THEOSISJohn Chrysostom
But previously the Apostle did not say that the Father would subject all things to Him. He said that He Himself would abolish them: 'when He abolishes every principality and every authority.' And again: 'He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet.'
How, then, does he here ascribe this to the Father? Not only does this appear inconsistent, but also the fact that he expresses an apparently inappropriate fear by adding a qualification: He will be subjected to Him who subjected all things. It is as though someone might think that the Father might someday be subjected to the Son.
Could anything be more inconsistent? Yet he adds the qualification. What, then, does this mean? Many questions arise afterward. Give all your attention.
First of all we must show Paul's aim and principal thought, which is everywhere clearly revealed. Only then should we turn to the solution. This will help us present the solution.
What is Paul's principal thought, and what is his method? He speaks in one way when he discusses Christ's Godhead, and in another when he speaks of the divine economy.
When he speaks of Christ in the flesh, he says every humble thing without fear. He is confident that everything said can apply to Him.
Let us see here also whether he is discussing only the Godhead, or whether he is also looking to the divine economy when he says what he says about Him. But first let us say where he acts as I have described.
Where does he act this way? In the Epistle to the Philippians: 'He, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be seized, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself, becoming obedient unto death, even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted Him' (Phil 2:6-9).
Do you see how, when he reasons about the Godhead alone, he ascribes great things to Him? He says that He is the form of God, that He is equal to the Father, and he assigns all things to Him.
But when he portrays Him to you in the flesh, he again speaks humbly. Therefore, if you do not make this distinction, great difficulty will result.
If Christ is equal to God, how did God exalt the One equal to Him? If He is the form of God, how did God give Him a name? The giver gives to one who does not have. The one who exalts exalts one who has been humbled.
It will therefore appear that Christ was imperfect and lacking before He was exalted and received the name. Many other absurd conclusions will follow from this.
But if you keep the divine economy in view as well, what has been said will be right. Reason the same way here, and receive the words with these thoughts.
Lest someone think and say, 'What if the Father is not subjected? This in no way prevents the Son from being stronger than the Father,' Paul fears such an impious thought. He sees that what was said before was not enough to refute it.
Therefore he adds what follows very clearly: 'When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected.' He expresses both His perfect agreement with the Father and the fact that the Begetter of One so powerful, who accomplishes such works, is the beginning and first cause of all goods.
If he said more than the substance of the matter required, do not be surprised. He did this in imitation of his Teacher. Christ Himself, wishing to show His agreement with the Father and that He came not against His will, humbled Himself.
He did this not only as much as was required to prove agreement, but as much as the weakness of those present required. He prays to the Father for no other reason, and He Himself explains the reason when He says: 'I have known Thee, and these have known that Thou didst send Me' (Jn 17:25).
Therefore, imitating Him, the Apostle uses a heightened expression here. He does not do this to suggest to you the thought of Christ's forced subjection. Certainly not. He does it to refute absurd opinions as strongly as possible.
When he wishes to uproot something, he uses very forceful speech. Thus, speaking of a believing wife and an unbelieving husband joined by the law of marriage, he wishes to teach the wife that she is not defiled by living and having relations with the unbeliever.
He did not say that the wife does not become unclean through this, or that she suffers no harm from the unbeliever. He said much more: that even the unbeliever is sanctified through her (1 Cor 7:14).
By this he does not mean that the pagan becomes holy through her. Rather, by this strong expression he seeks more quickly to remove her fear. So also here, seeking by a strong expression to destroy an impious teaching, he said what he said.
Will the Son's submission then increase? Is this not absurd and unworthy of God? The greatest submission and obedience already lies in this: that He, being God, took the form of a servant.
How, then, will He be subjected then? Clearly, the Apostle spoke this way to refute an absurd thought, and he did so with fitting prudence.
He will be subjected as befits the Son, who is God, not in a human way, but freely and with full authority. Otherwise, how does He sit on the throne together with the Father?
How is it that, 'as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom He wills' (Jn 5:21)? How is all that belongs to the Father His also, and what belongs to Him belongs also to the Father (Jn 17:10)?
This shows us His perfect authority, equal to the Father. What does 'that God may be all in all' mean? It means that all things depend on Him, and that no one should imagine two unoriginate principles or another separate kingdom.
When the enemies have been put under the Son's feet, and when He, having them under His feet, does not act against the Father, but preserves perfect union with Him, then God will be all in all.
Some say that by these words the Apostle means the destruction of evil. Thus finally all will be subjected, and no one will resist or do evil. That is, when there is no sin, then God will obviously be all in all.
But if bodies do not rise, will this be true? Death, the worst of all enemies, will remain and do what it wishes. You will say, 'Then they will no longer sin.' But what of that?
The Apostle is speaking here not of spiritual death, but of bodily death. How, then, will it be destroyed? Victory consists in taking back what has been seized and held.
If bodies remain in the earth, then death's power will continue, because they are held there. There are no other bodies in which it might be conquered.
But if what Paul says comes to pass, as indeed it will, then a glorious victory will be revealed. By His almighty power God will raise the bodies held captive by death.
An enemy is defeated when his spoil is taken from him, not when it is left with him. If no one dares take it from him, can it be said that he has been defeated?
In the same way Christ expresses victory in the Gospel when He says: 'How can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then he will plunder his house' (Mt 12:29). Otherwise the victory would not be visible.
In spiritual death, 'he who has died to sin is justified' (Rom 6:7). Yet we cannot call this victory if one merely does not add evil to evil. The victor is the one who destroys the former captivity of the passions.
So also here, the glorious victory is not that death stopped swallowing bodies. Rather, it is that the bodies already captured by it have been taken away from it.
If they continue to argue and say that this was spoken of spiritual death, I ask: how is it abolished last? It has already been abolished in each baptized person.
But if this is understood of the body, then the statement that death will be abolished last has its place. Perhaps someone will be perplexed as to why the Apostle, when speaking of the resurrection, did not point to the bodies raised at the Lord's death.
To this we shall say that such a reference would not have helped prove the resurrection. To point to those who rose and then died again would not prove that death will be destroyed completely.
Therefore he said that it will be destroyed last, so that you would not think it will rise again. When evil is destroyed, death will cease all the more. It is impossible for a river to remain when its source has dried up, or for fruit to exist when the root has withered.
Therefore, if on the last day the enemies of God are destroyed together with death, the devil, and the demons, let us not grieve when we see the enemies of God prospering.
'The enemies of the Lord, in the time of their glorification and exaltation, vanished. Like smoke they vanished' (Ps 36:20). When you see an enemy of God rich, surrounded by bodyguards and many flatterers, do not be downcast.
Rather, sigh, weep, and entreat God to turn him into the number of His friends. The more the enemy of God succeeds in his affairs, the more you should lament him.
Sinners must always be lamented, especially when they enjoy wealth and great prosperity. They are like the sick when they eat and drink to excess.
Meanwhile, some even among those who hear these words are in such a pitiable state of soul that they weep bitterly over themselves and say, 'I am worthy of tears because I have nothing.'
You are right to say that you have nothing, not because you lack what another has, but because you place blessedness in that. For this reason you are worthy of immeasurable tears.
If a healthy man calls blessed a sick man lying on a soft bed, he is far more wretched and miserable than the sick man. He has no sense at all of his own well-being.
The same happens with these people. That is why our whole life has been filled with disturbances and disorders.
Such words have destroyed thousands, handed them over to the devil, and made them more miserable than those wasting away from hunger. Truly, those who desire more are poorer than beggars themselves. They suffer a greater and more bitter sorrow of soul, as can be seen from the following.
Once a drought struck our city. Everyone trembled for his life and entreated God to deliver them from this terror. Then one could see 'your heavens over your head become bronze,' as Moses says (Deut 28:23), and a death more terrible than all kinds of death, expected every day.
Afterward, glory to the man-loving God, beyond all expectation an exceedingly abundant rain poured down from above. Everyone rejoiced and celebrated, as though they had come out of the very gates of death.
Yet amid such benefits of God and amid the common joy, one of the richest men went about sorrowful and gloomy, as if dead from grief. When many asked him why he alone was sad while all rejoiced, he could not even hide his tormenting passion.
Compelled by the force of this sickness, he openly declared the reason. 'I have,' he said, 'many measures of wheat, and I do not know how I can now sell them.'
Tell me, shall we call him blessed after such words? He deserved to be stoned as a man more savage than any beast, and as a common enemy.
What are you saying, man? Do you grieve because all did not perish, so that you might gather gold? Have you not heard what Solomon says: 'He who withholds grain, the people curse' (Prov 11:26)?
And still you wander about, common enemy of the world's prosperity, opponent of the loving-kindness of the Master, the Lord of all, friend, or rather slave, of mammon. Should such a tongue not have been cut out?
Should the heart that uttered such words not have been torn out? Do you see how gold does not allow men to be men, but makes them beasts and demons?
What could be more contemptible than a rich man who daily begs for famine so that he may have gold? The passion produces the complete opposite in him. He does not rejoice over the abundance of fruits acquired.
He grieves for the very reason that he has acquired too much. When he should have rejoiced that he possessed much, he is sad for that very reason.