Stand Firm-1 Cor 15:1-11

1 Corinthians, New Testament, Sermons

What do you stand firm on (1 Cor 15:1, 58)? Hold firmly to (1 Cor 15:2)? Your money? Your job? Your family? Your friends? Your church? Your ideology? Your utopian ideal? What is most important to you?

[The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.] The gospel–which is of first importance–must be kept as of first importance–i.e. the good news of Jesus’ death and resurrection (1 Cor 15:3-4). Do you “know” that the gospel is main thing? But what moves you emotionally? Is it something else–a good thing associated with the gospel–good works, charitable acts of service?

 

UBF’s emphasis and passion is “live a life of mission through [1:1] Bible study” extrapolated from many verses (Gen 1:28; Isa 6:8; Mt 28:19; Lk 9:23; Jn 21:15; Ac 1:8; 1 Cor 15:58, 2 Tim 2:15; 4:2; Rev 2:4, 10b; etc). “Feed sheep 1:1″ was my mission, mantra and motivation for the first 3 decades of my Christian life and spiritual formation since 1980. But a life of mission–which is very good–is NOT the gospel; it’s wonderful for my Christian life, but it cannot save anyone–not myself or others–for only the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection saves–that which is of first importance!

Why did Paul write 1 Corinthians 15 (1 Cor 15:12)? Why did they deny the resurrection? Why do people deny it? Do you affirm the resurrection in your mind, but deny it and not embody/live it out in your life (1 Cor 15:33-34)?

  1. Does the gospel need reminding (1 Cor 15:1a)? Why?
  2. How does one become a Christian (1 Cor 15:1-2)? What did they receive and take their stand on? Are they still doing so?
  3. What has the gospel done for you (1 Cor 15:1-2)?
  4. What should you do in response (1 Cor 15:2, 11, 34, 49, 58; 1 Th 5:18)?
  5. What does it mean for you to “hold firmly” to the gospel you received and believed (1 Cor 15:2, 11)?
  6. What possible OT Scriptures “say” that “Christ died for our sins” (1 Cor 15:3; Isa 53:5-7, 11b, 12b)? “That he was raised” from the dead (1 Cor 15:4; Ps 16:9-11; 110:1)? [“According to the Scriptures” may not refer to any particular OT passage but to “Scripture seen as a whole.”]
  7. Why does Paul emphasize the many witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor 15:5-8, 12)?
  8. What does Paul’s own testimony show about him (1 Cor 15:8-10)?
  9. How do you connect grace and effort (1 Cor 15:10)?
  10. What is it to be “abnormally born” (1 Cor 15:8)?
  11. Is he humble?
  12. How might he be addressing and responding to their criticism and judgment of him (1 Cor 4:3; 9:3)?

General Overview Questions

  1. How has the hope of resurrection made a difference in your life? Tell your story.
  2. How do you express/embody your hope of resurrection during hard times? During good times?
  3. Can you explain the importance of the resurrection to non-Christians [skeptics, agnostics, atheists, non-believers]?
  4. Why is the death and resurrection of Christ an eschatological reality/event of [ultimate] first importance (1 Cor 15:3-4) [the cornerstone which is central to everything, the climax and pinnacle of the entire Bible]? Explain theologically and practically.
  5. How does this guarantee your own resurrection [and salvation] (1 Cor 15:20-22)?
  6. How does a bodily resurrection hold both creation and redemption together (1 Cor 15:45)?
  7. How might your emotion disclose your eschatological condition?
  8. What makes you angry, fearful, worried, jealous, depressed, discouraged, dejected, disheartened, despair?
  9. Are strong emotions, harsh criticisms, and inability to forgive eschatological issues?
  10. Does the gospel give you hope and self–control [joy, gratitude (Gal 5:22-23)] to overcome yourself [as Christ ultimately did on the cross]?
  11. How might you take the resurrection for granted [which is practically denying the resurrection (1 Cor 15:12)]?
  12. How can you train yourself (1 Cor 9:25; 1 Tim 4:7) to think and live eschatologically?

Christ‘s resurrection is the ultimate eschatological event; it is central to everything. Christians live with authentic and fervent eschatological hope rooted in the resurrection of Christ. Paul’s thinking is thoroughly eschatological: he understood the death and resurrection of Christ, and the subsequent gift of the Spirit as eschatological realities; that God had set in motion the events of the End, which MUST and WILL be brought to consummation.

  • Christ‘s resurrection is the common ground of all Christian preaching and faith.
  • There’s an element of mystery to the concept of a “spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44).
  • By raising Christ from the dead God set in motion the final overthrow of death itself (1 Cor 15:26).
  • Hence the inevitable fact (15:12-28) and nature (15:35-49) of our own [bodily] resurrection.
  • 1 Corinthians 15 is one of the great theological treasures of the Christian church.

Denying bodily resurrection (1 Cor 15:12) is the main issue: “Given that you believed in the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor 15:1,2,11), how is it that some are denying the future bodily resurrection of believers (1 Cor 15:12)?” The issue, as before, is between Paul and them [some–who’ve influenced the many]. Paul responds in 3 parts:

  1. Christ was raised from the dead (15:1-11) to reestablish commonly held ground by emphasizing objective reality of both Christ’s death and bodily resurrection. He repeats 2 recent themes (1 Cor 14:33, 36-38) that
    1. this is the common ground of all who believe in and preach Christ (1 Cor 15:3-5), and
    2. his own apostolic ministry is the source of their life in Christ (1 Cor 15:1-2, 11).
  2. Their 2 absurd contradictory positions (15:12-34): belief in Christ’s resurrection and denial of their own (1 Cor 15:12). 3 parts revolving around a hypothetical allowance of their position: What if the dead are not raised?
    1. It’d mean that Christ was not raised (15:12-19), and if so, then everything is false. They cease to exist as Christians, as both their past and future are predicated on what they now deny.
    2. He takes up the reverse position (15:20-28). Since Christ HAS been raised from the dead, so will believers (15:20-23). Christ’s resurrection is the 1stfruits of the full harvest (1 Cor 15:23), having defeated death itself (1 Cor 15:26), a defeat that the very nature of God demands be brought to consummation.
    3. He picks up their position again (1 Cor 15:29) showing how absurd his (1 Cor 15:29-32) and their present activities are if they’re right (15:29). All this together argues for the inevitability of a resurrection of believers from the dead.
  3. In what form the dead are raised (1 Cor 15:35), not by what power. Answer? Bodily, but in a body adapted to the new conditions of the future. There is both continuity and discontinuity. The present body is earthly, “natural,” subject to decay; the raised body is heavenly, “spiritual,” and incorruptible (1 Cor 15:42-44). The result is a glorious resurrection-transformation of the dead and the living where the final enemy, death, is swallowed up in victory (1 Cor 15:55-57). Based on Paul’s argument (15:35-58) they objected to the raising of corpses–a horribly grotesque idea (1 Cor 15:12, 35). Their conflict with Paul is what it means to be pneumatikos (a Spirit person). Because they received the Spirit, especially the gift of tongues, they had thus already entered true “spirituality” (1 Cor 4:8) and already began an angelic existence (1 Cor 13:1), where the body was unnecessary and unwanted, and finally be discarded altogether. For them, life in the Spirit meant a final ridding oneself of the body (1 Cor 6:13), not because it was evil but because it was inferior and beneath them. So the body being raised would be anathema. They likely also saw the sacraments as the magical way of securing their new existence, which explains why some were being baptized for the dead (1 Cor 15:29)–not because they expected the dead to be raised but because they saw in it a way of offering similar spiritual existence to the departed.

The Resurrection of Believers (15:1-58). The Resurrection of the Body. Paul isn’t setting out to prove the resurrection, but he’s reasserting the commonly held ground from which he will argue against their assertion that there is no resurrection (1 Cor 15:12). The broad structure/outline:

  1. The Evidence for the Resurrection (15:1-11). Proclaim [kerygma] the Gospel — the Resurrection of Christ (15:1-11).
  2. The Certainty of the Resurrection (15:12-34). By appealing to logic, Paul indicates the logical consequences, and the illogical nature of their position.
  3. Denial of the resurrection negates the gospel (15:12-19). What if Christ has NOT been raised? The consequences of no resurrection from the dead. The absurdity of their position.
  4. But Christ HAS been raised; so all who belong to him will be raised (15:20-28). The centrality of the resurrection in God’s program. The splendor of Paul’s position.
  5. Otherwise, hope, suffering and faithfulness are pointless (15:29-34). Ad hominem arguments for resurrection. Christian life is made purposeful because of the resurrection. The absurdity of both his and their position.
  6. The Majesty of the Resurrection Body (15:35-49). Resurrection means transformation of the body.
  7. What kind of body is the resurrection body? Analogies of seeds and “bodies” (15:35-44). Analogy of Adam and Christ (15:45-49)
  8. The Assurance of Triumph (15:50-58). Both the dead and the living will be transformed. The miraculous change resulting in the resurrection of the dead. Therefore, our labor is not in vain (1 Cor 15:58).

The Resurrection of the Body (15:1–58) is the 4th and last contested issue that Paul addresses. It’s not to correct aberrant behavior, differing from the 3 previous issues (sex in marriage, idol meat, community worship), but to correct their beliefs about the resurrection, which have behavioral consequences (1 Cor 15:32–34, 58). Their many moral failings are surface symptoms of misunderstanding the very heart of the gospel: the death and resurrection of Christ. To deny the resurrection of the dead is to abandon the most fundamental conviction of the Christian faith, and to believe “in vain” (1 Cor 15:2).The content of the gospel. Paul saves the weightiest matter for last—like any good teacher. Coming at the end of Paul’s long letter, it anchors the whole. Those who say there’s no resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:12) triggers Paul’s response. How could they who only recently converted from paganism by Paul’s preaching of the crucified and risen Lord have turned so quickly to denying the resurrection?Bodily resurrection. They weren’t denying the resurrection, but claim to have already attained it, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, who “swerved from the truth by claiming that the resurrection has already taken place” (2 Tim 2:17-18). An “overrealized eschatology” isn’t supported by ch. 15. Their objection was not the future aspect of the resurrection but that it’d be a bodily resurrection. So Paul counters their objections of an embodied resurrection (1 Cor 15:35-37). They thought of themselves as hyper spiritual Christians (pneumatikoi), rich in every spiritual gift [as seen throughout the letter], and not as debunkers of the gospel. They were so spiritual that the notion of a resurrection body was gross, crass, unrefined, embarrassing. “Resurrection of the dead” means literally “rising of the corpses.” For the spiritually refined, this wasn’t Christian hope, but a horror story. This’d be particularly true for those with greater education and philosophical sophistication—the higher-status church members infatuated with wisdom, knowledge, and tongues. They create the problems with which Paul wrestles throughout the letter. Paul’s future “resurrection of the dead bodies” sounds foolish and grotesque.

Some claim a higher gnosis, a more sophisticated theological understanding of the world, and identify salvation with escape from the physical world and hold the body in contempt. They try to transcend their sexuality by renouncing sexual relations within their marriages, and say, “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy both one and the other” (1 Cor 6:13a). Paul’s response is that, on the contrary, “The body is meant … for the Lord and the Lord for the body; and God raised the Lord and will raise us by his power” (1 Cor 6:13b-14). Now, Paul addresses the issue of resurrection head on.The fundamental logic of Christianity demands belief in the resurrection of the dead; therefore, Christian hope affirms rather than rejects the body. Proclaiming the resurrection of Christ declares God’s triumph over death and the meaningfulness of embodied life. Our future hope must be for a transformed body in the resurrection, not an escape from the embodied state.Behave biblically. Both major subdivisions conclude with appeals for righteous behavior and faithfulness in doing the Lord’s work (1 Cor 15:32b-34, 58). What we do with our bodies in the present time matters. The resurrection of the body is both a warning that you’re accountable for what you do with your body, and it’s also a promise that your bodily labor is significant (1 Cor 15:58), not meaningless.    Paul learned that “some” of them deny the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:12) likely by informants (1 Cor 1:11; 5:1; 11:18). That some take this position, while others aren’t is one more cause of division in the church. To overcome this division, Paul treats the issue with great rhetorical skill: he begins by reminding them of common tradition, expecting to gain their assent to his recapitulation of the basic kerygma, the foundation on which he constructs his argument.

The Resurrection of the Dead Is Constitutive of the Gospel (15:1–34). The kerygma proclaims the resurrection of Christ (15:1–11). Paul begins by reminding them of the gospel he originally proclaimed to them. “Passing on” and “receiving” (1 Cor 15:1,3) is employed earlier in describing the transmission of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23). The carefully balanced structure indicates that Paul is quoting an early confessional formula (1 Cor 15:3b-5). He “received” this tradition presumably from the witnesses (1 Cor 15:5–7). This suggests that the confession is probably datable to around the time of Paul’s call to apostleship—within about 3 yrs after Jesus was crucified. These opening vs. thus show how the gospel was preached in the 1st generation of Christians.“The resurrection of the dead” is a matter “of first importance” (1 Cor 15:3). It’s not some speculation that can be set aside by those who claim more sophisticated knowledge. It’s an integral part of the euaggelion (“good news”) on which those who believe take their stand (1 Cor 15:11; Gal 1:11). The resurrection of Jesus and his appearance to many witnesses is at the heart of the gospel proclaimed in the church; without this foundational truth, there’d be no church because there’d be no gospel. Those who hold fast to this truth are saved by it—unless [foreshadowing 15:12–19], the whole thing is a sham and their faith is “in vain” (1 Cor 15:2; 10, 14, 17, 58). The confession consists of 4 clauses. The 1st and 3rd are the fundamental faith affirmations, while the 2nd and 4th fill out the story of Christ’s death and resurrection and provide supporting warrants for the fundamental claims in the other two clauses. The structure is as follows. Paul handed on the tradition:

  1. that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures
  2. and that he was buried,
  3. and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures
  4. and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. (1 Cor. 3b-5)

According to Scripture is how the 2 central events of Christ’s death and resurrection occurred. This early creed specifies that the world transforming story of Jesus’ passion and resurrection must be interpreted in light of Scripture: the earliest church understood the gospel as the continuation and fulfillment of God’s dealings with Israel, and must be found in relation to the Law and the prophets (Rom 1:2; 3:21; Lk 24:44–47), though it doesn’t stipulate which Scripture.   Christ’s death “for our sins” recalls the suffering servant (Isa 53:5–7, 11b, 12b), but it doesn’t explain how the death of Christ was vicariously effective to deal with sins, or that the resurrection of Jesus was “according to the Scriptures.” “The third day” suggests Hos 6:2 or Jon 1:17. More likely, “according to the Scriptures” modifies the verb “was raised” rather than the 3rd day (the similar syntax in 1 Mace 7:16). So, it’s, “and that he was raised in accordance with the Scriptures, on the third day.” Then the Scriptures are probably the Psalms that praise God for deliverance of the righteous sufferer (Ps 16 in Acts 2:24–32). Ps 16 prefigures “the resurrection of the Christ” (Acts 2:31): “… my flesh will live in hope. For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, Or let your Holy One experience corruption” (Ps 16:9b-10, Ac 2:26b-27). [Paul’s letters suggest that the Psalms were understood very early as referring to the Messiah ( = Christ). (Ps 69:9 in Rom 15:1–3; Ps 110 and 8 in 1 Cor 15:24–28). This is the primary context in which the references to the Scriptures in 1 Cor 15:3–4 should be understood.]Jesus remains risen. Christ’s burial (1 Cor 15:4) confirms the reality and human finality of his death. The resurrection appearances (1 Cor 15:5–where the traditional confessional formula ends) confirm that he really was raised from the dead. [Not mentioning the empty tomb shows that it wasn’t a part of the traditional kerygma. It certainly doesn’t mean that Paul or other Christians conceived of a “resurrection from the dead” in which the body remained in the tomb.] The perfect passive verb “he was raised” [eggertai] (1 Cor 15:4) indicates that God is the one who raised him up, and the perfect tense (cf. the aorist forms “died” and “was buried”) indicates that he remains risen. Thus, the confessional formula doesn’t just narrate past events: It proclaims Christ as risen Lord.

The Risen Jesus Appears to Many and to Paul (15:6-11).   Additional witnesses to support the claim that Christ rose from the dead (1 Cor 15:6-8). This is the major point that Paul emphasizes in the confessional formula (1 Cor 15:3b-5). His concern is to demonstrate the objective reality of Christ’s resurrection. After Cephas (Peter) and the 12 seeing the risen Lord (1 Cor 15:5), Paul adds 4 more appearances to these 1st 2 (1 Cor 15:6-8). His point is emphatic. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead was not a form of “spiritual” existence. Just as he was truly dead and buried, so he was truly raised from the dead bodily (1 Cor 15:3-4) and seen by a large number of witnesses on a variety of occasions:

  1. More than 500 brothers and sisters (1 Cor 15:6).
  2. James.
  3. All the apostles (1 Cor 15:7).
  4. Last of all, Paul (1 Cor 15:8).

More than 500 others. That most of them are still alive (1 Cor 15:6a) affirms that there were still eyewitnesses around who could be consulted. It provides further evidence for Jesus’ resurrection; anyone skeptic can find many witnesses testifying that they saw Jesus alive. To Paul this was an event that occurred in the immediate past, an event for which historical eyewitness testimony was readily available. This functions in 2 ways:

  1. This further emphasizes the veracity of the tradition that in Jesus’ case a real resurrection was involved.
  2. This forms a bridge of tradition between the 12 and himself (1 Cor 15:5, 8), since when he gets to his own experience the concern shifts from the resurrection of Jesus to Paul’s own place in the tradition.

Appearing to brothers and sisters at the same time (1 Cor 15:6b). “Sisters” is not in Paul’s text, but his designation “brothers” usually included women as well, since it is a unanimous witness of the various gospel traditions that Jesus had women as well as men among his disciples (Lk 8:2-3). “At the same time” emphasizes the reality and objectivity of Jesus’ appearance. A small group of people might be accused of self-deception, but this is a much less plausible hypothesis when it is a very large crowd.

To “James” [the brother of Jesus, who became a major leader of the Jerusalem church (Gal 1:19; 2:9, 12; Ac 15:13–21; 21:18)] and of “all the apostles” (1 Cor 15:7) indicates more witnesses beyond the circle of the 12 (Rom 16:7; Ac 14:14). James “did not believe in him” during Jesus’ earthly ministry (Jn 7:2-9) but who appeared with the disciples after the resurrection. Paul’s first contact with James occurred on his first brief visit to Jerusalem as a Christian (Gal 1:19), in which passage he also refers to James as an apostle. [There’s no point trying to match Paul’s list with the various resurrection appearance stories in Matthew, Luke-Acts, and John, because the accounts do not correspond.] Paul, who didn’t have the gospel narratives, says nothing of the women who were remembered as the first witnesses to the resurrection (Mt 28:9–10; Jn 20:11–18). He only emphasizes the well-attested reality of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, and supplements the traditional kerygmatic formula (1 Cor 15:3b-5) by mentioning a string of other traditions known to him (1 Cor 15:6–7), culminating in his own testimony that he had seen the risen Lord (1 Cor 15:8).

With “last of all” (1 Cor 15:8a), Paul links it with the resurrection appearances to Jesus’ original circle of followers. He claims with his Damascus Road encounter–without much elaboration–to have come face to face with Jesus the Messiah whom God raised up (Ac 9:1–9; 22:1–11; 26:12–23). It was not a visionary experience but an actual resurrection appearance of a kind with the others. The only point that matters for his present purpose is that he can add his own name to the list of those who attest to the truth of the news that Christ was raised from the dead.

“…as to one abnormally born” (1 Cor 15:8b) has an apologetic purpose. The term ektroma refers to anykind of premature birth–an aborted fetus, stillbirth, or miscarriage. It is used figuratively to refer to something horrible or freakish. This term was likely used to describe Paul by his detractors as something of a “freak” likely in comparison with other apostles, especially Apollos and Peter (1 Cor 1:12; 3:4-6; 9:5). They considered his bodily presence “weak” and contemptible (2 Cor 10:10), making fun of his physical ugliness or handicaps (Gal 4:13–14; 2 Cor 12:7b-10), and his lack of oratorical eloquence (1 Cor 1:17; 2:4). Because of their tension, disapproval, criticism and judgement toward him(1 Cor 4:3; 9:3), Paul takes up the derisive epithet ironically and turns it into a clever way to talk about the untimeliness of Christ’s appearance to him, even while affirming that God’s grace has worked through his apostleship in spite of his unworthiness. Paul once more goes on the “attack” in this matter by asserting as a value with what they disparage–namely his freakish dwarf-like ugliness. What they see as weakness and as evidence of a lesser standing, Paul sees as the true evidence that his apostleship is from the Lord. Then in 2 Cor 10-13, he will defend himself once again by glorifying in his weaknesses. So to Paul his unworthiness is not because of his freakish physical appearance but of his past role as persecutor of the church (1 Cor 15:9).

“I am the least of the apostles” (1 Cor 15:9) affirms both that he IS an apostle, and that they view him as the least ranking of them all because he is something of a freak! “…and do not even deserve to be called an apostle” is ALSO their view of him! So, he agrees with them. But his reasons are different from theirs. They disapprove of his weaknesses and lack of “spirituality,” as judged by their own criteria (1 Cor 1:10-17; 4:1-5; 13:1; 14:6, 18, 36-38). But to Paul, it’s “because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:9b).

Paul’s theology of grace. When speaking of God’s grace to him, he often refers to himself similarly (Gal 1:13-15; Phil 3:6-8; 1 Tim 1:13-16). Paul thought he was doing God’s work with zeal for the Lord and advancement in Judaism. But on this side of meeting the risen Christ he saw himself for what he really was–the chief of sinners (1 Tim 1:15) and persecutor of the church. This encounter is the basis of his theology of grace. Since God was gracious to him, God’s enemy, in this way, Paul realizes that this is the way God is toward all, Jew and Gentile alike, making no distinctions. Since all alike are sinful [broken, fallen], all alike are potential recipients of God’s grace, including his apostleship, which is entirely grace alone. Since they didn’t give him his authority, they can neither take it from him nor deny it to him.

“…by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor 15:10) is why Paul is an apostle. The statement is true of being a believer, but Paul’s concern here has to do with his undeserved apostleship. Even though he is something of an ugly, freakish, dwarf-like aborted fetus and the least and most undeserving of the apostles (1 Cor 15:8-9), he is nonetheless as apostle–only “by the grace of God.” Paul is not so much referring to God’s grace in general, although that is true, but in context he’s referring to grace in his apostleship, similar to the opening thanksgiving (1 Cor 1:4). Paul also speaks of “grace to me” and “grace…that was with me” to say that God’s grace “was not without effect,” not becoming something given “in vain” [without effect] (1 Cor 15:10, 14, 58). Also…

Grace requires a response–“No, I worked harder than all of them [the apostles (1 Cor 15:9)]”–even though grace is the result of divine initiative (Eph 2:8). Though he deserved the least, he does not consider his work itself to be any less than anyone else’s. His point, however, is not of comparison. He’s not saying, “I’m better than them because I worked harder.”  Rather, his concern is to say something about his own ministry. To make sure he’s not misunderstood, he quickly qualifies “yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.” Even his intense labors in the gospel are ultimately not the result of a personal need to compensate God for his grace, but are themselves the reflection of that very grace at work in his life. Thus his labor is not only a response to grace, but more properly the effect of grace. All is of grace. Nothing is deserved. He cannot lay claim to his own ministry, nor can they reject it, for it is God’s activity in him on their behalf.  

Purposeful digression from his immediate purpose of reminding them about the substance of the gospel when Paul brings himself into the story. Earlier in the letter (1 Cor 4:3–5; 9:3), Paul’s apostolic authority was questioned by some. Thus, he takes the opportunity to include himself among those to whom the risen Christ appeared, and to mention discreetly that God’s grace has enabled him to work harder than any of the other apostles (1 Cor 15:10). God’s grace was not “in vain”—an important refrain in this ch. Rather, God’s grace was effectual to and through Paul in bringing churches into existence, including them.

The central point after this digression in the concluding sentence of this section (1 Cor 15:11). The identity of the witnesses does not matter; whoever the preachers were, all of them preached the same gospel delineated in the formula (1 Cor 15:3b-5), a gospel focused on the death of Jesus and on his resurrection from the grave. Furthermore, they themselves believed this proclaimed word when Paul preached it to them. This message drew them out of the pagan world and into the sphere of God’s power and grace. For them now to question or deny the resurrection of the dead is (1 Cor 15:12)—as Paul will argue in the next section—an absurd repudiation of their own experience and of the gospel itself.The defense of Paul’s apostleship is integral to the whole reason for the argument, namely some strong differences between him and them–in particular their denial of the resurrection of the dead (1 Cor 15:12). Before addressing it, he returns to the present point, that belief in the resurrection of the dead is predicated on the resurrection of Christ–which they had believed [even if in an unsatisfactory way]–for it is the foundation of their existence in Christ, which is Paul’s conclusion: “Thus, we [or I] preached, and thus you believed” (1 Cor 15:11). Paul presses them with that which is of first importance (1 Cor 15:3-4) because their current behavior and theology are out of step with those of the other churches (1 Cor 1:2; 4:17; 7:17; 11:16; 14:33), and thus with believers in general. So on the matter of denying the resurrection, they are following nether Apollos, nor Cephas, nor Christ. They are simply going off on their own and in effect abandoning true Christian faith and discipleship.   In brief, Paul is not out to prove that Jesus rose but to emphasize that Christ’s resurrection, which they believed, had objective reality and was held universally by all true believers and thus emphasizes that it is they who were out of line.

Reference:

  1. Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
  2. Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987, 2014.
  3. Kenneth E. Bailey. Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes. Cultural studies in 1 Corinthians. 2011.
  4. Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.
Number of Views: 311