article53

§48 Arguments against Misunderstandings (1 Cor. 15:29–34)

Paul offers another set of arguments against the Corinthians’ denial of resurrection of the dead. He makes statements and asks questions in a loose sequence, and all he says is aimed to refute and reverse the Corinthians’ position. In form and thrust the argument is similar to verses 12–19. In these lines Paul works through rhetorical questions to bring the thinking of the Corinthians into proper line.

15:29 / Having reviewed the anticipated events of the apocalyptic end, Paul remains concerned with the denial in Corinth of the resurrection of the dead, but in this verse he shifts the point of view and the method of argument dramatically. In fact, verse 29 is almost free-standing, although it relates intimately to the current context of discussion. The opening word now (Gk. epei; lit. “otherwise”) signals a new level of reflection. Paul drops back and takes a look at the denial of the resurrection of the dead in relation to a new item of evidence. He uses two rhetorical questions to ask about an apparently real practice of the Corinthians that exposes the inconsistency between what they were doing and what they were saying in relation to the resurrection of the dead. Unfortunately, the translation of the NIV moves past careful paraphrase at this point and introduces phrases that have Paul writing more clearly than he did. A much better English rendering of Paul’s words is found in the NASB: “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?” Exactly what Paul means by referring to people who are baptized for the dead is not clear. Dozens of theories have been proposed, and none is fully satisfactory. Whatever Paul means, we should note that he does not criticize or deny the practice but uses it to score his own point that the dead will be raised; and we should resist any interpretation that bases its understanding on either the idea of baptism of the dead or a doctrine of baptismal regeneration, since these topics are not in view here, and even elsewhere Paul demonstrates no such thinking (cf. 1 Cor. 1 and Rom. 6).

In brief, Paul refers to the practice of some in Corinth of being baptized in behalf of the dead. Whether this means they were baptized for their own dead bodies, or for the saints of the OT who died before Christ, or for family and friends who were on their way to being baptized because they believed in Christ but died before baptism, is impossible to determine and irrelevant for grasping Paul’s point. He registers the inconsistency of denying the resurrection of the dead and then being baptized in behalf of the dead. Baptism symbolized death with Christ to the power of sin, and it was done in hope and in anticipation of experiencing the power of God’s resurrection (see esp. Rom. 6). If there were no resurrection of the dead, then being baptized in behalf of the dead made no sense. Paul means to imply that by their actions some of the Corinthians indicate a concern with or belief in the resurrection of the dead.

15:30–31 / Paul again shifts the point of view in formulating a string of arguments in favor of the reality of the resurrection of the dead. Now he speaks from a personal point of view in reference to his work as an apostle, writing of we and I, apparently referring to his and the other apostles’ common experiences. Thus, verses 30–31 pose another question and adamantly state its answer: Why would Paul jeopardize himself for a hopeless lie? He would not, but he declares that he did risk his very life for the sake of calling the Corinthians and others to believe the gospel truth of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection from the dead. Thus, given the reality of Paul’s personal sacrifice, the Corinthians should see that the message he preached of the resurrection of the dead was not a lie.

15:32 / This verse issues another question that functions to illustrate the serious degree of Paul’s perils in ministry. Thus, the rhetoric specifically extends the point of verses 30–31. Unfortunately, from this intriguing statement one cannot know whether Paul’s reference to fighting with beasts is literally true or a hyperbolic metaphor, although the difficult phrase for merely human reasons (Gk. kata anthrōpon) probably signals the metaphorical nature of the remark. Nevertheless, even if he speaks in picture language Paul means to identify the seriousness of the threat he faced in Ephesus. Therefore, Paul cites Isaiah 22:13b to establish the necessity of the truth that the dead are raised: Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. The apostle’s remarks have been labeled opportunistic, but when read in their specific context, the statements are in no way unscrupulous. Paul’s mild sarcasm should not obscure his sincerity; he means to use the reality of the hardships he was willing to suffer to certify the truth of the teaching about the resurrection of the dead. So Paul believed and so Paul behaved.

15:33 / Paul quotes a well-known Greek proverb from the poet Menander in verse 33 to make the point that association with those in Corinth who deny the resurrection of the dead presents a danger to those forming such affiliations. This citation forms yet another volley in Paul’s campaign against the denial of the resurrection of the dead. By quoting this popular maxim Paul puts the discussion on the level of common sense, Christian common sense, as he makes explicit in the following lines.

15:34 / The foregoing proverb leads into a blunt upbraiding in verse 34. Paul’s language is plain, and he openly states his purpose. Paul has already indicated when he did not (4:14) and when he did (6:5) mean to shame the Corinthians. When the members of the congregation were actively responsible for a needless problem, Paul used the powerful social phenomenon of shame to attempt to correct problems. As noted earlier in this commentary, shame was a different social reality and worked in distinct ways in the ancient world; nevertheless, even given the distance between antiquity and the present day, Paul’s methods of persuasion, even when honestly acknowledged, do not fit neatly with today’s more therapeutic and tolerant patterns of interaction.

The call to sobriety is straightforward (come back to your senses as you ought), and such language was standard rhetoric for urgent eschatological exhortations in early Christianity; literally Paul says, “Sober up righteously and by all means don’t sin!” Moreover, he asserts that some are agnōsian, usually translated “lacking knowledge” and rendered ignorant in the NIV but best understood to refer to an active lack of knowledge about God. There is a difference between ignorance that actively disregards the truth and naiveté that is as yet uninformed. Paul charges the Corinthians with active ignorance; thus he sees himself naming their shame.