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, or else, that we are misunderstanding the passage completely. Our next two explanations are based on these suppositions.

The "rite of passage" explanation. Citing anthropological and archaeological data, Richard DeMaris has proposed that the Corinthian overconfidence in baptism (10:1-13) combined with "an intense concern for the dead to create a distinctively Corinthian practice. . ." [Dem.CR] The Corinthians, like other people ancient and modern, had concern for those who had died, but in Corinth there appears to have been "a religious outlook [that] focused intensely on the dead and the world of the dead." DeMaris observes that "(t)he cultic focal point of Isthmia, the religious center of the Corinthia, was the temple of Poseidon, yet the Panhellenic games celebrated there were dedicated to the dead hero Palaimon or Milikertes and were funerary in nature." The evidence is uncertain as to when this focus began, but it "did not become prominent until the Roman period." There was also "a growing emphasis on the underworld in [the area of Corinth]. . .Persephone or Kore, the queen of the dead, had her own temple in the sacred glen. Moreover, [an] inscription mentions a religious site dedicated to Hades, a Plutoneion, there. . .Worship of Hades was virtually nonexistent in ancient Greece, for sacred sites dedicated to him are very rare." DeMaris also notes the prominence of snake imagery, associated with death.

DeMaris concludes that the Corinthian "fascination" with death formed the basis for a unique synthesis in which baptism for the dead was instituted as a rite of passage for members of the church who had died. The ceremony was a "second" baptism, but not an effective baptism: Recognizing baptism as a rite that symbolized the transition between death and the spiritual resurrection life, the Corinthians instituted baptism for the dead as a formal procedure that eased the deceased's transition to the afterlife. The ritual also allowed the Corinthian Christians "to enact, and thus to be assured of, the departed one's transition to the next world."# Baptism for the dead, as DeMaris understands it, was analogous to the modern practice of a wake. It was merely ceremonial, and a matter of individual conscience as far as Paul was concerned: he disapproved of the practice personally (as the structure of the passage indicates), but he allowed others to make their own decisions about it. And of course, the ceremony was also useful to Paul as a way of pointing out the Corinthians' inconsistency on the subject of resurrection.

DeMaris has received a great deal of attention from LDS apologists and scholars, but that attention often involves selective quotation. Barry Bickmore [Bick.RAC, 219-220] and John Tvedtnes [Par.TTE, 57] cite DeMaris as indicating that the Corinthians unquestionably practiced vicarious baptism, but neither says anything about why DeMaris reached his conclusions. Apparently their Mormon readers are not expected to need the information to make their own decision. LDS apologist John Welch [Welc.RCR] offers a response to DeMaris, and he is probably correct in criticizing DeMaris for supposing that Paul attacks the practice of baptism for the dead in the book of Romans. But beyond this, Welch's arguments are weak. He asserts that DeMaris "places too much emphasis on Greco-Roman evidence. . .What (DeMaris) says about ancient Greek and Roman societies devoting considerable family resources to help the deceased become integrated into the realm of the dead can also be said about most ancient cultures, including Egyptian, Etruscan, and to some extent Jewish societies. Thus, DeMaris goes too far in seeing baptism for the dead as a direct and exclusive response of a few early Christians to the local Greco-Roman religious environment that may have been prominent in and around Corinth."

Two problems are apparent in Welch's arguments. First, "most ancient cultures" did not have a religious center that celebrated dead heroes with funerary rites. They did not all have temples to the queen of the dead and a rare site devoted to the worship of Hades. Nor did they all prominently feature images associated with the underworld. Welch is confusing what was common in all places with what was unusual in Corinth, and it was the latter, not the former, that led to DeMaris' conclusions.

Second, the issue is more than what was present locally, but also what happened when local paradigms intersected with the Christian practice of baptism and its associated meanings. For Welch's argument to work, he must show that baptism for the dead was practiced in places where there was no special concern for the dead as in Corinth.

Significantly, Welch closes his review of DeMaris' article by saying that "the full meaning of [1 Cor. 15:29] becomes clearer and more coherent through revealed knowledge." This amounts to an admission that the evidence, as it stands, is insufficient to support Welch's thesis. While Welch's appeal serves within a framework that begins with the assumption of revealed knowledge, it is less effective within a rational apologetic context.

The "apostolic dead" explanation. Finally, a recent study by Joel White, which as of this writing has received no published response from LDS apologists, suggests that Paul does not refer to vicarious baptism, or to any sort of specialized rite, but to another practice that he mentioned earlier in 1 Corinthians. [Whit.1529] White builds his intriguing case upon three assertions.

First, v. 29 is part of the larger line of thought in verses 12-32. Commentators versed in ancient rhetoric have observed that the majority interpretation makes v. 29 a diversion, and a weak link in the overall argument, for it represents an unusual change in subject. Of course, it is possible that Paul made such a diversion, but White argues that if a better way can be found to link the verse to the rest of the passage, it ought to be regarded as a likelier interpretation.

Second, the "dead" in v. 29a refers, metaphorically, to the apostles. To understand this point we must consider other passages in the Corinthian correspondence. Paul regularly refers to himself and his fellow apostles as, we might say, "the walking dead." In verses 30-31, Paul refers to himself as "dying daily" and uses a plural in conjunction with a personal pronoun to refer to himself. This "serves to focus attention not on Paul per se but rather on his apostolic ministry; what he here asserts, in other words, is true of himself as an apostle." He wants the Corinthians to "understand him, in his role as an apostle, as being one of 'the dead' in v. 29." (White adds that the agreement is "semantic, not lexical" because a different word [nekron, v. 29, versus apothnesko, v. 31] is used in each of the two verses. However, "that is to be expected since lexical agreement is not possible given the fact that the cognate verb of [nekron] is the transitive," which would read, "to put to death." This reading would require "a reflexive construction meaning 'I put myself to death,' " which would imply that Paul "caused, chose, or even wished for his sufferings.") Consider these examples:

For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. (1 Corinthians 4:9)

I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. (1 Corinthians 15:31)

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place. For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish: To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things? (2 Corinthians 2:14-16) In this verse Paul uses the technical term thriambeuein, which alludes to the Roman triumphal procession. Prisoners under sentence of death were placed at the end of these processions.

Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. (2 Corinthians 4:10-11)

As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed. . . (2 Corinthians 6:9)

White argues that 1 Corinthians 15:29 fits into this pattern that figuratively portrays the suffering and inevitable death of Paul and his fellow apostles. But to complete the picture, we must add one final stroke.

Third, the metaphorically dead are to be distinguished from the literally dead. The Greek word oloxs is rendered in the King James Version as the "at all" modifying "rise" at the end of Paul's first question. Most Bible translations agree with the KJV in this arrangement. But in the Greek, oloxs is placed before the word "dead." The adverbial oloxs is found three times in 1 Corinthians used in the same way (5:1, 6:7, and 15:29). White observes that "(i)n all three instances, the connotation 'actually' or 'truly' seems likely. In 1 Corinthians 5:1, Paul is incredulous that 'sexual immorality is actually reported among you'. . .In 1 Corinthians 6:7, the context suggests that Paul uses [oloxs] to denote by means of contrast (in a manner similar to 1 Corinthians 15:29) what he views as a true defeat. . .namely, the very fact that the Corinthians are suing each other in courts of law, as opposed to that which the Corinthians construe as defeat, namely, that they are being wronged and defrauded. . ." White argues that the verse should therefore be understood not as saying, "if the dead are not raised at all, why. . ." but rather, "if the truly dead are not raised, why. . ." This is done, White suggests, to draw a distinction between those "truly dead" and the "figurative dead" in the first part of the verse. Paul is asking, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the sake of we apostles, if the truly dead do not rise? why are they then baptized for our sake?" (It may be noted that White is not the first to stress the position of oloxs: See also J. C. O'Neill, "1 Corinthians 15.29," Expository Times (1980) 310-11, and Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, " 'Baptized for the Dead' (I Cor., XV, 29): A Corinthian Slogan?" Revue Biblique 88 (1981): 532-43. O'Neill hypothesized that the verse referred to the baptism of deathbed converts or dying infants, while Murphy-O'Connor considered the verse representative of "slogans" used by the Corinthians to represent their beliefs. White's thesis satisfies the criticism of Fee [Fee.1Cor, 763n] that O'Neill and Murphy-O'Connor place "too much confidence in too little evidence when it comes to word order" and Fee's counter that oloxs is placed where it is for emphasis. That is precisely White's point.)

White now places 15:29 in the broader context of 1 Corinthians. The verse hearkens back to what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:13-17:

Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine 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.

This is how White believes the Corinthians were being baptized "on account of the dead." The link is to the matter of the Corinthians proclaiming allegiances according to the apostles ("the dead") who baptized them. In making his argument, Paul has refuted the false "no resurrection" teaching by showing that his testimony, and his willingness to suffer and die for it, confirms the reality of the resurrection of Jesus and its power in the lives and ministries of himself and the other apostles. That the Corinthians are drawing lines amongst themselves based upon their loyalty to the "dead" apostles indicates that they recognize that power also. Why, then, are they denying that power by teaching that there is no resurrection, and that by extension, Christ was not resurrected? (We may note how this fits in with the points made earlier. Paul is still attacking an inconsistency in disbelief in resurrection on one hand and baptism on the other, and he is still attacking a false practice, according to ancient rhetorical rules and in using the if/why combination.)

In personal correspondence, popular LDS apologist Edward Watson (Mormonism: The Faith of the Twenty-First Century) objected to a connection between verses 1:13-17 and 15:29 with the following rationale:

First Corinthians is a large book. Consequently, for Paul to be an effective teacher, he has to furnish "bite-sized chucks" (sic) for the "average Joe" to understand his message. This means the proper context for 1 Cor 15:29 is within 1 Cor 15, not an extension back to 1 Cor 1. There is simply no way an ordinary member can grasp a concept mentioned close to the end of a scroll with a key close to the beginning of the scroll.

Watson's argument is highly anachronistic. The literacy rate in the ancient world was no higher than ten percent. Most information was transmitted orally, not in writing, so it was usual (and necessary) for the ancient "average Joe" to be able to keep in mind the fullness of what was said to him, no matter the length. For an excellent introduction to the role of orality in the ancient Mediterranean, see Tony M. Lentz, Orality and Literacy in Hellenic Greece (Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1989). Even without ancient orality, however, it is hard to see why the Corinthians could not have made a connection between the two passages. The baptism problem of 1 Corinthians 1:13-17 was a church problem. Any mention of "baptism" would bring the issue to mind at once, and Paul's repeated use of the "dead men walking" motif (used, indeed, in v. 31 shortly thereafter) would bring the connection to the mind of even the most "average" Corinthian. Beyond that, it appears that by Watson's criteria, Peter did not think that Paul was an effective teacher (2 Pet. 3:15)!

The final line of defense for the Mormon case draws upon evidence for the supposed existence and persistence of vicarious baptism for the dead in later church history. The first salvo, however, comes not from the New Testament or from church history, but from Jewish intertestamental literature.

2 Maccabees 12:43-45. Tvedtnes [Tved.DSH] analyzes the following cite from 2 Maccabees, which describes the actions of the Jewish freedom fighter Judas Maccabeus after he discovered slain Jewish soldiers with pagan idols under their cloaks:

And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

Tvedtnes finds in this passage evidence of a philosophy of vicarious action for the dead. But if it is evidence of such a philosophy, then so is the scapegoat ceremony (Lev. 16) which covered the sins of Israel over the past year--including the sins of those who had died in the previous 365 days. Within the Biblical paradigm, sin requires payment, and only atonement erases sin. The question is whether baptism in New Testament times was an atoning practice, and that is a question that cannot be answered by citing this unrelated event with roots in the Old Testament sacrificial apparatus which served the nation of Israel corporately. The analogy here is not convincing.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-16. The next attempt to draw a parallel comes from another of Paul's letters:

But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first. . .

Welch notes "the concern of the Thessalonian Christians about the place of deceased church members in the coming of Christ" and draws from this passage a proof for the practice of vicarious baptism. [Welc.RCR] But the passage does not mention baptism. One might see in the concern of the Thessalonians an environment in which baptism for the dead might be invented, as DeMaris supposes it was invented in Corinth, but the Thessalonian concern was related to Greco-Roman doubts about the resurrection (v. 14). LDS apologist Richard Anderson insists that "no hint is given that the Thessalonians doubted the Resurrection" [And.UP, 80], but the social context of the Greco-Roman world provides the only hint that is needed. Pheme Perkins puts it this way: "Christianity's pagan critics generally viewed resurrection as misunderstood metempsychosis at best. At worst, it seemed ridiculous." [Perk.R, 61] Greek converts unused to the idea would have questions about the nature and validity of resurrection, and this offers a sufficient explanation for Paul's teaching.

Hebrews 6:2. Anderson notes that this verse refers to a "doctrine of baptisms," in the plural, and assumes it refers to "two distinct types of baptism in Paul's day," the baptism of living converts and proxy baptism of the dead. [And.UP, 228] But the plural is easily seen as referring to the baptism of living converts, and the baptism of John, or to ritual and proselyte baptisms performed by Jews. Early Christians would have had to explain how these similar rites fit into their doctrinal paradigms.

The Shepherd of Hermas 9.16.5-6. The search hereafter goes beyond the Bible. LDS writers cite a section of the apocryphal Shepherd of Hermas which describes a vision "in which deceased apostles and teachers preached and baptized among those who had died before the advent of Christ." [Nib.BD, 130] Read closely, however, the passage is found to have no relevance to baptism for the dead:

. . .(T)hese Apostles, and the teachers who had proclaimed the name of the Son of God, after they had fallen asleep in [the] power and faith of the Son of God preached likewise to the dead; and they gave them the seal of the preaching. They accordingly went down with them into the water and came out again.

This passage does not describe proxy baptism for the dead who lived after Christ, but people who are preached to, and baptized, who lived before Christ. Hermas does not indicate that those who now die without baptism need someone on earth to be baptized by proxy for them, and it does not describe baptism for the dead, but baptism of the dead, by the dead. Bickmore [Bick.RAC, 221] attempts to reconcile this inconsistency with LDS doctrine by explaining: "Although not strictly an official doctrine, many Latter-day Saints believe that such ordinances must be performed in the spirit world to effectualize (sic) the ordinances performed vicariously in the world of the living. After all, a spirit must accept the ordinances done for him." But no connection is made to any event on earth, and there is no hint that the baptism received by those in the spirit world is insufficient. Not surprisingly, Bickmore's only supporting documentation consists of a vision by an LDS stake official that confirms his interpretation! In a different vein, but using similarly circular reasoning, Anderson [And.UP, 410] argues that "(t)he joint immersion in water [of apostles and their converts] is part of the symbolism not expressly interpreted, referring to the earthly baptisms that were a shared experience of the living and the dead." Anderson's "symbolic meaning" must be presumed upon the text in order to claim it for support.

The heretics. LDS apologists also point to heretical groups that practiced baptism for the dead. [Bick.RAC, 222; Tved.DSH] The first group cited is the Marcionites of the second century, who, according to the 4th-century Christian writer John Chrysostom, performed the following rite:

. . .(W)hen any Catechumen departs among them, having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him, and ask him if he wishes to receive baptism; then when he makes no answer, he that is concealed underneath saith in his stead that of course he should wish to be baptized; and so they baptize him instead of the departed. . .

This rite is nothing like the LDS rite of vicarious baptism. Those "receiving" baptism are not lost people who had never heard the Gospel, but catechumens (converts in training) who died before being baptized. LDS apologists may say that the Marcionite practice is an aberration of the original rite. But it is more plausible to suggest that the Marcionites invented their rite based on a false understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:29, just as we maintain Joseph Smith did. Beyond a non-rational appeal to revelation, any reason given for saying otherwise can be applied to LDS arguments criticizing the Marcionite practice as an aberration.

Bickmore also cites the example of the Cerinthians, a group of the first half of the second century whom the 4th-century writer Epiphanius describes as having practiced vicarious baptism:

Among them (the Cerinthians) there also exists the tradition of which we have heard, namely that when some of them die before being baptized, others are baptized in place of them in their name, so that when they rise in the resurrection they may not pay the penalty of not having received baptism and become subject to the authority of the one who made the world. And this is the reason, so the tradition of which we have heard states, that the holy Apostle said, "If the dead are not raised at all, why are they baptized for them?"

This is also an example of vicarious baptism performed for believers who died before receiving baptism. There is no indication that the ritual was observed for the sake of people who did not hear the gospel. (The probability of someone dying before getting to the baptismal pool would have been significantly increased by the time of the Marcionites. In this period the church waited a year or more for a catechumen to prove their worth before allowing them to undergo baptism. Moreover, unlike the Corinthians, the Marcionites and Cerinthians had 1 Corinthians 15:29 available to misinterpret.)

Finally, Tvedtnes offers the example of the Egyptian Copts, who practice vicarious baptism for the dead even unto this day. [Tved.DSH] The earliest Coptic data comes from the fourth century, and is therefore of marginal relevance speaking to what happened in New Testament times. But Tvedtnes acknowledges that sociological factors may have led to acceptance of the rite in Egypt while other churches rejected it. The Copts may therefore have followed the same line of reasoning DeMaris supposes the Corinthians had: The rite was instituted because of special concern for the dead, and 1 Corinthians 15:29 was misinterpreted accordingly. The Copts were more likely to have been deviants on this point rather than the sole preservers of an authentic church tradition.

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.

Conclusion

The Mormon interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29 is fraught with difficulties. 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.

Sources

1. And.UP -- Richard Lloyd Anderson, Understanding Paul. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1983.
2. Beas.BNT -- G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.
3. Bick.RAC -- Barry Robert Bickmore, Restoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity. Ben Lomond, Calif.: Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 1999.
4. Dem.CR -- Richard E. DeMaris, "Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology," Journal of Biblical Literature 114/4 (1995).
5. Fark.MAV -- David A. Reed and John R. Farkas, Mormons Answered Verse by Verse. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
6. Fosc.1529 -- Bernard M. Foschini, " 'Those Who Are Baptized for the Dead,' 1 Corinthians 15:29 [Part 3]," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 13 (1): January 1951, 46-78.
7. Hop.BM -- Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism: Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology. Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1995.
8. Mack.RNT -- Burton L. Mack, Rhetoric and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990.
9. Moun.R -- Robert Mounce, Romans. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995.
10. New.DD -- Derek Newton, Deity and Diet: The Dilemma of Sacrificial Food at Corinth. Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
11. Nib.BD -- Hugh Nibley, "Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times," in Mormonism and Early Christianity, ed. Todd M. Compton and Stephen D. Ricks. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1987.
12. Ost.MA -- Richard N. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling, Mormon America: The Power and the Promise. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999.
13. Par.TTE -- John A. Tvedtnes, "Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity," in The Temple in Time and Eternity, ed. Donald W. Parry and Stephen D. Ricks. Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1999.
14. Perk.R -- Pheme Perkins, Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection. New York: Doubleday, 1984.
15. Tved.DSH -- John Tvedtnes, "The Dead Shall Hear the Voice," http://www.farmsresearch.com/member/review/10_2/tvedtnes.html.
16. Wats.PRS -- Duane F. Watson, "Paul's Rhetorical Strategy in 1 Corinthians 15," in Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Thomas H. Olbricht, Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
17. Welc.RCR -- John W. Welch, "Review of Richard E. DeMaris, 'Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology,'" http://www. farmsresearch.com/member/review/8_2/welch.html
18. Whit.1529 -- Joel R. White, " 'Baptized on Account of the Dead': The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in Its Context," Journal of Biblical Literature 116/3 (1997): 487-99.
19. Wils.BD -- Luke P. Wilson. "Did Jesus Establish Baptism for the Dead?", http://www.irr.org/MIT/baptdead.html

    ---

    Go Home!