"Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptised on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are they baptised on their behalf?" (1 Corinthians 15.29)

This verse in 1 Corinthians 15 comes to us unexpectedly. Paul has been explaining about the order of events when all mankind rise from the dead. Christ has already been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. In Christ all shall be made alive, those who are Christ's at His coming.

Christ reigns until all enemies are subdued. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Then the Son surrenders the kingdom to the Father, so "that God may be everything to everyone ". These great themes are a study in themselves, but immediately we are brought up with Paul's next words, "Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptised for the dead?"  What is baptism for the dead?

Why does Paul mention it?

The resurrection is the theme of the whole chapter of 1 Corinthians 15. The stimulus for writing it, as with so much of Paul's letter, is what he has heard about the infant church at Corinth - from Chloe's people (1.11), in reports (5.1), in letters (7.1). It appears that some of those in the church at Corinth say there is no resurrection of the dead (v.12).

Paul addresses this opinion. He lays the foundation by going over all his teaching concerning the resurrection of Christ Himself. Christ being raised set the precedent that resurrection is possible (#1). If that had not happened, the whole message that Paul preached would be invalidated (#2). Consequently, the Corinthians would still be unforgiven sinners (#3). There would be no prospects for those of them who had died (#4). Their hope in Christ, if limited to this life, would be illusory and would make them objects of pity (#5). By contrast, an acceptance that resurrection is possible opens up the glorious vista of an unimaginable future described by Paul in vv.20-28.

In verses 29-30 Paul turns back to the Corinthians themselves with two questions. If this glorious vista does not apply, what is the point in Paul's own sufferings? (#7) They only make sense in the context of a future hope. And so far as the Corinthian church is concerned, if the dead are extinct, what is the point of being baptised for them? (#6)

"Baptised for the dead" is a concept which raises problems. It has been remarked that 'the idea of vicarious baptism is obnoxious to thinking Christians.... When one looks at the whole Christian experience and the need to nurture and maintain a personal commitment to God and Jesus Christ, the idea of baptism by proxy becomes absurd.' If we believe that to accept baptism is essentially a personal conscious act, the practice of infant baptism might also be questioned. What personal commitment does a baby make when he is the subject of a baptismal ceremony? Again, in ancient times when the head of a household became a Christian, all his family and slaves would be baptised, like it or not. These two cases, however, are of baptising someone living, and baptism may be a stage in their subsequent spiritual development.

Another has written, "The custom sprang from what is really a  uperstitious and magical view of baptism, the view that unless a person was baptised, he was excluded from the bliss of the faithful and of heaven." In our day, the Mormons have similar concerns.

In view of such reservations, we may look for alternative explanations of the text. It cannot be dismissed as spurious, for it appears in all the manuscripts.

What was Paul referring to? The obvious reference is to some one being baptised on behalf of and in the place of someone else, who by reason of death is unable to be baptised in person. But could it have some other meaning?

Various suggestions have been made, based on different ideas of who 'the dead' referred to might be, and on alternative translations of the Greek 'huper' which can mean, among other things, 'instead of' and 'on behalf of'. One suggestion is that the reference is to Christians being baptised to take the place as Christians of those who have died - that is, as replacements for the dead, following on in the noble tradition of believers. Another suggestion is of Christians getting baptised out of fear, because of God's punishment on unworthy or unfaithful members of the church who have died. A third suggestion is that it refers to ones who get baptised out of respect and affection for loved ones who have died. However, it is difficult to see how such cases as these would be relevant to Paul's argument. He is referring to baptism as it relates to the state of the dead.

The custom of proxy baptism was known in New Testament times. The Marcionites and possibly the Essenes are thought to have held vicarious baptism ceremonies. Barclay describes the rationale for the custom in the early church: "If a person who had intended to become a member of the church, who was actually under instruction… died, sometimes someone else underwent baptism for him after he had died... to safeguard from exclusion from the bliss of heaven." This custom must be what Paul refers to.

Was proxy baptism necessary? They must have thought so at the time. Mark 16.16 states "he who has believed and has been baptised shall be saved" - so was the baptism equally as necessary as the believing? Admittedly, the end of Mark's Gospel as we have it (vv 9-20) does not appear in some of the oldest manuscripts. Whether these words were part of the original Gospel or not, they show that those who copied or edited the text believed baptism was essential.

Or, there are the words of Jesus in John 3.5, "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Whatever being 'born of water' means, and whatever the precise significance of 'entering the kingdom of God' (which are topics for study in themselves), Jesus is obviously talking about something which is personal. This is a very different thing from a posthumous service of baptism. Perhaps some Corinthians did not see the difference. They may have believed that only the church, drawn out from the rest of mankind, would be saved, so to observe the proper membership procedures was essential. They may have thought that there was no hope at all for those outside. So proxy baptism was a way to become a Christian after one's death.

The early church gave up the practice of baptism by proxy. Did they realise that conversion is a matter of heart and mind, not of observing customs and rituals? Salvation, whether in the present day of salvation or in a future time, is God's gift. It is in His mercy that we must trust for life beyond the grave. It is He who gives the opportunity to respond to Christ (who died for all) as He really is, and not just as we imperfectly present Him. Paul linked all hope for the future to being raised from the dead.

Paul distances himself from the practice of baptism by proxy. He says, 'what do people mean by being baptised on behalf of the dead?", not what do I mean. He does not use the custom to 'prove' the resurrection, rather to point out to those in Corinth who observed the custom that they were being inconsistent if they denied the resurrection. (Paul was always ready to quote others' own words in favour of his argument, for example quoting a Greek poet to the Athenians on Mars Hill. This did not mean he thought the Greek poets were inspired by God!) Whether baptism for the dead is acceptable or not does not affect his main argument. It was an afterthought in Paul's argument, an argumentum ad hominem. His main argument consisted of the details of Jesus' resurrection appearances; his exposition of Christ's reign and later in the chapter, his explanation of the resurrection body. These all build up the main thrust of his teaching. He supplies a true hope whose implications are amazing.

"Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is thy victory?" "O death, where is thy sting?" "The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labour is not in vain." (vv51-58).

GC