“Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?”
Paul now gives assurances on the resurrection from his willingness to risk death (15:29-34). This is an ad hominem argument for the resurrection. This willingness to risk death broaches ludicrousness if the dead do not rise. On the other hand, there are three incentives for believing in the resurrection:
Incentive for salvation, 15:29
Incentive to serve, 15:30-32
Incentive toward sanctification, 15:33-34
Otherwise,
The idea is if what Paul just said is not true (resurrection of Christ and believers), then why are people being baptized in place of the dead? If people deny the resurrection, then they reject the core of the gospel. Christians facing the prospect of death have a powerful future – eternal life and reunion with those who have gone on before.
what will they do
Such baptism is of no use if there is no resurrection. Christians give no verifiable account for baptism and thus participate in an absurdity. They would be better off to eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow they die like dogs.
who are baptized for the dead,
What does baptism for the dead mean? There are a number of answers to this difficult verse. Some feel that this was proxy baptism – baptism for Christians who died before they could be baptized, maybe due to martyrdom. The word “for” means in the place of not on behalf of. The point was: “Why should we fill up the ranks of those who died (vacant places in the local church) by baptizing more people if there is no resurrection?” Living Christians were in the process of being baptized in the place of those who had previously died. They filled up the vacant places of those who died. New Christians replaced those who had moved out from the ranks of the local church and been promoted to heaven.
if the dead do not rise at all?
If there was no physical resurrection, Paul argued, there was no point in baptizing for those who had previously died. There was nothing gained by this, for they remained corpses. If there is no resurrection, the bottom falls out of Christianity. We forfeit the pleasures of this life and the next one as well. Christians are shortchanged, and the biggest suckers the world ever saw if there is no resurrection.
Why then are they baptized for the dead?
No one knows the exact meaning of this text because it is fraught with interpretation problems. Living Christians gave outward testimony by baptism for believers who died for their faith and could not be baptized themselves. In context, the argument asks why people are coming to Christ if believers die for their faith.
PRINCIPLE:
The certainty of the resurrection is an incentive for keeping eternal values in view.
APPLICATION:
Christians in heaven have moved from the church militant to the church triumphant. The certainty of the resurrection gives incentive for keeping eternal values in view. Christians know that death does not end all. They know that there is hope beyond the grave and that the grave is not the bleak, barren terminus of existence. Christians know that we do not die like dogs. If there is no resurrection, the gospel is a farce, Christianity is a fake, and Christians operate under a cruel hoax. Christianity has a message for a world with no hope. The world’s message is: “Keep a stiff upper lip,” “Keep smiling, for there is a silver lining in every cloud.” This is religious drivel; it is no hope for those who lose loved ones in death.
The Mormon church, or the Church of the Latter Day Saints, teaches that believers in Mormonism must baptize for the dead, for ancestors so that they can be saved. That is why they emphasize genealogy. The Bible nowhere teaches a vicarious or substitutionary baptism for others.
There is no other passage in the Bible that suggests baptism for the dead, and this verse does not command this practice. The history book of Acts nowhere indicates such a practice. It is very dangerous to build a doctrine on one obscure verse, and there are over thirty various interpretations of this verse. The principle of interpretation is that the majority of verses must take precedence over the minority of verses, and the clear verses must take precedence over the unclear verses. Our verse has many legitimate interpretations, but we can assert none with confidence. A reasonable interpretation is that we fill up the ranks of Christians who died by baptizing new believers.
We can be confident, however, that this verse does not teach salvation for the dead by proxy baptism. Nowhere does the Bible teach that a person becomes a Christian by baptism. The important message is the gospel, not baptism:
1 Co 1:14, 16-17, 14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
Baptism is an outward sign of salvation already accomplished. We come to faith solely by faith through grace,
Ro 3:28, Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.
Ro 4:3-4, 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
Ep 2:8, For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
Dr. Richison, Thanks for your article on 1 Corinthians 15:29. Consider that only God can do something .."for the dead." Trace the pronoun "they" in verse 29 back to its antecedent in the preceding verse and you will discover "they" are God and His Son, Jesus Christ. God gave the sacrifice and His Son was the sacrifice; THEY were baptized for the dead. See Luke 12:50. Would love to discuss this further. God Bless.
In regards to 1 Corinthians 15:29: To understand this scripture requires a departure from the tradition definition of "baptism." Consider the mother hen. Nature has charged her to nurture and protect her flock. Her obedience to this charge is a "figure of baptism!" The obedience of Jesus Christ to the Father was the real thing.
Dale,
First there is no word for “they” in the Greek text. Secondly, the Greek for “they (not expressed in Greek) do” is future, active, indicative. Thus, your conclusion about antecedent does not have justification.
Secondly, it is always dangerous to use analogy to interpret Scripture; it should be used for illustration purposes only. Therefore, the illustration does not prove the point.
Thirdly, baptism has both metaphorical meaning (to identify) and literal meaning—to be placed or immersed in water. It is clear what you mean by the traditional meaning of baptism.
I fail to see how being baptized for a departed believer places another living believer in the church! Paul heard there was division and contention in the church.(1Cor.1:10-11). The resurrection seems to be the last one he address before closing his letter. There were “some” who said there is no resurrection of the dead ( 15:12). Paul proceed to teach concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ and those who belong to Him at His coming. Then Paul directs the attention of the ” some” to the”they” who are baptized for the dead, with the question ” what shall they do”?. It appears that the ” they” of whom Paul was speaking about did believe the dead was raised, thus the contention or division about the resurrection. However, “they” believed baptism was a prerequisite for the resurrection of the body. Probably some believed the gospel in their dying hour or prior to some circumstance that caused death.The “they” Corinthians believed it was necessary to be baptized in the dead believers stead so that the dead could be raised. It seems that the point Paul was making is that it was futile for them to continue being baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise.
Delano, did you see my comments on the previous post? I agree that this is a difficult passage for all to interpret. That is why we do not rest doctrine on the minority of passages that speak to an issue nor on unclear passages that speak on doctrine.
Grant, my previous response to your commentary on 1Corinthians15:29-30 was not intended to be doctrine. Yes I did see your comments and I do not agree that these two passages are difficult two understand, if the Holy Spirit illuminate the mind as to what was going on in the Corinthian church at the time that Paul wrote, with respect to unbelief about the resurrection. Understanding these passages is not a matter of interpretation, but of discovering the link between the resurrection and those who were baptized for the dead. It is clear that some did not believe there was a resurrection and some that DID believe there was a resurrection of the dead, but erroneously believed baptism was required before one could be raised! This is the reason Paul asked ” what will they do who are baptized for the dead”? Many Corinthians died because they ate of the Lord’s Supper unworthily.(11:30).: Most likely some believed just prior to death and was unable to be baptized. Some probably died unexpectedly , suddenly, or accidentally and they were not baptized or it was suspected they were not baptized. Nevertheless, some Corinthians thought it necessary to be baptized for their departed fellow believers so that they would be raised from the dead. Paul pointed out to the nay sayers that those who practiced proxy baptism was doing it in vain, if the dead do not rise and questioned why do they continue in it. It seems that Paul did not see baptism for the dead as a practice worth condemning because he only mentioned it to underline his argument for the resurrection. However, Paul did tell them that some do not have the knowledge of God.(15:34) The Holy Spirit caused me understand what so many scratch their heads about.
Delano, Dexter, I am surprised that you claim an understanding of this passage that is mutually exclusive your own. There are over 200 interpretations of this passage and you have the right one???? Whenever people claim that the Holy Spirit told them something exclusively, then we know that this person does not have credibility. You have primarily a subjective rather than an objective claim. The part that you claim as objective has to do with the pronouns, which has problems in the Greek text itself. I do not claim my interpretation is the correct one, but simply the most reasonable to me. I respect scholarship that offers different views on this subject because this is not a clear or common passage and it is not a major doctrine presented in Scripture.
Note this commentary that presents different reasonable views on this passage:
15:29 The question “What will they do?” is capable of different meanings such as “What do they hope to achieve or gain?” or “What will they do next?” Thiselton notes the vast semantic range of the verb “to do”158 and suggests that the NIV translation “What will they do?” does not quite capture the subjective and logical force. He suggests as a more accurate translation, “What do those people think they are doing who …?”159 Garland finds the parallel in 15:32 helpful, “What does it profit me?”, and thinks the question in 15:29 implies something like, “What good will it do them? If there is no resurrection of the dead, nothing could possibly accrue from that rite. They will be shown to be fools.”160
The history of interpretation attests to the ambiguity of Paul’s reference to “those who are baptized for the dead.”161 Perhaps all exegetical options have been exhausted with no commanding consensus regarding its meaning. Fee quips, “One may consider it as axiomatic that when there is such a wide divergence of opinion, no one knows what in fact was going on.”162 Fee’s point is well-taken, but there are reasonable interpretive options. Furthermore, the function of 15:29 is clear in context. Already Paul has demonstrated the disastrous theological consequences that ensue if the dead are not raised (15:12–19). Now he will show the senselessness of certain practices in light of the same hypothetical scenario. However obscure the notion of “baptism for the dead” may be, it is Paul’s plain intention to take issue with those in Corinth who were saying, “There is no resurrection of the dead” (15:12).
Scholars often observe that the most natural reading of the text suggests a vicarious baptism of someone on behalf of, in the place of, and for the benefit of an unbaptized dead person. According to Hull, this view is “aptly labeled the ‘majority reading.’ ”163 Fee states that “this reading is such a plain understanding of the Greek text that no one would ever have imagined the various alternatives were it not for the difficulties involved.”164 Likewise Hays comments, “All of the numerous attempts to explain away the obvious sense of this verse are strained and unpersuasive.”165 Fee explains that if the vicarious view is correct, it likely “reflects some believers’ being baptized for others who either were or were on their way to becoming believers when they died (e.g., as in 11:30), but had never been baptized,” or “that it reflects the concern of members of households for some of their own number who had died before becoming believers.”166 In this view Paul does not necessarily commend the practice, but it serves the purpose of his argument that such a practice was inconsistent and contradictory for those who believed that there was no resurrection of the dead.167 Demaris’s study regarding the evidence for a preoccupation with the dead in Corinthian culture supports the vicarious interpretation.168 Collins accepts Demaris’s argument and comments: “The practice of baptizing the living as a vicarious rite of passage to benefit the dead might have been a Christian response to this general concern. The intended beneficiaries would have been members of their families or catechumens who had not yet been baptized at the time of their deaths.”169 Collins concedes that there is little evidence that the practice existed in the early church but nevertheless concludes, “It is likely that the practice took place only in first-century Corinth, where religious syncretism was a fact of life even for Corinthian Christians. Paul’s unusual use of the third person plural in a rhetorical question suggests that the practice may not have been widespread among the Corinthian Christians. Only a few of them may have practiced vicarious baptism on behalf of the dead.”170 Since the key preposition translated “on behalf of,”171 when used of persons, normally suggests a vicarious effect, that is, the application of benefits, Collins thinks that other interpretations require a meaning that departs from Pauline usage.172
There are three main objections to the proxy, vicarious baptism view. First, there is no historical evidence for such a practice antecedent to 1 Corinthians, unless 15:29 provides such evidence. Second, vicarious baptisms did occur among Gnostic heretics who were condemned by the early Greek Fathers.173 Third, such an understanding is out of step with Paul’s own understanding of baptism elsewhere, and it is difficult to believe that he would mention an aberrant practice, however relevant to his argument, without condemning it. “To win one argument, he opens a Pandora’s box of new theological problems.”174 The historical and theological problems with the vicarious baptism view have led to other explanations. Any interpretation has to address three key terms, namely, the meanings of the verb “to baptize,” the preposition “for,” and the substantival adjective “the dead.”
Many follow the view of the Greek Fathers in retaining the normal sense of baptism as referring to Christian baptism and the usual meaning of the Greek preposition “for,” as “on behalf of,” yet understand “the dead” to refer metaphorically to the condition of believers who receive baptism.175 This understanding complies with Pauline theology in that the one being baptized does so on behalf of their own bodies in the sense of being baptized for the part of them that is dying. Garland explains, “Paul interprets baptism as a symbol of death and resurrection, and ‘the dead’ either characterizes the individual’s prebaptismal state or refers to the individual’s soon-to-be dead body (cf. Rom 6:3–14; Eph 2:1, 5; Col 2:13). Paul’s specific statement in Rom. 8:10 that ‘the body is dead because of sin’ gives further credibility to this interpretation.”176 In other words, the expression “to be baptized for the dead” is theological shorthand for Christian baptism, which pictures death as the presupposition to resurrection. “Baptism connotes sharing Christ’s death to share his resurrection.”177
A third view that holds a significant place in scholarship takes the preposition “for” in a causal or referential sense, that is, “on account of/because of/with reference to/for the sake of.” Thus, baptism is true Christian baptism, but those being baptized are baptized, in some way, “because of the dead.” While the causal understanding of the preposition is the common element in this interpretive camp, there are different readings of the meaning of “the dead.” One reading understands “baptism for the dead” to refer to something exceptional but not something that Paul would disapprove, such as a baptism out of affection or respect for the dead or a baptism in the hope of being reunited with a loved one. Such an attitude on behalf of the convert assumes resurrection.178 In the most recent full-length scholarly treatment of this verse, Hull argues the thesis that “1 Cor 15:29 is a dual rhetorical question in which Paul holds up one group within the Corinthian community as a laudable example for the entire community.”179 Those being baptized do so as an act of faith in the resurrection of Christ, which guarantees the resurrection of all dead believers. “They undergo the rite of baptism ‘on account of the dead’—on account of the fact that the dead are destined for life, having died hoping in the Lord’s promise of salvation—on account of their faith in the fact that ‘if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised’ (1 Cor 15:13).”180 Ciampa and Rosner adopt this view and explain that “Paul is not interested in all deed people, but in those who will benefit from being raised to glory. That is, his references to ‘the dead’ have the righteous dead (i.e., dead who will be raised to glory) in mind.”181 They propose the following translation, “Now, if there is no resurrection, what will be accomplished by those who get baptized because of what they have heard about how our dead will be raised? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people undergoing baptism on account of them?”182
Two other views within this third line of interpretation deserve mention. White understands Paul’s reference to “the dead” as a figurative caricature of apostolic suffering, which finds support in the verses that immediately follow: “And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I die every day.” The implication of 15:30–31 is that “Paul wants the Corinthians to understand him, in his role as an apostle, as being one of ‘the dead’ in 15:29.”183 Like other passages in the Corinthian correspondence (1 Cor 4:9; 2 Cor 2:14; 4:7–12; 6:1–10), in 1 Cor 15:29–32 Paul links death with apostolic ministry.184 White explains, “Certain groups in Corinth were brought to faith and baptized ‘on account of’ some of the apostles, especially Paul and Apollos, to whom they subsequently and quite naturally felt an affinity, but their preferences resulted in the development of competitive allegiances to one or the other of the apostles. In our text, Paul points out the inconsistency of this fact with their denial of the resurrection. If ‘truly dead’ persons are not raised, what sense does it make for the Corinthians to be baptized on account of those who are ‘dying all the time,’ namely, the apostles?”185 More recently, Patrick offers a variation of this view, agreeing that “the dead” refer to the apostles, yet not metaphorically but literally. The death of apostles known to the Corinthians (15:6) resulted in the practice of baptizing in honor of dead apostles whose testimony continued to bear fruit for the gospel.186 White’s view requires two different senses of “dead” in the same verse (metaphorical and literal), and Patrick’s view falters in light of Paul’s assumption that none of the Corinthians were baptized as an act of allegiance to him or any other man (1 Cor 1:13–15). The other causal readings of 15:29 are more probable.
Taylor, M. (2014). 1 Corinthians. (E. R. Clendenen, Ed.) (Vol. 28, pp. 391–396). Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group.