Truthspresso, episode 336.

In a world gone bonkers, it is not, 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.

I am really uncomfortable with the story of the crucifixion.

It's time to wake up with Truth.

Truth Espresso, your weekly shot of Truth.

And now your host, Daniel Minick.

Hello there and welcome friends, family, foes, and of course, lurkers alike.

This is your host, Daniel Minik, for another exciting episode of Truth Espresso.

And this episode is not exactly a continuation of the series.

Going through the Book of Mormon.

I'm going to mention some things about Mormonism, about the LDS faith in this episode, but it's not particularly about that because this episode is going to deal with one of those difficult passages of scripture.

And this one did come up as I was doing some research with Mormonism.

And so I figured I might as well deal with this difficult passage.

And yes, my brother and I had yet another conversation with some Mormon missionaries a few days ago as of this recording.

And I know the missionaries, of course, are friendly, but I think that they're starting to get to the point where they're wanting some progress on our part as to whether we will, you know, convert to their faith.

They keep on reemphasizing, keep reading the Book of Mormon, and I highly encourage you to pray about it.

And yeah, I mean, so they're.

They keep meeting with us and we keep trying to ask them some interesting questions to try to challenge them, and they will do their best to answer it.

They might not always know what the best answer will be, but I know they're probably starting to wonder how far they're going to get with us.

And so they'll keep reemphasizing what's called Moroni's challenge.

Toward the end of the Book of Mormon, the last book, which is the Book of Moroni, it does give the read and pray about it challenge.

Now, it's wordier than that and it sounds more flowery than that, but it amounts to that.

And so that's what the Mormons think is the best way to make converts, is read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, because maybe your inner feelings will make you want to join their church or something.

Or if you read the Book of Mormon and it sounds King Jamesy ish, it sounds like scripture.

And then if you pray, you might get a sensation or a feeling of something good.

And that might be the first step to lead you into going to their church.

And so I'm hoping that the next time we get to talk with them, I want to challenge their challenge there and get them to defend that.

But anyway, this episode is about First Corinthians 15:29, and as I read it, we will see what it says.

You might have read this verse and not quite sure what the Apostle Paul was talking about.

So here goes.

1 Corinthians 15:29 the apostle Paul says, 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?

Baptized for the dead.

That's a very interesting statement.

And this verse mentions it twice, but there is nowhere else in the Bible that mentions anything about baptized for the dead.

So what does this verse mean?

Well, I think the first step to figuring out what a verse means or what it might mean is to figure out what the context is.

So what is the context of this verse?

Well, the context of this chapter, First Corinthians, chapter 15, is about resurrection from the dead, just as the verse mentions.

And the polemic of this chapter is that without the resurrection there is no gospel and there is no hope.

So let's look at the first verse of the chapter and see if we can start to establish some context.

And then we'll also look at some different interpretations of that verse and we'll see if maybe one of these might make sense to you.

And I'll give the one that I lean toward.

That doesn't mean I dismiss the other ones, but I do lean toward a particular interpretation.

So 1st Corinthians 15:1 the apostle Paul begins this chapter saying, moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received and wherein ye stand.

So the subject matter that Paul is about to talk about is a gospel matter, and he's going to remind the Corinthians what he taught them, because then he will address some people menacing that church from within.

So verses three through four, the apostle Paul delineates or elaborates the gospel that he gave these Corinthians.

He says, for I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how 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.

So Paul is reminding them of something that he had delivered to them.

So the gospel isn't just that Jesus died, but that he rose from the dead.

And so then after he talks about 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 some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

So apparently there were people in the church at Corinth who were preaching the message that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead, but that there is no resurrection of the dead.

So how do you square that circle?

Well, it seems that they applied the concept of resurrection only to Jesus.

He was their resurrected savior, but they would not be resurrected.

And it could be that some Greek philosophers had entered the church.

And why would I suggest that?

Well, when the apostle Paul entered Athens in the account in Acts chapter 17, and he disputed with Jews in a synagogue about Jesus, he encountered some Greeks, likely out in the streets.

And this is what happened in Acts 17:18.

It says, Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans and of the Stoics encountered him.

And some said, what will this babbler say?

Others some, he seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods, because he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection.

And then later, Paul stood on Mars Hill, also known as Areopagus.

That's what it means, Mars Hill.

And he preached to the Athenians about their altar to an unknown God.

And after his sermon, this happened.

So we see in Acts 17:32, it says, and when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked and others said, we will hear thee again of this matter.

But what does that have to do with Corinth?

This is in Athens.

Now, the city of Corinth was about 50 miles west of Athens across an isthmus.

We are not aware of any churches in the first century that were started in Athens.

There's none mentioned that I see in the Bible.

Possibly some converts from Athens moved to Corinth to join the church there.

And if any people in the church at Corinth retained their prior beliefs that people don't get raised from the dead, they may have introduced that idea into the church at Corinth just as judaizers tried to push their ideas into the churches.

And it seems that these people may have granted that Jesus Christ was indeed raised from the dead dead uniquely, but that his followers don't rise from the dead.

But Paul would have none of that.

According to Paul, we are in Christ.

His crucifixion was our crucifixion, and his resurrection is our resurrection.

We will be raised from the dead and will reign with Christ if 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 saints was so important to the Apostle Paul that it was consequently necessary to the very Gospel itself.

And we see that as we read 1st Corinthians 15:16, 19.

The apostle Paul said, for if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised.

In other words, if the saints aren'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 your sins, then they also, which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

So according to the Apostle Paul, there is no Christianity at all if the saints do not rise from the dead full stop.

The only logical conclusion is atheistic materialism, hedonism, and nihilism.

Then in verses 20 through 28, Paul gives more polemic about what Christ's resurrection means against Adam's sin.

And then the reign of Christ.

Christ will rule over the whole earth and ultimately deal with his enemies.

Death will be the final enemy destroyed.

Then Paul seems to address a select group of people out of the blue in what seems to be one of the most confusing verses in the Bible.

This is the one we read first of all, and I will read it again.

1 Corinthians 15:29.

Paul says, 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?

So who are these people who are baptized for the dead?

And what does that even mean?

There are quite a few theories, and I'm going to present several that I think are the most plausible.

And there's one that I'll mention that I lean toward.

So the first theory to look at is that baptism for the dead means suffering for Christ.

This interpretation means that the baptism here is not water baptism.

And this is the interpretation that John Gill favored in his commentary.

He said, 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 Matthew 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.

So what is Matthew 20:22 that John Gill references?

It says, but Jesus answered and said, ye know not what ye ask, Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?

And they say unto him, we are Able.

So in this instance, in this verse, it seems that baptism refers to the immersion of Christ into persecution, suffering and death, just as he also mentions drink of the cup and that that reflects Jesus prayer in the garden of Gethsemane to let this cup pass from me.

I would also support this point from John Gill with Paul saying in Galatians 6:17, I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

And also in Galatians 2:20, where Paul says, I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live.

So baptism for the dead could be another way of saying take up our cross daily and follow him, but not necessarily mean that we are literally nailed to a cross and killed.

So that's one plausible interpretation and I've seen several commentaries.

Take this interpretation.

A second interpretation of baptism for the dead is a sect of Christians who baptized as a ritual over the dead.

And this seems to be the simplest explanation of the text.

Paul could have been pointing out an obscure or small, even ostracized group of people in the Church who claimed to be Christians but had adopted a strange ritual of being baptized over the corpse of a departed saint.

The word for is huper, which most literally means over or above.

So these people were being baptized over a corpse.

They were being baptized over the dead.

If some people practiced this ritual as an incorrect ritual, or if it had pagan origins, my question would be why wouldn't Paul condemn it rather than justify it by the resurrection of Jesus?

Now, if this is the correct interpretation, you know who holds this view that Paul is referring to a valid ordinance of baptism for the dead.

If you guessed the Mormons, if you guessed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, you would be correct.

The LDS Church actually interprets this verse as proof for their doctrine of proxy baptism for dead people.

And so what is their understanding of this concept of baptism for the dead?

So in Mormonism, anyone who died and failed to be baptized or never heard the Mormon Gospel would be held in what is called the Spirit Prison.

The four fundamentals of the Mormon Gospel are faith, repentance, baptism and laying out of hands.

A faithful Mormon missionary who died could go to the Spirit Prison as a missionary and preach to captives there.

So if you died without hearing or even died without believing the Mormon Gospel, you as a captive Spirit in the Spirit prison could still repent and believe.

However, baptism and laying on of hands to a Spirit in the Spirit Prison, those can't happen there.

So if a Spirit in the Spirit prison repents and believes, how do they get baptized and have hands laid on them if those are the other two necessary parts of the Gospel.

And to get out of the Spirit prison, a living Mormon could get baptized and have hands laid on in the place of a captive Spirit.

So once a Spirit in Spirit prison has obtained all four fundamentals of the Gospel, he or she will be released.

And this is the Mormon doctrine of baptism for the dead.

And they use 1 Corinthians 15:29 to support their doctrine.

Now, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that the Apostle Paul was referring to a distinct ritual baptism for the dead, but I just don't think the context or the history bears this out.

If Paul was criticizing it by mentioning it, he wasn't nullifying it.

He was only saying that it was meaningless without the resurrection.

Yet the Epistle already has many criticisms, including that people claimed special pedigree based on whether Paul, Apollos, Peter or Jesus baptized them as we see in 1 Corinthians chapter 1.

And he criticized how they handled the Lord's supper in chapter 11.

He criticized the sin of vile pagan intimacy with family members in chapter six.

So why didn't Paul criticize baptism for the dead as an incorrect ordinance if the ordinance was indeed wrong?

Now, if Paul wasn't criticizing the practice and actually endorsed endorsed it, why does it only show up obscurely in this one verse of Scripture?

Why don't we see a record or instructions for it elsewhere in the New Testament and even outside the Bible?

Why don't we see it in the Didache where I believe it's in chapter seven of it?

It's about baptism and it never mentions for the dead.

Why don't we see it in any of the early church writers?

And by the way, if the Mormon doctrine of it is true and biblical, why don't we even see it in the Book of Mormon?

In third Nephi chapter 11, Jesus Himself gives the mode and the formula for baptizing people and repeatedly emphasizes that there will be no disputations among them.

And yet even here there's not a whisper of proxy baptism or baptism for the dead.

Joseph Smith revealed that information after writing the Book of Mormon.

Again, I just don't think the Apostle Paul is addressing a ritual of proxy baptism or baptism over a dead body or in honor of someone who had passed, whether good or bad.

I could be wrong, but I'm just not convinced of any of those interpretations.

The Christian podcast community is a cohesive group of like minded Christian podcasters proclaiming the truths of Christ, truths of Christ, with expertise and passion in the areas of theology, church History, Christian living, evangelism, apologetics, parenting, homeschooling sermons, and much, much more.

So check us out@christianpodcastcommunity.org one stop for all your favorite Christian podcast.

So a third interpretation of this verse is that being baptized and never being resurrected is being baptized for their own dead selves.

So in other words, the dead are the ones being baptized.

Like baptism reflects Jesus Christ himself dying, being buried, and then being raised for the dead.

And baptism symbolizes the resurrection of the dead itself.

And so why would someone then be baptized if he himself won't be raised?

He's just being baptized for the dead himself.

In this view, Paul is basically saying that if there is no resurrection, consider yourself as good as dead dead.

That's your ultimate fate if you get baptized.

But your final fate is death.

What benefit is that baptism to you?

You're just being baptized for the dead, meaning yourselves.

And this was how John Chrysostom understood the verse in his homily 40 on First Corinthians, he said this quote, this.

Therefore Paul, recalling to their minds, said, if there be no resurrection, why are you then baptized for the dead, that is the dead bodies.

For in fact, with a view to this, are you baptized the resurrection of your dead body, believing that it no longer remains dead?

Now this seems like a perfectly reasonable interpretation to me.

If you don't believe you will be resurrected, then you're just being baptized for your own dead self.

But let's look at more interpretations.

So the fourth interpretation that I found and I have heard before is that being baptized for the dead refers to new Christians, new saints, being baptized to replace others who have passed on or who died as martyrs.

In other words, for the dead means in place of the dead.

Now what do you mean by that, Daniel?

Basically, Paul is saying, why do we continue to add new members and baptize them, knowing how many are suffering, persecution and dying?

If we don't have the hope of the resurrection that makes our faith meaningful, why bother with this constant fight against persecution?

To keep sustaining and growing and replacing the members of the church with new baptized members, replacing the dead ones if we don't have the hope of the resurrection.

So in other words, baptized for the dead means other saints who were of course baptized, they died or they were martyred.

And then now we keep adding new members and we're replacing the roles of the dead with new ones being baptized.

And John Wesley explains in his commentary of them that are just fallen in the cause of Christ, like soldiers who advance in the room of their Companions that fell just before their face, unquote.

That's from his explanatory notes on the whole Bible.

So it's like one wave of soldiers on the front lines who fall in battle, and then the next wave behind them takes their place.

So baptized for the dead means baptized to replace the dead.

And I think this interpretation is perfectly plausible, especially because the next verse would go with it.

So verse 30 says, and why stand we in jeopardy every hour?

In other words, why do we recognize that we're constantly at risk of being persecuted and killed?

So this verse would then reinforce the point of the previous verse in this interpretation.

So verse 30 kind of reinforces the point of verse 25.

Why do we keep baptizing to replace the dead?

And why do we who are newly baptized replace them?

Why do we keep facing persecution and death?

Like it's all about persecution and death?

So why do we keep allowing ourselves to die off?

Why do we keep embracing persecution and replacing the dead with new baptized saints who will eventually likely get martyred?

And we replace those with new baptized converts.

If the dead rise not, would this really be the best strategy to grow a church and win a war by sacrificing people to persecution and baptize new people to replace them?

And this is the interpretation that I have heard Dr.

James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries use.

And once again, I think it's possible that this is a true interpretation.

I think it's very likely.

But there's one more that I'd like to look at, the fifth one, and this is by no means an exhaustive list.

There are actually other interpretations of this verse, believe it or not.

But the final one I want to look at is that those who Paul is addressing who are baptized in the name of Christ, but believe the dead rise not.

So the dead baptized for the dead, the dead there is referring to Christ.

So why be baptized in the name of Christ if the dead rise not?

And you might scratch your head and say, okay, I don't know why this is convincing.

So let me give a little bit of explanation here.

Christ's resurrection and our resurrection is so intertwined in Paul's mind that to deny our resurrection is to deny Christ's resurrection.

That's what Paul says.

If there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ himself is.

Is not risen.

Therefore, if someone is baptized in the name of Jesus, but claims we won't be raised from the dead, he's being baptized for the dead because Jesus is consequently still dead.

What is baptism really all about?

Because John the Baptist baptized people into repentance for the remission of sins before Jesus was revealed as the Messiah.

Baptism was an ordinance that signified becoming a disciple of a living prophet.

It was only valid for new disciples while that prophet was living.

To be a disciple of John the Baptist would be to have been baptized by him.

At least that was the cultural expectation and understanding.

And this is what confused some Jews when some investigative reporters wanted to find out who John the Baptist was and why he was baptizing people.

So we see in John 1:25 it says, and they asked him and said unto him, why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ nor Elias, neither that prophet?

So, yes, why are you, John, baptizing people if you don't have a special ministry to make disciples after yourself?

Why are you baptizing people unto repentance, but not making them your students who would follow you around and call themselves your disciples?

Why aren't you trying to start a John the Baptist movement if you're not the Christ or Elijah who was prophesied to come again, or that prophet who was likely the unnamed one mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:18?

Why are you baptizing people?

This is not what we'd expect.

It should be some prophesied prophet who's making people disciples of himself.

And yet this was the start of the ministry of Christ in which people would baptize in his name while he was alive.

So there were people baptized in the name of Jesus before Jesus died.

As we see in John 4:1:2, it says, when therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized not but his disciples.

So Jesus disciples around him baptized people in Jesus name.

And then eventually after Jesus resurrection, he would commission his disciples to baptize in his name, even though he would ascend into heaven and be out of sight.

They would baptize in the name of one who many people believed was actually dead.

So Paul is mocking these people who claim there's no resurrection.

He's mocking them in particular and saying, why are you baptized for the dead, meaning Christ if the dead rise not, what's the point of being baptized for someone who's dead?

Now they didn't believe Christ was still dead.

But Paul made the argument that if we don't rise from the dead, then Christ is still dead.

So what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, meaning Christ if the dead rise not Matthew Henry in his commentary, he has some objection to this interpretation.

He says some understand the dead of our Savior himself.

Why are persons baptized in the name of a dead Savior, a Savior who remains among the dead, if the dead rise not.

But it is, I believe, an instance, perfectly singular, for hoi nekroi to mean no more than one dead person.

It is a signification which the words have nowhere else.

In other words, there is no other place where the dead as a plural is referring to Christ.

And the hoi baptismenoi seem plainly to mean some particular persons, not Christians in general, which yet must be the signification if the hoi nekroi, the dead, be understood of our Savior.

So, yeah, Matthew Henry has a point here.

This would be a unique instance of referring to Jesus Christ by the dead as a plural noun.

And, you know, it's a very unique instance in that those who are the baptized for the dead seem to be designated as a distinct group of people and not everyone who's baptized.

So, sure, it's a valid question for why the dead is plural if we're talking about being baptized for one person, Christ.

But I think Paul was making a category for the purpose of mockery that the ones who denied the resurrection of the dead but were baptized in the name of Jesus are those who are baptized for the dead.

Just as one might refer to a disciple of John the Baptist in a category of those who are baptized by prophets, it doesn't mean that each member was baptized by more than one prophet at once or at even separate times.

It's a category.

And I think Paul mockingly was creating a category, kind of an insult to them.

He was really after these people, starting in verse 12 and down through the rest of the chapter, like, yet you're the people who are baptized for the dead.

And Paul refers to Psalm 110, verse 1, which is the most referenced Old Testament verse in the New Testament.

And he explains how the resurrected Christ will reign until he destroys all enemies and even death itself.

Indeed, the resurrection is not only true, but it is even more true and more powerful than death.

In fact, fact, it will destroy death.

Apparently the saints won't reign with Christ or a victory over death if the resurrection isn't true, like some of these people were saying.

And after all that, it seems to me that the apostle Paul is rubbing all this doctrine in the face of those who deny the resurrection.

First, Paul mocks their baptism by saying, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?

He just talked about how Christ 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 are baptized for the dead?

What's their hope?

Where will their victory be?

Will they see Christ again if they're baptized in his name?

Will they reign with him?

What shall these people do if none of what I said will happen?

What shall they do in the grand scheme of things who are nonsensically baptized for dead messiahs?

If the dead do not rise, what's the point of being baptized for dead messiahs?

So I think that's the point that Paul is making in this interpretation.

Then Paul goes from criticizing their pointless baptism to criticizing their pointless suffering.

So Paul is like, if the resurrection and its hope of victory aren't true, why do these people get baptized for dead messiahs?

And why do we all embrace persecution?

If there is no resurrection and reward, if there's nothing after this life, why be willing to face persecution and an early painful death?

And he emphasizes this in verse 32 a little bit later.

If after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantage it me if the dead rise?

Not let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.

And that's the whole point of this passage.

If there's no resurrection for the saints, there is no basis for Christianity.

Just try to live the most comfortable life possible, compromise with the worldly powers that be.

No reason to fight anyone, no reason to risk life and limb for a gospel, no reason to make a statement with baptism.

Christianity without the resurrection of the saints is no better than atheism.

It logically amounts to materialism and nihilism.

Anyone who is baptized for the dead or faces persecution for a faith that ends in death is a fool, according to Paul.

So all this to say, I believe Paul was mocking these people who believed that the saints wouldn't be resurrected.

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 being baptized in the name of Jesus, well, mockingly, oh, those are the ones who are baptized for the dead.

They're baptized for dead messiah because Christ is still dead.

And what shall they do who are baptized for dead messiahs?

Why are they baptized for dead messiahs?

This is the interpretation that I kind of lean toward, that the dead there as a category of mockery, is referring to people being baptized in the name of Christ, but in their belief, Christ is ultimately still dead.

So they're being baptized for the dead.

Now, that doesn't mean that I'm not open to other interpretations I very much think that being baptized to replace the dead is a very close second here.

You know, who knows if I might end up adopting that one if I'm persuaded, But otherwise this last interpretation is the one that I hold to well, I hope that you've enjoyed this episode of Truth Espresso, and I hope that maybe this verse is a little less confusing with these possible explanations.

And maybe, as I have explained several interpretations to you, maybe there's one of them that seems to make sense to you.

I'm not saying find your truth and what does it mean to you?

There is one true meaning of this verse, but since it's one of those that are a little obscure, there are several interpretations that seem valid and maybe one of them makes the most sense to you.

And so I hope that this episode was helpful in that regard and that you will continue to listen to Truth Espresso and stay tuned for the next episode of Truth Espresso and God Bless.

Thank you for listening to this episode of truthspresso.

Be sure to subscribe and rate it on your favorite podcast app.

Truthspresso is a member of the Christian podcast community.

Check out other great faith building shows atchristian podcast podcastcommunity.org.