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...

Exploring the Trinity…From Within!

One of my favorite discussions to get into with atheists is about the Trinity.  They love that it doesn’t make sense, and, as it turns out, so do I.  Why would I expect the One responsible for this inexplicable universe to have a personality that made sense to me?  But as a believer, there are some serious aspects of the Trinitarian nature of my Master about which I am ill at ease.

For instance, this passage to which Chambers refers is one that I really find difficult.  It either is not referring to the Trinitarian nature of my Master, or it makes this nature accessible, and inclusive of me.  It’s one thing to say that my Master has this nature made up of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the Three are One in some fashion.  It is a whole other matter to say then, that my Master’s human creatures (like me) can be included in this nature. 

The problem is that I know I will never be God.  Yet, for whatever reason, the Apostle John was convinced that we will be like Him.  I don’t know what it means to be “like” God, and in this passage I am even challenged further that I will be “in” my Master as my Master is “in” the Father.  Part of my problem with that is that the Apostle did not use some specific narrow Greek word for “just as”, or some special preposition for “in”, but the general purpose common words which are easily understood.  While the Greek preposition “in” has a wider range of meaning than the English equivalent, it still represents the idea of something penetrating beyond the surface and proceeding within the object. 

So taking only verse 21 of John 17, I am left with this idea that, just as Jesus is “in” the Father and the Father is “in” Jesus, so I will be in both.  That is some deep water.  It is a concept that troubles me.  I am not even as “clean” as Isaiah and his “unclean lips”.  My people are not even as “clean” as his “people of unclean lips”.  How can I be “in” my Master?  How can I exist within the boundaries of the Person responsible for creating, maintaining, sustaining, and eventually destroying something as vast as the immeasurable universe I live within?  I can’t even understand it on a micro-cosmic level, how can I be “included” within the Creator of it?

This is my real problem with the Trinity, not that my Master would have that as part of His nature, but that I can be somehow included in such a nature.  And not because I cannot accept or believe that such a nature has the capability to include others in it, but rather because I know my sin and profane nature.  How can someone like me (and there are many like me in this world) be included in this way with One like Him?

I know this bothers me, but my Master has a very familiar answer.  It is possible because my Master makes it possible.  I cannot be holy, but my Master sanctifies me (the process of making me holy).  I cannot be perfect without sin, but my Master takes away the wrath demanded by justice for those defects on which I have worked so diligently (a process also known as “propitiation”). 

These are the activities taken by my Master which make such an inclusion in the very nature of my Master not just possible, but inevitable.  That is where I am headed regardless of how much I cannot understand or refuse to accept it.  I am to be somehow included within the boundaries of this Person, this Creator of the micro and macro cosmos.

So, if this is my destiny, laid out by One so powerful so as to make it as certain as the dawn, why then should I be concerned about a job, insurance, house, food, clothes, car, and anything else uncertain as my family transitions to living in a different state?  Seriously, what else matters if that destiny is certain?  What else can compete for my concern if that future lies just ahead?  What is left to worry about?  What is there to cause me angst?  How can anything unsettle me if that is true?  I would hope that dogs would not make me as upset as they do, but they do.

If I live my life with the certainty that I will be included in my Master, then the last part of verse 21 will also become true.  The world (cosmos) will believe that my Master was sent with a purpose.  The purpose and intent of this inclusion is the eventual inclusion of others in this cosmos.  I am not supposed to be alone in this amazing impossible experience.  But, rather, as I experience and live this inclusion out daily, others see and believe, and hopefully enter into the inclusion as well.  Faith allows me entrance into Heaven, love enables me to bring friends.  So, once again, it isn’t really about me after all.  How surprising…or not.

Oswald Chambers' "My Utmost For His Highest": May 22nd.