TWO INTERPRETATIONS: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Interpretation A: Paul is showing his ambivalence towards the practice of Christian baptism when actual water is applied to the human body with the Triune formula. In this sense, Paul is diminishing the importance of baptism, certainly separating it from the preached gospel, and showing baptism is not necessary for salvation. John MacArthur and Norman Geisler are representative of this interpretation.

More extreme interpretations would suggest Paul was opposed to baptism, even tried to discourage new converts from being baptized or even stating Jesus did not want Paul to baptize at all.

Interpretation B: Paul is stating Christ did not send him to personally administer baptism to individual recipients, rather Paul had a special apostolic commission to preach the Gentiles. His work in preaching was unique. However, the administration of baptism requires no unique gifts or abilities. Rather than Paul administering mass individual baptisms, he followed the normal historical NT practice of preaching and let his assistants do the work of baptism.

“To baptize” means to administer baptism. The Greek clearly allows this interpretation as “to baptize” is a present infinitive. Our normal every day usage “to baptize” allows this all the time. As we would say to our children, “Tomorrow, the pastor is going TO BAPTIZE you into the Christian faith.” If this is the case, a better translation I Cor. 1:17 would be: “Christ did not send me to perform individual baptisms but to preach the gospel.”
***************
I believe interpretation B is the correct one, now I shall marshal the evidence for it and show inadequacies of Interpretation A.
***************
I Cor. 1:17 must be understood contextually within the first chapter as Paul tackles the first of many problems with the Corinthian Church. Some Corinthians were inordinately enamored with the person who had baptized them — even to the point of adopting the baptizer’s name as a religious appellation (vv. 12-13). In view of such a perversion, the Paul was thankful that he had personally baptized only a few of these people early on in his mission (vv. 14-16) and at a particular point time stopped baptizing altogether.

The same is true with the twelve disciples. [Edited] The twelve disciples participated in only in the first baptism narrative in Acts 2. Peter and John in the second baptism narrative in Samaria. This is the last baptism the NT records of the Apostles.

Acts 10 is curious. Peter was present preaching to the Gentiles, but he ordered his assistants to baptize the new Gentile converts (10:46). Peter follows Jesus’ example in regards how the administration of baptism is to be practiced. In John 3:22-4:2 Jesus’ disciples were participating in baptizing with John’s disciples but the text is clear Jesus’ did not baptize. This is the historical NT pattern. The Apostles preached and the assistants baptize.

Both Paul and Peter gained huge prominence and stature in the NT which continued into the Second Century. It was a great honor to have known or taught by an apostle, and in turn to know someone who had known an apostle. Both Paul and Peter refrained from baptizing as their fame and importance would have detracted from the meaning of what baptism is and does. Ponder the notion if a SCOTUS justice married one our nephews or nieces. We would have bragging rights all day long.
*********
Basic inadequacies of Interpretation A
*********
Baptism is not necessary for salvation. This is a specific diagnostic statement strategically used to illicit a negative response. But why does the response have to be negative? Why not neutral or positive? What about usage of the word “ordinary?” Baptism certainly is ordinary in the sense that the “ordinary” way the Christian life is lived is by being baptized.

Baptism is not apart of the gospel. This statement then is brought into tension with other statements by St. Paul such as:

• Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12, which both make the point that baptism unites us with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
• 1 Corinthians 12:13, which tells us that it was by baptism that we were brought into the body of Christ.
• Galatians 3:27, which says that baptism is how we clothed ourselves with Christ.
• Ephesians 4:5, in which He listed baptism alongside the Trinity and one hope, faith, and body as marks of our unity.

Jesus didn’t want Paul to baptize at all. This is the one that hurts the most as it is used by unbelievers to show Scripture itself has flaws and inconsistencies in it. They raise questions like:

• If Jesus did not send Paul to baptize, then why did he baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas?
• Was Paul sinning when he baptized them?
• Was Paul lying when he told the Corinthians Jesus told him not to baptize and he did anyway?
• Paul is untrustworthy?
• Why should we believe anything Paul said?
• Is this a clear case of redactors editing Paul’s writings in the Second Century?

 

[HTacianas]

Interpretation A: Paul is showing his ambivalence towards the practice of Christian baptism when actual water is applied to the human body with the Triune formula. In this sense, Paul is diminishing the importance of baptism, certainly separating it from the preached gospel, and showing baptism is not necessary for salvation. John MacArthur and Norman Geisler are representative of this interpretation.

More extreme interpretations would suggest Paul was opposed to baptism, even tried to discourage new converts from being baptized or even stating Jesus did not want Paul to baptize at all.

Interpretation B: Paul is stating Christ did not send him to personally administer baptism to individual recipients, rather Paul had a special apostolic commission to preach the Gentiles. His work in preaching was unique. However, the administration of baptism requires no unique gifts or abilities. Rather than Paul administering mass individual baptisms, he followed the normal historical NT practice of preaching and let his assistants do the work of baptism.

“To baptize” means to administer baptism. The Greek clearly allows this interpretation as “to baptize” is a present infinitive. Our normal every day usage “to baptize” allows this all the time. As we would say to our children, “Tomorrow, the pastor is going TO BAPTIZE you into the Christian faith.” If this is the case, a better translation I Cor. 1:17 would be: “Christ did not send me to perform individual baptisms but to preach the gospel.”
***************
I believe interpretation B is the correct one, now I shall marshal the evidence for it and show inadequacies of Interpretation A.
***************
I Cor. 1:17 must be understood contextually within the first chapter as Paul tackles the first of many problems with the Corinthian Church. Some Corinthians were inordinately enamored with the person who had baptized them — even to the point of adopting the baptizer’s name as a religious appellation (vv. 12-13). In view of such a perversion, the Paul was thankful that he had personally baptized only a few of these people early on in his mission (vv. 14-16) and at a particular point time stopped baptizing altogether.

The same is true with the twelve disciples. The disciples participated in only of the first three baptism narratives in Acts while the NT church was fairly small. Acts 10 is curious. Peter was present preaching to the Gentiles, but he ordered his assistants to baptize the new Gentile converts (10:46). Peter follows Jesus’ example in regards how the administration of baptism is to be practiced. In John 3:22-4:2 Jesus’ disciples were participating in baptizing with John’s disciples but the text is clear Jesus’ did not baptism. This is the historical NT pattern. The Apostles preached and the assistants baptize.

Both Paul and Peter gained huge prominence and stature in the NT which continued into the Second Century. It was a great honor to have known or taught by an apostle, and in turn to know someone who had known an apostle. Both Paul and Peter refrained from baptizing as their fame and importance would have detracted from the meaning of what baptism is and does. Ponder the notion if a SCOTUS justice married one our nephews or nieces. We would have bragging rights all day long.
*********
Basic inadequacies of Interpretation A
*********
Baptism is not necessary for salvation. This is a specific diagnostic statement strategically used to illicit a negative response. But why does the response have to be negative? Why not neutral or positive? What about usage of the word “ordinary?” Baptism certainly is ordinary in the sense that the “ordinary” way the Christian life is lived is by being baptized.

Baptism is not apart of the gospel. This statement then is brought into tension with other statements by St. Paul such as:

• Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12, which both make the point that baptism unites us with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
• 1 Corinthians 12:13, which tells us that it was by baptism that we were brought into the body of Christ.
• Galatians 3:27, which says that baptism is how we clothed ourselves with Christ.
• Ephesians 4:5, in which He listed baptism alongside the Trinity and one hope, faith, and body as marks of our unity.

Jesus didn’t want Paul to baptize at all. This is the one that hurts the most as it is used by unbelievers to show Scripture itself has flaws and inconsistencies in it. They raise questions like:

• If Jesus did not send Paul to baptize, then why did he baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas?
• Was Paul sinning when he baptized them?
• Was Paul lying when he told the Corinthians Jesus told him not to baptize and he did anyway?
• Paul is untrustworthy?
• Why should we believe anything Paul said?
• Is this a clear case of redactors editing Paul’s writings in the Second Century?

Your option B is correct. Paul and the other Apostles had others with them who performed water baptism and the Apostles would chrismate them. Philip the deacon in Acts 8 is an example. That is in keeping with the Christian tradition that anyone can baptize a person in water but not everyone can convey the Holy Spirit.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Interpretation A: Paul is showing his ambivalence towards the practice of Christian baptism when actual water is applied to the human body with the Triune formula. In this sense, Paul is diminishing the importance of baptism, certainly separating it from the preached gospel, and showing baptism is not necessary for salvation. John MacArthur and Norman Geisler are representative of this interpretation.

More extreme interpretations would suggest Paul was opposed to baptism, even tried to discourage new converts from being baptized or even stating Jesus did not want Paul to baptize at all.

Interpretation B: Paul is stating Christ did not send him to personally administer baptism to individual recipients, rather Paul had a special apostolic commission to preach the Gentiles. His work in preaching was unique. However, the administration of baptism requires no unique gifts or abilities. Rather than Paul administering mass individual baptisms, he followed the normal historical NT practice of preaching and let his assistants do the work of baptism.

“To baptize” means to administer baptism. The Greek clearly allows this interpretation as “to baptize” is a present infinitive. Our normal every day usage “to baptize” allows this all the time. As we would say to our children, “Tomorrow, the pastor is going TO BAPTIZE you into the Christian faith.” If this is the case, a better translation I Cor. 1:17 would be: “Christ did not send me to perform individual baptisms but to preach the gospel.”
***************
I believe interpretation B is the correct one, now I shall marshal the evidence for it and show inadequacies of Interpretation A.
***************
I Cor. 1:17 must be understood contextually within the first chapter as Paul tackles the first of many problems with the Corinthian Church. Some Corinthians were inordinately enamored with the person who had baptized them — even to the point of adopting the baptizer’s name as a religious appellation (vv. 12-13). In view of such a perversion, the Paul was thankful that he had personally baptized only a few of these people early on in his mission (vv. 14-16) and at a particular point time stopped baptizing altogether.

The same is true with the twelve disciples. The disciples participated in only of the first three baptism narratives in Acts while the NT church was fairly small. Acts 10 is curious. Peter was present preaching to the Gentiles, but he ordered his assistants to baptize the new Gentile converts (10:46). Peter follows Jesus’ example in regards how the administration of baptism is to be practiced. In John 3:22-4:2 Jesus’ disciples were participating in baptizing with John’s disciples but the text is clear Jesus’ did not baptize. This is the historical NT pattern. The Apostles preached and the assistants baptize.

Both Paul and Peter gained huge prominence and stature in the NT which continued into the Second Century. It was a great honor to have known or taught by an apostle, and in turn to know someone who had known an apostle. Both Paul and Peter refrained from baptizing as their fame and importance would have detracted from the meaning of what baptism is and does. Ponder the notion if a SCOTUS justice married one our nephews or nieces. We would have bragging rights all day long.
*********
Basic inadequacies of Interpretation A
*********
Baptism is not necessary for salvation. This is a specific diagnostic statement strategically used to illicit a negative response. But why does the response have to be negative? Why not neutral or positive? What about usage of the word “ordinary?” Baptism certainly is ordinary in the sense that the “ordinary” way the Christian life is lived is by being baptized.

Baptism is not apart of the gospel. This statement then is brought into tension with other statements by St. Paul such as:

• Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12, which both make the point that baptism unites us with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
• 1 Corinthians 12:13, which tells us that it was by baptism that we were brought into the body of Christ.
• Galatians 3:27, which says that baptism is how we clothed ourselves with Christ.
• Ephesians 4:5, in which He listed baptism alongside the Trinity and one hope, faith, and body as marks of our unity.

Jesus didn’t want Paul to baptize at all. This is the one that hurts the most as it is used by unbelievers to show Scripture itself has flaws and inconsistencies in it. They raise questions like:

• If Jesus did not send Paul to baptize, then why did he baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas?
• Was Paul sinning when he baptized them?
• Was Paul lying when he told the Corinthians Jesus told him not to baptize and he did anyway?
• Paul is untrustworthy?
• Why should we believe anything Paul said?
• Is this a clear case of redactors editing Paul’s writings in the Second Century?

Just as John the Baptist made water baptism less than the Spirit Baptism, so did Paul. Search the scriptures.
Blessings

 

[FireDragon76]

Paul did baptize a few, but it wasn't his primary job. Baptism in the early Church was performed by deacons or deaconesses, which was a kind of ordained ministry of its own (and wasn't like the Baptist model of a church council).

 

[bbbbbbb]

Actually, it appears that baptism was performed by a wide variety of people. We have, for example, Phillip the evangelist with the Ethiopian treasurer in the desert. The fact that Paul did not focus on performing it himself does not diminish its significance.

A curious instance might be the conversion of the jailer in Phillipi after the earthquake. It is written that he and his household believed and were baptized. If Paul did not baptize them, then Silas would have done the deed.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

We have, for example, Phillip the evangelist with the Ethiopian treasurer in the desert.

My personal belief is Phillip the Apostle baptized the Ethiopian treasurer. But this is where gentlemen may disagree.

I marshal my case thus: When Jesus was teaching the disciples in his post-resurrection appearance he said, "but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and as far as the remotest part of the earth.”

Two points:
A) Receiving the power of the HS refers to the Day of Pentecost with the 1) pillar of fire and 2) the speaking in tongues. The pillar of fire is at least a public divine marker placed upon the disciples demonstrating they now have the authority from God to preach and administer baptism. The pillar of fire only occurs once and only the disciples soon to be called Apostles have this public marker placed on them. The speaking in tongues is also divine marker for both Jews and Gentiles verifying they had the HS and and were converted.

B) We notice how the places Jesus tells the disciples to be his witness corresponds to the locations of the first three baptism listing in Acts. The first Jerusalem with 12 apostles present, Samaria with 3 apostles present and the Ethiopian treasurer in the desert as represented as the "remotest parts of the earth." Philip was present with the Ethiopian treasurer.

My theory here is the first baptism in these three geographical areas needed to have an apostle present to begin the baptisms. After this, the authority to baptize is transfered to all believing Christians.

It is possible that Philip the Evangelist could have been the baptizer here as he lived in Caesarea in Palestine. However, due to his late appearance in Acts 21, it seems more likely Philip the apostle was the baptizer.

 

[bbbbbbb]

My personal belief is Phillip the Apostle baptized the Ethiopian treasurer. But this is where gentlemen may disagree.

I marshal my case thus: When Jesus was teaching the disciples in his post-resurrection appearance he said, "but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and Samaria, and as far as the remotest part of the earth.”

Two points:
A) Receiving the power of the HS refers to the Day of Pentecost with the 1) pillar of fire and 2) the speaking in tongues. The pillar of fire is at least a public divine marker placed upon the disciples demonstrating they now have the authority from God to preach and administer baptism. The pillar of fire only occurs once and only the disciples soon to be called Apostles have this public marker placed on them. The speaking in tongues is also divine marker for both Jews and Gentiles verifying they had the HS and and were converted.

B) We notice how the places Jesus tells the disciples to be his witness corresponds to the locations of the first three baptism listing in Acts. The first Jerusalem with 12 apostles present, Samaria with 3 apostles present and the Ethiopian treasurer in the desert as represented as the "remotest parts of the earth." Philip was present with the Ethiopian treasurer.

My theory here is the first baptism in these three geographical areas needed to have an apostle present to begin the baptisms. After this, the authority to baptize is transfered to all believing Christians.

It is possible that Philip the Evangelist could have been the baptizer here as he lived in Caesarea in Palestine. However, due to his late appearance in Acts 21, it seems more likely Philip the apostle was the baptizer.

Philip was not one of the twelve Apostles. Of that there is no doubt whatsoever. That he was an apostle (i.e. missionary) is open to discussion.

The fact is that at present only fringe groups of Christianity call those who perform baptisms "Apostles". Your own church recognizes baptism performed not only by its own priesthood, but also priests, ministers, and even lay people of other denominations. The key matter is not who performs the baptism but the triune baptism formula.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The key matter is not who performs the baptism but the triune baptism formula.

You got that right.

Philip was not one of the twelve Apostles. Of that there is no doubt whatsoever. That he was an apostle (i.e. missionary) is open to discussion.

Two Philips. One of the original 12 and as present on the day of Pentecost. Philip the Evangelist chosen in Acts 6. You are correct about Philip the Evangelist present in Samaria and in the desert. With the scattering of church in Jerusalem (8:1) Philip the Evangelist left. The key point where I made the mistake is in verse 4, as the word "scattering" is mentioned twice. Philip was one of the ones scattered and the one who went to Samaria.

Good correction.

 

[Guojing]

Two Philips. One of the original 12 and as present on the day of Pentecost. Philip the Evangelist chosen in Acts 6. You are correct about Philip the Evangelist present in Samaria and in the desert. With the scattering of church in Jerusalem (8:1) Philip the Evangelist left. The key point where I made the mistake is in verse 4, as the word "scattering" is mentioned twice. Philip was one of the ones scattered and the one who went to Samaria.

Good correction.

Acts 8:1 made it clear that the one who went to Samaria cannot be Phillip, one of the 12 apostles.

And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles.

 

[joeLightening]

Interpretation A: Paul is showing his ambivalence towards the practice of Christian baptism when actual water is applied to the human body with the Triune formula. In this sense, Paul is diminishing the importance of baptism, certainly separating it from the preached gospel, and showing baptism is not necessary for salvation. John MacArthur and Norman Geisler are representative of this interpretation.

More extreme interpretations would suggest Paul was opposed to baptism, even tried to discourage new converts from being baptized or even stating Jesus did not want Paul to baptize at all.

Interpretation B: Paul is stating Christ did not send him to personally administer baptism to individual recipients, rather Paul had a special apostolic commission to preach the Gentiles. His work in preaching was unique. However, the administration of baptism requires no unique gifts or abilities. Rather than Paul administering mass individual baptisms, he followed the normal historical NT practice of preaching and let his assistants do the work of baptism.

“To baptize” means to administer baptism. The Greek clearly allows this interpretation as “to baptize” is a present infinitive. Our normal every day usage “to baptize” allows this all the time. As we would say to our children, “Tomorrow, the pastor is going TO BAPTIZE you into the Christian faith.” If this is the case, a better translation I Cor. 1:17 would be: “Christ did not send me to perform individual baptisms but to preach the gospel.”
***************
I believe interpretation B is the correct one, now I shall marshal the evidence for it and show inadequacies of Interpretation A.
***************
I Cor. 1:17 must be understood contextually within the first chapter as Paul tackles the first of many problems with the Corinthian Church. Some Corinthians were inordinately enamored with the person who had baptized them — even to the point of adopting the baptizer’s name as a religious appellation (vv. 12-13). In view of such a perversion, the Paul was thankful that he had personally baptized only a few of these people early on in his mission (vv. 14-16) and at a particular point time stopped baptizing altogether.

The same is true with the twelve disciples. The disciples participated in only of the first three baptism narratives in Acts while the NT church was fairly small. Acts 10 is curious. Peter was present preaching to the Gentiles, but he ordered his assistants to baptize the new Gentile converts (10:46). Peter follows Jesus’ example in regards how the administration of baptism is to be practiced. In John 3:22-4:2 Jesus’ disciples were participating in baptizing with John’s disciples but the text is clear Jesus’ did not baptize. This is the historical NT pattern. The Apostles preached and the assistants baptize.

Both Paul and Peter gained huge prominence and stature in the NT which continued into the Second Century. It was a great honor to have known or taught by an apostle, and in turn to know someone who had known an apostle. Both Paul and Peter refrained from baptizing as their fame and importance would have detracted from the meaning of what baptism is and does. Ponder the notion if a SCOTUS justice married one our nephews or nieces. We would have bragging rights all day long.
*********
Basic inadequacies of Interpretation A
*********
Baptism is not necessary for salvation. This is a specific diagnostic statement strategically used to illicit a negative response. But why does the response have to be negative? Why not neutral or positive? What about usage of the word “ordinary?” Baptism certainly is ordinary in the sense that the “ordinary” way the Christian life is lived is by being baptized.

Baptism is not apart of the gospel. This statement then is brought into tension with other statements by St. Paul such as:

• Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12, which both make the point that baptism unites us with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
• 1 Corinthians 12:13, which tells us that it was by baptism that we were brought into the body of Christ.
• Galatians 3:27, which says that baptism is how we clothed ourselves with Christ.
• Ephesians 4:5, in which He listed baptism alongside the Trinity and one hope, faith, and body as marks of our unity.

Jesus didn’t want Paul to baptize at all. This is the one that hurts the most as it is used by unbelievers to show Scripture itself has flaws and inconsistencies in it. They raise questions like:

• If Jesus did not send Paul to baptize, then why did he baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas?
• Was Paul sinning when he baptized them?
• Was Paul lying when he told the Corinthians Jesus told him not to baptize and he did anyway?
• Paul is untrustworthy?
• Why should we believe anything Paul said?
• Is this a clear case of redactors editing Paul’s writings in the Second Century?

I get tired of people who twist scripture to prove their own doctrines which are false. You have done a splendid job of it. Paul never spoke evil of water Baptism. He did rebuke saints who were wrong in causing division by there wrong views of water Baptism. Those views were also against the true purpose of the apostles, which was simply to do service unto the Lord. Paul was simply explaining that Christ had sent him to preach. If it were wrong for him to baptize, then he would have been guilty of sin because he did baptize some at Corinth. Just because Christ sent him to baptize does not mean he should ignore the need for baptism. He would have baptized them all if Apollos had not been there to do that. He was glad he had not baptized them because then they would have inserted him as being above the other Apostles.

You mentioned John Macarthur. He is one of the most fakey ministers ever. A real slick liar who believes he is doing God a favor. He uses local congregations to sell his books and get donations. What a bunch of losers. Just like Billy Graham. A spiritual deadbeat whom everyone thinks is so special.

Water Baptism is required in Jesus name in order to enter into the Kingdom of God. Be not deceived.

 

[joeLightening]

Interpretation A: Paul is showing his ambivalence towards the practice of Christian baptism when actual water is applied to the human body with the Triune formula. In this sense, Paul is diminishing the importance of baptism, certainly separating it from the preached gospel, and showing baptism is not necessary for salvation. John MacArthur and Norman Geisler are representative of this interpretation.

More extreme interpretations would suggest Paul was opposed to baptism, even tried to discourage new converts from being baptized or even stating Jesus did not want Paul to baptize at all.

Interpretation B: Paul is stating Christ did not send him to personally administer baptism to individual recipients, rather Paul had a special apostolic commission to preach the Gentiles. His work in preaching was unique. However, the administration of baptism requires no unique gifts or abilities. Rather than Paul administering mass individual baptisms, he followed the normal historical NT practice of preaching and let his assistants do the work of baptism.

“To baptize” means to administer baptism. The Greek clearly allows this interpretation as “to baptize” is a present infinitive. Our normal every day usage “to baptize” allows this all the time. As we would say to our children, “Tomorrow, the pastor is going TO BAPTIZE you into the Christian faith.” If this is the case, a better translation I Cor. 1:17 would be: “Christ did not send me to perform individual baptisms but to preach the gospel.”
***************
I believe interpretation B is the correct one, now I shall marshal the evidence for it and show inadequacies of Interpretation A.
***************
I Cor. 1:17 must be understood contextually within the first chapter as Paul tackles the first of many problems with the Corinthian Church. Some Corinthians were inordinately enamored with the person who had baptized them — even to the point of adopting the baptizer’s name as a religious appellation (vv. 12-13). In view of such a perversion, the Paul was thankful that he had personally baptized only a few of these people early on in his mission (vv. 14-16) and at a particular point time stopped baptizing altogether.

The same is true with the twelve disciples. The disciples participated in only of the first three baptism narratives in Acts while the NT church was fairly small. Acts 10 is curious. Peter was present preaching to the Gentiles, but he ordered his assistants to baptize the new Gentile converts (10:46). Peter follows Jesus’ example in regards how the administration of baptism is to be practiced. In John 3:22-4:2 Jesus’ disciples were participating in baptizing with John’s disciples but the text is clear Jesus’ did not baptize. This is the historical NT pattern. The Apostles preached and the assistants baptize.

Both Paul and Peter gained huge prominence and stature in the NT which continued into the Second Century. It was a great honor to have known or taught by an apostle, and in turn to know someone who had known an apostle. Both Paul and Peter refrained from baptizing as their fame and importance would have detracted from the meaning of what baptism is and does. Ponder the notion if a SCOTUS justice married one our nephews or nieces. We would have bragging rights all day long.
*********
Basic inadequacies of Interpretation A
*********
Baptism is not necessary for salvation. This is a specific diagnostic statement strategically used to illicit a negative response. But why does the response have to be negative? Why not neutral or positive? What about usage of the word “ordinary?” Baptism certainly is ordinary in the sense that the “ordinary” way the Christian life is lived is by being baptized.

Baptism is not apart of the gospel. This statement then is brought into tension with other statements by St. Paul such as:

• Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12, which both make the point that baptism unites us with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection.
• 1 Corinthians 12:13, which tells us that it was by baptism that we were brought into the body of Christ.
• Galatians 3:27, which says that baptism is how we clothed ourselves with Christ.
• Ephesians 4:5, in which He listed baptism alongside the Trinity and one hope, faith, and body as marks of our unity.

Jesus didn’t want Paul to baptize at all. This is the one that hurts the most as it is used by unbelievers to show Scripture itself has flaws and inconsistencies in it. They raise questions like:

• If Jesus did not send Paul to baptize, then why did he baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas?
• Was Paul sinning when he baptized them?
• Was Paul lying when he told the Corinthians Jesus told him not to baptize and he did anyway?
• Paul is untrustworthy?
• Why should we believe anything Paul said?
• Is this a clear case of redactors editing Paul’s writings in the Second Century?

Excellent job of explaining this important topic! False teachers hit below the belt and really hurt thier followers. "Many will come unto me saying Lord, Lord......."

 

[joeLightening]

Ain't Zwinglian: I apologize for falsely accusing you of twisting the scriptures. I did that in post #10. It was late at night and I was skim reading. Not a good combo. I went back and read it again and realized my mistake. You actually did a wonderful job of teaching.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Ain't Zwinglian: I apologize for falsely accusing you of twisting the scriptures. I did that in post #10. It was late at night and I was skim reading. Not a good combo. I went back and read it again and realized my mistake. You actually did a wonderful job of teaching.

Of course I didn't take it that way. Context always trumps a sentence.

Blessings.

 

[The Liturgist]

Of course I didn't take it that way. Context always trumps a sentence.

Blessings.

This has been a lovely thread and I want to thank you for it and your commitment to Christian orthodoxy.

 

[tall73]

I agree that interpretation 2 is correct. It also helps to look at the reason for mentioning it in the first place. The church was placing inordinate emphasis on ministers. And we learn from the rest of the Corinthian correspondence, and from Clement of Rome's letter that this also involved a more widespread rejection of authority, and involved some who were false apostles building themeselves up by trying to portray the ministers of God as opposed to each other, and inferior.

​

I Corinthians 1:11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.

Paul emphasizes that neither he nor Apollos were anything, but that God is the one who matters. The ministers of God are not divided or competing, and the Corinthians being divided in these matters shows that they are not viewing things in a spiritual manner, but in a carnal manner.

2 Corinthians 3:3 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3 for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7 So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8 Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building.

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way, I am extremely disappointed John MacArthur expressed a view in support of the first position, but I was also extremely disappointed when he said some unkind things about Hank Haanegraaf when the latter converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. I think he accused him of apostasy.

 

[tall73]

By the way, I am extremely disappointed John MacArthur expressed a view in support of the first position, but I was also extremely disappointed when he said some unkind things about Hank Haanegraaf when the latter converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. I think he accused him of apostasy.

Summarizes the above.