29. 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. (Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians: An
Introduction and Commentary [Tyndale New Testament Commentaries 7; London:
Inter-Varsity Press, 20180, 317)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
