What did Paul mean when he said, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel…” (I Cor 1:17)? Here is the full context:
Now I mean this, that each of you is saying, “I am with Paul,” or “I am with Apollos,” or “I am with Cephas,” or “I am with Christ.” 1:13 Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul? 1:14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 1:15 so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name! 1:16 (I also baptized the household of Stephanus. Otherwise, I do not remember whether I baptized anyone else.) 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless. (I Cor 1:11-17)
This passage poses a challenge to those of us who understand the Bible to teach that baptism is essential to salvation. It’s one thing to say, “I did not baptize many of you,” but it is an entirely other matter to say, “Christ did not send me to baptize.” The first is an incidental fact of history and circumstance, but the latter appears to speak of purpose. Paul seems to be saying that baptizing people is not part of His ministerial call. It seems strange that Paul, a minister of the Gospel, would not be sent to baptize when baptism is a proper response to the Gospel message. And it’s not as if Paul’s type of ministry would not have required him to baptize much. A teacher may not be required to baptize much because his ministerial function is primarily to believers, but Paul was an apostle. It would seem strange that someone whose job was to make converts for Christ would not be sent to baptize, if baptism was essential to their conversion. Taken at face value, this appears to diminish the importance of baptism, calling into question whether it is indeed necessary for regeneration. So how do we understand Paul, then?
One possibility is that Paul is employing a Hebraism. Hebrews used a “not this, but this” construction to communicate the idea of “not only this, but also and especially this other.” It is a way of emphasizing what’s named second over what’s named first. For example, when Jesus said “Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that remains unto everlasting life” (Jn 6:27). Clearly He did not mean we should not work so that we can buy food, but rather that we need to do more than that. We need to work to obtain food that is more important: food that will last forever.
The problem with this explanation is that it still doesn’t fit with our understanding of the importance of baptism. If baptism is necessary to salvation, how could preaching the Gospel be said to be of more importance? It would seem to me that both would be equally important. Without the preaching of the Gospel one could not have faith; without baptism one could not properly exercise their faith to be born again. So while this explanation seems plausible at first, it ends up just recycling the problem. In the end the role of baptism is denigrated.
What are your thoughts on this passage? How would you explain it in light of other Biblical passages?
Thinking to Believe 
December 12, 2006 at 12:35 am
I think this verse has had its difficulty, but I believe the best answer it compare it against the Bible to figure out what it is not saying.
Matthew 28:19 states Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
It seems that Paul would be contradicting scriptures to dissasociate himself with Baptism completeley. Also we have what Paul practiced recorded in the book of Acts, which included rebaptizing people into the name of Jesus.
I believe the key to those verses in Corinthians is that Paul did not say “I thank God none of you were Baptized.” He acknowledges that they were Baptized, just not by him.
Maybe we should look at verse 17 as sayins “For Christ sent me not to baptize (you).” since in verse 14-16 he is talking directly to them and says “I thank God that I baptized none of YOU”
Coral J. Cook III
LikeLike
December 13, 2006 at 1:38 pm
I tend toward the Hebraism interpretation. It takes far less knowledge, oratory skill, understanding, etc., to baptize someone than it does to present a persuasive argument for the gospel of Christ across cultural and religious divides (as Paul did successfully).
In other words, just about anyone is physically able to baptize, but not everyone is gifted to preach and teach – especially as it pertains to establishing new churches in unevangelized communities. Hence the emphasis on Paul’s call to preach (as an apostle, evangelist, and teacher) over and above his physical ability to baptize.
As far as denigrating the doctrine of water baptism… I do not see that in this context since Paul prefaces the controvesial statement with a rhetorical question that assumes that every single saint in the Corinthian church had already been baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
“Were you (all in the Corinthian church receiving the instruction from Paul) baptized in the name of Paul?” He assumes the negative in terms of the name while assuming that all had instead been water baptized in the name of the one crucified for them.
I see this portion of Scripture as one of the strongest affirmations of the normative nature of Christian baptism for that reason.
LikeLike
December 14, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Coral,
Yes, I made a similar point about Mt 28:19 in the post. I agree that a valid way of interpreting this verse is to start with what it cannot mean.
Jason
LikeLike
November 3, 2010 at 7:17 pm
Hi,
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless. (I Cor 1:17)
Was Paul making a referance to baptism as death/destruction for he ends the verse with the death of Christ would become useless. Or was Paul not sent to destroy the gospel but to preach the gospel. If we recall Paul was trying to destroy the gospel before he became a believer. Is is possible he was making a referance to his before conversion.
Charles
LikeLike
May 9, 2012 at 9:05 pm
In order to interpret this passage correctly, you need to pay careful attention to Paul’s grammar, the local and remote context, and his logic.
You asked the question: If baptism is necessary to salvation, how could preaching the Gospel be said to be of more importance?
You made a common error in your question. You replaced the verb, baptize, with the noun, baptism. Observe what happens if you make that swap in the verse: “For Christ did not send me to baptism, but to preach the gospel.” Of course, that’s silly. So, let’s be clear about what Paul was comparing. He was comparing the act of baptizing to the act of preaching. He did not compare baptism to the gospel, or to preaching the gospel. The point is that Paul considered it better to spend his time preaching and let others do the baptizing. Jesus did the same, see John 4:1-2.
Consider the local context: Paul is dealing with division in the church. He is glad that he personally only baptized a few “so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name”. By letting others do the baptizing, not only was Paul freed up to have more time to preach, but it also ended up having the added bonus effect of preventing further divisions in the church.
Consider the remote context for a moment. We have seen that Paul emphasized preaching over baptizing. But did he preach baptism? Check Acts 18:8 “Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.” Paul “preach[ed] the gospel”(1 Cor. 1:17) and his hearers responded by believing and being baptized. It is evident that preaching the gospel included the command to be baptized. Notice too, that by devoting his time to preaching, it is likely that more people were baptized than if Paul had interrupted his preaching to personally administer the rite of baptism.
Lastly, consider Paul’s logic. If baptism is not important, then his statement in verse 13 makes no sense. “Is Christ divided? Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he? Or were you in fact baptized in the name of Paul?”
He uses two things to show that they have been united in Christ – the crucifixion and their baptism. Paul is widely known for his well-reasoned logic and carefully crafted arguments. If baptism is not important to our salvation, then he is most uncharacteristically guilty of making an uneven and illogical pairing when he lays their baptism alongside the crucifixion. (Gal. 6:14 “But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ”). Notice, too, the elegant symmetry here. On the one hand, he reminds them of the crucified Christ, bringing to their minds the single greatest demonstration of God’s gracious love and mercy the world has ever known. And on the other hand, he reminds them of their baptism, their direct personal connection to the cross:
Rom. 6:3-4 “Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.”
To diminish the importance of baptism is to miss entirely the force of Paul’s argument. It’s a shame that so many refuse to see it.
God Bless,
/Jim
LikeLike
May 10, 2012 at 12:53 pm
I may just be talking to myself here, but I’d like to address Charles’ comment.
“Was Paul making a referance to baptism as death/destruction for he ends the verse with the death of Christ would become useless. Or was Paul not sent to destroy the gospel but to preach the gospel. If we recall Paul was trying to destroy the gospel before he became a believer. Is is possible he was making a referance to his before conversion.”
Charles raises three possible interpretations for “to baptize”. We’ll consider them in the following order: that baptize refers to destruction, that baptize refers to death, and that baptize refers to his life before his conversion.
While it is good of Charles to take note of the entire verse as he seeks understanding, I do not see (if you’ll pardon the pun) that his views can be supported by the Scriptures.
If “to baptize” is “to destroy”, then Jesus called for the destruction of the gospel in in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). By the way, regarding the Great Commission – it is self-replicating. Jesus instructed the apostles that they were to make disciples, “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” . Now “all that I commanded you” would certainly include the instructions that he had just given them, including “baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,”. Therefore, every disciple of Jesus is commissioned to baptize, including Paul. It would be strange indeed for obedience to the command of Christ to be viewed as destructive to the gospel. As has already been noted, the “not this but that” construction that Paul used in v. 17 does not mean that Christ had forbidden him to baptize. If that were so, then he sinned by baptizing Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas. At no time is baptizing (or baptism) referred to as destruction.
Charles also wondered if Paul might not have been referring to death. As has already been noted, Paul used the verb “to baptize”. The word “death” of course is a noun. It would make no sense to say “Christ did not send me to death, but to preach”. If we switch to the verb “to kill” then we make Paul guilty of “killing” those he baptized.
One might reply that the so-called old man of sin is “killed” when we are baptized. True, but that is a blessing that comes from our obedience to the gospel, and certainly not a hindrance to it.
Even if we consider the noun, baptism, it still cannot have the meaning proposed. Baptism is never called destruction in the Scriptures. Much the opposite. Peter said that “baptism does now save you” (1 Peter 3:21).
Now, it is true that Romans 6:3 tells us that we are “baptized into His death”. Whose death? The death of Christ. But is not the death of Christ at the very heart of the gospel? 1 Cor. 15:3 “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,”. If “baptism” means “death”, as in something that harms the gospel, then being baptized into the death of Christ is destructive to the gospel (of which the death of Christ is a part). That cannot be.
Charles also asked if Paul was thinking of his life before his conversion here. It is certainly true that Paul was at one time an enemy of the cross. He speaks of it several times in the N.T. (see 1 Cor, 15:9, Gal. 1:13, Php. 3:6, 1 Tim. 1:13). However, he never speaks of his baptism in connection with any of these. On the contrary, Paul says that when we are baptized we are clothed with Christ (Gal. 3:27). Certainly, being clothed with Christ could not be said to render the cross of Christ useless. We also find baptism connected to our salvation in 1 Cor. 12:13, Col. 2:11-12. If anything, Paul would have seen his baptism as the end of his enmity with Christ, and therefore something to be desired.
But Charles’ question has not been fully addressed. We know what Paul did not mean. But what did he mean?
Charles (unintentionally, I’m sure) overlooked “not with clever speech”. Paul says that he was sent to preach – “not with clever speech”. Why not? “so that the cross of Christ would not become useless.” The contrast Paul speaks of here is not between the cross and baptizing. Rather, it is between the cross and “clever speech”. Paul makes his meaning plain in 1 Cor. 2:1-5:
“And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, 4 and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.”
LikeLike
May 10, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Charles comment got me to thinking about what it might mean for us to render the cross of Christ useless.
Note that If this were not possible, then there would be no reason for Paul to concern himself with it. For what it’s worth, I think an examination of the Scriptures would show that this is true in the sense of our witness to others, and not to the church or the gospel in a universal sense.
But while thinking about this, I was looking at Gal. 1:23 “but only, they kept hearing, ‘He [Paul] who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.'”
The KJV actually drops “tried to” and simply has “the faith which once he destroyed”.
Regardless, the question I’d like to pursue is not to what degree Paul “destroyed the faith”, but rather by what means he might have even attempted to do so.
The verse says that Paul “is now preaching the faith”. Now, you might say then that Paul preached a set of facts. But then the statement that he tried to destroy “the faith” would make no sense. If “the faith” is simply a set of facts to be believed, then how do you propose that Paul went about destroying it? How can you destroy a fact?
Plainly, Paul’s persecution of the Christians is synonymous with his persecution of “the faith”. Of course, we are not ourselves, “the faith”. Remember, Paul preached the faith. Well, Acts 6:7 speaks of those who “were becoming obedient to the faith”. (How does one obey a fact?) Now, notice something. Paul “tried to destroy the faith”. I take that to mean he persecuted those who were “obedient to the faith”. In neither case, can “the faith” mean simply a set of facts to be believed. Facts cannot be destroyed, nor can they be obeyed. Commands are obeyed, but commands are not facts. Tie it all together, and the inescapable conclusion is that when Paul preached “the faith”, his preaching included more than just a set of facts to be believed, but also commands to be obeyed. Including the command to be baptized.
This really only scratches the surface, In the Scriptures we read of those who “departed the faith”, “kept the faith”, were “young in the faith”, and we are urged to “contend for the faith”.
LikeLike
May 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm
One last thought regarding the claim that baptism is not part of the gospel. Some have tried to claim that the entire gospel is defined in 1 Cor. 15:1-11, with no mention of baptism. Now, speaking of the gospel that he preached, Paul does say in that passage that the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ are “of first importance”. But he never says anything about this being the entire gospel. This is the heart of the gospel, but not all of it. This can easily be proven. The blood of Christ is missing. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned. No mention of faith (the word believe is used, but faith is more than belief). No repentance. It might be claimed that these are implied, but there is yet another essential element of our salvation that is not mentioned here (one that we often overlook), and that is the Ascension. Don’t let anyone tell you that the Resurrection and the Ascension are the same thing. They most certainly are not. And if they question the importance of the Ascension, they need to study more. I will just cite one verse:
Hebrews 8:4
“Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law”
LikeLike
April 26, 2018 at 7:59 am
One possible solution may be that the ‘Apostolic’ interpretation would consider the historical position that of the early Post-Apostolic Church Fathers, such as Irenaeus (circa AD 120). We would propose and modify our position to understand that water baptism submission is an aid to salvation to sufficiently respond to the Gospel rather than being salvation per se (sn, I realize that not every OP/Apostolic is a baptismal regenerationist). It is in the waters of baptism whereby our ‘Gospel obedience’ is made perfect. Water baptism is the place where God meets the repentant believer and does a completed work started at initial faith and repentance. This would seem to make sense of Paul’s statement 1 Corinthians chapter 1 about baptism and confirm he’s using a Hebraic literary device, such as a Hebraism. Your thoughts, TR?
LikeLike
April 27, 2018 at 11:42 am
What is Faith if not Belief? How can Faith be “more than belief”?
LikeLike
April 30, 2018 at 12:08 pm
A.J., that’s possible. But what do we do with the passages that connect baptism with forgiveness and salvation?
I like Max’s comment about baptism not requiring any special abilities. It’s not that baptism was not expected (as even Paul presumed all of the Corinthians were baptized), but that this was not Paul’s focus. Others could manage this aspect of the ministry (which could be quite time consuming when there are hundreds and thousands of converts) while he focused on preaching/studying.
LikeLike