The following are excerpts from:
J. Daniel Joyce, “Baptism
on Behalf of the Dead: An Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29-34,” Encounter
26, no. 2 (Spring 1965): 269-77
This article is
very difficult to track down, so if anyone wants a PDF, drop me an email at ScripturalMormonismATgmailDOTcom
Others believe that this was the practice of baptizing living proxies
in place of those who had died without baptism. There is evidence for such a
practice at a later time among the heretics as we shall cite, but not in Paul's
time. This would be an impersonal practice and sounds improbable when expressed
in this way. But it can be stated more personally and plausibly when one says
that it was done to fill up the places of the dead in the hope they might share
the resurrection through Jesus Christ; i.e., baptized into the hope of
the resurrection. Again, it would have suited the argument of Paul, because
such a practice would have been folly if it were impossible to benefit the dead
by so doing. (pp. 271-72)
Some have taken huper in the sense of "beyond" and
concluded that the unbaptized who died during a persecution were said to have
been baptized in their death; i.e., in their blood. As far as Paul's own life
is concerned as described in verses 30-32, this may have been appropriate in
his argument; but as for the Corinthians, we know of no severe persecution
which faced them at this time. Nothing in the epistle would indicate this. This
interpretation can hardly be seriously considered in this case. (p. 272)
There is an infinite number of possibilities if one emends the text,
rearranges the order of the words, or supposes a corruption. But our first
responsibility is to interpret the text as we have it, if there is no apparent
reason in the text itself for a change. The meaning of the practice referred to
is not a part of our primary purpose here but the relationship of the practice
to Paul's argument is primary—hence this point must take precedence and
will elucidate the meaning. This preposition (huper with the genitive)
has the usual meaning "on behalf of," "in place of," or
"for." There is no evidence which justifies our attributing to it an
irregular meaning here. There is no reason for reading "in front of the dead"
or "in front of death" as Calvin interprets, supposing that the
reference is to those who are facing death and wish to be baptized before they
die so "that they might carry with them the seal of their salvation."
If we must stand by the usual meaning of huper, then we are limited to a
baptism for those who have died out of Christ, or those who are spiritually
dead. In either case, it remains some kind of vicarious representation of the
dead. The huper shows us that what is done is done for the dead and not
for the living. (pp. 272-73)
With Paul, Christian baptism means a complete union with Christ in the
sense that the baptized person can "put on" Christ. He is baptized
into a union with Christ which means baptism into his death. He becomes a part
of his body which died "to sin" on the cross, which suffered for sin,
and which was raised in glory. He is crucified with Christ, he shares the
sufferings of Christ and becomes like him in his death, and he is raised in the
likeness of his resurrection. He becomes one with Christ in Christ's suffering
and death. Furthermore, when one such person dies, he remains "in
Christ" and still belongs to his body, still under his oversight, because
he has been baptized into a body which includes both the living and the dead.
Those who fall asleep "in Christ" remain in him. Living or dying,
they are the Lord's. Death does not separate from him. There is then in Paul's
teaching on baptism a concept of the solidarity of men in his Body. (p. 274)
From this Pauline concept of baptism, suffering, and death "in
Christ," perhaps the practice of being baptized on behalf of the dead had
come from the concept of belonging by baptism to a body which included both the
living and the dead. If the Corinthians shared this view, they perhaps saw
themselves as vicariously bearing the burden of the unbaptized dead. Paul does
not condemn them nor approve what they are doing. How does this practice find a
place in his argument? By denying the resurrection, they deny the validity of
all suffering for others, the validity of Paul's own life of suffering for the
redemption of others. When he suffers for this body of the living and the dead,
his suffering is vicarious, and to deny the resurrection is to deny its validity
and its grounding in Christ's death. This is the point in Paul's repudiation of
their "no resurrection" theology. There is much feeling in his
protest at this point.
Therefore, when this baptism was practiced, the resurrection was
strongly affirmed by the participants. The "no resurrection"
theology, which Paul attributes to his opponents, was an absurdity under such
circumstances. Why did his opponents practice baptism for the dead, and why was
their practice not sufficient to convince Paul that they did believe in
resurrection? Again we must keep in mind the double misunderstanding which
existed here. Paul inaccurately attributes to them a "no resurrection"
theology because they do not believe in a resurrection of this body, but a
spiritual resurrection of the Hellenistic-Gnostic variety. They think that
Paul believes and contends for a resurrection of this body, which in fact he
does not. But the misunderstanding on both sides continues. (p. 275)
