Why was Paul not sent to Baptize but to Preach? (Protestants misuing 1 Cor. 1:17)

A popular example of "Protestants behaving badly" that usually comes from those of the Baptist or Non-Denominational groups of Protestants is when they seem to think it's better to denigrate Baptism than to concede it does anything salvific. This is known as the fallacy of "cutting off your nose to spite your face," where someone mistakenly thinks that an argument against their opponent is "worth it" even if that same argument ultimately undermines their own position as well. In this case, a favorite "proof text" against Baptism as "necessary for salvation" is for these folks to point to 1 Corinthians 1:14-17, where Paul says: "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius... for Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel..." These Protestants will allege that Paul is saying baptism is not important, even non-essential to salvation, because preaching and believing are what really matter, and that thus Baptism must not be that important. But is that really what Paul is alleging? I will show why this is absolutely the worst interpretation one can have. 

We will begin by looking at the full passage:

10 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. 11 For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. 12 What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow 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 so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) 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.

Now we can look at the problems with the Baptist/Nondenom "reading" of this text, and see why their exegesis is very problematic and (tragically) agenda driven:

• Why would Paul denigrate Baptism when Jesus commanded Baptism to be done by the Apostles (Matthew 28:19)? This is pretty obviously a good indication that Paul was not denigrating or marginalizing Baptism as something that was no big deal or even optional. 
  
  
• Paul says in this very passage that he did perform Baptism on Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas, so if Jesus did not want Paul to baptize, then Paul is openly disobedient to Christ by baptizing people, which again should be a good indication Paul isn't denigrating baptism. 
  
  
• The audience was apparently all baptized, since based on who performed it on them, they could boast about it. This implies that Baptism was seen as an important event and that some Christian ministers like Apollos, Cephas, et al, were the ministers whom God had appointed (directly or indirectly). So baptism was not optional, nor was it done by anyone, but by appointed pastors as their job. Paul is thus thankful that his name isn't among the big names so that Paul doesn't have to be dragged into it.
  
  
• If baptism was meant just as a external sign to show the community that you had already accepted the Gospel and been transformed, then what kind of testimony is that if they immediately turn towards sinful boasting and divisions? This implies Baptism is not merely symbolic external testimony, since we can see that mere outward show proves nothing since their behavior didn't change, and thus Baptism must actually do something to the person that they can later fail to live up to. The external proof would actually be living in peace, which is a far more obvious external sign than a ceremonial event. 
  
  
• Paul speaks about Baptism later in the Epistle, and with strong salvific connotation, so it would be strange to turn 1:17 into a text that invalidates what Paul says elsewhere. For example, Paul says: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? ... And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor 6:10-11). Paul says the undoing of their unrighteousness in their former life was through being "washed," which most naturally refers to Baptism. This term "washed" is used in Acts 22:16 for baptism "washing away sin" (HERE). We see this passage also uses the "in the name of (Jesus)" language used in 1:17. And later Paul says: "For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body - Jews or Greeks, slaves or free - and all were made to drink of one Spirit." (1 Cor 12:13) This is the language of all being united equally through Baptism, which the quarreling of chapter 1 would be an insult to the Holy Spirit uniting all through Baptism. Some Protestants might claim these texts are symbolic "spirit baptism", but that's assuming there is some "spirit baptism" rather than the obvious water baptism. And when would this "spirit baptism" have happened if not at the time of conversion (which is when water baptism happens)?

Now let us turn to some insightful commentaries which will further drive home our case against these Protestants.

• Tertullian (~200AD) said (On Baptism): 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 “peace-making” 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.
  
  
•  Chrysostom (~380AD) says (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:17): And why, not being sent to baptize, did he baptize? Not in contention with Him that sent him, but in this instance laboring beyond his task. For he saith not, “I was forbidden,” but, “I was not sent for this, but for that which was of the greatest necessity.” For preaching the Gospel is a work perhaps for one or two; but baptizing, for everyone endowed with the priesthood. For a man being instructed and convinced, to take and baptize him is what any one whatever might do: for the rest, it is all effected by the will of the person drawing near, and the grace of God. But when unbelievers are to be instructed, there must be great labor, great wisdom. ... Not therefore in opposition to Him that sent him did he baptize; but, as in the case of the widows, though the apostles had said, (Acts vi. 2.) “it is not fit that we should leave the Word of God and serve tables,” he discharged the office (Acts xii. 25. τὴν διακονίαν) of a deacon, not in opposition to them, but as something beyond his task: so also here. For even now, we commit this matter to the simpler sort of presbyters, but the word of doctrine unto the wiser
  
  
• Augustine says (Response to Petilan the Donatist, ch 55): But if you consider [preaching] a trifling function, and of no importance, see what you must think of the Apostle Paul himself, who said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." To this we may add, that according to this, Apollos begins to be more important, who watered by baptizing, than Paul, who planted by preaching the gospel, though Paul claims to himself the relation of father towards the Corinthians in virtue of this very act, and does not grant this title to those who came to them after him. (1 Cor 3:6)
  
  
• John Calvin (Commentary on 1 Cor 1:17): For Christ sent me not. He anticipates an objection that might, perhaps, be brought against him -- that he had not discharged his duty, inasmuch as Christ commands his Apostles to baptize as well as teach. Accordingly he replies, that this was not the principal department of his office, for the duty of teaching had been principally enjoined upon him as that to which he should apply himself. For when Christ says to the Apostles, (Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15,) Go, preach and baptize, he connects baptism with teaching simply as an addition or appendage, so that teaching always holds the first place. 
  
  
• Ellicot's Commentary (Anglican): Not to baptize. — Preaching was eminently the work of the Apostles. The deacons used to baptise (Acts 10:48).
  
  
• Benson Commentary (Methodist): For Christ sent me not to baptize — Not chiefly: this was not the principal end of my mission. He did not call me in so wonderful a way, and endue me with extraordinary powers, chiefly in order to my doing that which might be done as well by an ordinary minister: (all the apostles, however, were also sent to baptize, Matthew 28:19 :) but to preach the gospel — Or to plant churches by preaching the gospel to those that never heard it before, Acts 26:17-18. The apostles, being endued with the highest degrees of inspiration and miraculous powers, had the office of preaching committed to them, rather than that of baptizing, because they were best qualified for converting the world, and had not time to give the converted, either before or after their baptism, such particular instruction as their former ignorance rendered necessary. These offices, therefore, were committed to the inferior ministers of the Word. 
  
  
• Barne's Commentary (Presbyterian): For Christ sent me not to baptize - That is, not to baptize as my main business. Baptism was not his principal employment, though be had a commission in common with others to administer the ordinance, and occasionally did it. The same thing was true of the Saviour, that he did not personally baptize, John 4:2. It is probable that the business of baptism was entrusted to the ministers of the church of inferior talents, or to those who were connected with the churches permanently, and not to those who were engaged chiefly in traveling from place to place. 

These commentaries, mostly various Protestants, do a great job of explaining the situation quite plainly. Jesus commanded the Apostles to "Go, preach, and baptize" in Matthew 28:19, so the Apostles were indeed sent to Baptize. But the preaching office was the higher priority, such that some distinguished figures receive the title of "Evangelist" (literally Preacher), such as "Philip the evangelist" (Acts 21:8), and Paul says: "And He [Jesus] gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as pastors and teachers" (Eph 4:11), showing that not everyone receives the same assignment, even if the Apostles could technically do it all. The delegating of ministerial roles also helps the divine ministry not be confined or credited to just one person, lest we lose sight of Jesus as the ultimate point of it all. Speaking very similarly to the opening chapter, Paul later explains: "For when one says, 'I follow Paul', and another, 'I follow Apollos', are you not being merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth." (1 Cor 3:4-6) As St Augustine explains, Paul planted by Preaching, while Apollos watered by Baptizing, so neither gets credit for the conversion but rather God gets the glory. Thus, the Protestants who make this sad argument against Baptism simply fail to distinguish the obvious difference between planting and watering, as if watering was not important just because planting was more important.

In closing, the situation of 1 Cor 1:12-17 was equivalent to the modern day situation of having a favorite preacher/pastor, whereby you put more stock into their celebrity status and lose sight of Jesus as the real focus of Christianity. Paul could have said "for Christ did not send me to be pastor of Corinth, but rather traveling missionary across all the Gentile lands," which is not at all to suggest that being a local pastor was not important (2 Cor 10:16; Eph 3:8;)!

This post is a companion post to my post on Acts 10 where Cornelius received the Holy Spirit yet was not Baptized until later on (HERE). 

Saint Apollos, a key minister 
who worked alongside St Paul