5

International Standard Version:

But when everything has been put under him, then the Son himself will also become subject to the one who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

The New Living Translation:

Then, when all things are under his authority, the Son will put himself under God’s authority, so that God, who gave his Son authority over all things, will be utterly supreme over everything everywhere.

Jesus is made subject to God, under God's authority so he cannot be equal to God. Please note this verse refers to a resurrected Christ.

I would like to know why the verse is apparently disregarded.

7
  • 15
    Just because others interpret it differently to you doesn't mean they disregard it. – curiousdannii Nov 15 '20 at 23:58
  • What do you mean by "equal to God"? Please clarify as I'm not sure in what sense to interpret it. – akostadinov Nov 16 '20 at 11:40
  • 1
    Is it, though? What makes you think that's "disregarded" and by whom? – Robbie Goodwin Nov 16 '20 at 23:32
  • Please bear with me...I'm new to this forum and not entirely confident about how it works. I didn't think we were allowed to chat? The verse clearly indicates there is not equal status by saying the son subjects himself to God. The early church Fathers' try hard to justify an unjustifiable opinion on the meaning of this text. Apologies if the question was perceived as insulting I wasn't sure how to word it concisely – user51213 Nov 17 '20 at 22:09
  • Trinitarians don't disregard the verse. They merely interpreted it accurately. in that very verse the Son himself was equal to God in one thing: the 'everything' (other translations had all things). So God made Jesus equal to himself in that verse, by subjecting all things to the Son. This means that all things are now subject , not only to God, but also to the Son. Hence, they're equal in this sense in the verse. – Radz Brown Nov 20 '20 at 16:50
-2

It is true enough, that no one really disregards a biblical text, but over centuries of practise, every group (to varying degrees) has re-interpreted, re-imagined and re-written the text to avoid the obvious negative implications to their favourite theology. To the point that if they cannot find what they want, they inserted additional words to assist their dogma.

When one reads the simple, clear and consistent texts regarding the humanity of Jesus, recorded from Jesus' own words, his disciples'/apostles' words and the words of God via Himself and everyone else, the passage of 1 Cor 15:28 makes perfect sense when read without any special interpretation - none is required. It means what it says.

Sometimes, it's true there are difficulty passages - and we have 30+ efforts to present in readable English - each with their own (sometimes peculiar) bias.

Jesus and the others spoke to the people on the street - not in complex verbiage or difficult language. Jesus was sent to reveal the Father and the kingdom and that is what he did. He spoke the truth without guile.

The text is not disregarded. It is mis-appropriated to say that which it is not meant to convey... that somehow, against all other scripture and logic and sensible approach, the 'eternal Son' (which is nowhere to be found) is equal to the Father - yet he is not equal as the Father is greater, gives the very life to the son, appoints Jesus heir to all He has made, made him Lord and Christ and on it goes.

"As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. John 6:57

they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a tomb. 30“But God raised Him from the dead Acts 13:30

But when everything has been put under him, then the Son himself will also become subject to the one who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. 1 Cor 15:28

If Jesus is God (as some insist) why, how, can he be included with everyone and everything else to be "all in all", if he is already God?

The raised, exalted human Jesus, the Lamb who was slain, is shown to be not God, but sits at God's right hand, gives honour to God, shares the throne with God, speaks of the resurrected having the name of God AND the Lamb... is the Lamb God? No. IS Jesus the Lamb? Yes.

We may quote Basil and lots of other old men - none are part of scripture, but when we quote the bible we don't get to re-purpose the plain meaning of Jesus' words or those of his apostles, or of his Father and God!

'This is My son, in whom I am well pleased'. Why, for any purpose, would God say that of His equal, eternal, immortal Son?

0
16

That the Son (in regard to his Deity) should have a relationship with his Father which is a matter of filial and voluntary subjection does not mean that he is not equal in Deity to the Father.

Equal in Divine nature, or 'form', as we see in Philippians :

who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God, [Philippians 2:6 YLT]

Yet within that equality of Deity, the Son says :

... My Father is greater than I. [John 14:28 KJV]

One needs to understand both the matter of divine nature and also the matter of divine relationship within that nature.

And one also needs to bear in mind the fact that God is God in respect of the Son of God's divine nature but also God in regard to the humanity of Jesus Christ.

But unto the Son [God saith], Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. [Hebrews 1:8.]

I think the premise of the question is incorrect.

Trinitarians, in general, are very well aware of the whole balance of truth in regard to both divine nature, divine relationship within that nature, and well aware of the relationship in regard to the humanity of Christ, also.

The text under discussion (1 Corinthians 15:28) is not disregarded. It is well understood.

and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the Son also himself shall be subject to Him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all.

[1 Corinthians 15:28 Young's Literal Translation]

The question expresses an unsubstantiated opinion about the 'disregard' to the text and I do not think that opinion is correct. My experience of Trinitarian denominations over the past fifty three years of my life (I was converted at the age of sixteen in 1967) is that the text is not disregarded. It is fundamental to a proper understanding of the divine relationship of the Son of God to the Father and of the human relationship of Jesus Christ to God.


Basil the Great, 330-379, who supported the Nicene Creed, had this to say about 1 Corinthians 15:28 :

So there need be no hesitation from anyone in taking this to mean that what the Father is greater than is the form of a servant, whereas the Son is his equal in the form of God

And Augustine of Hippo, 354-430, comments thus :

when every creature is made subject to God, including even the creature in which the Son of God became the Son of man, for in this created form “the Son himself shall also be subject to the one who subjected all things to him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28).

Both Quotes are from secundumscripturas Basil and Augustine on 1 Corinthians 15:28

Athanasius of Alexandria, 297-373, writes on the same text :

For this subjection, no more involves inferiority of essence, than His subjection (Luke 2:51) to Joseph and Mary involved inferiority of essence to them.

This quote is taken from the Cambridge Bible Commentary paragraph on Biblehub - 1 Corinthians 15:28 on which page are extensive articles by Trinitarians who quote other Trinitarians in some very involved and learned discussions, dealing with the original language in precise and academic detail.

No. Not at all 'disregarded'.

1
  • 2
    Excellent. My children are subordinate to me in their roles as my children but from conception have always been every bit as human as I am. The unique, eternal begotten-ness of Jesus is critical! – Mike Borden Nov 17 '20 at 21:34
1

Contemporary English version

1 Corinthians 15:24

"Then after Christ has destroyed all powers and forces, the end will come, and he will give the kingdom to God the Father.."

It's referring to the final outcome ie the end.

Verse 25 "Christ will rule until he puts all his enemies under his power,"

Please note, it says 'until' he has completed this act. This indicates it's only up to that time, not beyond (as this is what the word 'until' means)

Verse 27 "When the Scriptures say he will put everything under his power, they don't include God. It was God who put everything under the power of Christ."

It clearly says, God is not under Christ, he has the power, to have put all things under him. So, as he has the power to do so, and he has chosen to do so, Indictates He is not equal to His son

(Matthew 28:18 "Jesus came to them and said: I have been given all authority in heaven and on earth!" .... Authority was given, because it was the Almighty's to give)

Verse 28 "After everything is under the power of God's Son, he will put himself under the power of God, who put everything under his Son's power. Then God will mean everything to everyone."

Other translation say subject but the meaning is the same. It's an act that places the Almighty God above the son. Is this just an act of humility that has no relation to power status? No because the act itself sets a clear boundary ie Christ is subject to, under the power of his Father, after he has done all things that was instructed to

As an additional point, that1 Corinthians 15 is talking about the end, a time after death itself is eliminated, the final act that returns us to what God intended...all that Jesus was meant to do has been accomplished, he hands it back to God

These verses, especially verse 28, are 'disregarded' or misinterpreted because of reading them with bias towards the trinitarian explanation...reading a few translations helps clarify the meaning of the verses. As always prayer is also essential. Thank you for your responses

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.