Ubiquitous Theories, Baptisms for the Dead?

[Turtle]

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? 1 Corr 15:29

Why is there an abundance of theories about 1 Corinthians 15:29? One PB poster provided a sampling of 10 possible interpretations here and another quoted a commentator that claimed over 200 different interpretations exist. Why are there so many theories?

I think the large number of theories are a natural effect caused by one common denominator (perhaps two). Maybe it is just stating the obvious, but the first common denominator is the assumption that Paul omits the identity of “they” that are baptized, i.e. “they” lacks a referent. Are we left to rely on theories of who “they” are? The second common denominator appears to be an assumption that the enigmatic baptism somehow affirms the resurrection (even though “baptism” also appears to lack a referent).

What do you think... Did Paul omit the identity for “they” that are baptized?

---------- Post added 05-17-2011 at 12:09 AM ---------- Previous post was 05-16-2011 at 11:55 PM ----------

The omission or inclusion of the referents has significant bearing on our ability to understand the meaning of v. 29 and has an impact on the chapter as a whole. Below is a table that proposes questions to compare the meaning of v. 29 and its impact on the chapter, based on the two possibilities.

I am interested in your analysis of the verse.

 

[VictorBravo]

Other.

Like Calvin, I am afraid of interpretations that strain my mind too far. Unlike Calvin, I do not think it is referring to people about to die.

Instead, I think it either refers to the same thing that Paul speaks about in Romans 6:3 ("Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?") or that it refers to baptisms figuratively, as in Matthew 20:22 "Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"

Either way, the argument seems straightforward enough. If I may hazard a homely paraphrase to what I think he is saying:

"We believe that Christ destroyed the last enemy, Death. He put all things under his feet, just as David said would happen in Psalm 110.

Otherwise, why do we make such a big deal over his death, and why are we so careful to be united to his death?

And why do we ourselves face death every day? Indeed, we die daily. In our frail, yet faithful, manner, We do drink of the cup our Saviour drank of and we do participate in his baptism."

 

[Turtle]

... If I may hazard a homely paraphrase to what I think he is saying:...

Certainly you can summarize what he is saying in verse 29, and I am willing to carefully consider it (along with all the other theories of what he was saying )

May I first make an observation? Paul asked a question. In v. 29, he did not make a statement.

Have any of the commentators answered his question: "What shall they do?" Has anybody said, "Oh, yes, they will do X, Y, and Z." Or, has anyone said, "Oh, yes, Paul told us exactly what they shall do: X, Y, and Z."

Here is an easy question. Consider the antithesis of Paul's question... What shall we do? We, that are baptized for the resurrected, what shall we do?

Bryan

 

[VictorBravo]

I was summarizing verses 27-31, not just 29. I was trying to present the passage as a contextual whole

Let me step back and try again. First, it is a letter. We should read it as if we know the author. Paul's readers knew him. They were familiar with his manner of teaching. And we have the chance to know him too because we can draw upon all of his letters.

Second, this letter is addressing a whole bunch of errors in the Corinthian church. Paul is clearly frustrated with them. He even apologizes for his harshness in his second letter to them. (2 Cor. 2:5). So it is good to keep in mind that Paul is speaking in a measured but frustrated rebuking manner.

Third, we see in Chapter 15 that some of the Corinthians doubt the resurrection. (1 Cor 15:12) This has to be over the top for Paul. He spent all that time with them, personally teaching them the doctrines of the Lord Jesus Christ. No doubt he emphasized the importance of Christ's death, and he no doubt emphasized the importance of baptism and the Lord's Supper.

So he goes away and the Corinthians fall into grievous error. They were disorderly in their worship. They apparently missed completely the solemnity of the Lord's Supper. There was open sin. And some of them were doubting the resurrection.

In response, Paul patiently reiterates the teaching of the resurrection in Chapter 15. Then he reaches the climax of what Christ has done: "he hath put all enemies under his feet. . . the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. . . ." (v. 25-28).

At this point you can see Paul break his measured tone because he is incredulous that some Corinthians doubt the resurrection. He comes back to them abruptly: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?" (v. 29).

So I can't help but think that Paul is saying to himself, "How many times do I have to explain the fact that Christ's death is his triumph? How many times do I have to tell them the basic concept that we will be resurrected because Christ died and was resurrected? These wealthy Corinthians are just playing at church. I'm going to unload on them. . . ."

In my first response on the thread I said I thought that Paul was using the word "baptized" in the fashion he used in Romans 6, or maybe he was using it the way our Lord did in Matthew 20. Either way, the word "baptized" is linked with death. Paul almost certainly taught the Corinthians this, so he was not introducing anything strange.

Skipping among a few verses in this part of the chapter, I put in parentheses as commentary what I hear Paul saying to himself as he writes:

1Co 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then Christ is not raised. . . . (You who heard the preaching that Christ has risen (as I've recounted in the first third of this chapter) have to understand that if there is no resurrection, the preaching is false.

1Co 15:20-21 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the ressurection of the dead. (This is the fundamental truth that all the apostles have preached, and what I have painstakingly taught you when I was with you. Christ had to die to triumph. And you have to be united to his death to take part in his victory.

1Co 15:28 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (This is the triumph of Christ, which resulted from his obedience and his death. I have taught you this over and over.

1Co 15:29 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?
(So why do some of you doubt the resurrection and our preaching? Don't you realize that Christ's death is critical. And while you are playing your games, people are dying for their faith. Why do you suppose they undertake this baptism if our preaching were not true?)

1Co 15:30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? (And why do you think we risk death every day of our lives for this gospel? )

I'm aware of all the work many greater men than I have done trying to make sense of verse 29. So I'm not dogmatic about it. It just seems to me to be a natural reading of our apostle.

 

[Turtle]

I was summarizing verses 27-31, not just 29. I was trying to present the passage as a contextual whole

Let me step back and try again. ....

Thank you for taking the time to explain your understanding. I appreciate and agree with the desire to present the passage as a contextual whole and I enjoyed reading many of your references and observations throughout the chapter.

Even so, I asked a narrow question regarding v. 29 in an attempt to arrest our minds to acknowledge the assumption we make that leads to the abundance of theories about what Paul meant in his first question of that verse. We assume that Paul failed to explicitly identify the people he was referring to. Is that assumption warranted? I don’t think so.

We may find some theories that attempt explanation of whom Paul refers to, but can we find a commentary that answers Paul’s question before they tell us what Paul meant? I think it is important to notice that he asked a question, rather than made a statement. If we do not answer his first question in v. 29, then how can we assert that we know what his point was for asking the question? As it stands, there are plenty of theories about v. 29, because we assume we are free to (or even must) speculate exactly who Paul refers to in his use of the pronoun “they.”

I believe the exact place where we find the referent for “they” is not hidden, except that it is hidden behind our assumption that Paul did not supply the referent. (That assumption proves to be a very secure hiding place!).

Compare the two questions that Paul asks as introductions to his two lines of argument. The earlier question beginning in v. 12 supplies all the referents needed for the question in v. 29. The referents in v. 12 make v. 29 clear and unambiguous.

1) how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen (v. 12)

2)…what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? (v. 29)

1) How do they say….?
2) What shall they do…?


The two questions are in reference to the same group of people. Both questions are about those among the Corinthians who hold the premise that there is no resurrection, and by Paul’s proof, they hold that Christ is dead, even though they were baptized for Him.

The questions provide the point of departure for Paul’s two lines of reasoning which show what they say, compared to the truth, and what they do compared to what the saints do. Paul's arguments rely on the fact that a person's actions are inevitably a result of what they believe, thus he takes the occasion to remind the saints of glorious hope that will aid them to remain steadfast and unmovable.

At least that is what I am persuaded of concerning v. 29, and its relation to the rest of the chapter. Thankfully there is a lot to agree about in the rest of the chapter!

Bryan