FAIR

 In other languages
Deutsch
(https://www.fairmormon.org/Antworten/Frage:_Gibt_es_einen_Hinweis_darauf,_dass_die_Taufe_f%C3%BCr_die_Toten_authentische_christlic
Español
(https://www.fairmormon.org/respuestas/Pregunta:_%C2%BFLa_pr%C3%A1ctica_del_bautismo_por_los_muertos_tiene_ra%C3%ADces_antigu

Question: Does the practice of

baptism for the dead have
ancient roots?
FAIR Answers Wiki Main Page (/answers/Main_Page)

Question: Does the practice of baptism for the

dead have ancient roots?
T H ER E IS CO N S ID ER A B LE EV ID ENCE T H AT S O ME EA R LY
CH R IS T I A NS A N D S O ME JEWIS H G R O UPS PER F OR MED PR OXY
OR D IN A N CE WO R K F OR T HE S A LVAT IO N OF T H E D EA D
The most obvious of these is 1 Corinthians 15:29 (http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/1
5.29?lang=eng#29):

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why
are they then baptized for the dead?

There have been attempts to shrug this off as a reference by Paul to a practice he
does not condone but only uses to support the doctrine of the resurrection. These
claims are indefensible. Paul's statement makes no sense unless the practice was
valid and the saints in Corinth knew it. This is easily demonstrated if we just imagine a
young Protestant, who doubts the resurrection, who goes to his pastor with his
problem. The pastor answers him, saying, "But what about the Mormons who baptize
for the dead? If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the dead?" You
know what the young doubter would say. He would say, "Pastor, they're Mormons!
What's your point?"

In fact, we know that baptism for the dead was practiced for a long time in the early
church. As John A. Tvedtnes has noted:

... historical records are clear on the matter. Baptism for the dead was performed by
the dominant church until forbidden by the sixth canon of the Council of Carthage in
A.D. 397. Some of the smaller sects, however, continued the practice. Of the
[Cerinthians]> of the fourth century, Epiphanius wrote:

“In this country—I mean Asia—and even in Galatia, their school flourished eminently
and a traditional fact concerning them has reached us, that when any of them had died
 without baptism, they used to baptize others in their name, lest in the resurrection they
should suffer punishment as unbaptized.” (Heresies, 8:7.) [1]

Thus, baptism for the dead was banned about four hundred years after Christ by the
church councils. Latter-day Saints would see this as an excellent example of the
apostasy (/answers/Apostasy)—church councils altering doctrine and practice that
was accepted at an earlier date.

Tvedtnes continues:

In early Judaism, too, there is an example of ordinances being performed in behalf of

the dead. Following the battle of Marisa in 163 B.C., it was discovered that each of the
Jewish soldiers killed in the fight had been guilty of concealing pagan idols beneath
his clothing. In order to atone for their wrong, Judas Maccabaeus, the Jewish high
priest and commander, collected money from the survivors to purchase sacrificial
animals for their dead comrades:

“And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two
thousand drachmas of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing
therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: for if he had
not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous
and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour
laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made
a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.” (2 Maccabees
12:43–46.) [2]

COLLECT ION O F OT HER S OUR CES T H AT CA N S UPP ORT T HE

L AT T E R - DAY S A INT P OS IT ION
Other sources can give credence to the Latter-day Saint position on this matter. Below
we list a selective compilation of quotes from scholars that can demonstrate that:

Vicarious baptism was practiced by the ancients

The practice wasn't condemned by Paul (even though that would be a natural thing to
do given the corrective purposes of the first letter to the church at Corinth).
The best translation of the original Greek refers to a practice of vicarious baptism.
The passage in the Bible is, at the very least, very short and cryptic. We can't know
much about the practice accept the preceeding three assertions. Thus the following
scholars would not affirm that the practice of vicarious baptism matches the modern
Latter-day Saint conception of it i.e. that it was done on such a massive scale, for
salvific purposes, etc. Some argue on linguistic grounds that this only had to do with
catechumens (prospective converts to Christianity who died without baptism) but that
is not fully substantiated by the text nor the historical context of the passage.
Furthermore, as is noted by several scholars (a couple of which are included below), it
is complicated by the fact that Paul spoke approvingly of believing Christians
becoming vicarious, sanctifying vessels for non-believing spouses.[3] This could
naturally be extrapolated to all kindred, non-believing dead.

There is much that we can't know from the text of the Bible itself following an
exegetical approach. At some point, additional revelation is necessary to illuminate
and expand on previous revelation. That would be the Latter-day Saint position. As
Joseph Smith has said concerning the Restoration, it occured so that "a whole and
complete and perfect union, and welding together of dispensations, and keys, and
powers, and glories should take place, and be revealed from the days of Adam even to
the present time. And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed
from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent,
shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of
times."[4] Latter-day Saints need not feel compelled to defend every last element of
their theology from antiquity. Some elements may appear in seed and then be
expanded on later by those "things which never have been revealed from the
foundation of the world[.]" What 1 Corinthians 15:29 can tell us without a doubt is that
the practice is ancient and that it wasn't rejected by Paul or others of the earliest
Christians. The Greek of the passage is unequivocally said to support the notion that
vicarious baptism was performed. Other revelation outside of the Bible can expand on
it in the Restoration.[5]

Following is our selective listing of sources.[6] All bolded text has been added by the
editor of this article:

Søren Agersnap: "It cannot be denied that Paul is here [1 Cor 15:29] speaking of a
vicarious baptism: one is baptised for the dead to ensure for them a share in the
effect of baptism, and this must relate to a post-mortal life. It is also clear that Paul
himself refers to this baptismal practice, and without distancing himself from it (This
is the embarrassing perception which is the reason for some (comparatively few)
interpreters making an imaginative attempt to ignore that this relates to a vicarious
baptism)."[7].
Charles Kingsley Barrett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._K._Barrett): "The primary
reference is to Christian baptism: certain people (οί βαπτιζόμενοι suggest a particular
group, not all Christians) undergo the rite of Christian baptism—in what appear to be
very strange circumstances. They are baptized on behalf of the dead. The second part
of the verse follows clearly enough. If the dead are dead and are beyond recall, there is
no point in taking this or any other action on their behalf. But what was the practice of
baptism for the dead, and did Paul approve of it? An account of the history of the
interpretation of this passage is given by M. Rissi, 'Die Taufe für die Toten (1962)'...It is
very unlikely that with the adjective dead (νεκρός) a noun such as works (cf. Heb. vi. I)
should be supplied. Throughout this chapter (and in Paul usually) ‘the dead’ are dead
men. It is equally unlikely that on behalf of (ὺπέρ) is to be taken in a local sense, and
that the reference is to baptism carried out over the dead, that is, over their graves.
The most common view is that Paul is referring to some kind of vicarious baptism, in
which a Christian received baptism on behalf of someone, perhaps a friend or
relative, who had died without being baptized. There is evidence for some such rite
among various heretics (among other quotations Lietzmann cites Chrysostom, on this
passage: ‘When a catechumen among them [the Marcionites] dies, they hide a living
man under the dead man’s bed, approach the dead man, speak with him, and ask if he
wished to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer the man who is hidden
underneath says instead of him that he wishes to be baptized, and so they baptize him
instead of the departed), and there were precedents in Greek religious practices,
though not close precedents (see Schweitzer, 'Mysticism', pp. 283 f.). Stauffer lays
great stress on 2 Acc. xii. 40-5. Apart however from 1 Corinthians there is no evidence
that a rite of this kind arose as early as the 50’s of the first century. This does not make
it impossible; many strange things happened in Corinth. But would Paul have approved
of it? It is true that in this verse he neither approves nor disapproves, and it may be
held that he is simply using an argumenatum ad hominem: if the Corinthians have this
practice they destroy their own case against the resurrection. This is the view held by
some, and it is possible; but it is more likely that Paul would not have mentioned a
practice he thought to be in error without condemning it. Of those who accept this
position some draw the conclusion that vicarious baptism cannot be in Paul’s mind,
others that, if he did not practice the custom himself, he at least saw no harm in it,
since he too held an ex opere operato view of baptism that bordered on the magical…
The idea of vicarious baptism (which is that most naturally suggested by the words
used) is usually supposed to be bound up with what some would call a high
sacramental, others a magical, view of baptism. Immersion in water is supposed to
operate so effectively that it matters little (it seems) what body is immersed. The
immersion of a living body can secure benefits to a dead man (at any rate, a dead
catechumen). This however was not Paul’s view. He did not himself give close
attention to baptism (i. 14-17), and though it is probable that most of the members of
his churches were baptized it is quite possible that some of the Corinthian Christians
had not been baptized, and by no means impossible (even if we do not, with Rissi,
think of an epidemic or an accident) that a number of them may have died in this
condition. There was no question of making these persons Christians; they were
Christians, even though unbaptized. But baptism was was powerful proclamation of
death and resurrection, and in this setting it is not impossible to conceive of a rite—
practiced, it may be, only once—which Paul, though he evidently took no steps to
establish it as normal Christian usage, need not actively have disapproved. And what
would be the sense of it, if the dead are not raised?"[8]
Stephen C. Barton: "…Paul adds further ad hominem arguments against those who
deny the resurrection of the dead (cf. 15:12). …the Corinthians’ own ritual practice (of
surrogate baptism on behalf of the dead, a suggestive analogy for which appears in 2
Acc 12:43-45) testifies abasing denial of the resurrection of the dead and would be
rendered meaningless apart from resurrection faith (15:29)."[9]
Richard E. Demaris: "The isolated character of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its literary
context and the lack of indicators in the verse as to the nature of the rite make it all too
easy to propose a range of grammatically possible translations. But the highly
speculative interpretations that result only underscore the need to place the text (and
practice described therein) in the fullest possible context. Behind all attempts to
remove vicarious action from baptism for the dead, one senses uneasiness about Paul
or the early church’s association with a rite that appears to be 'superstitious' or
'magical' (Raeder 1955: 258–9; Rissi 1962: 89–92). (Understood vicariously, the
practice would affirm that the living can ritually affect the dead.) But who is feeling the
discomfort? Paul himself maintained that family members could act vicariously for
each other (1 Cor 7:14), and he recognized an efficacy in eucharist that certainly
appears to be 'magical' (Sellin 1986: 278; M. Smith 1980: 248): 'Examine yourselves,
and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without
discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. For this reason many
of you are weak and ill, and some have died.' (1 Cor 11:28–30)...[The culture of Greco-
Roman society was one] in which aiding the dead was all-important and which
assumed that the world of the living could affect the world of the dead. In such a
culture baptism undertaken by the living for the dead would have made perfect
sense…At the very least, the adaptability of funerals to non-funerary situations opens
the door to finding baptism other than where we might expect to find it, at the
threshold of the church. Furthermore, two extraordinary types of funeral are
noteworthy for how they elucidate baptism on behalf of the dead: (1) a replacement or
substitute rite performed vicariously for the dead; and (2) funerals for the living. Both
applications are imaginary rites, whose context indicates whether we further qualify
them as honorary or mock. This, then, is the language for baptism on behalf of the
dead that is both contextually and ritually sensitive: it was an imaginary rite of the
honorary type...Isolating baptism for the dead, as Meeks did, made it mystifying to him
(Meeks 1983: 162), but placing it in context has the opposite effect. Set alongside
funerals for the living – those of Turannius and Pacuvius – baptism for the dead does
not appear mysterious. In terms of who undergoes them, both rites reverse ordinary
practice. Likewise, in light of surrogate or replacement funerals in which a person or
community carried out a rite for someone in absentia – for Pertinax and the Lanuvium
burial club member whose body could not be recovered – baptism on behalf of the
dead falls within the typical range of ritual variation in the Greco-Roman world. In the
context of other rites, therefore, baptism for the dead is, contrary to what New
Testament scholars claim, not obscure."[10]
James D.G. Dunn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dunn_(theologian)): "Similarly
he accepts a diversity of belief about baptism (1.10-16; 15.29). He does not insist on
the sole legitimacy of his own view or of a particular view of baptism. Instead he plays
down the role of baptism; it is kerygma that matters not baptism (1.17). And though in
10.1-12 he is probably arguing against a magical view of baptism, in 15.29 he shows
no disapproval of the belief in vicarious baptism, baptism for the dead; on the
contrary he uses the practice as an argument for the belief in resurrection...I Cor.
15.29 probably refers to a practice of vicari­ous baptism whereby the baptism of one
was thought to secure the salvation of another already dead. Here then is indication
of influ­ences shaping the theology of baptism and developing views of bap­tism which
are far removed from anything we have already examined. And yet Paul addresses
those who held such views as members of the Christian community in Corinth – these
views were held also by Christians. In other words, as soon as we move outside that
sphere of Christianity most influenced by the Baptist’s inheritance the diver­sity of
Christian thinking about baptism broadens appreciably."[11]
Gordon D. Fee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Fee): "First, as already noted (n.
15), this unusual use of the third person plural, when elsewhere Paul always turns such
references into a word to the community as a whole (e.g., vv. 12-13, 35-36), suggests
that it is not the action of the whole community. On the other hand, there is no reason
to deny that it was happening with the full knowledge of the community and probably
with their approval. Second, Paul’s apparently noncommittal attitude toward it, while
not implying approval, would seem to suggest that he did not consider it to be as
serious a fault as most interpreters do. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine any
circumstances under which Paul would think it permissible for living Christians to be
baptized for the sake of unbelievers in general. Such a view, adopted in part by the
Mormons, lies totally outside the NT understanding both of salvation and of baptism.
[Fee is an evagelical scholar and thus is less open to scholarship that would support
Latter-day Saints. There actually isn't evidence to support this view. See how he
hedges in suggestion "(b) below.] Therefore, the most likely options are (a) that it
reflects some believers’ being baptized for others who either were or were on their way
to becoming believers when they died (e.g., as in 11:30), but had never been baptized;
or (b) that it reflects the concern of members of households for some of their own
number who had died before becoming believers. What they may have expected to
gain from it is not quite clear, but one may guess that at least they believed baptism
to be necessary for entering the final eschatological kingdom. In any case, and
everything must be understood as tentative, this probably reflects the Corinthian
attitude toward baptism in general, since 1:13-17 and 10:1-22 imply a rather strongly
sacramental stance toward baptism on their part, with some apparently magical
implications. Perhaps they believed that along with the gift of the Spirit baptism was
their 'magical' point of entrance into the new pneumatism that seems to have
characterized them at every turn. If so, then perhaps some of them were being
baptized for others because they saw it as a way of offering similar spirituality to the
departed. But finally we must admit that we simply do not know.[Interesting thing to
conclude with considering his assertion before about Latter-day Saints.][12]
Rolf Furuli (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf_Furuli): "There can be no question that
the most natural rendering of 'baptizomenoi huper tōn nekrōn' would be 'being
baptized for the dead' or 'being baptized in behalf of the dead.' In almost every other
context, such a rendering would have been chosen."[13]
David Bentley Hart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bentley_Hart): "The practice
of Christians receiving baptism on behalf of other persons who died unbaptized was
evidently a common enough practice in the apostolic church that Paul can use it as a
support of his argument without qualification. And the form of the Greek (ὑπὲρ τῶν
νεκρῶν [hyper tōn nekrōn]) leaves no doubt that it is to just such a posthumous proxy
baptism that he is referring."[14]
Scott M. Lewis: "Verse 29 is one of the most vigorously disputed passages in the NT.
On the surface, it seems rather simple. Using the statement of the opposition as a
springboard—there is no resurrection—Paul points to the inconsistency and futility of a
practice of the Corinthians, i.e., being baptized on behalf of the dead. Despite the
numerous attempts to explain this passage away, or get out of the difficulties and
discomfort it causes, it seems better to accept the obvious surface meaning of the
passage: Some Corinthians practiced a form of vicarious baptism. What is meant
exactly by that, and when and under what circumstances it was practiced is
impossible to answer…"[15]
Andrew T. Lincoln (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_T._Lincoln): "With regard to
the problematic verse 29 it is likely that the Corinthians’ confusion is at the root of the
practice which has produced an even greater confusion among later commentators.
One could guess that with their bewilderment about the fate of those who had died
and their strong faith in the efficacy of baptism, some Corinthians were practising a
baptism for the dead which they believed might still somehow ensure a place in the
kingdom for deceased believers. An ad hominem argument by the apostle points out
the futility of such a practice if the dead are not raised."[16]
Steve Mason (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mason_(biblical_scholar)) and Tom
Robinson: "The only reference among 1st-century Christian writings to proxy baptism
on behalf of those who have died without having been baptized. Myriad alternative
explanations that have been proposed reflect more the interpreters’ discomfort with
the plain meaning of the words than any linguistic ambiguity. Paul simply uses this
example without explanation and quickly discards it (see the angels of 11:10). We
have no opportunity to determine what he thinks of the custom."[17]
Leon Morris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Morris): "This reference to baptism
for (hyper) the dead is a notorious difficulty. The most natural meaning of the
expression is that some early believers got themselves baptized on behalf of friends
of theirs who had died without receiving that sacrament. Thus Parry says: 'The plain
and necessary sense of the words implies the existence of a practice of vicarious
baptism at Corinth, presumably on behalf of believers who died before they were
baptized.' He stigmatizes all other interpretations as 'evasions . . . wholly due to the
unwillingness to admit such a practice, and still more to a reference to it by S. Paul
without condemnation.'[18]
John J. O'Rourke: "Nevertheless many ancient and most modern writers understand
this as a vicarious baptism received by baptized Christians on belief of deceased
catechumens. The obvious difficulty is that Paul does not appear to offer any objection
to this practice, so prevalent later among heretics."[19]
William F. Orr and James A. Walther: "The allusion to the idea and/or practice of
baptism on behalf of the dead is unique in the New Testament in this passage. . . .
Close inspection of the language of the reference makes all attempts to soften or
eliminate its literal meaning unsuccessful. An endeavor to understand the dead as
persons who are 'dead in sin' does not really help; for the condition offered, if the dead
are not being raised at all, makes it clear that the apostle is writing about persons who
are physically dead. It appears that under the pressure of concern for the eternal
destiny of dead relatives or friends[,] some people in the church were undergoing
baptism on their behalf in the belief that this would enable the dead to receive the
benefits of Christ’s salvation. Paul remarks about the practice without specifying who
or how many are involved and without identifying himself with them. He attaches
neither praise nor blame to the custom. He does take it as an illustration of faith in a
future destiny of the dead."[20]
Stephen E. Potthoff: "Cult of the ancestral dead in classical Greece has been
thoroughly documented, and scholars have also identified the early Christian ritual of
baptism for the dead mentioned by the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 15.29) as an
outgrowth of the longstanding cult of the departed in Corinth (Garland 1985: 107–120;
Johnston 1999: 36–81; DeMaris 1995: 663–671)."[21]
Thomas R. Schreiner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_R._Schreiner) and
Shawn D. Wright: "One of the most controversial and difficult texts in all of Pauline
literature is the reference to baptism for the dead. It is not my purpose to canvas the
various interpretations proposed, nor does the view argued for in this essay depend in
any way upon the interpretation proposed here. What the verse suggests, however, is
that baptism was considered to be indispensable for believers. The plethora of
interpretations indicates that the original meaning of the verse is not easily accessible
to modern readers. The difficulty of the verse is not entirely surprising, for Paul does
not explain the meaning of baptism here, but instead appeals to the baptism of the
dead in support his theology of the resurrection. Any baptism performed for the sake
of the dead is superfluous, Paul argues, if the dead are not raised. Strictly speaking,
Paul does not praise or condemn the practice of baptism for the dead, and hence a
theology of baptism for the dead can scarcely be established from this verse. It seems
most likely, in my judgment, that baptism for the dead was practiced when someone
became a believer and died very quickly thereafter—before baptism was possible.
What this verse suggests, despite its obscurity, is the importance of baptism. Baptism
was considered to be the standard initiation rite for early Christians, and hence some
believers at Corinth thought that baptism should be done for the sake of the dead."[22]
John Short: "The point is that there would be no sense in the procedure if there were
no resurrection. Whatever doubts some members of the church had concerning it,
there were others who were such firm believers in the Resurrection that they submitted
to this rite of vicarious baptism on behalf of certain of the brethren, probably
catechumens, who had passed away before they had been baptized and received into
the full membership of the church. Perhaps also they had a feeling, natural enough at
that stage of Christian understanding among those who had so recently been pagans,
that unbaptized believers at the resurrection would not be so near to their Lord as
those who had undergone the rite. Or they may have done it to ensure as far as
possible that nothing would be lacking in respect of the eternal bliss of the redeemed.
At its best, the vicarious ceremony was a tribute to the spirit of fellowship, of unity, and
of solidarity in the community, and as such it would be sure to commend itself to Paul.
There are still some survivals of this ancient Christian practice, though in the main it
has fallen into disuse. In a sense it might be compared with prayers offered for the
dead. They too may for some signify the deep spiritual solidarity of the Christian
fellowship in heaven and on earth, in which all are one in Christ Jesus. Whatever the
effect of such practices on the joy of the saints in heaven, they do reflect a kindly,
generous, and Christian spirit on the part of those on earth in the desire for the
continued and increasing wellbeing of those who have passed beyond the veil.
Perhaps it is well to leave the matter there. Paul is content to do so, merely pointing to
this ancient rite, and incidentally giving us another glimpse into the customary
procedures of the early Christian fellowship as they illustrated the truth of the
Resurrection. If Christ is not raised, and if therefore no resurrection of the dead, what
could such baptism mean?"[23]
William Tabbernee: "In mainstream Christian circles, 'vicarious baptism' may have
been practiced as early as the time of St. Paul (1 Cor 15:29). It was almost certainly
practiced, from the second century C.E. onwards, by the Cerinthians.[24]
James D. Tabor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tabor): "For Paul baptism is not
a symbolic ritual but a powerful spiritual activity that effected real change in the
cosmos. Paul, for example, refers to some who 'baptized in behalf of the dead,'
evidently referring to a practice of proxy baptism for loved ones who had died before
experiencing their own baptism (1 Corinthians 15:29). Whether Paul endorsed the
practice or not we cannot be sure, but it would be unlike Paul to refrain from
condemning a practice he did not at least tolerate. After all, there is a sense in which
all baptism is 'for the dead' since it represents a 'burial' of the dying mortal flesh in
preparation for receiving the life-giving Spirit. Whatever the case, this practice of
'baptism for the dead' shows just how efficacious the activity was understood to be as
a means of invoking the Christ-Spirit—even for those who had died!"[25]
Jeffrey A. Trumbower: "Paul alludes to a practice of some Corinthian Christians in 1
Cor. 15:29, 'Then what are they doing, those who are baptized on behalf of the dead? If
the dead are not raised, why are they baptized on their behalf?' Paul does not here
object to this practice, whatever it is, and he uses it to convince the Corinthians that if
they are baptized on behalf of the dead, they must also believe in the resurrection as
Paul understands it. Enormous vats of ink have been emptied in both pre-critical and
critical scholarship speculating on precisely what those Corinthian Christians were
doing, why they were doing it, and Paul’s attitude toward it. A thorough 51-page survey
of opinion from the second century down to 1962 was assembled by Mathis Rissi;
there is no need to rehearse that entire history here. I agree with Rissi and Hans
Conzelmann (and, for that matter, with Mormon prophet Joseph Smith), that the
grammar and logic of the passage point to a practice of vicarious baptism of a living
person for the benefit of a dead person."[26]

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith

and Scholarship, "Baptized for the Dead" (https://
journal.interpreterfoundation.org/baptized-for-th
e-dead/)
Kevin L. Barney, Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship,
(August 31, 2020)

“ This thorough treatment of the mention of baptism for the dead in 1 Corinthians 15:29
gives a meticulous analysis of Paul’s Greek argument, and lays out the dozens (or
perhaps hundreds) of theories that have been put forth with respect to its interpretation.
Barney concludes that “the most natural reading” and the “majority contemporary
scholarly reading” is that of “vicarious baptism.” Therefore, “the Prophet Joseph Smith’s
reading of the passage to refer to such a practice was indeed correct.”

CLICK H ER E TO VIEW T HE COM P L E T E A RT ICL E (HT T P S : //J OUR N

A L. INT E R P R E T ER F O UNDAT ION. OR G /B A PT IZ ED - F O R - T H E- D EA
D /)

Notes

John A. Tvedtnes, "Proxy Baptism (http://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/02/insights/proxy-

baptism?lang=eng)," Ensign 7 (February 1977): 86. The source erroneously refers to
the "Marcionites" instead of the "Cerinthians".
Ibid.
1 Corinthians 7:14 (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/1-cor/7.14?lang=eng).
Doctrine and Covenants 128:18 (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scripture
s/dc-testament/dc/128.18%2c22?lang=eng)
This obviously requires a rejection of the doctrine of sola scriptura and the affirmation
of continuing revelation outside the Bible. For the best treatments of those from a
Latter-day Saint perspective, see Robert S. Boylan, Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day
Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura (Charleston, SC: CreativeSpace, 2017). See also
Robert S. Boylan, After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence
for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood (Charleston, SC: CreativeSpace, 2018).
FairMormon thanks Jaxon Washburn for his compilation of these sources.
Søren Agersnap, Baptism and the New Life: A Study of Romans 6:1-14 (Aarhus,
Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1999), 175–76.
Charles Kingsley Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Harper
& Row Publishers Inc, 1987), 362–364.
Stephen C. Barton, “1 Corinthians,” Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible, James D.G.
Dunn, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 1348.
Richard E. DeMaris, The New Testament in its Ritual World (London: Routledge, 2008),
59, 63–64.
James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Nature
of Earliest Christianity (London: SCM Canterbury Press, 2006), 25, 172.
Gordon D. Fee, "The First Epistle to the Corinthians,” The New International
Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 766–767.
Rolf Furuli, The Role of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation With a Special Look at the
New World Translation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Murrieta, CA: Elihu Books, 1999), 289.
David Bentley Hart, The New Testament: A Translation (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2017), 297.
Scott M. Lewis, So That God May Be All in All: The Apocalyptic Message of 1
Corinthians 15:12-34 (Rome, Italy: Editrice Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1998), 70–
71.
Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet: Studies in the Role of the Heavenly
Dimension in Paul’s Thought with Special Reference to His Eschatology (Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 1981), 36.
Steve Mason and Tom Robinson, Early Christian Reader: Christian Texts from the First
and Second Centuries in Contemporary English Translations Including the New Revised
Standard Version of the New Testament (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2013),
70.
Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians: An Introduction and
Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1960), 218.
John J. O'Rourke, "1 Corinthians,” A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture,
Reginald C. Fuller, Leonard Johnston, and Conleth Kearns, eds. (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1969), 1159.
William F. Orr and James A. Walter, 1 Corinthians: A New Translation (New York:
Doubleday, 1976), 337.
Stephen E. Potthoff, The Afterlife in Early Christian Carthage: Near-Death Experience,
Ancestor Cult, and the Archeology of Paradise (London: Routledge, 2017), 3.
Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New
Covenant in Christ (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2006), 130–131.
John Short, "Exposition of First Corinthians," The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 10, 12 vols.,
George Arthur, ed. (Abingdon, UK: Pierce and Washabaugh, 1953), 240.
William Tabbernee, “Initiation/Baptism in the Montanist Movement,” Ablution, Initiation,
and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity, David Hellholm, ed.
(Berlin: De Gruyter, 2011), 941.
James D. Tabor, Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 2010), 277–278.
Jeffrey A. Trumbower, Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-
Christians in Early Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 35.

Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?

title=Question:_Does_the_practice_of_baptism_for_the_dead_have_ancient_roots%3F&oldid=212634
(https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?
title=Question:_Does_the_practice_of_baptism_for_the_dead_have_ancient_roots%3F&oldid=212634)"

Categories (/answers/Special:Categories): FairMormon (/answers/Category:FairMormon) Mormon (/answers/Category:Mormon)

Mormonism (/answers/Category:Mormonism) Becoming Gods (/answers/Category:Becoming_Gods)
Facts Mormons Won't Tell You When They Call at Your Door
(/answers/Category:Facts_Mormons_Won%27t_Tell_You_When_They_Call_at_Your_Door)
Mormonism Unmasked (/answers/Category:Mormonism_Unmasked)
One Nation Under Gods (/answers/Category:One_Nation_Under_Gods)
The Changing World of Mormonism
(/answers/Category:The_Changing_World_of_Mormonism)
Questions All Mormons Should Ask Themselves
(/answers/Category:Questions_All_Mormons_Should_Ask_Themselves)
Facts Mormons Won't Tell You
(/answers/Category:Facts_Mormons_Won%27t_Tell_You)

Log in (/answers/index.php?
title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Question%3A+Does+the+practice+of+baptism+for+the+dead+have+ancient+roots%3F)

O U R FR I E N D S F O L LOW U S
D O N ATE TO F
BYU Religious Studies Center Facebook
FAIR is a We are a volunteer organizat
non-profit (https://rsc.byu.edu/) (https://www.facebook.com/fairlatterdaysaints) to give back
organization
dedicated to BYU Studies Twitter (https://twitter.com/ldsfair)
providing Donate Now
well- (https://byustudies.byu.edu/) (https://www.fairlatterdaysa
documented iTunes
answers to Book of Mormon Central (http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/mormon-
criticisms of
the doctrine, (https://bookofmormoncentral.org/) fair-cast/id397315546) Donate to us by shopping at Am
practice,
and history to you. Learn ho
TheFamilyProclamation.org YouTube (https://www.fairmormon.org/
of The
Church of (https://thefamilyproclamation.org/) (https://www.youtube.com/user/fairldsorg) smile)
Jesus Christ
of Latter- Interpreter Foundation
day Saints.
(https://interpreterfoundation.org/)

Wilford Woodruff Papers Project

(https://wilfordwoodruffpapers.org/)

Copyright © 1997-2023 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc. All Rights FAIR is controlled and operated by the
Reserved. Foundation for Apologetic Information and
Research (FAIR)
The views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of FAIR, its officers,
directors or supporters.
No portion of this site may be reproduced without the express written consent of The Foundation for
Apologetic Information and Research, Inc.

Any opinions expressed, implied, or included in or with the goods and services offered by FAIR are solely
those of FAIR and not those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.