``Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. `For God has put all things in subjection under his feet'. But when it says, `all things are put in subjection to him', it is plain that he is exepted who put all things under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.'' (Cor. 15:24-28).
All christian hope is directed at the eschatological kingdom of Glory, when our salvation is revealed and God is all in all. In the present our salvation is concealed in the flesh but in the eschaton this humanity of God in Christ will be undone. Then `the Son' - that is, the Son as he has appeared in the flesh - will give the kingdom to the Father. That does not mean that he will cease to rule but rather that he will, in a sense, transfer the lordship from his humanity to his glorious divinity. Christ no longer mediates between us and God in his humanity - the veil of flesh is removed. ``Wij worden niet meer door onze zwakheid, welke de motiveering was van de vleeschwording des Woords, verhinderd in onzen toegang tot God; wij zien God in zijn klare majesteit regeeren.''3.77
This is identical to the view of J. Calvin on this issue. Calvin states: ``Until he comes forth as judge of the world Christ will therefore reign, joining us to the Father as the measure of our weakness permits. But when as partakers in heavenly glory we shall see God as he is, Christ, having then discharged the office of Mediator, will cease to be the ambassador of his Father, and will be satisfied with that glory which he enjoyed before the creation of the world...To him was lordship committed by the Father, until such time as we should see his divine majesty face to face. Then he returns the lordship to his Father so that - far from diminishing his own majesty - it may shine all the more brightly. Then, also, God shall cease to be the Head of Christ, for Christ's own deity will shine of itself, although as yet it is covered by a veil.''3.78
The eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity took on human flesh in reaction to the fall of man, in reaction to the sin, death, guilt and reign of the demons caused by the fall. Christ died on the cross and the Spirit was poured out in order to undo that which had been caused by man. When this has been accomplished, and man has been restored to his proper being, salvation becomes superfluous. This does not mean that the eschaton is a return of the proton. The eschaton exhibits a `plus' above the proton and this plus is to be found in the experience of sin and grace, in the experience of knowing, willing and acting with God - through which man becomes `fireproof' and moves from the posse non peccare to the non posse peccare.
Originally, before the fall, man was his own justification (the iustitia originalis is naturalis and not supranaturalis). The grace of the gospel consists of the iustificatio impii. Jesus Christ became our righteousness - this is the doctrine of the satisfactio vicaria. In the same sense he became the truth and the way vicariously. Thus Van Ruler asks ``Should we not be our own righteousness - in our being and in our self, in our consciousness and in our acts? Are we not originally our own righteousness? And will we not finally be our own righteousness? Can the world not exist protologically and eschatologically in itself before God's countenance - so that it itself is his pleasure and glory?''3.79 In the eschaton there will be no mediation between God and man - God will be `all in all'. There will be a complete synthesis of salvation and existence. This does not mean that we will be completely united with Christ but rather that salvation will `fall away' because it has become superfluous. In the eschaton we will be transfigured and glorified - we will then be `fireproof' and `not able to sin'. The world will exist in itself, in its own righteousness before God's countenance. Then the iustificatio impii, which is still concealed in the flesh of Christ, will be completely ours. Christ `only' has a substitutionary significance - but we are not replaced by him, he died for our sake to take away our guilt so that we could once again stand before the presence of God. In other words he became our righteousness so that his righteousness could become completely our righteousness.
The incarnation of Christ was solely motivated by sin and the person and work of Christ are inseparable. Once sin has been done away with the incarnation is no longer necessary. Does it make any sense to say that the person of Christ continues once his work is completed? It makes a lot more sense to say that the veil of the flesh is undone; the Son ceases to be messiah; he only causes things to be saved so that in the joy of their existence they may praise God and the Lamb. It must be noted that the outpouring and indwelling of the Holy Spirit also ceases. ``As het eeuwige licht van het rijk der heerlijkheid over de gansche schepping opgaat, wordt de illuminatie van den Geest (in zijn uitstorting en inwoning!) gedoofd.''3.80 In the kingdom of Glory man is no longer rebellious sinful flesh - he will be recreated and will contain the righteousness, truth and wisdom of God in himself and thus will not need the illumination of the Spirit. There will no longer be the struggle of the Spirit with the flesh - which is the essence of the indwelling of the Spirit.
The idea that Christ gives the kingdom to the Father - which is the undoing of the flesh - only means that the lordship is transferred from the humanity of Christ to his glorious divinity. It has nothing to do with subordinationism or some type of eschatological absorption of the Son by the Father. The thesis that Jesus Christ is an emergency measure relates to the incarnate Son not the eternal Son. Thus the doctrine of the Trinity is not affected by it.3.81 At this point Berkouwer asks whether we can distinguish between the incarnated Son and the eternal Son and whether `emergency measure' can really capture the sense of what the New Testament calls the great `mystery of our religion (1 Tim. 3:16).3.82 However, if we do not distinguish between the eternal Son and the incarnate Son we end up with Barth's supralapsarian view (which Berkouwer rejects) and the term `emergency measure' merely emphasizes the infralapsarian point of view (which Berkouwer accepts).3.83