Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

Now if Christ be preached, that he arose again from the dead, how do some among you say, that there is no resurrection of the dead?

Now if Christ is preached that he is raised from among the dead, how say some among you that there is not a resurrection of those that are dead?

And if Christ is preached, that out of the dead he hath risen, how say certain among you, that there is no rising again of dead persons?

But if Christ is preached as having risen from the dead, how is it that some of you say that there is no such thing as a resurrection of the dead?

Now if the good news says that Christ came back from the dead, how do some of you say that there is no coming back from the dead?

Now if Christ is preached, that he rose again from the dead, how is it that some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

But of Christ. He now begins to prove the resurrection of all of us from that of Christ. For a mutual and reciprocal inference holds good on the one side and on the other, both affirmatively and negatively -- from Christ to us in this way: If Christ is risen, then we will rise -- If Christ is not risen, then we will not rise -- from us to Christ on the other hand: If we rise, then Christ is risen -- If we do not rise, then neither is Christ risen. The ground-work of the argument to be drawn from Christ to us in the former inference is this: "Christ did not die, or rise again for himself, but for us: hence his resurrection is the foundation. [1] of ours, and what was accomplished in him, must be fulfilled in us also." In the negative form, on the other hand, it is thus: "Otherwise he would have risen again needlessly and to no purpose, because the fruit of it is to be sought, not in his own person, but in his members." Observe the ground-work, on the other hand, of the former inference to be deduced from us to him; for the resurrection is not from nature, and comes from no other quarter than from Christ alone. For in Adam we die, and we recover life only in Christ; hence it follows that his resurrection is the foundation of ours, so that if that is taken away, it cannot stand [2] The ground-work of the negative inference has been already stated; for as he could not have risen again but on our account, his resurrection would be null and void, [3] if it were of no advantage to us.

Footnotes

1 - "La substance et le fondement de la nostre;" -- "The substance and foundation of ours."

2 - "Si ce fondement est oste, nostre resurrection ne pourra consister;" -- "If this foundation is taken away, our resurrection cannot possibly stand."

3 - Billroth, when quoting the above statement of Calvin, remarks, that "Calvin seems to have deceived himself with the double meaning of the words which he uses -- 'nulla ejus resurrectio foret;' -- these may mean either ejus resurrectio non est,' or ejus resurrectio non est vera resurrectio,' his resurrection is no real ressurection, and indeed only the latter suits his view of Paul's argument." It is justly observed, however, by Dr. Alexander, in his translation of Billroth, that Calvin may be considered to have "used the word nulla here in the sense of our null, void, useless," his assertion being to this effect -- that "if we rise not, then Christ's resurrection becomes null." See Biblical Cabinet, volume 23 -- Ed.

Now if Christ - Paul, having 1-Corinthians 15:1-11 stated the direct evidence for the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, proceeds here to demonstrate that the dead would rise, by showing how it followed from the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen, and by showing what consequences would follow from denying it. The whole argument is based on the fact that the Lord Jesus had risen. If that was admitted, he shows that it must follow that his people would also rise.
Be preached - The word "preached" here seems to include the idea of so preaching as to be believed; or so as to demonstrate that he did rise. If this was the doctrine on which the church was based, that the Lord Jesus rose from the dead, how could the resurrection of the dead be denied?
How say - How can any say; how can it be maintained?
Some among you - See the introduction to 1 Cor. 15. Who these were is unknown. They may have been some of the philosophic Greeks, who spurned the doctrine of the resurrection (see Acts 17:32); or they may have been some followers of Sadducean teachers; or it may be that the Gnostic philosophy had corrupted them. It is most probable, I think, that the denial of the resurrection was the result of reasoning after the manner of the Greeks, and the effect of the introduction of philosophy into the church. This has been the fruitful source of most of the errors which have been introduced into the church.
That there is no resurrection of the dead - That the dead cannot rise. How can it be held that there can be no resurrection, while yet it is admitted that Christ rose? The argument here is twofold:
(1) That Christ rose was one "instance" of a fact which demonstrated that there "had been" a resurrection, and of course that it was possible.
(2) that such was the connection between Christ and his people that the admission of this fact involved also the doctrine that all his people would also rise. This argument Paul states at length in the following verses. It was probably held by them that the resurrection was "impossible." To all this, Paul answers in accordance with the principles of inductive philosophy as now understood, by demonstrating A fact, and showing that such an event had occurred, and that consequently all the difficulties were met. Facts are unanswerable demonstrations; and when a fact is established, all the obstacles and difficulties in the way must be admitted to be overcome. So philosophers now reason; and Paul, in accordance with these just principles, labored simply to establish the fact that one had been raised, and thus met at once all the objections which could be urged against the doctrine. It would have been most in accordance with the philosophy of the Greeks to have gone into a metaphysical discussion to show that it was not impossible or absurd, and this might have been done. It was most in accordance with the principles of true philosophy, however, to establish the fact at once, and to argue from that, and thus to meet all the difficulties at once. The doctrine of the resurrection, therefore, does not rest on a metaphysical subtilty; it does not depend on human reasoning; it does not depend on analogy; it rests just as the sciences of astronomy, chemistry, anatomy, botany, and natural philosophy do, "on well ascertained facts;" and it is now a well understood principle of all true science that no difficulty, no obstacle, no metaphysical subtilty; no embarrassment about being able to see how it is, is to be allowed to destroy the conviction in the mind which the facts are suited to produce.

Now if Christ be preached, etc. - Seeing it is true that we have thus preached Christ, and ye have credited this preaching, how say some among you, who have professed to receive this doctrine from us; that there is no resurrection of the dead, though we have shown that his resurrection is the proof and pledge of ours? That there was some false teacher, or teachers, among them, who was endeavoring to incorporate Mosaic rites and ceremonies with the Christian doctrines, and even to blend Sadduceeism with the whole, appears pretty evident. To confute this mongrel Christian, and overturn his bad doctrine, the apostle writes this chapter.

(3) Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
(3) The first argument to prove that there is a resurrection from the dead: Christ is risen again, therefore the dead will rise again.

Now if Christ be preached that he arose from the dead,.... As he was by the Apostle Paul, when at Corinth, and by all the rest of the apostles elsewhere.
How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? Who these were is not certain, whether Hymenaeus and Philetus, whose notion this was, were come hither, or any of their disciples; or whether they were some of the followers of Simon Magus and Cerinthus, who denied the resurrection; or rather, whether they were not Jews, and of the sect of the Sadducees, who though they believed in Christ, retained their old principle, that there is no resurrection of the dead, cannot be affirmed: however, it is certain that they were such as were then at Corinth, and went under the Christian name; and it is highly probable were members of the church there; and who not only held this notion privately, but broached it publicly, saying, declaring, affirming, and that openly, before the whole church, what were their opinions and sentiments: it was indeed but some of them, not all that were chargeable with this bad principle, which the apostle asks how, and with what face they could assert, then it had been preached, and so fully proved to them, that Christ was risen from the dead; and if so, then it is out of question that there is a resurrection of the dead; for their notion, as it is here expressed, was not only that there would be no resurrection of the dead, but that there was none, nor had been any: though the apostle's view is also to prove the future resurrection of the dead, and which is done by proving the resurrection of Christ, for his resurrection involves that of his people; for not only the saints rose in, and with Christ, as their head representatively, and which is the sense of the prophecy in Hosea 6:2 but because he is their head, and they are members of him, therefore as sure as he the head is risen, so sure shall the members rise likewise; nor will Christ's resurrection, in a sense, be perfect, until all the members of his body are risen: for though the resurrection of Christ, personally considered, is perfect, yet not as mystically considered; nor will it till all the saints are raised, of whose resurrection Christ's is the exemplar and the pledge: their bodies will be raised and fashioned like unto Christ's, and by virtue of union to him, and as sure as he is risen, for he is the firstfruits of them that slept. Besides, as he became incarnate, obeyed, suffered, not for himself, but for his people, so he rose again on their account, and that they dying might rise also; which if they should not, one end at least of Christ's resurrection would not be answered: add to this, that the same power that raised Christ from the dead, can raise others, even all the saints; so that if it is allowed that Christ is raised, it need not be thought incredible that all the dead shall be raised; and particularly when it is observed, that Christ is the efficient, procuring, and meritorious cause of the resurrection from the dead, as well as the pattern and earnest of it.

Having shown that Christ was risen, the apostle answers those who said there would be no resurrection. There had been no justification, or salvation, if Christ had not risen. And must not faith in Christ be vain, and of no use, if he is still among the dead? The proof of the resurrection of the body is the resurrection of our Lord. Even those who died in the faith, had perished in their sins, if Christ had not risen. All who believe in Christ, have hope in him, as a Redeemer; hope for redemption and salvation by him; but if there is no resurrection, or future recompence, their hope in him can only be as to this life. And they must be in a worse condition than the rest of mankind, especially at the time, and under the circumstances, in which the apostles wrote; for then Christians were hated and persecuted by all men. But it is not so; they, of all men, enjoy solid comforts amidst all their difficulties and trials, even in the times of the sharpest persecution.

if--Seeing that it is an admitted fact that Christ is announced by us eye-witnesses as having risen from the dead, how is it that some of you deny that which is a necessary consequence of Christ's resurrection, namely, the general resurrection?
some--Gentile reasoners (Acts 17:32; Acts 26:8) who would not believe it because they did not see "how" it could be (1-Corinthians 15:35-36).

How say some . . that there is no resurrection of the dead. These seemed to admit that Christ was raised, but denied the resurrection of others. He now shows that if Christ be raised the general resurrection must follow as a result.
If there be . . then is Christ not risen. If persons once dying cannot be raised, as these false teachers say, then Christ could not have risen.
Then is our preaching vain. For in that case we have preached what is false, and you have believed it, so that your faith is vain.
We are found false witnesses of God. In that case we have declared that God did what he never did do.
If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain. In that case he is not the Savior. He is a dead man, who could not even save himself. Such a one has no power to pardon sins, and ye are yet in your sins.
Then they which are fallen asleep, etc. All the Christians who had died had fallen into eternal sleep. There is hope, in that case, only in this life; no hope of immortality.
If in this life, only, we have hope in Christ. If there is no life beyond, no hope of it, then Christians who deny themselves in this life and endure persecutions and sufferings for the sake of eternal life, are of all men the most miserable. They "lose life" and gain no eternal life. Such are the consequences of this false belief.

How say some - Who probably had been heathen philosophers.