Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 15:32
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 tomorrow we die.
32. If after the manner of men ] After man, Wiclif. Either (1) as margin, ‘ to speak after the manner of men,’ or (2) for purely human and temporal objects, like those of men in general. See for this expression ch. 1Co 3:3, and Rom 3:5, Gal 1:11; Gal 3:15.
I have fought with beasts at Ephesus ] It must have been a metaphorical, not a literal fighting with beasts of which the Apostle spoke. His Roman citizenship (Act 16:37; Act 22:25) protected him from being thrown to the lions in the arena. And it is generally believed that he eventually died by the sword, as a Roman citizen. He means to say that he contended with men who had the passions of beasts (as in Act 19:29-34, though it is not certain that this particular event had yet occurred). So did Ignatius afterwards, who, referring to the demeanour of the Roman legionaries by whom he was conducted to Rome, says, “I am bound to ten leopards, that is, a troop of soldiers, who are only made worse by kindnesses.” Cf. Ad Romans 5. 2Ti 4:17. Also Psa 22:20-21; Psa 35:17.
what advantageth it me ] i.e. as we should say, where is the use of it?
let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
If after the manner of men – Margin, To speak after the manner of men ( kata anthropon). 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 people, who act only with reference to this life, and on the ordinary principles of human conduct, as people fought with wild beasts in the amphitheater.
(2) Or if, humanly speaking, or speaking after the manner of people, I have fought, referring to the fact that he had contended with mcn who should be regarded as wild beasts.
(3) Or, that I may speak of myself as people 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 mans 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; compare 2Co 1:8-10.
(3) It was common among the Romans, and the ancients generally, to expose criminals to fight with wild beasts in the amphitheater 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. That this custom prevailed at the East, is apparent from the following extract front Rosenmuller; and there is no improbability in the supposition that Paul was exposed to this – The barbarous custom of making men combat with wild beasts has prevailed in the East down to the most modern times. Jurgen Andersen, who visited the states of the Great Mogul in 1646, gives an account in his Travels of such a combat with animals, which he witnessed at Agra, the residence of the Great Mogul. His description affords a lively image of those bloody spectacles in which ancient Rome took so much pleasure, and to which the above words of the apostle refer. Alumardan-chan, the governor of Cashmire, who sat among the chans, stood up, and exclaimed, It is the will and desire of the great mogul, Schah Choram, that if there are any valiant heroes who will show their bravery by combating with wild beasts, armed with shield and sword, let them come forward; if they conquer, the mogul will load them with great favor, and clothe their countenance with gladness. Upon this three persons advanced, and offered to undertake the combat.
Alamardan-charn again cried aloud, None should have any other weapon than a shield and a sword; and whosoever has any breastplate under his clothes should lay it aside, and fight honorably. Hereupon a powerful lion was let into the garden, and one of the three men above mentioned advanced against him; the lion, upon seeing his enemy, ran violently up to him; the man, however, defended himself bravely, and kept off the lion for a good while, until his arms grew tired; the lion then seized the shield with one paw, and with the other his antagonists right arm, so that he was not able to use his weapon; the latter, seeing his life in danger, took with his left hand his Indian dagger, which he had sticking in his girdle, and thrust it as far as possible into the lions mouth; the lion then let him go; the man, however, was not idle, but cut the lion almost through with one stroke, and after that entirely to pieces.
Upon this victory the common people began to shout, and call out, Thank God. he has conquered. But the mogul said, smiling, to this conqueror, Thou art a brave warrior, and hast fought admirably! But did I not command to fight honorably only with shield and sword? But, like a thief, thou hast stolen the life of the lion with thy dagger. And immediately he ordered two men to rip up his belly, and to place him upon an elephant, and, as an example to others, to lead him about, which was done on the spot. Soon after, a tiger was set loose; against which a tall, powerful man advanced with an air of defiance, as if he would cut the tiger up. The tiger, however, was far too sagacious and active, for, in the first attack, he seized the combatant by the neck, tore his throat, and then his whole body in pieces. This enraged another good fellow, but little, and of ordinary appearance, from whom one would not have expected it: he rushed forward like one mad, and the tiger on his part undauntedly flew at his enemy; but the man at the first attack cut off his two fore paws; so that he fell, and the man cut his body to pieces.
Upon this the king cried, What is your name? He answered, My name is Geyby. Soon after one of the kings servants came and brought him a piece of gold brocade, and said, Geyby, receive the robe of honor with which the mogul presents you. He took the garment with great reverence, kissed it three times, pressing it each time to his eyes and breast, then held it up, and in silence put up a prayer for the health of the mogul; and when he concluded it, he cried, May God let him become as great as Tamerlane, from whom he is descended. May he live 700 years, and his house continue to eternity! Upon this he was summoned by a chamberlain to go from the garden up to the king; and when he came to the entrance, he was received by two chans, who conducted him between them to kiss the moguls feet. And when he was going to retire, the king said to him, Praised be thou, Geyby-chan, for thy valiant deeds, and this name shalt thou keep to eternity. I am your gracious master, and thou art my slave – Bushs Illustrations.
(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 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 2Co 11:24-27, 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 Pauls abode at Ephesus which are not recorded by Luke; Acts 19. Nor is it any objection to this supposition that Paul does not, in 2Co 11:24-27, mention particularly this contest with a wild beast at Ephesus. His statement there is general. He does not descend into particulars. Yet, in 2Co 11:23, he says that he was in deaths oft, – a statement which is in accordance with the supposition that in Ephesushe may have been exposed to death in some cruel manner.
(7) The phrase kata anthropon, as a man, may mean, that, to human appearance, or so far as man was concerned, bad 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 Act 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 the note on 1Co 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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
1Co 15:32
If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise not?
—
Beasts at Ephesus
Note here–
I. A low judgment of human nature.
1. There is no good reason for taking the text literally. Had such a terrible struggle taken place it would have been recorded in the Acts, and often referred to by Paul himself.
2. By wild beasts he means men, gross and savage in wickedness. Heraclitus called the Ephesians . If we refer to Act 19:1-41. we shall find that certain men were entitled to the designation. We read of them being full of wrath, of the whole city filled with confusion, of some crying out one thing and some another. They seem to have been bereft of reason and given up to the wildest fury of passion.
3. Paul was not alone in classifying such men with beasts. The Baptist called some of his hearers vipers, and Christ compared such men to swine. The Bible speaks of wicked men in two stages lower than humanity.
(1) The sensual, who are in a state where the senses rule the soul, where the animal is supreme. Is not this the state of the mass of men? The great question is, What shall we eat, what shall we drink? etc.
(2) The devilish. Men have the power of getting lower than the beasts. By the power of their imaginations they kindle their passions into a diabolical heat, and, by bringing the elements of nature into new combinations, they generate and nourish unnatural appetites.
II. A fierce struggle for human nature. I have fought with. Paul fought with men for men.
1. The battle was inevitable to his mission. He was the messenger of truths that struck directly at their prejudices, their habits, their greed (Act 19:27).
2. The battle was most benevolent on his part. Love, not anger, was its inspiration. He fought for them by fighting against their prejudices and their sins.
3. the battle was most unequal in circumstances. Numbers, authority, influence, wealth, were all arrayed against one penniless foreigner. In moral battles numbers are an inferior consideration. One man in truth may conquer a nation in error.
III. A great problem for human nature. What advantageth it me? etc. The apostle does not say either that there would be no advantage in a godly struggle for truth were there no future life, nor that such a struggle was to be conducted with a view of advantage. He puts the question and leaves it to be answered. Our answer will be that on the assumption that there is no future life, godliness will be–
1. Of physical advantage to man. The habits of life promoted by Christianity are conducive to bodily health and longevity.
2. Of mental advantage to man. It generates sentiments, it starts trains of thoughts, it awakens hopes, which yield to the mind a happiness which nothing else on earth can afford. If Christianity is only a dream, it is a dream from which we would not awake.
3. Of social advantage to man. Christianity has proved itself to be infinitely the best system for promoting the peace of families, the order of society, the prosperity of nations. (D. Thomas, D.D.)
Fighting beasts at Ephesus
It would be greatly to the satisfaction of our curiosity if we could mention exactly what was the historic form of this trial. And there is an interpretation of this passage which insists that Paul was once compelled to fight literally with wild beasts. Indeed, tradition has caught up the story, and told us that he braved the beasts most dauntlessly in the attack, and, while the audience waited to see him torn in pieces, he suddenly invoked the powerful interposition of high heaven with a wonderful gesture of his outstretched hand. The suppliant animals refused to do him harm. Lions came cringing to his feet, and, like so many tame dogs, began licking his wounds where the scourge blows had broken the skin. Now we have in 2 Corinthians a complete catalogue of Pauls sufferings; but fighting in the arena is not among them. We understand this text, therefore, as a figurative description of the great conflict he had with wild Ephesian men; and with such an interpretation the question comes within the reach of every Christian put under severe conflict. When any good man is forced into a fight he is often constrained to ask, What advantageth it me? It so happens that the inquiry has a right noble answer.
I. The fine possession of a manly reminiscence. We always have a high respect for a difficulty we have actually surmounted. Evermore there remains deep in our hearts the joyous consciousness for once at least of having stood true when under fire.
II. Quickened growth in grace. Conflict makes men sober and thoughtful; then it makes them gentle and kind; then it makes them forbearing and charitable.
III. Power for leadership among men. Men trust the veterans from hard-fought fields.
IV. Fellowship with Christ (Heb 12:3). Those who are persecuted for Christs sake receive precisely what He received; the disciple is mot above his Master, nor the servant above his Lord.
V. It renders more luminously welcome the heavenly outlook. No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast. All will be peace and rest and satisfaction. (C. S. Robinson, D.D)
Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.
The house of feasting, or the epicures measures
1. The text is the epicures proverb, began on a weak mistake, thought witty by an undiscerning company, and prevailing greatly because it strikes the fancy and maintains the merry meeting. The pagans recommended sensuality in this life because they knew of no enjoyments in another.
2. They are to be excused rather than us. They placed themselves in the order of beasts, making their bodies but receptacles of flesh and wine; therefore they treated themselves accordingly. But why should we do the same things who have higher principles, and the revelation of immortality?
3. To reprove the follies of mankind and their improper motions towards felicity. Note–
I. That plenty and the pleasures of the world are no proper instruments of happiness. A man must have some violence done to himself ere he can receive them. If we go beyond what is needful, we put that to hazard which nature has secured. It is not nature that desires superfluities, but lust. By a disease we acquire the passion for luxuries, which eventually become necessaries, and then cease to gratify. Contrast the happiness of the virtuous poor man in his cottage, his sound sleep, quiet breast, easy provision, sober night, healthful morning, and joyous heart, with the noises, diseases, passions, which fill the houses of the luxurious and the hearts of the ambitious.
II. Intemperance in eating and drinking is opposed to the epicures design. The voluptuous man has the least share of pleasure.
1. It is an enemy to health which is a handle by which we can apprehend pleasure, and the same which makes life delicious. For what content can a full table administer to a man in a fever? Health carries us to Church, and makes us rejoice in the communion of saints; but an intemperate table makes us lose all this. It bears part of its punishment in this life, and has this appendage, that unless it be repented of it is not remitted in the life to come. The epicures genial proverb might be a little altered. Let us eat and drink, for by this means to-morrow we shall die; yet it is not so, for such men lead a healthless life; they are long in dying, and die in torment. What folly for men to pray for healthy bodies, and then pour in loads of flesh and seas of wine. The temptations which men meet with from without in these cases are in themselves most unreasonable, and soonest confuted. He that tempts me to drink beyond measure, what does he, but tempt me to lay aside my reason, or civilly invite me to a fever? When Athens was, destroyed by the plague, Socrates escaped through the temperate diet to which he had accustomed himself. He had enough for health, study, philosophy, and religion; but he had no superfluities to bring on groans and sickly nights. All gluttons are convinced of the excellence of temperance in order to moral felicity and health; for after they have lost both they are obliged to go to temperance to recover them. Fools, not to keep their health by the means which they seek to restore it! Such men heap up wrath against the day of wrath. When the heathen feasted their gods they gave nothing but an animal, poured a little wine on the altar, and burnt a little frankincense: but when they feasted themselves they had many vessels of Campanian wine, turtles, beeves, wild boars, etc. And little do we spend on charity and religion; but we spend so much on ourselves that we make ourselves sick, and seem to be in love with our own mischief.
2. A constant full table is less pleasant than the temperate provisions of the virtuous, or the natural banquets of the poor. Thanks be to the God of nature, said Epicurus, that He hath made that which is necessary to be ready at hand, and easy to be had; whilst that which cannot easily be obtained is not necessary at all, i.e., in effect it cannot be constantly pleasant: for want makes the appetite and the appetite makes the pleasure; so that men are greatly mistaken when they despise the poor mans table. Fortune and art give delicacies, nature gives meat and drink; and what nature gives fortune cannot take away, whilst every change can take away what is only given by fortune. Moreover, he that feasts every day, feasts no day; and however a man treats himself, he will sometimes need to be refreshed beyond it. A perpetual fulness will make you glad to beg pleasure from emptiness and variety from humble fare.
3. Intemperance is the nurse of vice, and no man dare pray to God for a pure soul in a chaste body, if he lives intemperately, making provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. For in this case he will find that which enters him shall defile him, more than he can be cleansed by vain prayers that come from his tongue and not from his heart.
4. Intemperance is the destruction of wisdom. A full gorged belly never produced a sprightly mind. The heavy and foul state of an intemperate person may be compared to the sun, clouded with fogs and vapours, when it has drawn too freely from the moisture of nature. But temperance is reasons girdle and passions bridle, the strength of the soul and the foundation of virtue.
5. Intemperance is a dishonour to the nature, person, and manners of a man. But naturally men are ashamed of it, and night is generally a veil to their gluttony and drunkenness.
III. Some rules and measures of temperance.
1. Our natural needs. Hunger, thirst, and cold, are the natural diseases of the body; food and raiment are their remedies, and therefore the measures. But in this there are two cautions–
(1) These are only to be extinguished when they are violent or troublesome, and not to the utmost extent and possibilities of nature.
(2) These must be natural, not artificial and provoked: for many men make necessities to themselves, and then think they are bound to provide for them.
2. Reason. Eating and drinking so as to make the reason useless or troubled is intemperate. Reason is the limit beyond which temperance never wanders. Intemperate men are so stripped of the use of reason that they are not only useless as wise counsels, but have not reason enough to avoid inflicting evils upon themselves.
3. The fitness of the body for useful service. Overloaded with food or drink, the mind cannot think, nor the body work with any sprightliness. (Jeremy Taylor.)
The folly of thoughtlessness of religion
Is it not foolish to be living in this world without a thought of what you will do at last? A man goes into an inn, and as soon as he sits down he begins to order his wine, his dinner, his bed; there is no delicacy in season which he forgets to bespeak. He stops at the inn for some time. By and by the bill is forthcoming, and it takes him by surprise. I never thought of that–I never thought of that! Why, says the landlord, here is a man who is either a born fool or else a knave. What! never thought of the reckoning–never thought of settling with me! After this fashion too many live. They eat, and drink, and sin, but they forget the inevitable hereafter, when for all the deeds done in the body the Lord will bring us into judgment. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 32. If, after the manner of men, c.] Much learned criticism has been employed on this verse, to ascertain whether it is to be understood literally or metaphorically. Does the apostle mean to say that he had literally fought with wild beasts at Ephesus? or, that he had met with brutish, savage men, from whom he was in danger of his life? That St. Paul did not fight with wild beasts at Ephesus, may be argued,
1. From his own silence on this subject, when enumerating his various sufferings, 2Co 11:23, c.
2. From the silence of his historian, Luke, who, in the acts of this apostle, gives no intimation of this kind and it certainly was too remarkable a circumstance to be passed over, either by Paul in the catalogue of his own sufferings, or by Luke in his history.
3. From similar modes of speech, which are employed metaphorically, and are so understood.
4. From the improbability that a Roman citizen, as Paul was, should be condemned to such a punishment, when in other cases, by pleading his privilege, he was exempted from being scourged, c. And,
5. From the positive testimony of Tertullian and Chrysostom, who deny the literal interpretation.
On the other hand, it is strongly argued that the apostle is to be literally understood and that he did, at some particular time, contend with wild beasts at Ephesus, from which he was miraculously delivered.
1. That the phrase signifies as men used to do, and never means according to the manner of men, as implying their purpose, or, to use their forms of speech, c.
2. From the circumstances of the case in Ephesus usually referred to, viz. the insurrection by Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen where, though Paul would have been in danger had he gone into the theatre, he was in little or none, as he did not adventure himself.
3. From his having endured much greater conflicts at Lystra and at Philippi than at Ephesus, at the former of which he was stoned to death, and again miraculously raised to life: See Clarke on Ac 14:19, c. And yet he calls not those greater dangers by this name.
4. That it cannot refer to the insurrection of Demetrius and his fellows, for St. Paul had no contention with them, and was scarcely in any danger, though Gaius and Aristarchus were: see the whole of Acts 19. And,
5. As we do not read of any other imminent danger to which he was exposed at Ephesus, and that already mentioned is not sufficient to justify the expression, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, therefore we must conclude that he was at some time, not directly mentioned by his historian or himself, actually exposed to wild beasts at Ephesus.
6. That this is the case he refers to, 2Co 1:8-10: For we would not, brethren, have you if 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. But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead who delivered us from so great a death: for these expressions refer to some excessive and unprecedented danger, from which nothing less than a miraculous interference could have saved him; and that it might have been an actual exposure to wild beasts, or any other danger equally great, or even greater.
What advantageth it me, if the dead rise not?] I believe the common method of pointing this verse is erroneous; I propose to read it thus: If, after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it advantage me? If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.
What the apostle says here is a regular and legitimate conclusion from the doctrine, that there is no resurrection: For if there be no resurrection, then there can be no judgment – no future state of rewards and punishments; why, therefore, should we bear crosses, and keep ourselves under continual discipline? Let us eat and drink, take all the pleasure we can, for tomorrow we die; and there is an end of us for ever. The words, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die, are taken from Isa 22:13, as they stand now in the Septuagint; and are a pretty smooth proverbial saying, which might be paralleled from the writings of several epicurean heathens, . The words of Isaiah are akol reshatho, ki machar namuth: “In eating and drinking, for to-morrow we die ;” i.e. Let us spend our time in eating and drinking, &c. See a similar speech by Trimalchio in Petronius Arbiter, Satiric. cap. xxxvii:-
Heu, heu nos miseros! quam totus homuncio nil est!
Sic erimus cuncti, postquam nos auferet orcus.
Ergo vivamus, dum licet esse bene.
Alas! alas! what wretches we are! all mankind are a worthless pack: thus shall we all be, after death hath taken us away. Therefore, while we may, let us enjoy life.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Concerning this fight of the apostle with beasts at Ephesus, there are two opinions; some thinking that he indeed fought with beasts, and we know that in those countries such a punishment was in use, to bring out malefactors to fight with wild beasts; but as we read in the Acts of no such dealings with Paul, so that being a punishment rather for their slaves and vilest men, it can hardly be thought that Paul, who was a free man of Rome, should be exposed to it. They seem therefore better to understand it, who interpret it of his conflict with men, who in their conditions and manners were like beasts; and that he doth not speak here of his scuffle with Demetrius, mentioned Act 19:34-41, but some other conflict he had there, of which the Scripture giveth us no large account, but it seems to be generally and obscurely mentioned in the next Epistle, 2Co 1:8, for this Epistle was wrote after his contest with Demetrius. By that phrase, after the manner of men, some think he means, as men use to fight; some have other notions of it: the sense seems to be plainly this: If I have fought with beastly men at Ephesus after the manner that men fight with beasts, exposing my body to their rage and fury, what profit is it to me, if the dead rise not? I have opposed myself to their fury out of a hope for a joyful resurrection; but if there shall be no such resurrection, the epicures, that resolve to stick at nothing, nor to deny themselves in any sensual satisfaction from meat and drink, have the best of it; all men had then best sing their song:
Let us eat and drink, for we have but a little time to eat and to drink in; we know that we shall die, and there will be an end of us.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
32. Punctuate thus: “Ifafter the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, whatadvantageth it me? If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink,”c. [BENGEL]. If “merelyas a man” (with the mere human hope of the present life notwith the Christian’s hope of the resurrection; answering to “Ifthe dead rise not,” the parallel clause in the next sentence), Ihave fought with men resembling savage beasts. Heraclitus, ofEphesus, had termed his countrymen “wild beasts” fourhundred years before. So Epimenides called the Cretians (Tit1:12). Paul was still at Ephesus (1Co16:8), and there his life was daily in danger (1Co4:9; compare 2Co 1:8).Though the tumult (Act 19:29;Act 19:30) had not yet takenplace (for after it he set out immediately for Macedonia),this Epistle was written evidently just before it, when the storm wasgathering; “many adversaries” (1Co16:9) were already menacing him.
what advantageth itme?seeing I have renounced all that, “as a mere man,“might compensate me for such sufferings, gain, fame, &c.
let us eat, &c.Quotedfrom the Septuagint, (Isa22:13), where the prophet describes the reckless self-indulgenceof the despisers of God’s call to mourning, Let us enjoy the goodthings of life now, for it soon will end. Paul imitates the languageof such skeptics, to reprove both their theory and practice. “Ifmen but persuade themselves that they shall die like the beasts, theysoon will live like beasts too” [SOUTH].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus,…. This is one of the particulars of the jeopardy and danger of life he had been in: some understand this in a figurative sense, and think that by “beasts” are meant Satan, the roaring lion, and his principalities and powers; or men of savage dispositions, persecuting principles, and cruel practices; as Herod is called a fox, by Christ, and Nero a lion, by the apostle; and suppose his fighting with them at Ephesus designs his disputations with the hardened and unbelieving Jews, his concern with exorcists, the seven sons of Sceva, and the troubles he met with through Demetrius the silversmith, and others of the same craft; the reason of such an interpretation is, because Luke makes no mention of anything of this kind, that befell the apostle in his history of the Acts of the Apostles: but to this it may be replied, that Luke does not relate everything that befell him and the rest; and his omission of this is no sufficient argument against it; besides, a literal sense not to be departed from, unless there is a necessity for it; and especially when it is suitable to the context, and to the thread and reasoning of the discourse, as it is certainly here; the literal sense best agrees with the apostle’s argument. There were two sorts of usages among the Romans in their theatres; sometimes they cast men naked to the wild beasts, to be devoured by them, as wicked servants, deadly enemies, and the vilest of men m; and so the Syriac version renders the words here, “if as among men,
, “I am cast to the beasts”: and seems to represent it as a supposed case, and not as matter of fact, in which the difficulty about Luke’s omission is removed, and the argument in a literal sense is just and strong: sometimes they put men armed into the theatre to fight with beasts n, and if they could conquer them and save themselves it was well, if not, they fell a prey to them; it is this last custom that is here referred to: and if regard is had to what befell thee apostle at Ephesus, when Demetrius and his craftsmen made the uproar mentioned in Ac 19:21 this could not be in reality, but only in the purpose and design of men; and certain it is, that though he was not then had to the theatre, yet Demetrius and his men intended to have hurried him there, as they did Gaius and Aristarchus his companions; and he himself was desirous of going thither, had he not been prevented by the disciples, and by the Asiarchs his friends, who had the command of the theatre where these practices were used; and then the sense is this, if after the manner of men, or in the intention and design of men, and as much as in them lay, “I have fought with beasts at Ephesus”; though if this epistle was written, as it is said to be, before that commotion by Demetrius, no respect can be had to that; but rather to something in fact before, at the same place, when the apostle did actually fight with beasts, and was wonderfully and providentially preserved; and may he what he refers to, in 2Co 1:8 when he despaired of life, had the sentence of death in himself, and yet was delivered; and then his sense is, if “after the manner of brutish men”, the Romans, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus”: which I was obliged to do, or deny the Gospel preached;
what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? instead of its being a glorious action, it was a fool hardy one; and if he had died in it, what profit could he have had by it, if he rose not again; or if there is no resurrection of the dead? instead of incurring such dangers, and running such risks, it would be more eligible to sit down and say with the Epicureans,
let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die; which words seem to be taken out of Isa 22:13 and are used in favour of the doctrine of the resurrection, showing that the denial of it opens a door to all manner of licentiousness; and are not spoken as allowing or approving of such a conduct; nor as his own words, but as representing a libertine, and pointing out what such an one would say, and might justly infer from such a tenet, that there is no resurrection of the dead.
m Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 3. c. 5. Tertul. Apolog. c. 40. & de Spectaculis, c. 19. n Tertul. de Spectaculis, c. 21. & 23. Cicero in Vatinium Orat. 32.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
After the manner of men ( ). Like men, for applause, money, etc. (1Cor 4:9; Phil 3:7).
If I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus ( ). Late verb from , a fighter with wild beasts. Found in inscriptions and in Ignatius. Those who argue for an Ephesian imprisonment for Paul and Ephesus as the place where he wrote the imprisonment epistles (see Duncan’s book just mentioned) take the verb literally. There is in the ruins of Ephesus now a place called St. Paul’s Prison. But Paul was a Roman citizen and it was unlawful to make such a one be a . If he were cast to the lions unlawfully, he could have prevented it by claiming his citizenship. Besides, shortly after this Paul wrote II Corinthians, but he does not mention so unusual a peril in the list in 2Co 11:23f. The incident, whatever it was, whether literal or figurative language, took place before Paul wrote I Corinthians.
What doth it profit me? ( ?). What the profit to me?
Let us eat and drink ( ). Volitive second aorist subjunctives of and . Cited from Isa 22:13. It is the outcry of the people of Jerusalem during the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians. At Anchiale near Tarsus is a statue of Sardanapalus with the inscription: “Eat, drink, enjoy thyself. The rest is nothing.” This was the motto of the Epicureans. Paul is not giving his own view, but that of people who deny the resurrection.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
After the manner of men [ ] . As men ordinarily do, for temporal reward; and not under the influence of any higher principle or hope.
I have fought with beasts [] . Only here in the New Testament. Figuratively. Paul, as a Roman citizen, would not have been set to fight with beasts in the arena; and such an incident would not have been likely to be passed over by Luke in the Acts. Compare similar metaphors in ch. 4 9, 2Ti 4:17; Tit 1:12; Psa 22:12, 13, 20, 21. Some, however, think it is to be taken literally. 129 They refer to the presence at Ephesus of the Asiarchs (Act 19:31), who had charge of the public games, as indicating that the tumult took place at the season of the celebration of the games in honor of Diana; to the fact that the young men at Ephesus were famous for their bull – fights; and to the words at Ephesus as indicating a particular incident. On the assumption that he speaks figuratively, the natural reference is to his experience with the ferocious mob at Ephesus. There was a legend that Paul was thrown, first of all, to a lion; then to other beasts, but was left untouched by them all. In the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans occur these words : “From Syria even unto Rome, I fight with beasts, both by land and sea, both night and day, being bound to ten leopards. I mean a band of soldiers, who, even when they receive benefits, show themselves all the worse” (v.). Compare Epistle to Tralles, 10. : “Why do I pray that I may fight with wild beasts ?” So in the Epistle to Smyrna he says : “I would put you on your guard against these monsters in human shape” [ ] ; and in the Antiochene “Acts of Martyrdom” it is said : “He (Ignatius) was seized by a beastly soldiery, to be led away to Rome as a prey for carnivorous beasts” (ii.).
Let us eat and drink, etc. Cited, after the Septuagint, from Isa 22:13. It is the exclamation of the people of Jerusalem during the siege by the Assyrians. The traditional founder of Tarsus was Sardanapalus, who was worshipped, along with Semiramis, with licentious rites which resembled those of the Feast of Tabernacles. Paul had probably witnessed this festival, and had seen, at the neighboring town of Anchiale, the statue of Sardanapalus, represented as snapping his fingers, and with the inscription upon the pedestal, “Eat, drink, enjoy thyself. The rest is nothing.” Farrar cites the fable of the Epicurean fly, dying in the honey – pot with the words, “I have eaten and drunk and bathed, and I care nothing if I die.” Among the inscriptions from the catacombs, preserved in the Vatican are these : “To the divine shade of Titus, who lived fifty – seven years. Here he enjoys everything. Baths and wine ruin our constitutions, but they make life what it is. Farewell, farewell.” ” While I lived I lived well. My play is now ended – soon yours will be. Farewell and applaud me. ” Compare Wisdom of Solomon, 2 1 – 9.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “If after the manner of men,” (ei kata anthropon) “If according to man.” Hypothetically Paul set forth the necessary inference that as men do not jeopardize their lives without strong evidence that they would receive pay, or rewards, neither did he.
2) “I have fought with beasts at Ephesus.” (etheriomachesa en epheso) “I fought with wild beasts in Ephesus.” This alludes to the street mob of Ephesian shrine-makers who sought to take his life in Ephesus, Act 19:23-41.
3) “What advantageth it me, if the dead rise not?” (ti moi to ophelos; ei nekroi ouk egeirontai) “What profit have I if dead persons are not raised?” Desperation, a “what is the profit of defeatism?” dogs the life and demotivates actions of one who has no hope in the resurrection.
4) “Let us eat and drink;” (phagomen kai piomen) “Let us eat and let us drink.” Paul does not advocate this amoral or immoral attitude, but states the sensual, reckless, moral disposition that is bred by the absence of hope beyond death.
5) “For to morrow we die.” (aurion gar apothneskomen) “For tomorrow we die.” This was the attitude of the stoics, the Greek philosophers of doubt. This philosophy breeds moral and ethical garbage among men.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
32. If according to the manner of men He brings forward a notable instance of death, from which it might be clearly seen that he would have been worse than a fool, if there were not a better life in reserve for us beyond death; for it was an ignominious kind of death to which he was exposed. “To what purpose were it,” says he, “for me to incur infamy in connection with a most cruel death, if all my hopes were confined to this world?” According to the manner of men, means in this passage, in respect of human life, so that we obtain a reward in this world.
Now by those that fought with beasts, are meant, not those that were thrown to wild beasts, as Erasmus mistakingly imagined, but those that were condemned to be set to fight with wild beasts — to furnish an amusement to the people. There were, then, two kinds of punishment, that were totally different — to be thrown to wild beasts, and to fight with wild beasts. For those that were thrown to wild beasts were straightway torn in pieces; but those that fought with wild beasts went forth armed into the arena, that if they were endued with strength, courage, and agility, they might effect their escape by dispatching the wild beasts. Nay more, there was a game in which those who fought with wild beasts were trained, like the gladiators (81) Usually, however, very few escaped, because the man who had dispatched one wild beast, was required to fight with a second, (82) until the cruelty of the spectators was satiated, or rather was melted into pity; and yet there were found men so abandoned and desperate, as to hire themselves out for this! (83) And this, I may remark by the way, is that kind of hunting that is punished so severely by the ancient canons, as even civil laws brand it with a mark of infamy. (84)
I return to Paul. (85) We see what an extremity God allowed his servant to come to, and how wonderfully, too, he rescued him. Luke, (86) however, makes no mention of this fight. Hence we may infer that he endured many things that have not been committed to writing.
Let us eat and drink This is a saying of the Epicureans, who reckon man’s highest good as consisting in present enjoyment. Isaiah also testifies that it is a saying made use of by profligate persons, (Isa 22:13,) who, when the Prophets of God threaten them with ruin, (87) with the view of calling them to repentance, making sport of those threatenings, encourage themselves in wantonness and unbridled mirth, and in order to show more openly their obstinacy, say, “Since die we must, let us meanwhile enjoy the time, and not torment ourselves before the time with empty fears.” As to what a certain General said to his army, (88) “My fellowsoldiers, let us dine heartily, for we shall sup to-day in the regions below,” (89) that was an exhortation to meet death with intrepidity, and has nothing to do with this subject. I am of opinion, that Paul made use of a jest in common use among abandoned and desperately wicked persons, or (to express it shortly) a common proverb among the Epicureans to the following purpose: “If death is the end of man, there is nothing better than that he should indulge in pleasure, free from care, so long as life lasts.” Sentiments of this kind are to be met with frequently in Horace. (90)
(81) “ Et mesme comme il y auoit le ieu de l’escrime pour duire des gens h combatre les vns contre les nutres, pour donner passetemps au peuple, aussi il y auoit vn ieu auquel on faconnoit des gens a combatre contre les bestes es spectacles publiques;” — “Nay more, as there was a game of fencing for training persons for fighting with each other, to afford amusement to the people, so there was a game in which they made persons fight with wild beasts in the public shows.”
(82) “ N’ estoit pas quitte, mais il luy faloit retourner au combat contre la seconde.” — “He was not let go, but had to return to fight with a second.”
(83) “Sometimes freemen, of desperate circumstances, sought a precarious subsistence by hazarding their lives in this profession; but it was chiefly exercised by slaves, and prisoners of war, whom their masters or conquerors devoted to it; or by condemned persons, to whom was thus afforded an uncertain prolongation of existence, dependent upon their own prowess, activity, or skill.” — Illustrated Commentary. — Ed.
(84) “What was called venatio ,“ ( hunting,) ”or the fighting of wild beasts with one another, or with men called bestiarii , ( fighters with wild beasts,) who were either forced to this by way of punishment, as the primitive Christians often were; or fought voluntarily, either from a natural ferocity of disposition, or induced by hire, ( auctoramento ,) Cic. Tusc. Quaest. it. 17. Faro. 7:1., Off. it. 16., Vat. 17. An incredible number of animals of various kinds were brought from all quarters, for the entertainment of the people, and at an immense expense. Cic. Faro. 8:2, 4, 6. They were kept in inclosures, called vivaria , till the day of exhibition. Pompey in his second consulship exhibited at once 500 lions, who were all dispatched in five days; also 18 elephants. Dio. 39. 38. Plin. 8.7.“ Adam ’s Roman Antiquities, (Edin. 1792,). — Ed.
(85) “ Ie retourne maintenant a parler de Sainct Paul;” — “I now return to speak of St. Paul.”
(86) “ Sainct Luc aux Actes;” — “St. Luke in the Acts.”
(87) “ De ruine et perdition;” — “With ruin and perdition.”
(88) “ Car quant a ce qui on trouue entre les histoires ancicnnes que quelqu’vn disoit aux soldats;” — “For as to its being recorded in ancient histories, that one said to his soldiers.”
(89) The allusion is to Leonidas, king of Sparta, when addressing 300 Spartans, at the Pass of Thermopyhe, who “by an act of intrepidity, rarely paralleled in history, set themselves to defend that Pass, in opposition to 20,000 Persian troops, and during the night spread dreadful havoc and consternation among the Persians, but the morning light at length discovering their small number, they were immediately surrounded and slaughtered.” — Robertson’s H istory of Greece, page 151. — Ed.
(90) The following instances may be quoted as a specimen: —
“
O beate Sesti! Vitae summa brevis nos vetat inchoare longam, Jam to premet nox, fabulaeque Manes Et domus exilis Plutonia :
O happy Sestius! the brief span of human life forbids us to indulge a distant hope. Soon will night descend upon thee, and the fabulous Manes, and the shadowy mansion of Pluto.” — Hor. Carm. I. 4, 13-17.
“
Sapias, vina liques, et spatio brevi Spem longam reseces. Dum loquimur, fugerit invida Aetas. Carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.
Be wise; rack off your wines; and abridge your distant hopes in adaptation to the brevity of life. While we speak, envious age has been flying. Seize the present day, depending as little as possible on any future one.” — Hor. Carre. I. 11.6-8.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(32) If after the manner of men . . .These words imply here, as elsewhere (1Co. 3:3), merely from a human point of view. What is the advantage or necessity of my incurring daily risks, if I am merely a human being, with a life limited by what we see, and no immortality and resurrection awaiting me?
I have fought with beasts at Ephesus.The question here arises, Are these words to be taken literally or figuratively? Does St. Paul refer to some actual contest in the arena with beasts, or to his conflict with the opponents at Ephesus, whom he thus designates beasts? It is scarcely possible to accept the former interpretation. There is no mention to be found of it in the Acts, and, moreover, his Roman citizenship would have legally protected him against such treatment. We must therefore conclude that the Ephesians themselves are spoken of as beasts. Both Hebrew and Greek literature would have made such a form of expression familiar to the Apostle and to his readers. In the Psalms (see Psa. 22:12-13; Psa. 22:20-21) the opponents of God are similarly spoken of. The Cretans are called evil beasts by the poet Epimenides, whom St. Paul quotes in Tit. 1:12. Heraclitus calls the Ephesians beaststhe same word as St. Paul uses here; and St. Ignatius (Epis. ad Rom.) speaks of fighting with beasts by land and sea, and having been bound to ten leopards, that is a band of soldiers.
Although the Greek verb implies that reference is made, not to general or prolonged opposition, but to some one outburst of rage on the part of his opponents, we must not take it as indicating the scene described in Act. 19:23-34, which had probably not taken place when this was written; but no doubt the many adversaries (1Co. 16:9) at Ephesus had already availed themselves of some opportunity of venting their rage on the Apostle after the manner of wild beasts (See Introduction.)
What advantageth it me?This sentence is completed with these words, and should be followed by a note of interrogation, thusWhat advantageth it me? (See next Note.)
If the dead rise not?Better, if the dead be not raised, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. If the dead be not raised our conduct is illogical. Consistency then belongs to those who disregard Gods call to repentance, and of whom we read in Isa. 22:13, that they say, Let us eat and drink. The reference is directly to this passage in the prophet describing the conduct of abandoned Jews during the siege of Jerusalem; but the words indicate with equal accuracy that school of Epicurean philosophy of which, no doubt, there were many representatives at Corinth. Similar expressions are to be found in many classical writers; but the most remarkable instance of the use of these words is where they occur in an inscription on a statue at Anchiale, a town in Cilicia, which was St. Pauls native provinceSardanapalus, the son of Anacyn-draxes, built Anchiale and Tarsus in one day. Stranger, eat, drink, and play, for all the rest is not worth this. The figure is represented as making a contemptuous motion with its fingers. Saul of Tarsus had probably often seen that statue and inscription.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
32. I have fought with beasts In a single word, I beast-fought. Happily our present Christian civilization needs no such word. The Christians during the pagan persecutions were exposed to lions, but it is not probable that so early as Paul’s writing of this epistle any such exposure had taken place. The best commentators take the words as metaphorical. The words after the manner of men, (literally, according to man,) we doubt not implies this figurative meaning. The word speaking is not, indeed, supplied, for the reason that speaking is implied in the very fact that speaking is what he is doing. According to man may as well mean, according to man in language, as in any other respect.
Eat die Stoical moralists in Paul’s day, and materialistic moralists of the present day, declare that earthly motives are sufficient for the maintenance of a true virtue. This cannot be. Unless man’s virtue be fastened by some cord to the supernal it has nothing in it of divine. Culture and self-respect may keep a few philosophers at an elevated level, but the mass of men, if cut off from THE ABOVE, and deprived of its hopes and fears for the great future, will sink into animalism, and the apostle has here given voice and utterance to the mere instincts of the animal man in his despair. In ancient poetry, the saddest and most beautiful, and often most disgusting, strains, are the varied expression either of this despair, or this union of licentiousness with despair.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
1Co 15:32. If after the manner of men, &c. St. Paul was a Roman citizen, and pleaded his privilege as such, and therefore the chief captain was afraid because he had bound him; for, as Cicero says, Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum, scelus verberari;that is, “it is wicked, or unlawful, to bind a Roman citizen;it is villainous to scourge him,” that is, “to examine him by scourging.” This was at Jerusalem; but he had done the like before at Philippi. Now, if he pleaded his privilege on these lesser occasions, would he not much more have done it on such an occasion as this which is specified in the text? Besides, who could order it? The provincials had no such power; and the governor would not venture to inflict such a punishment on a Roman citizen, from which he was exempt by their laws: and especially he would not have attempted it at that time, which was the beginning of Nero’s reign, while he governed well, and very moderately. Nor does any time appear in the course of the history which can well be assigned for it; for when St. Paul came first from Ephesus, he stayed but a little while, and left them in quiet, Act 18:19.; and upon his return thither, when the Jews endeavoured to prejudice the multitude against him, he taught in the school of Tyrannus; and though he continued there two years, we hear of no riot till the affair of Demetrius. After this he immediately left the city, and went into Macedonia. There is a like difficulty as to the place;for to suppose it to have been in the theatre, as some have done, seems wholly without foundation. Theatres were designed for scenical entertainments, such as plays, musical concerts, the contests of poets and orators; and sometimes their publiccouncils were held there. But they were no ways fitted, nor indeed safe, for contests with wild beasts. The amphitheatres were the usual places for those shows: nor do we find mention made in ancient writers of any amphitheatre at Ephesus; though had there been one, and St. Paul had been exposed in it, it is scarcely probable but we should have heard of it. Moreover, had the Apostle been thus engaged, it is difficultto apprehend how he could have escaped without a miracle. For those who conquered the beasts were obliged to fight with men till they were killed themselves. This was the barbarous custom at that very time, as we learn from Seneca, epist. 7. It seems most reasonable, therefore, to understand the expression as metaphorical, and that he alludes to the tumult raised by Demetrius. He uses the like metaphors, and with respect to the same thing, ch. 1Co 4:9 and again, 1Co 15:13 alluding to another custom. And in Acts (Act 20:29) speaking of the Ephesians, making use of the same trope, he says, I know this, that after my departure shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. As to the expression , the sense seems to be, humanly speaking; and so it is used by Chrysippas, and the phrase ‘ by AEschylus, as Grotius remarks upon Rom 3:5. See also Gal 3:15 the relations which Nicephorus and Theodoret give us, of an encounter which St. Paul had with wild beasts on the theatre at Ephesus, have been so far regarded by Dr. Whitby, that he contends for the literal interpretation of this passage; in favour of which it is also urged, that had he spoken of brutal men, he would rather have mentioned the assault made upon him at Lystra, where he was stoned, and supposed to be dead. But the danger of being pulled to pieces might be greater at Ephesus: It had happened very lately, and as the scene was much nearer Corinth, it might be more natural for him to mention it here. The silence of St. Luke in his history as to so memorable an event as a combat with beasts must have been, and St. Paul’s omitting it in the large catalogue of his sufferings, 2Co 11:23 together with his knownprivilege as a Roman citizen, which would probably, as to be sure it should legally, have protected him from such an insult, do all favour the figurative interpretation; and the expression , after the manner of men, or humanly speaking, has a propriety on this hypothesis, which it cannot have on the other, and seems to be quite decis
Let us eat and drink, &c. If the dead rise not at all, the Epicurean maxim might seem to be justified: “Let us make the best of this short life, which is the whole period of our being; and, giving up those sublime sentiments and pursuits which belong not to creatures of so short and low an existence, let us eat and drink, since we are to die as it were to-morrow or the next day; for, so little is the difference between one period of such a life and another, that it is scarcely worth while to make the distinction.” It should be observed, that St. Paul writes all along upon a supposition, that if such proofs as he had produced of Christ’s resurrection were not to be depended upon, we could have no certainty at all with respect to any future existence. And though it must be acknowledged, that the natural arguments for the immortality of the soul, and future retributions, carry with them great probability, yet the degree of evidence is by no means comparable to that which the Corinthians must have had of Christ’s resurrection, with which our own has so necessary a connection: and, consequently, had these proofs been given up, what might have been pleaded in favour of the other, would probably have made very little impression. It is scarcely necessary to observe, that the Apostle is not here speaking his own sentiments, but arguing according to the Epicurean or Sadducean notions of those who, denying a future state, urged as a natural consequence, that man in that case had nothing more to do than to make the best he could of the present life. St. Paul could not, for a moment, admit of such a supposition. He was too firmly grounded in the belief of a resurrection, to allow for one moment any reasoning built upon the idea of its falsehood; and therefore we may observe, that he immediately adds to the sentiments which he puts into the mouth of his opposers, Be not deceived, &c. 1Co 15:33. Consequently, all the absurd and blasphemous reasonings of Chubb, drawn from this passage, are grounded upon the most false and indefensible principles. St. Paul, in every page of his writings, shews too great a regard to holiness and virtue, for us ever to believe that he could think, upon any hypothesis, a life of impurity and vice preferable to them.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 15:32 . Something of a special nature after the general statement in 1Co 15:31 .
If I after the manner of men have fought with beasts in Ephesus, what is the profit (arising therefrom) to me?
] has the principal emphasis, so that it contains the element, from which follows the negative involved in the question of the apodosis: “ then it is profitless for me .” And the connection yields from this apodosis as the meaning of : after the manner of ordinary men, i.e. not in divine striving and hoping, but only in the interest of temporal reward, gain, glory, and the like, whereby the common, unenlightened man is wont to be moved to undertake great risks. If Paul has fought in such a spirit, then he has reaped nothing from it, for he . The many varying explanations [67] may be seen in Poole’s Synopsis . Against Rckert, who explains it: “according to human ability, with the exertion of the highest power,” it may be decisively urged that . in all passages does not denote what is human per excellentiam . If, therefore, the context here required that . should express the measure of power (which reference, however, lies quite remote), then we must explain it as: with ordinary human power, without divine power . According to Rckert’s view, moreover, . would not be at all the principal element of the protasis, which, however, from its position it must necessarily be. Interpretations such as exempli causa (Semler, Rosenmller, Heydenreich), or ut hominum more loquar (Estius), are impossible, since or does not stand along with it. The conjecture was hazarded: (Scaliger).
] , to fight with wild beasts (Diod. iii. 42; Artem. ii. 54, v. 49), is here a significant figurative description of the fight with strong and exasperated enemies . So Tertullian ( De resurr 48: “depugnavit ad bestias Ephesi, illas sc. bestias Asiaticae pressurae”), Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Pelagius, Sedulius, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Calovius, Michaelis, Zachariae, Valckenaer, Stolz, Rosenmller, as well as Schrader, Rckert, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann, Krauss. Comp. Appian. B. C. p. 763 (in Wetstein), where Pompeius says: . Ignatius, ad Romans 5 : , ad Tars . 1, ad Smyrn . 4. Comp. Tit 1:12 ; 2Ti 4:17 ; Ignatius, ad Eph . 7, as also in classical writers brutal men are called (Plato, Phaed. p. 240 B; Aristophanes, Nub. 184; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 114). See also Valckenaer, p. 332. Paul takes for granted that his readers were acquainted with what he describes in such strong language, as he might assume, moreover, that they would of themselves understand his expression figuratively, since they knew, in fact, his privilege of Roman citizenship, which excluded a condemnation ad bestias, ad leonem . His lost letter also may have already given them more detailed information. Notwithstanding, many interpreters, such as Ambrosiaster, Theodoret, Cajetanus, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Lightfoot, Wolf, and others, including Flatt and Billroth, have explained this of an actual fight with beasts , out of which he had been wonderfully delivered. [68] It is objected as regards the privilege of a Roman citizen (see in particular Flatt), that Paul was in point of fact scourged, etc., Act 16:22 f. But in Acts, l.c. , Paul did not appeal to his right of citizenship, but made it known only after he had suffered scourging and imprisonment, whereupon he was forthwith set free, 1Co 15:37 ff. Before he was thrown to the beasts, however, he would, in accordance with his duty, have appealed to his right of citizenship, and thereby have been protected. And would Luke in the Acts of the Apostles have left unmentioned an incident so entirely unique, which, among all the wonderful deliverances of the apostle, would have been the most wonderful? Would not Paul himself have named it with the rest in 2Co 11:23 ff., and Clement in 5?
Upon the non-literal interpretation, [69] however, it cannot be proved whether a single event, and if so, which , is meant. Many of the older expositors think, with Pelagius, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, of the uproar of Demetrius in Act 19 . But in connection with that Paul himself was not at all in danger; moreover, we must assume, in accordance with Act 20:1 , that he wrote before the uproar. Perhaps he means no single event at all, but the whole heavy conflict which he had had to wage in Ephesus up to that time with exasperated Jewish antagonists, and of which he speaks in Act 20:19 : . . . .
;] what does it profit me? The article denotes the definite profit, conceived as result . The self-evident answer is: nothing! Comp. 1Co 9:17 . As the gain, however, which he gets from his fight waged not , he has in view not temporal results, founding of churches and the like, but the future glory , which is conditioned by the resurrection of the dead (comp. Phi 3:10-11 ); hence he continues: . . .
.] is referred by the majority of the old interpreters (not Chrysostom and Theophylact, but from Pelagius and Theodoret onwards) to the preceding. It would then be a second conditional clause to (see on 1Co 14:6 ); but it is far more suitable to the symmetry in the relation of the clauses (comp. 1Co 15:29 ) to connect it with what follows (Beza, Bengel, Griesbach, and later expositors). For the rest, it is to be observed that . . corresponds to the thought indicated by . as being in correlative objective relation to it; further, that Paul has not put an or even a after , but has written asyndetically, and so in all the more vivid and telling a manner; likewise, that for the apostle moral life is necessarily based on the belief in eternal redemption, without which belief and thus as resting simply on the abstract postulate of duty it cannot in truth subsist at all; lastly, that the form of a challenge is precisely fitted to display the moral absurdity of the premiss in a very glaring light, which is further intensified by the fact that Paul states the dangerous consequence of the earthly eudaemonism, which (Dem. 324, 24) in set words of Scripture (comp. Chrysostom), LXX. Isa 22:13 . Analogies to this Epicurean maxim from profane writers, such as Euripides, Alcest. 798, may be seen in Wetstein; Jacobs, Del. epigr. vii. 28; Dissen, ad Pindar . p. 500; comp. Nicostr. in Stob. Flor . lxxiv 64: . See also Wis 2:1 ff.
] light-minded concrete expression for what is to be very soon. Comp. Theocr. xiii. 4.
It is not implied, however, in . that . includes the denial of life after death absolutely (Flatt, Rckert, al. ), but Paul conceives of death as the translation of the soul into Hades (comp., however, on Phi 1:25 f., Remark), from which the translation of the righteous (to be found in Paradise) into the eternal Messianic life is only possible through the resurrection.
[67] Chrysostom and Theophylact: , as far as a beast -fight can take place in reference to men . Theodoret: .
[68] From this literal interpretation arose the legend in the apocryphal Acta Pauli in Nicephorus, H. E. ii. 25 (p. 175, ed. Paris, 1630), that he was thrown first of all to a lion, then to other beasts, but was left untouched by them all. Van Hengel (comp. previously his Annot . p. 208), while likewise holding fast the literal view, has explained it only of a supposed case: “ Sumamus , me Ephesi depugnasse cum feris,” etc. But this would not at all fit into the connection with the actual dangers and sufferings which Paul has mentioned before. Observe, on the contrary, the climax: , , , which latter word brings forward a particular incident, which has occurred, as proof of the general .
[69] Which Krenkel also follows in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr . 1866, p. 368 ff., assuming in connection with it a use of language among the primitive Christians based upon Mar 1:13 , which resolves itself into a hypothesis incapable of proof.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 32. If after the manner, &c. ] Paul fought with beasts at Ephesus after the manner of men, that is, say some, the men of Ephesus fought with him after the manner of beasts. (Beza, Sclater.) Others more probably understand it literally; If after the manner of men, that is, as men use to do, to show their valour (he meaneth those Bestiarii fighters with wild beasts at shows among the Romans), I have been cast to the beasts, and have either overcome them, as Lysimachus did the lion, or have been spared by them, as corpora sanctorum martyrum tangere multoties refugiebant bestiae, saith the historian, what advantageth it me, &c. And this latter sense is a stronger argument of the resurrection. (Chrysost. Ambros.)
Let us eat and drink ] An ill inference of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth. Chrysostom saith, There were a sort of such in his time, as said , Give me today, and take thou tomorrow ( . Anacreon.) And have not we those that say, Let us be merry while we may, we shall never be younger, Ede, bibe, lude, post mortem nulla voluptas, Eat, drink and play, there is no pleasure after death, it was wisely done of the Romans to banish Alaecus and Philiscus, a couple of swinish epicures, lest they should by their evil communication and conversation corrupt others. St Paul, though he allegeth this saying out of Isa 22:13 , yet he alludeth (likely) to Sardanapalus’s epitaph at Tarsus, a city built by this Sardanapalus, , , , , Ede, bibe, lude; nam caetera omnia nec huius sunt; Eat, drink, sport; for all other things are not worth a fillip: for so his statue was carved as if his hands had given a fillip, and his mouth had spoken these words. (Greg. Posthum.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
32 .] The stress of the first clause is on , and its meaning, merely as man , i.e. ‘ according to this world’s views ,’ ‘as one who has no hope beyond the grave;’see ref. If thus only he fought, &c., where was his profit (seeing he despised all those things which might compensate for such a fight, fame, praise, &c.)? The renderings, (Chrys. p. 381), i.e. ‘so far as one can be said against men,’ and (Theodoret), ‘ exempli causa ’ (Semler, Rosenmller), ‘ ut hominum more loquar ’ (Estius and Bloomf.), are all constrained, and scarcely to be extorted from the words.
] I fought with beasts (aor. referring to one special occasion ). How? and when? Most ancient and modern Commentators take the expression figuratively, as used in Appian, B. C. ii. p. 763 (Wetst.), where Pompey says, , and Ignat. ad Rom 5 , p. 689 f., . , , . So, of our text, Tertull. de Resurr. 48, vol. ii. p. 865: “Depugnavit ad bestias Ephesi, illas scilicet bestias Asiatic pressur.”
And this explanation must be right: for his Roman citizenship would have precluded his ever being literally thrown to beasts: and even supposing him to have waived it, and been miraculously rescued, as Ambrst [73] , Theodoret, Erasm., Luther, Calv., al. suppose, is it conceivable that such an event should have been altogether unrecorded in the Acts? Adopting the figurative rendering, we cannot fix on any recorded conflict which will suit the words. His danger from Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen (Act 19 ) had not yet happened (see Prolegg. vi. 2): but we cannot tell what opposition, justifying this expression, the of ch. 1Co 16:9 may ere this have made to his preaching.
[73] Ambr osia st er , i.e. Hilary the Deacon , fl. 384
.] If dead men rise not , i.e. ‘ if none of the dead rise .’ These words are best joined with the following, as Chrys., Theophyl., Beza, Bengel, Griesb., Meyer, De Wette, al. not with the preceding, as Theodoret, Grot., Est., Luther, al.[and E. V.] For already expresses their meaning in the preceding sentence; and the form of 1Co 15:29 seems to justify this arrangement, besides that otherwise . . , &c., would stand awkwardly insulated.
. . ] In Isa. the words represent the recklessness of those who utterly disregard the call of God to weeping and mourning, and feast while their time lasts. Wetst. has collected very numerous parallels from the classics. The most striking perhaps is Herod. ii. 78.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
after the manner of men = according to (App-104) a man.
have. Omit.
fought with beasts. Greek. theriomacheo. Only here. Figure of speech Metaphor. App-6. Referring to the riot (Act 19:28-31). Ignatius, in his epistle to the Romans, says, “From Syria even to Rome, I light with beasts . . . being bound to ten leopards, I mean, a band of soldiers, who, even when they receive benefits, show themselves the worse”. Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library. what, &c. = what is the profit? Greek. ophelos. Only here and Jam 2:14, Jam 2:16.
me = to me.
let us eat, &c. Many similar expressions of Epicureanism are found in heathen writers. But this is probably cited from Isa 22:13. Compare Wisdom 1Co 2:5-9.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
32.] The stress of the first clause is on , and its meaning, merely as man, i.e. according to this worlds views, as one who has no hope beyond the grave;see ref. If thus only he fought, &c., where was his profit (seeing he despised all those things which might compensate for such a fight,-fame, praise, &c.)? The renderings, (Chrys. p. 381), i.e. so far as one can be said against men,-and (Theodoret),-exempli causa (Semler, Rosenmller),-ut hominum more loquar (Estius and Bloomf.), are all constrained, and scarcely to be extorted from the words.
] I fought with beasts (aor. referring to one special occasion). How? and when? Most ancient and modern Commentators take the expression figuratively, as used in Appian, B. C. ii. p. 763 (Wetst.), where Pompey says, ,-and Ignat. ad Romans 5, p. 689 f., . , , . So, of our text, Tertull. de Resurr. 48, vol. ii. p. 865: Depugnavit ad bestias Ephesi, illas scilicet bestias Asiatic pressur.
And this explanation must be right: for his Roman citizenship would have precluded his ever being literally thrown to beasts: and even supposing him to have waived it, and been miraculously rescued, as Ambrst[73], Theodoret, Erasm., Luther, Calv., al. suppose, is it conceivable that such an event should have been altogether unrecorded in the Acts? Adopting the figurative rendering,-we cannot fix on any recorded conflict which will suit the words. His danger from Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen (Acts 19) had not yet happened (see Prolegg. vi. 2): but we cannot tell what opposition, justifying this expression, the of ch. 1Co 16:9 may ere this have made to his preaching.
[73] Ambrosiaster, i.e. Hilary the Deacon, fl. 384
.] If dead men rise not, i.e. if none of the dead rise. These words are best joined with the following, as Chrys., Theophyl., Beza, Bengel, Griesb., Meyer, De Wette, al.-not with the preceding, as Theodoret, Grot., Est., Luther, al.[and E. V.] For already expresses their meaning in the preceding sentence; and the form of 1Co 15:29 seems to justify this arrangement, besides that otherwise . . , &c., would stand awkwardly insulated.
. . ] In Isa. the words represent the recklessness of those who utterly disregard the call of God to weeping and mourning, and feast while their time lasts. Wetst. has collected very numerous parallels from the classics. The most striking perhaps is Herod. ii. 78.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 15:32. , ; , , , if after the manner of men, I have fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it to me? if the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die) This clause, if the dead rise not, is now for a long time properly connected with the words that follow; for in the foregoing, the formula, after the manner of men, is equivalent to it in force: that is, if, after human fashion, for a human consideration, with the mere hope of the present life, not in the hope of a resurrection to be expected on Divine authority, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, etc.- , I have fought with wild beasts at Ephesus) This one contest Paul expressly mentions, not only because it was a very great one, but also, because it was very recent. He was still at Ephesus; 1Co 16:8 : and there, before this epistle was written, he had been exposed to extraordinary danger, which seems to be the same occasion as that described, Act 19:29-30; 2Co 1:8; wherefore he calls it a fight with wild beasts, in which his life was in jeopardy; comp. 1Co 4:9 : as Heraclitus of Ephesus had been in the habit of applying the term wild beasts, , to the Ephesians four hundred years before: comp. Tit 1:12 concerning the Cretans and Epimenides.–, let us eat-we die) So the LXX., Isa 22:13, that is, let us use the good things of the body and of the present life. This is a Mimesis or the imitation of a supposed opponents wicked manner of speaking.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 15:32
1Co 15:32
If after the manner of men I fought with beasts at Ephesus,-[These words describe the deadly enemies encountered by Paul during his long sojourn in Ephesus. They are a terrible picture of the perils which culminated not only in Ephesus but in every place where he proclaimed the gospel. He was surrounded by men thirsty for his blood, men against whose fury he was as powerless to defend himself as were the captives thrown to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre. (Act 13:50; Act 14:19; Act 16:22; Act 17:5; Act 18:23; 2Ti 4:17).] what doth it profit me?-If this voluntary exposure to deadly peril be from worldly motives common to men, what is the worldly gain to be derived from it? No such gain can be conceived. Consequently, his self-exposure was because he believed in a life beyond death.
If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.-[The conclusion given here is a quotation from Isa 22:13, where it is given as the sensualistic cry of the people of Jerusalem under the judgment of Jehovah, which moved them to recklessness instead of repentance. These words are not quoted 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, it is vain and foolish to subject ourselves to trials and privations here. We should the rather make the most of this life; enjoy all the comforts we can; and make pleasure our chief good rather than look for happiness in the future state. This is the language of the great mass of mankind today. They look to no future state; they, therefore, give themselves up to unrestained enjoyment in this life.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
after: or, to speak after, Rom 6:19, Gal 3:15
beasts: 2Pe 2:12, Jud 1:10
Ephesus: Act 19:1, Act 19:23-41, 2Co 1:8-10
what: Job 35:3, Psa 73:13, Mal 3:14, Mal 3:15, Luk 9:25
let: Ecc 2:24, Ecc 11:9, Isa 22:13, Isa 56:12, Luk 12:19
Reciprocal: Gen 25:34 – eat Pro 23:35 – I will Isa 21:5 – eat Rom 3:1 – advantage 1Co 15:29 – what 1Co 16:8 – at 1Co 16:9 – there 2Co 11:26 – in perils by the Eph 4:29 – no 2Th 3:2 – delivered Rev 1:11 – Ephesus
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 15:32. I have fought with beasts. These words are all from the one Greek word THERIOMACHEO, and Thaver defines it, “to fight with wild beasts.”
I believe this was a literal experience of Paul and shall state my reasons. We know it was an action that endangered the physical life of the participant, else Paul would not have connected it with the resurrection in his reasoning. It is certain that he has the same event in mind in 2Co 1:8-10, where he relates that he had “despaired even of life.” He did not know whether the Lord was ready to release his faithful apostle from his labors through this event, hence he was willing to do his part in the combat with the beasts, trusting in God to help him overcome the beasts if He so willed. Or, if that was not the case, he would meet his fate with his trust in God “which raiseth the dead.” Furthermore, had it been vicious men who attacked him, he would not have “resisted the evil” (Mat 5:39), but would have submitted to his fate as he did when he was subjected to other threatening brutalities. Let us eat and drink is said as representing all the fleshly pleasures of this life. If there is no life beyond the grave, there would be no reason for denying ourselves any of the fleshly pleasures of this world.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 15:32. If after the manner of men (if speaking humanly) I fought with beasts at Ephesus. To take this literally is most unnatural. For, besides that as a Roman citizen the apostle would be exempt from such a thing, we can hardly suppose that such an occurrence, if it did take place, would never have been mentioned in the Acts, nor included in the minute detail of his perils, which he gives in 2Co 11:23-29. Clearly, the statement is to be understood in a figurative sense, thus: If after encountering, as I did at Ephesus, such a furious opposition as was more like a rush of wild beasts than the hostility of reasonable men.
Compare chap. 1Co 4:9; 2Ti 4:17what doth it profit me, if the dead are not raised? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.[1] This maxim, though found in a fragment of the Greek poet Menander (about B.C. 280), was not likely taken directly from him by our apostle; for it is just such a proverbial saying as, when once penned, would be sure to be caught up and repeated from mouth to mouth.
[1] A different punctuation of this verse is adopted by many of the best interpreters, thus:what doth it profit me! If the dead are not raised, let us eat, etc. So Chrysostom of the Cithers, and of the moderns Beza, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, Stanley, and Alford, supported by the punctuation of the Vulgate, which is adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, and Teschendorf. But the sense given by the punctuation of the received textadopted by Erasmus and our Authorised Versionseems to us more natural.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The apostle had mentioned his sufferings in general, in the former verses, to testify his belief and hope of a future resurrection: here he relates one particular kind and manner of suffering; namely, his fighting with beasts at Ephesus. To what purpose had he that mighty struggle there, and ran such a hazard of his life as that was, if he had no hope of a better life after this, no expectation of a blessed resurrection?
If I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, &c. A twofold interpretation is given of these words: some understand them literally and properly, that he did really combat with wild beasts;; it being usual in those times of persecution, under heathenish powers, to cast Christians to wild beasts; the common cry then was, Christianos ad leones, Away with the Christians to the lions.
But some object against this interpretation, That the apostle being a freeman of Rome, had no such indignity offered to him; that in the Acts of the Apostles St. Luke gives no relation of it; and that the apostle himself in the catalogue he gives of his sufferings, 2Co 11:16-33 makes no mention of it; unless it be comprehended under those general words, In deaths often.
Others therefore understand the words in a metaphorical sense, I have fought with beasts; that is, savage men, with men like beasts in their manners and conditions. And thus some refer this conflict to Act 19:23-41 where we read of his contest with Demetrius, and the silversmiths, about Diana’s temple at Ephesus.
Others refer it to Act 14:19-20 when he was stoned at Lystra, and left for dead. But whether we understand it literally or figuratively, the force of the argument lies thus: If I have undergone such deaths and dangers at Ephesus as I have done, and exposed my life the the utmost hazard, in hopes of a happy resurrection, what profit is all this to me, if there be no resurrection? What get I by such hazards and hardships, if there be no life to come? Nay, if matters be so, it will be more reasonable to say, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.
Verily, then, sensual fools are the wisest men; and they have the best of it that gratify their appetites and brutish desires, expecting they shall shortly die, and there will be an end of them.
Learn hence, 1. That faith in the resurrection to a future life, encourages us against all the troubles and afflictions of this present life; the hope of future good is a powerful support under the pressure and burden of present evil.
Learn, 2. That upon supposition that there is no happiness beyond the grave, a life of sensual pleasure is not absurd. The epicure’s song (Ede, bibe, lude, post mortem nulla voluptas; Eat, drink, play, and while it is day, for after death no man shall breathe;) seems not unreasonable.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Vv. 32. If it is as man that 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.
The meaning of the expression , according to man, must be determined by the context. It might be applied to human strength, which was not that with which the apostle laboured; or he might mean that in his work he had a higher end in view than that which the natural man sets before him in labouring. I am inclined to believe in a third meaning: With a view to what man can give by way of recompense. The , to fight with wild beasts, is taken by almost all modern commentators, down to Meyer, Reuss, Heinrici (Holsten excepted), in the figurative sense: to struggle with a furious multitude excited against him. It is in the same sense that Ignatius (Ad Rom. c. 5) speaks of the ten leopards (his keepers) with whom he has to fight day and night during his journey ( ). In favour of this sense we could not quote the tumult raised by the goldsmith Demetrius; for this event did not take place till after the composition of our letter, and Paul did nothing on that occasion which could justify the term fight. But some similar scene might have passed at Ephesus in the first period of Paul’s sojourn. I cannot, however, adhere to this explanation of the word . Similar conflicts were too frequent in the apostle’s life to admit of his mentioning this one in so exceptional a way. Unless we are to ascribe to Paul an exaggeration very alien to his character, it will be every way more natural to apply this expression to the punishment of the bestiarii, in the strict sense of the word. This meaning agrees better also with the feeling of free-will which breathes in the words: If I have fought. To this is objected the right of Roman citizenship which Paul possessed, and which secured him from such treatment. But if the thing passed in a popular rising, the apostle’s protestations might not have been listened to. It is also said that he could not have escaped death, and that in any case such a fact could not fail to be mentioned in the Acts. But how many facts of this kind are mentioned in the list 2 Corinthians 11, of which we have not a hint in the narrative of the Acts! And as to deliverance, it may have been due to some providential circumstance or other which we cannot divine. The fact is that this designates in the apostle’s view the apogee of the: I die daily, and this gradation admits only of the literal sense. As Holsten says: If there were nothing extraordinary and particular in this fight, Paul would not have so mentioned it in the context.
When he says: What doth it profit me? the apostle’s thought is that only the expectation of a life to come can explain such conduct. Moral duty in itself would not account for it, for there is no natural obligation which requires a man to sacrifice himself in the service of Jesus Christ. Besides, when he speaks of profit, Paul is thinking, not of a reward due to acquired merit, but of God’s response to the holy aspirations with which He has Himself endowed the human soul.
The proposition: If the dead rise not, would be awkward, if connected with what precedes; it suits better as an introduction to what follows: Say then also, in this case, like the despisers of the Divine judgment in Isaiah (Isa 22:13): Let us eat… Paul does expressly say that such language is used at Corinth; but he declares that it is the natural consequence of what is said there about the resurrection. There is, I believe, less of bravado than of despondency in the saying quoted: Since we have nothing better to look for, let us at least enjoy the present. This forms the transition to the word of warning and exhortation which closes the first part of the chapter.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
If after the manner of men [as a carnal man, having no future hope] I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it profit me? [The tense and words indicate that Paul had become a beast-fighter as a settled occupation. It is conceded that his language was figurative, and that he spoke of contending with beasts in human form (Tit 1:12; 2Ti 4:17), rather than to the fighting of actual beasts in the arena. Had Paul been thrown to the lions, Luke could hardly have failed to mention it when recording the events of Paul’s ministry at Ephesus. Moreover, Paul’s Roman citizenship shielded him from such a punishment. But he does not refer to the tumult in the theater (Act 20:19), for it took place after this letter was written. But we may well believe that Paul was in daily danger in Ephesus– 2Co 1:8-9] If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. [This is an Epicurean maxim which had passed into a proverb. “If,” says South, “men but persuade themselves that they shall die like beasts, they soon will live like beasts too.” In the three verses above, Paul passes from the symbolic death of baptism to consider death literally. In the hope of a resurrection he was enduring daily a living death, his life being hourly in jeopardy. If it was idle folly in converts to be symbolically united with the dead, much more was it gross foolishness for the apostle to live thus continually on the verge of being literally, actually united with them. But the folly in both instances was made wisdom by the fact of a resurrection. Thus to the arguments already adduced Paul adds the additional one that Christianity, in its initial ordinance, and in its daily life-experience, is built upon the hope of a resurrection. Without this hope no sensible man could start to be a Christian, much less continue to live in accordance with his profession.]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
32. If after the manner of men I fought with the wild beasts at Ephesus, what profit is it unto me if the dead rise not? The plain fact here specified is that he was daily exposed to martyrdom. Some make a great mistake by applying this daily dying to old Adam, in reference to which the Scriptures constantly reveal an instantaneous and complete destruction, radical and eternal extermination (Rom 6:6). We can not apply this daily dying to the soul, because Paul is not speaking of it, but the body, as his theme is simply the resurrection of the body. Hence the daily dying is daily exposition to martyrdom, which was a significant matter of fact. Their Leader had been killed, and they had no right to expect any other fate. Besides, the prophetic eye of Paul rested on the rivers of blood which deluged Christendom but a few years subsequently under the imperial persecutions. A problem arises in reference to Pauls ejectment to the wild beasts at Ephesus, as that was in the Roman Empire, and it was contrary to law to cast a Roman citizen to a wild beast. The critics believe it is a reference to an awful spell of sickness which brought him to the very verge of death (2Co 1:7).
If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. This follows as a logical sequence from the nucleus of the preceding argument, identifying the doctrine of the resurrection of all the dead with that of Christ, which is the necessary confirmation of His Messiahship.
Hence it follows as a logical sequence that if the resurrection is not true the Bible is a myth, Christ an impostor and the plan of salvation a failure.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 32
Fought with beasts. In ancient times, men were often required to fight with ferocious beasts, in a large theatre, partly, as a punishment for crimes, and partly for the amusement of the populace. The form of expression does not render it certain that Paul had literally been put to this trial. The word beasts may refer to violent human enemies.–Let us eat and drink; that is, if there be no future state, we may as well enjoy life as it passes.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
15:32 {17} If {q} after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? {18} let us {r} eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
(17) The taking away of an objection: but you, Paul, were ambitious, as men commonly and are accustomed to be, when you fought with beasts at Ephesus. That is very likely, says Paul: for what could that profit me, were it not for the glory of eternal life which I hope for?
(q) Not upon any godly motion, nor casting my eyes upon God, but carried away with vain glory, or a certain headiness.
(18) The seventh argument which depends upon the last: if there is no resurrection of the dead, why do we give ourselves to anything else, except for eating and drinking?
(r) These are sayings of the Epicureans.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
One example of facing death occurred in Ephesus where Paul was when he wrote this epistle. His fight with "wild beasts" was not with wild animals. This expression describes his conflict with very hostile human adversaries. The phrase kata anthropon ("from human motives" or "for . . . human reasons," lit. according to man) identifies Paul’s words as figurative language. Furthermore Roman citizens did not participate in hand to hand combat with animals in the arenas. [Note: Bruce, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 149; Robertson and Plummer, p. 362.] Perhaps Demetrius and or Alexander were Paul’s antagonists (Act 19:24-41; 2Ti 4:14).
Paul quoted Isa 22:13 to prove his point (cf. Ecc 2:24; Ecc 9:7-10). If there is no resurrection we may as well live only for the present.