This post is very transparent. I hope I am safe here, asking these questions.
I qualify ALL of this by saying that I do not answer "affirmative" to every question I ask below. I am a Seeker. I claim few answers.
But, I have a lot of questions and I assume that my God can stand the scrutiny of a difficult question. So, I ask. This is the meat of the "Kindgom on Earth" issue. And it challenges me greatly to think about it.
When you look at Jesus' words by themselves, there is tremendous room for interpretation - furthermore, when we look at Jesus' words alone, much of the dogma of Program Christianity melts away. I am not saying that the dogma is not true. But I am saying that Jesus never said it.
Here goes.
Jesus does not lie, yet He said:
Luke 9:27 (New International Version)
27I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."
So, someone in His audience actually saw the Kingdom.
Mark 9:1 (New International Version)
Mark 9
1And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."
Furthermore, it is a powerful experience for the experiencer. Awesomely powerful, I am sure.
And finally (my favorite):
Matthew 16:28 (New International Version)
28I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
Whose Kingdom? The Son of Man's. Who is the Son of Man? Jesus of course. But, a special aspect of Jesus...
When Jesus speaks of himself as Son of Man, it is my understanding that he is referring to his humanity - his (perfect and sinless) human aspect. There is precedent for this assertion in treatment of the term in the Old Testament Hebrew literature, as well as other non-biblical Hebrew literature. The terms Son of Man, and sons of men, were well known to contemporaties of Jesus, and were always associated with the concept of "humanity" in a broad sense of the word.
So, if the Kingdom belongs to the Son of Man, and the Son of Man implies "humanity", then is it partly "humanity's" Kingdom too? If we are Redeemed, then our sin is no more. i.e. we should be on equal footing with Jesus from a sin perspective. So, original sin cannot be a reason that we don't own some Kingdom too.
Quite a lot hinges on the definition of Son of Man.
If Jesus did not want to share His authority and ownership of the Kingdom with humanity, then why did He not call himself Son of God? He could have.
Curiously, Jesus identifies with his (perfect, sinless) human aspect MUCH more often than his divine aspect. He constantly calls Himself Son of Man. Yet he never directly calls himself Son of God. Satan does, demons do, the Sanhedrin accuses Him of doing it. But, Jesus only acknowledges the fact after direct questioning by the Sanhedrin. And indirectly with the Samaritan woman. Jesus seems to downplay Son of God. He focuses on Son of Man. Of course, the post resurrection writings never talk about Son of Man, and always Son of God. But Jesus did the opposite. Why?
A lot depends on the definition of Son of Man.
So, let us assume that Son of Man is a deliberate attempt to identify with humanity. Does that mean that Jesus is not the son of God? No. It just means that when Jesus speaks of himself, He chooses to emphasize His humanity. He must have a reason for doing that.
I think it might be because he in encouraging us to see a little more "Logos" in ourselves. He wants us to see more of Him in ourselves. He wants God's Creative Will to flow through us. He is indirectly saying that God's Creative Will CAN flow through humans. Did He not say:
20Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
My point is not to challenge Jesus' position as the legitimate Son of God, just to point out that Jesus' primary concern was teaching us about how to live as Humans within the Kingdom - here and now. And to the extent that we cannot do that perfectly in the present, we always have Heaven to look forward to in the future. Is that not the Sermon on the Mount in a nutshell?
Sure, you can get some guidance on this when you look into the epistles, but Jesus himself leaves it pretty dog-gone loose. Why did He do that?
Is it now apparent why I value the Red Letters above the writings of Paul? Jesus preached personal experience. Paul made the abstractions of Jesus' parables tangible for Sheeple. Jesus challenged us to explore and partake of direct revelation. Paul gave a guidebook to those who cannot do what Jesus preached.
Furthermore (and maybe most challenging) doesn't the verse "...see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" have definite Second Coming overtones? Is it possible that when Jesus spoke of His return, he was allegorically speaking of our entry into the Kingdom?
I believe that Redemption occurs when a choice for Grace is made. Participation in the Kingdom, with Spirit power, happens at a later date - and only after Seeking. This is basically the "Sanctification" or "Second Blessing" doctrine of the Nazarene denomination that I currently ascribe to.
I am having a hard time dealing with the implications of what this suggests. It seems to suggest that maybe we partake in the Kingdom in the same way that Jesus' human aspect partook of it??? Does it suggest co-ownership? Where does His Kingdom stop and our kingdom start? Is His Kingdom our kingdom?
Maybe these things are just Mysteries. These questions are the very reason I wanted Red Letters only. I know the answer when I look at the entire New Testament. But the Red Letters seem different to me. Much more "mystical", "experiential", and with more "direct revelation".
To me, the Epistles are logical and rational. The Gospels, especially the Red Letters, cannot be comprehended with rational thought. Only by intuition and revelation.
Sheeple do left brain. Seekers do right brain.
We did say that nothing was off limits in this discussion, didn't we?
Blessings :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Many questions but to the first one... Last chapter of Luke. The disciples were sad then Jesus appeared, then ascended
ReplyDeleteThe disciples now have great joy. Is that the Kingdom
Jesus used Son of Man more than other titles, that is true, but yet he responded this way when challenged to the point of immanent death
Matthew 26:
Finally two came forward 61and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' "
62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[e] the Son of God."
64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66What do you think?"
"He is worthy of death," they answered.
Ah. Very good. No doubt he is both. But I am always confused by this. They are not randomly interchangeable, I do not think.
ReplyDeleteAlso, this passage speaks to my correction. I am not contending that there is no future coming in the clouds. I know that there is.
To me, Son of Man, with capitals, is not the same as sons of men. Is there justification and reason for making the term, when applying to Jesus, a proper noun? I mean inthe original languages? Or was it done by scribes as a gesture of respect or honor?
I think we can kill off two birds with this verse.
ReplyDeleteWhat did the chief priest get angry about... I am or Son of Man?
I think the use here of Son of Man would deserve a capitalization.
Mark 14:
60Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 61But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer.
Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ,[f] the Son of the Blessed One?"
62"I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."
63The high priest tore his clothes. "Why do we need any more witnesses?" he asked. 64"You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?"
They got angry about I Am. They perceive Son of the Blessed One to be claim of Messiah, which they were looking for.
ReplyDeleteSo, yes, Jesus conclusively is aware of His divinity and says so, albeit still indirectly. I do see the "my Kingdom is far above your kingdom" claim we spoke of yesterday.
And it is obvious from other passages that there is Unity between the Father and the Son. So, Jesus knows what He is saying here.
But, this is still passive. Jesus does not stand on the street corner and say "I am God". But he has no issue at all saying "I am Son of Man". And again it is only in response to direct questioning. And again, He had to be asked twice.
It is always Son of Man who is sitting at the right hand of God.
Am I thick here? That seems very significant to me. When Jesus talks about the right hand of God, and this is the second itme He has done it, he always defines himself with His human aspect.
Seems to me that if one does not see what I am saying, then he is essentially equating Son of Man with Son of God. Given the consistency of Jesus usage of Son of Man, I have to believe that there is a significant difference between the two. Every time Jesus answers affirmatively that He is in fact divine, He turns right back around and identifies with his human aspect.
Again, why? What am I missing?
Maybe your commentatry and setup for the scripture is too terse for me to catch your meaning.
Do you know anyone who knows Greek who can chime in on this for me?