- ** How does what you believe about the future affect how you behave in the present (1 Cor 15:33-34; 2 Pet 2:2-3)?
- Why did Paul recite the kerygma/the gospel (1 Cor 15:3-4, 12)?
- What are the awful consequences and ramifications of denying the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:13-19)?
- What is the immediate logical consequence for Christ--if there's no resurrection (1 Cor 15:13, 16)?
- For Paul and his preaching of the gospel--if there's no resurrection (1 Cor 15:14a, 15, 19)?
- For them--if there's no resurrection (1 Cor 15:14b, 17-18)? Why does this make a Christian's faith futile (1 Cor 15:17-18)? What does Christ's resurrection have to do with your sins (1 Cor 15:17b)?
- If Christ was not raised, why would this make Christians the most pitiful of all people (1 Cor 15:19, 30-32)?
- Will those who have died as Christians perish (1 Cor 15:18, 20a, 5-8; Jn 20:14, 19-22; Lk 24:15, 31-32; Mt 28:9, 17; Mk 16:9ff)? Is the "firstfruits" (1 Cor 15:20b) a guarantee of the full harvest (1 Cor 15:23)?
- How does Paul contrast Adam and Christ (1 Cor 15:21-22)? Why do we all die in Adam and made alive in Christ (Rom 5:12, 17, 19; 6:23)?
- How would you know that you belong to Christ (1 Cor 15:23)?
- When is the end, what is the end and what happens at the end (1 Cor 15:24-26)?
- What is the kingdom Christ hands over to the Father (1 Cor 15:24a)?
- What are the dominions, authorities and powers that will be destroyed (1 Cor 15:24b)?
- How is this political and a political challenge (Mt 6:10; Lk 11:2)?
- Why is death the last enemy that must be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26; Heb 2:14-15)?
- What is a church practice of theirs that doesn't make sense if there is no resurrection (1 Cor 15:29)?
- What does the truth of the resurrection motivate Paul to do (1 Cor 15:30-32a)?
- Is a hedonistic life the logical alternative if the dead are not raised (1 Cor 15:32b; Isa 22:13)? What's so terrible about eating and drinking (Mt 24:38; Lk 17:27)?
- What/who is bad/evil company (1 Cor 15:33)? What's so bad/evil about denying the resurrection? Why do they need to sober/wake up (1 Cor 15:34a)? How might they be "ignorant of God" (1 Cor 15:34b; 1:19; 8:1; 3:1 [sophia 17x, gnosis 10x, pneumatikos 14x])? Why is their ignorance a shameful destructive bad influence (1 Cor 6:9; 10:14)?
The Resurrection of the Dead is Certain (15:12-20). The Defeat of Death (15:21-28, 29-34)--the last enemy to be destroyed. By appealing to logic, Paul explains the logical consequences, and the illogical nature of their position (1 Cor 15:12).
- Denial of the resurrection negates the gospel (15:12-19). What if Christ has NOT been raised? The consequences of no resurrection from the dead. The absurdity of their position.
- But Christ HAS been raised; so all who belong to him will be raised (15:20-28). The centrality of the resurrection in God's program. The splendor of Paul's position.
- Otherwise, hope, suffering and faithfulness are pointless (15:29-34). Ad hominem arguments for resurrection. Christian life is made purposeful because of the resurrection. The absurdity of both his and their position.
Consider what you believe about the future and how you behave in the present. Those who put their hope in Christ live in the world as people whose confidence in the final vindication of Christ through our own resurrection determines how they live day to day (1 Cor 7:29-31). If you slip at this key point, it relaxes your attitude toward Christian ethics.
- What do people see when they look at you?
- Do they see in you a confidence of your guaranteed glorious future in Christ in a life where sin and death have no place at all? That Christ has freed and delivered you from the bodage of sin and death?
Denial of resurrection of the dead negates the gospel (15:12–19). Why did Paul recitate the kerygma (1 Cor 15:3-5)? "Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?" (1 Cor 15:12) "Proclaimed" is the same word used to sum up the content of the gospel that had been preached to them: "so we proclaim and so you have come to believe" (1 Cor 15:11). Thus, 1 Cor 15:12 proclaims the content of the preached gospel, focusing on Christ's resurrection, and then indignantly/bluntly confronts them with their illogical disbelief.
"There's no resurrection of the dead," say some. Who were they, and why were they doing so? There's not much info about the deniers. What inferences can we make? Nowhere in this ch. does Paul suggest that they think the resurrection has already occurred. Rather, Paul aims at affirming a resurrection of the body against those who find this unpalatable. This was an ongoing controversy in the early church. Justin Martyr, the great 2nd-century apologist in his debate with Trypho the Jew, is fiercely polemical and acknowledges that there're "some who are called Christians who say that there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven." Against such "godless, impious heretics," Justin states: "Do not imagine that they are Christians." These 2nd-century Christians against whom Justin railed were repeating what Paul combated a century earlier. [The position rejected by Paul and Justin as heretical has become popular among most churchgoers.] Justin continues, "I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead [sarkos anastasin, literally, resurrection of the flesh]."
The most skeptical about anastasis nekron ("the rising of corpses") were those with greater culture and knowledge of enough philosophy to distance themselves from Paul's apocalyptic/eschatological worldview, whom they view as an unsophisticated, literalist Jewish preacher. Like many thinkers in the ancient Mediterranean world, they may desire escape of the rational soul from the body--a dark and corrupt tomb from which the enlightened seeks release. Plutarch insists that only the soul can attain to the realm of the gods, through freeing itself from the senses and becoming "pure, fleshless, and undefiled" (Romulus 28.6). With such refined philosophical thought--the "wise"--say something like: "The resurrection of Jesus is a wonderful metaphor for the spiritual change that God works in the lives of those with knowledge of the truth. 'Resurrection' symbolizes the power of the Spirit that we experience in our wisdom and our spiritual gifts. But the image of resuscitated corpses (anastasis nekron) is only for childish fundamentalists. Those of us who are spiritual find it repugnant."
Outrage and astonishment is Paul's response to their refined skepticism, for it denies in principle the heart of the gospel: "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised" (1 Cor 15:13). Jesus' resurrection is not an illustrative fable, but a real event, a bodily resurrection. "Christ" is not a symbol of abstract theological truths. Those who deny that God has the power to raise the dead contradict the gospel, and it's illogical to continue speaking in the name of Christ.
Disastrous consequences follow (15:14-18) "if Christ has not been raised" (1 Cor 15:14), for the whole foundation of Christian faith has been removed. Paul builds a rhetorically devastating cumulative picture of the logical entailments of denying the resurrection (15:14-18). The major points "If Christ has not been raised":
- Our proclamation (kerygma) is in vain (1 Cor 15:14)
- Result: We are false witnesses about God (1 Cor 15:15)
- Your faith is in vain (1 Cor 15:14) and futile (1 Cor 15:17)
- Result: You are still in your sins (1 Cor 15:17)
- Those who have died in Christ are lost (1 Cor 15:18)
Repeating the vanity and futility of Christian talk apart from the reality of the resurrection is striking (1 Cor 15:2, 10, 32b, 58). Christian discourse is
airy nonsense if it's not anchored in the truth of the resurrection of Jesus. Christian preaching is a
system of delusions, offering nothing but lies and empty gestures.
The gospel has no power to save us if Christ is not raised, and therefore they're still lost in their sins, their hope of reconciliation with God based on
futile human fantasy.
God is still real and still judges human sin. They—precisely as Gentiles alienated from Israel's God—are left with no hope, standing under the threat of God's final verdict. Only the resurrection of Jesus offers a real possibility of their transformation into a new life with God in which their sin is forgiven and overcome. Thus, this paragraph is a glimpse into the plight of Gentiles apart from the death and resurrection of Jesus: they are aptly summarized as, "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Eph 2:12). If we run the film backward and edit out the resurrection of Jesus, that hopeless situation still prevails.
To the believers who've already died (literally "fallen asleep"): If Christ has not been raised, then they are "utterly lost" (NEB, 1 Cor 15:18). They're destroyed by death and consigned to eternal oblivion. Paul addresses this pastoral problem in 1 Th 4:13–18 by assuring the Thessalonians that those who are left alive until the coming of the Lord will not be separated from those who have "fallen asleep," for the dead will be raised first and the dead and living together will meet the Lord at his return. Here in 1 Cor, Paul's pastoral objective is different: he's not trying to reassure believers who have anxiety over the ultimate fate of their loved ones, but inducing some anxiety among them about this point! Consider the full consequences of denying the resurrection of the dead: those who have gone to their graves hoping in Christ are simply gone!
The horrifying chilling conclusion: "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied" (1 Cor 15:19). The translation of this sentence is difficult because of the position of the word "only" in Gk. A literal translation reads, "If in this life in Christ we have only hoped…." Most interpreters agree that "only" should modify "this life" (as in NRSV, NIV, NEB, JB) rather than the verb "hoped." Or, the meaning could be, "If, during this life in Christ, we have only hoped [but hoped in vain, since there is no resurrection], we are of all people most to be pitied." Either way, the sense is much the same.
On the surface, the thought expressed is similar to a prayer in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (a Jewish text from the late 1st or early 2nd century (C.E.) laments the necessity of decay and death: "For if only this life exists, which everyone possesses here, nothing could be more bitter than this." The point is different from Paul's. Baruch says that death casts a pall over everything in life, because of the transience of all human strength and beauty. [His prayer is answered by a subsequent divine revelation that death is a necessary part of God's plan for the world and promising an ultimate divine salvation for the righteous.) Paul isn't speaking about human mortality, but says that Christians in particular should be most pitied if there's no resurrection. Why? If Christ is not raised, does that not simply put us back in the same condition with everyone else in the world? 2 good answers to this question.
- If Christ hasn't been raised, we Christians mock ourselves with falsehood. We preach an illusion. We offer for the world's ills a pious lie that veils from ourselves the terrifying truth that we are powerless and alone.
- Christians are called to a life of "embracing death," suffering through selfless service of others (1 Cor 10:33–11:1), not seeking our own advantage or pleasure. If there's no resurrection, such self-denying life makes no sense; those following Jesus' and Paul's example are missing out on life's rewards (1 Cor 15:32b).
Is Christian faith only a promise of "pie in the sky" with no value for the present life? Of course not! Paul and NT writers, believe that life in Christ is one of
great joy and peace and consolation in the present (Rom 5:1–5; 8:1–11; Gal 5:22–23; Phil 4:4–7)—though he says little about this in 1 Cor. His point here is that
the complex and fulfilling life of the Christian community has integrity only if it is premised on the truth and ordered towards the ultimate fulfillment of God's promises. If the telos (goal) of our life together in Christ is not true, then we're living in
an unhealthy self-deception—as Christianity's critics, ancient and modern, have charged.
There's no authentic Christian faith without fervent eschatological hope, and
there's no authentic eschatological hope without the resurrection of the dead.Because Christ has been raised, all who belong to him will be raised (15:20–28). In fact, all the "if" clauses (15:12–19) are not true, as Paul moves
from illusion to reality: "But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead" (1 Cor 15:20a)--a triumphant declaration resuming the glad story in
15:3–8 and sweeps away all the gloomy hypothetical consequences that follow from denying the resurrection.
The risen Christ is "the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep" (1 Cor 15:20b) is an aspect of Christ's resurrection not explicit in the traditional kerygmatic formula (15:3b-5). Jesus' resurrection is not just a wondrous event, but
the beginning of a much greater harvest. This is the crucial point that some fail to understand:
they didn't see a direct connection between Christ's resurrection and their own future fate.
Could the early Christian movement possibly not understand this? 1 Cor 15 and 1 Th 4:13–18 shows that Paul had to explain it repeatedly to his Gentile churches.
Paul's epistles in general shows that a major task of ministry is to teach the basics of the faith again and again! Is it any different today? Didn't he articulate this fully enough while he was with them, because it was so obvious to him?
Just 1 man raised? For 1 man alone to be raised is a great surprise in the Jewish apocalyptic framework. In the Judaism of Paul's day there's no thought that the Messiah would be killed and rise from the dead. Instead, it was expected that a great general resurrection would accompany God's judgment of the world; the resurrection of the dead can't just happen to 1 person only. But early Christians, Paul among them [in Jewish apocalyptic categories], took the resurrection of Jesus as a sign that the end of the age was breaking in. If Christ is raised, then the resurrection of others must follow in due course. The metaphor of "first fruits" anticipates that the great harvest of the general resurrection is at hand.
Paul turns from metaphor to typology to make the same point (1 Cor 15:21-22). The consequences of Christ's rising correspond (antithetically) to the consequences of Adam's sin, which brought death upon all humanity (1 Cor 15:21a). The impact of Jesus' death and resurrection is equally sweeping: "for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ" (1 Cor 15:22, 45–49; Rom 5:12–21). A powerful chorus in Handel's Messiah based on this passage (1 Cor 15:20-22, 51-57) compactly narrates the great reversal of the gospel, that our ultimate destiny is transformed from death to life through Christ's resurrection. This 1st reference to Adam in 1 Cor shows that Paul expects them to know Gen 1–3, which he likely taught them during his time in Corinth. This illustrates Israel's Scripture defining the symbolic world within which Paul thinks (1 Cor 5:6–8; 10:1–22). Paul's point: the resurrection of Christ breaks the power of death prevailing over all human beings since Adam (Rom 5:12).
Does this mean universal salvation of all human beings through Christ's resurrection, as "all will be made alive" (1 Cor 15:22b) might suggest? Many of Paul's other statements make it difficult to suppose that he held such a view (1 Cor 1:18; 2:6; 3:17; 4:5; 6:9–10). Indeed, the unqualified "all" (1 Cor 15:22) is specified in the sentence immediately following: it is "those who belong to Christ" who will be raised at the time of his coming (1 Cor 15:23). Paul believes firmly in election—another characteristic doctrine of Jewish apocalyptic—and he is concerned in the present passage only about the way in which Christ's resurrection prefigures the fate of hoi tou Christou, "those who are Christ's people." He says nothing one way or the other in this passage about the resurrection and judgment of unbelievers.
The resurrection of our bodies is an eschatological hope. "But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming [parousia] those who belong to Christ" (1 Cor 15:23). Paul so carefully delineates the sequence of these events in time. This is the 1 sentence in the ch. that supports the view that some of them were prematurely claiming to be enjoying the life of the resurrection. Paul situates the church's present life in the interval between Christ's resurrection and parousia and insists that our resurrection must await his coming. They could have "overrealized eschatology." But Paul is concerned to tell the story rightly and to correct a possible misreading of what he'd just said (1 Cor 15:20–22). The resurrection of the dead will occur at the time of Christ's parousia, not sooner.
God assaults and defeats Death this way: Christ comes 1st, then, 2nd, those who belong to him. The term tagma ("order, rank" (1 Cor 15:23)—usually used of a unit of soldiers) is a military metaphor dominating 15:23–28. Death is an "enemy" to be subdued by Christ (1 Cor 15:26) as he destroys all the enemies of God and takes control of everything in creation. The final defeat of Death at the general resurrection will constitute the collapse of all resistance to Christ's power and bring us to "the end [to telos], when he hands over the kingdom of God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power" (1 Cor 15:24). Christ's triumph over the powers of this world [verb katargein--"destroyed" (1 Cor 15:24, 26) appears in a similar eschatological sense (1 Cor 15:1:28 and 2:6)], but here Paul spells out the story in full.
"Rule" [arch], "authority" [exousia], "power" [dynamis] (1 Cor 15:24) are cosmic forces opposing God (Rom 8:38; Col 1:16, 2:10–15; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12), but they have political implications. Christ is Lord, the kingdom ultimately belonging to God the Father is a frontal challenge to imperial Rome (Witherington). In Corinth, a Roman colony, people see statues and temples dedicated to Roman rulers. So Paul summons them to a conversion of the imagination, seeing the world as standing ultimately under the authority of another who will overturn the arrangements of power that now exist. Resurrection of the dead is a subversive belief, because it declares that God alone is sovereign over the created world.
The ultimate victory of Christ over death is confirmed by Scripture (1 Cor 15:25, 27; Ps 110:1; 8:7), that all things will be put under the feet of Christ. Paul uses these OT texts allusively—with no explanation or justification given for relating them to Christ. Thus, the Christian conviction is that Psalms are to be read christologically (Mk 12:35–37 and parallels; Heb 1:13; 2:5–9). This is probably what Paul means when he says that the resurrection of Jesus is "in accordance with the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:4). For some reason, most English translations treat the reference to Ps 8 (1 Cor 15:27) as a quotation, but not the reference to Ps 110 (1 Cor 15:25). [...except JB, which correctly treats both as quotations.]
Christ reigns until he subdues every adversary is a divinely decreed necessity (dei, 1 Cor 15:25), which Scripture bears witness to. "The last enemy to be destroyed is death" (1 Cor 15:26) is Paul's interpretation of Ps 110:1, explaining that death is included among the enemies. Death personified (1 Cor 15:54–55) characterizes Paul's understanding of salvation as a great narrative drama in which the protagonist Christ delivers God's people from bondage to Sin and Death through his obedience in going to death on a cross (Rom 5:12–21; Phil 2:5–11). Interpreting Death as one defeated eschatological enemy is justified by appeal to Ps 8:6, that God has put all things (including death) under Christ's feet. Thus, these Psalm texts prove that Christ finally overcomes death.
"All things" of course doesn't include God [a fascinating tangential remark], for Christ will at the end "be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all" (1 Cor 15:27–28). Is Paul operating with what would later be called a subordinationist christology? The doctrine of the Trinity was not formulated in Paul's day, and his reasoning is based solely on the scriptural texts themselves, read in light of his Jewish monotheistic convictions and his conviction that Jesus is proclaimed as "Lord" by virtue of his resurrection (Rom 1:4).
Death and resurrection in eschatological perspective, declaring Christ's victory over death as assured and that this necessarily entails the future resurrection of all who belong to him (15:20-28). These affirmations are a powerful reply to those who say there is no resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:12).
Hope, suffering and faithfulness are pointless (15:29–34) if the dead are not raised. Paul returns to the argumentative strategy of 15:12–19 to show that denying the resurrection of the dead undermines the meaningfulness and integrity of the church's life. In 15:12–19 the dire consequences of denying the resurrection were in general terms. In 15:29–34, Paul notes specific practices that make no sense in a resurrectionless world (15:29–32a) and concludes by warning them that their abandonment of belief in the resurrection has led the community into sin (15:32b-34).
The specific examples with rhetorical questions that allude to matters well known to them but opaque to us. Don't get bogged down in speculation to explain these obscure references. Instead, use analogous contemporary examples our churches that make no sense if the dead are not raised. For eg., "If the dead are not raised, why do we sacrifice our time and resources in running a soup kitchen for the homeless?" Paul's examples are baptism on behalf of the dead (1 Cor 15:29) and the danger and suffering of his own apostolic labors (1 Cor 15:30–32a).
Vicarious baptism for the dead is not otherwise known in 1st-century Christianity. This seems superstitious and objectionable that it's hard to believe that Paul didn't object to it. Some performed baptisms on behalf of others who died (family members?). Is this their high view of baptism, akin to Paul's cautionary words about its limitations (1 Cor 1:14–17; 10:1–13)? Paul certainly doesn't have a "magical" view of baptism. Yet he apparently sanctions this by pointing out that it's unintelligible unless there's a resurrection. This serves as another evidence that Pauline soteriology is far less individualistic than Christians after the Reformation have supposed. Also, he believes that the community can act on behalf of those who are not able to act on their own behalf. Cf. the actions of Judas Maccabeus to atone for the sins of his slain soldiers: "He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of 2,000 drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be delivered from their sin." [2 Macc 12:43–45].
This shows that some Jews of Paul's era held beliefs that might have made baptism for the dead an intelligible practice. But Paul neither cites this nor commends vicarious baptism in 1 Cor 15:29; he merely points out that it's contradictory for the church to practice it while at the same time denying the resurrection.
Paul repeatedly puts his own life and health at risk to proclaim the gospel (1 Cor 15:30-32; 4:11–13; 2 Cor 4:8–12; 6:3–10; 11:23–33). But if there's no resurrection, why bother (1 Cor 15:14–15, 19)? Fighting wild animals at Ephesus (1 Cor 15:32) is a metaphor for contending with opposition. That Paul encounters "many adversaries" to his missionary work in Ephesus (1 Cor 16:8–9) is a more literal statement about the same events (2 Cor 1:8–11; Ac 19:2341). The metaphor of fighting wild beasts is found also in Ignatius of Antioch, almost certainly echoing Paul: "From Syria to Rome I am fighting with wild beasts, by land and sea, by night and day, bound to ten 'leopards'—that is, a company of soldiers" (Ignatius, To the Romans 5:1). [The word "company" of soldiers tagma is the same in 1 Cor. 15:23; nicely illustrating its normal use in a military context.]
Paul's apostolic labor is how one should live in light of the promise of resurrection, so their behavior is the opposite (1 Cor 15:32b). Their skepticism led them to act like the frenzied inhabitants of Jerusalem who faced siege and annihilation at the hands of the Assyrians (Isa 22:12–14). Instead of repenting and weeping, they "partied like there was no tomorrow." "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (Isa 22:13) well characterizes these resurrection-denying "Christians," whose misbehavior has much to do with eating and drinking (1 Cor 10:21–22; 11:20–22). They didn't justify or connect eating idol meat and gorging themselves at the Lord's Supper with their denial of resurrection, but Paul suggests a hidden inner connection.
Evil companions/conversations corrupt (1 Cor 15:33-34). Why does Paul suddenly quote a Greek proverbial saying taken from a lost play of Menander: "Bad company ruins good morals"? The link with 1 Cor 15:33–34 is at first sight obscure. "The abrupt interjection of the saying in Paul's argument may indicate that he believes the Corinthians' skepticism to be due to influences from other sources—in fact to persons who have only 'ignorance of God'—a designation often used by Jews to refer to Gentiles. All this suggests that Paul attributes the Corinthians' doubts to Greek philosophy, especially, perhaps, the skepticism of Epicureanism" (Dale Martin, Corinthian Body). The concluding reproach, "I say this to your shame" (1 Cor 15:34b) repeats almost verbatim an earlier scolding (1 Cor 6:5) for their taking legal disputes before pagan judges. Rather than correcting the "ignorance of God" of their pagan neighbors, the "knowing" Christians are tailoring their faith to the intellectual standards of pagan philosophy, with the result that they are surrendering the heart of the gospel and being drawn into idolatrous and immoral behavior. This is the fate of those who "demythologize" the gospel, from Paul's day to ours. To those who want to demythologize the resurrection, Paul has only a stern word of admonition: "Come to a sober and right mind, and sin no more" (1 Cor 15:34a). To proclaim Christ's resurrection is to enter a world made new by God and therefore to lead a transformed life, even in the present age.
Reference:
- Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
- Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987, 2014.
- Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.
