Thomas Aquinas Commentary 1 Corinthians 15:12-19

"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? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised: and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain. Yea, we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised: and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable." — 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (ASV)

Having built up faith in the resurrection of Christ, the Apostle now proves the future resurrection of the dead by means of Christ's resurrection. First, he proves the future resurrection; second, he shows the nature of those who rise (verse 35); and third, he describes the order of the resurrection (verse 54). Regarding the first point, he does two things: first, he proves the future resurrection of the dead with a reason drawn from Christ's resurrection; second, with a reason drawn from the lives of the saints (verse 29). He proves the resurrection of the dead from Christ's resurrection with this argument: If Christ rose, then the dead will rise. In presenting this argument, he does three things: first, he presents a conditional proposition, namely, if Christ rose, the dead also will rise; second, he proves the first part of this conditional statement (verse 13); and third, he proves that the conditional statement itself is true (verse 20).

First, therefore, he says: I have said that whether I or others—namely, the apostles—preached, this is what you have believed. But if Christ is preached by us as raised from the dead, how can some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? It is as if he is saying: If Christ rose from the dead, as we preach, then no one should doubt the future resurrection of the dead. For we believe that Christ died and rose again (1 Thessalonians 4:13). Hence, it is written: He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will give life to our mortal bodies (Romans 8:10).

But this argument seems invalid, since it appears to argue from a particular case to a general rule. For although Christ, as a particular man, rose by the power of His divinity, it does not follow that other men will rise. To this, some answer that the argument is not from a particular case but from an analogy. They say that since dying and rising belong to Christ according to His human nature, the argument is like saying: "The soul of Socrates is immortal; therefore, all human souls are immortal."

But it seems better to say that the argument is from a cause, because Christ's resurrection is the cause of our resurrection. Therefore, according to one commentary, it should be said: If Christ, who is the efficient cause of our resurrection, has risen, how can you say there is no resurrection? Yet one should not say that He is the efficient cause only in the sense of merit, because by rising He did not merit our resurrection, since He had already attained glory and lived the life of glory (unless, perhaps, the merit for the resurrection of the dead is referred to Christ's death). Neither is He merely the exemplary cause, as some say. Rather, He is both the efficient and exemplary cause. Hence Augustine says in his work on John that “the Word made flesh gives life to souls and raises the dead.” Therefore, it is clear that if Christ rose, the dead also will rise.

On the other hand, an objection can be raised: rising from the dead is a supernatural act, accomplished only by the infinite power of God. Therefore, the resurrection of Christ’s body cannot be the efficient cause of the resurrection of the dead, since Christ’s humanity—His body—is a creature (although Christ Himself, “the man,” cannot be called a mere creature).

The answer is that because the Godhead is in Christ, Christ is the exemplary and efficient cause of the resurrection through His humanity, which acts as an instrument of His divinity. To resolve the objection, it should be noted that the humanity of Christ does not produce an effect of infinite power by its own nature as humanity, but by virtue of being the humanity of the divine Person of Christ.

But another question arises: once a sufficient cause is present, the effect follows immediately. Therefore, if Christ's resurrection is the sufficient cause of the resurrection of the dead, then the dead should have all risen at that time and not been delayed. The answer is that an effect follows from an instrumental cause according to the will of the principal cause. Therefore, since God is the principal cause of our resurrection and Christ’s resurrection is the instrumental cause, our resurrection follows Christ’s resurrection according to God’s own plan, which has appointed it to happen at a specific time.

But if God had not become incarnate, would men still rise? It seems not, because Christ would not have suffered and risen. I answer that this objection is invalid. When something is ordained to happen through a specific cause, we must reason according to the order established by that cause. Therefore, it must be said that God ordained for the resurrection of the dead to occur in this specific way; yet God could still have accomplished it in another way, if He had willed.

Next, when the Apostle argues that if there is no resurrection, then Christ has not risen, he proves that Christ has risen by showing the absurd consequences that would follow if He had not. In this, he does two things: first, he points out these absurdities, and second, he shows why they are absurd.

On the first point, he makes his deduction from the premise that if Christ has not risen, the dead will not rise. If this is so, two unacceptable consequences follow: one is that the Apostle’s preaching is empty and useless, and the other is that the Corinthians' faith is empty. Hence he says, If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain. He says this because it is what he and the other apostles preach and what the Corinthians have believed. Therefore, if Christ has not risen, our preaching is empty—that is, false. This would be a great absurdity, that the truth did not support their preaching, especially since the Apostle says elsewhere, I have not run in vain or labored in vain (Philippians 2:16).

He continues, We are even found to be false witnesses of God. Here he shows why those two consequences are absurd. First, he shows that it is absurd for the apostles' preaching to be empty or false; second, he shows that it is absurd for their faith to be empty (verse 17).

First, it is shown to be absurd because the apostles would be false witnesses. This would not only mean they were saying empty things or speaking falsely against a man, which is a mortal sin, but they would be false witnesses against God, which is sacrilege. For if God did not raise Christ from the dead, they are found to be false witnesses. And if the dead do not rise, then God did not raise Christ from the dead. As Job asks, Will you speak falsely for God? (Job 13:7). This is the worst kind of falsehood: to attribute to God something He did not do and to praise in Him what is not His.

Hence Augustine says, “When something false is praised in God, it is not a lesser but a greater crime than if the truth were slandered.” The reason for this is that our intellect can never praise God so much that it does not fall short of His perfection; our knowledge of God’s truth is always due to His excellence. But if something is attributed to God that He did not do, it suggests that our intellect is greater than God and can conceive of something greater than He is—which is what is being falsely attributed to Him. This is contrary to 1 John 3:20: God is greater than our heart.

But if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile. Here he shows why it would be absurd for their faith to be futile. He demonstrates this with three absurdities that would follow. The first is that falsehood clearly does not have the power to cleanse from sin. But faith does cleanse from sin: He cleansed their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9). Therefore, if their faith is futile—which would be the case if Christ has not risen, because they believed that He did rise—their sins are not forgiven. This is what he means when he says, You are still in your sins.

Because someone might say that although faith does not cleanse sins, they can be cleansed by good works, he adds a second absurdity: that the dead, who cannot be cleansed in the next life, have perished without hope of salvation. And so, as if concluding, he says that those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. They have died in the hope of salvation, in the faith of Christ, but have perished because in the next life there are no meritorious works.

But because someone could still say, “I do not care about sins or about the dead, as long as I have peace and quiet in this life,” he adds a third absurdity. He says, If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. He bases this on the argument that if there is no resurrection of the dead, it follows that humans possess nothing good except in this life alone. If this is so, then those who suffer many evils and tribulations in this life are the most miserable. Therefore, since the apostles and other Christians suffer many tribulations, it follows that they are more miserable than other people, who at least enjoy the good things of this world.

However, two doubts arise concerning this reasoning. The first is that what the Apostle says—that Christians would have hope in this life only—does not seem to be universally true. One could argue that although our bodies possess good things only in this mortal life, our souls can still possess many good things in the next life.

This objection can be answered in two ways. First, if the resurrection of the body is denied, it is difficult, indeed, to maintain the immortality of the soul. For it is clear that the soul is naturally united to the body; its separation from the body is contrary to its nature and happens only incidentally. Hence, a soul separated from its body is in an imperfect state. But it is impossible for something that is natural and essential (the union of soul and body) to be finite and temporary, while something that is against nature and incidental (the separation) is infinite, which would be the case if the soul were to endure forever without the body. This is why the Platonists, when they proposed the soul's immortality, also proposed reincarnation, although this is heretical. Therefore, if the dead do not rise, our hope is indeed only for this life.

Second, it is clear that a person naturally desires his own salvation. But the soul is only a part of the person, not the entire person; my soul is not "I." Therefore, even if the soul obtains salvation in another life, it is not I—or any whole person—who is saved. Furthermore, since a person naturally desires the salvation of the body as well, this natural desire would be frustrated.

The second doubt is that even if bodies do not rise, it seems Christians would not be more miserable than other people, because those who are in sin undergo greater hardships. As Jeremiah 4:5 says, They have labored to commit iniquity, and the wicked say, We have walked difficult paths . But of the good and just it is said, The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace… (Galatians 5:22).

The answer is that evils in this world are not to be sought for their own sake, but only insofar as they are directed toward some good. The apostles and Christians suffered many evils in the world. Therefore, unless these sufferings were directed toward some good, they would indeed be more miserable than other people. Their sufferings must be directed either to a future good or a present good. But they cannot be directed to a future good if there is no resurrection of the dead.

If, on the other hand, their sufferings are directed to a present good, this could be either a good of the intellect or a good of morals. It cannot be for a good of the intellect—as natural philosophers suffered poverty and other evils to know the truth—because if there is no resurrection, their faith would be false, since they preached a future resurrection. And falsehood is not a good of the intellect.

Nor can their sufferings be for a good of morals—as moral philosophers suffered many evils to acquire virtue and fame. If there is no resurrection, it is not considered virtuous or glorious to renounce all pleasant things and undergo punishment, death, and contempt; rather, it is considered folly. And so it is clear that, without the resurrection, Christians would be more miserable than all other people.