John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 1:17

"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." — 1 Corinthians 1:17 (ASV)

For Christ sent me not. He anticipates an objection that might, perhaps, be brought against him—that he had not discharged his duty, since 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 entrusted to him as that to which he should apply himself. For when Christ says to the Apostles (Matthew 28:19; Mark 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.

1. 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. He would have acted rashly in baptizing even one if he had not been authorized, but he simply points out what was the chief thing in his calling.

2. 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 about the efficacy of baptism, and Paul does not make this comparison with the view of detracting in any degree from that. Instead, because it was given to few to teach, while many could baptize, and further, 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 necessary for him, and left to others what they could more conveniently accomplish.

Furthermore, if the reader considers minutely all the circumstances of the case, he will see that there is irony tacitly conveyed here, dexterously contrived for making those feel acutely who, under the pretext 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. Certain effeminate masters had come after him, who had drawn over followers to their party by the sprinkling of water. Paul, then, giving up to them the title of honor, declares himself contented with having had the burden.

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 gifted with eloquence, boasting 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, to distinguish himself by elegance of speech, but a minister of the Spirit, that he might, by plain and simple speech, bring to nothing the wisdom of the world. Now, lest anyone 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 furthest removed from show, and breathed nothing of ambition, it could give no ground of suspicion in that regard.

Hence, too, if I am not mistaken, 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 to secure for themselves the admiration of the people, they commended themselves to them by a show of words and a 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.

Further, as men’s minds were diverted 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, could not be seen, but only mere disguise and useless show.

Paul, accordingly, in order to expose 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. 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, which is mere empty talk, but true eloquence, which consists in skillful handling of subjects, ingenious arrangement, and elegance of expression. He declares that he had nothing of this; indeed, 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, in order to bring down thereby all its pride and loftiness, he presents the cross of Christ.

For all the wisdom of believers is contained in the cross of Christ, and what is more contemptible than a cross? Whoever, therefore, desires to be truly wise in God’s account, must necessarily stoop to this abasement of the cross, and this will not be accomplished except by first renouncing his own judgment and all the wisdom of the world.

Paul, however, shows here not merely what kind of people 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,” he says, “would have been made of none effect if my preaching had been adorned with eloquence and show.” He has used the cross of Christ here to mean the benefit of redemption, which must be sought from Christ crucified.

Now the doctrine of the gospel which calls us to this should reflect 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 polished speech in the presence of the Corinthians, the efficacy of the cross of Christ, in which the salvation of men consists, would have been obscured, 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 impaired if the slightest trace of eloquence is used for adorning it.

To the first of these I answer that it would be quite unreasonable to suppose that Paul would utterly condemn those arts which, it is clear, 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, and are founded on just principles, since they are useful and suited to the common transactions of human life, there can be no doubt that they have come 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 disparaging 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 is 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.

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 always holds true: that the cross of Christ is made of none effect, not merely by the wisdom of the world, but also by elegance of speech. 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 soon, in what respects it is opposed to Christ. As to eloquence, I shall address it here in a few words, insofar as the passage calls for it.

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:

1. That in a plain and unpolished manner of speech, 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.

2. 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. 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. Consequently, the doctrine of the gospel needed to be regulated with this view: that believers should be turned away from all pride and haughtiness.

But what if anyone should today, by speaking with some degree of elegance, adorn the doctrine of the gospel with eloquence? Would he deserve for that reason to be 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, although the one, who is much superior to the other in dignity, is utterly lacking graceful speech, while the other, who sits at his feet, is distinguished by the fame of his eloquence.

That eloquence, therefore, should neither be condemned nor despised which has no tendency to lead Christians to be captivated by an outward glitter of words, or intoxicate them with empty delight, or tickle their ears with its tinkling sound, or cover the cross of Christ with its empty show as with a veil; 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 short, acts as a herald to gain 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 external ornaments. Such is the eloquence that the Prophets have, more particularly Isaiah, David, and Solomon. Moses, too, has a sprinkling of it. Furthermore, even in the writings of the Apostles, though they are more unpolished, there are nevertheless some sparks of it occasionally displayed. 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.