Christ’s Davidic position is emphasized several times in the book of Revelation. At the end of this vision, he says of himself, I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright, the morning star (
It appears, furthermore, that Christ held this Davidic position in more than name alone. The letter to the
What is significant, of course, is that this authority is clearly identified as the key of David. Whatever power was signified by this key, whatever authority it indicated, it was in some sense the same authority that had been possessed and exercised by David himself. Therefore, we see that even as John was recording the words of this prophecy, Christ had already received and was already exercising authority, not only from his Father God, but also from his father David. It is difficult to see how scripture could attribute such power to Christ yet still teach that he was not yet ruling on David's throne.
1 comment:
i've been listening, for quite some time now, to you saying that you view Christ as reigning in a more superior way than dispensationalists.
i just don't see it.
For quite some time? Yes, I know. I confess that I am quite conscious of how I must appear to be needlessly dragging this topic around the yard. Believe it or not, there are other Christological issue that I'm exceedingly anxious to discuss. It's hard for me to put into words, but I feel very strongly that a proper understanding of Christ's present kingly ministry is important to the church, and I just don't perceive that she grasps that truth as well as she might.
In a superior way? Maybe. Perhaps instead, I would say "more fully". I do believe that Christ is reigning in some specific ways (in the church, over the nations, on the throne of David) that many dispensationalists and some others, flatly deny. Some refuse to admit that he is reigning in any sense. Your next comments lead me to believe you are not in the latter category, but I urge you to believe me, there are many who are.
i don't deny God's sovereignty over everything, nor that Christ is seated at the right hand of God. but that which you must make figurative, or must try to explain as happening in an indistinguisable way, i see as literally coming in the future.
it does not mean that i don't see Christ as ruling now. He is. it's just that i'm also waiting for the day when He will rule in Jerusalem, literally seated on a throne there.
This is difficult for me. I really don't see that these doctrines are based on figurative exegesis. However, I am more than willing to be corrected. As far as the future is concerned, I know there is so much more to come. I believe very strongly, for example, that Christ will one day rule very literally on earth from a very literal throne in a very literal Jerusalem. But I am convinced that many Christians are not even close to grasping what blessings have already come and what promises have already been fulfilled in Christ(and I'm not here talking about any wacky preterist notions).
do some dispee's diminsh the rule of Christ now to try to articulate His future rule, probably? do i think you must say Christ is not ruling now to believe He will rule in the futre? i don't see it.
I think you have said it as well as it can be said. And that is why I feel so compelled to address the issue.
As one wise man quoting another wise man once said, "We have somehow got hold of the idea that error is only that which is outrageously wrong; and we do not seem to understand that the most dangerous person of all is the one who does not emphasize the right things."
Maybe I've not correctly identified the negative doctrinal reprecussions of this error (eg. non-lordship), but how could some measure of doctrinal disaster fail to follow the deemphasis of such a central biblical truth? The sovereign rule of the King of Kings does not strike me as the kind of thing that the church can safely diminish.
in what ways to you see Christ ruling or sovereign that I am not willing to concede?
I would part with a limb to know the answer to that question.
Post a Comment