Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!rutgers!topaz!christian From: harwood@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) Newsgroups: mod.religion.christian Subject: Re: Baptism for the dead Message-ID: <6322@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Sat, 18-Oct-86 21:22:48 EDT Article-I.D.: topaz.6322 Posted: Sat Oct 18 21:22:48 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 19-Oct-86 02:48:03 EDT References: <6230@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <6279@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Sender: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Organization: Center for Automation Research, Univ. of Md. Lines: 59 Approved: christian@topaz.UUCP In article <6279@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> harry@uw-atm.UUCP writes: >In article <6230@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, mikes@tekecs.UUCP(Michael Sellers)writes: >> It is clear from the discussion as a whole that he is using this practice to >> bolster is point, hardly something he would do if he disapproved of it. > >I would disagree with this. I believe that there must of been a sect at Paul's >time that practiced baptism for the dead. Paul just points out that if there >is not baptism of the dead, what these people are doing is even more futile. > >I see no support in the Scriptures for baptism for the dead outside of this >verse. ... I believe that this discussion by Paul, like a number of others which seem to be problematical to us (eg 'speaking in tongues'), is very misunderstood among modern Christians, even among scholars, because we are unfamiliar with ancient Christian manners of speaking which are derived from contemporary Judaism. Here, the context of discussion concerns "resurrection of the dead", and Paul says that "in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first-fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ." In early Christianity (and ancient Judaism), there is intentional ambiguity of usage of the expression "the dead", referring to the physically dead, but more importantly to the spiritually dead. As Jesus said, agreeing with Jewish tradition, the Patriarchs and the righteous "dead" are yet alive with God. He was talking about misconceptions about "the resurrection", also Paul's subject. A second thing which is misunderstood by modern Christians is that baptism was considered to be a real "resurrection" event because of which we share in the eternal life of Christ. (This is why Paul says "If there is no resurrection our faith is in vain, and we are still in our sins..." The real importance of the resurrection is that we are spiritually raised up in Christ; if this were not so, then even the fact of Jesus' physical resurrection would be unimportant - we should be resurrected physically to the same sinful miserable lives.) Now Paul says that there is an order to the redemption of mankind, Christ being the first-fruits. And through him, others also are raised up. Indeed, this is the order - those who are not alive in Christ in every generation are raised up with the suffering and help of those who are already share in the eternal life of Christ. The missionaries like Paul suffer in Christ for the sake of others. (see what continues this passage where Paul describes his own suffering) He suffers for the sake of the redemption of the the spiritually "dead". So what is being discussed by Paul concerning the "baptism for the sake of the dead" is very much related to what precedes and follows in context, that is, discussion of "the order" of redemption. Paul is saying here that we who are made alive in Christ, even by our own baptism in Christ, are made so for the sake of the redemption of those who are still spiritually dead. That is why Paul himself was baptised in Christ at the event of his conversion, for the sake of the redemption of the Gentiles who were alienated from God, spiritually dead. Yours in Christ, David Harwood [I have abbreviated the quotations from the previous article slightly. I will also silently change spacing where necessary to fit lines within 79 characters [Emacs and other software reserve the last character], and fix obvious typos if I happen to notice them. I hope no one considers these improper moderatorial action. --clh]