² I use the RSV except for the final three words, ‘all in all’. See below.

³ Berkouwer, G., The Return of Christ (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), p. 431.Google Scholar

⁴ In addition to the commentaries, cf. Luz, Ulrich, Dai Gesichtsverständnis des Paulus (München: Kaiser Verlag, 1968) 332–358Google Scholar; Barth, Gerhard, ‘Erwägungen zu 1. Korinther 15.20–28’, EvT. 1970Google Scholar. For the interpretation of the passage in patristic literature, cf. Schendel, E., Henschaft und Unterwerfung Christi, 1. Korinther 15, 24–28 in Exegese und Theologie der Väter bis zum Ausgang des 4. Jahrhundens (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1971)Google Scholar.

⁵ That this is an unusual expression is evidenced by the textual variants, p⁴⁶ gives the usual Pauline expression, ‘kingdom of God’. G and Ambrosiaster reverse the order of the text to read ‘the kingdom of God and of Christ’, while 1739 has ‘the kingdom of God's messiahrsquo; and 1836 reads ‘the kingdom of God's Son’.

⁶ E.g. Cullmann, O., ‘The Kingship of Christ and the Church in the New Testament’, The Early Church, ed. Higgins, A. J. B. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956)Google Scholar.

⁷ Cullmann, 111. ‘For just as the Regnum Christi has a beginning, so too it has an end.’ Cf. also his Christology of the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959) 225Google Scholar. Cullmann considered the millennial reign of Revelation 20 compatible with 1 Cor. 15. On the other hand, Charles, R. H., Eschatology (1899, now New York: Schocken, 1963), 448Google Scholar, distinguished different stages in Paul's thought. He wrote, ‘What the Apostle speaks of here is a Messianic reign of temporary duration from Christ's exaltation to the final judgment. In his later epistles the Apostle conceives this reign as unending.’

⁸ Schendel, 23, makes a similar point: ‘Es wird weder in 1 Kor. 15.24ff. noch in Phil. 2.7 primär gesprochen was Chrisms war sondern was er tat.’

⁹ Grillmeier, A., Christ in Christian Tradition, 2nd rev. ed. (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975), vol. 1, 399Google Scholar. His sentence includes Evagrius and the Origenists as those wanting to derive from the text the abolition of Christ's humanity.

¹⁰ Cf. the critical edition by E. Klostermann, Eusebius Werke, Band, Vierte, Gegen Marcell, über die kirchliche Theologie, Die Fragmeme Marcells, 2 Auflage, ed. Hansen, G. C. (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1972)Google Scholar. The fragments relating to our discussion will follow Klostermann's numbering. Gericke, Wolfgang, Marcell von Ancyra (Halle: Akademischer Verlag, 1940Google Scholar) offered a German translation of the fragments rather severely criticized by Scheidweiler, Felix, ‘Marcell von Ancyra’, ZNW 46 (1955) 202fCrossRefGoogle Scholar. I have translated the fragments in a yet unpublished article on Marcellus.

¹¹ Zahn, T., Marcellus von Ancyra (Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1867)Google Scholar, a work still foundational for later research.

¹² Gericke, Marcell.

¹³ Tetz, Martin, ‘Zur Theologie des Markell von Ankyra I: Eine Markellische Schrift, “De Incarnatione et contra Arianos”’ ZKG, 1964Google Scholar; ‘Zur Theologie des Markell von Ankyra II, Markells Lehre von der Adamsohnschaft Christi und eine pseudoklementinische Tradition über die wahren Lehrer und Propheten’, ZKG, 1968; ‘Zur Theologie des Markell von Ankyra III, Die pseudathanasianische Epistola ad Liberium, ein Markellisches Bekenntnis’, ZKG, 1972. In the first article, p. 250, Tetz points in particular to the fact that in the authentic writings of Athanasius one never finds 1 Cor. 15.24–28 cited, while in De incarnatione et contra Arianos, ch. 20, this text, so important for Marcellus, has a prominent place.

¹⁴ Grillmeier, p. 276, ‘a writing which has now been returned to Marcellus'. Hansen, in the Klostermann edition, notes Tetz’ work with approval. Schendel makes use of these enlarged sources when discussing Marcellus' interpretation of the Pauline text.

¹⁵ Alasdair Heron, in an unpublished 1972 Tubingen dissertation, Studies in the Trinitarian Writings of Didymus the Blind, devotes chapter 3 to ‘The Ascription of DICA [De Incarnatione et contra Arianos] to Marcellus’. He agrees that Tetz has demonstrated that DICA is not by Athanasius but thinks it more likely that DICA shows that Marcellus' thought continued to have an influence into the second half of the 4th century. Stressing important differences between DICA and Marcellus, he concludes that while resemblance is undeniable in the interpretation of 1 Cor. 15.24–28, this can be explained on the assumption that the author of DICA took over this formulation from Marcellus or one of his followers. The question is complicated by the fact that there is a disputed relationship between DICA and another pseudo-Athanasian work, De Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto. Tetz holds that the latter is a later writing dependent on DICA, a position essential if one is to posit Marcellus as the author of DICA. Heron, in ‘The Pseudo-Athanasian Works De Trinitate et Spiritu Sancto and De Incarnatione et contra Arianos: A Comparison’, in Aksum-Thyateira: A Festschrifr for Archbishop Methodios (Athens 1985) argues that DICA is dependent on DTSpS which was originally a Greek work and that DICA is the later writing – later than the time of Marcellus.

¹⁶ Quoted in Grillmeier, p. 293.

¹⁷ Cf. Schendel, 122, n. 34.

¹⁸ Eusebius of Caesarea may entitle his second work against Marcellus Peri tēs ekklesiastikēs theologias, but his Christology is unsatisfactory. Cf. Berkhof, H., Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea (Amsterdam: Uitgeversmaatschappij Holland, 1939)Google Scholar. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, exhorts his readers: ‘And shouldst thou ever hear any say that the kingdom of Christ shall have an end, abhor the heresy; it is another head of the dragon, lately sprung in Galatia. A certain one has dared to affirm, that after the end of the world Christ shall reign no longer; he also dared to say, that the Word having come forth from the Father shall be absorbed into the Father, and shall be no more; uttering such blasphemies to his own perdition.’ (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 7 (1893), XV, 27. But did Marcellus ever say that the Logos ‘shall be no more’? Cyril's attempt to interpret the ‘until’ of 1 Cor. 15.25 does not deal with the context of the passage, content only to note other places in Paul where ‘until’ does not suggest termination. Again, in De Trinitate, Hilary of Poitiers does not mention Marcellus by name but doubtless refers to him when, having refuted Photinus, he adds: ‘it is a deeply rooted evil even at the present day. Galatia nourished many who have made this impious confession of God’ (Fathers of the Church, VII. 3, p. 226). Elsewhere Hilary seems to know a book of Marcellus entitled De subiectione domini Christi, but Eusebius knows nothing of such a work, else he would certainly have made use of the title.

¹⁹ Gwatkin, H. M., Studies of Arianism (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., 1882), 82.Google Scholar

²⁰ Quasten, J., Patrology, vol. III (Westminster: Newman Press, 1960), 119Google Scholar. While he does not quote Zahn, compare the latter's p. 217: ‘Wenn sie beweist, dass Marcell eine mehr reactionäre als revolutionäre Erscheinung ist.…’

²¹ Cf. the controversies that led the church between 325 and 381 to clarify the importance of the cosmic significance of the incarnation. This led the creed of 381 to make explicit the palin of the second article, as well as to develop the third article of the creed. Christologically that creed made explicit: ‘and will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom shall have no end.’

²² Berkhof, H., The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1964), 120.Google Scholar

²³ Quotations from the 1559 Institutes of the Christian Religion are from the translation of Battles, Ford, ed. McNeil, John T., in The Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960)Google Scholar. Quotations from the commentaries are from the new edition edited by David and Thomas Torrance, published by Oliver and Boyd, and in the U.S.A., Grand Rapids: Win. B. Eerdmans Co., 1960f.

²⁴ Those who affirm that for Calvin the humanity will cease include: Emmen, E., De Christologie van Calvijn (Amsterdam: H. J. Paris, 1935), 109Google Scholar; Korff, F. W. A., Chriswlogie, I (Nijkerk: C. F. Callenbach, 1940), 250f.Google Scholar; A. A. van Ruler, De Vervulling van de Wet (see below). Those who see this implied but who leave the question somewhat open include: Quistorp, H., Calvin's Doctrine of the Last Things (London: Lutterworth, 1955), 170Google Scholar; Moltmann, J., The Crucified God (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), 258fGoogle Scholar. Those who deny this is Calvin's position include: Berkouwer, G., The Return of Christ (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1972), 431f.Google Scholar; Willis, E. David, Calvin's Catholic Christology (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966), 99.Google Scholar

²⁵ Sermons on the Epistle to the Ephesians (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1973) 114fGoogle Scholar. (The French reads: ‘que tellement il a este glorifie en sa nature humaine, que vrayement il est Dieu, d'une mesme essence avec son Pere’). The sermons, translated by Golding, were preached 1558–59.

²⁶ Luther, , Lectures on Gahtians (1519), in Luther's Works, vol. 27 (St Louis: Concordia, 1964), 171.Google Scholar

²⁷ Luther, , Lecture on Psalm 121, in Luther's Works, vol. 11 (St Louis: Concordia, 1976), 548Google Scholar. In vol. 28 are included 17 sermons Luther preached on 1 Cor. 15. As compared with Calvin's metaphor of a veil, Luther speaks of ‘beholding the sun through a cloud’, 124.

²⁸ Willis shows that the so-called ‘extra-Calvinisticum’, so prominent in the Reformed-Lutheran polemics, was not new with Calvin.

²⁹ Responsum ad Fratres Polonos, quoted in Willis, 70.

³⁰ Willis, 99.

³¹ Moltmann, 257.

³² ‘Veil’ need not suggest any docetic overtones. Cf. Wesley's Christmas hymn with its ‘Veiled in flesh the Godhead see; hail the incarnate Deity’.

³³ In Heppe, H., Reformed Dogmatics (London: Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1950), 431.Google Scholar

³⁴ Bavinck, H., Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, III (Kampen: Kok, 1910), 459f.Google Scholar

³⁵ Moltmann, 259f. He refers mainly to Van Ruler's German publication, Gestaltwerdung Christi in der Welt, 1959.

³⁶ For this study I have made use of the following: De Vervulling van de Wet (Nijkerk: G. F. Callenbach, 1947)Google Scholar; The Christian Church and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1971)Google Scholar; De Dood Overwonnen (Nijkerk: G. F. Callenbach, 1963)Google Scholar; Theologisch Werk (Nijkerk: G. F. Callenbach, Deel I appearing in 1969, II and III in 1971, IV and V in 1972, VI in 1973)Google Scholar. References to the articles in these six volumes indicate volume and pagination without titles of the various articles.

³⁷ Of these I have read Bijzonder en Algemeen Ambt (Nijkerk: G. F. Callenbach, 1952)Google Scholar. Chapter 1, ‘Office and Kingdom’ strikes Van Ruler's constant theme that God is not locked into the sacraments or into Christians, not even into Christ. ‘The messiah is his gift and deed, but he gives and does more’, 19f.

³⁸ Theol Werk V, 200f.

³⁹ Theol Werk II, 98; cf. III, 155.

⁴⁰ Cf. ‘Evangelie en ideologic’ in Theol Werk II.

⁴¹ Theol Werk VI, 77, ‘The covenant of works is more fundamental than the covenant of grace.’ In greater detail, cf. Vervulling, 276.

⁴² Theol Werk I, 137; cf. also II, 96, and Vervulling, 271.

⁴³ The Christian Church and the Old Testament, 94; cf. also Theol Werk 162, where he sees the thesis that Jesus Christ is the real content of the OT as a dangerous as well as an untenable position.

⁴⁴ Theol Werk I, 179; II, 167.

⁴⁵ Cf. Theol Werk VI, ch. 5, ‘De mens de zin van de geschiedenis’ (1963). In his earlier Vervulling, 73, he had not hesitated to use the phrase, ‘Christ the meaning of history’.

⁴⁶ Theol Werk II, 225; cf. I, 219; IV, 105.

⁴⁷ Vervulling, 90.

⁴⁸ Vervulling, 72, 104; Theol Werk III, 89.

⁴⁹ De Dood Wordt Overwonnen, 65.

⁵⁰ The Christian Church and the Old Testament, 69. Cf. Theol Werk I, 165, where the redemptive work of Christ ‘is therefore only a moment, an emergency measure, in the one counsel and the one work of God’. Cf. also I, 174; III, 140.

⁵¹ Vervulling, 149. (Without attempting a full concordance of the word ‘intermezzo’ and especially the ‘messianic intermezzo’, cf. Vervulling, 36, 107, 144, 171, 196, 250, 281, 354, 435, 499, 517, 529; Theol, Werk I, 139; IV, 82, 192; VI, 16, 25, 126, 186.)

⁵² Vervulling, 107.

⁵³ Ibid., 93.

⁵⁴ Theol Werk VI, 40.

⁵⁵ Theol Werk I, 172f.

⁵⁶ Theol Werk I, 150. Berkhof, H., Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979), 168Google Scholar, points to this quotation critically.

⁵⁷ Theol Werk VI, 38.

⁵⁸ Theol Werk I, 160; II, 67. Both references are directed against Barth.

⁵⁹ Cf. the article, ‘Politiek is een heilige zaak’, Theol Werk IV, 119f.

⁶⁰ Cf. Berkouwer, 431, ‘Without equating Van Ruler's ideas with those of Marcellus, I think it is quite obvious that the problem of an intermezzo occupies a crucial place in both views. The church traditionally has proceeded in another direction.’

⁶¹ Vervulling, 95.

⁶² Cf. Moltmann, 261, who asks, ‘But can the consummation be understood as being quite untouched by the history out of which it emerges?’ He assumes that for Van Ruler there is no ‘plus’ in the eschaton.

⁶³ Theol Werk I, 170f; cf. also II, 227; VI, 70. ‘The eschaton is the creation plus history.’

⁶⁴ Theol Werk IV, 85.

⁶⁵ Cf. Theol Werk I, 218. This occurs in an address entitled ‘Eschatologische notities’. The same volume includes an address entitled ‘Methode en mogelijkheden van de dogmatiek, vergeleken met die van exegese’.

⁶⁶ In 1 Cor. 15.49, with Nestle-Aland, we read the future phoresomen rather than the subjunctive phoresōmen, despite textual evidence for the latter, because the future stands in contrast to the aorist ephoresamen (‘we have borne the image of the man of dust’).

⁶⁷ Berkhof, , Christian Faith, 536.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ In Vervulling, 149, 151, Van Ruler makes a passing reference to Rev. 14.4 where the redeemed are the first fruits ‘for God and the Lamb’, but he does not reflect on the image ‘Lamb’ as this is part of the final vision. Similarly, I have not found any reference to Eph. 1.20f. (‘above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come’).

⁶⁹ I owe this quotation to Professor George Hendry of Princeton Theological Seminary.