1 Corinthians Chapter 15, Verse 32
From BibleWiki
32: ει κατα ανθρωπον εθηριομαχησα εν εφεσω τι μοι το οφελος ει νεκροι ουκ εγειρονται φαγωμεν και πιωμεν αυριον γαρ αποθνησκομεν
32: If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us
eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
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 to
morrow we shall die.
If after the manner of men. Marg., To speak after the manner of men. kata anyrwpon. There has been a great difference of opinion in regard to the meaning of these words. The following are some of the interpretations proposed:
(1.) If I have fought after the manner of men, who act only with reference to this life, and on the ordinary principles of human conduct, as men fought with wild beasts in the amphitheatre.
(2.) Or if, humanly speaking, or speaking after the manner of men, I have fought, referring to the fact that he had contended with men who should be regarded as wild beasts.
(3.) Or, that I may speak of myself as men speak, that I may freely record the events of my life, and speak of what has occurred.
(4.) Or, I have fought with wild beasts as far as it was possible for man to do it while life survived.
(5.) Or, as much as was in the power of man, who had destined me to this; if, so far as depended on man's will, I fought, supposing that the infuriated multitude demanded that I should be thus punished. So Chrysostom understands it.
(6.) Or, that Paul actually fought with wild beasts at Ephesus.
(7.) Others regard this as a supposable case; on the supposition that I had fought with wild beasts at Ephesus. Amidst this variety of interpretation, it is not easy to determine the true sense of this difficult passage. The following thoughts, however, may perhaps make it clear:
(1.) Paul refers to some real occurrence at Ephesus. This is manifest from the whole passage. It is not a supposable case.
(2.) It was some one case when his life was endangered, and when it was regarded as remarkable that he escaped and survived. Comp. 2Cor 1:8ff.
(3.) It was common among the Romans, and the ancients generally, to expose criminals to fight with wild beasts in the amphitheatre for the amusement of the populace. In such cases it was but another form of dooming them to certain death, since there was no human possibility of escape. See Adams' Rom. Ant., p. 344.
(4.) It is the most natural interpretation to suppose that Paul, on some occasion, had such a contest with a wild beast at Ephesus. It is that which would occur to the great mass of the readers of the New Testament as the obvious meaning of the passage.
(5.) The state of things in Ephesus when Paul was there, ([[Acts Chapter 19]]), was such as to make it nowise improbable that he would be subjected to such a trial.
(6.) It is no objection to this supposition that Luke has not recorded this occurrence in the Acts of the Apostles. No conclusion adverse to this supposition can be drawn from the mere silence of the historian. Mere silence is not a contradiction. There is no reason to suppose that Luke designed to record all the perils which Paul endured. Indeed, we know from 2Cor 11:24ff, that there must have been many dangers which Paul encountered which are not referred to by Luke. It must have happened, also, that many important events must have taken place during Paul's abode at Ephesus which are not recorded by Luke, Acts Chapter 19. Nor is it any objection to this supposition that Paul does not, in 2Cor 11:24ff mention particularly this contest with a wild beast at Ephesus. His statement there is general. He does not descend into particulars. Yet, in 2Cor 11:23, he says that he was "in deaths oft" -- a statement which is in accordance with the supposition that in Ephesus he may have been exposed to death in some cruel manner.
(7.) The phrase kata anyrwpon (as a man) may mean, that to human appearance, or so far as man was concerned, had it not been for some Divine interposition, he would have been a prey to the wild beasts. Had not God interposed and kept him from harm, as in the case of the viper at Melita, (Acts 28:5,)he would have been put to death. He was sentenced to this; was thrown to the wild beast; had every human prospect of dying; it was done on account of his religion; and, but for the interposition of God, he would have died. This I take to be the fair and obvious meaning of this passage, demanded alike by the language which is used, and by the tenor of the argument in which it is found.
What advantageth it me? What benefit shall I have? Why should I risk my life in this manner? See "1Cor 15:19.
Let us eat and drink. These words are taken from Isa 22:13. In their original application they refer to the Jews when besieged by Sennacherib and the army of the Assyrians. The prophet says, that instead of weeping, and fasting, and humiliation, as became them in such circumstances, they had given themselves up to feasting and revelry, and that their language was, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die;" that is, there is no use in offering resistance, or in calling upon God. We must die; and we may as well enjoy life as long as it lasts, and give ourselves up to unrestrained indulgence. Paul does not quote these words as having any original reference to the subject of the resurrection, but as language appropriately expressing the idea, that if there is no future state; if no resurrection of the dead; if no happy result of toils and sufferings in the future world, it is vain and foolish to subject ourselves to trials and privations here. We should rather make the most of this life; enjoy all the comfort we can; and make pleasure our chief good, rather than look for happiness in a future state. This seems to be the language of the great mass of the world. They look to no future state. They have no prospect, no desire of heaven; and they, therefore, seek for happiness here, and give themselves up to unrestrained enjoyment in this life.
Tomorrow. Very soon. We have no security of life; and death is so near that it may be said we must die tomorrow.
We die. We must die. The idea here is, we must die, without the prospect of living again, unless the doctrine of the resurrection be true.
