BIG IDEA:
DENIAL OF THE RESURRECTION WOULD KILL ALL MOTIVATION FOR CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, SPIRITUAL SERVICE AND HOLY LIVING
INTRODUCTION:
John MacArthur: Before we look specifically at the text, let me remind you that it is axiomatic…that is, it is a given, it is an obvious truth, that unbelievers and hypocrites do not become martyrs. People do not die for something they hold lightly. They do not die for something about which they have doubt. They do not die for things they do not believe are worthy of life and death. People give their lives only for causes that they are wholeheartedly committed to. And one of those great realities is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Who said, “Because I live, ye, too, shall live also.” And millions of Christians have given their lives in living and given their lives in dying with the hope of that resurrection truth.
Gordon Fee: Probably because most people have had such a difficult time knowing what to do with the question with which this paragraph began (v. 29), there has been a strange silence in the church with regard to this paragraph. Yet it stands as one of the more significant texts pointing to a genuine relationship between what one believes about the future and how one behaves in the present (cf. 2 Pet. 2–3). This is not to say that the future is the only motivation for correct behavior, but it is to plead that it is a proper one because it ultimately has to do with the nature and character of God. Those who have put their trust in Christ should be living in this world as people whose confidence in the final vindication of Christ through our own resurrection determines the present. On this matter see also on an earlier passage (7:29–31). It is a matter of sober historical record that slippage at this key point of Christian theology is very often accompanied by a relaxed attitude toward the Christian ethic. It is no wonder that the world fails so often to “hear” our gospel, which must look at times like anything but the good news it really is—that Christ delivers people from the bondage of sin and guarantees their future with him in a life where neither sin nor death will have a foothold.
David Garland: Paul’s argument moves from the third person: what those do who are baptized on behalf of the dead (15:29); to the first person: his own experiences of suffering as an apostle (15:30–32); and culminates in second person plural imperatives for the Corinthians to come to their senses and stop sinning (15:33–34). For Paul, Christian belief in the resurrection clearly impinges on ethical living (cf. 6:12–14), and he draws a close connection between moral decadence — one of the dangers facing the church — and the failure to believe in the resurrection. If there were no resurrection of the dead, then hedonistic self-indulgence and overindulgence (cf. 11:21) would be legitimate options because the ethical prohibitions no longer would have their foundation in a legitimate faith. The resurrection of the dead is true, which imposes on believers the need for moral rectitude in this life.
Daniel Akin: Paul now brings the Corinthians back to the matter of daily life and shows how the reality of their coming resurrection should impact how they live. Paul leaves the realm of the theological and enters the realm of the experiential.
Richard Hays: In verses 29-34, however, Paul gives some specific examples of practices that would make no sense in a resurrectionless world (vv. 29-32a) and concludes with a word of warning suggesting that the Corinthians’ abandonment of belief in the resurrection has led the community into sin (vv. 32b-34).
The specific examples are given in the form of rhetorical questions that allude briefly to matters well known to his original readers but almost completely opaque to us. Rather than getting bogged down in speculative attempts to explain the details of these obscure references, the preacher working with this text should supply some analogous contemporary examples of activities in the life of our congregations that make no sense if the dead are not to be raised.
Mark Taylor: Verses 29–34 divide into three units.
- First, Paul calls into question the practice of those being baptized for the dead by posing two rhetorical questions (15:29): “What will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?”
- Second, using himself as a representative example of all apostles, Paul challenges the wisdom of the life of the apostles if there is no resurrection (15:30–32): “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’” (15:32b).
- Third, Paul’s probing questions lead to three exhortations: do not be deceived, become sober-minded, and do not sin (15:33–34). Paul underscores the urgency of the situation and scolds the Corinthians because “there are some who are ignorant of God.”
Paul Gardner: Practical Consequences of Denying the Resurrection (15:29–34)
- There Is No Point in the Practice of Baptism for the Dead (15:29)
- There is No Point in Suffering for the Gospel (15:30–32b)
- The Conduct of Christian Life Matters (15:32c–33)
- Application: Do Not Go on Sinning (15:34)
I. (:29) FUTILITY OF SALVATION — DENIAL OF THE RESURRECTION WOULD KILL ALL MOTIVATION FOR CHRISTIAN BAPTISM
Why take the risk of identifying with Jesus Christ in Christian Baptism?
“Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead?
If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”
On the surface the language seems to speak of some type of mysterious proxy baptism – perhaps for believers who had died before they had an opportunity to be baptized??
Very difficult to make sense of this verse. MacArthur thinks it means baptized with a view to being reunited with those believers who had already died and gone home to be with the Lord.
Gordon Fee: The normal reading of what Paul wrote is that some Corinthians were being baptized, apparently vicariously, in behalf of some people who have already died. It would be fair to add that this reading is such a plain understanding of the Greek text that no one would ever have imagined the various alternatives were it not for the difficulties involved, both historical and theological. The problem is twofold:
(1) There is no historical or biblical precedent for such baptism. The NT is otherwise completely silent about it; there is no known practice in any of the other churches nor in any orthodox Christian community in the centuries that immediately follow; nor are there parallels or precedents in pagan religion. This is a genuinely idiosyncratic historical phenomenon. For that reason, if in fact some were actually practicing such a baptism, we are left quite in the dark on all the essential questions:
(a) Who was being baptized?
(b) For whom?
(c) Why were they doing it? And
(d) What effects did they think it had for those for whom it was being done? It is quite impossible to give a definitive answer to any of these.
(2) The second problem is theological and has to do with how Paul can appeal, without apparent disapproval, to a practice that stands in such contradiction to his own understanding both of justification by grace through faith, which always implies response on the part of the believer, and of baptism as personal response to grace received. This smacks of a “magical” view of sacramentalism of the worst kind, where a religious rite, performed for someone else, can have saving efficacy. That lies quite outside the entire NT view of things.
John MacArthur: A reasonable view seems to be that those who are baptized refers to living believers who give outward testimony to their faith in baptism by water because they were first drawn to Christ by the exemplary lives, faithful influence, and witness of believers who had subsequently died. Paul’s point is that if there is no resurrection and no life after death, then why are people coming to Christ to follow the hope of those who have died?
Charles Spurgeon: “For as soon as anyone was baptized, the Romans would be looking after him. To drag him away to death. Thus they were baptized as if they were being washed for their burial & dedicating themselves to the grave”
Robert Grosheide: The apostle could hardly derive an argument for the resurrection of the body from a practice of which he did not approve. The rendering “for the benefit of the dead” does not appear tenable.
Robert Gundry: What reason for baptism there can possibly be if the baptizees, already in death’s grip as they are, won’t be raised.
David Garland: Another view explains the term “dead” (οἱ νεκροί, hoi nekroi) as a metaphor for the condition of believers who receive baptism. The recipients are, in effect, dead bodies when they are baptized (Oliver 1937; K. Thompson 1964; R. Martin 1984: 120–21; Talbert 1987: 99). O’Neill (1979–80) understands “on behalf of the dead” to refer not to some third party but to the subject, “those who are being baptized,” and paraphrases it “Otherwise what do those hope to achieve who are baptized for their dying bodies? If the completely dead are not raised, why then are they baptized for themselves as corpses?” This view has several advantages.
First, it was the unanimous view of the Greek fathers, who argue that the dead are the bodies “because of which we are baptized” (Staab 1963). Chrysostom (Hom. 1 Cor. 40.2) contends that the wording recalls a baptismal confession.
Second, it explains the use of the third person. Paul uses the third person because he is referring grammatically to those who are being baptized.
Third, it is compatible with Pauline theology. Paul interprets baptism as a symbol of death and resurrection, and “the dead” either characterizes the individual’s prebaptismal state or refers to the individual’s soon-to-be dead body (cf. Rom. 6:3–14; Eph. 2:1, 5; Col. 2:13). Paul’s specific statement in Rom. 8:10 that “the body is dead because of sin” gives further credibility to this interpretation. If this view is correct, then he uses a theological shorthand, familiar to his readers, to refer to Christian baptism.
Fourth, it fits the context. If, as I argue, the problem is that the Corinthians assumed the inherent immortality of the soul or some kind of assumption into glory at death (1 Cor. 15:12, 36), then the issue addressed here is “death as a presupposition of resurrection” (R. Martin 1984: 121). Baptism connotes sharing Christ’s death to share his resurrection (cf. Rom. 6:3–14, which uses the image of dying and rising in baptism differently to convey the necessity of ethical living).
Mark Taylor: Some propose the following translation: “Now, if there is no resurrection, what will be accomplished by those who get baptized because of what they have heard about how our dead will be raised? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people undergoing baptism on account of them?”
Anthony Thiselton: Common to all explanations remains the foundational axiom that the act of baptism is above all identification with Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-11). Baptism as such without the dimension of the resurrection would mean nothing.
II. (:30-32A) FUTILITY OF SERVICE — DENIAL OF THE RESURRECTION WOULD KILL ALL MOTIVATION FOR SPIRITUAL SERVICE
Why put yourself in danger by zealously serving Jesus Christ?
A. Serving the Lord Can be Dangerous
“Why are we also in danger every hour?”
B. Serving the Lord Involves Taking Up One’s Cross Daily
“I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you
which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.”
Paul Gardner: The dying to which Paul appeals is not to be taken metaphorically, though undoubtedly Paul sees his suffering as following in the footsteps of Jesus (2 Cor 4:9–11). The word “die” (ἀποθνῄσκω) has been used already in this epistle and refers to real death, whether Christ’s death on the cross (8:11) or his own death (9:15). Paul’s concern is that they must know he faces physical death at any time and that without hope of the resurrection his life and ministry would be meaningless. Lest any should doubt that he is prepared to give his life for the gospel of Christ and the resurrection of the dead, he takes an example from his own life.
Anthony Thiselton: He accepts a ministry and lifestyle that brings him regularly to the brink of death in the knowledge that God’s resurrection power is also at work, promising in due time the climactic event of resurrection at the last day. In pastoral terms this includes (1) facing death with robust courage; (2) living life in identification with Christ and Christ’s work; and (3) accepting vulnerability and fragility in expectation of God’s power of resurrection.
C. Serving the Lord Requires Spiritual Motivation
“If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus,
what does it profit me?”
There is no historical record of this – could be some type of actual physical ordeal (maybe being thrown into some type of coliseum contest) or could be speaking of the spiritual forces at work behind the opposition that Paul faced.
John MacArthur: I mean if there’s no resurrection, why in the world am I doing this? Why am I putting my life on the line? Jeopardy means danger. Why am I living in constant danger? Why am I living on the edge of death all the time? Why am I being beaten with rods? Why am I being beaten with whips? Why am I going through shipwrecks? Why am I being thrown in prison? Why am I being put in stocks? Why am I putting my life on the line, as it were, my neck on the chopping block? Why am I putting my life in jeopardy every hour if this is all there is? If it ends right here? If there’s nothing else, what am I serving for? Why am I trying to win you to a king that is dead? Why am I trying to populate a kingdom that doesn’t exist? If there’s no resurrection. It makes a sham out of all Christian service.
Paul Gardner: The benefit or profit Paul is looking for is not about personal gain. His concern is to see the purposes of God fulfilled in bringing the gospel to all nations. The resurrection is the pinnacle of this as people from the whole world are raised from the dead to receive their inheritance in Christ and to experience the full gracious rule of the sovereign God and Father. Such “gain” (ὄφελος) or “profit” entirely disappears if there is no resurrection, providing yet more proof of the truth of what Paul has been arguing throughout this passage.
III. (32B-34) FUTILITY OF SANCTIFICATION — DENIAL OF THE RESURRECTION WOULD KILL ALL MOTIVATION FOR HOLY LIVING
Why forego the pleasures of this world by refraining from worldly lasciviousness?
A. Apart from the Resurrection, Hedonistic World View Makes Sense
“If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
Ray Stedman: That was the philosophy of Epicureanism in that day, and it is widespread today. “Live it up. Get it all now. Don’t bother with giving yourself and wasting your time on doing things for God. Enjoy yourself. Spend all your free time having fun and pleasure.”
David Garland: Resurrection means endless hope, but no resurrection means a hopeless end—and hopelessness breeds dissipation. Barrett (1968: 362) comments, “Take away the resurrection and moral standards collapse.” A cynical fatalism toward life encourages people to try “to go for the gusto,” to have it all now, to amuse themselves endlessly. If life ends at death, why not live it up? Paul quotes Isa. 22:13 (cf. 56:12; Wis. 2:6–9), “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die,” but the sentiment was widespread (Luke 12:19–20). Herodotus (Historiae [Histories] 2.78.1) reports, “After rich men’s repasts, a man carries around an image in a coffin, painted and carved in exact imitation of a corpse two or four feet long. This he shows to each of the company, saying ‘While you drink and enjoy, look on this; for to this state you must come when you die.’” If the Christian hope is taken away, not only will any motive for a person to endure suffering for Christ be crushed, but also any moral standards will be crumpled (Barrett 1968: 366–67).
Craig Blomberg: Verse 32b points out how self-indulgence is the consistent outgrowth of a material philosophy that denies the resurrection life. The Epicureans of old did not usually interpret their slogan as a call to sheer gluttony and drunkenness. Rather they sought the “good life,” cultivating the arts of fine dining, music and theater, and treasured friendships. Yet ultimately all of this was self-centered, since they did not look to continuing any pleasures beyond the grave. Self-interest may even lead to humanitarian and altruistic concerns, but ultimately it produces nothing permanently satisfying if this life is all that exists.
B. Theology Does Affect Morality
“Do not be deceived: Bad company [or teaching] corrupts good morals.”
John MacArthur: Thirdly, sanctification, and this is closely related. Verse 33, “Don’t be deceived…he says…don’t make a mistake. Don’t miss this one. ‘Evil'”…and the word is homalea, from which we get homiletics, and the word homiletic or homalea basically means association. Homiletics is…is a word used to describe how to teach or preach or to organize something into a meaningful, logical flow. And what he is saying here is, “Evil systems or evil association.” I think it could mean company, as it’s often translated, talking about people. But I don’t think that’s the intent here. I think the word that we use to speak of sermons and lessons being homiletic has to do with a body of teaching. And what he’s saying here is, “Bad teaching corrupts good morals.” And what he means by that is, if you don’t have a right theology about the resurrection, it’s gonna impact your morality. You understand that? If you don’t believe right, you won’t behave right. If you have a doctrine or a teaching that denies resurrection, that it’s gonna affect your living, because if there’s no eternal accountability, you’re liable to sink to the lowest level…
Mark Taylor: Paul concludes this unit with three imperatives followed by an explanation. The commands are (1) do not be misled, (2) come back to your senses as you ought, and (3) stop sinning. The reason given is, “For there are some who are ignorant of God.” This, according to Paul, is a shameful matter.
Paul Gardner: Paul is concerned with the way certain people are living, and there is a real danger that mixing with the wrong crowd leads to the ruin of good (godly) habits. We have seen how the apostle has been disturbed throughout the epistle by the behavior of some of the Corinthians who, we have suggested, claim to have gifts of the Spirit, especially gifts of wisdom and knowledge. They claim to be “spiritual,” yet their behavior is far from godly. If such people also fraternize with or even support those who deny the resurrection (because they have already “arrived” spiritually), then it is easily understandable that they would find themselves morally corrupted.
C. Sanctification is Worth Pursuing – Purge Out Bad Doctrine
“Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning;
for some have no knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.”
David Prior: In Paul’s assertion that some [of you] have no knowledge of God (34) we can detect another veiled attack on the so-called knowledge of the Corinthians (cf. 8:1). Certain Christians, who were claiming a special knowledge of God, were losing control of themselves and sliding back into paganism. They needed Paul’s blunt command: ‘Stop sinning!’ Paul saw this sinfulness as the result of failing to think soberly (Come to a sober and right mind, and sin no more). Wrong thinking, about the resurrection or any other fundamental articles of faith, inevitably leads to wrong behaviour. Paul was not beyond shocking Christians into a sense of shame about the way they were behaving (34): they had allowed themselves to be led astray and to absorb error.
Paul Gardner: Life today is to be lived in obedience to Christ, all the while anticipating the day when full obedience is realized and the Christian’s own perfection is established. The race is worth running, but only if the end is Christ and sharing in his resurrection and his glory. Otherwise, Christians are left to the world that “is passing away” (7:29–31). Sadly, some at Corinth, as so often in the church today, seem to be sleepwalking into ruin as they evidence “no knowledge of God” (15:34). With no anticipation of the resurrection, they mix too readily with those who, likewise, have no great hope for the future. Most seriously they have dramatically underestimated the power of God to raise the dead.