New Test. Stud. 52, pp. 71–85.

Printed in the United Kingdom © 2006 Cambridge University Press

DOI:10.1017/S002868850500004X

Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised

for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29
JAM E S E . PATR ICK
Jesus College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB5 8BL, England

Baptism in the Corinthian church was an expression of allegiance to honour not

only Christ but also the ‘patron’ apostle in whose testimony the convert had
believed (1 Cor 1.12–17). Some apostles known to the Corinthians had died (cf. 15.6),
yet their testimony lived on and bore fruit in Corinth, resulting in baptism for the
honouring of the dead apostles. In the context of 15.20–34 Paul uses this practice to
expose the hypocrisy of those who deny the resurrection and yet seek to honour
apostles who depend on the resurrection for receiving honour, as do Christ and
God the Father.

Introduction

The Corinthian church is infamous for both the variety and severity of its
problems, whether condoning incest (1 Cor 5.1–2), allowing married women to
remove headcoverings while prophesying (11.13), or denying the resurrection
(15.12). However, the activity that has provoked the most confusion and contro-
versy in subsequent centuries is that mentioned only in passing in 1 Corinthians
15.29: ‘Otherwise, what will those do who are baptised for the dead? If the dead are
not raised at all, why then are they baptised for them?’ (ΔEpei; ti; poihvsousin oiJ
baptizovmenoi uJpe;r tw`n nekrw`n… eij o{lw~ nekroi; oujk ejgeivrontai, tiv kai; baptiv-
zontai uJpe;r aujtw`n…).
From the second century into the twenty-first, interpretations have been pro-
posed, rejected, categorised and reproposed, and at present there appear to be
approximately forty distinguishable opinions on the meaning of this practice.
Some recent scholars have suggested that there exist ‘More than two hundred’
interpretations,1 but this exaggeration stems ultimately from hearsay rather than

1 J. D. Reaume, ‘Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:29, “Baptized for the Dead”’, BS 152 (1995)
457–75 (457); cf. K. C. Thompson, ‘1 Corinthians 15,29 and Baptism for the Dead’, StEv II (ed.
F. L. Cross; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964) 647–59 (647 n. 2); H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians
(Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975 [1969]) 276 n. 120. 71
72 james e. patrick

careful counting.2 For the purposes of this paper I would refer the interested
reader, as does Fee, to the detailed overviews and critiques of the ‘more than
forty!’ varieties of interpretation in Foschini’s thorough (five-part) ‘exegetical his-
torical dissertation’, a categorisation of practically all attempts at interpretation to
date.3
My proposed explanation, which will be defended in the remainder of this
paper, interprets ‘the dead’ as dead apostles whose testimony lived on through
their followers, making converts who were then baptised ‘for’ these apostles as an
expression of allegiance to them specifically in order to bring them honour.
Though the inspiration for this interpretation did not arise from careful exam-
ination of the various proposed solutions, I have subsequently found it to have
considerable overlap with certain suggestions already made. Two in particular
deserve a mention. In 1655 J. Cloppenburg explained ‘the dead’ as martyrs from
among the five hundred witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection (15.6), into whose name
new converts were baptised, ‘having beheld their constancy when dying in wit-
ness to the resurrection of Christ’.4 In 1997 Joel White explained ‘the dead’
metaphorically as a reference to suffering apostles on account of whom converts
were baptised, a view similar to that of Cloppenburg. The significant contribution
of White’s explanation is its strong emphasis on ‘immediate contextual mooring’,
a principle that should, in my opinion, become standard in future discussion of
this verse.5

2 I can trace the claim no further than Evans’ notes on ch. 48 (1 Cor 15.1–34), line 41, where he
remarks, ‘There are said to be more than two hundred explanations . . .’ (E. Evans,
Tertullian’s Treatise on the Resurrection [London: SPCK, 1960] 312).
3 G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 762. B. M.
Foschini, ‘“Those who are baptised for the dead,” 1 Cor. 15:29; An Exegetical Historical
Dissertation’, CBQ 12 (1950) 260–76, 379–88; continued in CBQ 13 (1951) 46–78, 172–98, 276–83
(quote from 283). Cf. also the monograph of M. Rissi, Die Taufe für die Toten (AThANT 42;
Zürich/Stuttgart: Zwingli, 1962). Scholars suggesting similar numbers include Horsley and
Meyer, referenced in A. Robertson and A. Plummer’s First Epistle of St. Paul to the
Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1929 [1911]) 359, A. C. Thiselton (The First Epistle
to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids/Cambridge UK/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster,
2000) 1240, n.156), and Thompson, ‘Baptism’, 647 n. 2.
4 J. Cloppenburg, Syntagma . . . disputationum, 14 disput . . . de sententia 1 Cor. 15:29
(Franekerae2, 1655) 444; accessed via Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ 13, 182.
5 J. R. White, ‘“Baptised on Account of the Dead”: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its
Context’, JBL 116 (1997) 487–99. White affirmed Murphy-O’Connor’s emphasis on context and
his recognition that apostolic suffering is being discussed in 15.29. Thiselton (Corinthians,
1244) consequently but unjustifiably categorised White’s suggestion as a subset of Murphy-
O’Connor’s: while Murphy-O’Connor (referenced below, n. 7) assumes the apostles are
‘those baptised’, ‘baptised’ in suffering on account of those despised as ‘dead’ to higher
spiritual truths, White sees the apostles as ‘the dead’, whose suffering is described as a type
of dying.
 Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29 73

Following White’s pattern, I will first use some of the many interpretative cri-
teria set out by previous commentators to justify my interpretation of v. 29, and
then consider the context before and after this verse to confirm its function within
Paul’s argument.

1. Cumulative Criteria for Interpreting 1 Corinthians 15.29

The ten criteria examined here fall under three headings. The first four
concern definition of terms, specifically ‘baptism’, ‘for’ and ‘the dead’. The next
three criteria highlight matters of continuity, involving syntax, theology and his-
tory. The final three explore the logic of Paul’s argument, with reference to bap-
tism, Paul’s opponents, and resurrection.
(1) The first criterion concerns the nature of the ‘baptism’ involved. Foschini,
in his extensive analysis, chose to divide his study according to the three alterna-
tive explanations for baptism: metaphorical, literal but not sacramental, and
sacramental. He reasoned that in every other passage where Paul speaks of bap-
tism it is in reference to sacramental baptism.6 This argues against the metaphor-
ical interpretation of Murphy-O’Connor, following Schurmann and John
Lightfoot, in which baptism refers to the suffering and dangers of apostolic min-
istry.7 Similarly, it makes the interpretation of Theodore Beza unlikely, in which
baptism refers to the washing of dead bodies before burial.8 In my proposed
explanation, the baptism being carried out is the standard Christian sacramental
baptism of new believers, consistent with Paul’s use of the word elsewhere.
(2) The second criterion concerns the ‘deadness’ of ‘the dead’. While Paul does
use the word ‘dead’ metaphorically elsewhere (e.g. Rom 8.10), he is using the lit-
eral meaning not only throughout ch. 15, but even in the second half of v. 29,
linked directly to the first half with aujtw`n (‘If dead aren’t raised at all, why are they

6 Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ 12, 269–72, 384–85; Reaume (‘Another Look’, 469 n. 52) concurs
in all but three passages, and in these the reference appears to be to a believer’s identifi-
cation with the one who brought about their salvation (Christ – Rom 6.3; Moses – 1 Cor 10.2;
the Spirit – 1 Cor 12.13); the significance of this usage will become apparent when looking at
the Corinthian understanding of baptism under criterion seven.
7 J. Murphy-O’Connor, ‘“Baptised for the dead” (1 Cor., XV, 29) A Corinthian slogan?’, RB 88
(1981) 532–43; A. M. Schurmann, Opuscula hebraica-graeca-latina-gallica. Epistola viro
clarissimo Jac. Lydio (Lugduni Batav.,2 1650) 101–2 (accessed via Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ
12, 266–67); J. Lightfoot, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae impensae in Epistolam primam S.
Pauli ad Cor. (Roterodami, 1686) (accessed via Thiselton, Corinthians, 1242) – Lightfoot
viewed ‘the dead’ as martyrs specifically; cf. F. Godet (Commentary on St. Paul’s First Epistle
to the Corinthians [2 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898] 2.389–90) who views ‘baptism’ (of
blood) as martyrdom.
8 T. Beza, D.N.J.C. Nov. Test. cum interpretatione et adnotationibus (1598) 173 (accessed via
Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ 12, 379–81).
74 james e. patrick

baptised for them’).9 This immediate context undermines metaphorical interpret-

ations such as that of Murphy-O’Connor mentioned above (note 5), and similarly
the most ancient orthodox interpretation, held by Tertullian and later the Greek
Fathers from Chrysostom onwards, in which baptism is ‘for [their own] dead
bodies’ (against this interpretation see also criterion nine).10 In our proposal ‘the
dead’ are genuinely dead, apostles awaiting the resurrection.
(3) The third criterion concerns the identity of ‘the dead’, specifically whether
or not they are believers, or have been baptised. Jeremias notes the consistent dis-
tinction throughout chapter fifteen ‘between nekroiv and oiJ nekroiv, nekroiv with-
out an article denoting the dead in general . . . oiJ nekroiv denoting the deceased
Christians’.11 Thus the context again undermines interpretations such as that of
Richterus, who included the preceding phrase ‘what will they do’ to arrive at the
meaning, ‘What will those being baptised gain beyond the (unbaptised) unbe-
liever?’, and likewise the practice of the Mormons, who are baptised vicariously
for dead ancestors not of the Mormon religion.12
Once we accept ‘the dead’ to be Christians, the question remains whether they
were baptised before death or not. On the basis presumably of his interpretation
of ‘for’, Fee declares that baptism on behalf of unbaptised dead believers is easily
the most ‘plain understanding of the Greek text’.13 This assumes perhaps greater
certainty than the text itself allows, for the same reason that were I to say, ‘I
cheered for Michael’, the hearer would be unlikely to conclude that Michael was
‘obviously’ mute; the ‘plain’ meaning of this text depends on the common
Corinthian understanding of baptism rather than unverifiable assumptions about
the dead.14 Despite our professed ignorance regarding the baptismal state of the
dead, Reaume is correct to maintain that ‘The normal practice in the early church
was for baptism to follow immediately after conversion’.15 Death before baptism

9 Reaume, ‘Another Look’, 469–70.

10 Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem V., c. 10, P. L., 2, 494; J. Chrysostom, Homiliae in 1 ad Cor.,
Homilies XXIII and XL, P. G., 61, 191 (Tertullian and Chrysostom accessed via Foschini,
‘Dissertation’, CBQ 13, 172–75); Fee, Corinthians, 766 n. 28; the interpretation of Epiphanius
and Calvin is similar, in which those baptised are catechumens who are near death, that is
‘for [their own] dying bodies’ (Epiphanius, Haeres XXVI, n. 2, P. G., 41, 386; Calvin, Comm. in
epistolam priorem ad Cor. [Brusvigae, 1892] 550 [both accessed via Foschini, ‘Dissertation’,
CBQ 13, 177]).
11 J. Jeremias, ‘“Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor. xv. 50)’, NTS 2
(1955–56) 151–59 (155); M. Raeder, ‘Vikariatstaufe in 1 Cor 1529?’, ZNW 46 (1955) 258–60 (260);
Reaume, ‘Another Look’, 470.
12 Richterus, De baptismo hyper ton nekron (1803) (accessed via Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ
13, 179, 51–53).
13 Fee, Corinthians, 763–64.
14 Cf. Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ 13, 76.
15 Reaume, ‘Another Look’, 471.
 Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29 75

would be quite exceptional, therefore one might assume that ‘the dead’ believers
had been baptised.
In our proposal, reaffirming Cloppenburg’s conclusions (see above), ‘the
dead’ probably refers to those dead already mentioned earlier in the chapter, that
is, those from among the ‘more than five hundred’ witnesses to the resurrection
who had already ‘fallen asleep’ (15.6). Paul’s redundant emphasis in this verse on
the dead witnesses may perhaps be deliberate, a meaningful acknowledgment of
certain witnesses or apostles who were known by the Corinthian church.
Apostles/evangelists who died would have had followers who continued to prop-
agate their leader’s uniquely ‘authorised’ message and ministry, making converts
who would then be considered the fruit of the testimony of the witness who had
died.16 Our proposal does take ‘the dead’ to be Christians, and while we may jus-
tifiably assume they were baptised, this has little bearing on the meaning of our
text.
(4) The fourth criterion concerns the meaning of ‘for’. The Greek word uJpevr
(‘for’) when used with the genitive carries the primary meaning of transfer, either
a transfer of responsibility (‘on behalf of’)17 or of benefit (‘for the benefit of’),18 as
well as two further meanings of cause (‘on account of’)19 and goal (‘for the sake
of’).20 A fifth meaning, a spatial reference to ‘over’ or ‘beyond’, was common in
classical Greek, but completely supplanted in New Testament times by the other
meanings; the spatial sense was expressed by use with the accusative.21 Thus
Luther’s opinion that converts were baptised ‘over’ or ‘above’ the ‘sepulchres of
the martyrs’ is problematic.22 Fee points out that ‘on behalf of’ is the usual mean-
ing connected with a personal object, just as ‘on account of’ is more common with
impersonal objects.23 However, a transfer of responsibility (‘on behalf of’) may
often be understood as equally a transfer of benefit (cf. 1 Cor 4.6, ‘that none of you

16 Timothy (2 Tim 1.13–14) and Tychicus (Eph 6.21, Col 4.7), among others, carried out a similar
representative function for Paul when he was otherwise incapacitated in prison. Likewise,
John the Baptist’s followers apparently continued to administer ‘John’s baptism’ to ‘con-
verts’ decades after he had died (Acts 18.25; 19.1–5).
17 That is, ‘to intervene in defence of someone’ (H. Riesenfeld, ‘uJpevr’, Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament, VIII: 507–16, here 508, 2.a., b.[a]) or ‘to take another’s punishment’
(Riesenfeld, ‘uJpevr’, 508–9, 2.b.[b]) or to act on behalf of another – Onesimus ministered to
Paul in place of Philemon (Riesenfeld, ‘uJpevr’, 512–13, 3.).
18 E.g., the sacrifice of Jesus is for people, accruing to their favour (Riesenfeld, ‘uJpevr’, 510–12,
2.[c], [d]).
19 E.g., Paul had to suffer ‘on account of my name’ (Acts 9.16; Riesenfeld, ‘uJpevr’, 514–15, 5.).
20 E.g., apostolic affliction is ‘for your comfort and salvation’ (2 Cor 1.6; Riesenfeld, ‘uJpevr’,
513–14, 4.).
21 Riesenfeld, ‘uJpevr’, 507–8, A(1); 515, B(1).
22 M. Luther, Die Bibel oder die ganze Heilige Schrift des A. u. N. T. . . .(London, 1860) (accessed
via Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ 13, 180–81).
23 Fee, Corinthians, 763 n.11; cf. Reaume, ‘Another Look’, 472–73.
76 james e. patrick

may become arrogant for one [teacher] against another’), making this less per-
suasive as an argument for specifically vicarious activity. Interpretations which
prefer the first meaning, ‘on behalf of’, in terms of vicarious baptism will be con-
sidered under criteria six and seven. Similarly, interpretations preferring the
meaning ‘on account of’ will be discussed under criterion ten, and those prefer-
ring ‘for the sake of’ under criterion nine.
In our proposal, the primary meaning of ‘for’ is ‘for the benefit of’. One might
allow for the meaning ‘on behalf of’ if it were the baptisers who were under con-
sideration: the privilege of baptising converts, while normally belonging to the
witness responsible for the conversion (e.g. Acts 8.35–38), would have to be done
‘on his behalf’ by his followers if he were absent (cf. John 4.1–2; Acts 19.1–3).
However, 15.29 places the emphasis on those receiving baptism rather than
administering it, making this meaning improbable. Instead, new converts were
being baptised ‘on account of’ the testimony of the dead but ultimately ‘for their
benefit’. Olshausen preferred this meaning of ‘for’, and interpreted the benefit to
the dead in terms of completing the ‘full number’ of believers (cf. Rom 11.12–25)
needed to bring about the glorious Resurrection.24 This interpretation makes
assumptions about the Corinthians’ theology,25 as well as being too widely appli-
cable in light of Paul’s reference only to a small group of baptised Corinthians in
our verse (cf. criterion nine). We propose instead that baptism was generally
undergone as a public expression of allegiance to particular apostles to bring
them greater honour, and Paul is highlighting the inconsistency of those who are
seeking to benefit dead apostles through baptism while denying the resurrection,
the only circumstances for such honour to be realised.
(5) The fifth criterion concerns syntactical continuity, that is, the use of ellipses
or repunctuation of the text. It has often been suggested that Paul was using ‘the
dead’ as an abbreviation for a longer term, assuming that readers would fill in
missing words. Ellipsis can be a valid explanation of Paul’s more obscure pass-
ages, as long as abbreviations are relatively simple and natural. For example,
Robertson and Plummer dispute the interpretation of the ‘Greek expositors’ in
which ‘the dead’ refers to a phrase in the baptismal creed, ‘the resurrection of the
dead’;26 the more natural abbreviation would retain ‘the resurrection’ instead.27
Similarly, Reaume queries the interpretation of Findlay, Raeder, Jeremias,
Thiselton and others, in which baptism is ‘with the purpose of becoming united

24 H. Olshausen, Biblical Commentary on St Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1863) 249–50.
25 Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ 13, 58–59, 76–77.
26 Cf. H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians vol. 2
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1884) 74.
27 Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 359; cf. Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ 13, 275–6.
 Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29 77

with their deceased Christian relatives in the resurrection’,28 due to the ‘signifi-
cant ellipsis’ required to convey this meaning.29
In addition to ellipsis, some scholars have effected grammatical discontinuity
by repunctuating the text. Thompson and Foschini represent the two standard
variations of punctuation, but in neither case does the repunctuation either intro-
duce a meaning not already proposed on the basis of standard punctuation or
avoid their associated problems. Thompson’s interpretation, inserting a comma
after ‘baptised’ and a question mark after ‘raised’, relies on the common but
improbable definition of ‘the dead’ as ‘their dead bodies’;30 furthermore, he gives
no explanation for the randomness of a baptism reference at this point in Paul’s
argument. Foschini’s interpretation, fragmenting the verse with three question
marks after ‘baptised’, ‘the dead’, and ‘baptised’, and a full stop at the end,
requires an unusual use of ‘for’ with the final sense – ‘baptized to belong to, to be
numbered among the dead’. He anticipated but failed to answer the question as
to why ‘into’ (eij~) was not used instead of ‘for’ (uJpevr), and ultimately his choppy
repunctuation contributes nothing to his argument.31 In our proposal, neither
ellipsis nor repunctuation is required, and the traditional punctuation known at
least as early as Tertullian is allowed to stand.
(6) The sixth criterion concerns Paul’s theological consistency in his treatment
of this Corinthian practice. Ambrosiaster believed that v. 29 refers to vicarious
baptism for the dead, but that Paul did not approve of the practice. In support he
appealed to the contrast between ‘they’ of v. 29 and ‘we’ of v. 30.32 Foschini instead
adduced the ‘also’ of v. 30 as evidence of Paul’s agreement with the baptism in v.
29,33 but even the simple lack of any explicit condemnation of this practice by Paul
is significant, since it touches on such ‘a fundamental aspect of his theology’.34 If
Paul were to cite a practice he did not agree with to support his argument for the
resurrection, his opponents could justly accuse him of theological inconsis-
tency.35 Therefore interpretations involving vicarious baptism ‘on behalf of’ the
28 Jeremias, ‘Flesh’, 156.
29 Reaume, ‘Another Look’, 463; R. Schnackenburg (Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul [tr. G. R.
Beasley-Murray; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1964] 102) responds to this objection; cf. also White
(‘Context’, 491) who dismisses the interpretation ‘dying bodies’ on these grounds.
30 Thompson, ‘Baptism’, 651–55.
31 Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ 13, 277–82; both Thompson and Foschini also fall foul of crite-
rion nine, below, by overlooking Paul’s use of the third person plural ‘they’.
32 Ambrosiaster, Comm. in 1 ad Cor., P. L., 17, 280 (accessed via Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ 13,
46–47).
33 Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ 13, 64–65; this argument is rejected by Fee (Corinthians, 764 n.
19) but reaffirmed by Thiselton (Corinthians, 1246).
34 Reaume, ‘Another Look’, 459–60 n. 10; cf. Fee, Corinthians, 764–65, 767; Thiselton,
Corinthians, 1246.
35 Cf. Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ 13, 63 n. 187; cf. H. Preisker, ‘Die Vikariatstaufe 1 Cor 1529 – ein
eschatologischer, nicht sakramentaler Brauch’, ZNW 23 (1924) 298–304 (299).
78 james e. patrick

dead, as propounded by Collins, Conzelmann and many others,36 do not fit with
Paul’s treatment of this practice here. In our proposal, the baptism has no ‘saving
efficacy’ whatsoever for anyone, and the honouring of the witness through whom
the convert believed does not detract from the honouring of Christ in the same
action, provided the Corinthians take to heart Paul’s exhortations in chs. 1 to 4.
Converts seeking to benefit ‘their’ apostles is in accord with Paul’s theology, as he
himself affirms just two verses later.
(7) The seventh criterion concerns historical consistency. It would be expected
that a baptismal practice existing in Corinth in the mid-first century ce would
have parallels or precedents of some sort which may be cited as evidence for this
type of baptism, whether in Jewish, pagan, orthodox Christian or heretical reli-
gious practice. Fee opts for the vicarious explanation of baptism here, despite
acknowledging that ‘This is a genuinely idiosyncratic historical phenomenon’.37
However, Foschini, Schnackenburg and others consider this a powerful argument
against that interpretation.38 For our proposal, there is a clear parallel within the
same epistle to baptism undertaken in order to express allegiance and bring
honour to apostles (1 Cor 1.13–17),39 as well as apparent historical precedent in the
contemporary baptism of disciples ‘into John’s baptism’ (Acts 19.3). Comparisons
could also be made with Corinthian ‘patrons’ and the archaeologically attested
practices carried out to bring them public honour, even after death.40
(8) The eighth criterion concerns the logical significance of the reference to
baptism in this verse. Thomas Edwards notes that ‘oiJ baptizovmenoi is not in the
apostolic age the name for “converts”, but oiJ pisteuvonte~. Cf. Acts ii.44. The ref-
erence must be, not to the faith signified, but to the symbolical act of baptism.’41
This is cited against the interpretation of ‘John Edwards of Cambridge (Enquiry
into Four Remarkable Texts, 1692)’, in which those baptised have been converted
due to the ‘heroic behaviour of the Christian martyrs’. It is equally effective

36 R. F. Collins, First Corinthians (Sacra Pagina 7; Collegeville: Glazier/Liturgical, 1999) 559;

Conzelmann, Corinthians, 275–77.
37 Fee, Corinthians, 764; cf. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (London/New
York: Macmillan/St Martin’s, 1962) 192.
38 Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ 13, 65–70; Schnackenburg, Baptism, 100–1.
39 White, ‘Context’, 498.
40 Cf. R. E. DeMaris, ‘Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29):
Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology’, JBL 114 (1995) 661–82; although DeMaris
focuses on obligation to dead family members and baptism as a ‘rite of passage’ (675–76), a
more pertinent focus might be the obligation to dead patrons and activities in ‘honor of . . .
the dead’ (663–64).
41 T. C. Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1903) 422; cf. Godet, Corinthians, 389; pace G. G. Findlay, ‘St. Paul’s First Epistle
to the Corinthians’, The Expositor’s Greek Testament (ed. W. R. Nicoll; London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1900) 2.931.
 Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29 79

against the interpretations of Foschini and of Findlay, Raeder, Jeremias, Thiselton

and others (both summarised under criterion five) as well as that of Cleric, in
which baptism is received ‘in order to take the place of the dead in the Christian
Church’.42 In our proposal, the reference to baptism has a significance beyond
simply conversion, as a public ritual performed to bring honour to the convert’s
patron(s) (cf. 1 Cor 1.14–15).
(9) The ninth criterion concerns the logical scope of the group who practised
baptism for the dead. First, Fee notes that the ‘unusual use of the third person
plural’ when referring to ‘those who are baptised’ in v. 29 ‘suggests that it is not
the action of the whole community’.43 Therefore interpretations of the verse must
account for this specificity rather than being general statements about Christian
baptism, as are the interpretations of Cleric (‘to take the place of the dead’) and
Chrysostom (‘for their own dead bodies’).44 In our proposal, the group referred to
would only be a small number within the church, specifically those who had been
converted due to the testimony of apostles or witnesses who had already died.
Second, ‘the group at Corinth that was practising [baptism for the dead] must
be roughly coextensive with the group that denied the resurrection of the dead’,
because the practice is cited by Paul as an example of their conduct contradicting
their beliefs.45 If this is the case, the popular interpretation of Findlay, Raeder,
Jeremias, Thiselton and others, in which baptism is undergone ‘with the purpose
of becoming united with deceased Christian relatives in the resurrection’,46 makes
little sense in Paul’s overall argument. Those denying the resurrection of the dead
would surely not engage in such rituals in the hope of the resurrection, but if they
were not, they might have easily dismissed this argument by declaring such indi-
viduals to be foolish dreamers.47 In our proposal, those denying the resurrection
may well belong to this group, but even if they do not, the remainder of the pass-
age (vv. 30 through 32) draws the rest of the church into the scope of Paul’s argu-
ment (see below under context). The focus of ‘baptism for the dead’ is not on the
resurrection, but rather on bringing honour to Christian patrons.
(10) The tenth, related criterion concerns the logical connection drawn
between baptism for the dead and the resurrection. Paul’s argument demands

42 H. Hammond and J. Cleric, Nov. Test. . . . cum . . . adnotationibus, vol. 1 (Amstelodami, 1699)
131, col. a. (accessed via Foschini, ‘Dissertation’, CBQ 13, 179–80; also preferred by Olshausen
[Corinthians, 251–52]).
43 Fee, Corinthians, 766; cf. Godet, Corinthians, 388–89.
44 Cf. Reaume, ‘Another Look’, 475.
45 White, ‘Context’, 489–90; Rissi, Taufe, 91; J. Weiss, Der Erste Korintherbrief (Göttingen:
Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, 1970 [1910]) 363–64; Fee, Corinthians, 767; cf. Foschini,
‘Dissertation’, CBQ 13, 48.
46 Cf. Thiselton, Corinthians, 1248.
47 Godet, Corinthians, 385.
80 james e. patrick

that the practice of baptism for the dead be rendered fully ineffectual by a recog-
nition that the dead are not raised – it is shown to be ‘the highest expression of
absurdity’.48 This is not the case in the interpretations of Reaume, who describes
converts being baptised ‘because of the influence of deceased Christians’, or of
White, who similarly explains the baptisms to be simply ‘on account of’ figura-
tively ‘dead’ apostles as an expression of allegiance to them.49 In either case these
baptisms, focused on the past, could continue unabated alongside a denial of the
resurrection. In our proposal, the baptism was specifically intended to bring
honour to one’s ‘patron’ apostle. If patrons who were already dead were not going
to live again, such honour could never be received, and the question would
indeed arise ‘What [else] will they do . . .?’ (15.29), that is, how else can they fulfil
the cultural obligation to honour ‘patrons’?

Beyond these ten criteria, the ultimate criterion is that of context. As White
remarks, ‘the immediate and the larger epistolary context, far from being irrel-
evant, offers the key to establishing the meaning of v. 29’. Similarly, Murphy-
O’Connor emphasises that ‘according to sound methodology, the probable
meaning of a polyvalent phrase is that demanded by the immediate context’.50
Thus, the context must be accorded equal importance alongside criteria of defi-
nitions, consistency and logic in analysis of our interpretation.

2. Confirmation from the Context of 1 Corinthians 15.29

Having considered criteria for interpreting v. 29 on its own, we now turn to

a consideration of the wider context, the chain of Paul’s argument in which our
verse forms an important link.

a. Foundational Truths – 1 Corinthians 15.20–28

Conjunctions are important signposts in Paul’s argumentation, therefore
the first word of v. 29, ΔEpeiv (‘Otherwise’), should direct us to consider the
immediately preceding verses. Howard suggests instead, following Jeremias, that
‘this particular verse marks a return to the apologetic of the earlier part of the
chapter, broken by the excursus of vv. 20–28’.51 Fee, however, demonstrates that
the verses in question ‘are not a digression . . . Rather, they are crucial to the whole
argument’, and rightly interprets the ‘Otherwise’ of v. 29 as ‘if vv. 20–28 are not

48 Fee, Corinthians, 767.

49 Reaume, ‘Another Look’, 474–75; White, ‘Context’, 497–98.
50 White, ‘Context’, 488; Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Slogan’, 533.
51 J. K. Howard, New Testament Baptism (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1970) 108; Jeremias,
‘Flesh’, 155.
 Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29 81

true’.52 White concurs, following Murphy-O’Connor in his assessment that both

vv. 20 to 28 and 30 to 32 concern the importance of the resurrection for apostolic
mission, of Christ in the first section and of Paul and his fellow apostles in the
second. They both therefore explain v. 29 along similar lines.53 My proposal, how-
ever, interprets both passages differently, and therefore also v. 29.
The resurrection of believers is significant to Paul – not, as in White’s
interpretation, as the purpose towards which his and Christ’s laborious apostolic
missions in this life were directed,54 but rather as the key to the restoration of all
correct order and authority throughout God’s creation. The resurrection of Christ,
as established in 15.1–11 and expounded upon in 15.12–19, was actually a ‘firstfruits’
representative down-payment of more resurrection to come (15.20–22).55 The res-
urrection of believers to come is not a free-for-all, however (15.23a), but is an
orderly and crucial element in the fulfilment of Christ’s commission to bring all
things under the dominion of His Father. Since death is the ultimate enemy of the
life-giving God, the destruction of death through the resurrection of ‘those who
are Christ’s’ is the final step in Christ’s prophesied abolishment of opposing auth-
orities and powers (15.23c, 24b–27). Then, once His rule over all has been com-
pleted, Christ is made subject to the Father (15.24a, 28). Resurrection of believers
is the key to Christ consummating His authority, and likewise the key to God
being ‘all in all’. In fact, the resurrection is the key to the fulfilment of all authority,
‘but each in his own rank / position’.56
In this epistle to the Corinthians Paul must constantly address their incorrect
perspectives regarding authority, whether it involves quarrels over apostles
(1.10–12; 4.1–7), secular and spiritual adjudication (6.1–8), male and female
relations (11.3–16), or ‘greater’ spiritual gifts (12.14–31). When addressing their
boasting for particular leaders earlier in the epistle, Paul presented them with
the godly alternative perspective in a simple formula (3.21–3): ‘all things are “of
you” . . . and you are “of Christ”, and Christ is “of God”’. An illustration of this prin-
ciple of encompassing authorities would be a set of wooden Russian
dolls, each of which can be opened in turn to reveal a smaller doll inside. In ch. 3
Paul was using the genitive series to teach the Corinthians primarily the
correct order of service, that is, viewing themselves not as fans and servants of
individual apostolic ‘patrons’, whom they honour and in whom they boast (3.21),
but rather as those served by apostles, and in turn servants of Christ, who serves

52 Fee, Corinthians, 747, 762, cf. 752–53.

53 White, ‘Context’, 493; Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Slogan’, 534.
54 White, ‘Context’, 499; Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Slogan’, 542–43.
55 Cf. Thiselton, Corinthians, 1223–4.
56 Ibid., 1229; R. Bergmeier, ‘tavgma, ato~ tov’, EDNT 3 (ed. H. Balz and G. Schneider; Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993 [1982–83]) 331.
82 james e. patrick

God.57 In ch. 15 Paul is using the genitive series to teach the complementary truth
of the correct order of authority; God the Father is greater than Christ the Son (cf.
John 14.28), who is greater than those who are ‘of Christ’ (1 Cor 15.23) along with
‘all rule and all authority and power’ (15.24). The final establishment of this correct
order of authority, then, depends on the resurrection of believers and its inherent
abolition of death (15.26).
In his treatment of Christ’s resurrection (15.3–19), Paul first sets out commonly
accepted truths about the revelation of Christ Himself to His witnesses concern-
ing the resurrection, and then applied these truths to the Corinthians themselves
(‘if there is no resurrection of the dead . . . your faith also is in vain’,15.13–14).58 In
v. 20 he began his second section concerning the resurrection of believers. First he
set out commonly accepted truths about the establishment of Christ’s kingdom
through resurrection with reference to well-known psalms, and so we would
expect him now to apply these truths to the real life experience of Corinthian
believers. If resurrection is the key to establishing the authority of Christ under
God, it would likewise be the key to establishing the authority of leaders within the
church under Christ. With this in mind we turn to look at v. 29 and the following
verses.

b. Necessary Consequences – 1 Corinthians 15.29–34

In 15.3–11 Paul began with ‘Christ appeared, we preached, you believed’,
and then in 15.12–19 exposed the consequences of their denial of the resurrection
for their own experience of receiving testimony. In 15.20–28 Paul began with ‘we
substantiate Christ’s authority, Christ substantiates the Father’s authority’, and
now in 15.29–32 he exposes the consequences of their denial of the resurrection for
their own experience of substantiating authority. Baptism by its very nature
involves the public acknowledgment of authority (cf. Matt 28.19), and in the
Corinthian church had become a regular setting for declaring allegiance also to
particular apostles (1 Cor 1.12–17).59 It was therefore an ideal example for Paul to
draw on in his discussion of authority. In order to introduce the matter of resur-
rection, however, he had to focus on believers who had been baptised to declare
allegiance and bring honour to apostles already dead. For these apostles, as for
Christ, resurrection was the key ultimately to receiving the reward due to them.
‘Otherwise, what will those do who are baptised for the dead? If the dead are not
raised at all, why then are they baptised for them?’

57 See A. D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth (Leiden: Brill, 1993) 92–95,
124–25.
58 Cf. Ben Witherington, III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids/Carlisle: Eerdmans/Paternoster, 1995)
301.
59 Cf. White, ‘Context’, 498.
 Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29 83

But the argument could not rest here. Perhaps those who had been baptised
into Stephen’s name would be shamed into acknowledging their hypocrisy in
denying the resurrection (15.34), yet they were ‘only a few’.60 The rest of the com-
munity must be convicted also, since all authority is only fully realised through
the final resurrection of believers. Therefore the argument must move on to con-
sider living apostles: ‘Why are we ourselves also in danger every hour?’ (15.30).
The emphatic ‘we ourselves’ (hJmei`~) ‘excludes the Corinthians themselves’,61
drawing a distinction between those referred to in the previous verse and those
Paul here associates himself with. The comparison, however, may be with either
the baptised or the dead, and while some assume the former,62 it would seem
natural to compare those ‘in danger [of their lives] every hour’ with the dead of the
previous verse.63 Paul has shifted the emphasis from dead apostles to himself and
others who are still alive,64 and his use of ‘we’ earlier in the chapter to signify apos-
tles who had testified to the Corinthians (cf. 15.11, 14, 15, 19[?]) confirms this
interpretation.65
Verses 31 and 32 now bring the focus onto Paul himself, in his role as founder
of the church in Corinth and therefore the highest authority in the church. In the
resurrection every member of this church would constitute a part of Paul’s ‘crown
of boasting’ (cf. Phil 4.1; 1 Thess 2.19–20’ 1 Cor 3.10; 4.14–15), and if he himself was as
good as dead every day,66 the honour due him because of the Corinthian church
was entirely dependent on the resurrection. It is significant that at this point Paul
asserts the truth of his statement by appealing to what is of ultimate importance
to him, ‘by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord’. The refer-
ence is to his ‘boasting’ in the existence of the Corinthian church,67 but as in

60 Fee, Corinthians, 764 n. 15.

61 Ibid., 768 n. 36.
62 Robertson and Plummer, Corinthians, 361; C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians
(London: A. & C. Black, 1971) 364–65.
63 Cf. White, ‘Context’, 494–95.
64 Pace Fee (Corinthians, 768 n. 36) and White (‘Context’, 494), who interpret the plural as edi-
torial, meaning ‘I myself’.
65 Cf. Thiselton, Corinthians, 1249; Howard, Baptism, 106. White (‘Context’, 494) qualifies that
the attention ‘is not on Paul per se but rather on his apostolic ministry’, perhaps overlooking
the greater importance of individuals to the Corinthians.
66 Thiselton, Corinthians, 1250. White (‘Context’, 495–96) interprets dying metaphorically as
‘suffering’, based on Pauline peristasis catalogues and the picture of the Roman triumphal
procession. However this does not do justice to the emphasis throughout this passage on
physical death and resurrection, and also overlooks the significance of apostolic suffering as
located in its anticipation of the inevitable death of the physical body rather than vice versa;
this is equally true of the sufferings of captives in the triumphal procession (cf. S. J.
Hafemann, Suffering and Ministry in the Spirit [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990] 24–29), and
of Jesus’ sufferings (cf. Phil 3.10–11).
67 Cf. Thiselton, Corinthians, 1250–51; Fee, Corinthians, 769–70; Barrett, Corinthians, 365.
84 james e. patrick

1 Thess 2.19–20, the church is Paul’s ‘crown of boasting . . . in the presence of our
Lord Jesus at his coming’. Both Paul and the church, his ‘boasting’, are subsumed
under the authority of Christ ‘our Lord’; in this way he affirms the Corinthian
belief that they themselves are a source of reward for ‘their’ apostle(s), provided
they recognise the more important context of all alike being ‘of Christ’ (cf.
15.23–28).
Verse 32 again connects profit exclusively with the resurrection, as did vv. 29
and 31; the life-threatening struggles in Ephesus are contrasted with a purely
hedonistic lifestyle, the former being ‘profitable’ only if the dead are raised. Paul
was writing to the Corinthians from Ephesus, and the meaning of this ‘fighting
with wild beasts’ he refers to is made clear only a few verses later in 16.8–9: ‘But I
will remain in Ephesus until Pentecost; for a wide door for effective service has
opened to me, and there are many adversaries’. Later, in 2 Cor 1.8–11, Paul admits
that in these struggles with opponents to the gospel he ‘despaired even of life’,
although his afflictions were apparently for the ‘comfort and salvation’ of
believers in Corinth (1.6–7). Paul used the word picture of gladiators fighting with
wild beasts in the arena to re-emphasise both the repetitiveness and inevitable
death associated with his apostolic endeavours, as he had in vv. 30 and 31.68
Paul ends this application section as he did the earlier one (15.19), with a
depressing description of the consequences of denying the resurrection. Like the
Israelites’ fatalistic abandon in the face of inevitable destruction by the Assyrians
(Isa 22.13), Christians have nothing to live for if there is no resurrection. Paul’s
argument first proved that the resurrection of believers is crucial in the restoration
of correctly ordered authority in all creation, and then brought this truth to bear
on the Corinthians’ own experience, showing their honouring of apostolic leaders
to be both hypocritical and worthless if there is no resurrection. The final two
verses of this section, 15.33–34, are addressed directly to the Corinthians, presup-
posing that his reasoning has had its desired effect of shame, and shaking them
out of their deceived stupor.

3. Conclusion

Over many centuries, layers of interpretation have accumulated around

this one verse and its mysterious practice of ‘baptism for the dead’. In addition to
all their other misguided activities, the Corinthian believers have been accused of

68 Fee, Corinthians, 769; pace B. W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth (Grand Rapids/Cambridge
UK: Eerdmans, 2001) 96–105; Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (10.8 [LCL 58; tr. C. R. Haines;
Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University and William Heinemann, 1979] 268–69)
describes the man ‘that shews beyond measure a dull senselessness and a clinging to life,
and is on a level with the wild-beast fighters that are half-devoured in the arena, who . . . beg
to be kept till the next day, only to be thrown again . . . to the same teeth and talons’.
 Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29 85

performing baptisms in cemeteries, or trying to save dead relatives by being

immersed in their place, or submitting to baptism from fear in the face of immi-
nent death. Many explanations have been proposed and many rejected on the
basis of certain criteria, and from these we selected ten in order to test our new
proposal. We considered definitions of the terms ‘baptised’, ‘for’, and ‘the dead’,
consistency with regards to syntax, theology, and history, and logic concerning
baptism, the scope of the group referred to, and the resurrection. With every cri-
terion met by our proposal, we then addressed the context of this verse, demon-
strating its function within Paul’s treatment of believers’ resurrection as it
concerns the substantiation of authority of differing ranks. In these ways we have
justified our proposal that new believers were receiving baptism after conversion
through the testimony of dead apostles, and in doing so were baptised into their
name, an expression of allegiance in order to bring them greater honour. Thus,
they effectively became living rewards for dead apostles.