For otherwise what will those who are bapti~ed Jar the dead accomplish if the dead are not actually raised? Why indeed are they being bapti~ed 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 con­text)? 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 face­saving 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 confirma­tion 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 inter­pretation. 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 prob­lem. 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 knowl­edge, 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 interpreta­tions 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 argu­ment for the truth of the resurrec­tion is strengthened by what he says in verse 29. Paul did not write this section of Scripture while day­dreaming. 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 demon­strate 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 interpreta­tion 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, however~ 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, consis­tent, 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 resurrec­tion, we should be like the unbe­lievers 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 demon­strates 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 full­blown 'discussion of the proper mode of baptism ... Excellent refuta­tions 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 sprin­kling and pouring, not by immer­sion. 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 regula­tions 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 ordi­nances 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 priest­hood to the Melchizedekian priest­hood), 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 toap­proach 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 abol­ished 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 cer­tainly be legitimate and understand­able. 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 Testa­ment Christians. Yet, this ceremo­niallaw 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 theo­logical, 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, 1998~' THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon f 33

could never have sin in His pres­ence. nor even the evidence of sin's pollution (Le., death). The univer­sal 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 iinmor­tality 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 ~pproach the tabernaCle! temple. , ThIS . Cl'remrinial sprinkling i~ 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 resurr~ction, the ' removal of deaths defilement would '

never be ~chievec;!,. and thus the picture of water (baptism) Cleansing a man's d~filement 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 torinthi~ns 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 " , ~crificesof the.o Id Testament were types of the completed sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, They pictUred His vicarious death and ' rernov~l of sin.'s defilement. The finished work of Christ is the anti­type of all the Old Testament types. An anti-type is the corresponding co~n,ter 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 bilp~'

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 defile­ment, God had' to supply that' needed remedy, ' The baptism for the living who pad 'coritaCted the <

dead was God's supplied remedy.

Thus,baptism withthew~;~r ~f cleansing was bibliqlUy, a "rSil,lJ;i-ec-

34 f mE COUNSEL of Chalcedon f August/SepteJllbe~, 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-for­all ,removal of death's defilement. As with all the sacrifices and rituals of

, tlle 'OIc;! TeStament, ii's very repeti­,tion demonstrated its Ineffective­ness, .

NOW, Paul's argument in I Corinthians 15:29 becOfIles beauti­fut and crystal clear. If the anti-type (the resurrection ofbeIievers) is a lie, then,what where the Jews doing practicing baptism fpr th~ 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 cereml'lntalbaPli~m pictured the removaI'of death's defileme~t. Yet, if there ~;"no ieSurrectio~, 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 li.~ for h ... ving depicted, in His law what would never take '

'pl~~; ;;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 resurrec­tion. 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 Chris­tians, then Christ is not raised either. Apparently, even the false teachers at Corinth who denied the resurrection of believers acknowl­edged the fact of Christ'S resurrec­tion, 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 resurrec­tion of Christ was only the firstfruits of the full harvest of the resurrec­tion 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 consid­ered 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 resurrec­tion 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 con­quered 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 defile­ment, 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 under­stood, 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 interpreta­tion 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