Homilies on First Corinthians

Then also he uses a correction, saying, “But when He says, all things are put in subjection, it is evident that He is excepted who did subject all things unto Him,” testifying even thence no small glory to the Only-Begotten. For if He were less and much inferior, this fear would never have been entertained by him. Neither is he content with this, but also adds another thing, as follows. I say, lest any should doubtingly ask, “And what if the Father has not been 'put under Him?' this does not at all hinder the Son from being the more mighty;” fearing this impious supposition, because that expression was not sufficient to point out this also, he added, going very much beyond it, “But when all things have been subjected unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subjected;” showing His great concord with the Father, and that He is the principle of all other good things and the first Cause, who has begotten One so great in power and in achievements.

10. But if he said more than the subject-matter demanded, marvel not. For in imitation of his Master he does this: since He too purposing to show His concord with Him that begot Him, and that He has not come without His mind, descends so far, I say not, as the proof of concord demanded, but as the weakness of the persons present required. For He prays to His Father for no other cause but this; and stating the reason He says, “that they may believe that You have sent Me.” In imitation therefore of Him, Paul here in his manner of speech goes beyond what was required; not that you might have any suspicion of a forced servitude, far from it; but that he might the more entirely cast out those impious doctrines. For so when he is minded to pull up any thing by the roots, he is wont to do it, and abundantly more with it. Thus too, for example, when he spoke of a believing wife and an unbelieving husband, companying with one another by the law of marriage, that the wife might not consider herself defiled by that intercourse and the embraces of the unbeliever, he said not, “the wife is not unclean,” nor, “she is no wise harmed by the unbeliever,” but, which was much more, “the unbeliever is even 'sanctified' by her,” not meaning to signify that the heathen was made holy through her, but by the very great strength of the expression anxious to remove her fear. So also here, his zeal to take away that impious doctrine by a very strong utterance was the cause of his expressing himself as he did. For as to suspect the Son of weakness is extreme impiety: (wherefore he corrects it, saying, “He shall put all enemies under His feet:”) so on the other hand is it more impious to consider the Father inferior to Him. Wherefore he takes it also away with exceeding force. And observe how he puts it. For he said not simply, “He is excepted which put all things under Him,” but, “it is manifest,” “for even if it be admitted,” says he, “nevertheless I make it sure.”

And that you may learn that this is the reason of the things spoken, I would ask you this question: Does an additional “subjection” at that time befal the Son? And how can this be other than impious and unworthy of God? For the greatest subjection and obedience is this, that He who is God took the form of a servant. How then will He be “subjected?” Do you see, that to take away the impious notion, he used this expression? And this too in a suitable though reserved sense? For he becomes a Son and a divine Person, so He obeys; not humanly, but as one acting freely and having all authority. Otherwise how is he co-enthroned? How, “as the Father raises up, even so He, whom He will?” How are “all things that the Father has His,” and all that He has, the Father's? For these phrases indicate to us an authority exactly measured by that of Him that begot Him.

11. But what is this, “When He shall deliver up the kingdom?” The Scripture acknowledges two kingdoms of God, the one by appropriation, the other by creation. Thus, He is King over all, both Greeks and Jews and devils and His adversaries, in respect of His creation: but He is King of the faithful and willing and subject, in respect of His making them His own. This is the kingdom which is said also to have a beginning. For concerning this He says also in the second Psalm, “Ask of Me, and I shall give You the heathen for Your inheritance.” Touching this also, He Himself said to His disciples, “All authority has been given unto Me by My father,” referring all to Him that begot Him, not as though of Himself He were not sufficient, but to signify that He is a Son, and not unbegotten. This kingdom then He does “deliver up,” i.e., “bring to a right end.”

“What then,” says one, “can be the reason why He spoke nothing of the Spirit?” Because of Him he was not discoursing now, nor does he confound all things together. Since also where he says, “There is one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus,” undoubtedly not as allowing the Spirit to be inferior, is he therefore silent, but because for the time it was not urgent, he so expressed himself. For he is wont also to make mention of the Father only, yet we must not therefore cast out the Son: he is wont to speak also of the Son and of the Spirit only, yet not for this are we to deny the Father.

But what is, “that God may be all in all?” That all things may be dependent upon Him, that none may suppose two authorities without a beginning, nor another kingdom separated off; that nothing may exist independent of him. For when the enemies shall be lying under the feet of the Son, and He having them cast under His feet be at no variance with His Father, but at concord with Him in entire perfection, then He shall Himself “be all in all.”

But some say that he spoke this to declare the removal of wickedness, as though all would yield thenceforth and none would resist nor do iniquity. For when there is no sin, it is evident that “God shall be all in all.”

12. But if bodies do not rise again, how are these things true? For the worst enemy of all, death, remains, having wrought whatever he listed. “Nay,” says one, “for they shall sin no more.” And what of that? For he is not discoursing here of the death of the soul, but of that of the body? How then is he “put down?” For victory is this, the winning of those things which have been carried off and detained. But if men's bodies are to be detained in the earth, it follows that the tyranny of death remains, these bodies for their part being holden, and there being no other body for him to be vanquished in. But if this which Paul spoke of, ensue, as undoubtedly it will ensue, God's victory will appear, and that a glorious one, in His being able to raise again the bodies which were holden thereby. Since an enemy too is then vanquished, when a man takes the spoils, not when he suffers them to remain in the other's possession: but unless one venture to take what is his, how can we say that he is vanquished? After this manner of victory does Christ Himself say in the Gospels that He has been victorious, thus speaking, “When he shall bind the strong man, then shall he also spoil his goods.” Since if this were not so, it would not be at all a manifest victory. For as in the death of the soul, “he that has died is justified from sin;” (and yet we cannot say that this is a victory, for he is not the victor who adds no more to his wickedness, but he who has done away the former captivity of his passions;) just so in this instance also, I should not call death's being stayed from feeding on the bodies of men a splendid victory, but rather that the bodies heretofore holden by him should be snatched away from him.

But if they should still be contentious and should say that these things were spoken of the soul's death, how is this “destroyed last?” since in the case of each one at his Baptism it has been destroyed perfectly. If however you speak of the body, the expression is admissible; I mean, such a saying as that it will be “last destroyed.”