Subject: 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 disproves the Trinity Doctrine
Date: April 10 2007
Debaters: t8 & Is 1: 18
t8
To prove that the Trinity Doctrine is the invention of man and not from scripture, I give 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 as a proof text.
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.
25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.
28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
This piece of text is very interesting because it reveals God’s plan and will. This plan shows us the following:
- At the end of this age, Jesus hands over the Kingdom to God the Father.
- Before the end, Christ rules until all enemies are under his feet.
- God puts all under Christ’s feet. All except God (as you would expect).
- In the end, the son will be subject to God the Father, so that God can dwell in all.
The first point I want to talk about is the truth that all is/will be under Christ except God.
So from this text at least, we have a clear explanation as to redemptive plan of God through Christ and in explaining this, it actually says that all will be under his feet except God. So to take the great authority that Christ has to mean that he is God, is obviously incorrect when we read and understand 1 Corinthians 24-28.
The first century was a very different time to now and we should be careful to view their time through todays paradigm. For example, they didn’t have a Trinity doctrine back then and never used the word Trinity in scripture. The absence of such a teaching and usage in the bible is evident because the Trinity doctrine came into existence hundreds of years later.
This is why 1 Corinthians can clearly say that Jesus isn’t God with no hesitation. It doesn’t say that Jesus isn’t God in defense of those who say that he is, it simply says it innocently within a different context because saying that he was actually part of a Trinity God wasn’t an issue in that time.
“Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.”
This particular verse points out that God himself put everything under Christ and God is identified earlier in verse 24 as the Father.
Now in these times and in times past the world is and has been drunk on the wine of Babylon and given this influence, I doubt that any Trinitarian in any century could write 1 Corinthians 15:25-28 from his own theology because he would have to write about God as being the Father and not the son.
A Trinitarian who wanted to convey the meaning of 1 Corinthians 15:27 and keep his theology intact would most likely say something like:
“….it is clear that this doesn’t include God the Father who put everything under God the son”.
Even then, a Trinitarian probably wouldn’t write such a text because it would infringe on his version of co-equal.
But sadly for Trinitarians but joyfully for the truth, it says “…it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ.”.
God and Christ are 2 different identities in these verses, that is clear. It is also clear that God is identified as the Father and when read as such, the text makes perfect sense as you find with hundreds of other scriptures.
If Paul believed in the Trinitarian doctrine as Trinitarians must claim, then Paul must have had a lapse in memory that day, for he clearly talks of God and Christ as two. In fact Paul must have had a very bad memory problem, because he neglected to mention or teach the Trinity in any of his letters. If the Trinity Doctrine was true and a foundational truth that many claim, then we could also say that Paul was quite neglectful for not including it in his writings.
So perhaps it is possible that the Trinity Doctrine wasn’t something that Paul taught or believed at all. Perhaps that doctrine gained prominence when Athanasus and the Emperor Constantine did their works after the time of Paul.
Perhaps it is also possible that Paul knew what he was talking about when he said:
2 Thessalonians 2:3
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
&
Acts 20:29
29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.
30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.
31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.
1 Corinthians 15:24-28
24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
This proof text is, I think, excellent evidence against modalism but could not be considered a solid refutation of the trinity doctrine. Here is why:1. Although two persons are mentioned in the text (“God the Father” and “Christ”) there is no mention of, or allusion to, their respective ontologies.2. Although one (Christ) is clearly portrayed in a position of submission to the other (God the Father), this is perfectly compatible with trinitarian dogma.
So again we have a proof text that has been porported to debunk the trinity doctrine but falls well short of the mark. Okay, I guess I should expand on both of these points:-
In expansion of point #1 I’ll write this:
Let’s be clear about this, the requisite evidence to disprove trinitarianism must strike at the foundation of what they believe, which, in a nut shell, is this:
YHWH is plurality within ontological unity. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three distinct personages, each sharing the substance/essence/nature that makes God God.
Is there anything in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 text that challenged this statement? If so, I don’t recognise it. Yes, Paul certainly makes a distinction between the two persons of the Father and Son, which does appear to invalidate the modalist’s concept that the Father and Son are merely modes/manifestations of the same One divine personage, but it is not legitimate proof against the doctrine of the trinity. And let’s remember this, we are explicitly told in Phil. 2:6 that the Logos existed (perpetually) in the form (nature) of God, in John 1:1c that the Logos “was God”, and in Heb 1:3 that the Son’s essence/substance (Gr. “hypostasis”) is an exact representation of the Father’s, so on what grounds could it possibly be argued that His very being was inferior? It can’t.
So what of Paul’s use of the appellatives “God” (Gr. theos) to designate the Father and “Christ” (or “Son” in some MSS – e.g. textus receptus) to designate Yeshua? Well a cursory examination of Paul’s writings will reveal that usually “theos” is used by him in reference to the Father (but sometimes the Son) and “kurios” is usually used in reference to Yehsua (but also the Father). Other authors, like Luke for instance, also showed a remarkable ambiguity in the use of the term “kurios” relative to Jesus and the Father. Both theos and kurios are appropriate designations to identify the Most High God, YHWH, in scripture so it’s seems a perfectly legitimate literary mechanism to assign different terms (which both denote deity) to each person when both are in view. This would serve to distinguish the two individual persons of the Father and Son without invoking modalistic thought (as would occur if either theos or kurios was used for each) but without delineating them ontologically. So Paul’s ascription of theos to the Father in the 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 passage and “Christos” to Yeshua is not telling us that Yeshua is not “God” (which would be in direct contradiction to his explicit affirmation in Titus 2:13), it’s simply Paul’s way of distinguishing the persons of the Father and Son in the text. Nothing more.
In expansion of point #2 I’ll write this:
As I previously mentioned in the last proof text I responded to Yeshua is a man, born of woman and born under the law (Gal. 4:4). As a man subject to the law he MUST assume the role of subservient to the Father, His God. Had He not been subservient to His Father in accordance with the Law He would not have been the sinless Lamb of God, the sacrifice was meaningless and the sin dilemma remains in effect for mankind. So the submission demonstrated in NT scripture is a function of the incarnation (when deity put on humanity), not a comment of His intrinsic nature relative to His Father’s. Is this a valid refutation of the doctrine? No. Trinitarians, as far I can tell, affirm the humanity of Christ. The line of authority elucidated in 1 Cor 15:27-28 is a natural consequence of His incarnation, when he “became flesh” (John 1:14) it was to be forever….
Just in closing, it’s interesting to compare verse 28 with a passage that Paul penned in his letter to the Colossians (Col. 3:11)
When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Corinthians 15:28)
cf.
a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. (Colossians 3:11, cf. Eph. 1:23)
The grammar that was used of “God” in 1 Corinthians was also used of “Christ” in Colossians. I really like what C. H. Spurgeon wrote about this verse – “for Christ is not almost all, but all in all.” (source). Indeed Christ is all. Amen to that.
