1 Corinthians 15

OGC

‹ Chapter 14 1 Corinthians — All Chapters Chapter 16 ›

**Butler’s Comments

Chapter Fifteen THE PROBLEM OF THE RESURRECTION

(1 Corinthians 15:1-58)

IDEAS TO INVESTIGATE:**

In accordance with what scripture did Christ die and arise from the dead?

When did the resurrected Christ appear to five hundred brethren at once?

Is it the death of Christ, or the resurrection of Christ, that takes away sin?

Are there different orders of being resurrected from the dead?

What is being baptized on behalf of the dead?

What kind of body will believers have after the resurrection?

APPLICATIONS:

The gospel gives salvation only to those who hold it fastGod’s offer of salvation is free, but conditioned on loyalty.

The facts of the gospel are important firsteven before what we feel about it, or before its usefulness.

The terms in which the gospel is to be preached are objective, not subjective. It is history not autonomous human decisiveness.

Proof of the historicity of Christ’s resurrection follows all the canons of legal, scientific evidencecan you name them?

There is significance to Paul’s listing of himself as a witness to the bodily resurrection of Christwhat is it? Does it convince you? Would it convince others? A Jew?

What do you think of the moral honesty of those who deny the bodily resurrection of Christ and still want to practice Christianity? Would you?

What kind of life would you live if you did not believe in the bodily resurrection of the dead? Why?

Would you like to be baptized for someone who is dead? Would you be able to trust a God who allowed righteousness by proxy?

How often is the resurrection of Christ preached and taught at your congregation?

Do you see liberalism and modernism (now, it is neo-orthodoxy) as corrupting good morals?

Are you resigned to the fact, as nature teaches, that there is no new life unless death comes first? Has it been easy to be reconciled to the inevitability of death?

What kind of body do you think you will have in eternity?

Do you expect to recognize in eternity people you have known here? Why? How?

What of this life are you expecting to take with you to heaven?

APPREHENSIONS:

What was the form of the apostolic gospel proclamation?

Why does Paul say Christ died, was buried and arose, all according to the scriptures? What scriptures?

What evidence is offered by those who deny the resurrection of Christ? How do they explain the gospel accounts of it?

How many enemies of early Christianity became advocates of it? Why?

Why are we still in our sins if Christ has not been raised from the dead?

Why are men to be pitied if they have hoped in Christ only for this life?

Isn-’t there some value in practicing Christianity even if Christ was never raised from the dead?

Why is Christ firstfruit of the dead? Which dead?

What is baptism for the dead? Is it practiced todayby whom?

Why are people who are sinning not in their right minds?

Why do men say, How are the dead raised?

What is the answer?

What is the difference between the first Adam and the last Adam?

Why can-’t flesh and blood inherit the kingdom of God?

What difference does believing in the resurrection make in how we feel about Christian works?

Special Study ON CLOUD NINE

Man, you are really out there on cloud nine! This is one of the favorite slanguage expressions used by some to categorize ideas which they believe to be unrealistic, unreasonable and irrational. Over the years liberal theologians and liberal preachers have built up and bowled over their straw-men of conservative-Christianity. They have relegated all fundamental, historical views of the Bible, God, Christ, man, conversion and the church to cloud nine. Conservative Christianity, they say, is too much concerned with doctrines to be realistic or relevant. We believe that the opposite is true. We believe that liberalism (even in its latest formNeo-orthodoxy) is out there on cloud nine. We believe that history, reason, experience and revelation all combine to prove that liberal theology is unrealistic and irrelevant.

Both the apostles Peter and Jude state unequivocally that any theology which denies that the written record contained in the Bible is a God-breathed, historically infallible, revelation of the supernatural redemption in Christ is cloud nineism. Any such theology is like a cloud without water. it is unrealistic and irrelevant. 2 Peter 2:17-21, These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm; for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved. For, uttering great swelling words of vanity, they entice in the lusts of the flesh, by lasciviousness, those who are just escaping from them that live in error; promising them liberty, while they themselves are bondservants of corruption; for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he also brought into bondage. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein and overcome, the last state is become worse with them than the first. For it were better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto them. Jude 1:11-13, Woe unto them! for they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously in the error of Balaam for hire, and perished in the gainsaying of Korah. These are they who are hidden rocks in your love-feasts when they feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds, autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the root; wild waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved for ever.

It is unrealistic to attempt a complete rebuttal of liberalism in so brief an essay. Nevertheless, the following outline will hopefully produce enough light to show the irrelevancies and irreparable weaknesses of an unrealistic liberal theology.

Antecedents of Liberalism

Rationalism: Rationalism had its modern birth as reaction against the extreme dogmatism, anti-intellectualism and authoritarianism of the medieval Roman Catholic Church. This philosophical revolution brought about the Renaissance with its extreme swing to rationalism and freedom from all authority. This resulted in the autonomous man. Man’s ability to reason became the sole criteria of judging a thing to be true or valuable. All that is non-conceptual, or empirically non-repeatable is untrue, according to rationalism.
Materialism or Empiricism: Materialism or Empiricism says that all we can know is sensory knowledge or all that, is, is matter. It denies the supernatural. it denies miracles and arbitrarily assigns them to the realm of superstition; it denies spirit. Man becomes a creature and captive of environmental influences and may be conditioned or manipulated by empirical stimuli. This philosophy is far from being dead. Behavioristic psychology is founded upon it. It is being taught in the majority of our state colleges and universities.
Evolutionism: All life originated by chemical processes. that which is organic came from inorganic. This is the only recourse for man in explaining his being and the universe when he refuses to have God in his knowledgehe can only worship the creature and the created if he rejects the Creator. Evolution is irrational, unscientific, unrealistic. It creates hundreds of unanswerable questions, problems and inconsistencies. Evolution solves no real problems and answers no real questions! Evolutionism did not start with Charles Darwin. It started as far back as the ancient Greeks, Aristotle, Democritus and perhaps even earlier (cf. Romans 1:1-32).
Scientism: It seemed that science was always proved right and religion wrong. The idea began to arise that science could solve all of man’s problems, that it was only ignorance and inertia, particularly the ignorance and inertia of the Churches, which were holding back the forward march of science, the new savior.[1]

[1] A Layman’s Guide to Protestant Theology, by Wm. Hordern, p. 47.

This is scientism, the worship of science. Science became the sacred cow! Natural law (which is only man’s description of what he has observed) became God! Nietzsche, the German philosopher, said, God is dead! With such a philosophical annihilation of God came the death of all moral standards and out of Nietzsche’s teachings came Nazi Germany under his most infamous discipleAdolf Hitler. 5. Humanism: Scientific Humanism is the doctrine that men, through the use of intelligence, directing the institutions of democratic government, can create for themselves, without aid from super natural powers, a rational civilization in which each person enjoys security and finds cultural outlets for whatever normal human capacities and creative energies he possesses.[2] Without a supernatural standard just who is going to decide what are the normal human capacities and the creative energies, who is going to decide what security is and who is going to decide between cultural outlets and non-cultural outlets? With only relativistic standards society must ultimately either become completely subjected to dictatorship of the most powerful or it must end in chaotic anarchism.

[2] Living Issues of Philosophy, by H. H. Titus, p. 216.

Humanism is an unrealistic optimism in man’s ability to provide for himself all that is needed to have a life that is consistent with his being. All this actually results in determinism and mechanistic materialism or anarchism, and neither determinism nor anarchism is freedom! 6. Subjectivism: Some humanistic theologians found such strict materialistic and animalistic views to be inconsistent with man’s real nature. Materialism led only to an incoherent, unrealistic outlook and practice of life. So the theologians, acceding to the so-called scientific destruction of the historical accuracy of the Bible, attempted to base religion on subjective feeling alone. value and truth was to be felt and not arrived at from the facts.

They said science knows that the Bible is untrue, but that has nothing to do with truth. for truth or value has to be felt! And although the Bible is inaccurate and full of superstition, God can speak to us through it. In Schleiermacher religion found an answer to many of the problems of his age. For one thing religion was made independent of philosophy and science. Religion, based on the individual’s personal experience, had a realm of its own; it was its own proof; it bore its own validity. Furthermore, the center of religion is shifted from the Bible to the heart of the believer. Biblical criticism cannot harm Christianity, for the heart of the Bible message is that which it speaks to the individual, and it speaks even more clearly because the critics have enabled us to understand it.[3] Could there be any philosophy more unrealistic, unscientific, unreasonable?!

[3] Hordern, op. cit., p. 59.

And so, modern liberalism in the form of existential neo-orthodoxy, seeking to reconcile lies as truth, seeking to get answers from a book they admit is full of error, is more unrealistic and incoherent than all its predecessors!

Results

Agnosticism: Unbeliefno eternal verities or values. Truth is becoming. man is making truth as he experiments. Truth is created pragmatically. That is, if an action works it is true; if not, false.

But again, who’s to be the judge as to its workability? What’s workable for one may not be for all, or, what’s workable today may not be tomorrow. If man is the result of accidental inorganic chemical clashes, if God is dead, if there is no truth except what is rational and empirical, then there is nothing eternal and nothing valuable but animalistic satisfaction of the flesh! 2. Socialism: The governments of men become the Beneficent Father. the Savior of the race. Men’s philosophies (outlook on life) permeate every avenue of their existence. Religious philosophy and political philosophy cannot be separated. You cannot compartmentalize life! All that you think affects your whole life. Religious liberalism has brought on political liberalism and socialism. It has placed worshipful emphasis on material results in the assumption that a particular standard of living brings salvation and governmental paternalism brings the kingdom of God upon earth. Statement after statement by the liberals to this effect may be found in the little book, so vehemently denounced by the religious liberals themselves, None Dare Call It Treason.

All the evils of immorality, greed, kick-back, favoritism, paternalism, waste, exploitation in big government are a direct result of the religious philosophy of liberalism which says man himself and his material well-being. is heaven: the philosophical or political method of bringing this about is their God. 3. Immorality: If there are no eternal values, no God, no hereafter, how can there be any morality? All good is relative only to individual desires or the desires of one who can, by force, control thoughts and deeds through fear or brain-washing. This is why we have sun, suds and sex on the Florida beaches. This is why we have cheating on television quiz shows. This is why we have more divorce and adultery than ever before. A liberalism which says there is no God, no true Bible, no heaven, no hell, that a great society may be built without them is cloud nineism! Such a philosophy is unrealistic, irresponsible, demonical!

War: The liberal theological schools of Germany taught philosophies which spawned Marx, Lenin, Hitler and many of the present and past leaders of American education and politics. When there is no God and when the Bible is renounced as merely the invention of ignorant, fallible men, then all values are relative. The values of a man like Hitler become relative to building the Third Reich. Marx’s values were relative to the glorification of the State. Liberal theology breeds greed, lust for power, prejudice, exploitation of humanity, and war.
Eclecticism: Syncretism in religion, ecumenism of the World Council of Churches, one world governmentalism is another result. Liberalism reduces Christ to a mere human in whom may be found the highest human attainment of what is good and right. Christ becomes a mere teacher of ethics. simply another religious philosopher or prophet like Mohammed, Buddha, or Confucius. Such a religious philosophy absorbs all which is supposed to be good and valuable from each of the great world religions. How can truth, absolute truth (that is what Christianity claims to be), absorb that which is not true either historically or pragmatically? Christianity and all other religions are diametrically opposed.

It is totally unrealistic to build one’s religious beliefs and philosophy of life upon a conglomeration of teachings which are contradictory! Pessimism or a schizophrenic fear and anxiety follows from such a mixed up religion. This pessimism and anxiety is not only evident by the living of many people today, but it is stated in our songs, art, literature, and contemporary philosophers. History and reason demonstrate that liberalism, anti-supernaturalism and unbelief are responsible for our sensual, schizophrenic, suicidal society! Peace, joy and fruitfulness which are absolutely necessary for a balanced life are all based upon trust and faith and a coherent philosophy of life. The only coherent philosophy of life is one that is centered on and saturated with the love of God demonstrated in history in Christ (God Incarnate) and experienced by a personal fellowship with the Holy Spirit as He lives in men through His Word! Yes, liberal theology is unrealistic. It is worse than that! It is ungodly, impotent and damning!

Answers

Know the truth: Every Christian must know why and what he believes. The study of evidences for belief in Christ must not be reserved for only a few of the so-called theologians. The apostles and Christians of the first century made this the bed-rock basis of all they believed, taught and practiced. Every sermon recorded in Acts is built upon historical evidence for the deity of Jesus Christ.

All of life’s motivations have their origins in either truth or lie. If we desire to move men to live true to God’s purpose for them we must know God’s truth and why it is true, and be able to present it to others. Parents should be teaching their children NOW why they believe. Men and women should be steeping their own minds and hearts in evidences for belief. 2. Preach the truth: Let the church and Christians be more concerned with revealed truth than with programs. Let the church be more concerned with regenerating the hearts of individuals by the power of the Holy Spirit through His Word rather than with social reform or raising living standards, and the slums will disappear. Let the church and Christian people have the courage to preach the truth with their lives. Let them live up to what they teach in their Sunday School classes on Sunday, letting Christ live His life in them, and racial injustice will cease.

Pray daily: We do not really believe in prayer per se as the psychologists do for a release but we believe in the Lord Jesus who promised to answer prayer. But we really do not act like we believe in the Lord who promised or we would pray more! It is the Lord’s will that truth be victorious over lie. liberalism is a lie, pray that it may be defeated on every hand.
Send laborers: Support colleges and churches which train men and women to declare the truth. I never cease to be amazed at parents who look down their noses at the Bible Colleges. They act as if life consists in just a living. And of course, in order to learn how to make a living one must go to a college where atheistic, Communistic, immoral teachers teach infidelic philosophies. God have mercy upon us.
Warn people: Romans 16:1-27 tells us to mark those who cause divisions and disputings among us. The Scriptures are emphatic in their exhortations to warn people, to point out by name and doctrine those who are contrary to revealed truth. John says that the only way we know the Spirit of Truth and the spirit of error is to compare all that is taught with what the apostles recorded in the New Testament.

LIBERALISM IS CLOUD NINEISM. IT IS UNREALISTIC IN:

Its approach to or view of God. Nature proves God exists. Men must deny reason to deny the facts connected with the revelation of God in Christ.
Its view of man. Man is more than flesh and bone. Man is a spirit. he is a person. But not if the liberal view is to be accepted.
Its view of sin. Sin is more than the unfortunate conditioning of an unfortunate environment. Sin is of the will, and of the heart regardless of ones environment.
Its view or approach to salvation. It has no supernatural power. Why strive for social improvement if there are no eternal verities, no Almighty Judge, etc.
It is even unrealistic in its view of social reform: Without divine power of regeneration there is no lasting social reform.

Any religion that does not answer the human predicament is worse than useless. Death, and the sin which causes it, is the human predicament. There have been many religious and metaphysical theories for its cure, but only one way of fact! This was when God entered history, time, and space, and said, This is what I have done with sin and with death. I punish sin upon the cross in My Son. I conquer death in the resurrection of My Son from the tomb.

**Purposes

(Why bother with a polemic against Liberalism?)**

Men are lost in it. There is futility and hopelessness in this life without Christ. There is no hope of eternal life in a Christless Liberalism.
Men and women are seeking to be loosed from its tyranny. Many people thirst for the historical Christianity. People are beginning to awake to the tyranny and hopelessness of Liberalism. Many unbelievers use the unrealistic and contradictory nature of Liberal Christianity to scoff at all religion. They do not know there is a real Christianity of fact and life in the Holy Spirit.
We have the power. What has been said before is sufficient to show that the battle is basically a battle of ideas. What we believe will ultimately control and direct what we do. Paul says, For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh (for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds); casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ; (2 Corinthians 10:3-5). Peter points out that through a knowledge of Christ we have granted unto us the divine power of God which gives us all things that pertain to and are relevant for life and godliness, (2 Peter 1:3-4).

Christianity is more than a way of life. It is the only coherent, consistent, realistic and relevant life possible! The divinely inspired Christianity of the New Testament in all its pristine purity is intensely practical. It is intensely relevant and contemporary to all men in every situation and forevermore. But it is all of this only if it is historically and infallibly true. It is true! Its truth makes all other philosophies of life inconsistent, irrelevant, powerless and untrue. The most insane, incoherent, schizophrenic existence that man can bring upon himself is to attempt to live a coherent life which is based upon an incoherent philosophy. Any philosophy of the universe and man’s purpose and destiny which is bereft of divinely revealed truth is powerless and insane. Paul says that the power and relevance of Christianity is due to its divine truthfulness and this divine truthfulness was demonstrated when God intervened in time and space and history and by the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ showing that the supernatural is just as real, if not more real, than the natural. Hear, then, the conclusion: Wherefore my beloved brethren be ye stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord for ye know that your labors are not in vain in the Lord (1 Corinthians 15:58).

Special Study THE EXISTENTIAL / NEO-ORTHODOX PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY

An attempt will be made, in this comparatively brief study, to focus on the Neo-Orthodox / Existential philosophy of history. To this end we shall endeavor to show a few of the antecedent influences leading to this particular view of history; a definition of this philosophy of history; results of this philosophy of history. Basic to an understanding of any aspect of the Existential theology (if indeed it may be called a theology) is recognition of its reactionism toward a religion that presents itself to man’s reason for verification. The Crisis theology is also a reaction against what its adherents call, immanentism. To them the orthodox theology of a God revealing Himself in the realm of the phenomenal (ordinary history) means an immanentistic, pantheistic theology and restricts God. It claims to be an enemy of rationalism but in our opinion it enthrones rationalism more authoritatively than any of the rationalists and restricts God as orthodoxy could never do. Their constant demand is for a wholly Other Godbeyond the realm of reasonableness and human history and in so doing they make man’s emotions the exclusive point of contact with a God that, by their own declaration, cannot be contacted. By their arbitrary, authoritarian and dogmatic postulate that a revelation from God is not verifiable by the logical processes of man they have enthroned their inability to know which is really enthroning rationalism. Basically, Existentialism is nothing more than a modified agnosticism all dressed up in the robes of religious terminology. We hope, in all fairness, that we have represented their position correctly. With our background of orthodoxy and ordinary view of history it has not been easy to follow their thinking to clear conclusions.

Antecedents

The antecedents of the existential philosophy of history may be traced back with certainty to Immanuel Kant and other rationalistic philosophers, and perhaps even further back into the age of Platonism. But we shall not go beyond Kant. We feel rather reluctant to criticize Kant; considering our very brief acquaintance with his work, but it is necessary to do so to see his influences upon modern theological trends, We therefore accept the interpretations of other writers concerning his epistemological and metaphysical presuppositions. The educational background of Barth (German school of rationalism) and the ethnic relationship of Barth and Kant (both German) lead us to believe that Kant had a strong influence upon Barth’s theology. There is no doubt that Kant’s ideas concerning the way man arrives at and interprets his natural experiences contain some truth. But when it comes to the metaphysical (that which is beyond the natural) Kant becomes an agnostic. He maintains that metaphysical knowledge about the general characteristics of reality is impossible to attain. If we seek inside ourselves for what is the Cause (caps mine) of, or the basis of, our mental machinery of forms and categories, we are unable to discover anything. Similarly, when we try to move beyond the phenomenal world (ordinary history), to the realm of things-in-themselves (brute fact), we are again unable to discover the Cause.

Kant believes that the difficulty which prevents us from developing any metaphysical knowledge is that we have no way of determining if our mental apparatus is applicable to anything beyond the world of possible experience, the phenomenal world. We possess no concepts, no forms of intuition, no logical schema, that we have any reason to believe apply to the Self, or to the -things-in-themselves-’, the real objects that may exist beyond the world of appearance.[4] Thus Immanuel Kant arbitrarily decides that God, if there is a God, could not reveal Himself to man for man has no way of categorizing or understanding that which is beyond the phenomenal (brute fact). Either this or Kant believes that God has not the ability to communicate the noumenal (that is, non-empirical world) through the phenomenal.

[4] Philosophy Made Simple, Popkin & Stroll, Doubleday & Co., Inc., p. 97.

Kant further posited that our logical forms and our categories are organizing principles. which allow us to acquire a priori knowledge about the world of appearance, but … cannot be extended to tell us about a possible transempirical world, unless we could discover some means of determining whether the metaphysical realm can and must be thought of in the same way as the phenomenal one.[5] In other words, our own reason becomes the criteria of judgment as to whether God is able to reveal Himself to man in man’s own categories or not.

[5] Ibid., p. 98.

There is that element of truth within Kant’s philosophy that ought to be appreciated. It is true in a certain sense that man could not know God by reason alone nor through his experience with the world about him. But that does not preclude the possibility of God revealing Himself to man in man’s categories to a degree sufficient for man to accept by faith what is unknowable but revealed. It appears that Kant has written revelation off as impossible simply by making his own reason the judge. And thus Kant gives to the existentialists the first faint echoes of the necessity for the wholly Other God and the autonomous man. Dialecticism is the other important antecedent with the Crisis theologians. This form of rationalism had its beginnings in Plato but Hegel is responsible for organizing the dialectical philosophy into its influential position among philosophers. The dialectic proceeds: All change, especially historical change, takes places in accordance with the law of the dialectic: a thesis is produced, it develops an opposition (its antithesis), a conflict between them ensues, and the conflict is resolved into a synthesis which include both thesis and antithesis. Hegel believed that in discovering the dialectic he had discovered a necessary law of nature.[6] Men and nations are merely pawns of historical necessityit is really the dialectic which controls the course of events. Hegel’s philosophy is very near pure pantheism. His Absolute Mind (God) becomes the real universe, manifesting itself outwardly as world history, and inwardly as the rational dialectical process, marching toward full self-realization.

[6] Ibid., p. 65.

For Hegel the historical process proceeds from level to level through the dialectic movement from thesis to antithesis to synthesis. All change, all thinking and all life proceed from affirmation to denial, or from claim to counter claim to a new integration which later develops a new opposition. Development takes place in Waltz-timeOne, two, three; one, two, three. Hegel holds that fundamental principles of law, morality, and social institutions of art, religion, and philosophy are connecting stages in the logical evolution of the rational will. The dialectical movement of progress through conflict runs through everything he wrote. This dialectical movement is observable in things and in thought, in the human mind and in all history. His idea of conflict is very apparently carried over into the existential ideas of negation and crisis. To Hegel, the Absolute was the sum total of all things in their developmentit was reason itself, it was Mind, and it was the metaphysical definition of God.

Kierkegaard, father of existentialism, was influenced by the Kantian epistemology and the Hegelian dialectic. Kierkegaard vehemently opposes Hegel’s System and pretends to set off his forms of dialecticism in sharp distinction from those of Hegel. But SK is a dialecticist, nevertheless. Both Hegel and SK deny that all facts are under the control of the logic of an antecedent God. With respect to the theologian’s (SK’S) concept of God as an eternal and unchanging Being, we can see that it would be logically impossible for God to be part of the historical world. By definition, no historical or temporal properties apply to God. If one believed that God existed in time, that God was able to act in human historical situations, one would be believing something that is logically absurd.[7][7] Ibid., p. 188.

God cannot make Himself known. Man cannot reach God from any point in history. Yet man must contact God. Thus we have the dialectical conflict and we must take the irrational leap trying to reach the synthesis. The Unknown is a torment to manyet it is also an incitement. God is the wholly Unknown, yet Reason may prepare for His coming.[8] As one writer has said, Kierkegaard has improved on Kant’s concept of correlativity and Hegel’s concept of mediation (both assumed that phenomenal logic and fact are independent of God) by making timeless logic more timeless, by making brute fact more brute, and by developing new speeds for the shuttle train service (SK’S Inwardness and Leap) between them,[9] (parentheses mine). Both SK and Hegel reject the Christian concept of a self-sufficient Godboth reject the idea of the counsel of God, according to which history is simply, what it is. Such concepts to them destroy true inwardness and require men to accept that which is alien to them because it is above them. History as the Christian knows it petrifies subjectivity according to these theologians. Objective proof is taken to be an enemy of true faith because it claims to deal with certainties and finished quantities. But the true subjective thinker, the dialecticist, is constantly occupied in strivingseeking the conflict or arriving at the Crisis. Finality at any point must at all costs be avoided. Dialecticism is irrationalistic in its assumption of brute fact and rationalistic in its virtual ascription of legislative power to the human mind over the whole field of possibility (dialectical process),[10] (parentheses mine).

[8] The New Modernism, by C Van Til, Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., Phila., Penna., p. 61.

[9] Ibid., p. 62

[10] Ibid., p. 64.

In his commentary on Romans, Barth simply carries on where Kierkegaard left off in the dialectic. According to Barth, every attempt to come to God directly by means of ordinary history must be condemned. The relation of man to God must be dialectical subjectivity. Truth is to be found by inwardness. Unable to find universality (reality) by means of external history, Barth’s Individual finds it in himself by means of inwardness. The Individual is said to be dependent on nothing outside himself. The Individual which disowns all rationality and universality outside himself claims to have these qualities within himself. Barth says on one hand that faith cannot hold on to any content that comes to it from without itself and thus shows his irrationality. But when on the other hand he says, faith is, as it were, creative of divinity, then he is relegating to man the ability to conjure up his God dialectically, and he shows his rationalism. This coincides with Kierkegaard’s idea that truth exists solely in the subjective, personal certainty of the believer. Thus the Crisis theologians have built their theology upon two assumptions of humanistic philosophy. First, the wholly Other God, the Unknowable realm of brute fact which is beyond rationality. Secondly, the autonomous Individual who finds truth subjectivelywho comes to true inwardness and self-realization through the rational, dialectical process which leads to the conflict and the leap. These assumptions directly affect the New-orthodox/ Existential philosophy history.

Philosophy of History

Some philosophies of History:

Providential view of History: The Hebraic /Christian view History and civilization are viewed as under the control and moving toward the purpose of the Divine Being, God. Theory of world cycles: Seneca - believed that human life is periodically destroyed and that each new cycle begins with a golden age of innocence and simplicity. The arts, inventions and later the luxuries lead to vice and deterioration. Fate or, the fixed order of the universe, must be accepted with resignation. Corrupting influence of Civilization: Rousseau - human nature is good, yet men and human society are evil. Mankind deteriorates as civilization advances. The soul of man is corrupted as the science and the arts become more perfect. Misery has increased as man has departed from the simpler, primitive conditions.

History as the expression of reason or spirit: Hegel - worked out an elaborate metaphysics of history in terms of monistic idealism. He believed that reality is spirit manifesting itself in nature, in human history and in the actions of man. History is the development of spirit which expresses itself through successive stages. When spirit reaches the stage of rational freedom, it is fully conscious. World history does not belong to the realm of matter but to the realm of spirit. Whereas the essence of matter is gravity, the essence of spirit is rational freedom. Reason in history, rather than providential interventions marks the transition from Augustine to Hegel.[11]

[11] Living Issues in Philosophy, H.H. Titus 2nd ed., American Book Co., 1953, pp. 457-459.

There are other philosophies of history which may have affected the Neo-orthodox philosophy of history:

Historical nihilists: Those who deny that there is any meaning, pattern or purpose in history. Historical skeptics: Those who assert that we do not know whether or not there is a pattern or purpose in history.

Historical subjectivists: Those who claim that any pattern which seems to be present in historical development is not actually present in history but is merely a creation of human minds or imaginations.[12]

[12] Ibid., p. 456.

The foregoing philosophies of history are introduced merely to show that the Neo-orthodox concept of history is absolutely foreign to the Christian or Biblical concept of history. As we shall see the Neo-orthodox philosophy of history is more anti-historical, Kantian-critical, Hegelian-pantheistic than anything else. Barth’s usage of the idea of what he calls primal history has its origin in Kant. Barth’s ideas of the Individual and of primal history are inseparable. The Individual, according to Barth, has true universality within himself. That is, he is not dependent upon anything external. God, therefore, does not speak to the Individual directly through history. If God is to appear to man in history (and He must, for even Barth is able to see that man cannot save himself), it must be in another sort of history. This other sort of history is called primal history. Kant’s critical system begins with the assumption of the non-createdness of man. The Self is wholly free or autonomous. Human thought is creative in character. The world of history becomes the training ground of the Self. In history the Self attempts to make a never-ending progress toward its self-chosen or created Ideal. Of course, Kant is not speaking here of the empirical-self. The empirical-self must be thought of as subject to nature and history. BUT THEN, THE EMPIRICAL-SELF IS NOT THE REAL SELF, according to Kant. The Autonomous-self is the real self. And to be the real self, it must be free.

It is with this notion of the homo noumenon that Kant approaches historic Christianity. Naturally he cannot accept historic Christianity as finalif he did the idea of the homo noumenon progressing toward its self-chosen Ideal would be lost. In historic Christianity it is God who creates nature and history; in Kant’s critical philosophy it is the autonomous man that creates both. Kant accepts the accounts of historical Christianity as being merely figurative, symbolic pictures made by the free moral Self. Christ is merely the archetype of man’s disposition in all its ideal purity.[13] Christ, for Kant, is not simply the revelation of God Incarnate affecting the empirical self of man. He is the Ideal which reason sets before itself. For Kant, no historical revelation, whether by word (Scripture) or by fact (Christ), can be taken at face value. Revelation is basically no more than a figure of speech by which reason (the autonomous man) goads itself toward its self-chosen Ideal. Because of the limits of the reach of reason, reason therefore must resort to what Kant calls the schematism of analogy. It is this schematism of analogy that Kant finds in Scripture. Now it is quite incomprehensible how mankind should have set such a perfect Ideal for itself as Christtherefore it is quite proper for the Bible to speak analogically of this Ideal as coming down to man.

[13] The New Modernism, by C. Van Til, p. 85.

We must look briefly at the philosophies of Franz Overbeck concerning history, for Barth urges his followers to listen to what Overbeck has to say on the idea of primal history. Overbeck sees the realm of primal history as the realm of origins. It is the realm where the Individual is confronted with pure contingency (that is, where no distinctions are discernable between the universal and the particular). When the subject operates (through the subjective leap) in the field of primal history, he is said to stand outside of empirical history and to be functioning in the realm of pure contingency. Ordinary, empirical history is the realm of relativities and correlativities. If we are to have contact with the Absolute (God) it must be in non-historical or super-historical dimension. The true man in man is, according to Overbeck, above the passage of time and unaffected by an empirical historic Christianity. The true man (the real man, the soul) is, like Plato’s man, a member of an ideal world. True Christianity, says Overbeck, appears in the realm of primal history. To seek true Christianity in the realm of empirical history is to make it subject to the manipulations of men, for in the realm of empirical history man is supreme. Here he makes his distinctions and differentiations relative to himself. It is the territory which he may call his own. He is lord in this realm because in it he merely deals with himself. All historical interpretation must be subjective because the relations of things as they appear to us in time (ordinary history) concern that side of things which belong to us and which are, in fact, our own creation. It is only when we turn to primal history that man can really meet God, These men simply deny that God influences the history of the world, as we know it, at all. Empirical history, says Overbeck, tells no consistent tale. It is full of sound and fury without intelligible meaning. The world simply is what it is without any reason in it that we can see. But man as a living organism is always subject to the ambiguities of the temporal, while man as the subject of thought (the real man) is able to transcend time itself and thus the ambiguities disappear. Man just thinks all the ambiguities of history away through the subjective process. To bring Christianity into alliance with empirical history is, to Overbeck, to admit that it is of this world and that it partakes of the ambiguities of this world. If history as a whole tells no intelligible tale, it follows that there can be no special turning-points in it that have particular meaning. Thus in Overbeck’s system there is no sense in asking about the origin of temporal history or about the end of history, or about the Christ of history. For him, in history, nothing is ever finished. Now let us see how these agnostic and rationalistic ideas are further developed in Barth. Barth’s conception of primal history is very similar to that of Overbeck. Both negatively criticize ordinary, empirical history and follow with a gospel of hope through primal history. But Barth gives far greater emphasis to the positive element than Overbeck did. as a traffic director he beckons vigorously, lest men go down the road of historical relativity.[14] Barth says of temporal history that for all its competence it is not history, but photographed and analyzed chaos. To think of Christianity or salvation as apprehensible within historical relativities (ordinary history) would inevitably bring Christianity or truth to an ultimate death. In history we can never expect to meet God. At least, we shall never meet a God who is really other than ourselves. Barth argues that to think of God as creating the world in time is to reduce God’s transcendence to the level of a mere link in the chain of immanent causes.

[14] Ibid., p*.* 89.

The gospel is not merely other and higher than history; it is the contradiction of history.[15] The righteousness manifested to the world in Christ-Ideal is timeless and transcendental and unambiguous; the history of relativitiesof the worldis ambiguous. The Christ-Ideal through whom sin is removed from the world has no historical existence. Within history, Jesus as the Christ can be understood only as Myth, or as Kant would say, schematic analogy.

[15] Ibid., p. 90.

It is just here that Barth’s dialecticism begins to show itself. He believes that it is the idea of pure contingency (primal history) as the correlative to the idea of absolutely comprehensive rationality (empirical history) that must do the saving work.[16] In other words, there is no way to God from history by way of negation, and, on the other hand, the only way to God is the way of negation. The very meaninglessness of history constitutes its meaning. By the contradictory and ambiguous character of history, the Individual is driven to despair; just because he is driven to despair; he sees the exit, or, … minus times minus equals plus, and we have the Crisis. He beholds the marvelous fact that the contradictory (the nature of ordinary or phenomenal history) which held him encased in the mazes of correlativity is the power by which he breaks through to the realm of the incommensurable.[17] Notice where the power is said to reside! The power unto salvation is in man’s capacities to discern and reason (apart from a revelation of God). When the Individual has sensed the true meaninglessness of history and sought with passion the God of pure negation, he has also found the positive relation of God to the world.

[16] Ibid., p. 92.

[17] Ibid., p. 94.

When we have stressed the meaninglessness of history with all our power, we begin to understand that the positive relation between God and man, which is the absolutely paradoxical, exists. It is hopeless to reach the Christ by ordinary history. But we reach Him easily when, by faith(??), we are ready to leap into the void. The true Christ, the Christ not subject to history, the Christ of paradox, is seen with the eye of faith alone. and faith deals with that which is beyond all the differentiations of history.[18]

[18] Ibid., p. 95.

The value of history lies beyond history, in primal history. It lies in the CRISIS within which all history stands, in the sickness unto death. In primal history our relationship with Christ becomes contemporary. It is a relationship or contact with Him which lies beyond the scope of man’s empirical self. Thus fundamentalists need not defend the historicity of the gospel narrative, and critics accomplish nothing by trying to destroy it; by faith we are always contemporary (face to face) with the Christ-Ideal by living within the Moment. According to Barth, there may or may not have been a resurrection of Jesus in empirical or ordinary history. But he is not concerned with this primarily. It is the true resurrection (in the realm of primal history) that we must see. The true resurrection must be found in the subjective Moment. It is in the Momentthe subjective leap which Barth equates with faiththat we become contemporary with Christ’s resurrection. As Van Til says, by faith the believer (according to Barth) enters as it were into an airplane and by means of it transcends the mediation of history. But anyone, wherever he may be, can take to the air in this wholly subjective airplane. If no one is dependent upon any historically mediated gospel content, all men are equally unable and equally able to come to Christ in the airship Subjectivity. The oracles of God are the comprehensible signs of the incomprehensible truth that, though the world is incapable of redemption, yet there is a redemption for the world.[19] Any man anywhere may hear these oracles through the Moment (subjective leap). These oracles of God are not dependent upon objective testimonial reporting. The truth reached through the leap can neither be taught nor handed down by testimony. The past is, as it were, dead, and has no message for us, for the meaning of every epoch in history is directly related (or contemporary) to God.

[19] Ibid., p. 102.

Notice how Barth’s philosophy of history contradicts orthodoxy’s concepts of history. According to Orthodoxy, nature and history reveal the mind of God; for Barth nature and history are the results of the creative mind of man. For Orthodoxy God reveals Himself directly in history; for Barth, history is primarily the revelation of the ambiguities of mankind. Orthodoxy believes the Scriptures contain the direct revelation of God and His will made known to sinners; for Barth, the Scriptures contain a necessarily mythological statement of the ideas of primal history. For the believer in historic Christianity, Adam was the first historical man who first truly knew and loved God and then forsook Him; for Barth, Adam is an idea by which every man may picture to himself his existence as it comes into being through the Moment. For Orthodoxy redemption was accomplished by Christ in history; for Barth, redemption is not a matter accomplished for man in history, but by man in utter freedom from history.

Barth’s adoption of the Kantian and Hegelian philosophies did not lead him to a really transcendent, wholly-Other God, but instead, his dialectical theology inevitably led him to a religion which was immanentistic and a God which was merely the self-chosen Ideal of the would-be autonomous man. Barth contends that all history is, strictly speaking, no more than a promise. The apostles were no closer to the fulfillment of revelation than the prophets. The witnesses of the resurrection still deal with the promise only. To be a true witness of the resurrection is not to preach matters of historical tradition, but to point beyond history to primal history. A true faith will not build its house upon the quicksands of ordinary history. Since there is no objective revelation within phenomenal history, Barth contends, there is no historical subject that might receive such a revelation. The empirical man is not the real man. Barth contends whole heartedly for the distinction between the empirical, temporary self and the real Individual, the man within man. This is the Self that believes and obeys the revelation of God (which is reached in the Crisisthe Moment) and consequently this Self cannot be a historical self. Barth does not deny, of course, that there is such a thing as an empirical self. What he contends is that this empirical self or historical-consciousness has nothing to do with the Word of God. The empirical self turns about in this world of surface phenomena (relative History) as a rat in a maze. Here is how Van Til explains Barth’s dialectical philosophy of history:

It is in the realm of primal history that the dialectical union between God and man takes place. Revelation is primal history. this means that history (ordinary history) is not revelation. Primal history is a dimension that lies as it were between super-history and ordinary or surface history, while yet it impinges on both. Revelation is super-history in the sense that there is eternal happening in God Himself. On the other hand, revelation is also ordinary history. Yet it is neither in super-history nor in ordinary history that God meets man. It is in the tension between the two that revelation takes place, and it is this tension that constitutes the realm of primal history. It is here that God meets man in person. Ordinary history points to primal history and primal history constitutes the meaning of ordinary history. Primal history is the realm of meaning inasmuch as it is the realm of the Logos (what Barth does with John 1:1-18 must be neat). This realm is free from ordinary historical continuity; its unity is that of contemporaneity. It is history but it works directly on men of nearest and farthest times. Men become partners in primal history and, when they are such, they are members of the Church of Christ. [20]

[20] Cornelius Van Til, The New Modernism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1947), pp. 154-155.

And so the great rationalism of Barth stands out prominently in all that he says. Barth’s Individual is after all saved by a revelation that is exclusively internal and subjective in character. His wholly-Other God proves not to be so wholly-Other as he would have us believe, but is contingent with the consciousness of the autonomous man. That Barth’s successors maintain the same philosophy of history, may be established by a few quotations from Reinhold Niebuhr.

Theological literalism also corrupts the difficult eschatological symbols of the Christian faith. In these the fulfillment of life is rightly presented, not as a negation but as a transfiguration of historical reality. If they are regarded as descriptions of a particular end in time, the real point of the eschatological symbol is lost. It ceases to symbolize both the end and the fulfillment of time, or to point to both the limit and the significance of historical development as the bearer of the meaning of life. In the same manner a symbolic historical event, such as the fall of man, loses its real meaning when taken as literal history. It symbolizes an inevitable and yet not a natural corruption of human freedom. It must not, therefore, be regarded either as a specific event with which evil begins in history nor yet as a symbol of the modern conception of evil as the lag of nature and finiteness. In a similar fashion the affirmation of the Christian faith that the climax of the divine self-revelation is reached in a particular person and a particular drama of his life, in which these particular events become revelatory of the meaning of the whole of life, is falsely rationalized so that the Jesus of history who is known as the Christ by faith is interpreted as an inhuman and incredible personality with alleged powers of omniscience within the conditions of finiteness. In this way the ultimate truth about God and His relation to men, which can be appropriated only in repentance and faith, is made into a fact of history. These errors of a literalistic orthodoxy tend to obscure the real issues between Christianity and modern culture as surely as the premature capitulation of liberal Christianity to modern culture. The Christian truth is presented as a dated bit of religious fantasy which is credible only to the credulous and which may be easily dismissed by modern man.[21]

[21] Faith and History, by Reinhold Niebuhr, Scribners, 1949, pp. 33, 34.

The points of reference for the structure of the meaning of history in the Christian faith are obviously not found by an empirical analysis of the observable structures and coherences of history, They (the points of reference) are revelations apprehended by faith, of the character and purposes of God. The experience of faith by which they are apprehended is an experience at the ultimate limits of human knowledge; and it requires a condition of repentance which is a possibility for the individual, but only indirectly for nations and collectivies.[22]

[22] Ibid., p. 136,

Niebuhr ridicules the faith that seeks to be founded upon the testimony of revelatory facts within ordinary history. He says of the resurrection that it was not empirical fact, but the subjective interpretation of the meaning behind the death of Jesus (cf. page 147-148 of Faith and History by Niebuhr). He says of the orthodox faith that it is a faith not quite sure of itself, and … always hopes to suppress its skepticism by establishing the revelatory depth of a fact through its miraculous character. this type of miracle is in opposition to true faith.[23]

[23] Ibid., pp. 147-148.

Some Results of the Existential Philosophy of History

This rationalistic theology has devastating effect on all aspects of historic Christianity. Hear what it has to say concerning the Christian hope! The question of hope naturally involves our concept of the future and so the whole question of time and its meaning and the outcome of history is affected. Universalism finds its most striking expression in Barth’s discussion of the Christian hope. Barth couches his theology in orthodox terms when he contends that our hope is to be fixed not on some Platonic idea but on solid historical fact. BUT WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED THAT BARTH CALLS A GENUINE HISTORICAL FACT? This is the all-important question. Time and place are a matter of perfect indifference. Of what these eyes see it can really be equally well said that it was, is and will be, never and nowhere, and that it was, is and will be, always everywhere possible.[24] Indeed a fact of history is, according to Barth, not genuinely such unless it is everywhere and always possible. It is this sort of fact that is everywhere and always happening. This is to say, the resurrection of Christ stands, in Barth’s case, for the Idea of the general progress of the human race toward Ideal perfectionthe resurrection is everywhere and always happening.

[24] The New Modernism, p. 339.

Barth claims that fundamentalism has, by means of its doctrine of the direct revelation of God in the Incarnation of Jesus, limited God. We have bound God to His own revelation; He is no longer free, or wholly-Other. Barth speaks of God as being contingently present with man and it is only when God is thought of as contingently present with us that God Himself may become true history in us and with us. BUT DOES THIS FREE GOD OR DOES IT LIMIT HIM MORE THAN THE ORTHODOX THEOLOGY? To Barth we do not really exist except to the extent that we are contemporaneous with God. With such a philosophy as this it must also be true that God does not really exist except to the extent that He is contemporaneous with us. God is not ObjectHe is Subject. A real historical fact, according to Barth, therefore takes place only as an event, as a process of contingent contemporaneity of God with man and of man with God and that, subjectively.

Barth argues that history as such is dumb; it speaks with a chaos of voices mutually contradictory of one another. The space / time world is a world of no meaningful significance. Kant reduced the teachings of historic Christianity one by one to the level of illustrations of eternal truths, truths of reason. Barth does virtually the same thing. If there is to be a genuine resurrection, a resurrection that shall be everywhere and always possible to all men, there must be a burial in which the God of orthodoxy is buried. THERE MUST BE NO ANTECEDENT BEING OF ANY SORT IN THE THEOLOGY OF CRISIS! A fact, to be a real fact for Barth as for Kant, must be ultimately constructed by the autonomous mind. Only then can it ever be reconstructed, ever re-experienced by the dialectic. Thus the antecedent God must be buried. The resurrection as a genuine historical fact then is, according to Barth, a process and such a process as includes the whole race. Moreover, the process is only beginning. It has not been finished at any point, nor will it be finished at any point in the future. It must always be a contemporaneous fact. For Barth, any fact that may possibly be finished at some future time on the calendar is no true historical fact. It would be a fact that could be fully revealed without being at the same time fully hidden. This simply destroys the Christian hope of the Second Coming. The existentialist can never say Maranatha as we say it. Does not Barth wed the very rationalism and scientism that he professes to divorce? Scientism will recognize no facts as facts unless they are universally verifiable, unless they can be tested by experience at any time. Barth holds that facts are not allowed as facts unless so pronounced by would-be autonomous man after the principle of an exhaustive, rational, dialectical process. In all his irrationalism and subjectivism, Barth, like his philosopher predecessors, has but cleared the ground for a rationalism in which all difference between God and man is finally removed. Barth’s theology leaves us without hope and without God. The existential theology has come full circle in Reinhold Niebuhr and Rudolph Bultmann from its original reaction against rationalism and liberalism to a liberalism all its own. It is clearest, perhaps, in Bultmann’s demythologization of the Scriptures. In view of the pervading spirit of scientific realism of our age, it becomes necessary for us, says Bultmann, to interpret the Christian message in terms that are relevant. All pre-scientific myths must be cut away such as the myth of the pre-existent Lord, the myths of heaven, hell, angels, miracles, virgin birth and the empty tomb and resurrection.

The death of Jesus of Nazareth, according to Bultmann, is not to be understood as the expiatory death of a substitute. That an incarnate divine being should cancel out the sins of men through his blood is, to Bultmann, primitive mythology. However, one can believe in the cross of Christ, says Bultmann. Its decisive, history-shaping significance is made apparent by the fact that it is effectual as an eschatological event; that is, it is not an event of the past, to which one looks back, but it is an eschatological event in time and beyond time, so far as it is understood in its significance, and insofar as it is always present for faith.[25]

[25] Dare We Follow Bultmann? by J. Schneider, in Christianity Today, June 5, 1961.

Bultmann also denies that the resurrection of Christ is an actual event. For Bultmann the existentialist interpretation of the New Testament is entirely independent of historical factuality. One must make a sharp distinction between historical facts and historic encounter. The Christian kerygma of God’s salvation in Jesus Christ has nothing to do with facts which may have happened in Palestine between A.D. 1 and 30. The kerygmatic Christ calls men here and now to the decision of faith. Faith is not to be understood as faith in the personal Saviour but means emancipation from the past and to come to true self-realization, true individuality.

The existentialism of Bultmann is nothing more than a modern variation of that anthropocentrism which, beginning with the Enlightenment, has continued to plague theology, and according to which the standard of validity is seen in existential significance.[26] In other words, Bultmann is merely a modern extension of the Kantian, Hegelian, Kierkegaardian and Barthian enthroning of the Individual or autonomous man.

[26] Dare We Follow Bultmann? by W. Kunneth, in Christianity Today, October 13, 1961.

To Bultmann the cross of Jesus is merely a sign for the fact that it is worthwhile to bear one’s own suffering willingly. The resurrection is merely the knowledge of the meaning of the cross. For him the Second Coming of Christ is rationally inconceivable.

For Bultmann the name Jesus Christ represents not a personal living reality of God’s saving revelation in the sphere of history but merely a concept, an ideogram, a symbol or a principle for the event of contemporary preaching.[27]

[27] Ibid.

Bultmann’s theology is no theology at all, but rather a philosophical wisdom in Christian garb. His revelation of God becomes a synonymous concept for the attainment of a new self-consciousness or understanding; but in no way does it mean the reality of an actual intervention of God in the historical world of space and time. He strips the New Testament of all its power and authority and then sets out to transform society with the real Jesus, the demythologized New Testament. His philosophy, like the philosophies of his predecessors, is able to offer only the ego-centric, autonomous, empirical-Self which may, through the subjective leap become contingent with the Christ-Ideal. This is essentially the same thing that Liberalism offered and which the world found hopeless and powerless to transform men. The existential philosophy is doomed to failure for it lacks the only enduring and all-sufficient foundation, Jesus Christ, who is both historic man and at the same time the resurrected and transcendent Lord. It lacks that which is basically fundamental to a transforming powertrust in a Divine Personality who reveals Himself to man within the historic relativities of man’s dimensions. It lacks also that other essential element of transforming powerauthority resident and available in a Personality higher and wiser than man himself. In their efforts to overcome the rationalism of 19th century European theologians with irrationalism, the existentialists have become neorationalists rather than neo-orthodox. They do not openly deny the existence of God. They simply swing the pendulum of theology to the opposite extreme of rationality and irrationally demand a wholly-Other God who, because He must remain non-phenomenal to remain free, cannot reveal Himself in phenomenal history. Therefore the real man must contact God through an irrational leapwholly subjective faith. Man’s contact with God therefore must stand dependent upon man’s inherent capabilities. So we have the autonomous man creating faith through the dialectical process moving toward his self-chosen Ideal.

Jesus of Nazareth was not God Incarnate for these theologians, but a symbolical picture, a schematic analogy, of the self-chosen Ideal. The existential theology is as much of the spirit of anti-Christ as modernism, liberalism, agnosticism or the Gnosticism which was contemporary with John, who wrote, Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not Jesus is not of God and this is the spirit of the anti-christ, whereof ye have heard that it cometh; and now it is in the world already (1 John 4:1-3).

The existential theology is in direct contradiction to the New Testament witness concerning the Incarnation. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth (John 1:14). Any sensible exegesis of this passage will not allow for the existential philosophy of history.

The existential theologians, by implication, call the New Testament writers liars. That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life. declare we unto you. (1 John 1:1; 1 John 1:3).

Hopelessness is the progenitor of pessimism, epicureanism, materialism and all manner of sin while it goes about paralyzing any kind of transforming and enduring faith. Existentialism is father and mother of HOPELESSNESS!

**Applebury’s Comments

CHAPTER FIFTEEN**

Analysis

As Paul comes to the resurrection, the last of the problems to be discussed in the epistle, he makes known to the brethren the gospel which he preached to them (1 Corinthians 15:1-11).

He points out the relation of the Corinthians to this gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-2).

They had received the gospel which he preached.

They were standing in this gospel.

They were being saved by it.

(1)

The process of salvation was going on.

(2)

Paul indicates that their being saved depended on holding fast by means of the word which he preached.

(3)

This was true, unless they had believed in vainsome were saying there was no resurrection.

He points out the basic issues of the gospel he preached (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

He delivered to them as a matter of first importance that which he also received.

b) He indicated what these basic issues were:

(1)

That Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.

(2)

That He was buried.

(3)

That He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.

He lists the appearances of Christ in proof of His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5-8).

He appeared to Cephas.

Then to the twelve.

He appeared to above five hundred brethren at once.

Then He appeared to James.

Then to all the apostles.

Last of all, as to the child untimely born, He appeared to Paul.

He gives an explanation of his apostleship which was based on Christ’s appearance to him (1 Corinthians 15:8-11).

His last appearance was to Paul, the child untimely born.

He was unworthy to be called an apostle because he persecuted the church: I am the least of the apostles.

He shows how God’s grace worked through him.

(1)

He said, By the grace of God I am what I am.

(2)

God’s bestowed grace was not found vain.

(a)

He labored more abundantly than they all.

(b)

But this was God’s grace working through him.

The other apostles and Paul preached this same gospel and the Corinthians believed it.

Paul explains the bearing of Christ’s resurrection on the subject of the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:12-34).

He bases his first argument on the assumption of the Corinthians that there is no such thing as a resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:12-19).

Question: If Christ is preached that He has been raised from the deadas Paul had just shownhow could some of them say that there was no resurrection of the dead?

Consequence of denying the resurrection: If there is no resurrection of the dead, Christ has not been raised.

Result of denying that Christ has been raised (1 Corinthians 15:14-19).

(1)

The preaching of the apostles is vain.

(2)

The faith of the brethren is vain.

(3)

The apostles are found to be false witnesses of God.

(4)

The faith of the brethren is vain and they are still in their sins.

(5)

Those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.

(6)

The apostles, who have only hoped in Christ in this life, are of all men most pitiable.

He bases his second argument on the fact of Christ’s resurrection from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:20-23).

Christ has been raised as firstfruits of them that are dead (1 Corinthians 15:20-23).

(1)

The argument of firstfruits.

(2)

The source of death and resurrection:

(a)

Death came by Adam.

(b)

Resurrection came by Christ.

(3)

The order in which this occurs: Christ as the firstfruits, then those who are Christ’s at His coming.

He shows what will occur at the end when Christ comes (1 Corinthians 15:24-28).

(1)

The kingdom to be delivered to the Father.

(2)

All enemies, including death, to be conquered.

(3)

The Son to be subject to the Father.

He bases his third argument on the relation of baptism to the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:29-34).

Why be baptized if there is no resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:29-30) ?

Why should Paul risk his life daily if there is no resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:31-32)?

A word that should move them to shame (1 Corinthians 15:33-34).

Paul answers some problems involved in the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:35-58).

A two-fold question: How are the dead raised, and what kind of a body will they have (1 Corinthians 15:35-50)?

Paul answers the questions by a series of illustrations that help to understand the problems (1 Corinthians 15:35-41).

(1)

A seed dies that a new plant might grow from it.

(2)

Each kind of seed produces an appropriate plant as God pleased.

(3)

There are various kinds of flesh, that of men, animals, birds, fish. This implies that the resurrection body will be suited to the resurrection state.

(4)

Celestial bodies and terrestrial bodiessun, moon, and starsdiffer in glory. This implies that the resurrection body will have a glory suited to the heavenly state.

An explanation of the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:42-50).

Burial and resurrection are likened to sowing: perishable and imperishable; dishonor and glory; physical and spiritual.

Argument for a spiritual body: If there is a physical body, there is a spiritual one.

(1)

Shown by comparison of Adam and Christ.

(2)

As we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall bear the image of the man of heaven.

Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; perishable cannot inherit imperishable. What then?

The secret revealed (1 Corinthians 15:51-57).

A change will take place.

When the last trumpet sounds the dead will be raised and all will be changed.

This will mean victory over death through our Lord Jesus Christ.

An exhortation to be steadfast since the resurrection will prove that the Christian’s work is not in vain in the Lord (1 Corinthians 15:58).

Questions

Why did Paul begin the discussion of the resurrection of the dead by referring to the gospel which he had preached?

What are the facts of the gospel which Paul preached?

Why did he remind them that he had accepted the fact of the resurrection?

Why remind them that they also had accepted it?

Why did he add, if ye hold fast?

By what were they to hold fast?

What did he mean by believed in vain?

Why did Christ die?

In what Scriptures do we find the facts of the death and resurrection of Christ?

What evidence is presented in the New Testament to prove the fact of the resurrection of Christ?

What is the significance of the fact that five hundred saw Him at one time?

Why did Paul mention Cephas as a witness of the resurrection?

In what sense is the twelve used here?

What is the value of the testimony of James?

What is the value of the testimony of Thomas who was present when Christ appeared to all the apostles?

Why did Paul mention the fact that Christ appeared to him last of all?

How is the importance of this fact indicated in the book of Acts?

What does the expression, child untimely born, mean?

Who may have applied it to Paul? Why?

Why did Paul call himself the least of the apostles?

To what did Paul attribute the fact that he had labored more than all the apostles?

What glaring inconsistency did Paul see in the thinking of the Corinthians?

What were some of the consequences of denying that Christ had been raised?

To whom does the expression, of all men most pitiable, refer?

What is the meaning of firstfruits?

What did Paul imply as to the resurrection by this term?

Why does Paul say that death came by man?

What will Christ do for all men in the resurrection?

Does this imply universal salvation?

What did Jesus say about the resurrection of the good and the bad?

How does Paul describe the resurrection in First Thessalonians?

What is meant by the statement that Christ will deliver the kingdom to God?

When did the reign of Christ begin?

In the expression, baptized for the dead, what are some of the possible meanings of the preposition translated for?

What are the arguments against the assumption that this is vicarious baptism?

What bearing does baptism have on the doctrine of the resurrection?

What rule of interpretation must be observed in treating obscure passages?

What are the views on Paul’s remark about fighting beasts at Ephesus?

Why did Paul shame the people at Corinth?

What are the two questions which the Corinthians asked about the resurrection?

What was the view of the Sadducees on the resurrection?

What was taught in Greek philosophy about escape from the body?

What is the Christian view about absence from the body?

How did Paul show that the resurrection body must be different from the earthly body?

What will the resurrection body be like?

Why is Jesus called the last Adam?

Why can-’t flesh and blood inherit the kingdom of God?

What will happen to those who are alive when Christ comes?

Why does Paul stress the fact that all shall be changed?

What did Paul ask the brethren to do in view of this assurance of the resurrection?

For Discussion

Would it be worthwhile to be a Christian if there were no hope of the resurrection?

What place should the doctrine of the resurrection have in the thinking of Christian people.

Should we leave the subject of the resurrection to Easter Sunday?

1 Corinthians 15:1-11

**Butler’s Comments

SECTION l

Its Historicity (1 Corinthians 15:1-11)

15 **Now I would remind you brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which also you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold it fastunless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. 11Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

1 Corinthians 15:1-2 Existentialism: This chapter clearly shows that some of the Corinthians were dealing with the gospel existentially. Some of them had gotten the idea (perhaps from some Gnostics) that the source of the gospel was in their feelings, opinions and decisions. Paul warned them in 1 Corinthians 14:36, Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached? They were looking upon the gospel not as a revelation of the truth they had received (1 Corinthians 15:1-2), not as something that had objectivity in itself outside of them, but as something they could invent or decide to suit their own carnal desires. There were some who were teaching (see comments 1 Corinthians 15:33) there was no resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:12) and that Christianity was for this world only, just like other religions.

Existentialism is a philosophical revolt against objectivity. It is rooted in introspection, subjectivism, and focuses entirely on the experiential. It determines the worth of knowledge not in relation to objective fact and revealed truth, but according to the value determined by the autonomous (self-ruled) consciousness of the individual human being. In other words, everything is valuable only in relation to what each individual feels or decides about it. And the individual’s decision is based on that individual’s feelings. Feelings are the only criteria for decision. Existentialism is the ultimate relativism. Each individual is his or her own absolute. One individual must never let another individual decide for him, nor must he use another individual’s feelings for his choice. Truth, for the existentialist, becomes at any given moment whatever he decides it is to him. It is in this self-sovereign determination of truth that the individual allegedly finds his existence. Existentialism is a philosophy as old as man. Centuries before Christ, Greek philosophers were expounding forms of existentialism. It is also as common as Main Street, America. It is the philosophy of the masses, whether they know it or not, and is expressed in such phrases as, Whatever turns you on! or Everybody ought to do their own thing, or I know what I feel, regardless of what the Bible says. The existential theologian usually approaches Christianity with an orthodox vocabulary, but his terms have meanings different than what would be expected. Since, for the existentialist, nothing can be true unless he has personally felt it, experienced it, and decided it, he says: (a) God could not be God and be human, so God is wholly other and, therefore, a divine-incarnation could not have actually occurred. Since the supernatural cannot be incarnated, wherever the Gospels say Jesus did something miraculous, we must understand it as a Christian accommodation of pagan mythology; (b) there is Christian resurrection, but this is merely a subjective resurrection of the Jesus-faith in my feelings, and only when I decide it has happened; (c) Heaven is something I feel in my personal Christian experience; it is not an objective place. It will be apparent as we study this chapter that the Corinthians had been taught a somewhat existential approach to the resurrection of the dead. Paul wants them to understand clearly that the Gospel was something which he delivered to them; they did not have it within themselves. The origin of the Gospel had nothing to do with their feelings or autonomous decisions. While they would be responsible to decide for themselves what to do about the logical, spiritual and moral demands of the Gospel, their decisions would not determine whether the events had happened or not. The gospel is a fact whether men decide it is, or not. The gospel originated in a Person (Christ) and in deeds he did which were prophesied long before in the scriptures. There are clues all the way through this epistle to substantiate the proposition that the Corinthians were taking an existential approach to the gospel: (1) their decision to follow certain teachers based on their own feelings, chapter 1; (2) their toying with the idea that the doctrine of the cross was foolishness; (3) their inability to accept the idea of revelation in human words, chapter 2; (4) their constant infatuation with the spectacular, ego-inflating miraculous gifts, Chapter s 12-14; (5) their humanistic skepticism concerning the nature of a resurrected body, chapter 1 Corinthians 15:35 ff.

Paul is going to remind them (in chapter 15) of the gospel which he gospelized (Gr. euangelion ho euengelisamen humin) to them. He is going to remind them with what word (Gr. tini logo), or in what form, or in what terms he had preached the gospel to them. They had received the gospel on the terms (or, in the form) of its historicity. But now they were doubting. Now they were approaching it existentially, subjectively. Their steadfastness in the faith, indeed, their salvation, is conditioned upon their holding fast (Gr. ei katechete, if you hold fast) the gospel in the precise terms it was preached to them. Those terms were its empirical historicity. Paul reflects that the Corinthians might have believed his initial message of the gospel to them in a haphazard way. The Greek word eike is translated in vain; it does not mean without cause but without due consideration, rashly, superficially. Did the Corinthians first believe the gospel by some shallow enthusiasm or through some passing fancy for a new thing? Did they not give serious thought when they embraced the gospel? There are people today whose allegiance to Christ has been made without regard to the terms or the form of the gospel. One’s emotional attachment to Jesus must be preceded by and controlled by a constant reception of the gospel, mentally, in both its form and its substance. A hasty experiential and existential attachment to Jesus is vulnerable to the vacillation of feelings and circumstances. Such an attachment cannot produce steadfastness nor can it save. It is important to take note of the word if in 1 Corinthians 15:2. Salvation is freebut salvation is conditioned upon man’s holding to the gospel in its apostolic form. The Greek word katechete means, to have and to hold as in marriage, to be affected by, subjected to, to seize, to possess. Man’s response to the free gift of salvation demands more than a superficial fancy or whim. It is a life and death commitment; an eternal allegiance.

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 Empirical: Paul delivered to the Corinthians the fundamental essence (Gr. protois, first things) of the gospel. That fundamental essence is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He wants the Corinthians to remember he preached, and they believed, that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a matter of empirical history. At Corinth Paul persuaded and taught the gospel a year and a half (Acts 18:1-11). His proof of the gospel was empirical, logical, and historical. This is where the gospel begins. This is its basis. The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ happened whether men wish it had or not, whether men decide it has or not. Christ arose whether men love it or despise it, and nothing can ever erase it from history. Men may accept or reject its moral imperatives, but they cannot feel it or decide it out of existence. In the same way, men deliberately ignore the fact of a world-wide flood (2 Peter 3:3-7), but they cannot ignore the fossil evidence out of existence.

Our faith in Jesus Christ rests solely on the historicity of his resurrection, for if that is not an empirical fact, everything else he claimed, and is claimed for him, is open to suspicion of deliberate fraud or ignorant mythology. And, whether he rose from the dead or not rests solely upon the authenticity, credibility, and accuracy of the texts of the Bible. The gospel is not true because it works; it works because it is true!

Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), one of the greatest legal minds in U.S. history, former head of the Harvard Law School, set forth the following rules of evidence in his book, The Testimony of The Evangelists, pub. Baker Book House, pp. 1-54:

The foundation of Christianity is based on facts. These facts are testified to as having occurred within the personal knowledge of the Gospel writers. Christianity, then, rests upon the credibility of these witnesses.

A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed to be credible, until the contrary is shown. The burden of impeaching his credibility lies upon the objector.

All witnesses are entitled to the benefit of the axiom that men ordinarily speak the truth (are honest) when they have no prevailing motive or inducement to the contrary.

The ability of a witness to speak the truth depends on the opportunities he has had for observing the facts, the accuracy of his powers of observing and the trustworthiness of his memory. The authors of the Gospels can be granted at least the abilities of most human witnesses until the contrary is shown.

There must be enough disparity in the number and consistency of the witnesses to show there is no room for collusion, yet enough agreement to show they were independent recorders of the same events.

The testimony of the witnesses must conform in general with the experiences of others concerning similar circumstances or subject matter.

The four Gospels are accurate records. Any honest researcher should declare their compliance with the accepted rules of evidence unimpeachable. As authentic, competent, credible works of history, the four Gospels are impeccable.

Paul’s reference to Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, in accordance with the scriptures is significant. He means that the fundamental facts of the gospel, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, were predicted in the Old Testament scriptures. That is a presentation of evidence which can be tested scientifically, or legally, at any time, by anyone who is honest enough to forego personal presuppositions. Prophecies made centuries before their fulfillment, the fulfillment of which is documented in minute detail, and in which factors of their fulfillment is beyond the power of human planning or manipulation, are sufficient evidence to prove the proposition that Jesus is the Christ, or no proposition can ever be proved! Blaise Pascal, one of the greatest scientific minds of all time, wrote these meaningful words: The greatest of the proofs of Jesus Christ are the prophecies. They are also what God has most provided for, for the event which has fulfilled them is a miracle of God. The betrayal and trial of Jesus of Nazareth is predicted in Isaiah 53:7; Zechariah 11:12-13; Zechariah 13:7. His death is predicted in Isaiah 53:4-9; Zechariah 12:10; Psalms 22:16). Even his dying words were foretold (Psalms 22:1 ff; Psalms 31:5). His burial in a rich man’s tomb was predicted (Isaiah 53:9). His resurrection was predicted (see Isaiah 53:10-12; Psalms 16:10-11; Acts 2:25-32; Acts 13:33-35). There are over 300 prophecies concerning the Messiah, including the exact village of his birth, the exact year of his birth, the miraculous nature of his birth, all the main events of his life and ministry. If these were not fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, in whom were they fulfilled?Alexander the Great? Julius Caesar? Winston Churchill? Most of these prophecies about the Messiah were not fulfilled by the friends of Jesus, nor even by Jesus himself, but by his enemies or disinterested parties! There was no collusion between Jesus and his friends to fulfill these prophecies. The Old Testament canon of scripture was already set and well known by the Jews hundreds of years before Jesus was born and for any man to have changed them or altered them to fit the life of Jesus, after the fact, would have required so many things out of the ordinary in the way of favorable circumstances, miracles would have been demanded. To fulfill these prophecies without supernatural ability to anticipate human behavior and natural circumstances would be impossible! The apostle Peter declares that the fulfillment of prophecy is a surer proof of the deity of Christ and the infallibility of the scriptures than what he had witnessed with his own eyes! (cf. 2 Peter 1:16-19). This may be why Paul introduced prophetic evidence of Jesus-’ resurrection before introducing the evidence of eyewitnesses! Jesus expected prophetic evidence to take precedence over what people saw with their eyes (see Luke 24:25 ff.)!

1 Corinthians 15:5-11 Eyewitnessed: Paul appeals to eyewitnessed testimony to establish the fact of the resurrection of Christ. To establish the historicity of the facts of Christianity, nothing more is demanded than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. Christianity does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring irresistible evidence, to vanquish every question. All it professes is to propose such evidence as may satisfy the disciplined, teachable, honest, serious searcher. Simon Greenleaf, op. cit., p. 2. The question, therefore, before the Corinthians was, could they believe the testimony of the eyewitnesses named by the apostle Paul: (1) were those people Paul named competent witnesseswere they capable of having seen Jesus crucified, buried, and risen from the dead? were they in a position to have known the facts? were they so credulous they would have believed anything? Their records (the Gospels) candidly portray one another as incredulous, of little faith, unbelieving, even skeptical; (2) were the eyewitnesses people who would lie? were they honest or dishonest? did they have anything to gain by lying about the events they said they witnessed? did they have anything to gain by fabricating the events recorded in the Gospels? The gospel, in the form they proclaimed it, brought them no power, no riches, no accolades from the mightyonly persecution, slander, poverty and deathyet they went to their death insisting on its historicity; (3) were the eyewitnesses so few as to give reasonable doubt to their testimony? There were the women, the eleven apostles in a group, ten apostles in a group, Peter and James individually, over five hundred brethren at one time, and the guards at the tomb and their superiors (Matthew 28:11-15); (4) was there any empirical, historical, scientific evidence to the contrary? has any evidence come to light for the last two thousand years to contradict the Gospels? did anyone present the dead body of Jesus to prove he had not arisen? did anyone show his dead body in the tomb after the third day of his burial? The surest way for the enemies of Christianity to have destroyed it would have been to present the dead body of Jesus at the time the apostles began to preach his resurrection (Acts 2:1 ff.). The only record we have of the response made to the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Acts and Epistles of the New Testament) is that the enemies of Christianity slandered, persecuted and killed its proclaimers. The enemies offered not one iota of scientific, historical evidence to refute the gospel. There have been many theories over the centuries, suggesting alternatives to accepting Christ’s resurrection as a fact; but there has been no evidence! The reader is here urged to add to this a thorough study of The Gospel of Luke, by Paul T. Butler, College Press Publishing Company, pp. 476-605.

Finally, Paul lists himself as an eyewitness to the fact of Jesus-’ resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:8-11). He was not with the other eleven apostles during the forty days Jesus appeared to them in his resurrected body (Acts 1:3). But Paul saw the Lord (Acts 9:27; Acts 26:16; Acts 26:19; 1 Corinthians 9:1). Jesus appeared to him some years later as he journeyed on the road to Damascus. If ever there was a person set against the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth arose from the dead it would be Paul (formerly called, Saul of Tarsus)! If ever there was a person who would have demanded visible, empirical evidence before becoming a believer in Jesus, it would have been Paul! He was thoroughly convinced to do everything he could to oppose Jesus of Nazareth and Christianity (see Acts 22:3-5; Acts 26:9-11). In all good conscience, he actually believed he was serving God by opposing Christ and executing Christ’s followers (see 1 Timothy 1:13). If ever there was a person with the best opportunities and capabilities to prove that Jesus of Nazareth had not arisen from the tomb, it would be Paul! So, how do we account for the greatest enemy Jesus and the Church ever had, becoming the greatest apostle, persuader of others, and missionary the Church ever had? And the list of enemies converted does not stop with Saul of Tarsus (Paul). Three thousand Jews on the Day of Pentecost, some of whom had probably been at Passover, crying, Crucify him, crucify him, were converted (Acts 2:1 ff.). A great company of Hebrew priests became obedient to the faith (Acts 6:7). Some of Caesar’s Praetorian Guard probably became Christians (Philippians 1:13) and some of Caesar’s own household were converted (Philippians 4:22)! If there had been any good evidence to contradict the resurrection of Jesus Christ, some of these people would have known it and would have brought it forward for the whole world of that day to acknowledge.

Any person today who says Jesus of Nazareth was not raised from the dead is obligated to produce proof. It is the burden of the unbeliever to produce evidence. It must be historical, empirical, scientific evidence. He must produce authentic, accurate, credible eyewitnesses with evidence. Theories will not do! Christians believe on the basis of the written documents of those who saw, heard and touched the resurrected Jesus (1 John 1:1-4). The argument is not whether a resurrection could or could not occur. The case in point is, did a resurrection occur or did it not. The case is not to be resolved philosophically, but historically, legally, on the basis of evidence and testimony. The answer is, YES! beyond any reasonable doubt!

Applebury’s Comments

The Gospel Which Paul Preached (1-11)

Text

1 Corinthians 15:1-11. Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, 2 by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; 5 and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; 6 then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; 7 then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; 8 and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also. 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. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not found vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Whether then it be I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

*Commentary

Now I make known unto you, brethren.*Paul comes to the last of the long list of problems that had so seriously disturbed the brethren at Corinth. The problem of the resurrection was in all probability the most serious of all for it questioned the basic issue of the gospel which Paul preached. To deny that there is a resurrection of the body is to deny that Christ has been raised.

*the gospel which I preached unto you.*That gospel was the word of the cross, the message that saved the believer. Paul determined to know nothing among them but Christ and Him crucified. He had reminded them in the beginning of the epistle of his confidence that they would stand unreprovable in the presence of the Lord in the day of his coming. This, of course, implied resurrection. At the very beginning of the discussion of their problem, then, he emphasized the facts of the gospel, the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. To deny the resurrection was to deny the facts of the gospel Paul preached.

*which also ye received.*They had accepted these facts when they became Christians. To reject them now was to reject the foundation of their faith and hope of salvation. They had taken their stand for Christ because of the gospel that proclaimed Him as the risen Savior.

*if ye hold fast.*Paul reminded them that that salvation depended on their holding fast and that this was to be done by means of the word which he preached to them. By denying the resurrection they were rejecting the means of holding fast their hope of salvation. Paul emphatically stresses what he had preached: the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

*except ye believed in vain.*Was it possible that they had accepted the gospel without carefully considering its very basic issue, the resurrection of Christ? There is a warning implied in these words: they were in grave danger because of the position that some had taken on the subject of the resurrection. The one thing above all others that Christians are required to believe is that God raised Christ from the dead. See Romans 10:9-10. Of course, as Paul argues later, if there is no resurrection, Christ has not been raised and faith is without basis or meaning.

*that which also I received.*Paul preached the message to the Corinthians which he had accepted when he became a Christian. When he saw the risen Lord on the way to Damascus he gave up his role as persecutor and surrendered to Christ. From that day on, his faith did not waver. As a matter of primary importance, he had delivered this message to them, and they had accepted it. To deny the resurrection was to call in question the Scriptures and the testimony of Paul and all the others who had seen the risen Lord.

*Christ died for our sins.*Christ’s death concerned our sins. He shed His blood to make expiation for our sins (Romans 3:25). John called Him the Lamb of God that takes away our sins (John 1:29).

*according to the scriptures.*The death, burial and resurrection of Christ was pointed out in the Old Testament. The passover lamb and the other blood offerings looked forward to His death (Hebrews 9:11-14). The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah was about His death (Acts 8:30-35). On Pentecost, Peter quotes the Psalms to prove the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:25-31). Jesus referred to the experience of Jonah to explain the fact that the Son of man was to be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights (Matthew 12:39-40). To deny the resurrection was to set aside the Old Testament scriptures.

*and that he appeared.*The proof of the resurrection depends on the testimony of those who saw Him, touched Him, and heard Him speak to them after His death and resurrection. There was a sufficient number of witnesses and the appearances occurred over a long enough period of time for them to be sure that He was alive and that He will come again for those who wait for Him unto salvation (Hebrews 9:27). Each of the four gospels gives detailed information about the appearances of Christ that established the fact of His resurrection. Paul refers to some of them and also to the fact that he had seen the risen Lord (1 Corinthians 9:1).

*to Cephas.*Paul used Peter’s Aramaic name (John 1:41-42). Both Mark and Luke mention the appearance to Peter (Mark 16:7 and Luke 24:34).

*then to the twelve.*This is the general name for the group of apostles, but it does not indicate that all of the group were present. Not more than eleven and perhaps only ten were present, depending on whether or not Thomas was among them. Judas had gone to his own place (Acts 1:25); Matthias was not yet numbered with them.

*then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once.*This was strong evidence that could still be verified for most of them were yet alive. The fact that so many saw Him at one time makes it difficult to reject their testimony. Those who denied the resurrection of the dead were not careful in weighing such evidence.

*then he appeared to James.*Though Paul does not identify him, James was in all probability the Lord’s brother. This again is very strong evidence of the resurrection. The brothers of Jesus did not believe in Him until after the resurrection which forced them to acknowledge Him as Lord (John 7:5; Acts 1:14; James 1:1).

*then to all of the apostles.*Thomas was absent on one occasion of Jesus-’ appearance to the apostles (John 20:19-23). At another time he was with them when Jesus came into their midst. He examined the evidence that satisfied him that Jesus was his Lord and his God (John 20:24-28).

*and last of all, he appeared to me also.*The Corinthians had heard the gospel from Paul. To deny what he said about the resurrection of Christ was to deny the foundation of their hope in Christ. The appearance of Jesus to Paul was of such importance that it is recorded three times in the book of Actsin Chapter s nine, twenty-two, and twenty-six. Before king Agrippa, Paul quoted the words of Jesus telling why He appeared to Paul: To this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me (Acts 26:16-18). All this was lost to the Corinthians who were denying the resurrection, for if there is no resurrection, Christ has not been raised.

*child untimely born.*This expression which literally means an untimely birth or miscarriage is used by Paul figuratively as a term of contempt. It apparently has nothing to do with the fact that he was the last to be appointed as an apostle of Christ. Untimely birth would suggest the opposite. Dead fetus more correctly fits the context. See Lenski, Interpretation of First Corinthians, p. 638. But who would call him stillborn? It well might have been his former Jewish companions who had, no doubt, looked to him as the one who, one day, was to take the place of their great teacher, Gamaliel at whose feet Saul of Tarsus had been instructed. On the way to Damascus, their hope suddenly died when Saul acknowledged Jesus as Lord and accepted the responsibility of Christ’s apostle to the Gentiles. It was not an unusual thing for Jews to look upon a Jewish convert to Christianity as dead.

It seems unlikely that untimely born could refer to the sudden and, as some suggest, violent experience of his conversion and appointment to the apostleship. Others suggest that Paul may be expressing his own feeling toward his former life of persecuting the church of God.

*the least of the apostles.*Paul was the last to whom Christ appeared. This fact is balanced with the statement that hein his own opinionis the least of the apostles because he had persecuted the church of God. He never got away from the memory of his activity as a persecutor. But in spite of it, God’s grace was extended to him in calling him to the work of an apostle. It was not overcompensation for the life of a persecutor but love for Christ that caused him to labor more abundantly than all the apostles (2 Corinthians 5:14).

That this estimate of his apostleship is his own may be seen by the approval he received from Peter and John. See Galatians 2:1-10.

*the grace of God which was in me.*This is the word of a truly humble Christian. He takes no credit for the great effort he had put forth for the cause of Christ; it was God’s graceGod gave him the opportunity to be an apostlethat had accomplished it all. But all the apostles preached the same message, and it was that message that caused the Corinthians to believe. This was the important thing, not who did the preaching.

1 Corinthians 15:12-34

**Butler’s Comments

SECTION 2

Its Holiness **(1 Corinthians 15:12-34)

12 Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.

20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall we be made alive. 23But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom of God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For God has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when it says, All things are put in subjection under him, it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him. 28When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.

29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 30Why am I in peril every hour? 31I protest, brethren, by my pride in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! 32What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. 33Do not be deceived: Bad company ruins good morals. 34Come to your right mind, and sin no more. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

1 Corinthians 15:12-19 Cleanses From Defilement: Paul asks, If I am preaching Christ as raised from the dead, what do some of you expect to gain by saying there is no resurrection for believers? He proceeds to answer his own rhetorical question by saying, in essence, You can-’t have the hope if you don-’t have the history! If Christ was not raised from the dead, then hoping in him for anything else is vain. If Christ is not raised, and if there is no resurrection for those who trust in Christ, then the whole Christian religion is in vain.

First, apostolic preaching would be vain if there is no resurrection. All Christian preaching for two hundred centuries would be vain if Christ is not historically, actually, factually raised from the dead. Why, then, do men who do not believe the historical resurrection of Christ preach the Christian religion? For money (Jesus predicted there would be hirelings, John 10:10-13; Paul predicted there would be some from among the Christian religion who would exploit it, Acts 20:29-30); for position or famethere are those who love the praise of men more than the praise of God. There are some who do not want the moral implications which the historical resurrection of Jesus would force upon them, but they want the Christian religion to try to soften by euphemistic (but useless) verbiage the cruel, stark, reality of injustices never to be righted, of tribulations and sacrifices never to be repaid or vindicated, to soften the utter defeat of human death. An existential philosopher said, and without the resurrection he is correct, Life is never more absurd than at the grave. But, hallelujah, because of the fact of the resurrection life is never absurd!

Second, all faith would be void without the resurrection. Faith in God, Christ, the Bible, faith that truth is better than falsehood, faith that goodness and love is to be preferred over evil and hate, faith in today and tomorrow, faith that life is worth livingall is useless if there is no life beyond the grave, no heaven, no eternity, no truth, no God. The apostles were false witnesses, the most despicable charlatans or ignorant dupes who ever lived, if the resurrection of Christ is not historically valid. But are we to believe they have gotten by with such a monstrous hoax, having duped millions of the best minds for almost two millenniums? Could what their testimony produced for all these centuries have been produced by the cruelest, most preposterous lie ever perpetrated upon the human race? Third, and most crucial, if Christ has not been raised, those who have believed in him are not forgiventhey are still in their sins. The cross, the vicarious, substitutionary atonement of Christ’s death, is invalid without the resurrection. The only hope we have that Christ did what he promised to do by the cross is his resurrection (see 2 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Peter 1:3-5; Luke 24:44-48). If Christ’s promise of atonement for man’s sin is not validated by his resurrection from the dead, he is simply another crucified Jew, and his death has not as much efficacy to atone for my sins as an animal sacrifice. Study the sermons of the apostles and evangelists in the book of Acts. They did not wait until the annual Easter services to proclaim the resurrection. They never preached the death of Christ without preaching his resurrection! Too much modern preaching is depending upon the sentimentalism aroused by portraying the shocking violence of Jesus-’ death. The mental decisiveness brought about by the persuading evidence of the resurrection, without which there is no true conversion, is seldom made the focus of either edificatory or evangelistic proclamation. If we are going to restore the church of the New Testament, we must restore the gospel of the New Testament!

If Christ is not raised, then those who have fallen asleep (died) have perished. Are we to believe that all the millions of Christians who have poured out their lives upon the altars of love, usefulness and goodness have perished and will not be raised from the dead? That includes some of my very dear ones, and yours! Will faith, and love, and goodness perish, and wickedness, falsehood and dissolution win, after all? Is there no wiping out of defilement? No forgiveness of sin? No vindication of faith? Without the resurrection there is none!

If a man’s hope in Christ and his teachings is to be restricted to this life on earth only, he is, of all men, most pitiful. The word eleeinoteroi, from the Greek word eleos (mercy, pity), is translated in the KJV as miserable. It means, to be pitied. If this life is all there is, Christians are pitiful fools to be hoping in Christ. They would be better off to abandon the teachings of Jesus which insist on counting others better than self, or turning the other cheek, or not pleasing oneself, but pleasing one’s neighbor, for his good, or giving up one’s liberty and rights for the sake of others. If this life is all there is, people would be better off following Buddha or Mohammed, or Darwin or Marx, or no one! Certainly, if there is no resurrection, and Christ is not who he claims he is, and this is all the life there is, those who still maintain allegiance to the Christian faith are either putting us on or self-deceived, living in a dream world of their own creation; see Special Study entitled, On Cloud Nine.

1 Corinthians 15:20-28 Conquers Dissolution: This is not the only life there is! Christ has, in fact, been raised from the dead. He is the firstfruit of resurrection from the dead. The Bible record documents the fact that there were persons resurrected from death, chronologically, before Jesus. In fact, Jesus raised three people (Jairus-’ daughter; the widow’s son at Nain; and Lazarus) before his own resurrection took place. But Paul is not speaking chronologically here, unless he is denoting the uniqueness of Christ’s resurrection over those preceding his. All others resurrected from death died again. Their bodies have suffered the same decay and dissolution all other human bodies suffer. But when Jesus rose from the grave, he did not die again. He ascended, after forty days, to heaven in the body which came out of the tomb. The apostles were eye witnesses to this ascension (Acts 1:9-11). From heaven Jesus has appeared to some (Paul, John). But Paul’s figure of speech firstfruit (Gr. aparche, akin to aparchomai which means, to make a beginning) is from Old Testament times. In the Law of Moses the first portion of the harvest was to be given to the Lord as an indication the worshiper understood that all the harvest was, in reality, the Lord’s (Deuteronomy 26:2-11). Whatever firstfruit was, the rest of the harvest was. Christ’s resurrection was firstfruit of all the dead. Adam was, because of his sin, firstfruit of the death of humanity; Christ was, because of his sinlessness, firstfruit of the resurrection of humanity. All mankind dies bodily because of Adam’s sin; all mankind is to be resurrected bodily because of Christ’s victory over sin. That is all Paul is saying here. He is not teaching original sin and total depravity, and he is not teaching universal salvation. All creation, man and matter, belongs to God. He will resurrect it all. Temporarily, God has subjected all his creation to futility, hoping it will hope, and one day be set free from its bondage to decay (Romans 8:18-25). But only those who trust Christ as their firstfruit will be adopted as sons. All of dead humanity will be resurrected, but only those who have trusted Christ will be given eternal life; those who have not trusted Christ will be imprisoned forever in torment (see John 5:25-28; Luke 16:19-31; Revelation 14:9-13; Revelation 20:11-15; Revelation 21:1-27; Revelation 22:1-5).

Each in his own order does not mean there are going to be two or three increments to the resurrection of humanity, separated by time. Paul clears up any misunderstanding about that in his epistle to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-3). When Jesus comes again to resurrect humanity, it will be one complete, final resurrection. No segment of humanity, physically alive or dead, will precede the other. Paul uses the Greek word tagmati in 1 Corinthians 15:23 and it is translated order. Tagma is a Greek military term meaning a rank, a company, a group. Paul explains what he means by order in the last half of 1 Corinthians 15:23. Christ’s resurrection ranks first and is firstfruitthen, at his second coming, the second ranking resurrection of the whole harvest of humanity, including those who belong to him. It is rank of resurrection emphasized, not chronology, to prove there will be a second rank because there was a first.

At Christ’s coming is the end. The KJV italicizes the word cometh in 1 Corinthians 15:24, indicating it is a supplied word. And that is more to be desired than the RSV translation which is: Then comes the end.. The Greek text is: eita to telos, literally, then, the end. Christ’s second coming and the end are simultaneous. God’s redemptive program will find its telos, its goal, its completion, when Jesus comes to resurrect all the dead. Then will come to an end this world and all its powers. There will be no more pretending powers, no more powers temporarily granted by God to human beings. God alone will exercise sovereignty. All others will be willing servants, or banished, incarcerated enemies. In the meantime the Son reigns until he has established all that God has spoken by the mouths of his prophets (see Acts 3:17-26), both Old and New Testament prophets. The Bible clearly teaches that no human being is going to know when Christ is coming back (see our comments, The Gospel of Luke, College Press Publishing Company, pp. 467-519). How long Christ will take to put all his enemies under his feet, and who those enemies are, we do not know. But the fact of his resurrection makes it certain that day will come (see Acts 17:30-31). The last enemy is death (cf. Revelation 20:9-15). Death will be abolished (Gr. katargeitai, destroyed)it will not exist anymore.

God has subjected this world and all creation to the Son (Christ) (John 5:19-29) in order that the Son might carry out his redemptive and mediatorial work. This work began with his incarnation and continues through his high priesthood (cf. the book of Hebrews). But when the Son finishes this work and returns to consummate redemption and judgment, there will be no more need for mediation. The person of Son will be the person of eternal Father, that God may be everything to every one.

1 Corinthians 15:29-34 Conserves Decency: Only by the power of faith in the resurrection will man be able to preserve moral goodness. Only those who hope to be welcomed to heaven and become as Jesus is will have the power to desire holiness (1 John 3:1-3).

The discussion of the purifying power of the hope of resurrection is begun by questioning the Corinthians on their reason for having been baptized. The RSV translates: Otherwise what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? The Greek preposition, huper, may be translated either on behalf of or with reference to. In the light of the context, and the following evidence, we believe the second translation is the correct one. The Corinthian Christians were being asked, If the dead are not actually raised, why are people still becoming Christians and being baptized with reference to the resurrection from the dead?

Some commentators think this verse (1 Corinthians 15:29) is a reference to an ancient practice among Christians where the living is baptized as a proxy on behalf of someone who has already died. Such a ritual is practiced in modern times by a large religious sect. The context is clear that Paul is focusing on the foolishness of engaging in any rite or activity that pretends faith in a bodily resurrection which the pretender disbelieved. Second, there is no documented practice such as this among Christians of the first century. It would be unlikely that only Paul would mention, in only this one place, such a radical practice if it were settled doctrine. Third, the most natural understanding of Paul’s question would be to associate it with the initial baptism of a Christian believer. A fundamental rule of hermeneutics is to always interpret a passage according to its most natural meaning. Baptism is the action of a believer which confirms his trust in the vicarious death of Christ and the vicarious resurrection of Christ to new life (see Romans 6:3-5; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:12-13). In faithfulness to Christ’s command to be baptized, the believer receives the forgiveness of sins (cf. Acts 22:16; Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:21). If Christ is not raised, and there is no resurrection for those who believe in Christ, baptism as to form and purpose is meaningless. What is the point in being baptized (immersed) in reference to being dead in sin if there is no resurrection? Fourth, the Bible teaches that each man is responsible for his own faith and obedience to Christ (cf. Ezekiel 18:1-24; Ezekiel 33:1-20; Luke 16:19-31; 2 Kings 14:6; Deuteronomy 24:16; Jeremiah 31:30; Matthew 16:27; Romans 2:6; Revelation 20:12). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that works of proxy may be done by the living for the dead (masses for the dead, prayers for the dead, etc.), but such teaching has no basis in scripture and is rejected by all evangelical Christendom. It is absurd to think that the spiritual, moral choices of one human being would be accepted by God as willingly made by another human being when the second person made no such choices. Fifth, there is only one mediator between God and man, and that mediator is Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). Only he could accomplish a redemptive deed vicariously (for someone else). To think that this passage teaches the possibility of one human being baptized by proxy for another human being, dead or alive, is to fly in the face of the exclusive mediatorship of Jesus Christ. Sixth, to take 1 Corinthians 15:29 to refer to vicarious baptism being practiced at Corinth but stating that Paul would not have approved of it, is dodging the issue of all five propositions above. To think the practice was going on and that Paul would not renounce such a crucial contradiction of apostolic revelation is naive. Baptism by proxy strikes at the very heart of the gospel: … you will die in your sins unless you believe that I am he (John 8:24); … but unless* you* repent you will all likewise perish. (Luke 13:3-4). Had proxy-baptism been a practice at Corinth, Paul would have devoted more than two questions to the issue! If proxy-baptism was widely practiced in the first century church, why is there total silence about it in the writings of the apostle John (John’s Gospel, his epistles, and Revelation, were all written near the end of the first century, circa. 95-100 A.D.)?

Already in Paul’s day, Christians were being arrested for sedition against the Roman empire and thrown into arenas to be slaughtered by wild beasts. The fourth seal opened in the Revelation written by the apostle John predicts the fact that great numbers of human beings would be killed by wild beasts of the earth in the struggle between Christ’s church and the Roman empire (Revelation 6:7-8). Paul now says (1 Corinthians 15:30-32), If there is no resurrection from death, why do I allow myself to be imperiled almost every hour of my life? Some circumstances of life Paul could not control, of course, but those threats, persecutions and murderous attacks upon his person because he was a Christian missionary (cf. 2 Corinthians 1:8-10; 2 Corinthians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 11:23-29) he could have foregone by simply renouncing Christ and the resurrection. Did Paul fight with beasts? This may be simply a figurative expression describing his struggles with beastly human beings when he was at Ephesus (cf. Acts 19:23-30). Had Paul literally fought with beasts in the Roman arena it is probable that he would have listed the experience in 2 Corinthians 11:23-29. It would not be unusual to speak of the enemies of God as beasts. The prophet Daniel did; John the apostle did (Revelation). John even categorizes all idolatrous heathen who worshiped the Roman emperor as those with the mark of the beast.

The only logical alternative to believing the bodily resurrection and practicing Biblical Christianity is hedonism. The religious person who repudiates the historicity of Christ’s bodily resurrection but advocates (and is even willing to endure suffering for) trying to practice the teachings of Jesus is a fool! He is either a gullible moron or a masochist! Paul is scrupulously honest in saying, If the dead are not raised, -Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die-’ (1 Corinthians 15:32).

The bodily resurrection from death is the absolutely crucial doctrine of Christian faith. Christian theology, Christian evangelism, and Christian ethics are vain without it. Liberal Christian theology repudiates the bodily resurrection. As a result liberalism is insipid, powerless and useless (see Special Studies, On Cloud Nine, and The Existential/Neo-Orthodox Philosophy of History). Frighteningly, even some evangelical Christianity (the existential-feelings-first kind) dismisses the critical necessity of the bodily resurrection in its proclamation and practice. One of the new Christian songs is a classic example. In a popular song by Andrae Crouch, entitled, If Heaven Never Was Promised to Me, these are the lyrics:

You may ask me why I serve the Lord, Is it just for heaven’s gain, Or to walk those mighty streets of gold and to hear the angels sing? Is it just to drink from the fountain That never shall run dry, Or just to live forever and ever In that sweet old by and by? But if heaven never was promised to me, Neither God’s promise to live eternally, It’s been worth just having the Lord in my life, Livin-’ in a world of darkness, He brought me the light. If there were never any streets of gold, Neither a land where we-’ll never grow old; It’s been worth just having the Lord in my life, Livin-’ in a world of darkness, He brought me the light.

Dear reader, this may have a lovely tune, it may have soul, it may have the beat, and pragmatically, it may draw crowds of people to a religious concert, but its lyrics deny the very cardinal, focal, fundamental issue Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 15:1-58! If heaven never was promised to you, neither God’s promise to live eternally, then you are, of all men, most to be pitied if you are practicing the Christian gospel. You should eat and drink, for tomorrow you will die and perish, if there is no resurrection and no heaven. If my hope is just having the Lord in my life here, in this existence, I am a fool for thinking I walk in light!

If there is no bodily resurrection and heaven, we should be writing Christian songs with lyrics like these:

Brief and powerless is man’s life; on him and on his race the slow sure doom falls pitiless and dark. Blind to good and evil, reckless of destruction, omnipotent matter rolls on its rentless way; for man condemned today to lose his dearest, tomorrow himself to pass through the gate of darkness, it remains only to cherish, ere the blow falls, the lofty thoughts that enoble his little days..

Bertrand Russell

Life has become in that total perspective which is philosophy, a fitful pullulation of human insects on the earth, a planetary eczema that may soon be cured; nothing is certain in it except defeat and deatha sleep from which, it seems, there is no awakening..

Will Durant

In spite of all my desperation to a brave looking optimism, I perceive that now the universe is bored with him (man), is turning a hard face to him, and I see him being carried less and less intelligently and more and more rapidly, suffering as every ill-adapted creature must suffer in gross and detail, along the stream of fate to degradation, suffering and death.

H.G. Wells

1 Corinthians 15:33-34 confirm our comments on 1 Corinthians 15:12-19. The moral muscle of the gospel rests ultimately in the preaching of the historicity of the bodily resurrection. Paul quotes the Greek poet, Meander. The KJV translates it, … evil communications corrupt good manners. The RSV translates it, … Bad company ruins good morals. The Greek word homiliai, is the word from which the English words homiletics and homily come. The word is most often used to mean, communication, conversation, discourse, talk. Certainly in this context Paul is talking about some of the Corinthian Christians who were saying that there is no resurrection. Evil preaching and teaching corrupts good morals. And teaching that there is no bodily resurrection is evil teaching. The entire second epistle of Peter is a treatise on the fact that false teaching about the Lord Jesus and his deity is the source of the corruption of morality. When Paul wrote good morals, he did not use the most common Greek word for good which is agathos; he used the word chresta. Chresta means good in the sense of that which is right because it produces goodpractical or useful goodness. The word chresta is used by Matthew in recording Jesus-’ great invitation, … for my yoke is easy (chresta, usefully-good) (Matthew 11:30). Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:33, evil, anti-resurrection, preaching is morally impractical. Liberalism is not only philosophically dishonest, it is ethically useless. It is worse than that, it is ethically corrupting! The fundamental cause of human immorality is the repudiation of the gospel factsspecifically, the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the essence of Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 15:33-34. Anyone who aspires to search for, defend, and lead mankind to the truth must surrender to this! Philosophers, scientists, educators, preachers, lawyers, politicians and artists are under obligation to learn, believe and proclaim the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ as the source of all morality and goodness. Paul called the philosophers at Athens to moral conversion and repentance by the power of the resurrection of Jesus (see Acts 17:30-31).

To sin, in light of the historicity of the resurrection, is insane. Essentially that is what Paul meant by his statement, Come to your right mind, and sin no more. The Greek word Paul uses is eknepsate, is literally, sober up. He is using it here to exhort the Corinthians to shake off the seductive moral stupor into which they have fallen by believing those who are saying there is no resurrection. False teaching about the resurrection has confounded their mental abilities like drunkenness confounds the brain. They are not thinking right (Gr. dikaios, rightly, correctly, truly). First, they are philosophic schizoprenics. They are not facing reality. They are repudiating the resurrection and at the same time pretending the Christian faith is valuable. Second, since the resurrection is true, as Paul has logically demonstrated, no matter how much they deny it they are going to face the judgment of God in the next life and to sin in light of this is insanity! Paul has appealed to incontrovertible evidence and irrefutable logic throughout this treatise on the resurrection. Now he commands (Gr. eknepsate is in the imperative mood) the Corinthians to start thinking as they should. Faulty thinking is a sin! Christians are not permitted the insanity of deliberately ignoring facts (see John 8:31-32; John 8:43; John 8:45-47; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12; 2 Peter 3:5). Christians must constantly guard against the tendency to subvert clear, logical thinking by the selfish desire to follow feelings and urges of the flesh. Christians are continually urged by the scriptures to set their minds on God’s word (Romans 8:5-8; Colossians 3:1-4; and Peter urges Christians to gird up or put-to-work their minds 1 Peter 1:13). To choose to be a Christian is to choose to apply one’s mental processes in conformity to the sovereign word of God. To choose to be a Christian is to allow one’s every thought to be brought into captivity to obedience of Christ (2 Corinthians 10:3-4). To choose to be a Christian is to choose to see nothing any more from a human point of view but through the perspective of Christ’s constraining love (2 Corinthians 5:14-21). There is only one hope for changing men’s morals into that classified good (useful) by God, and that is to persuade them to believe the bodily resurrection. For shame to you I am speaking says Paul (literally, in Greek). They were listening to some of those within the congregation who were saying there is no resurrection. Paul is apparently pointing to the anti-resurrectionists when he says, some are ignorant of God. Denial of the resurrection, especially by those posing to be Christians, is worse than a shame, it is a tragedy, a spiritual catastrophe!

Applebury’s Comments

The Resurrection of the Dead (12-34)

Text

1 Corinthians 15:12-34. Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised: 14 and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised: 17 and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.

20 But now hath Christ been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of them that are asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ’S, at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all. 29 Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? 30 why do we also stand in jeopardy every hour? 31 I protest by that glorying in you, brethren, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. 32 If after the manner of men I fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it profit me? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die. 33 Be not deceived: Evil companionships corrupt good morals. 34 Awake to soberness righteously, and sin not; for some have no knowledge of God: I speak this to move you to shame.

*Commentary

How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?*The glaring inconsistency of the Corinthians was too much for the logical mind of the apostle Paul! He had preached Christ crucified and raised from the dead. He had accepted this basic proposition of Christianity on his way to Damascus. The Corinthians had accepted it when they became Christians. How could they deny it now? Greek philosophers had long held the view that escape from the body at death was the goal of life, the escape from slavery. The resurrection of the body was foreign to their thinking. But the Corinthians had believed the evidence of Christ’s resurrection as Paul preached it. Were they carelessly slipping back into their former views of the matter or had they just failed to really think through to the logical conclusion of Paul’s proposition? Except ye believed in vain seems to suggest the latter.

The Sadducees said that there is no resurrection, but it is doubtful that their influence had reached to the Corinthians. See Acts 23:8 and Matthew 22:23-33.

*If there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised.*There is no escaping Paul’s logic; but were the Corinthians prepared to accept the consequences of denying the resurrection of Christ? That meant that the glorious gospel of salvation and hope was without foundation in fact, and there was no basis for their faith. More than that, the apostles were found to be false witnesses of God, saying that He raised Christ from the dead, which, if there is no resurrection, is not true. To put it another way, if dead people are not raised, neither has Christ been raised (16). That means that your faith is without foundation and you are still in your sins. Were they willing to accept the consequences of denying the gospel which Paul preached? The thoughtChrist is not raisedwas completely unacceptable to Paul, for he had seen the risen Lord on the Damascus road. Repetition at this point in the argument shows how important this issue was in establishing the fact of the resurrection of the dead. If the Corinthians were right and the apostles were wrong, then those who died believing in Christ had perished.

*we are of all men most pitiable.*This is the last in the list of tragic results of denying that Christ has been raised. What is the antecedent of we? Is Paul saying that Christians, assuming there is no resurrection, are more pitiable than others? Are not Christians in this life blessed beyond others? They have, if they are willing to accept it, the peace that passeth understanding to guard their hearts and thoughts in Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:6-7). They may not, in some cases, have as much in material possession as some others, but they know that life does not consist in the abundance of things which man possesses (Luke 12:15).

It is possible that Paul is speaking of the apostles. But why would they be more pitiable than all if there is no resurrection? The answer may be found in Paul’s own words in 1 Corinthians 4:9-13. The apostles were men doomed to die; they were a spectacle to the world and to angels. They were fools for Christ’s sake; they were weak; they were held in disrepute. They suffered hunger and thirst; they were poorly clad; they were buffeted and without homes; they labored with their hands rather than being supported with the dignity accorded other teachers. They were reviled, persecuted, and slandered; they became the refuse of the world, the offscouring of all things.

All this, they suffered because they believed that God had raised Christ from the dead, and they looked in hope to the coming of the Lord.

*the firstfruits of them that are asleep.*The fact of Christ’s resurrection guarantees the resurrection of the dead. In Old Testament times the first portion of the harvest was given to the Lord as an indication that all the harvest was in reality His. Whatever firstfruits was the rest was. Christ who died was raised from the dead; His resurrection was like firstfruits in that all the dead must be raised.

*For since by man came death.*Physical death is the penalty for the transgression of God’s law in the Garden by Adam. The resurrection which cancels the penalty of death comes through man also, that is, Christ, for as in Adam all die, all shall be made alive in Christ. What happens after the resurrection is another matter. Jesus said, Marvel not at this: for the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment (John 5:28-29).

*they that are Christ’s at his coming.*For Paul’s own comment, see 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18.

*deliver up the kingdom of God.*Those who have accepted the rule of Christ by faith and obedience to His gospel and have remained faithful to Him until death are all to be presented to the Father in the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:11). The apostle was anticipating this when he wrote in the beginning of the epistle that they were to wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ; who shall confirm you unto the end, that ye may be unreprovable in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 1:7-8). In that eternal kingdom there will be the throne of God and of the Lamb (Revelation 22:1).

*For he must reign.*The angel promised that He was to reign on the throne of His father David (Luke 1:32). The writer of Hebrews declares that, when He had made purification for sins He assumed the seat of authority as King at the right hand of the Majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3). Peter declared that the promise to David was fulfilled when Christ arose and ascended to the right hand of the Father, for David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet (Acts 2:29-35). Now Paul declares that the last enemy to be abolished is death. In it all, the Son is subject to God.

*Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead?*The problem in this text is: What is meant by for the dead? It cannot mean that Christians were getting themselves baptized on behalf of some friend or relative who had died without being baptized into Christ. Although such a thing was done much later, there is no good evidence that it was being done in the time of the apostles. Paul wrote this epistle to correct errors that had crept into the thinking and conduct of the church. It is strange that he would not label this an error if the Corinthians were actually practicing vicarious baptism. Baptism was a personal act for the one who believed and repented of his sins (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38). One might go through a form of immersion and pretend that it was for some dead friend, but that one could in no way fulfill the requirements of faith and repentance for another.

The preposition which is translated for in this verse is also translated for in verse three where it evidently means concerning or because of. In Romans 9:27 it is translated concerning and in John 1:30 of. John the Baptist had spoken about Jesus who he said was the Lamb of God. The basic meaning of the preposition is over and its resultant meaning is concerning or with reference to. There are other meanings also, but our problem is to determine which fits the context, being careful not to read into obscure passages such as this one meanings that are contrary to what is taught on the subject of baptism in the plain passages.

This text suggests that there was something in the act of baptism that had to do with the resurrection of the dead, for baptism is both a burial and a resurrection (Romans 6:4). But if there is no resurrection, it is meaningless to go through a burial and a resurrection in the act of being baptized into Christ. Some object that this is reading too much into the text, but the whole chapter concerns the resurrection of the dead, and in the next verse Paul asks, If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them? If there is no resurrection, baptism as to form and purpose is meaningless.

Some think that the verse means baptism for the purpose of pleasing some friend or relative who had died. While such a motive would not necessarily invalidate one’s baptism, it is not likely that the language of the text has this meaning.

*why do we stand in jeopardy every hour?*Why should Paul and others face the constant danger of losing their lives if there is no resurrection? The act of baptism suggests that there is a resurrection; but if there isn-’t, there is no point in suffering needlessly in this life. Why suffer here if there is no hope of life beyond the grave where there will be no pain nor death nor suffering? Paul said, I die daily, but it was a needless risk if there is no resurrection.

*I fought with beasts at Ephesus.*This is another reference to the jeopardy which he faced. There was no point to it if there is no resurrection. Some assume that the fighting with wild beasts is to be regarded as figurative for the struggle he had with the vicious men who opposed him at Ephesus. It is true that men can be like wild beasts when they decided to destroy someone who disturbs their conscience. There is no record in Acts of any literal battle with beasts in which Paul was engaged. But this does not prove that he didn-’t have such an experience. It is argued also that since he was a Roman he could not have been subjected to such treatment, but authorities didn-’t always ask about such issues. See Acts 16:37. But whether he did or did not face real beasts, his life was in real danger and there was no point to it if there is no such thing as a resurrection from the dead. Therefore he says, If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.

*Evil companionships.*The Corinthians were being deceived by associates who did not hold the truth of the gospel. Paul urges them to wake up and stop being deceived by those who have no knowledge of God. Intelligent people should be ashamed of being deceived when the facts of the gospel had been so clearly presented to them with the evidence that definitely established the resurrection of Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:35-57

**Butler’s Comments

SECTION 3

Its Heavenliness** (1 Corinthians 15:35-57)

35 But some one will ask, How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come? 36You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45Thus it is written, The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46But it is not the spiritual which is first but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. 50I tell you this, brethren: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

51 Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53For this perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality. 54When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:

Death is swallowed up in victory.

55 O death, where is thy victory?

O death, where is thy sting?

56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:35-41 It Is Manageable: Questions about the mechanics of bodily resurrection have been raised throughout the history of mankind. Alleged absence of observed demonstration of such mechanics has been put forward repeatedly as proof that bodily resurrection is impossible. People want to know how human bodies that have died and returned to dust, have been consumed by fire, or have been eaten by animals or sea-life, which in turn have died and dissolved, may be raised from the dead. How can this be possible?

First, we must accept the revelation of God that he can manage it. When God reveals, by special enlightenment through his Spirit, things which eye has not seen. (1 Corinthians 2:6-16), it is folly and irreverence to try to prove whether God told the truth. It is unreasonable to expect the scope of human experience and reason to provide the proof of things reaching so far beyond both reason and experience.. No method of science or of philosophy can prove some statements which are of central importance in the Bible.. These. must be accepted upon the authority or reliability of the one who says it is so.. The demand that all Bible statements must be discovered by scientific method, proved by rational processes, or confirmed by results in practice, before they can be regarded as authoritative or established truth, is simply a demand that God must not be greater than man and must not reveal anything man could not find out for himself with his own closely limited, earthbound senses. (Seth Wilson, in, Reflections Christian Standard, June 17, 1984).

Second, in the light of all the evidence of resurrection in the natural creation surrounding him, it is foolish for man to question the manageability of it. Paul uses the Greek word aphron, literally, mindless, without sense. Those who cannot believe in a resurrection of the human body because it dissolves back into dust after death are not very observant. The miracle of resurrection occurs every time a seed falls into the ground, dissolves, and produces a new green plant. It is no accident that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ took place in the Spring season of the earth.

There are two important lessons about resurrection taught in nature. (1) Death is necessary. It is not an obstacle to resurrection. In fact, if there is no death, there will be no resurrection. That which does not die shall never be resurrected (John 12:24-26). Any farmer or gardener knows a seed must die, rot and dissolve (and yet it is the seed which has the life in it) before the new and completely different form of life can be raised up. (2) The new life from the dead seed is different in form, much more grand, and actually the fulfillment of the purpose of the dormant seed itself. Put a bean seed into the ground and what comes up is a green plant. The plant is from the seed, and inseparably linked to it, but much better and alive, producing. It is significant that Jesus, in the parable of the growing seed (Mark 4:26-29), said that when a farmer plants a seed it produces a plant of itself (Gr. automate, automatically). The seed is planted in the earth and those two elements together automate the new life. If we had never seen the seed-to-earth-to-death-to-different-life process before, and someone said it happens, we would have our doubts. But since God has made it possible for us to see it over, and over, and over again, for us to say we do not believe a resurrection after death is manageable is foolish. We might as well say now, we do not believe a bean plant will grow from a bean seed because it is dead when it is put into the earth. Which of us fully understands the process of bean seedto bean plant? If God has resurrected plants for centuries, Why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should raise the dead? (Acts 26:8)

Third, God is not locked into managing only one kind of body. God has created, as nature well attests, many different kinds of bodies. Scientists know there is such a difference they are able to tell whether a single cell comes from a human, an animal, a bird, or a fish! How did Paul know this before modern science discovered it? Paul knew it directly from the Creator, by revelation. Furthermore, God is not limited to just four or four-million kinds of bodies. He gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. There is a correspondence between what the body looks like and what the entity inside is like. If we trust God, we will be satisfied with what we look like!

Fourth, there are two major divisions of bodies; there are celestial (heavenly) bodies, and terrestrial (earthly) bodies. Celestial bodies have a different glory, a different purpose, than terrestrial ones. God managed to create and managed to sustain bodies as different in time, space, size and function as the human mind is able to imagine. Since Paul has already listed the terrestrial bodies (1 Corinthians 15:39), he now delineates the celestial as sun, moon and stars. And each of the celestial bodies are different! And how many stars are there? And God manages each of them! Assuredly, then, God can manage the resurrection of human bodies and even give each human a different body if he wishes!

It is breathtaking to contemplate. God makes bodies to fit the multitudinous differences in the entities inhabiting them! No two snowflakes are alikeno two entities are the same. So is the resurrection of the body. The differences that exist in human personalities here will exist forever in glory. Human personality is not wiped out by disaster and the grave. Human personality goes on in all its uniqueness, even if the earthly body goes back to dust. And, wonder of wonders, God has promised to give that unique human personality a new, different, body to fit it, different from all other bodies, but eternal. We will know one another in heaven!

We have seen this demonstrated in the Lord Jesus Christ himself, the firstfruit of the resurrection from the dead. He was in a different body after his resurrection; yet it was similar to the old body that had died and been buried. It retained some of its old essence while also having new attributes. In its new form it was not subject to the old limitations of time and spacenot touched by exhaustion and pain. But he was the same pure, true, loving Jesus. And they recognized him. But bodily he could go through walls of a building, materialize and dematerialize.

1 Corinthians 15:42-50 It is Mandatory: The destiny of humankind is immortality. The transformation (or, recreation) of a body fitted for eternality is, therefore, mandatory. Once again, even the natural order of things tells us the body of this life is perishable (Gr. phthora, corruptible, decomposable). As the physical body ages, it slows down, weakens, deteriorates. Eventually, and inevitably, it must die and disintegrate. Just like the bean seed, it must rot and decay, but one day it will become a new plant, gloriously designed for its eternal existence, imperishable. It is planted in the earth in dishonor (Gr. atimia, valueless, worth nothing) because we have sinned and perverted its created glory. Whatever is good or to be desired in the body of this existence inevitably decays and becomes valueless. God has subjected it to futility and the bondage of decay (Romans 8:19-23), he brings the whole creation to dishonor, for a purpose. He wants it to groan for redemption, (see Genesis 3:17-19; Genesis 5:29; Ecclesiastes 1:2 ff.). The physical body is planted in weakness (Gr. astheneia, without strength) and will be raised in power (Gr. dunamei, dynamically, dynamite). Men like to boast of the strength of their bodies, yet a tiny, almost invisible, microbe can devastate it and even kill it. The physical limitations of our present bodies are frustrating. But the body God raises after this one is planted will never be ravaged by disease, sickness, pain, time, space, or decomposition. It will suffer no weaknesses!

The human body of this existence is physical (Gr. psuchikon, natural, soulish, or psychical). Ray C. Stedman calls it his earth suit, or time suit.

But this earth suit is designed only for this life. It is not designed for anything else. It works fairly well in this life, but something could happen to this earth suit while I am talking or walking around. I could fall over and somebody would come along and say, He’s dead! But it would not be so. I would not be dead. The earth suit would have died, but I would be as much alive as I have ever been, and already enjoying the new body, the heaven suit, the eternity suit. Paul’s argument is, there is a body designed for the heavens, as well as one for the earth. What the apostle is saying throughout this whole chapter is that there is a definite link between the two.

(Expository Studies in I Corinthians, by Ray C. Stedman, pub. Word, p. 315)

Man has his earth suit from the first Adam (the word Adam, in Hebrew, means, man). Man may have his heaven suit from the last Adam, Jesus Christ, if man believes him and obeys him. There are only two Adams; the first Adam and the last Adam, Jesus. The only other person beside Adam to become the father of a race is Jesus, Human beings are all sons of the first Adam by physical soulish procreation; human beings may be sons of the last Adam by spiritual regeneration. Adam, the first man, was made from the dust (Gr. chiokos, from cheo, lit. to pour, hence, loose earth or dust). The first Adam became a living soul (Gr. psuchen, psyche), the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (Gr. pneuma zoopoioun). What is the difference between soul-life and spirit-life? There must be a difference as Paul is thinking of it here. Soul-life is the animating life. Animals are said to have souls (see Genesis 1:20 where the Hebrew word nephesh, soul is used for animal life; and Genesis 2:7 where man became a live-soul, nephesh). Evidently, the difference between soul and spirit is that the soul is not an entity which exists apart from the body.

Stedman explains that when God breathed into Adam’s body of clay the divine Spirit, the joining together of spirit and body produced another phenomenon called the -soul,-’ the personality. The soul animates the body and allows that body to function. When man sins, and all men sin, God’s Spirit is quenched and he withdraws and that soul and body is condemned to eternal death. That is the destiny of all who have sinned like the first Adam (and all men have). But, all praise to God, the last Adam, Jesus Christ, became, by living a perfect, sinless life in the flesh (Romans 8:1-8; Hebrews 2:14-18, etc.) a life-giving spirit. Any human being who wants, may now be reborn a spiritual being, by faith and obedience to Jesus Christ. That is what Peter means in 1 Peter 1:3-9; what Paul means in 2 Corinthians 5:1-21. Without Christ’s vicarious atonement, without his conquest of sin and death, in the flesh, without his resurrection as first fruit from the dead, there would be no resurrection for any man for there would be no spiritual rebirth possible. This passage casts great light upon all that is taught in the scriptures about the necessity of the new birth and indwelling presence of the Spirit of Christ (the Holy Spirit). Do not fail to notice that Paul calls Jesus the last (Gr. eschatos) Adam. There is no redeemer of mankind yet to come. Those who do not join the race fathered by Jesus Christ, by being born again, will not see eternal life. They will be resurrected to eternal death as offspring only of the first Adam.

In man’s experience it is the* physical,* natural order (Gr. psuchikon soulish body) first, and the spiritual (Gr. pneumatikon, spiritual body) afterward (Gr. epeita). The destiny of soul will also be the destiny of body (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24). If the soul of man has been sanctified by the recreation of God’s Spirit within him, then the spirit and soul and body will be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ!

The soul-spirit is separated from the body for a little while at the time of physical death. The soul-spirit returns to God who gave it and the body returns to the dust of the earth (Ecclesiastes 12:7). But the nature of your soul-spirit determines what the nature of your resurrected body will be. The corruptible body is put aside in the grave, but it will be raised incorruptible if it has, in the course of this life, been the temporary residence of a Spirit that is incorruptiblethe Spirit of Christ. If, therefore, you would like one day to bear the image (Gr. eikona, icon) of the heavenly body, you must possess the heavenly life now. What must be happening is the will of God being lived out in your life now, on earth, as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10).

All of the foregoing Paul has said to substantiate the divine fiat, … Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven! Beyond the grave, only that which is spiritual (heavenly) can enter heaven. What is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God (Luke 16:15). All the trappings of this life, fame, money, physical beauty, self-righteousness, can never survive the grave. They rot along with the physical body. God does not want themwill not have them! He has something far better for those who trust him. Nothing in this world has any value, in itself, in the sight of God. Only as it enables the spiritual in man is it to last beyond our funerals. Flesh and blood cannot do anything of value in the kingdom of God. This is what shocked Nicodemus when Jesus told him, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, (or from above), he cannot see the kingdom of God (John 3:3-5). All those descended from the first Adam, who have sinned as he did (and all have), must start all over again. They must be born again. They must be born of water (baptism, an expression of our penitent, receiving, faith) and the Spirit (the grace of God shed abroad in our hearts), (John 3:5).

1 Corinthians 15:51-57 It is The Mark (Goal): The mystery (actually, the gospel is very often called the mystery Ephesians 1:7-10; Colossians 1:24-27) is not that we shall not all sleep, but that we shall all be changed. He goes ahead and explains, the mystery is the dead being raised imperishable. The Greek word used here for changed is not metamorphou (or, metamorphosis, transformation), but allagesometha from allasso, meaning, made to be other than it is. The change will be complete. The word is also used of the final change of the material creation (Hebrews 1:12). This is the goal of God for all who believe in his Son, Jesus Christ.

This change, upon the bodily form of all humanity occurs at Christ’s second comingat the last trumpet. Some will not be asleep (dead) at that timesome will still be living in this existence. It is to occur in a moment (Gr. en atomo, English, atomic, minute); in the twinkling of an eye (Gr. en hripe, in a glance) refers to the twinkle of light that occurs when you blink. It is one of the fastest speeds known to human observation. It will be instantaneousit will be a miracle. God will be in a hurry to give his saints what Christ has earned for them and that for which they have kept the faith.

The Greek word dei, beginning the sentence in 1 Corinthians 15:53, emphasizes that this change must occur. This mortal nature must put on immortality because Death is swallowed up in victory! Those who have believed that Christ has defeated death must not be imprisoned again in a state of corruption, held bondage by the fear of death (Hebrews 2:14-15). They must not have their abiding place any more in a body that is dying, afraid of death, and testifies of death. Death and Hades are to be thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, forever banished from the believer’s presence (Revelation 20:14). There is a sting to death. The very nature of our physical life (its nature that is doomed to destruction) makes death sting. Even in full view of Christ’s victory over death, we still wince at it. We shudder at its appearance because it is an unknowable quotient. It is something over which we have no controlit is inexorable, inevitable. We fear it because of our sin in the light of God’s absolute law. But the glad tidings, coming from the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ, are, the power of sin is broken. It no longer has dominion over us (Romans 6:14; Romans 8:2; Romans 7:6; Romans 5:17; Romans 5:19). Thanks be to God who is giving (Gr. didonti, present tense verb, continuing to give) us the victory over our corruptible man through our Lord Jesus Christ. There is nothing more precious in the whole scheme of redemption than this promise that every day the Christian can lay hold afresh of the grace of Jesus Christ. Every day, though reminded of the weakness and mortality of the flesh by his faults and failures, the Christian can grasp by faith, again, the renewing and refreshing power of his immortality imputed to him by Christ. The victorious life is God’s goal or mark for all men. Sin is the life of defeat. Sin is missing God’s mark because the life of sin bears the image of the man of dust, doomed to corruption and eternal death.

1 Corinthians 15:35-58

Applebury’s Comments

Answer to Problems of The Resurrection (35-58)

Text

1 Corinthians 15:35-58. But some one will say, How are the dead raised? and with what manner of body do they come? 36 Thou foolish one, that which thou thyself sowest is not quickened except it die: 37 and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not the body that shall be, but a bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other kind; 38 but God giveth it a body even as it pleased him, and to each seed a body of its own. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, The first man Adam became a living soul. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 Howbeit that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is of heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting? 56 The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law: 57 but thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not vain in the Lord.

*Commentary

But some will say.*The apostle is ready now to answer the objections of the critics. Perhaps many were sincere in their inability to see how there could be such a thing as the resurrection of the body which disintegrates in death. The Sadducees in Jesus’s day objected on a different ground and were told that they were ignorant of the Scriptures and did not know the power of God (Matthew 22:29). The Corinthians wanted to know how the dead are raised and with what kind of body? Paul answers both questions by a simple reference to the fact that the seed that is sown dies that the new plant may spring from it. God gives each kind of seed the kind of new plant that pleases Him. God will equip the saint with the kind of body that pleases Him. Paul says that it will be fashioned anew to conform to the glorious body of Christ (Philippians 3:21). John says that we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is (1 John 3:2).

*So also is the resurrection.*Paul argues from the facts that all flesh is not the same kind, and that there are both celestial and terrestrial bodies, and that one star differs in glory from another, and that the resurrection body will be different. He then explains that difference: It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. Dishonor is balance with glory; weakness with power; natural body with spiritual.

*If there is a natural body.*If there is a body for this life, there is a body for the heavenly life. See Paul’s comment in 2 Corinthians 4:16-18; 2 Corinthians 5:1-10.

*The first man Adam. The last Adam.*All of us have a physical body that is subject to death because we are descendants of the first man Adam. The saints will have a heavenly body because they belong to the last Adam who as a spiritual being gives life to those who believe in Him. See John 4:24; John 5:21; John 6:57-63.

*flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.*That kingdom is spiritual, difficult though this is for us to grasp. The body which God gives us in which to glorify Him in this life must be changed into the likeness of the glorious body of Christ in order that we might continue to glorify Him in heaven. Paul is now ready to tell this secret.

*We all shall not sleep.*Enoch and Elijah did not see death (Hebrews 11:5; 2 Kings 2:1). When Christ comes again there will be those who will be taken up to meet Him in the air along with those who will be raised from the dead (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

*but we shall all be changed.*This is the secret that some apparently did not know; all who are to be with the risen Lord in heaven are to be changed when the dead shall be raised incorruptible. Then Death is swallowed up in victory.

thanks be to God.Paul who had seen the risen Lord looked to this time of triumph through Him with thanksgiving to God.

*your labor is not vain in the Lord.*This triumphant note of hope called for steadfastness on the part of the brethren whom Paul loved. He urged them to stand firm in this conviction and abound always in the work of the Lord. The hope of the resurrection was enough for them to know that their labor was not vain in the Lord.

Summary

This great chapter concerns the resurrection. Paul has now reached the climax of this remarkable epistle covering so many of the problems that the church faced in Corinth. It may be that it was most urgent for him to answer the problems of division and dereliction reported by those of the house of Chloe, but it was most important for the saints that he answer their questions about the resurrection which lay at the foundation of their faith and hope. It is true that they needed to know the answers to the questions that puzzled them about marriage, idolatry, and worship; but the answer to the questions about the resurrection was even more necessary because it had to do with their eternal hope in Christ and the goal toward which all Christians were striving. It was necessary that he show them the most excellent way of love that they might correct the misuse of spiritual gifts, but it was also necessary that he reassure them of the foundation of the Christian life by logical proof that there is a resurrection from the dead. At the beginning of the chapter, Paul reminds the Corinthians about the facts of the gospel which he preached to them. That gospel was based on the well established facts of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Paul had accepted the fact of the resurrection of Christ when he surrendered to the Lord on the Damascus road. Nothing could shake his conviction on this issue for he had heard the voice of the Lord when He appointed him to be an apostle to the Gentiles. The Corinthians had accepted the fact of Christ’s resurrection when they became Christians, but because some were saying that there is no such thing as a resurrection of the dead, they were in need of reassurance on this great issue. The resurrection of Christ was according to the Scriptures and it was supported by the testimony of those who saw Him after He was raised from the dead. Cephas, James, the five hundred, and Paul testified that Christ had been raised. There was no reason for the brethren to doubt it. It was by God’s grace that Paul had been able to labor more than all the apostles in proclaiming this fact to the Gentiles. Because he was dealing with the Greek mind that was trained in logic, he presented a series of arguments that was designed to reestablish their belief in the resurrection of the dead. He had presented evidence to prove to them again that Christ had been raised. But, he said, if there is no resurrection, then Christ has not been raised. To put it in another form, if dead people are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. Were they ready to accept the consequences of their unbelief? If Christ has not been raised, their faith was without meaning; they were still in their sins; those who had died believing in Christ had perished; and the apostles who were like men doomed to death were a most pitiable spectacle before angels and the world. Paul took his stand on the evidence that could not be denied that Christ has been raised from the dead. He showed what this meant to the Christian because Christ’s resurrection was similar to the firstfruits of the Old Testament harvest. As in Adam all die, in Christ all shall be made alive. Christ must reign until He conquers every enemy, the last of which is death. Then He will present the redeemed in triumph to the Father to whom He also is subject for God is all in all. He reminded them of their baptism which is a burial and a resurrection. Why go through such an experience if there is no resurrection? Why live in jeopardy daily as Paul had done at Ephesus? Why not say, Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.? It was time for them to think soberly and to break with those who were repudiating the very foundation of faith and hope. Paul answered two questions that puzzled the people. They probably came from their background of training in Greek philosophy. They had been led to believe that to escape from the body in death was the goal of life. They wanted to know how it was possible for the body that disintegrates in death to be raised, and what kind of body they were to have in the resurrection. Paul gave them a simple yet adequate answer. The seed that falls into the ground dies and from it comes a new plant. God gives it a new body as it pleases Him. The resurrection body will be different, but it will be what God pleases to make it. As there is a difference in flesh, and celestial bodies, and in the glory of the stars so there will be a difference between the earthly and the heavenly body. The heavenly body will not be subject to the problems of the earthly body. We derive our earthly body from Adam; our spiritual body is from Christ, the last Adam. The corruptible body will be replaced by the incorruptible body. Paul is now ready to tell them the secret. Not all shall die, for some will be alive when Christ comes; but all shall be changed in the moment when the trumpet sounds and the dead are raised incorruptible. Then Death will be swallowed up in victory! Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. To this triumphant note of hope, Paul adds his affectionate appeal for the brethren to remain unmovable in the work of the Lord for now they know that their labors are not in vain.

1 Corinthians 15:58

**Butler’s Comments

SECTION 4

Its Helpfulness **(1 Corinthians 15:58)

58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

1 Corinthians 15:58 a In Steadfastness: What a helpful, practical, glorious conclusion. Who said Christianity is impractical? Why else would anyone have any desire to be steadfast and immovable in this life? What other philosophy would produce stability in this life? Only the perspective based on the historical resurrection of Jesus Christ will do that! Paul uses the Greek words hedraioi and ametakinetoi; they are translated, steadfast and immovable, respectively. Hedraioi means seated, settled-in, fixed; it is used to form one of our English suffixes e.g. tetrahedron denoting a crystal having a specific number of facets or surfaces. It also forms the second half of the English word cathedral which also means, seated above. Christians have the power of the resurrection to help them live stable, fixed, settled lives. Ametakinetoi means motionless, unexcitable, not given to passion. Part of the word, kinetoi, is the word from which the English words kinetic, kinematics, kinescope come. These English words all have to do with motion. The alpha-privative and the prepositional-prefix, ameta, would cause the word to be translated, absolutely, completely, immovable. The only way to be steadfast and immovable in this world of dissolution and mortality is to believe the resurrection! The resurrection is the key-stone of the arch supporting moral immovability in the storm of temptation.

1 Corinthians 15:58 b In Service: The resurrection is the impetus for abounding in the work of the Lord. Preaching is work! Evangelism is work! Shepherding the flock is work! Teaching the saints is work! Learning God’s Word is work! Loving is work! Being a good Samaritan is work! Believing is work (John 6:29); repenting is work (Revelation 2:5). To be a Christian a person must exhaust himself, his talents, his resources, his time, his soul and his body in the work of the Lord, (see Ephesians 4:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; 2 Timothy 4:5; John 9:4). Let’s face it, there are times when the devil will tempt us to perceive doing the will of God is a chore, or worse, repressive and futile. Even Jesus cried, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. But Jesus, in his moments of temptation to depression offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him out of death, and he was heard for his godly fear (Hebrews 5:7). Jesus did the work of God through the power of trusting in the resurrection!

1 Corinthians 15:58 c In Security: There is nothing which will bring to the human soul the feeling of security and satisfaction as completely as the knowledge that one’s labor is not in vain! So very much of everything written, painted, built, said, done, applauded, acquired, attained in this world is doomed to disappear. Only that which has been done in the name of Christ will be transferable (in different form) into the kingdom of God to come (heaven). Everything else has perished, is perishing, or shall perish. Vanity of vanity, all is vanity (Ecclesiastes 1:2). The Christian whose hope is in the resurrection is the only person in this world who can find true, complete, abiding satisfaction and fulfillment. His labor is not in vain in the Lord. When he passes from this life to the next, his works follow with him (Revelation 14:13). If a man believes in God and his Son, his prayers and alms go up before God as a memorial (Acts 10:4). Every act of kindness in the name of Jesus and for his sake (even a cup of cold water) is remembered and will be rewarded by the Lord (Matthew 25:31-46). So, let us lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven (Matthew 6:19-21) where they are eternally secure and fulfilling.

Old Green Commentaries

The College Press Bible Study Textbook Series — 59 volumes by 25 authors, published between 1961 and 1992 and affectionately known as the 'old green' commentaries for their green hardback bindings. Each volume is a commentary, workbook and teaching manual in one, written by Restoration Movement …

View all chapters →

Old Testament

GEN EXO LEV NUM DEU JOS JDG RUT 1SA 2SA 1KI 2KI 1CH 2CH EZR NEH EST JOB PSA PRO ECC SOS ISA JER LAM EZK DAN HOS JOL AMO OBA JON MIC NAH HAB ZEP HAG ZEC MAL

New Testament

MAT MRK LUK JHN ACT ROM 1CO 2CO GAL EPH PHP COL 1TH 2TH 1TI 2TI TIT PHM HEB JAS 1PE 2PE 1JN 2JN 3JN JUD REV

‹ Chapter 14 1 Corinthians — All Chapters Chapter 16 ›