Part 1.4 (20-34) Denial (2)
29.Since, what shall they be doing who are- being immersed for the dead, if the dead rise not at all?
Why are they even being immersed for them ? This passage is noted, as one of the most difficult places of Scripture. Of it a vast variety of interpretations are given, most of them very wild and farfetched.
I. What are the reasons of this variety?
II. And how shall we, amidst this variety, perceive which is the true ?
I. The reasons of this great variety are - (1) the assigning figurative interpretations, where the literal is the true one ; and (2) the fear, lest, - if the literal sense be accepted, superstitions destructive of the faith would be introduced.
Figurative senses are imposed on three of the terms used in the passage : (1) Baptism, (2) The dead, (3) For (Gk:uper).
(1.) Some take baptism to mean ’suffering,’ ’the washing of corpses for burial,’ and so on.
(2.) By the dead some understand ’ the spiritually dead,’ ’
Christ,’ ’ death,’ or ’ a certain class of the dead,’ and so on.
(3.) For, some would render by ’above,’ or ’ in the stead of.’
II. But we can easily dispose of the great majority of these views, by applying certain general principles.
1. The literal sense of a passage is to be preferred, wherever it is possible. The literal interpretation here gives a good sense, nay, the true sense.
2. Paul is here arguing with opponents. This is shown by the use of the particles - ’ else ’ - ’ if.’ The argument which he had left off at verse 19 is here resumed. Now, most of the interpretations of the passage give such a sense to it, as to make it no argument at all.
Take, for instance, this as a specimen :- ’
Baptism is the lately converted believer’s stepping into the ranks of Christ to take the place of one who has died. And of what use would that be if there were no resurrection ? ’
Now here Paul is made to be teaching, not arguing. In the sense given to immersion, he is introducing a new premise not accepted by his opponents, and therefore no argument to them.
3. ’ But if we admit literal immersion for the dead, are we not forced to accept a childish superstition, destructive of the Gospel ? ’
All danger of this kind is at once removed, the moment we perceive by the terms of the passage, that the apostle distinguishes between himself and Christians in general, on the one hand; and these opponents on the other. "What shall they be doing?" "
Why are they being immersed?" "And why stand we in jeopardy ? " "I die daily." The apostle, then, is not speaking of Christian baptism as taught by himself, and as accepted by Christians in general : but he is putting down by argument a new proceeding introduced at Corinth, which speedily withered away under the fire of the Spirit. Paul did not approve the practice. He is exposing its folly and its inconsistency with itself. The basis of his argument is twofold : (1) The parties used immersion ; (2) and denied resurrection.
These observations dispose of many of the various
57 interpretations. They set aside Baxter’s - "To what purpose do we in baptism profess our belief of the resurrection?" Dr. E. Robinson’s - " Why expose ourselves to so much danger and suffering in the hope of a resurrection ? " The above interpretations err in two ways : (1.) They destroy all argument with opponents. (2.) They assume that the apostle is speaking of the usual Christian immersion.
Such also is the fault of Pridham’s - ’ Paul is appealing to the usual and past baptism of Christians. That meant death and resurrection. Baptism was on behalf of their own dead selves’ Paul (he thinks) would not have appealed to a partial unauthorized custom, as worthy to be the foundation of an argument. But this interpretation also (1) overturns all argument.
(2.) Paul does not refer to the usual baptism of believers.
(3.) The immersion of which the apostle speaks, is not spoken of as past, but as then going on.
(4.) This and other interpretations offend against the tenses of the passage. " What shall they effect, who are being immersed ? " This observation overturns Macknight’s idea - "
Baptism was fitly made the rite - the person who received it." The tenses of Paul are future and present.
Addington’s also- ’What a part will they appear to have acted who .... have [in Christian baptism] been initiated.’ Robertson again interprets it of Christians - ’
What was the meaning of their confession in the past ? Why were they baptized ? ’ The ground thus cleared, let us look at the real sense.
1. The parties thus being immersed, were, I believe, some of the Church of Corinth, whom Paul reproves of inconsistency. For they (1) used immersion to benefit the dead - while (2) yet they denied the resurrection of the dead. Here lies the argument ; a special phase of which is taken up by the second question. The apostle is not arguing on the usual and accepted meaning of baptism, but on the new baptism of a party then and there found.
2. What is the sense of do ? - in the expression "
What shall they be doing?"* It may have two closely allied meanings, (1) ’What reasonable end, * ’Doing ’ has commonly these senses. Thus - ’ To give brandy to a maniac won’t do’ - that is, will not effect good. ’
Bring me some cast-iron nails ; these won’t do for garden- walls. ’ And so God says to Elijah, ’What doest thou here, Elijah ? ’ ’ What good will you do by making this fuss ? ’ ’ This will never do ; we shall be too late for the train.’
59 to be attained in the future, can they be aiming at ? ’ Or (2) ’What good shall they effect by it? What account can they give of themselves, so as to be wise ? ’ He hints, then, their folly. In these words the reference is to some future imagined result. If there be a resurrection of the dead yet to come, this their idea might be realized. But how, if to the dead there be no future ? How, if their lot was fixed for ever when they departed?
It was not Christian believers in resurrection who were using this baptism, but unbelievers of resurrection. And Paul uses the two thoughts of (1) immersion, and (2) the denial of resurrection to break the scheme in pieces, by clashing them together. This again severs it from the baptism appointed by Christ. The benefit of that is guaranteed by
Christ. ( 2.) "Who are being baptized (immersed.)" This speaks of the practice as something then going on among a party at Corinth. It was not that one ordinary act of immersion, which to the believers of Corinth was already past. This was a something which might be repeated, to which no limit could be set but the fancy of those who practised it. The force of the present participle is seen in the parallel place (Galatians 5:3), " I testify to every man that is being circumcised" - or, as we should say in ordinary English - " that is getting himself circumcised." The Jews were already circumcised. Paul’s word was spoken to Gentiles who, after becoming Christians, were becoming circumcised, as the result of the arguments of Judaizers. Christians in general are spoken of by Paul as being already baptized (or immersed). The indefinite past Greek (aorist) tense is used of baptism in Romans 6:3-5. God owned but one immersion - but this practice at Corinth was something then arising for the first time through the fancy of men.
3. They were immersed "for the dead" (Gk:uper.) What is the sense? Either (1) " To benefit them." So 1 Corinthians 1:13, "Was Paul crucified for you?" "
Christ our passover is sacrificed for us"
(1 Corinthians 5:7). Or (2) "In their stead." Probably there were some among the Corinthian converts who looked back on the past with dismay, in view of those who had died before the Gospel had come ; and they sought to do them good. The Saviour’s sufferings had done the living vast good. Might not some act of theirs while alive, benefit the dead? These, then, after being baptized as Christians for themselves, were repeating baptism, with a view of benefiting the deadin general. It was an unauthorized idea, mere will- worship. But their belief in the vicarious work of Christ, joined with ignorant benevolence, probably engaged them to it. It is further observable, that Christ’s sufferings are figuratively called an immersion. ’ The dead ’ here spoken of are the dead generally : - not certain special cases of Christians whom their friends sought to benefit (as having died before receiving baptism). This unlimited sense of ’the dead ’ arises from the inclusive force of the article, and from the universal sense which the expression has had all through the chapter. Nor are "the dead" to be taken in any figurative sense. The argument, then, derivable from the foregoing explanation is this - ’ If there be a resurrection of the dead, and the bodies of the departed are to come forth from the tomb, it is conceivable that some good might be effected by this immersion for the benefit of the departed, when they come forth from the grave to take up anew their bodies. The immersion of the bodies of those practising this new baptism might be of some unknown advantage to the bodies of the dead, when the time of resuming them shall come. But if resurrection of the dead be impossible, and these men now alive and being immersed in their stead, are soon to join the dead and lay aside their bodies for ever, it is absurd to expect any advantage to accrue to the dead from a ceremony affecting a part of man which is never to be taken up again.’
Against this interpretation it is objected - ’But we have no proof of the existence of such a practice.’ ( Ans.) We need no proof beyond that which this passage supplies. Must we surrender all assertions of facts in Scripture, save those which are attested by other authors ?* *The remarkable doctrine underlying this argument of the apostle’s is - That the existence of the separate spirit is not properly ’life,’ and is not to be regarded as the ultimate destiny of man. It were undesirable if it were so. The believer’s hope, learned from the resurrection of Christ, is to be a man once more : his body restored to him out of the tomb, as Christ’s was. This hope turned, too, on his Lord’s personal return, and his beholding Him in the flesh. ’Whom my eyes shall behold.’ The promises embrace us as men, and as found in Christ, who is also a man.
"Why are they even being baptized (immersed) for them?" This assails the offending practice from another point of view - the opponents’ inconsistency in regard of the mode taken by them to benefit the dead. For they denied at the same time the resurrection of the dead. Now, in the hope of benefiting the dead, they used a rite which carried upon its very front death, and resurrection out of death. It was in order to express this evident meaning that Christ adopted it ; and beautifully it exhibits it. The argument here is, that doctrine and rite should correspond : or, else, they mutually destroy one another.
Rites of the God of war should be held in martial array, with swords and warlike dances, trumpets, rattle, glitter, shouts. If any were to celebrate the rites of Mars by peaceful assemblies of men, arrayed only in civic apparel, walking slowly and silently with bunches of flowers in their hands, and crowns of olive on their heads, while only flutes and harps were to be used in the procession, the inconsistency between the sentiment and the rite would be seen in such glaring colours; that either the rite must be altered, or the worship of Mars would be overthrown.
Thus, then, the folly of this new ceremony is further exposed. Its rite and its doctrine were in open opposition.
They had stolen God’s rite while denying God’s sense of it - and that at once betrayed the theft. The new patch on the old garment was not of the same colour of cloth ; it was a piece of scarlet chintz sewed into a black coat. Thus their want of wisdom was made manifest. Either they must invent a new rite, which should be in harmony with their new doctrine ; or, if they retained the old rite, both doctrine and rite would perish. And thus it came to pass.
30. Why are we also in danger every hour ?
Paul’s own conduct, and the Christian’s generally in view of perpetual perils, could only be rendered reasonable by the belief in a resurrection of the dead.
Faith in a resurrection of the dead, and of Jesus in especial, roused both Jew and Gentile to persecute the Christians. Their lives were in constant danger - they were always on the verge of death, and might at any moment be thrust across the border.
Now, if there were a resurrection of the dead, a resurrection of bliss, and this were the way to it, such conduct would be reasonable; but otherwise not. The word ’also’ seems to require the same ellipse as that previously suggested - ’ What shall be the reasonable end we have in view, if the dead rise not?’ ’What good will they effect for others ?’ - the dead, to wit, is the first question. The next- - ’
What good shall we effect for ourselves by our daily endurance, if there be no resurrection?’ Paul suffered, that is, in the belief of the recompense of reward. This alone made his sufferings endurable and reasonable. The general doctrine is brought out at the close of the chapter.
31. I am daily dying, I declare by your boasting which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Here we have Paul’s constant experience. He was living indeed, but in daily peril of life. New plots were hatched against him by Jew and Gentile : when one failed, another began : he was only delivered by constant grace. He was ever making foes by the truth ; and these, unable to refute him and hating him, sought his death. Thus Paul was like His Master. "I will show him what great things he must suffer for my sake." The insecurity of his life, in a region and time like that in which Paul lived, was constant. He did not expect it to be otherwise, all the time he lived on earth. He lost, then, the usual enjoyments of life : he was every day face to face with death. At any moment he might be thrust among the dead.
It was only because the Lord delivered him not into his enemies’ hand, that he lived from day to day.
It became him, then, to look well to results, and to be assured of the resurrection of bliss, which alone could make his constantly painful position reasonable.* * Thus the doctrine of millennial reward is of such moment, that if it be removed, the Spirit says, that the faith is overthrown. This is to be our doctrinal shield and support, amidst the trials of life. This sense is confirmed by, " In deaths oft," " We are killed all the day long."
E ’But might not that be only Paul’s nervousness?
He was a timid man, conjuring up terrors where there were none, and magnifying those few that existed.’ Against such an idea, he sets his strong inspired protest. It was as true a representation, as that the existence of the Corinthian Church was a subject of boasting and of rejoicing to him. And that was not a rejoicing or boasting in the flesh, but in Christ Jesus. The men of the world saw in it no glory; no subject of self-gratulation - ’the heaping together of a parcel of fanatics ! ’
It was no timidity in Paul. He could easily have left such a position, had he pleased. He would have gone into the theatre at Ephesus. He stood firm before Nero. How much greater his trials than ours ! Ought he not, in consideration of his sufferings, to take a lofty place above us in the kingdom? Are you called, reader, to give up anything for Christ’s sake? What is it beside Paul’s? But the glory shall make amends, however great the present sacrifices called for. What are your trials beside the sacrifice the Lord made for you? Love delights in sacrifices for the loved one. And they shall turn to glory, in the day to come.
32. If as far as man was concerned, I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what is the advantage of it to me, if tl1e dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die.
Here is a new difficulty. Did Paul really fight with wild beasts ? That was a punishment really at times inflicted on criminals, or political offenders. To make them an amusement to the populace, they were compelled to fight for their lives in the theatre with wild beasts. Was this true of Paul ? No ! he throws a bridle over this assertion, lest we should take it literally. Our translators render the limitation, "after the manner of men." That would make the assertion to be literal : that Paul did fight with wild beasts, ’ as men were accustomed to do.’ But it should be rendered, "as far as man was concerned." Paul’s foes condemned him, in their own minds to combat in the arena with wild beasts.
If God had not interposed, this would have taken effect. To what circumstance does he refer? To the uproar in Ephesus under Demetrius. The coppersmiths and silversmiths found this Paul a terrible enemy to their trade ; and, as they could not silence his doctrine, they were bent on silencing the voice that maintained it (which was much easier). So intent were they on his destruction, that none but the very cruel and public death of mortal combat with wild beasts would suffice them. This, then, was one of their designs in rushing into the theatre.
There this spectacle was to be held. For this, those who were in the secret shouted - ’ Paul to the lions !’ At that time certain Asiarchs, his friends, strongly dissuaded him against venturing into the theatre. The sight of him would have kindled their fury, and he would not have been listened to. Paul then alludes to the very narrow escape from a dismal kind of death which he had lately experienced.
It made a great impression upon him. A whole city was stirred, foes were sworn against him, yet he escaped ! To this he refers (2 Cor. i). There he speaks of " So great a death ! " He was referring to some peculiarly terrible one.
If there be a resurrection of the just, these perils will then be remembered to Paul’s advantage and glory.
He will reap what shall more than compensate him. "
If we suffer with Christ; with him we shall reign." So then look, Christian, at the troubles to which faith calls thee ! Bear them and face them boldly, and they shall be by and by transformed into glories ! "
Let us eat and drink."
If the resurrection of the dead be denied, thereis before us only the present life with its enjoyments. ’
Let us live for them ! Man is only the chief of animals : he is to pass away for ever, as other animals do.’ That would be wisdom, if its premises were sound. But they are not. This was the doctrine of the Epicureans and Egyptians,*
*Herod. II. 78. and attached to it was the further teaching, that while gods existed, they cared not for men. Now the doctrine of resurrection, while it sets man in his true position as to the future, and so discloses the meaning of present life; manifests also the truth about God, that He is not careless of men. Nay, He has sent His Son in infinite love; and has raised Him up, in token that that also is to be our destiny. This sentiment is the natural thought of the men of unbelief, regarding mankind as possessed only of present animal existence. But it appears also in the prophet Isaiah, Isaiah 22:13. There the description is given of Jerusalem in the last evil day, when the Lord shall send on her the siege of the Gentiles ; and faith in Jehovah shall so generally have died out, that they shall not humble themselves, or seek to attain His help. But they will say, that men should live as they list, enjoying the fleeting pleasures of life, for there is nothing better, and nothing beyond it. But God accounts this a great offence : a spirit betraying ignorance and wickedness beyond that of Nineveh. That, summoned by God without any visible calamity at hand, repented. They, God’s people, with trouble before and around, deny His hand, and would live worse than the heathens. This was the doctrine of the first French Revolution, out of which sprang such abundance of horrors. Over the doors of the cemeteries was inscribed - "Death is an eternal sleep." And with it came insults to Christ, and the denial of the being of a God.
33. Be not deceived. As though Paul said, - ’While I use the words of these deniers of the truth, imagine not that I accept them. They are false. They are marked by God’s rebuke. There has been a resurrection in the past; there is a future one which will eternally affect us.’
Paul was not a fool in thus doing and suffering for Christ. The coming day would prove it. Fallen men are easily deceived. A foolish self-flattering heart turns them aside. "
Evil companionships corrupt good morals." This is a better rendering of the Greek. The Greek word signifies not merely "speeches," but a person’s seeking and keeping the company of others. The word "morals," too, gives a truer idea of the sense of the Greek. " Manners " in old English meant rather ’ principles of life,’ than ’ courtly behaviour.’ But the apostle means to warn us against the creeping in of false principles to our heart and life, through friendly intercourse with those who hold them. This is a verse from the heathen poet Menander. It is a truth which has at all times commended itself to unassisted reason. It is then as though Paul said, ’You are listening to heathen unbelief. Let the saying, then, of a wise heathen set you right, and cause you to alter your course.’
Moral disease is contagious, as truly as many physical ailments. The evil outside us fastens on the evil within. Avoid the occasions of sin, if you would escape the sins and their issues. And the chief occasion of sin is willing fellowship with sinners.
Beware whom you take for your friends and associates.
Such as they are, such are you likely to become. No matter how strong your present feelings, and how great your intelligence in the things of God, if you ally yourself with unbelievers, you will sink to their level. Many are the analogies of nature which confirm this. A house on fire near another will set that also in flames, unless care be exercised. Sit down in a room full of ice, and no matter how warm you were before, you will soon have your teeth chattering with cold. Go into the room of one suffering from scarlet-fever, and abide there ; and it is very probable you will catch it yourself. Put coals on a blazing fire, and they will soon be on fire. He who will tarry all day in a gin-shop, is likely soon to be a drunkard, beginning with ’ just a drop.’
Now, if this be true with regard to the common intercourse of friends, how much more with regard to the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever?
Here the intercourse is constant and close, and the moral and spiritual effects on the life are especially disastrous. Be warned, all you who are in danger from this snare of Satan !
34. Awake to righteousness.
These sensual principles create a species of moral drunkenness. " Awake ! " The word used is a peculiar one- it signifies the waking up out of drunken sleep, and returning to soberness. A life of sensuality is moral intoxication, and is closely connected very oft with literal drunkenness. " Let us eat and drink," then, means - ’ Let us gormandize and get drunk ! ’ It is probable that such results had often been the result of these friendships with Epicureans.
Thrice is drunkenness named in this first epistle.
Once as occurring even at the table of the Lord (1 Corinthians 11:21). Once the apostle bids believers refuse friendship with a believer who was a drunkard ; and once he assures us, that such will have no part in Christ’s millennial kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:10). This heathen philosophy, so earthly and sensual, is full of unbelief, and leads to unrighteousness and sin.
Out of it, then, the Spirit of God calls all, and especially all who own the name of Christ. Backsliders, who have fallen back to the world and its ways, awake ! or your arousing will be full of sorrow when Christ and His kingdom come. My reader ! the awaking from sensual dreams by death and judgment, will be terrible. We know that Festus trembled, when for a moment the vail was rent which kept from his eyes the terrible array of judgment to "come." "
Sin not !" You have been looking on life as something your own altogether, which you might fill up at your own will, and regard it as a time of worldly enjoyment alone. But this leaves out of sight God and His attitude toward us as the Ruler, who forbids this, and commands that, under penalty. To do our own pleasure, denying or neglecting Him, is " sin." It is a brief drunkenness, to be followed by a dread awaking and awful punishment. "
Sin not ! " False doctrine and false practice go together : are as closely connected as the fire and water of the steam-engine are with its passage on the railway. Give free scope to doctrines of unbelief, and deeds of evil will as surely follow as nettles will arise after the sowing of nettle-seed. " Sin not ! " For this is the deep, and to many, secret reason why they are infidels. They sin on. And to these it is necessary, that they should disbelieve the evidence of wrath to come. For how else can they fail to be troubled, unhappy and full of alarm? It is the heart that prompts to almost every false doctrine.
They cannot afford to accept the truth of God. It condemns and terrifies. " For some have ignorance of God : I speak to your shame."
Taken as our translators have rendered this passage, it would prove, that some of the Corinthian church were unbelievers and unconverted men. But the rendering is too strong. There is no proof that any whom Paul addressed were unbelievers. But he is speaking of those among them who denied resurrection. This denial of resurrection was proof, not only of the absence of true views of man’s destiny, but in part also it was the proof of ignorance of the God who made him. It is with reference to this point that Paul is speaking. He is following in the train of his Master, who reproved in like strain the same denial. " Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God."
All in the Church of God must know God, at least as the pardoner of sin ; the Just, yet the Justifier of him who believes in Jesus. But on other parts of God’s character there may be, there oft is, great ignorance.
There was, then, among those deniers of the resurrection great ignorance, as it regarded God’s power and purposes. They knew not His intentions ; as declared in the Scriptures both of the Old Testament and the New. They knew not His power, to wh1ch the reconstruction of the human form after its undoing by death offers no difficulty. God is not known, if we understand not His power and declared intention as to our future life. It was shameful, that these scholars in God’s school should be so ignorant of first truths. The Lord grant to us not to be ignorant of His counsels, and of His love and Power ! Better be ashamed now than then.