1Cor 15:12-18 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 12. Now if Christ , etc. Paul, having ( ) stated the direct evidence for the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, proceeds here to demonstrate that the dead would rise, by showing how it followed from the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen, and by showing what consequences would follow from denying it. The whole argument is based on the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen. If that was admitted, he shows that it must follow that his people would also rise. Be preached . The word preached here seems to include the idea of so preaching as to be believed; or so as to demonstrate that he did rise. If this was the doctrine on which the church was based, that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead, how could the resurrection of the dead be denied? How say . How can any say; how can it be maintained? Some among you . See the introduction to the chapter. Who these were is unknown. They may have been some of the philosophic Greeks, who spurned the doctrine of the resurrection, ( ;) or they may have been some followers of Sadducean teachers; or it may be that the Gnostic philosophy had corrupted them. It is most probable, I think, that the denial of the resurrection was the result of reasoning after the manner of the Greeks, and the effect of the introduction of philosophy into the church. This has been the fruitful source of most of the errors which have been introduced into the church. That there is no resurrection of the dead ? That the dead cannot rise. How can it be held that there can be no resurrection, while yet it is admitted that Christ rose? The argument here is twofold. (1.) That Christ rose was one instance of a fact which demonstrated that there had been a resurrection, and of course that it was possible. (2.) That such was the connexion between Christ and his people that the admission of this fact involved also the doctrine that all his people would also rise. This argument Paul states at length in the following verses. It was probably held by them that the resurrection was impossible . To all this, Paul answers in accordance with the principles of inductive philosophy as now understood, by demonstrating a fact , and showing that such an event had occurred, and that consequently all the difficulties were met. Facts are unanswerable demonstrations; and when a fact is established, all the obstacles and difficulties in the way must be admitted to be overcome. So philosophers now reason; and Paul, in accordance with these just principles, laboured simply to establish the fact that one had been raised, and thus met at once all the objections which could be urged against the doctrine. It would have been most in accordance with the philosophy of the Greeks to have gone into a metaphysical discussion to show that it was not impossible or absurd, and this might have been done. It was most in accordance with the principles of true philosophy, however, to establish the fact at once, and to argue from that, and thus to meet all the difficulties at once. The doctrine of the resurrection, therefore, does not rest on a metaphysical subtilty; it does not depend on human reasoning; it does not depend on analogy; it rests just as the sciences of astronomy, chemistry, anatomy, botany, and natural philosophy do, on well ascertained facts ; and it is now a well understood principle of all true science, that no difficulty, no obstacle, no metaphysical subtilty, no embarrassment about being able to see how it is, is to be allowed to destroy the conviction in the mind which the facts are fitted to produce. (b) "how say"

1 Corinthians 15:12-18

Verse 12. Now if Christ, etc. Paul, having (1Cor 15:1-11) stated the direct evidence for the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, proceeds here to demonstrate that the dead would rise, by showing how it followed from the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen, and by showing what consequences would follow from denying it. The whole argument is based on the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen. If that was admitted, he shows that it must follow that his people would also rise.

Be preached. The word preached here seems to include the idea of so preaching as to be believed; or so as to demonstrate that he did rise. If this was the doctrine on which the church was based, that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead, how could the resurrection of the dead be denied?

How say. How can any say; how can it be maintained?

Some among you. See the introduction to the chapter. Who these were is unknown. They may have been some of the philosophic Greeks, who spurned the doctrine of the resurrection, (Acts 17:32;) or they may have been some followers of Sadducean teachers; or it may be that the Gnostic philosophy had corrupted them. It is most probable, I think, that the denial of the resurrection was the result of reasoning after the manner of the Greeks, and the effect of the introduction of philosophy into the church. This has been the fruitful source of most of the errors which have been introduced into the church.

That there is no resurrection of the dead? That the dead cannot rise. How can it be held that there can be no resurrection, while yet it is admitted that Christ rose? The argument here is twofold.

(1.) That Christ rose was one instance of a fact which demonstrated that there had been a resurrection, and of course that it was possible.

(2.) That such was the connexion between Christ and his people that the admission of this fact involved also the doctrine that all his people would also rise. This argument Paul states at length in the following verses. It was probably held by them that the resurrection was impossible. To all this, Paul answers in accordance with the principles of inductive philosophy as now understood, by demonstrating a fact, and showing that such an event had occurred, and that consequently all the difficulties were met. Facts are unanswerable demonstrations; and when a fact is established, all the obstacles and difficulties in the way must be admitted to be overcome. So philosophers now reason; and Paul, in accordance with these just principles, laboured simply to establish the fact that one had been raised, and thus met at once all the objections which could be urged against the doctrine. It would have been most in accordance with the philosophy of the Greeks to have gone into a metaphysical discussion to show that it was not impossible or absurd, and this might have been done. It was most in accordance with the principles of true philosophy, however, to establish the fact at once, and to argue from that, and thus to meet all the difficulties at once. The doctrine of the resurrection, therefore, does not rest on a metaphysical subtilty; it does not depend on human reasoning; it does not depend on analogy; it rests just as the sciences of astronomy, chemistry, anatomy, botany, and natural philosophy do, on well ascertained facts; and it is now a well understood principle of all true science, that no difficulty, no obstacle, no metaphysical subtilty, no embarrassment about being able to see how it is, is to be allowed to destroy the conviction in the mind which the facts are fitted to produce.

(b) "how say" Acts 26:8 Verse 13. But if there be no resurrection of the dead. If the whole subject is held to be impossible and absurd, then it must follow that Christ is not risen, since there were the same difficulties in the way of raising him up which will exist in any case. He was dead; and was buried. He had lain in the grave three days. His human soul had left the body. His frame had become cold and stiff. The blood had ceased to circulate, and the lungs to heave. In his case there was the same difficulty in raising him up to life that there is in any other; and if it is held to be impossible and absurd that the dead should rise, then it must follow that Christ has not been raised. This is the first consequence which Paul states as resulting from the denial of this doctrine, and this is inevitable. Paul thus shows them that the denial of the doctrine, or the maintaining the general proposition, "that the dead would not rise," led also to the denial of the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen, and, consequently, to the denial of Christianity altogether, and the annihilation of all their hopes. There was, moreover, such a close connexion between Christ and his people, that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus made their resurrection certain. See 1Thes 4:14. Jn 14:19.

(c) "but if there be no resurrection" 1Thes 4:14 Verse 14. And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain. Another consequence which must follow if it be held that there was no resurrection, and consequently that Christ was not risen. It would be vain and useless to preach. The substance of their preaching was, that Christ was raised up; and all their, preaching was based on that. If that were not true, the whole system was false, and Christianity was an imposition. The word vain here seems to include the idea of useless, idle, false. It would be false to affirm that the Christian system was from heaven; it would be useless to proclaim such a system, as it could save no one.

And your faith is also vain. It is useless to believe. It can be of no advantage. If Christ was not raised, he was an impostor, since he repeatedly declared that he would rise, (Mt 16:21, 17:22,23, Lk 9:22); and since the whole of his religion depended on that. The system could not be true unless Christ had been raised, as he said he would be; and to believe a false system could be of no use to any man. The argument here is one addressed to all their feelings, their hopes, and their belief. It is drawn from all their convictions that the system was true. Were they, could they be prepared to admit a doctrine which involved the consequence that all the evidences which they had that the apostles preached the truth were delusive, and that all the evidences of the truth of Christianity which had affected their minds and won their hearts were false and deceptive? If they were not prepared for this, then it followed that they should not abandon or doubt the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.

(a) "if Christ" Acts 17:31 Verse 15. Yea, and we are found. We are; or we shall be proved to be. It will follow, if the Lord Jesus was not raised up, that we have been false witnesses.

Of God. Respecting God. It will be found that we have affirmed that which is not true of God; or have said that he has done that which he has not done. Nothing could be regarded as a greater crime than this, whatever might be the immediate subject under consideration. To bear false witness of a man, or to say that a man has done what he has not done, is regarded as a grievous crime. How much more so to bear false testimony of God.

Because we have testified of God. Or, rather, against God, (κατατουθεου.) Our evidence has been against him. We have affirmed that which is not true; and this is against God. It is implied here, that it would be a crime to testify that God had raised up the Lord Jesus if he had not done it; or that it would be affirming that of God which would be against his character, or which it would be improper for him to do. This would be so,

(1.) because it would be wrong to bear any false witness of God, or to affirm that he had done what he had not done;

(2.) because if the Lord Jesus had not been raised up, it would prove that he was an impostor, since he had declared that he would be raised up; and to affirm of God that he had raised up an impostor would be against him, and would be highly dishonourable to him.

If the dead rise not. If there is, and can be no resurrection. If this general proposition is true, that there can be no resurrection, then it will apply to Christ as well as any others, and must prove that he did not rise. The argument in this verse is this:

(1.) If it was denied that Christ was raised, it would prove that all the apostles were false witnesses of the worst character--false witnesses against God.

(2.) This the apostle seems to have presumed they could not believe. They had had too many evidences that they spoke the truth; they had seen their uniform respect for God, and desire to bear witness of him and in his favour; they had had too conclusive evidence that they were inspired by him, and had the power of working miracles; they were too fully convinced of their honesty, truth, and piety, ever to believe that they could be false witnesses against God. They had had ample opportunity to know whether God did raise up the Lord Jesus; and they were witnesses who had no inducement to bear a false witness in the case.

(*) "witnesses of God" "concerning" Verse 16. For if the dead rise not, etc. This is a repetition of what is said in 1Cor 15:13. It is repeated her, evidently, because of its importance. It was a great and momentous truth which would bear repetition, that if there was no resurrection, as some held, then it would follow that the Lord Jesus was not raised up. Verse 17. Your faith is vain. 1Cor 15:14. The meaning of this passage here is, that their faith was vain, because, if Christ was not raised up, they were yet unpardoned sinners. The pardon of sin was connected with the belief of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and, if he was not raised, they were still in a state of sin.

Ye are yet in your sins. Your sins are yet unpardoned. They can be forgiven only by faith in him, and by the efficacy of his blood. But if he was not raised, he was an impostor; and, of course, all your hopes of pardon by him, and through him, must be vain. The argument in this verse consists in an appeal to their Christian experience and their hopes. It may be thus expressed:

(1.) You have reason to believe that your sins are forgiven. You cherish that belief on evidence that is satisfactory to you. But if Christ is not raised, that cannot be true. He was an impostor, and sins cannot be forgiven by him. As you are not, and cannot be prepared to admit that your sins are not forgiven, you cannot admit a doctrine which involves that.

(2.) You have evidence that you are not under the dominion of sin. You have repented of it; have forsaken it; and are leading a holy life. You know that, and cannot be induced to doubt this fact. But all that is to be traced to the doctrine that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead. It is only by believing that, and the doctrines which are connected with it, that the power of sin in the heart has been destroyed. And as you cannot doubt that under the influence of that truth you have been enabled to break off from your sins, so you cannot admit a doctrine which would involve it as a consequence that you are yet under the condemnation and the dominion of sin. You must believe, therefore, that the Lord Jesus rose; and that, if he rose, others will also. This argument is good also now, just so far as there is evidence that, through the belief of a risen Saviour, the dominion of sin has been broken; and every Christian is, therefore, in an important sense, a witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus,--a living proof that a system which can work so great changes, and produce such evidence that sins are forgiven as are furnished in the conversion of sinners, must be from God; and, of course, that the work of the Lord Jesus was accepted, and that he was raised up from the dead.

(b) "your faith" Rom 4:25 Verse 18. Then they also, etc. This verse contains a statement of another consequence which must follow from the denial of the resurrection-that all Christians who had died had faded of salvation, and were destroyed.

Which are fallen asleep in Christ. Which have died as Christians. 1Cor 15:6; 1Thes 4:15.

Are perished. Are destroyed; are not saved. They hoped to have been saved by the merits of the Lord Jesus; they trusted to a risen Saviour, and fixed all their hopes of heaven there; but if he did not rise, of course the whole system was delusion, and they have failed of heaven, and been destroyed. Their bodies lie in the grave, and return to their native dust without the prospect of a resurrection, and their souls axe destroyed. The argument here is mainly an appeal to their feelings: "Can you believe it possible that the good men who have believed in tile Lord Jesus are destroyed? Can you believe that your best friends, your kindred, and your fellow Christians who have died, have gone down to perdition? Can you believe that they will sink to woe with the impenitent, and the polluted, and abandoned? If you cannot, then it must follow that they are saved. And then it will follow that you cannot embrace a doctrine which involves this consequence." And this argument is a sound one still. There are multitudes who are made good men by the gospel. They are holy, humble, self-denying, and prayerful friends of God. They have become such by the belief of the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Can it be believed that they will be destroyed? That they will perish with the profane, and licentious, and unprincipled . That they will go down to dwell with the polluted and the wicked? "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Gen 18:25. If it cannot be so believed, then they will be saved; and if saved, it follows that the system is true which saves them, and, of course, that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead. We may remark here, that a denim of the truth of Christianity involves the belief that its friends will perish with others; that all their hopes are vain; and that their expectations are delusive. He, therefore, who becomes an infidel, believes that his pious friends--his sainted father, his holy mother, his lovely Christian sister or child--are deluded and deceived; that they will sink down to the grave to rise no more; that their hopes of heaven will all vanish, and that they will be destroyed with the profane, the impure, and the sensual. And if infidelity demands this faith of its votaries, it is a system which strikes at the very happiness of social life, and at all our convictions of what is true and right. It is a system that is withering and blighting to the best hopes of men. Can it be believed that God will destroy those who are living to his honour; who are pure in heart, and lovely in life, and who have been made such by the Christian religion? If it cannot, then every man knows that Christianity is not false, and that infidelity IS NOT TRUE.