Rescue for the Dead: The Posthumous Salvation of Non-Christians in Early Christianity

Christianity is a religion of salvation in which believers have always anticipated post-mortem bliss for the faithful and non-salvation for others. Here, Trumbower examines how and why death came to be perceived as such a firm boundary of salvation. Analyzing exceptions to this principle from ancient Christianity, he finds that the principle itself was slow to develop and not universally accepted in the Christian movement's first four hundred years. In fact, only in the West was this principle definitively articulated, due in large part to the work and influence of Augustine.

About the Author
Jeffrey A. Trumbower is at St. Michael's College, Colchester, VT.

The relationships between the living and the dead have always been in the center of religious experience and have always provided privileged material for reflection, both in the ancient world and in Christianity, from the origins up till the present day. Due to its mysterious nature, the borderline experience of death has always aroused not only curiosity for the unknown, but also the desire of the living not to allow the link of solidarity that binds them to those who have passed on to be interrupted, but to perpetuate it in some way. Trumbower's fine work, newly published in the prestigious "Oxford Studies in Historical Theology" series, is dedicated to this fascinating theme. The author's interest was stimulated initially by the need to understand the real implications of the at first glance "surprising" prayer of the virgin Thecla, the disciple and companion of the apostle Paul, in favor of the deceased pagan Falconilla, a prayer quoted in the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (28-31) of the second century C.E. After a rapid but effective panoramic review of the Greco-Roman and Jewish world, Trumbower deals with the theme of the "posthumous salvation of the non-Christian dead," starting from the New Testament and arriving at the late discussions on purgatory at the Council of Ferrara (1438), with some interesting observations even on modern and contemporary documents: a very long period of time, indeed! In eight agile chapters, he analyzes the developments of that belief over the centuries, its possible social implications, and the various cultural and theological environments in which it was expressed, and identifies at least four different types of doctrine on the salvation of non-believers after death: (1) scenarios of the last judgement in which the chosen can save part of the damned; (2) intercession for non-Christian dead by characters (fictitious ones such as Thecla or historic ones such as Perpetua), who possess the particular spiritual power of the confessors of the faith; (3) a general offer of salvation to the dead during Christ's descent to Hell; (4) philosophical and theological speculations on the justice of God and on the possibility of a final universal salvation even for the wicked.

The central thesis of the book is that, after the great variety of positions expressed in the first four centuries, especially due to the decisive influence of Augustine, in the medieval Latin West death was considered as an insuperable boundary beyond which no form of recovery is possible for those who have not been baptized and have not taken active steps to ensure their own salvation. On the other hand, the Byzantine East, while rejecting the idea of universal salvation, seems to have been on the whole more open towards alternative forms of salvation after death.

This work, carried on with sympathy and keen personal participation in the topic, is well written and a pleasure to read. The numerous ancient sources analyzed in the discussion are of various nature and origin: literary and epigraphic, pagan, biblical and Judaic, apocryphal, Gnostic, hagiographie; their interpretation is often problematic and controversial, but they are generally treated with prudence and equilibrium, thanks also to the use of a vast and highly qualified bibliography. A few slips may be easily corrected in a second edition: for instance, "Pausanius" (12 and 21) instead of the correct "Pausanias"; "Perenzo" (77) instead of "Parenzo"; "lude more infantum, 8.3" (86) instead of "ludere more infantium, 8.4"; "Gosp. Thorn. 112" (165, note 27) instead of "114"; "Gregory Hoffmann" (175, note 33 and 187: co-editor with L. Petit of the documents on Purgatory issued at the Ferrara/Florence Council), instead of George Hofmann; "Pontificorum" (187) instead of "Pontificium" (Institutum Studiorum Orientalium).

The prospects drawn up and the explanations proposed by Trumbower may also be enriched, confirmed or modified, by an apt reference to, and an in-depth study of, further texts that have not been directly considered in this book. For example, Pseudo-Hippolytus's homily, In Sanctum Pascha, chapter 58, could be usefully added to the already rich dossier of texts on the descensus ad inferos (chapter 5): here it is claimed that the purpose of Christ's descent to Hell was to save the entire human race that had lived before the Law, under the Law, and after the coming of Christ. As far as concerns the decisive role of Augustine, which is well illustrated in chapter 7, the Pelagian controversy certainly offered him more than one opportunity to define his rejection of the idea of a "posthumous salvation." However, it should not be forgotten that this rejection was in some way connected with the criticism of the pagan survival of the cult of the dead, which Augustine had already developed during the last decade of the Fourth century. (See the classic book by V. Saxer, Morts, martyrs, reliques en Afrique chretienne aux premiers siecles. Les temoignages de Tertullien, Cyprien et Augustin a la lumiere de l'archeologie africaine [Paris: Beauchesne, 1980]). And quite apart from contingent polemical motivations, it was part of his doctrine of the "universal damnation" of the massa peccati, already clearly stated in the treatise Ad Simplicianum (396 C.E.). The difficulty Western theology at the end of the Fourth century had in understanding and preserving the traditional message of redemption implicit in the old doctrine of the descensus ad inferos is also proved by Rufinus of Aquileia's Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, chapter 18: here he claims that the meaning of the clause on the descent into Hell is the same as that contained in the clause on Christ's burial.

On the whole, Trumbower has written a dense and stimulating book, a clear and accessible synthesis. On the one hand this study reveals the author's familiarity with the Greco-Roman, Jewish, and Christian sources, while on the other it offers excellent updated historic information and casts new light on a delicate and important theme of Christian theology that every now and then returns strongly to the fore. The author seems to have perfectly achieved his aim.

I found the information in this book both fascinating and well researched in its revelation on the various concepts of "posthumous salvation" that existed in the earliest days of the Christian Church. Anyone interested in this subject should definitely take the time to read "Rescue for the Dead" by Jeffrey A. Trumbower

Trumbower’s book is simply an additional non-LDS theologian/scholar’s conclusion in a long list of others who have reached similar conclusions that early Christianity practiced vicarious baptism for the dead.

MHGINTN continues his ad hominem attacks and ignores the thoughtful writings of numerous non-LDS scholars and theologians who acknowledge this practice by early Christians.

Rather than substantively respond, he simply resorts to the usual ad hominems. It really is sad. Jesus taught that you cannot pour new wine into old bottles. And so it is with MHGINTN. He is too steeped in the traditions and creeds of men to have an open mind to discuss this practice among early Christians.

Below is a sampling of MANY Protestant and Catholic Bible scholars/theologians who have discussed 1 Cor. 15:29 and admit that it, indeed, is an acknowledgement 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)

“After sketching briefly the drama of the end, Paul resumes his attack on those denying the possibility of man’s resurrection. Scribes and commentators have sought to avoid translating vs. 29 as in the RSV, since it is difficult to think that Paul would approve of baptism by proxy. But at this place he is throwing up questions to expose the illogical nature of the beliefs and practices of those denying the resurrection, and he withholds his personal judgment of baptism on behalf of the dead.” (The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible, Nashville: The Abingdon Press, 1971, p. 811)

“. . . 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. . . .

At any rate, Paul simply mentions the superstitious custom without approving it and uses it to fortify his argument that there is a resurrection from the dead. (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)

In any event, I would excpect that all those whose minds aren’t dogmatically closed may find it an interesting read.

So Mormons want to continue defending this heresy. Okay. Here's a bit more for you heretics to chew on.

[excerpted from http://www.irr.org/mit/baptdead.html ]

The fact that Paul’s mention of baptism for the dead is not an endorsement is signaled by the impersonal manner in which he refers to the practitioners: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?” If the rite was a legitimate part of apostolic teaching, we might have expected the apostle to say “what shall you do . . .” or “what shall we do . . .”

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 10:21.

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).

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.