Baptized for the Dead?
In his epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul talks about the resurrection of our bodies, and then asks this rather strange question: "Otherwise what will they do who are being baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are people baptized for them?" (1 Cor. 15:29)
I have always wondered about what this verse meant. Who was receiving water baptism on behalf of the dead in St. Paul's time? And why doesn't he appear to care, or condemn the practice?
Thanks to St. Francis de Sales (The Catholic Controversy, published by TAN), the mystery is solved ... my problem is that I assumed he was talking about water baptism. But are there not other kinds of "baptism?"
"But Jesus said to them, 'You don't know what you're asking. Are you able to drink the cup I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?'" (Mark 10:38)
In the context, Our Lord is talking about martyrdom, suffering, persecution, etc. This is another kind of baptism which we may receive.
In that light, St. Paul's words make so much more sense. If there is no resurrection, then why undergo suffering, personal mortification, etc., on the behalf of the departed souls?
That St. Paul is talking about suffering is clear from his next words: "Why are we in danger every hour? I affirm by the pride in you that I have in Christ Jesus our Lord: I die every day! If I fought wild animals in Ephesus with only human hope, what good does that do me? If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, because tomorrow we die."
Notice how he contrasts suffering with "eating and drinking," precisely "because tomorrow we die" - a proverbial phrase that means "live it up and enjoy life while you can, because when it's over, it's over." So he contrasts carefree pleasures with suffering - and says that we do this on behalf of the dead ... why? Because there is a resurrection, because death is not the end.
Isn't it odd that St. Paul uses bodily suffering and mortification on behalf of the dead as a proof of the resurrection?
Now that I think about it, it's not so odd, if you're a Catholic.
St. Paul's argument for the resurrection by appealing to sacrifices made on behalf of the dead actually echoes, almost point-for-point, a passage in the Old Testament (the Catholic Old Testament, that is):
"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 [for the dead soldiers]. 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." (2 Macc. 12:43-44)
So there you have it - proof that praying for the dead and undergoing suffering on their behalf is indeed a Scriptural and Apostolic practice; and also a nice bit of evidence that the Maccabean books are indeed canonical. The Protestants rejected these books precisely because the books condoned prayers for the dead, but it seems that St. Paul himself has appealed to 2 Maccabees in his argument that we should be "baptized" on behalf of the dead.
I have always wondered about what this verse meant. Who was receiving water baptism on behalf of the dead in St. Paul's time? And why doesn't he appear to care, or condemn the practice?
Thanks to St. Francis de Sales (The Catholic Controversy, published by TAN), the mystery is solved ... my problem is that I assumed he was talking about water baptism. But are there not other kinds of "baptism?"
"But Jesus said to them, 'You don't know what you're asking. Are you able to drink the cup I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?'" (Mark 10:38)
In the context, Our Lord is talking about martyrdom, suffering, persecution, etc. This is another kind of baptism which we may receive.
In that light, St. Paul's words make so much more sense. If there is no resurrection, then why undergo suffering, personal mortification, etc., on the behalf of the departed souls?
That St. Paul is talking about suffering is clear from his next words: "Why are we in danger every hour? I affirm by the pride in you that I have in Christ Jesus our Lord: I die every day! If I fought wild animals in Ephesus with only human hope, what good does that do me? If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, because tomorrow we die."
Notice how he contrasts suffering with "eating and drinking," precisely "because tomorrow we die" - a proverbial phrase that means "live it up and enjoy life while you can, because when it's over, it's over." So he contrasts carefree pleasures with suffering - and says that we do this on behalf of the dead ... why? Because there is a resurrection, because death is not the end.
Isn't it odd that St. Paul uses bodily suffering and mortification on behalf of the dead as a proof of the resurrection?
Now that I think about it, it's not so odd, if you're a Catholic.
St. Paul's argument for the resurrection by appealing to sacrifices made on behalf of the dead actually echoes, almost point-for-point, a passage in the Old Testament (the Catholic Old Testament, that is):
"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 [for the dead soldiers]. 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." (2 Macc. 12:43-44)
So there you have it - proof that praying for the dead and undergoing suffering on their behalf is indeed a Scriptural and Apostolic practice; and also a nice bit of evidence that the Maccabean books are indeed canonical. The Protestants rejected these books precisely because the books condoned prayers for the dead, but it seems that St. Paul himself has appealed to 2 Maccabees in his argument that we should be "baptized" on behalf of the dead.
<< Home