At the Right Hand

At the Right Hand

Dr Stephen Whitsett

ABSTRACT: The dilemma of the Full Preterist is trying to work out in scriptures how everything was fulfilled in AD 70. In a recirculated article by Lloyd Dale, Steven Haukdahl presents his own form of Partial Preterism he argues that “Jesus was enthroned in His Parousia ca. AD 70 – not at His ascension in ca AD 30,” based on an interpretation filtered through the Olivet discourse. This paper demonstrates the consistency of the futurist position is built on many scriptures when rightly harmonized demonstrates that when Christ ascended he was given the kingdom to rule over.

The apology begins with the assertion that Heb 1:3, notes that Jesus sat down at the “ right hand of the father” and then coupled with I Cor 15:25 it is shown that he continues to rule until all enemies are made his footstool. Dale begins with the acknowledgment that Christ ascended into heaven in and about AD 33 but then quickly transitions to Luke 21 which he believes sheds light on the “timing of Jesus Christ’s reception of the promised Kingdom.”

From Luke 21 he extracts the phrase “the Kingdom of God is near.” Then argues that “near” does not mean near. From this he extrapolates that “the promised Kingdom had not yet arrived.”

The Greek word for “near” (Luke 10:9, 11; 19:11, 21:31), is engys

ἐγγύς, (adv, describes a verb) The  word denotes either something that is close in place or close in a time frame of coming. His contention made by Lloyd is that the Kingdom of God is not near in place, and then seeks to demonstrate that it is coming in “time.”

          Lloyd then argues that from McKnight who argues that the King Jesus had arrived, and it was Jesus who was preaching, “the kingdom of God has come upon you.” (Luke 11:20) If Christ Jesus is King then the implies he is a king of over a kingdom. Since this is the kingdom of God it means the rule and reign over men’s heart. Those that enter the kingdom accept the rule and reign of Jesus in their hearts when they believe.

Lloyd rejects this by going to Heb 1 where that it never mentions “that Jesus “finally received the Kingdom promised to Him.” The writer of Hebrews goes on to argue that Christ has become our high priest and never mentions Jesus as the “king”. In Heb 2:7 we note that Christ was crowned with glory and honor. In I Time 1:17 Christ is called, “To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” Which Paul declares post ascension and pre ad 70. Col 1 Paul states that, “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. … And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together” which is certainly kingdom language.

Lloyd then argues that Jesus was invited to sit down at the right hand, until God makes all his enemies his footstool.  Heb 10:12 confirmed that he sat down at the right hand upon his ascension, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. Again in I Cor 15:24-28 we have a noted contradiction,

Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 

The question then is asked; in what sense has Christ made all his enemies a footstool if God was supposed to do it for him? Paul goes on to explain this seemingly contradictory statement.

27For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “all things are put in subjection,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him. 28When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

The idea is that God is sovereign. When Christ ascended, God has made Jesus’ sovereign over all of creation so that all things are under his feet.

For the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, … And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. John 5:22, 27

          Christ being sovereign is the one through his kingdom makes every enemy subject to him, meaning Christ takes rulership over these powers and principalities and force them to serve and obey. Currently Jesus is sovereign, but he allows Kingdoms and nations, and people the freedom to act as they please but one day he will put all into subjection where they no longer act against his will. Certainly no one would accept Nazi Germany was acting under Christ’s authority.  

          Clearly Lloyd equates the idea that while waiting for God to put all enemies under his feet means that Christ was not ruling, but God UNTIL AD 70 when Christ was given the kingdom and now all his enemies rule under Christ even in this present age. Which begs the question: in God’s sovereignty can you say with all sincerity that God commanded  the Roman empire upon the people as well as Nazi Germany or did he allow them to do evil so that his glory may be revealed in time? Would you say that those nations were acting under the sovereignty of God and that those nations were led and directed by King Jesus to do what they did?[1]  Or did God allow them to act as they did?

          Peter stated that Satan was free to roam the earth seeking whom he may devour, but one day Satan will be cast into a prison and kept from deceiving the nations. That is the example of God’s sovereignty and yet allows the evil to exist and act until one day he will bring and end to that evil.

          It is well understood that scriptures can be read through many different forms or systems of interpretation of which most are used and created to force presupposition upon the text. Lloyd stated clearly without obfuscation “ Jesus received His promised kingdom when He ascended to the “right hand of the Father.”  Simply put, that is not what the Bible teaches.”
          From Mathew 24 the phrase “son of man coming on clouds,” or “Coming in His kingdom,” or  “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.” IS all interpreted as the Second Coming. “When he comes” means, when he ascend into heaven and sits down at the right hand he is given the kingdom.” Yet Lloyd stated Parousia is not about his coming down out of heaven and then begs the question where is he “coming” to if not down? Lloyd stated,

Bible does teach that God gave Jesus “the throne of His glory” in ca. 70AD.  This is the one and only “Parousia” of Jesus Christ and it has nothing to do with a “return to earth” then or in the future.

So Lloyd has Jesus “coming” to the father in heaven, but the father did not give Jesus the kingdom to rule over until “he came in AD 70? This then begs the question If Jesus is in heaven and coming (Parosuia)  doesn’t mean coming down to earth then what is the “second coming?”  

Lloyd then gives us some of the most inconsistent, incoherent definition of Parousia.

1. At His resurrection the anointed Prince is invited to ascend to heaven and be seated on the right hand of the Father.  In Jesus’ own commentary on this verse, He states, I sat “down with my Father in His throne.”

• Jesus is to remain seated with his Father, until His Father gives Him the kingdom by placing all of His enemies under His authority.

We are at a complete loss at where the bible teaches he is to remain seated until …. Lloyd argues,

In the Parousia, Jesus leaves His father’s throne and ascends to the throne of His glory, i.e. the promised and long-awaited throne of His father David.

Lloyd is suggesting the throne of David, is not God’s throne. Jesus is no longer sitting at the right hand of God but now he is sitting in some other throne  and God is sitting at his right hand. He uses Rev 3:21 to prove his point.
          Please not that Lloyd states, “he ascend to the throne of His father David” which is an admission that the parousia is the ascension a form of coming to…

When a verse then is made clear that it actually destroys the premise or proposition stated by Lloyd the reader has a choice to accept what scriptures states or stubbornly hold on to the lie.  Lloyd Dale holds to the idea that, “Jesus did not receive His kingdom when he sat down at the right hand of the father,” and yet Dan 7:13-14 states quite clearly, that when Jesus ascended he is given all authority and rulership over the  kingdom.  

behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
14And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.

son of man,  came to the Ancient of Days … And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom.

I’m sure that many will attempt to argue against the plain meaning of scriptures, but Lloyd Dale already gave up his position by saying that Jesus left the right hand of the father and ascended to the throne of his father Daivid (without telling us where it is or what that means.)

Clearly Daniel saw the “son of man” ascend into heaven coming to the ancient of days, sitting at his right hand, and receiving the promised kingdom.

---

[1] If Jesus is sovereign now why are not all nations and peoples subject to his authority, why does he allow nations to make war when the prophets declared that when Jesus is ruling on the throne of his father David they would turn their swords into plow shares?