# What shall they do that are baptized for the dead?



## Turtle (May 14, 2011)

I have never been satisfied with the various explanations for the question: "What does it mean to "baptize the dead"? It dawned on me to first attempt to answer the question that Paul put forward.. _"What shall they do....?"_ Who "_they_" are is key to resolving the issue and it is readily apparent in the context of the whole argument being made in 1 Corr. Ch 15.

I found it important to note that Paul employs _reductio ad absurdum_ frequently throughout -- it is the method of disproving a proposition by showing that the inevitable consequences lead to an absurd conclusion.

Paul was countering the proposition made by some Corinthians who said, “There is no resurrection from the dead.” (1 Corr 15:12)

He lays out multiple_ reductio ad absurdum_ arguments that show the inevitable, absurd consequences of their false proposition. With each verse he shows an increasing absurdity that must be admitted if one were to accept the proposition that there is no resurrection from the dead.

“If there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not raised” (15:13). He expects his readers to readily acknowledge the absurdity to say Christ is not raised.

If Christ is not risen then our preaching is in vain (15:14). This too is absurd.

If Christ is not raised then we are continuing to be false witnesses (15:15). Absurd again…

If Christ is not raised we are yet in our sins (15:17). Absurd..

If Christ is not raised we perish forever since there is no hope of a resurrection (15:18). Absurd..

If there is no hope of a resurrection then why should we accept being reviled by non-believers and treated as the filth of the world, the offsoucring of all things (1 Corr. 4:12)? We are most miserable, because we don’t even have hope of something better after this miserable life. We will just perish after being the filth of the world (15:19). 

In verses 20-28 Paul departs from arguing the absurd and declares Christ’s resurrection and the promise that all things shall be subdued unto to Christ. In other words, it is not in vain that we preach a resurrected Christ. It is not in vain that we have faith in a resurrected Christ. It was not in vain that we are baptized for a resurrected Christ, and that we suffer for a resurrected Christ.

Paul reverts to his method of _reductio ad absurdum_ in 15:29, and it is apparent that he does so if the ellipsis is noted. The omitted phrases are understood by the context of the argument against those who say there is no resurrection, i.e. that Christ is dead. “Else what shall they [who deny the resurrection] do which are baptized for the [Christ who they say is] dead, if the dead rise not at all [as they claim]? Why are they then baptized for [Christ who is among] the dead [as they argue]?” 

What shall they do (based on their absurd arguments). Their absurd argument leads to the conclusion that we all should “eat and drink for tomorrow we die” (15:32). 

The gospel which Paul preached (15:1) would not lead us to conclude we should “eat and drink.” Those who propose there is no resurrection of the dead corrupt themselves and others to the point where their faith is pointless and it leads to revelry. “Evil communications (denying the resurrection of the dead) corrupts good manners.”(15:33)

The rest of chapter 15 is a vigorous call to “awake to righteousness and sin not,” (i.e. what the Christian should do) and goes on to lay out the motivation, the sure hope of the resurrection, the hope of immortality, and the hope of “victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (15:57). The hope was the reason Paul could stand in jeopardy every hour (15:30) and how he could endure dying daily (15:31).

Is not the real value of a passage contained in discovering the instruction of what it is we should do, and being encouraged by the arguments and helps to aid our faithfulness? It wasn't enough that Paul merely spoke about the resurrection, but he went on to encourage us to what that then means we are to do. 

The contrasting questions summarize the chapter according to what we should do. 

What shall they do who are baptized for the dead [the dead Christ, as the false teachers must admit they argue]?” There is no resurrection, so eat and drink for tomorrow we die.

What shall we do who are baptized for the living [the resurrected Christ]? We who have borne the image of the earthy will bear the image of the heavenly. This corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality to inherit the kingdom of God. “Therefore my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.” For we will inherit eternal life. (15:53).


----------



## discipulo (May 14, 2011)

They....are the Mormons, they've been around for a long time  

Sorry, must be the influence of Moroni on the weather report, never mind....


----------



## Turtle (May 14, 2011)

discipulo said:


> They....are the Mormons, they've been around for a long time
> 
> Sorry, must be the influence of Moroni on the weather report, never mind....


 Perhaps you are joking, but there are serious proposals, even back to	Tertullian, that are in favor of the proxy baptism interpretation. 

It is agreed that Paul expected his readers to know of whom he spoke, i.e. it is agreed he used an ellipsis. The various conflicting interpretations arise from the different conclusions regarding the ellipsis. Some commentators have proposed that “they” are people who are baptized for others who are dead, a proxy if you will, as the Mormons. However this proposition introduces an absurdity to Paul’s argument that would otherwise be logical.

Paul’s argument in chapter 15 was against those who said there is no resurrection, and his method was to introduce compounding absurdities of belief based on their premise that there is no resurrection. In other words, he argues absurd hypotheticals based on their faulty premise, and disproves their premise by showing the absurd conclusions it leads to. Its logical end is revelry. 

Is Paul asking a question that reveals the absurdity of those who deny the resurrection or is he asking a question that reveals the absurdity of those who affirm the resurrection? Of those who deny it!

If “they” are baptized as proxies for dead people then “they” believe in the efficacy of baptism and affirm the resurrection (rather than deny it). Thus Paul’s question would be, “What shall “they” (who believe in the resurrection and are proxies) do.. what shall “they” do? Well of course “they” should be baptized for as many dead people as possible. This interpretation eviscerates Paul’s logical _reductio ad absurdum_ argument which counters those who said there is no resurrection, and actually makes Paul the one who is now absurd because he is introducing confusing baptism practices about unknown people who believe in the resurrection (though he said nothing about them before and he rushes on without explaining why he brought them up—if he in fact did, as the Mormons might argue). Why allegedly introduce an enigmatic baptism by folks who ostensibly believe in the resurrection, when he is in the middle of an argument to refute those who deny the resurrection? Paul’s argument against those who deny the resurrection is not helped by introducing a novel example of people who believe in the resurrection through proxy baptisms. I don't think he did.

Bryan


----------



## Peairtach (May 14, 2011)

What about children of believing women who died in childbirth which children were baptised because of the professed faith of their now dead parent? 

*Robert L. Dabney's view on it*


> Baptism for the Dead.
> (Appeared in the Christian Observer, February 3, 1897; vol. 84:5, pg. 10.)
> The instructive and almost exhaustive treatise of Dr. Beattie
> upon 1 Cor. 15:29 suggests still another explanation which
> ...


----------



## Turtle (May 14, 2011)

Richard, thanks for your reply. We have to make a choice. Is Paul 1) arguing as a fool, so to speak, or 2) is he introducing an enigmatic baptism? 

In other words, does Paul 1) expect the reader to answer the question according to the premise that there is no resurrection from the dead, which is the premise of the opponent, in order to prove the absurd conclusion, or 2) are we to try to make sense of why he is introducing an enigmatic baptism at such an inopportune time in his argument, with an uncertain purpose?

If we observe that he is using the _absurd_ method then his argument is at least valid. 

How does introducing an enigmatic baptism add a valid construction to his argument against those who deny the resurrection? Seriously, how does it fit the argument? What point does it address? Its seems to be hanging by itself and adds nothing to disproving the opponents premise. 

Nearly all the commentators try to explain an enigmatic baptism being performed by those who ostensibly do not deny there is a resurrection of the dead. I believe the confusion arises out of attempting to make sense out of Paul’s intentionally absurd logic. The question "What shall they do…?” is not affirming Paul’s argument in favor of the resurrection, but rather it is multiplying the absurdity of those who deny the resurrection.

It is not possible to make sense of a question that was intentionally meant to show the irrational (unless we point out that it is supposed to show that those who deny the resurrection from the dead make no sense!).


_Else what shall they _[who deny the resurrection] _do which are baptized for the dead _[Christ], [since Christ is dead] _if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the_ [Christ who is] _dead_ (because if Christ is dead their faith is in vain and their baptism is pointless)? 30_And why stand we in jeopardy every hour_ (because if Christ is dead, there is no resurrection and it is pointless for us to persevere in tribulations as followers of a “savior” who is a mere man who died and is still dead, if the dead rise not)? 31_I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord_ [who is resurrected], _I die daily _(taking up my cross with the hope in the resurrected Christ). 32_If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus _(which my opponent would argue I have done since he says Christ was a mere man who died and is not raised), _what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not?_ (oh foolish motivation that I had, if I speak as a fool and agree with my opponent. Let me answer as a fool... let us all speak as fools for a moment and agree with those who deny the resurrection from the dead)_ let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die._


The chapter began with some of them among the Corinthians who said there is no resurrection from the dead (15:12). Paul then provided a compounding review of their absurdity and then showed the result of what we will all end up doing if we accept their premise. And he follows it with an admonition... "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. "Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God:"

The rest of chapter 15 goes on to provide the motivation for the next admonition.. "Be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord."

The confusion and effort spent trying to discover the meaning of an enigmatic baptism obscures the real point of the whole chapter. Paul examines the foolish saying that there is no resurrection and proves the resulting revelry, and then contrasts that with the glorious hope, the calling, and the difficult but warranted perseverance, which is the privilege of those who believe in the resurrection of the One who will bring it all to fruition. 

Bryan


----------

