Truth
On
Tough
Texts
ISSUE 30 –
January/2008
Reader
Questions (1)
Selected Texts
WE HAVE RECENTLY
RECEIVED SEVERAL questions from readers on
various “tough texts” of Scripture. Most of these are
questions that do not demand a full article to answer, so we are
dedicating this issue of TOTT
to such reader questions. This also serves as a
good follow-up to our recent study of interpreting
Scripture.
We are dubbing this
article with a “(1)” in the title because as other
questions come in, we will dedicate other issues to them
as well. Our thanks to each one of you who wrote, and we
hope that this will generate questions from others.
“Baptized for the Dead” (I Cor.
15:29)
Question:
What is the “baptism for the dead” referred
to in I Corinthians 15:29? I know that Mormons teach
that baptism is a saving ordinance; because many have
died before baptism, those now living must be baptized
for them if they are going to be saved. I know this
is wrong. Please expound on this
passage. I have read the context and cannot see
where/how it fits. (CW in Missouri)
Answer: Here
is probably the most controversial verse in the entire
Bible: Else
what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if
the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for
the dead? It has bothered
many a Bible reader. There have actually been upwards of
200 explanations of its meaning, many heretical, but
others legitimate possibilities. Here are just a
few.
As you pointed out,
it simply cannot refer to “proxy baptism.” Paul
would have immediately condemned such a practice. If
baptism cannot save a living person, it certainly
cannot save a dead one. Long
before Joseph Smith came up with this idea, it was
adopted by ancient Gnostic apostates such as Marcion,
and it is just as apostate today as it was then.
There is also
evidence of such vicarious “baptism” among ancient
pagans. Because of the presence of so much error in the
Corinthian church, some of which came from pagans, some
interpreters think that it’s possible that some in that
church had adopted this error, since Paul uses the term
they, not “we.”
One of the plausible
interpretations is that the term “the dead” refers to
the Lord Jesus in His death, the plural being used for
the singular, meaning “the dead one.”
Another is that the word
“baptized” simply refers to the idea of washing,
cleansing, purifying (Matt. 8:4; Heb. 9:10), and so
pictures the dead being carefully washed and purified
when buried, with the hope of the resurrection, and, as
it were, preparatory of that.
Because one of the
meanings of the Greek word behind for
(huper) is “because of,”
others think Paul is simply saying that people were
being saved (baptism being the sign) because of the
exemplary lives and witness of faithful believers who
had died.
Still another view is that
this might mean that a Christian friend was baptized for
symbolic effect on behalf of a new convert who had died
before being able to be baptized (perhaps by martyrdom
or perhaps on his or her deathbed).
One other view says that
this phrase means “baptized to take the place of those
who have died.” In other words, if there is no
resurrection, why bother to witness and win others to
Christ? Why reach sinners who are then baptized and take
the place of those who have died? If the Christian life
is only a “dead-end street,” get off it.
Well, we could go
on, but the view that I lean toward (which is similar to
the one immediately above) is well stated by William
MacDonald in his wonderful single-volume, The
Believer’s Bible Commentary, and
held by others:
The interpretation
which seems to suit the context best is this: At the
time Paul wrote, there was fierce persecution against
those who took a public stand for Christ. This
persecution was especially vicious at the time of their
baptism. It often happened that those who publicly
proclaimed their faith in Christ in the waters of
baptism were martyred shortly thereafter. But did this
stop others from being saved and from taking their place
in baptism? Not at all. It seemed as though there were
always new replacements coming along to fill up the
ranks of those who had been martyred. As they stepped
into the waters of baptism, in a very real sense
they were
being baptized
for, or in the place of (Greek
huper) the dead. Hence the dead
here refers to those who died as a result of their bold
witness for Christ. Now the apostle’s argument here is
that it would be foolish to be thus baptized to fill up
the ranks of those who had died if there is no such
thing as resurrection from the dead. It would be like
sending replacement troops to fill up the ranks of an
army that is fighting a lost cause. It would be like
fighting on in a hopeless situation. If the dead do not
rise at all, why then are they baptized for the dead?[i]
“Born of Water and Spirit” (Jn.
3:3-6)
Question: What does
being born of the water and
the Spirit mean in John 3:3-6? (BH in Missouri)
Answer: Several
“interpretations” have been offered: (1) it refers to
baptism as a requirement for salvation. This, however,
would contradict many other New Testament passages that
speak of grace alone (e.g., Eph. 2:8-9); (2) it stands
for the act of repentance that John the Baptist’s
baptism signified; (3) it refers to natural birth
(specifically, the fluid released when the amniotic sac
breaks prior to labor); thus it means “unless one is
born the first time by water and the second time by the
Spirit”; (4) it means the Word of God, as in John 15:3;
(5) it is a synonym for the Holy Spirit and may be
translated, “by water, even the Spirit.”
I tend toward the
simplicity of #3 simply because the context, verse 4,
specifically refers to
physical birth. Further, it cannot possibly refer to
baptism because not only is baptism not required for
salvation, but also because baptism had not yet been
given or commanded when Jesus spoke these words. In
short, I believe our Lord is simply saying, “Physical
birth is not enough; one must be born again spiritually
to enter the kingdom of heaven.” In fact, that very
contrast between “flesh” and “spirit” is then made in
verse 6! In my view, any other interpretation violates
the context and is looking for some deeper meaning that
simply is not in the text.
On Which Day of the Week Did Jesus
Die?
Question:
Based on Matthew 12:40, where Jesus says He would be
three days
and three nights in the heart of the
earth, on what day of the
week did He die? I have been reading some who object to
the idea of a Friday crucifixion. (DP in
Missouri)
Answer: This
verse has caused many over the years to wonder. Some
teachers, in fact, make a huge issue of it, going so far as to make it alone
pivotal concerning the day of Jesus’ death. Actually,
the issue is not at all serious because of Jewish
history and time rendering. To get the whole picture, we
will note two things.
First, the
Old Testament contains two kinds of prophecy regarding
Christ. One is the “verbally predictive,” in which
specific and sometimes detailed predictions are given.
Such prophecies include those that the Christ would be
born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14), that He would be a
descendant of David who would rule the entire earth with
justice and righteousness (Jer. 23:5), and that He would
be born in Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2).
The second type of
messianic prophecy is “typical,” in which an Old
Testament person or event foreshadowed the person or
work of Christ. We can be certain of typical predictions
only if they are specifically identified as such in the
New Testament. Here Jesus Himself tells us that Jonah’s
spending three days and three
nights in the whale's belly; before he was
vomited up on the shore typified the burial of the Son of
Man, for three days and three
nights in the heart of the earth before His resurrection. It was a predictive
prophecy in picture rather than in specific word. Just
as Jonah was buried in the depths of the sea, Jesus was
buried in the depths of the earth; and just as Jonah
came out of the great fish after three days, Jesus came
out of the grave after three days.
Jesus obviously
believed in the full literalness of the biblical account
of Jonah. If Jonah had not been literally swallowed and
miraculously protected while submerged for three days and three
nights in the whale's belly, that event could not have typified Jesus’
literal burial and resurrection. In light of Jonah’s
hardhearted stubbornness, it is not difficult to believe
that he would lie about his experience; but it is
difficult indeed to believe that Jesus would join Jonah
in such duplicity or be mistaken about the historicity
of the story. In declaring Jonah’s experience to be a
type of His own burial and resurrection, Jesus also
verified the authenticity of Jonah’s account of
himself.
Second, the
matter of three days and three
nights is often used either to prove Jesus
was mistaken about the time He would actually spend in
the tomb or that He could not have been crucified on
Friday afternoon and raised early on Sunday, the first
day of the week. But such elaborate schemes are silly
and pointless. Just as in modern usage, the phrase “day
and night” can mean not only a full 24-hour day but also
any representative part of a day. For example, let us
say that my family and I went to a neighboring town on
Monday. We went in the morning and came home after dark,
but this was not a 24-hour period. In the same
way, Jesus’ use of three days and three
nights does not have to be interpreted as 72
hours, three full 24-hour days; in fact, it should
not be interpreted that way. Why? Because
it is an absolute fact that the Jewish Talmud
(commentaries on the Law) held that “any part of a day
is as the whole.” Jesus was simply using a common,
well-understood generalization.
A similar expression
in Luke 13:32-33 is another example, in fact. As Jesus
weeps over Jerusalem, we read, “The same day there came
certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out,
and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee. And he said
unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out
devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow,
and the third day
I shall be perfected. Nevertheless I must walk to day,
and to morrow, and the day following: for it cannot be
that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem.” This expression
signified only that Christ was on His own divine
timetable; it was not meant to lay out a literal
three-day schedule. Again, expressions like this were
common in Semitic usage, and
were rarely employed in a literal sense to specify
precise intervals of time.
At any rate, I hope
that clears up the matter for you. Some Bible teachers
make mountains out of molehills. There are issues that
are far more crucial in our day than one such as
this that is so simply answered by understanding
biblical history. In fact, much false interpretation in our day comes from such
ignorance. History is one of the most important
principles of biblical interpretation.
“Guardian Angels”
Question:
I ran across a verse in the
Bible during a group Bible study; I should have written
it down, but didn’t. It talked about angels
watching over us. I asked if all people are
protected by the angels or just the elect. No one
knew the answer to this question. One person
suggested everyone but then they said “everyone who is
saved has stories from early-on knowing of God” but she
wasn’t sure that question could be answered. (JP in
Colorado)
Answer: The
term angel is obviously a transliteration of the Greek
angelos. As far back as Homer, it simply refers
to “a messenger,” but the role of such a messenger was
sacred, and he was supposedly under the special
protection of the gods.[ii]
While such pagan
concepts have no basis in Scripture, neither do some of
the misconceptions that arose in Judaism. Many Jews, for
example, believed that angels form a council that God
consults before doing anything. Many also believed that
various angels control the stars, seas, rain, snow, and
other such things. Still others believed that “recording
angels” write down everything people say and that every
nation and child has a “guardian
angel.”
The latter idea is still
popular in our day, no doubt as a result not only of
Jewish tradition, but also from the writings of Thomas
Aquinas, who was notorious for mixing human philosophy
(especially Aristotle) with Christian thought. In his
view, before birth each person is protected by the
mother’s guardian angel and then has his or her own
assigned at birth.[iii]
Scripture,
however, nowhere says such things. What It does
say, we find in Hebrews 1:14, for example: “Are
they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister
for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” We also read
in Matthew 18:10: “Take heed that ye despise not one of
these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven
their angels do always behold the face of my Father
which is in heaven.” What we see here is that angels
serve believers collectively (as the pronoun “their” is
collective). The picture is that they are always looking
at the face of God so as to hear His command to help
believers.
Henry Morris well sums up:
“They accomplish their ministry on behalf of the heirs
of salvation in various ways, including: instruction
(Acts 10:3-6), deliverance (Psalm 34:7; 91:11), comfort
(Matthew 1:20; Luke 22:43) and, finally, reception at
death (Luke 16:22). They were created to be ministering
spirits, continually sent forth to minister (that is,
serve) those who shall be heirs of salvation.”[iv]
[Taken from the
author’s book, A Word for the Day: Daily Readings on
Bible Words (AMG
Publishers)].
Dr. J. D.
Watson
Pastor-Teacher
Grace Bible
Church
*
* *
The Lord had made Noah serenely
bear witness against iniquity; yea, even to sit on the
throne and condemn the world. Noah never seems to have
entered into any dispute with the men of his times. He
never argued or caviled [discussed]; much less did he
wish them ill. He simply believed and told them the
truth, kept his faith intact, and went on building his
ark—he practiced what he believed. Doing this he
condemned those who criticized him. Worldlings, you may
laugh, but the man of God is your master after all. His
preaching condemned them. They know the way and wickedly
refused to run in it. His warning
condemned them. They would not regard it and escape. His
life
condemned them, for he walked with the God whom they
despised. Most of all the ark condemned
them. Did none of them ever say, “This is the strangest
fabric that ever was. In all the world there is not
another thing like this. Yet Noah is no fool. The man is
cool and calm, shrewd and sharp. He has bought as well
as any man could. How is that on this matter of this
strange structure that he is so strange?” Did not such
men at times think that there must be something in what
Noah said after all? If they did not think so, at any
rate the fact that Noah carried out his principles to
the full, and invested all he had in the building of
this strange ark, should have forced them to conviction
if they had not been hardened through the deceitfulness
of sin. Oh, how his faith condemned
them! When the floods began to rise up, and when the
door was shut, how the sight of that floating ark must
have condemned them!
[Charles Spurgeon,
Morning
and Evening II. The Fifty Greatest Christian
Classics Series, Vol. I
(Lafayette:
Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990), p.
202.]
NOTES
[i]
William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible
Commentary (Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1995), p. 1807.
[ii] Gerhard Kittel,
Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament (Eerdmans, 1964), Vol.
I, p. 74.
[iii] Summa
Theologica, Part 1, question
113.
[iv] Defender’s Study
Bible (Heb.
1:14).
