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.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Saturday, August 26, 2006
The Reign of Christ in the Church
As I’ve been attempting to demonstrate, even during the apostolic age, Christ was reigning in heaven and over all heavenly beings. As Peter said, he was on the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities being made subject to him. But there are, I believe, many verses that show that, at the same time, Christ was also reigning over earth. As promised, I’ll now be attempting to prove that, even while he was reigning from heaven, Christ was already ruling over the earth: in the church, over the nations, over Israel and from the throne of David.
1. Christ was reigning in the church.
One sub-issue frequently in play between proponents of the various millennial positions is the relationship between Christ’s kingdom and the church. Some postmillennialists and amillennialists go so far as to say the two are nearly identical, while some premillennialists say that there is little to no present connection between the two. While defining the precise relationship between the church and the kingdom would be beyond the scope of this post, I would at least argue that, though the kingdom of Christ extends beyond the church, the church is clearly an earthly manifestation of his kingdom and, as such, is proof of his earthly reign.
There is, of course much controversy over the meaning of Jesus’ words to Peter that he would build his church upon this rock (Matt. 16:18). It is evident, however, that in the next breath, Christ did promise to give Peter great authority in the church. What is important to the present discussion is Christ’s designation of this authority as the keys of the kingdom of heaven (16:19). Peter’s authority in the church, then, was identified as authority in the kingdom. This suggests, at the very least, a very significant relationship between the church and the kingdom.
Second, Paul told the saints of Ephesus that God had given Christ to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all (1:22). More specifically, he told the Colossians that God had already delivered them out of the power of darkness, and translated them into the kingdom of the Son of his love (1:13). Christ was the head of the church, and the saints were, therefore, subjects of his kingdom.
Finally, John, in the book of Revelation, reminded his readers that in addition to loosing them from their sins by his blood, Christ had also already made them to be a kingdom to be priests unto his God and Father (1:6). This was a kingdom in which John was a partaker with them (1:9). Here, then, we see direct identification of the saints as the kingdom of Christ. Again, while it might be too much to say that the kingdom of Christ is fully identical with the church, it seems clear, on the basis of these passages, that the church is at least an earthly manifestation of that kingdom and, therefore, of his reign upon the earth.
1. Christ was reigning in the church.
One sub-issue frequently in play between proponents of the various millennial positions is the relationship between Christ’s kingdom and the church. Some postmillennialists and amillennialists go so far as to say the two are nearly identical, while some premillennialists say that there is little to no present connection between the two. While defining the precise relationship between the church and the kingdom would be beyond the scope of this post, I would at least argue that, though the kingdom of Christ extends beyond the church, the church is clearly an earthly manifestation of his kingdom and, as such, is proof of his earthly reign.
There is, of course much controversy over the meaning of Jesus’ words to Peter that he would build his church upon this rock (Matt. 16:18). It is evident, however, that in the next breath, Christ did promise to give Peter great authority in the church. What is important to the present discussion is Christ’s designation of this authority as the keys of the kingdom of heaven (16:19). Peter’s authority in the church, then, was identified as authority in the kingdom. This suggests, at the very least, a very significant relationship between the church and the kingdom.
Second, Paul told the saints of Ephesus that God had given Christ to be head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all (1:22). More specifically, he told the Colossians that God had already delivered them out of the power of darkness, and translated them into the kingdom of the Son of his love (1:13). Christ was the head of the church, and the saints were, therefore, subjects of his kingdom.
Finally, John, in the book of Revelation, reminded his readers that in addition to loosing them from their sins by his blood, Christ had also already made them to be a kingdom to be priests unto his God and Father (1:6). This was a kingdom in which John was a partaker with them (1:9). Here, then, we see direct identification of the saints as the kingdom of Christ. Again, while it might be too much to say that the kingdom of Christ is fully identical with the church, it seems clear, on the basis of these passages, that the church is at least an earthly manifestation of that kingdom and, therefore, of his reign upon the earth.
Friday, August 25, 2006
New Blog
I just wanted to inject a little commercial announcement: I've opened a new blog on which I plan to discuss matters related to grammar, logic, and rhetoric.
My original intention in starting this first blog was to include posts from a number of subject areas, but it seems best to continue devoting LFA exclusively to theological topics. Still feeling like it would help me to think out loud about some of these other issues, I've decided to carve out a bit more 'sphere space.
Warning: If you're not intensely passionate about learning or teaching the trivium, this new blog is likely to be the least interesting page you've ever had the misfortune to open. However, if you think these topics might amuse you, please pay it a visit.
Crossroads
My original intention in starting this first blog was to include posts from a number of subject areas, but it seems best to continue devoting LFA exclusively to theological topics. Still feeling like it would help me to think out loud about some of these other issues, I've decided to carve out a bit more 'sphere space.
Warning: If you're not intensely passionate about learning or teaching the trivium, this new blog is likely to be the least interesting page you've ever had the misfortune to open. However, if you think these topics might amuse you, please pay it a visit.
Crossroads
Thursday, August 24, 2006
The Earthly Reign of Christ: An Introduction
Premillennialists, even those who acknowledge that Christ is presently reigning in some capacity, believe that one day in the future, upon his second coming, Christ will begin to rule from earth over an earthly kingdom, one that will last for one thousand years. Even though some might acknowledge that Christ is ruling in heaven in the present age, many tend to struggle with the idea that his current reign extends to earth in any significant way.
The underlying thought seems to be that unless Christ is physically ruling from earth, his power and sovereignty over earthly matters must be somewhat constrained. In particular, some would say that until he takes his throne on earth, Christ cannot be said reign over the nations, cannot be said to reign over Israel, and especially cannot be said to reign on the throne of David.
Now, I believe that there are several reasons to affirm that Christ will one day literally reign from earth. I do not, however, believe that an earthly rule is necessitated by any limitation in the power of Christ’s heavenly position. In fact, it appears to me that Christ’s authority and sovereignty are in some ways greater, even on earth, because he is reigning from heaven. It also seems to me that the very aspects of Christ’s reign that are so frequently called into question (his rule over the nations, over Israel, etc.) are explicitly stated in scripture to be attributes of his heavenly reign which was a reality, again, even as the New Testament was being written.
In short, I believe the Scriptures teach that as soon as Christ ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God, he began to reign, not only over all heavenly beings, but also over all earthly powers. He began at his ascension to reign in the church, to reign over all nations, to reign over Israel, and to reign in particular from the very throne of David. It is this series of ideas that I will attempt to demonstrate in the next post.
The underlying thought seems to be that unless Christ is physically ruling from earth, his power and sovereignty over earthly matters must be somewhat constrained. In particular, some would say that until he takes his throne on earth, Christ cannot be said reign over the nations, cannot be said to reign over Israel, and especially cannot be said to reign on the throne of David.
Now, I believe that there are several reasons to affirm that Christ will one day literally reign from earth. I do not, however, believe that an earthly rule is necessitated by any limitation in the power of Christ’s heavenly position. In fact, it appears to me that Christ’s authority and sovereignty are in some ways greater, even on earth, because he is reigning from heaven. It also seems to me that the very aspects of Christ’s reign that are so frequently called into question (his rule over the nations, over Israel, etc.) are explicitly stated in scripture to be attributes of his heavenly reign which was a reality, again, even as the New Testament was being written.
In short, I believe the Scriptures teach that as soon as Christ ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God, he began to reign, not only over all heavenly beings, but also over all earthly powers. He began at his ascension to reign in the church, to reign over all nations, to reign over Israel, and to reign in particular from the very throne of David. It is this series of ideas that I will attempt to demonstrate in the next post.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Present Reign of the King of Kings
I feel I've said enough about the rapture of the church and it's relation to the timing of the Great Tribulation. I'd be happy, however, to entertain further discussion in the comment section.
I'd like now to move on to another eschatological issue that some Evangelicals have come to view as a test of true faithfulness to Scripture. This is the doctrine of premillennialism. The basic premise of this teaching is that when Christ comes again, he will then begin to reign on earth over an earthly kingdom which will last for a thousand years. There are, however, more extreme forms of premillennialism which, in addition to this idea, also deny that Christ is reigning in any way shape or form in the present age. It is this latter issue that I think important to address first. I will attempt to demonstrate that even while the New Testament was being written, Christ was already reigning in his kingdom.
First, we see that in the course of Christ’s earthly ministry, the kingdom is already is said to have been at hand (Matt 3:2; 4:17; 10:7), to have come near (Luke 10:9), and to have come upon his hearers (Matt 12:28). There is a certain sense, in Christ’s days on earth, in which the kingdom has already been appointed to him (Luke 22:29) and in which he has already received authority over all flesh (John 17:2). After his death and resurrection, we see an intensification of these royal indications, as Christ announces to his apostles that all authority has been given to him both in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18).
But the key moment in the inauguration of Christ’s kingdom is clearly his ascension into heaven. The scriptures place great significance upon this event. It is at this time that Christ was received up in glory (I Tim 3:16), to return to where he was before (John 6:62), and to enter the presence of his Father (John 20:17; Heb 9:24). The scriptures are clear, moreover, that the ascension of Christ marked, in many ways, the “beginning” of his kingly rule. As far back as the prophet Daniel, we see the coronation of the Son of Man being identified with his ascending to the throne of the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:13-14). And we see Jesus himself indicating that his inheritance of the kingdom should take place upon his going away (Luke 19:12).
Christ’s present reign is also indicated in those passages describing the majestic status which he had resumed upon his ascension. Upon entering heaven, he was highly exalted, receiving a name above every name (Phil 2:9) not only in this age, but also in the age to come (Eph 1:21). All things placed were under his feet (Heb 2:8) and he became the head (Col 2:10), being seated above all principality, power, might and dominion (Eph 1:21).
But the strongest evidence that Christ’s ascension marked the beginning of his reign are those passages that describe him as taking his seat at the right hand of God. Over and over again, the Scriptures emphasize that, having ascended, Christ was exalted to God’s right hand (Acts 2:33), the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb 1:3), the right hand of Power (Matt 26:64). Most significant, however, are those passages that describe Christ’s position at his Father’s throne. Hebrews tells us that he sat down at the right hand of the throne of majesty (8:1) Revelation tells us that when he ascended, he was caught up to God’s throne (12:5), that he sat down with his Father on that throne and that he was already sharing that throne with his Father, so that he was able to speak of that throne as his own (3:21).
Finally, Hebrews tells us that when Christ sat down at the right hand of God, he began waiting for his enemies to be made his footstool (1:13). In I Corinthians, Paul makes it crystal clear what else Christ began doing at precisely the same time, for as he says, he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (15:25).
When Christ ascended into heaven, he sat down on his throne. To say he did not also begin to reign is, I believe, to make utter nonsense of the Scriptures. There may be some reasonable dispute as to the present nature and extent of the kingdom of Christ in this age, and I intend to address those issues in the next couple of posts. What should not even be entertained, however, in the clear light of scripture, is the idea that Christ has not yet begun to reign in any sense. The scriptures cannot possibly support such a notion. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something-- maybe even a set of best-selling novels.
I'd like now to move on to another eschatological issue that some Evangelicals have come to view as a test of true faithfulness to Scripture. This is the doctrine of premillennialism. The basic premise of this teaching is that when Christ comes again, he will then begin to reign on earth over an earthly kingdom which will last for a thousand years. There are, however, more extreme forms of premillennialism which, in addition to this idea, also deny that Christ is reigning in any way shape or form in the present age. It is this latter issue that I think important to address first. I will attempt to demonstrate that even while the New Testament was being written, Christ was already reigning in his kingdom.
First, we see that in the course of Christ’s earthly ministry, the kingdom is already is said to have been at hand (Matt 3:2; 4:17; 10:7), to have come near (Luke 10:9), and to have come upon his hearers (Matt 12:28). There is a certain sense, in Christ’s days on earth, in which the kingdom has already been appointed to him (Luke 22:29) and in which he has already received authority over all flesh (John 17:2). After his death and resurrection, we see an intensification of these royal indications, as Christ announces to his apostles that all authority has been given to him both in heaven and on earth (Matt 28:18).
But the key moment in the inauguration of Christ’s kingdom is clearly his ascension into heaven. The scriptures place great significance upon this event. It is at this time that Christ was received up in glory (I Tim 3:16), to return to where he was before (John 6:62), and to enter the presence of his Father (John 20:17; Heb 9:24). The scriptures are clear, moreover, that the ascension of Christ marked, in many ways, the “beginning” of his kingly rule. As far back as the prophet Daniel, we see the coronation of the Son of Man being identified with his ascending to the throne of the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:13-14). And we see Jesus himself indicating that his inheritance of the kingdom should take place upon his going away (Luke 19:12).
Christ’s present reign is also indicated in those passages describing the majestic status which he had resumed upon his ascension. Upon entering heaven, he was highly exalted, receiving a name above every name (Phil 2:9) not only in this age, but also in the age to come (Eph 1:21). All things placed were under his feet (Heb 2:8) and he became the head (Col 2:10), being seated above all principality, power, might and dominion (Eph 1:21).
But the strongest evidence that Christ’s ascension marked the beginning of his reign are those passages that describe him as taking his seat at the right hand of God. Over and over again, the Scriptures emphasize that, having ascended, Christ was exalted to God’s right hand (Acts 2:33), the right hand of the Majesty on high (Heb 1:3), the right hand of Power (Matt 26:64). Most significant, however, are those passages that describe Christ’s position at his Father’s throne. Hebrews tells us that he sat down at the right hand of the throne of majesty (8:1) Revelation tells us that when he ascended, he was caught up to God’s throne (12:5), that he sat down with his Father on that throne and that he was already sharing that throne with his Father, so that he was able to speak of that throne as his own (3:21).
Finally, Hebrews tells us that when Christ sat down at the right hand of God, he began waiting for his enemies to be made his footstool (1:13). In I Corinthians, Paul makes it crystal clear what else Christ began doing at precisely the same time, for as he says, he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (15:25).
When Christ ascended into heaven, he sat down on his throne. To say he did not also begin to reign is, I believe, to make utter nonsense of the Scriptures. There may be some reasonable dispute as to the present nature and extent of the kingdom of Christ in this age, and I intend to address those issues in the next couple of posts. What should not even be entertained, however, in the clear light of scripture, is the idea that Christ has not yet begun to reign in any sense. The scriptures cannot possibly support such a notion. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something-- maybe even a set of best-selling novels.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
The Rapture of the Church and The Resurrection of the Saints
Other scriptures that have led me to a post-tribulational position are those that describe the relationship between the rapture, the tribulation, and the resurrection of the dead.
1. In I Thessalonians 4, Paul said that the dead in Christ would rise first, and then, only afterwards, would those who were alive and remaining be caught up in the air. To emphasize this order of events, Paul said that the survivors would in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep (v.15). Thus we see that the rapture clearly occurs after the resurrection of the saints.
2. In Revelation 20, John wrote that he saw the souls of those who had been killed by the beast for refusing to worship him. He went on to prophesy that these would come to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years. More importantly for the purposes of this argument, John revealed that the raising of the martyrs of the tribulation period would be the first resurrection (v.5). That is, the first group of saints to be raised from the dead would be those who had suffered in the Great Tribulation.
3. It goes without saying, of course, that if the raising of the tribulation martyrs is to be the first resurrection, then there can be no resurrection before the tribulation. If, therefore, there cannot be a resurrection before the tribulation, then the rapture, which takes place after the resurrection, simply cannot take place before the tribulation.
Thus it seems that the pretribulational position is further undermined, not by a fanciful allegorical interpretation, but by the plain words of scripture themselves. It is, in fact, difficult for me to see how a literal interpretation of this language could possibly allow for any other position. I ask again, is the doctrine of the pretribulational rapture taught so clearly in the Bible as to serve as a legitimate mark of faithfulness to the scriptures?
1. In I Thessalonians 4, Paul said that the dead in Christ would rise first, and then, only afterwards, would those who were alive and remaining be caught up in the air. To emphasize this order of events, Paul said that the survivors would in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep (v.15). Thus we see that the rapture clearly occurs after the resurrection of the saints.
2. In Revelation 20, John wrote that he saw the souls of those who had been killed by the beast for refusing to worship him. He went on to prophesy that these would come to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years. More importantly for the purposes of this argument, John revealed that the raising of the martyrs of the tribulation period would be the first resurrection (v.5). That is, the first group of saints to be raised from the dead would be those who had suffered in the Great Tribulation.
3. It goes without saying, of course, that if the raising of the tribulation martyrs is to be the first resurrection, then there can be no resurrection before the tribulation. If, therefore, there cannot be a resurrection before the tribulation, then the rapture, which takes place after the resurrection, simply cannot take place before the tribulation.
Thus it seems that the pretribulational position is further undermined, not by a fanciful allegorical interpretation, but by the plain words of scripture themselves. It is, in fact, difficult for me to see how a literal interpretation of this language could possibly allow for any other position. I ask again, is the doctrine of the pretribulational rapture taught so clearly in the Bible as to serve as a legitimate mark of faithfulness to the scriptures?
Thursday, August 17, 2006
The Rapture of the Church and the Coming of Christ
Let me begin by addressing the pretribulational issue. Again, several traditions hold it as a point of orthodoxy that the rapture is to take place before the Great Tribulation. What I would like to do is point out those passages that lead some of us to believe that the rapture is actually supposed to happen after the tribulation. Let me reiterate: my goal at this point is not to convince readers of my eschatological position. All I hope to do in this post is to demonstrate that a Bible-believing Christian, using only historico-grammatical methods of interpretation, could reasonably come to the conclusion that the rapture of the church is to occur after the Great Tribulation. The following is my first argument for this position.
1. The coming of Christ is clearly after the tribulation.
This is not really a point in dispute between the pre- and post- tribulational positions. In Matthew 24, Jesus, clearly speaking of the Great Tribulation (a tribulation than which no greater would ever be) (v31) says that immediately after the tribulation of those days (v29) He would be seen coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (v30).
2. The rapture of the church occurs at the coming of Christ.
What is in dispute, however, between the two positions is the relationship between the coming of Christ and the rapture itself. Post-tribulationalists, like myself, believe that scripture teaches that the rapture occurs simultaneously with the coming of Christ. I believe there is good evidence for this. First, in I Thessalonians 4, Paul announces that the rapture would be experienced by those that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord (v15). He says that right before the saints are raptured, the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God (v16).
Also, in II Thessalonians 2, Paul speaks of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him as if they were a single event (v1) the day of the Lord (v2). In Matthew 24, Jesus links the two events in the same way. Right after He would be seen coming on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory, we see that He would send forth his angels with a sound of a great trumpet and they would gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (v30-31).
Pretribulationalists say that the rapture does not occur at the coming of Christ. They believe that I Thessalonians and Matthew 24 are describing two totally distinct events, that the first is secret and invisible and that the second is public and visible. But is this conclusion really so clear? Is it really true that someone who disagrees with this idea can only be mishandling the Bible?
With all the parallels between the two passages: Jesus’ coming, appearance of angels, sounds of a trumpet, and gathering of saints, is it really so evident that two different events are being described? With I Thessalonians describing the rapture as being accompanied by the descent of the Lord, shouting, voices of the archangel and the sound of trumpets, is it really diving into allegory to question how secret this event might be?
3. The rapture of the church occurs after the Great Tribulation.
If it is all reasonable to view these two passages as describing a single event, then there is nothing extraordinary about our conclusion. We believe that the coming of Christ takes place after the tribulation. We believe that the rapture takes place simultaneously with the coming of Christ; therefore we believe that the rapture takes places after the tribulation. We do not see how the scriptures must be twisted or misinterpreted to support this conclusion.
1. The coming of Christ is clearly after the tribulation.
This is not really a point in dispute between the pre- and post- tribulational positions. In Matthew 24, Jesus, clearly speaking of the Great Tribulation (a tribulation than which no greater would ever be) (v31) says that immediately after the tribulation of those days (v29) He would be seen coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (v30).
2. The rapture of the church occurs at the coming of Christ.
What is in dispute, however, between the two positions is the relationship between the coming of Christ and the rapture itself. Post-tribulationalists, like myself, believe that scripture teaches that the rapture occurs simultaneously with the coming of Christ. I believe there is good evidence for this. First, in I Thessalonians 4, Paul announces that the rapture would be experienced by those that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord (v15). He says that right before the saints are raptured, the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God (v16).
Also, in II Thessalonians 2, Paul speaks of the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto him as if they were a single event (v1) the day of the Lord (v2). In Matthew 24, Jesus links the two events in the same way. Right after He would be seen coming on the clouds of heaven with great power and glory, we see that He would send forth his angels with a sound of a great trumpet and they would gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other (v30-31).
Pretribulationalists say that the rapture does not occur at the coming of Christ. They believe that I Thessalonians and Matthew 24 are describing two totally distinct events, that the first is secret and invisible and that the second is public and visible. But is this conclusion really so clear? Is it really true that someone who disagrees with this idea can only be mishandling the Bible?
With all the parallels between the two passages: Jesus’ coming, appearance of angels, sounds of a trumpet, and gathering of saints, is it really so evident that two different events are being described? With I Thessalonians describing the rapture as being accompanied by the descent of the Lord, shouting, voices of the archangel and the sound of trumpets, is it really diving into allegory to question how secret this event might be?
3. The rapture of the church occurs after the Great Tribulation.
If it is all reasonable to view these two passages as describing a single event, then there is nothing extraordinary about our conclusion. We believe that the coming of Christ takes place after the tribulation. We believe that the rapture takes place simultaneously with the coming of Christ; therefore we believe that the rapture takes places after the tribulation. We do not see how the scriptures must be twisted or misinterpreted to support this conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)