Baptism for the Dead
March 18th, 2008
(By John MacArthur)
The following article comes from John’s commentary (Moody, 1996) on 1 Corinthians 15, specifically verse 29, in which the apostle Paul writes:
“Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”
This verse is one of the most difficult in all of Scripture, and has many legitimate possible interpretations; it has also, however, been used to support many strange and heretical ideas. The careful and honest interpreter may survey the several dozen interpretations offered and still not be dogmatic about what it means. But we can be dogmatic, from the clear teaching of other parts of Scripture, about some of the things it does not mean. As to what this verse does mean, we can only guess, since history has locked it into obscurity.
We can be sure, for example, that it does not teach vicarious, or proxy, baptism for the dead, as claimed by ancient gnostic heretics such as Marcion and by the Mormon church today. Paul did not teach that a person who has died can be saved, or helped in any way, by another person’s being baptized in his behalf.
Baptismal regeneration, the idea that one is saved by being baptized, or that baptism is in some way necessary for salvation, is unscriptural. The idea of vicarious baptismal regeneration is still further removed from biblical truth. If a person cannot save himself by being baptized, he certainly cannot save anyone else through that act. Salvation is by personal faith in Jesus Christ alone. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8; cf. Rom. 3:28; etc.). That is the repeated and consistent teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. Quoting from Genesis 15:6, Paul says, “For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’ ” (Rom. 4:3). The only way any person has ever come to God is by personal faith.
If one person’s faith cannot save another, then certainly one person’s baptism cannot save another. Baptism is simply an act of obedient faith that proclaims identity with Christ (Rom. 6:3–4). No one is saved by baptism—not even living persons, much less dead ones. “It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). Death ends all opportunity for salvation and for spiritual help of any sort.
In the New Testament baptism is closely associated with salvation, of which it is an outward testimony. Although a person does not have to be baptized to be a Christian, he has to be baptized to be an obedient Christian—with the obvious exception of a believer who has no opportunity to be baptized before death. Baptism is an integral part of Christ’s Great Commission (Matt. 28:19). In the early church a person who was saved was assumed to have been baptized; and a person was not baptized unless the church was satisfied he was saved. To ask, then, if a person was baptized, was equivalent to asking if he was saved.
If we assume that Paul was using the term baptized in that sense [of water baptism], then those … who are baptized could refer to those who were giving testimony that they were Christians. In other words, he was simply referring to believers under the title of those who are baptized, not to some special act of baptism. The dead could also refer to Christians, to deceased believers whose lives were a persuasive testimony leading to the salvation of the baptized. This seems to be a reasonable view that does no injustice to the text or context.
The Greek huper, translated for in verse 29, has a dozen or more meanings, and shades of meaning—including “for,” “above,” “about,” “across,” “beyond,” “on behalf of,” “instead of,” “because of,” and “in reference to”—depending on grammatical structure and context. Although for is a perfectly legitimate translation here, in light of the context and of Paul’s clear teaching elsewhere, “because of” could also be a proper rendering.
In light of that reasoning and interpretation, we could guess that Paul may have simply been saying that people were being saved (baptism being the sign) because of the exemplary lives and witness of faithful believers who had died. Whether this is the right interpretation of this verse we cannot be certain, but we can be certain that people often come to salvation because of the testimony of those whom they desire to emulate.
Some years ago a young man in our church was told by his doctors that he had only a short time to live. His response was not one of regret or bitterness but of joy at the prospect of soon being with his Savior. Because of his confident faith and contentment in face of death, one person I know of, and perhaps more, came to a saving knowledge of Christ.
It may be that the first seeds of faith were planted in Paul’s own heart by the testimony of Stephen, whose death the young Paul (then Saul) witnessed and whose confident and loving dying testimony he heard (Acts 7:59—8:1).
In 1 Corinthians 15:29 Paul may be affirming the truth that Christians who face death with joy and hope are a powerful testimony to the unbelieving world.
I’m glad it’s not just me who has been baffled by this murky passage. I love that about MacArthur, that when he doesn’t know what something means, he freely admits it instead of taking advantage of his standing to put forth some personal slant. Great article, great series.
“Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”
With all due respect to Dr. MacArthur, it seems clear that the second sentance, in that verse, rules out his interpretation. If he is correct, that the first sentence should read: What will those do who are being saved because of the dead?; then why would Paul go on to add the second sentence as it would not make sense?
The second sentence makes it clear he is literally talking about someone being baptized for dead people.
Sometimes I wonder why we tend to make verses more complicated than what they actually say or try to change the literal meaning of a verse.
John MacArthur wrote:
“In the early church a person who was saved was assumed to have been baptized; and a person was not baptized unless the church was satisfied he was saved. To ask, then, if a person was baptized, was equivalent to asking if he was saved.”
I just checked and cannot find one place in the New Testament where a person was asked if they were baptized and it meant, is he saved. Strong’s #907,908,909 are the Greek words used for baptism and none of them were translated into a word that meant saved, etc. People were not asked, in Acts, if they were baptized (meaning “saved”). They were asked if they have believed.
John wrote:
“If we assume that Paul was using the term baptized in that sense [of water baptism], then those … who are baptized could refer to those who were giving testimony that they were Christians. In other words, he was simply referring to believers under the title of those who are baptized, not to some special act of baptism.”
To use this alternate meaning for baptism, we have the verse as follows: “Otherwise, what will those do who are believers for (or, because of) the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they believers for them?”
I’m sorry, but that does not make any sense. The verse means what it says. There were those, who for some reason or belief, were being baptized for dead people. It appears that these same people were not believing in the resurrection of the dead when Jesus comes back. So, Paul showed them the folly of the contridiction. Why are you being baptized for the dead if there is no ressurection. Verse 29 seems to be the final verse in the topic of verses 12-22.
I had a seminary professor suggest, albeit not dogmatically, that there possibly were people known to the Corinthians who were doing that (possibly even within the church) and Paul was saying basically, “what good is it that someone is baptized for the dead if there isn’t even a resurrection?” So, it was to simply emphasize the importance & centrality of the resurrection.
I never gave it much thought since then so I don’t know if that is a viable option, but I wanted to share.
Blessings!
OK Mike F., what is your take on the verse?
Jesse
Jesse,
My take was summarized in the last paragraph of my last posting. Vs.12-22 set up the topic and Vs.29 is the last verse in the topic.
I Cor. 15:12 “…how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?”
vs 13 “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;”
vs 14 “and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also in vain.”
vs 16 “For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;”
vs 17 “and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.”
vs 18 “Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.”
vss 19-22 then state the truth, that there is life after death.
vs 29 then concludes, to those who are being baptized for the dead and deny the resurrection, their beliefs contridict each other.
We do not have to stretch or bend any of the words in these verses to understand what is being said. Paul tells them; first, there is a resurrection; second, your practice of baptism for the dead is does not go along with your other belief that there is not resurrection. He is not promoting baptism for the dead, he is just pointing out their contridiction.
Thanks, that helps. But I think John would agree with everything you said. I guess the question is what do you mean by “baptism for the dead.” Unless I am missing something, I think what you wrote and what John wrote are compatible. Am I wrong?
Jesse,
Both of us may agree on what I wrote. My earlier point has to do with taking the wording, in a verse, that seems to be very clear as to what it means and substituting other words to change the whole meaning of the verse. I believe vs 29 means just what it says. John suggested changing the meaning by saying that “baptized” means “saved” and “for” means “because of”. When you do this, the whole meaning of the first sentence is changed to something that does not make any sense with the second sentence.
That is all I meant. Sometimes, I think we try to make it too hard instead of just accepting what the Bible actually says.
Mike - I will list one verse of Scripture as an example of what I believe John was trying to say. Acts 2:38 says, “Peter {said} to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” In this case those who were baptized were also being saved (in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins). While you seem to be making the point that John is taking the verse out of context by expounding upon the different applications of the Greek “huber,” it would seem you may be taking his point out of context. It is not that he said the word “baptized” denotes saved, but rather that being baptized was done in relation to the obedience of the saved. So, to say I have been baptized would connote that I have been saved. An important distinction to make in this case of course would be from a baptistic view, credobaptism is the only acceptable mode of baptism, whereas paedobaptism, necrobaptism, etc. and not regarded as valid. I also don’t believe John was attempting to make a point about incidents of asking about baptism in regards to salvation in Scripture, but rather again reference my point that John is saying easy-believism was not prevalent at this time and being baptized meant you had already been saved, and vice-versa if you were an obedient Christian. In spite of all this, I do appreciate your point that Paul was pointing out their contradictory words and actions.
Josh and Mike,
I agree. Another example: a father gives his student $20 for straight A’s. You get the $20 after the grades, and because of the grades, but it is correct in English to say “for” the grades. In the same way a soldier gets a medal for bravery. The medal does not make him brave. That is all John was saying when he said that “for” could mean “because of.” I don’t think it is a stretch.
Jesse
Jesse -
Good illustration.
Let me submit another idea here. Christians in jail for their faith, Paul included, preached Christ in the jail and people were converted. Under extreme persecution, one who was saved in jail would not have been able to get out and to demonstrate his or her obedience to Christ nor to their families the validity of their salvation.
Since baptism was commanded by Christ and so immedialty practiced by the early church, believers knew its importance. To not be able to be baptized would have left doubt as the verity of one’s confession.
Substite baptism, in the name of one who was killed for their new faith or for another crime, would have accomplished the public testiomy that the incarcerated one wanted. When death was unavoidable, instructions would have been left for a substitute to make public the decision of the believer who was not going to get the opportunity but wanted friends and family to know what had happened to their soul.
This would be consisitent with the passage and may not have been practiced for very long. But, if there is no resurrection of the dead then the practice is in vain.
I cannot help but think that being baptized has a deeper meaning than being something to show others that we are a believer. Not everyone could be there to see you baptized, so the rest would have to take your word for it that you are a believer. So, if that is good enough for some, why would it not be good enough for everyone? And I do not believe that the answer to my question is, “It is done in obedience to the Lord”.
An example of someone baptized without witnesses was in Acts 8:36-38. This was not done as a demonstration, to others, that the eunuch was a believer. There is more to it than that.
I believe that Acts 2:38 and 22:16, along with Romans 6 have a great deal to do with the meaning of baptism. I have some ideas but am just now beginning a more in depth study of the subject.
Do any of you have scriptural ideas on this?
Thanks to all for this discussion. I have an idea which I would like to run past the more skilled Greek scholars:
Can “Baptism for the dead” simply mean baptism which IDENTIFIES WITH the dead. The “Dead” being all those who have chosen to be dead to this world so that they can live for Christ and the world to come?
In other words, baptism is baptism unto death so that it can also be baptism unto resurrection.
It seems to me that Baptism in the NT is not primarily about witness nor washing but about accepting death to sin and anticipating resurrection. Jesus speaks about his death as a baptism.
ErikP
I think I follow your comments. Even though I am not a Greek scholar, at all, I would like to respond.
It seems like this verse is only confusing when the first half of the verse is pulled from its context and then we try to figure out what it could be talking about. In context, it does not seem like a confusing verse at all. As cited, above, the preceeding verses lay the framework for the context and this verse is the conclusion to the thought.
The last half of the verse seems to limit what the first half could mean. I do not see any other way to take the first half of the verse and have it make sense with the second half, other than to take it literally: some people were being baptized for dead people in the hopes it would help them, yet these same people did not believe in a resurrection.
I don’t understand why some of the commentors believe the translation of “for” as “because of” does not make sense. It seems clear to me.
The verse would thus be translated:
“Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized because of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized because of them?
McArthur specifically explained that “because of the dead” would refer to the testimony/witness of dead believers. So Paul is asking “Otherwise [if there is no resurrection], what will those who are being baptized into the church because of the witness of dead believers do? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are believers being persuaded by the witness [i.e. sufferings] of the dead to be baptized?”
Paul is simply making a corollary to his famous “if there is no resurrection, we are above all men most to be pitied.” In other words, if the dead aren’t raised, what would we do [in a exasperated tone]? If there is no resurrection, then the testimony of the dead believers is worthless. The answer to the rhetorical “why then are people still being baptized due to the witness of the dead” is that the witness isn’t worthless, because the dead are in fact raised, and so people are right to be baptized because of the witness of the dead.
I hope that makes sense to you as logical, valid possibility, even as we agree that we can’t be sure that it is accurate.