How is 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 evidence for Purgatory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
Many apologetics articles use 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 as evidence for Purgatory. I don’t have a problem with the actual concept of Purgatory; I believe the New Testament implies its existence (plus it’s a Church teaching). But as for 2 Maccabees – that was the Old Testament. Heaven was not “opened” up yet. The people of the OT believed in a place of the dead, but the concept was different than Heaven and hell (and therefore Purgatory).

Any thoughts would be appreciated — on why this is often used as evidence.

(PS Many articles regarding salvation in general refer to the OT; for example, when trying to demonstrate the temporal punishment of sins.)
 
Many apologetics articles use 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 as evidence for Purgatory. I don’t have a problem with the actual concept of Purgatory; I believe the New Testament implies its existence (plus it’s a Church teaching). But as for 2 Maccabees – that was the Old Testament. Heaven was not “opened” up yet. The people of the OT believed in a place of the dead, but the concept was different than Heaven and hell (and therefore Purgatory).

Any thoughts would be appreciated — on why this is often used as evidence.

(PS Many articles regarding salvation in general refer to the OT; for example, when trying to demonstrate the temporal punishment of sins.)
It’s not direct evidence for purgatore, it’s direct evidence of prayers for the dead. Since this indicates prayers for the dead are said to be a good thing, this leads one to investigate how our prayers help the dead.
 
The first big step in debating the point with Protestants is to at least get them open to the idea that there is a possibility of a third state after death other than heaven or hell. Until you get that point across, they won’t concede any ground. Another example is in one of Peter’s epistles (I forget which offhand) where it speaks of Jesus descending to preach to the spirits in prison. It is a highly debated passage and so is not so much used to prove purgatory as the possibility of a third state that is not heaven, nor hell.

Also, the mere possibility of prayer for the dead fits more with the Catholic concept of purgatory, since you wouldn’t pray for those with God, and you can’t pray for those that aren’t with God. Maccabees fits in with this line of argumentation fairly well. Then you go BAM 1 Cor 3:15 in the Greek.
 
It was I Peter 3:18-20.
wasn’t this evidence of Jesus descending into Hell or Limbo to free the righteous who died before His time?

this is why in the Apostle’s Creed we have the line, “and he descended onto hell” or “and he descended onto the dead”

which mans Jesus not only saved granted a path to heaven for the righteous from His time onwards, but also for those who came before His time on earth
 
If you read it though, it speaks specifically of those that were disobedient, and in the time on Noah, not necessarily to the limbo of the fathers. Also, the word tanslated as “spirits” (pneumata) is not normally a word associated with the souls of the dead. Also, since they are spirits that were disobedient in the time of Noah, it was unknown for some time what singled them out for the preaching of Christ.

Modern scholarship recovered Jewish traditions about the flood long lost. The main element of interest concerns an interpretation of “sons of God” mentioned in Gen 6:1. According to several Jewish texts, they are rebel angels called “watchers” who corrupted the world of men before the flood (1 Enoch 14, 5 and 18, 14). One tradition has them locked up, not in the depths of the earth, but in the lower heavens (2 Enoch 7, 1-3). The benefit of retrieving this passage is in the helping of the interpretation of the passage in 1 Peter. It seems that the spirits in prison are not human souls but fallen angels whose wickedness was closely connected with the flood in Jewish tradition. This accords well with the frequent use “spirits” for angels in the NT. The question remains whether Peter locates these angels in heaven above or the netherworld below. Some connect the verse with the ascension; that Christ proclaimed himself the victor over evil as he passed the spirits bound in the lower part of heaven. More likely, Peter is referring to Christ’s descent into Hades, for that is where the disobedient angels are kept in chains, according to other biblical texts that allude to this Jewish tradition ( 2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6). So in addition to liberating the righteous dead of the OT, he proclaimed himself conqueror of evil to the spirits whose power had just been shattered by his death.

The above paragraph was paraphrased from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch.

The limbo of the fathers merely refers to the portion of Hades where the righteous went awaiting the death of Christ, and that’s where the “descended into hell” from the apostles’ creed comes from. Hope that clears up some confusion. 🙂
 
1 Corinthians 15:29: “Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people Baptized on their behalf?”
The word “baptize” can refer in this case to other things besides actual water baptism; but the point is that Paul is alluding to, and apparently condoning, some form of penitential act on the part of dead people. The above is a nice verse because you don’t do anything, baptism or otherwise, for dead people in hell, because they are beyond help, and you don’t do it for people in heaven, because they don’t need it.

“May the Lord grant mercy to the family of Onesiphours because he often gave me new heart and was not ashamed of my chains. But when he came to Rome, he promptly searched for me and found me. May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day. And you know very well the services he rendered in Ephesus.” 2 Timothy 1:16-18
Important again, because you don’t pray for people in heaven or hell, and most scholars agree that Onesiphours was dead.

My favorite:
1 Corinthians 3:11-15: “For no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.”
A little background, the prior chapters were talking about those spreading a false gospel, focusing on miracles, etc. Paul was saying that on judgement day, those that changed the gospel would be destroyed by God, in effect, on judgement day. He then goes on in the above verses about believers themselves. The interesting thing is, he is being judged on his works. His works are being judged. Now according to the above verses, Protestants like to paint the picture that the man is already saved, his works are the burning building, and he escaped it, so he personally is fine. That sounds great, and in fact if you read the above verses like that it seems perfectly plausible. But that’s not what the original Greek means, and you are welcome to look it up. I actually verified it on, ironically enough, a Protestant on-line translator. Lets start with the underlined words “suffer loss.” In the Greek, the transliterated word is “zemioo.” In the Old Testament in the Septaguint, the word is used in the context of punishment. An example is in Proverbs where a man is punished for a crime. It can mean “affect with damage, to do damge to, to sustain damage, receive injury, to suffer loss.” As you can see, “suffer loss” in this sense is to receive punishment and injury. Interesting. Christian believers, being judged on their works, and if their works are not all up to snuff, they are burned, and even the man himself.

Let’s look at the second underlined phrase “but only.” Protestants look at this verse, and they think “oh well that just means that it’s a metaphor, that because of the grace of Christ we were saved, and if not we would have been burned in hell.” Except that’s not correct, because first off, the works themselves are being judged, and the people Paul is talking about are believers that are saved, so it is not referring to hell. The Greek word for “but only” is the adverb “houto.” And the interesting thing about it is that it means “the same, exactly, follows, same, same manner.” When you look at it in it’s proper context, Paul is saying that he will be saved, the same as through fire. So altogether now, a Christian man’s works will be tested by God, and if he has not done good deeds (venial sins), he himself will be punished, and he will be saved the same as through fire. This is almost word for word catholic doctrine on purgatory.
 
I use these to prove Purgatory is Scriptural:
  1. Mt 12:32—And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven, But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Jesus implies that some sin can be forgiven in the next world.
  2. 1 Cor 3:15—If any man’s work is burned uo, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire. This cannot refer to eternal loss in hell, for there no one is saved. Nor can it refer to heaven, for there no one suffers. It then refers to a “middle” state that is essentially purgatory.
Also, 1 Pet 3:18-20 and 1 Pet 4:6—Here Jesus preached to disobedient spirits in prison. It is not hell, because no one is saved from hell. Peter is describing a temporary state for disobedient souls, who were eventually saved. It proves that there is a “third” place between heaven and hell

Protestants do not include 2 Maccabees in their bible.****
 
Many apologetics articles use 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 as evidence for Purgatory. I don’t have a problem with the actual concept of Purgatory; I believe the New Testament implies its existence (plus it’s a Church teaching). But as for 2 Maccabees – that was the Old Testament. Heaven was not “opened” up yet. The people of the OT believed in a place of the dead, but the concept was different than Heaven and hell (and therefore Purgatory).

Any thoughts would be appreciated — on why this is often used as evidence.

(PS Many articles regarding salvation in general refer to the OT; for example, when trying to demonstrate the temporal punishment of sins.)
The Jews of old believed in a holding place for the dead. Flavius Josephus reports on this in his writings. Since Josephus was Jew, he also believed in this holding place. The jews of today also believe since they say prayers for the dead. It is from this that the idea of
purgatory has come from. There are many writings that confirm its existence. The book
“Purgatory” by Fr. F.X. Schouppe, S.J. ( TAN Books, Rockford, IL ) documents the
experiences of Purgatory by both laity and religious. I recommend it highly for all to read,
especially those that doubt Purgatory’s existence. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Even today the Jews go to The House of Life: The Old Jewish Cemetery of Prague.

They go to the gravesite of a Rabbi who died in the 16th century and leave notes on his grave asking him to intercede on their behalf from Heaven. They also have carved figures of humans and animals on the grave stones that they believe protect the decendents of Abraham.

In Israel at the Wailing Wall the Jews put notes in the cracks of the Wall. They pray for the dead. Why pray for the dead unless they believe that they can help the person get into Heaven?

If the person is not in Heaven yet, they must be in some intermediate state.

I believe the Catholic Churches’ belief in Purgatory and praying to the saints comes directly from the Jewish church, which if these practices were wrong, Jesus who was Jewish would have spoken against.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette
 
My favorite:
1 Corinthians 3:11-15: “For no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.”
A little background, the prior chapters were talking about those spreading a false gospel, focusing on miracles, etc. Paul was saying that on judgement day, those that changed the gospel would be destroyed by God, in effect, on judgement day. He then goes on in the above verses about believers themselves. The interesting thing is, he is being judged on his works. His works are being judged. Now according to the above verses, Protestants like to paint the picture that the man is already saved, his works are the burning building, and he escaped it, so he personally is fine. That sounds great, and in fact if you read the above verses like that it seems perfectly plausible. But that’s not what the original Greek means, and you are welcome to look it up. I actually verified it on, ironically enough, a Protestant on-line translator. Lets start with the underlined words “suffer loss.” In the Greek, the transliterated word is “zemioo.” In the Old Testament in the Septaguint, the word is used in the context of punishment. An example is in Proverbs where a man is punished for a crime. It can mean “affect with damage, to do damge to, to sustain damage, receive injury, to suffer loss.” As you can see, “suffer loss” in this sense is to receive punishment and injury. Interesting. Christian believers, being judged on their works, and if their works are not all up to snuff, they are burned, and even the man himself.

Let’s look at the second underlined phrase “but only.” Protestants look at this verse, and they think “oh well that just means that it’s a metaphor, that because of the grace of Christ we were saved, and if not we would have been burned in hell.” Except that’s not correct, because first off, the works themselves are being judged, and the people Paul is talking about are believers that are saved, so it is not referring to hell. The Greek word for “but only” is the adverb “houto.” And the interesting thing about it is that it means “the same, exactly, follows, same, same manner.” When you look at it in it’s proper context, Paul is saying that he will be saved, the same as through fire. So altogether now, a Christian man’s works will be tested by God, and if he has not done good deeds (venial sins), he himself will be punished, and he will be saved the same as through fire. This is almost word for word catholic doctrine on purgatory.
Can you give the Biblical reference for the “zemioo” Greek word that you transition to in the above response? Also which Greek lexicon are you using so that I may be on the same page with you?
IMO you are painting protestants with a very broad brush here. Many are shocked that Early Methodist had a belief in a “holding place” for the dead that in description is very similar to Purgatory. Also there are some Anglicans who believe in Purgatory, they are what you would call “protestant.”

Also can you also explain your above statements in light of Hebrews 9:27 “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” That protestants use to show that its a one shot deal so to speak.
 
i can only say i want to love this awesome creator who made a beautiful world and be plesaing to him and thank him so purgatory or not i really do not worry about it.👍
 
Can you give the Biblical reference for the “zemioo” Greek word that you transition to in the above response? Also which Greek lexicon are you using so that I may be on the same page with you?
IMO you are painting protestants with a very broad brush here. Many are shocked that Early Methodist had a belief in a “holding place” for the dead that in description is very similar to Purgatory. Also there are some Anglicans who believe in Purgatory, they are what you would call “protestant.”
Also can you also explain your above statements in light of Hebrews 9:27 “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” That protestants use to show that its a one shot deal so to speak.
I AM AT A LOSS ON READING YOUR WORDS"that its a one shot deal so to speak" would you please explain in plain words so that I may be in touch with your post in future.
Let’s try our best to find out the TRUTH for which we are all striving to understand.
Your bretheren in Christ.
 
when one,s priority is trying with gods grace to be pleasing to heavenly father some things are not a priority to know but left to god to know jesus said to love one another.
 
Padrej:
Also can you also explain your above statements in light of Hebrews 9:27 “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment” That protestants use to show that its a one shot deal so to speak.
That refers to the immediate judgement, for God’s justice demands temporal punishment for forgiven sins. Please read my post on Purgatory. If the Jews believed it, and Jesus
never rebuked them for this or taught otherwise, then Purgatory must exist. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
=catholic1seeks;5779797]Many apologetics articles use 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 as evidence for Purgatory. I don’t have a problem with the actual concept of Purgatory; I believe the New Testament implies its existence (plus it’s a Church teaching). But as for 2 Maccabees – that was the Old Testament. Heaven was not “opened” up yet. The people of the OT believed in a place of the dead, but the concept was different than Heaven and hell (and therefore Purgatory).
Any thoughts would be appreciated — on why this is often used as evidence.
(PS Many articles regarding salvation in general refer to the OT; for example, when trying to demonstrate the temporal punishment of sins.)
Hi!

Very asstute observation:thumbsup:

The answer lies in the understanding that praying for deceased has specific merit. This comes from even a limited understanding of the Divine Nature of God, God’s Fairness and God’s necessary Justice.

The Maccabees were highly educated men in the Jewish Tradition and Law. They understood that God does not treat [Judge] everyone the same. That ones DEEDS, good or bad somehow factor in.

They were men of Faith filled with Hope, based on evident love of God for them, and for God by them.

So even though they had no knowledge of Purgatory, they clearly understood the power of prayer and Sacrifice, and relied on Gods Justice and Mercy to aid there fallen comrads. Further they seemed to understand that not everyone is deserving of Damnation, nor is everyone sufficiently perfected to warrant access to God. They “assumed” some third option.

It is this “blind” Faith, full of Hope, of there example that gives us reason to have similar Faith and Hope, filled with and founded on Love.

Let us pray!

Pat
 
I AM AT A LOSS ON READING YOUR WORDS"that its a one shot deal so to speak" would you please explain in plain words so that I may be in touch with your post in future.
Let’s try our best to find out the TRUTH for which we are all striving to understand.
Your bretheren in Christ.
Many Protestants feel that this verse refers to the moment you die that you face the judgment (one shot) there would be not chance to be cleansed in a holding place such as Purgatory where this verse would not stand up. Purgatory would imply that there is a place where you are judged on sins mortal, venial, or otherwise and then once purged looked at again and judged again to be cleaned hence to a protestant it would seem to be a ridiculous argument. We would side with the Eastern Orthodox and call it heresy to believe such.
I fully understand the Catholic arguments that no unclean thing can enter heaven etc. etc. HOWEVER, one of the first churches I served as an ordained pastor had a person who was a lapsed Catholic who had a letter from her former bishop that claimed that when she died she would never see Purgatory but go straight to Heaven due to the fact that she had taught catechism classes for three years. She firmly believed in her mind that she could live any lifestyle of sin she wanted and it was all because she held this piece of paper from the bishop that she blatantly called her “get out of jail free card.” 🤷
I doubt that most Catholics believe this way but I have run into many who have in my 20 plus years in ministry, including ones who believe that kissing a “Pardon Crucifix” daily will get them out of Purgatory also. I hope that this has made my point clearer. If you are going to cling to a doctrine defend it and don’t play with it or play at church either for that matter. That was the purpose of asking to defend in the light of the “appointed once to die and then the judgment” passage.
 
That refers to the immediate judgement, for God’s justice demands temporal punishment for forgiven sins. Please read my post on Purgatory. If the Jews believed it, and Jesus
never rebuked them for this or taught otherwise, then Purgatory must exist. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
I would think that Jesus most certainly DID teach otherwise. Luke 16:19-31 Jesus describes the death of two persons the DO NOT go to a holding place but go straight to their reward. Lazarus goes straight to Abraham’s bosom (Heaven) and the rich man goes straight to Hell. Absolutely no mention of Purgatory.
On the Cross Jesus turns to the repentant thief who tradition calls Dismas and says “THIS DAY you will be with me in Paradise.” Once again, no holding place. No mention of Purgatory.
Just because Jesus does not directly rebuke a teaching or custom did not mean he did not oppose it. The same type of argument is used by those who tout the homosexual agenda to say that Jesus never directly condemned homosexuality so it must be alright.
 
I would think that Jesus most certainly DID teach otherwise. Luke 16:19-31 Jesus describes the death of two persons the DO NOT go to a holding place but go straight to their reward. Lazarus goes straight to Abraham’s bosom (Heaven) and the rich man goes straight to Hell. Absolutely no mention of Purgatory.
On the Cross Jesus turns to the repentant thief who tradition calls Dismas and says “THIS DAY you will be with me in Paradise.” Once again, no holding place. No mention of Purgatory.
Just because Jesus does not directly rebuke a teaching or custom did not mean he did not oppose it. The same type of argument is used by those who tout the homosexual agenda to say that Jesus never directly condemned homosexuality so it must be alright.
Who says that you can’t be in purgatory & heaven in the same day? No one knows if purgatory is a state or place…
 
Who says that you can’t be in purgatory & heaven in the same day? No one knows if purgatory is a state or place…
Then if you do not know IF it IS a point OR place OR state why believe it? :confused:
I am just throwing out a Protestant argument. We do know for sure heaven and hell clearly spoken of places in scripture, very easy to believe. We can believe in the Trinity although the word is not found there, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned in the Old and New Testaments. Kindly find "holding place"or “place of purification” where the dead in Christ are supposed to go. You will find our WORKS are tested by fire, but in its context it implies here on earth.
The Anglican’s 39 articles of religion calls Purgatory a “Romish doctrine vainly invented and grounded upon no warrant in scripture but repugnant to the Word of God” for this reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top