Anonymous Asks (328)

“What does it mean to be baptized for the dead?”

The so-called Latter-day Saints or Mormons practice something they call proxy baptism, literally baptism for the dead. They believe individuals who have not been water baptized cannot enter the kingdom of God — “Even Jesus Christ himself was baptized,” they say — and so, under ecclesiastical supervision, members of their church will baptize a living person on behalf of the unbaptized dead. In doing so, they believe they are putting in place a critical component of God’s salvation requirements for those who can no longer do it for themselves, but would if they could.

The authority they claim for this practice is the apostle Paul and, more importantly in their view, an alleged revelation to the “prophet” Joseph Smith.

Why Are People Baptized on Their Behalf?

Since Christians do not generally put much stock in the opinions of the late Mr. Smith, here is absolutely everything Paul wrote on the subject:

“Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?”

That’s it, that’s all, right there.

When Paul wrote in the mid-first century, it should be evident he was not thinking about Mormonism, Joseph Smith or a practice that didn’t begin until 1840, nor was he thinking about the New Apostolic Church, which started the same practice in 1863, or an obscure branch of Catholicism that once did the same. These are the only modern Christian or pseudo-Christian sects where you will find baptism for the dead taught and practiced.

Is there any good reason so few interpret Paul’s words as universally binding instruction for the church? I think there is.

Prescription/Description

Any reasonably intelligent reader looking at the passage can see Paul’s statement is not prescriptive (as in “do this”) but merely descriptive or factual. He was saying there were people, presumably known to Paul’s readers in Corinth, who practiced baptism for the dead. He did not say whether these were Christian, Jewish or pagan. He did not say whether their practice was recent or ancient. He did not say whether the practice bore the stamp of divine authorization, was morally neutral or outright heretical, nor did he indicate where or how it might have originated. In fact, he said nothing about baptism for the dead except that certain people did it in the first century.

Hey, some people do lots of things. We don’t copy most of them, thankfully.

Not only does Paul say nothing further about this practice, the rest of the Bible says nothing whatsoever about it either. Making a doctrine out of it is thus highly questionable at best.

The Context in 1 Corinthians

The two-sentence statement quoted above from 1 Corinthians 15 is part of a much longer argument Paul is making there about resurrection. If you read the passage, it becomes evident some Christians in Corinth had adopted the heretical and false teaching of a sect of Judaism called the Sadducees. These taught there is no such thing as resurrection, and they were quite popular in the first century; the Gospels and Acts mention them fourteen times. In response, Paul provides the Corinthian believers with three separate types of evidence that resurrection is a real, legitimate hope for Christians.

His first argument is historical: Christ was raised from the dead, so resurrection is a real thing. “Hundreds of people saw him alive,” says Paul, “including me.” His second argument is logical: The salvation of the Corinthians and every Christian everywhere is based on it; if you take away resurrection, the faith falls apart. His third argument is theological: As in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. Finally, he gives a brief series of less consequential arguments for resurrection. His thesis on the reality of resurrection does not depend on demonstrating these, but he obviously felt they might matter to Corinthians confused by false teaching, and they certainly reinforce his major points. Included among these is his brief statement about people being baptized on behalf of the dead.

In context, his argument amounts to this: “The teaching that there is no resurrection has not found universal acceptance. Those who baptize for the dead obviously do not accept it. Why would you accept it if they don’t?” Notice Paul says “they”, not “you”. He is not suggesting that the practice occurred among Christians in Corinth. He certainly is not saying that it was universal church practice.

One Possible Origin

Personally, I suspect the “baptism for the dead” heresy originated in Judaism, not Christianity, which would explain the pronoun difference. The “no resurrection” teaching Paul so vigorously denied was a first century Jewish sectarian heresy. Paul’s argument seems most persuasive if the first century practitioners of proxy baptism were also members of a rival Jewish sect. Many Jews did not accept the teaching of the Sadducees that death was the end of everything, as Luke confirms. The Pharisees were resurrectionists, and perhaps some among them followed their Joseph Smiths. Remember, baptism was popular within Judaism before it acquired its Christian meaning and significance. Paul’s point, then, may have been that Gentiles in Corinth who might be inclined to pay too much attention to Jewish theologians should be advised not all Jews agreed about it, nullifying the “argument from authority” position.

Obviously, we have no proof this was Paul’s intention, since he says nothing further on the subject, but it certainly explains why Paul would bother to make an otherwise-flimsy argument from a sectarian practice, and why he would offer no further explanation on the subject. The practice was not widespread, and apparently died out shortly afterward.

An Authority-Free, Heretical Doctrine

In any event, the case Paul is making to the Corinthians is that they ought to believe in resurrection, and he makes it very convincingly. He is not in the least suggesting they ought to be baptized for the dead. People who teach baptism for the dead are thus operating without even the slightest biblical authority.

Worse, they make salvation a work (by requiring water baptism in every case for salvation when Jesus himself did not) and take ten steps down the slippery slope to the universalism heresy by affirming the unregenerate dead will receive further opportunities to be saved.