"For Christ did not send me to baptize..."

For my part, I guess I've heard this phrase wielded one too many times in an attempt to negate the need for Christian baptism and so thought it worth discussing. And rather than bring it up elsewhere on the site - and thus avoid the usual "town hall" response from those who disagree with this topic [baptism] out of general purpose, I bring it up here that perhaps those who see the title may take an interest and participate in a more amenable environment. Secondly - the goal is (hopefully) to rid honest discussions of Christian baptism of at least this passage as an argument against it.


A couple opening points to set the stage:

1. The full context of this topic begins in verse 10 of chapter 1 and ends at the conclusion of chapter 4.
2. Verses 10 - 17 of chapter 1 really summarize the issue
3. Verse 18 and remaining (through the end of ch 4) constitute Paul's in-depth explanation of both problem and solution.

To the topic at hand, "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel" - a quick summary outline of verses 10 - 13 is, I believe, helpful: Of verses 10 through 14 then...

1. The Problem - Divisions have cropped up within the Corinthian church. (verse 10)
2. The Symptom - Evidenced by quarreling amongst one another (verse 11).
3. The Form - Christians were identifying with, and setting up "camps" around different leaders/ministers (verse 12)
4. The Question - Is / should Christ be divided?? (verse 13a)
5. The Answer - A resounding rhetorical "no" (verse 13a)
6. The Appeal - Paul appeals to their identity in Christ (verse 13b,c)

With that, what is Paul really saying w/r to baptism in this passage? (verses 14 - 17)

• Verse 14 - "I thank God I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius" - Paul baptized Crispus (leader of the synagogue there (Acts 18)) and Gaius and is glad he didn't baptize more that his having baptized these didn't contribute to their divisions, that more couldn't say "I am of Paul because Paul is [the one who] baptized me."
• Verse 15 - "so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name." Ibid. This is the reason Paul was glad he'd not baptized more than he did - because that is the reason for their divisions - that some were claiming special status on the basis of who'd baptized them.
• Verse 16 - "(I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)" Paul is careful to identify the only Christians who might 'legitimately' claim to be of the "Pauline faction" (under their sinful factiousness)
• Verse 17 - "For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power."

That Christ did not send Paul to baptize does not mean Paul did not baptize (he admits he did) - it merely means that circumstantially, Paul's primary task was to preach the gospel and in that endeavor, he did baptize on occasion, but that wasn't his primary focus.

By way of example, consider a similar situation in Acts 6 where the apostles were getting sidetracked from devotion to prayer and ministry of the word to serve tables (See Acts 6:1-4). This situation w/r to Paul and baptizing people is no different.






Questions then for discussion (or just personal thought): (take you pick... )

• Is this [my summary] a correct summary of verses 10-17? If not, what do I need to change/correct?
• How do you read what Paul is saying here?
• Did Paul baptize?
• Was Paul disobeying Christ when he did baptize?
• What is the role of baptism (according to Paul) in these verses?
• Does this phrase "Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel" by itself negate the need for, or importance of Christian baptism? Is it a valid argument against either?

Please - this is NOT a discussion of baptism per se - but of this particular passage as it relates to baptism

__________________

I believe that too much has been made of this passage of Scripture, by both sides of the argument, meaning one side claims that this was Paul's statement against water baptism and another claims it was Paul's statement against placing new converts under his authority.

One meaning of baptism, is a placing, or a placing under an authority. Paul was addressing this. He clearly was speaking in this passage about how he wants no one to be under the authority of Paul but under the authority of Christ. Paul was called by Christ as an apostle to the Gentiles, and Paul said to follow him. Some miss the rest of what he said and that is where he said that he followed Christ. So, if you follow Paul's teaching you will be following Christ. If you were baptized under Paul's ministry you were not baptized into Paul but into Christ.

People were no different in the early church than they are today. Pagans invaded the early church. False teachers invaded the early church. Just like people will say today that they follow this person or that person, or this church or that church, the same existed in Paul's day. The largest Restoration congregation is located where I live. I've known of members of that congregation having been asked if they were Christians and their answers are, "Yes, I go to Southeast." So, they identify themselves by the church they attend instead of simply being followers of Christ.