There’s also this interesting and suggestive verse in 1 Corinthians, 15:29,
“Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?”
I know the meaning of this text is controversial, but it seems to indicate an action in this life by those living, affecting those who have passed away.
Indeed it is a controversial one, some I think with to interpret it as just baptism (though this would make baptism far more than some are comfortable with, usually due to having some degree of dualistic separation in their minds, the whole false natural vs supernatural thing, but it shouldn’t) but Paul never refers elsewhere to baptism as baptism of the dead. It seems to be something that was a strong practice among the Corinthian Christians (or due to a number of their number denying that resurrection of the body would happen, he could be sighting this practice that perhaps more did, we just don’t know). It could have been something relatives did on behalf of their relatives, but it is a hard one to know, and we are always speculating a bit unless something gets found in a monastery, pots with documents are found in an archaeological discovery or are in a university or museum collection undiscovered yet (there are yet quite a backlog of archaeological finds which yet have to been gone through from all over the world so it’s possible), but otherwise this side of the resurrection we just don’t know in full. It was why I didn’t choose to bring it up, but with fact that there are good reasons to doubt it is regular baptism that is being refereed to here, it shows full continuity with Jewish practices for the dead (and their linking with existing ones in Gentiles) and their re-understanding of this in the context of Jesus and the Resurrection, in a Christian context. Of course, this would also fully open in such practices the fact that as Father Kimel hints they were already saying prayers for those asleep, particularly those not fully know yet to be Christians, in fact given many in Corinth were Jews, why wouldn’t this practice be continued and reinterpreted and redefined around the Lord Jesus and the Gospel (just as worship so drew from these sources, for instance a reference to ‘because of the angels’ in worship has great similarity to a reference found in the Dead Sea Scrolls referring conduct in worship, giving interesting perspective on what Paul is referring to, though his point and meaning is quite different from the Essenes).
Fascinating!
Jason, I know that you know that there is no punctuation in Greek. Jesus probably said, “I’m telling you today, you will be with me in paradise,” not specifying WHEN that would happen, but using the expression, “I’m telling you today,” to emphasize the fact that it WILL happen. Even in our day, we say, “I’m telling you right now…” in order to emphasize that what we are about to say is true.
Not so. This is probably the most frequently misquoted sentence in the Bible. It simply doesn’t say, “to be away from the body at death is to be with the Lord.” Here what the passage in 1 Cor. 5 (ESV) actually says, together with my understanding of it:
If our “tent” or body is destroyed, we have a building (resurrection body) from God, a body not produced in the usual fashion, but produced by God, “eternal” or immortal as Paul indicated when he wrote, “This mortal must put on immortality.”
While we live on this earth as mortals, we long to put on immortality.
By obtaining a resurrection body we will not be found bodiless.
We will not be “unclothed”, that is, disembodied spirits, but be further clothed with an immortal body.
While we are at home in this present, mortal body, we are away from the Lord.
We would rather be away from this present, mortal body, and be at home with the Lord in our future resurrection body.
I have no desire to fight. And I regret that you were offended. I ask your forgiveness.
Can you provide evidence that there was prayer for the dead in the first or second century? Please exclude the so-called letters of Ignatius since, from their content, they appear be either forgeries or heavily interpolated. That is the opinion of men who have studied them in depth, and my opinion also.
You assume that Moses and Elijah actually appeared to Peter, John, and James? Jesus called their experience a “vision”. (Matt 17:9) There’s quite a difference between seeing a vision of Moses and Elijah and seeing an actual appearence of Moses and Elijah. John the Revelator saw many visions which he recorded in Revelation. But he didn’t actually see four living creatures, four horses of different colours, stars falling from the sky, the sky rolled up like a scroll, the kings of the earth crying out to the mountains and rocks to fall on them, etc. All of these things were visions.
Paidion, as far as I know, evidence for the practice of interceding for the departed dates from the mid-second century. But this doesn’t mean that the practice began in the mid-second century. Our evidence for Christian life and practice in the first and second centuries is exceptionally limited and fragmentary. Nor does the limited state of literary evidence mean that we must assume an agnostic position. Given cultural beliefs and practices (pagan and Jewish), it would be strange indeed if the Christians of those early decades did not pray for the departed. This is supported by the absence of 2nd century controversy regarding the practice. We don’t see anyone protesting the practice as a novelty or departure from apostolic faith. Unless contradictory evidence can be provided, I think we may assume that Christians felt free to intercede for their departed loved ones. The practice quickly found its way into the eucharistic liturgies of the third century.
As I noted in my first comment, the practice of prayer for the departed does not depend on any specific understanding of life after death and the “timing” of the final judgment. It flows from love and the conviction that death cannot break the bond that we enjoy in Jesus Christ by the Spirit.
Thank you for your apology.
Was Jesus, then, in Paradise moments after He died?
Given the roots of NT Christianity were inherently Hebraic… where in “the Scriptures” i.e., the OT, do we find the likes of “interceding for the departed”? Intercessory prayer per se as I read it is innately relative to ‘the land of the living’.
Not only that, but “sin” had consequences… Jesus dealt with sin and its consequences, and Paul was unequivocal “he who has died has been freed from sin” – and thus LOGICALLY its consequences; QED, what is left then for “prayer” to do that God hasn’t ALREADY wrought FULLY through Christ?
To be sure “redemption” had an outworking to completion, but what was inaugurated in Christ’s Ministry, and ratified through Christ’s Cross, was subsequently consummated at Christ’s Coming, i.e., Ad70 “it is finished!”
Prayer for the dead (even if they are not in existence) is only the first step some would wish us to take. Prayer TO the dead is the next. Perhaps if we don’t take this second step, that too would incur the accusation of
?
All this, despite NO evidence in the OT (as Davo rightly asks for), and despite the Lord’s prayer which clearly accords with Genesis that our stewardship/concern is with this world NOT God’s realm, and also despite scripture emphatically declaring that there is** ONE **mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.
P.S. I don’t go for the argument that the pagans did it so it must be ok for Christians to do it.
As for early church evidence Paidion, you might find the following link interesting:
orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/invoc … aints.aspx
-although it is in order to persuade folk of the validity of the’ orthodox’ stance, I came away from it rather persuaded that the evidence is not there. The first reference of any relevance seems to be from St. Cyprian of Carthage (+258), writing to Pope Cornelius of Rome and even that does not refer to those alive praying for those deceased. Subsequent references are much later when we can probably agree that the ‘church’ had lost its way.
You’re forgetting that Jesus actually had a conversation with this “vision”:
*“And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.” - Matthew 17:3
And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. - Luke 9:30-31*
Also, “who appeared in glory” suggests they already had glorified bodies.
On one hand right to say death is defeat is complete and His Kingdom is here, but it isn’t here in full. Death though defeated is still here, it has not been destroyed through the completion of the resurrection of the dead at His appearing and the end of this age, when we are brought out through and beyond death at that moment, and decay and futility are swept from the universe, then shall the last enemy be placed before His feet and destroyed.
But we aren’t there yet, yet still already participate in the life of the age to come, the immortal Life of God in Christ Jesus now, we are united to and in Christ now, growing into the full humans we shall be. We can be sundered from Christ, death is defeated, it cannot separate from the love of God found in Christ, nor do we stop being united to the Messiah and members of His Body because of it, to say less is to say it was not defeated but still has power and hold on our lives and fate, that we remain under it’s slavery and are not ransomed from it’s hold. That is the attitude of the Israelites wishing to return to Egypt, but it is not so. The Messiah is the ever-living One who has conquered and plundered death and Hades and has their keys in His Hands, we live in Him and He in us, we live because of Him, we will be raised by His power because of Him and His Life. Because He is the Resurrection and the Life though we die not only shall we be raised again out beyond death to live again, united to Him now we shall never die. We live on in and with Him, until the resurrection and our mortal bodies put on immortality.
So who then are these dead you speak of? They are not here, but all are alive in Him, united to humanity all humanity is united to Him, so how can any die anymore in truth? Who can separate them from the Love and Life of God in Christ Jesus? Shall death, the defeated slaver who He triumphed over, as it couldn’t hold Him? Never, so what else is there to keep people sundered from Him and His Life, who is greater than God, what is stronger than His Life and power of the Resurrection? Again nothing, nothing in either the dimensions of heaven or earth can keep us from Christ Jesus, nothing at all, we are united to Life Himself and He is our fate and destiny, so how can we truly die (and that we do suffer is momentary, it to shall pass, we shall rise again). To say there is still a land of the dead is a denial of the Resurrection, so indeed pray for the living, He is the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, not was, He is the God of my brother Sean and my nephew Ben as well, for that matter, not was, He is the God of the living not the dead, the Lord of the living and the resurrection not the dead, and we begin to share the resurrection life, the divine Life and nature now, how can, being so partakers of His Life can this be overcome and defeated by death, how can it tear anyone from Him when He has defeated it and holds its keys? It’s inconceivable. So do pray for the living, but all the living, don’t neglect those asleep.
And as Father Kimel indicated, during at least the time of the Maccabees and Judas Maccabeus prayers and sacrifices were given on behalf of the departed because of belief in the resurrection, the graves of rabbis and men seen as particularly holy or exemplary were venerated because of the resurrection. When Peter was thought slain as related in Acts, and he was freed from prison and can to John Mark’s house they though it must be his ‘angel’ on the numerous ways used at the time to describe the intermediate continuity between now and the resurrection and full embodied life people would have then (which had it’s own language), others being Paradise (referencing an idea of oasis to rest before continuing on a journey), the booths of the souls of the righteous in the Wisdom of Solomon or the temporary dwellings sighted in John’s Gospel (somewhat misleading translated as mansions for our eyes). And again, when Paul is brought before the Sanhedrin when Paul announced he was being persecuted for his conviction and belief in the resurrection of the dead as his fellow former Pharisees, at which point they argue with the Sadducees over the resurrection, we they asserted their view that Paul might have interacted with Jesus angel (thereby denying that the resurrection of the dead had come yet, and come in Jesus as the first-fruits splitting it into two, the Messiah first, and following by Him) suggesting Paul had meet Jesus in the intermediate existence (much like the Lord’s need to assure was not a ghost to the Apostles and disciples assuring than He had body as they do, same concept). So which Hebraic and Jewish tradition are you referring to, as the only group we know of that denied the continuity of existence between death and resurrection was the Sadducees, who rejected the resurrection and all spirits, certainty not any other Jewish groups, nor did the first Christians either, nor did either hold to dualistic idea of of a soul as something separate in any real conceptual way from the body or the seen dimension of creation, nor that the body is separate from the psyche, the soul, and the heavenly dimension, their are part of a holistic whole were both dimensions meet and intersect. This is why they not surprised to see people’s angels, or make sacrifices and prayers for the departed or venerated tombs, it’s why even more these concepts were central for early Christians who knew the resurrection if the dead had come and began, it was all because of the resurrection, central to a theology and practice and life based on it. It’s why there is the mysterious reference to the baptism of the dead by Paul, and it’s my for early in the 2nd century at least Christians continued this Jewish and not just Gentile practice of praying for the departed and venerating saints departed, because they weren’t gone, they were not truly dead, and they were alive and united to Christ and still (and still are) active members of His Church, His very Body, alive because of Him and in Him, this is creational and Incarnation driven monotheism, worlds away from any paganism. Rather it is a dualistic Platonic and Gnostic concepts when many Christians inherit without realising it that puts soul and body, heaven and earth and spirit and matter in opposition and believe those having dead and somewhere out there far form us (or non-existent in effect) any more than Christ is fat from us, but through the dimension of heaven is present, imminent and in all.
And so again, you pray for those asleep for the same reason you pray for those awake, after all by the same logic why pray for anyone if it’s all finished, if it is finished in that manner why act or help anyone, why grow in love, grace and holiness? But such ideas again arise from a highly divided sense of reality that is alien to Christianity, rather the reality of the Kingdom and age to come is made manifest in our lives and those around us, by grace our humanity is renewed by Him and we learn and enact the life, language and way of the age to come, of love, faith and hope, of the defeat of death and resurrection to immortal life now and to come in Christ, God’s life and rule manifest and brought through us, through embodied humanity, the image and likeness of God, launched in and through the Incarnation, the joining of His Life with humanity, and humanity with Him, completing and renewing humanity to be what we should be, truly human, and is brought into others life and creation around us in self-giving love and self-sacrificial service, every reconciliation, love and healing another’s life, all this is the Kingdom in action, all this the Gospel, all is salvation of all creation. And God works through us, through those He is making in His image and likeness, remade and renewed in the truly Human One who is the Image of the Invisible God, renewed in Christ’s Image, by the Spirit. There is no repentance or change of mind by God in this, He will work with and through humanity to complete creation and manifest His love and glory into creation, and to each, St Ireanaus rightly declares that ‘the glory if God is man fully alive’, it is the manifestation of the sons of God creation groans for, to be set free from decay and futility, and filled with glory of God, transfigured and united to His Life through us in Christ, and by Christ in us.
And pray is central to human and Christian vocation and nature, to living the life of Christ. He told us to pray that Kingdom would come and Father’s will on earth as in heaven, to pray for each other, to pray and minister for sick, the hurting, for our enemies who hate and persecute us, clearly despite the fact the ransom wad completed and Kingdom established the Lord still though it vital we pray for others and minister to others, that this is part of the very Life and way He has brought, to work with and through us, prayer is vital part of participating in His Life, and in the Kingdom, of loving and serving others. Pray is a vital part of the dynamic new life, there isn’t ever the hint of suggestion we shouldn’t do it because He did it all, it’s a vital part of our life and how His salvation is brought to those around us, to creation and our own growth and renewal.
If course this usually doesn’t need to be said, most Christians know importance of pray, and praying with and for indeed (indeed we are expected and commanded to, as a vital part of life in communion with Christ, to pray for all things and without ceasing even), they know to pray for others and those hurting and in pain. But ad Father Kimel says, to not pray for those asleep for the same reason you do for those awake and with us, and to refuse to do so should refuse to pray for the sick and the hurting around us, the denial of the one is a denial of the other.
It is a dereliction of love, and of God’s love, and the importance of prayer in communion life with God in Christ, and is a concept and theology unknown to Christians and Christian life for more 1500 years to the 16th century, and is far from early Christian ideas on life in Christ.
I’d also like to mention the case of Samuel. When Saul sought consultation with the witch at Endor, who had a familiar spirit, the spirit of Samuel came up ascendng out of the earth (presumably Hades). But this was unlike any familiar that she was, er, familiar with. This was something that terrified her like nothing she’d seen before, which she likened to the gods.
Speaking of “the land of the living”, wasn’t this the kind of response that Jesus gave to the Sadduccees in regards to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
*"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." - Matthew 22:31-32*
Wouldn’t this suggest some form of conscious existence after death?
Hi Dondi,
Yep I have absolutely no issues with “some form of conscious existence after death”… what I’m not finding as clear is any notion of prayers offered towards or on behalf of the said “dead” anywhere in the OT; unless of course I’m just not aware of it… is there such that you are aware of?
The most famous instance in the Old Testament is the story of Judas Maccabaeus (2 Macc 12:38-46):
Uh, no, I can’t buy that for at least two reasons:
1.) Stylistically it would be, so far as I can tell, absolutely unique. The {amên soi legô} is a characteristic style for Jesus to talk, not only across the Synoptics but also in GosJohn (though there with a double “amen” usually) – it’s so characteristic, and almost or totally unique among ancient Jewish or Christian figures, that even hypersceptics who admit the existence of Jesus at all tend to regard the Amen sayings as historical. Adding a “today” to it for emphasis would be grossly unusual for His style. While that’s not strictly impossible, your defense seems to rely on accepting the phraseology as a fairly normal way of adding emphasis, over against the idea that He’s saying something is going to happen today – and for Jesus it wasn’t a normal way of adding emphasis.
1.5.) Relatedly, phrase sets are a common way in Biblical Greek of approximating what we’d use punctuation for, and {amên soi legô} is one of those phrase sets, much like {kai eipen aut(i)ô} which precedes it, “And he said to them”, the main difference being that the “amen” saying is uniquely characteristic to Jesus in the Gospels (and in ancient literature more generally).
2.) Precisely because the saying is so very typical of Jesus’ style, the only feasible way to argue that “today” modifies the verb “I am saying”, would be for “today” to be clustered inside the saying. {soi} and {legô} can change places (they do in different textual families of this verse for example), but the clause indicates the start of a declaration, what Jesus is saying to them.
Admittedly, “today” {sêmeron} is the very next word after the signaling declaration clause, and it’s immediately after the verb of the clause and not next to {es(i)ê} “you shall be”, so I can understand why from a mere lack of punctuation you could argue (apart from ideological preferences either way) it was part of the declaration phrase this time. On the other hand, “with me” fronts the verb “you shall be”, so it isn’t like “today” would be out of place in the construction of this side of the sentence by fronting its verb – though again I’ll admit the immediate grammatic issue would be clearer if “today” was farther down the sentence (as it would also be clearer if it was inside the declaration clause).
The grammar per se can go either way, as you acknowledge when you appeal to a lack of punctuation; so the decision has to be made on stylistic grounds, as you also acknowledge by appealing to a particular style for comparison – but Jesus doesn’t use that style elsewhere.
The stylistic ground weighs strongly, if not deductively, in favor of “today” being the start of what is being declaration, not a modifier of the announcement that Jesus will say something true.
Granted, Knoch punctuates it as “to you I am saying today”, but he has no grammatic reason to do so, and I’d say no stylistic reason either.
That being said, I’ll allow that in some other cases though not entirely parallel, for example Luke 4:21, a {hoti} is added to help distinguish when the speaking starts. Mark 14:30 might count as some slight evidence in your favor, since two words {hoti} and {su} separate the declaration introduction from “today”, i.e. “Amen I am saying to you that you today this night” will be denying Jesus before the rooster crows. A {hoti} fronts “today” before the speaking starts in Luke 19:9, too.
A {hoti} isn’t always used to clearly signal the start of the actual speaking, Luke 23:43 itself being the most pertinent obvious example 
, but without the {hoti} the stylistic understanding would be that the speaking starts after the declaration that Jesus is going to tell them something truly.
I have a lot of ‘work’ work to do today {sêmeron} , so I’ll have to get back to the other points of discussion later.
I am interested in the ‘today’ portion of that scripture verse - ‘today’ you will be with me in Paradise.
When Christ died - was that Jesus the man, or the Eternal Word? Or both?
That aside, when Christ died, did He then go directly to Paradise, or was he dead? Was there just an eyeblink that was the moment of death, then straight to Paradise? Did the eternal Word, the Logos, die, cease to exist, for even the blink of an eye? Or was he truly dead until raised on the third day?
Sincere questions, btw, not playing theology here…(as I’ve been known to do)…
David, if one believes that the Council of Chalcedon got things right, then the answer to your question is … yes, with one qualification: the Eternal Word dies on the cross in his assumed human nature, not in his divine nature.
Fr. Kimel - but His consciousness, his thinking and feeling, his awareness, that he had from the beginning - died? He did not exist for a period of days?