Ik las vandaag hst 15 van de eerste Korinthe brief. Vers 29 is een moeilijk te begrijpen vers ook de verklaarders verschillen nogal in uitleg. De mormonen misbruiken deze tekst voor hun massale doopdiensten voor de reeds overleden mensheid.
29 Anders, wat zullen zij doen, die voor de doden gedoopt worden, indien de doden ganselijk niet opgewekt worden? Waarom worden zij voor de doden ook gedoopt ?
De kanttekeningen noemt drie mogelijke verklaringen
Of, doping gebruiken. Dit wordt verscheidenlijk uitgelegd. Sommigen verstaan het van het sacrament des doops, door hetwelk wij gemeenschap hebben aan den dood van Christus, en openlijk betuigen dat wij als voor doden en der wereld afgestorvenen willen gehouden zijn; Rom. 6:2,3. Anderen verstaan het van degenen, die met kruis en vervolging alzo worden gedoopt, dat zij gelijk als in een gedurigen dood zijn. Want alzo wordt het woord dopen altemet genomen; Mark. 10:38; Luk. 12:50. Enigen verstaan het van degenen, die de lichamen der doden wiessen, alzo de woorden, voor de doden gedoopt worden, ook wel kunnen overgezet worden, over de doden dopen, dat is, wassen; welke wijze van doen ten tijde der apostelen gebruikelijk was, Hand. 9:37, en het woord dopen altemet ook wassen betekent, Mark. 7:4; Luk. 11:38; Hebr. 9:10, hetwelk met het oogmerk des apostels ook niet kwalijk overeenkomt.
Calvijn schijnt meer te neigen naar de verklaring dat het hier gaat om mensen die zich vlak voor hun dood lieten dopen.
Wie helpt mij met aan juiste exegese van dit vers ?
Er gaan er met twee verbonden verloren en met drie en er worden er met twee verbonden behouden en met drie. Prof. G. Wisse.
huisman schreef:
Bedankt, maar ik sta nog open voor meer informatie over deze tekst.
wat denk je zelf?
Mijn enige troost is, dat ik niet mijn, maar Jezus Christus eigen ben, Die voor mijn zonden betaald heeft, en zo bewaart, dat alles tot mijn zaligheid dienen moet; waarom Hij mij ook door Zijn Heilige Geest van eeuwig leven verzekert, en Hem voortaan te leven van harte willig en bereid maakt.
huisman schreef:
Bedankt, maar ik sta nog open voor meer informatie over deze tekst.
wat denk je zelf?
Ik weet het niet . Wel weet ik dat het niet kan betekenen dat Paulus goedkeurd dat er levenden gedoopt worden ten bate van reeds overledenen.
Gewoon even het hele hoofdstuk lezen en je snapt het .
Wie niet gelooft in de opwekking der doden, hoeft zich net zo goed niet laten dopen, maar ''eten en drinken, want morgen sterven wij''.
Met andere woorden, Wie gelooft laat zich dopen, verwachtende het leven bij de opwekking.
huisman schreef:
Bedankt, maar ik sta nog open voor meer informatie over deze tekst.
wat denk je zelf?
Ik weet het niet . Wel weet ik dat het niet kan betekenen dat Paulus goedkeurd dat er levenden gedoopt worden ten bate van reeds overledenen.
Gewoon even het hele hoofdstuk lezen en je snapt het .
Wie niet gelooft in de opwekking der doden, hoeft zich net zo goed niet laten dopen, maar ''eten en drinken, want morgen sterven wij''.
Met andere woorden, Wie gelooft laat zich dopen, verwachtende het leven bij de opwekking.
Dit is één van de mogelijke verklaringen maar zo ik lees dat niet in vs 29.
Er gaan er met twee verbonden verloren en met drie en er worden er met twee verbonden behouden en met drie. Prof. G. Wisse.
Heeft 1 Petrus 4 vs 6 hier eveneens een relatie mee? "Want daartoe is ook den doden het Evangelie verkondigd geworden, opdat zij wel zouden geoordeeld worden naar den mens in het vlees, maar leven zouden naar God in den geest."
Willem schreef:Heeft 1 Petrus 4 vs 6 hier eveneens een relatie mee? "Want daartoe is ook den doden het Evangelie verkondigd geworden, opdat zij wel zouden geoordeeld worden naar den mens in het vlees, maar leven zouden naar God in den geest."
Bij deze tekst vind ik de kanttekening duidelijk en éénduidig.
14) doden
Namelijk die ten tijde van Noach geleefd hebben, en nu dood zijn, waarvan hij hiervoor 1 Petr. 3:19,20, heeft gesproken; die Noach lasterden, omdat hij niet deed gelijk zij, namelijk huwelijken, eten, drinken, enz., zonder bedenken van Gods toekomende straf, gelijk Christus daarvan ook spreekt Matth. 24:37,38.
15) het Evangelie
Namelijk door Noach, den prediker der gerechtigheid; namelijk om hen daardoor tot bekering van zulk een zorgeloos leven te brengen.
Er gaan er met twee verbonden verloren en met drie en er worden er met twee verbonden behouden en met drie. Prof. G. Wisse.
Willem schreef:Heeft 1 Petrus 4 vs 6 hier eveneens een relatie mee? "Want daartoe is ook den doden het Evangelie verkondigd geworden, opdat zij wel zouden geoordeeld worden naar den mens in het vlees, maar leven zouden naar God in den geest."
Bij deze tekst vind ik de kanttekening duidelijk en éénduidig.
14) doden
Namelijk die ten tijde van Noach geleefd hebben, en nu dood zijn, waarvan hij hiervoor 1 Petr. 3:19,20, heeft gesproken; die Noach lasterden, omdat hij niet deed gelijk zij, namelijk huwelijken, eten, drinken, enz., zonder bedenken van Gods toekomende straf, gelijk Christus daarvan ook spreekt Matth. 24:37,38.
15) het Evangelie
Namelijk door Noach, den prediker der gerechtigheid; namelijk om hen daardoor tot bekering van zulk een zorgeloos leven te brengen.
En wat betekend dan "maar leven zouden naar God in den geest"?
Willem schreef:Heeft 1 Petrus 4 vs 6 hier eveneens een relatie mee? "Want daartoe is ook den doden het Evangelie verkondigd geworden, opdat zij wel zouden geoordeeld worden naar den mens in het vlees, maar leven zouden naar God in den geest."
Bij deze tekst vind ik de kanttekening duidelijk en éénduidig.
14) doden
Namelijk die ten tijde van Noach geleefd hebben, en nu dood zijn, waarvan hij hiervoor 1 Petr. 3:19,20, heeft gesproken; die Noach lasterden, omdat hij niet deed gelijk zij, namelijk huwelijken, eten, drinken, enz., zonder bedenken van Gods toekomende straf, gelijk Christus daarvan ook spreekt Matth. 24:37,38.
15) het Evangelie
Namelijk door Noach, den prediker der gerechtigheid; namelijk om hen daardoor tot bekering van zulk een zorgeloos leven te brengen.
En wat betekend dan "maar leven zouden naar God in den geest"?
Daar was en is de Evangelieverkondiging toch op gericht, dat mensen leven zouden en zullen leven naar God in de Geest.
Er gaan er met twee verbonden verloren en met drie en er worden er met twee verbonden behouden en met drie. Prof. G. Wisse.
NICNT noemt 4 mogelijkheden, waarvan de eerste mij het waarschijnlijkste lijkt, namelijk dat met deze tekst de "doop tot de dood van het martelaarschap" bedoelt wordt. Bekend is, dat het martelaarschap in de Vroege Kerk als "doop" werd aangeduidt.
NICNT
(1) One option is to understand “baptize” metaphorically in light of Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:50. Either (a) some were “being baptized into the ranks of the dead” by martyrdom, or (b) the apostles “were being destroyed by their labors on behalf of the dead (i.e., those who are lost),”21 a view recently revived by J. Murphy-O’Connor, but who takes v. 29a as a Corinthian gibe at Paul’s labors, to which Paul responds in the rest of the paragraph.
(2) Others take “baptized” as referring to Christian baptism but give the preposition “for” different shades of meaning; sometimes these views suggest special meanings for “the dead” as well. These run the gamut: (a) that they are being baptized “over” the graves of the dead; (b) that they are being baptized “with death before their eyes” as it were;24 (c) that it means “with a view toward,” suggesting that the departed are Christians and those being baptized are new converts who are being baptized with a view toward their being reunited with their departed loved ones; (d) that it means “concerning,” or “with reference to,” having to do with the symbolic meaning of baptism, that it is in reference to death, burial, and resurrection;26 (e) that the prepositional phrase goes with the verb “do,” not “baptized,” and should read, “What will the baptized do in behalf of the dead (in the future, given that they do not believe in resurrection)?”
(3) Another set of solutions attempts to find a meaning for “the dead” that will be more compatible with Pauline theology. These include: (a) that “the dead” refers to the “(soon to be) dead bodies” of the Christians themselves, and that they were being baptized for the sake of that part of them that was dying and about to become a corpse; and (b) that “the dead” refers to those among whom Christ was named, hence “What shall they do who have sworn allegiance to one who on their showing must be numbered among the dead?”29
(4) Finally, some have offered alternative punctuation: either (a) “In that case, what are the baptized to do? (It is) for the dead (= merely in death), if there is no resurrection of the dead at all. Why then are they baptized for them (= and whatever is the use of that?)”; or (b) “Otherwise what shall they do who are baptized? for the dead? (i.e., are they baptized to belong to, to be numbered among the dead, who are never to rise again)? Indeed, if the dead do not rise again, why are people baptized? For them? that is, are they baptized to be numbered among the dead who are never to rise again?”
Fee, G. D. (1987). The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament (765–766). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
NIGT MULTIPLE INTERPRETATIONS OF “BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD” AND OUR CONCLUSION
We must now enumerate the main interpretations of the notorious phrase ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, translated on behalf of the dead in NRSV, REB, NJB, and Barrett, or for the dead (NIV, AV/KJV), or for the sake of the dead, our translation, following Findley, Raeder, Howard, Collins, and Schnackenburg. (If for is understood in its “final” sense, this is also acceptable.) It would detain us unduly to enumerate the many which scarcely deserve thought, but we shall cite (A) ten which are on the whole unconvincing, together with (B) a further three which are either widespread (11, 12) or (in the last case) highly probable (13).
(A)(1) Theodore Beza (d. 1605), Heinrich Bullinger (d. 1575), and J. Cocceius (d. 1669), followed in modern times by J. M. Ford, understand οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι as “qui ablutione utuntur,” i.e., washing. Beza forced the Greek syntax to mean who wash their dead [for burial]”; Cocceius, “who wash themselves from ceremonial defilement by touching a dead body.” Neither the syntax nor the context nor (here) lexicography can support this.
(A)(2) John Lightfoot (d. 1664) understood τῶν νεκρῶν to refer to the dying martyrs, and interprets baptism metaphorically to refer to the baptism of suffering and martyrdom. This would fit Paul’s point about resurrection and also 15:30, but strains τῶν νεκρῶν unduly. Wolff observes that no such role is ascribed to martyrs at such an early time.
(A)(3) Thomas Aquinas and Nicholas de Lyra (d. 1349) identify ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν with mortal sins, for the sake of which people are baptized, but this is anachronistic and violates exegetical criteria.
(A)(4) Luther, followed in the modern period by H. Ewald and in part by F. Grosheide, understand ὑπέρ in its local sense of above, and interpret the dead as representing the tombs or the graves of the dead. Grosheide observes, “The dead in our context always represents the group of the dead as a whole, not individual dead persons.” He considers it possible, but not certain, that “some at Corinth had themselves baptized above the graves, namely of relatives who had died in Christ.” Luther first considers “vicarious” baptism and rejects it. The background is “escorting the dead to their graves with honor” as the joint context with baptism as a sign of the reality of the hope of resurrection.168 However, this local use of ὑπέρ is less common in Koine than in classical Greek and apparently foreign to the NT, and there is no evidence of any special attention to tombs of Christians in c. AD 54–55.
(A)(5) Bengel, Flacius, and Calvin follow Epiphanius in regarding the context as probably that of the deathbed. Bengel comments on the variety of theories, and concludes: “Nec martyria, nec baptismi super sepulcris, etc … sed eo tempore quum mortem ante oculos positam habent … vel decrepitam aetatem … vel per martyrium.” Calvin concedes that he changed his mind about the meaning. “I used to think that Paul was pointing out the all-embracing end of baptism here, for the benefit of baptism is not confined to our life here.” But closer study, Calvin argues, suggests that Paul has in mind those “who have given up hope of life,” perhaps especially catechumens who had fallen ill and were “clearly in imminent danger of death.”171 Calvin’s allusion to “the Fathers” who report the infiltration of superstition well fits the allusion to this verse in Epiphanius. Epiphanius explains it as the clinici, catechumens on their deathbed. P. Bachmann supports this view, but Meyer insists that this forces the Greek of v. 29.
(A)(6) H. Olshausen (see also in Preisker, below) offers at first sight what hardly seems to be a serious view, but Edwards and others regard it as linguistically and exegetically possible. He interprets the Greek “who are baptized to fill the place of the dead”: a definite number (πληρῶμα) need to be baptized. If Edwards is correct about the force of ὑπέρ, the one conceivable merit here is continuity with the eschatological drama of vv. 22–28. Yet this idea seems foreign to Paul, and very few accept it in the end.
(A)(7) John Edwards (1692) interprets this verse as referring to people who have themselves baptized as converts because they have witnessed the radiant confidence and courage of the martyrs. Paul witnessed the martyrdom of Stephen in this way. Yet many argue that the force of ὑπέρ becomes strained, and it is not clear why Paul should use οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι rather than οἱ πιστεύοντες.
(A)(8) Chrysostom, Theophylact, Photius, and Erasmus understand τῶν νεκρῶν as an ellipsis reflecting the baptismal creed in faith: τοῦ νεκροῦ σώματος ἀνάστασιν πιστεύων, i.e., believes and expects the resurrection of the dead. The dead refers to “soon to be” dead bodies. Chrysostom utterly rejects the view of “baptizing in place of the departed” as a Marcionite heresy fit for “people out of their mind … and exceedingly simple.” Such would be an easy solution, if it did not import into the Greek an additional phrase which is absent: this seems hardly an “elliptic” use of τῶν νεκρῶν without further explanation. Nevertheless, it carried favor in the patristic era.
(A)(9) W. E. Vine repunctuates the verse to give it a different meaning, following a proposal by Sir Robert Anderson (1905) to read: Otherwise, what shall they do who are baptized? It is for dead persons if the dead do not rise. A full stop or period separates ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν from οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι, and more especially from ποιήσουσιν. This is suggestive but strains the syntax. As Fee observes, “none [of these] is compelling.”182
(A)(10) J. Murphy-O’Connor refers to the early tradition of understanding baptism as sharing in Jesus’ “cup” of suffering and death (Mark 10:39; cf. Luke 12:50; Rom 6:3). In line with the possible jibe against Paul as a “dead foetus” (or however we translate ἐκτρώματι in 15:8), the “spiritual elite” at Corinth use derogatory slogans about Paul which here he seeks to turn around against them to support his argument about resurrection. Baptized for the dead originated as an anti-Pauline slogan concerning Paul’s suffering and support for an inferior class of believer who is dead to true “wisdom.” Ironically Paul asks whether such work would continue if there were no resurrection. The strongest arguments for this are (a) the close link with v. 30; (b) the close connection between baptism and death (cf. Mark 10:39 and the work of Cullmann and others on such passages); and (c) the Corinthian use of slogans, e.g., clearly 6:12; 10:23, and several others); and (d) Paul’s delight in turning round the slogans against them. Against Murphy-O’Connor’s view is its speculative nature and lack of clear linguistic support. Although recently J. L. White has argued that the phrase may allude to the apostles, Wolff, on the other side, draws attention the the awkward syntax of καὶ ἡμεῖς in v. 30 if Paul is an implicit referent behind the allusion of v. 29. The idea deserves serious thought, but fails to carry conviction. White correctly points out that the immediate context refers to dangers which Paul faces (vv. 30–31), but it is more precarious to suppose that he defines “apostle” as one of “the dead” in the present verse.
(B)(11) A large number of writers insist that v. 29 concerns vicarious baptism. This is the first of the three views (under B) which deserve more prominence either because, as with (11) and (12), they are widespread and influential, or because, with (13), they are the most probable and relatively convincing. Conzelmann declares, “The wording is in favor of the ‘normal’ exposition in terms of ‘vicarious baptism’: in Corinth living people have themselves vicariously baptized for dead people.” Collins offers a similar view. This shows the “sacramentalism” prevailing in Corinth, and “Paul does not criticize the custom but makes use of it for his argument.”187
(B)(11)(a) Schmithals is so confident about this view, especially in the light of alleged gnostic influence and that of the hellenistic mystery religion, that he asserts: “It is absurd to dispute this, as Bachmann and Schlatter, for instance, have attempted to do in a more than dubious fashion.” In the light of such an immoderate statement, it is scarcely surprising that Conzelmann describes this verse as “hotly disputed.” This “baptism by proxy,” Schmithals observes, “was common among Gnostics” (and apparently may occur in some form in Mormon circles on occasion today).189 Indeed, in Gnosticism, Schmithals claims, baptism for the dead has greater significance than for the living. “The effect of the baptism for the dead was magical in nature,” and such gnostic texts as Pistis Sophia, Schmithals concludes, offer parallels with 15:29. Weiss, Lietzmann, and Wendland argue for vicarious baptism, citing allusions in Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Epiphanius to the practice among Marcionites and other sects.192
(B)(11)(b) Some have attempted to argue for vicarious or “proxy” baptism in a sense which depends less on a history-of-religions context than that urged by Schmithals. Wedderburn sees it as baptism on behalf of unbaptized Christians. However, the opus operatum “sacramentalism” postulated by Hans von Soden has lived on until the last few years, when the tide has turned. Horsley retains the view that some “were baptized vicariously on behalf of deceased friends and relatives.”195 However, H. Preisker finds a different apocalyptic background in, e.g., 4 Ezra 4:35; 1 Enoch 47:4; Rev 7:2–4 which leads him to declare, “Vicarious baptism is thus not sacramental, but an eschatological use.” Preisker argues that the connection lies with the apocalyptic verses 24–28, and therefore presupposes a background of the resurrection of the righteous. Those standing “near” to them could benefit from their deeds by proxy. This view is rightly criticized by Schnackenburg as “unacceptable.” Parry more generally concludes: “The plain and necessary sense of the words implies the existence of a practice of vicarious baptism at Corinth, presumably on behalf of believers who died before they were baptized.”198
(B)(11)(c) Some softening of what constitutes a version of this view comes from Allo and from Hays in different ways. Allo cites the very case of catechumens who, in their own baptism, wish to be identified with the dead of their family in near or actual Christian faith, i.e., without an “official” baptism but with “a baptism of desire.” In this one specific instance, it might be understandable if for pastoral reasons Paul refrains from questioning what has been done. This makes further possible sense if, with Hays, we call to mind the “less individualistic” view of Paul than that of modern Protestant thought: “the community can act meaningfully on behalf of those who are not able to act on their own behalf.” This specific principle is in part instantiated in Anglican and Protestant traditions which practice infant baptism, and Hays also notes that Paul does not “commend” vicarious baptism: he merely points out that to practise it while doubting the resurrection would be self-contradictory.
Many remain unconvinced by this view, both in the patristic era and in recent years, as well as among the Reformers. Murphy-O’Connor declares: “The difficulty … is that Paul’s understanding of the way the sacraments work would never have permitted him to condone such superstition in any of his churches.… The dead cannot make the act of faith that saves (Rom 10:9).” Further, although many argue that Paul does not necessarily approve of this practice, the transition to v. 30 through καὶ ἡμεῖς seems to suggest a continuity of practice which has Paul’s approval, and this is scarcely conceivable, even if we grant that the “special case” proposed by Allo might well merit a pastoral blind eye. The ferocity with which Tertullian and especially Chrysostom view such a practice and characterize it as bizarre among heretics should not too easily be forgotten or swept aside.
As Kistemaker observes, if those for whom baptism is received by proxy are dead Christian believers, how can this salvation be doubted if they are indeed believers, whether or not they have been formally baptized? Paul nowhere stipulates that baptism is a necessary condition of salvation; only that it is a normal and appropriate visible mark of union with Christ and of sharing in Christ’s death and resurrection through grace in the wider experience of conversion-initiation. Perhaps few writings have done more to engage the actual rite of baptism from absolute identification with the wider complex of conversion-initiation than James Dunn’s work on baptism and on “baptism in the Holy Spirit.” He observes, “It is clear from Rom 6:4 that the rite of baptism usually played a part in helping bring about the reality depicted by the metaphor of being baptized.… ‘Baptized in Spirit’ is even more clearly an initiatory metaphor … baptized in Spirit into Christ.… Paul’s correction of elitist spiritualities in Corinth … almost reads like a correction of some of the similar misconceptions in modern Pentecostalism.…” Without doubt, 1 Cor 15:29 alludes to the practice, not the metaphor, of baptism; but the wooden literalism that ascribes to Paul indifference to a practice of proxy baptism as “achieving” something for dead believers (let alone for dead unbelievers) sidesteps recent research on Paul’s broadly nuanced understanding of baptism (see also on 1:14–17, above, which is relevant here).
Above all, it is those who hold a high view of the rite of baptism who find baptism for the dead most difficulty: would not Paul deeply care if this important rite, with all its self-involving role as an effective sign of grace, is reduced to a mere instrumental mechanism? This emerges in the detailed study by M. Rissi to which we have referred.206 If baptism entails a serious appropriation of the grace of identification with Christ in his death and resurrection, how can the context be other than that of believers, or (in a later second-generation context) an initiating plea for grace on the presupposition of nurture within a Christian home and family? The state of the dead hardly seems to allow for a serious understanding of what baptism represents and entails. E. Stauffer’s countersuggestion that the rite would represent an “intercessory” baptism for the dead on the analogy of “offering (or atonement) for the dead” by Judas Maccabaeus (2 Macc 12:45; cf. vv. 39–44) is too slender and tenuous to bear the weight of such an extension of the theology of baptism. Downey’s counterargument about baptismal protection from “principalities and powers” in the afterlife also goes beyond Paul’s own theology of salvation and its sacraments.208
(B)(12) A variant of the above (which might have been categorized as [11][d]) is advocated most clearly and sharply by H. Alford (1881), although rather differently expressed by Heinrici and in part by Rissi. Alford declares, “The only legitimate reference is to a practice … not mentioned here with any approval by the Apostle … in use by some of the survivors allowing themselves to be baptized on behalf of (believing?) Friends who had died without baptism.… But … Paul does not mention it without a slur on it” (his italics). Needless to say, Alford refers to references in Tertullian, Chrysostom, and Epiphanius in which the Fathers repudiate the practice as nonChristian or heretical.210 Since the practice (if it existed) “dwindled away,” it may be inferred that this is something “with which he [Paul] could have no real sympathy.” This is confirmed by the nuance of τί ποιήσουσιν; (see above): “There is in these words a tacit reprehension of the practice about to be mentioned, which it is hardly possible to miss.” Heinrici is far less emphatic than Alford about the nature of Paul’s reserve, but it features in his argument.213 Senft cites this approach as originating with Ambrosiaster. However, once again, Rissi looks at Paul’s theology of baptism and the work of Christ as a whole, and like Murphy-O’Connor cannot concede that Paul would be indifferent to some instrumentalist view of its nature in isolation from a more adequate context. The difficulties which beset (B)(11) also apply, even if less forcefully, to this proposal, together with an apparently more abrupt switch to the positive in v. 30.
(B)(13) In 1955 Maria Raeder (following G. G. Findlay) explicated more clearly than before a view which had been hinted at in earlier theories, namely that baptism for the sake of (ὑπέρ) the dead refers to the decision of a person or persons to ask for, and to receive, baptism as a result of the desire to be united with their believing relatives who have died. This presupposes that they would share the radiant confidence that they would meet again in and through Christ at the resurrection of the dead. As a pupil of J. Jeremias, Maria Raeder was well aware of linguistic issues and argues convincingly that this coheres well with uses of the preposition ὑπέρ, in the “final” sense of for, i.e., for the sake of. Indeed, it is regularly so used in the context of the work of Christ and the earliest kerygma, and coheres well with Robertson and Plummer’s proposed baptized out of consideration for the dead. If we consider such a scenario as that of a godly parent who longs for a son or daughter to come to faith, the nuance of ὑπέρ as for the sake of (in pragmatic terms) makes sense.
Our Conclusion
J. K. Howard fully supports and develops this view against those which favor vicarious baptism. He writes that baptism for (for the sake of) the dead is “not in order to remedy some deficiency on the part of the dead, but in order to be reunited with them at the resurrection.” Schackenburg agrees that “the argument does not step outside the frame of primitive Christian views and above all fits excellently into the resurrection chapter.”219 The linguistic force of ὑπέρ, for the sake of, is preserved, together with a convincing nonmetaphorical meaning for both τῶν νεκρῶν (the Christian dead) and the middle-voice force of οἱ βαπτιζόμενα, those who have themselves baptized. We may return to G. G. Findlay’s succinct and careful comments. After exposing the fallacy of some competing views, he observes, “Paul is referring rather to a much commoner, indeed a normal experience, that the death of Christians leads to the conversion of survivors, who in the first instance ‘for the sake of the dead’ (their beloved dead) and in the hope of re-union, turn to Christ — e.g., when a dying mother wins her son by the appeal ‘Meet me in heaven!’ Such appeals, and their frequent salutary effect, give strong and touching evidence of faith in the resurrection” (Findlay’s italics).
The supposed objection that such conversion would depend on mixed motives in the first place merely finds replication over the centuries in many pastoral situations, and, second, should not obscure the focus of the confident witness to Christ and to the resurrection which such a plea transparently presupposed. From a dying loved one, this would carry enormous weight. There is no room for pretense or self-interest on a deathbed: the sincerity and transparency of faith and witness become overwhelming. Of two recent articles, the work of R. E. DeMaris on archaeological evidence concerning the importance of the world of the dead in mid-first-century Corinth carries weight, but may in effect count equally in favor of the “vicarious baptism” view or this final argument. For the more significant the fate of the dead, the more important and effective would be the plea of the deathbed Christian, with a view to reunion in the afterlife. On the other hand: most of the arguments against view (11) still apply. J. D. Reaume’s recent article, however, confirms the direction of our own arguments.222 We see no reason to reject this view (B)(13) as the least problematic and most convincing of all.
Thiselton, A. C. (2000). The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A commentary on the Greek text (1242–1249). Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans.
Willem schreef:Heeft 1 Petrus 4 vs 6 hier eveneens een relatie mee? "Want daartoe is ook den doden het Evangelie verkondigd geworden, opdat zij wel zouden geoordeeld worden naar den mens in het vlees, maar leven zouden naar God in den geest."
Bij deze tekst vind ik de kanttekening duidelijk en éénduidig.
14) doden
Namelijk die ten tijde van Noach geleefd hebben, en nu dood zijn, waarvan hij hiervoor 1 Petr. 3:19,20, heeft gesproken; die Noach lasterden, omdat hij niet deed gelijk zij, namelijk huwelijken, eten, drinken, enz., zonder bedenken van Gods toekomende straf, gelijk Christus daarvan ook spreekt Matth. 24:37,38.
15) het Evangelie
Namelijk door Noach, den prediker der gerechtigheid; namelijk om hen daardoor tot bekering van zulk een zorgeloos leven te brengen.
En wat betekend dan "maar leven zouden naar God in den geest"?
Daar was en is de Evangelieverkondiging toch op gericht, dat mensen leven zouden en zullen leven naar God in de Geest.
Stijltechnisch blijft het toch een moeilijke uitleg hoor. Volgens deze uitleg worden met "doden" mensen bedoeld die lang geleden de oproep tot bekering is gepredikt. Dus dan b.v. ook de mensen die de oproepen van de profeten hoorden. En waarom deze oproep? Dan staat er: "Opdat". Dus de oproep is gedaan A. "opdat zij wel zouden geoordeeld worden naar den mens in het vlees". Wat wordt hier dan bedoeld?. Dat de oproep een reuk ten dode is geweest?
De zin in de tekst wordt vervolgd door: B. "maar leven zouden naar God in den geest". Wat betekend dit dan?
De verwijzing naar Noach is dan helemaal lastig, want het woordje "maar" (het tweede deel) is toch niet vervuld? Of staat hier dat de oproep tot bekering van Noach voor velen wel tot zegen is geweest die wel de lichamelijke straf kregen (verdrinking) maar toch behouden zijn geworden?
Na de argumenten uit de Schrift ontleent Paulus het volgende argument aan een gebruik dat bij de gemeente van Korinte bekend was. ‘Wat zullen (moeten) anders zij doen, die zich terwille van de doden laten dopen?’ De doop symboliseert de eenwording van de gelovige met het sterven, de begrafenis en de opstanding van de Here Jezus (Rom.6:4,5,8). Een dergelijke handeling is zinloos wanneer men niet in de opstanding gelooft. Paulus gebruikt dit voor ons vreemd aandoende argument om aan te tonen dat het onjuist is te denken dat er geen opstanding der doden is.
Waar gaat het nu om bij ‘gedoopt worden terwille van de doden’? De uitdrukking is verder uit het NT onbekend. Het gebruik van het voorzetsel huper (voor, ten behoeve van, ter wille van) wekt de indruk dat het hier gaat om een plaatsvervangende doop, die door iemand anders ten behoeve van een gestorvene werd ondergaan. We zouden hier kunnen denken aan wat de kerkvader Chrysostomus (390 na Chr.) vermeldt aangaande een gebruik bij de sekte van de marcionieten. Het betreft daar een gestorven, ongedoopte bekeerling. Het is natuurlijk mogelijk dat zich in de nog jonge gemeente van Korinte sterfgevallen hadden voorgedaan van nog ongedoopte gelovigen, of dat iemand op zijn sterfbed tot bekering was gekomen, en men vervolgens een ander in zijn plaats doopte. Iets dergelijks zal zich niet vaak hebben voorgedaan en het heeft zich in ieder geval niet tot een vaste traditie in de kerkgeschiedenis ontwikkeld. Hoe het ook zij, dit vers behoort tot de moeilijkste teksten in het NT. Of Paulus zelf met deze handelwijze instemde, laat hij hier niet merken.
