Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 15:29

"Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?" — 1 Corinthians 15:29 (ASV)

Else what shall they do, etc. (1 Corinthians 15:29). The apostle here resumes the argument for the resurrection which was interrupted at 1 Corinthians 15:19. He goes on to state further consequences that must follow from the denial of this doctrine, and from this infers that the doctrine must be true. There is, perhaps, no passage of the New Testament about which there has been a greater variety of interpretation than this; and the views of expositors now do not harmonize at all regarding its meaning. It is possible that Paul may here refer to some practice or custom concerning baptism that existed in his time, the knowledge of which is now lost. The various opinions that have been entertained about this passage, together with an examination of them, may be seen in Poole's Synopsis, Rosenmuller, and Bloomfield. It may be useful just to refer to some of them, so that the perplexity of commentators may be seen.

1. It has been held by some that by "the dead" here is meant the Messiah who was put to death, the plural being used for the singular, meaning "the dead one."

2. By others, it is held that the word baptized here is taken in the sense of washing, cleansing, purifying, as in Mark 7:4 and Hebrews 9:10; and that the sense is that the dead were carefully washed and purified when buried, with the hope of the resurrection and, as it were, preparatory to it.

3. By others, it is held that to be baptized for the dead means to be baptized as dead—being baptized into Christ and buried with Him in baptism—and that by their immersion they were regarded as dead.

4. By others, it is held that the apostle refers to a custom of vicarious baptism, or being baptized for those who were dead. This refers to the practice of having some person baptized in the place of one who had died without baptism. This was the opinion of Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose. It is supposed that the importance of baptism was estimated so highly that when one had died without being baptized, some other person was baptized over his dead body in his place. That this custom prevailed in the church after the time of Paul has been abundantly proved by Grotius and is generally admitted. But the objections to this interpretation are obvious.

   1. There is no evidence that such a custom prevailed in the time of Paul.

   2. It cannot be believed that Paul would support a custom so senseless and so contrary to Scripture, or that he would make it the foundation of a solemn argument.

   3. It does not align with the tone and purpose of his argument. If this custom had been referred to, his design would have led him to say, "What will become of them for whom others have been baptized? Are we to believe that they have perished?"

   4. It is far more probable that the custom referred to in this opinion arose from an erroneous interpretation of this passage of Scripture than that it existed in the time of Paul.

5. There remain two other opinions, both of which are plausible, and one of which is probably the true one. One is that the word baptized is used here as it is in Matthew 20:22-23, Mark 10:39, and Luke 12:50, in the sense of being overwhelmed with calamities, trials, and sufferings. This usage would mean that the apostles and others were subjected to great trials on account of the dead—that is, in the hope of the resurrection, or with the expectation that the dead would rise.

   This is the opinion of Lightfoot, Rosenmuller, Pearce, Hornberg, Krause, and of Professor Robinson (Lexicon, article baptizō), and it has much that is plausible. There can be no doubt that the word is thus used to denote a deep sinking into calamities. It is equally clear that the apostles and early Christians subjected themselves, or were subjected, to great and overwhelming calamities on account of the hope of the resurrection.

   This interpretation also agrees with the general tenor of the argument and is an argument for the resurrection. It implies that it was the full and constant belief of all who endured these trials that there would be a resurrection of the dead. The argument would be that they should be slow to adopt an opinion implying that all their sufferings were endured for nothing, and that God had supported them in this in vain. It would mean that God had plunged them into all these sorrows and sustained them in them only to disappoint them.

   That this view is plausible, and that it suits the tenor of remark in the following verses, is evident. But there are objections to it.

   1. It is not the usual and natural meaning of the word baptize.

   2. A metaphorical use of a word should not be resorted to unless necessary.

   3. The literal meaning of the word here will meet the apostle's design just as well as the metaphorical.

   4. This interpretation does not relieve us from any of the difficulties regarding the phrase "for the dead"; and

   5. It is altogether more natural to suppose that the apostle would derive his argument from the baptism of all who were Christians, rather than from the figurative baptism of a few who went into the perils of martyrdom.

   The other opinion, therefore, is that the apostle here refers to baptism as administered to all believers. This is the most correct opinion; it is the most simple and best meets the design of the argument. According to this, it means that they had been baptized with the hope and expectation of a resurrection of the dead. They had received this as one of the leading doctrines of the gospel when they were baptized.

   It was a part of their full and firm belief that the dead would rise. The argument according to this interpretation is that this was an essential article of the faith of a Christian, embraced by all, and constituting a part of their very profession. For anyone to deny it was to deny that which entered into the very foundation of the Christian faith.

   If they embraced a different doctrine, if they denied the doctrine of the resurrection, they struck a blow at the very nature of Christianity and dashed all the hopes that had been cherished and expressed at their baptism. And what could they do? What would become of them? What would be the destiny of all who were thus baptized?

   Was it to be believed that all their hopes at baptism were vain and that they would all perish? Since such a belief could not be entertained, the apostle infers that if they held to Christianity at all, they must hold to this doctrine as a part of their very profession.

   According to this view, the phrase "for the dead" means with reference to the dead; with direct allusion to the condition of the dead and their hopes; with a belief that the dead will rise. It is evident that the passage is elliptical, and this interpretation seems as probable as any that has been suggested.

   Mr. Locke says frankly, "What this baptizing for the dead was, I know not; but it seems, by the following verses, to be something wherein they exposed themselves to the danger of death." Tindal translates it, "over the dead." Doddridge renders it, "in the room of the dead, who are just fallen in the cause of Christ, but are yet supported by a succession of new converts, who immediately offer themselves to fill up their places, as ranks of soldiers that advance to the combat in the room of their companions who have just been slain in their sight."