Washing the Dead, Fighting Beasts

"Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:29). This verse is a stickler in that it is not easy to determine what Paul was talking about. It helps to keep in mind that the context of the verse is Paul's continuing defense of the reality of resurrection.

Much of the problem comes from our sinful desire to turn the Bible and Christianity into something mystical and spiritual, as a way of distancing ourselves from the plain meaning and the personal responsibilities that accrue to a clear understanding of God's Word. And Satan is very willing to help with this effort. A brief examination of the variety of interpretations and uses of this verse since Paul wrote it provides adequate evidence of Satan's desire to confuse people about God's Word. And one of the more successful ways to do that has been through its mystification. I simply cite the Mormon practice of baptizing the dead as an example of how far people are willing to go with these mystical and spiritual interpretations.

So, if this verse does not mean what the Mormons think it means, what does it mean? Of the many interpretations that have been suggested, I will briefly review two possibilities and suggest what I believe to be the most likely to be true.

Some have suggested that the word "baptizo" in this verse does not refer to the ceremony of baptism, but that the word is used in its root meaning of wash. Acts 9:37 and Luke 11:38 are cited in support of this belief. "Now there was in Joppa a disciple named Tabitha, which, translated, means Dorcas. She was full of good works and acts of charity. In those days she became ill and died, and when they had washed her, they laid her in an upper room" (Acts 9:36-37). Note that the word washed in Acts 9:37 is not "baptizo." So, how can such an argument be made? It is made from the use of the word "baptizo" in Luke 11:38: "The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash (baptizo) before dinner." Here the word is "baptizo," and the verse makes no sense if it refers to the ceremony of baptism. It simply means wash. The words are somewhat interchangable.

The point is that the understanding and use of the word "baptizo" when Paul wrote this letter was not strictly limited to the ceremony of baptism. Therefore, Paul's use of the word in verse 29 could easily have been a reference to the practice of washing corpses before burial. If this was the case, Paul meant something like, "what do people mean by washing the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are the dead washed?" The common understanding in the First Century, and the common practice among the Jews, was that corpses were washed prior to burial in preparation for resurrection.

Thus, Paul was arguing that this tradition of washing corpses testified to the reality of resurrection. This explanation of the verse is certainly adequate and it conforms to the larger context of this section.

The second and more likely interpretation of this verse comes from Matthew Henry. Henry argues that the definite article the (i.e., the dead) in Greek is singular, and that the word "dead" (nekros) serves as an implied reference to Jesus, who had died. Here the verse is understood to say, "what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead Jesus? If the dead Jesus is not raised at all, why are people baptized for the dead Jesus?

Henry understands Paul to be arguing that if Jesus was not resurrected, then baptism meant nothing. Baptism was (and always should be) a big deal in the lives of believers. Christians in Rome were persecuted because of their baptism. A person could flirt with Christianity and not be in trouble with Caesar. But when they submitted to baptism, Rome released the hounds upon them.

While the great persecutions of Christian history were still yet to come, Paul knew persecution based upon Christian baptism first hand. After Paul was baptized, the Jews began to pursue and to persecute him. Paul was a forerunner of Christian martyrdom, and was arguing here that the reality of the resurrection was the thing that made Christian baptism significant. Again, his argument was to support the reality of resurrection through an appeal to baptism.

In support of this understanding Paul then asks, "Why am I in danger every hour? I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day!" (1 Corinthians 15:30-31). In danger of what? In danger of persecution because of his baptism. The Jews had put out a contract on his life (Acts 9:23). Here Paul attested that he was in danger of death every day because he glorified the church (or the people) of Jesus Christ. Why? Because he was numbered among his Christian brothers as a disciple of Jesus Christ. And what had made him a member of Christ's body? Of course he had been regenerated on the Road to Damascus, but he had been received as a member of Christ's body through baptism (Acts 9:18), as we all are.

These verses are simply an extension of Paul's argument that resurrection was a reality and that everything hung on it, including baptism. What makes me think this? Because it is consistent with Paul's next argument for the reality of resurrection. "What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die'" (1 Corinthians 15:32). Again, he is making another argument for the reality of resurrection. That's the theme that runs through these verses.

According to Strong's (G2351) Paul's reference to fighting with beasts is to be understood as an encounter with furious men. We know this because Paul prefaced this reference by saying, "humanly speaking," suggesting that he was speaking metaphorically. He was suggesting that, as bad as the false teachers and leaders at Corinth had been, they were nothing compared with those at Ephesus. I suspect that he said this in order to comfort the faithful Christians at Corinth. They could rejoice because their situation wasn't as bad as it had been at Ephesus.

Again, his point was that the gospel of Jesus Christ had tamed the beasts at Ephesus. And it had been the gospel based upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ that had done so. Here Paul was saying that if the resurrection was not a reality, he had nothing to gain from struggling to straighten out the poor, misguided Christians at Ephesus. To put it positively, his ministry, his struggle, not only served the glory of God through Jesus Christ, but it would be a feather in his own cap upon his own resurrection. If resurrection is not true, he said, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (1 Corinthians 15:32), mocking a common belief of those who denied the reality of resurrection. Paul alluded to the fact that he would be rewarded in heaven because of the reality of resurrection. However you account for the details of the argument, it is simply another argument for the reality of resurrection.

And he's not done. "Do not be deceived: 'Bad company ruins good morals.' Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame" (1 Corinthians 15:33-34). Here Paul identified the source of their confusion they had been listening to the wrong people. They had been captured and influenced by sin as a drunk is captured and influenced by alcohol. They had confused the wisdom of the world with the wisdom of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:33 is a restatement of a common biblical sentiment. Much of Scripture is about the corruption of God's people. This verse also reflects the sentiments of the 14th-century Latin proverb "a rotten apple spoils the barrel." Why does a rotten apple spoil the barrel? Because of the spread of mold or other diseases from the bad apple to the rest. Mold and other forms of rot spread by proximity and contact. What can the good apples do to counteract the spread of mold and rot? Nothing. Their only recourse is to avoid proximity. Paul's argument here is that sin and the manifestations of sin are contagious and Christians need to avoid sin.