1 Corinthians 15:32

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:

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.

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?

--

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.

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.

1Co 15:32. Εἰ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐθηριομάχησα ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, τί μοι τὸ ὄφελος; εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται, φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνήσκομεν, if after the manner of men, I have fought with wild beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it to me? if the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die) This clause, if the dead rise not, is now for a long time properly connected with the words that follow; for in the foregoing, the formula, after the manner of men, is equivalent to it in force: that is, if, after human fashion, for a human consideration, with the mere hope of the present life, not in the hope of a resurrection to be expected on Divine authority, I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, etc.—ἐθηριομάχησα ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, I have fought with wild beasts at Ephesus) This one contest Paul expressly mentions, not only because it was a very great one, but also, because it was very recent. He was still at Ephesus; 1Co 16:8: and there, before this epistle was written, he had been exposed to extraordinary danger, which seems to be the same occasion as that described, Act 19:29-30; 2Co 1:8; wherefore he calls it a fight with wild beasts, in which his life was in jeopardy; comp. 1Co 4:9: as Heraclitus of Ephesus had been in the habit of applying the term wild beasts, θήρια, to the Ephesians four hundred years before: comp. Tit 1:12 concerning the Cretans and Epimenides.—φάγωμεν—ἀποθνήσκομεν, let us eat—we die) So the LXX., Isa 22:13, that is, let us use the good things of the body and of the present life. This is a Mimesis or the imitation of a supposed opponent’s wicked manner of speaking.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_15:32. Something of a special nature after the general statement in 1Co_15:31.

If I after the manner of men have fought with beasts in Ephesus, what is the profit (arising therefrom) to me?

κατὰ ἄνθρωπον] has the principal emphasis, so that it contains the element, from which follows the negative involved in the question of the apodosis: then it is profitless for me. And the connection yields from this apodosis as the meaning of κατὰ ἄνθρωπον: after the manner of ordinary men, i.e. not in divine striving and hoping, but only in the interest of temporal reward, gain, glory, and the like, whereby the common, unenlightened man is wont to be moved to undertake great risks. If Paul has fought in such a spirit, then he has reaped nothing from it, for he καθʼ ἡμέραν ἀποθνήσκει. The many varying explanations[67] may be seen in Pooles Synopsis. Against Rückert, who explains it: according to human ability, with the exertion of the highest power, it may be decisively urged that κατὰ ἄνθρ. in all passages does not denote what is human per excellentiam. If, therefore, the context here required that κατὰ ἄνθρ. should express the measure of power (which reference, however, lies quite remote), then we must explain it as: with ordinary human power, without divine power. According to Rückerts view, moreover, κατὰ ἄνθρ. would not be at all the principal element of the protasis, which, however, from its position it must necessarily be. Interpretations such as exempli causa (Semler, Rosenmüller, Heydenreich), or ut hominum more loquar (Estius), are impossible, since λέγω or ΛΑΛῶ does not stand along with it. The conjecture was hazarded: κατὰ ἀνθρώπων (Scaliger).

ἘΘΗΡΙΟΜΆΧΗΣΑ] ΘΗΡΙΟΜΑΧΕῖΝ, to fight with wild beasts (Diod. iii. 42; Artem. ii. 54, v. 49), is here a significant figurative description of the fight with strong and exasperated enemies. So Tertullian (De resurr 48: depugnavit ad bestias Ephesi, illas sc. bestias Asiaticae pressurae), Chrysostom, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Pelagius, Sedulius, Beza, Grotius, Estius, Calovius, Michaelis, Zachariae, Valckenaer, Stolz, Rosenmüller, as well as Schrader, Rückert, Olshausen, de Wette, Osiander, Neander, Ewald, Maier, Hofmann, Krauss. Comp. Appian. B. C. p. 763 (in Wetstein), where Pompeius says: οἵοις θηρίοις μαχόμεθα. Ignatius, ad Romans 5 : ἀπὸ Συρίας μέχρι Ῥώμης θηριομαχῶ διὰ γῆς καὶ θαλάσσης, ad Tars. 1, ad Smyrn. 4. Comp. Tit_1:12; 2Ti_4:17; Ignatius, ad Eph. 7, as also in classical writers brutal men are called θηρία (Plato, Phaed. p. 240 B; Aristophanes, Nub. 184; Jacobs, ad Anthol. XII. p. 114). See also Valckenaer, p. 332. Paul takes for granted that his readers were acquainted with what he describes in such strong language, as he might assume, moreover, that they would of themselves understand his expression figuratively, since they knew, in fact, his privilege of Roman citizenship, which excluded a condemnation ad bestias, ad leonem. His lost letter also may have already given them more detailed information. Notwithstanding, many interpreters, such as Ambrosiaster, Theodoret, Cajetanus, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Cornelius a Lapide, Lightfoot, Wolf, and others, including Flatt and Billroth, have explained this of an actual fight with beasts, out of which he had been wonderfully delivered.[68] It is objected as regards the privilege of a Roman citizen (see in particular Flatt), that Paul was in point of fact scourged, etc., Act_16:22 f. But in Acts, l.c., Paul did not appeal to his right of citizenship, but made it known only after he had suffered scourging and imprisonment, whereupon he was forthwith set free, 1Co_15:37 ff. Before he was thrown to the beasts, however, he would, in accordance with his duty, have appealed to his right of citizenship, and thereby have been protected. And would Luke in the Acts of the Apostles have left unmentioned an incident so entirely unique, which, among all the wonderful deliverances of the apostle, would have been the most wonderful? Would not Paul himself have named it with the rest in 2Co_11:23 ff., and Clement in 5?

Upon the non-literal interpretation,[69] however, it cannot be proved whether a single event, and if so, which, is meant. Many of the older expositors think, with Pelagius, Oecumenius, and Theophylact, of the uproar of Demetrius in Acts 19. But in connection with that Paul himself was not at all in danger; moreover, we must assume, in accordance with Act_20:1, that he wrote before the uproar. Perhaps he means no single event at all, but the whole heavy conflict which he had had to wage in Ephesus up to that time with exasperated Jewish antagonists, and of which he speaks in Act_20:19 : μετὰ … δακρύων κ. πειρασμῶν κ.τ.λ.

τί μοι τὸ ὄφελος;] what does it profit me? The article denotes the definite profit, conceived as result. The self-evident answer is: nothing! Comp. 1Co_9:17. As the gain, however, which he gets from his fight waged not κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, he has in view not temporal results, founding of churches and the like, but the future glory, which is conditioned by the resurrection of the dead (comp. Php_3:10-11); hence he continues: εἰ νεκροὶ κ.τ.λ.

εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρ.] is referred by the majority of the old interpreters (not Chrysostom and Theophylact, but from Pelagius and Theodoret onwards) to the preceding. It would then be a second conditional clause to ΤΊ ΜΟΙ ΤῸ ὌΦΕΛΟς (see on 1Co_14:6); but it is far more suitable to the symmetry in the relation of the clauses (comp. 1Co_15:29) to connect it with what follows (Beza, Bengel, Griesbach, and later expositors). For the rest, it is to be observed that ΕἸ ΝΕΚΡ. ΟὐΚ ἘΓΕΊΡ. corresponds to the thought indicated by ΚΑΤᾺ ἌΝΘΡ. as being in correlative objective relation to it; further, that Paul has not put an ΟὖΝ or even a ΓΆΡ after ΕἸ, but has written asyndetically, and so in all the more vivid and telling a manner; likewise, that for the apostle moral life is necessarily based on the belief in eternal redemption, without which beliefand thus as resting simply on the abstract postulate of dutyit cannot in truth subsist at all; lastly, that the form of a challenge is precisely fitted to display the moral absurdity of the premiss in a very glaring light, which is further intensified by the fact that Paul states the dangerous consequence of the earthly eudaemonism, which τῇ γαστρὶ μετρεῖ καὶ τοῖς αἰσχίστοις τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν (Dem. 324, 24) in set words of Scripture (comp. Chrysostom), LXX. Isa_22:13. Analogies to this Epicurean maxim from profane writers, such as Euripides, Alcest. 798, may be seen in Wetstein; Jacobs, Del. epigr. vii. 28; Dissen, ad Pindar. p. 500; comp. Nicostr. in Stob. Flor. lxxiv 64: τὸ ζῆν οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐστὶν ἢ ὅστις ἂν φάγῃ. See also Wis_2:1 ff.

ΑὔΡΙΟΝ] light-minded concrete expression for what is to be very soon. Comp. Theocr. xiii. 4.

It is not implied, however, in ΑὔΡΙΟΝ ΓᾺΡ ἈΠΟΘΝΉΣΚ. that ΕἸ ΝΕΚΡΟῚ ΟὐΚ ἘΓ. includes the denial of life after death absolutely (Flatt, Rückert, al.), but Paul conceives of death as the translation of the soul into Hades (comp., however, on Php_1:25 f., Remark), from which the translation of the righteous (to be found in Paradise) into the eternal Messianic life is only possible through the resurrection.

[67] Chrysostom and Theophylact: ὅσον τὸ εἰς ἀνθρώπους, as far as a beast-fight can take place in reference to men. Theodoret: κατὰ ἀνθρώπινον λογισμὸν θηρίων ἐγενόμην βορά.

[68] From this literal interpretation arose the legend in the apocryphal Acta Pauli in Nicephorus, H. E. ii. 25 (p. 175, ed. Paris, 1630), that he was thrown first of all to a lion, then to other beasts, but was left untouched by them all.Van Hengel (comp. previously his Annot. p. 208), while likewise holding fast the literal view, has explained it only of a supposed case: Sumamus, me Ephesi depugnasse cum feris, etc. But this would not at all fit into the connection with the actual dangers and sufferings which Paul has mentioned before. Observe, on the contrary, the climax: κινδυνεύομεν, ἀποθνήσκω, ἐθηριομάχησα, which latter word brings forward a particular incident, which has occurred, as proof of the general ἀποθνήσκω.

[69] Which Krenkel also follows in Hilgenfelds Zeitschr. 1866, p. 368 ff., assuming in connection with it a use of language among the primitive Christians based upon Mar_1:13, which resolves itself into a hypothesis incapable of proof.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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? let us eat and drink; for to-morrow we die.

The apostle refers to one, and probably a recent instance of his exposure to death. If after the manner of men, i.e. with those views and interests which determine the conduct of ordinary men, i.e. without hope in the resurrection. I have fought with beasts at Ephesus. This may be understood either literally or figuratively. Against the literal interpretation is urged,

1. The improbability that, as a Roman citizen, he should have been subjected to that punishment. But his being a Roman citizen did not prevent his being thrice beaten with rods, by Roman magistrates, or at least, by others than Jews, and contrary to law, 2Co_11:25.

2. The silence of The Acts on the subject. But we learn from 2Co_11:23-29, that scarcely a tithe of what Paul did and suffered is recorded in The Acts.

3. The omission of any reference to his exposure to wild beasts in the long enumeration of his sufferings in 2Co_11:23-29. This is a more serious objection.

Considering, moreover, that Paul was at Ephesus exposed to the violent tumult of the people, and that this expression is often used by the ancients figuratively for contests with enraged men, the probability is, that it is to be so understood here. What to me is the advantage? If I have no other views or hopes than ordinary men, whose expectations are confined to this world, what is the use of incurring so many dangers? If the dead rise not. This clause does not belong to the one preceding, as it is pointed in our version, but to what follows. If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. The natural consequence of denying the doctrine of the resurrection, involving as it does the denial of the gospel, and the consequent rejection of all hope of salvation, is to make men reckless, and to lead them to abandon themselves to mere sensual enjoyments. If man has no glorious hereafter, he naturally sinks towards the level of the brutes, whose destiny he is to share.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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?

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. Text via Bolls.life.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

(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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

32. κατὰ ἄνθρωπον. From a purely human point of view, one bounded entirely by the horizon of this world, and excluding the idea of another life. Cf. ch. 1Co 3:3, and Rom 3:5; Gal 1:11; Gal 3:15. Cf. Soph. Aj. 761 βλαστὼν ἔπειτα μὴ κατ’ ἄνθρωπον φρονῇ. Also line 777.

ἐθηριομάχησα. This word and its derivatives became the technical expressions for men contending with beasts in the amphitheatre. The point of the Apostle’s allusion can hardly be missed by any one who reads Act 19:29-30. He did not ‘adventure himself; in the theatre it is true. But none the less was his experience a θηριομαχία. Ignatius, Ad Romans 5, δεδεμένος δέκα λεοπάρδοις, ὅ ἐστι στρατιωτῶν τάγμα. Also 2Ti 4:17; Psa 22:20-21; Psa 35:17.

τί μοι τὸ ὄφελος; What is the use of it? as we should say.

εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται. The best later editors, following Chrysostom, place the note of interrogation before this passage. The whole will then run thus, If after the manner of men I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it profit me? If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink &c.

φάγωμεν καὶ πίωμεν, αὔριον γὰρ ἀποθνήσκομεν. These words are quoted from Isa 22:13. They agree with the LXX. but whether they are an independent translation or not is uncertain. ‘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. Observe the present instead of the future in ἁποθνήσκομεν, implying not the future act, but the present liability.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

32.] The stress of the first clause is on κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, and its meaning, merely as man, i.e. ‘according to this world’s views,’ ‘as one who has no hope beyond the grave;’see ref. If thus only he fought, &c., where was his profit (seeing he despised all those things which κατὰ ἄνθρωπον might compensate for such a fight,—fame, praise, &c.)? The renderings, ὅσον τὸ εἰς ἀνθρώπους (Chrys. p. 381), i.e. ‘so far as one can be said θηριομαχεῖν against men,’—and κατὰ ἀνθρώπων λογισμὸν θηρίων ἐγενόμην βορά (Theodoret),—‘exempli causa’ (Semler, Rosenmüller),—‘ut hominum more loquar’ (Estius and Bloomf.), are all constrained, and scarcely to be extorted from the words.

ἐθηριομάχησα] I fought with beasts (aor. referring to one special occasion). How? and when? Most ancient and modern Commentators take the expression figuratively, as used in Appian, B. C. ii. p. 763 (Wetst.), where Pompey says, οἵοις θηρίοις μαχόμεθα,—and Ignat. ad Rom_5, p. 689 f., ἀπὸ Συρίας μέχρι Ῥώμης θηριομαχῶ διὰ γῆς κ. θαλάσσης, δεδεμένος δέκα λεοπάρδοις, ὅ ἐστι στρατιωτικὸν τάγμα. So, of our text, Tertull. de Resurr. 48, vol. ii. p. 865: “Depugnavit ad bestias Ephesi, illas scilicet bestias Asiaticæ pressuræ.”

And this explanation must be right: for his Roman citizenship would have precluded his ever being literally thrown to beasts: and even supposing him to have waived it, and been miraculously rescued, as , Theodoret, Erasm., Luther, Calv., al. suppose, is it conceivable that such an event should have been altogether unrecorded in the Acts? Adopting the figurative rendering,—we cannot fix on any recorded conflict which will suit the words. His danger from Demetrius and his fellow-craftsmen (Act_19) had not yet happened (see Prolegg. § vi. 2): but we cannot tell what opposition, justifying this expression, the ἀντικείμενοι πολλοί of ch. 16:9 may ere this have made to his preaching.

εἰ νεκρ.] If dead men rise not, i.e. ‘if none of the dead rise.’ These words are best joined with the following, as Chrys., Theophyl., Beza, Bengel, Griesb., Meyer, De Wette, al.—not with the preceding, as Theodoret, Grot., Est., Luther, al.[and E. V.] For κατὰ ἄνθρωπον already expresses their meaning in the preceding sentence; and the form of ver. 29 seems to justify this arrangement, besides that otherwise φάγ. κ. πίωμεν, &c., would stand awkwardly insulated.

φάγ. κ. πίωμεν …] In Isa. the words represent the recklessness of those who utterly disregard the call of God to weeping and mourning, and feast while their time lasts. Wetst. has collected very numerous parallels from the classics. The most striking perhaps is Herod. ii. 78.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

32. εἰ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐθηριομάησα ἐν Ἑφέσῳ. ‘If from merely human motives I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus.’ The exact meaning of κατὰ ἄνθρωπον (3:3, 9:8; Rom 3:5; Gal 1:11, Gal 3:15) depends on the context. Here it is placed first with emphasis, to show that the Apostle is speaking hypo thetically from the ordinary secular point of view. It is beside the mark to say that he ought to have had a much higher view. Taking common human estimates as his standard, he would have asked, Is it worth the risk? Will it pay? And he would have said, No. Humanae vitae respectu, ita ut nobis constet praemium in hoc mundo (Calv.); humano auctoramento, spe vitae praesentis (Beng.). No doubt, ἐθηριομάχησα, ‘I was a θηριομάχος, a wild-beast fighter,’ is metaphorical.* St Paul was a Roman citizen, and could not be compelled to fight as a bestiarius or venator in the arena, nor could he be flung as a criminal ad leonem. If, in spite of his citizenship, this had taken place, he would have mentioned the outrage and miraculous escape in 2Co 11:23f., and St Luke would hardly have omitted it in Acts. He means that he was near being torn to pieces by infuriated men. Per allegoriam bestiae intelliguntur adversariae potestates. Sicut in Psalmo; Ne tradas bestiis confitentem tibi (Primasius). Heraclitus is said to have called the Ephesians θηρία, and to have given this as a reason for not being one of their rulers. Pompey at Pharsalus said, οἵοις θηρίοις μαχόμεθα (Appian B.C. ii. 11). Origen characteristically remarks, ἔστι καὶ θηρία νοητά. Comp. Psa 22:13, Psa 22:14; Tit 1:12; 2Ti 4:17; and Ignat. Rom_5, Smyrn. 4, with Lightfoot’s notes. The uproar caused by Demetrius (Act_19.) was probably later than this. The climax, peril (κινδυνεύομεν), peril of death (ἀποθνήσκω), peril of a horrible death (ἐθηριομάχησα), is perhaps intentional. We have θεομάχος (Act 5:39), θεομαχεῖν (Act 23:9, TR.).†

τί μοι τὸ ὅφελοσ; ‘What is the profit to me?’ Where is the gain to compensate a man for such dreadful dangers? Τί ὄφελος, without the article (Jas 2:14, Jas 2:16), is more colloquial; so also in Plato and Philo. In LXX, ὄφελος occurs Job 15:3 only. Here the sentence ends: it has its conditional clause in front of it. The next conditional clause belongs to the next sentence.

εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται. For the sixth time we have the foolish dogma of the τινες quoted, ‘Dead people are not raised.’ If that disastrous dictum were true, they might be advising one another to adopt the impious conduct of the people in Jerusalem, Let us eat and drink, etc. (LXX of Isa 22:13). St Paul is not stating his own view, but the common view, the inevitable moral result of denying a future life (Isa 56:12; Ecc 2:24, Ecc 2:3:12, Ecc 2:5:18, Ecc 2:8:15, Ecc 2:9:7; Luk 12:19; and esp. Wisd. 2:6-9). Similar passages abound in classical writers; Hdt. ii. 78; Thuc. ii. 53; Eur. Alc. 788 f.; Hor. Od. II. iii. 13. At Trimalchio’s banquet (Petron. Satyr. 34), the thought of the dead makes the guests exclaim,

Heu ! heu ! nos miseros ! quam totus homuncio nil est !

Sic erimus cuncti postquam nos auferet Orcus.

Ergo vivamus dum licet esse bene.

The advice is despondent rather than defiant; but in any case the Apostle suggests that it is shocking, and therefore the doctrine of annihilation, on which it is based, must be untrue. No Christian can accept it, but those who deny that there is a life after death are only too likely to accept it. Belief in a resurrection is a moral safeguard. See Lightfoot, Cambridge Sermons, pp. 123-125. St Paul has no sympathy with moral ideals which provide no forgiveness of sins; and without Christ’s Death and Resurrection there is no forgiveness.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

After the manner of men [κατα ανθρωπον] . As men ordinarily do, for temporal reward; and not under the influence of any higher principle or hope.

I have fought with beasts [εθηριομαχησα] . Only here in the New Testament. Figuratively. Paul, as a Roman citizen, would not have been set to fight with beasts in the arena; and such an incident would not have been likely to be passed over by Luke in the Acts. Compare similar metaphors in ch. 4 9, 2Ti 4:17; Tit 1:12; Psa 22:12, 13, 20, 21. Some, however, think it is to be taken literally. 129 They refer to the presence at Ephesus of the Asiarchs (Act 19:31), who had charge of the public games, as indicating that the tumult took place at the season of the celebration of the games in honor of Diana; to the fact that the young men at Ephesus were famous for their bull - fights; and to the words at Ephesus as indicating a particular incident. On the assumption that he speaks figuratively, the natural reference is to his experience with the ferocious mob at Ephesus. There was a legend that Paul was thrown, first of all, to a lion; then to other beasts, but was left untouched by them all. In the Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans occur these words : "From Syria even unto Rome, I fight with beasts, both by land and sea, both night and day, being bound to ten leopards. I mean a band of soldiers, who, even when they receive benefits, show themselves all the worse" (v.). Compare Epistle to Tralles, 10. : "Why do I pray that I may fight with wild beasts ?" So in the Epistle to Smyrna he says : "I would put you on your guard against these monsters in human shape" [θηριων των ανθρωπομορφων] ; and in the Antiochene "Acts of Martyrdom" it is said : "He (Ignatius) was seized by a beastly soldiery, to be led away to Rome as a prey for carnivorous beasts" (ii.).

Let us eat and drink, etc. Cited, after the Septuagint, from Isa 22:13. It is the exclamation of the people of Jerusalem during the siege by the Assyrians. The traditional founder of Tarsus was Sardanapalus, who was worshipped, along with Semiramis, with licentious rites which resembled those of the Feast of Tabernacles. Paul had probably witnessed this festival, and had seen, at the neighboring town of Anchiale, the statue of Sardanapalus, represented as snapping his fingers, and with the inscription upon the pedestal, "Eat, drink, enjoy thyself. The rest is nothing." Farrar cites the fable of the Epicurean fly, dying in the honey - pot with the words, "I have eaten and drunk and bathed, and I care nothing if I die." Among the inscriptions from the catacombs, preserved in the Vatican are these : "To the divine shade of Titus, who lived fifty - seven years. Here he enjoys everything. Baths and wine ruin our constitutions, but they make life what it is. Farewell, farewell." " While I lived I lived well. My play is now ended - soon yours will be. Farewell and applaud me. " Compare Wisdom of Solomon, 2 1 - 9.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Vv. 32. “If it is as man that 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.”

The meaning of the expression κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, according to man, must be determined by the context. It might be applied to human strength, which was not that with which the apostle laboured; or he might mean that in his work he had a higher end in view than that which the natural man sets before him in labouring. I am inclined to believe in a third meaning: With a view to what man can give by way of recompense. The θηριομαχεῖν, to fight with wild beasts, is taken by almost all modern commentators, down to Meyer, Reuss, Heinrici (Holsten excepted), in the figurative sense: to struggle with a furious multitude excited against him. It is in the same sense that Ignatius (Ad Rom. c. 5) speaks of the ten leopards (his keepers) with whom he has to fight day and night during his journey (θηριομαχῶ δέκα λεοπάρδοις). In favour of this sense we could not quote the tumult raised by the goldsmith Demetrius; for this event did not take place till after the composition of our letter, and Paul did nothing on that occasion which could justify the term fight. But some similar scene might have passed at Ephesus in the first period of Paul’s sojourn. I cannot, however, adhere to this explanation of the word θηριομαχεῖν. Similar conflicts were too frequent in the apostle’s life to admit of his mentioning this one in so exceptional a way. Unless we are to ascribe to Paul an exaggeration very alien to his character, it will be every way more natural to apply this expression to the punishment of the bestiarii, in the strict sense of the word. This meaning agrees better also with the feeling of free-will which breathes in the words: If I have fought. To this is objected the right of Roman citizenship which Paul possessed, and which secured him from such treatment. But if the thing passed in a popular rising, the apostle’s protestations might not have been listened to. It is also said that he could not have escaped death, and that in any case such a fact could not fail to be mentioned in the Acts. But how many facts of this kind are mentioned in the list 2 Corinthians 11, of which we have not a hint in the narrative of the Acts! And as to deliverance, it may have been due to some providential circumstance or other which we cannot divine. The fact is that this ἐθηριομάχησα designates in the apostle’s view the apogee of the: “I die daily,” and this gradation admits only of the literal sense. As Holsten says: “If there were nothing extraordinary and particular in this fight, Paul would not have so mentioned it in the context.”

When he says: What doth it profit me? the apostle’s thought is that only the expectation of a life to come can explain such conduct. Moral duty in itself would not account for it, for there is no natural obligation which requires a man to sacrifice himself in the service of Jesus Christ. Besides, when he speaks of profit, Paul is thinking, not of a reward due to acquired merit, but of God’s response to the holy aspirations with which He has Himself endowed the human soul.

The proposition: If the dead rise not, would be awkward, if connected with what precedes; it suits better as an introduction to what follows: “Say then also, in this case, like the despisers of the Divine judgment in Isaiah (Isa 22:13): Let us eat...” Paul does expressly say that such language is used at Corinth; but he declares that it is the natural consequence of what is said there about the resurrection. There is, I believe, less of bravado than of despondency in the saying quoted: “Since we have nothing better to look for, let us at least enjoy the present.” This forms the transition to the word of warning and exhortation which closes the first part of the chapter.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.