In his book defending the thesis that the Son (and Spirit) are functionally subordinate to the Father, even after the Son’s ascension and super-exaltation, Ryan L. Rippee offered the following on 1 Cor 15:20-28, with particular focus on the singular person of the Father exhausting the category of θεος in v. 28:
Some have taken the phrase “that God may be all in all” to refer to the Godhead . . . [however] if θεος here were a reference to the full Trinitarian God, it would be Paul’s only usage in his entire corpus. Furthermore, a careful examination of the implied and relative pronouns (in the masculine singular) most likely make the reference to θεος the Father: (1) the implied subject of the verb θη (v. 25) is identified with the implied subject of υπεταξεν (v. 27), both of which are taken from Psalm 110 where the Father puts the Messiah’s enemies under his feet, (2) the subject of the verbless clause εκτος (v. 27) and the participle του υπαταξαντος is God the Father, for it is clear that the Father is not subject to Christ, (3) the implied subject of the participle τω υποταξαντι (v. 28) is the Father, consistently arguing in these verses that the Father puts all things in subjection under the Son. Therefore, the referent to the pronouns is identified as θεος v. 28.
Thus, θεος normally refers to the Father and exceptionally refers to the Son and Holy Spirit, while apparently never referring to the Trinity . . . If the person of the Son (ο υιος, v. 28) gives up the kingdom to the person of the Father, then is it only in his human nature as the Davidic Messiah, or does it also include his divine nature as the second person of the Godhead? In the context, Paul is quoting from Psalm 110 (v. 25) and Psalm 8 (v. 27) where the Davidic king rules God’s kingdom as regent. Also, Paul uses the terminology Χριστος, arguing that he is the second Adam (vv. 22-23). So, at the very least, Paul is speaking of the man Jesus. Nevertheless, as James Hamilton argues in his recent article,
Paul does not appear to be discussing the difference between the human Jesus and the divine Jesus, nor is he making a statement about how all three members of the Trinity are involved in everything one member does. He is discussing the order of the events at the end and the way that Christ “must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor. 15:25). (James Hamilton, “That God May Be All In All” in One God in Three Persons, ed. Bruce Ware and John Starke [Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2015], 100)
Thus, Hamilton is summarizing the assymetrical nature of the eternal taxis consistent with inseparable operations. The Father will, for all eternity, be the initiator of the one work of divine rule.
Finally, the use of αυτος ο υιος (“the Son himself,” v. 28) is theologically significant. The absolute use of the title without any genitival modifiers is used only here in the writings of Paul. Ciampa and Rosner, in their commentary, explain the significance:
Since the language of “Father” and “Son” is covenantal language, it reminds us that the Son’s role in the biblical and covenantal meta-narrative was always that of restoring and reflecting the glorious reign of the Father over all of his dominion. Paul simply takes us to the ultimate conclusion of the biblical narrative of redemption and restoration, which is that the creation which went astray and which the Son was commissioned to redeem and restore has come full circle to its complete submission to God—and beyond. But it was always about bringing creation to perfect submission to God . . . This verse does not demean or marginalize Christ, but emphasizes that his mission will be fully and perfectly accomplished. (Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians [Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010], 778)
Thus, the person of the Son, as the God-man, hands over his kingdom to the Father at the end, not in an absolute sense, such that his sovereignty is temporary, rather with the idea that or all eternity the Father (with the Son and Spirit alongside him) will reign over the new creation. John Frame concludes,
As the servant of God, who remains eternally man as well as God, Jesus demonstrates his obedience by subjecting himself and his kingdom to the headship of God the Father. (Frame, The Doctrine of God: A Theology of Lordship [Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002], 683) Ryan L. Rippee, That God May Be All in All: A Paterology Demonstrating That the Father Is the Initiator of All Divine Activity [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2018], 39-40, 168-70; comment in square brackets added for clarification)
On p. 170, Rippee correctly notes that “[the book of ] Revelation provides further evidence” of this functional subordination of the Son to the Father after the ascension, and on pp. 170-72 discusses Rev 11:15-19 and 22:1-5. With respect to Rev 22:1-5, Rippe (pp. 171-72) writes:
Revelation 22:1 pains a beautiful picture of this eternal taxis: “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life [the Spirit], bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God [the Father] and the Lamb [the Son].” The throne in Revelation is the place of authority, and here we see all three persons of the Godhead revealing themselves from that throne. The first is the Holy Spirit, pictures as living water flowing from the Father and Son. An ancient picture from the days of the new covenant promised in Ezekiel (Ezek 336:25-27), John 7:37-39 makes clear that “living waters are a reference to the Holy Spirit (cf. John 3:5; 4:10-24; 1 John 5:7-8 where water is symbolically tied to the Spirit). This would mean that John used the same imagery for the Trinity earlier in the book of Revelation: “For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to the springs of living water [the Holy Spirit], and God [the Father] will wipe away every tear from their eyes” (Rev 7:17).
In both passages, the Spirit is the giver of life. Revelation 22;2 continues this theme for the river provides nourishment, watering the “tree of life,” whose leaves are for “the healing of the nations,” and gives sense to the Spirit’s appeal of 22:17, “The Spirit and the Bride say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who hears say, ‘Come.’ And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.” For all eternity, the Spirit appeals to the saints to come and drink fully of him, partake of him, and be filled by him, so that they might serve, worship, and reign as king priests in the kingdom (22:5). As to the Lamb sharing the throne with the Father (22:1), Hamilton’s insight is instructive:
Here the reference to God is clearly a reference to the Father, and the reference to the Lamb is likewise a reference to Jesus. This would indicate that the role of Christ as the Redeemer remains relevant in eternity future . . . Both are God, as 22:3 speaks in the singular of his servants worshipping him, referring back to both God and the Lamb. And yet the hierarchy and roles seen from Revelation 4-5, where the Lamb approached the one on the throne, remain in that depiction of the new heaven and new earth. So it would seem natural to conclude that by continuing to depict Jesus as the Lamb in Revelation 22:3, John is saying in a different way what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 28—that Christ has rendered the kingdom to the Father and been subjected to them. Thus, Christ’s kingdom is everlasting, but he reigns in the kingdom he has delivered to the Father, in which he is subject to the Father. (Hamilton, “That God May Be All In All,” 107)
Thus, the divine work of eternal rule will be exercised by Father, Son, and Spirit for all eternity, and it will reflect the eternal taxis: rule initiated by the Father, accomplished through the Son, and perfected by the Spirit.
