Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 15:14
And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.
14. vain ] i.e. useless, in vain, as we say. Literally, empty. Vulg. inanis. “You have a vaine faith if you believe in a dead man. He might be true man, though He remained in death. But it concerns you to believe that He was the Son of God too. And He was ‘declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead.’ Rom 1:4.” Dr Donne, Sermon on Easter Day.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And if Christ is not risen, then is our preaching vain – Another consequence which must follow if it be held that there was no resurrection, and consequently that Christ was not risen. it would be vain and useless to preach. The substance of their preaching was that Christ was raised up; and all their preaching was based on that. If that were not true, the whole system was false, and Christianity was an imposition. The word vain here seems to include the idea of useless, idle, false. It would be false to affirm that the Christian system was from heaven; it would be useless to proclaim such a system, since it could save no one.
And your faith is also vain – It is useless to believe. It can be of no advantage. If Christ was not raised, he was an impostor, since he repeatedly declared that he would rise Mat 16:21; Mat 18:22-23; Luk 9:22, and since the whole of his religion depended on that. The system could not be true unless Christ had been raised, as he said he would be; and to believe a false system could be of no use to any man. The argument here is one addressed to all their feelings, their hopes, and their belief. It is drawn from all their convictions that the system was true. Were they, could they be prepared to admit a doctrine which involved the consequence that all the evidences which they had that the apostles preached the truth were delusive, and that all the evidences of the truth of Christianity which had affected their minds and won their hearts were false and deceptive? If they were not prepared for this, then it followed that they should not abandon or doubt the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 14. Then is our preaching vain] Our whole doctrine is useless, nugatory and false.
And your faith is also vain.] Your belief of a false doctrine must necessarily be to you unprofitable.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Now, (saith the apostle), if Christ be not raised, in what a case are you! And we also, who have preached his resurrection to you! Our preaching is vain and false, and your faith is so also, for the object of it faileth, which is a Christ risen from the dead.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
14. your faith . . . vain(1Co 15:11). The Greekfor “vain” here is, empty, unreal: in 1Co15:17, on the other hand, it is, without use, frustrated.The principal argument of the first preachers in support ofChristianity was that God had raised Christ from the dead (Act 1:22;Act 2:32; Act 4:10;Act 4:33; Act 13:37;Rom 1:4). If this fact werefalse, the faith built on it must be false too.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And if Christ be not risen,…. If this is a truth, and must be taken as granted, as it must be, if there is no resurrection at all:
then is our preaching vain; false, empty, delusory, unprofitable, and useless; not only that part of it which more especially concerns the resurrection of Christ, but even the whole of it; preaching Christ as the Son of God, which was the subject of the apostle’s ministry, and which he set out with, is to no purpose, if he is not risen; for one considerable proof of his sonship depends upon his resurrection, which is the declaration of it; for who can believe him to be the Son of God, if he is detained under the power of the grave? one reason why he could not be held of death, and the pains and cords of it, any longer than was necessary, and was his pleasure, was because he was the Son of God, as well as surety of his people, who had paid the whole debt: so the preaching of his incarnation, obedience, sufferings, and death, is of no use and avail, if he has not abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light, first in himself, and then for his people:
and your faith is also vain; either the grace of faith, by which they believed on Christ, or the doctrine of faith; or since this is repeated, 1Co 15:17 the one may be meant here, and the other there. The doctrine of faith they had given their assent to, not only respecting the resurrection of Christ, but any other truth relating to his person and office, must be vain and empty, and without any foundation; even that faith which is one, uniform, harmonious, and consistent, which was once delivered to the saints; which they are to stand fast in, to strive, contend, and fight for, and not part with at any rate, upon any account whatever; and yet this, and the preaching and belief of it, are useless and insignificant things, if Christ is not risen; such wretched absurdities must follow upon the denial of that truth.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Vain (). Inanis, Vulgate. Old word, empty. Both Paul’s preaching and their faith are empty if Christ has not been raised. If the sceptics refuse to believe the fact of Christ’s resurrection, they have nothing to stand on.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Vain [] . Empty, a mere chimaera
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And if Christ be not risen,” (ei de christos ouk egegertai) “What, is more, if Christ has not been raised,” If the fact of the resurrection of dead persons (bodies) is not true, then the testimonies of Jesus, all the apostles, and the church were false. See?
2) “Then is our preaching vain,” (kenon ara to kerugma hemon) “Then (at this moment) our heralding, proclamation, or preaching of the gospel is empty, a sham, or vain.” Preaching the resurrection and a future existence is (Gk. kenon) avoid, hollow, empty witness and a sham, if Christ is not resurrected.
3) “And your faith is also vain.” (kene kai he pistis humon) “And your faith is vain, empty, or a sham also.” Empty, unfruitful, ineffectual is your system of teaching, your pragmatic faith; you are building on nothing, and your life is like Shakespeare’s “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing,” if Christ be not raised. Such is your heritage, like a mirage, if Christ be not risen. Is this attitude satisfying, helpful, beneficial, or hopeful or worthy of toil, the old apostle quizzes them?
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
14. Then is our preaching vain — not simply as having some mixture of falsehood, but as being altogether an empty fallacy. For what remains if Christ has been swallowed up by death — if he has become extinct — if he has been overwhelmed by the curse of sin — if, in fine, he has been overcome by Satan? In short, if that fundamental article is subverted, all that remains will be of no moment. For the same reason he adds, that their faith will be vain, for what solidity of faith will there be, where no hope of life is to be seen? But in the death of Christ, considered in itself, (35) there is seen nothing but ground of despair, for he cannot be the author of salvation to others, who has been altogether vanquished by death. Let us therefore bear in mind, that the entire gospel consists mainly in the death and resurrection of Christ, so that we must direct our chief attention to this, if we would desire, in a right and orderly manner, to make progress in the gospel — nay more, if we would not remain barren and unfruitful. (2Pe 1:8.)
(35) “ C’est a dire, sans la resurrection ;” — “That is to say, apart from his resurrection.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(14) If Christ be not risen.Better, but if Christ be not raised; and so all through this passage.
Then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.The Apostles had preached a risen Christ, their converts had believed in a risen Christ, but now the proposition is, There is no resurrection; therefore Christ is not risen; therefore the preaching and the faith which are based on the delusion that He is risen are both vain and useless. The argument is still purely an appeal to historical evidence supporting an historical fact, and to the consequences involved in denying that fact (see 1Co. 15:16).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
14. Our preaching your faith Our preaching and your faith are alike a vanity. St. Paul does not suppose that any one will reply. But even without a resurrection, is not the soul immortal, and may not its immortality be blissful through Christ? He does not anticipate this reply, because those deniers did not admit any such immortality. Nor, to all appearance, does Paul himself base our Christian hopes upon an immortality of soul that is not based on Christ, that is, of which our resurrection is not the base, and that based on his resurrection. He preached not Jesus and the immortality of the soul, but Jesus and the resurrection. That he believed in the separate existence and immortality of the soul appears from Php 1:23-24. But man is an immortal being, not because he is a thinking substance, for brutes think; but because he is by God placed in the conditions for immortality. A lamp will burn forever if the conditions of carbon and oxygen are properly supplied. An animal would be immortal if placed by God in the conditions for its immortality. Now man is an immortal being because he is placed by God in a probationary system, the basis of which is the resurrection, the accompaniment of which resurrection is the perpetuation of the existence of the soul through the intermediate state until its reunion with the body. Of this destiny for immortality, the proofs drawn from the high intuitive character of the spirit of man are valid and powerful. Animals fear death, and avoid localities of danger. But animals are below the conception of immortality, which is a form of the idea of the Infinite.
From this view it is clear that no argument can be drawn against the immortality of man from the high intellective character of some animals. We are not, indeed, obliged by Christianity to deny the immortality of brutes, or insects. We are perfectly free to believe even that every case of individualized perceptive life, (that is, every intellective entity individualized by being once united to a material organism,) remains a thinking individual forever. But the Pauline ground for man’s immortality is the assumed fact of man’s probationary condition under the headship of Christ, as heir of the resurrection.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And if Christ has not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.’
The whole of the Apostolic teaching was based on the fact that Jesus Christ had died, been buried and had risen again. The resurrection was not only the source of their faith in the effectiveness of what He had done, but was itself also the evidence of God’s acceptance of it. And it was the spur that drove them on. It was as it were their trump card. Without that they had no message. Without that the Master was dead, and there was no avoiding the fact. Glorious though His teaching was, without the resurrection it was just another addition to the wisdom of the ages, even if a unique one. It was the fact that Christ had risen that had brought men new hope. It was that that had made the Apostles certain about the future, and confident that He was what He had said He was, the Lord of glory. It was that that had demonstrated that He had been declared both Lord and Christ (Act 2:36).
A living on of the soul would have proved nothing except that the soul could live on, and how could they ever have known that it was true? But the resurrection of the body, after His giving of Himself up to death, had made all the difference. It had revealed that He had been right in all He had said, it had declared the success of Christ’s sacrifice of Himself on the cross, it had demonstrated the defeat of death, and it had shown God’s full satisfaction with what He had accomplished. It was moreover also a pointer to the coming redemption of all things. So without that the Apostolic preaching was but a vanity, a nothing, and if that was so it meant that the faith of the Corinthians was also useless and nothing and empty. They had accepted an invalid message.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 15:14 . ] continues the series of inferences. Without the resurrection of Jesus, what are we with our preaching! what you with your faith! The former is then dealt with in 1Co 15:15 f., the latter in 1Co 15:17-19 .
] is the simple therefore, thus ( rebus ita comparatis ). See against Hartung’s view, that it introduces the unexpected (this may be implied in the connection, but not in the particle), Klotz, ad Devar. p. 160 ff.
and are put first with lively emphasi.
.] i.e. has remained in the grave .
] empty , i.e. without reality (Eph 5:6 ; Col 2:8 ), without really existing contents, inasmuch, namely, as the redemption in Christ and its completion through the Messianic are the contents of the preaching; but this redemption has not taken place and the Messianic salvation is a chimera, if Christ has not risen. Comp. 1Co 15:17 ; Rom 1:4 ; Rom 4:25 ; Rom 8:34 .
] also . If it holds of Christ that He is not risen, then it holds also of our preaching that it is empt.
] your faith in Jesus as the Messiah , [37] 1Co 15:11 . Christ would, in fact, not be the Redeemer and Atoner, as which, however, He is the contents of your faith. [38] Comp. Simonides in Plato, Prot . p. 345 C: , Soph. Ant 749: , Eur. Iph. Aul. 987, Hel. 36.
[37] The reading , which Olshausen prefers from a total misapprehension of the connection, has only the weak attestation of D* min. and some vss. and Fathers, and is a mechanical repetition of the preceding .
[38] Comp. Krauss, p. 74 ff.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
Ver. 14. Then is our preaching vain ] Never was there any imposture put upon the world as Christianity, if Christ be yet in the grave.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
14 .] , again introducing a new inference.
.] Again repeating and using as matter of fact ( ) the inference of the last verse; q. d. . – .
] idle , ‘empty,’ ‘without result:’ placed first for emphasis.
] then : ‘rebus ita comparatis’ (Meyer).
] also , q. d. “If Christ’s Resurrection be gone, then also our faith is gone.” Without the copula , the clause is much more forcible: idle also is our preaching , idle also is your faith . Thus both times refers to the hypothesis, . .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 15:14-15 . The implicit affirmative conclusion just intimated P. will develop afterwards. He has first to push the opposing axiom to further consequences. (1) if the fact is untrue, the testimony is untrue “But if Christ is not raised, vain therefore is our proclamation, vain also your faith”. (see note on , 10; and cf. , 1Co 1:17 , etc.) signifies void, unsubstantial ( inanis , Vg [2312] ) a hollow witness, a hollow belief, while (1Co 15:17 ; see parls.) is “vain” as ineffectual, frustrate . For , see note on 1Co 1:21 ; on its distinction from (2), see 1Co 2:4 : includes P. and his colleagues (1Co 15:11 ). For , see 1Co 5:10 . If “the message is empty,” declaring a thing that is not, “the faith is also empty,” building on the thing that is not; preaching and faith have no genuine content; the Gospel is evacuated of all reality. For the character of P. and his fellow-witnesses this conclusion has a serious aspect: “We are found moreover (to be) false witnesses of God” men who have given lying testimony, and that about God , “the worst sort of impostors” (Gd [2313] )! is objective gen [2314] , as the next clause shows; it is always “God” to whom P. imputes the raising of Christ, who by this act gave His verdict concerning Jesus (Rom 1:4 , Gal 1:1 , Eph 1:20 ; Act 2:36 ; Act 13:30-39 ; Act 17:31 ). calls emphatic attention to another and contrasted side of the matter in hand. approaches the sense of or (see parls.) “discovered” in a false and guilty position. Nothing can be stronger evidence than this passage to the objective reality, in Paul’s experience, of the risen form of Jesus. The suspicion of hallucination , on his own part or that of the other witnesses, was foreign to his mind; the matter stood on the plain footing of testimony, given by a large number of intelligent, sober, and responsible witnesses to a sensible, concrete, circumstantial fact: “Either He rose from the grave, or we lied in affirming it” the dilemma admits of no escape. . . .: “in that we testified against God that He raised up the Christ whom He did not raise, if indeed then (as ‘some’ affirm) dead (men) are not raised up”. . , adversus Deum (Vg [2315] , Est., Mr [2316] , Hn [2317] , Gd [2318] , Ed [2319] , Sm [2320] ), as always in such connexion in N.T. (see 1Co 4:6 and parls.), not de Deo (Er [2321] , Bz [2322] , Al [2323] , El [2324] , A.V.); the falsehood ( ex hyp .) would have wronged God, as, e.g ., the ascription of miracles to God traduces Him in the eyes of Deists. , “the Messiah,” whom “according to the Scriptures” (1Co 15:3 f.; cf. Luk 24:46 , Act 17:3 ; Act 26:22 f., etc.) God was bound to raise from the dead. , si videlicet (Bz [2325] ), supposing to be sure ; see 1Co 8:5 ; and 1Co 5:10 , for .
[2312] Latin Vulgate Translation.
[2313] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[2314] genitive case.
[2315] Latin Vulgate Translation.
[2316] Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Commentary (Eng. Trans.).
[2317] C. F. G. Heinrici’s Erklrung der Korintherbriefe (1880), or 1 Korinther in Meyer’s krit.-exegetisches Kommentar (1896).
[2318] F. Godet’s Commentaire sur la prem. p. aux Corinthiens (Eng. Trans.).
[2319] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
[2320] P. Schmiedel, in Handcommentar zum N.T. (1893).
[2321] Erasmus’ In N.T. Annotationes .
[2322] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).
[2323] Alford’s Greek Testament .
[2324] C. J. Ellicott’s St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians .
[2325] Beza’s Nov. Testamentum: Interpretatio et Annotationes (Cantab., 1642).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
be not risen = has not been raised.
preaching. App-121.
faith. App-150.
is also = also is.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
14.] , again introducing a new inference.
.] Again repeating and using as matter of fact () the inference of the last verse; q. d. . -.
] idle, empty, without result: placed first for emphasis.
] then: rebus ita comparatis (Meyer).
] also, q. d. If Christs Resurrection be gone, then also our faith is gone. Without the copula , the clause is much more forcible:-idle also is our preaching, idle also is your faith. Thus both times refers to the hypothesis, . .
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 15:14. -, vain-vain) contrary to what you yourselves have acknowledged, 1Co 15:11.-, without reality, differs from , vain, 1Co 15:17, without use.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 15:14
1Co 15:14
and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain,-The central truth and fundamental fact of their preaching was that Christ was raised from the dead; but if he had not been raised, their preaching was false.
your faith also is vain.-Their faith in Christ as the Son of God was based on the belief that God raised him from the dead. When the Jews asked a sign of Jesus he said unto them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (Mat 12:39-40). That is, he should be buried and rise again; and Paul says he was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Rom 1:4). His resurrection was the foundation on which their faith rested, and if that was not true their faith was vain. The system could not be true unless Christ had been raised from the dead, as he said he would be; and to believe a falsehood could be of no use to any man.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
1Co 15:2, 1Co 15:17, Psa 73:13, Isa 49:4, Gen 8:8, Mat 15:9, Act 17:31, Gal 2:2, Jam 1:26, Jam 2:20
Reciprocal: Psa 127:1 – they labour Mar 7:7 – in vain Joh 16:10 – righteousness Act 25:19 – which Rom 10:9 – and shalt Gal 2:21 – Christ
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
THE DILEMMA
And if Christ be not risen, then is out preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.
1Co 15:14
The Apostle justly argued that if Christ be not risen it is another Christianity; if it be a gospel at all, it is not the Gospel committed to us, not the Gospel on which we have staked our all for time and for eternity. If there be an opening here for faith, it is a belief in a mere event of human history, not a faith in a Divine, a present, a living Lord; it is no faith with a power to cleanse from sin, it is no faith with a power to purify the conscience, it is no faith with a present efficacy to lift men above the ills, the temptations, the sins, and the sorrows of life. For the Divine personality of the one Christ, God and Man, the Divine personality which alone gives value to the whole, this has been rent in twain if He be not risen.
I. This was the dilemma in which St. Paul seems to place them in his argument: Either Christ is risen, or the Christianity you profess is not the Christianity which Apostles preach; if you will sacrifice the one, you must be content to part with the other.
II. Must not this be the thought of any reverent mind, Take heed what ye do, ye know not what it may be when you claim the liberty to accept or reject any part of the revelation of God. A precept that seems unnecessary, or a doctrine which you think may be as well dispensed with, if you reject one or the other, you may be undermining the very foundations of the faith.
III. Gods revelation cannot be treated by fragments.It cannot be pared away to suit the supposed necessities of modern thought, or to meet the ever-shifting difficulties of this or that class of minds. Nay, not thus can we contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. And though, doubtless, some truths may be rejected with less risk to the faith than others, just as some limbs of the body may be amputated without danger to life itself, yet this could never be with such a doctrine as that of the resurrection.
How can you and I know that He Who died on Calvary has indeed made atonement for sin unless we know that He is God? And how can we know that He is God except by the resurrection? How am I to know that the future is lighted up for me and for those who have gone before with a bright and glorious hope except by the resurrection?
Archdeacon Robeson.
Illustration
We are told, in The Life of R. W. Dale, that, in the course of writing an Easter sermon, he came to a new realisation of the fact that Christ is alive. I got up, said Dr. Dale, in describing this experience, and walked about repeating, Christ is living, Christ is living! At first it seemed strange and hardly true; but at last it came upon me as a burst of sudden glory; yes, Christ is living. It was to me a new discovery. I thought that all along I had believed it; but not until that moment did I feel sure about it.
(SECOND OUTLINE)
THE CERTAINTY OF THE RESURRECTION
It will be profitable for us to consider the triumphant tone of assured certainty on the part of St. Paul and of all the other Apostles upon the fact of the Resurrection.
Let us think of some of the grounds for that certainty.
I. The Resurrection not expected.First of all we have this fact, and I do not think its importance can be overlooked, the belief in our Lords Resurrection did not come with the Apostles. None of them were prepared for it. None of them in the least expected it. They did not even faintly hope that it might be.
II. The Resurrection a fact.But after the Resurrection they have no longer any hesitation in believing in the reality of this stupendous miracle. Their conviction is firm and unshakable. It is the one subject of their teaching. It is the firm basis upon which all faith and teaching rests. It is a truth concerning which they cannot now keep silent; for which they are now prepared to die. For this extraordinary change in their whole moral attitude there is only one possible explanation, namely, that they had sufficient evidence to convince them that what they had once thought to be not only improbable but impossible had actually taken place, and that Christ had truly risenthe object of their worship.
III. The foundation of the Christian Church.Apart from the Resurrection of Christ, and from the Apostles belief in it, how could they ever have attempted to do that which they did attempt, and which they succeeded in doing, namely, to found the Christian Church? What object, what motive could they have had to do anything at all, if Christ had not risen? Then the awful tragedy of Good Friday must have been the end. If it was the end of Christ it must have been the end of their work. When I ask myself what possible inducement they could have had to proceed further I am at a loss to think; for remember, they had no message to tell, they had no Gospel to proclaim. They could only tell of absolute and utter failure on the part of One in Whom they had trusted. It is no exaggeration to say that, in these circumstances, the founding of the Christian Church and its marvellous growth, apart from the Resurrection, would have been an even greater miracle, greater even than the Resurrection itself, and more utterly inexplicable. But, given the Resurrection, given that absolute certainty concerning it, all that is inexplicable and impossible otherwise at once becomes possible and explicable.
The Resurrection of Christ is the sole reasonable explanation of the existence to this day of Christianity.
Rev. Canon C. P. Greene.
Illustration
Thousands and tens of thousands, said Dr. Arnold, have gone through the evidence for the Resurrection piece by piece, as carefully as ever judge summed up on a most important case. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others, but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer.
(THIRD OUTLINE)
THE NEED OF AN OBJECTIVE PROPITIATION
Here we observe that the atoning Sacrifice is not named indeed, but unmistakably implied. In the opening sentences of the chapter (1Co 15:3) it appears as the first article of the great Apostles creed and message; first of all, imprimis, Christ died for our sins. The theme of His Resurrection immediately follows on, and, as we well know, fills the whole chapter, its argument and its glorious prophecy; but it is thus first indissolubly connected with the atoning death for our sins.
I. Practically, then, the words If Christ be not risen mean If Christ our Sacrifice were not, as such, accepted, with an acceptance evidenced by His Resurrection. If He were notwhat then? Then, says the Apostle, not anxiously arguing but, as we have seen, appealing to open and indubitable certainties, you, you Corinthian converts and disciples, are yet in your sins.
II. How shall we explain this phrase, in your sins? Verbally, it might mean easily and naturally under the power of your sins, involved in their coil, as they twist themselves serpentwise about you, and bind you down from obedience to your Lord. But then this interpretation, verbally possible, is negatived absolutely by fact. The Corinthians are contemplated by St. Paul as men actually and in fact delivered from the power of sin. And if so, he cannot mean herewhen he says that, ex hypothesi, Ye are yet in your sinsthat they were still in their old bad life. For as a matter of fact they were not. Whether the Lord were risen or not risen, fact was fact; they were morally liberated men. Then the only proper meaning left to the phrase is the meaning of judicial implication in sin. Ye are yet in your sins in the sense of condemnation. Your Lords sacrifice has, on the hypothesis that the tomb never gave Him up, not won its end. Then your guilt is yet upon your heads.
III. Could there be a more impressive witness to the inexorable need of an objective propitiation, an atoning sacrifice, looking not merely man-ward to convict, to soften, to attract, but also and first God-ward, to satisfy? Here, as a fact, were men who had, biographically, found a wonderful moral transformation. They had been sorry for their sins; they had forsaken them; they stood as victors over them. Yes, but suppose per impossibile that all this had happened, and yet that the God-ward propitiation, the deliverance up because of our transgressions, had not availed. Then the moral transfiguration would not for one hour have met and cancelled the judicial forfeit. They would be yet in their sins. They would be in condemnation still.
Bishop H. C. G. Moule.
Illustration
If we do not mistake, the vast side of truth indicated here is one which calls for reverent and even urgent reaffirmation. It has occurred to us sometimes to hear or to read statements of the plan and purpose of, for instance, missionary enterprise in which the sin of man is indeed put solemnly in view, but only as a power on the will needing to be broken, not as an offence against the law needing, before everything else, to be lawfully forgiven. Let those teachers in the Church who have with joy made the fullest discoveries of the blissful power of the indwelling Lord to subdue iniquities and set free the whole soul for His service be the first also (none will do this more effectually than they) to emphasise the antecedent and everlasting necessity of the Lord for us in His sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction. Without Him thus, where, for all other blessings, should we be? Our faith would be vain; it would rest upon a cloud. We should be yet in our sins.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
1Co 15:14. Having presented an unquestionable basis regarding the question in dispute, Paul will devote a number of verses showing some of the logical conclusions that must follow, thereby proving to the brethren that their whole program of religious activities and hope is fundamentally wrong. One conclusion is that the preaching of the apostles was in vain or of no avail. That necessarily would mean that their faith was vain, since it was based on the facts that had been preached to them. Reference is made to this “vain” belief in verse 2.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 15:14. and . . . then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vainall Christianity, as a historical fact, is subverted.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
1Co 15:14-18. Then is our preaching In consequence of a commission supposed to be given after his resurrection; vain Without any real foundation, and destitute of truth; and your faith In our preaching; is vain Is grounded on falsehood and deception; yea, and we are false witnesses of God Having testified that Jesus of Nazareth is his Son and the Messiah; that he hath atoned for sin; hath risen from the dead and ascended into heaven; hath obtained for his followers the Holy Spirit in his gifts and graces; a resurrection from the dead, and eternal life; and is constituted the final Judge of men and angels; all which things, depending on his resurrection, are absolutely false, if he be not risen; and, of consequence, ye are yet in your sins Unpardoned and unrenewed, without either a title to heaven or a meetness for it. So that there needed something more than reformation, (which was plainly wrought in them,) in order to their being delivered from the guilt of sin, and renewed after the divine image; even that atonement, the sufficiency of which God attested by raising our great Surety from the grave, and the influences of the Divine Spirit procured for us by that atonement. Then they who are fallen asleep in Christ Who have died for him, or believing in him; are perished Have lost their life and being together. This sentence shows, that in this discourse the apostle has the resurrection of the just principally in view, and that what he hath written concerning the excellent qualities of the bodies to be raised, is to be understood of the bodies of the saints only.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 14. The testimony of the apostles had for its essential subject the resurrection of Christ. If this is not a fact, their testimony is an imposture.
The word , vain, denotes a testimony the matter of which is an unreal event. And if the testimony is such, it is the same with faith in the testimony; it is also vain (), in that the object which it believed itself to be taking hold of is purely fictitious.
In the reading of B L ( after ) the two should be regarded as correlative: both…and…
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain. [The resurrection of Christ was the very heart of the gospel, the essence of gospel preaching. The Corinthians had not realized how serious a matter it was to admit the impossibility of any resurrection. By so doing they made the resurrection of Jesus a fiction, and if his resurrection was fictitious, then Christian preaching and Christian faith were both empty vanities. Verily the argument of the rationalists had proved too much, causing them to deny the very faith which they professed. The apostle goes on to develop this thought, in connection with another thought–the nature of the issue between the rationalists and Christ’s ministers. It was not an issue of truth or mistake, but of truth or falsehood–a direct accusation that the apostles and their colleagues were liars– Act 2:32; Act 4:33; Act 13:30]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
14. And if Christ is not risen, then truly is our preaching vain, and your faith is vain. The doctrine of a corporeal resurrection was the most incredible of all the inspired curriculum. The Greek philosophers hissed and hooted at it, actually ejecting Paul from the Areopagus because he preached it. It staggered the Jews awfully, the Sadducees, the richest and most influential sect of the Jewish church, rejecting it altogether; the Hebrews being actually more favorable to translation, however paradoxical, than to the resurrection. Even after Paul had preached at Corinth eighteen months, and Peter and Apollos had preached there, all perfectly sound and clear on corporeal resurrection, yet there were some in the Corinthian church who did not receive it. At the present day the Swedenborgians, and some others, reject it altogether; while the popular theology in the orthodox churches actually restricts this grand problem to one single and final resurrection of the dead, whereas the Scriptures are so clear and explicit on the two resurrections, i. e., the first and the second; the former including the Bridehood and the latter all others. I saw thrones and they sat on them, and the government was given unto them; that evidently includes the Bridehood in general, who had gone up in the rapture and returned with the Heavenly Bridegroom to inaugurate His Millennial Theocracy, and have thus taken possession of the earthly thrones as His subordinates, to reign with Him a thousand years. And (I saw) the souls of those who had been beheaded for the witness of Jesus and the word of God (i. e., a supplement to the first resurrection in order to take in the tribulation saints) and who did not worship the beast nor his image, nor receive the mark upon their forehead nor upon their hand: and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. The rest of the dead live not until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: over these the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years (Revelation 20). This passage is absolutely unanswerable in favor of the conclusion that there will be two resurrections, the first preceding and the second following the Millennium. The logic that does away the former inevitably does away the latter, as the Holy Ghost uses the same identical word, anastasia, to reveal the resurrection in the former case as in the latter. We are not seeking controversy, but truth. It is a significant and astounding fact that the masses of the popular churches, theologians included, discard the first resurrection here specified, utterly explaining it away by spiritualizing it and construing it identical with spiritual regeneration. Of course, the soul is raised from the dead in regeneration, but there is no possible nor conceivable allusion to it in these Scriptures. Since the very same phraseology is used by the Holy Ghost to reveal both of these resurrections, it is utterly impossible to construe one spiritual and the other corporeal. If the first is spiritual, so is the second, and the Swedenborgians are right, and Paul and John are wrong, for they also very emphatically preach unto us the resurrection. So we need not wonder that there were people in the Corinthian church of Pauls own planting who did not accept the doctrine of bodily resurrection, when we consider the fact that the rank and file of Christendom today are heretical on the first resurrection, only accepting one, while the Bible so explicitly reveals two. The grand argument of Paul here is generic on the subject in order to settle it as a fundamental Bible truth; in other Scriptures he stoutly advocates the two resurrections; e. g., Php 3:11, If perchance I may attain to the resurrection which is out from the dead, i. e., an especial and extraordinary resurrection. You see in this argument his grand, salient fact is the corporeal resurrection of Christ, which is conclusively demonstrative that all the dead will rise. This follows as a logical sequence from the perfect humanity of Christ, the uniformity of humanity and the representation of humanity by the worlds Messiah, who must take our nature (sin excepted) in order to serve as Mediator between God and man. In this argument you see Paul ties the proposition fast to the resurrection of Christ, to stand or to fall. Hence the logical sequence that if there is no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen. If He is not risen the Christhood of Jesus is a failure, the scheme of redemption collapses, and we are all left in our sins.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 14
Vain; not to be believed or depended upon; for they had unequivocally declared that they had been witnesses of his resurrection.–And your faith, &c.; that is, all ground of your confidence in the gospel is taken away.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
15:14 {5} And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.
(5) The proof of that absurdity, by other absurdities: if Christ is not risen again, the preaching of the Gospel is in vain, and the credit that you gave to it is vain, and we are liars.