1 Corinthians 15:28

1Co_15:28

And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son … be subject.

Christ subjecting Himself

I. Christ reigning. Our text speaks of the time when 1Co_15:25 shall be accomplished.

1. Christs kingdom is to exist till all things are subjugated to it. It is set up to bring to obedience those who are rebels to Gods government.

(1) It virtually began with the first human rebel; when the promise was made that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpents head.

(2) After Christs dearth and resurrection, His kingdom was actually established, and His ambassadors have ever since been beseeching men in Christs stead to be reconciled to God.

(3) Christs kingdom is remedial rather than judicial, and He seeks to rule by constraint rather than restraint.

2. This kingdom will eventually be universal. Here is no uncertainty, no speculation. The mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. I have sworn by myself,… that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

II. Christ subjecting himself.

1. Humanly speaking, Christ subjected Himself to the Father when He assumed our nature, and submitted to the death of the Cross. His present exaltation is the reward of that submission (Php_2:1-30), and consists of a relative dominion which will come to an end when Christ has finished the peculiar work for which it was established.

2. The relative subjection of the incarnation was voluntarily and not derogatory to His Divinity. Christ was God manifested in the flesh.

3. Nor will it be derogatory to Christs Divinity to subject Himself by yielding up the lordship of the mediatorial kingdom. His glory and dominion will be the same, it will merely be a change in the form of administration.

III. God as all in all.

1. This does not mean that God the Son shall be lost in the Father, for Christ is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This expression is also used of Christ. He is spoken of as the fulness of Him that filleth all things, and as all, and in all. God the Father is not all in all to the exclusion of the Son, but with the Son, and with the Holy Ghost.

2. It is the Triune God that is here spoken of as all in all. The mediatorial kingdom having come to an end, the relative position of Christ being no longer required, there is seen only the Divine absoluteness in the never divided Trinity.

3. The Triune God all in all means that the Divine will be supreme by a universal, voluntary, glad consent. When God is absolutely our all in all we shall have secured the highest happiness we are capable of. (Homiletic Magazine.)

The final submission of the Son to the Father

That from the moment of His final triumph the Son will bow to the Father in a sense in which He does not now, must be expounded in harmony with Luk_1:33. Of His kingdom there will be no end; and with Rev_11:15, The kingdom of the world has become our Lords and His Christs: and He will reign for ever and ever. In this latter passage the united reign of the Father and Son is described by the remarkable words, He will reign. Perhaps the following imperfect human comparison may help to harmonise these apparently contradictory assertions. Conceive a king who never leaves his palace, but commits all public acts of royalty to his son, who performs them in the name, and at the bidding and according to the will, of his father, whose will his son always approves. Such a son we might call a sharer of his fathers throne; and, in another sense, the sole ruler of his fathers realm. Conceive now that a province is in rebellion, and that, to bring it into submission, the king invests his son, for the time of the rebellion, with full royal authority. The son begins in person the war against the rebels; but before its completion he returns to the capital in which his father reigns and directs thence the war until order is completely restored. Even in the presence of his father he exercises the full regal authority given to him for the suppression of the revolt. While the rebellion lasts he seems to be an independent ruler; though really ruling only at the bidding, and to work out the will, and restore the authority of his father. But when order is restored, the son gives back to the father this delegated royalty: and even the apparent independence of the sons rule ceases. Henceforth the father reigns with undisputed sway. The difference between the special authority delegated to the Son for the suppression of the revolt and afterwards laid down and the abiding authority of the Son as the Fathers representative, I cannot define. Probably it is connected with the fact that in consequence of sin the Son did what the Father never did, viz., became man and died. May it not be that in consequence of this He exercises now an authority which is specially His own, and which will continue only for a time? (Prof. Beet.)

Our relations to Christ in the future life

That Christ is to be in some sense eternal, and the eternal joy of all believers, we cannot willingly doubt. What kind of personal relation to Christ we are to hope for and hold, as our authorised and fixed expectations for the future life? Among those who hold the Trinity more lightly, or in a more nearly Sabellian way, as a dramatising of God to serve the occasional uses of redemption, it is common to assume the discontinuance of it, when the uses of redemption no longer require it. But there is a fatal want of depth in this conception. If there was a necessity of the Three to carry on the redemption of the world, as this partly Sabellian view supposes, it was not a necessity of sin, but of mind--finite mind, all finite mind; existing therefore ab aeterno in aeternum. We have now a great first point established, viz., that when the Son is spoken of as finally to be made subject, or so far discontinued as to let God be all in all, it cannot be meant that the Son is to be taken away, or disappear, in any sense that modifies at all the fact of Trinity. If God is to be all in all, it must be as Trinity and not otherwise. How then shall we understand the apostle when he testifies that the Son shall be subject or retired from the view? He is speaking plainly of the Son as incarnate, or externalised in the flesh, visible outwardly in the man-form and known as the Son of Mary. He it is that, after having--as a king outwardly regnant--put all things under His feet, is in turn to become subject also Himself, that God may be all in all, and the machineries hitherto conspicuous be for ever taken back as before the advent. The only objection I perceive to this construction is, that the word Son here appears to be used in connection with the word Father--delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father,--then shall the Son also--as if it were intended to say that the Son as in Trinity is to give place to the Father as in Trinity, and He to be henceforth sole Deity. But there is a two-fold relationship of Father and Son appearing and reappearing constantly; viz., that of the Father to the incarnate Son and that of the Father to the pre-incarnate Son; that which gives Him earthly Fatherhood and that which gives Him celestial, ante-mudane Fatherhood. The apostle was not careful here to put a guard for the saving of the eternal Sonship, because he did not imagine the need of saving that, any more than of saving Deity itself. He was only thinking of the mortal Sonship, and giving us to see the essentially temporal date of its continuance. Trinity then as He conceives will remain, but the mortal Sonship, the man, will disappear and be no more visible. And let us not too hastily recoil from this. It may be that we have been promising ourselves a felicity in the future world, made up almost wholly of the fact that we shall be with Christ in His humanly personal form, and have used this hope to feed our longings, quite apart from all higher relations to His Eternal Sonship. Their word is Jesus, always Jesus, never the Christ; and if they can see Jesus in the world to come, they do not specially look for anything more. Heaven is fully made up, to their low type of expectation, if they can but apprehend the Man and be with Him. Religion reaches after God, and God is Trinity, and all the gospel does, or can do, by the name and human person of Jesus, is to bring us in and up to a God who is eternally above that name. Our relations to Christ, then, in the future life, are to be relations to God in Christ, and never to the Jesus in Christ. There is, I know, a conception of our gospel which has its blessedness in Jesus, because it meets God in Him, and is specially drawn to His humanity, because it even finds the fulness of God bowed low in His person. This so far is genuine gospel. And it would not be strange if a disciple thus wonted in God should imagine that the joy of his faith is conditioned for ever by the human person at whose ministry or from whose love it began. What, then, is the future glory, he will ask, if he does not bring him in, where he can see the very Man of the Cross? And who is this but Him that you seek? Surely He is somehow here, and this is somehow He. You missed Him, perchance, because you were looking too low down, out of the range of Deity, to find Him; whereas now you find Him throned in God, hymned in God, as the everlasting Son of the Father--and yet He is somehow Son of Mary still, even as He is the Lamb that was slain. (H. Bushnell.)

The termination of the mediatorial kingdom

There are two great truths presented by this verse and its context--the one, that Christ is now vested with a kingly authority which He must hereafter resign; the other, that, as a consequence on this resignation, God Himself will become all in all to the universe. We begin by observing the importance of carefully distinguishing between what the Scriptures affirm of the attributes, and what of the offices, of the persons in the Trinity in regard of the attributes, you will find that the employed language marks perfect equality; the Father, Son, and Spirit being alike spoken of as Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent. But in regard of the offices, there can be no dispute that the language indicates inequality, and that both the Son and Spirit are represented as inferior to the Father. This may readily be accounted for from the nature of the plan of redemption. This plan demanded that the Son should humble Himself, and assume our nature; and that the Spirit should condescend to be sent as a renovating agent; whilst the Father was to remain in the sublimity and happiness of Godhead. And it is only by thus distinguishing between the attributes and the offices that we can satisfactorily explain our text and its context. The apostle expressly declares of Christ, that He is to deliver up His kingdom to the Father, and to become Himself subject to the Father. And the question naturally proposes itself, how are statements such as these to be reconciled with other portions of Scripture, which speak of Christ as an everlasting King, and declare His dominion to be that which shall not be destroyed? There is no difficulty in reconciling these apparently conflicting assertions if we consider Christ as spoken of in the one case as God, in the other as Mediator. And you cannot be acquainted with the scheme of our redemption and not know that the office of the Mediator warrants our supposing a kingdom which will be finally surrendered. The grand design of redemption has all along been the exterminating evil from the universe, and the restoring harmony throughout Gods disorganised empire. He was not indeed fully and visibly invested with the kingly office until after His death and resurrection: for then it was that He declared to His disciples, All power is given unto Me in heaven and earth. Nevertheless the mediatorial kingdom had commenced with the commencement of human guilt and misery. But when, through death, He had destroyed Him that had the power of death, the Mediator became emphatically a King. He ascended up on high, and led captivity captive, in that very nature in which He had borne our griefs and carried our sorrows. He sat down at the right hand of God the very person that had been made a curse for us. It is certainly the representation of Scripture, that Christ has been exalted to a throne, in recompense of His humiliation and suffering; and that, seated on this throne, He governs all things in heaven and earth. And we call this throne the mediatorial throne, because it was only as Mediator that Christ could be exalted. The great object for which the kingdom has been erected, is, that He who occupies the throne may subdue those principalities and powers which have set themselves against the government of God. And when this noble result is brought round, and the whole globe mantled with righteousness, there will yet remain much to be done ere the mediatorial work is complete. The throne must set for judgment; the enactments of a retributive economy take effect; the dead be raised, and all men receive the things done in the body. Then will evil be finally expelled form the universe, and God may again look forth on His unlimited empire, and declare it not defiled by a solitary stain. Now it has been our object, up to this point, to prove to you, on scriptural authority, that the Mediator is a King, and that Christ, as God-man, is invested with a dominion not to be confounded with that which belongs to Him as God. You are now therefore prepared for the question, whether Christ has not a kingdom which must be ultimately resigned. We think it evident that, as Mediator, Christ has certain functions to discharge, which, from their very nature, cannot be eternal. When the last of Gods elect family shall have been gathered in, there will be none to need the blood of sprinkling, none to require the intercession of an advocate with the Father. Then shall all that sovereignty which, for magnificent but temporary purposes, has been wielded by and through the humanity of Christ, pass again to the Godhead whence it was derived. Then shall the Creator, acting no longer through the instrumentality of a Mediator, assume visibly, amid the worshippings of the whole intelligent creation, the dominion over His infinite and now purified empire, and administer its every concern without the intervention of one found in fashion as a man. God shall henceforwards be all in all. Now it is upon this latter expression, indicative as it is of what we may call the universal diffusion of Deity, that we design to employ the remainder of our time. We wish to examine into the truths involved in the assertion that God is to be finally all in all. It is an assertion which, the more it is pondered, the more comprehensive will it appear. You may remember that the same expression is used of Christ in the Epistle to the Colossians--Christ is all and in all. There is no disagreement between the assertions. In the Epistle to the Colossians St. Paul speaks of what takes place under the mediatorial kingdom; whereas in that to the Corinthians he describes what will occur when that kingdom shall have terminated. We learn, then, from the expression in question, however unable we may be to explain the amazing transition, that there is to be a removal of the apparatus constructed for allowing us communications with Godhead; and that we shall not need those offices of an Intercessor, without which there could now be no access to our Maker. There is something very grand and animating in this announcement. If we were unfallen creatures, we should need no Mediator. The mediatorial office, independently on which we must have been everlastingly outcasts, is evidence, throughout the whole of its continuance, that the human race does not yet occupy the place whence it fell. But with the termination of this office shall be the admission of man into all the privileges of direct access to his Maker. In ceasing to have a Mediator the last barrier is taken down; and man, who has thrown himself to an unmeasured distance from God, passes into those direct associations with Him that inhabiteth eternity, which can be granted to none but those who never fell, or who, having fallen, have been recovered from every consequence of apostacy. And therefore it is not that we depreciate, or undervalue, the blessedness of that condition in which Christ is all in all to His Church. We cannot compute this blessedness, and we feel that the best praises fall far short of its deserts; and yet we can believe of this blessedness, that it is only preparatory to a richer and a higher. To tell me that I should need a Mediator through eternity, were to tell me that I should be in danger of death, and at a distance from God. There is, however, no reason for supposing that the human race alone will be affected by the resignation of the mediatorial kingdom. We may not believe that it is only over ourselves that Christ Jesus has been invested with sovereignty. It would rather appear, since all power has been given Him in heaven and earth, that the mediatorial kingdom embraces different worlds, and different orders of intelligence; and that the chief affairs of the universe are administered by Christ in His glorified humanity. It is therefore possible that even unto angels the Godhead does not now immediately manifest itself; but that these glorious creatures are governed, like ourselves, through the instrumentality of the Mediator. Hence it will be a great transition to the whole intelligent creation, and not merely to an inconsiderable fraction, when the Son shall give up the kingdom to the Father. It will be the visible enthronement of Deity. The Creator will come forth from His sublime solitude, and assume the sceptre of His boundless empire. And it is not, we think, possible to give a finer description of universal harmony and happiness than is contained in the sentence, God all in all, when supposed to have reference to every rank in creation. Let us consider for a moment what the sentence implies. It implies that there shall be but one mind, and that the Divine mind, throughout the universe. Every creature shall be so actuated by Deity, that the Creator shall have only to will, and the whole mass of intelligent being will be conscious of the same wish, and the same purpose. It is not merely that every creature will be under the government of the Creator, as a subject is under that of his prince. It is more than all this. It is that there shall be such fibres of association between the Creator and the creatures, that every other will shall move simultaneously with the Divine, and the resolve of Deity be instantly felt as one mighty impulse pervading the vast expansion of mind. God all in all--it is that from the highest order to the lowest, archangel, and angel, and man, and principality, and power, there shall be but one desire, one object. This is making God more than the universal Ruler: it is making Him the universal Actuator. But if the expression mark the harmony, it marks also the happiness of eternity. It is undeniable that, even whilst on earth, we find things more beautiful and precious in proportion as we are accustomed to find God in them, to view them as gifts, and to love them for the sake of the giver. It is not the poet, nor the naturalist, who has the richest enjoyment when surveying the landscape, or tracing the manifestations of creative power and contrivance. It is the Christian, who recognises a Fathers hand in the glorious development of mountain and valley, and discovers the loving-kindness of an ever-watchful guardian in each example of the adaptation of the earth to its inhabitants. What will it be when God shall be literally all in all? It were little to tell us, that, admitted into the heavenly Jerusalem, we should worship in a temple magnificent in architecture, and bow down at a shrine whence flashed the effulgence and issued the voice of Jehovah. The mighty and overwhelming thing is that, according to the vision of St. John, there shall be no temple there; but that so actually shall God be all, that Deity itself will be our sanctuary, and our adorations be rendered in the sublime recesses of the Omnipotent Himself. And if we think on future intercourse with beings of our own race, or of loftier ranks, then only are the anticipations rapturous and inspiriting, when Deity seems blended with every association. The child may be again loved and embraced. But the emotions will have none of that selfishness into which the purest and deepest of our feelings may now be too much resolved: it will be God that the child loves in the parent, and it will be God that the parent loves in the child; and the gladness with which the heart of each swells, as they recognise one the other in the celestial city, will be a gladness of which Deity is the spring, a gladness of which Deity is the object. Thus shall it be also in regard of every element which can be supposed to enter into future happiness. It is certain, that, if God be all in all, there will be excited in us no wish which we shall be required to repress, none which shall not be gratified so soon as formed. Having God in ourselves, we shall have capacities of enjoyment immeasurably larger than at present; having God in all around us, we shall find everywhere material of enjoyment commensurate with our amplified powers. Let us put from us confused and indeterminate notions of happiness, and the simple description, that God shall be all in all, sets before us the very perfection of felicity. The only sound definition of happiness is that every faculty has its proper object. And we believe of man, that God endowed him with various capacities, intending to be Himself their supply. Thus, at present, we make little or no approach towards knowing God as He is, because God hath not yet made Himself all in all to His creatures. But let there once come this universal diffusion of Deity, and we may find in God Himself the objects which answer to our matured and spiritualised faculties. We profess not to be competent to the understanding the mysterious change which is thus indicated as passing on the universe. But we can perceive it to be a change which shall be full of glory, full of happiness. Thus we look forward to the termination of the mediatorial kingdom as the event with which stands associated our reaching the summit of our felicity. There is then to be a removal of all that is now intermediate in our communications with Deity, and the substitution of God Himself for the objects which He has now adapted to the giving us delight. God Himself will be an object to our faculties; God Himself will be our happiness. We can only add that it becomes us to examine whether we are now subjects of the mediatorial kingdom, or whether we are of those who will not that Christ should reign over them. If God is hereafter to be all in all, it behoves us to inquire what He is to us now. Can we say with the Psalmist, Whom have I in heaven but Thee, and there is none upon earth that I desire in comparison of Thee? How vain must be our hope of entering into heaven if we have no present delight in what are said to be its joys! Again we say, that, if it be heaven towards which we journey, it will be holiness in which we delight: for if we cannot now rejoice in having God for our portion, where is our meetness for a world in which God is to be all in all for ever and for ever? (H. Melvill, B.D.)

That God may be all in all--

God all in all

I. In the shifting scenes of the worlds life. When we look out upon the tangled web of history, the rise and the fall of mighty empires, the changing dynasties, the successive forms of government and social life, the instability of all things, the recurring cycle of events, the growth which ends only in decay, the constant ebb and flow of political life, our heart will sometimes ask, Is there any thread which strings together this chaotic mass, is there any design which is growing towards maturity by these accumulations of the ages? Are we to believe in the worlds progressive life, or are we to resign ourselves to despair, looking out upon the present and the past as an ever-varying kaleidoscope, in which the combinations seem to follow one another at random, and with no fixed law? In the text we read the answer. Beyond and above the busy turmoil of earth, the blessed Trinity lives and loves, the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever. A Divine purpose runs throughout the ages, and under the ever-changing forms of life, God is fulfilling Himself in many ways.

II. In the destinies of the Church. If at times we feel anxious as we think of her conflicts; if at certain eras Christ seems to sleep within the tempest-tossed barque; if she no longer goes forth as in her early days, in the freshness of her strength and joy, to convert the world to the obedience of the faith, yet we know that she ceases not to be the bride of her unchanging Spouse; the eternal Trinity is in the midst of her, therefore shall she not be removed; God is working where we can see nothing but the perversity and the strivings of man; He is all in all.

III. In our temporal life. Looking at life from one point of view, how baffling, how meaningless does it appear! What mean the complaints which reach us in so many forms, not so much of lifes deep sorrows, as of its inconsistencies and apparent aimlessness, its want of harmony and completeness of any kind? Purposes unfulfilled, aspirations unrealised, emotions wasted, paths which seem to lead nowhither, these lie a heavy weight upon the heart of humanity. Where is to be found the note which shall simplify this complex life of ours? how shall we be enabled to look back upon it with quietness and confidence, and feel that all has been working together for our final perfection and happiness? If we have been in any degree cherishing the spiritual life within us, such a power is to be found in the thought of Him, who has done all things well, who, behind the restless, ceaseless changes of life, has been carrying out His eternal purposes concerning us, has been step by step training our soul for its everlasting home--who out of the unchangeableness of His own eternity has seen the end from the beginning, and been Himself the real but unseen agent in all that has befallen us.

IV. In our spiritual life. This also is full of change and variety; it needs to be reduced to some principle of unity. There is the varied atmosphere of the inner life, times of joy and refreshment, times of fears and misgivings--there is the oft-renewed struggle with some besetting sin, the consciousness of Gods grace working within us to its weakening or overthrow. There is an element of restlessness even in our deepest, truest life. But God is working within us to will and to do of His good pleasure; He is Himself the Way, by which we travel to Himself the end; Himself the Life in whom alone we live; Himself the prize when all our warfare is accomplished. God is our all in all. Conclusion: Thus we find that all centres at last in God; all existence stands at length in relation to Him, who is the Fount of all being. The life of nations as well as that of individuals springs out of the exhaustless depths of His eternal counsels. Life is indeed many-sided and discordant when we look at it out of our own human weakness and imperfection, but as we view it in the light of God we learn to believe that all is well. Apart from Him its greatest achievements appear poor and unsatisfactory: when referred to Him its smallest details are dignified and ennobled. (S. W. Skeffington, M.A.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 15:28. When all things shall be subdued — Or, rather, subjected, (as υποταγη properly signifies,) unto him, and there is no longer need of a prophet to teach, nor of a priest to make atonement and intercede, nor of a king to deliver, protect, and govern under God, the Father will resume the government; and then, even the Son himself shall be subjected to him who subjected all things to him, that God — Or the Godhead; may be all in all — May be over all beings, in all places, and the immediate object of their worship and service. Or rather, may be all things in and to his intelligent creatures, saints, and angels, by a full communication of himself to them, and an intimate union with them. “He saith not,” observes Dr. Whitby, “that the Father, mentioned 1Co 15:24, but that God may be all in all; and so he seems to lead us to that interpretation of the Godhead which comprehends Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and then the import of the phrase, that God may be all in all, will be this: That the Godhead may govern all things immediately by himself, without the intervention of a mediator between him and us, to exact our obedience in his name, and convey to us his favours and rewards, we being then to render all our duty immediately to him, and derive all our happiness immediately from him. So that, as now Christ, God-man, is all in all, Col 3:11, because the Father hath put all things into his hands; does all things and governs all things by him; when this economy ceases, the Godhead alone will be all in all, as governing and influencing all things by himself immediately.” “On supposition that this is a proper interpretation of the passage, and that the Son or Word, Joh 1:1, in conjunction with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is to govern, two questions will occur: 1st, How the apostle came to speak of the Son’s subjection to the Father, seeing he is to reign in conjunction with the Father. 2d, How the Son, under the government of the Godhead, can be subject to himself. To remove these difficulties, it is generally said that the Son is to be subject to the Father in his human nature only. In the present state of mankind, it is suitable to the majesty and purity of God, that all his intercourses with them, whether in the way of conferring blessings on them, or of receiving their worship, be carried on by the intervention of a mediator. But after sinners are completely reconciled to God, and made perfect in holiness, and are introduced into heaven, God will bestow his favours on them, and receive their worship, immediately, without the intervention of a mediator. And thus the offices of mediator and king, becoming unnecessary, shall cease. Yet even in this state, the Son in [or in union with] the human nature, though no longer king, [in the sense in which he was king before,] will still retain the glory of having created all things, described Col 1:15; Heb 1:2-3, and the glory of having saved mankind, and of having destroyed the kingdom of Satan, and Satan himself. So that, in respect of personal perfection, and of the veneration due to him for the great things he hath accomplished, he will continue superior to the highest angels, and be acknowledged by them as their superior through all eternity. Now this superiority being considered as a kind of reigning, it is perhaps what the apostle meant when, 2Ti 2:12, he said, If we suffer with him, we shall also reign with him. See also Rev 3:21.” — Macknight. So also Doddridge: “The union of the divine and human natures in the person of the great Emmanuel, the incomparable virtues of his character, the glory of his actions, and the relation he bears to his people, with all the texts which assert the perpetuity of his government, prohibit our imagining that he shall ever cease to be illustriously distinguished from all others, whether men or angels, in the heavenly world, through eternal ages.”

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co 15:28. Ὑποταγῇ, shall be subjected) so that they shall remain for ever in subjection.—τότε) then finally. Previously, it is always necessary to contend with enemies.—καὶ, also)—αὐτὸς, He himself) spontaneously, so that it denotes the infinite excellence of the Son; and besides, as we often find, it signifies something voluntary; for the Son subordinates Himself to the Father; the Father glorifies the Son. The name, “God even the Father,” and “the Son,” is more glorious than the title ‘King.’ This latter name will be absorbed by the former, as it had previously been derived from the former.—ὁ ὑιὸς, the Son) Christ, according to both natures, even including the divine; and this we may learn, not so much from the circumstance that He is here called the Son; comp. note on Mar 13:32, as that He is expressly considered in relation to the Father. Nor, however, is the Son here spoken of, in so far as the Father and the Son are one, which unity of essence is here presupposed; but in respect of the dispensation committed to Him, inasmuch as the Father has rendered all things subordinate to Him.—ὑποταγήσεται, shall be made subordinate) for this word is both more proper and more becoming than shall be subjected. The word is one very well adapted for denoting things most widely different. For the subordination of the Son to the Father is manifestly one thing, of the creatures to God is another. The Son shall be made subordinate to the Father in such a way as He had not formerly been; for in the mediatorial kingdom, the birghtness of the Son had been in a manner separated from the Father; but subsequently the Son shall be made quite subordinate to the Father; and that subordination of the Son will be entirely voluntary, an event desired by the Son Himself and glorious to Him; for He will not be subordinate as a servant, Heb 1:14; comp. the foregoing verses; but as a Son. [So also in human affairs there is not only the subordination of subjects, but also of sons, Luk 2:51; Heb 12:9.—V. g.]—ὑποταγήσεται is therefore in the middle, not in the passive voice. My goodness, says He, Psa 16:2, is not independent of THEE, O Jehovah [Engl. Vers., extendeth not to Thee.] Hesshusius remarks, The subjection and obedience of the Son towards the Father, do not take away the equality of the power, nor produce diversity in the essence. The Son in all eternity, acknowledges with the deepest reverence that He was begotten from eternity by the Father; He also acknowledges that He has received the spiritual kingdom from the Father, and has been constituted Lord of the whole world by the same. He will show to the whole creation His most holy reverence, subjection, and filial love, so that all honour may be rendered to the eternal Father. But herein there is no derogation to the divine honour of the Son; since the Father Himself wills that all men should honour the Son, as they honour the Father. John 5, Exam. p. 10.—ἵνα ᾖ ὁ Θεὸς πάντα ἐν πᾶσι, that God may be all in all) Here something new is signified, but which is at the same time the consummation of all that has gone before, and everlasting. All things (and therefore all men) without any interruption, without any creature to invade His prerogative, or any enemy to disturb, will be made subordinate to the Son, and the Son to the Father. All things will say: God is all to me. This is τέλος, this is the end and consummation. Further than this, not even the apostle can go. As in Christ, there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and in all, Col 3:11. So then there will be neither Greek nor Jew, etc., nor principality [rule: 1Co 15:24], power, etc., but God will be all in all. God is esteemed as nothing in the world by ungodly men, Psa 10:4; Psa 14:1: and with the saints many things prevent Him from being alone all to them; but then He will be all in all.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_15:28. What Paul had just presented in the, as it were, poetically elevated form ὅταν δὲ εἴπῃ κ.τ.λ., he now sums up in the way of simple statement by ὅταν δὲ ὑποταγῇ κ.τ.λ., in order to make the further element in his demonstration follow in accordance with the δῆλον ὅτι κ.τ.λ.

καὶ αὐτός] the Son Himself also shall be subjected,[56] not of course against His will, but as willingly yielding compliance to the expiry of His government. The Son wills what the Father wills; His undertaking is now completedthe becoming subject is His last duty (Ewald). Here, too, especially by the older interpreters, a great deal of dogmatic theology has been imported, in order to make the apostle not teachwhat, in truth, he does teach with the greatest distinctnessthat there is a cessation of the rule of Christ. The commonest expedient (so Augustine, de Trin. i. 8, and Jerome, adv. Pelag. i. 6, and the majority of the older expositors) is that Christ according to His human nature is meant, in connection with which Estius and Flatt take ὑποταγ. as: it will become right manifest that, etc. Ambrosiaster, Athanasius, and Theodoret even explained it, like Χριστός in 1Co_12:12, of the corpus Christi mysticum, the church. Chrysostom also imports the idea (comp. Theophylact and Photius in Oecumenius) that Paul is describing τὴν πολλὴν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὁμόνοιαν.

ἵνα ᾖ ὁ θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν] aim not of ὑποτάξαντι αὐτ. τ. π. (Hofmann), but of αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσ. κ.τ.λ., which is indeed the main point in the progress of the argument, the addition of its final aim now placing the reader at the great copestone of the whole development of the history of salvation. The object aimed at in the Sons becoming subject under God is the absolute sovereignty of God: in order that God may be the all in them all, i.e. in order that God may be the only and the immediate all-determining principle in the inner life of all the members of the kingdom hitherto reigned over by Christ.[57] Not as though the hitherto continued rule of Christ had hindered the attainment of this end (as Hofmann objects), but it has served this end as its final destination, the complete fulfilment of which is the complete glory of God the Father (Php_2:11) to eternity. Significatur hic novum quiddam, sed idem summum ac perenne …; hic finis et apex; ultra ne apostolus quidem quo eat habet, Bengel. According to Billroth, this expresses the realization of the identity of the finite and the infinite spirit, which, however, is unbiblical.[58] See in opposition to the pantheistic misunderstanding of the passage, J. Müller, v. d. Sünde, I. p. 158 f. Olshausen (following older interpreters in Wolf) and de Wette (comp. Weizel and Kern, also Scholten in the Tüb. Jahrb. 1840, 3, p. 24) find here the doctrine of restoration favoured also by Neander, so that ἐν πᾶσι would apply to all creatures, in whom God shall be the all-determining One. But that would involve the conversion even of the demons and of Satan, as well as the cessation of the pains of hell, which is quite contrary to the doctrine of the New Testament, and in particular to Pauls doctrine of predestination. The fact was overlooked that ἐν πᾶσι refers to the members of the kingdom hitherto ruled over by Christ, to whom the condemned, who on the contrary are outside of this kingdom, do not belong, and that the continuance of the condemnation is not done away even with the subjugation of Satan, since, on the contrary, the latter himself by his subjugation falls under condemnation. See, moreover, against the interpretation of restoration, on 1Co_15:22, and Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 431; Georgii in the Tüb. Jahrb. 1845, 1, p. 24; van Hengel in loc.

ἐν πᾶσιν] is just as necessarily masculine as in Col_3:11. The context demands this by the correlation with αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς κ.τ.λ., for up to this last consummation the Son is the regulating governing principle in all, but now gives over His kingdom to the Father, and becomes Himself subject to the Father, so that then the latter is the all-ruling One in all, and no one apart from Him in any. This in opposition to Hofmann, who takes ἐν πᾶσιν as neuter, of the world, namely, with regard to which God will constitute the entire contents of its being in such a way as to make it wholly the created manifestation of His nature; the new heaven and the new earth, 2Pe_3:13, is only another expression, he holds, for the same thing. This introduction of the palingenesis of the universe, which is quite remote from the point here, is a consequence of the incorrect reference of ἵνα (see above). Moreover, if the meaning was to be: All in the all, ΠᾶΣΙ would require the retrospective article, which ΠΆΝΤΑ has in 1Co_15:27 and 1Co_15:28 a. See a number of examples of πάντα and ΤᾺ ΠΆΝΤΑ ἜΣΤΙ in the specified sense in Wetstein, Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 209. Comp. on Col_3:11, and Hermann, ad Viger. p. 727.

[56] ὑποταγήσεται is to be left passive (in opposition to Hofmann). God is the ὑποτάσσων. Comp. Rom_8:20. But Christ is subject ἕκων. Comp. ver. 24.

[57] Melanchthon: Deus … immediate se ostendens, vivificans et effundens in beatos suam mirandam lucem, sapientiam, justitiam et laetitiam.

[58] Equally unbiblical are the similar interpretations of the perishing (ἀπώλεια) of the personal self-life and regeneration of the universe to form an immediate absolute theocracy (Beck, comp. Rothe).

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28. ὅταν δὲ ὑποταγῇ αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα, τότε κ.τ.λ. ‘When, however, the all shall have been subjected to Him (the Son), then (and not till then) shall the Son Himself also be subjected to Him (the Father) who subjected the all to Him (the Son), that God may be all in all.’ The passage is a summary of mysteries which our present knowledge does not enable us to explain, and which our present faculties, perhaps, do not enable as to understand. See Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lect. x. 9, xv. 29-31; Hooker, Eccl. Pol. v. Lev_8. Perhaps τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ υἱός should be rendered, ‘then shall even the Son Himself,’ or ‘then shall the Son of His own free will.’ But the καί is of doubtful authority; B D* E F G 17 and other witnesses omit.

ἵνα ᾖ ὁ Θεὸς πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν. The ἵνα depends on ὑποραγήσεται, not on τῷ ὑποτάξαντι. This is the purpose of the ultimate subjection of the Son to the Father, ‘that God, and God alone, may be everything in everything,’ i.e. may fulfil all relations in all creatures. The πᾶσιν is probably neuter, but the comprehensive neuter, including both persons and things: see J. A. Robinson on Eph 1:23, p. 44, and comp. 3:22, 8:6, 11:12; 12:6; Col 3:2. Wetstein gives examples of πάντα and τὰ πάντα being used as predicates of persons; e.g. πάντʼ ἐκεῖνος ἦν αὐτοῖς (Dem. De Cor. p. 240). The meaning seems to be that there will no longer be need of a Mediator: all relations between Creator and creatures, between Father and offspring, will be direct. Nunc adhuc non est omnia in omnibus, quia singuli sancti diversas virtutes ejus in se habent. Tune autem universa unus habebit, et erit ipse omnia in omnibus (Primasius). Tunc remoto velo palam cernemus Deum in sua majestate regnantem, neque amplius media erit Christi humanitas, quae nos ab interiore Dei conspectu conhibeat (Calvin). Deus immediate se ostendens, vivificans et effundens in beatos suam mirandam lucem, sapientiam, justitiam, et laetitiam (Melanchthon). See also Origen De Prin. III. v. 7; Gregory of Nyssa on 1Co 15:28, on the Soul and the Resurrection, and the Great Catechetical Oration; Weinel, St Paul, p. 50; Knowling, Messianic Interpretation, pp. 45, 110 f. See on πάντες in v. 22.

It is uncertain whether we should read τὰ πάντα (אE F K L P, Ath. Chrys.) or πάντα (A B D* 17, Arm., Hipp.). Origen has both readings.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vv. 28. “But when all things shall be subjected unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that subjected all things to Him, that God may be all in all.”

The δέ is progressive: from the subjection of all things to Christ, Paul passes to the subjection of Christ to the Father. We here return to the idea of 1Co 15:24: “Then the end, when He shall deliver up the kingdom...after having put down...” The last victory is gained, the end comes. Thus the meaning of the digression interposed in 1Co 15:25-27 is obvious: the end or the delivering up of the kingdom to the Father must be preceded by the destruction of all rebel forces (1Co 15:24 b); for the Son cannot give up to the Father an empire which has not been completely pacified; and this subjection of rebel forces can only take place through the Messianic reign and judgment of Jesus (1Co 15:25-26); as the result of all, the subjection of all things to the Son (1Co 15:27). And now the conditions of the end are given.

What follows: “Then shall the Son Himself be subject,” reproduces more emphatically what had been said in 1Co 15:24 in the terms: “When He shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father.” The condition of the end was the subjection of all things to the Son; the end itself is the subjection of the Son, and in Him of all things, to God. The subjection of the Son is evidently voluntary. Hence it is that the apostle uses the second aorist passive, which more easily takes the reflective sense than the first aorist. The latter would express entire passivity. We here come on one of the most important and difficult conceptions of our Epistle, and of St. Paul’s Epistles in general. It is very difficult to harmonize this idea of the subjection of the Son with the ordinary conception of the Trinity, according to which the Son is eternally equal with the Father. To escape the advantage which the Arians took of this passage, it has been sought in various ways to eliminate from it the idea of submission. The subjection of the Son, according to Chrysostom, denotes His full agreement with the Father. According to Augustine, it is the act whereby the Son will guide the elect to the contemplation of the Father; according to Beza, the presentation of the elect to the Father; according to others, the manifestation by means of which the Son will make the Father fully known to the whole world (Theodoret): meanings which are all utterly insufficient to render the force of the expression used by the apostle. It has also been attempted to understand by the Son here the mystical body of Christ, the Church (Ambrose); and this is perhaps the reason why the words ὁ υἱός, the Son, are omitted in some of the Fathers. — A larger number distinguish between the Divine and the human nature of Christ, and ascribe what is here said of Him only to the latter. This attempt to divide the Lord’s person into two natures, one of them subject, while the other remains free and self-sufficient, is the more unfortunate in this passage, as the word used to designate Christ is precisely that which most forcibly characterizes His Divine being, ὁ υἱός, the Son, absolutely speaking.

Many commentators apply what is here said of Christ to the cessation of His mediatorial office between God and men; for where there is no more sin, there is no more need of redemption or intercession. To the reign of grace, administered till then by the Son, there will succeed the state of glory (Luther, Melanchthon, Bengel, Olshausen, etc.). But Paul is not speaking of the cessation of priesthood; it is the delivering up of the kingdom which is in question, and of a kingdom whose principal work is to judge, a very different thing from redeeming and interceding, and in any case it is not to God that He could deliver up His mediatorial function. This is recognised by Meyer, Hofmann, Heinrici, and others. These apply the term βασιλεία, kingdom, to the judicial sovereignty exercised by Christ over the hostile powers (1Co 15:24), and to His universal sovereignty, which flows from it (1Co 15:27). “The subordination of the Son to the Father,” says Hofmann, “consists in the fact that He ceases to have in the view of the world that mediate position between the world and God, in consequence of which the world saw in Him a ruler different from God, possessing a sovereignty which belonged to Him as His own. This rule within the world ceases because it has reached its end.” This explanation would be satisfactory if we had only to account for the expression of 1Co 15:24 : “to deliver up the kingdom to the Father.” But the phrase used in 1Co 15:28 to designate the same fact is very different: “the voluntary submission of the Son to Him who subjected all things to Him.” For this expression does not bear only on the function of the Son, but also on His personal position, and it seems difficult with such words before us to avoid the conclusion of R. Schmidt, when, in his monograph on St. Paul’s Christology, he thus expresses himself: “Either the characteristic of absolute existence is not essential to the notion of God, — which no one will allow,—or it must be confessed that the apostolic conception here stated is incompatible with the Divine nature of Christ.” This author concludes that the idea of the subjection of the Son, as here taught by the apostle, is in contradiction not only to the ecclesiastical dogma of the Trinity, but also to all the expressions of St. Paul which imply Christ’s divinity and pre-existence.

I do not think that so logical a mind as that of the apostle can with any probability be suspected of self-contradiction, especially on a point of such fundamental importance. I have already remarked once and again (1Co 3:23 and 1Co 11:3), that the idea of the subordination of the Son to the Father expressly forms part of his Christological conception, no less than that of His Divine pre - existence. The two notions are simultaneously included in the title Son, which, as Edwards says, implies “the possibility of subjection and, at the same time, equality of nature.” Exactly so is it with the term Word in John. As the word is subordinate to the thought, and yet one with it, so in the notion of Son there are united the two relations of subordination and homogeneity. The living monotheism of Paul, John, and the other apostles was not less rigorous than ours, and yet it found no contradiction between these two affirmations. Now if, in Paul’s view, it is so with the Son in His Divine state, must not the position of subordination have appeared in Him still more compatible with the character of the Son when He had once entered into the mode of being belonging to a human personality? Subordination was therefore, according to him, in harmony with the essential relation of the Son to the Father, in His Divine and human existence. If consequently He is called to reign, by exercising Divine sovereignty within the universe, it can only be for a time, with a view to the obtaining of a particular result. This end gained, He will return to His normal position: subordination relatively to God the Father. Such, as it seems to me, is the true thought of the apostle. How did he understand the state of the Son after this act of voluntary subjection? In his view, this act of subjection could be no loss to the Son. It is not He who descends from the Divine throne, it is His subjects who are raised to it along with Him: “To him that overcometh, will I grant to sit on My throne, as I overcame...” (Rev 3:21). Even on the Divine throne, Christ is only “as an elder brother in the midst of many brethren” (Rom 8:29). “Heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ,” says St. Paul in the same sense, that is to say, sharing with Him the Divine inheritance, the possession of God Himself. He is therefore no longer a king surrounded by His servants, but a brother who in relation to His brethren keeps only the advantage of His eternal priority (πρωτότοκος, first-born). We must therefore beware of understanding this subjection in the sense of an absorption of Christ in the Deity, so that His personality thenceforth disappears. The expression to be subjected denotes quite the opposite of this idea, which is besides incompatible with the apostle’s various sayings which we have just quoted. The thought of St. Paul seems to me to be this: The Son returns to the state of submission which He had left to fill the place of Messianic sovereignty, because, God communicating Himself directly to all, He ceases to be mediator of God’s sovereignty over them.

The καί, also, before αὐτός (Himself), in the Byz., ought certainly to be preserved; it has been rejected as too closely identifying the Son’s subordination with ours, in the same way as it was thought necessary here to reject ὁ υἱός to avoid the risk of doing wrong to His divinity.

The periphrasis: to Him who subjected to Him, serves to justify the delivering up of the universe to the Father; He restores it to Him who gave it to Him.

The last words: that God may be all in all, do not depend, as Hofmann and Grimm think, on the secondary idea: who subjected all things to Him. What needs to be explained is, not the end for which God subjected all to the Son, but the end with a view to which the Son restores all to God. Such is the dominant thought of the whole passage from 1Co 15:24. This in order that depends, therefore, on ὑποταγήσεται, shall be subject. He effaces Himself to let God take His place. Formerly it was He, Christ, in whom God manifested Himself to the world; it was He who was all in all (Col 3:12). But He took advantage of His relation to the faithful only to bring them to that state in which God could directly, without mediation on His part, live, dwell in them, reveal Himself, and act by them. This time having come, they are, as to position, His equals; God is all in them in the same way as He was and is all in His glorified Son. They have reached the perfect stature of Christ (Eph 4:13).

But, strange to say, Paul does not use either the name Father, or that of God and the Father (1Co 15:24); he says: “that God may be all in all.” And yet it seems as if the name Father would be the corresponding one to the title Son. All is so maturely weighed in the apostle’s style, that he must have had an intention in his choice of the name. He did not here wish to designate God specially as Father, in opposition to the Son and the Spirit, but God in the fulness of His being, at once as Father, the source of all, both in Himself and in the universe, as Son revealing Him, and as Spirit communicating Him. It was in this fulness that God dwelt in the man Jesus, and it is with the same fulness He will dwell in every man who has become in Him His child and heir. Such are “those things” of which Paul spoke 1Co 2:7, “which God has prepared for our glory.”

The expression: πάντα or τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν, all in all, certainly does not merely signify: to be all to them (to their hearts) because of their love and admiration, as has been concluded from certain analogous Greek expressions. The in denotes a real indwelling. The living God thinks, wills, and acts through them. They are as Jesus was, on the earth, at once His free and submissive agents, the depositaries of His holiness, the bearers of His love, the interpreters of His wisdom throughout the boundless spaces and unnumbered worlds of the universe. It is by filling them that through them God fills all things. It seems to me that the neuter πάντα, all things, by no means obliges us to take the ἐν πᾶσιν, in all, in the neuter sense. The meaning is: all in each, so that every member of this glorified society has no longer anything in him which is not penetrated by God, as the transparent crystal is all penetrated with light. The masculine sense is demanded, as Meyer well says, by the correlation to the αὐτὸς ὁ υἱός, the Son Himself. This meaning also comes out very naturally from the analogous saying Col 3:11: πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν Χριστός. At the height at which he has arrived, the apostle can only think of a being of God spiritually, like that of which Jesus speaks in His last prayer: “As Thou, Father, art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be in us” (Joh 17:21). It is therefore a mistake in Hofmann and Edwards to take πᾶσιν in the neuter sense: “all in all things,” even in inanimate beings.

We must certainly read, with the Vaticanus and the Cantabrigiensis, πάντα without the article; the τά has come in from the three τὰ πάντα which precede; but there τὰ πάντα denoted the totality of the universe, which is unsuitable here.

The partisans of universal salvation have always regarded this last saying as one of the most solid points in support of their theory. But the expression in all may be explained in two ways, without ascribing this idea to Paul. Either it may be held that he is thinking only of those who have freely joined in the submission of the Son, and who, united to Him, are embraced in Him; or the in all may be applied even to the reprobate, in the sense that in them too the Divine perfection will shine forth, in the twofold aspect of justice and power; comp. Php 2:10-11, a passage which, however, refers neither to the same time nor to the same fact. If the idea of universal salvation were Paul’s view, it must apply also to devils, as Olshausen himself cannot help admitting. But 1Co 15:25 does not lead to such a conclusion, and this thought evidently goes beyond all the limits of the biblical view. What the apostle meant to express here is this sublime idea: that the goal of history and the end of the existence of humanity are the formation of a society of intelligent and free beings, brought by Christ into perfect communion with God, and thereby rendered capable of exercising, like Jesus Himself when on earth, an unchangeably holy and beneficent activity. This view, which is also that of one of the greatest thinkers of our day, Lotze, exclusive of the Christian element on which it rested in the case of the apostle, sets aside, on the one hand, the Pantheism which denies all existence of its own and all free activity to the creature,—this is contradicted by the ἐν πᾶσιν, in all,—and on the other the Deism, which ascribes to man an activity in good separately from God,—which is excluded by the πάντα ἐν, all things in, of St. Paul.

The apostle has thus assigned to the resurrection of the body its place in the system of the Christian salvation as a whole. He has brought out its three phases (Christ’s resurrection, the resurrection of believers, the universal resurrection), and he has pointed out the correspondence between these phases and the three principal epochs of the Divine work (the consummation of salvation in Christ Himself, the inauguration of His Messianic kingdom, and the close of His whole work). Certainly such a discussion exhausted the first side of the question, the reality of the resurrection of the body. Before, however, passing to the second aspect of the question, the possibility of so extraordinary a fact, Pauls adds one or two considerations as to the practical consequences, to which the denial of this truth naturally leads (1Co 15:29-34).

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Co_15:28

And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

When the work of redemption has been accomplished, the dead raised, the judgment held, the enemies of Christ all subdued, then, and not till then, will the Son also himself be subject to him who put all things under him. This passage is evidently parallel with that in 1Co_15:24. The subjection of the Son to the Father here means precisely what is there meant by his delivering up the kingdom to God even the Father. The thing done, and the person who does it, are the same. The subjection here spoken of is not predicated of the eternal Logos, the second person of the Trinity, any more than the kingdom spoken of in 1Co_15:24 is the dominion which belongs essentially to Christ as God. As there the word Christ designates the Theanthropos, so does the word Son here designate, not the Logos as such, but the Logos as incarnate. And as the delivery of the kingdom or royal authority over the universe committed to Christ after his resurrection, is consistent at once with his continued dominion as God over all creatures, and with his continued headship over his people; so is the subjection here spoken of consistent with his eternal equality with the Father. It is not the subjection of the Son as Son, but of the Son as Theanthropos of which the apostle here speaks. The doctrine of the true and proper divinity of our Lord is so dearly revealed in Scripture, and is so inwrought into the faith of his people, that such passages as these, though adduced with so much confidence by the impugners of that doctrine, give believers no more trouble than the ascription of the limitations of our nature to God. When the Bible says that God repents, we know that it is consistent with his immutability; and when it says the Son is subject or inferior to the Father, we know that it is consistent with their equality, as certainly as we know that saying that man is immortal is consistent with saying he is mortal. We know that both of the last-mentioned propositions are true: because mortality is predicated of man in one aspect, and immortality in another aspect. In one sense he is mortal, in another sense he is immortal. In like manner we know that the verbally inconsistent propositions, the Son is subject to the Father, and, the Son is equal with the Father, are both true. In one sense he is subject, in another sense he is equal. The son of a king may be the equal of his father in every attribute of his nature, though officially inferior. So the eternal Son of God may be coequal with the Father, though officially subordinate. What difficulty is there in this? What shade does it cast over the full Godhead of our adorable Redeemer? The subordination, however, here spoken of, is not that of the human nature of Christ separately considered, as when he is said to suffer, or to die, or to be ignorant; but it is the official subordination of the incarnate Son to God as God. The words αὐτὸς ὁ υἱός, the Son himself, here designate, as in so many other places, not the second person of the Trinity as such, but that person as clothed in our nature. And the subjection spoken of, is not of the former, but of the latter, i.e. not of the Son as Son, but of the Son as incarnate; and the subjection itself is official and therefore perfectly consistent with equality of nature.

There is another difficulty connected with this verse which it may be well to notice. According to the Scriptures and the creeds of all the great historical churches (Greek, Latin, Lutheran and Reformed), the term Son, as applied to Christ, designates his divine nature. It is a term of nature and not of office. He was from eternity the Son of God. Yet it is of the Son that subjection is here predicated. This is urged as an argument against his eternal sonship. The fact, however, is, that the person of Christ may be designated from one nature, when the predicate belongs either to the opposite nature or to the whole person. That is, he may be called God when what is said of him is true only of his human nature or of his complex person as God and man; and he may be called man, when what is said is true only of his divine nature. Thus he is called the Son of Man when omnipresence and omniscience are ascribed to him; and he is called God, the Son of God, the Lord of glory when he is said to die. These passages do not prove that the human nature of Christ is every where present; or that his divine nature suffered and died. Neither do such expressions as that in the text prove that the Son as such is inferior to the Father, nor that the term Son is not a scriptural designation of his divine nature. The principle here adverted to is so important, and serves to explain so many passages of Scripture, that it will bear to be often repeated.

That God may be all in all. Before the ascension of Christ, God reigned as God; after that event he reigned and still reigns through the Theanthropos; when the end comes, the Theanthropos will deliver up this administrative kingdom, and God again be all in all. Such is the representation of Scripture, and such seems to be the simple meaning of this passage. When our Lord ascended up on high all power in heaven and earth was given to him. It was given to him then, and therefore not possessed before. He is to retain this delegated power in his character of Mediator, God-man, until his enemies are put under his feet. Then he, the God-man, is to deliver it up. And God as God will reign supreme. The phrase here used, τὰ πάντα (or πάντα) ἐν πᾶσιν, all in all, depends (as is the case with all similar formulas), for its precise meaning on the connection. If words be taken by themselves, and made to mean any thing which their signification will admit, without regard to the context or to the analogy of Scripture, then the authority of the word of God is effectually subverted. No book, human or divine, can be interpreted on a principle so unreasonable. Some, however, regardless of this universally admitted rule of interpretation, say that these words teach that the whole universe is to be merged in God he is to become all in all he will be all, and all will be God. Others limit the last all to intelligent creatures, and the sense in which God is all is restricted to his gracious influence; so that while the continued personal existence of rational creatures is provided for, it is assumed that God is to reign supreme in all intelligent beings. All sin and evil will thus be banished from the whole universe. This interpretation is, in the first place, perfectly arbitrary. If the meaning of the words is to be pressed beyond the limits assigned by the context and the analogy of Scripture, why limit ἐν πᾶσι to intelligent creatures, and τὰ πάντα to mere gracious control? The passage teaches pantheism, if it teaches universalism. Secondly, this interpretation is contrary to the context. Paul is speaking simply of the continuance of the mediatorial dominion of Christ over the universe. That dominion was given to him for a specific purpose; when that purpose is accomplished, he will give it up, and God, instead of reigning through Christ, will be recognized as the immediate sovereign of the universe; his co-equal, co-eternal Son, clothed in our nature, being, as the everlasting head of the redeemed, officially subordinate to him. In other words, the whole question, so to speak, is whose hands are to hold the reins of universal dominion. They are now in the hands of Christ; hereafter they are to be in the hands of God as such. The passage does not teach us the design of redemption, but what is to happen when the redemption of Gods people is accomplished. Then the Messianic reign is to cease, and God is to rule supreme over a universe reduced to order, the people of God being saved, and the finally impenitent shut up with Satan and his angels in the prison of despair. Thirdly, the interpretation which makes this passage teach the restoration of all intelligent creatures to holiness, is contrary to the express declarations of Scriptures and to the faith of the church universal. This the most accomplished of its advocates virtually admit. See for example Olshausens commentary on this epistle. If the evidence in support of the doctrine of the everlasting perdition of the wicked were not overwhelming, it never could have become a part of the faith of the universal church. And that doctrine being once established on its own grounds, doubtful passages must he interpreted in accordance with it.

There is another orthodox interpretation of this passage. It is assumed to treat of the final result of the work of redemption. God will reign supreme in all. But the all is restricted to the subjects of redemption. The whole chapter treats of those who are in Christ. It is of their resurrection, and of the effect of redemption in their case, the apostle is assumed to speak. All who are in Christ shall be made alive, 1Co_15:22, and God shall reign in them all. The sense is good, but this interpretation overlooks what intervenes between 1Co_15:22 and 1Co_15:28 concerning the kingdom of Christ and its being given up.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Not because the Son was not subject to his Father before, but because his body, that is to say, the Church which is here in distress, and not yet wholly partaker of his glory, is not yet fully perfect, and also because the bodies of the saints which be in the graves shall not be glorified until the resurrection: but Christ as he is God, hath us subject to him as his Father hath, but as he is Priest, he is subject to his father together with us. Augustine, book 1, chap. 8, of the Trinity.

By this high kind of speech, is set forth an incomprehensible glory which floweth from God, and shall fill all of us, as we are joined together with our head, but yet so, that our head shall always reserve his preeminence.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Son . . . himself . . . subject--not as the creatures are, but as a Son voluntarily subordinate to, though co-equal with, the Father. In the mediatorial kingdom, the Son had been, in a manner, distinct from the Father. Now, His kingdom shall merge in the Father's, with whom He is one; not that there is thus any derogation from His honor; for the Father Himself wills "that all should honor the Son, as they honor the Father" (Joh 5:22-23; Heb 1:6).

God . . . all in all--as Christ is all in all (Col 3:11; compare Zac 14:9). Then, and not till then, "all things," without the least infringement of the divine prerogative, shall be subject to the Son, and the Son subordinate to the Father, while co-equally sharing His glory. Contrast Psa 10:4; Psa 14:1. Even the saints do not fully realize God as their "all" (Psa 73:25) now, through desiring it; then each shall feel, God is all to me.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 28. The Son also himself be subject] When the administration of the kingdom of grace is finally closed; when there shall be no longer any state of probation, and consequently no longer need of a distinction between the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of glory; then the Son, as being man and Messiah, shall cease to exercise any distinct dominion and God be all in all: there remaining no longer any distinction in the persons of the glorious Trinity, as acting any distinct or separate parts in either the kingdom of grace, or the kingdom of glory, and so the one infinite essence shall appear undivided and eternal. And yet, as there appears to be a personality essentially in the infinite Godhead, that personality must exist eternally; but how this shall be we can neither tell nor know till that time comes in which we shall SEE HIM AS HE IS. 1Jo 3:2.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(28) That God may be all in all.—In these words are expressed the complete redemption both of the race and of the individual. It is the great and sublime conclusion to which the moral enthusiasm and the earnest logic of the previous argument has necessarily brought us.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him] If everything is put under Christ, it is in order that there may be no divided empire. ‘I and my Father are One,’ He said (St Joh_10:30). Cf. St Joh_17:11; Joh_17:22, as well as ch. 1Co_3:23, 1Co_11:3 of this Epistle.

then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him] This passage is one of great difficulty. Athanasius gives two explanations of it; (1) in his treatise De Incarnatione, that Christ is subject to God not in Himself, but in His members; (2) in his first dialogue against the Macedonians (so also Chrysostom), that Christ is subject not by the nature of His Divinity, but by the dispensation of His Humanity. “For this subjection,” he further remarks, “no more involves inferiority of essence, than His subjection (St Luk_2:51) to Joseph and Mary involved inferiority of essence to them.” Hooker remarks (3) of Christ’s mediatorial kingdom on earth, that “the exercise thereof shall cease, there being no longer on earth any militant Church to govern,” and regards the passage as referring to the surrender, on Christ’s part, of that mediatorial kingdom at the end of the world. Cyril of Jerusalem (4) regards the subjection as one of voluntary surrender, as opposed to necessity. But perhaps (5) the true explanation may be suggested by the passage in Philippians 2, as translated by some, ‘He snatched not greedily at His equality with God.’ Though He were God, yet He was always a Son. And the object of His mediatorial work was not, as that of the unregenerate man would have been, to obtain this kingdom for Himself, but for His Father. See St Mat_26:39; St Joh_5:30; Joh_6:38; Joh_7:18; Joh_8:50; Joh_8:54; Eph_1:10. So that the disorder and confusion of the universe shall henceforth cease, and one vast system of order, peace and love shall reign from the Father and source of all things, down to the meanest creature to whom He has given to have eternal life. And this was the object of His Resurrection from the dead. See last note.

that God may be all in all] The restoration of God’s kingdom over the moral and spiritual part of man was the object of Christ’s Mission on earth, St Mat_3:2; Mat_4:17; Mat_5:3; Mat_5:10; Mat_6:10; Mat_6:33, and ch. 13.; St Joh_3:5; Joh_3:17; Rom_8:2; Rom_8:4. This was to be brought to pass by means of the revelation of the Divine perfections in the Man Christ Jesus, St Joh_1:14; Joh_14:8-10; Col_1:19; Col_2:9. God was thus revealed to us, that we might obtain fellowship with Him. See St Joh_16:23-28; Rom_5:2; Eph_2:18; Eph_3:12; Heb_10:20. “Therefore He is called the door, and the way, because by Him we are brought nigh to God.” Athanasius. And thus in the end each believer will have immediate and individual relations, not only with the Man Christ Jesus, but with the whole of the Blessed Trinity. See note on ch. 1Co_13:12. For all in all see ch. 1Co_12:6. Theodoret remarks that the same expression is used of Christ in Col_3:11. Cf. St Joh_17:22-23; Joh_14:23; Joh_16:7; Joh_16:13-14; 1Jn_2:24; 1Jn_4:13.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? Not only they that have suffered martyrdom for the faith of Christ, and for this article of it, have acted very injudiciously and indiscreetly; but we, also, who are on the spot, whether ministers or private Christians, must be highly blameworthy, who continually expose ourselves to dangers, and are for Christ's sake killed all the day long, are every moment liable to innumerable injuries, tortures and death; who in his senses would act such a part, if there is no resurrection of the dead? such, as they must be of all men the most miserable, so of all men the most stupid.

And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? Not only they that have suffered martyrdom for the faith of Christ, and for this article of it, have acted very injudiciously and indiscreetly; but we, also, who are on the spot, whether ministers or private Christians, must be highly blameworthy, who continually expose ourselves to dangers, and are for Christ's sake killed all the day long, are every moment liable to innumerable injuries, tortures and death; who in his senses would act such a part, if there is no resurrection of the dead? such, as they must be of all men the most miserable, so of all men the most stupid.

1 Corinthians 15:31

co1 15:31

co1 15:31

co1 15:31I protest by your rejoicing,.... Some copies read, "our rejoicing"; and so the Ethiopic version, which seems most natural and easy; since it follows,

which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord; who in him could rejoice and glory in afflictions and sufferings, which he endured as a preacher of the Gospel for his sake; and which being certain and evident, and what might be depended upon, he makes a protestation by it, saying,

I die daily; which is to be understood, not in a spiritual sense of dying unto sin; he was dead unto sin, as to its damning power, through the death of Christ, and as to its governing power, through the Spirit and grace of Christ, but still it was living and dwelling in him; but in a corporeal sense: he instances in himself in particular, who was one that was in jeopardy or danger of his life every hour; he always bore in his body the dying of the Lord Jesus, and was continually delivered to death for Jesus' sake; death was always working in him, he expected it every day, and was ready for it; he did not count his life dear unto himself, but was very willing to lay it down for the sake of Christ and his Gospel; which he would never have done, if he had not good reason to believe the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Ver. 28. That God may be all in all] Till sin and death be abolished we have no access to God but by Christ. But after that all enemies be trod under foot, then shall we have an immediate union with God; yet so, as that this shall be the proper and everlasting praise of Christ, as he is the procurer of that union.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And when ... - In this future time, when this shall be accomplished. This implies that the time has not yet arrived, and that his dominion is now exercised, and that he is carrying forward his plans for the subjugation of all things to God.

Shall be subdued unto him - Shall be brought under subjection. When all his enemies shall be overcome and destroyed; or when the hearts of the redeemed shall be entirely subject to God. When God’s kingdom shall be fully established over the universe. It shall then be seen that he is Lord of all. In the previous verses he had spoken of the promise that all things should be subjected to God; in this, he speaks of its being actually done.

Then shall the Son also himself be subject ... - It has been proposed to render this, “even then shall the Son,” etc.; implying that he had been all along subject to God; had acted under his authority; and that this subjection would continue even then in a sense similar to that in which it had existed; and that Christ would then continue to exercise a delegated authority over his people and kingdom. See an article “on the duration of Christ’s kingdom,” by Prof. Mills, in Bib. Rep. vol. iii. p. 748ff. But to this interpretation there are objections:

(1) It is not the obvious interpretation.

(2) It does not seem to comport with the design and scope of the passage, which most evidently refers to some change, or rendering back of the authority of the Messiah; or to some resumption of authority by the Divinity, or by God as God, in a different sense from what existed under the Messiah.

(3) Such a statement would be unnecessary and vain. Who could reasonably doubt that the Son would be as much subject to God when all things had been subdued to him as he was before?

(4) It is not necessary to suppose this in order to reconcile the passage with what is said of the perpetuity of Christ’s kingdom and his eternal reign. That he would reign; that his kingdom would be perpetual, and that it would be unending, was indeed clearly predicted; see 2Sa 7:16; Psa 45:6; Isa 9:6-7; Dan 2:44; Dan 7:14; Luk 1:22-23; Heb 1:8. But these predictions may be all accomplished on the supposition that the special mediatorial kingdom of the Messiah shall be given up to God, and that he shall be subject to him. For:

His kingdom will be perpetual, in contradistinction from the kingdoms of this world. They are fluctuating, changing, short in their duration. His shall not cease, and shall continue to the end of time. His kingdom shall be perpetual, because those who are brought under the laws of God by him shall remain subject to those laws forever. The sceptre never shall be broken, and the kingdom shall abide to all eternity. Christ, the Son of God, in his divine nature, as God, shall never cease to reign.

As Mediator, he may resign his commission and his special office, having made an atonement, having recovered his people, having protected and guided them to heaven. Yet as one with the Father; as the “Father of the everlasting age” Isa 9:6, he shall not cease to reign. The functions of a special office may have been discharged, and delegated power laid down, and that which appropriately belongs to him in virtue of his own nature and relations may be resumed and executed forever; and it shall still be true that the reign of the Son of God, in union, or in oneness with the Father, shall continue forever.

(5) The interpretation which affirms that the Son shall then be subject to the Father in the sense of laying down his delegated authority, and ceasing to exercise his mediatorial reign, has been the common interpretation of all times. This remark is of value only, because, in the interpretation of plum words, it is not probable that people of all classes and ranks in different ages would err.

The Son also himself - The term “Son of God” is applied to the Lord Jesus with reference to his human nature, his incarnation by the Holy Spirit, and his resurrection from the dead; see the note on Rom 1:4. (For the evidence of the eternal sonship, see the Supplementary Note on the same passage.) It refers, I apprehend, to that in this place. It does not mean that the second person in the Trinity, as such, should be subject to the first; but it means the Incarnate Son, the Mediator, the man that was born and that was raised from the dead, and to whom this wide dominion had been given, should resign that dominion, and that the government should be re-assumed by the Divinity as God. As man, he shall cease to exercise any distinct dominion. This does not mean, evidently, that the union of the divine and human nature will be dissolved; nor that important purposes may not be answered by that continued union forever; nor that the divine perfections may not shine forth in some glorious way through the man Christ Jesus; but that the purpose of government shall no longer be exercised in that way; the mediatorial kingdom, as such, shall no longer be continued, and power shall be exercised by God as God. The redeemed will still adore their Redeemer as their incarnate God, and dwell upon the remembrance of his work and upon his perfections Rev 1:5-6; Rev 5:12; Rev 11:15; but not as exercising the special power which he now has, and which was needful to effect their redemption.

That God may be all in all - That God may be supreme; that the Divinity, the Godhead, may rule; and that it may be seen that he is the Sovereign over all the universe. By the word “God” (ὁ Θεὸς ho Theos), Whitby and Hammond, I think correctly, understand the Godhead, the Divine Nature, the Divinity, consisting of the three persons, without respect to any special office or kingdom.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The Son also himself shall be subject to him. That is, the Son will be subject to the Father, according to his human nature, even after the general resurrection; and also the whole mystical body of Christ will be entirely subject to God, obeying him in every thing. (Challoner)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

The Son’s subjection to his Father, which is mentioned in this place, doth no where prove his inequality of essence or power with his Father; it only signifieth what was spoken before, that Christ should deliver up his mediatory kingdom to his Father; so manifesting, that whatsoever he had done in the office of Mediator, was done in the name of his Father, and by his power and authority; and that as he was man, he was subject to his Father. Suppose (saith Pareus) a king should have one only son, whom he should take into a partnership with him in his majesty and kingdom; but yet so, that the king should still have the pre-eminence of a father, the son only the dignity of a son in such power and authority: after which this king, having some subjects risen up in rebellion against him, should send his son with armies and his authority against them; he should despatch the work, and at his return yield up his commission to his father, yet still retaining the same nature he had, and authority with which his Father had before clothed him, was a partner in the kingdom and government with him.

That God (saith the apostle) may be all in all; instead of all things which the heart of man can wish; or that God may exercise a full and perfect empire and government over all things; that the incomprehensible glory of God may fill all the elect. But is not God in this world all in all?

Answer. He is; but he doth not so appear ruling in the midst of his enemies here.

2. The government will be altered; God here is sole King of the world, but he partly ruleth it by Christ, as Mediator, whose mediatory kingdom shall then cease, and nothing shall appear but the essential kingdom of God; the power by which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (three persons, though but one God) shall govern and rule all things, when all this sublunary world shall cease.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

28. God… all in all—The first all of the two here, which God may be, is an all of absolute power, pervading the second all things, immediate and without a mediator. For it is power, kingdom, authority, abolition, and subjection, which are the subject of the whole passage; not one word being spoken of reconciliation, communion, or love. This we think entirely decisive against all theories of Restorationism founded on this passage.

God is finally all things—in supremacy over and in all things. As the light perfectly pervades the perfectly transparent diamond, so that the diamond itself becomes invisible, being visually dissolved in light, so God, the omnipotent all, is omnipresent in all things. From the very nature of things, that omnipresence is perfectly blissful to every conscious nature accordant with it; but perfectly woful to every conscious nature discordant with it, though perfectly subjected by it. And between the idea of this subjection under power, and this discordance of nature, there is no contradiction.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Then shall the Son also himself be subject, etc. The words can only be taken as they stand. The attempts to explain them have usually been nothing but ingenious methods of explaining them away. Of these the one usually adopted by the Fathers is the limitation of the statement to Christ"s human nature (Joh_5:26, Joh_5:27, Joh_5:30) and mediatorial kingdom, just as we find in 1Co_11:3. The head of Christ is God." We can easily "darken counsel by words without knowledge" in dealing with this subject, and hide an absolute ignorance under a semblance of knowledge; but anything and everything which we can say in "explanation" of this self subjection of the Son to the Father is simply involved in the words which follow. That God may be all in all. "All things in all things" or "all things in all men." The words involve a complete and absolute supremacy. It is quite an easy matter for commentators to say that the scope of the words "must be confined to believers," if they chose to make "all" mean "some." Such methods often lead to an irreligious religionism and a heterodox orthodoxy. The reader will find the same phrase in Col_3:11. I confine myself to the comment of the profound and saintly Bengel: "There is implied something new, but also supreme and eternal. All things, and therefore all men, without any interruption, no created thing claiming a place, no enemy creating opposition, shall be subordinated to the Son, the Son to the Father. All things shall say, "God is all things to me." This is the consummation; this the end and summit. Further than this not even an apostle can go.

The close of the Mediator"s mission.

This is a passage of almost extreme difficulty, because fitting into a general scheme of the universe which we find it very difficult to understand, and because dealing with a future so transcendent and sublime as to be beyond the grasp of our imagination. Treated theologically, and fitted into any redemptive scheme, as drawn out by human intellect, the passage is a perplexity. Treated meditatively, and for the sake of its spiritual suggestions, we may be guided by the following brief passage from F. W. Robertson, which seems to be a key to unlock the apostle"s high imaginings: mediatorial kingdom of Christ shall be superseded by an immediate one; therefore the present form in which God has revealed himself is only temporary. When the object of the present kingdom of Christ has been attained in the conquest of evil, there will be no longer need of a mediator. Then God wilt be known immediately. We shall know him, when the mediatorial has merged in the immediatorial, in a way more high, more intimate, more sublime, than even through Christ." "There rises before the prophetic vision of St. Paul the final triumph of Christ over all evil, over all power, and the Son giving up to the Father the kingdom of this world, which in his humanity he conquered for the Father as well as for himself. Christ, laying the spoils of a conquered world at the foot of the throne of the Father, shows, by that supreme act of self sacrifice, that in his office as Redeemer he came, not to do his own will, but the will of the Father." In dealing with a passage which seems to concern the sublime and mysterious relations of the Divine Trinity, our spirit cannot be too serious and devout and reverent; yet we may humbly try to understand what God has been pleased so graciously to reveal. Probably the point of the apostle in this passage cannot be apprehended until we can see that the distinctions of the Trinity are, so far as we are concerned, revelational, and made known to us as a part of God"s gracious and redemptive purpose. The apostle does not bring us into the presence of what neither he nor we could mentally grasp, the eternal constitution and distinctions of the Divine nature.

I THE REVELATION OF THE SON IS TEMPORARY. That is, of the Son regarded as the mediatorial and redemptive Agent. There is a doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ, but with it this passage does not deal. God may employ on his mission a servant or a Son. In either case the mission is defined in character and limited in time. Whatever Jesus, as the Son of God, came to earth to do, it was a precise mission, having a temporary character. It had two stages.

1. One of earthly manifestation. We know how that was limited to a few years, and at its close he passed, accepted, into heaven.

2. One of spiritual influence. Within that we live, but it is no more abiding than the other, and our text describes its close.

II THE REVELATION OF THE HOLY GHOST IS DEPENDENT ON THAT OF THE SON, AND IS ALSO TEMPORARY, He is the redemptive Agent who follows up and applies the work of Christ; and is only needed while the redemptive work has to be done. Here, again, no reference is intended to the sublime operations of God of a spiritual kind apart from those exerted in the redemption of man.

III THE POINT OF THE PRESENT REVELATION OF GOD TO US IS THE RECOVERY OF MAN"S WILL AND HEART TO GOD. It is a moral purpose that is sought. The recovery first of the man himself, and then of his surroundings. This is fully argued in the passage from which the text is taken, and in Romans 8.

IV WHEN THE REDEMPTIVE DESIGN IS FULLY ACCOMPLISHED, THE MEDIATORIAL OFFICE MAY CEASE, But it only ceases because the end it sought is reached, the mission is fulfilled, and the mediatorial office can be lost in the glory of the relationships into which it will have brought man, and all human relations. "When the last hindrance, the last enemy, is removed, which prevents the entire entrance of God into the soul, we shall see him face to face, know him even as we are known, awake up satisfied in his likeness, and be transformed into pure recipients of the Divine glory. That will be the resurrection. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Son also shall be subject - Shall deliver up the mediatorial kingdom. That the three-one God may be all in all - All things, (consequently all persons,) without any interruption, without the intervention of any creature, without the opposition of any enemy, shall be subordinate to God. All shall say, "My God, and my all." This is the end. Even an inspired apostle can see nothing beyond this.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

28. “But when He may subordinate all things to Himself, then indeed the Son Himself will be subordinated to Him” (i. e., the Father) “who subordinateth all things to Himself, in order that God may be all things in all.” Thus we see the ultimatum of the grand finale, when the Son shall have “put down all rule, authority and power” (Satanic and human), and have destroyed mortality and death temporal, spiritual and eternal, appertaining to all the willing subjects of His mediatorial grace, wound up the momentous administration of His kingdom with the resurrection of all the dead, good and bad, and the final Judgment, and the eternal ejectment of Satan and all the demons, and the unfortunate people who rejected mediatorial grace, beyond the remotest regions of the inhabitable universe into “outer darkness,” and sanctified the earth and firmament with the fiery baptism, and renovated it into a “new Heaven” (firmament) “and a new earth,” and restored it back to the Celestial Empire, where it belonged before the devil broke it loose; having thus consummated all the work of the mediatorial kingdom, like George Washington at the close of the Revolutionary War, hurried away from the last battle, where he had received the surrendered sword of Lord Cornwallis, to Annapolis, where the Colonial Congress was in session, and there surrendered up his commission, going out of office forever. When I was in Rome I was much interested looking at those grand triumphal arches built two thousand years ago to receive the triumphant proconsul, who, after years of war and battle in subduing a revolted province, returned to Rome to be congratulated with all the immortal honors of the empire, forever laying down his proconsulship at Caesar’s feet. So when the Son of God shall have consummated all the wonderful achievements of the mediatorial kingdom, restoring this world back to the Heavenly empire to be inhabited by glorified saints and angels like other celestial worlds forever, abolishing death and forever banishing sin and Satan from the celestial universe, then He will enter Heaven amid the triumphant shouts of angels, archangels, cherubim, seraphim, and multiplied millions of redeemed spirits and the tall sons of God, representing millions of immortal worlds, when He shall stand before the great white throne of celestial glory and say to His Father: “I have finished the work thou didst give me to do” — sin and death are obliterated from the universe. “

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all . [i. e., that God may have all headship of all creation; complete and absolute supremacy ( Col_3:11 ), so that "all things shall say, 'God is all things to me'" (Bengel). In 1Co_15:23 the apostle, while arguing the reasonableness of the resurrection, is led to mention its relation to the end of the world, but the resurrection presents its reasonableness in another form, being intimately associated with a higher, more transcendent climax than even the termination of this physical universe; for it is an essential preliminary to the culmination of Christ's mediatorial kingdom into the kingdom of the Father. This culmination can not take place until the mediatorial kingdom has attained ripened perfection through the subjugation of all things. But among the enemies to be thus subdued, death stands forth with marked prominence, and the weapon which subdues him is, and can be no other than, the resurrection. Hence the supreme glorification, or, as it were, the crowning of God as all in all, is predicated upon a resurrection as a condition precedent. The chain of Paul's logic is long, but it runs thus: no glorification until the mediatorial kingdom is turned over to God; no turning over of this kingdom until its work is complete; no completion of its work till all its enemies are destroyed; no destruction of all these enemies while death, a chief one, survives; no destruction of death save by the resurrection: therefore no full glorification of God without a resurrection. The logic would hold good for the doctrine of Universalism, were it not that there is a second death which is not looked upon as an enemy to the kingdom of God.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

28. When all things have been subjected. When the world is subdued to Christ. Then shall the son also himself be subjected. Then, as his work is done, he will give up the kingdom to the Father (verse 24). Then Christ will give up the seals of office.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

28. ὅταν δὲ ὑποταγῇ. Here again the subject is Christ, whereas αὐτῷ here refers to the Father, thus reversing the construction in the last verse.

τὰ πάντα. If everything is put under Christ, it is in order that there may be no divided empire. ‘I and my Father are One,’ He said (Joh 10:30). Cf. Joh 17:11; Joh 17:22, as well as ch. 1Co 3:23, 1Co 11:3 of this Epistle.

τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ υἱός. This passage is one of great difficulty. Athanasius gives two explanations of it: (1) in his treatise De Incarnatione, that Christ is subject to God not in Himself, but in His members; (2) in his first dialogue against the Macedonians (so also Chrysostom), that Christ is subject not by the nature of His Divinity, but by the dispensation of His Humanity. ‘For this subjection,’ he further remarks, ‘no more involves inferiority of essence, than His subjection (Luk 2:51) to Joseph and Mary involved inferiority of essence to them.’ Hooker remarks (3) of Christ’s mediatorial kingdom on earth, that ‘the exercise thereof shall cease, there being no longer on earth any militant Church to govern,’ and regards the passage as referring to the surrender, on Christ’s part, of that mediatorial kingdom at the end of the world. Cyril of Jerusalem (4) regards the subjection as one of voluntary surrender, as opposed to necessity. But perhaps (5) the true explanation may be suggested by the passage in Philippians 2, as translated by some, ‘He snatched not greedily at His equality with God.’ Though He were God, yet He was always a Son. And the object of His mediatorial work was not, as that of the unregenerate man would have been, to obtain this kingdom for Himself, but for His Father. See Mat 26:39; Joh 5:30; Joh 6:38; Joh 7:18; Joh 8:50; Joh 8:54; Eph 1:10. So that the disorder and confusion of the universe shall henceforth cease, and one vast system of order, peace and love shall reign from the Father and source of all things, down to the meanest creature to whom He has given to have eternal life. And this was the object of His Resurrection from the dead. In fact what is meant is this; that whereas now our limited faculties only permit us to discern God through His Revelation of Himself as Man, there will come a time when this Revelation shall retire into the background, and men shall see God as He is. See Appendix I.

τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν. The restoration of God’s, kingdom over the moral and spiritual part of man was the object of Christ’s Mission on earth, Mat 3:2; Mat 4:17; Mat 5:3; Mat 5:10; Mat 6:10; Mat 6:33, and ch. 13; Joh 3:5; Joh 3:17; Rom 8:2; Rom 8:4. This was to be brought to pass by means of the revelation of the Divine perfections in the Man Christ Jesus, Joh 1:14; Joh 14:8-10; Col 1:19; Col 2:9. God was thus revealed to us, that we might obtain fellowship with Him. See Joh 16:23-28; Rom 5:2; Eph 2:18; Eph 3:12; Heb 10:20. ‘Therefore he is called the door, and the way, because by Him we are brought nigh to God.’ Athanasius. And thus in the end each believer will have immediate and individual relations, not only with the Man Christ Jesus, but with the whole of the Blessed Trinity. See note on ch. 1Co 13:12. For all in all, see ch. 1Co 12:6. Theodoret remarks that the same expression is used of Christ in Col 3:11. Cf. 1Co 14:23; 1Co 16:7; 1Co 16:13-14; Joh 17:22-23; 1Jn 2:24; 1Jn 4:13.

APPENDIX I

CH. 1Co 15:27-28

IT may not be amiss to add a few more interpretations of this important and difficult passage by distinguished Divines of various periods. First of all Irenaeus (Contr. Haer. 1Co 15:36) says, on the authority of the Presbyters who had been disciples of the Apostles (i.e., had been taught by them orally), ‘esse adordinationem et dispositionem eorum qui salvantur, et per hujusmodi gradus proficere, et per Spiritum quidem [ad] Filium, per Filium autem ascendere ad Patrem, Filio deinceps cedente Patri opus suum, quemadmodum et ab Apostolo dictum est, “quoniam oportet regnare eum” &c.’ The passage is not extant in the Greek.

Tertullian, Adv. Praxeam 4, arguing for the Monarchy, or sole and single rule of God, says, ‘Videmus igitur non obesse monarchiae Filium, etsi hodie apud Filium est, quia et suo statu est apud Filium, et cum suo statu restituetur Patri a Filio. Ita eam nemo hoc nomine destruet, (si) Filium admittat, cui et traditam eam a Patre et a quo quandoque restituendam Patri constat.’

Origen, De Principiis III. 7, says, ‘Verum nescio quo pacto haeretici non intelligentes Apostoli sensum … subjectionis in filio nomen infamant … Sermo namque Apostoli, secundum quod isti volunt, hoc videtur ostendere; ut quasi is qui nunc patri subjectus non sit, subjectus futurus sit hinc cum prius pater ei universa subjecerit. Sed miror quomodo hoc intelligi possit, ut is qui nondum sibi subjectis omnibus non est ipse subjectus, hinc, cum subjecta fuerint sibi omnia, cum rex omnium fuerit, et potestatem tenuerit universorum, hinc eum subjiciendum putant, cum subjectus ante non fuerit, non intelligentes quod subjectio Christi ad patrem beatitudinem nostrae perfectionis ostendit … cum non solum regendi ac regnandi summam quam in universam emendaverit creaturam, verum etiam obedientiae et subjectionis correcta reparataque humani generis patri offerat instituta.’ Cf. Hom. 2 on Psalms 36; and in Tom. XX. in Joan. 7, he writes, ζητήσαις δ’ ἂν εἰ ἔσται ποτε, ὅτε οἱ ἄγγελοι αὐτοὶ ὄψονται τὰ παρὰ τῷ πατρί, οὐκέτι διὰ μεσίτου καὶ ὑπηρέτου βλέποντες αὐτά. ὅτε μὲν ὁ ἑωρακὼς τὸν υἱὸν ἑώρακε τὸν πατέρα τὸν πέμψαντα αὐτόν, ἐν υἱῷ τις ὁρᾷ τὸν πατέρα, ὅτε δὲ ὡς ὁ υἱὸς ὁρᾷ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ τὰ παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ ὄψεταί τις, οἱονεὶ ὁμοίως τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοπτὴς ἔσται τοῦ πατρός, καὶ τῶν τοῦ πατρός, οὐκέτι ἀπὸ τῆς εἰκόνος ἐννοῶν τὰ περὶ τούτου οὗ ἡ εἰκών ἐστι. καὶ νομίζω γε τοῦτο εἷναι τὸ τέλος, ὅταν παραδίδωσι κ.τ.λ.

Athanasius explains it of Christ as a representative of mankind, αὐτὸς ὑποταγήσεται τῷ πατρί, ὡς κεφαλὴ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων μελῶν, De Hum. Nat. Suscept. In his Unum Esse Christum he rejects the explanation of Marcellus and Paul of Samosata, which would regard the words of the subjection of the man Christ Jesus to the Divinity which had taken him into Itself. Theodoret in loc. regards the words as being added lest the heathen should imagine something in the Christian scheme corresponding to the fables of Saturn being dethroned by Jupiter and the like. And he explains it in much the same way as Athanasius above. Cyril of Alexandria (De Sacros. Trin. 25) denies that Jesus, as God, was in any way subject to the Father, but regards the words as spoken κατ ̓ οἰκείωσιν καὶ ἀναφοράν.

Aug., De Trinitate, lib. I., ch. 8, says that this was written to guard against the idea that Christ’s manhood would ever be converted into His Divinity. And he adds that we must not suppose that Christ delivers up the kingdom to His Father in such sort as that He takes it away from Himself. Again, he says, Octoginta Quaestiones 69, ‘Non ergo absurde sic intelligimus, Tunc et ipse filius subjectus erit ei qui illi subjecit omnia; et Filium non solum caput Ecclesiae, sed omnes cum eo sanctos intelligamus, qui sunt unum in Christo, unum semen Abrahae. Subjectum autem secundum contemplationem sempiternae veritatis, ad obtinendam beatitudinem, nullo motu animi, nulla parte corporis resistente, ut in illa vita nemine amante propriam potestatem, sit Deus omnia in omnibus.’

Anselm in loc. explains that Christ is subject ‘secundum humanitatem, ne quis putaret humanam naturam quam assumpsit in naturam divinitatis commutandam ut fieret aequalis patri, non subjecta.’

Aquinas in loc. says, ‘Et subjectus est nunc etiam Christus secundum quod homo patri, sed hoc tunc manifestius erit. Et ratio hujus subjectionis est “ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus,” id est ut anima hominis totaliter requiescat in Deo, et solus Deus sit beatitudo.’

Luther’s explanation in his exposition of this passage is as follows; God’s kingdom is so called when it is no longer hidden but clear before all creatures, and when faith shall cease. To hand over the kingdom to the Father is to present us and the whole Christian world openly before the Father, in His eternal brightness and majesty, in which He reigns without a veil. Since the Church is governed through Christ’s Word and Sacraments, it is called His kingdom. But at the last day He will give Himself up with His whole kingdom to the Father. Henceforth men will perceive and enjoy openly that Sacred Trinity in which they have believed, and for which they have waited.

Calvin’s explanation is, ‘Sed ideo testatur Scriptura Christum nunc vice Patris caeli et terrae imperium obtinere; ne quem alium gubernatorem, dominum, tutorem, judicemve mortuorum et vivorum cogitemus; sed defixi sumus in solo ejus intuitu. Deum quidem agnoscimus rectorem, sed in facie hominis Christi. Tunc autem restituet Christus quod accepit regnum ut perfecte adhaereamus Deo. Neque hoc modo regnum a se abdicabit, sed ab humanitate sua ad gloriosam divinitatem quodammodo traducet; quia tunc patebit accessus, quo nunc infirmitas noster nos arcet. Sic ergo Christus subjicietur patri; quia tunc remoto velo palam cernemus Deum in sua majestate regnantem, neque amplius media erit Christi humanitas quae nos ab ulteriore Dei conspectu cohibeat.’

Hooker’s explanation has been given above. Pearson’s is subjoined (On the Creed, Art. II. ‘Our Lord’), ‘Now as all the power given unto Christ as man had not the same beginning in respect of the use and possession, so neither, when begun, shall it all have the same duration. For part of it, being merely economical, aiming at a certain end, shall then cease and determinate, when that end for which it was given shall be accomplished; part, being either due upon the union of the human nature with the Divine, or upon covenant, as a reward for sufferings endured in that nature, must be coeval with that union and that nature which so suffered, and consequently must be eternal.’ Of the first part of that dominion, he adds, is the Apostle speaking here.

Thus in the history of the exegesis of this passage by some of the greatest minds in Christendom, we find three main lines of interpretation; (1) that the Son is subject to the Father as man; (2) that He offers to the Father, as the Head of the Church, the submission of all its members; (3) that there will come a time in the far distant future when His mediatorial office will no longer be needed, when His kingdom over mankind, as man, will cease, and when each of us will enjoy for himself, through the Mediator’s completed work, the blessing of immediate access to the Father. The right method of interpretation may be to include all three meanings. It is no true principle of explanation of a thing so infinite as the revelation of God in His Word to suppose that one contribution to the elucidation of a Divine mystery of necessity shuts out another. But we should miss the point of this deep passage if we left out the last of these three explanations. The truth is that Christ’s Divinity does not come within the scope of this passage at all. It deals simply with Christ’s mediatorial work. That mediatorial work, in man’s present condition, is absolutely necessary in order to bring us to God. He is so far above us, that we cannot conceive of Him, except as revealed in the shape of one of ourselves. But there will come a time, the Apostle dimly hints, when the intermediate action of Christ’s Manhood between us and God will be no longer necessary. Man’s development does not cease with death, but will go on in a constantly ascending process until he becomes sufficiently spiritualized to see God for Himself. Then, when the work of reconciliation and restoration is finally and completely accomplished, when every thought of man’s heart is brought into obedience to the law of Christ, when death and hell are cast into the lake of fire, when the God-Man sees all enemies at His Feet, then shall Christ, as Man, no longer reign: even His humanity will cease to be the necessary link between God and man, for sin, the only barrier between the two, shall have been finally destroyed, and God shall be all in all.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

28.] On the sense, see above. “The interpretations, that subjection is only an hyperbolical expression for the entire harmony of Christ with the Father (Chrys., Theophyl., Œc.):—the limitation of it to His human nature (Theodoret, , Jerome, Est., Wolf, al.), with the declarative explanation, that it will then become plain to all, that Christ even in regard of His kingship, is, on the side of His Humanity, dependent on the Father (Flatt)—and the addition, that Christ will then in His divine nature reign with the Father (Calv.:—‘regnum—ab humanitate sua ad gloriosam divinitatem quodammodo traducet’);—the interpretation (of αὐτὸς ὁ υἱός!) as referring to Christ’s mystical Body, i.e. the Church (Theodoret),—are idle subterfuges (leere Ausfluchte).” De Wette. The refutation of these and all other attempts to explain away the doctrine here plainly asserted, of the ultimate subordination of the Son, is contained in the three precise and unambiguous words, αὐτὸς ὁ υἱός.

ἵνα ᾖ ὁ θ. πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν] that God (alone) may be all things in all,—i.e. recognized as sole Lord and King: ‘omnia erunt subordinata Filio, Filius Patri.’ Bengel. Numerous examples of πάντα in this sense (less commonly τὰ πάντα, Kühner, § 422) may be found in Wetst.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.