1 Corinthians 1:17 by Wayne Wells

Higher Praise™

Higher Praise Christian Center™
higherpraise.com™ higherpraise.org™

Enjoy A Life Changing Experience

1 Corinthians 1:17 Some teach from this verse that: a. Paul was not sent to baptize. b. Paul was sent to preach the gospel. c. Therefore, baptism is not part of the gospel, and since it is not a part of the gospel, it is not essential to salvation (Romans 1:16). Whatever Paul meant by these words, he could not contradict other passages in the Bible. If he does, his claims of being inspired by God are false. The conclusion given above can be applied to the very ones that make this argument to deny the need of baptism. There are very few denominations who do not maintain that some form of baptism is essential to church membership. a. Since Paul was not sent to baptize, he was not sent to make (denomination that makes the above argument). If he had lived from the 1st Century until now, he never would have made one. b. If baptism is not part of the gospel, then making members of this denomination is not part of the gospel. c. If baptism is not part of the gospel, then the denomination is not a gospel church since one must be baptized to get into it. Questions: 1. If Paul was not sent to baptize, did he sin in baptizing Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas (1 Cor 1:14, 16)? 2. If Paul had been sent to baptize, would this mean baptism is essential to salvation? John the Baptist was sent to baptize (John 1:33). Was his baptism necessary for salva tion? 3. 3.Those under the Great Commission were sent to baptize (Matt 28:18-20). Is the baptism of the Great Commission essential to salvation? Did Paul labor under the Great Commission? What 1 Corinthians 1:17 does not say: 1. It does not say that baptism is not part of the gospel. Wherever Paul went, he taught people to be baptized (Acts 16:13-15, 31-34, 18:8, 19:1-6). In telling them to be baptized, was he preaching the gospel or he was teaching something other than the gospel, in which case he placed himself under God's condemnation (Galatians 1:6-9)? Jesus said that as a result of the gospel being preached men would know to believe and be baptized (Mark 16:15-16). This shows that baptism is part of the gospel. 2. It does not say that Paul was thankful there were only a few baptized in Corinth. If he was thankful that only a few were baptized, would he not have been more grateful had none been baptized? If he was thankful that only a few had been baptized, then he would be grateful that only a few of the denomination mentioned before had been made. Every believer in Corinth had been baptized (1 Cor 1:14, Acts 18:8). What Paul said was that he was glad he had baptized only a few personally lest some claim they had been baptized in his name. It is possible that this is an ellipsis (an omission of words which must be supplied). If this is the style used in this verse, then the meaning of the verse would be: "Christ sent me not only to baptize, but also to preach the gospel". Examples of other elliptical statements in the Bible. John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life This means: Do not labor only for the food which perishes, but also for the food which endures to eternal life. John 12:44 Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me. This means: Then Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, believes not only in Me but also in Him who sent Me. 1 Timothy 5:23 Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infir mities. This means: Drink no longer water only, but also use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities. It is more likely that Paul was saying Christ did not send him to personally baptize but he did send him to personally preach. In the context of this passage the Corinthian church was full of division and they need to become one again. Some were claiming to follow Paul, some Cephas, some Apollos and some were following Christ (1 Cor 1:12- 13). The context indicates that Paul followed the example of Jesus in teaching baptism but leaving the actual baptizing of new converts to others (John 4:1-2). Paul had come alone to Corinth from Athens (Acts 18:1-5). While he was in Athens he had sent Timothy and Silas back to Thessalonica to encourage and strengthen the church there (1 Thess 3:1-6). Paul came to Corinth and worked at making tents and reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath with the Jews. Any converts he made in this time period he would have to baptize personally. After Timothy and Silas came, Paul began to teach "full-time" and as a result many of the Corinthians were baptized (Acts 18:8), but now instead of Paul having to baptize, Silas and Timothy could take over this job so Paul was completely free to preach the gospel. Some at Corinth were saying "I am of Paul" (1:12). This kind of attitude is sinful and should never exist among Christians. Paul was thankful that he had not baptized more than he did so this problem would not be any greater than it already was. His job was to go out and preach the gospel, not to go out and baptize people. Baptism alone does no good, but when the gospel is preached, people hear and understand the good news of Jesus and as a result, they are baptized. In Mark 16:15-16 the apostles were taught to preach the gospel to the whole world. They were to teach that whoever believes and is baptized shall be saved. In Acts 8:35 Philip taught Jesus to the Ethiopian eunuch. After teaching Jesus to this man, he knew enough that he asked to be baptized when they came to water (vs 36). These two passages show that baptism is part of the gospel and is part of the preaching of Jesus. To understand what the purpose of baptism is we must look at the verses that tell us. The full picture is not given in one passage, but we must put all of the Word together to properly understand. We must read what Paul wrote concerning baptism in Romans 6:3- 5, Galatians 3:26-27, Ephesians 5:25-26 and Colossians 2:11-12 and how he and the people that he taught throughout all of his journeys were baptized. These are not the words and actions of a man that believes baptism is not important. Some of the Gnostics of the second and third centuries denied the need of baptism. One of the passages they used to justify their position was 1 Corinthians 1:17. Tertullian, who lived 140 - 230 AD., wrote extensively against the Gnostics. He was an elder in the church in Carthage One of his works that still survives is called "On Baptism". Notice what this elder in the early church wrote. Chap XIV, - Of Paul's Assertion, That He Had Not Been Sent To Baptize. But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize;" as if by this argument baptism were done away! For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas? However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos. For which reason the "peacemaking" apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent "not to baptize, but to preach." For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching was. Tertullian. "On Baptism", AnteNicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 676. Early in the same work, he wrote against a woman named Quintilla who was a Gnostic teacher. who was teaching that baptism was not necessary for salvation. Notice what this elder wrote concerning this false teacher: Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed in the faith... the consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and serpents themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our ikkthus (Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Savior), Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water! Tertullian, "On Baptism", Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 669. If we deny baptism is for the remission of sins, we stand in the company of the Gnostics whom the apostle John called antichrist in 1 John 2:18-22, 4:3. It causes us to stand opposed to one of the most famous elders in the early church. Do we want to accept the view of the Gnostics, who denied that Jesus came in the flesh, or is it more reasonable that those who opposed the heretics had a better understanding of baptism? Wayne Wells wayneliz@twave.net http://users.twave.net/ncc