1 Corinthians 15:3-4

The context

First Corinthians 15 answers a claim circulating at Corinth: that there is no resurrection of the dead (15:12). Paul's argument runs backward from that denial to its consequences for Christ, then forward from Christ's resurrection to the general one. Verses 3–8 are the foundation of the chapter, and Paul introduces them with the language of transmission rather than invention.

The clauses are compact and symmetrical — died, buried, raised, appeared — with two "according to the Scriptures" phrases bracketing them. Afterward Paul names himself the last and least of the witnesses (15:8–9).

The words

Paredōka and parelabete, "I delivered" and "you received," are the standard pair for handing on tradition, in rabbinic teaching and Greek schools alike. Paul places himself as a link in a chain running back before him, not as its origin.

Hyper tōn hamartiōn hēmōn, "for our sins," uses a preposition broad enough to carry representation, advantage or exchange. It asserts that the death concerned sins and benefited others; it does not by itself specify the mechanism. Atonement theories are built from the wider New Testament, not from this preposition.

Kata tas graphas, "according to the Scriptures," appears twice, and Paul does not say which texts he means. Psalm 16 and Isaiah 53 are the usual candidates in later Christian reading, but the identification is inference.

Etaphē, "he was buried," is a plain aorist passive. Its function is to anchor the death as a real death and locate it at a tomb.

What this passage establishes

That the earliest Christian proclamation was already a fixed formula: a death for sins, a burial, a raising on the third day, all read as fulfillment of Israel's Scriptures — and that Paul received it rather than composed it. Cross and empty tomb are not later embellishments on a vaguer faith.

What it does not establish

It does not define the atonement. "For our sins" states the connection, not the transaction. Penal substitution, Christus Victor and satisfaction readings all claim this line, and the line does not adjudicate between them.

It does not identify the Scriptures invoked. Asserting fulfillment is not demonstrating it. The specific texts must be argued for, and the New Testament does so elsewhere and variously.

It does not date itself. That the formula predates Paul is a judgment about style and about Paul's own wording, not a date the text supplies.

How the church has read it

The creeds inherit the sequence: died, buried, rose again the third day according to the Scriptures. Because the passage reads as a quotation, it has been central to discussions of how early resurrection faith formed, a point conceded by sceptical and confessional scholars alike. The burial clause has been made to carry more than a single aorist can bear.

First pass, written October 2026. Corrections welcome.

Cited in these answers

• What does it mean to be a Christian? There are over 30,000 different groups, all of which answer this question differently. If agreement cannot be found on THIS issue, can the claims of Christians be taken seriously?
• Atheism is the DEFAULT position. The burden of proof is on the Christian asserting God exists. All we're asking is to see the convincing empirical EVIDENCE.
• Did Jesus really claim to be God, or did His followers just say that about Him? Might not Dan Brown have been on to something?
• It should be called Paulianity – for centuries Christians have presented the ideas of Paul as the teachings of Jesus, and that’s a mistake. It was all Paul’s INTERPRETATION. Check the data.
• It’s irrational to believe that people rise from the dead. Even if it is possible, shouldn’t it always be judged improbable since it has happened so few times…even according to Christians?
• Reasons why I don’t believe? Well, to start with, the Jesus Resurrection accounts in the Bible contradict one another. Need I go on?
• The New Testament was written hundreds of years after Jesus, so it can't be historically credible.
• On what basis do Christians accept miracle-stories in the New Testament while rejecting those of other religions?
• With no original texts and 400,000 contradictions in the COPIES of the New Testament, the bible is unstrustworthy. Read Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'.
• How can religious claims be meaningful if they are not empirically falsifiable?
• The existence of so many Christian denominations indicates the Bible is inherently unclear. If truly God's revelation, could we not expect Him to reveal Himself clearly?
• People make up fantastic, epic, 'harmonious' stories all of the time. Lord of the Rings comes to mind. Perhaps Gandalf is the true Messiah! Read the Bible if you want - I prefer non-fiction.
• The Bible is a collection of fairytales written by illiterate goat herders back in the Bronze Age. The Catholic Church cherry picked which fables to include to mind control non-thinking tithers.

Part of Scripture, Opened — the exegetical layer behind every citation on this site. Scripture quotations are from the ESV.