Albert Barnes Commentary 1 Corinthians 15:12

"Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?" — 1 Corinthians 15:12 (ASV)

Now if Christ, etc. Paul, having stated the direct evidence for the resurrection of the Lord Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:1–11, proceeds here to demonstrate that the dead would rise. He does this by showing how their resurrection followed from the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen, and by outlining the consequences of 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 preaching in such a way 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 anyone say this? 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 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 introducing philosophy into the church. This has been the fruitful source of most of the errors that have been introduced into the church.

That there is no resurrection of the dead? That the dead cannot rise. How can it be maintained that there can be no resurrection, while it is also 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 connection between Christ and his people that the admission of this fact also involved the doctrine that all his people would 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. He demonstrates a fact, showing that such an event had occurred, and 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, labored simply to establish the fact that one had been raised, and thus at once met 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 metaphysical subtlety; it does not depend on human reasoning or analogy. Instead, it rests, just as the sciences of astronomy, chemistry, anatomy, botany, and natural philosophy do, on well-ascertained facts. It is now a well-understood principle of all true science that no difficulty, no obstacle, no metaphysical subtlety, no embarrassment about being able to see how it is, should be allowed to destroy the conviction in the mind that the facts are fitted to produce.