1 Corinthians 15:1-28

XVIDOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD

A. Refutation of its deniers(1) from the well attested facts of the resurrection of Christ, which with all connected therewith, pre-supposes its possibility, and is the pledge of its actual occurrence

1 Corinthians 15:1-28

1     Moreover, brethren, I declare [make known, γνωρίζω] unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have [om. have] received, and wherein ye stand [have been standing, ἑστήκατε]; 2By which also ye are [being] saved, if ye keep in memory [hold fast, κατέχετε what [with what discourse, τίνι λόγῳ] I preached unto you, unlessye have believed [became believers, ἐπιστεύσατε] in vain. 3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures: 4And that he was buried, and that he rose [has risen, ἐγήγερται] again the third day1 according to the Scriptures: 5And that he was seen of [appeared to] ὤφθη Κηφᾷ] Cephas, then of [to] the twelve2: 6After that, he was seen of [appeared to] above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto thispresent, but some3 are [have also, καὶ ἐκοιμήθησαν] fallen asleep. And 7after that, he 8was seen of [appeared to] James; then4 of [after that to, ἔπειτα] all the apostles. And [But, δὲ] last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time [as to the untimely-born-one, he appeared to me also, ὡσπερεὶ τῷ ἐκτρώματι, ὤφθη κἀμοί]. 9For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet [sufficient, ἱκανὸς] to be called anapostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon [was towards, εἰς] me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God11which was [om. which was] with5 me. Therefore whether it were I or they, so wepreach, and so ye believed. 12Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead,6 how say some among you7 that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen [not even Christ hath risen, οὐδὲχρ. ἐγήγερται]: 14And if Christ be [hath] not risen, then is our preaching8 vain, and8 your faith is also vain. 15Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of [against, κατὰ] God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain [fruitless, ματαία]; ye are yet in yoursins. 18Then they also which are fallen asleep [fell asleep, κοιμηθέντες] in Christ are19[om. are] perished. If in this life only we have hope [If only in this life we havebeen hoping] in Christ9, we are of all men most miserable. 20But now is Christ risen [has Christ been raised, ἐγήγερται] from the dead, and become10 [om. and become] 21the first fruits of them that slept [have been sleeping, κεκοιμημένων]11. For sinceby man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adamall die [are dying, ἀποθνήσκουσιν]12, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order [orderly rank, τάγματι]:13 Christ the first fruits; afterward they 24that are Christ’s at his coming [appearing, παρουσίᾳ]. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up [he delivereth over, παραδιδῷ] the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down [done away with, καταργήσῃ]14 all rule, and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death [Death, the enemy, shall at last be done away with, καταργε͂ιται]. 27For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, All things are [have been, ὑποτέτακται]15 put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which [it is with the exception of him who16, ἐκτὺς τοῦ ὑποτάξαντος] did put all things under him. 28And when all things shall be subdued unto him17, then shall the Son also himself be subject [subject himself, ὑποταγήσεται]18 unto him that put all things under him, that God may be [the, τὰ] all in all19.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

[We now come to what may be called the crowning glory of this Epistle, viz., a demonstration of the truth of a future resurrection. Forming, as it does, a portion of the burial service in nearly every Christian church, it has come to be associates with our tenderest and most hallowed recollections, as affording to us precious consolation in regard to departed friends, and laying the foundation for our own triumph in the hour of death. It is not surprising, therefore, that it should have been made the subject of more earnest study than any other portion of this Epistle, and that every line and word of it has been searched for golden meanings. Happy will it be for us, if we shall be able to set forth its deep significance in any thing of its true light, and so contribute some share towards increasing and strengthening the faith of the Church].

For fuller information respecting the opponents of the doctrine of the resurrection, who are here refuted, see what is said on 1 Corinthians 15:12.

[The points of the argument are as follows: 1. Whether there is any resurrection of the dead (1 Corinthians 15:1-34). The affirmative is proven—first, by a reference to the fact that Christ did rise from the dead with the evidence which establishes it (1 Corinthians 15:1-11); secondly, by showing the absurdity of the contrary doctrine in several particulars. 2. What will be the nature of the bodies that shall be raised up (1 Corinthians 15:35-51). This is illustrated by various analogies, and also set forth in direct statement as to some of the peculiar characteristics of the risen body. 3. What will become of those who shall be alive at the second advent (1 Corinthians 15:51-54). 4. The practical consequences of this doctrine].

1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Paul here begins to lay the foundation for his demonstration, which rests upon a fact not denied by the opponents of the doctrine of a general resurrection, viz., that of Christ’s resurrection. First of all, he reminds the Corinthians that this doctrine had formed a part of the fundamental contents of that Gospel which he had proclaimed among them from the first.—Moreover,—δέ here indicates an advance in his discourse, a transition to an entirely different subject; for there is no connection between this and the preceding chapter.—brethren, I declare unto you—γνωρίζω; the word is neither equivalent to ὑπομιμνήσκω, I remind you, [Chrys., Bloomf., Billr.]; nor yet to I call your attention to [(Rück.); both which meanings are inadmissible from the usage of the word, as maybe seen in Rob. Lex.; though Stanley affirms that in all the passages, where it is used in the earlier epistles, it carries these significations]. It means, I make known, I declare. The expression has something of solemnity in it, as though he were about to make a new proclamation. What he intends, however, is to remind them of something already known, about which their recollection needed to be refreshed; [unless there is a latent sarcasm in the word, intimating that though professing Christians—“brethren,” they had so far forgotten one of the fundamental tenets of their faith that they needed to have it proclaimed to them anew].—the Gospel—[Not indeed the whole Gospel (as Alford), but that which so lies at the foundation of the whole Gospel, that which is its main condition and verification to such an extent that by metonymy it might be said to be the Gospel, so that the expression is here used for the purpose of showing the essential importance of the subject of which he was about to treat. And, also, by applying to the doctrine of the resurrection the designation of Gospel he teaches them that it is not a point on which they were at liberty to form any opinion they might choose, without prejudice to their own salvation].—Respecting this he mentions four particulars, in regular climax, by which he exhibits its claim upon their faith.—which I preached unto you,—[i.e., when he first went among them to lay the foundations of the Church].—which also ye received,—[not ‘have received.’ The aorist signification must be adhered to as important, pointing to what took place at the first—their cordial reception of his proclamation].—in which also ye stand;—He here indicates the firm maintenance of what had been accepted as truth on the part of the great majority of the Church (2 Corinthians 1:24; Romans 5:2). [This remark is not intended to flatter them; because all to whom he wrote firmly believed that Christ died and rose again. Were it not for this, he could have built on the fact no argument that was valid for them. But though believing this, all had not drawn the same conclusion in respect to a resurrection as he had; so that he is here pointing to that faith among them to which he was about to appeal in support of what he had to say. And then, to finish his climax by showing the personal importance of that faith, he adds,—through which also ye are saved,—By the use of the present tense the attainment of salvation is here presentiated, as though it were something altogether certain]. Yet that he means hereby an attainment still future, is clear from the conditional clause appended. The repetition of the κα ὶ, also, serves to introduce the successive particulars which form the climax, [and also to strengthen the assertions].—with what word I preached unto you, if ye hold fast,—There is a question as to the connection in which this clause stands with what precedes. Luther and some after him take this to be a further definition of what is alluded to in the opening clause of the first verse, q. d., ‘I remind you of the gospel, in what form I proclaimed it to you;’ but the conditional words “if ye hold fast” do not suit with the expression “I remind you.” They also contradict the assertion that they were standing still on the doctrine in question, and they furnish no point, of junction with what follows, “unless ye have believed in vain.” We must therefore connect the clause before us with what immediately precedes, recognizing here an inversion of the natural order of words for the sake of emphasis, q. d., “if ye hold fast with what word I preached the gospel unto you.” To be understood, we here see the condition stated upon which their salvation would be secured; [so that it is an argumentum ad hominem, put in advance for the purpose of conciliating their interest in the truth he was about to demonstrate].—By the expression “with what word” (τίνι λόγῳ) he denotes either the contents of what he had delivered to them (Meyer) [so that it is equivalent to “what,” as in the E. V.]; or the grounds out of which (Acts 10:29), or with which he established his argument. So Bengel: “qua ratione, quis argumentis.” The latter is the more correct interpretation; since in what follows he not merely gives the contents of his preaching (the fundamental facts of redemption), but also he brings emphatically to view the grounds of its truth and validity. Luther’s welcher Gestalt may embrace both significations. To, suppose an allusion here to the simplicity of his style, is a little too far fetched. By ‘holding fast’ (κατέχειν) he means, not simply an intellectual retention, a preservation of the thing in the memory, to which the interrogative τίνι appears to point, but a holding fast, in such a manner that a person is certain of the thing. [May it not go still further and point to the practical regard for the truth in their life and conduct, so as to signify their perseverance in saving faith?]—That the fact of their salvation is admissible only on the condition of a steadfast maintenance of this truth, is still further exhibited apagogically.—unless ye believed in vain.—i.e. their failure of salvation was conceivable only on the hardly supposable condition that their exercise of faith was a vain and fruitless thing.—εἰκῇ, in vain (comp. Galatians 4:11; Galatians 3:4). [It may mean either without cause, or without effect, i. e., to no purpose. If the former, then Paul means to say, ‘unless ye believe without evidence’ ‘had no ground for your faith.’ 20 If the latter, the meaning is ‘unless your faith is worthless,’ and this was a thing not to be supposed. The latter best suits the connection]. On ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ see 1 Corinthians 14:5. This clause is more correctly attached to the main proposition contained in the word “ye are saved,” to which that which follows is subordinate, and to be taken as confirming it together with the condition annexed. The act of believing stands in the closest relation to the gospel as the subjective appropriation of its proffered salvation; and to assert its fruitlessness (which from the Christian standpoint is utterly unconceivable) would be equivalent to the denial of all salvation through the gospel. But, if we attach the words before us only to the conditional clause immediately preceding, and that too in relation to the phrase “with what word I preached to you,” then would εἰκῇ be equivalent to rashly, i.e., without sufficient grounds, q. d., ‘if ye hold fast the grounds on which I preach the gospel to you; otherwise it would follow that ye believed without grounds, in a shallow, superficial manner.’ Or, if we connect it with the words “if ye hold fast,” then some such clause must be supplied as ‘but ye do hold it fast altogether,’—which would not suit. Adopting the former reference, the connection is indeed simple, and the sense good and strong, but it is calculated rather to awaken confidence, than to warn against danger (Meyer assumes both?!), or to hinder their abuse of it to a false security (Osiander).—For I delivered to you—The question here arises, first of all, with what is this to be connected? Is that here set forth an explanation of his manner of discourse (τίνι λόγῳ), either as to its contents (Meyer and de Wette), or as to its grounds? or is it to be referred back to the main statement in the first verse, “I declare unto you?” The latter is to be preferred, inasmuch as the manner of discourse is spoken of in a subordinate clause. His meaning is, ‘what I now hold up before you, viz., the truth of Christ’s resurrection in its bearing on our salvation, is only a proclamation of that gospel which I preached unto you at the beginning.’ Here he speaks in relation to the fact itself, and that too in its significance for the faith, according to the Scriptures.—Catholic expositors use the word παρέδωκα support of the legitimacy of tradition.—among the first (things),—in the order of time [Chrys.]; or still better, in importance, in primis, before all, “as belonging to the weightiest articles of faith. Burger: “as one of the first points.” Neander. [Rückert connects the words directly with “to you,” as though the Corinthians were “among the first” to have the doctrine preached to them; which is not true. The following passages from LXX. may throw some light on the expression: “and he placed the two maid servants and their children first, ἐν πρώτοις (Genesis 33:2); “and David said whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first,” ἐν πρώτοις (2 Samuel 5:8).] He here takes into account, not simply the order of time, but also the momentousness of the thing communicated.—what also I have received,—παρέλαβον, because it stands correllative to παρέδωκα, is to be understood otherwise than in 1 Corinthians 15:2, as denoting the simple reception of a thing imparted; and this, not through human tradition only, but also by special inward revelation from the Lord. The fact itself, i.e., of Christ’s death which he was about to speak of, he had undoubtedly learned before his conversion; but he is here treating not solely of the fact, but likewise of its significance for a life of faith, and this he had to learn by revelation. So too in regard to the resurrection. This he had heard of and flouted as fable; but its verity was at last disclosed to him in such a manner by the glorious appearance of Christ in the way, that all doubt in reference to it as though the death had been only one in appearance, or a deception, was entirely dissipated; and by a subsequent illumination, which explained to him the bearing of Scripture upon these facts, they had obtained his full and firm faith as the fundamental articles of his religious creed. [And in saying that ‘he delivered’ only what ‘he had received,’ he was but asserting the faithful discharge of his duty as an apostle, which was to proclaim at first hand, as it were, the truth of Christ].—that Christ died for our sins,—Here the expiatory power of Christ’s death is clearly indicated as in 1 Corinthians 1:13; Romans 5:8 (by the simple ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν); comp. Galatians 1:4; 1 Peter 2:24; Romans 3:24 ff; Romans 4:25.—ὑπὲρ περὶ, for the sake of. [Stanley says, “for our sins,” not merely ‘in our behalf,’ which would have been ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, as in Romans 5:8; nor ‘in our place’ which would have been ἀντὶ ἡμῶν; but ‘as an offering in consequence of our sins,’ ‘to deliver us from our sins.’ “ ‘Υπὲρ has the same ambiquity as the English for, in behalf of; but the idea of service and protection always predominates. Whenever in speaking of Christ’s death the idea of substitution is intended, it is under the figure of a ransom; in which case it is expressed by ἀντὶ (Matthew 20:28; Mark 10:45). Whenever the idea of covering or forgiving sins is intended, it is under the figure of a sin-offering in which case the word used is περὶ, as in Rom 8:3; 1 Peter 3:18; 1Jn 2:2; 1 John 4:10; περὶ ἁμαπτἰας or ἁμαρτιῶν.—But what connection has this with the doctrine of resurrection? Much every way. Christ’s death could not have availed to expiate sin had he remained under the power of death. In order to prove that He died not for His own sins, but for the sins of others, and to demonstrate this ability and right to confer pardon and blessedness as the Lord of life, it was necessary for Him to rise again. Hence though atonement is secured by His death, yet righteousness comes through His resurrection (Rom. 5:25). To deny his resurrection, therefore, is to annul also the efficacy of His sacrifice, and with this all hope of pardon through Him. And the fatal extent to which the denial of any fact must carry us, should be shown as a part of the argument in its defence].—according to the Scriptures:—He here intimates that Christ’s death for our sins was the fulfilment of the divine counsel foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures. The use of the plural points to the long line of witnesses which runs through the various portions of the sacred record (comp. Matthew 26:54; Luke 24:32). “We must keep in view the manner in which the calling of the Messiah was regarded. It was one towards which the entire development of the theocracy was continually tending, and which therefore might be found indicated in various ways. The apostles do not distinguish between the ideal and the literal reference, as this was not the way of the Holy Spirit, but only of scientific investigation.” Neander. Paul here undoubtedly had in mind, not simply such prophecies as Isaiah 53:0, but also such types as the offerings and the paschal lamb. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 5:7). [Paul protested before Festus that in preaching the Gospel he had said, “none other things than those which Moses and the prophets had said, should come that Christ should suffer, and that He should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people and to the Gentiles.” And he assured the Romans that his gospel was “witnessed to by the law and the prophets.” Thus it will be seen that the doctrine of atonement for sin by the death of Christ pervades the entire Word of God. Hence not to believe in it was declared by our Lord to indicate “folly and slowness of heart” (Luke 24:25; Luke 24:27)].—And that he was buried,—[This is an important fact, both as indicating the undoubted truth of His having died, and as the necessary antecedent to the resurrection. In entering the grave our Lord but finished the course appointed for all mankind, and it was the natural fulfilment of His earthly career. The fact, therefore, properly forms a distinct article in our creed].—and that he has been raised on the third day,—ἐγήγερται. The perfect indicates that the fact is not a transient one like that of dying and being buried,—marks the continuation of the state just begun, or of its consequences—‘has been raised and is alive.’—according to the Scriptures:—The testimony here referred to bears primarily on the fact of His having risen (comp. Psalms 16:10; Acts 13:34 ff.; Isaiah 53:8-10 ff.), including also the time of His rising which is hinted at in the type of Jonah (comp. Matthew 12:40; Matthew 16:4). But this type, as well as the prophecy in Isaiah 53:9, allows also of a reference to the burial; but the repetition of ὃτι before ἐγήγερται forms an objection to this reference. Besides, it is only the two essential factors in the work of redemption, viz.: the death and the resurrection of Christ that are sustained upon Scripture testimony. So Meyer Exodus 3:0. [But how can this be, when Peter referred in his speech at Pentecost to the declaration of David, “thou wilt not leave my soul in hell neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption,” as a prophecy of Christ’s burial and resurrection?]

1 Corinthians 15:5-7. And that he was seen of Cephas,—The ὃτι, that, shows that in grammatical structure the dependance of the clauses upon παρέδωκα, 1 Corinthians 15:3, is still maintained; while the independent statements begin at the next verse. From this, however, it does not follow that he had delivered to them merely that which is asserted in 1 Corinthians 15:5. He undoubtedly is here recapitulating the whole testimony in proof of Christ’s resurrection, as he had often given it to them. That he is following the chronological order of the evidence, is clear from the use of the definite adverbs of sequence, “then,” “after that,” “last of all.”—The appearance of the risen Saviour to Peter, recorded Luke 24:34, ‘is mentioned first, not “because the authority of Peter was the chiefest, as being the prince of the apostles” (Estius), but in accordance with the historical order of occurrences, passing over, however, the manifestation previously made of Himself to Mary Magdalene (John 20:14 f.). “Mary Magdalene was, indeed, a witness to the brethren, but not to the people at large,”—W. F. Besser; [and to have cited her testimony would, with multitudes, at that period, have tended to call out a sneer, rather than strengthen belief].—then of the twelve:—This was the common designation of the smaller circle of disciples, although it was not then complete [“twelve being a name, not of number, but of office”]; and the manifestation here alluded to (Luke 24:36 ff.; John 20:19 ff.) is not to be confounded with that which followed eight days after (John 20:26). Thomas also was not present. The apostles appear also here as witnesses of the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:23; Acts 3:15; Acts 10:40 ff; Acts 13:31). By ὥφθη, was seen, we are to understand a literal perception by the senses, and not a vision. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once;—The manifestation here spoken of is nowhere else recorded; in Matthew 28:16 mention is made only of “the eleven.” The expression “at once” implies that the “more than five hundred” saw Him, not separately, but altogether; and this probably took place at a time when numerous Galilean disciples were still at Jerusalem, and therefore before the termination of the festival season. The fact that about the time of Pentecost only about one hundred and twenty disciples are spoken of, does not militate with this supposition. [Hodge says, “This manifestation may have taken place on the occasion when Christ met His disciples in Galilee.” Before His death He told them, “After I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee,” Matthew 26:32. Early in the morning of His resurrection, He met the women who had been at His tomb, and said to them, “Be not afraid; go tell my brethren, that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me,” Matthew 28:10; and accordingly in 1 Corinthians 15:16 it is said, “Then the eleven went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.” “This, therefore, was a formally appointed meeting, and doubtless made known as extensively as possible to His followers; and it is probable, therefore, that there was a concourse of all who could come, not only from Jerusalem, but from the surrounding country, and from Galilee. Though intended specially for the eleven, it is probable that all attended who knew of the meeting, and could possibly reach the appointed place. Who would willingly be absent on such an occasion?”—Hodge].—of whom the greater part remain until now,—This is added to show that a large number of witnesses of the resurrection could still be called upon for their testimony. [And here we have a most striking proof of the fact before us. Had the resurrection of Christ been only a fiction, “so many false hearts and tongues would never have acted in concert; nor would they all have kept a secret, which remorse, interest, and perhaps often torture, might urge them to divulge—especially as there had been one traitor among the twelve; on account of which, had they been conscious of a fraud, a general suspicion of each other’s secrecy must have arisen.” Doddridge].—Μένειν, as in John 21:22; Philippians 1:25).—but some are fallen asleep.—[The sweet language of the gospel for expressing the nature of the believer’s death—transforming its very terrors into attractions. It carries in itself also the implication of an after-awakening, and hence is the only term that could be used when speaking of death in a discourse on the resurrection].—After that he was seen of James;—This manifestation, which happened to a single individual, is also alluded to only here. This James is undoubtedly the brother of our Lord mentioned Galatians 2:9, as among the “pillars” of the church; he is also introduced in Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18 as a specially important personage, one of “the brethren of the Lord,” 1 Corinthians 9:5. It was this manifestation of the risen Saviour that proved indeed for him and his brethren the turning-point of their lives, so that they at once became His decided followers (Acts 1:14). According to the legend in ‘the gospel of the Hebrews,’ cited by Jerome, James was honored before all others with a manifestation of Christ. This story is a product of the Jewish tendency to hero-worship.—then by all the apostles.—Inasmuch as the twelve have been already mentioned, the disposition with many (Chrys., Calvin, and others) is to take these words in a more comprehensive sense, so as to include James also, and other eye-witnesses of the life of Jesus, It is a question whether this manifestation occurred immediately before the ascension. There is nothing in the narratives of this fact to contradict the supposition. [“The word ‘all’ may be used to indicate that the appearance was to the apostles collectively; and this, from its position, is the most natural explanation. Or the meaning may be, He appeared to James separately, and then to all the apostles, including James. If the James intended was James of Jerusalem; and if that James were a different person from James the son of Alpheus (a disputed point), then the former interpretation should be preferred. For ‘the apostle’ answers to ‘the twelve,’ and if James of Jerusalem was not the son of Alpheus, he was not one of the twelve.” Hodge]. “It was a providential circumstance that Paul was led to adduce these witnesses for the appearance of Christ after the resurrection. Should any one be inclined to doubt the genuineness of the testimonies of the Evangelists on this point, and to assume in these a mythic element, he is here entirely debarred from so doing; since nobody ever has doubted,. or will doubt the genuineness of this epistle, and Paul is here speaking of historical facts throughout. Accordingly, we may say that the resurrection of Christ is a fact as well attested as any in the past. Without it there would be a gap in history unfilled; since the resurrection is essentially presupposed in the very existence of the Church as built up by the Apostle.” Neander.

1 Corinthians 15:8-10. He here mentions himself as the last apostolic witness of the resurrection. In one respect, indeed, he stood after the others; but in respect of that which he had wrought by the power of divine grace, he had become distinguished above them all.—But last of all,—πάντων, of all, is not to be taken as neuter (as de Wette, [Hodge, Alford, who take the whole phrase here as an adverb of order, winding up the whole series]), but as masculine, and is to be referred in accordance with the context to the apostles.—as it were by the untimely born,—ὡσπερεὶ precedes for the sake of modifying the strong and remarkable expression which follows. The τῷ is neither to be taken for τῷ τινί, since this form no where occurs in the New Testament, not even in 1 Thessalonians 4:6; neither is it equivalent to the indefinite article; but it is here emphatic, the, and by it Paul designates himself as preëminently the unworthy one among all the rest, [“the only abortion in the whole company—the one whose relation to the rest in point of worthiness was as that of the immature and deformed child to the rest of the family.” Alford]. The point of comparison is not in the matter of a suitable education, such as was furnished to the other apostles by a longer intercourse with the Lord wherein he lacked [Eustatius, Bloomf., and Macknight]; nor yet in the suddenness and violence of his conversion and appointment to the apostleship (Calvin); and still less his diminutive form (Wetstein); but as 1 Corinthians 15:9 shows, his unworthiness in comparison with the other apostles. [“The corresponding word abortivus in Latin was metaphorically applied as here to such senators as were appointed irregularly. Suet., Oct. c. 35, 2). The word itself is of Macedonian Greek and corresponds to the Attic “ἅμβλωμα”. Stanley].—he was seen also by me.—The seeing here connot be regarded as a mere mental vision, [as some are inclined to interpret the event which took place on the way to Damascus; but in consistency with all the previous manifestations here spoken of, we must regard this appearance] as an actual objective one, just such as we are to anticipate from the glorified Redeemer in His second advent. [There is a meaning not to be overlooked in the order of the words here. “Also by me” forms a sort of climax expressing the great wonder in the condecension of Christ to him in this manifestation of himself. Paul could never advert to the grace of Christ shown towards him without being brought both to feel and express in contrast therewith his own great unworthiness. See Tim. 1 Corinthians 1:12-13. On the subject of “Paul a witness for the resurrection of Jesus,” see an able article by Prof. G. P. Fisher, in the “Bib. Sac.” Vol. XVII. p. 620 ff.] And now comes the reason for this self-disparagement.—For I am the least of the apostles,—(comp. Ephesians 3:8). ‘O ἐλάχιστος, the least, as contrasted with μέγιστος, the greatest; without any reference to the order of time, as though implying ‘the last’; for the word is never used in this sense in connection with persons. It is more fully explained in the following relative clause.—who—ο͂ς=quippe qui, ‘inasmuch as I’—am not fit—ἱκανὸς ὰξιος, worthy (comp. Matthew 3:11; with John 1:27). lit. sufficiently qualified, fit, suitable, as in 2 Corinthians 3:5.—to be called—καλεῖσθαι here denotes honorable designation ‘to bear the name of ’—an apostle,—The reason of this is—because I persecuted the Church of God.—[This is the sin which Paul never forgave himself, and from it we see that the forgiveness of sin does not obliterate the remembrance of sin, neither does it remove the sense of unworthiness and ill-desert (Hodge)]. Comp. 1 Timothy 1:13; Acts 8:3; Acts 9:1; Acts 22:4; Acts 24:0; Galatians 1:13 ff. [“Paul does not refuse to be the most worthless of all, as next to nothing, provided this contempt does not impede him in any degree in his ministry, or does not at all detract from his doctrine.” Calvin]. But the lower he humbles himself, so that no opponent might see him lower, the more decidedly he brings to view the other side—the glorious operation of divine grace in him or through him. “His apostolic office he will not allow to be contemned inasmuch as God had through him wrought more abundantly. By reason of opposers he feels constrained to array himself in his calling and boast.”—Luther.—But by God’s grace I am what I am:—χάριτι, grace, stands first by way of emphasis. No article is needed. What he means to say is, ‘God’s grace it is which has made me what I am.’ Grace presupposes unworthiness in the recipient. It is unmerited love, favor; here as forgiving, renewing and qualifying for office (comp. 1 Corinthians 3:10). The latter element, grounded upon the two former, appears more prominently in what follows. In “what I am” he refers to his office as an apostle and to his qualification for it; (or as Meyer, Exodus 3:0, his whole present state and condition as distinguished from what he was before his conversion. This is further developed in the following clauses, where he points to the consequences of the divine favor towards him in fitting him for his work; first, negatively.—and his grace which was (manifested) toward me was not made vain;—i.e., was not void of fruit. But that this negative statement was far below the actual facts of the case, he goes on to show.—but more abundantly than they all did I labor:—And this was precisely the fruit of the operation of the divine grace. And lest this should seem to be regarded by him as an occasion for boasting, he at once repudiates all claim to honor in the most emphatic manner, showing that, after all, the efficient agent in all his labors was not himself, so much as it was the grace of God working in him and through him.—yet not I, but the grace of God with me.—If we read σὺν ἑμοί without the article then it must be taken as connected with some words to be supplied as the following: ‘labored more abundantly with me,’ i.e., standing by me, or in active coöperation with me (Meyer). [See the critical notes on this point. Calvin attributes the omission of the ἡ to the blunder of some old translator, and insists on its maintenance to obviate the inference of Semipelagians from this text, who would ascribe half the praise of success to God and half to man as being joint-laborers in the work. But the preponderance of authority is for the omission of the article, it being obviously inserted apparently for the purpose of vindicating the absoluteness of Divine Grace. But it is not needed for this. The language of the Apostle is decisive enough without this—“not I, but the grace of God did it”]. Comp. Mark 16:20. By this antithesis, which is not to be weakened into, ‘not only I, but also,’ or into, ‘as well I, as,’ the entire glory of successful achievement is attributed to Divine Grace (comp. 1 Corinthians 3:5; Philippians 2:13; Matthew 10:20, and elsewhere). περισσότερον, neuter accusative, not to be taken adverbially [(Alford Stanley)].—αὐτῶν πάντων, not, than Any individual of them, but, than all put together. The explanation of this is to be found in his widely extended sphere of labor.—κοπιᾶν properly means to be weary, or, become weary; then, to exhaust one’s self by working, to strain one’s self; but here on account of the contrast, “not in vain,” and because afterwards the Divine Grace is shown to be the real subject, it can only denote the work with its results; while elsewhere it denotes the work as an exhausting effort (comp. 1 Corinthians 4:12; Galatians 4:11).—From this digression, introduced no less by the fervor of his spirit than on account of the condition of affairs in the Corinthian church—a digression, however, not to be construed as a grammatical parenthesis—he now returns to his main theme.

1 Corinthians 15:11; 1 Corinthians 15:13. Whether, therefore,—οὑν as in 1 Corinthians 8:4.—I or they,—i.e., the other apostles with whom he henceforward associates himself. “Such was the perfect agreement among all the apostles in reference to the appearance of the risen Saviour.” Neander. In the expression “I or they,” the Apostle casts a polemic glance at the oppugners of his apostolic office.—so we preach,—The “so” is to be explained from what is said from 1 Corinthians 15:4-12. It refers to the great fact in question and its proofs.—and so ye believed.—The “so” here is equivalent to “thereby,” viz., that such doctrines have been preached to you; [or, it may be like the previous “so,” meaning after this manner, viz., as above stated].—ἐτιστεύσατε, as in 1 Corinthians 15:2. “The accordant and powerful testimony of the apostles is here accredited by its fruits; the Corinthians themselves are here summoned as witnesses through the faith they once exercised.” Osiander. “Faith once accorded often strengthens subsequent faith; and its former strength not only obligates, but often retains the wavering.” Bengel.

1 Corinthians 15:12. Over against the preaching of the eye-witnesses of Christ’s resurrection, and the faith it secured, he now exhibits in contrast the denial of any resurrection from the dead on the part of some in the church. And he mentions it as something in the highest degree strange and incredible that such a denial could be made, when (as he afterwards shows) it involved a denial also of that which was the burden of the apostles’ preaching, and lay at the foundation of their faith.—But if Christ is preached—εἰ δὲ Χριστὸς κηρύσσεται—not a hypothetical but an actual condition (Passow, εἰ, I. A. 1. a.), q. d., ‘since Christ is preached.’—Christ is mentioned first by way of emphasis; for the contradiction lies here between the preaching of Christ as one risen from the dead, and the denial of any resurrection from the dead.—that he rose from the dead,—Some readings put ἐκ νεκρῶν before ό́τι; if this were critically established, the transposition of the natural order would be for the sake of emphasis also; but such a double emphasis is hardly probable.—how say some among you—i.e., how is it possible that they can say? It does not comport with the fact supposed, that in the midst of you, a Christian church, there are any who say—that there is no resurrection from the dead?—οὐκ ἐ̓στι, is not, ‘is not to take place’ (comp. Ephesians 6:9). The whole exposition proceeds on the supposition that the fact of Christ’s resurrection was not a matter of controversy. Hence, the Apostle was able to plant himself on this well-attested theme of Apostolic preaching, and controvert opposers on the ground that their assertions would, by implication, go to undermine the foundations on which both stood, and with it overthrow the whole scheme of salvation by Christ. That these people were Sadducees, is altogether improbable, since this class, by reason of their peculiar views, altogether ignored the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 4:2), and kept far aloof from Christianity. Besides, had they been contemplated, the mode of argument pursued would have been far different. From what is said in 1 Corinthians 15:32, we might suppose them to have been Epicureans; but these persons whose anti-christian tenets would have required a still more definite refutation, remained at as great a remove from Christianity as did the Sadducees; and what is read in 1 Corinthians 15:32, is no more than a practical deduction of the Apostle from the premises assumed, and it naturally follows upon his description of a practical Epicureanism (Isaiah 22:13). So, too, we can hardly look to find in Corinth Jewish Christians of a theosophic class, who denied the doctrine of a re-incorporation of the soul on the grounds of a false spiritualism. “The Essenes certainly may have accepted the doctrine of a personal existence after death, in a form not involving the doctrine of the resurrection; but there is nothing else here which points to the elements of their faith.” Neander. It is more natural to suppose that these opponents were heathen converts of a certain philosophic training, who sought to impose, or taught doctrines that were very seductive to the Corinthians, predisposed as they already were to them. Such would regard, with abhorrence, the idea of a restoration of their material part, and hence for such, an argument like that in 1 Corinthians 15:35 ff. was entirely suitable. Among the philosophically educated of all ages we discover a disinclination for this doctrine; and in this question, to seek out a reference to the several parties that existed in the Christian Church, would be uncertain business. In any case, these opposers could not have belonged to the party of Cephas, or of Paul; and they could be reckoned in the Christ party, only on the doubtful supposition that this was characterized by a theosophic spiritualism. And if we assigned them to the party of Apollos, they could only have been certain individuals of this party who denied the doctrine in question by reason of their philosophical peculiarities, and not the party as a whole. It was, in fact, no party question. Besides, there is no warrant for supposing that, like the false teachers mentioned in 2 Timothy 2:18, they regarded the resurrection as past already. Moreover, we are not to infer from 1 Corinthians 15:19 that, together with the resurrection of the body, they also denied the immortality of the soul. Bather we are to infer from this verse only this, that in the Apostle’s view the immortality of the soul was inconceivable without assuming the possibility of a re-incorporation or of a restoration and glorification of the bodily life, that the continued existence of the simple personality (Ichheit) was no true life.

1 Corinthians 15:13; 1 Corinthians 15:16, That the preaching of Christ’s resurrection was inconsistent with a denial of the resurrection of the dead, the Apostle proceeds to show by a chain of conclusions and consequences connected by δέ—But—[“the but argumentandi frequent in mathematical demonstrations.” Alford.]—if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ is risen:—[First consequence—a palpable absurdity, not only in view of what a being Christ was, but also in view of all the testimony offered to the contrary.] He here argues from the general to the special, since the denial of the former naturally involved that of the latter, it being included under it. ‘If there is no such thing at all as the resurrection from the dead, then must this hold good also of Christ. He also has not risen from the dead.’ The identity of Christ’s nature with that of mankind at large—a fact which underlies this whole argument—is not suspended or dissolved by His Divine Sonship and His sinlessness. For, in that He emptied Himself of His former glory, He became a veritable actual man (σάρξ); and if He died, though sinless, then can the restoration of His body not be affirmed, if such a restoration is impossible for men in general who are dead. Of Christ as the first-fruits (1 Corinthians 15:20) nothing is as yet said, so that an argument can be drawn of this sort: ‘If the effect is done away, then also must the cause go with it.’ The statement, “then is Christ not risen,” is not put forth here as a premise (Osiander); but with the exhibition of the impossible conclusion here set forth his whole series of inferences, as it were, celebrates its first triumph. What consequences must arise if Christ be not risen, if he still remains in the grave, he now goes on to show.—And if Christ has not arisen, vain then is our preaching,—[A second consequence—the absurdity of holding that the Gospel with all its provisions and promises, with all it had done, and yet proposed to effect, was a delusion]. κενὀν, which stands first by way of emphasis, means here groundless, untrue, without reality, not ‘fruitless’—a thought which first appears in 1 Corinthians 15:17. Still less are we to take the two meanings as here combined. The thought is this: since the redemption in Christ is the grand theme of gospel preaching, and has the resurrection of Christ as its essential foundation, therefore, all preaching without this mast be empty, groundless, unreal, ἄρα, then, brings the inference yet more prominently to view. If the καί is genuine, then the meaning is, if the former be not true, then the latter is not true also.’—The same inference holds good also of the subjective reception of the preaching.—vain also is your faith.—The two refer back to what is said in 1 Corinthians 15:11; although the preaching must here be taken in a more comprehensive sense.—ὑμῶν, your is undoubtedly the correct reading; not ἡμῶν our.—To the former clause there is added a third inference, which sets the preachers in a very bad light.—And we are found also false witnesses of God;—From the fact that this again is to be inferred from the supposition that Christ is not risen, it does not follow that this clause belongs in with the previous apodosis, and that simply a comma is to be put after ὑμῶν (Lachmann and Meyer), [or after ‘faith,’ as in our version]. Such punctuation and construction is also inconsistent with the δὲ καὶ; [besides, as Alford says, 1 Corinthians 15:15 does not depend on the condition expressed in 1 Corinthians 15:14, “if Christ be not risen,” but has its reason given below.]—εὐρισκόμεθα is put first for emphasis, and means we are found, or proven, as before a tribunal of investigation.—ψευδομάρτυρες τοῦθεοῦ, either false witnesses concerning God (gen. obj.,) or false witnesses belonging to God (gen. subj.), i.e., who pretend to be witnesses and are not. The former interpretation is sustained by the following explanatory clause.—[“Observe, false witnesses, not mistaken witnesses. Paul allows no loophole of escape. The resurrection is a fact, or else a falsehood; and it is such persons as Peter, and John, and James, and himself, that are guilty of perpetrating it—a monstrous supposition, when we think of the men, and the truthful ring of their earnest declarations, and the seal they put to them.” Robertson.]—because we testified against God that he raised up Christ:—If a person says of God that He has done something which He has not done, and yet could have done, then is he a false witness in relation to Him, and the false testimony given is a testimony against Him (κατά as in Matthew 26:59-62 not equivalent to περί, in respect of [Alford], nor yet as summoning God for a witness like ὸμόσαι κατά Hebrews 6:13). For, knowingly to ascribe to God anything untrue, is a wicked and hostile crime against Him; and this would be a veritable lie, since they had announced something as an act of God actually witnessed by them, which yet never did take place, and indeed was impossible,—whom he did not raise, if in reality (as they assert)—such is the force of εί́περ, the strengthened εἰ; and ἅρα which means accordingly.—the dead are not raised.—The last statement is confirmed in 1 Corinthians 15:16, which is almost a literal repetition of 1 Corinthians 15:13, and is introduced for the sake of precision. [“But why is this? Why may not a man admit that Christ, the incarnate Son of God, arose from the dead, and yet consistently deny that there is to be a general resurrection of the dead? Because the thing denied was that the dead could rise. The denial was placed on ground which embraced the case of Christ.” Hodge].

1 Corinthians 15:17-19. Here follows a new series of inferences exhibiting the sad result of the doctrine of his opponents upon the salvation of Christians themselves. As before he expressed the groundlessness, and hence the falsity of the faith, on the supposition of these deniers, by the word κενή, empty, idle; so now he expresses its fruitlessness by the word ματαία.—And if Christ is not risen, vain is your faith;—Vain i.e., without any beneficial results (comp. 1 Corinthians 3:20; Titus 3:9; James 1:26), as is clear from the clause which follows.—ye are yet in your sins.—Here we see that his reference is mainly to the matter of justification, which is primarily a remission of sins. All this is frustrated by the denial in question, since, as Paul asserts (Romans 4:25), Christ was raised for our justification. If Christ was still detained in the power of death, then could no pardon be pledged by Him; He could not act the part of Redeemer and Reconciler, but like all other sinners, would appear to have fallen under the doom of sin. Thus that expressed in 11. 1 Corinthians 2:0 : “Ye are justified in the name of the Lord, and by the Spirit of our God,” is all done away. The ethical side of Christianity, viz., sanctification and liberation from the dominion of sin, does not lie in the context.—The frightful consequences are shown to extend yet farther, affecting not only the living, but also the departed.—Then they also who have fallen asleep in Christ,—i.e., who have died in communion with Him, being united to Him by faith (comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:6; Rev. 4:13). By these he means, not the ancient saints who lived before the time of Christ, but deceased Christians, and these, too, not simply the martyrs (ἐν διά), but believers in general.—perished.—Perdition, according to the Scripture, is not annihilation, but the state of damnation, remaining in Gehenna; and this is here brought forward as a consequence of being yet in sin. If Christ did not rise for our justification, then those whose death seemed but a blessed sleep to a happy awaking in fellowship with their living and glorified Redeemer, so far from having been received into eternal life, were doomed still to abide under the wretched dominion of death. A consequence like this must have made too profound an impression upon the loving disposition of Christians to be lightly allowed. Whatever doctrine constrained them to regard their beloved associates in the faith as lost, must needs appear to them as in itself highly questionable. [“Here,” says Stanley, “we find the climax of the whole argument. As may be seen from 1 Thessalonians 4:13, one of the most harrowing thoughts to the apostolic Christians was the fear lest their departed brethren should, by a premature death, be debarred from that communion with the Lord which they hoped to enjoy; and in itself nothing could be more disheartening to the Christian’s hope, than to find that Christians had lived and died in vain”]. The method of proof here adopted, though indeed not carrying the force of a mathematical demonstration for unbelievers, is nevertheless fitted to strengthen the hearts of the faithful against the doubts of unbelief. It concludes with an impressive reference to the sad state of those Christians whose hope of eternal life, pledged through the resurrection of Christ, was thus cut off. This touching assertion is introduced without any verbal connective. Comp. 1 Corinthians 7:24 ff—If only in this life we have been hoping in Christ,—And here we must, first of all, take into consideration the correct order of the words. The received text puts ἐν χριστῶ after ἐσμέν. In this arrangement, which is feebly attested, we might be tempted to unite the μόνον with χριστῶ̣ as if equivalent to ε̇ν μόνω̣ τῶ̣ χριστῶ̣, q. d., ‘in Christ alone,’ which would be the better expression (Rückert). But in order to obtain a correct relation of the apodosis to the protasis, we must supply that on which it is properly conditioned, viz., ‘and Christ is not risen.’ But if ἐν χριστῶ̣ is to be put after ταὑτη, which is the more critically authorized order, then might we dispense with this otherwise not probable explanation. But then the question arises, to what does μόνον, only, belong? Is it to the words: “if we have hope,” so that it serves to express simply a hoping which remains unfulfilled, q. d., ‘if we have hope only?’ or to the words: “in this life,” putting it in contrast with eternal life; q. d., ‘if we have hope in this life only [Hodge]? Or, finally, does it belong to the whole clause; q.d., ‘if we have no more than put our hope on Christ in this life, and do not hope in Him even after having gone to our rest;’ or, as Meyer says, “if the hope of future glory which the Christian grounds upon Christ in his earthly life perishes with this life, inasmuch as death but transfers him to a state where the Christian hope proves but a deception” [Alford, Stanly]? The last interpretation deserves the decided preference. According to the first, it is not easy to perceive why the words: ἐν τῆ̣ ζωῆ̣ ταύτη̣, “in this life,” are put first. Indeed, they appear to be altogether unnecessary. The second is opposed by the position of μόνον, only. The expression ἐλπίζειν ἐν appears also in Ephesians 1:12, (spes reposita in Christo), and is analogous to πιστεύειν ἐν. The use of ζωή to denote the present period of existence as distinct from a state of existence, occurs only here and in Luke 16:25. Very short and impressive is the conclusion.—more miserable than all men are we.—i.e., all men, aside from us Christians that still live. In this statement, the Apostle by no means stoops to the level of a common eudemonism, [arguing here from a main reference to happiness as the ultimate end of life]; but his meaning is this: ‘Christians who live as strangers in this world, denying themselves in every way, and bearing life’s heavy load, and enduring all manner of sufferings, and this in the hope of an eternal reward in the kingdom of heaven, are, in case their hope is a vain dream destined to vanish with this life, more miserable than all those who take enjoyment in earthly things: for these things have some sort of reality; while, on the contrary, the salvation for which Christians forego all, and fight, is but a delusion. (Comp. Osiander). [If by ἐλεεινότεροι we understand a positive wretchedness, this declaration must be limited as applicable only to Christians as they were in the times of the apostles—exposed to all manner of privations and sufferings; for it can hardly be affirmed as true of Christians in general, that their faith makes their temporal condition more miserable than that of men of the world. Godliness hath the promise of the life that now is, as well as of that which is to come. This is a part of its glory—a glory which is not all eclipsed even amid the greatest tribulations; for martyrs rejoice and triumph even amid tortures and flames, “not accepting deliverance.” The inward happiness they experience is something which no mere outward circumstances, however painful, can wholly overcome. Would it not, therefore, be more appropriate to abide by the original signification of ἐλεεινός, pitiable, and understand it as referring to the delusion under which Christians would live, and the great disappointment they were destined to experience; in case, having given up all for Christ, and exulted in hope of living and reigning with Him after death, they should find at last that He had not risen, and there was no resurrection for them. Taken in this sense the declaration would admit of universal application. Some commentators, like the translators of the E. V., instead of construing the adjective in the comparative as governing the genitive πάντων , suppose a Hebrew idiom here, and take the genitive partitively, and construe the adjective as though superlative—‘of all men most miserable’ (Jelf. Gr. Gram. § 534)].

1 Corinthians 15:20-22. In contrast with the whole deplorable results which would follow on the supposition involved in the denial of his opponents, Paul now triumphantly sets before them the irrefragable fact of the resurrection as established by the testimony previously adduced (1 Corinthians 15:4 ff.) and also the significance which it has for the faith and hope of Christians—a significance which is itself a refutation of all skepticism. As Neander says: “He passes on to unfold the chain of consequences arising from the resurrection of Christ, and to exhibit it as the beginning of a new creation which is to find its consummation in the life to come. Nor does the rapture of the apostle, borne on as he is by the contemplation of the glorious theme, allow him to stop at the point where the argument first conducts him; but he follows out the truth onward to its final ground and goal.”—But now,—νυνὶδέ, logical as in 1Co 13:13; 1 Corinthians 14:6; and elsewhere. It suggests the subaudition: ‘If Christ has not risen then does it go ill with us.’ But now, as the matter stands, the case is far otherwise; these sad consequences cannot be admitted; our faith is not vain;—Christ is risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that have slept.—Instead of confronting gainsayers with a negative assertion, he strongly lays down a positive, which involves the denial of all the evil consequences above pointed out. Not only is Christ risen, but, as the risen One, He is the beginning of a whole line of those who are destined to arise out of death’s sleep to life eternal—the first fruits, as it were, of a resurrection harvest. The expression: “first fruits” stands in apposition with the previous clause, and contains the theme of the whole subsequent exposition. Ἀ παρχή as in 1 Corinthians 16:15; Romans 8:23; Romans 11:16; Romans 16:5. The same thought is expressed in Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5, by the words, “first born of the dead,” or, “from the dead” (comp. Acts 26:23).—That the primacy of time includes also a primacy of worth, and a causal relation to all that follows, is clear from the position which Christ holds as the Head of humanity, as well as from what is asserted in 1 Corinthians 15:21 f. But whether there is such a reference here to the waving of the first sheaf on the day after Easter Sabbath by way of consecrating the harvest (Lev. 32:10), is a matter of question. In favor of it there is: 1. The typico-symbolical interpretation which the apostle elsewhere employs (1 Corinthians 10:3 ff.; 1 Corinthians 9:8 ff.); 2. That Christ rose on that very day; 3. The composition of this epistle about the time of Easter (comp. 1 Corinthians 5:8). In this case the statement would involve the idea of a consecration and pledge of the coming harvest. [“The apostle does not mean merely that the resurrection of Christ was to precede that of His people: but, as the first sheaf of the harvest presented to God as a thank-offering, was the pledge and assurance of the ingathering of the whole harvest; so the resurrection of Christ is a pledge and proof of the resurrection of His people.” Hodge.] Neither the resurrections from the dead recorded in the Old and New Testaments, nor yet the instances of Enoch and Elijah are in contradiction with what is here said of Christ as the first fruits. In the case of the former, there was no arising to an immortal life; in the case of the latter, there was no dying, so that a resurrection could occur.—But whom are we to understand by “them that have slept?” believers, or the dead in general? The latter seem to be implied from what is said in 1 Corinthians 15:21; but that the former are meant is evident both from the expression “first fruits,” and also from the designation “sleep,” which is used in the New Testament to denote the death of believers only. The question must be decided by the interpretation we put on the following verses, [where we find the explanation of what is here asserted], in a parallel drawn between Adam and Christ,—first, in the form of a general proposition stating a rule of the divine administration, that what has been taken away from us by man shall be restored to us also by man.—For since—ἐπειδή, a particle of cause, not of time (as in 1 Corinthians 1:21; Acts 13:46); so that here we have a fundamental principle stated, apart from all relations to time, requiring in the following ellipsis only the supply of the ordinary copula.—through man (is) death, also through man (is) the resurrection of the dead.—The antithesis shows that by “death” is here meant only the death of the body. [The underlying truth here is that community of nature is requisite for the transmission of powerful and all-pervading influences. Like can best act on like. The nature of the causal connection is, however, not stated. Meyer thinks that a knowledge of this is presupposed in the readers, as having been imparted to them by oral instructions of which they are here reminded].—The general fact grounded on the organic union of the race, on the one hand, with the head of its natural development, who introduced death into it, and, on the other, with the head of its spiritual development who brought about the destruction of death, he proceeds to exhibit more fully by referring to the actual fulfilment of this law as it took place in the former instance, and as it is to be anticipated in the latter. And here we have the formulas of the comparison,—As-so—The headship in the one case is Adam, in the other is Christ.—in the Adam—Instead of διά we here have ἐν in, denoting that each of these processes of development has its ground, or source, in its peculiar head. Accordingly, “in the Adam” means ‘as partakers of his nature which is doomed to death as united with him.’ The nature of this union as expressed by διά, through, and its consequences are more fully exhibited in Romans 5:12; Romans 5:15; Romans 5:17, “Through one man death passed upon all men.” all are dying,—[In what sense? Hodge extends the meaning of the word so as to include moral death. The scope of the apostle’s argument, however, requires us to abide by the literal signification. He is here speaking solely of death natural and life natural, and we are to construe his language as bounded within this province (so Calvin and others). As Alford says, “The practice of Paul to insulate the objects of his present attention from all ulterior considerations must be carefully borne in mind.” Barnes also argues for the same limitation with great pertinence].—As the other member of the comparison we have—so also in the Christ shall all be made alive. In the former case, since death was ever in progress, the verb was in the present, ἀποθνήσκουσιν, but here on the contrary the restoration is spoken of as something yet to be,—hence the future ζωοποιηθήσονται. Here, however, commentators divide. Some, starting from the idea of a vital communion with Christ which reaches its perfect consummation at the resurrection, understand by ‘being made alive’ an introduction into a state of supreme blessedness. In this case, they interpret the term “all” either relatively, taking it to denote all believers only, who alone are spoken of in the context; or absolutely, finding in this passage a statement of universal salvation (comp. 1 Corinthians 15:28)—“the restoration of all” (αποκατάστασις πάντων). The question is, Ought not the word “all” to have the same scope in the two clauses? The context does not justify our limiting it to believers in the first clause; for he is throughout treating of the resurrection of the dead in general, what ever may have been their religious state, and of Christ as the person who in this respect has taken the lead, and by His resurrection has fixed a point in history from whence death as the separation of soul and body should date its cessation, even as from Adam it dated its commencement. But whether the dogma of a general restoration is a Pauline doctrine is, to say the least, very problematical (comp. 1 Corinthians 6:9 ff.; 2 Thessalonians 1:9.) As Burger says, “It is not possible to prove from our text, nor yet from the whole context, the doctrine of a so-called restoration of all things, which asserts that all at last, both good and bad, even the devil and his angels, shall be made partakers of divine grace.” Elsewhere, Paul speaks of “a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust” (Acts 24:15). Of this mention is made also in John 5:28 ff., where it appears as the work of the Messiah whom the Jews expected to be the general quickener of the dead (comp. Lücke on John 5:21 ff.; and de Wette, Bibl. Dogm., p. 203).—But the expression, “be made alive” might be used to signify the resurrection of both classes (Romans 4:17). It means to be restored to life in general; its specific application must be determined by the context: an ethical, natural introduction into life generally, and into a truly blessed life. Accordingly we must side with those who take the word “all” in its broadest sense, and understand ‘the being made alive’ of a general resurrection. For to interpret the second clause of the comparison ideally, of the original destination of all men to a blessed resurrection and of the power of the Redeemer to make all share in it (J. Müller Stud, und Krit. 1835. p. 751) would hardly be doing full justice to the expression.—But is not the above interpretation opposed by the words “in Christ?” No; for we might say, the whole race obtains in Christ the principle of the Resurrection. He, the second Adam, has been implanted in humanity as the destroyer of death; and the result of this will indeed prove glorious or fearful according to the relation which the individual may sustain towards Him, whether positive or negative. Nothing, it would seem, can be decisively adduced against this broader interpretation, from the fact, that in the onward course of his argument the apostle brings into view only the resurrection of believers; since the problem before him by no means required a complete unfolding of the whole subject, in all its aspects. With all this, however, it still remains doubtful whether “the resurrection unto damnation,” which is contrasted with “the resurrection unto life” (John 5:29,) can be covered by the expression “made alive.” At all events, a consistency with the main clause (1 Corinthians 15:20) would be preserved if we interpreted “all” in the second clause of the antithesis to mean the totality of those who shall be made alive, whoever they are, as in the first clause, to mean the totality of those who die. Accordingly the main thought would be, that Christ, as the risen One, is the informing principle, and commencement of all restoration to life in the race on the part of God. In this respect, He constitutes a parallel to Adam, who was the informing principle and commencement of all death. It is true, the expression “each one” in the next verse, so far as it may stretch even beyond “those that are Christ’s,” seems to require us to take “all” in the broadest sense, and also to give the broader meaning to “make alive “(Meyer); but, opposed to this, there stands, again, the word “first fruits,” the inconsistency of using which in relation to those awaking to “the resurrection of damnation,” reasonably awakens doubt. [Hodge, interpreting the word ζωοπιοιεῖσθαι in a moral as well as physical sense on grounds hardly tenable, restricts the term “all” to believers. But the great majority of commentatators, ancient as well as modern, (Chrys. Theod. Theoph. Beza, Olsh. de Wette, Meyer, Bloomf., Barnes) abide by the universal reference, preserving the parallelism in both clauses. “As the death of all mankind came by Adam, so the resurrection of all men came by Christ; the wicked shall be raised by Him officio Judicis, by the power of Christ as their Lord and Judge: The righteous shall be raised beneficio Meditatoris, by virtue of their union with Him as their head.” Valpy. The necessity for adopting this view will more fully appear as we proceed.]

1 Corinthians 15:23-28.—Passing on now from the successive stages of the resurrection, the apostle proceeds to open a view into the final consummation of the divine economy, at the conclusion of the ways of God with man. First—we have the several steps of the great process of restoration in Christ set forth. But every one—sc. ‘shall be raised,’ or ‘made alive’—in his own order:—The word τάγμα does not mean series, but a well ordered multitude, a division of the army, a cohort; and only in this sense can it be translated order. Those who are raised at successive periods of time are conceived of as coming forth in troops or bands, in some one of which every one will be found. [Hodge says, however, that “the word is used by later writers, as Clemens in his epistle to the Corinthians, 1:37-41, in the sense of τάξις, order of succession. And this best suits the context, for Christ is not a band. All that Paul teaches is, that, although the resurrection of Christ secures that of His people, the two events are not contemporaneous.”] ‘I δίω̣, his own, that which belongs to him, and fits him=ἑαυτοῦ. [If we adopt the meaning of band or cohort for τάγμα, then the implication is that those in Christ will come forth by themselves, and the wicked by themselves—those of a kind keeping together. And this will be the natural order, since “those who sleep in Jesus, God will bring with Him.”]—Christ the first fruits;—He forms the first division, [as being a host in himself], which leads the ranks of those who are to be made alive hereafter. The expression corresponding to the figure would be ἀρχηγός, leader, captain (comp. Meyer hoc loco.) The resurrection of all, Christ’s included, is a great fact.—The next division is composed of—those that are Christ’s—The expression is found also in Galatians 5:24.—The time of their rising is at his coming.—By the παρουσία here, is not meant Christ’s continued presence on earth (Matthew 28:20) onward unto his “glorious appearing;” but, as elsewhere (1 Thes.; 2 Thes.; 2 Pet.; 1 John; James; Matthew 24:3; Matthew 24:27; Matthew 24:37; Matthew 24:39), His revelation in power for the setting up of His kingdom. With this the first resurrection, that of the dead in the Christ (Thes. 1 Corinthians 4:16; comp. Revelation 20:5 is coincident, and it follows upon the destruction of the anti-Christian powers (Revelation 19:0; 2 Thessalonians 2:0). By those who are Christ’s, we may understand either true Christians or Christians in general. Meyer says; the latter, referring to 2 Corinthians 5:10; Romans 14:10. But it is a question whether the expressions, “those who are Christ’s,” and, “the dead in Christ,” can be used of formal Christians who finally perish.—Afterwards—εἵτα introduces a new epoch (analogous to ἕπειτα) which follows after an interval, when we have the conclusion of the whole development. [Hodge questions this, and says, “it has been the constant [?] faith of the Church that the second advent of Christ, the resurrection of the just and of the unjust, the final judgment and end of the world, are parts of one great transaction.” But to interpret thus, would be both to make the τάγμα (=τἁξις), series, very short, consisting of only two items! and also to contradict the constant use of εἶτα which never stands for τότε, then, as indicating a point of specified time, but always afterward, next, denoting successive occurrence (Mark 4:28; 1 Corinthians 12:28). It is a singular illustration of the power of a theory to warp the mind from the fixed meaning of words, that Calvin, while using the Latin text which rightly translated εἶτα, postea, yet goes on to comment in the use of tunc, utterly ignoring the difference of signification. By the words ἔπειτα and εἶτα, two separate epochs are distinctly marked; and it is a violation of all usage of terms to construe them otherwise. The interval between the first and second is stretching beyond 1800 years; how many ages will intervene between the second and third—who can tell?]—the end,—τέλος in this connection means the termination of the process of the resurrection, and stands correlatively to “the first fruits;” it marks the period of the resurrection of the rest of mankind who do not belong to Christ, yet among whom may be found some that are susceptible of the divine quickening (comp. Matthew 25:31; [where, at the general judgment, those on the right hand, by reason of their declared ignorance of Christ, are supposed, by many, to be those among the heathen who, by their fidelity to the light within them, and by their general kindness and charity, had evinced a state of mind which qualified them for a welcome into the society of believers. Consult Stier, Olsh., and Alford on this passage.]) The period, thus designated, is one which coincides with the end of the world, with the entire destruction of the present order of things, and with the coming in of the “new heavens and the new earth.” [Alford, Hodge, and others, however, interpret τὀ τέλος absolutely, THE END, i e., of the world, when all shall be accomplished, and the mediatorial work of Christ is come to its conclusion]. As to what shall intervene between these two points—the first and the second resurrection—and as to the duration of the interval, there is nothing in the apostolic writings (save what is contained in the Apocalypse) clearly determined as yet. Thus far this whole subject is enveloped in darkness—just as in the prophets, the coming of Christ in the flesh, and His coming in glory were not definitely separated; but the intervening period, with all its history, lay for the time concealed. In the parousia or revelation of Christ, we may distinguish between the beginning of that manifestation of the Lord’s power in the first resurrection, and in all that which is to precede or is connected with it, and its consummation in the general resurrection of the dead, and in the great events connected with that (Matthew 25:31 ff.); and this, in fact, amounts to a distinction between a second and third advent. Respecting “the end,” he explains himself more fully by mentioning that which is to occur contemporaneously with it.—when he shall deliver up the kingdom to the God and Father,—From this passage some have unwarrantably inferred that we are to understand “the end “to be the end of Christ’s kingdom, and so supply the words, ‘of his kingdom.’ But that which is asserted here of His kingdom is something appended, to which the course of the Apostle’s reasoning does not immediately conduct him. The transfer of the kingdom to God and Father (who is at the same time the Father of Jesus Christ—the article prefixed embracing both words (τῶ̣ θεῶ̣ καὶ ΙΙατρὶ) as in Romans 15:6 f.) presupposes that revelation of Christ as the Sovereign of God’s kingdom—as the Possessor of a power that covers heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18), which takes place at His advent; and it is itself the termination of the mediatorial reign (i.e., of that progressive struggle with the hostile powers of darkness, and subsequent subjection to God in the power of the redeeming and atoning work of the Lord, who is the royal The anthropos, the God-Man, the perfect Vicar of God), and the commencement of the absolute, immediate, Divine rule, when the Son is to transfer unto the Father the whole universe as a realm made entirely subject to Him, having in it no opposing force, where He can rule with majesty serene and undisturbed; inasmuch as the Son who entered into the course of its history, and took part in its strife, has overcome all opposition, so that resistance no more is to be found.—[“Nothing is here said which can affect either (1) His co-equality and co-eternity with the Father in the Godhead, which is prior to, and independent of this mediatorial work, and is not limited to the mediatorial kingdom; or (2) the eternity of His humanity: for that humanity ever was, and is subordinate to the Father; and it by no means follows that when the mediatorial kingdom shall be given up to the Father, the humanity in which that’ kingdom was won, shall be put off; nay, the very fact of Christ in the body being the first-fruits of the resurrection, proves that His body, as ours will endure for ever; as the truth that our humanity, even in glory, can only subsist before God by virtue of His Humanity, makes it plain that He will be very man to all eternity.” Alford].21 ‘Βασιλεία here means not the subjects of kingly rule—the kingdom so far as its contents are concerned, but the royal power itself, in its exercise—the reign of Christ. “Inasmuch as the work of Christ, founded upon His redemptive acts, proceeds towards a definite goal, it must needs come to a termination when this goal is reached.” Neander.—The transfer takes place,—when he shall have put down all rule, and all authority and power.—Of course such only are meant as are anti-Christian and anti-Divine—the kingdom of Satan, with every thing appertaining to it, which holds supremacy and exercises power, whether it be demoniac (Ephesians 6:12; Colossians 2:15), or human that has become subject to demoniac powers. Calvin’s supposition, that “powers legitimate and ordained by God,” or Olshausen’s, “that all rule, good and evil, even that of the Son,” is here meant, is inconsistent with the connection (1 Corinthians 15:25), and also with the signification of καταργεῖν, to put down. The extermination of the powers of the higher spiritual world can be understood to denote only the destruction of their external activity—the stripping them of their power, but not of their existence (Neander).—But the whole idea of a transfer and of a kingdom is altered, if we assume the meaning here to be, that God shall be generally acknowledged as the Supreme Ruler (Theod. Estius, etc.; comp. per contra Osiander, p. 711). Unsatisfactory, also, is Meyer’s conception of Christ as the under-regent—as it were, the life-bearer of God.—The explanation of the Fathers who interpret it of the leading of the elect to behold the face of God, the transfer of the heirs of the kingdom into the immediate communion and glory of God the Father; and that of the Reformers, who take it to denote the presentation of the risen members of the divine kingdom before God, e. g., “He presents the elect to God, in whom, henceforth, the Father will reign per sese without intervening token, and in whom He will reveal His glory per sese, and not in Christo only,”—transcend the correct meaning of the words and the scope of the context. From this surrender of the kingdom, we are not to suppose that the eternal kingship of Christ is disowned or denied; for He is indeed the Eternal associate with God on the throne (σύνθρονος). This relationship is only, as it were, taken up in with the glory of the Father. After the great battle has been victoriously fought through, and the work of the Mediator has been finished up, then that rule which has been occupied in the conflict and mediation, naturally ceases. But inasmuch as every thing has at last been brought into subjection to the Father, and so the purpose of the mediatorial reign has been accomplished, the regal glory of the Son, so far from being annihilated thereby, has only been enhanced.

The fact of such a transfer of the kingdom ensuing upon the putting down of all alien rule, and not before, is next referred to a higher necessity, even to a divine decree, and on this it is made to rest (γάρ).—For it must needs be that he reign until he hath put all enemies under his feet.—The authority had in mind by the Apostle is Psalms 110:1, “The Lord said unto my Lord, sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.” From this it might be inferred that the subject of the verbθῇ , hath put, is God; and then, inasmuch as this verse expresses essentially the same thought as is found in the last clause of the previous verse, “when He shall have put down all rule,” etc., we must likewise suppose that God was intended there also. But it is evident that He who “puts down all rule,” must be the same as the one who “gives up the kingdom;” and neither the reference to the Psalm (which is here not literally cited, but only appropriated, and freely handled), nor yet 1 Corinthians 15:27, (where indeed God is the subject of υπέταξεν, put under, but so that a passive clause intervenes) constrains us to suppose that there is any other- subject than Christ in this verse. And were it otherwise intended, we would, for the sake of clearness, naturally expect that God would be definitely mentioned both here and before καταργήσῃ (1 Corinthians 15:24), because these clauses are so closely connected with clauses where Christ is the expressed subject. From the phrase “all enemies,” it is perfectly clear that the words “all rule” (πᾶσαν ) are not to be taken in a middle sense. The necessity here spoken of (δεῖ) is founded on a divine decree (Neander). Comp. Luke 24:26; Luke 24:46. The arch-enemy of all is he from whom all opposition to Christ and His kingdom proceeds (comp. Matthew 13:39); with him are connected all powers instrumental in carrying on this opposition, and every thing wherein this opposition is manifested—hence, also, death itself. Comp. what is said in Hebrews 2:14, “that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, even the devil.”—ἂχρις οὖ marks the point of termination. Only in case ἂχρις ἄν stood without οὖ could it mean also so long as; but such a rendering is decidedly opposed by the context (1 Corinthians 15:24) as well as by the aor. subj. (θῇ). The putting under foot denotes the most perfect subjection in connection with the deepest humiliation. Comp. Joshua 10:24, where Joshua bade the captains of the men of war come near and put their feet upon the necks of the conquered kings of Canaan. A similar expression occurs in Romans 16:20, “The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet.” That which already has taken place in its essential principles through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (comp. Luke 10:18 f.; John 16:11; John 16:33), comes at last gradually to its fulfilment, being realized onward, step by step, until the grand termination is reached. Or, we may say, that that which was consummated by those acts in relation to Christ’s person, and which His followers may regard as having been accomplished also for them (comp. 1 John 5:4), is carried out at last in relation to the whole sphere of redemption along the lapse of ages, and finally comes to its complete fulfilment after the fearful conflicts of the last times.

Out of the whole number of foes here alluded to, the apostle brings prominently to view that one whose destruction forms the close of the forementioned subjugation.—The last enemy (that) shall be destroyed (is) death.—[So the English version renders ’Εσχατος ἐχθρὸς καταργεῖται ὁ θάνατος. Εσχατος is an adjective used for an adverb of time. (Jelf. gr. gram. § 714, 2, b). Accordingly we should perhaps better translate: “Lastly, death, the enemy, shall be destroyed.” Tyndale: “And at the laste, death, the enemy, shall be distried.” Rheims: “And the enemie death shal be destroied last.”22 This enemy is destroyed when the resurrection is complete. By this event the power of death is forever annulled, and there is no such thing more as dying or being dead. Death is here personified as in Revelation 20:14. He is termed an enemy, inasmuch as he entered as a disturbing force into the original constitution of God, which was one of pure life and the unfolding of life. Moreover, in the destruction of death, the devil,—he who has the power of death—is rendered utterly powerless, as it were, in his last bulwark, and incapacitated for any injurious reaction upon the kingdom of God. But from this fact we are by no means justified in identifying death and the devil, as Usteri does.

That all hostile powers are finally done away, is still further established (1 Corinthians 15:27).—For he hath put all things under his feet.—The argument is either this, “He hath put everything under Him, hence also death;” or, more indirectly, “Inasmuch as God hath subjected every thing to Him, by this means a perfect harmony has been established, which would not be possible, unless death were done away.” The apostle here introduces, without any formula of citation, words taken from Psalms 8:7. (lxx. “πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ.” “Thou hast put all things under his feet.”) That he intended these words as a quotation, is seen from what follows. What the Psalmist said in relation to man whom God had endowed with divine majesty and worth, and established as lord over this lower creation, is referred anagogically by Paul to that person in whom the idea of humanity is perfectly realized; and in so doing he takes the word “all,” on which the emphasis rests, in its most comprehensive sense. [“This may be called the hidden meaning of the Psalm, because it never would have been discovered without a further revelation, such as we find in the exposition given by the inspired apostles.” Hodge]. To understand “God” as the subject here was, in part, very possible, (“since, indeed, He is the One who works through all things,” Neander), and, in part, very natural, because of the obvious suggestion of the text of the Psalm.—He now turns back to the subject of the surrender of the kingdom, showing more fully that it included also the subjection of Christ himself. But before exhibiting this point positively, he obviates an unsuitable extension of the word “all,” as though God himself might be included therein. This exception he states as something self-evident, and then introduces the positive counterpart.—But when he shall have said,—ὀ̓ταν δὲ ἐίπη; the subject here is God. The point intended is diiferently interpreted. Some take it that Paul here meant to explain the language of Scripture, and to obviate any misconception in regard to it, so that the word “said” refers back to the Scriptural expression, which is thus designated as a declaration of God himself. (Comp. on 1 Corinthians 6:16.) In this case, “when” (ὄταν) would be equivalent to, ‘in so far as,’ or, ‘in that,’ q.d., ‘in that he said.’ Others, like Meyer, regard it as an expansion of the thought, and as designating a future point of time, ‘when he shall have declared,’ i.e., has publicly announced that the subjection has been complete, and the work of Christ finished,—that all things have been subjected,—Since this yields a good sense, it is not necessary to deviate from the ordinary use of “when,” which prevails in the context.—it is evident that—We are here to supply, ‘all things have been subjected,’—excepting him who subjected all things to him.—This observation might be attributed to the germs of the Gnostic view, which elevated Christ above the Father as an imperfect O. T. God. It is, however, unnecessary to suppose such a reference; and the remark may have also a purely dialectic significance, as implying, ‘so far from this expression meaning, that God should be included in the “all,” that, on the contrary, when he shall have said: all things have been subjected, the exception is manifest,’ etc.—And when all things shall have been subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject to him,—The verbs ὑποταγῇ and ὑποταγήσεται may be both taken as middle, subject themselves, only with this difference, that in the former case the subjection is one grounded in the consciousness of a perfect weakness, and in the latter case, as an act of the highest willingness; or both verbs may be passive, be subdued, only with the distinction that in the former case the subjection is one of constraint, and in the latter of free self-determination. Both interpretations amount to the same thing. The self-subjection of the Son coincides with that surrender of the kingdom mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:24; and we must here either limit the idea of the Son to the human nature of Christ, from doing which the expression “the Son also himself,” is sufficient to restrain us; or we must refer it to the church, the mystical body of Christ, for doing which, 1 Corinthians 12:12 gives us no justification on account of the diversity of the expressions, “Son”—“Christ;” nor yet are we warranted in interpreting the self-subjection into the perfect oneness of thought (πολλή ὁμὀνοια) between the Son and the Father, or into a manifestation of His dependence on God in respect to His glory. The Apostle here points to one of the deep things of the Godhead, viz., that the coequal Son, who is Himself essentially God, even when at the highest point of His glory, subjects Himself, with all that has been subdued under Him, unto the Father, choosing even in His majesty as Lord of all to be dependant upon the Father wholly and forever. The title Son is given to Christ in our epistle, in only one other passage. “Christ gives the power conferred on Him, back into His Father’s hands, not to possess it no more, but in order to possess it again, as He possessed it in communion with the Father, from all eternity, before the foundations of the world were laid.” Burger. “The historic Christ, as such, is perpetually distinguished from God. Christ will subject Himself, yet not in the same way as He subjected His enemies.” Neander. [“The subjection here spoken of is not predicated of the eternal Logos, the second person of the Trinity, any more than the kingdom spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:24, is the dominion which belongs essentially to Christ as God. As there the word Christ designates the Theanthropos, so does the word Son here designate, not the Logos as such, but the Logos as incarnate.” Hodge]. The adjuncts “also himself,” serve to set forth more prominently the exalted character of the Son. [“Himself”—voluntarily. “Himself” is contrasted with “all things,” so that it denotes the infinite excellence of the Son; and besides, as often, it signifies something voluntary; for the Son subordinates Himself to the Father; the Father glorifies the Son.” Bengel]. That by this subordination the Trinity itself becomes, as it were, dissolved, is a very strange assertion (de Wette); on the contrary, the absolute unity in the distinction of persons will only become the more entirely, conspicuous. Now comes the final clause with which this survey concludes, stating the object to be obtained—in order that God may be the all things in all.—This statement is used as the main authority for the support of the doctrine of a final restoration of all things. The expression, “be the all things,” signifies primarily absolute supremacy, or rule, [without the intervention of mediators or subordinates, such as acted with a sort of delegated authority under God in the mediatorial kingdom.] But how are we to understand the other expression—“in all?” Is the adjective to be construed as masculine or neuter? On the former supposition its scope must be limited to believers, members of the kingdom that has been hitherto ruled by Christ (Meyer); and this entirely excludes the doctrine of restoration. On the other supposition, all created existences must be here understood, in which God will be the all determining power,—hence, also Satan and his angels included; and thus with this will come the cessation of damnation, and so the restoration of all things. But could the Apostle Paul, who puts the lost in contrast with the saved, as he does in 1 Corinthians 1:18 (comp. Philippians 3:19), have had such a doctrine in mind? Still less indeed could he have intended any pantheistic absorption of all creatures in God, and so the annihilation of all distinct personality, since this is already opposed by the doctrine of the resurrection. If we take the words “in all” in a narrower sense it is natural to include in them also the angels (comp. Ephesians 1:10), and to suppose not only the absolute supremacy of the divine will among them, but also an absolute communication and perfect revelation of the divine love, as intended. In both these things together there is included the complete manifestation of God’s glory. According to Romans 8:19 ff. the expression “in all” might be extended to the entire irrational creation making the adjective neuter. The immediate context however does not conduct us to such an interpretation, though the idea is in itself correct and appropriate. Neander explains the thought thus: “that God may work with all things without the intervention of a Mediator.”—If we take the expression “in all” in its widest sense, including therein also beings until then hostile to God, then we might with Calvin explain the expression “be all,” so far as it bears on such parties to imply “that in their destruction the glory of God will be conspicuous.” But although we may variously modify and limit the words “be all” according to the various capacities or receptivities of the creatures contemplated, yet we cannot include in it both the idea of glorification as shown in the highest self-communication of the Deity and also that which is shown in the destruction of the creature; and only when we look away from the subjective side, or have in view the absolutely objective universal sovereignty of God can we take the words “in all” in this comprehensive sense, so that in reference to beings that are hostile to God there will be meant here the removal of all opposition on their part and their absolute impotence. But the question is, whether in setting forth the consummation of the ways of God, or of His entire economy, such an interpretation of the expression “be all” suffices?—The problem here presented is, so to understand the word destruction (ἀπώλεια) that God’s being ‘all in all’ is possible when understood even in the wider sense, and not simply as a controlling power in the hearts of the faithful; and so to explain the being ‘all in all’ that the idea conveyed by the destruction of the wicked shall not be altered. And it is a question whether this problem has been solved in the doctrinal method proposed by Beck, according to which the Scripture exhibits the destruction (ἀπώλεια) of the lost (unspiritual) soul as an ultimate result in which, as a second death, the whole being becomes pervaded by death, and so the very personality ceases in dying; or, in other words, the personal conscious life becomes annihilated, although all existence itself does not cease (Bibl. Seelenlehre, pp. 19, 40). This will then be more accurately conceived thus; ‘that the kingdom of heaven, by means of a regeneration which with the purging away of all dross restores a pure state of life, obtains for itself a new organization of the heavens and the earth to be the theatre for the display of its own peculiar glory, and so becomes an immediate theocracy in the absolute and perpetual reign of God, without the human mediatorial form of Christ which had been assumed only for a season, but not therefore without His distinctive character as a Son which He holds in the being of the Triune God, where God is the fullness of life in all its purity and perfection in all the living. To enter however more fully into this subject does not fall within the province of exegesis.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

[1. The Gospel—its historical character. In its essential elements the Gospel is not a system of abstract truths deduced by reason, but a summary of marvellous facts which have occurred in the history of the world through the direct interposition of God, and which were designed for man’s salvation. Of these the great central ones are the appearing, expiatory death, resurrection and ascension of the long foretold Messiah, forming altogether the good tidings of great joy which shall be to all people. It was mainly in the proclamation and attestation of these facts that preaching originally consisted; and such must ever be one of the chief characteristics of evangelical preaching, differencing it from all other kinds of discourse. The ground on which it relies for acceptance must be, therefore, primarily of a historical kind—the testimony of sound and competent witnesses declaring plainly that the facts announced are so as stated. And in accordance with this, evangelical faith must ever have the form of a cordial belief in the testimony adduced, and of an acceptance of the facts unto the ends contemplated in them. If, then, the testimony be such as stands the test of the most searching scrutiny, and seems altogether unimpeachable, we may go on preaching and believing, undisturbed by any objections which human science or philosophy may be disposed to make, No argument can have available force against any stupenduous fact of which it may be said, “thus it was foretold ages ago, and thus it has come to pass as witnessed by a large number of honest and sane men.” And in regard to such a fact we may feel assured that, let objectors argue as they may, it will prove its consistency with all other facts and truths of the world’s history, and will also vindicate its importance by other manifestations accordant in dignity and kind with itself. It cannot stand alone. If e.g. it be a fact that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,” there was manifested here in human nature a power over death which, as happening by itself and for its own sake only, must ever remain an inexplicable phenomenon. Therein we behold a revelation of Divine Omnipotence and Love, which at once inspires hope, and seems to render the resurrection of others both possible and probable. The inference is one which nothing can hinder us from drawing and resting in. The main thing which concerns us, therefore, is the certainty of the underlying fact; and in regard to this we are not left in doubt. The resurrection of Christ is one of the best attested events in history. The skepticism which discards this must, to be consistent with itself, at the same time set at naught all history. And the faith which accepts this must, to be consistent with itself, accept the whole Gospel which centres in Jesus Christ, “who was declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead.”]

2. The Resurrection of Christ,—its import and bearings. This great fact which, next to that of our Lord’s atoning death, formed the main topic of the apostle’s preaching, serves at once to illustrate and confirm the truth of man’s salvation in a two-fold direction. 1. Retrospectively. That Christ rose from the dead in fulfilment of what He had, in part, hinted, and in part, definitely predicted before His death, furnishes abundant proof in favor of His incarnation and atoning death. Had He remained in the grave the conclusion would have been that He was nothing less than a false prophet, a betrayer, a blasphemer, who had suffered death justly; but then, what an inexplicable riddle his life would have been! Besides, how fatal to the faith and hope of Christians would such continuance under the power of death have been! There could be no forgiveness of sins through His blood, no life, no blessedness through His name! To follow Him in self denial and devotion were but to make life more miserable, and those who died believing in Him only perish like all the rest of mankind. But now having in truth arisen to an endless life by the power of God, He appears before as God’s Holy One who could not see corruption—as the servant of the Lord, who, in his death, has been commissioned to bear our sins—as the righteous One who, having made His soul an offering for sin, would still prolong His days and see His seed, and through His knowledge justify many—as the Son to whom the Father hath given to have life in himself, and so could impart life to others—in short, as the one who is to abide forever as “the Way, the Truth and Life.” 2. Prospectively, in relation to what must yet happen for the fulfilment of God’s gracious consel. Through Christ, as the risen One, death, the wages of sin, is essentially destroyed. It has been so already, in so far as by His resurrection the atoning power of His death has been sealed. But it will be so still more, in so far as He, the Head of a new humanity, redeemed and restored to God, had passed out from under that death in which He had suffered the judgment of sin for all, into an imperishable life, and has thereby, been, as it were, set up, both in humanity and for it, as the principle and power of a new life, capable of vanquishing death and enduring unto immortality, and is now carrying on a most comprehensive work, first, inwardly, in creating the new man through the regenerating and quickening power of His Spirit, and, next, in developing this spiritual life throughout our entire organism. The life thus begun and developed, will be manifest, first, in those who belong to Him, when he shall appear again in glory (this is called the first resurrection); and then it will show itself in the rest of mankind—so far as through all the revelations of His life onward to its onward consummation some susceptibility for these can be awakened—until the work of redemption is accomplished, and all opposition is vanquished, and the power of death is entirely destroyed, and a new external realm is organized, suited to the inward perfection of the whole mass of redeemed men and celestial spirits, who are united in Christ as their Head, and in and with Him are made absolutely subjected to God—a realm pervaded in all its parts by the power of the Holy Love of God that is henceforth, to regulate all things. All that is not included in this new organization will utterly perish through obstinate resistance, being excluded from all the blessed realities of a universe that has entered into the Divine life with and in Christ.

[3. The mediatorial reign of Christ. The risen Saviour is declared in the Scriptures to have “ascended on high” and to be “set down on the right-hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens,” “far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also, in that which is to come.” His ascension was, therefore, the inauguration into universal sovereignty of the incarnate Logos, the God-Man, or Theathropos—a sovereignty which had indeed been prepared for from the beginning, and also had been in a measure, exercised in another form (for the Word or Logos had been in the world before, as a Light which lighteth every man), but which was not actually entered upon until after the successful achievement of the priestly work on which it was conditioned. It was because “He had been found in fashion as a man, and had humbled himself, and become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, that God exalted Him and gave Him a name above every name, that to Him every knee should bow and every tongue confess that He was Lord.” And the ulterior end of all this was “the glory of God, the Father.” But, although now reigning in heaven, it cannot yet be said that His kingdom has come, since its glory is not manifest. This is an object still to be anticipated and prayed for. Meanwhile, a great preparation is making for its advent by the ministration of the Spirit; and this dispensation will go on until He who has gone to take unto Himself the kingdom, shall return in power and great glory, gather about Him the servants whom He had entrusted with His gifts, and appoint the faithful to their larger trusts of dominion under him. It is at this point that the Redeemer’s kingdom may be fairly said to begin in its perfect form upon the earth; as it is then that the proclamation will be made, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign unto the ages of ages.” What the particular nature of this administration will be, this is not the place to discuss. But as this reign will have a beginning, and a specific object, it is natural to conclude that it will also come to an end, when this object shall have been accomplished. And that there will be a fixed period for its perfect accomplishment, when Christ can say “it is finished,”—just as when He made this same solemn declaration on completing His work as Mediator and Sacrifice on the cross, we have every reason to infer from the very fullness of power that dwelt in Him. To be ever doing and never to have done, especially in such a work as the overthrowing of rebellion, would be an imputation upon His all-sufficiency. We must, therefore, look for a time when the object for which He took upon Himself our nature shall be accomplished, and the glory of His victory shall shine forth in unquestionable splendor and majesty. At what moment this crisis will arrive, we know not; but we know that it will not come until after a long series of mighty events, both blessed and awful, of the nature of which we have some foreshadowing in the book of Revelation. The conclusion of all these will be the general resurrection, and the final judgment which shall determine the ultimate destinies of all the righteous and the wicked. This will be “the end,” when Christ shall deliver up this mediatorial reign unto the Father that appointed Him, and God shall rule, just as He did before the apostasy of Satan and the fall of man, throughout a universe, untroubled by the presence of evil and hence not needing the intervention of a theanthropic Mediator and his subordinates.

Here certain questions arise. (1) What shall become of the wicked when God is the “all in all?” Shall they be restored? or annihilated? or still continue to exist in some place outside the sphere of God’s presence and glory? Certainly not restored; for in the general judgment they are sentenced to “depart” as “cursed into everlasting fire.” Not annihilated; for then where would be the necessity of the everlasting fire? We must, therefore, suppose them to be shut up, as it were, in some prison house, in some outer darkness, where they shall be as if they were not; and neither the sight, nor the hearing, nor the influence of them shall, in any way disturb the blessedness which shall reign supreme throughout the realms of God, the Father, in whose presence there will be a fullness of joy forever and ever.—(2) What are to be the relations of the glorified God-Man unto the people whom He has redeemed? That the Logos will cast off the nature which He had assumed, and become as before the incarnation, can hardly be supposed. If not, how will the surrender of the kingdom to the Father then affect His previous position as the head of the Church?—Is His sovereignty over believers to cease, and His followers to be brought into any more direct connection with God the Father, than before? The intimations of Scripture in regard to the perpetuity of Christ’s Headship hardly allow of such a supposition. And yet, a change of administration in some sort is very plainly predicted. God is to be the “all in all” in some special and more perfect sense than He was before the surrender. It may be that on the quelling of rebellion, and on the ingathering of all the redeemed (the veil of all mediatorship being removed) there will shine forth upon the immediate apprehension of saints and angels, as the result of this long and wonderful history, far richer displays of the Divine wisdom, power and glory, than ever were witnessed before, and that in that beatific vision their happiness is to be perfected. But on this point the wisest course, perhaps, will be to suspend all speculation, and leave the subject in that sublime suggestiveness where the language of the apostle leaves it—“God shall be all in all.”]

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Starke:— 1 Corinthians 15:1-2. Hed.: Do not forget what you so often hear, nor yet adulterate the savor of the word. Thousands hear and receive not—receive and keep not—keep and feel not the word of life. This is the great condemnation and blindness of these times!—If thou receivest the word, then thou art already blessed, not only because thou hadst a sure hope of blessedness, but also because thou hast within thee the earnest of the future world, and with this the foretaste of blessedness in thine heart (Hebrews 6:5).—It is not enough to have begun well, if the end does not also accord with the beginning. He who apostatizes from the faith, has believed in vain, and incurs a greater damnation than if he had never believed (2 Peter 2:21).—1 Corinthians 15:3-4. Christ is the center of the Holy Scriptures, the foundation of our faith, especially in His death for our sins and His resurrection for our righteousness. Without the knowledge of these facts all science is ignorance.—The Holy Spirit explains through the apostles what He had formerly spoken through the prophets concerning Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:5 ff. Upon sorrow follows joy: thou weepest because Jesus thy Friend has concealed Himself; thou wilt rejoice again when He shall reveal Himself unto thee (John 16:22).—Hast thou sinned, repent; then will Jesus appear to you with His grace (Matthew 26:75).—Who can doubt the resurrection of Christ? It has been confirmed by some hundreds of witnesses.—Though thou hast not seen Jesus the risen One with thine eyes, yet behold Him in faith, and thou wilt hereafter be certain to behold Him in glory (John 20:29; 1 Peter 1:8).

1 Corinthians 15:8 ff. The grace of God is shown where the greatest of sinners are; and such often become the most edifying preachers, when through the grace of God they have been led to cast off the yoke of sin (Psalms 51:13).—The sins committed before conversion are indeed forgiven; but they leave behind them a troubling remembrance for our humiliation, especially when others have been scandalized thereby, and the world knows of them.—Hed: Humble boasting, holy pride, to say to Satan, ‘God has become strong in us!’ But what does this word mean in the mouth of the godless? Are they partakers of Divine grace? Does it work in them to God’s glory?

1 Corinthians 15:12 f. It is all the same whether we deny the resurrection by word or deed.—The articles of our Christian faith hang together like a chain. When one is broken, the whole is broken. This is what makes error so fearful. Let a person guard himself at the start, lest he fall from one error into another.

1 Corinthians 15:15. Preachers should see to it that they do not make themselves false witnesses for God by producing lying fables, and turning aside from the truth of the Gospel in their teachings.

1 Corinthians 15:16. Those who deride the resurrection of the dead are like wild boars of the forest who would root up and overturn the very foundations of the faith. But they will not succeed. The truth will stand while they perish.

1 Corinthians 15:17. Faith must lay hold upon Christ as a living Saviour, and enter with Him into eternal life.

1 Corinthians 15:19. The simple life of the children of this world is indeed more miserable than the cross-life of believers. Nevertheless that man is to be deemed the most miserable of all, who, while not believing in the resurrection of Christ and eternal life, yet subjects himself legally to the rules of Christianity and. endures persecution for its sake.

1 Corinthians 15:20. A true member of Christianity who, without any self-deception, carries in himself the witness of his spiritual resurrection has no cause to be afraid of death—no more than he has to be afraid of that natural sleep, which the weary court for their refreshment.—Through the resurrection of Christ we receive all power unto life, and upon this there follows the full harvest of the general resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:22. Let no one be astonished that we shall all be made alive on account of the Lord Jesus: for if one man was able to introduce death upon all; why should not also one man, who is at the same time God, and who makes all things alive, restore life to all the dead?

1 Corinthians 15:24. Spener: The Lord lays aside His previous sway over His kingdom, where he commanded His gospel to be preached, and equipped and sent out His servants into the work, and poured out His Spirit and His blessing upon the word given, in order that men might be converted, enlightened, regenerated, justified, sanctified, disciplined by the cross, and protected against the devil, and where He now wins over him one victory after another—this supremacy he lays aside with the public and actual attestation in heaven before God and all the angels and saints that He had fulfilled His Father’s will, and had finished his work; and, together with this he will then, as their Head, present his believing ones to the Father as henceforth fully blessed and fit for the enjoyment of a perfect felicity for ever more. Regnum non cessabit, sed modus regnandi per fidem. (Chemnity).

1 Corinthians 15:25 ff. After Christ has overcome everything in the subjects of His kingdom, there yet remains Death, who, so long as they lie in their graves, still in a certain sense holds them captive; but in the resurrection Death too is destroyed, and in its place there reigns eternal life (Revelation 20:14; Revelation 21:4.

1 Corinthians 15:28. In the surrender of his kingdom, Christ, as the God-Man, the Head and Mediator of the church, will show also His own subjection to the Father.—For the present, and so long as the work of restoration endures, Christ is called “the all in all” (Colossians 3:11); but when the saints are made perfect, and, having been freed from all sin and its consequences, are surrendered to the Heavenly Father, then, by virtue of Christ’s accomplished mediation, will the Heavenly Father together with the Son and Holy Spirit, become directly “the all things in all” to them, and fill their understanding with His Divine wisdom, their wills with His Divine holiness, their desires with His Divine sweetness and joy, their bodies with heavenly glory and delight, and, in short, their entire selves wholly with Himself forever and ever Spener: God will then hold converse with His saints without any mediation, since they will see Him as He is, and He, without obstruction, will have glory over all, and shine in all and through all.

Berlenburger Bibel:

1 Corinthians 15:1 f. The Gospel must be inwardly received, and for this result God must prepare, enlighten, and sanctify the heart. This happens when we yield to the Holy Spirit. Then the hungry heart receives the Word with joy, and learns to behold Jesus and His salvation there, because it sees itself to be so empty and destitute of grace.—It belongs to the proper acceptance of the Word that we learn to abide fast in known truth; since the knowledge of our need ever drives us to our own hearts, where the Lord Jesus and. His holy word are implanted. God’s gift and calling are without repentance. God has taken us once for all into His care. If we will only abide therein, nothing can be wanting to us in the future, for our salvation will never cost Him more than it did at the beginning. For our sakes, however, it is, said, “Hold fast that which thou hast” (Revelation 3:11).—The tidings that ‘Christ lives,’ and that this brings after it the resurrection of the others is so important that, for the sake of it, Paul is willing to let every thing else go. If the truth of Christ’s history is not inwardly confirmed, then an hour of temptation may easily come when, for many, all foundation in Christ may be shaken by reason and unbelief, as well as by the assaults of foes.

1 Corinthians 15:3. When the soul wrestles against sin, it will often appear to it as if Christ had not died for our sins. But Christ has died, and thereby expiated our sins, in order that we, being planted together with Him in the likeness of His death, may die unto sin, and live unto righteousness (1 Peter 2:24). We then truly experience that Christ was slain for our sins in the flesh, when, through His death, our own sin is also daily slain. How can we comfort ourselves in the death of Jesus Christ if we still live in those sins unto which we must die?—Sharp compunctions of heart in repentance under the law are needed, ere we can become fit for, and participate in the super-abundant grace of Christ. This pearl belongs only to the pure, and not to swinish hearts which trample it under their feet.

1 Corinthians 15:4. Where the new life does not exist, there can be no power or certainty in the resurrection of Christ. Indeed, men are rather ashamed of it in works, when they confess it only with the mouth.—If we believe not the power of Christ’s life, then we have neither the will nor the power to be free from sin. But if such truths are not made known in power, how will men be disposed to receive them, and to stand therein?

1 Corinthians 15:5. It was necessary that Christ should reveal Himself also as a living one; for in so doing He has adapted Himself to our understandings; for he, who proposes to impart a great light to any one, does this gradually, for the sake of those weak eyes which could not endure a strong light let in upon them at once.—The seeing of Christ bodily did not help those Jews who believed not. We must therefore know Him in Spirit, and learn to recognize Him as present in our hearts.—He must dwell in us by faith, speak inns and through us, enlighten, sanctify, and purify us, as He needs did it in Paul.

1 Corinthians 15:9. This is what a scholar of Christ learns from his Master, when, as a weary one, he comes to the “Lowly in heart,” viz., the deepest humility.

1 Corinthians 15:10. Whatever of good we have or do, is all owing to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. This grace, then, by which Christ designs to live in us, we should not suffer to remain in us to no purpose.—When we are in Jesus, we learn to arrogate nothing to ourselves exclusively, but to lay the greatest gifts of grace humbly at the feet of God, and to be as if we had them not. Only the grace of God must not be suffered to lie idle in us. This is an essential part of holiness, to unite with the holy and the glorified in heaven in casting all crowns, all praise, and honor, and glory, at the feet of God and the Lamb, and to confess, “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but Thine be the praise.” In this way a soul sinks and loses itself in God, who is the source of its being, just as a drop of water is merged in the great sea, and becomes again what it was in the beginning.

1 Corinthians 15:14. If we have no living Saviour, whereupon then does the whole Christian religion rest? All grace, forgiveness, righteousness, springs from the resurrection of Christ, and is founded thereupon.

1 Corinthians 15:17. The greatest fruit of the resurrection is deliverance from those sins for which Christ died. Then does our faith become true, and firm, and actual.

1 Corinthians 15:19. Men who long after pleasure and worldly delights, and riches, and honor, have some actual good here; but it is only a seeming good. But if Christians, who make the life of God, even eternal life, their chief end, and hope for the same, and strive after it, have only a hope of it, and not the actual enjoyment and. the substance of it, then are they of all persons the most miserable.

1 Corinthians 15:25. “He must reign”—this is not yet fulfilled, but it is in process of consummation, and it must pass through many stages ere it comes to the end.

1 Corinthians 15:26. The appropriation of the ransom involves the removal of all that which deserves to be called death. The full consummation of this is indeed to be deferred unto the end: but since so much precedes, we cannot doubt the result.

1 Corinthians 15:27. All created things, in the end, become subordinate to their rightful Lord, and become so subject as to stand under Him in whom God had created them in the beginning.

1 Corinthians 15:28. The divine subjection of the Son of God unto the Father will bring with it something more glorious than His previous sovereign rule. Sin and imperfection will no more be found in any creature; but every thing will be directly ruled by God, each in its own measure, just as the humanity of Jesus was ruled by His divinity: hence, there will be no more any need of governing through the person of a Mediator.—When God shall become “all in all,” and when the creatures made subject to God and Christ are thoroughly penetrated by the Spirit of God in all their being and powers, so that they with God, and God with them, shall become one spirit, then will the future holy and righteous world, wherein Christ has ruled, lose itself, as it were, in the still all-blessed eternity; yet, it will not thereby pass away, but only enter into the sweetest state of peace, where we shall know by experience as little of what is meant by devil, sin, death, wrath, or hell, as was known of these things when as yet all creatures lay concealed in the eternal creative power of God, or when, in the beginning of their creation, they were all alike very good.—O, what a depth of riches, wisdom, righteousness, mercy, and love in God!

Heubner:

1 Corinthians 15:1 f. In regard to every new doctrine that is propounded, we must inquire first whether it is consistent with the original apostolic doctrine, and whether we have reason for changing the old faith. Thoughtlessly to change our faith is a matter which touches our salvation. An unchanging adherence to primitive Christianity must be a fundamental principle with the Christian; he who objects to this, ceases to be one.

1 Corinthians 15:3 f. Christianity is: 1. established upon accredited facts; 2. exceedingly simple. Its sum is: 1. the atonement through Christ; 2. the divine acceptance of it proved by the resurrection; and 3. the fruit of redemption, viz., our future glory. If Christ’s death purifies us from sins, justifies us, and obligates us to die unto sin, so does His burial show us how we should conceal ourselves from the world, and avoid its temptations; and the resurrection gives us new eternal life, that we may long after heavenly things and strive to obtain them.

1 Corinthians 15:9. In all that we have become through God, we should never forget what we once were. The greater our former humiliation, the more wonderful the height to which God raises us.

1 Corinthians 15:10. The humble recognition of divine grace characterizes all saints.—Humility does not require the ignoring of what we are, and what we have performed; but we must give God the honor.—Luther: “Of myself I have enough to humble and crush me; but on and in God I have reason to be proud, and to be glad at His gifts, and to rejoice, and triumph, and boast. But it is all to the praise and glory of God.” Without humility, high achievements, distinguished success and labors bring us into great danger, and make us the more guilty before God.

W. F. Besser:

1 Corinthians 15:2. All, all is given to us by the grace of God. He calls us through the gospel; He works faith; He makes us happy in the fellowship of His dear son, and not so much forces us into such happiness as keeps us back from the iniquity, and the unfaithfulness, and the unthankfulness of those who refuse the gospel (Hebrews 12:25), or who turn from it after they have received it.—1 Corinthians 15:2-4. Preserve us, O Lord, by thy Word! Grant us such a hearing of the Word that we may derive from its proclamation a clearer knowledge of its chief facts, the proper seat and fountain of gospel life, and may look ever more profoundly, even to the very foundation whereon our salvation is based.

1 Corinthians 15:1-20. Pericope for Easter. 1. The Christian’s faith is a well-grounded one; it rests, a. upon our own experience of its beatific power (1 Corinthians 15:1-2); b. upon Christ’s holiness and truth, confirmed by His death and resurrection (3); c. upon several divine confirmations of the mission of Jesus, among which the resurrection is the chief, established by many witnesses (4–7); d. upon the continual operations of Christianity (the conversion of Paul, the spread of Christianity), which are evidently a work of divine grace (8–10). 2. The progressive stages of Christian faith, a. The knowledge of the gospel from its preaching, which one has often heard and considered (1), and has understood as to its great object (2); b. a firm conviction of the truth of the history of Jesus, His death and resurrection; c. experience of the power of the grace of God in one’s own heart, which sheds a light in the soul (8); and puts us to shame, and discloses our former hostility to God (9); but also creates us anew unto good works (10). 3. The close connection between doctrine and history in Christianity. On 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, compare Dr. Steinkopf in “One Lord, one faith,” p. 189 f. Three chief pillars of the Christian faith. a. Christ’s death for our sins sweetens to every believer that death which appears so fearful to the unbeliever or formal Christian, b. His burial and rest in the grave eclaircises the view of the Christian as he looks into the grave so dark and fearful. c. His victorious resurrection has stamped upon the Saviour’s person a doctrine and word the seal of divinity, and is the sure pledge of our resurrection. On 1 Corinthians 15:10 th see Harm’s “Winter-postille.” Man’s work, without God’s grace, is, a. low, bad and vain; b. through, with, and in God’s grace it is glorious, righteous, and enduring.

1 Corinthians 15:13. In all the propositions which we receive, we should consider their bearings upon faith.

1 Corinthians 15:17 ff. He who takes from us faith in Christ, snatches away all consolation. The Christian faith, without a future life, is a thing most irrational and comfortless; since Christianity would then impose upon its confessors the severest self-denials, conflicts and sacrifices, and in earthly things insure us nothing; and Christians would then cleave to a deceptive image, and contemn the only real thing which remains to them. Earthly life, without its consummation in eternity is a vain sport.

1 Corinthians 15:20. The resurrection of Christ as the entrance into an eternal, indestructible life, is the pledge of eternal life for us—not simply a proof for the possibility of our resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:22. Our mortal first parent begat mortal men. Christ has the right and the power to quicken all again; this happens through our spiritual union with Him.

1 Corinthians 15:24 ff. The history of Christ will not come to its end for a long time. The most important thing is still in advance.—So long as the Messianic kingdom stands, God’s glory is mediately bound to this economy. Every thing which God does, He does through the Messiah. This economy, when it has fulfilled its object, will give place to the immediate reign of God. God, as Lord and Father, will reign immediately over all, and impart Himself directly to all, without the intervention of a mediator. The use of the Scriptures, and of the sacraments, will cease, because no more needed.

1 Corinthians 15:26. The victory which Christ has achieved over death: a. What death had been for us without His resurrection. b. How Christ has conquered him through His resurrection.

[I. Barrow:

1 Corinthians 15:3. The death of Christ. 1. Its nature—a true and proper death. 2. Some peculiar adjuncts, which commend it to our regard as being, a. a result of God’s eternal decree; b. a matter of free consent and compact between the Father and Son; c. anciently prefigured and predicted; d. executed by God’s hand and providence; man concurring; e. the death of a person so holy and so excellent. 3. The principles and impressive and meritorious causes thereof. a. It originated in the love of God the Father, and in the love of the Song of Song of Solomon 4:0. The ends aimed at, its fruits and effects. a. The illustration of God’s glory. b. The dignifying and exalting of the Lord Jesus. c. The salvation of mankind. 5. The practical influences which its consideration should have; a. should beget the highest degree of love and gratitude toward God and Christ; b. should excite in us great faith and hope in God; c. should comfort us and satisfy conscience in regard to guilt; d. should discover unto us the heinousness of our sins; e. should work in us kindly contrition and remorse; f. should deter us from the repetition of sins; g. should engage us to patient submission and resignation to God’s will; h. should oblige us to the deepest mortification in conformity to Christ’s death; i. should engage us to the fullest measure of charity toward our brethren; j. should bind us to yield us up wholly to the service of our Saviour.]

R. Stier:—1 Corinthians 15:1-10.—The three pillars of our faith. 1. Scripture—giving the account of Christ beforehand. 2. History—proving Scripture fulfilled. 3. The effects of grace in converting the bitterest of foes, such as Paul.

[I. Newton:

1 Corinthians 15:20. The Lord is risen, indeed; as proven by reliable testimony. 1. The “witnesses were competent judges of what they asserted, as is evident: a. from their numbers; b. from the nature of the fact. 2. They were faithful and upright witnesses. a. Their writings proved them well meaning. b. Had no advantage to gain. c. They met with success such as God only could give. 3. There is besides the witness of an ever-present Spirit, which takes of the things of Christ, and shows them to us.

Ibid:—1 Corinthians 15:21-22. Death by Adam, life by Christ. 1. The malady. a. Death moral, b. Death natural. c. Death eternal. 2. The cure. a. Deliverance from condemnation, b. Deliverance from the power of sin. c. Deliverance from the fear and power of death, d. Eternal blessedness and glory.

A. Butler:

1 Corinthians 15:22. The power of the resurrection of Christ. 1. A great public manifestation of His authority over the power of physical decay and death. 2. This power exercised with a view to the beings He came to redeem. 3. Consequently, the resurrection power did not cease after Christ’s departure, but, on the contrary, it was not till then adequately in action. 4. The final consummation of the resurrection work to be greatly desired.

R. Hall:—1 Corinthians 15:26. Death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed. 1. Nature of this enemy, and why called the last. 2. The manner and the successive stages in which our Lord has already conquered in part, and will completely conquer this last enemy.

H. Melvill:—The termination of the mediatorial kingdom. 1. Christ is now vested with a kingly authority, which He must hereafter resign. 2. As a consequence of this resignation, God himself will become all in all to the universe].

Footnotes:

[1][1 Corinthians 15:4.—Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Alford put τῇ τῆτρίη after ἡμέρα. Alford thinks that the Rec. (which puts those words before ἡμέρα) was an alteration to conform to Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:23; and from not perceiving the solemnity and emphasis of the other arrangement. Lachmann’s reading is best sustained by the uncials (A. B. D. E. Sinait.), but the Rec. has in its favor F. G. K. L., with the Vulg., Pesch., Goth., Basm., Chr., Theodt., et al.—C.P. W.].

[2][1 Corinthians 15:5.—For δώδεκα D. E. F. G., the Ital., Vulg., Goth., later Syr. (Marg.), Arm., Slav., and a number of the Fathers have ἐνδεκα. Augustine mentions “nonnulli codices” of this kind. It was, however, a correction for greater accuracy, while the Apostle used the official designation. Comp. John 20:19 : comp. 24.—C. P. W.].

1 Corinthians 15:6; 1 Corinthians 15:6.—Lachmann throws out καὶ; but it has important MSS. in its favor, and it was likely to be left out as superfluous, [or from the copyists confounding- ε καὶ with the first two syllables of the next word. It is omitted by A. (probably). B. D. F. G., the Ital., Vulg., Goth., Copt., Basm., later Syr., Aug., Ambst.—C. P. W.].

1 Corinthians 15:7; 1 Corinthians 15:7.—Tischendorf has ἐ̓πειτα but the Rec. and Lachmann have εἰτα. The MSS. are about equally balanced.

1 Corinthians 15:10; 1 Corinthians 15:10.—Lachmann has σὺν ἐμοί without the ἡ before them [with B. D. E. F. G., Sinait., Ital., Vulg., Orig. (latin), and the Latin writers]. In like manner Meyer, who thinks that “the article was inserted partly, perhaps, in a merely mechanical way after ἡ εἰς ἐγὼ but also to some extent intentionally, from a dogmatic prejudice, to bring out more completely a contrast to οὐκ ἐγὼ. A reason similar to this last was probably the occasion for the more feebly supported ἡ ἐν ἐμοί. Before εἰ̓ς ἐμέ also, the ἡ is wanting in D. (1st hand), F. G. The Vulg., Ital., and the Latin Fathers read gratia ejus in me. In this case, however, its introduction was not occasioned by the context, but the article seemed superfluous, and it was therefore omitted.”—C. P. W.].

1 Corinthians 15:12; 1 Corinthians 15:12.—Tischendorf has ἐκ νεκρῶν ὀ̓τι, but the Rec. and Lachmann have ὅτι ἐκ νεκρῶν. The latter is best sustained. [It is thus found in A. B. D. (2d hand), K. L., perhaps all the cursives, the Vulg., Goth., Chrys., Theodt., and Iren. (translation).—C. P. W.].

1 Corinthians 15:12; 1 Corinthians 15:12.—Tischendorf, with very good MSS., has ἐν ὐμῖν τινὲς, but the Rec. has τινὲς ἐν ὑμῖν. [The former order is found in A. B. Sinait., Syr. (both), Orig., Chrys., Damasc.—C. P. W.].

1 Corinthians 15:14; 1 Corinthians 15:14.—The καὶ before τὸ κήρυγμα is doubtful, as also is δὲ after κενή. Tischendorf has both; Lachmann has κ αὶ. but [brackets it, and] leaves out the δὲ; probably correctly. [A. D. E. F. G. K., Sinait., 20 cursives, Goth. and Basm. versions, Dial., and (Œum. have ἀ̓ρα καὶ (some Latin writers omit ἄρα also), and A. B. D. F. G., Sinait., 5 cursives, the Latin, Copt, versions, and a few Fathers omit δὲ—C. P. W.].

1 Corinthians 15:19; 1 Corinthians 15:19.—Lachmann and Tischendorf, with a great preponderance of authority, place ἐν χριστῷ after ταύτη. The Rec. puts these words after ἐσμὲν, although this is not the lectio difficilior, [and hence it is likely to have been a transposition for perspicuity. Lachmann’s reading (ἐν χρ. ἠλτικότες ἐσμὲν μόνον) is also adopted by Alford, Stanley, and Wordsworth, in accordance with A. B. D. E. F. G., Sinait., 5 cursives, the Vulg. and Goth, versions, and some Latin Fathers. The confusion into which this text early fell, is apparent from the evident attempt (in Orig., the Vulg., Ital., Goth., Ambr.) to make μόνον precede ἐν Χριστῷ, so that it may be referred more distinctly to ἐν τῆ ζωῇ ταύτη alone, and not to the whole sentence, as it would, be if it were placed after ἐσμὲν. See Exeget. notes and Meyer—C. P. W.].

1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 15:20.—The Rec. adds ἐγένετο at the end of the sentence, but it is feebly attested, and is pronounced by Meyer “a supplemental gloss.”

1 Corinthians 15:21; 1 Corinthians 15:21.—In several important MSS. the article is wanting before θάνατος. Meyer thinks it was derived from Romans 5:12; but it might have fallen away on account of the parallel ἀνάστ. νεκρῶν.

1 Corinthians 15:24; 1 Corinthians 15:24.—The Rec. has παραδῷ; but better authority exists in favor of παραδιδῷ and some good MSS. have παραδιδοῖ. The aorist was occasioned by a conformity to καταργήοη [without observing that ὀ̓ταν in the one case required an indefinite present, and in the other an aorist in the sense of a Fut. exact. Instead of παραδῷ (defended by Reiche, with K. L., Orig., Euseb. (com.), Epiph. (often Damasc.), we have παραδιδοι in B. F. G., and παραδιδῶ̣ in A. D. Sinait., Goth., Basm., and Sahid. versions, and the rest of the Greek Fathers.—C. P. W.].

1 Corinthians 15:25; 1 Corinthians 15:25.—The anthority for ἀ̓ν in the Rec. before θῆ is feeble. It is from the Sept. of Psalms 110:1.

1 Corinthians 15:25; 1 Corinthians 15:25.—The authority for αὐτοῦ after ἐχθροὺς is not sufficient. [A. F. G., several codices of the Vulg., with the Goth., and a few Greek writers insert it, but it is omitted in B. D. K. L., Sinait. the Vulg. (best MSS.), the later Syr., and the most important Greek Fathers.—C. P. W.].

[15][1 Corinthians 15:26.—This verse is transferred by D. E., Sinait. (1st hand), one copy of the Vulg. (tolet.), Jerome and Ambrst., so as to stand after τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ in 1 Corinthians 15:27. Two cursives entirely omit 1 Corinthians 15:26-27, doubtless in consequence of copyists mistaking the ὑπὸ τ. πόδας αὐτοῦ of the one for that of the other (homœoteleuton).—C. P. W.].

1 Corinthians 15:27; 1 Corinthians 15:27.—Some good MSS. [B., two cursives, the Vulg., the Lat. translations of Iren. and of D.] omit the first ὸ̀τι. Lachmann brackets it.

1 Corinthians 15:27; 1 Corinthians 15:27.—Sinait. inserts τὰ before the second πάντα: F. G. omits it before the third.—C. P. W.].

1 Corinthians 15:28; 1 Corinthians 15:28.—Lachmann brackets καὶ after τότε, but Tischendorf, with very good authorities [A. D. (3d hand), K. L., Sinait.. Vulg., Syr. (later), Copt., Basm., and many Greek writers], retains it.

1 Corinthians 15:28; 1 Corinthians 15:28.—The Rec. and Tischendorf have τα before the last πάντα. Lachmann, with some good MSS. [A. B. D. (1st hand) 17, Hippol.], omit it. [D. (3d hand) E. F. G. K. L., Sinait., and nearly all the Greek Fathers insert it, and rightly, for it might easily fall out, and it adds great force to the Apostle’s expression.—C. P. W.].

[20][This accords with the classic use of the word. Thus Plutarch τοῦτο ἡμείς εἴπομεν ἐν τί τῶν εἰκῆ πεπιστεύμενων—“this we said was one of the things believed without good authority.” Similarly the Latins use credere frustra, ‘to believe in vain’ or ‘rashly.’ Alex. Paraphrase].

[21][“The Scriptures constantly teach that Christ’s kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and of His dominion there is no end. In what sense, then, can He be said to deliver up His kingdom? It must be remembered that the Scriptures speak of a threefold kingdom as belonging to Christ. 1. That which necessarily belongs to Him as a Divine person, extending over all creatures, and of which He can never divest Himself. 2. That which belongs to Him as the incarnate Son of God, extending over His own people. This also is everlasting. He will for ever remain the Head and Sovereign of the redeemed. 3. That dominion to which He was exalted after His resurrection, when all power in heaven and earth was committed to His hands. This kingdom, which He exercises as the Theanthropos, and which extends over all principalities and powers, He is to deliver up when the work of redemption is accomplished. He was invested with this dominion in His mediatorial character for the purpose of carrying on His work to its consummation. When that is done, i.e, when He has subdued all His enemies, then He will no longer reign over the universe as Mediator, but only as God; while His headship over His people. is to continue for ever.” Hodge].

[22][We here give R. Hall’s criticism, which is worthy of note in this connection. “It may not be improper to remark that there is an inaccuracy in our common version, which be vitiates its application that it does not seem to sustain the conclusion to which the Apostle had arrived. It was his purpose to establish the perfection of our Saviour’s conquest, the advancement of his triumphs, and the prostration of all enemies, whatever beneath his power. Now to say that “the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death,” by no means affords a proof of this position. Though death might be destroyed, and he the last enemy that should be destroyed, it would not thence appear but that other enemies might remain not destroyed. But the proper rendering is, “Death, the last enemy, shall be destroyed”].

1 Corinthians 15:29; 1 Corinthians 15:29.—The Rec. has τῶν νεκρῶν instead of αὐτῶν, but the reading is feebly attested. [It has for it D. (3rd hand), L. Syr. (Pesch.) Chrys. Theodt. Oecum. Theophyl. and Jacob (Nisib.); but against it A. B. D. (1st band), E. F. K. Sinait. 20 cursives, Ital. Vulg. Goth. Copt. Basm. Syr. (later), Arm. Orig. and several Greek and Latin writers. Alford calls it a mechanical repetition of the last words of the preceding clause,—C. P. W.]