Do you baptize dead people?
 |
| The Resurrection of Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
“Baptism for the dead.” The phrase is so obscure and perplexing, the variety of interpretations so numerous, that we must admit from the outset that no one knows what it means. Given the difficulties, some wonder why we should bother to investigate. But “baptism for the dead” matters, both because the false Mormon system places extraordinary importance upon it and because Paul uses it to defend the resurrection of believers.
The plain understanding of the text is that some Corinthian Christians were baptized, on behalf of some who had already died, seeking a spiritual benefit. The problem with this view is two-fold. First, there is no precedent for “baptism for the dead” in the Bible, the early church, or pagan religions. No one knows who did it or what spiritual benefit they sought. Second, the notion of Christians being baptized for the sake of those who have died offends our theology. It sounds like a magical sacramentalism. It seems to contradict justification by faith alone.
Scholars have proposed that Paul’s three key terms have rare or figurative meanings:
- “baptism” is metaphorical, as in Peter’s expression, “baptism with fire”;
- “for” does not mean “on behalf of”; and
- “the dead” are spiritually dead, or those who know they will die, not the literal dead.
But the text gives us no reason to seek metaphorical meanings. All stripes of scholars agree that the plain sense is most likely, though no one knows precisely what the Corinthians did.
The question resembles discussions of the authorship of Hebrews. Likewise, we may never know precisely why the Corinthians were baptized for the dead, but we can know that the Mormons’ view is false.
Two principles guide us. First, we establish what we know and work from there. Second, our conclusions must fit the context in 1 Corinthians and cohere with Paul’s theology.
Beginning with the context, Paul has heard that some Corinthian Christians deny the future bodily resurrection of believers. Given that the resurrection of Christ is integral to the Gospel, Paul asks, “How can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” (15:1–12). Due to the union of Christ and believers, if anyone denies the resurrection of believers, he also denies Jesus’ resurrection. If dead believers are not raised, Paul declares, then neither is Christ. And if Christ is not raised, Paul’s gospel is false, faith is vain, and the Corinthians are still lost in their sins. But, Paul continues, Christ has been raised, so that all who are united to him have resurrection life. Christ was raised as the first fruits of the dead (15:12–28).
With this, Paul’s theological argument for the resurrection of believers ends. The next section, beginning with our verse, adds a series of ad hoc arguments for the resurrection. Paul’s theme is that his practice and the Corinthians’ practice are consistent with belief in the resurrection of the dead. The significance of Paul’s practice is clear. If there is no resurrection, Paul asks, why does he face danger every hour? Why should he risk death daily? There is no “gain” in such sacrifices without the resurrection. It would be better to “eat and drink for tomorrow we die” (15:30–32).
Two conclusions emerge.
The question resembles discussions of the authorship of Hebrews. Likewise, we may never know precisely why the Corinthians were baptized for the dead, but we can know that the Mormons’ view is false.
Two principles guide us. First, we establish what we know and work from there. Second, our conclusions must fit the context in 1 Corinthians and cohere with Paul’s theology.
Beginning with the context, Paul has heard that some Corinthian Christians deny the future bodily resurrection of believers. Given that the resurrection of Christ is integral to the Gospel, Paul asks, “How can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” (15:1–12). Due to the union of Christ and believers, if anyone denies the resurrection of believers, he also denies Jesus’ resurrection. If dead believers are not raised, Paul declares, then neither is Christ. And if Christ is not raised, Paul’s gospel is false, faith is vain, and the Corinthians are still lost in their sins. But, Paul continues, Christ has been raised, so that all who are united to him have resurrection life. Christ was raised as the first fruits of the dead (15:12–28).
With this, Paul’s theological argument for the resurrection of believers ends. The next section, beginning with our verse, adds a series of ad hoc arguments for the resurrection. Paul’s theme is that his practice and the Corinthians’ practice are consistent with belief in the resurrection of the dead. The significance of Paul’s practice is clear. If there is no resurrection, Paul asks, why does he face danger every hour? Why should he risk death daily? There is no “gain” in such sacrifices without the resurrection. It would be better to “eat and drink for tomorrow we die” (15:30–32).
Two conclusions emerge.
- First, just as Paul’s sacrifices presuppose the resurrection, so the Corinthians’ practice of “baptism for the dead” presupposes the resurrection.
- Second, since 1 Corinthians is about resurrection of the dead, not the gaining of salvation, the Mormons take the passage out of context.
Additionally, since Paul does not rebuke the Corinthians for the practice, their “baptism for the dead” is harmless or, at worst, a minor offense. If “baptism for the dead” perverted the Gospel, Paul would have condemned it, as he condemned other sins in the letter.
These conclusions alone are sufficient to refute the Mormon view of baptism for the dead. Whatever “baptism for the dead” means, the practice of Mormons cannot be correct, for it disregards the context and undermines the Gospel.
Mormon baptism for the dead is a proxy administration of baptism for a deceased person who did not hear the Mormon gospel while alive. Joseph Smith instituted the practice in 1840 in response to concern among his followers for forebears who died unbaptized into the Mormon religion. Today, these baptisms are also performed, as an act of love for the dead, for unrelated persons selected from genealogical records in Mormon archives.
According to Mormon teaching, the practice does not save, but affords the dead the opportunity to pursue salvation through a works-righteousness system. We must understand that Mormons explicitly teach salvation by good works. Their baptism for the dead is part of that system. Like some Christians, Mormons wonder about the fate of those who died before Christ came. But whereas Christians wonder about those who miss the Gospel of the atonement of Christ, Mormons fear missing his teachings on the way of righteous living.
Mormons claim Joseph Smith’s baptism for the dead restored a lost apostolic practice. This baptism was allegedly the center of Jesus’ post-resurrection teaching. Mormons say the gates of hell will not thwart the salvation of the dead, for which this baptism is essential. In this act, “worthy” Mormons with special temple privileges serve as proxies by undergoing baptism in a basin patterned after the bronze sea of Solomon’s temple.
The Mormons are wrong. The Gospels and Acts declare that Jesus’ post-resurrection teaching focused on His kingdom, the Old Testament witness to Him, and the mission to the world, not baptism for the dead. Further, if the Corinthians practiced what the Mormons do, Paul could not have tolerated it, since it would have contradicted the Gospel.
Still, the question of the proper interpretation of “baptism for the dead” remains. It seems likely that certain Corinthians were baptized on behalf of others who had died. Paul and the church knew about it, but even if they did not fully approve, Paul’s casual tone shows it was not a major error. The best surmise, therefore, is not that they thought baptism played a role in saving the dead—that error would be a major error—but that they exaggerated the value of baptism.
These conclusions alone are sufficient to refute the Mormon view of baptism for the dead. Whatever “baptism for the dead” means, the practice of Mormons cannot be correct, for it disregards the context and undermines the Gospel.
Mormon baptism for the dead is a proxy administration of baptism for a deceased person who did not hear the Mormon gospel while alive. Joseph Smith instituted the practice in 1840 in response to concern among his followers for forebears who died unbaptized into the Mormon religion. Today, these baptisms are also performed, as an act of love for the dead, for unrelated persons selected from genealogical records in Mormon archives.
According to Mormon teaching, the practice does not save, but affords the dead the opportunity to pursue salvation through a works-righteousness system. We must understand that Mormons explicitly teach salvation by good works. Their baptism for the dead is part of that system. Like some Christians, Mormons wonder about the fate of those who died before Christ came. But whereas Christians wonder about those who miss the Gospel of the atonement of Christ, Mormons fear missing his teachings on the way of righteous living.
Mormons claim Joseph Smith’s baptism for the dead restored a lost apostolic practice. This baptism was allegedly the center of Jesus’ post-resurrection teaching. Mormons say the gates of hell will not thwart the salvation of the dead, for which this baptism is essential. In this act, “worthy” Mormons with special temple privileges serve as proxies by undergoing baptism in a basin patterned after the bronze sea of Solomon’s temple.
The Mormons are wrong. The Gospels and Acts declare that Jesus’ post-resurrection teaching focused on His kingdom, the Old Testament witness to Him, and the mission to the world, not baptism for the dead. Further, if the Corinthians practiced what the Mormons do, Paul could not have tolerated it, since it would have contradicted the Gospel.
Still, the question of the proper interpretation of “baptism for the dead” remains. It seems likely that certain Corinthians were baptized on behalf of others who had died. Paul and the church knew about it, but even if they did not fully approve, Paul’s casual tone shows it was not a major error. The best surmise, therefore, is not that they thought baptism played a role in saving the dead—that error would be a major error—but that they exaggerated the value of baptism.
Most likely, they were concerned about believers who died before they could be baptized and feared they might suffer spiritual loss as a result. This view satisfies our two interpretive principles: it suits the context and coheres with Paul’s gospel of salvation by grace through faith, not works
