Baptized on behalf of the dead

[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?

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

Paul's goal 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.

A weakness of Ellicott's argument here is that Paul knew baptizing on behalf of the dead was wrong but he didn't explicitly condemn it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

1 Corinthians 15:


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

Paul's goal 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.

A weakness of Ellicott's argument here is that Paul knew baptizing on behalf of the dead was wrong but he didn't explicitly condemn it.

Good point. I don't know the answer to it, but good point. It may be that Paul didn't need to condemn the practice if it was well known in his time. But why would the Holy Spirit allow this, since God anticipates even our confusion today about this?

I probably completely mis-read it at times in the past when I thought Paul was saying that we were getting baptized *for Christ* who had *died.* It's a real problem when we have Christian cults practicing this today, eg Mormons.

My own sense is that it was a practice of some, right or wrong, but indicated that belief in resurrection was ubiquitous--so common as to make the idea of resurrection an "accepted" belief.

 

[Tommy Cool]

Another option to this verse, and I'm not discounting the baptism of the dead that Tony submitted….Nor am I saying I'm right ....just another option.

The word Else (epei) Is a Greek subordinate conjunction that may be use to indicate either… time, cause, or inference….. In this occurrence it is used in an inferential sense → else , otherwise, in that case.

This word (else/otherwise) introduces a subject that refers back to the discussion in 15:23 …..regarding Christ, the first fruits offering from the dead and those who are Christ being raised at Christ coming. That in turn would suggests that the discussion in 1Co 15:24 through 28 concerning "the end" …are parenthetical to the main discussion → regarding those who are to be made alive in Christ.

Reading from the end of 15:23 to the start of 15:29, clarifies 29 a bit better……except for the location of punctuation that translators placed.

By adjusting the punctuation (comma, question mark, period) to read as follows

29. Else (or otherwise), what shall they do which are baptized? For the dead (bodies) if the dead rise not at all. Why are they then baptized for them?

If they are not raised then they are baptized merely to remain dead.

(See Rom 6:3-10)

{{FYI: the third word dead in this verse 29 is the word them …according to all critical Greek texts.}}