Your understanding of this passage
is found in the history of the Church, but as usual not where you would want it to be if your religion was actually the restoration of the original, uncorrupted Christian faith, as it claims to be.
From the Alexandrian scholar Origen (c. 184-253), in his
De Principiis (book 3), we read the following exposition:
I know not, indeed, how the heretics, not understanding the meaning of the apostle in these words, consider the term subjection degrading as applied to the Son; for if the propriety of the title be called in question, it may easily be ascertained from making a contrary supposition. Because if it be not good to be in subjection, it follows that the opposite will be good, viz., not to be in subjection. Now the language of the apostle, according to their view, appears to indicate by these words,
"And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him," that He, who is not now in subjection to the Father, will become subject to Him when the Father shall have first subdued all things unto Him. But I am astonished how it can be conceived to be the meaning, that He who, while all things are not yet subdued to Him, is not Himself in subjection, should — at a time when all things have been subdued to Him, and when He has become King of all men, and holds sway over all things — be supposed then to be made subject, seeing He was not formerly in subjection; for such do not understand that the subjection of Christ to the Father indicates that our happiness has attained to perfection, and that the work undertaken by Him has been brought to a victorious termination, seeing He has not only purified the power of supreme government over the whole of creation, but presents to the Father the principles of the obedience and subjection of the human race in a corrected and improved condition. If, then, that subjection be held to be good and salutary by which the Son is said to be subject to the Father, it is an extremely rational and logical inference to deduce that the subjection also of enemies, which is said to be made to the Son of God, should be understood as being also salutary and useful; as if, when the Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect restoration of the whole of creation is signified, so also, when enemies are said to be subjected to the Son of God, the salvation of the conquered and the restoration of the lost is in that understood to consist.
+++
Origen, it should be noted, was in conflict with the Church in several matters during his life (hence I called him 'scholar' and not 'father'), so we should wonder how it is that even a condemned person such as he can show your understanding to be with the heretics at such an early date. If it is obvious enough to one who is often taken away by flights of theological and cosmological fancy, then it ought to be obvious to Christians more generally that what you have presented to us as 'understanding the scriptures' is not so. Or rather, it is
an understanding, but not one that a Christian should embrace.