If I fought with animals at Ephesus for human purposes, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, then “let’s eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
Parallel Translations
-
If I fought with animals at Ephesus for human purposes, what does it profit me? If the dead are not raised, then “let’s eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”
-
That I have fought with beastes at Ephesus after the maner of men what avautageth it me yf the deed ryse not agayne? Let vs eate and drynke to morowe we shall dye.
-
If I haue fought with beastes at Ephesus after ye maner of men, what aduantageth it me, if the dead be not raised vp? let vs eate and drinke: for to morowe we shall die.
Cross-references (17)
Passages linked to 1 Corinthians 15:32 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Isaiah 22:13 and behold, joy and gladness, killing cattle and killing sheep, eating meat and drinking wine: “Let’s eat and drink, for tomorrow we will die.”
- Isaiah 56:12 “Come,” say they, “I will get wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and tomorrow will be as today, great beyond measure.”
- Luke 12:19 I will tell my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years. Take your ease, eat, drink, and be merry.” ’
- 2 Corinthians 1:8-10 For we don’t desire to have you uninformed, brothers, concerning our affliction which happened to us in Asia, that we were weighed down exceedingly, beyond our power, so much that we despaired even of life. Yes, we ourselves have had the sentence of death within ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raises the dead, who delivered us out of so great a death, and does deliver; on whom we have set our hope that he will also still deliver us;
- 2 Peter 2:12 But these, as unreasoning creatures, born natural animals to be taken and destroyed, speaking evil in matters about which they are ignorant, will in their destroying surely be destroyed,
- Acts 18:19 He came to Ephesus, and he left them there; but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.
- Malachi 3:14-15 You have said, ‘It is vain to serve God;’ and ‘What profit is it that we have followed his instructions, and that we have walked mournfully before Yahweh of Armies? Now we call the proud happy; yes, those who work wickedness are built up; yes, they tempt God, and escape.’
- Luke 9:25 For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses or forfeits his own self?
- Acts 19:1 While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul, having passed through the upper country, came to Ephesus and found certain disciples.
- Romans 6:19 I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh, for as you presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to wickedness upon wickedness, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness for sanctification.
- Galatians 3:15 Brothers, speaking of human terms, though it is only a man’s covenant, yet when it has been confirmed, no one makes it void or adds to it.
- Jude 1:10 But these speak evil of whatever things they don’t know. They are destroyed in these things that they understand naturally, like the creatures without reason.
- Ecclesiastes 11:9 Rejoice, young man, in your youth, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth, and walk in the ways of your heart, and in the sight of your eyes; but know that for all these things God will bring you into judgment.
- Job 35:3 that you ask, ‘What advantage will it be to you? What profit will I have, more than if I had sinned?’
- Psalms 73:13 Surely I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocence,
- Ecclesiastes 2:24 There is nothing better for a man than that he should eat and drink, and make his soul enjoy good in his labor. This also I saw, that it is from the hand of God.
- Acts 19:23-41 About that time there arose no small disturbance concerning the Way. For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the craftsmen, whom he gathered together, with the workmen of like occupation, and said, “Sirs, you know that by this business we have our wealth. You see and hear that not at Ephesus alone, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are no gods that are made with hands. Not only is there danger that this our trade come into disrepute, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be counted as nothing and her majesty destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worships.” When they heard this they were filled with anger, and cried out, saying, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” The whole city was filled with confusion, and they rushed with one accord into the theater, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, men of Macedonia, Paul’s companions in travel. When Paul wanted to enter in to the people, the disciples didn’t allow him. Certain also of the Asiarchs, being his friends, sent to him and begged him not to venture into the theater. Some therefore cried one thing, and some another, for the assembly was in confusion. Most of them didn’t know why they had come together. They brought Alexander out of the multitude, the Jews putting him forward. Alexander beckoned with his hand, and would have made a defense to the people. But when they perceived that he was a Jew, all with one voice for a time of about two hours cried out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” When the town clerk had quieted the multitude, he said, “You men of Ephesus, what man is there who doesn’t know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great goddess Artemis, and of the image which fell down from Zeus? Seeing then that these things can’t be denied, you ought to be quiet and to do nothing rash. For you have brought these men here, who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of your goddess. If therefore Demetrius and the craftsmen who are with him have a matter against anyone, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. Let them press charges against one another. But if you seek anything about other matters, it will be settled in the regular assembly. For indeed we are in danger of being accused concerning today’s riot, there being no cause. Concerning it, we wouldn’t be able to give an account of this commotion.” When he had thus spoken, he dismissed the assembly.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (19 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain Not upon any godly motion, nor casting mine eyes…
Not upon any godly motion, nor casting mine eyes upon God, but carried away with vain glory, or a certain headiness.
The seventh argument which dependeth upon the last: if there be no resurrection of the dead, why do we give ourselves to anything else, save to eating and drinking?
Read full note →
These are speeches that Epicureans use.
The taking away of an objection: but thou Paul, didst ambitiously, as commonly men are wont to do, when thou didst fight with beasts at Ephesus: That is very like, saith Paul, for what could that advantage me, were it not for the glory of eternal life which I hope for?
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain 32 If after the manner of men I have…
32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
Ver. 32. If after the manner, &c.] Paul fought with beasts at Ephesus after the manner of men, that is, say some, the men of Ephesus fought with him after the manner of beasts. (Beza, Sclater.) Others more probably understand it literally; If after the manner of men, that is, as men use to do, to show their valour (he meaneth those Bestiarii fighters with wild beasts at shows among the Romans), I have been cast to the beasts, and have either overcome them, as Lysimachus did the lion, or have been spared by them, as corpora sanctorum martyrum tangere multoties refugiebant bestiae, saith the historian, what advantageth it me, &c. And this latter sense is a stronger argument of the resurrection. (Chrysost. Ambros.)
Read full note →
Let us eat and drink] An ill inference of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth. Chrysostom saith, There were a sort of such in his time, as said δος μοι την σημερον και λαβε την αυριον, Give me today, and take thou tomorrow (την αυριον τις οιδεν. Anacreon.) And have not we those that say, Let us be merry while we may, we shall never be younger, Ede, bibe, lude, post mortem nulla voluptas, Eat, drink and play, there is no pleasure after death, it was wisely done of the Romans to banish Alaecus and Philiscus, a couple of swinish epicures, lest they should by their evil communication and conversation corrupt others. St Paul, though he allegeth this saying out of Isa 22:13, yet he alludeth (likely) to Sardanapalus’s epitaph at Tarsus, a city built by this Sardanapalus, Εσθιε, πινε, παιζε, ως της αλλα τουτου ουκ αξια, Ede, bibe, lude; nam caetera omnia nec huius sunt; Eat, drink, sport; for all other things are not worth a fillip: for so his statue was carved as if his hands had given a fillip, and his mouth had spoken these words. (Greg. Posthum.)
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain Concerning this fight of the apostle with beasts at…
Concerning this fight of the apostle with beasts at Ephesus, there are two opinions; some thinking that he indeed fought with beasts, and we know that in those countries such a punishment was in use, to bring out malefactors to fight with wild beasts; but as we read in the Acts of no such dealings with Paul, so that being a punishment rather for their slaves and vilest men, it can hardly be thought that Paul, who was a free man of Rome, should be exposed to it. They seem therefore better to understand it, who interpret it of his conflict with men, who in their conditions and manners were like beasts; and that he doth not speak here of his scuffle with Demetrius, mentioned Act 19:34-41, but some other conflict he had there, of which the Scripture giveth us no large account, but it seems to be generally and obscurely mentioned in the next Epistle, 2Co 1:8, for this Epistle was wrote after his contest with Demetrius. By that phrase, after the manner of men, some think he means, as men use to fight; some have other notions of it: the sense seems to be plainly this: If I have fought with beastly men at Ephesus after the manner that men fight with beasts, exposing my body to their rage and fury, what profit is it to me, if the dead rise not? I have opposed myself to their fury out of a hope for a joyful resurrection; but if there shall be no such resurrection, the epicures, that resolve to stick at nothing, nor to deny themselves in any sensual satisfaction from meat and drink, have the best of it; all men had then best sing their song:
Let us eat and drink, for we have but a little time to eat and to drink in; we know that we shall die, and there will be an end of us.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain The apostle had mentioned his sufferings in general, in…
The apostle had mentioned his sufferings in general, in the former verses, to testify his belief and hope of a future resurrection: here he relates one particular kind and manner of suffering; namely, his fighting with beasts at Ephesus. To what purpose had he that mighty struggle there, and ran such a hazard of his life as that was, if he had no hope of a better life after this, no expectation of a blessed resurrection?
If I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, &c. A twofold interpretation is given of these words: some understand them literally and properly, that he did really combat with wild beasts;; it being usual in those times of persecution, under heathenish powers, to cast Christians to wild beasts; the common cry then was, Christianos ad leones, Away with the Christians to the lions.
Read full note →
But some object against this interpretation, That the apostle being a freeman of Rome, had no such indignity offered to him; that in the Acts of the Apostles St. Luke gives no relation of it; and that the apostle himself in the catalogue he gives of his sufferings, 2Co 11:16-33 makes no mention of it; unless it be comprehended under those general words, In deaths often.
Others therefore understand the words in a metaphorical sense, I have fought with beasts; that is, savage men, with men like beasts in their manners and conditions. And thus some refer this conflict to Act 19:23-41 where we read of his contest with Demetrius, and the silversmiths, about Diana’s temple at Ephesus.
Others refer it to Act 14:19-20 when he was stoned at Lystra, and left for dead. But whether we understand it literally or figuratively, the force of the argument lies thus: If I have undergone such deaths and dangers at Ephesus as I have done, and exposed my life the the utmost hazard, in hopes of a happy resurrection, what profit is all this to me, if there be no resurrection? What get I by such hazards and hardships, if there be no life to come? Nay, if matters be so, it will be more reasonable to say, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.
Verily, then, sensual fools are the wisest men; and they have the best of it that gratify their appetites and brutish desires, expecting they shall shortly die, and there will be an end of them.
Learn hence, 1. That faith in the resurrection to a future life, encourages us against all the troubles and afflictions of this present life; the hope of future good is a powerful support under the pressure and burden of present evil.
Learn, 2. That upon supposition that there is no happiness beyond the grave, a life of sensual pleasure is not absurd. The epicure’s song (Ede, bibe, lude, post mortem nulla voluptas; Eat, drink, play, and while it is day, for after death no man shall breathe;) seems not unreasonable.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain But some man will say,.... Or "some one of…
But some man will say,.... Or "some one of you", as the Syriac and Arabic versions read; for there were some among them members of this church, that denied the resurrection of the dead, Co1 15:12 a weak believer indeed may be designed, one of the babes in Christ in this church, that could not digest such strong meat, but had some doubt and difficulties in his mind about this point, though he did not absolutely deny it: but by the manner in which the objections and queries are put, and the sharpness in which the apostle answers them, it looks rather that an infidel as to this doctrine is intended, one of those Epicureans, who said, Co1 15:32 "let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die"; or some Heathen philosopher, a mere natural man, that rejected this doctrine because not agreeable to his carnal reason, and laughed at it as monstrous and ridiculous:
how are the dead raised up? This query is put, not as though the person merely hesitated, and was in some suspense about this matter, or with a desire to be informed; but as denying the thing, and as objecting to it as a thing impossible, and impracticable; suggesting it could not be, it was a thing incredible that those dead bodies which have been laid in the earth for so many hundred, and some, thousands of years, and have been long ago reduced to dust, and this dust has undergone a thousand forms; that such whose bodies have been burnt to ashes, or destroyed by wild beasts, and digested by them, should ever be raised again. Such a doctrine must be past all belief:
Read full note →
and with what body do they come? out of their graves, as you say, and appear on the earth at the last day: will they come forth with the same bodies, or with other? with earthly or heavenly ones? mortal or immortal? with bodies different from one another, and from what they now are?
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain If to speak after the manner of men -…
If to speak after the manner of men - That is, to use a proverbial phrase, expressive of the most imminent danger I have fought with wild beasts at Ephesus - With the savage fury of a lawless multitude, Acts xix, 29, &c. This seems to have been but just before. Let as eat, &c. - We might, on that supposition, as well say, with the Epicureans, Let us make the best of this short life, seeing we have no other portion.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Verse 32. If, after the manner of men, c.]…
Verse 32. If, after the manner of men, c.] Much learned criticism has been employed on this verse, to ascertain whether it is to be understood literally or metaphorically. Does the apostle mean to say that he had literally fought with wild beasts at Ephesus? or, that he had met with brutish, savage men, from whom he was in danger of his life? That St. Paul did not fight with wild beasts at Ephesus, may be argued,
1. From his own silence on this subject, when enumerating his various sufferings, 2Co 11:23, c.
Read full note →
2. From the silence of his historian, Luke, who, in the acts of this apostle, gives no intimation of this kind and it certainly was too remarkable a circumstance to be passed over, either by Paul in the catalogue of his own sufferings, or by Luke in his history.
3. From similar modes of speech, which are employed metaphorically, and are so understood.
4. From the improbability that a Roman citizen, as Paul was, should be condemned to such a punishment, when in other cases, by pleading his privilege, he was exempted from being scourged, c. And,
5. From the positive testimony of Tertullian and Chrysostom, who deny the literal interpretation.
On the other hand, it is strongly argued that the apostle is to be literally understood and that he did, at some particular time, contend with wild beasts at Ephesus, from which he was miraculously delivered.
1. That the phrase κατα ανθρωπον signifies as men used to do, and never means according to the manner of men, as implying their purpose, or, to use their forms of speech, c.
2. From the circumstances of the case in Ephesus usually referred to, viz. the insurrection by Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen where, though Paul would have been in danger had he gone into the theatre, he was in little or none, as he did not adventure himself.
3. From his having endured much greater conflicts at Lystra and at Philippi than at Ephesus, at the former of which he was stoned to death, and again miraculously raised to life: See Clarke on Ac 14:19, c. And yet he calls not those greater dangers by this name.
4. That it cannot refer to the insurrection of Demetrius and his fellows, for St. Paul had no contention with them, and was scarcely in any danger, though Gaius and Aristarchus were: see the whole of Acts 19. And,
5. As we do not read of any other imminent danger to which he was exposed at Ephesus, and that already mentioned is not sufficient to justify the expression, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, therefore we must conclude that he was at some time, not directly mentioned by his historian or himself, actually exposed to wild beasts at Ephesus.
6. That this is the case he refers to, 2Co 1:8-10: For we would not, brethren, have you if ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, καθυπερβοληνεβαρηθημενυπερδυναμις, insomuch that we despaired even of life. But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead who delivered us from so great a death: for these expressions refer to some excessive and unprecedented danger, from which nothing less than a miraculous interference could have saved him; and that it might have been an actual exposure to wild beasts, or any other danger equally great, or even greater.
What advantageth it me, if the dead rise not?] I believe the common method of pointing this verse is erroneous; I propose to read it thus: If, after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it advantage me? If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.
What the apostle says here is a regular and legitimate conclusion from the doctrine, that there is no resurrection: For if there be no resurrection, then there can be no judgment - no future state of rewards and punishments; why, therefore, should we bear crosses, and keep ourselves under continual discipline? Let us eat and drink, take all the pleasure we can, for tomorrow we die; and there is an end of us for ever. The words, Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die, are taken from Isa 22:13, as they stand now in the Septuagint; and are a pretty smooth proverbial saying, which might be paralleled from the writings of several epicurean heathens,φαγωμεν και πιωμεν· αυριον γαρ αποθνησκομεν. The words of Isaiah are אכול ושתו כי מחר נמות akol reshatho, ki machar namuth: "In eating and drinking, for to-morrow we die ;" i.e. Let us spend our time in eating and drinking, &c. See a similar speech by Trimalchio in Petronius Arbiter, Satiric. cap. xxxvii:-
Heu, heu nos miseros! quam totus homuncio nil est!
Sic erimus cuncti, postquam nos auferet orcus.
Ergo vivamus, dum licet esse bene.
Alas! alas! what wretches we are! all mankind are a worthless pack: thus shall we all be, after death hath taken us away. Therefore, while we may, let us enjoy life.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain If after the manner of men - Margin, “To…
If after the manner of men - Margin, “To speak after the manner of men” (κατὰ ἄνθρωπον kata anthrōpon). There has been a great difference of opinion in regard to the meaning of these words. The following are some of the interpretations proposed:
(1) If I have fought after the manner of people, who act only with reference to this life, and on the ordinary principles of human conduct, as people fought with wild beasts in the amphitheater.
Read full note →
(2) Or if, humanly speaking, or speaking after the manner of people, I have fought, referring to the fact that he had contended with mcn who should be regarded as wild beasts.
(3) Or, that I may speak of myself as people speak, that I may freely record the events of my life, and speak of what has occurred.
(4) Or, I have fought with wild beasts as far as it was possible for man to do it while life survived.
(5) Or, as much as was in the power of man, who had destined me to this; if, so far as depended on man’s will, I fought, supposing that the infuriated multitude demanded that I should be thus punished. So Chrysostom understands it.
(6) Or, that Paul actually fought with wild beasts at Ephesus.
(7) Others regard this as a supposable case; on the supposition that I had fought with wild beasts at Ephesus. Amidst this variety of interpretation, it is not easy to determine the true sense of this difficult passage.
The following thoughts, however, may perhaps make it clear:
(1) Paul refers to some real occurrence at Ephesus. This is manifest from the whole passage. It is not a supposable case.
(2) It was some one case when his life was endangered, and when it was regarded as remarkable that he escaped and survived; compare 2Co 1:8-10.
(3) It was common among the Romans, and the ancients generally, to expose criminals to fight with wild beasts in the amphitheater for the amusement of the populace.
In such cases it was but another form of dooming them to certain death, since there was no human possibility of escape; see Adam’s Rom. Ant., p. 344. That this custom prevailed at the East, is apparent from the following extract front Rosenmuller; and there is no improbability in the supposition that Paul was exposed to this - “The barbarous custom of making men combat with wild beasts has prevailed in the East down to the most modern times. Jurgen Andersen, who visited the states of the Great Mogul in 1646, gives an account in his Travels of such a combat with animals, which he witnessed at Agra, the residence of the Great Mogul. His description affords a lively image of those bloody spectacles in which ancient Rome took so much pleasure, and to which the above words of the apostle refer. Alumardan-chan, the governor of Cashmire, who sat among the chans, stood up, and exclaimed, ‘It is the will and desire of the great mogul, Schah Choram, that if there are any valiant heroes who will show their bravery by combating with wild beasts, armed with shield and sword, let them come forward; if they conquer, the mogul will load them with great favor, and clothe their countenance with gladness.’ Upon this three persons advanced, and offered to undertake the combat.
Alamardan-charn again cried aloud, ‘None should have any other weapon than a shield and a sword; and whosoever has any breastplate under his clothes should lay it aside, and fight honorably.’ Hereupon a powerful lion was let into the garden, and one of the three men above mentioned advanced against him; the lion, upon seeing his enemy, ran violently up to him; the man, however, defended himself bravely, and kept off the lion for a good while, until his arms grew tired; the lion then seized the shield with one paw, and with the other his antagonist’s right arm, so that he was not able to use his weapon; the latter, seeing his life in danger, took with his left hand his Indian dagger, which he had sticking in his girdle, and thrust it as far as possible into the lion’s mouth; the lion then let him go; the man, however, was not idle, but cut the lion almost through with one stroke, and after that entirely to pieces.
Upon this victory the common people began to shout, and call out, ‘Thank God. he has conquered.’ But the mogul said, smiling, to this conqueror, ‘Thou art a brave warrior, and hast fought admirably! But did I not command to fight honorably only with shield and sword? But, like a thief, thou hast stolen the life of the lion with thy dagger.’ And immediately he ordered two men to rip up his belly, and to place him upon an elephant, and, as an example to others, to lead him about, which was done on the spot. Soon after, a tiger was set loose; against which a tall, powerful man advanced with an air of defiance, as if he would cut the tiger up. The tiger, however, was far too sagacious and active, for, in the first attack, he seized the combatant by the neck, tore his throat, and then his whole body in pieces. This enraged another good fellow, but little, and of ordinary appearance, from whom one would not have expected it: he rushed forward like one mad, and the tiger on his part undauntedly flew at his enemy; but the man at the first attack cut off his two fore paws; so that he fell, and the man cut his body to pieces.
Upon this the king cried, ‘What is your name?’ He answered, ‘My name is Geyby.’ Soon after one of the king’s servants came and brought him a piece of gold brocade, and said, ‘Geyby, receive the robe of honor with which the mogul presents you.’ He took the garment with great reverence, kissed it three times, pressing it each time to his eyes and breast, then held it up, and in silence put up a prayer for the health of the mogul; and when he concluded it, he cried, ‘May God let him become as great as Tamerlane, from whom he is descended. May he live 700 years, and his house continue to eternity!’ Upon this he was summoned by a chamberlain to go from the garden up to the king; and when he came to the entrance, he was received by two chans, who conducted him between them to kiss the mogul’s feet. And when he was going to retire, the king said to him, ‘Praised be thou, Geyby-chan, for thy valiant deeds, and this name shalt thou keep to eternity. I am your gracious master, and thou art my slave’“ - Bush’s Illustrations.
(4) It is the most natural interpretation to suppose that Paul, on some occasion, had such a contest with a wild beast at Ephesus. It is that which would occur to the great mass of the readers of the New Testament as the obvious meaning of the passage.
(5) The state of things in Ephesus when Paul was there Acts 19 was such as to make it nowise improbable that he would be subjected to such a trial.
(6) It is no objection to this supposition that Luke has not recorded this occurrence in the Acts of the Apostles. No conclusion adverse to this supposition can be drawn from the mere silence of the historian. Mere silence is not a contradiction. There is no reason to suppose that Luke designed to record all the perils which Paul endured. Indeed, we know from 2Co 11:24-27, that there must have been many dangers which Paul encountered which are not referred to by Luke. It must have happened, also, that many important events must have taken place during Paul’s abode at Ephesus which are not recorded by Luke; Acts 19. Nor is it any objection to this supposition that Paul does not, in 2Co 11:24-27, mention particularly this contest with a wild beast at Ephesus. His statement there is general. He does not descend into particulars. Yet, in 2Co 11:23, he says that he was “in deaths oft,” - a statement which is in accordance with the supposition that in Ephesushe may have been exposed to death in some cruel manner.
(7) The phrase κατὰ ἄνθρωπον kata anthrōpon, as a “man,” may mean, that, “to human appearance,” or so far as man was concerned, bad it not been for some divine interposition, he would have been a prey to the wild beasts. Had not God interposed and kept him from harm, as in the case of the viper at Melita Act 28:5, he would have been put to death. He was sentenced to this; was thrown to the wild beast; had every human prospect of dying; it was done on account of his religion; and but for the interposition of God, he would have died. This I take to be the fair and obvious meaning of this passage, demanded alike by the language which is used and by the tenor of the argument in which it is found.
What advantageth it me? - What benefit shall I have? Why should I risk my life in this manner? see the note on 1Co 15:19.
Let us eat and drink - These words are taken from Isa 22:13. In their original application they refer to the Jews when besieged by Sennacherib and the army of the Assyrians. The prophet says, that instead of weeping, and fasting, and humiliation, as became them in such circumstances, they had given themselves up to feasting and revelry, and that their language was, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die that is, there is no use in offering resistance, or in calling upon God. We must die; and we may as well enjoy life as long as it lasts, and give ourselves up to unrestrained indulgence. Paul does not quote these words as having any original reference to the subject of the resurrection, but as language appropriately expressing the idea, that if there is no future state; if no resurrection of the dead; if no happy result of toils and sufferings in the future world, it is vain and foolish to subject ourselves to trials and privations here. We should rather make the most of this life; enjoy all the comfort we can; and make pleasure our chief good, rather than look for happiness in a future state. This seems to be the language of the great mass of the world. They look to no future state. They have no prospect, no desire of heaven; and they, therefore, seek for happiness here, and give themselves up to unrestrained enjoyment in this life.
Tomorrow - Very soon. We have no security of life; and death is so near that it may be said we must die tomorrow.
We die - We must die. The idea here is, “We must die, without the prospect of living again, unless the doctrine of the resurrection be true.”
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain With beasts at Ephesus. He seems to mean, with…
With beasts at Ephesus. He seems to mean, with men as cruel and brutal as beasts: for there is not sufficient reason to think that at Ephesus he was exposed to beasts in the amphitheatre. (Witham) --- Interpreters are divided upon this passage. Calmet is of opinion that St. Paul was exposed in the amphitheatre at Ephesus, but was secured from all injury by the all-powerful hand of God: he produces the testimony of St. John Chrysostom, Theo., St. Ambrose, St. Cyprian, and St. Hilary, all of whom understand this passage in the literal sense. Nicephorus cites a book, entitles The Travels of St. Paul, in confirmation of this fact, wherein (he informs us) there is a long account of this transaction. St. Jerome says, that St. Paul was condemned by the governor of Ephesus to be devoured by beasts. Estius seems to maintain the same opinion as Challoner. To inspirit us to combat, it is advisable to turn our eyes frequently to a future life. The brevity of the present is a principle common to the mortality of Jesus Christ, and to that of Epicurus. But how contrary are the conclusions! Why should we not rather say: "Let us watch, and fast, and pray, and do penance, for to-morrow we die; and after that, judgment." --- Let us eat and drink, &c. That is, if we did not believe that we were to rise again from the dead, we might live like the impious and wicked, who have no belief in the resurrection. (Challoner)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain Punctuate thus: "If after the manner of men I…
Punctuate thus: "If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me? If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink," &c. [BENGEL]. If "merely as a man" (with the mere human hope of the present life; not with the Christian's hope of the resurrection; answering to "If the dead rise not," the parallel clause in the next sentence), I have fought with men resembling savage beasts. Heraclitus, of Ephesus, had termed his countrymen "wild beasts" four hundred years before. So Epimenides called the Cretians (Tit 1:12). Paul was still at Ephesus (Co1 16:8), and there his life was daily in danger (Co1 4:9; compare Co2 1:8). Though the tumult (Act 19:29-30) had not yet taken place (for after it he set out immediately for Macedonia), this Epistle was written evidently just before it, when the storm was gathering; "many adversaries" (Co1 16:9) were already menacing him.
what advantageth it me?--seeing I have renounced all that, "as a mere man," might compensate me for such sufferings, gain, fame, &c.
Read full note →
let us eat, &c.--Quoted from the Septuagint, (Isa 22:13), where the prophet describes the reckless self-indulgence of the despisers of God's call to mourning, Let us enjoy the good things of life now, for it soon will end. Paul imitates the language of such skeptics, to reprove both their theory and practice. "If men but persuade themselves that they shall die like the beasts, they soon will live like beasts too" [SOUTH].
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain 32. I have fought with beasts—In a single word,…
32. I have fought with beasts—In a single word, I beast-fought. Happily our present Christian civilization needs no such word. The Christians during the pagan persecutions were exposed to lions, but it is not probable that so early as Paul’s writing of this epistle any such exposure had taken place. The best commentators take the words as metaphorical. The words after the manner of men, (literally, according to man,) we doubt not implies this figurative meaning. The word speaking is not, indeed, supplied, for the reason that speaking is implied in the very fact that speaking is what he is doing. According to man may as well mean, according to man in language, as in any other respect.
Eat… die—Stoical moralists in Paul’s day, and materialistic moralists of the present day, declare that earthly motives are sufficient for the maintenance of a true virtue. This cannot be. Unless man’s virtue be fastened by some cord to the supernal it has nothing in it of divine. Culture and self-respect may keep a few philosophers at an elevated level, but the mass of men, if cut off from THE ABOVE, and deprived of its hopes and fears for the great future, will sink into animalism, and the apostle has here given voice and utterance to the mere instincts of the animal man in his despair. In ancient poetry, the saddest and most beautiful, and often most disgusting, strains, are the varied expression either of this despair, or this union of licentiousness with despair.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain 32. If after the manner of men] After man,…
32. If after the manner of men] After man, Wiclif. Either (1) as margin, ‘to speak after the manner of men,’ or (2) for purely human and temporal objects, like those of men in general. See for this expression ch. 1Co_3:3, and Rom_3:5, Gal_1:11; Gal_3:15.
I have fought with beasts at Ephesus] It must have been a metaphorical, not a literal fighting with beasts of which the Apostle spoke. His Roman citizenship (Act_16:37; Act_22:25) protected him from being thrown to the lions in the arena. And it is generally believed that he eventually died by the sword, as a Roman citizen. He means to say that he contended with men who had the passions of beasts (as in Act_19:29-34, though it is not certain that this particular event had yet occurred). So did Ignatius afterwards, who, referring to the demeanour of the Roman legionaries by whom he was conducted to Rome, says, “I am bound to ten leopards, that is, a troop of soldiers, who are only made worse by kindnesses.” Cf. Ad Romans 5. 2Ti_4:17. Also Psa_22:20-21; Psa_35:17.
Read full note →
what advantageth it me] i.e. as we should say, where is the use of it?
let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die] “With our hopes of immortality gone, the value of humanity ceases” and life becomes not worth living. “Go, then, to the sensualist Tell him that the pleasure of doing right is a sublimer existence than that of self-indulgence. He will answer you … ‘The victory is uncertain, present enjoyment is sure.’ … Do you think you can arrest that with some fine sentiment about nobler and baser being? Why, you have made him out to be base yourself. He dies, you tell him, like a dog. Why should he live like an angel?… The instincts of the animal will be more than a match for all the transcendental reasonings of the philosopher.” Robertson. Perhaps the words, ‘if the dead rise not,’ should be taken in connection with this sentence, rather than with that which precedes.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (32) If after the manner of men . .…
(32) If after the manner of men . . .—These words imply here, as elsewhere (1Co_3:3), “merely from a human point of view.” What is the advantage or necessity of my incurring daily risks, if I am merely a human being, with a life limited by what we see, and no immortality and resurrection awaiting me?
I have fought with beasts at Ephesus.—The question here arises, Are these words to be taken literally or figuratively? Does St. Paul refer to some actual contest in the arena with beasts, or to his conflict with the opponents at Ephesus, whom he thus designates beasts? It is scarcely possible to accept the former interpretation. There is no mention to be found of it in the Acts, and, moreover, his Roman citizenship would have legally protected him against such treatment. We must therefore conclude that the Ephesians themselves are spoken of as “beasts.” Both Hebrew and Greek literature would have made such a form of expression familiar to the Apostle and to his readers. In the Psalms (see Psa_22:12-13; Psa_22:20-21) the opponents of God are similarly spoken of. The Cretans are called “evil beasts” by the poet Epimenides, whom St. Paul quotes in Tit_1:12. Heraclitus calls the Ephesians “beasts”—the same word as St. Paul uses here; and St. Ignatius (Epis. ad Rom.) speaks of “fighting with beasts by land and sea,” and having been bound to ‘ten leopards,’ that is a band of soldiers.”
Read full note →
Although the Greek verb implies that reference is made, not to general or prolonged opposition, but to some one outburst of rage on the part of his opponents, we must not take it as indicating the scene described in Act_19:23-34, which had probably not taken place when this was written; but no doubt the “many adversaries” (1Co_16:9) at Ephesus had already availed themselves of some opportunity of venting their rage on the Apostle after the manner of wild beasts (See Introduction.)
What advantageth it me?—This sentence is completed with these words, and should be followed by a note of interrogation, thus—“What advantageth it me?” (See next Note.)
If the dead rise not?—Better, if the dead be not raised, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. If the dead be not raised our conduct is illogical. Consistency then belongs to those who disregard God’s call to repentance, and of whom we read in Isa_22:13, that they say, “Let us eat and drink.” The reference is directly to this passage in the prophet describing the conduct of abandoned Jews during the siege of Jerusalem; but the words indicate with equal accuracy that school of Epicurean philosophy of which, no doubt, there were many representatives at Corinth. Similar expressions are to be found in many classical writers; but the most remarkable instance of the use of these words is where they occur in an inscription on a statue at Anchiale, a town in Cilicia, which was St. Paul’s native province—“Sardanapalus, the son of Anacyn-draxes, built Anchiale and Tarsus in one day. Stranger, eat, drink, and play, for all the rest is not worth this.” The figure is represented as making a contemptuous motion with its fingers. Saul of Tarsus had probably often seen that statue and inscription.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain After the manner of men. The phrase is a…
After the manner of men. The phrase is a qualification of the strong metaphor, "I fought with beasts." It is equivalent to "humanly speaking." This is Chrysostom"s view. It is the most reasonable, and accords with the use of the phrase in Rom_3:5; Gal_3:15. Meyer, however, explains it to mean "with mere human motives." I have fought with beasts. Not literally, for in that case he would have mentioned it in 2Co 11. as one of his deadliest perils, and it must have been recorded by St. Luke in his full account of St. Paul"s life at Ephesus. A Roman citizen was legally exempt from this mode of punishment. The word points to some special peril incurred in resisting the hostility of the worshippers of Artemis, (Act_20:19) but not to the tumult in the theatre, which did not happen till after this letter was despatched. (1Co_16:8, 1Co_16:9) The metaphor is not uncommon. Thus in 2Ti_4:17 St. Paul alludes to Nero (probably) as "the lion." David often compares his enemies to wild beasts. (Psa_22:21, etc.) When his jailor informed Agrippa of the death of Tiberius, he did so in the words, "The lion is dead." St. Ignatius writes of the ten soldiers who were conducting him to Rome as "ten leopards." Epimenides, in the line quoted by St. Paul in Tit_1:12, spoke of the Cretans as "evil wild beasts," and the pseudo-Heraclitus gives this same uncomplimentary title to these very Ephesians. Let as eat and drink; for tomorrow we die. Perhaps the "if the dead are not raised" belongs to this clause. He means that such an Epicurean maxim, if never excusable, would at least be natural, if men could only look to life in the present. The sentiment is found on the lips of the despairing and the sensual alike in Isa_22:13, and in the writings of the heathen (Horace, "Od.," 1:4, 13-17, etc.). St. Paul would be all the more familiar with it because it formed the infamous epitaph of a statue of Sardauapalus, which he must have often seen in his boyhood at Anchiale, near Tarsus. It represented the debased king as snapping his fingers, and using almost these very words. It is strange that similar passages should be found even in the Talmud. Shemuel said to Rav Yehudah, "Seize and eat, seize and drink; for the world is like a wedding feast (soon over)" ("Eiruvin," fol. 54, 1).
Vers. 32, 33.
Read full note →
Beasts at Ephesus.
after the manner of men," etc. The words lead us to consider four subjects.
I A LOW JUDGMENT of human nature. "Beasts at Ephesus." There is no good reason for supposing that Paul meant literally beasts. By wild beasts he means men gross and savage in wickedness. Paul was not alone in classifying such men with irrational brutes. John the Baptist called some of his hearers "vipers," and the great Preacher compared some such men to swine. The Bible speaks of wicked men in two stages lower than humanity.
1. The sensual. The sensual state is a state where the senses rule the soul. Are not the mass of men in this state?
2. The devilish. Men have the power of getting lower than the beasts. By the faculty of imagination they can kindle their passions into a diabolical heat, and by bringing the elements of nature into new combinations they can generate and nourish unnatural appetites.
II A FIERCE STRUGGLE for human nature. "I have fought with wild. beasts at Ephesus." Like all the apostles of truth, Paul fought with men for men.
1. The battle was inevitable to his mission. He was the messenger of truths which struck directly against their prejudices, habits, greed, etc.
2. The battle was most benevolent on his part. Love, not anger, was its inspiration. He fought for them by fighting against their prejudices and their sins.
3. The battle was most unequal in circumstances. Numbers, authority, wealth, and influence were all arrayed against one. A penniless foreigner fought against the whole city. In moral battles numbers are an inferior consideration. One man in truth may conquer a nation in error.
III A GREAT PROBLEM for human nature. "What advantageth it me?" On the assumption that there is no future life, what advantageth it all this struggle for truth? The apostle does not say either that there would be an advantage in a godly struggle for truth, were there no future life, nor that such a struggle was to be conducted with a view of advantage, He puts the question, and leaves it to be answered. Our answer will be:
1. That on the assumption that there is no future life, godliness wilt be of physical advantage to man. The habits of life promoted by Christianity are conducive to bodily health and longevity.
2. That on the assumption that there is no future life, godliness will be of mental advantage to man. It generates sentiments, starts trains of thought, etc., which yield to the mind a happiness which nothing else on earth can afford.
3. That on the assumption that there is no future life, godliness will be of social advantage to man. Christianity has proved itself to be infinitely the best system for promoting the peace of families, the order of society, the prosperity of nations.
IV A SOLEMN TENDENCY of human nature. "Be not deceived: evil communications company corrupt good manners." Man is a social being; he lives in and by society. Observe:
1. There is "evil company" in the social world. There are those who are drawn together in fellowship simply on the ground of evil doctrines, dispositions, plans, purposes, pleasures, etc.
2. There is an instinct in "evil company" to corrupt. Evil is a self-propagating power. Those who have yielded to temptations become the tempters of others.
3. There is a susceptibility in most to be corrupted. Hence the exhortation, "Be not deceived." "He that walketh with wise men shall be wise; he that is the companion of the fool is foolish." Feltham well says," One rotten apple will infect the store; the putrid grape corrupts the whole sound cluster. If I have found any good companions, I will cherish them as the choicest of men, or as angels which are sent as guardians to me. If I have any bad ones, I will study to lose them, lest by keeping them I lose myself in the end."
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain If after the manner of men I have fought…
1Co_15:32
If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise not?
Read full note →
--
Beasts at Ephesus
Note here--
I. A low judgment of human nature.
1. There is no good reason for taking the text literally. Had such a terrible struggle taken place it would have been recorded in the Acts, and often referred to by Paul himself.
2. By wild beasts he means men, gross and savage in wickedness. Heraclitus called the Ephesians θήρια. If we refer to Act_19:1-41. we shall find that certain men were entitled to the designation. We read of them being full of wrath, of the whole city filled with confusion, of some crying out one thing and some another. They seem to have been bereft of reason and given up to the wildest fury of passion.
3. Paul was not alone in classifying such men with beasts. The Baptist called some of his hearers vipers, and Christ compared such men to swine. The Bible speaks of wicked men in two stages lower than humanity.
(1) The sensual, who are in a state where the senses rule the soul, where the animal is supreme. Is not this the state of the mass of men? The great question is, What shall we eat, what shall we drink? etc.
(2) The devilish. Men have the power of getting lower than the beasts. By the power of their imaginations they kindle their passions into a diabolical heat, and, by bringing the elements of nature into new combinations, they generate and nourish unnatural appetites.
II. A fierce struggle for human nature. I have fought with. Paul fought with men for men.
1. The battle was inevitable to his mission. He was the messenger of truths that struck directly at their prejudices, their habits, their greed (Act_19:27).
2. The battle was most benevolent on his part. Love, not anger, was its inspiration. He fought for them by fighting against their prejudices and their sins.
3. the battle was most unequal in circumstances. Numbers, authority, influence, wealth, were all arrayed against one penniless foreigner. In moral battles numbers are an inferior consideration. One man in truth may conquer a nation in error.
III. A great problem for human nature. What advantageth it me? etc. The apostle does not say either that there would be no advantage in a godly struggle for truth were there no future life, nor that such a struggle was to be conducted with a view of advantage. He puts the question and leaves it to be answered. Our answer will be that on the assumption that there is no future life, godliness will be--
1. Of physical advantage to man. The habits of life promoted by Christianity are conducive to bodily health and longevity.
2. Of mental advantage to man. It generates sentiments, it starts trains of thoughts, it awakens hopes, which yield to the mind a happiness which nothing else on earth can afford. If Christianity is only a dream, it is a dream from which we would not awake.
3. Of social advantage to man. Christianity has proved itself to be infinitely the best system for promoting the peace of families, the order of society, the prosperity of nations. (D. Thomas, D.D.)
Fighting beasts at Ephesus
It would be greatly to the satisfaction of our curiosity if we could mention exactly what was the historic form of this trial. And there is an interpretation of this passage which insists that Paul was once compelled to fight literally with wild beasts. Indeed, tradition has caught up the story, and told us that he braved the beasts most dauntlessly in the attack, and, while the audience waited to see him torn in pieces, he suddenly invoked the powerful interposition of high heaven with a wonderful gesture of his outstretched hand. The suppliant animals refused to do him harm. Lions came cringing to his feet, and, like so many tame dogs, began licking his wounds where the scourge blows had broken the skin. Now we have in 2 Corinthians a complete catalogue of Pauls sufferings; but fighting in the arena is not among them. We understand this text, therefore, as a figurative description of the great conflict he had with wild Ephesian men; and with such an interpretation the question comes within the reach of every Christian put under severe conflict. When any good man is forced into a fight he is often constrained to ask, What advantageth it me? It so happens that the inquiry has a right noble answer.
I. The fine possession of a manly reminiscence. We always have a high respect for a difficulty we have actually surmounted. Evermore there remains deep in our hearts the joyous consciousness for once at least of having stood true when under fire.
II. Quickened growth in grace. Conflict makes men sober and thoughtful; then it makes them gentle and kind; then it makes them forbearing and charitable.
III. Power for leadership among men. Men trust the veterans from hard-fought fields.
IV. Fellowship with Christ (Heb_12:3). Those who are persecuted for Christs sake receive precisely what He received; the disciple is mot above his Master, nor the servant above his Lord.
V. It renders more luminously welcome the heavenly outlook. No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast. All will be peace and rest and satisfaction. (C. S. Robinson, D.D)
Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.
The house of feasting, or the epicures measures
1. The text is the epicures proverb, began on a weak mistake, thought witty by an undiscerning company, and prevailing greatly because it strikes the fancy and maintains the merry meeting. The pagans recommended sensuality in this life because they knew of no enjoyments in another.
2. They are to be excused rather than us. They placed themselves in the order of beasts, making their bodies but receptacles of flesh and wine; therefore they treated themselves accordingly. But why should we do the same things who have higher principles, and the revelation of immortality?
3. To reprove the follies of mankind and their improper motions towards felicity. Note--
I. That plenty and the pleasures of the world are no proper instruments of happiness. A man must have some violence done to himself ere he can receive them. If we go beyond what is needful, we put that to hazard which nature has secured. It is not nature that desires superfluities, but lust. By a disease we acquire the passion for luxuries, which eventually become necessaries, and then cease to gratify. Contrast the happiness of the virtuous poor man in his cottage, his sound sleep, quiet breast, easy provision, sober night, healthful morning, and joyous heart, with the noises, diseases, passions, which fill the houses of the luxurious and the hearts of the ambitious.
II. Intemperance in eating and drinking is opposed to the epicures design. The voluptuous man has the least share of pleasure.
1. It is an enemy to health which is a handle by which we can apprehend pleasure, and the same which makes life delicious. For what content can a full table administer to a man in a fever? Health carries us to Church, and makes us rejoice in the communion of saints; but an intemperate table makes us lose all this. It bears part of its punishment in this life, and has this appendage, that unless it be repented of it is not remitted in the life to come. The epicures genial proverb might be a little altered. Let us eat and drink, for by this means to-morrow we shall die; yet it is not so, for such men lead a healthless life; they are long in dying, and die in torment. What folly for men to pray for healthy bodies, and then pour in loads of flesh and seas of wine. The temptations which men meet with from without in these cases are in themselves most unreasonable, and soonest confuted. He that tempts me to drink beyond measure, what does he, but tempt me to lay aside my reason, or civilly invite me to a fever? When Athens was, destroyed by the plague, Socrates escaped through the temperate diet to which he had accustomed himself. He had enough for health, study, philosophy, and religion; but he had no superfluities to bring on groans and sickly nights. All gluttons are convinced of the excellence of temperance in order to moral felicity and health; for after they have lost both they are obliged to go to temperance to recover them. Fools, not to keep their health by the means which they seek to restore it! Such men heap up wrath against the day of wrath. When the heathen feasted their gods they gave nothing but an animal, poured a little wine on the altar, and burnt a little frankincense: but when they feasted themselves they had many vessels of Campanian wine, turtles, beeves, wild boars, etc. And little do we spend on charity and religion; but we spend so much on ourselves that we make ourselves sick, and seem to be in love with our own mischief.
2. A constant full table is less pleasant than the temperate provisions of the virtuous, or the natural banquets of the poor. Thanks be to the God of nature, said Epicurus, that He hath made that which is necessary to be ready at hand, and easy to be had; whilst that which cannot easily be obtained is not necessary at all, i.e., in effect it cannot be constantly pleasant: for want makes the appetite and the appetite makes the pleasure; so that men are greatly mistaken when they despise the poor mans table. Fortune and art give delicacies, nature gives meat and drink; and what nature gives fortune cannot take away, whilst every change can take away what is only given by fortune. Moreover, he that feasts every day, feasts no day; and however a man treats himself, he will sometimes need to be refreshed beyond it. A perpetual fulness will make you glad to beg pleasure from emptiness and variety from humble fare.
3. Intemperance is the nurse of vice, and no man dare pray to God for a pure soul in a chaste body, if he lives intemperately, making provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof. For in this case he will find that which enters him shall defile him, more than he can be cleansed by vain prayers that come from his tongue and not from his heart.
4. Intemperance is the destruction of wisdom. A full gorged belly never produced a sprightly mind. The heavy and foul state of an intemperate person may be compared to the sun, clouded with fogs and vapours, when it has drawn too freely from the moisture of nature. But temperance is reasons girdle and passions bridle, the strength of the soul and the foundation of virtue.
5. Intemperance is a dishonour to the nature, person, and manners of a man. But naturally men are ashamed of it, and night is generally a veil to their gluttony and drunkenness.
III. Some rules and measures of temperance.
1. Our natural needs. Hunger, thirst, and cold, are the natural diseases of the body; food and raiment are their remedies, and therefore the measures. But in this there are two cautions--
(1) These are only to be extinguished when they are violent or troublesome, and not to the utmost extent and possibilities of nature.
(2) These must be natural, not artificial and provoked: for many men make necessities to themselves, and then think they are bound to provide for them.
2. Reason. Eating and drinking so as to make the reason useless or troubled is intemperate. Reason is the limit beyond which temperance never wanders. Intemperate men are so stripped of the use of reason that they are not only useless as wise counsels, but have not reason enough to avoid inflicting evils upon themselves.
3. The fitness of the body for useful service. Overloaded with food or drink, the mind cannot think, nor the body work with any sprightliness. (Jeremy Taylor.)
The folly of thoughtlessness of religion
Is it not foolish to be living in this world without a thought of what you will do at last? A man goes into an inn, and as soon as he sits down he begins to order his wine, his dinner, his bed; there is no delicacy in season which he forgets to bespeak. He stops at the inn for some time. By and by the bill is forthcoming, and it takes him by surprise. I never thought of that--I never thought of that! Why, says the landlord, here is a man who is either a born fool or else a knave. What! never thought of the reckoning--never thought of settling with me! After this fashion too many live. They eat, and drink, and sin, but they forget the inevitable hereafter, when for all the deeds done in the body the Lord will bring us into judgment. (C. H. Spurgeon.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain 32. If, after the manner of men. Speaking humanly.…
32. If, after the manner of men. Speaking humanly. I fought with beasts at Ephesus. Encountered furious opposition, like the rush of wild beasts. The allusion is hardly to be taken literally. If he had been thrown to wild beasts at Ephesus, some record would have been made of it in the record in Acts of his sojourn at Ephesus. Besides, a Roman citizen was preserved from that manner of death. What doth it profit me? All his sufferings are to no purpose if the dead rise not. Let us eat, drink, etc. All Epicurean maxim, a proverbial saying.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain 32. “If after the manner of men I fought…
32. “If after the manner of men I fought with the wild beasts at Ephesus, what profit is it unto me if the dead rise not?” The plain fact here specified is that he was daily exposed to martyrdom. Some make a great mistake by applying this daily dying to old Adam, in reference to which the Scriptures constantly reveal an instantaneous and complete destruction, radical and eternal extermination (Rom 6:6). We can not apply this daily dying to the soul, because Paul is not speaking of it, but the body, as his theme is simply the resurrection of the body. Hence the daily dying is daily exposition to martyrdom, which was a significant matter of fact. Their Leader had been killed, and they had no right to expect any other fate. Besides, the prophetic eye of Paul rested on the rivers of blood which deluged Christendom but a few years subsequently under the imperial persecutions. A problem arises in reference to Paul’s ejectment to the wild beasts at Ephesus, as that was in the Roman Empire, and it was contrary to law to cast a Roman citizen to a wild beast. The critics believe it is a reference to an awful spell of sickness which brought him to the very verge of death (2Co 1:7).
“If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” This follows as a logical sequence from the nucleus of the preceding argument, identifying the doctrine of the resurrection of all the dead with that of Christ, which is the necessary confirmation of His Messiahship.
Read full note →
Hence it follows as a logical sequence that if the resurrection is not true the Bible is a myth, Christ an impostor and the plan of salvation a failure.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain If after the manner of men [as a carnal…
If after the manner of men [as a carnal man, having no future hope] I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it profit me? [The tense and words indicate that Paul had become a beast-fighter as a settled occupation. It is conceded that his language was figurative, and that he spoke of contending with beasts in human form ( Tit_1:12 ; 2Ti_4:17 ), rather than to the fighting of actual beasts in the arena. Had Paul been thrown to the lions, Luke could hardly have failed to mention it when recording the events of Paul's ministry at Ephesus. Moreover, Paul's Roman citizenship shielded him from such a punishment. But he does not refer to the tumult in the theater ( Act_20:19 ), for it took place after this letter was written. But we may well believe that Paul was in daily danger in Ephesus-- 2Co_1:8-9 ] If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die . [This is an Epicurean maxim which had passed into a proverb. "If," says South, "men but persuade themselves that they shall die like beasts, they soon will live like beasts too." In the three verses above, Paul passes from the symbolic death of baptism to consider death literally. In the hope of a resurrection he was enduring daily a living death, his life being hourly in jeopardy. If it was idle folly in converts to be symbolically united with the dead, much more was it gross foolishness for the apostle to live thus continually on the verge of being literally, actually united with them. But the folly in both instances was made wisdom by the fact of a resurrection. Thus to the arguments already adduced Paul adds the additional one that Christianity, in its initial ordinance, and in its daily life-experience, is built upon the hope of a resurrection. Without this hope no sensible man could start to be a Christian, much less continue to live in accordance with his profession.]
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 15:32 fighting wild beasts—those people of Ephesus: Paul refers…
15:32 fighting wild beasts—those people of Ephesus: Paul refers figuratively to his struggles with opponents in Ephesus (see 16:8; Acts 19:23-41; 2 Cor 1:8; 4:8-12; 11:23-28). Watching condemned prisoners fighting wild beasts and getting mauled to death was a common form of entertainment in the Roman world.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.