|
Copyright © 1996 Institute for Religious Research |
|
The view that deceased human beings can hear and receive the gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit world, and through proxy baptism performed for them on earth, attain eternal life in the presence of God, is one of the distinctive doctrines of Mormonism that separates it from historic, Biblical Christianity. The question of whether or not this practice has a basis in the Bible and was practiced by the early church is the subject of this article.
An overview of the differences between Mormon and historic Christian teaching on the subject of salvation for the dead is presented in a companion article "Does the Bible Teach Salvation for the Dead?" (see below). It surveys the Biblical grounds offered by the LDS church for its teaching that the gospel of Jesus Christ is preached in the spirit world, especially 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 4:6. It concludes that the official LDS interpretation of this Bible passage, found in Doctrine and Covenants 138, is based on flawed exegesis, and further, that the doctrine of salvation for the dead is incompatible with the general Biblical teaching that our eternal destiny is fixed at death.
|
This article now focuses specifically on the related practice of baptism for the dead. The question we ask is, does it have a basis in the Bible? Was it taught and practiced by Jesus and his first century apostles? The premise of the article is that if baptism for the dead is truly a Christian rite, it must have an organic, historical connection to the earthly ministry of Jesus and his first century apostles. |
 |
|
This Baptismal Font used to be in the LDS Visitors Center at Temple Square, |
Although the Book of Mormon is described as containing “the fullness of the everlasting gospel” (Doctrine and Covenants 27:5), and although baptism for the dead is a central teaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, according to the LDS church, the Book of Mormon contains no reference whatever to the practice, either direct or indirect. This can easily be verified by checking under “Baptism for the Dead” in the LDS church’s Topical Guide to the Scriptures or the Index to the Triple Combination — the only references given there are from four sections of the Doctrine and Covenants (124,127,128,1382 ). This point can also be verified by looking in the Index provided at the back of the Book of Mormon; it has no entry for baptism for the dead.
Thus, there is no evidence that the people described in the Book of Mormon practiced, or knew of, baptism for the dead. In fact, Book of Mormon teaching seems to clearly preclude the practice on several counts; the evidence on this point is considered later in the article.
The silence of the Book of Mormon on baptism
for the dead is an important fact, for it means that a single verse in the Bible — 1
Corinthians 15:29 — constitutes its sole mention in ancient Christian
Scripture. This is acknowledged by the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (a 1992 work
published under the supervision of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS church3 ) — “He [Paul] refers to a practice of vicarious baptism,
a
practice for which we have no other evidence in the Pauline or other New Testament or
early Christian writings.”
1 Corinthians 15:29 reads: 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? (KJV used here and throughout).
The first thing to notice about this verse is that baptism for the dead is only mentioned, it is not actually taught. Given the scanty nature of the evidence, it is especially important to follow sound principles of Scriptural interpretation in seeking to understand this verse. Two basic principles relevant to this task are: (1) do not read a verse in isolation, but carefully consider it in its context, and (2) use clear, unambiguous Scriptural passages to interpret what is obscure or less clear, not the other way around.
A superficial reading of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in isolation from its context may suggest support for baptism for the dead. However, a careful study of the verse in its context and in the light of other relevant Biblical passages, shows that this support it is anything but obvious.
Following the principles described above, we should ask several diagnostic questions: (1) Is there anything earlier in 1 Corinthians (the broader context) that throws light on the mention of baptism for the dead in 15:29? (2) What is the theme and line of argument in the verses leading up to mention of the rite (the immediate context)? (3) How does its mention verse 29 fit into this line of argument? (4) What about the teaching on baptism in other epistles of Paul and elsewhere in the New Testament (Biblical theology) — is the view that the apostle is here giving approval to baptism for the dead consistent with that teaching, and with that of Jesus and the other New Testament writers?
Questions such as these will help us arrive at an accurate interpretation of verse 29, and avoid the pitfall of reading into it our own preconceived ideas.
The broader context. There are three other references to baptism in 1 Corinthians — 1:14-17, 10:2, and 12:13. In 1:14-17 Paul raises the subject of baptism in the context of expressing his concern about contention and party factions among the Christians at Corinth:
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I baptized in my own name. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
By his words, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel,” Paul is reminding the Corinthians that it is the message of Christ’s death for our sins (received in heartfelt faith) that can regenerate and transform the inner person, not the external rite of baptism, important though it is as an outward sign of faith and obedience. The fact that the Corinthians Christians needed this reminder indicates that they over-rated the importance of baptism, and that the apostle felt the need to steer them back to a correct, balanced understanding of its significance.
Then in 10:1 the apostle uses the word “baptized” in describing the Israelites’ crossing of the Red Sea: “all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Though this is a figurative use of the term, Paul uses it to build on his earlier reminder of the priority of faith and inner regeneration over baptism (1:14-17). To the Corinthians with their inflated view of baptism, he makes the point that though all the Israelites who came out of Egypt were figuratively “baptized,” they were not thereby insured of God’s favor: “But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness” (10:5).
Finally, in 12:13 Paul mentions baptism as an argument for Christian unity: “For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.” Here again, it is not the rite of baptism itself that is critical, but the reality of union with Christ which baptism pictures (Romans 6:3-4), wrought not by water but by the Spirit.
The Corinthians’ inflated view of baptism holds an important clue to the meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29. For as we shall see, baptism for the dead is linked by the apostle to an errant group within the Corinthian church, whose false teaching the entire fifteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians — including verse 29 aims to correct.
The immediate context. The best way to understand any single verse in Scripture is to examine the verses surrounding it. And when we read 1 Corinthians 15:29 in its context, it is clear that resurrection, not baptism, is the single, dominating theme throughout chapter 15.
In verses 1-11, Paul declares that Christ, after he died for our sins, was raised from the dead, a fact amply attested by “above 500” witnesses, most of whom he says are still alive as he writes.
Then in verses 12-49 the apostle marshals a series of arguments for the importance and reasonableness of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. Here, the modern reader needs to keep in mind that the Hebrew-Christian doctrine of the resurrection, which we take for granted, was considered foolishness in ancient Greek culture (and of course Corinth was a Greek city).5 What is important to see is that Paul’s mention of baptism for the dead in verse 29 is one of this series of arguments introduced to serve his purpose of defending the reasonableness of resurrection.
The real question to ask then is, who is it at Corinth that is practicing baptism for the dead, and do they and the practice have the apostle’s approval?
“Some Among You”
Paul’s blunt rhetorical question in verse 12 expresses the burden of the chapter: “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?” An important thing to notice is that the entire series of arguments in verses 13-49 is specifically aimed at refuting these false teachers within the Corinthian congregation (“some among you”) who are openly denying the resurrection. The following outline gives an overview of the passage:
1. If there is no resurrection, Christ is not risen (vv. 13,16)
2. Our preaching is vain, we are yet in our sins (vv. 14,17)
3. We are false witnesses (v. 15)
4. The dead in Christ are perished (v. 18)
5. Christians are of all people most miserable (v. 19)
6. As death came by one man (Adam) upon all who descended from him, so resurrection to life is brought by one man (Christ) to all who belong to Him (vv. 20-22)
7. The order of resurrection: Christ first, then those who are Christ’s at His return (vv. 23-28)
8. The false teachers who deny the resurrection are inconsistent when they baptize for the dead, for the practice is based on the hope of resurrection (v. 29)
9. Why suffer abuse for the gospel if there is no resurrection? (vv. 30-34)
10. Resurrection analogous to a seed, which through death brings forth more abundant life (vv. 35-38)
11. The nature of the resurrection body is different from the mortal body, as the flesh of humans, mammals, and fish are different from each other (v. 39)
12. The resurrection body is of greater glory than the mortal body, as the sun is of greater glory than moon (vv. 40-41)
13. Various contrasts between the resurrection body and our mortal bodies (vv. 42-49)
Verse 29 takes the form of another rhetorical question: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?” Here the Paul points up the fact that since it is the human body that is baptized, those who perform such a rite in proxy for a deceased person must do so because they have the hope of future resurrection for that person. Thus, the primary function of the verse is as yet another argument in support of resurrection.
Did Paul Endorse The Practice?
It is clear from Romans 9:1-3 and 10:1-4 that Paul was acutely conscious that many among his own Jewish kinsmen were outside the gospel fold. He speaks of having “great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart” for his Hebrew brethren (9:2), and declares that “my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved” (10:1). Certainly there would have been some from the apostle’s own extended family who had gone to their graves unbaptized. If Paul taught baptism for the dead, it is inexplicable that he would exclude himself from those who practiced the rite, as he surely does when he writes, “what shall they do which are baptized for the dead . . .”
Notice too that in verses 30-32 the apostle immediately contrasts the fringe group practicing baptism for the dead with himself and the broader Christian community: “And why stand we in jeopardy every hour . . . what advantageth it me if the dead rise not.” Indeed, the impersonal “they” contrasts markedly with Paul’s practice throughout 1 Corinthians 15, where he consistently addresses his readers as “you” (vv. 1,2,3,11,12,14,17,31,34,36,51,58), or, (including himself) “we” or “us” (vv. 3,15,19,30,32,49,51,52).
Who Are “They”?
If we ask who the “they” in verse 29 refers to, the context clearly points us back to verse 12. It is those within the Corinthian congregation who are denying the resurrection, and whom the entire passage is written to refute. Then the biting aspect of Paul’s argument becomes clear. These false teachers are inconsistent: they deny the resurrection, yet engage in a practice — baptism for the dead — which is based on the hope of resurrection.
This is exactly the understanding of the text held by the early Christian writer Tertullian. Writing about A.D. 180, he makes this comment on 1 Corinthians 15:29 — “His [Paul’s] only aim in alluding to it was that he might all the more firmly insist upon the resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection.”
Ironically, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism espouses this same interpretation of the verse: “. . . Paul clearly refers to a distinct group within the Church, a group that he accuses of inconsistency between ritual and doctrine.”
Thus, far from endorsing the baptism for the dead, Paul associates it with a group whom he has already identified as being in deep spiritual error.
Why Didn’t Paul Refute The Practice?
But would the apostle Paul use a practice of which he disapproved (baptism for the dead) to support something he wanted to affirm (resurrection)? On thoughtful study, this objection proves to have much less basis than first meets the eye. There are at least four grounds for answering “yes” to this question, and for explaining why the apostle does not stop to refute the practice of baptism for the dead.
Second, history has amply vindicated the apostle Paul’s inspired judgment. The practice of baptism for the dead in fact never became widespread, which even the Encyclopedia of Mormonism acknowledges, as noted earlier. Only a few isolated sects have practiced it, including the heretical Marcionite sect in the second century, and the Ephrata Society, a Christian occult group in Pennsylvania in the 1700s. These two groups have little in common with each other, and even less with Mormon teaching, so the claim that baptism for the dead was part of original Christianity that was lost, lacks any historical or logical basis.Third, Paul’s statement at the beginning of 1 Corinthians, noted earlier — “Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel” (1:16) — is a reminder that baptism does not have the same indispensable importance that faith in Christ has. This is an indirect slap at the logic of baptism for the dead, which implies that baptism is indispensable for resurrection to eternal life.
Fourth, Paul does elsewhere use something with which he disagrees to make a theological point. In 1 Corinthians 8:10 the apostle refers to eating meat in an idol’s temple without showing it to be wrong in itself; however, that he believed it is wrong is clear from what he says later in 1 Corinthians 10:21ff.
Is Baptism Necessary For Salvation?
The premise of baptism for the dead is the absolute necessity of water baptism for forgiveness of sins and eternal life. However, recall the words of the apostle Paul cited earlier — “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Corinthians 1:16). This statement surely implies that baptism does not have equal importance with faith in Christ.
The New Testament certainly teaches that baptism is an important step of obedience for Christians, but it does not teach its absolute necessity for forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
John 3:5. This is one of the passages which the LDS church points to as teaching the absolute necessity of water baptism. There Jesus says to the Jewish religious leader Nicodemas, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
We would agree that the words “born of water” probably refer to baptism. The context of the Gospels point us to the ministry of John the Baptist, who called people to prepare for the coming of Jesus the Messiah by the outward, public act of water baptism signifying an inner, heartfelt attitude of repentance. Thus we read in Matthew 3:5-6, “Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and the region around about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.”
It is notable that according to Luke 7:29-30, the Pharisees (the strict religious party of which Nicodemas was a member), refused John’s baptism. Thus, to the Pharisee Nicodemas, Jesus’ words “except a man be born of water and the Spirit,” emphasize that repentance and new birth go hand in hand, as the only way of gaining eternal life.
Yet notice that when Jesus restates his message in the next verse, he says, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). Notably he does not say, “That which is born of water and the Spirit.” Repentance — a true acknowledgment of one’s deep spiritual need before a holy God — will normally be followed by the outward sign of water baptism (though we can think of some extreme cases where it is not, such as that of the thief on the cross — Luke 23:42-43). But it is the inner attitude of repentance, not the outward rite of baptism, that is essential.
Acts 2:38. This is another verse which the LDS church points to as teaching the absolute requirement of water baptism. It reads, “Repent, and be baptized for the remission of your sins.” Several things should be noted here. First, as we saw in considering John 3:5, baptism is an outward, public testimony to the inner decision of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, it is the inner reality that is strictly essential. In this regard, notice that in Acts 3:19 Peter says, “Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” — baptism is not mentioned. As one commentator has noted of Acts 2:38, “it would be a mistake to link the words ‘unto the remission of your sins’ with the command to be baptized to the exclusion of the prior command ‘Repent ye.’”
Second, in Acts 10:43 Peter says to the non-Christian Cornelius and his household, “whoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” While Peter is still preaching, the Holy Spirit is poured out on this group. That this must mean they were born of the Spirit as they responded in simple faith to the preaching of the gospel is confirmed by Peter words in Acts 11:16-18. Only afterward, when the reality of God’s work of salvation in their hearts has already been confirmed, are they baptized. (Compare the sequence in Ephesians 1:13 of hearing the gospel, responding in faith, and receiving the Holy Spirit.)
Third, the New Testament presents baptism as the virtual equivalent of the Old Testament rite of circumcision (Colossians 2:12-13), and it states explicitly that circumcision did not have saving value. If we follow the logic of this biblical parallel, it sheds a great deal of light on the question of the absolute necessity of the external rite of water baptism. For example, in Romans 2:28-29, the apostle Paul declares:
For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
Then in Romans 4:10-11 the he makes the point that Abraham was declared righteous through faith before he was circumcised, so that circumcision was not strictly necessary for his salvation: “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had being yet uncircumcised.” And finally, in Galatians 6:15 the apostle says that it is a changed heart (the new birth), not an outward rite that saves: “Neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.”
Since baptism and circumcision are near equivalents, as signs of the Old and New Covenants, respectively, it follows that one could say in the same sense, “baptism counts for nothing,” except as an outward sign of the inward reality of repentance and faith in Jesus Christ alone.
It goes beyond Biblical teaching to say that baptism is an absolute necessity, in the sense of having saving value. To teach this is to wrongly place a religious institution and its rituals between God and the believer, and to attribute saving value to the outward ritual of baptism, rather than to the inward reality of repentance and faith, which it pictures.
Having now surveyed the Biblical evidence put forth in support of baptism for the dead, we believe it is clear that there is no organic, historical connection between this practice the early church. This being the case, baptism for the dead can not accurately be called a Christian practice.
However, there is one additional bit of evidence against baptism for the dead: it is unsupported even by the Book of Mormon.
Conflicts With Book Mormon Teaching
It was noted at the beginning of the article that the Book of Mormon is completely silent about baptism for the dead. However, there is also positive evidence from the Book of Mormon against the practice on at least two counts: (1) it teaches that those who die without hearing the gospel (the primary candidates for baptism for the dead) are alive in Christ, and therefore do not need baptism, and (2) it teaches that baptism is specifically a covenant for this mortal life, so that it would be completely meaningless to baptize for the dead.
For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also they that are without the law. For the power of the redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing.
Therefore, on the same grounds by which the Book of Mormon rejects infant baptism, baptism for the those who die in ignorance of the gospel would have to be rejected.
The next verse goes even further, specifically condemning baptism for these two classes of individuals as vain and a mockery: “But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works” (Moroni 8:23).
Baptism for the dead also conflicts with the Book of Mormon teaching that baptism is a covenant for mortal life. Mosiah 18:13 states, “And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said, Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead, as to the mortal body.”
According to these Book of Mormon passages, those who die in ignorance of gospel do not need baptism, and further, since it is a covenant for mortality, it could have no relevance to those in the spirit world.
Taken together with the silence of the Book of Mormon on baptism for the dead, these positive objections from its teaching on baptism constitute a serious contradiction between Latter-day scripture and practice.
“Some Things Hard To Be Understood”
We do not claim that Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15:29 is easy to understand. Already in his own day, his contemporary Peter acknowledged that in the epistles of “our beloved brother Paul” there are “some things hard to be understood” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Nevertheless, we do believe that the careful and prayerful student of Scripture will be led by the clear preponderance of evidence to conclude that the apostle Paul does not in this verse give or imply his approval for baptism for the dead.
What is abundantly clear in Paul’s epistles and throughout the Bible is the fact that we cannot save ourselves. Nor does any religious institution or ritual have the power to save us. Like an insurance policy from a bogus company, these institutions and rituals may give some assurance in life, but those who trust in them are bound to be bitterly disappointed when the day of reckoning comes. It is in the power of God alone, and in His rich mercy and grace in Christ, that we can have hope that will not disappoint.
—
NOTES
1 According to Robert J. Matthews, professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University, writing in the LDS church’s publication the Ensign (“I Have a Question,” September 1981, p. 16), Joseph Smith “obtained the doctrine of salvation from the dead by revelation and not from the printed pages of the Bible.” Matthews explains that this is true of Mormon doctrine in general: “the Bible was not the source of the doctrines the Prophet Joseph Smith taught. Rather, the Bible, so far as it is translated correctly, is tangible evidence that the doctrines he received by revelation were the same as those the ancient prophets obtained by revelation.”
Consider the implications of this statement: the Bible can be used to support Latter-day revelation, but not to critique it. But this then means that the distinctive doctrines of Mormonism have no organic, historical connection to the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ and his apostles. It is this disturbing fact which undermines the LDS church’s claim to preach the “restored” gospel.
2 The 1977 edition of the Topical Guide to the Scriptures does not list Doctrine and Covenants 138:33 under its entry for “baptism for the dead,” though the practice is explicitly mentioned there: “These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, and vicarious baptism for the remission of sins . . .”
3 Elders Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve “worked closely with” the committee that prepared it, according to an article in the Ensign (March 1992, p. 79), a monthly magazine published by the LDS church. The article heralded the Encyclopedia of Mormonism as a “landmark reference work.”
4 “Baptism for the Dead - Ancient Sources,” in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1992), 1:97.
5 This is illustrated by the story in Acts 17:18-34, where Paul is preaching to the philosophers in the Greek city of Athens. His audience listens attentively until he mentions the resurrection of Christ: “And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked . . .” (Acts 17:32). It was a common view of many Greek philosophers that the body was the prison-house of the soul. It was thought that death would bring the soul’s release from the enslaving passions and evil impulses of the body. In this view resurrection was unthinkable, and in any case quite undesirable. In the words of a prominent contemporary New Testament scholar, “Whether they were sophisticated intellectuals or simple artisans, Greeks had one feature in common: resurrection was totally foreign to their worldview.” — Murray J. Harris, From Grave to Glory: Resurrection in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Academie Books/Zondervan, 1990), 41.
6 This is precisely how Ambrose (A.D. 339-397), the bishop of Milan, understood 1 Corinthians 15:29. He wrote, “[Paul] wishes to show how fixed and firm is the resurrection of the dead, by giving the example of those who were so sure of the future resurrection that they would even baptize for the dead who died before they could be baptized . . . . This example is not an approbation of what they did but merely shows their firm faith in the resurrection . . . By saying ‘why do we stand in jeopardy?’ he is making a distinction of persons which shows that those who were baptized for the dead were not catholics.” Note that the Roman Catholic church did not exist at this time. By “catholic,” Ambrose simply means the orthodox or universal church. Ambrose, Commentary on 1 Corinthians, as cited by Bernard M. Foschini, Those Who Are Baptized for the Dead - 1 Cor. 15:29 (Wecester, Mass., Heffernan Press, 1951), p. 32. By "catholic," Ambrose means simply the orthodox or universal church. The Roman Catholic church did not exist until centuries later.
7 In an Ensign article on baptism for the dead (“I Have a Question,” August 1987, p. 19), it appears that Robert L. Millet tried to shade this point by restating 1 Corinthians 15:29 and changing the pronoun “they” to “we.”
8 Tertullian, The Five Books Against Marcion, V,10 in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, no date), 3:449.
9 Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1:97. This is also the view of many other New Testament scholars, including G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), p. 190-91, Leon Morris, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (London: Tyndale Press, 1958), p. 219, and James A. Walther, 1 Corinthians - Anchor Bible, vol. 32 (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., 1976), p. 337.
10 Regarding the 18th century Pennsylvania group, see Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn, Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987), p. 181.
11 Marcion, believed the body and material world are evil, and were created by the god of the Old Testament, who is an inferior being. He was excommunicated in A.D. 144 for these heresies. The Ephrata community practiced celibacy and Sabbath worship. See The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, revised ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974,1978), pp. 345,629-30.
13 Beasley-Murray, p. 303.
14 F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1954), p. 77.
15Mormon writer Gregory A. Prince wonders at the coincidence that the book of Moroni which contains this sole Book of Mormon reference to infant baptism was produced in 1829, one year after the death at birth of Joseph and Emma’s firstborn child in 1828. Power From on High (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1995), p. 85.
~~Does the Bible Teach Salvation for the Dead?~~
Copyright © 1995 Institute for Religious Research
Salvation for the dead is one of the distinctive doctrines of Mormonism that separates it from historic Christianity. Yet, interestingly, the Book of Mormon is silent about salvation for the dead and baptism for the dead, and the Latter-day scriptures that explicitly mention these subjects are largely interpretations of a handful of Bible passages (two in particular — 1 Peter 3:19ff and 1 Corinthians 15:29). Thus, the real foundation for the LDS Church's doctrine of salvation for the dead, is its own unique interpretation of these passages.
This article begins with an introduction to the basic biblical teaching regarding humanity's eternal destiny, and then examines in some detail the interpretation of Christ's preaching to the spirits in prison as described in 1Peter 3:19ff.
* * * * * *
What happens to those who die without a knowledge of Jesus Christ and the Bible? Will they have an opportunity to hear the gospel and repent after death? Would it be unfair of God to deny them such an opportunity? Because the Bible declares that people must hear and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ in order to receive forgiveness of sins and escape the judgment of God (John 3:36; Romans 10:13-17), it is sometimes assumed that those who die without hearing the gospel are thereby blameless. How can they be held accountable, it is argued, when they died in ignorance of Christ? Isn't God obligated in fairness to give them an opportunity to hear the gospel and repent in the spirit world?
Are Some Blameless Before God?
These questions seem compelling, at least in part. Certainly we intuitively feel that God must do what is right and fair. However, the view that those who die without a knowledge of the gospel are thereby blameless, rests on several questionable assumptions.
For instance, it assumes that Scripture is the only source of knowledge about God; that God cannot judge fairly unless all have the same opportunity; and, that those without the gospel desire to worship and obey God, but are prevented from doing so by a lack of knowledge. However, these assumptions conflict with biblical teaching. In the first two chapters of his Epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul shows that humankind's deepest spiritual problem is not a lack of knowledge about God, but a rebellious heart attitude. Those who do not have the written Word of God (special revelation) are nevertheless without excuse, according to Paul, because they have rejected God's revelation of Himself through creation and the human conscience (general revelation):
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [suppress] the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead: so that they are without excuse (Rom. 1:19-20; see also Psalm 19:1-3).
In addition to the revelation of God's existence and power in creation, the pagan world also has the voice of conscience. Paul describes conscience as "the work of the law written in their hearts" (Rom. 2:15). Those with only the light of creation and conscience will be judged by this lesser standard, though they will still be without excuse:
For as many as have sinned without law [biblical revelation] shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in [under] the law shall be judged by the law . . . . For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another (Rom. 2:12,14-15).
Those who die in ignorance of the gospel will have to give an account for their failure to respond to the light they did have. However, the Bible assures us that where there are truly searching hearts, God providentially provides the light necessary for salvation (for example, the Ethiopian official, Acts 8:26-40, and the centurion, Cornelius, Acts 10:1-48). (Those who die in infancy present a special case, since they are not capable of understanding their need before God. A helpful article that provides biblical answers on this subject is available on request from the Institute for Religious Research.)
Our Eternal Destiny Is Fixed At Death
A major obstacle to accepting the doctrine of salvation for the dead is the biblical teaching that our eternal destiny is fixed at death. The New Testament book of Hebrews declares that "it is appointed unto man once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). Likewise, Jesus' story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31, makes it clear that there is no opportunity to repent after death. In this parable, the unbelieving rich man dies and goes to "hell" (Greek: hades) — described as a place of conscious torment. By contrast, the godly Lazarus goes to a place of blessedness, called "Abraham's bosom." These two places are described as separated by an impassable gulf:
And in hell he [the unbelieving rich man] lift[ed] up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment (Luke 16:23-28).
Everything here points to the fact that our eternal destiny is fixed at death, which excludes the possibility of repentance in the spirit world.
Christ's Proclamation To The Spirits
The general teaching of the Bible clearly excludes the possibility of repentance after death (as does the Book of Mormon — Alma 34:31-35; 42:4,13,28; Helaman 13:38). Yet, some point to 1 Peter 3:19ff which speaks of Christ "preaching to spirits in prison." Does this passage offer biblical support for salvation for the dead? Certainly it deserves careful study. As with all biblical interpretation, it is important that we examine these verses in their context, so that our interpretation truly comes out of the sacred text (exegesis), in contrast to reading preconceived ideas into it (eisegesis). 1 Peter 3:19 is sometimes understood to teach that Jesus' spirit descended to Hades, the place where deceased human beings await final judgment. Christ's journey to the spirit world is supposed to have taken place during the time between his death on Good Friday and his resurrection on Easter Sunday morning. The purpose of the journey, according to Mormon scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 138), was to offer the gospel both to those who died in ignorance of it, as well as to those who heard but rejected it in mortality. 1 Peter 3:18-20 speaks of Christ being,
. . . put to death in the flesh but quickened [raised] by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah . . .
Three key questions arise from this text:
(1) When and where did Christ make this proclamation?
(2) To whom did he make it?
(3) What was the purpose of his proclamation?
When And Where Did The "Preaching" Take Place?
In considering the first question, When and where did Christ make this proclamation? — notice the sequence of events in verses 18-19: (1) Christ was put to death, (2) He was made alive (resurrected), and (3) He went and preached to the spirits in prison. Christ's "preaching" to the spirits did not take place between His death and resurrection, but after His resurrection, evidently as a part of his ascension. This rules out the view that it is a reference to Jesus descending to the abode of deceased human beings during the time His body lay in the tomb.
Notice also that the text actually says nothing about a descent. It says simply that Christ "went" and preached to the spirits. This same word translated here as "went" (Greek: poreutheis) appears again in verse 22, where, speaking of Christ's ascension, it says — Who is gone into heaven . . ." Verses 19-22 evidently describe the journey of Christ's spirit back to heaven (his ascension) after his resurrection, and his proclamation to the spirits took place as part of this journey.
Who Were The Spirits?
This brings us to the second question, Who were the spirits to whom Christ made proclamation?" They are described in verse 20 as "sometime disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah." From this description, some conclude that the reference is to human beings of Noah's day who refused his preaching and were subsequently destroyed in the flood. However, even if one accepts this interpretation, it is not very useful as support for salvation for the dead. The text speaks only of a specific group — Noah's generation — not all the dead, or even all who died in ignorance of the gospel. Furthermore, if Christ's proclamation here was an offer of the gospel, a natural question is: Why would Noah's contemporaries be singled out for an opportunity to repent in the spirit world? Arguably, they were less deserving of a second chance than others, since they had the godly example and preaching of Noah, which they ignored or rejected.1 Indeed, since on LDS terms they did not die in ignorance of the gospel (see Pearl of Great Price/book of Moses 8:19-24, which explicitly describes how the people of Noah's day rejected his preaching of the gospel), why would they even be eligible for a second chance in the spirit world?
Furthermore, in his Second Epistle, Peter uses the people destroyed in the flood as an example of those being reserved for eternal punishment:
For if God spared not the angels that sinned . . . . And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly . . . . The Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished (2 Peter 2:4,5,9).
The fact that 2 Peter 2:4ff uses Noah's contemporaries as an example of those who are being reserved for eternal punishment, poses a major obstacle to interpreting 1 Peter 3:19ff as an offer of the gospel to those in spirit world. Why? Because it would mean there is an outright contradiction between 1 Peter and 2 Peter.
2
If Peter had wanted to say that Christ preached to deceased humans, we would expect him to
have written something like "the spirits of those which sometime were disobedient . .
." (as, for example, in Hebrews 12:23).
The fact that the Mormon interpretation results in such a disjunction counts heavily against its validity.
The Powers Of Darkness Defeated
If Christ's proclamation was not made to deceased humans, then to whom was it directed? The evidence indicates that it was actually made to fallen angels. This would not have seemed unusual to Peter's original readers, for Jews and early Christians commonly associated fallen angels with the intense wickedness of Noah's day for which God brought the flood. This association was based in part on the description in Genesis 6:1-4 of "sons of God marrying daughters of men" in the period leading up to the flood. Many understood this to mean that fallen angels "left their first estate" and took human wives with whom they procreated rebellious offspring.
4 While Peter does not endorse the details of this interpretation, in his Second Epistle he does describe fallen angels imprisoned by God because of their disobedience (2 Peter 2:4). These may be the same "spirits in prison" to whom he makes reference in 1 Peter 3:19.4 While Peter does not endorse the details of this interpretation, in his Second Epistle he does describe fallen angels imprisoned by God because of their disobedience (2 Peter 2:4). These may be the same "spirits in prison" to whom he makes reference in 1 Peter 3:19.As noted, 1 Peter 3:22 concludes the section (3:17-22) by declaring that the realm of fallen angelic powers has been made subject to Christ. It makes sense that these are the same spirit beings referred to in verse 19 in light of Peter's motive in this passage. He is encouraging suffering Christians with the message that they will share in Christ's victory. The terms used for these beings in verse 22 — angels [angelon] and authorities [exusion] and powers [dunameon] — are used elsewhere in the New Testament of the fallen angelic beings who are the enemies of God's people. For instance, in Romans 8:38 the apostle Paul assures Christians that "I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels [angeloi], or principalities, nor powers [dunameis] . . . shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (see also Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 2:15). How encouraging for Peter's persecuted readers (as for Christians of all ages) to know that Christ has defeated these powers of darkness. An alternate interpretation is that the pre-incarnate Christ preached in the Spirit through Noah to his contemporaries.5 In any case, according to this interpretation, the gospel was preached to people while they were alive, not in the spirit world.
What Was The Purpose Of Christ's Proclamation?
According to Hebrews 2:14-17, Jesus came to redeem human beings, not angels. Therefore, if Christ's "preaching" in 1 Peter 3:19 was to fallen angelic spirits, as the evidence suggests, it would not have been an offer of the Gospel, but a declaration of His victory and their sure defeat. This interpretation is supported by the word Peter uses for "preaching" here — it is a different word (kerusso) than in the three other places where "preaching" is mentioned in this epistle (euangelizomai is used in 1:12, 25; 4:6). The word kerusso means literally "announce, make known, proclaim." Although it is often used with reference to the preaching of the gospel, it is sometimes also used of proclamation in a general sense (Luke 12:3; Romans 2:21; Revelation 5:2). On the other hand, euangelizomai which means literally "bring, announce good news," is always used in the New Testament in connection with God's plan of redemption. Thus, Peter's use of the more general term (kerusso) in 3:19 is consistent with the evidence that Christ's message there was not an offer of salvation, but a proclamation of victory over demonic spirits.
What About 1 Peter 4:6?
Doctrine and Covenants 138 is the most detailed explanation of salvation for the dead in Latter-day scripture. It is supposed to be an inspired commentary on 1 Peter 3:19-20 and 4:6, given to LDS President Joseph F. Smith in 1918 (though not added to the D&C until 20 years ago). It assumes there is a direct link between Christ's proclamation to the spirits in 3:19 and the mention of preaching in 4:6: "For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are [now] dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit."
However, there are major differences between the "preaching" in 4:6 and Christ's proclamation to the spirits in 3:19. For instance, in 4:6 there is no mention of "spirits" — it simply describes those who receive the preaching as "them that are dead" (Greek: nekrois, literally, "dead ones"). Furthermore, it does not say that Christ preached the gospel, only that "the gospel was preached." In fact, verse 6 can only be understood as a reference to Christ preaching in the spirit world if we already know about such a mission from 3:19. But as we have seen, 3:19 in fact says nothing about a descent of Christ to the abode of disembodied human spirits.
Then what does 1 Peter 4:6 mean? Read in context, it is in essence a footnote to 4:5. The whole argument from 4:1-5 is that God will vindicate believers who suffer for Christ, and will hold their persecutors accountable on the day of judgment. Verse 5 declares that the wicked will have to "give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead." The phrase "the quick [alive] and the dead" is a way of saying the whole human race throughout history. By the statement that follows in verse 6 — "for this cause was the gospel also preached to them that are dead" — Peter evidently means Christians who are now deceased, but who were alive when they heard and believed the gospel.
This interpretation fits the passage's theme of comforting Christians who are suffering for Christ. We know from 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 that the early Christians lived in expectancy of Christ's imminent return, and needed assurance that their loved ones who had died in the faith would not — by virtue of not being alive when Christ returns — miss out on the promise of resurrection and eternal life with Christ. On the other hand, the view of D&C 138 that 1 Peter 4:6 is teaching salvation for the dead, including those who rejected the gospel in mortality (D&C 138:21, 32), does not fit Peter's motive. How would persecuted Christians be encouraged to suffer in the flesh by the knowledge that unbelievers (including their persecutors) who have heard but rejected the gospel will be given an opportunity to repent in the spirit world? In that case, why endure abuse for Christ in this life?
Even if it is granted for the sake of argument that 1 Peter 4:6 is an allusion to 3:19, the text still does not support a general doctrine of salvation for the dead. Note that it does not say "for this cause is the gospel preached," but "for this cause was the gospel preached (past tense, completed action) to them that are [now] dead." There is no basis here for the idea of on-going preaching of the gospel in the spirit world.6
A Faulty Interpretation
Doctrine and Covenants 138 (the most detailed explanation of salvation for the dead in Latter-day scripture) attempts to supply a basis for the on-going preaching of the gospel in the spirit world. It teaches that, "the Lord went not among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth" (D&C 138:29), but rather, that he appointed messengers from among the righteous spirits who carry the gospel to the disobedient spirits on an on-going basis (138:57). In other words, Christ himself only preached to the righteous dead in the spirit world, but he set in motion the ongoing preaching among the disobedient dead.
However, notice that here D&C 138 directly contradicts 1 Peter. For, laying aside the question of whether the spirits to whom Christ "preached" were human or angelic, Peter clearly describes them as disobedient (1 Pet. 3:20).7 Latter-day scripture, in order to establish a basis for the on-going preaching of the gospel in the spirit world, is forced to contradict this basic fact. By so doing, it completely alters the meaning of 1 Peter 3:19ff.
There are also two additional reasons for concluding that D&C 138 is a faulty interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19ff:
For behold, this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God; yea, behold the day of this life is the day for men to perform their labors . . . I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance . . . if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed. Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent . . . for that same spirit which doeth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world. 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 doth seal you his . . . the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. (Alma 34:31-35; see also 2 Ne. 9:24-25,27; Mos. 2:36,39)
Is D&C 138 compatible with the Bible? The preceding survey of general biblical teaching and of 1 Peter 3:19ff has raised fundamental reasons for answering "No" to this question. The evidence indicates that it was not to human spirits but to fallen angels that Christ "preached," and his message was not an offer of salvation but a declaration of victory over these wicked spirits. It is clear that 1 Peter 3:19ff — without the unwarranted additions and erroneous interpretation of D&C 138 — does not support the doctrine of salvation for the dead.
— Luke P. Wilson
Notes
1 2 Peter 2:5
describes Noah as a "preacher of righteousness." [Return
to text]
2 Peter speaks of those in the ark as "eight
souls" (psuchai). However, while the word "soul(s)" is often used in the
sense of embodied "person(s)," the word "spirit(s)" is never used this
way. [Return to text]
3 Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3
vols. (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1973), 3:307. [Return
to text]
4 1 Enoch, a late, non-biblical Jewish work popular in
the early Christian period, is an example of this interpretation of Gen. 6:1-4. [Return to text]
5 Though it may seem unusual for the proclamation of a
human preacher to be attributed to Christ, it is not unprecedented. For example, 1 Peter
1:11 describes the "Spirit of Christ" speaking through the Old Testament
prophets. Likewise, Ephesians 2:17 speaks of Christ, "preach[ing] peace to you
[Gentiles] which were afar off, and to them that were nigh [Jews]." This cannot mean
that Jesus himself literally preached to the Gentiles, for his ministry was limited to the
Jewish people in Israel (Matt. 15:24; Rom. 15:8). Rather, his apostles, under his
direction and empowered by the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8), carried the gospel to the Gentile
world. [Return to text]
6 Joseph Smith evidently recognized this as a
weakness in using this text to support salvation for the dead, for in his so-called
"Inspired Version" of the Bible (also known as the Joseph Smith Translation, or
JST), he changed the verse to read, "Because of this, is the gospel preached to them
who are dead." However, there is absolutely no manuscript evidence to support this
change. [Return to text]
7 Joseph Smith tried to resolve this conflict in
his "Inspired Version" (JST) of the Bible by changing the text of 1 Peter 3:20
to read "some of whom were disobedient in the days of Noah . . ." Once again,
however, there is absolutely no manuscript evidence to support this change. [Return to text]
.jpg)
