As far as I know, I am the Latter-day Saint apologist who has done the most study into the Christadelphian movement. While reading Peter Hemingray’s John Thomas: His Friends and Faith [2d ed.; The Christadelphian Tidings, 2024], I stumbled upon Thomas’s interpretation of 1 Cor 15:29 and “baptism for the dead”:
9.—They repudiate everything
called baptism, except the “one baptism,” which they regard as a burial
with Christ in water into death to sin (Rom. 6:3), in hope of a resurrection
from the dead, (1 Cor. 15:29), the obedience of faith. (John Thomas, Letter to
the Editor of “The Rock,” December 4, 1869, repr. “Concerning ‘This New Sect,’
the Christadelphians,” The Christadelphian 7, no. 67 [January 1870], 2)
Here are other Christadelphian articles in their main
publication (their equivalent of our Liahona) addressing 1 Cor 15:29 and
“baptism for the dead”:
What is the baptism for the dead?—(1 Cor. 15:29.)—Q.
Answer.—A correspondent
says: “A book I have just seen explains this in the light of the fact that
there was in the first century an heretical class of people who were baptized
on behalf of their dead friends. This seems to fit the matter better than
either the ‘elliptical’ or the baptism into Christ’s death. The Greek (nper)
also means on behalf.”
This may “fit the matter,”
but we suspect the fitting is the other way about; that is, the existence of pro-mortem baptists has been invented to
explain the apostolic phrase. It is by no means clear that such a class ever
existed. The tradition that there were such people, goes back, of course, a
long way; but that might easily be traced to the apostle’s words themselves, as
giving rise to the idea that there were such people. It is very improbable,
even if there were such people, that Paul would virtually endorse their absurd
practice by making it an argument for the resurrection. It could not prove the
resurrection, but only that such baptisers expected it, which would be rather a
weak fact for a logician like Paul to employ. It seems far more reasonable to
assume that Paul’s allusion is to something true in itself and recognised by
the Corinthians to whom he was writing. Both these features are to be found in
baptism. It has to do with death, the dead, and the burial of the dead. It is
“a likeness of the death of Christ.”—(Rom. 6:6.) The dead (to sin) are the
subjects of it (Rom. 6:2), and it is a burial of such in Christ.—(Col. 2:12.)
These things were received by the Corinthians; and Paul might as well ask “if
there is no resurrection of the dead, what is the meaning of all this? Do men
go through this death-performance for the sake of rejoicing over the curse, or is
it not that there is a hope of rising again to which all this points? (“Baptized
for the Dead,” The Christadelphian 10, no. 109 [July 1873]: 331-32)
F. W. L. D. writes:—May I
request the favour of an answer to the following, which may, perhaps, be of
interest to others.
We read in 1 Cor. 15:29:
“Else what shall they do that are baptized
for the dead? . . . why are they then baptized
for the dead?”
In construing Paul’s meaning
here, I have hitherto supposed that he used the term “the dead” in reference to
Christ, in harmony with the logical deduction he makes earlier in the chapter
from the contention of those whom he is correcting, that if there be no
resurrection of the dead then is Christ not raised, and, therefore, it would
follow that the Corinthian brethren who were baptized for (the putting on of)
Christ; were baptized for (the putting on of) the dead, and their baptism was,
in that case, a vain and worthless rite.
This understanding of the
words, however, is upset by the fact that while “the dead” in the A. V. may be
understood as being in the singular, the words in the original are distinctly
in the plural, as very clearly shown in the “Emphatic Diaglott” (for the use of
which I am indebted to a brother), and also in the R. V., in the last clause of
the verse.
The question arises; in what
sense can the brethren be said to be baptized for (or “on behalf of,”
as the Diaglott renders it) dead persons? And, also, what dead persons are
indicated?
In reading the passage, and
the chapter of which it forms part, I cannot resist the conclusion that
whatever the precise idea intended to be conveyed by the words may be, it was
very clear and definite in Paul’s mind, and that he expected, as a matter of
course, it would be clearly apprehended by those to whom he wrote. Such being
the case, it seems to me that these words should also be understood by the
brethren of to-day.
Answer.—Our brother’s “wrong
conception,” as he styles it in his clearly-put letter, is wrong only as to
form, not substance, as he will see in a moment from the following
considerations. To take his question: “What dead persons?” Why those, of
course, of whom Paul was speaking all through his argument (the term is plural
throughout), God’s dead ones whom He proposes to raise, of which a risen
Christ, denied by some foolish Corinthians, was the earnest. This plurality in
one body had been thus alluded to by the prophet Isaish ages before: “Thy dead
shall live, my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that
dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out
the dead” (26:19). This, as our brother well remarks, was “very clear and
definite to Paul’s mind.” Hence he spoke of “Christ the firstfruits, afterwards
they that are Christ’s, at his coming.” In putting on Christ in baptism, they
are symbolically “baptized into his death.” But not only is there an individual
connection with Him. They are baptized (huper
ton nekron) “on behalf of the dead ones,” being members of the Spirit’s
“dead body,” with which they soon sleep in dust. Christ personal and Christ
multitudinous are before us in the apostle’s beautiful argument. (“Baptized
for the Dead (1 Cor. 15:29),” The Christadelphian 40, no. 466 [April 1,
1903]: 169)
Baptism for the Dead: A
Mormon Monstrosity.—Marian Bonsall describes, in the August Housekeeper, the extraordinary Mormon
belief in “baptism for the dead.” It is a belief that, at the close of the
third century a.d., God withdrew His kingdom from the world, and that it was
practically lost until 1830, when it was restored through the prophet, Joseph
Smith. Since it was not the fault of those who lived before this time that they
had not been given an opportunity to embrace the religion of the saints, which
the Mormons believe to be the only true religion, it is possible for them to
attain salvation by being baptized by proxy, by a Mormon believer. Every conscientious
Mormon, therefore, hunts up his family tree, and is baptized individually by
immersion, for each of his ancestors of the same sex as himself. Further than
this, the more zealous saints are baptized in the temples or in the baptismal
houses, for other Gentiles who have died, and with whom they have had no
connection, but who have never had an opportunity to embrace their faith.
Eventually, the Mormons expect to have given every one the opportunity of
accepting their belief in the next world by means of these proxy baptisms. One
of the activities of the Mormon missionaries is to gather up genealogies,
regardless of any connection of friend or kinship, and send them back to Utah,
that devout Mormons may be baptized for these people, long dead, and thus give
them their chance of eternal salvation. Hundreds of illustrious persons have
thus been baptized by proxy; many of the kings and queens of Europe, all of the
Presidents of the United States, except those who were unfriendly to the
Mormons. One man is said to have been baptized for each of the signers of the
Declaration of Independence, and scores of others have thus been given a chance
to accept the true religion, and hence gain salvation after death. One woman in
Utah of more than ordinary zeal has been for years spending a day each week in
one of the temples, trying to accomplish the baptisms of 12,000 dead ancestors.
After months and months of patient baptism, she called her two sons from a
ranch in Nevada to come to help her complete the list. She has already been
immersed thousands of times, but I have never heard, concludes the writer, if
she had, with the aid of her sons, accomplished her whole purpose.—[And yet it
is written: “None can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom
for him” (Psa. 49:7). All this nonsense arises out of the fatal dogma of the
immortality of the soul, and a singular misinterpretation of Paul’s allusion in
1 Cor. 15:29. “The dead” (plural) of Paul’s allusion are “the dead in Christ,”
the dwellers in dust alluded to in Isa. 26:19: “Thy dead shall live—my dead
body shall they arise. Awake and sing ye that dwell in dust.” Baptism was a
symbolic burial with these “dead” in hope of the awakening. See Rom. 6:3–5. It
was the obeying from the heart the form of doctrine delivered by the apostles
as Christ’s true ambassadors (Ibid. 5:17); and was, of course, restricted in
its efficacy to the individuals who thus believed and were baptized. But no
“fable” is too absurd for humanity unsubdued by the word of God.—Ed., C.] (“The Cherubic Symbols in Relation
to the Four Gospels,” The Christadelphian 42, no. 496 [October 1, 1905]:
445)
Who are the dead? I gather
from page 445, Christadelphian,
October, 1905, that you think it plural. I have always understood “the dead” to
mean Christ (singular).
Answer.—The word is plural in the Greek in both
references in the verse in question. But our correspondent’s idea only needs a
little enlargement. He will remember that Christ means — first, the Lord Jesus
Anointed; and then, more extensively, the multitude “in Christ” with him as
their head. Thus in this place “the dead” certainly includes Christ personal,
though by an accommodation of language only, for Christ had risen; and this, we suppose, was the reason why the
apostle used the plural. The allusion of Isa. 26:19 exactly meets the case,
when the Spirit of Christ in the prophet, speaking of the resurrection of God’s
people, says: “My dead body, they
shall arise.” (Charles Curwen Walker, “’Baptised for the Dead’ (1
Cor. 15:29),” The Christadelphian 43, no. 500 [February 1, 1906]: 75)
S.
says: “Kindly explain ‘baptized for the dead.’”
Answer.—This passage has
been explained many times over in the pages of The Christadelphian, but it is always being discussed. And the
modern discussion seems to tend to obscuration rather than enlightenment.
Paul’s argument seems to be obvious enough. “Some” in Corinth denied the
resurrection, and consequently were committed to the view that both Christ and
his people were “the dead.” Now baptism in Paul’s teaching was not only a
symbolic “burial” (Rom. 6.) but a symbolic “resurrection”
as well; and there would be no sense in baptism if there were no resurrection.
The following from The Speaker’s
Commentary strikes us as about the best “explanation” (if any be needed)
that we have seen.
Paul’s “tone is now
vehement, impassioned, indignant. . . . If such
a future should be made void by such
a theory, if the triumphant issues of Christ’s redemption and regency are a
vanity and they are a vanity if
resurrection, their basement and foundation, is a vanity. I ask you, if true is
the alternative of these free-thinkers that the dead are not raised, what shall they do which receive baptism on account of
the dead? i.e., with a view to the resurrection of the dead? The sense in full is:
what course shall converts now pursue, who passing through the laver rise out
of the water with hearts believing and mouths confessing that the dead shall
rise. If your free-thinkers close the very gate of God’s Kingdom, as they do
close it, when they deny the resurrection of dead men . . . what in that case
are miserable catechumens to do? . . . They will be at their wits end, not
knowing what to do. To this effect in substance are the comments of Chrysostom,
Theophylact, Theodoret and of many early fathers. From the ancient expositors
most of the moderns differ.”
It is noted that the
preposition huper with the genitive
signifies in relation to, concerning,
and is as elastic in its meaning as our English word “for.” The Century Dictionary gives no less than 24
different shades of meaning for this preposition. The profane idea of vicarious
baptism, that is of living persons baptised instead of or on behalf of dead
persons (believers or others who had died unbaptised) is simply not in the text.
We incline to the belief that a wresting of the text was the foundation of the
heresy. The renderings of the A.V. and R.V. are quite good if rightly
understood. What is wanted is an intimate knowledge of Paul’s doctrine from all
his epistles (“’Baptized for the Dead’ (1 Cor. 15:29),” The
Christadelphian 64, no. 757 [July 1, 1927]: 310-11)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
