Baptism for the dead???

[Guest]

1 Cor 15:29
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?

For years I have struggled to understand this scripture concerning the "baptism for the dead". I have failed to find any other scriptures which would help to explain what this is talking about. Can anyone help?

Todd

[Guest]

Just a thought..... Perhaps it is talking about this.

Eph 2:4-6
But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions–it is by grace you have been saved. 6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus,

Col 2:13
13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,

This would make I Cor 15:29 consistent with other scriptures if this is what it is talking about.

Todd

[Guest]

I always thought Paul was making a point with this scripture. There were people who did not believe in a resurrection, but yet they baptized for the dead. Why would they do this if there was no resurrection? I could be wrong, but it just seems like Paul is pointing out their inconsistency. He is not legitimizing their practice, but using their own system to show how they cannot be right. I guess an early use of "presuppositional apologetics."

[Guest]

I always thought Paul was making a point with this scripture. There were people who did not believe in a resurrection, but yet they baptized for the dead. Why would they do this if there was no resurrection? I could be wrong, but it just seems like Paul is pointing out their inconsistency. He is not legitimizing their practice, but using their own system to show how they cannot be right. I guess an early use of "presuppositional apologetics."

Rae,

Thank you for your comments. I have considered this before, but it just didn't make sense to me that Paul would use a false practice to make a true assertion. He could have just as easily have said, "Why are people being baptised if the dead rise not?" In this way he could have made the same point without mentioning "for the dead."

Todd

[Guest]

I once read a commentator who said he had encountered as many as 40 different interpretations of this passage. I think that would definitely qualify it to be categorized among the "obscure" passages of the Bible! I can't imagine what the 40 different views could be, but I was brought up on the view Rae mentioned. She is in good company in holding this view, as it seems to be the only view I hear expressed by Bible teachers who address it.

I also have thought it strange that Paul might defend an orthodox Christian doctrine by appeal to a heterodox, cultic practice. Rae may be correct in saying that Paul did not so much feel that proxy baptism for the dead really proved anything about the validity of the resurrection doctrine, but rather that he was demonstrating the inconsistency of those who practiced such proxy baptism while denying the resurrection. This is possible, but I don't know how sure we can be that there were people in Corinth practicing baptism for the dead in this sense.

For some time now, I have been tentatively convinced of an alternative interpretation. I think it possible that Paul is not using "baptized for the dead" to mean "a living person baptized in place of a dead person." The word "for" is a very weak preposition (I am informed) that can simply mean "with reference to." It has crossed my mind that Paul is talking about legitimate Christian baptism, but not proxy baptism for dead people. It seems possible that "the dead" could be a reference to the category to which Christ belongs, if the dead do not rise. Paul has earlier stated that "if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen"—i.e. Christ is "dead" (1 Cor.15:13). If Christ is dead, then why are Christians baptized with reference to Him?

If it is argued that "the dead" is plural in the Greek, and cannot therefore be a reference to Christ, I will admit the difficulty. However, even if Paul was saying, "Why are people baptized with reference to dead people?" He might still be referring to Christ as one of that category.

For example, if a man was disagreeing with his wife about the diagnosis of a mechanical problem in their car, he might be heard to say, "What do women know about auto mechanics?" I am not saying that his categorization of women as being ignorant in this field would be justified, but it would be clear that he is speaking of a category (women) so as to really be referring to one specific woman (his wife). Thus, if Paul thought it silly to be baptized in the name of Christ, if Christ was not risen and was, therefore, dead, he might well say, "Why be baptized with reference to dead people?" This, at least, seems a reasonable alternative to the better-known view of this passage.

Some, taking the more popular view, have pointed out Paul's use of "they" for the ones "baptized for the dead" (1 Cor.15:29), as opposed to his use of "we" in the next verse—"And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour?" (v.30). They suggest that "they" are the cultists, whereas "we" are the true Christians. This is, of course, one possible way of understanding Paul's change of pronouns. Another would be that "they" are Christians generally, and "we" are Paul and his companions. Earlier in the same epistle, Paul has drawn a contrast between the generality of Christians and the particular lot of "us, the apostles" (1 Cor.4:9-13), wherein he speaks specifically of the kind of "jeopardy" in which he and his companions regularly find themselves.

Thus the question remains unresolved, and may, perhaps, never be solved with the limited information left to us on this topic in the scriptures. It certainly cannot be said that there is a clear apostolic endorsement here of any practice of living people being baptized in the place of dead people—and thus can hardly provide scriptural justification for the Mormons' practice along these lines. On the other hand, what it really does mean will, I expect, remain mysterious and debatable. Fortunately, I think we can live godly lives without knowing for sure which opinion is actually the correct one.

[Guest]

The word "for" is a very weak preposition (I am informed) that can simply mean "with reference to."

I don't have an answer for the "baptism for the dead" question.

But I do think your informer was in error, Steve. It is not a "weak" preposition.

One of the primary meanings for the Greek word "hupAr" according to most lexicons is "in behalf of" or "for the sake of". So it does appear that Paul's reference was to people who baptized "in behalf of" the dead, or "for the sake of" the dead.

[Guest]

IMO this sounds like Paul is making a passing reference to believers who are getting baptized for other believers who did'nt get baptized before they died. He is not commenting on the validity of it but only making a passing reference to this practice which may have originated from paganism in Corinth. Paul said when he spoke to gentiles he became like a gentile and when he spoke to jews he became like them. So possibly when he spoke to pagans about Christ he may be making a reference to this practice that they brought with them into Christianity without judging it at this time.