theological significances of i corinthians … · theological significances of i corinthians 15:29...
TRANSCRIPT
THEOLOGICAL
SIGNIFICANCES OF
I CORINTHIANS 15:29
IN THE LIFE OF THE
CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY
BY
JOHN PRYCE-DAVIES B.A., B.D., M.Lit.St., M.Th.
A R.H.D. Thesis submitted to Griffith University in
fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of
Philosophy in December 2005
THESIS CONTENTS
Thesis Abstract and signed Certificate of Originality............................................................ 1
Introduction............................................................................................................................ 2
Section A: A Literature Review (since 1952 to 2000 AD)
1. Scholarly interpretations of I Cor 15:29 since Foschini (1952-75) ........................... 7
2. Scholarly interpretation since Foschini (1976 to present) ....................................... 20
Section B: Issues and Debates Arising
1. Bultmann’s view and reactions to it......................................................................... 32
2. Jeremias/Raeder approach and supporters against the vicarious view and reactions
to it ........................................................................................................................... 47
3. Amended wording and punctuation approach of those opposed to vicarious view.58
4. The various context approach of those in favour of the vicarious view .................. 72
5. The various context approach of those against the vicarious view.......................... 85
Section C: The Mormon Position
The Mormon literal application of the vicarious view and critiques of it ............... 99
Section D: Text and Context
1. An exegesis of I Cor 15:29 .................................................................................... 116
2. The immediate scriptural and socio-cultural context of I Cor 15:29 ..................... 128
Section E: Some Relevant Comparisons Between I Cor 15:29
and Various Scriptures and Credal Formulae.
Introductory Rationale ....................................................................................................... 145
1. Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and Extracts from Romans 148
2. Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and Other Pauline literature163
3. Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and Petrine literature.......... 173
4. Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and Credal Formulae ......... 188
Concluding Reflections...................................................................................................... 195
Appendix I - Two classifications of various interpretations (Foschini and
Thistleton) .................................................................................................................... 205
Appendix II - The usage of u9pe\r within the principle of vicariousness
and I Cor 15:29 ............................................................................................................ 223
Bibliography ...................................................................................................................... 231
1
THESIS ABSTRACT
This thesis explores the theological significances of I Cor 15:29 in the life of the
Christian community. The methodology for this exploration requires a literature review
mainly over the past half century with some historical trajectories from previous eras.
Various issues and debates arise from this review, which are critiqued along with the
Mormon position. An exegesis of the original Greek text and its immediate and wider
context allows for an exploration of the relevant comparisons of I Cor 15:29 with other
Pauline and Petrine literature as well as Credal formulae. Concluding reflections finally
distil some theological significances within the Christian Community’s life.
This work has not previously been submitted for a degree or diploma in any university.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the thesis
itself.
…………………………………………………..
J Pryce-Davies
2
INTRODUCTION
“Otherwise what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the
dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?”
NRSV (1Corinthians 15:29.)
This Thesis examines the theological significances of I Cor 15:29 in the life of the
Christian Community. As such, yet another interpretation of this variously interpreted
verse is not the object of this Thesis. Rather, the theological significances of how this
verse has functioned in the Christian Community’s life, are its primary focus.
The examination of the theological significances of I Cor 15:29 is to be achieved in the
five main sections of the Thesis with concluding reflections to follow. These five
sections and concluding reflections are like facets of a gemstone which in themselves
provide a different view on the Thesis as a whole. The five main sections of the Thesis
are:
Section A: A Literature Review (since 1952 to 2000 AD).
Section B: Issues and Debates arising.
Section C: The Mormon Position.
Section D: The Text and its Various Contexts.
Section E: Some Relevant Comparisons to I Cor 15:29
Keeping in mind that the abovementioned sections function like facets of a gemstone on
our topic, which is the Life of the Christian Community, then clearly a methodology is
required.
When defining a ‘methodology’, two authorities state in order “…orderly arrangement
of ideas…”(1) and “…a system of methods used in a particular field…” (2). In applying
these two meanings one may identify the five sections of the Thesis as the ‘system of
methods used in a particular field’ that is the Thesis topic. Within each particular
section there will be an ‘orderly arrangement of ideas’ along with that in the concluding
reflections. To apply these definitions to the task at hand then.
3
In the first section, the methodology will apply to a literature review from 1952 to
around 2000(3). If one needs to explore earlier trajectories in terms of the various
interpretations of our verse, then Appendix I has been provided. However, the past half
century gives a convenient time line for a contemporary literature review. The main
purpose here is to take note of the various theological significances in the contemporary
scene.
Issues and debates arising among these scholars will form the next stage of theological
significances in Section B of the Thesis. The methodology here is to identify the ideas
which surface in the scholarly community. Reactions to these various issues and ideas
will be critiqued in the debates. It will be noted that the ‘vicarious’ interpretation of
I Cor 15:29 is a leading issue for debate.
In the whole of the Christian Community today, there is only one Church denomination
which has actually implemented the ‘vicarious’ interpretation of this verse. In so doing,
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, more commonly known as the
‘Mormon Church’, takes the ‘vicarious view’ from the abstract to the concrete. In
Section C the Mormon position will be surveyed in terms of its theological significance
for that Church along with a critique to follow.
At this point of the Thesis, an exegesis of I Cor 15:29 will be required from its original
Greek text and also a leading English translation, the New Revised Standard Version
(1989). The theological significances will be seen through both the exegesis and the
context which follows. Our methodology in regard to the multi-faceted context will be
to concentrate on the immediate scriptural context of the verse and the wider socio-
cultural one. Thus the immediate context of the verse within Chapter 15 of I
Corinthians, will be seen to be an ad-hominem argument within a deliberative rhetorical
framework. On the other hand, the wider context of the verse, beyond its immediate
scriptural one, will require a survey of the socio-cultural context that was first century
Corinth.
The fifth section or facet of the Thesis topic will require making comparisons of other
examples of scriptural and credal materials of relevance to I Cor 15:29. In undertaking
such a task, one is seeking not to posit any direct influence of one upon the other as our
4
methodology used can at best only indicate indirect parallels of thought. Therefore, an
exegesis of various New Testament examples in texts from the Pauline, Deutero-Pauline
and Petrine Corpuses will be followed by Credal materials. The main purpose overall
will be to see how I Cor 15:29 has, with these interesting parallels of comparison,
functioned in both the Pauline(4) and Petrine Church Communities of the early Church.
Credal formulae parallels bring the early church period to a close.
Finally, the Thesis has some concluding reflections which will present a further facet on
the Thesis topic.
Thus, in all of the above, the Thesis itself as articulated in its topic, will be seen to be
the gemstone examined through its various facets.
5
FOOTNOTES
(1) Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1951) O.U.P. Oxford, 749.
(2) Oxford Paperback Dictionary and Thesaurus (2001) O.U.P N.Y. 562. (3) ‘Around’ is used here advisedly since some authors go just beyond 2000. (4) The distinction between ‘Pauline’ and ‘Deutero-Pauline’ books will be
delineated in the last section
6
THESIS SECTION A:
LITERATURE REVIEW
1) Scholarly Interpretations of I Cor 15:29 since Foschini
(1952 – 1975)
2) Scholarly interpretations of I Cor 15:29 since Foschini
(1976 – 2000)
7
A (1) Scholarly Interpretations of I Cor 15:29 since Foschini
(1952 – 1975)
8
The next two chapters seek to lay the foundations for the thesis by noting the various
scholarly opinions over the past half century since Foschini’s monumental work of
1950-51, as outlined in the last chapter. There are two main periods within this
approximate 50 years down to contemporary times (1952-75 and 1976-2000), as will be
indicated in the two chapter divisions of this section of the thesis.
The purpose of surveying these commentators on the interpretation of I Cor 15:29 is to
set the scholarly context for various issues and debates arising from the significant
number of commentaries and journal articles published over the past fifty years since
Foschini’s seminal work. In this chapter and the next only brief reference will be given
to those scholars who will be dealt with in more detail in the next section of the thesis..
AG Moseley
Writing just after Foschini in 1952, A G Moseley in an article entitled “Baptised for the
Dead”(1) proposes a
strong probability that Paul was here referring to the baptism of believers in its
symbolism of death, burial and resurrection.(2)
He then states his grounds for such a view as being these:
1) The argument from the history of the practice;
2) The argument from the context in which the passage is found;
3) The argument from the dilemma questions that arise;
4) The argument from ‘hyper’, the preposition used;
5) The argument from the general trend of New Testament truth.(3)
Moseley then goes on to elaborate his case along these five lines of argument. In the
first of these arguments, Moseley posits that
it is reasonable to infer that a later misinterpretation of Paul’s words would lead to
a proxy practice that was condemned by Epiphanius and Chrysostom.(4)
Secondly, in regard to the context, Moseley identifies this in two ways. Prior to verse
29, the commencing word “else” (or ‘otherwise’) links it back with vv12-13 and the
connection of baptism with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. He then poses
the question
Since the climactic element in death, burial and resurrection is the resurrection,
why go on symbolizing in baptism these three elements if the dead are not raised
9
and thus the climactic element is missing?(5)
Harking back to v14 where Paul states the futility of his preaching if Christ is not raised,
Moseley then links this with v30 and then poses another question (on Paul’s behalf):
Why do we (I and my fellow workers) stand in jeopardy (of imprisonment or
death) every hour, by going on with this Gospel ministry of which the resurrection
is so vital a part?(6)
It is of interest to note at this point that he uses the same word ‘jeopardy’ as Foschini
did also of verse 30, in a similar line of argument at this point. The location of v29 in a
similar context to that already cited by Foschini(7) and to be cited by others to come, is a
significant confluence of their thinking. Moseley elaborates further this ‘jeopardy’
context in his next line of argument or his two dilemma questions. These two questions
are: “What shall they do who are being baptized for the dead?” and “Why stand we in
jeopardy every hour?”(8) In regard to the first of these Moseley comments that the
dilemma here is not one for the dead so much as for those being baptized.(9) Like
Foschini, Moseley sees the baptism being spoken of here as benefiting the living and
not the dead. In the case of the second dilemma, Moseley reiterates the Apostle’s words
in the verses 13-14 about the futility of their proclamation if there be no resurrection of
the dead.
Moseley’s fourth line of argument rotates around his translation of the Greek
preposition used, namely ‘upe\r After discussing various options he proposes that it be
translated as “concerning, with regard to, touching”.(10) He then goes on to incorporate
this meaning in verse 29 as follows:
What shall they do that are baptized with reference to the dead? If the dead are
not raised at all, why then are they being baptized with reference to them?(11)
The main problem with his translation is that he admits he has to use a meaning related
to another similar Greek preposition peri, which is used in “a number of instances”
(e.g. Rm 7:27; II Cor 1:8; I Thess 3:2; II Thess 2:1). However in citing these, Moseley
is forced also to admit earlier that: “In the New Testament use of hyper (u9pe\r) its most
general translation is ‘in behalf of” or its equivalents”.(12) His variant translation
therefore suffers from his own subjectivity.
Moseley concludes his article with his fifth argument along the lines of the “general
10
trend of New Testament truth”.(13) In essence his objection to proxy baptism on behalf
of the dead is stated as:
It violates the competency of the individual soul before God and ignores
completely the New Testament doctrine of salvation through personal repentance
towards God and faith in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.(14)
At the beginning and end of his article he takes strong issue with the Mormon view and
practices of proxy baptism for the dead.(15) Overall Moseley typifies a more
conservative approach to the interpretation of this verse with a distinct unwillingness to
concede to the usual meaning of the crucial preposition υπερ.
A more open approach by contrast to that of Moseley would be taken by such scholars
as Bultmann, Jeremias and Raeder in Germany as their work was published in English
by the mid-fifties. A further examination of their approach will be undertaken in the
next section of the thesis.
E Stauffer
As an example of one German scholar not to be treated later there is Stauffer who states:
...in I Cor 15:29 Paul pre-supposes that the potency of intercessory baptism for the
dead reaches even to Sheol and there benefits men who in this mortal life have not
been sealed with the name of Christ.(16)
A Richardson
The English theologian Richardson writing in the late fifties presents a similar view to
Stauffer, as follows:
It may be added that no entirely satisfactory explanation has ever been found for
the reference of baptizing for the dead in I Cor 15:29 – apparently a practice of
baptizing by proxy on behalf of someone who had died. Perhaps in view of the
N.T. evidence that the faith of a sponsor was considered to avail for a person – an
infant or an epileptic – who could not answer for himself, it was the custom to
baptize by proxy on behalf of the catechumen who had died before he could be
baptized.(17)
Richardson’s explanation offered here, whilst conjectural, as he himself concedes, does
at least try to make sense of an otherwise inexplicable verse.(18)
11
Other Scholars in the Sixties
Moving on into the 1960’s there is an ever increasing number of articles and
commentators on the issue of the interpretation of I Cor 15:29. Among those scholars
who will be dealt with it in depth in the next section are the following Beasley-Murray
(1962); Rissi (1962); Thompson (1964); Schnackenburg (1964); Howard (1965); Hurd
(1965) and Joyce (1965).(19)
H Schauerte
In 1960 two articles appeared with their own distinctive slant on our topic.(20)
Schauerte’s gave some indications of its particular scope being (in translation from the
German) “The Baptism of the Dead” = Die Totentaufe. This article reported that in
certain places the custom of baptizing the dead, especially new born (stillborn) infants,
continued into the 18th and 19th centuries.(21) One suspects that this practice still
continues today probably out of pastoral compassion, but strictly speaking it is
somewhat irregular. However this particular article is strictly not relevant since the
preposition “of” in this context has a totally different application to that of “for” and
they should not be confused.
E Lussier
More to the point is the second of these two articles by Lussier, which seeks to establish
two supports for the doctrine of Purgatory. These are I Cor 3: 10-17, the parable of the
builders and I Cor 15:29 baptism for the dead. Both of these together are viewed by this
writer as implying some satisfaction after the judgment, which is equivalently what is
meant by Purgatory.(22) This is not the time or place to debate this writer’s argument on
this point so much as to note how he applies his interpretation of I Cor 15:29.
J Hering
In an effort to change the vocabulary of the verse Hering in his commentary of 1962
suggests: “We should like to think that the apostle dictated ‘pistenousin (what) do they
believe’ who are baptized for the dead, a verb which might easily have been corrupted
to ‘poiesousin (what) shall they do’ ”.(23) But of course this suggestion is only Hering’s
personal preference and has no textual support whatsoever.
12
G Deluz
Deluz briefly examines the implication of belief or otherwise in the resurrection in the
light of baptism for the dead and the various ways this practice has been interpreted.
He writes:
The first consequence is that, baptism for the dead becomes absurd if we deny the
resurrection. We know nothing at all about the practice of ‘baptism for the dead’
and the verse in which is mentioned is one of the most obscure in the whole of the
New Testament.(24)
He then goes on to survey the range of interpretations of this verse and states that there
are at least thirty different explanations of this phrase. He continues and gives a few
examples:
According to Tertullian the early church carried out a kind of baptism by deputy; a
living Christian would have himself baptized in place of one who had died without
baptism on the dead, i.e. on the tombs of the martyrs. Others think the question is
ironical. ‘If there is no resurrection why do these people have themselves
baptized. They are going to end up as dead men’. As for Godet, he thinks it might
have been a baptism, not of water but of blood, the baptism of martyrdom. ‘If
there is no resurrection, what will the martyrs gain by undertaking their baptism
by blood by joining the ranks of the dead’.(25)
Deluz is not satisfied with any of the above explanations but returns to his original
starting point that without belief in the resurrection, baptism for the dead is an
absurdity.(26)
ME Thrall
Thrall tends to support the viewpoint of Deluz when he observes:
Various aspects of the Christian life make no sense if there is no resurrection.
Why do some people receive baptism on behalf of the dead? It is uncertain what
this practice was. Perhaps some members of the congregation underwent further
baptism on behalf of friends and relatives who had received instruction in the
Christian faith but had died before they had themselves baptized. If there was to
be no real future existence, how could they possible benefit in any way at all?(27)
13
D Murphy
Murphy, an Australian scholar, disagrees with both the vicarious view of baptism for
the dead of Deluz and of Thrall. He prefaces his remarks by observing at least forty
different explanations for the verse and difficulty in interpreting its meaning, but goes
on:
From what he says about baptism elsewhere we know that Paul would not approve
a vicarious reception of the sacrament; consequently some think that he is merely
arguing from a Corinthian practice with which he did not really agree. However,
there is possibility that the text does not refer to real baptism at all.(28)
Murphy does not indicate further this last statement’s claim nor does he substantiate
why and where one may find evidence of Paul’s disapproval of vicarious baptism.
Given that Paul frequently stated his opposition to other practices which he disapproved
of at Corinth, it is odd that he doesn’t actually state his disapproval here. So Murphy’s
view is largely speculative.
JH Wilson
Wilson in his article concerned with those Corinthians who denied the resurrection(29)
presents his variant view as follows:
In verse 29 Paul is theoretically again on common ground with his Corinthian
opponents. It is they who undergo baptism u9pe\r τω=n nekrw=n and he employs
their own practice – without approving it – to make his point. If being baptized on
behalf of the dead means the semi-magical act whereby the dead obtain the same
benefits as would living participants.(30)
Wilson alludes to the ad hominem usage by Paul of this practice for his argument. In
my opinion he is incorrect in assuming those who practiced this rite were opponents of
Paul. There is clearly more motivation to be baptized for the dead if one believes in life
beyond death. Hence these persons should be seen to be supporting belief in the
resurrection than being opposed to it as Wilson states above. To become baptized for
another requires more motivation than purely the rite itself alone or alternatively out of
concern for one’s deceased relatives and friends.
The First Half of the Seventies
14
The half decade (1970-75 inclusive) was to witness a number of commentaries along
with journal articles, some of which will be dealt with in the next section of the thesis.
For this concluding part of this approximate twenty-five year review the following main
commentators will be surveyed CK Barrett (1971), FF Bruce (1971) and H Conzelmann
(1975). Minor ones including FM Robertson (1973), F Salvone (1973) and GE Ladd
(1974)(31) will be just mentioned at this point since they don’t add any new insights.
CK Barrett
Barrett outlines his position as follows:
The idea of vicarious baptism (which is most naturally suggested by the words
used) is usually bound up with what some would call a high sacramental, others a
magical view of baptism. Immersion in water is supposed to operate so
effectively that it matters little (it seems) what body is immersed. The immersion
of a living body can secure benefits to a dead man (at any rate, a dead
catechumen).(32)
Barrett goes on then to disassociate Paul with this view but also acknowledges there
would have been people who died unbaptized, even though Christian.(33) He continues:
But baptism was a powerful proclamation of death and resurrection, and in this
setting it was not impossible to conceive of a rite practiced, it may be, only once –
which Paul, though he evidently took no steps to establish it as normal Christian
usage, need not actively have disapproved, and what would be the sense of it, if
the dead are not raised?(34)
Barrett’s clear and concise presentation of the main aspects of the vicarious view along
with Paul’s ad hominem approach is to be commended.
FF Bruce
In the same year Barrett published his commentary Bruce also published his. Bruce
commences his comments on this verse by admitting that the ‘prima facie’ meaning of
these words “points to a practice of baptism by proxy”.(35) However he then rules out
such a practice for unbelieving friends, which was the case later with the Marcionites
and Gnostic groups.(36) However Bruce will allow for the practice rendered on behalf of
believing friends, who have died unbaptized perhaps during an epidemic. Under these
conditions, Bruce feels that it may have been mentioned by Paul
15
...in passing in an ad hominem argument with neither practice or blame. The
reference has been explained by analogy with the practice of praying for the dead,
commended in II Maccabees 12:39-45.(37)
However for Bruce this analogy is “too distant to be convincing”.(38) Soon afterwards
Bruce alludes to his own position on this issue as being the “only serious alternative
interpretation”.(39) After commending Raeder’s article and approach, he posits:
It is just possible to understand ‘on behalf of the dead’ in this way, which is free
from the theological difficulties attaching to proxy baptism. Whether ‘the dead’
are those on whose behalf others are vicariously baptized, or departed Christians
with whom their friends desire to be re-united, the baptism is pointless, says Paul
‘if the dead are not raised at all’: in the former contingency, vicarious baptism can
do the dead no good; in the latter, there is no hope of reunion in any case – for
Paul does not think of immortality or survival after death apart from
resurrection.(40)
Clearly Bruce prefers the Jeremias/Raeder ‘solution’ in his attempts to be free from the
theological difficulties of proxy baptism.
H Conzelmann
The great German New Testament scholar, Hans Conzelmann presents a thoroughgoing
approach. His commentary on I Corinthians was published in English in 1975.(41) After
admitting this verse to be one of the “most hotly disputed passages in the epistle”,(42)
Conzelmann states his own position at the outset: “The wording is in favour of the
‘normal’ exposition in terms of ‘vicarious baptism’ ”.(43) He elaborates this further as:
…in Corinth living people have themselves vicariously baptized for dead people,
Paul does not criticize the custom, but makes use of it for his argument. This
custom once again shows the sacramentalism prevailing in Corinth.(44)
Conzelmann then goes on to note that Paul’s citing of this custom is an important
argument against the presumption that he has misunderstood the Corinthian position.(45)
On the contrary, he believes Paul to be well informed on the Corinthians views and
practices and therefore does not accept that the Corinthians would believe that death is
the end of everything. Rather Paul is surprised at the inconsistency of the Corinthians
who state no resurrection on the one hand, yet on the other who practice vicarious
baptism. Paul therefore desires the Corinthians to “reflect on the consequences of your
custom”.(46)
16
Conzelmann raises the issue of taking the final sense of the meaning of the crucial
preposition u9pe\r, meaning “for the sake of”. He then re-iterates his view that the
wording demands a vicarious baptism interpretation for it is “idle to dispute that a
magical view of the sacraments prevails at Corinth”.(47) Conzelmann then cites Rissi(48)
in support of the latter’s vicarious view, but he disagrees with Rissi’s non-sacramental
approach,(49)
We will have occasion to take note of Conzelmann’s views on this issue as they are
applied to critique other scholars in the next section of the thesis. This third quarter of
the past century (1950-75) shows some remarkable developments in the interpretation
of I Cor 15:29 since Foschini. The final quarter of the last century to be reviewed in the
next chapter was to be equally significant because it also provides a spectrum of opinion
on this verse.
17
FOOTNOTES
1. Moseley, AG “Baptised for the Dead” (in) “The Review and Expositor” Vol
XLIX, (Jan 1952), 57-61.
2. ibid., 57.
3. ibid., 57-8.
4. ibid., 58.
5. ibid., 59.
6. ibid.
7. Foschini, BM “Those baptized for the dead: I Corinthians 15:29: an exegetical
historical dissertation” (5 articles) (in) Catholic Bible Quarterly (1951), (3rd
article), 283.
8. Moseley, op. cit., 59.
9. ibid.
10. ibid., 60.
11. ibid., 61.
12. op. cit., 60.
13. op. cit., 61.
14. ibid.
15. op. cit., and ibid., 57, 61.
16. Stauffer, E “New Testament Theology” (1955), SCM, London, 273.
17. Richardson, A “An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament” (1958),
SCM, London, 346.
18. ibid.
19. Beasley-Murray, GR “Baptism in the New Testament” (1962), Macmillan,
London; Rissi, M “Die Taufe fur die Toten” (1962), Verlag, Zurich; Thompson,
KC “ I Corinthians 15:29 at the Baptism for the Dead” (1964), Acadamie Verlag,
Berlin; Schnackenburg, R “Baptism in the Thought of St Paul” (1964 ET),
Blackwell, Oxford; Howard, JK “Baptism for the Dead: a Study of I Cor 15:29”
(in) Evangelical Quarterly 37 (1965), 137-41; Hurd, JC “The Origin of I
Corinthians” (1965), SPCK, London; Joyce, JD “Baptism on behalf of the dead;
an interpretation of I Cor 15:29-34” (in) Encounter 26 (2 ’65).
20. Schauerte, H “Die Toten-Taufe” (in) Theologische Glauben 51, (3, 1960), 210-14;
Lussier, E “The Biblical Theology on Purgatory” (in) the American Ecclesiastical
18
Review (4, 1960), 225-33.
21. Schauerte, op. cit., 210-14
22. Lussier, E, op. cit., 225-33
23. Hering, J “The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians” (1962), Epworth, London,
171.
24. Deluz, G “A Companion to I Corinthians” (1963), Darton & Longman & Todd,
London, 239.
25. ibid.
26. ibid.
27. Thrall, ME “The First and Second Letters of Paul to the Corinthians” (1965),
University Press, Cambridge, 109-10.
28. Murphy, D “The Apostle of Corinth” (1966), Campion Press, Melbourne, 227.
29. Wilson, JH “The Corinthians Who Say There is No Resurrection” (in) Zeitschrift
fur Neuentestamentlicher Wissenschaft 59 (1968), 90-107.
30. ibid., 105.
31. Barrett, CK “A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (2nd ed)
(1971), A & C Black, London; Bruce FF “I & II Corinthians” (1971), Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids; Robertson, FM “The Epistles to the Corinthians” (1973),
Macmillan, New York; Salvoni, F “Il battesimo per I morti” (I Cor 15:29) (in)
Ricerche Bibliche e Religiose, 8, (4,’73), Milan, 7-17; Ladd, GE “A Theology of
the New Testament” (1974), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
32. Barrett, op. cit., 364
33. ibid.
34. ibid.
35. Bruce, FF “I & II Corinthians” (1971), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 148.
36. ibid.
37. ibid., 148-9. In this last reference to 2 Maccabees, Bruce cites E Stauffer’s “N.T.
Theology” (1955), 299.
38. ibid., 149.
39. ibid.
40. ibid.
41. Conzelmann, H “I Corinthians” (1975), Fortress, Philadelphia.
42. ibid., 275.
43. His parentheses here, i.e. around these two expressions.
19
44. op. cit., 275.
45. Contra Bultmann’s view on this point. More details in the Section on Bultmann.
46. ibid., 276.
47. ibid.
48. Rissi, M “Die Taufe fur die Toten” (1962), Zwingli Verlag, Zurich.
49. Rissi’s “Significatory” view of baptism is in Conzelmann’s view neither
Corinthian, nor Pauline, but Barthian N (123), 277.
20
A (2) Scholarly interpretations of I Cor 15:29 since Foschini
(1976 – 2000)
21
The last quarter of the twentieth century was to continue to witness an increasing
number of commentators on I Cor 15:29 either in commentaries or journal articles.
Most of the following list of scholars will be surveyed in the next section of the thesis.
These(1) include WF Orr & JA Walther (1976); J Murphy-O’Connor (1978 inter alia);
JC O’Neill (1980); ASM Wedderburn (1982); VC Pfitzner (1982); G Theissen (1982);
J Downey (1985); G Fee (1987); B Witherington (1995); JD Reaume (1995); RE De
Maris (1996); DG Horrell (1996); R Bieringer (1996); JR White (1997); RA Horsley
(1998); RA Campbell (1999) and AC Thistleton (2000). These represent a plethora of
scholarly opinion as will be observed in due course. As in the last chapter only those
scholars not treated in the next section will be surveyed in this chapter, following in a
chronological order.
J Ruef
Ruef in his 1977 commentary states:
Paul neither approves nor disapproves of the practice. Clearly it was condemned
eventually and survived only among some of the heretical sects. It is upon this
verse that Bultmann bases his claim that Paul has misunderstood the Corinthian
statement: “There is no resurrection of the dead.” It is clear from this verse that
the Corinthians were concerned for the dead as were the Thessalonians whom Paul
admonishes not to ‘sorrow for the dead as those who have no hope’ (I Thes
4:13).(2)
Ruef’s reference to Bultmann’s view will be taken up in the following section of the
thesis and be also critiqued. His reference to the heretical sects who took up this
practice indicates the Marcionites of the late second century and this will also be
examined in the next section.
MA Getty
Getty’s (1983) approach is as follows:
Having shown the absurdity of the Corinthian hypothesis in contrast to the
obvious validity of his own convictions, Paul resorts to ‘ad hominem’ arguments.
He begins by asking what would be the point of some of the Corinthian
themselves if Christ is not raised….If the dead are not raised, the custom
apparently popular at Corinth, of being baptized for the dead is absurd.(3)
Getty highlights the implications of unbelief in the resurrection.
22
TF Macarthur
At the outset Macarthur (4) makes his position abundantly clear:
We can be sure, for example, that it does not teach vicarious or proxy baptism for
the dead, as claimed by ancient Gnostic heretics such as Marcion and by the
Mormon church today. Paul did not teach that a person who has died can be
saved, or helped in any way, by another person’s being baptized on their behalf(5).
He then continues to rule out ‘baptismal regeneration’ as ‘unscriptural’(6) and that the
idea of ‘vicarious baptismal regeneration’ is ‘still removed further from biblical truth’(7).
Having delineated his limits on the role of baptism in the process of regeneration either
for the living or the dead much less, Macarthur then tentatively puts forward his own
view. Thus he suggests that
we could guess that Paul may have simply been saying that people were being
saved (baptism being the sign) because of the exemplary lives and witness of
faithful believers who had died. Whether this is the right interpretation of this
verse we cannot be certain…(8)
Macarthur therefore in his opinion seems to retreat a little from his earlier dogmatic
statements about what this verse does not mean. In many ways Macarthur typifies the
position held by the American fundamentalist wing of evangelicalism in that country
both then and since.
L Morris
In somewhat sharp contrast the Australian scholar Leon Morris takes a more open
minded approach and at the same time illustrates the diversity of evangelical thinking
around the world. In commenting upon our verse in his Commentary of 1985, Morris
states at the outset that the “most natural” way to understand these words is to see it as a
reference to ‘vicarious baptism’.(9) He observes
It is perhaps significant that, while Paul does not stop to condemn that practice of
which he speaks here, he disassociates himself from it (what will those do? (i.e.
v29) contrast ‘why do we endanger ourselves?’ (v30).(10)
After then alluding to the practice of vicarious baptism as attested by the Fathers citing
Marcionite practices he observes:
But the practice is not known from the first century, nor from the orthodox.
23
Strange things happened at Corinth, but perhaps this is too strange for Corinth.(11)
He then briefly surveys other more contemporary interpretations including that of
Jeremias/Raeder he concludes:
There is little point in canvassing even the more plausible suggestions. The
language points to vicarious baptism. If we reject this we are left to conjecture.(12)
This appears to be a balanced position to take.
JJ Kilgallen
Kilgallen’s (1987) commentary subtitled “an introduction and study guide”(13) gives the
reader some idea of his approach at the very outset. He offers a novel idea in
interpreting the text in these terms:
The idea behind this practice seems to have been this, that Christ’s coming at a
certain time in history surely did not cut off from the chance of salvation those
who died just a few days or months or years before Jesus did, or just a short time
before the preaching about him came to that town: (such too was the thinking
behind the idea that Jesus after his death and before his appearance to the women
at the tomb, visited the underworld to free all the friends of God from Adam to the
time of the Resurrection: time should not work against the offer of salvation).(14)
His main point and associated incident which gave rise to the Credal affirmation “he
descended to the dead”(15) is easily overlooked. The final reminder that “time should
not work against the offer of salvation” is salutary at this point and will be investigated
further on in the ‘comparisons’ section of the thesis.
CH Talbert
Talbert’s commentary on both Corinthian epistles at the end of the eighties decade aims
to be a ‘literary and theological commentary’.(16) Talbert introduces his comments on
I Cor 15:29 with references to the patristic authors dealing with this subject including
Tertullian, Chrysostom, Epiphanius and Philaster and then indicates from their writings
that: “there is no assurance that the practice was as early as the first century”.(17) He
then feels that this text is better understood in connection with Rom 6:5 and I Pet 1:3
which in turn express the ideas of being united with Christ, through baptism in his death
and resurrection. There is also the idea that believers’ bodies were immersed in a sure
hope of the resurrection.(18) So understood, Talbert puts forward his translation of I Cor
15:29 as:
24
Otherwise (i.e. if there is not a future resurrection) what will those being baptized
accomplish for the corpses? If corpses are not raised at all, why are they being
baptized for them?(19)
Ultimately Talbert ascribes his translation here to the Greek Fathers where “corpses
refer to the bodies of people being baptized”(20) and he espouses the views of
Thompson to be outlined in the next section’s chapter on alternative wording and
punctuation. A critique of Thompson’s view applies equally here as well.
N Watson
In the early nineties, N Watson (1992) wrote his brief commentary(21) where, after
alluding to the most common reading of the text being the vicarious view he states:
The problem about this reading of the text is that it would seem to stand in
complete contradiction with Paul’s repeated insistence elsewhere on the need of a
faith which is assumed to be a faith of one’s own.(22)
However having stated this reservation, Watson observes that Paul accepts whatever the
practice was and uses it as an ‘argumentum ad hominem’ for resurrection belief. In this
he aligns himself with Barrett, Morris and Bruce,(23) as seen already.
SV Kistemaker
In 1993, SV Kistemaker published his expositional commentary in I Corinthians in
which he candidly admits: “In spite of all the exegesis, a satisfactory solution appears to
be elusive”.(24) However he does at least outline seven of the various attempts to clarify
the text. These also include his criticisms of each and are abbreviated as follows:(25)
1. Living members of the church were baptized vicariously for those believers
who had died but had not received the sacrament of baptism.
(His criticism) But what is the point of this practice (and) what will they gain
by being baptized by proxy?
2. The Greek preposition ‘hyper = for’ in the phrase ‘for the dead’ is interpreted
to mean ‘above the graves of the dead’.
(His criticism)…Vicarious baptism for the dead requires us to think of the
Corinthian’s faith in baptism as magical at worst[sic] or mechanical at best….
3. Unbelievers sympathetic towards Christians who had died requested baptism
on behalf of the dead and then expected to be in their company at the
resurrection (Robertson, Plummer, Raeder, Jeremias and Howard).
25
(His criticism) The question remains whether these baptismal candidates
expressed faith in Jesus Christ.
4. The phrase ‘baptized for the dead’ echoes a similar phrase ‘praying for the
dead’ (see II Macc 12:40 and Stauffer).
(His criticism) But the teaching of Christ and the apostles never include
prayers for the dead.
5. The literal interpretation of the word ‘baptized’ is replaced by a
metaphor…The text should then read “being baptized by experiencing death”.
(His criticism) I think that this interpretation veers away from the message of
the text.
6. Catechumens who were at the point of death asked for baptism.
(His criticism) The problem is that this interpretation of the Greek preposition
‘hyper’ is contrived.
7. As a last resort, conjectures are suggested….
(His criticism) Conjectures; however, are highly subjective and should be
regarded as nothing more than suggestions. Indeed we would be better off to
admit that the text is unclear and non-communicative than to accept a
superficial hypothesis…
After some further brief comments Kistemaker concludes with his own view:
What is the meaning of this verse? Even though many scholars suggest a literal
interpretation of this verse as vicarious baptism, the objections are formidable. In
all humility I confess that the sense of the text escapes me: verse 29 is a
mystery.(26)
We may admire Kistemaker’s candidness and humility in revealing his own limitations
in advancing an interpretation of his own. He seems better able to critique the views of
others especially the greater majority of scholarly opinion on the subject. At least he
has summarised in brief the leading options for interpretation up to the early nineties.
K Quast
In the mid nineties, K Quast (1994) wrote his introductory commentary on the
Corinthian correspondence.(27) Quast observes the difficulties interpreting this verse
and notes that:
26
For good reason, the Christian Church has not perpetuated the practice that some
Christians had apparently observed.(28)
He then goes on to admit that the most natural reading of the text suggests some were
baptizing by proxy for the sake of those who had already died.(29) After discussing
various other alternatives Quast comes down on the side of the “ad hominem” view
when he sums up by saying:
In any case, Paul neither condemns nor condones ‘baptism on behalf of the dead’,
he simply points out that even the practice of some in Corinth betrays a hope for
the body after death, without a physical resurrection, a bodily baptism is
meaningless.(28)
On the way through to his conclusion stated above Quast critiques the interpretation
encountered above in other writers, namely “the dead” means “nothing more than the
dead body” but counters this line of thought:
While this interpretation removes the theological difficulties of v29, it hardly does
justice to Paul’s choice of words. Nowhere else does he use the adjective “dead”
as a synonym for the physical body.(29)
T Engberg-Pedersen, JDG Dunn and DB Martin
In the year 1995 there were three commentators on I Cor 15:29, these being T Engberg-
Pedersen, JDG Dunn and D B Martin.(30) As far as Engberg-Pedersen is concerned,
Paul “can be remarkably tolerant, condoning even baptism for the dead”,(31) whilst Dunn
feels baptism for the dead could “possibly be related to social prestige”.(32) Martin
comments that “the practice itself seems to suggest that the Corinthians believed in
some sort of afterlife for their dead loved ones”.(33)
K Bieringer
Another publication coming from the mid nineties is K Bieringer’s (1996) “The
Corinthian Correspondence”.(34) This work is actually a symposium with a number of
essays of which Bieringer is the editor. As such it represents a collection of essays
mostly in English with some in other European languages including German. Perhaps
the most relevant of all the various essays was C M Tuckett’s article entitled “No
Resurrection of the Dead” (I Cor 15:12).(35) Whilst this essay is not on our thesis verse,
it does enter into the debate as to whether those who practiced vicarious baptism
27
actually denied survival beyond death(36) to be dealt with further in the next section of
the thesis.
This brings this particular survey to a close, keeping in mind the other contributors cited
at the commencement of this chapter will be dealt with in the next section. Conversely
not much further comment will be given on those commentators mentioned in this
chapter.
However the fifty year period introduced by Foshini’s monumental work was to prove
productive of a variety of approaches to the interpretation of I Cor 15:29. In “show-
casing” these various interpretations over the past couple of chapters one gains a better
appreciation of the great variety on the one hand and yet the similarities in the key
issues being thrown up. These key issues which take the form of debates and reactions
to the various leading scholars will be the main concern of the next section of the thesis.
Once the key issues and debates have been surveyed and critiqued it is then possible to
operate within a scholarly context. This in turn sets the scene for an exegesis of this text
in due course.
28
FOOTNOTES
1. Further details on the following scholars cited in this reference are as follows:
i. Orr, WF and Walther, JA “I Corinthians” (1976), (Anchor Bible), Doubleday,
NY.
ii. Murphy-O’Connor, J “Baptised for the Dead (I Cor XV: 29) A Corinthian
Slogan? (in) Revue Biblique 88 (1981), 532-543. (inter alia includes other
works published by this theologian, examined in the next section of the thesis).
iii. O’Neill, JC “I Cor 15:29” (in) Expository Times 91 (1980), 310.
iv. Wedderburn, ASM “The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in I Cor
XV” (in) Novum Testamentum 23 (1981), 229-241.
v. Pfitzner, VC “First Corinthians” (1982), Lutheran Publishing House, Adelaide.
vi. Theissen, G “The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays in Corinth”
(1982), Fortress, Philadelphia.
vii. Downey, J “I Cor 15:29 and the Theology of Baptism” (in) Euntes Docete,
Rome, 38 (1,’85).
viii. Fee, G “I Corinthians” (1987), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
ix. Witherington B “Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on I & II Corinthians” (1995), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
x. Reaume, JD “Another Look at I Cor 15:29, Baptized for the Dead” (in) Biblica
Sacra 152 (1995), 457-475.
xi. De Maris, RE “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (I Cor 15:29):
Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology” (in) Journal of Biblical
Literature 114 (4,’95), 661-682.
xii. Horrell, DG “The Social Ethics of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interest and
Ideology from I Corinthians to I Clement” (1996), T & T Clark, Edinburgh.
xiii. Bieringer, R (Ed) “The Corinthian Correspondence” (1996), University Press,
Leuven (Louvain) Belgium.
xiv. White, JR “Baptized on Account of the Dead: The Meaning of I Corinthians
15:29 in its Context” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997), 489-499.
xv. Horsley, RA “I Corinthians” (1998), Abingdon, Nashville.
xvi. Campbell, RA “Baptism and Resurrection” (in) The Australian Biblical
Review 47 (1999), 43-52.
xvii. Thistleton, AC “The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a Commentary on the
29
Greek Text” (2000), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
2. Ruef, J “Paul’s First Letter to Corinth” (1977), SCM, London, 168.
3. Getty, MA “First and Second Corinthians” (1983), Liturgical Press, Collegeville,
Minnesota, 73.
4. Macarthur, JF “First Corinthians” (1984), Moody Bible Institute, Chicago.
5. ibid., 425.
6. ibid.
7. ibid.
8. ibid.
9. Morris, L “I Corinthians” (1985), (2nd Ed), Intervarsity Press, Leicester, 214.
10. ibid.
11. ibid., 215.
12. ibid.
13. Kilgallen, JJ “First Corinthians: and Introduction and Study Guide” (1987),
Paulist, NY.
14. ibid., 135.
15. Apostle’s Creed.
16. Talbert, CH “Reading Corinthians: a Literary and Theological Commentary on
I and II Corinthians” (1989), Crossroad, NY.
17. ibid., 99.
18. ibid.
19. ibid.
20. ibid.
21. Watson, N “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1992), Epworth, London.
22. ibid., 171.
23. ibid., 172.
24. Kistemaker, SJ “Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1993), Baker,
Grand Rapids, 558.
25. ibid., 559-560.
26. ibid., 560.
27. Quast, K “Reading the Corinthian Correspondence: an Introduction” (1994),
Paulist Murweh, NJ.
28. ibid., 93.
29. ibid.
30
30. i Engberg-Pedersen, T “Paul in his Hellenistic Context” (1995), Fortress,
Minneapolis.
ii Dunn, JDG “I Corinthians” (1995), Academic Press, Sheffield.
iii Martin, DB “The Corinthian Body” (1995), Yale University Press, New
Haven, Conn, 107.
31. Engberg-Pedersen, T, op. cit., 107.
32. Dunn, JDG, op. cit., 84.
33. Martin, DB, op. cit., 107.
34. Bieringer, K op. cit.
35. ibid. Bieringer, Tuckett’s essay is on 268-275.
36. Ibid.
31
THESIS SECTION B:
ISSUES AND DEBATES
1) Bultmann’s view and reactions to it.
2) Jeremias/Raeder approach and its supporters against the
Vicarious View and reactions to it.
3) Amended Wording and Punctuation approach of those
apposed to the Vicarious View.
4) The various contexts approach of those in favour of the
Vicarious View.
5) The various contexts approach of those against the
Vicarious View.
32
B (1) Bultmann’s view and reactions to it.
33
Bultmann’s View on I Cor 15:29
Rudolf Bultmann's “Theology of the New Testament” in 2 volumes was published in
German in 1951 and translated into English 1952 and 1955. In the first of these
volumes, Bultmann deals with I Cor 15:29 in a section/chapter on the sacraments within
the Kerygma of the Hellenistic Church. At the outset of his discussion, Bultmann
clearly defines his theological terms used and then illustrates them.
He defines baptism thus:
The meaning of baptism is determined by various factors which in part work
together, in part independently. But in every case it is regarded as a sacrament -
i.e. an act which by natural means puts supernatural powers into effect, usually by
the use of spoken words which accompany the act and release those powers by the
mere utterance of their prescribed wording. Indeed, the sacramental act may
confine itself completely to the speaking of a word or a formula.(1)
Bultmann then goes on to define further the concept of sacrament along these lines:
If the conditions are fulfilled (if, for instance, the prescribed formula is correctly
spoken and the material is thereby “consecrated” - i.e. laden with supernatural
power, and if the act is consummated according to the prescribed rite), then the
supernatural powers go into effect, and the act, which apart from these conditions
would be only a purely worldly, natural one like a bath or a meal, is itself a
supernatural ceremony which works a miracle.(2)
The way in which Bultmann has defined the above terms, albeit in a clinically exacting
way, is in broad accord with that which most theologians would be prepared to
acknowledge. However he proceeds on to the controversial with his concept that
“though in the primitive state of the history of religions sacramental action can hardly
be distinguished from magic...”(3). There would be many over the next couple of
decades as his work became better known in the English speaking world who would
take issue with Bultmann in his usage of “magic” to describe sacramental action in the
primitive era. Be this as it may, he concludes his discussion of sacramentalism by
saying:
Finally, a sacrament can be etherealised into a symbol; then a psychological(4)
effect results instead of a miraculous one.
Having made this important distinction, Bultmann then begins to illustrate his
definition of terms by stating:
34
It is clear that in earliest Christianity the sacrament was by no means a symbol, but
a miracle-working rite - most strikingly shown for the sacrament of the Eucharist
in I Cor 11:29ff (see below), and for baptism in I Cor15:29.(5)
Most relevant to this study are his words on this latter verse:
When people have themselves baptised for the dead, as they did in Corinth –
i.e. when their intention is to have the supernatural powers that the sacrament
bestows made effective for the dead - then no distinction is made between the
sacrament and a magical act.(6)
Bultmann identifies the sacrament with magical act as hinted at earlier and now
illustrates the identification. He states that such practices were not introduced by Paul
or other Jewish-Christian missionaries. He finds it no less understandable that it was
eliminated by the church even if gnostic sects practiced it for a while.(7)
Further, he finds it significant that Paul mentions the custom “without any criticism
whatever...”.(8) At this very point Bultmann again ventures into the controversial when
he gives his reason for Paul's attitude:
...for the mode of thought behind it is precisely his own, too, as it was for earliest
Christian thought in general (with the exception of John).(9)
Bultmann’s identification of early sacramentalism with “magical acts” as being
illustrative of Pauline thinking in regard to I Cor 15:29 shows graphically his “history of
religions” approach as he earlier acknowledged.(10)
Bultmann again makes comment on I Cor 15:29 elsewhere in his first volume. It is
essential to observe these instances for they show other facets of his thinking on this
verse. In citing his three interpretations of the sacrament of baptism - these being
purification, sealing by the Name and bestowal by the Spirit he adds a fourth “very
important one” that is “Baptism imparts participation in the death and resurrection of
Christ”.(11) He attributes the origin of the understanding to the Hellenistic Church.(12)
In concluding this line of thought, Bultmann observes:
It is also implied, finally, by I Cor 15:29; for what else did this vicarious baptism
for the dead, which Paul already found in use, intend by just this: to give even
those who had died the benefit still of the life provided by Christ’s own
resurrection?(13)
35
Notice Bultmann’s usage of the term “vicarious” in describing this baptism and its
identification with the death and resurrection of Christ. Bultmann borders on the
controversial once more when he alleges that Paul misunderstood the gnosticizing party
at Corinth. He arrives at this opinion by “attributing to them the view that with death
everything is over”(14) (I Cor 15:19,32). According to Bultmann, Paul’s
misunderstanding was proven by the custom of vicarious baptism (15:29) which “by
itself suffices to show”.(15) He alleges further that the gnosticizing party at Corinth was
only contending against the realistic teaching of the resurrection as contained in
the Jewish and primitive Christian tradition.(16)
This view of Paul’s misunderstanding of the gnosticizing party at Corinth as proved
by I Cor 15:29 would, as will be seen below, be contested by other scholars in the
decade to follow.
The last reference to I Cor 15:29 in Bultmann’s first volume occurs when he observes:
To be sure, it is scarcely permissible to say that he (i.e. Paul) completely freed
himself of the mystery - conception of sacrament as having a magical effect for he
leaves vicarious baptism, which rests upon such a conception, at least uncontested
(I Cor 15:29).(17)
He then attempts to qualify his view on this point somewhat by saying: “Nevertheless,
he by no means unconditionally attributes magic influence to baptism, as if receiving it
guaranteed salvation”.(18) In attempting to comment upon Bultmann’s views on this
issue there is much indeed which is controversial, as already indicated, and about which
later commentators would take issue with him. These reactions include both support
and criticism of Bultmann’s views as can be seen from the following range of views.
Various Responses to Bultmann’s View
Beasley-Murray(19) identifies three different views arising from these disputed issues.
These are:
i. Baptism for the dead springs from a magical estimate of the sacraments and
Paul’s approval of it reflects his own sacramentalism;
ii. Baptism for the dead is not to be deprecated and Paul had no grounds for
disapproving of it;
iii. Baptism for the dead was an alien custom adopted by the Corinthians and
Paul’s citation of it during the course of an argument on another subject yields
36
no evidence as to his opinion of it.(20)
Beasley-Murray identifies Bultmann with the first two of these views and sums up his
criticisms by saying:
In my judgement we have to admit with Bultmann that baptism for the dead
represents an unethical, sub-Christian sacramentalism, but against him we must
affirm that it is a falling away from the baptismal theology implied in Paul’s
expositions on the subject.(21)
And:
It is more satisfactory to infer that, since I Cor 15:29 is solitary in Paul’s letters in
its representation of this kind of sacramentalism, it reflects not the apostle’s
beliefs but those of the Corinthians he is addressing.(22)
Thus he effectively refutes the third of the positions outlined above.
Beasley-Murray gives some hints to his own position by indicating that the majority
of interpreters of his time subscribe to the vicarious baptism view.(23) However he
also states that:
The manner in which such a baptism could serve the interests of the dead and
what significance it had for Paul’s baptismal theology are widely disputed.(24)
Interestingly Beasley-Murray was to translate from the German in 1964, Rudolf
Schnackenburg’s “Baptism in the Thought of St Paul”.(25) Schnackenburg’s approach
accords with the best canons of German Scholarship, though with a more conservative
view than that of Bultmann. At the beginning of his treatment of this subject(26) he
dismisses the “long prevailing idea of a vicarious baptism” as being shaken by recent
investigations.(27) He also believes that the “magical custom” view would
Contradict not only the Apostle’s opposition to a magical interpretation of the
sacrament (a tendency we have just affirmed of I Cor 10:1-13) but also everything
else that we know about baptism in the primitive Church.(28)
Conzelmann(29) by contrast to Schnackenburg, after asserting this verse as “one of the
most hotly disputed passages in the epistle”(30) states his position:
The wording is in favour of the “normal” exposition in terms of “vicarious
baptism”: in Corinth living people have themselves vicariously baptised for
dead people. Paul does not criticise the custom but makes use of it for his
argument. This custom once again shows the sacramentalism prevailing in
37
Corinth.(31)
He asserts further that not only does the wording demand a vicarious baptism
interpretation but that it is also “idle to dispute that a magical view of the sacraments
prevails at Corinth”.(32)
So far Conzelmann is in total agreement with Bultmann. However he does disagree
with the latter on the alleged Pauline misunderstanding of the Corinthian position on
the afterlife, and the belief held by some at least. Conzelmann observes:
Paul’s reference to this custom provides one of the most important arguments
against the assumption that he misunderstands the Corinthian position. He shows
himself to be obviously well informed. And if he is aware of this custom, then he
cannot well credit the Corinthians with the view that death is the end of
everything.(33)
Relevant to his support for Bultmann’s vicarious view and its magical sacramental
emphasis, Conzelmann cites the approach of Rissi(34) who whilst espousing a vicarious
view “seeks to avoid a sacramentalistic interpretation”.(35) According to Conzelmann,
Rissi argues the vicarious baptism is an “act of proclamation and confession” by which
the hope of resurrection for specific dead persons is testified: “We believe in the
resurrection of this dead person”.(36) However, for Conzelmann, Rissi’s significatory
view here is “neither Corinthian, nor Pauline, but Barthian”.(37)
Arising from Bultmann’s “Pauline misunderstanding” view and in support of it
there is the “double misunderstanding” view of Joyce.(38) He says:
Paul inaccurately attributes to them a “no resurrection” theology because they
do not believe in a resurrection of this body, but a spiritual resurrection of the
Hellenistic-Gnostic variety. They think that Paul believes and contends for a
resurrection of this body which in fact he does not. But the misunderstanding
on both sides continues.(39)
Earlier Joyce calls this a “double misunderstanding”.(40) In further describing the
Hellenistic-Gnostic variety of spiritual resurrection, Joyce explains this as:
They saw no alternative to the flesh and blood resurrection (reuniting of
soul and body) of rabbinic Judaism (or popular Judaism) than the naked
38
soul resurrection of the Hellenistic-Gnostic thought. Paul found another
alternative in “spiritual body” and he meets their thought in its context in II
Cor 5:lff.(41)
It is clear that there was some misunderstanding on both sides as Joyce rightly
points out here. However it would be wrong, in my view, to attribute this to
anything more than a minority, because within Ch 15 of I Corinthians Paul
addresses the issue of “no resurrection” to “some” (tinev) (v 12). Whilst the
Corinthian church would have probably been Gentile and Hellenistic in outlook,
there would have been a significant Jewish presence there as well (I Cor l: l, 14-16),
particularly among its leaders. Therefore by implication there would have been
also “some” who would not have misunderstood Paul and would have most likely
therefore have had similar views on the resurrection as his own. This is after all
pre-supposed in the tenor of the whole chapter, within which he tackles the
implications of the non-Hebraic view of the resurrection. It is an issue which
stands at the back of our verse under consideration.
J.C. Hurd in his book on the origins of I Corinthians(42) takes issue in particular with
Bultmann’s view of the so-called “Pauline misunderstanding”. However Hurd
understands this as follows: “The main point of difference between Bultmann and other
scholars) is Bultmann’s conviction that I Cor 15 was written to combat disbelief in life
after death, rather than disbelief in bodily resurrection”.(43) For Hurd there are two main
considerations to the contrary. These are firstly: “It is ‘a priori’ improbable that Paul
would have attributed to the Corinthians a denial of life after death, especially since, as
Bultmann’s theory contends, Paul assumed that the Corinthians were still ‘baptising for
the dead’.”(44) Hurd goes on to support his case further by stating that such a denial
would have been “unexpected and unusual”. So much so that Paul would have wanted
to verify this which he had ample opportunity to do so with access to visiting travellers
there. Hurd concludes this line of thought with observing that with such information
available to him, Paul would have had a correct understanding of Corinthian beliefs and
therefore “knew what he was talking about”.(45)
Secondly Hurd states:
Bultmann finds evidence for this thesis that Paul was attempting to convince the
Corinthians of life after death in I Cor 15:19, 29-32. Hurd concedes that the text
39
of v l9 and the meaning of v29 are both problematic, however vv 30-2 argue
clearly for life after death, not for resurrection in particular.
Hurd adds:
What Bultmann fails to allow for, however, is Paul’s tendency to exaggerate his
arguments...Paul has taken an objection to belief in bodily resurrection and
declared it to be tantamount to a rejection of all belief in life after death.(46)
Hurd sums up his position: “It is doubtful that Paul believed that the Corinthians had
really rejected all belief in life after death.”(47) One cannot help feel that Hurd’s
criticisms of Bultmann’s “Pauline misunderstanding” viewpoint has much to commend
it in the light of these two arguments.
Most of the commentators on Bultmann’s views as reported thus far represent the main
reactions in the decades between the late fifties through to the mid seventies. However
the issues were still being debated by the scholarly community in the early eighties,
some thirty years after Bultmann first raised them. One such example is that of AJM
Wedderburn.(48) At the commencement of his article entitled “The Problem of the
Denial of the Resurrection on I Corinthians XV”, the author acknowledges that it would
be beyond the scope of his article to survey all the different answers to this problem but
that instead a few questions will be posed and eventually ask “which is most likely to be
the correct one”.(49)
Wedderburn identifies one of the problems as being the apparent practice of baptism for
the dead. For Wedderburn the problem in question rotates around this issue:
Although this raises a fundamental problem, that the deniers of the resurrections
may be a small group with little or nothing in common with Corinthian views
reflected elsewhere in the letter, for the time being it may be best simply to say
that Paul’s argument has far more force if the views of those being baptised for the
dead are not completely different from those of the deniers of the resurrection.(50)
Wedderburn is reliant for his view here upon Brakemeier.(51) However he also indicates
that Sporlein argues that those who denied the resurrection were different from those
who were baptised for the dead.(52) Witherington strengthens this latter view further by
affirming that those being baptised for the dead were not among those who doubted the
resurrection because Paul uses their practices to illustrate his case (i.e. the ad hominem
argument).(53) Certainly on balance it would appear more consistent to argue with both
40
Sporlein and Witherington against Brakemeier and Wedderburn on this issue.
Wedderburn observes:
When we turn to other suggestions we find that implicitly or explicitly,
consciously or unconsciously, their opponents are saying that Paul misrepresents
or misunderstands the Corinthians.(54)
And substantiates his position:
This is true, for instance of the suggestion that although they denied the
resurrection of the body or flesh they looked for a survival of the immortal soul
beyond the grave. If that is the case then not only does Paul seemingly
misrepresent them but his argument really misses the point: he fails to argue that
disembodied survival is not an adequate hope.(55)
Wedderburn acknowledges his indebtedness to Bultmann at least in terms of the
“Pauline misunderstanding”, which he feels is easier to allege at this point than his
earlier mentioning “misrepresenting” by Paul. However Wedderburn turns a lot of his
thinking on its head when he questions: “...but would a Hellenistic Jew like Paul not be
all too familiar with this idea?”(56) Taking this last point first, it would be correct to say,
as implied in his question, that Paul would be familiar with the idea of the Greek notion
of the immortality of the soul. Indeed this can be shown to be the case in his debate
with his Greek audience at the Areopagus in Athens as reported in Acts 17:16-34. At
the end of this particular passage, upon Paul’s mentioning the “raising of the dead”
(17:31b), there was an immediate division of opinion among his hearers between those
who sneered and those who believed (17:32). Interestingly this incident occurred just
prior to Paul’s visit to Corinth as reported in the next chapter, i.e. Acts 18. (57)
Contrary to Wedderburn’s earlier statement about Paul not only misunderstanding
(which we have just seen he effectively refutes) but also misrepresenting the Corinthian
position, this is simply not correct. It is abundantly clear that Paul’s main theme in
Chapter 15 of I Corinthians is the arguments for the Hebraic idea of the resurrection of
the dead in contra-distinction from any prevailing Greek thinking about the immortality
of the soul. It is clear from the whole tenor of his argument that Paul is unconcerned
with any debate which may have existed between the Hebraic and Greek thinking on the
fate of the dead. Therefore Paul cannot be said to have either misunderstood or worse
41
still misrepresented his opponents who did not believe in the resurrection, but may have
alternatively believed in the Greek notion of immortality instead or perhaps even
annihilation.
Tuckett, in an article within a book published toward the end of the period under review
in 1996, writes further on the “theory of a Pauline misunderstanding”.(58) His views
written forty years after Bultmann’s first raising this issue represent one of the most
contemporary positions on this topic.
The “standard counter” to the theory of a Pauline understanding for Tuckett is:
that Paul evidently knows of the Corinthian practice of vicarious baptism; hence
he cannot have attributed to the Corinthians a belief that death is the end of
everything...Thus Paul cannot have misunderstood the Corinthian view at this
crucial point.(59)
He sums up his overall position in these memorable words:
Without a future hope, such present existence is meaningless. Without a belief
that present existence will be changed in a future resurrection life, the present has
nothing to offer. Collapsing the future hope into the present leaves nothing for the
future which in turn is what can give meaning and hope to present existence as
Paul sees it.(60)
This is a concise summary of the rationale for Paul’s main argument in I Cor 15 and
therewith verse 29 within that kind of context.
In conclusion, I need to comment on the main features of the debate between Bultmann
and those who have reacted to him in different ways. If one was to attempt to
summarise the two main thrusts of his thinking about this verse, these would be the
“magical sacramentalism” at Corinth as evidenced in this verse and his assertion of a
Pauline misunderstanding of the Corinthian view of the after life. This
misunderstanding was due partly to nihilism (i.e. death ends everything
e.g. ch 15:19,32) and Gnostic influences there also which disagreed with Hebraic
teaching about the resurrection of the dead.
42
The various commentators cited have either agreed, in varying degrees, with Bultmann
on these two main aspects of his argument or alternatively disagreed. In my opinion
most if not all of the various implications of his argument on these two issues have been
adequately dealt with by his supporters and critics over the past half century almost.
My Personal Response to Bultmann’s View
As far as my personal attitude to Bultmann’s views, in the light of his critics, I believe that there is strong evidence for sacramentalism at Corinth beyond what is in I Cor 11:23-29. However, what Bultmann describes as ‘sacramental’ I would differ with as will be seen below. One must first note other evidences for sacramentalism in such passages a I Cor 10:2-4, 14-22, 3. In this previous chapter Paul identifies both baptism and the communal eating of the same spiritual food and drinking of the same spiritual drink with the experience of Israel’s pilgrimage in their way to the promised land (10:2-4). He further identifies the source of their drink with Christ as the rock (10:46). In the latter of these passages, Paul contrasts sharply participation in the Eucharist with eating food (i.e. meat) that had been sacrificed to idols. At the outset (10:16) Paul identifies again the source of the Eucharist with Christ with both the bread an “cup of blessing” being a “koinwni/a” in the blood and body of Christ. The word “koinwni/a” can be variously rendered as “communion” (RSV) “sharing” (NRSV). Either word among others (i.e. fellowship; participation) evoke a strong sacramental view, which in turn informs what follows in the next chapter in 11:23-29. Bultmann’s view, as has been demonstrated earlier on, can be described as “magical sacramentalism”. It is at this point that I differ with Bultmann and would prefer not to describe this as “having a magical effect”. (61)
This kind of description debases the spiritual (i.e. non-material) aspects of a sacrament,
which according to one definition is: “an outward and visible sign of an inward and
spiritual grace”.(62) This definition strikes the balance between the material and non-
material dichotomy which is present in sacramentalism. Therefore there can be no
scope for Bultmann’s description in terms of “magical effect”.
Further, I agree with his description of baptism for the dead as being “vicarious”. This
is the most appropriate way of describing the action in terms of the best interpretation of
the Greek vocabulary used. As far as the second major issue in regard to the alleged
Pauline misunderstanding of the Corinthian view, I align myself wholeheartedly with
43
those critics cited who disagree. Overall I cannot believe that Paul would have not
understood the prevailing Hellenistic view on the fate of the dead. He himself was a
Hellenistic Jew born in the Diaspora and therefore able to appreciate Greek thinking on
this and other issues. Whether the issue in question rotates around nihilism, with
annihilation after death or immortality of the soul, derived originally from platonic
thinking, Paul would have been fully conversant with both. His dialectical style in this
chapter, indicates some attempt at least in engaging with his critics (i.e. those who say
there is no resurrection) but essentially he quests for a more adequate understanding of
the resurrection of the dead.
To this end St Paul has supplied the church with its best exposition of the credal
affirmations: “we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to
come” (Nicene Creed) and “I believe in...the resurrection of the body, and the life
everlasting” (Apostles Creed).
However in coming to these views on the issues raised by Bultmann and his
commentators and critics, it is difficult not to be impressed by his thorough-going
scholarly erudition, typical of the best of German theological scholarship, then and
since. This debate has enriched our understanding of I Cor 15:29 to the benefit of all.
44
FOOTNOTES
1. Bultmann, R “Theology of the New Testament” (ET 1952), Vol l (Translated by K
Grobel) SCM, London, 135.
2. ibid.
3. ibid.
4. ibid.
5. ibid., 135-136.
6. ibid., 136.
7. ibid.
8. ibid.
9. ibid.
10. op. cit., 135, cited infra.
11. ibid., 140.
12. ibid.
13. ibid., 141.
14. ibid., 169.
15. ibid.
16. ibid.
17. ibid., 311-312.
18. ibid., 312.
19. Beasley-Murray, GR “Baptism in the New Testament” (1962), Macmillan, London.
20. ibid., 187-88.
21. ibid., 190.
22. ibid.
23. ibid.
24. ibid., 187.
25. Schnackenburg, R “Baptism in the Thought of St Paul” (1964), Blackwell, Oxford.
26. ibid., 95ff.
27. ibid.
28. ibid.
29. Conzelmann, H “I Corinthians” (ET 1975), Fortress Press, Philadelphia.
30. ibid., 275.
31. ibid., 276.
45
32. ibid.
33. ibid., 275-6.
34. Rissi, M “Die Taufe fur die Toten” ATLANT 42, (1962), Zwingli Press, Zurich and
Stuttgart.
35. Conzelmann, op. cit., 277, N 123.
36. Rissi, op. cit., 89.
37. Conzelmann, op. cit., and ibid., 277.
38. Joyce, JD “Baptism on Behalf of the Dead an Interpretation of I Corinthians 15:29-
34” (in) Encounter 26 (1965), 269-277.
39. ibid., 275.
40. ibid.
41. ibid., N(30).
42. Hurd, JC “The Origin of I Corinthians” (1965), SPCK, London.
43. ibid., 197.
44. ibid.
45. ibid.
46. ibid.
47. ibid.
48. Wedderburn AJM “The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in I Corinthians
XV” (in) Novum Testamentum XXIII 3 (1981), 229-241.
49. ibid., 229.
50. ibid., 230.
51. Brakemeier, G “Die Auseinanersietzung des Paulus zu I Kor 15” (1968),
(Dissertation, University of Gottingen).
52. Sporlein, B “Die Leugnung der Auferstehung: eine historisch-Kritische
Untersuchung zu I Kor 15”(1971), Regensburg.
53. Witherington, B “Conflict and Community in Corinth: a socio-rhetorical
commentary on I and II Corinthians” (1995), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich.
54. Wedderburn, op. cit., 230.
55. ibid., 230-1.
56. ibid., 231.
57. The Lukan portrayal of Paul as witnessed in this encounter with the audience at the Aeropagus (Acts 17: 16-34) provides some contrasts with that portrayed by himself in the Pauline epistles and Deutero-Pauline literature. However, in regard to the
46
resurrection, I Cor 15 illustrates Paul’s capacity at arguing his case in favour of this belief against those who denied it as he also did at Athens. (I Cor 15:12).
58. Tuckett, CM “No Resurrection of the Dead (I Cor 15:12)” (in) The Corinthian
Correspondence (edited by) R Bieringer, (1996), University Press, Louvain, 269.
59. ibid., 269-70.
60. ibid., 273.
61. See footnote (17) in regard to this expression.
62. Catechism Question 2 (in) “Book of Common Prayer”, University Press,
Cambridge, 294.
47
B (2) Jeremias/Raeder approach and its supporters against
the Vicarious View and reactions to it.
48
In an article in New Testament Studies (NTS) published in 1956, entitled: “Flesh and
Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God” Joachim Jeremias refers to his pupil Maria
Raeder’s(1) article on I Cor 15:29 published in the German journal, Zeitschrift fűr
Neuentestamentliche Wissenshaft (ZNW). For the sake of convenience this particular
interpretation of I Cor 15:29 will be entitled the Jeremias-Raeder view, because as
Jeremias himself states: "one of my students, Miss Maria Raeder...has, in my opinion,
solved the riddle of this crucial verse...I may resume her argument in short, adding some
remarks of my own”.(2) This indicates the close association and identification of ideas
between teacher and student.
The Jeremias/Raeder View
Jeremias firstly alludes to the “usual explanation” of v29, this being the vicarious
baptism for the dead -
a rite which he (i.e. Paul) would be mentioning as an argument without
thereby proving it - is wholly unfounded.(3)
He dismisses further the vicarious view, by claiming that:
the gnostic vicarious baptisms, which are mentioned in the patristic literature, are
of no help for the understanding of our verse because they evidently have their
origin in a misinterpretation of our verse itself.(4)
It is clear at this stage that Jeremias has no time for Bultmann’s views even if he doesn’t
allude at all to the latter. He then puts forward what he calls the “right understanding”
of verse 29, which is based on two observations. The first of these is the distinction
between nekroi\ and oi9 nekroi\. The anarthrous nekroi\ denote the dead in general (e.g.
vv 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21, 29b, 32) whereas oi9 nekroi\ denote deceased Christians (e.g.
vv 29a, 35, 42, 52). Therefore the change of oi9 nekroi\ to nekroi\ in v29 is significant
because in v29a the tw=n nekrw=n speaks of deceased Christians, whilst the nekrw=n of
v29b speaks of the dead in general. This leads Jeremias to put forward his view that
those baptised are “heathen who are baptised for deceased Christians”.(5)
Secondly, following upon his first observation Jeremias states further the following:
if oi9 nekroi\ are dead Christians, the u9pe\r in ti\ poih/sousin oi9 baptizo&menoi
u9pe\r tw=n nekpw=n denotes substitution.(6)
Jeremias posits that because u9pe\r has a final meaning the purpose in view must often be
49
inferred from the context. This being the case, the purpose within this context is his
suggestion that pagan relatives of deceased Christians are being baptised so that they
might be united with them at the resurrection. Therefore their hope also would be
deceived if there was no resurrection. Likewise the Apostle’s dangers would be
pointless without the resurrection (vv30-2).(7)
In effect Jeremias and Raeder “turn on its head” the general understanding of vicarious
baptism. In the usual understanding it is Christian relatives of those deceased who died
without baptism who are baptised on their behalf. But in the Jeremias - Raeder view the
opposite applies, with pagans identifying with their predeceased Christian relatives
through baptism. Thus the element of the vicarious disappears with their view also
since the baptism by the pagans is something which can only be construed to have
benefit for themselves alone. Schnackenburg was one of the first German scholars to
comment favourably on the Jeremias/Raeder approach.
Support for the Jeremias/Raeder View
i) R Schnackenburg
Having “cleared the decks” of much of the views of his era, Schnackenburg then
attempts to establish his own position on “other exegetical solutions”.(8) Having
examined in some depth the context(9) and the grammatical aspect,(10) he then goes on to
look at the three options in translating u9pe\r, these being with the translation
v) in favour of; vi) instead of; vii)‘for’ in the final sense.(11)
Schnackenburg favours the third of these alternatives for which he then gives his
reasons.
He states: On this view u9pe\r would give the purpose which someone might wish to reach
through the action in question. This grammatical possibility...does not remove
the obscurity of the passage; the exegesis must try to make comprehensible the
intention of those who get themselves baptised ‘for the dead’.(12)
Schnackenburg considers the exposition of the Jeremias/Raeder as “worthy of
consideration”.(13) After outlining their views he approvingly observes:
The idea suggested by M Raeder and J Jeremias is close to the context and so
50
cannot be charged with being an unjustifiable intrusion.(14)
In conclusion, Schnackenburg believes that the further argument mentioned by Paul in
vv30ff about the dangers of his calling, whereby he dies daily, being exposed constantly
to persecution and possible death in order that he might attain to the resurrection (II Cor
4:l0f; Phil 3:l0f), may well be “an exegetical solution”. In his opinion, this
…simple and yet convincing way, settles an old crux interpretum. It makes no
new contribution to Paul’s view of baptism; but the eschatological expectation is
confirmed which already shines forth from the key passage Rom 6:1-11.(15)
Thus Schnackenburg aligns himself closely with the Jeremias/Raeder view and extends
on it along the lines indicated in the above quote.
ii) JK Howard
In an article entitled, “Baptism for the Dead: a Study of I Cor 15:29”(1965), JK Howard
tackles this issue.
Howard delineates three “possible” approaches to the interpretation of I Cor 15:29,
these being:
1) normal baptism
2) to abnormal vicarious baptism
3) to baptism of friends and relatives of a dying Christian as a result of his
testimony.(16)
Before turning to elaborate on these options, Howard following an earlier commentator,
Findlay(l7) suggests using his three criteria of interpretation in order to arrive at a
meaning which has any validity.(18) These criteria are as follows:
i) oi9 baptizo/menoi must refer to the recipients of Christian baptism;
ii) u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n clearly points to a class of dead, presumable Christian, who
have an interest in, or connection with, the living.
iii) kai\ h(mei=v (v30) - Paul and his associates could have allied themselves, in view
of the action (v29) whatever it may have been.(19)
Howard admits at this point that the final of these three criteria is certainly the
weakest,
Some have argued that in fact it is a complete non-sequitur, since verse 30 bears
no specific relation to verse 29, apart from the loose connection that they are both
51
concerned with the absurd results of denying the resurrection.(20)
Be this as it may, Howard goes on to examine the three possible approaches as
outlined above. In regard to the first being a reference to normal baptism, Howard
states that to translate u9pe\r by the phrases “in the interest of” or “with an interest in”
is a “doubtful expedient, and a meaning for which we have been unable to find any
parallel”.(21)
In regard to the second option of “abnormal vicarious baptism”, Howard concludes his
discussion on this option by positing: “It seems extremely unlikely that such a practice
would arise in one isolated instance, and there is no evidence that it was practiced
elsewhere, except for some late heretical sects”.(22)
Having reflected the first of these two positions, Howard moves on to the third. He
alludes to the work of Maria Raeder, as outlined already, and tends to support her view
of u9pe\r in its final sense meaning “for the sake of”; “because of”. He agrees also that
oi9 nekroi\ indicates dead Christians. He then suggests accordingly that the verse be
translated as: “Else what shall they gain from it who are baptised for the dead?” with
poih/sousin having the sense of “they gain”, rather then the more literal “they do”.
In summing up his position in favour of the third option Howard clearly identifies with
the Jeremias/Raeder view, seeing therefore those baptised as: “especially those who
have entered the Christian community and have been baptised for the sake of those who
have died in Christ; hoping to be re-united with them. Thus seen, this bone of
contention becomes the copingstone of Paul’s argument concerning the absurdity of
denying the resurrection”.(23)
iii) JD Reaume
Some thirty years after Howard published his article, J D Reaume in 1995 published his
entitled: “Another Look at I Cor 15:29, Baptized for the Dead” in which he surveys
many views.
Reaume states his position at the very outset of his article when he says:
The interpretation of vicarious baptism is problematic for two reasons: first, there
is no historical evidence of the practice of baptising the dead during New
52
Testament times and second, it seems doubtful that Paul would have written of
such a practice so contrary to his theology without condemning it.(24)
Reaume later presents his exegesis(25) of I Cor 15:29 which for the sake of brevity, one
cannot outline here. However in his last section he presents his conclusion(26) in the
last two pages. He makes the following points:
1) baptism is probably literal water baptism of Christians
2) “The ones who are baptised” are most likely a small group of individuals, than
the church as a whole
3) “the dead” in all probability were dead believers
4) “these dead believers” had presumably experienced Christian baptism before
they died.(27)
In the light of his definition of terms above arising out of his exegesis, he explores
further three “strong possibilities”. These are to do with the way u9pe\r(28) is
translated:
a) “in the place of”- to replace dead Christians
b) (final sense) “in order to be” reunited with their loved ones at the resurrection
c) “because of” the influence of deceased Christians. This third translation,
Reaume favours citing the example of Stephen’s martyrdom influencing Paul
becoming a Christian.(29) Thus he rests his case at this point.
iv) A Thistleton
In his masterful commentary on I Corinthians (2000), A Thistleton classifies the various
approaches under (A) & (B) with numbers.
He turns to what he calls B (13) as “the least problematic and most convincing of
all”,(30) which is in fact is the Jeremias/Raeder view. Thistleton articulates it as:
“Baptism for the sake of (u9pe\r) the dead refers to the decision of a person or
persons to ask for, and to receive, baptism as a result of the desire to be united
with their believing relatives who have died. This presupposes that they would
share the radiant confidence that they would meet again in and through Christ at
the resurrection of the dead”.(31)
As support for his view Thistleton claims that Jeremias and Raeder have dealt
effectively with the linguistic issues associated with the usage of the preposition υπερ
53
in its “final sense” which means “for the sake of”.(32) He then goes on to call upon the
further support of past commentators such as Robertson and Plummer’s (baptism out of
consideration for the dead)(33) as well as other commentators such as Findlay, Howard,
and Schnackenburg, which again have been also referred to in earlier chapters(34) and
also above.
In conclusion to his masterful exposition on this topic and in connection with his own
position, Thistleton cites “supposed objections”. These are two fold, firstly the mixed
motives for such conversions which could be replicated in many pastoral situations and
secondly that the subjective element of the pastoral situation just alluded to should not
obscure the fact that:
There is no room for preteens or self interest on a deathbed; the sincerity and
transparency of faith and witness become overwhelming.(35)
From a pastoral and subjective viewpoint this may well apply. However the following
criticisms of the Jeremias/Raeder view can still apply to Thistleton’s espousal of it. All
these various commentators on the Jeremias/Raeder view (Schnackenburg, Howard,
Reaume and Thistleton) represent an impressive array of scholarly support.
However there have been critics of the view as well.
Critics of Jeremias/Raeder View
i) GR Beasley-Murray
In 1962, GR Beasley-Murray published his book “Baptism in the New Testament”.(36)
Under a chapter on baptism in the Apostolic writings, Beasley-Murray deals with a
number of New Testament verses, including I Cor 15:29.(37) The value of Beasley-
Murray’s approach to this verse is that he carefully examines the contemporary
scholarship of his day and then formulates his own position. In among the views of
others he criticises the views of Jeremias and Raeder.
In regard to the Jeremias/Raeder view, he has this to say:
Despite Jeremias’ careful presentation of his argument, most scholars will find it
difficult to believe that Paul really meant by the phrase u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n ‘with
a view to becoming united with the dead in the resurrection’, it demands the
insertion of too much that has been left unexpressed.(38)
54
Beasley-Murray refers to Raeder’s article in seeking to construe of u9pe\r as denoting
purpose, i.e. “the baptism undergone with the intention of reunion with the Christian
deceased at the resurrection”.(39)
However he believes that All the evidence is against interpreting u9pe\r in v29 in another than the normal
fashion...‘in the interests of the dead’, hence baptism for them must be primarily
for the purpose of affecting their status and condition.(40)
ii) Orr & Walther
According to Orr and Walther, who comment on Howard’s view being identified with
that of Raeder, they also state that “It is quite questionable however whether hyper
(u9pe\r))) will bear this interpretation”.(41)
iii) JR White
White(42) feels that Raeder’s revival of this view is “more intriguing”, because she turns
the problem as it were upside down. This is because it is not the Christians being
baptised for unbelievers, rather unbelievers being baptised to be united with their
deceased baptised relatives at the resurrection. White, while observing that Raeder’s
view has attracted scholars such as Jeremias, Bruce and Schnackenburg, he nonetheless
feels it suffers from two of the problems of the vicarious view, these being:
a) It is pure conjecture, there is no historical or biblical evidence for any such
practice anywhere in the ancient world; and
b) It is unrelated to the context.(43)
For JR White this “alternate understanding of the preposition u9pe\r”(44) was associated
originally with Luther, who uses u9pe\r in the local sense i.e. baptisms over the graves of
the dead. However White claims this classical meaning for u9pe\r had “lost this classical
meaning well before Paul took up his pen”.
iv) H Conzelmann
One of the most incisive critiques of the “final sense” of the usage of u9pe\r, meaning
“for the sake of”, espoused by Jeremias and Raeder, is offered by Hans Conzelmann. In
developing his case against them, Conzelmann first of all articulates Raeder’s view as:
pagan Corinthians who have lost Christian relatives have themselves baptized for
55
their sakes, because the Christian faith promises reunion with them.(45)
Conzelmann cites Jeremias’ support for this view being derived from the latter’s usage
of the Greek phrase “u9pe\r tw=n a9martiw=n h9mwn”, for our sins.(46)
At this point Conzelmann appeals to the venerable lexicographical authority of Blass-
Debrunner,(47) who “to be sure, do not count u9pe\r tw=n a9martiw=n under the final
meaning”.(48) To which Conzelmann adds further:
And altogether, the final use of u9pe\r tells against this interpretation. Where it
appears, it is always unequivocal, e.g. Phil 2:13.(49)
This kind of critique of the final usage of u9pe\r sounds a ‘death knell’ to the very
keystone of the Jeremias/Raeder view. Coming also as it does with the authority of one
of Germany’s most eminent New Testament scholars citing in turn probably the most
prestigious lexicographical authorities, such a criticism must be taken seriously. White
as seen also above disagrees with the Jeremias/Raeder “alternative understanding of the
preposition u9pe\r”.(50)
The only viable alternative meaning for u9pe\r cited already by Beasley-Murray “in the
interests of the dead, hence baptism for them must be primarily for the purpose of
affecting their status and condition”.(51)
This leads us back to the vicarious view, where the living do something for their
unbaptized dead. In conclusion, the very bizarre nature of the Jeremias/Raeder view
with its turning upside down of the respective roles of the living and the dead strike one
as difficult to sustain both for the early church and today. It is ultimately this unreality
which contributes a fatal flaw to this view compounded as it is with the final usage of
u9pe\r. For these reasons the Jeremias/Raeder approach to avoiding the vicarious view
presents more problems than it solves and therefore fails to convince.
56
FOOTNOTES
1. In “New Testament Studies” Vol 2, No 3 (Feb 1956), 155-156 in association with
M Raeder’s article “Vikarias taufe in I Kor 15:29?” (in) Zeitschrift fur
Neuentestamentliche Wissenschaft (ZNW), 46 (1955).
2. ibid., 155.
3. ibid.
4. ibid.
5. ibid., 156.
6. ibid.
7. ibid.
8. ibid.
9. ibid., 95-7.
10. ibid., 97-8.
11. ibid., 98-102.
12. ibid., 101.
13. ibid.
14. ibid.
15. ibid.
16. Howard, TK “Baptism for the Dead: a Study of I Corinthians 15:29” (in) The
Evangelical Quarterly Vol. XXXVII, No 3 (1965), 137-41.
17. Findlay, GG “I Corinthians” (Expositors Greek Testament Vol. II) (1900), ad loc.
18. Howard, op. cit., 137.
19. ibid.
20. ibid., 138.
21. ibid.
22. ibid., 140.
23. ibid., 141.
24. Reaume, JD “Another Look at I Cor 15:29, Baptized for the Dead” (1995), (in)
Bibliotheca Sacra 152, 457.
25. ibid., 466-74.
26. ibid., 474, 5.
27. ibid., 474.
28. ibid., 475.
57
29. ibid.
30. Thistleton, AC “The First Epistle to the Corinthians: Commentary on the Greek
Text” (2000), Eerdmans, 1249.
31. ibid., 1248.
32. ibid.
33. ibid., Cited from Thistleton’s Commentary, 345 (cf 359-60).
34. ibid.
35. ibid., 1248-9.
36. Beasley-Murray, GR “Baptism in the New Testament” (1962), Macmillan,
London.
37. ibid., 185-192.
38. ibid., 186.
39. ibid.
40. ibid., 187.
41. Orr, WF and Walther, TA “I Corinthians” (1976), 335.
42. White, JR “Baptised on Account of the Dead: the Meaning of I Corinthians 15:29
in its Context” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature (1997), 487-99.
43. ibid., 491-2.
44. ibid., 491.
45. Conzelmann, H “I Corinthians” (1975), Fortress, Philadelphia, 276, N(121).
46. Conzelmann cites this reference from J Jeremias’ “Abba” 303f.
47. Blass-Debrunner “Lexicon of the New Testament”, 231, N (2).
48. Conzelmann, op. cit., and ibid.
49. ibid.
50. White, op. cit., 491.
51. Beasley-Murray, op. cit., 187.
58
B (3) Amended Wording and Punctuation approach of those
opposed to the Vicarious View.
59
This particular approach among those who were opposed to the vicarious view was
espoused by three scholars in particular- Thompson (1964), O’Neill (1980) and
Campbell (1999).
All of these scholars attempt to amend either the wording or punctuation or both of
I Cor 15:29 as their solution to what they see as problems with the vicarious view. They
do this in the light of their interpretation of the early church fathers, these being
Tertullian in the case of Thompson and Chrysostom in the case of O’Neill and
Campbell. Their appeal to these two patristic writers implies a respect for and
deference to their authority on the interpretation of our text.
KC Thompson
In 1964, KC Thompson published an article entitled: “I Cor 15:29 and the Baptism for
the Dead”.(1) This article attempts to amend both the wording and punctuation of our
verse in the light of the early church Father Tertullian’s comments on it.
Tertullian (c 160-225AD) whose writings are mainly polemical in origin and form,
wrote two works in which there is comment on baptism for the dead among the
Marcionites, a heretical sect. These are De Resurrectione Carnis (Of the Resurrection
of the Flesh) and Adversus Marcionem (Against Marcion). These works of Tertullian,
among others have been translated in the standard text “The Ante-Nicene Fathers”.
Thompson also produced a translation of Tertullian as well and it is most important to
compare two passages in both versions which form the basis of his translation of I Cor
15:29. The first of these passages is from “De Resurrectione Carnis” (48, 11). The
Ante Nicene Fathers version is:
But in as much as “some are also baptised for the dead” we will see whether
there be a good reason for this. Now it is certain that they adopted this (practice)
with such a presumption as made them suppose that the vicarious baptism (in
question) would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the
resurrections; for unless it were a bodily resurrection, there would be no pledge
secured by this process of a corporeal baptism. “Why are they then baptised for
the dead” he asks, unless the bodies rise again which are thus baptised? For it is
not the soul which is sanctified by the baptismal bath: its sanctification comes
from the “answer”.(2)
60
Thompson translates the passage differently:
Supposing however that some are actually baptised for the dead, we will see if this
makes sense. Certainly, on that supposition, their having started such a practice
does indicate how far they think that Baptism will benefit the Flesh, even when it
is other than that of the person baptised and the Baptism vicarious. They have the
hope of the resurrection in view, and that a bodily resurrection or it would not be
tied up with a bodily Baptism as he says, what good is it for them to be baptised
themselves even, if the bodies that are so baptised do not rise again - for the soul is
sanctified not by bodily washing, but by spiritual response.(3)
The other relevant passage is from Adversus Marcionem. The Ante-Nicene Fathers
version is:
Let us now return to the resurrection, to the defence of which against heretics of
all sorts we have given indeed sufficient attention in another work of ours (i.e. as
above) but we will not be wanting (in some defence of the doctrine) even here, in
consideration of such persons as are ignorant of that little treatise. “What”, asks
he, “shall they do who are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not?” Now never
mind that practice (whatever it may have been), the Februarian Lustrations will
perhaps answer him (quite as well) by praying for the dead. Do not then suppose
that the apostle here indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this
(baptism for the dead. His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the
more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body; in proportion as they who
were vainly baptised for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such
a resurrection. We have the apostle in another passage defining “but one baptism”
(Eph 4:5) to be “baptised for the dead” therefore means in fact to be baptised for
the body; for we have shown it is the body which becomes dead. What, then, shall
they do who are baptised for the body, if the body rises not again?(4)
Thompson translates:
Let us now return to the Resurrection, a subject I have in fact already done justice
to elsewhere in its own special volume rebutting all heretics. But I am ready to do
so here too, for the benefit of those who do not know that little work of mine.
What, says he, will they achieve who are baptised for the Dead, if the Dead rise
not? Your alleged practice (Baptism for the Dead) I dismiss as quite out of the
61
question. The Calends of February and Praying for the Dead (as in that month)
will perhaps offer a parallel for it. But you must not on that account stigmatise the
apostle as the immediate originator or as the endorser of it as if his argument for
the Resurrection would be proportionately stronger, in so far as those, who got
themselves baptised uselessly for the Dead, did so indeed in the faith of the Dead’s
resurrection. We have him (St Paul) elsewhere laying it down that a man can only
be baptised once. So then, here too, ‘to be dipped for the Dead’ means ‘to be
dipped for corpses’ - for we use the word ‘mortuum’ or ‘dead man’ to denote a
corpse. (So the passage says this): ‘What will they achieve, who are baptised
(merely) for corpses if corpses do not rise again?’(5)
These two passages have been quoted at length from the two translations in order to
show clearly the argument developed by Tertullian and also the way in which he has
been interpreted by his modern translators. To take the last of these two issues first, it is
of interest to note Thompson’s translation of Tertullian. According to him:(6)
In the earlier excerpt, from De Resurrectione Carnis, you will see that Tertullian
accepts the hypothesis that St Paul refers to a vicarious Baptism for the Dead but
that he does so only as a hypothesis for argument’s sake (illa presumptione) and (I
think) with marked reluctance. In the second excerpt, from his later work
Adversus Marcionem, he refuses to do so. He scouts the whole supposition as
ridiculous, and he proceeds to re-interpret and re-read the Pauline text, in a way
that remarkably coincides with the sense given by our emended version.
Thompson’s “emended version” of I Cor 15:29 is:
Else what will they achieve who are baptised - merely for the benefit of their
corpses if corpses never rise again? Why then he baptised just for them?(7)
Thompson claims that his translation
agrees very closely with the interpretation of the passage reached by Tertullian in
his Adversus Marcionem v10.(8)
The whole point of Thompson’s argument in regard to his translation of Tertullian
seems to be along these lines,
But did he (i.e. Tertullian) believe it (i.e. Vicarious Baptism) to have existed at
Corinth in the time of St Paul? I think that a careful study and translation of these
passages proves he did not.(9)
By way of a critique of Thompson’s views as outlined above, it should be
62
remembered that Tertullian was writing against Marcion and his sect’s practice of
vicarious baptism for the dead, as arising from this verse.
Thompson’s arguments have not apparently influenced many in the scholarly
community, especially those who favour the straight forward meaning of the text. It is
however interesting to compare his translation with that of the more highly accepted
Ante-Nicene Fathers translation. The latter is the work of a number of patristic scholars
and is preferred because it avoids the personal individual biases, which one translator
such as Thompson brings to the text, as seen in his concluding comments above.
In the Ante-Nicene Fathers translation the practice of vicarious baptism is recognised in
both passages. The first:
Why are they then baptised for the dead, he asks, unless the bodies rise again
which are thus baptised?(10)
And in the second:
His only aim in alluding to it was that he might all the more firmly insist upon the
resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who vainly baptised for the dead
resorted to the practice from belief of such a resurrection.(11)
These passages not only identify Tertullian’s recognition of this practice in the Church
at Corinth but also the motivation of those who did so, namely belief in the resurrection
of the dead.
This then is the crux of Tertullian’s argument in these two passages, even if he correctly
draws attention to the need for only one baptism. He rightly also suggests that the
apostle should not be supposed as an advocate of such vicarious baptism. His carefully
nuanced definition at the end: to be “baptised for the dead” therefore means, in fact, “to
be baptised for the body”.(12) This seems to require special pleading on his part, for it
certainly cannot be exegeted from the original Greek, even if open perhaps to his view
in the Latin translations and versions. However these of course are secondary and are
therefore not the original reading. We must leave both Tertullian and Thompson at this
point.
JC O’Neill
63
JC O’Neill published a brief article under “Short comments” in the Expository Times in
1980.(13) He commences with three difficulties associated with the Revised Standard
Version (RSV) rendition of the text of I Cor 15:29. These difficulties are:
1. “...there are no examples, except possible among heretics, of living beings
being baptised on behalf of the dead”
2. “the position of holos (o3lwv) which is usually taken in the above
translation, with the verb, ‘are not raised at all’ or ‘are not actually raised’.”
3. (which) “arises when we consider the text of our verse. The manuscripts on
which our printed versions rely end the verse with huper auton
(u9pe\r au0tw=n). However Dc 020 326 1175 etc syp boms Eph, Chr give huper
ton nekron (u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n) and 69 gives huper auton ton nekron (u9pe\r
au0tw=n nekrw=n)”.14)
By way of an overall comment on these three O’Neill observes:
None of these difficulties by itself completely destroys the possibility of taking
the verse in the usual way, but taken together they increase our disquiet, and make
us ask whether the settled solution is in fact right.(15)
He then proposes his own suggestion. The two phrases governed by u9pe\r refer to
ta\ nekra\ rather than oi9 nekroi\\, and the Greek fathers (e.g. Chrysostom) followed a
similar line of thought interpreting u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n, toute/sti, tw=n swma/twn;(16)
O’Neill sums up his line of investigation of the Greek by saying: “If this suggestion is
right, the first sentence would then refer to those who are baptised in view of their
approaching death”.(17) He claims this was the interpretation of Calvin, Bengel and
Bachmann.(18) With all this in mind O’Neill then proposes his paraphrase of the whole
of the verse as:
Otherwise what do those hope to achieve who are baptised for their dying bodies?
If the completely dead are not raised, why then are they baptised for themselves as
corpses?(19)
O’Neill justifies this paraphrase on the grounds that the history of the early church
provides examples of deathbed convert/baptisms and requests of pagan parents that their
children whose lives were threatened be baptised. O’Neill believes this verse indicates
the beginnings of these kinds of practices, because “the bodily rite of baptism was used
by people who expected the body soon to die and decay, because they expected that rite
64
to ensure eternal life at the resurrection of the body”.(20) Thus O’Neill concludes his
article and a rationale for his particular approach.
RA Campbell
Our last exponent of the amended wording/punctuation approach is from the Australian
scholar RA Campbell.(21)
Having identified his own view with that proposed by Chrysostom in the fourth
century, he states:
The baptism referred to in I Cor 15:29 is, I believe, normal Christian baptism
undertaken by Christian believers on profession of repentance towards God and
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The people Paul has in mind in this verse are not a
group in the Corinthian church who practice a distinctive baptism but the group
(tinev) who say there is no resurrection of the dead (15:14) whose claim is at odds
with their being baptized.(21)
The attraction of the above for Campbell is that:
it would bring the verse into line with the main stream of Christian experience and
eliminate the need to hypothesise an otherwise unknown group with a bizarre
baptismal practice.(22)
He sustains his position further with the following:
1. “ it coheres well with the passage as a whole, especially with the argument
that begins at v12...” (which is) the main premise. This also “tends to
confirm that oi\ baptizo/menoi(v29) are the same people as tinev” (v12).(23)
2. “it seems very unlikely that Paul would use the words oi\ nekroi\ to refer to
the Christian dead."(24) On the other hand Campbell believes that nekrov is
“occasionally used by Paul and his disciples to refer to people as subject to
death apart from Christ”.(25)
3. u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n used in its final sense conveys for the “inanimate
corpses”, with a view towards resurrection.(26)
In concluding his case, Campbell seeks to re-iterate the understanding of Chrysostom as
expressed in two of the latter’s homilies. Two quotes from these will illustrate
Campbell’s dependency:
Like as we, on our belief in Christ and his resurrection, are baptised as being in
65
our own persons destined to partake in the same mysteries: for “we are baptised”
say he “for the dead”, that is for our own bodies;...(Chrysostom, Homily XXIIL3).
Later in dealing with the Marcionite practice of vicarious baptism he states:
This therefore Paul recalling to their minds said, “If there be no resurrection, why
art thou then baptised for the dead?” i.e. the dead bodies (sw=matw=n). For in fact
with a view to this art thou baptised, the resurrection of thy dead body, believing
that it no longer remains dead. (Chrysostom, Homily XL.2)
Campbell then makes the point from these extracts that oi9 nekroi\ is “dead bodies” and
reading u9pe\r as final meaning “with a view to” the resurrection of the dead body(27). In
conclusion, Campbell believes that his interpretation is commended by three things:
a). Coherency with immediate context and chapter
b) Agrees well with Paul’s usage of nekrov
c) Having the support of Chrysostom, one of the earliest and most able
expositors, who lived much closer to Paul’s time than we today.(28)
The above provide the main features of the approaches of Thompson, O’Neill and
Campbell.
Some Finer Points
i) Conzelmann
In regard to some finer points of Thompson’s approach, Conzelmann portrays these as:
Thompson joins in with the suggestion of Semler and others to
punctuate as follows:
0Epei\ ti/ poih/sousin oi baptizo/menoi; u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n; ei0 o3lwv. For what shall
they do who have themselves baptized? For the dead? (i.e. do they have themselves
baptized for the dead?) If, etc...
To this Thompson links other suggestions:
(a) 0\Epei\ ti/ poih/sousin oi baptizo/menoi; u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n, ei0 olwv. For
what will they do who have themselves baptized? They do it for the dead if...;
(b) He finds it still better (following Tertullian to put a comma after
baptizo/menoi and a question mark after e0gei/rontai, cf Tertullian, De
Resurrectione Carnis 48:11; Contra Marcion 5:10. He points to the fact that in
“Text ‘א’ and ‘B’, despite the different length of the lines, a line ends in both
66
cases with baptizo/menoi.(29)
Conzelmann understands his above portrayal of Thompson’s approach as: “the
ingenuity of exegetes...run riot”.(30)
Interestingly at this point it is also instructive to turn to Conzelmann’s remarks on
Chrysostom even if he is writing before O’Neill and Campbell’s exposition of this
Church Father. He comments:
Some of the church fathers are familiar with vicarious baptism as a heretical
practice; thus Chrysostom knows of it as a custom of the Marcionites.(31)
In his footnote substantiating the above remark after quoting the Greek of Chrysostom’s
Homily in his Epistle I to the Corinthians 40:1; he translates this as:
When any Catechumen departs [this life] 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 thus they baptize him in the stead of the departed one.(32)
This is the rather bizarre practice so described by Chrysostom of the Marcionite rites
of vicarious baptism for the dead. Recoiling as it were from this eccentric application
of the meaning of I Cor 15:29, Conzelmann goes on to state:
On the other hand, the Greek Church Fathers are united in offering a different
exegesis: the nekroi\, “dead” are the sw=mata u9pe\r w=n baptizo/meqa, “the
bodies because of which we are baptized”.(33)
Conzelmann attributes this particular interpretation’s origin with Didymus of
Alexandria but taken up also by Chrysostom.(34) He also discusses which Church
Father first alluded to the
interpretation in terms of vicarious baptism first arose owing to a
misunderstanding on the part of Ambrosiaster.(35)
However Conzelmann quotes other scholars as tracing this interpretation back to
Chrysostom’s above statement on the Marcionite practices.(36) In any case from these
early fathers commenced the trend towards I Cor 15:29 becoming “the crux of the
exegetes”.(37)
It has been important to take careful note of Conzelmann’s discussion of the early
67
patristic scholars in order to understand further the background to O’Neill and
Campbell’s espousal of Chrysostom in particular. Chrysostom was himself reliant on
earlier commentators such as Ambrosiaster and Didymus of Alexandria. In regard to
O’Neill’s particular approach, reliant as it is on Chrysostom, three scholars over the last
couple of decades of the last century have criticised it, these being Murphy-O’Connor,
Fee and White.
ii) J Murphy-O’Connor
Murphy-O’Connor introduces his comments on O’Neill’s article by saying that his own
article had already been accepted for publication when he belatedly noticed O’Neill’s
article. He agrees with O’Neill in the interpretation of o3lwv and u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n
and u9pe\r au0tw=n as “referring to persons who are already dead in the physical
sense”.(38)
Thereupon he goes on to make the following criticisms of O’Neill:
He, however, takes these two phrases as alluding to that part of the baptizo/menoi
which is “dying and about to become a corpse” (p310) namely the body. Texts
cited in my article clearly document that Philo thought of the body as a ‘corpse’,
passages that O’Neill could have used to strengthen his argument. He would
thereby have made it more convincing.(39)
Murphy-O’Connor sums up his main criticism of O’Neill as:
As with so many other hypotheses, O’Neill produces a translation which is
perfectly possible if v29 is taken in itself, but he fails that his interpretation is the
most probable because he ignores the context. Whilst less bizarre than the current
consensus, his opinion is vulnerable to the same fundamental objection that a
reference to a Corinthian practice in v29 is alien to the context and interrupts the
associative process inspired by v28. In addition of course, such a reference would
not constitute a valid argument, neither for Paul nor for his adversaries.(40)
iii) G Fee
Criticising both O’Neill and Murphy-O’Connor Fee states:
O’Neill, ‘I Cor 15:29’ and Murphy-O’Connor, “Baptized..”, independently object
to this translation on the basis of word order. Since in (I Cor) 6:7 o3lwv
immediately precedes the noun nekroi\ they argue that it should be translated “the
68
really dead”, in contrast to those in the first clause. But that is to place too much
confidence in too little evidence when it comes to word order. More likely, in
each case this word comes first in the Pauline sentence for emphasis, the verb
appears last here because that is the fixed formula throughout.(41)
Fee certainly strikes a hammer blow to both O’Neill and Murphy-O’Connor on this
particular point and his criticism is convincing.
iv) JR White
White, commenting on what he calls “the non substantial sense for tw=n nekrw=n”
claims that this has been revived by O’Neill. His criticisms in outline are four:
a) This sort of ellipsis would be highly irregular;
b) The expression “for their dying bodies” or “for themselves as corpses” are by
no means immediately apparent;
c) O’Neill’s argument based on a single, extremely late textual variant; and
d) It is wholly unrelated to its context.
White therefore judges O’Neill’s proposed solution must be deemed unsatisfactory.(42)
By way of a conclusion to summarising the main issues raised by those who seek to
change the punctuation and or wording of I Cor 15:29 in order to avoid a vicarious
meaning, there would appear to be two fundamental considerations in countering this
approach. The first of these is the textual evidence and secondly the patristic. In regard
to the former of these and the scope for valid variations of the text Foschini(43) states:
We have omitted questions regarding the authenticity of the text and of its exact
context since those who hold that v29 is not authentic, or that is outside its original
context have no sufficient serious arguments to prove their case. Variant readings
in versions or codices, which can be found in critical editions, need not delay us.
Concerning the repetition of hyper ton nekron ( u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n ) in v 29, we
agree with Comely in regarding it as a gloss and with modern critics we prefer the
reading hyper auton (u9pe\r au0tw=n).(44)
This astute comment is in fact borne out in the 4th revised edition (1983) of the United
Bible Societies Greek New Testament of this verse.(45) In the Textual commentary on
the Greek New Testament 3rd edn (1971) there is no entry at all on I Cor 15:29,(46)
which indicates no variation to comment upon either. All this evidence indicates that
there would appear to be limited scope, if any at all, for basing any amendments to
69
wording and punctuation on supposed textual variations.
Secondly much has already been said above about the way in which the patristic
writers (particularly Tertullian and Chrysostom) can be used as source of authority
against the evidence for vicarious baptism in the early church. In regard to the
question of influence in opinion Foschini identifies this as:
For the Greek Fathers, with the exception of Epiphanius, followed in the
footsteps of Chrysostom; the Latin Fathers on the other hand, followed
Ambrosiaster;(47)
This situation pertained up to the 16th Century as Foschini observes “no great variety of
view on the text (i.e. I Cor 15:29) had been offered”.(48)
As the views of Tertullian and Chrysostom have already been canvassed, it will be
instructive at this late stage of this chapter to briefly survey Ambrosiaster, because of
his crucial role in the Western church. Again, Foschini has to report the following:
The most common interpretation of 15:29 is that of vicarious baptism,
performed by the Marcionites, and proposed as a valid exegesis for the first
time by Ambrosiaster. According to this author, Paul in our text, “wishes
to show how fixed and firm is the Resurrection of the dead, by giving the
example of those who were so sure of the future Resurrection that they
would be baptized for the dead who died before they could be baptized.
Fearing that anyone who had not been baptized would either not rise at all,
or rise only to be damned, a living person was baptized in the name of the
deceased. This example is not an approbation of what they did but merely
shows their firm faith in the Resurrection...”.(49)
This comment “sheets home” the origins of the vicarious view in the Western church.
Even if the “Baptism for Dead Bodies” (Corpses) view of Chrysostom, outlined in
particular through O’Neill and Campbell, was to prevail in the Eastern Church the
practice of vicarious baptism by the Marcionite church was both acknowledged and
described by Chrysostom as reported earlier.
I consider the force of the various critics of Thompson, O’Neill and Campbell’s views
together with textual and patristic evidence tend to argue against their case for changed
punctuation and wording.
70
FOOTNOTES
1 Thompson, KC “I Cor 15:29 and The Baptism of the Dead” (in) Studia Evangelica
II (1964), (edited by) F L Cross Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 647-59.
2 “The Ante-Nicene Fathers” Vol 3, (1980), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 581-2.
3 Thompson, op. cit., 656.
4 op. cit., “The Ante-Nicene Fathers” Vol 3 (1980) De Resurrectione Carnis, 449-
450.
5 Thompson 656, 7.
6 ibid., 654.
7 ibid., 659.
8 ibid.
9 ibid., 654.
10 op. cit., “The Ante Nicene Fathers” Vol 3 (1980), De Resurrectione Carnis.
11 ibid., Vol 3 Adversus Marcionem, 449.
12 infra, footnote (4) above
13 O’Neill, JC “I Corinthians 15:29” (in) The Expository Times Vol 91 No 10 (July
1980), 310-311.
14 ibid., 310.
15 ibid., also the textual issues will be dealt with at the end of this chapter.
16 ibid.
17 ibid.
18 ibid., 311.
19 ibid.
20 Campbell, RA “Baptism and Resurrection (I Cor 15:29)” (in) the Australian
Biblical Review 47 (‘99), Parkville, Vic, 43-52.
21 ibid., 46.
22 ibid., 47.
23 ibid., 47-48.
24 ibid., 48.
25 ibid., 49.
26 ibid., 50.
27 ibid., 51.
28 ibid.
71
29 Conzelmann, H “I Corinthians” (1975), Fortress, Philadelphia; 276, N(120).
30 ibid., N (276).
31 ibid.
32 ibid., N (117).
33 ibid.
34 ibid., N (118).
35 ibid.
36 ibid., N (119).
37 ibid.
38 Murphy-O’Connor, J “Baptized for the Dead: (I Cor XV, 29) - a Corinthian
Slogan?” (in) Catholic Biblical Quarterly XL (1978), 543, N (24).
39 ibid.
40 ibid.
41 Fee, G “I Corinthians” (1987), 763, N (13).
42 White, JR “Baptized on Account of the Dead: The Meaning of I Cor 15:29 in its
Context” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997), 489-97.
43 Foschini, BM, “Those who are Baptized for the dead” (1950), Article 1, 2612.
44 Foschini BM, 262 ibid. and quoting Comely, Comm I Cor (1909), 481.
45 “The Greek New Testament” (1984), (4th rev edn), 603-4.
46 “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament” (ed) BM Metzger (1971),
567-8.
47 Foschini, BM, op. cit., Article 1, 260.
48 ibid.
49 ibid., Article 3, 46-7, Foschini is quoting direct from Ambrosiaster’s Comm in 1
ad Cor (Comments on I Corinthians) PL, 17, 280.
72
B (4) The various contexts approach of those in favour of the
Vicarious View
73
With regard to the context of I Cor 15:29 there are various interpretative approaches.
These divide between those who were in favour of the vicarious view and those who are
against. This chapter addresses the first of these divisions. The latter is dealt with in
the next chapter, the respective scholars with their approaches, who affirm the vicarious
view are: J Downey’s “spiritual powers”; B Witherington’s “Socio-rhetorical”; RE De
Maris’ “archaeological/cultural” and TD Joyce and E Walter as “pastoral compassion”.
While outlining each of the above, the reaction of those who have critiqued some of
them will be also noted. Finally concluding reflections are offered.
J Downey
In 1985, James Downey published an article entitled: “I Cor 15:29 and the Theology of
the Baptism”.(1) He describes:
It is a sound principle, accepted in the pages that follow, that, unless the
resultant sense becomes untenable, the words of the text should be taken at
face value.(2)
He had already observed that
It is widely agreed that those, and they are many, who give other
interpretations to the verse do so because they do not see how vicarious
baptism can have been practiced at Corinth or referred to by Paul.(3)
In making this particular observation Downey without doubt is going “to the heart” of
the motivation behind those who represent the “case against”. He also has by this stage
of his argument identified his own position with the vicarious view, which he sees as
“approaching a consensus among commentators”.(4) Downey then gives some
indication of his own solutions. He states:
Specifically it is claimed that vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead is not
incongruous when that baptism is seen, not as a means of forgiveness of sin, but as
a protection against the principalities and powers in the after life.(5)
Downey continues to develop this premise throughout the remainder of his article.
However in so doing, he relates his argument to the theology of baptism, which of
course is implied in the title.
Under the subheading of the “Polyvalent Nature of Baptism”, Downey indicates that
in the early church the purpose of baptism was thought of as polyvalent.(6) By this he
means that baptism is not merely concerned with the remission of sin with the
associated sacramentalism, but that there are other values. That is, a “protection
74
against and deliverance from the superior powers both in this world and the next”.(7)
He cites as proof for this “cosmic aspect of baptism” in the New Testament such texts
as Col 2:10-15; I Pet 3:19-22 and I Cor 8:6 and suggests I Cor 15:29 ought to be seen
in this context. He justifies his stance further:
When some of their members died, it was brought home to the bereaved
Christian community that the deceased, not having been baptised, would be
prey to the influence of the cosmic powers. Consequently the living were
baptised on behalf of the dead.(8)
In a latter stage of his argument, Downey refers to language used by Paul elsewhere in
the epistle to indicate further that there are “other superhuman” powers (who) exercise
control in the universe”.(9) These are the a0rxo/ntwn tou= ai0wnov tou/tou (I
Corinthians 2:6,8; 15:24) (the rulers of this age); to\ pneu=ma tou= ko/smou (2:12) (the
spirit of the world/cosmos); qeoi\ polloi_ kai\ ku/rioi polloi\ (8:5) (many gods and
many lords); a0ggeloi (11:10) (angels); pa=san e0cousian kai\ du/namin (15:24) (all
authority and power) and qa/natov (15:26) (death). Downey defines these as the
“cosmic spirit forces” which possess and control not only individual human lives but the
very course of the universe.(10)
At this point Downey also acknowledges the need for gnw=siv (gnosis) or esoteric
knowledge to enable the initiated to become aware of the secret of their own security.
However he is at pains to declare at this point that Paul was no proto gnostic even if
there may have been elements of this movement in Corinth.(11) Paul, in complete
contrast, asserts the future subjugation of these cosmic powers in the future when
every sovereignty, authority and power even death itself will be subject to Christ
(15:24, 26). The Christian shares in this total victory of Christ through baptism. So
then it is highly significant that Paul should allude to the Corinthian practice of
baptism for the dead.(12) Downey sums up his main argument. If his interpretation
does not do violence to the text, he goes on to assert that this kind of interpretation
has been neglected.(13) However even though this may be the case in contemporary
society, it would be relevant to several contemporary cultures where such a cosmic
aspect of baptism is a preoccupation.(14) In such situations, he believes his particular
interpretation would be of “considerable relevance to the theology of mission”.(15)
There can be little doubt that Downey’s view is a novel one. However in spite of its
75
novelty there appear to have been few who have either accepted or rejected his line
of thought as can be seen in the lack of references to Downey’s article by other
scholars.
B Witherington
On a more mundane level there is the approach of Witherington with his survey of
conflict and community in Corinth from a socio-rhetorical viewpoint.(16)
Witherington acknowledges the vicarious view and goes on to point out:
While Paul does not endorse this magical view of baptism’s efficacy, he does not
see this as a serious enough aberration to debate the point. He simply uses it as
part of his ad hominem argument.(17)
In an earlier comment on his book(18) further elaborating his view on this issue,
Witherington states that those who were being baptised for the dead were not among
those who doubted the resurrection because Paul uses their practices to illustrate his
case (i.e. the ad hominem argument). He points out further that the “some” in each
case stresses the factionalism at Corinth.(19) He introduces the rhetorical aspect and
comments thus:
Paul’s rhetorical strategy throughout this chapter is to unify the Corinthians in a
proper belief in the resurrection by critiquing the view of the more prominent
“some”, not the views of the less prominent, even if he thought that the latter
involved some aberration.(20)
Witherington takes the view - rightly or wrongly - that “more likely” it was the more
wealthy members of the congregation, those with considerable social status and
continuing strong ties to pagan society that denied the resurrection.(21) Whilst his “more
likely” preface to this remark suggests some tentativeness in his belief, this kind of
observation is still open to challenge. Various other factors such as cultural/ religious
understanding may have brought about this division of opinion.
Two other aspects of his approach are worthy of note relevant to I Cor I5:29. The first
of these is ritual.
The baptismal rite on behalf of the dead suggested by v29 might be considered an
expression of the strong Greco-Roman belief in the power of ritual. Ritual was
considered likely to be effective if it was performed correctly in every detail...and
perhaps some believed that if they performed proxy baptism on behalf of the dead
76
correctly, the dead would then receive salvation as the benefit conveyed by this
Christian water ritual.(22)
This idea certainly has an authentic “ring” about it given the ritualistic efficacy
understanding that was prevalent in Greco-Roman culture.
The second of Witherington’s observations concerns cremation. He suggests:
Another factor that may have fuelled the practice of proxy baptism among
Corinthian Christians is cremation, which in some places was the predominant
means of disposing of human remains during the first century AD. Those who
could not afford land or expensive tombstones may have been practicing
cremation at Corinth. Perhaps Paul’s preaching about resurrection led to concern
that the departed who had been cremated would not get such a benefit hence the
practice of proxy baptism.(23)
He qualifies his view somewhat in a footnote where he states that later when the
“implications of the concept of resurrection were clearly understood, Christians
objected to cremation”.(24)
RE De Maris
Another writer who comments briefly on this matter is De Maris, who states:
Roman [burial] practices underwent a sudden and dramatic change in the second
century, bringing them into conformity with the Hellenistic customs of the eastern
Mediterranean. In other words, the Romans switched from cremation to
inhumation [i.e. burial], so that the entire empire had a common burial practice in
the second and later centuries.(25)
Be this as it may, De Maris has taken an enthusiastic stance in support of the vicarious
view from the standpoint of archaeology and anthropology. His article of 1995 of some
22 pages represents a significant contribution to this topic, albeit with a novel approach.
After exploring “The World of the Dead in Corinthian Religion”,(26) dealing with the
cultural and archaeological history, De Maris describes further “Baptism for the Dead in
the Corinthian Religious Environment”,(27) which is more relevant to this chapter. In
order to crystallise the main elements in De Maris’ view we merely need to record the
following statements:
This study suggests that first century Corinthians were pre-occupied with the
77
world of the dead, so they attached themselves to deities [e.g. Palaimon at Nearby
Isthmia and Demeter and Persephone at Corinth] that would allow them to address
that concern...Corinthian Christianity in order to survive and flourish had to
address this same orientation. As Christianity grew on Corinthian soil it became
more and more a Gentile community, and many coming into the church brought
with them a concern for the world of the dead...Put simply, the Corinthian
Christians would not have instituted baptism on behalf of the dead if Corinthian
religion of the Roman era had not been pre-occupied with the realm of the dead.(28)
Subsequent to stating his position in this way, De Maris explores other
implications.(29) These include such factors as:
i) those baptised were kin of the dead;
ii) the baptisms were more likely to be undertaken for the recently deceased than
long departed;
iii) dying is a relatively long process that only begins with physical death;
iv) this being the case then the living carry out lengthy rituals to separate the dead
from the world of the living and to integrate them into the world of the dead;
v) at the popular level, this journey was thought to require divine assistance;
vi) therefore, vicarious baptism was one among several funerary rituals used by
Corinthian Christians through the difficult transition from life to death;
vii) Sociologically, the primary significance of vicarious baptism is as a “rite of
passage” which incorporated the elements of separation, transition and
incorporation.(30)
JD Joyce
What might be termed a “pastoral” approach to the context of I Cor 15, is that of
JD Joyce.(31) Joyce admits to an infinite number of interpretations if the text is
emended or re-arranged in word order but ultimately one’s first responsibility is to
“interpret the text as we have it, for there is not apparent reason in the text itself for a
change”.(32)
Ultimately Joyce states his own view as follows:
From this Pauline concept of baptism, suffering, and death “in Christ”, perhaps the
practice of being baptised on behalf of the dead had come from the concept of
belonging by baptism to a body which included both the living and the dead. If
78
the Corinthians shared this view, they perhaps saw themselves as vicariously
bearing the burden of the unbaptised dead. Paul does not condemn them nor
approve what they are doing.(33)
Even if Joyce is somewhat tentative about putting forward his view, there are insightful
aspects. For example, belonging by baptism to a body with its living and dead, which is
reminiscent of traditional church teaching about the church militant and church
triumphant. The identification of the baptism with the suffering and death of those “in
Christ” also is illustrated in the rite of baptism for the dead. The compassionate aspect
of those who “saw themselves as vicariously bearing the burden of the unbaptised dead”
also has much to recommend it. Altogether Joyce’s view is perhaps best expressed in
this paragraph quoted above. It certainly presents spiritual insight and careful
discernment of much scholarship on the issue.
E Walter
Walter(34) extends further the pastoral compassion approach of Joyce along the lines of
traditional Catholic piety with this comment:
Though such a custom is unknown to us it ought not to strike us as
totally incomprehensible. Do we not do something similar with Masses
and indulgences when we apply them to the dead, and with everything
that one does for the dead, partly in ways recognised by the Church,
partly out of pious feeling? It corresponds to a general human need to be
able to still do something for the dead. In relation to baptism early
councils strictly forbade this practice while some sects continued it. Paul
here neither approved nor condemned. It is sufficient for him to make
use of this practice to argue that it has sense only if Christ’s resurrection
can still have an effect on the dead.(35)
This comment demonstrates pastoral insight into a qualified support for the practice in
terms of the ‘ad hominem’ argument.
Having surveyed the various context approaches in favour of accepting the vicarious
view, I now note the various reactions to the main parts of the views above.
Various Reactions
79
i) Orr and Walther
Orr and Walther in their commentary on I Corinthians(35) critique Joyce’s:
(he)...accepts the poorly attested ‘hemeteran’ and relates the phrase to a vicarious
implication in the baptisms. None of these alternatives (including earlier critiques
of Raeder and Howard’s view) is likely.(36)
However as a reviewer of Joyce’s article counters:
This much disputed passage offers its own explanation when seen in the
perspective of the entire epistle. Contrary to most manuscripts instead of “your
glorying” the variant “my glorying” should be read (15:31) because the latter is
the usual Pauline phrase and expresses an idea of great importance to him...Some
vicarious action is intended.(37)
ii) JR White
Perhaps because of the length of his article and its depth of insight, De Maris has been
critiqued more than the others. Two scholars have offered their critique of De Maris;
these-being JR White(38) and RA Campbel1(39). White acknowledges that De Maris has
presented an impressive amount of archaeological evidence in substantiating his
contention that “The first century Corinthians were pre-occupied with the world of
dead”.(40) He then makes two criticisms, firstly:
Unfortunately, he (i.e. De Maris) goes on to assume what we would hope might
now, as a result of such thorough research, be readily demonstrable: that the
Christians in Corinth actually practiced vicarious baptism for the dead...but there
is no evidence anywhere in the ancient world for anything like baptism for the
dead.(41)
Secondly, White feels that De Maris’ argument as a whole is problematic. Aside from
the latter’s a priori acceptance for the traditional (i.e. vicarious view) interpretation,(42)
White identifies De Maris’ rationale for assuming the practice of vicarious baptism for
the dead as “It was an indispensable adaption to prevailing Corinthian culture without
which Christianity could not have flourished there”.(43) To this White offers his final
criticism: “It is, however, fair to ask how a custom so necessary to the survival of the
church in Corinth could vanish, excepting one reference in Paul whose obscurity even
De Maris is forced to concede(44), without the merest trace”.(45)
80
iii) RA Campbell
Campbell, another critic of De Maris, like White recognises De Maris’
contribution as being successful in “illuminating the social and religious context
of the Corinthian church”.(46) However he also offers two criticisms of De
Maris. Firstly...“we are left wondering how Paul could possibly have approved
of it (i.e. vicarious baptism). Paul’s attitude to pagan religion is very plain. He
expected his converts to sever all connection with idolatry (I Cor 10: 14-22)”.(47)
Secondly, Campbell, in the light of this understanding of Pauline personal and
general eschatology, “would simply have rejected the long troublesome journey
ideas of surrounding culture. (I Thess 4:13-18; 2 Cor 5:1- 10; Phil 1:21-3)”.(48)
He justifies his position against De Maris as follows:
But even if the Corinthian Christians shared their neighbours’ views of the
afterlife, to the point of adapting baptism to conform to them, this would have
never persuaded them of the truth of resurrection. Such a baptism might have
confirmed them in the belief in post-mortem survival, but would have nothing
whatever to say to the question of resurrection, except to make it even less
likely.(49)
By way of some concluding reflections on these comments we may start with White and Campbell’s criticisms. In regard to White’s two main points one might agree with him to a certain extent about the emphasis De Maris places on the “indispensable adaption to prevailing Corinthian culture without which Christianity could not have flourished there”, which the practice of vicarious baptism provided. He is perhaps overstating his case here, since in my view this practice was only one element, albeit an important one, in the adaption of Christianity to prevailing Corinthian culture indicative of De Maris’ overstatement. To be sure, the emergence of Second Temple Judaism brought in its wake the advent of Hellenisation. Thus the boundary markers so clearly defined at the time of the Maccabean revolt (167-164 BCE) were to be blurred with the ever increasing accommodation of Hellenisation in the Maccabean dynasty (i.e. the Hasmoneans) which followed. .
81
However, as far as the Hellenised Jews of the Diaspora were concerned, including Corinth, there was a distinction between their monotheistic beliefs and the prevailing polytheism of first century Corinthian gentile thought and practice. One needs to also remember the predominant Jewish leadership of this church such as Prisca and Acquila (Acts 18:1-2) and Sosthenes (cf Acts 18:17, I Cor 1:1).
Also, to state that Christianity would not have flourished without its adaption to
prevailing Corinthian culture is indicative of this overstatement. Prominent among the
various factors here is the fact that there was a significant Jewish Christian element in
the early church at Corinth which perforce of their situation and Hebraic outlook would
not have been influenced to any great extent by prevailing Corinthian culture.
The Gentile element no doubt brought with them their Greek culture and with that
perhaps an openness to vicarious baptism for the dead. However this alone does not, in
my view, account for their response to Paul’s preaching. Rather it was their acceptance
of the gospel of Christ that would have been similar to Greek communities elsewhere
around the eastern Mediterranean.
As to the other point of White being his implied scepticism in such statements as:
“...readily demonstrable that the Christians in Corinth actually practiced vicarious
baptism for the dead...there is no evidence anywhere in the ancient world for anything
like baptism for the dead”.(50) It should be borne in mind that White commences his
article with the admission that...“standing alone (it)...would seem to imply some sort of
vicarious baptism for the dead”.(51) He then sets about to argue against this admission in
terms of his own distinctive contextual view, which is dealt with in the next chapter. As
for his comment about the practice being found anywhere in the ancient world, this may
be unlikely given the spiritual significance of Christian baptism being limited to
Christian communities only. So his argument here is not strictly relevant to the point at
issue.
As for Campbell’s criticisms, these also are a little off the point at issue. In the first
place, “wondering how Paul could possible have approved of it”(52) raised the whole
issue again of presuppositions. It is implied by Campbell that Paul could not have
approved of the practice. Yet, a good majority of scholars are of the view that Paul’s
approval or otherwise is not stated. So it seems pointless of Campbell to speculate
82
along these lines. As for his view of Paul’s attitude illustrated by his condemnation of
idolatry, this of course is true, but not relevant to this practice of vicarious baptism. His
concluding statement that “such a baptism...would have nothing whatever to say to the
question of resurrection, except to make it even less likely”.(53) It seems to me, that
Campbell has lost sight of the fact or missed the whole point of Paul’s citing this
practice as evidence for belief in the resurrection. Whatever the origins of this practice,
it is clear that there is an unmistakable connection between baptism and resurrection
stated in I Cor 15:29 but also elsewhere in Paul’s teaching in Rom 6:1-11. So, this
being the case, Campbell is ‘well wide of the mark’ in the above statement in his own
view and his efforts to refute De Maris.
Finally, I note a few remarks on the various contexts identified in this chapter are in
order. These endeavours to throw light on the original setting of vicarious baptism in
the Corinthian church, as such, enrich our understanding. They are like facets in
viewing the rationale of the practice be it spiritual powers (Downey) socio-cultural
(Witherington and De Maris) or pastoral compassion (Joyce and Walter). Each comes
at the context from their particular angle and thereby complements the other with
another facet or aspect. In this way they all advocate an acceptance of the vicarious
view.
83
FOOTNOTES
1. Downey, J “I Cor 15:29 and the Theology of Baptism” (in) Euntes Docete 38 No 1
(1985), Rome, 15-23.
2. ibid., 23.
3. ibid.
4. ibid.
5. ibid.
6. ibid., 24.
7. ibid., 25.
8. ibid.
9. ibid., 30.
10. ibid., 31.
11. ibid., 30.
12. ibid., 31-2.
13. ibid., 33.
14. ibid.
15. ibid.
16. Witherington, B “Conflict and Community in Corinth: a Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on I & II Corinthians” (1994), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
17. ibid., 305.
18. ibid.
19. ibid., 294-5.
20. ibid., 295 N (20).
21. ibid.
22. ibid., 294.
23. ibid.
24. ibid., N (18).
25. De Maris, RE “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (I Corinthians
15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology” (in) Journal of Biblical
Literature 114 (1995), 662 – 82. This reference is on page 673. Earlier in the same
year De Maris published another article entitled “Demeter in Roman Corinth:
Local Developments in a Mediterranean Religion” (in) Numen, (Leiden) 42, 2,
(1995), 105 - 117.
84
26. ibid., 663-71.
27. ibid., 671-7.
28. ibid., 671–2.
29. ibid., 675.
30. This material from 675-7 was summarised for the sake of brevity and in order to
draw out De Maris’ main argument.
31. Joyce, JD “Baptism on Behalf of the Dead: an Interpretation of I Corinthians
15:29-34” (in) Encounter 26, 2, (‘65).
32. ibid.
33. ibid., 275.
34. Walter, E “The First Epistle to the Corinthians”, (1971), Herder & Herder, New
York, 172-3.
35. Orr & Walther, “I Corinthians”, (1976), Doubleday, New York, 336-7.
36. ibid.
37. “New Testament Abstracts”, (Fall ‘65), Vo1 10, No 1, Art 230.
38. White JR “Baptized on Account of the Dead: The Meaning of I Cor 15:29 in its
Context” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997), 489-97.
39. Campbell, RA “Baptism & Resurrection (I Cor 15:29)” (in) The Australian
Biblical Review, Parkville Vic 47 (‘99), 43-52.
40. De Maris, op. cit., 671.
41. White, JR, op. cit., 490 N (15).
42. ibid.
43. De Maris, op. cit., 671-2.
44. ibid., 661.
45. White, JR, op. cit., 490, N (15).
46. Campbell, RA, op. cit.
47. ibid., 45.
48. ibid.
49. ibid.
50. White, JR, op. cit., 490, N (15).
51. ibid., 487.
52. Campbell, RA, op. cit., 45.
53. ibid.
85
B (5) The various contexts approach of those against the
Vicarious View.
86
There would be three scholars who stand out as advocating a contextual approach
against the vicarious view. The context is that of the immediate verses around I Cor
15:29. The scholars to be examined in this chapter include Foschini, Murphy-O’Connor
and White.
In each of these cases the verses following namely up to v32, are linked with v29 as the
context they favour. These verses are:
And why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour? I die every day! That is
as certain, brothers and sisters, as my boasting of you – a boast that I make in
Christ Jesus our Lord. If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at
Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat
and drink, for tomorrow we die”. vv 30-32 (NRSV)
Their individual reasons for this are made clear in the following survey of their views.
After presenting these, various scholarly reactions will be noted along with some
concluding reflections.
BM Foschini
There can be little doubt that Bernard M. Foschini’s series of five articles entitled
“Those who are Baptised for the Dead” I Corinthians 15:29” appearing in the Catholic
Biblical Quarterly over 1950-1(1) represent an important starting point for our
contemporary survey. Foschini wrote in the decade before the Second Vatican Council
of 1962-65 and therefore represents a pre-Vatican II approach to the interpretation of
this verse. Over the series of five articles he sought to survey all the thinking about and
reflections upon this verse down through the previous almost two millennia of Christian
history. He seeks to categorize the various “families of interpretive schools of thought”
and make an evaluation upon them. At the end of his fifth essay Foschini puts forward
his own interpretation of the verse, which will be presently noted and examined. Whilst
it will not be advisable here to detail all the various interpretations Foschini cites in his
articles, it will be possible to cite his various categories, which are elaborated upon
within the five articles.
After labelling I Cor 15:29 as a “crux interpretum”(2) whose interpretation has always
been obscure,(3) Foschini proceeds to outline the main categories for investigation as
follows:
87
(4)Chapter l, Baptism in the metaphorical sense
Chapter 2, Baptism in the proper sense, but not as a sacrament.
Chapter 3, Baptism as a sacrament of the New Law.
In regard to the third of these main categories above, he subdivides the last into the
following:
Art I: Baptism Received for the Benefit of Others.
Art II: Baptism for the Benefit of Those who are Baptised.
Art III: Baptism for the Living, Not for the Dead.
These main categories and their subdivisions are subdivided further again into a
bewildering array of more specific aspects of the topic too numerous to cite here.
Foschini systematically and thoroughly exposits upon these and criticises them in
turn.(5) This is all brought to a fitting climax by his fifth article entitled: “Solution to the
Question. Art III Baptism for the Living, Not for the Dead”.(6) As this represents
Foschini’s own particular contribution to the interpretation of I Cor 15:29, it is therefore
necessary to examine this last article and offer some evaluation of his view.
In summarising his case, Foschini states:
In other words, St Paul argues: light and darkness, life and death are contraries.
Now those who are baptised do so in view of future glory for both soul and body.
If then there is no Resurrection and no future life, then their contraries stand -
death and annihilation. But then what point is there in being baptised, in joining
the Faith? Is it for death and annihilation?(7)
Foschini’s view at this point leads on naturally to his ‘General Conclusion’ where he
outlines his overall approach as:
If we consider only the words in question, many interpretations are possible; but if
we take into consideration the text, the context, the writer, those for whom the
letter was intended, etc, the number of possible interpretations decreased
considerably... .(8)
His last paragraph following soon after this in effect gives his solution to the
interpretation of I Cor 15:29:
Of all the opinions in the third chapter,(9) we believe Durselen is right in
separating the two phrases “to be baptised” and “for the dead”. We maintain,
88
however in opposition to Durselen the v29b is a perfectly parallel repetition of
v29a that the words u9pe\r au0tw=n belong to v29 rather than to v30. There is also
a perfect parallel between v29 and v30: just as the jeopardy spoken of in v30, so
the Baptism in v29 is objectively good, and not reproved but conceded by Paul; in
the mind of the Apostle, neither this Baptism nor this jeopardy is for the dead; and
the wording in each verse is similar. The sense, then, which results is most in
keeping both with the text and with the style of St Paul.(10)
Foschini’s attention to the immediate context of I Cor 15:29 was to be the starting point
of others who followed after him. Foremost among these was Jerome Murphy-
O’Connor. However the latter was to evolve in his interpretation from the ad hominem
approach to that of a context approach opposed to the vicarious view.
J Murphy-O’Connor
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor has gained an international reputation for his New Testament
scholarship particularly in field of Pauline studies. In regard to our topic he has
published two commentaries on I Corinthians and written at least two articles on this
epistle one on the verse in question and the other on another chapter and verse.(11)
Eliminating the last of these as not directly relevant to our topic, our survey will briefly
cover his Commentaries first and his 1981 article in some depth, with an evaluation.
Of the two commentaries and article, these were to be published in three consecutive
years from 1979 - 81 inclusive and our survey will proceed in this chronological order
so that any progression in this thinking may be detected. In his 1979 Commentary
Murphy-O’Connor states:
Thus v 29 appears as a general statement which is then clarified by a particular
example; it must therefore concern the sufferings associated with his labours...thus
v29b must be translated (correct RSV) ‘If those who are really dead are not
raised, why do some work themselves to death on their behalf?’ The question is
not answered directly, but the response is implicit in what Paul goes on to say
regarding his sufferings.(12)
This interpretation is somewhat reminiscent of Foschini who earlier held that the
apostles “were being destroyed by their labours on behalf of the dead (i.e. those who
were lost)”.(13) In his Commentary of the following year 1980, Murphy-O’Connor gives
89
some idea of his approach to the verse within the section 15:29-34 which is entitled “Ad
Hominem arguments for the Resurrection”. He explains a basic reason for his
approach:
In opposition to the clarity of strictly logical arguments ad hominem arguments
are inevitably more obscure because they rely on personal factors that are too
well known to the parties involved to be explained in detail.(14)
Be this as it may he states that this is the case with the baptism for the dead issue. He
notes that we have “absolutely no information” about this practice and there is no need
to suppose that it was “generalised at Corinth”.(15) However for Murphy-O’Connor:
The important thing, from Paul’s point of view, is that it was tolerated, if not
approved, by the community, because this permits him to ask what the point is it
the dead are not raised. Paul makes no comment on the merits of baptism for the
dead. He is content to make a tactical point which he hopes will force those who
undertook such baptism to bring pressure on those who denied the resurrection.(16)
When comparing these two commentaries whilst there may be difference in emphasis
they both have in common the sub-heading “Ad Hominem arguments for the
Resurrection” and include the verses vv 29 - 34.
When turning to his article of 1981, Murphy-O’Connor takes up the “slogan” theme
used earlier in his 1978 article, as alluded to earlier. He commences in his introduction
to allude to the “plain meaning of the text” having a “widespread consensus”, but then
indicates his own position when he says: “one may take leave to doubt that the meaning
is as obvious as the consensus asserts”.(17) He quickly justifies his doubt:
If we accept that I Cor XV:29 refers to vicarious baptism, we are obliged to
postulate a complete break between verses 28 and 29, and another between
verses 29 and 30-34. 1n other words, while v29 reflects the general theme of the
chapter, it has no relation to its immediate context.(18)
After further asserting that one look for a meaning that “integrates the verse into its
context”(19) he then goes on to outline the context. He identifies the verse under study
with what follows in vv30-32 having asserted that there is a “intrinsic relationship”
between the two, where v29 is the general statement being illustrated by a particular
example.(20) This means in turn that since the particular example (vv30-32) concern
Paul’s sufferings associated with his labours “one should assume that the meaning of
the generic statement (v29) runs along the same lines.”(21) The alternative he warns is to
90
assume a digression instead that can only be explained as a momentary aberration.(22)
He then moves on to his understanding of the meaning in the next section.
With this contextual location being vv29-32 Murphy-O’Connor states that the literal
meaning of βαπτιζειν (to baptise) is excluded since v 29 concerns the apostolic
labours, rather than any activity of the Corinthians. With a metaphorical use of this
verb, as common in the Hellenistic period, the meaning becomes “to destroy, to perish”,
as for example in Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:50.(23)
With this usage of the infinite verb, the participial form βαπτιζομενοι becomes “those
being destroyed” in and through their apostolic endeavours. On the other hand oi9
nekroi\ refers to those who were ‘dead’ in an existential sense (e.g. Col 2:13). There is
a problem Murphy-O’Connor admits at this point because in 29b, the nekrov are those
“literally and physically dead”. Hence for consistency the literal meaning of oi9 nekroi\
is preferred.(24)
He then explores the various meanings of u9pe\r which can be listed as follows:
A) In defence of, on behalf of, for the prosperity of;
B) For, in stead of, in the name of;
C) For, because of, by reason of, on account of.(25)
He eliminates the first two and favours the third because: “...this would be compatible
with the metaphorical sense of bapti/zw and the literal sense of oi9 nekroi\ only if we
assume an ellipse.”(26)
He then wishes to translate part of our verse as: “what will they do who are being
destroyed on account of (the resurrection of) the dead?”(27) further pointing out the
importance of the resurrection of Christ and that of the dead being a central element of
Paul’s teaching and reason for his sufferings (II Cor 4:7-15; 11:23-28).(28) After further
developing his line of reasoning with reference to the writings of Philo of Alexandria,
Murphy-O’Connor concludes with “The Force of the Argument”. Here he dismisses the
vicarious/ad hominem view completely stating that it is “unwarranted to assume that he
would condone a superstitious practice simply because it appeared to provide an easy
argument”.(29) This is a “quantum leap” from this position taken on the “ad hominem”
issue in the previous two years.
91
He then proposes that v29a be paraphrased as:
Supposing that there is no resurrection from the dead, will they continue to work,
those who are being destroyed on account of an inferior class of believers who
are dead to true wisdom?
V29b is paraphrased as:
If those who are really dead are not raised, why indeed are they being
destroyed on their account?(30)
In conclusion, Murphy-O’Connor brings his masterful treatment to a concluding
summation with the following words that encapsulate his whole argument:
To sum up: The hypothesis that oi9 baptizo/menoi u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n originated
as a Corinthian gibe at Paul’s apostolic suffering permits an interpretation which
integrates v29 into its context, and reveals a realistic argument which reflects so
much of Paul’s style, notably his delight in turning opponent’s assertions against
them and his concern to find common ground.(31)
Thus stated Murphy-O’Connor rests his case which one must say is thoroughly
researched and well argued. His facility with Hellenistic Greek is superb and his
familiarity with the writings of Philo of Alexandria to illustrate his argument further is
acknowledged.
JR White
As indicated in the title of his article, JR White sets out to discover the meaning of I Cor
15:29 from its context. He is aware of Murphy-O’Connor’s attempts to do the same
thing and identifies himself with this quest though he comes to a different solution to
the latter.(32)
White disposes of the four main alternative interpretive options to pave the way to the
presentation of his “New Attempt at Interpretation”.(33) As White does this over the
next seven pages including extensive footnoting this survey will only itemise his main
points, for the sake of brevity and clarity.
In answering his own question as to how v29 fits into its context, White takes the
92
following terms:(34) oi9 baptizo/menoi as literally = those being baptised; u9pe\r as
causal (i.e. denoting the moving cause) = on account of; a metaphorical interpretation is
posited for tw=n nekrw=n = the apostles; while nekroi\ = the literal dead; o3lwv functions
attributively, modifying nekroi\ = truly dead persons.
With these key terms, so defined, White translates v 29 as: “Otherwise, what will those
do who are being baptised for the dead (that is the dead, figuratively speaking: that is
the apostles)? For if truly dead persons are not.”(35) As support for his contextual view,
as applying to the apostles and in particular Paul, White states, after developing his line
of thought:
...for v29 fits seamlessly into the rich tapestry of apostolic suffering portrayed
metaphorically in terms of Paul’s “death” throughout the Corinthian
correspondence. Against this background the enigma surrounding v29 evaporates,
and it becomes clear that Paul is referring to his sufferings in a manner quite
recognisable to those familiar with his teachings.(36)
White feels further that “...in our text Paul’s willingness to suffer becomes a powerful
confirmation of the validity of the resurrection and is in turn, confirmed by the
Corinthians’ baptism on the basis of Paul’s life and message”.(37)
It is interesting to note about all of these three scholars who stress the context locate it
in the verses immediately following our verse i.e. vv29-32. Common to them all is the
emphasis on Paul’s sufferings -which is the key theme of the verses which follow verse
29. Their similar approach requires a metaphorical or figurative approach to
interpreting the vocabulary of verse 29 in order to escape the literal meaning.
Criticisms of the Above
i) A Basic Criticism of Foschini
In commenting upon Foschini’s overall approach one cannot but admire his
contextual emphasis in attempting to elucidate the exegetical interpretation of this
difficult text. Having dealt with and evaluated over forty(38) opinions, he is right in
citing such elements as the text, context, the writer and his addressees, as a means in
reducing the number of possible interpretations. In his endeavour to stress his theme
for the last article that “baptism is for the living, not for the dead” as his solution to
the question, he accords with the main theological reason why the Church over the
93
past two thousand years has tended to view vicarious baptism for the dead as
heterodox. However in spite of his erudite attempts to avoid “adhering strictly to
their literal meaning”(39) the plain reading of the verse in question still refers to
baptism for the dead.
ii) R Schnackenburg
Schnackenburg in his book “Baptism in the Thought of St Paul” discusses the views of
Foschini. Schnackenburg observes that Foschini postulates a final meaning which holds
u9pe\r to be synonymous with ei0v tou\v nekrou\v.(40) Foschini, in order to gain “an
approximate meaning”, interprets it with the aid of various question marks as follows:
Otherwise what shall they do who are baptised? For the dead? (That is, are they
baptised to belong to be numbered among the dead, who are never to rise again?)
Indeed if the dead do not rise again at all, why are people baptised for them?
(That is are they baptised to be numbered among the dead who are never to rise
again?)(41)
For Schnackenburg, Foschini’s attempts to use questions in this way to insinuate a
negative answer i.e. the baptised do not become baptised to belong to the dead - is
“artificial and unconvincing”.(42)
iii) G Fee
Murphy-O’Connor’s ingenious way of using the context to argue away from a literal
meaning to a metaphorical one whilst consistent within his argument leads on a rather
extravagant paraphrase of v29 which one wonders would have been Paul’s original
intention, given what follows in verse 30-32. We include one of the best criticisms of
Murphy-O’Connor’s position. Fee observes the following problems:
Besides the inherent difficulties of having nekroi\ change meaning in the two
juxtaposed lines, especially without some kind of adversative and the
improbability of their using such a metaphor to describe apostolic hardships (pace
Murphy-O’Connor; the influence of Philonic Judaism is questionable at best) there
seems to be no contextual preparation for this (again pace Murphy-O’Connor; how
this flows logically from v28 remains a mystery). Nor is there any hint in the text
either that (a) Paul is quoting (which of course they would have known if it were
so) or more importantly (b) that the rest is response, when there is no adversative
94
of any kind.(43)
iv) JR White
White cites the non-literal sense of baptizo/menoi, i.e. Murphy-O’Connor’s view.(44) In
White’s view, Murphy-O’Connor’s argument “simply cannot bear up under the weight
of at least three unfounded assumptions”.(45) These being:
a) that Paul has elided thv a0na/stasewv after u9pe\r;
b) that baptizo/menoi is being used here in its classical sense;
c) that the whole phrase is a derogatory slogan coined by the Corinthians to refer
to Pau1(46).
v) J Reaume
Another writer of a journal article in the nineties is Reaume, who, like White, seeks first
to examine those who have gone before.
Having discussed the vicarious view, Reaume examines the idea of what he calls
“Metaphorical Baptism”.(47) This mainly refers to the views of Murphy-O’Connor and
whilst commending briefly the latter’s view along the lines of circumventing the
theological problems of the vicarious view and fitting the context well, he goes on to
criticise it as:
1. The problem of differing nuances of nekro/v in the immediate context;
2. it is unclear how an appeal to this alleged slogan would strengthen Paul’s case
for the certainty of the resurrection;
3. little evidence exists that the phrase “baptised for the dead” in verse 29 is a
slogan.(48)
vi) RJ Collins
Murphy-O’Connor’s view was to receive further criticism in the late 1990’s in the
commentary on I Corinthians by RJ Collins. Collins first re-iterates Murphy-
O’Connor’s identification of this verse as a gibe directed against Paul where “the dead”
(v29a) are those who lack wisdom, whilst “the really dead” (v29b) are those who have
actually died and “to be baptized” is a metaphor “to be destroyed” (cf Mark 10:29; Luke
12:50).(50) Having thus identified Murphy-O’Connor’s distinctive terminology, Collins
95
indicated further the latter’s basic view that:
Paul’s rhetorical questions are part of his diatribal defence against those how have
undermined his ministry (vv29-32).(51)
Collins then poses Murphy-O’Connor’s understanding of Paul’s rhetorical questions as:
Why, Paul asks, are preachers being harassed, why are they being destroyed for
the sake of those who lack wisdom? Why are they being ruined if there is to be
no resurrection of those who have died?(52)
At this point Collins states:
Murphy-O’Connor’s suggestion requires that Paul’s words be understood in a way
that is not at all usual.(53)
Collins’s observation here, coming as it does almost twenty years after Murphy-
O’Connor’s presentation of his ideas, perhaps goes to the heart of the problem. This
being, by way of a few concluding reflections, is that a rejection of the plain meaning of
the text can lead to some very extravagant re-interpretations of it. In many ways
Murphy-O’Connor represents a significant development of Foschini’s seminal view,
articulated thirty years before. White writing over a decade later than Murphy-
O’Connor avoids the latter’s excesses but agrees essentially with the context being
Paul’s sufferings for the gospel. Thus the three are related in a common theme pursued
over a half century almost.
The question at issue behind all of their endeavours to link and thereby integrate
verse 29 with vv 30-32, is whether v29 can indeed be linked at all with either the verses
which follow it or even before it for that matter. In a general sense it can be seen to be
part of the framework of Paul’s ad hominem arguments for the resurrection, as many
commentators affirm, but can the immediate context extend beyond this? Taking the
verse at face value it is not altogether apparent (contra our three writers above) that
verse 29 introduces the verses following and thereby fits this context. The context of
verse 29 seems to stand alone without any link to what proceeds or follows. This of
course is what is being argued against in all three writers who clearly are not satisfied
with a “stand alone” approach to this verse.
In fairness it has to be acknowledged that it is part of the canons of an adequate exegesis
of any verse of scripture that it should be located within a context. In this particular
96
case as mentioned above I believe this is within the context of an ad hominem argument
by Paul to convince his critics of the veracity of the resurrection. Therefore in my view
to link the context otherwise, as per the sufferings of Paul, is not strictly relevant to his
basic intention in citing this practice at Corinth. Further will be said about the locating
of a context later, which should include a wider context alluded to in the case of
contexts in favour of the vicarious view. The immediate scriptural context - whatever
that might be - should never be isolated from the wider picture of the original setting of
the society of which the Corinthian church was a part.
97
FOOTNOTES
1. Foschini, BM “Those baptised for the Dead, I Cor 15:29: an Exegetical Historical
Dissertation” (5 articles) published in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly (CBQ) in
1950-51.
2. ibid., Article 1 (1950), 260.
3. ibid.
4. His chapters here are spread out over the five articles.
5. These are contained principally within the first four articles and these are a
valuable guide to the trends of interpretation prior to 1950.
6. CBQ (1951), 276-83
7. ibid., 282.
8. ibid., 283.
9. i.e. in his third article.
10. op. cit., 283.
11. These are respectively: “I Corinthians” (1979), Liturgical Press, Collegeville,
Minn; “I Corinthians” (New Testament Message Series) (1980), Veritas
Publications, Dublin; “Baptised for the Dead (I Cor XV, 29), A Corinthian
Slogan?”(in) Revue Biblique 88 (1981), 532-543 and “Corinthian Slogans in I
Cor 6:12-20” (in) CBQ 44 (1978), 391-6.
12. Murphy-O’Connor, J (1979), 144.
13. Foschini, BM op. cit., (in) Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12 (1950), 266-7.
14. Murphy-O’Connor (1980), 143.
15. ibid.
16. ibid., 144.
17. Murphy-O’Connor (1981), 532.
18. ibid., 532-3.
19. ibid., 533.
20. ibid.
21. ibid.
22. ibid., 534.
23. ibid.
24. ibid., 535.
25. ibid.
98
26. ibid.
27. ibid.
28. ibid.
29. ibid., 541.
30. ibid., 542.
31. ibid., 543.
32. White, JR “Baptised on Account of the Dead: the Meaning of I Cor 15:29” in
Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997), 489.
33. ibid., outlined on 493–499.
34. ibid., 493.
35. ibid., 494.
36. ibid., 496.
37. ibid., 498.
38. Foschini, op. cit., Article III, 283.
39. ibid., 282.
40. Schnackenburg R, “Baptism in the Thought of St Paul” (ET 1964), Blackwell,
Oxford, 101.
41. Foschini, op. cit., Article 5, 75 and his further explanation 92-98.
42. Schnackenburg, op. cit., 102.
43. Fee, G “I Corinthians” (1987), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 763.
44. White, JR op. cit., (1997), 492.
45. ibid.
46. ibid.
47. Reaume, JD “Another Look at I Cor 15:29, Baptised for the Dead” (in)
Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (1995), 457-75.
48. ibid., 461.
49. Collins, RJ “First Corinthians” (1999), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn.
50. ibid., 557.
51. ibid.
52. ibid.
53. ibid.
99
THESIS SECTION C:
THE MORMON POSITION
The Mormon “literal application” of the vicarious view and
critiques of it.
100
C The Mormon “Literal Application” of the Vicarious View
and Critiques of it
101
In this chapter I will present the Mormon “literal application” of the vicarious view. This
is an important dimension of our discussion because the Mormons are the only
ecclesiastical body in the world today who actually believe in and practice vicarious
baptism for the dead as arising from their interpretation of I Cor 15:29. Thus a discussion
of their literal application approach takes earlier theological speculation from the abstract
to the concrete. However in order to fully appreciate the Mormon view, I shall briefly
survey their origins in order to set their particular view in context.
According to the “Encyclopaedia of Mormonism”, their Church was established in
Fayette, New York on April 6, 1830 under the direction of Joseph Smith,(1) who is
styled by them as a prophet. Some eight years later the group officially took the name
of “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”.(2) This name is significant in that
the Mormons acknowledge Jesus Christ as head of their church and the term “Latter-day
Saints” indicates “that the Church was restored in the last era of human history prior to
the second coming of Christ”.(3) The latter-day aspect of the church’s name
distinguishes it from “former-day” organisation established by Christ during his earthly
ministry in Palestine.(4) This presumably includes the various other Christian
denominations. The term “Mormon” is derived from the book of that name originating
from Joseph Smith and together with “Doctrines and Covenants” and the “Pearl of Great
Price” are accepted by this church as Scripture and standard works.(5) The Bible is
accepted by them as the word of God.(6)
The role of Smith was pivotal in regard to the church’s origins, however he was
lynched by a mob in Nauvoo, Illinois, in 1844 for destroying an opposition printing
press.(7) Smith was succeeded by Brigham Young (1801-77) who led the early
groups of Mormons in migrating to the southwest. By 1847 they had established
Salt Lake City, in what is now the state of Utah, as their main base. A splinter group
is located in Independence, Missouri. However the main denomination now has a
US and worldwide membership of over three million.(8)
The Three Mormon Missions Including Baptism for the Dead
One of the church’s former Presidents S W Kimball identified three principal missions,
these being: to proclaim the gospel, to perfect the Saints and to redeem the dead.(9) The
third of these introduces one to the Mormon view on vicarious baptism for the dead,
102
which originated from Joseph Smith and is laid down as binding on Mormons in
“Doctrines and Covenants”.(10) Apparently the first public affirmation and
announcement of the ordinance of baptism for the dead in the church was made by
Joseph Smith in August 1840. In a funeral address he announced “glad tidings of great
joy” in contrast to the prevalent belief that all unbaptised were damned. His words
were:
If we can baptise a man in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost for the remission of sins it is just as much our privilege to act as an agent
and be baptised for the remission of sins for and on behalf of our dead kindred,
who have not heard the gospel or the fullness of it.(11)
Soon after these pronouncements by Smith the first baptisms for the dead in modern
times were performed in the Mississippi River near Nauvoo, Illinois.(12) Later, upon
completion of the baptismal font in the Nauvoo temple in late November 1841,
vicarious baptisms were performed there.(13) At those times and from time to time since
there have been ‘revelations’ clarifying this doctrine and its practice.(14)
These have included the following:
1. This was a New Testament practice (I Cor 15:29 cf Doctrines and
Covenants 12.8).
2. The Ministry of Christ in the Spirit World was for the benefit of those who had
died without hearing the gospel or the fullness of it (I Peter 4:6).
3. Such baptisms are to be performed in temple fonts dedicated to the
purpose (Doctrines & Covenants 124:29-35).
4. The language of the baptismal prayer is the same as for the living, with
the addition of “for and in behalf of” the deceased.
5. Witnesses are to be present for proxy baptisms and a record is to be
kept in Church archives (Doctrines & Covenants 128:3, 8f 127:6-9).
6. Women are to be baptized for women and men for men.
7. Not only baptism but also confirmation and the higher temple ordinances may
also be performed by proxy.
8. The law of agency is inviolate in this world and the world to come.
Thus, those served by proxy have the right to accept or reject the
ordinances.(15)
103
Further to the above provisions there is that of Section 128 in “Doctrines & Covenants”
(hereafter D & C) where Joseph Smith expounded on Malachi 4:5-6 and explained that
baptism for the dead is
“a welding link” between parents and children (D & C 128:18). He explained
further that unless children are sealed by temple ordinances to their deceased
forebears, who are in turn sealed to each other in God’s family, neither can be
fully saved and exalted (D & C 128:14,15,18). “They without us cannot be
made perfect - neither can we without our dead be made perfect (v15; cf
Hebrews 11:40)”.(16)
Apologia for the Mormon Position
In some concluding remarks to the various provisions noted above it is indicated further
that whilst the earliest vicarious baptisms were for only direct blood relations and
ancestors usually no more than four generations back, this nowadays has been extended
to non-relatives identified through the name extraction program.(17) This latter program
is a reference to the extensive Mormon family history records, preserved for this
purpose among others. The article concludes with some additional motivation for the
literal application of vicarious baptism:
In Latter-day Saints perspective, whatever else one may do to mourn, give
honourable burial to, cherish, or memorialise the dead, this divinely authorized
ordinance of baptism is a demonstration of love and has eternal implications.(18)
Following directly after this article is one entitled “Ancient Sources” in which the fairly
well known theologian, Krister Stendahl, gives his exposition of I Cor 15:29.(19) During
the course of this article, Stendahl refers to Paul’s defence of the future resurrection
against those who denied it and in regard to I Cor 15:29 he observes:
interpreters have puzzled over the fact that Paul seems to accept this practice. At
least he does not see fit to condemn it as heretical, but Paul clearly refers to a
distinct group within the Church, a group he accuses of inconsistency between
ritual and doctrine.(20)
Stendahl goes on to refer to Foschini’s articles on the topic and its identification of forty
in all interpretations. He then states:
The text seems to speak plainly enough about a practice within the Church of
vicarious baptism for the dead. This is the view of most contemporary critical
exegetes.(21)
104
It is clear that Stendahl’s article is included in the “Encyclopaedia of Mormonism”
because it not only supports their position but provides an independent, non-Mormon
scholarly opinion on this subject.
Apart from the sources cited above, there is the approach of a modern Mormon
apologist in the person of Stephen E Robinson in his book entitled “Are Mormons
Christians?” published in Salt Lake City in 1991 and reprinted since in 1994. After
initially referring to I Cor 15:29 as an ‘anomaly’(22) in the view of many Christian
churches at least, he goes on later(23) to present the Mormon case in favour of vicarious
baptism. As this is a fairly contemporary publication it is of interest to note Robinson’s
apologetic approach.
Robinson first identifies the dilemma of the various interpretations of I Cor 15:29 in
these terms:
Scholars and theologians have proposed many different theories to try and
explain this verse. Yet honest scholars, both Catholic and Protestant (even those
hostile to LDS doctrine) are forced to admit that the passage describes vicarious
baptism for the dead, and that proposed alternatives are really just attempts to
avoid the clear meaning of the text because of its theological implications.(24)
In support of this opinion, Robinson cites two quotes, one representing Protestant views
in Gordon Fee’s Commentary on I Corinthians and the Jerome Biblical Commentary
representing the Catholic view. These are as follows (as in the order above):
The normal reading of the text is that some Corinthians are being baptized,
apparently vicariously in behalf of some people who have already died. It would
be fair to add that this reading is such a plain understanding of the Greek text that
no one would ever have imagined the various alternatives were it not for the
difficulties involved.(25)
Again, the apostle alludes to a practice of the Corinthian Community as evidence
for a Christian faith in the resurrection of the dead. It seems that in Corinth some
Christians would undergo baptism in the name of their deceased non-Christian
relatives and friends, hoping that this vicarious baptism might assure them a share
in the redemption of Christ.(26)
105
After citing this agreement of both these traditions on this issue, Robinson moves on to
discuss Paul’s attitude towards the practice whether he “merely tolerated an aberrant
practice” or that “he looked the other way because these vicarious baptisms reflected a
kind of faith in Christ”.(27) Admitting serious problems with this, even from a LDS
perspective, he feels nonetheless that Mormons would be entitled to ask their critics, if
this argument is valid, the following questions:
If the Apostle Paul found vicarious rites for the dead tolerable among the
Corinthian Saints, why must the same practice be judged intolerable among the
Latter-day Saints? If the Bible shows that the Apostle Paul was in fellowship
with those who, rightly or wrongly, practiced baptism for the dead, how can
modern Christians reject the precedent?(28)
These are searching questions indeed, viewed through Mormon eyes. Robinson in the
next section of this chapter of his book deals with “The Esoteric Teaching of Early
Christianity”. He develops his case in favour of esoteric doctrine being taught by early
church fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, Ambrose of Milan, John Chrysostom,
Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Basil the Great and Clement of Alexandria and claims that
these men and their esoteric teachings cannot be dismissed as unorthodox.(29) He then
makes his point:
If objective scholars can conclude that the New Testament supports an esoteric
teaching in Paul; if the New Testament explicitly states that Corinthian Christians
practiced vicarious baptism for the dead: if St Clement of Alexandria believed
that an esoteric teaching of the Lord was part of Christianity, and Clement himself
had been initiated into it: if St Basil can emphatically state that most Christian
teachings were never written down but were found in secret rites and teachings
handed down from the apostles: if St Cyril of Jerusalem could perform secret
rituals and in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre instruct his initiates on the
esoteric meanings of those rituals: then there is no case for excluding the Latter-
day Saints from Christendom simply because they believe in an esoteric
teaching.(30)
This quote has been cited at some length so as to not miss the argument of his case in
favour of I Cor 15:29 being esoteric teaching.
106
Scope and Impact of Mormon Baptisms for the Dead
Apart from this apologetic for the Mormon literal application of the vicarious view there
is the scope and impact of their baptisms for the dead. In terms of scope a recent article
claimed “a number of high profile people...have had temple ordinances performed on
their behalf...”.(31) These have included the Founding Fathers of the USA, various US
Presidents, John Wesley, Christopher Columbus, Ghengis Khan, Joan of Arc, Adolf
Hitler, Josef Stalin and Buddha.(32) This same article reveals further that such
prominent Jews as Rashi, Maimonides, Albert Einstein, Menachen Begin, Irving Berlin,
Marc Chagall and Gilder Radner have also been vicariously baptised.(33)
Mormon doctrine, as already outlined,(34) allows for the dead to accept or reject the
vicarious baptism performed for them yet, there have been nonetheless objections made
by various individuals and institutions to this practice. For example the Simon
Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles has opposed the vicarious baptism of Jewish
Holocaust victims, because this ritual was seen by them and others as “insulting and
insensitive”(35) Rabbi Marvin Hier of Wiesenthal Center maintains:
If these people (i.e. the victims) did not contact the Mormons themselves, the
adage should be: Don’t call me, I’ll call you. With the greatest of respect to
them, we do not think they are the exclusive arbitrators of who is saved.(36)
Mormon Response to Their Critics
In response to these objections, Mormon Church authorities have taken steps since 1995
to stop any further vicarious baptisms of holocaust victims and other deceased Jews.
They have undertaken further to remove the names of all Holocaust victims from their
genealogical files.(37) Such names can now only be accepted if they are resubmitted by
a direct descendant or if consent is obtained from the dead person’s immediate
family.(38) According to this same source church genealogists have deleted hundreds of
thousands of Jewish names from their baptismal records since this 1995 agreement.(39)
This endeavour has been an...“ongoing, labour intensive process requiring name-by-
name research. When the Church is made aware of documented concerns, action is
taken...plans are underway to refine this process.”(40)
107
However, this same article also reports that a researcher, Helen Radkey published a
report showing that the 1995 promise to remove Jewish holocaust victims names from
the Mormon International Genealogical Index “seems to have been broken”.(41) The
reason for this view is that Radkey’s research from the Mormon church’s database
uncovered the names of over 20,000 Jewish holocaust victims who have been
vicariously baptised. Other genealogists estimate the total number may exceed
100,000.(42) If this gives some indication of the resistance of Jewish groups and
individuals to Mormon vicarious baptisms of holocaust victims then their impact on this
section of the world wide community has been negative. There are more fundamental
objections to not only their practices but also their beliefs and these will be dealt with in
the next section.
Critiques of the Mormon Position
When it comes to critics of the Mormon literal application of the vicarious view
BM Foschini was to be the most thoroughgoing and objectively fair-minded critic
earlier on in our survey period. Reference has already been made to the five articles he
published in 1950-51 on the subject of baptism for the dead in which he itemised some
forty different views with criticisms of each, before presenting his own view. In
relationship to the Mormons, their views are examined in his third article, under the
group of views entitled: “Baptism Reviewed for the Benefit of Others” with vicarious
Baptism of the Mormons(43) being the second of these. Later in this article Foschini
offers criticism of their view.(44)
This coverage of Foschini’s critique will be a conflation of both of those
abovementioned sections for the sake of brevity. Foschini identifies four main
elements from which the Mormon view of vicarious baptism for the dead is derived.
These are as follows:
a The symbolic immersion and emersion of Baptism.
b I Cor 15:29;
c Malachi 4:5;6;
d The necessary dependence of our perfection or happiness on that of men who
died without Baptism or received it invalidly because they were not baptized
by Mormons who alone have the authority to baptize from Christ, and
consequently to make a valid record in the book of life(45) .
108
In summarizing Joseph Smith’s teaching Foschini points out three arguments
Mormon apologists use to defend their founder’s teaching on the subject. These are:
i) It is an unthinkable and immoral doctrine to admit that all those men who
died or who will die without Baptism are damned forever.(46)
ii) Is there anything wrong with receiving it (i.e. baptism) by a proxy? Is it
not a far more extravagant arrangement to have an infant at baptism accept
the Gospel by proxy, as most Churches do? Those offering the Child for
Baptism we are told ‘answer for it’ and the little one believes ‘through
another’ (in altero) because he is a sinner through another.(47)
iii) That Baptism for the dead belonged to the belief of the early Church, as we
are taught by I Cor 15:29 but with the death of the apostles and with the
general “bankruptcy of the Church”, also lost the doctrine of Baptism for the
dead until the prophet Joseph Smith received it again by revelation from
God.(48)
Foschini prefaces his critique in this way:
To answer the Mormons is difficult, not because of the strength of their
arguments, but because they are not on common ground with us. We must depend
on research and reason; they depend on the light of their “revelations”. Hence it
would be wasted effort to refute their “revelations”. Nevertheless, we must
answer their arguments for the sake of such who have no ‘a priori’ bias which is
rooted in the reputed “revelations”.(49)
The critique can be itemized as follows:
1. Joseph Smith’s interpretation of “to bind” as meaning “to write a record” is
entirely arbitrary; and to say that the earthly and material book of these records
corresponds to the allegorical heavenly book of life, is the fruit of
“revelations” or of dreams, not of exegesis.
2. It is impossible to admit that actions performed by the living can be attributed
to the dead as “their own works” when we have no single argument, not even
for saying that the dead accept or participate, at least intentionally, in the
works done for them.
3. If after the passing of the Apostles, the bankruptcy of the Church and of her
true doctrine became glaringly apparent in her struggle with the gnostic so-
109
called, why does Nibley (i.e. the Mormon apologist) now stress so much the
words of men who had lost the Lord’s doctrine? (i.e. Nibley’s quoting from
“the Shepherd of Hermas”). Why does he choose a few words of the Fathers
who lived in the general disaster of the Church and hold them as true?
4. The baptising of infants offered for Baptism by sponsors cannot be used as an
argument to confirm the Mormon view.
a) Such Baptisms are performed not because of the child’s act of believing is
done by a proxy, but because Christ has commanded that all men be
baptized (Matt 28:18-20);
b) In Baptism for the dead the sacrament is administered to another person,
whereas in infant Baptism it is the person himself who is baptised;
c) There is another difference between baptism of the dead and infant
baptism. In the first case, the subject of the sacrament is already beyond
the time of probation and judged by God and his state unalterably fixed in
the second, the infant is on earth and must still merit his eternal reward
and punishment.(50)
Foschini concludes his impressive critique by declaring Mormon baptism for the dead to
be “entirely erroneous and arbitrary”.(51) He provides a masterful rebuttal of the more
significant aspects of the Mormon position.
More Recent Critiques
More recently others have also provided important critiques of the Mormon “literal
application” position. Interestingly, there has been a lively debate on the Internet with a
series of relevant articles both in favour and against the Mormon position. One article
in favour of the Mormon view of vicarious baptism for the dead, under a subheading
“What’s the Point”, remarks:
Mormons believe that this doctrine ends the injustice millions of people being
damned just because they died without learning of the gospel of Christ. The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...believes that there is a second chance
for everyone.(52)
This argument in favour from the point of view of justice can be contested from
the Mormon documents, in particular the “Book of Mormon” as seen below. In
110
“Doctrine and Covenants” it asserted that the “Book of Mormon” contains “...the
fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to the Jews also” (Section
20:9) and also that “this most glorious of all subjects belonging to the everlasting
gospel, namely the baptism of the dead” (Section 128:17).(53) Yet in spite of these
assertions, there are two passages from the Book of Mormon, which appear to
give no scope for a second chance through baptism of the dead. These passages
are as follows:
i. Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I
return to my God. Nay ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth
possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will
have power to possess your body in that eternal world. For behold, if ye have
procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have
become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore
the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and the devil hath all power
over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. (Alma 34:34, 35).(54)
ii. And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first
death unto life, in so much as they have become immortal, they must appear
before the judgement seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the
judgement and then must they be judged according to the holy judgement of
God. For the Lord hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass
away; that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are
filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore they who are filthy...shall go away into
everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their forment is as a lake of fire and
brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever has no end. (2 Nephi
9:15).(55)
These two passages have been quoted at some length because of the authoritative
position of the Book of Mormon and the contradiction of this teaching in the light of the
Mormon practice and advocacy of vicarious baptism for the dead. Such inherent
inconsistencies do not make for internal coherence and integrity.
Concluding Remarks
I think it is clear that the Mormon view of agreement with I Cor 15:29 being interpreted
as vicarious baptism for the dead concurs with the majority of New Testament
111
scholarship on the interpretation of this verse. However this is where any further
similarity with the remainder of the Christian community appears to end abruptly. It is
their “literal application” of this practice which provides the great departure from the
norms of orthodoxy as outlined in the creeds of Christendom (i.e. the Apostles, the
Nicene and Athanasian). These Creeds, together with the dogmas of Chalcedon in
451AD have never recognised vicarious baptism for the dead as being a part of the
hierarchy of truths accepted by both the Eastern and Western wings of the Church. By
these standards and thereby the canons of orthodoxy, the Mormon view of “literal
application” must be declared to be heterodox. This whole line of thought of
constructing a theological doctrine on the basis of one isolated verse has never been the
Church’s way of defining dogma, and therefore binding on the faithful. One theologian
in presenting this particular point for a popular audience puts it this way:
Christian leaders have long been leery of imposing on the consciences of believers
as being crucial what is mentioned in only one verse. It’s not that something
becomes “truer” or more binding if it is repeated many times. Rather when
something is mentioned only once, it cannot be given the same weight of
importance as the central themes of scripture (one of the marks of heterodoxy is
that, while central truths are skirted, relatively peripheral matters become life and
death issues). More important, when something is mentioned only once, there is
more likelihood of misrepresenting it, whereas matters repeatedly discussed are
clarified by their repetition in various contexts.(56)
This wise piece of advice highlights the old adage about one verse (of scripture) out of
context can provide the pretext for doctrinal error and heterodox practice. The Mormon
literal application of vicarious baptism of the dead illustrates this principle. But there is
also not only the witness of scripture but that also of the early Fathers. As shown in
another chapter of this thesis, the early Church Fathers (including Tertullian,
Chrysostom, Ambrosiaster and Epiphanius) all condemned the Marcionites and
Corinthians both Gnostic sects, who revived their practice of vicarious baptism on the
same basis as later done by the Mormons. Their precedent being that I Cor 15:29
indicated vicarious baptism for the dead existed in the church at Corinth. In all of these
cases the Church universal, both in early and latter times rightly saw the dangers of any
sectarian group attempting to establish an alleged doctrine and practice on the basis of
one isolated text of scripture.
112
FOOTNOTES
1. The “Encyclopaedia of Mormonism” (1992), (4 Vols), Macmillan, New York,
Vol 1, 276-7.
2. ibid., 277, apparently due to revelation “For thus shall my church be called in the
last days, even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” (Doctrine and
Covenants 115:4).
3. ibid.
4. ibid.
5. ibid., 278.
6. ibid.
7. According to B D Bratt in an article entitled “The Reorientation of American
Protestantism, 1835-45” (in) Church History, (Mar 1998), Chicago, 8.
8. As recorded in the “Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church” (Eds) FL Cross &
E Livingstone (1997), University Press, Oxford, 941.
9. op. cit., “Encyclopaedia of Mormonism”, Vol 1, 277.
10. In particular sections 124 and 127-8 of “Doctrine and Covenants” which is quoted
in detail in The Encyclopaedia of Mormonism, Vol I, 95-6 and Vol I, 421-2, both
of which will be used in this section.
11. op. cit., Encyclopaedia Vol l, 92.
12. ibid.
13. ibid., 421.
14. ibid., 92.
15. ibid., 95-6.
16. ibid., 422.
17. ibid., 96.
18. ibid.
19. ibid., 97.
20. ibid.
21. ibid.
22. Robinson, SE “Are Mormons Christians?” (1991), Bookcraft, Salt Lake City.
23. ibid., 98 and 103.
24. ibid., 98.
25. Fee, G “I Corinthians” (1987), 763-4.
113
26. Brown, RE, Fitzmyer, JA and Murphy, RE (Eds) “Jerome Biblical Commentary”
(1968), I Vol, 273.
27. op. cit., Robinson, SE, 98.
28. ibid.
29. ibid., 99-103 where he illustrates his case from the writings of these early fathers.
30. ibid., 103.
31. “Baptism for the Dead” (in) Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopaedia (Internet
Reference March 2003).
32. ibid.
33. ibid., 2.
34. See point 8 of the revelations clarifying this practice, acknowledged in
“Encyclopaedia of Mormonism”, Vol 1, 95-6.
35. op. cit., “Baptism for the Dead” (in) Wikipedia, (Internet Reference March 2003),
2.
36. ibid.
37. According to “The Mormons, Baptism for the Dead” (in) BBC Religion and
Ethics (Internet Reference April 2003), 2.
38. ibid.
39. ibid.
40. op. cit., Wikipedia article quoting D Todd Christofferson of the LDS (Mormon)
Church’s Presidency of the Seventy, (Internet Reference March 2003), 1.
41. ibid., 2.
42. ibid. 43. Foschini, BM “Those Who are Baptized for the Dead” (1950-51), 5 Articles, (in)
Catholic Biblical Quarterly Article 3, 51-3.
44. ibid., 70-3.
45. ibid., 52-3.
46. Nibley, H “Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times, the Improvement Era” (1949),
212, cited by Foschini, 52-3.
47. ibid., 213, Foschini, 53.
48. ibid., 109-10; 146-8, Foschini, 53.
49. ibid., Foschini, 70.
50. ibid., 71-3, only the most relevant sentences are included here.
51. ibid., 73.
114
52. “The Mormons - Baptism for the Dead” (in) BBC Religion and Ethics (Internet
Reference April 2003), 1.
53. “The Encyclopaedia of Mormonism” (4 vols) (Ed by D H Ludlow) (1992),
Macmillan NY. Vol I, 95-7, 421-422.
54. “Book of Mormon” (1981), (First English edn 1830) Corporation of the President
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake City in reference to
Alma 34:34-5, 295.
55. ibid., “Book of Mormon” 2 Nephi 19:15-16, 74.
56. Carson, D A “Did Paul Baptize for the Dead?” (in) Christianity Today, (Aug 10
1998), Carol Stream, Illinois, l.
115
THESIS SECTION D:
TEXT AND CONTEXT
Including
1) An exegesis of I Cor 15:29
2) The immediate scriptural and socio-cultural context of I
Cor 15:29
116
D (1) An Exegesis of I Cor 15:29
117
So far in this thesis I have examined scholarly comment about I Cor 15:29, particularly
over the past fifty years of the contemporary period. The various issues arising from
this historical survey and the debates about its meaning and context have also been
noted. Attention was also paid to the Mormon position along with a critique.
There is a sense then that we have reached a point where the “decks have now been
cleared” for what is now required. This is an exegesis of I Cor 15:29. This exegesis
will of necessity be from the original Greek text of the New Testament along with a
couple of well respected English translations. The purpose of this exegesis will be to
explicate the meaning of the various key words and phrases within the verse under
study. Ultimately I must encounter the verse personally and so see it through my own
eyes.
The Text Itself and in English Translations
PROS KORINQIOUS A 15:29
0Epei\ ti/ poih/sousin oi9 baptizo/menoi u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n; ei0 o3lwv nekroi\ ou0k
e0gei/rontai, ti/ kai\ bapti/zontai u9pe\r au0tw=n;
[The Greek New Testament (1994) (4th rev edn) Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart,
603-4]
• RSV (1973, 2nd edn ) Translation:
Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are
not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
• NRSV (1989) Translation:
Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the
dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
• The original Greek text and the above English Translations:
In the apparatus of the original Greek text as cited above, there is the following P:REB,
NRSV. Relevant to this particular footnote, Thistleton(1) indicates that the D2 (D 05),(2)
Manuscript and Peshitta (Syriac Version)(3) replace the final au0tw=n with tw=n nekrw=n.
However this is “clearly late and secondary”.(4)
The scholarly opinion on this slight variation of wording at the end of the verse being
118
late and therefore secondary in any case makes no difference to the overall sense of the
verse. As such it is not even commented upon in the Metzger’s “A Textual Commentary
of the Greek New Testament”.(5) The import of these leading authorities of the Greek
Text indicate that the wording of the original Greek cannot be subject to any debate
based on variation. Therefore the Greek text is established as we now have it. As far as
English translations are concerned, I have selected the above cited as being a good
representative sample of the more recent available. In each case these translations have
been completed by teams of scholars which is to be always preferred over just one
translator since this can introduce undue subjectivity. However during the course of this
exegesis for the sake of brevity three of the above will be used - being the Interlinear
(RSV) Greek NT used in conjunction with the Greek NT (4th rev edn) and the NRSV.
The other texts (NIV, NEB, JB) will only be cited in cases where there is a substantial
variation in the vocabulary used in translation.
In regard to the exegesis it will be convenient to divide the verse into phrases to achieve
thoroughness. In the case of scholarly debates arising from the interpretation of
significant words, these will be dealt with in footnotes and in the excursus to follow.
0epei\ ti/ poih/sousin
(RSV Interlinear) - otherwise what will they do
(NRSV) - otherwise, what will those people do
The 0epei\ is best translated as “otherwise” as preferable to “now” (NIV) “again”(NEB)
or “else” in the Authorised (King James) Version. Here 0epei\ is used by Paul as a
conjunction to precede questions, about to be introduced in this particular verse. It also
connects this verse with the argument in the previous verses (cf. I Cor 14:15 and Rom
3:6, for a similar usage)
ti/ poih/sousin
There is nothing to discuss about the meaning of the ti/ which means “what”, however
the poih/sousin has sparked off much discussion by exegetes. Thistleton states: “The
semantic range of poih/sousin is vast, as the sheer column in BAGD, and Grimm-
Thayer bears witness, although proportionately much less space is devoted to the word
in Liddell-Scott-Jones or Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon”.(6) The actual parsing of
119
this verb is future indicative 3rd plural of poie/w. Thistleton having indicated that the
interpretation of this verb as one problem(7) in this verse goes on to list four possible
meanings in this verse:
a). Achieving, bringing about;
b). Intransitive ‘doing’ as an activity;
c). Fashioning, perhaps in an indulgent, self-generating way;
d). ‘doing’ with a future to indicate the subjective dimension also implicit in c) i.e.
‘doing’ in terms of what one thinks one is doing.(8)
He elaborates further on this last option as follows:
i. (NJB - New Jerusalem Bible) What are people up to who…
ii. What do they achieve? (Bachmann, Schlatter, Barrett)
iii. What will they do in the future? (Weiss) What will they do
next? (Barrett, again)
iv. (NRSV, NIV) What will they do? (also Wolff, Collins)
v. (REB - Revised English Bible) What do you suppose they are doing?
vi. What is the meaning of people getting baptized? (Moffatt)(9)
After giving brief comments on each of these as they are cited in turn, Thistleton
decides in favour of “What do those people think they are doing who...”.(10) He feels
this does justice to:
a) The use of the future as a logical present;
b) The subjective or self involving aspect;
c) An open-ended appeal to them to reflect on their self-consistency of
thought and action; and
d) The wide semantic range of the word.(11)
He rests his case on this word at this point. Whilst Thistleton has made an impressive
case for his preferred choice among the various options outlined above, I prefer to stand
with the NRSV and NIV translations as given above as clearly being closer to the
original Greek. Fee’s direct rendering “What shall they do” is seen by him as an
example of a logical outcome of the future indicative tense(12) and there is much to
commend this view.
oi9 baptizo/menoi
(RSV Interlinear) the [ones] being baptized.
120
NRSV – who receive baptism.
This is an example of a present participle which can be either passive or middle voice so
that it may be translated as “those who are baptized” (passive) or “those who have (or
get) themselves baptized” (middle). Fee gives both of these alternatives.(13) I tend to
favour the passive rendering as being the better alternative of these two and this is borne
out in all of the three translations above.
According to Barrett:
The primary reference is to Christian baptism: certain people (oi9 baptizo/menoi)
suggests a particular group, not all Christians) undergo the rite of Christian
baptism in what appear to be very strange circumstances.(14)
To Barrett these strange circumstances are on behalf of the dead.(15) Fee also agrees
with Barrett’s description of this particular group in terms of his “some Corinthians”,
and draws attention to the fact that Paul addresses this community issue in the third
person plural, which Fee claims is a rare instance.(16) He goes on to say that in other
instances when the third person plural is used (e.g. I Cor 4: 18-21; 15:12-19) even when
the “some” are specified, the rest of the argument is directed at the community as a
whole in the second person plural. But as that does not occur in this verse then one may
surmise that it is the activity of only a few.(17) Even if it was only a few, the identity of
these third person plural individuals has given rise to a debate as to whether they are the
"some" tinev mentioned earlier in v12 who didn’t believe in the resurrection. This
issue will be commented upon further in the conclusion of this chapter. The other issue
arising from this verse is the kind of baptism being referred to here, that is whether it is
an actual literal one or purely metaphorical. Writing a book on the interpretation of this
verse just over a decade later than Foschini, Rissi in 1962 was to categorise this baptism
under four main divisions with variations within each. These four categories were:
1. One category adds sw=matw=n to u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n and identifies the dead
with those who are being baptized.
2. A second view understands baptism as the suffering and death of
martyrdom.
3. A third interprets baptism broadly as washing (where the Hebrew but not the
Greek may use a common word).
4. The fourth understands this as vicarious baptism on behalf of people who are
121
dead.(18)
Rissi rejects the sacramentalism of the fourth of these categories.
The main problem of the first three of Rissi’s categories of interpretation of the baptism
in this verse and thereby those being baptised is that all seek to avoid the
straightforward meaning of the text. One commentator cited by Leon Morris identifies
the issue at stake here as
all other interpretations as evasions wholly due to the unwillingness to admit such
a practice, and still more to a reference to it by S Paul without condemnation.(20)
Thus the literal meaning of baptism and those being baptised is to be preferred here as
being realistic and originally intended by Paul.
u9pe\r (used twice, i.e. u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n ; − u9pe\r au0tw=n;)
(RSV interlinear) - on behalf of
(NRSV) - on behalf of
Fee is correct when he states that “much of the debate hinges on the meaning of this
preposition”.(21) He observes that it ordinarily means “in behalf of”, “for the sake of”,
especially in Pauline usage with persons as the object (e.g. I Cor 11:24; Gal 2:20; Rom
5:6, 8; 18:2; Eph 5:25).(22) Collins translates u9pe\r as “for the sake of”.(23) Thistleton at
the commencement of a lengthy excursus entitled: “Multiple Interpretations of “Baptism
for the Dead” and our Conclusion” enumerates the main interpretations of u9pe\r tw=n
nekrw=n as:
i. On behalf of the dead (NRSV, REB,NJB and Barrett)
ii. For the dead (NIV, AV/KJV)
iii. For the sake of the dead (Findley, Raeder, Howard, Collins,
Schnackenburg, and Thistleton).(24)
Thistleton favours this third option if “for is understood in its “final” sense, this is also
acceptable”.(25) However as was seen in our earlier chapter on the Jeremias/Raeder
view, upon which Thistleton relies in regard to the final sense of u9pe\r “it is quite
questionable whether u9pe\r will bear this interpretation”.(26) Beasley-Murray feels that
the Jeremias/Raeder view of ‘with a view to becoming united with the dead in the
resurrection’, demands the insertion of too much that has been left unexpressed.(27) He
takes the view that u9pe\r is “in the interests of the dead, hence baptism for them must be
122
primarily for the purpose of affecting their status and condition”.(28)
Conzelmann cites the important lexigraphical authority of Blass-Debrunner(29) who he
states: “to be sure, do not count u9pe\r tw=n a9ma/rti/w=n under the final meaning (of
u9pe\r), and in any case the final use of u9pe\r tells against this interpretation”.(30) Thus
the final sense of u9pe\r used with both tw=n nekrw=n and au0tw=n in our verse cannot be
sustained. Therefore the first two of Thistleton’s cited interpretations, namely “on
behalf of the dead” and “for the dead”, “for them” is to be preferred as used in the
NRSV and NIV respectively, among other translations. This again bears out the
principle of the superior authority of multiple translators as in the case of the various
Bible translations in contrast to that of individual commentators. Further detail on u9pe\r
will be given in Appendix II.
ei0 o3lwv nekroi\ ou0k egei/rontai
(RSV Interlinear) (literally) - if actually dead persons are not raised. If the dead are not
raised at all.
(NRSV) - If the dead are not raised at all.
It is of interest to note at the outset that all these three translations agree on their
wording of this clause, where the literal translation from the interlinear has it: “if
actually dead persons are not raised”. The NEB only varies the above translations by
adding “to life” after “raised”. O’Neill(31) and Murphy-O’Connor(32) both independently
object to this translation on the grounds of word order. As o3lwv immediately precedes
the plural noun nekroi\, they maintain that this should be translated “the really dead”.
However Fee counters their suggested alternative translation by stating that this is to
place too much confidence in too little evidence for the word order they posit. It is far
more likely that o3lwv comes first in this clause for emphasis, whilst the verb
e0gei/rontai appears last as conforming to the Pauline pattern throughout.(33) This is
borne out in identical word order of the three translations cited above. It is of interest
the stress given in translation of ou0k with o3lwv preceding being rendered in these three
versions as “not...at all”.
Relevant to the verb e0gei/rontai being a passive middle voice, along with the
bapti/zontai in the next clause, a grammatical analysis authority has this to say:
123
The force of the middle voice is not always easy or even possible to ascertain with
certainty, but it may be said to differ from the passive in that the subject of the
verb is the agent and it can take a direct object, it differs from the passive in that
the subject of the verb is the agent and it can take a direct object, if differs from
the active in that the term of the action rests with the agent himself e.g. either
directly or reflexive (e.g. cf. Acts 22:16 ba/ptisai = have/get yourself
baptized).(34)
This erudite opinion explicates further the depth of meaning of these two verbs, which
is not always easy to render in the English translation.
ti/ kai\ bapti/zontai u9pe\r au0tw=n
(RSV interlinear) (literally) - why indeed are they baptized on behalf of them?
(RSV) - why are people baptized on their behalf?
(NRSV) - why are people baptized on their behalf?
As the latter part of this clause (apart from the initial ti/ kai\ ) has already been dealt
with above, this will not be covered again here. One venerable lexical authority renders
the τι και as “why at all”.(35) This clearly brings out the emphatic nature of these two
words together in this context. Our three translations tend to sublimate the emphasis
added by the kai\ following ti/ and so render it only as ‘why’. The Interlinear translates
this expression as ‘why indeed’. Certainly something of the emphasis is lost in
translation with only ‘why’ used. The only other slight variation in these translations is
the rendering of the u9pe\r au0tw=n being either “on their behalf” (RSV, NRSV) or “for
them” (NIV). Both expressions however still portray clearly the element of
vicariousness inherent in this word, which of course is consistent with the earlier usage
of u9pe\r.
With the more technical aspects of this expository exegesis now complete there remains
the task of making some concluding summations and reflections. There can be little
doubt that any adequate exegesis seeking to establish the exact meaning of this
otherwise difficult text cannot avoid the two vicarious references. One venerable
authority states rather categorically:
All interpretations which seek to evade vicarious baptism for the dead are
misleading... . It is more likely however that the argument is purely tactical, Paul
124
is referring ironically to the inconsistency of the Corinthians.(36)
Ruef draws some attention to the fact that it was upon this verse that Bultmann(37) based
his claim that Paul has misunderstood the Corinthian’s statement: “There is no
resurrection of the dead” (I Cor 15:12b). Ruef counters this somewhat by observing: “It
is clear from this verse that the Corinthians were concerned for the dead as were the
Thessalonians whom Paul admonishes not ‘to sorrow for the dead as those who have no
hope’ (I Thes 4:13)”.(38)
Even more directly against this alleged misunderstanding issue, which has been dealt
with in depth in an earlier chapter, Conzelmann states:
Paul’s reference to this custom (i.e. baptism for the dead) provides one of the most
important arguments against the assumption that he has misunderstood the
Corinthian position. He shows himself here to be obviously well informed.(39)
A recent commentator on this aspect of the verse’s interpretation states:
this is another of those matters about which Paul and the Corinthians surely
understood one another but which we cannot hope to fathom.(40)
This commentator (JP Sampley)’s views, being as they are contemporary with this
new millennium, offer some interesting reflections by way of a conclusion. The
element of uncertainty as witnessed in the end of the above quote tends to pervade
Sampley’s analysis. At the outset of his comments he posits:
Admittedly Paul’s purposes in the rhetorical questions are more certainly
accessible than some of the practices to which the questions refer.(41)
In terms of his basic understanding Sampley believes that the “most obvious” reading of
the text “would suggest that some at Corinth...are being baptized on behalf of the dead
persons”.(42) Their motivation for doing so being: “perhaps as representatives of dear
ones who either never had a chance to respond to the gospel or who had died while
being drawn to the faith”.(43) In either case, Sampley is forced to admit “the truth is that
we simply do not know”.(44) As far as Paul’s attitude is concerned Sampley notes that
Paul did not oppose the practice which in turn seems to indicate either “grace is
transferable or that one can be a surrogate believer for another”.(45) In the end of his
perceptive comments Sampley sees this verse’s questions as exposing the folly of their
practices if there is no resurrection of the dead.(46) As to the question arising from this
as to whether those being baptized vicariously were believers or unbelievers in the
resurrection, one is forced again like Sampley above to admit that we might never know
125
the identity of the third person plural designation “they” by Paul in this verse with the
tinev and the le/gousin of verse 12 is enigmatic. On the one hand the question maybe
asked as to whether this group could have “bracketed out” their unbelief in the
resurrection for the sake of doing something for deceased relatives or friends. However
it would appear to be more consistent if their belief in the resurrection motivated their
concern for the deceased. Ultimately this question may not be able to be completely
resolved either way or even with the option of a combination of believers and non-
believers in the resurrection. One has to be careful not to make hasty identifications
between verses 12 and 29.
The exegesis is for the most part completed. However it is still necessary to embark on
an excursus arising from it. The main purpose in doing this is the need to investigate
further the usage of the crucial preposition u9pe\r. Whilst the exegesis did relate its
importance to its usage within I Cor 15:29, there are wider implications of the meaning
u9pe\r that could not be explored within this exegesis. Nor could these be adequately
treated within a footnote. Hence the requirement now to address these wider
implications in what follows.
126
FOOTNOTES
1. Thistleton, AC “The First Epistle to the Corinthians: a Commentary on the Greek
Text” (2000), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1280.
2. There are two manuscripts (Uncials) identified with the initial D. These are D 07
and D 06. The latter of these two indicated as D2 by Thistleton is located in Paris.
The date of this manuscript is 6th Century AD (Introduction to Greek text, 4th rev.
edn. Kurt Aland et al) and known as Claromontanus and contains Paul’s epistles.
3. The Peshitta or Syriac version dates from the first half of fifth century (so
Introduction to Greek NT, 26).
4. According to Thistleton, op. cit., and as borne out in the datings given above.
5. As per pages 567-8 of Metzger, BM “A Textual Commentary of the Greek New
Testament”, (1971), (3rd edn) where v 29 is not cited at all.
6. Thistleton, AC op. cit., 1241 (N 159) BAGD, 680-3; Grimm-Thayer, 524-7;
cf. LSJ I, 234-7 and Lampe, PGL I, 107-8.
7. ibid., 1240.
8. ibid., 1241.
9. ibid.
10. ibid.
11. ibid.
12. Fee, G “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1987), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids,
763.
13. ibid.
14. Barrett, CK “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1971), (2nd edn) A & C Black,
London, 326.
15. ibid., 363.
16. Fee, op. cit., 763-4, N (15).
17. ibid.
18. Rissi, M “Die Taufe Fur Die Toten” (1962), Zwingli Verlag, Zurich. I am reliant
on Thistleton’s itemisation of these four categories as cited above (op. cit.,
Thistleton, 1240).
19. Murphy-O’Connor, J “Baptized for the Dead (I Cor XV:29): a Corinthian
Slogan?” (in) Revue Biblique 58 (4, 81).
20. Morris, L “I Corinthians” (1985), 214 citing the commentator Parry.
127
21. Fee, G op. cit., 763, (N 11).
22. ibid.
23. Collins, RJ “First Corinthians” (1999), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, 556.
24. Thistleton, AC op. cit., 1242.
25. ibid.
26. Orr, WF & Walther, TA “I Corinthians” (Anchor Bible) (1976), 335.
27. Beasley-Murray, GR “Baptism in the New Testament” (1962), 186.
28. ibid., 187.
29. Blass-Debrunner-Funk’s “Lexicon of the New Testament”, 231(2).
30. Conzelmann, H “I Corinthians” (1975), Fortress, Philadelphia, 276 (N 121).
31. O’Neill, JC “I Corinthians 15:29” (1980), (in) Expository Times 91, 310.
32. Murphy-O’Connor, J “Baptized for the Dead (I Cor XV:29): A Corinthian
Slogan?” (in) Revue Biblique 88 (4, 81), 532-43.
33. Fee, G op. cit., 763, N (13).
34. “A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament” (1996), (5th edn)
Pontifico Biblico Institute, Rome.
35. Blass-Debrunner-Funk, 442 N(14).
36. “A Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (Edited by) G Kittel, (ET
1964), Vol l, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 542. (this article by Oepke).
37. Bultmann, R “Theology of the New Testament” Vol 1, 676.
38. Ruef, J “Paul’s First Letter to Corinth” (1977), SCM, London, 168.
39. Conzelmann, H. “I Corinthians” (1975), Fortress, Philadelphia, 275-6.
40. “The New Interpreter’s Bible” (2002), Vol X; 982 (this article on I Corinthians by
JP Sampley). Hereafter NIB Vol X.
41. Sampley, JP (NIB Vol X) ibid., 982.
42. ibid.
43. ibid.
44. ibid.
45. ibid.
46. ibid.
128
D (2) The Immediate Scriptural and Socio-Cultural Context
of I Cor 15:29
129
Having completed an exegesis and accompanying excursus in the previous two chapters
of this section, it remains now to locate I Cor 15:29 in a particular context. It has been
already demonstrated in the chapters which looked at the context in Section B (4) and
(5) that the overall context emerging from that debate was in favour of the vicarious
view. This has since been re-enforced through the last expositional section. Indeed the
wider context of the concept of vicariousness both in scripture and inter-testamental
literature was also seen to provide a matrix within which I Cor 15:29 can be seen to be
illustrative.
However to turn to the particular context; this essentially means two things. Firstly the
internal, that is the immediate scriptural context and then secondly, the external, which
is the socio-cultural setting of the Corinthian church and its practice of vicarious
baptism for the dead. In the case of the internal or immediate scriptural context this will
be seen to be demonstrated as an ad hominem argument within a deliberative rhetorical
framework. Having established this, the external or socio-cultural context of I Cor
15:29 will be addressed in order to integrate the verse within its location in the church at
Corinth.
The Ad-hominem Argument
We commence with the British scholar GR Beasley-Murray.
Beasley-Murray identifies three different views arising from the disputed issues about
I Cor 15:29. These are:
i. Baptism for the dead springs from a magical estimate of the sacraments and
Paul’s approval of it reflects his own sacramentalism
ii. Baptism for the dead is not to be deprecated and Paul had no grounds for
disapproving of it
iii. Baptism for the dead was an alien custom adopted by the Corinthians and
Paul’s citation of it during the course of an argument on another subject yields
no evidence as to his opinion of it.(1)
Beasley-Murray later goes on to say:
It is more satisfactory to infer that, since I Cor 15:29 is solitary in Paul’s letters in
its representation of this kind of sacramentalism, it reflects not the apostle’s beliefs
but those of the Corinthians he is addressing.(2)
130
Thus he effectively refutes the third of the positions outlined above.
Having commented at length on the views of others, Beasley-Murray then exposits on
his own. At the outset he declares:
I must concur with those who see in the practice of vicarious baptism for the dead
a modification of Christian baptism, or an importation alongside of it, that had
taken root in the Corinthian Church, not of Paul’s planting nor of his willing. It
was intended to procure for the deceased the benefits believed to be attached to
ordinary Christian baptism.(3)
Beasley-Murray later articulates this view as being “ad-hominem” since it “can be used
to demonstrate inconsistencies in people’s views, without involving the speaker in
agreement with them”.(4) Incidentally, his definition of the term “ad-hominem” at this
point is a useful way of describing this device used by Paul in this particular context.(5)
As an example of American scholarship of this era with the “ad hominem” approach
there is Orr and Walther who in 1976 published their commentary on I Corinthians.(6)
Their comments reflect the above approach as seen for example in the following: “Paul
remarks about the practice without specifying who or how many are involved and
without identifying himself with them. He attaches neither praise nor blame to the
custom. He does take it as an illustration of faith in a future destiny of the dead”.(7)
Two other advocates of the “ad hominem” position with their various nuances of it are
also worth quoting at this point. They are J H Wilson,(8) and E Walter.(9) Wilson’s view
is:
In v29, Paul is theoretically on common ground with his Corinthian opponents. It
is they who undergo baptism u9pe\r tw=n nekrw=n and he employs their own
practice - without approving it - to make his point. If being baptized on behalf of
the dead means the semi-magical act whereby the dead obtain the same benefits as
would living participants...Paul would also interpret this as implying a future
resurrection of those dead friends. Regardless of the meaning which participants
gave to the act and regardless of possible misunderstandings by Paul, at present
v29 functions to show the future nature of the resurrection.(10)
Walter examines the practice of vicarious baptism in the light of Catholic liturgical
practice in coming to an “ad-hominem” view. Thus he observes:
131
Though such a custom is unknown to us, it ought not to strike us as totally
incomprehensible. Do we not do something similar with masses and indulgences
when we apply them to the dead, partly in ways recognised by the Church, partly
out of pious feeling? It corresponds to a general human need to be able to still do
something for the dead. In relation to baptism early councils strictly forbade this
practice while some sects continued it. Paul here neither approved nor condemned
it. It is sufficient for him to make use of this practice to argue that it has sense
only if Christ’s resurrection can still have an effect on the dead.(l1)
Gordon Fee represents the end of the eighties decade(12) and up to that point the most
thorough going exegetical commentary. Within the scope of five pages(13) including
extensive footnoting he presents a detailed exegesis. Since we have already touched on
some of Fee’s views we will confine this review to the main points of his exposition of
this verse.
After a brief introduction on the rhetorical wording of this verse and its repetitive
element for emphasis and clarity,(14) Fee goes on to foreshadow his own interpretation,
to be outlined further later, when he says:
The normal reading of the text is that some Corinthians are being baptised,
apparently vicariously, in behalf of some people who have already died. It would
be fair to add that this reading is such a plain understanding of the Greek text that
no one would ever have imagined the various alternatives were it not for the
difficulties involved.(15)
This realistic approach has a fair mindedness about it that is very commendable.
It is because of this diversity of opinion that Fee has been able to group into these four
categories, Fee feels that none are as compelling as a straight out reading of the text and
so the popularity of the vicarious view.(16) After further canvassing the various nuances
of this view, Fee’s “most likely options” are:
a. some believers being baptised for others who either were or were on their way
to becoming believers when they died (e.g. as in 11:30) but had never been
baptised (so Rissi, Barrett and Bruce) or
b. that it reflects the concern of members of households for some of their own
number who had died before becoming believers.(17)
132
It is interesting to note Fee’s classification of this section of his commentary as “Ad
hominem Arguments for Resurrection” (15:29-34).(18) Certainly the first of these last
two options advocated by Rissi, Barrett and Bruce appears to be worthy of
commendation.
Writing at the end of the nineties(19) RJ Collins is in a position to give perspective to
those who have gone before him on this topic. He notes O’Neill’s identification of “the
dead” to be the moribund and that the latter’s rhetorical questions refer to the baptism of
deathbed converts or dying infants.(20) Collins then paraphrases O’Neill’s translation as:
“What is the use of baptising the bodies of those who are about to die, says Paul, if there
is no resurrection of the body?”(21)
Collins in delineating his own view states at the outset that:
There is little evidence that the practice existed in the early church
(cf Chrysostom, “On the First Epistle to the Corinthians”, Homily 40: 62, 347). It
is likely that the practice took place only in first century Corinth, where religious
syncretism was a fact of life even for the Corinthian Christians.(22)
It is interesting that Collins refers to Chrysostom’s homilies on this subject, which give
support to evidence that this practice was in existence in the post New Testament
church.
Even further still he fails to refer to Tertullian’s polemical works against the
Marcionites in which it is abundantly clear that the practice did definitely exist after first
century Corinth. So therefore his view as expressed above is subject to this challenge.
However Collins is more correct when he posits the view that:
Paul’s unusual use of the third person plural in a rhetorical question suggests that
the practice may not have been widespread among the Corinthian Christians.
Only a few of them may have practiced vicarious baptism for the dead... . The
obvious meaning of Paul’s words in the Greek text is that some Christians at
Corinth practiced a kind of vicarious baptism.(23)
Collins does not venture any further than this and thereby does not advance his
acceptance of the “vicarious view” to that of “argumentum ad hominem”. He does
provide an important “rhetorical critical” viewpoint on this verse as seen readily in his
133
overall approach. This is a welcome new approach typical of the last decade of the
twentieth century.
The Deliberative Rhetorical Framework
The rhetorical critical movement seeks to analyse Paul’s letters in the light of the
rhetorical conventions of his day. An example of this approach is B Witherington’s
“Conflict and Community in Corinth: a Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on I and II
Corinthians” which was published in 1995 and which will be noted further in due
course. However one needs first to assess the relevancy of this line of criticism as a
possible framework for Paul’s ad hominem argument. At the outset it needs to be
observed that political and formal arguments were expected to conform to the rules of
argumentation, which were the conventions of Greco-Roman rhetoric - the art of
persuasive speaking and writing. Classical writers on rhetoric include Quintilian,
Cicero and Aristotle. According to one authority on rhetorical criticism, I Corinthians
15 is “a perfect example of rhetorical argumentation”.(24) Also, an increasing number of
scholarly studies over the past decade or so demonstrate that Paul was indeed well
instructed in rhetoric as a basic form of his education.(25) Even the Corinthian recipients
of his correspondence, though not in every case trained in rhetoric, would have
nonetheless been familiar with rhetoric and accustomed to its conventions. As one
commentator argues persuasively:
All written and spoken words were rhetorical, so in order to understand what was
written or said, one always has to consider the rhetoric of what is there. To call
something rhetorical is not be confused with dismissing it as empty, as form
prevailing over context, everything in I Corinthians, therefore is rhetorical, and we
as interpreters of it must regularly inquire of its rhetorical force.(26)
This kind of comment along with the importance of rhetoric to Paul and his
congregations must surely attest to its relevance to I Corinthians and the rest of the New
Testament.
Three different forms of rhetoric have been identified from Paul’s time. These include
the judicial, deliberative and epideictic.(27) By way of some definitions of these three,
judicial was concerned with the courtroom and past evidence for establishing a
judgement whilst epideictic was concerned with the present as it applied to praise or
134
blame of an individual or a virtue or vice.(28) Whilst I Corinthians has elements of both
of these, chapter 15 in particular along with most of the remainder of the epistle is an
example of deliberative rhetoric.(29) Thus it was concerned with the future and about
what one should do or not do, or as one writer puts it: “to advise and dissuade audience
members concerning a particular course of action”.(30) Watson, as has been shown from
various references above, is something of an authority on this topic. As such he has
identified the following stages in Paul’s argument in vv 1-34, using rhetorical terms as
follows:(31)
Exordium (vv l-2). An introduction in which the writer sets forth his concerns
and intentions. The exordium introduced planned, recurring themes like
Paul’s phrase “in vain” repeated throughout the argument (vv 10, 14, 17, 58)
and thematically explored in verses 12-19 and 29-34.
Narratio (vv 3-5). Background information is provided. A narratio included
judgements such as common saying, popular beliefs, or supporting historical
narrative. Verses 3-5 represented the “creed” or “popular belief” of the
church: Christ died, was buried and was resurrected.
Refutatio (vv 12-19). The “proof” of the argument typically begun with the
claim of the opposition (here, there is no resurrection, v12). The refutatio then
denied the asserted fact. Paul denied the “no resurrection” teaching by arguing
that resurrection exemplified Christian hope.
Probatio or Confirmatio (vv 20-28). This section consisted of a propositio, a
statement of the proposition to be proven (v20); a ratio, or reason establishing
the truth of the proposition (vv 21-2; the historical examples of Adam and
Christ), a central confirmatio which further proved the ration, expressing it in a
different way (vv 23-4) and an exornatio, which confirmed the arguments
presented (vv 258).
Peroratio (vv 29-34). This section recapitulated the main points of the probatio
and turned the case against the opposition by attacking their primary points.
Paul used three strategies for composing a peroratio: interrogation (vv 29-30a),
irony (v32b) and proposal of policy (vv 33-4).
In this last particular section, Watson states:
The questions are meant to be answered negatively, pointing out that the
behaviour of both the audience and Paul is at variance with denial of the
135
resurrection. It is “vain” behaviour (cf vv 2, 10, 14, 17)...Paul demonstrates that
opponents’ proposition is contradictory or foolish (Quintilian 5.13.16-17) and
inconsistent (Quintilian 5.13.30) not in its logic, but in relation to their own and
Paul’s behaviour. If there is no resurrection of the dead, there is no reason to be
vicariously baptized for the dead (v29).(32)
By way of a comparison to Watson’s rhetorical analysis of I Cor 15, there is that of
Witherington who tends to follow Mack with small modifications.(33) These are as
follows:
The exordium in vv 1-2,
The narration in vv 3-11,
The proposition in vv 12-19,
The thesis, stated in short form in v20,
A series of arguments in the probatio in vv 21-50, using paradigms, examples,
analogies, and closing with a scriptural analogy, that is an appeal to a recognized
authority, and
The conclusion in vv 51-8, with a recapitulation, a citation of scripture for a final
appeal (vv54f) and a peroratio in the form of an exhortation to act on the basis of
all that has just been said (v58).(34)
For Witherington, I Corinthians 15 provides “an example of Paul at his argumentative
best, ably using the tools of deliberative rhetorical questions, and the like”.(35)
By way of a further comparison to Watson’s view of behavioural contrasts between
Paul and his audience particularly in regard to doubts about the resurrection and the
practice of vicarious baptism, cited above, Witherington states: “His (Paul’s) appeal to
those who were baptizing for the dead (v29) is an appeal to another group of “some” in
the community, those who do affirm the resurrection, probably including future
resurrection, against the influential people who simply deny any resurrection”.(36) The
sociological implications of this view will be examined in the next part of this chapter.
For the moment, Witherington’s distinction that the “some” who practiced vicarious
baptism should be separated from unbelief in the resurrection, as is not clear in
Watson’s view.
136
Witherington concludes his discussion on verse 29 by indicating that it probably refers
to vicarious baptism for other Christian loved ones who died without baptism and that
Paul “simply uses it as part of his ad hominem argument”.(37) This then effectively
locates the immediate context of verse 29 as being an ad hominem argument within a
deliberative rhetorical framework, as indicated earlier in this chapter.
By way of a reflection at this point it has to be said that this particular immediate
context offers, in my view, the best option in the light of the most recent research.(38)
In terms of the appropriateness of rhetorical criticism for a key to understanding Paul’s
letters, Witherington makes this observation:
Study of the rhetorical form of Paul’s letters is a discipline still being reborn, and
any results that we come up with will necessarily be tentative and subject to
further correction. Nevertheless the evidence is considerable that Paul chose to
cast his letters in rhetorical forms, that is, that he shaped them in accordance with
formal oral speech, using rhetorical elements recognizable as such by his
addressees.(39)
With such safeguards as made clear in this quote along with the relevancy of a
rhetorical approach, one may rest assured that this can and indeed does provide the most
likely immediate scriptural context for our verse. This text in question also comes to us
out of the immediate social setting of the church in Corinth as well as its local cultural
context. In locating both of these one has a better chance of understanding the verse.
The Social Setting of the Corinthian Church
As a starting point to understanding the social setting of the Corinthian church, Paul’s
description of them in I Cor 1:26 is worth quoting: “Consider your own call, bothers
and sisters, not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful,
not many were of noble birth” (NRSV). The key words which Paul uses in this
sociological description are the qualifying words “not many”. Whilst it does indicate
that the majority was not wise, powerful and of noble birth, this does not rule out the
possibility of such classes being in evidence at Corinth. Witherington believes there
were at least two prominent members of the congregation in Corinth, these being
Erastus and Phoebe.(40) It is of importance to briefly examine what is known of these
two persons to illustrate the existence of a higher status, at least a significant minority in
137
Corinth. In the case of Erastus, Paul mentions him in Romans 16:23 in his concluding
greetings from Corinthian church members including: “Erastus, the city treasurer and
our brother Quartus, greet you” (NRSV). Of special interest is the pavement stone
found near the theatre in Corinth, upon which the Latin inscription (in translation) reads:
“Erastus in return for aedileship laid (this) pavement at his own expense”.(41) The
Aedile was responsible for the maintenance of public buildings, streets and market
places and collected revenues from businesses. As an important post in a port city such
as Corinth only a person of considerable wealth and property could hold it, so indicating
Erastus’ status and social standing.
The other person mentioned by Paul with a similar social standing was the woman
deacon, Phoebe (Rm 16:1f). This was a position of leadership which Paul applies to
himself and Apollos (I Cor 3:5). As an added description Paul calls Phoebe a prostatis
(Rm 16:2) which can mean “patroness” or “benefactor”. One commentator on this
particular role states: “As a general rule, then women as benefactors should be imagined
playing their part personally and visible, out in the open”.(42) Such high profile persons
with prestigious social status are important reminders of the influential individuals who
rose to prominence in the early church at Corinth.
The other aspect of church life in Paul’s churches, with Corinth being no exception,
was the description “the church (ekklesia) in the house of…” (so Rm 16:5: I Cor 16:19
cf v15). Such assemblies in households could accommodate around fifty persons with
the host being regarded as the head of such households. Such persons in Corinth
included Gaius, Pricilla and Aquila along with Stephanas, Chloe and Phoebe. From
I Cor 14:23 it is clear that the household assemblies were open to believers and non-
believers alike and thereby not viewed as esoteric societies by outsiders.(43)
The church at Corinth was religiously and ethnically diverse containing both Jews and
Greeks as can be seen from the content of the Corinthian correspondence which refers
to the Old Testament scriptures and pagan practices e.g. eating of meat from pagan
sacrifices (I Cor 8). In terms of economic diversity there were the poor and even
domestic slaves (I Cor 1:28). However there was sufficient wealth and assets as Paul
himself notes (II Cor 8:1, 2, 14). Certainly Corinth was wealthier than other churches as
for example Macedonia. (44) In the words of a leading social commentator of the early
138
Pauline churches: “A Pauline congregation generally reflected a fair cross-section of
urban society”.(45)
This cross section of social diversity could express itself in various ways as seen for
example in the issue of belief in the resurrection and practice of vicarious baptism for
the dead. Witherington takes the view that the latter group were not among those who
say “there is no resurrection of the dead” (I Cor 15:12). This is because Paul is
demonstrating that the vicarious baptism group affirmed the resurrection. By contrast
Witherington believes that “more likely it was the more wealthy members of the
congregation, those who had considerable social status and continuing strong ties to
pagan society, that denied the resurrection”.(46) He goes on to indicate that Paul’s
rhetorical strategy throughout Ch 15 of the first epistle is to unify the Corinthians in a
more correct view of the resurrection by critiquing the position of the more prominent
“some”, not that of the less prominent.(47) Thus Witherington categorises those who
practiced vicarious baptism for the dead as socially “less prominent”.
The Cultural Context of the Corinthian Church
However, such persons were not immune from the cultural context of their day as
indicated from their notable practices. De Maris questions this issue and its origins and
he answers these as follows:
Why did baptism on behalf of the dead arise? What did it mean to the Corinthian
Christians? The Corinthians evidently married their high regard for baptism - to
judge from Paul’s warning about over confidence in it (I Cor 10:1-13) - with an
intensive concern for the dead to create a distinctively Corinthian practice.(48)
Using this as his starting point De Maris develops his case along the lines of the Greco-
Roman treatment of the dead. As can be seen already, De Maris understands vicarious
baptism as pre-eminently an example of cultural fusion. De Maris basis his approach on
both archaeology and anthropology as indicated in the sub-title of his article. In
summing up his argument in favour of the archaeological evidence, De Maris states:
As we have seen, however, the material record also points to innovation;
archaeological data verify the existence of a new and widespread religious
perspective. The use of the Palaimon cult of Isthmia and the orientation of
Demeter devotion in the Roman period point unequivocally to a development
transcending cult boundaries; the emergence during the middle of the first
139
century AD of a religious outlook focused intensely on the dead and the world of
the dead.(49)
If De Maris is correct here in his description of the cultural orientation of popular pagan
religion in the mid-first century AD, then one only needs to link this with the rituals of
Christianity to see how the two thought systems might have connected. De Maris notes:
While it seems logical that baptism, a ritual of entry or boundary crossing might
have been used widely to aid the deceased as they made the transition from life
to death, only the Corinthian Christians acted on this logic. What fostered this
practice at Corinth was a local preoccupation with the underworld, such that
Christians of first century Corinth were pushed to innovate.(50)
And so it was that in De Maris’ view:
To begin with, the Corinthian preoccupation with the dead and the underworld,
when added to the already considerable attention ancient Greeks and Romans
gave to their dead in general, acts as confirmation of what most NT scholars
understand of the Greek of I Cor 15:29 to describe: baptism for the dead meant
baptism undergone by the living to benefit the dead.(51)
These then are the main aspects of De Maris’ case in its broad outlines. In terms of a
critical appraisal of his kind of approach, De Maris himself cites AJM Wedderburn as
“the most recent thorough presentation of this position...that the mystery cults did not
influence early Christian baptismal theology”.(52) Yet against this De Maris also cites
the authority of the assistant director of the Corinth Excavations, Nancy Bookidis, who
has observed: “an increasing awareness of regional variations in ancient religion...(had)
made the generalisations of the past somewhat suspect”.(53) De Maris then goes on to
identify with this approach by stating: “The growing body of knowledge about religion
in ancient Corinth provided by archaeology may necessitate qualifying general claims
made about Greco-Roman religions, including ancient Christianity. Specific to this
study, archaeological data from Corinth and its environs, the Corinthia, may help
explain why the Christians of early Roman Corinth extended the rite of baptism to their
dead”.(54) Given the kinds of safeguards made in this kind of approach, De Maris’ case
for cultural context accommodation by at least some of the Christians at Corinth in
respect to their baptismal rites, seems to be a commendable one.
The social setting and cultural context of I Corinthians 15:29 make it clear that the very
140
diversity of the Corinthian church could give rise to the practice of vicarious baptism for
the dead. With such factors as the ethnic makeup being both Greek and Roman, the
religious being predominantly Gentile with a significant Jewish minority, the economic
status varying from impressively wealthy to the poor and slave underclasses - and all of
this reflected in the profile of the membership of the church must make for a diversity in
religious understanding and practices. When one sets this against the many and various
practices operating within the Christian church at Corinth which Paul addressed
perforce of the situation, it becomes easier to understand. In some of these practices, for
example the issue of the eating of meat previously used in pagan sacrifices (I Cor 8),
Paul works through the implications of this issue in some depth. However by sharp
contrast to this particular issue, he passes over the implications of vicarious baptism for
the dead in the space of one verse. Paul’s toleration to the extent of his accommodation
of the practice as illustrative of his argument for the veracity of the resurrection, surely
shows his sensitivity to the socio-cultural diversity that was first century Corinth.
141
FOOTNOTES
1. Beasley-Murray, GR “Baptism in the New Testament” (1962), 187-8.
2. ibid., 190.
3. ibid.
4. ibid.
5. ibid., 191.
6. Orr, WF & Walther, 3A “I Corinthians” (Anchor Bible) (1976), Doubleday, NY.
7. ibid., 337.
8. Wilson, JH “The Corinthians Who Say There is No Resurrection of the Dead” (in)
Zeitschrift fur Neuentestamentliche Wissenschaft (ZNW) No 59 (1968), 90-107.
9. Walter, E “The First Epistle to the Corinthians”, (1971), Herder & Herder, NY.
10. Wilson, JH, op. cit., 105.
11. Walter E, op. cit., 172-3.
12. Fee, G “I Corinthians” (1987), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
13. ibid., 763-7.
14. ibid., 763.
15. ibid., 763-4.
16. ibid., 766.
17. ibid., 767.
18. ibid., from 763-4.
19. Collins, RJ “First Corinthians” (1999), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota.
20. ibid., 557.
21. ibid.
22. ibid.
23. ibid.
24. Mack, BL “Rhetoric and the New Testament” (1990), Augsburg Fortress Press,
Minneapolis, 56.
25. As demonstrated in these two articles, Watson, DF “The New Testament and
Greco-Roman Rhetoric: A Bibliography” (in) JETS 31 (1988), 465-72 and his
“The New Testament and Greco-Roman Rhetoric: A Bibliographical Update” (in)
JETS 33 (1990), 513-24.
26. “The New Interpreters Bible” Vol X (2002), Abingdon, Nashville, 783.
27. ibid., 783-4.
28. ibid.
142
29. ibid., 784.
30. Watson, DF “Paul’s Rhetorical Strategy in I Corinthians 15” (in) Rhetoric and the
New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg-Conference (edited by) SE
Porter (and) TH Olbricht (1993) Academic Press, Sheffield.
31. I am indebted to JP Holding’s (Internet article March 2003) entitled: “And Don’t
Forget the Soap: An Examination of ‘Baptism for the Dead’”, 3-4 for his
summarising of Watson’s article (N 56) above, 231-49.
32. Watson, DF, op. cit., (1993), 242-3.
33. Witherington, B “Conflict and Community in Corinth: a Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on I and II Corinthians” (1995), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 292, who
follows Mack, op. cit., 56f.
34. Witherington, B ibid., 292.
35. ibid.
36. ibid., 302.
37. ibid., 305-6.
38. As for example B Mack’s “Rhetoric and the New Testament” (1990), Fortress,
Minneapolis; M Mitchell’s “Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation” (1991),
Mohr Tubingen; and DF Watson’s “Paul’s Rhetorical Strategy in I Corinthians
15” (1993), Academic Press, Sheffield, among others.
39. Witherington, B op. cit., 39.
40. ibid., 32-5 for an extended discussion on these two folk.
41. In Latin it is: “Erastus pro aedilit (at) e s(ua) p(ecunia) stravit”. For further details,
DWJ Gill “Erastus the Aedile” (in) Tyndale Bulletin (1989), 293-301.
42. R MacMullen, “Women in Public in the Roman Empire” (in) Historia 29 (1980),
211f.
43. So Witherington, B op. cit., 32
44. ibid., 23.
45. Meeks, W “The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul”
(1983), New Haven, Yale University Press, 70ff.
46. Witherington, B op. cit., 295.
47. ibid., 295 N (20).
48. De Maris, RE “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (I Corinthians
15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology” (in) Journal of Biblical
Literature (1995), 662.
143
49. ibid., 670.
50. ibid., 671.
51. ibid., 674.
52. Wedderburn, AJM “Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology
against its Greco-Roman Background” (1987), WUNT 44, Mohr, Tubingen, 5-6.
53. Bookidis, N “The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: an Archaeological Approach to
Ancient Religion” (a paper presented at the Archaeological Institute of America).
Cited by De Maris, 674.
54. ibid., (De Maris)
144
THESIS SECTION E:
SOME RELEVANT COMPARISONS BETWEEN
I COR 15:29 AND VARIOUS SCRIPTURES AND
CREDAL FORMULAE
Introductory Rationale
1) Relevant Comparisons between I Corinthians 15:29 and
Extracts from Romans
2) Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and
Other Pauline Literature
3) Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and
Petrine Literature
4) Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29
Credal Formulae
145
Introductory Rationale
146
In this fifth major section of the thesis the overall relevance of our verse to other parts
of the New Testament and subsequent Credal tradition will be demonstrated. The
relationship between the respective New Testament literatures and Credal formulae and
I Corinthians 15:29 will be explored in each case.
This whole quest is important because it is my contention that relevant comparisons can
be found between I Cor 15:29 and the various literatures identified in this section. How
they relate in their logical sequence of ideas will be presently seen. The other aspect of
this is the progression of these related ideas through the New Testament era into the
post New Testament period leading up to the formulation of the creeds.
The first of these New Testament literatures is Romans which originates in the Pauline
writings just a few years after Paul’s writing the Corinthian correspondence. At the
latter stages of the New Testament era stands the Petrine correspondence, where the
writer in this case actually acknowledges the Pauline corpus preceding his in the words:
“So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
speaking of this as he does in all his letters…”(II Peter 3:15b)(NRSV).
The particular Petrine references in I Peter 3: 18-19 and 4: 5-6 to be examined within
their respective contexts are vital to understanding why the Credal extracts relevant to
these follow at the end of this section. As Creeds particularly the Apostles, Nicene and
Athanasian among others define orthodox belief and are therefore binding on the
faithful, it is important to end our survey at this point.
147
FOOTNOTES
1. “Oxford Illustrated Dictionary” (1962) Clarendon Press, Oxford, 180.
2. ibid., 273.
148
E (1) Relevant Comparisons between I Corinthians 15:29 and
Extracts from Romans
149
De Maris’ Wider Implications
In the concluding section of his seminal work(1) De Maris seeks to address himself to
the following issue as indicated in the title of this section: “Wider Implications:
I Corinthians 15 and Pauline Theology”.(2) In this particular section of his article, De
Maris applies his socio-cultural approach to a broader theological canvas.
Perhaps the most interesting elements of his argument here is the connection he makes
with Romans 6:1-11, Galatians 3:27-8 and Colossians 2:11-13.(3) We shall deal with the
Romans reference along with others of relevance in this letter not cited by De Maris.
As for the other Pauline letters cited above these will be dealt with in the next chapter.
In regard to Romans 6:1-11, De Maris accepts the majority scholarly opinion which
locates the writing of the Epistle of Romans by Paul in Corinth. More shall be said
upon this later. Whilst admitting that his study cannot settle the scholarly debate over
Romans 6:1-11, he believes on the other hand that it widens the debate
by suggesting that Paul was responding to other baptismal tradition in these
verses.(4)
With these considerations in mind De Maris concludes his thoroughgoing study with
these words:
What likelier source is there for the burial imagery in Romans 6 than vicarious
baptism, a funerary ritual of the Corinthian Christians? Inspired by them to
connect baptism and burial Paul appears to explore in Romans 6:1-11 what he
implied in I Cor 15:29. If baptism for the dead necessarily raises the issue of
resurrection, as 15:29 suggests, in Rom 6:1-11 we learn from Paul why it does:
baptism joins the believer to the death and resurrection of Christ.(5)
This line of thought will be investigated further in an exegetical section below along
with the other relevant verses in Romans, particularly 8:38-9 and 14:8-9. In the
concluding reflections an overall assessment of these verses in Romans and their
relationship with I Corinthians 15:29 will be undertaken.
Historical Links between Corinth and Rome
First and foremost a brief exploration of the historical “linkages” between the two
epistles of I Corinthians and Romans is in order to set a context for what follows. A
dating for Paul’s arrival in Corinth depends on Acts 18:11 and establishing from this the
150
dates for the proconsul ship of Gallio. According to a foremost leading authority on
this(6) Gallio was probably appointed in the summer(mid-year) of 51AD and that Paul
appeared before him shortly after this, as mentioned in Acts 18:12. However as also
indicated in the previous verse (i.e. Acts 18:11) Paul had already resided in Corinth for
eighteen months prior to his appearance before Gallio. Thus it would appear that Paul
commenced his first ministry in Corinth after his arrival there in early 50AD. After this
eighteen months initial ministry in Corinth it is reported in Acts18:18-19 that Paul left
Corinth from where he went to Ephesus, in the late summer of 51AD. It is clear from I
Cor 16:8 that Paul is in Ephesus from where he wrote I Corinthians.
As far as a dating for the writing of I Corinthians is concerned this is somewhat
complicated by the lost document referred to in I Cor 5:9-12, the so called “previous
letter”. Therefore apart from brief allusions to the contents of this letter in these
abovementioned verses, I Corinthians is in fact the second letter after this previous one.
This lost letter probably therefore was written just after Paul’s departure from Corinth
late in 51AD. Allowing for the “wide door” of opportunities for mission and ministry
in Ephesus (I Cor 16:9) along with outcomes and responses to his counsel given in the
previous letter, a period of 2-3 years may have elapsed before the writing of
I Corinthians in Ephesus in the northern winter of(7) 53-54AD. This could be even
extended further into the following winter of 55AD according to this same authority,(8)
but this would be the very latest date.
When turning to the dating and venue for Paul’s letter to the Romans it is clear above all
other factors that this work comes from a few years later than I Corinthians. Dates for
Romans vary from the mid to the late fifties, according to Fitzmyer who prefers the
winter of 57-58AD(9). Following Fitzmyer, Byrne, a more recent commentator, feels
that the early months of 58AD provides the most likely period.(10)
Thus Romans follows I Corinthians in time by an interval of approximately 3-4 years.
The venue from which Paul wrote Romans is clearer from the internal evidence of the
epistle itself. Paul commends Phoebe, a lady from Cenchraea, one of the ports of
Corinth. He is a house guest of Gaius (16:23a) undoubtedly to be identified with the
person mentioned in I Cor 1:14, among those baptized. From Rom 16:21, 23 one learns
that Erastus(11) Sosipater and Timothy were with Paul when Romans was written and
151
also when he was in Greece (Acts 19:22; 20:2-4). From Corinth Paul planned to go to
Rome, but first had to deliver a collection for the poor members of the church in
Jerusalem (Acts 19:21; Rom15:24; 26-28). All these factors taken together, both the
internal evidence from Romans itself and externally from Acts as a secondary source,
tend to suggest Corinth as the most likely venue for the writing of Romans. Relevant to
this issue is the integrity of Chapter 16 of Romans with the remainder of the epistle.
Fitzmyer states:
Because I consider chap 16 an integral part of Romans, part of the letter sent to the
Christians at Rome, Corinth is then understood as the place of composition of
Romans.(12)
This astute judgement from an erudite scholar and commentator on Romans, is most
reasonable. The implications of this foregoing discussion on the historical links
between Corinth and Rome along with the sequence of the dating of these respective
epistles will be discussed further in the concluding reflections. Having set the historical
context, one is now in a position to undertake an exegesis of three key passages in
Romans, namely 6:3-5; 8:38-39 and 14:8-9.
Exegesis of the various passages
a) Romans 6:3-5
v3) h1 a0gnoei=te o3ti, o3soi e0bapti/sqhmen ei0v Xristo\n 0Ihsou=n
Lit: - Or are you ignorant that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus
NRSV: - you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus
ei0v to\n qa/naton au0tou= e0bapti/sqhmen
Lit: - into the death of him we were baptized?
NRSV: - were baptized into his death
v4) suneta/fhmen ou]n au0tw=| dia\ tou= bapti/smatov ei0v to0n qa/naton
Lit: - We were buried with therefore him through baptism into death
NRSV: - Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death
i3na w3sper h0ge/rqh Xristo\v e0k vekre=n dia\ th=v do/chv tou= patro/v
Lit: - in order that as was raised Christ from (the) dead through the glory of the
Father.
152
NRSV: - so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father,
ou3tev kai\ hmei=v e0n kaino/thti zwh=v peripath/swmen.
Lit: - so also we in newness of life might walk.
NRSV: - so we too might walk in newness of life.
v5) ei0 ga\r su/mfutoi gego/namen tw= o9moiw/mati tou= qana/tou au0tou=
Lit: - For if united with we have become in the likeness of the death of him
NRSV: - For if we have been united with him in a death like him,
a0gga\ kai\ th=v a0nasta/sewv e0so/meqa
Lit: - but (so) also of the (his) resurrection we shall be.
NRSV: - we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
At the outset there can be little doubt that this particular passage (along with those that
follow in this chapter) presents some interesting comparisons which will be explored
when the exegesis is complete. In a rather dismissive remark Johnson could observe:
the evidence that baptism was associated specifically with the death and
resurrection or Jesus, however, is – apart from the present passage (i.e. Rom 6:1-
14) of course – scant, especially if we must disregard the entirely obscure
reference to being “baptized for the dead” in I Cor 15:29.(13)
He may be somewhat correct in labelling I Cor 15:29 as obscure, but that does not mean
it should be disregarded. I contend with Richard E De Maris who has observed that
Paul may have returned to the matter (i.e. baptism for the dead) indirectly when he
wrote about baptism in his letter to the Romans.(14) We shall have more to say about
these and other related matters in the concluding section of this chapter.
The a0gnoei=te “do you not know” by which Paul introduces all that follows implies by
contrast a fore-knowledge of at least some of the elements of baptismal catechetical
instruction.(15) Having not established the Roman church nor having yet visited Rome
prior to writing his epistle to this church, Paul maybe forgiven for being somewhat
ignorant himself of what his recipients knew or believed.
However Dunn correctly remarks: “whether the opening words assume a ready
153
knowledge of the teaching or are simply the teacher’s polite way of imparting new
instruction is uncertain”.(16) We do know at least that Paul uses this expression in
Rom 7:1 (h a0gnoei=te) and the related expression ou0k oi2date in Rom 11:2 elsewhere in
this epistle, and contrary to Dunn’s view, Morris believes that in all three of these
instances Paul indicates that “any Christian should know these things”.(17)
The expression e0bapti/sqhmen ei0v Xristo\n 0Ihsou=n “were baptized into Christ Jesus”
could have evoked former associations with the mystery religions at least to some
Christians of Gentile origins in Rome.(18) However Dunn raises the obvious but
frequently overlooked point that “unfortunately, the mystery cults were very good at
keeping their rites secret, so much so that we today know very little about them. More
to the point, non participants in the first century must have been more or less equally
ignorant”.(19) This astute observation alone tends to cast doubt about any influence from
this source, or as Johnson puts it “…there is no reason to presume that its (i.e. baptism)
presence in Christianity is the result of some “foreign” (i.e. mysteries) implantation”.(20)
The concept of being “baptized into Christ” found in Rom 6:3 and also its parallel in
Galatians 3:27a, had its origins in the Judaeo-Christian tradition rather than the
Hellenistic mystery religions. In the Old Testament, particularly with festivals such as
the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) according to Leviticus 16:20-22 there was a
presumption that the people of Israel would be identified and thereby participate in the
banishment of the sin-bearing scapegoat into the wilderness. In a similar identification
with the original Passover in Egypt (Exodus 12:14-20) each person celebrating this
festival ever since is also symbolically present in the original celebration. With this
latter festival Paul makes a contemporary connection with his day when he states that
the Passover generation “were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and the sea” (I Cor
10:2). The preposition ei0v “into” according to Fitzmyer
expresses an aspect of the relationship of the Christian to Christ, occurring most
often with words denoting “faith” and “Baptism” and connoting the initial
movement of introduction or incorporation by which one is born to life “in
Christ”.(21)
Cranfield bears this out more personally when he states: “that baptism has to do with a
decisive personal relationship between the individual believer and Christ”.(22)
154
This is personalized further and made more specific in the phrase: ei9v to\n qa/naton
au0tou= e0bapti/sqhmen; “were baptized into his death”. So this union of the Christian
with Christ through baptism, as a rite of Christian initiation brings with it a union also
with Christ’s suffering and death.(23) This is not merely symbolically “with Christ but
an actual experience of union with Him. This assertion by Paul is based on the early
Kerugma stated in I Cor 15:3-5”.(24)
In Verse 4, Paul elaborates further in this theme of the Christian’s complete
identification with Christ’s death and its implications (v4b – 5). In using such a verb as
suneta/fhmen, literally “co-buried”, Paul uses one of his favourite compound verbs.(25)
So as a result of the force of this verb as catechumens descended into the baptismal font,
customarily in the Easter season and therefore of relevance here, and were covered by
the water, they died to sin.
But just as Christ was raised from the dead through (dia\) the glory of the Father, so we
too “might walk in newness of life” (v4b). Thus the catechumen as newly baptized, is
also completely identified with Christ in His resurrection (v5). Paul again uses one of
his favourite verbs in peripath/swmen, literally “might walk about”. This expressive
verb Paul would have also encountered in the Greek Old Testament (LXX) in Exodus
18:20; II Kings 20:3; Psalm 86:11 and Proverbs 20; 28:18, where it indicates consistent
ethical conduct according to the precepts of the law. Thus the ethical implications
alluded to earlier is introduced by this particular verb. For the Christian this “walking
about” is in “newness of life” (v4b). According to Dunn this ethical dimension speaks
against this expression being derived from the Greek mysteries.(26) This e0n kaino/thti
zwh=v “in newness of life” brings to mind the “new creation” of II Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15 cf
Rom 12:2. For Byrne, “there is an eschatological aspect to the “walking” – it flows
from the risen life of Jesus and belongs essentially to the new age – but is something
which begins here and now”.(27)
In verse 5 there is an exhortation arising from the last verses ethical implication within
this conditional sentence, denoted by ei0 ga\r. Byrne uses the word “conformity” in
describing the baptized being “conformed" to the “pattern” of Christ’s death and
resurrection.(28) These two words bring out the deeper meaning of the two respective
Greek words of su/mfutoi (literally “united with”) and o9moiw/mati (literally “in the
155
likeness”). Byrne goes on to make the point that believers obviously do not share in
Christ’s physical suffering on the cross, rather
what they “conform to” is the ethical “pattern” expressed in Christ’s death to sin
(cf v6), his self-giving love (Rom 15:3) and obedience (Rom 5:19) cf Phil 2:8.(29)
This example of Christ also not only patterns the new ethical walk of the Christian, it
also empowers it. In the concluding clause where it describes “being united with him
through a resurrection like his”, there is a futuristic reference here for the believer’s
resurrection. The a0lla\ “but” at this clause’s beginning is in the best Greek
manuscripts.(30)
b) Romans 8:38-9
v38) pe/peismai ga\r o3ti ou1te qa/natov ou1te zwh\ ou1te a1ggeloi
Lit: - For I have been persuaded that no death nor life nor angels
ou1te a0rxai\ ou1te e0nestw=ta ou1te me/llonta
Lit: - nor rulers nor things present nor things to come nor powers
NRSV: - For I am convinced that neither death nor life nor angels nor rulers,
nothing present nor things to come, nor powers
v39) ou1te n3ywma ou3te ba/qov ou1te tiv kti/sov e9te/ra dunh/setai h9ma=v
Lit: - nor height nor depth nor any creature other will be able us
NRSV: - nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation will be able
xwri/sai a0po\ th=v a0ga/phv tou= qeou= th=v e0n Xristw=| 0Ihsou= tw=| kuri/w|
h9mw=n.
Lit: - to separate from the love of God in Christ Jesus the Lord of us
NRSV: - to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
The main focus in this piece of exegesis is the following words abstracted from these
two verses, namely pe/peismai ga\r o3ti qa/natov ou1te zwh\...xwri/sai a0po\ th=v
a0ga/phv tou= qeou= th=v e0n Xristw=| Ihsou= tw=| kuri/w| h9mw=n. In terms of textual
variations three of the various items listed by Paul (omitted from above) namely ou1te
e0nestw=ta ou1te me/llonta ou1te duna/meiv is according to Metzger the “reading
adopted for the text is decisively supported by early and good witnesses (p27, 46 2V, A,
B, C, D, G, itd, vg, syrb inter alia ).(31) pe/peismai ga\r “for I am persuaded” denotes “a
156
firm and settled conviction, a confident certainty”.(32) Being in the first person singular
it is also personal to Paul himself. There follows a list of ten items which Paul arranges
in four pairs along with two single items.(33) Our only concern for the sake of brevity
and direct relevance is the first pair qa/natov…zwh\ Cranfield makes the contrasting
distinction with Paul and his Old Testament background in regard to death, when he
observes:
“ for most of the Old Testament period (death) had been thought even by the
people of God to separate men from God’s fellowship …”.(34)
But in sharp contrast to this Paul makes clear that this is no longer the case since death
cannot separate us from God’s love in Christ Jesus. For Dunn qa/natov appropriately
heads the list not only because of a preceding verse (i.e. v36) (“being put to death”) but
“primarily because death has loomed throughout Chs 5-8 as the great hostile power”.(35)
Personally for Paul death was not a bogey to be feared. Attention has been drawn by
Cranfield(36) Morris(37) to the fact for Paul to die was to be with Christ which was far
better than life in this present world (Phil 1:21-23). He could also die daily (I Cor
15:31) in a metaphorical sense. Like death, life also can have its fears and frustrations
along with its persecutions and trials. Even with these there are also distractions and
care,(38) yet at the same time there are pleasures and tranquillity. Life will always be a
mixture of good and bad. But none of all these things can χωρισαι “separate” us from
God’s love in Christ Jesus.
c) Romans 14:8-9
v8) e0a/n te ga\r zw=men, tw=| kuri/w| zw=men, e0a/n te a0poqnh/|slwmen,
Lit: - For whether we live to the Lord we live, or if we die
NRSV: - If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die
tw=| kuri/w| a0poqnh/|skomen. e0a/n te ou]n zw=men e0a/n te
Lit: - to the Lord we die whether therefore we live or if
NRSV: - we die to the Lord; so then whether we live or whether
a0poqnh/|skwmen, tou= kuri/ou e0sme/n. (v9) eiv tou=to ga\r Xristo\v
Lit: - we die of the Lord we are. For this for Christ
NRSV: - we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died
157
a0pe/qanen kai\ e1zhsen, i3na kai\ nekw=n kai\ zw/ntwn lurieu/sh.
Lit: - died and lived again, in order that both the dead of living he might be Lord
NRSV: - and lived again, so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living
As far as textual variation of these two verses is concerned, the only one is that in verse
9, where the better attested and older reading is a0pe/qanen kai\ e1zhsen (So N,A,B, C, M
39, 2127, cop sa, bo, arm, eth, al). The other alternative to e1zhsen is a0ne/sth (so F, G,
629, it (g), vg, al). This variation was brought about by scribes seeking to give a more
precise definition of the meaning of e1zhsen “came to life” by replacing it by a0ne/sth
“rose again”.(39) This scribal emendation to the earlier text was perhaps influenced by I
Thess 4:14 which has 0Ihsou=v a0pe/qanen kai\ a0ne/sth “Jesus died and rose again” (RSV
Interlinear (1972), 310) according to Metzger(40) and Fitzmyer.(41) Be this as it may, the
earlier manuscript evidence is to be preferred over later scribal emendation. So our two
principle translations render e1zhsen as “lived again” (NRSV) and “returned to life”
(NIV). This alternative to the usual “rose again” provides some more internal
consistency in terms of the zw=men “we live” used earlier in verse 8. Having just earlier
in verse 7 reminded the Roman Christians that we neither live or die to ourselves, Paul
goes on to explicate further the implications of both living and dying to the Lord. Byrne
understands these verses as this “sense of common accountability with a more
generalized description of Christian existence, centred upon the “lordship” of Christ”.(42)
He goes on to identify these three verses i.e. 7–9 as having a symmetrical structure
composed of six lines made up of three pairs of corresponding couplets. For this reason
it has a “hymnic ring about it, suggesting the quotation of an early Christian hymn or
statement of faith”.(43) Moo poses the question as to what “dying to the Lord” means in
this instance. In answering his question, he refers to our earlier passage in Romans 6:3,
where there is a clear spiritual sense. But no such spiritual sense can be applied here,
for nothing in this (14:8) context would suggest such a nuance, as Paul is referring to
physical death.(44) In further elucidating the concept of belonging to the Lord in death
and life, Moo states:
The union with the Lord Christ with all its benefits, that the believer enjoys in this
life will continue after death with, indeed, an even fuller measure of blessing (cf
8:18, 31-39).(45)
158
This is an interesting insight in terms of the continuity of blessings and benefits received
by the believer in this life and in death. Moo incidentally takes the kuri/u reference here
to refer to Christ “almost certainly” because of the close connection with what follows
in verse 9 (and he cites the support of commentators such as Sanday and Headlam,
Murray, Cranfield and Dunn.(46) Fitzmyer on the other hand sees this reference (in v8)
to the Lord as to: “praise, honour and serve God, the creator and maker of all”.(47) In
spite of this alternative, it would appear that the overall context of these two verses
taken together relate the “Lord” to Christ.
The ultimate purpose of the Christian’s living and dying and indeed also thereby
belonging to the Lord is made abundantly clear in verse 9. The Greek expressions used
“ei0v tou=to ga\r…i3na kai\”. For this…in order that” (literally) rendered variously as
“For to this end…so that he might be” (NRSV) and “For this very reason…so that he
might be” (NIV); certainly indicates ultimate purpose in Christ’s death and living again.
Christ’s sovereignty over both life and death is a “universal dominion proper to the
ku/riov of all” (cf I Thess 5:10; Phil 2:11)(48) as Fitzmyer states. He posits further that
the first part of this verse echoes traditional (possibly pre-Pauline) terminology about
the death and resurrection of Christ. (49) Cranfield ties together closely Christ’s
Lordship over life and death with his own when he observes: “His being Lord of the
dead and His being Lord of the living depend equally on both His death and His
resurrection”(50).
The Relationship of These Passages to I Cor 15:29
These exegetical remarks in regard to all three of these passages in Romans need now to
be related back to our verse in I Cor 15:29. By way of some concluding reflections
about the various issues raised in this chapter, it is clear that Romans follows I
Corinthians in time as indicated in the introductory section. It is also evident that
Romans was written by Paul from Corinth prior to his impending journey to Rome.
Romans as an epistle has traditionally been regarded as the epitome of Paul’s theology
and therefore represents without any doubt the distillation of his mature thought and
reflections. I Corinthians on the other hand is more in the nature of what was once
called an “occasional letter”. This means essentially that the content of this epistle
represents a number of responses to particular problems and issues arising within the
church of Corinth. Hence the whole correspondence was “occasioned” by the range of
159
issues being addressed therein.
This comparison between these two letters is important since it can help to explain the
relationship between I Cor 15:29 with the three passages exegeted in this chapter. The
“occasional” or (perhaps to use a more up-to-date word “situational”) nature of
vicarious baptism for the dead is significant in so far as that it supports Paul’s argument
for the resurrection of the dead. It may be incidental, since after all it is nowhere else
mentioned in scripture; however it is still important enough for Paul to use it as
illustrative of his case.
In the three exegetical passages we have a number of themes which illustrate Paul’s
mature theological reflection on the dead and the living. Taking the last two first, the
theme of continuity between life and death is stressed in both in slightly different ways.
In Romans 8:38-39 the particular emphasis is “neither death, nor life...will be able to
separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord”. Hence God’s love in Christ
transcends both life and death, along with other various conditions and thereby provides
continuity between life and death, inter-alia. In Romans 14:8-9 the notion of continuity
between life and death is stressed again albeit in terms of “living and dying to the Lord”
and belonging to Him in either state. Christ’s own dying and living again – and it is
significant here that the textual reading for “living again” is to be preferred over “rose
again” – confirms Christ’s Lordship over the dead and the living. Thus continuity is
stressed in the Christian’s faithfulness and Christ’s Lordship.
When turning to our first passage from Romans 6:3-5, the above theme of continuity
can be seen to occur again. That Paul views baptism as supremely illustrative of
Christ’s death and resurrection and in particular the Christian’s identification with Him
in baptism, is made abundantly clear. This close identification and union between
Christ and His disciples has ethical implications as “we walk in newness of life”. So
continuity again is stressed in the identification, union and discipleship of the believers
with their Lord.
Now when one returns again to “our verse”, I Cor15:29, one is struck again, somewhat
forcefully, with the notion of the continuity factor. Baptism is clearly viewed as
efficacious for this life and for the unbaptized dead. In this latter case this
efficaciousness is seen to be achieved through the vicarious baptism of relatives and
160
friends. But overall there is continuity in both. The fact that such a practice was
informed by a belief in the resurrection of the dead can be gauged by the way in which
Paul uses this instance to advance his case. So the overall theme of the continuity of life
and death for the Christian in relationship to the Lord who lived, died and rose again is
the common theme underlying all four of these passages.
In conclusion, one needs to assess whether there might be any direct connections
between I Cor 15:29 and Romans 6:3-5 in particular. We are indebted to De Maris for
drawing our attention to the possible connections between these two, as indicated earlier
in this chapter. Having acknowledged this possibility, I do not consider that one can go
as far as positing a direct connection between the two. There is simply no evidence to
suggest this and therefore it is purely speculative.
However in the evolution of Paul’s thinking it maybe of interest to track the continuity
factor as identified above. It is at this point that a theological progression can be seen
between I Cor 15; 29 and Romans 6:3-5; 8:38-39 and 14:8-9. Starting with an
illustration of the continuity of life and death through vicarious baptism as
demonstrating resurrection belief, one has still a continuity of ideas with baptism, minus
the vicarious practice, still demonstrating resurrection belief in Romans 6. The
significant difference between the two passages of scripture is the identification of the
living Christian with Christ’s death and resurrection through baptism, as compared with
those same beliefs being exercised by the living on behalf of the dead. The fact that in
life as well as in death, God’s love sustains this continuity as well as informs the
Christian’s faithfulness and Christ’s Lordship over both states, can be seen to arise from
an advance of Paul’s thinking on these inter-related ideas. This continuity in theological
ideas offers perhaps the best connection of all between I Cor15:29 and the above
Romans passages. Within that continuity there is also advances of theological ideas due
to the mature reflection of Paul’s thought.
161
FOOTNOTES
1. De Maris, RE “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (I Cor 15:29):
Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature
114 (1995), 661-82.
2. ibid., 677-82.
3. ibid., 681.
4. ibid.
5. ibid., 682.
6. Murphy-O’Connor J “St Paul’s Corinth” (1995), 154-8.
7. This date is advocated in some of the most recent scholarship on this topic, “The
New Interpreter’s Bible” – (I Corinthians – Introduction) (2002), 776-7.
8. ibid., 777.
9. Fitzmyer, JA “Romans” (1993), 186-8.
10. Byrne, B “Romans” (1996), 9
11. He sends greeting to Rome from Erastus, who was treasurer of Corinth
(Rom 16:236 cf 2 Tim 4: 20).
12. Fitzmyer, J op. cit., 86. Earlier on this page in his commentary, Fitzmyer also
states: “…The majority of interpreters maintain Paul wrote the essay – latter from
Corinth, as was already stated in the subscript of MSS B1 and D2”. This adds
relevant textual evidence.
13. Johnson, L “Reading Romans: a Literary and Theological Commentary” (1997),
Crossroads NY, 95.
14. De Maris, RE “Corinthian Religion & Baptism for the Dead (I Cor 15:29):
Insights from Archaeology & Anthropology” (in) JBL (1995), 681.
15. So Cranfield, “Romans” (1985), 129.
16. Dunn, JDG “Romans” 2 volumes (1988), Vol 1 327.
17. Morris, L “Romans” (1988), 246, N (11).
18. Bousset, W in his book “Kyrios Christos: a History in the Belief in Christ from the
Beginnings of Christianity to Irenaeus” (1970), Abingdon, Nashville, traces
further his view of early connections with the mysteries. Cited by Johnson, L, op.
cit., 96.
19. Dunn, op. cit., 327.
20. Johnson, L, op. cit., 96.
162
21. Fitzmyer, J, op. cit., 433.
22. Cranfield, op. cit., 130.
23. So Fitzmyer, op. cit., 433.
24. ibid., 434.
25. ibid., Fitzmyer’s translation as “co-buried”.
26. Dunn, op. cit., 316.
27. Byrne, op. cit., (1996), 190.
28. ibid., 191.
29. ibid.
30. So Fitzmyer, op. cit., 436 for further details on these slight variations in the MSS.
31. Metzger, B “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament” (1971),
United Bible Soc, 519.
32. Cranfield, CEB (1985), 212.
33. So Morris, L. “Romans” (1988),340.
34. Cranfield CEB op. cit., 212.
35. Dunn, J (1988), 506.
36. Cranfield, op. cit., 212.
37. Morris, op. cit., (1988), 340.
38. So Morris(1988).
39. According to Metzger, BM “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament” (1971), United Bible Societies, 531.
40. ibid.
41. Fitzmyer, J “Romans” (1993), Doubleday, NY, 691.
42. Byrne, B “Romans”, (1996), 410.
43. ibid.
44. Moo, D “The Epistle to the Romans” (1996), 845.
45. ibid.
46. ibid., and N (87).
47. op. cit., Fitzmyer, 691.
48. ibid.
49. ibid.
50. Cranfield, CEB “Commentary on Romans” (1985), 34.
163
E (2) Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and
other Pauline Literature
164
As has already been indicated in the chapter on relevant comparisons of various
passages in Romans with that of I Cor 15:29, there are further comparisons within other
Pauline literature. In this chapter an examination of three of these which are relevant to
our discussion is made. These are in turn Galatians 3:27-28; Ephesians 4:9-10 and
Colossians 2:12-13. There may well be other verses which could be cited within the
whole Pauline corpus (e.g. I Thess 4:13-15), but these above passages will suffice in
terms of a sampling. The selection is by no means random since in a thcouple of cases
they have been cited by authors of articles on I Cor 15:29. These citations will be
discussed after observations have been made of the verses in question. In terms of
Pauline authorship, Galatians is the only one of these epistles which is not contested by
scholars. However both Ephesians and Colossians stand firmly within the Pauline
school of thought.
Exegesis of various passages
(a) Galatians 3:27-8
27) o3soi ga\r eiv Xristo\n e0bapti/sqhte, Xristo\n e0nedu/sasqe
Interlinear: - for as many as into Christ you were baptized, Christ you put on.
NRSV: - as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourself with
Christ.
28) ou0k e1ni 0Ioudai=ov ou0de\ 3Ellhn, ou0k e1ni dou=lv ou0de\ e0leu/qerov, ou0k e1ni
a1rsen kai\ qh=lu: pa/ntev ga\r u9mei=v ei[v e0ote e0n Xristw=| 0Ihsou=.
Interlinear: - There cannot be Jew or Greek, there cannot be slave or freeman.
There cannot be male or female; for all you (are) one in Christ Jesus.
NRSV: - There is no longer Jew or Greek there is no longer slave nor free, there is
no longer male or female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.
Of these two verses, the first is the most relevant to our quest to find relevant
comparisons than the second. The second does at least show the universal scope of the
unity which exists in Christ Jesus, transcending ethnic, sexual and socio-economic
status. What was true in this respect for the Galatians was equally true for the
Corinthians as well. So from this point on our main focus will be on verse 27. It is of
interest to note with Matera that this verse is the only mention of baptism in Galatians.(1)
Perhaps in direct contrast to Romans 6:3 where Paul describes baptism into Christ as
165
being a baptism into this death, here we have an imagery of being clothed with Christ
through baptism. Elsewhere in the Pauline literature, this “being clothed with”
(e0nedu/sasqe) is used, as for example Col 3:10 clothing oneself in the new self
cf Eph 4:24 (new person). In Rom 13:12-14 and I Thes 5:8 this kind of language is
used in Paul’s ethical exhortation in these two contexts. Perhaps closest to our verse
(I Cor 15:29) we have Paul’s description of being clothed (e0ndusasqai; e0ndu/shtai)
with the unperishable immortality of the resurrection body (I Cor 15:53-4). So this is
perhaps the most relevant correlation in that the same word can be used in putting on
Christ at baptism(2) and ultimately also in the resurrection state.
(b) Ephesians 4:9-10
9) to\ de\ 0Ane/bh ti/ e0stin, ei0 mh/ o3ti kai\ kate/bh ei0v ta\ katw/tera [me/rh] th=v
gh=v;
Interlinear: - Now the he descended what is it except that also he descended into
the lower parts of the earth?
NRSV: - when it says, “He ascended”, what does it mean but that had also
descended in to the lower part of the earth?
10) o9 kataba\v au0to/v e0stin kai\ o9 a0naba\v u9pera/nw pa/ntwn tw=n ou0ranw=n,
i3na plhrw/sh| ta\ pa/nta.
Interlinear: - The (one) descending himself is also the (one) ascending far above
all the heavens, in order that he might fill all things.
NRSV: - He who descended is the same one who ascended far above all the
heavens, so that he might fill all things.
The only textual variation on this passage is for v9 where prw=ton was added in
some authorities (e.g. NcB Cc K P Y 88 614 Byz Lect al) after kate/bh
(meaning ‘he descended first’). According to Metzger this appears to be a
“natural expansion introduced by copyists to elucidate the meaning”.(3) He
goes on to decide in favour of the shorter text (i.e. the omission of prwton as
this is strongly supported by the following authorities (p46 Ν* A C* D G 1739
al).(4) This reference to the verse from Psalm 68:18 quoted in the previous
verse 8, is elaborated upon further in verses 9 and 10. It is important to see in
these spatial terms ascent and descent as applied to Christ another example of
166
the multi-storied cosmology of that era. In this particular instance we are
presented with three stories namely heavens (ou0ranw=n, v10); far above these
(u9pera/vw, v10); and the lower parts of the earth (ta\ katw/tera me/rh th=v
gh=v; v9). Usually the three storied universe was seen to be heaven above,
earth below and the lower parts of earth below referring usually to Sheol
and/or hell. In terms of traditional understandings of this “lower parts of the
earth” in verse 9, references found in Gen 44:29; Ps 63:10; 139:15; Ezek
32:18,24 indicate ‘Sheol’ as the “deepest places of the earth” or “the depth of
the earth” and therefore the scene of “death and for destruction”.(5) Such was
the place understood by traditional exegesis(6) and even down to more recent
exegetes(7) as a “locus classicus” attesting to Christ’s descent to hell, the “ad
inferos”.(8) Some other recent exegetes such as Barth(9) and MacDonald(10)
have put forward their alternative views, but even further evidence from the
New Testament itself seems to support the “ad inferos” view. (e.g. Acts
2:27;31; Rom 10:7; Phil 2:10;
I Peter 3:19; 4:6).(11) So therefore in the light of traditional cosmological
understandings of that New Testament era along with its Old Testament heritage as well
as further corroborative evidence with the NT cited above, the ‘ad inferos’ view is to be
preferred. The support for this view from a long line of exegetes both past and present
is impressive.
(c) Colossians 2:12-13
12) suntafe/ntev au0tw=| en tw=| baptismw=|, e0n w[| kai\ sunhge/rqhte dia\ th=v
pi/stewv th=v e0nergei/av tou= qeou= tou= e0gei/rantov au0to\n nekrw=n:
Interlinear: - Co-buried with him in the baptism, in whom also you were co-raised
through the faith of (in) the operation of God raising him from the dead.
NRSV: - When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with
him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
13) kai\ u9ma=v nekrou\v o1ntav e0n toi=v paraptw/masin kai\ th=| a0krobutia| th=v
sarko\v u9mw=n, sunezwpoi/hsen u9ma=v su\n au0tw=| xarisa/menov h9mi=n pa/nta
ta\ paraptw/mata.
Interlinear: - And you dead being in the trespasses and in the uncircumcision of
the flesh of you, he co-quickened you with him, forgiving you all the trespasses;
167
NRSV: - And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your
flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our
trespasses.
In regard to the textual variations the words for baptism namely baptiomw=| and
baptismati, both are “well supported” according to Metzger.(12) The former is
found in p46 Nc B D* G 1739 al whilst the latter word is used in N* A C Dc K P Ψ
33 81 614 al, whereas the versional evidence is ambiguous. Even though
baptismati found in the various Greek MS cited above, the majority of the
translation committee preferred baptiomw=|, because as Metzger states:
“… being the less usual term for Christian baptism in the ancient church …
copyists were more likely to alter it to baptismati than vice versa”.(13) This
less usual term has the meaning of “dipping” or “ritual washing” (cf Mk 7:4: Heb
9:10 and 6:2 where it refers to “instruction about baptisms”).
The other words of interest are suntafe/ntev ...sunhge/rqhte meaning “you were
buried with him… you were raised with him…” Macdonald makes the point that
the prefix sun meaning “with” is used repeatedly throughout Colossians as seen in
this section as well (Col 2:12, 13, 20; 3:1, 4).(14) In this particular case “the focus
is on the experience of the death and resurrection in which believers have already
shared through baptism”.(15)
When comparing Col 2:12 with Romans 6:4-6 the prefix sun is used by Paul to refer to
the present union of believers with Christ. This is an interesting comparison with these
two passages, though dia\ is the prefix used in Rm 6:4, which whilst literally meaning
“through” can be translated as “with”. However both verses use the word root
(suntaf) “buried with”, and overall are close in meaning.
However the difference in tense between Romans 6:4-5, 8-11, 13 and Colossians 2:12 is
significant. In the former being united with Christ in resurrection has a strong future
dimension (e.g. 6:5 … we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his
(NRSV)). With Colossians there is a change of emphasis with “an almost exclusive
focus on the present…”.(16) Even the usage of the verb sunhge/rqhte “you were raised
with”, as an aorist passive indicative, with God as the implied agent, shows the past
168
status and present emphasis in contrast to the future reference of the resurrection state in
Romans.(17)
Colossians is dated after Romans and these kinds of significant changes in emphasis as
shown here tend to strengthen the case for pseudonymous authorship of Colossians.
However there is a strong continuity of thought in spite of the authorship question.
Verse 13 illustrates the ethical implications of the present status in contrast to the past
(i.e. dead because of your transgressions…).(18) As such it does not add much
significantly to the import of verse 12.
The Relationship Between These Passages and I Cor 15:29
Having now commented on these three passages exegetically one is now in a position to
examine the comparisons with I Cor 15:29. MacDonald, in an overall observation of
the Colossian passage states:
Early Christian literature reveals that baptism was a powerful but somewhat
ambiguous ritual that was interpreted in various ways… Social-scientific thought
on ritual can help us understand how ritual can figure prominently in social
conflict.(19)
If this principle applies to Colossians, one can also readily observe how it can apply
equally in the conflict and strife of the Corinthian correspondence. It is abundantly
clear that vicarious baptism for the dead is also an example of baptism seen to be
powerful and yet a “somewhat ambiguous ritual… interpreted in various ways”. It is no
wonder then that this ritual figures prominently in the social conflict exhibited at
Corinth over many issues including belief in the resurrection. Downey, writing a
decade and a half before MacDonald, pre-empts her somewhat in his positing that for
the early church “the purpose of baptism was thought of as polyvalent”.(20) By this he
goes on to define having other values than undoubtedly associated with the remission of
sin.(21) One of these other values central to his article is that “baptism was seen as a
protection against and deliverance from the superior powers both in this world and the
next”.(22) Downey develops his argument along these lines:
Christ’s death and resurrection was not merely a victory over sin and death. It was
also a subjugation of these superhuman powers...but the Christian participated in
Christ’s victory only through baptism.(23)
As evidence for this cosmic aspect of baptism in the New Testament, Downey cites
169
Col 2:10-15; I Peter 3:19-22 and I Cor 8:6.(24) He then relates the foregoing approach to
I Cor 15:29 in this way:
It is suggested that I Cor 15:29 should be seen within this context. When some of
their members died, it was brought home to the bereaved Christian community
that the deceased, not having been baptized, would be prey to the influence of
cosmic powers. Consequently the living were baptized on behalf of the dead.(25)
Downey also sees his approach as also addressing the “now neglected theology of
Christ’s descent/ascent”.(26) In so doing he is making connection with not only I Pet
3:19-22 but also in our view this reference in Eph 4:9-10. More will be said about the
I Peter reference in the next chapter and what has been said earlier on in this chapter on
Eph 4:9-10 will not repeated here.
De Maris cites Downey a decade later. He sees Downey arguing that “the Corinthians
used vicarious baptism to protect their dead from the cosmic powers that might impede
them on their journey to their final resting place”.(27) De Maris goes on to describe the
primary significance of vicarious baptism, sociologically speaking, as a rite of
passage,(28) which involves the elements of separation, transition and incorporation.(29)
De Maris proceeds to apply these three elements as follows:
The baptismal language of Paul and the Pauline communities invariably conveys
departure or separation from a previous status and incorporation or integration into
a new condition: buried into death/ raised to newness of life (Rm 6:4; Col 2:12)
putting off the body of flesh or stripping off the old self / clothing yourself with
the new self (Col 2:11; 3:9-10 cf II Cor 5:17);
Old status – Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female / new status – oneness in
Christ (I Cor 12:12-13; Gal 3:27-8); and so forth … (30)
He then connects and correlates this particular approach with I Cor 15:29 by observing:
Baptism for the dead would have alleviated any apprehension the Corinthian
Christians might have had about the destiny of the newly deceased, because the
ritual allowed them to enact, and thus be assured of, the departed one’s transition
to the next world.(31)
Both Downey and De Maris have together brought out important relevant comparisons
in the Pauline school of thought. For Downey this is seen supremely in his
cosmological dimension as it applies to baptism for the dead and Col 2:10-15 with
170
implications for Eph 4:9-10. For De Maris, who endorses Downey’s view at this point,
the sociological element as a “rite of passage” for the practice of vicarious baptism
correlates with Gal 3: 27-28 and Col 2:11-12.
Such then are the continuities which exist between I Cor 15:29 and these passages from
the other Pauline literature, whether Pauline (Galatians) or Deutero-Pauline (Ephesians
and Colossians). They provide supporting connecting links with Paul’s undisputed
epistles, Romans and its earlier pre-cursor Galatians, and their latter successors in
Ephesians and Colossians.
171
FOOTNOTES
1. Matera, FJ “Galatians” (1992), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 142.
2. Attention should be drawn at the lovely symbolism inspired by this verse of the
baptism robe put on by catechumens at their baptism in Easter, a custom which
has its modern echoes in the infant’s christening gown.
3. Metzger, BM “A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament” (1971), (3rd
edn) United Bible Society, 605.
4 ibid.
5. According to Barth, M “Ephesians 4-6” (Vol 2) (1974), Doubleday, NY, 433,
N (46).
6. These traditional exegetes include: Tertullian, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Theodoret,
Oecumenius, Victorinus, Ambrosiaster, Jerome, Pelagius, Thomas Acquinus,
Bengel, Estius, Hofmann, Westcott and Robinson (so ibid., N (45))
7 More recent exegetes such as Bousset, W “Kurios Christos”, 30-1 and Beare, FW
“Interpreter’s Bible”, Vol 10, 689 (so also ibid., N (45)).
8. Barth, M ibid., 433.
9. ibid., 433-4.
10. MacDonald, MY “Colossians and Ephesians” (2000), Liturgical Press,
Collegeville, Minn, 290-1.
11. This latter NT reference to I Peter 3:19 and 4:6 will be explored further in a later
chapter.
12 Metzger, BM op. cit., 623.
13. ibid.
14. MacDonald, MY op. cit., 100.
15. ibid.
16. ibid., 101.
17. Hay, DM “Colossians” (2000), Abingdon, Nashville, 92, observes in this
connection: “...the vital difference here, the resurrection of believers is presented
as an already accomplished fact, whereas Romans 6 presents it as future”.
18. ibid., Hay observes “The undisputed Pauline letters uses “trespasses”
(transgressions) quite often in the plural, but never use the verb for forgiveness in
this way (cf Col 3:13; Eph 4:32)”.
19. op. cit., MacDonald, MY, 107.
20. Downey, J “I Corinthians 15:29 and Theology of Baptism” (1985), (in) Euntes
172
Docete (Rome), 24.
21. ibid.
22. ibid.
23. ibid., 25.
24. ibid.
25. ibid.
26. ibid.
27. De Maris RE “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (I Cor 15:29):
Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature
(1995), 676.
28. ibid.
29. Here, 676-7, De Maris uses A Van Gennup’s analysis of baptism, marriage and
funeral ceremonies having these three features as a “rite of passage” (so A Van
Gennup’s “The Rites of Passage” (1960), University Press, Chicago, 10-11; 63,
79, 93-5).
30. ibid., 677.
31. ibid.
173
E (3) Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29 and
Petrine Literature
174
It has been demonstrated that there are textual comparisons with I Cor 15:29 along with
continuity within the other epistles of Paul through to the so called deutero-Pauline
epistles. But what of other New Testament writers and schools of thought? In this
chapter we look to connections with the Petrine school of thought, that is to the
correlations of I Peter 3:19 and 4:6 with I Cor 15:29.
These two Petrine verses concern Christ’s own ministry to the dead (4:6) and “spirits in
prison” (3:19). They therefore provide an interesting possibility for an overall context
for ministry ‘to’ (in the case of Christ’s ministry) and ‘for’ (in the case of human
ministry) the dead. This is an appropriate approach since all ministry in the life of the
Church ultimately is derived from Christ’s ministry first and foremost (Mt 28:18-20;
Jn 15:1-5; II Cor 5:17-20).
Questions of Authorship and Date of I Peter
When turning to the thorny issue of the authorship of the Petrine epistles in terms of the
traditional apostolic authorship (i.e. Peter himself) or the Pseudonymous position or
even a position in between (i.e. Silvanus, inter alia), as author, this will not be important
enough to discuss much further. It is clear that probably the vast majority of modern
New Testament scholarship accepts the Pseudonymous authorship of both Petrine
epistles ‘per se’, in most cases being unable to identify the exact author. Both epistles
are dated late in the first century, well beyond the traditional martyrdom of Peter
c 64AD, in Nero’s persecution.
Questions of the authorship and the related issue of dating of these epistles, is not
ultimately important, if with most scholarship we agree that Petrine inspiration and
some biographical allusions is incorporated within both. It is in this kind of light that
the two epistles can be viewed within a Petrine school of thought.
Exegesis of the Two Passages
As far as our approach to these verses is concerned this will involve an exegesis within
the framework of questions arising particularly in 3:19 but also in 4:6. Most
commentators have identified these questions arising in similar ways because the
essential issues are the same. By looking at these questions one is in a better position to
focus on the matters for interpretation which have given rise to a lively debate over the
175
last half century or so. Both verses are set in an overall context of baptismal teaching.
This is a particular feature of the first epistle, with which we are mostly concerned. The
second epistle has only tangential relevance. So for the sake of the overall argument
examining relevant comparisons with I Cor 15:29 the context of these verses (i.e. I Peter
3:18 – 4:6) will be commented upon in our concluding discussion, after examining the
key verses of 3:19 and 4:6 first.
a) I Peter 3:19 (Greek and English translations)
19) e0n w[| kai\ toi=v e0n fulakh=| pneu/masin poreuqei\v e0kh/rucen,
Interlinear: - in which indeed to the in prison spirits going he proclaimed
NRSV: - in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison
In terms of textual considerations, Achtemeier(1) makes a couple of points about this
particular verse.
(i) The Greek phrase e0n w[| kai has led to the speculation that the letters e0nw=k are
either a misreading of the name 0Enw=x (Enoch) or that by haplography the
name 0Enw=x was omitted.
However in a further reference to this possibility Achtemeier dismisses it as “The
conjecture regarding the mention of Enoch at the beginning of v19 is thus to be
discarded”.(2) To this we concur. Achtemeier comments further on 3:19.
(ii) A few minuscules read tw= h1dh (“Hades”) for (in place of) fulakh=|, probably
under the influence of the later interpretation of this verse announcing Christ’s
‘decensus ad inferos’.(3)
Key Questions Relating to the Exegesis of 3:19
Beyond these minor variations in textual history, there is nothing further to report. This
brings us to the questions which arise from this text. Best in his commentary has listed
these questions as follows: “(i) What is the antecedent of ‘in which’? (ii) When did
Christ go to preach to the spirits? (iii) Who are the spirits in prison? (iv) Where is their
prison? (v) What did Christ preach to them? (vi) Do 3:19 and 4:6 refer to the same
event?(4) These questions posed by Best provide a convenient framework for
endeavouring to arrive at some possible solutions to these various issues. Taking them
in order of above then:
(i) What is the antecedent of ‘in which’ (i.e. the en w[|)? Dalton has argued that this
176
means “in this sphere” (of the spirit) or “under this influence” as being the simplest way
to understand it.(5) Another alternative would be to take this expression as a conjunction
and translate it as “on which occasion”.(6) This reference to time in turn introduces the
next question, namely
(ii) When did Christ go to the spirits in prison? There appear to be three main options in
trying to locate this occasion. These are a) Before Christ’s incarnation; b) at the time of
his ascension; or c) between his death and resurrection.
Taking these in the order of above a) seems to have originated with Augustine (Epistles
164:14-18, Ep Euod) who suggested that the proclamation concerned took place in the
time of Noah, who by the Spirit of Christ, preached repentance to those who rejected his
message and subsequently died in the flood that followed. Augustine’s view here has
been espoused by others in recent times.(7) Achtemeier notes by way of a criticism that
the “evident references to Christ’s death and resurrection in v18 render questionable the
notion that the events in v19 occurred prior to these events”.(8)
The second option b) above is advocated by Walton(9) and Achtemeier(10) who both
argue that
because the point of zw|opoihqei/v de\ pneu/mati (but made alive in the spirit, in
v18) seems to be Christ’s resurrection, the activity of going and preaching would
have to be subsequent to that event, that is, during Christ’s ascension.(11)
The main critique of this option comes from Kelly who points out that “…there can be
no real doubt that it i.e. en w[| (v19) refers back to the ‘in the spirit’ (v18) as antecedent.
The meaning must therefore be, ‘in which’, i.e. in His spiritual mode of existence, as
‘spirit’ ”.(12) This clearly rules out the resurrection being referred to here (so Dalton and
Achtemeier) and in turn leads to option c). This is the more widely held view which
asserts that the proclamation of Christ occurs whilst in His spiritual state in the interval
between his death and resurrection, the triduum mortis.
Supporters of this view have included commentators such as Beare, Reicke, Best,
Cranfield and Windisch.(13) Best cites the following supports for this view. Firstly the
poreuqei\v ‘he went’ is an aorist participle, describing a single action in the past and
follows on from a similar aorist participle in v18 i.e. zw|opoihqei/v ‘made alive’. In
view of what has already been said above about this latter verb (in v18) and to what it
177
refers in what follows in v19, this is a consistent use of tenses referring to the same
event. Reicke points out further that if “poreuqei\v ‘he went’ refers to the ascension”
(as per option (b)) then we should more correctly expect a present participle (i.e. ‘on his
way to heaven he preached’) rather than the aorist ‘he went’ we have here.(14) These
grammatical considerations show consistency and a cogent argument in favour of
option (c).
Another important support for this third option (c) is the internal New Testament
evidence as supporting the idea of Jesus’ ministry during the interval between his death
and resurrection. This is to be found in the following references including Acts 2:25ff
(quoting Ps 16:8-11, 13, 35); Rom 10:7; and Matt 12:40. In Hebrews 9:1-10:14, Jesus
offers his blood on the heavenly altar. In Luke 23:43 indicates a common journey of
Jesus and the penitent thief to paradise, whilst the Johannine usage u9you=n ‘lift up’
indicates that his death is also his exultation.
Best concludes his survey of these verses and former supports by stating: “We conclude
that the reference in “he went” is to a journey prior to the resurrection”.(15) Thus the
immediate contextual and other NT scriptural support the belief that Christ’s ministry to
the dead occurred between His death and resurrection, as affirmed in the Apostles
Creed’s “he descended to the dead” after his crucifixion and before the resurrection
propositions. We shall have more to say about this idea in the next chapter.
(iii) Who are the spirits? As one might expect “spirit” (pneu/mata or pneu/masin; this
latter word is used in v19) relates to the non-material beings. It is true also that ‘spirit’
can denote the spiritual aspect of human beings, often used interchangeably with ‘soul’
in general parlance. However in this particular instance it would appear that “spirits”
indicates supernatural beings, good or evil depending on the context. This is seen in the
Inter-Testamental literature which provides the background for the New Testament (e.g.
Tob 616; 2 Mac 3:24; Jubilees 15:31; I Enoch 60:11ff; Testament of Dan 1:7; 5:5;
I Qs 3:15ff; IQm12:8f; 13:10). More specifically Achtemeier draws attention to:
a clear Jewish tradition, however, in which the angelic beings of Genesis 6:1-6,
whose disobedience caused the flood were subsequently imprisoned. These
beings are identified as pneu/mata and are clearly to be understood as non-
human.(16)
178
His footnotes to substantiate this Jewish tradition are derived from the Inter-Testamental
literature including those cited above. His conclusion to his quest to identify the
“spirits” is:
that it is this tradition which underlies the reference to “spirits” in our verse seems
therefore likely to be the case.(17)
Actually this identification of the disobedient spirits in the days of Noah, as given in the
following v20 seems to confirm it as well.
(iv) Where is the prison of these spirits? Having just identified these spirits with the
beings who rebelled against God prior to and during the Flood, it is clear therefore that
their sin should cause their imprisonment. Various locations have been suggested for
this prison. In II Peter 2:4 we are informed that the fallen angels are “cast into Tartarus
(rendered as “hell” in the NRSV) and committed them to chains of deepest darkness to
be kept until the judgement”. There can be little doubt that this verse in the other
epistle, which goes on to refer to Noah in the verse following is an important correlation
of I Peter 3:19. In Revelations 20:3, 7, 10 there are references to Satan being flung into
the pit, called “prison” in v7. Again in the Inter-Testamental literature there are
references to the abode of these “spirits” and/or fallen angels being ‘bound in the depths
of the earth’ (Jubilees 5:6 cf IQH 3:17f). In I Enoch 10:4,12 it is described as in
darkness and in the valleys of the earth, where flame and fire are present (10:6,13); in
the abyss (21:1-7). In chapters 17-19 it is a place beyond heaven and earth. All this
kind of imagery seems to suggest as Best concludes:
The evidence indicates that it is much more probable that the spirits are considered
to be imprisoned in the underworld, than in the upper air or second heaven.(18)
This certainly appears to be the better alternative of the two presented by Best in the
comment.
(v) What was it that Christ preached to the spirits? In question (ii) above, in regard to
the “when” Christ went to the spirits in prison in the interval between His death and
resurrection as traditionally affirmed in the creeds. If as has been demonstrated that the
spirits concerned were evil and that their abode at Christ’s death was imprisoned in an
underworld, then it would logically follow that Christ’s proclamation to them would be
appropriate to their state at that time. In discussing the fate of the imprisoned spirits and
the nature of Christ’s proclamation to them, Achtemeier states: “…the content of the
179
announcement (e0kh/rucen) to the imprisoned spirits would be not their salvation but
their condemnation”.(19) He arrives at his view on this subject on the extent of the
influence of such Inter-testamental literature as I Enoch, especially 12:4-6; 13:1; 14:3-6;
16:3. Dalton supports this view further when he notes the parallel between the
descriptions of Christ’s activity in I Peter 3:19-20a and I Enoch 12:4; 13:3; 15:2, which
he considers to be impossible to be purely coincidental.(20) The influence of this Enoch
literature is not just confined to these Petrine texts but also in related verses such as Jude
14-15 (citing I Enoch 1:9); I Enoch’s great emphasis on Genesis 6:1-6 is alluded to also
in Jude 6-7 and 2 Peter 2:4, mentioned above. So all of these verses provide important
comparisons of thought.
(vi) Do 3:19 and 4:6 refer to the same event? Best seems to have come to a sustainable
conclusion on the relationship of these verses when he claims: “3:19 and 4:6 do not
refer to the same event; 3:19 relates to spirits, 4:6 to men; both, however, may have
been preached to on the same journey of Christ”.(21) He elsewhere notes that the belief
in some form of a journey by Christ dates from an earlier time than I Peter (e.g.
Acts 2:27; Rom 10:7; Eph 4:9).(22) Best’s logic in the light of what has already been
said of the spirits will be seen to contrast with the situation in 4:6.
Exegesis of I Peter 4:6
6) ei0v tou=to ga\r kai\ nekroi=v eu0hggeli/sqh, i3na kriqw=si me\n kata\
a0nqrw/pouv sarki\ zw=si de\ kata\ qeo\n pneu/mati.
Interlinear: - for this for indeed to dead men good news was preached, in order
that they might be judged on the one hand according to men in the flesh might
live, on the other hand according to God in the spirit.
NRSV: - For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that,
though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in
the spirit as God does.
This verse like 3:19 is difficult to interpret and therefore like the other has various
interpretations. It is however possible to arrive at some kind of understanding. Firstly it
should be set in its immediate context with 4:5b, particularly with its reference to the
judging of “the living and dead”. This phrase as various commentators indicate is
probably a “fixed liturgies or credal phrase relating to the Last Judgement”.(23) It relates
180
to other texts in the New Testament and later texts where Christ appears as judge
(Acts 10:42; II Tim 4:1; and Barnabas 7:2; Polycarp, Philippians 2:1, 2 Clement 1:1 cf
Rom 14:9). This judgement was expected shortly (4:7) and included all in its ambit.
As far as textual history relates to 4:6 Achtemeier has identified only one matter.
This phrase, kata\ a0nqrw/pouv, could also be rendered “according to human
standards” as the comparable phrase, kata\ qeo\n could be rendered as “according
to divine standards”.(24)
The comment does not relate to the matter of establishing the text among any variations.
Rather it seeks to explicate further the implications of these two phrases in 4:6.
Whilst a longer verse than 3:19, 4:6 does not have the complications of the former verse
and therefore this survey of opinion will be correspondingly less. There are two main
issues in this verse, firstly the identity of the preacher of the gospel and secondly the
identity of the dead. The identity of the preacher is an issue because the Greek verb
eu0ggeli/sqh is aorist tense, with no subject expressed it can be seen as somewhat
impersonal. However Kelly mentions the fact that the verb could be rendered as “he
was preached”, but as the various earlier versions such as the AV, RV, RSV and NEB
translate this as “the gospel was preached”, the “implication might be that Christ
himself was the preacher”.(25) It is clear that both Christ is the subject of the gospel and
within the context of this verse, (being preached to the dead) only Christ could have
done this.
As for the identity of “the dead”, Best suggests four possibilities, these being as follows:
(i) They are the spiritually dead
(ii) They are the righteous dead of the Old Testament
(iii) They are Christians who have already died
(iv) The dead are all who are physically dead and who are in this state when they
hear the gospel.(26)
Taking these in order then:
(i) Has problems because the physically dead are referred to in the preceding v5
and in any case such a view would require a verse in the present tense (so ‘the
gospel is being preached to the spiritually dead’) not in the aorist simple past
181
tense, as is found here;
(ii) This is also improbable because it requires a change of meaning between v5
and v6 in the meaning of ‘dead’. But such a reference to the righteous dead is
irrelevant to the main point of the argument, which is the encouragement to
Christians to persevere under persecution.
(iii)This has been favoured by both Selwyn and Dalton, in regard to the alleged
parallel in I Thess 4:13-17, the dead in Christ are specified by Paul as “those
who have fallen asleep”. However in vv5-6 the dead are not qualified further,
indeed they include all the dead and not a particular sub-division of them,
which is not specified in any case.
(iv) This view espoused by Beare and Best as “Taken all in all this fourth
interpretation is preferable”.(27) This is because unlike the former three
alternatives, there is no need to change the meaning of the “dead” between v5
and v6 as they are both referring to the physically dead. Best rightly identified
these dead as those who existed:
prior to Christ’s death and include both the righteous and the unrighteous.
The Gospel is now offered to those who never had the opportunity of
hearing it when alive . This creates a stronger link between verses 5 and 6:
all face judgement (v5) because all, even the dead, have heard the
gospel(v6).(28)
To this astute conclusion one must give assent bearing in mind the consistency in
meaning and reference of vv5 and 6 taken together. Best sums up the linkage between
3:19 and 4:6 when he states, somewhat tentatively in the light of difficulties in exegesis
of these enigmatic verses:
If that which is here advocated is adopted then the occasion of this preaching to
the dead will probably be the same as that of 3:19 i.e. Christ’s descent to Hades.(29)
This relevant comparison between these two verses is maintained.
In essence these two verses 3:19 and 4:6 provide contrast and correlation. The contrast
is Christ’s proclamation is directed to spirit beings on the one hand pronouncing the
condemnation, whilst the human dead have the offer of salvation in the finished work of
Christ upon the cross. The relationship occurs in the timing of these separate events,
both occurring between the crucifixion and resurrection. Continuity occurs in the
ministry of Christ to spirit beings and human beings now both in different states of the
182
after life.
The Overall Context - I Peter 3:18 – 4:6
The overall context of this passage within the First Epistle of Peter (i.e. 3:18 – 4:6) now
needs to be surveyed with relevant comparisons noted between this and I Cor 15:29.
This will require noting the leading themes in 3:18 and 3:20-22 and 4:1-4 from a
theological viewpoint rather than a full exegesis which is not needed. Of the three sub-
sections, noted above, the first two i.e. 3:18 and 3:20-22 are more helpful than the third
4:1-4, which is largely the ethical implications and exhortations for the receivers of the
epistle. Whilst these are important in their own right, they are not so directly relevant to
this survey.
Achtemeier provides a helpful framework for the inter-relationship of the verses 3:18-
22, when he comments upon the middle verse 20:
The verses preceding (v18-19) and following (v22) recount the salfivic and
triumphant career of Christ: his suffering, death, resurrection, his announcement of
triumph over supernatural forces of evil and his assumption of divine authority.
Thus they provide the context within which to interpret vv20-21.(30)
This is a clear statement of the inter-acting nature of these verses within which the
baptismal analogy is set, which Achtemeier also believes “vv20-21 show how
Christians share in Christ’s victorious and salfivic career”.(31)
In verse 18, there is some scholarly debate on the usage of either the verb a0pe/qanen (he
[Christ] died) or e1paqen (he[Christ] suffered). Best outlines the case in terms of the
majority of manuscripts including a more recently discovered M72 favour e1paqen, even
if one of the best, ‘B’ (Codex Vaticanus) favours a0pe/qanen. He decides in favour of
‘died’ (a0pe/qanen) being what the author wrote on the basis of ‘early credal or liturgical
foundation’.(32) Achtemeier favours e1paqen, being the minority rendering in the
manuscripts as indicated above, but in spite of this being “more appropriate both to the
immediate context……and the larger setting of the letter……and hence more likely to
be original”.(33) However both Best and Achtemeier agree that such suffering would
include Christ’s death and so the meaning is the same either way.(34) In any case
Christ’s suffering and death was an unrepeatable(35) sacrifice, being unique in itself and
contrasting sharply with the regular repetition required in the Old Testament sacrificial
183
system.
Davids identifies four elements in Christ’s suffering and death, these being as follows:
It was unjust suffering;
It was the righteous on behalf of the unrighteous
The purpose of the suffering was to lead you to God;
The death of Christ did not destroy him, just as death will not destroy the Christian
sufferer.(36)
In regard to the first two elements, Davids observes:
It is the formula of substitutionary atonement, the death of the victim on behalf of
the sins of another. Thus the traditional formula expresses the fact that Christ also
suffered innocently, and not just innocently but on behalf of another’s sins.(37)
Notice that the word “penal” is not used in front of “substitutionary” here, and therefore
should be distinguished from this other theory of the atonement. Certainly the notion of
a vicarious sacrifice by Christ is clear in this verse, especially with the usage of the
preposition u9pe\r (i.e. di/kaiov u9pe\r a0di/kwn, the righteous for the unrighteous).
More will be noted on this matter later.
The verses 20-22 taken together, particularly the first two concern the baptismal
analogy or to use the Greek term a0nti/tupon (antitype) (i.e. v21). In relation to this
analogy of Noah’s ark, Achtemeier makes an important distinction when he notes:
While the ark served as a symbol of the church itself in early ecclesiastical
tradition or its wood was taken as a reminder of the wood of the cross… The
symbol here is salvation in relation to water (di 0 u3datov)rather than in relation to
the ark, as is required by the typology of baptism in v21.(38)
In regard to the water he mentions also a problem of interpretation in connection with
this. This is the way in which the preposition dia/ can be understood in either
instrumental or local sense. An instrumental sense of dia/ would mean that the water
was the instrument by which those in the ark were saved. However strictly speaking it
was the ark not the water which saved them, the latter being the agent of destruction.
For Achtemeier, this dilemma is resolved in the following way:
… by appealing to the typology of the next verse (i.e. 21) where the water of
184
baptism is instrumental in human salvation. A locative sense, viz, Noah and his
family escaped “through water” is sometimes understood to mean the water
through which they waded before they got into the ark.(39)
Achtemeier opts for what he calls a “locative construal view” which he explicates
further as:
Thus the waters effected Noah’s deliverance from his evil world as baptism
effected the deliverance of the Christians from their evil contemporary world: by
passing through them, both entered into their new existence.(40)
To this astute observation we can readily give assent.
Reicke takes the above thoughts a few steps further when he says:
Just as in the Old Testament the flood signified the death of the old world and the
birth of the new, so the New Testament Christians connected baptism with the
death of the old man and the birth of the new (Rom 6:13; Eph 4:22; Titus 3:5) …
In turn, the individual was thought of as being baptized into the death of Christ
(Rom 6:3).(41)
It is of special interest that Reicke makes comparisons here with the Pauline epistles.
He does this further with the nature of baptism described in v21b, in terms of an
agreement before God, rather than merely divesting oneself of the uncleanness of the
flesh. Reicke likens this latter aspect as not being negative since it may be compared
with the “figure of putting off the garment of the old man which, tangibly or
symbolically preceded the descent into the waters of baptism (cf Eph 4:22; Col 3:9)”.(42)
He believes also that the ascent from the waters of baptism concerns the acquisition of
new virtues (Rom 6:11-23).(43) So for Reicke the comparisons between Petrine and
Pauline thinking of these issues in common are worth noting.
Comparisons Between the Petrine Verses and I Corinthians 15:29
This then brings one to finally make some comparisons between the above Petrine
material and I Cor 15:29. In the exegesis section earlier, the import of this was seen in
Christ’s ministry to the realm of the “spirits in prison” (3:19) and the human dead (4:6).
In the first case a message of condemnation to those “in former times did not obey”
(v20a) but in the latter case a proclamation of the gospel to the dead, though being
judged as others are also, “they might live in the spirit as God does” (4:6b). Now of
course Christ’s ministry to this latter group is directly to them, the reason being that
185
they might hear the message of salvation in the finished work of Christ upon the Cross,
seen in the triumphant word Tete/lestai, meaning “it is finished or accomplished”
(Jn 19:30). This message would of course be addressed to those living prior to Christ’s
coming who would not have had the opportunity to have heard it in their life time. In a
similar manner the dead who did not have an opportunity to be baptised, had this
sacrament applied to them by their friends and relatives who were baptized on their
behalf. Of course there are obvious differences – Christ’s ministry “in the spirit” (3:18)
was directly to the two groups of recipients, Christians cited in I Cor15:29 offering for
vicarious baptism could only perform this kind of ministry indirectly, as the living for
the dead.
Other comparisons can be cited as well. It is instructive to note the role of the
resurrection in I Peter 3:21(b), along with the subsequent events of the ascension and
heavenly session of Christ who now has “angels, authorities and powers made subject to
Him” (v22).
Paul’s teaching on the resurrection in I Cor 15 provides the backdrop for this query in
v29 about the futility of vicarious baptism if there is no resurrection. The assumption is
being made by Paul that such persons involved in vicarious baptism believed in the
resurrection. So in both I Peter 3:21(b) and I Cor 15:29 there is a common correlation
between baptism and the resurrection of Christ and ultimately also our own. The only
difference is the persons to whom the baptism is being applied.
Finally there is the importance of the principle of vicariousness. In I Peter 3:18 the
vicarious sacrifice of Christ as “the righteous for the unrighteous” is made clear. This
of course is on a higher level than the vicarious baptism of I Cor 15:29. Christ’s
vicarious sacrifice is e0fa/pac “once for all”, whereas the vicarious baptism, whilst
offered individually can be offered by the many (alive) for the many (unbaptized) dead.
Still the essential ideal of one person offering to do something for another (unable to do
for themselves) is still the same in both.
186
FOOTNOTES
1. Achtemeier, PJ “I Peter” (1996), Fortress, Minneapolis, 239.
2. ibid., 254. Achtemeier cites his reasons for this comment in an Excusus entitled
“The Figure of Enoch in I Peter 3:19” (253-4) and claims support for his
judgement on this issue from Kelly JND. (1969), 152 “a brilliant but untenable
guess” and also Beare, FW (1958), 171; Metzger, BM (1971), 693 states “…the
word e0nox breaks the continuity of the argument by introducing an abrupt and
unexpected change of subject from that of verse 18”.
3. Achtemeier, op. cit., 239. He has no further comment on this point.
4. Best, E. “I Peter” (1971), Oliphants, London, 140.
5. Dalton, WJ “Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits” (1965), (2nd Edn) Analecta
Biblica 23 Rome, 137-43.
6. So Reicke, B. “Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism” (1946), Copenhagen,
113.
7. So Morris, WD “I Peter iii 19” in Expository Times 38 (1926-27), 470 who claims
that Nw=e (Noah), was dropped from the original text, not 0Ενωχ (as per N (2)
above). More recently Grudem, WA “The First Epistle of Peter” (1988),
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, in his commentary has espoused this view, 157-8. also
his Appendix 203ff.
8. Achtemeier, PJ op. cit., 258.
9. Dalton, WJ (2nd edn) op. cit., 140, 181.
10. Achtemeier, op. cit., 258.
11. ibid.
12. Kelly, JND (1969), 152.
13. So Beare, 173; Reicke, “Spirits” 118; Best, 140; Cranfield, 103; Windisch, 71.
Luther’s view (quoted in German and then translated by Achtemeier is as follows:
“Christ preached to the spirits, that is, to human souls, among whom were (souls
of) the unbelieving from the time of Noah” (258, N 219)
14. Best, 141.
15. ibid., 142.
16. Achtemeier, op. cit., 256.
17. ibid.
18. Best, op. cit., 143.
187
19. Achtemeier, op. cit., 260.
20. Dalton, (2nd edn), op. cit., 176.
21. Best, op. cit., 144-5.
22. ibid., 146.
23. Best, ibid., 154.
24. Achtemeier, op. cit., 275. Metzger’s Textual Commentary has no comment on
4:6.
25. Kelly, op. cit., 172.
26. Best, op. cit., 155-6.
27. ibid., 157.
28. ibid., 156.
29. ibid., 158.
30. Achtemeier, op. cit., 262.
31. ibid.
32. Best, op. cit., 137.
33. Achtemeier, op. cit., 247.
34. Best, 137 cf Achtemeier, 247.
35. Achtemeier favours this rendition of the Gk a9pac cf also e0fa9pac, both of which
mean “once for all” (i.e. not repeatable), so 246, 247.
36. Davids, PH “The First Epistle of Peter” (1990), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 134-6.
37. ibid., 135.
38. Achtemeier, op. cit., 264.
39. ibid., 265-6.
40. ibid., 266.
41. Reicke, B. “The First Epistle of Peter” (1964), Doubleday, NY, 113-4.
42. ibid., 114-5.
43. ibid., 115.
188
E (4) – Relevant Comparisons Between I Corinthians 15:29
and Credal Formulae
189
This chapter explores Credal comparisons with I Cor 15:29. The creeds concerned are
the Apostles and Athanasian Creeds and the most relevant statements are those cited
below:
“….he descended to the dead” (Apostles Creed) (1)
“… descended into hell”(2) (Athanasian Creed)
Credal Terminology
The Nicene Creed has no reference whatsoever of Christ’s descent to the dead.(3)
In terms of the vocabulary used, in the section entitled “Notes” (4) in A Prayer Book for
Australia (APBA) (1995) there is a helpful explanation about the reasons why the word
“hell” was replaced by “the dead”. This is given as follows:
Line 8: “descended to the dead”
The word ‘hell’ which appeared here in The Book of Common Prayer and An
Australian Prayer Book (AAPB) was originally a broad term representing either a
place of eternal punishment or the place of departed spirits, for example, ‘Hades’,
‘Sheol’. Most Australians take it to mean the former and associate it with
damnation. There is much debate as to what meaning should be attached to this
word in the creed. Some have found the word helpful; others have found it deeply
offensive and inappropriate. The original Latin could be translated ‘the lower
regions’. ELLC (English Language Liturgical Commission) chose to use ‘the
dead’ as the least misleading term for today.(5)
This explanation provides an adequate justification for the change in terminology. It is
a more effective communication of the meaning to our contemporary generation. In this
light we could take the liberty to read “the dead” in the Athanasian Creed as well.
JND Kelly(6) is another authoritative support for this change in terminology. He
distinguishes between the Latin “inferna” and “inferos”, within the phrase “descendit ad
inferna/inferos”. The earlier and former “descent to hell” being replaced by the latter
form ‘inferos’. Kelly justifies this by stating: “the form ‘inferos’ is nowadays preferred
as indicating that the place of the departed, not the damned, is meant: so the Roman
breviary”(7). Coming as this does from such a venerable authority as JND Kelly, the
earlier explanation from the notes of the APBA, is securely based.
190
Having clarified the terminology to avoid ambiguity, one is now in a position to survey
how this statement was incorporated into the creed(8). Once this historical survey is
completed, relevant comparisons with I Cor 15:29 may then be explored along with the
related Credal statement: “… he will come to judge the living and the dead”(9).
Origins of Christ’s Descent to the Dead
Kelly traces the origins of the ‘descent to the dead’ back to the New Testament itself
when he observes:
The belief that Christ spent the interval between His expiry on the cross and His
resurrection in the underworld was a common place of Christian teaching from the
earliest times(10).
He then goes on to cite the following texts to substantiate this claim. These include:
According to one strain of patristic exegesis (e.g. St Cyprian, Testim 2:25) the
Lord Himself had hinted at it in His prophesy (Mt 12:40) that the Son of Man
would spend three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (e0n th=| kardi/a|
th=v gh=v). St Paul’s remarks in Rom 10, 7 as well as Col 1, 18, were widely
interpreted as involving a visit of Christ to the place of the departed. So, too, was
St Peter’s speech in Acts 2, 27-31, transferring to Christ the word so Ps 16; 18ff
(“Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell” etc), was taken as a clear pointer in the
same direction, as were the famous texts I Pet 3,19 and 4,6 suggesting that He had
preached to ‘the spirits in prison.(11)
In the light of our earlier chapter on Petrine connections Kelly’s citing of these two
references from I Peter as “famous” is significant.
In terms of the descent to the dead being cited by the Fathers, Kelly mentions Ignatius
(Magn 9); Polycarp (Ad Philippi); Irenaeus (Adver Haer 4, 27, 2; 5, 31, 1; 5, 33, 1) and
Tertullian (De Anima 55). To quote the last of these as indicative of the early Fathers:
Christ our God, Who because He was man died according to the Scriptures, and
was buried according to the same Scriptures, satisfied this law also by undergoing
the form of human death in the underworld, and did not ascend aloft to heaven
until He had gone down to realms beneath the earth.(12)
As far as when the ‘descent to the dead’ found its way into the creeds is concerned,
Kelly states…
its first credal appearance was in the Fourth Formula of Sirmium, the Dated Creed
191
of 359, which affirmed (with an allusion to Job 38,17) that the Lord had “died, and
descended to the underworld (ei0v ta kataxqo/nia katelqonta)” and regulated
things there, whom the gatekeepers of Hell saw and shuddered.(13)
Kelly indicates that the Homoean Synods also meeting at Nike about the same time (i.e.
AD 359) and at Constantinople in 360 “published creed armed with similar statements”;
even if both were “modifications of the Fourth Formula of Sirmium”.(14) Ultimately it is
very likely that the West admitted ‘the descent to the dead’ to its own formularies under
Eastern influence.(15)
Kelly mentions the fact that when the Descent became an accepted article of the creed,
“a rather different complex of ideas was being associated with it…”.(16) These ideas
included Christ’s subjugation of hell and the ruler of the underworld along with
Ruginus”(17) concept that “The Descent was coming to be viewed as the occasion of the
redemption, not just of the patriarchs of old, but of mankind in general”.(18) This
general mission to all mankind through the Descent of Christ was one of the reasons,
probably the most significant of all, for this doctrine’s being welcomed in the Western
Church.(19)
Kelly observes also in this connection that the “imagination of Christians delighted to
dwell on the Saviour’s experiences in the underworld, as can be seen from the numerous
and often fantastic attempts to portray them in art”.(20) Kelly thus concludes his
masterful historical survey of the insertion of the ‘descent to the dead’ in his chapter on
the origins of the Apostle’s Creed.(21) As such he has traced the importance of this
particular doctrine from its scriptural origins to its Credal formulation. As has been
noted in the last chapter on Petrine comparisons, the concept of Christ’s coming from
heaven to “judge the living and the dead” is closely related to his preaching to the dead
(I Peter 4:5-6).
So it is therefore pertinent that these two related concepts are mentioned together in the
Apostles’ and Athanasian Creeds, albeit separated by a few lines in each case. In the
case of the Nicene Creed, as alluded to earlier, only the judgement of the living and
dead is mentioned. Of course the venue for these two ministries of Christ is vastly
different, one being the abode of the dead, the other originating in heaven. The former
is a past event, accomplished between his death and resurrection; the latter is futuristic
192
in eschatological ‘time’. But the common thread correlating to both is that both
missions concern the dead, both past and future.
Set then in the overall framework of Christ’s universal mission, both to the living and
the dead, this sets the context in turn of the relevant comparison with I Cor 15:29. It is
of interest at this point to take note of the “two broad, often intermingling streams of
interpretation (that) can be distinguished” according to Kelly. These are on the one
hand, the “triumphant act of liberation” already alluded to above, and on the other hand
“Christ was active during the mysterious three days preaching salvation or else
administering baptism ‘to the righteous of the old Covenant’ ”.(22) I have underlined
‘administering baptism’ to highlight this particular activity of special relevance to our
present discussion.
Kelly cites(23) as support for this alternative ‘stream of interpretation’ the author of the
Gospel of Peter (vv41f); St Justin (Dialog.72); St Irenaeus (Adversus Haer 3, 20, 4;
4, 22, 1) and Origen (Contra Celsus 2, 43). As further extensions to this line of thinking
Kelly also cites: “St Hippolytus added the pleasing detail that John the Baptist acted as
the Lord’s precursor in the underworld as on earth” (De Christo et anti-Christo 45),
while Hermas suggested the Apostles and teachers who had passed away carried on His
ministry below and baptized their converts (Similtudes 9, 16, 6f, 5-7).(24)
Comparisons with I Cor 15:29 and Credal Tradition
Again I have underlined the above to emphasise it as a point of discussion. The most
interesting thing in both of these underlined sections is the importance given to baptism
of the dead both by Christ and then later by deceased Apostles and teachers. Thus
relevant comparisons of Christ’s ministry to the dead and following his example the
deceased Apostles is maintained in this line of thought. It is only but a few steps more
for the living to seek baptism on behalf of their dead relatives and friends, as asserted in
I Cor 15:29. Now of course there is a significant difference (as has already been noted
in the Petrine chapter) between ministries to the dead and for the dead, as can be seen
again here, however not withstanding this point, it is still ministry, in this case baptism,
to benefit the dead – hence the relevant comparison.
Kelly identifies the main difficulties facing this particular line of thought. These are
193
twofold, namely that
the Old Testament saints scarcely needed illumination, since they had foreseen
Christ’s coming, and that it seemed inappropriate that the unconverted should
receive a second opportunity for repentance in the other world.(25)
One senses the gravity of his first of these two difficulties, however the second could
still include converts and therefore those baptized, who were not receiving their second
opportunity to respond as their first. In other words such baptismal ministry offered by
Christ and the Apostles to the dead was for those who had never had an opportunity to
respond, since they lived prior to Christ’s coming and were not among the “Old
Testament saints”.
When one is able to qualify Kelly’s second difficulty in this light, then this particular
“Stream of interpretation” offers valuable insights into the whole issue of baptismal
ministry to and for the dead. It also serves as a kind of precedent in that according to
this line of thought Christ and the Apostles set an example for Christians to follow.
To get it all in perspective in conclusion, it is clear that the creeds of the church only
specify that Christ descended to the dead and will one day come to judge the living and
the dead. Nevertheless the early church/others as cited above saw implications of this
scriptural teaching in terms of baptismal ministry to and for the dead. When one notices
the relevant comparisons that can be derived in church tradition in this way, then
connections can be made between the creeds and I Cor 15:29.
194
FOOTNOTES
1. As cited in “A Prayer Book for Australia” (APBA) (1995), EJ Dwyer, Alexandria,
NSW, 37.
2. ibid., 837.
3. ibid., 123.
4. ibid., 820-823.
5. ibid., 821.
6. Kelly, JND “Early Christian Creeds” (1972), (34th edn), Longman, Harlow,
Essex.
7. ibid., 378, N (3).
8. From this point onwards our historical survey will only be concerned with the
Apostles’ Creed, as the Athanasian Creed comes from a later period.
9. op. cit., APBA, 37.
10. Kelly, JND, op. cit., 379.
11. ibid., 379-40.
12. Tertullian ‘De Anima 55’, cited by Kelly, ibid., 380.
13. ibid., 378.
14. ibid.
15. ibid., 379.
16. ibid., 381.
17. Kelly cites Rufinus’ Comm in symb apost 14f.
18. ibid., 381.
19. ibid., 383.
20. ibid.
21. Kelly’s chapter XII is devoted to the Apostles Creed (368-88) within which his
‘Descent to Hell’ (378-83) is set.
22. ibid., 380.
23. ibid., 381.
24. ibid.
25. ibid.
195
Concluding Reflections
196
In Retrospect…
The conclusions and reflections of this thesis seek to distil out the theological
significances of I Cor 15:29 in the life of the Christian community. The introduction to
the thesis indicated the framework of five sections by which methodology the topic of
the thesis would be addressed. Thereupon the overall literature of survey of this
enigmatic verse was charted. It was found convenient to outline the intensive research
of Foschini and Thistleton within the scope of a matrix. This in turn embraced these
two scholars’ categories of classification of the various interpretations. In the case of
Foschini, who provides the most erudite scholarship on the interpretation of this verse
both in his own day over fifty years ago and since, many trajectories into the eras
extending back to post-New Testament time were traced. With Thistleton, a thorough
coverage of the past was provided. Together these two scholars provide an overall
framework and overview of multi-faceted interpretive approaches to this verse. A
cross-section of some of the lesser significant scholarly contributions was outlined in
the two chapters since Foschini.
In the second section the contributions of the more significant scholarship was revealed
in the issues and debates thrown up in the wake of their research. The great
contribution to New Testament scholarship of Rudolf Bultmann, particularly indicative
of his many controversial approaches is his two volume Theology of the New
Testament (published in its English translation in the early fifties). The first of these
contains his approach to the Pauline component of the New Testament and of special
interest and relevance his comments on I Cor 15:29. His acceptance of vicarious
baptism for the dead is made clear along with his acknowledgement of the need ‘to give
even those who had died the benefit still of the life provided by Christ’s own
resurrection’.
However he states rather baldly that ‘no distinction can be drawn between sacrament
and magical act’ and so tends to alienate other scholars with a more sacramental
disposition. He also ignites a debate on his view of Paul’s alleged misunderstanding of
the gnosticizing party at Corinth. Scholars such as Schnackenburg, Beasley-Murray,
Conzelmann, Joyce, Hurd, Wedderburn and Tuckett all comment upon Bultmann’s
views over the next four decades, so indicating his on-going influence. Apart from
Bultmann’s own distinctive contribution, the debates over the interpretation of I Cor
197
15:29 concern two main issues, the vicarious view and locating a context. The
Jeremias-Raeder collaboration produced an espousal of the final meaning of υπερ with
its rejection of any possibility of substitution and in turn the vicarious view. Support for
this approach came from scholars such as Schnackenburg, Howard, Reame and
Thistleton among others. Critiques of it came from Conzelmann, Orr and Walther, and
White along with Kittel’s article on υπερ having the last word against the final
meaning.
Another approach against the vicarious view originated in the early sixties but continued
for the next three decades, was that of the amended wording and punctuation view of
scholars such as Thompson, O’Neill and Campbell. In arriving at their views these
scholars tended to rely on the early church Fathers Tertullian and Chrysostom. But
even here they tended to re-interpret the Fathers to support their own position and this
flaw among others was critiqued by Conzelmann, Murphy-O’Connor, Fee and White.
In both of these approaches against the vicarious view, the unwillingness to accept the
plain reading of the text seems to have motivated their efforts at re-interpreting it.
The other major issue arising over the past fifty years was the debate of the context of I
Cor 15:29. Again variation in thinking here related back to either an acceptance or
rejection of the vicarious view. Scholars in the latter category included Foschini,
Murphy-O’Connor and White who in turn were critiqued by Schnackenburg, Fee and
Collins. For those who affirmed the vicarious view, a context was located in various
alternatives including spiritual powers (Downey); socio-rhetorical (Witherington);
archaeological-cultural (De Maris) and pastoral compassion (Joyce and Walter). All of
these offer fascinating insights even when critiqued by Murphy O’Connor, White and
Campbell.
As an example of an interpretation of I Cor 15:29 which effectively believes in a literal
application of the vicarious view and the practice of it today, we have the Mormon
Church position. This particular view originated with the teachings of Joseph Smith in
the early decades of the nineteenth century in the United States. It was Smith who is
regarded as the founder of this Church laying down the Church’s doctrine in such works
as “The Book of Mormon” and “Doctrines and Covenants”. Whilst originating with
Smith, the Mormon position has been elaborated further in modern times by the writers
198
of the Mormon Encyclopedia and apologists such as Robinson, both of these latter
dating from the past ten years.
The Mormon position has had its critics ever since the first baptisms for the dead were
performed in the Mississippi River in 1840. This, with other controversial issues
resulted in a Mormon migration to Utah in 1847 to establish a homeland away from
their persecutors and detractors. In more recent times their position has been critiqued
by Foschini along with a steady stream of internet sources among many others. Whilst
a good majority of modern scholars agree with the vicarious view, none of those
scholars (apart from Mormon scholars) would advocate its literal application or
restoration from early church practice both at Corinth and by the Marcionites. This
critique of the Mormon position rests on critical comment by Church Fathers such as
Tertullian and Chrysostom together with the inadvisability of erecting a doctrine and
practice on the basis of only one verse of scripture.
Having narrowed down the field through the above process as illustrated in the top half
of the hourglass diagram, one arrives at the centre point of the text and context. An
exegesis of the Greek text taking into account textual criticism firstly reveals no
variation in establishing the text as it stands in the Greek original. With the exegesis
followed by an excursus of the usage of u9pe\r, a crucial preposition for the verse’s
proper interpretation, the principle of vicariousness is seen to be at work in this verse’s
reference to baptism. In terms of its function it is clear that it is an example of an ad
hominem argument for belief in the resurrection. Consistency demands that those who
participated in vicarious baptism for the dead must have had belief in the resurrection to
have sufficient motivation themselves to undergo the rite on others behalf. The
espousal of a deliberative rhetorical context would be in accord with the conventions of
persuasive argument or rhetoric as demonstrated by Paul in his advocacy of belief in the
resurrection. The prevailing socio-economic setting, identified by Witherington and
cultural context advocated convincingly by De Maris provide a wider Corinth
community context for better understanding I Cor 15:29.
From this standpoint arrived at by this stage, one is able to widen the context of I Cor
15:29 by this example of a relevant comparison. Such are the notions which come to
mind in surveying literature such as various Pauline references in Romans, Galatians,
199
Ephesians and Colossians. Further afield is the Petrine literature and later post New
Testamental Credal formulae.
In the case of the references in Romans we see some of what De Maris calls “wider
implications” of I Cor 15:29 with Romans 6:1-11. Bearing in mind that Paul wrote
Romans in Corinth after his writing the Corinthian correspondence one can detect
comparisons in his earlier observations of vicarious baptism for the dead and in the
abovementioned passage. The believers’ identification with Christ in his death and
resurrection particularly illustrates this along with Christ being Lord of the dead as well
as the living (Rm 14). Similarly in other Pauline literature various other interesting
comparisons have been shown as well.
When turning to the remaining New Testament passages outside of the Pauline Corpus,
the Petrine literature stands out. It too, like Romans, derives from a later period than
that referred to in I Corinthians and in fact the Pauline literature is referred to in the
second epistle (II Pet 3:15-16). Particularly significant are the two verses in I Peter 3:19
and 4:6 along with their contexts as has been demonstrated in the relevant chapter. In
these two verses one learns of Christ’s ministry to the dead, both imprisoned spirits
(3:19 and former humans (4:6) which in turn form the basis of the Apostles and
Athanasian Creeds affirmation of Christ’s descent to the dead. Futuristically I Peter 4:5
is also affirmed in the end time judgement awaiting the living and the dead, also
affirmed in the above creeds as well as the Nicene Creed.
If the above summation of the thesis is intended to bring together some of the more
significant points further elaborated upon earlier on, what conclusions and reflections
can one distil from this particular study?
At the outset, from the originating scriptural reference, it is clear that a plain reading of
the text of I Cor 15:29 reveals that vicarious baptism for the dead was practiced in the
church at Corinth. Whether one regards this as an aberrant practice or otherwise is in
the ultimate irrelevant because Paul makes no value judgement on it either way. As it is
also the only verse in the whole of scripture which comments upon this practice, we
may safely assume it was limited to Corinth.
200
Therefore the only function of this verse is to advance the case for belief in the
resurrection as indeed the whole of the main thrust of I Cor 15 is calculated to do.
Paul’s deliberative rhetorical strategy was driving towards commending resurrection
belief. Therefore all elements of this chapter including the enigmatic verse 29, is
subjugated to this objective. The use of the word ‘enigma’ here is something of a
misnomer, since when one accepts the plain literal meaning of the text any enigmatic
elements in its interpretation dissolve immediately.
Therefore by contrast it is more an enigma when one seeks to obfuscate the plain
meaning by advancing alternative interpretations in order to avoid this plain meaning, as
has been illustrated in various debates. As far as motivation for these many and various
alternative interpretations are concerned, one can only speculate about this. For some
one suspects an uneasiness with the sacramental element as pertaining to any human
effort directed towards changing the status of dead persons before God and His end time
judgement. Yet one is reminded again that He is both the Lord of the dead and the
living (Rm 14:9) and also that death, inter alia, cannot separate anyone from Christ’s
love. (Rm 8:38).
For many persons who take seriously the theological dictum of justification by grace
through faith, particularly individual faith, I Cor 15:29 as understood literally seems to
raise a number of issues. Chiefly among these appears to be element of the individual
choice made by only a living person in responding to the offer of salvation. This line of
thinking does not allow for a vicarious approach of one acting for another in this
process, whether living, as in the case of infant baptism or much less the dead. In my
humble view this may well lie at the back of opposition to the vicarious view by certain
scholars with this kind of outlook. When one notes in this connection the weakness of
the final view of υπερ being espoused by many who reject the vicarious view, this
seems to be an intellectually vulnerable position to take.
In some other cases of those who reject the vicarious view one cannot help but feel that
this is motivated by an unwillingness to concede to what is seen as the Mormon
position. This would be particularly the case in the United States among critics of the
Mormon Church and its doctrines. As has been surveyed earlier in the relevant section
on the Mormon position and a critique of it, they are correct in seeing vicarious baptism
201
practiced in this verse. However in my view along with most other Christians who
adhere to the historic creeds of Christendom, they are incorrect in building a doctrinal
structure on the basis of one verse of scripture much less to advocate a revival of the
practice of vicarious baptism for the dead. Further, the way in which this is applied by
the Mormons in a somewhat indiscriminate manner through the use of their extensive
genealogical records is to depart from the original intention of the Corinthian church
member’s departed family and friends.
It is clear from our knowledge of the early Church Fathers of Tertullian and Chrysostom
among others including Epiphanius, that their acknowledgement of the revival of
vicarious baptism for the dead was chiefly among Gnostic inspired groups such as the
Marcionites. Even here the details by which these early commentators described
Marcionite practice of this rite was somewhat bizarre, where live persons answered for
the corpse in close proximity to it.
This rather weird element together with the early church’s opposition to Gnosticism in
general and Marcion’s version of it in particular meant that Christians subscribing to the
historic creeds could not countenance the practice of vicarious baptism for the dead.
This essentially remains the position taken by these Credal based churches today along
with other Christians who agree with the doctrinal formularies enshrined in the
Apostles, Nicene and Athanasian creeds.
With these safeguards, from church tradition as defining orthodoxy, preventing any
revival of the practice of vicarious baptism for the dead, how then is one to finally
reconcile an acceptance of the literal meaning of I Cor 15:29 with its recognition of this
practice in the Church in Corinth? I believe that this study has tried to demonstrate
through a series of relevant comparisons that ministry offered for the dead by humans
and to the dead by Christ himself is still significant. This is ultimately because God’s
grace and care extends beyond this life to embrace those who pass beyond it to the next
life.
In this connection there is the all important principle of Divine Theodicy – God’s
righteousness and justice, extended universally to all humanity. Wolfhart Pannenburg, a
contemporary German theologian, in dealing with the issue of the scope of God’s
202
salvation, particularly to the unbaptised and those who have never heard of Christ or His
message has much to offer by way of an overall conclusion to this thesis.
Pannenburg(1) cites Jesus’ anticipation of people from all nations participating in God’s
Kingdom, in his words: “People will come from the east and the west, and from the
north and south and sit at table in the Kingdom of God” (Lk 13:29). Equally universal
in scope is the Parable of the Last Judgement in Matthew 25:31-46, where it is stated
that many will be admitted to the Kingdom of God on the basis of their compassionate
activity for others, although they did not know Jesus
(Mt 25:40). Whilst Pannenburg observes that this parable has often been interpreted
restrictively as referring to believers only, he does not think that there is any basis in the
wording to justify such a restrictive exegesis. On the contrary, the general expectation
is that all humanity will face the eschatological judge, as presumed in the parable.
Pannenburg elucidates further that this parable also implies that Jesus and his
proclamation are the final norm in deciding whether a person is included or excluded
from His Kingdom. He is the norm even in relation to those who never knew Him (i.e.
Jesus) in their lifetime. The implication here is that many in fact belong to Jesus and the
kingdom he proclaimed who were neither members of the chosen people of Israel or
even the Christian Church. However it is the affinity of their lives to Jesus’ mission and
proclamation that will prove decisive in their eternal salvation.
Thus Jesus remains the final criterion for all human beings and Pannenburg calls this
line of thinking as outlined above “Christian inclusivism”. He claims further that this
inclusivist conception was established theologically in the second century by Justin
Martyr. Justin’s idea was that some “germs” of the Divine Logos have been dispersed
everywhere in human history, whilst the complete Logos appeared only in Jesus Christ.
At the same time, the Credal affirmation of Christ’s descent to the realm of the dead
after His death on the cross was related to the salvation of those before and after His
Coming who would not have had the opportunity to hear the message of His Kingdom.
Pannenburg’s work “Jesus – God and Man”(2) had earlier elaborated the unconscious
participation “of human persons from former generations in the salvation brought about
by Jesus Christ”.(3) This idea is in substance close to what he later said above in regard
203
to Luke 13:29 and Matthew 25:40.
In conclusion, Pannenburg, a theologian of international standing, seems to have
effectively addressed the eternal destiny of those who have neither been baptised nor
even heard of Christ. Therefore modern attempts to perform vicarious baptism for the
dead for those in these categories are pointless. In the ultimate God’s theodicy will be
worked out for all in His eschatological judgement (Matt 25:31-46) and this will apply
to baptised and unbaptised alike.
204
FOOTNOTES
1. Pannenburg, W “Religious Pluralism and Conflicting Truth Claims: The Problem
of a Theology of World Religions” (in) D’Costa, G (Ed) Christian Uniqueness
Reconsidered: The Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions (1992), Maryknoll,
New York. Pannenburg’s observations as outlined here and following are on
pages 98-9 of D’Costa’s book.
2. Pannenburg, W “Jesus: God and Man” (1968), (ET) SCM, London.
3. ibid., 272.
205
Appendix I
Two Classifications of Various Interpretations of
I Corinthians 15:29 (Foschini and Thistleton)
206
This particular topic will require two parts for an adequate treatment of the
classifications of the various interpretations of I Cor 15:29. This is in line with the two
scholars who have attempted a classification, namely BM Foschini in 1950-51 and A
Thistleton in 2000. Interestingly and somewhat conveniently for this thesis, these two
classifications commence and conclude the fifty year period of modern scholarship on
the interpretation of this enigmatic verse. However in making this observation one
should also take into account the fact that both of these scholars refer to their academic
predecessors dating back to the early church fathers. In effect their classifications taken
together represent the great majority of scholarly comment in I Cor 15:29 over the past
two millennia of Christian history.
This realisation has required a different kind of approach in presenting these two
classifications namely the use of a matrix in each case. Within each matrix there will
be the title of each classification along with the particular scholars description of the
various interpretations associated with the classification category; its origins among
scholars who have espoused it, and a critique by either Foschini or Thistleton on each
interpretation. The various headings to be used in the two matrices will reflect the
abovementioned data. The use of the matrix in presenting these two classifications
provides an easy and most direct access to many and various interpretations of the
verse in question. Also, it will hopefully avoid the tedium of too much extraneous
comment of each particular view along with its critique.
In what follows the two matrices will be presented in turn with the referencing of the
items within each column. Part A will feature Foschini and Part B, Thistleton. At the
end of presenting these a comparison of both scholars will be undertaken along with
contrasts which characterise them both. This examination provides an overall
framework for subsequent chapters. At the very end of presenting their classification of
the various interpretations, both Foschini and Thistleton give their own respective
‘solution’ on the interpretation of this verse. These respective interpretations are dealt
with briefly and an explanation for this given in the conclusion. It has to be stated of
course that Thistleton’s work coming as it does some fifty years after that of Foschini
should take account of this fact when comparisons are made at the end.
Further detail on many of the scholars mentioned within each matrix will be given in
later chapters of the thesis, including their various critics. However in mentioning those
207
scholars encompassed by each of our two classifications a brief outline will also serve to
give both an introduction and overview of what follows. This will result in turn in
being able to identify further the issues about which scholarly debate has focused over
the past fifty years of the contemporary literature survey of I Cor 15:29.
Before turning to presenting each matrix one must be clear about the various
interpretive categories used by Foschini and Thistleton. These are as follows:
Part A: Foschini
(NB. These are derived from his series of five articles entitled: “Those who are baptized
for the dead I Cor 15:29: an Exegetical Historical Dissertation”. (Articles 1-5) in the
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 1950-51.
Ch I: Baptism in the Metaphorical Sense (First Article)
Ch II: Baptism in the Proper Sense, but not as a Sacrament (Second Article)
Ch III: Baptism as a Sacrament of the New Law
Subdivided as:
Art I: Baptism received for the benefit of others. (Third Article)
Art II: Baptism for the benefit of those who are baptized. (Fourth Article)
Art III: Baptism for the living, not for the dead. (Fifth Article)
(Foschini’s “Solution to Question”)
(NB - Further detail in the above is given later).
Part B: Thistleton (his Commentary pp 1242-9 published in 2000)
(A) (1) - (10) Interpretations “unconvincing”;
(B) (11) - (12) Interpretations “widespread & influential”;
(B) (13) Interpretation “most likely” (his solution).
208
PART A
“Those who are baptized for the Dead" (I Cor 15:29
(Articles I-V)”*
An Overview of BM Foschini’s Classification
Title Article Page(s) *Introduction
♦Chapter 1, BAPTISM in the METAPHORICAL
SENSE
Art I EXPOSITION of the Opinions
Art II CRITICISM of the Opinions
First (I)
“
“
260-64
264-69
269-76
♦Chapter II BAPTISM in the PROPER SENSE, but NOT
as the SACRAMENT
Art I: EXPOSITION of the Opinions
Art II: CRITICISM of the Opinions
Second (II)
“
“
379-88
379-83
384-88
♦Chapter III: BAPTISM as a SACRAMENT of the
NEW LAW
Art I: BAPTISM RECEIVED for the BENEFIT of
OTHERS
Sect II: EXPOSITION of the Opinions
Sect III: CRITICISM of the Various Opinions
Third (III)
“
“
“
46-78
46-61
61-78
♦Chapter III: (continued)
Art II: BAPTISM for the BENEFIT of THOSE WHO
ARE BAPTIZED
Sect I: EXPOSITION of the Opinions
Sect II: CRITICISM of the Opinions
Fourth (IV)
“
“
“
172-98
172-85
185-98
♦ Chapter III: (continued)
SOLUTION of the QUESTION
Art III: BAPTISM for the LIVING, NOT for the DEAD
Our opinion
General Conclusion
Fifth (V)#
(& final)
“
“
276-83
277-82
283
# Foschini’s Solution is not included here but outlined further in Section B, Chapter 5
* Publishing details are in the Bibliography.
209
PAR
T A
– F
OSC
HIN
I’S
CL
ASS
IFIC
AT
ION
- C
h I:
BA
PTIS
M in
the
ME
TA
PHO
RIC
AL
SE
NSE
Cat
egor
y/R
ef
Ori
gin/
Supp
ort
Des
crip
tion
Cri
tique
Jesu
its;
St
Rob
ert
Bel
amin
e
(185
7)
1) B
aptis
m a
s the
Wor
ks o
f Pen
ance
for
the
Rel
ief o
f the
Dea
d.
(I:2
64-5
)
• B
aptis
m d
oes n
ot d
enot
e an
y af
flict
ion
or su
ffer
ing
wha
teve
r,
but a
veh
emen
t aff
lictio
n w
roug
ht fr
om w
ithou
t
• (t
here
fore
) it c
anno
t be
appl
ied
to v
olun
tary
aff
lictio
ns su
ch a
s
pray
er,
a
lms,
fast
ing,
whi
ch a
re u
nder
take
n to
hel
p th
e de
ad
(I
:272
)
Bro
ckm
an &
Cal
met
2)
Bap
tism
is S
adne
ss o
ver D
eath
(I:2
66)
• T
here
is n
o re
ason
why
(St P
aul)
shou
ld le
ave
this
topi
c an
d
i
nqui
re a
bout
thos
e m
ourn
ing
the
dead
and
now
they
can
be
c
onso
led.
• M
ourn
ing
for t
he d
ead
(as p
er B
rock
man
n) in
no
way
supp
oses
a
bel
ief i
n th
e re
surr
ectio
n
(
I:273
-4)
AM
Shu
rman
n
3) B
aptis
m d
enot
es t
he L
abou
rs a
nd
Dan
gers
of t
he A
post
olat
e (i.
e. B
aptis
m
as a
pro
leps
is)
(I
:266
-7)
• S
chur
man
n w
ith to
o m
uch
conf
iden
ce in
terp
rets
the
wor
d
‘n
ekrw
=n’ a
s mea
ning
the
livin
g fa
ithfu
l
• P
aul d
oes n
ot u
se th
is te
rm fo
r the
faith
ful i
n an
y pa
ssag
e (I:2
74-5
)
Hoe
kstra
4) B
aptis
m a
s th
e Pe
rsec
utio
ns e
ndur
ed
in o
rder
to h
aste
n th
e Pa
rous
ia (I
:267
-8)
• It
is n
ot p
rove
d th
at th
e fa
ithfu
l und
erw
ent p
erse
cutio
ns a
nd
c
alam
ities
to h
aste
n th
e pa
rous
ia &
thus
hel
p th
e de
ad.
(I:2
75)
Ch
1: B
aptis
m in
the
MET
APH
OR
ICA
L Se
nse
(Arti
cle
I)
Mal
dona
tus,
Gui
lladu
s,
Mas
si, K
iste
rmak
er,
J Lig
htfo
ot &
Mor
us
5) B
aptis
m id
entif
ied
with
Mar
tyrd
om
(I:2
68- 9
)
• N
ot ju
stifi
ed in
equ
atin
g “b
aptis
m fo
r the
dea
d” a
s “ba
ptis
ed fo
r
d
efen
ce o
f the
Res
urre
ctio
n of
the
dead
”.
• If
Pau
l wan
ted
to u
se a
n el
liptic
al fo
rm h
e sh
ould
hav
e om
itted
“
for t
he D
ead”
(I:2
75)
FOSC
HIN
I’S
CO
NC
LU
SIO
N T
O T
HIS
SE
CT
ION
: (I
:276
)
“The
met
apho
rical
inte
rpre
tatio
n ...
ent
angl
ed in
man
y di
ffic
ultie
s and
seem
s alie
n to
Pau
l’s th
ough
t”
210
FOSC
HIN
I’S
CL
ASS
IFIC
AT
ION
Ch
II B
APT
ISM
in th
e PR
OPE
R S
EN
SE, b
ut N
OT
as a
SA
CR
AM
EN
T
Cat
egor
y/R
efer
ence
O
rigi
n/Su
ppor
t D
escr
iptio
n C
ritiq
ue
Bez
a (1
598)
1)
Was
hing
of t
he D
ead
(II:3
79)
•Obj
ectio
ns o
n bo
th g
ram
mat
ical
and
his
toric
al g
roun
ds.
(II
:385
)
Als
o B
eza
(159
8)
2) T
he W
ettin
g of
tho
se w
ho w
ashe
d
the
Dea
d
(
II:3
80-1
)
•Thi
s ot
her
hypo
thes
is o
f B
eza
seem
s (to
us)
to
be a
ltoge
ther
defic
ient
(II
:386
)
Lapi
de; B
ruge
nsis
,
Men
ochi
us (1
877)
3) T
he R
itual
Abl
utio
n us
ed b
y th
e
Jew
s
(II
:381
)
•Sac
rific
es fo
r the
dea
d am
ong
Jew
s wer
e un
com
mon
.
(II
:386
)
Num
bers
19:
11-2
2 4)
Abl
utio
n be
caus
e of
Con
tact
with
the
Dea
d.
(
II:3
81-2
)
•Unc
lean
ness
con
tract
ed f
rom
cle
an a
nd u
ncle
an a
nim
als,
in
who
se re
surr
ectio
n no
one
bel
ieve
d.
(I
I:387
)
Num
bers
19:
11 a
nd
Turr
ianu
s (15
72)
5)V
icar
ious
Pur
ifica
tion
for
thos
e w
ho
died
in Im
purit
y (a
mon
g th
e Je
ws)
(II:3
82)
•But
this
alle
ged
prac
tice
is n
o w
here
men
tione
d in
the
OT/
Apo
cryp
ha a
nd is
still
to b
e pr
oved
his
toric
ally
.
(
II:3
87)
Flac
cius
(cite
d by
)
Hey
denr
eich
6) T
he I
mm
ersi
on o
f D
iver
s af
ter
the
Bod
ies o
f the
Shi
pwre
cked
(II
:382
)
•But
the
ship
wre
cked
will
rise
from
the
dead
.
(I
I:388
)
It i
s sca
rcel
y w
orth
y of
men
tion
BA
PTIS
M
in
the
PRO
PER
sens
e,
but
NO
T as
a
SAC
RA
MEN
T (A
rticl
e
II)
Ceu
lem
ans (
1926
)
Foua
rd (1
942)
7) T
he C
erem
onie
s of
Bap
tism
or
a
Rite
Ana
logo
us to
thes
e
(
II:3
82-3
)
•A m
ere
hypo
thes
is, w
ords
mea
ning
is c
ontra
verte
d an
d la
cks
his
toric
al fo
unda
tion
(I
I:388
)
FOSC
HIN
I’S
CO
NC
LU
SIO
N: (
II:3
88)
“Thi
s doe
s not
off
er a
solu
tion
satis
fyin
g (p
rope
r sen
se) i
n ev
ery
resp
ect..
.rem
ovin
g do
ubt.”
211
FOSC
HIN
I’S
CL
ASS
IFIC
AT
ION
Ch
III B
APT
ISM
as a
SA
CR
AM
EN
T o
f the
NE
W L
AW
Cat
egor
y/R
efer
ence
O
rigi
n/Su
ppor
t D
escr
iptio
n C
ritiq
ue
Am
bros
iast
er
1) V
icar
ious
Bap
tism
(III
:46-
57)
• It
mus
t be
reje
cted
in so
far a
s:
- it
is c
ontra
ry to
the
Sacr
ed te
xt a
nd h
isto
ry
- or
at l
east
it h
as n
o ba
sis t
here
in
(II
I:70)
Jose
ph S
mith
and
Mor
mon
s 2)
Vic
ario
us B
aptis
m o
f the
Mor
mon
s
(III
:57-
3)
• w
e fin
d M
orm
on B
aptis
m f
or t
he d
ead
entir
ely
erro
neou
s an
d
arbi
trary
(II
I:73)
Prei
sker
(192
4)
3) V
icar
ious
Esc
hato
logi
cal B
aptis
m
(III
54-
5)
• th
is is
not
dra
wn
from
text
and
con
text
– b
ut n
aive
ly a
ssum
ed th
at
this
theo
ry is
supp
orte
d th
ere
(I
II:7
3)
Julia
n of
Exl
anum
4)
Bap
tism
for t
he D
ead
soug
ht v
icar
ious
ly
(III
:55-
6)
• Th
e te
xt e
xclu
des t
his f
orm
of b
aptis
m
(
III:7
4)
Prat
; Ric
ciot
ti 5)
Bap
tism
: suf
frag
e fo
r the
Dea
d (I
II:5
6-8)
• Th
e “d
ead”
= u
nbap
tised
dea
d, a
lthou
gh t
ext
and
cont
ext
neith
er
impl
y or
exc
lude
the
idea
(
III:7
5)
Ols
haus
en
6) H
aste
ning
of
the
Paro
usia
and
Aid
for
the
Dea
d
(III
:58-
9)
• N
o de
finite
evi
denc
e to
ind
icat
e th
e di
sput
ed “
dead
” ha
d be
en
bapt
ized
• C
onte
xt a
nd te
xt g
ive
no p
reci
se in
form
atio
n
(III
:76)
Mul
ler (
Mue
ller)
7)
The
Def
ence
of
the
Dea
d an
d of
the
ir
faith
in th
e R
esur
rect
ion
(III
:59-
60)
• A
n in
cons
iste
ncy
betw
een
thos
e be
lieve
rs in
the
resu
rrec
tion
bein
g
defe
nded
by
thos
e w
ho d
eny
it
(III
:77)
Bap
tism
R
ecei
ved
for
the
Ben
efit
of O
THER
S (A
rticl
e
III)
(Par
t 1)
Hof
fman
8)
The
Bap
tised
hav
e so
met
hing
to d
o fo
r
the
Dea
d
(III
:60-
1)
The
diff
eren
ce in
tens
e be
twee
n “p
oies
ousi
n” a
nd “
bapt
izon
tai”
in
rega
rd to
“fo
r the
dea
d” n
ot si
gnifi
cant
and
ther
efor
e th
is is
reje
cted
.
(III
:77)
FOSC
HIN
I’S
CO
NC
LU
SIO
N T
O T
HIS
SE
CT
ION
:
“Non
e of
them
rem
oves
all
unea
sine
ss a
nd u
ncer
tain
ty”(
III:7
7)
212
FOSC
HIN
I’S
CL
ASS
IFIC
AT
ION
Ch
III B
APT
ISM
for
the
BE
NE
FIT
of T
HO
SE W
HO
AR
E B
APT
ISE
D
Cat
egor
y/R
efer
ence
O
rigi
n/Su
ppor
t D
escr
iptio
n C
ritiq
ue
Tertu
llian
an
d St
Jo
hn
Chr
ysos
tom
1) B
aptis
m fo
r Dea
d B
odie
s
(I
V:1
72-5
) •
If P
aul m
eant
“B
aptis
ed f
or th
e D
ead”
= d
ead
bodi
es, o
r ba
ptiz
ed a
nd d
ead
wer
e th
e sa
me,
he
wou
ld h
ave
expr
esse
d hi
mse
lf m
ore
clea
rly.
(IV
:187
)
Ariu
s Mon
tanu
s 2)
Bap
tism
of
thos
e w
ho h
ave
alre
ady
rece
ived
the
Hol
y Sp
irit
(I
V:1
75)
• It
does
not
fol
low
nec
essa
rily
that
thos
e ba
ptiz
ed (
in th
is w
ay)
cam
e to
be
witn
esse
s to
the
resu
rrec
tion
of th
e bo
dy
(I
V:1
88)
Julia
n of
Exl
anum
, J A
lber
3)
The
Mor
tific
atio
n of
the
Pass
ions
(IV
:175
-6)
• If
St P
aul h
ad r
efer
red
to a
mor
tific
atio
n he
re, h
e w
ould
hav
e us
ed th
e fir
st
pers
on (e
.g. I
Cor
15:
30)
(IV
:188
)
Epip
hani
us: J
Cal
vin
4) T
he B
aptis
m o
f the
Dyi
ng o
r tha
t whi
ch w
ill
avai
l afte
r dea
th
(IV
:177
)
• A
s w
ith t
he c
ritiq
ue o
f (N
o 1)
abo
ve,
the
sam
e di
ffic
ulty
app
lies
whe
n
cons
ider
ing
the
bapt
ized
= th
e de
ad.
(I
V:1
89)
Bac
hman
n 5)
Bap
tism
will
be
usel
ess a
fter d
eath
(IV
:178
-9)
• Th
e w
ords
‘fo
r th
e de
ad’
shou
ld b
e jo
ined
with
‘to
be
bapt
ized
rat
her
than
‘wha
t sha
ll th
ey d
o’.
(IV
190
)
Ric
hter
us
6) B
aptis
m b
y w
hich
we
gain
not
hing
bey
ond
wha
t the
unb
aptis
ed h
ave.
(IV
:179
)
• Si
mila
r to
(no
5 ) a
bove
(IV
:191
)
• If
‘hyp
er’ i
s to
mea
n ‘b
eyon
d’, i
t wou
ld g
over
n th
e ac
cusa
tive
not g
eniti
ve.
J Cle
ric, E
llys,
Exce
ll &
Sch
ott
7) B
aptis
m b
y w
hich
we
take
the
pla
ce o
f
Chr
istia
ns w
ho h
ave
died
.
(
IV:1
79-8
0)
• B
aptis
m l
ooks
to
the
bene
fit o
f th
e in
divi
dual
mor
e th
an t
he c
omm
unity
ther
efor
e un
likel
y th
ey
wer
e ba
ptiz
ed
to
take
pl
ace
of
othe
rs
(IV
:192
)
Bap
tism
for t
he B
enef
it of
thos
e
WH
O
AR
E B
APT
ISED
(Arti
cle
IV) (
Part
2)
Hei
nsui
s 8)
B
aptis
m
by
whi
ch
the
nam
e of
de
ad
Chr
istia
ns a
re re
ceiv
ed
• Th
is is
fore
ign
to th
e m
ind
of P
aul
• In
volv
es a
con
fusi
on o
f th
e de
ad a
nd l
ivin
g –
a pl
ay o
n w
ords
– N
OT
ratio
nal e
xege
sis
(I
V:1
93)
213
FOSC
HIN
I’S
CL
ASS
IFIC
AT
ION
Ch
III B
APT
ISM
for
the
BE
NE
FIT
of T
HO
SE W
HO
AR
E B
APT
ISE
D
Cat
egor
y/R
efer
ence
O
rigi
n/Su
ppor
t D
escr
iptio
n C
ritiq
ue
Luth
er
9) B
aptis
m o
ver
the
Sepu
lchr
es o
f th
e M
arty
rs
(IV
:180
-1)
This
idea
is g
ener
ally
reje
cted
for h
isto
rical
, gra
mm
atic
al a
nd d
iale
ctic
al re
ason
s
(IV
:193
)
Luth
er: S
panh
emiu
s 10
) B
aptis
m f
or t
he D
ead
mea
ns b
aptis
m f
or
Chr
ist
(IV
:181
-2)
• Th
is is
dis
prov
ed in
(III
No
5)
• Im
plie
s thi
s bap
tism
for t
he d
ead
refe
rs to
Chr
ist a
nd b
eing
imm
erse
d in
to h
is
phys
ical
and
mys
tical
bod
y
(I
V:1
94)
Vat
erus
: Sam
leru
s 11
) Bap
tism
for
Chr
ist a
nd th
e ot
her d
ead
(IV
:182
-3)
• Th
e ve
nera
tion
of C
hris
t bei
ng h
eld
near
ly in
the
sam
e ho
nour
as
the
early
sain
ts a
nd m
arty
rs in
Cor
inth
is u
nlik
ely
(IV
:195
)
M H
enry
(181
1)
12)
Bap
tism
rec
eive
d on
acc
ount
of
the
dead
(IV
:183
)
• Th
is id
ea is
bas
ed o
n th
e hy
poth
etic
al a
ssum
ptio
n th
at a
con
tagi
ous
plag
ue
was
ragi
ng in
Cor
inth
, a g
ratu
itous
ass
umpt
ion
Kra
usin
s 13
) Bap
tism
rece
ived
for f
anci
ful r
easo
ns
(
IV:1
83-4
)
• ‘n
ekro
n’ is
not
the
sam
e as
‘mat
aia
pist
is’
• In
no
plac
e do
es P
aul g
ive
such
a u
niqu
e m
eani
ng to
‘nek
ron’
(IV
:196
)
JEC
Sch
mid
t 14
) B
aptis
m w
hich
fre
es u
s fr
om t
he f
ear
of
deat
h
(IV
:184
)
• Th
e ph
rase
‘ba
ptis
ed f
or t
he d
ead’
can
not
be t
rans
late
d as
mea
ning
bei
ng
initi
ated
into
sacr
ed ri
tes t
o ra
ise
abov
e fe
ar o
f dea
th
(IV
:197
)
Bap
tism
for t
he B
enef
it of
thos
e
WH
O
AR
E B
APT
ISED
(Arti
cle
IV) (
Part
2)
Ger
lach
:Dac
hsel
Bon
net
15)
Bap
tism
rec
eive
d in
ord
er t
o ob
tain
the
Kin
gdom
of t
he B
less
ed
(
IV:1
84-5
)
• Th
e w
ords
‘ton
nek
ron’
do
not s
eem
to in
dica
te th
e C
hurc
h tri
umph
ant
(IV
:197
)
FOSC
HIN
I’S
CO
NC
LU
SIO
N (T
o th
is se
ctio
n): (
IV:1
98)
“The
se o
pini
ons (
abov
e) se
em to
us m
ore
prob
able
than
the
othe
rs.
How
ever
, the
y w
eake
n an
d al
mos
t des
troy
the
forc
e of
man
y qu
estio
ns in
v29
ff”
214
PAR
T B
– T
HIS
TL
ET
ON
’S C
LA
SSIF
ICA
TIO
N
Cat
egor
y/R
efer
ence
O
rigi
n/Su
ppor
t D
escr
iptio
n C
ritiq
ue
• B
ullin
ger (
d 15
75)
• B
eza
(d 1
605)
• C
occe
ius (
D 1
669)
• M
ore
rece
ntly
JM F
ord
“Was
hing
the
ir de
ad f
or b
uria
l” a
nd/o
r
was
hing
th
emse
lves
fr
om
cere
mon
ial
defil
emen
t fro
m c
orps
e.
• N
eith
er o
f th
ese
two
view
s ha
s sy
ntax
, co
ntex
t or
exe
grap
hica
l
supp
ort
• J L
ight
foot
(d 1
664)
B
aptis
m
inte
rpre
ted
met
apho
rical
ly
refe
rrin
g to
a “
bapt
ism
of
suff
erin
g an
d
mar
tyrd
om”
• St
rain
s tw
=n ne
krw
=n u
ndul
y
• “n
o su
ch ro
le is
asc
ribed
to m
arty
rs a
t suc
h an
ear
ly ti
me”
• A
quin
us
• D
de
Lyra
(d 1
349)
‘up
e\r t
w=n
nekr
w=n
= m
orta
l si
ns f
or s
ake
of w
hich
peo
ple
are
bapt
ized
• A
nach
roni
stic
and
vio
late
s exe
getic
al c
riter
ia
• Lu
ther
(148
5-15
46)
• M
ore
rece
ntly
Ew
ald
and
Gro
shei
de
‘up
e\r
(loca
l se
nse)
ba
ptis
m
over
th
e
grav
es o
r tom
bs o
f the
dea
d
• Lo
cal u
se o
f u9p
e\r a
ppar
ently
fore
ign
to N
T
• N
o sp
ecia
l atte
ntio
n to
tom
bs o
f Chr
istia
ns in
Cor
inth
AD
54-5
5
• Ep
hani
us s
uppo
rted
by
Cal
vin,
Fl
aciu
s &
Ben
gel (
1500
-175
0)
Cat
echu
men
s on
th
eir
deat
hbed
be
ing
bapt
ized
• H
owev
er th
is fo
rces
the
Gre
ek o
f v29
Ols
haus
en (
1840
) fo
llow
ed
rece
ntly
by
Pr
eisk
er
&
Edw
ards
Thos
e ba
ptis
ed to
fill
the
plac
e of
the
dead
•
This
idea
seem
s for
eign
to P
aul
• V
ery
few
acc
ept i
t in
the
end
UN
CO
NV
INC
ING
inte
rpre
tatio
ns
(Com
men
tary
1242
-4)
A1
(P12
42)
A2
(p12
42)
A3
(p12
42)
A4
(p12
42)
A5
(pp
1242
& 1
243)
A6
(p 1
243)
J Edw
ards
(169
2)
Thos
e w
ho a
re b
aptis
ed h
avin
g w
itnes
sed
the
cour
age
of t
he m
arty
rs (
e.g.
Pau
l an
d
Step
hen
the
Firs
t mar
tyr)
• Fo
rce
of u
9pe\r
bec
omes
stra
ined
• Pa
ul’s
use
s of
oi9 b
ap
tizo
/meno
i ra
ther
than
oi9 p
iste
u/ont
ev, (
as
wou
ld b
e de
man
ded
by th
is v
iew
)
215
PAR
T B
– T
HIS
TL
ET
ON
’S C
LA
SSIF
ICA
TIO
N (c
ontin
ued)
Cat
egor
y/R
efer
ence
O
rigi
n/Su
ppor
t D
escr
iptio
n C
ritiq
ue
Chr
ysos
tom
Theo
phyl
act
Phot
ius
Eras
mus
tw
=n ne
krw
=n is
an
ellip
sis,
refle
ctin
g
bapt
ism
al c
reed
in f
aith
ther
efor
e th
e de
ad
is t
he “
soon
to
be”
dead
bod
ies
(a v
iew
popu
lar i
n th
e pa
trist
ic e
ra)
• Th
is im
ports
into
the
Gre
ek a
n ad
ditio
nal p
hras
e w
hich
is a
bsen
t
• Th
is s
eem
s ha
rdly
an
“elli
ptic
” us
e of
tw
=n ne
kpw
=n f
urth
er
expl
anat
ion.
R A
nder
son
(190
5) fo
llow
ed
rece
ntly
by
WE
Vin
e
Rep
unct
uate
the
ver
se,
with
a f
ull
stop
betw
een
tw=n
nekr
w=n
and
oi
9
ba
pti
zo/me
noi
so a
s to
rea
d: “
Oth
erw
ise
wha
t sha
ll th
ey d
o w
ho a
re b
aptis
ed?
It is
for d
ead
pers
ons i
f the
dea
d do
not
rise
?”
• Th
is a
lso
stra
ins t
he sy
ntax
• “N
one
(of t
hose
) is c
ompe
lling
” (S
o Fe
e 76
6)
A8
(p12
43)
A9
(p12
43-4
)
A10
(p12
44)
J Mur
phy-
O’C
onno
r (19
81)
Bap
tised
for t
he d
ead
orig
inat
ed a
s an
ant
i-
Paul
ine
slog
an c
once
rnin
g Pa
ul’s
suf
ferin
g
and
supp
ort
for
an
infe
rior
clas
s of
belie
vers
who
are
dea
d to
“tru
e w
isdo
m”
• Th
is v
iew
is sp
ecul
ativ
e in
nat
ure
and
lack
s cle
ar li
ngui
stic
supp
ort
• Pr
ecar
ious
to
supp
ose
that
Pau
l de
fined
“ap
ostle
” as
one
of
“the
dead
” in
the
pres
ent v
erse
(So
Whi
te)
216
PAR
T B
– T
HIS
TL
ET
ON
’S C
LA
SSIF
ICA
TIO
N (c
ontin
ued)
Cat
egor
y/R
efer
ence
O
rigi
n/Su
ppor
t D
escr
iptio
n C
ritiq
ue
B(1
1)
cont
empo
rary
pe
riod
Con
zelm
ann,
Col
lins,
Wei
ss,
Oep
ke, W
endl
and,
Par
ry “
and
man
y ot
hers
” (i.
e.
the
vica
rious
vie
w)
• “w
ordi
ng
is
in
favo
ur
of
the
‘nor
mal
’
expo
sitio
n in
ter
ms
of v
icar
ious
bap
tism
: in
Cor
inth
liv
ing
peop
le
have
th
emse
lves
vica
rious
ly
bapt
ized
fo
r de
ad
peop
le”
(so
Con
zelm
ann,
275
)
• Th
is s
how
s th
e “s
acra
men
talis
m”
prev
ailin
g in
Cor
inth
, and
Pau
l doe
s no
t crit
iciz
e th
e cu
stom
but
mak
es u
se o
f it
for
his
argu
men
t” (
so
Con
zelm
ann,
ibid
.)
• “s
ome
sort
of
trans
ferr
ed
appl
icat
ion
of
bene
fits,
a vi
cario
us e
ffec
t” (C
ollin
s, 55
9)
• M
any
rem
ain
unco
nvin
ced
by th
is (
i.e. v
icar
ious
vie
w)
from
patri
stic
era
. R
efor
mat
ion
and
rece
nt y
ears
.
• “T
he d
iffic
ulty
… is
that
Pau
l’s u
nder
stan
ding
of
the
way
the
sacr
amen
ts w
ork
wou
ld n
ever
hav
e pe
rmitt
ed h
im to
con
done
such
sup
erst
ition
in
any
of h
is c
hurc
hes…
The
dea
d ca
nnot
mak
e an
act
of
faith
tha
t sa
ves
(Rom
10.
9)”
(so
Mur
phy-
O’C
onno
r, J “
Cor
inth
ians
” (1
997)
:178
)
“The
fer
ocity
with
whi
ch T
ertu
llian
and
esp
ecia
lly C
hrys
osto
m
view
such
a p
ract
ice
and
char
acte
rize
it as
biz
arre
am
ong
here
tics
wou
ld n
ot b
e to
o ea
sily
forg
otte
n or
sw
ept a
side
” (S
o Th
istle
ton,
1246
)
B(1
1)
a-c
and
B(1
2)
Inte
rpre
tatio
ns
“WID
ESPR
EAD
A
ND
INFL
UEN
TIA
L”
(pp1
244-
1248
)
Slig
ht v
aria
tions
on
abov
e •
Non
-sac
ram
enta
list “
Jew
ish”
app
roac
h in
term
s
of th
e bl
ood
of th
e m
arty
rs (i
.e. 2
Mac
c 12
:45)
(so
Prei
sker
298
-304
)
• “a
car
eful
softe
ning
by
Hay
s and
rest
rictio
ns b
y
Allo
w
hich
pu
ts
this
vi
ew
(vic
ario
us)
just
with
in
the
boun
ds
of
rem
ote
poss
ibili
ty”
[Thi
stle
ton,
124
4 N
(185
) (iv
)
• “t
he
com
mun
ity
can
act
mea
ning
fully
on
beha
lf of
thos
e w
ho a
re n
ot a
ble
to a
ct o
n th
eir
own”
(Hay
s, 26
7, 2
68)]
• Th
is is
“to
o sl
ende
r and
tenu
ous
to b
ear t
he w
eigh
t of s
uch
an
exte
nsio
n of
the
theo
logy
of b
aptis
m”
(Sta
uffe
r NT
Theo
logy
(195
5) 2
02, 2
99)
217
PAR
T B
– T
HIS
TL
ET
ON
’S C
LA
SSIF
ICA
TIO
N (C
ontin
ued)
Cat
egor
y/R
efer
ence
O
rigi
n/Su
ppor
t D
escr
iptio
n C
ritiq
ue
Schm
ithal
s ad
voca
tes
a
“his
tory
-of-
relig
ions
”
appr
oach
(S
peci
fical
ly
Gno
stic
)
• B
aptis
m b
y pr
oxy
was
com
mon
am
ong
the
Gno
stic
s, in
deed
in
G
nost
icis
m,
bapt
ism
fo
r th
e de
ad
has
grea
ter
sign
ifica
nce
than
fo
r th
e liv
ing
(Gno
stic
ism
at
C
orin
th,
257-
9)
(and
amon
g M
orm
ons t
oday
)
• Th
e ef
fect
of
bapt
ism
for
the
dead
was
mag
ical
, as
witn
esse
d in
Gno
stic
tex
ts
(e.g
. Pis
tis S
ophi
a) o
ffer
ing
para
llels
to
15:2
9
• V
icar
ious
ba
ptis
m
allu
ded
to
in
Tertu
llian
, Chr
ysos
tom
and
Epi
phan
ius
refe
rrin
g to
th
is
prac
tice
amon
g
Mar
cion
ites a
nd o
ther
sect
s
• In
th
e lig
ht
of
such
an
im
mod
erat
e st
atem
ents
, it
is
scar
cely
surp
risin
g th
at C
onze
lman
n de
scrib
es th
is v
erse
as
“hot
ly d
ispu
ted”
(So
Con
zelm
ann
I Cor
, 275
)
• (a
s abo
ve)
• “t
he
stat
e of
th
e de
ad
hard
ly
seem
s to
al
low
fo
r a
serio
us
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
wha
t ba
ptis
m r
epre
sent
s an
d en
tails
” (T
hist
leto
n,
1247
)
• A
lread
y al
lude
d to
in re
fere
nce
to th
ese
Chu
rch
Fath
ers.
B(1
1)(a
)
B(1
1)(b
) O
ther
app
roac
hes t
o “P
roxy
”
or v
icar
ious
bap
tism
• A
ba
ptis
m
on
beha
lf of
un
bapt
ised
Chr
istia
ns (
Wed
derb
urn,
Bap
tism
and
resu
rrec
tion,
2
88-9
)
• A
n op
us
oper
atio
n “S
acra
men
talis
m”
(Von
Sod
en, S
akra
men
t und
Eth
ik, 2
2-
40)
• “W
ould
not
Pau
l de
eply
car
e if
this
im
porta
nt r
ite, w
ith a
ll its
sel
f
invo
lvin
g ro
le a
s an
eff
ectiv
e si
gn o
f gr
ace,
is
redu
ced
to m
ere
inst
rum
enta
l mec
hani
sm”
(Thi
stle
ton,
124
6-7)
218
PAR
T B
– T
HIS
TL
ET
ON
’S C
LA
SSIF
ICA
TIO
N (C
ontin
ued)
Cat
egor
y/R
efer
ence
O
rigi
n/Su
ppor
t D
escr
iptio
n C
ritiq
ue
Oth
er
appr
oach
es
to
“Pro
xy”
vica
rious
bap
tism
• So
me
“bap
tised
vic
ario
usly
on
beha
lf of
dece
ased
frie
nds
and
rela
tives
” (H
orsl
ey, I
Cor
206
-7)
• Th
e di
ffic
ultie
s w
hich
bes
et B
(11)
(a)
also
app
ly,
even
les
s
forc
eful
ly to
this
pro
posa
l, to
geth
er w
ith a
n ap
pare
ntly
abr
upt
switc
h to
pos
itive
in V
30. (
This
tleto
n, 1
247-
8)
•
A
non-
sacr
amen
tal,
but
an
esch
atol
ogic
al/a
poca
lypt
ic b
ackg
roun
d to
vica
rious
bap
tism
. Th
is b
ackg
roun
d in
4
Ezra
4:
35;
I En
och
47:4
; R
ev
7:2-
4
conn
ect
with
I C
or 1
5:24
-28,
- w
ith t
he
resu
rrec
tion
of
the
right
eous
, th
ose
stan
ding
“n
ear”
to
th
em
coul
d be
nefit
from
the
ir de
eds
by p
roxy
. [P
reis
ker,
in
ZNW
(192
4): 2
98-3
04]
• Sc
hnac
kenb
urg
criti
cize
s Pr
eisk
er’s
vie
w a
s “u
nacc
epta
ble”
(Bap
tism
in th
e Th
ough
t of P
aul,
97)
This
tleto
n ag
rees
that
he
is “
right
ly c
ritic
ized
” (1
245)
•
“The
pla
in a
nd n
eces
sary
sen
se o
f th
e
wor
ds i
mpl
ies
the
exis
tenc
e of
a p
ract
ice
of
vica
rious
ba
ptis
m
at
Cor
inth
,
pres
umab
ly o
n be
half
of b
elie
vers
who
died
bef
ore
they
wer
e ba
ptiz
ed”
(So
Parr
y,
Firs
t Epi
stle
, 228
)
B(1
1)(b
) con
tinue
d
Ove
rall
com
men
ts “
If b
aptis
m e
ntai
ls (T
hist
leto
n, 1
247)
a se
rious
app
ropr
iatio
n of
the
grac
e of
iden
tific
atio
n w
ith C
hris
t in
his d
eath
and
resu
rrec
tion,
how
can
the
cont
ext b
e ot
her
than
bel
ieve
rs, o
f (in
a la
ter
seco
nd g
ener
atio
n co
ntex
t) an
initi
atin
g pl
ea f
or g
race
on
the
pres
uppo
sitio
n of
nur
ture
with
in th
e C
hris
tian
hom
e”
PAR
T B
– T
HIS
TL
ET
ON
’S C
LA
SSIF
ICA
TIO
N (C
ontin
ued)
219
Cat
egor
y/R
efer
ence
O
rigi
n/Su
ppor
t D
escr
iptio
n C
ritiq
ue
B(1
1)c
“Som
e so
fteni
ng”
of a
ver
sion
of
the
vica
rious
vie
w
• C
atec
hum
ens
in th
eir o
wn
bapt
ism
wis
h to
be i
dent
ified
in
near
or
actu
al C
hris
tian
faith
. Th
at is
a “
bapt
ism
of d
esire
”, n
ot a
n
offic
ial
bapt
ism
. (A
llos,
Prem
iere
, Epi
tre,
411-
14).
A
llo
cite
s Te
rtulli
an,
Chr
ysos
tom
and
wid
er p
atris
tic m
ater
ial i
n
subs
tant
iatin
g hi
s vie
w h
ere.
• “t
he c
omm
unity
can
act
mea
ning
fully
on
beha
lf of
thos
e ho
w a
re n
ot a
ble
to a
ct o
n
thei
r be
half”
(H
ays,
I C
or,
267)
. Pa
ul’s
view
is “
less
indi
vidu
alis
tic”
than
mod
ern
Prot
esta
nt
thou
ght.
– Pa
ul
did
not
“com
men
d” v
icar
ious
bap
tism
; he
poi
nts
out t
he in
cons
iste
ncy
in p
ract
icin
g it
whi
le
doub
ting
the
resu
rrec
tion.
NB
Com
paris
ons
of
vica
rious
pr
inci
ple
in
infa
nt b
aptis
m
(As
Allo
’s v
iew
is s
imila
r to
Hay
’s s
ee H
ay’s
crit
ique
on
this
).
Als
o
• A
lthou
gh m
any
argu
e th
at P
aul d
oes
not n
eces
saril
y ap
prov
e
of t
his
prac
tice,
the
tra
nsiti
on t
o v3
0, t
hrou
gh k
ai\
h9mei
=v
seem
s to
sug
gest
a c
ontin
uity
of
prac
tice
whi
ch h
as P
aul’s
appr
oval
, and
thi
s is
sca
rcel
y co
ncei
vabl
e, e
ven
if w
e gr
ant
that
the
‘sp
ecia
l ca
se’
prop
osed
by
Allo
mig
ht w
ell
mer
it a
past
oral
blin
d ey
e. (s
o Th
istle
ton,
124
6)
220
PAR
T B
– T
HIS
TL
ET
ON
’S C
LA
SSIF
ICA
TIO
N (C
ontin
ued)
Cat
egor
y/R
efer
ence
O
rigi
n/Su
ppor
t D
escr
iptio
n C
ritiq
ue
B(1
2)(p
1247
) A
var
iant
of B
(11)
•
“Som
e of
th
e su
rviv
ors
allo
win
g
them
selv
es t
o be
bap
tized
on
beha
lf of
(bel
ievi
ng) f
riend
s w
ho h
ave
died
with
out
bapt
ism
…bu
t…Pa
ul d
oes
not
men
tion
it
with
out
a sl
ur
on
it”
[Alfo
rd,
Gre
ek
Test
amen
t, (4
vol
s) (1
881)
II, 6
12]
• A
lford
re
fers
to
re
fere
nces
to
it
in
Tertu
llian
, Chr
ysos
tom
, Epi
phan
ius
• Si
nce
the
prac
tice
“dw
indl
ed a
way
”, i
t m
aybe
inf
erre
d th
at
this
is
som
ethi
ng “
with
whi
ch h
e (P
aul)
coul
d ha
ve n
o re
al
sym
path
y” (s
o A
lford
, Gre
ek T
esta
men
t Vol
2 (1
991)
;613
)
• In
reg
ard
to t
i/ p
oih/s
ousi
n, “
ther
e is
in th
ese
wor
ds a
taci
t
repr
ehen
sion
of
the
prac
tice
abou
t to
be m
entio
ned,
whi
ch is
hard
ly p
ossi
ble
to m
iss”
(Alfo
rd, i
bid.
, 611
)
• Th
ese
Fath
ers
repu
diat
e th
is p
ract
ice
as n
on-C
hris
tian
or
here
tical
• C
hrys
osto
m (
mos
t cr
itica
l) as
ks w
heth
er t
here
cou
ld b
e an
y
bene
fit fr
om su
ch a
pra
ctic
e.
B (1
3)*
“hig
hly
prob
able
, le
ast
prob
lem
atic
and
mos
t co
nvin
cing
view
of
al
l”
Jere
mia
s (R
aede
r,
Find
lay)
• R
efer
s to
the
dec
isio
n of
a p
erso
n or
pers
ons
to a
sk fo
r, an
d to
rece
ive,
bap
tism
as a
res
ult o
f th
e de
sire
to b
e un
ited
with
thei
r bel
ievi
ng r
elat
ives
who
hav
e di
ed
• u9p
e\r (f
inal
sens
e) “
for t
he sa
ke o
f”
• Su
ch a
con
vers
ion
wou
ld d
epen
d on
mix
ed m
otiv
es,
but
–
“the
re is
no
room
for p
rete
nce
or s
elf i
nter
est o
n a
deat
hbed
”
(So
This
tleto
n, 1
249)
* N
B –
a fu
rther
exp
ansi
on o
n Th
istle
ton’
s ‘so
lutio
n’ w
ill b
e gi
ven
in a
Sec
tion
B C
hapt
er 2
of t
his t
hesi
s
221
Points of Contrast and Comparison
Having now presented the two matrices, one is then in a position to make some
comparisons in conclusion. There are perhaps three things which stand out most.
Firstly there is the issue of thoroughness and comprehensiveness. There can be really
no comparison between the two on either of these two criteria. Foschini is far and away
ahead of Thistleton in terms of thoroughness and comprehensiveness. With five erudite
articles to his credit on the interpretation of this verse covering the period from the early
church fathers up to 1950 Foschini has never been improved upon both before his time
or since. Even in the period since 1950-51 when he published his five articles, Foschini
is still regarded fifty years later as the premier authority on this topic at least until 1950.
The depth and breadth of his scholarship has been acknowledged in the academy of
scripture scholars as can be witnessed in their footnotes citing his work. The only
limitation of course is the fact that Foschini cannot be consulted for the fifty year
contemporary period, i.e. from 1950 to 2000 AD. It is at this point that Thistleton’s
classification can and should be used. Even though Thistleton refers to the pre-1950
period and his portrayal and assessments of this early period are helpful, again he
cannot be compared here with Foschini. Still, his coverage of the contemporary period
most likely represents the best introduction and evaluation of the more significant
scholarship from 1950 to 2000 AD; when in 2000 AD he published his commentary.
Secondly there is the issue of the theological framework within which both scholars
endeavour to classify the various interpretations. Here again there is a sharp contrast
between the two. On the one hand there is Foschini’s theological scheme as seen for
example in his three major categories with their sub-divisions, all of which rotate
around the doctrine of baptism as it applies to I Cor 15:29. On the other hand,
Thistleton whilst focusing upon the verse in question, nevertheless uses terms to
describe his classifications which indicate his own estimation of probability and
plausibility. This is a kind of process of elimination which ultimately leads Thistleton
to state his own views. Of course, Foschini does a similar sort of thing, albeit from his
more theological approach.
Thirdly is both scholars’ individual “solution” to the interpretation of the verse.
Interestingly, both compare when it comes to their rejection of the vicarious view. In
the case of Thistleton this is stated briefly at the end of the matrix. However, in the case
222
of Foschini his is presented in his fifth and last article, where perhaps the theme of this
says it all: “Baptism for the Living not for the Dead”. For the sake of brevity together
with the need to do justice to Foschini’s view, this is dealt with in a later chapter
(Section B Chapter 5). In either case the individual ‘solution’ of both scholars is not as
important in this chapter as their presentation of the views of others. But even with just
noting at this point their common rejection of the vicarious view, they nonetheless
espouse a different ‘solution’ to one another.
In conclusion, it has been worthwhile presenting the classification of both these two
scholars because at the outset of this thesis it is most important to gain an “overview” of
the various approaches of a cross-section of interpretation of this enigmatic verse down
through the past two millennia of Christian history. Not only is it important to have this
overview but also to have thereby an overall context within which one can explore
further other interpretations since Foschini as seen in the next two chapters.
223
Appendix II
The usage of u9pe\r within the principle of vicariousness
and I Cor 15:29
224
As alluded to in the conclusion of the last chapter there is a need to explore further the
wider implications of u9pe\r as they relate to I Corinthians 15:29. These wider
implications concern the principle of vicariousness. As has been identified throughout
the first three sections of the thesis the principle of vicariousness is of vital importance
in understanding the text. Indeed much of the scholarly debate and issues arising from
it rotated around the vicarious issue in itself.
But this concept is not limited to this verse and in fact originates within the whole
Biblical witness and also the inter-testamental literature at certain points. Therefore it is
required at this stage to set I Cor 15:29 within the wider context of the crucially
important vicarious principle.
In this excursus the usage of υπερ will be outlined within the principle of vicariousness
and our verse. However one needs to be clear about the meaning of the word
“vicariousness”. According to the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary the adjective
“vicarious” means “deputed, delegated, acting, done, endured for another; vicariously
(adv); vicariousness (n)”.(1) This meaning of the English word corresponds closely to
“in the place of”; “instead of” being very close to the sense of “on behalf of”, which are
the meanings of the Greek u9pe\r followed by the Genitive case. As seen already in the
chapter on the exegesis of I Cor 15:29 the favoured translation of such versions as the
NRSV, REB and NJB is “on behalf of the dead” or alternatively “for the dead” of the
NIV and AV/KJV.(2)
However any discussion of the various meanings of the preposition u9pe\r needs to be set
first of all among the different options. According to Kittel’s article on u9pe\r (3) the
different options include three main divisions, namely:
A. u9pe\r with the Genitive (with 5 sub-divisions);
B. u9pe\r with Accusative and
C. u9pe\r as Adverb.
Our discussion of these will only be concerned with the first of these as the latter two
are of no relevance. As indicated Kittel’s further sub-divides the first i.e. u9pe\r +
Genitive as:
1) Over, beyond;
2) On behalf of:
225
3) In the place of;
4) With reference to;
5) On account of.
Before one can examine the more relevant of these various nuances, it is important first
to survey the etymology. According to Kittel:
This preposition comes from the Indo-European ‘uper’, Sanskrit ‘upari’, Gothic
‘ufar’ and like all words originally beginning with ‘I’ it has a rough breathing. It
has the general sense of “over”; “across”; “beyond”, which with the genitive
especially developed a transferred meaning. The genitive is far more common
than the accusative; the rare dative occurs in dialects. In the Hellenistic age u9pe\r
invades the spheres of peri/ and a0nti/... .(4)
In regard to the five sub-divisions of u9pe\r with the genitive we may eliminate the first,
fourth and fifth which are irrelevant to this study and instead seek to concentrate only
on the second and third. These are: 2)on behalf of and 3)in the place of. These two
have close meanings and show the close comparisons between their respective usages in
the New Testament.
Taking the second of these two first, Kittel’s reports:
It has been shown already that the sense “on behalf of” is sometimes very close to
“in the place of”; “instead of”, “in the name of”… .(5)
Kittel’s goes on to make the following observations in regard to our verse, after
identifying the ‘representative sense’ in I Cor 15:29:
None of the attempts to escape the theory of a vicarious baptism in primitive
Christianity seems to be wholly successful (so N(29) Raeder (1955) “for the sake
of the dead” the final sense of u9pe\r of purpose; (also) Lietzmann, K Allo, EB
(1956); Beasley-Murray, GR (1962) Rissi, M (1962)). If one thus presupposes
that there may be baptism “for the dead” this implies that the dead, probably
relatives, were unbaptised at death. We thus have a kind of substitution even if, as
one may suppose, the candidate was baptised for himself as well as with respect to
someone who had died unbaptised.(6)
In the last part of the footnote (29) already referred to above, this part of the article
concludes with these words:
It should be noted that in I Cor 15:29 Paul is referring to a practice in Corinth,
though he does not expressly repudiate it.(7)
226
All of the above comments come with the widely recognized authority that Kittel’s
Theological Dictionary has in the world of New Testament scholarship and therefore
needs to be taken seriously.
The second subdivision of u9pe\r with the genitive has a much wider usage in the New
Testament and because of its close correlation with the third, needs to be surveyed at
this stage. In so doing the wider context of the principle of vicariousness throughout the
New Testament will be seen.
In regard to the “on behalf of” usage, Kittel’s notes:
After the terms of sacrifice or dedication u9pe\r has the literal or transferred sense
of “for”.(8)
There are two examples of this literal or transferred sense, the first:
In this connection one may note expressions which use u9pe\r to denote the
offering of life, or suffering and death, “in favour of” or “for someone”. In the
background are Jewish concepts of the vicarious significance of the death of the
martyrs and the just.(9)
This is indeed a significant origin for this particular concept and can be amply
illustrated further in the Second Book of Maccabees. The incident in question is found
in Chapter 12:39-45 and is quoted directly in full so as to gain a clear understanding of
what might otherwise be a relatively unknown passage.
It is as follows:
39) On the next day, as had now become necessary, Judas and his men went up to
take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to be with their kindred in
the sepulchres of their ancestors. 40) Then under the tunic of each one of the dead
they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids Jews to
wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason why these men had
fallen. 41) So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who
reveals the things that are hidden; 42) and they turned to supplication, praying that
the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas
exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their
own eyes what had happened as a result of the sin of those who had fallen. 43) He
also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of
227
silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted
very well and honourably, taking account of the resurrection. 44) For if he were
not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been
superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45) But if he was looking to the
splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy
and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might
be delivered from their sin.(10)
This incident is set within the Maccabean campaign against Eupator and relates to the
death of soldiers upon whose bodies were found pagan amulets or protective charms.
These amulets were probably inscribed with a representation of the god Dagon of
Azotus (cf I Macc 10:84) and were banned from Israelites according to the
commandments (Deut 7:25-6). By contrast the people in Israel were instructed to bind
the commandments ‘as a sign on the hand and wear them as a phylactery on the
forehead’ (Deut 6:8). In spite of the serious nature of this sin of covert idolatry these
soldiers of the Maccabean armies had died fighting for their noble cause and therefore
vicarious prayers from the living were requested so that this sin might be blotted out
(II Macc 12:42). These vicarious intercessions of the faithful living were augmented by
Judas’ collection of a sin offering to free the dead from their sin (II Macc 12:43 cf Lev
Chs 4-5). This Levitical law code laid down a sin offering to make expiation for the
inadvertent sins of the dead as well as Judas’ own intention to expiate the sins of the
living. All of this was done ‘taking account of the resurrection’ (II Macc 12:43). In an
interesting parallel with I Cor 15:29 where Paul asks the point of being baptized for the
dead if these is no resurrection, II Macc 12:44 states:
For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would
have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
All this activity was “to make atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered
from their sin” (II Macc 12:45).
This particular passage has been an important precedent for both Roman Catholic and
Eastern Orthodox doctrine of prayers for the dead.(11) Certainly the comparisons with
our verse and this passage have been noted by Stauffer who could observe:
Paul writes about the Corinthian baptism for the dead, quite in the spirit, indeed in
the same form as the argument of II Macc 12. Accordingly he conceives the
Corinthian baptism pro defunctis as an analogy to the Jewish oblatio pro defunctis
228
i.e. as an act of intercession.(12)
The correlation is clear enough to provide some kind of analogy for Paul as he
encountered this practice at Corinth in the light of his knowledge of the Maccabean war.
The second of these usages of u9pe\r having the literal or transferred sense of “for” is
illustrated in the New Testament where Aquilla and Prisca are willing to give their lives
for Paul (Rom 16:4) along with his own self-sacrifice (Rm 9:3) and sufferings for the
churches (2 Cor 12:15).
However far and away the most important usage of u9pe\r in this literal and transferred
sense is:
In Christological sayings u9pe\r is used to show the thrust of the work of salvation.
The death and Passion of Christ are for men and accrue to their favour.(13)
This article goes on to claim:
This employment of the preposition finds its NT starting-point in a formula of
faith and confession which belongs to the oldest strata of Christian tradition.(14)
This is a significant claim in terms of the importance of u9pe\r in soteriological formula,
as seen for example in the confession
Xristo\v a0pe/qanen u9pe\r tw=n a9martiw=n (Christ died for our sins) (I Cor 15:3).
The salvific intent of the phrase “for our sins” was worked out by Paul in his
earlier epistle to the Galatians where Christ takes upon himself vicariously on our
behalf, the curse of the law on law-breaking sinners both Jew and Gentile
(Gal 4:3-8). Thus: “Jesus in His death vicariously took upon Himself (kata/ra is
abstractum pro concreto: bearer of a curse) the mortal curse (Deut 21:22; 27:26)
which the Law brings and itself represents. He did so u9pe\r h9mw=n... “in our
favour” though intrinsically the concept of substitution might suggest that it also
means “in our place or stead”.(15)
Having defined our terms as outlined above the question then arises as to the origins of
the u9pe\r h9mw=n in connection with texts involving the death of Christ. According to
Kittel’s the u9pe\r pollw=n (for many) reference in Mk 14:24 originates from the oldest
stratum of the gospel tradition, with an Aramaic discerned behind the Greek. The
allusion to Isa 53 must have been there before the translation of the Eucharistic sayings
into Greek, for u9pe\r does not occur in Isa 53:11f in the LXX, though polloi\ does.(16)
229
Kittel’s sums up this whole line of thought in the following terms:
The u9pe\r u9mw=n of the cup sayings in Mk probably represents the earliest stage of
u9pe\r phrases with a personal reference in statements about the death of Jesus.(17)
The writer continues
No matter how one may assess the direct influence of Isa 53:11f on the self
awareness of Jesus and primitive Christian Christology, the beneficial quality
(u9pe\r) of the death of someone, even in the categories of Jewish martyr theology,
can be understood only against the background of the sacrificial concepts of the
OT. Exclusively an act of self-sacrifice, the negative fact of death can become a
positive event which may produce fruitful results for others.
This quote sums up this whole issue very well, bringing together the implications of
Christ’s sacrifice vicariously for others against the backdrop of the sacrificial language
of the Old Testament and later Jewish martyr theology, as seen for example in the
Maccabean martyrs. The last sentence of this quote whilst applying supremely to the
death of Christ in a vicarious way still can also be seen to be an exemplar for Christians
as well. As later observed in this article: “The acceptance of suffering and death by
Christians in discipleship of Jesus is also to the advantage of fellow Christians”.(18) Part
of this latter advantage of fellow Christians could well be the vicarious baptism of the
living for their dead. Thus the vicarious self offering of Christ for others becomes an
inspiration not only for Christian martyrdom in the early church but also a vicarious
ministry of the living for the dead. The interconnectedness of these related concepts
through the exemplary role of Jesus provides as it were a kind of precedent for the kind
of vicarious ministry offered for deceased friends and relatives as illustrated at Corinth.
In conclusion, the overall context of I Cor 15:29 has been located within the Biblical
and Inter-testamental principle of vicariousness. However in order to properly
understand our verse from when it first appeared in the Corinthian church, the
immediate context needs to be identified. This will include the immediate scriptural
context and also the socio-cultural setting as well.
230
FOOTNOTES
1. “Oxford Illustrated Dictionary” (1962), (3rd edn), University Press, Oxford, 916.
2. Infra “An Exegetical Exposition of I Cor 15:29”, 6-7.
3. Kittel, G “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (Vol VIII) (ET 1972),
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 507. (Hereafter TDNT).
4. ibid.
5. ibid., 512.
6. ibid., 513.
7. ibid., N (29).
8. ibid., 508.
9. ibid.
10. “New Revised Standard Version” (NRSV) (1993), Zondervan, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, (The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament),
222-3.
11. As found in two articles in the “New Catholic Encyclopaedia” (1967), Vol IV, 672
“Prayers for the Dead” by JH Wright and Vol XI, 1034 “Purgatory” by JFX
Cevetello.
12. Stauffer, E “New Testament Theology” (1955), (ET 5th edn) SCM, London, 229,
N (544).
13. Kittel, G op. cit., “TDNT” (1972), Vol VIII, 508-9.
14. ibid., 509.
15. ibid., It is also noted in the footnotes on this translation of u9pe\r that Paul does not
use anti/ for sacrificial substitution (N14).
16. ibid., 510.
17. ibid., 511.
18. ibid.
231
THESIS BIBLIOGRAPHY
PRIMARY SOURCES
1) “The Greek New Testament” (1993), (4th rev edn) (Edited by) B Aland, K Aland,
J Karavidopoulos, CM Martini (and) BM Metzger [in co-operation with the
Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Munster, Westphalia], Deutscher
Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, Stuttgart.
2) “A Textual Commentary on the New Testament” (1971), (3rdedn) (Edited by) BM
Metzger [on behalf of The Editorial Committee of the] United Bible Societies,
Stuttgart.
3) “The Revised Standard Version” (RSV) Interlinear Greek-English New Testament
(1972), [Based on a literal English translation of the Nestle Greek Text by A
Marshall and also a marginal text of the RSV] S Bagster, London.
4) “The New Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible” (NRSV) (1989),
Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
5) Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (1993 27th edn), Deutsche
Bibelgesellshaft, Stuttgart.
6) Roberts, A & Donaldson, J (Eds) “The Ante-Nicene Fathers” (1980), Vol 3,
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
7) Bettenson, H (Ed) “Documents of the Christian Church” (1963 2nd edn),
University Press, Oxford.
8) Stevenson, J A (Ed) “A New Eusebius: Documents Illustrative of the History of
the Church to AD 337” (1975) SPCK, London.
9) Stevenson, I (Ed) “Creeds, Councils and Controversies: Documents Illustrative of
the History of the Church AD 337-461” (1966), SPCK, London.
SECONDARY SOURCES
1. Achtemeier, PJ “I Peter” (1996), Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis, Minn.
2. “Baptism for the Dead” (from) Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia on the internet
(March 2003).
3. Barclay, W “The Letters to the Corinthians” (1956), (2nd edn) (Daily Study Bible
232
Series) St Andrews Press, Edinburgh.
4. Barrett, CK “Paul: An Introduction to His Thought” (1994), Chapman, London.
5. Barrett, CK “A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1971), (2nd
edn) A & C Black, London.
6. Barrett, CK “The Epistle to the Romans” (1962), A & C Black, London.
7. Barth, K “A Shorter Commentary on Romans” (1959), SCM, London.
8. Barth, M “Ephesians 4-6” (Vol 2) (1974), Doubleday, New York.
9. Barth, M (and) Blanke, H “Colossians” (1994), Doubleday, New York.
10. Bartlett, JR “The First and Second Books of the Maccabees” (Cambridge Bible
Commentary) (1973), University Press, Cambridge.
11. Beare, FW “The First Epistle of Peter” (1958), Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
12. Beasley-Murray, GR “Baptism in The New Testament” (1962), Macmillan,
London.
13. Best, E “I Peter” (1971), Oliphants, London.
14. Bieringer, R (Ed) “The Corinthian Correspondence” (1996), University Press,
Louvain.
15. Black, M “Romans” (1973), Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London.
16. Blomberg, CL “I Corinthians” (1994), Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
17. “The Book of Common Prayer” (1662), (reprint 1968), University Press,
Cambridge.
18. “The Book of Mormon” (1830), (reprint 1981), Corporation of President of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah.
19. Bookidis, N “The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: An Archaeological Approach
to Ancient Religion” (as summarised in) American Journal of Archaeology 91
(1987), New York, Archaeological Society of America.
20. Bousset, W “Kyrios Christos: a History of the Belief in Christ from the
Beginnings of Christianity” (1970), Abingdon, Nashville.
21. Brakemeier, G “Die Auseinanersietzung Des Paulus Zu I Kor 15” (1968),
Dissertation, University of Gottingen.
22. Bratt, JD “The Re-Orientation of American Protestantism 1835-45” (in) Church
History (Mar 1988), Chicago.
23. Bray, G (Ed) “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture” (Vol VII) (NT)
(1999), 1-2 Corinthians Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.
24. Bray, G (Ed) “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture” (2000), (James,
233
1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude) Inter Varsity Press (IVP), Downers Grove, Illinois.
25. Bromiley, GW “Historical Theology: an Introduction” (1978), Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids.
26. Brown, C “Christianity and Western Thought: from the Ancient World to the Age
of Enlightenment” (1990), Apollos, Leicester.
27. Brown, RE (and) Fitzmyer, JA (and) Murphy, RE (Eds) “The Jerome Biblical
Commentary” (1968), (I Vol) G Chapman, London.
28. Bruce, FF “I & II Corinthians” (1971), Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
29. Bruce, FF “Paul: Apostle of the Free Spirit” (1977), Exeter, Paternoster.
30. Bruce, FF “Romans” (1963), IVP Leicester.
31. Bultmann, R “Theology of the New Testament” (2 Vols) (1952), SCM, London.
32. Byrne, B “Romans (Sacra Pagina)” (Vol 6) (1996), Liturgical Press, Collegeville,
Minnesota.
33. Campbell, RA “Baptism and Resurrection” (in) Australian Biblical Review 47
(1999), Melbourne, Fellowship for Biblical Studies, Queens College.
34. Carnley, P “The Structure of Resurrection Belief” (1987), Oxford, Clarendon.
35. Carson, DA “Did Paul Baptize the Dead?” (in) Christianity Today Aug 10 (1998),
Carol Stream, Illinois.
36. Chadwick, H “The Church in Ancient Society: from Galilee to Gregory the Great”
(2001), University Press, Oxford.
37. Chester, A (and) Martin, RP “The Theology of the Letters of James, Peter & Jude”
(1994), University Press, Cambridge.
38. Collins, RJ “First Corinthians” (1999), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota.
39. Conzelmann, H “I Corinthians” (1975), Fortress, Philadelphia.
40. Cranfield, CEB “I & II Peter & Jude” (1960), SCM, London.
41. Cranfield, CEB “On Romans and Other New Testament Essays” (1998), Clark,
Edinburgh.
42. Cranfield, CEB “Romans: A Critical & Exegetical Commentary” (2 vols) (1975),
T & T Clark, Edinburgh.
43. Cranfield, CEB “Romans: A Shorter Commentary” (1985), Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids.
44. Crehan, J “Early Christian Baptism and the Creed: A study in Ante-Nicene
Theology” (1950), Burns, Oates & Washbourne, London.
45. Cross, FL (and) Livingstone, EA (Eds) “The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian
234
Church” (3rd Edn) (1997), Oxford University Press (OUP), Oxford.
46. Dalton, WJ “Christ’s Proclamation to the Spirits” (1965), Analecta Biblica 23,
Rome.
47. Davids, PH “The First Epistle of Peter” (1990), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
48. Davies, JG “Factors Heading to the Emergence of Belief in the Resurrection of the
Flesh” (in) Journal of Theological Studies 23 (1972), Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
49. Davies, WD “Jewish and Pauline Studies” (1984), Fortress, Philadelphia.
50. Deluz, G “A Companion to I Corinthians” (Edited and translated by GE Watt)
(1963), Darton, Longman & Todd, London.
51. De Maris, RE “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (I Cor 15:29):
Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature
114/4 (1995), Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis Middetown, Conn,.
52. “Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation” (edited by JH Hayes) (Vol A-J) (1999),
Abingdon, Nashville
53. Dodd, CH “The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments” (1936), Hodder &
Stoughton, London.
54. Dodd, CH “The Epistle to the Romans” (1932), Hodder & Stoughton, London
55. Donfried, KP (Ed) “The Romans Debate” (rev edn) (1991), T & T Clark,
Edinburgh.
56. Downey, J “I Corinthians 15:29 and the Theology of Baptism” (in) Euntes Docete,
38 (1986), Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, Rome,
57. Dunn, JDG “Romans” (1988), Word Books, Dallas.
58. Dunn, JDG “The Theology of Paul the Apostle” (1997), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
59. Dutmie, C (Ed) “Resurrection and Immortality” (1979), Bagster, London.
60. Edwards, DL “Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years” (1997), Cassell,
London.
61. Ellingworth, P & Hatton, HA “Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians” UBS
Handbook (1994), UBS, NY.
62. Ellis, EE “Pauline Theology: Ministry & Society” (1989), Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids.
63. Engberg-Pedersen, “Paul in this Hellenistic Context” (1995), Fortress,
Minneapolis.
64. “Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament” (3 Vols) (Edited by H Baly & G
235
Schneider) (1990), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
65. Fee, G “I Corinthians” (1987), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
66. Ferguson, E “Encyclopaedia of Early Christianity” (1990), St James Press,
Chicago.
67. Fitzmyer, JA “According to Paul: Studies in the Theology of the Apostle” (1993),
Paulist, New York.
68. Fitzmyer, JA “Romans” (1993), Chapman, London.
69. Foschini, BM “Those Who are Baptised for the Dead I Cor 15:29” (in) Catholic
Biblical Quarterly 12 (1950), (2 Articles) and 13 (1951), (3 Articles) Catholic
Biblical Association of America, Washington DC.
70. Getty, MA “First and Second Corinthians” l (1983) Liturgical Press, Collegeville,
Minn.
71. Goldstein, JA “II Maccabees” (1983), Doubleday, NY.
72. “A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament” (5th Edn) (1996), Editrice
Pontificio Instituto Biblico, Rome.
73. Grant, RM “Paul in the Roman World: The Conflict at Corinth” (2001),
Westminster, John Knox Press, Louisville.
74. Grosheide, FW “Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians” (2nd Edn)
(1954), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
75. Grudem, WA “The First Epistle of Peter” (1988), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
76. Guthrie, D “New Testament Theology” (1981), IVP, London.
77. Hanson, RPC “Tradition in the Early Church” (1962), SCM, London.
78. Hastings, A (Ed) “A World History of Christianity” (1999), Cassell, London.
79. Hawthorne, GF (and) Martin, RP (Eds) “Dictionary of Paul and His Letters”
(1993), Inter Varsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois.
80. Hay, DM “Colossians” (2000), Abingdon, Nashville.
81. Hay, DM (and) Johnson, EE (Eds) “Pauline Theology” Vol III - Romans (1995),
Fortress, Minneapolis.
82. Heil, JP “Romans – Paul’s Letter of Hope” (1987), Biblical Institute Press, Rome.
83. Hengel, M “Between Jesus & Paul: Studies in Earliest History of Christianity”
(1983), SCM, London.
84. Hering, J “The First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians” (translated from French
by AW Heathcote & PJ Alcock (2nd edn) (1962), Epworth Press, London.
85. Hock, RF “The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry” (1980), Fortress, Philadelphia.
236
86. Holding, JP “An Examination of “Baptism for the Dead”” (this is an early version
of “The Mormon Defenders”), internet article March 2003.
87. Horsley, RA (Ed) “Paul and Empire: Religion and Power in Roman Empirical
Society” (1997), Trinity Press, Harrisburg PA.
88. Horsley, RA “I Corinthians” (1998), Abingdon, Nashville.
89. Howard, JK “Baptism for the Dead: A Study of I Cor 15:29” Evangelical
Quarterly 37/3 (1965), Paternoster, Exeter.
90. Hurd, JC “The Origin of I Corinthians” (1965), Society Propagation Christian
Knowledge (SPCK), London.
91. Jackson, W “Mormon Doctrine: Baptism for the Dead” (from) Christian Courier
Archives, (Mon, May 24, 1999). internet article March 2003.
92. Jeremias, J “Flesh and Blood cannot inherit Kingdom of God (I Cor 15:29)” (in)
New Testament Studies 2 (1955-6), Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, London.
93. Jewett, R “Dating Paul’s Life” (1979), SCM, London.
94. Johnson, LT “Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary” (1997),
Crossroads, NY.
95. Joyce, JD “Baptism on Behalf of the Dead: An Interpretation of I Corinthians
15:29-34” (in) Encounter 26 (1965), Indianapolis Second School of Religion,
Buttler University Christian Theological Seminary.
96. Kasemann, E “Commentary on Romans” (1973), (ET 1980), SCM, London.
97. Kelly, JND “A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude” (1969), Ace
Black, London.
98. Kelly, JND “Early Christian Creeds” (1972, 3rd edn), Longman Harlow, Essex.
99. Kelly, JND “Early Christian Doctrines” (1977 5th edn) Longman Harlow, Essex.
100. Kilgallen, JJ “First Corinthians: an Introduction & Study Guide” (1987), Paulist
NY.
101. Kistemaker, SJ “New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the First Epistle to
the Corinthians” (1993), Baker, Grand Rapids.
102. Ladd, GE “A Theology of the New Testament” (1993), (rev edn) (Ed by DA
Hagner) Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
103. Lincoln, AT “Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly
Dimension” (1981), (in) “Paul’s Thought With Special Reference to His
Eschatology”. University Press, Cambridge.
104. Livingston, EA (Ed) “Studia Patristica” (1989) Vol XIX, Peters Press, Louvain.
237
105. Ludlow, DH (Ed) “The Encyclopaedia of Mormonism” (1992), (4 Vols)
Macmillan, New York.
106. MacArthur, JF, “First Corinthians” (1984), Moody Bible Institute, Chicago.
107. MacDonald, MY “Colossians and Ephesians” (2000), Liturgical Press,
Collegeville, Minn.
108. MacDonald, JY “The Pauline Churches: a Socio-Historical Study of
Institutionalization in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Writings”(1988),
Cambridge University Press (CUP), Cambridge.
109. McGrath, AE “Christian Theology: an Introduction” (1994), Blackwell, Oxford.
110. Mack, BL “Rhetoric and the New Testament” (1990) Fortress, Minneapolis.
111. Martin, DB “The Corinthian Body New Haven” (1995) University Press, Yale.
112. Martin, RP (and) Davids, PH (Eds) “Dictionary of the Later New Testament and
Its Developments” (1997), Inter-Varsity Press, Downer’s Grove, Illinois.
113. Martin, RP (and) Chester, “A New Testament Theology: the Theology of the
Letters of James, Peter, and Jude” (1994), University Press, Cambridge.
114. Martyn, JL “Galatians” (1997), Doubleday, New York.
115. Matera, FJ “Galatians” (1992), Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minn.
116. Meeks, WA “The First Urban Christians: the Social World of the Apostle Paul”
(1983), New Haven, Yale.
117. Michaels, JR “I Peter” (1988), Word Books, Waco, Texas.
118. Moo, D “The Epistle to the Romans” (1996), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
119. “Mormon Baptism for the Dead” from www.truthandgrace.com/deadbaptism.htm,
internet article March 2003.
120. “The Mormons – Baptism for the Dead” (from) BBC Religion and Ethics, from
bbc.co.uk, internet article March 2003.
121. “Mormonism’s Baptism for the Dead” (from) Catholic Answers, 2020 Gillespie
Way, El Cajon, CA. internet article March 2003.
122. Morris, L “The Epistle to the Romans” (1988), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
123. Morris, L “I Corinthians” (1985), (rev 2nd edn), IVP, Leicester.
124. Morris, L “New Testament Theology” (1986), Zondervan, Grand Rapids.
125. Murphy, D “The Apostle of Corinth” (1966), Campion Press, Melbourne.
126. Murphy-O’Connor, J “ ‘Baptised for the Dead’ (I Cor XV, 29): A Corinthian
Slogan?” (in) Revue Biblique 88 (1981), Librairie Lecoffre, Paris.
127. Murphy – O’Connor, J “Corinthian Slogans in I Cor 6:12-20” (in) Catholic
238
Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978), Catholic Biblical Association of America,
Washington DC.
128. Murphy – O’Connor, J “Corinthians” (1980), Veritas Publications, Dublin.
129. Murphy – O’Connor, J “I Corinthians” (1979), Liturgical Press, Collegeville,
Minn.
130. Murphy – O’Connor, J “Paul: A Critical Life” (1996), Clarendon Press, Oxford
131. Nanos, MD “The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter”
(1996), Fortress, Minneapolis.
132. Neuhaus, RJ “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: the Ratzinger Conference on Bible
and Church” (1989), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
133. Nibley, H “Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times, the Improvement Era” (1949),
Salt Lake City.
134. O’Collins, G “Jesus Risen: the Resurrection, What Actually Happened and What
Does it Mean?” (1987) Darton, Longman & Todd, London.
135. O’Neill, JC “I Corinthians 15:29” (in) Expository Times 91 (1980), T & T Clark,
Edinburgh,.
136. Orr, WF & Walther JA “I Corinthians: A New Translation” (1976), Doubleday,
NY.
137. Pannenburg, W “Jesus–God and Man” (1968), SCM, London
138. Pannenburg, W “Religious Pluralism and Conflicting Truth Claims: the Problem
of a Theology of World Religions” (in) D’Costa, G (ed) “Christian Uniqueness
Reconsidered: the Myth of a Pluralistic Theology of Religions”, (1992),
Maryknoll, NY.
139. Pannenburg, W “Systematic Theology” (3 Vols ET) (1991), T& T Clark ,
Edinburgh
140. Perkins, P “First and Second Peter, James and Jude” (1995), John Knox Press,
Louisville.
141. Pfitzner, VC “First Corinthians” (1982), Lutheran Publishing House, Adelaide.
142. Plevnik, I “Paul & The Parousia: An Exegetical and Theological Investigation”
(1997), Hendricksen Ponbody, Massachusetts.
143. Plevnik, I “What are They Saying about Paul?” (1986), Paulist, NY.
144. Quast, K “Reading the Corinthian Correspondence: an Introduction” (1994),
Paulist, Murwah NJ.
145. Raeder, M “Vikariastaufe in I Kor 15:29?” (in) Zeitschrift fur die
239
Neuentestamentliche Wissenschaft (ZNW) 46 (1955), A Topelmann Verlag,
Berlin.
146. Reaume, JD “Another Look at I Cor 15:29, Baptised for the Dead” Bibliotheca
Sacra 152 (1995), Dallas Theological Seminary & Graduate School of Theology,
Dallas.
147. Reicke, B “The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism” (1946), Copenhagen.
148. Reicke, B “The Epistles of James, Peter and Jude” (1964), Doubleday, NY.
149. Richardson, A “An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament” (1958),
SCM London.
150. Rissi, M “Die Taufe Fur Die Toten” (1962), (in) Abhandlung Zur Theologie Des
Alt Und Neutestamenten 42, Zwingli Verlag, Zurich.
151. Robertson, EM “The Epistles to the Corinthians” (1973), Macmillan, New York
152. Robinson, SE “Are Mormons Christians?” (1991), Bookcraft, Salt Lake City.
153. Ruef, J “Paul’s First Letter to Corinth” (1977), SCM, London.
154. Salvoni, F “Il Battesimo per i Morti (I Cor15:29)” (in) Ricerche Bibliche Religiose
8, Milan.
155. Sampley, JP (Article on I Corinthians) (in) The New Interpreter’s Bible (2002),
Abingdon, Nashville.
156. Sanders, EP “Paul and Palestinian Judaism” (1977), SCM, London
157. Schauerte, H “Die Totentaufe” (in) Theologische Glauben 50 (3, 60)
158. Schnackenburg, R “Baptism in the Thought of St Paul” (1964 ET), Blackwell,
Oxford.
159. Selwyn, EG “The First Epistle of St Peter” (1964), (reprinted), Macmillan,
London.
160. Sporlein, B “Die Leugnung der Auferstehung: Eine Historish-Kritische
Untersuchung zu I Kor 15”(1971), Regensburg.
161. Stauffer K “New Testament Theology” (1955), (et 5th edn), SCM, London.
162. Talbert, CH. “Reading Corinthians: a Literary and Theological Commentary on I
& II Corinthians” (1989), Crossroads, NY.
163. Theissen, G “The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth”
(1982) Fortress, Philadelphia,.
164. “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (edited by) G Kittel (Vol 1 – A-
T) (ET 1964), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
165. Thistleton, AC “The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek
240
Text” (2000), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.
166. Thompson, KC “I Cor 15:29 and the Baptism of the Dead” (in) Studia Evangelica
II (ed) FL Cross (1964), Akademie Verlag, Berlin.
167. Thrall, ME “The First and Second Letters of Paul to the Corinthians” (1965), UP,
Cambridge.
168. Van Gennup, A “The Rites of Passage” (1990), University Press, Chicago.
169. Walker, J “Twisting I Corinthians 15:29: Mormonism’s Baptism for the Dead”
(2000), Watchman Fellowship, internet article March 2003.
170. Walter, EL “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1971), Herder & Herder, New
York.
171. Watson, DF “The New Testament and Greco-Roman Rhetoric: A Bibliographical
Update” (in) Journal of Evangelical Theological Society 33 (1990), Jackson
Mississippi.
172. Watson, DF “Paul’s Rhetorical Strategy in I Corinthians 15” (in) Rhetoric and
New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelburg Conference (ed by) SE Porter
(and) TH Olbricht (1993), Academic Press, Sheffield.
173. Watson, N “The First Epistle to the Corinthians” (1992), Westminster, London.
174. Wedderburn, AJM “The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in I
Corinthians XV” (in) Novum Testamentum (XXIII) (1981), E J Brill, Leiden.
175. Wedderburn, AJM “Baptism & Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology Against
its Graeco-Roman Background”, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchen Neuen
Testament 44 (1987), Tubingen, Mohr.
176. Wedderburn, AJM “The Reasons for Romans” (1991), T & T Clark, Edinburgh.
177. “What is Baptism for the Dead Mentioned in I Cor 15:29?” Bible Knowledge
Commentary on I Cor 15:29. Dallas Seminary Faculty, internet article March
2003.
178. White, JR “Baptized on Account of the Dead: The Meaning of I Cor 15:29 in its
Context” (in) Journal of Biblical Literature 116/3 (1997), Society for Biblical
Literature and Exegesis, Middletown Connecticut.
179. Wilson, JH “The Corinthians Who Say There is No Resurrection of the Dead” (in)
ZNW 59 (1968), Alfred Topelmann Verlag, Berlin.
180. Witherington, B “Conflict & Community in Corinth: a Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on I & II Corinthians” (1995), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
181. Ziesler, J “Paul’s Letter to the Romans” (1989), SCM, London.