March 17, 2025 • 39 mins
This episode is kind of a break from the series through the Book of Mormon.
1 Corinthians 15:29 is a verse that has confounded many Christians and spawned up to 30 possible interpretations. It is the only verse that mentions people being "baptized for the dead."
This episode will explain five interpretations for "baptized for the dead":
- submitting to the "baptism" of suffering and death itself for Jesus
- a ritual of being baptized over/on behalf of a dead body or as a proxy for a dead person
- being baptized for one's own dead body that will never be resurrected
- being baptized into the church to replace saints who have died
- being baptized in the name of Christ who is still dead
I present which one of these I currently hold.
Sources Cited:
John Chrysostom's Homily 40 on 1 Corinthians
1 Corinthians 15 in Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible by John Wesley [1754-65]
1 Corinthians 15 in Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible by Matthew Henry
Scriptures Referenced:
1 Corinthians 15:1,3-4,12,16-19,29-30,32
Acts 17:18,32
Matthew 20:22
Galatians 6:17; 2:20
John 1:25; 4:1-2
*** Please contribute to the Hurricane relief fund for A.M. Brewster ***
We value your feedback!
Have questions for Truthspresso? Contact us!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Truthspresso, episode 336.
In a world gone bonkers, it isnot, generally speaking, unruly.
But fires have been started,and where the culture is a dumpster
fire.
We're coming for your children.
And churches have lost their way.
(00:23):
I am really uncomfortable withthe story of the crucifixion.
It's time to wake up with Truth.
Truth Espresso, your weeklyshot of Truth.
And now your host, Daniel Minick.
(00:50):
Hello there and welcomefriends, family, foes, and of course,
lurkers alike.
This is your host, DanielMinik, for another exciting episode
of Truth Espresso.
And this episode is notexactly a continuation of the series.
Going through the Book of Mormon.
I'm going to mention somethings about Mormonism, about the
(01:14):
LDS faith in this episode, butit's not particularly about that
because this episode is goingto deal with one of those difficult
passages of scripture.
And this one did come up as Iwas doing some research with Mormonism.
And so I figured I might aswell deal with this difficult passage.
(01:39):
And yes, my brother and I hadyet another conversation with some
Mormon missionaries a few daysago as of this recording.
And I know the missionaries,of course, are friendly, but I think
that they're starting to getto the point where they're wanting
some progress on our part asto whether we will, you know, convert
(02:03):
to their faith.
They keep on reemphasizing,keep reading the Book of Mormon,
and I highly encourage you topray about it.
And yeah, I mean, so they're.
They keep meeting with us andwe keep trying to ask them some interesting
questions to try to challengethem, and they will do their best
(02:24):
to answer it.
They might not always knowwhat the best answer will be, but
I know they're probablystarting to wonder how far they're
going to get with us.
And so they'll keepreemphasizing what's called Moroni's
challenge.
Toward the end of the Book ofMormon, the last book, which is the
(02:44):
Book of Moroni, it does givethe read and pray about it challenge.
Now, it's wordier than thatand it sounds more flowery than that,
but it amounts to that.
And so that's what the Mormonsthink is the best way to make converts,
is read the Book of Mormon andpray about it, because maybe your
(03:06):
inner feelings will make youwant to join their church or something.
Or if you read the Book ofMormon and it sounds King Jamesy
ish, it sounds like scripture.
And then if you pray, youmight get a sensation or a feeling
of something good.
And that might be the firststep to lead you into going to their
(03:27):
church.
And so I'm hoping that thenext time we get to talk with them,
I want to challenge theirchallenge there and get them to defend
that.
But anyway, this episode isabout First Corinthians 15:29, and
as I read it, we will see whatit says.
You might have read this verseand not quite sure what the Apostle
(03:50):
Paul was talking about.
So here goes.
1 Corinthians 15:29 theapostle Paul says, else what shall
they do which are baptized forthe dead?
If the dead rise, not at all,why are they then baptized for the
dead?
Baptized for the dead.
(04:12):
That's a very interesting statement.
And this verse mentions ittwice, but there is nowhere else
in the Bible that mentionsanything about baptized for the dead.
So what does this verse mean?
Well, I think the first stepto figuring out what a verse means
(04:34):
or what it might mean is tofigure out what the context is.
So what is the context of this verse?
Well, the context of thischapter, First Corinthians, chapter
15, is about resurrection fromthe dead, just as the verse mentions.
And the polemic of thischapter is that without the resurrection
(04:58):
there is no gospel and thereis no hope.
So let's look at the firstverse of the chapter and see if we
can start to establish some context.
And then we'll also look atsome different interpretations of
that verse and we'll see ifmaybe one of these might make sense
(05:18):
to you.
And I'll give the one that Ilean toward.
That doesn't mean I dismissthe other ones, but I do lean toward
a particular interpretation.
So 1st Corinthians 15:1 theapostle Paul begins this chapter
saying, moreover, brethren, Ideclare unto you the gospel which
(05:40):
I preached unto you, whichalso ye have received and wherein
ye stand.
So the subject matter thatPaul is about to talk about is a
gospel matter, and he's goingto remind the Corinthians what he
taught them, because then hewill address some people menacing
that church from within.
(06:03):
So verses three through four,the apostle Paul delineates or elaborates
the gospel that he gave these Corinthians.
He says, for I delivered untoyou first of all that which I also
received, how that Christ diedfor our sins according to the Scriptures,
(06:24):
and that he was buried, andthat he rose again the third day
according to the Scriptures.
So Paul is reminding them ofsomething that he had delivered to
them.
So the gospel isn't just thatJesus died, but that he rose from
the dead.
(06:44):
And so then after he talksabout all the Witnesses who saw the
resurrected Jesus.
He then says in verse 12, now,if Christ be preached that he rose
from the dead, how say someamong you that there is no resurrection
of the dead?
So apparently there werepeople in the church at Corinth who
(07:07):
were preaching the messagethat Jesus Christ had risen from
the dead, but that there is noresurrection of the dead.
So how do you square that circle?
Well, it seems that theyapplied the concept of resurrection
only to Jesus.
He was their resurrectedsavior, but they would not be resurrected.
(07:31):
And it could be that someGreek philosophers had entered the
church.
And why would I suggest that?
Well, when the apostle Paulentered Athens in the account in
Acts chapter 17, and hedisputed with Jews in a synagogue
about Jesus, he encounteredsome Greeks, likely out in the streets.
(07:55):
And this is what happened inActs 17:18.
It says, Then certainphilosophers of the Epicureans and
of the Stoics encountered him.
And some said, what will thisbabbler say?
Others some, he seemeth to bea setter forth of strange gods, because
(08:15):
he preached unto them Jesusand the resurrection.
And then later, Paul stood onMars Hill, also known as Areopagus.
That's what it means, Mars Hill.
And he preached to theAthenians about their altar to an
unknown God.
And after his sermon, this happened.
(08:37):
So we see in Acts 17:32, itsays, and when they heard of the
resurrection of the dead, somemocked and others said, we will hear
thee again of this matter.
But what does that have to dowith Corinth?
This is in Athens.
Now, the city of Corinth wasabout 50 miles west of Athens across
(09:00):
an isthmus.
We are not aware of anychurches in the first century that
were started in Athens.
There's none mentioned that Isee in the Bible.
Possibly some converts fromAthens moved to Corinth to join the
church there.
And if any people in thechurch at Corinth retained their
(09:23):
prior beliefs that peopledon't get raised from the dead, they
may have introduced that ideainto the church at Corinth just as
judaizers tried to push theirideas into the churches.
And it seems that these peoplemay have granted that Jesus Christ
was indeed raised from thedead dead uniquely, but that his
(09:46):
followers don't rise from the dead.
But Paul would have none of that.
According to Paul, we are in Christ.
His crucifixion was ourcrucifixion, and his resurrection
is our resurrection.
We will be raised from thedead and will reign with Christ if
(10:07):
his death was in our place.
His resurrection enables our resurrection.
His sinlessness conquered sin,and his death and resurrection conquered
death.
The resurrection of the saintswas so important to the Apostle Paul
that it was consequentlynecessary to the very Gospel itself.
(10:30):
And we see that as we read 1stCorinthians 15:16, 19.
The apostle Paul said, for ifthe dead rise not, then is not Christ
raised.
In other words, if the saintsaren't raised, then Christ is not
raised.
It's linked together.
And if Christ be not raised,your faith is vain, ye are yet in
(10:54):
your sins, then they also,which are fallen asleep in Christ
are perished.
If in this life only we havehope in Christ, we are of all men
most miserable.
So according to the ApostlePaul, there is no Christianity at
all if the saints do not risefrom the dead full stop.
(11:17):
The only logical conclusion isatheistic materialism, hedonism,
and nihilism.
Then in verses 20 through 28,Paul gives more polemic about what
Christ's resurrection meansagainst Adam's sin.
And then the reign of Christ.
Christ will rule over thewhole earth and ultimately deal with
(11:40):
his enemies.
Death will be the final enemy destroyed.
Then Paul seems to address aselect group of people out of the
blue in what seems to be oneof the most confusing verses in the
Bible.
This is the one we read firstof all, and I will read it again.
(12:01):
1 Corinthians 15:29.
Paul says, Else what shallthey do which are baptized for the
dead?
If the dead rise not at all,why are they then baptized for the
dead?
So who are these people whoare baptized for the dead?
And what does that even mean?
(12:22):
There are quite a fewtheories, and I'm going to present
several that I think are themost plausible.
And there's one that I'llmention that I lean toward.
So the first theory to look atis that baptism for the dead means
suffering for Christ.
This interpretation means thatthe baptism here is not water baptism.
(12:46):
And this is the interpretationthat John Gill favored in his commentary.
He said, I am therefore ratherinclined to think that baptism is
used here in a figurative andmetaphorical sense for afflictions,
sufferings, and martyrdom, asin Matthew 20:22.
(13:07):
And it was for the belief,profession, and preaching of the
doctrine of the resurrectionof the dead, both of Christ and of
the saints, that the apostlesand followers of Christ endured so
much as they did.
So what is Matthew 20:22 thatJohn Gill references?
It says, but Jesus answeredand said, ye know not what ye ask,
(13:30):
Are ye able to drink of thecup that I shall drink of, and to
be baptized with the baptismthat I am baptized with?
And they say unto him, we are Able.
So in this instance, in thisverse, it seems that baptism refers
to the immersion of Christinto persecution, suffering and death,
(13:53):
just as he also mentions drinkof the cup and that that reflects
Jesus prayer in the garden ofGethsemane to let this cup pass from
me.
I would also support thispoint from John Gill with Paul saying
in Galatians 6:17, I bear inmy body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
(14:15):
And also in Galatians 2:20,where Paul says, I am crucified with
Christ, nevertheless I live.
So baptism for the dead couldbe another way of saying take up
our cross daily and followhim, but not necessarily mean that
we are literally nailed to across and killed.
(14:37):
So that's one plausibleinterpretation and I've seen several
commentaries.
Take this interpretation.
A second interpretation ofbaptism for the dead is a sect of
Christians who baptized as aritual over the dead.
And this seems to be thesimplest explanation of the text.
(14:59):
Paul could have been pointingout an obscure or small, even ostracized
group of people in the Churchwho claimed to be Christians but
had adopted a strange ritualof being baptized over the corpse
of a departed saint.
The word for is huper, whichmost literally means over or above.
(15:23):
So these people were beingbaptized over a corpse.
They were being baptized overthe dead.
If some people practiced thisritual as an incorrect ritual, or
if it had pagan origins, myquestion would be why wouldn't Paul
condemn it rather than justifyit by the resurrection of Jesus?
(15:47):
Now, if this is the correctinterpretation, you know who holds
this view that Paul isreferring to a valid ordinance of
baptism for the dead.
If you guessed the Mormons, ifyou guessed the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints, youwould be correct.
(16:07):
The LDS Church actuallyinterprets this verse as proof for
their doctrine of proxybaptism for dead people.
And so what is theirunderstanding of this concept of
baptism for the dead?
So in Mormonism, anyone whodied and failed to be baptized or
(16:27):
never heard the Mormon Gospelwould be held in what is called the
Spirit Prison.
The four fundamentals of theMormon Gospel are faith, repentance,
baptism and laying out of hands.
A faithful Mormon missionarywho died could go to the Spirit Prison
as a missionary and preach tocaptives there.
(16:50):
So if you died without hearingor even died without believing the
Mormon Gospel, you as acaptive Spirit in the Spirit prison
could still repent and believe.
However, baptism and laying onof hands to a Spirit in the Spirit
Prison, those can't happen there.
(17:11):
So if a Spirit in the Spiritprison repents and believes, how
do they get baptized and havehands laid on them if those are the
other two necessary parts ofthe Gospel.
And to get out of the Spiritprison, a living Mormon could get
baptized and have hands laidon in the place of a captive Spirit.
(17:34):
So once a Spirit in Spiritprison has obtained all four fundamentals
of the Gospel, he or she willbe released.
And this is the Mormondoctrine of baptism for the dead.
And they use 1 Corinthians15:29 to support their doctrine.
Now, I wouldn't dismiss thepossibility that the Apostle Paul
(17:56):
was referring to a distinctritual baptism for the dead, but
I just don't think the contextor the history bears this out.
If Paul was criticizing it bymentioning it, he wasn't nullifying
it.
He was only saying that it wasmeaningless without the resurrection.
(18:17):
Yet the Epistle already hasmany criticisms, including that people
claimed special pedigree basedon whether Paul, Apollos, Peter or
Jesus baptized them as we seein 1 Corinthians chapter 1.
And he criticized how theyhandled the Lord's supper in chapter
(18:37):
11.
He criticized the sin of vilepagan intimacy with family members
in chapter six.
So why didn't Paul criticizebaptism for the dead as an incorrect
ordinance if the ordinance wasindeed wrong?
Now, if Paul wasn'tcriticizing the practice and actually
(18:59):
endorsed endorsed it, why doesit only show up obscurely in this
one verse of Scripture?
Why don't we see a record orinstructions for it elsewhere in
the New Testament and evenoutside the Bible?
Why don't we see it in theDidache where I believe it's in chapter
seven of it?
It's about baptism and itnever mentions for the dead.
(19:23):
Why don't we see it in any ofthe early church writers?
And by the way, if the Mormondoctrine of it is true and biblical,
why don't we even see it inthe Book of Mormon?
In third Nephi chapter 11,Jesus Himself gives the mode and
the formula for baptizingpeople and repeatedly emphasizes
(19:46):
that there will be nodisputations among them.
And yet even here there's nota whisper of proxy baptism or baptism
for the dead.
Joseph Smith revealed thatinformation after writing the Book
of Mormon.
Again, I just don't think theApostle Paul is addressing a ritual
(20:07):
of proxy baptism or baptismover a dead body or in honor of someone
who had passed, whether goodor bad.
I could be wrong, but I'm justnot convinced of any of those interpretations.
The Christian podcastcommunity is a cohesive group of
(20:29):
like minded Christianpodcasters proclaiming the truths
of Christ, truths of Christ,with expertise and passion in the
areas of theology, churchHistory, Christian living, evangelism,
apologetics, parenting,homeschooling sermons, and much,
(20:52):
much more.
So check usout@christianpodcastcommunity.org one
stop for all your favoriteChristian podcast.
(21:22):
So a third interpretation ofthis verse is that being baptized
and never being resurrected isbeing baptized for their own dead
selves.
So in other words, the deadare the ones being baptized.
Like baptism reflects JesusChrist himself dying, being buried,
(21:45):
and then being raised for the dead.
And baptism symbolizes theresurrection of the dead itself.
And so why would someone thenbe baptized if he himself won't be
raised?
He's just being baptized forthe dead himself.
In this view, Paul isbasically saying that if there is
(22:06):
no resurrection, consideryourself as good as dead dead.
That's your ultimate fate ifyou get baptized.
But your final fate is death.
What benefit is that baptismto you?
You're just being baptized forthe dead, meaning yourselves.
And this was how JohnChrysostom understood the verse in
(22:29):
his homily 40 on FirstCorinthians, he said this quote,
this.
Therefore Paul, recalling totheir minds, said, if there be no
resurrection, why are you thenbaptized for the dead, that is the
dead bodies.
For in fact, with a view tothis, are you baptized the resurrection
of your dead body, believingthat it no longer remains dead?
(22:54):
Now this seems like aperfectly reasonable interpretation
to me.
If you don't believe you willbe resurrected, then you're just
being baptized for your owndead self.
But let's look at more interpretations.
So the fourth interpretationthat I found and I have heard before
(23:16):
is that being baptized for thedead refers to new Christians, new
saints, being baptized toreplace others who have passed on
or who died as martyrs.
In other words, for the deadmeans in place of the dead.
Now what do you mean by that, Daniel?
(23:37):
Basically, Paul is saying, whydo we continue to add new members
and baptize them, knowing howmany are suffering, persecution and
dying?
If we don't have the hope ofthe resurrection that makes our faith
meaningful, why bother withthis constant fight against persecution?
To keep sustaining and growingand replacing the members of the
(24:00):
church with new baptizedmembers, replacing the dead ones
if we don't have the hope ofthe resurrection.
So in other words, baptizedfor the dead means other saints who
were of course baptized, theydied or they were martyred.
And then now we keep addingnew members and we're replacing the
(24:20):
roles of the dead with newones being baptized.
And John Wesley explains inhis commentary of them that are just
fallen in the cause of Christ,like soldiers who advance in the
room of their Companions thatfell just before their face, unquote.
That's from his explanatorynotes on the whole Bible.
(24:44):
So it's like one wave ofsoldiers on the front lines who fall
in battle, and then the nextwave behind them takes their place.
So baptized for the dead meansbaptized to replace the dead.
And I think thisinterpretation is perfectly plausible,
especially because the nextverse would go with it.
(25:07):
So verse 30 says, and whystand we in jeopardy every hour?
In other words, why do werecognize that we're constantly at
risk of being persecuted and killed?
So this verse would thenreinforce the point of the previous
verse in this interpretation.
So verse 30 kind of reinforcesthe point of verse 25.
(25:31):
Why do we keep baptizing toreplace the dead?
And why do we who are newlybaptized replace them?
Why do we keep facingpersecution and death?
Like it's all aboutpersecution and death?
So why do we keep allowingourselves to die off?
Why do we keep embracingpersecution and replacing the dead
(25:52):
with new baptized saints whowill eventually likely get martyred?
And we replace those with newbaptized converts.
If the dead rise not, wouldthis really be the best strategy
to grow a church and win a warby sacrificing people to persecution
and baptize new people toreplace them?
(26:14):
And this is the interpretationthat I have heard Dr.
James White of Alpha and OmegaMinistries use.
And once again, I think it'spossible that this is a true interpretation.
I think it's very likely.
But there's one more that I'dlike to look at, the fifth one, and
(26:34):
this is by no means anexhaustive list.
There are actually otherinterpretations of this verse, believe
it or not.
But the final one I want tolook at is that those who Paul is
addressing who are baptized inthe name of Christ, but believe the
dead rise not.
So the dead baptized for thedead, the dead there is referring
(26:57):
to Christ.
So why be baptized in the nameof Christ if the dead rise not?
And you might scratch yourhead and say, okay, I don't know
why this is convincing.
So let me give a little bit ofexplanation here.
Christ's resurrection and ourresurrection is so intertwined in
(27:20):
Paul's mind that to deny ourresurrection is to deny Christ's
resurrection.
That's what Paul says.
If there be no resurrection ofthe dead, then Christ himself is.
Is not risen.
Therefore, if someone isbaptized in the name of Jesus, but
claims we won't be raised fromthe dead, he's being baptized for
(27:42):
the dead because Jesus isconsequently still dead.
What is baptism really all about?
Because John the Baptistbaptized people into repentance for
the remission of sins beforeJesus was revealed as the Messiah.
Baptism was an ordinance thatsignified becoming a disciple of
(28:02):
a living prophet.
It was only valid for newdisciples while that prophet was
living.
To be a disciple of John theBaptist would be to have been baptized
by him.
At least that was the culturalexpectation and understanding.
And this is what confused someJews when some investigative reporters
(28:26):
wanted to find out who Johnthe Baptist was and why he was baptizing
people.
So we see in John 1:25 itsays, and they asked him and said
unto him, why baptizest thouthen, if thou be not that Christ
nor Elias, neither that prophet?
So, yes, why are you, John,baptizing people if you don't have
(28:49):
a special ministry to makedisciples after yourself?
Why are you baptizing peopleunto repentance, but not making them
your students who would followyou around and call themselves your
disciples?
Why aren't you trying to starta John the Baptist movement if you're
not the Christ or Elijah whowas prophesied to come again, or
(29:12):
that prophet who was likelythe unnamed one mentioned in Deuteronomy
18:18?
Why are you baptizing people?
This is not what we'd expect.
It should be some prophesiedprophet who's making people disciples
of himself.
And yet this was the start ofthe ministry of Christ in which people
(29:32):
would baptize in his namewhile he was alive.
So there were people baptizedin the name of Jesus before Jesus
died.
As we see in John 4:1:2, itsays, when therefore the Lord knew
how the Pharisees had heardthat Jesus made and baptized more
disciples than John, thoughJesus himself baptized not but his
(29:56):
disciples.
So Jesus disciples around himbaptized people in Jesus name.
And then eventually afterJesus resurrection, he would commission
his disciples to baptize inhis name, even though he would ascend
into heaven and be out of sight.
They would baptize in the nameof one who many people believed was
(30:20):
actually dead.
So Paul is mocking thesepeople who claim there's no resurrection.
He's mocking them inparticular and saying, why are you
baptized for the dead, meaningChrist if the dead rise not, what's
the point of being baptizedfor someone who's dead?
(30:41):
Now they didn't believe Christwas still dead.
But Paul made the argumentthat if we don't rise from the dead,
then Christ is still dead.
So what shall they do who arebaptized for the dead, meaning Christ
if the dead rise not MatthewHenry in his commentary, he has some
(31:03):
objection to this interpretation.
He says some understand thedead of our Savior himself.
Why are persons baptized inthe name of a dead Savior, a Savior
who remains among the dead, ifthe dead rise not.
But it is, I believe, aninstance, perfectly singular, for
hoi nekroi to mean no morethan one dead person.
(31:28):
It is a signification whichthe words have nowhere else.
In other words, there is noother place where the dead as a plural
is referring to Christ.
And the hoi baptismenoi seemplainly to mean some particular persons,
not Christians in general,which yet must be the signification
(31:50):
if the hoi nekroi, the dead,be understood of our Savior.
So, yeah, Matthew Henry has apoint here.
This would be a uniqueinstance of referring to Jesus Christ
by the dead as a plural noun.
And, you know, it's a veryunique instance in that those who
(32:11):
are the baptized for the deadseem to be designated as a distinct
group of people and noteveryone who's baptized.
So, sure, it's a validquestion for why the dead is plural
if we're talking about beingbaptized for one person, Christ.
But I think Paul was making acategory for the purpose of mockery
(32:34):
that the ones who denied theresurrection of the dead but were
baptized in the name of Jesusare those who are baptized for the
dead.
Just as one might refer to adisciple of John the Baptist in a
category of those who arebaptized by prophets, it doesn't
mean that each member wasbaptized by more than one prophet
(32:59):
at once or at even separate times.
It's a category.
And I think Paul mockingly wascreating a category, kind of an insult
to them.
He was really after thesepeople, starting in verse 12 and
down through the rest of thechapter, like, yet you're the people
who are baptized for the dead.
(33:21):
And Paul refers to Psalm 110,verse 1, which is the most referenced
Old Testament verse in the New Testament.
And he explains how theresurrected Christ will reign until
he destroys all enemies andeven death itself.
Indeed, the resurrection isnot only true, but it is even more
(33:42):
true and more powerful than death.
In fact, fact, it will destroy death.
Apparently the saints won'treign with Christ or a victory over
death if the resurrectionisn't true, like some of these people
were saying.
And after all that, it seemsto me that the apostle Paul is rubbing
all this doctrine in the faceof those who deny the resurrection.
(34:07):
First, Paul mocks theirbaptism by saying, what shall they
do who are baptized for the dead?
He just talked about howChrist will reign, and by implication,
because we're all resurrected,we will reign with Christ if what
they're saying is true?
What will they do who arebaptized for the dead?
(34:29):
What's their hope?
Where will their victory be?
Will they see Christ again ifthey're baptized in his name?
Will they reign with him?
What shall these people do ifnone of what I said will happen?
What shall they do in thegrand scheme of things who are nonsensically
baptized for dead messiahs?
(34:50):
If the dead do not rise,what's the point of being baptized
for dead messiahs?
So I think that's the pointthat Paul is making in this interpretation.
Then Paul goes fromcriticizing their pointless baptism
to criticizing their pointless suffering.
So Paul is like, if theresurrection and its hope of victory
(35:13):
aren't true, why do thesepeople get baptized for dead messiahs?
And why do we all embrace persecution?
If there is no resurrectionand reward, if there's nothing after
this life, why be willing toface persecution and an early painful
death?
And he emphasizes this inverse 32 a little bit later.
(35:36):
If after the manner of men, Ihave fought with beasts at Ephesus,
what advantage it me if thedead rise?
Not let us eat and drink, fortomorrow we die.
And that's the whole point ofthis passage.
If there's no resurrection forthe saints, there is no basis for
Christianity.
(35:57):
Just try to live the mostcomfortable life possible, compromise
with the worldly powers that be.
No reason to fight anyone, noreason to risk life and limb for
a gospel, no reason to make astatement with baptism.
Christianity without theresurrection of the saints is no
better than atheism.
(36:18):
It logically amounts tomaterialism and nihilism.
Anyone who is baptized for thedead or faces persecution for a faith
that ends in death is a fool,according to Paul.
So all this to say, I believePaul was mocking these people who
believed that the saintswouldn't be resurrected.
(36:39):
And as he argued previously,he said, if we're not resurrected,
Christ is not resurrected.
And there's no way around that.
So these people who are beingbaptized in the name of Jesus, well,
mockingly, oh, those are theones who are baptized for the dead.
They're baptized for deadmessiah because Christ is still dead.
(37:03):
And what shall they do who arebaptized for dead messiahs?
Why are they baptized for dead messiahs?
This is the interpretationthat I kind of lean toward, that
the dead there as a categoryof mockery, is referring to people
being baptized in the name ofChrist, but in their belief, Christ
(37:26):
is ultimately still dead.
So they're being baptized forthe dead.
Now, that doesn't mean thatI'm not open to other interpretations
I very much think that beingbaptized to replace the dead is a
very close second here.
You know, who knows if I mightend up adopting that one if I'm persuaded,
(37:50):
But otherwise this lastinterpretation is the one that I
hold to well, I hope thatyou've enjoyed this episode of Truth
Espresso, and I hope thatmaybe this verse is a little less
confusing with these possible explanations.
And maybe, as I have explainedseveral interpretations to you, maybe
(38:13):
there's one of them that seemsto make sense to you.
I'm not saying find your truthand what does it mean to you?
There is one true meaning ofthis verse, but since it's one of
those that are a littleobscure, there are several interpretations
that seem valid and maybe oneof them makes the most sense to you.
(38:35):
And so I hope that thisepisode was helpful in that regard
and that you will continue tolisten to Truth Espresso and stay
tuned for the next episode ofTruth Espresso and God Bless.
(38:56):
Thank you for listening tothis episode of truthspresso.
Be sure to subscribe and rateit on your favorite podcast app.
Truthspresso is a member ofthe Christian podcast community.
Check out other great faithbuilding shows atchristian podcast
podcastcommunity.org.
Truthspresso, episode 336.
In a world gone bonkers, it isnot, generally speaking, unruly.
But fires have been started,and where the culture is a dumpster
fire.
We're coming for your children.
And churches have lost their way.
(00:23):
I am really uncomfortable withthe story of the crucifixion.
It's time to wake up with Truth.
Truth Espresso, your weeklyshot of Truth.
And now your host, Daniel Minick.
(00:50):
Hello there and welcomefriends, family, foes, and of course,
lurkers alike.
This is your host, DanielMinik, for another exciting episode
of Truth Espresso.
And this episode is notexactly a continuation of the series.
Going through the Book of Mormon.
I'm going to mention somethings about Mormonism, about the
(01:14):
LDS faith in this episode, butit's not particularly about that
because this episode is goingto deal with one of those difficult
passages of scripture.
And this one did come up as Iwas doing some research with Mormonism.
And so I figured I might aswell deal with this difficult passage.
(01:39):
And yes, my brother and I hadyet another conversation with some
Mormon missionaries a few daysago as of this recording.
And I know the missionaries,of course, are friendly, but I think
that they're starting to getto the point where they're wanting
some progress on our part asto whether we will, you know, convert
(02:03):
to their faith.
They keep on reemphasizing,keep reading the Book of Mormon,
and I highly encourage you topray about it.
And yeah, I mean, so they're.
They keep meeting with us andwe keep trying to ask them some interesting
questions to try to challengethem, and they will do their best
(02:24):
to answer it.
They might not always knowwhat the best answer will be, but
I know they're probablystarting to wonder how far they're
going to get with us.
And so they'll keepreemphasizing what's called Moroni's
challenge.
Toward the end of the Book ofMormon, the last book, which is the
(02:44):
Book of Moroni, it does givethe read and pray about it challenge.
Now, it's wordier than thatand it sounds more flowery than that,
but it amounts to that.
And so that's what the Mormonsthink is the best way to make converts,
is read the Book of Mormon andpray about it, because maybe your
(03:06):
inner feelings will make youwant to join their church or something.
Or if you read the Book ofMormon and it sounds King Jamesy
ish, it sounds like scripture.
And then if you pray, youmight get a sensation or a feeling
of something good.
And that might be the firststep to lead you into going to their
(03:27):
church.
And so I'm hoping that thenext time we get to talk with them,
I want to challenge theirchallenge there and get them to defend
that.
But anyway, this episode isabout First Corinthians 15:29, and
as I read it, we will see whatit says.
You might have read this verseand not quite sure what the Apostle
(03:50):
Paul was talking about.
So here goes.
1 Corinthians 15:29 theapostle Paul says, else what shall
they do which are baptized forthe dead?
If the dead rise, not at all,why are they then baptized for the
dead?
Baptized for the dead.
(04:12):
That's a very interesting statement.
And this verse mentions ittwice, but there is nowhere else
in the Bible that mentionsanything about baptized for the dead.
So what does this verse mean?
Well, I think the first stepto figuring out what a verse means
(04:34):
or what it might mean is tofigure out what the context is.
So what is the context of this verse?
Well, the context of thischapter, First Corinthians, chapter
15, is about resurrection fromthe dead, just as the verse mentions.
And the polemic of thischapter is that without the resurrection
(04:58):
there is no gospel and thereis no hope.
So let's look at the firstverse of the chapter and see if we
can start to establish some context.
And then we'll also look atsome different interpretations of
that verse and we'll see ifmaybe one of these might make sense
(05:18):
to you.
And I'll give the one that Ilean toward.
That doesn't mean I dismissthe other ones, but I do lean toward
a particular interpretation.
So 1st Corinthians 15:1 theapostle Paul begins this chapter
saying, moreover, brethren, Ideclare unto you the gospel which
(05:40):
I preached unto you, whichalso ye have received and wherein
ye stand.
So the subject matter thatPaul is about to talk about is a
gospel matter, and he's goingto remind the Corinthians what he
taught them, because then hewill address some people menacing
that church from within.
(06:03):
So verses three through four,the apostle Paul delineates or elaborates
the gospel that he gave these Corinthians.
He says, for I delivered untoyou first of all that which I also
received, how that Christ diedfor our sins according to the Scriptures,
(06:24):
and that he was buried, andthat he rose again the third day
according to the Scriptures.
So Paul is reminding them ofsomething that he had delivered to
them.
So the gospel isn't just thatJesus died, but that he rose from
the dead.
(06:44):
And so then after he talksabout all the Witnesses who saw the
resurrected Jesus.
He then says in verse 12, now,if Christ be preached that he rose
from the dead, how say someamong you that there is no resurrection
of the dead?
So apparently there werepeople in the church at Corinth who
(07:07):
were preaching the messagethat Jesus Christ had risen from
the dead, but that there is noresurrection of the dead.
So how do you square that circle?
Well, it seems that theyapplied the concept of resurrection
only to Jesus.
He was their resurrectedsavior, but they would not be resurrected.
(07:31):
And it could be that someGreek philosophers had entered the
church.
And why would I suggest that?
Well, when the apostle Paulentered Athens in the account in
Acts chapter 17, and hedisputed with Jews in a synagogue
about Jesus, he encounteredsome Greeks, likely out in the streets.
(07:55):
And this is what happened inActs 17:18.
It says, Then certainphilosophers of the Epicureans and
of the Stoics encountered him.
And some said, what will thisbabbler say?
Others some, he seemeth to bea setter forth of strange gods, because
(08:15):
he preached unto them Jesusand the resurrection.
And then later, Paul stood onMars Hill, also known as Areopagus.
That's what it means, Mars Hill.
And he preached to theAthenians about their altar to an
unknown God.
And after his sermon, this happened.
(08:37):
So we see in Acts 17:32, itsays, and when they heard of the
resurrection of the dead, somemocked and others said, we will hear
thee again of this matter.
But what does that have to dowith Corinth?
This is in Athens.
Now, the city of Corinth wasabout 50 miles west of Athens across
(09:00):
an isthmus.
We are not aware of anychurches in the first century that
were started in Athens.
There's none mentioned that Isee in the Bible.
Possibly some converts fromAthens moved to Corinth to join the
church there.
And if any people in thechurch at Corinth retained their
(09:23):
prior beliefs that peopledon't get raised from the dead, they
may have introduced that ideainto the church at Corinth just as
judaizers tried to push theirideas into the churches.
And it seems that these peoplemay have granted that Jesus Christ
was indeed raised from thedead dead uniquely, but that his
(09:46):
followers don't rise from the dead.
But Paul would have none of that.
According to Paul, we are in Christ.
His crucifixion was ourcrucifixion, and his resurrection
is our resurrection.
We will be raised from thedead and will reign with Christ if
(10:07):
his death was in our place.
His resurrection enables our resurrection.
His sinlessness conquered sin,and his death and resurrection conquered
death.
The resurrection of the saintswas so important to the Apostle Paul
that it was consequentlynecessary to the very Gospel itself.
(10:30):
And we see that as we read 1stCorinthians 15:16, 19.
The apostle Paul said, for ifthe dead rise not, then is not Christ
raised.
In other words, if the saintsaren't raised, then Christ is not
raised.
It's linked together.
And if Christ be not raised,your faith is vain, ye are yet in
(10:54):
your sins, then they also,which are fallen asleep in Christ
are perished.
If in this life only we havehope in Christ, we are of all men
most miserable.
So according to the ApostlePaul, there is no Christianity at
all if the saints do not risefrom the dead full stop.
(11:17):
The only logical conclusion isatheistic materialism, hedonism,
and nihilism.
Then in verses 20 through 28,Paul gives more polemic about what
Christ's resurrection meansagainst Adam's sin.
And then the reign of Christ.
Christ will rule over thewhole earth and ultimately deal with
(11:40):
his enemies.
Death will be the final enemy destroyed.
Then Paul seems to address aselect group of people out of the
blue in what seems to be oneof the most confusing verses in the
Bible.
This is the one we read firstof all, and I will read it again.
(12:01):
1 Corinthians 15:29.
Paul says, Else what shallthey do which are baptized for the
dead?
If the dead rise not at all,why are they then baptized for the
dead?
So who are these people whoare baptized for the dead?
And what does that even mean?
(12:22):
There are quite a fewtheories, and I'm going to present
several that I think are themost plausible.
And there's one that I'llmention that I lean toward.
So the first theory to look atis that baptism for the dead means
suffering for Christ.
This interpretation means thatthe baptism here is not water baptism.
(12:46):
And this is the interpretationthat John Gill favored in his commentary.
He said, I am therefore ratherinclined to think that baptism is
used here in a figurative andmetaphorical sense for afflictions,
sufferings, and martyrdom, asin Matthew 20:22.
(13:07):
And it was for the belief,profession, and preaching of the
doctrine of the resurrectionof the dead, both of Christ and of
the saints, that the apostlesand followers of Christ endured so
much as they did.
So what is Matthew 20:22 thatJohn Gill references?
It says, but Jesus answeredand said, ye know not what ye ask,
(13:30):
Are ye able to drink of thecup that I shall drink of, and to
be baptized with the baptismthat I am baptized with?
And they say unto him, we are Able.
So in this instance, in thisverse, it seems that baptism refers
to the immersion of Christinto persecution, suffering and death,
(13:53):
just as he also mentions drinkof the cup and that that reflects
Jesus prayer in the garden ofGethsemane to let this cup pass from
me.
I would also support thispoint from John Gill with Paul saying
in Galatians 6:17, I bear inmy body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
(14:15):
And also in Galatians 2:20,where Paul says, I am crucified with
Christ, nevertheless I live.
So baptism for the dead couldbe another way of saying take up
our cross daily and followhim, but not necessarily mean that
we are literally nailed to across and killed.
(14:37):
So that's one plausibleinterpretation and I've seen several
commentaries.
Take this interpretation.
A second interpretation ofbaptism for the dead is a sect of
Christians who baptized as aritual over the dead.
And this seems to be thesimplest explanation of the text.
(14:59):
Paul could have been pointingout an obscure or small, even ostracized
group of people in the Churchwho claimed to be Christians but
had adopted a strange ritualof being baptized over the corpse
of a departed saint.
The word for is huper, whichmost literally means over or above.
(15:23):
So these people were beingbaptized over a corpse.
They were being baptized overthe dead.
If some people practiced thisritual as an incorrect ritual, or
if it had pagan origins, myquestion would be why wouldn't Paul
condemn it rather than justifyit by the resurrection of Jesus?
(15:47):
Now, if this is the correctinterpretation, you know who holds
this view that Paul isreferring to a valid ordinance of
baptism for the dead.
If you guessed the Mormons, ifyou guessed the Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints, youwould be correct.
(16:07):
The LDS Church actuallyinterprets this verse as proof for
their doctrine of proxybaptism for dead people.
And so what is theirunderstanding of this concept of
baptism for the dead?
So in Mormonism, anyone whodied and failed to be baptized or
(16:27):
never heard the Mormon Gospelwould be held in what is called the
Spirit Prison.
The four fundamentals of theMormon Gospel are faith, repentance,
baptism and laying out of hands.
A faithful Mormon missionarywho died could go to the Spirit Prison
as a missionary and preach tocaptives there.
(16:50):
So if you died without hearingor even died without believing the
Mormon Gospel, you as acaptive Spirit in the Spirit prison
could still repent and believe.
However, baptism and laying onof hands to a Spirit in the Spirit
Prison, those can't happen there.
(17:11):
So if a Spirit in the Spiritprison repents and believes, how
do they get baptized and havehands laid on them if those are the
other two necessary parts ofthe Gospel.
And to get out of the Spiritprison, a living Mormon could get
baptized and have hands laidon in the place of a captive Spirit.
(17:34):
So once a Spirit in Spiritprison has obtained all four fundamentals
of the Gospel, he or she willbe released.
And this is the Mormondoctrine of baptism for the dead.
And they use 1 Corinthians15:29 to support their doctrine.
Now, I wouldn't dismiss thepossibility that the Apostle Paul
(17:56):
was referring to a distinctritual baptism for the dead, but
I just don't think the contextor the history bears this out.
If Paul was criticizing it bymentioning it, he wasn't nullifying
it.
He was only saying that it wasmeaningless without the resurrection.
(18:17):
Yet the Epistle already hasmany criticisms, including that people
claimed special pedigree basedon whether Paul, Apollos, Peter or
Jesus baptized them as we seein 1 Corinthians chapter 1.
And he criticized how theyhandled the Lord's supper in chapter
(18:37):
11.
He criticized the sin of vilepagan intimacy with family members
in chapter six.
So why didn't Paul criticizebaptism for the dead as an incorrect
ordinance if the ordinance wasindeed wrong?
Now, if Paul wasn'tcriticizing the practice and actually
(18:59):
endorsed endorsed it, why doesit only show up obscurely in this
one verse of Scripture?
Why don't we see a record orinstructions for it elsewhere in
the New Testament and evenoutside the Bible?
Why don't we see it in theDidache where I believe it's in chapter
seven of it?
It's about baptism and itnever mentions for the dead.
(19:23):
Why don't we see it in any ofthe early church writers?
And by the way, if the Mormondoctrine of it is true and biblical,
why don't we even see it inthe Book of Mormon?
In third Nephi chapter 11,Jesus Himself gives the mode and
the formula for baptizingpeople and repeatedly emphasizes
(19:46):
that there will be nodisputations among them.
And yet even here there's nota whisper of proxy baptism or baptism
for the dead.
Joseph Smith revealed thatinformation after writing the Book
of Mormon.
Again, I just don't think theApostle Paul is addressing a ritual
(20:07):
of proxy baptism or baptismover a dead body or in honor of someone
who had passed, whether goodor bad.
I could be wrong, but I'm justnot convinced of any of those interpretations.
The Christian podcastcommunity is a cohesive group of
(20:29):
like minded Christianpodcasters proclaiming the truths
of Christ, truths of Christ,with expertise and passion in the
areas of theology, churchHistory, Christian living, evangelism,
apologetics, parenting,homeschooling sermons, and much,
(20:52):
much more.
So check usout@christianpodcastcommunity.org one
stop for all your favoriteChristian podcast.
(21:22):
So a third interpretation ofthis verse is that being baptized
and never being resurrected isbeing baptized for their own dead
selves.
So in other words, the deadare the ones being baptized.
Like baptism reflects JesusChrist himself dying, being buried,
(21:45):
and then being raised for the dead.
And baptism symbolizes theresurrection of the dead itself.
And so why would someone thenbe baptized if he himself won't be
raised?
He's just being baptized forthe dead himself.
In this view, Paul isbasically saying that if there is
(22:06):
no resurrection, consideryourself as good as dead dead.
That's your ultimate fate ifyou get baptized.
But your final fate is death.
What benefit is that baptismto you?
You're just being baptized forthe dead, meaning yourselves.
And this was how JohnChrysostom understood the verse in
(22:29):
his homily 40 on FirstCorinthians, he said this quote,
this.
Therefore Paul, recalling totheir minds, said, if there be no
resurrection, why are you thenbaptized for the dead, that is the
dead bodies.
For in fact, with a view tothis, are you baptized the resurrection
of your dead body, believingthat it no longer remains dead?
(22:54):
Now this seems like aperfectly reasonable interpretation
to me.
If you don't believe you willbe resurrected, then you're just
being baptized for your owndead self.
But let's look at more interpretations.
So the fourth interpretationthat I found and I have heard before
(23:16):
is that being baptized for thedead refers to new Christians, new
saints, being baptized toreplace others who have passed on
or who died as martyrs.
In other words, for the deadmeans in place of the dead.
Now what do you mean by that, Daniel?
(23:37):
Basically, Paul is saying, whydo we continue to add new members
and baptize them, knowing howmany are suffering, persecution and
dying?
If we don't have the hope ofthe resurrection that makes our faith
meaningful, why bother withthis constant fight against persecution?
To keep sustaining and growingand replacing the members of the
(24:00):
church with new baptizedmembers, replacing the dead ones
if we don't have the hope ofthe resurrection.
So in other words, baptizedfor the dead means other saints who
were of course baptized, theydied or they were martyred.
And then now we keep addingnew members and we're replacing the
(24:20):
roles of the dead with newones being baptized.
And John Wesley explains inhis commentary of them that are just
fallen in the cause of Christ,like soldiers who advance in the
room of their Companions thatfell just before their face, unquote.
That's from his explanatorynotes on the whole Bible.
(24:44):
So it's like one wave ofsoldiers on the front lines who fall
in battle, and then the nextwave behind them takes their place.
So baptized for the dead meansbaptized to replace the dead.
And I think thisinterpretation is perfectly plausible,
especially because the nextverse would go with it.
(25:07):
So verse 30 says, and whystand we in jeopardy every hour?
In other words, why do werecognize that we're constantly at
risk of being persecuted and killed?
So this verse would thenreinforce the point of the previous
verse in this interpretation.
So verse 30 kind of reinforcesthe point of verse 25.
(25:31):
Why do we keep baptizing toreplace the dead?
And why do we who are newlybaptized replace them?
Why do we keep facingpersecution and death?
Like it's all aboutpersecution and death?
So why do we keep allowingourselves to die off?
Why do we keep embracingpersecution and replacing the dead
(25:52):
with new baptized saints whowill eventually likely get martyred?
And we replace those with newbaptized converts.
If the dead rise not, wouldthis really be the best strategy
to grow a church and win a warby sacrificing people to persecution
and baptize new people toreplace them?
(26:14):
And this is the interpretationthat I have heard Dr.
James White of Alpha and OmegaMinistries use.
And once again, I think it'spossible that this is a true interpretation.
I think it's very likely.
But there's one more that I'dlike to look at, the fifth one, and
(26:34):
this is by no means anexhaustive list.
There are actually otherinterpretations of this verse, believe
it or not.
But the final one I want tolook at is that those who Paul is
addressing who are baptized inthe name of Christ, but believe the
dead rise not.
So the dead baptized for thedead, the dead there is referring
(26:57):
to Christ.
So why be baptized in the nameof Christ if the dead rise not?
And you might scratch yourhead and say, okay, I don't know
why this is convincing.
So let me give a little bit ofexplanation here.
Christ's resurrection and ourresurrection is so intertwined in
(27:20):
Paul's mind that to deny ourresurrection is to deny Christ's
resurrection.
That's what Paul says.
If there be no resurrection ofthe dead, then Christ himself is.
Is not risen.
Therefore, if someone isbaptized in the name of Jesus, but
claims we won't be raised fromthe dead, he's being baptized for
(27:42):
the dead because Jesus isconsequently still dead.
What is baptism really all about?
Because John the Baptistbaptized people into repentance for
the remission of sins beforeJesus was revealed as the Messiah.
Baptism was an ordinance thatsignified becoming a disciple of
(28:02):
a living prophet.
It was only valid for newdisciples while that prophet was
living.
To be a disciple of John theBaptist would be to have been baptized
by him.
At least that was the culturalexpectation and understanding.
And this is what confused someJews when some investigative reporters
(28:26):
wanted to find out who Johnthe Baptist was and why he was baptizing
people.
So we see in John 1:25 itsays, and they asked him and said
unto him, why baptizest thouthen, if thou be not that Christ
nor Elias, neither that prophet?
So, yes, why are you, John,baptizing people if you don't have
(28:49):
a special ministry to makedisciples after yourself?
Why are you baptizing peopleunto repentance, but not making them
your students who would followyou around and call themselves your
disciples?
Why aren't you trying to starta John the Baptist movement if you're
not the Christ or Elijah whowas prophesied to come again, or
(29:12):
that prophet who was likelythe unnamed one mentioned in Deuteronomy
18:18?
Why are you baptizing people?
This is not what we'd expect.
It should be some prophesiedprophet who's making people disciples
of himself.
And yet this was the start ofthe ministry of Christ in which people
(29:32):
would baptize in his namewhile he was alive.
So there were people baptizedin the name of Jesus before Jesus
died.
As we see in John 4:1:2, itsays, when therefore the Lord knew
how the Pharisees had heardthat Jesus made and baptized more
disciples than John, thoughJesus himself baptized not but his
(29:56):
disciples.
So Jesus disciples around himbaptized people in Jesus name.
And then eventually afterJesus resurrection, he would commission
his disciples to baptize inhis name, even though he would ascend
into heaven and be out of sight.
They would baptize in the nameof one who many people believed was
(30:20):
actually dead.
So Paul is mocking thesepeople who claim there's no resurrection.
He's mocking them inparticular and saying, why are you
baptized for the dead, meaningChrist if the dead rise not, what's
the point of being baptizedfor someone who's dead?
(30:41):
Now they didn't believe Christwas still dead.
But Paul made the argumentthat if we don't rise from the dead,
then Christ is still dead.
So what shall they do who arebaptized for the dead, meaning Christ
if the dead rise not MatthewHenry in his commentary, he has some
(31:03):
objection to this interpretation.
He says some understand thedead of our Savior himself.
Why are persons baptized inthe name of a dead Savior, a Savior
who remains among the dead, ifthe dead rise not.
But it is, I believe, aninstance, perfectly singular, for
hoi nekroi to mean no morethan one dead person.
(31:28):
It is a signification whichthe words have nowhere else.
In other words, there is noother place where the dead as a plural
is referring to Christ.
And the hoi baptismenoi seemplainly to mean some particular persons,
not Christians in general,which yet must be the signification
(31:50):
if the hoi nekroi, the dead,be understood of our Savior.
So, yeah, Matthew Henry has apoint here.
This would be a uniqueinstance of referring to Jesus Christ
by the dead as a plural noun.
And, you know, it's a veryunique instance in that those who
(32:11):
are the baptized for the deadseem to be designated as a distinct
group of people and noteveryone who's baptized.
So, sure, it's a validquestion for why the dead is plural
if we're talking about beingbaptized for one person, Christ.
But I think Paul was making acategory for the purpose of mockery
(32:34):
that the ones who denied theresurrection of the dead but were
baptized in the name of Jesusare those who are baptized for the
dead.
Just as one might refer to adisciple of John the Baptist in a
category of those who arebaptized by prophets, it doesn't
mean that each member wasbaptized by more than one prophet
(32:59):
at once or at even separate times.
It's a category.
And I think Paul mockingly wascreating a category, kind of an insult
to them.
He was really after thesepeople, starting in verse 12 and
down through the rest of thechapter, like, yet you're the people
who are baptized for the dead.
(33:21):
And Paul refers to Psalm 110,verse 1, which is the most referenced
Old Testament verse in the New Testament.
And he explains how theresurrected Christ will reign until
he destroys all enemies andeven death itself.
Indeed, the resurrection isnot only true, but it is even more
(33:42):
true and more powerful than death.
In fact, fact, it will destroy death.
Apparently the saints won'treign with Christ or a victory over
death if the resurrectionisn't true, like some of these people
were saying.
And after all that, it seemsto me that the apostle Paul is rubbing
all this doctrine in the faceof those who deny the resurrection.
(34:07):
First, Paul mocks theirbaptism by saying, what shall they
do who are baptized for the dead?
He just talked about howChrist will reign, and by implication,
because we're all resurrected,we will reign with Christ if what
they're saying is true?
What will they do who arebaptized for the dead?
(34:29):
What's their hope?
Where will their victory be?
Will they see Christ again ifthey're baptized in his name?
Will they reign with him?
What shall these people do ifnone of what I said will happen?
What shall they do in thegrand scheme of things who are nonsensically
baptized for dead messiahs?
(34:50):
If the dead do not rise,what's the point of being baptized
for dead messiahs?
So I think that's the pointthat Paul is making in this interpretation.
Then Paul goes fromcriticizing their pointless baptism
to criticizing their pointless suffering.
So Paul is like, if theresurrection and its hope of victory
(35:13):
aren't true, why do thesepeople get baptized for dead messiahs?
And why do we all embrace persecution?
If there is no resurrectionand reward, if there's nothing after
this life, why be willing toface persecution and an early painful
death?
And he emphasizes this inverse 32 a little bit later.
(35:36):
If after the manner of men, Ihave fought with beasts at Ephesus,
what advantage it me if thedead rise?
Not let us eat and drink, fortomorrow we die.
And that's the whole point ofthis passage.
If there's no resurrection forthe saints, there is no basis for
Christianity.
(35:57):
Just try to live the mostcomfortable life possible, compromise
with the worldly powers that be.
No reason to fight anyone, noreason to risk life and limb for
a gospel, no reason to make astatement with baptism.
Christianity without theresurrection of the saints is no
better than atheism.
(36:18):
It logically amounts tomaterialism and nihilism.
Anyone who is baptized for thedead or faces persecution for a faith
that ends in death is a fool,according to Paul.
So all this to say, I believePaul was mocking these people who
believed that the saintswouldn't be resurrected.
(36:39):
And as he argued previously,he said, if we're not resurrected,
Christ is not resurrected.
And there's no way around that.
So these people who are beingbaptized in the name of Jesus, well,
mockingly, oh, those are theones who are baptized for the dead.
They're baptized for deadmessiah because Christ is still dead.
(37:03):
And what shall they do who arebaptized for dead messiahs?
Why are they baptized for dead messiahs?
This is the interpretationthat I kind of lean toward, that
the dead there as a categoryof mockery, is referring to people
being baptized in the name ofChrist, but in their belief, Christ
(37:26):
is ultimately still dead.
So they're being baptized forthe dead.
Now, that doesn't mean thatI'm not open to other interpretations
I very much think that beingbaptized to replace the dead is a
very close second here.
You know, who knows if I mightend up adopting that one if I'm persuaded,
(37:50):
But otherwise this lastinterpretation is the one that I
hold to well, I hope thatyou've enjoyed this episode of Truth
Espresso, and I hope thatmaybe this verse is a little less
confusing with these possible explanations.
And maybe, as I have explainedseveral interpretations to you, maybe
(38:13):
there's one of them that seemsto make sense to you.
I'm not saying find your truthand what does it mean to you?
There is one true meaning ofthis verse, but since it's one of
those that are a littleobscure, there are several interpretations
that seem valid and maybe oneof them makes the most sense to you.
(38:35):
And so I hope that thisepisode was helpful in that regard
and that you will continue tolisten to Truth Espresso and stay
tuned for the next episode ofTruth Espresso and God Bless.
(38:56):
Thank you for listening tothis episode of truthspresso.
Be sure to subscribe and rateit on your favorite podcast app.
Truthspresso is a member ofthe Christian podcast community.
Check out other great faithbuilding shows atchristian podcast
podcastcommunity.org.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!