1. Now I make known to you. He now enters on another subject — the resurrection — the belief of which among the Corinthians had been shaken by some wicked persons. It is uncertain, however, whether they doubted merely as to the ultimate resurrection of the body, or as to the immortality of the soul also. It is abundantly well known, that there were a variety of errors as to this point. Some philosophers contended that souls are immortal. As to the resurrection of the body, it never entered into the mind of any one of them. The Sadducees, however, had grosser views; for they thought of nothing but the present life; nay more, they thought that the soul of man was a breath of wind without substance. It is not, therefore, altogether certain (as I have already said) whether the Corinthians had at this time gone to such a height of madness, as to cast off all expectation of a future life, or whether they merely denied the resurrection of the body; for the arguments which Paul makes use of seem to imply, that they were altogether bewitched with the mad dream of the Sadducees.

For example, when he says,

Of what advantage is it to be baptized for the dead?
(1 Corinthians 15:29.)

Were it not better to eat and to drink?
(1 Corinthians 15:32.)

Why are we in peril every hour? (1 Corinthians 15:30,)

and the like, it might very readily be replied, in accordance with the views of the philosophers, “Because after death the soul survives the body.” Hence some apply the whole of Paul’s reasoning contained in this chapter to the immortality of the soul. For my part, while I leave undetermined what the error of the Corinthians was, yet I cannot bring myself to view Paul’s words as referring to anything else than the resurrection of the body. Let it, therefore be regarded as a settled point, that it is of this exclusively that he treats in this chapter. And what if the impiety of Hymeneus and Philetus had extended thus far, ²²     “Iusques a Corinthe;” — “As far as Corinth.” who said that the resurrection was already past, (2 Timothy 2:18,) and that there would be nothing more of it? Similar to these, there are at the present day some madmen, or rather devils, ³³     “Possedez d’autres diables;” — “Possessed by other devils.” who call themselves Libertines. ⁴⁴     “The Libertines of Geneva were rather a cabal of rakes than a set of fanatics; for they made no pretense to any religious system, but only pleaded for the liberty of leading voluptuous and immoral lives. This cabal was composed of a certain number of licentious citizens, who could not bear the severe discipline of Calvin, who punished with rigour, not only dissolute manners, but Also whatever carried the aspect of irreligion and impiety.” — Paterson’s History of the Church, volume 2. — Ed. To me, however, the following conjecture appears more probable — that they were carried away by some delusion, ⁵⁵     “Par quelque opinion fantastique;” — “By some fantastic notion.” which took away from them the hope of a future resurrection, just as those in the present day, by imagining an allegorical resurrection, ⁶⁶     “Vne ie ne scay quelle resurrection allegorique;” — “An allegorical resurrection, I know not of what sort.” take away from us the true resurrection that is promised to us.

However this may be, it is truly a dreadful case, and next to a prodigy, that those who had been instructed by so distinguished a master, should have been capable of falling so quickly ⁷⁷     “Si soudainement seduits;” — “So suddenly seduced.” into errors of so gross a nature. But what is there that is surprising in this, when in the Israelitish Church the Sadducees had the audacity to declare openly that man differs nothing from a brute, in so far as concerns the essence of the soul, and has no enjoyment but what is common to him with the beasts? Let us observe, however, that blindness of this kind is a just judgment from God, so that those who do not rest satisfied with the truth of God, are tossed hither and thither by the delusions of Satan.

It is asked, however, why it is that he has left off or deferred to the close of the Epistle, what should properly have had the precedence of everything else? Some reply, that this was done for the purpose of impressing it more deeply upon the memory. I am rather of opinion that Paul did not wish to introduce a subject of such importance, until he had asserted his authority, which had been considerably lessened among the Corinthians, and until he had, by repressing their pride, prepared them for listening to him with docility.

I make known to you. To make known here does not mean to teach what was previously unknown to them, but to recall to their recollection what they had heard previously. “Call to your recollection, along with me, that gospel which you had learned, before you were led aside from the right course.” He calls the doctrine of the resurrection the gospel, that they may not imagine that any one is at liberty to form any opinion that he chooses on this point, as on other questions, which bring with them no injury to salvation.

When he adds, which I preached to you, he amplifies what he had said: “If you acknowledge me as an apostle, I have assuredly taught you so.” There is another amplification in the words — which also ye have received, for if they now allow themselves to be persuaded of the contrary, they will be chargeable with fickleness. A third amplification is to this effect, that they had hitherto continued in that belief with a firm and steady resolution, which is somewhat more than that they had once believed. But the most important thing of all is, that he declares that their salvation is involved in this, for it follows from this, that, if the resurrection is taken away, they have no religion left them, no assurance of faith, and in short, have no faith remaining. Others understand in another sense the word stand, as meaning that they are upheld; but the interpretation that I have given is a more correct one. ⁸⁸     It is remarked by Bloomfield, that “in ἐστήκατε (which means ‘ye have persevered, and do persevere,’) there is an agonistic metaphor, (as in Ephesians 6:13,) or an architectural one, like ἑδραῖοι γίνεσθε, (be steadfast,) in 1 Corinthians 15:58.” — Ed.

2. If you keep in memory — unless in vain ⁹⁹     “Our version does not express intelligibly the sense of ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκὢ ἐπιστεύσατε by rendering it so literally — unless ye have believed in vain. To believe in vain, according to the use of ancient languages, is to believe without just reason and authority, giving credit to idle reports as true and authentic. Thus Plutarch, speaking of some story which passed current, says, τοῦτο ἡμεῖς ἐ᾿ἴπομεν ἐν τί τῶν εἰκὢ πεπιστεύμενων — “this I said was one of those tales which are believed without any good authority.” (Sympos. lib. 1, quaest. 6.) The Latins used credere frustra — to believe in vain, or temere — (rashly.) Kypke takes notice that ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ, for except or unless, which has long been a suspected phrase, is used more than ten times by Lucian. It is also used by Plutarch in the Life of Demosthenes, volume 4.” — Alexander’s Paraphrase on 1 Corinthians 15. (London, 1766,) — Ed. These two expressions are very cutting. In the first, he reproves their carelessness or fickleness, because such a sudden fall was an evidence that they had never understood what had been delivered to them, or that their knowledge of it had been loose and floating, inasmuch as it had so quickly vanished. By the second, he warns them that they had needlessly and uselessly professed allegiance to Christ, if they did not hold fast this main doctrine. ¹⁰¹⁰     “Ce principal poinct de la foy;” — “This main article of faith.”

3. For I delivered to you first of all He now confirms what he had previously stated, by explaining that the resurrection had been preached by him, and that too as a fundamental doctrine of the gospel. First of all, says he, as it is wont to be with a foundation in the erecting of a house. At the same time he adds to the authority of his preaching, when he subjoins, that he delivered nothing but what he had received, for he does not simply mean that he related what he had from the report of others, but that it was what had been enjoined upon him by the Lord. ¹¹¹¹     “Que le Seigneur mesme luy auoit enseignee et commandee;” — “What the Lord himself had taught and commanded him.’: For the word ¹²¹²     “Le mot de receuoir;” — “The word receive.” must be explained in accordance with the connection of the passage. Now it is the duty of an apostle to bring forward nothing but what he has received from the Lord, so as from hand to hand ¹³¹³     The Reader will find our Author making use of the same proverbial expression when commenting on 1 Corinthians 4:1, and 1 Corinthians 11:23. See volume 1, pages 150, 373. — Ed. (as they say) to administer to the Church the pure word of God.

That Christ died, etc. See now more clearly whence he received it, for he quotes the Scriptures in proof. In the first place, he makes mention of the death of Christ, nay also of his burial, that we may infer, that, as he was like us in these things, he is so also in his resurrection. He has, therefore, died with us that we may rise with him. In his burial, too, the reality of the death in which he has taken part with us, is made more clearly apparent. Now there are many passages of Scripture in which Christ’s death and resurrection are predicted, but nowhere more plainly ¹⁴¹⁴     “Il n’y en a point de plus expres, et ou il en soit traitte plus apertement;” — “There are none of them that are more explicit, or where it is treated of more plainly” than in Isaiah 53, in Daniel 9:26, and in Psalm 22

For our sins That is, that by taking our curse upon him he might redeem us from it. For what else was Christ’s death, but a sacrifice for expiating our sins — what but a satisfactory penalty, by which we might be reconciled to God — what but the condemnation of one, for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness for us? He speaks also in the same manner in Romans 4:25, but in that passage, on the other hand, he ascribes it also to the resurrection as its effect — that it confers righteousness upon us; for as sin was done away through the death of Christ, so righteousness is procured through his resurrection. This distinction must be carefully observed, that we may know what we must look for from the death of Christ, and what from his resurrection. When, however, the Scripture in other places makes mention only of his death, let us understand that in those cases his resurrection is included in his death, but when they are mentioned separately, the commencement of our salvation is (as we see) in the one, and the consummation of it in the other.

5. That he was seen by Cephas He now brings forward eye witnesses, (αὐτόπτας) as they are called by Luke, (Luke 1:2,) who saw the accomplishment of what the Scriptures had foretold would take place. He does not, however, adduce them all, for he makes no mention of women. When, therefore, he says that he appeared first to Peter, you are to understand by this that he is put before all the men, so that there is nothing inconsistent with this in the statement of Mark (Mark 16:9) that he appeared to Mary.

But how is it that he says, that he appeared to the twelve, when, after the death of Judas, there were only eleven remaining? Chrysostom is of opinion that this took place after Matthias had been chosen in his room. Others have chosen rather to correct the expression, looking upon it as a mistake ¹⁵¹⁵     Granville Penn supposes that the common reading εἶτα τοῖς δώδεκα then to the twelve, is a corruption for εἶτα τοῖς δε δεκα — and then to the ten, understanding the Apostle as meaning, that Christ appeared first to Cephas, and then to the other ten. Dr. Adam Clarke, after stating that “instead of δώδεκα, twelve, ἓνδεκα, eleven is the reading of D* E F G, Syriac in the margin, some of the Slavonic, Armenian, Vulgate, Itala, and several of the Fathers,” and that “this reading is supported by Mark 16:14,” remarks: “Perhaps the term twelve is used here merely to point out the society of the Apostles. who, though at this time they were only eleven, were still called the twelve, because this was their original number, and a number which was afterwards filled up.” “The twelve was a name not of number, but of office. — McKnight. — Ed. But as we know, that there were twelve in number that were set apart by Christ’s appointment, though one of them had been expunged from the roll, there is no absurdity in supposing that the name was retained. On this principle, there was a body of men at Rome that were called Centumviri, ¹⁶¹⁶     “C’est a dire, les Cents;” — “That is to say, the Hundred.” while they were in number 102. ¹⁷¹⁷     The reader will find the same term referred to by Calvin when commenting on 1 Corinthians 10:8. (See Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 324, n. 3.) — Ed. By the twelve, therefore, you are simply to understand the chosen Apostles.

It does not quite appear when it was that this appearing to more than five hundred took place. Only it is possible that this large multitude assembled at Jerusalem, when he manifested himself to them. For Luke (Luke 24:33) makes mention in a general way of the disciples who had assembled with the eleven; but how many there were he does not say. Chrysostom refers it to the ascension, and explains the word ἐπάνω to mean, from on high. ¹⁸¹⁸     “This peculiar use of ἐπάνω for πλωῖον, (which seems to have been popular or provincial, not being found in the Classical writers,) occurs also in Mark 14:5, but with a genitive. Perhaps, however, it has properly no regimen, but is used parenthetically, like the Latin plus trecentos, 300 and more.” — Bloomfield. The word ὠπάνω is used in a similar way in the Septuagint. Thus in Exodus 30:14 ἀπὸ εἰκοσαετοῦς και ἐπάνω — from twenty years old and above, and in Leviticus 27:7, ἀπὸ ἑξήκονταἐτῶν και ἐπάνω — from sixty years old and above. — Ed. Unquestionably, as to what he says in reference to his having appeared to James apart, this may have been subsequently to the ascension.

By all the Apostles I understand not merely the twelve, but also those disciples to whom Christ had assigned the office of preaching the gospel. ¹⁹¹⁹     Calvin’s view accords with that of Chrysostom, who says, ἦσαν γὰρ καὶ ἄλλοι ἀπόστολοι ὡς ὁι ἑιβδομήκοντα — “for there were also other Apostles, such as the seventy.” — Ed. In proportion as our Lord was desirous that there should be many witnesses of his resurrection, and that it should be frequently testified of, let us know that it should be so much the more surely believed among us. (Luke 1:1.) Farther, inasmuch as the Apostle proves the resurrection of Christ from the fact that he appeared to many, he intimates by this, that it was not figurative but true and natural, for the eyes of the body cannot be witnesses of a spiritual resurrection.

8. Last of all to me, as to one born prematurely, He now introduces himself along with the others, for Christ had manifested himself to him as alive, and invested with glory. ²⁰²⁰     “En sa vie et gloire immortelle;” — “In his life and immortal glory.” As it was no deceptive vision, it was calculated to be of use ²¹²¹     “Elle estoit suffisante et receuable;” — “It was sufficient and admissible.” for establishing a belief in the resurrection, as he also makes use of this argument in Acts 26:8. But as it was of no small importance that his authority should have the greatest weight and influence among the Corinthians, he introduces, by the way, a commendation of himself personally, but at the same time qualified in such a manner that, while he claims much for himself, he is at the same time exceedingly modest. Lest any one, therefore, should meet him with the objection: “Who art thou that we should give credit to thee?” he, of his own accord, confesses his unworthiness, and, in the first place, indeed he compares himself to one that is born prematurely, and that, in my opinion, with reference to his sudden conversion. For as infants do not come forth from the womb, until they have been there formed and matured during a regular course of time, so the Lord observed a regular period of time in creating, nourishing, and forming his Apostles. Paul, on the other hand, had been cast forth from the womb when he had scarcely received the vital spark. ²²²²     In accordance with the view taken by Calvin, Bloomfield considers the original term. ἔκτρωμα to mean, a child born before the due time, (in which sense the term abortivus, is employed by Horace, Sat. 1:3.46,) the Apostle “calling himself so as being an Apostle not formed and matured by previous preparation and instruction.” Penn, after quoting the definition given by Eustathius of the term ἔκτρωμα — τὸ μήπω τετυπώμενον — an unformed foetus, remarks: “To all the other Apostles our Lord appeared after his resurrection, when they had attained their adult form in his ministry; but to St. Paul he appeared at the first moment of his spiritual conception, and before he was formed or moulded.” The same view, in substance, is given by McKnight. “Although he” (Paul) “calls himself an abortive Apostle, it was not on account of his being sensible of any imperfection in his commission, or of any weakness in his qualifications as an Apostle; for he affirms, 2 Corinthians 11:5, that he was in nothing behind the very greatest of the Apostles; but he called himself an abortive Apostle, because, as he tells us (1 Corinthians 15:9,) he had persecuted the Church of God, and because he was made an Apostle without that previous course of instruction and preparation, which the other Apostles enjoyed who had attended Jesus Christ during his ministry on earth; so that, in the proper sense of the word, he was ἔκτρωμα — born before he was brought to maturity. That want, however, was abundantly supplied by the many revelations which his master gave him after he made him an Apostle.” — Ed. There are some that understand the term rendered abortive as employed to mean posthumous; ²³²³     “C’est a dire qui est nay apres la mort de son pete;” — “That is to say, one that is born after the death of his father.” but the former term is much more suitable, inasmuch as he was in one moment begotten, and born, and a man of full age. Now this premature birth renders the grace of God more illustrious in Paul than if he had by little and little, and by successive steps, grown up to maturity in Christ.

9. For I am the least It is not certain whether his enemies threw out this for the purpose of detracting from his credit, or whether it was entirely of his own accord, that he made the acknowledgment. For my part, while I have no doubt that, he was at all times voluntarily, and even cheerfully, disposed to abase himself, that he might magnify the grace of God, yet I suspect that in this instance he wished to obviate calumnies. For that there were some at Corinth that made it their aim to detract from his dignity by malicious slander, may be inferred not only from many foregoing passages, but also from his adding a little afterwards a comparison, which he would assuredly never have touched upon, if he had not been constrained to it by the wickedness of some, “Detract from me as much as you please — I shall suffer myself to be cast down below the ground — I shall suffer myself to be of no account whatever, ²⁴²⁴     “Estre estime moins que rien;” — “To be esteemed less than nothing.” that the goodness of God towards me may shine forth the more. Let me, therefore, be reckoned the least of the Apostles: nay more, I acknowledge myself to be unworthy of this distinction. For by what merits could I have attained to that honor? When I persecuted the Church of God, what did I merit? But there is no reason why you should judge of me according to my own worth, ²⁵²⁵     “Par ma petite et basse condition;” — “By my little and low condition.” for the Lord did not look to what I was, but made me by his grace quite another man.” The sum is this, that Paul does not refuse to be the most worthless of all, and next to nothing, provided this contempt does not impede him in any degree in his ministry, and does not at all detract from his doctrine. He is contented that, as to himself, he shall be reckoned unworthy of any honor, provided only he commends his apostleship in respect of the grace conferred upon him. And assuredly God had not adorned him with such distinguished endowments in order that his grace might lie buried or neglected, but he had designed thereby to render his apostleship illustrious and distinguished.

10. And his grace was not vain. Those that set free-will in opposition to the grace of God, that whatever good we do may not be ascribed wholly to Him, wrest these words to suit their own interpretation — as if Paul boasted, that he had by his own industry taken care that God’s grace toward him had not been misdirected. Hence they infer, that God, indeed, offers his grace, but that the right use of it is in man’s own power, and that it is in his own power to prevent its being ineffectual. I maintain, however, that these words of Paul give no support to their error, for he does not here claim anything as his own, as if he had himself, independently of God, done anything praiseworthy. What then? That he might not seem to glory to no purpose in mere words, while devoid of reality, he says, that he affirms nothing that is not openly apparent. Farther, even admitting that these words intimate, that Paul did not abuse the grace of God, and did not render it ineffectual by his negligence, I maintain, nevertheless, that there is no reason on that account, why we should divide between him and God the praise, that ought to be ascribed wholly to God, inasmuch as he confers upon us not merely the power of doing well, but also the inclination and the accomplishment.

But more abundantly Some refer this to vain-glorious boasters, ²⁶²⁶     “Thrasones.” See Calvin on the Corinthians, vol. 1, p. 98, n. 1. who, by detracting from Paul, endeavored to set off themselves and their goods to advantage, as, in their opinion at least, it is not likely that he wished to enter upon a contest with the Apostles. When he compares himself, however, with the Apostles, he does so merely for the sake of those wicked persons, who were accustomed to bring them forward for the purpose of detracting from his reputation, as we see in the Epistle to the Galatians (Galatians 1:11.) Hence the probability is, that it is of the Apostles that he speaks, when he represents his own labors as superior to theirs, and it is quite true, that he was superior to others, not merely in respect of his enduring many hardships, encountering many dangers, abstaining from things lawful, and perseveringly despising all perils; (2 Corinthians 11:26;) but also because the Lord gave to his labors a much larger measure of success. ²⁷²⁷     “Dieu donnoit plus heureuse issue a ses labeurs, et les faisoit prou-fiter plus amplement;” — “God gave to his labors a more prosperous issue, and made them much more successful.” For I take labor here to mean the fruit of his labor that appeared.

Not I, but the grace The old translator, by leaving out the article, has given occasion of mistake to those that are not acquainted with the Greek language, for in consequence of his having rendered the words thus — not I, but the grace of God with me, ²⁸²⁸     In the Alexandrine MS. the reading is: But not I, but the grace of God with me. — Corresponding to this is the rendering of Wiclif, (1380,) — But not I, but the grace of God with me. — Ed. they thought that only the half of the praise is ascribed to God, and that the other half is reserved for man. They, accordingly, understand the meaning to be that Paul labored not alone, inasmuch as he could do nothing without co-operating grace, ²⁹²⁹     See Institutes, volume 1. but at the same time it was under the influence of his own free-will, and by means of his own strength. His words, however, have quite a different meaning, for what he had said was his own, he afterwards, correcting himself, ascribes wholly to the grace of God — wholly, I say, not in part, for whatever he might have seemed to do, was wholly, he declares, the work of grace. A remarkable passage certainly, both for laying low the pride of man, and for magnifying the operation of Divine grace in us. For Paul, as though he had improperly made himself the author of anything good, corrects what he had said, and declares the grace of God to have been the efficient cause of the whole. Let us not think that there is here a mere pretense of humility ³⁰³⁰     Heideggerus seems to have had Calvin’s exposition here in his view in the following observations on the expression made use of by the Apostle: “Non Gratia Dei meoum, uti vetus Itala vertit, quasi effectus inter Gra-tiam Dei, et Pauli arbitrium distribueretur; nihil enim habuit ipse, quod non acceperit; sed Οὐκ ἐγὼ δε, ἀλλἀ ἡ χάρις τοῦ Θεοῦ σὺν ἐμοί mecum, ut totum et in solidum omne gratiae soli acceptum feratur. Neque ita loquitur solius humilitatis et modestiae explieandae ergo, quanquam et hanc testari voluit; sed quia po-tens illa gratia demonstratio et testimonium irrefragabile erat resurrectionis Domini.” — “Not the grace of God with me, as the old Italic version renders it, as though the effect were divided between God’s grace and Paul’s free-will; for he has nothing that he has not received, but ἡ σὺν ἐμοί, which with me, that every thing may be wholly and entirely ascribed to grace alone. Nor does he speak thus, merely for the purpose of showing humility and modesty, though he had it also in view to testify this, but because that grace was a powerful demonstration and irrefragable testimony of our Lord’s resurrection.” — Heideggeri Labores Exegetici in Cor. (Tiguri. 1700). — Ed. It is in good earnest that he speaks thus, and from knowing that it is so in truth. Let us learn, therefore, that we have nothing that is good, but what the Lord has graciously given us, that we do nothing good but what he worketh in us, (Philippians 2:13) — not that we do nothing ourselves, but that we do nothing without being influenced — that is, under the guidance and impulse of the Holy Spirit.