Paul Not Sent To Baptize

"PAUL SAID CHRIST DIDN'T SEND HIM TO BAPTIZE,

THEREFORE BAPTISM MUST NOT BE ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION!"

People who take this position use 1 Co 1:11-17 to substantiate their view:

Rather than showing Paul didn't think baptism was very important, this passage demonstrates the essentiality of baptism. First, notice the context of these words. Corinth, a church wracked with nearly every conceivable problem, also had a problem with its attitude toward preachers.

In this very passage, Paul mentioned that he learned they were divided over the preacher who baptized them. In this context, Paul said he was glad he hadn't baptized any more of them than he had. This was not because he didn't think baptism was important, but lest any man should say that he was baptized into Paul's name. Indeed, Paul baptized a few of them while there. Many were baptized by other men, as Luke's account of Paul's work in Corinth in Ac 18:8 shows:

So many were baptized, yet because of the specific problem in Corinth, Paul was glad that he hadn't personally baptized more of them, lest an even greater number would be calling themselves after him.

About the structure of Paul's language in 1 Co 1:17, "For Christ sent me NOT to baptize BUT to preach the gospel," this is an excellent example of an ellipsis, a figure of speech where certain words not directly expressed are understood. Other scriptural examples illustrate how we are to interpret these words. For example, in 1 Pet. 3:3-4, Peter said,

3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;

4 But [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, [even the ornament] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

In this passage, which is similar in construction to 1 Co 1:17, Peter didn't forbid putting on apparel - surely women were to adorn themselves with clothing, but he placed the emphasis upon women's inward adorning, the adorning of their spirit!

Similarly, in Jn 6:27, Jesus used this construction when He said,

Plainly, Jesus didn't prohibit working for physical food (Paul in 2 Th 3:10 said: "If any will not work, neither let him eat.") but He showed where we should place the emphasis, i.e., spiritual food should take precedence over physical food.

Likewise, when Paul said Christ sent him not to baptize, but to preach, he didn't depreciate baptism. Christ merely showed where Paul should place the emphasis, i.e., upon preaching the word of God. When the apostles delivered the gospel, it was more important that they preach. At that time, not just anybody could teach the word of God, but anybody could baptize! Thus, the apostles rightly emphasized their preaching over baptizing believers themselves.

In addition, Luke in Ac 18:8 said Crispus believed, whereas Paul said Crispus was baptized in his account in 1 Co 1:14. This merely shows that "belief" in the Bible included baptism. Crispus was a believer because he placed his confidence in Christ enough to obey Him he believed in Christ enough to be baptized for the remission of his sins! Those who argue about Jesus' teaching on baptism ought to have the same faith Crispus had!

In this passage Paul also taught two things must happen before one may call himself after another person. He said for one to call himself after Paul, (1) Paul would have to be crucified for the person, and (2) the person would have to be baptized in the name of Paul. That neither of these was true should prohibit the Corinthians from calling themselves after Paul.

Consider carefully what Paul's argument means positively: for one to be called after Christ, two things must happen: (1) Christ would have to die for the person, and (2) the person would have to be baptized in the name of Christ!

Thus, the very passage so many people use to show that baptism is not essential proves true belief includes baptism (as it did in the case of Crispus) and for one to be called a "Christian," he must be baptized in the name of Christ!

Return to contents or NEXT: What About The Thief on the Cross