D. Arguments from Christian experience (15:29–34)
D. Arguments from Christian experience (15:29–34)
Now comes an abrupt change. Paul turns from Christ to the Christian and shows that certain practices, both among the Corinthians and in himself, logically imply the resurrection. Unless there is to be a resurrection in due course, the procedures of the Corinthians with regard to baptism and of Paul in his evangelism are inexplicable.
29. ‘For otherwise, what will they do …?’ is an unexpected opening, with its future tense and the verb do. Perhaps it means, ‘What is the value …?’ This problem, however, pales into insignificance alongside that of the meaning we are to assign to being baptised for the dead. The most natural way to understand the words is to see a reference to vicarious baptism. Some of the Corinthian believers may have been baptized on behalf of friends who had died before baptism (we can scarcely believe that they would have done this for people who had not come to believe, or that Paul would have mentioned the practice so calmly if that were the case). Parry says: ‘The plain and necessary sense of the words implies the existence of a practice of vicarious baptism at Corinth, presumably on behalf of believers who died before they were baptised.’ He regards all other interpretations as ‘evasions … wholly due to the unwillingness to admit such a practice, and still more to a reference to it by S. Paul without condemnation’. That Paul is quite capable of reasoning from a practice of which he disapproves is shown by the way he refers to sitting at a meal in an idol’s temple without saying anything about this being wrong (8:10), though in a later passage he connects idol feasts with demons (10:21ff.). It is perhaps significant that, while Paul does not stop to condemn the practice of which he speaks here, he dissociates himself from it (‘what will those do …?’; contrast ‘why do we endanger ourselves …?’, v. 30). He simply mentions the practice as taking place, and asks what meaning it can possibly have if the dead do not rise. Vicarious baptism is attested in the second century among heretics (Chrysostom says the Marcionites practised it). If something like this was known at Corinth it would strongly support Paul’s argument for the resurrection. But the practice is not known from the first century, nor from the orthodox. Strange things happened at Corinth, but perhaps this is too strange even for Corinth. So the suggestion has been put forward that some believers had died, and certain of the living, as yet not church members, were themselves baptized in order to be united to the deceased in due course. Others think of the symbolism of baptism (Rom. 6:1ff.), though it is not easy to see the relevance of this to the resurrection of the body. Others again see a reference to the martyrs (‘baptism in blood’), or to a practice ‘with a view to (the resurrection of)
the dead’. Many other suggestions have been made.2 As Conzelmann says, ‘the ingenuity of the exegetes has run riot.’ There is little point in canvassing even the more plausible suggestions. The language points to vicarious baptism. If we reject this we are left to conjecture.
30. Paul turns from the practice of the Corinthians to the experience of Christians generally and of apostles in particular. They were in constant danger, even in the absence of official persecution. Why should people run the risks attendant on joining themselves to such a religion if death is the end of everything?
31. ‘Daily I die’ comes first in the Greek for emphasis. Paul’s danger was very real and very constant; he was never out of peril. He uses the strong affirmative nē (often used in oaths; only here in the New Testament), and follows it with ‘your boasting which I have’. This is not an easy expression. It may mean Paul’s boasting about the Corinthians: ‘the glory (or boasting) I have because of you’, taking ‘your’ as objective (as in Rom. 11:31). Or it may mean the Corinthians’ boasting about Paul: ‘the glory (or renown) which I have among you because you are the fruit of my ministry’, NIV is probably right in choosing the former. Moffatt brings this out with ‘Not a day but I am at death’s door! I swear it by my pride in you, brothers.’ It is interesting to see this expression of Paul’s basic satisfaction with his Corinthian converts, despite the many things for which he had to rebuke them.
32. Some hold that this verse is to be taken literally, and think that Paul had actually been put into the arena with wild animals, possibly at the time when he was in great danger in the province of Asia (2 Cor. 1:8ff.; Ephesus was in this province). It is objected that, since Paul was a Roman citizen, he could not be compelled to fight wild beasts. This, however, cannot be pressed, for even Roman aristocrats occasionally appeared in the arena. Acilius Glabrio, for example, an eminent Roman, was compelled by Domitian to fight wild beasts. However, if that had happened to Paul he would have lost his citizenship, and Acts is evidence that he still had it at a later time than this. Moreover he would surely not have omitted such a happening from his list of troubles (2 Cor. 11:23ff.). Further, had he been thrown to the wild beasts he is unlikely to have survived. But ‘fighting with wild beasts’ is often used metaphorically, as when Ignatius writes to the Romans, ‘From Syria even unto Rome I fight with wild beasts, by land and sea, by night and by day’, and proceeds to explain this as ‘being bound amidst ten leopards, even a company of soldiers’ (5:1; Lightfoot’s translation). A. J. Malherbe has shown that language of this sort is freely used when sages describe the opposition they encounter (JBL, lxxxvii, 1968, pp. 71–80). Again, R. E. Osborne, arguing similarly for the metaphorical use, is able to cite a Qumran parallel (JBL, lxxxv, 1966, pp. 225–230). Paul is surely employing this metaphorical use. The aorist points to a specific occasion, but we have no way of knowing what it was. The Corinthians knew and could appreciate the reference. If there is no resurrection, Paul’s whole life in general, and his conduct in the Ephesian incident in particular, are inexplicable. If there is no resurrection the logical course would be to follow the easy-going proverb Paul quotes (Isa. 22:13; cf. Eccl. 9:7–10). Deissmann cites ‘the exhortation to drink in anticipation of approaching death’ as ‘one of the well-known formulae of ancient popular morals’ (LAE, p. 295).
33. Do not be misled introduces a proverb found, for example, in Menander (Thais, 218; some think it is perhaps as early as Euripides). Homiliai is probably rightly translated company here, but the word is often used of the communications people make with each other, especially speeches (we get our word ‘homily’ from it). Character renders ēthē; the word is plural and would be better translated ‘habits’ (BAGD). Paul is saying that keeping the wrong kind of company (that of people who deny the resurrection) may well corrupt good Christian habits, and turn people away from the truth.
34. Come back to your senses is a free translation of eknēpsate. The verb originally meant ‘become sober after drunkenness’ (cf. Weymouth, ‘Wake from this drunken fit’). It is very appropriate to an appeal to ‘come to your senses’. Robertson and Plummer suggest that perhaps ‘these sceptics claimed to be sober thinkers, and condemned the belief in a resurrection as a wild enthusiasm’. If so, Paul’s verb is much to the point. Stop sinning reminds us that all of life is interwoven. On the face of it Paul is discussing a doctrinal question, not a moral issue; indeed, throughout his correspondence, the apostle insists on right doctrine. For doctrine leads to conduct, and unsound doctrine in the end must lead to sinful behaviour. For shows that Paul is linking failure to live rightly with failure to think rightly. Who are ignorant is ‘have agnōsian’ (i.e. ‘hold on to ignorance’); the noun points not so much to intellectual ignorance as to ignorance in religious things. It is used in the mystery religions of a ‘lack of religious experience or lack of spiritual discernment’ (BAGD). The error with which Paul is concerned arises basically (as do so many others) from a lack of real knowledge of God. The seriousness with which Paul regarded it is seen in his avowed intention of writing to shame his friends (contrast 4:14). ‘I say to you, “For shame!” ’ (Orr and Walther).