THE KING’S BUSINESS
1147
we baptized for the dead,” but “Why then are they baptized for the dead.” He makes careful distinction between himself and his party and those who made use of this prac tice. So we see how utterly unwarranted are the Mormons in adopting thfs as a cus tom that has apostolic sanction. It has nothing of the kind. There is absolutely no other mention of it in the Bible, and in this one place in the Bible where it is referred to, it is referred to as something which others do, not what the apostles do. But someone may ask, why did not Paul rebuke this practice more explicitly and more fully? The answer to this is simple, Paul did not rebuke this superstitious prac tice in this one place in which he mentions it, because he was too wise a teacher to be led aside from the main question of fun damental and vast importance which he was discussing to a' discussion of a side issue of minor importance, which he refers to only incidentally. He simply mentions it to turn their own practice into an argument against themselves. Jesus, Himself, employed the same method of argument, and argumentum ad hominem, (see, Matt. 12:27). That a custom existed among some on the church in Corinth without apostolic sanction .proves nothing in its favor, for the Corinthians were great, as the whole epistle shows, at originating usages that were corrupt. Paul goes on to show that if there were no resurrection it was the height of folly for him to stand in 'hourly jeopardy of his life. Paul when Writing this epistle was at Ephesus, where he was in constant peril (cf. 2 Cor. 1:8, 9; 4.11, 12), and where the opposition soon culminated in the riot that came so near costing Paul his life (Acts 19:23, 20:1). Such was his constant nearness to death at this time that Paul could say, “I die daily” (cf. 2 Cor. 11:23). Yet in all this peril he had great joy in the Corinthian saints (v 31 R. V.). Sunday, December 30 . 1 Corinthians 15 : 32 - 34 . The men of Ephesus in the violence of their opposition to Paul had been as wild*
. “beasts.” One of their own poets, Hera clitus, 400 years before had called his coun trymen “wild beastg” and Paul who was familiar with literature may have had ref erence to this in his choice of an expres sion (cf. Titus 1 :12, where Paul quote Epi- menides). Paul argues, “What profit is there in it for me in facing these ‘wild beasts’ of Ephesus, and running the risk of being torn to pieces by them if there is no resurrection?” If it were true that there were no resurrection one might as well adopt the sceptical maxim that the old-time rebels against Cod’s word employed, “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.” (cf. Isa. 22:12, 13). This is the logical outcome of questioning the resurrection. If men expect to die like beasts, they will soon be living like beasts. In verse 33 Paul enters a solemn protest against this philosophy of doubt and sensualism: “Be not deceived” he says (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Gal. 6:7). In other words Paul says, “The doctrine that there is n o ;resurrection is a falsehood, and the worldly philosophy built upon it is that we should eat and drink and live like beasts for tomorrow we die,” and that is a .low and vicious philosophy. Paul simply warns the Corinthian saints against this sensual philosophy.' And now Paul
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter