“`html
An Exegetical Analysis of the Structure and Semantic Relationship of the hOTAN Clauses in 1 Corinthians 15:24
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of the Structure and Semantic Relationship of the hOTAN Clauses in 1 Corinthians 15:24 is based on a b-greek discussion from April 9, 2002. The initial contribution to the discussion introduced the broader theological and exegetical significance of 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, referencing an article by G. Pelland titled “La théologie et l’exégèse de Marcel d’Ancyre sur 1 Cor 15:24-28.” This article highlighted how diverse philological interpretations, particularly among patristic writers such as Hilarius, Tertullian, and Marcel d’Ancyre, could offer varying insights into doctrinal problems intrinsically linked to linguistic and philological understanding.
The central exegetical issue subsequently addressed within the discussion revolves around the syntactic and semantic relationship between the two temporal hOTAN clauses in 1 Corinthians 15:24: hOTAN PARADIDWI THN BASILEIAN TWi QEW KAI PATRI (when he delivers the kingdom to God and Father) and hOTAN KATARGHSHI PASAN ARCHN KAI PASAN EXOUSIAN KAI DUNAMIN (when he has abolished every rule and every authority and power). The core question is whether these two clauses are grammatically parallel, both modifying to telos (the end), or if the second hOTAN clause is subordinate to the first, implying a temporal sequence wherein the abolition of powers precedes the handing over of the kingdom. This grammatical ambiguity significantly impacts the understanding of the eschatological timeline presented by Paul in this passage.
Greek text (Nestle 1904)
ἔπειτα τὸ τέλος, ὅταν παραδιδῷ τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρί, ὅταν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν.
- Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The Nestle 1904 text capitalizes “God” (Θεῷ) and “Father” (Πατρί), whereas the SBLGNT (2010) uses lowercase (θεῷ and πατρί). This is an orthographic convention and does not represent a substantive textual variant. Otherwise, the texts are identical for this verse.
Textual Criticism and Lexical Notes
Textual Criticism (NA28): The text of 1 Corinthians 15:24 is remarkably stable across major manuscript traditions. The Nestle-Aland 28th Edition (NA28) critical apparatus indicates no significant variants for this verse, affirming the reading provided above. This stability suggests a high degree of confidence in the original wording as transmitted.
Lexical Notes (KITTEL, BDAG):
- ἔπειτα (epeita): then, next, after that (BDAG). Indicates a temporal or logical sequence.
- τέλος (telos): an end, a conclusion, termination, esp. of a process or activity; goal, completion (BDAG). KITTEL emphasizes its meaning as the goal or completion, the point in time at which something reaches its conclusion (vol. VIII, p. 49).
- παραδιδῷ (paradidōi): Present active subjunctive of παραδίδωμι. To hand over, deliver, transmit (BDAG). In this context, to hand over the kingdom. KITTEL defines it as to hand over, transmit (vol. II, p. 169). The present aspect here can denote an ongoing, iterative, or uncompleted action relative to the “end.”
- βασιλεία (basileia): royal power, kingship, dominion, rule; kingdom (BDAG). KITTEL further elaborates on its dual meaning of kingship/sovereignty and kingdom (vol. I, p. 574).
- καταργήσῃ (katarghsēi): Aorist active subjunctive of καταργέω. To cause to be ineffective, to annul, abolish, wipe out, make of no effect (BDAG). KITTEL specifies to make inoperative, to annul, abolish (vol. I, p. 451). The aorist aspect typically presents the action as a whole, often suggesting completion, especially in a future context as here.
- ἀρχή (archē): a position of power, rule, command; ruler, authority (BDAG). KITTEL provides beginning, origin; first cause; government, rule, authority (vol. I, p. 272). Here, it refers to powerful entities.
- ἐξουσία (exousia): the right to exercise power, authority; dominion (BDAG). KITTEL lists power, authority, right (vol. II, p. 560).
- δύναμις (dynamis): inherent power, power to accomplish something; might, strength (BDAG). KITTEL defines it as power, might, strength (vol. II, p. 284).
Translation Variants and Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The core of the exegetical debate concerns the precise syntactic relationship between the two consecutive hOTAN clauses. Two primary interpretive structures emerge:
- Parallel Structure: Both hOTAN clauses are understood as parallel, each directly modifying τὸ τέλος (the end). This would suggest that “the end” is characterized by both the delivery of the kingdom and the abolition of all hostile powers. The repetition of hOTAN often signals coordinate clauses in Greek, making this a grammatically natural reading. Scholars supporting this view argue that forcing a subordinate relationship lacks explicit Greek grammatical markers. The present subjunctive παραδιδῷ and the aorist subjunctive καταργήσῃ describe potential events. While the aorist might imply completion (the abolishing) relative to the present (the delivering), this aspectual distinction does not automatically necessitate a syntactically subordinate clause structure.
- Subordinate Structure: The second hOTAN clause (the abolishing of powers) is understood as temporally subordinate to the first (the delivering of the kingdom), meaning the abolition occurs before or as a condition for the delivery of the kingdom. This interpretation, adopted by some translations (e.g., NIV), is often driven by theological or logical considerations regarding the sequence of eschatological events: the subjugation of enemies must logically precede or enable the ultimate handing over of the perfected kingdom. Proponents of this view might argue that the aorist subjunctive καταργήσῃ denotes an action completed prior to the event described by the present subjunctive παραδιδῷ. However, critics, including participants in the b-greek discussion, point out that if Paul intended a clear subordination, he might have used a participle (e.g., καταργήσας) which carries less weight and explicitly signals subordination compared to a full hOTAN clause. The perceived “awkwardness” of a nested hOTAN clause in English, as noted in the discussion, might reflect grammatical tendencies in modern languages that do not directly translate to Koine Greek.
The discussion highlights the tension between grammatical analysis and theological interpretation. While the grammatical evidence (repetition of hOTAN, lack of explicit subordination markers) strongly favors a parallel reading, the desire to convey a clear eschatological sequence leads some to adopt a subordinate interpretation. The decision often hinges on whether to prioritize direct syntactic evidence or a reconstructed logical/chronological framework.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on a rigorous grammatical analysis, the most straightforward interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:24 posits the two hOTAN clauses as grammatically parallel. They function as adverbial clauses defining the timing or characteristics of “the end” (τὸ τέλος). While a logical temporal sequence (abolishing powers before delivering the kingdom) is certainly implied in Paul’s overall eschatological framework, the Greek syntax itself does not explicitly subordinate the second clause to the first. The aspectual difference between the present subjunctive παραδιδῷ and the aorist subjunctive καταργήσῃ suggests that the act of abolishing is viewed as a complete event, possibly preparatory or concomitant to the delivery of the kingdom, without necessarily forcing a syntactical nesting.
- “Then comes the end: namely, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when also he has abolished every rule and every authority and power.”
This translation maintains the parallel structure of the `hOTAN` clauses, treating them as co-defining characteristics of “the end.” The phrasing `when also` subtly suggests a close connection without forcing syntactic subordination.
- “Then comes the end, at the time when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father, and at the time when he has abolished every rule and every authority and power.”
This option also emphasizes parallelism by repeating the temporal phrase, allowing the reader to infer any logical or chronological sequence based on broader theological understanding, rather than grammatical imposition.
- “Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power.”
This translation, while exegetically interpreting the second `hOTAN` clause as temporally preceding the first, reflects a common theological understanding and is adopted by some major English versions. It prioritizes the perceived logical sequence over strict syntactic parallelism.
“`
hey Link Hudson after dismantling your 2Thes anti-pre-trib argument (and quite successfully if I may add) to the point where even Ricky Grimsley could not help you with his favorite 2Thes 2:2 since yall could not agree on who the Restrainer is, I took the time to dissect another passage you like to throw around namely 1 Cor 15 Now, I’ve done some extensive work on 1 Cor in the past and 1 Cor 15 was actually among my favorite passages to preach from so I must warn you there is much more coming here on this one, but just for starters HOW do you feel this particular verse helps your anti-pre-trib quest because frankly I just dont see what you are saying in the actual Biblical text as written by the apostle Paul
Troy Day you did not dismantle my post trib arguments (ie stick with the plaon sense of the text). What you did was not answer questions, make wise cracks, clown around, and link to long discussions about minutia of the Greek text without pointing out which aspect of the discussion you thought was relevant.
1 Corinthians 15:23-28 God’s specific plan includes each one in his own order. The word order, a military term, suggests the idea of rank. Christ the firstfruits was raised first. Second, those who are Christ’s at His coming will follow. The word coming (parousia) refers to His coming for those believers who are still alive (John 14:2-3). At the same coming, the Christians who have already died will be raised and actually will precede those who are still alive (1 Thess 4:13-18). Third, the coming of Christ will be followed by another period of time designated as the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. Once He overcomes every enemy of God the Father and mankind, He will hand this sovereign responsibility to the Father. This does not imply His inferiority, but it does mean a different responsibility. Until this time, the Father places everything under His Son who reigns as Lord over the universe (Ps 110:1; Dan 7:14; Col 1:15-17).
A period of time will occur between Christ’s coming for the Church and the time when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father. Christ will reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. Death will be last enemy (15:55). God the Father “has put all things under His feet (Ps 8:6).” The Father put all things under Christ as the last Adam, the perfect Man, with the only exception that God the Father Himself is not in subjection to Christ. Jesus’ work will ultimately glorify God the Father (John 17:4-5). The new creation will begin when God the Father may be all in all.
To risk one’s life for Jesus Christ is foolishness if the dead are not raised. Paul emphasizes this by turning to the reality of daily experiences to help the Corinthians understand the significance of the Resurrection. He points to their practice and his own daily lifestyle.
Luke 24:17-28. The Lord asks a question that may represent a divine use of the Socratic method for the sake of both the disciples in the narrative and for an educated reader like Theophilus. Their sadness, though commendable because it testifies to their sensitivity to Jesus and His Passion, nevertheless witnesses to their blindness and unbelief regarding the Resurrection. The mention of their sadness sets up the scene for the joy of discovering the living Savior.
24:18. Luke then identifies one of the two disciples whose name was Cleopas, an otherwise unknown disciple in Jerusalem. His words to Jesus overflow with irony. Cleopas possibly conceived of Jesus as one of thousands of pilgrims “in Jerusalem” for the Passover Feast. Jesus Himself represented the Passover and His death fulfilled the meaning of the Feast itself.
24:19. The Lord Jesus then asks, “What things?” Cleopas then gives Jesus a synopsis of the Gospel events that both bring to light the prophetic underpinnings of His death and underscores their blindness to those very things. The mention of Jesus as “a Prophet” picks up a significant Lucan thematic emphasis.
24:20. Cleopas’ explanation of the events essentially lays the blame for Jesus’ death on “the chief priests and our rulers.” Their opposition to the Lord will continue in the Book of Acts in their antagonism to His Church.
24:21. Cleopas speaks as if Jesus’ death put an end to their hopes of the redemption of Israel—the very expectation introduced at the beginning of the Gospel narrative (cf. 1:68-79). The word redeem means to liberate from an oppressive situation or to set free. Ironically Jesus’ death provided the only once-and-for-all payment for the sins of the nation and so their redemption. Cleopas’s next words contain a key phrase—“today is the third day”—which should have alerted them to Jesus’ words and their fulfillment.
24:22. Each additional facet of Cleopas’ recounting adds to the dramatic irony of his words. The details that astonished the disciples should have also convinced them. Their early arrival furnishes an apologetic purpose as it provides little space for some kind of conspiracy to unfold. This timeline may indicate that death could and did not hold Jesus for any longer than necessary. In addition, it shows a precise fulfillment of prophecy; He rose, as He predicted, in three days.
24:23. Cleopas offers even more evidence for the Resurrection. He identifies the two men who appeared to the women as angels. Luke’s narrative early on establishes the reliability of God’s angelic messengers and the foolishness of not believing them (see 1:5-80).
24:24. The irony reaches a climax as Cleopas tells the very risen Jesus that “the women” had not seen Him! The use of the plural “certain of those” indicates that others beside Peter “went to the tomb” to verify their report (cf. 24:12; John 20:1-10).
24:25. The Lord Jesus then gives them a deserved and yet loving rebuke. His compassionate reprimand focuses on the prophetic word which they should have believed. In validating “all that the prophets have spoken,” Jesus showed that He believed in the trustworthiness of the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the OT prophets wrote prophetically and accurately about the future Messiah. So that with one sentence the Lord Jesus contradicted many wrong teachings about the Scriptures, their composition, and their reliability.
24:26. The Lord Jesus asks a question that points to the principal obstacle to belief in Him as “the Christ.” His question demands an affirmative answer and once again underscores the divine plan that must see fulfillment. The Messiah’s death fulfilled God’s plan and conformed to the biblical pattern of suffering before glory. Joseph, Moses, and David all suffered before their exaltation in God’s purposes. Thus, the suffering of Messiah fits a familiar OT pattern.
24:27. The Lord then gave them the perfect Bible lesson—one that every believer would have loved to have heard. Despite the fact that Luke does not record Jesus’ actual words, one can still learn much from his report: Moses wrote the Law, an essential and foundational portion of the OT which pre-announced the advent of the Messiah and teaches concerning Him; The prophetic literature of the OT—“all the Prophets”—taught about Jesus; The writings of Moses and all the Prophets constitute “the Scriptures,” a division that covers the complete OT.
24:28. When the Lord Jesus, Cleopas, and the unnamed disciple neared Emmaus, Jesus indicated that He would have gone farther. The Lord Jesus had not revealed His destination, and neither had they recognized Him. His indication of traveling farther in no way implies deceit. Rather, it serves as a teaching tool of sorts in the same way His questions to the two disciples function at the beginning of this narrative (cf. v 17). In His omniscience Jesus knew every detail of their conversation, but He used the question to take them through a teaching process. He draws out a response from them.
RichardAnna Boyce this OP is a question about the relationship between the two hOTAN clauses in 1 Cor 15:24 IF they relate to a post-trib-rapture as Link Hudson has tried to propose in his theoretix Not just a general talk on 1 Cor 15 as done before