baptism for the dead?

Question

1 cor 15 v 29 what is meant by this scripture, What shall they do which are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?

Martin s wow that was a long answer, thanks, but what it mean?

Answer 1

In short, it looks like the baptism of the dead was a non-biblical practice of the Corinthian church where a living person was baptized in lieu of a person that passed away, as a means of making a public profession of faith for a person that was already deceased. We can, essentially, think of it as the practice of baptizing a deceased person.



In context, Paul writes this as an answer to the city’s questions about resurrection. He’s saying, "If you don’t believe in life after death, why are you concerned with the dead?" The reference coming up that involves Luke 16:26 answers the Corinthians’ question from another angle. This verse says (indirectly) that our decision for or against Christ is made before we die. According to Luke, we can’t change our minds after death. This offers more evidence that the practice of baptism for the dead is a futile concept.



What was being baptized for the dead? It is a mysterious passage, and there have been more than thirty different attempts to interpret it. 1. The plain meaning of the Greek in verse 29 is that some people are being baptized on behalf of those who have died--and if there is no resurrection, why are they doing this? 2. Either Paul is referring to a pagan custom (notice he uses they, not "we"), or to a superstitious and unscriptural practice in the Corinthian church of vicarious baptism for believers who died before being baptized. 3. Either way, he certainly does not approve of the practice; he merely says that if there is no resurrection, why would the custom take place? The Mormon practice of baptism for the dead is neither scriptural or sensible. Baptism for the dead is a practice that was common in the pagan religions of Greece and is still practiced today by some cults; but it doesn't change a person's sentence, for that is determined while he lives (Luke 16:26).

Answer 2

It seems to me that the most natural and obvious interpretation is to refer it to those who were then dead, to whom the gospel had been preached when living, and who had become true Christians. In support of this it may be said:

(1) that this is the natural and obvious meaning of the word dead, which should be understood literally, unless there is some good reason in the connection for departing from the common meaning of the word.
(2) the apostle had just used the word in that sense in the previous verse.
(3) this will suit the connection, and accord with the design of the apostle. He was addressing those who were suffering persecution. It was natural, in such a connection, to refer to those who had died in the faith, and to show, for their encouragement, that though they had been put to death, yet they still lived to God. He therefore says, that the design in publishing the gospel to them was, that though they might be judged by people in the usual manner, and put to death, yet that in respect to their higher and nobler nature, the spirit, they might live unto God. It was not uncommon nor unnatural for the apostles, in writing to those who were suffering persecution, to refer to those who had been removed by death, and to make their condition and example an argument for fidelity and perseverance. Compare 1Th_4:13; Rev_14:13.

The Mormons use this verse to teach that a person can be baptized in place of relatives who died generations ago. This is why they place such importance upon genealogies. However, unbeknownst to most people, a dark spiritualism is linked to this aspect of Mormonism. What Paul is talking about is actually quite simple. Baptism is a symbol of death, burial, and resurrection. "If Jesus is not risen," he asks, "why would you be baptized?"

Answer 3

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, see this passage as a mention of a lost Christian practice in which living people where baptized in place of those who had died without baptism. Jesus taught that baptism was a necessary step before one could be admitted into the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:5). If someone died without hearing the Gospel, would it not be unfair for God to deny them entrance to Heaven, seeing that they had never even had the chance to be baptized? For this purpose, baptism for the dead was instituted by the early Christians as a means to baptize their departed loved ones by proxy. This was a legitimate and recognized Christian ordinance/sacrament, as mentioned here by Paul, but it became lost as the early Christian church was persecuted and nearly fell apart in the first centuries after Christ's death. By the fourth century, the practice was rare and considered by some to be heretical (e.g. Tertullian and Chrysostom), but is mentioned positively by others, such as Epiphanius. The Council/Synod of Hippo, in 393, declared that baptism was not to be given to the dead. I note this because the mere mention of baptism for the dead here indicates that it had been a known practice, although the members of this council, at this point, deemed it inappropriate/unnecessary.
It is interesting to note that the Christian church in Egypt, or the Coptic Church, did not feel bound by these councils and continued the practice of baptisms for the dead for many centuries. The Mandaean church in Iraq also continued the practice.
In modern times, only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and some minor European denominations have revived this practice. Baptism for those who have died and who did not have the opportunity to receive baptism is a legitimate and charitable practice.

Answer 4

I don't think it means that you can be baptised on behalf of dead people, and hence save them (as Mormons I think believe). There are lots of teachings in the New Testament that say that each person himself/herself must believe to be saved.

I think the Corinthians were probably getting baptised for people who had died before the christian message was preached in Corinth by Paul. Its not a practice commended or mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament. You can help people believe by prayer and witnessing to them, but beyond that its not your responsibility.

Answer 5

It, to me, seems like a silly act of foolish religiosity. If it mattered one iota that anyone be Baptised then they should at least have a say in the matter.

Answer 6

It has been speculated it refers to an ancient practice not followed today except when resurrected by the LDS Mormons.

Answer 7

Mormons teach that they can posthumously baptise dead people (figuratively, I hope) so they can get to heaven.
Yeah, right.

Answer 8

why all of a sudden i got a taste for some grits

Answer 9

Albert Barnes - Notes on the Bible

There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament in respect to which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now by no means harmonize in regard to its meaning. It is possible that Paul may here refer to some practice or custom which existed in his time respecting baptism, the knowledge of which is now lost. The various opinions which have been entertained in regard to this passage, together with an examination of them, may be seen in Pool’s Synopsis, Rosenmuller, and Bloomfield. It may be not useless just to refer to some of them, that the perplexity of commentators may be seen:

(1) It has been held by some that by “the dead” here is meant the Messiah who was put to death, the plural being used for the singular, meaning “the dead one.”

(2) by others, that the word “baptized” here is taken in the sense of washing, cleansing, purifying, as in Mat_8:4; Heb_9:10; and that the sense is, that the dead were carefully washed and purified when buried, with the hope of the resurrection, and, as it were, preparatory to that.

(3) by others, that to be “baptized for the dead” means to be baptized as dead, being baptized into Christ, and buried with him in baptism, and that by their immersion they were regarded as dead.

(4) by others, that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead, referring to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. Such was the estimate which was formed, it is supposed, of the importance of baptism, that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul, has been abundantly proved by Grotius, and is generally admitted. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious:

(a) There is no evidence that such a custom prevailed in the time of Paul.

(b) It cannot be believed that Paul would give countenance to a custom so senseless and so contrary to the Scripture, or that he would make it the foundation of a solemn argument.

(c) It does not accord with the strain and purpose of his argument. If this custom had been referred to, his design would have led him to say, “What will become of them for whom others have been baptized? Are we to believe that they have perished?”

(d) It is far more probable that the custom referred to in this opinion arose from an erroneous interpretation of this passage of Scripture, than that it existed in the time of Paul.

(5) there remain two other opinions, both of which are plausible, and one of which is probably the true one. One is, that the word baptized is used here as it is in Mat_20:22-23; Mar_10:39; Luk_12:50, in the sense of being overwhelmed with calamities, trials, and sufferings; and as meaning that the apostles and others were subjected to great trials on account of the dead, that is, in the hope of the resurrection; or with the expectation that the dead would rise. This is the opinion of Lightfoot, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Homberg, Krause, and of Prof. Robinson (see the Lexicon article Βαπτίζω Baptizō), and has much that is plausible. That the word is thus used to denote a deep sinking into calamities, there can be no doubt. And that the apostles and early Christians subjected themselves, or were subjected to great and overwhelming calamities on account of the hope of the resurrection, is equally clear. This interpretation, also, agrees with the general tenor of the argument; and is an argument for the resurrection. And it implies that this was the full and constant belief of all who endured these trials, that there would be a resurrection of the dead. The argument would be, that they should be slow to adopt an opinion which would imply that all their sufferings were endured for nothing, and that God had supported them in this in vain; that God had plunged them into all these sorrows, and had sustained them in them only to disappoint them. That this view is plausible, and that it suits the strain of remark in the following verses, is evident. But there are objections to it:

(a) It is not the usual and natural meaning of the word “baptize.”

(b) A metaphorical use of a word should not be resorted to unless necessary.

(c) The literal meaning of the word here will as well meet the design of the apostle as the metaphorical.

(d) This interpretation does not relieve us from any of the difficulties in regard to the phrase “for the dead;” and,

(e) It is altogether more natural to suppose that the apostle would derive his argument from the baptism of all who were Christians, than from the figurative baptism of a few who went into the perils of martyrdom - The other opinion, therefore, is, that the apostle here refers to baptism as administered to all believers.

This is the most correct opinion; is the most simple, and best meets the design of the argument. According to this, it means that they had been baptized with the hope and expectation of a resurrection of the dead. They had received this as one of the leading doctrines of the gospel when they were baptized. It was a part of their full and firm belief that the dead would rise. The argument according to this interpretation is, that this was an essential article of the faith of a Christian; that it was embraced by all; that it constituted a part of their very profession; and that for anyone to deny it was to deny that which entered into the very foundation of the Christian faith.

If they embraced a different doctrine, if they denied the doctrine of the resurrection, they struck a blow at the very nature of Christianity, and dashed all the hopes which had been cherished and expressed at their baptism. And what could they do? What would become of them! What would be the destiny of all who were thus baptized? Was it to be believed that all their hopes at baptism were vain and that they would all perish? As such a belief could not be entertained, the apostle infers that, if they held to Christianity at all, they must hold to this doctrine as a part of their very profession. According to this view, the phrase “for the dead” means, with reference to the dead; with direct allusion to the condition of the dead, and their hopes; with a belief that the dead will rise. It is evident that the passage is elliptical, and this seems to be as probable as any interpretation which has been suggested. Mr. Locke says, frankly, “What this baptizing for the dead was, I know not; but it seems, by the following verses, to be something wherein they exposed themselves to the danger of death.” Tyndal translates it, “over the dead.” Doddridge renders it, “in the room of the dead, who are just fallen in the cause of Christ, but are yet supported by a succession of new converts, who immediately offer themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers that advance to the combat in the room of their companions who have just been slain in their sight.”