23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 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.
The verse 27 has always impressed me for the his total not-utility. What need was there to specify that the god of the Jews had to be NOT submitted by the Christ of the Parusia? Only to correct who believed otherwise: that Jesus would have won all, even the god of the Jews.
Was the verse in Marcion?
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 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.
The verse 27 has always impressed me for the his total not-utility. What need was there to specify that the god of the Jews had to be NOT submitted by the Christ of the Parusia? Only to correct who believed otherwise: that Jesus would have won all, even the god of the Jews.
Was the verse in Marcion?
I have (at least most of) the evidence laid out here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1838&start=10#p40567. It appears that this verse may be nonattested, either positively or negatively.
23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 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.
The verse 27 has always impressed me for the his total not-utility. What need was there to specify that the god of the Jews had to be NOT submitted by the Christ of the Parusia? Only to correct who believed otherwise: that Jesus would have won all, even the god of the Jews.
Was the verse in Marcion?
It certainly seems to not only disrupt the flow of the text but also to be wholly unnecessary. It definitely "feels" like an interpolation. *I'm brand new here so forgive me if I've responded to this incorrectly in some way.