|
THE NORTHERN KENTUCKY SEARCHER VOLUME 1, NUMBER 37, OCTOBER 14, 2001 "FOR CHRIST DID NOT SEND ME TO BAPTIZE" Recently I attended a debate concerning the question of baptism. I believe the proposition on the evening I attended was something like "Salvation occurs before and without water baptism." A Baptist preacher was in the affirmative that night with a young gospel preacher in the negative. In the course of his affirmative presentation, the Baptist preacher quoted 1 Corinthians 1:17, in an attempt to prove that baptism is not necessary for salvation. The verse reads as follows, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void." Very few debates on this subject go by, at least that I am aware of, without 1 Corinthians 1:17 being brought up as a "proof-text" that demonstrates that baptism can not be essential to salvation. After all, Paul wrote, "For Christ did not send me to baptize,…" In truth, when it is kept in context, 1 Corinthians 1:17, proves the exact opposite. It is a joy to know that when you have the truth, every verse is a "proof-text" of it. For a faithful child of God, every verse is his verse. We have no particular "proof-texts", because all scripture is the truth. As those who have only the truth to uphold and absolutely no denominational creed to defend, we don't have to back away from any verse or concede a single iota of that which is not true. Let's look at the context of 1 Corinthians 1:17. Beginning with verse 10, we read, "Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree, and there be no divisions among you, but you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe's people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus, and Gaius, that no man should say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void." As we begin to examine the context of this passage, we note that Paul is exhorting the brethren in Corinth to unity. He exhorts that there be "no divisions" among them, "divisions" coming from the same word that is used to designate a tear in a piece of material. He exhorts them that they be "made complete", "complete" coming from a word that originally meant to mend fishing nets. So the idea was that they were not to let any tears appear in the fabric of the congregation, and where any were, they were to mend them, by all being "in the same mind and in the same judgment." Word had reached Paul that there were "quarrels" among the brethren in Corinth. Some were saying that they were "of Paul". Others were claiming to be "of Apollos", or "of Cephas", or "of Christ". So Paul simply asked them a series of rhetorical questions, the answer to each being no. He asked, "Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" Paul was asking how they could possibly say that they were "of someone", when that person had not been crucified for them and they had not been baptized in the name of that person, or by that person's authority. What we actually are seeing is two conditions being set forth by Paul that must be met before they could truthfully say they were "of" someone. (1) That person had to be crucified for them. (2) They had to have been baptized in the name of that person. Those two conditions were true of no one but Christ, so how could they be saying that they were "of" Apollos, or Cephas, or Paul? As we continue on in our examination of the context of verse 17, it is quite clear and apparent to all that Paul was not making an absolute statement when he wrote, "For Christ did not send me to baptize,…" If he was, than he violated what he said that Christ told him. Paul said that he baptized Crispus and Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. How could he do that if in fact Christ did not send him to baptize? Obviously there has to be an explanation of the first phrase of verse 17, and there is. It is a rather common grammatical device known as "elliptical construction". This is sometimes explained as a "not only - but" statement. Let me give you another biblical example of the same kind of statement. In John 12:44, we find these words, "And Jesus cried out and said, He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me." Now we ask, is it true that the person who believes in Jesus does not believe in Jesus? No, that is not true. This is another example of elliptical construction. To get the true meaning, John 12:44 can be read this way, "And Jesus cried out and said, He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me only, but in Him who sent Me." We can all see that, can't we? It is a "not only - but" kind of construction. The "only" doesn't need to be supplied because it is obvious. In exactly the same way, 1 Corinthians 1:17, is to be understood. It can be read this way, "For Christ did not send me to baptize only, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void." The "only" in this verse does not need to be supplied either because it is equally obvious to all who keep it in context and who do not have a man-made doctrine to sustain. Brethren, in any discussion of a biblical subject, never relinquish a verse as "their proof-text" and not ours. Every verse teaches the truth when it is properly understood. Every verse belongs to the person who is determined to believe, practice, and teach only that which the bible actually teaches, unencumbered by the ideas and doctrines of men. Greg Litmer IT COULD NOT BE SAID BETTER "The voice of God, and the only voice which you will hear till He calls
you home, is His written gospel. This is now the only word of God, the only
command and the only promise addressed to all men, proclaimed by His authority
to every creature. The gospel is the power of God to salvation to everyone who
obeys it. 'Tis in it the Spirit of God exhibits His energy, and he who thinks
that the Spirit of God operates in any other way than clothed in the word of God
in convincing and converting the world, feeds upon a fancy of his own, or of
some other distempered mind."
|