Hi, I'm David Bercot, and today we're going to be talking about baptism for the dead. Actually, over the years, this has been one of the questions I've been asked about most often by my readers. The expression being baptized for the dead occurs in only one verse in all of Scripture. And that's in 1 Corinthians 15: 29. And there Paul uses the expression twice. He says this, " Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?
" Normally, the first place to begin in understanding any biblical subject is to look at all of the verses in the Bible that pertain to that subject. But as I said, there are no other verses in this case. That verse I just read, that's it. And Paul gives no further explanation of what he is talking about. So the next step we have is to turn to the pre-Nicene Christians to see if they shed any light on the subject. And here we run into another obstacle.
That is that there's only one pre-Nicene writer who discusses baptism for the dead. Fortunately, it was a second century writer, that being Tertullian. Nevertheless, because we only have one writer, we certainly can't say that what he says is the definite received teaching that the early church obtained on this subject from the apostles.
Nevertheless, Tertullian's explanation of this passage carries considerable weight because there was a group of professing but heretical Christians in Tertullian's day who were practicing baptism for the dead. This group were the Marcionites, who were the followers of a false teacher named Marcion. Now, both he and his followers had been put out of the church around the year 80 155, somewhere around there, because of his many false teachings. In fact, Marcion's teachings were basically Gnostic.
And one of the key teachings of Marcion and the Gnostics is that there is no resurrection of the dead. So this is significant in looking at this subject, because in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is addressing false teachers who are saying there is no resurrection of the dead. In fact, Paul wrote the entire 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians to refute those heretics and to prove that our bodies will be resurrected. Now the followers of Marcion lasted on for several centuries.
They were still around in the fourth century during the days of John Chrysostom. And he gives us a fairly detailed description of how the Marcionites were practicing baptism for the dead, which in his day they had been doing now for at least two centuries. And this is what he says they did. Now he indicates that they only practiced it on their catechumens who died before they had the opportunity to be baptized. A catechumen is someone who is going through instruction in preparation for baptism.
So even those Gnostic heretics, the Marcionites, were not doing what the modern-day Mormons do in their practice of baptism of the dead. The Mormons teach that a believer today can be baptized on behalf of his dead ancestors. And if I understand their practice correctly, they believe that this is even effective for an ancestor who died centuries ago.
But as I said, the Marcionites were apparently only practicing this on behalf of their catechumens who died before they could be baptized, which would have been a very small percentage, I'm sure, of people. Of course, either way, it's an unscriptural practice. So Chrysostom says that when one of these catechumens among the Marcionites died before he could be baptized, they would have a ceremony and they would lay his body out on a bed.
In the meantime, one of the members of the Marcionite congregation would lie concealed underneath the bed where this dead person was lying. Okay, then one of the leaders of the Marcionites would come up to the corpse that was lying there dead and say, " Do you, John, desire to be baptized? " Of course, you know, the corpse couldn't answer. So the person hiding under the bed would call out, " Yes, I would like to be baptized. " And so, yeah, supposedly that would answer for the dead person.
Well, then at that point, the person under the bed would come out and they would baptize him instead of the person who had died. And that's how they practiced baptism for the dead. And apparently, that was going on in Tertullian's day. And Tertullian understood that Paul was referring to this kind of practice that some in his day were doing the same thing. This is what he writes. He addresses it in two different places. This work is entitled " On the Resurrection of the Flesh.
" So it was written against Gnostics who were denying the resurrection of the body. And Tertullian says this: " In as much as and he's quoting Paul, some are also baptized for the dead, we will see whether there is a good reason for this. " Now, it is certain that they adopted this practice with a presumption that made them suppose that the vicarious baptism would be beneficial to the flesh of another in anticipation of the resurrection.
For unless there is a bodily resurrection, there would be no pledge secured by this process of a bodily baptism. And in quoting Paul, Tertullian continues, " Why are they then baptized for the dead? " Paul asks, " Unless the bodies rise again, which are thus baptized. For it is not the soul which is sanctified by the baptismal bath. " Now, in case you're not familiar with the word vicarious, it means something that's done to one person in place of someone else.
So a vicarious baptism means that a certain person is being baptized in place of and for the benefit of someone else. Tertullian is understanding that expression of Paul being baptized for the dead to refer to baptizing a living person on behalf of somebody who had died. And this is the precise thing that heretics in his day were doing for certain the Marcionites were and perhaps some of the other Gnostics. Well, that explanation seems straightforward enough, but it makes most of us feel uncomfortable.
In fact, nearly my whole life, I have strongly opposed people who explained this passage by saying it was referring to a vicarious baptism of the living on behalf of the dead. I'd always say, is it believable that the Corinthians were practicing something so strange, so contrary to apostolic practice? And yet Paul didn't even try to correct them? He just let it pass? In fact, he even used it as an argument that there is a resurrection? That doesn't make sense. There has to be a better explanation.
So, I looked at various commentaries, hoping to find a better explanation. And, boy, many of them offer all kinds of different explanations. But none of the alternative explanations were very convincing either. At least they weren't to me. So I'd always tell people, " Look, we just don't know what Paul meant. " And I would leave it at that. Now, strangely enough, I'd actually come across that quote from Tertullian about 35 years ago.
But at the time, I didn't really grasp what he was saying, and the whole topic wasn't something I was particularly searching out. And so I never paid much attention to it, and I eventually forgot all about it. As a result, when I decided this year to record a message on what the early Christians believed on baptism for the dead, I honestly didn't know where this message would end up going.
As I said, I had forgotten what Tertullian had said, and I thought I would be able to find additional quotations from the pre-Nicene Christians. But as it turns out, there simply aren't any. So, I realized I needed to go back and carefully reread the entire 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians to see if maybe I was missing something. So that's what I did. As I've mentioned, that entire chapter is dealing with the resurrection of the dead.
And the reason Paul wrote the chapter is because some of the Corinthians were saying that there is no resurrection of the dead. Rather than beginning the subject by addressing the false teaching head-on, Paul very skillfully begins his defense of the apostolic faith concerning the resurrection of the dead by discussing the resurrection of Christ. Paul demonstrates that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is one of the fundamentals of the faith.
It is something that had been preached by all of the apostles everywhere from the very beginning. Let's read Paul's words. He says, " Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved. If you hold fast that word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
For I delivered to you, first of all, that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the 12. After that, he was seen by over 500 brethren at once, of whom the greater part remained to the present. But some have fallen asleep. After that, he was seen by James, then by all of the apostles.
Then, last of all, he was seen by me also as by one born out of due time. And then continuing on, " Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed. " So, Paul establishes beyond question that the resurrection of Jesus is a foundational teaching of the faith. It was a teaching the Corinthians had heard and embraced from the very beginning. And it was also an indisputable fact. Over 500 brothers and sisters had seen Jesus after His resurrection, had seen Him in the body.
And Paul says the majority of them were still alive at that very moment. And Paul himself had seen the resurrected Jesus. Okay, so he establishes that first. Then in verse 12, Paul brings up the problem of why he is addressing this subject. He says, " Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? " When I was rereading this chapter a few weeks ago, I suddenly discovered something that I had missed my entire life.
The proverbial light bulb suddenly lit up in my brain. All these years, and I had probably read 1 Corinthians 15 at least 200 times. And yet, through all of those readings, I had overlooked a simple but highly significant word in this verse. And that simple word changes everything. Can you guess what that word is? It's the simple word " some ". Paul says, " How do SOME among you say there is no resurrection? " Paul doesn't say that the Corinthians as a whole were saying that there's no resurrection of the dead.
Paul doesn't say that most of the Corinthians were saying there's no resurrection. Paul doesn't even say that many of them were saying this. He simply says that some among you are saying it. The Greek word Paul uses here is Tis. This word is used hundreds of times in the New Testament. When used in the plural, it's always translated to designate a few or certain ones as opposed to everyone. Do you see then how this changes everything?
It makes me think of a scene that for some reason I remember from a Walt Disney movie I saw way back when I was a boy. Don't ask me why it has stuck in my memory all of these years. Unlike many of you, I grew up with movies and particularly Walt Disney movies and the Walt Disney movie " Cinderella. " And one of the scenes in it, they've received the invitation from the prince to come to the ball that night, if you're familiar with the fairy tale of Cinderella.
And Cinderella is there with her stepsisters, and she asks her wicked stepmother if she would be able to go to the dance as well. And her stepmother says, " If you finish all your chores, yes, you can come to the prince's ball with your sisters. " Well, then when Cinderella leaves the room, the stepsisters are all upset and they say to their stepmother, " You mean you're going to let Cinderella go to the ball? " And the stepmother says, " I said if you get all of your chores done.
" And then the stepsisters get it, and they reply, " Oh, if... " And of course they make sure she doesn't get her chores done. Well, in this case, it's the same way. Oh, some! Some of the Corinthians say that there's no resurrection of the dead. It wasn't the Corinthian Church as a whole saying it. It was only some individuals. It may have been just a handful of people. Nevertheless, that small group posed a threat because false teachings can spread quickly.
Now, before leaving my illustration, I want to reiterate that I am not endorsing either movies or Walt Disney or fairy tales any more than Jesus was endorsing some of the things that took place in the parables he gave. I'm merely giving an illustration.
The situation Paul discusses in chapter 15 is apparently similar to the situation he addresses in chapter 5 of 1 Corinthians where he says, " It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles. " Now, if you just stopped there, you would think that the whole congregation in Corinth was living immorally. But then Paul continues that a man has his father's wife. So in this case, it was only one man who was involved in immorality.
Here Paul uses the word tis again, but this time it's in the singular, meaning some man or a man. Yet Paul admonishes the entire congregation. Not because they were doing the same, but because if the situation went unchecked and undisciplined, then immorality would likely spread to everyone among them. They needed to expel the man from the church. It's the same situation in chapter 15. Some were denying the resurrection, not the whole congregation, tissues. But those few persons represented a grave danger to all.
But who were these few? Who were these some of them that Paul talked about? Well, Paul doesn't specifically identify them. However, we do know that during the first century, a group of people arose from inside the church who denied the resurrection of the body. These people claim to have special knowledge that the main body of Christians didn't have. The Greek word for knowledge is gnosis, and so these people came to be known as Gnostics.
We know that Gnosticism was around in Paul's day because he specifically refers to it in his first letter to Timothy. He wrote, " Oh, Timothy, guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge. " That's what Gnosticism was, falsely called knowledge. In Paul's day, Gnosticism would have been at an early stage. But in just a few decades, it grew to become one of the biggest challenges facing the entire church worldwide.
John warns the brethren in his day about the Gnostics that's in his first two letters. By that time, which would be at the end of the first century, the Gnostics were not only denying the resurrection of the dead in general, but they were even denying the resurrection of Christ Himself. In fact, they were going so far to say that Jesus had not even come in the flesh. Now, John specifically states that these people had been inside the church at one time.
But now, at the very end of the first century, they had left it. He writes, " They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. " So those Gnostics finally did leave the church, and in the second century, the ones who hadn't left were put out of the church. Now, again, we don't know for certain that the ones Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 15 were the early Gnostics.
But it does fit everything we know about the Gnostics, and it fits what he later says in this same passage. For example, in the middle of his whole discussion about the ones who were denying the resurrection, Paul warns the Corinthians with these words. He says, " Do not be deceived. Evil company corrupts good habits. Awake to righteousness and do not sin. For some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame. " Now, Paul is saying this right in the middle of his discussion on the resurrection.
So surely the evil company he's talking about are the ones who are teaching that there is no resurrection. Otherwise, it would mean that Paul suddenly, for no reason, changes the subject in the middle of his defense of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, which is highly unlikely. So Paul is telling the Corinthians to be aware of those who are denying the resurrection, or else they, too, will be corrupted by such evil company.
Paul suggests that these people are also living unrighteous lives, which would also fit the Gnostics. Interestingly, in referring to these people who constituted evil company, Paul said, " Some do not have the knowledge of God. " Here Paul uses a form of the word gnosis. So I think he's pointedly saying that these evil people who claim to have special gnosis actually have no knowledge of God. Now let's look at the further argument Paul makes to refute those who said there was no resurrection of the dead.
As we've seen, he began his whole discussion by making it clear that he and the other apostles had always taught that Jesus has risen from the dead. Well next he goes on to say, I'm beginning with verse 12, " Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? " But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty, and your faith is also empty.
Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up, if, in fact, the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile. You are still in your sins. Then also, those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men, the most pitiable.
But now Christ is risen from the dead and has become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. So the thrust of Paul's argument is that if the dead are not resurrected, then Christ wasn't resurrected either. And if Christ wasn't resurrected, then we are still in our sins and we are all lost. It would seem, therefore, from Paul's line of argument that these early Gnostics were not yet claiming that Christ had not risen from the dead.
They were acknowledging that Christ had risen bodily from the dead, but they were nevertheless claiming that the rest of us won't be resurrected physically. And Paul wasn't going to let them get away with that inconsistency. He argues that if there is no bodily resurrection of the dead, then Christ was not raised from the dead in His body either. He tells them, " You can't have it both ways. Either everyone is raised from the dead or else Christ was not raised from the dead.
" And he says, " If Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. " Now, when he says that your faith is empty, he means the faith of those who are saying there is no resurrection. He's not saying that Corinthians in general are holding to a faith that is empty. We know that because of what Paul says in his introduction to that same letter.
He writes in verse 4 of chapter 1, " I thank my God always concerning you, for the grace of God which was given to you by Christ Jesus, that you were enriched in everything by Him and in all utterance and all knowledge, even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, so that you came short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now, if the Corinthians in general had been denying the resurrection, if the faith of the Corinthians as a whole was empty, is it believable that Paul would begin his letter with those words? I mean, Paul was an extremely frank person in his speech. He would hardly talk about Christ confirming them to the end and finding them blameless if they had already departed from the faith in such a major way, such that their faith was empty.
Now to be sure, Paul rebukes them for many wrongdoings that were going on in the church. He says they're immature because they have divisions in their church. But that's very different from saying that their faith is empty. If they were denying the resurrection as a whole, if the whole church was saying that, then the faith of the whole church was empty, and Paul wouldn't have addressed them the way he did. Notice again how Paul closes that same letter. 1 Corinthians 16:13, he says, " Watch.
Stand fast in the faith. Be brave. Be strong. Let all that you do be done with love. So how could he tell them to stand fast in the faith if they had already departed from their faith in such a major way and that their faith was empty? So again, it wasn't the faith of the whole church that was empty. It was the faith of the few heretics, the some that he mentions.
Interestingly, one of the earliest writings we have after the close of the New Testament is the letter from Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, to this same congregation, these same Corinthians. I mean, probably most of them had died by the time Clement wrote, although some of them may still have been alive. His letter was written actually on behalf of all of the elders in Rome to the whole church in Corinth, probably written about the year 105, maybe the year 100, something like that.
And the reason the leadership in Rome wrote this letter to the Corinthian Church is that some of them, tis of the members, had rebelled against the elders who were in the church and were trying to put in new elders. And the elders they were trying to replace were men who had been appointed by the apostles and who were serving faithfully.
Now, the way that the leaders in the church in Rome address the Corinthians shows that it was known to be a godly church, well grounded in the faith, well spoken of throughout the whole world.
Clement writes, " We feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us, and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.
For who has dwelt even for a short time among you and did not find your faith to be as fruitful of virtue as it was firmly established? Who did not admire the sobriety and moderation of your godliness in Christ? Who did not proclaim the magnificence of your continuous hospitality? And who did not rejoice over your perfect and well-grounded knowledge? For you did all things without respect to persons and walked in the commandments of God. So this is not a church whose faith was empty.
Paul had to set some things in order, but it was a church well-grounded in the faith. Paul testifies to their faith. And 40 or 50 years after he wrote that letter, Clement testifies that they were a church with a worldwide reputation for being well-grounded in the faith and in knowledge. So back to Paul's letter to the Corinthians. Remember again, the key word is some. It is the faith of this some that was empty.
Paul is not arguing against the Corinthian church as a whole, but against the ones he calls evil company. So Paul contends that if you don't believe in the resurrection of the body, you're ultimately denying salvation altogether. If Christ hasn't risen from the dead, then we're all still in our sins. This would indicate that the resurrection of Christ is a fundamental part of the Atonement. Today it's popularly preached that everything was accomplished when Christ died on the cross.
But Paul is saying that we would still be in our sins if Christ had not been raised from the dead. So Paul is telling these false teachers that we can't bypass the resurrection and think our souls can be saved by themselves. If you're denying the resurrection, you're also denying your own salvation. Paul continues, " If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
" Now please note, Paul is not saying that these heretics were actually teaching that it's only in this life that we have hope in Christ. Most likely they were holding to the Gnostic position that the soul is saved, but not the body. Otherwise, what appeal would there be in their teaching to say, " This life is it. You gain nothing at the end of it. " I mean, pagans might have enjoyed believing that, but not any Christian.
Rather, Paul is saying that if we follow their doctrine to its logical conclusion, we would have to admit that this life is all there is. Because if there is no resurrection, then Christ did not rise from the dead. And if He didn't rise from the dead, there is no salvation for anyone. The soul doesn't go to heaven without the resurrected body. Paul's next argument is that if Jesus was raised in the flesh, it follows that we will be raised in the flesh also.
He says, " But now Christ is risen from the dead and has become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order, Christ the firstfruits, afterwards those who are Christ at His coming. So Paul says Christ is the first fruit, meaning the rest of us follow in the same manner.
For example, the first fruits of the wheat harvest are not different in kind from the rest of the harvest. They're all wheat. The first fruits precede the rest, but they're not different in kind from the rest. Christ is the first fruit from the dead, and he was bodily resurrected. Therefore, the rest of us will be bodily resurrected as well. Next, Paul moves to the argument of Adam. We all die in Adam. Everyone acknowledges that. But in what manner do we die in Adam? We die in our bodies, don't we?
Having established that point, Paul says, " For as in Adam all die, even so, that is, even in this manner, in Christ all shall be made alive. " How was Christ made alive? It was in the body, wasn't it? So, if we are made alive in Christ, we must necessarily be made alive in the body. We die in the body because of the first Adam. We're made alive in the body because of the second Adam. In verses 24 through 28, Paul describes the day of resurrection and what will happen after it.
He hasn't changed his subject or his line of argument or the fact that he's focusing on the false doctrine taught by a particular few. It is still some among you. But in verses 24 through 28, which we're not going to read, Paul gives us more particulars about the resurrection and what follows in eternity after it. As I said, we're going to skip those verses for the sake of time. When we come to verse 29, Paul makes his final argument against these certain individuals, against the some.
And he does this by pointing to their own inconsistency. He says, " Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead? " So, who are they? Ah, that's the second place where I had misread this passage my entire life. I've always assumed that they referred to the Orthodox Corinthian Christians, the Corinthian congregation as a whole, that it was these Orthodox Christians who were baptizing for the dead.
However, all throughout Paul's letter, Paul uses the second person, you, when addressing the Corinthians as a whole. He never calls them " they. " But now he abruptly and noticeably switches from the second person to the third person, " they. " So just like " some " was the keyword back in verse 12, " they " is the keyword here in verse 29, which, by the way, here in Greek, is shown by using the third-person form of the verb. So Paul doesn't say, " What will you Corinthians do who are baptizing for the dead?
" No, he asked, " What will they do who baptized for the dead? " So it wasn't Orthodox Christians who were baptizing for the dead. It was the heretics. It was the few who were saying that there is no resurrection. And that changes everything. Otherwise, Paul would be guilty of using bad logic. It would mean that he's asking the handful of heretics, " If what you say is true and there's no resurrection, then what will the Orthodox Christians do who baptized for the dead?
" Well, the heretics would obviously answer, " They're wasting their time as we've been trying to tell them, because there is no resurrection of the dead. " But Paul is not a person who uses bad logic. So obviously, it isn't the Orthodox Corinthian Christians who are baptizing for the dead. It's the heretics in Corinth who are doing that. In other words, when you want to confute your opponent, you point to something that is inconsistent in your opponent's practices or in his teachings. I'll give you an example.
One of the erroneous teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses is that only those who belong to the 144,000 should eat the bread and drink the cup during communion. Yet since extremely few Jehovah's Witnesses today claim to be of the 144,000, it means that in most of their congregations, when they have their annual communion, which they call the memorial, nobody eats the bread, and nobody drinks from the cup.
They simply passed the bread around on a plate, and then later they pass the cup around, and both of them get returned to the moderator totally intact. No one has eaten, and no one has drunk even one drop. Now, if you were disputing with a Jehovah's Witness and wanted to confute them on this point, you would not ask, " Well, if it's wrong to eat the bread and drink from the cup, what will we orthodox Christians do who do eat the bread and drink from the cup?
" Well, you would never make that argument because the Jehovah's Witness would obviously respond, " Well, your people are in a fix, aren't they? " You need to tell them to quit eating the bread and drinking from the cup. You would get nowhere with that line of argument. No, if you wanted to help the Jehovah's Witness see the error of his way, you would point to an inconsistency in what the Jehovah's Witnesses are doing.
So on this point about not eating the bread and not drinking from the cup, you could take the Jehovah's Witness to 1 Corinthians 11. Verse 24, I'll begin reading. Speaking about the bread, Paul says, " And when Jesus had given thanks, he broke it and said, ' Take, eat! This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me. " In the same manner, he also took the cup after supper, saying, " This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me.
For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till he comes. So you might say to the Jehovah's Witness, now you call this annual commemoration the memorial, don't you? And the reason you call it the memorial is because of Jesus ' words in this passage of " Do this in remembrance of me. " That's correct, isn't it? But Jesus commanded us to eat the bread and to drink from the cup in remembrance of Him. Not to just pass the bread around and the cup around. Isn't that correct?
And he said as often as we eat it, and as often as we drink this cup, we proclaim the Lord's death till he comes. So in light of that, what will they do who simply pass the bread around and the cup around? How have they done this in remembrance of Christ? Or how have they proclaimed his death if they haven't eaten the bread or drunk of the cup as he commanded? You see, with that type of argument, you've made a very strong point because you have shown their own inconsistency.
They call it the memorial, yet they do not do the very thing Jesus commanded us to do it as a remembrance of Him. Well, Paul is using a similar argument addressing the heretics in this manner. Okay, you say there is no resurrection of the dead. If not, why do you baptize for the dead? Because you say that only the soul inherits eternal life, not the body. But baptism is something you do to the body, not to the soul. Particularly when you're baptizing for the dead, the way that you people do.
For when it comes to a dead person, the soul has already left the body. You're doing something that can only benefit that dead person's body. But if the body doesn't rise, what will they do who baptized for the dead? They are wasting their time, aren't they? So even though you say there's no resurrection, your actions speak louder than your words. You deny the resurrection with your mouth, but you show you believe in it through your strange and unique practice of baptizing for the dead.
Okay, so with that in mind, let's go back to Tertullian. I want to read to you this time a second passage from his writings where he again addresses this matter of baptism for the dead. And once more, just like it was in Paul's day, the very heretics who were denying the resurrection of the dead in Tertullian's day were also practicing baptism for the dead. Totally inconsistent. Now this is from Tertullian's work entitled " Against Marcion.
" So he's writing against the very ones in his day who were practicing baptism for the dead and yet denying the resurrection. He begins by saying, " Paul asks, what will they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead do not rise? " Now, never mind that practice. The purification offerings of February will perhaps answer him by praying for the dead. In other words, Tertullian is saying, " Don't pay attention to what those misguided people were doing. It's not something that Orthodox Christians practice.
" When Tertullian mentions the purification offerings of February, he's referring to something the pagans were doing. He's saying that baptizing for the dead is no more effective than the pagans who hold their festival in mid-February every year. Now, this festival was called the parentalia. And during this festival, the father of each family would offer up prayers and sacrifices to the dead ancestors of that particular family. Okay, so Tertullian is saying baptism for the dead is in that same category.
But then he continues. He says, " Do not then suppose that the apostle here indicates that some new God is the author and advocate of this practice. " Tertullian is saying, " Don't imagine that the God of the New Testament is a different god than that of the Old Testament, " which is what the Marcionites were doing. He's saying, " Furthermore, don't dare to say that this new God you've invented is the author of this strange practice of baptizing for the dead.
" Tertullian continues, " Rather, Paul mentions it so that he could all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, because they who were baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their innate belief in such a resurrection. " And then Tertullian adds, " We have the apostle in another passage defining only one baptism. " Therefore, to be baptized for the dead means, in fact, to be baptized for the body. For as we have shown, it is the body that becomes dead.
What then will they do who are baptized for the body if the body does not rise again? End quote. In other words, if the only thing that inherits eternal life is the soul, why do you baptize for the dead? There is only one way to baptize, and that is to baptize the body. " When you baptize for the dead, " Tertullian says, " You are baptizing a living person's body, and you are doing it to benefit a dead person's body, because his soul has already left him.
" So, since you are baptizing a body, what then will you do if the body does not rise again? And according to the Gnostics, the soul receives its judgment right after it dies. So, even though the Gnostics denied the resurrection of the body with their words, by baptizing for the dead, they were subconsciously admitting that there is a resurrection of the body.
And this all ties back to the earlier quote from Tertullian, which I'll read to you again, where he said, " Now it is certain that they adopted this practice with a presumption that made them supposed that the vicarious baptism would be beneficial to the flesh of another person in anticipation of the resurrection. For unless there is a bodily resurrection, there would be no pledge secured by this process of a bodily baptism. " Why are they then baptized for the dead?
" he asks, " Unless the bodies rise again, which are thus baptized. For it is not the soul that is sanctified by the baptismal bath. " Now, everything I've said and everything Tertullian says turns on recognizing two things. First, that it was some among the Corinthians who were denying the resurrection. It was only certain ones. But Paul wants to thoroughly refute them before their teaching spreads to others.
Second, it turns on recognizing that it was THEY, a third party, the heretics who were practicing baptism for the dead, not the Orthodox Christians in Corinth. However, overlooking those two points, many Bible expositors through the centuries have assumed that it was the Orthodox Corinthians who were baptizing for the dead.
And if we assume it was the Orthodox Christians, then of necessity, we have to come up with an explanation of the phrase " baptizing for the dead " that fits something an Orthodox Christian might properly do. So I'll share with you some of the explanations that different commentators have given over the centuries. One is that Paul is saying, " What will they do who are baptized for the dead one? " That is, Jesus, if the dead do not rise.
Now, the only weakness in that explanation is that the word " dead " in the Greek, in this verse, is actually plural, not singular. Okay, another explanation is that Paul is saying, " What will they do who are baptized on their deathbeds if the dead do not rise? " Another one, " What will they do who are baptized for the removal of their dead works if the dead do not rise? " Another? What will they do who are baptized into the death of Christ if the dead do not rise? Another one?
What will they do who are baptized for the hope of the resurrection of the dead if the dead do not rise? Another one, what will they do who are baptized at the graves of the dead martyrs if the dead do not rise? Another one, what will they do who are baptized in order to convert those who are dead in sin if the dead do not rise? And finally, what will they do who are baptized in order to satisfy the wishes of their dead loved ones if the dead do not rise? Now, none of those explanations are absurd.
In fact, if we assume that it was the Orthodox Christians who were baptizing for the dead, then we have to come up with an explanation that would be permissible for an Orthodox Christian to do, and all of those would fit that criterion. And I would say that all of those explanations are plausible. Some of them, I think, are better and more likely than other ones, but they're all plausible.
But I would have to ask, how would pointing to something the Orthodox Christians were doing in any way refute the false teaching of the heretics? Paul needed to point to something that the heretics were doing that was inconsistent with the denial of the resurrection of the dead. Nevertheless, as I explained at the beginning of this message, we have only one pre-Nicene Christian, Tertullian, who gives us an explanation of baptism for the dead.
And although I personally think that Tertullian's explanation is most likely the correct one, if what I've said today hasn't convinced you, then don't worry about it. An explanation given by a single early Christian writer does not constitute the historic faith. So, if you're not persuaded by Tertullian's explanation, I've given you several alternative explanations that various Bible commentators have offered. Or you may have your own theory as to what Paul means.
But there is one thing for certain that we can say was the historic faith. And that's this. If Paul was referring to vicarious baptism for the dead, then this was something that only heretics were practicing. We can say for an absolute certainty that the early Christian church did not practice such vicarious baptisms. We have volumes and volumes of writings from the pre-Nicene Church, including work solely on the subject of baptism.
But there is no mention whatsoever of any early Christians practicing vicarious baptisms for the dead. All the references are to what the Marcionites and other Gnostics were doing, in contrast to the practice of Orthodox Christians. In conclusion, let's summarize what we've said about baptism for the dead. The oldest explanation we have, that given by Tertullian, is that Paul is talking about vicarious baptism by the living on behalf of someone who has died.
It was not something the Orthodox Christians were doing, but something the heretics were doing. We know from the history of the Second Century Church that this was something that certain Gnostic groups, such as the Marcionites, were practicing during the second century. These groups denied the resurrection of the dead, yet they inconsistently practiced baptism for the dead. They did this by baptizing a living person on behalf of someone who had just died.
Now, as I've mentioned, for most of my life, I had trouble accepting such an explanation of baptism for the dead. This was because I overlooked two key words in this passage in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. The first one was Paul's use of the word " some " in verse 12. " How do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? " It was not the Corinthians as a whole who were denying the resurrection. It was only some of them. The second word I overlooked was the word " they " in verse 29.
" What will they do who are baptized for the dead? " Paul doesn't say that the Corinthian Church, who he always addresses as you were baptizing for the dead, no he says it is they. Who are they? Well, it would have to be the same heretics who were claiming there was no resurrection. Paul is pointing out their inconsistency, just like Tertullian did 150 years later when he was addressing the heretics of his day.
We've also talked about the probability that the ones in Corinth who were denying the resurrection of the dead were early Gnostics. But the really important thing to remember is that the subject matter of 1 Corinthians 15 is not baptism for the dead. Rather, it's the fact that there will be a resurrection of the dead. That's the good news. That is something that all Christians can rejoice about.