Commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:29-34

Text in red are my additions.

 

A CONFIRMATION OF FUTURE RESURRECTION

A Summary of 1 Corinthians 15:29-34

After having given the authoritative teaching in regard to the resurrection St. Paul adds, by way of confirmation, two further considerations, one drawn from the practice of some of the faithful, and the other from the labors and trials of the Apostles. A brief exhortation then terminates his proofs of this momentous doctrine.

1 Cor 15:29. Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them?

In the supposition that there is no resurrection of the dead, why, asks St. Paul, do some of the Corinthians receive Baptism for their friends and relatives who died without it? The Apostle is assuming that such a practice had in view the future resurrection of the body.

What was this Baptism for the dead? Many widely different explanations have been given, but by far the most reasonable and the most common is the following: In the time of St. Paul, when a catechumen died without Baptism, it was customary for a friend or relative to have the ceremony performed upon himself on behalf of the dead person, thus publicly affirming, by a symbolic action, that his departed friend or relative had died in union with the Church and was awaiting a glorious resurrection. This is the explanation of Tertullian (Adv. Marc. v. 10; De Resurr. xxviii) and is adopted by the majority of modern exegetes, such as Bisping, Van Steenkiste, Le Camus, Cornely, MacRory, Rickaby, etc. The Apostle simply refers to this practice, which must have been well known to the Corinthians, without approving or condemning it. Although erroneous, it was perhaps tolerated in the early Church until heretics began to attribute to it the efficacy of real Baptism. Cf. Vacant, Bapteme des morts. in Diet, de la Bible; Cornely, h. 1.

Again of this verse should be omitted.

1 Cor 15:30. Why also are we in danger every hour?

If the dead rise not again, then to what purpose are all the sufferings and persecutions endured by the Apostles and by the faithful? If there is no resurrection, all should try to avoid harm and suffering, and get as much as possible out of this present life.

We refers primarily, at least, to the Apostles, who were in constant danger of punishment, prison, and death itself, on account of their faith and the doctrines they preached. This and the two following verses seem directly to prove immortality, and only indirectly the resurrection of the body, unless we say that the danger, persecutions and trials to which the Apostle alludes were occasioned only or chiefly by their preaching the resurrection. This supposition, however, is very improbable, as it is quite evident that the allusion is to sufferings sustained for being a Christian, and for believing and preaching all the doctrines for which Christianity stands. Therefore we hold that these three verses are proofs primarily of immortality, and only secondarily of the resurrection. We must observe, however, with St. Thomas (on verse 19) that if the resurrection of the body be denied it is difficult to maintain the immortality of the soul, because without the body the soul is in an unnatural, and therefore unenduring state.

1 Cor 15:31. I die daily, I protest by your glory, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I die daily, i.e., every day St. Paul, like the other Apostles, was in danger of death for his faith and his preaching (Rom 8:36).

I protest, etc. The Apostle solemnly affirms by the pride he feels in the Corinthian Church, which he founded in Christ Jesus, that he is truly exposed to death every day of his life. Why all this, if there is no future life and no resurrection?

1 Cor 15:32. If (according to man) I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it profit me, if the dead rise not again? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die.
If (according to man), etc. There should be no parentheses here. The meaning is: If for merely human motives, without a hope of future life and a consequent glorious resurrection, St. Paul on account of his preaching was exposed to wild beasts at Ephesus, what profit, what advantage was there in his action? He was exposing himself to death for no purpose, if the dead rise not again.

I fought with beasts, etc. The word εθηριομαχησα (thēriomacheō)  used here by St. Paul, with its derivatives, became a technical expression for men contending with wild beasts in the amphitheatre. A metaphorical sense, however, is given it in the present instance by nearly all modern interpreters; and this for the following reasons: (a) St. Paul’s actual fighting with wild beasts is not mentioned by St. Luke, who speaks at considerable length of the Apostle’s sojourn at Ephesus (Acts 19:1; 20:1); (b) nor does St. Paul speak of such an experience when enumerating the various kinds of perils and sufferings to which he had been exposed for the sake of the Gospel (2 Cor 11:23); (c) it would be difficult to account for such treatment of a Roman citizen (Acts 22:26). The expression, therefore, must refer to the bitter opposition sustained by the Apostle from the Jews and his other enemies during his two years at Ephesus (Acts 19:1 ff.; 20:19; 2 Tim 4:17). St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Romans (Ad Rom. 5), employs the very same word in a metaphorical sense: “All the way from Syria to Rome I have to fight with beasts, bound as I am to ten leopards, that is, a file of soldiers.”

What doth it profit me. In Greek the interrogation point is after this clause, and not after the one that follows, as in our version and in the Vulgate. The quotation is from Isaiah 22:13, where the Jews are represented as scoffing at God’s threats to destroy them. The Apostle, by alluding to these words from the Prophet, is only expressing the conclusion which would commonly be drawn from a denial of the resurrection; “for himself it was recompense enough that his action was pleasing to God” (St. Chrys.).

Again should be away (i.e., omitted), and we shall die (Vulg., moriemur) should be in the present tense.

Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. A quote from Isaiah 22:13.

1 Cor 15:33. Be not seduced: Evil communications corrupt good manners.

Be not seduced, i.e., by those who say there is no resurrection.

Evil communications, etc. This is a line from the play Thais of the Athenian comedian Menander (320 B.C.), which in the time of St. Paul had doubtless become a proverbial expression. The meaning here is that false doctrines, such as the denial of the resurrection, corrupt one’s morals and manner of life.

1 Cor 15:34. Awake, ye just, and sin not. For some have not the knowledge of God, I speak it to your shame.

The Apostle now exhorts those Christians who had permitted themselves to be seduced to return to their previous state of justice and right living.

Awake. The meaning of the Greek imperative, εκνηψατε, is that they should awake from their sleep of intoxication and come to themselves again. εκνηψατε is used only here in the New Testament. The word is certainly meant to contrast with verse 32~Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. The related word, ανανηψωσιν ("recover"), is used in 2 Tim 2:26~And they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil by whom they are held captive at his will. Compare with Joel 1:5.

Ye just. Literally, “Righteously” (δικαιως). The meaning is: Awake, (a) as you ought; or (b) to what is right and just; or (c) so as to become just. St. Paul is bidding those seduced Corinthians to rouse themselves from their erroneous notions to a state of justice and righteousness.

For some, etc., i.e., those who say there is no resurrection of the dead are like the Pharisees whom our Lord rebuked for their ignorance of divine things (Matt 22:29), they have not the knowledge of God.

In the Vulgate justi would better be juste or ad justitiam.