1 Corinthians 15:3–15:4

1 Corinthians 15:1-10 1. Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; 1. Notum autem vobis facio, fratres, evangelium quod evangelizavi vobis, quod et recepistis, in quo etiam stetistis. 2. By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain: 2. Per quod etiam salutem habetis: quo pacto annuntiarim vobis, si tenetis, nisi frustra credidistis. 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; 3. Tradidi enim vobis imprimis quod et acceperam, quod Christus mortuus fuerit, pro peccatis nostris secundum Scripturas, 4. And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 4. Et quod sepultus sit, et quod resurrexit tertio die, secundum Scripturas. 5. And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 5. Et quod visus fait Cephae, deinde ipsis duodecim: 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. 6. Postea visus fait plus quam qaingentis fratribus simul, ex quibus plures manent [1] adhuc ad hunc usque diem: qaidam autem obdormierunt. 7. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. 7. Deinde visus fait Iacobo: post apostolis omnibus: 8. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. 8. Postremo vero onmium, velut abortivo, visus fait et mihi. 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. 9. Ego enim sum minimus apostolorum, qui non sum idoneus ut dicar apostolus: quandoquidem persequutus sum ecclesiam Dei. 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 laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 10. Sed gratia Dei sum id quod sum: et gratia ejus, quae mihi collata est, non fuit inanis, sed copiosius quam illi omnes laboravi: non ego tamen, sed gratia Dei quae mihi aderat. 1. Now I make known to you. He now enters on another subject -- the resurrection -- the belief of which among the Corinthians had been shaken by some wicked persons. It is uncertain, however, whether they doubted merely as to the ultimate resurrection of the body, or as to the immortality of the soul also. It is abundantly well known, that there were a variety of errors as to this point. Some philosophers contended that souls are immortal. As to the resurrection of the body, it never entered into the mind of any one of them. The Sadducees, however, had grosser views; for they thought of nothing but the present life; nay more, they thought that the soul of man was a breath of wind without substance. It is not, therefore, altogether certain (as I have already said) whether the Corinthians had at this time gone to such a height of madness, as to cast off all expectation of a future life, or whether they merely denied the resurrection of the body; for the arguments which Paul makes use of seem to imply, that they were altogether bewitched with the mad dream of the Sadducees. For example, when he says, Of what advantage is it to be baptized for the dead? ( 1 Corinthians 15:29 .) Were it not better to eat and to drink? ( 1 Corinthians 15:32 .) Why are we in peril every hour? ( 1 Corinthians 15:30 ,) and the like, it might very readily be replied, in accordance with the views of the philosophers, "Because after death the soul survives the body." Hence some apply the whole of Paul's reasoning contained in this chapter to the immortality of the soul. For my part, while I leave undetermined what the error of the Corinthians was, yet I cannot bring myself to view Paul's words as referring to anything else than the resurrection of the body. Let it, therefore be regarded as a settled point, that it is of this exclusively that he treats in this chapter. And what if the impiety of Hymeneus and Philetus had extended thus far, [2] who said that the resurrection was already past, ( 2 Timothy 2:18 ,) and that there would be nothing more of it? Similar to these, there are at the present day some madmen, or rather devils, [3] who call themselves Libertines. [4] To me, however, the following conjecture appears more probable -- that they were carried away by some delusion, [5] which took away from them the hope of a future resurrection, just as those in the present day, by imagining an allegorical resurrection, [6] take away from us the true resurrection that is promised to us. However this may be, it is truly a dreadful case, and next to a prodigy, that those who had been instructed by so distinguished a master, should have been capable of falling so quickly [7] into errors of so gross a nature. But what is there that is surprising in this, when in the Israelitish Church the Sadducees had the audacity to declare openly that man differs nothing from a brute, in so far as concerns the essence of the soul, and has no enjoyment but what is common to him with the beasts? Let us observe, however, that blindness of this kind is a just judgment from God, so that those who do not rest satisfied with the truth of God, are tossed hither and thither by the delusions of Satan. It is asked, however, why it is that he has left off or deferred to the close of the Epistle, what should properly have had the precedence of everything else? Some reply, that this was done for the purpose of impressing it more deeply upon the memory. I am rather of opinion that Paul did not wish to introduce a subject of such importance, until he had asserted his authority, which had been considerably lessened among the Corinthians, and until he had, by repressing their pride, prepared them for listening to him with docility. I make known to you. To make known here does not mean to teach what was previously unknown to them, but to recall to their recollection what they had heard previously. "Call to your recollection, along with me, that gospel which you had learned, before you were led aside from the right course." He calls the doctrine of the resurrection the gospel, that they may not imagine that any one is at liberty to form any opinion that he chooses on this point, as on other questions, which bring with them no injury to salvation. When he adds, which I preached to you, he amplifies what he had said: "If you acknowledge me as an apostle, I have assuredly taught you so." There is another amplification in the words -- which also ye have received, for if they now allow themselves to be persuaded of the contrary, they will be chargeable with fickleness. A third amplification is to this effect, that they had hitherto continued in that belief with a firm and steady resolution, which is somewhat more than that they had once believed. But the most important thing of all is, that he declares that their salvation is involved in this, for it follows from this, that, if the resurrection is taken away, they have no religion left them, no assurance of faith, and in short, have no faith remaining. Others understand in another sense the word stand, as meaning that they are upheld; but the interpretation that I have given is a more correct one. [8] 2. If you keep in memory -- unless in vain [9] These two expressions are very cutting. In the first, he reproves their carelessness or fickleness, because such a sudden fall was an evidence that they had never understood what had been delivered to them, or that their knowledge of it had been loose and floating, inasmuch as it had so quickly vanished. By the second, he warns them that they had needlessly and uselessly professed allegiance to Christ, if they did not hold fast this main doctrine. [10] 3. For I delivered to you first of all He now confirms what he had previously stated, by explaining that the resurrection had been preached by him, and that too as a fundamental doctrine of the gospel. First of all, says he, as it is wont to be with a foundation in the erecting of a house. At the same time he adds to the authority of his preaching, when he subjoins, that he delivered nothing but what he had received, for he does not simply mean that he related what he had from the report of others, but that it was what had been enjoined upon him by the Lord. [11] For the word [12] must be explained in accordance with the connection of the passage. Now it is the duty of an apostle to bring forward nothing but what he has received from the Lord, so as from hand to hand [13] (as they say) to administer to the Church the pure word of God. That Christ died, etc. See now more clearly whence he received it, for he quotes the Scriptures in proof. In the first place, he makes mention of the death of Christ, nay also of his burial, that we may infer, that, as he was like us in these things, he is so also in his resurrection. He has, therefore, died with us that we may rise with him. In his burial, too, the reality of the death in which he has taken part with us, is made more clearly apparent. Now there are many passages of Scripture in which Christ's death and resurrection are predicted, but nowhere more plainly [14] than in Isaiah 53 , in Daniel 9:26 , and in Psalm 22 For our sins That is, that by taking our curse upon him he might redeem us from it. For what else was Christ's death, but a sacrifice for expiating our sins -- what but a satisfactory penalty, by which we might be reconciled to God -- what but the condemnation of one, for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness for us? He speaks also in the same manner in Romans 4:25 , but in that passage, on the other hand, he ascribes it also to the resurrection as its effect -- that it confers righteousness upon us; for as sin was done away through the death of Christ, so righteousness is procured through his resurrection. This distinction must be carefully observed, that we may know what we must look for from the death of Christ, and what from his resurrection. When, however, the Scripture in other places makes mention only of his death, let us understand that in those cases his resurrection is included in his death, but when they are mentioned separately, the commencement of our salvation is (as we see) in the one, and the consummation of it in the other. 5. That he was seen by Cephas He now brings forward eye witnesses, (autoptas) as they are called by Luke, ( Luke 1:2 ,) who saw the accomplishment of what the Scriptures had foretold would take place. He does not, however, adduce them all, for he makes no mention of women. When, therefore, he says that he appeared first to Peter, you are to understand by this that he is put before all the men, so that there is nothing inconsistent with this in the statement of Mark ( Mark 16:9 ) that he appeared to Mary. But how is it that he says, that he appeared to the twelve, when, after the death of Judas, there were only eleven remaining? Chrysostom is of opinion that this took place after Matthias had been chosen in his room. Others have chosen rather to correct the expression, looking upon it as a mistake [15] But as we know, that there were twelve in number that were set apart by Christ's appointment, though one of them had been expunged from the roll, there is no absurdity in supposing that the name was retained. On this principle, there was a body of men at Rome that were called Centumviri, [16] while they were in number 102. [17] By the twelve, therefore, you are simply to understand the chosen Apostles. It does not quite appear when it was that this appearing to more than five hundred took place. Only it is possible that this large multitude assembled at Jerusalem, when he manifested himself to them. For Luke ( Luke 24:33 ) makes mention in a general way of the disciples who had assembled with the eleven; but how many there were he does not say. Chrysostom refers it to the ascension, and explains the word epano to mean, from on high. [18] Unquestionably, as to what he says in reference to his having appeared to James apart, this may have been subsequently to the ascension. By all the Apostles I understand not merely the twelve, but also those disciples to whom Christ had assigned the office of preaching the gospel. [19] In proportion as our Lord was desirous that there should be many witnesses of his resurrection, and that it should be frequently testified of, let us know that it should be so much the more surely believed among us. ( Luke 1:1 .) Farther, inasmuch as the Apostle proves the resurrection of Christ from the fact that he appeared to many, he intimates by this, that it was not figurative but true and natural, for the eyes of the body cannot be witnesses of a spiritual resurrection. 8. Last of all to me, as to one born prematurely, He now introduces himself along with the others, for Christ had manifested himself to him as alive, and invested with glory. [20] As it was no deceptive vision, it was calculated to be of use [21] for establishing a belief in the resurrection, as he also makes use of this argument in Acts 26:8 . But as it was of no small importance that his authority should have the greatest weight and influence among the Corinthians, he introduces, by the way, a commendation of himself personally, but at the same time qualified in such a manner that, while he claims much for himself, he is at the same time exceedingly modest. Lest any one, therefore, should meet him with the objection: "Who art thou that we should give credit to thee?" he, of his own accord, confesses his unworthiness, and, in the first place, indeed he compares himself to one that is born prematurely, and that, in my opinion, with reference to his sudden conversion. For as infants do not come forth from the womb, until they have been there formed and matured during a regular course of time, so the Lord observed a regular period of time in creating, nourishing, and forming his Apostles. Paul, on the other hand, had been cast forth from the womb when he had scarcely received the vital spark. [22] There are some that understand the term rendered abortive as employed to mean posthumous; [23] but the former term is much more suitable, inasmuch as he was in one moment begotten, and born, and a man of full age. Now this premature birth renders the grace of God more illustrious in Paul than if he had by little and little, and by successive steps, grown up to maturity in Christ. 9. For I am the least It is not certain whether his enemies threw out this for the purpose of detracting from his credit, or whether it was entirely of his own accord, that he made the acknowledgment. For my part, while I have no doubt that, he was at all times voluntarily, and even cheerfully, disposed to abase himself, that he might magnify the grace of God, yet I suspect that in this instance he wished to obviate calumnies. For that there were some at Corinth that made it their aim to detract from his dignity by malicious slander, may be inferred not only from many foregoing passages, but also from his adding a little afterwards a comparison, which he would assuredly never have touched upon, if he had not been constrained to it by the wickedness of some, "Detract from me as much as you please -- I shall suffer myself to be cast down below the ground -- I shall suffer myself to be of no account whatever, [24] that the goodness of God towards me may shine forth the more. Let me, therefore, be reckoned the least of the Apostles: nay more, I acknowledge myself to be unworthy of this distinction. For by what merits could I have attained to that honor? When I persecuted the Church of God, what did I merit? But there is no reason why you should judge of me according to my own worth, [25] for the Lord did not look to what I was, but made me by his grace quite another man." The sum is this, that Paul does not refuse to be the most worthless of all, and next to nothing, provided this contempt does not impede him in any degree in his ministry, and does not at all detract from his doctrine. He is contented that, as to himself, he shall be reckoned unworthy of any honor, provided only he commends his apostleship in respect of the grace conferred upon him. And assuredly God had not adorned him with such distinguished endowments in order that his grace might lie buried or neglected, but he had designed thereby to render his apostleship illustrious and distinguished. 10. And his grace was not vain. Those that set free-will in opposition to the grace of God, that whatever good we do may not be ascribed wholly to Him, wrest these words to suit their own interpretation -- as if Paul boasted, that he had by his own industry taken care that God's grace toward him had not been misdirected. Hence they infer, that God, indeed, offers his grace, but that the right use of it is in man's own power, and that it is in his own power to prevent its being ineffectual. I maintain, however, that these words of Paul give no support to their error, for he does not here claim anything as his own, as if he had himself, independently of God, done anything praiseworthy. What then? That he might not seem to glory to no purpose in mere words, while devoid of reality, he says, that he affirms nothing that is not openly apparent. Farther, even admitting that these words intimate, that Paul did not abuse the grace of God, and did not render it ineffectual by his negligence, I maintain, nevertheless, that there is no reason on that account, why we should divide between him and God the praise, that ought to be ascribed wholly to God, inasmuch as he confers upon us not merely the power of doing well, but also the inclination and the accomplishment. But more abundantly Some refer this to vain-glorious boasters, [26] who, by detracting from Paul, endeavored to set off themselves and their goods to advantage, as, in their opinion at least, it is not likely that he wished to enter upon a contest with the Apostles. When he compares himself, however, with the Apostles, he does so merely for the sake of those wicked persons, who were accustomed to bring them forward for the purpose of detracting from his reputation, as we see in the Epistle to the Galatians ( Galatians 1:11 .) Hence the probability is, that it is of the Apostles that he speaks, when he represents his own labors as superior to theirs, and it is quite true, that he was superior to others, not merely in respect of his enduring many hardships, encountering many dangers, abstaining from things lawful, and perseveringly despising all perils; ( 2 Corinthians 11:26 ;) but also because the Lord gave to his labors a much larger measure of success. [27] For I take labor here to mean the fruit of his labor that appeared. Not I, but the grace The old translator, by leaving out the article, has given occasion of mistake to those that are not acquainted with the Greek language, for in consequence of his having rendered the words thus -- not I, but the grace of God with me, [28] they thought that only the half of the praise is ascribed to God, and that the other half is reserved for man. They, accordingly, understand the meaning to be that Paul labored not alone, inasmuch as he could do nothing without co-operating grace, [29] but at the same time it was under the influence of his own free-will, and by means of his own strength. His words, however, have quite a different meaning, for what he had said was his own, he afterwards, correcting himself, ascribes wholly to the grace of God -- wholly, I say, not in part, for whatever he might have seemed to do, was wholly, he declares, the work of grace. A remarkable passage certainly, both for laying low the pride of man, and for magnifying the operation of Divine grace in us. For Paul, as though he had improperly made himself the author of anything good, corrects what he had said, and declares the grace of God to have been the efficient cause of the whole. Let us not think that there is here a mere pretense of humility [30] It is in good earnest that he speaks thus, and from knowing that it is so in truth. Let us learn, therefore, that we have nothing that is good, but what the Lord has graciously given us, that we do nothing good but what he worketh in us, ( Philippians 2:13 ) -- not that we do nothing ourselves, but that we do nothing without being influenced -- that is, under the guidance and impulse of the Holy Spirit. Footnotes: [1] "Sont viuans;" -- "Are alive." [2] "Iusques a Corinthe;" -- "As far as Corinth." [3] "Possedez d'autres diables;" -- "Possessed by other devils." [4] "The Libertines of Geneva were rather a cabal of rakes than a set of fanatics; for they made no pretense to any religious system, but only pleaded for the liberty of leading voluptuous and immoral lives. This cabal was composed of a certain number of licentious citizens, who could not bear the severe discipline of Calvin, who punished with rigour, not only dissolute manners, but Also whatever carried the aspect of irreligion and impiety." -- Paterson's History of the Church, volume 2.--- Ed. [5] "Par quelque opinion fantastique;" -- "By some fantastic notion." [6] "Vne ie ne scay quelle resurrection allegorique;" -- "An allegorical resurrection, I know not of what sort." [7] "Si soudainement seduits;" -- "So suddenly seduced." [8] It is remarked by Bloomfield, that "in estekate (which means ye have persevered, and do persevere,') there is an agonistic metaphor, (as in Ephesians 6:13 ,) or an architectural one, like hedraioi ginesthe, (be steadfast,) in 1 Corinthians 15:58 ." -- Ed. [9] "Our version does not express intelligibly the sense of ektos ei me eiko episteusate by rendering it so literally -- unless ye have believed in vain. To believe in vain, according to the use of ancient languages, is to believe without just reason and authority, giving credit to idle reports as true and authentic. Thus Plutarch, speaking of some story which passed current, says, touto hemeis e'ipomen en ti ton eiko pepisteumenon -- "this I said was one of those tales which are believed without any good authority." (Sympos. lib. 1, quaest. 6.) The Latins used credere frustra -- to believe in vain, or temere -- (rashly.) Kypke takes notice that ektos ei me, for except or unless, which has long been a suspected phrase, is used more than ten times by Lucian. It is also used by Plutarch in the Life of Demosthenes, volume 4." -- Alexander's Paraphrase on 1 Corinthians 15 . (London, 1766,) -- Ed. [10] "Ce principal poinct de la foy;" -- "This main article of faith." [11] "Que le Seigneur mesme luy auoit enseignee et commandee;" -- "What the Lord himself had taught and commanded him.': [12] "Le mot de receuoir;" -- "The word receive." [13] The Reader will find our Author making use of the same proverbial expression when commenting on 1 Corinthians 4:1 , and 1 Corinthians 11:23 . See volume 1, pages [1]150, [2]373. -- Ed. [14] "Il n'y en a point de plus expres, et ou il en soit traitte plus apertement;" -- "There are none of them that are more explicit, or where it is treated of more plainly" [15] Granville Penn supposes that the common reading eita tois dodeka then to the twelve, is a corruption for eita tois de deka -- and then to the ten, understanding the Apostle as meaning, that Christ appeared first to Cephas, and then to the other ten. Dr. Adam Clarke, after stating that "instead of dodeka, twelve, hendeka, eleven is the reading of D* E F G, Syriac in the margin, some of the Slavonic, Armenian, Vulgate, Itala, and several of the Fathers," and that "this reading is supported by Mark 16:14 ," remarks: "Perhaps the term twelve is used here merely to point out the society of the Apostles. who, though at this time they were only eleven, were still called the twelve, because this was their original number, and a number which was afterwards filled up." "The twelve was a name not of number, but of office. -- McKnight. -- Ed. [16] "C'est a dire, les Cents;" -- "That is to say, the Hundred." [17] The reader will find the same term referred to by Calvin when commenting on 1 Corinthians 10:8 . (See Calvin on the Corinthians, [3]vol. 1, p. 324, n. 3.) -- Ed. [18] "This peculiar use of epano for ploion, (which seems to have been popular or provincial, not being found in the Classical writers,) occurs also in Mark 14:5 , but with a genitive. Perhaps, however, it has properly no regimen, but is used parenthetically, like the Latin plus trecentos, 300 and more." -- Bloomfield. The word opano is used in a similar way in the Septuagint. Thus in Exodus 30:14 apo eikosaetous kai epano -- from twenty years old and above, and in Leviticus 27:7 , apo hexekontaeton kai epano -- from sixty years old and above. -- Ed. [19] Calvin's view accords with that of Chrysostom, who says, esan gar kai alloi apostoloi hos hoi heibdomekonta -- "for there were also other Apostles, such as the seventy." -- Ed. [20] "En sa vie et gloire immortelle;" -- "In his life and immortal glory." [21] "Elle estoit suffisante et receuable;" -- "It was sufficient and admissible." [22] In accordance with the view taken by Calvin, Bloomfield considers the original term. ektroma to mean, a child born before the due time, (in which sense the term abortivus, is employed by Horace, Sat. 1:3.46,) the Apostle "calling himself so as being an Apostle not formed and matured by previous preparation and instruction." Penn, after quoting the definition given by Eustathius of the term ektroma -- to mepo tetupomenon -- an unformed foetus, remarks: "To all the other Apostles our Lord appeared after his resurrection, when they had attained their adult form in his ministry; but to St. Paul he appeared at the first moment of his spiritual conception, and before he was formed or moulded." The same view, in substance, is given by McKnight. "Although he" (Paul) "calls himself an abortive Apostle, it was not on account of his being sensible of any imperfection in his commission, or of any weakness in his qualifications as an Apostle; for he affirms, 2 Corinthians 11:5 , that he was in nothing behind the very greatest of the Apostles; but he called himself an abortive Apostle, because, as he tells us ( 1 Corinthians 15:9 ,) he had persecuted the Church of God, and because he was made an Apostle without that previous course of instruction and preparation, which the other Apostles enjoyed who had attended Jesus Christ during his ministry on earth; so that, in the proper sense of the word, he was ektroma -- born before he was brought to maturity. That want, however, was abundantly supplied by the many revelations which his master gave him after he made him an Apostle." -- Ed. [23] "C'est a dire qui est nay apres la mort de son pete;" -- "That is to say, one that is born after the death of his father." [24] "Estre estime moins que rien;" -- "To be esteemed less than nothing." [25] "Par ma petite et basse condition;" -- "By my little and low condition." [26] "Thrasones." See Calvin on the Corinthians, [4]vol. 1, p. 98, n. 1. [27] "Dieu donnoit plus heureuse issue a ses labeurs, et les faisoit prou-fiter plus amplement;" -- "God gave to his labors a more prosperous issue, and made them much more successful." [28] In the Alexandrine MS. the reading is: But not I, but the grace of God with me. -- Corresponding to this is the rendering of Wiclif, (1380,) -- But not I, but the grace of God with me. -- Ed. [29] See Institutes, volume 1. [30] Heideggerus seems to have had Calvin's exposition here in his view in the following observations on the expression made use of by the Apostle: "Non Gratia Dei meoum, uti vetus Itala vertit, quasi effectus inter Gra-tiam Dei, et Pauli arbitrium distribueretur; nihil enim habuit ipse, quod non acceperit; sed Ouk ego de, alla he charis tou Theou sun emoi mecum, ut totum et in solidum omne gratiae soli acceptum feratur. Neque ita loquitur solius humilitatis et modestiae explieandae ergo, quanquam et hanc testari voluit; sed quia po-tens illa gratia demonstratio et testimonium irrefragabile erat resurrectionis Domini." -- "Not the grace of God with me, as the old Italic version renders it, as though the effect were divided between God's grace and Paul's free-will; for he has nothing that he has not received, but he sun emoi, which with me, that every thing may be wholly and entirely ascribed to grace alone. Nor does he speak thus, merely for the purpose of showing humility and modesty, though he had it also in view to testify this, but because that grace was a powerful demonstration and irrefragable testimony of our Lord's resurrection." -- Heideggeri Labores Exegetici in Cor. (Tiguri. 1700). -- Ed.

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 I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; First of all — Christ is to be preached with the first, as being the prora et puppis of man’s happiness, John 16:14 . It is the office of the Holy Ghost to take of Christ’s excellencies, and hold them out to the world. What then should ministers, the mouth of the Holy Ghost, do rather?

For I, in my preaching, delivered it to you as one of the principal articles of the Christian faith, which I received, either from Christ by revelation, ( as he saith, Galatians 1:12 ), or from Ananias. Acts 9:17 , how that Christ died for our sins, Romans 4:25 , that is, that he might satisfy the Divine justice for our sins, and make an atonement for us. And this is according to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, where it was foretold, Isaiah 53:5 , He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; and Daniel 9:26 , that the Messiah should be cut off, but not for himself.

For I delivered unto you first of all,.... Not only in the first place as to order; but among the chief and principal things, as the words will bear to be rendered, this was insisted on in his ministry; this was one he after relates, even a crucified Christ, or the doctrine of his dying for the sins of his people; and which he mentions to lead on to his resurrection; which he meant to improve, and does improve, in a very strong manner, in favour of the resurrection of the saints. This doctrine of a crucified Saviour, which he at first determined only to make known among them, and did make known, was what he fully and faithfully delivered to them, as he had received it: that which also I received; not from men, but from Christ; for from him he had the doctrines of the Gospel, as well as the ordinances of it; and he delivered nothing to be believed and practised, but what he had received, and which ought to be the practice and conduct of every Gospel minister; whatever they have received they should deliver, and nothing else: and especially the following important doctrine, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; that is, of the Old Testament, the writings of Moses, and the prophets, according to Scripture promises, Scripture types, and Scripture prophecies; particularly Genesis 3:15 Daniel 9:24 which declare that his heel was to be bruised, that he should be brought to the dust of death, should pour out his soul unto death, and be stricken and cut off in a judicial way, and that for sins; not his own, but for the sins of his people, in order to atone for them, procure the pardon of them, take them away, make an end of them, and abolish them; all which he has done, as the Gospel declares, and the apostle affirms; and thereby was accomplished what Moses and the prophets did say should come to pass. Every promise, type, and prophecy recorded in the law, in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning his sufferings and death, had their fulfilment in him; nothing was more clearly prefigured and foretold, and nothing more punctually and fully answered.

The word resurrection, usually points out our existence beyond the grave. Of the apostle's doctrine not a trace can be found in all the teaching of philosophers. The doctrine of Christ's death and resurrection, is the foundation of Christianity. Remove this, and all our hopes for eternity sink at once. And it is by holding this truth firm, that Christians stand in the day of trial, and are kept faithful to God. We believe in vain, unless we keep in the faith of the gospel. This truth is confirmed by Old Testament prophecies; and many saw Christ after he was risen. This apostle was highly favoured, but he always had a low opinion of himself, and expressed it. When sinners are, by Divine grace, turned into saints, God causes the remembrance of former sins to make them humble, diligent, and faithful. He ascribes to Divine grace all that was valuable in him. True believers, though not ignorant of what the Lord has done for, in, and by them, yet when they look at their whole conduct and their obligations, they are led to feel that none are so worthless as they are. All true Christians believe that Jesus Christ, and him crucified, and then risen from the dead, is the sun and substance of Christianity. All the apostles agreed in this testimony; by this faith they lived, and in this faith they died.

3. I delivered unto you—A short creed, or summary of articles of faith, was probably even then existing; and a profession in accordance with it was required of candidates for baptism (Ac 8:37). first of all—literally, "among the foremost points" (Heb 6:2). The atonement is, in Paul's view, of primary importance. which I … received—from Christ Himself by special revelation (compare 1Co 11:23). died for our sins—that is, to atone FOR them; for taking away our sins (1Jo 3:5; compare Ga 1:4): "gave Himself for our sins" (Isa 53:5; 2Co 5:15; Tit 2:14). The "for" here does not, as in some passages, imply vicarious substitution, but "in behalf of" (Heb 5:3; 1Pe 2:24). It does not, however, mean merely "on account of," which is expressed by a different Greek word (Ro 4:25), (though in English Version translated similarly, "for"). according to the scriptures—which "cannot be broken." Paul puts the testimony of Scripture above that of those who saw the Lord after His resurrection [Bengel]. So our Lord quotes Isa 53:12, in Lu 22:37; compare Ps 22:15, &c. Da 9:26.

For I delivered unto you - See the note at 1 Corinthians 11:23 . "First of all." Among the first doctrines which I preached. As the leading and primary doctrines of Christianity. That which I also received - Which had been communicated to me. Not doctrines of which I was the author, or which were to be regarded as my own. Paul here refers to the fact that he had received these doctrines from the Lord Jesus by inspiration; compare the 1 Corinthians 10:23 , note; Galatians 1:2 , note. This is one instance in which he claims to be under the divine guidance, and to have received his doctrines from God. How that Christ died for our sins - The Messiah, The Lord Jesus, died as an expiatory offering on account of our sins. They caused his death; for them he shed his blood; to make expiation for them, and to wipe them away, he expired on the cross. This passage is full proof that Christ did not die merely as a martyr, but that his death was to make atonement for sin. That he died as an atoning sacrifice, or as a vicarious offering, is here declared by Paul to be among the "first" things that he taught; and the grand fundamental truth on which the church at Corinth had been founded, and by which it had been established, and by which they would be saved. It follows that there can be no true church, and no wellfounded hope of salvation, where the doctrine is not held that Christ died for sin. According to the Scriptures - The writings of the Old Testament; See the note at John 5:39 . It is, of course, not certain to what parts of the Old Testament Paul here refers. He teaches simply that the doctrine is contained there that the Messiah would die for sin; and, in his preaching, he doubtless adduced and dwelt upon the particular places. Some of the places where this is taught are the following: Psalm 22 ; Isaiah 53:1-12 ; Daniel 9:26 ; Zechariah 12:10 ; compare Luke 24:26 , Luke 24:46 . See also Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament, vol. 1:pp. 187,216, translated by Keith.

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 ἐν πρώτοις 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. 1 Corinthians 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 ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν , for sin , cannot mean in the place of sin , therefore ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν for us , cannot mean in our place . This remark, however, has no more force in reference to the Greek preposition, ὑπέρ , 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 , Luke 24:26 . 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 , Acts 26:23 . 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.

1 Corinthians THE POWER OF THE RESURRECTION 1 Corinthians 15:3 - 1 Corinthians 15:4 . Christmas day is probably not the true anniversary of the Nativity, but Easter is certainly that of the Resurrection. The season is appropriate. In the climate of Palestine the first fruits of the harvest were ready at the Passover for presentation in the Temple. It was an agricultural as well as a historical festival; and the connection between that aspect of the feast and the Resurrection of our Lord is in the Apostle’s mind when he says, in a subsequent part of this chapter, that Christ is ‘risen from the dead and become the first fruits of them that slept.’ In our colder climate the season is no less appropriate. The ‘life re-orient out of dust’ which shows itself to-day in every bursting leaf-bud and springing flower is Nature’s parable of the spring that awaits man after the winter of death. No doubt, apart from the Resurrection of Jesus, the yearly miracle kindles sad thoughts in mourning hearts, and suggests bitter contrasts to those who sorrow, having no hope, but the grave in the garden has turned every blossom into a smiling prophet of the Resurrection. And so the season, illuminated by the event, teaches us lessons of hope that ‘we shall not all die.’ Let us turn, then, to the thoughts naturally suggested by the day, and the great fact which it brings to each mind, and confirmed thereafter by the miracle that is being wrought round about us. I. First, then, in my text, I would have you note the facts of Paul’s gospel. ‘First of all . . . I delivered’ these things. And the ‘first’ not only points to the order of time in the proclamation, but to the order of importance as well. For these initial facts are the fundamental facts, on which all that may follow thereafter is certainly built. Now the first thing that strikes me here is that, whatever else the system unfolded in the New Testament is, it is to begin with a simple record of historical fact. It becomes a philosophy, it becomes a religious system; it is a revelation of God; it is an unveiling of man; it is a body of ethical precepts. It is morals and philosophy and religion all in one; but it is first of all a story of something that took place in the world. If that be so, there is a lesson for men whose work it is to preach it. Let them never forget that their business is to insist upon the truth of these great, supernatural, all-important, and fundamental facts, the death and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. They must evolve all the deep meanings that lie in them; and the deeper they dig for their meanings the better. They must open out the endless treasures of consolation and enforce the omnipotent motives of action which are wrapped up in the facts; but howsoever far they may carry their evolving and their application of them, they will neither be faithful to their Lord nor true stewards of their message unless, clear above all other aspects of their work, and underlying all other forms of their ministry, there be the unfaltering proclamation-’first of all,’ midst of all, last of all-’how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,’ and ‘that He was raised again according to the Scriptures.’ Note, too, how this fundamental and original character of the gospel which Paul preached, as a record of facts, makes short work of a great deal that calls itself ‘liberal Christianity’ in these days. We are told that it is quite possible to be a very good Christian man, and reject the supernatural, and turn away with incredulity from the story of the Resurrection. It may be so, but I confess that it puzzles me to understand how, if the fundamental character of Christian teaching be the proclamation of certain facts, a man who does not believe those facts has the right to call himself a Christian. Note, further, how there is an element of explanation involved in the proclamation of the facts which turns them into a gospel. Mark how ‘that Christ died,’ not Jesus . It is a great truth, that the man, our Brother, Jesus, passed through the common lot, but that is not what Paul says here, though he often says it. What he says is that ‘ Christ died.’ Christ is the name of an office, into which is condensed a whole system of truth, declaring that it is He who is the Apex, the Seal, and ultimate Word of all divine revelation. It was the Christ who died; unless it was so, the death of Jesus is no gospel. ‘He died for our sins.’ Now, if the Apostle had only said ‘He died for us,’ that might conceivably have meant that, in a multitude of different ways of example, appeal to our pity and compassion and the like, His death was of use to mankind. But when he says ‘He died for our sins ,’ I take leave to think that that expression has no meaning, unless it means that He died as the expiation and sacrifice for men’s sins. I ask you, in what intelligible sense could Christ ‘die for our sins’ unless He died as bearing their punishment and as bearing it for us? And then, finally, ‘He died and rose . . . according to the Scriptures,’ and so fulfilled the divine purposes revealed from of old. To the fact that a man was crucified outside the gates of Jerusalem, ‘and rose again the third day,’ which is the narrative, there are added these three things-the dignity of the Person, the purpose of His death, the fulfilment of the divine intention manifested from of old. And these three things, as I said, turn the narrative into a Gospel. So, brethren, let us remember that, without all three of them, the death of Jesus Christ is nothing to us, any more than the death of thousands of sweet and saintly men in the past has been, who may have seen a little more of the supreme goodness and greatness than their fellows, and tried in vain to make purblind eyes participate in their vision. Do you think that these twelve fishermen would ever have shaken the world if they had gone out with the story of the Cross, unless they had carried along with it the commentary which is included in the words which I have emphasised? And do you suppose that the type of Christianity which slurs over the explanation, and so does not know what to do with the facts, will ever do much in the world, or will ever touch men? Let us liberalise our Christianity by all means, but do not let us evaporate it; and evaporate it we surely shall if we falter in saying with Paul, ‘I declare, first of all, that which received,’ how that the death and resurrection were the death and resurrection of the Christ, ‘for our sins, according to the Scriptures.’ These are the facts which make Paul’s gospel. II. Now I ask you to look, in the second place, at what establishes the facts. We have here, in this chapter, a statement very much older than our existing written gospels. This epistle is one of the four letters of Paul which nobody that I know of-with some quite insignificant exceptions in modern times-has ever ventured to dispute. It is admittedly the writing of the Apostle, written before the gospels, and in all probability within five-and-twenty years of the date of the Crucifixion. And what do we find alleged by it as the state of things at its date? That the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was the subject of universal Christian teaching, and was accepted by all the Christian communities. Its evidence to that fact is undeniable; because there was in the early Christian Church a very formidable and large body of bitter antagonists of Paul’s, who would have been only too glad to have convicted him, if they could, of any misrepresentation of the usual notions, or divergence from the usual type of teaching. So we may take it as undeniable that the representation of this chapter is historically true; and that within five-and-twenty years of the death of Jesus Christ every Christian community and every Christian teacher believed in and proclaimed the fact of the Resurrection. But if that be so, we necessarily are carried a great deal nearer the Cross than five-and-twenty years; and, in fact, there is not, between the moment when Paul penned these words and the day of Pentecost, a single chink in the history where you can insert such a tremendous innovation as the full-fledged belief in a resurrection coming in as something new. I do not need to dwell at all upon this other thought, that, unless the belief that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead originated at the time of His death, there would never have been a Church at all. Why was it that they did not tumble to pieces? Take the nave out of the wheel and what becomes of the spokes? A dead Christ could never have been the basis of a living Church. If He had not risen from the dead, the story of His disciples would have been the same as that which Gamaliel told the Sanhedrim was the story of all former pseudo-Messiahs such as that man Theudas. ‘He was slain, and as many as followed him were dispersed and came to naught.’ Of course! The existence of the Church demands, as a pre-requisite, the initial belief in the Resurrection. I think, then, that the contemporaneousness of the evidence is sufficiently established. What about its good faith? I suppose that nobody, nowadays, doubts the veracity of these witnesses. Anybody that knows an honest man when he sees him, anybody that has the least ear for the tone of sincerity and the accent of conviction, must say that they may have been fanatics, they may have been mistaken, but one thing is clear as sunlight, they were not false witnesses for God. What, then, about their competency? Their simplicity, their ignorance, their slowness to believe, their stupor of surprise when the fact first dawned upon them, which they tell not with any idea of manufacturing evidence in their own favour, but simply as a piece of history, all tend to make us certain that there was no play of a morbid imagination, no hysterical turning of a wish into a fact, on the part of these men. The sort of things which they say that they saw and experienced are such as to make any such supposition altogether absurd. There are long conversations, appearances appealing to more than one sense, appearances followed by withdrawals, sometimes in the morning, sometimes in the evening, sometimes at a distance, as on the mountain, sometimes close by, as in the chamber, to single souls and to multitudes. Fancy five hundred people all at once smitten with the same mistake, imagining that they saw what they did not see! Miracles may be difficult to believe, they are not half so difficult to believe as absurdities. And this modern explanation of the faith in the Resurrection I venture respectfully to designate as absurd. But there is one other point to which I would like to turn for a moment; and that is that little clause in my text that ‘He was buried.’ Why does Paul introduce that amongst his facts? Possibly in order to affirm the reality of Christ’s death; but I think for another reason. If it be true that Jesus Christ was laid in that sepulchre, a stone’s throw outside the city gate, do you not see what a difficulty that fact puts in the way of disbelief or denial of His Resurrection? If the grave-and it was not a grave, remember, like ours, but a cave, with a stone at the door of it, that anybody could roll away for entrance-if the grave was there, why, in the name of common-sense, did not the rulers put an end to the pestilent heresy by saying, ‘Let us go and see if the body is there’ ? Modern deniers of the Resurrection may fairly be asked to front this thought-If Jesus Christ’s body was in the sepulchre, how was it possible for belief in the Resurrection to have been originated, or maintained? If His body was not in the grave, what had become of it? If His friends stole it away then they were deceivers of the worst type in preaching a resurrection; and we have already seen that that hypothesis is ridiculous. If His enemies took it away, for which they had no motive, why did they not produce it and say, ‘There is an answer to your nonsense. There is the dead man. Let us hear no more of this absurdity of His having risen from the dead’ ? ‘He died . . . according to the Scriptures, and He was buried.’ And the angels’ word carries the only explanation of the fact which it proclaims, ‘He is not here-He is risen.’ I take leave to say that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is established by evidence which nobody would ever have thought of doubting unless for the theory that miracles were impossible. The reason for disbelief is not the deficiency of the evidence, but the bias of the judge. III. And now I have no time to do more than touch the last thought. I have tried to show what establishes the facts. Let me remind you, in a sentence or two, what the facts establish. I by no means desire to suspend the whole of the evidence for Christianity on the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the Resurrection. There are a great many other ways of establishing the truth of the Gospel besides that, upon which I do not need to dwell now. But, taking this one specific ground which my text suggests, what do the facts thus established prove? Well, the first point to which I would refer, and on which I should like to enlarge, if I had time, is the bearing of Christ’s Resurrection on the acceptance of the miraculous. We hear a great deal about the impossibility of miracle and the like. It upsets the certainty and fixedness of the order of things, and so forth, and so forth. Jesus Christ has risen from the dead; and that opens a door wide enough to admit all the rest of the Gospel miracles. It is of no use paring down the supernatural in Christianity, in order to meet the prejudices of a quasi-scientific scepticism, unless you are prepared to go the whole length, and give up the Resurrection. There is the turning point. The question is, Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or do you not? If your objections to the supernatural are valid, then Christ is not risen from the dead; and you must face the consequences of that. If He is risen from the dead, then you must cease all your talk about the impossibility of miracle, and be willing to accept a supernatural revelation as God’s way of making Himself known to man. But, further, let me remind you of the bearing of the Resurrection upon Christ’s work and claims. If He be lying in some forgotten grave, and if all that fair thought of His having burst the bands of death is a blunder, then there was nothing in His death that had the least bearing upon men’s sin, and it is no more to me than the deaths of thousands in the past. But if He is risen from the dead, then the Resurrection casts back a light upon the Cross, and we understand that His death is the life of the world, and that ‘by His stripes we are healed.’ But, further, remember what He said about Himself when He was in the world-how He claimed to be the Son of God; how He demanded absolute obedience, implicit trust, supreme love, how He identified faith in Himself with faith in God-and consider the Resurrection as bearing on the reception or rejection of these tremendous claims. It seems to me that we are brought sharp up to this alternative-Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and was declared by the Resurrection to be the Son of God with power; or Jesus Christ has not risen from the dead-and what then? Then He was either deceiver or deceived, and in either case has no right to my reverence and my love. We may be thankful that men are illogical, and that many who reject the Resurrection retain reverence, genuine and deep, for Jesus Christ. But whether they have any right to do so is another matter. I confess for myself that, if I did not believe that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead, I should find it very hard to accept, as an example of conduct, or as religious teacher, a man who had made such great claims as He did, and had asked from me what He asked. It seems to me that He is either a great deal more, or a great deal less, than a beautiful saintly soul. If He rose from the dead He is much more; if He did not, I am afraid to say how much less He is. And, finally, the bearing of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ upon our own hopes of the future may be suggested. It teaches us that life has nothing to do with organisation, but persists apart from the body. It teaches us that a man may pass from death and be unaltered in the substance of his being; and it teaches us that the earthly house of our tabernacle may be fashioned like unto the glorious house in which He dwells now at the right hand of God. There is no other absolute proof of immortality than the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. If we accept with all our hearts and minds Paul’s Gospel in its fundamental facts, we need not fear to die, because He has died, and by dying has been the death of death. We need not doubt that we shall live again, because He was dead and is alive for ever more. This Samson has carried away the gates on His strong shoulders, and death is no more a dungeon but a passage. If we rest ourselves upon Him, then we can take up, for ourselves and for all that are dear to us and have gone before us, the triumphant song, ‘O Death, where is thy sting?’ ‘Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.’