John Calvin 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? He resumes his enumeration of the absurdities that follow from the error under which the Corinthians were laboring. He had set himself at the outset to do this, but he introduced instruction and consolation, by means of which he interrupted to some extent the thread of his discourse.

To this he now returns. In the first place, he brings forward this objection—that the baptism received by those who are already regarded as dead will be of no avail if there is no resurrection. Before explaining this passage, it is important to set aside the common interpretation, which rests on the authority of the ancients and is received with almost universal consent.

Chrysostom, therefore, and Ambrose, who are followed by others, are of the opinion that the Corinthians were accustomed, when anyone had been deprived of baptism by sudden death, to substitute some living person in place of the deceased—to be baptized at his grave. At the same time, they do not deny that this custom was corrupt and full of superstition, but they say that Paul, for the purpose of refuting the Corinthians, was content with this single fact: that while they denied there was a resurrection, they meanwhile declared in this way that they believed in it.

For my part, however, I cannot by any means be persuaded to believe this, for it is not credible that those who denied there was a resurrection had, along with others, used a custom of this sort. Paul then would have immediately received this reply: “Why do you trouble us with that old wives’ superstition, which you yourself do not approve of?” Furthermore, if they had used it, they could very readily have replied: “If this has been practiced by us until now through mistake, let the mistake rather be corrected, than that it should be given weight for proving a point of such importance.”

Granting, however, that the argument was conclusive, can we suppose that, if such a corruption as this had prevailed among the Corinthians, the Apostle, after reproving almost all their faults, would have been silent about this one? He has previously censured some practices that are not of such great importance.

He has not hesitated to give directions about women having their heads covered, and other things of that nature. Their corrupt administration of the Supper he has not merely reproved, but has inveighed against it with the greatest keenness. Would he, meanwhile, have uttered not a single word concerning such a base profanation of baptism, which was a much more serious fault?

He has inveighed with great vehemence against those who, by frequenting the banquets of the Gentiles, silently countenanced their superstitions. Would he have allowed this horrible superstition of the Gentiles to be openly carried on in the Church itself under the name of sacred baptism? But granting that he might have been silent, what shall we say when he expressly mentions it?

Is it likely, I ask you, that the Apostle would bring forward as an argument a sacrilege by which baptism was polluted and converted into a mere magical abuse, and yet not say even one word in condemnation of the fault? When he is dealing with matters that are not of the highest importance, he nevertheless introduces this parenthesis, that he speaks as a man (Romans 3:5; Romans 6:19; Galatians 3:15). Would this not have been a more fitting and suitable place for such a parenthesis?

Now, from his mentioning such a thing without any word of reproof, who would not understand it to be something that was allowed? For my part, I assuredly understand him to be speaking here of the right use of baptism, and not of an abuse of it of that nature.

Let us now inquire about the meaning. At one time I was of the opinion that Paul here pointed out the universal design of baptism, for the advantage of baptism is not confined to this life; but on considering the words afterwards with greater care, I perceived that Paul here points out something peculiar.

For he does not speak of all when he says, What shall they do, who are baptized? etc. Besides, I am not fond of interpretations that are more ingenious than solid. What then? I say that those are baptized for dead, who are regarded as already dead and who have altogether despaired of life; and in this way the particle ὑπέρ will have the force of the Latin pro, as when we say, habere pro derelicto;—to reckon as abandoned. This meaning is not a forced one.

Or if you would prefer another meaning, to be baptized for the dead will mean—to be baptized so as to profit the dead—not the living. Now, it is well known that from the very beginning of the Church, those who, while still catechumens, had fallen ill, if their life was clearly in danger, were accustomed to ask for baptism, so that they might not leave this world before they had made a profession of Christianity; and this, so that they might carry with them the seal of their salvation.

It appears from the writings of the Fathers that, concerning this matter, a superstition also crept in afterwards, for they inveigh against those who delayed baptism until the time of their death, so that, being purged once for all from all their sins, they might in this state meet the judgment of God.

A gross error truly, which proceeded partly from great ignorance and partly from hypocrisy! Paul, however, here simply mentions a custom that was sacred and in accordance with the Divine institution—that if a catechumen, who had already in his heart embraced the Christian faith, saw that death was imminent for him, he asked for baptism, partly for his own consolation and partly for the edification of his brethren.

For it is no small consolation to carry the token of his salvation sealed in his body. There is also an edification, not to be lost sight of—that of making a confession of his faith. They were, then, baptized for the dead, since it could not be of any service to them in this world, and the very reason for their asking for baptism was that they despaired of life.

We now see that it is not without good reason that Paul asks, what they would do if there remained no hope after death? This passage also shows us that those impostors who had disturbed the faith of the Corinthians had contrived a figurative resurrection, making the ultimate goal of believers to be in this world. His repeating it a second time, Why are they also baptized for the dead? gives it greater emphasis: “Not only are those baptized who think that they are to live longer, but those too who have death before their eyes; and that, so that they may in death reap the fruit of their baptism.”