CHAPTER 15.

PREVIOUS CHAPTER - NEXT CHAPTER - HELP     

Bible Library

Forex Trading

Store Items

Audio Bible

eBook Business

THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. In treating this subject the apostle first proves the fact of Christ’s resurrection, vs. 1-11. He thence deduces, first, the possibility, and then the certainty of the resurrection of his people, vs. 12-34. He afterwards teaches the nature of the resurrection, so far as to show that the doctrine is not liable to the objections which had been brought against it, vs. 35-58.

THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST AS SECURING THE RESURRECTION OF HIS PEOPLE VS. 1-34.

That certain false teachers in Corinth denied the resurrection of the dead is plain, not only from the course of argument here adopted but from the explicit statement in v. 12. Who these persons were, and what were the grounds of their objections, can only be conjectured from the nature of the apostolic argument. The most common opinion is that the objectors were converted Sadducees. The only reason for this opinion is that the Sadducees denied the doctrine of the resurrection, and that Paul, as appears from Acts 24:6-9 and 26:6-8, had been before brought into collision with them on this subject. The objections to this view are of no great weight. It is said that such was the hostility of the Sadducees to the gospel that it is not probable any of their number were among the converts to Christianity.

The case of Paul himself proves that the bitterest enemies could, by the grace of God, be converted into friends. It is further objected that Paul could not, in argument with Sadducees, make the resurrection of Christ the basis of his proof. But he does not assume that fact as conceded, but proves it by an array of the testimony by which it was supported. Others suppose that the opponents of the doctrine were Epicureans. There is, however, no indication of their peculiar opinions in the chapter. In v. Epicurean carelessness and indulgence are represented as the consequence, not the cause, of the denial of the resurrection. Nothing more definite can be arrived at on this point than the conjecture that the false teachers in question were men of Grecian culture. In Acts 17:32 it is said of the Athenians that “some mocked” when they heard Paul preach the doctrine of the resurrection. From the character of the objections answered in the latter part of the chapter, vs. 35-58, it is probable that the objections urged against the doctrine were founded on the assumption that a material organization was unsuited to the future state. It is not unlikely that oriental philosophy, which assumed that matter was the source and seat of evil, had produced an effect on the minds of these Corinthian skeptics as well as on the Christians of Colosse. The decision of the question as to what particular class of persons the opponents of the doctrine of the resurrection belonged, happily is of no importance in the interpretation of the apostle’s argument. As in 2 Timothy 2:17,18 he speaks of Hymeneus and Philetus as teaching that the resurrection was passed already, it is probable that these errorists in Corinth also refused to acknowledge any other than a spiritual resurrection.

After reminding the Corinthians that the doctrine of the resurrection was a primary principle of the gospel, which he had preached to them, and on which their salvation depended, vs. 1-3, he proceeds to assert and prove the fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day. This event had been predicted in the Old Testament. Its actual occurrence is proved,1. By Christ appearing after his resurrection, first to Peter and then to the twelve. 2. By his appearing to upward of five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom were still alive. 3. By a separate appearance to James. 4. And then again to all the apostles. 5. Finally by his appearance to Paul himself. There never was a historical event established on surer evidence than that of the resurrection of Christ, vs. 4-8 This fact, therefore, was included in the preaching of all the apostles, and in the faith of all Christians, v. 11.

But if this be so, how can the doctrine of the resurrection be denied by any who pretend to be Christians? To deny the resurrection of the dead is to deny the resurrection of Christ; and to deny the resurrection of Christ, is to subvert the gospel, vs. 12-14; and also to make the apostles false witnesses, v. 15. If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain, we are yet in our sins, those dead in Christ are perished, and all the hopes of Christians are destroyed, vs. 16-19. But if Christ be risen, then his people will also rise, because he rose as a pledge of their resurrection. As Adam was the cause of death, so Christ is the cause of life; Adam secured the death of all who are in him, and Christ secures the life of all who are in him, vs. 20-22.

Although the resurrection of Christ secures the resurrection of his people, the two events are not contemporaneous. Christ rose first, his people are to rise when he comes the second time. Then is to be the final consummation, when Christ shall deliver up his providential kingdom as mediator to the Father, after all his enemies are subdued, vs. 23, 24. It is necessary that Christ’s dominion over the universe, to which he was exalted after his resurrection, should continue until his great work of subduing or restraining evil was accomplished. When that is done, then the Son (the Theantropos, the Incarnate Logos), will be subject to the Father, and God as God, and not as Mediator, reign supreme, 25-28.

Besides the arguments already urged, there are two other considerations which prove the truth or importance of the doctrine of the resurrection.

The first is, “the baptism for the dead” (whatever that means) prevailing in Corinth, assumes the truth of the doctrine, v. 29. The other is, the intimate connection between this doctrine and that of a future state is such, that if the one be denied, the other cannot, in a Christian sense, be maintained. If there be no resurrection, there is for Christians no hereafter, and they may act on the principle, “Let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die,” vs. 30-32. The apostle concludes this part of the subject by warning his readers against the corrupting influence of evil associations. Whence it is probable that the denial of the doctrine had already produced the evil effects, referred to among those who rejected it, vs. 33, 34. 1, 2. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I have preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

There is no connection between this and the preceding chapter. The particle de> , rendered moreover, indicates the introduction of a new subject. I declare unto (gnwri>zw ), literally, I make known to you, as though they had never heard it before. ‘Moreover, brethren, I proclaim to you the gospel.’ This interpretation is more consistent with the signification of the word, and more impressive than the rendering adopted by many, ‘I remind you.’ Comp. however, 12:3; 2 Corinthians 8:1. Of this gospel Paul says, 1. That he had preached it. 2. They had received it, i.e. embraced it as true. 3. That they then professed it. They still stood firm in their adherence to the truth. It was not the Corinthians as a body, but only “some among them,” v. 12, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection. 4. That by it they are saved. The present tense is used to express either the certainty of the event, or the idea that believers are in this life partakers of salvation. They are already saved. There is to them no condemnation. They are renewed and made partakers of spiritual life.

Their salvation, however, is conditioned on their perseverance. If they do not persevere, they will not only fail of the consummation of the work of salvation, but it becomes manifest that they never were justified or renewed. ‘Ye are saved (eij kate>cete ) if ye hold fast.’ The word does not mean, if ye keep in memory. It simply means, if ye hold fast; whether that be by a physical holding fast with the hand, or a retaining in the memory, or a retaining in faith, depends on the connection. Here it is evident that the condition of salvation is not retaining in the memory, but persevering in the faith. ‘The gospel saves you,’ says the apostle, ‘if you hold fast the gospel which I preached unto you.’

The only difficulty in the passage relates to the words ti>ni lo>gw| , literally, with what discourse; which in our version is expressed by the word what.

This may express the true sense. The idea is, ‘If you hold fast to the gospel as I preached it to you.’ The principal objection to this interpretation is the position of the words. The order in which they stand is, ‘With what discourse I preached unto you if ye hold fast.’ The interpretation just mentioned reverses this order. This clause is therefore by many connected with the first words of the chapter. ‘I bring to your knowledge, brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which ye received, wherein ye stand, by which ye are saved, (I bring to your knowledge, I say,) how, qua ratione, I preached, if ye hold fast.’ This, however, breaks the connection. It is, therefore, better to consider the words ti>ni lo>gw| as placed first for the sake of emphasis. ‘You are saved if you hold fast (the gospel) as I preached it to you.’ Unless ye have believed in vain. The word eijkh~, in vain, may mean either without cause, Galatians 2:18, or without effect, i.e. to no purpose, Galatians 3:4; 4:11; If the former, then Paul means to say, ‘Unless ye believed without evidence, i.e. had no ground for your faith.’ If the latter, the meaning is, ‘Unless your faith is worthless.’ The clause may be connected with the preceding words, ‘If ye hold fast, which ye do, or will do, unless ye believed without cause.’ The better connection is with the words ye are saved, etc. ‘Ye are saved, if ye persevere, unless indeed faith is worthless.’

If, as the errorists in Corinth taught, there is no resurrection, Paul says, v. 14, our faith is vain; it is an empty, worthless thing. So here he says, the gospel secures salvation, unless faith be of no account. 3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures:

For introduces the explanation of ‘what he had preached.’ I delivered unto you first of all; first, not in reference to time; nor first to the Corinthians, which would not be historically true, as Paul did not preach first at Corinth; but ejn prw> toiv means, among the first, or principal things. The death of Christ for our sins and his resurrection were therefore the great facts on which Paul insisted as the foundation of the gospel. Which also I received, i.e. by direct revelation from Christ himself. Comp. 11:23. Galatians 1:12. “I did not receive it (the gospel) from man, neither was I taught it; but by revelation of Jesus Christ.” The apostle, therefore, could speak with infallible confidence, both as to what the gospel is and as to its truth. That Christ died for our sins, i.e. as a sacrifice or propitiation for our sins. Comp. Romans 3:23-26. Some commentators remark that as uJpe, for sin, cannot mean in the place of sin, therefore uJpefor us, cannot mean in our place. This remark, however, has no more force in reference to the Greek preposition, uJpe>r , than it has in relation to the English preposition, for. Whether the phrase, to die for any one, means to die for his benefit, or in his place, is determined by the connection. It may mean either or both; and the same is true of the corresponding scriptural phrase. According to the Scriptures, i.e. the fact that the Messiah was to die as a propitiation for sin had been revealed in the Old Testament. That the death of Christ as an atoning sacrifice was predicted by the law and the prophets is the constant doctrine of the New Testament. Our Lord reproved his disciples for not believing what the prophets had spoken on this subject, Luke 24:25,26. Paul protested before Festus, that in preaching the gospel he had said “none other things than those which Moses and the prophets say should come; that Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles,” Acts 26:22,23. He assured the Romans that his gospel was “witnessed (to) by the law and the prophets,” Romans 3:21. The epistle to the Hebrews is an exposition of the whole Mosaic service as a prefiguration of the office and work of Christ. And the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is the foundation of all the New Testament exhibitions of a suffering and atoning Messiah. Paul and all other faithful ministers of the gospel, therefore, teach that atonement for sin, by the death of Christ, is the great doctrine of the whole word of God. 4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures: There are two things taught in this, as in the preceding verse. First, the truth of the facts referred to; and secondly, that those facts had been predicted. It is true that Christ was buried, and that he rose again on the third day. These facts were included in the revelation made to Paul, and the truth of which he proceeds to confirm by abundant additional testimony.

That these facts were predicted in the Old Testament, is taught in John 20:9. Acts 26:23. The passage especially urged by the apostles as foretelling the resurrection of Christ, is Psalm 16:10. Peter proves that that Psalm cannot be understood of David, because his body was allowed to see corruption. It must, he says, be understood of Christ, who was raised from the dead, and “saw no corruption,” Acts 13:34-37. The prophetic Scriptures, however, are full of this doctrine; for on the one hand they predict the sufferings and death of the Messiah, and on the other his universal and perpetual dominion. It is only on the assumption that he was to rise from the dead that these two classes of prediction can be reconciled. 5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: As the resurrection of Christ is an historical fact, it is to be proved by historical evidence. The apostle therefore appeals to the testimony of competent witnesses. All human laws assume that the testimony of two witnesess, when uncontradicted, and especially when confirmed by collateral evidence, produces such conviction of the truth of the fact asserted as to justify even taking the life of a fellow-creature. Confidence in such testimony is not founded on experience, but on the constitution of our nature. We are so constituted that we cannot refuse assent to the testimony of good men to a fact fairly within their knowledge. To render such testimony irresistible it is necessary, 1. That the fact to be proved should be of a nature to admit of being certainly known. 2. That adequate opportunity be afforded to the witnesses to ascertain its nature, and to be satisfied of its verity. 3. That the witnesses be of sound mind and discretion. 4. That they be men of integrity. If these conditions be fulfilled, human testimony establishes the truth of a fact beyond reasonable doubt. If, however, in addition to these grounds of confidence, the witnesses give their testimony at the expense of great personal sacrifice, or confirm it with their blood; if, moreover, the occurrence of the fact in question had been predicted centuries before it came to pass; if it had produced effects not otherwise to be accounted for, effects extending to all ages and nations; if the system of doctrine with which that fact is connected so as to be implied in it, commends itself as true to the reason and conscience of men; and if God confirms not only the testimony of the original witnesses to the fact, but also the truth of the doctrines of which that fact is the necessary basis, by the demonstration of his Spirit, then it is insanity and wickedness to doubt it.

All these considerations concur in proof of the resurrection of Christ, and render it the best authenticated event in the history of the world.

The apostle does not refer to all the manifestations of our Lord after his resurrection, but selects a few which he details in the order of their occurrence. The first appearance mentioned is that to Cephas; see Luke 24:34. The second occurred on the same day “to the eleven and those who were with them,” Luke 24:33-36. To this Paul refers by saying, “then to the twelve;” comp. also John 20:19. On this occasion, when the disciples were terrified by his sudden appearance in the midst of them, he said, “Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see the have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet.” Luke 24:38-40. The apostles collectively, after the apostasy of Judas, are spoken of as the twelve according to a common usage, although at the time there were only eleven. 6. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

There is no distinct record of this event in the evangelical history. It may have taken place on the occasion when Christ met his disciples in Galilee.

Before his death he told them, “After I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee,” Matthew 26:32. Early in the morning of his resurrection he met the women who had been at his tomb, and said to them, “Be not afraid; go tell my brethren, that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me,” Matthew 28:10; and accordingly in v. 16, it is said, “Then the eleven went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.” This, therefore, was a formally appointed meeting, and doubtless made known as extensively as possible to his followers, and it is probable, therefore, that there was a concourse of all who could come, not only from Jerusalem, but from the surrounding country, and from Galilee. Though intended specially for the eleven, it is probable that all attended who knew of the meeting, and could possibly reach the appointed place. Who would willingly be absent on such an occasion? Others think that this appearance took place at Jerusalem, where, in addition to the one hundred and twenty who constituted the nucleus of the church in the holy city, there were probably many disciples gathered from all parts of Judea in attendance on the passover. The special value of this testimony to the fact of Christ’s resurrection, arises not only from the number of the witnesses, but from Paul’s appeal to their testimony while the majority of them were still alive. Some have fallen asleep. This is the Christian expression for dying, v. 18, and 11:30. Death to the believer is a sleep for his body; a period of rest to be followed by a glorious day. 7. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Which James is here intended cannot be determined, as the event is not elsewhere recorded. The chronological order indicated in this citation of witnesses, renders it improbable that the reference is to our Lord’s interview with the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, and is inconsistent with the tradition preserved by Jerome, that Christ appeared to James immediately after his resurrection. It has been inferred that the James intended was James the brother of our Lord, who presided over the church in Jerusalem, because he was so conspicuous and universally known. Then to all the apostles. This, for the reason given above, probably does not refer to the appearance of Christ to the eleven on the day in which he rose from the dead. It may refer to what is recorded in John 20:26; or to the interview mentioned in Acts 1:4. Whether James was one of the apostles is not determined by any thing in the verse. The word pa~sin may be used to indicate that the appearance was to the apostles collectively; and this, from its position, is the most natural explanation. Or the meaning may be, he appeared to James separately, and then to all the apostles including James. If the James intended was James of Jerusalem; and if that James were a different person from James the son of Alpheus (a disputed point), then the former interpretation should be preferred. For “the apostle” answers to “the twelve,” and if James of Jerusalem was not the son of Alpheus, he was not one of the twelve. 8. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Last of all may mean last of all the apostles; or, as is more probable, last of all means the very last. As to an abortion, he appeared to me. Such is Paul’s language concerning himself. Thus true is it, that unmerited favors produce self-abasement. Paul could never think of the distinction conferred on him by Christ, without adverting to his own unworthiness. 9. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God.

The least , not because the last in the order of appointment, but in rank and dignity. Who am not worthy to be called an apostle. See Matthew 3:11. Luke 3:16. This deep humility of the apostle, which led him to regard himself as the least of the apostles, was perfectly consistent with the strenuous assertion of his official authority, and of his claim to respect and obedience. In 2 Corinthians 11:5 and 12:11, he says, he was “not behind the very chiefest apostles;” and in Galatians 2:6-9, he claims full equality with James, Cephas and John. Those of his children whom God intends to exalt to posts of honor and power, he commonly prepares for their elevation by leading them to such a knowledge of their sinfulness as to keep them constantly abased. Because I persecuted the church of God.

This is the sin which Paul never forgave himself. He often refers to it with the deepest contrition, 1 Timothy 1:13-15. The forgiveness of sin does not obliterate the remembrance of it; neither does it remove the sense of unworthiness and ill-desert. 10. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which (was bestowed) upon me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Christian humility does not consist in denying what there is of good in us; but in an abiding sense of ill-desert, and in the consciousness that what we have of good is due to the grace of God. The grace of God, in this connection, is not the love of God, but the influence of the Holy Spirit considered as an unmerited favor. This is not only the theological and popular, but also the scriptural sense of the word grace in many passages. By the grace of God I am what I am. That is, divine grace has made me what I am. ‘Had I been left to myself, I should have continued a blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious. It is owing to his grace that I am now an apostle, preaching the faith which I once destroyed.’ The grace of which he was made the subject, he says, was not in vain, i.e. without effect. But, on the contrary, I labored more abundantly than they all. This may mean either, more than any one of the apostles, or more than all of them together. The latter is more in keeping with the tone of the passage.

It serves more to exalt the grace of God, to which Paul attributes every thing good; and it is historically true, if the New Testament record is to be our guide. Yet not I, i.e. the fact that I labored so abundantly is not to be referred to me; I was not the laborer — but the grace which was with me.

By some editors the article is omitted in the last clause, hJ su . The sense would then be with me, instead of, which was with me. In the one case grace is represented as co-operating with the apostle; in the other, the apostle loses sight of himself entirely, and ascribes every thing to grace. ‘It was not I, but the grace of God.’ Theologically, there is no difference in these different modes of statement. The common text is preferred by most editors on critical grounds; and the sense, according to the common reading, is more in accordance with the spirit of the passage, and with Paul’s manner; comp. Romans 7:17. True, he did co-operate with the grace of God, but this co-operation was due to grace — so that with the strictest propriety he could say, ‘Not I, but the grace of God.’ 11. Therefore whether (it were) I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

This verse resumes the subject from which vs. 9, 10 are a digression. ‘Christ appeared to the apostles and to me; whether therefore I or they preached, we all proclaimed that fact, and ye all believed it.’ The resurrection of Christ was included in the preaching of all ministers, and in the faith of all Christians. 12, 13. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: The admission of the resurrection of Christ is inconsistent with the denial of the resurrection of the dead. What has happened, may happen. The actual is surely possible. This mode of arguing shows that the objections urged in Corinth bore equally against the resurrection of Christ, and against the general doctrine of the resurrection. They, therefore, could not have been founded on the peculiar difficulties attending the latter doctrine. They must have been derived from the assumption that the restoration to life of a body once dead, is either an impossibility, or an absurdity. Most probably, these objectors thought, that to reunite the soul with the body was to shut it up again in prison; and that it was as much a degradation and retrocession, as if a man should again become an unborn infant. ‘No,’ these philosophers said, ‘the hope of the resurrection “is the hope of swine.”

The soul having once been emancipated from the defiling encumbrance of the body, it is never to be re-imprisoned.’

The argument of the apostle does not imply that the objectors admitted the resurrection of Christ. He is not arguing with them, but against them.

His design is to show that their objections to the resurrection proved too much. If they proved any thing, they proved what no Christian could admit, viz., that Christ did not rise from the dead. The denial of the resurrection of the dead involves the denial of the resurrection of Christ.

The question discussed throughout this chapter is not the continued existence of the soul after death, but the restoration of the body to life.

This is the constant meaning of the expression “resurrection of the dead,” for which the more definite expression “resurrection of the body” is often substituted. Whether the false teachers in Corinth, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection, also denied the immortality of the soul, is uncertain.

The probability is that they did not. For how could any one pretend to be a Christian, and yet not believe in an hereafter? All that is certain is, that they objected to the doctrine of the resurrection on grounds which logically involved the denial of the resurrection of Christ. 14. And if Christ be not risen, then (is) our preaching vain, and your faith (is) also vain.

This is the first consequence of denying the resurrection of Christ. The whole gospel is subverted. The reason why this fact is so essential, is, that Christ rested the validity of all his claims upon his resurrection. If he did rise, then he is truly the Son of God and Savior of the world. His sacrifice has been accepted, and God is propitious. If he did not rise, then none of these things is true. He was not what he claimed to be, and his blood is not a ransom for sinners. In Romans 1:3, the apostle expresses his truth in another form, by saying that Christ was by his resurrection demonstrated to be the Son of God. It was on account of the fundamental importance of this fact that the apostles were appointed to be the witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, Acts 1:22. Then, i.e. in case Christ be not risen, our preaching is vain, i.e. empty, void of all truth, reality, and power. And your faith is also vain, i.e. empty, groundless. These consequences are inevitable. For, if the apostles preached a risen and living Savior, and made his power to save depend on the fact of his resurrection, of course, their whole preaching was false and worthless, if Christ were still in the grave.

The dead cannot save the living. And if the object of the Christian’s faith be the Son of God as risen from the dead and seated at the right hand of God in heaven, they believed a falsehood if Christ be not risen. 15. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

This is the second consequence. The apostles were false witnesses. They were guilty of deliberate falsehood. They testified that they had seen Christ after his resurrection; that they had handled him, felt that he had flesh and bones; that they had put their hands into his wounds, and knew assuredly that it was their Lord. We are found, i.e. we are detected or manifested as being false witnesses; not such as falsely claim to be witnesses; but those who bear witness to what is false, Matthew 26:60. Because we testified of God; literally, against God. We said he did, what in fact he did not do, if so be the dead rise not. Here again it is assumed that to deny that the dead rise is to deny that Christ has risen. But why is this?

Why may not a man admit that Christ, the incarnate Son of God, arose from the dead, and yet consistently deny that there is to be a general resurrection of the dead? Because the thing denied was that the dead could rise. The denial was placed on grounds which embraced the case of Christ.

The argument is, If the dead cannot rise, then Christ did not rise; for Christ was dead. 16. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: This is a reassertion of the inseparable connection between these two events. If there be no resurrection, Christ is not risen. If the thing be impossible, it has never happened. The sense in which Christ rose, determines the sense in which the dead are said to rise. As it is the resurrection of Christ’s body that is affirmed, so it is the resurrection of the bodies of the dead, and not merely the continued existence of their souls which is affirmed. The repetition in this verse of what had been said in v. 13, seems to be with the design of preparing the way for v. 17. 17. And if Christ be not raised, your faith (is) vain; ye are yet in your sins.

This is the third consequence of the denial of Christ’s resurrection. In v. it was said, your faith is kenh>, empty; here it is said to be matai>a , fruitless. In what sense the following clause explains; ye are yet in your sins, i.e. under the condemnation of sin. Comp. John 8:21, “Ye shall die in your sins.” As Christ’s resurrection is necessary to our justification, Romans 4:25, if he did not rise, we are not justified. To teach, therefore, that there is no resurrection, is to teach that there is no atonement and no pardon. Errorists seldom see the consequences of the false doctrines which they embrace. Many allow themselves to entertain doubts as to this very doctrine of the resurrection of the body who would be shocked at the thought of rejecting the doctrine of atonement. Yet Paul teaches that the denial of the one involves the denial of the other. 18. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

This is the fourth disastrous consequence of the denial of the doctrine in question. All the dead in Christ are lost. To fall asleep in Christ is to die in faith, or in communion with Christ for salvation. See 1 Thessalonians 4:14. Revelation 14:13. Are perished; rather, they perished. ‘They perished when they died.’ Perdition, according to Scripture, is not annihilation, but everlasting misery and sin It is the loss of holiness and happiness for ever. If Christ did not rise for the justification of those who died in him, they found no advocate at the bar of God; and have incurred the fate of those who perish in their sins. Rather than admit such conclusions as these, the Corinthians might well allow philosophers to say what they pleased about the impossibility of a resurrection. It was enough for them that Christ had risen, whether they could understand how it can be that the dead should rise, or not. 19. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

Not only the future, but even the present is lost, if Christ be not risen. Not only did the departed sink into perdition when they died, but we, who are alive, are more miserable than other men. This is the last conclusion which the apostle draws from the denial of the resurrection. If in this life only, the word mo>non , only, admits of a threefold connection. Although it stands at the end of the clause it may be connected, as in our translation, with the words “in this life.”’If in this life only.’ That is, 1. if all the good we expect from Christ is to be enjoyed in this life, we are more miserable than other men. We are constantly exposed to all manner of persecutions and sufferings, while they are at their ease. 2. It may be connected with the word Christ. This is a very natural construction, according to the position of the words in the common text, for (ejn Cristw~| mo>non ), in Christ only, stand together. The sense would then be, ‘If we have set all our hopes on Christ, and he fails us, we are of all men most miserable.’ This, however, supposes the important clause, on which every thing depends (if he fails us), to be omitted. It also leaves the words in this life without importance. 3. Recent editors, following the older manuscripts, place ejn Cristw~| before the verb, and make mo>non qualify the whole clause. ‘If we have only hoped in Christ, and there is to be no fulfilling of our hopes, we are more miserable than others.’ Or, ‘If we are only such (nothing more than such) who in life, and not in death, have hope in Christ,’ etc. The apposition between the dead in v. 18, and the living in this verse, is in favor of the first-mentioned explanation. ‘Those who died in Christ, perished when they died. And we, if all our hopes in Christ are confined to this life, are the most miserable of men.’ We have hoped.

The Greek is hjlpiko>tev ejsme>n , which, as the commentators remark, expresses not what we do, but what we are. We are hopers.

This passage does not teach that Christians are in this life more miserable than other men. This is contrary to experience. Christians are unspeakably happier than other men. All that Paul means to say is, that if you take Christ from Christians, you take their all. He is the source not only of their future, but of their present happiness. Without him they are yet in their sins, under the curse of the law, unreconciled to God, having no hope, and without God in the world; and yet subject to all the peculiar trials incident to a Christian profession, which in the apostolic age often included the loss of all things. 20. But now is Christ risen from the dead, (and) become the first-fruits of them that slept.

But now , nuni< de> , i.e. as the matter actually stands. All the gloomy consequences presented in the preceding verses follow from the assumption that Christ did not rise from the dead. But as in point of fact he did rise, these things have no place. Our preaching is not vain, your faith is not vain, ye are not in your sins, the dead in Christ have not perished, we are not more miserable than other men. The reverse of all this is true. Christ has not only risen, but he has risen in a representative character. His resurrection is the pledge of the resurrection of his people.

He rose as the first-fruits of them that slept, and not of them only, but as the first-fruits of all who are ever to sleep in Jesus. The apostle does not mean merely that the resurrection of Christ was to precede that of his people; but as the first sheaf of the harvest presented to God as a thank-offering, was the pledge and assurance of the ingathering of the whole harvest, so the resurrection of Christ is a pledge and proof of the resurrection of his people. In Romans 8:23 and 11:16, the word ajparch> , first-fruits, has the same force. Comp. also Colossians 1:18, where Christ is called “the first begotten from the dead,” and Revelation 1:5. Of the great harvest of glorified bodies which our earth is to yield Christ is the first-fruits. As he rose, so all his people must; as certainly and as gloriously, Philippians 3:21. The nature of this causal connection between the resurrection of Christ and that of his people, is explained in the following verses. 21. For since by man (came) death, by man (came) also the resurrection of the dead.

The connection between this verse and the preceding is obvious. The resurrection of Christ secures the resurrection of his people, for as there was a causal relation between the death of Adam and the death of his descendants, so there is a causal relation between the resurrection of Christ and that of his people. What that causal relation is, is not here expressed.

It is simply asserted that as death is di ’ ajnqrw>pou , by means of a man; so the resurrection is di ’ ajnqrw>pou , by means of a man. Why Adam was the cause of death, and why Christ is the cause of life, is explained in the following verse, and abundantly elsewhere in Scripture, but not here. By death, in this verse, is meant the death of the body; and by the resurrection is meant the restoration of the body to life. This, however, only proves that the death of which Adam was the cause includes physical death, and that the life of which Christ is the cause includes the future life of the body. But as the life which we derive from Christ includes far more than the life of the body, so the death which flows from Adam includes far more than physical death. 22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

This is the reason why Adam was the cause of death, and why Christ is the cause of life. We die by means of Adam, because we were in Adam; and we live by means of Christ, because we are in Christ. Union with Adam is the cause of death; union with Christ is the cause of life. The nature of this union and its consequences are more fully explained in Romans 5:12-21.

In both cases it is a representative and vital union. We are in Adam because he was our head and representative, and because we partake of his nature.

And we are in Christ because he is our head and representative, and because we partake of his nature through the indwelling of his Spirit.

Adam, therefore, is the cause of death, because his sin is the judicial ground of our condemnation; and because we derive from him a corrupt and enfeebled nature. Christ is the cause of life, because his righteousness is the judicial ground of our justification; and because we derive from him the Holy Ghost, which is the source of life both to the soul and body. Comp. Romans 8:9-11.

That the word all in the latter part of this verse is to be restricted to all believers (or rather, to all the people of Christ, as infants are included) is plain, 1. Because the word in both clauses is limited. It is the all who are in Adam that die; and the all who are in Christ who are made alive. As union with Christ is made the ground of the communication of life here spoken of, it can be extended only to those who are in him. But according to the constant representation of the Scriptures, none are in him but his own people. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature,” 2 Corinthians 5:17. 2. Because the verb (zwopoie>w ) here found is never used of the wicked. Whenever employed in reference to the work of Christ it always means to communicate to them that life of which he is the source, John 5:21; 6:63. Romans 8:11; 1 Corinthians 15:45. Galatians 3:21. The real meaning of the verse therefore, is, ‘As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made partakers of a glorious and everlasting life.’ Unless, therefore, the Bible teaches that all men are in Christ, and that all through him partake of eternal life, the passage must be restricted to his own people. 3. Because, although Paul elsewhere speaks of a general resurrection both of the just and of the unjust, Acts 24:15, yet, throughout this chapter he speaks only of the resurrection of the righteous. 4. Because, in the parallel passage in Romans 5:12-21, the same limitation must be made. In v. 18 of that chapter it is said, “As by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men to justification of life.” That is, as for the offense of Adam all men were condemned, so for the righteousness of Christ all men are justified.

The context and the analogy of Scripture require us to understand this to mean, as all who are in Adam are condemned, so all who are in Christ are justified. No historical Christian church has ever held that all men indiscriminately are justified. For whom God justifies them he also glorifies, Romans 8:30.

There are two other interpretations of this verse. According to one, the verb, shall be made alive, is taken to mean no more than shall be raised from the dead. But this, as already remarked, is not only inconsistent with the prevailing use of the word, but with the whole context. Others, admitting that the passage necessarily treats of a resurrection to glory and blessedness, insist that the word all must be taken to include all men. But this contradicts the constant doctrine of the Bible, and has no support in the context. It is not absolutely all who die through Adam, but those only who were in him; so it is not absolutely all who live through Christ, but those only who are in him. 23. But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

In his own order. The word ta>gma is properly a concrete term, meaning a band, as of soldiers. If this be insisted upon here, then Paul considers the hosts of those that rise as divided into different cohorts or companies; first Christ, then his people, then the rest of mankind. But the word is used by later writers, as Clemens in his Epistle to the Corinthians 1:37, and 41, in the sense of ta>xiv, order of succession. And this best suits the context, for Christ is not a band. All that Paul teaches is, that, although the resurrection of Christ secures that of his people, the two events are not contemporaneous. First Christ, then those who are Christ’s. There is no intimation of any further division or separation in time in the process of the resurrection. The resurrection of the people of Christ is to take place at his coming, 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 4:14-19. 24. Then (cometh) the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down an rule, and an authority and power.

This is a very difficult passage, and the interpretations given of it are too numerous to be recited. The first question is, What is the end here spoken of? The common answer is, That it is the end of the world. That is, the close of the present order of things; the consummation of the work of redemption. In favor of this view, it may be urged, 1. That where there is nothing in the context to determine otherwise, The end naturally means the end of all things. There is nothing here to limit the application, but the nature of the subject spoken of. 2. The analogy of Scripture is in favor of this explanation. In 1 Peter 4:7 we find the expression “the end of all things is at hand.” Matthew 24:6, “The end is not yet;” v. 14, “Then shall the end come.” So in Mark 13:7. Luke 21:9. In all these passages the end means the end of the world. 3. The equivalent expressions serve to explain the meaning of this phrase. The disciples asked our Lord, “What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?” (i.e. the consummation of the present dispensation.) In answer to this question, our Lord said certain things were to happen, but “the end is not yet;” and afterwards, “then shall the end come.” See Matthew 24:3,6,14. The same expression occurs in the same sense, Matthew 13:39; 28:20, and elsewhere. “The end,” therefore, means the end of the world. In the same sense the phrase “until the restoration of all things” is probably used in Acts 3:21. 4. What immediately follows seems decisive in favor of this interpretation. The end is, when Christ shall deliver up his kingdom, after having subdued all his enemies; i.e. after having accomplished the work of redemption.

Many commentators understand by the end, the end of the resurrection.

That work, they say, is to be accomplished by distinct stages. First the resurrection of Christ, then that of his people, then that of the wicked.

This last, they say, is expressed by then cometh the end, viz., the end of the resurrection. Against this view, however, are all the arguments above stated in favor of the opinion that the end means the end of the world.

Besides, the doctrine that there are to be two resurrections, one of the righteous and another of the wicked, the latter separated from the former by an unknown period of time, is entirely foreign to the New Testament, unless what is said in the 20th chapter of Revelation teaches that doctrine.

Admitting that a twofold resurrection is there spoken of, it would not be proper to transfer from that passage an idea foreign to all Paul’s representations of the subject. If that fact was revealed to John, it does not prove that it was revealed to Paul. All that the most stringent doctrine of inspiration requires is, that the passages should not contradict each other.

The passage in Revelation, however, is altogether too uncertain to be made the rule of interpretation for the plainer declarations of the epistolary portions of the New Testament. On the contrary, what is doubtful in the former should be explained by what is clearly taught in the latter.

Secondly, it is clearly taught in the gospels and epistles that the resurrection of the righteous and of the wicked is to be contemporaneous.

At least, that is the mode in which the subject is always presented. The element of time (i.e. the chronological succession of the events) may indeed in these representations be omitted, as is so often the case in the prophecies of the Old Testament. But unless it can be proved from other sources, that events which are foretold as contemporaneous, or as following the one the other in immediate succession, are in fact separated by indefinite periods of time, no such separation can properly be assumed.

In the evangelists and epistles the resurrection of the righteous and that of the wicked are spoken of as contemporaneous, and since their separation in time is nowhere else revealed, the only proper inference is that they are to occur together. In Matthew 24:3, the coming of Christ and the end of the world are coupled together as contemporaneous. And throughout that chapter our Lord foretells what is to happen before that event, and adds, “Then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven... and he shall send his angels with the sound of a great trumpet, and they shall gather together the elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other,” vs. 30, 31. In John 5:28,29 it is said, “The hour is coming when all (good and bad) who are in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of Man, and shall come forth, they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation.” In 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, Christ is said to come to take vengeance on those who obey not the gospel, and to be glorified in the saints. These events go together. Besides, our Lord repeatedly says that he will raise up his people “at the last day,” John 6:39,40; 11:24, and therefore not an indefinitely long period before the last day. According to the uniform representations of the Scriptures, when Christ comes he is to raise all the dead and separate the wicked from among the just as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. Or, according to another figure, he is to send forth his angels and separate the tares from the wheat. It has therefore been the constant faith of the church that the second advent of Christ, the resurrection of the just and of the unjust, the final judgment and end of the world — are parts of one great transaction, and not events which are to succeed each other at long intervals of time. All this, however, is said with diffidence and submission. It may prove to be otherwise. The predictions of the Old Testament produced the universal impression that the first coming of Christ was to be attended at once by events which we learn from the New Testament require ages to bring about. Still, we are bound to take the Scriptures as they stand, and events which are described as contemporaneous are to be assumed to be so, until the event proves the contrary. We may be perfectly sure that the Scriptures will prove infallibly true. The predictions of the Old Testament, although in some points misinterpreted, or rather interpreted too far, by the ancient church, were fully vindicated and explained by the event.

The second question to be considered is, When is the end of the world to take place? According to some, at Christ’s coming; according to others, at an indefinite period after his second coming. It may be admitted that this verse is not decisive on this point. It marks the succession of certain events, but determines nothing as to the interval between them First, Christ’s resurrection; then the resurrection of his people; then the end of the world. But as it is said that those who are Christ’s shall rise at his coming, and then cometh the end; the natural impression is that nothing remains to be done after the resurrection before the end comes. This view is confirmed by the numerous passages of the New Testament, several of which have already been quoted, which connect the general judgment and end of the world as intimately with the coming of Christ as the resurrection of his people. Some of those who assume that an indefinite period is to elapse between the coming of Christ and the end of the world, suppose that the intervening period is to be occupied not in the work of conversion, but in the subjugation of the enemies of Christ spoken of in the following verses. The common opinion among those who adopt this interpretation is, that the interval in question is to be occupied by the personal reign of Christ on earth. This is the doctrine of the ancient Chiliasts, and of modern Millenarians. The form which this doctrine has commonly assumed in ancient and modern times is only a modified Judaism, entirely at variance with the spirituality of the gospel and with the teachings of the apostle in this chapter. He tells us that flesh and blood, i.e. bodies organized as our present bodies are, i.e. natural bodies, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. The whole design of the latter portion of this chapter is to show that after the resurrection, the bodies of believers will be like the glorious body of the Son of God, adapted to a heavenly, and not to an earthly condition.

A third question which this verse presents is, In what sense is Christ to deliver up the kingdom to the Father? In the common text the words are o[tan paradw~|, when he shall have delivered up; most of the modern editors read paradidw~|, when he delivers up. That is, when the end comes, Christ is to deliver up the kingdom to his Father. What does this mean? The Scriptures constantly teach that Christ’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and of his dominion there is no end. In what sense, then, can he be said to deliver up his kingdom? It must be remembered that the Scriptures speak of a threefold kingdom as belonging to Christ. 1. That which necessarily belongs to him as a divine person, extending over all creatures, and of which he can never divest himself. 2. That which belongs to him as the incarnate Son of God, extending over his own people. This also is everlasting. He will for ever remain the head and sovereign of the redeemed. 3. That dominion to which he was exalted after his resurrection, when all power in heaven and earth was committed to his hands. This kingdom, which he exercises as the Theanthropos, and which extends over all principalities and powers, he is to deliver up when the work of redemption is accomplished. He was invested with this dominion in his mediatorial character for the purpose of carrying on his work to its consummation. When that is done, i.e. when he has subdued all his enemies, then he will no longer reign over the universe as Mediator, but only as God; while his headship over his people is to continue for ever. To God even the Father, i.e. to him who is at once his God and Father.

This is the Scriptural designation of the first person of the Trinity. He is the God of the Lord Jesus Christ, inasmuch as he is the God whom Christ came to reveal, and whose work he performs. He is his Father in virtue of the eternal relation subsisting between the first and second persons in the Godhead.

The fourth question which this pregnant verse suggests is presented in the last clause. When he shall have put down all rule, and authority and power.

Calvin and others understand this to mean, ‘When he shall have abrogated all other dominion than his own.’ Whatever authority is now exercised by one man over others is at last to be abolished, and merged in the all-pervading authority of God. Most commentators, in obedience to the context, understand the passage to refer to all hostile powers, whether demoniacal or human. These are to be put down, i.e. effectually subdued; not annihilated, and not converted; but simply deprived of all power to disturb the harmony of his kingdom. 25. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

This verse assigns the reason why Christ cannot relinquish his dominion over the universe as mediator until the end comes, and why he will then deliver it up. He must reign until the purpose for which he was invested with this universal dominion is accomplished. As in Psalms 110 it is said to the Messiah, “Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool,” many assume that God is the subject of the verb has put. The meaning would then be, ‘He must reign until God has put all his enemies under his feet.’ But this is inconsistent with the context. Christ is to put down all rule, authority and power, v. 24, and he reigns until he has accomplished that work. The two modes of representation are perfectly consistent. The Father created the world, though he did it through the Son, Hebrews 1:3. The work, therefore, is sometimes ascribed to the one and sometimes to the other. In like manner the Father subdues the powers of darkness, but it is through Christ to whom all power in heaven and earth has been committed. It is therefore equally proper to say that God makes the enemies of Christ his footstool, and that Christ himself puts his enemies under his feet. The enemies who are to be thus subdued are not only intelligent beings hostile to Christ, but all the forms of evil, physical and moral, because death is specially included. By subduing, however, is not meant destroying or banishing out of existence. The passage does not teach that Christ is to reign until all evil is banished from the universe.

Satan is said to be subdued, when deprived of his power to injure the people of God. And evil in like manner is subdued when it is restrained within the limits of the kingdom of darkness. 26. The last enemy (that) shall be destroyed (is) death.

Death shall reign until the resurrection. Then men shall never more be subject to his power. Then death shall be swallowed up in victory, Luke 20:36. “Neither shall they die any more,” 2 Timothy 1:10 Revelation 20:14. 27. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put under (him, it is) manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.

The proof that death is finally to be destroyed is derived from the 8th Psalm, where the subjection of all things to the Messiah is predicted.

There are two passages of the Old Testament frequently quoted in the New Testament as foretelling the absolutely universal dominion of the Messiah, <19B001> Psalm 110 and Psalm 8. The former is quoted, or its language appropriated, in v. 25. Matthew 22:44. Acts 2:34. Ephesians 1:22. Hebrews 1:13; 10:12, 13, 1 Peter 3:22. In this there is no difficulty, as that Psalm clearly refers to the Messiah and to none else. The 8th Psalm is quoted and applied to Christ in this passage, and in Ephesians 1:22. Hebrews 2:8, and 1 Peter 3:22. As this Psalm has no apparent reference to the Messiah, but is a thanksgiving to God for his goodness to man, the use made of it in the New Testament is to be understood as an inspired exposition of its hidden meaning. That is, when the Psalmist said, “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands, thou hast put all things under his feet,” we learn from the New Testament that the Spirit of God intended by these wo