From: Eric S. Weiss (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 01 2000 - 23:15:05 EST
This is theological in its implications, but my "Questions" (at the end) is
I Corinthians 15:24-28:
24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and
Father, when He has abolished (KATARGEW) all rule and all authority and
25 For He must reign until HE HAS PUT ALL HIS ENEMIES UNDER HIS FEET (Psalm
26 The last enemy that will be abolished (KATARGEW) is death.
27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION (hUPOTASSW) UNDER HIS FEET
(Psalm 8:7; 8:6 in English). But when He says, "All things are put in
subjection (hUPOTASSW)," it is evident that He is excepted who put all
things in subjection (hUPOTASSW) to Him.
28 When all things are subjected (hUPOTASSW) to Him, then the Son Himself
also will be subjected (hUPOTASSW) to the One who subjected (hUPOTASSW) all
things to Him, so that God may be all in all. (NASB)
Here is my line of argument, followed by my Questions:
These verses state:
1. Christ abolishes or renders powerless (KATARGEW) all rule and
2. Christ reigns until He has put all His enemies under His feet/all His
enemies are subjected (hUPOTASSW) to Him.
3. The last enemy that will be abolished (KATARGEW) is death.
Logical deduction: If it is His enemies that are put under Christ's
feet/made subject (hUPOTASSW) to Him, and if it is His enemies that are to
be abolished (KATARGEW), then to be put under Christ's feet/be subjected
(hUPOTASSW) to Him is to be abolished (KATARGEW). (If A = B and A = C then
B = C)
4. When all His enemies have been put under His feet/made subject
(hUPOTASSW) to Him, the Christ Himself is to be subjected (hUPOTASSW) to
God the Father, so that God may be all in all.
Thought 1: If, as I logically deduce, in the context of this passage, to be
subjected to someone (hUPOTASSW) is to be abolished (KATARGEW) (or maybe
just "rendered powerless"), then does it not also logically follow that
when Christ is subjected to the Father, Christ is likewise abolished or
It says that He (Christ) must reign UNTIL He has put all His enemies under
His feet (i.e., Christ must reign until God the Father places all Christ's
enemies under Christ's feet). THEN - i.e., after all His enemies have been
subjected/abolished - He (Christ) Himself hands over the kingdom to the God
and Father - so that God (i.e., the Father) may be all in all. Christ's
reign thus appears to have an end.
Hence Thought 2: Does the Godhead in the end become Unitarian instead of
Trinitarian? Or maybe Binarian (i.e., God the [no-longer] Father and the
Holy Spirit)? And ... if we have become one with Christ, then what happens
to US when the Son is no more?
OKAY. Thoughts 1. and 2. are theological, not grammatical, and some
responses may thus need to be addressed to me OFF-LIST.
** My Greek Grammatical Questions are:
Is there anything in this passage - either grammatically or syntactically
or semantically - that disallows the thoughts and questions and line of
reasoning I have posed?
Is it primarily one's theology that would argue against KATARGEW and
hUPOTASSW meaning something different when applied to Christ in this
passage than what they are interpreted to mean when they are applied to
Christ's enemies (including Death)?
- Eric Weiss
not a scholar, just a student of the Greek Scriptures
--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [email@example.com] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:56 EDT