The Narrow Path Ministries

"fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." Heb 12:2

"He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." Rev 3:21

What does Heb 12:2 mean when it states "and has sat down at the right hand/side of the throne of God"? Because in Rev 3:21 it states that Jesus is actually in His Father's throne.

Acts 7:55-56
But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; 56 and he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.

Eph. 1:19-21
These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.

Col. 3:1
Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.

Heb 1:3
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Heb 8:1
Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

Acts 2

29"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
35until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet." '

Is not Peter saying that "sitting at the right hand of God " is sitting on the throne of David?

Hmm, then what idea is being portrayed with all the verses referring to Jesus at the right hand/side of God's throne?

Hola:

"He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne." Rev 3:21

It seems to me to be a question of sovereignty. The Father sits on His throne as a King over all creation , while the the throne of Christ/David would be kingship over (since the inclusion of gentiles) all the nations and the people of God.

In the above verse it promises a share in this sovereignty to Christians. In this world as well as the next.

Thomas

What does Heb 12:2 mean when it states "and has sat down at the right hand/side of the throne of God"? Because in Rev 3:21 it states that Jesus is actually in His Father's throne.



Perhaps these are symbolic descriptions as "the right hand of God" is a position of favor and "in his Father's throne" is symbolic of power.

What does Heb 12:2 mean when it states "and has sat down at the right hand/side of the throne of God"? Because in Rev 3:21 it states that Jesus is actually in His Father's throne.

I suspected that the expression in the Heb 12:2 passage is actually a Greek idiom which affirms the same thing as the Rev 3:21 passage.

Just now I looked up the Heb 12:2 passage in Alford's Greek Testament, and found support for my suspicion. Immediately after his translation of "is seated on the right hand of the throne of God" Alford wrote the following words in parentheses "i.e. on the throne of God, at His right hand ..."

One idea is that the words in question were a metaphorical figure of speech familiar to people in the 1st century in a way that we have difficulty relating to. Consider this episode:

Matthew 26:63-65 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. KJV

Why would Caiaphas become so upset at this statement which is found several places in scripture? How would the high priest "see" this? From Psalm 110 we know that the Messiah i.e. the Son of man would sit at God's right hand which is the place of great honor. Only God can sit on God's throne so Caiaphas understood Jesus to be claiming to be God. The reference to "coming in the clouds" is an example of Judgement language used by the OT prophets to convey the idea that God would bring judgement on a particular people for behavior inconsistent with God's will. Thus, Jesus promises to vindicate himself by fulfilling the claim to be God by showing the high priest some form of evidence that will prove his statement--it will be something the high priest could "see" and it will be something only God could accomplish.

The short answer is that Jesus' resurrection from the dead and ascension to heaven is such a compelling evidence that even Caiaphas would have recognized its significance. I'll go out on a limb and say that he would have recognized that Jesus had entered the presence of God.

More can be said but, sorry, I must go.

livingink

Interesting Steve. While you mention it, I think of two passages that may help us out. Compare the following two:

Ephesians 2:4-10
4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive
together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), 6 and raised us
up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly [places], in Christ Jesus:

Eph. 1:19-21
19These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.

Two things come to mind.

1) It appears that our position in consequence on our union in the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension/enthronement with Christ parallels to that which Christ has with His Father as He is seated with Him on His throne. This is a plausible explanation.

2) It could as be that since God is Spirit, Christ has indeed sat down on His Father's throne. The Father is in the Son. They are one in essence and unity. For in Him (Christ) dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily.

John 17:1-5
These things spake Jesus; and lifting up his eyes to heaven, he said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the son may glorify thee: 2 even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that to all whom thou hast given him, he should give eternal life. 3 And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, [even] Jesus Christ. 4 I glorified thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which thou hast given me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

The following comes from here

Temple Vision
New religious movements like the Jehovah's Witnesses take it for granted that Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, is the 'Father-only.' The classic proof that the God of the Old Testament is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not 'Father-only', comes from Isaiah 6:1-3, combined with John 12:41 and Acts 28:25. Isaiah saw God in the temple:

"In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims: each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory." (Isaiah 6:1-3).

Whom did Isaiah see? John the evangelist says he saw Christ. After quoting Isaiah 6:9-10, he says, "These things said Esaias, when he saw his [Christ's] glory, and spake of him. Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue..." (John 12:41-42). Paul quotes the same passage, attributing the LORD's words to the Holy Spirit:

"So when they did not agree among themselves, they departed after Paul had said one word: 'The Holy Spirit spoke rightly through Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying, "Go to this people and say: 'Hearing you will hear, and shall not understand; and seeing you will see, and not perceive; for the hearts of this people have grown dull. Their ears are hard of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, so that I should heal them.'" (Acts 28:25-27).

Q.E.D. - the God of the Old Testament, the LORD of hosts, is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not 'Father-only'.[/b]

Q.E.D. - the God of the Old Testament, the LORD of hosts, is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not 'Father-only'

I fail to see why these passages indicate to you a Trinitarian God.

Why can't "the LORD" (Yahweh) in the context of Isaiah 6:1-8 refer to the Father alone and "the Lord" (Adonai) refer to His Son, begotten before all ages?

Or is it the case that you had already begun with a Trinitarian God, and interpret the passage accordingly?