The Narrow Path Ministries

I'm curious what people make of this passage.

Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power.

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

The last enemy to be eliminated is death.

For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But when it says "everything" has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him.

And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.

This passage (1 Cor 15:24-28) is perfectly clear.

I don't know what anyone can "make of it" unless they disagree with the plain words and wish to explain them away.

Paul seems to refer to a "status quo ante" except that the Word is now forever the Son. The return to the former state is voluntary on the part of the Son.

How could one possibly sustain an anti-subordinationist view in light of this passage?

Darin, This is another one of those passages that contain a lot of Hes and Hims, which makes it a little difficult to figure out who's who. But,no doubt, obedience to God is essential.

This is my take on the passage: What Moses and the prophets say, is coming true for Israel. Obedience to the word of God brings about blessings. Disobedience brings curses. In this way, we are all subject to the word, whether to the positive or negative. We reap what we sow.
Galatians says that those of the flesh were numerous than those of the Spirit. When those of the Spirit become more numerous than those of the flesh, then the kingdom would be under the rule of the righteous.

Isaiah says "When your judgments are in the earth, people learn righteousness." This is true because when our lives fall to pieces, "our eyes are opened" and we're willing to listen to what God says.

commonsense, I really don't understand how this relates at all to this passage. Is it possible you meant to respond to a different post?

darinhouston wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 09, 2021 11:12 am

commonsense, I really don't understand how this relates at all to this passage. Is it possible you meant to respond to a different post?

No. Because i don't think this passage is referring to the end of the world. It was the end of Israel, the end of THEIR world. The kingdom of God was being built back up on the Rock in which it was founded upon.

" Death reigned from Adam to Moses." When Moses came along, death no longer reigned because the people of the Spirit were more numerous than than those of the flesh. So Israel was under the rule of the righteous at that time. This wasn't the case when Jesus arrived.

commonsense wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 09, 2021 12:42 pm

darinhouston wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 09, 2021 11:12 am

commonsense, I really don't understand how this relates at all to this passage. Is it possible you meant to respond to a different post?

No. Because i don't think this passage is referring to the end of the world. It was the end of Israel, the end of THEIR world. The kingdom of God was being built back up on the Rock in which it was founded upon.

" Death reigned from Adam to Moses." When Moses came along, death no longer reigned because the people of the Spirit were more numerous than than those of the flesh. So Israel was under the rule of the righteous at that time. This wasn't the case when Jesus arrived.

I have to say that's the first time I've ever heard anything like that. But, looking back at the context of the larger passage, I don't see how that's reasonable. The entire passage is about resurrection through earthly existence until the end of time. The passage begins by talking about Christ being raised from the dead. It flashes back to Adam to compare him to Adam and comparing what Adam caused to what Christ accomplished. This as background to describe what happens to the rest of us (resurrection) after his example (later in time). The very next passage says "then" the end will come...

darinhouston wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 09, 2021 4:23 pm

The passage begins by talking about Christ being raised from the dead. It flashes back to Adam to compare him to Adam and comparing what Adam caused to what Christ accomplished. This as background to describe what happens to the rest of us (resurrection) after his example (later in time). The very next passage says "then" the end will come...

Darin, I don't believe in the original sin theory. What the Scriptures say , don't match up with it. The end of Israel did come, and Christ has been resurrected in us who follow Him. We are the body of Christ.

As Acts 15: 16-17 says, " After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen down. I will rebuild it's ruins, and I will set it up, so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord who does all these things."

Darin,

You asked:

I'm curious what people make of this passage.

Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father (kai Patri), when he has brought to an end all rule and all authority and power.

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

The last enemy to be eliminated is death.

For he has put everything in subjection under his feet. But when it says "everything" has been put in subjection, it is clear that this does not include the one who put everything in subjection to him.

And when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God (ho Theos) may be all in all.

The passage is not terribly difficult for the Trinitarian view. The God who "may be all in all" is the Triune God - Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Notice that Paul did not say "the Father may be all in all," but that the God (ho Theos) may be all in all - to the Trinitarian the Triune God.

Linski commented:

The answer is simple. He who subjected all things to Christ is the Father, the first person of the Godhead. It is also Christ, the Son ensarkos, incarnate, not the Son asarkos, apart from His incarnation, who has all things put under His feet, all things made subject to Him. This incarnate Son delivers all things to His Father at the end, lays the work assigned to Him, complete and perfect, into the Father's hands and by this act subjects Himself to the Father. Thus ho theos, "God," not one person merely but the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, shall be "all in all", supreme in eternity.

When Christ turns this kingdom over to the Father, this does not mean that the Son will then be deprived of His kingdom and His Rule, the Father taking His place. Then the Triune God will rule in the unity of the three persons with all His glory fully revealed. In that unity the God-man has His place.

To me the understanding of a Triune God best reconciles many scriptures that otherwise seem contradictory. For example, in light of the subject 1 Corinthians passage, how does the Unitarian explain this plain statement to Mary by the angel Gabriel:

Luke 1:32-33
New American Standard Bible 1995
32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33 and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever (aionas), and His kingdom will have no end.”

(And here we have a "freebie" for the Universalist. Aionas obviously means "forever, endless", in this place.)