1 Corinthians 1:17 CSB
[17] For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel — not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ will not be emptied of its effect.
If Hebrews 13:17 is the scariest verse in the whole of scripture for a pastor – and I maintain it is the one that makes me break out in cold sweats when I read it – then 1 Corinthians 1:17 (and the surrounding context) is one of the more comforting ones. For Hebrews demands that pastor-elders must account to the Lord for how they have cared for his sheep, which is a hard calling. 1 Corinthians 1:17, by contrast, affirms that our rubbish and ineloquent preaching is actually to the benefit of the gospel, which is helpful and encouraging for ineloquent, not very wise, pastors like me.
The specific issue Paul is addressing in 1 Corinthians 1 concerns divisions in the church. The Corinthians were forming factions and quarrelling with one another based on their preferred leader. Some seem to have been arguing that whoever baptised them meant they were associated with that leader and were then claiming some sort of status-by-association as a result. The end result was a great degree of arguments, division and one-upmanship in the church.
Paul’s solution to this problem begins with an instruction to the church (1 Cor 1:10) that they should agree in “what they say”. Paul goes on to tell them they are clearly divided in what they say, noting some are saying ‘I belong to Paul’, others ‘I belong to Peter’, others still ‘I belong to Apollos’. Rather than dividing over what they say about these things, they ought to reach the same understanding and conviction and agree about what to say; namely, that they all really belong to Christ.
Paul then addresses the issue of seeking status based on whoever baptised them. He notes that he was not crucified for anyone and nobody was baptised in his name. Paul gives thanks that he didn’t baptise many of them at all so that he can’t be co-opted into their wrongheaded attempts to one-up others. Having noted he baptised Crispus and Gaius, Paul – after saying so – either remembers or was reminded that he also baptised Stephanus’ household and then, covering himself, says he can’t remember if there were any others. The overarching point is that whoever conducted their baptism simply isn’t that important, so much so that Paul can’t even remember the ones he did! If the person conducting a baptism isn’t important, one-upmanship based on the leader who baptised them is foolish.
This is the context in which Paul makes his comment in 1 Cor 1:17. He is not saying in this verse that baptism is unimportant. Rather, he is saying the one who conducted the baptism is insignifcant. What really matters is that the members of the church were baptised and what the baptism symbolises and means. Rather than being sent to baptise, Paul insists he was sent by Christ to preach the gospel, the meaning of and belief in which is more important still.
But Paul then heads off another possible line for one-upmanship. If Paul was sent to preach the gospel, perhaps he is significant after all? Not so, says Paul. I was not sent with eloquent wisdom. Aha! Then maybe Apollos is most significant, given he was a very powerful preacher compared to Paul’s less compelling style. But still no, because Paul’s unimpressive speaking, yet having been sent by Christ to preach the gospel, simply shows that the power of the gospel is not in the speaker and his gifts but in the message itself.
That is not Paul throwing shade at Apollos (or Peter). He seems quite careful to make sure neither Apollos nor Peter are labelled as better or worse than him, which was at the heart of many of the divisions. Nor is it Paul saying boring preachers are somehow better than interesting ones or rhetorically gifted speakers are not really as good as more pedestrian ones. His point is that those gifts and abilities are not primarily where the power lies. The power lies in the gospel message itself, in the word, not in the speaking abilities of the one delivering the message.
The Corinthians – as we find out later in the letter – tended to be overly impressed by rhetorically gifted, showy preachers. But powerful orators aren’t necessarily good preachers and unshowy ones aren’t necessarily bad. The point is that the power is in the Word, in the message and not in the speaker. Paul is simply saying this is made clearer when – in the face of what you might expect – the gospel takes great effect despite it being delivered by an otherwise not very impressive preacher (like Paul).
Which, if that is what Paul really is saying, is great comfort to pedestrian, unimpressive, not very showy preachers like me. The power is not in our showiness. The power is not in our rhetorical skill and oratory. The power is in the gospel message itself. So long as we are faithfully proclaiming the gospel and properly teaching what the scriptures actually say, the Word will do its work, not be emptied of its effect and will be seen to be the powerful message it is because clearly nobody will think the skill of the preacher is wot done it.
And I take great comfort in that.