1 Cor.15:29 Baptized for the Dead

[baron]

I hope this is the right place to post this.

Today I found some old copies of Bibliotheca Sacra this one from October-December 1995. Read a article by John D. Reaume regarding this verse. His conclusion he states: Therefore only three of the more than two hundred interpretations remain strong possibilities.

1) Translates "huper" with the sense of "in the place of" as in new believers being baptized to take the place of dead Christians.

2) Translates "huper" with the final sense: "in order to be reunited with their loved ones at the resurrection".

3) Translates "huper" with the sense of "because of": new believers being baptized "because of the influence of deceased Christians".

Perhaps the most plausible interpretation is the third option since it makes sense without a significant ellipsis. He uses Paul as an example Acts 7 being influenced by Stephen's testimony and death.

The third view makes sense and I did not know that there were more than two hundred interpreations.

 

[larryjf]

It could be:
The kind of baptism that the Jews would undergo upon touching a dead body, picturing resurrection from the dead.
The kind of baptism that a dead body itself underwent in the cleaning and preparing of it for burial. The inference would be, why put so much care into the dead if they are not to rise again?

 

[Peairtach]

It could be:
The kind of baptism that the Jews would undergo upon touching a dead body, picturing resurrection from the dead.
The kind of baptism that a dead body itself underwent in the cleaning and preparing of it for burial. The inference would be, why put so much care into the dead if they are not to rise again?

But why would an Apostle mention these, and in a letter to Corinthians rather than Jews?

1 Cor.15:29 Baptized for the Dead
I hope this is the right place to post this.

Today I found some old copies of Bibliotheca Sacra this one from October-December 1995. Read a article by John D. Reaume regarding this verse. His conclusion he states: Therefore only three of the more than two hundred interpretations remain strong possibilities.

1) Translates "huper" with the sense of "in the place of" as in new believers being baptized to take the place of dead Christians.

2) Translates "huper" with the final sense: "in order to be reunited with their loved ones at the resurrection".

3) Translates "huper" with the sense of "because of": new believers being baptized "because of the influence of deceased Christians".

Perhaps the most plausible interpretation is the third option since it makes sense without a significant ellipsis. He uses Paul as an example Acts 7 being influenced by Stephen's testimony and death.

The third view makes sense and I did not know that there were more than two hundred interpreations.

This still happens in paedo (Covenantal)baptist circles, e.g. if the believing mother of the child to be baptised, dies in childbirth. Her child is holy because of the faith she exercised in life.

The child is to be baptised for the dead (mother). If the mother is so dead that she is not going to rise again, then such baptisms are an obvious example of a contradiction created by non-belief in the resurrection.

 

[larryjf]

It could be:
The kind of baptism that the Jews would undergo upon touching a dead body, picturing resurrection from the dead.
The kind of baptism that a dead body itself underwent in the cleaning and preparing of it for burial. The inference would be, why put so much care into the dead if they are not to rise again?

But why would an Apostle mention these, and in a letter to Corinthians rather than Jews?

Because the early church and the Jewish community were not really segregated as we see today, rather the early church was the fulfillment of judaism and seen as part of the Jewish religion early on.
It is thought that many Jewish practices carried over into Christian churches in the early apostolic era.

Besides, i doubt that it was only the Jews who had procedures for cleaning oneself after touching a dead body...or preparing the dead for burial.

 

[Peairtach]

Because the early church and the Jewish community were not really segregated as we see today, rather the early church was the fulfillment of judaism and seen as part of the Jewish religion early on.
It is thought that many Jewish practices carried over into Christian churches in the early apostolic era.

Besides, i doubt that it was only the Jews who had procedures for cleaning oneself after touching a dead body...or preparing the dead for burial.

The kind of baptism that the Jews would undergo upon touching a dead body, picturing resurrection from the dead.

Was the Jewish element in Corinth strong?

Wouldn't this also be an example of the Apostle Paul giving implicit recognition to "taste, not, touch not, handle not" laws, which he elsewhere says have passed away, by connecting them with the resurrection from the dead effected by Christ's resurrection. we know from Colossians and Galatians and elsewhere, that although he believed in being as one under the law to those under the law, he didn't want to encourage the notion that any Christian should feel obliged before God to obey anything that was of the ceremonies and that wasn't moral.

These were types that had passed away with Christ's resurrection, not to be given implicit support by using continuing and erroneous New Covenant practice of them as an argument for the resurrection.

The kind of baptism that a dead body itself underwent in the cleaning and preparing of it for burial. The inference would be, why put so much care into the dead if they are not to rise again?

This is hardly a sound theological argument for the Apostle Paul to make from cultural practice. The Corinthians could say that they liked to do this to the bodies, while other peoples weren't so careful. Did this mean that the Apostle was arguing that the other peoples' dead weren't going to rise?

Besides it talks about people being baptised for the dead, not about the dead themselves being baptised.