# What is your take on 1 Cor 15:29?



## CalvinandHodges (Mar 21, 2008)

Hay:

1 Cor. 15:29 and being "Baptized for the dead"?

Thanks,

-CH


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm interested in these responses as well. It's funny because I'm teaching on 1 Cor 15 and just read the Hendricksen commentary yesterday. His answer? He's not sure:



> *29**. Otherwise what shall they do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized in their behalf?*
> Paul now addresses the practice of those people who are being baptized for the dead. He confronts only those few people who observed this practice, for he uses the pronoun _they_ and not _you_ in this text. We assume that Paul vigorously denounced such actions; there is no evidence that churches in the apostolic era ever practiced baptism for the dead.
> In the third century, Tertullian comments on this verse and remarks that Paul disapproved of the practice of being baptized for the dead. One hundred years later, Chrysostom described a bizarre procedure of some Marcionite dissenters who baptized a person who had suddenly died without the sign of baptism. He, too, voiced his disapproval and even declared the Marcionite practice superstitious.78
> Throughout the centuries, explanations for verse 29 have been numerous and varied; many of them concern the phrases _baptized for the dead_ and _baptized in their behalf_. In spite of all the exegesis, a satisfactory solution appears to be elusive. I am not presenting a résumé of every possible suggestion; instead I mention several attempts to clarify the text.
> ...


----------



## danmpem (Mar 21, 2008)

This is probably just showing how ill-read I am in my commentaries, but I always thought Paul was using the Corinthian practice of baptizing the dead as evidence that the Corinthians already had a conviction in a future resurrection, though their related practices were false.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 21, 2008)

That's sort of how I take it too Dan. I don't think he's necessarily teaching that the baptism for the dead is necessarily appropriate but mentions it (it seems) to say: "Well, if you guys don't believe in the resurrection then why would you be baptizing for the dead...."


----------



## mshingler (Apr 6, 2008)

I preached through 1Cor. 15 very recently. I think this about the most difficult verse in the epistle to understand. After a good deal of study, I came away with the feeling that he may be referring to people who were saved on account of the testimonies of Christians who had since died - perhaps especially because they faced death with confidence and courage and hope. In other words, the testimony of these Christians, no longer living, was instrumental in the conversion of those who were being "baptized" here. The argument, then, would be that the hope with which these Christians faced death would be an empty hope, were there no resurrection of the dead, and, accordingly, those who were converted/baptized because of that hope were miserable deluded. They were going to be ready to give up there earthly lives for no good reason.


----------



## Herald (Apr 6, 2008)

Since this is only mentioned once in scripture, and nowhere else put forth as normative, I would lean more towards Dan's explanation. Paul had proven to be an opportunist when he preached the gospel, and the resurrection is certainly an inherent part of the gospel. He did the same in Athens:



> Acts 17:22-23 22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 "For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, 'TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.' Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you.


Paul wasn't defending altars to unknown gods, but he did take advantage of the opportunity that presented itself to proclaim Christ.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 6, 2008)

R.S. Candlish gives quite a discussion of this in _Life in a Risen Saviour_. This was the answer I inclined to until I read a small book on hermeneutics written in Spanish by Ernesto Trenchard: alas! I neglected to write it down, have quite forgotten it, and no longer own the book.



> The first and chief puzzle is in the twenty-ninth verse : "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" What is meant by being baptized for the dead?
> The idea naturally suggested by the original phrase is that of a vicarious baptism; the baptism of one person in the place, or room, or stead of another.
> It is known to have been at one time a practice in the church, if a convert to Christianity happened to die unbaptized, that a Christian brother might volunteer to be his substitute and representative, and to have the baptismal rite administered to him, on behalf of his deceased friend. This was held to make up for the loss which the dead man might sustain in consequence of his not having been himself baptized, while yet alive. It was held to be equivalent to his having been in his own person made partaker of the initiatory sacrament of the church. It was a posthumous baptism by proxy.
> Some interpreters of high name, including one of the most recent and most eminent, have been inclined to understand Paul as alluding to that practice; and they have admired his allusion to it as an instance of the tenderness with which he dealt with a usage, to say the least of it, of dangerous tendency, as well as of the skill with which he turned it to argumentative or oratorical account in pleading with those among whom it may have partially prevailed. Out of your own mouth I argue with you. There are some of you who have received baptism as personating and, to use a familiar phrase, standing in the shoes of the dead. For what good end did you do so, even on your own theory of what such a procedure might mean and might effect, if the dead rise not and survive not at all?
> ...



From Google Books.


----------



## MW (Apr 6, 2008)

I faintly remember contributing to another thread on this subject. At any rate, I take it that "baptism" is used figuratively, as when our Lord speaks of his death as a baptism. "Baptism for the dead" amounts to willingly giving up on this life to pass into the state of the dead. This fits in well with what follows regarding the apostle risking his life. Both would be in vain if the dead are not raised.


----------



## shackleton (Apr 6, 2008)

The best argument I have heard for it was by John Robbins on a lecture about logic. He stated that it was an _ad hominem _ argument, it went like this; if you are baptizing for the dead you must believe in the resurrection otherwise what would be the point in baptizing them? He was not arguing whether or not baptism for the dead was plausible, (0r some practice we no longer have any evidence for) but since they did believe in it he used this against them as a way to prove the resurrection. He used their argument against them. 

I hope this is clear. If you understand the principle of an _ad hominem_ argument apply it to this.


----------



## holyfool33 (Jun 8, 2008)

It could have been a superstious practice that the Corinthians created I dont really know it is used as a proof text by mormons for there doctrine of baptiseing by proxy people who have passed I got baptized 15 times for dead people when I went to the Detroit Temple.


----------



## AV1611 (Jun 8, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay:
> 
> 1 Cor. 15:29 and being "Baptized for the dead"?
> 
> ...



Gill:

*1Co 15:29 - Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead,....* The apostle here returns to his subject, and makes use of new arguments to prove the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and reasons for it from the baptism of some persons; but what is his sense, is not easy to be understood, or what rite and custom, or thing, or action he refers to; which must, be either Jewish baptism, or Christian baptism literally taken, or baptism in a figurative and metaphorical sense. Some think that he refers to some one or other of the divers baptisms of the Jews; see Heb 9:10 and particularly to the purification of such who had touched a dead body, which was done both by the ashes of the red heifer burnt, and by bathing himself in water; and which, the Jews say, intimated לתחיית המתים, "the resurrection of the dead": wherefore such a right was needless, if there is no resurrection; to strengthen this sense, a passage in Ecclesiasticus 34:25 is produced, βαπτιζομενος απο νεκρου, "he that washeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing?" but the phrase there used is different; it is not said, he that baptizeth or washeth himself for the dead, but from the dead, to cleanse himself from pollution received by the touch of a dead body: it is also observed, that the Jews, as well as other nations, have used various rites and ceremonies about their dead, and among the rest, the washing of dead bodies before interment; see Act 9:37 and this by some is thought to be what is here referred to; and the reasoning is, if there is no resurrection of the dead, why all this care of a dead body? why this washing of it? it may as well be put into the earth as it is, since it will rise no more; but how this can be called a baptism for the dead, I see not: 

rather therefore Christian baptism, or the ordinance of water baptism is here respected; and with regard to this, interpreters go different ways: some think the apostle has in view a custom of some, who when their friends died without baptism, used to be baptized in their room; this is said to be practised by the Marcionites in Tertullian's time, and by the Corinthians in the times of the Apostle John; but it does not appear to have been in use in the times of the Apostle Paul; and besides, if it had been, as it was a vain and superstitious one, he would never have mentioned it without a censure, and much less have argued from it; nor would his argument be of any weight, since it might be retorted, that whereas such persons were mistaken in using such a practice, they might be also in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead: others are of opinion that such persons are intended, called Clinics, who deferred their baptism till they came upon their death beds, and then had it administered to them; but as this practice was not in being in the apostle's time, and was far from being a laudable one; and though the persons to whom it was administered were upon the point of death, and nearer the dead than the living, and were as good as dead, and might be intended by them, for their advantage, when dead and not living; yet it must be a great force and strain on words and things, to reckon this a being baptized for the dead: others would have the words rendered, "over the dead"; and suppose that reference is had to the Christians that had their "baptisteries" in their places of burial, and by being baptized here, testified their faith and hope of the resurrection of the dead; but this was rather a being baptized among the dead, than over them, or for them; and moreover it is not certain, that they did make use of such places to baptize in; to which may be added, that the primitive Christians had not so early burying grounds of their own: others would have the meaning to be, that they were baptized for their dead works, their sins, to wash them away; but this baptism does not of itself, and no otherwise than by leading the faith of persons to the blood of Christ, which alone cleanses from sin, original and actual; nor is this appropriate to the apostle's argument. 

Others imagine, that he intends such as were baptized, and added to the church, and so filled up the places of them that were dead; but the reason from hence proving the resurrection of the dead is not very obvious: those seem to be nearer the truth of the matter, who suppose that the apostle has respect to the original practice of making a confession of faith before baptism, and among the rest of the articles of it, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, upon the belief of which being baptized, they might be said to be baptized for the dead; that is, for, or upon, or in the faith and profession of the resurrection of the dead, and therefore must either hold this doctrine, or renounce their baptism administered upon it; to which may be added another sense of the words, which is, that baptism performed by immersion, as it was universally in those early times, was a lively emblem and representation of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and also both of the spiritual and corporeal resurrection of the saints. Now if there is no resurrection, why is such a symbol used? it is useless and insignificant; I see nothing of moment to be objected to these two last senses, which may be easily put together, but this; that the apostle seems to point out something that was done or endured by some Christians only; whereas baptism, upon a profession of faith in Christ, and the resurrection from the dead, and performed by immersion, as an emblem of it, was common to all; and therefore he would rather have said, what shall we do, or we all do, who are baptized for the dead? I am therefore rather inclined to think that baptism is used here in a figurative and metaphorical sense, for afflictions, sufferings, and martyrdom, as in Mat 20:22 and it was for the belief, profession, and preaching of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, both of Christ and of the saints, that the apostles and followers of Christ endured so much as they did; the first instance of persecution after our Lord's ascension was on this account. The Apostles Peter and John, were laid hold on and put in prison for preaching this doctrine; the reproach and insult the Apostle Paul met with at Athens were by reason of it; and it was for this that he was called in question and accused of the Jews; nor was there anyone doctrine of Christianity more hateful and contemptible among the Heathens than this was. Now the apostle's argument stands thus, what is, or will become of those persons who have been as it were baptized or overwhelmed in afflictions and sufferings, who have endured so many and such great injuries and indignities, and have even lost their lives for asserting this doctrine, 

*if the dead rise not at all?* how sadly mistaken must such have been! 

*why are they then baptized for the dead?* how imprudently have they acted! and what a weak and foolish part do they also act, who continue to follow them! in what a silly manner do they expose themselves to danger, and throw away their lives, if this doctrine is not true! which sense is confirmed by what follows: the Alexandrian copy, and some others, read, "for them", and so the Vulgate Latin version; and the Ethiopic in both clauses reads, "why do they baptize?"


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 8, 2008)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hay:
> 
> 1 Cor. 15:29 and being "Baptized for the dead"?
> 
> ...


----------

