03.13. "Baptised for the Dead."

"Baptised for the Dead."

1 Corinthians 15:29. The famous passage in which the Apostle Paul refers to baptism "for the dead" was not at first included in this series of studies, as it was felt to be a text presenting difficulty in interpretation rather than ambiguity in the strict sense. There is, however, a certain degree of the latter, and in response to a suggestion the verse has been included. In 1 Corinthians 15:11-58, the great "resurrection chapter," the apostle sought to confute those who in his day were denying the resurrection of the saints. His chief point was that the arguments his opponents were using would apply also to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If there was no resurrection, and no risen Christ, then the Christian faith was a vain thing, there was no salvation from sin, those who had fallen asleep in Christ had perished, and Christians who had entertained delusive hopes were of all men to be pitied most. However, by cogent argument Paul could prove the resurrection of Christ, and with that established the Christians could be sure of the future resurrection of departed saints.

It seems curious, after the Apostle Paul had reached the heights of triumphant declaration of the final conquest of the risen Christ, that he should then return to what seems to most readers a subsidiary as well as an obscure argument. A certain practice, he writes, was unmeaning if there were no resurrection of the dead. It will be well to quote his own words:

"Else what shall they do which are baptised for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptised for them?" (1 Corinthians 15:29, R.V.). The Common Version punctuates differently, and at the end of the second question has the repetition of the word "dead" in place of the better attested pronoun of the revision, thus: "Else what shall they do which are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptised for the dead?" But there is no alteration of meaning, and we nee(t have little difficulty so far as translation is concerned.

There is, however, no agreement amongst scholars as to the precise meaning of the verse, and from the early centuries expositors have been perplexed. Some people have been very sure of the meaning, but wiser writers freely confess that certainty is beyond us. Dr. Plummer said that "with our present knowledge it is impossible to do more than determine the direction in which a correct solution may be found. It is possible to show what kind of interpretation the language of 1 Corinthians 15:29 requires; and, when this is done, other kinds of interpretation are excluded as impossible."

One writer has collected thirty-six different interpretations, and there is no likelihood that he gave an exhaustive enumeration. If the reader of this has any settled opinion at all, it is highly probable that he has some supporters. The defender of the quaintest view need not feel lonely!

Vicarious baptism.

It seems natural first to notice the explanation that Paul refers to vicarious or proxy baptism, in which a living man was baptised on behalf of a dead one, so that the departed friend might receive a benefit. The Mormons of modern times have revived this baptism for the dead, which we know was practised in the early centuries, after the apostolic age. Tertullian (died c. 220 A.D.) and Chrysostom (died 407 A.D.) tell us that it existed amongst the Marcionites of the second century; and Epiphanius (died 403 A.D.) says that there was "an uncertain tradition handed down, that it was also to be found amongst some heretics in Asia, especially in Galatia, in the times of the apostles." Chrysostom describes the practice: When a catechumen (i. e. one training for baptism and church membership) had died before receiving baptism, "they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased; then coming to the dead man they spoke to him, and asked him whether he would receive baptism; and he making no answer, the other replied in his stead, and so they baptised the living for the dead." Epiphanius states the purpose: "lest in the resurrection the dead should be punished for want of baptism, and not subjected to the powers that made the world." Chrysostom says he could not speak of the practice without bursts of laughter, and the early writers did not think that Paul was making any allusion in 1 Corinthians 15:29 to any such practice.

It is true that even a superstitious practice of the kind referred to would imply a belief in resurrection and future life, and so it could fit Paul’s general argument in 1 Corinthians 15:1-58. An illustration might be drawn even from an evil thing. But we are persuaded that had Paul referred to such an unauthorised and grossly superstitious rite he must have condemned it. It is impossible for us to believe that he could have been content with the language he uses, if he had known that some of the Christians had so distorted the ordinance of our Lord’s appointment. Further, there is no proof that proxy baptism existed in apostolic times, and it is much more probable that the later superstitions rite grew out of the fancied meaning of our text than that the text refers to an existing practice.

There is no proxy religion in the New Testament. Faith, repentance and obedience in baptism are all matters personal to the individual seeker for salvation. It is interesting to note that Dean Stanley, who believes that 1 Corinthians 15:29 refers to vicarious baptism (though of course he thought that practice to be superstitious and unauthorised), should seek to show a certain connection between later church practices with their alterations of New Testament and those of the people referred to by Paul. In his commentary on Corinthians Stanley writes: "This endeavor to assume a vicarious responsibility in baptism is the same as afterwards appeared in the institution of sponsors." It will be remembered that the church of which the Dean was a brilliant member and leader represents the godfathers and godmothers as making profession of faith and other promises on behalf of the infant to be baptised. We can but repeat, whether of ancient heretical baptism or of any modern practice, that no one person can believe, repent or be baptised for another. Stanley goes on to refer to what the Church of Rome has done to the other ordinance of our Lord’s appointment, as illustrating the motive behind the proxy baptism of the heretics: "The striving to repair the shortcomings of the departed is the same which in regard to the other sacrament, still prevails through a large part of Christendom, in the institution of masses for the dead."

Some better interpretations.

(1) One of the interpretations which yet holds the field is found in the early Greek "fathers," that Paul refers to the ordinary Christian rite, which implies a belief in the resurrection. Evans in the "Speakers’ Commentary" strongly defends this view, and would translate "with an interest in [the resurrection of, the dead," or "in expectation of [the resurrection of] the dead." The objections usually given to the view, however, are very strong if not demonstrative. viz.: (1) that the words "they who are baptised for the dead" suggest a special class rather than refer to the whole body of Christians. It would he an unnatural way of speaking if those who were "baptised for the dead" included all to whom Paul wrote as well as the apostle himself. Indeed, he seems in the very next verse to put himself into another class. (2) It may be doubted whether the preposition "huper" can have this meaning. (3) The ellipse is too violent; the words put in brackets above have no place in the original text.

(2) A few scholarly interpreters have attached a figurative meaning to the phrase "baptised for the dead," making it stand for the baptism of suffering such as Christ was baptised with, a "baptism for the sake of [entering into the church of] the dead." The only merit of this is that it suits the immediately following verses which refer to Paul’s suffering for Christ’s sake. But, as has been objected, "this is a still greater strain upon the preposition, and is equally open to objection from the use of the third person and of the ’them’ at the end of the verse."

(3) Some writers have imagined that deathbed or clinic baptism is referred to. This, however, was a post-apostolic practice, and, so far as we know, was not found in the first century. Besides, "baptism of the dying" could hardly be described as "baptism for the dead." Despite the great names of Calvin and others associated with this view, we may dismiss it also as impossible.

(4) Another view is well worth mentioning, and is of a very different class. It is, briefly, that Paul is referring to what is a common experience that "the death of Christians leads to the conversion of sinners, who in the first instance ’for the sake of the dead’ (their beloved (lead), and in the hope of reunion turn to Christ." Professor David Smith adopts this view, and expresses it in the following words:

"What then does the verse signify? Observe that the phrase ’for the dead,’ though ambiguous in English, cannot in the original mean, as the idea of vicarious baptism would require, ’instead of the dead.’ The Greek preposition here signifies ’for the sake of; and it illumines the apostle’s words when we recognise that these were sorrowful days at Corinth. It was a heathen city, and it appears that it had recently been visited by a pestilence (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:30). ’Many among them were weak and sickly, and not a few were falling asleep’--the Christian phrase for dying. As our Lord had forewarned his disciples, the gospel had enkindled strife. There was many a home where a husband or a wife, a son or a daughter, a brother or a sister had confessed Christ and been loaded with ridicule and abuse. And now when the believer had gone to his rest, his kinsfolk’s hearts softened towards him, regretfully remembering his gracious pleading and their bitter words; and that they might meet him again in the blessed home, they turned to his Saviour and ’were baptised for the sake of their dead.’ And this is the apostle’s appeal to those who doubted the resurrection. Will you, he pleads, forgo that blessed hope?"

Professor G. G. Findlay, who in the Expositor’s Greek Testament argues for this interpretation, says truly that "the hope of future blessedness, allying itself with family affections and friendship, was one of the most powerful factors in the early spread of Christianity." In closing, we suggest that the two interpretations which most appeal to us are those numbered (1) and (4) above. If we cannot definitely decide between these, we confess that the closing view has made an ever stronger appeal to us as the years go by, so that we now regard it as the one with least difficulty and that which is probably correct.