This article downloaded by permission of the author from www

This article downloaded by permission of the author from www.RethinkingFaith.com, where similar articles are available for free.

A Classic Protestant Perspective on 1 Corinthians 15:24-28

Regarding the Question of Christ Being Subjected to the Father

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (NRSV)

24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "All things are put in subjection," it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.

John Calvin writes in his commentary on this passage:

"This statement, however, is at first view at variance with what we read in various passages of Scripture respecting the eternity of Christ's kingdom. For how will these things correspond -- Of his kingdom there will be no end, (Dan vii. 14, 27; Luke i. 33; 2 Peter i. 11,) and He himself shall be subjected? The solution of this question will open up Paul's meaning more clearly. In the first place, it must be observed, that all power was delivered over to Christ, inasmuch as he was manifested in the flesh. It is true that such distinguished majesty would not correspond with a mere man, but, notwithstanding, the Father has exalted him in the same nature in which he was abased, and has given him a name, before which every knee must bow, &c. (Phil. ii. 9, 10.) Farther, it must be observed, that he has been appointed Lord and highest King, so as to be as it were the Father's Vicegerent in the government of the world -- not that he is employed and the Father unemployed, (for how could that be, inasmuch as he is the wisdom and counsel of the Father, is of one essence with him, and is therefore himself God?) But to reason why the Scripture testifies, that Christ now holds dominion over the heaven and earth in the room of the Father is -- that we may not think that there is any other governor, lord, protector, or judge of the dead and living, but may fix our contemplation on him alone. We acknowledge, it is true, God as the ruler, but it in the face of the man Christ. But Christ will then restore the kingdom which he has received, that we may cleave wholly to God. Nor will he in this way resign the kingdom, but will transfer it in a manner from his humanity to his glorious divinity, because a way of approach will then be opened up, from which our infirmity now keeps us back. Thus then Christ will be subjected to the Father, because the vail being then removed, we shall openly behold God reigning in his majesty, and Christ's humanity will then no longer be interposed to keep us back from a closer view of God." (John Pringle's translation)

The translator's footnote on this section in Calvin offers this from Dick's Theology, vol. iii. pp. 250-251:

"The mediatorial kingdom of Christ .... will end when its design is accomplished; he will cease to exercise an authority which has no longer an object. When all the elect are converted by the truth, and, being collected into one body, are presented to the Father .... a new order of things will commence under which the dependence of men upon the Godhead will be immediate [i.e. without mediation]; and Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one in essence, counsel, and operation, will reign for ever over the inhabitants of heaven."

In responding to the suggestion that 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 teaches an eternal subjugation of Jesus to the Father, I offer the responses of these two classical Protestant sources (Calvin's Commentary and Dick's Theology) to show how orthodox Protestants affirm the eternal equality of the three Persons of the Trinity. Now I have been asked to explain these commentators, which I am happy to make an attempt at doing. I offer these thoughts with the disclaimer that I am not a scholar and I make no claims at being an expert. But as a pastor and student of Scripture and theology here's what I think Calvin and Dick are saying:

Calvin: "This statement, however, is at first view at variance with what we read in various passages of Scripture respecting the eternity of Christ's kingdom. For how will these things correspond -- Of his kingdom there will be no end, (Dan vii. 14, 27; Luke i. 33; 2 Peter i. 11,) and He himself shall be subjected? The solution of this question will open up Paul's meaning more clearly. "

Comment: The idea that Christ will end his Kingdom and become a subject of another clearly contradicts the biblical teaching that his Kingship is eternal (modern pre- and post-millennialist fantasies not withstanding). Scripture does not contradict itself. So there must be an explanation for why Paul speaks this way. Calvin will propose a scheme based on biblical distinctions between Christ's function as a human mediator and his eternal status as true God from true God. In doing this he alludes to the distinction between the economic and ontological Trinity.

Calvin: "In the first place, it must be observed, that all power was delivered over to Christ, inasmuch as he was manifested in the flesh. It is true that such distinguished majesty would not correspond with a mere man, but, notwithstanding, the Father has exalted him in the same nature in which he was abased, and has given him a name, before which every knee must bow, &c. (Phil. ii. 9, 10.)"

Comment: Here is the first distinction: Though he became human, Christ received the Kingdom from God. Though he surely was its King before his incarnation, that he should receive the Kingdom and "all power" while in the flesh is remarkable and significant.

Calvin: "Farther, it must be observed, that he has been appointed Lord and highest King, so as to be as it were the Father's Vicegerent in the government of the world -- not that he is employed and the Father unemployed, (for how could that be, inasmuch as he is the wisdom and counsel of the Father, is of one essence with him, and is therefore himself God?) But to reason why the Scripture testifies, that Christ now holds dominion over the heaven and earth in the room of the Father is -- that we may not think that there is any other governor, lord, protector, or judge of the dead and living, but may fix our contemplation on him alone. We acknowledge, it is true, God as the ruler, but it in the face of the man Christ."

Comment: Christ's "appointment" was needed because of his humanity, not because of his Sonship. Having become a human he became someone who did not automatically hold title to the Kingdom. It remained for God in heaven to recognize and elevate this human that Christ became. As to divinity, the Father and Son are Vicegerents (co-rulers) and it is impossible to ever conceive of them as being anything else, ever, at any time. For the Father cannot exist without his own wisdom and counsel, which are titles Scripture gives to Christ. They are of one essence and therefore Christ is God. And so, even now, no one should assume that one rules and the other rests or is unemployed. It will never be so. Rather, the purpose of the incarnation was to allow us to see God's face in the flesh. And Scripture focuses on Christ's rule right now so that there would be no mistaking that Christ truly is our Lord, God, Ruler, Protector, Judge, etc. Certainly God is the ruler. But there is no face of God to be seen without looking upon Christ's face. As Luther put it, even in heaven no one is able to see God apart from Christ.

Calvin: "But Christ will then restore the kingdom which he has received, that we may cleave wholly to God. Nor will he in this way resign the kingdom, but will transfer it in a manner from his humanity to his glorious divinity, because a way of approach will then be opened up, from which our infirmity now keeps us back."

Comment: The Kingdom was entrusted to Christ in his humanity for the very purpose that we should be brought back completely to God, that we would cleave to God. Remember, to speak of God is to speak also of Christ, for there is no God apart from Christ; the Father, Son, and Spirit are one. It is therefore absurd to speak of God the Son resigning his Kingdom of God, since doing this would mean he would cease to be God. What then is he doing by surrendering the Kingdom to God, which is who he is? Calvin says he is "transferring" it, in a manner of speaking, from the humanity that carried it during the time of his mediatorship to his divinity, which will now be accessible to us in ways previously unknown due the limitations of our current status in the progress of salvation history.

Calvin: "Thus then Christ will be subjected to the Father, because the vail being then removed, we shall openly behold God reigning in his majesty, and Christ's humanity will then no longer be interposed to keep us back from a closer view of God."

Comment: Since this is what will become of Christ's humanity, and the veil of his flesh will be positioned so as to no longer hide the Triune God from our full access, therefore one may say in a manner of speaking that Christ will be "subjected to the Father," in that the man we have known will have served his purpose. But he is subjected, or deemphasized, not as a divine Person in the Godhead but as a human mediator, since mediation will no longer be needed. We will know God as he is, without mediation. The God we get a closer view of is the God whom Christ is now and whom he now embodies in human flesh.

Dick's Theology (vol. iii. pp. 250-251): "The mediatorial kingdom of Christ .... will end when its design is accomplished; he will cease to exercise an authority which has no longer an object. When all the elect are converted by the truth, and, being collected into one body, are presented to the Father .... a new order of things will commence under which the dependence of men upon the Godhead will be immediate [i.e. without mediation]; and Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, one in essence, counsel, and operation, will reign for ever over the inhabitants of heaven."

Comment: This, I believe, is a description of what Paul meant when he said the outcome would be that God would finally "be all in all" (v. 28).

Recap: To reiterate my comments earlier: It seems clear that the orthodox view of the Trinity being made up of equals compelled commentators like to Calvin and Dick to understand the subjection mentioned in this passage as pertaining to the economic Trinity, not the ontological Trinity. The economic Trinity refers to how the Trinity operates within salvation history. The ontological Trinity speaks its essence. Unlike CBMW, classical orthodoxy sees the economy as temporary or temporal and the ontological as eternal. They may coincide and the economic operations may reflect some exceptions to God's nature due to divine choices and sacrifices for our redemption. But the economic Trinity cannot cancel out the attributes of the ontological Trinity. By classifying aspects of the economic Trinity as eternal, however, CBMW clouds the distinction between these two and calls into question Christ's true equality with the Father. In contrast to this, because it is inconceivable to orthodox thinkers that Christ could be equally God and yet eternally subject to the Father (and therefore not an equal), Calvin and other orthodox theologians saw other ways to interpret this passage, other than to accept it out of the context of the rest of Scripture. (As most of the rest of us do with the very next verse, on baptism for the dead.)

Calvin and Dick came to these conclusions not only because of their theology of the Godhead, but because of the Bible's teachings elsewhere on Christ's kingdom. If Christ's Kingdom truly is eternal, then this passage cannot be interpreted to mean that Christ's reign will ever end, especially by becoming an eternal subject himself.

Christ's humanity, they reasoned, would always be subjected to divinity -- of course, since it is humanity. But Christ was not just human; he is also God. And since the Kingdom was only given to his humanity for a time and purpose to be fulfilled, then the end of that Kingdom would naturally have implications for Christ's human nature. Once Christ's humanity and his reign in the flesh serves its purpose, his eternal divinity with the Father would then shine in its place. They knew that for God to be all in all, Christ's full and equal divinity needed to be considered to truly understand this text. And so they did not yield to the temptation, even for a second, to conclude like Arius (or Grudem) that Christ was or ever would be anything less than an equal with the Father in authority, majesty or power.