John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 15

Now I make known to you. He now addresses another subject—the resurrection—belief in which among the Corinthians had been shaken by some wicked persons. It is uncertain, however, whether they doubted only about the ultimate resurrection of the body, or also about the immortality of the soul.

It is widely known that there were a variety of errors regarding this point. Some philosophers contended that souls are immortal. Regarding the resurrection of the body, it never occurred to any of them. The Sadducees, however, had grosser views, for they thought of nothing but the present life; furthermore, they thought that the soul of man was a breath of wind without substance.

It is not, therefore, entirely certain (as I have already said) whether the Corinthians had at this time reached such a level of madness as to reject all expectation of a future life, or whether they merely denied the resurrection of the body. For the arguments Paul uses seem to imply that they were entirely 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. To these, one might very readily reply, 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, I cannot bring myself to view Paul’s words as referring to anything other than the resurrection of the body.

Therefore, let it be regarded as a settled point that he deals exclusively with this in this chapter. And what if the impiety of Hymenaeus and Philetus had extended this far, 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 today some madmen, or rather devils, who call themselves Libertines.

To me, however, the following conjecture appears more probable: they were carried away by some delusion that took away from them the hope of a future resurrection, just as those today, by imagining an allegorical resurrection, take away from us the true resurrection that is promised to us.

However this may be, it is truly a dreadful case, and nearly a prodigy, that those who had been instructed by so distinguished a master should have been capable of falling so quickly into such gross errors.

But what is surprising in this, when in the Israelite Church the Sadducees had the audacity to declare openly that man is no different from an animal regarding the essence of his soul, and has no enjoyment beyond what is common to him with the animals?

Let us observe, however, that blindness of this kind is a just judgment from God, so that those who are not satisfied with God's truth are tossed here and there by Satan's delusions.

It is asked, however, why he deferred until the end of the Epistle what should properly have preceded everything else.

Some reply that this was done to impress it more deeply upon the memory.

I am rather of the 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, by repressing their pride, he had prepared them to listen 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 remind them of what they had heard previously.

He says, in effect, “Call to your memory, along with me, that gospel which you had learned, before you were led astray from the right course.”

He calls the doctrine of the resurrection the gospel so that they may not imagine that anyone is free to form whatever opinion they choose on this point, as on other questions that do not jeopardize 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 you have received—for if they now allow themselves to be persuaded of the contrary, they will be guilty of fickleness. A third amplification is to this effect: that they had until now 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, no assurance of faith, and in short, no faith remaining. Others understand the word stand in another sense, as meaning that they are upheld; but the interpretation that I have given is more correct.

If you keep in memory — unless in vain. These two expressions are very cutting. In the first, he reproves their carelessness or fickleness, because such a sudden fall was evidence that they had never understood what had been delivered to them, or that their knowledge of it had been loose and floating, since it had vanished so quickly. 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.

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 also as a fundamental doctrine of the gospel. First of all, he says, as is customary with a foundation in erecting a house. At the same time, he adds to the authority of his preaching when he adds 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 commanded him by the Lord.

For the word 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 (as they say), to administer to the Church the pure word of God.

That Christ died, etc. See now more clearly from where he received it, for he quotes the Scriptures in proof. In the first place, he mentions the death of Christ, indeed also of his burial, so that we may infer that, as he was like us in these things, so he is also in his resurrection. Therefore, he has died with us so that we may rise with him. In his burial, also, the reality of the death he has shared with us is made clearer.

Now there are many passages of Scripture in which Christ’s death and resurrection are predicted, but nowhere more plainly than in Isaiah 53, Daniel 9:26, and Psalm 22.

For our sins That is, that by taking our curse upon himself 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 also speaks in the same manner in Romans 4:25, but in that passage, on the other hand, he also ascribes to the resurrection its effect — that it confers righteousness upon us; for as sin was done away with through the death of Christ, so righteousness is obtained through his resurrection.

This distinction must be carefully observed, so that we may know what we must look for from the death of Christ and what from his resurrection. When, however, Scripture in other places mentions only 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.

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. Therefore, when 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 why does he say that he appeared to the twelve, when, after the death of Judas, there were only eleven remaining? Chrysostom is of the opinion that this took place after Matthias had been chosen in his place. Others have chosen rather to correct the expression, viewing it as a mistake. But as we know that there were twelve in number who 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 called the Centumviri, even though they actually numbered 102. By the twelve, therefore, you are simply to understand the chosen Apostles.

It is not entirely clear when this appearing to more than five hundred took place. It is possible, however, that this large multitude assembled at Jerusalem when he manifested himself to them. For Luke (Luke 24:33) mentions in a general way the disciples who had assembled with the eleven, but he does not say how many there were. Chrysostom refers this event to the ascension and explains the word ἐπάνω to mean, from on high. Unquestionably, regarding his appearance to James individually, this may have occurred after 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. Just as our Lord desired many witnesses of his resurrection and frequent testimony to it, let us also recognize that it should be all the more surely believed among us. (Luke 1:1). Furthermore, since the Apostle proves the resurrection of Christ from the fact that he appeared to many, he implies by this that it was not figurative but true and natural, for the eyes of the body cannot be witnesses of a spiritual resurrection.

Last of all to me, as to one born prematurely, He now introduces himself along with the others, for Christ had revealed Himself to him as alive and invested with glory. Since it was no deceptive vision, it was suited for establishing belief in the resurrection, an argument he also uses in Acts 26:8.

But since it was very important that his authority should have the greatest weight and influence among the Corinthians, he incidentally introduces a personal commendation of himself. However, he qualifies it in such a way that, while he claims much for himself, he is at the same time very modest.

Therefore, so that no one might counter him with the objection, “Who are you that we should believe you?” he voluntarily confesses his unworthiness. Indeed, in the first place, he compares himself to one who is born prematurely—in my opinion, with reference to his sudden conversion.

For just as infants do not emerge from the womb until they have been formed and matured there over a regular period, so the Lord observed a regular period in creating, nourishing, and forming his Apostles. Paul, on the other hand, had been thrust out from the womb when he had barely received the spark of life.

Some understand the term interpreted as abortive to mean posthumous; but the former term is much more suitable, since he was in one moment conceived, born, and a man of full age. Now this premature birth makes God's grace more illustrious in Paul than if he had gradually, and by successive steps, matured in Christ.