David Wenham on Baptism and Participatory Atonement in Paul's Theology

It seems quite likely that “Jesus (or Jesus Christ) is Lord” was the profession of faith made by converts at baptism—thus the first Christian “creed.” This is suggested by Rom 10:9, where Paul is speaking of saving faith and says: “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” It is also suggested by 1 Cor 12:3, where Paul comments that “no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit”: Paul can hardly mean that no one can utter the words except by divine inspiration, but his meaning may well be that no one can come to conversion and baptism except by the Spirit. (David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995], 122)

Dying with Christ

Paul . . .

Our final observation about Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ death arises not from Rom 3:21-26 but from passages father on in Romans and elsewhere in Paul’s letters. For Paul, Jesus’ death was not simply something accomplished by Jesus on behalf of others—even in the place of others—but also something that believers come to share in. It has been argued that this idea of participation is even more fundamental to Paul’s thought about the death of Jesus than concepts of sacrifice, propitiation, and the like. Thus in Rom 6:3, 4 Paul comments that “all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death. Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” In Galatians Paul claims that he has been “crucified with Christ” (2:19). Colossians speaks similarly of sharing the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (2:8-12). For Paul, then, the Christian does not simply receive the benefits of Christ’s work, but is also united to Christ and comes to share in his life and death. The Christian is “in Christ” and dies “with Christ,” both in baptism and in an ongoing experience of suffering for the Lord’s sake (e.g., Rom 8:17; Phil 3:10).

 . . . and Jesus

The idea of participation is a distinctive Pauline emphasis, but the idea of sharing in the death of Jesus is not without precedent in the Jesus-tradition. First, there is the call of Jesus to his disciples to “take up your cross and follow me,” which is represented in both the Markan and “Q” tradition (in different versions). The context of the Mark tradition is quite explicitly a prediction of Jesus’ own death, and so the call to the disciples to take up the cross is very nearly, if not quite, a challenge to the disciples to join Jesus in his crucifixion and sufferings (Matt 16:24-26//Mark 8:34-37//Luke 9:23-26; Matt 10:38//Luke 14:27). Second, there is the dialogue between Jesus and the sons of Zebedee, recorded in Matthew and Mark, in which Jesus speaks of the disciples drinking “the cup that I drink” and (Mark only) being baptized “with the baptism with which I am baptized” (Mark 10:38, 39//Matt 20:22, 23). This is not the Pauline baptismal understanding of suffering with Christ, but it is a significant and strong tradition in which Jesus’ and death are seen as an experience in which his followers will share. (Ibid., 154-55)

Did Tertullian Teach that the Eucharist was a Sacrifice that could be offered for the benefit of the dead?

In an attempt to defend the practice of offering Mass for the repose of the souls of the deceased, Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid provided the following from Tertullian:

Tertullian, A.D. 211—“We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries” (The Crown 3.3). (Patrick Madrid, Why is That in Tradition? [Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 2002], 91)

In a note for this quote, Madrid offers the following commentary:

By “sacrifices” Tertullian refers here to the sacrifice of the Mass, offered for the repose of the souls of deceased Christians. (Ibid., 216 n. 50, italics in original)

Let us examine this claim.

The relevant section of De Corona 3.3 reads in the Schaff set, as follows:

We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. (ANF 4:94)

The following is the Latin for the above passage:

Eucharistiae sacramentum, et in tempore uictus et omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam antelucanis coetibus nec de aliorum manu quam praesidentium  sumimus. Oblationes pro defunctis, pro nataliciis, annua die facimus. (source)

It is true that the Eucharist is mentioned before Tertullian's mention of "offerings" for the dead on their birthday. However, there are some problems with thinking Tertullian believed that the Eucharist (which Madrid reads into this as the Eucharist being a propitiatory sacrifice) would include, among other things, the following:

1. The term used for the Eucharist in the original language text is sacramentum, which is not the same term Tertullian uses for the actions living Christians use for the dead (oblationes), showing a distinction between the two actions.

2. Tertullian, in his other writings, never speaks of the Eucharist being offered for the dead but instead prayers being offered for the dead. Consider the following from his other writings:

For (in that case) the shame is double; inasmuch as, in second marriage, two wives beset the same husband—one in spirit, one in flesh.  For the first wife you cannot hate, for whom you retain an even more religious affection, as being already received into the Lord’s presence; for whose spirit you make request; for whom you render annual oblations.  Will you stand, then, before the Lord with as many wives as you commemorate in prayer; and will you offer for two; and will you commend those two (to God) by the ministry of a priest ordained (to his sacred office) on the score of monogamy, or else consecrated (thereto) on the score even of virginity, surrounded by widows married but to one husband? And will your sacrifice [sacrificium] ascend with unabashed front, and—among all the other (graces) of a good mind—will you request for yourself and for your wife chastity? (An Exhortation to Chastity, 11 [ANF 4:56]; note that the term translated as “sacrifice,” in reference to prayer, not the Eucharistic sacrifice, is)

Indeed, she [the widow] prays for his soul, and requests refreshment for him meanwhile, and fellowship (with him) in the first resurrection; and she offers (her sacrifice) on the anniversaries of his falling asleep. (On Monogamy, 10 [ANF 4:67])

Unless Madrid wishes to argue that Tertullian preached female ordination to the sacerdotal priesthood and other like-beliefs, one cannot maintain that Tertullian preached that the Eucharist was offered for the dead, thought it will be conceded that Tertullian did believe in the efficacy of prayers for the dead.

3. Related to no. 2, the use of sacrificial language for prayers and other actions by Christians is rooted firmly in the Bible. In 1 Pet 2:5, we read:

Ye also, as lively stones are built upon a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

In this text, believers are said to “offer up” (αναφερω; a sacrificial term in both the LXX and NT and used of Jesus “offering” of himself [e.g. 1 Pet 2:24]) themselves as “spiritual sacrifices" (πνευματικὰς θυσίας). This is echoed in Paul’s epistle to the Romans:

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service. (Rom 12:1)

The dedication of one’s body to God is said to be a sacrifice (θυσια) to God the Father, notwithstanding it not being a literal (in the sense of propitiatory/expiatory) sacrifice for sin. Such “spiritual sacrifices” can be prayers, petitions, and other godly actions for our fellow man (cf. 1 Tim 2:1-4) as well as the sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit (cf. Psa 34:18; 51:17; Isa 57:15; 66:2; also see 2 Nephi 2:7; Helaman 8:5; 3 Nephi 9:20; 12:19; Ether 4:15; Moroni 6:2 in the Book of Mormon). It would represent eisegesis of Scripture and the Patristics to read sacrificial language in various texts as being, ipso facto, "proof" that the authors held to the Eucharist being a propitiatory sacrifice and can be efficacious for the dead, not just the living.

What informs the Catholic doctrine of offering Masses for the dead is the dogmatic teaching of Catholicism (from the Fourth Lateran Council [1215] and the Council of Trent [1545-1563] and other councils) that the Mass is the very same sacrifice of the cross and can propitiate God’s wrath against the sins of the living and the dead. To see the biblical and historical evidence against such dogmatic teachings, see:

Responses to Robert A. Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)

Good articles on the Kirtland Safety Society and Blood Atonement

I had occasion to re-read these two articles on the FairMormon Website, and though they deserved to be "plugged" on this blog:

R. McKay White, The Kirtland Safety Society: The Myths, the Facts, and the Prophet's Good Name

McKay V. Jones, “Dead Men Tell No Tales!” The Blood Atonement Balance Sheet (be sure to check out his other excellent article, “Well Nigh as Dangerous”: Latter-day Prophecy and Revelation; Infallibility and Blind Obedience)

Brigham Young on the Flexibility of the Day of Weekly Worship

In a sermon dated November 6 1863, Brigham Young explicitly taught that he did not believe that Sunday could be the only day of the week LDS could hold their weekly services on (cf. the practice of having Church services on Fridays in Muslim countries and Saturday in Israel):

You may ask me if I always keep the Sabbath holy. When I am out travelling and happen to be where there is not a convenient place to observe the Sabbath, I sometimes travel on that day, and content myself with making a Sabbath of the second, third, fourth, fifth or sixth day of the week. But generally, when I am travelling, it is all the time Sabbath to me, for it is a constant succession of meetings. But do I send my teams to the kanyons on the Sabbath day? No, that is if I have the control over that which should be under my control. I keep the Sabbath, and I wish to keep all the laws of God, and there are a great many of this people that do so; but many of them go astray in failing to observe these things—in not paying their Tithing faithfully, in not keeping the Sabbath day holy, in not saying their prayers constantly, in not feeding the poor and clothing the naked, and in not administering to the Priesthood. As a people we do as well as we can do, but some do not do as well as they might do. (JOD 10:284)

 For more, see the powerpoint slides for a presentation I gave on the issue:

"The Sabbath and the New Covenant"

Anglicans Christopher Cocksworth and Rosalind Brown on the use of "Priest"

The following, from two Anglican authors, reveals the problems faced by those who reject an ordained, ministerial priesthood in the New Covenant, and how, when discussing the issue, seem to admit that the Protestant aversion to “priest” and other like-terms and concepts is untenable:

The priestly ministry of the presbyter

So far we have talked quite a bit about the presbyters. We are, of course, in very good company. Even John Henry Newman in the first of his famous Tracts said, ‘I am but one of yourselves—a presbyter’. But, you may well ask, when are we going to talk about priests? Well, it is no bad thing to remind ourselves that in its earliest centuries the Church was very reticent about describing individual Christians as priests. Hierus, the Greek word for priest was reserved for Christ, the true priest of the Church, and for the Chruch itself which, as a body, shared in the priesthood of its head. The ministry of priests, the hiereis of the Old Testament, had been fulfilled in Christ and was not being enacted corporately through the new covenant community. In the Roman Catholic Church, where Latin remains the official language, this care over language has often been preserved in its more technical statements, such as the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Ministry and Life of Presbyters and the liturgy it inspired, ‘The ordination of Presbyters’. And yet we know that in the Roman and in several other traditions, Anglicanism included, presbyters are usually called priests and that this way of describing them goes back to at least the third century.

Some Christians find this embarrassing and prefer to speak about ministers, pastors, parsons or are more comfortable with more occupational descriptions like vicar, rector or chaplain. Others justify calling some ministers priests on linguistic grounds, making the point that when sacred, the old English word used for hierus in the Greek and its Latin equivalent sacerdos went out of use, préost (like the old French prestre) became the everyday word for presbyter and sacerdos. Hence, it is argued, that ‘priest’, derived from ‘préost’, means nothing more than the original Greek presbuteros. And there have certainly been many who, like Richard Hooker in the late sixteenth century, have believed that it was a mistake to continue with this apparent semantic confusion and that we should revert to the more ancient term of presbyter. For our part we do not think it is so easy to dismiss the nomenclature as a semantic mistake precisely because the presbyter’s ministry among the priestly people of God takes on certain priestly characteristics. (Christopher Cocksworth and Rosalind Brown, Being a Priest Today: Exploring Priestly Ministry [Norwich, U.K.: Canterbury Press, 2002], 22-23, italics in original, emphasis in bold added)

Of course, the authors, due to their errant theological tradition, make a number of mistakes and hold a number of false a priori assumptions, but one does appreciate the integrity they reveal in the above.

For a book-length treatment of the issue from the Latter-day Saint perspective using the Bible as the main source (which should satisfy those from a Sola Scriptura background!), see my book:

After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood

I have also a number of articles here:

The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page

Spiros Zodhiates on θεαομαι in 1 John 4:12

No man hath seen (θεαομαι) God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. (1 John 4:12)

Commenting on the meaning of the verb θεαομαι ("to see/behold"), Spiros Zodhiates wrote:

to behold, view attentively, contemplate, indicating the sense of a wondering regard involving a careful and deliberate vision which interpets its object. It involves more than merely seeing (Mt. 6:1; 11:7; 22:11; 23:5; Mk. 16:11, 14; Lk. 5:27; 7:24; 23:55; Jn. 1:14, 32, 38; 4:35; 6:5; 8:10; 11:45; Acts 1:11; 8:18; 21:27; 22:9; Rom. 15:24; 1 Jn. 1:1; 4:12, 14). (Spiros Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible [Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers, 1984, 1990], 1839)

As Latter-day Saints have not claimed to have seen God the Father in this way, this and other similar “proof-texts” critics often use against the First Vision are based on eisegesis.

 For more, see, for example, my friend James Stutz's article:

Can a Man See God? 1 Timothy 6:16 in Light of Ancient and Modern Revelation

Spiros Zodhiates on עוֹלָם

‘Ôwlâm or ‘ôlâm . . . It is what is hidden, concealed (i.e., to the vanishing point); time immemorial, time past, antiquity (from most ancient times, Gen. 6:4; 1 Sam 27:8; Isa. 63:16; Jer 2:20; 5:15; Ps 25:6); eternity, the distant future (terminus ad quem); duration, perpetual, without end, always, everlasting time; lifetime. In the pl. form it means ages or endless times . . . There are at least twenty instances where ‘ôwlâm clearly refers to the past, though rarely a limitless past. Deut. 32:7 and Job 22:15 point to the time of one’s elders. Prov. 22:28; 23:10; Jer. 6:16; 18:15; 28:8 seem to go back even further. Sometimes the time just prior to the exile is referred to (Isa. 58:12; 61:4; Mic. 7:14; Mal. 3:4; Ezra 4:15, 19). At other times it goes back further, to the events of the exodus from Egypt (1 Sam 27:8; Isa. 51:9; 63:9, 11). Gen. 6:4 indicates the time shortly before the flood. The basic meaning of ‘ôwlâm is “most distant times,” whether the remote past or the future depending upon the accompanying prepositions. Therefore, ‘ôwlâm is a broad range between the remotest time and perpetuity (from the viewpoint of the speaker) . . . ‘Ôwlâm, the same Heb. word can describe a short period of only three days (though it must have seemed like an eternity to Jonah as “forever,” Jon. 2:6) or it can be used in conjunction with God—the God of eternity, the everlasting God, God forever. Temporal categories are inadequate to describe the nature of God’s existence. The Creator has been “from everlasting to everlasting” (Ps. 90:2). Even then, it still expresses the idea of a continued, measurable existence, rather than a state of being independent of time considerations. (Spiros Zodhiates, Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible [Chattanooga, Tenn.: AMG Publishers, 1984, 1990], 1757)