1 Cor 15:29

[Guest]

Steve,

1 Cor 15:29 speaks about the "baptism for the dead." What do you think this refers to? I am leaning towards it being a reference to martyrdom, based on the context, see 1 Cor 15:30 & 32 and Matt 20:22 & 23 where Jesus seems to refer to his death as baptism (see "cup" also in Matt 26:42).

Thanks
Glenn

[Guest]

Hi Glenn,

I'm obviously not Steve, but I believe Steve has expressed the following two thoughts on this passage in the past:

a) Vicarious baptism, probably for those Christians who died before being baptised, or
b) Reference to baptism imagery without Christ's resurrection (Rom 6:1ff)

Perhaps its best for me not to speak for him, so I'll add my own thoughts.

I like your suggestion re: baptized and how it fits the immediate context. If you substitute 'martyred' for 'baptized' and if the dead = dead Christians, I guess the point is why would people be willing to die for dead Christians? If it said 'to spread the gospel' or something instead of 'the dead' it would make a bit more sense, unless they weren't dead at the time of the martyrdom.

You probably know that there is debate about whether the practice of baptizing on behalf of dead Christians who died prior to their baptism began after or before this statement. I obviously have a hard time thinking it means that , but it does seem to be the plain meaning of the text.

Not sure that helps, but I thought I'd add my 2 cents.

Say 'hello' to the class for me.

in Him,
Les

[Guest]

The fact that Paul refers to the practice of "baptism for the dead" in no way indicates that it was a Christian practice. The phrase if found nowhere else in the Bible.

It may have been the practice of some cult. Paul may simply be questioning why anyone at all would be baptized on behalf of the dead, if they will not be raised to life.

In other words, the practice of baptism for a dead person, pre-supposes that such baptism will in some way help that person. But if the person is not raised to life again, that is, if he stays dead, what good will it do him?

[Guest]

Les, I'll try to remember to say hi to the class for you when I teach on Monday.

I considered those as possibilities, but neither of them seem to fit any better. I was proposing that phrase "baptism for the dead" (not just the single word "baptism") might be a way to say "martyr." Here is my logic. Water baptism symbolizes being dead to yourself. Therefore once you repent and are baptized (usually the same day) the only baptism left (unless you believe in the baptism of the spirit as a second work aside from salvation, but that is not the topic here) is death, and killing a Christian equals baptizing the dead which equals martyrdom. I was wondering if baptism for the dead possibly had nothing to do with people who were already physically dead.

Don, I agree that Paul's reference does not condone the practice. Vicarious baptism seems to be an illogical addition to Christianity when I compare it to the rest of the clear teachings of Christ and the Apostles. I understand that Paul may be answering a question from the Corinthians by citing a practise of his opponents, thereby discrediting them by proving that they are inconsistent. I think we have other examples of this tactic, such as Jude quoting Enoch. It seems like a reasonable option here, but I thought that given the context mine might have been a better one.


Thank you both once again
Glenn

[Guest]

I thought this was a good explanation...

http://www.carm.org/questions/baptismfordead.htm

[Guest]

Thanks GCS 98. The page gives very little detail about the pagan practice it claims should be equated with Paul's statement. This makes me a bit skeptical (there are a lot of stories that people have invented to prove thier theological point). I'll have to research it further to see if it is substantiated.

Glenn

[Guest]

1 Cor 15.29 "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead" . Paul never says "we" but "they" so it sounds like he is just acknowleging that the practice goes on but by saying "they" do it he is distancing himself from it.

[Guest]

Thanks everybody,

I've done a lot more reading and thinking and have decided that the best view is not the one I proposed at the start of this thread. The view that Paul is not mentioning Christian practice, but the practices of his opponents to the resurrection seems to carry more weight.

Glenn

[Guest]

Thanks everybody,

I've done a lot more reading and thinking and have decided that the best view is not the one I proposed at the start of this thread. The view that Paul is not mentioning Christian practice, but the practices of his opponents to the resurrection seems to carry more weight.

Glenn

Glenn - if you don't mind, can you share what led to you changing your mind? I have heard different views regarding the validity of the idea that Paul was referencing practices by opponents to the resurrection. I am completely undecided about this verse, but if you have some evidence I would be very interested in it.

Thanks.

Mark in South Dakota