This is a common belief among those who hold
‘believer’s baptism’, on account of the apostle’s commendation of
the house of Stephanas in that “they have devoted themselves to the
saints for service” (1 Cor. 16: 15)—clearly an adult occupation.
However, this does not stand up to close scrutiny on three grounds:
The Greek words for house,
the terminology of the earlier reference in 1 Cor. 1: 14–16 and the
context of
that chapter.
NT Greek has two words for house,
oikos and oikia, and it is
certain that the Spirit of God does not use these words
indiscriminately (although, as in Luke 7: 6, 10, the reason for the
choice is not always apparent).
House can, of course,
refer to a building, but when it is used in the sense of a household
of persons, the Scriptures are quite exact in their usage. If family
relationships (husband, wife, father, mother, son, daughter) are
involved, the word is oikos,
but when servants or slaves are meant,
oikia is used.
In the Septuagint, oikos
is used for the “house of Jacob” and the “house of Judah” (Gen. 46:
27; 2 Sam. 2: 4) where the context shows that families are meant.
The rich man’s house (see Luke 16: 27) is
oikos for he had five
brethren. The divided house in Luke 12: 52, 53 is also
oikos for it involved
relatives, but is replaced by
oikia in the similar passage in Mark 3: 25 since no family
members are identified. The house of God is always
oikos, and this word is
also employed
in all the baptismal texts
without exception.
Oikia is used in the
passages “his servant, the eldest of his house” (Gen. 24: 2) and
“the bondman abides not in the house for ever” (John 8: 35). It is
also used for Christians in “the household of Caesar” (Phil. 4: 22)
as these were clearly servants.
Now in “I baptised also the house of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1: 16) the
word is oikos, meaning his family. However, in “ye know the house of
Stephanas, that it is the first–fruits of Achaia, and they have
devoted themselves to the saints for service” (1 Cor. 16: 15) the
word is not oikos but
oikia and thus refers to adult servants or slaves. Let us now look
at the detail of chapter one.
There are two distinct groups:
individuals, named as
Crispus and Gaius, and
houses. The wording is
not “Stephanas and his house” along the pattern of “thou and thy
house” (Acts 16: 31) in which the head of the house is included in
the number. It is just “the house of Stephanas”—his family, but not
him. A parallel case in 2 Tim. 1:16; 4: 19 regarding the “house (oikos)
of Onesiphorus” shows that Onesiphorus is not included. Thus “the
house of Stephanas” in 1 Cor. 1: 16 is restricted to the family and
does not
include Stephanas.
Paul goes on in the same verse to say “for the rest I know not if I
have baptised any other”. Now Greek has two words for
other:
allos meaning more of the same kind
and
heteros meaning
more of a different kind.
The word in v16 is allos
and thus “baptised any other” means
more of the same kind,
that is
other houses, not individuals.
Hence we have two distinct groups: individuals and houses. There are
two further points that enforce this distinction. Firstly, Paul does
not refer to those he baptised as “Crispus, Gaius and the house of
Stephanas” but speaks of the individuals first, and only refers to
the house of Stephanas much later in the passage. Secondly, we know
that “Crispus the ruler of the synagogue believed in the Lord with
all his house (oikos)”
(Acts 18: 8) and yet there is not a word about
his house here—Paul only
baptised Crispus, not his house.
Why then these two separate groups, individuals and houses? There
were divisions in the assembly at Corinth and Paul’s name was
seemingly misused as having followers or disciples. As baptism and
discipleship go together (see Matt. 28: 19; John 4: 1), he removes
the possibility of such charges being made against him by
maintaining that he had only baptised two of their number (hardly
enough to form a party round his name). Now v16 is not a correction
of v14 as is commonly supposed. “Baptised none of you” (v 14) that
is, none in the assembly, is absolute bar two adult exceptions—Crispus
and Gaius. If the house of Stephanas, and any other houses,
consisted of adults (who would be in the assembly), then the large
increase in numbers would fatally undermine the Apostle’s defence.
Hence there is only one conclusion: the house of Stephanas consisted
of children who could not be promoters of division in the assembly.
The word Yes in v16 shows
that it is in response to a supposed question. Yes he had baptised
one household, perhaps more, but since they consisted of children it
was hardly a case of baptising
to his own
name.
