Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary
1 Corinthians 15:28
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 (John 10:30). Cf. John 17:11; John 17:22, as well as ch. 1 Corinthians 3:23; 1 Corinthians 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 (Luke 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 Matthew 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 Matthew 26:39; John 5:30; John 6:38; John 7:18; John 8:50; John 8:54; Ephesians 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, Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 5:3; Matthew 5:10; Matthew 6:10; Matthew 6:33, and ch. 13; John 3:5; John 3:17; Romans 8:2; Romans 8:4. This was to be brought to pass by means of the revelation of the Divine perfections in the Man Christ Jesus, John 1:14; John 14:8-10; Colossians 1:19; Colossians 2:9. God was thus revealed to us, that we might obtain fellowship with Him. See John 16:23-28; Romans 5:2; Ephesians 2:18; Ephesians 3:12; Hebrews 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. 1 Corinthians 13:12. For all in all, see ch. 1 Corinthians 12:6. Theodoret remarks that the same expression is used of Christ in Colossians 3:11. Cf. 1 Corinthians 14:23; 1 Corinthians 16:7; 1 Corinthians 16:13-14; John 17:22-23; 1 John 2:24; 1 John 4:13.
APPENDIX I
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. 1 Corinthians 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�. 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�.
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.