C. The consequences of Christ’s resurrection (15:20–28)
C. The consequences of Christ’s resurrection (15:20–28)
From the hypothetical statements of the previous paragraph (with its seven ifs) Paul turns to certainties: the certainty of Christ’s resurrection and of its consequences. He shows that Christ’s resurrection implies that of believers, and goes on to enumerate the due order of events at the last time. All things will be subdued to Christ; even death will be destroyed. With a few bold strokes he paints an unforgettable picture of God’s final, complete supremacy. In the end, that is what matters.
20. ‘But it is not so! Christ did rise from the dead’ (Moffatt). But is adversative; far from Christians being the most to be pitied among men, the fact of the resurrection alters the whole situation. Paul states this fact with simplicity and assurance. Clearly he has no doubts at all. He uses the perfect tense has been raised (see on v. 4) with full meaning. Not only did Christ rise on a certain day in history, but he continues permanently in his character as the risen Lord. The firstfruits point us to the first sheaf of the harvest, which was brought to the temple and offered to God (Lev. 23:10f.); it consecrated the whole harvest. Moreover, firstfruits imply later fruits. Both thoughts are to the point here. Christ was not the first to rise from the dead. Indeed, he had himself raised some. But they would die in due course. His resurrection was to a life that knows no death, and in that sense he was the first and the forerunner of all those who were to be in him; ‘the resurrection of Christ is a pledge and proof of the resurrection of his people’ (Hodge). Those who have fallen asleep is a perfect participle denoting the continuing state of the faithful departed (for death as sleep see note on v. 18).
21. The thought that Christ is the second Adam, which underlies this paragraph, is more fully developed in Romans 5. Death came through a man refers to the penalty pronounced on the first sin (Gen. 2:17). This meant more than physical death, but it included it. ‘When man sinned he passed into a new state, one dominated by, and at the same time symbolized by death. It is likely that spiritual death and physical death are not being thought of as separate, so that the one involves the other’ (Leon Morris, The Wages of Sin [Tyndale Press, 1955], p. 12). Adam’s sin brought disaster not only on himself, but also on all his posterity. But if Adam’s sin had far-reaching consequences, so had Christ’s resurrection. It concerned not himself only, but those also who should believe in him. Just as death came into the world through Adam, so life came into the world through Christ. Paul’s repeated through a man points to the reality of the incarnation. Christ was as truly a man as was Adam. It was fitting that, as it was through a man that the corruption entered the race, so it should be through a man that it was overcome.
22. The thought is further developed. In Adam all die points us to the mortality of the race because of our kinship with our first parents. But it points beyond that to the spiritual evil of which physical death is at once the symbol and the penalty. We are involved with Adam in a solidarity of guilt. There is a sense in which the race is one. But just as Adam’s sin brought untold consequences of evil, so Christ’s work brought untold consequences of good. But the all who are in Adam are not identical with the all who are in Christ. ‘Each of the two Adams acts as the head of a humanity—the old and the new’ (Héring), and not all people, of course, belong to the new. This verse gives no countenance to universalism. Paul is saying that in Adam all that are to die, die, while in Christ all who are to live, live. Be made alive refers to more than resurrection as such. It includes the thought of the abundant life that Christ brings to all who are ‘in’ him.
23. This giving of life does not take place all at once. Tagma, which NIV translates as turn, was originally a military term, referring to a detachment of soldiers, though it came to be used more generally. In the first tagma there is only Christ, the firstfruits (it is unusual to have only one in a tagma and Barrett suggests the meaning ‘rank’). In the second are those who belong to him, or more exactly ‘those who are Christ’s’. When he comes (‘at his coming’) makes it plain that Paul is referring to the second advent. He uses the word parousia, which basically means ‘coming’ or ‘presence’ (as in 16:17), and which came to be used among Christians as the technical term for the Lord’s return. The examples cited by Deissmann (LAE, pp. 368–373) make it clear that the word was in common use for a royal visit. Christians used it for the coming of the supremely royal One.
24. Then (eita) does not necessarily mean ‘immediately after’. It indicates that what follows takes place at some unspecified time after the preceding. There are some (e.g. Deluz) who hold that the end points to a third tagma or ‘order’. The first was Christ, the second (‘at his coming’) the redeemed, and now we have a third, the unbelievers. This is an unlikely meaning. The word for end is telos, which never means a group of people (as a third tagma would require). Héring is ‘unable to find a single text, sacred or secular, in which telos has this sense’. It means the end or aim, and there is a sense of purpose about it. It points to the consummation of all things, the climax to which everything is destined to lead up. In any case, throughout this whole chapter the discussion is concerned with believers and Paul does not deal at all with the fate of the wicked. He speaks of two ‘orders’ only, Christ and believers; then he moves on to the final phase, and says nothing about the lot of unbelievers. When is the indefinite hotan; the time is not known. There is a dynamic meaning to the Greek basileia (kingdom); it is ‘rule’ rather than ‘realm’. Paul’s thought is that Christ will at the last exercise full and complete authority over all things and all people; he will reign in majesty (cf. 2 Thess. 1:7ff.). Then he will ‘deliver up’ this authority, this rule, to his Father. All that opposes God will be subdued. So Paul speaks of Christ as destroying all dominion, authority and power. These three words are probably not meant to define with precision different kinds of authority. Rather they together emphasize that in that day there will be no governing power of any kind that will not be completely subservient to Christ. Destroyed (katargeō; see note on 1:28) basically means ‘render null and void’, ‘make inoperative’, and this is much in point here. Paul does not speak of battles, or of rulers being dethroned. But he does speak of all rule, other than that of Christ, as being rendered completely inoperative. Although this is mentioned after the delivering up of the kingdom it takes place before it (as the change of tense in the Greek shows).
25. There is a compelling divine necessity about Paul’s must. He is speaking about what God has determined and therefore there is no shadow of doubt about it. No matter how strong the powers of earth and hell may seem, no matter how much the Christian may fear that the wicked will triumph, at the climax of history it is Christ and none other who reigns and must reign. This reign is a career of conquest, as all the enemies are put under his feet (cf. Ps. 110:1). These enemies are not named, with the exception of ‘death’ in v. 26. But this exception perhaps indicates that the enemies Paul has in mind are evil forces rather than evil people.
26. Strictly it is death (which has the definite article) that is the subject and last enemy (which lacks it) the predicate: ‘Death will be destroyed as last enemy.’ There is some emphasis on death as our enemy, and last enemy at that. Destroyed is katargeō again, as in v. 24 (where see note). The tense is present, and the use of this tense for future action strikes a note of vividness and certainty. Death will be robbed of all its power. Lenski sees death as dependent on Satan, sin, etc.; when then all of these have been dealt with, death as the last enemy will also disappear. In v. 12 ‘some’ said, ‘There is no resurrection’, but Paul replies, ‘There will be no death’ (cf. Findlay).
27. Some think that he means Christ, but there seems rather to be a clear reference to the Father (cf. RSV). The opening words are very similar to those of Psalm 8:6. There they refer to the dominion God has given to mankind, the summit of creation. Here they apply to Christ only, and they are more far-reaching, for, as the context shows, they include everything except the Father himself; ‘all things’ is emphatic. There is an interesting change of tense. He has put is aorist, pointing us to the single, once-for-all act of subjection. But has been put under him is perfect; it includes the thought of the permanent state of subjection. Who put is aorist again, pointing to the same action as that of the first verb. Paul’s point, then, is that God the Father has given to the Son unlimited sovereignty over all creation. This, of course, does not involve any infringement on the Father’s own sovereignty. For Paul this is clear (dēlon).
28. The connection of thought with the previous verse is somewhat obscured in NIV, for When he has done this and will be made subject both render the verb that was three times translated ‘put under’ in v. 27 (and is translated the same way later in this verse). Paul hammers home his point by using the same verb six times in two verses. The climax of this process of ‘putting under’ comes when the Son (the one occurrence of this designation of Jesus in Paul) is ‘put under’ the Father. This presents a difficulty, for it appears to some that one member of the Trinity is seen as inferior to another. But we must bear in mind that Paul is not speaking of the essential nature of either the Son or the Father. He is speaking of the work that Christ has accomplished and will accomplish. He has died for us and has risen. He will return and will subdue all the enemies of God. The climax of this whole work will come when he renders up the kingdom to him who is the source of all. In that he became man for the accomplishment of that work, he took upon him a certain subjection that is necessarily impressed on that work right up to and including its consummation. The purpose of this (hina) is that God may be all in all (he says ‘God’, not ‘the Father’; it is all that ‘God’ means). This is a strong expression for the complete supremacy that will then so obviously be his. Calvin says, ‘all things will be brought back to God, as their alone beginning and end, that they may be closely bound to him.’