Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
For many years I have long pondered and been puzzled by 1 Corinthians 15:29. The interpretation as you likely know is readily admitted to be mysterious and faithful commentators often differ. I was pleasantly surprised today to come upon Brakel’s discussion of the matter in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, Vol. II.
Brakel devotes a relatively lengthy section on expositing 1 Corinthians 15:29. I recommend the full section and will give it below, but first I will just quote a few shorter snippets. According to Brakel, the key to understanding Paul is to rightly understand the reformed view of baptism being a Seal, particularly a seal of resurrection (spiritual and bodily). Today was the first time I had heard the view espoused by Brakel. He outlines 5 common views (he calls conjectures), which I had previously read and studied. He then lays down answers to each of the 5 conjectures and lastly espouses his own view. To be honest, the explanation of Brakel makes the most sense to me. I am hoping some Greek nerds can weigh in as well. I hope you find this section as fascinating as I did. Brakel’s view seems to eliminate all of the difficulties I have with the other prominent explanations.
I recommend the full section and will give it last, but first I will just quote a few shorter snippets.
A good initial reminder, pg. 511
A brief summary of Brakel’s Conclusion, pg. 516 (the full section has his detailed argument)
Brakel devotes a relatively lengthy section on expositing 1 Corinthians 15:29. I recommend the full section and will give it below, but first I will just quote a few shorter snippets. According to Brakel, the key to understanding Paul is to rightly understand the reformed view of baptism being a Seal, particularly a seal of resurrection (spiritual and bodily). Today was the first time I had heard the view espoused by Brakel. He outlines 5 common views (he calls conjectures), which I had previously read and studied. He then lays down answers to each of the 5 conjectures and lastly espouses his own view. To be honest, the explanation of Brakel makes the most sense to me. I am hoping some Greek nerds can weigh in as well. I hope you find this section as fascinating as I did. Brakel’s view seems to eliminate all of the difficulties I have with the other prominent explanations.
I recommend the full section and will give it last, but first I will just quote a few shorter snippets.
A good initial reminder, pg. 511
Everyone chooses an opinion, not because he is convinced that it expresses the correct meaning, but only because he knows of no better one. Being currently engaged in expounding this letter for the congregation, we have come to this verse, and this gives us the opportunity to consider these words somewhat more carefully so that we may discern their correct meaning.
A brief summary of Brakel’s Conclusion, pg. 516 (the full section has his detailed argument)
Because of these three arguments it is an irrefutable fact that baptism seals the bodily resurrection of the dead. If we apply them to this text, the argument of the apostle is as follows: If there were no resurrection from the dead, one would be baptized in vain and baptism would not seal the resurrection of the dead. However, one is not baptized in vain; baptism does seal the resurrection of the dead, and thus, the resurrection of the dead is a certainty. It now remains to respond to two more difficulties.
Last edited: