Bible Synapse
Did Christ command baptism, when Paul says Christ did not send him to baptise?
Hard question · Acts and the letters · raised by 2 of the lists sceptics circulate
See the passages joined in the interactive mapThe passages
Jesus sends the apostles to teach all nations, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Paul is glad he baptised few in Corinth: “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel”.
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
Jesus’ disciples did the baptising, not Jesus himself.
When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
Peter “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord”.
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
The objection
Jesus commanded his apostles to make disciples of all nations, baptising them. But Paul says, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel”, and thanks God that he baptised hardly anyone in Corinth.
The answer
Paul is speaking of his own chief task, not denying that Christ commanded baptism. He did baptise people: Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:14–16). He had been baptised himself (Acts 9:18), and he builds his teaching on baptism elsewhere (Romans 6:3–4). His concern in Corinth was that believers were forming parties around their favourite teachers, “I am of Paul” (1:12), so he is glad he baptised few, “Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name” (1:15).
‘Not to baptize, but to preach’ is a Hebrew way of stressing what matters most, like “I desired mercy, and not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6), said when sacrifice was still commanded. Paul’s calling was to preach; the baptising could be done by his companions, as Jesus’ disciples baptised for him (John 4:2) and as Peter “commanded” Cornelius’s household to be baptised (Acts 10:48). Gill points out that if Paul had not been sent to baptise at all, it would have been wrong for him to baptise anyone.
From the classic commentators
Paul says this not to depreciate baptism; for he exalts it most highly (Ro 6:3). He baptized some first converts; and would have baptized more, but that his and the apostles' peculiar work was to preach the GospelJamieson, Fausset and Brown, Commentary, on 1 Corinthians 1:17 (1871)
if he had not been sent at all to baptize, it would have been unlawful for him to have administered baptism to any person whatever; but his sense is, that baptism was not the chief and principal business he was sent aboutJohn Gill, Exposition of the Bible, on 1 Corinthians 1:17 (1746–1763)