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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Good illustration.

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

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.