Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Ukraine (LDS - OPEN)

Meridian Magazine ^ | 2008 | By Marvin R. VanDam

[greyfoxx39]

Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Ukraine

By Marvin R. VanDam

A prominent contemporary Russian religious scholar, Sergey Antonenko, has studied and written about Latter-day Saint theology and ordinances in an admirably objective way. His writings about LDS work for the dead and the ancient Christian origins of such work are of particular interest.

In an article entitled Research and Analytical Material, he seeks to explain the prevailing bias in Russia and other eastern European countries against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He sees this bias as being the result of an "objective lack of information or maliciously distributed myths."

He explains this adverse characterization of the Latter-day Saints as follows:

Extremely negative influence is caused by the absence of perspective vision, lack of the efforts to include “exotic” (but more often just unusual) phenomena in a wide screen of mankind's spiritual history. That last factor explains, in our opinion, the certain vigilance [wariness, apprehension] towards some religious practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (such as vicarious baptism, sealing of marriage for eternity with the deceased spouse). These religious rites are traditional for for their faith, but analogues [similarities] could be seen also in general Christian heritage [history].

Free Agency and Salvation Beyond the Grave

Antonenko delves beyond the common bias, however, and analyzes a remarkable commonality between the Eastern Orthodox Christian churches (as opposed to the western Roman Catholic Church) and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — the fact that ancient mankind believed innately that there is a connection between the worlds of the living and the dead, and that "they were taking care [concerned] about the deceased, instead of forsaking [them] ... We are talking in particular about belief in resurrection and in preservation of certain opportunities for the dead in the next world."

From Antonenko's perspective as a religious historian, and being deeply grounded in the ancient and modern Eastern Orthodox Christian faiths (that is, the "family" of Orthodox Christian churches in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria, Armenia, etc.), he states:

For centuries, the central question of the religious consciousness pertaining to the problem of immortality was whether or not a free agency will be preserved behind the grave.

Speaking from his commendable basis of objective historical knowledge — being one who is relatively unshackled by the apostasies from original doctrine and the perversions of true history that affected the Roman Catholic world — Antonenko writes significantly:

In the ancient Church there was a belief that, from the moment when Christ released from the hell spirits of those who had been waiting for him with faith (we read about that in the messages of Apostles Peter and Paul: 1 Peter 3:18-20; 4:6; Ephesians 4:8-10), that relief [salvation] of the deceased is possible.

He further quotes from an apocryphal biblical text, Jes. Syr. 7:36: "Let the grace be given to every living, but those who died shall not be robbed of the grace also."

Eastern Orthodoxy and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Antonenko then relates his understanding of ancient Eastern Orthodox theology to that of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

Historically, the sense of spiritual unity of the living and the dead as an integral part of living's [life's] spiritual experience was kept in a very few directions [churches] of Christianity. For example, for Protestantism, typical is denying of effective connection between [those] living on the Earth and [those who have] departed to God.

He sees a "paradox" in such "unlike Christian faiths" as Eastern Orthodoxy and "the Mormons" having remarkably similar beliefs concerning the state and welfare of the dead:

The Orthodoxy teaches to look at the body of the deceased brother “as on a grain” [something that can have renewed life and grow], which should be clothed in incorruption and immortality. Orthodox believers do not stop [discontinue] the attitudes of love to the dead after the burial. Following an ancient custom, Orthodox Christians fervently pray for them [their recently deceased loved-ones] and bring bloodless sacrifices during the first 40 days.

Today in the Orthodox churches, one purchases and lights candles for the dead as well as for oneself and others who are still alive.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints goes in this matter even further. It does not practice special after-burial prayers for the dead, but Church members are given unique hope to receive special Divine blessing for their relative and ancestors. Each member of the Church can open for his or her deceased relatives an opportunity of a choice in eternity, having performed for them the vicarious baptism.

He goes on to explain this Latter-day Saint doctrine and practice.

Ancient Baptism for the Dead

Antonenko declares that vicarious baptism of the dead had its roots in ancient Christianity, “Those who are advanced in the religious studies may conclude that vicarious baptism existed in the history of the Christian Church." Citing as an example the Apostle Paul's explicit statement on the subject (see 1 Corinthians 15:29), he continued, "Direct [literal] meaning of the verse implies that 'baptism for the dead' for the ancient Christians was confirmation of their confession [faith] — of their belief in resurrection."

He added, "It is obvious that baptism for the dead was practiced in some of early-Christian communities until it was forbidden by the rules of the Carthaginian Council."

Medieval Baptism of the Dead in Russia (now Ukraine)

Antonenko continues:

However, the tradition of posthumous baptisms continued to exist in the later periods. It was known also in the ancient Russia. In 1044, pious grand duke of Kiev [the capitol city of today's Republic of Ukraine], Yaroslav, nicknamed Wise, has brought [physically] into the church two of his uncles, Oleg and Jaropolk, which have died long before that and formally were pagans [unbaptized at the time of their deaths].

To tell the truth, in this case one can hardly speak about vicarious baptism. The chronicles tell that the bones of the dukes were dug out from the tombs, baptized and then buried in the Saint Virgin of Tithes cathedral. About Oleg and Jaropolk, it is known that they have been reared and educated by their grandmother, grand duchess Olga, and that they believed in Christ and were not baptized only for “narrowness of circumstances” ... killed in internecine strife.

Yaroslav the Wise was convinced that it was his duty to help his untimely gone uncles to complete their Christian choice ... The given example is very significant — baptism of the dead was performed officially in the court church built by the Saint Vladimir.

Grand Duke Vladimir's Example?

In doing so, might Grand Duke Yaroslav have been following an example set several decades previously by Grand Duke Vladimir, who is also reported to have baptized the dead?

Grand Duke Vladimir, in return for his assistance in putting down uprisings in Bulgaria and Natolia against Byzantine emperor Basil II, was given the emperor's sister, Anna, to be his bride — but on the condition that he become a Christian. He was duly baptized in 988, and he received his Byzantine bride. He then proceeded to make Christianity the state religion — and ordered, and in time forced, his subjects to be baptized, and he built Christian churches, schools, and libraries.

It is reported that, "Vladimir was so impressed with the importance of baptism, and its requirement for exaltation, that he had his brothers' bones exhumed and baptized with a Christian baptism — literally baptism for the dead." (This comes from a 2007 letter from one Irvin Moritzky, an American of Ukrainian descent, who refers to Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.)

Given the remarkable parallels between Jaroslav's and Vladimir's "baptism of dead bones" accounts, one has to wonder whether they might be one and the same story, the one or the other story having been misattributed as to grand duke and year. The important point, though, is the declaration by Orthodox scholars that baptisms for the dead were performed in the ancient Christian church, and that there was at least one recorded instance of such baptisms in the ancient Russian church

True Temple Ordinances in Ukraine

It was a thousand years ago that Christian baptisms for the dead were performed in Kiev, Ukraine. On the 23rd of June, 2007, ground was broken for a temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Kiev. After nearly a decade of challenges since the temple's announcement in 1998, the temple is now under construction. True baptism for the dead will soon be performed in Ukraine by Latter-day Saints who hold the divinely restored priesthood authority to do so.

 

 

[greyfoxx39]

Interesting claims regarding baptism for the dead and Eastern Europe.

[greyfoxx39]

Ping

[nesnah]

Please add me to your ping list. Thanks, grey....

[ejonesie22]

As one who spent a good amount of time in the Greek Orthodox Church, and spend over a year in an intense Catechism, I find this to be a bit off the mark per se. Yes the orthodox revere THEIR dead, the the dead of others.

[greyfoxx39]

Care to expand on your post? What is off the mark?

[ejonesie22]

Don’t post from a Treo phone...

As one who spent a good amount of time in the Greek Orthodox Church, and spent over a year in an intense Catechism, I find this to be a bit off the mark per se. Yes the Orthodox revere THEIR dead, NOT the dead of others.

[ejonesie22]

Taking the very revered Orthodox treatment of their dead, the lighting of the candles, the prayers and other such acts, and equating with the arrogant presumption of LDS “priesthood holders” baptizing folks out of the obituary pages of the local paper is fallacy at best

Even the early Christians who practice baptizing the dead limited it to family, and sometime friends, who died before receiving the gift. It was not an act of trying to inflate numbers...

[vladimir998]

The problem with the claims is that they have nothing whatsoever to do with LDS.

Yaroslav’s actions were for one of two reasons:

1) He wanted to bury relatives in his family’s tomb in a Christian church but was not allowed to because they were not baptized. He had the bones baptized - something which is not recognized by Orthodox tradition to any great extent to be orthodox praxis or theology.

2) Jaroslav really believed he could baptize the dead - again, something which is not recognized by Orthodox tradition to any great extent to be orthodox praxis or theology.

There is more reason to believe it is the latter because such a thing is discussed in the Izbornik of 1076, a document collection belonging to the son of Yaroslav the Wise - Prince Svyatoslav.

In any case, none of that has anything to do with LDS.

Also, I think it is important to note that Yaropolk - one of the dead man whose bones were baptized - was apparently in the process of being received into the Catholic faith but was murdered by his pagan brother before he was actually baptized. That may be why his bones were baptized later - in an attempt to complete a process already started.

[MHGinTN]

The following is the sticking point for Christians, both Catholic and Protestant: “True baptism for the dead will soon be performed in Ukraine by Latter-day Saints who hold the divinely restored priesthood authority to do so.” And the LDS apologists just don’t understand why Christians object to Mormonism.

[Tennessee Nana]

who hold the divinely restored priesthood authority to do so.
________________________________________________

“restored” ?????????

“why” ????????

The Jews did away with their Levitical priestly line ???

They all died off ???

Jesus died and His priestly title died with Him ?????

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Here’s a Scripture that says different ...

Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. Hebrews 6:20

Sorry kids, this ignoramous “author” doesnt know that there is only one High Priest at a time, and Jesus is still alive...and still the ONLY Melchisedec priest or high priest FOREVER...(for the Rio Linda mormons, that means ETERNITY)

Gen 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and He was the priest of the most high God.

Gen 14:19 And He blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:

Gen 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. Genesis 14:18-20

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. John 8:56

And these pagan rites ???

Nothing to do with Christianity...

Paul never taught “baptism for the dead”...

[Delta 21]

To think that baptism or any traditional sacrament administered by another human being has anything to do with the salvation of the recipient (living or dead) of said sacrament is absurd.

[Elsie]

To think that baptism or any traditional sacrament administered by another human being has anything to do with the salvation of the recipient (living or dead) of said sacrament is absurd.

And yet MILLIONS of folks are deceived into thinking that it does!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“”Direct [literal] meaning of the verse implies that ‘baptism for the dead’ for the ancient Christians was confirmation of their confession [faith] — of their belief in resurrection.” “

In the fevered and sweaty imagination of mormons!

There have been over 200 interpretations of this verse offered
up throughout the years. Some ridiculous.

Most importantly, Paul doesn’t command or commend the practice. He simply acknowledges it existed.

The mormonism claim is unscriptural for many reasons... including:

1. It is never commanded anywhere in the Bible
2. Baptism doesn’t save
3. People are not given a second chance after death - “it is appointed once for men to die, then comes judgment”
4. Paul’s main point is that there is a resurrection from the dead for believers
5. Mormonism takes a sub point in an argument and makes it a central doctrine - exactly the opposite of good exogesis.

[count-your-change]

“Paul never taught “baptism for the dead”...”
Agreed. But what do think Paul meant at 1 Cor. 15:29 as it was cited in the article as a reference to the “baptism of the dead” teaching?

[MHGinTN]

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? Paul references 'they', not we or you, 'they'. In the Corinthian area there was a pagan cult which practiced baptism for the dead. Perhaps there were among the Corinthian Christians previous members of that pagan cult. The Corinthian Christians would probably be familiar with 'they'. And if you cannot find any verification of the supposed vital ritual elsewhere in the Bible then you would do better to take the reference as referring to a non-Christian cult. ... And that's just the start of an extensive exegesis on the topic.

[Tennessee Nana]

Paul mentioned it only to tell the Corinthians not to do it...

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? 1 Corinthians 15:29

Paul was teaching on the resurrection of the dead Christians, not baptism for dead heathens...

He acknowledges the BftD only to explain to say why bother if there is no resurrection...

He was not saying to actually participate in a pagan ritual..

The pagans burnt their children in sacrifice to Moloch...

Should the early Christians have done that too ???

[ComeUpHigher]

I suggest you carefully read 1 Corinthians 15. Paul was instructing/correcting the saints at Corinth who did not believe in the resurrection that the principle of vicarious baptism for the dead only made sense if there was indeed a resurrection.

Notwithstanding the personal opinions expressed in this thread, many prominent Christian theologians and scholars acknowledge that what Paul expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:29 reflected an ongoing practice by Christians living in Corinth.

Below is a sampling of Christian scholars/theologians who have discussed 1 Cor. 15:29 and admit that it, indeed, is an acknowledgment by Paul that vicarious baptisms for the dead were being performed by the early Christians in Corinth.

“The normal reading of the text is that some Corinthians are being baptized, apparently vicariously, in behalf of some people who have already died. It would be fair to add that this reading is such a plain understanding of the Greek text that no one would ever have imagined the various alternatives were it not for the difficulties involved.’’(Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989, pp. 763-64.)

“Again, the Apostle alludes to a practice of the Corinthian community as evidence for a Christian faith in the resurrection of the dead. It seems that in Corinth some Christians would undergo baptism in the name of their deceased non-Christian relatives and friends, hoping that this vicarious baptism might assure them a share in the redemption of Christ.’’ (From The Jerome Biblical Commentary, ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968, 2:273.)

“St. Paul then, almost in parenthesis, touches on what appears to have been a custom among the Corinthian Christians of baptizing by proxy on behalf of some, presumably members of the same family, who had died unbaptized and might therefore, it was thought, miss their chance of being incorporated into the fulness of Christ’s Kingdom at his Advent. This practice, says the apostle, makes as little sense as his own daily contempt for physical death, if there is no resurrection.” (William Neil, One Volume Commentary On The Bible, London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1973, p. 461)

“. . . the most natural meaning of the expression [used by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:29] is that some early believers got themselves baptized on behalf of friends of theirs who had died without receiving that sacrament.” (Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, London: Tyndale Press, 1964, p. 218)

“Close inspection of the language of the reference makes all attempts to soften or eliminate its literal meaning unsuccessful. An endeavor to understand the dead as persons who are “dead in sin” does not really help; for the condition offered, if the dead are not being raised at all, makes it clear that the apostle is writing about persons who are physically dead. It appears that under the pressure of concern for the eternal destiny of dead relatives or friends some people in the church were undergoing baptism on their behalf in the belief that this would enable the dead to receive the benefits of Christ’s salvation.” (James Moulten and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981, p. 651, original emphasis)

“Here Paul returns to his argument for the resurrection of the dead. There is a special difficulty in understanding v. 29 because we do not know the background of the words “baptized for the dead.” There are many interpretations, but it is difficult to find a satisfactory one. The present tense “baptize” suggests that the practice of baptizing for the dead was current and evidently well known to the Corinthians. . . .

. . . its [”huper’s”, the Greek word behind “for” in “baptized for the dead”] basic meaning with the genitive is “for,” “in behalf of,” or “in the place of.”

According to [H. A. W.] Meyer, this verse means that believers already baptized were rebaptized for the benefit of believers who had died unbaptized. This was done on the assumption that it would count for the unbaptized dead and thereby assure their resurrection along with the baptized, living believers. . . .(The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976, vol. 10, pp. 287-288)

“. . . whatever doubt some members of the Church had concerning it, there were others who were such firm believers in the resurrection that they submitted to this rite of vicarious baptism on behalf of certain of their brethren, probably catechumens, who had passed away before they had been baptized and received into full membership of the Church.” (The Interpreter’s Bible, New York: The Abingdon Press, 1952-1957, vol. 10, p. 240)

A recent book was written by another Christian scholar on this subject titled “Rescue for the Dead” which is a fascinating read on this practice of vicarious baptisms for the dead practiced by early Christians. It is written by Jeffrey A. Trumbower at St. Michael's College in Colchester, Vermont. It is published by Oxford University Press. His book is very well researched and is a fascinating read on the concept of vicarious posthumous baptisms performed by early Christians.

[MHGinTN]

‘You mormon apologists never rest with your efforts to support your heresies’. [See how the pronouns ‘you’ and ‘your’ is much different from ‘they’?] Paul was writing to the Church members at Corinth yet he references a ‘they’, not you or we, but they. Now, if I wrote the first sentence with a different pronoun, it would read like this: ‘Those mormon apologists never rest with their trying to support their heresies.’ I would not be addressing you, but a ‘they’ group of apologists. See the difference? You need to make the passage convoluted to support Mormon baptism for the dead as if being taught by Paul, your ‘scholars’ not withstanding.

[MHGinTN]

BTW, you’ve used a common fallacious step, to assume that baptism is required for Salvation in your effort to support the Mormon ritual and thus lend credulity to the heresy of baptism for the dead.

[ComeUpHigher]

I suggest you register your complaint with the various scholars and theologians cited. I’m only stating what their scholarly research of ancient Christian practices found. I understand why it would be problematic for you.

[MHGinTN]

No, it's not in the least problematic for me since I am certain the practice of baptising for the dead is not biblical, is not shown anywhere else in the New Testament, and is not a part of my religion, Christianity.

BTW, you photo of the Sawtooth Range is still one of the most stunning scenes in America.

[ComeUpHigher]

How are you so “certain” given the numerous theologians and scholars who have carefully studied the history of the early Christian church and documented that it was practiced? Can you cite for me the number of reputable references I have given that conclude otherwise?

On another note, I love the Sawtooth range. It is not nearly as well known as other western national parks; hence less crowded. I have been there many, many times over the years and it is my favorite park to visit. I have a great feeling of reverence for the earth’s creation. When I am in the Sawtooth I appreciate more deeply why when the creation was completed God observed that it “was very good.”

[MHGinTN]

"How are you so “certain” given the numerous theologians and scholars ..." Because I am also a scholar and accept my reading over the spurious anti-Christian reading which has no other substantiation in the WOrd of God. The scholars you cited are not accurately dividing the Word.

On another note, scripture indicates that what awaits Christians in the new universe that Christ is preparing is so much more astonishing than what we now perceive, and that is going to be some place to be more than the beautiful world God has placed us in now.

[ComeUpHigher]

Three questions:

1. What are your academic/scholarly credentials;

2. What historical sources do you cite to assert that you are “certain” that vicarious posthumous baptisms were not practiced by early Christians?

3. Why do you summarily reject the well-documented historical sources cited and relied upon by other Christian theologians and scholars?

[Grunthor]

Why baptize a carcass? It’s not aware, it’s not going anywhere and the spirit than inhabited it is long gone. That never made any sense to me.

[MHGinTN]

I am relying upon what Paul, James, Peter, John, Matthew, and Luke wrote. I’m sorry you try to demand I dance to your music since I don’t dance to Mormon music ... I don’t intend to debate your FAIR etc. drag and paste program designed to lend credulity to your specious beliefs. Since you cannot cite New Testament support for your obscurism, I owe you nothing to lend credulity to your heresies. Have a pleasanrt evening, I’m going to turn off the Olympics and hit the pillow.

[ComeUpHigher]

I'm sorry my request to support your position has resulted in such a harsh response. I conclude from your response that you don't have any scholarly sources to cite for your position. So be it.

Besides the scholarly sources which I cited (and others), I rely upon Paul as quoted in 1 Corinthians 15.

Have a pleasant evening, my FRiend.

[MHGinTN]

Though I have no way of knowing whether it is probative of your motives, I see one of the few LDS thugs has arrived to try and instigate insult and perhaps have the thread closed down. One wonders how such a thug finds this obscure thread given that the last post was last night!

After a few weeks of dealing with LDS apologetics being posted almost daily at FreeRepublic, it finally dawned on me that you folks were seeking a 'loan of credulity' by having constant debate where your FAIR, etc. drag and paste materials were aired and the average Christian poster at FR was unable to dig so deeply as the staff of 'scholars' pumping out the FAIR materials. That is a deceitful tactic from a Christian's persepctive, but no doubt from your LDS perspective you are 'defending the LDSS faith'.

I had to finally go to bed last night, but the essential note from last night's exchanges is 'I'm not going to play straightman to LDS brow beating LDS posters commit seeking credulity for their twisted version of Christianity.

I am responding this last time to your taunt on open thread because I pray you will open your mind to the possibility that your religion is based upon heresies and strained, obscure interpretations of scripture. The straining of gnats over ICor!5:29 is a case in point. The following is but a small piece of exegesis for your consideration. I have this on my computer in a Mormon file, but unfortunately I do not have the link nor do I recall which website has this on it ... I copied and filed it because it is so accurate and exhaustive on the topic.

Baptism for the Dead: ‘If LDS apologists wish to affirm that the rite of proxy baptism is the subject of a new revelation, they may do so--but they cannot appeal to 1 Corinthians 15:29 as support. The verse does not confirm the LDS practice of vicarious baptism.’

LDS apologists maintain that Paul refers to baptism for the dead in a way that indicates it was a normal church practice. Three serious difficulties accompany this interpretation.

First, if practicing baptism for the dead is inconsistent with denying the resurrection, then so is practicing baptism upon the living. Beasley-Murray notes that "(T)his baptism, performed as objectively as a sacrifice for the dead, must presumably have the like significance as baptism of the living. . ." [Beas.BNT, 190] Paul understood that baptism served as an outward symbol of the resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:3-4); as Mounce asserts: "Burial certifies the reality of death. Baptism is the ritual that portrays this burial..." It is "a symbol of the complete redemptive event" whose reality is paralleled in the death of Christ and which finds its completion in the faith of the believer. [Moun.R, 149] If baptism for the dead was a normal church practice like baptism of the living, then Paul would have made a point based upon baptism as a whole rather than singling out its use for the dead.

Second, Paul asks why the Corinthians baptized for the dead, not why they continued to baptize for the dead. In light of the argument not being stated with relation to baptism as a whole, Paul's argument only makes sense if baptism for the dead was an unauthorized practice. If the Corinthians had been baptizing for the dead before the resurrection controversy, then Paul would have asked why they were still doing it, not merely why they were doing it.

Finally, the placement and form of the admonition show that baptism for the dead was an irregular practice. Our third line of reasoning can be divided into three sub-points.

1) Verse 29 is designed to expose Paul's opponents to criticism based upon their inconsistency. A key to refuting LDS contentions is addressing the claim that baptism for the dead "is of such great importance as confirmation of the resurrection that Paul listed it as one of the foremost proofs in his treatise." [Hop.BM, 220-1] Paul is not using baptism for the dead as an evidential proof of the resurrection, as this argument requires; he is using it to expose an inconsistency between what the Corinthians are doing (baptism for the dead) and their claim that there is no resurrection (v. 12). He is asking the Corinthians how they can claim to disbelieve in resurrection when they are doing something that symbolizes resurrection.

2) The rules of Greco-Roman rhetoric indicate that 1 Corinthians 15:29 is not an evidential proof for the resurrection. Political debates and formal arguments are expected to adhere to certain guidelines. In Paul's day, the Greeks and Romans had their own rules of argumentation that formed the backbone of the Greco-Roman practice of rhetoric, the art of persuasive speaking and writing.

Paul was highly skilled in Greco-Roman rhetorical techniques. Using categories delineated by classical writers of rhetoric such as Quintilian, Cicero, and Aristotle, we may identify stages in Paul's arguments and better understand his intentions. (For an excellent introduction to Paul as a rhetor, see Ben Witherington's Paul Quest, 115-129.) Note that our argument in no way implies that Paul set books on rhetoric before him and slavishly followed an outline, making sure that he included every part of a rhetorical argument. A person trained in rhetoric would produce an argument naturally, and if we are able to identify a clear rhetorical pattern in Paul's work, there is no reason why we cannot confidently offer an interpretation based upon the passage's rhetorical structure.

1 Corinthians 15 is "a perfect example of rhetorical argumentation," [Mack.RNT, 56] of a type called deliberative rhetoric, which was written "to advise and dissuade audience members concerning a particular course of action." [Wats.PRS, 231-49] In this instance, Paul is trying to persuade the Corinthians to abandon their disbelief in resurrection. As we lay out the stages in Paul's argument, identifying sections according to their purpose, we will bring into serious question the LDS claim that Paul is using baptism for the dead as an evidential "proof" or "foundation" for the doctrine of resurrection in a way that he could not have used it had it been a false practice.

Exordium (vv. 1-2). An introduction in which the writer sets forth his concerns and intentions. The exordium introduced planned, recurring themes like Paul's phrase "in vain," repeated throughout the argument (vv. 10, 14, 17, 58) and thematically explored in verses 12-19 and 29-34.

Narratio (vv. 3-5). Background information is provided. A narratio included judgments such as common sayings, popular beliefs, or supporting historical narrative. Verses 3b-5 represented the creed or "popular belief" of the church: Christ died, was buried, and was resurrected.

Refutatio (vv. 12-19). The "proof" of the argument, typically begun with the claim of the opposition (here, that there is no resurrection [v. 12]). The refutatio then denied the asserted fact. Paul denied the "no resurrection" teaching by arguing that resurrection exemplified the Christian hope.

At this stage in the argument, Mormons encounter their first critical problem. If Paul had wanted to use baptism for the dead as an evidential proof for the resurrection, he would have mentioned it here, in the refutatio, where he offered other foundational proofs: If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen; if Christ is not risen, then our preaching and your faith is in vain, and we have lied to you; you are still in your sins, and those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished in their sin. With these proofs we would also have expected: "If Christ is not risen, our practice of baptizing is meaningless; baptism (for the living and the dead) is an empty gesture that symbolizes nothing." For Mormon apologists, the omission of baptism in the context of verses 12-19 is difficult to explain.

Probatio, or confirmatio (vv. 20-28). This section consisted of a propositio, a statement of the proposition to be proven (v. 20); a ratio, or reason establishing the truth of the proposition (vv. 21-2, the historical examples of Adam and Christ); a central confirmatio which further proved the ratio, expressing it in a different way (vv. 23-4), and an exornatio, which confirmed the arguments presented (vv. 25-8).

Peroratio (vv. 29-34). This section recapitulated the main points of the probatio and turned the case against the opposition by attacking their primary points. Paul used three strategies for composing a peroratio: interrogation (vv. 29-32a), irony (v. 32b), and proposal of policy (vv. 33-4). At this point, the rhetorical structure of the argument is once again difficult to reconcile with the LDS position [Wats.PRS, 242-3]:

The questions are meant to be answered negatively, pointing out that the behavior of both the audience and Paul is at variance with a denial of the resurrection. It is "vain" behavior (cf. vv. 2, 10, 14, 17). . .Paul demonstrates that the opponents' proposition is contradictory or foolish (Quintilian 5.13.16-17) and inconsistent (Quintilian 5.13.30), not in its logic, but in relation to their own and Paul's behavior. If there is no resurrection of the dead, there is no reason to be vicariously baptized for the dead (v. 29). . .A specific form of refutation in deliberative rhetoric is to show that the opponent's proposition is contrary to policy they advocate (Rhet. ad Alex. 34.1440a.5ff; cf. 5.1427b.12ff).

Thus, the Mormon claim that "Paul would never use a false practice as a proof for the resurrection" fails for lack of relevance. Even if vicarious baptism was an unauthorized (or even a pagan-inspired) practice, all that needed to be true was that Paul's opponents were performing it. The issue is consistency, not authenticity; within the context of a peroratio, Paul was indeed free to appeal to a false practice if it suited his purposes to do so.

3) The sentence structure of 1 Corinthians 15:29, compared to other verses with similar structures, suggests that baptism for the dead was an unauthorized practice. Paul's allusion to vicarious baptism is made in a distinct form that we find elsewhere in his letters: the combination of expressing a condition ("if") and then demanding response ("why" or sometimes "how"). The "if-why" combination is consistently used by Paul to defy his opponents to explain their actions:

For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? (Romans 3:7) Note that although this cite is placed in the mouth of a theoretical opponent of Paul, the principle of arrangement remains the same.

For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? (1 Corinthians 4:7)

Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? (1 Corinthians 10:29-30)

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? (1 Corinthians 15:12)

But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (Galatians 2:14)

And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased. (Galatians 5:11)

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? (Colossians 2:20-22)

The pattern of the question in 1 Corinthians 15:29 indicates that Paul expects those taking the "if" condition for granted, whether it is actually true or not (in this instance, "if the dead are not raised," an assertion that is false, but considered by Paul's opponents to be true), to answer the "why" inquiry, with the implication that they cannot answer because their behavior is inconsistent with their premise. The link that the popular "they" argument finds between baptism for the dead and false teaching is therefore established, even though the Greek makes no such distinction in pronouns, for Paul's question is to a party from whom he has already disassociated himself: the false "no resurrection" teachers. Note that this corresponds with our premise that if 1 Corinthians 15:29 were referring to a normal church practice, Paul's objection would be stated in terms of a continuation of the practice, along with baptism of the living. Otherwise the obvious answer to Paul's "why. . .", would be, "Because the church does so." (Indeed, if baptism was required for salvation as the LDS say, the answer would be, "Because we still want to be saved!") But if baptism for the dead was not an approved church practice, then Paul's "why" makes sense as a way of asking his opponents to defend their new, unusual, or unauthorized practice in light of their inconsistent position on resurrection.

Why Did They Do It?

It remains to discern exactly what "baptism for the dead" involved in practice. We here consider what we regard to be the three likeliest interpretations of 1 Corinthians 15:29, and in turn examine any relevant Mormon apologetic comments or objections.

The "vicarious baptism" explanation. This, the majority view, is that Paul describes a practice of baptism done by the living on behalf of the dead. This baptism was performed, commentators say, for people who had believed in Christ, but had not had a chance to be baptized. But we find it difficult to locate any logical anchor for the majority interpretation, for the following reasons:

First, with the exception of the thief on the cross, we do not have an example of a convert who died without being baptized. Where a time frame is indicated, the converts whose stories are told in Acts were baptized almost immediately. Where no time frame is indicated, the implication is that baptism took place within less than a day (Acts 2:41; 8:36-38; 10:47-8; 16:15; 16:33). The longest recorded period that a convert waited for baptism was three days (Acts 9:9). That was Paul's experience, and his conversion was attended by highly unusual circumstances. How likely is it that within the ten-year history of the Corinthian church, there was any person who became a Christian and desired baptism, and then was unable to have the rite performed because of an untimely death? (I made contact with a church with a membership of over ten thousand, which performs over 200 baptisms per year. The pastor responsible for baptisms noted that in eighteen years he had not had a single case of someone dying prior to being baptized. How likely is it that the church at Corinth--over the span of about a decade, with a membership of less than a hundred, and in a social environment in which baptisms were performed practically at conversion--needed to vicariously baptize enough times for the rite to become a regular practice?)

Second, the dualistic thinking of the day discouraged practices like vicarious baptism for the dead. As we will see in our forthcoming work, The Mormon Defenders, it is probable that Gentile converts became confused and supposed that baptism was necessary for salvation, and Paul's warnings elsewhere in the first Corinthian letter (1 Cor. 1:13-17, 10:1-5) speak against overconfidence in baptism. (If we suppose that the Corinthians believed that baptism was necessary for salvation, this compounds the problem of the rarity of someone dying without baptism. A convert who was elderly, sick, or otherwise in danger of dying would seek baptism as soon as possible.) But Hellenistic Christians would be unlikely to invent a rite of vicarious baptism. The dualistic Greeks believed that actions performed in the material world had no effect on the spirit world, so the most likely response of Hellenistic Christians to the problem of a deceased and unbaptized convert would be to despair, and then seek the counsel of an apostolic authority like Paul. Admittedly, the Corinthian Christians might have had enough cognitive dissonance to overcome this inconsistency. Or, one may argue that adopting a view of a loving God who listened to prayer might have led the Corinthians to conclude that an action on earth could affect the destiny of the deceased. But it is hard to maintain that enough Corinthians went through this reasoning process, on their own, to sanction a new and unauthorized rite of vicarious baptism. The only way this rite could have emerged, as this explanation understands it, is if it had been, as the Mormons claim, the result of a special revelation.

Finally, Paul's silence speaks against a rite of significance. The majority view requires the acceptance, and continued, unopposed practice of vicarious baptism, first by the Corinthian church, and later by Paul. The family of the first beneficiary of a vicarious baptism would have had to overcome the Hellenistic prejudices and Christian sensibilities of other church members, who thereafter performed vicarious baptisms for the sake of more unfortunate family members who suffered untimely deaths in that narrow window between conversion and baptism, so that Paul could properly speak of a sufficient number of "those being baptized for the dead" to make an example of them. Yet we must also believe that Paul made no effort to dissuade the Corinthians from this meaningless, misleading, yet growing, practice.

Therefore, we argue that the majority interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29 is off the mark. A more reasonable thesis is that the practice was devoid of theological meaning and thus not requiring Paul's explicit condemnation

. . .

Baptism for the Dead and the Apostasy Problem

A final difficulty facing the LDS apologist is the problem of how vicarious baptism was lost in the supposed apostasy of the church. Bickmore argues that vicarious baptism was a secret ritual that the church did not widely disseminate to its members. [Bick.RAC, 219] But his argument is problematic, for it disqualifies another argument that is used by LDS apologists. Christians often point out, as noted above, that the lack of detailed description of baptism for the dead in the Bible indicates that it was not a normal practice. LDS apologists respond that the lack of description indicates that Paul's readers knew about vicarious baptism and did not need a description. But if the Corinthian church knew what the rite was about, so that Paul could employ a casual reference without detailed explanation, then this practice was familiar to members from even the lowest levels of the church. In short, it was no secret at all, and Bickmore's argument collapses. (Indeed, to establish a case for vicarious baptism as an esoteric rite, Bickmore resorts to a fourth-century pseudonymous work, the Clementine Recognitions, citing a passage in which Peter refers to matters concerning salvation for the dead as "unspeakable." From this Bickmore deduces that "the entire subject of salvation for the dead was off limits in casual conversation." As we will show, the attempt to establish a dichotomy between what was casually approachable and what was off-limits in the same contexts is fraught with peril--especially based upon a single quote from a document written so far after New Testament times, that does not mention the practice in question. The Recognitions, moreover, is a source that causes Bickmore more problems than it solves. In a footnote Bickmore provides another passage in which Peter assures Clement's brother that if his father dies before receiving baptism, he will nevertheless be saved if his father is one of the elect. If vicarious baptism was a typical practice, would this not have been the place for Peter to say something about it?)

LDS apologists may argue that the apostles did not initiate people into the practice, and that knowledge of it was lost as the apostles died out. But to maintain this thesis, one must defend the idea that every person with knowledge of baptism for the dead neglected to pass on vital information before they died, even as those with knowledge of the rite were dying all around them. Did it never occur to anyone to pass on the information before dying? Did the apostles tell initiates enough to make Paul's passing reference familiar, and did these people express no anxiety to find out more, even as they saw knowledgeable people die off, one by one, without imparting their knowledge? Did they have no concern for dead relatives who needed proxy baptism and were presumably waiting (in torment?) for someone to get proxy baptism done for them? What motivation could there have been to drop, change, or restrict baptism for the dead, a ritual that was supposedly a an essential element in the salvation of the dead? Persecution could not have been the cause. Why would anyone persecute the church because of this rite? If it was a secret rite, how did the persecutors know that the church did it? Instead of bowing to persecution, could not the church have simply increased the level of secrecy by practicing the rite in more secure surroundings--just as they fled to the catacombs to conduct worship when persecution overtook them in Rome? Why would the church abandon this broad position for one more exclusivist when it would make Christianity harder to sell to unbelievers? As with other questions to which, for the Mormons, "apostasy" is the answer, Mormon apologists and scholars confidently affirm that they know how certain beliefs and practices were lost, but they have yet to explain, "How, exactly?". . .and more important, "Why, exactly?"

Finally, if we assume that the modern LDS practice is a restoration of the original, then the LDS apologist faces another quandary, for everyone in the Mormon church today knows about vicarious baptism for the dead, and it is referred to in texts available to the public, even if specifics of the rite are not given. Thus if the restored gospel is like the former gospel, everyone in the Corinthian church should have known about the rite, and this confounds the argument that vicarious baptism was distorted or lost in an apostasy.

[MHGinTN]

Meant to ping you for the previous post. ... Just information

[Zakeet]

A recent book was written by another Christian scholar on this subject titled “Rescue for the Dead” which is a fascinating read on this practice of vicarious baptisms for the dead practiced by early Christians. It is written by Jeffrey A. Trumbower at St. Michael's College in Colchester, Vermont.

St. Michael's College is a Catholic educational institution.

You should note the Catholic Church's position on Mormonism's Baptism for the Dead was published on Free Republic within the past three months HERE. They unequivocally condemn the practice. Or as they so succinctly state their position:

The Bible Doesn’t Teach It

Catholic scholars not only refute the Mormon Church's misinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29, they point out Baptism for the dead is contradicted by the Book of Mormon. Quoting again from the article:

The case against baptism for the dead is also made by the Mormon scriptures themselves. The current Mormon doctrine on baptism for the dead is quite unlike what Joseph Smith first taught. As in other cases, the Book of Mormon becomes an important tool for the Christian apologist. It contradicts much Mormon theology, and baptism for the dead is no exception.

In Alma 34:35-36 we read: "For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked."

In other words, those who die as non-Mormons go to hell, period. There’s no suggestion of a later, vicarious admission into the Mormon church.

We also see present-day Mormon doctrine contradicted in 2 Nephi 9:15: "And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgment and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. For the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy . . . shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end."

It is unforunate that Smith abandoned his own, earlier doctrine. It would not have made the Mormon scriptures any more authentic, but it would have prevented millions of futile Mormon proxy baptisms from being performed.

In light of the above, you would be better served by conducting a more thorough investigation of Catholic Theology before attempting to quote it as a basis of support for Mormon Doctrine.

[xzins]

The Apostle Paul used all types of devices in his writing to get across his points: simile, metaphor, hyperbole, sarcasm, understatement, cynicism, etc.

The best understanding of the “if there is no resurrection, then why baptize for the dead” is:

1. Remember the internal consistency of Paul, the NT, and the entire bible.

2. Recognize Paul’s use of a rhetorical device regarding “the dead” in this passage. He’s being a bit sarcastic. “if there’s no resurrection, they why baptize for the dead..” Allowing for sarcasm, what he’s really saying is supplied by the parentheses: “if there’s no resurrection, then why baptize for the (living, breathing, walking) dead?”

No resurrection means us baptized folks are just the walking dead....the same as everyone else.

Dead man walking.

[topcat54]

Let us now inquire as to the meaning. At one time I was of opinion, that Paul here pointed out the universal design of baptism, for the advantage of baptism is not confined to this life; but on considering the words afterwards with greater care, I perceived that Paul here points out something peculiar. For he does not speak of all when he says, What shall they do, who are baptized? etc. Besides, I am not fond of interpretations, that are more ingenious than solid. What then? I say, that those are baptized for dead, who are looked upon as already dead, and who have altogether despaired of life; and in this way the particle ὑπέρ will have the force of the Latin pro, as when we say, habere pro derelicto; — to reckon as abandoned This signification is not a forced one. Or if you would prefer another signification, to be baptized for the dead will mean — to be baptized so as to profit the dead — not the living, Now it is well known, that from the very commencement of the Church, those who had, while yet catechumens, fallen into disease, if their life was manifestly in danger, were accustomed to ask baptism, that they might not leave this world before they had made a profession of Christianity; and this, in order that they might carry with them the seal of their salvation.

It appears from the writings of the Fathers, that as to this matter, also, there crept in afterwards a superstition, for they inveigh against those who delayed baptism till the time of their death, that, being once for all purged from all their sins, they might in this state meet the judgment of God. A gross error truly, which proceeded partly from great ignorance, and partly from hypocrisy! Paul, however, here simply mentions a custom that was sacred, and in accordance with the Divine institution — that if a catechumen, who had already in his heart embraced the Christian faith, saw that death was impending over him, he asked baptism, partly for his own consolation, and partly with a view to the edification of his brethren. For it is no small consolation to carry the token of his salvation sealed in his body. There is also an edification, not to be lost sight of — that of making a confession of his faith. They were, then, baptized for the dead, inasmuch as it could not be of any service to them in this world, and the very occasion of their asking baptism was that they despaired of life. We now see that it is not without good reason that Paul asks, what they would do if there remained no hope after death? This passage shows us, too, that those impostors who had disturbed the faith of the Corinthians, had contrived a figurative resurrection, making the farthest goal of believers to be in this world, His repeating it a second time, Why are they also baptized for the dead? gives it greater emphasis: “Not only are those baptized who think that they are to live longer, but those too who have death before their eyes; and that, in order that they may in death reap the fruit of their baptism.”

John Calvin's Commentary on 1st Corinthians

[xzins]

As I just read Calvin, it seems that he, too, sees this as for the living who have over them some cloud of death.

He sees a serious death issue, and I see Paul being sarcastic about the entire group of us.

Thanks for your response, TC.

[MHGinTN]

Many different explanations can be found regarding the meaning of ICor 15:29, but since the passage is cited by the LDS to support and defend their ritual of baptism for the dead, it is well to look at what the Momrons claim is the efficacy of their ritual and by what authority they claim this power to baptize for the dead.

No small expense is put forth to search geneologies and maintain copiuous records, records generally open for consultation to even non-Mormons. (They have some of the best geneology charts in the world if not the best!) These geneology charts are used to seek baptism for people long since dead in most cases, under the belief that this baptism is 1) necessary for a dead soul to enter into the higher level of heaven some where/when, and 2) that this baptism by proxy is somehow extendable to those who may have died without MORMON baptism since Mormons claim only they have the authority to baptise for entry into the highest heaven.

In the context of that use Mormons put upon ICor15:29, the LDS/Fair/FARM interpretation of the passage is impossible to support because it has zero support int he rest of the New Testament and is only obliquely referenced in the Old Testament. The Jewish meaning of the Mikvah also rejects the LDS assumption of baptism authority for dead people.

[Zakeet]

Out of curiosity, does LDS proxy seal individuals in the afterlife?

Or in other words, does it link grandma and grandpa together for time and all eternity? Or does it perhaps enable someone to grab another sacred vessel, or become joined to a more worthy mate on a better planet?

In a similar vein, what happens to persons who receive numerous proxy baptisms? It is my understanding George Washington, for example, has the benefit of hundreds of vicarious baptisms. Is he hundreds of times more saved than a non-celebrity, or does he have a hundred times better planet, or what?

[greyfoxx39]

Ping to post #37 for your consideration.

[colorcountry]

Indeed the LDS Church does proxy seal married individuals in the afterlife. Generally speaking the couple were already married in this life, but it is not always the case.

My great-uncle was a batchelor. During his life, a young deceased teenager was sealed to him. I don’t think this would happen in today’s Mormonism. (or so I’ve been told)

Mormonism taught me that a worthy woman can and will be assigned to a worthy Melchezidek Priesthood holder in the next life.

[MHGinTN]

Curious silence placemarker ... the apologist baits, demands, then falls silent when lengthy response is given. Response must not have been aligned with what his feeders at FAIR anticipated for their canned drag and paste replies.

[greyfoxx39]

Curious silence placemarker

Also, curious coincidence when a CLOSED devotional thread is posted that defends the mormon practice of baptism for the dead just three days after this thread is posted.

Effective way to debate ond-sidedly without debating, I'd say.

Shows a lot of courage and confidence in the mormon stance on the subject.

[svcw]

Bravo!

[ejonesie22]

It prevents the “unprovoked attacks” dontcha know...

[Osage Orange]

In the end.....baptism of the dead...would make what my Lord did, a moot point.

And nothing the Son of God did was moot...........

Baptism of the dead is pure blasphemy.........

[colorcountry]

Effective way to debate ond-sidedly without debating, I'd say

I posted this on another thread, but it seems appropriate here too.

A man once said in his work “The Power of Truth”:

The man who has a certain religious belief and fears to discuss it, lest it may be proved wrong, is not loyal to his belief, he has but a coward’s faithfulness to his prejudices. If he were a lover of truth, he would be willing at any moment to surrender his belief for a higher, better, and truer faith.

~William George Jordan

(Note: The rights to “The Power of Truth” were purchased by Mormon prophet Heber J. Grant in the early 1930’s and he republished parts of the book as a Christmas present while serving as a Mormon mission president.)