You are currently browsing the daily archive for June 20, 2021.

Bible kevinroosecomThe three-year Lectionary that many Catholics and Protestants hear in public worship gives us a great variety of Holy Scripture.

Yet, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

My series Forbidden Bible Verses — ones the Lectionary editors and their clergy omit — examines the passages we do not hear in church. These missing verses are also Essential Bible Verses, ones we should study with care and attention. Often, we find that they carry difficult messages and warnings.

Today’s reading is from the English Standard Version with commentary by Matthew Henry and John MacArthur.

1 Corinthians 15:27-34

27 For “God[a] has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

29 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 are we 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.”[b] 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.

————————————————————————————–

Last week’s post concluded Paul’s instructions on worship; it must be ‘done decently and in order’. Good news for the Frozen Chosen and the reason why orderly worship has been the norm for over two millennia.

1 Corinthians 15 is all about the Resurrection and eternal life.

In the preceding verses, Paul describes how Christ’s mediatorial kingdom will end, at which point he will deliver it to God the Father (emphases mine below):

22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

In verse 27, Paul says that everything is in submission — ‘in subjection’ — to Christ, except for God the Father, and cites Psalm 8:6, a Messianic verse:

You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
    you have put all things under his feet,

Matthew Henry describes Christ’s nature as our Mediator:

… though his mediation supposes his divine nature, yet as Mediator he does not so explicitly sustain the character of God, but a middle person between God and man, partaking of both natures, human and divine, as he was to reconcile both parties, God and man, and receiving commission and authority from God the Father to act in this office. The Father appears, in this whole dispensation, in the majesty and with the authority of God: the Son, made man, appears as the minister of the Father, though he is God as well as the Father. Nor is this passage to be understood of the eternal dominion over all his creatures which belongs to him as God, but of a kingdom committed to him as Mediator and God-man, and that chiefly after his resurrection, when, having overcome, he sat down with his Father on his throne, Revelation 3:21. Then was the prediction verified, I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion (Psalms 2:6), placed him on his throne. This is meant by the phrase so frequent in the writings of the New Testament, of sitting at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19; Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1, c.), on the right hand of power (Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69), on the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:2), on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, Hebrews 8:1. Sitting down in this seat is taking upon him the exercise of his mediatorial power and royalty, which was done upon his ascension into heaven, Mark 16:19. And it is spoken of in scripture as a recompence made him for his deep humiliation and self-abasement, in becoming man, and dying for man the accursed death of the cross, Philippians 2:6-12. Upon his ascension, he was made head over all things to the church, had power given him to govern and protect it against all its enemies, and in the end destroy them and complete the salvation of all that believe in him. This is not a power appertaining to Godhead as such; it is not original and unlimited power, but power given and limited to special purposes. And though he who has it is God, yet, inasmuch as he is somewhat else besides God, and in this whole dispensation acts not as God, but as Mediator, not as the offended Majesty, but as one interposing in favour of his offending creatures, and this by virtue of his consent and commission who acts and appears always in that character, he may properly be said to have this power given him; he may reign as God, with power unlimited, and yet may reign as Mediator, with a power delegated, and limited to these particular purposes. (2.) That this delegated royalty must at length be delivered up to the Father, from whom it was received (1 Corinthians 15:24; 1 Corinthians 15:24); for it is a power received for particular ends and purposes, a power to govern and protect his church till all the members of it be gathered in, and the enemies of it for ever subdued and destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:25; 1 Corinthians 15:26), and when these ends shall be obtained the power and authority will not need to be continued. The Redeemer must reign till his enemies be destroyed, and the salvation of his church and people accomplished; and, when this end is attained, then will he deliver up the power which he had only for this purpose, though he may continue to reign over his glorified church and body in heaven; and in this sense it may notwithstanding be said that he shall reign for ever and ever (Revelation 11:15), that he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end (Luke 1:33), that his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, Daniel 7:14. See also Micah 4:7.

John MacArthur says:

Jesus Christ takes the assignment from the Father to redeem the earth, and He goes about and does it. And when He’s all done, when He’s all finished – He’s finished coming as a baby; He’s finished living as a man. He’s finished dying, rising, coming back. He’s finished fighting the enemies of Satan and all the other world enemies. He’s finished with all the rebellions; He’s squelched all the enemies; He’s crushed all the foes.

It’s all done, and He reigns as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And He’s got all the redeemed, and they’re all gathered together, and all the ones who were unbelieving are gone, and they’re judged, and they’re all away. And all that’s left are the redeemed. Then He gives it all to God and says, “Here, I did My task.” He gives it to the Father. And that’s what the Bible calls the eternal state: the new heaven and the new earth. No more rebels. He gives it all to God. All things in the kingdom are under His feet.

There’s an interesting footnote, in verse 27, I’ll call your attention to. He says, “God the Father’s going to put all things under His feet in that kingdom.” But he adds one thing, “But when God the Father says, ‘All things are put under Christ,’ it is obvious” – manifest means obvious – “it is obvious that He” – that is God the Father – “is an exception.”

At that point, Paul says, Christ will become subject to His heavenly Father so that those who are redeemed will know their salvation came through God’s power (verse 28).

Henry interprets the verse:

… it will appear to the divine glory, that God may be all in all, that the accomplishment of our salvation may appear altogether divine, and God alone may have the honour of it. Note, Though the human nature must be employed in the work of our redemption, yet God was all in all in it. It was the Lord’s doing and should be marvellous in our eyes.

MacArthur clarifies the reign of Christ:

You say, “Christ is going to keep on reigning?”

Yeah, because when He was born, in Luke chapter 1 it said, “Fear not, Mary, for thou has found favor with God. And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus. He shall be great, be called the Son of the Highest. And the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David – now listen to this – and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there shall be – what? – no end. He will reign forever. Forever.

In Revelation chapter 11, verse 15, it says, “He will reign forever and ever.” You know what I love? I’ll illustrate it, Revelation 3 he says, “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit down with Me in My throne.” And where is My throne? My throne is in the Father’s throne. You see what Jesus is saying? “Ultimately, My throne and the Father’s throne is your throne.” In other words, all things return to God. As in the beginning we were all coming out of God, in the end we all return to God, and we reign with Him in common life. No wonder Jesus said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I made everything, and all things resolve in Me.” That’s where history’s going. It came from God, it goes back to God, and resurrection makes it happen.

When God made a humanity, he made a humanity of righteousness, with a plan that they would dwell with Him forever. When they lost that righteousness, He didn’t give up the plan; He will raise them to a new humanity of righteousness and gain them back into His presence. That’s history. That’s history, that God may be all in all. Everything goes back to Him. And not in a mystical, Greek philosophical way are we – do we float back into some deity, but we are united with God by the common life that flows through us. And we sit with Him on His throne, with Christ who is in the same throne, and the Holy Spirit no doubt is there as well. A great, great reality.

I’m positive the Holy Spirit will be there, too. Be in no doubt.

Then we come to verse 29, which must be one of the most problematic in the Bible. Paul speaks of people being baptised on behalf of the dead, and if there were no resurrection of the body, why would such baptisms take place.

Matthew Henry goes through the most common theological explanations of what ‘baptised on behalf of the dead’ means and poses this question:

But who shall interpret this very obscure passage, which, though it consists of no more than three words, besides the articles, has had more than three times three senses put on it by interpreters?

Henry’s conclusion is that some Corinthians became baptised when they saw that those in the congregation who disgraced the Lord’s table through drunkenness became sick and died:

We read that many were sickly among them, and many slept (1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 11:30), because of their disorderly behaviour at the Lord’s table. These executions might terrify some into Christianity; as the miraculous earthquake did the jailer, Acts 16:29; Acts 16:30, c. Persons baptized on such an occasion might be properly said to be baptized for the dead, that is, on their account. And the hoi baptizomenoi (the baptized) and the hoi nekroi (the dead) answer to one another and upon this supposition the Corinthians could not mistake the apostle’s meaning. “Now,” says he, “what shall they do, and why were they baptized, if the dead rise not? You have a general persuasion that these men have done right, and acted wisely, and as they ought, on this occasion; but why, if the dead rise not, seeing they may perhaps hasten their death, by provoking a jealous God, and have no hopes beyond it?” But whether this be the meaning, or whatever else be, doubtless the apostle’s argument was good and intelligible to the Corinthians.

MacArthur also had problems interpreting this verse in 1977, when he delivered his sermon on it:

Now, there are some of you persistent Bible students in this congregation who have asked me to interpret 1 Corinthians 15:29 for the nine years that I’ve been here. And I have stalled you off until this very hour. And now I can no longer stall you because here we are, at a very, very difficult passage in the Scripture, that we’ll endeavor to gain an understanding of as we look at it this morning …

Now, that verse, beloved, has between 40 and 400 interpretations, any one of which might be right with some exceptions. What it’s saying I really don’t know; I’ll be very honest with you. I do not know. I will take a calculated risk; I will throw myself at your mercy this morning, and you can determine whether or not there is much grounds for my conclusion. But believe me; you don’t hardly have time during one week to study 40 views intelligently, let alone to come to a conclusion. But I have one anyway, and I’ll offer it to you. I will not be dogmatic on this simply because this is one passage that is so obscure and so difficult, that we couldn’t be dogmatic, but we can draw some conclusions that I think the context sort of lends itself to.

Now, let me give you a basic point that I’m working with as a result of working over the text. By the way, I started with a completely different view on Monday than I wound up with on Friday. In fact, I was very surprised at my conclusion. I think three people talked to me during the week, and I told them three different views that I was holding on that day.

But anyways, this is Sunday morning, and here we are. As for me tomorrow, you don’t know where I’ll be. But anyway, I think that the context lends itself to the fact that Paul is trying to point out things that would be lost if we give up bodily resurrection. And so, in my mind, there must be legitimate things. And there’s much reason for that; I just make that statement to you. But I think what Paul is saying here is simply this: people get saved because they anticipate resurrection. In other words, one of the strongest incentives for people to become Christians is the hope of resurrection.

MacArthur discusses proxy baptism, which is what the Mormon Church does. It is a heresy:

Let’s look, first of all, at the simple statements in the verse. “What shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?”

Now, the Mormon Church takes this verse, and they take what appears on the surface to be the most obvious view: that somebody is baptized for a dead person. And the Mormons call it vicarious baptism. And they teach – and incidentally, you might note that that is not common only to Mormonism; that was a heresy taught by two ancient fathers in the Church known as Cerinth and Marcion. They both believed this. In fact, it was branded as heresy even then.

But they say, “Paul is saying this, that a Christian who is alive and has been baptized can get rebaptized for a dead person to that the dead person can get saved by proxy.” Okay? So, like if your great, dear friend at work dies without the Lord, you can come here and get baptized for that dead person, and by proxy he’ll get saved.”

The Mormons, of course, teach that the spirits of those who have died can’t enter heaven unless a Mormon is baptized for them by proxy.

Now, it’s obvious, I think, to all of us that we don’t believe that. Proxy baptism, vicarious baptism could only be extrapolated out of this text. And there’s a simple principle of biblical interpretation: you never generate a doctrine out of an obscure text when no other text in the Bible teaches it. I mean you – that’s mercilessly attacking the Bible with your own bias and making it say what you want it to say. And you can’t do that.

The person who gets baptized himself doesn’t get saved by being baptized, let alone a dead person. We believe you’re saved by faith in Jesus Christ. Right? And baptism is simply an act of obedient faith that proclaims that testimony of salvation. But no one is saved by baptism, not living people, to say nothing of dead ones. “It is appointed unto man once to die,” the Bible says, “and after this” – the baptism? – “after this the judgment.”

MacArthur thinks that verse 29 means the following:

… “Some people, unbelieving people, are being saved because of the dead.” Now it is most likely that the dead have reference to Christians. The dead.

There is the yearning among mourners to be reunited with the people they lost to death. Therefore, if the dead were Christians, the mourners become Christians. They also see the way that those who died, in their final days, were optimistic about dying because they would be with the Lord.

MacArthur says:

There are some people who come to Christ and are saved because of some dead person or persons. What do I mean by that? Just this: there are two things, I think, in this particular area that draw people to Christ. One is this: an unbeliever sees a Christian, and he watches that Christian face death. And that Christian has hope and confidence; he is encouraged; he anticipates being with Jesus

And you know, there have been people come to Christ simply because they’ve seen the hope in the heart of a believer. And what Paul was saying here, possibly, is just that, “If there is no resurrection, then why are some unbelievers being baptized because of the great hope they see in those that have died?” See? If there’s no resurrection, why?

There’s a second element to this. You know, another great thing in death that is a cause for people to be saved is the hope of reunion. Do you know that? I’ve never had a funeral in which I didn’t give that word. You say to – someone who’s a Christian has died, and you’ll say, “You know, this person knew and loved the Lord Jesus Christ, and they went to be with Him. And if you will come to Christ, you can be rejoined with this one you love.” Right? You’ve heard that at funerals? I would dare say some of you came to Christ because you wanted to be reunited with somebody you loved who went to be with the Lord. That happens all the time. All the time.

I’ve seen a husband, who wouldn’t come to Christ for any to her reason, finally come to Christ when his wife died because he wanted to be reunited. I’ve seen it happen in the case of a mother dying, and a child who had been wayward and rebellious come to Jesus Christ in the hope that he would be reunited with his mother. Reunion.

Paul then discusses his own ministry. If there were no hope of resurrection, why would he put himself in danger every day (verse 30), saying ‘I die every day’ (verse 31) and says he fought with ‘beasts at Ephesus’ (verse 32a).

He mentions that because he was persecuted when he preached: beaten, imprisoned, thrown out of town. If there is no hope of resurrection, then enduring that was pointless and masochistic.

Did Paul actually fight with beasts at Ephesus?

Henry says that it is possible he did, although he probably meant ‘beasts’ as being a figurative expression for enraged men:

he had fought with beasts at Ephesus (1 Corinthians 15:32; 1 Corinthians 15:32), and was in danger of being pulled to pieces by an enraged multitude, stirred up by Demetrius and the other craftsmen (Acts 19:24, c.), though some understand this literally of Paul’s being exposed to fight with wild beasts in the amphitheatre, at a Roman show in that city. And Nicephorus tells a formal story to this purport, and of the miraculous complaisance of the lions to him when they came near him. But so remarkable a trial and circumstance of his life, methinks, would not have been passed over by Luke, and much less by himself, when he gives us so large and particular a detail of his sufferings, 2 Corinthians 11:24, ad fin. When he mentioned that he was five times scourged of the Jews, thrice beaten with rods, once stoned, thrice shipwrecked, it is strange that he should not have said that he was once exposed to fight with the beasts. I take it, therefore, that this fighting with beasts is a figurative expression, that the beasts intended were men of a fierce and ferine disposition, and that this refers to the passage above cited.

MacArthur thinks an actual fight with fierce animals might have taken place, although he is not sure:

People say, “Well, it can’t be real beasts, because, you see, we don’t have any other record of it.”

Well, you have this record. How many times does God have to say something to make it true?

“Well,” you say, “they couldn’t be real beasts simply because Paul was a Roman citizen, and a Roman citizen really couldn’t suffer that kind of a situation; he couldn’t be brought to – into the arena before the beasts. And Paul, as a Roman citizen, wouldn’t have done that.”

Well, listen, Paul’s Roman citizenship did get him out of some things, but it may well have been that it didn’t get him out of this. And those people would have figured if the beasts all eat him, who’s going to protest? Right? Who’s going to write Rome and tell them? Not us. And not him either.

I don’t know. Some say, “No, this is a wild beast; it’s a metaphor.”

I know Lenski, in his commentary, goes on paragraph after paragraph to prove it’s a metaphor. And I’m not sure he does, but it might be. He says it’s really just saying “wild beast” is a metaphor for the wild people at the riot in Acts 19 that occurred in Ephesus. Maybe so; I don’t know. But whatever it is, Paul says, “Look” – verse 30 – “all of us apostles are in jeopardy. I particularly am in jeopardy; I die daily. Here’s one incident: I had to fight beasts in Ephesus.”

By the way, there is an old historic church legend that says he did fight beasts in Ephesus, and that they had the same problem that they had in the den of Daniel; they became totally passive and left him alone. That’s just a legend.

The next half of verse 32 says that, if there is no resurrection, then we might as well live life as Epicureans, indulging our base instincts.

Paul was citing Isaiah 22:13:

and behold, joy and gladness,
    killing oxen and slaughtering sheep,
    eating flesh and drinking wine.
“Let us eat and drink,
    for tomorrow we die.”

The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the body and eternal life. There might have been some Jews in the Corinthian congregation who adopted that same outlook, unbiblical as it is.

However, as those who have studied the Classics know, this was also a widespread philosophy in Greece and Rome. Atheists were likely to have been in the Corinthian church, more about whom below. Perhaps they enjoyed the revelry of eating and drinking before the Communion service.

MacArthur tells us how parties ended in ancient Egypt:

Classic literature is full of this kind of thought. Herodotus, the Greek historian, tells one of the customs of the Egyptians. He says, “In social meetings among the rich, when the banquet was ended, a servant would often carry around to the guests a coffin. And in the coffin was a wooden image of a corpse carved and painted to resemble a dead person as nearly as possible. And the servant would show it to each of the guests, and he would say, ‘Gaze here, and drink and be merry, for when you die, such you shall be.’” That’s a great way to end a party. I’ll tell you what; it’s a great way to get a party going. If you really believe that, you are going to party.

Paul warns the Corinthians about keeping bad company: it ruins good morals (verse 33).

Henry says:

Note, Bad company and conversation are likely to make bad men. Those who would keep their innocence must keep good company. Error and vice are infectious: and, if we would avoid the contagion, we must keep clear of those who have taken it. He that walketh with wise men shall be wise; but a companion of fools shall be destroyed, Proverbs 13:20.

Paul issues a reprimand to the congregation, saying that they must wake up from their ‘drunken stupor’ and repent, because there are people among them who have no knowledge of God — atheists; he says that to their shame (verse 34).

Henry explains:

… I am apt to think that the expression has a much stronger meaning; that there were atheistical people among them who hardly owned a God, or one who had any concern with or took cognizance of human affairs. These were indeed a scandal and shame to any Christian church. Note, Real atheism lies at the bottom of men’s disbelief of a future state.

MacArthur emphasises the importance of good theology:

See, some in the church didn’t know God truly, didn’t know God’s teaching truly. And so, they were espousing heresy. And listen to this – now here’s our point that we made at the beginning of the message – bad theology leads to bad behavior, just like good theology leads to good behavior. Just like because of all God has done, because of this truth, you are to so live. So, if you introduce error, you’re going to have corrupt morals.

So, he says, “Stop being deceived. Bad theology will corrupt your good morals. You’ve got to break the association with these people teaching this heresy. You can’t run around with heretics without it having a corrupting influence.”

In other words, what he’s saying is, “Look, holiness is predicated on a association with good teaching. If you deny the truth of the resurrection, you have removed an incentive to good living” …

You see, beloved, the resurrection has tremendous implications. If Jesus rises from the dead, if He is alive, and we shall live also, then there is an incentive for people to be saved, because there’s hope after death, and there’s reunion. There is an incentive for people to serve Jesus Christ, because you can throw this life away and know that you’re going to get it a million-fold in the life to come. There is an incentive to sanctification, because morality will be honored and rewarded in the days to come. And anything less than that is shameful heresy and will corrupt the truth.

The hope of resurrection is in both the Old and New Testaments. Only those with a poor understanding of the Bible or an atheist would discount it.

Next time — 1 Corinthians 15:39-41

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,533 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,661,219 hits