Growth He and We are Risen

[Drew]

LWB 1 Cor. 15:25 For he [satan] must continue to rule it [the earth] until He [the Father] has relegated all His [the Spirit’s] enemies under His [Christ’s] feet.

I believe no scholar will agree with your interpretation that the "he" as is "For he must....." is Satan. I believe this "he" is Jesus. Paul is saying that Jesus continues to rule until, at the very end, Jesus hands authority back to the Father.

 

[Drew]

This issue is one of many where we need to try to understand the culture in which the Biblical texts were written, and not assume that the authors were 21st century westerners.

To any Jew of Biblical times, the modern idea of separation of religion and politics would make no sense whatsoever; such a separation is a strictly modern idea. But since it is a modern idea that has so deeply influenced western thinking, we unintentionally, and incorrectly I might add, assume that this concept was available to the people who write the Bible.

It was not, and this is a major reason why we should not imagine that Paul, or Jesus, or any Jew could conceive of someone being King over an inner "spiritual" domain only - such a notion was not part of the cultural matrix of the times.

So when Jesus announced that He was initiating the Kingdom of God here on Earth, He really meant it in the full political sense.

 

[gr8grace3]

This issue is one of many where we need to try to understand the culture in which the Biblical texts were written, and not assume that the authors were 21st century westerners.

To any Jew of Biblical times, the modern idea of separation of religion and politics would make no sense whatsoever; such a separation is a strictly modern idea. But since it is a modern idea that has so deeply influenced western thinking, we unintentionally, and incorrectly I might add, assume that this concept was available to the people who write the Bible.

It was not, and this is a major reason why we should not imagine that Paul, or Jesus, or any Jew could conceive of someone being King over an inner "spiritual" domain only - such a notion was not part of the cultural matrix of the times.

So when Jesus announced that He was initiating the Kingdom of God here on Earth, He really meant it in the full political sense.

This is exactly why He was killed. They couldn't separate the suffering servant from the King. If He came as the conquering King in the first advent, He would have never went to the Cross. The Jew would have had what they wanted....a King. And His officers would have fought for Him.

2 Cor 4:4~~NASB~~in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

Satan wants to be like the most High. Gods Grace has offered Satan a chance to "see" if he can do it on his own. We all know satan fails at being like the most high and satan can't rule anything to a successful end without God. Arrogance rules satan. But obviously satan has been granted permission to try.

This world does not testify of Christs rule. This world testifies of satans inability to be like the most High.

This is the subtle deception~~~Satan wants to clean up this world, he wants to present the world right and good to God and say,"see I told you I could do it without you I can be like the most High!"

And satan has believers that have unintentionally fallen for this subtle deception and have them at work cleaning up his world.

 

[Drew]

This is exactly why He was killed. They couldn't separate the suffering servant from the King. If He came as the conquering King in the first advent,....

Well, I think He did conquer - Paul writes that He disarmed the principalities and powers at the cross.

2 Cor 4:4~~NASB~~in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

A "god" is not the same thing as a king. The implied argument is that if Satan – who is inarguably set in the “god of this world” role – is “god”, then it follows that he also should be understood to be “king” or “ruler”. The problem with such a view is this: those who advance such an argument presumably also believe that while Jesus is in the “god” category (all Trinitarians believe this by definition), that status does not necessarily confer kingship on Him.

In other words, such people are being inconsistent in terms of what is implied by predicating “god-ness” of Satan and Jesus, holding both the following, mutually incompatible, positions:

1. Satan, in virtue of being ascribed the status of “god”, is also to be seen as king;

2. Jesus, although certainly ascribed the status of “god”, is not, in virtue of this ascription, to be seen as king.

Do you see the problem?


Satan wants to be like the most High. Gods Grace has offered Satan a chance to "see" if he can do it on his own. We all know satan fails at being like the most high and satan can't rule anything to a successful end without God. Arrogance rules satan. But obviously satan has been granted permission to try.

This world does not testify of Christs rule. This world testifies of satans inability to be like the most High.

This is the subtle deception~~~Satan wants to clean up this world, he wants to present the world right and good to God and say,"see I told you I could do it without you I can be like the most High!"

And satan has believers that have unintentionally fallen for this subtle deception and have them at work cleaning up his world.[/QUOTE]

 

[Drew]

This world does not testify of Christs rule.

I think this is highly debatable. First, I refer again to my argument about 1 Cor 15: to have a world with death and evil in it is not evidence that Jesus is not King precisely because Paul tells us that Jesus will indeed rule until all enemies are defeated - this implies that during his rule, some enemies will still be around. It is only at the end of His rule - when He hands the kingdom back to His Father - that all enemies will be gone.

Besides, there is arguably evidence of Jesus' Kingship anyway - a case can be made that despite problems like the Crusades, the Christian worldview has shaped the world for the better. I realize this a controversial statement, but I will make it and see what happens (by the way, I do not expect you to disagree with this, but some non-believers might, if any are lurking out there).

 

[Drew]

Sorry for the length of the following - I would like to think it is as short as it reasonably could be. The point is that there is nothing incoherent with Jesus being King over a world that is still beset by great problems (like sin and death). Here goes:

Many Christians, perhaps most, believe Jesus is not yet king of this world. One argument advanced is that if Jesus were truly king right now, there would be no evil in the world. However, many texts strongly suggest that Jesus is indeed presently enthroned over this present world. Does the person who denies Jesus’ present reign based on the existence of evil have a point, requiring that we re-think texts that seem to suggest He is already enthroned?

No. This particular objection to the “kingdom now” position is based on an historically inaccurate concept of kingship. To understand what it means to say that Jesus presently reigns, we need to appeal to some model of the nature of kingship. When someone says “Jesus cannot be reigning since there is still evil and death”, that person implicitly appeals to a model where the king instantaneously solves all the problems in his realm upon taking the throne. And that, as we shall see, is not likely the kingship model which the first century authors of the New Testament had in mind.

The model of kingship ingrained in the mind of the 1st century Jew was one where kingship was implemented over time, and not brought to full consummation the instant the king was enthroned.

In AD 130, following a successful Jewish rebellion against the Romans, the prominent Jewish Rabbi Akiba proclaimed the Jewish rebel leader, Simeon ben Kosibar, as Messiah. What happened next? They minted a coin celebrating his enthronement with the year “1” on it and bearing the image of the temple.

The temple did not exist in 130 AD. The presence of the temple image on the coin demonstrates that the 1st century Jewish kingship model allowed for a time delay between enthronement and the full realization of the kingdom.

This coheres perfectly with another scriptural theme about the nature of kingship – the twin themes that the enthroned king will defeat the enemies of Israel and rebuild (or cleanse) the temple. These are the two main elements of the Messianic vocation. David was declared king before all of Israel’s enemies had been defeated. And it was only after he was king for a time that he planned the rebuilding of the temple, a goal that was only finally achieved during the reign of his son. Solomon. Was David not “really king” since those goals remain unfulfilled at the beginning of his reign? Of course not. We need to think Biblically about the nature of kingship (instead of using “Sunday School” theology where an enthroned Jesus snaps His fingers and magically fixes all problems).

Returning to the matter of Jesus, we see how such a model is entirely consistent the thesis that Jesus is indeed presently king over this world. We too could mint coin with an image denoting the end of the existence of evil. And just as the Jews of 130 AD acknowledged that Simeon ben Kosibar was king without the temple actually yet rebuilt, and just as David was king before the actual building of the temple, so too can we coherently assert that Jesus is King right now even though evil is still present in this world. Furthermore, this picture of Jesus as king works perfectly with this dense statement from 1 Corinthians 15:

For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

Just as with Simeon ben Kosibar and with David, Jesus’ agenda is an unfolding plan.

Some may object that since Jesus is specifically divine, He will be able to instantly and completely solve all the problems of the world once enthroned. In other words, while we can accept that a human king can be enthroned even while there is chaos in his realm, at least for a time, this could not be case for a divine king (such as Jesus).

Such an argument is easily undermined by the fact that God’s grand plan of redemption, beginning with the call of Abraham and climaxing centuries of years later on the cross, was decidedly not an “instant” solution. Was God not at work during that time? Why didn’t He fix everything instantly? One is being more than a little Biblically naïve if one insists that any divine rule must accomplish all kingdom objectives instantly.

 

[netchaplain]

I see no Biblical evidence whatsoever that Satan is in any sense "king" or "ruler" over the world. Quite the contrary,

The "world" Satan is ruler over is, not the physical world, but those who comprise the majority of its population, which is why they are so often termed "the world" (esp. by Christ in the Gospels), because the majority of mankind will not be in Christ, for the Body--the Church--will be "few" in comparison to those who will perish (Mat 7:13, 14).

Examples:
"The prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Eph 2:2). The"air" is in reference to the fallen angels: "which is not to be understood of any supposed power the devil has over the air, by divine permission, to raise winds, but of a posse, or body of devils, who have their residence in the air; for it was not only the notion of the Jews that there are noxious and accusing spirits, who fly about rywab, "in the air," and that there is no space between the earth and the firmament free, and that the whole is full of a multitude of them . . ." JG

"The prince of this world" (John 12:31; 14:30). "The phrase, 'Mlwehrv', "the prince of the world," is much used by Jewish writers, by whom an angel is meant; and they seem to design the angel of death, which is the devil: and it is certain, that he is here intended, and is so called, not because he has any legal power and authority over the world; but because he has usurped a dominion over it, and has great power and efficacy in the hearts of the children of disobedience, who yield a voluntary subjection to him, as if he was their proper lord and sovereign." JG