Resurrection 4 - 1 Corinthians 15:29-33

If the resurrection of Jesus Christ at the pinnacle of the atonement is going to be given to every person who ever lived on the earth, that highlights the disparity between those who have received the gospel in this life and those who have not. For anyone who loves and values the gospel, our deepest desire is to share the joy the gospel brings us with all of our friends and family. It has been long taught by many religions that those who died without the chance to accept their certain brand of religion or be baptized into their church, are going to hell. But this concept flies in the face of God’s love of each and every one of his children. If I believed for one second that there were certain people sometime in human history whom God did not plan on redeeming, I could not believe in this gospel at all, ever. Because if God could forsake even one person, then he could do it to me, and the God that I know and love could not stand to lose even one of his spirit children without giving them their chance to choose.

Even if it is true that God has a plan to redeem every person to ever live on the earth, this begs the question, how? The gospel has been taught to probably less than 1% of the human population throughout time, so there is a disconnect between what is supposed to happen (all get a chance to accept the gospel while on earth) and what actually happens (very few actually get to hear and understand the gospel during their mortal lives). How does this get corrected? Paul tells us, saying, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?”

This is an interesting statement considering that this is the only place in the entire Bible “that mentions vicarious baptism for the dead,” according to the IM. The concept of ordinances for the dead has always made sense to me because the gospel is full of symbolism and vicarious works. The atonement was a vicarious act performed for us by the Savior, and if we accept that the atonement is valid then we have to accept that ordinances for the dead would be valid as well. The IM explains, “no baptisms for the dead were performed before the Savior visited the spirit world and bridged the gulf between paradise and the spirit prison. Vicarious baptisms were performed only after Jesus was resurrected.” This would make sense as to why it’s not mentioned as part of the law of Moses in the Old Testament, because it wasn’t done. 

Even though baptism for the dead has always made sense to me, it did seem to me that we are the only religion that practices that principle, and many people have struggled with it. One doctor that I worked with, his mom was an active member of the Church and when his dad died, his mom had his work done and my doctor friend was agitated about it because he said, “he didn’t want to be Mormon when he was alive and now he has no choice.” I told him that that wasn’t true, if he was able to choose whether or not he wanted to accept the gospel in this life, then he has the same choice in the next life. She was just giving him the chance in case he changed his mind. We have to remember that there is a different perspective in the next life, at least that’s what I’m going for. 

But it is quite hypocritical to be baptizing for the dead but not believe in resurrection at the same time, logically that just doesn’t make sense. The IM quotes President Howard W. Hunter as teaching, “There would be no sense in such ordinances except there be a resurrection. Nothing matters if there is not a resurrection.; everything would end in the darkness of death.” Paul is using all of this logic to prove that the resurrection is real, baptism for the dead, the fall of Adam, faith and worship, etc. and it’s all making sense.

Verse 31 is pretty messy, which says, “I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.” This makes absolutely no sense to me and just sounds like a jumble of words put together. However, there are a couple of explanations that help me understand a bit better. The first one comes to us from the gospeldoctrine.com article on this chapter which says, “The true disciple must place the natural man on the altar of sacrifice on a daily basis in order to truly submit to the Father’s will. Paul’s argument is that placing the Lord first on a daily basis is a waste of time if there is no hope of a resurrection. Henry B. Eyring: ‘I can recall thinking, at the student stage of life, of consecrating my life in one grand, heroic gesture. But as life progresses, our moments for consecration are specific, finite, and simple… Consecration is not a once-in-a-lifetime event; it is a daily devotion. As Paul says, we ‘die daily’ in the Lord.’” I really like this because it reminds us that every day is a new chance to do our best and it also reminds us that testimony is a living, breathing thing that needs to be cared for every single day, not once a month or once a lifetime, to remain strong.

The second way to understand verse 31 is the JST which says, “I protest unto you the resurrection of the dead; and this is my rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord daily, though I die.” This explanation is just as incredible as the first one because it reminds us what our purpose truly is here. We can do whatever we want in this life, but one day we will all die. Death is the universal ending to this existence for everyone regardless of how rich or famous or good looking someone is. Death is the one thing that we can’t come back from, and it’s kind of always over our shoulder like “I could come at any time.” There are so many people, I would venture to guess that the majority of people throughout human history have died abruptly, with little warning, and many times in a violent manner. If this life is the end all be all of existence, then that would be incredibly unfair to all those who have died in war or at a young age from disease. But if we know that we will live in our bodies again, be brought back from the dead, then we can face the possibility of dying early or violently with more optimism and hope.

I mean, really, if there is no resurrection, then this life would be the only time in which we could experience physical sensations. This is the natural progression of this thought process, and Paul points out why would he “have fought with beasts at Ephesus” if “the dead rise not?” In the article entitled, “Wild Beasts at Ephesus” from dappledthings.wordpress.com the author Carla Gade debates what Paul actually meant by this phrase. She notes that while it is possible that he actually fought wild beasts in an arena as a form of persecution, “actually fighting wild beasts in this fashion is highly implausible. 1) Paul most likely would not have survived it. 2) He does not recount it along with his other sufferings and hardships in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29. He makes no mention of it in Acts. 3) If he had been thrown ad bestias he would have lost his Roman citizenship. We know that he still held it when he went before Caesar.”

If Paul didn’t actually fight wild animals for the entertainment of others, then what could he possibly mean by saying that he did? Carla explains, “Since Plato and at least up until that time, ‘fighting the wild beasts’ was euphemistic for struggling with human passions.” This makes much more sense, and essentially Paul is right, what would be the purpose of containing one’s urges or following commandments that appear physically restrictive if this is our only shot at experiencing anything physical ever. Even if Jesus had atoned for our sins, only our spirits could be saved, and the main purpose of us coming to this earth was to gain bodies. In fact, having a physical body is so important to our progression that those in the spirit world sometimes consider themselves to be in bondage because they are without their bodies. 

If we were only going to experience our bodies this one time, then why would we have even been born? It would imply that physical bodies are a novelty, and not important in our eternal progression. Surely if this were the case then there would have been a way for us to be tried in the spirit world and completely bypass all the pain and hardship and suffering that we experience in this life. How horrific would it be for the child sex slave to learn that her physical suffering had no value in her spiritual progression. How tragic would it be for her to spend her entire physical life being tortured only to find out that this was her only chance at having a physical experience. And how heartbreaking would it be for her to learn that those who abused and violated her have no consequences because what happens to the body doesn’t matter. It would be completely unjust for us to live on this earth and then die and never get to have our bodies back again.

Carla contrasts Paul’s perspective with that of the popular “Epicurean philosophy that held to resurrection hope.” Paul even cites their main principle saying, “let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die.” Paul’s pointing out that without the hope of a resurrection then there is no difference between the gospel of Jesus Christ and every other hedonistic thought process that people possess. But Christianity is different because we will be raised from the dead, and what we do in this life does matter. He warns the people “be not deceived,” and what I can only deduce to mean, “keep with good company.” The gospeldoctrine.com article quotes Brigham Young as teaching about Paul’s quote, saying, “none of us are so strong in well doing that we can afford to associate with the depraved, keep company with the dissolute, and pick out our friends from among those who love sin and delight in iniquity. It is a mockery to pray to God to ‘leave us not in temptation,’ and then seek the companionship of the tempter. However strong in the Lord men may feel, it is always the wisest policy to drive as far as possible from the precipices of sin, and in handling coal, to remember that that which will not burn may probably blacken.”