The Universalist Heretic

"How are the dead raised?": an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:29-58

“Let’s eat and drink, for tomorrow we die”

Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?

Now that Paul has described the eschatological resurrection, he returns to his argument for the truth of that event. First, he showed that the resurrection of the dead-ones follows from the Corinthians’ belief in Christ’s resurrection out of the dead-ones; now he argues for it based on their actions. Apparently, some of the Corinthians were being baptized on behalf of “the dead-ones” (Gk: tōn nekrōn), which implies a belief in post-mortem salvation in the Corinthian church. (Paul doesn’t explicitly endorse or reject this belief.) But how is this baptism useful at all if the dead-ones will never be raised?

And why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour? I die every day! That is as certain, brothers and sisters, as my boasting of you—a boast that I make in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought with wild animals at Ephesus with a merely human perspective, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

The second argument from the Corinthians’ actions is in regard to the danger that they (and he) put themselves in for Christ. If there’s no resurrection, then there’s no point for them to put themselves in danger. They should maximize their pleasure in this life, because there’s nothing to look forward to after it! Paul quotes Isaiah 22:13 (LXX), which describes the attitude of rebellious Israel in rejoicing when they should be mourning; he’s implicitly indicting his readers, showing them that if they carry their denial of the resurrection to its logical conclusion, they would be just like rebellious Israel.

Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” Sober up, as you rightly ought to, and sin no more, for some people have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

After accusing the Corinthians of acting like rebellious Israel (as he did earlier in the same letter; see 1 Cor. 10:1-13), Paul quotes a proverb from the Greek poet Menander’s Thais. Most likely, this is to accuse them of getting their false beliefs about the resurrection from the pagans that they associated with (1 Cor. 8:7-10; 10:14-30; cf. Acts 17:31-32). They’re expected to stop associating with these people, who “have no knowledge of God” and are corrupting the Corinthians’ own beliefs about God.

“With what kind of body do they come?”

But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.

Paul anticipates that some of the Corinthians will reject the resurrection because they can’t fathom what kind of body a resurrected person would have. In response, he continues his agricultural metaphor from earlier (vv. 20, 23). If the resurrection of the dead is like a harvest, then the bodies we die in are like seeds that are sown, which will return to life (according to the ancient understanding of plant growth: cf. John 12:34). However, as with seeds, the body that’s raised from the dead isn’t the same as the body that died; it will be much greater.

But God gives it a body as he has chosen and to each kind of seed its own body. Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory. So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

Continuing his argument, Paul points to the different kinds of bodies that humans and animals have, as well as the differing glory of things on earth and in the heavens, to prove to the Corinthians that it’s plausible that we’ll be resurrected with a different (and more glorious) body. Whereas the human body that is “sown” (continuing the agricultural metaphor) is perishable, dishonorable, weak, and “soulish” (Gk: psychikon), the body that’s raised from the dead will be imperishable, glorious, powerful, and “spiritual” (Gk: pneumatikon). The distinction between “soulish” and “spiritual” doesn’t mean that our resurrection bodies will be incorporeal, but that they won’t have the same sinful desires that they now do, as shown by the contrast between these two terms elsewhere (1 Cor. 2:13-15; Jude 19; cf. Jas. 3:15).

Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the physical and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. As one of dust, so are those who are of the dust, and as one of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the one of dust, we will also bear the image of the one of heaven.

Like earlier (v. 22), Paul contrasts Adam, who “became a living soul” (Gk: egeneto... eis psychēn zōsan; Gen. 2:7 LXX), with Christ, who “became a life-giving spirit” (Gk: eis pneuma zōopoioun), in order to illustrate the contrast between our current “soulish” bodies and our future “spiritual” bodies. Some translations (such as the NRSVUE above) unfortunately translate psychikon as “physical,” which makes it seem like our resurrection bodies will be incorporeal. The context refutes this, as it makes clear that these future bodies will be like Christ’s, which is physical with flesh and bones (Lk. 24:39).

The contrast between “those who are earthy” (Gk: hoi choikoi) and “those who are heavenly” (Gk: hoi epouranioi) makes it seem as though Paul has two groups in mind, perhaps those who believe in this life and those who don’t. Once again, the context contradicts this misreading. The same “all” who now “are dying in Adam” “will be made alive in Christ” (v. 22), and Paul and his audience themselves are “earthy” and will one day be “heavenly” (v. 49). The contrast here isn’t between two groups of people that now exist, but between our current state and our resurrection state, which is the main point of this section of Paul’s argument.

What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

“Flesh and blood” (Gk: sarx kai haima) is an idiom referring to mortal humans (Matt. 16:17; Eph. 6:12; Heb. 2:14-15; cf. Lev. 17:11, 14 LXX), which is made clear by the parallelism with “perishable” (Gk: phthora). Elsewhere, however, Paul refers to God’s kingdom as a present reality to which God has brought us (Col. 1:13), which is characterized not by physical blessings but by “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 14:16). Thus, when he states that mortal humans can’t enter God’s kingdom, he isn’t referring to the kingdom as it exists now, but to God’s kingdom in its eschatological, fully realized form, when Christ gives up the kingdom to the Father (vv. 24, 28).

“Thanks be to God!”

Look, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality.

Paul says that he’ll reveal a “secret” (Gk: mystērion) to the Corinthians. Not all people will die, but some people will still be alive when the resurrection takes place at the “last trumpet” (cf. 1 Thess. 4:16), and their (living) mortal and perishable bodies will be changed to become immortal and imperishable! As far as I can tell, this fact wasn’t revealed to any writer before Paul. Pre-tribulationists argue that the “secret” is that this resurrection will take place before the tribulation. However, there’s no indication that the timing of the resurrection is in question here; on the contrary, the secret is that “we will not all die.”

When this perishable body puts on imperishability and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

This is a paraphrase of Isaiah 25:8 (LXX), which actually states, “Death prevailed and swallowed them up” (Gk: katepien ho thanatos ischusas)! In context, Isaiah says that the wicked nations and their rulers and cities will be destroyed and swallowed up by death (25:2, 8), but with the effect that “strong peoples will glorify you, cities of ruthless nations will glorify you” (25:3). God will then bring gladness to all nations and wipe away every tear (25:6-9). Paul applies this quotation to the resurrection; in context, it refers not to the resurrection of believers, but to the restoration of those who were punished even to death by God for their sins!

“Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

The meaning of the original quotation in context has been reversed again, as it states, “Shall I ransom them from the power of Hades? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your plagues? O Hades, where is your destruction? Compassion is hidden from my eyes” (Hos. 13:14). This refers to the utter destruction that God was about to bring upon rebellious Israel (13:7-16); yet God will have compassion on them and heal them (14:1-7). Once again, Paul is looking at the context and seeing that God plans to restore the rebels that he has punished, even those he has punished unto death! Therefore, he applies this prophecy to the resurrection of the dead.

It’s not a coincidence that both of the Old Testament quotations in vv. 54-55 were originally about the punishment of sinners unto death. As seen earlier in this chapter, the resurrection of the dead, for Paul, is inseparable from the subjection and restoration of God’s enemies so that God becomes all in all (vv. 24-28). This necessarily includes the restoration even of those who have been justly destroyed by God! Once death and its “sting,” sin, have been completely removed, there will be no more room for rebellion. This will be the total victory of God, through Jesus Christ, over all his enemies.

Therefore, my beloved brothers and sisters, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord because you know that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

Now that Paul has finished his argument in support of the resurrection, and shown that this resurrection will accomplish the final victory of God over all rebels, he returns to the topic at the beginning of the chapter: for the Corinthians to remain steadfast (vv. 1-2). Whereas he originally exhorted them to remain steadfast in believing the good news, he now exhorts them to remain steadfast in their good works, supporting this exhortation with a paraphrase of Isaiah 65:23 (LXX), “they will not toil in vain.” Paul connects this to his discussion of the resurrection of the dead with the preposition hōste; they should be steadfast in their toil because they have hope in the resurrection.

Conclusion

1 Corinthians 15 remains one of the most important, and interesting, chapters of the Bible. It begins with a concise statement of the good news of Christ's death for our sins and resurrection (vv. 1-11), and launches into a defense of the resurrection of the dead (vv. 12-18). The resurrection is defended on pragmatic, ethical, and logical grounds (vv. 29-50). Paul emphasizes that the resurrection of the dead will involve absolutely all people, even God's enemies (who have been punished by him unto death!), who will be subjected to him and no longer continue in rebellion (vv. 20-28, 51-57). Together with him, we can say: Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!

"How are the dead raised?": an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:1-28

1 Corinthians 15 is one of the most pivotal chapters in the entire Bible. It’s the most detailed discussion of our great hope, the resurrection of the dead, as well as the place in the New Testament where the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection is laid out in its simplest form. If there were only one chapter of the Bible that I could give to someone interested in Christianity, it would be this one. But what does it mean? In this post, I’ll give a detailed exegesis of 1 Cor. 15, with a focus on vv. 3-4 (the good news), vv. 24-28 (the eschaton), and vv. 54-57 (the victory of the resurrection!).

Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15 appears to be a chiasm, centered around his discussion of the final resurrection at the eschaton:

A. Hold fast in the good news that was proclaimed (vv. 1-11)

B. The truth of the resurrection of the dead (vv. 12-17)

C. If there is no resurrection, there is no hope (vv. 18-19)

D. The resurrection at the eschaton (vv. 20-28)

C’. If there is no resurrection, there is no point in living rightly (vv. 29-34)

B’. The details of the resurrection of the dead (vv. 35-57)

A’. Remain steadfast in the work of the Lord (v. 58)

This chiastic pattern puts the emphasis of Paul’s argument on vv. 20-28, which deal with the eschaton and the resurrection of the dead. Whatever point he was trying to get across about the resurrection, vv. 20-28 are an absolutely integral, central part of that message. This should be kept in mind as we go through the chapter.

“The good news that I proclaimed to you”

Now I want you to understand, brothers and sisters, the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain.

Paul states four things about the good news and the Corinthian believers: (1) he proclaimed it to them, (2) they received it, (3) they stand in it, and (4) they are being saved through it, if they hold onto it. To “receive” (Gk: parelabete) the good news is an active and aorist verb, which refers to the Corinthians’ active acceptance of the gospel message when it was proclaimed to them. They are presently and passively “being saved” (Gk: sōzesthe) through the good news [the implied ‘doer’ of salvation is God], but only if they presently and actively “hold fast” (Gk: katechete), that is, continue to believe it. Otherwise, their initial act of belief in the good news (Gk: episteusate) was for nothing (Gk: eikē).

For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures and that he was buried and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

The good news that was proclaimed by Paul has two parts: that the Messiah, Jesus, “died for our sins,” and that “he was raised on the third day.” For each part, he presents two pieces of evidence: first, that it is “in accordance with the Scriptures,” as well as tangible evidence — for Christ’s death, that “he was buried,” and for his resurrection, that he was seen by people (Peter, the twelve disciples, five hundred brethren, James, and the apostles) after his death.

The first part of the good news, that the Messiah “died for our sins,” has implications for the scope of the atonement. If Paul was able to tell the Corinthians, when they hadn’t yet believed, that the death of Jesus was “for our sins,” this implies that the effects of his death extend to non-believers (contrary to the Calvinist ‘limited atonement’). This agrees with his statements elsewhere in his letters to the effect that Christ died for those who are now rebellious (Rom. 5:6-10; Eph. 2:3-5; cf. John 12:47; 1 Tim. 1:12-15; 1 Pet. 3:18).

However, Paul’s focus isn’t on the first part of the gospel, but the second part, that “he was raised on the third day,” which has apparently come into question within the Corinthian church (as we’ll see later)! Because of this, he spends much more time on the tangible evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, citing his appearances to Peter, the twelve disciples, five hundred brethren (!), his brother James, and all of the apostles.

Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I but the grace of God that is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you believed.

After bringing up Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to others, Paul talks about his own experience, which was “like an untimely birth” (Gk: ektrōmati), using a word that refers to a miscarriage (cf. Num. 12:12; Job 3:16; Ecc. 6:3 LXX). Paul’s emphasis here is on the abnormality of his conversion; he’s the least of the apostles, because he used to persecute God’s church before Christ appeared to him. He puts God’s grace at the forefront of his salvation, so that even his abundant toiling in his ministry is “not I but the grace of God together with me.” Because of this (Gk: oun), Paul’s proclamation of the good news is just as authoritative as that of the other apostles.

“If Christ has not been raised!”

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation is in vain and your faith is in vain.

Some of those in the Corinthian church were denying that there is “a resurrection of the dead-ones” (Gk: anastasis nekrōn), and Paul shows them the logical consequence of their view, that Christ himself has not “been raised out of the dead-ones” (Gk: ek nekrōn egēgertai)! This could be understood in one (or both) of two ways. First, the Corinthians may have been denying that resurrection of dead-ones is possible in principle, and therefore denying that Christ could have been raised. On the other hand, Paul may be saying that Christ’s resurrection secured the resurrection of the dead-ones, so that if the dead-ones won’t be raised, nor was Christ raised! In light of what Paul says later (vv. 20-22), the second option is more likely, though it’s also possible that both are true.

We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.

Paul’s first argument for the resurrection of the dead-ones was that the apostles’ preaching, and the faith of the Corinthians, would be for nothing (Gk: kenon/kenē) if the Messiah wasn’t raised. This is because a crucial component of the good news is that Christ “was raised on the third day” (v. 4). Now, he brings in a second argument: they themselves have testified that God raised up the Messiah, but if the dead-ones will not be raised, the Messiah hasn’t been raised, and they’ve given false testimony about God himself! This is a very serious charge, so Paul urges them to consider the implications of what they’re claiming.

If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile, and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Paul’s third argument is an emotive appeal: if the Messiah wasn’t raised out of the dead-ones, then not only is their faith utterly useless (Gk: mataia), but their loved ones who died in Christ have been utterly destroyed (Gk: apōlonto). In another letter, Paul used the resurrection to comfort believers about those who had died (1 Thess. 4:13-18), but the Corinthians who deny the resurrection of the dead-ones have no such hope. They are, therefore, “more pitiful than all other people.” This paints a remarkably bleak picture, in contrast to the great hope that Paul goes on to describe.

“Then comes the end”

But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. For since death came through a human, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human, for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ.

Having argued sufficiently that Christ was raised, Paul says that his resurrection was as “the firstfruit [Gk: aparchē] of those who have died.” His resurrection out of the dead-ones secured the future raising of the dead-ones! The scope of this resurrection is described as “those who have died” (Gk: tōn kekoimēmenōn; figuratively referring to death as sleep) and “the dead-ones” (Gk: nekrōn), neither one of which suggests any limitation.

Paul makes a comparison between Adam, “in [whom] all people are dying” (Gk: en... pantes apothnēskousin), and Christ, “in [whom] all people will be made alive” (Gk: en... pantes zōopoiēthēsontai). This strongly indicates that the same number who are dying in Adam will be made alive in Christ; if Paul had intended to limit the number who will be made alive, he would have spoken of “all [of you] in Christ” (Gk: pantes en christō; cf. 1 Cor. 16:24; Gal. 3:26, 28), rather than saying “in Christ, all” (Gk: en christō pantes). To paraphrase a statement from a similar passage in one of Paul’s other letters: if more people are dying in Adam than will be made alive in Christ, then where grace increases, sin super-exceeds, so that sin will ultimately reign in death forever (Rom. 5:18-21).

But each in its own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end...

Paul mentions two different categories of the resurrection: “Christ, the firstfruit” (Gk: aparchē christos) and “those of Christ” (Gk: hoi tou christou). Some see three categories here, including “the end” as a group of people to be resurrected, but this ignores the agricultural metaphor. In the harvest, after the firstfruit was presented to God, the entire crop would be harvested, and all the people (even foreigners) would celebrate (Lev. 23:9-22; Deut. 26:1-15). Jesus is the firstfruit of “those who have died” and “all [who] are dying in Adam” (vv. 20-22), which implies that the second stage of the ‘harvest’ includes every person who has died. They are referred to as “those of Christ” because, as Paul says elsewhere, Jesus is “Lording both dead-ones and living-ones,” that is, every person (Rom. 14:9); if he intended to refer to believers alone, he would have said “those in Christ” (Gk: hoi en christō; cf. v. 18).

If the resurrection of all people is in view here, why does Paul speak of “the end” (Gk: to telos) as a third event? When referring to the succession between resurrections, he uses a different word (Gk: epeita) than when he says “then [Gk: eita] the end.” Epeita indicates temporal succession (cf. Gal. 1:18, 21; 2:1), whereas eita can also refer to merely logical succession without a jump in time. Earlier in the same chapter, Paul used eita and epeita in exactly this sense (1 Cor. 15:5-7), because Jesus appeared to Peter and the other disciples at the same time (cf. Matt. 28:16ff; Lk. 24:33ff; John 20:19ff).

...when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Paul alludes to Psalm 109:1 (LXX), which states that the Messiah will sit at God’s right hand “until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” Jesus will “abolish” (Gk: katargēsē) every human dominion, authority, and power, and “hand over” (Gk: paradidō) his kingdom to God, thus re-establishing the original hierarchy of God → humanity → creation (cf. Gen. 1:26-28; Ps. 8:5-9). The Hebraist also pointed to this as the ultimate reason for which Jesus died and was exalted (Heb. 2:5-10).

Death itself, called the “last enemy,” will also be “abolished” (Gk: katargeitai), using a verb that means to render absolutely powerless. This counts against the view that God’s enemies will be annihilated for eternity. If no one dies any more, but some people (even the majority of humanity) remain dead forever, death has no more been abolished than slavery would be abolished if no one new was enslaved while most people remained in slavery forever! On its own, this verse isn’t conclusive against annihilationism, because it could simply be a reiteration of the idea that “Death” will give up those in it and be destroyed before the wicked are judged, found in Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature (Rev. 20:13-14; cf. 1 Enoch 51.1-2; 4 Ezra 7.31-35; 2 Baruch 21.23; LAB 3.10). The surrounding context, however, repudiates an annihilationist interpretation (see below).

For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.

This begins with a paraphrase of Psalm 8:7 (LXX), which speaks of the subjection of all things to humanity, and Paul applies it specifically to Jesus. In another of his letters, he says that Jesus will conform us to the body of his glory “by the working that enables him to subject all things to himself” (Phil. 3:21). In the context of 1 Cor. 15:20-28, this doesn’t refer to impersonal things (even though “all,” panta, is neuter following Ps. 8:7 LXX), but to Christ’s enemies that will be subjected to him (v. 25)! Their subjection won’t be in continuing rebellion, lest the Son’s own subjection to the Father be rebellious. Furthermore, if God’s enemies continued in rebellion to him, then he would never be “in all.”

Thus, for Paul, the telos of history will involve the resurrection of all people, and the subjection of all of Christ’s enemies to himself — not by being tortured or destroyed, but by being conformed to his glory! — so that they are no longer rebellious, but God is all in all. God’s enemies will be reconciled and restored, with the exceptions of (impersonal) human hierarchies and death, which are slated for abolition. Paul isn’t merely speaking loosely here, or accidentally implying the salvation of all; based on the chiastic pattern of the chapter, this is central to his carefully-argued case for the resurrection. For him, the resurrection at the telos of history is inseparable from the subjection in glory of God’s enemies to God himself.

Part 2: 1 Corinthians 15:29-58

So Trump won. Again.

What does this mean about America?

I think it’s a huge mistake to write off all Trump voters as racist and misogynistic. This is the ‘lesson’ that many liberals are taking from the election. MSNBC anchor Joe Scarborough suggested that Trump won because of racist Hispanics (against themselves??) and sexist Black men. This is absurd; support for Trump increased or stayed the same from 2020 to 2024 in nearly every demographic.

To be sure, racism and misogyny played a large role in getting Trump elected. Since 2016 his political campaign has been surrounded and propped up by the alt-right. But that doesn’t explain the motivation of everyone who voted for him or the apparent shift to the right across America. It’s a serious error to think that fascism* is simply when a nation goes collectively insane. That downplays its danger and makes regular people more susceptible to its rhetoric.

*Yes, Trumpism is fascism. Actual scholars of fascism have been saying so for years, well before any Democrat politician was willing to come out and say it.

What this election reveals is a deep dissatisfaction with the way society is – whether that’s the rising cost of living, a feeling of alienation from power, or any number of other factors. The Democrats and establishment Republicans represent the status quo of useless neoliberalism, which is precisely what many Americans are trying to get away from. So when Trump bursts on the scene, telling them that he will solve their problems – by implementing nationalist economics, getting rid of immigrants, and taking vengeance on the establishment – they naturally flock to him. Sure, he has personal flaws, and there’s a chance his policies will only make things worse; but who else has recognized their problems and given them any solution at all?

Bernie Sanders was right when he recently stated, “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. First, it was the white working class, and now it is Latino and Black voters as well. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change.” I would only add that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have ever really been for the working class.

Trump’s victory is disheartening, but it also shows an opportunity. Half the nation is so angry at the status quo that they are willing to vote for someone as noxious as Donald Trump. If the left can present them with a real solution to their problems, at least some of them will come over. Indeed, some of Trump’s supporters seem to be leftists who just don’t know it. This should be our attitude toward Trump voters:

When Trump era policies destroy your access to healthcare, education and clean water I will not be there to gloat, I will be there to help you organize.

When Trump era policies deport your friends or legally deny you healthcare I’m not going to stand over you and say “[see]”, I’m going to help you organize.

When Trump era policies defund public schools in your district and their vouchers aren’t enough for private school, we will not be there to gloat and point fingers, we will be there to help you organize.

– Walter Masterson

Trump’s policies will inevitably fail to solve people’s problems, and will likely make them worse. When they do, we have to be there to help them pick up the pieces and build something new. And not in a paternalistic way, like authoritarians want to do through the state. We have to help organize them to solve their problems as a community.

As Christians, this is especially true of us. Despite how Christianity has been co-opted by some evil people to serve their own ends, we must rebuild the Christian legacy of serving the downtrodden and opposing unjust systems of power. Peter Thiel, the billionaire behind J. D. Vance’s rise to power, blamed Christianity for the rise of “wokeness” because it “always takes the side of the victim.” Let’s prove him right.

Yes. It will be harder to do this under another Trump administration. He’s repeatedly said that he wants to use violent force against the “enemy from within,” which for him includes even milquetoast liberals like Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi. But that only means we have to work harder. If we give up, nothing will ever get done.

So what lesson should we take away from this election? We need to fight like hell to build a better future. That’s our best chance of winning over the right.

Edit: Looks like Adam Conover came to pretty much the same conclusions as me: https://youtu.be/MAJafY-4at0