The tension between inaugurated victory and eschatological fulfillment shapes Pauline theology, particularly in 1 Corinthians 15:24–34. In this passage, Paul addresses a Corinthian community grappling with the implications of Christ’s resurrection, articulating its significance for cosmic order and Christian ethics. This text situates believers in a liminal space—between Christ’s triumph over death and their future resurrection—raising critical questions about living in light of assured yet unrealized victory. This essay examines Paul’s argument through exegesis of the text, engagement with scholarly perspectives, and exploration of its theological and practical implications.

Christ’s Resurrection and the Eschatological Victory (vv. 24–28)
Paul begins in verse 24: “Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.” The phrase “then comes the end” (εἶτα τὸ τέλος) denotes not an immediate transition but the culminating phase of Christ’s redemptive work (Ciampa and Rosner 2010, 766). Gordon Fee argues that Paul envisions a sequential eschatology, with Christ’s resurrection inaugurating his reign and the parousia completing it (Fee 2014, 826). This reign actively subdues all opposing forces, resonating with Psalm 110:1, where YHWH promises to make the Messiah’s enemies a “footstool” (Garland 2003, 714). Christ’s resurrection thus initiates a dynamic kingship that progressively dismantles cosmic rebellion.
Verse 26 identifies death as “the last enemy to be destroyed” (ὁ ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς καταργεῖται ὁ θάνατος). Anthony Thiselton emphasizes that Paul frames death not as a natural state but as an adversary linked to sin’s entry into creation (Thiselton 2000, 1230; cf. Rom 6:23). This perspective aligns with Jewish apocalyptic thought, where resurrection reverses death’s dominion (Wright 2003, 332). Christ’s victory over death, evidenced by his own resurrection, guarantees its ultimate abolition, a theme Paul amplifies in 1 Corinthians 15:54–55 (Fee 2014, 831).
The climax of this section, verse 28, states: “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.” This verse has prompted debate over Christ’s subordination. Some see early interpreters like Origen arguing for evidence of ontological subordination (Origen, De Principiis 1.2.10), but such interpretations conflict with the Nicene affirmation of the Son’s consubstantiality (homoousios) with the Father (Kelly 1978, 234). Richard Bauckham contends that Paul’s language reflects functional, not essential, subordination (Bauckham 2008, 37). In his incarnate role as mediator (1 Tim 2:5), Christ submits the kingdom to the Father, fulfilling his messianic task as the “Second Adam” (1 Cor 15:45; Fee 2014, 835). The phrase “that God may be all in all” (ἵνα ᾖ ὁ θεὸς πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν) does not diminish the Son’s divinity but signals the restoration of divine rule over creation, a unity encompassing the Trinity (Thiselton 2000, 1236).

Paul’s eschatological vision in 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 presents a moment when Christ, having subdued all enemies, hands the kingdom to the Father: “When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28 ESV).

This passage must be carefully interpreted to preserve both the unity of the Trinity and the Son’s equality with the Father. Misunderstanding this text has led some to argue for an ontological subordinationism, wherein the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father. However, such a perspective is inconsistent with the biblical witness to Christ’s full divinity. This paper examines Paul’s intent in this passage and demonstrates that Christ’s submission is not ontological but functional, tied to his role as the mediator of salvation.

The broader biblical narrative affirms the full divinity of Christ, refuting any claim that Paul teaches an essential subordination of the Son. The prologue of John’s Gospel clearly states that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). Similarly, Paul’s Christology upholds the divine nature of the Son. In Philippians 2:6, he states that Christ, “though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped.” Likewise, Colossians 1:19 affirms that “in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell.” These passages underscore that Christ possesses the very essence of deity and is not a lesser being within the Godhead. To interpret 1 Corinthians 15:28 as implying ontological subordination would contradict this consistent biblical testimony.

Paul cannot be teaching an ontological hierarchy within the Trinity because Scripture repeatedly affirms that the Son shares in the divine essence. John 5:18 records the reaction of Jesus’ contemporaries: “This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” Further, John 5:26 affirms that the Son possesses self-existent life just as the Father does: “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.”

The writer of Hebrews similarly testifies to Christ’s full divinity, stating that “he is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power” (Heb 1:3). These texts establish that Christ is not a subordinate deity but the full and perfect revelation of God. Moreover, Matthew 28:19, which commands baptism in the singular name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, demonstrates the Son’s inclusion in the divine identity: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The use of the singular term “name” rather than “names” indicates the unity of the three persons in the Godhead.

The Son’s submission in 1 Corinthians 15:28 must be understood within the framework of his mediatorial role, rather than as an eternal state of subordination. The concept of homoousios—the teaching that the Son shares the same divine nature as the Father—precludes any essential hierarchy within the Trinity. As Jesus himself declared, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). Furthermore, if Christ were ontologically subordinate, it would be blasphemous for him to receive equal honor with the Father. However, Jesus affirms that the purpose of his ministry is “that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father” (John 5:23).

These passages affirm that the Son’s submission is not indicative of inferiority but of his unique redemptive function. The incarnation involved Christ taking on a servant’s role, as described in Philippians 2:7–8: “But emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” This submission pertains to his human nature, not to his eternal divine nature. As the incarnate mediator, Christ carries out the redemptive mission, a role that is temporary rather than eternal.

Paul’s statement that the Son will be “subjected” to the Father does not imply the loss of his divine authority but rather signifies the completion of his mediatorial work. As the Second Adam (1 Cor 15:45) and the Messianic King, Christ’s mission involves subduing all enemies, culminating in the final defeat of death. Once his role as mediator is fulfilled, the eschatological reign of God will be fully realized.

The phrase “that God may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:28) affirms divine unity rather than a diminishment of the Son’s authority. The redemptive mission reaches its consummation when all creation is brought into perfect subjection under God’s rule. This does not imply the cessation of the Son’s reign, for elsewhere Scripture testifies to Christ’s eternal kingship (Rev 11:15). Instead, it signifies that the Son’s mediatorial role transitions into the eternal enjoyment of divine glory by the redeemed.

Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 does not suggest an ontological subordination of the Son to the Father. Rather, it describes the culmination of Christ’s redemptive work, wherein his mediatorial kingship gives way to the full realization of God’s reign. The biblical witness consistently affirms the Son’s full divinity and equality with the Father, precluding any interpretation that would suggest an eternal hierarchy within the Trinity. Instead, Christ’s submission in this passage is functional, tied to his incarnational role as the mediator between God and humanity. At the fulfillment of redemptive history, Christ will have accomplished his mission, ensuring the ultimate victory of God’s kingdom and the eternal communion of the redeemed with their Creator.

Resurrection Belief and the Purpose of Suffering (vv. 29–32)
Paul transitions to practical implications in verses 29–32, questioning the rationale for suffering absent resurrection hope. Verse 29, “Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead?” remains enigmatic. Scholars propose interpretations ranging from vicarious baptism for deceased believers (Murphy-O’Connor 1986, 533) to a metaphorical reference to martyrdom (Collins 1999, 560). Regardless of the practice, Paul’s rhetorical intent is evident: Corinthian actions presuppose resurrection belief, exposing their theological inconsistency (Fee 2014, 840).
In verses 30–31, Paul cites his own hardships—“Why are we in danger every hour? … I die every day!”—recalling catalogues like 2 Corinthians 11:23–28. If resurrection is illusory, such endurance lacks meaning (Garland 2003, 722). Verse 32 reinforces this with a citation from Isaiah 22:13: “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” This hedonistic logic, prevalent in Greco-Roman skepticism (e.g., Epicurus, Letter to Menoeceus), highlights the futility of suffering without eschatological hope (Thiselton 2000, 1242). Paul’s argument parallels N.T. Wright’s observation that resurrection belief sustained early Christian resilience amid persecution (Wright 2003, 368).

Resurrection and Ethical Imperatives (vv. 33–34)
Paul concludes with an ethical exhortation: “Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals’” (v. 33). This maxim, likely drawn from Menander’s Thais (Thiselton 2000, 1245), targets false teachers denying resurrection. Ciampa and Rosner note that Paul connects doctrine and behavior—rejection of resurrection erodes moral accountability (Ciampa and Rosner 2010, 782). Verse 34’s command, “Wake up from your drunken stupor … and do not go on sinning,” employs the verb ἐκνήψατε (“sober up”), suggesting moral laxity stemming from disbelief (Fee 2014, 849). The rebuke, “Some have no knowledge of God,” indicts the Corinthians for practical atheism, a failure to embody their professed faith (Garland 2003, 726).
This linkage between theology and ethics echoes Stanley Hauerwas’s contention that Christian hope shapes communal identity and practice (Hauerwas 1983, 104). For Paul, resurrection is not a theoretical construct—it demands holiness, rejecting influences that undermine eschatological conviction.

Theological and Practical Implications
Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 15:24–34 positions believers within a theological “already but not yet.” Christ’s reign ensures victory over cosmic powers, culminating in death’s defeat, while his mediatorial submission affirms Trinitarian unity. This hope imbues suffering with purpose and mandates ethical vigilance. Theologically, the passage counters subordinationist heresies and Greco-Roman fatalism, affirming resurrection as the cornerstone of Christian eschatology (Wright 2003, 314). Practically, it urges alignment of life with this reality, resisting despair and moral compromise.

Conclusion
In 1 Corinthians 15:24–34, Paul constructs a theology of Christ’s reign and resurrection that bridges cosmic victory with daily discipleship. Scholarly engagement reveals the richness of his argument: Christ’s triumph is both present and future, necessitating a life of purpose and holiness. As Fee observes, “The resurrection is the ground of faith’s certainty and the incentive for faith’s obedience” (Fee 2014, 851). For the Corinthians and subsequent readers, this text reframes existence within the certainty of Christ’s victory, even as its final realization remains pending.

Bibliography
Bauckham, Richard. 2008. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Ciampa, Roy E., and Brian S. Rosner. 2010. The First Letter to the Corinthians. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Collins, Raymond F. 1999. First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.
Fee, Gordon D. 2014. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Revised Edition. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Garland, David E. 2003. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Hauerwas, Stanley. 1983. The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Kelly, J.N.D. 1978. Early Christian Doctrines. 5th ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. 1986. “Baptized for the Dead (1 Cor 15:29): A Corinthian Slogan?” Revue Biblique 93: 532–543.
Thiselton, Anthony C. 2000. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Wright, N.T. 2003. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.