For otherwise what will those

who are Jar the dead

accomplish if the dead are not
actually raised? Why indeed are
they being Jar them? I
Corinthians 15:29.
Introduction
Does your church practice
baptism for the dead? If not, then is
your church truly biblical? Are you
missing part of God's will for your
life? Are you living in disobedience
to God.
This obscure verse has troubled
and perplexed commentators for
ages. As the reader may be aware,
this one text provides the basis for
the extensive genealogical research
of the Church of Jesus
be an argument for the truth of the
resurrection (the subject that Paul
has under discussion in the con-
text)? Is this verse simply a "red
herring" which could easily divert
men from the true Gospel of
salvation by faith in Jesus 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 explanations for this passage.
Let it be said at the outset that I
Corinthians 15:29 is a beautiful and
exciting portion of God's Word
which provides powerful confirma-
tion of the truth of a most precious
Christian doctrine-the resurrection
of our bodies from the grave.
Baptism
for the
interpreter. Let us examine the
context, and I would encourage you
to have a Bible handy to consult.
Others try in various ways to
offer alternative explanations of the
words "baptism,1I "for,1t and lithe
dead." For example, some have said
that Paul is referring to the martyrs
who were baptized into the ranks of
the dead ("baptism" being used
metaphOrically to refer to death, cr.
Mark 10: 38; Luke 12:50). But why
. would Paul refer to the blessed
martyrs in such an obscure manner?
Also, the preposition 'for" (Greek
huper) does not sustain this inter-
pretation. It has been suggested that
Paul was referring to the practice of
baptizing Christians "over" (huper)
the graves of the dead. The
Greek word "huper" can be
translated "over," but this
introduces another prob-
lem. Why would Christians
be baptized over the graves
Christ of Latter Day Saints
(the Mormons). According
to Mormon teaching, the
vicarious baptism of the
living provides salvific
benefits for the dead. This
explains their zeal and
willingness to expend vast
amounts of money and
Dead
Rev. Steve Schlei
of the dead, and what
relevance would this
practice have in Paul's
discussion supporting the
truth of the resurrection?
effort to collect and secure precise
genealogically data. To my knowl-
edge, only the Mormons among all
professing Christian groups have
made baptism for the dead an
important part of their religious
ritual.
Most Christians would be
relieved if this embarraSSingly
difficult passage could be expunged
from the Bible. Few orthodox
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, should the Christian
church be practicing baptism for the
dead? Can baptism of the living
provide saving benefits for the
dead? Are the Mormons the only
group that have properly preserved
this practice from the early church?
In what way would proxy baptism
of the living on behalf of the dead
Avoiding Pitfalls in
Interpretation
Numerous ingenious interpreta-
tions have been offered in an
attempt to explain this passage.
Unfortunately, they are generally
speculative in nature, and they fail
to demonstrate how Paul's argu-
ment for the truth of the resurrec-
tion is strengthened by what he says
in verse 29. Paul did not write this
section of Scripture while day-
dreaming. His words are not
irrelevant or foolish. Like all the
writers of Scripture, his words were
directed by the inspiration of the
Holy Spirit (II Timothy 3:16; I Peter
I :10-12). A truly satisfying solution
must avoid speculation and demon-
strate the divine wisdom evi dent in
this portion of holy Scripture. Most
desirably, Scripture must be used to
illumine I Corinthians 15:29, for it
is a cardinal principle of interpreta-
tion that the Bible is its own best
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
departed loved ones? He mentions
"those' who are being baptized for
the dead, but he does not include
his Corinthian readers or himself in
the reference. It has been suggested
that "the dead" is a reference to the
soon-to-be-dead bodies of the
Christians. This interpretation takes
the dead to mean "death." That is
not what Paul says, and
again, Paul indicates that he and his
readers were not involved in the
practice of baptism for the dead,
whereas this interpretation would
demand their inclusion.
Interpretations that are specula-
August/September, 1998 THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon 31
tive, or alter the normal meaning of
the words, or fail to support Paul's
defense of the resurrection, and
thus ignore the contextual relevance
of what he is saying, must be
rejected. Paul's argumentation in I
Corinthians 15 is careful, consis-
tent, coherent, and tightly reasoned.
He was defending the truth of the
resurrection of believers from the
dead against some who had denied
this cardinal doctrine of the faith.
In I Corinthians 15:29_32, Paul
is asking several r\letorical questions
to demonstrate the absurdity of
denying the resurrection. If there is
no' resurrection, then what is
accomplished by those who are
baptized for the dead (vs. 29)1
Why do Christians endanger their
lives (vs. 30)? Why did Paul fight
with wild beasts at Ephesus (vs. .
32)1 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 w\lich .
he views as beastly (lIke Christ's
enemies---see Psahn 22:12-18) and
devilish (the Devil is seen as a beast
in Scripture, 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).
Citing Isaiah 22:13 in vetse 32, Paul
insists that if there is no resurrec-
tion, we should be like the unbe-
lievers of Isaiah's time and try to
grab all the gusto that we can for
the brief duration ofthis life . .
Because Paul is so preCise a!J.d
logical throughinit this portion of
Scripture in tearing apart the falla.cy
of denying the resurrection, we
should not think for a moment that
he erred or threw in a shilk)',
embarraSsing argument in verse 29.
The.llow of the entire passage
demands that we view Verse 29 as a
powerful link in Paul's chain of
reasoning that demonstrates the
necessity of t\le reSUrrection.
The interpreter's Dilelll11ll\
As hadalteady been indicated,
the major dilemma facing the
interpreter of this verse is the
Apostle's mention of another group
of people who practice baptism for
the dead. Why does the apostle
Paul appeal to the practice of some
mysterious, unnamed group to
demonstrate the truth of a cardinal
doctrine of the Christian faith?
Notice that Paul writes, "Why
indeed are they being baptized for '
them [Le., the dead]?" He does not
say, "Why are you (or we) being
baptized for them?" The apostle
Paul evidently does not include
himself or his readers in the group
which follows this practice. Why?
If haptism for the dead demon-
strates t\le need to believe a cardinal
doctrine of the Christian faith, why
. is there no indication that Paul and
the Corinthian Christians engaged
in this practice 1
If a discussion with a Mormon
.turns to the subject of baptism fOr
the dead, and he chides you [or
failing to tollow a biblical teaching,
have him read I C9rinthians 15:29
carefully. Then ask him why he is
doing what Paul and his readers
were not practicing. This is the
"hom" of die exegetical dilemma
that skewers the Mormon interpre- .
tation of this verse.
On the other hand, if someone.
recognizes that Paul was referring to
some other unnamed group that
was follOwing this practice, this
raises the mystery of why Paul
would use an apparently heretical
or pagan practice tq support his
argumentation for beliefln a
cardinal doctrine of Christianity.
Every speculative interpretation gets
skewered on the horns of this
interpretive dilemma.
Setting the Backgr01,1nd
. for Proper Interpretation
Ra.ther t\lan rt;SDrt to speclil.ative
explanations to resolve perplexing
texts in the Bible, t\le interpreter .
32 THE c:;OUNSEL of Chalcedon AuguSt/September, 1998
should resort to the Bible. In other
words, one s\lould seek .explanatlon
of the Bible from the Bible itself, To
understand I Corinthians 15:29, a
brief examination must be made of
the Bibiical mode of baptism. It is
necessary for me to challenge a
cherished assumption of many of
'my dear brothers in the Lord Who
adhere to immersionist beliefs. I am
not doing this' to be contentious.
T\!is is necessary because my
interpretatiOn of I Corinthians
15:29 will be nonsensical to one
iinbl1ed with immersionist thinking
unless I address this subject, at least
briefly. Having once been a '.
immersionist myself, I have become
convinced by a number of excellent
books that immersion is not the .
proper mode of baptism. Since my.
immediate concern is to address the
interpretation of! Corinthians
15:29, I will not enter into a full-
blown'discussion of the proper
mode of baptism ... Excellent refuta-
tions of the immersionist error can
be found byconsulting the follow-
ingbooks: '
Classic Baptism,J.W. Dale ...
Immersion ana Immersionists, W.
A. Mackay
Meaning and Mode oJBaptism ,
layE. Adams
Christian Baptism, John Murray.
Biblical. baptism in most cases, if
not in all instances, "Was by sprin-
kling and pouring, not by immer-
sion. If the reader can accept this a
powerful and heart watming .
interpretation of[ Corinthians
15:29 is then available. Hebrews
9:10 proVides an impOrtant piece of
this exegetical puzzle which resolves
the thorny problems surrol1nding
this mysterious verse.. In the
context of Hebrews 9:10, the writer
discusses the inadequacy and
impeIfections of the Old Testament
system of worship, imperfections.
which pointed to .the need for jesw;,
Because the Old Testament System
could not save lost sinners, those
fleshly ceremonial ordinances were
temporary and applied only until
the inauguration of a new order.
Among those external regula-
tions of the Old Testament era
which have passed with the finality
of Christ's fmished work, the writer
of Hebrews in 9; 10 mentions
"divers washings" (as it reads in the
King James translation). These
"divers washings" in the Greek are
literally "various baptisms". Yes the
Old Testament law provided for
various 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
Thus, these Old Testament
baptiSms were temporary ordi-
nances which were utilized until the
inauguration of a new order. That
new order became a reality with the
coming of Christ who was a priest
after the order of Melchizedek
(Hebrews 7). With the change of
priesthood (from Levitical priest-
hood to the Melchizedekian priest-
hood), there is a corresponding
change in the law (Hebrews 7: 12).
The Old Testament ceremonies are
no longer performed because they
have been superseded by the
finished work of Christ to which
they pointed.
To summarize, Paul in I
The Old Testament Background
to I Corinthians 15: 29
The Old Testament passage to
which Paul makes reference in I
Corinthians 15:29 is found in
Numbers 19:11-22. This portion of
the law taught the Israelites that
death defiled a man and made him
unacceptable and unable toap-
proach the Lord. Indeed, even any
contact with death by a living
person defiled the living, (rendered
them ceremonially unclean and
unable to enter the tabernacle), for
such contact indicated that the
person lived in a creation that was
under the curse of death . Only
Jesus could come into contact with
death and not be
immersions. If the
proper mode of baptism
is understood to be by
sprinkling or pouring
however, the beauty of
1 CorinthianS 15:29
begins to unfold. The
writer of Hebrews
"This (crcmoniclllilw constitutcd il powcrful
ilrgumcnt which Pilul utilizcd to buttrcss his
insistcnce upon thc ncccssity of thc resurrec-
defiled, for He had the
'power of lire which
removed the defilement
of sin and its curse of
death. Sinners are
defiled even' by contact
with death, for they
tiol!. Pilul WilS not ilppcilling to il hcrl'tiCilI
pl'ilctice. Hc WilS ilppcilling to thc Word
of C;od to provc his po in!."
themselves have the
curse of death upon mentions some of those
various baptisms right in the very
same context (Hebrews 9:13,19,
21).
This is a crucial scriptural (not
. speculative) key that unlocks the
meaning of! Corinthians 15: 29.
Paul in this verse was making
reference to the Old Testament
ritual of baptism for the dead. This
interpretation would avoid the
dilemmas preViously mentioned.
For if Paul was referring to an Old
Testament practice of baptism for
the dead, this would explain why
this ceremonial ordinance was no
longer being observed by Paul and
the Corinthian Christians. It would
be obsolete, because Christ abol-
ished the whole sacrificial system of
shadows and types. At the same
time, appealing to a practice in the
Old Testament to support the truth
of a Biblical doctrine would cer-
tainly be legitimate and understand-
able. Paul did this all the time in his
writings.
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 ceremonial
baptism which was superseded by
the finished work of Christ it was
therefore obsolete and not practiced
by Paul and the other New Testa-
ment Christians. Yet, this ceremo-
niallaw constituted a powerful
argument 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 always relevant and
practical to New Testament ( 2
Timothy 3;16,17).
them.
It should be noted for the sake
of clarification that the purpose of
this law in Numbers 19 was theo-
logical, not hygienic in nature.
Certainly, the handling of dead
people can be very dangerous
because of disease and infection.
Morticians routinely wear rubber
gloves while doing their work. The
concern however, in this passage of
the Bible is not about bacteria,
viruses or other nasty little critterS.
If that was the case there would
have been instructions about
immediate washing after contact. It
would be rather futile to wait for
three to seven days to wash after
contact with the dead if the goal
was personal and societal hygiene
(cf. Numbers 19:12).
So, the law of Numbers 19:1lf
taught God's people that death,
even contact with death, made them
unclean, .defiled, and unable to
approach a holy God. A holy God
August/September, 1 9 9 8 ~ THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon f 33
could never have sin in His pres-
ence. nor even the evidence of sin's
pollution (Le., death). The univer-
sal 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
inherit the Kingdom'; Paul says that
Christians must be clothed In
immortality . . The defilement of
m()rtality must be changed to the
incorruptible and undefiled iinmor-
tality of life through the power of
the resurrection. A holy and
righteous God simply will not have '
a stinking, rotting corpse in His
presence. Nor does God even Want
the smeIl of death in His presence '
through contact with the deadby ' ,
His people. Everythirig relating to a
defiled, cursed, corruptible, mortal
creation must be thoroughly purged
to satisfy the entrance requirements
of perfectiOri jnto God's holy
Kingdom, '
The living person who was made
ceremonially unclean by contact
with death was unable to approach
the Lord's temple (Num, 19:13), ..
What was the Old Testament '
remedy Cor' this defilement of death? :
The remedy of the law waS that the
unclean person had to'beSprinklec;!
with the water of cleansing on the'
third and seventh day (vSs, 13,170,
but he would not be fully cleansed
until the end of the seventh day (vs.
19), Nter that, he could
the tabernaCle! temple. , ThIS .
Cl'remrinial sprinkling the ,
'bapdsm for the dead" to whIch
Paul alludes that "they' (the Jews)
practiced, a practice which gave '
testimony to the reality of the ,
resurrection.
Paul's point is this: what will be
accomplished by ,this ceremony if
there is no resurrection of the dead?
Without the the '
removal of deaths defilement would '
never be and thus the
picture of water (baptism) Cleansing
a man's woulll .ge ,
meaningless: When Paul refers to
thqse who lire baptize9 'for the ,
dead," the 'Greek word "for' is used
in the sense ,of 'beCause of. '.That' is,
beptuse of cOntact with the dea9.
the living were.!Japtized. The Greek
word 'huper' (for) often has the , '
meaning 'beciuse oP' (c( Acts 5:41;:
9:16; 15:26;21:13; Romans 15:9; I '
Corinthians 10:30; 15:3; II
12 :8). .
In ordereo understand this law
of Moses and the interpretation of it
by the apostle Paul, we ,have. to '
examine the concept of type. and
anti-type in the Bible. A "type" is an
. Old TestaJp.ent picture ofsomething
whiCh comes to reality in the New "
TestameI)t. FOFexample, the " ,
the.o Id Testament were
types of the completed sacrifice of
Jesus Christ on the cross, They
pictUred His vicarious death and '
of sin.'s defilement. The
finished work of Christ is the anti-
type of all the Old Testament types.
An anti-type is the corresponding
part of aU its' types."
Paul's argument then is this: the
water of cleansing found in Num- ,
bers 19 is a type'of the resurrection.
Contact with death defiled the
living; but this defilement which ,
made the living unable to approach
the Lord's temple (and thus entet
into God's presence) was,removed
by the water of cleansing, 'sprinkled
upon the unclean person 'In
tiolln. Death defiled the living
because God wanted His people to
uriderstanc;! that they toc> were
sinners andsulJject to death's
defilement. They li<led in atursed
creation, and unlike JesuS, they ,
collldnot overcome' death's defile-
ment, God had' to supply that'
needed remedy, ' The baptism for
the living who pad 'coritaCted the <
dead was God's supplied remedy.
Thus,baptism
cleansing was bibliqlUy, a "rSil,lJ;i-ec-
34 f mE COUNSEL of Chalcedon f 1998
tlon'. for the power of death was
broken so that the unclean could be
cleansed "!Id enabled to ,apprQach
the Lord, Yet, the water of cleansing
In Numbers 19 was only a type.
Uke the blood of bulls and goats
whicn could never remove the stain
of sin (Hebrews 10:4). So the water
of cleansing could never 'remove
thepoUution of death. Its effect was
only temporary and symbolic. A
persoo' cleansed by the law of
NlinIbers 19 again could become
defiled again if there was Ii. funher
contact with something or someone
chal'was dead; 'necessitating a
further enactment of the rite of
cleanSing. !hewaier of cleansing
could never'accomplish a once-for-
all ,removal of death's defilement. As
with all the sacrifices and rituals of
, tlle'OIc;! TeStament, ii's very repeti-
,tion demonstrated its Ineffective-
ness, .
NOW, Paul's argument in I
Corinthians 15:29 becOfIles beauti-
fut and crystal clear. If the anti-type
(the resurrection ofbeIievers) is a
lie, then,what where the Jews doing
practicing baptism fpr dead (the
type)? Paul is arguing from the .
lesser (the type) to the greater (the
anti-type), a verr.common practice
in biblical reasoning.
the cleanSing water of this
pictured the
removaI'of death's Yet,
if there the
defilement cir death would remain
forever. If in actuality there is no
resurrection of the dead, then there
Is no way thanhe law could picture
the removal of death's defilement.
th,+, enablIng the unclean sinner to
apprmich cheLord. Then,Grid
would be a for h ... ving depicted,
in His law what would never take '
;;amely, the removal of
death's.uncleanness through the
power of the resurrection. of.
courSe, God is not a man that He
should lie. God's Word is truth
(John 17:17): "
Paul insists that the Jewi$h
practice based upon Numbers 19
demands the reality of the resurrec-
tion. Yet, it would be entirely
inappropriate for Christians today
to practice the law of Numbers
19:1lf. To practice types and
shadows (i.e., baptism for contact
with the dead) when the reality
(Christ's resurrection) has come
would be to impugn the finished
work of Christ.
It should be noted that the law
of Moses in Numbers 19:1lf
provided for a two-stage removal of
the defilement of death. The
unclean person was sprinkled on
the third and seventh 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, was
raised on the thind day. Christ's
resurrection sanctifies and assures
the resurrection of Christians by
virtue of our union to Christ in His
blessed resurrection. Paul argues
the flip side of this in I Corinthians
15:12-19 where he insists that if
there is no resurrection of Chris-
tians, then Christ is not raised
either. Apparently, even the false
teachers at Corinth who denied the
resurrection of believers acknowl-
edged the fact of Christ'S resurrec-
tion, for Paul uses this accepted fact
to demonstrate the corollary truth
of the resurrection of the saints.
Christ's resurrection and the
resurrection of His people are
inseparable facts. For, as in Adam
all died, so those who are in (united
to) the second Adam will be made
alive (I Cor. 15:22).
Paul teaches that the resurrec-
tion of Christ was only the firstfruits
of the full harvest of the resurrec-
tion of believers to follow (I Cor.
15:20). Like the Old Testament law
of Numbers 19, there is a partial
sanctification of the believer
through Christ's resurrection on the
third day, but our full sanctification
and removal of death's defilement
does not come until later. In the
Old Testament law, the believer was
sprinkled on the third day, but he
needed to be sprinkled on the
seventh day as well. Only at the end
of the seventh day was he consid-
ered clean and able to approach the
Lord's temple.
Seven in the Bible is a number
which often symbolizes completion
or fullness. This Old Testament law
was a type pointing to the fact that
there would be an initial resurrec-
tion on the third day and a final
resurrection at the end of time. The
seventh day of Numbers 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 when
Christ will have put all His enemies
under His feet and will hand the
Kingdom over to His Father (1 Cor.
15:24-28). At that time, the last
enemy, death, will be fully con-
quered and destroyed (l Cor.
15:26). The defilement of mortality
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
baptism for the dead to which Paul
alludes. Funherrnore, even if
Mormon practice did correspond to
that ancient rite of baptism 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]esus Christ and His
sacrifiCial work. The Mormon
practice is seen in all its perversity
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 salvific benefits.
If the Old Testament practice of
baptism for the dead ultimately
could not remove death's defile-
ment, and it could not, then it must
be plain that the Mormon practice
will be of absolutely no saving
benefit to the dead. In fact, it must
be noted that the Old Testament
practice of baptism for (because 00
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
resurrection. The effort of Mormon
historians to compile genealOgically
. records for the dead in order to
offer vicarious baptism for their
benefit must be recognized for what
it really is, a monumental exercise
in futility.
Christians should not wish that I
Corinthians 15:29 was expunged
from the Bible, nor do they need to
engage in red-faced attempts to
explain away this embarrassing
verse of Scripture. Properly under-
stood, this verse provides an
exciting confirmation of a cardinal
doctrine of the Christian faith-the
resurrection of the body. This verse
appears to be obscure to us, but no
doubt it was not obscure to the
Corinthian Christians. Paul had
taught them how the whole Old
Testament, including Numbers 19,
preached the Gospel.
Yet, the beauty and usefulness
ofl Corinthians 15:29 in defending
the doctrine of the resurrection can
only be embraced by abandoning
the Anabaptist notion that biblical
baptism must be by immersion.
Not only does a proper interpreta-
tion of! Corinthians 15:29 refute
Mormon practices, but it also
proves to be a rock that shatters the
Anabaptist view of baptism as
well.Q
Angust/September, 1998 t TIlE COUNSEL of Chalcedon t 35