The Narrow Path Ministries

Hello,

I am curious how persons who believe in the divinity of Jesus would interpret the following verse:

and when everything might be made subject to him [i.e., Jesus], then also he, the son, will be made subject to the One making everything subject to him, that God may be all in all. ( I Cor. 15:28 )


Thank you,
Emmet

This is a curious passage because it says the Son will hupotasso (arrange himself under) Theos. Does this mean the Son is less than the Father because of this arrangment? Paul uses this phrase in Col. 3:18 to speak of wives submitting to their husbands. Does God not see husbands and wives as equal in his sight? They are both equally human (same substance) yet in a different position. We see then that Paul's usage of hupotasso isn't meant to convey substantive unequality, but rather, positional difference. We Christians hold that the Son and the Father are equal in substance, yet different in position.

son, will be made subject to the One making everything subject to him


Emett, if the Son "will be made subject" then what was his position before he, will be made subject?

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your response. I still owe you one in our dialogue thread...

This is a curious passage because it says the Son will hupotasso (arrange himself under) Theos. Does this mean the Son is less than the Father because of this arrangment? Paul uses this phrase in Col. 3:18 to speak of wives submitting to their husbands. Does God not see husbands and wives as equal in his sight? They are both equally human (same substance) yet in a different position. We see then that Paul's usage of hupotasso isn't meant to convey substantive unequality, but rather, positional difference. We Christians hold that the Son and the Father are equal in substance, yet different in position.

An interesting argument.

(aleph) Does it hold consistently with the thrust of Paul's usage of hupotasso elsewhere in the passage?

(gymel) We may recognize the pragmatic benefit of subordination amongst human equals. But what reason would there be for part of God to be subordinate, even in position, to another part of God? If the son is of the same essence as the Father in all ways, what possible significance could there be to such subordination?

(gymel) The passage not only states that the son will be subordinate under the Father, but that this will be done so "that God may be all in all." How does this rationale square with a putative equality? Would not God be "all in all" if there were no such subordination?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

Emmet, Jesus clearly said, "The Father is greater than I."
I believe that refers to His being greater positionally, rather than greater essentially.

As first and second century Christians (in the first century, they were considered to be a sect of Judaism), taught, God begat a unique Son who was Deity even as the Father was Deity. In the second century, it was taught that Proverbs 8:22-31 was actually a record of the begetting of the Son, who was the personification of wisdom.

While on earth, Jesus did nothing except what the Father told Him. Indeed, He did not have the power to do anything except the Father did it through Him. For He became a true human being, having emptied Himself of His divine attributes. The only aspect of Deity which He retained was His identity.

Now that the Father has raised Jesus from death, He has exalted His Son and placed Him in a high position above all else. But Jesus, the Son, always has, and always will glorify God. He will always want the Father to be all things to all people. So it is not much wonder that after the Father honours His Son in putting all things under His feet, that Jesus will then turn the Kingdom over to the Father that God may be all in all.

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your response. It's nice to hear from you.

Emett, if the Son "will be made subject" then what was his position before he, will be made subject?

An interesting question, Steve - but pretty much not my problem, because (as you might expect) I do not take Paul's Christological assertions too seriously. My natural interest here is the problem his latter comment poses to certain Christian theology.




Shalom,
Emmet

Hello, Paidion,

Thank you for your response.

(aleph) Pardon: would you state, then, that Jesus is God, or not?

(beth) If Jesus is an integral sharer in deity, how shall we explain his wanting people to view only a part of deity as "all in all," and not the fullness of deity?


Shalom,
Emmet

Emmet:

(aleph) Pardon: would you state, then, that Jesus is God, or not?

It all depends upon what is meant by "God". If by "God" one means the Father, then the answer is "no". But if one is using "God" as a generic term, if one means an order of being, or divine "essence"', then the answer is "yes".

The author of the letter to the Hebrews wrote that Jesus is the exact expression of the Father's essence.

A dog begets dogs and the offspring is canine.

Man begets man , and the offspring is human.

God begat God, and the offspring is divine.

(beth) If Jesus is an integral sharer in deity, how shall we explain his wanting people to view only a part of deity as "all in all," and not the fullness of deity?

I wonder if you could elucidate for me. As I understand it, both the Father and the only-begotten Son were each "the fullness of deity".

Colossians 2:9 For in [Christ] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form...

Hello, Paidion,

Thank you for your reply.

It all depends upon what is meant by "God". If by "God" one means the Father, then the answer is "no". But if one is using "God" as a generic term, if one means an order of being, or divine "essence"', then the answer is "yes".

The author of the letter to the Hebrews wrote that Jesus is the exact expression of the Father's essence.

A dog begets dogs and the offspring is canine.

Man begets man , and the offspring is human.

God begat God, and the offspring is divine.

So, then, you are not monotheistic? You posit two Gods? Or more?

kaufmannphillips: (beth) If Jesus is an integral sharer in deity, how shall we explain his wanting people to view only a part of deity as "all in all," and not the fullness of deity?

Paidion: I wonder if you could elucidate for me. As I understand it, both the Father and the only-begotten Son were each "the fullness of deity".

Colossians 2:9 For in [Christ] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form...

An interesting verse, which perhaps should be interpreted in light of passages like Ephesians 1:23 and 3:19, and Mark 8:20?


But anyway - you would posit, then, that either the Father or the Son could be fully God without the other? A Trinitarian (or even a Binitarian) who supposed hypostatic union would have some difficulty with such a premise, but if you differentiate between the Father and the Son hypostatically, then you could avoid that difficulty.

Which leaves the conceptual problem: what is the purpose of excluding a (putatively) complete sharer in divinity from the outworking of God being "all in all"? Does this not rob one "God" of that which is rightly his?

Or am I still missing your point?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

So, then, you are not monotheistic? You posit two Gods? Or more?

Again, it all depends upon what you mean by "Gods".

Genesis 1:26 sounds as if the Deity is composed of more than one divine Individual:

Then Gods ("Elohim", a plural word) said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness ..."