↓
 

1 Corinthians 15:29 – ‘Baptized for the dead’

Walking With Giants Posted on by

This entry is part 70 of 89 in the series: Troublesome texts

What will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they baptized for them?

As Thiselton (Shorter Commentary) says, Paul’s main point is clear enough:

“baptism for the dead” (whatever this means in detail) would be pointless and senseless if there were no resurrection. But since, evidently, they have themselves baptized for the sake of the dead, either some people tacitly assume the truth of the resurrection or else their action is self-contradictory.

As to the precise and detailed meaning, commentators from Poole to Hodge to Verbrugge have been willing express a degree of agnosticism.

Here are some of the alternatives.

1. Paul is using an ad hominem argument

Barrett suggests that this difficult verse refers to a practice (noted, but not approved by Paul) amongst the Corinthians of vicarious baptism. It may that in a time of epidemic, for example, a number of people had believed in Christ but had not had an opportunity to be baptised. There were some among the Corinthians who would undergo baptism on their behalf. Paul is then using an ‘ad hominem’ argument (note the ‘as for us’ in v30):- ‘What would be the point of some of you being baptised on behalf of the deceased, if there is no afterlife?’ It is important to recognise that Paul is not focussing on baptism at all here; he is focussing on resurrection. And this is one of a series of ‘if-then’ arguments that he uses to show the Corinthians how ridiculous it was on their own grounds for some of them to deny the resurrection.

Soards also favours the ad hominem approach, while expressing uncertainty about the type of baptism being referred to:

Paul refers to the practice of some in Corinth of being baptized in behalf of the dead. Whether this means they were baptized for their own dead bodies, or for the saints of the OT who died before Christ, or for family and friends who were on their way to being baptized because they believed in Christ but died before baptism, is impossible to determine and irrelevant for grasping Paul’s point.

R.E.O. White, similarly, thinks that Paul is using an ad hominem argument:

First Corinthians 15:29 remains an enigma, although over thirty “explanations” have been suggested. Substituting alternative phrases-baptism for “the spiritually dead,” “the dying,” “in memory of the departed,” or others-merely multiplies problems. Vicarious baptisms for the benefit of the dead, practiced on the fringe of Christianity from the second century, illustrate the influence of this verse, but not Paul’s meaning. Paul is arguing that if Jesus has not risen, then Christian faith, preaching, remission, hope, are all vain; so is “baptism for the dead.” He cannot mean Christian baptism, for none of its conditions or benefits, as Paul expounds them, can be affirmed of the dead. Besides, the following phrase (“And as for us.” NIV; “And we ourselves.” neb) dissociates Paul and his colleagues from the practice.

If docetic type Christians infected the church at Corinth, they may have accepted baptism for departed souls: but how would that prove bodily resurrection? Similarly, some Dionysian rites and some practices of the mystery religions were held to ensure access, and safe journeying, in the spiritual world, even for those already dead. And Paul could argue from pagan parallels without immediately condemning them (see, e.g., 1 Cor 10:20-22). But this analogy again does not necessarily imply bodily resurrection.

Yet even as a Pharisee Paul could not conceive a disembodied immortality, leaving the surviving personality incomplete. (see 2 Cor 5:1-4) Is he then arguing that even pagans, if their baptism for the dead be properly understood, testify unconsciously to a bodily resurrection?’ (EDBT)

If Paul is referring to vicarious baptism, why does he not condemn it?  Morris answers:

It is perhaps significant that, while Paul does not stop to condemn the practice of which he speaks here, he dissociates himself from it (‘what will those do …?’; contrast ‘why do we endanger ourselves …?’, v. 30). He simply mentions the practice as taking place, and asks what meaning it can possibly have if the dead do not rise.

According to Blomberg, there is some evidence that such proxy baptisms did take place in the early (as well as the later) days of the church.  ‘Paul neither condemns nor condones such a practice but argues for its irrelevance if Christ is not raised. In other words, those who are baptizing people on behalf of the dead contradict their own theology that denies the resurrection.’

2. Baptism was being practice on behalf of believers who had died before they could be baptized

Of the dozens of interpretations that have been proposed, Brauch (HSB) thinks that only two have any viability:

(1) some Christians in Corinth (presumably persons who had already undergone their own baptism) were undergoing the rite on behalf of dead relatives or friends;

(2) the rite was being practiced on behalf of persons who were Christians, but who had died before baptism was administered.

If the first of these is accepted, then Paul’s argument is ad hominem, as noted above, because the beliefs entailed would be alien to those taught by him.  But, according to Ciampa and Rosner, there is no evidence, either from Christian or pagan sources, that vicarious baptism was ever carried out in the days of the early church.

Schreiner is sympathetic to the second of these.  But the objection is that in the apostolic period baptism usually took place very soon after an individual’s profession of faith (Acts 2:37–41; 8:34–38; 10:44–48; 16:29–33).  There would not have been must time for converts to die!

3. Baptism looked forward to resurrection life shared with believers who had already died

Ciampa and Rosner, in their rather thorough discussion of this passage, think that the word translated ‘for’ may mean, in context, ‘on account of’.  According to their preferred interpretation, Paul’s meaning is something like: ‘Why are people being baptised, if they have no hope of joining in fellowship with believers who have pre-deceased them?’  This approach, they claim, is consistent with Paul’s emphasis on resurrection in this chapter, and is also consistent with his teaching in 2 Cor 5:2; Phil 1:21 and elsewhere.

The same commentators quote Hull:

We “can almost hear Paul bellowing: ‘Look at those eager baptismal candidates. Look at their faith. It was once yours. They believe all that I preached about Jesus. They do not doubt that many persons including myself have seen him alive after death. They do not doubt that those among us who have fallen asleep will rise on the last day. As a matter of fact, it is their firm faith in the resurrection of Christ and of his death that moves them to baptism. That is what they believe. That is what you once believed. Come back to your senses!’ ”

4. Part of the meaning of baptism is that it shares in the testimony of believers who have already departed this life

Thiselton (Shorter Commentary) also thinks that ‘for’ should be understood here as meaning, ‘for the sake of’.  He is sympathetic to the view just mentioned, viz. that part of the motivation of those being baptised was that they ‘wanted to be united with their Christian loved ones who had died. Hence they sought baptism for the sake of the dead in the sense of their wanting to join them in the future life, which formed part of their motivation for baptism.’

On balance, however, Thiselton thinks that

the practice is most likely to reflect the dying testimony of those who witnessed to Christ with radiant confidence on their deathbeds. These may have been loved ones or simply radiant Christians. Death strips away pretense. If such Christians could face death with joyful anticipation of resurrection with Christ, this may well have led some to full commitment to Christ and to baptism. Paul asks: Do you no longer share their confidence in being raised with Christ? If you doubt the resurrection, why were you baptized?

5. Paul is referring to those who are baptized in the very teeth of death

‘The meaning I like best is, “What shall they do who are baptized with the certainty that immediately after baptism they will be dragged away to die – baptized in the very teeth of death?” For as soon as anyone was baptized, the Romans would be looking after him, to drag him away to death. Thus they were baptized as if they were being washed for their burial and dedicating themselves to the grave.’ (The Best of Spurgeon, 331)

6. Paul is referring to ‘spiritual’, rather than to physical, death

Verbrugge inclines to the view that spiritual, rather than physical death is in mind here.  Paul would then questioning the logic of people who were dead in sin believing that they had been raised to life in Christ (as symbolised by baptism), if that life was snuffed out when the body died.

Comments are closed.

↑