Baptism For The Dead by Rev. Steven Schlei

For otherwise what will those who are baptized for the dead accomplish if the dead are not actually raised? Why indeed are they being baptized for them? 1 Corinthians 15:29

Introduction:

This obscure verse has troubled and perplexed commentators for ages. As my readers may be aware, this passage provides the basis for the extensive genealogical research of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons). To my knowledge, the Mormons are the only religious group which actually does engage in vicarious baptism of the living in order to provide supposed benefits for the dead. This explains their zeal and willingness to expend vast amounts of money and effort to collect and secure precise genealogical data.

I believe that most Christians would be very happy if this embarrassingly difficult passage could be expunged from the Bible. Few orthodox interpreters see anything of real sermonic value in this verse. It seems to provide no blessing and beneficial comfort to the Christian faith. In fact, it appears to do nothing more than supply ammunition to support the Mormon practices. Is this verse simply a "red herring" which could easily divert men from the true Gospel of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ? In answer, orthodox Christians do not need to scratch their heads in red-faced silence nor desperately scramble in an attempt to offer face-saving explanations when confronted by this passage. Let it be said at the outset that 1 Corinthians 15:29 is a beautiful and exciting portion of God's Word which provides powerful confirmation of the truth of a precious Christian doctrine – the resurrection of our bodies from the dead.

Avoiding Pitfalls in Interpretation:

In giving the proper interpretation of this verse, I would like to use as a foil an article which appeared in the September 1986 issue of the The Utah Evangel. I will use this article to show we should not try to explain this portion of Scripture or other similarly difficult passages. For those who are unfamiliar with this publication, The Utah Evangel is an anti-Mormon magazine published by an independent Baptist editor named John L. Smith. The main purpose of the Evangel is to warn Christians of the dangerous errors of Mormonism, and as such it is a very commendable publication. In this particular issue of the Evangel, there appeared an article, authored by a certain Carl Haron, which offered an interpretation of this perplexing verse. Unfortunately, Mr. Haron's suggested explanation of the passage was neither satisfying nor accurate. Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me make it crystal clear that while I reject this Christian brother's views on 1 Corinthians 15:29, I definitely am not defending the Mormon position. I most emphatically repudiate the Mormon practice of baptism for the dead.

Haron suggested that in 1 Corinthians 15:29 "the apostle Paul used an illustration of mixed-up religious group in his day which was familiar to the Christians at Corinth." Haron asserted that this heretical cult denied the resurrection of the body and practiced vicarious baptism of its living members to cleanse the sins of its dead members.

Haron's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29 is pure guesswork – yea, even rank speculation. Yet, Haron presented his viewpoint as though it was an indisputable, commonly recognized and accepted fact. I have the feeling that Mr. Haron felt the obvious weakness of his own speculative guesswork, for he spent the majority of his article trying to buttress his interpretation by demonstrating the absurdity of the Mormon position. Let it be noted, however, that it is a fallacy of logic to think that one's own position necessarily is proved by the weakness of an opposing viewpoint.

The apostle Paul mentions nothing about a cult group in the context of 1 Corinthians 15. In fact, Paul says that it was "some of you" (i.e., the Christians to whom he was writing) who denied the resurrection (vs. 12). These professing Christians were the "bad company" in the church who were "ignorant of God" and were corrupting the other Christians with their false ideas (vss. 33-34). The apostle insists that the denial of the resurrection, far from being a slight error, undercuts the very essence of the Gospel itself (vss. 1-4, 12-19).

As an aside, let me say that whenever I confront members of a cult group (JWs, Mormons, Moonies, or whatever), I invariably ask them to tell me what the Gospel is. In every case, they have been very embarrassed at my question and quickly try to search their minds for an appropriate answer. After I let them struggle and grope to supply an answer to my question, I then ask them to tell me how their response is actually "good news" to me and to them. That makes them even more embarrassed and defensive. After some more stumbling and bumbling on their part, I quite bluntly tell them that they do not have any good news because they do not know what the Gospel is. Then, I take them to 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. There Paul clearly tells us what the essence of the Gospel message is. The heart of the Gospel is that Jesus died for our sins (not His own sins for He had no sin), was buried, and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. I then proceed to explain why this message is good news. Even if a cultist refuses to believe this precious truth, at least his blood will not be upon our heads if we show him the truth.

Now, let us return to the matter at hand. To suggest as does Mr. Haron that the apostle Paul was simply referring to a mixed-up cult does violence to the context of the passage. It is clear that Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:29-32 is asking several rhetorical questions to demonstrate the absurdity of denying the resurrection. If there is no resurrection, then what is accomplished by those who are baptized for the dead (vs. 29)? Why do the Christians endanger their lives (vs. 30)? Why did Paul fight with wild beasts at Ephesus (vs. 32)? If the resurrection is a lie, then Paul asserts that we ought to join the hedonists in living for the pleasure of the moment (vs.32). Citing Isaiah 22:13 in verse 32, Paul insists that if there is no resurrection, we should be like the unbelievers of Isaiah's time and try to grab all the gusto that we can for the brief duration of this life.

Because Paul is so precise and logical throughout this portion of Scripture in tearing apart the fallacy of denying the resurrection, we should not think for a moment that he erred or threw in a shaky, embarrassing argument in verse 29. The flow of the entire passage and argument underlying that portion of Scripture demand that we view verse 29 as a powerful link in Paul's chain of reasoning which demonstrates the necessity of the resurrection. Otherwise, he would not have utilized this illustration in making his case.

The Interpreter's Dilemma:

Mr. Haron in his article was correct in noting that the apostle Paul in verse 29 refers to another group of people who practiced baptism for the dead. Paul says, "Why indeed are they being baptized for them [i.e., the dead]?" He does not say, "Why are you (or we) being baptized for them?" The apostle Paul evidently does not include himself or his readers in the reference to this practice. Yet, if a certain practice demonstrates the need to believe a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith, why does Paul not indicate that he and the other Christians engaged in that practice? Any proffered interpretation must attempt to give answer to this question.

Would Paul use a heretical practice of some obscure cult group as a proof for a cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith? Many commentators have tried this approach to interpretation of this verse. Such an obviously foolish notion should be unhesitatingly rejected! On the other hand, if the practice of baptism for the dead constitutes a compelling reason for Paul's belief in the resurrection, to reiterate my previous point, why does Paul not indicate that he or the Christians at Corinth engaged in this practice? This two-fold difficulty constitutes the heart of the problem in interpreting 1 Corinthians 15:29. Every speculative interpretation of this verse inevitably gets skewered on this two-horned dilemma.

Setting the Background for Proper Interpretation:

Whenever we encounter a difficult or hard-to-be-understood portion of Scripture, we should not resort to wild speculation to supply an interpretation. Speculative interpretations will always get us into more trouble than we had at the beginning because we will be doing violence to God's precious Word. A cardinal principle of biblical interpretation is that the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures. In other words, we should look to the Bible itself to help us understand the Bible.

Before I give what I believe to be the proper interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29, it is necessary for me to challenge a cherished assumption of my brothers in the Lord who adhere to Baptist beliefs. That notion I wish to challenge is the idea that the proper scriptural mode of baptism is by immersion. Having once been a Baptist myself, I have become convinced by a number of excellent books on the market that immersion is not the proper mode of baptism.

Because of the limitations of space, I cannot explore the entire subject of the mode of baptism in this article. Let me say, however, that my rejection of immersionist ideas is not simply based on my understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:29, though this verse in itself does constitute a powerful refutation of the Baptist position. I would direct your attention to Hebrews 9:10. In the context, the writer of Hebrews is discussing how the ceremonies of the Old Testament pointed to the finished work of Jesus Christ. In Hebrews 9:10, the writer says that those fleshly ordinances applied until the time of a new order. Among those external regulations of the Old Testament era, he mentions "divers washings" (as it reads in the King James translation). In the original Greek of this passage, those "divers washings" to which the writer makes reference are literally "various baptisms." Now, it is extremely problematic to find any specific example of immersion in the Old Testament law and practice. It is even more difficult to discover different types of immersion. If we understand though that proper baptism is by sprinkling or pouring, then the writer of Hebrews mentions some of those different baptisms right in the very passage itself (Hebrews 9:13, 19, 21).

Before I get into the specifics of interpreting 1 Corinthians 15:29, let me lay an overview or framework for understanding this verse. The writer of Hebrews says that these Old Testament baptisms were temporary ordinances which were utilized until the inauguration of a new order. This forms a crucial piece of biblical data in the proper understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:29. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:29 was making reference to an Old Testament baptism for the dead which was practiced by the Jews. Because it was an Old Testament baptism, it was an obsolete baptism and thus was not practiced by Paul and other New Testament Christians. Yet, this was a practice which was commanded in the Scriptures of the Old Testament and thus constituted a powerful argument which Paul utilized to buttress his insistence upon the necessity of the resurrection. Paul was not appealing to a heretical practice. He was appealing to the Word of God to prove his point. This certainly must be the correct answer to the two-fold dilemma I posed earlier. Though this Old Testament baptism was obsolete in terms of its practice in the church, it was not obsolete in terms of its practical value in teaching New Testament believers the truth of the resurrection. Indeed, the whole of Scripture is always relevant and practical to New Testament Christians (11 Tim. 3:16-17).

The Key to Interpretation:

The Old Testament passage to which Paul makes reference in 1 Corinthians 15:29 is found in Numbers 19:11-22. This portion of the law taught the Israelites that death defiled a man and made man unacceptable and unable to approach the Lord. Indeed, even any contact with death by a living person defiled the living, for such contact indicated that the person lived in a creation that was under the curse of death. Only Jesus could come into contact with death and not be defiled, for He had the power of life which removed the defilement of sin and its curse of death. Sinners are defiled even by contact with death, for they themselves have the curse of death upon them. Our sinless Lord, however, destroyed the power of death. Death could not hold Him in its grasp, for He had not committed any sin making Him worthy of death.

The law of Numbers 19;11f taught God's people that death and even contact with death made them unclean, defiled, and unable to approach a holy God. A holy God could never have sin in His presence, nor even the evidence of sin's pollution in the curse of death. The universal fact of death demonstrates that we are all sinners, defiled and unclean in the sight of the Lord. The apostle Paul teaches the very same thing in 1 Corinthians 15:50-58. To properly approach the Lord and inherit the Kingdom, Paul says that Christians must be clothed in immortality of life through the power of the resurrection. God simply will not have a stinking, rotting corpse in His presence. Nor does God even want the smell of death in His presence through contact with the dead by His people.

The living person who was made unclean by contact with death was unable to approach the Lord's temple (Num. 19:13). What was the Old Testament remedy for this defilement of death? The remedy of the law was that the unclean person had to be sprinkled with the water of cleansing on the third day (vss. 13, 17f), but he would not be fully cleansed until the end of the seventh say (vs. 19).

In order to understand this law of Moses and the interpretation of it by the apostle Paul, we have to examine the concept of the type and anti-type in the Bible. A "type" is an Old Testament picture of something which comes to reality in the New Testament. For example, the sacrifices of the Old Testament were types of the completed sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. They pictured His vicarious death and removal of sin's defilement. The finished work of Christ is the anti-type of all the Old Testament types. An anti-type is the corresponding counterpart of all its parts.

Paul's argument then is this. The water of cleansing found in Numbers 19 is a type of the resurrection. Contact with death defiled the living, but this defilement which made the living unable to approach the Lord's temple was removed by the water of cleansing (sprinkled upon the unclean person in baptism). Thus, baptism with the water of cleansing was biblically a resurrection, for the power of death was broken so that the unclean could be made clean and again approach the Lord. Yet, the water of cleansing in Numbers 19 was only a type. Like the blood of bulls and goats which could never remove the stain of sin (Hebrews 10:4), so the water of cleansing could never really remove the pollution of death. Its effect was only temporary. A person cleansed by the law of Numbers 19 again could become defiled if there was a further contact with something or someone that was dead. This would necessitate a further enactment of the rite of cleansing. Thus, the water of cleansing did not and could never accomplish a once-for-all removal of death's defilement.

Now, Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 15:29 becomes very beautiful and crystal clear. If the anti-type is denied (the resurrection of believers), then what were the Jews doing practicing baptism for the dead (the type)? If the anti-type (the resurrection of believers) is a lie, then baptism for the dead (the type) makes absolutely no sense at all. Paul is arguing from the lesser (the type) to the greater (the anti-type), a very common practice in biblical reasoning. If in actuality there is no resurrection of the dead, then there is no way that the law even could picture the removal of death's defilement, thus enabling the unclean sinner to approach the Lord. Then, the law would have been lying, for it would have pictured the removal of death's defilement when without the actual resurrection that would have been impossible. Of course, the law could never lie, for that would the same thing as saying that God Himself lied in His Word. That can never be, for Thy Word is truth, O Lord (John 17:17) – amen and amen! Paul insists that the Jewish practice based upon the law of God in Numbers 19 demands the reality of the resurrection. Yet, it would be entirely inappropriate for Christians today to practice the law of Numbers 19:11f. To practice types and shadows (i.e., baptism for contact with the dead) when the reality (Christ's resurrection) has come would be to impugn the finished work of Christ.

It should be noted that the law of Moses in Numbers 19:11f provided for a two-stage removal of the defilement of death. The unclean person was sprinkled on the third and seventh day and was not cleansed until the end of the seventh day. This is a type which beautifully pointed to the work of Christ. Christ, of course, was raised on the third day. Christ's resurrection sanctifies and assures the resurrection of Christians by virtue of our union to Christ in His blessed resurrection. Paul argues the negative side of this in 1 Corinthians 15:12-29 where he insists that if there is no resurrection of Christians, then Christ is not raised either. Apparently, even the confused deceivers at Corinth who denied the resurrection of believers did believe in the resurrection of Christ, for Paul uses this accepted fact to prove that the Christians also must believe in the resurrection of believers. Paul insisted that you cannot separate the resurrection of Christ from the resurrection of His people. As in Adam all died, so those who are in (united to) the second Adam will be made alive (1 Cor. 15:22).

Paul teaches that the resurrection of Christ was only the firstfruits of the full harvest of the resurrection of believers to follow (1 Cor. 15:20). Like the Old Testament law of Numbers 19, there is a partial sanctification of the believer through Christ's resurrection on the third day, but our full sanctification and removal of death's defilement does not come until later. In the Old Testament law, the believer was sprinkled on the third day, but he needed to be sprinkled on the seventh day as well. Only at the end of the seventh say was he considered clean and able to approach the Lord's temple. Seven in the Bible is a number which often symbolizes completion or fullness. This Old Testament law was a type pointing to the fact that there would be an initial resurrection on the third day and a final resurrection at the end of time. The seventh day of Numbers 19 pointed to the fullness of that glorious Day of Christ's coming when the Kingdom of God will arrive in all its splendor, when Christ will have put all His enemies under His feet and will hand the Kingdom over to His Father (1 Cor. 15:24-28). At that time, the last enemy, death, will be fully conquered and destroyed (1 Cor. 15:26).

So, it is readily apparent that the current Mormon practice of baptism for the dead in no way corresponds to the actual practice of baptism for the dead to which Paul makes reference. Furthermore, even if Mormon practice did correspond to that ancient rite of baptism for the dead, let it be recognized that a type can never save a man. Every Old Testament type only serves its proper and appointed purpose in leading men to the anti-type, that is, putting faith in Jesus Christ. The Mormon practice is seen in all its perversity in that it leads men away from Christ, for at the very least it impugns His finished work.

If the Old Testament practice of baptism for the dead ultimately could not remove death's defilement, and it could not, then it must be plain that the Mormon practice will be of absolutely no saving benefit either. In fact, the Old Testament practice of baptism for the dead was never for the benefit of the dead anyway. It was for the benefit of the living to teach then that they needed to cleansed from death's defilement. The gigantic effort of Mormon historians to compile genealogical records for all the dead in order to offer vicarious baptism for their benefit must be recognized for what it really in, a pathetic, monumental exercise in futility.