I HAVE found many who are greatly perplexed over this Scripture, and many times have questions been asked on these verses. Perhaps the readers of the Review would be interested in a complete exposition of the passage. And as the late Elder J. H. Waggoner has expounded these verses fully in his “Refutation of the Age to Come,” pages 122–135, I therefore offer his thoughts upon the subject. He first states the objection held by some on 1 Cor. 15: 23–28, and gives a complete and unanswerable refutation to such interpretation. The following is the objection, concisely stated, and Elder Waggoner’s answer:— “OBJECTION 8.—1 Cor. 15: 23–28. Christ will reign until He subdues His enemies, or puts them under His feet. In Revelation 20 this reign is declared to be one thousand years in duration, from which it is evident that His enemies will not be put under His feet until, or near, the close of the one thousand years; and of course are not destroyed at His coming. “ANSWER.—The substance of this objection has been considered the stronghold of the age to come; and yet, when carefully examined, 1 Cor. 15: 23–28 proves itself the means of the certain and entire overthrow of that theory. Rev. 20: 4–6 is invariably used in connection with 1 Corinthians 15, as stated in this objection; and it is of the utmost importance to their views that the events of 1 Cor. 15: 23–28 be located in the thousand years of Revelation 20. But their connection is merely taken for granted—it has not been, and cannot be, shown. This method of throwing texts together for effect without proving a connection, is quite common with the advocates of that doctrine. As an instance, a lecturer once quoted Rev. 20: 6 and 5: 10 in such a manner that some of his hearers supposed that he had read from the Bible, thus: ‘They shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years on the earth.’” “We have never denied the reign of Christ and His saints on the earth. On the contrary, we contend for an everlasting reign on the earth when it is fitted for the inheritance of the saints; for their inheritance is incorruptible and undefiled. And when it is considered that the promise of the inheritance does not embrace the old earth, but the earth renewed, and that the saints shall possess it and dwell therein forever, the very fact that a period of one thousand years is given as preceding the eternal possession of the earth, raises the presumption that the reign of one thousand years is not where the eternal reign is; to wit, on the earth. “Mr. Marsh, in his pamphlet on the Age to Come, pages 31, 32, quoted 1 Cor. 15: 23–28, and remarked: The particular points in these passages to which we would now call especial attention, are the beginning, close, and character of the reign of Christ. “‘1. His reign beginning at His coming.
“‘2. It will continue until His enemies are subdued, or destroyed, the last of which is death.
“‘3. One grand object of that reign is to subdue, or destroy, his enemies.
“‘These points are clear, and most conclusively proved by the evidence in the case,390The number of years between the beginning and the close of this reign, Paul does not tell, but John does. He gives us to understand that it will be a thousand years. Revelation 20. “‘Verse 7. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed—of whom it is said, in the second and third verses, that he was bound a thousand years, that he should not deceive the nations for that length of time; and verse fourteen gives us to understand that when the thousand years close, death, the last enemy, will be destroyed. For death and hell are then “cast into the lake of fire,” which is “the second death.”’” “‘The fair conclusion from the testimony of Paul and John, is that the reign of Christ, when His enemies will be subdued, will be a thousand years; and as this reign begins at the coming of Christ, and as the “times of restitution,” or “dispensation of the fullness of times” also begin then, it is certain that those times, or that dispensation, will be of a thousand years’ duration. This will be “the times of refreshing”—“the times of restitution”—“His times”—“the dispensation of the fullness of times”—“the reign of Christ a thousand years,” or His millennial reign on the earth. “‘Here we might rest the case without offering any further evidence, feeling assured that we have fully proved our position.’” “J. M. Stephenson, in his work entitled, ‘The Atonement,’ closely followed Mr. Marsh in his comment on this text. On pages 83 and 84, he says:— “‘With this view we may learn how long a period will be occupied by Jesus Christ in removing all obstacles out of the way of man’s salvation, and bringing back this revolted province into allegiance to the throne of His Father. Read 1 Cor. 15: 23–28: “But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming. Then cometh the end; when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”’” “‘Here His reign begins with “His coming” and the resurrection of them that are His, and terminates, as independent king, with the destruction of “the last enemy”—death. By Rev. 20: 5, 6, we learn that “the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished;” that then “the second death” is to have power over them, and they will be devoured. Verse 9. Then the Son, having reigned until He has put all enemies under His feet, “delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father,” and becomes subject himself, that the Father “may be all in all;” that is, that the Father may be supreme, and the Son subordinate king under Him. These are “the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.”’” “There is no ‘unity of faith’ among the advocates of the age to come; each has a theory of his own. On the last point stated in the objection, they are not agreed among themselves. Some admit that those who have developed their characters as enemies of Christ, will be destroyed at His coming; but they also assert that they will be comparatively few in number. Others deny entirely that His enemies will be destroyed at that time. No objection can be so framed as to meet the minds of all of them while there is so great diversity of views among them. “Against the views presented in the extracts from Messrs. Marsh and Stephenson, I have several objections to offer, based upon the literal reading of the Scripture in question, and upon others explanatory of it and harmonizing with it. As Elder Marsh draws an argument from it of sufficient weight, in his opinion, to prove his whole theory, and settle the whole question, the reader will bear with us in giving it a careful and thorough examination, even though it be of some length. In noticing the unscriptural positions taken by them, I show that,— “1. ‘The end’ is an expression used in the New Testament to denote the termination of the day of salvation, or the time of Christ’s coming. In every instance, with only one exception, when it is used without a direct qualification, the context shows that it refers to the end of this age. In the exceptional instance, John 13: 1, the context clearly shows the sense of its use. If the reader wishes to test our assertion, he will please examine Matt. 10: 22; 24: 3, 6, 13, 14; 13: 39, (compare 24: 30, 31); 28: 20; 2 Cor. 1: 13, 14 (compare 1 Thess. 2: 19); Rev. 2: 26. The text in question is so clear in its reference as to leave no room for doubt. ‘Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming. THEN COMETH THE END.’ Here is brought to view the coming of Christ, but not one word about the thousand years, nor any other subsequent period. If it does not refer to the coming of Christ, there is nothing in all the context to which it can refer. We are not inclined to grant what is asserted—that it refers to the termination of the one thousand years, as that is the very point in dispute, and if it be true, let them prove it, and not longer rest it on their bare assertion. And this brings us to notice,—” “2. ‘The end’ is not synchronous with the delivering up of the kingdom. The text reads, ‘Then cometh the end, WHEN HE SHALL HAVE DELIVERED up the kingdom to God.’ By this it appears that the kingdom will be delivered up before the end; and, of course, the end cannot refer to ‘the close of the reign,’ as Mr. Marsh has it. Mr. Stephenson makes it the close of an ‘independent reign,’ which is no better; for it may be the close in one sense as well as another, so far as the question of time is concerned. But it is not the close of the reign in any sense: they are separate events. And he makes the delivering up necessary ‘that the Father may be supreme.’ But when we consider the relation the two thrones sustain to each other, and that Christ receives His own throne by the gift of the Father, the idea is truly absurd that Christ must deliver up to the Father the throne of David, that the Father may be supreme! as it implies that by the gift of the throne of David to Christ, the Father’s throne—the throne of all the universe—lost its supremacy.” “This idea of an ‘independent reign’ is evidently thrown in to obviate a difficulty into which many have rushed by limiting the reign of Christ on His own throne. Thus, it does not look consistent in Mr. Marsh to talk of ‘the close’ of a reign of which the Scriptures say ‘there shall be no end.’ But the difficulty is not, and cannot be, obviated. Both of those writers agree that He will reign till a certain work shall be accomplished, and that it will be accomplished in one thousand years subsequent to the advent; and as He reigns till a certain point, and then delivers up the kingdom, if their view of the reign be correct, it must also be correct to call it the end of the reign. But the prophet said, ‘Of the increase of His government and peace THERE SHALL BE NO END, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice henceforth even forever.’ Isa. 9: 7. And the angel said: ‘The Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end.’ Luke 1: 32, 33. Paul, quoting the words of the psalmist, says, ‘Unto the Son He saith, Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever.’ To evade the force of this testimony, it has been said that the term ‘forever’ applies to limited duration. That it is sometimes so used, we admit, but not in these passages. All must admit that it is sometimes applied to unlimited duration, denoting eternity. And when it is used in a limited sense, there must be something in the connection to show in what sense it is used, otherwise it would be ambiguous or indefinite, and should not then be offered to prove anything. We are warranted in saying it is used in its fullest sense, or unlimited, when referring to that of which it is said, ‘There shall be no end.’ If ‘the end’ and ‘no end’ are used to signify the same thing, the result must be only confusion. It seems very evident that the reign and kingdom which continues till a certain time, and is then delivered up, cannot be that one which does not pass away, is forever, and has no end.”