Baptism And Division

In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul says he came to Corinth “not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel” (NASB used throughout). Many use this to argue that Paul sees baptism as a non-essential ceremony that only a minority had as part of their conversion. Does Paul distinguish between baptism and evangelism? Does this mean baptism is not needed? No, as we will see from the context. 

Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void (1 Corinthians 1:10-17). 

Division in Corinth prompted Paul to write. Peter's first-hand stories and larger-than-life personality were a hit, while the scholarly work of Apollos tickled the intellects of Jews and Gentiles alike. Others were perhaps old enough to have been among the audience of Jesus. Rifts developed based on loyalties to personalities. Should someone converted at the hands of an apostle have the final say in a debate with someone baptized by a "mere" elder? Are members baptized by a new evangelist as spiritual as those immersed by the church’s retired minister? Behind this theological question is some of the pettiness seen today when people argue over preferences and traditions. 

Paul admits his relief over not baptizing many at Corinth, which would have made their situation worse. What is important for understanding this passage is not only what it says but also what it does not say. The text in 1 Corinthians 1 does not say Paul saw baptism as a non-essential ceremony after conversion. It does not say the disputing members of Corinth had not been baptized. It does not say that Paul concluded his evangelism without telling them how to obey the Gospel. 

If anything, this passage shows the opposite. Paul might have preferred others (such as his traveling companions) to baptize those accepting the gospel. Rather than the minority of Corinthians being baptized, Paul later writes in 1 Corinthians 12:13 that all had been baptized into one body, and they had each done so with the same spirit (repentance) and received the same (Holy) Spirit. This one baptism unites them as part of Christ's body (Romans 6:3-5, Ephesians 4:5). 

The idea of separating baptism from evangelism would have been unimaginable in the first century. The point is that the power of baptism lies in the working of God rather than the rank of the person doing the dunking, and the apostles knew this. Because the power of the gospel rests within God, we have no concern for maintaining a line of succession from the apostles or be obligated to travel to the Jordan River to be immersed. 

This can also apply to modern mission trips. If you evangelize in a foreign place that elevates American Christianity or other traits (wealth, height, skin color, etc.) as being more "spiritual" than the believers already in that area, do them a favor and have leaders from their own region do the baptizing. 

Today’s Christians should find comfort in the baptism they received, being just as potent and meaningful as what those in the first century received.