(avg. read time: 5–9 mins.)
Over the previous four parts, especially Part 4, we have noted how the hope for resurrection makes the sense that it does in light of the cosmic-scale hope Paul articulates in terms of the kingdom of God and new creation. Resurrection is part of one much larger cosmic picture in which creation as a whole will experience God’s loving, salvific, new life-giving action. Paul indicates this in several ways in 1 Cor 15, which I have explored more fully in my dissertation. But the points at which it comes forward more fully are in the Adam-Christ contrasts in vv. 20–23 and 44b–49, as well as the description of Christ implementing his Father’s kingdom in vv. 24–28.
I have already noted the Adam-Christ contrast at some length throughout this series. I have also already noted the parallels in the contrasts of vv. 42–50 and how they have cosmological links with creation and new creation (as established in the principles Paul lays out in vv. 36–41). Thus, I will only provide a summary of points here. One, the reference to the story of Adam in general evokes Genesis and its origin story of the current world order. Two, the reference to Adam as the progenitor in parallel to Christ relies on the role of Adam as one of the original humans made in the image of God (Gen 1:26–27). Three, the “image” language itself appears in v. 49, although there it more directly relies on Gen 5:1–3 with reference to wearing the images of Adam and Christ respectively. Four, the reference to Adam bringing death to the world relies on the story of Gen 3 with Adam’s disobedience and the consequent death sentence placed upon him and his descendants who follow in his footsteps. The combination of these elements is important to Paul’s argument as his contrast between Adam and Christ is one between the image-bearer of God who fell and brought death to the world (vv. 21–22, 54–56) and the image-bearer of God who arose and brought life to the world (vv. 20–23, 45, 54–57). Five, this contrast establishes a later one relying on Gen 2:7 in v. 45, in which the original Adam is a life-receiving being, while the Last Adam is life-giving, one who communicates his resurrection life to others. Six, vv. 39–41 evoke the taxonomies of creatures (in reverse order, as presented in Ps 8) and heavenly bodies (in Gen 1 order) as Paul lays the foundation for how the dead are raised by appealing to God’s creative power, will, and wisdom (cf. Gen 1:14–28; Deut 4:16–19; Job 12:7–8; Pss 8:3–8; 148; Ezek 29:5; 38:20; Hos 4:3).
Next, we must briefly consider the links of resurrection with kingdom and new creation in vv. 24–28. Beyond the Adam-Christ contrast, Paul relates resurrection to the kingdom by reference to Christ’s post-resurrection reign (v. 25), the kingdom he reigns over and will hand over to God (vv. 24, 28), and—most frequently—Christ’s and/or God’s action of subjugation by using the language of καταργέω (twice in vv. 24, 26) and ὑποτάσσω (six times in vv. 27 [3x], 28 [3x]). The reign of Christ is of course implied by the traditional gospel proclamation, in which Christ dies, is resurrected, and is then exalted to the right hand of God. There does not seem to be any grounds for delaying this reign to some future time before the new creation and the allusion to Ps 110 makes sense as a description of Christ’s reign if he reigns while still in the midst of rebellious enemies. Christ’s own resurrection entailed his reign in the present time in a similar way to how the general resurrection will entail the consummate kingdom of God (vv. 26–28).
Although the uses of Pss 110 and 8 are separated here by v. 26, it seems best to consider them together here. After all, Paul’s use of Ps 8:6b (8:7b LXX) in v. 27 with some grammatical modifications—πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ in the LXX vs. πάντα ... ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ in v. 27—in connection with Ps 110:1b (109:1b LXX) in v. 25 with other grammatical modifications—ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου in the LXX vs. ἄχρι οὗ θῇ ... τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ in v. 25—fits the tendency to collocate these texts in the NT (Eph 1:20–23; Heb 1:3, 13; 2:6–9; and 1 Pet 3:21b–22).
Although Ps 8 is concerned more with protology and Ps 110 with kingdom theology and eschatology (as Christians have tied it to the reign of Christ: Matt 22:43–45 // Mark 12:35–37 // Luke 20:41–44; Matt 26:64 // Mark 14:62 // Luke 22:69; Mark 16:19; Acts 2:33–36; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20–22; Col 3:1; Heb 8:1; 10:12–13; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22; cf. Acts 5:31; 7:55–56), these texts are linked through the common theme of the subject’s rule, which is illustrated through the common imagery of the ruled being under the subject’s feet. Likewise, the former text presents an implicit eschatology through an idealized picture of human function in creation that one can hope becomes actualized again. The figure in Ps 110 is an ideal priestly ruler taking the place of the ideal human in Ps 8, except that the former context indicates clear hostility that is absent from the latter text. This connection receives further support from the explanation of the “image” concept in Ps 8 in terms of rule, as in Gen 1:26–30 (a text with which it has many other links), meaning that the ideal ruler is also the ideal image-bearer. These collocated texts thus became useful for describing the current role and rule of Christ as one who fulfills the position of Adam (indeed, the essential human position) as the image-bearer of God, being the priestly king who rules over creation in the midst of continuing hostility.
How, then, do these texts relate to resurrection in Paul’s argument? First, as implied by the typical gospel proclamation throughout the NT, including here in vv. 20–28, the current state in which these psalms are being fulfilled is one that is the direct result of the resurrection, since resurrection leads to exaltation. Indeed, the logical flow of this text follows the gospel progression, in which Jesus’s resurrection defeats death and precedes exaltation (Matt 28:16–18; Acts 1:3–11; 2:31–36; 5:28–32; 7:55–56; 13:30–39; 17:31–32; Rom 1:1–4; 8:34; Eph 1:17–23; Phil 3:18–21; Col 1:18–20; 2:11–15; Heb 2:5–12; 7:23–27; 12:2; 1 Pet 1:18–21; 3:18–22; Rev 1:5; 3:21; 5:5–12; 17:14; cf. Rev 20:4–6; 22:3–5), though now it is also the general resurrection that precedes the consummate kingdom. Second, these particular scriptures also serve to establish the cosmic context of the kingdom of God and new creation. Only in this cosmic context does resurrection make the sense that it does and only by means of resurrection can Paul imagine people participating in this hoped-for reality. The resurrection of Jesus will be writ large on a cosmic scale in the form of new creation. If believers participate in this gospel story and they believe that the goal of it is the kingdom of God and new creation, they must also believe that their resurrection is necessary to God’s larger cosmic project and to their inheritance of it. Third, the subjection of enemies in Paul’s argument ultimately happens by resurrection, since the last enemy to be subjected—namely, through being destroyed by the divestment of its power—is death. Only when all enemies are thus subjected will the Scriptures be consummately fulfilled, meaning that not only is Jesus’s resurrection necessary for their fulfillment, but the believers’ resurrection is also necessary.
The goal to which the whole argument builds is that with the conquest of death in resurrection God will become all in all (v. 28). Interpreters have debated the meaning of this phrase, but I think the majority have properly recognized the point. In the context of a passage where Paul has been speaking about the kingdom, and about the Son handing over the kingdom immediately prior to this statement, the phrase most likely refers to God’s universal kingship in the eschatological kingdom (cf. Zech 14:9).
As the logic of vv. 23–28 makes clear, the goal of resurrection is the eschatological kingdom of God, in which God will be all in all. What Paul has stated about God’s universal kingship in relation to resurrection reflects other Pauline statements about kingdom/kingship and resurrection (Eph 1:7–14; Phil 3:19–21; Col 1:15–20), as well as resurrection and new creation (Rom 8:9–25; 2 Cor 5:17–21). It is also similar to the influential kingdom expectation of Dan 7, which describes a representative of God’s people receiving the kingdom of God. The major difference in Paul—besides the explicit influence of resurrection on this picture—is that the inaugurated eschatology of Paul’s framework requires another step in this process, where the representative is now the agent of God’s subjugation of enemies and is one who will subject himself to God in contrast to the rebellious ones. The consummation of God’s kingdom will only be made possible when the executor of God’s will in heaven and on earth unifies creation in accordance with God’s will and nullifies all opposition to that will. A cosmos in which God is all in all can only come to be when God’s image-bearers are conformed to Christ rather than to Adam, to the death-conquering life that is of God rather than to the death that separates from God. Only then can the grand narrative be brought full circle and God’s creation fulfill God’s creative will of a world of proper order with God as Lord and the image-bearers as true, subjected image-bearers at one with God’s will in representing him.
The same teachings are implied in the logical link of sin and death, as well as the defeat of the same. There is no victory over sin if there is no victory over death (vv. 3–4, 12–19, 50–57). If death, alongside sin (vv. 16–17, 56–57), is an enemy opposing the purpose of God regarding God’s people and God’s creation, then God’s inexorable, faithful love dictates that God will defeat death with resurrection. If death is the last enemy destroyed, then the general resurrection brings in the unopposed reign of God, much as Jesus’s resurrection inaugurated the eschatological kingdom of God. After all, like the kingdom promises, the resurrection is rooted in the faithful love of the God of creation and covenant. If God has not shown such character in raising Jesus from the dead, then he has not defeated sin by Jesus’s crucifixion either, which is the logic undergirding the hypothetical negative reality in vv. 12–19. But if God has raised Jesus, then he has also defeated sin in Jesus. Thus, both Jesus’s cross and his resurrection are necessary to setting the world aright, as is his exaltation and present reign until the time when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, in order that he may be all in all.