1 Corinthians 15:29-34

I want to review briefly to make sure we understand the flow of Paul's argument. Some in the Corinthian church denied the resurrection—that is, the future resurrection of the Christian. Paul begins by laying out the fact of Christ's resurrection and then argues that you cannot deny the future resurrection without also denying that past resurrection. And with that, he argues that the whole of Christianity collapses without the resurrection of Christ.  In the last section, he expands on the importance of Christ's resurrection, picturing it as a triumph over the past, the present, and the future.

With this section, he transitions to focusing less on the past and more on the future. Here, he looks to the future resurrection of the Christian and how that doctrine impacts our present life.

Before we get to the main themes of this passage, we have to talk specifically about verse 29. Paul casually throws out a reference to people being baptized for the dead. He mentions this as if this is something his readers should know, and perhaps the original readers did. But we do not. According to one writer, there are at least 200 different interpretations. I am only going to talk about three, the three that seem the most probable to me.

(1) The most obvious and straightforward interpretation is that there were those in the early church, or at least in Corinth, who would be baptized in place of or on behalf of someone who had died. The idea is that if a man became a Christian but died before he was baptized, someone else would choose to be baptized on their behalf as a symbolic gesture. We have a similar practice in some of our holiness churches, where if a person is too sick to come to church, someone else will choose to be anointed for them.

And if the Corinthians were practicing such a ritual, then it does point to the idea of a resurrection. If the dead are gone and forgotten—if a person ceases to exist when they die—then why on earth would anyone bother going through a purely symbolic ceremony on their behalf? Such a practice is nonsense unless we believe in the continued existence of the dead.

The problem with this interpretation is that we have no evidence that such a practice existed in the time of Paul. We do have records of it happening later in church history, but that could easily have come about from this passage rather than the other way around.

Many commentators think such a practice would be a terrible idea and do not think Paul would mention it without condemning it. I'm not sure I agree, though I can see how it could be abused and misunderstood.

(2) Some interpret this more metaphorically. They explain that baptism, in and of itself, is for death, that is, it is a kind of death. Look at how Paul describes baptism in Romans 6:4: “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Baptism represents death—it represents our participation in the death of Christ, but it also represents a kind of death of our life. A few verses later, Paul pictures becoming a Christian like a death—our past, our old life, the person we once were is crucified with Christ. To be a Christian, to be baptized means a kind of death—a death to our own self-willed life. To be a Christian means giving up certain things in our lives, certain parts of ourselves. We are baptized for death; the death of ourselves.

(3) That is all spiritual or metaphorical. But often for Christians in the first century, there was a more literal reality—to be baptized, to testify publicly of one's commitment to Christianity, put a target on your back. It could lead to ostracization, assault, or even death. That is the third interpretation. To be baptized could easily mean being baptized for death—it was laying yourself open for the possibility of death.

These two interpretations are less probable based on the words of verse 29, but they do fit in better with the context of the passage as a whole.

Fortunately, no matter what construction you put on verse 29, the main theme of the passage remains the same.

The theme of this passage, as for the entire chapter, is the resurrection. This chapter is Paul's defense and explanation of that doctrine. And this was no abstract issue for St. Paul. Paul's whole unique and highly unconventional life was a result of one thing—that he had met the resurrected Christ, as he mentions at the beginning of the chapter. Paul had had a personal encounter with the doctrine of the resurrection, and it had changed the way he lived; the entire rest of his life was different. 

And there was one specific thing that marked Paul's life after that point, and it was something that marked the whole early church. And it was something closely tied to the idea of the resurrection. It was an attitude that filled the whole life of Christianity and which still does fill or should fill the life of the church; it is something which grows out of and feeds on the reality of the resurrection. It is an attitude born of a doctrine, and yet it is the most practical thing in the world. It is hard to find a single word to describe this thing, but here I will call it: “The Courage of the Resurrection.”

This is the courage to face death. Look at verse 30. Paul asks: “Why stand we in jeopardy every hour?” And, again, in verse 31, he repeats the idea by saying: “I die daily.”  Paul's life was one of constant danger. Every moment of his life, after the beginning of his ministry, was a moment of risk. Because of his determination to preach the gospel, he lived under the shadow of possible death. 

So, for instance, almost the first thing we read of after Paul's conversion is in Acts 9:23ff. Paul had preached the gospel in Damascus, and the Jews were so angry that they tried to kill him and had convinced the man in charge of the city to arrest him, so the gates were guarded to stop him from escaping. The situation was so desperate that he only escaped by being secretly lowered over the walls of the city in a basket.

In verse 32, he mentions an experience he had at Ephesus, which he describes as fighting wild beasts. This could mean that he had been exposed to ferocious animals in an arena, as many Christians would be later. This is unlikely because Paul was a Roman citizen, which should have protected him from such a position, but that didn't always work. But it could be metaphorical and refer to some terrible and dangerous situation. We have reference to a dangerous situation Paul passed through in 2 Corinthians 1:8: “For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even of life.” We can't tell if this is the same situation Paul references here or a different one—and that reminds us of the overall quality of Paul's life as an apostle.

That is the kind of thing which Paul faced, often daily—and the further he got into his ministry, the worse things got. It was no neurosis for Paul to say that he was in danger all through every hour. This was simply the reality he faced and, to some extent anyway, all of the New Testament church.

To be a Christian meant risking death. It meant living under the shadow of the knife. Whether it came from the government or (more often at this point) from private assassination or a mob, it was a quite real actuality. Whether or not this is Paul's meaning in verse 29, it was true for many Christians that baptism was a baptism for death. Persecution was still relatively mild at this point—the full-scale persecution of Nero had not yet started. But even at this point, to be a Christian meant putting yourself in danger.

The New Testament faced dangers, and they faced those dangers with courage. And that courage was the courage of the resurrection.

It must have seemed like a rash thing to some of the world around them—that these Christians would be willing to throw away their lives for the sake of something intangible. But there was a method to their madness. Near the end of Paul's life, when Paul knew that he would soon be martyred because of his ministry, he wrote to Timothy: “It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us.” (2 Timothy 2:11-12)  Paul faced death with courage, because he believed in a resurrection; he was willing to throw away his life for the sake of the Gospel because he knew this life was not all there was.

If this life were all there was, then death would be something to avoid at any cost. The first and final law would be the law of self-preservation. But this life is not all there is. There is a hope of a resurrection. This is the hope that gives the courage to face death.

Now, we need to be clear. Some people have faced death with courage who did not believe in a resurrection. Courage can be grown out of many soils. Hopelessness can sometimes grow a sort of courage, but hope is a more fertile field, and the only hope that can really face the strain of death is the hope of resurrection.

A man can face death with courage—but once he is dead, what difference does it make? You cannot perform an autopsy on his body and find out whether he was courageous or not. There is no noticeable difference between the corpse of a brave man and the corpse of a coward. If death is the end, then it makes no practical difference how we face it, and courage can be nothing but an emotional flourish—a pretty thing perhaps, but nothing more. But the hope of the resurrection changes everything, because it means that death is not the end; it isn't even that after death comes something other than death and other than life. It means life goes on. Our future hope is something different from but still similar to our life now.

Suppose you were in urgent need of money, and so you went to a friend, a friend who was moderately well off, and begged him to give you 100 dollars. That is a large sum of money and it would involve a real loss for him to give it to you—but still, it wouldn't be THAT big of a deal, because he had a lot of money But suppose you DIDN'T have any friends who were well off and so had to go someone poor and ask them for that gift—suppose you were begging for a gift of 100 dollars from a man to whom that sum represented all the money he had in the world. Most likely, he is going to be much more hesitant to give you the money because it is all he has. Now, in both cases, the gift is a real gift and a real sacrifice. And in both cases, the man might decide to give it or to withhold it. But the point is that it will be easier for him to give the money if he has more money.

To give up one's life is a sacrifice, whether you believe in a resurrection or not, and some people have chosen to do so, and others haven't. But the point is that it is easier to give up your life if you believe that it isn't all you have; it is easier to face death if you believe there is something beyond death. That is the strength of hope; that is the courage of the resurrection.

A belief in the resurrection gives us the courage to face death. I have been speaking about martyrdom, because that was what Paul specifically mentions in these verses, but it is in general true that, as Christians, we can face death with courage—no matter how it comes—because we believe that death is not the end.

We have a hope beyond the grave. That doesn't mean that it isn't hard to face death. Many times, death is still a battle. But we know by hope that we can win the battle and that on the other side of the battlefield, there are fields of peace.

That is the courage of the resurrection, the courage which makes it possible to face death. But we can only die once, and before we reach that point, we have the grind of life to get through. And sometimes it takes as much courage to face life as it does to face death. There is a novel in which a slave had been beaten by his overseers, beaten so badly that he thought he was dying. But the slave was a Christian and was at peace with God, and so he was able to prepare his mind to face death and go to Heaven... but he didn't die. He recovered from his beating and then realized he had the far more difficult task of facing the continual, day-by-day sufferings and cruelty of slavery.

That is the important point to remember about Paul. Paul didn't just face a few specific moments of danger. His whole life was one of danger, and even when it wasn't one of danger, it was one of suffering and privation. Perhaps that is what he means by saying that he died daily; that every day involved suffering for him, making his life a sort of living death.

Coming from most people, that would sound like an exaggeration, but if you look at the rest of the Bible, you'll see that was an accurate representation of the life of Paul. He faced great suffering. In 2 Corinthians, Paul summarizes his life: “In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.” (2 Corinthians 11:26-27) That is what Paul went through. And in verse 32, he asks what the point of all that is if there is no resurrection. The implication is that there is no point. Rather, if there is no resurrection, the most logical attitude is “Let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.” If there is no tomorrow, it does seem practical to live for today.

In verses 33-34, we have some exhortations which, at first, seem unconnected to what came before. In verse 33, Paul gives a warning about evil communications. The word translated 'communications' means companions or company—that is, friendships and associations; the people we spend time around. Those things—choosing the wrong people to spend time and associate with—can corrupt good manners, or good morals as several other translations give it.

This connects back to a running theme of 1 Corinthians. This is something I said way back at the beginning of the study. The problem at the Corinthian church was that the Christians were, in many ways, still thinking and acting like nonChristians. They had not allowed God to fully change them inside and out. They were allowing the world around them to have too much influence on them.

Some have suggested that this is the reason for this chapter in the first place--that is, that the denial of the resurrection in the church was a result of Christians being influenced by their friends outside the church. The idea of a resurrection was very foreign to Greek thought, as we've discussed before—so many of those outside the church would have had trouble with this doctrine, and their doubts could have influenced those within the church. That is one way in which evil companions corrupt good morals. 

In verse 34, he gives yet another exhortation and warning, telling them to shake themselves awake--to live righteously and avoid sin. Again, there seems to be the idea of avoiding bad influences. He makes a point of saying that some have not the knowledge of God. Clarke says that could be translated: “some have an ignorance of God.” There are those in the world who do not know God or God's ways. Their ways will be a bad influence on the Christian. This is something Christians ought to know; it was a shame that the Corinthians even needed to be reminded of this.

At first sight, verses 33-34  might seem almost out of place. That saying “evil companions corrupt good manners” is basic common sense, and Paul is actually quoting one of the famous Greek writers. Nothing especially startling about it; “Awake to righteousness, and sin not” is a verse you could expect to find in any book of the New Testament. So why are these verses here right in the middle of a discussion of the resurrection?

I think there is a connection. If this world is all there is; if death really is the end and death is inevitable for all of us. If, as W. S. Gilbert said, "the solemn shadows fall/Sooner, later over all"—then why would it matter how we live? There is some pleasure in sin; otherwise, nobody would be tempted by it. There is some difficulty in righteousness; otherwise, people would not be so tempted to give up on it. So if this life is all there is and there is nothing beyond death, then why bother? Why bother avoiding evil companions and sin? Why worry about preserving good morals? Paul says to awake to righteousness, but if there is no morning and the night lasts forever, then what is the point in waking up? Might as well enjoy your sleep. Why would anyone bother mortifying their desires, denying themselves, disciplining themselves, sacrificing the pleasures of the moment—if this world is all there is?

Obviously, even if there were no resurrection, right would still be right and wrong would be wrong. Even if this life were all there was, it would still be our duty to do the one and avoid the other. But that doesn't change the difficulty of it.

Studying in a class is a difficult thing; taking notes, solving problems, reading and writing papers; none of those things are intrinsically easy. Now, a student in a class has, in some sense, a duty to do all those things, and a student who truly wants to learn will do them. But the truth of the matter is that if the teacher did not give a grade at the end of the class—if there was no reward for doing well and no punishment for doing poorly—it would become harder for the student to put in that effort and easier for them to slack off.

People say: Keep your eyes on the prize. But if there is no prize, then what do you keep your eyes on? Hopefully, if you are serving God, it is more than merely that you want to go to Heaven or avoid Hell—and yet that knowledge, that there is a reward for the faithful—and a punishment for the faithless—does make it easier to face the difficult task of living for God.

As I said, there is pleasure in sin. The Bible says they are only for a season. This life, on any theory, is temporary. But why bother sacrificing temporary pleasure if there is nothing eternal to gain instead? But if there is something eternal, then it is perfectly logical to sacrifice everything temporal for its sake.

It is not easy to live a righteous life. It wasn't easy in Paul's day. And it isn't easy today. There are temptations to take an easier way. To live righteously will mean making sacrifices; it will mean giving up on things. It will mean loss and deprivation. That is not to say that there is no reward for holy living, even in this life. But it is still a battle; but we can face that battle with hope. This is no game or sham battle; there is real danger, but we can face that danger because there is real victory and a reward for the victor. This is the power of hope; this is the courage of the resurrection.

The story is told of a group of American soldiers who were captured and held prisoner by the enemy during a war. But during their imprisonment, they found a way to keep up their morale; they took a few strips of red and white cloths and made a clumsy, makeshift American flag. To hide it from the enemy guards, one of the men sewed it to the inside of his jacket; but every day, he would hold his jacket open, and he and the other men, in the heart of an enemy prison, would repeat the pledge of allegiance to this improvised symbol of their country.  But then, one day, the guards surprised them and discovered what they had done. In anger, the guards ripped up the flag, and the soldiers were savagely beaten. But after the punishment, a couple of the soldiers—barely able to move—began crawling around their cell—looking for more scraps of cloth so they could make another flag. They were able to face the desolation and cruelty of their imprisonment because their heart was fixed on their homeland. They were Americans, even if far from America, and that gave them the courage to face their situation.

St. Paul was also imprisoned by his enemies and also faced cruelty and desolation. But he was able to face those things with courage because his heart was fixed on his homeland. It was from a prison that he told the Philippians that our citizenship is in Heaven, and that he was willing to give up everything he had and count it as lost: and this is why: “If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” (Philippians 3:11)