1 Corinthians 15:29

Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

This is branded by many as a very difficult verse; but the proper regard of the third person plural pronouns in this verse makes it easy. Paul here used an "argumentum ad hominem", that is, an argument based upon what people were doing, indicating clearly enough that some persons known to the Corinthians were practicing a baptism for the benefit of the dead; but the one thing that makes it impossible to suppose that Paul approved of such a thing is the use of the third person pronouns. There are no examples in the New Testament of the practice of Christians being designated as what "they" do. Concerning Christian baptism, for example, it is always "we" or "you" who were baptized and addressed in the first or second persons, never in the third person. It is still "they" not "we" who baptize for the dead!

With reference to the practice itself, nothing is known of Christians ever doing such a thing until far later in the Christian era; and, even then, it is most likely that a misinterpretation of Paul's words here was a contributing factor. Hodge flatly declared that nothing was ever known of Christians doing such a thing "before the second century."[26] Invariably throughout history, the Christian community has condemned this practice as heretical, there not being a word in the whole New Testament that countenances such a thing. Only the revival of the practice by the Mormons in our own times has appeared as an exception. The whole concept of proxy baptism is contradictory to Biblical teaching.

The objection that Paul would not have referred to such a practice without indicating his disapproval is not well founded. In this same epistle (1 Corinthians 8:10), Paul mentioned "sitting at an idol's temple" without condemning it. Besides that, the use of any practice (for argument's sake) may be, even today, referred to without the speaker's approval of it. This writer once heard a pioneer preacher discoursing on the resurrection, and he said, "The Indians bury a dog and a spear with the fallen warrior; and why should they do that, if there is no resurrection?" That was exactly the "argumentum ad hominem" that Paul used here. Furthermore, Paul had already promised that he would correct certain unspecified disorders at Corinth when he returned personally to visit them (1 Corinthians 11:34); and it may be taken as certain that baptism for the dead was one of them. There are all kinds of fanciful "explanations" of the baptism mentioned here; but with reference to any of them which denies that somebody at Corinth was doing it, the plain meaning of the apostle's language here (as attested by dozens of scholars) refutes them.