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.
