I would like to draw your attention toward a question that gets brought up a lot in circles where the Deuterocanon is used by Lutherans and Anglicans, as well as one that gets thrown around in ecumenical and polemical Protestant-Catholic/Orthodox groups. That is; does 2 Maccabees teach that we should pray for the dead in order that their sins be expiated and atoned for?
Some view this question as crucial, because, as it is thought, if proven either way, it would serve to not only bolster but fundamentally prove that their theological tradition is right and the other wrong. Others, less open to discussion, have seen this text historically as one of the reasons that the Deuterocanon should be rejected as Scripture, in that it does not agree with their theological presuppositions. But I am here to tell you that this text is really neither some groundbreaking ecumenical/polemical death blow that solves the protestant/Catholic debate, nor is it something that should cause Protestants to reject the Deuterocanon as inspired Scripture.
Let me explain. The text itself (2 Macc 12:38-46), describes the actions of Judas Maccabeus following his battle with Gorgias, governor of Idumea (Edom), wherein Judas and his men, after purifying themselves according to “custom,” observe the Sabbath, and find among every single one of their gathered dead, necklaces (amulets) of (“that were sacred to”) the pagan gods of Jamnia. Finding this, they then all turn toward prayer towards the Lord that this sin might be blotted out, and then Judas exhorts his men to not fall into such idol worship and syncretistic behavior as these men who were fallen (of which, the author tells us, is, in fact, the very reason for their falling on the battlefield), and then they gather a collection of silver drachmas, to serve as an expiatory sacrifice for these sins.
the first part of the text is as follows;
38 Judas rallied his army and went to the city of Adullam. As the seventh day was approaching, they purified themselves according to custom and kept the sabbath there. 39 On the following day, since the task had now become urgent, Judas and his companions went to gather up the bodies of the fallen and bury them with their kindred in their ancestral tombs. 40 But under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 They all therefore praised the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings to light the things that are hidden. 42 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice (NABRE)
Breaking this text apart, first and foremost, its crucial for us reading it to understand the context and overall thrust of the book. 2 Maccabees, and the entire Maccabean corpus for that matter (referring mostly to 1-2 Macc, but not excluding 3-4 Macc), is speaking in the context of religious oppression and persecution at the hands of the pagans who were pressuring the Jews of that time to break God’s laws, and more or less either abandon or at least make what some would see to be minor compromises in the practice of their faith as they lived in the world (a message that Christians are now in dire need of again), such as, for example, eating food forbidden by Torah (2 Macc 7). While doing this, it is speaking also in the literary context of all that has come before it, specifically relating to examples of God’s people suffering for reason of their disobedience. I.e; the fall of mankind, the curse of Cain, the Noahic flood, the confusion of Babel, the endless wandering around in the desert journey, and the countless chastisements they suffered during it, the failure of Moses to enter into the promised land, the defeats they suffered at the hands of the Canaanites in the promised land in Joshua, the subjugation of Israel under their power in the book of Judges, the horrific history of Israel’s kings, and of course the warnings of the prophets. All of this builds up toward the literary context of 2 Maccabees. This is precisely what 2 Maccabees is speaking toward. It is speaking toward a people who know already that disobedience to God’s law, even in what might be seen as minutia of the Law (the little external things such as the eating of pork to save ones own life) is not just a matter of spiritual import, but the deciding factor in the question of whether or not Israel will succeed, and whether individuals will live or die. So then, when we come to this text, where you have this righteous remnant that engages in armed revolt against the pagan forces that would demand they submit to false gods and false religions, and things go well (at least in this chapter), it is because of faithfulness. Yet as has been seen thoroughly throughout the literary context of the story of Israel in the Old Testament, the unfaithfulness of particular individuals (even in the little things) can and has brought defeat down upon the entire nation of Israel (i.e, Achan’s sin in Joshua 7). And so, when Judas Maccabeus finds among these dead men that every single one of them who was slaid had apagan idol around their necks (a 1st commandment violation), the message being communicated is that those who died, died because of their unfaithfulness and that this should (and does) move the Israelites toward resolving to be faithful inasmuch as they are able to. And so, in that the Israelites pray that God blot out this sin, there is a sense in which this prayer applies to them, that this sin be blotted out among the whole people of Israel, for fear that again, as in days of Old, all Israel would suffer for the sins of the unfaithful individuals within Israel. It should be noted here that there are some textual variants here which read, “that they might not, on account of their sin, be entirely blotted out.” Which gives added credence to this understanding of the text. The “they” here, of course, as with all that was said before is not to be understood as either pertaining to the individuals who committed the sins, or to Israel as a whole, but to both, in organic connection. While protestants may be tempted to interpret this specifically and only as relating and applying to corporate Israel alive at the time, (i.e., that those still living do not suffer for the unfaithful who have died), this reading is made impossible due to the second portion of this text which we have not yet discussed (43b-46). More will be said on that later. However, within this first portion of text, what we are already seeing is that the author is communicating to us here within the context of a revolt and a risking of life (even to the point of martyrdom; 2 Macc 7) for the sake of fidelity to divine Law, amidst the backdrop of success and blessing for obedience and suffering and defeat for disobedience, that those who transgressed God’s law died, and those who remained faithful lived. And those who live offer prayers of reparation, expiation, and atonement together with a sacrifice (financial) for the “satisfaction” of the sins committed. The question of what it means that these sins would be expiated or atoned for by pray and or by sacrifice (financial) will be covered later, but for now it is sufficient that we remember that whatever it does mean, it is in the context (broadly of the O.T. as a whole, and more narrowly in the context of the Maccabean corpus) of the corporate body of Israel as they strive for external moral perfection in obedience to the Law. That is, the account of sins is considered corporately, and the expiation is efficacious corporately.
However, while the unified textual theme and context of corporality would have made this text a simple read about the importance for Israel to shun idolatry and to hold fast to God’s Law in complete obedience, it is made profoundly more complicated by the second piece of text (43b-46) which connects the prayers and sacrifice of the remaining soldiers of Judas’ army with the absolution of the sins of the fallen as he looked toward their future resurrection.
the text as follows;
In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be absolved from their sin. (NABRE)
It is from these texts that we know that what was done was specifically done for the sake of those fallen, with an eye toward not only their ultimate salvation or broadly for their honor or toward a broad reparation for the shame they brought to Israel, but for the specific absolution of their sins, even as they lay dead. This begs several questions.
For one, as everyone is thinking, how can the prayers and sacrifices of the living, at all and in any way whatsoever serve for the absolution of the sins of the dead? Secondly (more importantly), how did the Israelites think of sacrifice, atonement, and the absolution of sins? And last of all, what does this actually mean for us today, and our prayer and funerary practices?
Firstly, how can the prayers and sacrifices of the living serve the souls of the dead (at least, in a broad sense)?
Rabbinic reasoning:
While the Jewish Rabbi’s never spoke much to 2 Maccabees 12 in any official sense (except, for example, in the Jewish Annotated Apocrypha published by JPS), they did speak to prayers for the dead, and include such prayers for the dead in their liturgies to a similar conservative and limited extent as you might find among Lutherans. One such prayer, the El Maleh Rachamim reads as follows; “God, filled with mercy, dwelling in the heavens’ heights, bring proper rest beneath the wings of your Shechinah, amid the ranks of the holy and the pure, illuminating like the brilliance of the skies the souls of our beloved and our blameless who went to their eternal place of rest. May You who are the source of mercy shelter them beneath Your wings eternally, and bind their souls among the living, that they may rest in peace. And let us say: Amen” Of this prayer, The JPS guide to Jewish traditions (Roland L. Eisenberg) states that “El Maleh Rahamim is a plea that the soul of the departed be granted menuchah nechonah (proper rest), since the mere fact that a soul is in Gan Eden (Paradise) does not guarantee it complete contentment. According to tradition, the level of the soul in Gan Eden depends on its prior achievements on earth. Through our prayers and good deeds, we hope to earn God’s compassion for the departed souls of those who were dear to us. The statement is made that the worshiper resolves to “contribute to charity in remembrance of his (or her) soul.” Thus, as it may interest readers to see, while the Jews pray for the dead in a conservative way similar to that of Lutherans, the power they believe this prayer to have over the fate of the dead is more liberal (it is a greater rather than lesser power), such as that as will be seen of the Romans.
Patristic Perspectives:
Building upon this, we see in the Holy Fathers that prayer is not only said for the dead, but is believed to indeed benefit them greatly. This idea is seen in both east and west from the most influential fathers of both hemispheres, Chrysostom & Augustine, who writes respectively;
Chrysostom: “Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them” (Homily XLI on 1 Corinthians).
and
Augustine: “In the books of the Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. Howbeit, even if it were no where at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority, which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely, that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the commendation of the dead hath also its place” (On Care to Be Had for the Dead Chapter 3).
While Chrysostom and Augustine’s arguments differ greatly, with the former banking it on homolegoumenic Scriptures and the latter on Deuterocanonical and traditional (receive) Christian liturgy, the sentiment carries forth from both clearly and forthrightly. But, while some may complain that these sources, though influential, are too late in patristic development (which is a terrible argument, but that’s a discussion for another time), I will sate their complaints, to their shock and chagrin by sharing with you some words of one of the oldest of the church’s theologians, that of Tertullian, his lengthy quote reads as follows;
“After a few days, whilst we were all praying, on a sudden, in the middle of our prayer, there came to me a word, and I named Dinocrates; and I was amazed that that name had never come into my mind until then, and I was grieved as I remembered his misfortune. And I felt myself immediately to be worthy, and to be called on to ask on his behalf. And for him I began earnestly to make supplication, and to cry with groaning to the Lord. Without delay, on that very night, this was shown to me in a vision.4 I saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid colour, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my by brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease—his face being so eaten out with cancer, that his death caused repugnance to all men. For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other. And moreover, in the same place where Dinocrates was, there was a pool full of water, having its brink higher than was the stature of the boy; and Dinocrates raised himself up as if to drink. And I was grieved that, although that pool held water, still, on account of the height to its brink, he could not drink. And I was aroused, and knew that my brother was in suffering. But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show. Then was the birth-day of Gets Cæsar, and I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me.Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me. I saw that that place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. And where there had been a wound, I saw a scar; and that pool which I had before seen, I saw now with its margin lowered even to the boy’s navel. And one drew water from the pool incessantly, and upon its brink was a goblet filled with water; and Dinocrates drew near and began to drink from it, and the goblet did not fail. And when he was satisfied, he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment.” (On the passion of the Martyrs, chapter 2)
While some may cry and weep about the source of Tertullian’s conclusion (a dream, O how charismatic of him), that he came to this conclusion is clear. That he understood a complete translation from the place of torment to the place of paradise also is clear. While many of us may think this is theologically groundless or over the top, matters not. The fact of the matter is that he believed this. And every other patristic source that speaks on it agrees, and THERE ARE NONE who speak against it.
Orthodox opinions:
The orthodox speak, as in all things, in line with the Holy Fathers. While they do have a more conservative opinion than that of Rome, they yet still speak of great importance and impact of our prayers for the dead. However, there is variance in how this is reasoned out, with some following more closely with a conservative opinion akin to that of Lutherans (God is outside of time, and hears prayer outside of time), and leave the rest to mystery. While still others take a more liberal position on the power of prayer for the dead, forming a concept of what they call toll houses that produces something akin to a purgatorial pilgrimage to heaven. The former is rooted, admittedly (either unbeknownst to the orthodox who teach it, or quietly and hiddenly) in a western legal understanding of the final judgment, whereas the latter is rooted in a more traditionally eastern concept of progressive sojourn or pilgrimage. it should be noted as well here that, while the concept of toll houses may sound silly to many of us, is thoroughly patristic, and found in such well known fathers as St. Athanasius, St. Ephraim the Syrian, and Justin Martyr.
Roman Purgatorial realm theory
It is by now, all too infamously known that Rome believes in something called “purgatory.” But while most people know that Purgatory is in Roman minds a place that some souls go between heaven and hell for people to become purged of their sins before going to heaven, less known is the theological mechanism by which this purgatory functions. The idea is this; in order to enter heaven you need to be perfect. But, contrary to the belief of the Lutheran church, the church of Rome does not believe that this takes place in an instant at death called glorification. Rather, it takes place during a process of purgation, which is accomplished through acts of “satisfaction” and reparation. That is through acts of piety, and charity, and suffering you purify yourself, put sin to death, and become infused through divine grace. Those who fail to complete this process in life then depart from this world to the spiritual realm of purgatory, which the Roman theologians of old classified this realm as being similar to hell in experience but temporary rather than eternal (i.e., Haydock), whereas many modern Roman theologians describe it as being “entirely different” (CCC 1031). Nevertheless, the idea is that those in this state, while undergoing their own purification through the purifying fire (describe by classical Roman Theologians as suffering, and by modern/liberal ones as that of love and grace) can yet still be aided in this by the prayers and sacrifices of the church militant. The idea is, just as our prayers purify ourselves now in this life, and just as our prayers while living purify and mediate on behalf of others (i.e., Abraham’s intercession for Pharaoh, Isaac’s prayers for his wife, Moses’ intercession for Israel, our prayers for one another), so also the prayers of the living (and glorified) benefit those in purgatory who are dead. While this theory is not difficult to understand, it is for many people disagreeable because of the logical leaps that it seems to take. Such as the presupposition that glorification is a process, that our prayers for others aid them spiritually, and many other things (all or most of which are actually true to an extent, but still denied by most protestants). However, it should be clarified to all that in fact, this theory, to the surprise of many unaware Romans, does not actually solve the “problem” of this text, as the text speaks of the Absolution of Sin, whereas purgatory in both its classical Roman forms (i.e., Trent), and its contemporary form (CCC) firmly states that purgatory is NOT for the absolution of the guilt of sin (though the medieval council of Florence does seem to state that Purgatory accomplishes the forgiveness of sin) but merely for the satisfaction of the temporal punishment (classic) or reparation of the soul from its damage (contemporary). Thus, this theory, though still employed by the vast majority of Roman theologians, does not actually make any sense of the textual “problems,” except by closed eyes and logical leaps.
Lutheran Theologians
We come to our own selves! Truly we are great! Yet, is our work on this question great? In one way, yes. and yet in another way, no. Our work regarding 2 Maccabees 12 itself is excruciatingly lazy, and follows the path of most protestant work on the matter. See Luther’s thoughts, for example; ” their use of the passage in II Macc. 12[:43], which tells how Judas Maceabeus sent money to Jerusalem for prayers to be offered for those who fell in battle, proves nothing, for that book is not among the books of Holy Scripture, and, as St. Jerome says, it is not found in a Hebrew version, the language in which all the books of the Old Testament are written. In other respects, too, this book deserves little authority, for it contradicts the first Book of Maccabees in its description of King Antiochus, and contains many other fables which destroy its credibility. But even were the book authoritative, it would still be necessary in the case of so important an article that at least one passage out of the chief books [of the Bible] should support it, in order that every word might be established through the mouth of two or three witnesses. It must give rise to suspicion that in order to substantiate this doctrine no more than one passage could be discovered in the entire Bible; moreover this passage is in the least important and most despised book. Especially since so much depends on this doctrine which is so important that, indeed, the papacy and the whole hierarchy are all but built upon it, and derive all their wealth and honor from it. Surely, the majority of the priests would starve to death if there were no purgatory. Well, they should not offer such vague and feeble grounds for our faith!” [LW 32:95-96] The same could be easily brought here from Melancthon, Chemntiz, Gerhard, Pieper, etc. It’s in all or most of them. We must ask now, is this helpful? Hardly. This will be discussed more in a little bit. Beyond this, much has been made not only about “apocryphal texts” of the O.T., but even “Apocrpyhal texts” of the N.T. , those being the antilegomena (disputed books) of the NT (this includes the O.T. antilegomena as well). So important was this distinction to some of our forefathers that arguments were not even allowed to be constructed from Hebrews, or James, or 2nd Peter, or Revelation. These books rather, were relegated more or less to devotional material, as they were rejected as being admissible to theological dispute. But, before you dismay, it is important that we first cover what we do well on. And that is the effectiveness of prayers for the dead. Here, our Lutheran fathers do well. I.e., in the words of Luther himself; “Dear God, if the departed souls be in a state that they yet may be helped then I pray that you would be gracious. When you have thus prayed once or twice, then let it be sufficient and commend them unto God” (Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper)
Yet it gets better, and still more practical. HOW does prayer work (for the dead, and also everything else?) Prayer, as we believe, teach, and confess is not us telling God what He does not already know, or us bending Him to our will, or changing His mind, or meriting salvation from Him, or any such thing. Rather, prayer is as we confess, our exercise of faith in God’s promises already freely given. Thus we pray for all that which God has already promised. Here flows the recurring line of Luther’s Small Catechism, what we pray for comes to us even without our prayer! Why? because what we pray for is good, and all that which is good, God is at work in bringing together for us, even before we prayed for it. In fact, our prayer, as we confess, is our bringing to our God in faith the promises that He’s first given us. How does this apply to prayers for the dead, you ask? In this way; that we pray for the dead that which He has promised to them. Bringing to God His faithful departed, we pray that He grant eternal rest to them, and shine His perpetual light on them. To those who’s fate is uncertain to us, we pray that God be who is He to them, super-abundantly merciful. There is no sense of speculative theology here, there is here no kind of excess or fantasy. There is here only faith, and hope, and the goodness of our gracious God, believed in. Here we arrive at Luther’s true conclusions on matters of those who’ve died in light of God’s promises to us; “It is my hope that we too shall die this way and carry with us to heaven a poor sinner, if only we hold on to this cloak and wrap ourselves in the death of the Son of God and cover and veil ourselves with his resurrection. If we stand firmly upon this and never depart from it, then our righteousness will be so great that all our sins, no matter what they are, will be as a tiny spark and our righteousness as a great ocean, and our death will be far less than a sleep and a dream. Moreover, the shame of our being buried so nastily is covered with a dignity which is called the resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which it is so adorned that the sun is put to shame when it looks upon it and the beloved angels cannot gaze upon it sufficiently. We are graced and adorned with such beauty that all the other uncleanness of our poor body, such as death and the like, are as nothing. Hence, one must look upon a Christian death with different eyes, not the way a cow stares at a new gate, and smells it in a different way, not as a cow sniffs grass, by learning to speak and think of it as the Scriptures do and not considering deceased Christians to be dead and buried people. To the five senses that is the way it appears. As far as they can lead us, it brings only woe. Therefore go beyond them and listen to what St. Paul says here, that they are sleeping in Christ and God will bring them with Christ [as he brought with him the Savior, the devourer of death, the destroyer of the devil]. Learn to comfort yourselves with these words and instil in your hearts the fact that it is far more certain that Duke John of Saxony will come out of the grave and be far more splendid than the sun is now than that he is lying here before our eyes. This is not so certain as the fact that he will live again and go forth with Christ because God cannot lie. But take it to heart! For he who does not have this comfort can neither comfort himself nor be happy, but the more the Word escapes him the more the consolation also escapes him” (LW 51: 238-239). In this faith we pray our traditional Lutheran funeral & commendation prayer; “grant them eternal rest O Lord, and let your perpetual light shine upon them” – this He will do, as He has promised!
Reformed thinkers
The Reformed more or less deny and dismiss 2 Maccabees 12 on the basis that they believe that it teaches the Roman Purgatorial satisfaction theory as discussed above. more will be said of this perspective bellow, however, one thinker, that of Louis Berkhof puts forth the same problems with the Roman doctrine already noted above. He says; “The main support for this doctrine is found in 2 Maccabees 12:42–45, and therefore in a book that is not recognized as canonical by the Protestants. But this passage proves too much, that is, more than the Roman Catholics themselves can consistently admit, namely, the possible deliverance of soldiers from purgatory who had died in the mortal sin of idolatry” (Systematic Theology 686–687). From this he not only rightly dismisses the Roman theory, but also, implicitly denies the rejection of 2 Maccabees (which he does still reject) on the grounds that it teaches Roman Purgatorial theory. It may however, still be posited by Berkhof and others however that this is still doctrinal errancy, and should thus be necessarily rejected. In other words, this position puts forth a rejection of the Roman theory on the grounds that 2 Maccabees contradicts the Roman understanding of the spiritual mechanics of Purgatory, but also avoids granting validity to Romans interpretation and application of the text of 2 Macc 12. In this, Berkhof does very well.
With that, we look to our second question, what did the Israelites actually believe about sacrifice, atonement, and absolution?
To answer this, we look first to the Old Testament. The most obvious examples here are the explicit mentions of sacrifices for atonement in Exodus and Leviticus. Here, there are sacrifices made for BOTH guilt as well as praise, thanks, and free offerings. Without needing to say much, it is obvious to anyone with eyes that the O.T. does not speak of sacrifice, atonement, and absolution in the way that modern protestants do. Yet, neither does the N.T. speak as narrowly about it as they think it does. I.e, (Rom 12:1, Eph 2:1, Heb 3:16).
The Rabbis understood these things in the same way that they understood prayer and repentance. In a way, if you can imagine it, they understood them as liturgical and symbolic of repentance. Not as necessary for forgiveness or absolution or atonement, but part of a ritualistic rite, whereby they came toward God, offering the best that they had and devoting it entirely to Him, confessing their sin, and amending their lives in conformity to His law as they understood it. It was understood by the pre-Messianic rabbis that the Day of Atonement was at the centre of this, functioning corporately, literally, as Levticus 16:14 states this atonement WAS made for the sins of ALL Israelites (though they themselves did not offer it, but had it offered on their behalf corporately by another by a high priest) followed by the individual sin/guilt offerings, and then the sacrifices of thanks, worship, and praise following after, not as a different concept, but connected to it. With the sin/guilt offering being the door into covenant relationship with God, and the praise, thanks, and worship constituting its fullness. The blood sacrifices being relegated below confession, repentance, and amendment of life is something that reverberated around in the writings of the prophets (Hos 6:6, Isaiah 1:10-20, Joel 2, Amos 5:21-25). These were the texts in the minds and hearts of the Rabbis of the Talmud when thinking of sacrifice, atonement, and absolution. It was, they believed, not the blood of the animal that would save them, but their confession, repentance, and obedience, which was embodied and expressed through various kinds of sacrifices (blood, grain, money, etc). Furthermore, the chief sacrifice of the day of atonement, was believed to already cover the sins of individuals. In case some find this unbelieveable, contemplate how so many Jews could live abroad in diaspora apart from the temple and not despair of their eternal damnation. Even when the temple was built and standing (and it wasn’t always), the Jews did not return several days or weeks of travel to Jerusalem every time they sinned! But ONCE a year. This is important to note in regard to 2 Maccabees 12, as what is offered is not a sacrifice of blood, but intentional prayers and a financial offering, similar to a free will offering, or a giving of alms (as one might see in Tobit). It is important also to note here, that as they believed the day of atonement to be the “real” act of absolution for each and every individual, with the individual sin offerings being a reminder, an offering of drachma (no matter how much, nor how many bulls it could buy) was not in place of it. Thus, however the Jews of the time of its writing and reception did think of 2 Maccabees 12, it was not as Romans believe they did, nor as Protestants fear they did.
Lastly, we ask ourselves what this means for ourselves. One of the easiest conclusions we can come to is to say that it means nothing at all. This has been posed mainly by means of two arguments. The textual addition theory and the claim of errant theology.
The textual addition theory
Based not on criticism of “literary style,” but on content, some have theorized that the second portion of text (43b-46) is a later addition to the text, for the reason that logically it does not seem to fit all that closely with the preceding verses. As the preceding verses, and the whole thrust of the Maccabean corpus is about faithfulness to divine law in the corporate sense, and thus, the meaning of 2 Macc 12 and the prayer for the dead, according to those who hold this theory, is that we should pray for the corporate faithfulness of God’s people, and that the sin of idolatry not be found among us, nor that we fall under punishment for the sins of unfaithful individuals within our ranks. Here is seen an emphasis upon the corporate nature of God’s people (Israel/the church). That we ought to be engaging in prayers of reparation, so to speak, and mediation for the sake of the church, (as Moses did, for example) rather than simply say, ah – that is them, but I myself am faithful. Whether this “moral” has changed due to Christ’s high-priestly intercession varies upon those who hold this view.
The claim of errant theology
Most protestants when looking at this passage however, will simply claim that, as it doesn’t easily fit into their presupposed beliefs that it is there not of God. An early example of this position can be seen in the notes of the 16th Geneva Bible:
“Frō this verse to the end of this chapter the Greke text is corrupt, so that no good sense, muche lesse certeine doctrine can be gathered thereby also it is evident that this place was not writen by the holie Gost, bothe because it dissenteth frō the rest of the holie Scriptures, and also yc autor of this boke acknowledgīg his owne infirmitie, desireth pardō, if he have not atteined to yt he shulde. And it semeth, that this Jason the Cyrenean, out of whome he toke this abbridgement, is Joseph Ben Gorion, who hathe writen in Ebrewe five bookes of these matters, and intreating this place, maketh no mencion of this prayer for the dead, lib. 3. chap. 19. for it is cotratie to the custome of the Jewes, even to this day, to pray for the dead. And thogh Judas had so done, yet this particular example is not sufficiēt to establish a doctrine no more then Zipporahs was to prove that women might minister the sacraments, Exo. 4:25, or the example of Razis that one might kil him self, whome this autor so muche cōmendeth, 2 Macc. 14:41”
Geneva Bible: Notes, vol. 1 (Geneva: Rovland Hall, 1560), 472.
But honestly, both of these positions are theologically lazy and unhelpful to the interpreter.
Getting down to brass tacks, while understanding the context of a passage, and the historical development of its understanding across different theological traditions is helpful, we can’t actually sort through them before first setting up some gaurdrails of orthodoxy. So let’s do that.
Firstly, when we see in Scripture that a certain individual believes something or does something, we should not automatically assume it is right or correct unless we are explicitly or implicitly told that what they do is of God and divinely revealed or guided (as with the Prophets when speaking the Word or the Lord, or with the Apostles in all that they say and do as guided by the Spirit and operating with the full revelation of Christ). The Old Testament is replete with examples of kings and judges doing things that we know are wrong and forbidden by the Lord, either explicitly (Saul, disobeying the Lord and being punished for it), or implicitly (Gideon, putting God to the test, which is forbidden in Deut 6:16, Matt 4:7, 1 Cor 10:9). Sometimes they are punished for it, sometimes they are not. How that works out varies between interpreters and scholars, and is not to be discussed in depth here, yet, what this point does show is that we cannot, simply because we see it in the text of Scripture being done by someone “on the good team,” assume that they did well, simply because it is not mentioned that they did wrong. Thus, this text should not alarm those who presuppose that what it teaches is unbiblical or contrary to divine truth.
Possible conclusion 1; Judas and the Israelites did something neither commanded by God nor attached with His promise. Therefore it is either wrong or simply silly, and it has no application for us (I.e., Gideon’s fleece).
Secondly, the notion of prayer as doing something rather than believing something as said earlier, is not accepted. Therefore, whatever it could mean for us, would be rooted in the Lutheran understanding of prayer as faith exercised in God’s promises already freely given and made sure through Word & Sacrament.
Possible conclusion 2: Judas and the Israelites prayed that God be merciful to the fallen idolaters in faith in His mercy to Israel, with the sacrifice being offered not as a makeshift guilt or sin offering, was not a financial sacrifice, but was “meant to provide for an expiatory sacrifice” (that is, to pay for the animals for a sin/guilt offering of blood to the Lord, for both Israel as a whole and the individuals, in faith that God would accept it as He is temporally omnipresent and outside of time). if some thing that the idea of a sacrifice of atonement for a dead person really makes no sense, then they would have to believe that everyone that died before the Sacrifice of Christ is destined for hell, as that is quite literally exactly how His cross functioned.
Thirdly, the notion of expiation and atonement, before Christ, is one that no Christian believes (or can believe, as per the book of Hebrews) that the blood of bulls and goats could actually atone for even a single sin. YET that is what the O.T. texts of Leviticus state that they did. Thus, in the same way that they read Leviticus 16:34 in light of Heb 10:4, I now invite them to read 2 Macc 12:46.
Connected here still is a more important question of debate, that of what exactly atonement meant, and still means, in regard to the presupposed legal paradigm. That is; are sacrifices and prayers (Etc) offered in the O.T. in order that God get his pound of flesh? that He gain what was lost? that something be punished? Or – did sacrifice in the O.T. mean something entirely different? Different perspectives have been taken on this over the years, such as that of Anselms satisfaction theory, the Reformed penal substitutionary Atonement, Christus victor, ransom theory, moral influence theory, the list goes on. What are we to make of this? Perhaps all of it, all together, and yet still more. But without boring you with a second lengthy article on why you should all accept the kaleidescopic perspective on the atonement (I’ll torture you with that next time), I will at least say this on the matter – God does not need sacrifices in order to not crush His people. His mercy and grace are not, nor ever were, nor ever will be or could be bought at any price. But WE WERE. And this is what happens through sacrifice, through prayer, through almsgiving, etc (as testified to in the Apology, on Tobit regarding almsgiving). Not our purchase of God, but God’s purchase of us. To sacrifice of ourselves is to give of ourselves unto God to prevent idolatry, yes, but also to devote ourselves and our things and all we have and are to God, that we be holy (in the sense of set apart for, consecrated to, devoted to God). In this way, to apply such a notion to 2 Macc 12, the people make sacrifices to devote themselves as a corporate people to God, to make reparation (not payment back to, but literally to repair the idolatry of Israel, and reinstate her as a people faithful to and devoted to the Lord). This should be impressed upon any readers who might think, unknowingly or accidentally that any amount of money (or the bulls and goats they could buy), could pay for or cover the sin of idolatry for even one person, let alone however many fell in this battle against Gorgias of Edom. Rather, this money (and the bulls it may have bought) is symbolic (if you can accept that) of Israel’s re-affirmation of their faithfulness and devotedness toward the Lord.
But, some will ask, what does that mean of the sacrifice of our Lord Christ and its atonement for our sins? how does that work? The answer for that question however, will have to wait until next time, when we cover the Atonement itself, its various theories, biblical grounding, its dogmatic development, and its multi-faceted application. But for now, I will simply say to you, as Gerhard O. Forde has said before me; “Jesus dies for us and not for God” (Christian Dogmatics Vol. 2, ed., Braaten & Jenson, pp. 82). For Christ did not die so that God could love us, but BECAUSE God loved us (Rom 5:8).
