There is a sense in which, if what I have been saying is correct, it might seem unnecessary to argue that Christ is ruling over the nations. After all, Christ had already claimed, before his ascension, to have received all authority in heaven and on earth. When he sat down at God’s right hand, he sat down on his throne above all rule and power and every name that is named. It seems that this would naturally include authority over the nations.
But it is apparent that not everyone draws this specific conclusion from these general premises; and so, I offer up two passages that I believe support this claim more or less clearly. I admit, these passages are not great in number, nor are they as straightforward as one trying to support my position might hope, but I think that what they say goes a long way toward supporting the idea that, even as the apostles were writing, Christ was reigning over the nations.
In the preface to the book of Revelation, John identifies Jesus as the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth (1:5). He is not describing, as it seems to me, what Jesus would someday be or ought to have been, but declaring instead what was true of Christ at the very time he was writing. It appears, then, that even before the close of the canon, Jesus was already ruling the kings of the earth.
In the letter to the church of Thyatira, Jesus told the saints there that he that overcometh and he that keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give authority over the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to shivers; as I also have received of my Father (Rev 2:27).
There is, in this passage, a promise that was clearly focused upon the future. Those saints who were part of the church in Thyatira, if they were faithful, would one day in the future share with Christ in exercising authority and rule over the nations. But notice: this future promise to the saints is based upon an already-accomplished achievement for Christ. For as he says, this authority and this rule over the nations was something he had already received of his Father. Is this not what the passage says? How does it fail to prove that Christ, at the time he spoke this promise to his church, already possessed authority over the nations or that he was already ruling them with a rod of iron?
If we can say that Jesus is already ruler of the kings of the earth- and we must if we are to be true to scripture- if we can say that he has already received authority over the nations and that he has already received to rule them with a rod of iron, how can we not say that he is presently reigning over the nations? I am sincerely interested to hear from those who disagree with these conclusions. I would very much like to understand why you believe they do not follow from these passages.
13 comments:
i think i need to hear more about what you mean by ruling over the nations.
by ruling, are you stating something more like romans 13?
i can see one sense where ruling shouldn't be an issue to anyone. however, i have heard it used in another context that i find quite troubling. perhaps answering some specifics could help:
how is Christ ruling and reigning over America now?
how is Christ ruling and reigning over Iran now?
how was Christ ruling and reigning over hitler led germany?
how was Christ ruling and reigning over islam's conquest of much of asia and europe in the 1000's AD?
how is Jesus ruling over the pepsi nation?
Well, first, I think the scriptures are much more explcit on the FACT of Christ's present reign than they are about the precise NATURE of that reign. Therefore, my answers to your particular questions will necessarily be more speculative than what I've said to this point. But I'll try to answer to the best of my understanding.
I believe that Christ is ruling over each of these nations (yes, even the pepsi nation) in the sense that each citizen and each leader of the states themselves have an inherent obligation to submit to his will and obey his commands. Again, if he were not reigning, I do not see how it would be wrong for them to conduct their affairs without any concern for how he viewed them.
Christ reigns over non-believing nations by patiently calling them to repentance and submission to his Lordship and by eventually (who knows after how long) judging them if they persist in their rebellion.
He reigns over especially evil nations in the sense that he is uses their atrocities for his own mysterious purposes, often it seems to judge other nations or to chasten his churches, and then by judging those nations when they have served those purposes.
It occurs to me as I am writing that my conception of Christ's present reign over the nations is very much like my understanding of God the Father's reign over the nations in the Old Testament. Only that now there is a much more explicit call being given for the nations to repent and follow Christ. After all, that is the essence of the Great commision: To turn the nations into followers of Christ who obey all things that he commanded his apostles.
Again, the gospel message seems to me to be much less "submit to Christ so that he can be your Lord" and much more "submit to Christ BECAUSE he is your Lord, whether you realize it or not."
Forgive me if my answers are somewhat scattered and incomplete. I'm really just beginning to come to grips with some of these concepts myself. Which is why I so appreciate the feedback and the questions. Thanks for being willing to engage.
this is great. i enjoy the dialogue too.
not only does the ot and nt definition of reigning sound similar, but it seems the preterist and disponsational definition of reigning don't sound very different either.
Danny, I don't fully understand your last comment. What similarities do you see between the preterist and dispensational understanding of Christ's reign? I'd be happy to think that there is at least some common ground.
Matt, do you really think Christ is not yet ruling the nations with a rod of iron? What do you understand Revelation 2:27 to say about this? Also, check out the other biblical uses of that phrase, especially the matter of dashing nations to pieces.
Having some preterist tendencies, I have to say that I think Satan's power in the nations has been greatly diminished (specifically in his capacity to deceive the nations) even since the close of the New Testament. This stems largely from my belief that the book of Revelation is prophesying events that were shortly to come to pass, that is within the lifetimes of its original audience.
Ther is so much here to digest.
I would like to ask a question, taking off from our recent discussions.
If the "generation" passage is literal to "that" generation hearing Christ speak, then why isn't John 15:16 only applicable to the disciples (esp. in light of John 6:70)? We use 15:16 to defend election.
Matt,
Please, challenge away; being challenged is the only way I learn.
Rod of iron: You're right, the main thrust of what Jesus is saying in Rev. 2:27 is that those who held to their confession in the great tribulation would, in the future, rule the nations with a rod of iron.
But look again at the last thing he says. He tells them that he would give them this rule even as he HAD already RECEIVED the same from his Father. The saints' participation in this rule might commence within that generation or not for a hundred generations, for that matter, but CHRIST'S exercise of that rule was a reality even as he was speaking to those seven churches.
Satan's power: I'm not going to try and prove that the world has gotten better over the last two thousand years, or that the church has gotten purer, or that true Christians are more numerous. I don't know how anyone could satisfactorily prove any of those claims.
But I will say this. You compare today to the fifties and say that because things are worse now they must be getting worse in general. I don't know if that's the most informative comparison. How do the 1950's compare to the 1750's? the 1550's? the 1250? the 650's? what about just the plain old 50's?
In which of these eras has the world (not just America, not just the west, but the world) been most most thorougly permeated by the gospel. Was there some golden age of the church from which we've been departing ever since? Have we really been witnessing a steady downward trend, not just over the last fifty years but over the last two thousand? I don't know. Maybe.
But one more thing on this note. The issue in question is not whether or not we can see that Satan is bound, but whether or not that is what the scriptures declare. If the scriptures do not support the notion that Satan is bound, then I'm a fool for believing so. But if the scriptures do in fact teach this, it then it doesn't matter what I see with my eyes, I have to believe it. So do the scriptures teach this? I think so. Many do not.
Incidentally, the argument, "How can Satan be bound, look at all the sin and suffering in the world." is not that different from the atheist's favorite defense "How can you say that there is a sovereign loving God, look at all the sin and suffering in the world." (please understand I'm not at all saying that you're anything like an atheist, I'm just trying to show the problems with this kind of argument.)
David,
I do believe that Jesus spoke the words in John 15:16 with only the apostles in mind. But I also believe that this specific instance illustrates a general principle of how Christ operates.
Then how do you explain Matthew 24:34 concerning the "generation"? Why is a duality not employed there?
Matt. 24:34 says "all these things" must take place before the generation that sees them begin (v. 33) passes away. The following things have not happened: 1) ALL of the tribes of the earth did not mourn in AD70, which is synonymous with the sixth seal of Revelation; 2) ALL of the elect (those who were alive and remain, as Paul taught) clearly were not taken up in AD70; 3) heaven and earth did not pass away after AD70.
Matt. 24:34 requires that ALL of those things happen. They have not all happened.
Jesus continues His context in Matt. 25:31 by stating a second time, "when the Son of Man comes in His glory". First of all, no room is left for Christ to come in His glory, then leave and then come again. The parousia is the parousia. Secondly, this adds something else that did not happen at AD70: all the nations were not gathered before Him.
The indication of scripture is that when Christ appears in His glory (Matt. 24:30) He remains visible and present, first to rain down wrath on the earth (gathering the nations before Him) and then to rule the nations. Preterism wrongly asserts that He appears in His glory, and then disappears for a long time. On the contrary, the parables clearly state that the Master goes away for a long time and then comes back once. There is never a hint that he would leave again.
Again, speaking to the inconsistent hermeneutic of preterism, who was Jesus speaking to when He said, "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also."? According to preterism's hermeneutic, Christ could only be speaking to those who heard Him, and in general principle, according to preterism's ermeneutic, Christ must be speaking to us. Yet, scripture does not make that allowance. A plain reading indicates otherwise: that Christ comes back once for ALL elect who have died, and, in that same coming, for ALL elect who are still alive. Preterism wrongly requires this to happen twice.
That is as ludicrous and unscriptural as an invisible rapture.
Matthew 24:30 speaks of Christ coming in His glory; Matthew 25:31 says the same thing. Matthew 24:34 says "when you see all these things" He is "near", even "at the door". It does not say He has "arrived" and "entered through the door". Matthew 25:31-46 make it perfectly clear that when He enters "through the door", so to speak, He stays present through the end of final judgement.
Matt. 24:34 cleary ties together great signs in the clouds with the coming of Christ. Moreover, this appearing incites the nations to mourn at His appearing. These things are ALL exactly as described at the sixth seal of Revelation 6:12-17. Moreover, the eruption of signs in the sky is always refered to as the great and terrible Day of the Lord. In fact, all the nations of the EARTH are freaked out, according to Revelation 6. That did not happen at AD70. Preterism cannot take the generation of Matthew 24 to be literally "THAT" generation, and then redefine "EARTH" to be only those in the Mediterranean at AD70, which preterism must necessarily do.
Preterism is every bit as convoluted in its hermeneutical dualities as is dispensationalism.
Regarding the kingdom and Christ's rule, what is preterism's explanation of John 14:30, "I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming (erchomai), and he has nothing in Me." Who is that ruler of the world? When is he coming? Why is he coming? Why isn't he already here when Christ is speaking? This speaks to Daniel 9, where the Messiah was cut off, and had nothing. WHy didn't He have anything? Was it because the ruler of the world killed Him?
When Jesus ascended to heaven, as pictured in Rev. 12:5, is it conceiveable that the reign of Christ in heaven, and His parousia, parallels the ruler of this world on earth (Rev. 12:9-17) until his demise at the erchomai of Christ to the earth? Rev. 13 indicates clearly that the saints are under the authoritative reign of someone other than Christ.
What about James 5:7, "Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains." What are the early rains? Was it Christ's advent? What are the late rains? Was it AD70? Or were the early rains AD70 and the late rains a future coming? Or something else? What are WE in this generation waiting on, and how do we know?
Wow, David. Talk about having a lot to digest! I can't promise a thorough response to each of these points before Sunday (O.K. I can't even promise it for Sunday, but I'll do my best).
And speaking of Sunday, if you still have room in your van for someone with such inconsistent and convoluted hermeneutic, who has come to so many ludicrous and unscriptural conclusions, I would love to go up to Covington with you guys. Let me know.
Again, thanks for engaging. Looks like I might have a lot to learn.
All right, David. I think I'll need to take this a couple of pieces at a time.
Then how do you explain Matthew 24:34 concerning the "generation"? Why is a duality not employed there?
I believe I'm applying the same "duality" to this passage as well. Christ is speaking to the generation of his hearers, but again his words illustrate a general principle of how he operates: when Christ promises to do something within a given time, he does so.
Matt. 24:34 says "all these things" must take place before the generation that sees them begin (v. 33) passes away. The following things have not happened: 1) ALL of the tribes of the earth did not mourn in AD70, which is synonymous with the sixth seal of Revelation; 2) ALL of the elect (those who were alive and remain, as Paul taught) clearly were not taken up in AD70; 3) heaven and earth did not pass away after AD70.
Matthew 24:34 requires ALL of those things happen. They have not all happened.
First, I believe the defining characteristic of "this generation" is not those who would see these things (though certainly they would) but that evil generation that was in the process of rejecting Christ. This is the way these words are used each of the other twenty-six times they appear in the gospels and the Acts.
1) I have always understood, perhaps erroneously, that "tribes of "earth" in Rev 1 meant tribes of the "land." I thought that the Greek word can mean either and often means the latter. Also, the parallels between Rev 1 and Zechariah 12 (particularly the "piercing" and "mourning" language) seem to me to reinforce this notion. If this is the case, than it certianly can be argued that the tribes of the land, meaning Israel, mourned in 70 A.D. If it is not the case, then your point appears stronger.
2) You're right. The indication from other passages is that ALL the elect were to be taken up. This is hard to beleive. I wouldn't even consider it if the rest of the passage didn't appear, to me at least, to demand it.
3)I don't see the necessity of saying that the passing away of heaven and earth, follows closely after the things that were to befall that generation.
Hope you don't mind me responding piecemeal. Thanks again for forcing me to think through these things a little more thoroughly.
Round 2:
Jesus continues His context in Matt. 25:31 by stating a second time, "when the Son of Man comes in His glory". First of all, no room is left for Christ to come in His glory, then leave and then come again. The parousia is the parousia. Secondly, this adds something else that did not happen at AD70: all the nations were not gathered before Him.
It does seem to me that there is scriptural reason to say that Christ would return to heaven after coming, but I'll address this when I answer your observations from John 14.
As far as the gathering of the nations in Matt 25 is concerned, however, I admit that I don't know precisely what to do with this. A couple of observations, though. First, this does not seem to me to fit the profile of an earthly temporal judgment like would precede the common conception of a milennial kingdom. Here Christ is clearly proncouncing eternal sentences (it even sounds like the evil are being thrown into the lake of fire, which is the second death).
Second, this judgment appears to be measured on the basis of how these nations have treated his disciples. All that to say that it doesn't seem to fit so neatly in any scheme, and I can see it fitting just as well in a heavenly judgment scene that could work just as well in the 70 AD scenario as it would fit anywhere else. (And remember, by "heavenly" I don't mean "not real")
Finally, this is not one of those events, according to Matthew 24, which must happen within "this generation." It appears to take place after the parousia, but it doesn't say how long after. This gathering of the nations could just as easily be a reference to the final judgment.
I know that I'm sounding mealy-mouthed about much of this. But there are some things about which I am fairly confident, and others which I admit I find rather confusing. That's one reason that, up to this point at least, I have avoided addressing issues of preterism in my actual posts. I don't mind discussing it here and answering questions about it (all right, I admit I thoroughly enjoy it) but it's not the kind of thing I'm prepared to argue as forthrightly as I have some of these other issues which seem to me to be able to stand fairly independently of preterism.
The indication of scripture is that when Christ appears in His glory (Matt. 24:30) He remains visible and present, first to rain down wrath on the earth (gathering the nations before Him) and then to rule the nations.
I don't see this so clearly.
Preterism wrongly asserts that He appears in His glory, and then disappears for a long time. On the contrary, the parables clearly state that the Master goes away for a long time and then comes back once. There is never a hint that he would leave again.
I'm not sure how much prophetic detail I'm comfortable extracting from parables. I do see your point. I believe, however, that your next comment contains a strong hint that Jesus would in fact return to heaven after his parousia. For you say:
Again, speaking to the inconsistent hermeneutic of preterism, who was Jesus speaking to when He said, "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also."?
First of all, if you don't mind, I'll defer the issue of Jesus' audience and just assume for the sake of the present point that he's at least talking to his disciples.
In the verse immediately preceding the verse you've quoted, Jesus also says that the place he was going away to prepare for the disciples was in his Father's house. Wasn't this in heaven?
A couple of verses before that, He expressly says that his disciples would be following him to where he was going. Wasn't he going to heaven?
I don't know; as hard as I tried to fight this idea when I first parted ways with dispensationalism, I don't see any clear way around it. Jesus was going to go away into heaven, prepare a place for his disciples and then come and receive them to be with him in the place he had prepared for them. That place was in his Father's house in heaven.
Please explain how all of this can be so without Jesus returning to heaven after his coming.
well, if we keep the audience as strictly His disciples, each of them was ushered into the presence of God through martyrdom.
they were together with their Savior even before 70 ad.
this is a good discussion, and i've had fun observing most from a distance.
Danny,
Yes, all but one that is (the one whom Christ suggested might live to his coming and therefore never die). Good point.
I'm sincerely pleased that you're enjoying the discussion.
Now back to David.
According to preterism's hermeneutic, Christ could only be speaking to those who heard Him, and in general principle, according to preterism's ermeneutic, Christ must be speaking to us. Yet, scripture does not make that allowance. A plain reading indicates otherwise: that Christ comes back once for ALL elect who have died, and, in that same coming, for ALL elect who are still alive. Preterism wrongly requires this to happen twice.
The latter part of this comment I've already addressed and will wait for your response before saying more...No, I have to add one more comment, though it may not be precisely on point. Scripture explicitly says that there will be at least two resurrections (Rev 20), and if you take this text literally, it is only the tribulation martyrs who partake in the first. Therefore, all the other saints do not raise until after the millennial period, thus, at least two resurrections of the saints. O.K. no more on that for now.
As to the first part of your comment: I can't claim to speak authoritatively about the preterist hermeneutic. But I can say that what you've described here is not quite my hermeneutic. I did say that John 15:16 had an immediate application to the disciples from which a general principle could be derived, but I do not believe that every passage of scripture can be said to operate in this same way. I don't believe that Jesus must be talking to us every time he is speaking to the disciples.
Then here's my favorite:
That is as ludicrous and unscriptural as an invisible rapture.
Perhaps the former adjective is applicable. I've yet to be convinced of the latter, but I'm still open to the possibility.
Skipping ahead a little, we come to another little gem:
Preterism is every bit as convoluted in its hermeneutical dualities as is dispensationalism.
Sticks and stones, brother.
On each of the other portions of you comments about the coming of Christ, defense rests. I do intend, however, to address your last three paragraphs before closing my case completely. That is if you're still reading...Hello?
Post a Comment