When Did Jesus Secure Full Kingdom Power? Revisited

[ComfortMyPeople]

When Did Jesus Secure Full Kingdom Power? Revisited

• ·       I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected
• ·       II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected
• ·       III How to harmonize both sets of verses
• ·       IV The Third way

This is a follow up of the tread:

When Did Jesus Secure Full Kingdom Power?

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/2285-when-did-jesus-secure-full-kingdom-power/#comment-3268

 

 

 

I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected

JW Insider, who originated the post, quoted many verses that clearly say us that Christ was King ALREADY in first century. Some of them:

(Matthew 28:17, 18) When they saw him, they did obeisance, but some doubted. Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth.

• ·        The authority was already given

(Philippians 2:9, 10) For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground.

• ·        Exalted, in the past, not in the future

(1 Timothy 6:14, 15) our Lord Jesus Christ, which the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times. He is the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords

• ·        He was already king and lord

(Revelation 17:14) These will battle with the Lamb, but because he is Lord of lords and King of kings,. . .

• ·        He was already Lord and King

(Revelation 1:5) and from Jesus Christ, “the Faithful Witness,” “the firstborn from the dead,” and “the Ruler of the kings of the earth.”

• ·        He was already the Ruler

(Colossians 1:13) 13 He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,

• ·        He has already transferred us to this kingdom (completely agree there is no Biblical support for a special congregation-related kingdom)

 

 

(Ephesians 1:19-22) . . .. It is according to the operation of the mightiness of his strength, 20 which he exercised toward Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named, not only in this system of things but also in that to come.  He also subjected all things under his feet. . .

 

• ·        God seated, and subjected to him, in the past, not in the future

 

 

Well. No commentary needed. These and other similar verses seem to prove that when Jesus Christ went to heaven, he was already appointed as king, not having to wait for a future date, as 1914, for example.

 

 II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected

(Daniel 2:44) “In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever”

• ·        The kingdom would be set up in the days of those kings, the kings ruling in the time of the end, not in the first century.

(Daniel 7:13, 14,27) “I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom, that the peoples, nations, and language groups should all serve him. His rulership is an everlasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom will not be destroyed… “‘And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all rulerships will serve and obey them.’

• ·        Kingdom would be given to the Son of Man in the last days, at the same time that the holy ones, not being this possible when Christ was resurrected.

 (Revelation 11:15-18) “The seventh angel blew his trumpet. And there were loud voices in heaven, saying: “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.” And the 24 elders who were seated before God on their thrones fell upon their faces and worshipped God, saying: “We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward your slaves the prophets and the holy ones and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to bring to ruin those ruining the earth.”

• ·        The exact moment when God and His Son start to rule match with the time nations become wrathful, not in first century.

 

 

 

III How to harmonize both sets of verses

For His great power and prescience, to Jehovah apply these wonderful words:

• ·        (Romans 4:17) “who makes the dead alive and calls the things that are not as though they are”

In this way, it seems that Bible talks about certain happenings, still in the future, as already fulfilled.

We also sometimes speak in this way when we wish convey security in our speech: our travel agent says us “you are flying to the Caribbean” after paying for the trip, but still on the ground, obviously.

Similarly, we found the next verses talking about a FUTURE promise, as realized, performed.

(Ephesians 1:3) “Praised be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, for he has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in union with Christ”

• ·        But they were still on earth, not on heaven.

(Ephesians 2:6) “Moreover, he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus”

• ·        The Christians were still alive, not raised to heaven.

 

 

(Colossians 1:13) “He rescued us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son”

 

• ·        Accepting the view this verse is not talking (as evidently does not) about a special kingdom over the congregation, but about the Kingdom of Christ, Paul goes on to say that the Christians were already transferred to this kingdom, but his happening was still on the future.

(Colossians 2:12) “For you were buried with him in his baptism, and by your relationship with him you were also raised up together through your faith in the powerful work of God, who raised him up from the dead.”

• ·        When this was written, the Christians were still alive, no raised from dead.

Once and again, there is a speech about future events as they had already happened. In this way, it is perfectly possible that all these verses quoted in the section I, in spite the past tense of the verb, would be referring to the future. And, the most important, in this way harmonizing the verses in section II.

 

IV The Third way

Apparently, the exposition above refutes the idea that Christ secured his kingdom at 33 C.E. when he was resurrected and went to heaven, in this way giving support to the idea Christ would secure his Kingdom in 1914.

Well, without enter in the 1914 arena, at this moment, the only two points I intended to show are, according my opinion:

• ·        When Christ went to heaven, received the appointment to be Lord, King and many other things.
• ·        The kingdom was secured, the king was crowned, the kingdom would begin, at some time in the future.

As a consequence of the last idea, the next other:

• ·        I’m not saying this moment had to be 1914, only a future date from 33 C.E.

 

 

 

[Melinda Mills]

"Once and again, there is a speech about future events as they had already happened. In this way, it is perfectly possible that all these verses quoted in the section I, in spite the past tense of the verb, would be referring to the future. And, the most important, in this way harmonizing the verses in section II." -- ComfortMyPeople

====

In addition to what you suggest above, note the use of the past tense as well as the future tense in this passage.

"(Revelation 21:1-27) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea is no more. 2 I also saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” 5 And the One seated on the throne said: “Look! I am making all things new.” Also he says: “Write, for these words are faithful and true.” 6 And he said to me: “They have come to pass! I am the Alʹpha and the O•meʹga, the beginning and the end. To anyone thirsting I will  give from the spring of the water of life free. 7 Anyone conquering will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son."

What God said here about the future was reported in past tense, as John saw it in a vision. Secondly, his word and purpose are unchangeable. It is impossible for him to lie, so he can say “They have come to pass”. Good promise is given, then signed and sealed and delivered like a will. His word is as good as if it was already fulfilled. So although He uses the future tense, He also reinforces it by using the past tense.

For that it is worth ...

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

• ·       I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected
• ·       II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected
• ·       III How to harmonize both sets of verses
• ·       IV The Third way

Thank you for organizing this discussion. In the next few days I would love to delve into this subject again.

My first take on it is as follows:

• I Verses that seems to prove it when he was resurrected
  • Agree that this is the primary starting point, and that these and several other scriptures make up the bulk of the instances to work from. These scriptures do put it in the past tense, as if Jesus was already king, and as if the focus of the entire first-century preaching work was that Christians were already claiming that "there is another king, Jesus."  
• II Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected
  • In my opinion there really are a couple of verses that give us pause about whether the above (Point #1) tells the whole story. However, I don't believe that these particular verses from Daniel chap 2, chap 7 and Revelation chap 11 make "Point #1" difficult to accept. In context, I believe they even add extra support to "Point #1." For example, (Daniel 2:34, 35) ". . .You looked on until a stone was cut out, not by hands, and it struck the image on its feet of iron and of clay and crushed them. . . . But the stone that struck the image became a large mountain, and it filled the whole earth." The idea of a kingdom that begins in a way that can fill the entire earth over time is perfectly aligned with a kingdom that takes power "in the midst of its enemies." It also fits many of Jesus illustrations about the Kingdom that for example: (Matthew 13:31-33) . . .“The Kingdom of the heavens is like a mustard grain that a man took and planted in his field. 32 It is, in fact, the tiniest of all the seeds, but when it has grown, it is the largest of the vegetable plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of heaven come and find lodging among its branches.” Daniel 7 also provides a scenario of what will occur with the Kingdom over time. The Kingdom is given to someone like a son of man in verse 13, and 14. The holy ones will also receive the kingdom, but only after the horn makes war on them and, quoting, Daniel 7:22, ". . . the appointed time arrived for the holy ones to take possession of the kingdom." Clearly Christ receives the kingdom before the holy ones receive it. Revelation 11 matches the same time-based scenario perfectly: (Revelation 11:17, 18) . . . you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king. 18 But the nations became wrathful, and your own wrath came, and the appointed time came for the dead to be judged and to reward . . . the holy ones . . .
• III How to harmonize both sets of verses
  • Because there is no contradiction between "Point #1" and "Point #2" there is nothing to harmonize, and it does not become necessary to invoke a time shift through the idea that it is OK for Jehovah to call something prematurely just because it is so sure to happen. In this case it is still OK to accept all the verses for what they actually say. No twisting or stretching required. It would not make a lot of sense to try to override the idea given in about 50 verses with an idea imposed upon it from unrelated verses anyway. In every case, in the verses you utilized to claim that these things Paul spoke of were not yet true, they actually were in fact true, and Paul explained why in the context of each of those verses. Paul explained the ways in this was already occurring for Christians who had already brought into the Kingdom of God's beloved Son during the first-century system of things, but that Jesus had already been seated in heavenly places in a better way: (Ephesians 1:21) ". . . not only in this system of things but also in that to come."
• IV The Third way
  • The idea based on your take of the above points was that Christ only received an appointment to be Lord and King at the time he went to heaven. Based on your idea, "The kingdom was secured" and "the king was crowned" yet "the kingdom would begin, at some time in the future." But, again, we should be careful not to dismiss what 50 verses say, and claim they might mean something else, just because of a verse that apparently had nothing to do with the chronology of the Kingdom, but was really about how Jehovah can 'call things into existence that do not yet exist.' [See NWT, footnote]  The context was dealing with resurrection, a promise made to Abraham about his offspring, and the idea that Jehovah could declare Abraham righteous through undeserved kindness based on his faith.

There are a few other issues with this idea that the Kingdom had not yet had a start when Jesus was crowned, and "sat down at the right hand of the throne of Majesty." (Hebrews 8:1) There is a minor theme about Psalm 110 that runs through most of the books of the Greek Scriptures, sometimes quoted explicitly and sometimes referenced in more subtle ways. Christians were already giving allegiance to Christ and only acted as "alien residents" in this system. A king commands his followers and Jesus is shown sending out his disciples to do all the things he has commanded, along with the words "all authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." (Matthew 28:19,20) We would be denying the scriptures if we said that he would obtain more authority at some future time. Just because he had not yet acted on it, does not mean he didn't have it. Other verses, you already quoted, show that this authority was already (Ephesians 1:21) "far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named" at the time that Jesus sat at God's right hand. So if Jesus was already given authority far above every king on earth, then who are we to say that he was not yet a king himself? It smacks of blasphemy, or at least a real lack of appreciation of his authority.

Of course, the most important point, I think, is the Psalm 110 theme itself. The Psalm speaks of a king sitting at God's right hand. That king would have the power of his scepter extended by Jehovah himself (v.2), so that he would go on subduing in the midst of his enemies. That phrase covers the point made above about the kingdom starting out as something that would begin to show up the weaknesses of the world powers. World powers that could not conquer the holy ones, but which would grow until a time was reached when it would put an end to those world powers and kingdoms. Anyone who claimed that the king in Psalm 110 was not really a king just because he was only sitting on a throne at God's right hand is missing the entire idea of the Psalm. It's true that the Watchtower has taught that "sitting on a throne at God's right hand" means he is only waiting to become king, but the apostle Paul has ruined that teaching forever. Paul knew that a king could sit on a throne and still be a king. A king sitting on a throne is actually a perfect symbol of rulership, not simply someone "waiting" to be king. This is why Paul paraphrases the term "sitting at God's right hand" in a way that crushes the traditional teaching:

(1 Corinthians 15:25, 26) For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing

Notice how Paul thinks that "sit at God's right hand" means the same thing as "rule as king." I've included verse 26 because it too crushes the traditional idea we have been taught that Jesus is not king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Clearly, Jesus doesn't completely crush the last enemy until the end of the thousand years. So, do we claim that Jesus is not really king until the end of the thousand years? Obviously not.

He has been king all along from the time he began to "rule as king" when he sat at God's right hand. When did he sit at God's right hand?

(Acts 2:32, 33) . . .God resurrected this Jesus, and of this we are all witnesses. 33 Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God . . .

[Evacuated]

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Verses that make it difficult to think Christ was King when he was resurrected

???? only severely out of context!!!

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

then who are we to say that he was not yet a king himself? It smacks of blasphemy, or at least a real lack of appreciation of his authority.

There seems to be an unecessarily extreme position set out in this debate. It appears to be assumed that the idea of Jesus "becoming" king at a date considerably later than the time of his being " exalted to the right hand of God " excludes him being a king in the interim period. The debate appears to focus on the demolition of this idea, which is indeed a false concept, and more than adequately accomplishes this.

However, this position is not integral to the understanding that a time period could elapse between Jesus returning to the "right hand of God" and his subsequent future role in the execution of Jehovah's "judgement against the nations." Ps 110 (in full).

A simple parallel can be drawn with Jehovah Himself. Jehovah is termed the King of Eternity. As such, He is not (never has been nor will be) subject to anything, not even the passing of time, despite His existence FROM eternity until the moment of creation when He acted on His decision to share His universe.

Since the moment He created an intelligent being in the form of his only-begotten Son, He has retained His position as King of Eternity. Despite the attack on His right to rule, and the rebellion of Satan, an unspecified number of powerful spirits, along with millions of mankind on earth, Jehovah has never relinquished His position as King of Eternity. His eternal Sovereignty was acknowledged by his faithful servants on earth, not as a future condition, but as a current state, recognised by faithful humans, spirits, and His only-begotten Son. Ps.47:2,7; Ps. 90:2; Ps.103:19-20; Lu.4:5-8. It was even forcibly impressed on pagan rulers such as Nebuchadnezzar, see Dan.4:34-35,37.

And yet we find statements such as that of David when the Ark of the Covenant was brought to the City of David:

• "Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be joyful; Declare among the nations: ‘Jehovah has become King!" 1 Chr.16:31

And the Sons of Korah, after stating that Jehovah "is the great King" (Ps.47:2,7) follow up with this:

• "God has become King over the nations. God sits on his holy throne." Ps.47:8.

And Isaiah, after referring 8 times to Jehovah as the existing Sovereign Lord, says prophetically in connection with the restoration of Jerusalem:

• "For Jehovah of armies has become King in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem," Is.24:23

Jesus himself, when providing his outline for prayer priorities, said:

• "Let your kingdom come" Matt.6:10.

And later, in his revelation, in describing " things that must shortly take place" (Rev.1:1), he points to a future time when:

• “The kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ"  Rev 11:15. And also that faithful ones say:
• "We thank you, Jehovah God, the Almighty, the one who is and who was, because you have taken your great power and begun ruling as king" Rev.11:17.

So how is it that Jehovah could be "King of Eternity" (1Tim.1:17; Rev.15:2), have His throne "established long ago" (Ps.93:2), with a "kingship that is an eternal kingship" (Ps145:13) and at the same time become king on a number of occasions over the centuries?

Answer this and you will be on the path to understanding how it is that Jesus, who like his Father, was/is ruling as a king, and yet could/will, also like his Father, become king at the same time. 

 

 

[Melinda Mills]

(Daniel 12:1-4) 12 “During that time Miʹcha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book. ² And many of those asleep in the dust of the earth will wake up, some to everlasting life and others to reproach and to everlasting contempt. ³ “And those having insight will shine as brightly as the expanse of heaven, and those bringing the many to righteousness like the stars, forever and ever. ⁴ “As for you, Daniel, keep the words secret, and seal up the book until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant.”

 

I wanted to add this scripture to the discussion but the time period refers to Armageddon and not the one I had in mind.  Please disregard.

[JW Insider]

On 2/26/2017 at 6:26 PM, ComfortMyPeople said:

I’m not saying this moment had to be 1914, only a future date from 33 C.E.

CMP, I'm glad you are leaving 1914 out of it for now. I'm sure it will come up out of necessity, but I agree that focusing on what we know about the time of Jesus kingship in 33 CE is a key to understanding, because "33 CE" is mentioned so often in the scriptures as the time when Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven. (I understand that some scholars would put this at 30 CE based on evidence from Josephus linked with Luke, especially. But I'm fine with just calling it "33 CE" as long as we all know that we mean especially the time of Jesus resurrection and/or ascension.)

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In my opinion there really are a couple of verses that give us pause about whether the above (Point #1) tells the whole story.

What I was saying in the quote above was that there really are a couple of verses that should make us reconsider if Jesus kingship in 33 CE is the full explanation of what the scriptures mean by his kingship.

I believe that Eoin has just pointed them out perfectly. I wasn't trying to completely dismiss your points from Daniel 2, 7 and Rev 11. I was just trying to show that we couldn't rely on them to dismiss the "real" kingship that started in 33 CE. I agree that all of them could have referred to the Kingdom at any of its "milestone" events or accomplishments. But the fact is that we already know the Kingdom could have started in 33 CE according to the many scriptures that indicate that it did. With that in mind none of those additional references actually contradicted this. All of them could be seen as agreeing that the Kingdom started in 33 CE and then, over time, there could be any number of events that might be seen as highlights of the manifestation of that kingdom. Any one of those highlighted times or events could correctly be seen as a time when the "Jehovah became King" or "Jesus took the throne" or the "Kingdom began," or the "Kingdom would arrive" (as in "Let your Kingdom come.")

I think we should get back to the points about Daniel and Revelation. But if you don't mind, I think that Eoin's post provides a stronger replacement to the argument you were making from Romans 4:17. Either one would allow us to resolve the scriptures that indicate that Jesus kingship began in 33 AND the idea that we could claim that it also starts at a later time. Eoin's solution appears to be that both ideas can (and should) be true.

Are you OK with this particular direction to the discussion, that Eoin has presented? Perhaps you still wanted to go into more detail with the original point you were making. I'm sure you were just outlining the discussion anyway, and might have been ready to add many more good reasons to continue in the original direction.

 

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

I wanted to add this scripture to the discussion but the time period refers to Armageddon and not the one I had in mind.

Not exclusively to Armageddon, though.

As I know you are aware, Daniel 12:1 was once a key part of the argument that Jesus was not really King in 33 CE but had to wait until 1914. It was part of a 3-part proof.

1. It's true that Jesus sat down at Jehovah's right hand in 33 CE, but this doesn't mean he actually became King in 33 CE. (This covered the many references to Psalm 110 in the Greek Scriptures.)
2. That's because when he was "sitting," this was an indication that he was "sitting and waiting" until Jehovah was ready to enthrone him as Messianic King so that he could, at that future time, begin conquering in the midst of his enemies. This fits Hebrews 10:12, 13 "[he]. . . sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from then on waiting until his enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet."
3. The time would come for Jesus to stop sitting and finally stand up. So Daniel 12:1 was used here to show that Jesus would stand up at the beginning of his rulership as King. 

Not sure, but you were probably remembering that for many years we taught that he "stood up" in 1914:

*** w85 7/1 p. 28 par. 20 Triumphing in “the Final Part of the Days” ***
This Michael is Jesus Christ, who ‘stood up’ in his Kingdom in 1914, promptly to eject Satan from the heavens.

But now, the teaching has changed a bit. Jesus was already standing in 1914, but also stands up at Armageddon. He stands up while he is already standing, so that we simply say that it was in a different sense of "standing up." The bracketed information in the quote below was not added, it's in the original article:

*** w15 5/15 p. 30 par. 3 Questions From Readers ***
“During that time Michael [Jesus Christ] will stand up [at Armageddon], the great prince who is standing [since 1914] in behalf of your people.

I don't know if it ever made it into a Watch Tower publication, but maybe it's in one of the old "Sermon Outlines" or one of the two versions of the "Make Sure of All Things" books. But at a KM school the question was once asked why Stephen said he already saw Jesus "standing" at the right hand of God.

(Acts 7:54-56) . . .. 55 But he, being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand, 56 and he said: “Look! I see the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand.”

The answer was that Stephen, like John in Revelation, must have been seeing Jesus in the future, after 1914. As far as I know, this is not a necessary part of our doctrinal explanation. (If it ever really was.) [Do you, or any of the other "old-timers" remember if this was ever in print? I vaguely remember seeing it but can't remember if it was published.]

*** w86 10/15 p. 6 A Change of Rulership—Soon! ***
However, Jesus did not begin his rule over mankind in 33 C.E. He had a period of waiting. It was only after this that Jehovah empowered him to “go subduing in the midst of [his] enemies.”  . . . Jesus thus identified himself as Michael who would stand up to rule. . . . These events have been remarkably fulfilled since 1914. Jesus then assumed power in heaven as King, and he has been ruling in the midst of his enemies.—Matthew 24:3, 7-12.

 

[ComfortMyPeople]

10 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

???? only severely out of context!!!

There seems to be an unecessarily extreme position set out in this debate. It appears to be assumed that the idea of Jesus "becoming" king at a date considerably later than the time of his being " exalted to the right hand of God " excludes him being a king in the interim period. The debate appears to focus on the demolition of this idea, which is indeed a false concept, and more than adequately accomplishes this.

However, this position is not integral to the understanding that a time period could elapse between Jesus returning to the "right hand of God" and his subsequent future role in the execution of Jehovah's "judgement against the nations." Ps 110 (in full).

Answer this and you will be on the path to understanding how it is that Jesus, who like his Father, was/is ruling as a king, and yet could/will, also like his Father, become king at the same time. 

 

Eoin. Fantastic points!

I apologize my low-level intelligence but, in spite your words sound very clear and fine exposed, I can't finally grasp if your position is:

• Was Jesus King as soon as he went to heaven?
• Would Jesus be King later?

Please, Eoin, I'm not being ironic, simple I'm quite clumsy!

 

[Evacuated]

8 minutes ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

I can't finally grasp if your position is:

• Was Jesus King as soon as he went to heaven?
• Would Jesus be King later?

Both    

[ComfortMyPeople]

16 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Both    

Thank you for the clarification!

[ComfortMyPeople]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 Perhaps you still wanted to go into more detail with the original point you were making. I'm sure you were just outlining the discussion anyway, and might have been ready to add many more good reasons to continue in the original direction.

I must recognize, this is an "entrenched truth" for me. I find it difficult change my mind because, after a lot of years, my neurons and dendrites have a lot of highways in the direction of thinking that:

• ·        Jesus went to heaven and sat down (waiting, not actively ruling)

• ·        Jesus would be crowned, and his kingdom would begin at a later date

But your arguments (JWI) seem to be very solid, and the ideas contribute by Eoin vey valids.

Well, let’s try to find a “connecting link” between positions.

First, and foremost, I suppose the most important (and foundational, core, unchangeable) truths are:

• ·        Christ is the appointed king.

• ·        His kingdom would begin, logically, at some moment after his resurrection.

• ·        His kingdom would gradually conquer to all his enemies

• ·        There is a climax, when the king would wage a final war

If we can agree with the above points, I think we can build from a solid foundation, cannot we? Then, the point at issue seems to be the precise moment when the king is crowned and, consequently, the kingdom begins.

“I see Satan already fallen” (Lu 10:18)

We all agree these words, expressed in a past tense, would have a future fulfillment. So, I tend to think that some of the 50 verses or more JWI aptly quote could have the same meaning: The certainly of the rulership is so high that is expressed as already happened. Melinda has also quote similar statements in Revelation. How, otherwise, could we understand the words (Eph 2:6) “he raised us up together and seated us together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus”? I found reasonable the explanations:

• ·        *** sl chap. 8 p. 132 par. 6 A Spiritual Paradise on a Polluted Earth *** Figuratively, Paul was already seated with fellow Christians on earth “in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus.”

• ·        *** it-1 pp. 1064-1065 Heaven *** How can persons in “heavenly places” still be on earth? The apostle Paul in his letter to the Ephesians speaks of Christians then living on earth as though they were already enjoying a heavenly position, being raised up and “seated . . . together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus.” (Eph 1:3; 2:6) The context shows that anointed Christians are so viewed by God because of his having ‘assigned them as heirs’ with his Son in the heavenly inheritance. While yet on earth, they have been exalted, or ‘lifted up,’ by such assignment. (Eph 1:11, 18-20; 2:4-7, 22) Ephesians 2:6

• ·        *** w15 8/15 p. 13 par. 14 Meditate on Jehovah’s Enduring Love *** Paul described anointed Christians as having been ‘raised up and seated together in the heavenly places in union with Christ Jesus.’ (Eph. 2:6) They occupy this spiritual position because they have been ‘sealed with the promised holy spirit, which is a token in advance of their inheritance,’ that is, ‘the hope reserved for them in the heavens.’—Eph. 1:13, 14; Col. 1:5.

In a similar way, why don’t think the same regarding Christ’s Kingdom? Perhaps the many verses speaking as he was already King in the 1st century could be seen as HOW GOD CONSIDER his victorious Son from that time forward: the king. But the beginning of the kingdom could be future.

Eoin also mention the undeniable fact we all believe that in spite Jehovah is the Eternal King, the Bible mentions that when his sovereignty reaches some special achievement, He “becomes to reign” in some other special way. Thus, he expresses the idea that Christ would be king when resurrected, and that some subsequent events would be “begins to rule” in new ways. Well, I assume this is a resume of his position.

I think all our pillar or column beliefs would be the same either way, whether Christ had begun to reign in 33, 1914 or any other date.

Anyway, I hope nobody consider inappropriate or inopportune if I point out some ideas.

 

The Appearance of the King

 

The appearance of Christ inspecting the 7 congregations:

• ·        (Re 1:13-16) “and in the midst of the lampstands someone like a son of man, clothed in a garment that reached down to the feet and wearing a golden sash around his chest. Moreover, his head and his hair were white as white wool, as snow, and his eyes were like a fiery flame, and his feet were like fine copper when glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. And he had in his right hand seven stars, and out of his mouth a sharp, long, two-edged sword was protruding, and his countenance was like the sun when it shines at its brightest”.

The appearance of Christ in cavalry charge:

• ·        (Re 19:12-16) “His eyes are a fiery flame, and on his head are many diadems. He has a name written that no one knows but he himself, and he is clothed with an outer garment stained with blood, and he is called by the name The Word of God. Also, the armies in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen. And out of his mouth protrudes a sharp, long sword with which to strike the nations, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron. Moreover, he treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his outer garment, yes, on his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.”

I’d like to point out the similarities in the appearance, as reflected in the pictures, in both situations: when inspecting the congregations and in his final war against the enemies. But there is a paramount difference: the crown.

The inspection visit occurs, obviously, sometime after his resurrection. We can observe him as the glorious person he is. But in this period of time he doesn’t wear any crown. Could this indicate he is the appointed king, but still not working as such?

The three times he is seen with crown in the Scriptures

Errors and omissions excepted, there are only three accounts where Jesus is seen crowned.

• ·        (Re 6:2) “And I saw, and look! a white horse, and the one seated on it had a bow; and a crown was given him, and he went out conquering and to complete his conquest.”

• ·        (Re 14:14-16) “Then I saw, and look! a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was someone like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. Another angel emerged from the temple sanctuary, calling with a loud voice to the one seated on the cloud: “Put your sickle in and reap, because the hour has come to reap, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe.” And the one seated on the cloud thrust his sickle into the earth, and the earth was reaped.

• ·        (Re 19:11-16) “I saw heaven opened, and look! a white horse […] on his head are many diadems […] he treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty […] he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.”

A meticulous reading of the passages could indicate us the following:

• ·        Obviously, is Christ

• ·        He is already crowned as king

• ·        His kingship is related to his victory against the enemies

About the white horse of Re 6, what I found very meaningful is the fact that points out the moment of the coronation: “and a crown was given him”. And, immediately after this event, it is mentioned he starts to win over the enemies. Now, I question: did it happen in 33 C.E.? Did Christ begin to win in that year over his enemies? How to fit the parable of the wheat and weed? Didn’t the apostasy win over Christianism at those days? But the ride of the king is without any defeat: “conquering and to complete his conquest”. I am unclear this could happen in 33.

In the other two accounts (Re 14 and 19), the king is seen crowned. If we link all three accounts I think we can get a comprehensive picture pointing out the fact that, when the king gets its crown begins to conquer without interruption till the end.

The day of the coronation, Daniel account.

I assume that the majority of us see the coronation day of one monarch as a very exciting event, especially if he is our king. I think the Bible reflected these proper feelings when cover the coronation, the crowning of the Jehovah’s designed king.

The vision itself:

• ·        (Daniel 7:8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14) “And look! there were eyes like human eyes in this horn, and there was a mouth speaking arrogantly. I kept watching until thrones were set in place and the Ancient of Days sat down […] The Court took its seat, and books were opened […] I kept watching at that time because of the sound of the arrogant words that the horn was speaking; I watched until the beast was killed and its body was destroyed […] look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. And to him there were given rulership, honor, and a kingdom”

Known account, isn’t it? Daniel asked to the angel and he provides him more information

The angel’s explanation

• ·        (Daniel 7:21, 22, 26, 27) “I kept watching as that horn made war on the holy ones, and it was prevailing against them, until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was rendered in favor of the holy ones of the Supreme One, and the appointed time arrived for the holy ones to take possession of the kingdom […] But the Court sat, and they took away his rulership, in order to annihilate him and to destroy him completely […] ‘And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One”

Logically, what the angel said as explanation couldn’t be at odds with the vision itself, right? Now, let’s merge both accounts, trying to get an order of the events:

• 1 The horn speaks arrogantly against the saints, made war on them.

• 2   As a result of this malicious action, one Court is formed, presided by the Ancient of Days. A sentence of destruction is decreed. Who will execute this judgment?

• 3.      The son of man approaches. The kingdom is given to him

• 4.      The holy ones receive a favorable judgment, but the horn is destroyed

• 5.      The holy ones also receive the kingdom

If this order is correct, I can’t see this being fulfilled in that year (33). A basic proof is the fact the horn had not yet came into existence!

The day of the coronation, John account.

I think the most enlightening account about this matter under our consideration is Revelation 12 (and its context, the chapter 11). Because it describes the beginning of the kingdom as the birth of a child. Something completely new, not starting centuries ago. And the verses, all of us will agree, only could apply to the last era.

John account also fits with Daniel, because true worshippers are described under attack from enemies. They are protected by God. The kingdom starts. The child begins his life.

Final thoughts

As I’ve mention before, perhaps we are not so distant in our views. Many times I’ve think about the day when Christ went to heaven. I suppose an enormous happiness happened. In human terms, cheering, hugs and, probably, formal declarations from Jehovah. I imagine a general assembly, with all the angels of the heaven. God is receiving His beloved son again! This, offering his blood as ransom. Then, he sat down in the closest possible position to his Father. He received “all authority” at this moment. His disciples can, appropriately, begin to preach about a new king, a future king. But so safe his kingdom would come, that the Scriptures could talk as if the king already was ruling.

[Melinda Mills]

1.  Yes, you mentioned most of what I wanted to infer from Dan 12:1. And you reminded the old references. So they were still in my brain.   But when I checked the CD I saw that it is now referring in a special way to his standing up at Armageddon. 

When I saw the answer at *** w15 5/15 p. 30 par. 3 Questions From Readers  I discontinued my discourse.

2."The answer was that Stephen, like John in Revelation, must have been seeing Jesus in the future, after 1914. As far as I know, this is not a necessary part of our doctrinal explanation. (If it ever really was.) [Do you, or any of the other "old-timers" remember if this was ever in print? I vaguely remember seeing it but can't remember if it was published.] " - JWInsider

I don't remember it ever being an important part of our doctrine but I can look it up.  Thanks for your contribution and research.