Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 15:3

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;

3. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received ] The close resemblance of this passage to the Apostles’ Creed shews that this summary of the doctrines of our faith is actually what it professes to be, a short compendium of Apostolic teaching. Irenaeus, a writer in the second century, and a careful observer of Apostolic tradition, gives a very similar summary in his treatise against Heresies, Book iii. c. 4. Dean Stanley calls attention to the fact that this bold affirmation of the truth of the Resurrection, possibly the earliest we have (see above ch. 1Co 11:23) was written barely twenty-five years after the event St Paul does not state here from whom he received his doctrine, but he must have acquired some elementary instruction in the first principles of the Christian faith from his intercourse with the disciples (Act 9:19), and even at his admission into the Christian body. And what he had received from others he tested by examination of the Scriptures, by prayer and silent communing with God, till it became his own, by revelation and by that inward conviction which none but God can give. See Gal 1:12; Gal 1:16.

died for our sins ] Cf. ch. 1Co 1:18 , 1Co 5:7, 1Co 8:11. Also St Mat 20:28; St Mar 10:45; Rom 5:8-10; 2Co 5:14-15 ; 1Ti 2:6; 1Pe 1:19, &c.

according to the scriptures ] What Scriptures? Those of the O. T., clearly. Those of the New (see ch. 1Co 4:6 and note) were hardly any of them in existence. If it be asked what Scriptures of the O. T. are meant, we may refer to Psalms 22.; Isaiah 53., as well as to Genesis 22.; Deu 9:24-26; Zec 12:10. For the same words in the next verse see Psa 16:10; Isa 53:10; Hos 6:2; Jon 2:10. This latter passage having been applied to the Resurrection by Christ Himself (St Mat 12:40; Mat 16:4), may not unnaturally be conceived to be among those St Paul had in his mind here.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

For I delivered unto you – See the note at 1Co 11:23. First of all. Among the first doctrines which I preached. As the leading and primary doctrines of Christianity.

That which I also received – Which had been communicated to me. Not doctrines of which I was the author, or which were to be regarded as my own. Paul here refers to the fact that he had received these doctrines from the Lord Jesus by inspiration; compare the 1Co 10:23, note; Gal 1:2, note. This is one instance in which he claims to be under the divine guidance, and to have received his doctrines from God.

How that Christ died for our sins – The Messiah, The Lord Jesus, died as an expiatory offering on account of our sins. They caused his death; for them he shed his blood; to make expiation for them, and to wipe them away, he expired on the cross. This passage is full proof that Christ did not die merely as a martyr, but that his death was to make atonement for sin. That he died as an atoning sacrifice, or as a vicarious offering, is here declared by Paul to be among the first things that he taught; and the grand fundamental truth on which the church at Corinth had been founded, and by which it had been established, and by which they would be saved. It follows that there can be no true church, and no wellfounded hope of salvation, where the doctrine is not held that Christ died for sin.

According to the Scriptures – The writings of the Old Testament; See the note at Joh 5:39. It is, of course, not certain to what parts of the Old Testament Paul here refers. He teaches simply that the doctrine is contained there that the Messiah would die for sin; and, in his preaching, he doubtless adduced and dwelt upon the particular places. Some of the places where this is taught are the following: Ps. 22; Isa 53:1-12; Dan 9:26; Zec 12:10; compare Luk 24:26, Luk 24:46. See also Hengstenbergs Christology of the Old Testament, vol. 1:pp. 187,216, translated by Keith.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

1Co 15:3-4

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins.

First of all

First of all in his profoundest arguments; first of all in his richest encouragements; first of all in his severest, denunciations; first of all in his fervid exhortations; first of all in his impassioned expostulations; first of all in his enraptured, sometimes his entranced and enraptured and absorbed anticipations of the life and the immortality that was to come. If he wanted to induce a habit of self-denying liberality, mark him–thus he did it:–You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that you, through His poverty, might be made rich. If he wanted to get men to forbear with one another, thus he did it:–Be kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God, for Christs sake, hath forgiven you. When he wanted to get men to lead righteous, sober, and godly lives, thus he did it:–You are not your own, you are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your bodies and in your spirits, which are His. If he wanted, whenever he had a congregation like this, to get the impenitent and the unbelieving out of the hands and out of the snare of the devil, thus be did it:–There is no other sacrifice for sin (dont trifle with that one), but a fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation that shall devour the adversary. In a word, he determined not to know anything among men, but Jesus Christ and Him crucified. Your teaching cannot get on without the alphabet; and Paul could not have got on without his alphabet. And thus it was evangelically, that wherever he went he gloried in nothing save the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. (W. Brock, D.D.)

Originality in preaching

Notice that the preacher does not make the gospel. If he makes it, it is not worth your having. Originality in preaching, if it be originality in the statement of doctrine, is falsehood. We are not makers and inventors; we are repeaters, we tell the message we have received. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The Apostles creed

1. In these verses we have the earliest specimen of a Christian creed; the compendious form which Paul habitually used in order that, whatever else they forgot, they might not forget this, and to supply a test of the claims of those who assumed to speak in the name of Christ. Note how in 1Co 11:23, St. Paul introduces the form of words to be used at the Supper in precisely the same way he introduces the creed before us. The phrase seems to have been that by which St. Paul habitually introduced settled and formal statements of Divine truth.

2. But if this creed were already familiar, why repeat it here? Simply because the Corinthians needed to hear it again and again. There were those who held that matter was the root of all evil, that only as the spirit was redeemed from its thraldom to the body could men hope to rise into a happy spiritual life. And when Paul taught that the death and resurrection of Christ were virtually the death and resurrection of all who believed on Him, they concluded that the resurrection was past already. Nay, as they reflected on the dignity of Him who had achieved this great spiritual redemption for them, they began to doubt whether the pure Son of God had ever been brought into immediate contact with aught so vile and corrupt as matter; whether all that pertains to His physical life was not a series of illusions. It was in this mood that St. Paul met them.

I. The apostles creed includes the three following facts.

1. That Christ really died–that His death was a genuine historical event, the date, manner, and place of which were all perfectly well known.

2. That Christ was buried–a real human body being laid in an actual grave, a grave familiar to those who dwelt in Jerusalem.

3. That Christ has been raised, as could be proved by hundreds of witnesses still alive. These three facts are the cardinal facts of Christian history. To believe in these is, so far forth, to hold the catholic Christian faith.

II. From these three facts the apostle draws two doctrinal sequences.

1. Christ died; but to believe that will do no more for us than to believe that Lazarus died, unless we also believe that Christ died for our sins.

(1) The death of Christ was not a mere natural event. For in Him was no sin, and death is the natural consequence and proper wage of sin: in Him was the power of an endless life over which death had no claim or sway. His death, therefore, unlike ours, was a willing sacrifice. He died for the sins of those who were dead in sin, that, coming into their death, He might give them His life.

(2) But St. Paul does not embarrass his affirmation with any theory of the mode in which the death of Christ takes away sin. He is content to leave men to theorise as they will, if only they receive the cardinal fact.

2. The death and resurrection of Jesus are parts of an ordered scheme of a Divine economy. Christ died, has been raised again according to the Scriptures, the law, the will of God. Now that the Hebrew Scriptures did foretell this (Isa 53:8-9; Psa 16:10) is obvious.

(1) Mark the value of this fact. It demonstrates that the sacrifice for our sins has found acceptance in heaven. The plan of the work wrought by Christ was designed by God. All the lines of His life were drawn by the hand of God before Christ took our flesh to atone our sin. And therefore to accept the redemption of Christ is to accept the redemption of God. We believe in Christ; we also believe in God.

(2) But here again St. Paul quietly passes by all the subtleties of speculative minds. He simply declares the simple fact that the redeeming work of Christ was in accordance with the will of God. He neither affirms anything nor requires us to believe anything as to the mode in which God accepts the righteousness of Christ on behalf of guilty men. All he demands is, that we should find here an expression of the good-will of God; and he demands this because to believe that Jesus died for our sins will be no gospel to us, unless we also believe that God sent His Son to be the propitiation of our sins. Conclusion:

1. The creed is brief enough, and simple enough when compared with the creeds of the Church, and yet, in the judgment of an inspired apostle, it contains all that is essential to the Christian faith. Nay, St. Paul goes even farther than this. There were those at Corinth who, as yet, could not adopt even this succinct and simple creed in its integrity. But instead of expelling them from the Church, or dooming them to everlasting perdition, he sets himself to teach them more perfectly the way of life.

2. The lessons of St. Pauls wise, gracious conduct are–

(1) The more accurate and full a mans knowledge of Christian doctrine, the greater will be his help, of an intellectual sort, to Christian obedience. And therefore we should spare no pains to get and to give him rounded and complete views of the truth as it is in Jesus. But we must not be impatient with him if he is slow to learn.

(2) If we hold St. Pauls creed in St. Pauls spirit, we shall be very willing to hold as much more as we can. He delivered his creed first of all. He delivered it first, because the fact that Christ died for our sins was of all facts the most momentous to sinful men–the very first thing they needed to learn. But if he taught this first, he also taught a good deal more than this. Having taught the simple lesson of the Cross, he was for ever urging men to go on to perfection. (S. Cox, D.D.)

The glorious gospel

I. Its great facts.

1. The death.

2. The burial.

3. The resurrection of Christ.

II. Their paramount importance.

1. Sin expiated.

2. Death conquered.

3. Heaven opened.

III. Their absolute certainty.

1. Predicted.

2. Attested.

3. Delivered to us on the authority of the Scriptures. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

The foundation facts of the gospel

I. The facts of pauls gospel. First of all I delivered these things. And the first not only points to the order of time, but to the order of importance.

1. The system unfolded in the New Testament is a simple record of historical fact. It becomes a philosophy and a religions system; but it is first of all a story of something that took place in the world. If that be so, let preachers never forget that their business is to insist upon the truth of these fundamental facts. They must evolve all the deep meanings which are wrapped up in the facts; but they will not be faithful to their Lord unless there be the unfaltering proclamation–first of all, etc.

2. This character of the gospel makes short work of a great deal that calls itself liberal Christianity. We are told that it is quite possible to be a very good Christian, and reject the supernatural. It may be so, but I cannot understand how, if the fundamental character of Christian teaching be the proclamation of certain facts, a man who does not believe those facts has the right to call himself a Christian.

3. There is an explanation which turns the facts into a gospel.

(1) Mark how that Christ died, not Jesus. Christ is the name of an office, into which is condensed a whole system of truth, declaring that it is He who is the Apex, the Seal, and the ultimate Word of all Divine revelation.

(2) He died for our sins. Now, if the apostle had only said He died for us, that might conceivably have meant that, in a multitude of different ways of example, etc., His death was of use to mankind. But when he says He died for our sins, that expression has no meaning, unless it means that He died as the expiation for mens sins.

(3) He died and rose according to the Scriptures, fulfilling the Divine purposes revealed from of old. These three things turn the narrative into a gospel, and without all three, the death of Christ is nothing to us, any more than the death of thousands of saintly men has been. Do you think that these twelve fishermen would ever have shaken the world if they bad gone out with the story of the Cross unless they had carried along with it the commentary? And do you suppose that the type of Christianity which slurs over the explanation, and so does not know what to do with the facts, will ever do much in the world, or will ever touch men? Let us liberalise our Christianity by all means, but do not let us evaporate it.

II. What establishes the facts.

1. This Epistle is one of the four letters of Paul which nobody disputes, and was written before the Gospels, probably within twenty-five years of the Crucifixion.

(1) And what do we find alleged by it as the state of things at its date? That the belief in the Resurrection of Christ was universally taught in and accepted by all the Christian communities. And if that be so, there is not, between the moment when Paul penned these words and the day of Pentecost, a single chink in the history where you can insert such a tremendous innovation as the full-fledged belief in a resurrection coming in as something new.

(2) Unless the belief that Christ had risen originated at the time of His death, there would never have been a Church at all. Take the nave out of the wheel and what becomes of the spokes? A dead Christ could never have been the basis of a living Church.

2. The contemporaneousness of the evidence is sufficiently established. What about its good faith? Anybody that knows an honest man when he sees him, anybody that has the least ear for the tone of sincerity and the accent of conviction, must say they may have been fanatics, but one thing is clear, they were not false witnesses for God.

3. What, then, about their competency? Their simplicity; their ignorance; their slowness to believe; their surprise when the fact first dawned upon them, all tend to make us certain that there was no hysterical turning of a wish into a fact, on the part of these men. Fancy five hundred people all at once smitten with the same mistake, imagining that they saw what they did not see!

4. He was buried. Why does Paul introduce that amongst his facts? Because, if the grave was there, why did not the rulers put an end to the heresy by saying, Let us go and see if the body is there? If His body was not in the grave, what had become of it? If His friends stole it away, then they were deceivers of the worst type. If His enemies took it away, for which they had no motive, why did they not produce it and say, There is an answer to your nonsense?

III. What the facts establish.

1. Christ has risen from the dead; and that opens a door wide enough to admit all the rest of the gospel miracles.

2. The resurrection casts back a light upon the Cross, and we understand that His death is the life of the world, and that by His stripes we are healed.

3. But, further, remember how He claimed to be the Son of God; how He demanded absolute obedience, trust, and love–and consider the resurrection as bearing on the reception or rejection of these tremendous claims. We are brought sharp up to this alternative–Christ rose from the dead, and was declared by the resurrection to be the Son of God with power; or Christ has not risen from the dead–and what then? Then He was either deceiver or deceived, and in either case has no right to my reverence and love.

4. The resurrection of Christ teaches us that life has nothing to do with organisation but exists apart from the body; that a man may pass from death and be unaltered in the substance of his being: and that the earthly house of our tabernacle may be fashioned like unto the glorious house in which He dwells now at the right hand of God. There is no other absolute proof of immortality but the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (A. Maclaren, D.D.)

Primary Christian truths

I. The primary truths which St Paul delivered to the Corinthians.

1. Here is a solitary Jew visiting a great heathen city for the first time, to preach an entirely new religion. His bodily presence is weak, and his speech, compared to that of Greek rhetoricians, contemptible. He stands almost alone in a city, famous all over the world for luxury, immorality, and idolatry. A more remarkable conjuncture it is hard to conceive. And what did he say about the Founder of the new faith which he wanted them to receive in place of their ancient religion?

(1) That He died, and died as a malefactor on the Cross. Why did St. Paul lay so much stress upon this? Because He died for our sins.

(2) That He rose from the dead. By this amazing miracle He proved, as He had frequently said He would, that He was the Saviour foretold in prophecy; that the satisfaction for sin He had made by His death was accepted by God the Father; that the work of our redemption was completed, and that death, as well as sin, was a conquered enemy.

2. Learn–

(1) What were the leading principles of that religion which, eighteen centuries ago, came forth from Palestine, and turned the world upside down. Christianity starved idolatry, and emptied the heathen temples, stopped gladiatorial combats, elevated the position of women, raised the whole tone of morality, and improved the condition of children and the poor. These are facts which we may safely challenge all the enemies of revealed religion to gainsay. What did it all? Not the mere publication of a higher code of duty, but the simple story of the Cross and the sepulchre.

(2) What the foundation of our own personal religion must be, if we really want inward spiritual comfort. That the early Christians possessed such comfort is plain. These men had a firm grasp of the two great facts which St. Paul proclaimed first and foremost to the Corinthians.

II. The reasons why he was led to assign to these truths such a prominent position. There are three great facts which stare us in the face everywhere.

1. Sin. When the sense of this is really awakened, what can cure it? Nothing has ever been found to do good to a sin-stricken soul but the sight of a Divine Mediator.

2. Sorrow. What shall best help man to meet and bear this? The cold lessons of Stoicism have no power in them. Just here, the Pauline doctrine of a risen Christ comes in with a marvellous power, and exactly meets our necessities.

3. Death. At no point do human religions and philosophies break down so completely as in the article of death. At the point where all man-made systems are weakest, there the gospel is strongest.

Conclusion:

1. Do not be ashamed of holding decided views about the first things–the foundation truths of religion.

2. The only way to do good is to walk in St. Pauls steps, and to tell men first, foremost, continually, that Jesus Christ died for their sins, and rose again for their justification. (Bp. Ryle.)

On the atonement

I. The expediency of Christs interposition for our salvation may be inferred from the guilt and degradation of mankind. Once, indeed, there was, as it has been called, a golden age; but the same persons who have described it, also delineate the degeneracy of our race. Good men, according to one ancient writer, were scarce as the gates of Thebes, or the mouths of the Nile. Another tells us, that peace had left the earth, truth taken her departure, and fidelity fled far away. In consulting the records of ages that are past, amiable qualities, no doubt, occasionally appear which attract our esteem, and splendid virtues are displayed which excite admiration; still, however, misconduct and crime are the prominent features. Yes, crimes follow in close succession, while virtues are rare like those beautiful flowers which spring up here and there among the weeds of the wilderness. They who contemplate the wandering idolaters in the wilds of Tartary, not to mention the ancient votaries of superstition in Greece and Rome; they who behold the Indian on the banks of the Ganges, or the Samoeide situated on the frozen ocean, must discern, in a striking point of view, the degraded state of humanity, and the expediency of that plan of salvation which the gospel unfolds. The degraded state of humanity, on account of the numberless violations of duty, is productive of many apprehensions and alarms. In the presence of a Being of infinite perfection man has trembled to appear, being timorous and dismayed, like the progenitor of our race, when he hid himself from the presence of the Lord among the trees of the garden. If he would still hope for happiness, after his manifold provocations, he suspects that he cannot demand it from the inflexible justice of the Almighty, but that he must intreat it from the tender mercy of his God. And how astonishing the display of the Divine mercy to the children of men!

II. The expediency of His interposition may be deduced from the inefficacy of every other known mode of atonement for transgression. Much efficacy has been ascribed to repentance; but it is doubtful how far mere repentance is a reparation for wrong. Is not guilt often attended with punishment which repentance alone cannot remove? Has not the murderer been tortured with remorse, after sincerely deploring his crime, and firmly resolving to shed no more innocent blood? True penitence implies a complete change of life: but who ceases entirely to do evil? Erring man sins, repents, and sins again. Even his best resolutions are at times fallacious, and as the stream of brooks they pass away. Hence he is full of anxious disquietude, apprehensive that, while the corruptions of his nature continue, the Divine displeasure will also remain. Distrusting the efficacy of repentance for appeasing His anger, he naturally fears, as a great philosopher has justly remarked, lest the wisdom of God should not, like the weakness of man, be prevailed on to spare the crime by the most importunate lamentations of the criminal. Some other intercession, some other sacrifice, some other atonement, he imagines, must be made for him beyond what he himself is capable of making, before the purity of the Divine justice can be reconciled to his manifold offences. But legal oblations were deficient in efficacy. It was not possible, according to the declaration of an apostle, that these should take away sin. A superior sacrifice was requisite, and a better atonement than these. On the Saviours merits the believer reflects with hope and trust, gratitude and transport, in his last moments.

III. The atonement was expedient to vindicate the honour of the Divine government. Mercy to the guilty without suitable expiation might produce ruinous effects. Were breach of order not punished, all would become anarchy and confusion. When the genius of justice seems to slumber for ages, she is scorned like the threatenings of Noah. Never will that Omnipotent Being, who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity but with abhorrence, allow guilty mortals to trample on the majesty of His laws, and with impunity to set examples of crimes the most atrocious. That obnoxiousness to punishment which results from the violation of the Divine laws was transferred to Christ when He offered Himself as a substitute for sinners. And this substitution, completely voluntary on His part, and consequently highly meritorious, exalted in every point of view, instead of debasing the doctrine of the natural placability of the Divine Being.

IV. Our Saviours interposition was expedient as being a subject of prophecy, and the Divine veracity interested of consequence in its accomplishment. Many hundred years before His appearance on earth, the interposition of our Redeemer was predicted with the utmost perspicuity. The whole scene of His sufferings passed before the prophets, and they describe them as circumstantially as if they had been spectators of the crucifixion on Mount Calvary. Without controversy, it was a great and mysterious sacrifice. But mystery is merely a relative term. To infinite intelligence all is plain in the whole economy of grace, the arrangement of providence, and the system of nature. Let us, who are children of the dust, receive with reverence every doctrine which is revealed from heaven, rather availing ourselves of the light of the sun, so to speak, than attempting to gaze on his glory. (T. Laurie, D.D.)

Jesus Christ died for the sins of men

I. It was violent and ignominious–a death by crucifixion. Christians living at this remote age of the Church, are, in some sense, disqualified to conceive of that extremity of pain and shame which attended an execution by the cross. We have been accustomed to associate with the cross whatever is stupendous in history, whatever is dear, and sacred, and sublime in truth. But it was far otherwise in that age, and with those nations among whom the apostles went forth to proclaim their crucified Lord. They knew the cross in no other character than as the instrument of the most horrible and most infamous of punishments. We cannot, therefore, but admire, that in the face of this strong and universal detestation, the apostles should so explicitly affirm and so earnestly iterate the fact of their Masters crucifixion. Far from drawing an oblivious veil over the Cross, far from attempting, by partial or enigmatical statements, to conceal the offensive fact, they assert it, they appeal to it, they rejoice and glory in it!

1. The sincerity of the apostles, and their conviction that Jesus is the Saviour of the world. Had they been insincere, or had they been of doubtful mind, as to the Christ of God, the mode of their Masters death they might well have kept back.

2. We ourselves may take a lesson not to stumble at the scandal of the Cross. Happy they who, feeling it to be the power of God and the wisdom of God, are raised above the contempt of unbelieving men, and can glory in the Cross of Christ!

II. The death of Christ was positive and real–not fictitious, not visionary: Christ died for our sins. The importance of this part of apostolic instruction we should have much more distinctly perceived had we lived nearer the times of the apostles. Very early in the Christian Church, yea, even in the days of the apostles themselves, there arose a sect of people who denied the reality of the sufferings and death of the Holy Jesus, maintaining that the Jews spent their fury on a phantom sent from heaven to delude them, and that the real Christ was far removed above the reach of their malignant and cruel hands. Some of these persons had witnessed the miracles which the apostles wrought, and probably some of them those of the Saviour Himself; and we may readily conceive how the witnesses of such wonders should find it difficult to credit, that He who wrought them could ever fall a victim to wicked and impotent men! Be this as it may, the apostles, those wise master builders, were careful to guard against the fatal mistake we have mentioned. With what particularity of circumstance did the sacred historians narrate the manner of Messiahs death!

III. These sufferings, and this death, were a vicarious, sacrificial offering to God, for the sins of the world.

1. This account of the Saviours death is required by the express and constant language of the inspired writers. See Isa 53:6; 1Ti 2:5-6; 1Pe 2:24; 1Jn 2:2; Rev 5:9.

2. This view of the sufferings and death of the Lord Jesus is no less forced upon us by the narrative of the event. I will not ask where was the goodness, the compassion of the Divine nature? but I will ask where was its justice, its equity, its righteousness if the immaculate Jesus could bear all this weight of woe, and yet not sacrificially, not as a substitute, not as the Lamb of God, dying for the sins of the world?

3. It is when the sufferings and death of the Lord Jesus are regarded in this light that they become, what the sacred Scriptures represent them, the highest display of the love of God to man.

Conclusion:

1. This vital, all-momentous Christian doctrine may serve to guide us in our behaviour towards those who deny the Lord that bought them. As men, and as men for whom Christ died, they are entitled to our respect, our pity, and our prayers; but never let us be found lending ourselves to countenance their fatal errors.

2. The exhibition of this great truth may serve to make known the aggravated guilt, the awful danger of an impenitent life.

3. This blessed doctrine ought especially to bring encouragement to every one who sincerely mourns on account of sin.

4. Finally, standing on this bright and eternal truth, I have a right to require that you unite with me in ascriptions of praise to the adorable Fountain of all this love to man. (J. Bromley.)

Christs death: the primary teaching of Christianity

The phrase first of all means not only first in point of time, but first in point of importance. If we ask why? the answer is that Christs death is–

I. An unanswerable proof of the humanity of our Lord. It declares Him Son of Man, and therefore not a phantom too high for fellowship and following. A conviction of this ought to be grasped by us, first of all, because it is essential to our regarding Him–

1. As Redeemer.

2. As Friend.

3. As Example.

II. The strongest utterance of Divine love. In following the life of Jesus we gaze on Gods love in unwearied toil, in patient endurance, in keenest sympathy, in bitter tears. But gazing on Christs death we see Divine love in agony, humiliation, shame. Mans highest love to God was when Abram offered his only son Isaac; Gods deepest love to man is seen in giving His only begotten Son in sacrifice on Calvary.

III. The mightiest force in the salvation of the world.

1. He Himself relied on it: I, if I be lifted up, wilt draw all men.

2. The influence of His death on many at the crucifixion illustrates it.

3. The history of Christianity testifies to it. (U. R. Thomas.)

Christs death a cardinal fact and doctrine

Why did the Apostle Paul make it the very beginning of his preaching? Because–

I. It was most struck at by enemies. Though not a blind zealot who courted opposition, and though he knew how to become all things to all men, he was no trimmer; and when any known doctrine of his Master was impugned, that was the doctrine to which he devoted himself in affectionate defence.

II. It is the distinguishing doctrine of Christianity. In Christianity there are many things common to it with Judaism, Mohammedanism, and even pure Theism; but here is a discriminative mark.

III. It brings men down to the earth, in a sense of sin, weakness, shame, and danger. The gospel is a remedy. It seeks, not to improve what is sound, but to cure what is dying. It is a remedy which none accept but such as despair of other help. All who ever received the doctrine, received it on their knees. He that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

IV. It is of all doctrines that which lies nearest the heart of Christian affection. It was uppermost in the heart of Paul; it throbbed in its inmost pulses. It reminds him of what he was, it makes him what he is.

V. It is the precise object of saving faith. To be saved is the one thing needful. But to be saved one thing is necessary–faith. But in what? In this crucified but risen Redeemer. The man who believes in Him, with a spiritual apprehension of what he believes, is a saved man.

VI. It is the key to all other doctrines. The symbol of Christianity is not the all-seeing eye, the creative hand, the sepulchre, the sceptre–but the Cross. With this you can explain all; but denying this, you go on till to be consistent you must deny all.

VI. It is the great instrument of conversion. This is the very event the recital of which, even before the end of the generation then born, filled the Roman Empire with converts. It is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. Conclusion:

1. These things enable us to come to a judgment with regard to Churches and religious communities. The criterion is the relative place which they give to the doctrine of Christs death.

2. In like manner, we may judge of books, preaching, and systems of theology. Try them by this question, What think ye of Christ?

3. We may here judge of our own personal religion. (J. W. Alexander, D.D.)

The death of our Lord

I. Its nature. We must affirm and believe that it was a true and proper death, such as that to which all mortals are by the law of our nature subjected. Such is expressed by all the terms appropriated to it, and by the ordinary signs of death.

II. Its peculiar adjuncts ann respects of our lords death, which commend it to our regard, and amplify its worth.

1. Its being a result of Gods eternal counsel and decree by which our Saviour was a Lamb, slain from the foundation of the world.

2. Its being a matter of free consent and compact between God and His Son. It was pre-ordained by God; and our Saviours reply was: Lo! I come to do Thy will, O God.

3. Its great excellency and efficacy, appearing from manifold types foreshadowed, and in divers prophecies foretold.

4. Its being compassed by Gods especial providence directing and disposing it, though not without the active concurrence of men; so that although as a work of Divine Providence it was most admirable, yet as an act of human pravity it was the most heinous ever committed.

5. Its great commendation in the quality of our blessed Saviours person: how valuable must be the death of one so incomparably transcendent in glory!

III. The causes and principles whence it proceeded; which moved God to determine it, and our Lord to undertake it. There is in Scripture a threefold love of God towards men intimated.

1. A general love to mankind antecedent to the sending of our Lord and His performances, being the ground of Gods designing them.

2. A love, consequent on these, and procured by them.

3. A peculiar love of friendship and complacence, which God bears to all who repent of their sins and embrace the gospel. The like principles are said to move our Lord to undergo death for us. To these may be added our sins, as the meritorious causes of our Saviours death: He was bruised for our iniquities. He died for us, not only as men, but as sinful and wretched men.

IV. The ends which it aims at.

1. The illustration of Gods glory, by displaying His most glorious perfections.

2. The dignifying and exaltation of our Lord Himself, which is what He Himself foresaw and foretold.

3. The salvation of mankind; which He procured by appeasing that wrath which God bears towards iniquity, and reconciling Him to men, who by sin were alienated from Him.

4. Other subordinate designs and effects are the reparation of Gods honour; the ratification of the new covenant; the reconciliation of all in heaven and earth; the defeat of death, and of the powers of darkness; the engaging us to the practice of all righteousness and obedience; for attestation to, and confirmation of Divine truth.

V. The practical influences which a consideration of this point should have on us.

1. It should beget in us the highest degree of love and gratitude towards God and our Saviour.

2. It should raise in us great faith and hope in God, excluding all distrust or despair.

3. It should comfort and satisfy us in regard to our sins supposing that we heartily repent of them.

4. It discovers to us their heinousness, and thereby should move our detestation of them.

5. It should work in us a kindly contrition and remorse for them.

6. And engage us carefully to avoid them, as crucifying Him afresh.

7. It should engage us to patience and resignation to the will of God.

8. It obliges us to the deepest mortification, in conformity with Christs death, being with Him crucified to the lusts of the flesh.

9. It is also a strong engagement to the fullest measure of charity towards our brethren.

10. We are hence obliged to yield ourselves wholly up to the service of our Saviour, to the promoting of His interest and glory; since we are not our own; being bought with a price, etc. (I. Barrow, D.D.)

The mystery of death

I. Why did Christ die?

1. Christ has bequeathed to us the invaluable legacy of a true ideal. We desire to know how to conduct ourselves, and our desire is satisfied by the ideal left by Christ.

(1) There was in Him a sincerity and simple-mindedness which were yoked with restrained and yet unmeasured power. It is needless to say that whenever this is realised in life its effect is overwhelming.

(2) There was in Him a noble-mindedness, a loftiness of tone which struck and moved. He touched the commonest things; whatever He touched He raised; He carried contentedly the atmosphere of eternity into the work and trials of time.

(3) And what rendered, what renders, such an one so entirely approachable? His extraordinary devotion to the human race.

2. Now to complete the picture was needed the tragedy of death. Given absolute human perfection in a world death-stricken, then not merely, as Plato said, must the good man suffer at the hands of sinners, but the ideal must be perfected by submission to the common doom of death.

(1) Why did He die? The deepest mystery of revelation is the mystery of atonement. Something within us tells us of the chasm between our personal acts and the fulfilment of a righteous law. That fulfilment is in the atoning sacrifice.

(2) Wily did He die? Certainly to complete that sympathetic tie that binds Him to us all.

II. What is the significance of death?

1. Well, clearly death is a fact; a fact of intimate and universal interest. In a world of infinite possibilities, and therefore of immeasurable uncertainties, one fact is certain, we shall die. Death is the consummation of the tragedy of change. All is changing–we ourselves among the many that people this mysterious life. Now, death is the crown of change. All other changes are as nothing compared with this. There is a tragic strain in every life when, taking account of so much that has been full of love, and joy, and happiness, we say, It can never be again. That tragic strain is heard in its deepest chords, in its fullest, most heart-rending music, in the mystery of death.

3. Death in one sense is an unparalleled catastrophe. The ancients when they thought of it at all, they gazed shuddering at a world of gloom. The philosophic thinkers, the tragic poets of the ancient world, tell the same story by their unvarying strain of sadness; do what they would, it was an unparalleled catastrophe. We Christians feel, in a sense, the same. Did you ever take from your shelves a long-closed volume, and shake out from its pages unawares a letter, written by a dear dead hand? Why for a moment are you all unmanned? Littera scripta manet, yes, remains but only to mock you. Where is he? How does he feel to me? Shall we meet again? Whatever answer comes, this is certain; what once was is not. Think one moment more. On your table you have the portrait of your wife, your child, your friend. Are they near you? You scarcely care to look at it. Why? Because that sweet presence is about the house. Absence comes, you love the portrait better, for absence is the first, faint, saddening image of the great farewell Let the grave divide. You cannot bear to part with that portrait now. It is all that you have left you of what was once so dear, so fair.

III. If our Christianity be a grand reality, we must view even this saddening spectacle in the light and atmosphere of the new creation.

1. We are in Christ, and Christ has died. Remembering this, I ask in an altogether happier temper, What is the significance of death?

(1) Certainly death even in Christ is a punishment for sin. But as surely also, in Christ, it takes a touch from the Passion, a power from the Precious Brood. Right dear in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.

(2) Death in Christ is an escape from a world of trouble. We weep, and who can blame us? But for the dear one gone, we know it is blessed, taken away from the evil to come.

(3) Death in Christ is an accident in immortality. The great unity of life lasts on. And further, one of the bitterest pangs of life is the pang of the parting of friends. Now, death in Christ is the entrance to a land where partings are no more.

2. There always is, there always must be, something awful in the thought that I must die. For death has had a fatal affinity to the Prince of Darkness. True: but the Passion of Christ conquers by transforming all. In Christ it is still certainly awful, but it is blessed to die. If Christianity has made death more serious by revealing hidden facts of another life, has it not also–for this, too, we must remember–much to offer of compensating strength? To live in faith is to prepare to die. Christ by His death has given us a ground of confidence in His unflagging tenderness, and it is devotion to a person, it is faith in Jesus Christ which, as it conquers the world, so it subdues the grave. (Canon Knox-Little.)

And that He was buried, and that He rose again.

The mystery of the grave

The memory of the burial of Jesus is stamped upon the heart of Christendom. There are many reasons why it should be so.

1. Since our dear Lord is the Eternal Word, every act of that most sacred life and death has its special significance.

2. It is one of that store of mortal experiences laid up, not by omniscient power, but by personal trial, in the heart of God.

3. It stands in direct relation to that strange borderland, at the memory of whose twilight indistinctness voices are hushed, and dreams of ambition die. The question is, Why was He buried?

I. Death is an act of solemn separation, but henceforth the grave to the Christian is a witness to–

1. Its meaning. Well, the souls of the dead are robed in mystery; but this at least is clear, there is some special force in the separation for the ennobling of the body; some peculiar power for developing the energy of the soul.

2. Its limits. It cannot last. The strange dark sleep of death is the prelude to a resurrection morning.

II. The burial night of the redeemer gives a tender touch of sentiment to the grave. Nor is this wrong. False sentiment is never so detestable as in religion. But Christianity, because it is a religion of Divine everlasting realities, rouses the deepest feeling and expresses them in sentiments of beauty, as the deep and massive energy of the ocean flings up the sun-bespangled spray. There is a sweet touch of the real truth of things expressed in a pure poetic sentiment, in the Christian certainty that death is sleep. Now the calm majestic rest of the Redeemer is the evident witness that there is this mystery in the grave. It is the sleeping-place of the weary. They rest from their labours. Their graves are symbols of faithful service. Ah! as you love them you would not call them back again. (Canon Knox-Little.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 3. For I delivered unto you first of all] . As the chief things, or matters of the greatest importance; fundamental truths.

That which I – received] By revelations from God himself, and not from man.

That Christ died for our sins] The death of Jesus Christ, as a vicarious sacrifice for sin, is ; among the things that are of chief importance, and is essential to the Gospel scheme of salvation.

According to the Scriptures] It is not said any where in the Scriptures, in express terms, that Christ should rise on the third day; but it is fully implied in his types, as in the case of Jonah, who came out of the belly of the fish on the third day; but particularly in the case of Isaac, who was a very expressive type of Christ; for, as his being brought to the Mount Moriah, bound and laid on the wood, in order to be sacrificed, pointed out the death of Christ; so his being brought alive on the third day from the mount was a figure of Christ’s resurrection. Bishop Pearce and others refer to Mat 12:40; Mat 16:21; and Lu 9:22; “which two Gospels, having been written at the time when Paul wrote this epistle, were properly called by the name of the Sacred Scriptures.” It might be so; but I do not know of one proof in the New Testament where its writings, or any part of them, are called the Scriptures.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

For I, in my preaching, delivered it to you as one of the principal articles of the Christian faith, which I received, either from Christ by revelation, ( as he saith, Gal 1:12), or from Ananias. Act 9:17, how that Christ died for our sins, Rom 4:25, that is, that he might satisfy the Divine justice for our sins, and make an atonement for us. And this is according to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, where it was foretold, Isa 53:5, He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities; and Dan 9:26, that the Messiah should be cut off, but not for himself.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

3. I delivered unto youAshort creed, or summary of articles of faith, was probably even thenexisting; and a profession in accordance with it was required ofcandidates for baptism (Ac 8:37).

first of allliterally,”among the foremost points” (Heb6:2). The atonement is, in Paul’s view, of primary importance.

which I . . . receivedfromChrist Himself by special revelation (compare 1Co11:23).

died for our sinsthatis, to atone FOR them; fortaking away our sins (1Jo3:5; compare Ga 1:4): “gaveHimself for our sins” (Isa 53:5;2Co 5:15; Tit 2:14).The “for” here does not, as in some passages, implyvicarious substitution, but “in behalf of” (Heb 5:3;1Pe 2:24). It does not, however,mean merely “on account of,” which is expressed by adifferent Greek word (Ro4:25), (though in English Version translated similarly,”for”).

according to thescriptureswhich “cannot be broken.” Paul puts thetestimony of Scripture above that of those who saw the Lordafter His resurrection [BENGEL].So our Lord quotes Isa 53:12,in Lu 22:37; compare Psa 22:15;Dan 9:26.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

For I delivered unto you first of all,…. Not only in the first place as to order; but among the chief and principal things, as the words will bear to be rendered, this was insisted on in his ministry; this was one he after relates, even a crucified Christ, or the doctrine of his dying for the sins of his people; and which he mentions to lead on to his resurrection; which he meant to improve, and does improve, in a very strong manner, in favour of the resurrection of the saints. This doctrine of a crucified Saviour, which he at first determined only to make known among them, and did make known, was what he fully and faithfully delivered to them, as he had received it:

that which also I received; not from men, but from Christ; for from him he had the doctrines of the Gospel, as well as the ordinances of it; and he delivered nothing to be believed and practised, but what he had received, and which ought to be the practice and conduct of every Gospel minister; whatever they have received they should deliver, and nothing else: and especially the following important doctrine,

how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; that is, of the Old Testament, the writings of Moses, and the prophets, according to Scripture promises, Scripture types, and Scripture prophecies; particularly Ge 3:15 Da 9:24 which declare that his heel was to be bruised, that he should be brought to the dust of death, should pour out his soul unto death, and be stricken and cut off in a judicial way, and that for sins; not his own, but for the sins of his people, in order to atone for them, procure the pardon of them, take them away, make an end of them, and abolish them; all which he has done, as the Gospel declares, and the apostle affirms; and thereby was accomplished what Moses and the prophets did say should come to pass. Every promise, type, and prophecy recorded in the law, in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning his sufferings and death, had their fulfilment in him; nothing was more clearly prefigured and foretold, and nothing more punctually and fully answered.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

First of all ( ). Among first things. In primis. Not to time, but to importance.

Which I also received ( ). Direct revelation claimed as about the institution of the Lord’s Supper (11:23) and same verbs used (, ). Four items given by Paul in explaining “the gospel” which Paul preached. Stanley calls it (verses 1-11) the creed of the early disciples, but “rather a sample of the exact form of the apostle’s early teaching, than a profession of faith on the part of converts” (Vincent). The four items are presented by four verbs (died, , was buried, , hath been raised, , appeared, ).

Christ died ( ). Historical fact and crucial event.

For our sins ( ). H means literally over, in behalf, even instead of (Ga 3:13), where used of persons. But here much in the sense of (Ga 1:14) as is common in Koine. In 1Pe 3:18 we have , .

According to the Scriptures ( ). As Jesus showed (Luke 22:37; Luke 24:25) and as Peter pointed out (Acts 2:25-27; Acts 3:35) and as Paul had done (Acts 13:24; Acts 17:3). Cf. Ro 1:2ff.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

That Christ, etc. Stanley remarks that vers. 1 – 11 contain the earliest known specimen of what may be called the creed of the early Church, differing, indeed, from what is properly called a creed, in being rather a sample of the exact form of the apostle ‘s early teaching, than a profession of faith on the part of converts. See his dissertation in the commentary on Corinthians.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “For I delivered unto you” (paredoka gar humin en) “For I delivered to (and) among you” Paul delivered, conveyed, or turned over to the Corinth brethren while he was among them – the very foundation of salvation’s assurance.

2) “First of all that which I also received,” (protois ho kai parelabon) “The first (priority) things – what also I received.” This salvation message, for soul and life, held as its priority of existence, a necessary faith through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Gal 1:6-12.

3) “How that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; (hoti christos apathanen huper ton hamartion hemon kata tas graphas) “That Christ died on behalf of our sins, according to the scriptures.” The death of Christ for sins was a first or priority requisite, for the salvation of all men, Heb 9:22. In this he “tasted death for every man,” Heb 2:9.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

3. For I delivered to you first of all He now confirms what he had previously stated, by explaining that the resurrection had been preached by him, and that too as a fundamental doctrine of the gospel. First of all, says he, as it is wont to be with a foundation in the erecting of a house. At the same time he adds to the authority of his preaching, when he subjoins, that he delivered nothing but what he had received, for he does not simply mean that he related what he had from the report of others, but that it was what had been enjoined upon him by the Lord. (11) For the word (12) must be explained in accordance with the connection of the passage. Now it is the duty of an apostle to bring forward nothing but what he has received from the Lord, so as from hand to hand (13) (as they say) to administer to the Church the pure word of God.

That Christ died, etc. See now more clearly whence he received it, for he quotes the Scriptures in proof. In the first place, he makes mention of the death of Christ, nay also of his burial, that we may infer, that, as he was like us in these things, he is so also in his resurrection. He has, therefore, died with us that we may rise with him. In his burial, too, the reality of the death in which he has taken part with us, is made more clearly apparent. Now there are many passages of Scripture in which Christ’s death and resurrection are predicted, but nowhere more plainly (14) than in Isa 53:0, in Dan 9:26, and in Psa 22:0

For our sins That is, that by taking our curse upon him he might redeem us from it. For what else was Christ’s death, but a sacrifice for expiating our sins — what but a satisfactory penalty, by which we might be reconciled to God — what but the condemnation of one, for the purpose of obtaining forgiveness for us? He speaks also in the same manner in Rom 4:25, but in that passage, on the other hand, he ascribes it also to the resurrection as its effect — that it confers righteousness upon us; for as sin was done away through the death of Christ, so righteousness is procured through his resurrection. This distinction must be carefully observed, that we may know what we must look for from the death of Christ, and what from his resurrection. When, however, the Scripture in other places makes mention only of his death, let us understand that in those cases his resurrection is included in his death, but when they are mentioned separately, the commencement of our salvation is (as we see) in the one, and the consummation of it in the other.

(11) “ Que le Seigneur mesme luy auoit enseignee et commandee;” — “ What the Lord himself had taught and commanded him.’:

(12) “ Le mot de receuoir ; ” — “The word receive. ”

(13) The Reader will find our Author making use of the same proverbial expression when commenting on 1Co 4:1, and 1Co 11:23. See volume 1, pages 150, 373. — Ed.

(14) “ Il n’y en a point de plus expres, et ou il en soit traitte plus apertement;” — “There are none of them that are more explicit, or where it is treated of more plainly”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(3) For I delivered . . .Here follows the explanation and illustration of what he meant, in 1Co. 15:2, by with what word I preached the gospel. We see here what the subject of apostolic teaching wasnot indeed all the gospel that the Apostle taught, but what he considered of the first importance, and therefore put in the forefront of his teachingviz., the historical fact of Christs death for our sins, His burial, His resurrection. This was the first Creed of Christendom.

For our sins.Not only because of, but in behalf of our sins, in order to take them away (Gal. 1:4; 1Pe. 2:24; 1Jn. 3:5). The fact of the Atonement was not something evolved by the Apostles own consciousness, but a fact revealed to him by Christ. (See 1Co. 11:23, and Note there.)

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

3. I delivered received St. Paul rigidly expresses the fact that his message was given, as received, with perfect exactness. In this Christ-narrative every item has been carefully guarded. He repeats it with all the formality of a profession of faith.

For our sins ’ , on behalf of our sins. So says Alford, and he very strikingly adds, “It may be noticed that in 1Ki 16:19, where it is said that Zimri ‘died for ( ) his sins which he had done,’ it is for his own sins, as their punishment, that he died. So that may bear the meaning, that Christ’s punishment was of the sins of our nature which he took upon him. But its undoubtedly inclusive vicarious import in other passages where and the like occur, seems to rule it to have that sense here also.”

According to the Scriptures See note on Luk 24:26. The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, and the whole system of Jewish sacrifices, were predictive of the one real sacrifice. The Scriptures, here, mean the Old Testament, for the New was but yet partially written.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘For I delivered to you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he has been raised on the third day according to the scriptures.’

‘First of all.’ This had been his first concern when he came to them, for it was why he was sent by the One from Whom he received it.

And what is the Gospel which he delivered to them? It is the Gospel that he ‘received’, both directly by revelation from God (Gal 1:16-17), and also from the Apostles whom he later consulted (Gal 1:18; Gal 2:2). Just as he stated that the prophets should be ‘judged’ so did he submit to the judgment of others the revelation that he had received, as we must also when we receive special insights.

‘Received’ and ‘delivered’ were technical terms among the Jews referring to the passing on of authoritative tradition. Thus Paul makes quite clear that the Gospel he preaches is a Gospel that was preached before he arrived on the scene, and is the same Gospel as was preached by the Apostles, and was long prophesied in Scripture. And that Gospel is that ‘Christ’ died for our sins, in accordance with the Scriptures, was buried, and that he has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (compare Luk 24:45-47).

‘Christ died for our sins.’ Note the title. It was ‘the Christ’ Who died for our sins. It was the Christ Who suffered. It was the Lord Jesus Christ in the totality of what He was as God’s anointed Who died. It was God’s chosen and anointed One Who suffered. And that was just what the Scriptures had taught in, for example, Isa 52:13 to Isa 53:12, backed by all the Scriptures which pointed to deliverance through suffering, whether of man or sacrifice (e.g. Psalms 22; Dan 9:26; Zec 13:7 with 1Co 9:9 and 1Co 13:1). So the real death of the Christ is declared. His body was a part of what He was.

‘For our sins.’ Contrast 1Co 15:17 and compare Gal 1:4; Rom 4:7; Eph 2:1; Col 1:14; Tit 2:14 and see Isa 53:4-6; Isa 53:8; Isa 53:11-12 LXX). Christ is here declared to be an atoning sacrifice (compare 1Co 5:7) dying for men’s sins, and bearing in Himself the sins of all who call on Him (compare 2Co 5:21). In the words of Jesus, with the Servant of Isaiah 53 in mind, He gave His life ‘a ransom in the place of many’ (Mar 10:45).

That Jesus was early identified with the suffering Servant of Isaiah comes out in that He was declared to be the Servant at His baptism – ‘my beloved, in whom I am well pleased’ (Mar 1:11 compare Isa 42:1) and the idea is applied to Him in Mat 12:17-21; Luk 2:32; Luk 9:35 (RV/RSV); Luk 23:35, and we might add John’s declaration that He was the Lamb of God Who had come to take away the sins of the world (Joh 1:29). For the fact that He identified Himself with the Servant see Mar 10:45; Luk 22:37, and He also identified Himself with the anointed one of Isa 61:1 (see Luk 4:17-21).

‘He was buried.’ The certainty of His genuine death comes out in that He was buried. This was no illusion, no pretence. In His physical body He was assuredly laid in the grave. He was dead, stone dead. This was testified to by those who had been there. This stated fact demands that the next clause refers specifically to physical resurrection from that grave, and therefore to the reality of the empty tomb.

The importance of this in Paul’s argument is that the fact that He was entombed, and that Jesus was then seen to have been raised from that tomb, demonstrates that His resurrection was a genuine bodily resurrection.

‘And that he has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.’ And in that body, lying as it was in the grave, He was raised again from the dead, and this too was in accordance with the Scriptures. (See especially Isa 53:10-12 with Isa 25:8; Isa 26:19; Hos 6:2). Note the perfect tense, He rose and still lives. The resurrection of the body was important because it stressed God’s complete deliverance. The curse of sin had been wholly removed. His resurrection was the beginning, and in its significance the source, of the redemption of the whole creation (Rom 8:20-21).

‘On the third day.’ The Gospels tell us that Jesus Himself forecast that He would die and rise again after three days, or on the third day (Mat 16:21; Mar 8:31; Mar 9:31; Mar 10:34; Luk 9:22), and that was in fact the period after which the resurrection took place. Indeed given the significance of ‘three days’ as regularly indicating ‘a short, complete period’ any other period could hardly have been used to mean ‘almost immediately, within a short period’; for ‘three days’ is shorthand for any complete period from one and a half to around five days (compare its use in Jos 1:11; Jos 2:16; Jos 2:22; Jos 3:2). In Jewish literature even so definite a period as ‘three days and three nights’ could indicate a part of a day, a day and a part of a day. (We can also compare how in Genesis any shortish journey is a ‘three day’ journey, and a longer one a ‘seven day’ journey).

‘According to the Scriptures’ may not apply to the length of time, but if it did so the thought in mind is probably Hos 6:2 where the period from Israel being smitten to its rising up is three days also, that is, it will take place ‘in a short fixed time period determined by God’ (compare 2Ki 20:5; Jon 1:17). Later Jewish literature for this reason saw three days as signifying a period resulting in divine deliverance. Jesus may thus have been seeing Himself as accomplishing what was prophesied to happen to the nation. As the suffering Servant He represented Israel. Compare also how He said, ‘Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it again’, that is ‘within a short, divinely determined period of time’ (Joh 2:19-22).

If the Jewish belief that the body began to corrupt three days after death was held at this time then the promise that ‘nor will you give your Holy One to see corruption’ (Psa 16:10), utilised by Peter in Act 2:15, could also be seen as prophesying a resurrection within three days.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

1Co 15:3 f. More precise explanation of the . . , by adducing those main points of that , which are of decisive importance for the further discussion which Paul now has in view. Hofmann’s interpretation of it as specifying the ground of the alleged condition and reservation in 1Co 15:2 , falls with his incorrect exposition of . . .

] neuter: in primis, chiefly , i.e. as doctrinal points of the first rank. Comp. Plato, Pol. p. 522 C: . To take it, with Chrysostom, [26] of the time ( ), comp. Sir 4:17 , Pro 20:21 , runs counter to the connection, according to which it is rather the fundamental significance of the following doctrines that is concerned. This in opposition also to Rckert’s view of it as masculine: to you among the first (comp. 1Ma 6:6 ; Sir 45:20 ; Thuc. vii. 19. 4; Lucian, Paras . 49; Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc . p. 220), which is, moreover, historically untrue, unless with Rckert we arbitrarily supply “ in Achaia .”

] This conveys the idea: which had been likewise communicated to me , nothing therefore new or self-invented. From whom Paul had received the contents of 1Co 15:3-5 , he does not say; but for the very reason that he does not add an , as in 1Co 11:23 , or words to like effect, and on account of the correlation in which stands to (comp. also , 1Co 15:1 ), as well as on account of the reference extending to the simple historical statements in 1Co 15:5 ff., we are not to supply: from Christ , through revelation (the common view since Chrysostom), but rather: through historical tradition , as it was living in the church (comp. van Hengel, Ewald, Hofmann). It is true, indeed, that he has that, which forms the inner relation of the . . . and belongs to the inner substance of the gospel, from revelation (Gal 1:12 ); but here it is the historical element which is predominantly present to his min.

. .] on account of our sins , i.e. in order to expiate them , Rom 3:23-26 ; Gal 3:13 ff., al. The connection of the preposition with the abstract noun proves that Paul, in saying elsewhere (comp. also Eph 5:25 : ), has not used the preposition in the sense of loco , not even in 2Co 5:21 ; Gal 3:13 . The idea of the satisfactio vicaria lies in the thing itself, not in the preposition. See on Rom 5:6 ; Gal 1:4 ; Eph 5:2 . It may be added that, except in this passage, the expression . occurs nowhere in the writings of Paul (not even in Gal 1:4 ), although it does in the Epistle to the Heb 5:1 ; Heb 5:3 (?), Heb 9:7 ; Heb 10:12 . Regarding the distinction between and the remark holds true: “id unum interest, quod usu frequentissimo teritur, multo rarius usurpatur , [27] quod ipsum discrimen inter Lat. praep. de et super locum obtinet,” Buttmann, Ind. ad Mid . p. 188.

. .] according to the Scriptures of the O. T. (“quae non impleri non potuere,” Bengel), in so far as these (as e.g. especially Isa 53 ) contain prophecies regarding the atoning death of Christ. Comp. Luk 24:25 ff.; Joh 20:9 ; Joh 2:22 ; Act 17:3 ; Act 26:22 f., Act 8:35 ; 1Pe 1:11 .

The second . . . does not refer to the burial (Isa 53:9 ) also, as de Wette and most interpreters assume, following Theodoret and Oecumenius, but, as is to be deduced from the repetition of the before ., only to the resurrection. [28] See on Joh 2:22 . Christ’s death and resurrection are the great facts of the redemptive work, borne witness to by the Scriptures; the burial (comp. Rom 6:4 ; Col 2:12 ; Act 13:29 ), being the consequence of the one and the presupposition of the other, lies between as historical correlate of the corporeal reality of the resurrection, but not as a factor of the work of redemption, which as such would require to have been based upon Scripture testimony .

] not the aorist again; the being risen is the abiding state, which commenced with the . Comp. 2Ti 2:8 ; Winer, p. 255 [E. T. 339].

[26] Who is followed by van Hengel: “Recenset partem eorum, a quibus proponendis Corinthios docere incepit.” So Hofmann also in substance. According to Chrysostom, Paul adduces the time as witness , .

[27] This holds in the N. T., where the death of Christ is spoken of, only of those passages in which the preposition is not joined with persons: of persons Paul constantly uses . Comp. on 1Co 1:13 , Remark.

[28] And that on the third day , which . . must be held to include in its reference. Comp. Mat 12:40 ; Luk 24:46 .

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Ver. 3. First of all ] Christ is to be preached with the first, as being the prora et puppis of man’s happiness, Joh 16:14 . It is the office of the Holy Ghost to take of Christ’s excellencies, and hold them out to the world. What then should ministers, the mouth of the Holy Ghost, do rather?

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

3 11 .] A detail of the great facts preached to them, centering in THE RESURRECTON OF CHRIST.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

3. ] in primis , with relation not to order of time (as Chrys.: ), but to importance (as Theophyl.: ). So Plato, Rep. vii. 6; p. 522: . .

] viz. (see ch. 1Co 11:23 and note) from the Lord himself , by special revelation. Before his conversion he may have known the bare fact of the death of Jesus, but the nature and reason of that Death he had to learn from revelation: the Resurrection he regarded as a fable, but revelation informed him of its reality, and its accordance with prophecy. On the following clauses, ‘the earliest known specimen of what may be termed the creed of the early Church,’ see Stanley’s notes, and [his] dissertation at the end of the section.

. . .] ON BEHALF OF OUR SINS: viz. to atone for them. Meyer makes the important remark, that this use of with . shews, that when Paul uses it in speaking of Christ’s sufferings with only , he does not mean by it ‘loco nostri.’ He also quotes from Buttmann (Index to Meidias, p. 188), on the distinction between and : “id unum interest, quod usu frequentissimo teritur, multo rarius usurpatur , quod ipsum discrimen inter Lat. prp. de et super locum obtinet.”

It may be noticed, that in 3 Kings 1Co 16:19 , where it is said that Zimri , it is for his own sins, as their punishment, that he died. So that may bear the meaning that Christ’s death was the punishment of the sins of that our nature which he took upon Him. But its undoubtedly inclusive vicarious import in other passages where and the like occur, seems to rule it to have that sense here also.

.] This applies to Christ’s Death, Burial , and Resurrection on the third day : see reff.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 15:3-4 answer the question put in 1Co 15:2 , reinforming the readers: “For I delivered to you amongst the first things, that which I also received”. emphasises the identity of the and , involved in the character of a “faithful steward” (1Co 4:1 f., cf. Joh 17:8 , etc.). How these matters had been received whether by direct revelation (Gal 1:12 ) or through other contributory channels ( cf. note on 1Co 11:23 above) is irrelevant. , in primis, in chief ( cf. 1Ti 1:15 f.). The things thus delivered are “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures”. Amongst the three , the first and third are ( cf. 2Co 5:14 f., Rom 4:25 , 1Th 4:14 , etc.); the second is the link between them, signalising at once the completeness of the death and the reality of the resurrection ( cf. Rom 6:4 ; Rom 10:7 ); is a more vivid and circumstantial expression for (1Co 15:12 , etc.). The two chiefest facts P. and the other Apostolic preachers (1Co 15:2 ) were accustomed to verify, both separately and jointly, from the Old Testament, (Act 13:32 ff; Act 17:3 ; Act 26:22 f., Rom 1:2 ff.), after the manner of Jesus (Luk 22:37 ; Luk 24:25 ff., Joh 3:14 ). But it was the facts that opened their eyes to the meaning of the Scriptures concerned ( cf. Joh 2:22 ; Joh 20:9 ). The death and burial are affirmed in the aor [2262] as historical events; the resurrection is put with emphasis into the pf . these, as an abiding power ( cf. 1Co 15:14 ; 1Co 15:17 ; 1Co 15:20 ) = (Rom 6:9 ; cf. Heb 7:25 ). “For our sins,” see parls. “pro peccatis nostris abolendis” (Bg [2263] ). “P. could not have said f1 if Christ’s death were only an example of self-denial, not because must be rendered ‘instead of’ ( in loco ), but because the ref [2264] to sin involves with the notion of expiation” (Ed [2265] ); cf. the excellent note of Mr [2266] ; see the exposition of the relation of Christ’s death to man’s sin in 2Co 5:18 ff., Rom 3:23 ff; Rom 5:6-11 , Gal 3:10 ff., with notes in this Comm [2267] ad locc. ; also 1Co 15:56 below, and note. The definition on the third day indicates that “in His case restoration to life ensued, instead of the corruption of the corpse that sets in otherwise after this interval” (Hf [2268] ). Jesus appears to have seen a Scriptural necessity in the “third day” (Luk 24:46 ).

[2262] aorist tense.

[2263] Bengel’s Gnomon Novi Testamenti.

[2264] reference.

[2265] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2

[2266] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).

[2267] commentary, commentator.

[2268] J. C. K. von Hofmann’s Die heilige Schrift N.T. untersucht , ii. 2 (2te Auflage, 1874).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1 Corinthians

THE POWER OF THE RESURRECTION

1Co 15:3 – 1Co 15:4 .

Christmas day is probably not the true anniversary of the Nativity, but Easter is certainly that of the Resurrection. The season is appropriate. In the climate of Palestine the first fruits of the harvest were ready at the Passover for presentation in the Temple. It was an agricultural as well as a historical festival; and the connection between that aspect of the feast and the Resurrection of our Lord is in the Apostle’s mind when he says, in a subsequent part of this chapter, that Christ is ‘risen from the dead and become the first fruits of them that slept.’

In our colder climate the season is no less appropriate. The ‘life re-orient out of dust’ which shows itself to-day in every bursting leaf-bud and springing flower is Nature’s parable of the spring that awaits man after the winter of death. No doubt, apart from the Resurrection of Jesus, the yearly miracle kindles sad thoughts in mourning hearts, and suggests bitter contrasts to those who sorrow, having no hope, but the grave in the garden has turned every blossom into a smiling prophet of the Resurrection.

And so the season, illuminated by the event, teaches us lessons of hope that ‘we shall not all die.’ Let us turn, then, to the thoughts naturally suggested by the day, and the great fact which it brings to each mind, and confirmed thereafter by the miracle that is being wrought round about us.

I. First, then, in my text, I would have you note the facts of Paul’s gospel.

‘First of all . . . I delivered’ these things. And the ‘first’ not only points to the order of time in the proclamation, but to the order of importance as well. For these initial facts are the fundamental facts, on which all that may follow thereafter is certainly built. Now the first thing that strikes me here is that, whatever else the system unfolded in the New Testament is, it is to begin with a simple record of historical fact. It becomes a philosophy, it becomes a religious system; it is a revelation of God; it is an unveiling of man; it is a body of ethical precepts. It is morals and philosophy and religion all in one; but it is first of all a story of something that took place in the world.

If that be so, there is a lesson for men whose work it is to preach it. Let them never forget that their business is to insist upon the truth of these great, supernatural, all-important, and fundamental facts, the death and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. They must evolve all the deep meanings that lie in them; and the deeper they dig for their meanings the better. They must open out the endless treasures of consolation and enforce the omnipotent motives of action which are wrapped up in the facts; but howsoever far they may carry their evolving and their application of them, they will neither be faithful to their Lord nor true stewards of their message unless, clear above all other aspects of their work, and underlying all other forms of their ministry, there be the unfaltering proclamation-’first of all,’ midst of all, last of all-’how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,’ and ‘that He was raised again according to the Scriptures.’

Note, too, how this fundamental and original character of the gospel which Paul preached, as a record of facts, makes short work of a great deal that calls itself ‘liberal Christianity’ in these days. We are told that it is quite possible to be a very good Christian man, and reject the supernatural, and turn away with incredulity from the story of the Resurrection. It may be so, but I confess that it puzzles me to understand how, if the fundamental character of Christian teaching be the proclamation of certain facts, a man who does not believe those facts has the right to call himself a Christian.

Note, further, how there is an element of explanation involved in the proclamation of the facts which turns them into a gospel. Mark how ‘that Christ died,’ not Jesus . It is a great truth, that the man, our Brother, Jesus, passed through the common lot, but that is not what Paul says here, though he often says it. What he says is that ‘ Christ died.’ Christ is the name of an office, into which is condensed a whole system of truth, declaring that it is He who is the Apex, the Seal, and ultimate Word of all divine revelation. It was the Christ who died; unless it was so, the death of Jesus is no gospel.

‘He died for our sins.’ Now, if the Apostle had only said ‘He died for us,’ that might conceivably have meant that, in a multitude of different ways of example, appeal to our pity and compassion and the like, His death was of use to mankind. But when he says ‘He died for our sins ,’ I take leave to think that that expression has no meaning, unless it means that He died as the expiation and sacrifice for men’s sins. I ask you, in what intelligible sense could Christ ‘die for our sins’ unless He died as bearing their punishment and as bearing it for us? And then, finally, ‘He died and rose . . . according to the Scriptures,’ and so fulfilled the divine purposes revealed from of old.

To the fact that a man was crucified outside the gates of Jerusalem, ‘and rose again the third day,’ which is the narrative, there are added these three things-the dignity of the Person, the purpose of His death, the fulfilment of the divine intention manifested from of old. And these three things, as I said, turn the narrative into a Gospel.

So, brethren, let us remember that, without all three of them, the death of Jesus Christ is nothing to us, any more than the death of thousands of sweet and saintly men in the past has been, who may have seen a little more of the supreme goodness and greatness than their fellows, and tried in vain to make purblind eyes participate in their vision. Do you think that these twelve fishermen would ever have shaken the world if they had gone out with the story of the Cross, unless they had carried along with it the commentary which is included in the words which I have emphasised? And do you suppose that the type of Christianity which slurs over the explanation, and so does not know what to do with the facts, will ever do much in the world, or will ever touch men? Let us liberalise our Christianity by all means, but do not let us evaporate it; and evaporate it we surely shall if we falter in saying with Paul, ‘I declare, first of all, that which received,’ how that the death and resurrection were the death and resurrection of the Christ, ‘for our sins, according to the Scriptures.’ These are the facts which make Paul’s gospel.

II. Now I ask you to look, in the second place, at what establishes the facts.

We have here, in this chapter, a statement very much older than our existing written gospels. This epistle is one of the four letters of Paul which nobody that I know of-with some quite insignificant exceptions in modern times-has ever ventured to dispute. It is admittedly the writing of the Apostle, written before the gospels, and in all probability within five-and-twenty years of the date of the Crucifixion. And what do we find alleged by it as the state of things at its date? That the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was the subject of universal Christian teaching, and was accepted by all the Christian communities. Its evidence to that fact is undeniable; because there was in the early Christian Church a very formidable and large body of bitter antagonists of Paul’s, who would have been only too glad to have convicted him, if they could, of any misrepresentation of the usual notions, or divergence from the usual type of teaching. So we may take it as undeniable that the representation of this chapter is historically true; and that within five-and-twenty years of the death of Jesus Christ every Christian community and every Christian teacher believed in and proclaimed the fact of the Resurrection.

But if that be so, we necessarily are carried a great deal nearer the Cross than five-and-twenty years; and, in fact, there is not, between the moment when Paul penned these words and the day of Pentecost, a single chink in the history where you can insert such a tremendous innovation as the full-fledged belief in a resurrection coming in as something new.

I do not need to dwell at all upon this other thought, that, unless the belief that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead originated at the time of His death, there would never have been a Church at all. Why was it that they did not tumble to pieces? Take the nave out of the wheel and what becomes of the spokes? A dead Christ could never have been the basis of a living Church. If He had not risen from the dead, the story of His disciples would have been the same as that which Gamaliel told the Sanhedrim was the story of all former pseudo-Messiahs such as that man Theudas. ‘He was slain, and as many as followed him were dispersed and came to naught.’ Of course! The existence of the Church demands, as a pre-requisite, the initial belief in the Resurrection. I think, then, that the contemporaneousness of the evidence is sufficiently established.

What about its good faith? I suppose that nobody, nowadays, doubts the veracity of these witnesses. Anybody that knows an honest man when he sees him, anybody that has the least ear for the tone of sincerity and the accent of conviction, must say that they may have been fanatics, they may have been mistaken, but one thing is clear as sunlight, they were not false witnesses for God.

What, then, about their competency? Their simplicity, their ignorance, their slowness to believe, their stupor of surprise when the fact first dawned upon them, which they tell not with any idea of manufacturing evidence in their own favour, but simply as a piece of history, all tend to make us certain that there was no play of a morbid imagination, no hysterical turning of a wish into a fact, on the part of these men. The sort of things which they say that they saw and experienced are such as to make any such supposition altogether absurd. There are long conversations, appearances appealing to more than one sense, appearances followed by withdrawals, sometimes in the morning, sometimes in the evening, sometimes at a distance, as on the mountain, sometimes close by, as in the chamber, to single souls and to multitudes. Fancy five hundred people all at once smitten with the same mistake, imagining that they saw what they did not see! Miracles may be difficult to believe, they are not half so difficult to believe as absurdities. And this modern explanation of the faith in the Resurrection I venture respectfully to designate as absurd.

But there is one other point to which I would like to turn for a moment; and that is that little clause in my text that ‘He was buried.’ Why does Paul introduce that amongst his facts? Possibly in order to affirm the reality of Christ’s death; but I think for another reason. If it be true that Jesus Christ was laid in that sepulchre, a stone’s throw outside the city gate, do you not see what a difficulty that fact puts in the way of disbelief or denial of His Resurrection? If the grave-and it was not a grave, remember, like ours, but a cave, with a stone at the door of it, that anybody could roll away for entrance-if the grave was there, why, in the name of common-sense, did not the rulers put an end to the pestilent heresy by saying, ‘Let us go and see if the body is there’ ?

Modern deniers of the Resurrection may fairly be asked to front this thought-If Jesus Christ’s body was in the sepulchre, how was it possible for belief in the Resurrection to have been originated, or maintained? If His body was not in the grave, what had become of it? If His friends stole it away then they were deceivers of the worst type in preaching a resurrection; and we have already seen that that hypothesis is ridiculous. If His enemies took it away, for which they had no motive, why did they not produce it and say, ‘There is an answer to your nonsense. There is the dead man. Let us hear no more of this absurdity of His having risen from the dead’ ?

‘He died . . . according to the Scriptures, and He was buried.’ And the angels’ word carries the only explanation of the fact which it proclaims, ‘He is not here-He is risen.’

I take leave to say that the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is established by evidence which nobody would ever have thought of doubting unless for the theory that miracles were impossible. The reason for disbelief is not the deficiency of the evidence, but the bias of the judge.

III. And now I have no time to do more than touch the last thought. I have tried to show what establishes the facts. Let me remind you, in a sentence or two, what the facts establish.

I by no means desire to suspend the whole of the evidence for Christianity on the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the Resurrection. There are a great many other ways of establishing the truth of the Gospel besides that, upon which I do not need to dwell now. But, taking this one specific ground which my text suggests, what do the facts thus established prove?

Well, the first point to which I would refer, and on which I should like to enlarge, if I had time, is the bearing of Christ’s Resurrection on the acceptance of the miraculous. We hear a great deal about the impossibility of miracle and the like. It upsets the certainty and fixedness of the order of things, and so forth, and so forth. Jesus Christ has risen from the dead; and that opens a door wide enough to admit all the rest of the Gospel miracles. It is of no use paring down the supernatural in Christianity, in order to meet the prejudices of a quasi-scientific scepticism, unless you are prepared to go the whole length, and give up the Resurrection. There is the turning point. The question is, Do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or do you not? If your objections to the supernatural are valid, then Christ is not risen from the dead; and you must face the consequences of that. If He is risen from the dead, then you must cease all your talk about the impossibility of miracle, and be willing to accept a supernatural revelation as God’s way of making Himself known to man.

But, further, let me remind you of the bearing of the Resurrection upon Christ’s work and claims. If He be lying in some forgotten grave, and if all that fair thought of His having burst the bands of death is a blunder, then there was nothing in His death that had the least bearing upon men’s sin, and it is no more to me than the deaths of thousands in the past. But if He is risen from the dead, then the Resurrection casts back a light upon the Cross, and we understand that His death is the life of the world, and that ‘by His stripes we are healed.’

But, further, remember what He said about Himself when He was in the world-how He claimed to be the Son of God; how He demanded absolute obedience, implicit trust, supreme love, how He identified faith in Himself with faith in God-and consider the Resurrection as bearing on the reception or rejection of these tremendous claims. It seems to me that we are brought sharp up to this alternative-Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and was declared by the Resurrection to be the Son of God with power; or Jesus Christ has not risen from the dead-and what then? Then He was either deceiver or deceived, and in either case has no right to my reverence and my love. We may be thankful that men are illogical, and that many who reject the Resurrection retain reverence, genuine and deep, for Jesus Christ. But whether they have any right to do so is another matter. I confess for myself that, if I did not believe that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead, I should find it very hard to accept, as an example of conduct, or as religious teacher, a man who had made such great claims as He did, and had asked from me what He asked. It seems to me that He is either a great deal more, or a great deal less, than a beautiful saintly soul. If He rose from the dead He is much more; if He did not, I am afraid to say how much less He is.

And, finally, the bearing of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ upon our own hopes of the future may be suggested. It teaches us that life has nothing to do with organisation, but persists apart from the body. It teaches us that a man may pass from death and be unaltered in the substance of his being; and it teaches us that the earthly house of our tabernacle may be fashioned like unto the glorious house in which He dwells now at the right hand of God. There is no other absolute proof of immortality than the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If we accept with all our hearts and minds Paul’s Gospel in its fundamental facts, we need not fear to die, because He has died, and by dying has been the death of death. We need not doubt that we shall live again, because He was dead and is alive for ever more. This Samson has carried away the gates on His strong shoulders, and death is no more a dungeon but a passage. If we rest ourselves upon Him, then we can take up, for ourselves and for all that are dear to us and have gone before us, the triumphant song, ‘O Death, where is thy sting?’ ‘Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.’

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 15:3-11

3For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; 7then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; 8and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also. 9For I am the least of the apostles, and not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me did not prove vain; but I labored even more than all of them, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. 11Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

1Co 15:3 “I delivered to you” This refers to (1) Christian witness that Paul received (i.e., from Stephen, Acts 7; from Ananias, Act 9:10-18; and from persecuted Christians, Act 9:1-2; 1Co 15:9) or (2) direct revelation from the Lord (cf. 1Co 11:23; Act 9:1-22; Act 22:3-16; Act 26:9-18; Gal 1:12). Paul passed on the gospel truths he had received. Paul was not an innovator, but a faithful witness who applied the gospel truths to the new Gentile situations.

“first importance” This is the only Apostolic gospel summary. Our modern gospel summaries, like the Roman Road (i.e., Rom 3:23; Rom 5:8; Rom 6:23; Rom 10:9-13), are modern selections taken from larger inspired writings. Paul wants to remind them of the essentials of the gospel (see Special Topic: The Kerygma at 1Co 15:1).

Paul’s gospel summary:

1. Christ died for our sins

2. Christ was truly dead and buried

3. Christ was raised from the dead

4. We know these are true because He appeared to many people over many days

“Christ died for our sins” The term “Christ” is the Greek translation of the Hebrew term Messiah, which meant an anointed one. This term, without the usual “Jesus Christ” or “Lord Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus” shows the primitive origin of Paul’s tradition, where Jesus is affirmed as the Jewish Messiah, the Promised One see SPECIAL TOPIC: MESSIAH at 1Co 1:23). In all probability, Paul received this from Ananias and the other believers in Damascus after his conversion.

This is an aorist active indicative. “Jesus paid a debt He did not owe and we owed a debt we could not pay” (cf. Gal 3:13; 1Jn 4:10).

The preposition “for” (huper) meant “on behalf of”; it was often used synonymously with another Greek preposition, anti, which meant “in the place of.” This was a reference to the vicarious, substitutionary atonement (cf. Isaiah 53; Mar 10:45).

The death of Christ was a recurrent theme in Paul’s writings. He used several different terms and phrases to refer to Jesus’ substitutionary death:

1. blood (cf. 1Co 11:25; 1Co 11:27; Rom 3:25; Rom 5:9; Eph 1:7; Eph 2:13; Col 1:20)

2. gave Himself up (cf. Eph 5:2; Eph 5:25)

3. delivered up (cf. Rom 4:25; Rom 8:32)

4. sacrifice: (cf. 1Co 5:7)

5. died (cf. Rom 5:6; Rom 8:34; Rom 14:9; Rom 14:15; 1Co 8:11; 1Co 15:3; 2Co 5:15; Gal 5:21; 1Th 4:14; 1Th 5:10)

6. cross (cf. 1Co 1:17-18; Gal 5:11; Gal 6:12-14; Eph 2:16; Php 2:8; Col 1:20; Col 2:14)

7. crucifixion (cf. 1Co 1:23; 1Co 2:2; 2Co 13:4; Gal 3:1)

“according to the Scriptures” This refers to the OT because none of the NT was written by this time except possibly Galatians and Thessalonians. The use of this phrase in 1Co 15:3-4 asserts the prophetic (cf. Luk 24:27) and the predetermined redemptive plan of God (cf. Act 2:23; Act 3:18; Act 4:28; Act 13:29, see Special Topic at 1Co 1:21).

However, it is possible that Scripture here refers to one of the Gospels (or the words of Jesus circulating separately from the later Synoptics). It is uncertain when they were written, and when they were circulated among the early churches. If the phrase does refer to a Gospel account, then “on the third day” could refer to Jesus being raised on Sunday, the first day of the week and, by Jewish reckoning, three days.

1Co 15:4 “He was buried” He was truly dead!

“on the third day” There is no clear OT attestation to “the third day.” However, it was part of the kergyma (cf. Mar 10:34; Luk 24:46; Act 10:40, see Special Topic at 1Co 15:1). Some see it referring to Jon 1:17 or Psa 16:10, however, Jesus’ comments (cf. Mat 12:40) seem to relate it to Jonah’s experience in the great fish.

“He was raised” This is a perfect passive indicative, used so often in this chapter (cf. 1Co 15:4; 1Co 15:12-14; 1Co 15:16-17; 1Co 15:20). This Greek verb tense speaks of Christ’s continuing status as “the risen One” and the passive voice speaks of God the Father’s actions in raising Him from the dead. This asserts the Father’s approval of the life, teachings, and sacrificial death of Jesus. The NT often attributes the works of redemption to all three persons of the Godhead:

1. God the Father raised Jesus (cf. Act 2:24; Act 3:15; Act 4:10; Act 5:30; Act 10:40; Act 13:30; Act 13:33-34; Act 13:37; Act 17:31; Rom 6:4; Rom 6:9; Rom 10:9; 1Co 6:14; 2Co 4:14; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Col 2:12; 1Th 1:10)

2. God the Son raised Himself (cf. Joh 2:19-22; Joh 10:17-18)

3. God the Spirit raised Jesus (cf. Rom 8:11).

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE RESURRECTION

1Co 15:5 “He appeared” See Special Topic below.

SPECIAL TOPIC: JESUS’ POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES

“Cephas” Paul usually calls him by this name in his Corinthian letters (cf. 1Co 1:12; 1Co 3:22; 1Co 9:5; 1Co 15:50, but in Galatians he calls him both Cephas (cf. 1Co 2:9) and Peter (cf. 1Co 1:18; 1Co 2:7-8; 1Co 2:11; 1Co 2:14). Paul never calls him Simon.

It is amazing that the first person (after the women at the tomb) the resurrected Christ appears to is the very one who had denied Him three times, the very one who preached the first sermon of the Church at Pentecost. Jesus marks him out for special emphasis in Mar 16:7, where the Apostles are told to meet Jesus in Galilee. This surely shows the love, understanding, forgiveness, and restoring powers of Christ. Much of John 21 is describing Peter’s restoration to leadership.

“the twelve” The western family of Greek manuscripts (i.e., MS D [Codex Bezae]), as well as the Vulgate, have “eleven.” The term “Twelve” became a technical term for the Apostolic group. Paul never used this word in any of his other writings. Some think this implies that 1Co 15:3-7 may have been a catechismal summary of the early church.

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE NUMBER TWELVE

1Co 15:6 “He appeared to more than five hundred brethren” This may refer to Mat 28:16-20, especially 1Co 15:17, which shows that the Great Commission was given to the whole church, not just a few leaders. Paul’s emphasis in 1Co 15:6 is the historical reality of the resurrection. If one did not believe, there were numerous eye witnesses to testify.

“until now” Jesus was cricified in the mid 30’s and 1 Corinthians was written in the mid 50’s, so in this twenty-year span many of the ones personally impacted by the words and deeds of Jesus were still alive and witnessing!

“fallen asleep” Paul follows Jesus’ usage (cf. Mat 27:52; Joh 11:11; Joh 11:13) and OT usage (cf. Dan 12:2) of sleep as a euphemism for death.

1Co 15:7 “James” This refers to the Lord’s brother who did not believe in Him until after the resurrection (cf. Mar 3:21; Joh 7:5). All of his family were present in the Upper Room (cf. Act 1:14). This James was identified as the Lord’s half-brother (cf. Mat 13:55; Mar 6:3), in order to differentiate him from James the Apostle, part of the inner circle, who was killed very early (cf. Acts 12). For several generations the Church in Jerusalem had a physical relative of Jesus as its leader. Several biblical passages (cf. Act 12:17; Act 15:13; Act 21:18; 1Co 15:7; and Jas 1:1) indicate that James was a very important leader in the Church in Jerusalem. Paul is the only one to mention the appearance. This shows how much detail is omitted in the NT about Jesus’ teaching and actions. We have all we need to trust Him and follow Him, but not enough for a complete history of His life.

SPECIAL TOPIC: JAMES, THE HALF-BROTHER OF JESUS

“to all the apostles” Since the Twelve are mentioned in 1Co 15:5, this seems to refer to a wider use of the term. James seems to be an “apostle” in the same sense as Barnabas (cf. Act 14:4; Act 14:14); Andronicus and Junias (or Junia, cf. Rom 16:7); Apollos (cf. 2Co 4:9); Epaphroditus (Php 2:25); or Silvanas and Timothy (cf. 1Th 2:6; Act 18:5).

It is possible to argue that Cephas is mentioned separately from the Twelve so “all the Apostles” could refer to the Twelve also.

1Co 15:8

NASB, NRSV”as to one untimely born”

NKJV”as one born out of due time”

TEV”even though I am like someone whose birth was abnormal”

NJB”as though I was a child born abnormally”

These English translations show the general sense of this rare term. It is only used three times in the Septuagint (cf. Num 12:12; Job 3:16; and Ecc 6:3) for a miscarriage. The term implies an untimely, early birth. However, in this context, Paul seems to be describing his late addition to the Apostolic group (i.e., road to Damascus conversion, cf. Acts 9).

It is surely possible that this was one of the disparaging remarks of one or more of the factions at Corinth who rejected Paul’s authority (i.e., he was not a regular Apostle). Paul acknowledges the grace of Christ in appearing to him amidst his persecution of the Church (cf. 1Co 15:10; Gal 1:23). However, he is still in the select list of those to whom Christ appeared after His resurrection. Paul even may be asserting that he is the only one to whom the glorified (i.e., ascended) Christ appeared (cf. Gal 1:15-16).

It is also possible that the term had a secondary meaning of “monster,” which would have referred to Paul’s vicious and repeated attacks on innocent believers (i.e., Act 9:1-2, see Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 273). Paul may have coined this word himself since it describes his pre-conversion Jewish exuberance.

1Co 15:9 “the least of the apostles” Paul was so humbled by God’s grace even amidst his persecution of Jesus’ church. He often uses phrases like this to describe himself (cf. 2Co 12:11; Eph 3:8; 1Ti 1:15).

“because I persecuted the church of God” (cf. Act 9:1; Act 9:13; Act 9:21; Act 22:4; Act 22:19; Act 26:10-11; Gal 1:13; Gal 1:23; Php 3:6; 1Ti 1:13).

1Co 15:10 “by the grace of God I am what I am” “Grace” is fronted for emphasis (cf. Rom 12:3; Eph 2:8-9). All believers are what they are by the grace of God, but notice the needed balance on purposeful human action (cf. Php 2:12-13).

“did not prove vain” This is a different word from 1Co 15:2. As a matter of fact, Paul uses three different terms translated “vain” or “empty” in this chapter.

1. eik, 1Co 15:2

2. kenos, 1Co 15:10; 1Co 15:14; 1Co 15:48; 2Co 6:1

3. mataios, 1Co 15:17; 1Co 3:20

His point is that God’s grace proved effective in Paul’s ministry, of which the Corinthian church itself was an evidence and result.

“I labored even more than all of them” The context dictates that this refers to the other Apostles. Paul compares himself to other Apostles in Galatians because his apostolic authority was being challenged. It is probable that one or more of the factions was doing the same thing in Corinth. Paul had no quarrel with the Twelve. He just clearly asserts his own calling and authority!

See Special Topic on “even more” at 2Co 2:7.

“yet not I, but the grace of God with me” There is a balance in Paul’s theology between call, giftedness, and service relating to God’s sovereignty. There is always a covenantal balance between these two ways of viewing one’s effectiveness. Paul asserts that he worked harder than the other Apostles, but he also knew that God was the source, not himself. This same balance is seen between Joh 15:5 and Php 4:13, or Php 2:12-13.

1Co 15:11 Paul strongly asserts that the gospel he received and preached was the very same as the original Apostles preached. The very fact that he makes the claim shows what opposition he was facing at Corinth. Some were denying his apostolic authority and, even possibly, his gospel content.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

delivered. Greek. paradidomi. See Joh 19:30. Compare 1Co 11:23.

first of all = among (Greek. en. App-104.) the first things.

also received = received also.

Christ. App-98.

sins. App-128.

according to. App-104.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

3-11.] A detail of the great facts preached to them, centering in THE RESURRECTON OF CHRIST.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

1Co 15:3. [132] , among the primary things) The things, which are of greatest importance, ought to be taught among the first things. , the LXX., , i.e. in old time; 2Sa 20:18 : but, first, in Deu 13:9, and so here.-, I received) from Christ Himself, what I have spoken is no fiction, 2Pe 1:16.-, that) Paul says that he had declared among the first points of faith, not only the resurrection of Christ, but also the resurrection of the dead, which flows from it; and the Corinthians believed in these doctrines, before they were baptised in the name of Christ, who was crucified for them, and so also died and rose again, 1Co 1:13 : comp. Heb 6:2.-, for) a very effective expression, which means, for taking away our sins, Gal 1:4; 1Pe 2:24; 1Jn 3:5. So , Heb 5:3; comp. Tit 2:14; Luk 1:71-74; 2Co 5:15.-, sins) on account of which we had deserved death, 1Co 15:17.-, Scriptures) Many things are said in Scripture respecting the death of Christ. Paul puts the testimony of Scripture before the testimony of those, who saw the Lord after His resurrection.

[132] , in vain-a melancholy term, Gal 2:2; Gal 3:4; Gal 4:11.-Vg.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 15:3

1Co 15:3

For I delivered unto you first of all-First in importance, not in time; the doctrine of the resurrection is primary and cardinal, central and indispensable.

that which also I received:-He received that which he had preached to them by direct revelation. (1Co 11:23; Gal 1:11-12; Gal 2:6). He could therefore speak with infallible confidence, both as to what the gospel is and as to its truth.

that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;- [Christs death was a propitiatory sacrifice for sin; and the occurrence of such a statement in this place proves that Christs death constituted an essential part of the gospel.] Man was under sentence of death, an outlaw in the court of heaven; but Jesus Christ purchased him with his own blood. (Act 20:28). The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. (Mat 20:28). Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works. (Tit 2:14). Who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye were healed. (1Pe 2:24). He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. (1Jn 2:2). For ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body. (1Co 6:20). The idea of Jesus redeeming, purchasing man from under the sentence of condemnation is so interwoven with the whole of the Scriptures that it cannot be rejected without rejecting the truth of the Bible. He is the Redeemer and Savior of man.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

sins

Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).

Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes

I delivered: 1Co 4:1, 1Co 4:2, 1Co 11:2, 1Co 11:23, Eze 3:17, Mat 20:18, Mat 20:19, Mar 16:15, Mar 16:16, Luk 24:46, Luk 24:47, Gal 1:12

Christ: Mat 26:28, Rom 3:25, Rom 4:25, 2Co 5:21, Gal 1:4, Gal 3:13, Eph 1:7, Eph 5:2, Heb 10:11, Heb 10:12, 1Pe 2:24, 1Pe 3:18, 1Jo 2:2, Rev 1:5

according: Gen 3:15, Psa 22:1-31, Psa 69:1-36, Isa 53:1-12, Dan 9:24-26, Zec 13:7, Luk 24:26, Luk 24:27, Luk 24:46, Act 3:18, Act 26:22, Act 26:23, 1Pe 1:11, 1Pe 2:24

Reciprocal: Exo 34:32 – he gave Lev 8:4 – General Num 19:12 – third day Num 29:40 – General Deu 4:5 – General 2Sa 7:17 – General Psa 22:15 – into the Psa 40:7 – in the Isa 53:5 – But he was Isa 59:21 – my words Eze 33:7 – thou shalt Mat 16:21 – began Mat 17:23 – the third Mat 26:24 – Son of man goeth Mar 16:6 – he is risen Luk 12:1 – first Luk 18:33 – and the Luk 22:22 – truly Luk 24:44 – that all Joh 1:29 – which Joh 2:19 – I will Act 10:40 – General Act 17:3 – Christ Act 17:18 – Jesus Act 17:31 – in that Act 18:28 – convinced Act 20:20 – I kept Act 22:14 – hear Act 25:19 – which 1Co 5:7 – Christ 1Co 15:1 – I declare 1Co 15:11 – General 1Th 5:10 – died 1Ti 2:1 – first 2Ti 3:15 – the holy

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Co 15:3. Paul did not originate the story of the Gospel; in Gal 1:12 he says he was taught it by the revelation of Jesus Christ. The mere death of Christ was not sufficient, for other men had died and even been resurrected. But Jesus is the only man who ever died for our sins. Accord, ing to the scriptures means the Old

Testament. One outstanding portion is Isaiah 53, particularly verses 4, 5, 8 and 10.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 15:3. For I delivered unto you first of allas being of primary importance (not first in point of time)that which I also receivedby immediate revelation (Gal 1:12)how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;[1]

[1] Four Greek prepositions are used in the New Testament to express the relation of Christs death to men as sinners, or to sin itself:(1)instead of (), Mat 20:28; (2) on behalf of [], Luk 22:19-20, and here; (3) on account of [] with the accus. propter), Rom 4:25; (4) about, on the business of [], Rom 8:3. The English word for expresses what is common to all these shades of meaning; but that which marks the distinction between them could only be expressed in English by a clumsy circumlocution.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Observe here, The apostle’s fidelity,

1. In delivering nothing to the church but what he had received: I delivered to you first of all that which I also received; either mediately by Ananias, or by immediate revelation from Christ himself.

Observe, 2. The principal and fundamental doctrines or articles of faith, which the apostle in his preaching had insisted upon amongst them; namely, the death, the burial, and the resurrection, of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

That he died for our sins, that is, a voluntary sacrifice for our sins, to make an atonement for sin, as the prophets Isaiah and Daniel had long foretold.

And that he was buried: the dead body of our dear Redeemer was decently buried by a small number of his own disciples, and continued in the state of the dead, and under the power of death for a time. That he was buried, is a demonstration of the certainty that he died.

And that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures. Christ, though laid, was not lost, in the grave; but by the omnipotent power of his Godhead revived, and rose again from the dead the third day, to the consternation of his enemies, and the consolation of all believers.

Observe, 3. How the apostle proves the truth and verity of Christ’s resurrection by ocular demonstration; he is risen, because he was seen alive after his passion; first of Peter, next of the whole college of the apostles, which formerly consisted of twelve, then of five hundred brethren at once in Galilee, whereof some were then alive to testify it; after which he was seen of James, and then of all the apostles.

These were all holy persons, who durst not deceive, and who confirmed their testimony with their blood. So that no article of faith, no point of religion, is of more confessed truth and infallible certainty, than this of our Lord’s resurrection; and blessed by God it is so, seeing the whole weight of faith, hope, and salvation, depends upon Christ as risen from the dead. Behold how great a weight the scripture hangs upon this nail: Thanks be to God, it is a nail fastened in a sure place. Our Lord’s resurrection is his church’s consolation.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

1Co 15:3-4. For I delivered unto you first of all Among the first things, and as the chief articles of the gospel, that which I also received, namely, from Christ himself; that Christ died for our sins Made atonement for them by dying; according to the Scriptures Of the Old Testament, particularly Isa 53:5-6; Isa 53:12; Dan 9:26. He proves, first, from the Scriptures, that the Messiah was to die for the expiation of sin, and then from the testimony of a cloud of witnesses, that Jesus of Nazareth, who by his miracles had proved himself to be that Messiah, had died for mens sins accordingly. And that he was buried In consequence of his being certainly dead; and that he rose again the third day His enemies keeping guard about his dead body in vain. According to the Scriptures The Scriptures which foretold the resurrection of Christ on the third day, and to which St. Paul refers, are Psa 16:10, (which Peter, Act 2:31, expressly affirmed to be a prediction of that event,) and Jon 1:17, which our Lord himself affirmed to be a typical prophecy of his continuing three days in the heart of the earth, and of his subsequent resurrection. See Mat 12:39-40. Here we see the apostle delivered to the Corinthians, from the Lord himself, not only that he died for our sins, and rose again the third day after his death, but that these things had happened according to the prophecies of the Scriptures concerning the Christ, because by that circumstance, as well as by his resurrection, our Lord was demonstrated to be the Christ.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Vv. 3-5. For I delivered unto you, first of all, that which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, 4. and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures, 5. and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the Twelve.

The for bears, not on either of the secondary ideas of the previous verses: If you hold firmly, or: By which you are saved, but on the principal idea: I declare to you what I preached to you. Paul means: The points which I put in the first rank, when I preached the gospel to you, are the following. He had laid down as the basis of Christian teaching, in the same way as he does here, the facts of the Lord’s death and resurrection. We need not, with Chrysostom and Hofmann, give the word first the temporal meaning; it is the fundamental importance of those one or two points which Paul wishes to characterize by the term.

It was formerly held that the word I received referred, as in 1Co 11:23, to a direct communication from the Lord. Modern commentators rather think that the reference here is to a human tradition, to the narrative of the Twelve as witnesses to facts. And indeed it should be remarked that the apostle does not here say , I [emphatic], and that he does not add, as in the passage quoted, of the Lord. He evidently knew the facts of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus in the same way as the whole Church, by their public notoriety and the narratives of the apostles. If Paul afterwards speaks specially of two appearances which were granted to Peter and James, this agrees well with the fact that it was with these two men he had conferred personally during his first stay at Jerusalem, after his conversion (Gal 1:19). But, true as this view is, perhaps it is incomplete. In the gospel preached by Paul at Corinth, there was not only, as we have seen, the historical side of facts; his preaching contained a higher element, the understanding of those facts as expressed in the words: for our sins, and: according to the Scriptures. And on such points Paul had received, as he says, Gal 1:12, the teaching of the Lord Himself whereby alone the external facts related in apostolical tradition had become to him soteriological facts; I think, therefore, that he designedly used the verb , I received, without regimen, leaving it in all its generality, that it might embrace both human tradition and Divine teaching.

The , also, expresses the exact conformity between the deposit committed to Paul and his conveying of it to the Corinthians.

The regimen: for our sins, has special importance, because it is the Divine meaning of the fact, as he will afterwards explain it, 1Co 15:17-18. It is quite clear that in this phrase the does not signify: in place of, but: in behalf of: In behalf of our sins to expiate them. This phrase is found nowhere else in Paul; but comp. Heb 9:7; Heb 10:12.

The regimen: according to the Scriptures, has its importance: the Divine testimony of the Scriptures is designedly placed before all the apostolic testimonies which are about to follow. The Scriptures had said the event would happen; the witnesses declare it has happened.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

For I delivered unto you first of all [as a matter of primary importance: see 1Co 2:3-4] that which also I received [and hence no device or invention of my own]: that Christ died for our sins [to atone for them– 1Jo 3:5; Gal 1:4; 2Co 5:15; Tit 2:14] according to the scriptures [Isa 53:5; Isa 53:10; Dan 9:26; Psa 22:1-22; Zec 12:10];

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

As with the events of the Lord’s Supper (1Co 11:23) Paul had heard of the Lord Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances and had then passed this information along to others. Elsewhere he wrote that he had not received the gospel from other people but directly from the Lord (Gal 1:11). Probably some aspects of it came to him one way and others in other ways. He apparently received the essence of the gospel on the Damascus road and learned more details from other sources.

"He received the facts from the Apostles and others; the import of the facts was made known to him by Christ (Gal. i. 12)." [Note: Robertson and Plummer, p. 333.]

Three facts are primary concerning Jesus’ death. He died, He died for people’s sins, and He died as the Scriptures revealed He would. These facts received constant reaffirmation in the early preaching of the church (cf. Act 3:13-18; Act 8:32-35).

"People are wicked and sinful; they do not know God. But Christ died ’for our sins,’ not only to forgive but also to free people from their sins. Hence Paul’s extreme agitation at the Corinthians’ sinfulness, because they are thereby persisting in the very sins from which God in Christ has saved them. This, after all, is what most of the letter is about." [Note: Fee, "Toward a . . .," p. 49.]

"The language ’for our sins’ is a direct reflection of the LXX of Isaiah 53. Since Judaism did not interpret this passage messianically, at least not in terms of a personal Messiah, [Note: Footnote 56: See A. Neubauer, ed., The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah, According to [the] Jewish Interpreters, 2 vols.] and since there is no immediate connection between the death of Jesus and the idea that his death was ’for our sins,’ it is fair to say that whoever made that connection is the ’founder of Christianity.’ All the evidence points to Jesus himself, especially at the Last Supper with his interpretation of his death in the language of Isaiah 53 as ’for you’ (see on 1Co 11:23-25)." [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 724.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)