1 Corinthians 15:13

1Co 15:13. Εἰ δὲ, but if) He now begins a retrospect, and enumerates all that he alleged at 3–11.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_15:13. Δέ] carrying onward, in order by a chain of inferences to reduce the τινές with their assertion ad absurdum.

οὐδέ] even not. The inference rests upon the principle: sublato genere tollitur et species (Grotius). For Christ had also become a νεκρός, and was, as respects His human nature, not different from other men (1Co_15:21). Comp. Theodoret: σῶμα γὰρ καὶ ὁ δεσπότης εἶχε Χριστός. This in opposition to the fault which Rückert finds with the conclusion, that, if Christ be a being of higher nature, the Logos of God, etc., the laws of created men do not hold for Him. It is plain that the resurrection, as well as the death, related only to the human form of existence. The σῶμα of Christ (1Co_11:24; Rom_7:4), the σῶμα τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ (Col_1:22; comp. Eph_2:15), was put to death and rose again, which would have been impossible, if ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν (bodily revivification of those bodily dead) in general were a chimera. Comp. Knapp, Scr. var. arg. p. 316; Usteri, p. 364 f.; van Hengel, p. 68 f. Calvin, following Chrysostom and Theodoret, grounds the apostles conclusion thus: quia enim non nisi nostra causa resurgere debuit: nulla ejus resurrectio foret, si nobis nihil prodesset. Comp. Erasmus, Paraphr. But according to this it would not follow from the ἀνάστασις νεκρ. οὐκ ἔστιν that Christ had not risen, but only that His resurrection had not fulfilled its aim. The idea, that Christ is ἀπαρχή of the resurrection, is not yet taken for granted here (as an axiom), but comes in for the first time at 1Co_15:20 (in opposition to Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, including de Wette and Osiander), after the argument has already reached the result, that Christ cannot have remained in the grave, as would yet follow with logical certainty from the proposition: ἀνάστασις νεκρ. οὐκ ἔστιν. It is only when it comes to bring forward the ἀπαρχή, that the series of inferences celebrates its victory.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 15:13 opposes ( δὲ ) the thesis of the τινὲς by a syllogism in the modus tollens “sublato genere, tollitur et species” (Gr [2299] ): if bodily resurrection is per se impossible, then there is no risen Christ (so Bg [2300] , Mr [2301] , Al [2302] , Bt [2303] , Ed [2304] , El [2305] , etc.); the abstract universal negative of the deniers 1Co 15:16 will restate in the concrete. Hn [2306] and Gd [2307] (somewhat similarly Cm [2308] , Cv [2309] ) hold, on the other hand, that P. is making out the essential connexion between Christ’s rising and that of the Christian dead in which case he should have written ἡ ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν ; he speaks of “the dead in Christ ” first in 1Co 15:18 . Hn [2310] and Gd [2311] justly observe that the τινὲς might have allowed Christ’s resurrection as an exception; but the point of Paul’s argument is that this is logically impossible , that the absolute philosophical denial of bodily resurrection precludes the raising up of Jesus Christ; on the other hand, if He is risen , the axiom Ἀνάστασις οὐκ ἔστιν is disproved, the spell of death is broken, and Christ’s rising carries with it that of those who are “in Christ” (1Co 15:18 ; 1Co 15:20-23 , 1Th 4:14 ; cf. Joh 11:25 , Heb 2:15 ).

[2299] Greek, or Grotius’ Annotationes in N.T.

[2300] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[2301] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[2302] Alford’s Greek Testament .

[2303] J. A. Beet’s St. Paul’s Epp. to the Corinthians (1882).

[2304] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

[2305] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .

[2306] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[2307] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. Ép. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

[2308] John Chrysostom’s Homiliœ († 407).

[2309] Calvin’s In Nov. Testamentum Commentarii .

[2310] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklärung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).

[2311] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. Ép. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vv. 13-15. “If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen. 14. But if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ: whom He raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.”

After descending from the cause (the resurrection of Christ) to the effect (ours), the apostle ascends, in 1Co 15:13, from the denial of the effect to the denial of the cause, to show afterwards that this last denial is a belying of the unanimous apostolic testimony which he has just cited.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_15:12, 1Co_15:13

Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

The admission of the resurrection of Christ is inconsistent with the denial of the resurrection of the dead. What has happened, may happen. The actual is surely possible. This mode of arguing shows that the objections urged in Corinth bore equally against the resurrection of Christ, and against the general doctrine of the resurrection. They, therefore, could not have been founded on the peculiar difficulties attending the latter doctrine. They must have been derived from the assumption that the restoration to life of a body once dead, is either an impossibility, or an absurdity. Most probably, these objectors thought, that to reunite the soul with the body was to shut it up again in prison; and that it was as much a degradation and retrocession, as if a man should again become an unborn infant. No, these philosophers said, the hope of the resurrection is the hope of swine. The soul having once been emancipated from the defiling encumbrance of the body, it is never to be re-imprisoned.

The argument of the apostle does not imply that the objectors admitted the resurrection of Christ. He is not arguing with them, but against them. His design is to show that their objections to the resurrection proved too much. If they proved any thing, they proved what no Christian could admit, viz., that Christ did not rise from the dead. The denial of the resurrection of the dead involves the denial of the resurrection of Christ. The question discussed throughout this chapter is not the continued existence of the soul after death, but the restoration of the body to life. This is the constant meaning of the expression resurrection of the dead, for which the more definite expression resurrection of the body is often substituted. Whether the false teachers in Corinth, who denied the doctrine of the resurrection, also denied the immortality of the soul, is uncertain. The probability is that they did not. For how could any one pretend to be a Christian, and yet not believe in an hereafter? All that is certain is, that they objected to the doctrine of the resurrection on grounds which logically involved the denial of the resurrection of Christ.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The second by an absurdity, If there is no resurrection of the dead, then is not Christ risen again.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

If there be no general resurrection, which is the consequent, then there can have been no resurrection of Christ, which is the antecedent. The head and the members of the body stand on the same footing: what does not hold good of them, does not hold good of Him either: His resurrection and theirs are inseparably joined (compare Co1 15:20-22; Joh 14:19).

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 13. If there be no resurrection of the dead] As Christ was partaker of the same flesh and blood with us, and he promised to raise mankind from the dead through his resurrection, if the dead rise not then Christ has had no resurrection. There seem to have been some at Corinth who, though they denied the resurrection of the dead, admitted that Christ had risen again: the apostle's argument goes therefore to state that, if Christ was raised from the dead, mankind may be raised; if mankind cannot be raised from the dead, then the body of Christ was never raised.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

13. But if there be no resurrection of the dead] The question has here been raised, against whom was St Paul contending? against those who maintained the immortality of the soul, but denied the resurrection of the body, or those who maintained that man altogether ceased to exist after death? 1Co_15:19; 1Co_15:32 would appear to point to the latter class, but this (see note on 1Co_15:17) cannot be affirmed with certainty. There were some, moreover (see 2Ti_2:17-18), who perverted St Paul’s teaching (Rom_6:4; Eph_2:6; Col_2:2; Col_2:13; Col_3:1) into the doctrine that the resurrection taught by the Apostles of Jesus was the spiritual awakening from sin to righteousness, the quickening of moral and spiritual energies into activity and predominance. The fact would seem to be that St Paul so contrived his argument as to deal with all antagonists at once. The whole question whether there were a future life or not, according to him, depended on the fact of Christ’s Resurrection. If He were risen, then a resurrection of all mankind was not probable, but certain. If He were not risen, then there was not only no resurrection, but no immortality, no future life at all (cf. 2Ti_1:10; Heb_2:14, as well as 1Co_15:45-49 of this chapter).

then is Christ not risen] If a resurrection from the dead be impossible, the principle embraces the Resurrection of Christ Himself, which, if this postulate be granted, becomes at once either a mistake or an imposture. And since, on the Apostle’s principles, there is no hope of a future life but through Him, we are driven to the conclusion—a reductio ad absurdum—that “the answer to His prayer ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit,’ was Annihilation! that He Who had made His life one perpetual act of consecration to His Father’s service received for His reward the same fate as attended the blaspheming malefactor.” Robertson. And we must infer also, he continues, that as the true disciples of Christ in all ages have led purer, humbler, more self-sacrificing lives than other men, they have attained to this higher excellence by “believing what was false,” and that therefore men become more “pure and noble” by believing what is false than by believing what is true.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But if there be no resurrection of the dead,.... If there is no such thing as a resurrection of any, if the thing is not possible, if it never has been, is, or will be true in fact:

then is Christ not risen. The apostle argues from a general, to a particular; from the general resurrection of the dead, to the particular resurrection of Christ; and from a negation of the one, to a negation of the other; for what does not agree with the whole, does not agree with the part; and what is true of the whole, is true of the part; but if the resurrection of Christ is not true, many are the absurdities that must follow upon it, and which the apostle next enumerates.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

Ver. 13. Then is not Christ risen] But of Christ’s resurrection there were many both living and dead witnesses, as the earthquake, empty grave, stone rolled away, clothes wrapt up, &c.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 connection between Christ and his people, that the resurrection of the Lord Jesus made their resurrection certain. See 1Th 4:14; see the note on Joh 14:19.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

He brings many reasons to convince them of the resurrection. 1. If there be no resurrection for others, Christ is not risen again: but his resurrection (as he tells them ver. 4) was foretold in the Scriptures. 2. And if Christ be not risen again,...your faith is also in vain, this being one of the chief articles of your belief. 3. We should be found guilty of lies and impostures; and yet we have confirmed this doctrine by many miracles. 4. It would follow that you are not freed from your sins; i.e. unless Christ, by his resurrection, has triumphed over sin and death. 5. Without a resurrection we Christians, who live under self-denials and persecutions, would be the most miserable of all men, neither happy in this world nor in the next, for the happiness of the soul requires also a happy resurrection of the body. 6. Christ is the first-fruits, and the first begotten of the dead, of those who have slept: and by his being the first-fruits, it must be supposed that others also will rise after him. 7. As death came by the first man, (Adam) so the second man (Christ) came to repair the death of men, both as to body and soul; and without Christ’s resurrection, both the souls of men have remained dead in their original sins, and their bodies shall not rise again. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

If (saith the apostle) there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen. But some will possibly say: How doth this follow? Suppose it true, that Christ be risen, how doth it follow, that the dead shall rise? The force of it lieth in several things:

1. Christ, as he saith, 1Co 15:20, is the first-fruits of them that slept, the exemplary cause of our resurrection.

2. If we consider Christ as the Head, it is unreasonable, that the Head should be risen from the dead, and the members yet held of death, when it is the office of the Head to communicate sense, life, and motion to the members.

Again, the argument is strong from the consideration of the end of Christ’s resurrection, which was to show his victory over death, that the dead might hear his voice and live, and that he might be the Judge of the quick and the dead (which he could not have been, if the dead did not rise). Now though it be true, that Christ’s headship to his church, and the apostle’s argument from thence, will not prove the resurrection of the wicked, yet, (besides that the resurrection of believers is the main thing the apostle here proveth, having elsewhere abundantly proved the general resurrection), the consideration here of Christ’s being raised, that he might be the Judge both of the quick and of the dead, will prove the resurrection of the wicked, as well as of believers.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

13. If… no resurrection—If resurrection of deads there is not. If (such is the supposition) no resurrection of any dead persons takes place: if a resurrection is excluded from nature and thought. So thought the Epicureans and Stoics at Athens, (Act_17:32,) flouting or politely dismissing the idea of a resurrection from consideration.

Christ not risen—Literally, Christ has not been raised. He is still dead. The reasoning is decisive as a syllogism, from the universal to the particular. So the Athenians reasoned, from universal to individual.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then is Christ not risen. If the possibility of a resurrection be generically denied, it cannot in any instance be true. Yet you admit as Christians that Christ rose! and his resurrection "has begotten us again to a lively hope" (1Pe_1:3; see 2Co_4:14 1Th_4:14 Joh_14:19)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

If there be no resurrection - If it be a thing flatly impossible.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

13. “But if there is no resurrection from the dead, then is Christ not risen;

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised:

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

13. If there be . . then is Christ not risen. If persons once dying cannot be raised, as these false teachers say, then Christ could not have risen.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

13. εἰ δέ. But if, implying a contradiction to what has been said.

ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν. The question has here been raised, against whom was St Paul contending? against those who maintained the immortality of the soul, but denied the resurrection of the body, or those who maintained that man altogether ceased to exist after death? 1Co 15:18; 1Co 15:32 would appear to point to the latter class, but this cannot be affirmed with certainty. There were some, moreover (see 2Ti 2:17-18), who perverted St Paul’s teaching (Rom 6:4; Eph 2:6; Col 2:12-13; Col 3:1) into the doctrine that the resurrection taught by the Apostles of Jesus was the spiritual awakening from sin to righteousness, the quickening of moral and spiritual energies into activity and predominance. The fact would seem to be that St Paul so contrived his argument as to deal with all antagonists at once. The whole question whether there were a future life or not, according to him, depended on the fact of Christ’s Resurrection. If He were risen, then a resurrection of all mankind was not probable, but certain. If He were not risen, then there was not only no resurrection, but no immortality, no future life at all (cf. 2Ti 1:10; Heb 2:14, as well as 1Co 15:45-49 of this chapter).

οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται. It would seem that the persons against whom these remarks were addressed admitted the Resurrection of Christ, but denied that of other men. St Paul here shews the absurdity of this view. If a resurrection from the dead be impossible, the principle embraces the Resurrection of Christ Himself, which, if this postulate be granted, becomes at once either a mistake or an imposture. And since, on the Apostle’s principles, there is no hope of a future life but through Him, we are driven to the conclusion—a reductio ad absurdum—that ‘the answer to His prayer “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit,” was Annihilation! that He Who had made His life one perpetual act of consecration to His Father’s service received for His reward the same fate as attended the blaspheming malefactor.’ Robertson. And we must infer also, he continues, that as the true disciples of Christ in all ages have led purer, humbler, more self-sacrificing lives than other men, they have attained to this higher excellence by ‘believing what was false,’ and that therefore men become more ‘pure and noble’ by believing what is false than by believing what is true.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13.] δέ is the but argumentandi, frequent in mathematical demonstrations.

ἀν. νεκ. οὐκ ἔστιν] the words (οὐκ) of the deniers.

οὐδὲ χριστ. ἐγήγερται] This inference depends, as Grot. observes, on the maxim, “Sublato genere tollitur et species;” the Resurrection of Christ being an instance of the rule, that dead men rise; inasmuch as He is man. This is enlarged on, vv. 20-22.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

13. These sceptics are supposed to hold to their doctrine: they deny the consequent in the Apostle’s conditional proposition. If Christ is risen, dead people can rise. Dead people cannot rise. Therefore, Christ is not risen. ‘But if resurrection of dead men does not take place, Christ also hath not been raised,’ and οὐδέ may be kept in the front place by rendering, ‘neither hath Christ been raised’ (RV.). But οὐδέ must not be rendered ‘not even,’ which would rather obscure the line of argument. The fact of the Incarnation involves a difference in kind between the Resurrection of the Son of God and that of His adopted children. The connexion between antecedent and consequent is therefore not logical merely, but causal: the Resurrection of Christ is not viewed by the Apostle as one particular case of a general law, but as the source of Divine Power which effects the Resurrection in store for His members (v. 23). Deny the effect, and you overthrow the cause; accept the cause as a fact, and the effect will certainly follow.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.