Why Did Paul Water Baptize, Since he was not sent to Baptize?

 I have heard the question often asked, but never answered to my satisfaction, as to why Paul water baptized in light of his statement in 1 Cor 1:17 that states he was not sent to baptize.  Some of the answers I have heard in answer to this question include:

 

"Paul was ignorant about water baptism early on in his ministry, but he later understood God did not send him to baptize."  

"Paul baptized because that is what the other apostles were doing, but later on Paul got the revelation of the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5." 

"We don't know why Paul water baptized in light of what is said in 1 Cor 1:17, because the Bible not tell us."

 

The first two reasons above do not make any sense in light of what the Bible record says.  Paul was not ignorant early in his ministry about baptism, for he says in the past tense "I was sent not to baptize."  The second reason listed above makes no Biblical sense either, because Paul knew from the beginning that he had a gospel unique from the 12 (Gal 1:11-12).  Of the reasons above the last one listed is the most Biblical and honest, although I am not satisfied with that answer either.  I believe a deeper dive into the Scriptures can shed some more light on answering the question.

In the remainder of this blog post I would like to offer another reason as to why Paul water baptized, although 1 Cor 1:17 says Paul was not sent to baptize.  First let us consider the verses that come before 1 Cor 1:17 to get the completed context as to Paul's discussion on water baptism.  Many of the legalists that forbid water baptism altogether in the age of grace only quote 1Cor 1:17, and thus give people the impression that is Paul's only statement about water baptism, and that Paul is totally against the practice.  When one reads the verses that come before verse 17 it becomes obvious that Paul is not against water baptism, and he did not forbid water baptism.  Paul did not thank God that he baptized few people, because he was against the practice or was not sent to baptize, but because he was concerned people would say he had baptized in his own name (see verse 15 below).

1 Corinthians 1:13-17 states:

[13] Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
[14] I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
[15] Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
[16] And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
[17] 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.

I think the key to understanding "For Christ sent me not to baptize" is to consider, who was Paul sent to?  Although the Bible says Paul would be a chosen vessel to bear Christ's name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel (Acts 9:15), there is only one group of people the Bible says Paul was specifically sent to, and that was to the GENTILES!  Acts 22:21 states, "And he said unto me, Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles."  Acts 26:17 states, " Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee."  An apostle is defined as "one who is sent."  Romans 11:13 speaking of Paul says, "For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office."  The fact is Paul bore Christ's name to Jews, Proselytes, and Gentiles, but the Bible says Paul's sending was to one group i.e. the Gentiles!  Why is this fact important?  The reason this is important is because this narrows down Paul's "sent not to baptize" to a specific group of people, and that is the Gentiles.  Paul was sent to the Gentiles, and he was not sent to baptize them but preach the gospel to them.  What gospel did Paul preach to them?  The gospel of the uncircumcision (Gal 1:11-12 & Gal 2:7).  Remember it was agreed by the Apostles, including Paul, in Acts 15 that the Gentiles did not have to observe the ceremonial ordinances of the Law, but they were to abstain from from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication (Acts 15:29).  It is important to note that nowhere in Acts 15 does Paul tell the other apostles that they need to start teaching the Jews that they need to stop observing the Law.  I believe the reason for this, based on my study of Acts, is God continued to allow Israel time to repent of their unbelief all the way through the book of Acts, and if they had repented they would be grafted back in the olive tree (Rom 11:23) and the Kingdom would be set up in the first century.  Remember during the Kingdom Age the Jews would continue observing parts of the Law (see Ezek 40-48 & Col 2:16-17) and would be a witness of God's Light to the Gentiles as a Kingdom of Priests and a holy nation (Ex 19:6 & 1 Pet 2:9).

If one accepts that the Kingdom offer is still on the table in the book of Acts then one can understand Paul practicing water baptism.  Water baptism would be necessary for the Jews and proselytes to act as a priestly nation during the Kingdom Age.  It appears most of those baptized by Paul according to the Bible record were either Jews or proselytes to Judaism (there may be a few exceptions like the Philippian jailer and this will be discussed later), and their baptism was necessary for them to be part of the holy nation and kingdom of priests.

To sum up my answer as to why Paul baptized, although not sent to baptize, Paul baptized mostly people he was not sent to i.e. Jews and proselytes.  He baptized them because they would be part of the holy nation and be a kingdom of priests had Israel repented of unbelief during the Acts period (Romans 11:23)  Paul was not sent to baptize the people he was sent to, that is the Gentiles.  What about the Philippian jailer, wasn't he a Gentile?  The Philippian jailer in Acts 16 could have also been a proselyte to Judaism just as Lydia, and thus Paul would have baptized him with the hope that he would also be part of the holy nation and kingdom of priests.  If the Philippian jailer was an unbelieving Gentile, without being a proselyte, then he would be an exception to my answer to why Paul water baptized.  However, if it is true that the Philippian Jailer was not a Jew or proselyte, Paul did not violate a command in water baptizing a Gentile.  Remember what was said earlier about 1 Cor 1:17, that "not sent to baptize" does not equate with being forbidden to baptize.  In fact water baptism was not just a legal requirement for the priestly nation of Israel, but it also served as a physical figure of salvation (see 1 Pet 3:21).  If the Philippian jailer (and also possibly Gaius & Stephanus) were unbelieving Gentiles, then they, after believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, were under no legal obligation to observe any ceremonial ordinances as Acts 15 states.  Water baptism was not one of the necessary things mentioned in Acts 15 to be observed by Gentiles so as not to offend the Jews, so the jailer did not have to be baptized for that reason either.  So if the jailer was a converted Gentile, then the only reason I can come up with from the Scriptures, is he voluntarily got  baptized in water to demonstrate in a figure (1 Pet 3:21) God's work of salvation in a lost sinner.

Do I have to take up Snakes to Prove my Salvation

Many use Mark 16 to teach that a believer in the dispensation of grace must have signs following to prove salvation.  Mark 16:17-20 states:

[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
[19] So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
[20] And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Click on the link below to find out if a believer must prove his salvation with signs in the dispensation of grace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAtVfuk-tsw&t=8s 

Can John 3:16 be used to Present the Gospel under Grace

The Last Pilcrow (Paragraph Mark) in the King James Bible

      There are several theories as to why there are no more paragraph marks (pilcrows) in the King James Bible after Acts 20:36.  Did the typesetters just run out of pilcrows at Acts 20:36?  Did the translators decide that the paragraph marks were not necessary for the remainder of the Bible?  Was God supernaturally involved in there being no more pilcrows after Acts 20:36?  Since I can't speak for the King James translators or for God, then I can not give a dogmatic answer to these questions.  I have read a few King James Bible believers that say something to the effect that God prevented more pilcrows from being used after Acts 20:36 to signify that doctrine is "fixed" at this point for the "church age."  I too am a King James Bible believer, but I can't dogmatically state this is the reason for no more pilcrows, but it is an interesting idea and one I am tempted to embrace.  

     If you have read some of my past blog posts, then you know I take an "Acts 20" position in contrast to the Acts 2, Mid Acts, and Acts 28 Dispensational positions.  If doctrine is fixed at Acts 20, then would it not make sense to take the "Acts 20" position?  My Acts 20 position in summary is Paul received a different gospel for the uncircumcision (Gentiles) as compared to the gospel of the circumcision during the Acts period.  Paul even describes this as being a time called the Dispensation of the Gospel (1 Cor 9:17).  I believe Israel still had a chance of repenting of their unbelief and receiving the Kingdom all the way through the book of Acts (see Rom 11:23).  Paul would go to the Jew first with the message of what the Messiah accomplished on the cross and he held out hope for the national salvation of Israel and the setting up of the Kingdom all the way through the Acts period.  His prayer was, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved" (Romans 10:1).  During Acts Paul went to the Jew first with this message, and when they rejected it he would then go to the Gentiles with the gospel of the uncircumcsion.  The gospel of the uncircumcision was the grace message of the cross for salvation, without having to keep the Law, but with the caveat that Gentiles had to observe a diet not offensive to the Jews (see Acts 15-16:4).  The Gentiles saved during the Acts period were graffed into Israel (Rom 11:1-24) and became "one body" with the saved Jews (1 Cor 12:13).  The saved Jews continued in their ceremonial observances of the Law, not for salvation, but for memorials which would be done in the Millennial Temple described in Ezekiel 40-48.  Remember if Israel had received their Messiah during the first century, then Millennial Kingdom would have also been setup during the first century and the saved Jews and the graffed in Gentiles would have enjoyed the Millennial Kingdom together as prophesied in the Old Testament prophets.  

     At Acts 20 Paul's Acts ministry to the Jew first in the synagogues ends.  It is also about this same time Paul writes the book of Romans and mentions the "mystery" for the first time (Rom 16:25), but he gives no details of what it entails until his prison epistles.  The reason no details of the mystery are given in Romans is because the nation of Israel has to reject one final time the Kingdom offer in Acts 28 before the Dispensation of the Mystery (Col 1:25-26) can begin.  In Acts 20, with the last pilcrow, Paul gives a message is to the Ephesians.  Guess where Paul gives the details of the Dispensation of the Mystery?  The prison Epistle to the Ephesians after the Acts period is over!  It is in Ephesians 2:19 that the Gentiles are said to be fellow citizens with the believing Jews.  It is in Ephesians 3:6 that the Gentiles are said to be fellowheirs with believing Jews.  The mystery was not just being in "one body" which was true during the Acts period.  The Dispensation of the Mystery made Gentiles "equals."  A "fellow" is an equal.  A fellow citizen has no more rights or privileges than another citizen.  During the Acts period the Gentiles were in "one body," but the Jews were first and had special privileges the Gentiles did not have.  The Gentiles were not equal to the Jews during the Acts period.  Also with the revelation of the mystery the Gentiles were no longer required to worry about offending the Jews with their diet (see Col 2:16).  With Israel being pronounced in judicial blindness at Acts 28, the details of the Mystery are finally given in the prison epistles of Ephesians and Colossians.  I don't believe a new body begins at Acts 28 like some teach, but I believe the existing "one body" of saved Jews and Gentiles from the Acts period come under a new dispensation called the Mystery.  

     I don't know how much stock we can put in definitions given by AI, but AI describes the pilcrow as being "used to signify a change in actions or a transition to a new event."  A change to a new event is certainly on the horizon at Acts 20:36.  During the time of Acts 20 Paul wrote the last pre-prison epistle, Romans, and mentions the "Mystery" without giving the details of what it meant.  Shortly after Acts 20 Israel will reject the gospel one last time, and with that Paul reveals the new dispensational "rules" of the mystery.   For me the Acts 20 Dispensational Position is much more consistent than the Acts 2 and Mid Acts positions in trying to reconcile what is said in the book of Acts and the pre-Acts 28 Epistles of Paul.  The Acts 20 position also provides a separation from the Acts 28 Dispensatonalists of which some fall into extreme positions such as soul sleep, rejecting the doctrine of hell, denying the Trinity, and discounting the importance of a local church.

Can John 1:17 Refer to the Dispensation of Grace?

      I just finished watching a fairly well known Mid Acts Dispensationalist (I want mention his name, so I can't be accused of trying to use his name to get people to read my blog) speak about errors in study Bibles, and he specifically referenced the 1917 Scofield Study Bible.  One of the so called "serious" errors he pointed out was the Scofield note # 5 at Genesis 1:28.  In that note Scofield lists the name of the different dispensations and gives a Bible reference for each.  This particular Mid Acts Dispensationalist says Scofield is in serious error by listing "Grace" with the Bible reference of John 1:17.  His argument is since the Dispensation of Grace was given to Paul, then John 1:17 could not refer to the Dispensation of Grace.  I don't think I see the "serious error" this brother believes Scofield made.  Scofield says John was written between 85-90 AD.  I personally think this is late, and I would date it before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.  As long as John 1:17 was written after Paul received the dispensation of Grace, then there is no error at all with the Scofield note.  Does this brother think that John never knew about the Dispensation of Grace?  Does this brother think Paul was the only one that could write about the Dispensation of Grace?  This brother, like many right dividers, says that our doctrine must only come from Romans through Philemon, and nothing else can be used to form our doctrinal statement.  One finds out very quickly that these particular believers have a serious problem of their own.  It is called inconsistency!

     The above brother I mentioned above who has a problem with John 1:17 referring to the Dispensation of Grace also has a video on "Does one have to be born again during the dispensation of grace?"  This brother's motto of only Romans through Philemon goes straight out the window at this point!  Guess what?  Paul never uses the term "born again!"  You can vainly search Romans through Philemon and the term is not there.  The term "born again" is only used three times in the King James Bible (John 3:3, John 3:7, and 1 Peter 1:23).  If you watch this video, then you will find out from this brother that it is fine to use the term "born again,"  although Paul never does.  In essence the non Pauline book of John is not good enough for this brother at John 1:17 to refer to the dispensation of Grace, but since he likes the term, born again, he will allow the John 3:3 and John 3:7 to apply to the Dispensation of Grace.  As a footnote, I have no problem using the term "born again" in a devotional way to refer to a saved person under Grace, but I would qualify it by saying John 3:3 and 3:7 are doctrinal references to Israel being born again in the future.  I believe a more Scriptural motto for Grace Believers would be, "All Scripture (Genesis to Revelation) is profitable for doctrine as long as it is rightly divided in light of the revelation of the mystery given to Paul in Ephesians and Colossians.