A friend in church asked me to do some research on a notoriously vague verse:
“If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” (1 Corinthians 15:29)
So I recycled some notes from Tenney's commentary used during a LBS presentation with Bro Ong...
Background and Context
In the first-century AD, immortality of the soul was a belief for most pagans. The resurrection of the body was absurd to them (Acts 17:32). The five senses will not be enjoyed beyond the grave. So ‘eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die’ (1Cor 15:32). They rejected the goodness of physical life, only the spirit was the object of redemption.
In Plato’s view of reality, the Forms are ultimately real and the material objects are their “copy”. Immortality is getting rid of the body. He wrote, “The body is the antithesis of the soul, as the source of all weaknesses as opposed to what alone is capable of goodness”
Even the Sadducees deny both immortality of soul and bodily resurrection (Acts 23:8)
So the Corinthians are saying: “The soul will live on, but the body will not resurrect." Life in this world was felt to be of little consequence compared to it
They deny the bodily resurrection as impossibility per se. One should eat, drink and enjoy oneself in the body because those pleasurable pursuits end at death”.
Paul is setting ‘em straight with some "If/Then arguments".
They don’t believe in resurrection, but they do inconsistently practice “baptism on behalf of the dead”. Paul mentions this practice but he doesn’t approve it. He may actually show a hint of disapproval.
Possible interpretations of what "baptism for the dead' means
1)Living people get baptized on behalf of the dead people who didn’t get baptized (superstition)
2)Baptized on behalf of the people outside the church, those who are not saved
3)Death-bed evangelism (Epipanius’ view)
4)Baptized to replace the dead/martyrs in the church
5)Baptize dead people in the Middle Ages (a practice adopted by Mormons)
6)“Baptism” (DA Carson) “The early Greek Fathers concluded on this verse that Paul was asking what is the point of undergoing baptism at all, which was on behalf of bodies—the phrase for the dead lit. ‘on behalf of the dead [bodies]’ is repeated twice—if they will simply disappear.” [1]
Some Implications
Now, why don’t we get baptized on behalf of the dead like Mormons do today?
Mormons' arguments for “baptism for the dead”: Paul approves it because he refers to the practice as argument for the resurrection, such an important doctrine.
Arguments against “Baptism for the dead”: Paul is using the "If/Then" argument to point out the inconsistency of their practice with their beliefs. a rhetorical device called “reductio ad absurdum”, carrying the opponents’ view to its undesirable logical conclusions:
If the dead are not raised, what is the point of the rite in which people are baptized on their behalf? Will not those who undergo this ritual look like fools?
It is an apologetic for both the resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection of the dead.
“If/Then” arguments: If there is no resurrection, then Christ has not been raised… If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching and your faith are futile… and those Christians who have already died are lost... If the dead are not raised, then “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”
To the Christian, the wholistic human – body and soul are important. God was incarnate in a physical body. Personhood will survive the grave.
Christ’s resurrection is crucial to the Christian faith as “the first fruits of those who sleep” (continuity and discontinuity).
By citing the practice Paul is not necessarily approving the practice. Moreover, it is unclear if the practice of baptising the dead found in the middle ages is what Paul meant in the first place. Bcos the practice was not specified, we cannot use an obscure and ambiguous reference here as positive warrant for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]Carson, D. A. 1994. New Bible commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) . Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester , England ; Downers Grove , Ill. , USA
“If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?” (1 Corinthians 15:29)
So I recycled some notes from Tenney's commentary used during a LBS presentation with Bro Ong...
Background and Context
In the first-century AD, immortality of the soul was a belief for most pagans. The resurrection of the body was absurd to them (Acts 17:32). The five senses will not be enjoyed beyond the grave. So ‘eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die’ (1Cor 15:32). They rejected the goodness of physical life, only the spirit was the object of redemption.
In Plato’s view of reality, the Forms are ultimately real and the material objects are their “copy”. Immortality is getting rid of the body. He wrote, “The body is the antithesis of the soul, as the source of all weaknesses as opposed to what alone is capable of goodness”Even the Sadducees deny both immortality of soul and bodily resurrection (Acts 23:8)
So the Corinthians are saying: “The soul will live on, but the body will not resurrect." Life in this world was felt to be of little consequence compared to it
They deny the bodily resurrection as impossibility per se. One should eat, drink and enjoy oneself in the body because those pleasurable pursuits end at death”.
Paul is setting ‘em straight with some "If/Then arguments".
They don’t believe in resurrection, but they do inconsistently practice “baptism on behalf of the dead”. Paul mentions this practice but he doesn’t approve it. He may actually show a hint of disapproval.
Possible interpretations of what "baptism for the dead' means
1)Living people get baptized on behalf of the dead people who didn’t get baptized (superstition)
2)Baptized on behalf of the people outside the church, those who are not saved
3)Death-bed evangelism (Epipanius’ view)
4)Baptized to replace the dead/martyrs in the church
5)Baptize dead people in the Middle Ages (a practice adopted by Mormons)
6)“Baptism” (DA Carson) “The early Greek Fathers concluded on this verse that Paul was asking what is the point of undergoing baptism at all, which was on behalf of bodies—the phrase for the dead lit. ‘on behalf of the dead [bodies]’ is repeated twice—if they will simply disappear.” [1]
Some Implications
Now, why don’t we get baptized on behalf of the dead like Mormons do today?
Mormons' arguments for “baptism for the dead”: Paul approves it because he refers to the practice as argument for the resurrection, such an important doctrine.
Arguments against “Baptism for the dead”: Paul is using the "If/Then" argument to point out the inconsistency of their practice with their beliefs. a rhetorical device called “reductio ad absurdum”, carrying the opponents’ view to its undesirable logical conclusions:
If the dead are not raised, what is the point of the rite in which people are baptized on their behalf? Will not those who undergo this ritual look like fools?
It is an apologetic for both the resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection of the dead.
“If/Then” arguments: If there is no resurrection, then Christ has not been raised… If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching and your faith are futile… and those Christians who have already died are lost... If the dead are not raised, then “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”
To the Christian, the wholistic human – body and soul are important. God was incarnate in a physical body. Personhood will survive the grave.
Christ’s resurrection is crucial to the Christian faith as “the first fruits of those who sleep” (continuity and discontinuity).
By citing the practice Paul is not necessarily approving the practice. Moreover, it is unclear if the practice of baptising the dead found in the middle ages is what Paul meant in the first place. Bcos the practice was not specified, we cannot use an obscure and ambiguous reference here as positive warrant for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]Carson, D. A. 1994. New Bible commentary : 21st century edition. Rev. ed. of: The new Bible commentary. 3rd ed. / edited by D. Guthrie, J.A. Motyer. 1970. (4th ed.) . Inter-Varsity Press: Leicester , England ; Downers Grove , Ill. , USA
Comments