1 Cor 15:29 and Baptized for the Dead

[psalms109:31]

Paul Said

Paul said they not we

 

[npetreley]

Paul said they not we

Paul could not say "you", because he was addressing people who were questioning resurrection. Paul probably could not say "we" because he, himself, didn't engage in the practice. He said, "they", but we don't know who "they" are.

It seems extremely unlikely that it was some pagan religious group. Why would Paul say, "Otherwise, what will they do who are engaging in some useless false religious ritual, if the dead do not rise at all?" That would be like asking, "Why do they chase after unicorns if you cannot catch an animal?"

 

[psalms109:31]

I should of put theses together lol

I hope this might help.

Just north of Corinth was a city named Eleusis. This was the location of a pagan religion where baptism in the sea was practiced to guarantee a good afterlife. This religion was mention by Homer in Hymn to Demeter 478-79.2

Paul said they not we

 

[Brother Bob]

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?

I believe its talking about ourselves, who were dead in sin and baptized to show the death, burial and resurrection to walk a

newness of life. I don't believe it means to be baptized for someone else who is dead, but to be baptized for your own dead

life, before being saved. I find no where in the bible where you can be baptized for anyone except your own selves, whether it

be the Holy Ghost baptism, or the baptism in the water, it still is you. There is no repentance after fleshly death.

 

[psalms109:31]

That's good

That is referring to us not them. We have been in Jesus Christ.

 

[DHK]

Sorry, but that still sounds to me like, "I don't want to believe that it means what it says, so I'm going to come up with some alternative explanation that I prefer."

Again, I'm not insisting any of these alternative explanations are wrong, but they sure sound contrived to me.

You may be right. That is why I favor my original explanation, in which I gave you the context (the resurrection), and why Paul was referring to a pagan practice. Because you couldn't not find the evidence of that practice doesn't mean that the practice didn't exist.

 

[Watchman]

I have heard two good explanations. The first centers around the word "for." There are different meanings for this word: "In place of", this is what most get hung up on. But "for" can also mean "In obedience to" or "In honor of" Now, who said to baptize? The Lord Jesus in the Great Commission. But if the dead do not rise, then Jesus did not rise. As such, why then do anything in obedience to a dead man?
The other explanation centers around the word "they". Note that he did not say "you", or "some of you." This would seem to mean that there was some sort of non-Christian group there that was doing this.
Of the two, I prefer the first explanation, since, in the nearby verses, Paul mentions the resurrection of Jesus over and over again.

 

[psalms109:31]

Watchman

I think you are so close.

Paul is referring to what they are doing compared to what we are doing.

 

[canadyjd]

It does seem pretty straightforward that some were being baptized in a proxy for the dead, apparently.

As to Paul's not condemning it, I wonder if we are reading too much into there. Maybe he is "granting for the sake of argument" and using that to illustrate how absurd it is for people who don't believe in teh resurrection to be baptized for the dead. In other words, he wasn't approving it; he was merely pointing out that such an act was inconsistent with their stated beliefs.

My Greek prof in Seminary believed the same thing. He said there were over 250 interpretations of the passage. This is the one he believed to be most consistent with the context of these verses. He is what he said, as best as I can remember.

It wasn't that Paul was teaching that baptism for the dead was valid. He was pointing out that the people who denied the resurrection were also the ones baptizing for the dead (in proxy).

These same people are probably the ones Paul spoke of in v.33 "Do not be deceived: Bad company corrupts good morals."

and in v.34

"Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame."

I believe Paul was condemning all that these people taught; that their was no resurrection from the dead, that they should baptise for the dead by proxy, and their questions about the kind of body that would be resurrected. (v35+)

This is consistent with Paul addressing various questions in I Cor; one at a time and pointing out the errors people were engaged in. This is true of the divisions within the church (chap. 1 & 3), man who took his father's wife (chap 5) advice concerning marriage (chap 7) the improper observance of the Lord's Supper (chap. 11) the use of tongues (chap. 12-14) and so on.

peace to youraying:

 

[DHK]

I find no where in the bible where you can be baptized for anyone except your own selves,

But Bro. Bob, Didn't you read the Book of Mormon and Doctrines and Covenants??

 

[Brother Bob]

But Bro. Bob, Didn't you read the Book of Mormon and Doctrines and Covenants?? __________________
DHK

:BangHead: I knew I was forgetting something. Have you ever given any thought that Paul meant being baptized for the dead, he was actually talking about us who were dead at one time in sin?

 

[npetreley]

You may be right. That is why I favor my original explanation, in which I gave you the context (the resurrection), and why Paul was referring to a pagan practice. Because you couldn't not find the evidence of that practice doesn't mean that the practice didn't exist.

Yeah, but that wasn't my argument against the explanation. Like I said, it would be like arguing "Then why do they chase unicorns if it's not possible to capture an animal?" That's a stupid way to argue the point, and Paul wasn't stupid.

 

[DHK]

Yeah, but that wasn't my argument against the explanation. Like I said, it would be like arguing "Then why do they chase unicorns if it's not possible to capture an animal?" That's a stupid way to argue the point, and Paul wasn't stupid.

"Or else why do they baptize for the dead."
It seems to be a clear enough reference the way it is worded to a non-Christian practice, if we take the Bible literally. To argue that "that is not the way it is because I have never heard of it," is illogical. You may say you don't have any evidence up to this point, but that doesn't mean there isn't any just because that evidence isn't in your hands.

 

[npetreley]

"Or else why do they baptize for the dead."
It seems to be a clear enough reference the way it is worded to a non-Christian practice, if we take the Bible literally.

I don't follow you here at all. If it was a non-Christian practice, and it meant nothing, then it is the poorest of all choices to make his point. As I've said twice before, it's like saying, "Or else why do they chase unicorns, if you can't catch an animal?" Duh, if they chase unicorns, then they're nuts because unicorns don't exist -- chasing unicorns has nothing to do with catching an animal, so it makes no sense to use it to make the point that you can catch an animal.

Literally, there's a "they" who baptized for the dead. We don't know who "they" are. We only know who "they" AREN'T. We know they aren't the Corinthians to whom he speaks. We know they don't include Paul (or he would have said "we"). That pretty much rules out the idea that he's talking about regular baptism, because Paul did baptize people. But that's all we know. We don't know who "they" are.

Beyond that, I know Paul was a smart guy, and I find it difficult to believe he'd spout nonsense like citing a pagan ritual that he knows means nothing to drive home the point that resurrection is true. It just doesn't make sense to say, "Why do they engage in meaningles rituals concerning the dead that in no way affect the dead, if the dead are not raised?"

 

[Rex77]

In verse12. Paul says some amoung you say there is no ressurection.

Then he goes to great length to show Christ rose, and so will those in
Christ , but if Christ is not risen then he is still dead, then why bother to be baptized into or for someone who is dead.?

Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.!!!!!!!!

just a thought.

 

[DHK]

I don't follow you here at all. If it was a non-Christian practice, and it meant nothing,

Not necessarily. The point was the resurrection. It is true that he was specifically referring to the resurrection of Christ, but he was also speaking of our resurrection, and the concept of resurrection in general. If one denies the concept of a resurrection (like the J.W.'s), then why baptize, specifically if it is a pagan practice like the Mormons have if their baptism is supposed to have some effect on their dead loved ones in the afterlife? Look at my previous post where I explained this quoting the surrounding verses in their context.

then it is the poorest of all choices to make his point. As I've said twice before, it's like saying, "Or else why do they chase unicorns, if you can't catch an animal?" Duh, if they chase unicorns, then they're nuts because unicorns don't exist -- chasing unicorns has nothing to do with catching an animal, so it makes no sense to use it to make the point that you can catch an animal.

But he is not speaking of unicorns. He is speaking of baptism in the light of the resurrection, both concepts which are tied together. Study the context and see how they are related to each other. That is how baptism for the dead fits in. It also would relate to a resurrection if the pagans believe in an afterlife, and most do.

Literally, there's a "they" who baptized for the dead. We don't know who "they" are. We only know who "they" AREN'T. We know they aren't the Corinthians to whom he speaks. We know they don't include Paul (or he would have said "we"). That pretty much rules out the idea that he's talking about regular baptism, because Paul did baptize people. But that's all we know. We don't know who "they" are.

Then it becomes obvious if the "they" are not Paul or the Corinthians, by deductive reasoning they must be pagans. What other choice do we have. Paul himself delineated only three groups of people in the Bible: Gentiles, Jews, and the church of God (Christians).

Beyond that, I know Paul was a smart guy, and I find it difficult to believe he'd spout nonsense like citing a pagan ritual that he knows means nothing to drive home the point that resurrection is true. It just doesn't make sense to say, "Why do they engage in meaningles rituals concerning the dead that in no way affect the dead, if the dead are not raised?"

Paul often refers to Gentile practices in his writings or in his sermons.
On Marsl Hills he refers "to the Unknown God."
In the same sermon he actually quotes from a Greek poet.
In writing to Titus he quotes from a Cretian philosopher.
Paul was not afraid to refer to the writings of the pagans, and use examples of the pagans. He often used illustrations of their pagan athletic games: running the race, shadow boxing, wrestling, etc. Why should one be amamzed, then, if he refers to another pagan practice (baptism of the dead) in his argument for the resurrection?

 

[npetreley]

Then it becomes obvious if the "they" are not Paul or the Corinthians, by deductive reasoning they must be pagans. What other choice do we have. Paul himself delineated only three groups of people in the Bible: Gentiles, Jews, and the church of God (Christians).

"They" could be other Christians who are engaging the the practice. It comes as no surprised that the Corinthians aren't doing it, because they're having trouble with the concept of resurrection, so why would they do it?

You're falling into the fallacy of no third option here. There is a 3rd, 4th and more. It is entirely possible that Christians were being baptised for the dead, whether or not the practice is effectual. Maybe they even knew it was ineffectual but did it out of respect or honor for someone who passed on without being baptised. In which case Paul is asking, "Why do they bother if the dead are not raised?" It's not a defense of the practice, but it makes more sense in terms of the question.

The fact is, we don't know who "they" are, and it is presumptuous to say "they" must have been pagans because you don't believe there's a point in being baptised for the dead.

 

[Brother Bob]

26: The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27: 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.
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.
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?

The whole chapter is talking about the "saved", and those being "saved". When Paul says "they", he is talking about the new converts that are being saved, and if the dead rise not then it is in vain, and they themselves are in vain, and still in their sins.
I personally think it is clear that Paul is talking about the new converts ,and they themselves were baptized by the Holy Ghost because they were "dead" before the Spiritual baptism.
He doesn't write a whole chapter about the saved that are alive, but were baptized because they were dead at one time, and then in one line, jump to some pegan doctrine. I think you are trying to make something out of the scripture, that is just not there. Paul had not reason whatsoever to talk about pagan doctrine, while explaining how salvation works.

 

[swaimj]

Could it be the word translated "for" would be better translated "because of" referencing those who have come to know Christ, symbolized by baptism, because of the lives of believers who have died?

PastorSBC, I agree with your explanation of this passage. This view is very simple and straitforward.

 

[Brother Bob]

Would any of you be baptized for those who are already dead? I doubt it.
Would any of you accept those who are baptized because they were dead in sin, and needed to be made alive? Probably.

Did Paul talk about any of them being baptized for the dead. No, he did not for they had already been saved. He only talked about the continuing of the plan of Salvation.

Why on earth would Paul be talking about baptizing for those who were in the grave, don't make sense at all!

Context!!!