Why then are they baptized for the dead? 1 Corinthians 15:29

[Alfred Persson]

Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? (1 Cor. 15:29 NKJ)

The practice of vicarious baptism only existed among the Montanists in the early centuries. Mormons practice it today. The passage has generated perhaps 400 different interpretations. I thought I'd make it 401.

The Mormons got it wrong:

Paul was a student of Gamaliel, a rabbi of the school of Hillel. The Rabbis often arranged their dialectic in a structure of three, to bring completeness and emphasis.

An example of this style of teaching is in 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 which he arranges by three, followed by a a statement.

We see that structure here:

"If there is no resurrection" (1 Cor. 15:13-15)
1)Christ not risen;
2) Our preaching empty;
3) Their (the resurrection deniers) faith empty
Statement: We then are false witnesses


"If the Dead don’t rise" (1 Cor. 15:16-19)
1)Christ not risen;
2) your faith futile;
3) You are still in your sins
Statement: Then all who have fallen asleep have perished, and we of all men most pitiful.


"But now Christ is risen from the dead" (1 Cor. 15:20-24)
1)He is the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep;
2) By man came death
3) By man came the resurrection of the dead
Statement: "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive"


"But each in his own order": (1 Cor. 15:23-26)
1)Christ the first fruits;
2) those dead raised at Christ’s coming;
3) The rest of the dead in the End.
Statement: Christ will reign until he puts all enemies under his feet, last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Momentarily Paul departs from the argument to derail any foolish idea Christ’s reign would subject God forever to the risen humanity of Christ (1 Cor. 13:27-28).

The return:

Otherwise (1893 ἐπεί epei), what will they do (4160 ποιέω poieo) who are baptized for the dead (3498 νεκρός nekros) , if the dead (3498 νεκρός nekros) do not rise at all (3654 ὅλως holos)? Why (5101 τίς tis) then (2532 καί kai) are they baptized for the dead (3498 νεκρός nekros)?

That translation loses the flow of the argument, “otherwise" should have been translated “since" and then its clearly referring back to verse 26, Death the last enemy destroyed.

“Since” (1893 ἐπεί epei) [the dead rise], “what is produced (4160 ποιέω poieo, achieved, accomplished) by those baptized for the dead?” “If wholly dead (3654 ὅλως holos) are not raised up, what also(τί καὶ) [explains] being baptized for the dead?

“Dead” (3498 νεκρός nekros) is repeated thrice each time revealing the folly of the resurrection deniers, their illogic. Without a “good” to obtain, why are they being baptized if the dead don’t rise?

Paul then turns the illogic on himself:

Τί καὶ ἡμεῖς κινδυνεύομεν πᾶσαν ὥραν (1 Cor. 15:30 BYZ)

“What also [is our reason for] standing in danger every hour” [if the dead don’t rise?] (1 Cor. 15:30-32)
1)“Why die daily”
2) “Why fight beasts”
3) ”What advantage exist for me if the dead don’t rise”
Statement: “If the dead do not rise, Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die!”


Therefore, vicarious baptism was not being practiced by anyone in Corinth. That explains the universal rejection of the “novelty” when the Montanists misinterpreted this verse.

 

[TonyChanYT]

1 Corinthians 15:

12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

This is how I interpret it.

Let proposition R1 = There is a resurrection of the dead for all people.

Paul's goal here in this passage is to prove that R1 is true.

First, he used proof by contradiction to show that there is a resurrection of the dead.

Second, he tried proof by ex concesso:

29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

I.e., it made no sense for those people who baptized on behalf of the dead if there is no resurrection of the dead.

Ellicott explained:

there existed amongst some of the Christians at Corinth a practice of baptising a living person in the stead of some convert who had died before that sacrament had been administered to him. Such a practice existed amongst the Marcionites in the second century, and still earlier amongst a sect called the Corinthians. The idea evidently was that whatever benefit flowed from baptism might be thus vicariously secured for the deceased Christian. St. Chrysostom gives the following description of it:—“After a catechumen (i.e., one prepared for baptism, but not actually baptised) was dead, they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased; then coming to the bed of the dead man they spake to him, and asked whether he would receive baptism, and he making no answer, the other replied in his stead, and so they baptised the ‘living for the dead.’” Does St. Paul then, by what he here says, sanction the superstitious practice? Certainly not.

The second proof assumed the practice of baptizing on behalf of the dead without approving or asserting it.

 

[Alfred Persson]

1 Corinthians 15:


This is how I interpret it.

Let proposition R1 = There is a resurrection of the dead for all people.

Paul's goal here in this passage is to prove that R1 is true.

First, he used proof by contradiction to show that there is a resurrection of the dead.

Second, he tried proof by ex concesso:


I.e., it made no sense for those people who baptized on behalf of the dead if there is no resurrection of the dead.

Ellicott explained:


The second proof assumed the practice of baptizing on behalf of the dead without approving or asserting it.

I have an objection to that, it means Paul would not strongly condemn error, as he does other errors of the Corinthians. Especially with a central doctrine like baptism. Notice how strongly he reacts to "sectarian baptism":


13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,
15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name.
16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
(1 Cor. 1:13-17 NKJ)

1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea,
2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,
3 all ate the same spiritual food,
(1 Cor. 10:1-3 NKJ)

13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-- whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free-- and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Cor. 12:13 NKJ)

Therefore, an ex concesso argument would require Paul is silent about a misuse of baptism.

Baptism symbolizes our unity in Christ, we die and are raised with Him. Its not a magic rite that saves. I'm convinced Paul would not allow the practice, he would have crushed it immediately as he did other errors in Corinth.

 

[TonyChanYT]

Therefore, an ex concesso argument would require Paul is silent about a misuse of baptism.

Good point. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Good point. Thanks for sharing.

Another triplet came to mind:

"to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."
(Jude 1:15 NKJ)

Like Amos who repeats "for three transgressions...and for four" the Rabbis grouped lots of things in threes, as does scripture.

Interesting. Recall Peter's vision, 3 times told "rise and eat" and Paul "three times beaten with rods", and he asked the Lord three times to remove an affliction...

One might suppose God being Three Persons, One God, has somehow made three important.