SCRIPTURE QUESTIONS

Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Thursday, May 6, 1880

FromThe Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 55, No. 19

SCRIPTURE QUESTIONS.

63.—THE THIEVES REVILING CHRIST.

“The thieves also which were with him cast the same in his teeth.” Matt. 27:44. “And one of the malefactors which were hanged, railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering, rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?” Luke 23:39, 40. Matthew says that both thieves reviled Christ; Luke, that only one reviled him. How can these statements be harmonized? J. B.

ANS. We are to remember that Christ hung upon the cross between these two thieves for six long hours before he gave up the ghost. Meanwhile, strange phenomena appeared, and during the last three hours of the Saviour’s life, a preternatural darkness spread over all the earth. There was both time and occasion for a great change to be wrought in the views and feelings of the malefactors, which appears to have been the case with one of them. The solution we therefore offer is this: That Matthew and Mark record what first took place, and Luke, the change that was afterward wrought in the mind of one of the criminals. At first, both reviled him; lastly, one became penitent, and rebuked the other for his unseemly railing.

64.—SELLING TO THE STRANGER.

Why were the Israelites allowed to sell to the stranger, that which died of itself, or was unclean, which they were forbidden to use themselves? Deut. 14:21. A. H. O.

ANS. The reason for not eating that which dieth of itself, or, as added in other places, that which is torn of beasts, is the danger that would attend such an act on physiological grounds. But Tavernier, as quoted in the Cottage Bible, describes the condition of the heathen of those eastern countries, especially the poorer classes, to have been such that they were glad to get flesh to eat even of this quality. And as they would eat this, the Hebrews were permitted to give or sell it to them. God might have forbidden their doing so; but it was not the design of that dispensation that God’s people should give their energies to the work of trying to elevate the great body of heathendom, as such, by sanitary or other reforms, but to keep alive the knowledge of himself in the earth, to preserve the truth, be guardians of the lively oracles, and stand as a holy seed among whom the Messiah should finally appear. To do this, they must keep themselves a separate and distinct people. This idea must be fostered; and we apprehend that this very regulation was designed to be a most efficient means to that end. It is very apparent that such would be its effect.

65.—BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD.

Please explain 1 Cor. 15:29: “Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” The Mormons claim that it means that we should be baptized for our dead friends, who may have died without baptism. C. G. W.

ANS. Whatever view we may take of this text, which has been the occasion of quite a variety of opinions, we must interpret it in such a manner that it will harmonize with, and have a bearing upon, the argument which Paul is presenting, which is an argument in favor of the resurrection of the dead. And we notice first that it has reference to the living, not to the dead. His query is not what will become of your dead friends who have died without being baptized, if there is no resurrection of the dead; for it would not matter whether they had ever been baptized or not, if the dead do not rise. But he asks, “What shall they [the living] do who are baptized for the dead?” This consideration forever cuts off the Mormon claim that the act has any reference to the condition of those who are dead. But here is a class brought to view who perform some act which is an argument in favor of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, which Paul is here presenting. What is this act? The obvious reply is, Baptism. But what connection had their baptism with the dead? and why does Paul add, “for the dead?” Simply because there is no hope for the dead but in the resurrection; and this hope is what a person publicly professes by baptism. So the import of Paul’s language is, Why are men baptized to show their hope in the resurrection of the dead, why do they thus publicly profess Christianity and subject themselves to all the hardships and perils of that position, if the dead are never to have a resurrection? Viewed in this light, Paul’s argument becomes of great positive value in favor of his position that the dead will be raised; for it follows that all that men have been willing to suffer, even to the imperiling of their own lives, is so much testimony in favor of the clearness of the evidence that the dead will be raised, and of the potency of the doctrine.

Biblical expositors have given criticisms on this passage, so much to the point, that we present a few of them: “Macknight considers the passage as elliptical, and reads it, ‘Baptized for [the resurrection of] the dead.’ In Heb. Wahl the passage is thus paraphrased: If the dead do not rise, of what use is it to expose ourselves to so many dangers in the hope of a future reward?”—Cottage Bible.

Barnes, in his Notes, after stating various opinions on this passage as untenable, says: “The other opinion, therefore, is, that the apostle here refers to baptism as administered to all believers. This is the most correct opinion; is the most simple, and best meets the design of the argument. According to this it means that they had been baptized with the hope and expectation of a resurrection of the dead.” “The phrase, ‘for the dead’ means, with reference to the dead; . . . with a belief that the dead will rise.”

Dr. Clarke, commenting upon this passage, says: “The sum of the apostle’s meaning appears to be this: If there be no resurrection of the dead, those who, in becoming Christians, expose themselves to all manner of privations, crosses, severe sufferings, and a violent death, can have no compensation, nor any motive sufficient to induce them to expose themselves to such miseries. But as they receive baptism as an emblem of death in voluntarily going under the water, so they receive it as an emblem of the resurrection unto eternal life, in coming up out of the water; thus they are baptized for the dead, in perfect faith of the resurrection.”

It may be proper to add that, according to Barnes’ Notes, Grotius, Michaelis, Tertullian, and Ambrose favored the opinion of vicarious baptism; but other authorities, as Lightfoot, Rosenmüller, Pearce, Hornberg, Krause, Prof. Robinson, and indeed all other authorities, are against the view, as manifestly absurd. According to Grotius, the custom of vicarious baptism did prevail somewhat in the church after the time of the apostle Paul; but there is no evidence that it was known to the apostle, and we are to remember that hosts of superstitions and absurdities were introduced into the church very shortly after it was deprived of the fostering care of himself and his fellow-apostles. Had he intended to teach it by the passage in question, he certainly would have seen to establishing the custom in such a manner that it could be traced even to his day.