Crumbling Reason

I’ll say it again. Part of the
reason that I try to set aside my hymnal is to test myself to
see how much of it I have committed to memory. And almost always
I will at least try to sing without the hymnal. And I do that because
if I ever get washed up on an island, Or if I ever get thrown
into a dark dungeon, I want to have plenty of resource in there,
in my little brain, to be able to rejoice. And so when I heard
this song played, I mean, If we can even mutter through those
words without just gushing with joy, then we’re probably not
saved, truly. My sin, oh, the bliss of this
glorious thought. My sin, not in part, but the
whole, is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more. Praise
the Lord. Praise the Lord, O my soul. What an incredible hymn. If you would, please take your
Bible and turn to 1 Corinthians 15. So we find ourselves here once
again, and I know we’ve been here a long time, six weeks already,
and there really is no end in sight, not anytime soon. We’ll be here a while longer.
It is a lengthy chapter on a deep and important topic. Paul seems
to be not only taking his time, but even building these magnificent
arguments. And it’s one that Paul approaches,
this subject that indicates that it’s a once-in-a-lifetime epic
treatise that he’s in the midst of producing, much like Romans
5, much like Romans 8, as we’ve seen, much like Ephesians 1. After all, the subject is the
resurrection. But not only Christ’s resurrection
from the dead is in focus, from the grave, but the resurrection
as it pertains to every believer in Christ. Just as Adam’s fall
was our fall, so also Christ’s resurrection is our resurrection. This is Paul’s greatest articulation
of the doctrine of the resurrection anywhere in his writings. So
we should take our time. We’re roughly halfway through
Paul’s presentation. There are five major sections
in this chapter as we’ve seen. We’re in the middle of the third.
In verses 1 through 11 of this chapter, we saw that the resurrection
is inextricably part of the gospel. You can’t even articulate the
gospel without the resurrection. In verses 12 through 19, we saw
that the gospel is logically necessary. That if Christ was
raised from the dead, we too will raise from the dead. And
in the section in which we currently find ourselves, Paul is detailing
that the resurrection is theologically crucial. If this thread is pulled,
if this thread is removed from the fabric, the whole garment
comes unraveled. It’s theologically crucial. It
affects everything. It impacts our thinking, our
thinking impacts our doctrine, our doctrine impacts our way
of life, the way that we carry and conduct ourselves, and so
doubts regarding the resurrection will assuredly affect the way
that we live. We will see today especially,
explicitly in this passage this morning, that The resurrection
is crucial for the way that we live. Paul began this section
the third, by presenting some magnificent features of the resurrection,
concrete, tangible, glorious features of the resurrection.
That first of all, Christ was necessarily the first to be permanently
raised from the dead. There had been other people,
men, a little girl, there had been others raised from the dead.
But they were raised from the dead only to die again. Christ’s
resurrection was a permanent resurrection. It was a resurrection
to new life. He was the first fruits, as Paul
calls Him there in verse 20. And as such, Christ is the necessary
means of our resurrection. We saw that as well in verse
21, that just as by one man we were all plunged into sin and
death, by one man, that is Christ Jesus, came life itself. And that is all due to what Paul
shows us, the third consequential sphere in which we reside there
in verse 22, that little tiny word in, and it pictures a sphere
into which we are placed. It’s either the sphere of cursing,
death, or a sphere of blessing that is resurrection, the sphere
of the one man in Adam, all die. No person ever born can avoid
or extract themselves from that sphere. We’re all immersed into
the curse that Adam’s sin brought on humanity. Everyone is in Adam,
and so everyone bears this curse of death. But not everyone is in the sphere
of Christ. That sphere is only entered into
by faith in Jesus Christ. But, as verse 22 also tells us,
all who are in Christ, in the sphere of Christ’s influence
by faith, will be made alive. They will be resurrected as Christ
was resurrected. And then we saw, lastly, that
the divine climax of Christ’s resurrection is the order of
events for the resurrection. Christ first, then believers.
And then comes the end. It’s that simple. And as Christ
has already been raised from the dead, our resurrection is
next. In verses 25 through 28, Paul
provides a remarkable explanation, a description of the kingdom
of God’s beloved Son. This is where we were last Lord’s
Day. It’s His reign, it shows us His reign, it shows us His
vanquished enemies, and it shows us the culmination of that reign.
which ends with the presentation of his unblemished bride, the
church, to his heavenly father. What a fantastic scene this is. And then there is introduced to us this
massive cleanup operation. That’s the only way I can describe
verses 29 through 34. It’s a massive cleanup operation,
a detour so abrupt that some scholars believe that this was
dropped in to the midst of Paul’s description here inadvertently. In other words, there are people
that believe that this doesn’t belong here. It’s dislocated
from its intended place. One called it one of the most
abrupt changes of tone in Paul’s epistles. The change is initiated
in verse 29 by that word, otherwise. And this ties the whole discussion
all the way back to verse 26. In verse 26, Paul had said, the
last enemy that will be abolished is death. Otherwise, Paul is continuing his argument
from there. It’s not dislocated. It’s right
where Paul, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, would have
it to be. It’s a further explanation of
the dire consequences of denying the resurrection. He is providing
additional and important, even if obscured, reasoning pertaining
to the doctrine of the resurrection. And so, let’s go back to chapter
15. We’ll shorten our reading this morning just for our purposes
this morning. We’ll take verses 20 through
34 in its entirety so that you can see the context in which
our verse, verse 29, begins. Verse 20, but now Christ has
been raised from the dead for the firstfruits of those who
are asleep. For since by a man came death,
by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all
die, so also in Christ all will be made alive, but each in his
own order. Christ, the firstfruits, after
that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end,
when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He
has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must
reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last
enemy that will be abolished is death. For he has put all
things in subjection under his feet. But when he says, all things
are put in subjection, it is evident that he is accepted who
put all things in subjection to him. When all things are subjected
to him, then the Son also will be subjected to the one who subjected
all things to him, so that God may be all in all. Otherwise, What will those do
who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at
all, why then are they baptized for them? Why are we also in
danger every hour? I affirm, brethren, by the boasting
in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If from human motives I fought
with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? If the
dead are not raised, let us eat, drink, for tomorrow we die. Do not be deceived. Bad company
corrupts good morals. Become sober-minded as you ought
and stop sinning. For some have no knowledge of
God. I speak this to your shame. Now, we’ve already established
that the Greeks are big on logic, reasoning skills. It was basically
their national pastime. And here in verses 29 through
32, Paul returns again to logic in order to undergird the doctrine
of the resurrection. This isn’t the first time in
this chapter that Paul has employed reasoning, the application of
logic, to the idea of the resurrection. You will recall that he used
the art of reason plentifully in verses 12 through 19. His
argument there was against, contrary to, a denial of the resurrection. There, Paul exposes a series
of logical conclusions that must be drawn if one denies the resurrection. But when he employs logic here
in these verses, 29 through 32, it’s from a completely different
angle. Instead of reasoning against
the denial of the resurrection, here his arguments are for, in
favor of, the resurrection. Here he assumes the validity
of the resurrection and takes aim at the absurdity of doubting
it. If Paul was in a defensive posture
in verses 12 through 19, here in verses 29 through 32, he is
in attack mode. It’s almost that he is ridiculing
the idea of a denial of the resurrection. And so there are four arguments
for the resurrection in this particular section. And what
it provides for us is a crumbling of the reason that those who
deny the resurrection were trying to offer up. It disintegrates
before our very eyes. Four arguments for the resurrection,
and first one we see is in verse 29. It is logically flawed and
morally destructive to ignore the argument from baptism. That’s
how Paul starts. Verse 29, otherwise, what will
those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not
raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? Now, from
the first time… I ever read this chapter, first
time you probably ever read this chapter, you saw that this problem
verse was coming, and you were chomping at the bit waiting for
Frasco to have to deal with it. It immediately sounds uncomfortable
to our ears. Baptism for the dead? I’ve obviously
crossed this verse many times over the years, looking forward
to the day when I could study it further. And I presume that
there must be an easy and reasonable explanation for that uncomfortable
phrase. So you can imagine my dismay
as I began to dig into this passage a few weeks ago and began to
discover that there is not a slam dunk, easy answer to this difficult and challenging couple of lines
of scripture. Many commentators seem ready
themselves to take up a vague, fence-sitting, non-position. One commentator referred to this
verse as a passage of extreme difficulty. Another said that
it has given rise to so much perplexity that some have proposed
to omit the words. from the dead and for them, or
the whole of verse 29, or even the whole paragraph. Now, I don’t
even want to be in the room, the building in which a committee
is operating who decides to omit, remove a portion of God’s Word. Still another seasoned expositor
characterized it as one of the most difficult in all of Scripture
and has many legitimate interpretations. It has also, however, been used
to support many strange and heretical ideas, as you can well imagine. Well, and as you also may have
already figured, there are many, many suggested interpretations
of this verse, and one common caution is against being dogmatic
about any of them. What we may do, however, is to
begin with an identification of what it does not mean. Regardless
of where we land on exactly what it might mean, We can be absolutely
certain that this passage does not teach that a living believer
can be baptized for or on behalf of a deceased, dead relative
or friend. It does not mean that. That argument presumes two things,
which are false. First, that baptism saves instead
of faith. That’s not true. So the argument
has already begun to disintegrate. But the second, and not unlike
the first, that someone may serve as a substitute, a proxy for
another in the rite of baptism. That because Aunt Mabel wasn’t
able to place her faith in Christ before she died, I can get baptized
in her stead and therefore save her soul? It’s heresy. we can immediately dismiss this
view as heretical. Salvation is by faith alone in
Christ alone. And just as we cannot possibly
believe on behalf of another person, even more removed is
the idea of vicariously being baptized on behalf of another.
As Hebrews 9.27 says, it is appointed for men once to die, and after
this comes judgment. As long as people are alive,
there’s hope. As long as people are living
and breathing, we can preach the gospel and pray for them
and plead with them to turn to Christ. Once they’re dead, it’s
over. It’s over. It’s a sad reality
that early church father Tertullian not only dipped his toe in this
pool, but he held to this view. He was an otherwise sound man,
generally speaking, and we may scorn him for such error, but
we do so humbly as we seek to uncover flaws in our own doctrine
and theology. How would Paul, How would Paul,
the same Paul that rebukes the Galatians for their growing indifference
to the doctrine of justification by faith, how would he even entertain
the idea of having someone stand in for another in the symbolic
ordinance of baptism? It’s unthinkable. It does not
mean that. Now, there are somewhere between
30 and 36 suggestions as to the meaning of this verse, so we
had better get busy. We’re not going to look at even
close to 30 to 36. Not even all of them are even
remotely credible. The suggested interpretations
really center around two questions. Glance at the verse as I outline
this. In verse 29, you have to come
away, you have to basically look at the passage and come to an
understanding of what is the meaning of baptism in this verse. Because remember, baptism literally
means to immerse, and it’s possible that Paul is not referring to
literal water baptism here. We saw that in Romans 6. The
other question that you have to answer as you come to this
passage, not only what is the meaning of baptism here, but
who are the dead? Specifically, to whom is Paul
referring to? Dead, unbelieving friends and
relatives? That would be heresy. Is it dead
believers? We’re being baptized to honor
their memory? Is it dead martyrs? That simply
by watching their life, we’ve turned to Christ in faith? Is
it to all sinners, since after all we are spiritually dead and
the only hope is Christ and baptism is symbolic of that new life?
Is it to all believers in Christ, the dead only to be raised? Well, here are several suggested
solutions, and at least initially they’re in no particular order. If your head isn’t already swimming
from just reading that verse, by the time I get through the
third, you’ll probably wave the white flag. Bear with me. Here
are several of the suggested solutions that I would consider
to be plausible. These are good answers. take baptism to refer to Christian
baptism, and take dead to refer to our own spiritual condition.
Since baptism is symbolic of our identification with Christ’s
death, burial, and resurrection, all believers are baptized for
the dead in the sense that all sinners are dead in their trespasses
and sins, their hope is only Christ, It’s a good answer. Baptism for the dead. Or take baptism to refer to Christian
baptism and take dead to refer to those who have died for their
faith as martyrs. By observing the great faith
of the persecuted believers, some come to faith. Remember
when Stephen was martyred, many came to faith because of it.
And so they come to faith in Christ and are baptized. They’re
baptized, in a sense, in response to the dead, the martyrs. It’s a good answer. Now we got
two really good answers. And you don’t need to roll around
in the aisle fighting over which one’s right. Third, take baptism
to refer to Christian baptism, and take the dead to refer to
believers, non-martyrs, who have died and gone to glory. In this
scenario, a believing friend or relative, think grandma, A
believing friend or relative who has lived a godly life draws
near to the end and dies, leading ultimately to the repentance
and faith of many of those who remain. One person called this
the meet-me-in-heaven argument. Baptized for the dead, baptized
in honor of grandma as I want to follow her footsteps and meet
her there. There’s a fourth. Do you even
know which one you’re leaning towards yet? Number four, take
baptism to refer to Christian baptism and take the dead to
refer to personal resurrection from the dead. It’s our death
that’s in focus. And this is perhaps the simplest
explanation of all. Both the baptism and the death
are the individual believer’s own anticipation of the resurrection. I placed my faith in Christ.
I have been baptized for the dead, that is, for my own sake,
upon which I will be raised to new life with Christ. It’s a
really good argument. In fact, it’s the fourth really
good argument. But I said there were five. And this is the one that I lean
towards, and I’m going to say it humbly. That’s the way I lean. I think any one of these is a
plausible, reasonable explanation of the passage. But similar to
the very first, take baptism to refer symbolically to immersion. and take dead to refer to our
dying with Christ. Instead of thinking of this as
water baptism, we can think of this metaphorically, as Paul
does use this word, Romans 6. He takes it metaphorically, specifically
immersion into a trial, a persecution, or even martyrdom, death. Baptism
for the dead. The reason that this one holds
particular sway for me is that the Lord Jesus used this word
in exactly the same way. Matthew 3, 11. As for me, I baptize
you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me
is mightier than I. I am not fit to remove his sandals. He will baptize you with the
Holy Spirit and fire. That’s John the Baptist, sorry.
Jesus quote is next, but he’s using that metaphorically. At
least I don’t think any of us have been baptized in fire. We
haven’t been immersed with fire. He’s using the word metaphorically
there. Mark 10, records Jesus, Jesus
said to them, you do not know what you are asking. Are you
able to drink the cup that I drink or to be baptized with the baptism
with which I’m baptized? Well, the simple answer to that,
yes, sure. We’ll go down to the river and
we’ll have the same baptism that you experienced. It’s not what
Jesus was talking about. They answered him, yes, we are
able. And Jesus said to them in the cup that I drink, you
shall drink. And you shall be baptized with the baptism with
which I am baptized.” Jesus was speaking not of His water baptism.
That was all done for all of them. He’s talking about His
immersion into the trials that were born at the cross. In Luke 12.50, He challenges
the apostles even more directly. And He says this, I have a baptism
to undergo. Well, Jesus Christ was already
long since baptized. But he says, I have a baptism
to undergo, and how distressed I am until it’s accomplished.
He was talking about his passion leading up to the cross. And
so those, I said, those five are the best, most reasonable
options. And since we cannot be dogmatic
about any of them, We can humbly acknowledge that while we may
not grasp exactly what this sentence means, we can be assured that
God knows and that it does not mean a substitutionary baptism
for those who have died. So Paul presents for us an argument
for the resurrection, and he uses the baptism for the dead,
the argument from baptism, But it is also logically flawed and
morally destructive to ignore the argument from compensation. And we have that argument in
verses 30 through 32. Why are we in danger every hour?
I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ
Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If from human motives I fought
with wild beasts at Ephesus, what does it profit me? Paul
moves to point out a second absurdity in the thinking of those who
deny the resurrection. There in verse 30, Paul poses
a simple question, and then he expands upon that statement in
verses 31 and 32. Ultimately, he asks, what does
it profit me? As if to say, if there’s no resurrection,
what’s the point of all the suffering that I endure? Glance down, if
you would, again at verse 30. Why are we in danger every hour? Paul’s dangers, as he calls them,
were plentiful, horrific even. In order to have a brief overview
of Paul’s difficult experiences, would you turn just four or five
chapters over to 2 Corinthians 4? Just a few pages to your right. 2 Corinthians chapter 4 and scroll
down to verse 8. Chapter 4 verse 8, where Paul
just says, we are afflicted in every way but not crushed, perplexed
but not despairing, persecuted but not forsaken, struck down
but not destroyed, always caring about in the body the dying of
Jesus so that the life of Jesus may be manifested in our mortal
body. For we who live are constantly
being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the
life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh.” That’s
quite a description of Paul’s day-to-day life. Crushed, persecuted,
struck down, caring about a living death. Scroll over to…flip over
to chapter 6 and zip down to chapter…or verse 4. And I’m just
going to pick out the highlight words for the sake of time here. Verse 4, afflictions and hardships,
distresses. Verse 5, beatings, imprisonments,
tumults, riots. labors, sleeplessness, hunger. Scroll down to verse 8. By evil
report, regarded as deceivers, as unknown, verse 9, as dying,
as punished. Verse 10, as sorrowful, as poor. Verse 10 at the end, as having
nothing. That is quite a description of
life in ministry. And whenever I meet a young person
who aspires to some kind of ministry, I take them to these passages.
Is this really what you’re looking for? You want to go on the short-term
mission? So be it. If you would, turn over a few
chapters to chapter 11. And zip down to verse 33. He’s talking about his detractors,
those who were criticizing Paul, and he says, are they servants
of Christ? I speak as if insane. I more
so, in far more labors, in far more imprisonments, beaten times
without number, often in danger of death. Five times I received
from the Jews 39 lashes. Three times I was beaten with
rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked.
A night and a day I spent in the deep. I’ve been on frequent
journeys in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers
from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the
city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among
false brethren. I’ve been in labor and hardship
through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without
food, in cold and exposure. Apart from such things, there
is the daily pressure on me of concern for all the churches.
So great was Paul’s suffering for the cause of the gospel that
he says in 1 Corinthians 15 31 that he offers proof to the Corinthians. Back, if you would, to 15, 1
Corinthians 15. Just glance at verse 31. I affirm,
brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus
our Lord, I die daily. His point there is that because
of ministry, including ministry to the Corinthians themselves,
he experienced ministry-related sufferings. So much so that he
says, I die daily. He echoes this in Romans 8 36
under the same basic purpose. Speaking of Christ’s servants,
for your sake we are being put to death all day long. We were
considered a sheep to be slaughtered. You read it, but I’ll recite
it again. 2 Corinthians 4 10, always carrying
about in the body the dying of Jesus. Paul isn’t browbeating
the Corinthians. He’s merely saying that suffering
comes with the privilege of ministry. You want to serve God? Great.
Prepare to suffer. It’s not a complaint. It’s not
a complaint against them. It’s not a complaint against
God. He just presents to them another example. Look at verse
32. If I, from human motives, I fought with wild beasts at
Ephesus. And, wouldn’t you know it, here’s
another controversy. Because when Paul mentions wild
beasts here, there are some that say there’s nothing recorded
about this. They even go so far as to suggest
that Paul was using wild beasts metaphorically of mean guys. That’s really a stretch. I think
it’s at least possible that he’s referring to the arena, the Roman-type
arenas where prisoners, including persecuted Christians, would
be made to fight wild animals, lions and the like, for sport. And I say controversial because
as a Roman citizen, this would not have been likely. And given
that 1 Corinthians was one of Paul’s first epistles, the persecution
against him had not yet begun to build, not like this. And so there were those that
say that when he refers to beasts here, he’s talking about being
worried and attacked and harassed by angry men. That is really a stretch. Here’s
their argument. First of all, that Paul was a
Roman citizen. Couldn’t have been subject to
such treatment. The only problem is that we just
studied the book of Acts. Paul was wrongly struck in the
face. He was wrongly arrested as a
Roman citizen. He was wrongly imprisoned, held. He was wrongly tried multiple
times. There’s another argument against
it that is lobbied. Neither he nor Luke ever mentioned
this in the catalogs of trials that Paul endured. We just read
through some of those. But there are many things in
those catalogs that aren’t mentioned anywhere else either. And so they make this suggestion
that what they may be referring to here, what Paul may be referring
to, is what Luke records in Acts 19. 1923, if you want to look
it up later, it was where there was this riot, and basically
they run Paul out of town. There’s no recording of him being
thrown into arena to fight lions. But there in Acts 19, it’s the
city mob. Brought on by the silversmith
who was losing business not the Romans and The bigger problem
is that that particular incident probably occurred after the writing
of 1st Corinthians So the suggestion is that This
incident is figurative and that is what he’s really talking about
is mean men bad guys and But the word that Paul uses,
the specific technical term that he uses, was for those who fought
wild animals in an arena. They had a name for them. Paul alludes to this again in
2 Timothy 4.17, some of the last words he ever wrote. The Lord stood with me and strengthened
me so that through me the proclamation might be fully accomplished and
that all the Gentiles might hear. And I was rescued out of the
lion’s mouth.” That’s what he says. And so much of it comes
down to motives. He says that this episode was
not from human motives. What else would prompt you to
be willing and able to stand before wild animals? Anything else would seem petty,
mentioned by Paul. And so the conclusion is that
Paul references, in my opinion, a real event here from which
he was rescued, providentially, divinely. And it shouldn’t surprise
us that such an event occurred or could occur and not be recorded. And so Paul’s question in verse
30 now comes into focus. Why are we in danger every hour? That question there in verse
30 is somewhat incomplete. He doesn’t really finish it until
the end of verse 32 when he says, what does it profit me? He effectively
says, why am I in danger? Why die daily? Why fight with
wild beasts if there is no resurrection? if there is no divine calling,
if there is no benefit to what it is I’m doing, or to use Paul’s
words, no profit. And given that such perils and
difficulties are so abundant for those in Christ’s service,
Paul asks, why are we in danger every hour? He isn’t wondering
about the source of his troubles. He knew them all too well. They
were God-given, and he knew it. He’s challenging the doubt of
the resurrection. If there were no resurrection,
why in the world would he willingly imperil himself daily, hourly? Paul poses the conclusion here,
if there is no resurrection, what’s the point of suffering?
What’s the profit? What’s the compensation from
God for such service? It’s not a complaint against
God, and it doesn’t define Paul’s motives as selfish. He’s merely
stating that without the hope of the resurrection, all of our
efforts for the Lord are completely useless. Without the hope of the resurrection,
nearly all motivation for noble deeds is eliminated. There’s a third argument that
Paul uses. It is logically flawed and morally
destructive to ignore the argument from baptism, the argument from
compensation, and thirdly, the argument from self-denial. We see it at the end of verse
32. If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow
we die. Paul addresses this third absurdity
there at the end of verse 32, and this one sounds familiar
to many of us. If people didn’t utter this phrase this week,
you probably saw it being lived out. We’ve heard this one from
the mouth of those who don’t believe in God many times. These
are just like lyrics to their universal anthem. Let us eat
and drink, for tomorrow we die. There isn’t anything else after
this. Paul ties this flawed thinking to a denial of the resurrection. If the dead are not raised, he
cites as their position, their life responses flow from that. That’s how people are living.
They’re living as if there is no judgment, as if there is no
resurrection from the dead. And in the summary statement,
the philosophy of life is, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow
we die. Those woeful words are a direct
quote from Isaiah 22, and they don’t reflect Paul’s thinking
here. It’s the mindset of those who don’t believe in an afterlife,
and it affects everything that they do. The hopeless mindset
is this. If there’s nothing after this
life, no resurrection, then we should party it up. We should
enjoy this life to the full. This is it. This is the recurring refrain
of those who are of the world, who have no hope. In Peter’s
second epistle, we hear the same basic thing. We get a sample
of it. Know this, first of all, that in the last day mockers
will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
and saying, where is the promise of his coming? For ever since
the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from
the beginning. Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow
we die. This was exactly the attitude
of the arrogant rich man in Christ’s parable, Luke chapter 12. Would
you turn there for a minute? Luke chapter 12, it’s such a
good parable. An instructive parable, and it
echoes this precisely. Luke chapter 12, and just find
your way down to verse 16. And he told them a parable saying,
the land of a rich man was very productive. Wait till you see
how self-centered this guy is. Listen to how many times he uses
the word, I. He began reasoning to himself,
and always a dangerous proposition, saying, what shall I do since
I have no place to store my crops? Then he said, this is what I
will do. I will tear down my barns and build larger ones,
and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will
say to my soul, soul, you have many goods laid up for many years
to come. Take your ease, eat, drink, and
be merry. But God said to him, you fool,
this very night your soul is required of you. And now who
will own what you have prepared? So is the man who stores up treasure
for himself and is not rich toward God. He was empty, spiritually
speaking. In the life of the man of the
world, there is nothing but doubt and despair. Back to 1 Corinthians
15, if you would. nothing but doubt and despair,
so why not live it up? Why not give ourselves over to
sensual pleasure? Why not indulge ourselves? Why
not live with reckless abandon and take all that this world
has to offer? If this is all there is, we should
enjoy it to the full, says the man of the world. That is hedonism
of the first order. That is the attitude of the world.
And if we dare to suggest to them that there is an afterlife,
he becomes even more set in his argument than ever before. Why
not take the real thing now? Why defer to the afterlife, a
hope in something unseen? Why not take all that life has
to offer now? Such is the ripe and rotting
fruit of unbelief. There’s a fourth and final absurdity
that Paul addresses, and we find it in verses 33 and 34. It is logically flawed and morally
destructive to ignore the argument from baptism, from compensation,
from self-denial, and fourth, the argument from influence.
This is a good one. Do not be deceived, verse 33,
bad company corrupts good morals. Become sober-minded as you ought
and stop sinning, for some have no knowledge of God. I speak
this to your shame. What Paul addresses here in short
is the absurdity of thinking that friends don’t matter, who
you hang out with doesn’t matter, that somehow you are impervious
to the people with whom you associate. Keep in mind, Paul has just dealt
with the notion of eat, drink, and be merry. Worldly thinking
and attitudes and affections were all around the Corinthian
believers. And the Corinthian context is
difficult for us to grasp, just how immersed they were in this
heathen society. I would liken their situation
to ours in Fort Collins. But only if every church in the
city were removed, with only us remaining. Can we
even imagine how oppressive that would be? You see, the Corinthians
were converted out of an entirely heathen city. So that all they
had were non-Christian friends and acquaintances. But Paul doesn’t
mince words here. He says that if a person thinks
that they can somehow live above the pressure and sway of their
peers, they are already deceived. Paul says he saves this challenge
of deception for only the most serious matters. 1 Corinthians
6.9, do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit
the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators,
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals
will inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 6, 7, do not be deceived,
God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, this
he will reap. Do not be deceived, which means
deception was already taking place. And so here, to arrogantly
think that we can live above the fray, the negative influence
of the worldly acquaintances, is an indication that we are
already sorely misinformed. We’ve already been tricked. We’re
already in the process of being duped. Things are not as they
seem. And his admonition in full is
there in verse 33. Do not be deceived. Bad company
corrupts good morals. It will happen. It’s quite possible
that this saying was originally from a line of a Greek play,
Menander. A Greek poet wrote a play called
Thase. And this line possibly originates
from there or from a proverb common to the day. By Paul’s
day, this was a common saying. And we almost can’t help hearing
these secular songs from time to time that do utter a line
that is plausible. They get stuck in our head. But no matter how this came about,
it’s here in our text now, and it declares truth. These people
are in our lives, and if we engage with them indiscriminately, they
do impact our lives. Bad company does corrupt good
morals. As the world is blindly giving
themselves over to hedonistic pleasures, we must watch our
hearts. We must guard our time spent
with them and all the more closely. We must evaluate our own affections
constantly, watching even for the slightest, seemingly innocuous
change, where something is no longer offensive to us. We must
love them. We must not emulate them. We
do not fellowship with them like we would a Christian brother
or sister. I would suggest that such a friendship, get this as
an image, such a friendship with a person of the world should
be handled like moving a burning log from one fireplace in your
home to another. One false move and you’ll set
the whole house on fire. People in the world are constantly
oozing worldly thoughts and attitudes. And if we are careless and naive,
we will imbibe those things. They will corrupt our own thoughts
and convictions. And Paul closes out his expose
of these absurdities with one final sentence of admonition.
Verse 34, become sober-minded as you ought and stop sinning.
For some have no knowledge of God. There they were, these Corinthian
believers. God’s grace had saved them. They
had providentially and purposely been left right there in Corinth. And for a good reason, so that
they might bear witness of the Savior that they had come to
know. The words rendered here sober-minded mean to awaken from
a stupor, sleep, or drunkenness. Do the right thing. Wake up and
do right. And the form of the verb indicates
that they were currently in that state and they needed a wake-up
call. Snap to it, Paul says. Rouse yourselves to righteousness. What Paul was urging of them
was in contrast to the foolish ideas that they were entertaining.
No resurrection? They needed to wise up and come
to a quick understanding of the serious implications of their
doctrine and its effect on their lives. They would not have an
effective influence on their unbelieving world if they didn’t. There were a great many in their
city who had not yet even heard about God and His provision of
a Savior? How selfish was this conduct? Such conduct, Paul says, is shameful.
Shameful. As a good shepherd, Paul knows
when just the right time to reprove, rebuke, exhort, Different measures
for different situations, but here, because of the seriousness
of the matter, he holds nothing back. To stumble around foolishly,
as the Corinthians were, oblivious to the spiritual needs all around
them, was nothing short of shameful. Paul gives us these incredible
arguments for the resurrection, cautioning us about the logical
fallacies and the destructive conclusions that these ideas
bring. Would you humble yourselves in
examination before him?