In 1 Corinthians 15:29, in the middle of the Apostle Paul's defense of the resurrection, there appears a passage that has resulted in no little confusion for many people. It speaks of baptism for the dead.

Is there a way for dead people to be baptized? Can the living be baptized on behalf of the dead? Or, does this verse refer to baptism as it relates to the spiritually dead?

The text reads: "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?" (NKJV)

Mormons have interpreted this as vicarious baptism; that is, living people being baptized on behalf of those who have already died. So, they search genealogical records methodically and baptize living people to secure salvation for those who have been dead for many years. This is one of the reasons the Mormons have such an enthusiasm for genealogical research.

The problem with the Mormon interpretation, as well as that of many others, is that it does not meet the simple criterion for correct biblical interpretation; that is, the conclusion must not conflict with other, clear biblical teachings.

Other passages teach that there are prerequisites to baptism for the remission of sins. These include hearing the gospel (Romans 10:17), believing (Acts 8:37), confessing Christ (Romans 10:10), and repenting (Acts 2:38). Dead men can't hear the gospel, have faith, confess Christ, or repent. And the Bible teaches that we will be judged on the basis of what we did individually, while in our fleshly bodies (2 Corinthians 5: 10). That clearly rules out having someone obey the gospel for us after we've left our bodies. Examine Luke 16:19-31 for a closer understanding of the spiritual position and opportunities of the dead. This passage tells us about the rich man and Lazarus and, particularly, about the rich man's after-death efforts to find relief and to assist his still-living brethren. But once the rich man died, his state was fixed, and no change was possible.

So, since the Mormon interpretation is incorrect, what is the correct interpretation? Over the years, this question has prompted many answers. We will examine a few in the remainder of this article.

The Catholic church views the baptism in this verse as being a metaphor for "tribulations and sorrows," as the word is used in Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:30. In this light, they see baptism as works of "penance" for the dead whom they believe to be in purgatory. But the Catholic view, even though they take it to be a metaphorical, instead of literal, baptism as the Mormons do, still faces the same conflicts. The Bible clearly states our judgment will be based on what we do while in the body. The Bible does not mention purgatory. Both the Mormons and the Catholics presume that, after a sinful person dies, either individuals or the church can overturn the results of his life.

Others have supposed that the baptism is metaphorical and refers to the sufferings and calamities that disciples would endure on behalf of the dead; that is, in expectation that the efforts of the dead and the living will be rewarded in the resurrection.

Brother E.M. Zerr, in his commentary, suggests that proxy baptism was being foolishly practiced by a few at Corinth and that Paul is not upholding the practice but is showing that any baptism is senseless if the dead do not rise. The major weakness of Brother Zerr's idea is that it seems inconceivable that Paul would have mentioned such an unscriptural practice without condemning it.

With the punctuation supplied by the King James and New King James translations, alternative interpretations are difficult to clearly prove. But Greek manuscripts did not have punctuation as ours do. The translators added the commas, periods, and question marks. Some other translations place the punctuation differently. Observe the following.

Revised Standard Version:
"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?"

New American Standard:
"Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?"

Brother Mike Willis, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, suggests another form of punctuation that could provide an explanation and interpretation both consistent with the context and free of the conflicts presented by the Mormon and Catholic views. He proposes the translation of verse 29 with the punctuation inserted as follows: "Otherwise what shall they do who are baptized? For the dead? (i.e., are they baptized to belong to, to be numbered among the dead, who are never to rise again?) Indeed, if the dead do not rise again at all, why are people baptized? For them?" (i.e., are they baptized to be numbered among the dead who are never to rise again?)

Brother Willis defends his proposal this way. He writes, "This position has the merit of recognizing the legitimate purpose of New Testament baptism and of being intimately associated with Paul's argument. First, one is baptized to be saved (Mark 16:16). If there is no resurrection from the dead, what difference does it make whether or not one has his sins washed away (Acts 2:38; 22:16)? Hence, if the dead are not raised, one's baptism is absolutely nonsensical."

Brother Willis and commentator Albert Barnes list many other possible explanations of this text. Most of them are even more complicated and fraught with problems. Willis' explanation, at least, makes sense in the context of chapter 15, where Paul defended the resurrection of all men from the dead. And, it avoids conclusions that conflict with other clearer teachings of scripture.

Some commentators have described this passage as "the most difficult in the Bible." I don't know whether or not that is true. We can safely say it is one of the more difficult to properly understand. But what the passage does NOT mean is very clear. Both the Catholic and Mormon views, as shown earlier, can't be right if we are to believe the passages on personal accountability, prerequisites to baptism, and the static state of the dead.

Many of the reasons why the Mormon and Catholic views on this text can't be true are the same reasons that refute the utility of infant baptism:

Bible students should endeavor to understand what Paul was saying. But even if we struggle with this passage, many others show clearly the purpose of Christian baptism.