Baptism for the Dead

One of the most improtant principles in interpretation is learing what questions to ask of the text. So what we are going to do tonight is walk through a difficut passage and decide what questions we should ask.

Issues in 1 Corinthians 15:29

1 Corinthians 15:29 ESV

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?

Objectives

• Explain the context of 1 Cor 15, leading up to verse 29

• Discuss four issues related to the interpretation of 1 Cor 15:29

First Corinthians 15:29 is one of the most disputed passages in the nt. This is the verse in Paul’s Letter to the Corinthians where he mentions baptism for the dead. This very odd passage has, believe it or not, over forty interpretations in the literature. That goes all the way back to antiquity, to the present day. There are over forty interpretations you could gather. Some people actually have gathered them in commentaries or dissertations, so that’s not an exaggeration. It gives you an indication of how odd and how confusing, how difficult, this passage actually is.

What I am going to give you, as far as my take, as we proceed, is sort of a peripheral favorite. I’ll tell you that. I’ll be up front. I might be in a minority here, but I think that the interpretation where I land is the only one that really attempts to tie in the wider context of the First Letter to the Corinthians. I think that that’s important for how we would judge what Paul says in 15:29.

The Context of Chapter 15

If we go to 1 Cor 15, we read …

1 Cor 15.12-34

1 Corinthians 15:12–34 ESV

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. 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? Why are we in danger every hour? I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

Let me point out a few things, Paul is talking about the error, the belief that had surfaced in the Corinthian church, that there is no resurrection of the dead. In chapter 15, he is trying to address this. He says, “But if there is no resurrection of the dead …” Then he goes off on a whole series of comments that if we’re going to deny the resurrection over here, then all this other stuff follows, and this doesn’t make sense. He gets down to verse 29, and he says, “Otherwise”— being in the context of this idea of, there is no resurrection of the dead—“Otherwise, 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?” Basically, to set the verse in its context, he’s saying, “Look, there are some of you here that are saying there is no resurrection of the dead.”

Paul, of course, is saying, “Well, there is the resurrection of the dead.” Then he gets to verse 29 and says, “Hey, if there is not, otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? What’s the point? Why would they do this? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they baptized for them?” Then Paul just moves on.

What questions should we ask?

We have this one cryptic verse about the practice of baptism for the dead, and that raises all sorts of questions. Remember, there are forty-plus views of this thing, how to handle it.

Literal or Metaphorical?

Just a few interpretive questions that we want to think about as we proceed: Is the baptism for the dead to be taken literally? In other words, is this something they were literally doing—either literally baptizing, maybe, a corpse, or baptizing someone in place of a corpse? Or is it just metaphorical? Is it kind of an expression that points to some other idea?

Who?

Another question would be, who is being baptized, and why? That’s just another way to say, are we really targeting corpses, or somebody else? But if it’s the somebody else, there are even subcategories there. The question would be, what’s going through the mind of that other person, the living person who is being baptized, in some way connecting that event with the dead? What’s their motivation? What do they think is happening? Those are important questions.

ὑπέρ (hyper)

Thirdly, we have to think about, what are the semantics of ὑπέρ (hyper), this little Greek particle translated “on behalf of”? Does ὑπέρ (hyper) mean “in the interest of,” like, I am going to do this so that someone else gets a benefit from it? Does it mean “in the interest of”? Does it mean “because of” (I am getting baptized because of what happened to somebody else)? Does it mean “in place of” (I am being baptized in someone else’s place)?

So ὑπέρ (hyper), depending on the context, can mean all those things throughout the course of the nt. The question is, what is Paul thinking about right here, in verse 29, when he uses this term?

Report or Endorsement?

Lastly, is Paul reporting something that is actually happening, or is he endorsing it? In other words, does he mention this, and just—“Yeah, this is really going on, and I don’t really have a judgment one way or the other. I am just saying, hey, you know, if you’re going to do this, it makes more sense to do it when you believe in the resurrection than if you don’t.” Is he reporting it and not rendering a judgment, really? Or is he perhaps endorsing the idea? “If you’re going to do it, it’s a good idea, but you have to really have your resurrection theology down, because then it doesn’t make any sense. If you’ve got your resurrection theology down, then yeah, baptism for the dead makes sense.” Is that what he is doing? Is he reporting or endorsing?

These are all interpretive questions that go into this one verse that have yielded a wide range of interpretations.

Considering Interpretive Options

• Describe how the metaphorical view interprets baptism for the dead

• Compare the inspiration view with the last-day-resurrection view

• Discuss the plausibility of both the deathbed-baptism view and the vicarious view

Introduction

We’re not going to go through all forty or so views of the baptism for the dead for the sake of our discussion. What I’m going to do is, I am going to pull a few of the more common out and talk a little bit about them before I get to my own take on this.

The Metaphorical View

Let’s talk about the metaphorical view first. This is an idea or an approach that says baptism for the dead is essentially code language for martyrdom. It’s another way of saying “killed for the faith.” If I referred to someone that he had been baptized for the dead, this view says, what you’re really saying is, they died for the faith. It’s a metaphorical approach. No literal baptism for a dead person (either baptizing a corpse, or somebody else being baptized on their behalf). That’s not happening. It’s just an expression, a metaphorical expression for martyrdom.

Those who take this view take as its cue phrases like being “baptized with fire.” Obviously this isn’t literal; no one’s getting set on fire. Even when we have the Spirit come in Acts—the cloven tongues of fire—nobody is burning up or getting blisters or anything like that. It’s not a literalistic kind of event. Certain scholars would look at a phrase like that (“baptized with fire”) and say we should approach baptism for the dead the same way—a metaphorical expression that refers to martyrdom.

The Inspirational View

A second view we could call the “inspirational view.” This view is along these lines. Some scholars say, “Well, when Paul talks about the baptism for the dead here, people are asking for baptism in the Corinthian church,” and this is what Paul is alluding to. People are asking for baptism because they were inspired by the courage of some martyr that they had heard about. In this case, the baptism is literally happening—someone is getting baptized with water—but they are getting baptized because they are inspired or prompted by the courage of someone who had died for their faith. You would take a phrase like “baptism for the dead” and interpret it this way: “baptism because of those who have died.”

One of the criticisms of this is that some scholars feel this is a bit too sacramental, or it leads to a sacramental view of baptism. In other words, if I am a person who doesn’t know the Lord, and I am going along in my life, and people are witnessing to me, and I see the courage or I hear about this amazing courage of someone who was martyred for their faith, it’s like, “Wow! I am so impressed by that, I want to be baptized because of what they did and because I want what they had. I want eternal life,” and so then they get baptized. That makes it sound like it’s the baptism that actually results in their salvation.

That’s just a criticism of the view, among some scholars. The point is not that everybody who argues this view thinks that way, but you could see how someone could. So that view tends to be criticized for that reason.

The Last-Day-Resurrection View

A third view we could call the last-day-resurrection view. This view says that people were being baptized in order to be united with dead loved ones in the future resurrection. This one is less sacramental. There is no sense that if I am baptized, that’s going to result in me going to heaven. It’s people who are being baptized with the thought that “I want to make sure that I do this because apostles command baptism, and my loved one who has died was a believer in Jesus, and I want to believe in Jesus, and I want to be baptized so that I am with them sometime later.”

It’s still a little sacramental, but not quite as direct as the previous one. But it can be criticized along the same lines. You could see how someone who could be thinking this might start to gravitate toward the notion that baptism bestows salvation, that that could be some sort of motivator. But the last-day-resurrection view has the thought of being united with loved ones in view, and the loved ones are the ones who are dead.

The Deathbed Baptism View

A fourth view would be deathbed baptisms. This is the notion of being baptized … someone who asked for baptism. Maybe they are a believer, or not; maybe they are confused about what baptism does. We don’t know. But it’s just the idea that someone who is about to die—on their deathbed, so to speak—asks to be baptized, and is baptized right before the moment of death.

This was Calvin’s take on this passage. He thought it was describing this sort of event. It frankly doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me—deathbed baptisms. Paul doesn’t say in 1 Cor 15:29, “Those who are baptized for people about to die,” or “those who are baptized by people who are almost dead,” or “those who are almost dead being baptized.” Dead is dead. It’s pretty clear, in my view—and I am not alone, here, in being critical of this particular perspective—that when Paul talks about baptism for the dead, if there are dead involved, they are dead. They are actually dead. The Greek word nekros doesn’t mean “bodies in the process of dying,” like you’re ill, you have a serious illness; it means you’re dead. I think that’s a weakness of this particular view.

The Vicarious Baptism View

Fifthly, we have vicarious baptism, and this is what a lot of scholars are thinking the phrase is about. If there is a dominant view of the passage across the board in all denominations or traditions, this would be, arguably, the one—vicarious baptism. This is the notion that Paul uses; what he is alluding to here is that people were getting baptized for the benefit of people already dead. In other words, I am going to get baptized, and it’s going to help someone who is already dead get to heaven.

Those who take this view—a number of them, especially in the evangelical tradition—those who would argue that this is what Paul is alluding to would never say that Paul is endorsing the idea. They would just say Paul is just reporting what people are doing, what’s happening. They would say, though, that Paul doesn’t seem overly critical here, but he is still not putting his stamp of approval on. He is just reporting what’s happening and saying it doesn’t make any sense if you don’t believe in the resurrection. He is using the practice to pick at, to target, to criticize, to debunk the notion of there being no resurrection. Paul just happens to pull this one out of the hat, pull this one out of what the Corinthians are doing, and saying, “Hey, if you really believe this, you can’t believe that.” That’s pretty much it.

But most scholars tend to land here. They think that’s the easiest reading of the passage, what Paul is describing. In Mormonism, for example, this view is still current. This is one of the reasons why Mormons are so heavily involved in genealogy: because they have a doctrine of people presently being baptized and that benefiting people who have already died, in terms of getting to heaven or salvation.

Baptism in Honor of the Dead

• Discuss the identity of the dead in Heiser’s interpretation

• Explain how the context of 1 Corinthians influences the interpretation of 1 Cor 15:29

Introduction

Let’s get into my take on 1 Cor 15:29. It’s a controversial passage. I’ve already confessed that my view is a minority view, a little bit on the periphery. You probably won’t come across this in a lot of commentaries, but I like the view because it tries to make sense of the reference to baptism for the dead against the backdrop of the wider content, the wider context of the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

Identifying the Dead

I think that baptism for the dead is really talking about baptism in honor of the dead—or, if we could say, baptism for the sake of the dead. Right away that raises the question, who are the dead? I think specifically the dead in view here in the whole phrase are important Christians, important leaders, important figures to the Corinthians that they viewed as being fundamentally responsible for them coming to the Lord, for them embracing the gospel. What you have is, you have people in Corinth being baptized to honor someone whose life or whose testimony had been important to them in coming to Christ, and then that person just happens to have passed away. So baptism in honor of the dead is my take, what I think is going on here.

The Wider Context of 1 Corinthians

I mentioned that I think that this dovetails with the wider context of 1 Corinthians. You might ask, “Why do you say that? What do you mean?”

If we go back to 1 Cor 1:10–12, we read this: Paul says,

1 Corinthians 1:10–12 ESV

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.”

Heroes of the Faith

The point here is that this passage illustrates the idea not that the Corinthians thought there were four or five separate gospels, but that they had heroes of the faith that they followed, that they viewed as preeminent in the Christian leadership. Some scholars—and again, I am among this group—would look at this passage and think, “It’s possible that there were people at Corinth who just elevated certain Christians in their lives.” In this case, in 1 Cor 1, Paul says there is something about this—it’s not a good thing, because it creates arguments. But the fact that they were thinking in these terms might indicate that when we get to 1 Cor 15, when it talks about baptism for the dead, they may just be being baptized in honor of some person they followed, that they liked, that they really assigned a lot of value to in their own personal lives.

If we go to 1 Cor 15:5-7 (this is the chapter where our verse occurs in), Paul is talking about the resurrected Jesus, and he says that Jesus....

1 Corinthians 15:5–7 ESV

and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

The assumption here is that when Paul alludes to this postresurrection event where Jesus appeared to five hundred people, and a lot of them are still alive—the assumption, for people who take the view that I do, is that the Corinthians knew who some of these people were, and because they had been eyewitnesses to the fact of the resurrection, that those people had higher status and maybe their lives and their testimonies and their story about what they saw had contributed to the Corinthian conversions, and so some of the Corinthians were getting baptized to honor those people, to commemorate the importance of those people in their lives.

Paul’s Point

These dead leaders or witnesses would be the dead that Paul is talking about later in the chapter. Now, this has a rhetorical point, if it’s the case. Paul’s point would be—again, if he is taking this view that baptism for the dead is really baptism in honor of certain dead, Paul would be essentially saying, “Look, it’s hypocritical to be baptized in honor of leaders whose testimony influenced you to believe, and then turn around and deny the resurrection.” Paul would be saying, “Look, this idea doesn’t make any sense. You can’t have these two ideas married to each other,” and so he is trying to get the Corinthians to see, “Look, you’re doing this in honor of these people who were instrumental in you believing the faith, and some of those people had seen the resurrection. So it’s really kind of silly, kind of hypocritical, for you to be doing this thing with baptism and then somehow faltering when it comes to believing in the resurrection.”

What is the takeaway for us?

Theological conistency.