Baptism for the Dead
Baptism For The Dead
See Baptism.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD
A practice formerly in use, when a person dying without baptism, another was baptized in his stead; thus supposing that God would accept the baptism of the proxy, as though it had been administered to the principal. Chrysostom says, this was practiced among the Marcionites with a great deal of ridiculous ceremony, which he thus describes:
After any catechumen was dead, they hid a living man under the bed of the deceased; then, coming to the dead man, they asked him whether he would receive baptism; and he making no answer, the other answered for him, and said he would be baptized in his stead; and so they baptized the living for the dead. If it can be proved (as some think it can) that this practice was as early as the days of the apostle Paul, it might probably form a solution of those remarkable words in 1Co 15:29 : “If the dead rise not at all, what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?” The allusion of the apostle to this practice, however, is rejected by some, and especially by Fr. Doddridge, who thinks it too early: he thus paraphrases the passage: “Such are our views and hopes as Christians; else, if it were not so, what should they do who are baptized in token of their embracing the Christian faith, 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 rooms of their companions who have just been slain in their sight?” Lay baptism we find to have been permitted by both the common prayer books of king Edward and queen Elizabeth, when an infant was in immediate danger of death, and a lawful minister could not be had. This was founded on a mistaken notion of the impossibility of salvation without the sacrament of baptism; but afterwards, when they came to have clearer notions of the sacraments, it was unanimously resolved in a convocation held in 1575, that even private baptism in a case of necessity was only to be administered by a lawful minister.
Fuente: Theological Dictionary
Baptism For The Dead
( , 1Co 15:29). This difficult passage has given rise to multitudinous expositions. Among them are the following (see also Am. Presb. Rev. Jan. 1863):
1. The Corinthians (according to Suicer), and after them the Marcionites and other heretics, practiced a sort of vicarious baptism in the case of those who had died unbaptized; that is, they caused a relation or friend of the dead person to be baptized in his stead, in the belief that such baptism would operate to obtain the remission of the sins of the deceased in the other world (Chrysostom, Hom. 40 in 1 Cor., and Tertullian contra Marcion, lib. 5, cap. 10). The apostle then drew an argument from the heretical practice to prove their belief in the resurrection.
2. Chrysostom, however, declares that Paul refers to the declaration made by each catechumen at his baptism, of his belief in the resurrection of the dead, meaning to say this: If there is, in fact, no resurrection of the dead, why, then, art thou baptized for the dead, i.e. the body? An improvement, perhaps, upon this interpretation would be to consider the ancient martyrs to be referred to, over whose remains the churches were often built (probably, however, not as yet), in which such vows were taken.
3. Among the best interpretations is that of Spanheim (see Wolf, Cur. Sin V. T. in loc.), which considers the dead to be martyrs and other believers, who, by firmness and cheerful hope of resurrection, have given in death a worthy example, by which others were also animated to receive baptism. Still, this meaning would be almost too briefly and enigmatically expressed, when no particular reason for it is known, while also the allusion to the exemplary death of many Christians could chiefly apply to the martyrs alone, of whom there were as yet none at Corinth. This interpretation, however, may perhaps also be improved if Christ be considered as prominently referred to among these deceased, by virtue of whose resurrection all his followers expect to be likewise raised.
4. Olshausen’s interpretation is of a rather doubtful character. The meaning of the passage he takes to be, that all who are converted to the church are baptized for the good of the dead, as it requires a certain number (Rom 11:12-25), a fullness’ of believers, before the resurrection can take place. Every one, therefore, who is baptized is for the good of believers collectively, and of those who have already died in the Lord. Olshausen is himself aware that the apostle could not have expected that such a difficult and remote idea, which he himself calls a mystery, would be understood by his readers without a further explanation and development of his doctrine. He therefore proposes an explanation, in which it is argued that the miseries and hardships Christians have to struggle against in this life can only be compensated by resurrection. Death causes, as it were, vacancies in the full ranks of the believers, which are again filled up by other individuals. What would it profit those who are baptized in the place of the dead (to fill up their place in the community) if there be no resurrection?
5. None of these explanations, however, well suits the signification of , for, i.e. in behalf of, on account of, and is, at the same time, consistent in other respects. Dr. Tregelles (Printed Text of the Gr. Test. p. 216) has proposed a slight emendation of the text’ that appears to obviate the difficulty almost entirely. It consists simply in the following punctuation: Else what shall they do which are baptized? [It is] for the dead, if the dead rise not at all, i.e. we are baptized merely in the name of (for the sake of, out of regard to) dead persons, namely, Christ and the prophets who testified of him. This interpretation renders No. 3 above more easy of adoption.
Treatises entitled De baptismo have been written by Schmidt (Argent. 1656), Calon (Viteb. 1684), Deutsch (Regiom. 1698), Grade (Gryph. 1690), Hasaeus (Brem. 1725), Muller (Rost. 1665), Olearius (Lips. 1704), Reichmann (Viteb. 1652), Schenck (Franeq. 1667), Zeutschner (Fcft. a. V. 1706), Facius, (Colossians 1792), Neumann (Jen. 1740), Nobling (Sus. 1784), Richter (Zwic. 1803), Heumann (Isen. 1710, Jen. 1740), Streccius (Jen. 1736).
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Baptism for the dead
only mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:29. This expression as used by the apostle may be equivalent to saying, “He who goes through a baptism of blood in order to join a glorified church which has no existence [i.e., if the dead rise not] is a fool.” Some also regard the statement here as an allusion to the strange practice which began, it is said, to prevail at Corinth, in which a person was baptized in the stead of others who had died before being baptized, to whom it was hoped some of the benefits of that rite would be extended. This they think may have been one of the erroneous customs which Paul went to Corinth to “set in order.”
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Baptism for the Dead
( , baptizomai huper ton nekron).
1. Paul’s Argument
Some of the Corinthian Christians denied the resurrection of the dead, and Paul advances three arguments to convince them that the dead will be raised: (1) If there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised, but Christ is raised (1Co 15:13, 1Co 15:20). (2) If the dead are not raised, why are men being baptized for the dead (1Co 15:29)? (3) Why should the apostle himself wage his spiritual warfare (1Co 15:30)? The first argument rests upon the central fact of Christianity, and the other two are appeals to the consistency of the Corinthians, and of Paul himself. Whatever baptism for the dead meant, it was, in Paul’s opinion, as real, valid and legitimate a premise from which to conclude that the dead would rise as his own sufferings. The natural meaning of the words is obvious. Men in Corinth, and possibly elsewhere, were being continually baptized on behalf of others who were at the time dead, with a view to benefiting them in the resurrection, but if there be no resurrection, what shall they Thus accomplish, and why do they do it? The only legitimate reference is to a practice … of survivors allowing themselves to be baptized on behalf of (believing?) friends who had died without baptism (Alford in the place cited.).
2. Patristic Evidence
Tertullian believed that Paul referred to a custom of vicarious baptism (Res., 48c; Adv. Marc., 5.10). There is evidence that the early church knew such a practice. Epiphanius mentions a tradition that the custom obtained among the Cerinthians (Haer., 28 6). And Chrysostom states that it prevailed among the Marcionites.
3. Modern Views
But commentators have offered between thirty and forty other interpretations, more or less strained, of the passage. (For a summary of different views see T. C. Edwards and Stanley, Comms., at the place) Two of the most reasonable views from recent commentators are: What shall they do who receive baptism on account of the dead? i.e. with a view to the resurrection of the dead? and therefore to sharing in it themselves (Canon Evans, Speaker’s Comm., at the place); that the death of Christians led to the conversion of survivors, who in the first instance ‘for the sake of the dead’ (their beloved dead), and in the hope of reunion, turn to Christ (Findlay, Expositor’s Greek Test., at the place). Both ideas may be true, but they are simply imported into this passage, and the latter also is quite irrelevant to the argument and makes Paul identify conversion with baptism.
4. The Difficulty
But why is all this ingenuity expended to evade the natural meaning? Because (1) such a custom would be a superstition involving the principle of opus operatum; and (2) Paul could not share or even tolerate a contemporary idea which is now regarded as superstition. To reply (with Alford) that Paul does not approve the custom will not serve the purpose, for he would scarcely base so great an argument, even as an argumentum ad hominem, on a practice which he regarded as wholly false and superstitious. The retort of those who denied the resurrection would be too obvious. But why should it be necessary to suppose that Paul rose above all the limitations of his age? The idea that symbolic acts had a vicarious significance had sunk deeply into the Jewish mind, and it would not be surprising if it took more than twenty years for the leaven of the gospel to work all the Jew out of Paul. At least it serves the apostle’s credit ill to make his argument meaningless or absurd in order to save him from sharing at all in the inadequate conceptions of his age. He made for himself no claim of infallibility.