Babies And Baptisms For The Dead: Another Look At 1 Corinthians 15:29

by on July 24, 2024 | 3 Comments

I have to admit, I rather enjoy preaching some of Scripture’s difficult passages. Usually, I have a sense of invigoration in working hard to think through a challenging text and see how I can make good enough sense of it without punting on the conclusion. All Scripture is profitable for God’s people, and the payoff of helping saints profit from passages that often confuse them is deeply rewarding. Still, when I was preaching through 1 Corinthians, even at the outset of the series, two passages left me trembling as I thought about how I might make them useful for God’s people. The first was 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, which raises the long-debated issue of head coverings. Having tackled that passage in a series on this platform, I thought an article about the other tricky passage might also be helpful as a way to help other preachers navigate this material.

The other passage, which is openly acknowledged as one of the most difficult in the New Testament, is 1 Corinthians 15:29: “Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?”1 The challenge is in making sense of Paul’s appeal to the practice of baptism on behalf of the dead. Was he endorsing it? Was it an erroneous rite used in Corinth nonetheless based on an assumption which supported his argument for the resurrection?

This article proposes a new way to understand this passage by embracing the hermeneutical spiral of how theology and exegesis relate. We should always be cautious of proposing new interpretations. Nevertheless, when no consensus has fomented about how to understand a matter, a new suggestion hardly goes against any existing grain. Since commentators have continually struggled to reach final clarity on 1 Corinthians 15:29 by raw grammatical-historical exegesis, this essay suggests using the paradigm of confessional covenant theology to test what theological assumption clarifies our exegetical strategy. Although the point here is not that a new interpretation of a debated passage proves Reformed theology, if we can conclude that confessional Reformed theology provides premises that facilitate a cogent interpretation of a contentious passage, this suggests the exegesis of this passage might confirm aspects of Reformed theology.

Assumptions and Interpretations

1 Corinthians 15:29 is a hard verse because we are not sure exactly what this baptismal practice was or why they were doing it. The ESV translation, “being baptized on behalf of the dead,” suggests that one person who is still alive receives baptism in place of someone dead. Upon that reading, we tend to assume that this dead person was an adult who had not professed faith and that for some reason, a believer is receiving baptism in their stead. Loads of explanations have been suggested, trying to explain why someone in a Christian church would believe that a living person could vicariously receive baptism for a dead person.2 Still, none make satisfactory sense of the idea in an orthodox way, since Scripture nowhere else supports that sort of practice.3

On the other hand, it is confusing why, in a letter full of corrections, Paul did not reject or correct the practice in question if he thought it wrong.4 Some explain this omission by suggesting he was simply appealing to a practice they were using in Corinth because it requires belief in the resurrection of the body to justify it (a premise Paul was arguing for), but that he ultimately would reject the practice itself, perhaps the next time he visited them. This approach would be my second choice if I were persuaded against the interpretation argued below.

A Proposed Solution

Is there any way of understanding this passage that could make it clearer and acceptable? We must understand that the Greek word ὑπερ (huper), translated in the ESV in our verse as “on behalf of,” is flexible. It can mean simply “for,” which would suggest the vicarious meaning. It can also mean “over,” which is related to our English word super, meaning in one sense, “above.” Drawing upon this sense, some take Paul to mean that baptisms were being administered on the graves of Christians such that people were being baptized in a literal directional sense “over” or “above” the dead who laid below the baptized person in their grave. Finally, as I think helps us, it can mean “for the sake of,” or simply, “because of”—marking a reason for doing something.5 So, on the basis of this last translation option, is there any situation wherein a dead person could supply the reason for baptizing someone else?

I believe there is. On the premises of confessional Reformed theology, an orphan of Christian parents—something more readily expected in the first century—would still have right to baptism. In the ancient world, which differed greatly in relation to modern legal structures that govern how orphans are adopted, the church was the likely sphere where orphans of church members were received for care. A child of believers, even if the parents have died, is still holy to the Lord and still belongs to the covenant community.

Paul had already told us earlier in this very epistle that the child of even one believing parent is in some sense holy to the Lord (7:14). If the recipient of baptism in 1 Corinthians 15:29 is then a child, perhaps that child’s believing parents had died—or perhaps he or she even had one parent left alive but the believing parent had died. That dead parent while resting in the grave is still united to Christ and so ties their child to the church. The child may not have been fully orphaned but would still have right to baptism if their believing parent had died.

Regardless of the exact circumstances, since we hope for the resurrection, the faith of the child’s parents provides reason to baptize their child—in this case because of the dead. Even though dead, those believers are still God’s people and members of the invisible, triumphant church, because we look forward to the resurrection of the body. This baptismal practice is then not vicarious as though someone were baptized in place of a dead person. It is a baptism administered because a dead believer furnished the reason to baptize a living person.

Exegesis in Light of Theology

Admittedly, this interpretation is new, so cannot demand acceptance. Still, scholars and exegetes have no consensus about what this verse means or entails, which leaves its right interpretation open to suggestion. The interpretation proposed here then raises a question about how our exegesis relates to our theology.

The Bible must always drive our theology. Still, sometimes right theology can make sense of biblical material that otherwise makes little sense. It is perfectly reasonable to affirm that exegesis cannot make full sense of every apostolic argument if we are presuming theological premises at odds with the ones they held.

Paradigms at times have a complicated relationship to the specific data they are supposed to account for. Data should be collected, analyzed, and should give rise to a paradigm. At the same time, the paradigm that makes the most sense of all the data would seem to be the right one; the right paradigm is able to make good sense of all the data. That consideration seems relevant to our interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29.

If we understand the covenantal nature of the church community, as God has always dealt with believers and their children, we have a plausible explanation of this practice and why Paul does not rebuke it. The point here is not to prove the Reformed and ancient practice of infant baptism from 1 Corinthians 15:29. My present argument is not that this verse teaches infant baptism in a positivist, constructive sense.

Rather, the point is that this verse may well confirm the Reformed practice of infant baptism. Assuming the premise of infant baptism as a valid paradigm opens interpretive angles otherwise unavailable. The resulting conclusion accounts for Paul’s argument for the resurrection, relieves the tension arising from Paul’s lack of rebuke of an initially strange-sounding practice, and offers a way to make cogent and orthodox sense of a typically very challenging text. Thus, infant baptism may be the point that completes the hermeneutical paradigm enough to make sense of all the data and provide a sensible interpretation of a difficult verse.

Practical Conclusion

In conclusion, we should pause to reflect on the significance of this proposal. Even if this interpretation is interesting, does it matter? Yes, it does. It reminds you, Christian, that God loves your children. It reminds you that God has promised to be God to you and to your children after you (Gen 17:7). Perhaps this proposal is most encouraging to parents, especially parents of children who for various reasons have yet to profess faith or look like they are not walking according to their faith if they have professed it.

There is encouragement here, because if this view is true, then Paul tells us that we should never lose hope for our covenant children. The shocking truth, which can greatly comfort parents who have prayed long for their grown children not walking with Christ, is that you do not have to be around to see God work in your child’s heart for him to have a heart for your covenant children.

Do not lose hope, because even if you are dead, God has a place for your children and may not be done with them. However long you have been praying for your children, if they have not yet professed faith or have wandered from the faith, time still remains. God has still made his promise to be God to us and to our children after us. Perhaps, we may not even see the day on earth when God honors his promise and does his work of regenerating our kids. Perhaps there is this sort of case where we go to be with the Lord; yet never do we give up hope that God can work in the hearts of our children.

Notes

  1. Concerning the verse’s difficulty, see Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary  (Hermeneia; Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1975), 275; Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995), 107; R. F. Collins, First Corinthians (Sacra Pagina; Collegeville, MN: Glazier/Liturgical Press, 1999), 559.
  2. For a survey of various proposed solutions, see Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, revised edition, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014), 847–49; Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 1242–48.
  3. Fee, Corinthians, 846.
  4. Fee, 847, 849.
  5. Fee, 847–48.

©Harrison Perkins. All Rights Reserved.

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


3 comments

  1. Dr. Perkins,
    I read your article on the Babies And Baptisms For The Dead, First Corinthians 15:29-32 and would agree that it is a plausible explanation, if the baptism mentioned in the text involved water. The problem with most interpretations of this passage is the failure to link Paul’s subsequent questions and statements with v29 as a context. In addition, there is a reluctance to part with the normal meaning of the word baptism and its association with water, and not seeing Paul’s dual meaning of the word “dead”. The difficulty Paul is expressing v30 -32 relate to suffering associated with his testimony to unbelievers, and the futility of that effort if there is no resurrection, but nothing regarding water baptism. I believe the parenthesized words included in the text best explain the passage. (KJV)
    29 Else what shall they do which are baptized (suffering) for the (spiritually) dead, if the (physically) dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized (suffering) for the (spiritually) dead? 30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? 31 I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
    This interpretation has the advantage of being concise, easily understood, with no need of an extra-biblical source to explain, and most importantly fits the context. The argument normally presented against it is that Paul never uses the word “baptize” to mean suffering any other time. Although that is important in interpretation, the context has more weight in defining this term. He does use the word baptism in association with Christ’s death as in Rom 6: 3-4. It also appears that Paul is using “baptism” as a metaphor for death, in Col 2:12 “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” We are buried with Christ in connection with His death, not water baptism. Jesus uses baptism referring to death or suffering to the point of death, in Mark 10:38-40 and Luke12:50. The justification of the using “suffering” instead of “death” in verse 29 is that in an abbreviated way in verses 30-32. Paul is affirming what others do and comparing it to his own experiences, as in 2 Cor 11: 21-30, Phil 3: 4-7. They are suffering he is dying daily!
    In addition, it is well established in scripture that one may be alive physically but dead spiritually, Mat 8:21-22, Eph 2:1, Col 2:13. I believe Paul is employing that duel meaning in v29. I would much appreciate your comments on this interpretation. Thank you.
    John A. Hamby
    Emeritus Architect, Texas

  2. Thank you for this thoughtful answer. It makes sense to me. Sometimes we miss the obvious…..

  3. HP: Thanks very much for this. Your proposed solution is very helpful.

    Speaking from my own experience, during a preaching series on First Corinthians some 10 years ago, I remember preaching on 15:29 in the context of 15:29-34. When I came to that verse, I had engaged the commentators (e.g., Fee, Thiselton, etc.), and so I offered the translation “baptized on account of the dead” (which turns out to be very nearly the choice you settled on: “baptized because of the dead”). Having stated that point to the congregation, I went on, first, to comment on what “baptism on account of the dead” was not. It was not the practice of baptizing the living in “the place of” or “for the benefit of” the dead. To my knowledge (then and now), there is no biblical or historical evidence for such a practice or anything like it in the earliest church (or in pagan contexts) until the 2nd century and then only among heretics. (Hence, the practice of our Mormon friends is wrong.)

    Second, after telling folks what “baptism on account of the dead” was not, I told them we don’t and can’t know for sure what Paul means, but I did offer what was, for me at the time, the most convincing interpretation of his text, namely, that some converts had been baptized in response to (on account of, because of) certain dead Christians’ testimony. My point: the resurrection of the dead rightly motivated those who had undergone baptism on account of the Christian dead who had testified to the resurrection of the crucified Christ and to the coming resurrection of His people. Generally speaking, on this reading, Paul’s point was that baptism makes no sense without faith in the resurrection of the dead, that baptism is an act of faith by the one baptized in the resurrection.

    Having read your proposal, however, it hit me that I was starting where almost all readers of that text start, namely, from the premise that Paul is reflecting on the baptism of those who had confessed faith in Christ. The wording of his text, however, does not express or require a premise which is that specific. His stated premise is overtly generic: it concerns οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν. In other words, Paul’s very words indicate that he is reflecting simply on “those who are baptized.” A more specific identification of “those who are baptized” depends on other passages and considerations, one illustration of which your essay open up for us.

    So, again, thank you for rattling my cage and making me think again about one of the most difficulty passages in Scripture. I should always test the premises of my exegesis and that of others too.

Comments are closed.