Resurrection Crux

Paul knew that God's grace toward him had not been in vain because Paul was also aware of the extent of his own effort, his work, his struggle. To say that a thing is not in vain means that it is useful and productive. Paul had a particularly productive ministry because God had abundantly blessed him with much grace and mercy, and also because Paul worked harder than the other apostles, or so he said (1 Corinthians 15:10). Paul worked hard at ministry. He tried to take advantage of every opportunity to preach, teach and reach. And yet, Paul knew that he could not succeed by his own efforts.

This is a critical point: Paul made a huge personal effort to work at ministry, though it was not him, not his work that made the critical difference. Rather, he said that it was the grace of God that was with him that got the credit. God's grace received the glory. God's grace was the real power of effectiveness that drove his own puny efforts. He knew that his effort was necessary, but he also knew that it was not sufficient.

"Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Corinthians 15:11). This is a curious verse. Having mentioned the other apostles, he continued with that thought by referring to them here. Paul had not been the only apostle to preach among the Corinthians. Other apostles, other preachers had taught what Paul was teaching. Paul was not a Lone Ranger. Rather, he claimed unity with other gospel preachers that they had heard.

A sub-point here is that it doesn't matter who preaches or teaches, as long as the communication of God's truth is facilitated. The power of the Word does not attach itself to the preacher. It is not that the preacher uses the Word, but that the Word uses the preacher. The power and effectiveness of God's Word is in the Word itself, not in the preacher. God's Word is not attached to the preacher, rather the preacher is attached to God's Word. It's like nailing a sign to a tree. The sign is attached to the tree, the tree is not attached to the sign (though it is).

It didn't matter who had preached the true gospel. Paul acknowledged that there had been many people who had preached what he was preaching. But there had also been many people who had preached a false gospel. Paul made a point to differentiate between what was true and what was false, and called upon the Corinthians to acknowledge the difference by remembering back to when they first believed. There is a link, a causal connection between the preaching and the believing indicated by the Greek, which is translated as "so" and literally means "in this way." We preached, said Paul, and in this way or because of this you believed.

Paul then turned to a practical application or a case study of the relationship between preaching and believing. Apparently, some of the Corinthians had been quibbling about the reality of the resurrection. It provides a stumbling block for many people. Note that Paul does not tell us how it could happen, only that it did. "Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:12).

The logic of this verse is so simple that it is easy to miss. We might think that one person preaches the resurrection and another denies it. So, who's to know for sure. It's not the kind of thing that can be proven. So, we tend to think that either option is viable. This kind of thinking is quite common in our relativistic culture. But that is not at all the way that Paul reasoned. We may catch Paul's meaning if we emphasize the word "you" in the verse. "Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (1 Corinthians 15:12).

Do You Or Don't You? Let me fill in some of Paul's assumptions. Paul said something like this: "now if Christ is proclaimed by those who preach the true gospel (Paul and the apostles), which includes the resurrection, which you have believed and through which you have received regeneration, and there are witnesses to Christ's resurrection among you, how can some of you who have believed the true gospel say that there is no resurrection?" Paul was raising the same question that he raised to the Galatians: "O foolish Galatians, who bewitched you not to obey the truth, to whom before your eyes Jesus Christ was written among you crucified?" (Galatians 3:1).

The logic in verse 12 is not about the relative merits of resurrection versus no resurrection, but about the power and consistency of belief. Paul was saying, "You used to believe and now some of you don't believe. So, which is more likely to be true: Jesus' resurrection or the quality of a belief that flip-flops between two mutually exclusive positions." Clearly, the only thing that had changed was the belief of some of the Corinthians. Christ had not changed. History had not changed. The weak link in this line of argumentation was not the resurrection of Jesus, but the vacillating belief of those who changed their minds.

Nonetheless, Paul then entertained the possibility that the doctrine of the resurrection may be in error by noting that it logically follows that "if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised" (1 Corinthians 15:13). If we assume that there is no resurrection, then Christ cannot have been raised. And the conclusion of the argument is the loss of hope and the installation of pity upon those who make such an assumption.

But that's not the end of it. The no resurrection scenario is worse than just killing hope because "if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins" (1 Corinthians 15:17). If Christ has not been resurrected, then there is no cure for sin. And if there is no cure for sin "those also who have fallen asleep (died) in Christ have perished" (1 Corinthians 15:18).

Paul said that if there is no resurrection, then it would follow that Christ was not resurrected. He stated it as simply as possible. Next Paul called attention to the fact that everything hangs on the resurrection. Christianity is holistic. It all hangs together or it doesn't. It all works together or it doesn't work at all. Christianity is a comprehensive worldview. It effects everything. Note also that Paul did not suggest a kind of intellectual systematic theology as if the various elements of faith and belief are like puzzle pieces that we need to fit together in order to make a whole. Rather, Paul jumped from what may be considered to be an intellectual idea (resurrection) to the passions of hope and pity.

One of the reasons that the doctrine of the resurrection is important is that it is a kind of bridge between three different elements of our personhood. It is intellectual, of the mind. It is physical, of the body. And it is emotional, of the heart. The idea of resurrection is an idea (an abstraction), but it is an idea about the physical body. If it is true, there is a physical element to it. And it produces the emotions of hope or pity. Paul's argument is that if the doctrine of the resurrection is not true, then those who believe it are the most pitiful people in the world. Why? Because resurrection is about the ultimate state of our being, and if we are deluded about that then we are ultimately deluded and beyond hope.