Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 15:29

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 15:29” utilice nuestra app.

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?

29. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead ] St Paul now abruptly changes the subject, and appeals to the conduct of Christians as a witness to their belief. This is again a passage of extreme difficulty, and it would be impossible to notice one tithe of the explanations which have been proposed of it. We will only touch on three: (1) the natural and obvious explanation that the Apostle was here referring to a practice, prevalent in his day, of persons permitting themselves to be baptized on behalf of their dead relatives and friends. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that Tertullian, in the third century, mentions such a practice as existing in his time. But there is great force in Robertson’s objection: “There is an immense improbability that Paul could have sustained a superstition so abject, even by an allusion. He could not have spoken of it without anger.” The custom never obtained in the Church, and though mentioned by Tertullian, is as likely to have been a consequence of this passage as its cause. Then there is (2) the suggestion of St Chrysostom, that inasmuch as baptism was a death unto sin and a resurrection unto righteousness, every one who was baptized was baptized for the dead, i.e. for himself spiritually dead in trespasses and sins; and not only for himself, but for others, inasmuch as he proclaimed openly his faith in that Resurrection of Christ which was as efficacious on others’ behalf as on his own. There remains (3) an interpretation suggested by some commentators and supported by the context, which would refer it to the baptism of trial and suffering through which the disciples of Christ were called upon to go, which would be utterly useless and absurd if it had been, and continued to be, undergone for the dying and for the dead ( 1Co 15:6 ; 1Co 15:18). The use of the present tense in the verb baptized, the close connection of the second member of the sentence with the first, and the use of the word baptized in this sense in St Mat 3:11; Mat 20:12, are the grounds on which this interpretation may be maintained.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Else what shall they do … – The apostle here resumes the argument for the resurrection which was interrupted at 1Co 15:19. He goes on to state further consequences which must follow from the denial of this doctrine, and thence infers that the doctrine must be true. There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonize in regard to its meaning. It is possible that Paul may here refer to some practice or custom which existed in his time respecting baptism, the knowledge of which is now lost. The various opinions which have been entertained in regard to this passage, together with an examination of them, may be seen in Pools Synopsis, Rosenmuller, and Bloomfield. It may be not useless just to refer to some of them, that the perplexity of commentators may be seen:

(1) It has been held by some that by the dead here is meant the Messiah who was put to death, the plural being used for the singular, meaning the dead one.

(2) By others, that the word baptized here is taken in the sense of washing, cleansing, purifying, as in Mat 8:4; Heb 9:10; and that the sense is, that the dead were carefully washed and purified when buried, with the hope of the resurrection, and, as it were, preparatory to that.

(3) By others, that to be baptized for the dead means to be baptized as dead, being baptized into Christ, and buried with him in baptism, and that by their immersion they were regarded as dead.

(4) By others, that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead, referring to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. Such was the estimate which was formed, it is supposed, of the importance of baptism, that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul, has been abundantly proved by Grotius, and is generally admitted. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious:

There is no evidence that such a custom prevailed in the time of Paul.
It cannot be believed that Paul would give countenance to a custom so senseless and so contrary to the Scripture, or that he would make it the foundation of a solemn argument.
It does not accord with the strain and purpose of his argument. If this custom had been referred to, his design would have led him to say, What will become of them for whom others have been baptized? Are we to believe that they have perished?
It is far more probable that the custom referred to in this opinion arose from an erroneous interpretation of this passage of Scripture, than that it existed in the time of Paul.

(5) There remain two other opinions, both of which are plausible, and one of which is probably the true one. One is, that the word baptized is used here as it is in Mat 20:22-23; Mar 10:39; Luk 12:50, in the sense of being overwhelmed with calamities, trials, and sufferings; and as meaning that the apostles and others were subjected to great trials on account of the dead, that is, in the hope of the resurrection; or with the expectation that the dead would rise. This is the opinion of Lightfoot, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Homberg, Krause, and of Prof. Robinson (see the Lexicon article Baptizo), and has much that is plausible. That the word is thus used to denote a deep sinking into calamities, there can be no doubt. And that the apostles and early Christians subjected themselves, or were subjected to great and overwhelming calamities on account of the hope of the resurrection, is equally clear. This interpretation, also, agrees with the general tenor of the argument; and is an argument for the resurrection. And it implies that this was the full and constant belief of all who endured these trials, that there would be a resurrection of the dead. The argument would be, that they should be slow to adopt an opinion which would imply that all their sufferings were endured for nothing, and that God had supported them in this in vain; that God had plunged them into all these sorrows, and had sustained them in them only to disappoint them. That this view is plausible, and that it suits the strain of remark in the following verses, is evident. But there are objections to it:

It is not the usual and natural meaning of the word baptize.
A metaphorical use of a word should not be resorted to unless necessary.
The literal meaning of the word here will as well meet the design of the apostle as the metaphorical.
This interpretation does not relieve us from any of the difficulties in regard to the phrase for the dead; and,
It is altogether more natural to suppose that the apostle would derive his argument from the baptism of all who were Christians, than from the figurative baptism of a few who went into the perils of martyrdom – The other opinion, therefore, is, that the apostle here refers to baptism as administered to all believers.

This is the most correct opinion; is the most simple, and best meets the design of the argument. According to this, it means that they had been baptized with the hope and expectation of a resurrection of the dead. They had received this as one of the leading doctrines of the gospel when they were baptized. It was a part of their full and firm belief that the dead would rise. The argument according to this interpretation is, that this was an essential article of the faith of a Christian; that it was embraced by all; that it constituted a part of their very profession; and that for anyone to deny it was to deny that which entered into the very foundation of the Christian faith.

If they embraced a different doctrine, if they denied the doctrine of the resurrection, they struck a blow at the very nature of Christianity, and dashed all the hopes which had been cherished and expressed at their baptism. And what could they do? What would become of them! What would be the destiny of all who were thus baptized? Was it to be believed that all their hopes at baptism were vain and that they would all perish? As such a belief could not be entertained, the apostle infers that, if they held to Christianity at all, they must hold to this doctrine as a part of their very profession. According to this view, the phrase for the dead means, with reference to the dead; with direct allusion to the condition of the dead, and their hopes; with a belief that the dead will rise. It is evident that the passage is elliptical, and this seems to be as probable as any interpretation which has been suggested. Mr. Locke says, frankly, What this baptizing for the dead was, I know not; but it seems, by the following verses, to be something wherein they exposed themselves to the danger of death. Tyndal translates it, over the dead. Doddridge renders it, in the room of the dead, who are just fallen in the cause of Christ, but are yet supported by a succession of new converts, who immediately offer themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers that advance to the combat in the room of their companions who have just been slain in their sight.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

1Co 15:29

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all.

Baptism for the dead

The baptized for the dead mean all those persons who, saved from a world of sin, from Pagan ignorance, and from the power of Satan, passed through the ordinance of initiatory baptism, there to fill the places and to carry on the work of the dead martyrs, as fresh soldiers fill the ranks of those who are slain in battle. What shall they do? Secular motives for such a profession they had none. What must be their disappointment if the hopes of spiritual recompense were delusive? This method of interpretation suggests–

I. That the disciples of Christ are always described as a peculiar people.

1. They are separated from the world–I have chosen you out of the world. The duty such a separation involves is manifest.

2. They are avowedly united one to another–in the fellowship of holy love. We much neglect our duty and our privilege if we neglect or refuse such communion with the people of God.

3. They form an organised and well connected body, in which every member has his proper place and office. The Church is likened to a kingdom, a house, a body, an army.

II. That the individual disciples of Christ are frequently removed, and their places rendered vacant by death. The ranks of Christs army are constantly being thinned. When the text was written many lost them through the bitterness of persecution. But the ordinary causes of death still exist. The best must die.

1. We see vacant places in the leadership; ministers, rulers, governors must lay down their authority.

2. We see vacant places among the rank and file. Our beloved companions are called away one after another, and our own turn must soon arrive.

III. That God always will raise up others to take the place of those who are removed. The Church of Christ is unchangeable and lasting as the throne of God, and, as such, neither can the gates of hell prevail against it, nor the change of time affect its constitution, nor the deaths of its individual members occasion its dissolution. It may suffer a temporary eclipse by the loss of its brightest ornaments, but it is never abandoned, and others soon rise to take the place of those gone before, The whole history of the past is a living commentary on this truth.

IV. That the prospect of the resurrection to a future life is the consoling element in all the changes of the present. If it were not for this prospect all else would be utter loss. Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if Christ had not become the first-fruits of them that slept? All their labour would have been in vain and their duty lost. (Homilist.)

Baptism for the dead

I. Many commentators have declined to accept these words in their obvious sense. Here are some of their interpretations: What shall they gain who are baptized only to die? What shall they gain who are baptized when dying, as a sign that their dead bodies shall be raised? What shall they gain who are baptized for the removal of their dead works? What shall they gain who are baptized into the death of Christ? What shall they gain who are baptized for the hope of the resurrection of the dead? What shall they gain who are baptized into the place of the dead martyrs? What shall they gain who are baptized into the name of the dead? What shall they gain who are baptized in order to convert those who are dead in sin? What shall they gain who are baptized over the graves of the dead? i.e., martyrs–a custom which existed in the post-apostolic Church. What shall they gain who are baptized for the good of the Christian dead? i.e., to accomplish the number of the elect, and to hasten the kingdom of Christ. Taken together, these sound like a series of ingenious answers to a conundrum, no one of which is the true answer. And thus they read us a most impressive homily against putting forced, or spiritual meanings on the plain words of Scripture. These opposing constructions of St. Pauls words refute each other, and warn us that we must abide by the natural and obvious sense of the passage, in whatever difficulties it may land us. Take them literally and St. Paul says, that in the Corinthian Church men were baptized for, in the stead of, the unbaptized dead.

II. We have many historical traces of the custom of baptizing for the dead. Tertullian and Chrysostom attest that it existed among the Marcionites (A.D.130-150). Epiphanius relates that a similar custom prevailed among the Corinthians, a still earlier sect, and adds: There was an uncertain tradition handed down that it was also to be found among some heretics in Asia, especially in Galatia, in the times of the apostles. St. Chrysostom gives us a graphic picture of such a baptism. He says: After a catechumen 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 baptized the living for the dead. Similar observances have obtained in all ages. The Februarian lustrations for the dead are familiar to all readers of Ovid. Tertullian refers to them as very much on a level with the Corinthian baptism for the dead. They were designed to contribute in some indefinite way to the welfare and happiness of the Roman dead. With the Jews, if any man died in a state of ceremonial uncleanness, which would have required ablution, one of his friends performed the ablution; he was washed, and the dead man was accounted clean. In a kindred spirit the Patristic Church once placed the eucharistical elements in the mouths or hands of the dead.

III. Now a custom which has obtained so widely, and which still lives virtually in the Roman masses for the dead, must have had some humane and noble motive. Nor, I think, is the motive far to seek. Death often lends new life to love. When we have lost those who were nearest to us, we long to do something to prove the sincerity of our love. Suppose, then, that in Corinth a son, who had often listened to the Christian preachers, lost the father who had listened with him. Both, let us assume, have been impressed by the truth, but they have not been drawn by it into the Christian fellowship. The father dies: and now the son resolves that he will hesitate no longer. He will put on Christ by baptism. But the dear father now dead–can nothing be done for him? He might have been baptized had he lived a little longer: perhaps, as he lay a-dying, he lamented that he had not been bolder. Are his good intentions, his regrets, to come to nothing? May not his sons baptism be in some sort the fathers too? May not the son say to the minister of the Church, My father would have been baptized had he lived; I will be baptized for him? If he did say that, we may be sure the minister would respect his feeling; possibly he might even share it. For we must not forget how ignorant the Corinthians were, and that on the main sacramental and doctrinal points. And if vicarious baptism were administered by any one teacher, if those were admitted to baptism who were moved thereto by love of the dead as well as by love for Christ, we can easily see how a superstitious custom would soon grow up in the Church.

IV. But Paul knew this to be a mere superstition. Can we suppose that he would argue from it without condemning it.

1. And yet, did he not, in becoming all things to all men, that he might save some, often accommodate himself to the views and feelings of those whom he addressed when he could not share them? We can hardly suppose that St. Paul admired the allegorical method of interpretation which was so dear to many of the Jews. Yet, in speaking or in writing to men who used this method, he often adopted it (Gal 4:21-31). So again, as he passed through Athens, he saw an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God. The Athenians meant only some god whom they did not clearly know, who might well consort with the crowd of divinities in their Pantheon. Him, says St. Paul, I declare unto you. But it was not any such god as was in their thoughts, but the only wise and true God. Here again, therefore, he was accommodating himself to views which he could not share; he appealed to the polytheism of a heathen race in order to set forth Jesus as the Saviour and life of men. So, once more, when he took a Jewish vow, and, after a Jewish custom, shaved his head at Cenchrea; or when he went and purified himself in the Temple, or when he caused his son Timothy to be circumcised, he became as a Jew that he might, gain the Jews. Is it impossible, then, that, in persuading the Corinthians of a resurrection, he should appeal to a superstitious custom which he himself did not approve?

2. Nevertheless, one does not like to conceive of St. Paul as doing that. The least we should expect of him is that, if he condescended to use such an argument at all, he would disconnect himself from the superstition on which it was based, and hint his disapproval of it. And this much, I think, he does. There are traces of his tacit disapprobation of this baptism for the dead even in our English version. Mark the tone of his argument before and after the 29th verse, and you will see how completely he identifies himself with his friends at Corinth. If the dead rise not, he says in the previous verses, our preaching is vain, your faith is vain, etc. It is all we and you. The same tone dominates the subsequent verses. Contrast with this the tone of verse 29. Else, i.e., if the dead rise not, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead? St. Paul no longer speaks of we and you, but of they and them, as though he were speaking of men with whom neither he nor his friends were in perfect sympathy. And this change of tone is much more marked and obvious in the Greek. To give effect to his change of tone and the niceties of his grammar, we may paraphrase his question thus: What will become of those, or, What good account of themselves can they give, who are in the habit of being baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? The very ground and motive of their custom is cut from under their feet by a denial of the resurrection, and therefore they, of all men, should be the very last to deny it.

V. Note one of the grave moral questions the subject suggests. I have spoken of the humane and universal feeling in which this vicarious baptism probably had its rise and strength. We have lost those who were dear to us, and if we have hope for all our dead, we can sympathise with the anguish of those who have no hope. We can see that if fears for their eternal welfare had been added to our sorrow at the loss of those who were very dear to us, that added burden would have been enough to break our hearts. And the question I would fain suggest is–Are your children to long, when you are taken from them, that they could be baptized for the dead? If only because you love those who will be after you, and would save them from vain longings and inconsolable regrets, it will be well for you to consider this question, and to act out your answer to it without delay. (S. Cox, D.D.)

Baptism for the dead

I. The connection of the passage. It is connected with verse 20, the intervening verses being a parenthesis. Paul has been speaking of the vanity of the Christian life apart from the resurrection (verses 19, 20), and then after a digression on the order of the resurrection, suggested by the word first-fruits, he resumes his argument. Else, if Christ be not risen, what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? But whilst the passage is thus disconnected from what precedes, it is directly connected with what follows (verse 30). If Christ be not risen, what is the use of our enduring sufferings for our faith in Him?

II. The apostles train of thought.

1. His chief argument is that derived from the resurrection of Christ. If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is not Christ risen, consequently your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins, and in testifying to it we are found false witnesses. But we have the most convincing proofs, from numerous and unquestionable witnesses, of Christs resurrection, which is a proof and pledge of ours.

2. If there be no resurrection, then dead believers are annihilated (verse 18), and their Christianity, as it is inseparably connected with suffering, has augmented the misery of human existence (verse 19). But this is a consequence that cannot be admitted (verse 20).

3. And analogous to this the apostle argues that if there be no resurrection, all the trials of believers are useless; not the practice of the Christians, but that of the Epicureans, is reasonable (verses 30-33). Now it is evident that it is to this argument that the text belongs; therefore, baptism for the dead must be connected with the sufferings of believers.

III. The text therefore means baptism to fill the place of the dead.

1. The apostle represents one set of Christians succeeding another: when their ranks were thinned by death others rushed in to supply their place. But why so if there be no resurrection? Why do they voluntarily submit to like suffering for their faith? Such an interpretation agrees well with what follows. And what a noble idea does this give of Christians. They fill up the ranks and fight in the battle in which their companions have fallen. And what a touching scene it must have been in times of persecution to see the baptized, like soldiers, occupying the breach which death had made in their ranks, thus verifying the observation that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

2. This interpretation gives us a striking view of the nature of baptism. It unites the baptized living with the baptized dead; it is the ceremony for our enrolment into the great army of the living God; it ensures the perpetuity of the Church, and supplies it with a constant succession of those who bear the name of Jesus; it is a solemn consecration to the service of Christ, and imposes upon us the duties which our predecessors performed, and enables us to look forward to those rewards which they now enjoy. (P. J. Gloag, D.D.)

Baptized for the dead

The words, baptized for the dead, do not, either necessarily or naturally, imply (in the original) a vicarious baptism: the for is in behalf of, rather than instead of–at the utmost for the benefit of, whatever sense may be given to it–as champions or advocates, rather than as proxies or substitutes.

I. St. Paul speaks (we venture to think) not of a caprice, and not of a superstition–not of a local custom, not of a human invention, not of a pious fancy, and not of a morbid and perilous addition to the faith and rule of the Churches: he speaks, we believe, of the ordinance of baptism as the risen and departing Saviour instituted it, and he unfolds to us here in brief, as elsewhere in detail, the connection of that ordinance with the foundation-fact of the resurrection. Every Christian baptism is a baptism for the dead. Not only is the resurrection of the dead one of the articles of the apostles creed which the person to be baptized professes himself to believe–as Chrysostom says, commenting upon this passage, When we are about to baptize, we bid the man say, I believe in the resurrection of the dead, and after this confession he is plunged in the sacred fountain–not only is there this connection between the sacrament and the doctrine–but also, as the same great writer goes on to explain, the very immersion in, and emergence from, the baptismal waters, is a symbol of the burial and the resurrection that shall be–it is an insertion into the Saviour dead and risen, it is the typical foreacting of that funeral and that revival, the anticipation of which is the saints life, the realisation of which is the saints glory. To be baptized for the dead is to vindicate, by our baptism, the sure hope of the dead–namely (to use again St. Pauls words), that, as we believe that Christ died and rose again, even so them also which have been laid to sleep through Jesus shall God bring with Him. If there is no such hope–if the dead rise not at all–what shall they do, which way shall they turn themselves, who have been subjected, on becoming believers, to that Christian baptism, which is, being interpreted, the assertion of the right of the dead, not only to immortality in a world of spirits, but, definitely and specifically, to a resurrection of the body? Why, he adds, if there be no such hope, are the generations of the faithful thus baptized for the dead?

II. The saying opens to us a new region of duty. We are apt to imagine that death breaks all ties. Certainly it breaks some. Ties of office–ties of courtesy–ties of parentage and wedlock–death breaks these–as to their form. But not even these, surely, as to their substance. What shall we say of the son whose heart does not burn within him at the slighting mention of a dead father–what shall we say of the patriot who has no sense of shame at the ridicule of a great statesman departed, or of the subject who is capable of no resentment when he reads some cowardly outrage upon the memory of a dead sovereign? Yes–cowardly I call it, if it concerns the dead. The characters of the dead are the heirlooms of the living. To disparage a dead man is like injuring a child or insulting a woman. If you must calumniate the departed, begin on the day of the funeral–while at least there may be some one to answer you–son, brother, friend–some one to call you to the reckoning–some one to challenge you to the proof. These, indeed, are more or less personal matters. They affect but a few–generally the more famous, the more illustrious, of mankind. But St. Paul tells us that there is an honour, and by consequence a dishonour, which may be done to all the dead. There is way in which we can disparage, or in which we can vindicate them, as a class. We may be baptized for them. And when he explains himself he says, We may either assert for them, or doubt for them, or deny to them, a resurrection–which is, in other words, an immortality of complete being. Let us not forget that we ourselves shall soon have gone across from this world to that. Baptized for the dead? then, baptized for ourselves. Let us cling now to that Easter which shall be our all then!

1. Let us thank God for the gospel. The gospel is true or not true–but at least it is clearly defined and very simple. Christ died for our sins, and was buried, and the third day rose. In Him we live–He is the Resurrection and the Life. Let us settle these matters. To live in suspense about Jesus Christ is to live in a trance, incapable of true speech or true action. Settle that question–and let it settle all else. I can recognise no plea for waiting. That which will be true at your death is true to-day. If true, it involves duties. Amongst others–and of that the text speaks–

2. A duty towards the departed. How often have we turned back from the open grave, as from a closed book or a career ended! Anxieties we have silenced by a peradventure, unuttered but tolerated, that all may be well because all may be nothing. Prayers for the dead are un-Protestant–the dead are in the hands of God. Duties to the dead are ended–neglected or done, they are of the past. Let them rest in peace. Nay, we have still to be their champions. We have still to think of them as being and to be–as members of the Church, as possessors of the Spirit. We have still to be in communion with them–meeting them when we pray–meeting them when we worship–meeting them when we communicate. We have still to feel, when we bring a little child to baptism, we are standing up for the dead. We are asserting the resurrection of the body. (Dean Vaughan.)

Baptism for the dead

Just as Christ died both for us and our sins, i.e., with a mind bent over us, in order to our redemption, or over our sins, with an eye to their abolition (see verse 3), even so catechumens in baptism emerged from the hallowed streams with their thoughts busy about or intent upon the dead, not as particular persons, but as a general class, distinct from the living on earth. And both context and circumstance together proclaim that the ulterior view of a neophites mind, bending over the long roll of the dead, is their resurrection. But to make certainty doubly certain, St. Paul adds, If absolutely not raised are dead men, why do persons actually receive baptism on their account? Between the death of the Duke of Wellington and his public funeral, I remember a lady, pointing to some crape near her, saying, This will be of use for the Duke of Wellington. The text came immediately to my mind as parallel in structure to the sentence uttered, which, expanded in full, signified, This crape will be of use for me to wear on the day of Wellingtons funeral. (Canon Evans.)

The Church-world

There is a community of men whose principles, spirit, aim, character, and destiny, distinguish them from every other class of human society. The text presents this Church-world:–

I. As thinned by death–the dead. The great law of mortality enters this realm. The intelligence, virtues, devotions, and usefulness of this Church-realm, constitute no barrier to the entrance of death. But–

1. He appears here as the messenger of mercy–outside as the officer of justice.

2. He leaves behind him here consolation for the survivors, but outside unmitigated sorrow.

II. As replenished by conversion. By those who are baptized for the dead I understand those who, from Pagan darkness, were converted by the gospel, and were admitted into the visible Church, there to fill up the place of those who, by martyrdom or otherwise, had been called away by death. The new convert then took the place of the departed saint. No sooner is one Christian removed from his station than another is raised up by God to supply the loss. As Joshua succeeded Moses, Elisha Elijah, Eleazer Aaron, so one man is ever raised in the Church to take the place of another. This succession affords a lesson–

1. For humility. The man of most brilliant talents, distinguished position, and extensive usefulness in the Church, has nothing whereof to flatter himself; however important he may be, the Church can do without him. When he fails, others are ready to step into his place, and to be baptized for the dead.

2. For encouragement. Gods redemptive plan will go on, whatever happens to individual agents. He buries His workmen, but carries on His work. Let us learn to trust God rather than His most distinguished servants. The treasure is only in earthern vessels–vessels that must crumble.

III. As living in hope. This language implies that the hope of a future state, of a resurrection, was a vital thing in the experience of the Church; and so it has ever been, is, and will ever be. The Church lives in hope. It reckons that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glories that shall be. It is waiting for the adoption; it is looking for the blessed appearing, etc. Paul does not mean, however, that the religion of Christ is of no service to man if there be no future state. Let us answer his two questions.

1. What shall they do? We venture to reply, not renounce religion, but continue faithful for ever. Should there be no future, Christian virtue is good. You will lose nothing by it should you be annihilated: you will not feel even the disappointment, but you will gain immensely by it, even in the present life. Godliness is profitable unto all things.

2. Why are they then baptized? We answer, because the claims of religion are independent of the future state. Were there no heaven, no hell, we should be bound to be truthful, honest, benevolent, God loving, etc. (D. Thomas, D.D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 29. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead] This is certainly the most difficult verse in the New Testament; for, notwithstanding the greatest and wisest men have laboured to explain it, there are to this day nearly as many different interpretations of it as there are interpreters. I shall not employ my time, nor that of my reader, with a vast number of discordant and conflicting opinions; I shall make a few remarks:

1. The doctrine of the resurrection of our Lord was a grand doctrine among the apostles; they considered and preached this as the demonstration of the truth of the Gospel.

2. The multitudes who embraced Christianity became converts on the evidence of this resurrection.

3. This resurrection was considered the pledge and proof of the resurrection of all believers in Christ to the possession of the same glory into which he had entered.

4. The baptism which they received they considered as an emblem of their natural death and resurrection. This doctrine St. Paul most pointedly preaches, Ro 6:3-5: Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, even so we also should walk in newness of life: for, if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in his resurrection.

5. It is evident from this that all who died in the faith of Christ died in the faith of the resurrection; and therefore cheerfully gave up their lives to death, as they took joyfully the spoiling of their goods, knowing in themselves that they had in heaven a better and an enduring substance, Heb 10:34.

6. As is the body, so are the members; those who were properly instructed, and embraced Christianity, believed that as all who had died in the faith of Christ should rise again, so they were baptized in the same faith.

7. As so many of the primitive followers of Christ sealed the truth with their blood, and Satan and his followers continued unchanged, every man who took on him the profession of Christianity, which was done by receiving baptism, considered himself as exposing his life to the most imminent hazard, and offering his life with those who had already offered and laid down theirs.

8. He was therefore baptized in reference to this martyrdom; and, having a regard to those dead, he cheerfully received baptism, that, whether he were taken off by a natural or violent death, he might be raised in the likeness of Jesus Christ’s resurrection, and that of his illustrious martyrs.

9. As martyrdom and baptism were thus so closely and intimately connected, , to be baptized, was used to express being put to a violent death by the hands of persecutors. So Mat 20:22, Mat 20:23 : “But Jesus answered and said, Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of? c.” (Can ye go through my sufferings?) “They say unto him, We are able. He saith unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of my cup,” (ye shall bear your part of the afflictions of the Gospel,) “and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with (that is, ye shall suffer martyrdom.) See also Mr 10:38. So Lu 12:50 “I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!” That is, I must die a violent death for the salvation of men.

10. The sum of the apostle’s meaning appears to be this: If there be no resurrection of the dead, those who, in becoming Christians, expose themselves to all manner of privations, crosses, severe sufferings, and a violent death, can have no compensation, nor any motive sufficient to induce them to expose themselves to such miseries. But as they receive baptism as an emblem of death in voluntarily going under the water, so they receive it as an emblem of the resurrection unto eternal life, in coming up out of the water; thus they are baptized for the dead, in perfect faith of the resurrection. The three following verses seem to confirm this sense.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

A very difficult text, and variously expounded. The terms baptize, and baptism, signify no more in their original and native signification, than to wash, and a washing: the washing of pots and cups, in use amongst the Jews, is, in the Greek, the baptisms of pots and cups. But the most usual acceptation of baptism in Scripture, is to signify one of the sacraments of the New Testament; that sacred action, by which one is washed according to the institution of Christ, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It is also metaphorically used by our Saviour in the Gospels, Mat 20:22,23; Mr 10:38,39; Lu 12:50, to signify a suffering for the name of Christ. And it is also used thus metaphorically, to signify the action of the Holy Ghost in cleansing and renewing our hearts, Mat 3:11,12; Joh 3:5. The last usage of the term is by no means applicable here. The question is: Whether the apostle meaneth here only: Why are men washed for the dead? Or why are men baptized religiously for the dead? Or why are men baptized with blood for the dead? For the popish notion, that baptism here signifies any religious actions, as fastings, and prayers, and penances for those that are in purgatory, there is no such usage of the term in Scripture; for though in Scripture it signifies sometimes sufferings from the hands of others, as in Mat 20:22,23; Mr 10:38,39, yet it no where signifies penances, or such sufferings as men impose upon themselves for the dead. Nor doth Paul here say: To what purpose do men baptize themselves? But

why are they baptized for the dead?

1. Those that think the term here signifies washing, what shall they do who are washed for the dead? Tell us, that it being a custom in many countries, for neatness and cleanliness, to wash dead bodies, the primitive Christians used that ceremony as a religious rite, and a testification of their belief of the resurrection. That such a custom was in use amongst Christians, is plain from Act 9:37; but that they used it as religious rite, or a testimony of their taith in the resurrection, appeareth not. And though it be , yet they say is so used, Rom 15:8, for the truth of God, expounded by the next word, to confirm the promises.

2. Those that think, that by baptizing, in this text, the sacrament of baptism is to be understood, give us more than one account. Some say, that whereas they were wont in the primitive church, before they admitted persons into a full communion with the church, to keep them for some time under catechism, in which time they were called catechumeni; if such fell sick, and in danger of death, they baptized them; or if they died suddenly, they baptized some other for them, in testimony of their hope of the joyful resurrection of such a person to eternal life. Now admit this were an error of practice in them, as to this ordinance; yet if any such thing were in practice in this church, the argument of the apostle was good against them. But how shall any such thing be made appear to us, that there was such an early corruption in this church? Others say, that some, believing the resurrection, would upon their death beds be baptized, in testimony of it, from whence they had the name of clinici. Others say: To be baptized for the dead, signifieth to be baptized when they were dying, and so as good as dead. Mr. Calvin chooseth this sense: but the question is: Whether the Greek phrase will bear it? Others tell us of a custom in use in the primitive church, to baptize persons over the graves of the martyrs, as a testimony of their belief of the resurrection. That there was anciently such a custom, I doubt not; and I believe that the custom with us in reading of prayers over dead bodies at the grave, doth much more probably derive from this ancient usage, than the papists praying for the dead; but that there was any such custom so ancient as the apostles times, I very much doubt. There are yet two other senses given of this difficult phrase, either of which seemeth to me much more probable than any of these. To the first we are led by the next verse:

And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? Which inclineth many good interpreters to think, that the baptism here mentioned, is that baptism with blood mentioned by our Saviour, Mat 20:22,23; and so the sense is no more than, if there be no resurrection of the dead, why do we die daily? Why are we killed all the day long? For we do that in hope of a blessed resurrection. The only objections against this are:

1. That none but Christ himself useth the word in this sense (which seemeth a light exception).

2. That is hardly capable of that sense; but yet our learned Dr. Lightfoot brings parallels of such a usage of the preposition out of the LXX. Others observe, that the apostle, in this whole chapter, is discoursing of the resurrection of believers unto life, and they are such dead alone, that he here speaketh of, for whom he saith any were baptized. Now, it is plain from Scripture, that baptism is a seal of the resurrection, signifying to believers, that they shall be made partakers of the death and resurrection of Christ (the resurrection being strongly proved from Gods covenant, of which baptism is a seal, Luk 20:37,38); and being so, it confirmed the covenant, not only to the persons baptized, but to the whole church, as well the triumphant as the militant part of it; as well with reference to those of it that were dead, as those that were living. So that so often as baptism was administered in the church, so often God repeated the covenant made to his whole church, that he was the God of believers and of their seed: so that all who to this day are baptized, are baptized for the dead, that is, for the confirmation of Gods covenant to his whole church, as well that part of it which is dead, as that part which is yet alive; and it testifieth, that those that sleep in Christ (although dead) yet live in the promise of the resurrection, because God is their God, and he is not the God of the dead, but of the living, as our Saviour speaketh in Luk 20:38. In this variety amongst learned men about the true sense of this place, I shall leave the reader to his own judgment, although to me the two last seem to be most probable.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

29. Elseif there be noresurrection.

what shall they do?Howwretched is their lot!

they . . . which are baptizedfor the deadthird person; a class distinct from that in whichthe apostle places himself, “we” (1Co15:30); first person. ALFORDthinks there is an allusion to a practice at Corinth of baptizing aliving person in behalf of a friend who died unbaptized; thusPaul, without giving the least sanction to the practice, uses an adhominem argument from it against its practicers, some of whom,though using it, denied the resurrection: “What account can theygive of their practice; why are they at the trouble of it, if thedead rise not?” [So Jesus used an ad hominem argument, Mt12:27]. But if so, it is strange there is no direct censure ofit. Some Marcionites adopted the practice at a later period, probablyfrom taking this passage, as ALFORDdoes; but, generally, it was unknown in the Church. BENGELtranslates, “over (immediately upon) the dead,” that is,who will be gathered to the dead immediately after baptism.Compare Job 17:1, “thegraves are ready for me.” The price they get for their troubleis, that they should be gathered to the dead for ever (1Co 15:13;1Co 15:16). Many in the ancientChurch put off baptism till near death. This seems the better view;though there may have been some rites of symbolical baptism atCorinth, now unknown, perhaps grounded on Jesus’ words (Mat 20:22;Mat 20:23), which Paul herealludes to. The best punctuation is, “If the dead rise not atall, why are they then baptized for them” (so the oldestmanuscripts read the last words, instead of “for the dead”)?

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead,…. The apostle here returns to his subject, and makes use of new arguments to prove the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and reasons for it from the baptism of some persons; but what is his sense, is not easy to be understood, or what rite and custom, or thing, or action he refers to; which must, be either Jewish baptism, or Christian baptism literally taken, or baptism in a figurative and metaphorical sense. Some think that he refers to some one or other of the divers baptisms of the Jews; see Heb 9:10 and particularly to the purification of such who had touched a dead body, which was done both by the ashes of the red heifer burnt, and by bathing himself in water; and which, the Jews say l, intimated

, “the resurrection of the dead”: wherefore such a right was needless, if there is no resurrection; to strengthen this sense, a passage in Ecclesiasticus 34:25 is produced, , “he that washeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing?” but the phrase there used is different; it is not said, he that baptizeth or washeth himself for the dead, but from the dead, to cleanse himself from pollution received by the touch of a dead body: it is also observed, that the Jews, as well as other nations, have used various rites and ceremonies about their dead, and among the rest, the washing of dead bodies before interment; see Ac 9:37 and this by some is thought to be what is here referred to; and the reasoning is, if there is no resurrection of the dead, why all this care of a dead body? why this washing of it? it may as well be put into the earth as it is, since it will rise no more; but how this can be called a baptism for the dead, I see not: rather therefore Christian baptism, or the ordinance of water baptism is here respected; and with regard to this, interpreters go different ways: some think the apostle has in view a custom of some, who when their friends died without baptism, used to be baptized in their room; this is said to be practised by the Marcionites in Tertullian’s time, and by the Corinthians in the times of the Apostle John; but it does not appear to have been in use in the times of the Apostle Paul; and besides, if it had been, as it was a vain and superstitious one, he would never have mentioned it without a censure, and much less have argued from it; nor would his argument be of any weight, since it might be retorted, that whereas such persons were mistaken in using such a practice, they might be also in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead: others are of opinion that such persons are intended, called Clinics, who deferred their baptism till they came upon their death beds, and then had it administered to them; but as this practice was not in being in the apostle’s time, and was far from being a laudable one; and though the persons to whom it was administered were upon the point of death, and nearer the dead than the living, and were as good as dead, and might be intended by them, for their advantage, when dead and not living; yet it must be a great force and strain on words and things, to reckon this a being baptized for the dead: others would have the words rendered, “over the dead”; and suppose that reference is had to the Christians that had their “baptisteries” in their places of burial, and by being baptized here, testified their faith and hope of the resurrection of the dead; but this was rather a being baptized among the dead, than over them, or for them; and moreover it is not certain, that they did make use of such places to baptize in; to which may be added, that the primitive Christians had not so early burying grounds of their own: others would have the meaning to be, that they were baptized for their dead works, their sins, to wash them away; but this baptism does not of itself, and no otherwise than by leading the faith of persons to the blood of Christ, which alone cleanses from sin, original and actual; nor is this appropriate to the apostle’s argument. Others imagine, that he intends such as were baptized, and added to the church, and so filled up the places of them that were dead; but the reason from hence proving the resurrection of the dead is not very obvious: those seem to be nearer the truth of the matter, who suppose that the apostle has respect to the original practice of making a confession of faith before baptism, and among the rest of the articles of it, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, upon the belief of which being baptized, they might be said to be baptized for the dead; that is, for, or upon, or in the faith and profession of the resurrection of the dead, and therefore must either hold this doctrine, or renounce their baptism administered upon it; to which may be added another sense of the words, which is, that baptism performed by immersion, as it was universally in those early times, was a lively emblem and representation of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and also both of the spiritual and corporeal resurrection of the saints. Now if there is no resurrection, why is such a symbol used? it is useless and insignificant; I see nothing of moment to be objected to these two last senses, which may be easily put together, but this; that the apostle seems to point out something that was done or endured by some Christians only; whereas baptism, upon a profession of faith in Christ, and the resurrection from the dead, and performed by immersion, as an emblem of it, was common to all; and therefore he would rather have said, what shall we do, or we all do, who are baptized for the dead? I am therefore rather inclined to think that baptism is used here in a figurative and metaphorical sense, for afflictions, sufferings, and martyrdom, as in Mt 20:22 and it was for the belief, profession, and preaching of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, both of Christ and of the saints, that the apostles and followers of Christ endured so much as they did; the first instance of persecution after our Lord’s ascension was on this account. The Apostles Peter and John, were laid hold on and put in prison for preaching this doctrine; the reproach and insult the Apostle Paul met with at Athens were by reason of it; and it was for this that he was called in question and accused of the Jews; nor was there anyone doctrine of Christianity more hateful and contemptible among the Heathens than this was. Now the apostle’s argument stands thus, what is, or will become of those persons who have been as it were baptized or overwhelmed in afflictions and sufferings, who have endured so many and such great injuries and indignities, and have even lost their lives for asserting this doctrine,

if the dead rise not at all? how sadly mistaken must such have been!

why are they then baptized for the dead? how imprudently have they acted! and what a weak and foolish part do they also act, who continue to follow them! in what a silly manner do they expose themselves to danger, and throw away their lives, if this doctrine is not true! which sense is confirmed by what follows: the Alexandrian copy, and some others, read, “for them”, and so the Vulgate Latin version; and the Ethiopic in both clauses reads, “why do they baptize?”

l R. Bechai & Zohar apud Lightfoot in loc.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Else (). Otherwise, if not true. On this use of with ellipsis see on 1Cor 5:10; 1Cor 7:14.

Which are baptized for the dead ( ). This passage remains a puzzle. Stanley gives thirteen interpretations, no one of which may be correct. Over thirty have been suggested. The Greek expositors took it to be about the dead ( in sense of as often as in 2Co 1:6) since baptism is a burial and a resurrection (Ro 6:2-6). Tertullian tells of some heretics who took it to mean baptized in the place of dead people (unsaved) in order to save them. Some take it to be baptism over the dead. Others take it to mean that Paul and others were in peril of death as shown by baptism (see verse 30).

At all (). See on 5:1.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

What shall they do [ ] . What will they effect or accomplish. Not, What will they have recourse to? nor, How will it profit them? The reference is to the living who are baptized for the dead.

Baptized for the dead [ ] . Concerning this expression, of which some thirty different explanations are given, it is best to admit frankly that we lack the facts for a decisive interpretation. None of the explanations proposed are free from objection. Paul is evidently alluding to a usage familiar to his readers; and the term employed was, as Godet remarks, in their vocabulary, a sort of technical phrase. A large number of both ancient and modern commentators 128 adopt the view that a living Christian was baptized for an unbaptized dead Christian. The Greek expositors regarded the words the dead as equivalent to the resurrection of the dead, and the baptism as a manifestation of belief in the doctrine of the resurrection. Godet adopts the explanation which refers baptism to martyrdom – the baptism of blood – and cites Luk 12:50, and Mr 10:38. In the absence of anything more satisfactory I adopt the explanation given above.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Else what shall they do,” (epei ti poiesousin) “Otherwise, (if there be no resurrection) what will the ones do.” Should those who have been baptized to express their faith and hope in the resurrection simply abandon, turn their back on, their Christian profession?

2) “Which are baptized for the dead,” (hoi baptizomenoi huper ton nekron) “The ones being baptized on behalf of the dead corpses?” The term (Gk. huper) “On behalf of” refers to the resurrection hope held by those who had died, expressed in baptism, a symbol of death, burial, and the resurrection.

3) “If the dead rise not at all?” (ei holos nekroi ouk egeirontai) “If actually dead persons (bodies) are not raised up.” What shall all having been baptized on behalf of their faith in the future resurrection of the dead do? “You tell me,” gnostics, deniers and doubters, Rom 6:1-5.

4) “Why are they then baptized for the dead?” (Ti kai hemeis kindunemomen pasan horan) “Why are they baptized on behalf of them?” Evidently, the Corinth church was continuing to baptize people, expressing a pictorial faith in the resurrection, while some disputed the fact of the resurrection.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

29. Else what shall they do He resumes his enumeration of the absurdities, which follow from the error under which the Corinthians labored. He had set himself in the outset to do this, but he introduced instruction and consolation, by means of which he interrupted in some degree the thread of his discourse. To this he now returns. In the first place he brings forward this objection — that the baptism which those received who are already regarded as dead, will be of no avail if there is no resurrection. Before expounding this passage, it is of importance to set aside the common exposition, which rests upon the authority of the ancients, and is received with almost universal consent. Chrysostom, therefore, and Ambrose, who are followed by others, are of opinion (63) that the Corinthians were accustomed, when any one had been deprived of baptism by sudden death, to substitute some living person in the place of the deceased — to be baptized at his grave. They at the same time do not deny that this custom was corrupt, and full of superstition, but they say that Paul, for the purpose of confuting the Corinthians, was contented with this single fact, (64) that while they denied that there was a resurrection, they in the mean time declared in this way that they believed in it. For my part, however, I cannot by any means be persuaded to believe this, (65) for it is not to be credited, that those who denied that there was a resurrection had, along with others, made use of a custom of this sort. Paul then would have had immediately this reply made to him: “Why do you trouble us with that old wives’ superstition, which you do not yourself approve of?” Farther, if they had made use of it, they might very readily have replied: “If this has been hitherto practiced by us through mistake, rather let the mistake be corrected, than that it should have weight attached to it for proving a point of such importance.”

Granting, however, that the argument was conclusive, can we suppose that, if such a corruption as this had prevailed among the Corinthians, the Apostle, after reproving almost all their faults, would have been silent as to this one? He has censured above some practices that are not of so great moment. He has not scrupled to give directions as to women’s having the head covered, and other things of that nature. Their corrupt administration of the Supper he has not merely reproved, but has inveighed against it with the greatest keenness. Would he in the meantime have uttered not a single word in reference to such a base profanation of baptism, which was a much more grievous fault? He has inveighed with great vehemence against those who, by frequenting the banquets of the Gentiles, silently countenanced their superstitions. Would he have suffered this horrible superstition of the Gentiles to be openly carried on in the Church itself under the name of sacred baptism? But granting that he might have been silent, what shall we say when he expressly makes mention of it? Is it, I pray you, a likely thing that the Apostle would bring forward in the shape of an argument a sacrilege (66) by which baptism was polluted, and converted into a mere magical abuse, and yet not say even one word in condemnation of the fault? When he is treating of matters that are not of the highest importance, he introduces nevertheless this parenthesis, that he speaks as a man. (Rom 3:5; Rom 6:19; Gal 3:15.) Would not this have been a more befitting and suitable place for such a parenthesis? Now from his making mention of such a thing without any word of reproof, who would not understand it to be a thing that was allowed? For my part, I assuredly understand him to speak here of the right use of baptism, and not of an abuse of it of that nature.

Let us now inquire as to the meaning. At one time I was of opinion, that Paul here pointed out the universal design of baptism, for the advantage of baptism is not confined to this life; but on considering the words afterwards with greater care, I perceived that Paul here points out something peculiar. For he does not speak of all when he says, What shall they do, who are baptized ? etc. Besides, I am not fond of interpretations, that are more ingenious than solid. What then? I say, that those are baptized for dead, who are looked upon as already dead, and who have altogether despaired of life; and in this way the particle ὑπέρ will have the force of the Latin pro , as when we say, habere pro derelicto ; — to reckon as abandoned (67) This signification is not a forced one. Or if you would prefer another signification, to be baptized for the dead will mean — to be baptized so as to profit the dead — not the living, (68) Now it is well known, that from the very commencement of the Church, those who had, while yet catechumens, (69) fallen into disease, (70) if their life was manifestly in danger, were accustomed to ask baptism, that they might not leave this world before they had made a profession of Christianity; and this, in order that they might carry with them the seal of their salvation.

It appears from the writings of the Fathers, that as to this matter, also, there crept in afterwards a superstition, for they inveigh against those who delayed baptism till the time of their death, that, being once for all purged from all their sins, they might in this state meet the judgment of God. (71) A gross error truly, which proceeded partly from great ignorance, and partly from hypocrisy! Paul, however, here simply mentions a custom that was sacred, and in accordance with the Divine institution — that if a catechumen, who had already in his heart embraced the Christian faith, (72) saw that death was impending over him, he asked baptism, partly for his own consolation, and partly with a view to the edification of his brethren. For it is no small consolation to carry the token of his salvation sealed in his body. There is also an edification, not to be lost sight of — that of making a confession of his faith. They were, then, baptized for the dead, inasmuch as it could not be of any service to them in this world, and the very occasion of their asking baptism was that they despaired of life. We now see that it is not without good reason that Paul asks, what they would do if there remained no hope after death? (73) This passage shows us, too, that those impostors who had disturbed the faith of the Corinthians, had contrived a figurative resurrection, making the farthest goal of believers to be in this world, His repeating it a second time, Why are they also baptized for the dead? gives it greater emphasis: “Not only are those baptized who think that they are to live longer, but those too who have death before their eyes; and that, in order that they may in death reap the fruit of their baptism.”

(63) “This,” it is stated by Barnes, “was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose.” — Ed.

(64) “ De ce seul argument;” — “With this single argument.”

(65) “ Mats ie ne voy rien qui me puisse amener a suyure ceste coniecture;” — “But I see nothing that could induce me to follow that conjecture.”

(66) “ Ce sacrilege horrible; ” — “ This horrible sacrilege.”

(67) The form of expression referred to is made use of by Cicero. (Art. 8.1.) — Ed.

(68) “ Proufite apres la mort, et non pas la vie durant;” — “Profits after death, and not during life.”

(69) “ Estans encore sur la premiere instruction de la doctrine Chrestienne;” — “Being as yet in the first rudiments of Christian doctrine.”

(70) “ Quelque maladie dangereuse;” — “Some dangerous malady.”

(71) Cornelius a Lapide, in his Commentary on the Canonical Epistles, (Paris, 1631,) adverts in the following terms to the custom referred to by Calvin : “ Inter conversos olim multi erant qui Baptismum diu differebant, etiam usque ad mortem, adeoque aegri in lecto baptizabantur, ut per Baptismum expiati ab omni culpa et poena illico puri evolarent in coelum :” — “Among the converted there were anciently many who deferred baptism for a long time, even up to the time of their death, and were accordingly baptized when sick in bed, that cleared by baptism from all fault and punishment, they might fly up to heaven pure.” Milner, in his Church History, (volume 2,) when treating of Gregory Nazianzen, says, “In another discourse, he protests against the too common practice of delaying baptism, which, from the example of Constantine, had grown very fashionable, for reasons equally corrupt and superstitious. Men lived in sin as long as they thought they could safely, and deferred baptism till their near approach to death, under a groundless hope of washing away all their guilt at once.” See also Turretine’s Theology, (Geneva, 1690,) volume 3 — Ed.

(72) “ Si celuy qui n’ estoit pas encore parfaitement instruit en la doctrine Chrestienne, et toutesfois auoit desia de vraye affection embrasse la foy;” — “If one, that had not as yet been fully instructed in Christian doctrine, but yet had already embraced the faith with true affection.”

(73) “Baptism,” says Dr. Dick, in his Lectures on Theology, (volume 4) “imports our interest in the resurrection of Christ and its consequences. It was called by the ancients ‘the earnest of good things to come,’ and ‘the type of the future resurrection.’ May not this be the meaning of that passage in the fifteenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, concerning which there has been such a diversity of opinion? ‘Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not? why are they then baptized for the dead?’ (1Co 15:29.) Some of the Fathers understood the expression, ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, to mean to be baptized into the hope of the resurrection of the dead; or, what amounts to the same thing, to submit to baptism that they might fill up the places of those who had died, thus declaring their belief that they had not perished, but were alive in a better world, and their hope that, through Jesus Christ, to whom they dedicated themselves in baptism, they also should be raised again to enjoy the same glorious recompense. According to this view of the passage, a resurrection to life is one of the blessings signified and sealed by this institution. It assures us of a triumph over death and the grave, through the redeeming blood of Christ, with which we are sprinkled; and of admission into heaven, for which we are qualified by the washing of regeneration.” — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

ON BEING BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD

1Co 15:29

THE fifteenth chapter of I Corinthians is the great chapter on necrology; and yet, if it stopped with that, it would not be worth the Apostles while. He passes easily from the subject of death to the truth of resurrection; for Paul was not an apostle of pessimism, but a preacher of glorious truths; he was not a man who gave his time and thought to irreparable evils, but, rather, to living purposes, Divine plans, and inspiring possibilities.

He opens that chapter by declaring the Gospel preached to be the same he had received, and he makes that Gospel to rest upon the fact that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. He thereby introduced a subject which was in dispute, namely, that of the resurrection. For a long time the School of the Pharisees had declared the resurrection possible, nay, even certain, while the Sadducees denied that any such thing could be as a resurrection of the dead. The Apostle, who had been brought up in the School of the Pharisees, who had belonged to the conservative wing of Israel, now saw in the fulfilment of prophecy in Christs resurrection a positive proof of the truth of the Pharisaical position. He declares this to be true upon the basis of the Word of God; he affirms it to be a fact upon observation, for the reason that Christ was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once (1Co 15:5-6).

Then he introduces the most effective argument, And last of all He was seen of me also. When a man speaks of the things that he has seen, if he be a man of integrity, of honor, of accustomed truthfulness, arguments with him are at an end. And while Pauls character was sufficient evidence of the fact, in his affirmation he proceeds further to show that if Christ be not raised, the whole work of the Church, the whole cause of Christianity, would collapse for want of a sane occasion. For if the dead rise not at all, why baptize any others to take the place of the departed?

To us this seems to have been the Apostles thought, What is the use of going on baptizing new converts to fill up the ranks that have been depleted by the decease of some, to increase the army marching on in the Name of Jesus Christ, if there is no resurrection from the dead? It is a vain endeavor; it is a call without occasion; it is creating a church to do battle for a false hope, and to fail eventually before that enemyDeath.

But if we agree with the Apostle that Christ is risen, the first fruits, and they that are Christs are destined to rise at His Coming, then the Church has occasion; then to make new converts to Jesus Christ is our great commission; then to baptize for the dead, for deserters, for the sake of increasing the company of the faithfulall of these are worth while.

Three things are herein suggested.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BAPTISM

It is a profession of ones faith. The saying, Actions speak louder than words, is old, and yet in all the manifold illustrations of that truth, few better ones can be produced than that discovered in every baptism of a believer. In that act he proclaims to every onlooker his faith in the record of his Masters death, burial and resurrection. Who can believe as much, without accepting the New Testament as Gods revelation to men? To say to one of His ordained servants, Baptize me! is one with saying, I accept the Gospel record of Christ as from Heaven, and I wish my heartfelt faith symbolized in that outward act.

But no more certainly does baptism manifest a faith in the risen Christ than it symbolizes our belief in the souls death to sin, and resurrection therefrom. The ceremony in which we are symbolically buried with Him by baptism, raises us up from the water grave to walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection (Rom 6:4-5).

Buried in baptism with our Lord,We rise with Him, to life restored;Not the bare life in Adam lost,But richer far, far more it cost.

These lines claim no other authority than that of Moravian utterance, and yet, how certainly they paraphrase Col 2:12, Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God. To introduce a form of baptism which furnishes no symbol of ones faith in the risen Lord, nor of the souls redemption from the death of sin, is much like having the Lords Supper in such form as would disregard the fact that Christs body was broken and His precious blood spilled.

How beautifully baptism symbolizes the entrance upon a new life, and an absolute repudiation of the old manner of living. Geikie, in his Life and Words of Christ, says of the Masters baptism, Can we question that such an act was a crisis in the life of our Lord? Holy and pure before sinking under the waters, He must yet have risen from them with the light of a higher glory in His countenance. His past life had closed; a new era had opened.

Is that not true, in a symbol at least, of every man who receives the sacred rite? When the fathers were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea (1Co 10:2), were they not in the very act of leaving life in Egypt forever, and were not their faces set toward the promised Canaan? So it should ever be!

In baptism we symbolize our allegiance to Christ as servants of His will, and soldiers of His Cross. To receive this initiatory rite into His visible church, is to enlist once for all in the army of the Lord. The vows are then publicly taken; the armor is accepted; the flag under which we march chosen, and the leader and captain elected for time and eternity. No wonder Beddome, when contemplating this act, wrote the lines:

Witness ye men and angels, now Before the Lord we speak;To Him we make our solemn vow,A vow we dare not break.

That, long as life itself shall last,Ourselves to Christ we yield;Nor from His cause will we depart,Or ever quit the field.

THE SUGGESTIVENESS OF THIS QUESTION

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? (1Co 15:29). Three or four things had occurred to this Church at Corinth to deplete its ranks and necessitate baptisms!

Some of its members had been slain by sin. It appears from the eleventh chapter of I Corinthians that some had turned the Lords Supper into a sort of bacchanalian feast, so that one had made it an occasion for gormandizing and another for getting drunk. They had carried this to such an extent that the Apostle reminded them that he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep (1Co 11:29-30).

It was not the first time a Christian Church had lost members through their lusts. One does not go far from the hour when the New Testament Church was originatedon the day of Pentecostere he falls on a record of sin-slain church members. Ananias and Sapphira, through covetousness, were not only cut off from the Church, but instantly removed from the living. One might imagine that such conduct as characterized these two professed Christians would set the Church back, and almost insure against its reception of new members for baptism; but the truth is, that the life of the Church, and its growth are, alike, far more dependent upon keeping the institution in a state of purity than it is on retaining prominent folks. When Ananias and Sapphira were carried forth to their burial place, the result for the Church was expressed in these words, Great fear came upon all the Church, and upon as many as heard these things. * * And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women (Act 5:11; Act 5:14).We have yet to know the Church which has set itself to secure purity on the part of its members, and has gone about the same in the spirit of love to God and to men, that did not baptize far more than it found it necessary to bury. Proper discipline has commonly effected an increase in church membership and spiritual power. The apple orchard, from which a boys appetite was feasted, was a fruitful field indeed. But the father was a faithful pruner, and the latter fact doubtless accounted for the fruit.

Again, this Church had parted with some of its pillars by the process of natural death. It had had its existence long enough to have lost some women of the Dorcas sort; and some men of Stephenic character. If it is to continue and increase in power, these vacancies are to be filled also, by the newly baptized. And we may believe they had been, and were being filled. Do you remember how, when Dorcas died, the widows of the neighborhood stood by weeping, and showing the coats and garments which Dorcas made while she was yet with them? That was a more eloquent tribute to her character than any preacher could ever pronounce. Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works (not the words of the preacher, but, their works) do follow them (Rev 14:13).

It is quite customary these days for us to erect some memorial over the resting place of the worldly honored; but the man or woman who builds his own statue and hers, by godly living, has left the most enduring memorial. Dorcas had done that! No wonder, therefore, after her death and resuscitation were accomplished, and both were known throughout all Joppa, that it is written, And many believed in the Lord (Act 9:42). Many times, in the past, we have seen the very pillars of a church removed by death; we have witnessed, going into their graves, men and women whose deep spiritual life, whose Heaven-born wisdom, whose Christian counsel, had all contributed to make the Church what it was; and had, in a great measure, accounted for whatever power for good it had exercised. And people have come to talk about the loss; to speak of it as if irreparable; to raise the question of what we could do without these dear ones. But you cannot count the loss irreparable, because every time a good woman goes, every time a noble man is removed, the very life led by the departed is a power in the hands of God for reaching the hearts of others who shall be baptized in their stead.

In a former parish a deacon, honored for his integrity, loved for his sweetness of spirit, counseled with on account of his clearness of vision, was taken away as suddenly as ever the lightnings flash startled the season of springtime; and members, meeting each other in the street, asked, How can we do without him. But on the Sunday following his burial several young men came forward to be baptized, and two of them offered themselves for the ministry.

It is claimed that in the city of Prague there is preserved a missile containing the ancient liturgy of the Hussites, one of whose illuminations presents a remarkable picture. Wycliffe is at the top of the page kindling a spark; below him a little distance Huss is portrayed, blowing the spark into a flame; and below Huss stands Luther, brandishing a lighted torch. That is after the Divine appointment. When Wycliffe fell men feared that the spark of light which he had started would be extinguished; but at the lips of Huss it was fanned to a mightier flame; and when Huss was gone, good men said, The light will be buried with him; but, lo, God raised up Luther to take that kindled torch and wave it before the eyes of a blinded world!

Sometimes we think that our cooperation in the cause of Christ is limited entirely to the company of the faithful of one generation. On the contrary, your work and mine is as truly together with that which our great grand-children may attempt and do as it is one with that of the most faithful friends of todays fellowship.

Again, Martyrdom had made its appearance in the midst. Almost every little church had lost some member, either at the hands of the civil power, or through the prejudices of blind religious tradition. The question was, Who should be baptized for thesethe very noblest among them? But even that question was not confounding. One day the new Church at Jerusalem needed to have some wise men administer its affairs. And they chose seven of their company, the foremost of whom was Stephen. He was a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost. And in this faith and Spirit-given power, Stephen did great wonders and miracles among the people (Act 6:8). That was all objectionable to the Elders and Scribes and Pharisees, and they came upon him and caught him and brought him to the council, and set up false witnesses and charged him with blasphemy. And, in spite of the glory of his face, as it had been the face of an angel, they cried out against him, stopping their ears, (how significant that suggestion,) and ran upon him with one accord, And cast him out of the city, and stoned him; and with a prayer upon his lips, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge, he fell asleep (Act 6:15; Act 7:57-60). Devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him, and down through the centuries there comes to my ear this same cry of these great and good men, Oh, who shall ever take Stephens place? But already there is standing in the midst of Stephens murderers the man who shall be his successor in office, and even his superior. It is Saul of Tarsus!

Let no one be afraid when a man is martyred for the cause of Jesus Christ that the vacancy thereby made in the ranks of the Kings army will remain an open space. One of the greatest revivals that the New Testament Church ever saw followed instantly upon the slaughter of Stephen. It was then that the disciples of Jesus went every where preaching the Word. Philip, the next man of importance, preached Christ and the people, with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake (Act 8:6). Unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed, And there was great joy (Act 8:7-8).

Latimer seems to have understood that law of Christian conquest. When he and Ridley were condemned and were being led forth to the fagots, they went joyfully, Latimer saying to Ridley, Be of good cheer, master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle, by Gods grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out! And they did! Because for these martyred dead millions were to be baptized.

Dr. Gifford has truly said, The early Church made more progress than we, because it was more prodigal of the lives of men. They came to have a saying among them, The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church, They saw with clear vision that every time a man was slain for the Truths sake, a hundred others, seeing the injustice, reacting against the crime, would come to Christ, and offer themselves to His Church to be baptized for the dead.

Wordsworth brings out that same thought most beautifully, when he speaks of the frantic effort made by Rome to be rid of even the ashes of the Spirit-filled Wycliffe. He writes,

Once more the Church is seized with sudden fear,And at her call is Wycliffe disinhumed;Yea, his dry bones to ashes are consumedAnd flung into the brook that travels near;Forthwith, that ancient Voice, which streams can hear,Thus speaks (that Voice which walks upon the wind,Though seldom heard by busy human-kind),As thou these ashes, little brook! wilt bearInto the Avon, Avon to the tideOf Severn, Severn to the narrow seas,Into main Ocean they, this deed accurstAn emblem yields to friends and enemiesHow the bold Teachers doctrine, sanctifiedBy truth, shall spread, throughout the world dispersed.

This text also contains

THE SECRET OF CHRISTIAN CONQUEST

It looks to closing up the riddled ranks of the Church of God with new converts. Paul appreciated that death could not be prevented. He saw just as clearly that the Church need not fail on that account, if only it would give itself to winning of converts.

It is reported that Napoleon had a custom of showing to the enemy, always, a solid front. If the rifles had riddled his regiments, the command ran down the line, Close up! and the living touched shoulders again, and marched ona solid phalanx to face the foe. Much of his invincible power was attributed to that custom of waging warfare. But it must occur to those who commend it that only a show and not the substance of strength remained. For, when you are compelled to close up an army in order to keep its depletion from appearing, your very command is also a confession of weakness. If Napoleon could have filled it up instead, putting a new man into the place of every fallen hero; aye, and if Napoleon could have brought that man from the enemies ranks, he would never have seen a Waterloo, but, on the contrary, would have died with the scepter of the world in his hand. That is the secret of the Christian Churchs strength! No matter how many she may lose from her membership, it is possible for her to win more away from the ranks of the Adversary himself.

The invincibleness of this army is all more apparent when one remembers that the baptized are always exceeding the number of deserters and the dead. There are local bodies in which this is not true; there are even whole denominations that do not make this claim; but when one studies the whole army of God, he finds it to be a fact there. That seems to me to be prophesied in those instances of loss already noted in the New Testament Church. When Ananias and Sapphira were taken, Believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women (Act 5:14). When they stoned Stephen to death, the whole city of Samaria turned Christward, and great companies of converts came out of her. We have already seen the result of Dorcas death. And who can tell how many were baptized for the deceased Paul; how many God called into the Church to take the place of the loving John? Such was not only a New Testament experience, but also a Divine appointment. The Church which is not illustrating the same custom is radically wrong. When a great denomination comes upon ill-fated years, in which their numbers are falling backward, it should be stirred from center to circumference, and its wisest and most godly men should be appointed a committee to probe for the evil cause. The life of the Church, and the hastened return of Christ Himself depends upon our going on conquering and to conquer, until the time of the Gentiles is completed, and the last man needful to the company of the elect has been taken captive, and assigned his place in the conquering ranks.

Such a consummation necessitates the incorporation of the conquered. What does baptism mean? If rightly administered, it means that another man, another woman, another child, has quit the enemys ranks, has disclaimed his citizenship in the enemys country, has enrolled beneath the banner of the Lord, has taken the oath of allegiance to His name and cause, and has become as perfectly a part of the marching army as is its oldest member. You may remember that political Rome once ruled the world, and the secret of her success was the adoption of this principle. When she conquered nations, instead of making them slaves she granted them the rights of Roman citizenship and thereby converted the enemy into a friend. It is little wonder, therefore, that her flags came to fly over almost every known land. And if the private lives of her people had been as pure as the principle of her warfare was wise, she might have remained to this day the worlds noblest, if not her only, Republic.

A celebrated painting named, The Conquerors, shows the worlds greatest warriors riding abreast Rameses, Caesar, Alexander, Napoleon and others, over a road made of dead men, their horses prancing in a sea of blood. And that picture has been so true to the Worlds Empires that not one of these great rulers of the past now remains, for they that take the sword shall perish with the sword (Mat 26:52).

If you pictured the Captain of all captains, the Leader of all leaders, the Conqueror of all conquerorsJesus Christyou might present Him in the humble aspect of a walking man, or one who, at the most, sat meekly upon the lowly ass making His way, not over the dead or dying, but between the rows of the sick, the afflicted, the suffering, the sorrowing. And as He went, leaving in His wake, not the tracks, stained by human blood, but healed menmen filled with hope, men inspired to the highest happiness, men made alive forever more, and who, constrained by the solitary emotion of love, would turn to follow where He led and call Him Lord.

This Church has recently consigned to resting places some men and some women whose memories are fresh with us, whose lives were our admiration with reason, whose labors of love entered as integral parts into the very life of the institution itself, but who have been taken from the Church militant, and whose very going has left great gaps in our regiment of the Lord! With one question I conclude, Who will be baptized for the dead?

(For the treatment of 1Co 15:35-57, see The Evolution of the Kingdom, pg. 123, by the Author.)

Fuente: The Bible of the Expositor and the Evangelist by Riley

(29) Else.We can well imagine the Apostle pausing, as it were, to take breath after the splendid outburst of mingled rhetoric and logic which we find in 1Co. 15:23-28; or perhaps even postponing until some other day the further dictation of his Epistle, when he could calmly resume his purely logical argument in favour of the doctrine of the Resurrection. Then there will not appear such a startling or inexplicable abruptness in the words with which this new argument is commenced. Elsei.e., if there be no resurrectionwhat shall they who are baptised for the dead do? If the dead be not raised at all, why are they then baptised for the dead? Such is the proper punctuation, and not as in the English version, which joins the clause, if the dead rise not, with the preceding instead of with the following portion of the verse. Also the word translated rise, is are raised. This is an argumentum ad hominem. The practice known as baptism for the dead was absurd if there be no resurrection. To practise it and to deny the doctrine of the resurrection was illogical. What shall they do? i.e., What explanation shall they give of their conduct? asks the Apostle. There have been numerous and ingenious conjectures as to the meaning of this passage. The only tenable interpretation is that 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. He carefully separates himself and the Corinthians, to whom he immediately addresses himself, from those who adopted this custom. He no longer uses the first or second person; it is they throughout this passage. It is no proof to others; it is simply the argumentum ad hominem. Those who do that, and disbelieve a resurrection, refute themselves. This custom possibly sprang up amongst the Jewish converts, who had been accustomed to something similar in their own faith. If a Jew died without having been purified from some ceremonial uncleanness, some living person had the necessary ablution performed on them, and the dead were so accounted clean.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

4. The devastating result of a no-resurrection upon all our Christian hopes and activities, 1Co 15:29-34.

Paul resumes suddenly, and continues, the train of thought interrupted at 1Co 15:19 by the apocalypse of 1Co 15:20-28. In 1Co 15:12-19 he had argued that the no-resurrection doctrine contradicts Christianity; he now (1Co 15:29-34) shows how it blights all Christian hope and destroys all Christian heroism.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

29. Else If this apocalypse of the resurrection be not true.

What shall they do Or say for themselves.

Baptized for the dead Over this passage an interminable battle of commentary is waged. It is admitted by all that the Greek , for, signifies either, (1) over, in local position; or, (2) instead of, as a substitute, but rarely; or, (3) in behalf of, as favourer, sponsor, advocate, or other benefactor. Of the many interpretations fully given by Stanley but two are worth a discussion. 1. The supposed custom of substitutive baptism, by which a living person was baptized in place of a dead person, one or more. 2. The baptism in behalf of the resurrection of the dead.

By the substitutive interpretation (as Tertullian, Grotius, Alford, Hodge) it is maintained that when a catechumen died before baptism, a friend was baptized in his stead, and so was substitutively baptized for the dead.

But, 1. There is no reason to believe, outside of the passage itself, that any such practice existed in the apostolic Church. It seems illegitimate to create, for an exegetical purpose, a class of heretics practising a particular superstitious rite, when any other natural meaning exists. There is not the slightest reason to doubt that the practisers of substitutive baptism mentioned by Tertullian and ridiculed by Chrysostom were later than Paul’s day, and based their practice on their interpretation of this verse, as do the modern Mormons. 2. It could hardly be said that such substitutes were baptized universally for the dead; dead being a Greek plural with the article, and so signifying all the dead. Note, 1Co 15:12. The phrase to express this substitutive meaning should be , for a dead person, or , without the article, for dead persons. 3. Quoting the condemnable practice of heretics is out of the analogy and line of the argument. Paul has argued that a denial of the resurrection impugns Christ, Christians, and sufferers of persecution, like himself; and then a sudden and transient interpolation of heretical performers of a superstitious rite is incredible. 4. The argument would be without value. It would subject Paul to the reply, What authority for us is an example of a set of heretics practising a false superstition? And this worthlessness would be aggravated if it were true that Paul’s words intimate a disapproval of the practice.

Such disapproval, however, does not appear from the proofs Alford furnishes. His first proof is, that baptized is in the present, , are being baptized, instead of , were baptized. The present is used, we think, as in the case of stand we in jeopardy, as a matter of vividness. The third person is used because, for the sake of that vividness, Paul speaks of converts being baptized now, rather than of persons, like himself, baptized twenty years ago. In fact, the they of this verse refers to the catechumens, and the we of the next verse to the apostles. 5. For substitution the proper Greek preposition is not , but . The ordinary sense of in behalf of is the true intrinsic meaning, and should not be surrendered for any reasons that have ever here been produced.

The true interpretation is, we believe, that of Chrysostom. The apostolic Christians were baptized into the faith of the resurrection of the dead, and thereby they were sponsors in behalf of the dead, that the dead should rise. Baptism was itself an affirmation in behalf of the dead, who were assailed and condemned to final death by these deniers of their resurrection. In favour of this view, 1. Is Paul’s use of , as in behalf of, with an intermediate idea. So above, (1Co 15:3,) in behalf of our sins, that is, of their forgiveness. So also 2Th 2:1, in behalf of the parousia, which was involved in error by mistaken believers. So also in behalf of the dead, whose resurrection baptism asserts. 2. It lies in the direct line of the argument. Paul has quoted in favour of the resurrection the Christian preaching, (1Co 15:14,) faith, (1Co 15:17,) the salvation of dead Christians, (1Co 15:18,) the jeopardy of the living, (1Co 15:30); why should he not quote Christian baptism as a pledge in behalf of the dead? These deniers were against the dead; Christian baptism was for the dead. 3. The Church early recognised the connexion between baptism and the resurrection. It has its basis in the words of St. Paul: “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him.” Col 2:12. And so Chrysostom says: “When we have instructed the catechumen in the divine mysteries of the Gospel, and are about to baptize him, we command him to say, ‘I believe in the resurrection of the body.’ This is what St. Paul recalls to their memory. If there is no resurrection of the body why are you baptized for the dead?”

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Else what shall they do who are baptised for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptised for them?’

This first argument was possibly based on a custom at that time of baptising the dead by proxy (or possibly the mortally ill who could be described as ‘dead’ and in no condition to be baptised?). It would seem that it had become a custom in Corinth for people to be baptised on behalf of Christians who had died unbaptised or were so close to death that they could not be baptised. So ‘for the dead’ means being baptised for Christians who had died before they could be baptised, or were about to die and could not be baptised, so that there might be no loss by their not being baptised. The use of the article with ‘dead’ indicates from its use elsewhere that it is Christian dead who are in mind. When used of the general dead it does not generally have the article.

One point that he might be making here might be that once someone has died their spirit has passed on. If, as some of the Corinthians stated, their body is now finished with, what on earth point is there in someone going through a bodily ceremony for them? The baptism would be declaring these dead to be Christians, of what point would that be on bodies which had been cast off?

Others have referred it to being baptised on behalf of relatives who had died before the Gospel had reached Corinth, in the hope that it might be effective for them as those who had had no opportunity to receive Christ, or even on behalf of friends and relatives, in a general hope for those who had died unsaved. But Paul would hardly have accepted such ideas without protest. He has made quite clear earlier that it was the word of the cross that saved, not baptism (1Co 1:17-18).

Thus the first is the most likely to be the case, otherwise it would have smacked of that very thing that in chapter 1 he had rejected, that baptism was necessary to salvation, and could bring about salvation, in contrast with his view that it was the word of the cross that saved. He would hardly have quietly accepted that.

For in the case of the baptism on behalf of Christians who had died or were mortally ill Paul could see it as declaring to the world that the person had died (or was dying) trusting in Christ, saved by the word of the cross, and so could be seen as a physical and outward manifestation by proxy that he belonged to Christ. Thus he could go along with it. But what, says Paul, would be the point of that if the dead are not raised? It is the body which is being indicated to be Christ’s, not the spirit.

This practise is not witnessed to anywhere else in the New Testament and is found in none of the earliest Christian literature, even though baptism had by then gained a deeper significance. It must therefore be assumed that it was a local practise. But all the Corinthians were seemingly involved in it. Indeed these whom he was disputing with clearly had a ‘high’ view of baptism (1Co 1:13; 1Co 10:2), so he points out that their practise is contrary to what they teach.

Other interpretations include the suggestion that ‘baptised’ here refers to the baptism of suffering which Jesus faced and which would face at least some of the Apostles (Luk 12:50; Mar 10:38-39). Thus by this Paul would be saying, ‘Why should those who have suffered overwhelmingly in order to bring to Christ those who have now died in Christ, have done so if there is no resurrection?’ This would fit well the following verses, where the same thought would then be applied to Paul personally. Or alternately that the meaning is ‘baptised in readiness for being dead ones’. In other words why are Christians themselves baptised at all if they are not to rise from the dead? For Paul saw baptism as a depiction of that rising from the dead (Rom 6:4).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Further Arguments For The Necessity of Resurrection (15:29-34).

The assumption behind what follows is the belief among some of the Corinthians that man was made of both body and spirit, and that the body was unimportant, even evil, and would one day be cast of, while the spirits of all men were involved in the spirit world and all that was necessary was for them to be developed and enjoyed through manifestations of the spirit. Doing whatever they liked in the body and development of the spirit through spirit contact had become the basis of their lives. Then when death came their bodies would be buried and their spirits would live on. There was no need for redemption or the cross. They had fallen away from the Gospel. And yet they were still consorting with the church in Corinth.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

The Hope of the Believer’s Resurrection In 1Co 15:29-34 Paul explains how the hope of the believer’s resurrection is the basis for some religious sacraments, for his daily sacrifices, and for the believer’s sanctification.

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. The Basis for some Religious Sacraments 1Co 15:29

2. The Basis for Paul’s Daily Sacrifice 1Co 15:30-32

3. The Basis for Our Sanctification 1Co 15:33-34

1Co 15:29 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?

1Co 15:29 Comments – Paul’s states in 1Co 15:29 that some people associated with the early Church were baptizing for the dead. The ablative case is used with the preposition (for), so that this phrase can be translated, “Baptized in place of (or instead of) the dead ones.” This most likely means that some early Christians were being baptized in proxy for their dead ancestors, which, in this context, would be an act that shows faith in a future resurrection. Perhaps some Christian groups were practicing this act in hopes of the salvation and redemption of loved ones. Thus, Paul uses it in his argument in support of a resurrection.

We do know that the modern-day Mormon Church practices the rite of baptizing for the dead. [184] Perhaps these members of the early Church were Jewish converts who already were placing much importance upon their ancestry before their conversion, and thus incorporated the act of baptizing for the dead into their religious practices.

[184] James E. Talmage writes, “And, as baptism is essential to the salvation of the living, it is likewise indispensable to the redemption of the dead.” See James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith: A Series of Lectures on the Principle Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Salt Lake City, Utah: The Deseret News, 1899), 152-153.

This is the only reference to this activity in the entire Holy Bible. The Scriptures say that a matter must be confirmed in the mouth of two or three witnesses. Since there is only one verse in the Scriptures to witness to this custom, it is not valid to make a doctrine or church ordinance out of it.

2Co 13:1, “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”

In contrast, there are two references in Scripture to foot washing. Therefore, many Churches practice this as an ordinance, because there is valid evidence to consider this a church ordinance.

Joh 13:5, “After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.”

1Ti 5:10, “Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.”

1Co 15:31 “I die daily” – Comments – “I daily live in danger of death” ( Thayer, BDAG). Perhaps, “I die to my desires each day and chose to do God’s will.”

1Co 15:32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

1Co 15:32 “If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus” Comments – Scholars suggest one of two meanings in this statement from Paul. If Paul was using the phrase “beasts” literally, then there was an event that was not recorded in the book of Acts where Paul was thrown to the lions as a form of punishment and survived. However, this form of punishment was not given to Roman citizens. Therefore, some scholars suggest that Paul used this phrase in a figurative sense to say that he faced some of his most bitter opposition among the people of Ephesus when he stayed there approximately three years during his third missionary journey. It was in this city that Paul spent the most time and from which he had the most effective outreach of ministry during the history of his service as an apostle of Jesus Christ. We do see one other figurative use of this type of phrase in Psa 35:17, “Lord, how long wilt thou look on? rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions .” Josephus records the statement of Agrippa’s servant running to tell him of the death of the Roman Emperor Tiberius, saying, “The lion is dead.” ( Antiquities 18.6.10)

1Co 15:32 “If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus” Comments – The Corinthians well knew what befell men who were thrown to the wild beasts; for in their own city was built a Greek amphitheatre where gladiators fought to the death, and people were eaten by lions and other beasts. Thus, Paul uses an event within their own culture in order to drawn an analogy of his struggle as an apostle to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

1Co 15:32 “what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die” – Comments – Clement of Alexandria says Paul is quoting from an ancient Greek poet when he writes, “what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.”

“Accordingly to the Corinthians (for this is not the only instance), while discoursing on the resurrection of the dead, he [Paul] makes use of a tragic Iambic line, when he said, “What advantageth it me if the dead are not raised? Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. Be not deceived; evil communications corrupt good manners.” ( The Stromata 1.14)

Some scholars say Paul was referring to a motto of the Epicureans, “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die,” which would have been prevalent among the heathen in Corinth.

1Co 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

1Co 15:33 Scripture References – Note a similar verse:

Pro 22:24-25, “Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: Lest thou learn his ways, and get a snare to thy soul.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The effect of unbelief in the doctrine of the resurrection:

v. 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?

v. 30. And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

v. 31. I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus, our Lord, I die daily.

v. 32. If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantages it me if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.

v. 33. Be not deceived; evil communications corrupt good manners.

v. 34. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God; I speak this to your shame.

Having been carried forward by his argument of the consequences of Christ’s resurrection to a triumphant burst of victory, the apostle now returns to his general proposition, his object being to show here the futility of all Christian devotion in case death is the final end. Referring to a rite which was then in use in some Christian communities, either that people were baptized on behalf of, instead of, dead persons, in the foolish belief that the benefits of the Sacrament would be credited to the dead, or that some Christians chose to be baptized over the graves of the sainted dead, as a confession of their belief that the blessings of Christ’s resurrection are transmitted in Baptism, and that the baptized believers will rise to eternal life with Christ, Paul states that this custom would be without sense and reason if there is no resurrection of the body. For that was the slogan of the unbelievers: The idea of a bodily resurrection is absolutely false! Referring to his own case, Paul asks And why do we run hazards every hour? What object would there be in his braving death from day to day if there were no hope of reward for the apostles, for the pains of their self-denial, in the state of resurrection? Take away a Christian’s hope of a future life with Christ, and you render the misery and tribulation of this present life unbearable. Paul emphasizes this point with the greatest vehemence: Daily I am dying; on account of the many dangers besetting me I am always on the brink of death. There was not a day, not an hour of the day, in which he might not expect to be seized and led forth to his execution. And to arouse the Corinthians to a realization of the meaning he wishes to convey, he adds the solemn oath: By your glorying, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus, our Lord. The Corinthian believers themselves were the glory of Paul which, as their apostle, he had in Christ Jesus, chap. 9:1-2, which he had laid up as a precious possession in the hands of his Savior.

Paul cites a specific instance in which his hope of the future life sustained him: If after the manner of men I have fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, of what use is it to me? If the dead do not rise (there is only one thing to do): Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die! Some scholars, including Luther, believe that the apostle had actually been condemned to be thrown to the wild beasts in the stadium at Ephesus and that he was saved by a miracle. ” But it is probable that Paul is speaking figuratively, and that he is referring to the mob at Ephesus which was stirred up by the shrine-makers, Act 19:23-41. or to the Jews that were always lying in ambush to kill him, Act 20:19. If he had endured all the hardships involved in that struggle, as men generally do, for the sake of the applause, money, glory, etc. , it would have been without benefit to him under the circumstances, if the arguments of the ignorant Corinthians were sound. For if there is no resurrection of the body, a person may just as well join in the slogan of the frivolous mockers of the world: Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die, Isa 22:13. If death is the end, if physical death is equivalent to annihilation, then the Christians may as well throw their Christianity overboard and live according to the adage: A short life and a merry one!

But Paul holds up a finger of warning: Be not seduced! Do not let anyone mislead you! Evil conversations, evil companionships, corrupt good manners. If a person courts temptation in the company of loose people, his moral nature is bound to suffer. His character will be undermined by evil talk; his honesty will be overcome by roguery. The apostle quotes this as a sort of proverb, a word which was probably in the mouth of everybody, though it is also embodied in classical Greek poetry, originally in Euripides, but also in Menander. With an exclamation full of apostolic majesty Paul turns to the entire Corinthian congregation: Sober up properly and cease to sin! He wants them all to return to and cultivate a mind full of soberness, saneness, common sense, and to that end also to recognize the sinfulness of this doctrinal position, as held in their midst, since false doctrine is a sin against the first table of the Law. For some of their members were deliberately holding to a position of ignorance, as Paul feels obliged to say, to the shame of them all. With all their boast of wisdom they are deliberately adhering to false views, which subvert the entire structure of Christian doctrine. This evil could be corrected only by a thorough reaction based upon the open acknowledgment of the wrong views existing in their midst, and by the speedy acceptance of the revealed truth.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

1Co 15:29. Else what shall they do, &c. “Such are our views and hopes, as Christians; else, if it were not so, what should they do who are baptized in token of their embracing the Christian faith in the room of the dead, who are just fallen in the cause of Christ, but whose places are filled up by a succession of new converts, who immediately offer themselves to succeed them, as ranks of soldiers that advance to the combat in the room of their companions,who have just been slain in their fight. If the doctrine that I oppose be true, and the dead are not raised at all, why are they, nevertheless, thus baptized in the room of the dead, as cheerfully ready, at the peril of their lives, to keep up the cause of Jesus in the world?” It would be almost endless to enumerate, and much more to canvass, all the interpretations which have been given of this obscure phrase, . There is no reason to believe that the superstitious custom, mentioned by Epiphanius, of baptizing a living person, as representing one who had died unbaptized, is here referred to; it is more likely to have arisen from a mistake of this passage than to have been so early prevalent. Mr. Cradock’s supposing it to allude to washing dead bodies, neither suits the grammar, nor really makes any significant sense. The primitive Christians were accustomed, in general, to reserve the baptizing of adults for solemn occasions, particularly for Whitsunday. But it is not at all improbable, that when any eminent Christians died, especially martyrs, some were chosen out of the catechumens who were preparing for baptism, and, in honour of these eminent saints, and to fill up their places, were baptized for the dead. Dr. Whitby, by the words, for the dead, understands, “for that Jesus, who, according to their doctrine, must still be dead;” and he observes, that the plural is frequently used in scripture, when one person is spoken of; and that the resurrection of the dead in general, is thrice mentioned by this Apostle, when speaking of the resurrection of Christ alone. See the Reflections.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 15:29 . [59] ] for , if there is nothing in this eschatological development onward to the end, when God will be all in all, what shall those do, i.e. how absurdly in that case will those act, who have themselves baptized for the dead? Then plainly the result, which they aim at, is a chimera! Usually interpreters have referred back to 1Co 15:20 , and regarded what lies between as a digression; Olshausen is more moderate, considering only 1Co 15:25-28 in that light, so also de Wette; Rckert, again, holds that Paul had perhaps rested from writing for a little after 1Co 15:28 , and had had the sentence “ the dead arise ” in his mind, but had not expressed it. Pure and superfluous arbitrariness; as always, so here too, points to what has immediately preceded. But, of course, in this connection the final absolute sovereignty of God is conceived as conditioned by the resurrection of the dead , which, after all that had been previously said from 1Co 15:20 onwards, presented itself to every reader as a thing self-evident. Hofmann makes refer to the whole paragraph beginning with , as that is construed by him, down to 1Co 15:26 , to which 1Co 15:27-28 have attached themselves as confirming the final abolition of death. But see on 1Co 15:24 ; 1Co 15:27 .

Upon the words which follow all possible acuteness has been brought into play, in order just to make the apostle not say that which he says .

] makes palpable the senselessness , which would characterize the procedure in the case assumed by . The future is that of the general proposition, [60] and applies to every baptism of this kind which should occur. Every such baptism will be without all meaning, if the deniers of the resurrection are in the right. Grotius: “quid efficient ” (comp. Flatt). But that a baptism of such a kind effected anything, was assuredly a thought foreign to the apostle. He wished to point out the subjective absurdity of the procedure in the case assumed. The interpretation: “ nescient quid agendum sit ” (van Hengel) does not suit the connection, into which Ewald also imports too much: “are they to think, that they have cherished faith and hope in vain?”

] The article is generic . Every baptism which, as the case occurs, is undertaken for a dead person, is a baptism for the dead , namely, as regards the category . It must have been something not wholly unusual in the apostolic church, familiarity with which on the part of the readers is here taken for granted, that persons had themselves baptized once more for the benefit of ( ) people who had died unbaptized but already believing , in the persuasion that this would be counted to them as their own baptism, and thus as the supplement of their conversion to Christ which had already taken place inwardly, and that they would on this account all the more certainly be raised up with the Christians at the Parousia, and made partakers of the eternal Messianic salvation. [61] This custom propagated and maintained itself afterwards only among heretical sects, in particular among the Cerinthians (Epiphanius, Haer . xxviii. 7) and among the Marcionites (Chrysostom; comp., moreover, generally Tertullian, de resurr. 48, adv. Marc. v. 10). [62] Among the great multitude of interpretations (Calovius, even in his time, counts up twenty-three), this is the only one which is presented to us by the words. Ambrosiaster first took them so; [63] among the later interpreters, Anselm, Erasmus, Zeger, Cameron, Calixtus, Grotius, al. ; and recently, Augusti, Denkwrdigk . IV. p. 119; Winer, p. 165 [E. T. 219]; Billroth, Rckert, de Wette, Maier, Neander, Grimm, Holtzmann ( Judenth. u. Christenth . p. 741), also Kling and Paret (in Ewald’s Jahrb. IX. p. 247 f.), both of which latter writers call to their aid, on the ground, it is true, of 1Co 11:30 , the assumption of a pestilence having then prevailed in Corinth. The usual objection, that Paul would not have employed for his purpose at all, or at least not without adding some censure, such an abuse founded on the belief in a magical power of baptism (see especially, Calvin in loc. ), is not conclusive, for Paul may be arguing ex concesso , and hence may allow the relation of the matter to evangelical truth to remain undetermined in the meantime, seeing that it does not belong to the proper subject of his present discourse. The abuse in question must afterwards have been condemned by apostolic teachers (hence it maintained itself only among heretics), and no doubt Paul too aided in the work of its removal. For to assume, with Baumgarten-Crusius ( Dogmengesch . II. p. 313), that he himself had never at all disapproved of the , or to place, with Rckert, the vicarious baptism in the same line with the vicarious death of Christ, is to stand in the very teeth of the fundamental doctrine of the Pauline gospel that of faith as the subjective ethical “causa medians” of salvation. For the rest, Rckert says well: “Usurpari ab eo morem, qui ceteroqui displiceret, ad errorem, in quo impugnando versabatur, radicitus evellendum, ipsius autem reprehendendi aliud tempus expectari.” The silent disapproval of the apostle is brought in by Erasmus in his Paraphrase: “Fidem probo, factum non probo; nam ut ridiculum est, existimare mortuo succurri baptismo alieno, ita recte credunt resurrectionem futuram.” Epiphanius, Haer . 28, explains it of the baptism of the clinici , of the catechumens on their deathbed, who . So Calvin, although giving it along with another interpretation equally opposed to the meaning of the words; also Flacius, Estius, al. But how can . . mean jamjam morituri (Estius)! or how can the rendering “ ut mortuis, non vivis prosit ” (Calvin) lead any one to guess that the “baptismus clinicorum” was intended, even supposing that it had been already customary at that time! [64] Chrysostom, too, runs counter to the words: , , , . Paul, he holds, has in view the article in the baptismal creed (which, however, certainly belongs only to a later time): “I believe in a resurrection of the dead.” So, too, on the whole, Pelagius, Oecumenius, Photius, Theophylact, Melanchthon (“profitentes de mortuis”), Cornelius a Lapide, Er. Schmid, and others; and somewhat to the same effect also Wetstein. Comp. yet earlier, Tertullian: “pro mortuis tingi pro corporibus est tingi.” Theodoret gives it a different turn, but likewise imports a meaning, making the reference to be to the dead body: , , , , , . Luther’s explanation, adopted again recently by Ewald and others, that “to confirm the resurrection, the Christians had themselves baptized over the graves of the dead ” (so Glass and many of the older Lutherans; Calovius leaves us to choose between this view and that of Ambrosiaster), has against it, apart even from the fact that with the genitive in the local sense of over is foreign to the New Testament, the following considerations: (1) that there is a lack of any historical trace in the apostolic period of the custom of baptizing over graves, such as of martyrs (for Eusebius, H. E. iv. 15, is not speaking of baptism), often as churches were built, as is well known, in later times over the graves of saints; (2) that we can see no reason why just the baptism at such places should be brought forward, and not the regarding of these spots as consecrated generally; (3) that to mark out the burial-places of pious persons who had fallen asleep, would have been in no way anything absurd even without the belief in a resurrection. And lastly, baptism took place at that time not in fonts or vessels of that kind, which could be set over graves, but in rivers and other natural supplies of water. Other interpreters, following Pelagius, refer . . to Christ , taking . in some cases of the baptism with water (Olearius, Schrader, Lange, Elwert); in others, of the baptism with blood (Al. Morus, Lightfoot). . would thus be the plural of the category (see on Mat 2:20 ). But, putting aside the consideration that Christ cannot be designated as (not even according to the view of the opponents), the baptism with water did not take place , [65] but ; and the baptism with blood would have required to be forcibly indicated by the preceding context, or by the addition of some defining clause. “ For the benefit of the dead ” remains the right interpretation. Olshausen holds this also, but expounds it to this effect, that the baptism took place for the good of the dead, inasmuch as a certain number, a of believers, is requisite, which must first be fully made up before the Parousia and the resurrection can follow. But this idea must be implied in the connection; what reader could divine it? Olshausen himself feels this, and therefore proposes to render, “who have themselves baptized instead of the members removed from the church by death.” So, too, in substance Isenberg (whose idea, however, is that of a militia Christi which has to be recruited), and among the older interpreters Clericus on Hammond, Deyling, Obss. II. p. 519, Exo 3 , and Dderlein, Instit. I. p. 409. But in that case . . would be something not at all essential and probative for the connection, since it is plain that every entrance of new believers into the church makes up for the departure of Christians who have died, but in this relation has nothing to do with the resurrection of the latter. This at the same time in opposition to van Hengel’s interpretation, about which he himself, however, has doubts: for the honour of deceased Christians , “quos exteri vituperare vel despicere soleant.” According to Diestelmann, . . is for the sake of the dead , and means: in order hereafter united with them in the resurrection to enter into the kingdom of Christ ; while the are Christ and those fallen asleep in Him . [66] But it is decisive against this view, first, that there is thus comprised in the simple preposition, an extent of meaning which the reader could not discover in it without more precise indication; secondly, that every baptism whatsoever would be also in this assumed sense a , whereby therefore nothing distinctive would be said here, such as one could not but expect after the quite singular expression; thirdly, that Christ cannot be taken as included among the , seeing that the resurrection of the Lord which had taken place was not the subject of the denial of resurrection here combated, but its denial is attributed by Paul to his opponents only per consequentiam , 1Co 15:13 . According to Kster, those are meant who have themselves baptized for the sake of their Christian friends who have fallen asleep, i.e. out of yearning after them, in order to remain in connection with them, and to become partakers with them of the resurrection and eternal life. But in this way also a significance is imported into the simple , which there is nothing whatever to suggest, and which would have been easily conveyed, at least by some such addition as . According to Linder, the and the are held to be even the same persons, so that the meaning would be: if they do not rise ( in gratiam cinerum ), which, however, the article of itself forbids; merely ( . would be in fact qualitative ) must have been made use of, and even in that case it would be a poetical mode of expression, which no reader would have had any clue to help him to unriddle. Similarly, but with a still more arbitrary importing of meaning, Otto holds that . are the deniers of the resurrection, who had themselves baptized in order (which is said, according to him, ironically) to become dead instead of living men . Most of all does Hofmann twist and misinterpret the whole passage (comp. also his Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 199 f.), punctuating it thus: . . , . ; ; ; the thought being: “ If those, who by means of sin lie in death, become subject in their sins to an utter death from which there is no rising, then will those, who have themselves baptized, find no reason in their Christian status to do anything for them, that may help them out of the death in which they lie;” nay, why do they then have themselves baptized? and why do we risk our lives for them? . thus belongs to . ; the , placed for emphasis at the head of the last question, applies to the . Every point in this interpretation is incorrect; for (1) to do something for others, i.e. for their good, is an absolute duty, independent of the question whether there be a resurrection or not. (2) But to do something which will help them out of death , is not in the passage at all, but is imported into it. (3) Those who can and should do something for others are the Christians ; these, however, cannot have been designated so strangely as by , but must have been called in an intelligible way perhaps, or at least . (4) The can only, in accordance with the context, be simply the dead, i.e. those who have died , as through the whole chapter from 1Co 15:12 to 1Co 15:52 . (5) To give to another reference than , is just as violent a shift as the severance of either of the two from , in connection with which they are symmetrically requisite for more precise definition, and are so placed. And when (6) is actually made to mean “ in order to induce them to receive baptism ,” this just crowns the arbitrariness of inserting between the lines what the apostle, according to the connection, could neither say nor think. Moreover, could not have the emphasis, but only the introduced with , like the . previously introduced with .

.] Parallel to the conditional clause to be supplied in connection with . For Paul conceives of the resurrection of the dead as being so necessarily connected with the completion of the Messianic kingdom that the denial of the one is also the denial of the other. If universally (as 1Co 5:1 ) dead persons cannot be raised up, why do they have themselves baptized also for them? since plainly, in that case, they would have nothing at all to do for the dead. See, generally, on Rom 8:24 ; Pflugk, ad Hec. 515; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 152. This “ also ” betokens the (entirely useless) superinduced character of the proceeding. To refer . still to what precedes (Luther and many others, the texts of Elzevir, Griesbach, Scholz; not Beza) mars the parallelism; the addition of the conditional clause to would have nothing objectionable in itself (in opposition to van Hengel), Plato, Prot . p. 318 B; Xen. Anab . vi. 1. 30, vii. 6. 22; 4Ma 8:8 .

[59] See on the passage, Rckert, Expos. loci P . 1Co 15:29 , Jena, 1847; Otto in his dekalog. Unters . 1857; Diestelmann in the Jahrb. f. d. Theol . 1861, p. 522 ff.; Linder in the Stud. u. Krit . 1862, p. 571 f., and in the Luther. Zeitschr . 1862, p. 627 ff.; Isenberg in the Meklenb. Zeitschr . 1864 65, p. 779 ff.; Kster in the Luther. Zeitschr . 1866, p. 15 ff. Comp. also Elwert, Quaest. et obss. ad philol. sacram ., Tb. 1860, p. 12 ff. The various interpretations of older expositors may be seen especially in Wolf.

[60] Comp. Krger, liii. 7. 1; Elwert, p. 17; Fritzsche, ad Matth . p. 457; ad Rom . II. p. 9.

[61] It is to be noted that Paul does not speak at all in a self-inclusive way, as if of something common to all, but as of third persons , . . . He designates only those who did it. Comp. already Scaliger.

[62] Chrysostom says that among the Marcionites, when a catechumen died unbaptized, some one hid himself under the bed; then they asked the dead man if he wished to be baptized, and on the living one answering affirmatively, they baptized the latter . Of the Cerinthians, again, Epiphanius says, l.c.: , , , . Tertullian does not name the Marcionites, but quotes the explanation of our text as applying to the vicarious baptism, without approving of it.

[63] “In tantum stabilem et ratam vult ostendere resurrectionem mortuorum, ut exemplum det eorum, qui tam securi erant de futura resurrectione, ut etiam pro mortuis baptizarentur, si quem mors praevenisset, timentes ne aut male aut non resurgeret, qui baptizatus non fuerat. Exemplo hoc non factum illorum probat, sed fidem fixam in resurrectione ostendit .”

[64] Bengel also understands it of those who receive baptism, “quum mortem ante oculos positam habent” (through age, sickness, or martyrdom). Osiander agrees with him. But how can . . mean that? Equally little warrant is there for inserting what Krauss, p. 130, imports into it, taking it of baptism in the face of death: “Who caused themselves to receive a consecration to life, while, notwithstanding, they were coming not to the living, but to the dead .”

[65] Elwert, p. 15, defines the conception of the : “eo fine et consilio, ut per baptismum Christo addictus quaecunque suis promisit, tibi propria facias.” But that is plainly included in the contents of the . . or , and one does not see from this why Paul should have chosen the peculiar expression with .

[66] Comp., too, Breitschwert in the Wrtemb. Stud . X. 1, p. 129 ff.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

B. Refutation of the impugners of the resurrection of the dead (2) from the inconceivableness of certain facts, except on its supposition

1Co 15:29-34

29Else what shall they do which are baptized [have themselves baptized, ] for the dead, if the dead rise not [are not raised, ] at all? why are they then baptized [do they have themselves baptized, ] for the dead? 30[om. the dead. ins. them, 23]? And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? 31I protest by your24 rejoicing [by the boasting which I have concerning you,2 brethren, , 25] which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32If after the manner of men [with the views of common men, ] I have [om. have] fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let [me? If the dead rise not, let] us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die. 33Be not deceived: evil communications [associations, ] corrupt good manners 34[useful habits, 26] Awake to righteousness [awake at once, as it is right, ], and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak27 this to your shame.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1Co 15:29.Else what shall they do, The connection here with what precedes involves some difficulties. [As Stanley remarks: it is one of the most abrupt to be found in St. Pauls Epistles. He leaves the new topic just at the moment when he has pursued it, as it were, to the remotest point, and goes back to the general argument as suddenly as if nothing had intervened. The two instances most similar are 1Co 5:9, 1Co 2:6; 1Co 2:8; 2Co 6:14; 2Co 7:1. Here, as there, the confusion may possibly have arisen from some actual interruption in the writing or the material, of the letter; the main argument proceeding continuously from 1Co 15:20 to 1Co 15:29, and the whole intervening passage being analogous to what in modern composition would be called a note]. Inasmuch as , since, ordinarily indicates a connection with what immediately precedes, Meyer insists upon our interpreting it so here, q. d., for if there is nothing in this development of human history onward to the end, when God shall be all in all, then what shall they do, etc Such a construction can be maintained only in so far as we regard the resurrection as the chief event in this final consummation. Neander, on the contrary, says: We must suppose a digression to begin at 1Co 15:22, since, at that point, there opened upon the Apostles view a prospect of the whole process of the worlds development proceeding from the redemption of Christ. He started with the idea of the necessary connection which the resurrection to eternal life has with Christianity; and with this he now proceeds. [The ellipsis hero may be thus supplied: The dead are certainly to be raised, else what shall they do, etc. (Hodge); or, inserting it after else, if it be as the adversaries suppose, what, etc. (Alford)].The question here suggests the utter uselessness of the practice ho is about to adduce in confirmation of his position. Every baptism that you perform in behalf of the dead, would be without meaning, if those who deny the resurrection were in the right. He indicates the subjective absurdity of the proceeding in this case. Meyer.who are baptized for the dead,How are we to understand these words? The simplest explanation of the act here spoken of is, the suffering of ones self to be baptized for the benefit of deceased persons, or in their stead, so as to redound to their advantage, i. e., that the salvation mediated by baptism, might fall to their lot, so that those who themselves died unbaptized, might pass for baptized, and thus have part in the resurrection and in the kingdom of Christ. A custom of this sort is discoverable in subsequent times; yet, however, only among heretical sects, such as the Cerinthians and the Marcionites (comp. Epiph. haer. 28, 3; Tertull. de resurr. 48; adv. Marc. 5, 10; Christ, i.h. 1.). The article before , dead, points to definite cases (for the dead in question). We might imagine that many, having come to the exercise of faith, resolved to receive baptism, but died ere the rite could be performed. This was so much the more likely to have been the case, inasmuch as according to 1Co 11:30, there was an epidemic prevalent. If, then, a relative had suffered himself to be baptized in the conviction that he was only doing what the deceased would have done had he survived, the proceeding would not have been quite so superstitious. Neander. But it is probable that this custom could have sprung up so early, and could have been mentioned by the Apostle without disapproval, when it was so inconsistent with his fundamental views of faith and of its efficiency for the attainment of salvation?The latter, indeed, is perhaps supposable, since he has here primarily to do only with the testimony which might be adduced from an actual occurrence; respecting the relation of which, however, to the truth, there was no need of his explaining himself.28 Bisping considers the use of the third person (what shall they do) as an indirect intimation of disapproval. [And so. Alford: There is in these words a tacit reprehension of the practice which it is hardly possible altogether to miss. Both by the third person and by the article before . he indirectly separates himself and those to whom he is writing from participation in, or approval of the practice. He translates those who are in the habit of being baptized, not . The distinction, he says, is important as affecting the interpretation]. Indeed, that Paul, as well as the other apostles, exercised a counteracting influence upon this custom, may be inferred from the fact that it afterwards vanished out of the orthodox church, and was perpetuated only among heretics. It is by no means improbable, that the high estimation of baptism, at so early a period, had acquired a superstitious taint. Since the deeply-rooted heathenish notion of the magical influence of sacred rites might easily have been preserved, or at least, have re-appeared, among those of whom the Apostle asserts that they were yet carnal, and who took so low a position in their estimate of spiritual gifts. This view is to be maintained all the more decidedly from the circumstance that all other views are, in part, opposed to the ordinary use of terms, and in part, improbable, and arbitrary on other grounds. But what we have adduced cannot well be questioned.Proceeding from the signification of here pre-supposed, viz: in behalf of, Olshausen could have interpretated it to imply that it was done for the benefit of the dead, in so far as a definite number (pleroma) must needs be baptized ere the second adventand resurrection could ensue; but this view appears in itself questionable, since there is nothing in the context intimating it, and it inclines to another signification of words, viz: instead of the dead, i.e., to fill up the gap made by these deceased. But this interpretation would be devoide of significance, and also, in respect to the use of language, very doubtful. Luthers translation, over the dead, i.e., over their graves, is opposed: 1. by the N. T. use of language which no where takes with the genitive in a local sense; 2. by a lack of all historical trace of any such burial ceremony in apostolic times. Still less admissible is the explanation that applies it to the baptism of the Clinici, those upon the bed of death, jamjam morituri (Estius), or, quum mortem ante oculos positam hebeant (Bengel); since the words could not mean this, and besides we hear nothing of the baptism of the Clinici at this time. Equally untenable is the reference of the words in behalf of the dead to Christ (the plural here being taken in a general sense to designate the category [as Wordsworth,]; since water baptism would require the preposition etc, and to the blood-baptism no allusion whatever can be found in the context, and the word is never used in this sense by Paul. Besser interprets still differently: Not a few heathen [convinced by the sight of a believers triumph over death] would allow themselves to be baptized for the sake of those deceased ones whom they had seen to depart in peace and joyand before the dying beds and graves over which there seemed to flourish an unfading hope; in order to pass from death into life in company with those who slept in Christ. Here is taken in the sense of, on account of, because of, [not, to their advantage, but, out of admiration, or love for them], as in Rom 15:9. That the Gentiles might glorify God for () his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles and sing unto thy name.29

[The most favorite interpretation for the last half century is that of Lightfoot and Rosenmller, adopted by Robinson in his Lexicon, which takes in the sense of being immersed in sufferings, as parallel to being in jeopardy, in the next clause. Referring to Mar 10:33; Mar 10:39, and Luk 12:50, it takes in the sense of , and for death. The complete meaning of the words then would be, those who have been overwhelmed with calamities, trials and sufferings, in the hope of the resurrection or with the expectation that the dead would rise. But the objections to this view are that the words are here taken in an unusual and unnatural sense, to which we are not to resort, unless compelled by some most evident reason; and also, the ellipsis implied is much too harsh to be admitted. Bloomfield and Barnes follow the interpretation of Chrys., and the early Greek Fathers, supported by Hammond! and Wetstein, which takes the baptism here alluded to as that which is applied to all believers, who, in receiving the rite, witness to their faith in the resurrection of the dead. Here an ellipsis of the word resurrection is presupposed. The great objection to this view is, that in this case the persons alluded to, instead of being, as they obviously are, a distinct class in the church, are the whole body of believers, leaving us nothing special here as the ground of the Apostles appeal]. The latest attempt now only remains to be mentioned (Theol. Stud, und Krit. 1860. 1. S. 135 ff.) There we have the interpretation, why should a person suffer himself to be baptized on account of the dead, i.e., to belong to! them, to come to them, so as to form a kingdom of the dead? However easy and simple this may I appear, yet such an interpretation of the phrase . is an artificial one, and not sufficiently well grounded. Properly it should read, who are baptized on account of the resurrection and in the hope of the same; because death, or coming into the kingdom of the dead, was the only thing to be anticipated without any further hope for this life. Something similar to this appears in Chrys., Theod. and others. Other interpretations may as well be passed over. [For a full list of these, see Pools synopsis and also Notes by Stanley and Barnes on this text].The correct parallelism requires that the next clause, which in the Rec. is connected with that just considered, should be joined with what follows.if the dead rise not at all? as in v. 1.why are they even yet baptized for them? intensive, still, even yet. The meaning is, [if we adopt the explanation first maintained above,] in this case nothing at all could be accomplished for the dead: it is therefore, perfectly useless any longer to submit to baptism in their behalf.

1Co 15:30-34. As a second argument in his apogogical demonstration he refers to the perilous self-devotion and the hazards of martyr-death which were incurred by himself and his associates. The utter uselessness and folly of such conduct, in case the dead rose not, are indicated in the form of a question.And why also do we stand in jeopardy every hour?[With baptizing for the dead, he had nothing to do. But he, no less than those before mentioned, were pursuing a most absurd and irrational course, if they could count upon no compensation for the pains of their self-denial in a resurrection state. Here, it will be observed, all the way through, that, in the Apostles mind, future existence, apart from the resurrection, was as nothing. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul seems with him to have been identified with that of the restoration of the body. What he looked for was the glorification of his entire constitution, body, soul, and! spirit; and to be bereft of any part, was with him a marring of the whole. He would not be unclothed, but clothed upon, with a nobler vesture than that he had here. His reasoning is of force only on this supposition]. Dropping his associates he now passes over to himself individually.Daily do I die.As he before speaks of himself and his associates being in hourly jeopardy, so here he expresses the continuance of his own still worse condition, by exhibiting it as a daily death. And this dying may be explained, either of the extreme danger he was ever in, being so much greater than that just spoken of, q.d., I daily hover on the brink of death (comp. Rom 8:36; 2Co 4:10; 2Co 1:10); or, it may be construed subjectively of his sense of dying (Osiander, according to Luther). Meyer explains it: I go about dying; I am moribund,a vividly symbolic designation of the fatal dangers by which Paul saw himself to be daily threatened. This explanation also slides over into the subjective, which is supported by the parallels adduced by Wetstein on this passage. This suits well with the adjuration following(I protest) by your rejoicing,This is the only place in the New Testament where occurs; but we meet with, it frequently in the LXX. It belongs to the Attic style, [and occurs in the celebrated oath of Demosthenes, where he swore by the shades of those who had met death in the field of Marathon, exhorting the Athenians to defend the Republic (Calvin)]. It is here used for strengthening the previous assertion [an oath by which he wished to arouse the Corinthians to be more attentive in listening to him as to the matter in hand, q. d. brethren, I am not some philosopher, prattling in the shade. As I expose myself every day to death, it is necessary that I should think in good earnest of the heavenly life. Believe, therefore, a man who is thoroughly experienced. Calvin. And, in explaining the nature of the oath, Theophylact acutely observes, that, in, swearing by his boast over them, he meant to remind them that he expects them to maintain with constancy this their faith; q. d. If I boast on account of your improvement, so shall I be ashamed, if, at last, ye so wretchedly act as to disbelieve the resurrection, (cited by Bloomfield)].That by which he protests, is the boasting which he had over the Corinthians; for we are here to take , your, as standing in place of the genitive of the object, , as in Rom 11:31; , 2Co 9:3. In reference to this boasting, comp. 2Co 3:1; 2Co 10:15. There is something very touching in this declaration, which is still further enhanced by the affectionate address.brethren,[On this see Critical Notes]. This boasting over the Corinthians, over their subjection to the faith, and his great success in establishing a church so renowned and gifted, he says, he holdsin Christ Jesus our Lord.i.e., in virtue of his fellowship with Christ, as a servant, who had accomplished great things by His power. The meaning then is, as truly as I can boast of you, in Jesus Christ our Lord, do I daily tremble amid the dangers of death. Meyer Ed. 3, laying particular emphasis on you, explains it somewhat differently: So truly as ye, yourselves, are the object of my boasting. The Corinthians, whose conversion was an apostolic triumph for Him, could themselves bear witness what fatal dangers beset him in his apostolic work (?). From the general he now passes over into the special.If after the manner of menHere is where the emphasis in this clause lies. The meaning is not, if, according to mans ability, with the exercise of the utmost strength (Rckert); since neither the contrast points to this, nor is the phrase ordinarily used in this sense. Nor yet does it mean to speak after the manner of men, for there is no or connected with it; [nor yet, as far as man was concerned. (Wordsworth)]. But it means, according to the ways of common men, according to those interests and views by which men are governed,aiming, for example, at reward, or glory, and the like; or, as Neander: with a merely human hope, and without any expectation of eternal life.I fought with beasts at Ephesus,Respecting the allusion here, expositors are divided. Some take the words literally, and understand by them that the apostle, when at Ephesus, had been actually condemned to fight with beasts in the amphitheatre, from which contest he had been marvelously rescued; others, construe metaphorically, understanding the apostle to speak of a conflict with violent and dangerous men, or with strong and embittered foes. Expressions implying the latter are found in Appian ( ), and in Ignatius Ad. Romans 5. (comp. 2Ti 4:17; Tit 1:12; Mat 7:6). The former interpretation is rendered improbable, not only because of the rights of Roman citizenship, which Paul enjoyed, which precluded such punishment, and to which he would have appealed, in case he had been condemned to it; but also from the fact that no mention of any such extraordinary occurrence is made in the Acts, nor in 2Co 11:23 ff.But in adopting the metaphorical explanation, we are not to suppose the allusion here to be to the uproar excited by Demetrius (Acts 19), which did not occur until after this epistle was written, and in which Paul incurred no personal danger; nor yet, perhaps, to any one particular circumstance, but rather to his whole conflict with his Jewish opponents. (Comp. Act 20:19.) [The arguments for its being taken literally are thus set forth by Stanley, who, however, regards the metaphorical interpretation as the more likely. 1. The metaphor would be more violent here than in Ignatius, where it is evidently drawn from the actual prospect of the wild beasts in the amphitheatre; 2. The Asiarchs, who are mentioned Act 19:31 of Acts, as restraining the tumult of Demetrius, appear in Polycarps Martyrdom to have had the charge of the wild beasts; 3. Although there are no remains of an amphitheatre at Ephesus, yet traces of a stadium are to be seen; and in the case of Polycarp, wild beasts were used in the stadium at Smyrna; 4. the young men at Ephesus were famous for their bull-fights. Artimedor. 1Co 1:9 (Wetstein); 5. that seems a forced expression, if the allusion is merely to opponents generally. Whatever be the danger, it must be the same of which he speaks in Rom 16:4; 2Co 1:8; Act 20:19.] what advantageth it me,a strong way of putting the negative. His conflict was an aimless, useless hazarding of life.if the dead rise not?This clause is not to be connected with what precedes [as in the E. V.], as though designed to explain the words after the manner of men; or as forming a second condition to the question just putalthough according to the sense, it belongs with it; but, because of the concinnity of the clauses, it must be connected with what follows, where it gives a frivolous turn to the question, What advantageth it me? in the spirit of a light hearted unbelief, in order to exhibit in its proper light, how unsuitable, even in a moral aspect, that supposition was, and how it involved the most absurd consequences.let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die.These words are taken literally from Isa 22:13, where they occur as the utterance of a God-forgetting light-mindedness. The meaning is He who denies the resurrection of the dead, by thus robbing himself of all the consolations of faith and hope, comes by natural consequence to surrender himself to the constant enjoyment of the present life, since death was soon coming to put an end to all enjoyment. We are not, however, to infer from this that the Corinthian opponents of the resurrection had actually preached such doctrine. All Paul intends is to let them see the consequences of their own position; and he here intimates that this denial was not altogether unconnected with the cultivation of too great intimacy with the profligate society around them. Similar expressions of Epicurean frivolity occur in Isa 56:12; Wis 2:1 ff, and in the classics;30 (Comp. Wetstein 1. h. 1.) The words rise not, and die, do not necessarily involve annihilation. Even existence in Hades, without the hope of resurrection, was a joyless state.

That the frivolous tendency indicated in the foregoing words actually existed among the Corinthian deniers of the resurrection is clear from the warning which follows; for in the evil communications he speaks of, he no doubt has these persons in mind, and by reference to a verse of the comedian Menander, expressive of a general truth which perhaps had also taken the form of a proverb among them, he admonishes his readers that they had reason to guard against the influences of such people.Be not deceived:The caution implies a strong temptation [inherent in human nature and its social tendencies, by which many are insensibly beguiled into the formation of views and habits from which they would at first have strongly recoiled],Evil communications corrupt good manners. means association, intercourse, and conversation which arises from it; the plural form is found in the New Testament only here. , a mode of action, character, disposition, moral quality. elsewhere in the New Testament means kind, mild, good, suitable, etc., here being contrasted with it implies moral goodness (Plato: = ). Lachmann gives the reading . So it reads in the original of Menander ; but it is a question whether the apostle observed the metre. The authorities are not sufficient to decide. [The quotation shows the apostles acquaintance with heathen literature, and to a certain extent his sanction of it, as in his quotation from Aratus in Act 17:28, and Epimedes in Tit 1:12. Menander was famous for the elegance with which he threw into the form of single verses or short sentences, the maxims of that practical wisdom in the affairs of common life which forms so important a feature in the new comedy. In the sentence cited, each word is emphatic; character () may be undermined by talk (): honesty () may be undermined by roguery (). Stanley].To those already contaminated by the treacherous influences of such frivolous men he now calls out abruptly lit:sober out rightly,[An exclamation full of apostolic majesty. Bengel.] By this he gives them to understand that the susceptibility to such trifling communications lies in a state of spiritual drunkenness, out of which they ought at once to rouse themselves. The same expression is used of drunkards in Joe 1:5. [The aorist form adds force to the imperative, implying that the act must be done instantly.] means as it befits them, in the right way. By this he indicates, not so much the degree as the kind of sobriety he would have them cultivatein contrast perhaps with the false sobriety of their new light which might appear to them as an emerging from the narrowness of their traditional notions into a state of luminous thought and feeling. Others explain the word of the direction which they were to take; or they refer it to the object to be pursued. So Calvin: Turn your mind to good and holy things. But this transcends the simple meaning of the term. [Alford says, however, The last meaning is well defended by Dr. Peil from Thuc. 1Co 1Co 1:21 : ,where the adverb must be rendered so as to become incredible, and seems to be the best]. and sin not;The imperative is here in the present, and so implies the continued and perpetual abstaining from all sin. The words convey an exhortation, and not in inference, [as Bengel, who says that the imperative after an imperative has the force of a future (Joh 7:37. Note)], so ye will not sin. Nor are we to understand by sin, a mere error of the understanding (Bengel), (this may accord with the classical use of the word , but not with its Biblical and Pauline use); but a turning aside from the ways of righteousness, moral error in consequence of unbelief and a denial of the resurrection. In the apostles view, a frivolous mind appeared as something sinful. Neander.The reason for this admonition he further assigns by referring that treacherous unbelief which appeared to them as the result of profounder knowledge, to a lack of that true knowledge which is the ground of all other knowledge.for some have ignorance of God.As his previous admonition was directed to those in the church who were in danger of being ensnared by the talk of the frivolous deniers of the resur rection, so does this statement here point to the false teachers themselves, setting them in such light as to open the eyes of the others in regard to their true character and to bring them to see the vanity of this unbelief. Accordingly, by the word some, we are not to understand another portion of the church, but those mentioned in 1Co 15:12, and of these, not simply a portion, but the whole. The ignorance of God which they manifested and which was nothing less than a practical alienation from God, is exhibited as an abiding trait by the use of the word have, i. e. they are permanently affected with it. They are thus represented as having settled down upon the platform of heathenism. The thought is essentially the same as in Mat 22:29. Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. Not knowing God as the Living and Omnipotent One, is the reason why people assert the impossibility of the resurrection.That such persons should be found in the church of God was a disgrace to the whole church. This he gives them to understand in the words annexed.To your shame do I speak.[boldlyhe speaks more severely than at the beginning on another subject. 1Co 4:14. Bengel. There is no need of adding this, as the E. V., since the language here refers to what is said in the whole passage].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

The power of the believers faith and hope. Faith in a living Saviour, who was dead and rose again, and now lives eternally to take His own into the fellowship of His eternal and perfect life,and also the root of this faith, even the knowledge of the living God, who is exalted above all changes of life and death, and lifts His kindred creature man out from his transient, mortal state, into His own unchanging felicity, through the redemption of His incarnate Son,awakens in the believer a lofty, cheerful courage, which shrinks from no danger, which readily exposes itself to the most painful and appalling conflicts, and which is willing to lead a dying life, yea even to lay down body and soul when the Masters cause requires it. For what is temporal life, with all its joys and pleasures, with all its needs and struggles, in comparison with that eternal life, from whence all that is transient has vanished, and where all that is now upon us and in us worthy of preservation, is insured and perpetuated after having been purified, developed and matured for unspeakable blessedness and glory?

Far different is it, where that faith and knowledge are wanting, and where a person is constrained to give up the hope of such blessedness. In such a case all sacrifices of whatever is transient, all hazards and self denials and conflicts, must appear useless and absurd. The sole reasonable course is to seize the passing moment, and enjoy to the full whatever this life may afford, and to use all means for obtaining, preserving and increasing such enjoyment.Experience teaches, also, that that system of speculation which abandons the true Gospel foundationa pantheistic gnosis, for examplehowever spiritual it may appear at the first, and even though asserting an ethical character, sinks at last gradually, if not suddenly, into downright materialism and carnal license. Its earlier aspects and attitude, both in its theoretical and practical bearings, must be ascribed to a previous knowledge, and regarded as the lingering result of the truth which has been essentially abandoned. We may also say, that the higher moral attitude maintained by any system which lacks the true faith and its attendant hope, is owing to a hidden faith and hope, still slumbering in the depths of the spirit, which, however, in consequence of the prevailing views can attain to no settled form in the thoughtful mind. But those who are of a frivolous nature, and who shamelessly proclaim their folly in word and deed, form a dangerous class for the unsteadfast to associate with. Against these it is needful to guard, since by them the fruit of a good education is often destroyed. And these influences are the more dangerous, in proportion as they carry the appearance of a high tone of spirituality, or fall in with the current of the time. In such a case we may well call to mind the language of the apostle where he speaks of Satan as the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Luther:

1Co 15:34. He who would recognize God, must learn to know Him through His Word. This they [the worldly-wise] dont do; but they go directly at the articles of faith with their own understandings, and with their own thoughts, and so presume to judge of God, and of all things concerning Him. Hence they never hit Him.

Starke:

1Co 15:30. No pains, or labors, or watchings, or strivings, to serve God are lost. As surely as God is a righteous judge will there come a resurrection of the dead.

1Co 15:31. What is the daily spiritual dying of the faithful, and their constant familiarity with sufferings and persecutions other than a confirmation of the resurrection to a life eternal? 1Co 15:32. Hostile, dangerous men are worse than wild beasts. If thou hast to deal with such, sigh to God; be watchful, circumspect, and patient.Unhappy man, who believest not in the resurrection of the dead! For such a one grows secure, falls from one sin to another, and slides on towards damnation.

Hed.:

1Co 15:33. If we flee the plague and contagion, why not also evil companionship? Is temporal life more than the soul? Ordinarily, men guard against disease more than against sin. (2Ti 2:17).There are words and speeches which, under cover of worldly respect and courtesy, conceal a dangerous poison to faith and life. Whoso is wise let him take heed. (Jam 3:8).

1Co 15:34. All who have the means for knowing God, and still are blind, are involved in disgrace. Oh! that they may not thereby be brought to shame and everlasting contempt! (Dan 12:2).

Berlenburger Bibel:

1Co 15:31. Dying means to hate ones own life in true self denial, and to give it over to death and destruction, with everything which is in and upon man from the fall.The fact itself is well substantiated, but what a great, deep, rich mystery of God is in it, that faith alone can see. This is already a kind of secret dying, when we dare not even reckon upon our own righteousness before God, but condemn it as a filthy rag. (Php 3:8-10). Accordingly, it is a sort of dying when we abandon ourselves in contradiction to, and beyond our own reason, solely to the unseen, and rest upon the simple promise of God, and that, too, after we have been accustomed to stand upon our own gifts and, works. And these secret crucifixions of nature, in its pride and self-willedness, and seeming sanctity, must take place daily, yea, momentarily, in the very best of Christians if they would not backslide. Yea, in all believers there is no surer safeguard against all kinds of pride which may arise easily in connection with much grace, than this daily dying to self, and ones own life. But traces of this are manifest only in the children of light. Crude and unbroken spirits know as little of this as do hypocrites, who put their Christianity in much outward show. No one can occupy himself in this save he who is trained in conflict against the mysteries of iniquity hidden in himself.He who does not of his own accord daily die unto the old man and his evil lusts, constrains God to lay hold on him with power and humble him; but he who willingly resolves to follow Christ, and confesses him honestly before men, will not long be exercised with tribulations.In sum: Every thing with which man has to do, gives a believer cause and opportunity for mortifying his own life, and hastening to a complete separation from the false things of this world.

1Co 15:32. The Christians life-walk, which consists in the constant renouncing of the works of darkness, in the mortification of the flesh and sin, in turning away from the godless; ways of this world, and in the denial of all lusts, desires, and vanities, is an earnest preparation! for the resurrection. Hence Christians prefer the Cross of Christ, and all the shame, and persecution, and contempt which may be heaped I upon them daily by the children of unbelief, to all the treasures, and honors, and enjoyments, and friendships of this present life. And this they could not certainly do, if they believed in no resurrection. The last refuge and comfort of the world is, to take what one can get.But is there so much depending upon the resurrection? Could not the simple happiness of the soul after death recompense every thing? No. However much of enjoyment it may have, the soul must still always miss something, and through its natural inward longing, must ceaselessly urge God to bestow upon it again a suitable body.

1Co 15:33. There are many spirits who transform themselves into angels of light, and go about in sheeps clothing, by whom many persons are befooled into dancing around some Aarons calf that has been set up. But if any one imagines that he is fully competent to take care of himself, such a person is altogether too confident, and will be certain not to escape unharmed.Man has in himself enough which should humble him. But if he insists on spreading his feathers, alas! it is all over with him. The excuse: I was young then, does not exonerate a person.

1Co 15:34. Ah! what charm is there not for throwing men into a deep sleep? Hence the necessity of holding fast, betimes, to what is fundamental. Wake at once out of such a fools sleep! Oh, how willingly does man linger in the haven of carnal security and indifference! From such places of case does He who walks in the midst of His Church summon all to come forth to earnest labor, and to advancement in their holy calling.People deem it a disgrace if they are told, they know not God, but it should only shame them into improvement.There are two sorts of divine knowledge; the one is external, literal, dead, and unfruitful; the other is internal, spiritual, living, and fruitful. The former is grounded simply in natural knowledge, in learning, or speaking of God, as when one can use the language of Scripture, or repeat it again to others without experiencing its power. But if that which has been externally apprehended is sealed upon the conscience through the Holy Spirit, and if all the testimonies of God awaken in one a new life, so that he is actually changed and improved thereby, then does God appear before the eyes of the heart, and the man becomes inwardly convinced how righteous, true, good, and holy He is; then are the eyes of the understanding widely opened to see what and how much God does for him, and what he is bound to do in returnwhat God has promised, and what we have to expect of Him.

Rieger:

1Co 15:30 ff. In all the joy won by communion with Christ, there is daily opportunity to bear about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus. Now if, with all this, I could not: set my hope upon the living God who raises the! dead; if I could not regard all the steps I take in the communion of His sufferings and in the likeness of His death as well-measured approaches to the resurrection of the dead; if all this is only for the maintenance of my own opinion,! and only with reference to this short life, what availeth it for me? To suppose that Divine! blessedness and also the sufferings endured in behalf of righteousness should avail nothing, is a thought which destroys all religion and sunders the connection between God and man. If we hold not to the word of promise, and to the hope afforded therein, we have no certainty for eternity, and consequently no assurance that we shall not slide into the old forms of speech, wherein everything runs to the enjoyment of this life, but where death, and its sting are frivolously denied, and all the weighty things which follow thereupon, together with all Christian hope, are thrust out of sight, and all exhortation to diligence in salvation will be heard no more.That which deserves to be called good morals, and sound knowledge, and correct taste, I should aim at what is unseen and eternal, and be sustained and be kept in exercise by a spirit of faith and self-denial. But how full the world is of such idle talk which turns us away from this, and makes us uncertain and credulous, as if overcome by some magic potion. Error, slumber and in difference towards God and his counsel, and the observance of His ways, are the cause of much sin.

Heubner:

1Co 15:30 ff. Without faith in a future life, many acts of the Christian life, many sacrifices and hazards, would be foolish and purposeless. This faith and steadfast virtue are inseparable. Without this faith that virtue which looks not to the unseen, would be a vain over-straining and fanaticism; and a prudent enjoyment of life would be the highest wisdom. 1Co 15:34. Sobriety, is the clear consciousness of God and His will. A correct self-knowledge leads to a correct faith. Unbelief comes from thorough self-ignorance, dissipation and unrestrained frivolity.

W. F. Besser:

1Co 15:33. If traitors to God find ready helpers in our own lusts, then is it a Christian duty to avoid all needless intercourse with them, and not allow ourselves to purchase their vain words for the sake of setting forth our own hateful inclinations in a seemly garb (Eph 5:6-7).

1Co 15:34. The poison of all erroneous doctrine is intoxicating; and in imbibing it, we allow ourselves to be intoxicated. Well for us, if we properly awake when the voice of truth arouses us, in order that we may spue out the poison of sin, ere we die therein!God is not the God of the dead but of the living (Mat 22:32). Hence, he who denies the resurrection of the dead knows not the true God.

[Robertson:

1Co 15:32. How many of the myriads of the human race would do right for the sake of right, if they were only to live fifty years and then die for ever more? Go to the sensualist, and tell him that a nobler life is better than a base one, even for that time, and he will answer: I like pleasure better than virtue; you can do as you please; for me, I will enjoy my time. It is a matter of taste. By taking away my hope of a resurrection you have dwarfed good and evil, and shortened their consequences. If I am only to live sixty or seventy years, there is no eternal right or wrong. By destroying the thought of immortality, I have lost the sense of the infinitude of evil, and the eternal nature of good. Besides, with our hopes of immortality gone, the value of humanity ceases and people become not worth living for. We have not got a motive strong enough to keep us from sin. Tell the sensualist that, though the theory of the life to come be a dream, yet that here the pleasure of doing right is sublimer than that of self indulgence, and he will answer: Yes, but my appetites are strong; the struggle will be painful, and at last, only a few years will be left. The victory is uncertain, the present enjoyment is sure, why should I refrain? Do you think you can arrest that with some fine sentiment about nobler and baser being. No, the instincts of the animal will be more than a match for all the transcendental reasonings of the philosopher (abbreviated).

Hodge:

1Co 15:33. It is only when men associate with the wicked with the desire and purpose of doing them good, that they can rely on the protection of God to preserve them from contamination.]

[Sermons.J. Owen:

1Co 15:31. The Christians work of dying daily. This to be done cheerfully, comfortably, and triumphantly in the Lord. To this three things requisite: 1. The constant exercise of faith as to the resignation of a departing soul unto the hand and sovereign will-of God. 2. A readiness and willingness to part with this body on the grounds: a, That to depart is to be with Christ; b, That the body is dead because of sin. 3. Constant watchfulness against being surprised by death. R. Hall:

1Co 15:33. Nature and danger of evil communications. 1. What these communications are; a, such as tend to sensualize the mind; b, such as utterly lack a religious spirit; c, such as abound in skeptical objections to Christianity; d, such as are full of hatred to Christianity; e, such as are loose with respects to fundamental moral principles. 2. The way in which they corrupt through the natural suceptibilities of the human mind. 3. The need of the warning, be not deceived: a, by the adduction of false precedents; b, by your past experience; c, by any complacent reference to your age and attainments in piety; d, by any supposed strength of resolution].

Footnotes:

[24]1Co 15:31.Others have . Meyer thinks that was not understood, and seemed demanded by . It has however, the weight of evidence against it.

[25]1Co 15:31.The Rec. leaves out with D. E. F. G. L. several Ital. versions, the later Arm. Orig. Chrys. Theodt. Damasc. Ambrst.; but A. B. K. Siuait. Vulg. Syr. (both) Goth. Basm. Ann. Aeth. Arab. and Slav. Dial. Aug. Pel. Bede insert it. Some of these add C. P. W.]

[26][1Co 15:33.The Rec. has , Lachmann edits but they have no good MSS to support them. Clemens Alex. and Amphilochius (of Leon.) have the word thus abbreviated to constitute with the previous syllable a spondee; in our passage read as an iambic trimeter acataletic, which the Latins call senarius. Winer, Gram, of the N.T. 68.JC. P.W.]

[27]1Co 15:34Lachmann and Tischendorf have . The Rec. gives on equally good authority. [The former is sustained by B. D. E. Sinait. Dial. Several Latin versions and Armbrst. have loquor. The latter is favored by A. F. G. K. L., Chrys. Theodt. The Vulg. (Flor.) and two Latin and one Vulg. MSS. have dicoC. P. W.]

[28][In similar style Hodge accounts for Pauls appeal to a wrong custom. This method of arguing against others from their own concessions, is one which the Apostle frequently employs. When his mind is full of a particular subject, he does not leave it, to pronounce judgment on things incidentally introduced. Thus, in 1Co 11:5, when treating of women speaking in the church unveiled, he expresses no disapprobation of their speaking in public, although he afterwards condemned it. A still more striking example of the same thing is to he found 1Co 10:8, where ho speaks of the Corinthians sitting at meat in an idols temple, without any disapprobation of the thing itself, but only of its influence on the weaker brethren. Yet, in 1Co 10:14-22, he proves that the thing itself was an act of idolatry. The entire disappearance of this custom in the orthodox church, although other superstitious observances, not less objectionable, soon prevailed, is probably to be referred to the practice, having been forbidden by the Apostle as soon as he reached Corinth. This may have been one of the things which he left to be set in order when he came. 1Co 11:34.]

[29][See this view wrought out with great originality and convincing argument by the Rev. H. D. Ganse. in the Amer. Pres. and Theo. Review, 1863, p. 83. It merits the preference over all others, because, while answering all the requirements of grammar, and conceding to each word its full and proper meaning, it rests on a natural hypothesis and relieves us of the difficulty of supposing that the Apostle here appeals for support to a practice wholly at variance with his fundamental doctrines. The whole article merits attention as a masterly specimen of exegesis, and as illustrating other points in this chapter with great beauty and force.]

[30] [The following instances may be quoted as a specimen: O beate Sesti!

Vitae summa brevis nos vetat inchoare longam,
l am te premet nox, fabulaeque Manes
Et domus exilis Plutonia:
O happy Sestius! the brief span of human life forbids us to indulge a distant hope. Soon will night descend upon thee, and the fabulous Manes, and the shadowy mansion of Pluto. Hor. Carm. 1Co 1:4; 1Co 1:13-17.

Sapias, vina liqnes, et spatio brevi
Speram longam reseces. Durn loquimur, fugerit invida
Aetas. Carpe diem, quam minimuu credula postero.
Be wise: rack off your wines; and abridge your distant hopes in adaptation to the brevity of life. While we speak, envious age has been flying. Seize the present day, depending as little as possible on any future one.Hor. Carm. 1Co 1:11; 1Co 1:6-8.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

(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? (30) And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? (31) I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. (32) If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die. (33) Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. (34) Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

Perhaps there is not a passage in the whole Bible attended with greater difficulty to understand, than this before us, of the being baptized for the dead. Various have been the opinions, both of the learned, and the unlearned upon it. By the learned, I mean the taught of God, Joh 6:45 . And by the unlearned, men who profess great knowledge of the wisdom of this world, but were never taught of God. And numbers there are of this latter class which have written upon the word of God. From such, however, nothing can be learnt in divine things, no more than from the blind who fancy, but have no conception of colors. But, among the learned, the taught of God, there doth not appear to have been any who have been taught by God the Holy Ghost, concerning this baptism for the dead. And, therefore, what God hath not thought proper to explain, it should seem to be the wisdom of the Church rather to be silent upon, than by presuming on conjectures, to be in danger of attempting to be wise above what is written. I only venture, therefore, to observe upon it, that it serves to strengthen the views which the Gospel gives of the baptisms of the Spirit, so essentially necessary, as the Lord Jesus himself declared them, and so unimportant every other, where the Holy Ghost doth not accompany their use. Luk 24:49 with Act 1:8Act 1:8 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

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?

Ver. 29. Which are baptized ] The several senses that are set upon this text, see in Beza, Piscator, but especially our new annotations upon the Bible.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

29 34 .] ARGUMENTS FOR THE REALITY OF THE RESURRECTION, from the practice (1) of those who were baptized for the dead , (2) of the Apostles, &c., who submitted to daily peril of death .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

29. ] resumes the main argument, which has been interrupted by the explanation since 1Co 15:23 of . After it is an ellipsis of ‘if it be as the adversaries suppose.’

] There is in these words a tacit reprehension of the practice about to be mentioned, which it is hardly possible altogether to miss. Both by the third person, and by the art. before ., he indirectly separates himself and those to whom he is writing from participation in or approval of the practice: the meaning being, what will become of ‘what account can they give of their practice?’

] those who are in the habit of being baptized not . The distinction is important as affecting the interpretation. See below.

] on behalf of the dead ; viz. the same who are spoken of in the next clause and throughout the chapter as the subjects of not in any figurative sense. ., the art. marking the particular dead persons on behalf of whom the act took place. Before we pass to the exegesis, it will be well to go through the next question . . . If dead men are not raised at all, why do they trouble themselves ( as in reff.) to be baptized for them ?

Thus much being said as to the plain meaning of the words used, there can be no doubt as to their interpretation. The only legitimate reference is, to a practice, not otherwise known to us, not mentioned here with any approval by the Apostle, not generally prevalent ( .), but in use by some, of survivors allowing themselves to be baptized on behalf of (believing?) friends who had died without baptism . With the subsequent similar practices of the Cerinthians (Epiph [69] Hr. xxviii. 6, p. 114) and Marcionites (Chrys., Tertull. de resurr. 48, vol. ii. p. 864, adv. Marc [70] 1Co 15:10 , p. 494 f.) this may or may not have been connected. All we clearly see from the text, is that it unquestionably did exist .

[69] Epiphanius, Bp. of Salamis in Cyprus, 368 403

[70] Marcus Monachus, 390

With regard to the other interpretations, Bengel well says, “Tanta est interpretationum varietas, ut is, qui non dicam varietates ipsas, sed varietatum catalogos colligere velit, dissertationem scripturus sit.” I will give a few of them, mostly in the words of their authors: Chrys. (Hom. xl. p. 379): , . , , (Migne reads . . . ., ) . , . . . , , . . . . ( Rom 6:4 ), Theophyl.: , , , ; , , .; and so in the main, Pelag., cum., Phot [71] , Corn.-a-Lap., Wetst. Theodoret: , , , , , ; and so Castal., al. All these senses would require , to say nothing of the impossibility of thus understanding . Estius explains . as = ‘ jamjam morituri ,’ and Calvin justifies this, ‘baptizari pro mortuis erit sic baptizari ut mortuis non vivis prosit .’ So too Epiph [72] (l. c.), of catechumens who : and Bengel: “baptizantur super mortuis ii, qui mox post baptismum ad mortuos aggregabuntur.” But against this is decisive, as is against ‘ over the dead,’ i.e. over their sepulchres (Luth., al.): this local sense of not being found in the N. T. Le Clerc, Hammond, Olsh., al., explain . . ., ‘ to fill the place of the dead .’ But, as Meyer observes, such an idea can hardly be gathered from the words, but would want explaining in the context; and besides, the question would thus be irrelevant , because, the place of the dead being supplied by their successors, it would be no matter to them, whether the dead themselves rose or not : whereas now, the benefits of baptism being supposed to be conveyed to the dead by the baptism of his substitute, the proceeding would be stultified , if the dead could never rise to claim those benefits.

[71] Photius, Bp. of Constantinople, 858 891

[72] Epiphanius, Bp. of Salamis in Cyprus, 368 403

This, the only justifiable rendering, is adopted by Ambrose, and by Anselm, Erasmus, Grotius, al., and recently by Billroth, Rckert, Meyer, De Wette, al. The ordinary objection to it is, that thus the Apostle would be giving his sanction to a superstitious usage, or at all events mentioning it without reprobation. But this is easily answered, by remembering that if the above view of is correct, he does not mention it without a slur on it; and more completely still, as Rckert (in Meyer), “usurpari ab eo morem, qui ceteroqui displiceret, ad errorem, in quo impugnando versabatur, radicitus evellendum; ipsius autem reprehendendi aliud tempus expectari.” See a multitude of other interpretations in Pool’s Synopsis and in Stanley’s note. His concluding remarks are worth quoting: “On the whole, therefore, this explanation of the passage ( that given above ) may be safely accepted, (1) as exhibiting a curious relic of primitive superstition, which, after having, as the words imply (?), prevailed generally in the apostolical church, gradually dwindled away till it was only to be found in some obscure sects, where it lost its original significance: (2) as containing an example of the Apostle’s mode of dealing with a practice, with which he could have no real sympathy; not condemning or ridiculing it, but appealing to it as an expression, however distorted, of their better feelings.”

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 15:29-34 . 53. THE EFFECT OF UNBELIEF IN THE RESURRECTION. To clinch the argument for the truth and the necessity of the Christian resurrection and to bring it home to the readers, the Ap. points out how futile Christian devotion must be, such as is witnessed in “those baptised for the dead” and in his own daily hazards, if death ends all (1Co 15:29-31 ); present enjoyment would then appear the highest good (1Co 15:32 ). The effect of unbelief in the future life is already painfully apparent in the relaxed moral tone of a certain part of the Cor [2408] Church (1Co 15:33 f.).

[2408] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1Co 15:29-30 . There are certain conditions of interpretation bearing on the sense of the much discussed expression which bar out a large number of attempted explanations: ( a ) , unless otherwise defined, can only mean the recipients of Christian baptism , in its well-understood sense as the rite of initiation into the Christian state administered upon confession of faith (1Co 1:13 ff., 1Co 12:13 , Rom 6:3 f., Gal 3:27 , etc.). ( b ) (not , “on behalf of dead persons” as such: cf. 1Co 15:2 , etc.) points to a specific class of “the dead” interested in the baptism of the living presumably to “the (Christian) dead” of the last , and probably to those amongst them who were connected with “the baptised” in question. ( c ) In following up 1Co 15:29 with the words of 1Co 15:30 ( 😉 [2409] . associates himself with the action of “those baptised for the dead,” indicating that they and he are engaged on the same behalf (for associating “we” with persons aforementioned, cf. 2Co 4:13 , Gal 2:16 ; Gal 4:3 , Eph 2:3 , etc.). This last consideration excludes the interpretation, at present widely adopted (Ambrst., Anselm, Grot., Mr [2410] , Holsten, Al [2411] , Hn [2412] , Bt [2413] , El [2414] , Sm [2415] ), that P. alludes to a practice then (it is conjectured) in vogue at Cor [2416] , which existed much later amongst the heretical Cerinthians and Marcionites (see Cm [2417] ad loc [2418] in Cramer’s Catena ; Tert [2419] , De Resurr. Carnis , 48, adv. Marc ., v., 10; Epiph., Hr ., xxviii., 6), viz ., that of the vicarious baptism of living Christians as proxies for relatives or friends dying unbaptised. With such a proceeding P. could not have identified himself, even supposing that it existed at this time in the Church (of which there is no evidence), and that he had used it by way of argumentum ad hominem . An appeal to such a superstitious opus operatum would have laid the Ap. open to a damaging retort. Gd [2420] justly asks, ‘A quoi et servi ce procd de mauvaise logique et de bonne foi douteuse?” This objection tells less forcibly against the view, lately suggested, that P. alludes to some practice of substitutionary baptism observed in the Pagan mysteries , finding thus a witness to the Resurrection in the heathen conscience, adding thereto the Christian practical testimony; but condition ( a ) forbids this solution. As El [2421] admits, condition ( b ) also bears strongly against the prevalent exposition. ( b ) moreover negatives the idea of Cm [2422] and the Gr [2423] Ff [2424] , maintained by Est. and Ev [2425] (see the ingenious Addit. Note of the latter), that means, as Thp [2426] puts it, , : if P. meant this, why did he not say it? The following indicates that by definite (dead) persons are meant. Ed [2427] notices with approval the rendering of John Edwards (Camb., 1692), who supposed these “baptized” to be men converted to Christianity by the heroism of the martyrs ; somewhat similarly, Gd [2428] This points in the right direction, but misses the force of ( on behalf of ; not , on account of ), and narrows the ref [2429] of ( cf. 1Co 15:18 ; 1Co 15:20 ; 1Co 15:23 ); there is no indication in the ep. of martyrdoms at Cor [2430] (see, on the contrary, 1Co 4:9 f.). P. is referring rather to a much commoner, indeed a normal experience, that the death of Christians leads to the conversion of survivors, who in the first instance “for the sake of the dead” (their beloved dead), and in the hope of reunion, turn to Christ e.g ., when a dying mother wins her son by the appeal, “Meet me in heaven!” Such appeals, and their frequent salutary effect, give strong and touching evidence of faith in the resurrection ; some recent example of the kind may have suggested this ref [2431] Paul designates such converts “ baptised for the dead,” since Baptism seals the new believer and commits him to the Christian life (see note, 1Co 12:13 ) with all its losses and hazards ( cf. 1Co 12:30 ). The hope of future blessedness, allying itself with family affections and friendship, was one of the most powerful factors in the early spread of Christianity. Mr [2432] objects to this view (expounded by Kster) that . needs definition by , or the like, to bear such meaning; but to each of these those who had thus influenced him would be “ the dead”. The obscure passage has, upon this explanation, a large, abiding import suitable to the solemn and elevated context in which it stands; the words reveal a communion in Christ between the living and departed ( cf. Rom 14:9 ), to which the hope of the resurrection gives validity and worth ( cf. 1Th 5:10 ; 1Th 5:2 These. 1Co 2:10 ). For , since otherwise, else ( alioquin , Vg [2433] ; Germ. da sonst ), see note on 1Co 5:10 . ; (see LXX parls.) indicates that the hope on which these baptisms rest will be stultified, without a resurrection; it will betray them (Rom 5:5 ). . . ., “If absolutely ( omnino , Vg [2434] : see note, 1Co 5:10 ) dead men are not raised” (the axiom of the unbelievers, 12, 15, etc.), unfolds the assumption involved in as the protasis of ; which repeats, with emphasis on the pronoun, the former question “Why indeed are they baptised for them ?” how can they be interested in the baptism of survivors, if they have perished (1Co 15:18 )? On this assumption, converts would have been gained upon false hopes ( cf. 1Co 15:19 ), as well as upon false testimony (1Co 15:15 ). “Why also do we run hazard every hour?” further consequent of : “our case (that of the App. and other missionaries, braving death unceasingly: see 11; 1Co 4:9 ff., 2Co 4:10 ff; 2Co 11:23 ff.; Joh 15:18 to Joh 16:22 ) is parl [2435] to theirs; as they, in love for the dead whom they hope to meet again, take up the cross of Christian profession, so we in the same hope face hourly peril”.

[2409] Codex Porphyrianus (sc. ix.), at St. Petersburg, collated by Tischendorf. Its text is deficient for chap. 1Co 2:13-16 .

[2410] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[2411] Alford’s Greek Testament .

[2412] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[2413] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).

[2414] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .

[2415] P. Schmiedel, in Handcommentar zum N.T. (1893).

[2416] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[2417] John Chrysostom’s Homili ( 407).

[2418] ad locum , on this passage.

[2419]ert. Tertullian.

[2420] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[2421] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .

[2422] John Chrysostom’s Homili ( 407).

[2423] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.

[2424] Fathers.

[2425] T. S. Evans in Speaker’s Commentary .

[2426] Theophylact, Greek Commentator.

[2427] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians .

[2428] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[2429] reference.

[2430] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[2431] reference.

[2432] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[2433] Latin Vulgate Translation.

[2434] Latin Vulgate Translation.

[2435] parallel.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 15:29-34

29Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? 30Why are we also in danger every hour? 31I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. 33Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.” 34Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.

1Co 15:29 This verse has caused major problems in interpretation. We have no parallel passages in Scripture. We have no other reference for this practice in the early church, although there is some historical evidence about something similar being practiced among the heretics of the second and third century. We must admit we just do not know biblically exactly to what this refers. Some theories are:

1. new Christians baptized to take the place of dead Christians

2. new converts baptized because of their respect for a dead loved one

3. persons in catechism having died before being baptized were proxy baptized by living Christians

4. new converts were baptized over the graves of great Christians.

Hermeneutically several assumptions need to be applied to the interpretation of this verse.

1. It basically is in a series of examples/illustrations of the reality of the resurrection.

2. One does not build theology/doctrine on illustrations.

3. Since there is no clue to the exact historical reference, this text should not be emphasized or applied and surely not turned into a doctrine (i.e. Mormonism)

4. It is even contextually uncertain if Paul is affirming this practice or simply making an allusion to it (cf. TEV, NJB)

“If” This is a first class conditional sentence used to make a strong counterpoint. The Greek text has the word hols (actually) in this clause. See notes at 1Co 5:1.

1Co 15:31

NASB, NKJV”I affirm”

NRSV”that is as certain”

TEV”I declare this”

NJB”I swear”

This is not in the Greek, but in context the following phrase might be an oath formula. Paul uses oath formulas quite often to assert the truthfulness of his statements (cf. Rom 9:1; 2Co 1:18; 2Co 1:23; 2Co 11:10-11; 2Co 11:31).

“by the boasting in you which I have in Christ” Paul is asserting that his work in Corinth is an evidence of his labor for Christ. His labor has been worth it (cf. 2Co 3:1-2; 2Co 7:4; 2Co 9:2-3). Paul’s churches were an evidence of his apostleship and effectiveness.

“I die daily” This phrase is placed first in the sentence for emphasis (cf. 2Co 5:14-15; Gal 2:20; 1Jn 3:16). 1Co 15:30-32 refer to the difficulties Paul faced in service to Christ (cf. 2Co 1:8-10; 2Co 4:8-12; 2Co 6:3-10; 2Co 11:23-27). He knew it was worth it because he had personally seen the glorified Christ on the road to Damascus (cf. Act 9:1-22; Act 22:3-16; Act 26:9-18). Paul’s theology was informed by personal experience and personal revelation (cf. Act 9:1-22; Gal 1:11-12) and the Old Testament (his rabbinical training).

1Co 15:32 “If” Paul uses two First class conditional sentences to make the point. If there is no resurrection and no Christian reward, why was Paul willing to suffer daily for the gospel?

“I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus” Paul does not mention this experience in his litany of sufferings in 2Co 11:23-27, and because Paul was a Roman citizen, he should not have been forced to fight wild beasts. This must be a metaphor of the difficult spiritual situation that Paul encountered at Ephesus (cf. 1Co 1:8-10). Some take this text literally and assert an imprisonment at Ephesus.

“what does it profit me” Paul’s labors for Christ are of no spiritual effect if there is no resurrection, either of Christ and thereby no resurrection for Paul. He labors for the gospel, but if the gospel is not true, there is no reward (i.e., no salvation, no resurrection, no eternal life, no fellowship with God, no reuniting with loved ones in heaven, cf. 1Co 15:12-19).

“let us eat, and drink, for tomorrow we die” This was the motto of the Epicureans. It is also a quote from Isa 22:13 (cf. Isa 56:12; Luk 12:19). This is similar to the current saying, “You only go around once in life, so get all the gusto you can!” But, what if there is a resurrection? What if we do stand before a Holy God to give an account of the gift of life (cf. Dan 12:2)?!

1Co 15:33 “do not be deceived” This is a negated present passive imperative. The church at Corinth was being led astray by false theology (cf. 1Co 6:9).

“Bad company corrupts good morals” This seems to be a quote from the Greek prophet, Menander’s Thais, relating to a prostitute. Some factions at Corinth were proud of their (1) Greco-Roman heritage or (2) sexual freedom. Paul intensifies their attitudes by quoting from their own philosophers (cf. 1Co 15:32-33). Paul was raised in Tarsus, which was well known for its schools of Greek philosophy (cf Act 17:28 and Tit 1:12). He was uniquely learned in rabbinical Judaism and secular Greek thought.

“corrupts” See Special Topic at 1Co 15:42.

1Co 15:34

NASB”become sober-minded”

NKJV”awake to righteousness”

NRSV”come to a sober and right mind”

TEV”come back to your right senses”

NJB”wake up from your stupor as you should”

This is an aorist active imperative. This seems to mean, “come to your moral senses once and for all.”

“stop sinning” This is a present active imperative with a negative particle which usually means to stop an act in process. It is obvious that those who denied the resurrection were also living godless lives. Paul uses their immorality as a way to show the faulty validity of their theological assertion (i.e., no resurrection).

“no knowledge of God” In English this is the term “agnostic.” This was a subtle sarcastic remark to those who revered knowledge so highly. Their theology and actions clearly showed they had no true knowledge!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

baptized, &c. See 1Co 15:20. This question follows on from 1Co 15:19.

baptized = being baptized.

the dead. App-139.

why are they, &c. Read, why are they baptized also? (It is) for the dead. It is to remain dead, as Christ remains, if there be no resurrection, 1Co 15:13. The argument is, What is the use of being baptized, if it is only to remain dead? No suggestion here of the vicarious baptism which sprang up later among the Marcionites and others.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

29-34.] ARGUMENTS FOR THE REALITY OF THE RESURRECTION, from the practice (1) of those who were baptized for the dead, (2) of the Apostles, &c., who submitted to daily peril of death.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 15:29. ; , ; 😉 We shall first say something on the pointing of this verse.[138] Many rightly connect, and have long been in the habit of connecting this clause, , with what follows; for the particle alone exhausts the force of the same clause in the first part of the verse. begins the sentence, as in 1Co 15:32, it does so twice; and often in 1Co 15:12, and those that follow. Hence the pronoun is to be referred to .[139] Furthermore, of the baptism for (over) the dead, the variety of interpretations is so great, that he who would collect, I shall not say, those different opinions, but a catalogue of the different opinions, would have to write a dissertation. At that time, as yet, there were neither martyrdoms nor baptisms over sepulchres, etc., especially at Corinth; but baptism over sepulchres, and baptism for the advantage of the dead came into use from a wrong interpretation of this very passage; as fire was used among the Egyptians and Abyssinians in the case of the baptized, from Mat 3:11. Often, when the true interpretation is nearer and easier than we think, we fetch it from a distance. We must mark-I. The paraphrase: Otherwise what will they do who are baptized for (super) the dead? If the dead rise not at all, why are they also baptized for the dead? and why also are we in danger every hour? II. The sense of the phrase, , to be baptized for (over) the dead. For they are baptized for (over) the dead [super mortuis], who receive baptism and profess Christianity at that time, when they have death set before their eyes, who are likely every moment to be added to the general mass of the dead, either on account of the decrepitude of age, or disease, or pestilence, or by martyrdom; in fact, those who, without almost any enjoyment of this life, are going down to the dead, and are constantly, as it were, hanging over the dead; they who might say , the graves are ready for me, Job 17:1. III. The first part of the verse is of a milder character; but the last part which begins with if after all, has also an epitasis [an emphatic addition. Append.] expressed in its own protasis by after all, and in the apodosis by the even [ ]: and these two particles correspond to each other; and the same apodosis has an anaphora [the repetition of the same words in the beginnings of sections], joining its two parts by why even. IV. We must mark the connection of the subject under discussion. With the argument respecting the resurrection of Christ, from which our resurrection is derived, Paul connects the statement of two absurdities (indeed there are more than two, but the preceding absurdities are repeated, though they have been already sufficiently refuted by former reasonings) which would arise, if there be no resurrection of the dead, if Christ have not risen: and in the meantime, having disentangled the argument concerning Christ, 1Co 15:20-28, he refutes those two absurdities by a discussion of somewhat greater length, which draws the sinews of its strength from the argument concerning Christ. The latter absurdity (for this has its relation to the argument more evident) regarding the misery of Christians in this life, he set forth at 1Co 15:19, and now discusses at 1Co 15:29 in the middle, and in the following verses; if after all: and in like manner he stated the former concerning the perishing of the Christians that are dead, at 1Co 15:18, and now discusses, or repeats, or explains it in the first part of 1Co 15:29. V. The force of the apostles argument, which in itself is both most clear and most urgent. I. The propriety of the several words consistent with themselves. ) What shall they do? is future, in respect of eternal salvation, i.e., such persons being baptized, will be disappointed, their efforts will be vain, if the dead sleep the eternal sleep. ) The term baptism continues to be used in its ordinary meaning; and indeed in this epistle Paul has made more mention of baptism than in any other, ch. 1Co 1:13-17, 1Co 10:2, 1Co 12:13. ) The preposition with the genitive might be thus also taken in various senses; of the object simply, as the Latins use super, with respect to, about, so far as it concerns; with this meaning, that they may put the dead before them without consideration of the resurrection; or the words may be used of paying as it were a price, viz., that they should account the dead as nonentities; or of obtaining as the price for their trouble, viz., that they should be gathered to the dead for ever: but we maintain the propriety with which denotes nearness, hanging over [such propinquity as that one hangs immediately over] anything, whence Theocritus speaks of , the asphodel (kings spear) that grows on the ground, Idyl. 26. Lexicographers give more examples, especially from Thucydides. So they are baptized over [immediately upon] the dead, who will be gathered to the dead immediately after baptism: and then over the dead is said here, as if it were said over the sepulchre, as Luk 24:5, with [Engl. Vers., among] the dead, i.e., in the sepulchre. Nor is it incredible, that baptism was often administered at funerals. ) The term dead is used in its ordinary sense of the dead generally, as the article also requires, taken in as wide a sense as the resurrection, ) The adverb , after all, is used by a Corinthian who is supposed to be led on by Paul, and who had rather peevishly opposed the resurrection, not reflecting on the loss of the advantages even in this life, which result in baptism: and is employed in the same way as in Chrysost. homil. 5, c. Anomoeos: Notwithstanding, though man differs little from an angel, since there is nevertheless [after all] some difference ( ), we know not accurately what angels are. ) is not redundant, but strengthens the force of the present tense, , what do they do who are baptized? in antithesis to the future, , what shall they do? Comp. , 2Co 1:14; 2Co 11:12; Php 3:7-8; Php 4:10. Paul in fact places those who are baptized for the dead, as it were at the point of death, and shows that no reward awaits them either for the future, if they denied the resurrection, or for the past. Paul seems to confute those who denied both the resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul. The vindication of the former is a sufficient and more than sufficient vindication of the latter. This is an example of the , condescension of Scripture, which, out of regard to the weak and simple, does not enter into that subtle controversy, but lays hold of the subject at that part of it, which is easier to be proved, and yet also carries along with it the proof of the more difficult part. ) The two clauses beginning with admirably cohere: with a gradation from those who could only for a little enjoy this life [i.e., those baptized at the point of death] to (us) those who could enjoy it longer, if they had not had their hope fixed in Christ.-, dead) Throughout this whole chapter, in the question, whether [dead men rise at all], Paul speaks of dead men, , without the article; afterwards, when this question has been cleared out of the way, in the question how, 1Co 15:35, etc., he uses the article; but in this verse has the meaning of the relative [ , those who are dead already spoken of, 1Co 15:12-13; 1Co 15:16].

[138] Lachm. and Tischend. punctuate as Bengel. Rec. Text puts the question not after , but after ; thus connecting this clause with what precedes, instead of with what follows.-ED.

[139] The Germ. Ver. repeats the noun , instead of the pronoun at the end of the verse, and differs from the margin of both editions.-E. B.

is the reading of ABD corrected later, Gfg Vulg. Memph., later Syr. Origen. of Rec. Text is only found in later Uncial MSS. and Syr. Version alone, of the oldest versions.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 15:29

Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead?-As is apparent to every thoughtful person, this is an earnest argument to prove that Christians will rise from the dead. The purpose, scope, and connection will admit of but one meaning-If the dead rise not, what shall they do who are baptized in the hope of the resurrection? Men are baptized into Christ, that they may live in him, die in him, and finally be justified and saved in him.

If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?-In view of their dying they are baptized in order to their well-being after death. If they are not to be raised from the dead, why are they baptized to fit them for the resurrection? [There is no doubt that the allusion is to some act performed in expectation of future benefit to themselves, which would be lost if the dead did not rise. And the view given here suits the argument and agrees with the context. Foreseeing that faith would cost them the loss of all things, perhaps of life itself, not a few persons, in being baptized, did so, virtually saying with the apostle, We who live are always delivered unto death for Jesus sake. (2Co 4:11). The meaning then is: What is to become of those who on being baptized do so knowing that it may prove their death warrant, if the dead rise not?]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

This Body the Seed of a Glorious One

1Co 15:29-41

The anticipation of the final resurrection enabled the early Christians to endure incredible sufferings. As one rank fell martyred, another was ready to step into its place; and the catechumens, or young believers, took the names of the martyrs, so as to perpetuate their testimony. With this hope in his heart Paul himself had confronted at Ephesus the tumult of the infuriated mob, Act 19:1-41. Belief in this sublime undoing of the last effects of sin was one of the chief features in the conquering power of Christianity.

In every seed there is the germ of a new and beautiful growth, more elaborate and yet identical; so in each of us there is something which has the capacity and potentiality of furnishing another body, through which the emancipated spirit will be able to express itself more perfectly than it can in this body, which is composed of coarser materials. It is not difficult to believe in this, when we have seen the caterpillar become the butterfly. The world is full of wonderful and beautiful things. Gods inventiveness reveals itself in a myriad differing organisms. It is by His will that the golden head of wheat is fairer than the little brown seed cast into the furrow; so it is His pleasure that the body which is to be shall surpass the present in glory.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Baptized For The Dead

1Co 15:29-34

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? And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink: for tomorrow we die. Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. (vv. 29-34)

The outstanding expression in this particular portion found nowhere else in Scripture is baptized for the dead. Exactly what does it mean? Down through the centuries a number of different interpretations have been suggested. One of the most common among orthodox believers is that we are to understand by the expression, baptized for the dead, that we as Christians are baptized for or in honor of our Lord Jesus Christ who died. He died, went down into death, and we have been identified with Him, and in our baptism we confess our death with Him, therefore, baptized for the dead really means, bap- tized for Christ who died. Certainly that interpretation is not repugnant to Christian consciences. It is absolutely true that intelligent believers are baptized into the death of Jesus Christ, for that, in fact, is the exact meaning of the ordinance of baptism. But is this what is meant here?

In baptism we confess that we were sinners, that we deserved to die, that our Lord Jesus Christ died in our room and stead, and now we are saying, as it were, before the world, before all men, I take my place with the Christ who died; I desire henceforth to be recognized as one identified with Him in His death, in His burial, and in His resurrection. Looked at in this way the ordinance is wonderfully precious. I never can understand the state of soul of Christian men who would try in any way to belittle or set aside Christian baptism. I know many precious souls have been brought to Christ simply by witnessing the carrying out of this ordinance. There is something so solemn about it as it definitely sets before us Christs death on our behalf and our identification with Him, that it cannot but speak to every one who has ears to hear. So I fully accept that view, but do not believe that it explains the expression in the text, Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all.

Another suggested explanation that has found favor with many is that baptism for the dead means that we ourselves who are baptized confess that we are dead, that we have died with Christ, and that therefore our baptism is one for or of the dead as taking that place, although in this world we no longer belong to the world. We have died, and we bury the dead, and so we are buried because we have died to the old life. Undoubtedly baptism teaches that. We who were once living unto the world, we who were once living to the flesh, have now, in the cross of Christ, died to all that; as having died, the ordinance of baptism speaks of a burial. We are through with the old life. But I do not think that explains the expression in the text.

From the very earliest days there has been another suggested explanation, a rather grotesque one. It has been taken up in our own day and spread abroad as though it were the very gospel of God, by those commonly known as Latter-day Saints, or Mormons. Personally, I belong to the Former Day saints, I am not interested in any Latter-day Saints movement. It is my joy to be linked with the saints of all ages unto whom Christ Jesus has been made wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. But the view held by these Mormons and a few others is that the apostle means that baptism in itself is a saving ordinance, that apart from it none will ever be saved, and since a great many have died without having the opportunity of being baptized, somebody else must be baptized for them if they are going to be saved. And so they say that the apostle is referring to living Christians being baptized vicariously on behalf of people who have died unbaptized. This is a very common thing among the so-called Latter-day Saints. In fact, they have many temples in which they carry out the ceremony of baptism for the dead, and people are urged to be baptized, some over and over and over again, for dead people who were never baptized in this life.

When in Salt Lake City some years ago, a young Mormon elder told me he believed that the members of the Mormon church were saving more souls through being baptized for the dead than Jesus Christ ever saved through dying on Calvarys cross. He mentioned a very wealthy lady who had come out from the East a good many years ago and had been baptized in Salt Lake City over thirty thousand times. Every time she was baptized she paid a sum of money into the church, so you can see that baptism for the dead is rather a good thing from the financial standpoint. She was using her entire fortune redeeming people from death and destruction through being baptized for the dead! She had been baptized for all the friends and relatives about whom she knew anything at all who had died, and then she had gone into history and literature and sought out thousands of names and had been baptized for every one of them. She had been baptized for Alexander the Great, for Nebuchadnezzar, for Julius Caesar, for Napoleon Bonaparte, for Cleopatra, and thousands of other historical characters, in order that she might be the means of their salvation; and it was concerning this lady especially that this youthful elder said to me with a very solemn face, I believe in the day of judgment it will be proven that this lady through being baptized for the dead has saved more souls than Jesus Christ! That blasphemous theory finds no place whatever in the Word of God. In the first place the Word of God never teaches that baptism is essential to salvation. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that if people die unbaptized, they are lost.

It is quite true that it is perfectly right and proper that people who are saved should be baptized, and we find this ordinance linked with faith because it is the confession of the faith that we have. But when Scripture says, for instance, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, it never adds, He that is not baptized shall be damned, but, He that believeth not shall be damned. We have the remarkable example of the first soul ever saved after Christ was nailed to the cross, the thief who hung there beside Him, who was saved that day without any possibility of being baptized. With hands and feet nailed to the tree he could do nothing, he could not carry out any ordinance or do anything by which to earn salvation, but he was saved alone by the finished work of the One who hung on the central cross. And every man who is ever saved will be saved through what Jesus did when He died on that tree. So we put away the Mormon conception. There is a fourth view which certain Christians have held throughout the centuries, and that is that some of these Corinthians imagined that baptism was essential to salvation and therefore were being baptized vicariously for others who had died in heathenism, and so the apostle refers to it without saying whether it is true or not. But we can be sure that Paul would not refer to it in the way he does without telling them that it was contrary to the mind of God that living people should be baptized for the benefit of dead people.

I have spoken of four suggested interpretations of these words, and I come now to what I believe is the exact meaning of the text. First, let me say that the expression, Baptized for the dead, means literally in the Greek text, Baptized in place of, or over, the dead ones, or those who have died. The word dead is in the plural, it is not a singular noun; therefore it cannot refer to the Lord Jesus Christ; it is not, Baptized because of Christ. Neither the preposition nor the noun will permit of that interpretation, but the actual rendering would have to be, Baptized in place of dead ones. It is not, baptized on behalf, or for the benefit, of dead ones. The preposition does not suggest that. In the earlier part of the chapter the apostle reproves those who denied the physical resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and says, If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins (v. 17). Everything for a believer depends upon the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. He was delivered up to death for our offenses, He was raised again for our justification, and if He be not raised, manifestly redemption has never been accomplished, the sin question has never been settled, they who have fallen asleep in Christ are perished, they have found that their profession has gone for nought, for there is no redemption if Christ be not raised, and it naturally follows that if that be the case, we are making a tremendous mistake for, If the dead be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins, and therefore Christ is powerless to save. Think of the millions of people who have been willing to stake everything for eternity upon this Christ who cannot save if the dead rise not, but if Christ be not risen, they have blundered terribly. We might better go on and enjoy this world, for death ends all if that theory be true.

Verses 20-28 form a parenthesis in which the apostle turns aside from his argument to give us an outline concerning the pageant of the resurrection, and then goes on and develops it. You will find that in verse 29 he picks up the thread of the argument again from verse 19, saying, If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most [to be pitied].Else what shall they do which are baptized [in place of] the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? This may be translated, What shall they do which are baptized in the place of the dead ones if no dead ever rise? Why are they then baptized in the place of the dead ones? Do you not see that the argument is clear and luminous? Those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished if Christ has not been raised again, and yet every day other people are being baptized in their places, others are professing faith in Christ, others are availing themselves of the ordinance of baptism, they are filling up the places made vacant on earth by those who have died professing Christ. But if Christ be not risen, then those who have died are lost, they have gained nothing by their profession. Why then should we go on filling up the ranks all down the centuries and putting other people in the place of danger if there is nothing to be gained by it? This is a military figure. A regiment of soldiers goes into battle, and after the battle is over they count the men and find perhaps that seventy-five have been slain. Immediately they begin to recruit others in place of the dead, not to do the dead any good, but to take their places. Seventy-five other men are drawn into that regiment, are recruited in place of the dead, they don the uniform and go forth to take part in other conflicts. But if they are fighting a losing battle, if there is no possibility of ever winning, if they are just wasting their lives, why are they then recruited for the dead? What is the use of their taking the places of those who have died? It is the height of folly if they know there is nothing but certain defeat and destruction awaiting them.

Think of Christian people as a mighty army. Down through the centuries, for nineteen hundred years, the church has been in conflict with the powers of sin and death and hell, and throughout the ages one generation of Christians has fallen and another has taken its place, and the public way of manifesting the fact that they have thus enlisted in the army of the Lord is through baptism. But what a foolish thing if Christ be not risen and if the dead rise not! What are they gaining by being baptized in place of the dead? Would it not have been better to have wound up the history of Christianity in the first centuries and said, The whole movement is a failure, there is no risen Christ, there is no possibility for salvation here in this life? A man may accept the philosophy of Christianity and keep it to himself. Possibly his neighbors would never suspect his belief and he would not be subject to martyrdom, but if he really believes in the Lord Jesus Christ he says, I must make it known, and the right way is through baptism, through confessing Christ in that way as the One who died and rose again. The moment a man was baptized in Pauls day, and many centuries afterward, he put himself in the way of possible martyrdom. His neighbors said, That man is a Christian. How do you know? He has been baptized, confessing the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul was risking his life every hour, for there were enemies of Christianity on every hand. But if Christ be not risen, why should he, why should I and my fellow laborers stand in the place of jeopardy? Paul says, I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. I am putting myself in the place of death every day, I am exposed to death, and I am ready to die for Jesus Christ. Paul knew He had risen for he had seen Him in the glory as He appeared to him that day when he fell stricken on the Damascus road, and Paul became the outstanding defender of Christianity. He says, I am set for the defence of the gospel, and for the name of Christ he took his life in his hands and died daily.

If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die. What does Paul mean? He is referring to that time when he was almost torn asunder by beast-like men in that riot at Ephesus. He saw that angry mob pressing upon him as they shouted, Great is Diana of the Ephesians (Act 19:28) and he thought of that great throng ready to destroy him, and likened them unto beasts. But, he says, it is all right no matter what they do to me, Christ is real for He is risen again, and I know Him as the risen One and am ready to die for His names sake. But what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? Why should I live like this, why should any Christian give up the world and live a life of self-denial and devotion to the One whom this world has rejected, if the dead rise not? Why not accept the philosophy of the worldling? In Isa 22:12-13 God reproves the careless worldlings, And in that day did the Lord GOD of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth: and behold joy and gladness, slaying oxen, and killing sheep, eating flesh, and drinking wine: let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we shall die. They did not respond to His call and humble themselves before Him, but went on in the ways of the world. Eat and drink: for tomorrow we shall die. Here are the words from which the apostle quotes. If Christ has not been raised, if there is no reality in Christianity, then get all the enjoyment out of the world that you can. The worldling says, Lets have a good time while we live, for we are going to be a long time dead. If death ends everything, why not go on and get what you can out of this life? But there is a better world beyond the grave, there is a Savior who died to put away our sins and who lives triumphant in glory waiting to receive to Himself those who trust Him. So we say, You can have your feasts, your fame, your frivolity, your wealth, Christ is more to me than all of these. The Christian, you see, is a man who has heard the drumbeat of another country and so does not keep step with the drumbeat of this world.

Be not deceived, says the apostle, evil communications corrupt good manners. People say, It does not make any difference whether Jesus died and rose; we can be just as good without this assurance. But when they deny the death and the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, you find that they will throw the reins upon their lusts and live for the world and please themselves. So to us the word comes home, Awake to righteousness, and sin not. You are linked with a risen Christ and you are in this world to glorify Him. Let that risen One control your heart and life, and yours will be a holy life devoted to the glory of God. Some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

A number of years ago I was at the burial of an aged saint. For a great many years he had been a bright witness for Christ in the part of the city where he lived and had brought up his family in the fear of God. One of his children was a missionary in the Philippine Islands. He had grandchildren who attended the church services, but had not as yet confessed the Lord. As I closed the funeral service and we were about to take our last look at that face until the coming of our Lord Jesus and our gathering unto Him, I felt led to step to the casket and say, Just wait a minute before we take our farewell look at the face of our beloved brother. He has been a witness for Christ in this city for many years, his place will not easily be filled, he will be greatly missed by Christians. I wonder whether anyone at this funeral service would like by the grace of God to seek to prepare to take his place. Is there anybody here who has heard the voice of God speaking to you and perhaps you have never yet come to Christ, but right here you will close with the Lord, you will take Him as your Savior and be ready to be baptized for the dead? This one has gone, there is a vacant place in the ranks; will you take his place? I waited a moment, and then a fine, tall, young man, his grandson, arose from his seat and came forward. He faced the audience and said, Today I accept my grandfathers Savior, and I want you to pray that I may be able in some measure to take his place; and then he knelt at that casket and gave himself to the Lord, and the next Sunday night I baptized him for the dead. It is simply the filling up of the ranks, taking the places of those who have gone before. Christian baptism always emphasizes that it is a public testimony, a testimony that one has turned from the world, trusted Christ, and will now seek to live for His glory. And so one generation has been baptized for the dead of the past generation, and that one for the past, and so on, clear back to the very beginning of Christianity.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

dead

i.e. who, through the introductory rite of baptism, are taking the places in the ranks left vacant by Christians who have died.

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

what: 1Co 15:16, 1Co 15:32, Rom 6:3, Rom 6:4, Mat 20:22

Reciprocal: Mat 28:19 – baptizing Joh 11:25 – he that

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

How Are the Dead Raised Up?

1Co 15:29-58

INTRODUCTORY WORDS

There are two rather startling questions asked and answered in the opening verses; that is, from 1Co 15:29-34.

1. The first question, “What shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?”

There are two ordinances in the Church-baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The one before us is that of baptism, and the question is asked, if there is no resurrection of the dead, then why are we baptized for the dead? That baptism is connected with the death and the burial of Christ, we have no doubt. In Romans it also tells us that we are baptized into His death; that is, when He died, we died.

The question before us suggests that if we are baptized merely for the dead, and there is no resurrection, then we with Him (apart from the resurrection), would have had to stay buried in the grave.

2. The second question is, “Why stand we in jeopardy every hour?” What the Holy Spirit is suggesting is that the Christian’s life is always in peril, and death faces him at all times. To him, however, there is no need to fear, because of the certainty of the resurrection of the dead. For this cause Christians can face the terrors of death without a quiver-without any feeling of jeopardy.

The Apostle next protests against the “no-resurrection adherents,” by announcing the rejoicing which he has in Christ Jesus the Lord. He said: “I die daily,” and yet, he rejoiced daily. Then the Apostle adds a third question.

3. The third question is, “What advantageth it me, if the dead rise not?” The Apostle says, “If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me,” apart from the resurrection?

Christians were constantly in jeopardy, and were frequently thrown to the beasts. They gladly died for their Lord. They died, however, knowing that they should yet stand, in their bodies, before their Lord. If there is no resurrection Paul argued the uselessness of it all, and argued the world’s conception; “Let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.”

4. Paul’s great contentions.

(1) Paul first says: “Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.” He throws this in, quickly, because the Spirit would have us to know that Christ did rise, and that we must not join the wicked in evil communications, but the rather suffer, if need be, even unto death.

(2) Paul also, through the Spirit, urges the saints to “Awake to righteousness, and sin not”; “for,” (says he), “some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.”

When the Risen Christ, and the resurrection of saints become a vital doctrine to believers, then Christianity at once becomes the vital energizing power in life.

I. HOW ARE THE DEAD RAISED UP? (1Co 15:35-38)

There are two questions instead of one before us.

1. The first question is, “How are the dead raised up?” In answer to this question, a statement is made; “Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die.” The Holy Spirit is enforcing the fact that resurrection presupposes death. Our Lord on one occasion said: “Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone.” It is death, and death alone, which makes possible resurrection life.

Death is the doorway to a fuller life. “That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die.”

2. The second question is: “With what body do they come?” The reply is simple: “That which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain.”

The conclusion is clear, as well as final. The body that is raised is not the body that dies. The body that dies is a body of flesh, and bones, and blood, for the life of this body is the blood; the body which is raised is without blood. All of this proves that the resurrection body is not the same as the body which is buried.

When wheat is sown, wheat is grown. If corn is sown, corn is grown. Thus, every seed has its own body-a body bearing the image and likeness of the original body. We believe more than this is true. As the new grain is formed from the death of the old grain-that is sown; so, likewise, the new body that is raised, is formed from the body that was sown.

What we are endeavoring to explain is that the resurrection is real, and that the same body which is sown, actually gives birth to the body which is raised, according to the power wherewith God is able to subdue all things unto Himself.

II. INDIVIDUAL PERSONALITY IN THE RESURRECTION (1Co 15:39-41)

1. Our new bodies will be distinct from all other bodies in the resurrection. Our key verses tell us “All flesh is not the same flesh; but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.” Thus, in the resurrection, there will be a distinctive kind of flesh for risen saints.

2. Our new bodies will carry a distinctive glory. 1Co 15:40 reads: “There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one and the glory of the terrestrial is another.” There is, therefore, in the resurrection, a new glory, and perhaps the glory of one body will be distinct from the glory of another. 1Co 15:41 goes on to say; “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars.” Then there is added this significant statement: “One star differeth from another star in glory.” One resurrection saint will differ from all other raised saints.

Individual personalities, as well as the individuality of faces, will be carried with us into the life to come.

III. VITAL DISTINCTIONS WHICH MARK THE RESURRECTION BODY FROM THE PRESENT BODY (1Co 15:42-44)

1. The present body is corruptible; the resurrection body is incorruptible. The word “corruption,” here means a body which decays. Of the present body it is written: “Dust thou art, to dust returneth.” The resurrection body will never see corruption. Only such a body could inherit an incorruptible glory.

In 1Pe 1:3-4 we read that through the resurrection of Jesus Christ the saints were begotten again unto a lively hope. That lively hope anticipates an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, that fadeth not away, reserved in Heaven for you.

2. The present body is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. Everything about the body which we now bear carries dishonor and shame. It needs to be constantly washed and cared for, clothed in every way. The new body is raised in glory,

3. The present body is a body of weakness; the resurrection body is a body of power. During all of our lifetime, we realize that we are dwelling in an earthly frame subjected to the ravages of disease. How wonderful it will be to have, in the Glory, a resurrection body foreign to all weakness, and clothed with all power.

4. The present body is a natural body; the resurrection body is a spiritual body. The body which we will have in the resurrection will not be a spirit-body, but a body adapted to spiritual life. It will be a body which is not carnal, but spiritual.

IV. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE FIRST ADAM AND THE LAST ADAM (1Co 15:45-48)

1. The first man Adam was made a living soul; the Last Adam was made a quickening Spirit. This verse throws further light upon 1Co 15:44, which we have just considered, even the difference between our earthly, natural body, and our Heavenly, spiritual body.

1Co 15:46 goes on to tell us “That was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.” Thus it is that the two Adams describe for us two bodies. The body which we now have, is a body patterned after the body of the first Adam. The body which we shall have, will be patterned after the body of the Last Adam.

There are many Scriptures which establish this latter statement. We refer you to Php 3:20, Php 3:21.

2. As is the earthy such are they also that are earthy: and as is the Heavenly such are they also that are Heavenly. 1Co 15:49 adds; “As we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the Heavenly.” It is a glorious privilege to observe the Lord Jesus after His resurrection, and during those forty days in which He appeared to many. His resurrection body, is a Divinely given clue to the body which we shall bear throughout all of the endless aeons of eternity.

We delight to see the Lord entering the upper room, “the doors being shut.” We delight in hearing the Lord say: “A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have.” What varied suggestions to our new bodies, are here.

It is a pleasure, also, to observe Christ standing by the shore and calling out to the disciples, as He said: “Children, have ye any meat?” It throws light upon our resurrection body.

V. FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD (1Co 15:50)

1. We have before us the resurrection as a prime necessity. The present body cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God, therefore, stands distinct from the present earth life, which we now live.

Some of these differences we may know. For instance, everything which is of the earth is earthy; everything which is of the Kingdom of God is Heavenly. Everything which is of the earth is temporal; everything which is of the Kingdom of God is eternal. Everything which is of the earth is corruptible; everything which is of the Kingdom of God is incorruptible. Everything earthly is defiled; everything Heavenly is undefiled.

Nothing which is abominable, nothing which makes a lie, can enter into the Kingdom of God. “The fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murders, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

2. We have before us not alone the power of God in changing the corruptible body into the incorruptible; but we have this power manifested through His shed blood, in changing the sinful life into the holy life. The deeds of carnality and the works of the flesh are indissolubly linked to the corruptible body. The righteousness of God, in Christ, which is the heritage of all saints, will be the life that will indwell the resurrection body.

The redeemed saints which John saw gathered before the throne, had washed their robes and made them white in the Blood of the Lamb, therefore were they before the throne of God. Oh, the mighty power of the Cross of Calvary! No wonder in Heaven we will shout, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain.”

VI. THE BREVITY OF THE RESURRECTION CHANGE (1Co 15:51-53)

1. The mystery of mysteries. There are many mysteries set forth in the Word of God, but here is the mystery that, to us, at least, is climactic. The Spirit puts it this way: “Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.”

The hymn writer put it this way:

“Soon will the Saviour from Heaven appear,

Oh, what a promise! His Coming is near!

Saints will be changed in a moment of time,

Oh, what a Rapture and glory sublime!”

2. The rapidity of the change. The twinkling of an eye is brief, to say the least; and yet, we shall be changed even as rapidly as that.

The change will be more marvelous than that of the ugly scrub girl who, when touched with the fairy’s wand, in fable lore, became the beautiful Cinderella. Our change will be real. The Apostle Peter said, “We have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This change will be the change whereby He, in His power, is able to subdue all things unto Himself.

With what rapture did the disciples, upon the Mount of Transfiguration, behold their Lord as He was transfigured before them! This transfiguration was a marvelous change. His face was white and glistening, and His raiment was shining white. So shall we, at His Coming, be changed.

VII. THE SHOUT OF VICTORY (1Co 15:54-58)

1. Death shall be swallowed up in victory. This is the promise of God. We know that the wages of sin is death, and that sin when it is finished bringeth forth death. At the Coming of the Lord, with the resurrection of saints, the great change will acclaim forever that death is conquered, and God in Christ is Victor.

2. The glorious shout. Here are the words which the Holy Spirit sounds forth as He sees the raptured saints changed, and death swallowed up in victory. How exultant! How overwhelming is the cry: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

Exultant days lie ahead; days of joy and rejoicing; days of unparalleled exultation. The Lord will descend from Heaven with a shout. At His shout, dead bodies will leap from their graves to be changed and indwelt by ransomed spirits. Living saints will simultaneously be caught up together with them at the shout. They too shall be changed. Then, as the dead and the living are upward caught, they, seeing their Lord in all of His glory, shall also shout-the shout of victory.

3. The great thanksgiving day. When the believers in their resurrection and ascension and change realize that sin and death have been broken, then they will cry “Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

5. The final plea. It is written: “Therefore, my beloved brethren be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.”

It is not necessary for us to enlarge upon this. Nothing can baffle the ardor and enthusiasm of the saint who has caught the deeper and fuller meanings of the resurrection of Christ, and the subsequent resurrection of saints as set forth in 1Co 15:1-58.

AN ILLUSTRATION

Death for the time being is the triumph of the enemy. There was no man in this country more used in bringing the knowledge of the truth of the Coming of Christ before Christians than Edward Irving. Mr. Irving had a beautiful little boy who died, and he went in beside the dead child and prayed God to avenge him of death. God showed him resurrection, and that is the triumph of Christ. The great success of the enemy has been to get Christians to look for death and not for resurrection (1Co 15:54).

Fuente: Neighbour’s Wells of Living Water

1Co 15:29. What shall they do. The pronoun is in the third person, while Paul is writing to the church in general as in the second person. This shows that not all persons in the Corinthian church were practicing this baptism, even as not all were denying the resurrection, as is indicated by the words “how say some among you” (verse 12). This item must not be overlooked in considering this verse, for any professed explanation of it that would apply to all Christians in general would necessarily be wrong. The word for is from HUPER and Thayer defines it at this place, “in the place of, instead of.” I shall quote Moffatt’s translation of this verse: “Otherwise, if there is no such thing as a resurrection, what is the meaning of people getting baptized on behalf of their dead? If dead men do not rise at all, why do people get baptized on their behalf?” Not all of the brethren in Corinth were practicing this inconsistency of being baptized on behalf of their dead, neither were all of them denying the resurrection (verse 12). But Paul considered it necessary to notice them in his epistle to the whole church, even as he deemed it worth while to notice the group that was practicing this “proxy” baptism. The apostle does not endorse the foolish practice, but brings it up to expose their inconsistency.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

A Remonstrance, 29-34.

1Co 15:29. Else what shall they do which are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptised for the dead?a most difficult verse, of which the interpretations that have been given are endless. Some excellent expositors think it refers to the practice of Christians allowing themselves to be baptized as substitutes for converts who were candidates for baptism, but died before being baptized, in order thereby to complete their Christian standing and future prospects. That such a strange practice did exist in the early Church there can be no doubt; but among whom? Only among the heretical followers of Cerinthus, if we may credit Epiphanius (Har. xxviii. 7) and Tertulltan (adv. Marc. v. 10). There is no ground to believe that it was practised in the orthodox churches, and the writers now quoted plainly regarded it as antichristian. But though this is admitted, it is urged that the apostle does not say, What shall we, or ye, do? and as this seems a tacit rebuke of the practice, it may have soon ceased. Surely this scarcely deserves notice. Plainly, the allusion is to some act performed in expectation of future benefit to themselves, which benefit would be lost if the dead did not rise. And the following viewwhich is that of all the best interpreters, ancient and modernalone suits the argument and agrees with the context:Foreseeing that their faith would cost them the loss of all things, perhaps of life itself, not a few converts, in proceeding to baptism, went to it as their virtual death-warrant, saying virtually with the apostlewho knew not how soon it might become a realityWe who live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus sake (2Co 4:11). Our verse would then mean: What is to become of those who in advancing to baptism do so as not knowing that it may not prove their death-warrant, if the dead rise not? What follows seems to confirm this.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Expositors do vary exceedingly in the sense and interpretation of this difficult text: some understand it of a sacramental, some of a funeral, and some of a metaphorical baptism or washing.

Those who understand it as a sacramental baptizing, say, that the baptized for the dead, are those who are baptized upon the article of the resurrection of the dead, and consequently in hope of the resurrection. As if the apostle had said, As for those among you in the church of Corinth, who are baptized persons, and yet deny the resurrection of the dead, I would demand of them, why they have in their baptism made a profession of believing the article of the resurrection; why were they baptized in this faith, if they now renounce it? To be a baptized Christian, and yet deny the resurrection, is a flat and plain contradiction.

Others understand it of a funeral washing of the dead corpse in order to burial; and they say this was done in the belief and expectation of the dead body rising again. As if he had said, If the dead corpse shall never rise more, to what purpose do you wash them? Do men give respect where there is no hope?

Others will have a metaphorical and allegorical baptism here intended, namely afflictions, persecutions, and martyrdom. As if he had said, If there be no resurrection of the dead, what benefit will accrue to those that suffer persecution, and death itself, for professing and defending the resurrection of some that are dead, namely, Christ Jesus, whose resurrection is past; and of the saints, whose resurrection is to come?

Some, last of all, render the words thus: Moreover, what shall they do that are baptized for the sake of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are they therefore baptized for the sake of the dead? As if the apostle had said, What shall they do which are baptized for the sake of the holy saints and martyrs deceased? Is it not by reason of them, that they take up the profession of Christianity?

Yes, surely, the sight of the holiness of their lives, and of their courage and constancy at their deaths, has stirred up many to espouse the same holy religion, and to admit themselves into it by the sacrament of baptism: The death of an eminent saint made a great number of disciples in those days, and the blood of an holy martyr baptized whole cities; now to what purpose is all this, if the dead rise not at all.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Actions Which Cannot Be Explained Without a Resurrection

If there was no life after death, why were people baptized for the dead. In view of Paul’s use of pronouns in this chapter, it appears there were false teachers in Corinth who baptized the living in behalf of some who had already died. In verse 1, Paul plainly used “I” to refer to himself. In verse 2, he spoke of the Corinthians as “you.” Yet, in verse 29, he spoke of “they.” Clearly, Paul had someone other than himself or the Corinthian brethren in mind when he wrote these words about baptism for the dead ( 1Co 15:29 ).

Of course, it can also be said that Christian baptism points to a hope of something better beyond the grave. By baptism, one dies unto sin and begins to live for Jesus ( Rom 6:3-11 ). Baptism is powerful because Jesus died and was raised again. Those who submit to baptism live in hope of the resurrection ( 1Th 4:13-18 ; 2Ti 4:6-8 ).

If there was no resurrection, why did Paul place himself in danger to preach the gospel? Paul was happy to face such danger, even death, because of those who believed his preaching. Yet, without a resurrection, Paul’s facing of peril and fight with beasts (daily danger) was futile ( 1Co 15:30-32 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

1Co 15:29-30. Else, or otherwise, what shall they do What will become of them? what shall they do to repair their loss, who are exposed to great sufferings in consequence of being baptized for the dead That is, say some, In token of their embracing the Christian faith in the room of the dead, who are just fallen in the cause of Christ, but are yet supported by a succession of new converts, who immediately offer themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers that advance to combat in the room of their companions, who have just been slain in their sight. Others say, In hope of blessings to be received after they are numbered with the dead. Many other interpretations are given of this obscure and ambiguous phrase, , for the dead. But perhaps that of Dr. Macknight is the most probable, who supplies the words , and reads the clause, who are baptized for the resurrection of the dead, or are immersed in sufferings, because of their believing in, and testifying the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead: for which interpretation he adduces solid reasons. If the dead rise not If the doctrine I oppose be true, and the dead are not raised at all; why are they then baptized for the resurrection of the dead? And why stand we The apostles; also in jeopardy And are exposed to so much danger and suffering; every hour In the service of a Master from whom, it is evident, we have no secular rewards to expect.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1Co 15:29-34.

After securing for the resurrection of the body its place among the great hopes which stir the hearts of all believers, the apostle adds, as a supplementary argument, a few reflections as to the moral consequences of the denial of the dogma. Suppress the resurrection, and baptism for the dead becomes meaningless, and devotion to the cause of Christ madness. The only true wisdom is to enjoy the good things of this brief life as much as possible.

The apostle, when he reasons thus, seems to confound the dogma of the resurrection of the body with that of the immortality of the soul. We shall examine this difficulty at the close.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

Else [i. e., if it were otherwise–if baptism were not an all-important factor in God’s plan] what shall they do that are baptized for [on account of, with reference to. For full discussion of this preposition see Canon Evans’ additional note, Speaker’s Commentary in loco] the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? [The word “baptized” is an imperfect participle, and denotes an act being continually performed. Paul’s question, then, is this: If the resurrection is not part of God’s plan–if affairs are otherwise, and there is really no resurrection then what are converts to do, who, under the mistaken notion that there is a resurrection, are now constantly presenting themselves to be buried in baptism on account of the dead? If the dead are not raised, why then are these converts buried in baptism on their account, or with a view to them? Rom 6:3-11 makes Paul’s meaning in this passage very plain. The dead are a class of whom Christ is the head and firstfruits unto resurrection. By baptism we symbolically unite ourselves with that class, and so with Christ, and we do this because of the hope that we shall be raised with that class through the power of Christ (Rom 6:5). But if the dead are not raised at all, then why should converts be united with them by a symbolic burial? why should they be baptized on their account, or with reference to them? If there is no resurrection, baptism, which symbolizes it, is meaningless. Commentators belonging to churches which have substituted sprinkling for baptism make sad havoc of this passage. Having lost sight of the symbolic meaning of baptism–that it is a union of the convert with the dead, and especially with the dead and buried Christ as their head and firstfruits unto life–they are at a loss how to interpret the apostle’s words, and in despair assert that Christians were in the habit of being baptized vicariously for their friends who died without baptism. Long after Paul wrote, a similar misunderstanding of this passage led the followers both of Marcion and Cerenthus to practice such vicarious baptisms; but the practice grew out of Paul’s words, instead of his words being called forth by the practice.]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD

29. Then what shall they do who are baptized instead of the dead? If the dead rise not at all, why indeed are they baptized instead of them? During the apostolic age, as history well authenticates, while the apostles and their innumerable evangelistic contemporaries were traversing the whole country, preaching from house to house, as was their custom, as they had no church edifices, anon they evangelize a family and baptize them all in the name of the Heavenly Trinity, thus inducting them into the dispensation of Christ, for whom their ancestors had waited through ages. Here is a brother in tears. Oh, that you had only come and told us this good news before Brother Thomas died last summer, so he could have been baptized with us. I do wish you would baptize me in his name, as a substitute for him. So they kindly proceed to baptize for his dead brother, after he has been baptized for himself. Other members of the family are baptized in lieu of their dead brothers, sisters and parents. The Mormons now practice this baptism for the dead. Of course it did no good, and Paul does not here insinuate his endorsement of it. Baptism was an old Jewish institution among them, repeated over and over. A Jew might be baptized ten thousand times during life if he had contracted ceremonial defilement so often. These people were Jews entering the gospel dispensation by water baptism, hence they did not hesitate to repeat baptism in this way. It illustrates the large liberty enjoyed by the apostles and their contemporaries on the subject of baptism. Paul is a powerful logician. He sticks close to his subject, which is not baptism, but the resurrection of the dead. Hence the only end for which he makes this allusion is to strengthen his argument on the resurrection. It is a strong point, showing that those persons receiving and practicing baptism for the dead did certainly believe in the resurrection of the dead, because this was a recognition of him as still in existence, and going to live again. If he were utterly gone, there would be no consistency in baptizing for him. The very fact that a brother is baptized for his dead brother shows that his body is not utterly and eternally perished, but is still on hand and will rise again.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

1Co 15:29. Many interpretations have been offered. The most probable remains that given above. A view which deserves mention is that Paul is referring to those who are baptized for the sake of Christian friends who had died. In order to satisfy the hope for reunion some who had been non-Christians submitted to baptism.

1Co 15:32. That Paul actually fought with wild beasts is highly improbable; it was illegal to expose Roman citizens to this; the Asiarchs (Act 19:31) were friendly to Paul; and no reference is made in 2 Corinthians 11 to such a trial, from which indeed we should hardly expect that he would have emerged alive. A figurative interpretation is also very improbable. The best view seems to be that of J. Weiss, that it is hypothetical. He supposes that in a popular movement against Paul (probably the riot instigated by Demetrius, Act 19:23-41) he really was in the peril mentioned. This, he recognises, is exposed to the difficulty that Paul left Ephesus immediately after (Act 20:1), but our verse, he argues, can hardly have been written in Ephesus, since Paul looks back on his experience there as past. But 1Co 16:8 was written in Ephesus. Accordingly, unless we are to suppose that 1 Corinthians 15 and 1Co 16:8 belong to different epistles, it is better to infer that it was some earlier unrecorded peril.

1Co 15:32 b. Paul is not necessarily stating his own inference, but that which will be commonly drawn.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 29

Baptized for the dead. This expression has been a source of great perplexity, and has given rise to a great many conjectural explanations, from which it is difficult to select one less unsatisfactory than the rest. Some suppose the meaning to be, baptized in hope of resurrection from the dead.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

15:29 {15} Else what shall they do which are baptized {o} for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

(15) The fifth argument taken of the end of baptism, that is, because those who are baptized, are baptized for dead: that is to say, that they may have a remedy against death, because baptism is a token of regeneration.

(o) They that are baptized to this end and purpose, that death may be put out in them, or to rise again from the dead, of which baptism is a seal.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Other arguments for resurrection 15:29-34

Paul turned from Christ’s career to the Christian’s experience to argue ad hominem for the resurrection. An ad hominem argument is one that appeals to self-interest rather than to logic. The Corinthians’ actions, and his, bordered on absurdity if the dead will not rise. This paragraph is something of a digression, and the main argument resumes in 1Co 15:35.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

This verse probably refers to proxy baptism, the custom of undergoing baptism for someone who died before he or she could experience baptism. Morris wrote that there have been 30 to 40 interpretations of this verse. [Note: Morris, p. 219. See the commentaries for other views and John D. Reaume, "Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:29, ’Baptized for the Dead’," Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):457-75.] Baptism for the dead was a custom in at least one of the mystery religions, one based close to Corinth in the neighboring town of Eleusis: the Eleusian mystery religion. [Note: Lowery, "1 Corinthians," p. 544.] Perhaps the Corinthians were practicing baptism for the dead for people who became Christians on their deathbeds or under other conditions that made it difficult or impossible for them to undergo baptism in water. However, Paul did not say they were doing this, only that some people did this. Paul’s mention of the custom is not necessarily an endorsement of it, but, on the other hand, he did not specifically condemn it either.

Whether he approved of it or not, the Corinthian believers were evidently influenced by it. It appears again that the spirit of the city of Corinth had invaded the church. Paul used this practice to argue for the reality of resurrection. His point was that if there is no physical resurrection it is foolish to undergo baptism for someone who had died because in that case they are dead and gone forever. [Note: See Barrett, pp. 362-63; and Robertson and Plummer, p. 360.] Suppose, on the other hand, there is a resurrection. When God will raise those baptized by proxy, they would not suffer shame for failure to undergo baptism while they were alive. Those who had not benefited from proxy baptism would suffer embarrassment.

The Corinthians may have carried proxy baptism over into the church from pagan religions. That is a distinct possibility since we have seen that they had done this with other pagan practices. There is nothing in Scripture that encourages this practice, though some have interpreted this verse as an encouragement. Some Christian groups that believe water baptism contributes to a person’s salvation advocate it. Today Mormons do. However the mention of a practice in Scripture does not always constitute endorsement of it. We have seen this in chapters 8-11 especially.

One writer believed the first reference to "the dead" in this verse refers to the apostles who had died metaphorically (cf. 1Co 15:31). [Note: Joel R. White, "Baptized on Account of the Dead": The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its Context," Journal of Biblical Literature 116:3 (1997):487-99.] This seems unlikely to me in view of the prevalence of this custom in and around Corinth.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles