10. See the introduction, here .

Cf. the repeated “if the dead are not raised” in vv. 16, 29, and 32.

Otherwise Schmithals, 155–59, who argues that they are denying the resurrection of Christ; but his view is predicated on several questionable assumptions, which he then set out to prove.

On this matter see the discussion in Hurd, 91–92. The reason for thinking it comes by way of report is the language “some among you,” which is found again in what appears to be the anticipated response in v. 35: “Someone will ask. . . .” This does not sound like language responding to their letter.

This seems to be the point of the otherwise unnecessary inclusion of the burial (as a matter of first importance) and the considerable catalogue of appearances. Otherwise, Barth, Resurrection, 150–51; and W. Marxsen, The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (ET, Philadelphia, 1970), 95, who see the section as an attempt to trace back the later faith of all the church(es) to Jesus himself. But that seems to miss Paul’s concern.

All 14 occurrences of νεκρός in this letter are in chap. 15. As Pearson (15; cf. 94 n. 3) points out, to the person whose native tongue was Greek this would mean the resurrection of “corpses,” an idea that “would probably be repugnant.”

There has been a long debate with a considerable bibliography. Although there are variations on each, and hybrid forms of each, basically the positions are five: (1) that the opponents were some Jews who had a Sadducean theology that rejected resurrection altogether; (2) that the Corinthians had imbibed Greek philosophy so that they believed in the immortality of the soul but rejected the resurrection of the body; (3) that some of them had adopted gnostic views and actually denied the resurrection of Christ; (4) that they were the forerunners of the “overrealized” eschatology advocated later by Hymenaeus and Philetus in Ephesus (2 Tim. 2:17–18), arguing that the resurrection has already occurred in a spiritual sense; (5) that in their sacramental union with Christ they believed they had received present immortality, and that what they denied therefore was the possibility of death itself, a position sometimes held in conjunction with (4). The most complete critical discussion of these views and others can be found in the unpublished dissertation by D. J. Murphy, “The Dead in Christ: Paul’s Understanding of God’s Fidelity: Α Study of I Corinthians 15” (Union, N.Y., 1977), 9–161. For briefer overviews see J. H. Wilson, “The Corinthians Who Say There Is No Resurrection of the Dead,” ZNW 59 (1968), 90–107; B. Spörlein, Die Leugnung der Auferstehung. Eine historisch-kritische Untersuchung zu I Korinther 15 (Regensburg, 1971), 1–19; A. J. M. Wedderburn, “The Problem of the Denial of the Resurrection in I Corinthians XV,” NovT 23 (1981), 229–41; and K. A. Plank, “Resurrection Theology: Τhe Corinthian Controversy Reexamined,” PRS 8 (1981), 41–54.

For this thoroughly Greek view of the body, see further on 6:13–14.

It is altogether likely that they held a similar view of Jesus’ resurrection. That is, they believed in his “resurrection” but they had spiritualized it in their own terms. For a presentation of this view, see R. J. Sider, “St. Paul’s Understanding of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in I Corinthians XV 1–19,” NovT 19 (1977), 124–41.

For similar, but not identical, reconstructions, see Wedderburn, “Problem,” and Lincoln, 33–37.

See the introduction, .

Since the first believers were Jews, and had experienced the Risen Christ, they would naturally have assumed a Jewish confidence in their own resurrection as well. However, on the matter of lack of a monolithic view in contemporary Judaism, see H. C. C. Cavallin, Life After Death, part 1 (Lund, 1974).

For example, in the creedal argument in vv. 3–5, the matters of “first importance” center in Christ and have “for our sins” as the human benefit.

Cf. 1 Thess. 4:14: “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, thus will God also bring with him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus.”

As Conzelmann, 250, notes: “Paul’s theses are in essence understandable even if we cannot reconstruct with certainty the views prevailing in Corinth on this world and the next, on death and the afterlife.”

The Western tradition (D* F G a b t Ambst)—and probably (as Zuntz, 254–55, argues) the Vorlage of P⁴⁶ as well—has the spurious substitution of ὀφείλετε κατέχειν for the εἰ κατέχετε of Paul. Martin, 89, 92, seems to prefer this reading, but it has little to commend it as the original.

Not surprisingly, Marcion omitted this clause; in this he is followed by b and Ambrosiaster.

Apparently as part of a theological tendency to heighten the role of Peter, the Western tradition substituted καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα for Paul’s εἶτα, suggesting that the “tradition” ends with the appearance to Peter. Then, “after these things” he appeared to the rest. They also substitute “the Eleven” for “the Twelve.” One cannot tell whether this is a “pedantic correction” (so Metzger, 1st ed., 567) because of the demise of Judas, or whether it meant the “eleven,” minus Peter, who had already received his own resurrection appearance.

See the preceding note.

For the textual variation here, see Metzger, 501; English versions are divided as to whether Paul intended “grace” that “was” or “is” with him.

The Western tradition (D* F G b Ambst) reads πτωχή for κενή, resulting in “his grace was not beggarly [or impoverished, impotent].” As Zuntz argues, 89–90, on transcriptional grounds this is so difficult that it well may be original. Thus, God’s “rich” grace did not prove to be “poor” in his case.

R. J. Sider, “St. Paul’s Understanding of the Nature and Significance of the Resurrection in 1 Cor 15:1–19,” NovT 19 (1977), 124–41, suggests otherwise (132), that the list of eyewitnesses is included because some in Corinth had come to doubt the teaching of Christ’s resurrection. But it is not clear whether Sider means that they have come to doubt his bodily resurrection, or the resurrection altogether. It would seem to be the former.

(1) The fact that he says it is something he both “received” and “passed along” to them; (2) the stylized form of four statements in two balanced sets; (3) the repeated ὅτι before each clause, which implies a kind of quotation and (4) the appearance of several non-Pauline words in such a short compass. On this question see esp. Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 101–3.

Not so Lenski, 630, on the grounds that in Gal. 1:11–2:2 Paul rejects having received his gospel from men; cf. Grosheide, 349. But the context of Galatians indicates that “his gospel” in that case has to do with its being law-free and for the Gentiles. The concern is different here. See on v. 11.

Cf. P. von der Osten-Sacken, “Die Apologie des paulinischen Apostolats in 1 Kor 15:1–11,” ZNW 64 (1973), 245–62; cf. also M. J. Harris, Raised Immortal: Resurrection and Immortality in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1982), 13.

Gk. γνωρίζω; cf. 12:3 and esp. Gal. 1:11, where this sentence is repeated nearly verbatim.

Cf. the same combination in 12:1 and 3, where the lack of a chapter break makes the connection more visible. Conzelmann, 250, prefers to see the usage as “ceremonious.”

F. Blass, e.g., considered the final two clauses a gloss (see BDF 478). The most common solution is to reverse the final two clauses, so that they read, “If you hold fast what I preached to you.” But none of these expedients is necessary.

Adopted by RV; cf. Edwards, 391; Findlay, 919; Bachmann, 429. The objection by Héring, 157, that this leaves κατέχετε without an object is irrelevant. The NEB had turned the first B line into a question, which was rightly corrected in the REB, while the ESV translators added an intrusive “and” before the second A-B lines.

Gk. δέ; probably consecutive, as the NIV has it; cf. REB, NRSV, NAB.

On this familial vocative in 1 Corinthians, see on 1:10.

Gk. παρελάβετε (see on 11:23). Although this is the language of the “transmission” of tradition, in this case it also refers to their having received it in a saving way, hence to their conversion.

Gk. perfect (ἑστήκατε); the NIV catches the perfect with “you have taken your stand,” but seems to miss Paul’s nuance by implying that it is the gospel on which they stand; more likely Paul means the gospel is that “in which they currently stand as believers.” Cf. esp. Rom. 5:2.

Gk. σῴζεσθε; cf. 1:18, where the same futuristic nuance of the present tense may be seen; salvation is now, but it is also in process, to be completed at the Day of the Lord. See esp. Rom. 5:9; 1 Thess. 5:9–10. So also Findlay, 918; Barrett, 336.

Cf. R-P, 331.

Gk. τίνι λόγῳ; cf. the usage in 1 Thess. 4:2.

Gk. εἰ (“if”); the suggested translation is appropriate when the “if” clause follows the clause it modifies, as here. Cf. 1 Tim. 2:15.

Gk. κατέχετε; cf. the affirmation in 11:2.

Gk. ἐκτὸς εἰ μή; see on 14:5.

Gk. εἰκῇ; used only by Paul in the NT (Rom. 13:4; Gal. 3:4 [twice]; 4:11; Col. 2:18). Some would make it mean here “without consideration” or “idly” (e.g., Findlay, 919; R-P, 332). This is possible, but it misses the irony and the close tie to v. 14.

This is the point missed by those who see this analysis as “untenable” (e.g., R-P, 332).

Thus the Western text (see ) quite misses Paul’s point.

See on 11:23, esp. .

While it is true that there is no explicit Christology in this creed, the resurrection is the primary experiential catalyst for such theologizing in the early church. See, e.g., Acts 2:36; Rom. 1:3–4; and the implicit Christology in this argument in vv. 22–28 and 45–49. On this matter see G. Delling, “Die bleibende Bedeutsamkeit der Verkündigung des Anfangs im Urchristentum,” ThLZ 95 (1970), 801–9.

Particularly the clear insight that such an atonement nullifies all other grounds for relationship with God, so that Gentile and Jew together are accepted freely by grace.

Gk. ἐν πρώτοις.

The preposition with the plural πρώτοις seems esp. to point in this direction. One would expect ἐν ἀρχῇ if he intended “at the beginning” (cf. Phil. 4:15). Cf. a similar usage in Plato, Statesman 522c.

In this regard cf. the instructions of the risen Jesus in Luke 24:45–47, where he “opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures,” which say that “the Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day.” These two passages give further credence to the likelihood that the author of the Third Gospel was a companion of the apostle Paul. Cf. also the “model” sermon for the Hellenistic synagogue recorded in Acts 13:16–41, esp. 28–31, where the same four points are made.

For a bibliography up to 1970, see Conzelmann, 254 n. 54. For an overview of the issues and debate, see J. Kloppenborg, “An Analysis of the Pre-Pauline Formula in 1 Cor 15:3b–5 in Light of Some Recent Literature,” CBQ 40 (1978), 351–67; and J. Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, chap. 14.

The unity of the “creed” was rejected by U. Wilckens, “Der Ursprung der Überlieferung der Erscheinungen des Auferstanden. Zur traditionsgeschichtlichen Analyse von 1 Kor 15,1–11,” in Dogma und Denkstrukturen (ed. W. Joest and W. Pannenberg; Göttingen, 1963), 81–95; he was followed by R. Fuller, The Formation of the Resurrection Narratives (London, 1972), 13–14. For a response see Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 230–31.

Although most consider it to go through v. 5, some have argued that it goes only through v. 4 (Héring, 158; P. Winter, “I Corinthians XV 3b–7,” NovT 2 [1957], 142–50), while others have argued that it goes only as far as the first εἶτα in v. 5 (E. Bammel, “Herkunft und Funktion der Traditionselemente in I Kor. 15:1–11,” TZ 11 [1955], 401–19; and H.-W. Bartsch, “Die Argumentation des Paulus in I Cor 15:3–11,” ZNW 55 [1964], 261–74). Neither of these has gained a wide following.

This also has to do with its original provenance, whether Palestinian (hence originally in Aramaic) or Hellenistic (hence originally in Greek). Jeremias (“Eucharistic Words,” 101–3, and “Artikellos Christos. Zur Ursprache von I Cor 15:3b–5,” ZNW 57 [1966], 211–15) and B. Klappert (“Zur Frage des semitischen oder griechischen Urtextes von 1. Kor. xv.3–5,” NTS 13 [1966/67], 168–73) have been the leading advocates of the former. H. Conzelmann (“On the Analysis of the Confessional Formula in I Corinthians 15:3–5,” Int 20 [1966], 15–25) and P. Vielhauer (“Ein Weg zur neutestamentlichen Christologie,” EvT 25 [1965], 56–57) are the leading exponents of the latter. For further bibliography see Kloppenborg, “Analysis,” 352 n. 5.

Actually καὶ ὅτι in lines 2–4. This is the matter that convinced Wilckens ( above) that the creed lacked unity; Murphy-O’Connor (Keys, 230–31) has argued that the formula reflects Paul’s quotational method found in 8:4 and is his way of stressing each line from a common source.

One cannot tell whether this second appearance belonged to the creedal formula or not; if so, then it probably would have been introduced with a καί, which Paul has changed to an εἶτα in order to make it the second in his list of six such appearances.

This is debated in the literature, since Paul uses the anarthrous title Χριστός to refer to Jesus at least 126 times. Thus it is argued that the title is a Pauline adaptation. This of course can be neither proved nor disproved. But there is good reason to believe that the original creed expressed itself in terms of the Messiah rather than simply with the name of Jesus. After all, that is where the theological impact lay. The evidence from Luke 24:46 also suggests that the title belongs to the tradition. If so, it may be that Paul simply used the anarthrous form. Cf. the debate between Jeremias and Conzelmann ().

Gk. ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν; this combination is unusual in Paul, but not unknown. The identical phrase appears again in Gal. 1:4 (probably, since there is textual variation). The plural appears again in v. 17, as well as in Gal. 1:4; Rom. 4:7; Col. 1:14; Eph. 2:1. Thus it is not quite true to assert, as is frequently done, that this usage is un-Pauline. This assertion is accomplished by the unusual methodology of starting with Romans and Galatians, where the usage is primarily singular, dismissing Colossians and Ephesians as non-Pauline (partly on the grounds of this usage!), and considering the usage in Gal. 1:4 and Rom. 4:7 to be from “traditional material.” But that will not quite work, since both of these passages are now free Pauline compositions and since he has shown himself well able to adapt traditional material (cf. on 11:23–25).

The plural “our sins” occurs in vv. 4, 5, and 6; “for sins” occurs in v. 10; and “their sins” in vv. 11 and 12. Some have doubted that this reflects the LXX, since the LXX does not use the preposition ὑπέρ; but it does use περί, and these two have become nearly interchangeable in koinē. Cf. Conzelmann, 253 n. 48.

See A. Neubauer, ed., The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah according to Jewish Interpreters, 2 vols. (repr., New York, 1969).

Cf. R-P, 333. Conzelmann, 255, would distinguish between “atonement sacrifice” and “vicarious sacrifice”; but it is doubtful whether this would have had meaning to the early Christians, whose history in Judaism already had inherent in it the idea of vicarious sacrifice in the atonement itself. On this matter see also H. Ridderbos, “The Earliest Confession of the Atonement in Paul,” in Reconciliation and Hope (ed. R. Banks, Grand Rapids, 1974), 76–89, esp. 79–81.

So Conzelmann, 255. This does not exclude the idea that there are particular passages in mind as well; but the plural probably does not so much refer to individual passages as to the OT wholistically conceived.

For the combination “died” and “rose” in the NT see esp. 1 Thess. 4:14; 2 Cor. 5:15; Rom. 4:25; 14:9; Acts 3:15; 1 Pet. 1:19–21; Rev. 1:5.

But not necessarily that death is the precondition of resurrection (as, e.g., Martin, 98).

So the majority of commentators; cf. Sider, “Understanding,” 38; R. Stein, “Was the Tomb Really Empty?” JETS 20 (1977), 27–29; and esp. W. L. Craig, “The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus,” NTS 1 (1985), 39–67. For the debate see J. Mäanek, “The Apostle Paul and the Empty Tomb,” NovT 2 (1957), 276–80.

For the combination “died” and “rose” in the NT see esp. 1 Thess. 4:14; 2 Cor. 5:15; Rom. 4:25; 14:9; Acts 3:15; 1 Pet. 1:19–21; Rev. 1:5.

See, e.g., Conzelmann, 255, and “Analysis,” 21; cf. E. L. Bode, The First Easter Morning (AB 45; Rome, 1970), 98–100. For others, esp. in German scholarship, see Craig, “Empty Tomb,” 69 n. 10.

Cf. Harris, Raised, 37–40.

The perfect is repeated throughout the chapter when referring to Christ (vv. 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 20). The passive is an example of the “divine passive,” with God as the implied subject (see v. 15); cf. on 1:5–8; 12:7. It should be noted here that it is absolutely crucial to Paul’s view of things that Jesus did not so much rise as that God raised him, thus vindicating him. See esp. vv. 20–28.

For other options, see Craig, “Empty Tomb,” 42. Harris, Raised, 11–12, also argues for a combination of several factors. The basic alternative is that the language “according to the Scriptures” implies that the formula rests primarily on some particular scriptural passages, which became the basis for its origin (cf., e.g., Conzelmann, 256 [whom see also for other alternatives]; H. K. McArthur, “On the Third Day,” NTS 18 [1971/72], 81–86). This is based in part on the preceding construct, in which “for our sins” is not based on their experience but on their understanding of Jesus’ death as fulfilling Scripture.

As the three passion predictions in Mark (8:31; 9:31; 10:34) explicitly indicate. The predictions are doubted in many quarters because they are so explicit in their language. But there is no good reason to doubt that Jesus predicted both his death (after all, he as much as precipitated it by going to Jerusalem and cleansing the temple at Passover) and his vindication by God through resurrection. How much of the precise language belongs to Jesus’ own words and how much to the after-the-event memory of the disciples is moot. “After three days” may very well have been part of his own language, reflecting an OT motif, supported by midrash and targum, that the third day was “the day of divine salvation, deliverance and manifestation” (Bode, Easter, 125).

Most frequently Hos. 6:2 (“After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence”); and sometimes Jon. 1:17 (on the basis of Matt. 12:40) and 2 Kings 20:5 (the promise of restoration to Hezekiah, “on the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord”). The Hosea text is the most promising in this regard, esp. since it has been demonstrated that from a very early time (at least the 2nd c. A.D., although probably earlier) the rabbis interpreted this text in terms of resurrection. See McArthur, “Third Day,” 81–86. The difficulty with all of these is the silence of the early church. Nowhere in the NT or soon thereafter does anyone appeal to any of these texts as referring to the resurrection on the third day. Cf. Craig, “Empty Tomb,” 45.

W. Bussmann, Synoptische Studien, vol. 3, Zu den Sonderquellen (Halle, 1931), 186–91. Besides the inherent improbability of this proposal, it has against it the parallel in v. 3 that certainly refers to the OT and the fact that the phrase αἱ γραφαί invariably refers to the OT and only much later (2nd-3rd c.) to Christian documents.

Cf. D. Plooij, Studies in the Testimony Book (Amsterdam, 1932), 6–7, and V. Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (New York, 1933), 49 n. 2. But even if such books existed, this scarcely removes the difficulty, since one must still find appropriate OT texts that might have been included.

B. M. Metzger, “A Suggestion concerning the Meaning of I Cor. XV.4b,” JTS 8 (1957), 118–23. On its own this would be a readily acceptable solution to a difficult crux; but it is not on its own here. The phrase “according to the Scriptures” in line 1 only makes sense as modifying the full clause that precedes. By analogy it most likely does so here as well.

See Hill, “Third Day”; cf. K. Lehmann, Auferwecht am dritten Tag nach der Schrift (Freiburg, 1968), 262–90; and Bode, Easter, 119–26, who see this phenomenon as the origin of the third-day tradition. Without a historical event, however, this seems extremely unlikely. See the critique in Craig, “Empty Tomb,” 45–49, who adopts a position similar to the one taken here; also Harris, Raised, 10–11.

It should be noted, however, that at least as early as the Gospel of Matthew the “sign of Jonah” was interpreted as referring to the “three days and three nights” that Jonah was in the belly of the fish, which in turn was seen as a prediction of Jesus’ resurrection.

The “sign of Jonah” saying occurs in Matthew both in a parallel with Mark (Matt. 16:4//Mark 8:12) and in a “Q” parallel with Luke (Matt. 12:39–40//Luke 11:29–30). In the Markan parallel, which has no mention of Jonah (no sign at all shall be given), the Matthean redaction adds “except the sign of Jonah,” which at that point is left uninterpreted. In the “Q” saying, Luke’s version indicates that Jonah himself is a “sign” to the Ninevites, which in Matthew’s gospel receives the additional explanation based on his three days and nights in the fish.

Gk. ὤφθη. There has been considerable discussion as to whether this verb implies a kind of “revelation” or a true “seeing.” But most of that discussion is either irrelevant or simply prejudicial (as Kim, Origin, 55 n. 1, correctly notes of Marxsen’s discussion [in Resurrection, 98–111]). The form of the creed, which has Christ as the subject throughout, has determined that the verb is passive. While this implies that the initiative was indeed his (therefore, “he appeared”), that does not mean that he was any less visible to those who saw him. See also the discussion in G. O’Collins, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Valley Forge, 1973), 7.

Contra E. Güttgemanns, Der leidende Apostel und sein Herr (Göttingen, 1966), 53–94, who sees Paul as responding to Gnostics and using sōma not so much to emphasize the corporeal nature of the Resurrection as to distinguish between Christ himself and later Christians, since the Gnostics were merging the two into one spiritual reality.

This is true of Mark, Matthew, and John, plus the spurious ending of Mark (cf. 16:9). It is of some interest that this is another point where Luke and Paul correspond.

For Peter see Luke 24:34; for the Twelve see Luke 24:36 (although this could be taken to include more), John 21:14, and Matt. 28:16–17. The spurious ending of Mark (16:9–14) reflects the Mary Magdalene tradition of John’s gospel, the appearance to the two (cf. Luke 24:13–34), and an appearance to “the Eleven.”

See above.

In the Lukan account he is called “Simon” (Luke 24:34).

Otherwise Schmithals, Office, 73–79, who argues unconvincingly that the language of v. 7, “then to all the apostles,” excludes Peter, James, and the Twelve, since they would not in Paul’s view have been accounted worthy of a second manifestation (79).

Including himself, James (Gal. 1:19), Andronicus and Junia (Rom. 16:7; probably Andronicus and his wife); by implication also Silas and Timothy (1 Thess. 2:7), and Barnabas (Gal. 2:7–9; 1 Cor. 9:5–6).

Not all would agree. Some have suggested the improbable thesis that these reflect two rival traditions from Jerusalem (Peter and the Twelve, James and the apostles). See esp. A. Harnack, “Die Verklärungsgeschichte Jesu, der Bericht des Paulus (I. Kor. 15.3ff.) und die beiden Christusvisionen des Petrus,” Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophische-historische Klasse (1922), 67; followed by Wilckens, “Ursprung”; Winter, “I Corinthians XV 3b–7,” 145; Ruef, 160. But see the refutation in Schmithals, Office, 74.

Gk. ἐφάπαξ, which ordinarily, and elsewhere in the NT, means “once for all” (Rom. 6:10; Heb. 7:27; 9:12; 10:10). For this reason P. J. Kearney, “He Appeared to 500 Brothers (I Cor. XV 6),” NovT 22 (1980), 264–84, reconstructs vv. 6–7 to read as a doxology: “He appeared above [ἐπάνω] to 500 brothers, once for all to all the apostles.” But the suggestion is based on too many congruent improbabilities.

As Murphy-O’Connor (Keys, 233) has noted: “A small group of close acquaintances might be accused of self-deception, but this is a much less plausible hypothesis when it is a question of a very large crowd.”

Some (e.g., Findlay, 920) have suggested Matt. 28:17, while others have speculated that it is another version of the Pentecost narrative in Acts 2 (E. von Dobschütz, Ostern und Pfingsten: Eine Studie zu I Korinther 15 [Leipzig, 1903], 33–43; Craig, 218–19; S. M. Gilmour, “The Christophany to More Than Five Hundred Brethren,” JBL 80 [1961], 248–52). For a feasible reconstruction of such an appearance in Galilee, see E. F. Bishop, “The Risen Christ and the Five Hundred Brethren (1 Cor 15,6),” CBQ 18 (1956), 341–44.

For this verb as signifying Christian death, see .

This has become an increasingly popular view. Among others, see Bartsch, “Argumentation,” 264–66; Conzelmann, 257–58; Schütz, Paul, 85; B. Schneider, “The Corporate Meaning and Background of 1 Cor 15,45b—‘O ESCHATOS ADAM EIS PNEUMA ZOIOPOIOUN,” CBQ 29 (1969), 450–67; see also . See the refutation in Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 233.

The verb ὤφθη is repeated in the case of James; some have made a point of this, as though it might indicate the beginning of yet another tradition. But that seems unlikely; the reason for the repetition of the verb is probably related to the length of the aside in v. 6b about the more-than-five hundred. In returning to the enumeration of appearances, the original verb is now at some distance and has been interrupted by v. 6b, so he simply repeats the verb from v. 5, which he will do again in his own case in v. 8 for emphasis.

According to Jerome, vir.ill. 2; see HSW, 1:165.

Cf. Findlay, 921.

Cf. Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; see also the corroborating data from Paul (Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12).

Otherwise Schmithals, Office, 73–79, who denies that Paul intended to include either Peter or James as apostles. But it is almost impossible to get around the natural reading of Gal. 1:19, that Paul intended to include James among the apostles, whoever their full number might have been.

See Schmithals, Office, 74–79, for a vigorous defense of this point of view.

This is the more common view. See, inter alios, Parry, 217; Héring, 162; Grosheide, 352; Barrett, 343; Holladay, 195.

E.g., R-P, 338; most recently Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, 234–36.

See Schmithals, Office, 73–79.

See also , where by implication Apollos is also included.

See the discussion on 1:1; 9:1; and 12:28 for Paul’s usage of this term.

This phrase is somewhat ambiguous. Schütz, Paul, 104–6, argues for a nontemporal meaning, comparable to 4:9 (= last of all in the sense of least significant); cf. G. B. Kelley, “He Appeared to Me,” in Critical History and Biblical Faith (ed. T. J. Ryan; Villanova, 1979), 108–35, esp. 114. But that will scarcely do here in a context of enumerations. P. R. Jones, “Last Apostle,” argues for the meaning “last of all the apostles.” This is possible, but it does not seem to be Paul’s own emphasis. More likely it is the final link in the chain that began with Peter and means “finally.”

The emphasis in Paul’s sentence lies on the final phrase, “even to me.” Lit. it reads, “And last of all, as to one abnormally born, he appeared even to me.”

See, e.g., LXX Job 3:16; Eccl. 6:3; and Num. 12:12, where it reflects the idea of the “ugliness” or “monstrous” nature of such a “birth”; cf. Philo, leg.all. 1.76, where the soul of the worthless man is said to bring forth “wretched abortions and miscarriages [ἐκτρώματα].” See the discussion in J. Schneider, TDNT 2:465–67; and esp. the careful discussion by H. W. Hollander and G. E. van der Hout, “The Apostle Paul Calling Himself an Abortion: 1 Cor. 15:8 within the Context of 1 Cor. 15:8–10,” NovT 38 (1996), 224–36, who prefer “miscarriage.”

See, e.g., Weiss, 351–52; Parry, 218; Harnack, “Verklärungsgeschichte,” 72; Schneider, TDNT 2:466; A. Fridrichsen, “Paulus abortivus. Zu 1 Kor. 15,8,” in Symbolae philologicae O. A. Danielsson octogenario dicatae (Uppsala, 1932), 79–85. Fridrichsen understands it to refer to Paul’s pre-Christian life, which seems unlikely.

This is one of the options suggested by J. Munck, “Paulus tamquam abortivus,” in New Testament Essays: Studies in Memory of Thomas Walter Manson (ed. A. J. B. Higgins; Manchester, 1959), 180–93; and taken up esp. by T. Boman, “Paulus abortivus (1. Kor. 15,8),” ST 18 (1964), 46–50; and Martin, 92–93.

See the introduction, . See the commentary on 1:10–17; 2:1–5; 3:5–15; 4:1, 6, 7, 8–13, 14–21; 5:1–13; 8:1; 9:1–17; 10:29–30; 11:17–22; 14:6, 18, 33–38.

Note the explanatory γάρ.

See, e.g., on 1:10–17; 2:1–5; 4:1–5; 13:1; 14:6, 18, 36–38.

Cf. Acts 26:9–11, a paragraph that can scarcely be explained except on the grounds of authentic tradition on the part of Luke.

This is one of the rare instances in Paul’s earlier letters where he uses ἡ ἐκκλησία with the qualifier τοῦ θεοῦ to refer to the church in a more universal sense rather than to a local body (cf. Gal. 1:13 and the plural in v. 22). Ordinarily in this kind of context Paul refers to “the churches of God” (cf. 1 Thess. 2:14). Such a usage is at least possible in 10:32 as well. Cf. also the discussion on 12:28.

Gk. ἡ χάρις αὐτοῦ ἡ σὺν ἐμέ.

Gk. ἡ χάρις τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ σὺν ἐμοί (= “the with-me grace of God”).

Gk. κενή (= empty, in vain); cf. the double occurrence in v. 14.

Meaning not all of them together, but any one of them.

That is, it is not referring to his sufferings (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:23–27), but to his continually reaching out to new frontiers with the gospel (cf. 2 Cor. 10:13–17).

Cf. Conzelmann, 260: “At once the reference to his own achievement has a brake put on it.”

J. Lambrecht, “Paul’s Christological Use of Scripture in I Cor. 15.20–28,” NTS 28 (1982), 502–27, sees here another example of the A-B-A′ form of argumentation common to this letter (see ). This is certainly true of its form (e.g., both A-A′ are predicated on the hypothetical “if the dead are not raised” [vv. 13, 16, 29, 32]); but the nature of the argument itself is considerably different in vv. 29–34 from the content of the present paragraph.

Several witnesses, including B D* 0243 0270* 6 33 81 1241^s 1739 1881 al a, read ἡμῶν, an assimilation to the preceding clause, which tends to destroy the structure of the argument. See below; cf. Metzger, 501.

Schütz, Paul, 87–88, suggests a chiastic structure for vv. 13–15; but that tends to treat this much of the argument as a piece while ignoring or minimizing Paul’s own structural signals (e.g., the explanatory γάρ in v. 16). Schütz sees the structural key as the phrase “if the dead are not raised.” But that clause only leads to the repeated hypothetical “if Christ is not raised” in vv. 14 and 17, which begins both parts of the argument and ties it all together.

Gk. δὲ καί (= but also); see on 14:15.

Meaning, “the way that denies by denying.” See the series of articles by T. C. Bucher: “Die logische Argumentation in 1. Korinther 15,12–20,” Bib 55 (1974), 465–86; “Auferstehung Christi und Auferstehung der Toten,” MTZ 27 (1976), 1–32; “Nochmals zur Beweisführung in 1. Korinther 15,12–20,” TZ 36 (1980), 129–52; “Allgemeine Überlegungen zur Logik im Zusammenhang mit 1 Kor 15,12–20,” LingBib 53 (1983), 70–98. Cf. the responses by M. Bachmann, “Zur Gedankenführung in 1. Kor. 15,12ff.,” TZ 34 (1978), 265–76; and “Rezeption von 1. Kor. 15 (V. 12ff.) unter logischem und unter philologischem Aspekt,” LingBib 51 (1982), 79–103. Bachmann agrees with Bucher as to the mode of logic; he disagrees, rightly it would seem, that Paul’s argument is not for a general resurrection (as Bucher), but for the particular resurrection of the believing dead. The other concern is simply not in Paul’s purview.

Greek present, κηρύσσεται (= it is being continually preached by all).

Lit., “if Christ is preached, that he is raised.” As Findlay, 922, notes, “The preaching of Christ is the preaching of His resurrection.”

On the possible background and nature of their position see the introduction to the chapter (pp. 793–96). That this represents a thoroughly Greek view of the world, see Aeschylus, Eumenides 647–48: (in the mouth of Apollo) “When the dust hath drained the blood of a man, once he is slain, there is no resurrection [ἀνάστασις]” (Loeb, 335, adapted); cf. Agamemnon 1360; Herodotus 3.62; Sophocles, Electra 137.

Gk. ἐκ νεκρῶν.

Cf. 1 Thess. 1:10; Gal. 1:1; Rom. 1:4; 4:24; 6:4, 9; 8:11 (twice), 34; 10:9; Col. 1:18; 2:12; Eph. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:8.

As Parry, 219, e.g., suggests. Cf. the data in Conzelmann, 265 n. 16, including the evidence there that νεκρός without the article means “the dead.”

See and . Cf., e.g., Conzelmann, 258, 262–63; Schütz, Paul, 85–93; Martin, 95. The argument for the transformation of the living in vv. 50–53 seems to stand quite against this view, not to mention the fact that the problem the Corinthians would have had with resurrection is the implication of a future bodily existence inherent in the idea of resurrection itself. Furthermore, some of their number have in fact already died (11:30) and they do not seem to be concerned as to what happened to them.

Gk. οὐδέ (= not either); for the NIV’s “not even” see also NASB, Montgomery; cf. NAB, “Christ himself has not been raised” (cf. JB). R-P, 347, reject this translation as misleading.

Greek perfect, and throughout. See . The emphasis seems to fluctuate between the past event, “was raised,” and its present reality, “is raised.”

So R-P, 347, and Conzelmann, 265 n. 18. Otherwise, M. Dahl, 25–26.

Gk. ἄρα, frequently used in the apodosis of unreal conditional sentences to strengthen the “if . . . then” inference (in Paul see Gal. 2:21; 3:29).

Gk. κενόν; cf. v. 10.

The two nouns κήρυγμα and πίστις refer back to the verbs in v. 11 (“we preach” and “you believed”).

Gk. κήρυγμα; see on 1:21 and 2:4.

Gk. εὑρισκόμεθα, the implication being that they are “found out” to be false witnesses.

Gk. κατὰ τοῦ θεοῦ. Although there is evidence that this preposition can mean “about,” that seems unnecessary, since the ordinary meaning of “witnessing against” makes sense here; the ESV’s “misrepresenting” God does not seem to quite capture Paul’s nuance.

Here “Christ” has the article; perhaps it is anaphoric (= the Christ of whom we are speaking). More likely the title is always implied in the name. Hence “Christ the Messiah.”

Even more than in vv. 5–8, this clause stands as the strongest kind of evidence that Paul believed in the resurrection as an objectively verifiable reality. He simply would not have understood the double-talk of Christian existentialism, which affirms “resurrection language” theologically but denies that anything actually happened as an event in history.

Gk. ἄρα; see on v. 14.

The two sentences read:

v. 13

εἰ δὲ ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὐκ ἔστιν

οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται·

v. 16

εἰ γὰρ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται,

οὐδὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται·

From κενή (“empty”) to ματαία (“useless, futile”).

Yet another inferential ἄρα (see vv. 14, 15); this time it “is used to emphasize a further result, and continues the apodosis of vs. 17” (BAGD), a reference Danker chose not to include in BDAG.

For this verb, see above on v. 6.

Gk. ἀπώλοντο; cf. the usage in 1:18.

So also Gundry, 170.

Gk. ἠλπικότες ἐσμέν; there is some debate as to whether this is a periphrastic perfect (= we have hoped) or a copula with a participle functioning as a substantive (= we are people who have hoped; cf. Weiss, “we are hopers”). This tends to have significance only if μόνον is understood to modify the verb.

The MajT (followed by the KJV) added an ἐγένετο, thus making two clauses (“and become the firstfruits”).

Most MSS have a καί following τότε (= even the Son himself); it is missing in B D* F G 0243 33 1175 1739 pc b cop. Although this one could go either way, more likely the shorter text is original (the addition is easily explained as intensifying the point of the text; independent and early omission is less easy to account for).

For this matter in 1 Corinthians see esp. on 4:1–5; 6:1–11; 7:29–31.

On this see G. E. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, 1975), 51–59.

This emphasis on God’s sovereignty, including the work and rule of Christ, is found in the repetition of πᾶς/πάντες in vv. 24–28 (ten times); Christ destroys every dominion and every authority and power (v. 24); he rules until he has placed all his enemies under his feet (v. 25); he subjects all things to Christ (vv. 27–28), so that God might be all in all. Cf. G. Barth, “Erwägungen zu 1. Korinther 15,20–28,” EvT 30 (1970), 515–27, esp. 523.

Some suggest that Paul’s purpose in these verses is to assert the reality of the future vis-à-vis the Corinthians’ overrealized eschatology. See, e.g., Lincoln, 38; Martin, 112–13; Güttgemanns, Apostel, 70–77; G. Barth, “Erwägungen,” 521. This may be so, but as an urgency it does not arise in the actual statements of the text itself. So also Lambrecht, “Christological Use,” 515.

So K. Barth, Resurrection, 150; Grosheide, 364; and in effect Barrett (by making vv. 1–22 one paragraph and vv. 23–28 another). On the other side, see W. Dykstra, “I Corinthians 15:20–28: An Essential Part of Paul’s Argument against Those Who Deny the Resurrection,” CTJ 4 (1969), 195–211; and G. Barth, “Erwägungen.”

Cf. J. D. McCaughey, “The Death of Death (I Cor. 15:26),” in Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology (ed. R. Banks; Grand Rapids, 1974), 246–61.

The words are Parry’s (222).

Gk. νυνὶ δέ (NIV, “indeed”; the translation is that of BDAG); see the discussion on 12:18 and esp. 13:13. Although this is a logical νυνὶ δέ, it underscores the point made in 13:13 that this combination is never without a temporal sense. Here by way of emphatic contrast it expresses the way things really are at the present moment (cf. BDAG: “introducing the real situation after an unreal conditional clause or sentence”). Hence, “but as it is . . . indeed.” That overloads the adverb somewhat, but it helps to keep both the logical and temporal force of the word.

This tie to v. 18 was missed by Conzelmann, 268, who suggested that Paul purposely does not say “the first of those who have been raised, but: of those who have fallen asleep,” his point being that Paul is thus emphasizing the necessity of death before resurrection.

Thus it does not seem quite precise to call this a christological apology, as does G. L. Borchert, “The Resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15,” RevExp 80 (1983), 407–9.

Gk. ἀπαρχή; cf. 16:15; 2 Thess. 2:13 (for several reasons, almost certainly the original text; see Metzger [1st ed.], 636–37); Rom. 8:23; 11:16; 16:5. On the usage see G. Delling, TDNT 1:484–86, and esp. R. Murray, “New Wine in Old Wineskins XII: Firstfruits,” ExpT 86 (1975), 164–68.

On this verb see on v. 6; here in particular Paul’s consistent use of this verb to refer to believers who have died comes into focus. Not all who have died (ἀποθνῄσκω, v. 22) are raised to life in Christ, but only those who have fallen asleep in him. Cf. J. C. Bowmer, “A Note on ἀποθνῄσκω and κοιμάω in I Corinthians 15:20, 22,” ExpT 53 (1941/42), 355–56. This distinction, of course, is denied by those who see πάντες in v. 22 as referring to a general resurrection, or to a resurrection in two stages. See .

On this see Murray ( above), 164–66.

So also Conzelmann, 267.

Martin, 110 (cf. Conzelmann, 268), sees the metaphor as partly polemical, that only Christ is thus far raised. But that seems doubtful, since their proposition (v. 12) does not imply that a form of resurrection has already taken place (one places far too much confidence in one’s interpretation of the very obscure v. 29 to suggest that it is found there), but that resurrection (which would always mean, for them, “bodily”) does not happen.

Both sentences begin with an explanatory γάρ.

Contra, e.g., R. D. Culver, “A Neglected Millennial Passage from St. Paul,” BibSac 113 (1956), 141–52; W. B. Wallis, “The Problem of an Intermediate Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20–28,” JETS 18 (1975), 229–42, whose argument reflects Dispensationalist eschatology, a system created in the 19th c. that Paul himself would not have been able to understand! The latter in particular (234) argues that if a portion of Adam’s race is left permanently in death, then Paul’s argument is incomplete. But that is to put one’s own logic ahead of Paul’s concerns. There can be no question that his concern is with the resurrection of believers; this is clearly stated in the words “then those who belong to [God].” Had he shown a similar interest in all the dead, one might expect that also to be explicit, not something that one must find by means of several circuitous exercises in what one deems to be “logical” for Paul.

The difficulties with this view are several and insuperable. It requires (a) that Christ be the firstfruits even of the perishing; (b) that “those who have fallen asleep in Christ” (v. 18) include the perishing, since that is the point picked up in v. 20; (c) that the verb “shall be made alive” be a synonym for resurrection rather than having to do with “life” itself; (d) that the Adam-Christ analogy has nothing to do with the creation of a new humanity, but has to do strictly with death and resurrection. Furthermore, it runs aground on the parallel in vv. 50–57, where the swallowing up of death in victory is limited strictly to the resurrection/transformation of believers.

This is the usual view, since it alone fits the context. Cf. the discussion in W. V. Crockett, “The Ultimate Restoration of All Mankind: 1 Corinthians 15:22,” in Studia Biblica 1978, III. Papers on Paul and Other New Testament Authors (ed. E. A. Livingstone; Sheffield, 1980), 83–87, who, despite the title, also argues for this view; cf. M. Gielen, “Universale Totenauferweckung und univerales Heil? 1 Kor 15,20–28 im Kontext paulinischer Theologie,” BibZeit 47 (2003), 86–104, who points to the pragmatic nature of Paul’s statements, which should not then be taken beyond their original setting. A more limiting view has been put forward by J. E. Patrick (“Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29,” NTS 52 [2006], 71–85), to the effect that “the dead” here refers only to “dead apostles,” but that seems to have too many contextual hurdles to overcome to be taken seriously.

Understandably, a passage like this has called forth a considerable number of investigations, none of which seem to have advanced much beyond where we have stood for decades. They are listed here in their chronological order of appearance: J. Downey, “1 Cor 15:29 and the Theology of Baptism,” Euntes docete 38 (1985), 23–35; R. E. DeMaris, “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology,” JBL 114 (1995), 661–82; J. D. Reaume, “Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:29, ‘Baptized for the Dead,’ ” BibSac 152 (1995), 457–75; idem, “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology,” JBL 114 (1995), 661–82; J. R. White, “ ‘Baptized on account of the Dead’: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in Its Context,” JBL 116 (1997), 487–99; R. A. Campbell, “Baptism and Resurrection (1 Cor 15:29),” AusBR 47 (1999), 43–52; A. C. English, “Mediated, Mediation, Unmediated: 1 Corinthians 15:29; The History of Interpretation and the Current State of Biblical Studies,” RevExp 99 (2002), 419–28; N. H. Taylor, “Baptism for the Dead (I Cor 15:29)?” Neotestamentica 36 (2002), 111–20; D. Zeller, “Gibt es religionsgeschichtliche Parallelen zur Taufe fur die Toten (1 Kor 15,29)?” ZNW 1998 (2007), 68–76.

Cf. the similar expression in 1 Thess. 4:16, “the dead in Christ shall rise first.” This does not mean that Christians who have died will be raised before all others, but that the dead who are Christians will rise as the first item on the eschatological agenda, after which the living who are Christians will be caught up with them. There is simply no interest of any kind in these passages in a general resurrection of the dead, or in a final raising to life in Christ of those who are not his. Prior theological commitments in this case have created some strange bedfellows, e.g., dispensationalists and universalists, who for radically different reasons want Christ’s resurrection to be the firstfruits of all human beings.

Conzelmann, 268, is representative of many who see Paul as using a “mythical schema” of a “primal man”; but since the sources for this schema are of doubtful value as saying anything about Paul’s own milieu, and since Conzelmann himself admits that Paul has modified it (radically, one might add), one wonders about the exegetical usefulness of such language. Cf. J. Gillman, “Transformation into the Future Life: A Study of 1 Cor. 15:50–53, Its Context and Related Passages” (unpub. Ph.D. diss.; Catholic University, Leuven, 1980), 314–15, cited by Lambrecht, “Christological Use,” 516.

Although Paul’s stress is on the common humanity all share in Adam, there can be little question that he considered Adam to be a real person in the same sense as Christ.

Gk. ζῳοποιηθήσονται (cf. vv. 36, 45). This verb is used instead of ἐγείρω because it offers the proper contrast with ἀποθνῄσκω; it is difficult, however, to escape the conclusion that the nuance “to give life to” means more than simply the resuscitation of a corpse. They rise to “life” because they already have been given “life” in Christ.

Both clauses begin with the indefinite ὅταν, indicating a future reality whose time is not known. Cf. the similar use in 13:10; 15:27, 28, 54.

Gk. βασιλεία, the noun for “the kingdom of God.” Its cognate verb βασιλεύω appears in the next sentence by way of further explanation as to what this means. Hence the need to use a cognate noun and verb in English (“reign”) to make this clear.

It is often suggested that this is also inherent in the use of the aorist in the second clause; but that runs aground grammatically, and in any case is unnecessary, since the succeeding context makes this perfectly plain.

Gk. δέ, here slightly adversative to “all shall be made alive.”

See .

Here is a case of the loose use of language, where “apocalyptic” and “eschatological” tend to become synonyms. What little might be considered apocalyptic in this passage is purely conceptual (an alleged schematization of history [!]; the authority of the evil powers; the “intermediary” reign of the Messiah), and even then is neither predominant nor linguistically related to apocalyptic materials. This is Pauline eschatology, undoubtedly influenced by his Jewish heritage, but it lacks the essential “stuff” of apocalyptic.

The ἕκαστος is singular, referring first to Christ and then to the dead in Christ.

Gk. τάγμα, a military technical term for bodies of troops in various numbers, but eventually simply a term for a class or group. In this case it perhaps means something close to “in turn” (cf. Arrian, Tacitus 28.2), but more likely it keeps its basic sense of class (= each in his own company).

Gk. παρουσία (cf. 1 Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8, 9). In the political sphere it had to do with the arrival of a ruler, in religion the epiphany of a deity (as here). This is its last occurrence in Paul with reference to the “coming” of Christ.

The ἔπειτα is thus defined by the prepositional phrase “at his coming.” This is precisely in keeping with 1 Thess. 4:14–18, where the resurrection of the dead in Christ also takes place at his coming.

Gk. οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ = “those who are of Christ,” i.e., who belong to him.

This has been a matter of long debate. Among commentators who think otherwise see Weiss and Lietzmann; cf. the articles by Culver and Wallis (). On the other side, see esp. J. Héring, “Saint Paul a-t-il enseigné deux résurrections?” RHPR 12 (1932), 300–320; and H.-A. Wilcke, Das Problem eines messianischen Zwischenreichs bei Paulus (ATANT 51; Zurich, 1967).

This is not to say that Paul denied a resurrection of the unjust (Acts 24:15 suggests otherwise), but that it simply lies totally outside his concern in this passage.

As with the preceding ἔπειτα, this εἶτα is defined by the two ὅταν clauses that follow. Since these say nothing whatsoever of resurrection, but only of what transpires at the end, it is pure presumption to read into this text a third resurrection. So also is the concern to find here an intermediate stage between the resurrection of “those who are Christ’s” and the final handing over of the kingdom to God the Father. Paul may have believed in such, but it lies quite outside his present concern. The point is that he neither explicitly nor allusively speaks of such, which he was fully capable of doing, had it been of any interest to him. What he says is, “then the end.” Without a verb this can only mean that following the resurrection of believers is the end, which then is described in its two parts.

Weiss, 358, and Lietzmann, 80, suggest that τέλος means “the rest” here (= the resurrection of the unrighteous dead). But not only is there no evidence for such a meaning for this word (cf. Héring, “Saint Paul,” 304 n. 3), but Paul is perfectly capable of saying οἱ λοιποί when that is what he intends.

But “the End” is perhaps not fully adequate, since there is a purposive (“telic”) force to the basic sense of this word. Thus, Paul is not speaking of an “end” to Christ’s rule, but that its goal will have been achieved with the resurrection and its concomitant defeat of death and subsequent handing over the kingdom to the Father. Nevertheless, it is also the “end” of history as we now know it.

But see T. Aono, Die Entwicklung des paulinischen Gerichtsgedankens bei den Apostolischen Vätern (Bern, 1979), 26–28, who argues, on the basis of his exegesis of v. 25, that God should be understood as the subject of this verb. But that is unlikely, since nothing prepares the reader for such a radical shift in subjects.

Gk. ἀρχή, ἐξουσία, and δύναμις. This is the first time Paul uses this terminology to refer to the “spiritual powers.” Cf. Eph. 1:21, where the same three terms (plus κυριότης) appear in combination; at least two of them appear together in Rom. 8:38; Col. 1:16; 2:10, 15; Eph. 3:10; 6:12. These other passages make it clear that Paul sees them as malevolent, demonic powers. In the cross Christ has already spelled their doom (Col. 2:15), which will be brought to completion at his coming.

Paul does not use “kingdom” language often (see on 4:20 and 6:9–10); when he does, most often it is the traditional language “kingdom of God” (2 Thess. 1:5; 1 Cor. 4:20; 6:10; 15:50; Gal. 5:21; Rom. 14:17; Col. 4:11; cf. 1 Thess. 2:12). But see Col. 1:13; Eph. 5:5 (“the kingdom of Christ and God”); 2 Tim. 4:18. For Paul the interchange is related to his christological soteriology. God’s rule is presently manifest in the lordship of Christ.

It should be noted that Paul does not use “citational” language in either case, although he seems more bound to the OT text in the second instance (the NIV is curious here, using quotation marks in v. 27 but not in v. 25). The allusions are certain; in fact the similar combination of “citations” in Heb. 1:13 and 2:6–9 suggests that these were well-established messianic texts in early Christianity (Ps. 110:1 is the most cited OT passage in the NT; see the discussion in D. M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity [Nashville, 1973]). Nonetheless Paul does not actually cite, but reworks, the language of the OT texts into his own sentences. On this matter see esp. Lambrecht, “Christological Use,” 506–11.

The question of whether the passage is basically christo- or theocentric is perhaps a red herring. It is both. That is, God is the ultimate source of all things; but he works out his purposes in history through Christ. Hence both Christ and God can alternatively function as the subject of most of the verbs in this paragraph. Christ is the subject of the verbs at least through v. 26; God is the “subject” of the passives in vv. 27c–28. What is not clear is how one is to understand v. 27ab. See the discussion in Lambrecht, “Christological Use,” 506–12.

Gk. δεῖ; cf. v. 53. The “must” has to do with the divine purposes, not with the necessity of “fulfilling” Scripture, since no introductory formula is given. Paul’s theological concern has to do with the continuing reality of death. Christ must rule until he has brought the rule of death to its end.

This word is a Pauline addition to the psalm, perhaps under the influence of Ps. 8:6, which he will cite next. In any case it reflects a clear emphasis in this passage (see ).

See the discussion in Lambrecht, “Christological Use,” 509–10.

Indeed, this is so natural a reading of the Greek text that most commentators do not even raise the question.

This position has been argued for or adopted by F. W. Maier, “Ps 110,1 (LXX 109,1) in Zusammenhang von 1 Kor 15,24–26,” BZ 20 (1932), 139–56; Aono, Entwicklung, 26–28; Grosheide, 367; Barrett, 358 (hesitantly); Holladay, 203; Wallis, “Problem,” 236.

Especially so since this is not a citation but an adaptation of the psalm to Paul’s own grammar, and a reader (or hearer) could not possibly have understood “God” to be the subject until he or she came to v. 27c. Had Paul intended “God” at this point, it is almost demanded grammatically that he would have inserted a ὁ θεός.

See esp. the full discussion in Pauline Christology (107–14).

The later theological concern as to what happens to the “humanity” of Christ is simply not in Paul’s purview. For a comparison of three later struggles (Marcellus of Ancyra, Calvin, A. A. van Ruler) with this issue in light of this text, see J. F. Jansen, “1 Corinthians 15:24–28 and the Future of Jesus Christ,” in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers (ed. W. E. March; San Antonio, Tex., 1980), 173–97.

Gk. καταργεῖται (cf. v. 24).

F. C. Burkitt, “On I Corinthians xv 26,” JTS 17 (1916), 384–85. This had previously been suggested in the commentary by von Hofmann (see the discussion in Héring, 166).

Cf. McCaughey, “Death,” 251.

In the psalm this refers to mankind. Some have seen this “interpretation” therefore as an abuse of the plain meaning of the OT text. But that fails to reckon with Paul’s perspective, where Christ as man is thus the representative “Man” to whom all things are subjected.

This is the view of Findlay, 929; it was vigorously defended by Parry, 226–27. For a full presentation, see Lambrecht, “Christological Use,” 510–11.

Gk. ὅταν, with the sense of an indefinite time in the future. This usage is easily the most difficult grammatical point for the next option. Even if it only means “whenever,” as in 14:26, this is an odd way of referring specifically to a psalm that has just been “cited.”

Cf. Col. 3:11 (of Christ) and esp. Eph. 1:23.

Against all the early evidence the MajT had changed this pronoun to τῶν νεκρῶν, apparently in conformity to the preceding clause. J. C. O’Neill’s preference for the singular reading of codex 69, αὐτῶν τῶν νεκρῶν, is without textual warrant (see “1 Corinthians 15.29,” ExpT [1980], 310). Readings must be shown to have a pedigree, and this one has none; cf. the textual argument on .

Paul’s original text here is a matter of considerable uncertainty, as to whether he intended a vocative ἀδελφοί. Although found in significant early MSS ( A B K P 33 81 104 365 1175 1241^s 2464 pc lat sy co), it is esp. difficult to account for the omission of the vocative here by a widely scattered group of witnesses (P⁴⁶ D F G Ψ 075 0243 Maj b Ambst Pel) had it been in the text originally. The addition would be natural in such an appeal. Cf. Zuntz, 176–77; otherwise Metzger, 501.

This translates (correctly) Paul’s ὑμετέραν as an objective usage (contra Zuntz, 176 n. 2; Parry, 230; Ruef, 168); cf. D. S. Deer, “Whose Pride/Rejoicing/Glory(ing) in I Corinthians 15.31?” BibTrans 38 (1987), 126–28. Some scribes (A 6 365 614 629 1241^s al) misunderstood that and, on the basis of the qualifying “which I have,” changed it to ἡμετέραν (cf. Metzger, 1st ed., 568). As Godet, 392, pointed out, ἡμετέραν fits very poorly indeed between the two first person singular verbs that surround it. The nature of the scribal change is unwittingly illustrated by the argument in its favor in J. D. Joyce, “Baptism on Behalf of the Dead: An Interpretation of I Corinthians 15:29–34,” Encounter 26 (1965), 269 n. 2. See the commentary.

Chiefly on the basis of what he considers to be a mixture of additions, plus what he sees as a Pauline formula, Zuntz, 182, argues that the shorter form, ἐν κυρίῳ (D* b Ambst Pel), is original. In fact, it has almost nothing to commend it, esp. so with such weak support—singularly from the Latin church some centuries later.

As further evidence that λαλέω in chap. 14 is not technical language for utterances or “chatter,” Paul uses the verb here in this solemn asseveration (it was changed to λέγω in the later MajT).

On vv. 12–34 as another example of Paul’s A-B-A′ form of argumentation, see .

A. Malherbe, “The Beasts at Ephesus,” JBL 87 (1968), 71–80, esp. 72–73, has demonstrated convincingly that the whole paragraph has features of the diatribe, the moralistic “preaching” of the Roman Empire. Probably Paul’s Corinthian opponents were also familiar with the style and would have recognized themselves as the antagonists. This observation tends to cancel out altogether W. Walker’s suggestion that the whole passage is an interpolation (“1 Corinthians 15:29–34 as a Non-Pauline Interpolation,” CBQ 69 [2007], 84–103); one can only wonder whether the author has ever worked with ancient manuscripts, to understand how difficult it would be to make such an insertion in the process of copying. If the subject matter is less than certain, both the grammar and vocabulary are so thoroughly that of the apostle as to make a later interpolation a historical improbability of the highest order. Such a nonhistorical proposal needs a pedigree, and this one has none.

Gk. ἐπεί, see BDAG 2, “marker of cause or reason,” hence “since indeed” = “for otherwise.”

For overviews and critiques of the majority of these see B. M. Foschini, “ ‘Those Who Are Baptized for the Dead,’ I Cor. 15:29: An Exegetical Historical Dissertation,” CBQ 12 (1950), 260–76, 379–88; 13 (1951), 46–78, 172–98, 276–83 (hereafter cited by article no./page no. [e.g., III/75]); and M. Rissi, Die Taufe für die Toten (Zürich, 1962). See also the helpful discussions in Schnackenburg, Baptism, 95–102; and Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 185–92.

Gk. ἐπεί; for this use of the conjunction to precede questions and in response to what has just been argued, see on 14:16 (cf. Rom. 3:6).

Gk. ποιήσουσιν, the future indicative, not deliberative subjunctive; the future is probably “logical” (= when they realize what they are doing and that there is no real future for the dead, how will it affect them?), although as Barrett, 362, notes, the verb here could also mean “accomplish” (= “what will they accomplish,” or “what will they hope to achieve”), a view adopted by Joyce, “Baptism,” 271; O’Neill, “1 Corinthians 15²⁹”; and Martin, 120.

Gk. ὑπέρ; cf. the discussion on v. 3. Much of the debate hinges on the meaning of this preposition, which ordinarily means “in behalf of, for the sake of”; esp. so in Pauline usage with persons as the object (see, e.g., 11:24; Gal. 2:20; Rom. 5:6, 8; 8:32; Eph. 5:25). See the discussion below.

Here the article is used with νεκροί (see also vv. 35, 42, 52). This usage in particular excludes the translation “death.” See also .

Gk. ὅλως. See the discussion on 5:1; with the negative it can mean, as the NIV, “not at all,” which makes good sense here. O’Neill, “1 Corinthians 15.29,” and Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, independently object to this translation on the basis of word order. Since as in 6:7 ὅλως immediately precedes the noun νεκροί, they argue that it should here be translated “the really dead,” in contrast to those in the first clause. But that is to place too much confidence in too little evidence when it comes to word order. More likely, in each case this word comes first in the Pauline sentence for emphasis; the verb appears last here because that is the fixed formula throughout. Nor is it clear that ὅλως modifies the noun in 6:7; see the translation suggested there (“it is altogether a defeat”).

For this rendering of τί καί see BDF 442(14).

This is one of the rare instances in the letter where Paul addresses a community matter only in the third person plural. In other instances (e.g., 4:18–21; 15:12–19), even when “some” are specified, the rest of the argument is directed at the community as a whole in the second person plural. Since that does not happen here, one may surmise that this is the activity of only a few.

This still seems to be true, despite Murphy-O’Connor’s gentle chiding of those who say this (Keys, 242). Whether it is either probable or correct is another issue, but the plethora of opinions exists precisely because this is what it appears to say vis-à-vis some inherent difficulties with it as it appears. Cf. the opinion of A. Oepke, TDNT 1:542 n. 63: “All interpretations which seek to evade vicarious baptism for the dead . . . are misleading” (cf. H. Riesenfeld, TDNT 8:512–13); and Parry, 228: “[This is] the plain and necessary sense of the words.”

As one might well expect, this passage has elicited a considerable bibliography; the following are listed in their chronological order of appearance: J. Downey, “1 Cor 15:29 and the Theology of Baptism,” Euntes Docete 38 (1985), 23–35; J. D. Reume, “Another Look at 1 Corinthians 15:29, ‘Baptized for the Dead,’ ” BibSac 152 (1995), 457–75; R. E. DeMaris, “Corinthian Religion and Baptism for the Dead (1 Corinthians 15:29): Insights from Archaeology and Anthropology,” JBL 114 (1995), 661–82; J. R. White, “ ‘Baptized on Account of the Dead’: The Meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:29 in Its Context,” JBL 116 (1997), 487–99; R. A. Campbell, “Baptism and Resurrection (1 Cor 15:29),” AusBR 47 (1999), 43–52; A. C. English, “Mediated, Mediation, Unmediated: 1 Corinthians 15:29; The History of Interpretation and the Current State of Biblical Studies,” RevExp 99 (2002), 419–28; N. H. Taylor, “Baptism for the Dead (1 Cor 15:29)?” Neotestamentica 36 (2002), 111–20; J. E. Patrick, “Living Rewards for Dead Apostles: ‘Baptised for the Dead’ in 1 Corinthians 15.29,” NTS 52 (2006), 71–85; D. Zeller, “Gibt es religionsgeschichte Parallelen zur Taufe für die Toten (1 Kor. 15,29)?” ZNW 98 (2007), 68–76.

Chrysostom, hom. 40 in 1 Cor. 1, describes such a practice among the Marcionites. This is an esp. strong argument against the Mormons, e.g., who would justify their practice on alleged “biblical” grounds (which is of some interest in itself, since the exegesis of the biblical text generally holds very little interest for them). How can such a practice be so completely unknown if in fact it had had any authorization within the churches of the first century? This complete silence in all other sources is the sure historical evidence that, if such a practice existed in fact, it did so as something purely eccentric among some in the Corinthian community, and never got beyond them.

Although the History of Religions School noted some examples of vicarious rites in the mysteries. See Foschini, “Baptized,” III/51 n. 118.

Foschini, “Baptized,” III/64–65, argues that the structure of vv. 29c and 30, namely the repeated “Why indeed,” implies approval of the one because of the certain approval of the other. But that is not a necessary inference, any more than Jesus’ parable about the shrewdness to act on the part of the corrupt household manager implies tacit approval of his financial shenanigans (Luke 16:1–8).

See, e.g., Godet, 391.

For older commentators who held this view, see Foschini, “Baptized,” 1:266–67. See 264–76 for other less viable metaphorical options, plus Foschini’s critique. This view was more recently revived by J. Murphy-O’Connor, Keys, but who takes v. 29a as a Corinthian gibe at Paul’s labors, to which Paul responds in the rest of the paragraph. Besides the inherent difficulties of having νεκροί change meaning in the two juxtaposed lines, esp. without some kind of adversative, and the improbability of their using such a metaphor to describe apostolic hardships (pace Murphy-O’Connor; the influence of Philonic Judaism is questionable at best), there seems to be no contextual preparation for this (again pace Murphy-O’Connor; how this flows logically from v. 28 remains a mystery). Nor is there any hint in the text either that (a) Paul is quoting (which of course they would have known if it were so) or, more important (b) that the rest is a response, when there is no adversative of any kind.

A view held by Luther and supported by Grosheide, 373, as one of the two best options.

The view of Bengel; on the unlikelihood of “the dead” meaning “death,” see .

See M. Raeder, “Vikariatstaufe in I Cor. 15:29?” ZNW 46 (1956), 258–60, and supported by her mentor, J. Jeremias, “Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God,” NTS 2 (1955/56), 155–56; cf. also J. K. Howard, “Baptism for the Dead: A Study of 1 Corinthians 15:29,” EvQ 37 (1965), 137–41. For older, and slightly different, expressions of this view, see Findlay, 930–31, and R-P, 359–60.

See A. G. Moseley, “Baptized for the Dead,” RevExp 49 (1952), 57–61.

Bachmann, 457.

This was the view of most of the Greek Fathers. See, e.g., Chrysostom, hom. 40 in 1 Cor. 2. See further the collection of evidence in K. Staab, “1 Kor 15,29 im Lichte der Exegese der griechischen Kirche,” in Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus (Rome, 1963), 1:443–50. This view was advocated by A. B. Oliver, “Why Are They Baptized for the Dead? A Study of I Cor. 15:29,” RevExp 34 (1937), 48–53; it was more recently revived by O’Neill (see ) and, with slight modifications, Martin, 120–21. This view in particular has great difficulty accounting for the use of the third person, since Paul would in fact be addressing the congregation itself if this view were correct.

P. J. Heawood, “Baptism for the Dead,” ExpT 55 (1943/44), 278. For earlier expressions of this view see Foschini, “Baptized,” IV/181–82.

This was put forth by Sir Robert Anderson, The Bible or the Church? (London, 1905), 234; this is the translation of F. J. Badcock, “Baptism for the Dead,” ExpT 54 (1942/43), 330.

This is the view (and trans.) of Foschini, “Baptized,” V/276–83; cf. K. C. Thompson, “I Corinthians 15,29 and Baptism for the Dead,” in Studia Evangelica 2 (1964), 647–59, who offers a slightly different translation and nuance for “the dead,” taking it to refer to “dead bodies.”

Perhaps this is the significance of the passage in 2 Macc. 12:39–45 in which Judas Maccabeus offers prayer and takes an offering to provide for the sin offering for those of his men who had been slain while wearing “sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia.” This is not so much vicarious sacrifices for the dead as an appeal to God to have mercy on circumcised Jews who at the time of their death were wearing expressions of idolatry. Could it be that “baptism for the dead” fell into something of this general category of “innocence” so that Paul felt no great urgency to “correct” it?

This is the view advocated by Rissi, Die Taufe, and adopted by Barrett, 364, and Bruce, 148–49, among others.

So also H. V. Martin, “Baptism for the Dead,” ExpT 54 (1942/43), 192–93.

Cf. the discussion on 1:10–17; 2:1–4; 3:18–23; 4:1–21; 5:1–5; 9:1–27; 14:6, 15–19, 36–38; 15:8–10.

This is a rare case of the appearance of the nominative personal pronoun. Thus the use of the intensive pronoun to bring that out; the NIV does this by means of a reflexive, which is not quite precise. This emphatic “we” immediately following v. 29 excludes the Corinthians themselves (contra R-P, 361); it may include other apostles (as in v. 11; so Findlay, 931; Lenski, 692), but the following elaboration suggests that it is editorial and means “I myself.”

Gk. πᾶσαν ὥραν. This is a literal translation. The accusative implies “extent of time”; the phrase is an idiom that means “all the time.”

See on 4:11–13; cf. 2 Cor. 4:8–9; 6:4–5, 8–10; 11:23–29; 12:10.

A point that rather severely demolishes most forms of “modernism,” which is probably also why so many on that side of things have such a strong dislike of the apostle.

That is, all he needed to say in order to make his point, comparable to v. 29, was: “Why indeed do we ourselves face dangers every hour? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Gk. καθ’ ἡμέραν, which stands in the emphatic first position: “Why are we exposed to danger every hour? Daily I am subject to death.”

Cf. his citation of Ps. 43:23 (LXX) in Rom. 8:36; cf. also 2 Cor. 4:10; 11:23 (“in deaths many”). Thus it has nothing to do with piety and the daily dying to self and sin—although constant exposure to danger may have that effect as well!

Only here in the NT; see the examples in LXX Gen. 42:15 (“I swear by the health of Pharaoh”), and Jos., c.Ap. 1.255 (“I swear by Zeus”).

Moffatt seems to catch the sense: “Not a day but I am at death’s door! I swear it by my pride in you, brothers, through Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Gk. ὑμετέραν; in Paul see 16:17; 2 Cor. 8:8; Gal. 6:13; and Rom. 11:31. Although an objective use of this pronoun is rare, it does occur. See esp. Thucydides 1.69.5 (“the hopes they have placed in you”; Loeb); cf. also 1 Cor. 11:24, “in my remembrance” (= in remembrance of me).

Gk. καύχησιν, which occurs throughout 2 Corinthians (1:12; 7:4, 14; 8:24; 9:4; 11:10, 17). On the use of this word group in Paul, and esp. in 1 and 2 Corinthians, see on 1:29–31; cf. on 5:6; 9:15–16.

Cf. 1 Thess. 2:19 and Phil. 2:16 (καύχημα) and the eschatological perspective of this kind of “boast”; cf. D. S. Deer, “Whose Pride/Rejoicing/Glory(ing) in I Corinthians 15.31?” BibTrans 38 (1987), 126–28.

As suggested, e.g., by Holladay, 205; Bruce, 149.

As Barrett, 365, notes, for Paul “this is worth many deaths.”

MacDonald, “Emendation,” has offered the imaginative, but unconvincing, proposal that v. 31c is an interpolation by someone who was trying to harmonize 1 Corinthians with the Pastoral Epistles (in this case, 2 Tim. 4:17). In his view, the Pauline original takes up a position of the Corinthians, that they had believed a legendary story about his having fought with a lion in Ephesus. Besides being speculative at every key point, the author in particular neglects Paul’s own argument of vv. 30–31a and requires too many contingent grammatical and lexical improbabilities to make it work. See also the critique in Murphy-O’Connor, “Interpolations,” 93 (Keys, 267–68).

Héring, 171–72, following Weiss, argues for a hypothetical usage: “If I ever were to have to fight, etc.” But it is difficult to see how something that never happened would serve as an adequate elaboration of the point in v. 31. For a useful summary of the arguments pro and con for a metaphorical or literal understanding, see R. E. Osborne, “Paul and the Wild Beasts,” JBL 85 (1966), 225–30; more recently G. Williams has argued that the “metaphor” should be taken somewhat more literally as referring to the evil spirits or “beasts” in the demon-possessed, etc. in Corinth whom Paul opposed (“An Apocalyptic and Magical Interpetation of Paul’s ‘Beast Fight’ in Ephesus [1 Corinthians 15:32],” JTS 57 [2006], 42–56).

To be sure, some have taken the verb θηριομαχέω (a NT hapax legomenon) literally, as if Paul had actually fought with wild animals in the arena. The argument usually is predicated on an understanding of a relationship with v. 31 that sees this verse as climactic (e.g., Godet, 394), a view that was vigorously defended by C. R. Bowen, “I Fought with Beasts at Ephesus,” JBL 42 (1923), 59–68. But that is probably a false hypothesis, as well as a failure to reckon seriously with the nature of the opposition noted in 16:9.

See esp. the discussion by Malherbe, “Beasts,” whose balanced presentation helps to bring some order out of the chaos of much that has preceded. Cf. also the well-known parallel in Ignatius, Rom. 5:1, referring to his captors: “From Syria to Rome I am fighting with wild beasts, by land and sea.” Conzelmann, 277 n. 130, suggests that this is not a real parallel, since his impending death was close at hand. But Ignatius’s usage is in fact metaphorical, no matter how much what lay before him prompted the metaphor.

It is often pointed out that according to Acts 19:31–40 Paul has some well-placed friends in Ephesus, who protected him on one occasion. It is hard to believe that they would have allowed him, as a Roman citizen, to be thrown to wild beasts in the arena.

On the basis of archeological evidence from Corinth J. W. Hunkin (“1 Corinthians xv.32,” ExpT 39 [1927/28], 281–82) suggested that the metaphor might not be a reference to condemned persons (although see on 4:9), but to that class of gladiators (venatores or bestiarii) who were trained to give exhibition fights with wild animals. Thus it is a picture not of one condemned to the arena, but of a well-trained fighter, hardened by long training. MacDonald, “Emendation,” 273, rightly calls the view “as unsatisfactory as it is romantic.”

The suggestions are many and varied: “in the nature of man” (= seeking the rewards for which people risk their lives); “humanly speaking” (= to use a figure); “as far as the will of man is concerned” (= those trying to execute Paul acted contrary to God’s will); “according to human folly” (proposed by MacDonald, “Emendation,” to support his interpretation); “in human form” (= contending with wild beasts in human form), a view proposed by C. P. Coffin, “The Meaning of 1 Cor. 15.32,” JBL 43 (1924), 172–76.

MacDonald, “Emendation,” 269–70, seems quite wrong in seeing this and 3:3 as comparable to the usage in 9:8 or Rom. 3:5. No speaking is involved here; the verse has to do with how one lives.

Cf. Malherbe, “Beasts,” 80: “If there were no resurrection of the body, his struggle at Ephesus had been in vain. It would have been κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, a struggle on a merely human level, without a hope of resurrection.” This makes so much sense of the phrase in context that one wonders why there has been so much struggle over its nuance.

Many commentators (e.g., Godet, 394; Findlay, 932) see it as introducing what follows, which it does; but one misses too much to fail also to see its formal role as a conclusion to vv. 30–32, just as the similar clause in v. 29.

See esp. the discussion in Malherbe, “Beasts,” 76–79.

See, e.g., Mor. 1098C, 1100D, 1125D.

As both Conzelmann, 278 n. 139, and Malherbe, “Beasts,” 73, point out, one should not make too much of Paul’s own acquaintance with such literature from this quotation, since it had become a popular epigram by the time of Paul. See Conzelmann and Malherbe for the evidence.

Gk. ὁμιλία, which is the word for a “speech” as well, hence our “homily.”

Some (e.g., Godet, 395) think it refers to being seduced by their pagan friends (as in chaps. 8–10), but the interpretation offered here makes more sense of the present context.

Gk. ἐκνήφω, a NT hapax legomenon; cf. the noncompounded form used in 1 Thess. 5:6, 8, where the context demands the metaphor of sleep rather than drunkenness.

Gk. δικαίως; cf. 1 Thess. 2:10 and Tit. 2:12, where it means to live in an upright manner. The KJV so translates it here, and probably that moves in the direction Paul is intending. Nonetheless, that use of the adverb does not go well with the imperative “Sober up.” Hence BDAG suggest, “as you ought” (perhaps, “as is fitting” or “right”).

It is so used literally in Hab. 2:7, 19.

As in Gen. 9:24 and 1 Sam. 25:37 (lit.) and Joel 1:5 (metaphorically).

Although Martin, 124, perhaps narrows the metaphor too much to make it refer to their “ ‘intoxication’ with their spiritual exuberance.”

So, e.g., Gromacki, 192. Although this is not a popular view among commentators, it should not be lightly dismissed, esp. in light of the language that concludes the next section (v. 58), where abounding in the work of the Lord most likely refers to evangelism.

Some (e.g., Schmithals, 155–57; Conzelmann, 280) have questioned whether this part of the problem came from the Corinthians themselves. But both the language (ἄφρων) and the energy expended in response to it make little sense if the questions are merely hypothetical.

See . Cf. the evidence for this same kind of usage in Philo mustered by Horsley, “Elitism.”

Contra Conzelmann, 281 n. 15 and passim. But to deny this Conzelmann simply ignores the emphasis on σῶμα in this section.

One of the curiosities of a preceding generation of NT scholarship was its readiness to adopt so wholeheartedly the view of Bultmann (and Robinson; see ) that by σῶμα Paul meant the essential person (“Man does not have a sōma; he is sōma; Theology, 1:194). Yet that proved so difficult for Bultmann to maintain in the light of this passage that he accused Paul of betraying himself—never allowing that it may have been his reconstruction of Paul that was at fault. See the critique in R. J. Sider, “The Pauline Conception of the Resurrection Body in I Corinthians xv.35–54,” NTS 21 (1974/75), 428–39, esp. 438; and Gundry, 164–69.

Cf. C. F. D. Moule, “St Paul and Dualism: The Pauline Conception of Resurrection,” NTS 12 (1965/66), 107: “Paul steered a remarkably consistent course between, on the one hand, a materialistic doctrine of physical resurrection and, on the other hand, a dualistic doctrine of the escape of the soul from the body; . . . the secret of his consistency here is his tenacious grasp of the central theme: Jesus, Son of God.”

This also explains his essential differences from his contemporaries in rabbinic Judaism. For this discussion among the Hillelites and Shammaites, see Cavallin, Life, 171–92; cf. R. Morissette, “La condition de ressuscité. 1 Corinthiens 15,35–49: structure littéraire de la péricope,” Bib 53 (1972), 208–28, whose view was seconded by M. Teani, “L’argomentazione paolina in 1 Cor 15,35–49,” Rassegna di Teologia 41 (2000), 537–50.

Some tend to stress one to the exclusion of the other; this is esp. so with regard to discontinuity. See, e.g., Conzelmann, 281; for correctives to this see M. E. Dahl, Resurrection, and Sider, “Conception.” For a view similar to the one argued here, see J. Gillman, “Transformation in 1 Cor 15,50–53,” ETL 58 (1982), 309–33, esp. 322–33.

Cf. M. E. Dahl’s term (10, 94–95) “somatically identical,” which stresses continuity but is to be differentiated from “materially identical.”

So also K. Usami, “ ‘How Are the Dead Raised?’ (1 Cor 15,35–58),” Bib 57 (1976), 474. Cf. .

See .

On this whole question see esp. on 6:12–14.

The NIV begins the new paragraph with this sentence. This is fine for reading, but it is less useful for a commentary. A few MSS, followed by the TR (and KJV), omit the εἰ (preferred by Godet, 415), thereby missing the punch in Paul’s argument.

Cf. N. Bonneau, “The Logic of Paul’s Argument on the Resurrection Body in 1 Cor 15:35–44a,” ScEs 45 (1993), 79–92.

Gk. ἀλλά.

There seems to be no good reason for the English subjunctive of the NIV. This implies that the question is merely anticipated. In fact it is almost certainly the real issue, even if the question as such has not been communicated to Paul. Given the way he addresses the questioner, “Foolish man,” it seems nearly impossible that he did not know that this was what lay behind the denial.

Jeremias, “Flesh and Blood,” 157, proposes that the whole section, vv. 35–58, is a chiastic response to the two questions of v. 35. Vv. 36–49 (B′) respond to the second question (B), “With what kind of body?”; vv. 50–58 (A′) respond to the first question (A), “How are the dead raised?” While there is a degree of truth to this, it seems to miss both the progression of the argument and the climactic nature of vv. 50–58.

Cf. Sider, “Conception,” 429, who points out that πῶς frequently introduces rhetorical questions that challenge or reject an idea.

This is one of those places where transferring from Greek to English is esp. problematic. Most first-language English-speaking North Americans would hardly wince if someone is referred to as “foolish”; but it is another thing altogether to use it as a vocative, “Fool!” Paul was not confronted with that problem in Greek; so the issue for the translator is how to put Paul’s Greek into English, and the attempts go across the board (the RSV/NRSV kept Paul’s straightforward “fool!” which the ESV translators moderated to “you foolish person!” while the “senseless person” of the NEB becomes “you senseless one” in the REB; on the other hand the NAB is blunt, “You fool!”). Hence the translator’s dilemma, since the latter is what Paul says, but the English “equivalent” is almost certainly more harsh than Paul would have intended.

Although in a community where wisdom and knowledge rule (cf. 1:10–4:21; 8:1–13), this may well have been heard differently from the way a modern reader would (ἄφρων implies a person without wisdom).

Cf. Ps. 14:1; 53:1; 92:6; and esp. in the Wisdom literature, where ἄφρων appears in the LXX to describe such people. Cf. Luke’s usage in the parable of Jesus (12:16–21), where the rich man is called ἄφρων for precisely the same reason. Cf. Martin, 132.

Gk. ζῳοποιεῖται; cf. v. 22, where it is used of the activity of Jesus in bringing the dead to life in resurrection (so also in v. 45); cf. Rom. 4:17; 8:11.

Gk. εἰ τύχοι; see the discussion on 14:10.

John 12:24, “Unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.”

See , a view that has been stressed for this verse esp. by H. Riesenfeld, “Paul’s ‘Grain of Wheat’ Analogy and the Argument of 1 Corinthians 15,” in The Gospel Tradition (ET, Philadelphia, 1970), 171–86, esp. 174–78; cf. Conzelmann, 281; Martin, 132.

For a different use of this analogy, cf. Rabbi Meir, whose response to whether the dead will be raised clothed is: “The answer is given . . . by taking the case of a grain of wheat. If a grain of wheat was buried naked and comes out of the ground abundantly clothed, how much more will the righteous be dressed in their clothes” (b. Sanh. 90b). That assumes not only a materialistic view of resurrection but a Jewish view of nakedness! Paul’s experience of the risen Lord moved him to understand resurrection in terms of transformation.

Schneider, “Corporate Meaning,” 452, makes the improbable suggestion that “body” here means “nature.” To the contrary, it means “body”—even if that does not fit seeds so well—because the concern is not with seeds but with the nature of the resurrection body.

Gk. τὸ γενησόμενον, the rare future participle.

He will pick up this imagery again, however, in 2 Cor. 5:1–5, where he looks forward with longing to the mortal body’s being “overclothed” with a resurrection body, since one is left “naked” at death.

Those who stress discontinuity at the expense of continuity will wince at this; but their emphasis is a false dichotomy that Paul would not understand.

Cf. Gen. 1:11: “Then God said: ‘Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants . . . according to their various kinds.’ And it was so.”

For this meaning of καθὼς ἠθέλησεν see on 12:11. In Paul’s sentence the verb is aorist and refers first of all to the divine decrees of creation. Seeds die and come to life with a given “body” because God decreed that that be so.

So also Lincoln, 39.

Some have suggested that “heavenly bodies” cannot refer to the sun, etc. in v. 41 on the grounds that such usage is unknown in Greek antiquity, and therefore that Paul is referring to angelic beings (Findlay, 935; Parry, 236) or “the stars being equated with angelic powers” (H. Traub, TDNT 5:541; cf. Héring, 174; Conzelmann, 282). But the latter is pure speculation, with no basis in the text. This is to do word study precisely backwards. The context must prevail here. The question of v. 35b has already determined Paul’s language; and in v. 37 Paul has already used “body” for a stalk of wheat. To insist, therefore, that “heavenly bodies” does not refer to the sun, etc. in v. 41, which the context clearly demands, is to make a Procrustean bed for Paul’s use of language.

These are the four specifically mentioned, in reverse order, as being created on the fifth and sixth days of creation (Gen. 1:20, 24, 26). Cf. Rom. 1:23, where “reptiles” replaces “fish” because that was a common expression of idolatry.

The early Fathers, with their love of allegory, were fond of “identifying” these as various grades of saints and sinners, etc. (cf. Tertullian, res. 52).

Gk. οὕτως καί; for similar usage in applying a metaphor or analogy in Paul, see 2:11; 12:12; 14:9, 12; Gal. 4:3; Rom. 6:11.

There is no verb in the Greek text; since the verbs that follow are expressed in the present, that seems preferable here as well. These are gnomic presents, and therefore timeless; the NIV’s temporal addition is understandable, but slightly off-center in terms of Paul’s own point here, which is “so it is with regard to the subject at hand.”

This in itself should make one cautious about pressing the antitheses. Some work better than others; but each describes the humble, earthly nature of the one and the glorious, exalted nature of the other.

Hence the NIV. This is in fact specified in the fourth set, where “body” is the subject or predicate apposition. Otherwise, Findlay, 936; Barrett, 372; and Gillman, “Transformation,” 327, who would make them impersonal passives (“the sowing takes place in corruption”).

This is another clear indication, noted in the introduction to this section (vv. 35–58), of the interchange between “the dead” and “the body.” It points to the fact that the problem expressed in the former lies with the latter.

Cf. Lincoln, 39–40, who uses the language “the pre-eschatological state of the body over against the eschatological.”

Gk. ἐν φθορᾷ; its opposite is ἐν ἀφθαρσίᾳ (“in an imperishable state”). It is perhaps a reflection on our fallenness that the “positive” word is the negative one (perishable), whose opposite “positive” is formed with an alpha-privative (nonperishable).

E.g., Dan. 12:3; 1 Enoch 62:15; 105:11, 12; 2 Bar. 51:10.

On the basis of word statistics it is difficult to escape the conclusion that pneumatikos was a Corinthian term. The same cannot be said of psychikos. See the discussion on 2:14. On the whole psychikos seems unlikely as their term; it was probably chosen because of the usage in Gen. 2:7 that Paul is about to cite with reference to Adam (so also Martin, 136). If the term was theirs, one cannot be sure of its origins. Despite some conceptual similarities with Philo (cf. Pearson, Terminology, and Horsley, “Pneumatikos”), this specific linguistic contrast does not occur. That Paul and the Corinthians were at odds over the interpretation of Gen. 2:7, as Pearson (17–26) suggests, is a thesis that cannot be proved or disproved.

But see E. Schweizer, TDNT 6:420; cf. H. Clavier, “Brèves remarques sur la notion de πνευματικὸν σῶμα,” in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology (ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube; Cambridge, 1964), 342–62; and N. D. O’Donoghue, “The Awakening of the Dead,” ITQ 56 (1990), 49–59.

The language is Héring’s, 176; it is preferred also by Martin, 137.

On this matter see esp. J. D. G. Dunn, “How Are the Dead Raised? With What Body Do They Come? Reflections on 1 Corinthians 15,” SWJT 45 (2002), 4–18.

As Lincoln, 43, points out, the argument is neither a fortiori (given the one, then all the more the other) nor from inference (the existence of the one is inferred from the existence of the other), but typological, based on the inferences drawn from Gen. 2:7 in v. 45.

The Greek reads ἄνθρωπος Ἀδάμ, a redundancy omitted by a few MSS (B K 326 365 pc Iren).

In the interests of piety, several changes were made to this text. Marcion substituted ὁ κύριος for ἄνθρωπος (this is also the reading of 630, but most likely as a deviation, by way of omission, from the MajT). The MajT (thus the KJV) has conflated by adding ὁ κύριος, thus creating a christological text (“the second Man is the Lord from heaven”), instead of Paul’s eschatological-soteriological one. P⁴⁶ has the singular addition of πνευματικός (= “the second man is spiritual from heaven”); F G latt add ὁ οὐράνιος after οὐρανοῦ. Both of these are attempts to balance the first clause.

The original NIV read “from” here, and in the second clause in v. 48; see the commentary.

This reading is supported by B I 6 630 1881 al sa, and the majority of commentators (also Tischendorf, WH, von Soden, Vogels); cf. Metzger, 502, who notes: “Exegetical considerations (i.e., the context is didactic, not hortatory) led the Committee to prefer the future indicative, despite its rather slender external support.” But the UBS committee seems to have abandoned its better text-critical sense here. If the reading of B et al. were original, given that it makes so much sense in context, how is one to account for such a nearly universal (P⁴⁶ A C D F G Ψ 075 243 Maj latt bo Clement Origen Epiphanius) change to the hortatory subjunctive? (It can only be accounted for as an extremely early itacism that affected the entire tradition; B et al. would thus inadvertently have the original, not as “copies” of it but as independent attempts to correct the “error.”) Far better to make sense of what best explains how the other came about than to assume that the context cannot here be hortatory (so also Grosheide, 389; Héring, 179; Sider, “Conception,” 434; Lincoln, 50; and more recently S. P. Botha, “1 Korintiërs 15:49b. ’n Hortatief-of futurumlesing? (1 Corinthians 15:49b: A Hortative or Future Reading?),” Hervormde Teologiese Studies 49 (1993), 760–74; and S. Szymik, “Textkritische und exegetisch-theologische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 15,49,” Roczniki Theologiczne 52 (2005), 117–33. See the commentary.

Indeed, in the NA²⁷ the final sentence of what preceded (vv. 42–44) is put as the first sentence in this paragraph, a punctuation that has a long history in the English versions as well.

Widman, “Einspruch,” 47–48, considers vv. 44b–48 an interpolation. See the response in Murphy-O’Connor, “Interpolations,” 94.

A considerable amount of scholarly energy has been expended on both vv. 45 and 47 in terms of their christological implications. But these are quite beside Paul’s point, which, as in vv. 21–22, has to do with Christ’s resurrection being the ground of ours. The language has been dictated by the argument itself, esp. the use of Gen. 2:7.

See Ellis, Use, 141–43; it is doubtful whether Paul is here citing a midrash that had already taken hold in Christian circles (95–97). He is perfectly capable of such pesher. For a vigorous rejection of all such ideas, see Lenski, 717–21.

Cf. J. D. G. Dunn, “I Corinthians 15:45—Last Adam, Life-Giving Spirit,” in Christ and Spirit in the New Testament: Studies in Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule (ed. B. Lindars and S. Smalley; Cambridge, 1973), 130; see now the helpful study by S. Hultgren, “The Origin of Paul’s Doctrine of the Two Adams in 1 Corinthians 15.45–49,” JSNT 25 (2003), 343–70.

This has been a common interpretation, but seems to miss Paul’s point altogether. See, inter alios, Edwards, 444; Parry, 239.

See further P. Jones, “Paul Confronts Paganism in the Church: A Case Study of First Corinthians 15:45,” JETS 49 (2006), 713–37.

Hence the reason he is called the “last Adam,” meaning not just the final such representative, but the “eschatological” Adam—and “Adam,” not “man,” because he is representative, not simply a model or pattern. Schneider, “Corporate Meaning,” suggests that “Adam” in this verse should be understood in a corporate sense. That seems unlikely.

Cf. Dunn, “Last Adam,” 132; however, his emphasis on the verb ζῳοποιέω as referring primarily to the present misses its clear tie to v. 22, where it is used of the resurrection.

Lincoln, 43, follows Vos (Eschatology, 169) in suggesting that by this collocation of Adam and Christ on the basis of Gen. 2:7 Paul implies that at creation a different kind of body was already in view. Thus, “the Corinthians should not view the idea of a bodily form appropriate to spiritual existence as something so novel and unimaginable, for in fact this has always been God’s purpose.”

Cf. Lincoln, 43–44: “The last Adam however has a new quality of life, for as πνεῦμα ζῳοποιοῦν he is no longer merely alive and susceptible to death but rather has now become creatively life-giving.”

It is sometimes suggested, on the basis of this text and 2 Cor. 3:17, that Paul “does not draw any hard and fast line between the Spirit and Christ” (Ruef, 173). But that reflects a very poor understanding of Paul’s Christology, not to mention of 2 Cor. 3:17, which is not saying something about Christ at all. The Spirit there is being identified in a midrashic way with “the Lord” mentioned in the Exodus passage cited in v. 16; see now God’s Empowering Presence, 309–20. Although he has correctly rejected the improper use of 2 Cor. 3:17, Dunn (“Last Adam”) has unfortunately perpetuated this kind of “Spirit Christology” for the present text. Since such an idea is found only in such a pesher as this, far better it would seem to allow fluidity in Paul’s use of language than to argue that he tends basically to identify the risen Christ with the Spirit—esp. since he does not do so elsewhere, where the language is more straightforward.

Some would say “anthropological”; e.g., R. Scroggs, The Last Adam: A Study in Pauline Anthropology (Philadelphia, 1966), 87. The issue, however, is not with the “nature” of humanity, but with eschatological salvation as including a somatic expression.

Gk. ἀλλ’, untranslated in the NIV, as implied by the context.

Cf. Lincoln, 44: “What started out as a comparison between two forms of bodily existence moved to a comparison between the two representatives of those forms and now proceeds to include the two world-orders which the first and last Adam exemplify.”

Among those who view this as a response to Philonic views, see Allo, 427–28; Héring, 178; Barrett, 374–75; Davies, Paul, 51–52; Pearson, 17–23; Horsley, “Pneumatikos.” This view has been (rightly) rejected by Scroggs, Last Adam, 115–22; A. J. M. Wedderburn, “Philo’s ‘Heavenly Man,’ ” NovT 15 (1973), 301–26; and Lincoln, 44.

Cf. Schmithals, 169–70; Jewett, Terms, 352–56; E. Brandenburger, Adam und Christus (WMANT 7; Neukirchen, 1962). See the critique, esp. of Brandenburger, in Kim, Origin, 162–93, based in part on the unpublished dissertation of Wedderburn, “Adam and Christ” (Cambridge, 1970).

Gk. ἔπειτα, as in v. 23.

Cf. Wedderburn, “Heavenly Man,” 302, and Lincoln, 45. In Wedderburn’s words: “Taken in this way the verse becomes a polemic against an unrealistic spiritualizing of this present life, a blending of heaven and earth that does away with the earthiness of the latter; the Corinthians erred in holding to a one-stage soteriology, rather than in reversing the order of a two-stage one” (italics mine).

The LXX has χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς; Paul says ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός.

Which the original NIV helped to foster by rendering the first “of the earth,” and the second “from heaven,” a misunderstanding carried on also in the NEB (but corrected in the REB); the NRSV (continued in the ESV) and NAB translators have mistakenly taken the preposition as having to do with origins (“from the earth, from heaven”), which misses Paul’s argument by too much; see point (3) that follows.

Gk. χοϊκός, the adjective of the noun χοῦς used in the LXX. The use of the adjective indicates that Paul’s interest is not in the “stuff” or dust of the earth per se, but in describing Adam’s body as being “earthy,” that is, subject to decay and death.

See, e.g., Parry, 240; Grosheide, 388; Barrett, 375–76; Martin, 137.

This is the verb supplied by Barrett, 375.

Thus the use of “first and second man,” the emphasis here being on Christ’s humanity now being “of heaven” by virtue of his resurrection.

Cf., inter alios, Godet, 427–30; Findlay, 939; Bruce, 153; Lincoln, 45–46.

So also Godet, 427, whose language has been borrowed.

The correlatives οἷος . . . τοιοῦτοι are crucial here: “of such nature as the one, of such nature also the other.”

Some have suggested that Paul’s intent in v. 47 is to qualify v. 46, so that the Corinthians will not be led astray into thinking that Christ is really second to Adam, since he was in fact before him. But that theological nicety is beside Paul’s present concern. If so, why then the emphasis in v. 46 at all? And why not a genuine qualifier about Christ instead of this sentence that begins with a word about the genuineness of Adam’s humanity? And how will a reference to the incarnation help Paul’s argument at all? After all, the point of everything is v. 44, and Paul’s concern to show by way of analogy that at the resurrection believers will assume a “spiritual body” that is like Christ’s.

See the helpful discussion of this debate in Lincoln, 46–50.

See, e.g., Wedderburn, “Adam,” 66–112; Lincoln, 47–50; Kim, Origin, 187–93. For apocalyptic as the background see also J. L. Sharpe, “The Second Adam in the Apocalypse of Moses,” CBQ 35 (1973), 35–46.

Gk. ἐφορέσαμεν τὴν εἰκόνα; the verb is a metaphor for putting on clothing. Cf. the same metaphor with the verb ἐνδύω in vv. 53–54 and 2 Cor. 5:1–4. The phrase probably means, as BDAG interpret, “represent in one’s own appearance.” Thus, even though εἰκών here may perhaps reflect Genesis (in this case 1:26–27), it is probably not fraught with theological overtones. In our earthly bodies we are like the one, Paul says; in our heavenly bodies like the other.

In fact it is expressly denied by Barrett, 377.

See .

In place of the δέ with which this paragraph begins (not trans. in NIV; cf. KJV, “now”), the Western witnesses (D F G b Ambst) substitute a γάρ, making this verse the conclusion of vv. 45–49.

In conformity (apparently) to 6:9–10, some Western witnesses omit the δύναται (A C D Maj have δύνανται) and change the infinitive to a future indicative.

This text has suffered considerable corruption in transmission. There are five basic text forms:

(1)

We will

not all sleep,

but we will

all be changed (B Maj)

(2)

We will

all sleep,

but we will

not

all be changed ( C)

(3)

We will

not all sleep,

and we will

not

all be changed (P⁴⁶ A^c)

(4)

We will

all sleep,

and we will

all be changed (A*)

(5)

We will

all be raised,

but we will

not

all be changed (D* Marcion)

The best solution is to see (1) as responsible for the others, either in view of Paul’s own death or as a reflection of later Christian eschatology (e.g., (2), “all people must die, but transformation is for believers only”). P⁴⁶ is a conflation of (1) and (2). Cf. Zuntz, 255–56; Metzger, 502; Conzelmann, 288 n. 1. H. Saake, “Die kodikologisch problematische Nachstellung der Negation (Beobachtungen zu 1 Kor 15.51),” ZNW 63 (1972), 277–79, argues for (2) as original, but would change the punctuation so that it meant the same as (1) (πάντες μὲν κοιμηθησόμεθα οὐ, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα); but the alleged parallel of a postpositive οὐ in Rom. 7:18 is not quite precise.

For a full discussion of the variant ῥοπῇ found in P⁴⁶ D* F G 1739 and the majority of witnesses in his time, according to Jerome, see Zuntz, 37–39.

Several omissions and subsequent transpositions occurred in the MS tradition due to homoeoteleuton/arcton. See the discussion in Metzger, 502–3.

Later MSS, in partial conformity to the LXX of Hos. 13:14, change the order of the clauses and substitute ᾃδη for θάνατε in the second instance (cf. KJV, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”). The text is read by P⁴⁶ * B C 088 1739* pc lat co.

Among translations, the RSV, but changed in the NRSV; among Greek editors, B. Weiss; among commentators, Calvin, 341; Héring, 180; Lietzmann, 86; Gromacki, 196; Wilson, 235; cf. also E. Schweizer, TDNT 7:128–29; and A. C. Perriman, “Paul and the Parousia: 1 Corinthians 15.50–57 and 2 Corinthians 5.1–5,” NTS 35 (1989), 512–21.

This is even more so if the hortatory subjunctive is the correct reading at the end of v. 49, as we have argued.

Had it summarized what has been said to this point, as some maintain, then one would have expected the explanatory γάρ (as in v. 53), which some MSS substitute for this very reason (see ).

As there, it is not certain whether this is a solemn declaration about what is to be said (so, e.g., Conzelmann, 289) or a kind of summation of what has been said to this point, “what I mean is this” (NEB, changed in the REB to “this I say”; cf. Barrett).

Jeremias, “Flesh and Blood” (followed by Barrett, 379–80), has argued that they express synthetic parallelism, and therefore that the first has to do with the living, the second with the dead. He then sees this antithesis repeated throughout vv. 51–54, in a form of chiasm. Although he is probably generally correct that “flesh and blood” refer to the living—although, as will be noted, that, too, needs to be qualified—the real difficulty with this proposition lies with his identifying the abstract noun ἡ φθορά with the already dead. That forces Paul’s language into such a narrow sense that it simply cannot be sustained. Furthermore, as J. Gillman (“Transformation,” 320–22) has shown convincingly, the chiastic structure that Jeremias sees must yield to a structure that appears to be two sets of A-B-A′; cf. R. Morissette, “ ‘La chair et le sang ne peuvent hériter du Règne de Dieu’ (1 Cor. 15.50),” ScEs 26 (1974), 39–67, esp. 46–48.

So most of the older commentaries. See also Morissette (preceding note); Usami, “How,” 489; Schweizer, TDNT 7:218–19; Gillman, “Transformation,” 316–18; and Conzelmann, 289. But the latter seems quite mistaken in suggesting that the first is a piece of traditional material taken over by Paul somewhat intact, while the second is Paul’s exposition of it. In fact, the language “flesh and blood” and “inherit the kingdom of God” are both Pauline. The former is found in Gal. 1:16 and Eph. 6:12, while the latter is found only in Paul in the NT (1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Gal. 5:21; the usage in Matt. 25:34 is not identical and lacks the nuance of the Pauline usage). At best, as Morissette argues, the first is traditional Jewish language that has been transformed into Hellenistic terminology in the second clause.

So, e.g., Godet, 433.

Jeremias notes that Schlatter had taken this view before him. In fact it has a much longer history. Cf. Godet, 434. See the discussion in Gillman, “Transformation,” 310–12.

Cf. Parry, 241: “the embodiment of the human life to fit its earthly sphere”; and R. Meyer, TDNT 7:116: “From the very outset . . . the idea of mortality and creatureliness seems to be esp. bound up with the phrase.” In this sense it indeed refers to the living, since it cannot possibly refer to dead corpses in the grave.

On the other hand, the ethical view found in Patristic exegesis (e.g., Chrysostom, hom. 42 in 1 Cor. 2) and favored by Edwards, 450, and Morissette, “La chair,” 46–48, has little to commend it. Both the terminology and the argument as a whole stand quite against it. Cf. the refutation in Gillman, “Transformation,” 318–19.

Gk. ἰδού; excluding quotations, found in Paul only in 2 Cor. 5:17; 6:9; 7:11; 12:14; Gal. 1:20; “behold” in earlier English (and some later [NAB, ESV]) versions; cf. NEB (“listen”), changed in REB to “Look!”

See the discussion of this word in the commentary on 2:7. Although one cannot be certain, the usage here probably reflects that of 13:2, where as a prophet Paul has been given special revelation, a kind of charismatic knowledge (cf. 12:8). On the other hand, it could belong to the great “mystery,” the plan of salvation as now revealed through Christ, of which this is the final event. Cf. the discussion in Brown, Semitic Background, 47–48.

The unusual word order πάντες οὐ can probably best be explained stylistically, as anticipating the next clause, πάντες δέ. It can only mean “not all.” So Robertson, Grammar, 423 (contra his own note on 753!); Moule, 168.

On this word as a metaphor for the death of Christians, see on 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 18, 20.

On the basis of its similarities to 1 Thess. 4:14–17, G. Löhr has argued for a common oral tradition between them (“1 Thess 4:15–17: Das ‘Herrenwort,’ ” ZNW 71 [1980], 269–73), while D. Gewalt sees here the reworking of a Jesus logion (“1 Thess 4,15–17; 1Kor 15,51 und Mk 9,1—Zur Abgrenzung eines ‘Herrenwortes,’ ” LingBib 51 [1982], 105–13). The latter is unlikely, the former unnecessary.

This has been challenged, however, by A. C. Perriman, “Paul and the Parousia: 1 Corinthians 15.50–57 and 2 Corinthians 5.1–5,” NTS 35 (1989), 512–21.

See, e.g., v. 49; cf. on 1:18, 30; 2:7, 12–13; 6:14; 9:25; etc.

Gk. ἀλλάσσω, used only here and in v. 52 in the NT to refer to such a transformation. The word used of Jesus’ transfiguration in Mark 9:2 (//Matt. 17:2) is μεταμορφόω, a word Paul uses of the present “transforming” of our lives into the likeness of Christ (2 Cor. 3:18: Rom. 12:2). For the idea of “transformation” in Judaism, see 2 Bar. 51:10, in which, however, it happens not at the resurrection but at the final judgment.

G. Luedemann sees considerable differences between this and the 1 Thessalonians passage, thus suggesting changes in Paul’s own perspective. See “The Hope of the Early Paul: From the Foundation-Preaching at Thessalonika to 1 Cor. 15:51–57,” PRS 7 (1980), 195–201. But that is to make more than seems permissible from two ad hoc statements that have quite different concerns.

Gk. ἐν ἀτόμῳ, which literally means “uncut,” hence “indivisible” because of smallness (cf. “atom”). The English equivalent would be “in a split second.”

Gk. ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦ, the equivalent of the Eng. “at the blink of an eye.” It is of interest that this physical phenomenon was picked up in more than one culture to express the speed with which something can happen.

See the discussion in G. Friedrich, TDNT 7:71–88. Its origins may have been the original theophany at Sinai (Exod. 19:16), now transformed eschatologically. On the other hand, the blowing of the trumpet accompanied a variety of special occasions (in the cultus; for warfare; for warning; at the “parousia” of a significant person). For its use in eschatological contexts see inter alia (in the OT) Isa. 18:3; 27:13: Jer. 4:5; 51:27; Hos. 5:8; Joel 2:1; Zech. 9:14; (in apocalyptic) 4 Ezra 6:23; Apoc.Mos. 22, 27; Or.Sib. 8.239; Apoc.Abr. 31:1–2; (in rabbinics) b.Rosh.Hash. 11b; Midr.Qoh. 1:7; (in the NT) Matt. 24:31; 1 Thess. 4:16; Rev. 4:1; 8:2–9:14. Conzelmann seems to reflect a theological bias in noting only the apocalyptic tradition.

For the debate as to whether this means, as in v. 51, both the living and the dead, see Gillman, “Transformation,” 319–20. The contrast here with the resurrected dead, plus the use of πάντες in the former passage, argues for “the living” here.

Gk. δεῖ; cf. v. 25. Not a necessity of natural order but of divinely ordained eschatology.

Again, contra Jeremias, “Flesh and Blood,” 153, who in this case simply asserts without evidence.

This demonstrative would make little sense as referring to those already dead. At the same time it implies continuity, even though there is transformation. It is this mortal body that is clothed in immortality. Cf. Gillman, “Transformation,” 331.

See also Gillman, “Transformation,” 316–17, who has demonstrated conclusively from usage in Plutarch (Mor. 960B), Philo (op.mund. 119), and Wisd. 9:14–15 that these two terms (τὸ φθαρτόν and τὸ θνητόν) were generally used synonymously in antiquity, and frequently, as here, in parallel sentences. The neuter could be used abstractly (= this perishability of ours); but it seems far more likely that it is referring back to the “body.”

It should be noted, of course, that even though Paul speaks in terms of the present conditions of the living, the argument by its very nature also embraces the dead.

For this clothing imagery see on v. 49. The imagery stands in sharp contrast to the Greek view, in which one is naturally endowed with immortality. But not so Paul; immortality is the investiture of resurrection.

Gk. λόγος; note the singular, which at least refers to Isa. 25:8, perhaps to both, understood as belonging together as one whole. But see on v. 55.

Cf. Rev. 21:4, which alludes to both lines (incl. wiping away of tears) of the Isaiah text (in reverse order). See m.Moed Qat. 3.9 for the use of this text as part of the “lamentations” at funerals during Dedication and Purim, making it clear that it was already interpreted by the rabbis as referring to the eschatological elimination of death.

For this complex issue see R. Morissette, “Un midrash sur la mort (I Cor. xv, 54c à 57),” RB 79 (1972), 161–88, esp. 168–70. The Heb. lāneṣaḥ derives from the verb nṣḥ, which means “to overcome, prevail over.” The adverb is variously translated in the LXX, as well as in Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus, with εἰς τέλος (“to the uttermost”), εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (χρόνον) (“forever”), or εἰς νῖκος (lit. “in victory,” which is probably an idiom for “forever”; see LSJ). The LXX has translated here as though it were the verb form (“having prevailed”), while both Theodotion and Aquila have εἰς νῖκος. But the idiom is obviously common enough that it makes little sense to refer to Paul’s text as “pre-Theodotion.”

Cf. Barrett, 383: “He is not however here grounding an argument upon Scripture, but writing freely, in scriptural language, of the ultimate victory over death.”

See esp. the language of 2 Cor. 4:7–18.

Holladay, 211.

Gk. κέντρον. The word is used of a “goad” (Acts 26:14; Prov. 26:3) and may be so intended by the LXX translator; however, it also is used of the sting of insects (4 Macc. 14:19) and scorpions (Rev. 9:10), and is clearly the sense that Paul is picking up here.

Holladay, 211.

So much so that some (e.g., von Soden, Weiss, Bousset, Moffatt) have argued that this verse is a gloss, either by Paul himself at a later time or by a later editor (e.g., Moffatt, 268, “They are a prose comment which could not have occurred to him in the passionate rush of triumphal conviction”). But such a comment says far more about the commentator than about Paul: Paul could not be imagined to write differently from our better selves! For an overview of this debate see F. W. Horn, “1 Korinther 15,56—ein exegetischer Stachel,” ZNW 82 (1991), 88–105.

For a different view, in which “the law” is not to be understood in light of later letters but “against the background of Hellenistic popular philosophy,” see H. W. Hollander and J. Holleman, “The Relationship of Death, Sin, and Law in 1 Cor 15:56,” NovT 35 (1993), 270–91.

This seems preferable to the suggestion by M. Gertner, “Midrashim in the New Testament,” JSS 7 (1962), 282–83, that Paul is using “hidden midrashim” to derive two different senses from the words of Hosea.

Cf. Martin, 191. Some see the word “sting” here as referring to human “feelings” in the face of death; but that is to psychologize Paul and miss his theology by too much.

See 6:18; 7:28 (36); 8:12.

Indeed, this is the only use of this term in a theological sense in the two epistles—although see 2 Cor. 3:4–18, which implies that the Corinthians were not untrained in this kind of understanding of the law.

For the radically different viewpoint held in rabbinic Judaism see the discussion in Morissette, “Midrash,” 176–83.

On the much larger issue of “Paul and the law,” which at the time of the first edition of this commentary was front and center in Pauline studies, but which lay beyond the scope of this commentary, see inter alios E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia, 1977); idem, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia, 1983); H. Hübner, Law in Paul’s Thought (1978; ET, Edinburgh, 1984); J. D. G. Dunn, “The New Perspective on Paul,” BJRL 65 (1982), 94–121; H. Räisänen, Paul and the Law (ET, Philadelphia, 1983); for a quite different approach see J. M. García Pérez, “1 Co 15,56. ¿Una polémica contra la ley judía?” EstBib 60 (2002), 405–14.

See on 3:7.

Cf. 7:24, the only other instance of the vocative in a conclusion. Cf. .

Cf. 10:14, where it appears by itself in the vocative. This full, and most affectionate, form is found only here and in Phil. 4:1.

Gk. ἑδραῖοι (cf. 7:37); it is used similarly in Col. 1:23.

Gk. ἀμετακίνητοι, a NT hapax legomenon.

Gk. πάντοτε, usually found in Paul’s prayer reports in his thanksgivings (e.g., 1:4; 1 Thess. 1:2; 2 Thess. 1:3, 11; 2:13; Rom. 1:10; Col. 1:3; 4:12; Phlm. 4; Phil. 1:4), but also used in exhortation (e.g., 1 Thess. 5:15, 16; Gal. 4:18; Eph. 5:20; Phil. 4:4).

This translates the Gk. ptc. περισσεύοντες (= “abound” or “overflow”); cf. 14:12; used frequently of the overflow of God’s grace toward us in Christ (Rom. 5:15; 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:15; 9:8; Eph. 1:8), and therefore often of the overflow toward God and one another that God’s people should/do have (1 Thess. 3:12; 4:1, 10; Rom. 15:13; 2 Cor. 8:2; 9:12; Phil. 1:9; Col. 2:7).

Gk. ἔργον. For this noun as referring to the work of the gospel see on 3:13–15 and 9:1; cf. 1 Thess. 5:13; 2 Tim. 4:5.

Gk. κόπος; for this combination as referring to the ministry of the gospel see esp. on 4:12, where the two verbs appear together; and 16:16, where they appear as συνεργέω and κοπιάω. For the noun as referring to the work of the gospel see also 3:8; 1 Thess. 3:5; 2 Thess. 3:8; 2 Cor. 6:5; 10:15; 11:23.

↑ Back to top