1 Corinthians 15:29-32 contrast the truth of resurrection and Jesus coming to rule the earth with the false teaching that there is no bodily resurrection and that death is the end. If this life is all there is, why do the Corinthians put their lives at risk practicing Christianity and being persecuted? What's the point of that? Paul points to his own daily suffering for Jesus, that it is silly for him to stand for Christ against the hostility of the world, if we are not resurrected to eternal life in the end. We might as well live for the pleasures of the day before the finality of permanent dark death.
In 1 Corinthians 15:29-32, Paul appeals to a number of other circumstances to show that resurrection denial makes Christian sacrifice senseless and pleasure-seeking reasonable. He turns from argument to observed behavior.
Paul has been presenting a case against those who claim there is no resurrection. He next lists three circumstances, culminating in an exclamation that Greek, pagan hedonism makes a lot of sense if there is no resurrection. The list begins with a verse that is sometimes called the most disputed verse in the New Testament: Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? (v 29).
We will cover what is clear and what is not clear. What is clear, and not disputed, is that being baptized for the dead is intended as an example of behavior that makes no sense if there is no resurrection from the dead. This is apparent since being baptized for the dead is coupled with examples from Paul’s chosen life of danger and difficulty for the sake of the gospel. Paul is a logical fellow, and would not choose a life of misery and difficulty if there was no benefit of which he was certain.
Paul states overtly in 2 Corinthians 4:17 that he compares the difficulty he endures as nothing compared to the "eternal weight of glory" from the reward he will receive for living a sacrificially faithful life. This reward, he says in 1 Corinthians 2:9, is so great that it is beyond our human capacity to fathom.
So whatever being baptized for the dead is, which is what is unknown, it was a practice the Corinthians apparently accepted that would make no sense to accept if there is no resurrection. Since it is so clear from context that the intent focuses on elevating the fact that the behavior of the Corinthians as well as his own behavior demands acceptance that the resurrection is true, it is not really necessary for us to know what the actual practice being referred to is. The point would be the same, regardless.
However, since this is widely disputed, we will briefly summarize the debate over what Paul is referring to with the phrase baptized for the dead. Although hundreds of explanations might be offered, they tend to fall into two broad categories: those who prioritize grammar and those who prioritize history.
Those who prioritize grammar point to the Greek wording and grammar, and say Paul was using as an example a practice accepted by the Corinthians of baptizing living people as proxies for dead people. The Greek phrase "baptizo hyper nekros" is translated baptized for the dead, and those who favor a grammatical interpretation point out that "hyper" usually means "on behalf of" or "beyond." They also point out that Paul shifts from speaking of "we" and "us" to those (those do who are baptized for the dead? (v 29)) and them (why then are they baptized for them? (v 29)). This means Paul is not endorsing the behavior, but merely pointing to it.
The grammatical adherents answer the critique of the historical adherents by saying Paul is not endorsing a heresy, he is simply pointing to it in order to defend the most basic of all tenets of Christianity: Christ's resurrection. If Christ is not raised from the dead, we are still in sin, and there is no gospel (1 Corinthians 15:17). So it is conceivable that Paul would use a false but accepted behavior (one that could be straightened out later) to defend the very foundation of the Christian faith.
The other major camp rejects the idea that Paul would use a heresy to promote a good doctrine, regardless of how foundational, so look for an alternative grammatical interpretation. The basic thought of this group revolves around seeing "baptizo hyper nekros" as believer's baptism. This camp points to the lack of historical data pointing to any kind of ceremony where people baptizedfor the deceased. They also point to a later such ceremony, by the Marcionites, about a century later, and their practice would not lend itself as a good illustration for Paul's use.
One argument from the historical camp is that Paul is referring to the tradition of a believer saying, "I believe in the resurrection of the dead" prior to immersion. The vast array of explanations makes it clear enough that it is lost to history what Paul is actually referring to. But, again, based on context, it is obvious that his aim is to point out contradictions between observed behavior stemming from belief in resurrection, and that such behavior makes no logical sense if there is no resurrection.
The following verses make this context plain. Paul asks the following rhetorical question: Why are we also in danger every hour? (v 30). The expected answer is. "You are in danger every hour because you believe in and follow the gospel of JesusChrist." Paul documents his formidable resumé of being abused for the gospel in 2 Corinthians 11:23-27. He states in 2 Corinthians 4:17 that he does not consider such abuse to be a high cost to pay because he is comparing to an "eternal weight of glory" he will receive as a reward for his faithfulness (2 Timothy 4:8).
Paul wrote this letter from Ephesus, where his ministry had provoked opposition severe enough that he later described being "burdened excessively, beyond our strength, "despairing even of life, carrying "the sentence of death" within himself, "so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead" (2 Corinthians 1:8-9).
He next speaks of his daily walk with Jesus: I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily (v 31).
Paul dies daily to his natural desires in order to walk by faith. We see this throughout his writings:
In Romans 8:13, Paul admonishes all believers to die daily to their natural desires, the desires of the flesh: "for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live."
In 2 Corinthians 4:11, Paul says, "For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh." This means dying to self and rejection from the world ought to be a normal experience for believers who walk in faith.
In 1 Corinthians 9:24-27, Paul speaks of buffeting his own body, like an athlete training for the Olympics, in order that he might win the prize of the reward for faithfulness promised by Christ for believers who live as faithful witnesses (2 Corinthians 5:10,Revelation 3:21).
It makes no sense to deny one's self the pleasures and comforts of life to train rigorously for the Olympics if there are no winners, if there is no prize.
Paul elevates this next in saying, If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE (v 32).
There is no earthly reward that would make Paul's suffering worthwhile. He has no human motives that push him to give his life for the cause of Christ. The reward he seeks is completely wrapped up in the next life, which requires resurrection from the dead. If there is no resurrection, the Paul agrees with the philosophy LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE (v 32).
The phrase, I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus (v 32), most likely describes ferocious human opposition in the arena of public conflict, since Roman citizens like Paul were exempt from being persecuted by beasts in the arena and Luke records no such sentence. However, Luke does record the riot of the silversmiths in Ephesus (Acts 19:23-41). The mob passion Paul faced there was like a group of wild beasts. The mob posed danger to the degree that Paul's companions would not allow him to speak with the frenzied crowds (Acts 19:31). The confusion of the mob was so great and undirected that most did not even know why they were there (Acts 19:32).
The fact that Paul asks rhetorically, "What does it profit me?" (v 32) emphasizes that Paul has made an investment calculation with his life. He has determined that laying down his life in service to Christ is the wisest investment he can make. It will provide him an "eternal weight of glory" (2 Corinthians 4:17). It will bring him a "crown of righteousness." It will cause him to win the race of life, and gain the rewards from that win (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).
Paul speaks of profit even when discussing his command for believers to love others sacrificially. He says in 1 Corinthians 13:3 that the reason to do all we do for Christ in love is that otherwise we gain no "profit" from the action. God rewards intent, and the "agape" love Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 13 is about choosing to seek the best for others.
If death ends everything, a life spent bleeding for a message about a dead man profits nothing. There are no rewards that would be worth all the trouble.
Then Paul names the alternative with a quote from the Old Testament: If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE (v 32). The line comes from Isaiah 22:13, where Jerusalem, under siege and summoned by God to weeping and repentance, threw a feast instead, slaughtering cattle and drinking wine on the reasoning that death was coming anyway so they might as well just enjoy their last few moments of life.
Paul agrees with the logic: if the grave is final, maximizing pleasure before it arrives is a coherent philosophy. This is the very conclusion Epicurus drew in the Greek world. The concept was shared by his Greek followers, and was popular in the culture of Paul’s day, for obvious reasons. It is, observably, the path of least resistance.
A life of denial is an investment in the future, and that future is founded on the resurrection. Its opposite is self-indulgence, which focuses only on gaining the most pleasure from today. These are natural opponents, each seeking for our daily attention.
The only reason to choose to follow a life of denial and stewardship is because the resurrection is real. But since it is real, this is the recommended path, with the greatest possible blessing. In fact, the blessing promised expands beyond our human capacity to comprehend (1 Corinthians 2:9). This explains why Paul has devoted so much space in this letter to correcting the false belief that bodily resurrection is not real.
1 Corinthians 15:29-32
29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?
30 Why are we also in danger every hour?
31 I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
32 If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.
Set to dark mode
1 Corinthians 15:29-32 meaning
In 1 Corinthians 15:29-32, Paul appeals to a number of other circumstances to show that resurrection denial makes Christian sacrifice senseless and pleasure-seeking reasonable. He turns from argument to observed behavior.
Paul has been presenting a case against those who claim there is no resurrection. He next lists three circumstances, culminating in an exclamation that Greek, pagan hedonism makes a lot of sense if there is no resurrection. The list begins with a verse that is sometimes called the most disputed verse in the New Testament: Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? (v 29).
We will cover what is clear and what is not clear. What is clear, and not disputed, is that being baptized for the dead is intended as an example of behavior that makes no sense if there is no resurrection from the dead. This is apparent since being baptized for the dead is coupled with examples from Paul’s chosen life of danger and difficulty for the sake of the gospel. Paul is a logical fellow, and would not choose a life of misery and difficulty if there was no benefit of which he was certain.
Paul states overtly in 2 Corinthians 4:17 that he compares the difficulty he endures as nothing compared to the "eternal weight of glory" from the reward he will receive for living a sacrificially faithful life. This reward, he says in 1 Corinthians 2:9, is so great that it is beyond our human capacity to fathom.
So whatever being baptized for the dead is, which is what is unknown, it was a practice the Corinthians apparently accepted that would make no sense to accept if there is no resurrection. Since it is so clear from context that the intent focuses on elevating the fact that the behavior of the Corinthians as well as his own behavior demands acceptance that the resurrection is true, it is not really necessary for us to know what the actual practice being referred to is. The point would be the same, regardless.
However, since this is widely disputed, we will briefly summarize the debate over what Paul is referring to with the phrase baptized for the dead. Although hundreds of explanations might be offered, they tend to fall into two broad categories: those who prioritize grammar and those who prioritize history.
Those who prioritize grammar point to the Greek wording and grammar, and say Paul was using as an example a practice accepted by the Corinthians of baptizing living people as proxies for dead people. The Greek phrase "baptizo hyper nekros" is translated baptized for the dead, and those who favor a grammatical interpretation point out that "hyper" usually means "on behalf of" or "beyond." They also point out that Paul shifts from speaking of "we" and "us" to those (those do who are baptized for the dead? (v 29)) and them (why then are they baptized for them? (v 29)). This means Paul is not endorsing the behavior, but merely pointing to it.
The grammatical adherents answer the critique of the historical adherents by saying Paul is not endorsing a heresy, he is simply pointing to it in order to defend the most basic of all tenets of Christianity: Christ's resurrection. If Christ is not raised from the dead, we are still in sin, and there is no gospel (1 Corinthians 15:17). So it is conceivable that Paul would use a false but accepted behavior (one that could be straightened out later) to defend the very foundation of the Christian faith.
The other major camp rejects the idea that Paul would use a heresy to promote a good doctrine, regardless of how foundational, so look for an alternative grammatical interpretation. The basic thought of this group revolves around seeing "baptizo hyper nekros" as believer's baptism. This camp points to the lack of historical data pointing to any kind of ceremony where people baptized for the deceased. They also point to a later such ceremony, by the Marcionites, about a century later, and their practice would not lend itself as a good illustration for Paul's use.
One argument from the historical camp is that Paul is referring to the tradition of a believer saying, "I believe in the resurrection of the dead" prior to immersion. The vast array of explanations makes it clear enough that it is lost to history what Paul is actually referring to. But, again, based on context, it is obvious that his aim is to point out contradictions between observed behavior stemming from belief in resurrection, and that such behavior makes no logical sense if there is no resurrection.
The following verses make this context plain. Paul asks the following rhetorical question: Why are we also in danger every hour? (v 30). The expected answer is. "You are in danger every hour because you believe in and follow the gospel of Jesus Christ." Paul documents his formidable resumé of being abused for the gospel in 2 Corinthians 11:23-27. He states in 2 Corinthians 4:17 that he does not consider such abuse to be a high cost to pay because he is comparing to an "eternal weight of glory" he will receive as a reward for his faithfulness (2 Timothy 4:8).
Paul wrote this letter from Ephesus, where his ministry had provoked opposition severe enough that he later described being "burdened excessively, beyond our strength, "despairing even of life, carrying "the sentence of death" within himself, "so that we would not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead" (2 Corinthians 1:8-9).
He next speaks of his daily walk with Jesus: I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily (v 31).
Paul dies daily to his natural desires in order to walk by faith. We see this throughout his writings:
It makes no sense to deny one's self the pleasures and comforts of life to train rigorously for the Olympics if there are no winners, if there is no prize.
Paul elevates this next in saying, If from human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE (v 32).
There is no earthly reward that would make Paul's suffering worthwhile. He has no human motives that push him to give his life for the cause of Christ. The reward he seeks is completely wrapped up in the next life, which requires resurrection from the dead. If there is no resurrection, the Paul agrees with the philosophy LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE (v 32).
The phrase, I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus (v 32), most likely describes ferocious human opposition in the arena of public conflict, since Roman citizens like Paul were exempt from being persecuted by beasts in the arena and Luke records no such sentence. However, Luke does record the riot of the silversmiths in Ephesus (Acts 19:23-41). The mob passion Paul faced there was like a group of wild beasts. The mob posed danger to the degree that Paul's companions would not allow him to speak with the frenzied crowds (Acts 19:31). The confusion of the mob was so great and undirected that most did not even know why they were there (Acts 19:32).
The fact that Paul asks rhetorically, "What does it profit me?" (v 32) emphasizes that Paul has made an investment calculation with his life. He has determined that laying down his life in service to Christ is the wisest investment he can make. It will provide him an "eternal weight of glory" (2 Corinthians 4:17). It will bring him a "crown of righteousness." It will cause him to win the race of life, and gain the rewards from that win (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).
Paul speaks of profit even when discussing his command for believers to love others sacrificially. He says in 1 Corinthians 13:3 that the reason to do all we do for Christ in love is that otherwise we gain no "profit" from the action. God rewards intent, and the "agape" love Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 13 is about choosing to seek the best for others.
If death ends everything, a life spent bleeding for a message about a dead man profits nothing. There are no rewards that would be worth all the trouble.
Then Paul names the alternative with a quote from the Old Testament: If the dead are not raised, LET US EAT AND DRINK, FOR TOMORROW WE DIE (v 32). The line comes from Isaiah 22:13, where Jerusalem, under siege and summoned by God to weeping and repentance, threw a feast instead, slaughtering cattle and drinking wine on the reasoning that death was coming anyway so they might as well just enjoy their last few moments of life.
Paul agrees with the logic: if the grave is final, maximizing pleasure before it arrives is a coherent philosophy. This is the very conclusion Epicurus drew in the Greek world. The concept was shared by his Greek followers, and was popular in the culture of Paul’s day, for obvious reasons. It is, observably, the path of least resistance.
A life of denial is an investment in the future, and that future is founded on the resurrection. Its opposite is self-indulgence, which focuses only on gaining the most pleasure from today. These are natural opponents, each seeking for our daily attention.
The only reason to choose to follow a life of denial and stewardship is because the resurrection is real. But since it is real, this is the recommended path, with the greatest possible blessing. In fact, the blessing promised expands beyond our human capacity to comprehend (1 Corinthians 2:9). This explains why Paul has devoted so much space in this letter to correcting the false belief that bodily resurrection is not real.