Baptism For The Dead

Charles Buck Theological Dictionary

A practice formerly in use, when a person dying without baptism, another was baptized in his stead; thus supposing that God would accept the baptism of the proxy, as though it had been administered to the principal. Chrysostom says, this was practiced among the Marcionites with a great deal of ridiculous ceremony, which he thus describes:

After any catechumen was dead, they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased; then, coming to the dead man, they asked him whether he would receive baptism; and he making no answer, the other answered for him, and said he would be baptized in his stead; and so they baptized the living for the dead. If it can be proved (as some think it can) that this practice was as early as the days of the apostle Paul, it might probably form a solution of those remarkable words in  1 Corinthians 15:29 : "If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?" The allusion of the apostle to this practice, however, is rejected by some, and especially by Fr. Doddridge, who thinks it too early: he thus paraphrases the passage: "Such are our views and hopes as Christians; else, if it were not so, what should they do who are baptized in token of their embracing the Christian faith, 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 rooms of their companions who have just been slain in their sight?" Lay baptism we find to have been permitted by both the common prayer books of king Edward and queen Elizabeth, when an infant was in immediate danger of death, and a lawful minister could not be had. This was founded on a mistaken notion of the impossibility of salvation without the sacrament of baptism; but afterwards, when they came to have clearer notions of the sacraments, it was unanimously resolved in a convocation held in 1575, that even private baptism in a case of necessity was only to be administered by a lawful minister.

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology

First Corinthians 15:29 remains an enigma, although over thirty "explanations" have been suggested. Substituting alternative phrases—baptism for "the spiritually dead, " "the dying, " "in memory of the departed, " or othersmerely multiplies problems. Vicarious baptisms for the benefit of the dead, practiced on the fringe of Christianity from the second century, illustrate the influence of this verse, but not Paul's meaning. Paul is arguing that if Jesus has not risen, then Christian faith, preaching, remission, hope, are all vain; so is "baptism for the dead." He cannot mean Christian baptism, for none of its conditions or benefits, as Paul expounds them, can be affirmed of the dead. Besides, the following phrase ("And as for us " NIV; "And we ourselves " neb) dissociates Paul and his colleagues from the practice.

If docetic type Christians infected the church at Corinth, they may have accepted baptism for departed souls  : but how would that prove bodily resurrection? Similarly, some Dionysian rites and some practices of the mystery religions were held to ensure access, and safe journeying, in the spiritual world, even for those already dead. And Paul could argue from pagan parallels without immediately condemning them (see, e.g.,   1 Corinthians 10:20-22 ). But this analogy again does not necessarily imply bodily resurrection.

Yet even as a Pharisee Paul could not conceive a disembodied immortality, leaving the surviving personality incomplete (see  2 Corinthians 5:1-4 ). Is he then arguing that even pagans, if their baptism for the dead be properly understood, testify unconsciously to a bodily resurrection?

R. E. O. White

Bibliography . M. Brauch, Hard Sayings of Paul .

Holman Bible Dictionary

 1 Corinthians 15:12 1 Corinthians 15:1  1 Corinthians 15:29

Second, Paul was not advocating the practice of baptizing for the dead. Paul was pointing to the inconsistency in the thought of the Corinthians in trying to convince them of the reality of the resurrection of the dead. The argument seems to be: “If, as some of you Corinthians claim, there is no resurrection from the dead, then why do you go to the trouble of baptizing for the dead? Only those who hope for life after death would attempt to influence the eternal fate of those who have died. Your thinking on the subject is contradictory. You claim there is no resurrection, but your actions betray that you really believe there is something beyond this life.”

Other Bible students think the Corinthians believed life in the Spirit made the body unnecessary. Baptism for the dead in this view ensured the dead would enjoy the same spiritual life as would the living but without a body.

Phil Logan

Easton's Bible Dictionary

 1 Corinthians 15:29

Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament

See Baptism.

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

( Ὑπὲρ Τῶν Νεκρῶν ,  1 Corinthians 15:29). This difficult passage has given rise to multitudinous expositions. Among them are the following (see also Am. Presb. Rev. Jan. 1863):

1. The Corinthians (according to Suicer), and after them the Marcionites and other heretics, practiced a sort of Vicarious baptism in the case of those who had died unbaptized; that is, they caused a relation or friend of the dead person to be baptized in his stead, in the belief that such baptism would operate to obtain the remission of the sins of the deceased in the other world (Chrysostom, Hom. 40 In 1 Cor., and Tertullian Contra Marcion, lib. 5, cap. 10). The apostle then drew an argument from the heretical practice to prove their belief in the resurrection.

2. Chrysostom, however, declares that Paul refers to the declaration made by each catechumen at his baptism, of his belief in the resurrection of the dead, meaning to say this: "If there is, in fact, no resurrection of the dead, why, then, art thou baptized for the dead, i.e. the body?" An improvement, perhaps, upon this interpretation would be to consider the ancient martyrs to be referred to, Over whose remains the churches were often built (probably, however, not as yet), in which such vows were taken.

3. Among the best interpretations is that of Spanheim (see Wolf, Cur. Sin V. T. in loc.), which considers "the dead" to be martyrs and other believers, who, by firmness and cheerful hope of resurrection, have given in death a worthy example, by which others were also animated to receive baptism. Still, this meaning would be almost too briefly and enigmatically expressed, when no particular reason for it is known, while also the allusion to the exemplary death of many Christians could chiefly apply to the martyrs alone, of whom there were as yet none at Corinth. This interpretation, however, may perhaps also be improved if Christ be considered as prominently referred to among these deceased, by virtue of whose resurrection all his followers expect to be likewise raised.

4. Olshausen's interpretation is of a rather doubtful character. The meaning of the passage he takes to be, that "all who are converted to the church are baptized For The Good of the dead, as it requires a certain number ( Romans 11:12-25), a ‘ fullness' of believers, before the resurrection can take place. Every one, therefore, who is baptized is for the good of believers collectively, and of those who have already died in the Lord." Olshausen is himself aware that the apostle could not have expected that such a difficult and remote idea, which he himself calls "a mystery," would be understood by his readers without a further explanation and development of his doctrine. He therefore proposes an explanation, in which it is argued that the miseries and hardships Christians have to struggle against in this life can only be compensated by resurrection. Death causes, as it were, vacancies in the full ranks of the believers, which are again filled up by other individuals. "What would it profit those who are baptized in the place of the dead (to fill up their place in the community) if there be no resurrection?"

5. None of these explanations, however, well suits the signification of Ὑπέρ , "for," i.e. In Behalf Of, On Account Of, and is, at the same time, consistent in other respects. Dr. Tregelles ( Printed Text Of The Gr. Test. p. 216) has proposed a slight emendation of the text' that appears to obviate the difficulty almost entirely. It consists simply in the following punctuation:" Else what shall they do which are baptized? [It is] for the dead, if the dead rise not at all," i.e. we are baptized merely in the name of (for the sake of, out of regard to) dead persons, namely, Christ and the prophets who testified of him. This interpretation renders No. 3 above more easy of adoption.

Treatises entitled De baptismo Ὑπὲρ Τῶν Νεκρῶν have been written by Schmidt (Argent. 1656), Calon (Viteb. 1684), Deutsch (Regiom. 1698), Grade (Gryph. 1690), Hasaeus (Brem. 1725), Muller (Rost. 1665), Olearius (Lips. 1704), Reichmann (Viteb. 1652), Schenck (Franeq. 1667), Zeutschner (Fcft. a. V. 1706), Facius, (Colossians 1792), Neumann (Jen. 1740), Nobling (Sus. 1784), Richter (Zwic. 1803), Heumann (Isen. 1710, Jen. 1740), Streccius (Jen. 1736).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

(βαπτίζομαι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν , baptizomai hupér tō̇n nekrō̇n ).

1. Paul's Argument

Some of the Corinthian Christians denied the resurrection of the dead, and Paul advances three arguments to convince them that the dead will be raised: (1) "If there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised," but Christ is raised ( 1 Corinthians 15:13 ,  1 Corinthians 15:20 ). (2) If the dead are not raised, why are men being baptized for the dead ( 1 Corinthians 15:29 )? (3) Why should the apostle himself wage his spiritual warfare ( 1 Corinthians 15:30 )? The first argument rests upon the central fact of Christianity, and the other two are appeals to the consistency of the Corinthians, and of Paul himself. Whatever "baptism for the dead" meant, it was, in Paul's opinion, as real, valid and legitimate a premise from which to conclude that the dead would rise as his own sufferings. The natural meaning of the words is obvious. Men in Corinth, and possibly elsewhere, were being continually baptized on behalf of others who were at the time dead, with a view to benefiting them in the resurrection, but if there be no resurrection, what shall they Thus accomplish, and why do they do it? "The only legitimate reference is to a practice ... of survivors allowing themselves to be baptized on behalf of (believing?) friends who had died without baptism" (Alford in the place cited.).

2. Patristic Evidence

Tertullian believed that Paul referred to a custom of vicarious baptism ( Res ., 48c; Adv. Marc ., 5.10). There is evidence that the early church knew such a practice. Epiphanius mentions a tradition that the custom obtained among the Cerinthians ( Haer ., 28 6). And Chrysostom states that it prevailed among the Marcionites.

3. Modern Views

But commentators have offered between thirty and forty other interpretations, more or less strained, of the passage. (For a summary of different views see T. C. Edwards and Stanley, Comms ., at the place) Two of the most reasonable views from recent commentators are: "What shall they do who receive baptism on account of the dead? i.e. with a view to the resurrection of the dead?" and therefore to sharing in it themselves (Canon Evans, Speaker's Comm ., at the place); "that the death of Christians led to the conversion of survivors, who in the first instance 'for the sake of the dead' (their beloved dead), and in the hope of reunion, turn to Christ" (Findlay, Expositor's Greek Test ., at the place). Both ideas may be true, but they are simply imported into this passage, and the latter also is quite irrelevant to the argument and makes Paul identify conversion with baptism.

4. The Difficulty

But why is all this ingenuity expended to evade the natural meaning? Because (1) such a custom would be a superstition involving the principle of opus operatum  ; and (2) Paul could not share or even tolerate a contemporary idea which is now regarded as superstition. To reply (with Alford) that Paul does not approve the custom will not serve the purpose, for he would scarcely base so great an argument, even as an argumentum ad hominem , on a practice which he regarded as wholly false and superstitious. The retort of those who denied the resurrection would be too obvious. But why should it be necessary to suppose that Paul rose above all the limitations of his age? The idea that symbolic acts had a vicarious significance had sunk deeply into the Jewish mind, and it would not be surprising if it took more than twenty years for the leaven of the gospel to work all the Jew out of Paul. At least it serves the apostle's credit ill to make his argument meaningless or absurd in order to save him from sharing at all in the inadequate conceptions of his age. He made for himself no claim of infallibility.