"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matthew 24:30. See also Mark 13:26 ("And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.") and Luke 21:27 ("And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory."). What are the clouds of heaven? Literal clouds? Clouds of angels? Clouds of other believers already in heaven? Why clouds? Why not groups, if he's writing about groups of people? Why not armies? Why is the word cloud important?
Compare the following, David's words, with Christ's words: "In my distress I called upon the LORD, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears. Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth. There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. He bowed the heavens also, and came down: and darkness was under his feet. And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: yea, he did fly upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." Psalm 18:6-11. Did David mean that hills literally moved, that fire literally came out of God's mouth, that God literally came down in thick clouds of the skies?
See also Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen." Even they also which pierced Him. Your Jewish neighbor didn't pierce Christ, unless you believe in some form of generational or racial guilt perpetually poured out on the Jewish people throughout history, but that would be contrary to what the scripture says. It's speaking about God exposing the guilt of those who falsely accused Christ while He walked on the earth. And about God justifying His Son, showing to the world that He in fact reigns . . . "at the right hand of the power." If that event was supposed to happen sometime centuries or millennia in the future, it would defeat that purpose.
Remember Christ's words to the High Priest and His accusers, those who were opposing God. Do you think Christ deserves less consideration from God, His Father, than David did when He was opposed unjustly? "Bless the LORD, O my soul. O LORD my God, thou art very great; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain: Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind:" Psalm 104:1-3. So God needs a chariot . . . of clouds, no less?
Really, Jesus will return again in literal clouds? Does He really need a chariot of insubstantial water vapor? What is He really meaning? In his prophecy of judgment upon Egypt, Isaiah proclaimed: "The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it." Isaiah 19:1. "And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. All the bright lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD." Exekiel 32:7-8. God was proclaiming through His prophets, Isaiah and Ezekiel, impending doom for sins of that time and that the judgment would occur soon. God doesn't impose punishment indiscriminately; He's a careful district attorney. Does anyone argue that those events won't happen to those nations until Christ returns? If they do, they're taking their theology to an extreme, and they're not letting the scripture speak for itself.
Peter explained it to us: "But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." Acts 2:16-21, explicating Joel 2:28-31. Peter didn't stop with the prophesying and dreaming; he continued in his quote and included the part about the clouds of smoke and darkening of the sun. He said that what was happening in Acts 2 was the fulfillment of Joel's prophesy of judgment. The question is: Are you going to dispute Peter?! And the rest of scripture and claim that it hasn't happened yet?
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Sunday, December 22, 2013
Back to Acts - Stephen, the 1st martyr & most visionary of the early Christians
Stephen, above all others in the New Testament Church, even the apostles, understood the timing issue. See Acts chapters 6 and 7.
What was the faithful Israelite’s attitude at the time of the coming of Christ? He believed the law of Moses, the prophets, the histories, and the Psalms of David. He had a view of Israel as the premier nation, the nation God had chosen for a special purpose. I like to imagine that the 12 were that type; with all their failings, they were hoping for God’s promises of a kingdom to come true and to be a part of it.
Stephen was not one of the 12. We don’t know, but he might have been a follower in the crowds around Jesus, or he might have been someone who while visiting during the Feast of Pentecost, was such an Israelite like the Apostles. He caught the vision of the Kingdom, but Stephen was amazing. He had a better understanding of where Christ wanted His Kingdom heading than the apostles had when Jesus ascended to heaven. He understood the bringing in of the Gentiles, he understood grace but not just the grace of salvation/forgiveness but grace as it continued and was enhanced after Christ’s death. He understood there was a new high priest who had radically changed not just Israel, but the world. And he understood that Jerusalem was doomed, and the gospel would expand into the entire world.
Acts 6:3-5 “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. . . . And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,”
Acts 6:8 “And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.” My pastor called him gifted like an elder, not just a deacon. However, these words indicate giftings like an apostle. What wonders and miracles? Did the sun turn dark at noonday? Did the moon turn to blood at night? Were cripples jumping up at his word or touch? Luke doesn’t tell us, but these words are unique and indicate something beyond the normal ministry of healing even.
Notice that he didn’t go looking for controversy. He wasn’t going out and debating his opponents; he was doing Christ’s ministry, and they came after him. But like Jesus, he could handle a good debate. Remember how Jesus would embarrass those who tried to trick him? Think also of the movie Braveheart. I remember when I first watched it, I listened as character after character would give him sound, reasonable advice. I would listen and think, “That sounds like pretty good advice,” and then William Wallace, as portrayed by Mel Gibson, would respond with unassailable strength and conviction for his country and for freedom and for courage. He was a man on a mission. So was Stephen. But what mission.
Lev. 18:1-4: “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.”
I believe Stephen and the apostles believed in the mission of the Kingdom of God and that Israel was supposed to fulfill that mission. But what did it look like? Was it the nations flooding into a physical temple? Was it a David becoming King and taking over from Caesar the control of the known world? Stephen tells us what it looked like, partly through the eyes of his enemies.
Why did the apostles pick him? An honest man, full of faith and the Holy Spirit, a man committed to this new way of advancing the Kingdom – thru Christ not the priesthood of old, through Christ as King in heaven and over the earth, not by an earthly king; through preaching and wonders not through military power. Imagine Stephen in a prayer or worship meeting with a fellow Jew who was wavering in his faith, who maybe wondered whether it was true that God had chosen a new way through this crucified Christ instead of a powerful king, like King David of old? How would Stephen have spoken to him? A man full of faith! He would have warned and exhorted and encouraged:
"Don’t go back. This is God’s way now. He’s chosen our King, a King who cannot be destroyed, who conquered death. And He will conquer our enemies now! See these people who claim to be God’s people, who claim to rule in God’s name? They are hypocrites who reject God’s chosen King. Those who rejected King David were destroyed for rejecting the anointed one. His progeny went on to rule, and so will we. We are following in the footsteps of Christ the King, and we and our children and our grandchildren will not fail. Even if Jerusalem is destroyed, His Kingdom will go on throughout the whole world! We are a part of that, and we will not back down from the God of all grace who upholds His faithful. We have been chosen for this purpose, don’t you know."
He would have stood head and shoulders above all in his faith in this new way, and the apostles would have seen it. That’s why they picked him to be a deacon to wait on tables.
Notice the accusation his enemies made against him: “Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and [against] God. . . . And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.” As a former prosecutor in the Air Force, we had charges we brought against criminals. If we made a mistake, some of the charges may be correct, some not. In the case of Stephen, even the false accusers, I believe, got it right . . . in part. Even a false accusation should have some truth in fact. In Stephen’s case, he’s accused of serious crimes for that day – blasphemy against Moses, the law, this holy place (the temple), and even God. They were untrue and incorrect (there was no Mosaic law condemning saying the temple would be destroyed), as shown in his defense. However, the factual accusation that he said “that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us” was correct. Let me show you why.
Jesus in Mt. 24:2 said the temple would be destroyed within the period of the generation to which he was talking – “See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Jesus did change the customs Moses passed down. Heb. 7:11-2 speaks of Jesus fulfilling the Melchizedek priesthood instead of the Levitical: “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”
Stephen was more committed to God’s Kingdom than he was to the priesthood he and dozens of generations grew up with, the temple built by Solomon, even his own people and nation. Are you more loyal to God’s Kingdom than to the good ole US of A? Isn’t it ironic that Stephen was honored by God with the shining face of an angel in the same way Moses was, the one his accusers said he blasphemed!?
In his masterful defense in chap. 7, he spends 50 verses summarizing the history of Israel. During his speech, every head in the room was nodding in agreement, none of those Israelite enemies ever heard a more orthodox exposition of their history. He spoke of Abraham and the patriarchs and the promises, of the going to Egypt and the deliverance by Moses, the Israelites’ opposition to Joseph and later to Moses, their turning from God to a golden calf, King David and Solomon and the building of the temple, how the temple cannot contain the God of heavens and earth, the giving of the law, and the building of the temple. Some of his enemies were probably thinking, “Hey, this guy isn’t so bad after all.” He explained the appropriate view of the temple, even the view Solomon, the builder, held: “Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?”
Then he might have escaped if he had stopped there, but the indicted turned and leveled the indictment on his accusers: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.”
Following in the footsteps of the disobedient, the unfaithful, the killers of the prophets, they receive his accusation. And he accuses them of not keeping the law. He knew that Israel and the temple were not the end game for God and His goal of the Kingdom. He knew that they had hypocritically put their hope in a building, which was built for the King of the Universe and was intended to be temporary, while denying the very King who created all things. He held a high view of the law, just as Jesus did, and he knew that in denying and killing the Messiah, they had committed the greatest sin of history. Which, of course, would result in the greatest judgment of history – the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, yet at the same time, the escape of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem. The destruction of Jerusalem for Stephen, a loyal Jew, was not a disaster; it was the sign of the greatest change in history, the breaking down of the wall between Jew and Gentile, the opening of the kingdom of God to the Gentiles and the Jews, the undoing of the restriction of man from God's holy of holies.
So he was awarded with the vision of the Son of God at the right hand of God. Like Joseph speaking of his dreams, he was not afraid or ashamed to speak of what he saw. He knew the timing - it was now time for the kingdom, incubated in Israel's time from Moses to Christ, to move on - to the whole world, the footstool of God. Jerusalem, the rejector of Christ, was doomed, and so was the temporary temple that had been stationed there. Now those who worship God would worship Him in spirit and in truth from anywhere in the world and based on faith in Christ not physical descent from Abraham. Compared to Stephen, even Peter was slow in his understanding of God's purpose in and for the New Covenant.
What was the faithful Israelite’s attitude at the time of the coming of Christ? He believed the law of Moses, the prophets, the histories, and the Psalms of David. He had a view of Israel as the premier nation, the nation God had chosen for a special purpose. I like to imagine that the 12 were that type; with all their failings, they were hoping for God’s promises of a kingdom to come true and to be a part of it.
Stephen was not one of the 12. We don’t know, but he might have been a follower in the crowds around Jesus, or he might have been someone who while visiting during the Feast of Pentecost, was such an Israelite like the Apostles. He caught the vision of the Kingdom, but Stephen was amazing. He had a better understanding of where Christ wanted His Kingdom heading than the apostles had when Jesus ascended to heaven. He understood the bringing in of the Gentiles, he understood grace but not just the grace of salvation/forgiveness but grace as it continued and was enhanced after Christ’s death. He understood there was a new high priest who had radically changed not just Israel, but the world. And he understood that Jerusalem was doomed, and the gospel would expand into the entire world.
Acts 6:3-5 “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. . . . And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,”
Acts 6:8 “And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.” My pastor called him gifted like an elder, not just a deacon. However, these words indicate giftings like an apostle. What wonders and miracles? Did the sun turn dark at noonday? Did the moon turn to blood at night? Were cripples jumping up at his word or touch? Luke doesn’t tell us, but these words are unique and indicate something beyond the normal ministry of healing even.
Notice that he didn’t go looking for controversy. He wasn’t going out and debating his opponents; he was doing Christ’s ministry, and they came after him. But like Jesus, he could handle a good debate. Remember how Jesus would embarrass those who tried to trick him? Think also of the movie Braveheart. I remember when I first watched it, I listened as character after character would give him sound, reasonable advice. I would listen and think, “That sounds like pretty good advice,” and then William Wallace, as portrayed by Mel Gibson, would respond with unassailable strength and conviction for his country and for freedom and for courage. He was a man on a mission. So was Stephen. But what mission.
Lev. 18:1-4: “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the LORD your God. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.”
I believe Stephen and the apostles believed in the mission of the Kingdom of God and that Israel was supposed to fulfill that mission. But what did it look like? Was it the nations flooding into a physical temple? Was it a David becoming King and taking over from Caesar the control of the known world? Stephen tells us what it looked like, partly through the eyes of his enemies.
Why did the apostles pick him? An honest man, full of faith and the Holy Spirit, a man committed to this new way of advancing the Kingdom – thru Christ not the priesthood of old, through Christ as King in heaven and over the earth, not by an earthly king; through preaching and wonders not through military power. Imagine Stephen in a prayer or worship meeting with a fellow Jew who was wavering in his faith, who maybe wondered whether it was true that God had chosen a new way through this crucified Christ instead of a powerful king, like King David of old? How would Stephen have spoken to him? A man full of faith! He would have warned and exhorted and encouraged:
"Don’t go back. This is God’s way now. He’s chosen our King, a King who cannot be destroyed, who conquered death. And He will conquer our enemies now! See these people who claim to be God’s people, who claim to rule in God’s name? They are hypocrites who reject God’s chosen King. Those who rejected King David were destroyed for rejecting the anointed one. His progeny went on to rule, and so will we. We are following in the footsteps of Christ the King, and we and our children and our grandchildren will not fail. Even if Jerusalem is destroyed, His Kingdom will go on throughout the whole world! We are a part of that, and we will not back down from the God of all grace who upholds His faithful. We have been chosen for this purpose, don’t you know."
He would have stood head and shoulders above all in his faith in this new way, and the apostles would have seen it. That’s why they picked him to be a deacon to wait on tables.
Notice the accusation his enemies made against him: “Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and [against] God. . . . And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law: For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.” As a former prosecutor in the Air Force, we had charges we brought against criminals. If we made a mistake, some of the charges may be correct, some not. In the case of Stephen, even the false accusers, I believe, got it right . . . in part. Even a false accusation should have some truth in fact. In Stephen’s case, he’s accused of serious crimes for that day – blasphemy against Moses, the law, this holy place (the temple), and even God. They were untrue and incorrect (there was no Mosaic law condemning saying the temple would be destroyed), as shown in his defense. However, the factual accusation that he said “that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us” was correct. Let me show you why.
Jesus in Mt. 24:2 said the temple would be destroyed within the period of the generation to which he was talking – “See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Jesus did change the customs Moses passed down. Heb. 7:11-2 speaks of Jesus fulfilling the Melchizedek priesthood instead of the Levitical: “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”
Stephen was more committed to God’s Kingdom than he was to the priesthood he and dozens of generations grew up with, the temple built by Solomon, even his own people and nation. Are you more loyal to God’s Kingdom than to the good ole US of A? Isn’t it ironic that Stephen was honored by God with the shining face of an angel in the same way Moses was, the one his accusers said he blasphemed!?
In his masterful defense in chap. 7, he spends 50 verses summarizing the history of Israel. During his speech, every head in the room was nodding in agreement, none of those Israelite enemies ever heard a more orthodox exposition of their history. He spoke of Abraham and the patriarchs and the promises, of the going to Egypt and the deliverance by Moses, the Israelites’ opposition to Joseph and later to Moses, their turning from God to a golden calf, King David and Solomon and the building of the temple, how the temple cannot contain the God of heavens and earth, the giving of the law, and the building of the temple. Some of his enemies were probably thinking, “Hey, this guy isn’t so bad after all.” He explained the appropriate view of the temple, even the view Solomon, the builder, held: “Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Lord: or what is the place of my rest? Hath not my hand made all these things?”
Then he might have escaped if he had stopped there, but the indicted turned and leveled the indictment on his accusers: “Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.”
Following in the footsteps of the disobedient, the unfaithful, the killers of the prophets, they receive his accusation. And he accuses them of not keeping the law. He knew that Israel and the temple were not the end game for God and His goal of the Kingdom. He knew that they had hypocritically put their hope in a building, which was built for the King of the Universe and was intended to be temporary, while denying the very King who created all things. He held a high view of the law, just as Jesus did, and he knew that in denying and killing the Messiah, they had committed the greatest sin of history. Which, of course, would result in the greatest judgment of history – the massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, yet at the same time, the escape of the Jewish Christians from Jerusalem. The destruction of Jerusalem for Stephen, a loyal Jew, was not a disaster; it was the sign of the greatest change in history, the breaking down of the wall between Jew and Gentile, the opening of the kingdom of God to the Gentiles and the Jews, the undoing of the restriction of man from God's holy of holies.
So he was awarded with the vision of the Son of God at the right hand of God. Like Joseph speaking of his dreams, he was not afraid or ashamed to speak of what he saw. He knew the timing - it was now time for the kingdom, incubated in Israel's time from Moses to Christ, to move on - to the whole world, the footstool of God. Jerusalem, the rejector of Christ, was doomed, and so was the temporary temple that had been stationed there. Now those who worship God would worship Him in spirit and in truth from anywhere in the world and based on faith in Christ not physical descent from Abraham. Compared to Stephen, even Peter was slow in his understanding of God's purpose in and for the New Covenant.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Matthew 26:64 - The Right Hand of Power
There is much to be said about the right hand of God, some of which I've mentioned in another post about the throne of David. In Matthew 26:64, and after being silent before the High Priest and others at His trial, Jesus responds to the High Priest's legal challenge: "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Matthew 26:63. His response is singular in the words He uses in the New Testament. "Thou hast said; nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matthew 26:64. See also Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69 also.
There are many ways to look at and study this statement, but I want to focus on one aspect of it. Here's a question: With respect to speaking about who He is, when do you remember Jesus ever saying anything like that? He referred to Himself as the Son of Man often, and throughout the gospel of John, He emphasized His relationship to the Father as the explanation of His identity. However, I don't remember Him ever referring to Himself as sitting on the right hand of God or the power of heaven. He references Psalm 2 in Matthew 22:44: "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?" He said this just a few days before He answered the High Priest about sitting on the right hand of God. The author of Acts records messages referring to Christ a couple of times as being at the right hand of God, and normally as proof of His messiahship and in the face of challenge to that fact by unbelievers. Acts 2:33; 7:55-6. And why does He say "the right hand of power" instead of the right hand of the Father or of God?
In another part of the gospel story, again taking place in the week before His death, a portion of his reply to the High Priest appears: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matthew 24:30. The Matthew 24 prophecy by the Prophet, Jesus Christ, is worthy of its own discussion in another post. It would require too much to discuss all of it in this post. It seems that the closer He approached His unjust death, Christ used this reference to refer to Himself. And His followers used the reference when facing opposition from unbelievers.
If this reference to the right hand of Power and His coming in the clouds of heaven is such an important explanation of His identity and justification for His claim to the premier position in the universe, why does it appear only in the last week of His life? Jesus tells the High Priest that he will see this. Yes, I suppose the High Priest and the other persecutors of Christ would see it is true when he stands before God at the final judgment. I suppose "you" can mean a general "you," as in the whole world one day, but Jesus used this fact of His coronation and ascension to the throne of God as the proof needed by those challenging His identity; it was apparently not for His followers. But as opposed to seeing Christ sitting at God's right hand at the Judgment Day or the general "you" seeing that also, if the High Priest would see Him coming with the clouds of heaven on earth, then it had to happen before the High Priest's death.
Why was it in the last week of Christ's life that He used this phrase? Why did He refer to "the power" instead of God or the Father? I have to accept Christ's words at face value - that the High Priest and the other persecutors would see that Jesus was exalted and coming with the clouds of heaven. So how did they see it?
There are many ways to look at and study this statement, but I want to focus on one aspect of it. Here's a question: With respect to speaking about who He is, when do you remember Jesus ever saying anything like that? He referred to Himself as the Son of Man often, and throughout the gospel of John, He emphasized His relationship to the Father as the explanation of His identity. However, I don't remember Him ever referring to Himself as sitting on the right hand of God or the power of heaven. He references Psalm 2 in Matthew 22:44: "How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?" He said this just a few days before He answered the High Priest about sitting on the right hand of God. The author of Acts records messages referring to Christ a couple of times as being at the right hand of God, and normally as proof of His messiahship and in the face of challenge to that fact by unbelievers. Acts 2:33; 7:55-6. And why does He say "the right hand of power" instead of the right hand of the Father or of God?
In another part of the gospel story, again taking place in the week before His death, a portion of his reply to the High Priest appears: "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matthew 24:30. The Matthew 24 prophecy by the Prophet, Jesus Christ, is worthy of its own discussion in another post. It would require too much to discuss all of it in this post. It seems that the closer He approached His unjust death, Christ used this reference to refer to Himself. And His followers used the reference when facing opposition from unbelievers.
If this reference to the right hand of Power and His coming in the clouds of heaven is such an important explanation of His identity and justification for His claim to the premier position in the universe, why does it appear only in the last week of His life? Jesus tells the High Priest that he will see this. Yes, I suppose the High Priest and the other persecutors of Christ would see it is true when he stands before God at the final judgment. I suppose "you" can mean a general "you," as in the whole world one day, but Jesus used this fact of His coronation and ascension to the throne of God as the proof needed by those challenging His identity; it was apparently not for His followers. But as opposed to seeing Christ sitting at God's right hand at the Judgment Day or the general "you" seeing that also, if the High Priest would see Him coming with the clouds of heaven on earth, then it had to happen before the High Priest's death.
Why was it in the last week of Christ's life that He used this phrase? Why did He refer to "the power" instead of God or the Father? I have to accept Christ's words at face value - that the High Priest and the other persecutors would see that Jesus was exalted and coming with the clouds of heaven. So how did they see it?
Monday, December 9, 2013
Dominion - Whose? When?
"For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." Hebrews 2:5-10.
Who's it talking about? Depends on when you read it. Before Christ, it's talking about man, humanity, the Adamic creation, but after Christ, it's clearly talking about Christ. But it couldn't do away with the general reference to man, could it? No, it also refers to man in Christ, the new creation, the second Adam. Those who believe in Christ rule and reign with Him, who is above all rule and authority and to whom has been given the entire creation. Of course, the Hebrews 2 passage was always speaking of Christ, for He was the One to come, the King to whom all kings should bow, the Messiah to whom the Patriarchs and Prophets looked forward.
When did Christ become King of the universe? Never. He always was King of the universe. So why did He come to earth? To become man and become King of the universe and adopt the rest of us into His family - to rule and reign with Him, the second Adam, the new man. To lead us by example. So suffering does not indicate you are not the reigning King. Jesus suffered, was humiliated, died a horrifying death that no King should have to suffer. It was not the evidence He was not King; it lead to the resurrection, the evidence He is King.
We are blessed if we suffer for His name's sake. So how can suffering be an indication of something bad to happen, of the end of all of God's world He created?
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26-8. So if suffering leads to rule, and if Christ the King of the universe suffered before being given the highest kingship of all, why do we plan on Christ's earth being ruled by the evil one?
If God intended man to take dominion, how can that plan and intention fail? How can Satan get what he wants - the thwarting of God's plan for man to rule the earth? That is what those demand when they say that Christ's rule must await His second coming, that Christ must return for Christ and His followers to experience victory and rule.
Who's it talking about? Depends on when you read it. Before Christ, it's talking about man, humanity, the Adamic creation, but after Christ, it's clearly talking about Christ. But it couldn't do away with the general reference to man, could it? No, it also refers to man in Christ, the new creation, the second Adam. Those who believe in Christ rule and reign with Him, who is above all rule and authority and to whom has been given the entire creation. Of course, the Hebrews 2 passage was always speaking of Christ, for He was the One to come, the King to whom all kings should bow, the Messiah to whom the Patriarchs and Prophets looked forward.
When did Christ become King of the universe? Never. He always was King of the universe. So why did He come to earth? To become man and become King of the universe and adopt the rest of us into His family - to rule and reign with Him, the second Adam, the new man. To lead us by example. So suffering does not indicate you are not the reigning King. Jesus suffered, was humiliated, died a horrifying death that no King should have to suffer. It was not the evidence He was not King; it lead to the resurrection, the evidence He is King.
We are blessed if we suffer for His name's sake. So how can suffering be an indication of something bad to happen, of the end of all of God's world He created?
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Genesis 1:26-8. So if suffering leads to rule, and if Christ the King of the universe suffered before being given the highest kingship of all, why do we plan on Christ's earth being ruled by the evil one?
If God intended man to take dominion, how can that plan and intention fail? How can Satan get what he wants - the thwarting of God's plan for man to rule the earth? That is what those demand when they say that Christ's rule must await His second coming, that Christ must return for Christ and His followers to experience victory and rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)