Three All In All Will Be One? Or Three?

But each in his own order:Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ'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 15:23-28 NASB)

I had an interesting question posed last night.  At our Bible study, one lady asked what Paul meant by this last sentence in the above passage, because to her it sounded like, at the last, Jesus would cease to exist, like there would be just God and no 'Persons'.  This question had never occurred to me, partly because I don't question the Trinity, for me, it simply is the Nature of God.  I also didn't spend much time on this particular segment of Paul's argument because I avoid end-times discussions because people get so worked up about them, and we all know so little.

But having been asked, and really looking at this passage, beyond what I see on the surface with my assumptions, I see her point.  What does it mean that God will be all in all?  The Greek isn't particularly helpful here since this is precisely what it says.  Verse 28 doesn't have a lot of options for translating.  Verse 27, though, has both options and variants (but not significant ones).  In 27, Paul points out that 'everything', as in 'everything has been put under his foot', excludes 'the One having subjected everything to Him'.

That's where 28 comes in.  Regardless of your end-time view, the order depicted in verse 28 is that after Jesus has complete victory, He then subjects Himself to the Father.  In other places it says He sits at the Father's right hand; I believe this is essentially the same thing.  But it's the statement that 'God might be all in all' that led this lady to question.  It's a good question.  What does it mean that God will 'be all in all'?  Had it said, 'fill' she wouldn't have had the question, but is says, 'be'.  And it does say 'be', as in the verb, 'to be'.

One of the issues with simply taking this as an unfiltered statement is the popular belief in 'pantheism' where God is thought to be made up of everything.  So, the worship of whatever is still the worship of God.  Um, no, that doesn't work.  There is also 'panentheism' where God is understood to be 'in everything' but still beyond everything.  The degree to which His presence is thought to be a part of everything determines whether this is a problem or not.  Basically, if we don't look beyond the created things for God, we have a problem.  Panentheism is still a better option than pantheism, and it sounds vaguely like what Paul has written here.

Yet, I think what Paul is saying is not that 'developed' but really just that there will be no place God does  not 'own' or 'rule' or 'have a presence' or however you want to say it.  In other words, that once all enemies (including death) are destroyed, there won't be anywhere God is not.  John saw a vision of a "new heaven and a new earth", and perhaps this is, in a sense, the same thing.  I'm not for sure on that, but I think that we don't have to sacrifice the Trune Nature of God for Him to be 'all in all'.  In fact, we may find it easier to grasp God being all in all with His Nature intact.

The point I derive from such a discussion is that God, as He has revealed Himself to us, will remain, even when see Him face to face.  Or we will discover He is even more complex, but not less.  God is truly reality.  Everything else is 'shadow' and insubstantial compared to Him.  The reason we find that difficult to grasp is because we are so bound to our physical senses.  It used to be that humans had a 'spiritual' sense as well, and things were seen as part of a greater cosmic whole.  Now, we believe we have explained away such nonsense with science.  Which, of course, is nonsense.  We are part of a greater cosmic whole.  It's our ability to sense such a truth that has become dull.  One day, though, we won't need to wonder or imagine what it will be like, we will know and see.

So my takeaway from this is that even this teaching within this teaching of Paul points to my hope in  the resurrection, where I will witness the fulfillment of this teaching with whatever 'organ' my glorified body will use for sight.  The Triune God will complete His work, and I will worship Him along with an unnumbered throng before His throne.  So, one day I will have rest, real rest, not just 'a moment's pause' to catch my breath.  One day I will know peace in the presence of my Master.  One day...

Lessons from the Last Book, the one I usually avoid

Revelation is one of those books that I do not try to spend much time in.  That’s not good for me, but it’s so controversial that I don’t like the fight over what will happen in the end.  Part of my issue is that my view of the “Great Tribulation” is that we’re all going through it.  Not necessarily now, but the way I read Scripture, believers will be in the Tribulation period.  Any sense that we escape it I believe isn’t supported in Scripture.  On the other hand, it would be really cool if we did.  So, I think as if I’m staying here through it, and either way, my faith is grounded.

I didn’t get to that position from the logical process of what would keep my faith.  I got the understanding of the end that I have because other ones are simply too complex to have the feel of my Master on them.  It doesn’t match with a lot of the other stuff He has revealed in Scripture.  The other reason is that the historical context in which much of the writing occurred which is used to support various views seems to have been on the cusp of great persecution of the Early Church.  There were waves of these throughout the first 200 years of its life, and these waves were brutal.  In some sense they were not as insidious as Islamic persecution of believers today, but they were definitely brutal in their day.

Two things result from this historical context.  The first is that open discussion of the oppressive powers was dangerous, so allusion to them was used instead.  Using Babylon as a reference for the powers in Rome replaced a term for them with their enemy.  Romans would have thought the writings were patriotic, not written against them.  The second is that much of the writing is “Apocalyptic” which means that while it does refer to the end of the world, symbolic language was heavily used throughout.  Disentangling the symbols takes a lot of historical research few are willing to do (I haven’t been, which is why this is a reason I don’t).

One of the important elements to The Revelation of John is the first few chapters where he continually uses the phrase, “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”  This was written as a record of a message to various churches, and these congregations were located in one region, not all over the world of Rome.  I think it’s full of very important lessons, particularly brilliant word pictures, and very convicting about things I have become comfortable with.  But I do not want to forget the original audience.  I want to join them in the seats as this was read to them.  I want to hear it from their perspective first.

Another recurring phrase is, “To him who prevails I will give…” and what is given changes depending upon the particular problem that church faces.  To the one who prevails or overcomes, or to the one fighting all the way to the end, my Master will give something that is worth the fight.  That phrase sometimes follows the previous one but always shows up tied to it.  So, one important lesson clear from the beginning of this book is that my life is a fight to the finish.  I am to fight until I die.  I confess I like R&R and fighting without a break does not sound appealing.  That has been a lot of my problem I suspect.

The rewards for me if I fight to the finish are worth the fight.  The appeal of what I see here picks at my faith, but keeping the end in sight, the prize my Master has for me, will help me continue fighting.  It is tiring work when I look at my progress or what I have accomplished.  Instead I need to look at my Master and what He accomplishes through me, with me, and around me.  Again, it’s not about me, but my Master.  It’s me fighting with Him in His war, not about Him helping me in mine.  My war fades into insignificance as I get caught up in His.  Pride and a desire to be center-stage hinder me from focus on His war.

But the rewards make the striving worth it.  To see His face, stand before His throne, and finally know His love end to end; those are gifts worth the focus of my life.  This menial striving I do for this or that in this life gains me little.  Holiness and peace result as I strive for Him in His war for His people.  I want to know Him, and for that I push daily through the competing thoughts and ideas set up against that knowledge.  I know that, but it’s hard to focus on that.  I like my current comfort, my soft bed, tech toys, and reclining couch.  Well, it’s time to get off the couch, and get back into the fray.  See you in there!

Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest, December 4