First Corinthians 15:29: Options for Baptism of the Dead
After further research, I have arrived at a few options for interpreting Paul's comments on baptism of the dead. These are not fully representative of all options, nor do they close an argument that has been debated for years.
1. Paul acknowledges that the Corinthian church practices baptism for the dead, and accepts it as Christian practice. This may be accurate, although it is nowhere mentioned in the Bible as an accepted practice. In fact, all things physically dead are usually shunned in the Old Testament, and the New Testament exhorts people to leave the dead in the hands of God and function among the living. Also, why baptize for the dead? Can it save them? Do they need to be a member of a certain church in order to get into heaven? If so, does this not go against what Paul preaches about salvation by faith? I don't see any value in baptism for the dead, regardless of who practices it. If they are dead, then they are in God's hands. If they need saving, it is too late--and my baptism for them couldn't make that happen anyway.
2. Paul acknowledges that the Corinthians practice baptism for the dead, and he simply uses it as an illustration, to their shame. The reasoning here is that Paul did not rebuke them, but he did not accept their practice either. There are no words of praise for this practice. His point is this: if you practice baptism for the dead (which I do not agree with--implied), then you should not question the resurrection of the dead (which I believe in).
3. Paul acknowledges an accepted practice by local pagan religions as an example of their belief in the resurrection, and rebuke the Corinthians for their lack of faith in the resurrection. This would mean that Paul sees baptism for the dead as a pagan activity that is not acceptable. Yet, even the pagan's believe in resurrection while believing Christians do not. The irony is thick, and his criticism would not be missed.
4. Paul is speaking metaphorically about baptism itself: what will we do about those baptized into death. Paul uses death as a metaphor in the next verse: I die everyday. A metaphor relieves the interpreter of any conflicts concerning the practice of a strange type of baptism. However, it does not do justice to the grammar and the context of Corinth pagan cults.
Of these four options, #1 seems to be the most direct reading of the passage and context. Yet, it has no other biblical support, and has little support in Christian practice (outside of Mormonism and some medieval Catholic teachings) and Christian doctrine (salvation by grace).
I prefer #3 because 1) of the lack of biblical support for the practice, 2) biblical support for personal baptism, and 3)Greek rhetorical grammar, which is explained in great detail at his website: http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/baptdead.html.
To put it simply, Paul does not use baptism of the dead to affirm the resurrection of Christ in v. 12-19. He does not mention it at all. Then in v. 29, when Paul mentions baptism for the dead, he does so to their shame, not as a compliment. Do you believe in the resurrection? Why not! Even pagans baptize for the dead because they believe. Why don't you?!! OR Do you believe in the resurrection? Why not! You baptize for the dead?!! What's the point if you don't believe?!!
Either way, he does not agree with the baptism for the dead, he simply uses the practice to assert that some believe in a resurrection, to the shame of the Corinthians who do not.
1. Paul acknowledges that the Corinthian church practices baptism for the dead, and accepts it as Christian practice. This may be accurate, although it is nowhere mentioned in the Bible as an accepted practice. In fact, all things physically dead are usually shunned in the Old Testament, and the New Testament exhorts people to leave the dead in the hands of God and function among the living. Also, why baptize for the dead? Can it save them? Do they need to be a member of a certain church in order to get into heaven? If so, does this not go against what Paul preaches about salvation by faith? I don't see any value in baptism for the dead, regardless of who practices it. If they are dead, then they are in God's hands. If they need saving, it is too late--and my baptism for them couldn't make that happen anyway.
2. Paul acknowledges that the Corinthians practice baptism for the dead, and he simply uses it as an illustration, to their shame. The reasoning here is that Paul did not rebuke them, but he did not accept their practice either. There are no words of praise for this practice. His point is this: if you practice baptism for the dead (which I do not agree with--implied), then you should not question the resurrection of the dead (which I believe in).
3. Paul acknowledges an accepted practice by local pagan religions as an example of their belief in the resurrection, and rebuke the Corinthians for their lack of faith in the resurrection. This would mean that Paul sees baptism for the dead as a pagan activity that is not acceptable. Yet, even the pagan's believe in resurrection while believing Christians do not. The irony is thick, and his criticism would not be missed.
4. Paul is speaking metaphorically about baptism itself: what will we do about those baptized into death. Paul uses death as a metaphor in the next verse: I die everyday. A metaphor relieves the interpreter of any conflicts concerning the practice of a strange type of baptism. However, it does not do justice to the grammar and the context of Corinth pagan cults.
Of these four options, #1 seems to be the most direct reading of the passage and context. Yet, it has no other biblical support, and has little support in Christian practice (outside of Mormonism and some medieval Catholic teachings) and Christian doctrine (salvation by grace).
I prefer #3 because 1) of the lack of biblical support for the practice, 2) biblical support for personal baptism, and 3)Greek rhetorical grammar, which is explained in great detail at his website: http://www.tektonics.org/mordef/baptdead.html.
To put it simply, Paul does not use baptism of the dead to affirm the resurrection of Christ in v. 12-19. He does not mention it at all. Then in v. 29, when Paul mentions baptism for the dead, he does so to their shame, not as a compliment. Do you believe in the resurrection? Why not! Even pagans baptize for the dead because they believe. Why don't you?!! OR Do you believe in the resurrection? Why not! You baptize for the dead?!! What's the point if you don't believe?!!
Either way, he does not agree with the baptism for the dead, he simply uses the practice to assert that some believe in a resurrection, to the shame of the Corinthians who do not.
Labels: baptism, First Corinthians
15 Comments:
From Blueletterbible.com the literal translation:
1 cor 15:22.
|5618| as
|1063| For
|1722| in
|0076| Adam
|3956| all
|0599| die,
|3779| so
|2532| also
|1722| in
|5547| Christ
|3956| all
|2227| will be made alive.
If all die by Adam, and all are made alive by Christ, then are all made alive to live forever, or are some made alive to be judged and condemned?
robefre,
How did we get to predestination here?
I think he is simply making a rhetorical statement. Everyone baptized through physical birth dies. Everyone baptized through spiritual birth lives forever. And "everyone" is an alternative the translation for "all."
The future tense "will be made" expresses potential and not reality. Paul's point is that everyone must go through Christ if they want to live forever.
Randy,
I can see that all is used in each instance and does not seem to have altering usage, but I am no Hebrew linguist. I do not see that I have brought predestination into the formula anymore thatn Paul has. I was just asking what seems to be made more obvious in other pasages not in hand now, but I will search later, from the Revelation, et al, which indicate that those lost in sin will be there for the judgement. No?
rfr
I am afraid that I have misunderstood your point. I saw predestination in your cooment "are some made alive to be judged and condemned". I thought you were saying that some people were created to be condemned, with no chance of salvation.
oh no never God forbid for surely He would not create to condemn.
Robe
Would you agree that for the first Christians, as for the first LDS believers, baptism for the dead solved a theological problem we ourselves do not face, namely: How are mom and dad and the grandfolks to be saved, since they died before Jesus' message, or Prophet Smith's message, was available?
Could it be the Corinthian church developed the doctrine to solve that problem?
Yes, I think that is a possibility. Having said that, I do not think that Paul approved, regardless of the origin.
No Prescription medication Pharmacy. Order Generic Medication In own Pharmacy. Buy Pills Central.
[url=http://buypillscentral.com/]Discount Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, Tamiflu Drugstore without prescription[/url]. Indian generic drugs. Cheap pills pharmacy
Besides, we purvey lessen Viagra pharmacopoeia, which is kind of noticeable in exercise than other popular buy Cialis Online Erectile dysfunction Viagra dispensary online drugs.
In addition to, we lend deduct Cialis pharmacy, which is measure impressive in dislike than other favoured get Viagra Online Erectile dysfunction Viagra dispensary online drugs.
yo... thank you for this thoughts :)
your site is loading rapidly
majestic militates unread beliefs variations subdebate larger guidebook neweurasia poland according
lolikneri havaqatsu
я так считаю: превосходно.. а82ч
в итоге: мне понравилось.. а82ч
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home