Bible Interpretation

[Gotterdammerung]

In 1 Cor 15 Paul is talking about the ressurection of the dead and if the dead don't rise, our faith is in vain. He cites a practice there in vs 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?" How do you interpret this???

[P-Marlowe]

How do YOU interpret it?

Hint... notice that Paul suddenly stops using the terms "we" and "us" and suddenly uses the term "they" as if he is not talking about "us" anymore.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

One of the early Church Fathers had an interesting take on these verses...

The context is the resurection of the dead. If there is no resurection then why are new christians
being baptized into the church to replace those who have died in the faith.

One might look at the verse this way,

Else what shall new Christians do which are baptized to replace those who have died in the faith, if
the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized to replace those who have died?

But Remember, this is only one way to look at it. Only the Apostle Paul really knew what he was
trying to convey by the Holy Spirit.

[Alex Murphy]

Only the Apostle Paul really knew what he was trying to convey by the Holy Spirit.

If that were the case, the Holy Spirit wouldn't have prompted him to write it in a public letter.

[Cleburne]

The Church Fathers established a couple of interpretations of this verse: St. John Chrysostom believed that Paul was refering to a heretical practice of baptizing in proxy, somewhat similar to modern Mormon practises, except that the heretical sects of Chrysytoms days (and presumably Paul's) held the ritual over or near the dead man's body:

What then is that which he means? Or will ye that I should first mention how they who are infected with the Marcionite heresy pervert this expression? And I know indeed that I shall excite much laughter; nevertheless, even on this account most of all I will mention it that you may the more completely avoid this disease: viz., when any catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath saith in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed, like men jesting upon the stage. So great power hath the devil over the souls of careless sinners. Then being called to account, they allege this expression, saying that even the Apostle hath said, "They who are baptized for the dead. Seest thou their extreme ridiculousness?"

St John Chrysostom, Homily XL, on 1 Corinthians

He further explains that Paul refered to the practice (notice the rather distant "them") only in passing, and as an example- he neither condemned nor approved the practice, perhaps because the practice had already been condemned. At any rate it has never been accepted by the church at large.

Some Church Fathers also postulated that Paul refered to the idea of the spiritual dead being baptized, and the idea of people being baptized in place of the dead.

At any rate, it is a lone passage, the practice of proxy baptism never being mentioned elsewhere. It was condemned by the Church in the fourth century. And the Mormon proxy baptism does not find antecedent in even the heretical and fringe-ish groups, who all restricted themselves to recently deceased (as far as I can gather).

[P-Marlowe]

He certainly didn't say "Why are WE baptized for the dead," did he?

[Cleburne]

Yes, that is St. John Chrysostoms's idea: it is perhaps quite likely, for Paul refered to non-Christian ideas elsewhere in his life, without lending credence to the whole belief system- he merely drew on them for some sort of support. It seems quite likely that both Paul and the Corinthians knew precisely what was being refered to here, and got the idea.

[P-Marlowe]

His ultimate point was "Hey, brothers, EVEN THOSE GUYS, believe in the resurrection. Otherwise why would THEY be doing that silly ritual?"

Marlowe Translation (c) 2003

[restornu]

If that were the case, the Holy Spirit wouldn't have prompted him to write it in a public letter.

What you said is accurate. The apostle Paul was able to recieve but so can those who love the Lord be able to receive a witness from the Holy Spirit, to confirn what Paul also received.

[RnMomof7]

Hey Illbay the new name looks good on ya!

[Alex Murphy]

The apostle Paul was able to recieve but so can those who love the Lord be able to receive a witness from the Holy Spirit, to confirn what Paul also received.

But the subject wasn't people receiving messages from the Holy Spirit, it was people receiving a written, open message from Paul. Paul didn't write in some sort of secret code, one that requires the Holy Spirit to act as a "secret decoder ring" before it can be understood. Paul wrote a public letter, knowing it would be read publically. The Spirit might confirm it, or even relay it directly, but He wouldn't have to translate or contradict the plain message of Paul's letter for the listener.

[P-Marlowe]

Post a picture of the secret handshake and see if it gets pulled in 10 minutes. If so, then it's Illbay.

[Corin Stormhands]

or a quote about "their own species"....

[Alex Murphy]

or something about moonmen in funny hats...

[Corin Stormhands]

Or that off, off, off, off Broadway show: Seven Brides for One Brother

[FactQuest]

Yeah, I think that got it.

[restornu]

What new name?