Shared ground
Paul treats Jesus’ resurrection as a real, already-accomplished event that starts a larger resurrection sequence (v.20). Christ is “first fruits,” meaning his resurrection is the first part of a harvest that implies more resurrections to follow.
He frames the human problem and its solution through two representative humans: Adam and Christ. Death is linked to Adam; being “made alive” is linked to Christ (vv.21–22). He then gives a basic timeline: Christ first, then “those who belong to Christ” at his coming, and then “the end” (vv.23–24).
At “the end,” Christ’s reign results in every rival “rule, authority, and power” being brought down, with death named as the final enemy to be abolished (vv.24–26). The passage also insists that the Father is not included in the category of “all things” subjected to the Son, and that the Son’s final “subjection” serves the goal “that God may be all in all” (vv.27–28). See also Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 8:6 behind Paul’s “under his feet” language.
Where interpretation differs (only where needed)
1) What “all” means (“all die… all will be made alive,” v.22).
Some read “all” as equally universal in both halves: every human dies in Adam, and every human will finally be made alive in Christ. Others read the second “all” as limited by the next verse: “all” who are made alive are those who are “in Christ,” clarified as “those who belong to Christ” (v.23).
2) What kind of “being made alive” is in view (v.22).
Some take it as resurrection to immortal life in the fullest saving sense. Others take it more narrowly as resurrection as an event (everyone is raised), while final outcomes still differ; they point to the broader chapter’s attention to belonging to Christ and to final victory over death.
3) How to understand the Son being “subjected” to the Father (v.28).
Some understand this as a functional, role-related handing over of rule at the completion of the mission, not a change in Christ’s worth or status. Others think it suggests a lasting hierarchy within God’s own life. Both readings usually agree the text’s stated purpose is the final harmony: “that God may be all in all.”
Why the disagreement exists
Paul uses the word “all” repeatedly (noted by the passage’s density of all), but he also immediately qualifies the resurrection sequence by naming a specific group: “those who are Christ’s” (v.23). Readers disagree over how tightly that qualifier controls the meaning of “all” in v.22.
Likewise, Paul mixes cosmic-sounding political language (“rule… authority… power”) with the very concrete enemy “death” (vv.24–26). That combination leaves room for different views on whether he is speaking mainly about spiritual powers, earthly systems, or both at once.
Finally, the passage is careful: everything is subjected to the Son, except the Father (v.27); then the Son is subjected to the Father (v.28). Interpreters weigh whether this describes a timeline of roles in salvation-history or implies something permanent about the relationships within God.
What this passage clearly contributes
- Explicit claims: Christ’s resurrection is the beginning of a larger resurrection order; the next resurrection group named is “those who belong to Christ” at his coming; “the end” includes Christ handing the kingdom to the Father after rival powers are nullified; death is the final enemy to be abolished; the Father is exempt from being subjected; the Son’s final subjection aims at “God… all in all” (vv.20–28).
- Strong implications: resurrection is not an isolated miracle but the start of a comprehensive defeat of death and every competing power; Christ’s reign is purposeful and moves toward a defined completion; the final picture is fully ordered rule under God, with no rivals and no death.
