Baptism for the dead
A reader wonders about the meaning of "baptism for the dead" in 1 Corinthians 15:29. Don’t we all? And don’t we wish we knew for sure?
"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?"
What follows is my present sense of the text. There are difficulties attached to my view as there are to every other view that I’m acquainted with.
The verse belongs to a section in which Paul is arguing the case for the bodily resurrection of the dead so 15:29, whatever it’s meaning, is written to support a pro-resurrection teaching.
I presently think that this means that Paul must have approved of the baptism for the dead. He can hardly argue in favour of a truth by using an argument or a practice that he thoroughly disapproves of. If we suppose some Corinthians were practising something he thought was false how would it help his argument to use their false doctrine and practice? You can prove a man is inconsistent in what he thinks but how does that prove that what you think is true?
I presently think that this baptism for the dead must have had universal approval with the Corinthians. If it had been the practice of only a splinter group of (near) heretics in the assembly, it would have been no use as an argument in favour of the bodily resurrection. Let’s imagine—just for clarification—that a large segment of the Corinthians were denying the bodily resurrection of the dead and that a smaller group within that large segment was practising a bizarre rite of baptism. [Let’s suppose they were being baptized to benefit others that were already dead.] How would it help Paul if he picked on the bizarre rite of that minority group? The majority would say, "So, you show them to be silly, but how does that prove your case? We agree with you that they’re silly but we don’t practise such a baptism so what’s the point in bringing it up?" This baptism must have had community approval or it is (I think) a worthless argument and I know Paul didn’t make worthless arguments.
Let me repeat. Picture Paul saying, "There are some of you practising baptism on behalf of dead people and that makes no sense if there is no bodily resurrection." The majority—that also denied the resurrection—would say, "We don’t practise such a baptism because it’s silly. So what has your point to do with us?" They would be right! That’s why I think the baptism for the dead must have been approved by the whole Corinthian assembly.
This baptism must have had the resurrection in view or it wouldn’t relate to the truth that Paul was trying to establish. Suppose these people were being baptized to benefit people in the after life and weren’t concerned about a future bodily life. (Greeks commonly believed in an afterlife but most thought bodily resurrection was nonsense—compare Acts 17:31-34.) Imagine Paul saying to them, "See, you are inconsistent, you are being baptized relative to the resurrection and yet you deny there is a resurrection to come." They might respond, "You don’t know what you’re talking about. The baptism we practice has nothing to do with the resurrection for the simple reason that we don’t believe in the resurrection." That would make Paul look stupid because it would show he has misunderstood their practice. None of us thinks that Paul was stupid. The baptism they were engaging in was related to the resurrection and it was the Corinthian scepticism that was off the wall.
This leads me to say that the only baptism that meets all three of these requirements is water baptism as it’s presented throughout the New Testament. Paul fully approved of that, it was universally received in the Corinthian assembly and it related to the resurrection of the dead. [Ephesians 4:1-6; Acts 18:8 and Romans 6:3-7 and elsewhere.]
Paul has been arguing the truth of the coming bodily resurrection of Christians in 15:1-19. He digresses (only slightly) but returns to his point in 15:29. The opening word of 15:29 ("epei") and what he goes on to say indicate this. In 15:29 he seems to say, "What do you think of people that practise a baptism that relates to the resurrection of the dead and don’t even believe in the resurrection of the dead?"
In the NT people became Christians by faith by being baptized into union with the once dead but now living Christ (Acts 2:36-41; 18:8, Romans 6:3-7 and elsewhere).
They were baptized into Christ who is the (resurrected) firstfruits of those that have died (15:20).
Paul said that it is in that resurrected Christ that all will be made alive (15:21-22) and believers were baptized with that resurrection in view (Romans 6:3-7). This was standard practice because there was only one Christian baptism and it related to the resurrection of all believers in the resurrected Christ (Ephesians 4:3-6, 1 Peter 3:21, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Romans 6:3-7, Colossians 2:12 and 3:1-4).
The baptismal practice of the Corinthians wasn’t peculiar to them; it was the practice of the universal church so it was nonsense to practise such a baptism and deny the resurrection. The fact that he argues from baptismal practice to the truth of bodily resurrection shows how critically important the early church took this ordinance to be. It was universally practised as part of the Christian faith and those that practised it were silly if they denied bodily resurrection.
So I think the baptism he speaks of is the water baptism that people underwent in order to enter Christ by faith in order that they might be partakers of the resurrected life of which he was the promise.
Let me summarise:
I think when Paul spoke of baptism for the dead he was speaking of the "one baptism" in NT faith (Ephesians 4:5). That is, baptism in water.
I think he called it baptism "for the dead" because NT baptism relates to union with the Christ with a view to sharing in his glorious resurrection. Baptism by faith in the crucified but resurrected Christ affected the future of the one being baptized! It wasn’t simply for the forgiveness of sins (past, present and future) it was also to ensure that they would be raised to life and immortality. Baptism exists as a witness to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. Baptism was and is faith seeking to share in Christ’s life and immortality.That and much more is the meaning of baptism in the Christian faith—it is unto the resurrection of the dead.
It would have been nonsense for the church to practice a baptism that joined people to the living (resurrected and immortal) Christ if the resurrection of the dead was false. And the person that underwent such a baptism was ensuring his own resurrection. At least that was the meaning and purpose of baptism as taught by the apostles and early church. A person or a community that denied the resurrection of the dead should not undergo a baptism that is to secure a future and glorious resurrection (by union with Christ).
Paul says (so I understand him), "What do you think of a people that practice a baptism that is meant to benefit the dead by bringing them a share in the glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ when if what they believe is true there is no resurrection of the dead?"
Paul would insist in his own teaching that baptism into Christ was baptism to benefit the dead (on behalf of the dead). This was not simply an individual conviction; it was the conviction of the entire community of believers. To practice baptism into Christ is to practice a baptism to benefit the dead!
If there’s any merit in this then it permits us to make the three initial points of the previous piece. The baptism of 15:29 is approved by Paul. The baptism of 15:29 is the practice of the universal church. The baptism of 15:29 relates to the subject he is dealing with—the resurrection of the dead.
©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, the abiding word.com.