Theo Todman's Web Page - Notes Pages

1. Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand,
2. and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you — unless you believed in vain.
3. For I delivered to you as of first₃ importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
4. that he was buried, that he was raised₄ on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
5. and that he appeared₅ to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me₆.
9. For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.
11. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.
12. Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no₇ resurrection of the dead?
13. But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even₈ Christ has been raised.
14. And if Christ has not been raised, then₉ our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16. For if the dead are not raised, not even₁₀ Christ has been raised.
17. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile₁₁ and you are still in your sins.
18. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished₁₂.
19. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied₁₃.
20. But in fact₁₄ Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits₁₅ of those who have fallen asleep.
21. For as by a man came death₁₆, by a man has come also₁₇ the resurrection of the dead.
22. For as in Adam all die₁₈, so also in Christ shall all be made alive₁₉.
23. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits₂₀, then at his coming₂₁ those who belong to Christ.
24. Then comes the end₂₂, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father₂₃ after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
25. For he must reign until₂₄ he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26. The last enemy₂₅ to be destroyed is death.
27. For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who₂₆ put all things in subjection under him.
28. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him₂₇ who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all₂₈.
29. Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead₂₉? If the dead are not raised at all, why₃₀ are people baptized on their behalf?
30. Why are we in danger₃₁ every hour?
31. I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day₃₂!
32. What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die₃₃."
33. Do not be deceived: "Bad company ruins good morals₃₄."
34. Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.
35. But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised₃₅? With what kind of body₃₆ do they come?"
36. You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies₃₇.
37. And what you sow is not the body that is to be₃₈, but a bare kernel₃₉, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
38. But God gives it a body₄₀ as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body₄₁.
39. For not all flesh is the same₄₂, but there is one kind₄₃ for humans₄₄, another for animals₄₅, another for birds₄₆, and another for fish₄₇.
40. There are heavenly bodies₄₈ and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind₄₉, and the glory of the earthly₅₀ is of another.
41. There is one glory of the sun₅₁, and another glory of the moon₅₂, and another glory of the stars₅₃; for star differs from star in glory₅₄.
42. So is it₅₅ with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable₅₆; what is raised is imperishable₅₇.
43. It is sown in dishonor₅₈; it is raised in glory₅₉. It is sown in weakness₆₀; it is raised in power₆₁.
44. It is sown a natural body₆₂; it is raised a spiritual body₆₃. If there is a natural body, there is also₆₄ a spiritual body.
45. Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being₆₅"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit₆₆.
46. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
47. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven₆₇.
48. As was the man of dust, so also₆₈ are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also₆₉ are those who are of heaven₇₀.
49. Just as₇₁ we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image₇₂ of the man of heaven.
50. I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood₇₃ cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable₇₄.
51. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep₇₅, but we shall all be changed₇₆,
52. in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet₇₇. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable₇₈, and we shall be changed₇₉.
53. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable₈₀, and this mortal body must put on immortality₈₁.
54. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory₈₂."
55. "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?₈₃"
56. The sting of death is sin₈₄, and the power of sin₈₅ is the law.
57. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain₈₆.

In-Page Footnotes:

• I’ve also been recommended – by an old friend from Romford – to listen to two hour-long sermons on 1Cor. 15 by a Scottish Presbyterian.
• I’ve now listened to the first one. It’s wholesome enough stuff, as you’d expect, and is well-delivered, but is over-long being – I presume – 45 minutes on one verse, with another 45 minutes in the evening session. It is – as is usual – a gospel message, with warnings of hell, though not in a Bible-bashing way.
• He does make some mention of contemporary controversies when he laments that modern preachers don’t focus on hell, just like they don’t focus on the evils of abortion or assisted suicide (he didn’t mention gay marriage, possibly because he could be reported for hate speech). He stated that the Bible is ‘against’ suicide, though is it really? See Wikipedia: Christian views on suicide. It’s ‘against’ murder, though not against killing as such. Is suicide self-murder or self-killing, sometimes justified? He mentioned Saul’s ‘running himself through’ with the assistance of his armour bearer lest the Philistines ‘make sport’ with him. His armour bearer also kills himself. Another man is then killed by David not because he’d assisted a suicide but because he claimed to have ‘killed the Lord’s anointed’. See Wikipedia: The Suicide of Saul. None of this is relevant to the topic under discussion – which is resurrection. I will move it elsewhere in due course.
• Otherwise, he focuses on verse 54 with its allusion to Isaiah 25:8. He doesn’t note that the text differs (see my footnote on v. 54) and applies any comforting parts of the passage to the Church (not mentioning the reference to Moab) just as amillennialists usually do (see Wikipedia: Amillennialism).
• He takes the veil or covering that is over all people (in Isaiah 25:5) to be the ‘shroud’ of death (he notes that his view is in contrast to most expositors, who take it to be the veil of unbelief [as alluded to by Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:14-16], as does the Jewish Study Bible [unbelief in God, naturally, rather than in Christ]). Maybe, but the prophetic passages are mightily obscure, and a preacher can make what he likes of them.
• Links:-
  → Kenneth Stewart - Death swallowed - Sermon 1
  → Kenneth Stewart - Death swallowed - Sermon 2

• The ensuing doctrinal statement is introduced because of the apparent denial of personal resurrection by the Corinthians, as we shall see. Paul wants to stress that resurrection is a cornerstone of the Christian faith, and cannot be lightly denied, as it generally was at the time (eg. by Greek philosophers – who disliked being embodied – or Sadducees, who thought the doctrine absent from the Pentateuch).

• I have no great philosophical worries about the raising of Jesus. In Jesus’ case we have bodily continuity, and not too much time between death and resurrection. Consequently, I will not discuss it further in this place. It is our potential resurrection that I am primarily interested in, and which presents greater philosophical problems.

• Again, evaluating the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is not my topic here. Enough to say that the “appearances” present some problems in reconciliation, however certain some exegetes are that they can be resolved. But we will ignore these issues here.
• The important point is that Jesus resurrection is said to be bodily, and the tomb was empty. So, it is the same body that is resurrected, albeit “glorified” in some way.
• I don’t know whether anything is to be made of the request by Jesus to Mary Magdalene not to “handle him” as he had not yet ascended. See John 20:17. Modern translations imply that he doesn’t want to be clung on to, so as to prevent him ascending, though this wasn’t scheduled for another 40 days.

• The appearance to Paul is – or has the potential to be – qualitatively different to the earlier appearances to the other disciples.
• The reason is that it is post-ascension and a vision. Jesus is said not to be visible to Paul’s companions on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:7).
• As it’s a vision, it says nothing about the corporeal state of Jesus either at the time, or in his post-ascension abode wherever that might be.

• This is an argument: “If … (then). The argument, to be elaborated, is that if it is impossible for the dead to rise, then Christ has not been raised, and the cornerstone of the Christian’s faith is undermined.

• Another “If … then” argument. But, it might be said, there may be special cases. As I noted above, there is bodily continuity in the case of Jesus (and Lazarus) but not usually in our own cases. So, it might be true that we are not raised, because (say) it is a metaphysical impossibility, but still true that Jesus was raised.

• Another “If … then” argument.
• Read on for why the preaching and faith are “in vain”.

• This is a repetition of verse 13.

• There seem to be two reasons for this ‘futility’, as this verse itself indicates. Firstly, “your faith is futile“ – which may or may not equate to a lack of a future hope. Secondly “you are still in your sins” – the resurrection of Christ is essential in procuring forgiveness of sins (says Paul).

• There is much that could be said here about the nature of the Christian post-mortem “hope”. If the Corinthians were Platonists, they would not at all equate the lack of a resurrection with “perishing”, for the (immortal) soul would carry on existing, freed at last from the shackles of the body.

• Why is this so? Why are ‘we’ ‘of all people most to be pitied’ if they have hope only in this life? Most people only have – or think they only have – ‘hope in this life. Is the Christian’s lot worse than the non-Christian’s? Was this the case just for the persecuted Christians at the time? Are the ‘we’ only Paul and his fellow missionaries?

• Paul had provided the evidence for Christ’s resurrection at the start of the Chapter.

• There had been – according to Scripture – earlier resurrections, though these individuals were raised in their pre-mortem state, just repaired a bit, not with ‘imperishable’ bodies.

• Paul is arguing by analogy and parallelism here. He is assuming the real existence of Adam, with death coming into the world as a result of his sin. This is not really credible to modern sensibilites, but does it really matter to the argument?

• The completion of the analogy / parallelism: Adam versus Christ.

• Comparisons can be made to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans here. The reason for all dying can be debated. It would not be impossible for an organism to repair itself indefinitely, but from an evolutionary perspective this is not a good thing as it prevents the gene shuffling and mutations necessary for the variation to allow evolution to have purchase.

• At first sight, Christians are in view here, though maybe not. If it’s only Christians, it spoils the parallelism.

• This is not the general resurrection, but of Christians only.

• This – sort of – implies that the end is immediately after Christ’s return, but read on … the millennium intervenes between the return of Christ and the End.

• All this is interesting, but not relevant to my concerns here.

• ‘Death’ is here personified, just as in Revelation where Death and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire. Presumably this is after the ‘second death’ – the fate of unbelievers. Note that ‘Death’ is not supposed to be tortured indefinitely, but to be destroyed.

• This supposed reference to vicarious baptism is obscure but – maybe – only because it sounds silly.

• Paul’s point is that – in some way – the dead can be benefited which – he says – only makes sense if they are to live again. Resurrection isn’t the only means of living again, but is the one Paul has firmly in mind.

• Paul argues that accepting the risks he and his fellow missionaries are taking only make sense if he is to live indefinitely, if there is a ‘reward’. Yet most virtuous people do what they do because it has to be done and is of immediate – if transitory – benefit to others (and is fulfilling for the virtuous person). This is a sharp divide between Greek (and modern) ethics and Paul’s. Also – I suppose – Jesus’ … what reward have you if you only love your friends.

• I don’t know what to make of the reference to ‘death’ here. Did Paul literally ‘die every day’?

• This is a quotation from Isaiah 22:13. But this isn’t recommending this attitude or saying anything about resurrection, but that the Israelites should be doing something to avert the coming catastrophe.
• It’s not at all the case that hedonism is the best way to lead a finite life.

• This is said to be a quotation from Menander’s Thais, but had been collected, together with other aphorisms, into a school-book and would therefore presumably have been authoritative for the Corinthians.
• See Wikipedia: Menander: “An admirer and imitator of Euripides, Menander resembles him in his keen observation of practical life, his analysis of the emotions, and his fondness for moral maxims, many of which became proverbial: "The property of friends is common," "Whom the gods love die young," "Evil communications corrupt good manners" (from the Thaïs, quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:33). These maxims (chiefly monostichs) were afterwards collected, and, with additions from other sources, were edited as Menander's One-Verse Maxims, a kind of moral textbook for the use of schools.”

• The ‘how’ – as immediately becomes apparent – is not asking for a mechanism – but means ‘in what form’ or ‘with what body’.
• This is disappointing, in that the mechanism is important for the preservation of identity, and Paul says nothing on this matter.

• This is an important question. If it’s not the same kind of body that died we have questions about the identity-preservation of metamorphosis.
• There are different degrees of metamorphosis – that of frog-spawn → frog (and maybe even frog → prince) is a continuous process involving a transition from one form to another with a continuing distinct individual. Not too much different to human gestation from fertilised egg through to neonate. But egg → caterpillar → chrysalis → butterfly involves a stage where the body of the caterpillar turns to gloop before being reconstituted as a butterfly. I’d have thought this analogy would be more apposite than the ‘seed’ analogy, as we will see, though the ‘gloop’ is not completely formless.
• As well as the ‘how’ question, Paul doesn’t address questions of ‘where’. Where are the dead raised, and where is their eternal abode?
• The ‘where’ question is particularly pressing in the case where the corpse of the deceased has become dispersed, has had its atoms incorporated into the bodies of other individuals who have subsequently died – or who – maybe – are still alive and are to be ‘changed’, and so on.

• Again, this is some sort of analogy.
• It’s a classical philosophical conundrum whether the oak tree is the same individual as the acorn.
• Even though there is great physical difference between the acorn and the oak tree – just as there is between the early-term fetus and the human neonate – and between the latter and the adult human being – there is continuity of form and matter (though with the addition of extra matter).
• But in no sense does the acorn, or early-term fetus – ‘die’. Rather, it ‘develops’.
• As Paul later suggests, while death is a necessary precursor for resurrection – by the very meaning of words – it is not necessary for the assumption of the resurrection body – ‘change’ will do.
• I would suggest that the acorn is ‘changed’ into the oak tree. But even if the acorn doesn’t literally die, it is no longer there in the same form at the end of the developmental process.

• The ‘sowing’ is in the farming sense, nothing to do here with any supposed ‘sowing’ of a corpse.

• This is presumably referring to the whole seed.
• However, some philosophers – and the medieval Jews – thought that there is some indestructible ‘kernel’ in the human being’s body that survives cremation or corruption and forms the link between the corpse and the resurrected body. See Wikipedia: Luz bone.
• It’s nonsense, of course. The sacrum is not indestructible and we’ve no reason to believe – anatomically-speaking – that any bone or substantive particle within the body is indestructible.
• This is a failed wheeze – like the medieval suggestion that human flesh is indigestible to cannibals, so doesn’t form part of their bodies causing problems for reassembly of the same matter.

• Whether the ‘giving’ of the body is by supernatural creationist means or natural evolutionary ones does not matter for these purposes.

• This seems to refer not to the bodies of the seeds themselves but to the individual the seed (allegedly) dies and then develops into.

• We slide from vegetable to animal matter.

• The Pauline biology seems to be somewhat simplistic, and the ‘kinds’ he invokes aren’t the ‘kinds’ of genesis – which approximate to species – but rather to biological Class (see Wikipedia: Class (biology) and more generally Wikipedia: Taxonomic rank).

• Much debated today, where humans are classed along with the other great apes (albeit as special ones).

• ‘Animals’ is a very wide term in modern biology – and would definitely include birds and fish. I suppose Paul has livestock or beasts of burden in mind – familiar mammals – but the details don’t really matter. The Greek word κτῆνος (ktēnos) has these meanings.

• See the footnote above.

• I have no idea what sort of bodies Paul thought the ‘heavenly bodies’ had. The Greeks – and therefore the Corinthians, who are supposed to be following Paul’s argument – had all sorts of wrong ideas about heavenly bodies. It was only Galileo’s telescope that revealed they weren’t perfect spheres.

• What is meant by ‘glory’ (Greek doxa) here?

• No doubt ‘glory’ has a meaning here analogous to ‘majesty’. The term is important in the ensuing argument.
• What is certain is that ‘glory’ isn’t a place. This isn’t saying that the stars in ‘glory’ differ from one another but that the stars differ from one another in majesty.
• Paul is presumably unaware that the sun is a fairly nondescript star, important though it is to us.

• Here we have the explanation or clarification of the analogy.

• Well, yes, especially as it has already perished, but this sets off a series of contrasts.

• Presumably this means that it’s not subject to decay as our ‘earthly’ bodies are. Presumably it is not immortal – in the sense that God could destroy it (as presumably he will do with Satan and the wicked angels).
• I say this not because it’s at all likely in the case of resurrected Christians but to raise the question of what sort of body it is.

• In what sense ‘dishonourable’? Because it was a corpse? Or are healthy human bodies ‘dishonourable? This would be in stark contrast to the Greek view – think of all those statues – and might be in line with the views of the ascetics about to mount their pillars in the desert. But not likely.

• Again, ‘glory’ is not a place, but a state.

• Another contrast. Even the strong-man’s body is – presumably – weak in comparison to the resurrection body, but it’s not clear what sort of power is presupposed.

• See the footnote immediately above.

• Greek: σῶμα ψυχικόν. Literally ‘soulish’ – the body of the ‘living soul’ that we are.

• As is well know, this ‘spiritual body’ has some odd properties. It can walk through walls, fly through the air but can consume fish.
• It’d be nice to know whether it is an organic body ‘fixed up a bit’ or whether it is of a completely different make-up, and in what sense it will be ‘ours’. Will it be something we ‘have’ or is it ‘us’. Elsewhere Paul talks of clothes and tents, doubtless analogously in some way.

• What is this ‘If … (then)’ sentence meant to mean? It is not a logical consequence of there being a natural body that there should be a spiritual one, though it might be a fact.
• Maybe – if we are essentially corporeal beings that live on indefinitely – some such ‘spiritual’ body is a prerequisite.

• This was written (in Genesis). The NT Greek is ψυχὴν ζῶσαν.

• This was not written but is Paul’s supplied parallel.
• ‘Became’ (Greek Ἐγένετο) is understood as carried forward from the parallel clause, though ‘is’ might be understood.

• We might ask just where ‘heaven’ is. Is it a place in our universe?

• This is clearly a valid suggestion; whatever is predicated of one human being is true of another cateris paribus. Presumably the tendency to physical corruption – returning to dust – is what is in mind.

• The parallel case. This is not obvious, so is a ‘revelation’.

• In what sense – and when – are Christians ‘of heaven’?

• This parallel is a revelation, not a logical consequence of the transition to resurrection.

• Again, in what sense are ‘we’ to bear the heavenly image?

• I remember some quibbles about the passage not mentioning ‘flesh and bones’, and it’s the blood that’s the impediment. This is very doubtful. Even though the Jews were forbidden from eating ‘flesh’ with the blood in it, ‘because the soul is in the blood’, whatever this is meant to mean, it was never really possible to drain the blood out entirely, and flesh without blood in its capillaries cannot function.
• The point – presumably – is that purely biological life isn’t kitted out for the heavenly realm, wherever or whatever this is.

• Necessarily so for an endless life.

• This ‘secret’ may have occurred to Paul given the supposed then closeness of the return of Christ. What happens to those still alive?

• Rather than have them die and be resurrected, they would need to change in some way to be fit for the heavenly life.

• When is the last trumpet?

• Is this the general resurrection of all the dead, including the unredeemed, or just those who ‘died in the Lord’. Does it include the OT saints?

• This changing is evidently to be instantaneous rather a gradual metamorphosis. This raises problems for identity-preservation, where gradual change is expected. You can’t just instantaneously swap X for a completely different Y and say X=Y, though if X gradually and continuously changes into Y, you might.

• What is the sense of ‘putting on’ here. Is something added to our perishable bodies to make them imperishable?

• So, do these new or enhanced bodies now possess intrinsic immortality?

• An inexact allusion to Isaiah 25:8. It’s not clear where Paul got his citation from, in particular ‘victory’.
• The LXX seems to have it that it is death that is swallowing the strong (κατέπιεν ὁ θάνατος ἰσχύσας), though the Hebrew has the same sense as 1Cor. 15:54.
• In the original languages:-
  → BibleHub - Isaiah 25:8
  → LXX: Isaiah 25

• If this is taken from Hosea 13:14, Paul has turned the sense of the passage on its head:
  Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol?
  Shall I redeem them from Death?
  O Death, where are your plagues?
  O Sheol, where is your sting?
  Compassion is hidden from my eyes.
• Most Christian translations treat this passage positively in the light of 1 Cor. 15, but in the original context this verse sounds like a collection of rhetorical questions demanding the answer ‘no’, and threats as in the ESV quoted above – also the NASB and the JPS version. Death and Sheol are being invoked as punishments rather than banished. Why else the closing ‘Compassion is hidden from my eyes’?
• Not that this matters. Presumably Paul’s exegesis was popular at the time.

• Popular Pauline tropes. How are they relevant to the context?

• This is a repetition of an earlier suggestion that labour is ‘in vain’ if it has only transitory consequences. Is this really the case?
• I suppose it depends what the Corinthians ‘labour’ is. If it’s ‘spreading the Gospel’ and the Gospel is false (because there is no resurrection) then the labour would be in vain.

Table of the Previous 3 Versions of this Note:

Summary of Notes Referenced by This Note

To access information, click on one of the links in the table above.

Summary of Notes Citing This Note

To access information, click on one of the links in the table above.

Authors, Books & Papers Citing this Note

Author	Title	Medium	Extra Links	Read?
Englert (Alexander T.)	We’ll meet again	Paper		Yes
Penny (Sylvia)	The Resurrection Chapter: 1 Corinthians 15	Paper		Yes
Todman (Theo)	Resurrection	Paper		Yes
Todman (Theo)	Thesis - Chapter 04 (Basic Metaphysical Issues)	Paper		Yes
Todman (Theo)	Thesis - Chapter 11 (Resurrection)	Paper		Yes
Todman (Theo)	Thesis - Metamorphosis	Paper		Yes
Todman (Theo)	Thesis - Personal Identity	Paper	2	Yes
Todman (Theo)	Thesis - Resurrection	Paper	2	Yes
Updike (John)	Self-Consciousness	Book
Van Inwagen (Peter)	Dualism and Materialism: Athens and Jerusalem?	Paper	2	Yes

---

References & Reading List

Author	Title	Medium	Source	Read?
Englert (Alexander T.)	We’ll meet again	Paper - Referencing	Aeon, 02 January 2024	Yes
Todman (Theo)	Resurrection	Paper - Cited	Delivered at the OBT 'Away Weekend', early May 2026	Yes

Text Colour Conventions

1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2026
2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)