I don’t often cite James Dunn, but I thought that his observations about the broader context leading up to this reference in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians to be very insightful. He writes,
This is, in fact, the most striking feature of the passage. It is the most sustained theological section in the whole letter—almost as though Paul had decided that before he closed the letter he would move on from the seemingly endless practical issues to a major theological discourse. Particularly striking is the care Paul takes in introducing and building up to the actual theme of the chapter, by at once, without other reference, recalling his audience to the gospel he had first preached and its authentication. Evidently it was not a matter pressed upon him by the Corinthians themselves, but in a report brought to him verbally (15:12) he saw an opportunity to develop an important aspect of his gospel, perhaps more thoroughly than he had had occasion to do before.
The passage does, however, fit more coherently into the ongoing argument and concern of 1 Corinthians than is usually recognized. For in this final section Paul, as it were, turns away from the interface between the Corinthian church and the secular community in which it was situated, and away also from the internal factionalism of the church as such, and focuses rather on the church’s interface with heaven. This dimension of the Corinthians’ existence had in effect been a subplot all along: the contrast between the wisdom of the world and the wisdom of God, the wisdom of rhetoric and the persuasive power of the Spirit, the hidden mysteries decreed before the ages (chs. 1–2); the promised day of judgment, talk of life or death, things present or things to come (ch. 3); the Lord’s coming in apocalyptic disclosure, and the apostles as the last act on the stage of history—a spectacle to angels (ch. 4); believers judging angels, inheriting the kingdom and their bodies promised resurrection as temples of the Holy Spirit (ch. 6); the form of the world passing away (7:31); and so on. Particularly noticeable has been the frequent allusion to hostile powers: the rulers of this age (2:8), Satan as a power to be feared (5:5; 7:5), many gods and many lords (8:5), demons (10:20–21), potentially threatening angels (11:10) and potentially deceptive spirits (12:10; 14:12).
James D. G. Dunn, 1 Corinthians (London; New York: T&T Clark, 1999), 84–85.
Also, in keeping with the theme of the last several weeks, herein lies another reference to Psalm 110 that is also hotly debated, or it is located in a passage that is hotly debated. I have talked about the essential differences between the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic and the Grammatical-Historical Hermeneutic on other blog posts. Oftentimes, we tend to pit the New Testament against the Old Testament. But if we really interpreted the New Testament in a more direct, word-for-word way, and less of a theological way based on our framework, then we would observe about verses 20-28, the following…
Here Paul gives a timeline of the “order” of the resurrection by pointing out three events and their relation to the kingdom. First, he says that Christ is “the first fruits” (v. 23a). This is a reference to the bodily resurrection of Christ. Christ’s resurrection is the pattern and the guarantee that the resurrection of others will occur.
Second, “after that” there is a resurrection of “those who are Christ’s at His coming” (v. 23b). This second stage is future from Paul’s standpoint, who is writing in the 50s about twenty years after the resurrection of Jesus. When Jesus returns, those who belong to Him will be resurrected. From our standpoint in history, at least two-thousand years separates the first and second phases of the resurrection program.
Third, Paul states, “Then comes the end,” when Jesus “hands over the kingdom to the God the Father” (24a). This period of “the end” is another stage, a third phase in the resurrection program.
To summarize, there are three stages of the resurrection according to 1 Cor 15:23–24a: 1. “Christ the first fruits” 2. “after that those who are Christ’s at His coming” 3. “then comes the end . . . .” While there is not much debate concerning the first two stages, there is considerable disagreement concerning the “end” and whether this is a third stage of the resurrection order or not. Those who hold a premillennial view believe Paul’s words (“then comes the end”) indicate a significant period of time between events 2 and 3. So an era exists between the resurrection of those at Christ’s coming and the “end” when Jesus hands the kingdom over to God the Father.
The “end” does not occur immediately after Jesus returns but occurs after the millennial kingdom reign of Jesus, the millennium that is discussed in Rev 20:1–6. As Craig Blaising argues, “Christ’s coming marks the second stage, not the third (in which the end occurs).”[74] On the other hand, those who do not agree with an intermediate kingdom of Christ after His second coming assert that “the end” follows immediately after Jesus’ coming. For them, “the end” occurs as a result of the second coming of Christ. There is no third stage of the resurrection program and no room for an intermediate kingdom or millennium after Jesus’ return. When Jesus returns and His people are resurrected the end comes at that time and the Eternal State begins.
Dr. Micheal Vlach – Premillennialism (Theological Studies Press, 2017)
Paul’s use of the word “tagma” in this passage, which is translated “order,” indicates that there is a progression in mind. It certainly makes it palatable that the same time gap is likely throughout. This leaves room for Rev 20:1–6. Vlach writes, “The word [tagma] originally referred to order within a military context such as an order of troops. While an “order” of events could apply to only two resurrections, more than two is likely.”
For one thing a considerable amount of time exists between the first and second stages. Hence it is not far from the realm of possibility that such a gap could exists between the second and third stages as well. Vlach also writes,
A third reason involves Paul’s use of the words epeita and eita, which are related to “after that” and “then.” Before looking at the details of this argument, the main point we are making is this—Paul’s use of epeita and eita in 1 Corinthians 15 is best understood as teaching an interval of time between the second coming of Jesus and “the end” when Jesus hands the kingdom over to the Father. This allows for a millennial reign of Jesus. With 1 Cor 15:23 Paul refers to Christ as the “firstfruits” of the resurrection and then uses the temporal adverb epeita (“afterward”) to then discuss the resurrection of those who belong to Christ at His coming. Then, in what D. Edmond Hiebert has referred to as “the crux of the millennial issue,”[76] Paul begins verse 24 with the indefinite phrase, eita to telos (“then comes the end”). The temporal adverb eita “likely implies an interval time between the coming of Christ and the end.”[77]
Matthew Waymeyer, in his study of the term eita, points out that this term often is used in contexts where an interval of time follows this term: Outside 1 Corinthians 15:24, the adverb is used 14 times in the New Testament, 13 of which introduce something that occurs next in a sequence of events. Of these 13 temporal uses of ___, five introduce an event that happens immediately after the previous event (Mark 8:25; Luke 8:12; John 13:5; 19:27; 20:27); six introduce an event that occurs after an interval of time between the two events (Mark 4:17; 4:28 [2x]; 1 Cor 15:5, 7; 1 Tim 2:13); and once there may or may not be an intervening gap of time in view (1 Tim 3:10).[78] This leads Waymeyer to conclude that eita “is often used to denote events separated by an interval of time, this in fact being Paul’s most common use of the temporal adverb.”[79] So from a grammatical standpoint it is significant that eita often refers to an interval between two events. Just as there is a considerable time gap between Christ’s resurrection and the resurrection of those who belong to Jesus (events 1 and 2), there could be a time gap between the resurrection of the people of God and the end when Jesus hands the kingdom over to the Father (events 2 and 3).
This understanding is also supported by a similar epeita . . . eita formula earlier in the chapter. In 1 Cor 15:5–8 Paul lays out a chronological order of events concerning Jesus’ resurrection appearances. After stating that Jesus was raised on the third day (v. 4) he says, and that He appeared to Cephas, then [eita] to the twelve. After that [epeita] He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then [epeita] He appeared to James, then [eita] to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
No doubt exists that Paul is offering a chronological progression of resurrection appearances,[80] and he uses epeita and eita to reveal a progression of appearances. Verse 7 is particularly significant since, like 1 Cor 15:23b–24a, this verse also offers the epeita . . . eita formula and shows chronological progression with a time gap. Jesus appeared to James and then appeared to all the apostles.
Dr. Micheal Vlach – Premillennialism (Theological Studies Press, 2017)
I looked up what Thomas Schreiner wrote in his commentary to counterbalance Vlach, and he did not see an interval of time before the second and third stage of the resurrections in this passage. But he did not seem to suggest this based on the word study that Vlach conducted above. He did however cite Prov. 7:13 and Luke 8:12 where the word “eita” is used, as these passages do not suggest a time interval.1
It is critical that we research and find other viewpoints on key passages for these things. I have not even scratched the surface of commentaries and resources on this subject. For now, I do believe that 1 Corinthians 15 harmonizes with the premillennial view very well. I have a lot of research to do, but so far Vlach’s viewpoint seems to be well supported.
- Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. Eckhard J. Schnabel, vol. 7, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 2018), 313. ↩︎
Leave a Reply