An additional argument for a gap
between the resurrection of the righteous and the resurrection of the wicked
comes from Philippians 3:11. In this verse, the apostle Paul looks ahead to the
day when he will attain to “the resurrection of the dead” (την εξαναστασιν την εκ νεκρων). As several premillennialists
have noted, Paul’s reference to “the resurrection from the dead”—rather than
“the resurrection of the dead”—implies a partial resurrection in which
some are raised from the dead while others are left in a state of death. In
fact, the designation “resurrection from the dead” is consistently used
either of Jesus (Acts 4:2; Rom 1:4; 1 Pet 1:3; cf. Acts 17:31) or of believers
(Luke 20:35; Phil 3:11) as those who are raised out from among others who
remain dead, but never of all the dead in general.
When the biblical writers refer to
the resurrection of the dead in general (Acts 17:32; 23:6; 24:21; 1 Cor 15;12,
13, 21; Heb 6:2), they use the genitive νεκρων—“resurrection of the dead”—a subjective genitive
which simply indicates that the dead are raised to life. In contrast, the use
of the prepositional phrase εκ νεκρων in Luke 20;35 and Phil 3:11”—resurrection
from the dead”—indicates being resurrected out from among the dead. The prepositional
phrase εκ νεκρων is used the same way in
combination with various verbs to refer to the resurrection of Lazarus (John
12:1, 9, 17), Jesus (Acts 3;15; 4:10; 10:41; 13:30), and people in general (Heb
11:19) as those who are raised out from among those who remain dead. Therefore,
when Philippians 3:11 (and Luke 20;35) describe believers are experiencing a “resurrection
from the dead” (την εξαναστασιν την εκ νεκρων), this implies an initial
resurrection of those who are in Christ as separate and distinct from a later resurrection
of those who are not. This resurrection of the righteous is singled out elsewhere
in Scripture, being labelled “a better resurrection” (Heb 11:35) and “the
resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:14). (Matt Waymeyer, Amillennialism
and the Age to Come: A Premillennial Critique of the Two-Age Model [The Woodlands,
Tex.: Kress Biblical Resources, 2016], 113-15)
Outside 1 Corinthians 15:24, the
adverb ειτα 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 ειτα, 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 a 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) . . . ειτα is often used to denote events
separated by an interval of time—in fact, it is Paul’s most common use of the
temporal adverb.
Similarly, its synonym επειτα is also used to describe a
sequence of events either with or without a chronological interval. Of the 13
times this adverb is used temporally to introduce the next in a sequence of events
(The remaining four uses of επειτα
[1 Cor 12:28 (x2); Heb 7:2; Jas 3:17] are not temporal, but instead are used to
describe that which is “next in position of an enumeration of items” [BDAG,
361]), seven uses of επιτα
introduces an event that happens immediately after the previous event (Mark
7:5; Luke 16:7; John 11:7; Gal 1:21; 1 Thess 4:17; Heb 7:27; James 4:14), and six
introduce an event that occurs after an interval of time between the two events
(1 Cor 15:6, 7, 23, 46; Gal 1:18; 2:1). Therefore [the] claim that επειτα always indicates a sequence of
events without a chronological interval is not true, and his appeal to the
ordinary usage of these two adverbs fails to support [the amillennial view].
Not only does Paul most often use
these temporal adverbs to join two events with an intervening gap (Outside of 1
Cor 15:24, Paul uses ειτα
and επειτα this way either nine or 10 out of
12 times, depending on how 1 Tim 3:10 is classified), but this pattern is well
established earlier in the very same chapter. In 1 Corinthians 15:5-7, the
apostle lists a series of post-resurrection of appearances of Christ, writing:
He appeared to Cephas, then [ειτα] to the twelve. After that [επειτα] He appeared to more than five
hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have
fallen asleep; then [επειτα]
He appeared to James, then [ειτα]
to all the apostles (1 Cor 15:5-7).
In each of these uses of the
temporal adverbs, Paul envisions an interval of time between the two events.
The amount of time between each appearance of Christ varies, but none of them
introduces the next appearance as something that happens immediately after the
previous one.
Furthermore, when Paul sets forth
the sequence of three events in 1 Corinthians 15:23-24, his use of επειτα clearly
encompasses a lengthy interval of time between the first two events:
But each in his own order: Christ
the first fruits, after that [επειτα]
those who are Christ’s at His coming, and then [ειτα] comes the end, when He delivers
up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority
and power (1 Cor 15:23-24).
Because Paul’s use of επειτα in verse 23 includes a gap of
time between the resurrection of Christ and the Second Coming—a gap that is
currently almost 2,000 years in length—it is at least possible that Paul
envisions of gap of 1,000 years between the Second Coming and “the end.” . . .
seeing a gap between the Second Coming and the end (vv. 23b-24a) is no more of
a departure from a literal approach to interpretation than seeing a gap between
the resurrection of Christ and the Second Coming (vv. 23a-23b), provided such a
gap is warranted by the immediate context and/or other biblical revelation.
Premillennialists believe it is warranted by both. (Ibid., 150-53)
The Case for a Future Reign
A closer look at this passage
indicates that the reign of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:25 cannot be a present
reality and therefore must refer to a future kingdom. Since Jesus concludes
this reign by handling the kingdom over to the Father when “the end” arrives (1
Cor 15:24), if Jesus is reigning now and the arrival of “the end” coincides
with His Second Coming (as amillennialism claims), then the present age is the
only age in which Jesus will reign over the messianic kingdom. This is problematic
for the amillennial view because according to the New Testament, not only will
the saints reign with Christ in His messianic kingdom, but his co-reign is
always described as being future rather than present (2 Tim 2:12; Rev 3:21;
5:10; 20:4-5; cf. 1 Cor 4:8; 6:1-3). . . . In contrast, amillennialists believe
that the mediatorial reign of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:25 began when He rose
from the dead and was exalted to the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:36; Heb
1:3). According to this view, this reign of Christ continues throughout the
present age until the Second Coming, when He abolishes death and delivers the
kingdom over to the Father. As Wallis argues, however, Paul’s use of the Psalms
in 1 Corinthians 15 (Psa 110:1 in verse 25b and Psa 8:6 in verse 27a)
demonstrates that this is not possible (Wilbur Wallis, “The Use of Psalms 8 and
110 in 1 Corinthians 15:25-27 and Hebrews 1 and 2,” JETS 15, no. 1
[Winter 1972]: 26-29; Wallis, “The Problem of an Intermediate Kingdom,” 239-42).
Wallis’ argument begins by noting
that the writer of Hebrews makes similar use of the same two passages—Psalm 110
and Hebrews 1:13 and Psalm 8;6 and Hebrews 2:8. According to Wallis, the
parallel use of these Psalms allows 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 and Hebrews 1-2 to “mutually
support and explain one another” (Wallis, “The Use of Psalms 8 and 110,” 29;
Wallis, “The Problem of an Intermediate Kingdom,” 241). Therefore, because the
use of these Psalms in Hebrews indicates that the subjugation of the enemies of
Christ is accomplished not in the present age but in the age to come, the mediatorial
reign in 1 Corinthians 15 must take place in the future, after the Second Coming
(Wallis, “The Use of Psalms 8 and 110,” 28; Wallis, “The Problem of an
Intermediate Kingdom,” 241).
Here is the essence of the
argument: After Jesus rose from the dead, He was exalted to the right hand of
the Father (Acts 2:36; Heb 1:3), where He was given the position of authority
over all powers and authorities (Eph 1:20-23; 1 Pet 3:22). What Jesus was given
in position (Heb 2:7-8a), however, has not yet been fully realized in practice,
for these enemies have not yet been subjected to Him (Heb 2:8b; cf. Heb 1:13).
In other words, even though Jesus was granted authority over all things, “now
we do not yet see all things subjected to him” (Heb 2:8; emphasis added)
for when He sat down at the right hand of the Father, Jesus began “waiting from
that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet” (Heb
10;13). This subjection of all rulers and powers and authorities, then, is yet future,
being identified by the writer of Hebrews with “the world to come” (Heb 2:5)
(Wallis, “The Use of Palms 8 and 110,” 28). . . . Hebrews emphasizes that His subjugation
of all things is yet future (1;13; 2:5-8; 10:12-13), in the world to come
(2:5), and 1 Corinthians 15 portrays the subjugation of God’s enemies taking
place during the reign of Christ between the Second Coming and “the end” (vv.
23-26) (Wallis, “The Use of Psalms 8 and 110,” 28; Wallis, “The Problem of an
Intermediate Kingdom,” 240). For this reason, it is best to understand the
mediatorial reign of Christ in 1 Corinthians 15;25 as a reference to the
intermediate kingdom between the present age and the eternal state. Rather than
posing a problem for premillennialism, then, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 coincides
with its straightforward interpretation of the millennial kingdom in Revelation
20. (Ibid., 155-58)
