1 Corinthians 15:3–5 is routinely treated as a standalone assurance formula—detached from its context and pressed into service as a proof-text for later atonement theories. That approach does violence to both Paul’s argument and the letter as a whole.
So let’s put the passage back where Paul actually put it.
The Text (briefly)
“…that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared…”
This is not a self-contained “gospel summary.”
It is a mid-argument reminder.
Where It Sits in the Letter and why this matters
1 Corinthians is corrective from beginning to end. Paul addresses a church that:
• confuses slogans with wisdom (chs. 1–4),
• tolerates moral disorder (chs. 5–6),
• turns freedom into entitlement (chs. 8–10),
• treats worship as performance and status display (chs. 11–14),
• and finally—chapter 15—cannot agree on resurrection.
When Paul opens chapter 15, he is not evangelizing outsiders.
He is re-grounding baptized believers who are drifting from the apostolic framework they received.
What 15:3–5 Actually Is
1. A received tradition, not a new revelation
“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received…”
Paul appeals to communal apostolic memory, not private insight.
This directly challenges Corinthian individualism and spiritual one-upmanship.
In plain terms:
Christianity was not invented by Corinth. It was inherited.
2. A foundation, not the whole house
Notice what Paul does not say:
• He does not say this is everything that matters.
• He does not say belief here ends formation.
• He does not say obedience, endurance, or fidelity are now irrelevant.
Instead, verses 1–2 frame the entire chapter:
“…by which you are being saved, if you hold fast…”
Salvation here is ongoing participation, not a completed transaction.
This is covenantal language, not contractual closure.
3. A resurrection argument, not an atonement treatise
Paul’s stated problem:
“How can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?” (15:12)
So he begins with verifiable realities:
• death
• burial
• resurrection
• eyewitness testimony
Why? Because if Christ was not raised:
• preaching collapses,
• faith collapses,
• apostolic witness collapses,
• sin remains undefeated,
• and the dead are lost (15:14–19).
The passage is about bodily resurrection and future hope, not about post-mortem relocation to heaven—a concept Paul never raises here.
How This Fits the Whole Letter
Zooming out:
• Chapters 1–4 → wisdom misunderstood
• Chapters 5–6 → holiness misunderstood
• Chapters 8–10 → freedom misunderstood
• Chapters 11–14 → the Spirit misunderstood
• Chapter 15 → the end misunderstood
Paul’s implicit conclusion is simple:
Detach resurrection from Christian life, and the entire structure collapses.
Resurrection is not a footnote.
It is the load-bearing reality.
The Quiet Correction to Modern Readings
Modern theology often treats 15:3–5 as:
“Here is the minimum information required to be saved.”
Paul treats it as:
“Here is the shared reality you must remain aligned with, or your faith becomes hollow.”
One model is transactional.
The other is covenantal.
Only one fits a first-century Jewish apostle.
Does This Teach Penal Substitution?
No. It does not.
This is not a denial that Christ’s death deals decisively with sin; it is a refusal to smuggle a later explanatory model into a text that is not explaining mechanism at all.
It is frequently recruited to do so—but only by importing assumptions foreign to the text.
The Claim
“Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures”
→ therefore God legally punished Jesus instead of us.
That conclusion is tidy.
It is also anachronistic.
What “according to the Scriptures” actually means
Paul says κατὰ τὰς γραφάς—in continuity with Israel’s story.
He does not say:
• according to a penal justice system,
• according to retributive necessity,
• according to substitutionary mechanics.
The phrase signals narrative fulfillment, not explanatory mechanism.
Paul is pointing backward to patterns, not forward to a theory.
What Scriptures Paul likely has in mind
The servant:
• suffers faithfully,
• bears the consequences of Israel’s sin,
• and is vindicated by God.
Isaiah never claims:
• God vents wrath onto the servant,
• justice requires punishment transfer,
• forgiveness is impossible without penal exchange.
This is representative suffering, not penal transaction.
The servant suffers because of Israel’s sin and on Israel’s behalf—but the text never depicts God transferring punitive guilt onto him.
Psalms (especially Psalm 22)
The righteous sufferer is:
• afflicted,
• abandoned,
• ultimately delivered.
The psalm ends in vindication—not satisfied wrath.
God forgives without punishment—repeatedly.
Hosea’s pattern:
covenant betrayal → mercy → restoration
Jonah’s complaint:
“I knew You would forgive them.”
No penal necessity. No substitute required.
What Paul Is Actually Doing in 1 Corinthians 15
Context governs interpretation.
Paul is not explaining how atonement works.
He is reaffirming what reality the Corinthians were baptized into.
The sequence is historical and creedal:
1. Christ died
2. Christ was buried
3. Christ was raised
4. Christ appeared
If Paul intended to teach Penal Substitution here, the passage is inexplicably deficient:
• no wrath language,
• no legal framework,
• no justice calculus,
• no substitution terminology (ἀντί, λύτρον, etc.).
The Sleight of Hand
The interpretive move usually looks like this:
1. Begin with a later Western legal theory
2. Read it backward into “for our sins”
3. Treat “according to the Scriptures” as shorthand for my system
That is not exegesis.
It is theological ventriloquism.
What “for our sins” means in a Jewish frame
It means:
• because of human sinfulness,
• in response to covenant failure,
• within God’s redemptive dealing with Israel,
• culminating in the defeat of death and restoration of creation.
Sin is the enslaving power addressed, not a legal account requiring satisfaction.
1 Corinthians 15:3–5 presupposes Israel’s story of faithful suffering and divine vindication. Penal Substitution is neither stated, explained, nor required by the text—it is imported.
For Paul, resurrection is not merely what happened to Jesus—it is the future that governs how the church lives now.
Restoring Apostolic Faith 
Leave a comment