Bob Macdonald is feeling a little grumpy but he asks a good question about Paul’s belief i) that at the end Jesus will deliver the kingdom to God the Father, and ii) that “the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:24-28). Bob wonders:
…how can one who is Lord, and who is given the Name that is above every name, refuse his own identity at the end? What roots in the OT resonate with this? It almost seems like groundless theological speculation.
True, there is nothing in the Old Testament that would directly account for this eschatological twist—at least, nothing that I can think of. But I wouldn’t dismiss it as “groundless theological speculation”.1
I think that it was an inevitable corollary of the fact that Jesus was given the authority of God to rule in the midst of his enemies, on the basis of Psalm 110:
The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.” The LORD sends forth from Zion your mighty scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies! (Ps. 110:1–2)
The Psalm, of course, was of crucial importance for the early church as it sought to make sense of the resurrection. Paul alludes to it in this passage:
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (1 Cor. 15:25)
Jesus was given the authority as “Lord” to rule because there were enemies and as long as there were enemies—for the sake of the church. This is made explicit in Ephesians 1:22-23:
And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.
The argument is found also in Romans 8:31-39: Christ died, was raised, is at the right hand of God, interceding for the suffering churches; therefore, the churches are assured that nothing, not even death, can separate them from the love of God.
Jesus is given the name of “Lord”, he is given the kingdom as the Son of Man, because he was obedient even to death, because he overcame death. Similarly, in Revelation it is the Lamb who was slain, but is alive, who has been given the right to open the scroll of judgment (Rev. 5).
This is a core argument of the New Testament, all the way through from Jesus’ promise that the “gates of Hades” will not overcome his church (eg. Matt. 16:18) to the “first resurrection” of the martyrs, the victims of Roman persecution, who will reign with Christ (20:4). [pullquote]The church does not need to fear any force, whether in the heavens or on earth, because Jesus has been given authority to rule in the midst of his enemies.[/pullquote]
But the logic of this argument inevitably leads to the conclusion that once the final enemy, death, has been defeated, the Son who overcame death no longer needs the kingdom, no longer needs to be kyrios, no longer needs the authority to judge and rule on behalf of his vulnerable, persecuted saints. So the kingdom is handed back to God the Father, the Son no longer rules at the right hand of God, and the Creator is again “all in all”, which is to be understood as a fundamental reaffirmation of Old Testament creational monotheism.
- 1See further my discussion in [amazon:978-1620324592:inline], 176-79, 239.
Thank you for this response. It fits well with this week’s lectionary, the exaltation of the human Jesus to the position of judge (Acts and 1 Peter). Jesus becomes the means whereby God effects the promise of the psalms to judge the world with equity. Jesus also is the means whereby all peoples are called to worship the God of Israel (Psalm 66). This places a responsibility in both roles for those who are no longer left as orphans and who receive ‘an other Comforter’.
“Now therefore let Pharaoh select a discerning and wise man, and set him over the land of Egypt. Let Pharaoh proceed to appoint overseers over the land and take one-fifth of the produce of the land of Egypt during the seven plentiful years. And let them gather all the food of these good years that are coming and store up grain under the authority of Pharaoh for food in the cities, and let them keep it. That food shall be a reserve for the land against the seven years of famine that are to occur in the land of Egypt, so that the land may not perish through the famine.” This proposal pleased Pharaoh and all his servants. And Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find a man like this, in whom is the Spirit of God?” Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.” Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his hand and put it on Joseph’s hand, and clothed him in garments of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. And he made him ride in his second chariot. And they called out before him, “Bow the knee!” Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt. Moreover, Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no one shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.” And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphenath-paneah. And he gave him in marriage Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera priest of On. So Joseph went out over the land of Egypt. Joseph was thirty years old when he entered the service of Pharaoh king of Egypt. And Joseph went out from the presence of Pharaoh and went through all the land of Egypt.” Genesis 41:33-46 ESV
He (Jesus) was given all authority of Heaven and Earth, however, He is still subject to God (the Father) from whom all things come.
Andrew, Bob & William; well put Indeed… The claim of bowing the knee to The Name… Isaiah 45, in particularly Vs 23.
As I re-read just now I’m seeing the motif of יהוה-god, his Prince/servant from 42:1, which seems to be the arm of salvation; bearing in mind God is transcendent, but the fullness of his nature will not inhabit this earth the way it was in Eden, even Isaiah 45 seems to delineate the character positions of god’s Yeshua been given the name at which every knee will bow, but in effect like the Pharoh analogy, it’s to The Name of the יהוה, that folk will be bowing too.
These comments are leap-frogging each other, but I did say in one of my posts over on “Is Jesus included in the divie identity?” today:
I think a great deal is read into 1 Corinthians 15:28 (assuming that’s what you are referring to) to make the reign of Jesus a temporary state of affairs. It suggests that Jesus was not subject to God in the interim, whilst becoming subject afterwards. There needs to be a better reading.
The 1 Corinthians passage does not say, firstly, that the kingdom ceases when Jesus hands it over to God the Father (v.24). It is, on the other hand, a metaphorical way of saying that Jesus’s ultimate victory over “dominion, authority and power”, “all his enemies”, and “his last enemy, death” will be given in tribute to God the Father, on whose behalf he set out to achieve these victories. It’s a way of saying that Jesus’s rule will be the restoration of God’s rule over the entire creation, as it was intended to be. It’s not a way of saying that Jesus ceases to rule, or the kingdom ceases to exist. This is metaphorical language, so we are not to think of “kingdom” as some sort of crude political entity. The “rule” is much wider than that, taking in death itself. God’s kingdom and the kingdom won by Jesus become at that point coterminous, and indistinguishable.
Second, the reference to Psalm 110 in “he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” v. 25 contains an ambiguity. It can mean “he must reign until”, following which he will no longer reign. Or it can mean “he will reign until” and then will continue to reign, but under different conditions, his enemies no longer opposing him. The latter is the case, in my opinion. Jesus will still be king in the new creation, but uniquely subject to God the Father. Hierarchy is no longer relevant. The unique relationship of Father and Son is, in my opinion, one of mutual deference. Jesus will still be the centre of heaven’s adoration. Jesus will still only do what he see the Father doing. Jesus’s resurrection demonstrated his unique participation in the new creation, over which he is and cannot cease to be “the firstborn”.
Interpreting 1 Corinthians 15:28 needs to bear in mind that all the language of kings, reigning, kingdom, handing over is highly metaphorical, and a way of helping us to grasp something within the meaning of very limited historically-bound words. We are in the future here, not the 1st century. For this future, Paul’s language is already outdated and archaic. Clearly Paul is not intending a grossly literal meaning, or the words “When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him” would also mean that until Jesus “hands over the kingdom”, there was a time when Jesus himself was not entirely subject to God.
A better reading would be that finally, the presence of God will be the uninterrupted experience of the entire creation, and Christ will be uniquely part of that. There will no longer be a situation in which Christ is taking authority against his and God’s enemies within creation. It’s a picture of worldwide harmony under God, rather than a hierarchical reordering of Christ’s relationship with God the Father, which violates the sense of Christ’s own role in relationship to God prior to this reordering. We need to think in the language of apocalyptic metaphor here, rather than wooden literalism. And apocalyptic as applied to future, non-1st century conditions.
So I don’t see that this means that the one who was given all authority refuses his own identity at the end. I am still expecting to participate in the kingdom (for want of a better word) after the events of 1 Corinthians 15:28 have taken place, but it will not be a kingdom where there is any dissonance between those who live within it and those outside it. In that sense there will be a reordering of relationship between the Son and the Father, which can best be described, as Paul does, “that God may be all in all”, but this is not “that God may be all instead of Christ”, and still less “that God may be all instead of all”.
It’s a way of saying that Jesus’s rule will be the restoration of God’s rule over the entire creation, as it was intended to be. It’s not a way of saying that Jesus ceases to rule, or the kingdom ceases to exist.
But this just flies in the face of what Paul actually says. Psalm 110 is an assurance to the king that God will sustain him as he reigns in the midst of his enemies. Paul says that Jesus must reign until (ἄχρι) he has put all his enemies under his feet. Eventually even death will be destroyed. At that point (εἶτα) the kingdom—the reign in the midst of enemies—is handed over (παραδιδῷ) to God the Father, for obvious reasons: there are no more enemies. This whole line of thought becomes nonsensical if we suppose that “hand over” does not mean “hand over” or “until” does not mean “until”.
Obviously, it’s convenient for the modern interpreter to make out that this is a metaphor for something else—that Paul doesn’t actually mean what he says. My argument is that modern evangelicals have to learn to read what’s there, not what they would like to be there.
Jesus will still be king in the new creation, but uniquely subject to God the Father. Hierarchy is no longer relevant.
How is that not a contradiction? Jesus is “subject to God” but there is no hierarchy?
The unique relationship of Father and Son is, in my opinion, one of mutual deference.
Paul states categorically that “the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him”. Where in the New Testament do we find a corresponding statement to the effect that the Father is subjected to the Son? Or even that the Father defers to the Son?
We are in the future here, not the 1st century. For this future, Paul’s language is already outdated and archaic.
It is a huge presumption to suppose that Paul in the first century intended this language in the sort of metaphorical sense you suppose. It seems to me that there is eery reason to think that when he used the language of “kingdom”, etc., he did so in first-century Jewish terms: he was talking about the rule of God over his people and over the nations in place of other kings and emperors.
Clearly Paul is not intending a grossly literal meaning, or the words “When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him” would also mean that until Jesus “hands over the kingdom”, there was a time when Jesus himself was not entirely subject to God.
No, it means that as long as there are enemies, Jesus reigns at the right hand of God. He has been raised to a position of equality with God, given the name and authority of “Lord”, for the sake of the church, as long as there are enemies which threaten God’s people.
We need to think in the language of apocalyptic metaphor here…
It seems to me that that is precisely what you are not doing. Jewish apocalyptic language is political language.
…it will not be a kingdom where there is any dissonance between those who live within it and those outside it.
The only kingdom that we have in the New Testament—indeed, in the whole of scripture—is established and sustained in the context of external opposition. This is why Paul says that Jesus has been seated at the right hand of God above all other authorities and powers “not only in this age but also in the age to come” (Eph. 1:20-21).
What you are talking about is not kingdom but new creation. When the last enemy, death, has been destroyed, the reign of Christ comes to an end—that’s what Paul says. Then we have a new creation in which there is no death—that’s what John says. There is no king or kingdom in John’s account of the new heaven and the new earth for the simple reason that there are no more enemies. Christ reigns with the martyrs for a “thousand years” and then we have new creation. It all hangs together perfectly.
Andrew — I love your posts (why else would I be doing this on a wet Bank Holiday Monday?), but nothing that you have said invalidates my comment. It is absurd to say that within history, any king ceases to reign once his enemies have been defeated. No king regards his reign as finished and abdicates once he has defeated his enemies; that is when his reign can truly flourish. In Psalm 110, echoed in 1 Corinthians 15:28, “until” can mean “until” and then a conclusion, or “until” and then continuing, but not under the same conditions. Using your perspective, a historical understanding of how this would work out would mean the latter, not the former.
Nowhere in 1 Corinthians 15 does Paul say the kingdom ceases at some future point in history. This can be shown from illustrations elsewhere in scripture. Luke 1:33 — “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end”; Revelation 5:13 — “To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honour and glory and power for ever and ever”; Revelation 11:15 — “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ and he will reign forever and ever.” The messianic prophecy to David, on which Jesus’s kingly credentials rest, speaks of a king whose house, throne and kingdom would last forever — 2 Samuel 7:13, 16. It’s quite clear that Jesus continues to rule and reign alongside God the Father forever.
Despite what you say, the kingdom and the new creation are closely connected and will continue to be. Jesus was raised as “lord” and was in himself the beginning of the new creation. He is “the firstborn over all creation (old and new)” — Colossians 1:15, which is another way of describing his kingly role in the new creation. He will never cease to have this preeminent significance within the new creation.
Also, despite what you say, 1 Corinthians 15:28 and preceding verses are using terminology which was true of Paul’s time, but is hardly true of ours, and will still less be so at some future point when the verses are realised. ”Kingdom” language is archaic in an age when monarchs, if they exist at all, have limited powers. The passage cannot be understood totally in the historical terminology of Israel’s history or Paul’s day. It is therefore already becoming metaphorical, and Paul’s use of the language must be understood as metaphorical.
Even in Paul’s time, the enemies of God were no longer simply gentile nations at war with Israel, but Gentiles and Jews, who were hostile enemies of God as well as of each other — Romans 5:10; Romans 11:28; Colossians 1:21; Ephesians 2:14,16. Paul redraws the battle lines between God and his enemies, by exposing the enmity to God of the carnal mind — Romans 8:7, which was true of Jew and Gentile, “alienated from God … enemies in your mind as shown by your evil behaviour” — 1 Colossians 1:21. This was you and me, Andrew. “Friendship with the world is enmity to God” — James 4:4. In this sense, Psalm 110 also has to be reinterpreted when it is used in the NT to describe God’s enemies.
It is for these reasons that 1 Corinthians 15:28 has to be interpreted in a different way from a literal reading, which in any case would not make sense of Christ’s role before being “made subject” to God. How was he not subject to God the Father before giving the God the kingdom? I think my reading does justice to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 and does not fly in the face of the rest of scripture or common sense.
It is absurd to say that within history, any king ceases to reign once his enemies have been defeated.
Within history, yes, but the argument is that Jesus gives the kingdom back to God the Father at the end of history, once every enemy has been destroyed. If there is no more sin, there is no need for a king to judge his people; if there are no enemies, there is no need for a king to protect his people. Obviously, God’s king reigns over the house of Jacob “forever”, etc., in the sense that he reigns until the end of history. Revelation 11:15 refers to the inauguration of Jesus’ reign at the moment of God’s judgment on Jerusalem; it will last throughout history.
In Psalm 110, echoed in 1 Corinthians 15:28, “until” can mean “until” and then a conclusion, or “until” and then continuing, but not under the same conditions.
This works for Psalm 110:1 because the psalm has nothing to say about what happens once the king’s enemies have been defeated. That is not the case in 1 Corinthians 15:24-25. Paul states explicitly what happens after the “until” period: Christ hands over the kingdom to the Father and is subjected to him.
I am only really interested in what the language meant in Paul’s time. The narrative does the rest.
The question was, How was he not subject to God the Father before giving the God the kingdom? Heb 1 talks about God giving all of these things to Jesus. Heb 1:8 kjv But unto the Son he saith, thy throne, O God, is forever and ever… I take this to mean that God makes Jesus a God because he let him act in his place even having the Angels worship him. So he’s at the right hand being a co-equal with God. He’s not above God, just being allowed to act like God having that higher authority. 1 Corinthians 15:27 kjv for he hath put all things under his feet, But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all. Then in verse 28 kjv 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. He gives the honor and authority back to God. Jesus will still rule forever. Maybe it has something to do with the new heavens and the new earth.
Does your comment imply that Jesus was not God incarnate on Earth and only man born holy made a little lower than the angels for a little while?
I feel the scripture above will not be confusing if we understand that there are positions higher than kings. Kings are subject to emperors. We are kings and Christ is king over us, so also is he subject to the father who Christ declared has all in his hands even his second coming. we all will reign with him but the father still remains supreme and above all.
Great comment!!!!! Very well put in order.
Peter, i agrer, to add, this is why a personally dont believe in Trinity theories. One need to understand Authority and then one will be able to understand the relatiomship between Father amd Son.
Notwithstanding, Yeshua says in revelation he’ll be given a new name, that not even he knows of
I think you somehow make it up as you go along calling it metaphysical and then adding your own thoughts instead which has made the verse meaningless to me.
You stated, “there was a time when Jesus himself was not entirely subject to God” at what time was this?
Good try, Peter, but this …
The “rule” is much wider than that, taking in death itself.
… is simply wrong.
In the end, death won’t be ruled (not even “ruled”) over. In the end “death shall be no more” (Rev 21:4).
It is for you to prove that even this is a metaphor (or “metaphor” or whatever).
Is it possible that modalism makes sense after all? In other words, God manifests Himself as the Son until His purposes are finally achieved as per 1Corinthians 15:24. Thereafter there is no more need for “…a body has thou prepared me” as in Hebrews 10:5, and God becomes all in all?
I’m always reluctant to try and get theological constructs and biblical narrative/argumentation to cooperate. Does the suggestion really work anyway? We’ve got at least three phases of the Son’s existence in Paul’s narrative: life on earth, reign in heaven, and whatever happens after he has given the kingdom back to the Father. Jesus has a bodied existence all the way through, the only change being between a perishable body and an imperishable body. And all the way through he is spoken of not as God but as the Son who relates to God as Father.
Throughout the word we are told that Jesus came to do the Father’s will. The Father’s will was for Jesus to redeem us from Sin. Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead. The Father raised Jesus from the dead and gave us the promise of eternal life.
When the disciples asked Jesus to teach us to pray, Jesus said pray, “Our Father”. Jesus Himself prayed to the Father.
Jesus accepted a “job” and His Father exalted Him (Jesus) and placed Jesus’ name above every name. Jesus did His job in obedience to His Father. Why would it be difficult to accept that Jesus will restore all authority to the Father once Jesus has completed the job Jesus was called to do?
Jesus did not do this thing for His own glory. Jesus did this because the Father asked Him to do it.
The proper understanding is that Jesus stepped down to become a man to go on a special Mission. The special mission was to resubmit the rebellious portion of creation. Once Jesus submitted the rebellious portion of creation to himself. Then Jesus would reconnect that portion of creation back to the father and also connecting himself as submitted under the father. The scripture clearly says Jesus will be king forever over the kingdom of God. The proper hierarchy will be restored when Jesus reconnects the rebellious portion that he submitted to himself back to the father. The proper hierarchy will be this… All of creation submitted to us Believers, us Believers submitted to Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ submitted to God the Father. Jesus stepped down a level to be mediator between God and man. If Jesus hadn’t stepped down to this mediator type of position the only other option would have been to Simply wipe out all of rebellious creation. Jesus is not giving away his kingship over the kingdom of God. He is simply resubmitting it under the father and the father is designating it to be underneath the king forever. God will be all in all because God will flow down perfectly through the perfectly restored hierarchy. Jesus went to get that which was lost and bring it back to the father. And the father does not take back his promise that Jesus will be king of kings forever.
The widespread use of Psalm 110:1 in the New Testament suggests quite strongly, I think, that Jesus was expected to reign throughout the coming ages until the last enemy, death, is defeated. Once the last enemy has been destroyed, Jesus gives the kingdom back to the Father and submits to him.
I also think that it is a mistake to say that Jesus’ “special mission was to resubmit the rebellious portion of creation”. Jesus’ mission was to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It is because he was faithful in that mission that he was given the authority to judge and rule over the nations of the oikoumenē.
Sorry Andrew, that isn’t correct. Too many verses say Jesus will reign “forever.” Infact you and I will also reign forever as as well. Yes Jesus will reign until death is destroyed.. and beyond. His kingdom has no end. Too many clear verses say it is forever. and only fuzzy guess work of a few suggests that it comes to an end. it does not. That much is obvious.
Secondly many old testament verses explain the gentiles will also be given to Jesus. And that his kingdom would be over the entire earth jew and gentile. And that gentiles would trust in him. one of very few examples is in Daniel when the “Rock” grows into a mountain and fills the earth. Yes primary mission was to Jews, which if Jews received would have then been to turn to gentiles via the nation of Israel. Jews didn’t fully receive so more direct route to gentiles was taken. In the end, saved Jews and gentiles will be in the kingdom.
Jesus will reign for ever over the Kingdom of God under the authority of God the Father. In eternity the rank will be Father God over all > Jesus King and Lord of all > us (little kings) > all creation.
even now angels are ranked in many levels of authority (principalties, powers, rules, authorities, etc)
Authority goes back to the Father.
what happens to Jesus body after he hand every thing back to god
Paul doesn’t address that question. His focus is on what it means for God, not what it means for Jesus. But if John is saying that in the new heaven and new earth the dwelling place of God will be with his resurrected people, then presumably Jesus as a resurrected person is in the midst of that people. The point is that there are no more enemies in this new creation, so it is no longer necessary for the crucified one to reign.
does Jesus retain the body he left earth with for eternity.?
I think the New Testament thought here is pretty straightforward. Jesus is raised as an imperishable body (1 Cor. 15:42-49), takes his place at the right hand of God in heaven, and remains in that body and in that place through to the final renewal of heaven and earth, when the heavenly city will descend and the dwelling of God will be with humanity. How do you see it?
Does not reign speak of authority? And does not authority speak of truth? And if Christ is our Truth And he is Truth within us, is He not the Truth In us our authority reigning forever? Truth, authority, and reign One forever in all?
Just working through Gen 47:13-26… in so many ways Joseph is a “type” of Christ, here again being seen as moving from suffering servant to spirit filled Savior.
When he gathers to Pharaoh all of the money, livestock, land, and people for Pharaoh (who v. 25 are GLAD to be Pharaoh’s servants) and presents them to Pharaoh, it seems like a reflection of that coming moment described in 1 Cor.
I may be wrong, but just responding to the thought that nothing in the OT points to this.
This is not a typology that the New Testament itself entertains, and there is nothing in the text to suggest that it should be read as prefiguring later developments. So if we read it as a typology, we do so on our own authority, so to speak.
According to Paul, Jesus must rule in the midst of his enemies until the last enemy has been subjugated, then he gives back the authority to rule as king to God the Father.
Joseph, on the other hand, uses the famine to buy up all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh. He uses the misfortune to enrich his boss. The people have been feudalised; they have no choice but to submit to this opportunistic serfdom. It’s not necessarily unjust, but they have been saved at the cost of a massive centralisation of wealth and power.
Memories of the African slave trade color our view of slavery, so that we cannot understand this expression of gratitude. But in ancient society slavery was the accepted way of bailing out the destitute, and under a benevolent master could be quite a comfortable status (cf Joseph with Potiphar). Indeed, the law envisages some temporary slaves electing to become permanent slaves rather than take the freedom to which they were entitled after six years of service. Ancient slavery at its best was like tenured employment, whereas the free man was more like someone who is self-employed. (G.J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50 (1994), 449)
So these are two very different narratives. Are you sure you want to say that Christ’s rule as king in the midst of his enemies is foreshadowed in this story about Joseph?
That said, the story does illustrate the sort of deputisation of authority that could be used to explain the relationship between the Father and the Son in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, though it gets shifted up a notch—not king and first minister but God and king. It doesn’t account for Jesus handing back power once the job is done.
The Old Testament roots are found in 1 Samuel 8:10-21. The kingdom was never God’s will. Samuel did not trust the government. Jesus handed back the kingdom in 70 AD. There will be no rapture. Shocker.
Hi Jason. It’s not quite correct to say, I think, that the kingdom was never God’s will. It was not God’s will that the government of his people should be exercised by sinful men, because they would make a mess of it. So ideally only God would be king over his people. But an obedient and righteous king ruling directly on YHWH’s behalf, seated at his right hand in heaven, is another matter.
Jesus will give the kingdom back not because he was never meant to have it but because the last enemy will have been destroyed, therefore no king, human or divine, is needed to judge God’s people and lead them against their enemies (1 Sam. 8:19-20).
When the last enemy has been destroyed, when there is no more unrighteousness, no more death, no more Hades, then we will not need a king, human or divine, to rule over us. Much as I think the war against Rome is critical for understanding large sections of New Testament eschatology, it certainly didn’t fulfil these fundamental criteria for bringing Christ’s rule to an end.
The last enemy is Stockholm Syndrome. Jesus cannot defeat it. Only we can. Ending Israel’s covenant with death, the Law, which commanded MGM, which is evil, fulfills all requirements. We human beings have consigned ourselves to a hell of our own making, by continuing to follow a covenant that is dead. Religion has tricked us. The first coming is not what the shoes expected, and neither was the second. Power belongs to the people, not kings.
How is Jesus God if this comes true? How is he apart of the Trinity or 3 persons in one? Did God make Jesus? If he was already with God in the beginning does it mean if he is the word does it mean that Jesus Christ who is (the word of God) that now the word of God has his own body? Does his word speak for God? Can’t be because Jesus said he speaks what the father tells him so maybe he speaks Like gods ambassador. But if he is God then I understand why he would be subject to himself because God holds himself to such a high standard? Why doesn’t God come here as himself instead of changing his identity to Jesus? But his identity can’t be Jesus because God the father and son and Holy Spirit all act on their own independently. How can we be sure we weren’t tricked into idolatry? If he is not just a man but is God does it mean he stopped being God fully for a time? Why couldn’t God speak plainly? Doesn’t this seem like confusion isn’t the author of confusion the devil himself?
We’ve all sinned, but Jesus Christ died, was buried, and he resurrected, so if you accept him as Lord and Savior you’ll be saved, then love him and follow him so you’ll remain saved from his wrath and have eternal life, Jesus loves us and gave us his all and he wants us to love him and give him our all. Jesus wants a good relationship.
If you seek God with your whole heart, he will reveal himself.
Jesus is prophesied throughout the Old Testament and in the New Testament Jesus fulfills those prophesies.
Jesus was prophesied in Genesis 3:15, in Genesis 3:15 it talks about the birth of the Messiah(which is Jesus Christ) and the Messianic bloodline vs the serpent bloodline, Messianic seed vs serpentine seed, Jesus Christ vs the antichrist. And there are many other Messianic prophecies throughout the Old Testament, some examples are Isaiah 53 which describes Jesus Christ, Psalm 59:3-4 (parallels John 11:47-54), Daniel 7:13 (In Mark 14:61-62 Jesus says he is the Messiah and he is the Son of man in Daniel 7:13), Psalm 69:20 (parallels Matthew 27:29-31), Psalm 4:6 (parallels John 8:12), Psalm 69:21 (parallels Matthew 27:34-48), Psalm 67:1-2 (parallels John 8:12), Psalm 62:10 (parallels Matthew 6:19-20 and Matthew 6:33), Psalm 119:105 (parallels John 1:1 and John 14:6), and there are many more prophecies.
There is also archeological evidence. The annunaki artifacts and anasazi petroglyphs are evidence for the fallen angels and nephilim. Aliens are not beings from another planet, they are interdimensional beings, they are fallen angels and nephilim, they are enimies of God.
Biblical Christianity is not pagan, but catholcism is: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/monstr.htm
The apocrypha is not canon to the Bible: https://youtu.be/BoC5bA8GIMU
Also, don’t take the covid vaccine: https://youtu.be/EyDS5yEG9rc
I recommend these channels:
Kevin, You are all over the place. Aliens, Nephilim, bloodlines. As if the devil can also become incarnate and have physical offspring. The whole construct is racist. The devil should not be feared but canceled. I’ve been there with LORDship salvation and Nightmare Eschatology. Excepting jesus as your dark lord does not lead to salvation but to fear and fear to suffering. Christians have been practicing the cultural appropriation of Israel’s redemptive story for two millennia. Israel’s law was never given to you and me, and where there is no law, there is no sin.
Read Psalms 83:18
Tonia, can you explain the significance of these passages for the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:24-28?
From my understanding according to Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1, the Christ is the visible image of the Father. We also know that God is our Rock in the old testament it’s all over. It’s clear in 1 Cor 10:1-4 that Christ is that Rock of the old testament.