1 Corinthians 15 - Introduction

DIVISION V.: THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY. Some members of the Cor [2227] Church denied the resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:12), compelling the Ap. to enter on a systematic defence and exposition of this Christian doctrine. The question was not raised in the Church Letter; nor does Paul indicate the source of his information; the opinion of the τινὲς was openly expressed, and was doubtless matter of common report (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1). Their position was incompatible with Christianity; it contravened, inferentially, the whole verity and saving worth of the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1 f., 1 Corinthians 15:13-19). Such scepticism nullified the faith and hope of the Church (1 Corinthians 15:11) as effectually as the party-divisions destroyed its love. While standing apart from the practical and personal questions upon which the Ep. turns (and accordingly reserved to the last), this doctrinal controversy has two important points of connexion with them, lying (1) in the differences of opinion prevalent at Cor [2228] (cf. 12, λέγουσιν ἐν ὑμῖν τινες, with ἵνα τὸ αὐτὸ λέγητε πάντες, 1 Corinthians 1:10), and (2) in the laxity of moral sentiment associated with Cor [2229] unbelief (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:32 ff. with 1 Corinthians 5:2; 1 Corinthians 6:8 f., 1Co 8:10, 1 Corinthians 10:14; 1 Corinthians 10:21 f., 1 Corinthians 11:21; 1 Corinthians 11:29 ff.). This latter trait identifies the doubters of the Resurrection with the men who justified antinomian tendencies by the assumption of superior “knowledge” (see notes on 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 1 Corinthians 8:1, etc.); affecting “the wisdom of this world,” they cherished the rooted prejudice of Greek culture, against the idea of a bodily redemption (see Introd., p. 732). To men of this way of thinking the Resurrection was a folly even more than the Cross; some of those who had overcome the latter offence, still stumbled at the former. Unbelief in the Resurrection was sure to be excited wherever the Gospel spread amongst educated Greeks; the Ap. feels that he must grapple boldly with this difficulty at its first appearance in the Church; he puts forth his full strength to conquer it and to commend the truth that was impugned to the intelligent Corinthians. Sceptics as they are in regard to the general doctrine, the τινὲς do not question the personal resurrection of Jesus Christ (a circumstance of great apologetic value); the Apostle's refutation starts from the assumption of this cardinal fact. They will not admit the recovery of the body as a part of the Christian salvation; they reject it as a principle, and a law of the kingdom of God. It was probably held that Christ's rising from the dead was a unique, symbolical occurrence, bringing about for believers in Him a redemption wholly spiritual, a literal and full deliverance from the flesh and the world of matter. Paul's argument is in two parts: (A) 1 Corinthians 15:1-34, concerning the certainty; ([2230]) 1 Corinthians 15:35-57, concerning the nature of the Resurrection. To establish its certainty (A), P. begins by (a) rehearsing the historical evidence of Christ's bodily resurrection, which had been preached by himself ἐν πρώτοις and so received by the readers (1 Corinthians 15:1-11); (b) he shows that to deny the resurrection of the dead is to deny Christ's resurrection, and so to declare the Gospel witness false and its salvation illusive (1 Corinthians 15:12-19); and further, (c) that the risen Christ is the first-fruit of a great harvest, whose ingathering is essential to the fulfilment of the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 15:20-28); (d) he closes this part of the case by pointing to the practical results of faith or unbelief in a future resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:29-34). ([2231]) The nature of the resurrection body is (a) illustrated by the difference between the seed and the perfect plant; also by the endless variety of material forms, instanced in animal organisms and in the (heavenly bodies, which helps us to understand how there may be a future body of a Higher order than the present human frame (1 Corinthians 15:35-43). (b) This difference between the σῶμα πνευματικὸν and the σῶμα ψυχικὸν being premised, it is argued that our investiture with the former is as necessary a consequence of our relation to Christ as our investiture with the latter is a consequence of our relation to Adam (1 Corinthians 15:44-49). (c) Only by this transformation, by the victory over death and sin thus achieved, can tne promise of God in Scripture he fulfilled, His redeeming purpose effected, and the work of His servants made secure (1 Corinthians 15:51-58). This is the earliest Christian doctrinal essay; in method and argumentative character it is akin to the Ep. to the Romans. Hn [2232] ably defends its integrity against the attempts of Clemen and the Dutch School to make out interpolations and contradictions.

[2227] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[2228] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[2229] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[2230] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

[2231] Codex Vaticanus (sæc. iv.), published in photographic facsimile in 1889 under the care of the Abbate Cozza-Luzi.

[2232] C. F. G. Heinrici's Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer's krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).