Paul can say that Christ had not sent him to baptize, without thereby undervaluing Baptism as a means of grace. The actual performance of the act of baptism, which belongs to the office of the Church, Mat 28:19, the apostles could have carried out through others, Act 10:48; See Joh 4:1-2, who were their hands and Christ’s in this service. But the preaching of the Gospel, through which alone the practice of baptizing is made possible, they could indeed carry on in fellowship with others, but they could not personally omit this function or have it done only through a delegation of preachers, for they were trumpets in the world of nations and lights in the darkness.”
The apostle now shows wherein the true power of the Gospel consists, first from the negative side: Not in wisdom of speech, not in the rhetorical argumentation of Greek philosophy, lest the cross of Christ be rendered void, without effect. To clothe the preaching of the Cross in the words of man’s wisdom, to seek for great oratorical effect in teaching its glorious truths, is not only not doing a service to the message of Christ, but it is fraught with the greatest danger to the Gospel, it works harm; it shuts off the power of the divine message. The true Gospel-preacher is not to stand before his congregation primarily as an orator trained in the art of rhetoric, but as a witness of Christ, bearing testimony to the great facts in and through which God has chosen to reveal Himself to men. The doctrine of the justification of a poor sinner, whose center is the cross of Calvary, is bereft of its efficiency by any deliberate display of art, which brings forward the person of the messenger rather than his message. In many modern churches in which the Gospel of Christ is occasionally, incidentally, mentioned, the very intellectual or esthetic pleasure which the hearers feel under the sway of the speaker’s artful eloquence will tend to shut off the influence of the Gospel contained in the minister’s message.
This assertion Paul now supports by a fact from experience: For the Word of the Cross is to them that are lost foolishness, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. The Word of the Cross includes the account of all that was done for the entire world on the cross, the message of reconciliation through the work performed on the cross by the Redeemer. And this Word, this Gospel, is to them that perish, that are on the way to perdition, folly; their considering it so is the cause of their being lost; their reason, their wisdom, their entire sinful nature, rises in opposition to a message which is so utterly at variance with the pride of man, and therefore they do not receive the benefit of its assurance. But on the other hand, that same Word is to them that are saved, that is, to us believers, the power of God unto salvation. The believers of all time know that the Cross of Christ, the message of the crucified Christ, is a saving power. In the statement of the facts of the redemption of the world lies the power of the Gospel, not in any man’s way of presenting them. And the very fact that we have experienced the power of the Word in our own hearts is to us a testimony of our salvation.
For the fact that the wisdom of this world, in regarding the Gospel-preaching folly, paves the way for its own damnation, Paul adduces a Scripture-passage: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the understanding of the prudent I will frustrate, Isa 29:14. Just as the wisdom of the Jews, which relied upon shallow cunning, was brought to naught in the days of the prophet, just as their hypocrisy and lip-service resulted in their rejection, so the wisdom of him that believes himself to be exceptionally rich in understanding according to the standard of this world, and with supercilious haughtiness despises the message of the Cross, will be frustrated. “Gentile and Jewish wisdom, united in the rejection of the Gospel, are coming to a like breakdown; and Paul draws a powerful warning from sacred history. ” And the warning must be sounded today as strongly as it ever was in the history of the world.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
1Co 1:17. Should be made of none effect If the doctrine of the crucifixion of the Son of God for the sins of men be indeed true, it is undoubtedly a truth of the highest importance; and it might reasonably be expected that a person who had been instructed in it by such extraordinary methods, should appear to lay the main stress of his preaching upon it. The design of this wonderful dispensation might therefore have been in a great measure frustrated, if it had been the care of the first preachers of it, and particularly of St. Paul, to study a vain parade of words, and to set off their discourses with those glittering ornaments which the Grecian orators so often sought, and which the Corinthians were so ready to affect. But amidst all the beautiful simplicity which a deep conviction of the Gospel tended to produce, there was room left for the most manly and noble kind of eloquence; which therefore the Christian preachershouldlabourto make habitual to himself, and of which this Apostle himself is a most illustrious example. From this verse to 1Co 1:31. St. Paul uses another argument to stop their followers from glorying in these false apostles; observing, that neither any advantage of extraction, nor skill in the learning of the Jews, nor in the philosophy and eloquence of the Greeks, was that for which God chose men to be preachers of the Gospel. Those whom he had made choice of for overturning the mighty and the learned, were mean, plain, and illiterate men. See Doddridge and Locke.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 1:17 . Rapid and skilful transition (comp Rom 1:16 ) to this ( .), [204] and theme of the section ( ).
. . [205] ] In the assured consciousness that the design of his apostolic mission was teaching , Paul recognised that baptizing , as an external office and one that required no special gift, should as a rule be left to others, the apostolic (Act 13:5 ), in order to avoid, for his own part, being drawn away from following out that higher aim, which was his specific calling. A very needful and salutary division of duties, considering the multitude of those converted by him! Peter, too, acted in the same way (Act 10:48 ), and perhaps all the apostles. Nor was this contrary to Christ’s command in Mat 28:19 , seeing that, according to it also (comp Luk 24:47 ; Mar 16:15 ), teaching was the main business of the apostolic office, while the baptismal command was equally fulfilled by baptism performed by means of others authorized by the apostles. [207]
] is not here, any more than elsewhere, to be taken as equivalent to non tam quam (Beza, Piscator, Grotius, Estius, Storr, Rosenmller, Flatt, Pott, and others; comp also Fritzsche, a [209] Marc. p. 785), but absolutely (see Winer, p. 461 ff. [E. T. 621 ff.]; Klotz, a [210] Devar. p. 9 f.); and the absoluteness of the negation is not at all to be set down to the account of the strong rhetorical colouring (Rckert, comp Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 306 [E. T. 356]). To baptize was really not the purpose for which Christ sent Paul, but to preach (Act 9:15 ; Act 9:20 ; Act 22:15 ; Act 26:16-18 ); in saying which it is not implied that he was not authorized to administer baptism ( , , Theophylact), but sent in order to baptize he was not. Comp Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact.
] does not belong to . (Storr, Flatt), which would be an involved construction, but links itself closely to , as telling in what element that does not take place. The negation is objective , attaching to the object (Khner, II. 714. 1; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 257 ff.), negativing actually the ; hence not . That is not the same as , . (Erasmus, Grotius, and many others, including Flatt and Pott), but emphasizes as the main conception, may be seen in Winer, p. 221 f. [E. T. 296 f.]: to preach without wisdom, of speech , without the discourse having a philosophic character, as desired by the Hellenic taste. We are not to apply this, however, to the philosophic contents of the teaching (Storr, Rosenmller, Flatt, and others), but to the form , which consists in the clothing of the doctrine in philosophic garb, in speculative skill, argumentative reasoning, illustration, elaboration of the matter, and the like, together with the effect which this, from the nature of the case, may have upon the doctrine itself. For it followed as a matter of course from Paul’s being sent by Christ , that he was not to preach a doctrine of this world’s wisdom (as did Plato, Aristotle, the Sophists, etc.); what he had to do was to deliver the substance of the which is in truth given for all cases alike without casting it in any philosophic mould ; his speech was not to be , lest its substance should lose its essential character. This substance was the crucified Christ, about whom he had to preach, not in the style and mode of presentation used by the wisdom of this world, not in such a way that his preaching would have been the setting forth of a Christian philosophy of religion. Even the dialectic element in Paul’s discourses widely differs from anything of this sort.
. . [213] ] aim of the . . .: in order that the cross of Christ might not be emptied (comp Rom 4:14 ) of its essence divinely effectual for salvation (Rom 1:16 ). The cross of Christ that Christ was crucified (and thereby won salvation for us), this fact alone was the pure main substance (“nucleus et medulla,” Calovius) of the apostolic preaching, and as such has the essential quality of proving itself in all believers the saving power of God, and of thereby, in the way of inward living experience, bringing to nought all human wisdom (1Co 1:18-19 ff.). Now, had the cross of Christ been preached , it would have been emptied of its divine and essential power to bless, since it would then have made common cause with man’s wisdom, and therefore, instead of overthrowing the latter, would have exalted it and made it come, totally alien in nature as it was, in place of itself. Bengel says well: “Sermo autem crucis nil heterogeneum admittit .”
With marked emphasis, is put last .
[204] Suggested naturally by what had been said in vv. 14, 16, and without any ironical side-glance at those who had prided themselves on their baptizers (Calovius); in particular, not levelled at boastings on this ground on the part of Jewish-Christians who had been baptized by Peter (Hofmann); nor yet against teachers “qui praetextu ceremoniae gloriolam venantur” (Calvin and Osiander). Such polemical references are dragged in without warrant in the text.
[205] . . . .
[207] According to Ritschl, altkath. Kirche , p. 369, baptism was performed on the others by those three, who themselves had been first baptized by Paul, and who had become overseers. Against this view it may be at once urged, that if he had regarded the baptism of those three in that light, Stephanas would not have occurred to him only by way of afterthought . Besides, there must have been baptized converts there before a presbytery could be erected. Comp. Act 14:23 .
[209] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[210] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.
[213] . . . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
1Co 1:17-31 . Paul justifies the simplicity of his way of teaching by the contents of the gospel . This, like all that follows on to 1Co 4:21 , is directed primarily against the pride of wisdom displayed by the party which certainly threatened most danger in the circumstances of the Corinthian church, the party, namely, of Apollos (not that of Christ); see 1Co 3:4 , 1Co 4:6 . As to the Petrine and the Christine-party, there is no special entering into details; it is only in passing that the judgment is extended so as to include them also (see 1Co 3:22 ).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
II. THE TRUE METHOD OF PREACHING
A. Repugnant to the predelictions of both Greeks and Jews
1Co 1:17-25
17Not with [in ] wisdom of words, [discourse15] lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18For the preaching [discourse] of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God. 19For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of 20the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this16 world [the world]? 21For after that [since]17 in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased 22God by the foolishness of preaching18 to save them that believe. For [since both]19 23the [om. the] Jews require a sign, [signs]20 and the [om. the] Greeks seek after wisdom: But we [on the contrary]21 preach Christ crucified, unto the [om. the] Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the [om. the] Greeks [Gentiles ]22 foolishness; 24But unto them which are called, [these, the called]23 both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
[The connection.from the mention of his commission, especially to preach the Gospel, the Apostle takes occasion, as it were incidentally, to set forth the manner in which this work was to be done. The topic thus introduced has however a direct bearing upon the previous one, for he handles it in a way both to vindicate his own course to which some had taken exception, and also to rebuke those tendencies, which, in their antagonism to a pure Gospel, had engendered contention and schism. Of the mode of transition to this theme Bengel remarks: I doubt whether it would be approved by the rules of Corinthian eloquence. Therefore the Apostle in this very passage is furnishing a specimen, so to speak, of apostolic folly, and yet the whole is arranged with the greatest wisdom.]
1Co 1:17 b21. [The proper mode of preaching described first negatively].Not in wisdom of speech. . It is better to join this clause to the word preach just preceding, than to the main statement Christ sent me. [As to the meaning there are three distinct interpretations. 1. That of Calvin and others, who place the stress on speech, and understand by the phrase ornate and artificial discourse in contrast with plain homely speech. The objection to this is that it fails to give due weight to the word wisdom, which is used by the Apostle in a strict sense throughout the chapter, and is the special object of his animad version. 2. That of Olshausen, who takes it to denote word-wisdom, i.e., a wisdom in appearance and not in reality, an interpretation which de Wette justly styles sonderbar. 3. That of Storr and Flatt, de Wette and Hodge, who, taking the emphasis to be on wisdom, and understanding it of the subject-matter, suppose the Apostle to be repudiating here all connection with heathen philosophy. But to this it may be replied that such repudiation was wholly gratuitous, for no one would imagine that in preaching the Gospel he would be likely to employ the speculations of a secular Wisdom 4. That of Meyer and Kling, who while emphasizing wisdom, understand it as referring to the form of discourse. According to this, what the Apostle asserts is that he was not to preach the Gospel in a philosophical manner, making it a matter of science rather than a vital power for the heart and conscience. In such a case the Genitive would be used analogously to the Hebrew construction, where the first noun in construction qualifies the second. Hence wisdom of discourse would be=philosophic discourse. See Nordheimer Heb. Grammar B. III. 1 Corinthians 5. 801. 2.] So Neander = , not wisdom absolutely, but the wisdom of dialectic demonstration. Indeed it is not to be denied that in the course of this paragraph both and are used also in relation to the subject matter, and that this is always more or less affected by the mode of exposition. Unquestionably it makes a difference whether the subject matter is first vitally apprehended by the spirit and then creates its own form of expression for itself, or whether a form foreign and unsuitable is forced upon it, drawn from other spheres of life and thought; in other words whether the Gospel is proclaimed naturally in its divine excellence and simplicity, or whether, taken up under the conceptions of an alien philosophy, and arrayed in the rhetoric and dialectics of a people still unsanctified (like the Greeks for example), it be thus presented to the mind. An instance of the latter kind occurred not only in the Gnosis of the heretics, but also to a certain degree in that of the Alexandrian Church of a later period. And probably it was with an eye to the beginning of such a tendency in the party of Apollos that the Apostle affirmed that, according to the will of the Great Commissioner, it devolved on him not to preach the Gospel in wisdom of speech. And the expression means nothing else than: not in the style of a philosopher trained in the rhetoric and dialectics of the schools, [but in that of a witness, bearing testimony to the great facts in and through which God had chosen to reveal himself. The reason for this was], lest the Cross of Christ be made of none effect., become empty, void; here according to the connection: be robbed of its power and influence. By the Cross of Christ we understand that death of Christ upon the cross by which we are redeemed and reconciled to God. This is the centre and kernel of all Gospel preaching, by the power of which sinners are delivered from the tyranny of sin, and restored to a new and divine life. And this cross, he says, would be bereft of all efficiency for such results were it set forth in the forms of philosophy, inasmuch as in this way it would serve only to call out the assent of the intellect or awaken an aesthetic pleasure, while the flesh, that is, the corrupt natural life of the selfish heart, would remain unaffected. But let the cross only be held up before that heart in its divine simplicity, and it would then display an energy destructive of this life. Through it the flesh with its affections and lusts would be crucified. (Gal 5:24). But although this blessed result is obtained by means of preaching or doctrine, yet it does not follow from this that we are to make the cross here equivalent to the doctrine of the cross, or to the doctrine of Christ crucified. Rather the relation which this clause sustains to the foregoing implies that here we are to understand the simple fact itself held up in its own native majesty and power. [Whatever obscures or diverts attention from this deprives, it to that extent of its power].
1Co 1:18. [The position thus taken he proceeds to explain and substantiate from obvious facts.For the preaching (lit: word ) of the cross is to them that perish folly, but to those that are saved, ourselves, it is the power of God.Here the force of the argument is to be found in the second member of the antithesis. The first is introduced merely as a concession to a supposed objection. The Corinthians might retort, The cross of Christ rendered without effect by wisdom of speech! Why, your method of preaching is not half so taking and effectual as the one you denounce. This the Apostle concedes, but limits its applicability only to a certain class, to those who are in the way of sin and are going to destruction. These, he says, are blind. They have no sense of sin, and gee not therefore the wisdom of the cross. To them it is folly. But while to them I acknowledged it is such as you say, yet to those who are in the way of salvation, the cross is a thing of power. They see its meaning. They feel its disenthralling and life-giving influences. And it is by what you see of its effect among these that you must judge of it]. Accordingly that to which this divine power is ascribed, the word of the cross, must be regarded as Gospel-preaching in its simplest and most unadorned style, the earnest exhibition of the great act of redeeming love directly to the heart, without human accessories. It is not the doctrine about the cross, but the word which presents the cross itself in its concrete form and in its plain and pungent application to human conditions. It is of this he predicates a divine power. But this power is manifested only among such as are saveda thought which is brightened by the foregoing contrast. In both clauses the sign of the Dative to means in their judgment. But in the one case it is a judgment proceeding from a blinded mind, in the other a judgment founded upon blessed experience. In reference to the first see 2Co 4:3-4; to both 2Co 2:15-16. To the former it seems absurd to have the fact of Christs death nakedly held before them as the ground of all salvationto hear a voice from the cross calling unto them Look unto me and be saved, because they see no rational connection between cause and effect here. These are the lost, i.e., they are excluded from all participation in the blessedness and glory of Gods kingdom, and are doomed to bitter anguish and disgrace. (See 2Th 1:9; Rev 21:8; Rev 22:15; Mar 9:43). In contrast with this appears the state of salvation, that is, a deliverance from this doom, (see Luk 6:9; Mat 18:11; Jam 4:12) which includes also a share in the blessedness and glory of Gods kingdom. (Comp. 2Ti 4:18; Rom 5:10; Rom 8:21). There are here, then, two classes of persons contrasted in relation to their final lot. For the purpose of designating them uses P. the present participles () as the ones best suited, since time is not taken into account. It is therefore not the present for the future for the purpose of indicating the certainty of the lot contemplated, nor yet does the present denote the progressive development in the condition of the parties. Nor yet would it be in place here to introduce the idea of predestination, as Rckert does, taking the terms to denote the divinely appointed destiny of two classes, for with Paul this idea never occurs in any such way as to exclude the idea of a free self-determination, (comp. 2Th 2:10; Act 13:46) since to all pro founder contemplation the work of God and the act of man in the genesis and development of faith are inseparably one. This only must be conceded that the Apostles mode of expression is grounded upon a ; a mode of teaching peculiar to him. Paul delights to refer back everything at once to the divine superintendence. Only in this reference the human receptivity or non-receptivity is at the same time included. Neander. On the power of God see Rom 1:6 where the Gospel is said to be the power of God to every one that believeth. The contrast between folly and power is certainly not a strict one, but nevertheless a true one. As the former implies that the Gospel is, according to the judgment of those that perish, a weak thing, so does the latter imply that it is to the others, a manifestation of divine wisdom; or, as the idea of folly excludes that of power, so does the idea of power presuppose that of wisdom.
1Co 1:19. Confirmation adduced from Scripture. For it is written [This formula with its following citations is found only in those Epistles of Paul which were addressed to churches in which there was a large admixture of Jewish converts. It does not occur in those written to the Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, which were composed almost entirely of Gentile converts. This coincidence between the History in Acts and the character of the Epistles is evidence of the genuineness of both. Words.] I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and bring to naught the prudence of the prudent.This Divine declaration is taken from a prophecy of Isaiah, which culminates in an announcement of salvation through the Messiah. (Isa 29:14, comp. 1Co 1:17 ff.), and, as the result and penalty of the hypocritical conduct of the Jewish people, proclaims the downfall of the wisdom of their wise ones and the vanishing of the understanding of the prudent, so that this wisdom and understanding should contribute nothing towards their deliverance in the day of evil. This judicial threatening on the part of God was incontrovertibly fulfilled in the times of the New Testament. The wisdom of the ungodly proves unfit for apprehending the Gospel salvation. In reference to this it loses all its availability and appears as nothing worth. The citation is not literal, though, according to the sense, exact. [It is taken from LXX. with slight variation: for , and omitted twice. The prophet makes use of neuter verbs, while Paul turns them into the active form by making them have a reference to God. They are however perfectly the same in meaning. Wisdom perishes, but it is by the Lords destroying it. Prudence vanishes, but it is by the Lords covering it over and effacing it.The application of this to the subject in hand is this: The Lord has been wont to punish the arrogance of those who, depending on their own judgment, think to be leaders to themselves and others; and if this happened among a people whose wisdom the other nations had occasion to admire, what will become of others? Calvin]. In reference to this subject see the words of Christ: Mat 11:25 ss.; also 1Co 15:7-8.
1Co 1:20. [The Apostles triumphant challenge for disproof of this declaration.Where is a wise? where is a scribe? where is a disputer of this world?The designations here are all anarthrous, and Meyer, de Wette, Kling, all translate as above. Alford, Stanley, Hodge, Barnes, insert the article. The difference in meaning is plain, though not important. In the one case the inquiry is after the person mentioned, q. d., Where is a wise man to be found? as though he were not. In the other the question is, What has become of him conceding that he exists? The latter better suits the drift of the text.There is a question also as to whether these words likewise are cited from the Old Testament. There is something like them to be found in Isa 33:18, uttered in a burst of triumph over the defeat of Sennacherib, and Stanley considers them as taken from thence. But as the Apostle is here evidently speaking in his own name, we can regard his language as no more than an undesigned imitation of that of the Propheta lingering echo of it freely reproduced to suit a present purpose. He is here appealing in his own name to existing facts by way of confirmation. Where is the wise? etc. So Calvin]. They have vanished. They pass for nothing in the Divine economy. So far as it is concerned, they are as if they had never been. His mode of challenge occurs also elsewhere with Paul (1Co 15:55; Rom 3:27; Rom 3:29; Rom 3:31.)The last attributive: of this world, belongs, although not grammatically, (since the questions are rapid and abrupt), yet logically, to all the three terms, and describes those mentioned as belonging to the lower stage of human development, the Pr Messianic period. This old world, so far as it seeks to maintain itself still, even after that which is perfect has come in Christ, shows itself to be perverse and at enmity with God; yea, as in itself evil, because pervaded with error and sin. Comp. Gal 1:4, from the present evil world. Here the term rendered world is a and more properly denotes a period of time, an age of the world. The antithesis to this is or : that age, or: the coming age. ( ). This is a course of existence founded on the redemptive work of Christ, and includes in itself all the impulsive forces and power of the new life. Until the end of this age, the coming age, will be in a germinal state, enclosed and restricted within the envelope of the present; but then it will burst into open manifestation as the sole reality. The : present age, is identical with : this world. The only distinction is that the latter designates the sphere of life itself as one essentially godless and corrupt in its on-goings, especially the human race as alienated from the life of God, while the former indicates the period of time through which it continues. Hence in Eph 2:2 we see the two united in one phrase. : the course of this world. The present age, as the period of the rule of sin and error, has for its god or governing principle the devil, as in 2Co 4:4 he is denominated the god of this world, and in Joh 12:31 the archor or ruler of this world. In so far now as the Jews also in their hostility to the perfect revelation of God in Christ, by which they became blinded to the nature of earlier revelations, also (2Co 3:14 ff.) belonged to this corrupt age, and inasmuch as in the progress of this discussion the Jewish element also is brought up to view, we shall be obliged to understand by the wise here mentioned, Jewish as well as Pagan sages, (not the one or the other exclusively); and since the Apostle afterwards speaks of wisdom only, it may be well perhaps to take the term wise in a general sense as denoting all those who were devoted to the higher science, or at least pretended to be such; and the other two terms as specific, the scribe denoting the wisdom-seekers among the Jewsand the disputer, the like among the Greeks. Such appropriation of the terms is supported by the fact that according to the uniform usage of the New Testament (Act 19:35 alone excepted) scribe is the designation of the Jewish learned class. But the other term, , which is best translated: disputer (comp. Mar 8:11 ff.; Act 15:2; Act 15:7; Act 28:29), and hence denotes a class of persons who make disputing their business and have facility in it, can be only incidentally applied to the Sophists then widely spread throughout the Hellenic world. So Meyer. But would it not be more suited to the rhetorical character of the passage to make no such disposition of terms, but merely to abide by the general fact that the Apostle had in his eye men who boasted of their learning and science and ready abilities, and as masters of the truth looked down contemptuously upon the massesmen who were to be found among the Jews as well as among the Greeks,and that only in the word scribe there is a prevailing reference to the Jew? [Stanley, who takes 1Co 1:20 as a modified citation from Isa 33:18, says These expressions acquire additional force by a comparison with the Rabbinical belief that the cessation of Rabbinical wisdom was to be one of the signs of the Messiahs coming see the quotations from the Mishna in Wetstein ad loc.), and that this was expressly foretold in Isa 33:18. Analogous to this was the belief of Christians that the oracles of the heathen world ceased on the birth of Christ].
The challenge is strengthened by a further questionhath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?i.e. actually demonstrated that it is not what it professes to be; but rather, follyunreason, stupidity, incapacity for knowledge in relation to the highest matters. [We must here carefully notice these two things that the knowledge of all the sciences is mere smoke, where the heavenly science is wanting; and man with all his acuteness is as stupid for obtaining of himself a knowledge of the mysteries of God as an ass is unqualified for understanding musical harmonies.Paul (however) does not expressly condemn either mans natural perspicuity, or wisdom acquired from practice and experience, or the cultivation of mind obtained by learning; but only declares that all this is of no avail for acquiring spiritual wisdom.We must restrict what he here teaches to the specialties of the case in hand. Calvin].
1Co 1:21.Shows why and how it was that God had made foolish the wisdom of this world.For since in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching [, not , not so much the preaching as the thing preached, though not without an implication of the former] to save them that believe.The relation of the premise to the conclusion is that of a sequence, divinely ordained in the way of punishment [rather of mercy], so that in the first mans guilt [rather guilty impotence, see below], is assigned as the ground of what is stated in the other. From this we perceive the incorrectness of Rckerts view, who, snuffing predestination everywhere, explains the phrase in the wisdom of God to mean: in virtue of Gods wisdom, its leading and appointment. Neither does it consist with the relation of the two clauses to explain it of the wisdom of Gods plan of salvation in the Gospel (Mosheim and others); for the refusal to recognize this wisdom was not anything to which the divine determination spoken of in the second clause could be referred, as to something definitely concluded upon. To this it must be added that from the very beginning, before the disposition of men in relation to it could be ascertained, the preaching of the Gospel had for the world the appearance of folly. The case is entirely different in 1Co 2:6. Rather we must here understand a reference to something prior to Christ, to certain exhibitions of Divine wisdom previous to the revelation made in Christ, in and through which man could or ought to have discerned God,to its sway in nature and history, and indeed not merely to that revelation alluded to in Rom 1:18 ff; Act 14:17; Act 17:24 ff, but also to the ordinances of this wisdom in the guidance of the covenant-people, who, because of their unbelief (with the exception of the election, Rom 11:7), belonged together with the world. Neander, on the contrary, discovers here only a contrast instituted between revelation and the religion of reason, and regards the wisdom of the Greeks as the particular object of whose relation to Christianity the Apostle is treating. But this interpretation is opposed by the fact that in the 1Co 1:22-24 closely connected by : since, with v. 21, Paul three times expressly states that by the world, in v. 21, not only the heathen but also the Jews are intended. But does not the declaration in reference to the heathen that, they did not know God conflict with Rom 1:21 where it said that when they knew God they glorified him not as God? We must here distinguish between that sense of a God forced upon the mind by a revelation of God, a merely passive religious notion, the ineffectualness of which is set forth even in the passage above referred to, and that living knowledge of God, which involves communion with Him, and which is the thing here denied of the world and which, had the world possessed, it would have qualified the world for the comprehension of that more perfect revelation in Christ which was to be the fulfilment and consummation of all that had gone before, so that had this knowledge existed such a decree of God as is affirmed in the second clause would not have been made, nor would the preaching of the Gospel have been to them foolishness. The wisdom then, through which the world knew not God ( ), denotes that intelligence by means of which the knowledge of God ought to have been attained, but was not. It is the appropriate organ of the human mind, sharpened by culture, through which God is perceived and recognized as He displays Himself in His wisdom; in other words, the eye for discerning Gods light. But this proved itself disqualified for its proper end, since the world, the possessor of this wisdom, had become alienated from the truth and love of God, and hence perverted and darkened by error and sin. The translation, on account of their wisdom, as though this was the cause of their not perceiving God would require the accusative ( ). It might still be questioned whether the phrase through wisdom does not refer like the previous one to the wisdom of God, so that it has its corresponding antithesis in the phrase, through the foolishness of preaching. This is Bengels view. In the wisdom of God, i.e. because the wisdom of God was so great. By wisdom, namely, that of preaching, as is evident from the antithesis, by the foolishness of preaching. So, too, Fritsche (Hall, Lit. Zeit. 1840). After that, in the wisdom of God, i.e. while God allowed His wisdom to shine forth, the world did not recognize God, through the wisdom made available for them by God, then God resolved to choose means of directly the opposite kind. In setting forth the antithesis here, it occurred to him to emphasize strongly the wisdom of God, which failed of attaining its end. But all things considered, the view carried out by us merits the preference, and the repetition of the wisdom of God must always appear somewhat artificial.24
The judgment [rather the merciful pleasure] of God towards a world not recognizing Him in consequence of its own sin, is introduced by the phrase ,God was pleasedhence concluded, determined. It indicates here not so much the freedom or pure favor, from which the resolve proceeded, as the suitableness of his proceeding to the end contemplated, or to the circumstances of the case. We find it first among the later Scripture writers, and most commonly in the Sept. In the New Testament it occurs chiefly in Paul (Rom 15:26; Gal 1:15 ff.). In reference to the expression and thought comp. Luk 10:21. The world had shown itself incapable of discerning God in His wisdom through its wisdom. Therefore God found it good no more to appeal to human wisdom by the manifestations of His wisdom, but by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe,i.e., by a proclamation, the contents of which carried the impress of folly, or must need appear foolish to the world as it was. This was to deliver from sin and wrath, and introduce to everlasting blessedness those who should believe in what was declared. In other words, the determination was, to appeal to faith instead of to reason. [So Hodge: The foolishness of preaching means the preaching of foolisness, i.e., the cross. But is there not an allusion to the nature of the preaching itself as being distinct from philosophical disquisition in the simplicity of its method. Preaching is heralding, proclaiming facts and messages, a foolish matter for those who delight in the subtleties and arguments of philosophy.] From this it is clear [?] that the phrase through foolishness of preaching does not furnish, as might appear to be the case at first sight, the contrast to the phrase this wisdom,25 but to the other, in the wisdom of God; and the antithesis to this wisdom is to be sought in them that believe. Faith is pure receptivity, and as such is directly the opposite of all endeavors after knowledge by the unaided powers of the intellect, such as are peculiar to human wisdom. It is the humble acceptance and appropriation of the testimony concerning Christ crucified, in spite of all the objections which the understanding of the natural man may urge against the doctrine of salvation, and in the utter renunciation of ones own opinions, and in the entire repudiation of predominant theories. In the act of believing there are united, therefore, both humility and courage. Finally, there is still another correspondence in the words know and save. Knowledge ought to lead to salvation (comp. Joh 17:3). Not knowing, therefore, hindered the obtaining of salvation.
1Co 1:22-24. Modein which the Apostle fulfilled the good pleasure of God expressed in 1Co 1:21.Since both Jews require signs and Greeks seek after wisdom, we therefore on the contrary preach Christ crucified.[So Kling translates the passage. But there is a question here as to the construction. This verse, like the previous one, begins with . It may therefore be taken as a parallel to that, (so Hodge, Meyer), resuming the thought and amplifying it (so Stanley), and like the preceding having a protasis26 and apodosis (as Kling); or it may be joined by directly to the previous clause, and regarded as explanatory of what is said of the foolishness of preaching being the means of saving believers (so Alford, Calvin, Rckert, de Wette). In this case the second clause instead of being an apodosis would be directly dependent on , and the rendering would be:Since, or seeing that, while both Jews require signs and Greeks seek after wisdom, we on the other hand preach Christ, etc.This seems to us the most natural rendering. See Winer, P. 3 65: 6. But Kling rejects it as the less suitable. According to his view], what the protasis states is the result of not knowing God (1Co 1:21); what the apodosis states is the judicial procedure corresponding to it as carried out in the foolishness of preaching, viz., a refusal to yield to vain demands for wisdom, and the counter preaching which appears to those making these demands as absurd, but which to believers proves to be the power of God and the wisdom of God. The introduces a case well known and made out: since indeed; the (after ) is used also elsewhere in the apodosis after and to make the antithetic relation of this clause the more prominent: therefore, on the contrary (comp. Meyer on this passage). This construction is favored by the parallelism between the protasis and apodosis in 1Co 1:21, and those here found. The ,: both,and, unite here classes alike in one respect, i.e., in the unwarrantableness of their demands, but otherwise diverse, and they belong not exclusively to the subjects mentioned (Jews and Greeks), but serve to connect the two clauses in one whole: since it is so, that both Jews require signs and Greeks seek wisdom. Jews and Greeks here represent two classes of men according to their peculiar characteristics. Hence they are mentioned without the article. It is as if he said since people like the Jews seek, etc. The Greeks here as in Rom 1:16, and elsewhere, stand as pars pro toto, for the Gentiles generally, who, according to the most probable reading, are mentioned afterwards in 1Co 1:23. They are the people who best represent the whole multitude of nations () found outside of the covenant relation with God, and who, in respect of culture and language, prepared the whole civilized world for Christianity; just as the Jews, scattered among them all, did the same thing in respect of religion, being freighted with the promise which was to be fulfilled in Christ. It was among these two nations that Christianity had its first sphere of operations,the Jews, who had the first claim to announce the fulfilment of that promise which had been preserved, and of that hope which had been awakened by them (comp. Act 13:46; Act 3:25; Rom 1:16; Rom 15:8), and the Greeks, who had carried out the work of human culture in science and art, and had, as it were, taken the whole civilized world in possession, and so had furnished the most perfect form for the human appropriation of the truth of revelation, and so the richest receptivity for the life and truth which were in Christ, and which were fitted to ensure them the most perfect satisfaction. But in both alike did Christianity encounter peculiar obstructions. The Jews clave to the external form of revelation, the miracle; and they did this to such a degree as to insist on having it before their eyes in its most striking, dazzling form, as the condition of their acceptance of the truth. They thus betrayed their fundamental unbelief and disaffection for the truth which rebuked their sin, humbled their pride, and demanded of them entire self-denial. This is what is meant by their seeking after a sign, or, according to another reading, signs. (Comp. Joh 4:48; and Mat 12:38; Mat 16:4; Luk 11:16; Joh 2:18; Joh 6:30). (Meyer, Ed. 3.) Signs, that is, miraculous tokens, by which Jesus, whom the Apostles asserted to be risen from the dead and ascended on high, should prove Himself to be the Messiah. These they still called for, inasmuch as the miracles of His earthly career had lost for them all evidencing power, in consequence of His crucifixion). The Greeks, on their part, had been captivated by the outward show and glitter of their civilization. Whatever did not appear before them under the name of a new philosophy (comp. Act 17:19 ff.), or was not sustained by philosophic proof, or was not set forth with logical and rhetorical art, this they refused to accredit; and by insisting on wisdom only in a form agreeable to them, they likewise betrayed their unbelief and their aversion to that Divine truth which required a mortification of their vain self, with all its pride of science and art, and which demanded a humble surrender to a revelation in Christ that infinitely surpassed all their attainments. Thus on both sides, in modes diverse and conditioned by their peculiar histories, did the same opposition arise to the preaching of the Gospel which held up to their faith the one Christ, who was declared to have secured the salvation of mankind, and built up the way to regal glory, not through wondrous miracles, according to the demand of the Jew, nor through such wisdom as wisdom-seekers sought, but by suffering the shameful death of a malefactor. Thus did the preaching of the Apostles and their associates () concerning a crucified Messiah, their public proclamation of this fact and its significance in all simplicity, prove for the Jews a stumbling block, i.e., an offence, a hinderance to faith, the occasion of a fall, something causing them to err (comp. Rom 9:32 ff.). A person hanging on the accursed tree presented such a contrast to all their desires for some glorious exhibition of power (such as destruction to their enemies, etc.), that they could do no otherwise than reject Him. [They could have tolerated Christ on the mount, but not Christ on the cross.A. Butler].For the Greeks (Gentiles) foolishness.That salvation could come to the world through a crucified Jew appeared to them plainly absurd. It was an instrumentality utterly inadequate to the end proposed. Thus while to the Jews such a person was an object of horror, as one accursed of God, to the Gentiles he was an object only for scorn and contempt. (Comp. Act 23:18-32; Luk 23:36-41). To this, however, there is a noble contrast.
But unto thesethe calledChrist the power of God and the wisdom of God.This clause might be taken to depend on we preach, so that this would be repeated in thought, and Christ the wisdom of God form an antithesis to Christ crucified with its adjuncts: We preach Christ as crucified, who for the Jew is a stumbling block, etc., but to those who are called we preach Christ as the power of God. Bengel appears to suggest this, when to Christ he adds with his cross, death, life, kingdom, and says further, When the offence of the cross is overcome, the whole mystery of Christ lies open.But the course of thought would be more simple if we put Christ crucified directly in opposition with what precedes: We preach a crucified Messiah who to the Jews is a stumbling block, etc.but to them who are called, Christthe power of God. By it then is signified, that He, the crucified one, at whom the Jews stumble, is to the called, the Anointed of God, (Messiah, Christ),the One in whom the promise of a heavenly king is fulfilled, the Power of God, etc. This corresponds also to the expression respecting the word of the cross in 1Co 1:18. The : to these serves to give prominence to the called as the chief persons in the case, who occupy a positive relation to the crucified, and enjoy an experience corresponding to it. It points at the same time to those already mentioned, to them that believe, 1Co 1:21, and to the saved, 1Co 1:18; and while the first of these terms designates their subjective position towards the Gospel, the second shows the advantage they derive from it. The term called indicates the Divine ground on which they stand. (On : called, comp. 1Co 1:2). By the addition of: both Jews and Greeks he gives us to understand that in the purpose of grace denoted in their calling the separation hitherto existing between these parties had been removed. (Comp. Rom 9:24; Rom 10:12).the power of God and the wisdom of God.Here we have the antithesis to stumbling block and foolishness. While the Jews were asking how a person crucified and accursed could possibly be the Saviour of Israel, how one so utterly devoid of strength could be able to overthrow all hostile power, and the Greeks were deeming it absurd to expect salvation from one who came to so miserable an end, the chosen of God were, on the contrary, experiencing and confessing that from this very crucified Redeemer there issued a Divine power, the power of a heavenly life and peace, a renewing, sanctifying, beatific power, such as could be found in nothing creaturely, and that accordingly Christ was the possessor of such a Divine power, that in Him there existed a Divine wisdom that was capable of solving the hardest problems, of lighting up the darkness that rested on the ways of God, of fulfilling Gods noblest purposes of bringing men back from all their wanderings into the path of life and of introducing them at last to their final destination.
1Co 1:25. A general proposition, substantiating what has just been said.Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God mightier than men.The phrase foolishness of God is not to be taken too abstractly, as if it meant the Divine folly. The Apostle is evidently here speaking from a human point of view and implies merely that which appears foolishness in God. He here has in mind Gods dealings with men in the Gospel, such as the procuring of salvation through the crucifixion of Christ, and other things connected therewith, which in the judgment of self-styled wise men of this world, who measure every thing by the measure of their fancied wisdom, appeared contrary to reason. Now of this apparent foolishness of God he affirms that it surpassed in real wisdom all men however wise they seemed to be in their own sight, or were held to be by others, or whatever they might be able to reason out or imagine. In a similar manner we must interpret the following expressson, the weakness of GodBy this he means a Divine scheme which seemed weak to those who held merely to physical force and boasted in that (for instance, the, procuring of redemption through one subjecting himself to the humiliation of death on the cross), but which in fact is stronger than men, i.e., exerts a mightier power than they with all their imagined strength and prowess. Bengel adds: Although they may appear to themselves both wise and strong, and wish to be the standards of wisdom and strength. Thus interpreted, it would be needless to construe the words than men as involving a figure of speech in which a comparison instituted with a person or thing as a whole, properly applies only to a part of it, or to some quality in it, as though they meant: than the wisdom of men, or than the strength of men. Both interpretations, however, amount to the same thing.There is still another construction suggested by what follows, viz.: that by the foolishness and the weakness of God are meant the persons themselves who are called (1Co 1:24), who experience Christ crucified as the wisdom of God and the power of God, so that they in consequence become Divinely wise and strong, and are thus enabled as the foolishness and weakness belonging to God to surpass men, i.e. that portion of the race who remain out of Christ in wisdom and power. The thought is thisHuman nature delights in doing great things. God, on the contrary, in His earthly dispensations always appears weak and small at the first, and not until afterwards reveals the overwhelming power that is concealed in His instrumentalities. Neander.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. Christ and His crossChrist crucified.This is the clear light from Heaven, which comes to scatter all the darkness of mans sinful life. This is the key to all the riddles of a history that has been deranged and confused by falsehood and sin. All Gods revelations in the Old Testament, his ordinances, institutions, promises, judgments and blessings here reach their fulfilment and find their real explanation. All the hints of truth current among heathen nationsall their sighing and striving after the knowledge of God and communion with Him, all attempts to get rid of the consciousness of guilt, to atone for sin and to effect a perfect restoration to Divine favorall the labor of the wise to discover a clue for the great labyrinth of human lifein short every thing which glimmered as a ray of light here and there in this darkness, obtains in Christ its proper goal; and in so far as it at last leads to the apprehension of this perfect light and salvation, it has been not in vain. Here is the power of God which in place of a thousand-fold yet vain endeavor on the part of man is able to insure a true Divine life, an undisturbed peace, an all pervading sanctificationspreading from the inmost centre of a heart that embraces the holy, forgiving love of God,and an invincible patience and steadfastness combined with the serenest tranquillity amid all the plagues, diseases, adversities and conflicts which may assail us from within and without. Here, too, is the wisdom of God. From this the deepest problems of human knowledge and human activity receive light, so that they can be recognized in their truth and in the goal to which they tend; and right methods of solution for them may be attained. Here the eternal thoughts of God, and the thoughts of man which spring up responsive to these out of the inmost truth of the human heart through the operation of the all-enlightening Logos, encounter each other. Here redeeming love with its wondrous plan of forgiveness and regeneration meets the manifold devices and strivings of man for the removal of guilt and, the acquisition of the chief good, and gives them a perfect satisfaction.
2. Christ and His crossas confronting the world.But the more this revelation of God in a crucified Saviour surpasses all the doings of man hitherto, the less can it be measured by the standard of truth and goodness existing among men, the less can it come within the scope of their ordinary conceptions. Where, therefore, the heart has not been renewed by a surrender to the truth foreshadowed by its mysterious need and corresponding to it, and so no change has been wrought in the whole course of thought, there this revelation remains an incomprehensible mystery; and where to the indolence, which refuses to stir out of the old beaten track, there is added an arrogant pride, which, with arbitrary exaggeration and embellishments insists on making what already exists the measure of the new and rejects whatever does not suit the demands thug originated, there, it is certain, that the revelation of God will be violently opposed. And this will be so much the more sure to occur, when, for the sake of presenting a contrast with the vain parade of carnal self in adhering to what is externally imposing and brilliant, and in cleaving to its own productions which seem so beautiful and fair, the revealed truth and grace are constrained to show themselves in an unpretending form, putting contempt upon the proud display of might by assuming a lowly aspect of weakness and setting at naught a lofty pretentious wisdom by wearing the guise of foolishness in order to lift humanity thereby out of the vanity of its conceited claims, and out of the arbitrariness of its own devices and endeavors, into the experience of a true divine power and wisdom.But the cross and its preaching, which prove such a stumbling block and foolishness to those who are bound up in their vain conceit becomes to those who obey the heavenly calling in faith and who in the mortification of self with all its foolish conceits and pretensions yield themselves to the influences of the grace and truth in Christ, and in so doing experience its enlightening, sanctifying and beatific power, the wisdom of God and the power of God. Thus it happens that men with all their wisdom and power remain far inferior to what belongeth unto God, however foolish and weak it may seem.
3. 1 Col 1:22-24 afford us a point of observation which enables us to survey Church History in clearest light. The Apostles found two distinct tendencies setting in in strong hostility to the Gospel, the desire for miracles, and the conceit of wisdom. These two tendencies show themselves repeatedly through all times. A false, one-sided supernaturalism and a false one-sided rationalism are ever in rivalry with each other either to resist the Gospel in open enmity or to disturb and corrupt it by secretly insinuating themselves into it. It may be said that all external opposition and all internal peril to the Gospel resolve themselves at last into these two opposite principles. So long as a pure Gospel withstands and excludes these it will succeed in satisfying the genuine human needs lying at their foundation and in thus quieting them on both sides. This proves itself to be the true wonder-working power before which all other miracles must pale, and the true wisdom of God before which all other wisdom must be put to shame, and thus does it exhibit itself in both ways as the absolute Religion. Neander.
4. [Since it is to the called that the Gospel proves the power of God and the wisdom of God, by bringing them at last to believe and be saved, it follows that the difference in the effects produced by the Gospel, so that on the one hand it appears to some as an offence and to others as foolishness, but to others still as a means of salvation, is all owing to the calling of Godhis effectual calling.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1. The cross of Christ is made of none effect by cunning words or the wisdom of speech.For the wisdom of speech Isaiah 1, on the one hand scholastic wisdom which a. culminates only in knowledge, not in reformation; b. gives no satisfaction on the chief point, Religion; c. being in constant strife with itself evermore corrupts rather than improves; 2. On the other hand an artificial rhetoric, which springs not from the heart or from zeal for a cause known to be true, but aims only to dazzle and please, and by this means to persuade. But a mode of proceeding so altogether unworthy of heavenly truth robs the cross of Christ of its peculiar power; since a. the attention is turned away from the subject to the speaker, and so the heart is diverted and betrayed into vanity; b. and everything is viewed according to its fitness to delight; c. and the effect is ascribed not to the power of the truth presented but to the eloquence displayed. After Heubner.
2. The preaching of the cross. 1, is foolishness for those who are lost. a. Who are these? They are such as are hardened in their own guiltsuch as follow their own perverted sense and will not accept of truth or consent to self-humiliation, so that humanly judging there is nothing to be hoped for from them. b. Why is the preaching of the cross foolishness for them? Because to the world, which insists on its own importance, everything appears absurd which fells its pride, destroys its meritoriousness and conflicts with its wisdom and righteousness. 2, is a wisdom of God unto us who are called.The believer who permits himself to be saved, awakened and enlightened by the spirit of God, finds in the cross a divinely derived and divinely operating power, which draws the heart into peace with itself and with God, fills it with holy love, and strengthens it with a new power of life; and he recognizes therein a wisdom far surpassing all human thought and sense. After Heubner.
3. The vanity of scholastic wisdom or the judgment of God upon conceited worldly wisdom.1. It effects nothing, because it aims only at show and not at improvement. 2. God allows it to be betrayed into folly and shame, because it seeks to be wise and strong without God, without prayer and piety. 3. Christianity exposes it in all its barrenness, since, while Christianity renews humanity, worldly wisdom perishes in its own schools, and is unable to maintain its own progress. After Heubner.
4. The causes of the rejection of the Crucified.1. The Jewish desire for whatever was striking, imposing and externally mighty; 2. The Gentile conceit of wisdom and a vain misculture; 3. The pride of both which sought to comprehend God, but which would not enter into the apparently weak and foolish ways and means of his economy. After Heubner.
5. The preaching of the cross has with those who are saved a threefold effect. 1. It shames, inasmuch as man crucified Christ with his sins; for a long time did not recognize him; did not honor or thank him; and was willing so long to tolerate the sins which nailed Him to the cross. 2. It humbles, by reminding us of Christs own love, in that He, the Great God, died for us poor worms, and did so much for us when we were utterly worthless. It inclines us also to benevolence towards all men who differ from us only in this, that we are sinners saved, while they can and may yet be saved. 3. It awakens, gives power and life, so that we not only are ready and inclined, but also are enabled to love God, and to prove our love by works.
6. The Cross of Christ is an offence to all men who think that a good life will ensure them a happy end. These are the enemies of the Cross in the midst of Christendom. They worship it externally; they take pride in it, but in fact they hate the doctrine of the Cross. They cannot accept the truth that Christ has become our Redeemer and that we are saved out of sheer mercy, so that the holiest, the most pious, the most liberal, the most upright man is just as far from Heaven as the most miserable sinner, and that there is but one way for all. To the wise and prudent the cross of Christ is foolishness. The truth that Christ died for us they regard as a fable. There are persons even among [nominal] believers who take it as a compliment if they are said not to believe. Yet should one accuse them of holding the truth, and yet of living in untruthfulness, disobedience and ingratitude towards God, it would be the same as if he pronounced them deliberate villains. Oh! could they but once hear the Gospel in a way to pierce their
hearts they would certainly ask, What shall we do? Let the doctrine of the Cross be once made vital in the soul, then would there be no need of exhortation, alarm and threatening in view of this or that judgment. It would be sufficient to say, The Saviour died for me. If we are in trouble for our sins, and the hope of salvation vanishes, and the voice comes, Christ has died and earned salvation for us, how the heart not only seizes but holds fast to the declaration! How the truth penetrates like a divine power into the soul which can never be lost or forgotten! Then are our sins buried in the depths of the sea; they can no more tyrannize over us. Then we need sin no more. Such is the effect of the Word of the Cross in them that believe. Gossner.
Hedinger:Power, wit, all human work and counsel corrupts faith, misleads in the church, and hinders the efficacy of the means of grace. In divine things, the more foolish anything seems to the world, the better it is. Wisdom, wisdom, ready understanding, science, learning out of a thousand books! Such is the cry of the world. An evil sound is it in the churches and in the schools. One thing is needfulone book, one Christ.
Starke:The Gospel has a differencing effect according to the character of the persons who hear and use it. Mankind are divided into two classes: 1. Unbelievers; they are such as live on, without caring for their salvation, either in security or hypocrisy; each word and work of theirs is a step toward Hell. 2. Believers; they are those who are in daily concern about their salvation; and this is with them so vital a point that even when unmoved by efforts from abroad, while in the midst of their labors or talk, they are not easily repelled from it (1Co 1:18). Wisdom is in itself something divine, and before the fall the image of God in man consisted in it (Col 3:10); and even now the inclination to know and learn something is a remnant in us of this divine image. But if our natural wisdom profits us but little now, and is every where scandalized, this is the fault, not of wisdom, but of our corrupted reason and understanding. None of the loftiest and most learned of this world ought to be ashamed of the simplicity of the Gospel, for God Himself, the, highest and wisest of all, let Himself down to it. Sufficient is it for us that an infinite power resides in the Cross to deliver us out of all our deep depravity, (1Co 1:21).God can never suit people. One will have it this way and another that. Shame on you! God does as it pleases Him (Mat 11:16 ff.). Men always delight in what is strange, lofty, conspicuous. Instead of desiring that Gods name alone should be praised they seek themselves in every thing. They look either at power, wealth, faculty, or at learning, prudence, dexterity. Both are means to greatness, but they prove hinderances in the kingdom of God. (1Co 1:22).God will remain unsurpassed in His words and works (Psa 78:41), but their wisdom and strength are vain. The world makes wisdom to consist in much learning which secures honor and regard. But a believer considers it the height of wisdom to know that he is a poor sinner, becomes justified and saved only in deepest humility. The greatest power consists in being able to overcome ourselves and the kingdom of Satan. God can put to shame all the devices of the craftiest and all the might of the greatest in this world. Why wilt thou fear? Look to God! He can and will give thee enough for all things (1Co 1:25).
H. Rieger:Let him who would even now, by the preaching of the Cross, awaken a sense of the Cross in the hearts of men, and thereby coperate for their salvation, not seek for assistance from the fickle arts of worldly wisdom, but let him observe what renders himself humble, and subdued, and what he can thus convey with a tender spirit to others, and let him shun every thing which on the contrary tends to puff himself up and wherewith he is tempted to court the favor of men.
[Spencer: (1Co 1:21).Some Christian ministers sometimes think to do Christianity a very good service by philosophizing it to make it keep up with the times. In all this they do Christianity no other service than rob it of its power by robbing it of its peculiarity, and do no other service to the philosophic minds which they say they would influence, than just to mislead them and keep them away from true faith in Christ and reliance on his great atonement.
Every thing is coming to be philosophized. Many a minister in the pulpitshame on himbetrays his trust to the Bible and his God by teaching religion very much as if it were a new matter of reason, and human progress, and human discovery, instead of taking Gods Word as his authority and instructor, and uttering in the ears of the people like the old prophets, Thus saith the Lord God. Beware of such proceedings. They tend to infidelity. Learn duty from God. The Bible is safe. Philosophy is blind.]
[Robertson:Men bow before talent even if unassociated with goodness, but between these two we must make an everlasting distinction. When once the idolatry of talent enters, then farewell to spirituality; when men ask their teachers, not for that which will make them more humble and God-like, but for the excitement of an intellectual banquet, then farewell to Christian progress. Here also St. Paul again stood firm. Not Wisdom, but Christ crucified. St. Paul might have complied with these requirements of his converts, and then he would have gained admiration and love, he would have been the leader of a party, but then he would have been false to his Masterhe would have been preferring self to Christ.]
Footnotes:
[15]1Co 1:17.[ might be rendered: in philosophic discourse.]
[16]1Co 1:20.The of the received text is undoubtedly transferred from the preceding. Lachmann and Tischendorf reject it according to the best authorities.
[17]1Co 1:21.[ is not temporal but illative.Alf.]
[18]1Co 1:21.[: passive noun, the thing preached both in contents and in form.]
[19]1Co 1:22. . it may be rendered: For both, but Kling translates as above.]
[20]1Co 1:22.The plural is better attested: whether it is internally the more probable may be doubted.
[21]1Co 1:23.[ after expresses contrariety.]
[22]1Co 1:23. is decidedly better attested than the received which arose out of 1Co 1:22; 1Co 1:24.
[23]1Co 1:24.[ ; the serves to identify the called with the believers, 1Co 1:21.Alf.]
[24][Kling has hardly done justice to the view which he calls Rckerts, and stigmatizes as Predestianationism. There certainly is no little plausibility, and much fair ground in Scripture for interpreting. in the wisdom of God All the movements of the ante-Christian period were unquestionably so disposed by Providence as to prepare the way for the coming, and the reception of Christ. And why may it not have been a part of the Divine plan to allow the world to try its own wisdom, and test its capacities to the utmost, in order that its utter inefficiency for discovering God, and finding out a means of salvation, might be fully proved and thus that consciousness of ignorance and inability be awakened, which is one of the first conditions of simple faith in revelation? Paul hinted at this very truth in his speech at Athens (Act 17:26-27). And hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth; and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if happily they might feel after Him and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us. This interpretation carries therefore a legitimate and Scriptural sense, and it is preferred by Alf., Barnes, Poole, and most American sermonizers.
But there is still another interpretation, worthy of consideration, as having the advantage of giving to the important word wisdom a uniformity of meaning throughout the entire passage. What Paul is here controverting is the fondness for philosophic speculation so characteristic of the Greeks, and which in the Corinthian Church was threatening to destroy the practical nature of Christianity, and turn it into another scheme of philosophy. This tendency, or rather its products, the Apostle calls wisdom (), and it is, as he says, something he would not indulge in, however pleasing to the Corinthian temper. One reason for this was, the utter inefficiency of all philosophy in the matter of religion. He does not condemn it absolutely, but relatively to the ends in view. This, therefore, it became him distinctly to state, which he does in 1Co 1:20-21, may be paraphrased thus: For since in its speculations concerning God, the word through speculation and philosophy did not know God, it pleased God through the announcement of the simple facts of the Gospel, which to a speculative mind seems like folly; to save those who accept them in mere faith. We thus take =, make the objective Genitive, and interpret the whole phrase in the wisdom of God, as denoting the sphere of thought in reference to which the Apostle was speaking. This was in fact theosophy, a word compounded of just the ones here associated. The antithesis then in the two clauses would be between philosophy and preaching, between scientific knowledge and faith, accepting the simple proclamation of the Gospel ].
[25][One would suppose that the naturalness and indeed inevitableness of this contrast would have shown the incorrectness of Klings interpretation. (See Winer, part 3 sect. 47. d.) Paul means here to set the simple testimony of Jesus over against philosophy or wisdom, and the method of faith over against the method of reason. In all that follows he is correct.]
[26][Rob. in Lex. observes that is never used in the protasis.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Ver. 17. Not to baptize ] As my chief work, so Jer 7:22 but to preach and plant Churches, wherein he had a very happy hand; as had likewise Farellus among our late reformers, Qui Mompelgardenses, Aquileienses, Lausanneuses, Genevenses, Novocomenses Ghristo lucrifecit, he gained five cities with their territories to Christ. (Melch. Adam. in Vii. xi.)
Not with wisdom of words ] Which yet St Paul could have done as well as another; witness his artificial unstarching of the orator’s speech,Act 24:10-21Act 24:10-21 . But he liked not to put the sword of the Spirit into a velvet scabbard, that it could not pierce, to speak floride plus quam solide, as those self-seekers at Corinth did, that sought more to tickle the ear than to affect the heart. It repented Augustine (and well it might) that when he was young he had preached more ut placeret, quam ut doceret, to please than to profit. And Luther was wont to say, he is the best preacher that preacheth vulgiter, trivialiter, maximeque ad populi captum. Not but that there is a lawful use of rhetoric in sermons, so it be free from ostentation. See the Preface to my God’s Love Tokens.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
17 .] This verse forms the transition to the description of his preaching among them. His mission was not to baptize : a trace already, of the separation of the offices of baptizing and preaching. , , , , . Chrys. Hom. iii. p. 18. It is evident that this is said in no derogation of Baptism, for he did on occasion baptize, and it would be impossible that he should speak lightly of the ordinance to which he appeals ( Rom 6:3 ) as the seal of our union with Christ.
] It seems evident from this apology, and other hints in the two Epistles, e.g. 2Co 10:10 , that the plainness and simplicity of Paul’s speech had been one cause among the Corinthians of alienation from him. Perhaps, as hinted above, the eloquence of Apollos was extolled to Paul’s disadvantage.
.] in (as the element in which: better than ‘ with ’) wisdom of speech (i.e. the speculations of philosophy: that these are meant, and not mere eloquence or rhetorical form, appears by what follows, which treats of the subject , and not merely of the manner of the preaching) in order that the Cross of Christ (the great central point of his preaching; exhibiting man’s guilt and God’s love in their highest degrees and closest connexion) might not be deprived of its effect . This would come to pass rather by philosophical speculations than by eloquence .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 1:17-25 . 4. THE TRUE POWER OF THE GOSPEL. To “preach the gospel” meant, above all, to proclaim the cross of Christ (1Co 1:17 b ). In Cor [189] “the wisdom of the world” scouted this message as sheer folly (1Co 1:18 ). To use “wisdom of word” in meeting such antagonism would have been for P. to fight the world with its own weapons and to betray his cause, the strength of which lay in the Divine power and wisdom embodied in Christ, a force destined, because it was God’s, to bring to shame the world’s vaunting wisdom (1Co 1:19-25 ).
[189] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
1Co 1:17 a justifies Paul’s thanking God that he had baptised so few: “For Christ did not send me to baptise, but to evangelise ”. The infs. ( cf. 1Co 2:1 f., 1Co 9:16 , 1Co 15:11 ; Rom 15:17-21 ) are epexegetical (of purpose ); and pres., of continued action ( function ), no qualified, but an absolute denial that Baptism was the Apostle’s proper work. For the terms of Paul’s commission see Gal 1:15 f., Eph 3:7-9 , 1Ti 2:7 ; also Act 9:15 , and parls. Baptism was the necessary sequel of preaching, and P. did not suppose his commission narrower than that of the Twelve (Mat 28:19 f.); but baptising might be performed vicariously, not so preaching. “To evangelise is to cast the net the true apostolic work; to baptise is to gather the fish already caught and to put them into vessels” (Gd [190] ). It never occurred to P. that a Christian minister’s essential function was to administer sacraments. The Ap. dwells on this matter so much as to suggest (Cv [191] ) that he tacitly contrasts himself with some preachers who made a point of baptising their own converts, as though to vindicate a special interest in them; cf. the action of Peter (Act 10:48 ), and of Jesus (Joh 4:1 f.).
[190] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[191] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .
1Co 1:17 b . is grammatical adjunct to ( . .) ; but the phrase opens a new vein of thought, and supplies the theme of the subsequent argument up to 1Co 2:6 . In 1Co 1:14 ; 1Co 1:17 a Paul asserted that Christ sent him not to baptise, but to preach; further, what he has to preach is not a philosophy to be discussed, but a message of God to be believed: “L’vangile n’est pas une sagesse, c’est un salut” (Gd [192] ). In this transition the Ap. silently directs his reproof from the Pauline to the Apollonian party. In (see 1Co 2:1 to 1Co 4:13 ; cf. the opp [193] combination in 1Co 12:8 ) the stress lies on wisdom (called in 1Co 1:19 f. “the wisdom of the world”) sc. “wisdom” in the common acceptation, as the world understood it and as the Cor [194] expected it from public teachers: “in wisdom of word” = in philosophical style . “To tell good news in wisdom of word” is an implicit contradiction; “news” only needs and admits of plain, straightforward telling . To dress out the story of Calvary in specious rhetoric, or wrap it up in fine-spun theorems, would have been to “empty ( ) the cross of Christ,” to eviscerate the Gospel. The “power of God” lies in the facts and not in any man’s presentment of them: “to substitute a system of notions, however true and ennobling, for the fact of Christ’s death, is like confounding the theory of gravitation with gravitation itself” (Ed [195] ). For , factitive of ( cf. 1Co 15:14 ), see parls.; the commoner syn [196] , (1Co 1:28 , etc.), means to deprive of activity, make impotent (in effect), to deprive of content, make unreal (in fact).
[192] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[193] opposite, opposition.
[194] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[195] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
[196] synonym, synonymous.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
sent. App-174.
preach the gospel = evangelize. App-121.
with = in. App-104.
words. App-121. This means either “eloquent language”, or “clever reasoning”. Perhaps both ideas were in the apostle’s mind.
made of none effect. Greek. kenoo. See Rom 4:14.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
17.] This verse forms the transition to the description of his preaching among them. His mission was not to baptize:-a trace already, of the separation of the offices of baptizing and preaching. , , , , . Chrys. Hom. iii. p. 18. It is evident that this is said in no derogation of Baptism, for he did on occasion baptize,-and it would be impossible that he should speak lightly of the ordinance to which he appeals (Rom 6:3) as the seal of our union with Christ.
] It seems evident from this apology, and other hints in the two Epistles, e.g. 2Co 10:10, that the plainness and simplicity of Pauls speech had been one cause among the Corinthians of alienation from him. Perhaps, as hinted above, the eloquence of Apollos was extolled to Pauls disadvantage.
.] in (as the element in which: better than with) wisdom of speech (i.e. the speculations of philosophy: that these are meant, and not mere eloquence or rhetorical form, appears by what follows, which treats of the subject, and not merely of the manner of the preaching) in order that the Cross of Christ (the great central point of his preaching; exhibiting mans guilt and Gods love in their highest degrees and closest connexion) might not be deprived of its effect. This would come to pass rather by philosophical speculations than by eloquence.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 1:17. , sent) A man should attend wholly to that, for which he is sent.-, to baptize) [even] in His own name, much less in mine. The labour of baptism, frequently undertaken, would have been a hinderance to the preaching of the Gospel; on other occasions [where not a hinderance to preaching] the apostles baptized; Mat 28:19; especially [they administered that sacrament to] the first disciples.-, to preach the Gospel) This word, in respect of what goes before, is an accessory statement:[6] in respect of what follows, a Proposition. Paul uses this very [word as a] mode of transition, which is such that I know not, whether the rules of Corinthian eloquence would be in accordance with it. [Therefore the Apostle in this very passage furnishes a specimen, so to speak, of apostolic folly; and yet there has been no want of the greatest wisdom throughout his whole arrangement.-V. g.]- , wisdom of words) [On account of which some individuals of you make me of greater or less importance than they do the rest.-V. g.]-The nouns wisdom and power are frequently used here. In the opinion of the world, a discourse is considered wise, which treats of every topic rather than the cross; whereas a discourse on the cross admits of nothing heterogeneous being mixed up with it.- , the cross of Christ) 1Co 1:24. Ignorance of the mystery of the cross is the foundation, for example, of the whole Koran. [The sum and substance of the Gospel, as to its commencements, is implied, 1Co 1:18; 1Co 1:23; 1Co 2:2. He, who rejects the cross, continues in ignorance also of the rest of revealed truth; he, who receives it, becomes afterwards acquainted with its power (or, virtue, 2Pe 1:5) and glory.-V. g.]
[6] The Latin, or rather the Greek word, is syncategorema. In logic categorematic words are those capable of being employed by themselves as the terms of a proposition. Syncategorematic words are merely accessory to the terms, such as adverbs, prepositions, nouns not in the nominative case, etc.-See Whateleys Logic, B. II., Ch. i. 3.-T.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 1:17
1Co 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize,-By this he did not mean to deprecate baptism, or to say it was not important. An inspired man could not preach Christ without preaching baptism. Usually Paul was accompanied by his companions in labor who baptized those who believed under his preaching; but he went into Corinth unaccompanied by any of them (Act 17:14; Acts 15; comp. 18:5), and reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded Jews and Greeks (Act 18:4), and those persons most likely believed before the arrival of Silas and Timothy. So he baptized with his own hands those who believed, and after their arrival he baptized no more of them. They ministered to him by doing such service. Paul, no matter who were his companions, was the chief leader and teacher. His pre-eminence was marked and always recognized.
but to preach the gospel:-To preach the gospel is to preach Christ as Gods representative, and no one can preach Christ as he is represented in the Scriptures without teaching all he taught. Paul could only claim to be free from the blood of all men by declaring the whole counsel of God. (Act 20:26-27).
not in wisdom of words,-Christ sent him to preach the gospel, not with the wisdom of learning, nor by the philosophy of human wisdom, nor with eloquent and persuasive speech, but with the simple facts of the gospel.
lest the cross of Christ should be made void.-The simple facts of the gospel, with the requirements growing out of them, told in an earnest and loving spirit, and not eloquence and learning, should be relied on to win men from their sins to serve the living God. [To a people thoroughly vitiated in their taste, the preacher of the gospel is open to the temptation of shading off those features of the gospel which are repulsive to the pride of the heart, and of urging the reception of it rather on the ground of its own sweet reasonableness than on its being an authoritative message from heaven.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
not to: Joh 4:2, Act 10:48, Act 26:17, Act 26:18
not: 1Co 2:1, 1Co 2:4, 1Co 2:13, 2Co 4:2, 2Co 10:3, 2Co 10:4, 2Co 10:10, 2Pe 1:16
words: or, speech, 1Co 2:5
Reciprocal: Jdg 3:31 – an ox goad 2Co 11:6 – rude Gal 3:17 – none
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 1:17. Christ sent me not to baptize. This statement has been perverted by some who seek to belittle the importance of baptism, and to represent Paul as thinking little of the ordinance. What he teaches in Act 19:1-5; Rom 6:3-4; Gal 3:27 and Col 2:12 indicates the weight that he attaches to the ordinance. But as to what person does the physical act of baptizing a believer, because of the wrong use that might be made of the subject, Paul was thankful he had let others do most of it at Corinth. What Paul could do that others could not was to preach the Gospel, which required more than physical strength. And even that great work was not to be accomplished by the use of words or speech that consisted of worldly wisdom, for that would detract from the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
The injury done to the Cross by human wisdom, 17-31.
1Co 1:17. not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. Thus easily, in the middle of a verse, does the apostle here slide into the great theme of this and the three following chapters, namely, the place which Christ crucified should hold in the esteem of all who believe, forgetfulness of which was the cause, as a due regard to it would be the effectual cure, of all their miserable dissensions. Wisdom of word here comprehends more than the mere rhetorical tricking out of the message, indeed, more or less of the substance of the message itself, as will presently appear. To a people thoroughly vitiated in their taste, to what temptation would the preacher of the Gospel be more open than that of shading off those features of it which are repulsive to the pride of the heart, and of urging the reception of it rather on the ground of its own sweet reasonableness than of its being an authoritative message from heaven, as on Mars hill the apostle dealt it forth at Athens.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Section 2. (1Co 1:17-31.)
The Cross in its twofold aspect.
The apostle now enters at once upon his theme, Christ, unknown by the world, the cross His emblem, whom it was impossible to commend to the world, therefore, by any means other than the “demonstration of the Spirit” to the convicted soul. Yet this Cross is at once the inlet of all wisdom to him who understands it, -the knowledge of itself and of God; the actual meeting of the need which it has discovered. Thus it is true wisdom, -not that barren wisdom of the world which fails man just where needed most, but that which under the severest test becomes the most conspicuous.
1. The apostle’s disclaiming here of being sent to baptize is in perfect harmony with what has just been said of the connection of baptism with the Kingdom rather than the Church. Certainly those who received their commission from the risen, but not yet ascended Christ, could not have spoken in this way. Sent to baptize they were, and by Him who grounds it upon all power committed to Him, that is, upon the Kingdom that is His (Mat 28:18-19). He who was distinctly sent from Christ in glory, and declares himself to be in an especial manner the minister of the Church (Col 1:25), to whom was committed the administration of that till then unknown mystery (Eph 3:6-9), expressly denies baptism to have a place in that distinct commission! And this is the more noteworthy, because with regard to the Lord’s Supper, which he might have received, like baptism, from those who were apostles before him, but which is plainly connected with this administration, he says emphatically that he had “received from the Lord” that which he delivered to them: this too in this very same epistle in which he denies his having received baptism in this way from Him, and which is an epistle for the authoritative regulation of the Church on earth (1Co 14:37).
But he was also minister of the completed gospel (Col 1:23); and this is what he turns to speak of now. Christ had not sent him to baptize, but to preach the gospel -the glad tidings of a love now going out towards all, and in which his own heart went out in sympathetic gladness. Yet here it was the word of the Cross he carried, an ominous word of humiliation, suffering and penalty endured; and which, if endured for men, yet declared their condition who could be saved only by such a sacrifice. Here, therefore, no mere wisdom of words would suffice. That would be ignoring the very condition for which the Cross was alone the remedy. It was not a mere misunderstanding which wise words would remove, but a heart away from God which had declared itself in lace of the wondrous revelation of God in Christ: men have both seen and hated both Christ and His Father. And men, according to Scripture, are the same everywhere; this condition is not an exceptional one, but, “as in water face answereth to face, so the heart of man to man.”
What use, then, of mere appeals to man, when Christ has Himself appealed, to get no answer but the Cross? The very “word of the Cross is to those that are perishing foolishness;” while indeed to those who are being saved “it is the power of God.” Yes, the power of God; but then this alone can be trusted to work in it. The wisdom of the wise is brought to an end; the understanding of the man of understanding set aside: did any of them, with whatever wisdom they might have, excogitate the gospel? or produce any equivalent to the gospel? They had had ample time to do it, if they could. The nations that had once known God, had, in fact, spite of that knowledge, glorified Him not as God, nor been thankful for the knowledge, as the apostle tells the Romans; and this was the secret of the idolatry which covered the earth with hideous forms, the reflection of the lusts which warred in their members. What could be expected of those who had thus turned their backs on God, and conjured up gods not to meet the need of conscience, but to satisfy the impulses of their depravity?
God indeed, as we know, never left Himself without witness, -never meant to leave man to the mere blind gropings of a darkened intellect. Apart from the witness of external nature which is everywhere, somewhere the light was shining all the time. In the midst of the most cultivated nations of antiquity, and at the headquarters of their commercial traffic, -in close intimacy with Egypt, (upon whose bestial gods was executed once a judgment which resounded far and near,) -and in turn with Phoenicia, Syria, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, there was a people who held in their hand the revelation of God, progressing with the onward march of the generations that went by. But this was not what they craved or would receive. Thus in the self-chosen darkness their wisdom ripened till in Greece, the land of the typical Gentile, in the midst of those who professedly sought after wisdom, it produced its fairest blossoms and its ripest fruits. The wisdom of God was pleased to give ample time for the development. As in Israel under law it was to be proved that man was without strength and ungodly, so amongst the Gentiles was it to be proved that the world by wisdom knew not God. Then, when the need was fully shown, which could not else be met at all, “it pleased God by the foolishness of the preaching” -not of preaching as a method, but of the thing preached in human estimation -“it pleased God to save those that believe.”
2. Not merely to Gentile philosophy, which in its very designation was a “pursuit of wisdom,” but to the legal Jew no less, the cross was naturally the very opposite of what he looked for. The Jew, as we see in the Gospels, demanded signs -significant wonders. And such indeed was the Cross, the mightiest that could be; but what child of the law could accept one in which the law itself was against the sufferer, -the curse of the law upon him? Doubtless they had read of One despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, upon whom Jehovah laid the iniquity of others, and with whose stripes they are healed. Yes, but was not that Israel suffering for the sins of the world? So have they turned the edge of conviction from themselves to weave out of texts like these a subtle web of self-righteousness in their own defence. But how indeed could they think of their glorious Messiah as in the place of one made an offering for sin? How little could they imagine that in all this reasoning they were but fulfilling the prophecy they were perverting, -“He was despised, and we esteemed Him not!”
The reason why to the Greeks it was foolishness was at bottom the same -intense blindness as to man’s condition and the enormity of sin before a holy God. Their gods came down to earth indeed, and in forms lower than the human; but it was in pursuit of their own lusts and passions, as vehement and unrestrained as any that could be found in man. Here was a setting forth of “new gods” indeed, which at once proclaimed a new estimate of sin, and swept aside under its condemnation all their rabble of dishonored deities. Were indeed all these to be replaced with that gaunt Figure of rejection and death, outcast by these contemptible Jews themselves?
But if such then were the message, what hope in announcing it? None but in God’s new-creative call, the call of the gospel certainly, but the gospel made good in the soul by the mighty energy of the Holy Spirit. Many heard and hear the universal gospel-call, only to reject it; but to all those called according to the word of the apostle here, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. It is a call effectual as God can make it, -“not in word only, but in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance” (1Th 1:5); the result being a veritable new birth: for we are “born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever; and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” (1Pe 1:23; 1Pe 1:25).
Thus the “foolishness of God” -what with men may be considered that -approves itself by its blessed fruit in those in whose hearts, opened by divine grace, it has been received effectually, an incoming of light and joy and peace which nothing else can avail to bring. “The foolishness of God is wiser than men,” whatever may be the form of the philosophy he favors; and the “weakness of God,” -Christ “crucified through weakness,” -“is more powerful than men.”
3. If such then is the true character of world-wisdom, such its contradiction to all that is genuinely this, it is but the consequence to be expected, that the calling of God will not be characteristically of those wise according to the flesh, or mighty, or noble. He has, in fact, put upon the most conspicuous developments of the world-spirit the brand of His reprobation. He chooses the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and its weak things to shame its might, and things ignoble and despised, things that are naught in men’s eyes, to bring down to naught all things in the world together, that no flesh may glory in the presence of God. Alas, it is this “great Babylon that we have builded” that exalts man to his shame, and drives him out in result among the beasts that know not God, to be more bestial than they. We must accept this abasement that God may be able indeed to exalt us, and enrich us in our poverty with the riches of One self-impoverished to enrich us. In this way man is blessed indeed, and God is glorified.
We who believe are in Christ Jesus, -filled up in all His fulness; and the wisdom which here we find manifests itself as truly that by its power to meet and put away all the disastrous consequences of the fall, and bring in an overcompensation of blessing that is indeed divine. And this is what the form of the sentence here conveys; “righteousness, as well as sanctification, and redemption,” being the distinguishing blessings that are found in the wisdom that is from God, and which manifest its truly divine character.*
{*So the margin of the R.V., though ungrammatically, “both.”}
It will be found also upon examination that the words stand in the order needed to bring out their relation to the fall; to that, let us remember, which began man’s pursuit of wisdom, away from God. Still, “vain man will be wise, though be be born a wild ass’s colt.” No wonder if he should sadly lose his way. Yet in all this, supreme above it all, God works out His purposes of blessing, using even the evil itself to do so. For, if wisdom were hoped for by man from the knowledge of good and evil, this (which indeed was always designed for him by God, and which he had no need to take from Satan) is in fact overruled in such a way as to give him the deepest possible apprehension of these that (one may suppose) the creature could have; and thus, in the redeemed, to bring about a fuller conformity to the mind of God, than perhaps a being unfallen could attain. No angel could in this way by reason of use have his senses exercised to discern both good and evil.” And the very presence of the evil in us after new birth is a fact whose import seems to lie in the same direction.
At the best, a wisdom of this kind could not, however, by itself solve any one of the most serious questions which perplex men, and will perplex them, apart from revelation. And this is what distinctly the book of Ecclesiastes is designed to show. Wisdom there is the object of the most earnest search by one who had special human wisdom given him by God, so as to be wiser than all men beside; and with riches and power back of it all, to carry out, as far as mail might go, his experiments. But the wail goes up from this eager seeker of what he prized and longed for: “I said I will be wise, but it was far from me.” Death baffles him. The seal upon a fallen condition cannot be broken by that which induced the fall. “Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward? or the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? . . . As thou knowest not the way of the spirit . . . so thou knowest not the works of God that worketh all.” Revelation must come in then; and here what joy to realize how it has indeed come in!
Christ is made unto us wisdom from God; and thus with Christianity, for faith, every cloud is lifted. The wisdom that is from God is a casket of priceless jewels; in which the redeemed one finds, not only liberty, but marvelous enrichment. How much is contained in just those three words, “righteousness, sanctification and redemption!” And they are in an order of progressive fulness, as we shall see, by which we enter more and more into the heart of God.
Righteousness is the first need of the sinner, and which we see symbolically met in that robe which death furnished to cover the nakedness which was the first felt need in Eden. “I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” Yet God had made him naked, not like any beast of the earth with its protective covering, but safe in the purity of his uprightness, open to the light and not ashamed. How all was altered now! The consciousness of guilt was upon him: the law of sin was already in his members; and God Himself recognizes the impossibility of restoring that lost innocence; he must have a covering, and a better one than any that he can invent with all his power of invention. Who could imagine that death, the penalty upon him, was to be that which should provide him with this? Yet we know that this is indeed the truth. The penalty must be endured, if the sinner is to be justified before God. Righteousness for him is not in any impossible work of his hands, or new life lived, but in the first place by the death of Him of whom all the sacrificial law spoke -whom it foreshadowed. The blood of the sacrifice -token of the life poured out -was that which was offered to God for the acceptance of the offerer; and we are thus “justified by His blood,” every charge against us is refused, His resurrection from the dead being the assurance of the demand met, and thus the public sentence of justification of every one that believeth in Jesus.
But this is negative merely, -there is no imputation of guilt, and that is all; and it is not all that God has done for us; we have not in this yet reached the robe of righteousness, which death indeed must obtain for us, but which goes beyond the mere putting away of sin, and gives us a positive standing in the presence of God. Christ is not merely negative but positive righteousness to us. We stand in Him, in the value that He has for God, who has achieved, not merely for us but for Him also, that which has glorified Him in all His attributes. In His death all that we were by nature and practice both was branded and set aside, -“our old man crucified with Him,” -and we are accepted in the Beloved, in that unchangeable perfection which is His, living because He lives. He is the Priest that offered for us, to whom belongs the skin of the burnt-offering (Lev 7:8); and here we are brought back as it were to Eden, to see whence those skins that covered the first sinners of mankind were derived. How from the beginning did the eye of God contemplate the coming Redeemer in His sufferings and the glories that should follow!
Yet, however wonderful this righteousness, more is needed and more provided for us in Christ. God could not merely cover the nakedness of a sinner, while leaving him still the sinner that he was before. Man fallen was corrupt as well as guilty; and Christ is made unto us not only righteousness but also sanctification.
Now sanctification is spoken of in two different ways in Scripture: we are sanctified positionally, and we are sanctified practically, -by the blood and by the Spirit of Christ; as the blood with the oil upon the blood consecrated the priest of old (Exo 29:20-21). Positionally, as is evident, it is the blood of Christ which has set us apart to God. And this is what sanctification means, setting apart to God. The Lord thus speaks of sanctifying Himself when He is going to take a new position as Man with God: “For their sakes,” He says, “I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth” (Joh 17:19). This was no spiritual change in the Lord, which it were blasphemy to think; it was simply a new place that He was taking for us God ward. Upon this too our sanctification, positionally and practically, depends. He is gone in to God as Man. Entitled ever to such a place by virtue of all that He was, His own personal perfection, He is now gone in for men; and therefore, “By His own blood He entered in once into the holy place. having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12). Thus He enters as our Representative, and the blood that He has shed sets us apart, or sanctifies us, to God, in the power of His finished work, “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb 10:10). Thus the conscience is effectually purified, the worshiper once purged having no more conscience of sins (Heb 9:13-14; Heb 10:2); a thing how absolutely necessary for practical sanctification, for which we must be near to God: there is no possible place of distance from sin but in nearness to God.
Practical sanctification has its two factors in the new birth, and the operation of the Spirit through the Word upon the believer, taking of the things of Christ to show them to him. In new birth Christ is our life, and thus we have a nature capable of responding to the Word ministered to it, although still and ever the Spirit’s work is necessary to make the Word good in the hearts of the children of God.
But being born again, it is Christ once more, as apprehended by the soul in what He personally is, and in the place in which He is, who is the power for sanctification. And herein is the wisdom of God in Him fully and wonderfully displayed. He who has put away our sins and set our consciences at rest in the presence of God, has thus laid hold upon our hearts, and won us for Himself and for God, revealed in Him, for ever. Christian life -what only can be called so -is thus love’s free and happy offering to Him who has loved us: “He died for all, that they which live should no more live unto themselves, but unto Him that died for us, and rose again.”
Let us notice that “rose again;” for if our hearts are thus Christ’s, where is Christ? In heaven. And where then are our hearts? That is the power for practical holiness, an object -the Object -for our hearts outside the world, outside the whole scene of temptation and evil. We have not to look about in the world, to see what of good we can perchance find in it: Christ is in heaven. Holiness is for us by heavenliness. How simply and in what perfect wisdom has God provided for us by the power of an absorbing affection, the Object withdrawn from us, outside the world, and becoming thus the goal of a pilgrim’s heart and a pilgrim’s steps!
And now, finally, what is “redemption”? This is the last of the three things found, according to the apostle, in this wisdom. of God in Christ. What then is redemption? It is God’s love acting from itself, and for itself, to satisfy itself at personal cost, in getting back that which has been alienated from Him, and which yet He values. It is more than purchase, or even repurchase; for this might be, not because of its value to myself, but to give it away again, or for some other reason. But redemption is for oneself, the getting back for oneself what one’s own heart values, -the value of which is known by the price that one is willing to pay for it. Redemption brings out thus the heart of the redeemer.
And in Eden, amid all the goodness with which he was surrounded, man, taught of Satan, had learned to suspect the goodness of God. There and then he had lost God: for He is not God, if He is not good. Since then, naturally, “there is none that seeketh after” Him, -that believes there is anything in Him for which to seek Him. Natural religions are religions of fear and self-interest only, and men’s gods are the image of their own corruptions. God must reveal Himself; and how gloriously has He done this! Not goodness merely to man innocent in Eden, but infinite love to those who in Christ could see and hate Him. “God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son.” Christ is the redemption-price that shows the heart of the Redeemer; this wondrous gift, the Father’s heart told out in transcendent righteousness, and holiness, and love.
Nor can we forget that redemption has yet to show its power in the transformation of the body itself; that in the image of Christ fully we may enjoy the blessedness that is ours in Him for ever. Then indeed shall he that glorieth glory in the Lord; and the full blessing of the creature shall be found when He alone is glorified by all.
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
1Co 1:17. For Christ sent me not to baptize Not chiefly: this was not the principal end of my mission. He did not call me in so wonderful a way, and endue me with extraordinary powers, chiefly in order to my doing that which might be done as well by an ordinary minister: (all the apostles, however, were also sent to baptize, Mat 28:19 🙂 but to preach the gospel Or to plant churches by preaching the gospel to those that never heard it before, Act 26:17-18. The apostles, being endued with the highest degrees of inspiration and miraculous powers, had the office of preaching committed to them, rather than that of baptizing, because they were best qualified for converting the world, and had not time to give the converted, either before or after their baptism, such particular instruction as their former ignorance rendered necessary. These offices, therefore, were committed to the inferior ministers of the Word. The apostle here slides into his general proposition, respecting preaching the gospel, namely, the doctrine which he preached, and the manner in which he preached it. Not with wisdom of words , of speech, with the artificial ornaments of discourse, invented by human wisdom. This observation was intended to show the Corinthians how ill-founded the boasting of the faction was, who valued themselves on the learning and eloquence of their teachers. Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect Lest the bare preaching of Christ crucified, 1Co 1:23, as a fundamental article of Christianity, and the foundation of all our hopes, should be thought unavailing to procure salvation for guilty sinners. The whole effect of Pauls preaching was owing to the power of God accompanying the plain declaration of this great truth, Christ bore our sins upon the cross. But this effect might have been imputed to another cause, had he come with that wisdom of speech which the Greeks admired. To have adorned the gospel with the paint of the Grecian rhetoric would have obscured its wisdom and simplicity, just as the gilding of a diamond would destroy its brilliancy. Besides, it would have marred its operation as a revelation from God. For the evidence and efficacy of the gospel arise not from its being proved by philosophical arguments, and recommended by the charms of human eloquence, but from its being proved by miracles, and founded on the testimony of God. Macknight.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel; not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Between 1Co 1:16-17 the logical connection is this, If I baptized, it was only exceptionally; for this function was not the object of my commission. The essential difference between the act of baptizing and that of preaching the gospel, is that the latter of these acts is a wholly spiritual work, belonging to the higher field of producing faith and giving new birth to souls; while the former rests in the lower domain of the earthly organization of the Church. To preach the gospel is to cast the net; it is apostolic work. To baptize is to gather the fish now taken and put them into vessels. The preacher gains souls from the world; the baptizer, putting his hand on them, acts as the simple assistant of the former, who is the true head of the mission. So Jesus Himself used the apostles to baptize (Joh 4:1-2); Peter acted in the same way with his assistants; comp. Act 10:48. Paul certainly does not mean that he was forbidden to baptize; but the terms of his apostolic commission had not even mentioned this secondary function (Act 9:15; Act 22:14-15). Though he might occasionally discharge it, the object of his mission was different. To the aorist , the reading of the Vatic., the present is to be preferred, which better suits the habitual function.
The connection of the last proposition of 1Co 1:17 with what precedes is not obvious at the first glance. But the study of the following passage shows that we have here the transition to the new development which is about to begin. This transition is made very skilfully: it resembles that of Rom 1:16, by which the apostle passes from the preface to the exposition of his subject. There might be a more subtle way of appropriating souls to himself than that of baptizing them in his name, even that of preaching in such a way as to attract their admiration to himself by diverting their attention from the very object of preaching: Christ and His cross; now this is excluded by the term evangelizing (preaching the gospel), taken in its true sense. Paul means, I remained faithful to my commission, not only by evangelizing without baptizing, but also by confining myself to evangelizing in the strict sense of the word, that is to say, by delivering my message without adding to it anything of my own. The term evangelizing signifies, in fact, to announce good news; it denotes therefore the simplest mode of preaching. It is the enunciation of the fact, to the exclusion of all elaboration of reason or oratorical amplification, so that the negative characteristic, without wisdom of words, far from being a strange and accidental characteristic added to the term evangelize, is taken from the very nature of the act indicated by the verb. Thus Paul has not only continued steadily in his function as an evangelist; he has at the same time remained faithful to the spirit of his function. He has therefore done absolutely nothing which could have given rise to the formation of a Paul-party at Corinth.
The objective negative is used because the regimen refers, not to , sent me,in that case the negative would depend on the Divine intention in the sending, and the subjective negative, , would be required,but to , which denotes the fact of preaching itself.
This second part of the verse contains the theme of the whole development which now follows. The formation of parties at Corinth evidently rested on a false conception of the gospel, which converted it into the wisdom of a school. Paul restores the true notion of Christianity, according to which this religion is above all a fact, and its preaching the simple testimony rendered to the fact: the announcement of the blessed news of salvation (). It is thus clear how the second part of the verse is logically connected with the first, the idea of wisdom of words being excluded by the very meaning of the term evangelize.
The phrase , wisdom of words, is not synonymous with , the art of speaking well. The emphasis is rather on the word wisdom than on words. The former term applies to the matter of discourse; it denotes a well-conceived system, a religious philosophy in which the new religion is set forth as furnishing a satisfactory explanation of God, man, and the universe. The latter bears on the form, and denotes the logical or brilliant exposition of such a system. Most critics think that by this phrase Paul means to allude to the teaching of Apollos, at once profound and highly flavoured. The orator preferred to Paul, says Reuss, was no other than his friend and successor Apollos. We know few commentators who have been able, like Hilgenfeld, to rise above this prejudice, which has become in a manner conventional. As for me, this application seems to be directly contrary to all that Paul himself will afterwards say of Apollos, and to the way in which his teaching is described in the Acts. Paul, in this very Epistle, 1Co 4:4-8, testifies to the closest relation between his own work and that of Apollos. Far from there having been conflict between the two works, that of Paul is represented, 1Co 3:6, under the figure of planting, and that of Apollos under that of watering. Paul adds, 1Co 1:8 : He that planteth and he that watereth are one. The apostle, on the contrary, characterizes in the following verses the mode of teaching which he would here combat, as belonging to that wisdom of the world (1Co 1:20) which the gospel comes to destroy; he applies to it (1Co 3:20) these words of a Psalm: The thoughts of the wise are only vanity; he accuses it of destroying the temple of God, and threatens its propagators with being destroyed in their turn by God Himself (1Co 3:17-18); and it is of the teaching of his friend and disciple Apollos that he meant to speak! According to Act 18:27-28, the whole preaching of Apollos was founded on the Scriptures, and not at all on a human speculation which he had brought from Alexandria, as is alleged by those who make him a disciple of Philo. It is even said that by the grace of God he was very profitable to those who had believed. The person of Apollos must therefore be put out of the question here: it is impossible even to suppose that all which follows applies to his partisans. We have much more reason to think that those referred to here are the teachers who, under the name those of Christ, were propagating strange doctrines at Corinth regarding the person of Christ, and whom Paul accuses, 2Co 11:2-4, of corrupting minds from the simplicity which is in Christ, and of beguiling them as the serpent beguiled Eve.
The systematic and brilliant exposition of the fact of the cross would have the effect, according to Paul’s phrase, of , literally emptying it. Those who, like Meyer and so many others, apply the foregoing expressions to Apollos, attenuate the meaning of this term as much as possible; according to them, it merely signifies that in consequence of this mode of preaching, the salutary effects of preaching will be ascribed rather to the brilliant qualities of the orator than to the matter of the doctrine, the cross. But this meaning is obviously far from coming up to the idea expressed by the word , to make void. Kling comes nearer to the energy of the expression when he refers to the fact that a dialectic and oratorical mode of preaching may indeed produce an intellectual or aesthetical effect, but not transform the egoistical self. But if Paul had meant nothing more than this, he would rather have used the word which is familiar to him, , to deprive of efficacy. The term denotes an act which does violence to the object itself, and deprives it of its essence and virtue. Salvation by the cross is a Divine act which the conscience must appropriate as such. If one begins with presenting it to the understanding in the form of a series of well-linked ideas, as the result of a theory concerning man and God, it may happen that the mind will be nourished by it, but as by a system of wisdom, and not a way of salvation. It is as if we should substitute a theory of gravitation for gravitation itself (Edwards). The fact evaporates in ideas, and no longer acts on the conscience with the powerful reality which determines conversion. The sequel will be precisely the development of this thought.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made void. [A baptism is part of the commission (Mat 28:19). Paul was sent to baptize; but it was not necessary that the apostle should administer the rite in person. It sufficed if he saw to it that it was done (Joh 4:2). Paul does not here mean to assert that he preached without study or forethought. His words must be construed in the light of the context; which show that he intends to deny that he encumbered the gospel message with any philosophical reasoning.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
17. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Here we see clearly and demonstratively that while water baptism in some way or other with reference to quantity, quality, subject, manner, or administrator has been the bone of contention among the religious denominations through all ages, and really the hot-bed of schisms, here you see plainly that, instead of deserving such prominence in the gospel economy, it is in fact no part of the gospel, and never was, but merely incidental to it right in its place, but no part of the thing itself; hence, utterly unessential to salvation. This is clearly tenorable from Pauls discrimination between baptism and the gospel. If it had been a part of the gospel, Paul never could have said, Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in wisdom of word, in order that the cross of Christ may not be made empty. Why is the cross the great salient fact in the plan of salvation? Because on it Jesus made the atonement and redeemed the world from sin, death and hell. Such is the historic truth of the cross. Again, because all of His followers must go with Him to the cross, be nailed to it and die; i. e., just as the humanity in Him, though sinless, died on the cross for sin, so must the sinful humanity in us i. e., Adam the first, die on the cross; otherwise we never can follow our risen Savior up to heaven. This is the experimental truth of the cross. Hence we find that even Romanism does not make the cross too prominent. It is all right to show it up externally in order that our senses may assist our faith. But the trouble with them is they stop with the externalities, retaining only the historic doctrine of the cross, having lost sight of the experimental, which is the essence, and is indispensable to salvation. Many Protestants clamor constantly about water baptism, which you see plainly here from this irrefutable truth is no part of the gospel, but merely incidental to it, and hence not necessary to salvation; whereas they make nothing of the cross, which is really everything.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 17
Wisdom of words; the power of eloquence and philosophy.–Lest the cross of Christ, &c.; lest he should tease to depend upon the simple presentation of the great fact that a Savior had died for sinners.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 1:17 a. Justifies Paul in not baptizing his converts, by saying that his not doing so was no failure to do the work for which Christ sent him.
Not to baptize; does not mean that Christ forbad him to baptize, but that this was not the purpose for which Christ appeared to him and sent him.
Good-news: Rom 1:1 : literally, not to baptize but to evangelize. This agrees exactly with Act 9:15; Act 22:14; Act 26:16. It does not imply a mission different from Mat 28:19 : for there baptism is subordinate to making disciples. This verse embodies the great truth that even the most solemn outward forms are secondary to inward spiritual life.
But even a second place in the kingdom of God may be of great importance.
Paul has now stated the first of the matters which moved him to write to the Corinthians, viz. a report of a serious and universal evil in the church. He has given them his authority, told them the terrible practical consequence of their conduct, and reminded them how contrary it is to the spirit which animated his own ministry among them. To avoid the appearance of gathering disciples for himself, he abstained from baptizing his converts. This was no neglect of his apostolic mission. For, the announcement of good news, not the formal reception of church-members, was the work for which he was sent by Christ.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
1:17 {19} For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: {20} not with {l} wisdom of words, lest the {21} cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
(19) The taking away of an objection: that he gave not himself to baptize many amongst them: not for the contempt of baptism, but because he was mainly occupied in delivering the doctrine, and committed those that received his doctrine to others to be baptized. And so he declared sufficiently how far he was from all ambition: whereas on the other hand they, whom he reprehends, as though they gathered disciples to themselves and not to Christ, bragged most ambitiously of numbers, which they had baptized.
(20) Now he turns himself to the teachers themselves, who pleased themselves in brave and glory-seeking eloquence, to the end that they might draw more disciples after them. He openly confesses that he was not similar to them, opposing gravely, as it became an apostle, his example against their perverse judgments: so that this is another place in this epistle with regard to the observing of a godly simplicity both in words and sentences in teaching the Gospel.
(l) With eloquence: which Paul casts off from himself not only as unnecessary, but also as completely contrary to the office of his apostleship: and yet Paul had this kind of eloquence, but it was heavenly, not of man, and void of fancy words.
(21) The reason why he did not use the pomp of words and fancy speech: because it was God’s will to bring the world to his obedience by that way, by which the most foolish among men might understand that this work was done by God himself, without the skill of man. Therefore as salvation is set forth to us in the Gospel by the cross of Christ, which nothing is more contemptible than, and more far from life, so God would have the manner of the preaching of the cross, most different from those means with which men do use to draw and entice others, either to hear or believe: therefore it pleased him by a certain kind of most wise folly, to triumph over the most foolish wisdom of the world, as he had said before by Isaiah that he would. And by this we may gather that both these teachers who were puffed up with ambitious eloquence, and also their hearers, strayed far away from the goal and mark of their calling.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Baptizing is part of the Great Commission that all Christians are responsible to carry out (Mat 28:19). Paul’s point was that preaching the gospel is more important than baptizing. He used a figure of speech, litotes, for emphasis. In litotes a writer makes a negative statement to emphasize the positive alternative. For example, "No small storm" (Act 27:20), means a very large storm. Paul would hardly have said what he did if baptism were necessary for salvation.
"Cleverness of speech" (NASB) and "words of human wisdom" (NIV) greatly impressed the Greeks.
"The Greeks were intoxicated with fine words; and to them the Christian preacher with his blunt message seemed a crude and uncultured figure, to be laughed at and ridiculed rather than to be listened to and respected." [Note: William Barclay, The Letters to the Corinthians, p. 22.]
One of the features of Paul, Apollos, Peter, and Christ that made them attractive to various segments of the Corinthian church was evidently their individual oratorical styles. Later Paul pointed out that the Corinthian Christians were viewing things through carnal eyes, namely, seeing things as unsaved people do (1Co 3:1-4). Paul did not emphasize or place confidence in the method of his preaching but the message of the Cross. He did not want to draw attention away from the gospel message to his style of delivering that message.
"Paul represents himself as a preacher, not as an orator. Preaching is the proclamation of the cross; it is the cross that is the source of its power." [Note: Barrett, p. 49.]
"The Gospel’s appeal is not to man’s intellect, but to his sense of guilt by sin. The cross clothed in wisdom of words vitiates this appeal. The Gospel must never be presented as a human philosophical system; it must be preached as a salvation." [Note: Johnson, p. 1231.]
This verse provides a transition into the next section of the epistle in which Paul contrasted God’s wisdom and human wisdom.
"With this observation Paul is fully launched on his epistle. As in Romans (cf. i. 16 ff.), mention of the Gospel sets his thought and language in motion." [Note: Barrett, p. 49.]
The crux of the Corinthians’ party spirit lay in their viewing things as unbelievers did, specifically Christian preachers and teachers. They failed to see the important issues at stake in ministry and instead paid too much attention to external, superficial matters. This was a serious condition, so Paul invested many words in the following section to deal with it (1Co 1:18 to 1Co 4:21). This is still a major problem for many Christians who have been too influenced by the attention given celebrities in culture.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 4
THE FOOLISHNESS OF PREACHING
In the preceding section of this Epistle Paul introduced the subject which was prominent in his thoughts as he wrote: the divided state of the Corinthian Church. He adjured the rival parties by the name of Christ to hold together, to discard party names and combine in one confession. He reminded them that Christ is indivisible, and that the Church which is founded on Christ must also be one. He shows them how impossible it is for anyone but Christ to be the Churchs foundation, and thanks God that he had given no pretext to anyone to suppose that he had sought to found a party. Had he even baptised the converts to Christianity, there might have been persons foolish enough to whisper that he had baptised in his own name and had intended to found a Pauline, not a Christian, community. But providentially he had baptised very few, and had confined himself to preaching the Gospel, which he considered to be the proper work to which Christ had “sent” him; that is to say, for which he held an Apostles commission and authority. But as he thus repudiates the idea that he had given any countenance to the founding of a Pauline party, it occurs to him that some may say, Yes, it is true enough, he did not baptise; but his preaching may more effectually have won partisans than even baptising them into his own name could have done. And so Paul goes on to show that his preaching was not that of a demagogue or party leader, but was a bare statement of fact, garnished and set off by absolutely nothing which could divert attention from the fact either to the speaker or to his style. Hence this digression on the foolishness of preaching.
In this section of the Epistle then it is Pauls purpose to explain to the Corinthians (1) the style of preaching he had adopted while with them and (2) why he had adopted this style.
I. His time in Corinth, he assures them, had been spent, not in propagating a philosophy or system of truth peculiar to himself, and which might have been identified with his name, but in presenting the Cross of Christ and making the plainest statements of fact regarding Christs death. In approaching the Corinthians, Paul had necessarily weighed in his own mind the comparative merits of various modes of presenting the Gospel. In common with all men who are about to address an audience, he took into consideration the aptitudes, peculiarities, and expectations of his audience, that he might so frame his arguments, statements, and appeals as to be most likely to carry his point. The Corinthians, as Paul well knew, were especially open to the attractions of rhetoric and philosophical discussion. A new philosophy clothed in elegant language was likely to secure a number of disciples. And it was quite in Pauls power to present the Gospel as a philosophy. He might have spoken to the Corinthians in large and impressive language of the destiny of man, of the unity of the race, and of the ideal man in Christ. He might have based all he had to teach them on some of the accepted dicta or theories of their own philosophers. He might have propounded some new arguments for immortality or the existence of a personal God, and have shown how congruous the Gospel is to these great truths. He might, like some subsequent teachers, have emphasised some particular aspect of Divine truth, and have so identified his teaching with this one side of Christianity as to found a school or sect known by his name. But he deliberately rejected this method of introducing the Gospel, and determined not to know anything among them save “Jesus Christ and Him crucified.” He stripped his mind bare, as it were, of all his knowledge and thinking, and came among them as an ignorant man who had only facts to tell.
Paul then in this instance deliberately trusted to the bare statement of facts, and not to any theory about these facts. This is a most important distinction, and to be kept in view by all preachers, whether they feel called by their circumstances to adopt Pauls method or not. In preaching to audiences with whom the facts are familiar, it is perfectly justifiable to draw inferences from them and to theorise about them for the instruction and edification of Christian people. Paul himself spoke “wisdom among them that were perfect.” But what is to be noted is that for doing the work proper to the Gospel, for making men Christians, it is not theory or explanation, but fact, that is effective. It is the presentation of Christ as He is presented in the written Gospels, the narrative of His life and death without note or comment, theory or inference, argument or appeal, which stands in the first rank of efficiency as a means of evangelising the world. Paul, ever moderate, does not denounce other methods of presenting the Gospels as illegitimate; but in his circumstances the bare presentation of fact seemed the only wise method.
No doubt we may unduly press Pauls words; and probably we should do so if we gathered that he merely told his hearers how Christ had lived and died and gave them no inkling of the significance of His death. Still the least we can gather from his words is that he trusted more to facts than to any explanation of the facts, more to narration than to inference and theory. Certainly the neglect of this distinction renders a great proportion of modern preaching ineffective and futile. Preachers occupy their time in explaining how the Cross of Christ ought to influence men, whereas they ought to occupy their time in so presenting the Cross of Christ that it does influence men. They give laboured explanations of faith and elaborate instructions regarding the method and results of believing, while they should be exhibiting Christ so that faith is instinctively aroused. The actor on the stage does not instruct his audience how they should be affected by the play; he so presents to them this or that scene that they instinctively smile or find their eyes fill. Those onlookers at the Crucifixion who beat their breasts and returned to their homes with awe and remorse were not told that they should feel compunction; it was enough that they saw the Crucified. So it is always; it is the direct vision of the Cross, and not anything which is said about it, which is most effective in producing penitence and faith. And it is the business of the preacher to set Christ and Him crucified clear before the eyes of men; this being done, there will be little need of explanations of faith or inculcation of penitence. Make men see Christ, set the Crucified clear before them, and you need not tell them to repent and believe; if that sight does not make them repent, no telling of yours will make them.
The very fact that it was a Person, not a system of philosophy, that Paul proclaimed was sufficient proof that he was not anxious to become the founder of a school or the head of a party. It was to another Person, not to himself, he directed the attention and faith of his hearers. And that which permanently distinguishes Christianity from all philosophies is that it presents to men, not a system of truth to be understood, but a Person to be relied upon. Christianity is not the bringing of new truth to us so much as the bringing of a new Person to us. The manifestation of God in Christ is in harmony with all truth; but we are not required to perceive and understand that harmony, but to believe in Christ. Christianity is for all men, and not for the select, highly educated few; and it depends, therefore, not on exceptional ability to see truth, but on the universal human emotions of love and trust.
II. Paul justifies his rejection of philosophy or “wisdom” and his adoption of the simpler but more difficult method of stating fact on three grounds. The first is that Gods method had changed. For a time God had allowed the Greeks to seek Him by their own wisdom; now He presents Himself to them in the foolishness of the Cross (1Co 1:17-25). The second ground is that the wise do not universally respond to the preaching of the Cross, a fact which shows that it is not wisdom that preaching appeals to (1Co 1:26-31). And his third ground is that, he feared lest, if he used “wisdom” in presenting the Gospel, his hearers might be only superficially attracted by his persuasiveness and not profoundly moved by the intrinsic power of the Cross. 1Co 2:1-5.
1. His first reason is that God had changed His method. “After that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.” Even the wisest of the Greeks had attained only to inadequate and indefinite views of God. Admirable and pathetic are the searchings of the noble intellects that stand in the front rank of Greek philosophy; and some of their discoveries regarding God and His ways are full of instruction. But these thoughts, cherished by a few wise and devout men, never penetrated to the people, and by their vagueness and uncertainty were incapacitated from deeply influencing anyone. To pass even from Plato to the Gospel of John is really to pass from darkness to light. Plato philosophises, and a few souls seem for a moment to see things more clearly; Peter preaches, and three thousand souls spring to life. If God was to be known by men generally, it was not through the influence of philosophy. Already philosophy had done its utmost; and so far as any popular and sanctifying knowledge of God went, philosophy might as well never have been. “The world by wisdom knew not God.” No safer assertion regarding the ancient world can be made.
That which, in point of fact, has made God known is the Cross of Christ. No doubt it must have seemed foolishness and mere lunacy to summon the seeker after God away from the high and elevating speculations of Plato on the good and the eternal and to point him to the Crucified, to a human form gibbeted on a malefactors cross, to a man that had been hanged. None knew better than Paul the infamy attaching to that cursed death, and none could more distinctly measure the surprise and stupefaction with which the Greek mind would hear the announcement that it was there God was to be seen and known. Paul understood the offence of the Cross, but he knew also its power. “The Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block and unto the Greeks foolishness, but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”
As proof that God was in their midst and as a revelation of Gods nature, the Jews required a sign, a demonstration of physical power. It was one of Christs temptations to leap from a pinnacle of the Temple, for thus He would have won acceptance as the Christ. The people never ceased to clamour for a sign. They wished Him to bid a mountain be removed and cast into the sea; they wished Him to bid the sun stand still or Jordan retire to its source. They wished Him to make some demonstration of superhuman power, and so put it beyond a doubt that God was present. Even at the last it would have satisfied them had He bid the nails drop out and had He stepped down from the Cross among them. They could not understand that to remain on the Cross was the true proof of Divinity. The Cross seemed to them a confession of weakness. They sought a demonstration that the power of God was in Christ, and they were pointed to the Cross. But to them the Cross was a stumbling block they could not get over. And yet in it was the whole power of God for the salvation of the world. All the power that dwells in God to draw men out of sin to holiness and to Himself was actually in the Cross. For the power of God that is required to draw men to Himself is not power to alter the course of rivers or change the site of mountains, but power to sympathise, to make mens sorrows His own, to sacrifice self, to give all for the needs of His creatures. To them that believe in the God there revealed, the Cross is the power of God. It is this love of God that overpowers them and makes it impossible for them to resist Him. To a God who makes Himself known to them in self-sacrifice they quickly
2. As a second ground on which to rest the justification of his method of preaching Paul appeals to the constituent elements of which the Church of Corinth was actually composed. It is plain, he says, that it is not by human wisdom, nor by power, nor by anything generally esteemed among men that you hold your place in the Church. The fact is that “not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called.” If human wisdom or power held the gates of the kingdom, you yourselves would not be in it. To be esteemed, and influential, and wise. is no passport to this new kingdom. It is not men who by their wisdom find out God and by their nobility of character commend themselves to Him; but it is God who chooses and calls men, and the very absence of wisdom and possessions makes men readier to listen to His call. “God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty, and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things which are; that no flesh should glory in His presence.” It is all Gods doing now; it is “Of Him are ye in Christ Jesus”; it is God that hath chosen you. Human wisdom had its opportunity and accomplished little; God now by the foolishness of the Cross lifts the despised, the foolish, the weak, to a far higher position than the wise and noble can attain by their might and their wisdom.
Paul thus justifies his method by its results. He uses as his weapon the foolishness of the Cross, and this foolishness of God proves itself wiser than men. It may seem a most unlikely weapon with which to accomplish great things, but it is God who uses it, and that makes the difference. Hence the emphasis throughout this passage on the agency of God. “God hath chosen” you; “Of God are ye in Christ Jesus”; “Of God He is made unto you wisdom.” This method used by Paul is Gods method and means of working, and therefore it succeeds. But for this reason also all ground of boasting is removed from those who are within the Christian Church. It is not their wisdom or strength, but Gods work, which has given them superiority to the wise and noble of the world. “No flesh can glory in Gods presence.” The wise and mighty of earth cannot glory, for their wisdom and might availed nothing to bring them to God; those who are in Christ Jesus can as little glory, for it is not on account of any wisdom or might of theirs, but because of Gods call and energy, they are what they are. They were of no account, poor, insignificant, outcasts, and slaves, friendless while alive and when dead not missed in any household; but God called them and gave them a new and hopeful life in Christ Jesus.
In Pauls day this argument from the general poverty and insignificance of the members of the Christian Church was readily drawn. Things are changed now; and the Church is filled with the wise, the powerful, the noble. But Pauls main proposition remains: whoever is in Christ Jesus is so, not through any wisdom or power of his own, but because God has chosen and called him. And the practical result remains. Let the Christian, while he rejoices in his position, be humble. There is something wrong with the mans Christianity who is no sooner delivered from the mire himself than he despises all who are still entangled. The self-righteous attitude assumed by some Christians, the “Look at me” air they carry with them, their unsympathetic condemnation of unbelievers, the superiority with which they frown upon amusements and gaieties, all seem to indicate that they have forgotten it is by the grace of God they are what they are. The sweetness and humble friendliness of Paul sprang from his constant sense that whatever he was he was by Gods grace. He was drawn with compassion towards the most unbelieving because he was ever saying within himself, There, but for the grace of God, goes Paul. The Christian must say to himself, It is not because I am better or wiser than other men that I am a Christian; it is not because I sought God with earnestness, but because He sought me, that I am now His. The hard suspicion and hostility with which many good people view unbelievers and godless livers would thus be softened by a mixture of humble self-knowledge. The unbeliever is no doubt often to be blamed, the selfish pleasure seeker undoubtedly lays himself open to just condemnation, but not by the man who is conscious that but for Gods grace he himself would be unbelieving and sinful.
Lastly, Paul justifies his neglect of wisdom and rhetoric on the ground that had he used “enticing words of mans wisdom” the hearers might have been unduly influenced by the mere guise in which the Gospel was presented and too little influenced by the essence of it. He feared to adorn the simple tale or dress up the bare fact, lest the attention of his audience might be diverted from the substance of his message. He was resolved that their faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God; that is to say, that those who believed should do so, not because they saw in Christianity a philosophy which might compete with current systems, but because in the Cross of Christ they felt the whole redeeming power of God brought to bear on their own soul.
Here again things have changed since Pauls day. The assailants of Christianity have put it on its defence, and its apologists have been compelled to show that it is in harmony with the soundest philosophy. It was inevitable that this should be done. Every philosophy now has to take account of Christianity. It has shown itself to be so true to human nature, and it has shed so much light on the whole system of things and so modified the action of men and the course of civilisation, that a place must be found for it in every philosophy. But to accept Christianity because it has been a powerful influence for good in the world, or because it harmonises with the most approved philosophy, or because it is friendly to the highest development of intellect, may be legitimate indeed; but Paul considered that the only sound and trustworthy faith was produced by direct personal contact with the Cross. And this remains forever true.
To approve of Christianity as a system and to adopt it as a faith are two different things. It is quite possible to respect Christianity as conveying to us a large amount of useful truth, while we hold ourselves aloof from the influence of the Cross. We may approve the morality which is involved in the religion of Christ, we may Countenance and advocate it because we are persuaded no other force is powerful enough to diffuse a love of law and some power of self-restraint among all classes of society, we may see quite clearly that Christianity is the only religion an educated European can accept, and yet we mat never have felt the power of God in the Cross of Christ. If we believe in Christianity because it approves itself to our judgment as the best solution of the problems of life, that is well; but still, if that be all that draws us to Christ, our faith stands in the wisdom of men rather than in the power of God.
In what sense then are we Christians? Have we allowed the Cross of Christ to make its peculiar impression upon us? Have we given it a chance to influence us? Have we in all seriousness of spirit considered what is presented to us in the Cross? Have we honestly laid bare our hearts to the love of Christ? Have we admitted to ourselves that it was for us He died? If so, then we must have felt the power of God in the Cross. We must have found ourselves taken captive by this love of God. Gods law we may have found it possible to resist; its threatenings we may have been able to put out of our mind. The natural helps to goodness which God has given us in the family, in the world around us, in the fortunes of life, we may have found too feeble to lift us above temptation and bring us into a really high and pure life. But in the Cross we at length experience what Divine power is; we know the irresistible appeal of Divine self-sacrifice, the overcoming, regenerating pathos of the Divine desire to save us from sin and destruction, the upholding and quickening energy that flows into our being from the Divine sympathy and hopefulness in our behalf. The Cross is the actual point of contact between God and man. It is the point at which the fulness of Divine energy is actually brought to bear upon us men. To receive the whole benefit and blessing that God can now give us we need only be in true contact with the Cross: through it we become direct recipients of the holiness, the love, the power, of God. In it Christ is made to us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption. In very truth all that God can do for us to set us free from sin and to restore us to Himself and happiness is done for us in the Cross; and through it we receive all that is needful, all that Gods holiness requires, all that His love desires us to possess.