Baptized for the Dead
Loyal
This is a tricky one, but here is a possible explanation.
"baptized FOR the dead". I don't take this to mean something like purgatory where you get baptized for someone else.
But rather, grandma died, I know she went to heaven. So I want to get saved and baptized, so I can go see her when I die.
Active
Perhaps the practice is a harmless plea to God, akin to saying a prayer asking for God's mercy toward someone who died not knowing whether that person was saved. I say harmless because Paul does not rebuke the Corinthians for this practice, unlike the many sins for which Paul cites the Corinthians are guilty of committing (exhaustive or not).
Active
Being a proxy for somebody who has died in order to get them into heaven.
Loyal
I believe the Mormons have taken this to heart and have very extensive genealogy records so that Mormons can get baptised
on behalf of their deceased ancestors.
As to whether or not God recognises or gives any credit to such doctrine - I doubt it
Hebrews 9:27 And inasmuch as it is laid up for men once to die, and after this - judgement;
on behalf of their deceased ancestors.
As to whether or not God recognises or gives any credit to such doctrine - I doubt it
Hebrews 9:27 And inasmuch as it is laid up for men once to die, and after this - judgement;
Active
I would offer the dead are those born dead in their trespasses and sin without hope or God in this world.(un-redeemed mankind. )
The atheist Jews that followed a law of the fathers a hierarchy of men that lord it over the belief of the non-venerable pew sitters. made Moses and the prophets;(sola scriptura ) the teaching authority without effect by thier oral traditions .
Isaiah 8 speaks of them who have no light of the gospel working in them. They seek the dead for those still alive called by some today that call the l "patron saints" as disembodied workers with familiar spirits .(3500 and rising) The bible calls it an abomination of desolation making the word of God (Moses and the prophets) without effect.
The word Darash which defines two kinds of seeking in the first case represents those who seek after the dead the second case vthose who seek our one heavenly father .The correct meaning to the word Darash (necromancy) must be made in order to rightly divide..
Isaiah 8 :19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
In that way no man can serve two teaching masters.(1) A legion of Kings princes and fathers as oral trasdtions and (2) our one Holy Father in heaven as it is written in the law and prophets (sola scriptura).
The parable (no man can serve two teaching masters as Lord.) in Luke 16 expands the teaching.
Luke 16: 13-27 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; (sola scriptura) let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets,(the gospel) neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Faith comes by hearing its understanding works in the believer to both desire to will and empower those given a desire. Freely we received freely we give.
Loyal
1 Corinthians 15: 29 "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead."
The verse before that -- Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son, Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."
Sounds like the people were being challenged -- Why Do that? What's the point? The dead are dead. Why Are people baptized?
The verse before that -- Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son, Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."
Sounds like the people were being challenged -- Why Do that? What's the point? The dead are dead. Why Are people baptized?
Active
Baptized for the dead means for those who are presently living in sin and trespasses.
Those 'baptized for the dead' are the saints.
In the world of the living there are generally two classes: the righteous, and the unrighteous. If I recall correctly here, Jesus died as 'Righteous for the Unrighteous, that all might come to the knowledge of God.'
In our present world (yes, this world) there are the living and the dead (who are living like you and I).
Active
To be baptised (the hearing of faith) is given the power to believe as His doctrine like rain or dew is poured out from heaven in our new born again hearts
Faith understanding God is the gift he works in us .
The dead in that case or those spiritually dead in their trespasses and sin without a living hope. No faith coming from God working from within.
Un-redeemed mankind is accredited with no faith. Nothing
Deuteronomy 32:20 And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith.
Believer who have the same spirit of faith as it is written are accredited with little
2 Corinthians 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;
He must increase as we decrease.
Active
The passage below is deliberately revised. I've changed some of the pronouns for a
reason.
"Now if there is no resurrection, what will we do who are baptized for the dead? If
the dead are not raised at all, then why are we baptized for them?" (1Cor 15:29)
Fact of the matter is: neither Paul or his associates were getting themselves
baptized for the dead, nor did he or they recommend and/or teach the practice.
Apparently some folks in Corinth thought it was a good idea. Whether they were
Christians I don't know, but strongly suspect they were pagans who picked up on
some of Christianity's theology and thought to modify it with ideas of their own.
Paul continues in the next three verses speaking of missionary work and extreme
sports. The point is: if this life is the only life there is-- i.e. if we only go around
once --then people would be foolish to risk shortening their lives when they don't
have to, e.g. smuggling Bibles into North Korea, traipsing through jungles infested
with deadly snakes and poisonous plants and insects, bungee jumping, swimming
with sharks, wrestling alligators, rock climbing without fall protection, etc.
_
reason.
"Now if there is no resurrection, what will we do who are baptized for the dead? If
the dead are not raised at all, then why are we baptized for them?" (1Cor 15:29)
Fact of the matter is: neither Paul or his associates were getting themselves
baptized for the dead, nor did he or they recommend and/or teach the practice.
Apparently some folks in Corinth thought it was a good idea. Whether they were
Christians I don't know, but strongly suspect they were pagans who picked up on
some of Christianity's theology and thought to modify it with ideas of their own.
Paul continues in the next three verses speaking of missionary work and extreme
sports. The point is: if this life is the only life there is-- i.e. if we only go around
once --then people would be foolish to risk shortening their lives when they don't
have to, e.g. smuggling Bibles into North Korea, traipsing through jungles infested
with deadly snakes and poisonous plants and insects, bungee jumping, swimming
with sharks, wrestling alligators, rock climbing without fall protection, etc.
_
Member
Although there is no definitive answer to this conundrum all scripture is given for our learning and so every spiritual and practical question is always to be seen in this light.
Active
Resurrection after death for those baptized into eternal life from their prior state of being dead in the spirit.
"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 1Corinthians 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. “Else”—i.e., if there be no resurrection—what 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."
Moderator
Staff Member
Greetings again,
may i ask another question relating to this topic?
According to some (meaning, not all) professing Christians, there are two baptisms, one of water and the other of Spirit.
In the passage being looked at here, most would suppose the baptism referred to is that of water.
Question is, is that the case? And if not, and it refers to the baptism of the Spirit, what evidence would be or could be manifested if the answers given thus far are in line with what was given in the passage?
Bless you ....><>
may i ask another question relating to this topic?
According to some (meaning, not all) professing Christians, there are two baptisms, one of water and the other of Spirit.
In the passage being looked at here, most would suppose the baptism referred to is that of water.
Question is, is that the case? And if not, and it refers to the baptism of the Spirit, what evidence would be or could be manifested if the answers given thus far are in line with what was given in the passage?
Bless you ....><>
Active
I would offer to be baptized is to be cleansed with the water of the word . The doctrines of God that fall like rain or dew upon the grass (the believer .) Deuteronomy 4:2 .
Ephesians 5:25-27 King James Version (KJV) Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
To baptized for the dead is to seek after the dead as if they were still here living under the Sun . like the use of patron saints disembodied workers with familiar spirts. Necromancy as law of the fathers. The main teaching key in the series of parables found in Luke 16 . . no man can serve two teaching masters as one good Lord
Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters:((((my addition. . .teaching authorities) ) for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. (my addition . . mans wisdom)
Luke 16 :26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; ( my addition. .sola scriptura the one teaching master. ) let them hear them.And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
Isaiah 8 uses both understandings of the word necromancy. (seek) In that way the second rendering. To the law and to the testimony: (sola scriptura) Seeking to be baptized with the water of the word from our living God not dead relatives .
Isaiah 8 :19-20 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: ( my addition. . sola scriptura) if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Moderator
Staff Member
Greetings Garee,
that does sum Baptism up in most respects, whichever way people like to break bread.
I will offer something about the passage of the thread topic in due course that will in effect reply to your other input, thus far.
I think we will find that we simply have not been reading it properly.
Until then,
Bless you ....><>
that does sum Baptism up in most respects, whichever way people like to break bread.
I will offer something about the passage of the thread topic in due course that will in effect reply to your other input, thus far.
I think we will find that we simply have not been reading it properly.
Until then,
Bless you ....><>
Active
Hebrews 9:27 King James Version (KJV)
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Loyal
I read the following which seems to sum this up for us, see what you think...
1 Corinthians 15:29
What shall they do (τό ποιήσουσιν). 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 (βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν). 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.
1 Corinthians 15:29 (WSNT): A large number of both ancient and modern commentators* 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 Luke 12:50, and Mark 10:38.
In the absence of anything more satisfactory I adopt the explanation given above in bold text.
Shalom
1 Corinthians 15:29
What shall they do (τό ποιήσουσιν). 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 (βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν). 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.
1 Corinthians 15:29 (WSNT): A large number of both ancient and modern commentators* 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 Luke 12:50, and Mark 10:38.
In the absence of anything more satisfactory I adopt the explanation given above in bold text.
Shalom
Loyal
Here is another explanation, concluding with similar thoughts, from An introduction and commentary 1 Corinthians 15:29 (TNTC 1Co (Schreiner))
In this paragraph experiential arguments are adduced in favour of the resurrection. The first is the practice of baptism for the dead. If the dead are not raised, what is the point of someone being baptised for the dead? The practice makes no sense if there is no resurrection.
Paul’s purpose is not to explain or even defend the practice of baptism for the dead but to show the Corinthians their inconsistency.
Why are they baptizing for the dead if there is no resurrection?
Apparently Paul does not believe the practice is harmful since he does not criticize it, but neither does he commend it.
Unfortunately, we do not have any certainty about what baptism for the dead means; many different interpretations are proposed, and space is lacking to mention or discuss all the possible ones here. I suspect that some, after coming to faith, died quickly and there was no opportunity for them to be baptized; the church therefore baptized someone else in place of a person who had died before being able to be baptized. Another common view is that believers were considered to be dead when they were baptized; this reading was common in church history.
Still, a multitude of interpretations is proposed, and certainty eludes us.
In this paragraph experiential arguments are adduced in favour of the resurrection. The first is the practice of baptism for the dead. If the dead are not raised, what is the point of someone being baptised for the dead? The practice makes no sense if there is no resurrection.
Paul’s purpose is not to explain or even defend the practice of baptism for the dead but to show the Corinthians their inconsistency.
Why are they baptizing for the dead if there is no resurrection?
Apparently Paul does not believe the practice is harmful since he does not criticize it, but neither does he commend it.
Unfortunately, we do not have any certainty about what baptism for the dead means; many different interpretations are proposed, and space is lacking to mention or discuss all the possible ones here. I suspect that some, after coming to faith, died quickly and there was no opportunity for them to be baptized; the church therefore baptized someone else in place of a person who had died before being able to be baptized. Another common view is that believers were considered to be dead when they were baptized; this reading was common in church history.
Still, a multitude of interpretations is proposed, and certainty eludes us.
Loyal
Well put brother.
Although Paul did not rebuke the Corinthians, which is a good point, it is also clear he remained neutral in his comments, not saying they shouldn't do it, but not saying they should either, not like Paul we might say.