Whose Kingdom?
But now the Messiah has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in the Messiah all will be made alive. But each in his own order: the Messiah the first fruits, after that those who are the Messiah’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all. 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 [reading “the Messiah” for the Greek Christos] NASB
The kingdom – In his book, Jesus and the Victory of God, N. T. Wright quotes this entire passage, commenting: “the point is that the creator god is completing, through the Messiah, the purpose for which the covenant was instituted, namely, dealing with sin and death, and is thereby restoring creation under the wise rule of the renewed human being.”[1] Wright goes on to explain that the “early Christian” adoption of this perspective meant a radical change in the symbols of Jewish apocalyptic, but not in the context of Jewish apocalyptic. In Wright’s view, early Christianity moved past Jewish thinking from ethnically defined issues regarding Israel to world encompassing issues regarding the Church. While I find this extension of the exegesis quite problematic (Wright, for example, suggests that Christian thinking redefined praxis “without reference to Torah”), I am encouraged to see that Wright views this crucial passage in Corinthians in terms of the Messiah’s appointment as ruler of the earth who will necessarily return the restored kingdom to YHVH, the initiator of the entire plan. There is no indication in this Corinthian passage that the Messiah is God. If fact, the language on its face suggests that the Messiah is subjected to God in spite of his unique role with regard to the restoration. Wright makes an important point. “The ‘kingdom of [god’s] beloved son’ is already a reality in which the Messiah’s people partake. They have already been created as ‘a kingdom, and priests’, precisely through the work of the Messiah.”[2] In this regard, the kingdom is the kingdom of the Messiah until he turns it over to YHVH, the Father, after all enemies have been subjected.
It’s worth reading the entire passage at once rather than a verse at a time because the context of the work of the Messiah is eloquently summarized by Paul. Yeshua was raised from the dead as first fruits, thereby defeating death for all whom he claims as his own. After subjugating all remaining enemies of the Father, he will turn the kingdom over to God. Yeshua will reign until that time, now in absentia but soon in physical presence. When he has finally accomplished all he was tasked to perform, the cosmos will be restored and God will be glorified as all in all. Notice that Paul treats Yeshua as a man, uniquely chosen for the role of Messiah, but still eventually subject to the Father. Notice that Paul speaks of the death of this man; a death that opens the door for life to all who belong to his kingdom. In order to maintain the Trinitarian idea, theologians had to separate Yeshua into two equally existing parts (still somehow “one”), namely, the man who died on the cross and the God who does not die. But Paul doesn’t say this. In fact, Paul never suggests that Yeshua is both God and man.
It appears that the idea of the God-Man, so necessary for a Trinitarian view, is as confused as the language of the “three in one.” Paul, however, doesn’t seem a bit confused. Yeshua, the Messiah, was born and died. God raised him from the dead, thereby establishing the Kingdom that will never end. The resurrected Messiah will rule until all of YHVH’s enemies are defeated, the last one being death itself. At that point, the Messiah will turn over the Kingdom to YHVH, the Father. And YHVH will be glorified.
Seems clear to me.
Topical Index: Trinity, Messiah, kingdom, death, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, N. T. Wright
[1] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 218.
[2] Ibid., p. 217.
Bring on the lions and the lambs. Let the comments commence, the defenders defend and the railers rail, but just remember that in the end we are all here to learn what we don’t know, not to convince each other how much traditional Christian theology we do know. Be open and you may surprised that the truth you are so convinced of today may not be as convincing as you thought or even truth.
Thank you, Michael, for adding a lighthearted note to this discussion.
I think that if you still believe the same thing tomorrow that you believe today you haven’t learned anything today.
Soft As the Voice of an Angel
The just shall live by faith. Why? – It is our only option. Oh, how we try so hard to “explain away” the “threeness” of Elohim! Elohim, btw.. is (hello) a plural word! Plural meaning — more than one! (Let US make man in OUR image!)
God the Father. God the Son. God the Ruach HaKodesh. So which “one” is it? Only the Father? Only the Son (the Messiah) or only the Ruach? One or three? Or do these “three” agree in one? Is God a “plurality in unity,” – or is He “spirit” only? Did God appear unto us in human form and flesh? Did (the) Christ receive the worship of men and of angels? Is He the Son of God? Or is He the son of man? Or is He [uniquely] “both?”
And if so, the really big question is — “Who” did we crucify upon the tslav?-and for the follow-up question — Why?
The questions are simple and come easily. The answers? All are present and accounted for in a Book. It is the Book God wrote! “All” scripture is inspired by God.. What? “All” scripture is “God-breathed.”
~ For the prophecy did not come in times past by the will of man, but the holy men of God spoke being impelled, instructed and inspired by the Holy Spirit ~
~ trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when He predicted [what?] — the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow.. ~ (1 Peter 1.11)
The sufferings of the Messiah? Oh, my friends! – The tslav (the cross) just won’t “go away” will it? Hallelujah for the cross!! How can we possibly come to know, to perceive, or to understand?
[Yes] Who has believed our message? and to whom has the arm of YHWH been revealed?
For He grew up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground:
He has no form nor comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him.
He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face
He was despised; and we esteemed Him not.
Surely He has borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was uponHim,
and with His stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and YHWH has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, yet when He was afflicted He opened not His mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before its shearers is dumb, so He opened not his mouth.
By oppression and judgment, He was taken away;
and as for His generation, who [among them] considered that He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke [was due]?
And they made His grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in His death; although He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth.
Yet it pleased YHWH to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief: when thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see [His] seed, He shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of YHWH shall prosper in His hand.
He shall see of the travail of His soul, [and] shall be satisfied:
by the knowledge of Himself shall my righteous Servant justify many, and He shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore will I divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong; because He poured out His soul unto death and was numbered with the transgressors:
yet He bare the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors.~
Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice..
“Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.”
And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying..
“To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”
Concerning the passage in Genesis, “Let US make man in OUR image…” what about this?
This is what The Jewish Publication Society’s Jewish Study Bible says about Genesis 1:26–
“The plural construction…most likely reflects a setting in the divine council…God the King announces the proposed course of action to His cabinet of subordinate deities, though He alone retains the power of decision.”
We have to consider whether the traditional Christian interpretation of this verse is just that–traditional. If we look at how the Jewish people see this verse, might we have a better understanding of the history of the concept of community–God in a setting in the divine council? Food for thought.
Even the JPS doesn’t capture the Hebraic worldview here. The “image” is not an ontological status. In my view, “image” (there are two Hebrew words involved) is a description of actions. Those actions are elaborated in Exodus 34:6-7. I gave an extended lecture on this called “Being Human.” It might be on the web site (or maybe not?).
Not that you may respond to this, but nonetheless, it’s not good that this ignorance be passed on.
“Oh, how we try so hard to “explain away” the “threeness” of Elohim! Elohim, btw.. is (hello) a plural word! Plural meaning — more than one! (Let US make man in OUR image!)
Elohim means- The Almighty One, meaning it is not on quantity as in the Western mindset, but on quality.
Then the translation “US” and “OUR” is in ignorance of the Hebraic mindset, and therefor in ERROR.
Re learning will set us free. Shalom.
To me it appears Paul emphasizes Jesus humanity to contrast the first with the second Adam, but implies his divinity later with “all things subject to him”.
Are you saying Jesus was not God?
Perhaps you haven’t had a chance to read the many, many entries in the past year on this subject, the careful analysis and long debate. I suggest you avail yourself of these by doing a search on the home page of this site under “Trinity.” I am sure you will then be able to understand the questions–but perhaps not the answer. 🙂
I am not arguing that Y’shua is not one with YHWH, but would it not be possible for YHWH to fill a person with his spirit and then put all things in subjection to the spirit-filled person? Is it possible that there is only an implication that this refers to “Jesus” being “God”, because the church has taught us that it is? Where is the direct statement that “Jesus is God and God is Jesus”?
Even Trinitarians will admit that there is NO verse in Scripture that says “Jesus is God.” Furthermore, while that are plenty of verse that use the term “Son of God,” there are no instances of “God the Son.”
Is that what you need to believe who the “Son of God” is?
I think that whoever invented the word “god” created a big mess.
Skip I think I am right in the same place as you with this ‘DOCTRINE’ of the trinity.
However I’m still waiting for you to give us your working definitions of deity and divine. I sense that my lack of these definitions is keeping me from comprehending the differences between the two at least in your mind.
I have looked up dictionary definitions and they are not very helpful in that they reflect church theology. Perhaps you can direct us to an online (I live in a small RV and my bookshelves are overflowing already) dictionary that is more helpful?
Thank you for being so patient with us.
“when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For He has put all things in subjection under His feet. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.” 1 Corinthians 15
This is the Universalist’s favourite chapter. In these few verses the word “all” is used ten times.
The chapter doesn’t end with, “the Messiah will turn over the Kingdom to YHVH, the Father. And YHVH will be glorified” but with, “YHVH will be all in all”.
If death is abolished and all things are (eventfully and ultimately) subjected to YHVH and He is all in all, then that certainly seems the start of a good argument for Universalism.
Or, does it mean that death is only abolished for Believers, and only Believers will be put in subjection to Him, and YHWH will only be all in those that are left?
I was reading passages in the Koran yesterday (from the English-translated text that the UN holds) that state that Yeshua was created, and not god. That is more definitive than this passage. I was reading the Jehovah’s Witnesses text not long ago, where they changed their Bibles to read that Yeshua is created and not god. I was talking to a precious person in my life last night who follows Buddhist thinking that teaches that Jesus is an example of how a human is perfected, and as such is a ‘firstfruits’, or example, of “christ consciousness”; of what we all can attain as a human. Hinduism, also, tells me that divinity is attainable. You can say that we should not talk about divinity at that point, but I find that that does not seem to stop the rest of the planet!
The only thing I see that is IRREVOCABLY, ESSENTIALLY, FUNDAMENTALLY different from the followers of Yeshua and the rest of the planet, in fact, is the idea that God became manifest in the flesh, preached among men, died on a stake, was raised the third day, diffused His Spirit among us all, and now sits at the right hand of G-d. Now, that does not tell me something impossible about G-d: it tells me that I don’t really know what G-d is. (Wait, I already suspected that)! People who say that it is “impossible” for G-d to do that are saying that they know what G-d is, or is not. I know I don’t know. You don’t have to go out of your way to convince me that I don’t know! Try another way!
If Yeshua was created, then He is essentially on the same level as Lucifer, who was, also. This is very convenient to the followers of the secret, esoteric teachings that insist the same. Too convenient. Wait, should we perhaps go back and line up what Origen and all the other Gnostics were saying about this very same subject in the days of the Apostles? Was this very point not the one about which they were clashing? Would not that make them right? Again, very suspicious to me!
I was reading yesterday online about St. Catherine, who was reportedly the “bride of Christ”, explicitly, which, if so, would obviously require a different stance for the G-d-human equation than that Trinity. Her grave at Mount Sinai is the place that the Textus Sinaiticus was found. Now, let me ask you which ‘original’ text would have suited this community in the 300’s? Probably NOT the Other Text, wouldn’t you think? Was this not corruption in the 300’s? People have been drinking from polluted waters from the very first, as rebellion was found in the very courts of heaven, and the snake in the Garden. Why should we be surprised here?
If you want texts that support the esoteric teachings, there are plenty, but you will find them in the other belief systems. It is curious to me, though, how they all agree with each other when it comes down to whether or not Yeshua was G-d in the flesh. I just would want to ask, how did the rest of the planet get this one right from the get-go but we missed it? Most, if not all of them, in fact, have no problem with Christ as a created being. In that respect, it seems that it is just one against all the rest. (Wait, that looks familiar, too!) This is not a new subject. If we are going to look at it, then , in fairness, I would like to suggest that we open the court up to what everybody else seems to be saying about it, too. The rest of the planet, it seems, is already there. We would be late comers to a crowd, in fact. But, what crowd is this?
I am finding that there is a new, young, sophisticated generation out there who are embracing an esoteric version of Christianity that looks quite different than the (now “outdated”) historical one: one, in fact, that is quite congenial with the other (non-Christian) ones. If you want to see something, go assign yourself the task of interviewing a whole range of different beliefs that prevail on the average street today, and ask them if they have a problem agreeing with a Christianity that asserts that Jesus Christ is a divine, created being. (I don’t have to: they surround me in the form of those I cherish.) So far, I have found none that do, yet. If I sound a little distraught on this subject, you may have to forgive me, as the definitive statement that Jesus Christ was a lessor divine being is exactly what I get told is the ‘reason’ that a: repentance is not necessary for perfection, as all we need is either a “good example” or “he did it for us”, or b: we already are in agreement(!), except I seem to be misinformed about this G-d Dying thing, (I just don’t seem to know it yet), but other than that, there is nothing to discuss, as it is perfectly obvious that G-d cannot die, and the rest of it sounds great!
This subject is excruciatingly painful to me as it seems to be the #1 barrier to people accepting the gift of repentance and forgiveness offered. I have to tell you, the cross looks very different to people outside the paradigm of Christianity. I lost a very dear person in my life, after years of torment, and the only thing she said she could not accept was that it was G-d on that cross, and therefore she must repent for her sins. It tore me up something bad when she died, screaming to the last about the ‘unfairness” of being as absolutely perfect as she could be, but still not getting what she thought she should. She was terrified as she drew her last breath. Catherine was her namesake, and she insisted that the version found there showed that she did not have to accept the one I was working out of. (She had a Divinity Degree) Salvation eluded her to the last, as she could not find it in ‘her’ version. I am crying again. I am sorry.
I think you might be overreacting a bit from your Christian perspective. After all, Jews have believed in the Messiah as a man, particularly elected by God for a special, never to be repeated role, for a long time. That doesn’t mean they embrace Buddhism or Islam or anything else. Why do you think it is so essential that the Messiah MUST BE God in order to be the Messiah? Is it because you have always been taught this?
Well, now that you bring it up, I have wondered for a very long time exactly WHY Judaism, over the centuries, has not been able to recognize the Messiah as That Man.
I know also that it has to be very tempting to try to go discover a point, (and I know I have looked hard for one, too) heretofore ‘hidden’, perhaps, wherein Judaism can intersect successfully with the followers of Yeshua as Messiah, and the sore points have to be, specifically, as far as I can see, and please help me see them differently, if necessary: G-d as One, and therefore NOT Messiah; Messiah as not G-d; and the Sabbath as the main and essential ‘place’ we have been given to interact, to commune, with G-d. There could be more, or they could be different, and if so, I would like to know.
We do have to figure out what it is going to take to bridge that gap. Things are truly not going to be right until we do. This subject, therefore, is not optional, I don’t think. There is a whole lot of misery to wade through in doing it, too. Thank you for rising to the challenge! I hope you provide a model of How To Do It! I am cheering you on, don’t you know?
Why must Messiah be G-d? I don’t know! I wasn’t a part of that Counsel, for sure!
But I do know that one of the main hallmarks of the gods, that you point out yourself, is that the gods made men to do their dirty work FOR them, so that they didn’t have to get their hands dirty. Now, seems to me you could do all that, and make up a bunch of rules for everybody to get along perfectly, and STILL not have shown definitively that you truly loved anybody. Yeshua said that love was where you laid down your life for your friends, and that He counted us all friends. Now, no matter how special a created being is, in the end, its us created beings all in this together, but none of us still know whether or not G-d REALLY loves us personally, as we have to take His word for it that He loves the objects of His creation; even the most special of those objects, call Him whatever you like.
You asked, however, why I needed Messiah to be G-d? Because at the end of the day, it is the only way that I truly know He loves me. Everything else besides could just possibly be a game for amusement. At least to me. Perhaps to the rest of the universe, too?
So Abraham, who didn’t know about the Messiah, didn’t know that God loved him? Or Noah? Or Jacob? Or even Adam? And if YHVH chooses the prophets and sends them, what prevents Him from choosing Yeshua and sending him? If the Messiah is a man (and, by the way, no one claims he isn’t), and he fulfills a role that only he can play (like, for example, Moses), and as a result he is given honor and glory due to the King of kings, and he rules over the Kingdom until all the enemies are subdued and then he turns the Kingdom back to the Father who elected him and he sits on a throne next to the One God YHVH, isn’t that enough? Isn’t that a demonstration that YHVH loves you? Or did you think that the Messiah AS GOD must DIE in order for you to be satisfied? And, BTW, HOW does GOD die?
Abraham believed the promises, and all those ancients had the oral memories of the Garden, and the walk of Enoch, for sure. Shem would have talked with Methusaleh, and Abraham would have talked with Shem. They had the memories of the time before the separation, and they knew many things we no longer know. Adam walked and talked in the Garden with Yeshua, and he would have known personally Who He was.
I also do not think this is just about me. Sin is a direct challenge to the authority of G-d; it is an accusation that He does not, in fact, truly love us, if you think about it. That is a valid accusation IF there is no definitive proof. If there is no such proof, we have to take His word for it, and our obedience can look like a one-sided affair. The way I read the Word, the entire universe is now caught up in the question of whether or not He truly loves His creatures, else why would they desire to look into the mystery? A created being, no matter how special, is not going to satisfy that accusation. That may be enough to satisfy you, or even me, but is it going to be enough to satisfy the challenge of Lucifer, say? If Yeshua was created at the top of the order, as he was also, then would he not view Him as just one more pawn on a chessboard? It is not just about us, is it?
Laurita – You wrote:
“Sin is a direct challenge to the authority of G-d; it is an accusation that He does not, in fact, truly love us, if you think about it.”
I am not sure what you mean (or intended). How does MY sin (and therefore my unintentional/intentional challenge to the authority of YHWH) mean that HE does not love me, or are you saying that by sinning, I am making the accusation that He does not love me? I equate sin more with my thinking that He isn’t giving me what I want, when I want it. Not necessarily that He does not love me.
Additionally, walking in faith isn’t tied to direct or even generationally-recent contact with YHWH. The Israelites saw the waters parted and three days later were griping. And I think that most of us can remember a time in our lives when we KNOW that He interceded for us, or stepped into our world. How soon we forget, though.
YHWH loved us so much, that He sacrificed the only true sinless man. The only man who showed full obedience. And by that death our sins are covered. The Jews sing “Dayenu” at Passover, to signify that if YHWH had only interceded in their lives once, even just one time, “it would have been enough”, but the church somehow believes that unless “God” dies in our place, then it doesn’t count quite so much.
Well, I know I did not make up the challenge to the love of G-d; that would have been a certain very cheeky archangel, but I do think that when I sin, I am agreeing with him. When my children disobeyed me, they were most certainly challenging whether or not I had their best interests first and foremost, and that was a direct affront to my love for them. That disobedience said that they did not trust me with those interests. You can call it just getting what you want, but I think you might as well call it choice. If I believe that somebody loves me who knows better than I, what I need, then it will be only when I feel uncertain if that is so that it will occur to me to choose contrary to what they are choosing for me. That lack of trust is a challenge to love.
I really like the song Dayenu and one day I might even be able to sing it. I know that when I love somebody, I am happy with any attention from them at all. That is what love is. Yes. BUT, every time I sin, I am, in essence, saying the opposite. I am the source of both blessing Him and cursing Him. It curls me up in knots every day!
Oh, and I would suspect that Lucifer knows exactly who Y’shua is. Y’shua – the obedient one, as opposed to Lucifer – the disobedient one.
You might want to rethink the Mormon idea of Lucifer and Jesus being created as divine beings, equal, etc. There is no claim that the Messiah was created in the same way that Lucifer was.
Col 1:16 KJV For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
From this verse I am led to believe that the Being, that later was born a man on earth named Yeshua, was the first and only creation of the Father, and hence Lucifer, Satan and everything else in our universe is a creation of Yeshua. IF that is correct, then the hierarchy is clear.
I should also have included the previous two verses,
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
So… does this also mean that there is no evidence to support the idea of the Messiah existing in heaven with God as the Son BEFORE his earthly role as a man?
The idea of a pre-existent “person” (someone who exists before he is born) is a useful paradigm anomaly solution, but I am not sure it actually makes any sense, or that it is biblically supported, or that it is necessary for Yeshua to fulfill the role of the Messiah. Now, of course, there will be a loud outcry from those who read John 1 as if it is talking about a pre-existent person. But maybe we have imported the idea into John’s JEWISH thought instead of asking what JEWISH concepts he might have been drawing from. Lots more to work on here. See some of the references Mel mentions, and Anthony Buzzard’s books on the Trinity.
So “only begotten” would refer to the virgin birth, as it would have been simultaneous?
I know this is only PART of the trinitarian debate but we can agree that Adam was made in the image and likeness of the Father, correct? So did the Creator take on the form of a man? Could Adam, initially, before the fall have said “If you have seen me, you’ve seen the Father”, created in the image and likeness of the Father?
Just questions I’ve pondered the last few days…..
Interesting question, David F.
I think one only HAS to understand “If you have seen me, you’ve see the Father” as equating Yeshua and the Father as the same being if you look through a Christian paradigm.
Viewed through another paradigm, Yeshua simply shows what YHWH looks like when Torah is obeyed via a human, i.e. Yeshua.
So, yes, in some degree, Adam, before partaking of the fruit, could legitimately say this, that, I, Adam, reflect YHWH, in that I am created in his image. Look at me and you see the image of YHWH as I’ve obeyed all that he asked me to. Up to THAT point when he didn’t. However, we certainly know Adam was not YHWH. It seems to me, at least, so far in this journey, Yeshua and YHWH are not the same person. Yeshua certainly walked in the full image of YHWH in that he followed Torah completely. Somehow it is doable, but one ever got it right but one, that is, Yeshua. As a result, what was granted and bestowed upon him was the highest honor and place and position, lead servant of all, and simultaneously, King of Kings, possessor of the keys to the Kingdom. He then rightly will turn it back over to YHWH.
This has been, and still is quite the journey of searching and learning. Keep it coming everyone. What a trip!
“no one ever got it right but one” Sorry.
Yes, my thoughts exactly
For those who might want to study further on this subject, I would suggest reading the following books that will address a lot of the questions in the comments above: “They never told me THIS in church!” by Greg S. Deuble; “The Only True God” by Eric H.H. Chang; “The End of a Messianic Lie” by Uriel ben-Mordechai.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPqfa7SKBU
Link to Greg S. Deuble’s Raised For a time such as this, beautiful sharing.