The Son 'will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, so that God may be all in all' (v. 28, NWT). This proves Jesus is permanently subordinate to God and therefore cannot be God. If Jesus were truly God, he would not need to subject himself to anyone.
The passage is about the completion of Christ's mediatorial kingdom, not about his eternal nature. Walk through the logic step by step. First, v. 24 says the Son 'delivers the kingdom to God the Father' after abolishing every rule, authority, and power — only someone with divine authority can hand sovereignty to God. Second, explain the economic vs. ontological Trinity distinction: functional roles do not determine nature, just as a CEO who reports to a board chairman is not less human than the chairman. Third, note that v. 27 explicitly excludes the Father from those subjected to the Son — Paul felt the need to clarify this, implying the Son's authority is so comprehensive it could be confused with the Father's own authority. Fourth, point to where Jesus asks the Father to glorify him 'with the glory I had alongside you before the world was' — the subjection is the end of a temporary mission, not a permanent state. The 'subjection' in v. 28 is the completion of the redemptive mission and the return to the pre-incarnation relationship, not an ontological statement about inferior nature.
The passage describes the Son completing his redemptive mission and returning the kingdom to the Father — not permanent inferiority. The very act of delivering a kingdom to God demonstrates divine authority that no mere creature possesses. Paul's need to exclude the Father from those subjected to the Son (v. 27) reveals how comprehensive the Son's authority truly is.
The Son subjects himself — proving he is not equal to God.
Subjection describes a functional role, not an inferior nature. says Jesus was 'in the form of God' and 'equal with God' yet voluntarily emptied himself. The subjection in is the completion of that same voluntary mission — the Son returning the kingdom after accomplishing redemption. A general who voluntarily returns command to the king after winning a war is not proving he is less human than the king. He is fulfilling a role within a shared mission.
God is not subject to the Son — proving the Son is lesser.
Look carefully at v. 27. Paul says 'it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him.' Why does Paul add this clarification? Because the Son's authority is so total — 'all things' subjected under his feet — that without this exception, readers might conclude the Father himself is included. If the Son were merely a created angel, no one would confuse his authority with the Father's. Paul's clarification only makes sense if the Son's authority is divine in scope.
This proves there is a hierarchy with God above Jesus.
Even within the Trinity, there is an order of persons — the Father sends, the Son is sent, the Spirit proceeds. But order does not mean inequality of nature. In , Jesus speaks of 'the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.' He and the Father shared glory before creation — that is not hierarchy of nature but distinction of persons. The 'handing over' in marks the end of the Son's mediatorial role in history, not a permanent ranking of being.
If Jesus were God, there would be no need for subjection.
The subjection is tied to the incarnation and the redemptive mission. explains the pattern: Christ humbled himself, and God exalted him so that 'every knee should bend' and 'every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord' — language drawn from , where Jehovah says this about himself. The subjection in completes the same cycle. The Son took on a mediatorial role, fulfilled it, and now the mission ends with 'God being all in all.' This is the resolution of the incarnation, not evidence against deity.
Don't deny that there is any order between Father and Son — Scripture is clear about an economic ordering. Instead, distinguish between functional roles (economic Trinity) and shared divine nature (ontological Trinity). Avoid getting drawn into a debate about whether 'subjection' means 'inferiority' in English — keep the focus on the biblical context of the passage as the conclusion of a redemptive mission.
Read slowly until you can walk through verses 24-28 from memory: the kingdom handed over, every enemy abolished, the exception in verse 27, and 'God may be all in all'. Check the NWT wording of verse 28 yourself, since your friend will quote it. Read and so you can place the subjection within the Son's voluntary mission. Practise the doorstep question aloud. Expect 'the Son subjects himself, so he is not equal to God', and rehearse the difference between role and nature in one or two sentences, taking care not to deny any order between Father and Son.