The following is a brief rendition of a presentation given at the One God Seminar in Streetsboro, Ohio in June 2005, and is based upon the original article of the same name.
The
Lord and his Christ
Do
they rule together or separate?
Part
2- a further analysis.
Our Mindset:
We “see” what we were taught to see. This applies to many things in life and most certainly to “our” understanding of scripture. It surprises no one that when we analyze a particular religious denomination’s doctrine, if we are a “member”, then we approach it as if it is true and we are simply “studying” to show ourselves “approved”.
So, when we do analyze a particular doctrine of a group in which we “belong”, we will inevitably follow perfectly their logic in the presenting of their scriptures; follow their explanation of said scriptures, and viola', to the complete surprise of no one, we end up with the exact same conclusion as “our” church! How reinforcing it is to be so “on track” with our church’s teaching. Ah, but what about all those who are not in our church and have looked at our teaching and found it not as convincing as we? What is wrong with them anyway? I guess they “just don’t get it”. That makes sense because God’s is working with us now, and their time will come later... yeah, that’s it!
On the other hand, those not in our group see our doctrine and the flaws in it and think, you guessed it, “they (we) just don’t get it”, but that makes sense because God’s is working with us (them) now, and their time will come later, yeah, that’s it.
Were you taught this?
I.
The problem in the past:
For many of us, we thought that while “Jesus”
returned, God the Father was nowhere to be found, for at least 1,000 years. The
reason being that “God” could not “look” at sin, which would still exist
on earth after the “2nd Coming”.
Do
we really have “Jesus”, without God the Father?
Let’s take a fresh look at this without just following
the “booklet” we were given, and let’s really employ those little gray
cells our Creator designed to be used and not to let them sit in “idle”
mode. Since this is a Part 2, it will be presumed that the reader is familiar in
some respect to the original article.
A.
Revelation 11:15
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying,
The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his
Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Let’s
take notice of a few points.
#1.
“kingdoms” What are these and
where are these? Is there any question that this refers to human realms,
dominions, empires, rulers, and governments? The word translated “world” is kosmos
in the Greek and is always a reference in some respect to “human” society or
structure. Now, kosmos can also mean other things in the Greek language,
and even anciently did come to include in its meaning an application to the
“universe” or the things of the universe, but biblically this meaning is not
prevalent nor applicable. As it relates to verse 15 above, we can dismiss out of
hand any inclusion of any realm or dominion in outer space as being included in
this verse for reasons that will hopefully become obvious as we proceed.
#2.
Notice that in “he
shall reign” the
“he“
is a reference to the Father God, hence, God the Father and not Jesus Christ.
And, how do we know that for a certainty?
1.
Rev 11:17 Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which
art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy
great power, and hast reigned.
18
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of
the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto
thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small
and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
The “O Lord God Almighty”
is the Father, as we shall see established by scripture. This “O
Lord God Almighty” is also then the, “which
art, and wast, and art to come”. It is well recognized that
this expression in the Greek is commensurate with the “I Am that I am” in
Exodus 3. Now, can we ascertain specifically that this is the Father, or could
it be “Jesus”?
Revelation 1:4: John to
the seven churches which are in
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
In analyzing this verse, we are forced to exclude from consideration “Jesus” as being the “which is, and which was, and which is to come”. Why, you ask? For two reasons. First of all, let’s consider the use of the conjunction in language. In this case the word “and”, which is a conjunction, is designed to “join” two thoughts or ideas in some fashion. There are only two ways in which this is done in language. One way (by far the most prevalent) is called “copulation”. An example of this would be the sentence: I bought eggs, “and”, bread, “and” milk at the store. In this example we see the joining of “eggs” with “bread” with “milk”. The use of language in applying the conjunction saves us time and writing and speaking because we don’t have to actually say or write every word that is “meant”. This sentence really means, were we to break the design down to its lowest form, the following:
I bought eggs at the store.
I bought bread at the store.
I bought milk at the store.
You could imagine how tedious life and language would rapidly become if we had to say every single word we “meant” very time. However, we have these “conjunctions” that are time savers. So, instead you can say, “I bought eggs, and bread, and milk at the store.” And everyone knows exactly what you “mean”.
Now, did you also notice that one other thing happens in this “copulation”? All the items that were joined continued to remain the same items. The “bread” did not have a change of state into some other entity; it remained “bread”.
However, we will now look at the other application of a conjunction. This application is called, “copulative and cumulative” and incorporates both the aspects of the standard “copulative” as well as the aspect of “cumulative”. What in the world does it mean to be “cumulative”?
Following is an example of “copulative and cumulative”:
One “and” three is four. Using the more familiar arithmetic expression, “1 + 3 = 4”
In this case we took two different (separate or stand alone) entities “one” and “three”, and joined them “together” to form an entirely new entity, in this case, “4”.
You are asking what this has to do with Revelation? Going back now, this leads us into the second reason we are forced to exclude from consideration “Jesus” as being the “which is, and which was, and which is to come”:
Revelation 1:4: John to the
seven churches which are in
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood
Some would try to claim that the “which is, and which was, and which is to come” is the same as the “seven Spirits, and also, therefore, the same as “Jesus Christ”. But, the problem is that to be so the conjunctions used here would need to be “copulative and cumulative”, and not just “copulative”.
Did
you catch the significance of verse 4 in Rev.1?
What about the “seven Spirits”? The “seven Spirits” are not “on” his throne, but before it. Thus the “seven Spirits” cannot be the “his” in the “his throne” they are only before (or in the presence of) his throne. Thus, no “cumulative” aspect for “and” here. Similarly, the only possible reference for the identity of the pronoun “his” is the prior one mentioned who is “which is, and which was, and which is to come”. Once this continuity is established, it is impossible to make the “and” in verse 5, “And from Jesus Christ,” be both copulative and cumulative with regards to, “which is, and which was, and which is to come”. Thus, we have the “which is, and which was, and which is to come”, and we have another entity called, “seven Spirits”, and we have another entity called, “Jesus Christ”.
The various verses we are examining all show that it is the Almighty God who is “on” his throne. It is this God who “hast reigned” (Rev. 11:17), and it is this God whose “thy wrath” has come (Rev. 11:18). But even more conclusively, Jesus Christ cannot be the “his” who is on “his throne” in this scripture because he must be a different entity, and as such, cannot possibly be the, “which is, and which was, and which is to come”.
Now that we have the “which is, and which was, and which is to come” and “And from Jesus Christ” as two entirely separate entities we can no longer justify a claim that they are one and the same. This, in addition, lends enormous support to the understanding the “I am that I am” in Exodus is a reference to the Father and not a pre-existing Christ.
So, it is God the Father’s Wrath; it is God the Father who has reigned; it is God the Father who has taken to himself His great power, and it is God the Father who is “which is, and which was, and which is to come”.
Let’s continue.
Point
to consider:
Since it is the Father who “hast reigned” and all
the other aspects we have just mentioned, “How can we place Him 1,000 years
away from the action at hand?”
Our
next scripture to consider is:
B.
Revelation 7:10
And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon
the throne, and unto the Lamb.
Here we take note of two things.
1. Location of God is sitting on the throne.
2.
Location of Lamb is in the vicinity of that throne, thus, in
practical terms, in audible range to hear what is being said.
C. Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.
Here we can note:
As a side note, for the identity of the “them” please see the series of articles on the New Heavens and New Earth, and the New Jerusalem- How New Is It? Articles elsewhere on this site.
D. Revelation 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
Point
to consider:
One cannot logically, reasonably, or rationally “place” the Lamb with
“them” in person so he can “feed” and “water” them, yet “place”
God somewhere else, far, far away and still wipe away every tear and
simultaneously “dwell among” them. They are either both present, or there is
no requirement for the presence of either!
Side note: What does it mean scripturally in Rev. 7:16 “They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat.” To find out simply see the article series mentioned above.
E.
Revelation 14:4
These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These
are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed
from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.
“These” came from a group of men (anthropos- humans). Is there a valid reason to think they are not, or are no longer, “human”? Not without equivocation of terms!
1. Revelation 14:10 The
same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out
without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be
tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and
in the presence of the Lamb:
Now we have:
Seems a little crowded?
F. Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
We have now seen a few scriptures that ought to make us a little less certain of any previous “position” or understanding we may have had that assumed that the Father was nowhere to be seen until “after” a “1,000 year” timeframe.
The previous doctrine came about as a result of another doctrine, or perhaps one could say it was the other way around, but regardless, many throughout what is commonly called Christianity today hold to a doctrine that the Father hates sin so much that He cannot live around it; that He was even forced to turn His back on Jesus as he died on the stake (supposedly resulting in the famous, “My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me” scripture, which, of course, was not the case at all.) thus creating a situation where He cannot live around humans. Therefore, it is reasoned, He will not come until “sin” is vanquished. Apparently, it is assumed, it will take about 1,000 years for this to be accomplished. Perhaps we can now see that this doctrine is also severely flawed to the extent of being totally erroneous and actually satanic, as it tends to divide us from our Father, the very Creator God who desires the most and the best for His little ones. An accident, perhaps, that the very thing we need and God wants for us we fail to see?
If you are still certain of that “previous” doctrine, then by all means please write and please share your understanding, reasoning, and logic so that we may all grow in the truth. No one person is all-knowledgeable, and this writer may certainly have overlooked something along the way. Let’s work together to come to a better understanding of our God and His Christ and the life they wish for us.
Richard Fix