1 Corinthians 15:29

Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

'Else' -'Otherwise' (NASV); 'if all that is stated in the preceding is not fact.' (Lenski p. 688)

'that are baptized for the dead?'

As you can well imagine. multitude of interpretations surround this verse. But as in all difficult texts, we can begin by removing those views which contradict other passages in the Bible.

Points to Note:

1. Paul approved of the practice (baptism) under consideration in this verse.

'Whatever the practice was, Paul uses it to make. case for the resurrection of the dead. This would have to mean he approves of the practice. If it was an error he could hardly have used it as an argument in favor of the resurrection of the dead. You can't establish truth on the basis of an error.' (McGuiggan p. 195)

Some Commentators argue that Paul here refers to. practice in Corinth of which he doesn't approve, i.e. that Christians were being baptized for their dead relatives who had died outside of Christ. But all the previous abuses referred to in this letter are rebuked.

Fee adds, 'The second problem is theological and has to do with how Paul can appeal, without apparent disapproval, to. practice that stands in such contradiction to his own understanding both of justification by grace through faith, which always implies response on the part of the believer..' (p. 764)

2. The practice under consideration was universal:

'There'd be little point in making an argument based on something only. few of them believed. Because the bulk of them who disbelieved would be sure to tell Paul: "But what do we care what that little group practices. We don't believe that!"' (McGuiggan p. 196)

'The present timeless participle describes those who receive baptism at any time, whether in the past, present, or future...All of the Corinthians are, of course, among the baptized...But it also includes all others who receive baptism anywhere and at any time. The one mark that is characteristic of all of them is baptism..' (Lenski p. 689)

3. Therefore the baptism under consideration must be water baptism:

It was. universal practice (Mark 16:15), every Christian could identify with it (1 Corinthians 12:13; Ephesians 4:5), it was related to the resurrection (Romans 6:3), and it had Paul's approval. Hence the only question is, what does the phrase "for the dead" mean?

'for the dead'

Points to Note:

1. "For the dead one"-i.e. referring to Christ:

'This theory says that the person is baptized for the dead one, Jesus Christ. However, the word "dead" is. plural noun, hardly applicable to the person Christ.' (Willis p. 562)

2. 'Otherwise what shall they do who are baptized? for the dead? (i.e., are they baptized to belong to, to be numbered among the dead, who are never to rise again?) Indeed, if the dead do not rise again, why are people baptized?' (Fee p. 766)

'That is, is one baptized in order to forever be in the realm of the dead? This position has the merit of recognizing the legitimate purpose of New Testament baptism...First of all, one is baptized in order to be saved (Mark 16:16). If there is no resurrection from the dead, what difference does it make whether or not one has his sins washed away...Hence, if the dead are not raised, one's baptism is absolutely nonsensical.' (Willis p. 564)

This view also seems consistent with Paul's line of reasoning in the rest of this section (vv. 30-32). For Paul's other arguments reach the same end result, i.e. if there is no resurrection, then no future life exists. (1 Corinthians 15:32) The logic behind his argument appears to be, that if no resurrection exists, then there must be no need for it, i.e. NO FUTURE LIFE TO BE RESURRECTED TO. Jesus argued in. similar vein. If it can be proved by the Scriptures that man does have an existence apart from the body (Matthew 22:31), then you have also proven the need for the resurrection with the same Scriptures.

Another way to put this would be to say, that the resurrection implies that the body needs to be reunited with something, i.e. the soul. If there is no resurrection, then the body doesn't need to be reunited with anything, therefore man doesn't have. soul, and hence when man dies he is dead all over.

So in the above verse it appears that Paul is saying, if that is true, then baptism becomes absolutely meaningless. For have we been raised to newness of life, to walk with Christ... only in this life? Have we been baptized, ONLY TO DIE?

Various Thoughts Concerning Mormon "Baptism for the Dead":

1. The practice violates N.T. Scripture..'Such. practice would be false because it would undermine the notion of personal responsibility and personal trust. (John 3:16; Romans 10:17; Acts 2:40; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38) Even in the matter of meat-eating (Romans 14:23) one is not permitted to act on another's faith. How much less in the matter of submission to Christ as Lord? (And could you see anyone as lost if they were offered salvation in the after-life while they were enduring separation from God?)' (McGuiggan p. 197)

2. 'The Mormon practice, interestingly enough, is totally unknown to the book of Mormon...The practice was brought into the Mormon movement through the writings of the Doctrine. Covenants...One of the original three witnesses in favor of the book of Mormon, David Whitmer, has written an address to "All Believers in the Bible and the Book of Mormon". In it he claims to have received revelation from God saying that Joseph Smith was led away by the Devil in introducing the. &. which brings in polygamy, celestial marriages, priesthood and baptism for the dead.' (McGuiggan p. 198)

3. 'Mormons try to make their practice more palatable to non-Mormons by suggesting that their baptism (for the dead) are for those who "have never heard the gospel". This elicits some sympathy. After all, "they didn't get. chance; is that fair?" This is all subterfuge. The records the Mormons keep (and they keep meticulous records) of those on whose behalf they have been baptized are not pagans in some far off land. They are their own people!. (McGuiggan p. 198)

4. 'Chrysostom..describes such. practice among the Marcionites (a heretical sect). This is an especially strong argument against the Mormons, e.g., who would justify their practiced on alleged "biblical" grounds (which is of some interest in itself since the exegesis of the biblical text generally holds very little interest for them.' (Fee p. 764)

From the above statements, it appears that concerning some issues, the Book of Mormon also carries very little weight with them. Especially in light of the fact that Alma 34:32-35 says, 'For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God...For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil..and this is the FINAL STATE OF THE WICKED.'