These seven words are recorded in 1 Corinthians 1:17. Some who read this statement conclude that it proves that it is not necessary to be baptized in order to be saved. After all, so the reasoning goes, if the Lord sent Paul to preach but not to baptize people, then baptism must not be required. Perhaps some questions will help us as we search for the truth on this subject.

In what context did Paul say, "For Christ sent me not to baptize?" The topic under discussion was the division that existed among the members of the church in Corinth. "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you" (1 Corinthians 1:10,11). Such divisions serve as a background for the entire message that we read in 1 Corinthians 1:12-17, including Paul’s declaration that he was not sent to baptize.

What evidence was there that the saints in Corinth really were divided among themselves? "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ" (1:12). It may sound incredible to us that they would actually form cliques based on preachers whom they respected, but, when you think about it, honestly, congregations of our generation have suffered through internal factions whose "reasoning" for being divided had absolutely nothing to do with spiritual affairs.

What was Paul’s first approach to help the Corinthian brethren see the folly of their call-ourselves-after-a-preacher factions? He asked three questions, namely, "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul" (1:13). The answer to each inquiry, of course, is "No." The point? You err in being divided, and by all means, you have no God-given authority to say that you are "of Paul," so stop saying that you are!

Did Paul regret the fact that he had baptized people? Why would he say, "I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius?" (1:14). In Acts 18:1-11, we read of Paul’s preaching in Corinth that resulted in the establishment of the Lord’s church in that city. The conversion of a number of souls is recorded in these words in Acts 18:8: "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." Note that while the record in Acts 18 simply says of Crispus that he "believed on the Lord," 1 Corinthians 1:14 states that he was baptized, too. We know that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34), so since the other Corinthian converts heard, believed, and were baptized (Acts 18:8), then that was also required of Crispus and all others.

But, again, why would Paul say that he was thankful that he had only baptized a few people (including the household of Stephanas, 1 Corinthians 1:16)? Hear the Bible’s straightforward answer: "Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name" (1:15). Paul wants to make it clear to all that he does not endorse or support the partying factions in the Lord’s body in Corinth, and he could only wish that his name had never been brought up in the matter of dividing up "over preachers."

Who authorized Paul to baptize people, anyway? We know for a fact that Paul did personally immerse some folks (1:14,16). Did he do so by his own authority, or by the authority of the Lord? The Lord authorized him to do it. Remember, Jesus sent His disciples to baptize people (Matthew 28:19). God’s people are authorized to baptize those that believe the gospel (Mark 16:15,16). Thus, when Paul said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize," he did not mean that the Lord had forbid him to baptize. Rather, he was simply stating that while baptizing people was something that he did do, that was not the purpose of his journeys in the name of the Lord.

If Paul did not personally immerse all of the people that obeyed the gospel as a result of hearing his preaching, how did those people get baptized? For instance, who could have done the baptizing when Paul preached in Corinth, if he personally baptized only a handful of people there? Paul later reminded the brethren that Silas (Silvanus) and Timothy (Timotheus) had also preached with him in that city (2 Corinthians 2:19). The Book of Acts clearly shows that Paul was often accompanied by other brethren during his preaching efforts, and it would have been possible for some or all of them to be involved in doing the actual baptizing. The bottom line: Paul was not sent forth to be a baptizer, though at times he did immerse penitent believers. Rather, the purpose in Paul’s going forth was to be a preacher of the gospel. If people responded to the gospel by expressing a desire to be baptized, then there was no one particular individual that was given the duty of doing the actual immersing.

Again, it is important to distinguish between the purpose of baptism and the person who actually serves as the baptizer. In 1 Corinthians 1:13-17, in each of these five verses, baptism or baptizing is mentioned. We recognize, though, that in this section of Scripture, the purpose of baptism is not directly stated. However, in other New Testament verses, water baptism’s purpose is plainly set forth to be to remit or wash away sins (Acts 2:38; 22:16).

Is baptism part of the message of the gospel? If the Lord sent Paul to preach the gospel, but not to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17), then that sounds like baptism is not even part of the gospel message. We know that the gospel is essential to salvation (Romans 1:16), but if baptism is not part of the gospel, then would that not mean that baptism is non-essential when it comes to the matter of a person having his/her sins washed away? Staying with the conversion of the Corinthians, here is what we see. Paul preached to them. What message did he preach? The Bible describes what they heard Paul preach as "the gospel," "the cross," "Christ crucified," and "Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 1:17,18,23; 2:2). Acts 18:5 tells us that in Corinth, Paul preached Jesus as the Christ. And what did many of Paul’s hearers do in response to his preaching? ". . . many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized" (Acts 18:8). From whence did those lost people learn about baptism? From Paul’s preaching. But, again, what was it that Paul declared unto them? Answer: the gospel of the Christ. Thus, in Bible language, the preaching of the gospel must include the instruction to be baptized.

This is further seen by comparing what is written in Acts 8. There we read that Philip preached in Samaria (Acts 8:5). What message did he preach there? The Bible calls it "the word," "Christ," "the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:4,5,12). In response to Philip’s preaching, a number of Samarians were baptized (8:12). How did they learn about baptism? Obviously, from the message that Philip preached. To "preach Christ" includes preaching about baptism. The same truth is readily seen by observing that the eunuch from Ethiopia responded to Philip "preaching Jesus" by being baptized (Acts 8:35-38).

Let us go back to our text in 1 Corinthians 1. We ask again, does Paul’s teaching in this chapter show that water baptism is not necessary in order to be saved? Actually, it shows just the opposite. We have already noted that this passage does not directly state the purpose of baptism, yet, in an indirect fashion, it does set forth the essentiality of baptism for anyone that wants to be a Christian. How is that? Look again at the questions that Paul asked the Corinthians in order to help them see that none of them should be saying that he/she is "of Paul." Paul asked, "Was Paul crucified for you?" (1:13). No. The point? If Paul was not crucified for you, then you have no right to say that you belong to Paul (are "of Paul"). Second question: "Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (1:13). No. The point? If you were not baptized in the name of Paul, then you have no right to say that you belong to Paul (are "of Paul"). Notice carefully. If not being baptized in the name of Paul meant no right to lay claim to belonging to Paul (the Holy Spirit’s logic), then by the same reasoning, not being baptized in the name of the Christ would mean no right to lay claim to belonging to the Christ. Only those baptized in Paul’s name could be true "Paulians/Paulites," and only those baptized in the name of the Christ could be true "Christians." Since only those baptized in the Lord’s name can rightfully be called "Christians," then only those baptized in the Lord’s name are saved (because all saved people are Christians). Thus, this section of Scripture (1 Corinthians 1:13-17), rather than teach against the necessity of water baptism, teaches exactly the opposite!

We must be careful, lest we give too much emphasis to the one that does the teaching or baptizing. At the same time, though, we must not waver in holding to the truth that in God’s plan, the blood of Jesus washes away sins, but it does so only for those that are baptized for the right purpose, which is to have their sins washed away.

-- Roger D. Campbell