For Sincere Inquisitors ONLY: MAD Explained

[Tambora]

And He did sit down upon His ascension.

But then Stephen later saw Him standing and ready to judge.

OK, hold on.
Both "standing" and "sitting" in the Greek don't really have anything to do with whether one is upright on his feet or not.

It is more akin to being SET.

You can use either word (standing or sitting) to describe where something is SET.
Both words describe where Christ is SET --- on the right hand of the Father which is in the heavenlies.

We use both words in English the same way.

The vase of flowers is “sitting” (SET) on the table.
The vase of flowers is “standing” (SET) on the table.

It’s not so much about being on or off your feet, as it is about where you are SET.

If you try to make the Greek word for "sitting" mean off your feet, and the Greek word for "standing" mean on your feet ...... you are going to have some problems in other verses where it is used.

Even if you consider "standing" to be on your feet, and "sitting" to be off your feet, it makes no difference in this case because in both instances Christ is in the same place --- the heavenlies.

 

[Tambora]

And in Revelation 19, we see Him leading His heavenly army against the nations and then having Satan bound for 1,000 years during His reign with those of the first resurrection. It looks to me like this is on earth, because after that when Satan is let loose, he stirs up the nations for one last battle. They go up on the breadth of the earth and compass the camp of the saints about and the beloved city (Rev. 20:8-9), and are then destroyed. So this reign must be on earth, right?

Well, it may be possible that He is reigning on earth, but I'm having a hard time seeing it that way.

When Satan is loosed, he does compass the camp of saints.
But it says nothing of Christ being in that camp, only the saints.

What would be the point of attacking a camp where only resurrected saints are?
They can't be deceived, and they can't be destroyed.

I may be giving Satan too much credit for brains, but I can't picture him being THAT stupid.
It only makes sense for Satan to attack the camp if there was a chance he could overpower them or deceive them.
There is no way he could overpower or deceive resurrected saints.
But if the camp was mortals, he could.

 

[Tambora]

And concerning the idea that there would be too many saints from all of history to fit into the earthly kingdom: I'd venture to say that of all those of Israel throughout history, the overwhelming majority rejected God and their Messiah. So maybe numbers isn't an issue, afterall?

That's a possibility that the number of faithful saints will be very small.
Disheartening, but possible.

Thanks, tambora. I want to change my position if it's wrong, so I appreciate the back-and-forth. :up:

Randy

Thanks to you too.

It's rough having a couple of things nagging at ya so you can't make the puzzle fit.
Hopefully this back and forth discussion will make something click for me.

 

[chickenman]

Good day Chickenman!

I'm in no hurry about this, so take your time and don't feel rushed.
I'm just glad you are willing to go through it all with me.

I'm going to break my response to your post into separate posts so the posts won't get so long.

Good day to you too, tambora!

Right, there are different resurrections.

Since we are taking our time, I would like to pose something to be considered.

We have a "first" and "second" resurrection.

Obviously this "first" resurrection is not the 1st numerically.
When the graves were opened at the time of Christ's cross and resurrection, it would fall before this "first" resurrection.
Elijah and Enoch would be even before that.
So "first" must mean something other than 1st numerically.

Like "first"born is not always the 1st numerically, but denotes a special nature, a sort of preeminence.
Such as Ephraim who was not firstborn numerically (Jeremiah 31:7), and David who was not firstborn numerically (Psalms 89:27).


So, Elijah, Enoch, and the saints from the open graves would all be part of the "first" resurrection, even though there were gaps of time for those "first" (preeminent) resurrection saints.

I'll definitely take some time to consider this. But let me give my first reaction...first.

I understand your point about the word "first" when it comes to "firstborn", for instance. In the case of the 1,000 year reign touched on in Revelation, though, "first" there seems to be the first of two specific resurrections. Enoch and Elijah weren't resurrected from the dead, so I'd have to exclude them from the discussion, I think. And concerning the graves that opened at the crucifixion, I've viewed that as sort of a taste or a foreshadowing of that which was to come. Just like the happenings at Pentecost and shortly thereafter were a taste of the powers of the world to come (Heb. 6:4-5), so too do we see a resurrection at the crucifixion that showed a taste of the reality that would be in the kingdom (maybe I should rephrase this, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say). I ASSUME (that's all it is) that those who were resurrected at the crucifixion were like Lazarus in that their mortal bodies were resurrected, and then they died [again] later. But in the kingdom, at the so-called "first resurrection", the saints will be resurrected to everlasting life and will shine as the brightness of the firmament (Dan. 12:2-3). They'll not die again, but will then be immortal.

So though I've never considered what you're telling me, I'm having difficulty accepting it because of these differences. But as I said, I'll reserve final judgment until I can consider it some more.

I think this speaks to your next post, as well. So for now, I'll go on to your other posts...

 

[chickenman]

Fair enough.
The word "destroyed" is not used.

However, we are told that heaven will receive Christ until the restitution of all things.

Acts 3
(21) Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
​

All things.
Would that not also include the restoration of no death, as it was in the garden of Eden before the fall?
And isn't the destruction of Satan part of the plan of restoration to crush the deceiver, so no one can be deceived anymore? (Genesis 3:15)

That doesn't happen until after the millennium when both Satan and Death are cast into the lake of fire.


"Destroyed" may not have been the best word to use.
I did not mean destroy (as in does not exist anymore), but in the sense that Satan and Death are cast away and rendered absolutely powerless to ever deceive again or that anyone will ever die again.
That doesn't happen till after the millennium.

I can see your point. Before going on, it would help me to understand your thoughts on this...

Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal; yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. Zech. 14:1-5​

When do you see this happening? In that passage, the Lord is on the earth before the "restoration of all things", as you're defining the phrase. So how do you see that working in with what you're seeing in the scriptures?

 

[chickenman]

OK, hold on.
Both "standing" and "sitting" in the Greek don't really have anything to do with whether one is upright on his feet or not.

It is more akin to being SET.

You can use either word (standing or sitting) to describe where something is SET.
Both words describe where Christ is SET --- on the right hand of the Father which is in the heavenlies.

We use both words in English the same way.

The vase of flowers is “sitting” (SET) on the table.
The vase of flowers is “standing” (SET) on the table.

It’s not so much about being on or off your feet, as it is about where you are SET.

If you try to make the Greek word for "sitting" mean off your feet, and the Greek word for "standing" mean on your feet ...... you are going to have some problems in other verses where it is used.

But in Psalm 110:1, the Lord is sitting UNTIL something happens. So wouldn't there be a distinction between sitting and standing, in that case?

It also makes sense (to me, of course) that He would sit after His ascension, but then stand later. For according to prophecy, confirmed in the gospel accounts and by Peter after Pentecost, there would come a time, after the 69th week, where He would begin taking action in judgment against both the wicked of the chosen nation and against the nations as a whole. So, reading Mark 16:19 (He ascended and then sat at the right hand of God), and then a short time later, Stephen seeing Him standing (presumably ready to judge, per Ps. 110:1, etc.)...both fit well within that which was foretold by the prophets.

Wouldn't there be a distinction between sitting and standing in Ps. 110:1, since it says He'd sit until [something]? With passages like Is. 3:13...

The Lord standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.​

...then it seems clear (to me) that "sitting" and "standing" are both specific to separate purposes the Lord will have. He "sits" to await the proper time, and He "stands" to judge.

Even if you consider "standing" to be on your feet, and "sitting" to be off your feet, it makes no difference in this case because in both instances Christ is in the same place --- the heavenlies.

Certainly Him sitting at the right hand of the father, and Him standing at the right hand of the Father, both take place in the heavenlies. No doubt there. I think we're more discussing what happens after He stands and begins judging.

 

[chickenman]

Well, it may be possible that He is reigning on earth, but I'm having a hard time seeing it that way.

When Satan is loosed, he does compass the camp of saints.
But it says nothing of Christ being in that camp, only the saints.

What would be the point of attacking a camp where only resurrected saints are?
They can't be deceived, and they can't be destroyed.

I may be giving Satan too much credit for brains, but I can't picture him being THAT stupid.
It only makes sense for Satan to attack the camp if there was a chance he could overpower them or deceive them.
There is no way he could overpower or deceive resurrected saints.
But if the camp was mortals, he could.

I would agree, but I don't believe there will ONLY be immortals in there. I think we discussed my thoughts on this. I'll go back and reference the post, if necessary. So in that case (if I'm right), then there would be no conflict here.

That's a possibility that the number of faithful saints will be very small.
Disheartening, but possible.

Yes, very disheartening. But I think it's the reality we see throughout the scriptures. Overwhelming rejection of God. Very sad.

Thanks to you too.

It's rough having a couple of things nagging at ya so you can't make the puzzle fit.
Hopefully this back and forth discussion will make something click for me.

I hear you. Let's keep it going. Perhaps one of us will change his/her position, or we'll both change somehow. It's fun to sharpen iron with one another. :up:

Randy

 

[Tambora]

Let's keep it going. Perhaps one of us will change his/her position, or we'll both change somehow. It's fun to sharpen iron with one another. :up:

Randy

I agree!

Whether I ever get it all figured out, all the info we share is beneficial in working out the kinks.

This is a wonderful thread you started.
I love it that we can discuss without all the hoopla of folks badgering.

 

[Tambora]

I can see your point. Before going on, it would help me to understand your thoughts on this...

Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.

Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle.

And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal; yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the Lord my God shall come, and all the saints with thee. Zech. 14:1-5​

When do you see this happening? In that passage, the Lord is on the earth before the "restoration of all things", as you're defining the phrase. So how do you see that working in with what you're seeing in the scriptures?

There may be a slight confusion, perhaps with the way I worded my posts.

I do not believe Christ must remain in that one spot - at the right hand of the Father.
I do believe He is the Father's right-hand-man (so to speak) until He receives His very own kingdom with His very own throne to rule.


So, when Christ battles (as in the above you posted), I believe it to be akin to when He battled at Jericho.
He did not have an earthly kingdom when He battled.

Now this may get a bit tricky because we can justly say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always ruled EVERYTHING.
But we do have to take into consideration the point of verses that speak of the Father establishing a kingdom for the Son, and Son handing His kingdom over to the Father.
I'm sure you know what I mean.


So, I don't consider it a necessity that Christ must be ruling on an earthly throne from an earthly kingdom when He does battle for Israel.



But I'm leaving my options open and keeping all you have proposed in mind.

 

[chickenman]

Thanks, tambora.

Hey, since you brought up Jericho, have you noticed the similarities between the books of Joshua and Revelation. Whereas Revelation is about the actual marriage ceremony, Joshua is a neat picture of a marriage rehearsal (so to speak). Neat parallels loaded throughout the books. I think Joshua is one of the keys to understanding some things in Revelation.

Totally side topic, just curious if you've ever thought of or seen parallels between the books.

Later!

RA

 

[Nick M]

At the right had of the Father isn't literal. It is a metaphor to show him, when God is an invisible Spirit. That is what I think about that part.

Revelation 4

2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne. 3 And He who sat there was like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald.

I have seen people suggest the light in Genesis 1 on the first day is the manifestion of God into the physical world. I tend see that as very likely, and sitting at the right hand of the Father is metaphor for it. There is only one throne, and only one being on it.

 

[Tambora]

Thanks, tambora.

Hey, since you brought up Jericho, have you noticed the similarities between the books of Joshua and Revelation. Whereas Revelation is about the actual marriage ceremony, Joshua is a neat picture of a marriage rehearsal (so to speak). Neat parallels loaded throughout the books. I think Joshua is one of the keys to understanding some things in Revelation.

Totally side topic, just curious if you've ever thought of or seen parallels between the books.

Later!

RA

A little, but not so much about the marriage. But I see parallels in just about every book!
So I would be interested in your thoughts on it.

I will have to admit that the events in Joshua are particularly interesting.
Lots of peculiar things happened that wouldn't normally happen by the Israelites.
Such as:
The Sabbath was a rest day, and here they are on a Sabbath doing 7 times more than they did the other six days!
Priests were not be in military conflicts, and here they are on the front-lines with the military forces!
etc.
V-E-R-Y interesting!

 

[steko]

Nice conversation! Keep it up!

 

[Tambora]

At the right had of the Father isn't literal.

I don't think it so much about a literal spot either.

It is a metaphor to show him, when God is an invisible Spirit. That is what I think about that part.

Revelation 4

2 Immediately I was in the Spirit; and behold, a throne set in heaven, and One sat on the throne. 3 And He who sat there was like a jasper and a sardius stone in appearance; and there was a rainbow around the throne, in appearance like an emerald.

Could be.
I tend to think it means the right-hand man (commander) of the King (who is usually the closest companion of the King).
In this case, the Father would be the King and Christ His right-hand man.

There are several verses that seem to use "right-hand" in that fashion.

Here's a couple:

Exodus 15
(3) The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
(4) Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea.
(5) The depths have covered them: they sank into the bottom as a stone.
(6) Thy right hand, O LORD, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O LORD, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.



Psalms 17
(7) Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them.
​

I have seen people suggest the light in Genesis 1 on the first day is the manifestion of God into the physical world. I tend see that as very likely, and sitting at the right hand of the Father is metaphor for it. There is only one throne, and only being on it.

I have heard similar thoughts about the "light".

I have even heard that Adam was clothed with "light" until he fell.
Then he realized his nakedness, which was due to no longer being clothed with "light".

There was a verse or two that was used to show this.
But every time I think about that, I cannot for the life of me remember the verses!!!
Seems like it was in the Psalms, but I'm not sure.

 

[Tambora]

Nice conversation! Keep it up!

Yes! I have enjoyed it immensely.

Add your thoughts any time!!

 

[Tambora]

I have been listening to some audio sermons of MAD to try and further get a grip on exactly what is taught.

One portion caught my interest.
It was concerning the reason Jesus healed.

In a nutshell, it suggested the physical healings were done to prepare the folks for the kingdom.
Scripture says the kingdom will be a kingdom of priests.
One could not be a priest if he had a physical defect.

 

[Choleric]

A few questions regarding the MAD take on these topics:

What do you make of Jesus telling the disciples that the only work was to "believe on Him who He has sent?". Was it looking forward to the BOC? To be honest, while I know you see the gospels as For Israel and rom-Phil for the BOC not sure how you deal with the gospels... Just curious how you handle that

Also, what is your precise take on the covenant? How do you define the new covenant and to what group(s) does it apply?

Regarding the heart, is the BOC believer given a new heart or is it still desperately wicked?

Thanks.

 

[Nick M]

Well, that wasn't the only thing. He said to do and observe all that the pharisee says to do and observe. Even after his death and resurection. He told them to teach all that he commanded. You can't command belief.

 

[chickenman]

I'll try to find some time today to get caught up in this thread.

Thanks for your patience, tambora and Choleric. And as always, any other MidActs'er (thanks, Nick) is more than welcome to chime in.

Randy

 

[MrDeets]

Nick, can you explain more about Peters letters... you said in G&_Ps thread it was regarding his hope for the future. Also, am I crazy, or is James truly speaking of justification by works like I think he is? Seems cut and dry, but you know I'm not the brightest crayon in the box...