A Message by Rev, Steve Schlei

BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD

For otherwise what will those who are
baptized for the dead accomplish if the dead
are not actually raised? Why indeed are
they beingbaptizedfor them? I Corinthians
15:29,
Introduction:
Does your church practice bapti,sm
for the dead? If not, then is your church
truly biblical? Are you nllssing part of
God's will for your life? Are you livingin
disobedience to God.
This obscure verse has troubled and
perplexed commentators forages. Asthe
reader may be aware, this 'one text pro-
vides the basis for the extensive genea-
logical research of the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mor-
mons). Accordingto Mormonteaching,
the vicarious baptism of the living pro-
vides salvific benefits for the dead. This
explains their zeal and willingness to
expend vast amounts of money and ef"
fort to collect and secure precise g e n e ~
logical data. To my knowledge, only the
Mormons among all professing Chris-
tian groups have made baptism for the
dead an important part of their religious
rituaL .
. Most Christians would be relieved if
thisembarrassinglydifficultpassageconld
be expunged from the Bible, Few ortho-
dox interpreters see in it anything of real
sermonic value. It seems to provide no
blessing and beneficial comfort to the
Christian faith, and it raises a number of
serious questions. For example, shonld
the Christian church be practicing bap-
tism fot the dead? Can baptism of the
. living prOvide saving benefits for the
dead? Are the Mormoris the only group
that have properly preserved this prac-
tice from the early church? In what way
would proxy baptism of the living on
behalf of the dead be an argument forthe
truth of the resurrection (the subject that
Paul has under discussion in the con-
text)? Is this verse simply a "red herting"
which could easily divert men from the
true Gospel of salvation by faith inJesus
Christ?
Take heart! Orthodox Christians do
not need to scratch their heads in red-
faced silence, or desperately scramble in
an attempt to offer face"saving explana-
tions for this passage. Let it be said at the
outset that! Corirtthians 15:29 is a beau-
tiful and excitingponion of God's Word
which provides powerful confirmation
of the truth of a most precious Christian
doctrirte-theresurrection of our bodies
from the grave.
AvoidingPitfalls in Interpretation
Numerous ingenious interpretations
have been offered in an attempt to ex-
4 ~ THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon ~ May, 1994
plain this passage. Unfortunately, they
are generally speculative in nature, and
they fail to demonsttate how Paul's argu-
ment for the truth of the resurrection is
strengthened bywhat he says in verse29.
Paul did not write this section of Scrip-
ture while daydreaming. His words are
not irrelevant or foolish. Like all the
writers of Sctipture, his words were di-
rected by the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit OI Timothy 3: 16; IPeter 1:10-12),
A truly satisfying solution must avoid
speculation and demonsttate the divine
wisdom evident in this portion of holy
Sctipture. Mostdesirably,Sctipturemust
be used to illumine I Corirtthians 15:29,
forit is a cardinal principle ofinterpreta-
tion that the Bible is its own best inter-
preter, Let us examine the context, and I
would encourage you to have a Bible
handy to consult.
Others try in various ways to offer
alternarive explanations of the words
"baptism: "for," and "the dead." For
example, some have said that p .. ul is
referring to the martyrs who were oop-
med into the ranks of the dead ("bap-
tism" being used metaphorically to refer
to death, d. Mark 10: 38; Luke 12:,50).
But why would Paul refer to the blessed
martyrs in such an obscuremarmer?
Also, the preposition "for" (Greek huper)
does not sustain this interpretation. It
has been suggested that Paul was refer"
rirtg to the practice of baptizing Chris-
tians "over" (huper) the graves of the
dep.d, The Greek word "huper" can be
ttanslated "over," but this introduces
another problem, Why would Chris-
tians be baptized over the graves of the
dead, and what relevance would this
practice have in Paul's discussion sup-
porting the truth of the resurrection?
It has been suggested that "for" be
translated "with a view toward" the dead.
Thus Christians were being baptized
with a view toward being reunited with
their dead loved ones. Then why does
Paul not include himself and his readers
among those who desire to see their
departedlovedones?Hementions "those"
who are being baptized for me dead, but
he does not include his Corinthian read-
ers or himselfin the reference. It has been
suggested that "me dead" is a reference to
the soon-to-be-dead bodies of me Chris-
tians. This interpretation takes me dead
to mean "death." That is not what Paul
says, however, and again, Paul indicates
that he and his readers were not involved
in the practice of baptism for the dead,
whereas this interpretation would de-
mand their inclusion.
Interpretations
that are speculative,
or alter me nonnal
meaning of the
words, or failto sup-
pan Paul's defense
of the resurrection,
and mns ignore the
contextual relevance
of what he is saying,
must be rejected.
Paul's argumenta-
tion in I Corinthians
15 is careful, consis-
tent, coherent, and
tightly reasoned. He was defending the
truth of the resurrection ofbelievers from
the dead against some who had denied
this cardinal doctrine of the Wth. Paul's
words are not irrelevant or foolish. Like
all the writers of Scripture, his words
were directed by me inspiration of the
Holy Spirit (IITimothy3: 16; IPeter 1: 10-
12). AtrulysatisfYingsolutionmustavoid
speculation and demonstrate the divine
wisdom evident in this portion of holy
Scripture. Mostdesirably, SClipturemust
be used to illumine I COlinthians 15:29,
for it is a fundamental prindple of inter-
pretation that the Bible is its own best
interpreter, comparing Sclipture wim
Scripture.
In I Corinthians 15:29-32, Paul is
asking several rhetOlical questions to
demonstrate the absurdity of denying
the resun'ection. If there is no resurrec-
tion, then what is accomplished by those
who are baptized for the dead (vs. 29)?
Why do Christians endanger their lives
(vs. 30)? Why did Paul fight with wild
beasts at Ephesus (vs. 32)? There is no
mention in the book of Acts about Paul
fighting with animals while ministering
in Ephesus. These "wildbeasts" are not
literal animals with which Paul wrestled
in the arena. The reference is to Paul's
human opposition which he views as
beastly(likeChrist'senemies-see Psalm
22: 12-18) and devilish (the Devil is seen
asa beast in Sclipture, cf. Genesis 3; Rev.
12:3). If the resurrection is a lie, then
Paul asserts that we ought to join the
hedonists in living for the pleasures of
the moment (vs. 32). Citingisaiah22:13
in verse 32, Paul insists that if there is no
l'eSUn'ection, we should be like the unbe-
lievers of Isaiah's time and try to grab all
the gusto that we can for me blief dura-
tion of mis life.
Because Paul is so prease and logical
throughout this portion of Scripture in
tealing apan 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 de-
mands that we view verse 29 as a power-
fullink in Paul's chain of reasoning that
demonstrates the necessity of the l'eSUr-
rection.
The Interpreter's Dilemma
As had already been indicated, the
major dilemma fucing the interpreter of
this verse is the Apostle's mention of
another group of people who practiced
baptism for the dead. Why does the
apostle Paul appeal to tlle practice of
some mystelious, unnamed group to .
demonstrate the truth of a cardinal doc-
tline of the Christian faith? Notice that
Paul writes, "Why indeed are they being
baptized for them [i.e., the dead]?" He
does not say, "Why are you (orwe) being
baptized for them?" The apostle Paul
evidently does not include himself or his
readers in the
group which fol-
lows this practice.
Why? If baptism
for the dead dem-
onsnates the need
to believe a cardi-
nal doctline of the
Christian faith,
why is there no in-
dication that Paul
and the Corinthian
Chlistiansengaged
in this practice?
If a discussion
with a Monnon turns to the subject of
baptism for the dead, and he chides you
for failing to follow a biblical teaching,
have him read I Corinthians 15:29 care-
fully. Then ask him why he is doingwhat
Paul and his readers were not practidng.
This is the "hom" oftheexegeticaldilem-
rna tllat skewers the Mormon interpreta-
tion of this verse.
On the other hand, ifsomeone l'eCOg- _
nizes that Paul was refening to some
otherunnamedgroup that was follOwing
this practice, this raises the mystery of
why Paul would use an apparently heret-
ical or pagan practice to suppon his
argumentation for belief in a cardinal
doctline of Clllistianity. Every specula-
tive interpretation gets skewered on the
horns of this interpretive dilemma.
Setting the Bachgroundfor
Proper Interpretation
Rather than resolt to speculative
explanations to resolve perplexing texts
May, 1994 t THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon t 5
in the Bible, the interpreter should reson
to the Bible. In other words, one should
seek explanation of the Bible from, the
Bible itself. To underslllnd I Corinthians
15:29, a brief examination must be
made of the Biblical mode of baptism. It
is necessary for me to challenge a cher-
ished /lSSUmption of many of my dear
brothers in the Lord who adhere to im-
mersionist beliefs. I am not doing this to
be contentious. This is necessary be-
cause my interpretation of! Corinthians
15:29 will be nonsensical to one imbued
with immersionist thinking uuless I ad-
dress this subject, at least briefly. Having
once been a immersionist myself, I have
becomeconvincedbyanumberofexcel- .
lent books that immersion is not the
proper mode of baptisnL Since my
immediate concern is to address the
interpretation of I Corinthians 15:29, I
will not enter into a full-blown discus-
sion of the proper mode of baptism.
Excellent refutations of theimmersionist
error can be found by consulting the
following books:
Qasslc BaptJsm,J.W. Dale
ImmmfDn and Immersionists, W.
A. Mackay
Meantngand Mode of BaptJsm, Jay,
E. Adams ' ,
Christian Baptism, John Murray
Biblical baptism in mOSt cases, if not
in all inslllnces, was by sprinkling and
pouring, not by immersion. If the reader
can accept this, a powerful and hean
warming interpretation of I Corinthians
15:29 is then available. Hebrews 9:10
provides an imponant piece of this exe-
getical puzzle which resolves the thomy
problems surrounding this mysterious
verse. In the context of Hebrews 9:10,
the writer discusses the madequacy and
imperfections of the Old Testament sys-
tem of worship, imperfections which
pointed to the need for Jesus. ,Because the
Old Testament system couldnoisave lost
sinners, those fleshly ceremonial ordi-
nances were temporary and applied ouly
until the inauguration of a new order.
Among those external regulations of
theOldTestamenterawhichhavepassed
with the fina]jty ofChrist'sflni.'hed work,
the writer of Hebrews in 9:10 mentions
"divers washings" (as it readsin the King
James ttanslation). These "divers wash-
ings" in the Greek are literally "various
baptisms". Yes the Old Testament law
provided for vatious kinds of 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 various
immersions. If the proper mode ofbap-
tismisunderstoodto be by sprinkling or
pouring however, the beauty of! Corin-
thians 15:29 begins to unfold Thewrit-
er of Hebrews mentions some of those
various baptisms right in the verY same
context (Hebrews 9:l3,19, 21).
This is a crucial scriptural (not spec-
ulative) key that uulocks the meaning of
I Corinthians 15: 29. Paul in this verse
was making reference to the Old Testa-
ment ritual ofbaptism for the dead. This
interpretation would avoid the dilem-
mas preViously mentioned. For if Paul
was referring to an Old Testament prac-
tice of baptism for the dead, this would
explain why this ceremonial ordinance
was no longer being observed by Paul
and the Corinthian Christilms. It would
be obsolete, because Christ abolished
the whole sacrificial system of shadows
andtypes. Atthesametime, appealing to
a practice in the Old Testament to sup-
ponthe truthofa Biblicaldoctrinewould
cenainly be legitimate and understand-
able. Paul did this all the time in his
writings.
Thus, these Old Testament baptisms
were temporirry ordinances which were
utilized until the inauguration of a new
order. That new:orderbecame a reality
with the coming of Christ who was a
priest after the order of Melchizedek
(Hebrews 7). With the change of priest-
hood (from Levitical priesthood to the
Melchizedekian priesthood), there is a
corresponding change In the law (He-
brews 7:12). The Old Testament cere-
6 TH'E COUNSEL of Chalcedon May, 1994
moniesare 'no longer performed because
they have been superseded by the fin-
ishedworkofChristtowhichtheypoint-
ed.
To summarize, Paul in I 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 ceremortial baptism
which was superseded by the finished
work of Christ it was therefore obsolete
and not practiced by Paul and the other
New Testament Christians. Yet, this cer-
emonia1law constituted a powerful ar-
gument 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.
Though this Old Testament baptism was
obsolete in terms of its practice when
Paul wrote I Corinthians, 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 alwaysrelevantand
practical to New Testament (2 Timothy
3;16,17).
The Old Testament Background
to r Corinthians 15: 29
The Old Testamentpassage towhich
Paul makes reference in I Corinthians
15:29 is found in Numbers 19:11-22.
This portion of the law taught the Isra-
elites that death defiled a man and
made him unacceptable and unable to
approach the Lord. Indeed, even any
contact with death by a hving person
defiled the living, (rendered them cer-
emonially unclean and unable to enter
the tabernacle), for such contact indi-
cated that the person lived ina creation
that was under the curse of death. Ouly
Jesus could come into contact with
death and not be defiled, for He had the
power of life which removed the defile-
ment 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.
It should be noted for the sake of Testament remedy forthis defilement of
clarification that the purpose of this law death? The that
in Numbers 19 was theological, not
gienicinnature. Cenainly,
of dead people can
because of
holy God could . in His
presence, nor even the evidence of sin's
pollution (Le., death). The universal fact
of death demonstrates that we are all
sinners, defiled and unclean in the sight
of the Lord. As the apostle Paul notes in
I Corinthians 15:50-58, corruption and
mortality render a man unfit to enter the
presence of the Lord. To properly
approach the Lord and inheIit the King-
dom, Paul says that ChIisrtans must be
clothed in immonality. The defilement
of monality must be changed to the
incorruptible and undefiled immortality
. oflife through the power of the resurrec-
tion. A holy and Iighteous God simply
will not have a stinking, rOlling corpse in
His presence. Nor does God even want
the tabernacle! temple.
This ceremonial spIinkling is the "bap-
tism for the dead" to which Paul alludes
that "they" (the Jews) practiced, a prac-
tice which gave testimony to the reality of
the resurrection.
Paul's point is this: what will be ac-
by this ceremony if there is
.resurrecuionof the dead? Without the
the removal of death's de-
would never be achieved, and
picture ofwater(baptism) cleans-
a man's defilement would be mean-
ingless. When Paul refers to those who
are baptized "for the dead," the
word "for" is used in the
cause of.
the dead, the
Greek word'
were type's"' the completed sacIifice of
Jesus ChIist on the cross. They pictured
His and removal of sin's
the smell of death in Hispresence through
contact with the dead by His people.
Everything relating to a defiled, cursed,
conu ptible, monalcreation must be thor - . . .
oughly purged to satisfy the entrance ':'
requirements of perfection into God's
holy Kingdom.
work of ChIist
The living person who was made
ceremonially unclean by contact with
death was unable to approach the Lord's
temple (Num. 19:13). WhatwastheOld
ment which made the living unable to
approach the Lord's temple ( and thus
enter into God's presence) was removed
by the water of cleansing,spIinkled upon
person in baptism. Death
because God wanted
again if there was further
something or someone that
was dead, necessitating a further enact-
ment of the rite of cleansing. The water of
cleansing could never accomplish a once-
for-all removal of death's defilement. As
with all the sacIifices and Iituals of the
Old Testament, its very repetition dem-
onstrated its ineffectiveness.
Now, Paul's argument in I CoIin-
thians 15:29 becomes beautiful and crys-
tal clear. If the anti-type (the resurrection
of believers) is a lie, then what were the
Jews doing practicing baptism for the
dead (the type)? Paul is arguing from the
lesser (the type) to the greater (the anti-
type), a very common practice in biblical
reasoning.
The cleansingwater of this ceremoni-
al baptism pictured the removal ofdeath's
defilement. Yet, if there was no resurrec-
tion, the defilement of death would re-
main forever. If in actuality there is no
resurrection of the dead, then there is no
way that the law could picture the re-
May, 1994 t mE COUNSEL of Chalcedon t 7
moval of death's defilement, thus en-
abling the .unclean sinner to approach
the Lord. Then, God would be a liar for
having depicted in His law what woUld
never take place, namely, the removal of
death's uncleanness through the power
of the resurrection. Of course, Godisnot
a man that He should lie. God'sWotdis
truth (John 17:17).
Paul insists that the jewish prac-
tice based upon 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 thereality(Chtist's
.resurrection) has come would be to
impugn the finished work of Christ.
It should be noted that the law of
Moses in Numbers 19:1lfprovided
for a two-stage removal ofthe defile-
ment of death. The unclean person
was sprinkled on the third and sev-
enth 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, wils
raised on the third day. Christ's resur-
rection sanctifies and assures the res-
urrection or'Christians by virtue of our
union to Christ in His blessed resur-
rection. Paul argues the flip Side of this
in I Corinthians 15:12-19 where he
. inSists that if there is no resurrection of
Christians, then Christ is not raised
either .'(\ppareT).tl.y, even thefals!: teach-
ers at Colinth who denied the resur-
rection ofpelievers acknowledged the
fact of Christs resurrection, for Paul
uses this i\ccepted fact to demollstrate
the corQllary truth.ohhe resurrection
of the saints. Christ's resurrection and
the resurrection of His people are in-
separable facts. o r ~ asinAdam all
died; so thoSe who are in (united to)
the second Adam will be made alive (I
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 (I Cor. 15:20). Like the Old
TestamentlawofNumbers 19, there isa
partial sanctification of the believer
through Chtist's resurrection on the third
day, but our full sanctification and re-
moval of death's defilement does not
come until1ater. In the Old Testament
law, the believer was sptinkled on the
third day, but he needed to be sptinkled
on the seventh day as wcll. Only at the
end of the seventh daywashe considered
clean and able to approach the Lord's
temple.
Seven in the Bible is a number
which often symbolizes completion or
fullness. TItis 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. TheseventhdayofNum-
bers 19 pointed to the fullness of that
glorious resurrection of all the saints
who will share in the immortality of
God and the splendor of His blessed
kingdom forever, the time whell Christ
will have put all His enemies under
His feet and will hand the Kingdom
over to His Father (I Cor. 15:24-28).
At that time, the last enemy, death,
will be fully conquered and destroyed
(I Cor. 15:26). The defilement ofmor-
tality will be removed and replaced by
incorruption and immortality (I Cor.
15:50-58). .
Conclusion:
The Mormon practice of baptism
for the dead in no way corresponds to
the actual (biblical) practice of bap-
tism for the dead to which Paul al-
ludes. Furthermore, even if Mormon
practice did correspond to that an-
cient rite of baptisni for the dead, let it
be recognized that a type can never
save a man. Every Old Testament type
only served its proper and appointed
purpose in leading men to the anti-
type, that is, putting faith in Jesus
Christ and His sacrificial work The
Mormon practice is seen in all its per-
8 f THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon f May, 1994
versity in that it leads men away from
Christ, for at the very least it impugns
His finished work and implies that a
temple ritual can provide actual salvif-
ic benefits.
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 abso-
hitely no saving benefit to the dead. In
fact, it must be noted that the Old
Testament practice of baptism for (be-
cause of) the dead was never for the
benefit of the dead anyway! It was for
the benefit of the living, to teach them
that they needed to be cleansed from
death's defilement through the resur-
rection. The effon ofMorrnon histori-
ans to compile genealogical records
for the dead in order to offer vicarious
baptism for their benefit must be rec-
ognized for what it really is, a monu-
ment,,"l exercise in futility.
Christians should not wish that I
Corinthiarts 15:29was expunged from
the Bible, nor do they need w engage
in Ted-faced attempts to explain away
this seemingly embarrasSing verse of
Scripture. Properly underswod, this
verse provides an exciting confinna-
tionof acardinal doctrine of the Chris-
ti.an faith-the resurrection of the
body. This verse appears to be ob-
scure to us, but no doubt it was not
obscure w the Corinthian Christians.
Paul had taught them how the whole:
Old Testament, including Numbers
19, preached the Gospel.
Yet, the beauty arid usefulness ofI
Corinthians 15:29 in defending the
doctline of the resurrection can only
be embraced by abandoning the Ana-
baptist notion that biblical baptism
must be by immersion. Not only does
a proper interpretation of I Corin-
thians 15:29 refute Mormon practices,
but it also proves to be a rock that
shatters the Anabaptist view of bap-
tism as well. Q