Truth Magazine

By Luther Everett

It has been said that there are as many interpretations of 1 Corinthians 15:29 as there have been commentators. While I find this a little hard to believe, it is true that this verse has been the subject of much speculation. Indeed, it is a very difficult passage which does not lend itself well to correct interpretation.

Using the ASV 1901 as a source, the verse reads: “Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”

A Common Opinion

Of the opinions which I am familiar with, there is one which seems to enjoy the acceptance of a large audience. This opinion puts a lot of emphasis on early church practices, albeit a limited number of participants, and grammatical usage of terms. While both of these techniques are useful in the interpretation of Scripture, as with any accepted practice their misuse can lead to an incorrect interpretation.

Some have argued that there was a custom among the early Christians of baptizing a living person for the benefit of a person who had died without being baptized themselves. The blessings of baptism being received by proxy. Baptism for dead persons is practiced in con-temporary times by members of the Mormon church.

Still, there is no record within the Scriptures which indicate that it was actually practiced by the first century church, unless one wishes to argue that this verse demonstrates such. And if this were true, then by inference one could possibly conclude that other churches were familiar with and may have even practiced it themselves.

The opinion states, that Paul in addressing the Corinthians, posed a rhetorical question. This question, being an ad hominem, could be used to demonstrate inconsistencies in a person’s view, without the speaker being in agreement with said view.

The argument states, that Paul during his defense and promotion of a resurrection of the dead, referred to a practice among the Corinthians in order to give further weight to his argument. By doing so he did not necessarily imply a personal acceptance of baptizing on the behalf of dead persons, but used its familiarity to make his point more profound. “Why do you baptize for the dead if you do not believe in the resurrection from the dead?” It is argued that his usage of why are they, in-stead of why are we, indicates that Paul did not include himself this group.

Problematic Opinion

This opinion has some problems, which to me cannot go unanswered.

1. Paul does not condemn the practice. Within this same letter Paul condemns infighting (1:10, 11), honor to men instead of Christ (1:12-17), worldliness (3:1-3), and fornication (5:1-13), just to name a few. In fact most of the letter addresses some form of error and its correction. And yet, when it comes to the practice of baptizing oneself on the behalf of the dead, Paul offers no correction.

John states that those who abide not in the teaching of Christ have not God (2 John 9). Christ himself said, that to follow the doctrines of men is vain worship (Matt. 15:9). If this be true, how is it that Paul could allow these babes in Christ (1 Cor. 3:1, 2) to worship in vain and have not God?

If it is true that Paul mentions the practice and does not condemn it, then in effect he would be saying that the practice is not sinful. His silence on the subject would indicate such to those who supposedly baptized for dead persons. I could further argue that after reading this letter those who are supposed to practice such might say, “See Paul does not condemn it, he even acknowledges it and says there is no reason for doing it, if there be no resurrection from the dead.” In trying to confound the baptizers for the dead, Paul would only have confused a congregation which needed instruction not fancy rhetoric.

2. It is not in harmony with Paul’s character  a man who preached Christ in the synagogues of the Jews under threat of death (Acts 9:20-23), the one who rebuked the foremost Apostle Peter for shunning the Gentile brethren (Gal. 2:11-21), a tireless fighter for the cause of Christ (2 Tim. 4:7). There are too many examples to list of Paul’s devotion to truth and his tireless efforts to correct error, to believe he would remain silent about baptism on behalf of dead persons.

3. It stands alone in its usage by Paul. I personally cannot find another instance where Paul uses an ad horninem argument. Especially about a subject which should be considered sinful, and therefore condemned, not given further confidence by silence on the subject. Also, with the great many verses devoted by Paul to baptism, this is the only one where he ever mentions a so-called baptism on behalf of the dead.

A Different Opinion

I believe that there was no custom or practice among the Corinthian brethren of baptizing persons on behalf of dead persons. Any such practice which may have occurred later could possibly have been based upon a misunderstanding of this verse. Therefore, latter-day practice in no way justifies the thought that the Corinthians practiced such, and should not give weight to such opinions. In other words, just because scholars can find religious groups who may have practiced baptism for dead persons, does not imply that the Corinthians must have also done so.

I strongly believe that if such practice occurred, then Paul would have condemned it. He would not have allowed a congregation to knowingly participate in a sinful act, even to get his point across. Therefore, Paul did not use an ad hominem argument.

The context within which a difficult verse is presented will often times present a solution as to its meaning. The entire fifteenth chapter deals with the fact of the resurrection, its relationship to our belief, and the ultimate victory over sin and death. There are three concepts upon which Paul preaches that, if there be no resurrection, then your very efforts are in vain.

In verse 14 he says: “and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.” In verse 16 he says: “For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised.” And in verse 29 he says: “What shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all.” So, if there be no resurrection, then your faith is in vain, the gospel of Christ is a lie, and there is no reason for baptism.

Paul here places a little more weight on baptism than some of our contemporaries would like. Indeed, the denigration of baptism by the denominations may be part of the prejudice which conceals this verse’s interpretation. Because many denominations deny the importance of baptism, they cannot believe that it is being spoken of here. They prefer to believe that Paul is only referring to a sinful practice of the Corinthians. But not only does Paul place the gospel and faith in a position where it is directly dependent on a resurrection of the dead, but he puts baptism on an equal footing. This thought is in harmony with Paul’s teachings on the subject of baptism.

Rather than present multiple statements concerning the fact that the practice of baptism without a resurrection would simply be a bath, Paul unequivocally states it within one verse. A single verse being in conjunction and addition to what was just presented. I believe this thought to be borne out by Paul’s usage of the adverb “else.” Be-cause of his lengthy presentation on the necessity of a bodily resurrection, Paul does not reiterate this fact by repeating another lengthy presentation in relation to baptism. The argument has previously been presented. Paul here simply states that baptism also depends on a resurrection from the dead.

Some in conflict with this opinion may say, “Why did he use they, instead of we?” In verse 16, Paul said, “your faith.” Could we argue as above, that by using the adjective “your” Paul was acknowledging that their faith was different from his own. Why not use our? In verse two Paul again uses “you” in “by which also you are saved.” Why not use “we” instead of you? Again is Paul not saved by the very same gospel? To argue that “they” in verse 29 definitely excludes Paul is in-consistent with his message. “They” refers to those who are to receive or have received baptism. Paul is a member of this group. I am a member of this group. Why are they or anyone baptized if there will be no resurrection.

In verse 23 it says, “But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits; then they that are Christ’s, at his coming. ” Does Paul count himself as one of Christ’s own? Does his language here exclude him? Did he use “they” instead of “we” here because his is only a hope of everlasting life and not an assuredness? Why does they here include Paul, but in verse 29 exclude him?

Lastly, in verse 29 it says, “If the dead are not raised.” In verse 16 it says, “if the dead are not raised.” And concluding verse 16, “neither hath Christ been raised.” Is it simply coincidence that the phraseology is exactly the same. In verse 16 Paul concludes that if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. So too in verse 29, if the dead are not raised, then why be baptized? So then, when Paul said the dead in verse 29, I believe that he was referring to the resurrection of the dead.

I feel that I have presented a very credible answer to the question, “What does this verse mean?” It does not suffer from problems 1, 2, and 3. It does present an answer which is in harmony with the context, Paul’s character, and his message.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 20 p. 22-23
October 16, 1997

By Clint Springer

The temple in Jerusalem had been torn down and rebuilt twice, was full of splendor and riches, but Jesus plainly said it would be completely razzed. They wanted to know when?

Notice that these things concerned the apostles. They were living in troublesome times. A good commentary will tell of actual earthquakes, famines and such in those days (see Acts 11:27-30), but the two chapters of Matthew 24 and Luke 21 under consideration are specific to the tragedy named in our title.

When the Master was questioned about the kingdom, three catastrophic events came into focus: The crucifixion, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of the world (Luke 17:20-37). Terrible times were to come after the crucifixion, but certain distinctions will become clear as we re-view other chapters.

In the parable related by Luke (19:11-44) the noble-man is Jesus, but the coronation was foretold by Daniel (7:13, 14). However, those who rejected him were punished  no doubt relating both to the devastation brought against Jerusalem as well as final judgment on all.

In such a study Matthew 24 is usually considered. In that text two questions were asked, the first relating to the time when one stone would not be left standing on another. The second is about the end of the world, a topic beyond the purview of present study. Verses 1-35 constitute the first division, and all was to take place before that generation passed away (v. 34). That overlaps with a study of Luke 21, the transition text of Matthew 24 being verse 36.

When studying Old Testament prophecy, it is important to remember that Jesus said the final “end” of Judaism (A.D. 70) was that which Daniel foretold. At that point in time, all Old Testament prophecy found fulfillment (Luke 21:22).

The disciples were to be persecuted and any church history book will tell about that. Still, they were to preach being divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. The terrible tragedy shortly to unfold related to God’s judgment against rebellious Israel. As has been al-ready stated, that catastrophe took place when the Romans besieged the city, desecrated the temple, and burned the whole metropolis.

The prophet Daniel called this event “the abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15). How bad was it? The great tribulation, Jesus said, was to be worse than anything before or after (Matt. 24:21). Those who try to make this relate to the end of the world, or some devastation yet to take place, need to remember that it pertained only to Judea and was to happen before that generation passed away.

Matthew 22:7 reads, “But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.”

Matthew’s account said the gospel would be preached in all the world for a witness, and that happened ten or so years before the fulfillment came about (Col. 1:6; Rom. 10:18). Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are called apocalyptic language, exotic figures and symbols similar to the book of Revelation. Notice also that specific signs at that time were in contrast to normal times that will be characteristic of the end of the world. A “coming of the Lord” does not always demand a personal appearance, for Old Testament examples use similar language when in reality one nation was used to punish another.

Since words like “catastrophe” have been used to describe that which Jesus said was worse than anything that had ever happened, it is needful to get an insight into the events of A.D. 70. Most of the following notes are taken from the writings of Josephus, the renowned Jewish historian. He was present during the siege.

After the Jews rebelled, Vaspasian began his march to subdue the cities of Judea. When he was called back to Rome, his son Titus continued the campaign and besieged Jerusalem calling on them to surrender. There were al-ready seditions and civil war, three factions vying for control. There was fighting in and around the temple, it being “de-filed with murders” on every side.

Had the Jews been united, the Romans would have been hard pressed to capture the city due to the uneven terrain and three walls that encompassed most of it. A major factor was famine, for the factions burned several years’ worth of “corn” in their fighting.

Owing to the Feast of the Passover, there were great numbers in the city  dead bodies, unburied, everywhere. Besides arrows, both sides fought with “engines” that hurled darts, rocks, and spears. The Romans engaged huge battering rams. The Romans build “banks” by cutting down all the trees; starvation set in; the strong began to take by force what little food the poor and weak possessed. As months passed, the situation became progressively worse. Some slipped outside the city searching for food, and those caught were tortured. Upwards to five hundred a day were crucified in plain sight of the wall, but the Jews would not surrender. Hordes of dead bodies were cast from a wall into a deep valley, where “thick putrefaction” made Titus draw back in horror.

Many who escaped or surrendered swallowed gold coins in an effort to get away with their savings. When this be-came known, multitudes were murdered and their intestines opened in search of the money. Josephus says that in one night two thousand were disemboweled as soldiers looked for gold.

151,880 corpses were brought out one gate; another re-ported 600,000. Inside the city, some rooms were stacked with bodies like racks of timber. Starvation became so severe, some began to search the dunghills for anything edible  for bits of undigested grain. The “pestilential stench” became overwhelming.

On page 579, the historian tells a story so contemptible that it’s hard to believe. Sustained by reliable witnesses, the story is about a woman who slew her son, then roasted and used him for food. This was foretold by Moses when he wrote about the curses that would come upon Israel because of disobedience (Deut. 28:53).

The temple was looted, burned, stones overturned, and dead bodies were heaped upon one another. The Romans set up “ensigns” in the temple and offered sacrifices be-fore them. The whole city was then burned.

Being tired of slaughter, about 40,000 were allowed to go free, but the sound of body were made slaves, some sent to the Egyptian mines, others turned into gladiators.

Some of the final figures look like this: There were 2,700,000 in the city; 1,100,000 were slain during the whole siege; 97,000 were taken captive. This article only relates partially the atrocities perpetrated by both sides in that war. It lasted about seven months, and the words of Jesus were indeed fulfilled during that generation.

Guardian of Truth XLI: 20 p. 14-15
October 16, 1997

By Louis J. Sharp

God always has had “messengers” to deliver his Word to the people. Each “messenger” is obligated to deliver God’s message  not his own. By the pen of inspiration, Paul wrote: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel; Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Gal. 1:6-10). Every individual must make a determination in reference to truth and error.

Frequently, when gospel preachers urge the necessity of obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ, a reluctant hearer seeks to shirk his responsibility by saying: “You are not my judge.” To this, I quickly retort, “No, I am not your judge, and for this I am forever grateful.” I am so happy that everyone will receive righteous judgment from him who judges all.

Yet, those who condemn the preacher for the message he delivers, themselves are guilty of condemning or judging. Self-righteously, they quote Jesus’ words: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 7:1). Evidently, they have not yet discovered that almost in the same breath, Jesus admonished, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you” (v. 6). Also, “beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (v. 15). Again, “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (v. 20). Specifically, these admonitions demand some degree of judgment.

Jesus does condemn harsh, censorious judgment. We must never be guilty of this harmful practice. But, as Malcolm often says, “We are fruit inspectors.” “By their fruits ye shall know them.” A man who habitually lies may be called a liar. A woman who is a tale-bearer very properly is known as a gossiper. One who commits murder is a murderer, make no mistake about it. And the disobedient person, who has never obeyed the gospel of Christ, has not been added to the body of Christ (Acts 2:38, 47). Good people, this is not judging.

Like John, we “warn you to flee from the wrath to come. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance” (Matt. 3:7-8).

Guardian of Truth XLI: 20 p. 7
October 16, 1997

By Johnie Edwards

Elvis Presley, known as the “King Of Roc ‘n’ Roll” died twenty years ago, August 16, 1977 at the age of 42. Graceland opened to tourists in 1982 and draws more than 700,000 visitors a year, according to a story in the Bloomington, Indiana Herald-Times on August 16, 1997. According to an article in Saturday, August 16, 1997 The New York Times, the Elvis Industry is a multimillion-dollar company with rights to dozen of products tied to Elvis Presley, from records to T-shirts. People are now making him a religious icon!

The First Presleyterian Church

USA Today carried a front page cover story on August 8-10, 1997 and made reference to “The First Presleyterian Church of Elvis The Divine.” The article further stated, “Already, academics study Elvis as a role model for the first stages of a new religion. Some suggest parallels between Elvis’ following and the early stages of major religions. There are parallels in the origins of Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism and the Elvis movement.”

This is exactly how human religious organizations get started. The USA To-day article also said, “Like any other m or religion, it will take on a life of its own after the historical players have left the building.” When folks revere a man too much, like they did Martin Luther or John Wesley, new churches begin.

If a “First Presleyterian Church” is started, it will be too late to be or even resemble the Lord’s church we read about in the New Testament. The Lord’s church began in Jerusalem (Zech. 1:16, Luke 24:46-47; Acts 2:5, 47) by men hearing and obeying gospel preaching concerning Jesus Christ, the Son of God. This church that begins in Memphis, Tennessee will have it beginning at the wrong place to be the church of Christ Paul refers to in Romans 16:16.

Worship

No doubt the worship in this latest religion will be directed to Elvis Presley’s image as he is revered.

The Bible teaches us that we are not to worship men. When Peter went to Cornelius’ house, “. . . Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshiped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:25-26). Here is a good example that teaches us that we are not to worship men.

God must be the object of our worship. As Jesus talked with the woman at the well, among other things, he said, “God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). God is to be worshiped, not men. As Jesus responded to the devil’s temptation to worship him, Jesus told us whom to worship, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4:10). As John fell be-fore the feet of an angel to worship, do you recall what the angel said to John? “Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God” (Rev. 22:8-9).

Isn’t it strange that people are never content to just do as the Lord has directed, but want to create some new religion and some other object of worship than that pre-scribed on the pages of inspiration? Time will only tell how well this new religion and worship catches on!

Guardian of Truth XLI: 20 p. 16
October 16, 1997