Jesus The Reigning King

[1LoverofGod]

I was listening to Pastor Tom Hughes podcast today talking about Jesus second coming and he said Jesus will judge the nations and then "He will reign as King forever and ever".

When Pastor Tom said Jesus will reign as King forever and ever it made me go hmmm
I wondered how does he understand 1 Corinthians 15:24-28

24 "Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all"
1 Corinthians 25;24-28

Doesn't this scripture passage imply that after the thousand year reign of Christ and Jesus puts an end to the last enemy death that Jesus will hand over The Kingdom back to The Father as it clearly reads?
This doesn't sound like Jesus reigns forever and ever to me.

How do others here understand the quoted scripture passage?
Do you think Jesus reigns forever and ever?

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

I was listening to Pastor Tom Hughes podcast today talking about Jesus second coming and he said Jesus will judge the nations and then "He will reign as King forever and ever".

When Pastor Tom said Jesus will reign as King forever and ever it made me go hmmm
I wondered how does he understand 1 Corinthians 15:24-28

24 "Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all"
1 Corinthians 25;24-28

Doesn't this scripture passage imply that after the thousand year reign of Christ and Jesus puts an end to the last enemy death that Jesus will hand over The Kingdom back to The Father as it clearly reads?
This doesn't sound like Jesus reigns forever and ever to me.

How do others here understand the quoted scripture passage?
Do you think Jesus reigns forever and ever?

hmm good spanner in the works question, from face value that is also how i understand that verse as well ?

Another question i had is where does David fit into this as well for doesn't he have some sort of ruling role lesser than Jesus in Jerusalem during the Millenial kingdom ?

 

[1LoverofGod]

hmm good spanner in the works question, from face value that is also how i understand that verse as well ?

Another question i had is where does David fit into this as well for doesn't he have some sort of ruling role lesser than Jesus in Jerusalem during the Millenial kingdom ?

Likely David will have a ruling position during the Millennium.
Just like the church will have a ruling position as seen in Revelation 5:10
"And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.”
Speaking here are the 24 Elders who are representative of the church.

 

[mattfivefour]

I like Dave Guzik's Ensuring Word commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. Here is the final part of it:
-----
e. But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted: Paul reminds us that the Son will not someday be superior to the Father. The relationship of Father to Son will be eternal: the Son Himself will also be subject to Him.

i. Those who deny the deity of Jesus say this verse proves their point. They take the submission of God the Son as “proof” that He must not be equal in deity to God the Father. But the submission of Jesus to the Father doesn’t come from any inherent inferiority; instead, it comes from the administrative order of the Godhead. A son is always in submission to his father, even if both are “equal” in substance.

ii. “The son of a king may be the equal of his father in every attribute of his nature, though officially inferior. So the eternal Son of God may be coequal with the Father, though officially subordinate.” (Hodge)

iii. “The Son’s subjection to his Father, which is mentioned in this place, doth no where prove his inequality of essence or power with his Father; it only signifieth what was spoken before, that Christ should deliver up his mediatory kingdom to his Father.” (Poole)

iv. Simply put, God the Father will always be God the Father, and God the Son will always be God the Son, and for all eternity they will continue to relate to each other as Father and Son.

f. That God may be all in all: Here, Paul refers to God the Son’s desire to glorify God the Father through all eternity. Importantly, each person of the Trinity desires to glorify another person of the Trinity. The Son glorifies the Father (John 17:4), the Father glorifies the Son (John 17:5), and the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son (John 16:14). This aspect of the nature of God is something God wants us to walk in, having a concern for the glory of others, and not our own (Philippians 2:3-4).

 

[1LoverofGod]

I like Dave Guzik's Ensuring Word commentary on 1 Corinthians 15:24-28. Here is the final part of it:
-----
e. But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted: Paul reminds us that the Son will not someday be superior to the Father. The relationship of Father to Son will be eternal: the Son Himself will also be subject to Him.

i. Those who deny the deity of Jesus say this verse proves their point. They take the submission of God the Son as “proof” that He must not be equal in deity to God the Father. But the submission of Jesus to the Father doesn’t come from any inherent inferiority; instead, it comes from the administrative order of the Godhead. A son is always in submission to his father, even if both are “equal” in substance.

ii. “The son of a king may be the equal of his father in every attribute of his nature, though officially inferior. So the eternal Son of God may be coequal with the Father, though officially subordinate.” (Hodge)

iii. “The Son’s subjection to his Father, which is mentioned in this place, doth no where prove his inequality of essence or power with his Father; it only signifieth what was spoken before, that Christ should deliver up his mediatory kingdom to his Father.” (Poole)

iv. Simply put, God the Father will always be God the Father, and God the Son will always be God the Son, and for all eternity they will continue to relate to each other as Father and Son.

f. That God may be all in all: Here, Paul refers to God the Son’s desire to glorify God the Father through all eternity. Importantly, each person of the Trinity desires to glorify another person of the Trinity. The Son glorifies the Father (John 17:4), the Father glorifies the Son (John 17:5), and the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son (John 16:14). This aspect of the nature of God is something God wants us to walk in, having a concern for the glory of others, and not our own (Philippians 2:3-4).

I didn't think Jesus would lose His diety. Jesus is God.
What made me question Jesus ruling forever and ever is specifically in verse 25 because here it says

For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

I highlighted "till" because this seems to indicate Jesus rule will end when He gives it back to The Father.

How do you understand this?

 

[1LoverofGod]

I didn't think Jesus would lose His diety. Jesus is God.
What made me question Jesus ruling forever and ever is specifically in verse 25 because here it says

For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

I highlighted "till" because this seems to indicate Jesus rule will end when He gives it back to The Father.

How do you understand this?

It is very clear that when Jesus sets up God's Kingdom, it will never be removed, but it will stand forever.....

"And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever"
Daniel 2:44

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

I didn't think Jesus would lose His diety. Jesus is God.
What made me question Jesus ruling forever and ever is specifically in verse 25 because here it says

For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

I highlighted "till" because this seems to indicate Jesus rule will end when He gives it back to The Father.

How do you understand this?

LOL i'd love to see the Lord with his jandals on the throat of Satan

 

[1LoverofGod]

I know some of my questions may seem like, no big deal.
Someone may think
What does it matter?
For me, when I read Scripture, I want to understand the meaning behind it, because of I can't be clear on the one verse then that will impact my understanding of the entire context.
It's important for me to understand what I'm reading in the Bible. If it's not important for me to have clarity then God's Word has no real significance. I believe God's Word is very significant no matter where I read in the Bible.
This is why I ask questions.

 

[Spartan Sprinter]

I know some of my questions may seem like, no big deal.
Someone may think
What does it matter?
For me, when I read Scripture, I want to understand the meaning behind it, because of I can't be clear on the one verse then that will impact my understanding of the entire context.
It's important for me to understand what I'm reading in the Bible. If it's not important for me to have clarity then God's Word has no real significance. I believe God's Word is very significant no matter where I read in the Bible.
This is why I ask questions.

Your interpretation is correct, i'm sure if you were to email Tom regarding his statement he may remember the verse you're referring to and put a statement or clarification out on his next video that he releases.

He does tend to do this regarding emails he receives getting him to clarify statements that he makes

 

[mattfivefour]

I didn't think Jesus would lose His diety. Jesus is God.
What made me question Jesus ruling forever and ever is specifically in verse 25 because here it says

For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.

I highlighted "till" because this seems to indicate Jesus rule will end when He gives it back to The Father.

How do you understand this?

I understand that Jesus' rule will end when He gives it back to the Father. However, since Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, this is no way diminishes Jesus. It just seems to me that the executive order of the Godhead will remain intact throughout eternity. But that is coming to a conclusion with very little evidence. So we'll just have to wait and see. I know that one day we will know even as we are known. That's good enough for me.

 

[Batman]

Not wanting to push my thoughts and hopefully not make a mistake in using the whole of the Bible, but do we really know/expect His rule will end in giving the Kingdom back to the Father? Christ is co-creator and King of Kings and Lord of Lords; which is written on His thigh! He will always be the 2nd member of the Triune Godhead. Isaiah 9:6 uses titles that are unquestionably eternal. Luke 1:32, 33 states that he will "reign over Jacob's descendants forever; His kingdom will never end." And Revelation 11:15 states, ".....and He shall reign for ever and ever....."He" seems to be the Father but it first says "Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ."

 

[1LoverofGod]

I understand that Jesus' rule will end when He gives it back to the Father. However, since Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God, this is no way diminishes Jesus. It just seems to me that the executive order of the Godhead will remain intact throughout eternity. But that is coming to a conclusion with very little evidence. So we'll just have to wait and see. I know that one day we will know even as we are known. That's good enough for me.

Yes God is God.
I made up my mind a long time ago to not rack my brain trying to figure out the Trinity.
In this life in a flawed state, I can never completely know Our Perfect and Holy God except for what He has revealed about Himself in His Word, through The Son.
By knowing Jesus, we know The Father.

No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him
John 1:18

By Jesus laying down His sinless life, He was given all authority over Heaven and Earth and while He is The Anointed King to Rule during The Thousand Years, and will ultimately give the Authority back to The Father, I t

Not wanting to push my thoughts and hopefully not make a mistake in using the whole of the Bible, but do we really know/expect His rule will end in giving the Kingdom back to the Father? Christ is co-creator and King of Kings and Lord of Lords; which is written on His thigh! He will always be the 2nd member of the Triune Godhead. Isaiah 9:6 uses titles that are unquestionably eternal. Luke 1:32, 33 states that he will "reign over Jacob's descendants forever; His kingdom will never end." And Revelation 11:15 states, ".....and He shall reign for ever and ever....."He" seems to be the Father but it first says "Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ."

Good scripture support.
Of course Jesus is God. So even giving the Kingdom to The Father, The Kingdom still belongs to Jesus.
Because of the word "till" in verse 25, I needed clarity.
The Trinity is one of those things that we cannot truly comprehend with our fallen minds. Maybe in glory we will be able to say
Ahhh. Okay. Understood

 

[Quantrill]

My opinion of (1 Cor. 15:24-28) is this:

When the Son, the 2nd Person of the Godhead, took on flesh and blood, He did not cease to be the 2nd Person of the Godhead. But now, as a Man, He was the God/Man. 100% God and 100% Man.

But Jesus the Son always acknowledged that the Father was greater than He. (John 14:28) And He always did the will of the Father. (John 6:38) So that hierarchy has always existed within the Godhead. It didn't make the Son any less God.

But I will say this. A tremendous change took place when the Son became Man. Because he did it forever. The Son, that 2nd Person of the Godhead became a Man forever. In other words, there will never be a day when the Son turns to the Father and says, I want to go back to the way it used to be. Never. Because if that ever did occur, we who are saved are gone.

(1 Cor. 15:28) says, "..then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." God the Father put all things under Jesus that God may be all in all. It is only when all things are under Jesus that God is all in all.

The Son always subjects Himself to the Father. And the Father has given all things to the Son. Such a subjection does not take away from the Son. This subjection shows that although the Son has been given all things from the Father, He remains subject to the Father.

The great contrast being Satan who was given tremendous authority over the earth, yet did not want to be any longer subject to God. Instead, he wanted to be 'like God'.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

I wanted to add another thought to what I said in post #(13).

(Hebrews 10:5-7) "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

This is a quote from (Ps. 40:6). "Sacrifice, and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required."

(Ps. 40) is a Messianic (Psalm) which is why the writer of (Hebrews), who I am convinced is Paul, quoted it. It speaks of the Son being obedient to the will of the Father.

Note the difference between the two. (Heb. 10:5) "but a body hast thou prepared me" (Ps. 40:6) "mine ears hast thou opened"

I don't believe this is a misquote by Paul. It is added information to the truth he is giving. For this reference to ears being opened takes us back to (Ex. 21:1-6) concerning the law of the Hebrew servant. We are told that the Hebrew servant was to serve for only 7 years and then was to be set free.

And, if the master gave him a wife during that servitude, then the wife goes out with Him. And, if the wife has born him children, then the servant goes out by himself, leaving the wife and children still subject to the master. (Ex. 21:3-4) But if the servant loves his master and wife and children he can chose to remain with them in servitude, but it will be forever.

(Ex. 21:5-6) "And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children: I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him forever."

So Paul in (Heb. 10:5) is identifying the Son taking on a human body willingly, to the very act of the servants ear being bored to the door post, solidifying the eternality of the decision.

Which is important for us to know that it is forever that the Son has become Man. It will never change. We are secure.

Quantrill

 

[mattfivefour]

I wanted to add another thought to what I said in post #(13).

(Hebrews 10:5-7) "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

This is a quote from (Ps. 40:6). "Sacrifice, and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required."

(Ps. 40) is a Messianic (Psalm) which is why the writer of (Hebrews), who I am convinced is Paul, quoted it. It speaks of the Son being obedient to the will of the Father.

Note the difference between the two. (Heb. 10:5) "but a body hast thou prepared me" (Ps. 40:6) "mine ears hast thou opened"

I don't believe this is a misquote by Paul. It is added information to the truth he is giving. For this reference to ears being opened takes us back to (Ex. 21:1-6) concerning the law of the Hebrew servant. We are told that the Hebrew servant was to serve for only 7 years and then was to be set free.

And, if the master gave him a wife during that servitude, then the wife goes out with Him. And, if the wife has born him children, then the servant goes out by himself, leaving the wife and children still subject to the master. (Ex. 21:3-4) But if the servant loves his master and wife and children he can chose to remain with them in servitude, but it will be forever.

(Ex. 21:5-6) "And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children: I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him forever."

So Paul in (Heb. 10:5) is identifying the Son taking on a human body willingly, to the very act of the servants ear being bored to the door post, solidifying the eternality of the decision.

Which is important for us to know that it is forever that the Son has become Man. It will never change. We are secure.

Quantrill

A very, very interesting thought, brother. The Hebrew supports your thinking, since the word used in Psalm 40:6 is the same word used for pierced in Psalm 22:16, describing the crucifixion. The Holy Spirit has revealed something beautiful to you here. Thank you for sharing it with us.

 

[Quantrill]

A very, very interesting thought, brother. The Hebrew supports your thinking, since the word used in Psalm 40:6 is the same word used for pierced in Psalm 22:16, describing the crucifixion. The Holy Spirit has revealed something beautiful to you here. Thank you for sharing it with us.

Understand I do not take credit for any new understanding in the Bible. I like everyone else enter upon others studies that the Holy Ghost has directed. It's a truth I believe and have learned over the years. Though I can't pick the exact teacher or time, I am sure I have learned it.

As to the same word in (Ps. 40:6) and (Psalm 22:16), what word would that be? I assumed it would be 'opened' and 'pierced' but those don't appear to me to be the same word. Perhaps I missed something.

Quantrill

 

[mattfivefour]

As to the same word in (Ps. 40:6) and (Psalm 22:16), what word would that be? I assumed it would be 'opened' and 'pierced' but those don't appear to me to be the same word. Perhaps I missed something.

I think you did, because it is the exact same word: karah (כָּרָה).

 

[Quantrill]

I think you did, because it is the exact same word: karah (כָּרָה).

That would be fine if i can see it. But when I compare the Strongs with those words, I don't see it. What am I missing?

Quantrill

 

[AnyMinute]

I don't mean to speak for mattfivefour but I'm sure he's speaking of this, Strong's 3738.

They both come from the same root word karah (כָּרָה)

Strong's Concordance

karah: dig​

Original Word: כָּרָה
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: karah
Phonetic Spelling: (kaw-raw')
Definition: to dig

Psalm 40:6 Hebrew Text Analysis

Psalm 22:16 Hebrew Text Analysis

 

[mattfivefour]

I don't mean to speak for mattfivefour but I'm sure he's speaking of this, Strong's 3738.

They both come from the same root word karah (כָּרָה)

Strong's Concordance

karah: dig​

Original Word: כָּרָה
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: karah
Phonetic Spelling: (kaw-raw')
Definition: to dig

Psalm 40:6 Hebrew Text Analysis

Psalm 22:16 Hebrew Text Analysis

Exactly. I used the Hebrew text, but you are correct. In both cases, the word is the Strong's 3738. They may look different in the text of both verses because Hebrew is an inflected language --in other words, different prefixes and suffixes are added to a word depending on its function in any specific sentence, unlike English where we use prepositions and word position-- but in both cases it is the very same word.