1 Corinthians 15:20 - Meaning and Application

In this passage, the apostle proves the resurrection of the dead, especially the holy dead, those who have died in Christ.

First, he argues from the resurrection of Christ. Christ is truly risen, and he has risen as the firstfruits of those who sleep in him (1 Corinthians 15:20). In the Old Testament, the firstfruits were the first part of the harvest offered to God, and that offering showed that the whole harvest was accepted. In the same way, Christ’s resurrection is a guarantee that all who belong to him will also rise. The whole lump was made holy by the firstfruits (Romans 11:16), and all who are joined to Christ by faith are assured of the same blessing through his resurrection.

Christ did not rise only for himself. He rose as the head of the body, the church, and God will bring with him those who sleep in him (1 Thessalonians 4:14). So Christ’s resurrection is a pledge and sure promise of ours, if we are true believers. Because he lives, we shall live also. We are part of that consecrated lump and will share in the favor given to the firstfruits.

The apostle then strengthens this point by comparing the first Adam and the second Adam. Since death came by man, it was fitting that deliverance from death should also come by man, or, in other words, through a resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:21). In Adam all die, and in Christ all will be made alive. Through Adam’s sin, all people became mortal because all descend from him and share his sinful nature. Through Christ’s merit and resurrection, all who receive his Spirit and spiritual life are raised and made immortal.

This does not mean that every human being, without exception, will be made alive in Christ. The apostle’s argument is more limited than that. Christ rose as the firstfruits, and therefore those who belong to Christ will rise too (1 Corinthians 15:23). So all who are raised do so because of Christ’s resurrection, just as all die because of Adam. The second Adam restores his people to glorious immortality, just as the first Adam brought ruin on his descendants through sin.

Before leaving this argument, the apostle also says there will be an order in the resurrection. He does not tell us exactly what that order will be, only that it will exist. He may mean that some will rise before others, perhaps those who served Christ most faithfully or suffered most for him. What is clear is that Christ, as the firstfruits, has risen first, and afterward those who are Christ’s will rise when he comes again.

This does not mean that Christ’s resurrection had to happen before the resurrection of any believer in time. Rather, it had to come first in importance and as the foundation of all the rest. In the same way, the firstfruits made the whole harvest holy, even if the rest of the harvest had not yet been gathered and offered. So Christ’s resurrection must come first in the order of nature, even if some saints may rise at the very moment of his return. Because he has risen, they must rise.

The apostle then argues from Christ’s mediatorial kingdom, his rule as mediator, that continues until all his enemies are destroyed, and the last enemy is death (1 Corinthians 15:24-26). After his resurrection, Christ was given sovereign authority, all power in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). God gave him a name above every name, so that every knee should bow to him and every tongue confess that he is Lord (Philippians 2:9-11). He must keep ruling until every opposing power, rule, and authority is put down, until all enemies are under his feet, and until death itself is destroyed.

This means that Christ rose to receive all power and to reign as Mediator. He died and rose again so that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living (Romans 14:9). It also means that this mediatorial kingdom will have an end, at least in the sense that its work of bringing Christ’s people safely to glory and defeating their enemies will be finished. But it will not end until every opposing power is subdued and the last enemy, death, is destroyed.

The apostle’s point is clear, even if he leaves the conclusion for us to draw. If death is to be destroyed, then the saints must rise. Otherwise death and the grave would still rule over them, and Christ’s kingly power would not have fully overcome the last enemy of his people. When the saints live again and die no more, then death will truly be abolished. That must happen before Christ’s mediatorial kingdom is handed over in its completed form.

Along the way, the apostle also gives another important truth, namely that Christ, as man and mediator between God and man, has a delegated kingship, a kingdom given to him. All things are put under him, except the Father who put all things under him (1 Corinthians 15:27). As man, his authority is given to him. His mediating work depends on his divine nature, but as Mediator he stands between God and man, sharing both natures, human and divine, to reconcile both sides. The Father appears here with the full majesty and authority of God, while the Son, having become man, appears as the Father’s minister, even though he is also God.

This passage should not be understood as Christ’s eternal rule over all creatures as God. It speaks of a kingdom given to him as Mediator, that is, as the one who stands between God and sinners, and as the God-man. This was especially true after his resurrection, when, after winning the victory, he sat down with his Father on his throne (Revelation 3:21). Then the promise was fulfilled: “I have set my king on my holy hill of Zion” (Psalm 2:6).

This is what the New Testament often means when it says Christ sat down at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19; Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1), at the right hand of power (Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69), at the right hand of the throne of God (Hebrews 12:2), or at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven (Hebrews 8:1). To sit in this place means to begin the work of his mediatorial power and kingship, which he entered into at his ascension into heaven (Mark 16:19). Scripture also presents this as his reward for his deep humility, when he became man and died the cursed death of the cross for man (Philippians 2:6-12).

At his ascension, he was made head over all things for the church. He received authority to govern and protect it from all its enemies, and in the end to destroy them and bring all who believe in him to full salvation. This is not power that belongs to him simply as God, for that power is original and unlimited. Rather, it is power given to him for special purposes. He is God, but in this arrangement he acts not simply as God, but as Mediator. He acts not as the offended Majesty, but as the one who stands in favor of guilty people, by the will and commission of the Father. So he may rightly be said to have received this power. He reigns as God with unlimited authority, and he also reigns as Mediator with authority given and limited to these purposes.

This delegated kingship must at last be handed back to the Father from whom it was received (1 Corinthians 15:24). It was given for a specific purpose, to rule and protect the church until all its members are gathered in and its enemies are fully subdued and destroyed (1 Corinthians 15:25-26). When those ends are reached, the power will no longer need to continue in that form. The Redeemer must reign until his enemies are destroyed and the salvation of his people is completed. Then he will give up the authority he held for that purpose, though he may still reign over his glorified church and body in heaven. In that sense, it can still be said that he will reign forever and ever (Revelation 11:15), that he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and that his kingdom will never end (Luke 1:33), and that his dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away (Daniel 7:14; see also Micah 4:7).

He will surely reign until the last enemy of his people is destroyed, until death itself is ended, and until his saints rise again to full life, never again to fear death. He will have all power in heaven and earth until then, he who loved us, gave himself for us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, he who is so closely related to us and so deeply concerned for us. What comfort this should give his saints in every trouble and temptation! He lives, though he once died, and he lives forever. He reigns, and he will keep reigning until his people are fully redeemed and their enemies completely overthrown.

When all this is done, and all things are put under his feet, then the Son will be subject to the Father who put all things under him, “so that God may be all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28). I understand this to mean that then the man Christ Jesus, who has appeared in such glory throughout the administration of his kingdom, will appear, as he gives up that kingdom, as subject to the Father. Scripture often says things are so when they are shown openly to be so. This handing over of the kingdom will make it clear that he who appeared in the majesty of the sovereign king was, during this whole administration, subject to God. The glorified human nature of our Lord Jesus Christ, with all the honor and power given to it, was still only a glorious creature. That will become clear when the kingdom is handed back. It will also bring glory to God, so that God may be all in all, and so that the work of our salvation may be seen as fully divine, with God alone receiving the honor.

Even though the human nature of Christ was used in the work of our redemption, God was all in all in it. It was the Lord’s doing, and it should seem amazing to us.

Paul then argues for the resurrection from the case of those who were baptized for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): “What will those do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead are not raised at all? Why are they baptized for the dead?” If the dead are not raised, then what have they done? Their baptism would be useless. Must they stand by it, or give it up? Why are they baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise?

But what is this baptism for the dead? It must be understood if Paul’s argument is to be clear, whether it is only an argument aimed at these people, or an argument about the truth itself. Yet this is a very hard verse to explain. Though it has only three words besides the articles, interpreters have given it many different meanings. No one agrees on what baptism means here, whether it is literal or figurative, and if literal, whether it means Christian baptism or some other washing. There is also no agreement about who the dead are, or what sense the word “for” has here.

Some understand the dead to mean our Savior himself. Their view is, why are people baptized in the name of a dead Savior, a Savior who remains among the dead, if the dead do not rise? But I believe it is a completely unique use of the phrase “the dead” to mean only one dead person, and the words are nowhere else used that way. And the baptized here seem to mean certain people in particular, not Christians in general, which would be needed if the dead meant our Savior. Some understand the passage of the martyrs. Their thought is, why do they suffer martyrdom for their religion? The old writers sometimes called this the baptism of blood, and our Savior himself called it baptism without adding anything else (Matthew 20:22; Luke 12:50).

But how can people who suffer death for their faith be said to be baptized for the dead, that is, to die for the dead? Some explain this as a custom, which some ancient writers say was found among many who claimed the Christian name in the earliest centuries, of baptizing some people in the name and place of catechumens, that is, new believers still under instruction, who died before baptism. But this had such a strong smell of superstition that, if the church had taken up the custom so early, the apostle would hardly have mentioned it without showing disapproval.

Others take it to mean baptizing over the dead. They say this was an early custom, meant to show hope in the resurrection. This does fit the apostle’s argument, but there is no clear sign that such a practice was used in his own time. Others understand it of those who were baptized because of, or in response to, the martyrs, that is, the steadfast way they died for their faith. Some were surely brought to Christ by watching this. And it would have been a pointless thing for people to become Christians for that reason if the martyrs, by losing their lives for religion, were simply gone forever and would never live again.

Still, the church at Corinth likely had not suffered much persecution at this time, and there seem to have been few, if any, martyrdoms among them. So there had probably not been many converts made by the courage and firmness of martyrs. Also, the phrase “the dead” seems too broad to mean only martyrs. A simple explanation, and one that fits the argument well, is to take “the dead” as referring to some Corinthians who had been taken away by God’s hand. We read that many were weak and sick, and many had died because of their disorderly behavior at the Lord’s table (1 Corinthians 11:30). These judgments might have frightened some into Christianity, just as the earthquake frightened the jailer into faith (Acts 16:29-30).

People baptized in such a situation could properly be said to be baptized for the dead, that is, because of them or on their account. Then “the baptized” and “the dead” match each other well, and on this view the Corinthians could not miss Paul’s point. He is saying, in effect, “What would these people be doing, and why were they baptized, if the dead are not raised? You already think they acted wisely and rightly in this matter, but why would that be true if there is no resurrection? They may even have hurried toward death by offending a jealous God, and yet have no hope beyond it.”

Whether this is the exact meaning or not, Paul’s argument was clear and powerful to the Corinthians. His next point is just as plain to us. He argues from the foolishness of his own life, and the lives of other Christians, if the dead are not raised. It would be foolish for them to face so many dangers (1 Corinthians 15:30): “Why do we put ourselves in danger every hour? Why do we keep exposing ourselves to constant danger, we Christians, especially we apostles?” Everyone knew that being a Christian was risky at that time, and being a preacher or apostle was even more dangerous. Paul is saying, “What fools we would be to take these risks if we had no better hope after death, if death ended everything and we would never live again!”

Christianity would be a foolish faith if it offered no hope beyond this life, especially in the dangerous days when it first began. It would require people to give up the comforts and blessings of this world and face its troubles without any future hope. Can that be a religion fit for a Christian? And must he not accept that view if he gives up the resurrection of the dead? Paul brings this point home to himself: “I protest,” he says, “by your confidence in Christ, by all the comforts of Christianity, and by all the support that our holy faith gives, that I die daily” (1 Corinthians 15:31). He was always in danger of death. As we say, his life was in his hand.

Why would he expose himself to that if he had no hope after death? To live each day looking death in the face, and yet have no hope beyond it, would be gloomy and miserable. In that case, his life would be very sad indeed. He needed to be fully sure of the resurrection, or else he would be acting with extreme folly, risking everything dear to him in this world, life itself included. He had met fierce troubles and violent enemies. He says he “fought with beasts at Ephesus” (1 Corinthians 15:32). This may refer to the angry crowd stirred up by Demetrius and the other craftsmen (Acts 19:24 and following). Some understand it literally, as Paul being thrown to wild beasts in an amphitheater during a Roman show in that city.

Nicephorus tells a detailed story in that direction, even saying the lions showed strange gentleness toward Paul when they came near him. But such an important event in Paul’s life would hardly have been left out by Luke, and much less by Paul himself, who gives such a full account of his sufferings (2 Corinthians 11:24 and following). When he speaks of being whipped five times by the Jews, beaten with rods three times, stoned once, and shipwrecked three times, it is strange that he would not also mention being exposed to wild beasts if that had happened. So I take “fighting with beasts” as a figure of speech. The “beasts” were men with savage, wild temperaments, and this likely points to the passage just mentioned.

Paul is saying, “What good did I get from such struggles if the dead are not raised? Why would I die daily, why would I keep facing death at the hands of violent men, if there is no resurrection? If after death there is nothing, what could be more pointless?” Was Paul so foolish? Had he given the Corinthians any reason to think that of him? If he was not fully convinced that death would lead to something better, would he have wasted his life this way? Could anything except the sure hope of a better life after death have so weakened his love of this life?

“What profit is there to me if the dead do not rise? What can I hope to gain?” It is lawful and right for a Christian to look for good from faithfulness to God. Paul did so. Our blessed Lord did the same (Hebrews 12:2). And we are told to follow his example and “bear fruit for holiness,” so that our end may be everlasting life. This is the very goal of our faith, the salvation of our souls (1 Peter 1:9), not only what faith will bring about, but what we should aim for.

If there is no resurrection, then it would be wiser to enjoy this life as much as possible: “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” (1 Corinthians 15:32). In other words, let us live only for pleasure. That is how this saying is used in the prophet (Isaiah 22:13).

Let us even live like animals, if we must die like them. That would be the wiser choice if there were no resurrection, no life after death, and no future state. In that case, it would make more sense to give up the pleasures of this life than to face its troubles, its dangers, and the constant risk of violent death.

This also makes clear, as noted above, that the people in Corinth who denied the resurrection were really like Sadducees, the Jewish group who said there is no resurrection, no angel, and no spirit (Acts 23:8). In other words, they thought human beings were only bodies, with nothing in us that could live beyond death or rise again. Paul was arguing against people like that, because his reasons would have little force otherwise. If the body never rose again, yet the mind survived, then Paul would still gain something from the dangers he faced for Christ. In fact, the mind is meant to be the main place where heavenly glory and joy will be seen.

But if there were no hope after death, would not every wise person choose a comfortable life over the hard one Paul lived? Would they not try to enjoy life as quickly as possible, since it is so short? Nothing except the hope of better things ahead can make a person give up the comforts and pleasures of this life and willingly accept poverty, shame, misery, and death. That is what the apostles and the first Christians did. But how miserable their condition would have been, and how foolish their conduct, if they had only fooled themselves and misled others with empty hopes!

Paul then closes this part of his argument with a warning, an appeal, and a rebuke. He warns them against the harmful talk of bad people, those with loose lives and loose beliefs: “Do not be deceived. Bad company ruins good morals” (1 Corinthians 15:33). Some of the people who said there was no resurrection were probably living sinful lives, and they used that false belief to excuse their behavior. They may even have often said, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” Paul agrees that their saying would fit if there were no future state. But since he has already shown their idea is false, he now warns the Corinthians that such company is dangerous. If they let in these bad ideas, they would likely be shaped by them and follow the same way of life.

Bad company and bad talk are likely to corrupt people. Anyone who wants to stay pure must keep good company. Error and sin spread easily, and if we want to avoid their poison, we must stay away from those who have it. “Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm” (Proverbs 13:20).

Paul also urges them to stop their sins and wake up to a better life (1 Corinthians 15:34): “Wake up and do what is right, and do not keep on sinning.” In other words, rouse yourselves, turn from your sins by repentance, and leave every evil path. Put right what is wrong, and do not let laziness and spiritual dullness lead you into company and ideas that destroy Christian hope and damage your conduct. If there is no future life, then belief destroys virtue and godliness. But if the truth is that there is a resurrection and a life to come, then we should live like people who believe it, and not adopt foolish ideas that corrupt our morals and make us careless and worldly.

Finally, Paul rebukes some of them sharply: “Some of you have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.” It is shameful for Christians not to know God. The Christian faith gives the best knowledge we can have about God, his nature, his grace, and his rule over all things. Those who claim to follow this faith shame themselves if they remain ignorant of God, because that ignorance must come from their own laziness and disregard for him. It is a terrible shame for a Christian to slight God and remain so ignorant about matters that concern him so deeply.

This ignorance of God also leads people to deny the resurrection and future life. Those who truly know God understand that he will not abandon his faithful servants or leave them to suffer without any reward. They know he is not false or cruel, and that he will not forget their work, patience, faithful service, and cheerful suffering, or let their labor be useless. Yet Paul may mean something even stronger. There may have been people among them who were close to atheists, who hardly admitted there was a God at all, or at least a God who cared about human affairs. Such people would be a real shame to any Christian church. In truth, disbelief in a future life often rests on disbelief in God himself. Those who believe in God and his rule over the world, and who see how unequal life often is, with good people often suffering most, can hardly doubt that there must be another state where everything will be set right.