by M.J. 16 Replies latest watchtower bible
What on earth was Paul talking about in 1 Cor 15:29: "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?"
It's one of his main arguments for a bodily resurrection to the Corinthians. Furthermore, it's rather confusing to try and decipher what Corinthian objections he was arguing AGAINST as he was making the case for resurrection.
oh yeah, QCMBR, your comments on this are welcome .
What on earth was Paul talking about in 1 Cor 15:29: "Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?"
Darn good question!
In the writings of the Early Church Fathers there is a reference to it: The Sheperd of Hermas; Book III, Sim. 9, vs. 152-160]:
"So these also who had fallen asleep received the seal of the Son of God and 'entered into the kingdom of God'. . . . This seal, then, was preached to them also, and they made use of it 'to enter into the kingdom of God.'""Why, Sir," said I, "did the 40 stones also come up with them from the deep, although they had received the seal already?"
"Because," said he, "these apostles and teachers who preached the name of the Son of God, having fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God, preached also to those who had fallen asleep before them, and themselves gave to them the seal of the preaching. They went down therefore with them into the water and came up again, but the latter went down alive and came up alive, while the former, who had fallen asleep before, went down dead but came up alive. Through them, therefore, they were made alive, and received the knowledge of the name of the Son of God. . . . For they had fallen asleep in righteousness and in great purity, only they had not received this seal. You have then the explanation of these things also."
Romans 6 3 Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. --- So for me it is pretty clear. Pauls is talking... what use to be baptised if there is no ressurection.
Although we do not know about the exact Corinthian practice, the wording clearly suggests some sort of vicarious baptism as seems to have existed in Gnostic sects. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (I, 542) gives many examples of "pagan" expiations for the dead -- such a practice was obviously in tune with the Hellenistic mentality. It is quite remarkable that Paul doesn't discuss the merits of this practice, he only points out the inconsistency (in his view) of doing it without believing in the resurrection of the dead. One noteworthy parallel for this line of reasoning is found in 2 Maccabees 12:39ff, similarly justifying sacrifices for the dead through belief in the resurrection:
On the next day, as had now become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kindred in the sepulchres of their ancestors. Then under the tunic of each one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was the reason these men had fallen. So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; and they turned to supplication, praying that the sin that had been committed might be wholly blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened as the result of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin.
Still, it seems like a rather cryptic way of stating that, Shazard. I can't seem to reconcile those two scriptures as referring to the same thing.
DE,
I'm afraid I'm pretty confused about this "Shepherd of Hermas" writing. So is it saying that Christians are symbolically "baptized for the dead" by descending into hades to bring the souls of pre-Christian godly people to Christ--"rising up" together with them (to heaven?)?
I might have that totally wrong..
Narkissos,
ok so first off, Paul makes the case that without resurrection, there is no expiation in the first place (for the living or the dead--baptized or not). So in addition to taking a jab at the Corinthians for questioning the resurrection by reminding them that their whole hope of atonement through Christ is wrapped up in the concept, he takes a jab at those who "baptize for the dead", as partaking in a futile exercise. Then he goes on to focus on the spiritual aspect of the resurrection to further ease their gnostic-leaning sensibilities about the evil aspect of the material body. Is this a reasonable assessment of Paul's overall strategy here?
he takes a jab at those who "baptize for the dead", as partaking in a futile exercise.
Futile only if they do not believe in the resurrection (of course there is a bit of intellectual hijacking here as well as in the whole chapter: Paul presents the dilemma "either resurrection or nothing," which does not really suit the Hellenistic view of the afterlife). Apart from that Paul doesn't criticise the practice at all.
Then he goes on to focus on the spiritual aspect of the resurrection to further ease their gnostic-leaning sensibilities about the evil aspect of the material body.
Agreed. In a way, it looks like Paul would be content with the Corinthians accepting the word "resurrection," regardless of their actual belief. As ever there is a political concern behind doctrinal issues -- avoiding the ultimate rupture with Judaism. In this he will fail.
Futile only if they do not believe in the resurrection (of course there is a bit of intellectual hijacking here as well as in the whole chapter: Paul presents the dilemma "either resurrection or nothing," which does not really suit the Hellenistic view of the afterlife).
Right. This is what's rather confusing about the passage. He's talking to people who lean toward the thinking that resurrection isn't necessary because they see no point in the soul becoming re-entrapped within a corrupted material body. But at first glance, v.32, "If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" seems like he's arguing resurrection vs. extinction...not exactly relevant to his audience.
In any case, his method of pursuasion is very far removed from "this is exactly the way it is and anyone who doesn't see it is doomed" approach of the Society.
