1Cor 15:29-34 - Your Best Life Now - Denied

29-34 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 30 Why am I in danger every hour? 31 I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! 32 What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” 33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” 34 Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

This harkens back to verse 12 and is another quiver in Paul’s bow arguing against those who question the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. In verse 12 Paul says, "Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" He goes on here in another direction implying, "If there is no resurrection, then what do people mean by being baptized for the dead?"

And here we fall upon an obscure and difficult passage that the greatest of commentators have trouble explaining. One thing we know for sure - any practice involving baptism for people who have already died in order to secure their salvation is heresy; it adds to the gospel by implying that salvation is not by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. It may be that such a superstition had arisen in Corinth as it did later among the Cerinthians and the Marcionites (2nd century) and that Paul refers to this error not to give approval to it, but merely to use it for his own argument.

Goodness knows, there was enough error going around in Corinth that Paul had already commented upon that a heresy such as this might also be present. It does not necessarily imply that because Paul may have disapproved of the practice he would automatically refute it doctrinally before making his point. His point is centred on the truth and necessity of the resurrection - not upon right or wrong practices related to baptism. He may be sticking with the topic and refusing to be side-tracked - but using one of their own erroneous practices to make his point. We don’t actually know. But there is such a preponderance of teaching elsewhere that we dare not take this one obscure passage and imply that a sacerdotal and superstitious practice like vicarious baptism for the dead has any place in the gospel of the church.

A different explanation might be that this is an oblique reference to the baptism of blood - meaning martyrdom. If there is no resurrection then why are brothers and sisters gladly going to their deaths for their faith? This would fit in with Paul’s reference to his own constant peril. Why would he traipse all over the middle east being stoned and beaten and scourged and assaulted and imprisoned and plotted against - in constant peril of imminent death - why would he bother if, after his life was snuffed out, that was the end?

And this is a salient point because it seems that those who were saying that there is no resurrection were not simply implying that there is only a spiritual life hereafter - O no! - they were implying that there is no life whatsoever hereafter. This life is all there is and - poof! Goodbye and thanks for the memories! You can see immediately how corrosive and dangerous such a belief is. It must deny not only eternal life but also eternal punishment. It denies not just our own resurrection but, as Paul has already said, the resurrection of Christ as preached in the original (and only true) gospel. The net result of such belief can only be to lead people into pious do-gooding based on personal performance in this life; in a word, "humanism." There can be no judgement by God hereafter for all men because all men cease forever when they die bodily. It is radical anti-supernaturalism. It is unbelief. It is Sadducee-ism, and it can never produce holiness because it is not truly based on faith.

How can I say this? I can say this because faith is not a magic potion. It is not even a virtue in its own right. To be virtuous and to be effectual or "real," faith must have an object and must apprehend that object correctly, or truthfully. I can’t just say "I believe" and leave it at that. The question is "In Whom do I believe and trust, and for what?" There must be content, doctrine, understanding. Belief must lay hold of the facts and the evidence(s) before it can move out into fruitful experience. But if a person does not believe that God raised Christ from the dead as the harbinger of our own resurrection - if a person does not believe that life is eternal because God is eternal - if the idea is not grasped and loved that eternal life is in Christ, and because He was raised bodily so shall we all be - then one does not believe in the Christ of the gospel and is ultimately damned, unless he repents.

There was serious heresy in Corinth and Paul wanted to stamp it out. Hence, his rebuke. I tend to think his reference to being baptized for the dead is sarcasm. He may be looking at people who are willing to believe that there is no after life and then confronting them with how their own sacerdotalism even denies what they profess to believe. On the one hand they deny the resurrection and on the other hand they have this ritualistic practice of being baptized for the dead. Paul simply shows them the awful contradiction that, though obvious to a spiritual man, they are themselves blind to. Spiritual deception can indeed lead to this sort of stupidity - and it can do so in any of us, if we are not watchful.

As if to corroborate this interpretation, and to punctuate the thought, Paul ends this section by appealing to the true believers not to fall for the false teaching that some are propagating. Doubtless the gloves will be off and Paul will deal with the deceivers themselves when he arrives - but until then he provides the correct teaching that he knows the Holy Spirit will use to keep the true believers in the Way. He wants the saints to stay away from those teaching falsehoods that contradict the original gospel that they received. "Bad company ruins good morals" (from the heathen poet Menander or possibly from the Greek philosopher Euripides) is an aphorism which he offers to show that failing to shun deceivers will lead to wrong belief, and wrong belief will lead to unholy behaviour.

And I take time here to point out that much seemingly "holy" behaviour is from the pit of hell. {Mr 8:33} Some people who are good by worldly standards fail the test {Lu 18:18-23} False teachers are often very moral and very "nice" people. And sanctified people sometimes do not seem to carnal eyes to be holy {Lu 18:10-14}. But God looks on the inward man and seeks to see Christ there - and when He does, and only then, is He pleased, regardless of what the outward appearances might seem to imply.

Paul refers the willingness to be beguiled that he observes in Corinth as "a drunken stupour." That is, a condition where neither mind nor behaviour are working correctly. Paul calls being deceived "sin." Yes, it is sin to deceive, but it is also sin to be deceived, because it betrays a lack of love for the truth and a lack of diligence. They should know better, and they do, because they first believed the true gospel. They are not ignorant of the truth, though if they were they would still be under the condemnation of God - but they have added to their sins the fact that, knowing the truth, they have nevertheless allowed themselves to be beguiled. What grace upon grace is needed for a believer to be brought all the way to glory! How we would all add to our condemnation if grace did not prevail in our behalf!

And Paul ends up this section with a "gentle" rebuke, saying that some are not even believers at all, and that the rest of them who might still be believers ought to be ashamed for tolerating such a state of affairs. Try running that up you post-modern, emergent flagpole and see what you get! Maybe Paul needs a little more epistemological humility!