"Stand in the place where you live, now face north. Think about direction, wonder why you haven't before." -R.E.M.
Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead
Josh Crain
I want to begin this essay by admitting the difficulty that this passage has caused scholars for some time now. Though many attempts have been made at coming to a general consensus among New Testament scholars as to the meaning of this passage, no such thing has happened. The lack of context clues and the surprisingly quick insertion of the fact of baptism of the dead in Paul’s discourse are just two reasons for the difficulty that scholars have had in interpreting it.
As is usually a good practice, the best way to begin our understanding of these Scriptures is by starting with what we know and moving to what we don’t know. Unfortunately, there is very little that we know for sure about his particular passage. Most scholars can agree on only a few things.
First, that the recipients of Paul’s letter in the Corinthian church must have known what it was that Paul was alluding to as there is no explanation give; this act of “baptism for the dead” seems to be understood both by the author and his audience. It is also generally agreed upon that the Corinthian church likely participated in the act of baptizing for the dead. Finally, most scholars have agreed that the act itself involved a vicarious baptism undergone by the living for the benefit of the physically dead.
However, with those few known and generally accepted premises out of the way, there are still two highly disputed questions that hang in the balance: “Why did baptism on behalf of the dead arise?” and “What did it mean to the Corinthian Christians?”
I believe that the answers to these two difficult questions may lie in the manner in which the dead were revered in ancient Greek and Roman society. It was believed that the family of the dead had an obligation to help their deceased become integrated into the realm of the afterlife and they did this in various ways depending on their particular beliefs and their financial situation.
In Greek culture, periodic commemorations took place to honor the dead along with festivals and proper mourning and burial rites. A few Greek graves even had feeding tubes so that blood offerings and libations could be communicated directly to the deceased. These traditions and offerings appear to have sprung from the belief that the dead could benefit from them.
Roman customs differed somewhat from Greek customs, but they held their deceased in just as high a regard. Providing for their deceased could entail a major financial investment; often tombs for the dead were grand in scope including such amenities as dining rooms, kitchens, wells, and cisterns. It was popular belief that, aside from the appearance of affluence these amenities provided the family, the dead actually “dwelt in the tomb” and would therefore need use of such facilities. The archeological information we can glean from excavations at Corinth seem to affirm this picture of Roman and Greek concern for the deceased.
Many of these strange burial practices, can be attributed to the rise of the worship of Demeter and the Demeter cult. Within the cult developed a fascination of the underworld and a concern for the deceased and the world of the deceased. Most likely the Corinthian Christians, whether they had come from one of the cults in Corinth or not, were at least very familiar with this concern and felt a strong sense of obligation to the dead.
In light of this cultic worship, a direct result of which was the concern for the dead, Corinthian Christianity had to show this same concern for the deceased in order to survive and flourish. If concern for the dead was a large part of the culture, then any religion that did not share that concern as part of its doctrine would fail because of the cultural importance that had been placed on it.
Many of the Corinthians who joined the church most likely brought with them as part of their baggage this great concern for the dead. Therefore, I believe it is quite likely that Corinthian Christians would not have instituted baptism on behalf of the dead if Corinthian religion of the Roman era had not been preoccupied with the realm of the dead.
In other words, baptism for the dead was not inherently a Christian doctrine. The reason for Paul’s single mention of it is that it was likely only relevant in Corinthian culture because of the cultic practices that the Corinthian Christians had come from. Though Paul does not admonish them for this act, it is clear that the act is not commanded as part of basic Christian practices. Furthermore, there’s to evidence that leads us to believe the practice was in effect for a large block of time.
If this practice did indeed arise out of Corinthian concern for the dead, then the practice would almost certainly have died out by the end of the second century when the Roman Empire demanded a common burial practice to be in effect for all people. The likelihood of that seems good, as besides Paul’s fleeting mention of baptism for the dead, we have no other early Christian writings that mention it as a common practice amongst Christian congregations or even specifically at the church in Corinth.
Some feel that the practice of baptism for the dead, in the minds of the Corinthians, was merely one of several ceremonial rituals. Some feel that it was a singular rite of passage in order that God would allow them to pass easily from this life into the next. 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 in to death/raised to newness of life. It is unclear whether the Corinthians understood baptism in the lofty terms that Paul did, but they seemed to have had reverence for it out of tradition, if nothing else. However, it seems that baptism was seen by the Christian community as an expression of confidence that death did not pose a threat to the Christian; they were protected by the blood of Christ and would spend an eternity with God.
This finally brings us to the wider implications of baptism for the dead. Why would Paul bring this up in his arguments? It does not seem likely that he would have broached the subject unless he though it would make an effective argument when presented to the Corinthian church. Did they deny the resurrection of the dead? Did they deny any kind of afterlife? As is often the case when exegeteing the epistles, we are left scratching our heads because we only have one side of the conversation. Paul may have written on the topic because it showed a contradiction between the beliefs and actions of some of the Corinthian Christian. Perhaps some of these members of the body were practicing baptism for the dead while denying that there was any kind of afterlife. What a contradiction!
Paul’s audience may have never made the connection between baptism for the dead and the resurrection. However, if that is the case it likely wasn’t because Paul did not try to explain it in these terms. There are still many unanswered questions about this passage. However, Romans 6:1-11 may shed some light on the issue: “baptism joins the believer to the death and resurrection of Christ.” Is it possible that this is the all-important connection between baptism and the resurrection that Paul desired his audience in Corinth to discern?
Josh Crain
"Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" — 1 Corinthians 15:29
I want to begin this essay by admitting the difficulty that this passage has caused scholars for some time now. Though many attempts have been made at coming to a general consensus among New Testament scholars as to the meaning of this passage, no such thing has happened. The lack of context clues and the surprisingly quick insertion of the fact of baptism of the dead in Paul’s discourse are just two reasons for the difficulty that scholars have had in interpreting it.
As is usually a good practice, the best way to begin our understanding of these Scriptures is by starting with what we know and moving to what we don’t know. Unfortunately, there is very little that we know for sure about his particular passage. Most scholars can agree on only a few things.
First, that the recipients of Paul’s letter in the Corinthian church must have known what it was that Paul was alluding to as there is no explanation give; this act of “baptism for the dead” seems to be understood both by the author and his audience. It is also generally agreed upon that the Corinthian church likely participated in the act of baptizing for the dead. Finally, most scholars have agreed that the act itself involved a vicarious baptism undergone by the living for the benefit of the physically dead.
However, with those few known and generally accepted premises out of the way, there are still two highly disputed questions that hang in the balance: “Why did baptism on behalf of the dead arise?” and “What did it mean to the Corinthian Christians?”
I believe that the answers to these two difficult questions may lie in the manner in which the dead were revered in ancient Greek and Roman society. It was believed that the family of the dead had an obligation to help their deceased become integrated into the realm of the afterlife and they did this in various ways depending on their particular beliefs and their financial situation.
In Greek culture, periodic commemorations took place to honor the dead along with festivals and proper mourning and burial rites. A few Greek graves even had feeding tubes so that blood offerings and libations could be communicated directly to the deceased. These traditions and offerings appear to have sprung from the belief that the dead could benefit from them.
Roman customs differed somewhat from Greek customs, but they held their deceased in just as high a regard. Providing for their deceased could entail a major financial investment; often tombs for the dead were grand in scope including such amenities as dining rooms, kitchens, wells, and cisterns. It was popular belief that, aside from the appearance of affluence these amenities provided the family, the dead actually “dwelt in the tomb” and would therefore need use of such facilities. The archeological information we can glean from excavations at Corinth seem to affirm this picture of Roman and Greek concern for the deceased.
Many of these strange burial practices, can be attributed to the rise of the worship of Demeter and the Demeter cult. Within the cult developed a fascination of the underworld and a concern for the deceased and the world of the deceased. Most likely the Corinthian Christians, whether they had come from one of the cults in Corinth or not, were at least very familiar with this concern and felt a strong sense of obligation to the dead.
In light of this cultic worship, a direct result of which was the concern for the dead, Corinthian Christianity had to show this same concern for the deceased in order to survive and flourish. If concern for the dead was a large part of the culture, then any religion that did not share that concern as part of its doctrine would fail because of the cultural importance that had been placed on it.
Many of the Corinthians who joined the church most likely brought with them as part of their baggage this great concern for the dead. Therefore, I believe it is quite likely that Corinthian Christians would not have instituted baptism on behalf of the dead if Corinthian religion of the Roman era had not been preoccupied with the realm of the dead.
In other words, baptism for the dead was not inherently a Christian doctrine. The reason for Paul’s single mention of it is that it was likely only relevant in Corinthian culture because of the cultic practices that the Corinthian Christians had come from. Though Paul does not admonish them for this act, it is clear that the act is not commanded as part of basic Christian practices. Furthermore, there’s to evidence that leads us to believe the practice was in effect for a large block of time.
If this practice did indeed arise out of Corinthian concern for the dead, then the practice would almost certainly have died out by the end of the second century when the Roman Empire demanded a common burial practice to be in effect for all people. The likelihood of that seems good, as besides Paul’s fleeting mention of baptism for the dead, we have no other early Christian writings that mention it as a common practice amongst Christian congregations or even specifically at the church in Corinth.
Some feel that the practice of baptism for the dead, in the minds of the Corinthians, was merely one of several ceremonial rituals. Some feel that it was a singular rite of passage in order that God would allow them to pass easily from this life into the next. 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 in to death/raised to newness of life. It is unclear whether the Corinthians understood baptism in the lofty terms that Paul did, but they seemed to have had reverence for it out of tradition, if nothing else. However, it seems that baptism was seen by the Christian community as an expression of confidence that death did not pose a threat to the Christian; they were protected by the blood of Christ and would spend an eternity with God.
This finally brings us to the wider implications of baptism for the dead. Why would Paul bring this up in his arguments? It does not seem likely that he would have broached the subject unless he though it would make an effective argument when presented to the Corinthian church. Did they deny the resurrection of the dead? Did they deny any kind of afterlife? As is often the case when exegeteing the epistles, we are left scratching our heads because we only have one side of the conversation. Paul may have written on the topic because it showed a contradiction between the beliefs and actions of some of the Corinthian Christian. Perhaps some of these members of the body were practicing baptism for the dead while denying that there was any kind of afterlife. What a contradiction!
Paul’s audience may have never made the connection between baptism for the dead and the resurrection. However, if that is the case it likely wasn’t because Paul did not try to explain it in these terms. There are still many unanswered questions about this passage. However, Romans 6:1-11 may shed some light on the issue: “baptism joins the believer to the death and resurrection of Christ.” Is it possible that this is the all-important connection between baptism and the resurrection that Paul desired his audience in Corinth to discern?