A reader named Chuck McKnight recently sent in an email asking about 1 Corinthians 15:29 and Paul’s statement about being “baptized for the dead.” Here is what he wrote:
I wanted to see if you plan on touching on a particular verse regarding baptism? It’s one of the more confusing verses in the Bible, regardless of one’s view of baptism, but I’m particularly interested in what someone from your perspective would make of it.
I’m referring to 1 Corinthians 15:29 and the “baptism for the dead.” This is one I’ve done a good deal of study on, as I did a brief article for it as part of our going through 1 Corinthians 15 in AiG’s biblical authority devotional series. If you’re interested, you can see my perspective on it at the following link: Baptism for the Dead.
Mine is basically a shorter explanation of the same conclusion Albert Barnes came to (Just skip down to verse 29).
I actually had not planned on addressing this Scripture passage, but I suppose that it light of my series on baptism, it would be wise to at least consider this difficult Scripture.
In my forthcoming commentary on 1 Corinthians, here is some of what I wrote about 1 Corinthians 15:29:
It is not known what practice Paul is referring to when he writes about being baptized for the dead. The most popular option is that the Corinthian believers were undergoing water baptism for believers who had already died but whom had not been baptized. If this is the case, Paul does not affirm or condemn this practice, but is only stating that what the Corinthians were doing was pointless if there is no resurrection from the dead (as some of them were teaching).
In light of the following context, it might be preferable to understand Paul’s reference to baptisms not as water baptism or ritualistic washings for the dead, but as identification with the dead (cf. 10:2). Symbolically, a baptism is a public identification with what (or whom) the person is being baptized into. In this case, the Corinthian believers would be identifying themselves spiritually with those who had gone before. This seems to be the point Paul develops further in vv 30-32.
My explanation needs a lot more work and research. I wrote this section about four years ago, and to be honest, I am not thoroughly convinced of my conclusion any longer. I need to study it further.
In reading Chuck McKnight’s conclusion in his article, Baptism for the Dead, I think he might be on to something. It is possible that “the dead” refers not to other dead people, but to the person who is baptized. We are, after all, dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:5; Col 2:13). In this case, “baptism for the dead” would be our own baptism, representing our passage from being dead in sin to alive in Christ through our full identification with the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Chuck’s conclusion is this:
Given this understanding of baptism, when Paul spoke of those “who are baptized for the dead,” it seems very possible that he is referring to all believers when they are baptized. Believers’ baptism is “for the dead” or “concerning the dead [who will rise].” That is what gives it meaning. Paul may have been saying that “if the dead do not rise at all,” baptism would be pointless.
Thank you, Chuck, for sending in the question, and for providing a link to your own research on this difficult Scripture!
What do the rest of you think? What is Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 15:29 when he writes about being “baptized for the dead”?
Thanks for the mention, Jeremy!
It certainly is interesting to look into exactly what Paul was referring to. In the link provided, Albert Barnes pretty well covers the main hypotheses on what exactly Paul meant with that phrase; though I think it’s kinda confusing that he numbers each possibility but in the fifth says that there are two more, discusses one at length, then provides subsections a. through e. on refutation to that one then stating the finally possibility as the last sentence of subsection e, I think it would have been clearer to list it as 6, then proceed to explain why he believes it the most likely explanation.
In any case, I tend to agree with him (and apparently Chuck Knight) that this is the most likely explanation, though I don’t see it as being mutually exclusive as his possibility #3. On the other hand, Albert’s possibility #4 is reasonable, it has the difficulties he raises, but it Paul’s use of ‘they’ rather than ‘you’ sound like he may be referring to a group who practices something he disapproves of rather than the Corinthians he is writing to; in this sense he’d be saying “Even these people who do this baptism for the dead wouldn’t be doing it if they didn’t understand that there was a resurrection.”
In any case, though we might have to say it’s interesting to consider what the phrase means; we have to honestly conclude that there’s not enough context or information available for us today to understand what the Corinthians would have required no explanation for. Nonetheless, we can conclude that it really doesn’t matter, the context doesn’t make it clear exactly what it is to ‘baptize for the dead’ but it does make it clear what point he was illustrating with it anyways:
He’s developing an argument about the significance of the doctrine of the resurrection by discussing the logical consequence of denying it (verses 12-19), going on a very typical Pauline digression almost as if he’s overcome by joy at the positive truth and has to triumphantly proclaim it (verses 20-28) then finally returning to drive home the practical point again (verses 29-35).
The logical argument he is making is: If there is no resurrection beyond death then Christ wasn’t raised and if Christ wasn’t raised then both the message we are spreading as false and the effort we’re putting into it is wasted; if that were the case we’d be better off just just enjoying an earthly life while it lasted. It is clear that he is refuting those within the church who didn’t believe in the resurrection of the dead, perhaps they hoped to practice Christianity as a way of gaining earthly benefits and no more, as had been common in many early religious practices.
The only big difficulty in following his logic is his tendency to digress from his main point then return; it doesn’t translate well into English. In verse 29 he starts with the word “epei”, usually translated as “Else” or “Otherwise.” In English we expect that when a sentence starts with that, it is referring to the topic of the previous sentence, but in Greek the word can have an implied “As I was saying earlier.”
If you’re not a big on way to technical, in depth Bible talks, this is probably about the time to stop reading this post, as I’m about to nerd out and I know I can get dry; but I think the following explanation helps to understand how to follow Paul’s thought process with all his ‘else’, ‘since’, ‘but then’ and ‘therefore’s that don’t always seem to follow what he just said:
It’s like the Greek οὖν, often translated as “Therefore” or “Then.” In English we expect a sentence beginning with these words to refer to the previous sentence and reach it’s logical conclusion, and many times this is how Paul uses οὖν, but unlike English it can implicitly be referring to something he was talking about earlier and then reach the conclusion. For example Romans chapter 12 starts with a “Therefore” and implores the reader to present themselves as a living sacrifice. But this “Therefore” doesn’t make sense if you look a the end of chapter 11, where Paul has digressed in a lengthy doxology, which while it discusses intriguing mysteries of God and praises God, doesn’t lead to the logical conclusion that we should present ourselves as living sacrifices to him, but if you read into that “οὖν” an ‘as I was saying earlier’, you can see that before the doxology he issued an important warning in Romans 11:22 – if God is willing enough to be so severe as to cut of the natural branches (the Jews) he will certainly be willing to cut of the ones that have been grafted on (the Gentiles); Romans 12:1-2 is a very logical ‘therefore’ to follow Romans 11:21-24.
John,
Great discussion. You make some great points! And “nerd out” all you want! I love digging into the Greek.
One thing is for sure… there is not enough context or knowledge of what was going on in Corinth at that time to be too dogmatic on any one view.
Hello from a new commenter!
Here is another possible interpretation: Paul is speaking metaphorically for suffering for the lost. He is saying that the resurrection motivates him to spend his life and preach the good news to the perishing. Otherwise, “why do we stand in jeopardy every hour?” (vs.30).
Paul said that he died daily. The apostles were “immersed” in sufferings and persecution all for the purpose of bringing life to the dead.
Rick,
That is a great option. I had not considered that one.
There is only one that cheated the grave.
True!
My sister sent me this option, which came from Kenneth Bailey:
Bailey says it probably refers to Christians who were married to non-Christians. Then the Christian dies. So the non-Christian gets baptized and becomes a believer in order to be with the dead Christian who is in heaven. So they are getting baptized b/c of the dead person, to be with them in the afterlife, but not necessarily out of faith in Christ.
I Corinthians 15:29
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?
This is a very odd passage of Scripture. The Mormons use this passage as the basis for their belief in Baptism for the Dead. I will present the orthodox Christian/Lutheran view of this passage below, but first I would like us to look at something else in this passage that is odd:
If the Church in Corinth had been taught by the Apostle Paul that the manner in which one is saved is to pray (verbally or nonverbally) a sincere, penitent, prayer/petition to God, such as a version of the Sinner’s Prayer, why does this passage of God’s Holy Word discuss baptisms for the dead and not “prayers for the dead”, specifically, praying a version of the Sinner’s Prayer for the dead?
Isn’t that really odd? No matter what activity was actually going on in the Corinthian church regarding “the dead”, why is the discussion/controversy about baptism and not the “true” means of salvation according to Baptists and evangelicals: an internal belief in Christ; an internal “decision” for Christ?
And even more odd…why didn’t Paul scold the Corinthians for focusing so much on baptism which he had surely taught them (according to Baptists and evangelicals) was nothing other than an act of obedience; a public profession of faith??
Why so much emphasis on baptism?
Is it possible that the reason that the Corinthians were so concerned about baptism is that they had been taught by the Apostle Paul and other Christian evangelists that salvation and the promise of the resurrection of the dead and eternal life are received in Baptism, just as orthodox Christians, including Lutherans, have been teaching for almost 2,000 years??
Gary
Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals
Thanks for writing on this topic. I’ve often wondered what this strange verse means. I’ve heard of Mormons practicing being baptized as representatives of the deceased and really thought it was strange and sort of occult-ish, but then reading Paul himself mentioning the practice.
It seems, however, that many of the early church fathers didn’t mention this practice (as far as I’ve read, mostly from Augustine). If it were vital, I believe the practice would’ve survived the ages, but it obviously didn’t. And creating a ritual off of a few words in a letter written to a specific group of Christians, 2000 years ago, seems a bit strange. But my curiosity propels me into wondering…
Anyway, those are my scattered, undeveloped thoughts on the matter.