Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 1:14
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
14. Crispus and Gaius ] The special honour seems to have been accorded to Crispus of baptism by the hands of St Paul, because he was ‘the chief ruler of the synagogue’ (Act 18:8). Gaius, ‘mine host, and of the whole Church’ (Rom 16:23) must not be confounded with Gaius of Derbe (Act 20:4), nor with the Macedonian Gaius mentioned in Act 19:29. Gaius or Caius was a very common Roman name. The Epistle to the Romans was written at Corinth. Paley ( Horae Paulinae, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians 8) remarks on the minute yet undesigned agreement between the Epistles and the Acts. We must not foil to notice also that the Corinthian Church was by no means an exclusively Gentile community. See Act 18:12-13.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
I thank God … – Why Paul did not himself baptize, see in 1Co 1:17. To him it was now a subject of grateful reflection that he had not done it. He had not given any occasion for the suspicion that he had intended to set himself up as a leader of a sect or party.
But Crispus – Crispus had been the chief ruler of the synagogue at Corinth; Act 18:8.
And Gaius – Gaius resided at Corinth, and at his house Paul resided when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans; Rom 16:23. It is also possible that the Third Epistle of John was directed to this man; see 3Jo 1:1. And if so, then probably Diotrephes 3Jo 1:9, who is mentioned as one who loved to have the pre-eminence, had been one cause of the difficulties at Corinth. The other persons at Corinth had been probably baptized by Silas and Timothy.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 14. I thank God that I baptized none of you] None of those who now live in Corinth, except Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, Ac 18:8. And Gaius, the same person probably with whom Paul lodged, Ro 16:23, where see the notes. Dr. Lightfoot observes: “If this be Gaius, or Caius, to whom the third epistle of John was written, which is very probable when the first verse of that epistle is compared with Ro 16:23, 3Jo 1:1 then it will appear probable that John wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians. I wrote, says he, unto the Church-What Church? Certainly it must have been some particular Church which the apostle has in view, and the Church where Gaius himself resided. And if this be true, we may look for Diotrephes (3Jo 1:9) in the Corinthian Church; and the author of the schism of which the apostle complains. See the Introduction, sect. viii.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Concerning the apostles baptizing Crispus we read, Act 18:8; he was the chief ruler of the synagogue of the Jews: why Paul thanks God that he baptized not many, he tells us, 1Co 1:15.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14. I thank God’s providencenow, who so ordered it that I baptized none of you but Crispus (theformer ruler of the synagogue, Ac18:8) and Gaius (written by the Romans Caius, the host ofPaul at Corinth, and of the church, Ro16:23; a person therefore in good circumstances). Baptizing wasthe office of the deacons (Ac10:48) rather than of the apostles, whose office was that ofestablishing and superintending generally the churches. The deaconshad a better opportunity of giving the necessary course ofinstruction preparatory to baptism. Crispus and Gaius wereprobably among the first converts, and hence were baptized by Paulhimself, who founded the church.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
I thank God that I baptized none of you,…. The Alexandrian copy and the Syriac version read, “I thank my God”; not that the apostle disliked the ordinance of baptism, or the administration of it; and much less that he thought it criminal, or an evil in him to perform it; nor was he at any time displeased at the numbers of persons who desired it of him; but on the contrary rejoiced where proper subjects of it were brought to a submission to it; but inasmuch as some persons in the church at Corinth made such an ill use of his having baptized them, he was greatly thankful that it was so ordered in providence, that the far greater part of them were baptized by other ministers, either by those who were with him, or came after him; and that he baptized none of them with his own hands,
but Crispus and Gaius. The former of these was the chief ruler of the Jewish synagogue at Corinth, who hearing the apostle, and believing in Christ, was baptized by him, Ac 18:8 and the latter was a very liberal and hospitable man, and was the apostle’s host, whilst he was at Corinth; see Ro 16:23.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| Party-Spirit Reproved. | A. D. 57. |
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Here the apostle gives an account of his ministry among them. He thanks God he had baptized but a few among them, Crispus, who had been a ruler of a synagogue at Corinth (Acts xviii. 8), Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, besides whom, he says, he did not remember that he had baptized any. But how was this a proper matter for thankfulness? Was it not a part of the apostolical commission to baptize all nations? And could Paul give thanks to God for his own neglect of duty? He is not to be understood in such a sense as if he were thankful for not having baptized at all, but for not having done it in present circumstances, lest it should have had this very bad construction put upon it–that he had baptized in his own name, made disciples for himself, or set himself up as the head of a sect. He left it to other ministers to baptize, while he set himself to more useful work, and filled up his time with preaching the gospel. This, he thought, was more his business, because the more important business of the two. He had assistants that could baptize, when none could discharge the other part of his office so well as himself. In this sense he says, Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel–not so much to baptize as to preach. Note, Ministers should consider themselves sent and set apart more especially to that service in which Christ will be most honoured and the salvation of souls promoted, and for which they are best fitted, though no part of their duty is to be neglected. The principal business Paul did among them was to preach the gospel (v. 17), the cross (v. 18), Christ crucified, v. 23. Ministers are the soldiers of Christ, and are to erect and display the banner of the cross. He did not preach his own fancy, but the gospel–the glad tidings of peace, and reconciliation to God, through the mediation of a crucified Redeemer. This is the sum and substance of the gospel. Christ crucified is the foundation of all our joys. By his death we live. This is what Paul preached, what all ministers should preach, and what all the saints live upon.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
I thank God ( ). See verse 4, though uncertain if is genuine here.
Save Crispus and Gaius ( ). Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue in Corinth before his conversion (Ac 18:8), a Roman cognomen, and Gaius a Roman praenomen, probably the host of Paul and of the whole church in Corinth (Ro 16:23), possibly though not clearly the hospitable Gaius of 3John 1:5; 3John 1:6. The prominence and importance of these two may explain why Paul baptized them.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) I thank God,” (Greek eucharisto) “I give thanks,” present progressive. The term “God” is not in the original, but is explanatory of the trinitarian God to whom Paul prayed, as expressed 1Co 1:4. Here too he expresses that he offers continuous thanks.
2) “That I baptized none of you.” (Greek hoti oudena humon ebaptisa) “that not one of you all I baptized, immersed.”
3) “But Crispus and Gaius;” (Greek ei me) “except” Crispus and Gaius. This passage teaches beyond successful controversy that one does not have to be “baptized to be saved,” else Paul would have been thankful that he had no part in the salvation of any others in Corinth – Only a true New Testament Church has authority to administer baptism and that is to be done “in the name,” or by the authority, of Jesus Christ, only to those who have first believed or been saved; It was the church “ye”, not the preachers ‘lye” to whom the authority was given. Mat 28:18-20.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
14. I thank my God. In these words he reproves very sharply the perversity of the Corinthians, which made it necessary for him to avoid, in a manner, a thing so sacred and honorable as that of the administration of baptism. Paul, indeed, would have acted with propriety, and in accordance with the nature of his office, though he had baptized ever so many. He rejoices, however, that it had happened otherwise, and acknowledges it as having been so ordered, in the providence of God, that they might not take occasion from that to glory in him, or that he might not bear any resemblance to those ambitious men who endeavored in this way to catch followers. But what if he had baptized many? There would have been no harm in it, but (as I have said) there is couched under this a heavy reproach against the Corinthians and their false apostles, inasmuch as a servant of the Lord found occasion to rejoice that he had refrained from a work, otherwise good and commendable, lest it should become an occasion of harm to them.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(14) I thank God.I am thankful to God that it was not so. For if he had baptised a great many, some might have said he had created originally a party in his own name. Crispus (see Act. 18:8), a ruler of the synagogue, Gaius (or Caius, his Roman name), mine host, and of the whole Church (Rom. 16:23): the evident importance and position of these two, and that they were the first converts, may account for the Apostle having departed from his usual practice in baptising them.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
14. I thank God For the unexpected good result of our actions, we may thank not our own wisdom, but God’s. Some might have thought his omission to baptize a guilty neglect; others may have felt the not being baptized by him a slight; he sees in it a complete condemnation of their making him their master.
Baptized none of you A remarkable fact that of so many converts of Paul, so few were baptized by him. A remarkable object of thanks. Baptism, solemn as is its import, being, nevertheless, more a performance of the hand than of brain or soul, is subordinate to preaching and government. At Corinth the rite was at first, doubtless, performed by Timothy and Silas, Paul’s attendants, and afterwards by elders and deacons ordained. Note, Act 10:48.
But Crispus Note Act 18:8. The notability of Crispus, the chief ruler, being converted by Paul, induced his being baptized by him.
Gaius At whose house probably he wrote the Epistle to the Romans. See our introduction to Romans, vol. iii, p. 286.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘I thank God that (or with some good MSS ‘I give thanks that’) I baptised none of you, except Crispus and Gaius, lest any man should say that you were baptised into my name. And I baptised also the household of Stephanas. Apart from these I do not know whether I baptised any other. For Christ did not send me to baptise, but to preach the Gospel, not in wisdom of word, lest the cross of Christ should be rendered void.’
For Crispus see Act 18:8. For Stephanas 1Co 16:15; 1Co 16:17. The latter’s household is called ‘the firstfruits of Achaia’, thus he may have been Paul’s first convert in that area, which was why he baptised him and his household. The influence of a man on his household is here stressed. It is doubtful if they were baptised unwillingly (compare Act 16:32-34 where it is stressed that they all believed).
He is now grateful that he had himself baptised so few for it avoided the danger that any would consider that he baptised men in his own name. With these words Paul for ever puts baptism into its rightful place, important but secondary. Baptism does not save, nor is it the Gospel. It was not his first consideration. We learn here that the effective power of Christ to save does not directly work through baptism, although it results in baptism. It is the word of the cross which saves, through proclamation that does not need to contain human methods of persuasion. Then once that word has done its work and brought men to salvation, working effectively in their hearts, they reveal their response by being baptised and by living in accordance with Christ’s teaching.
‘I thank God that I baptised none of you, except –.’ It is clear from this that Paul in his ministry mainly left the work of baptising to others. He was the instrument of God to bring men to salvation through His preaching of Christ. Baptism followed as a separating off from the world, as an open declaration of faith by those who were converted, and as a response to God and means of declaring that they were now dead to the world and alive to God (Rom 6:4). It depicted that those baptised were now drenched with the Spirit and members of the body of Christ, and in many it was the final seal on their burgeoning faith, resulting in their final reception of the Spirit. It depicted that they were one together in Christ (compare 1Co 10:2 in context). But it was not the saving instrument. It was a picture of what had happened, or what was happening within them, of what God had done in delivering them, portrayed by a physical act and a further spiritual response in front of the world. But it was the word of the cross which saved. Otherwise Paul would have delighted in baptising as many as he could. If it was as central as some see it he would have made it central in his ministry.
It may well be, of course, that he had a policy of allowing converts to be baptised by local elders as a symbol of unity in the local situation, but not solely so as witness the ones he had baptised. So it was not a matter on which he had strong principles. But his words make clear that it was not to him of prime importance in the bringing about of salvation. It is noteworthy that who baptised people is regularly not stressed (compare Act 2:41; Act 8:12; Act 8:16; Act 10:47-48). They are seen thereby as partaking with all Christians in the widespread baptism with the Holy Spirit (Act 1:5; Act 1:8; Acts 2). They are baptised because the word of God has been seen to be effective within them. This is not to suggest that baptism is not important. It simply indicates that it is not all important, that its function is as the earthly seal of the heavenly work, but that it does not itself bring about the initial salvation.
‘For Christ did not send me to baptise, but to preach the Gospel.’ This puts Mat 28:18-20 in perspective. When Christ sent His disciples ‘to make disciples of all the nations’, the resulting baptism was important but secondary. Like Paul they preached the power of the cross and the crucified One, and it was this that brought men to Him. Then they were baptised and were taught all that Christ had commanded. Both the latter were important, and their importance must not be diminished, but they were not the saving instrument. They were acts carried out on those who had become disciples, as open acts of response, commitment and obedience, demonstrating that they had entered into the sphere of the Spirit because they had been saved and had chosen to become disciples, not as the effective means by which they first became disciples, although in those days closely linked with it.
‘To preach the Gospel.’ He recognised that it is the preaching and message of the cross that saves, through the inworking of the Spirit, and that alone. It is interesting that Paul does not consider baptising people as ‘preaching the Gospel’, rather he makes a contrast between the two. The Gospel, the saving message of Christ, is not found in baptism (even though its results are proclaimed in baptism). It is found in the message of One Who died for the sins of the world Who calls men to respond in faith and trust and receive forgiveness through the blood that He shed and life through receiving the Spirit of God. And it is that response which results in ‘salvation’, a salvation wrought by God. This is wonderfully illustrated in Act 10:36-44.
‘Not in wisdom of word, lest the cross of Christ be rendered void (or made of no effect).’ But note that it is the proclaiming of the Good News that saves, not the wisdom of the words used. He did not try to woo men with words like the philosophers in the schools did. He did not try to persuade them to accept his theories. It is always man’s idea that people can be persuaded to become Christians just as they can be persuaded to become, say, fishermen. But this is not so, says Paul. Those so ‘persuaded’ are not saved. They have been won by eloquence. The essential power of the cross has been negated. Those who are converted merely through clever words, or emotional manipulation, may put on an outward show, but they may not have become His or experienced the power of His cross. Men won through clever words may never have really entered into ‘the word of the cross’. What was of prime importance was that men saw clearly the significance of the cross, and of Christ the crucified One, for their salvation. For entry into salvation was through that and that alone.
That is not to say that clear explanation and emotion in the light of the message are to be derided, for the former is helpful and the latter understandable. Only that in the end it is the message of what Christ has done for men on the cross, coming home to the heart and resulting in effective response, that alone will save. And without this the preaching is spiritually ineffective. Thus Paul sought to make sure that his message was an effective one that would accomplish this, and carefully avoided anything that might detract from it.
‘Not in wisdom of word.’ The emphasis here is on wisdom revealed through words. Some great philosophers were famed for their wisdom, and many followed their teachings and eloquently used them to convince men to hold certain positions and attitudes. People of many nations were swayed by them. But this was not to be so with the Gospel. Paul wanted not swayed men but saved men. The Gospel was the message of the effectiveness of the power of the cross and of the One Who died there and rose again. If this was hidden by eloquence, or men were ‘converted’ without reference to it, then its effect could not be achieved and it was thus rendered void. And whatever resulted would not be true salvation. The cross, which alone can save, would be negated. If men hear our words, and are impressed with what we say, and yet do not come to appreciate the significance of the cross, we have given them ‘wisdom of word’ and not the ‘word of the cross’, the word of the Gospel. And they will be lost, and we will be to blame.
‘Lest the cross of Christ be made void (or of none effect).’ In other words excluded by men’s eloquence and therefore ineffective. The verb keno-o means ‘to empty’ (here ‘of effect’), ‘to render void’, ‘to make of no effect’. If it is not its message that comes home to the heart all else is useless from a Christian point of view. It is the Christian message to which all else is secondary.
This was part of the danger of looking to individual preachers. Men would begin to turn their eyes from Christ crucified to something less.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 1:14-15 . God be thanked, that I baptized only a very few among you! Accordingly no room has been left for the reproach being brought against me, as it might otherwise have been, that I had baptized into my own name! “Providentia divina regnat saepe in rebus, quarum ratio postea cognoscitur” (Bengel). Rckert finds fault with the weakness of this proof, since it was surely the same thing whether Paul had baptized personally or through his assistants. But unjustly. For, since Paul was not generally in the habit of baptizing in person, had he himself baptized many in Corinth, this might undoubtedly have been made use of afterwards by perverse minds for the possible slander that there was a specialty in the case, that he had baptized with his own hand in Corinth, because he did it into his own name, a purpose for which, of course, he could not have employed others. Hofmann suggests wrongly: they might have interpreted it, as though he had wished to place the persons concerned “ in a peculiar relation ” to himself. This imported indefiniteness is against the definite sense of the words. Just as he had said before, that it was not he who had been crucified for them in place of Christ , so he says further, that they had not been baptized into his name instead of the name of Christ . But the two points just show how wholly absurd the confession is, because it would have such absurd premisses .
] See Act 18:8 .
] See on Rom 16:23 .
] is never elsewhere, and is not here, to be taken as: so that not , but it denotes the design , arranged in the divine providential leading, of the . (comp 1Co 1:17 ; 2Co 1:9 , al [200] ).
[200] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Ver. 14. I thank God ] He noteth and noticeth herein a sweet providence, beyond all that he then imagined, when he was at Corinth. God is to be seen in every special occurrence.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
14. ] Olsh. characterizes it as surprising that Paul should not have referred to the import of baptism itself as a reason to substantiate his argument. He does not this, but tacitly assumes, between 1Co 1:13-14 , the probability that his having baptized any considerable number among the Corinthians would naturally have led to the abuse against which he is arguing.
. . . ] ‘ I am (now) thankful to God, who so ordered it that I did not,’ &c. Crispus, the former ruler of the synagogue, Act 18:8 . Gaius, afterwards the host of the Apostle, and of the church, Rom 16:23 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 1:14-16 . In fact, P. had himself baptised very few of the Cor [181] He sees a providence in this; otherwise he might have seemed wishful to stamp his own name upon his converts, and some colour would have been lent to the action of the Paulinists “lest any one should say that you were baptised into my name”. For , cf. Mat 28:19 and other parls.; also , 1Co 10:2 ; it corresponds to , and has the like pregnant force. “The name” connotes the nature and authority of the bearer, and His relationship to those who speak of Him by it. Crispus and Gaius: both Roman names (see Introd. , p [182] 733); the former a cognomen ( Curly ), the latter an exceedingly common prnomen. These two were amongst Paul’s earliest converts (Act 18:8 , Rom 16:23 ), the former a Synagogue-ruler. On second thoughts (“he was reminded by his amanuensis,” Lt [183] ; or by Steph. himself), P. remembers that he had “baptised the house of Stephanas” (see 1Co 16:15 , and note), the first family here won to Christ. (perhaps short for ), like , takes the Doric gen [184] in – usual with proper names in – , whether of native or foreign origin (see Bm [185] , p. 20). . . .: P. cannot recall any other instance of baptism by his own hands at Cor [186] ; this was a slight matter, which left no clear mark in his memory, (more regularly, ), “for the rest” in point of time (1Co 7:29 ), or number a somewhat frequent idiom with Paul ( cf. 1Co 4:2 ). In ( haud scio an ), the conjunction is indir [187] interr [188] , as in 1Co 7:16 .
[181] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[182]. Paul.
[183] J. B. Lightfoot’s (posthumous) Notes on Epp. of St. Paul (1895).
[184] genitive case.
[185] A. Buttmann’s Grammar of the N.T. Greek (Eng. Trans., 1873).
[186] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.
[187]ndir. indirect.
[188]nterr. interrogative.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
baptized. App-115.
none. Greek. oudeis.
but = except. Greek. ei me.
Crispus. See Act 18:8.
Gaius. See Act 19:2. Rom 16:23.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
14.] Olsh. characterizes it as surprising that Paul should not have referred to the import of baptism itself as a reason to substantiate his argument. He does not this, but tacitly assumes, between 1Co 1:13-14, the probability that his having baptized any considerable number among the Corinthians would naturally have led to the abuse against which he is arguing.
. . .] I am (now) thankful to God, who so ordered it that I did not, &c. Crispus, the former ruler of the synagogue, Act 18:8. Gaius, afterwards the host of the Apostle, and of the church, Rom 16:23.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 1:14. , I give thanks) The Providence of God reigns often in events, of which the reason is afterwards discovered. This is the language of a godly man, indicating the importance of the subject, instead of the common phrase, I rejoice.- , Crispus and Gaius) He brings forward his witnesses. Paul baptized with his own hand, the most respectable persons, not many others; and not from ambition, but because they were among the first, who believed. The just estimation of his office is not pride, ch. 1Co 16:4. The administration of baptism was not so much the duty of the apostles, as of the deacons, Act 10:48; nor did that circumstance diminish the dignity of this ordinance.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 1:14
1Co 1:14
I thank God that I baptized none of you,-He said this on account of their divisions and strife,
save Crispus and Gaius;-Crispus was one of the first converts (Act 18:8), and was baptized before Timothy and Silas reached Corinth. Of Gaius we know but little. In the epistle to the Romans (1Co 16:23), he calls him my host, and of the whole church. He was doubtless one of the first converts.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
thank: 1Co 1:4, 1Co 14:18, 2Co 2:14, Eph 5:20, Col 3:15, Col 3:17, 1Th 5:18, 1Ti 1:12, Phm 1:4
Crispus: Act 18:8
Gaius: Rom 16:23, 3Jo 1:1-4
Reciprocal: Act 19:29 – Gaius
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 1:14. There was more than one man named Gaius, one of whom belonged to the congregation in Corinth, and was among the few persons whom Paul baptized.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Observe here, 1. That though baptizing were God’s ordinance, and St. Paul, as Christ’s minister, had commission and sufficient authority to baptize, yet the providence of God so ordered, that he baptized very few, lest any should say he baptized in his own name.
Observe, 2. That among those few he baptized, here is a whole household mentioned, The household of Stephanas.
Where learn, That as Abraham, and others under the Old Testament, were to bring their households into covenant with God by circumcision, so did those that had households under the New Testament endeavour to bring their whole families into God’s covenant by baptism. The gaoler and his house, Lydia and her house, Stephanas and his household, are all baptized.
Observe, 3. The comparison here made betwixt baptizing and preaching, and the preference given to the one before the other: Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach; that is, rather to preach than to baptize: this was his great business, his principal work; though baptizing was within his commission, yet it was not that, but preaching the gospel to convert souls to Christ, that he was called after such a wonderful manner, and endued with such extraordinary gifts for the performance of. It is neither wise, nor safe, to cry up one ordinance of God above another, but to have them all in estimation, and none more than the preaching of the gospel, which is one principal part of our commission.
Observe, 4. The manner after which Christ sent St. Paul to preach the gospel: Not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect; that is, not attracting and drawing men to the faith by the power of human eloquence, lest the doctrine of Christ should be rendered suspected by such a pompous way of preaching.
Plain truths, without art and varnish, may be conveyed with more warmth and vigour to the conscience, than all the charms of human eloquence from the most fluent and popular tongue. The way and manner of St. Paul’s preaching was grave and serious, pious and ardent, plain and profitable. With what brevity, without darkness; with what gravity, without affectation; with what eloquence, without meretricious ornament, were St. Paul’s discourses! solidly instructing men in the great and necessary duties of the gospel, and furnishing them with arguments and motives to a good life, and this in such a plain and familiar manner, that the success and prevalency of his preaching appeared to be of God, and not of man.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Personal Thoughts From Paul
Because of the division and strife, Paul was glad he had only baptized a few of them. Crispus was ruler of the synagogue ( Act 18:8 ). Paul wrote his letter to the Romans from Gaius’ house ( Rom 16:23 ). Those who had seen these men obey the gospel knew he neither baptized in his own name, nor made disciples for himself ( Act 9:15 ; 2Co 4:5-7 ). Paul thought of himself as a vessel to carry the message ( 1Co 1:14-15 ).
The apostle did also baptize the household of Stephanas, who were the first baptized in Achaia ( 1Co 16:15 ). He did not recall any others he baptized. This may have been for one of two reasons. First, he did not try to recall how many he had baptized because God gives the increase. Two, he may not have baptized any others. In either case, Paul saw his primary work was preaching. Others did the baptizing for him. He preached all of Christ’s gospel without using vain human wisdom ( 1Co 1:16-17 ; Act 20:26-27 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Vv. 14-16. I thank God that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, 15. lest any should say that ye were baptized in my name. 16. I baptized also the household of Stephanas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
Paul’s thanksgiving proves that there had been no calculation on his part, when, as a rule, he had abstained from baptizing. The real motive for the course he followed will be given in 1Co 1:17. This is why he is thankful for the way in which God has ordered things. Rckert objects to this reasoning, that if Paul had wished to form a party of his own, he might have done so by getting one of his friends to baptize in his name, as well as by baptizing himself. True; but would he easily have found any one to lend himself to such a procedure? What seems to me more difficult to explain is the supposition itself, on which this passage rests, of a baptism administered in another name than that of Jesus. This idea, which now seems to us absurd, might seem more admissible in the first times of the Church, especially in Greece. In the midst of the religious ferment which characterized that epoch, new systems and new worships were springing up everywhere; and in these circumstances the distance was not great between an eminent preacher like Paul, and the head of a school, teaching and labouring on his own account. The apostle of the Gentiles, no doubt, passed in the eyes of many as the true founder of the religion which he propagated; and the supposition which he here combats might thus have a certain degree of likelihood. There is no need, therefore, in accounting for this passage, either of Hofmann’s hypothesis, according to which there were people at Corinth who boasted of having received baptism at Jerusalem from Peter’s own hand,
Paul would thus congratulate himself on not having given occasion to such a superstition,or for that of Keim and Heinrici, who ascribe a similar superstition to the Apollos-party (see above, p. 65).
The regimen , to God, omitted by the Sinat. and Vatic., is unnecessary; it has rather been interpolated than omitted.
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue at the time of Paul’s arrival, had been one of his first converts (Act 18:8); Gaius, his host during one of the stays which followed (Rom 16:23), was also probably one of the first believers. Thus, probably, is explained why Paul had baptized them himself; his two assistants, Silas and Timothy, had not yet arrived from Macedonia, when they were received into the Church. It cannot be held with Beet that Paul deliberately made an exception in these two cases because of their importance: this idea would contradict the very drift of the whole passage. It matters little that in the account given in the Acts the order of events does not agree with what we say here.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
I thank God [who, foreseeing the future, prevented him from making such a mistake] that I baptized none of you, save Crispus [the ruler of the synagogue– Act 18:8] and Gaius [from whose house Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans– Rom 16:23];
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 14
Crispus. He is mentioned, in Acts 18:8, as a distinguished convert Gaius was another prominent member of the Corinthian church, mentioned in Romans 16:23, as the one with whom Paul lodged.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
1Co 1:14. I baptized none of you: a beautiful trait of Paul’s character. Most preachers delight to take a prominent part in the public reception of their converts. But Paul saw the danger of this, as tending to exalt the preacher in men’s eyes. He therefore purposely (1Co 1:15) and systematically placed himself on such occasions in the background. Cp. Act 10:48. This he could well afford to do because of the greater honor, given to him, of preaching the Gospel and thus leading men to Christ. He wished men to think, not of the successful preacher, but of Him whose professed servants the baptized ones were. How different was the aim of those who wrote Paul’s name on the banner of their party! Paul thanks God for his own conduct. For every good action is prompted by God, and enriches the actor.
Crispus: Act 18:6-8. The conversion of the ruler of the synagogue with his whole family was doubtless an era in the founding of the church at Corinth.
Gaius: Rom 16:23. That he was host of the whole church, suggests that he, like Crispus, was a man of importance. And, though souls are of equal worth to God, yet the accession of these men was so important in its influence upon others that Paul thought fit to make them an exception to his usual custom, and himself baptize them. For, like all wise men, he was prepared, when special circumstances made it expedient, to deviate even from a good custom.
Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament
1:14 {18} I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
(18) He protests that he speaks so much the more boldly of these things, because through God’s providence, he is void of all suspicion of gathering disciples to himself, and taking them from others. By which we may understand, that not the scholars only, but the teachers also are here reprehended, who gathered flocks separately and for themselves.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue in which Paul preached when he first came to Corinth (Act 18:8). Gaius may be the same person as Titius Justus. This man was a Gentile convert who lived next door to the synagogue and opened his home to the church after the Christians could no longer meet in the synagogue (Act 18:7; Rom 16:23).
"Gaius Titius Justus would be a complete Roman name (praenomen, nomen gentile, cognomen)." [Note: F. F. Bruce, ed., 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 34.]
Some Christians contend that water baptism is essential for salvation. If it is, it would seem natural that Paul would have emphasized its importance by personally baptizing more than just two new believers in Corinth (cf. Joh 4:2).