First Corinthians 15:1-34 The Heart of the Gospel
Paul moves on to a new set of questions from the Corinthians concerning the reality of the resurrection. He transitions from the discussion of prophecy (read "proclamation of the Gospel of Christ") to the Gospel message itself.
The heart of the Gospel is the death and resurrection of Christ, confirmed by the eyewitness testimony. Notice he does not go into detail concerning the teachings or miracles, only the death and resurrection of Christ.
It is always a good reminder to me that everything else in life is secondary to the heart of the Gospel, the power of God over death and the sacrifice of his Son for my sin.
I find it interesting that he basis his tireless work on the grace of Christ. In essence, Paul is saying his religious zeal and fire are based on the motivating grace of Christ (10).
Paul proceeds to chastise the Corinthians for compromising their belief in the Resurrection. It sounds as if the Greek philosophical crowd has influenced the Corinthian Christian's perspective on the Resurrection. It was in Acts 17:32 that Paul was laughed out of Athens because he preached the resurrection of the dead. Undoubtedly, some similar thinkers had invaded the Corinthian church. Paul's point it that we are lost, without hope, if there is no resurrection. (18-19)
The truth is, though, that Jesus is alive. Paul calls him "firstfruits," or the initial reward for a harvest well-planted and promising further crops.
He says that death is not completely overcome until Jesus returns again. Until then, sin and death are still allowed to exist, until the harvest is completed and the end of time begins. Why does death still exist? So that those who live may respond in faith under the same conditions that Jesus arrived in and worked under.
A couple of other phrases of interest. Paul mentions baptism for the dead, but he gives not further explanation, apparently because he readers knew exactly what he was talking about. Now, the Mormon church practices baptism for the dead, but no other church that I know of makes a big deal of this. Why did the Corinthian church do it? We do not know, other than it was a part of some pagan cults, and some suggest even Jewish baptism (not sure about that one). I guess the point would be to substitute your baptism for a loved one who previously did not believe in Christ. Since there is silence on this in the rest of Scripture, it is difficult to say. The best advice I can give: don't build a major doctrine for your church one controversial verse.
He also talks about fighting lion in Ephesus. He is either in jail and awaiting his turn in the arena with the gladiators (which did not come to fulfillment), or he is refering metaphorically to his battles in Ephesus with certain non-believers and troulbe makers (Acts 18-19). His conviction was that he would lay down his life for Jesus just as Jesus laid his life down for Paul. Shouldn't that be the way it is for every believer. I wish I understood grace like Paul does.
The heart of the Gospel is the death and resurrection of Christ, confirmed by the eyewitness testimony. Notice he does not go into detail concerning the teachings or miracles, only the death and resurrection of Christ.
It is always a good reminder to me that everything else in life is secondary to the heart of the Gospel, the power of God over death and the sacrifice of his Son for my sin.
I find it interesting that he basis his tireless work on the grace of Christ. In essence, Paul is saying his religious zeal and fire are based on the motivating grace of Christ (10).
Paul proceeds to chastise the Corinthians for compromising their belief in the Resurrection. It sounds as if the Greek philosophical crowd has influenced the Corinthian Christian's perspective on the Resurrection. It was in Acts 17:32 that Paul was laughed out of Athens because he preached the resurrection of the dead. Undoubtedly, some similar thinkers had invaded the Corinthian church. Paul's point it that we are lost, without hope, if there is no resurrection. (18-19)
The truth is, though, that Jesus is alive. Paul calls him "firstfruits," or the initial reward for a harvest well-planted and promising further crops.
He says that death is not completely overcome until Jesus returns again. Until then, sin and death are still allowed to exist, until the harvest is completed and the end of time begins. Why does death still exist? So that those who live may respond in faith under the same conditions that Jesus arrived in and worked under.
A couple of other phrases of interest. Paul mentions baptism for the dead, but he gives not further explanation, apparently because he readers knew exactly what he was talking about. Now, the Mormon church practices baptism for the dead, but no other church that I know of makes a big deal of this. Why did the Corinthian church do it? We do not know, other than it was a part of some pagan cults, and some suggest even Jewish baptism (not sure about that one). I guess the point would be to substitute your baptism for a loved one who previously did not believe in Christ. Since there is silence on this in the rest of Scripture, it is difficult to say. The best advice I can give: don't build a major doctrine for your church one controversial verse.
He also talks about fighting lion in Ephesus. He is either in jail and awaiting his turn in the arena with the gladiators (which did not come to fulfillment), or he is refering metaphorically to his battles in Ephesus with certain non-believers and troulbe makers (Acts 18-19). His conviction was that he would lay down his life for Jesus just as Jesus laid his life down for Paul. Shouldn't that be the way it is for every believer. I wish I understood grace like Paul does.
Labels: baptism, First Corinthians, Gospel, grace
posted by Randy Rogers at
10:19 AM
2 Comments:
YOU SAY:
We do not know, other than it was a part of some pagan cults
What is your source for this claim?
This website summarizes with citations the basic Jewish perspective on baptism, although I do not agree with everything they present. http://www.essene.com/B'nai-Amen/MysticalImmersion.htm
Just to be clear, I am not judging the practice of baptism of the dead by stating that it may be derived from pagan cults. However, I find no Jewish practice of baptism for the dead in John the Baptist, the Essenes or Rabbis. They only call for individual decisions and personal baptism for cleansing/repentance.
Secondly, I find no teaching of Jesus that institutes a baptism for the dead. In fact, he would say, "Let the dead bury the dead. But come follow me." Would he also say the same for baptism? (I know I am being argumentative here.)
So, perhaps they derived this practive from pagan cults such as Isis and Osiris, whose converts pracitced ritual baptism in order to identify with the resurrection/reincarnation of Osiris after death.
Now to be fair, there is no written doctrine in the Isis cult for baptism for the dead either. And the Mystery religions of Bacchus, Mithra, and the cults of Isthmus near Corinth all practiced cultic baptism; however, the practice of baptism for the dead is not specifically mentioned as a specific practice. The nature of the mystery religion does not allow us to know all of their rituals, and it was not unheard of for them to do other rituals for non-believers. Again, nothing specific is mentioned.
All that to say that the sentence should read "it could have been a part of pagan cults" as most scholars, outside of the Mormon church, believe.
There are several interesting web sites that may help one to see the connection between baptism and ancient pagan cults. Google Isis, osiris, mithra, mystery religions, and Isthmus for some of these sites. I am not saying I agree with all of their content, but it is interesting. Plutarch and Herodotus are two Greek writers who also discuss the baptismal rites of pagan religions.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home