Friday, April 18, 2008
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Study with Jim McGuiggan
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/revelation.asp
Revelation
Augustine on the 1st Resurrection
Book of Revelation (1 of 9)
Book of Revelation (2)
Book of Revelation (3)
Book of Revelation (4)
Book of Revelation (5)
Book of Revelation (6)
Book of Revelation (7)
Book of Revelation (8)
Book of Revelation (9 of 9)
Further Remarks on the Revelation
McGuiggan on the 1st Resurrection
Pathetic church--Mighty Empires
Revelation 11.15-17 and God's reign
Revelation: The storyline
Triumph and Loss in Revelation
Worship--See
Revelation
Augustine on the 1st Resurrection
Book of Revelation (1 of 9)
Book of Revelation (2)
Book of Revelation (3)
Book of Revelation (4)
Book of Revelation (5)
Book of Revelation (6)
Book of Revelation (7)
Book of Revelation (8)
Book of Revelation (9 of 9)
Further Remarks on the Revelation
McGuiggan on the 1st Resurrection
Pathetic church--Mighty Empires
Revelation 11.15-17 and God's reign
Revelation: The storyline
Triumph and Loss in Revelation
Worship--See
Friday, April 06, 2007
Let the Churches Hear, by Jim McGuiggan
back to Matthew | back to Reflections on This & That
Matthew 16.28 and AD 70
In numerous ways the cross of Jesus is the judgement of the world. It was the judgement of the world prior to the incarnation (compare Revelation 13.8), it is the judgement of the world during the personal ministry of Jesus (see John 12:31) and it stands today as the judgement of the world. Those who used the cross as a judgement against Jesus sided with the satanic agenda which is at the heart of "the world" but they did it without knowing that it was a judgement against themselves. Hester Cholmondeley got it right:
"Man as of old by himself is priced.
For thirty pieces Judas sold himself, not Christ."
The cross was the instrument that the Romans reserved especially for rebels, for people who would not accept their authority and Jesus came to inaugurate the (Messianic) kingdom of God. Since that was true he came as one who was born to be king and that meant there had to be a clash of empires.
He would make no Herodian compromise with Rome, there'd be no asking Rome for a piece of the action or permission to exist—it was all out war; it was him or them.
Of course Jesus was opposed to Rome but he was opposed to something vaster, something of which Rome was the current expression—the world spirit; the anti-God, anti-holiness and anti-life driving force that constitutes "the world".
The humiliating and death-bringing cross was the expression of Rome's heart but it was also the final weapon of Rome—they had nothing else. If their coercive power, which was fully and definitively expressed in the cross couldn't gain for them what they sought they were beaten. Christ absorbed it, embraced death on a cross and conquered it by rising to glory and immortality. This was the method by which he defeated Rome and "the world" that corrupt and ruthless Rome made visible.
In Matthew 16:21-23 Jesus spoke of his death and Peter refused to accept "defeatist talk" even from Jesus but the Master rebuked him with unbridled severity because Peter would have used the instruments of Rome (and "the world") to bring about the Messianic kingdom, which in that case would not have been the kingdom of God (see John 18:36).
Christ's view of the cross was not Peter's even though the views intersected. Jesus knew what the cross stood for but he also knew that the only way to defeat what the cross stood for was to embrace it and defeat it. Peter saw the cross as defeat by Roman hands and thought the way to defeat it was to avoid it and the way to avoid it was to bring death to the enemies. He didn't know—despite his devotion to Jesus—what Paul later knew, that in the cross the wilder powers and authorities were disarmed (Colossians 2:15).
But not all Jews were devoted to the Messiah so when they perceived him to be a threat to their lives and status (be sure to see John 11:47-53), to save themselves they made an alliance with Rome and rejected Jesus as King (be sure to see John 19:12-15 along with Matthew 16:25). Thus Israel joined Rome in rejecting the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus Christ which is why Peter in Acts 2:23 says they (the Jews) had by "lawless" hands crucified and slain the Messiah. The disciples make the same point in Acts 4:24-27. Israel and the Romans both used the cross against Jesus for the same reason: self-preservation! In both cases the cross expressed the heart of people who would not have this man to be king over them and in both cases they became the vehicle of the world-spirit. In seeking to destroy him they destroyed themselves.
The judgement of God on Rome is developed in the book of Revelation and the judgement on Israel is alluded to in many texts and there's one right here in Matthew 16 where Peter had confessed Jesus as Messiah but rejected Jesus' agenda and method. Israel to save its life would lose it. Israel to save its life joined Rome in killing Jesus but he warned that this would bring judgement on a nation that rejected the kingdom of God in the hands of Jesus.
That judgement would be publicly exhibited before that generation passed away. Jesus said that some of the people he was speaking to would still be alive to see the visible demonstration of his kingly power (Matthew 16:24-28 and Luke 9:23-27). We have the same story in Mark 8:31—9:1 where we're told that he said these things in the presence of the multitude (8:34). To refuse to align themselves with him as the Messiah in order to save themselves (8:35-37) would result in judgement and the irony of it is that Jesus would come in judgement on them through the very people they made their unholy alliance with (Rome).
The coming of Jesus in these Matthew, Mark and Luke texts is not the final coming of Jesus. It is one of his comings (see Revelation 2—3 for numerous "comings," some that would or would not take place depending on the response of the people), and he said it would occur soon and that some of the people listening to him would be alive to see it happening. [Note again that the book of Revelation develops the judgement rendered on the Roman Empire as Matthew 16:27-28; 24:1-34, Mark 8:38—9:1 and Luke 9:23-27 speak of the judgement on Israel.]
The cross was the Lord's victory over all the powers (see again Colossians 2:15) and his resurrection and exaltation made him Lord of All, but who saw the resurrected Jesus? Who saw him ascend in glory to immortality and to his place as King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Only a handful of people biased in his favour so who's going to believe them?
Judgement and blessing were to follow the exaltation of Jesus (compare Matthew 3:11-12). In Acts 2: 1-36, especially 33-36, we have the blessings poured out via the coming of the Holy Spirit as the prophets and the Baptist said would happen. Peter uses Joel and David to conclude this: "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made him whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." There is nothing future about this! The miracles these people were seeing and hearing were the objective proof that Jesus had already been exalted to God's throne.
Here was blessing poured out on the new Israel (that is, on believing Jews who placed their faith in Jesus; unbelieving Jews would be cut off from among the people—Acts 3:21-26). When judgement comes on unbelieving Israel it would be the proof that Jesus had been made Lord despite what Israel and the Gentiles conspired to do. The One who would render judgement on a nation that sought to save its own life would be the One that Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 17:5-8 proclaimed as King. The judgement in AD 70, which in my view is what Matthew 16 speaks about, is the public manifestation of Jesus' royal power—not the beginning of it. [Note that in the judgement on Rome, dealt with in the book of Revelation, Jesus is already ruler of the kings of the earth and King of Kings and Lord of Lords before the "battle of Armageddon" (see 1:5; 17:14 and 19:16).
Matthew 16.28 and AD 70
In numerous ways the cross of Jesus is the judgement of the world. It was the judgement of the world prior to the incarnation (compare Revelation 13.8), it is the judgement of the world during the personal ministry of Jesus (see John 12:31) and it stands today as the judgement of the world. Those who used the cross as a judgement against Jesus sided with the satanic agenda which is at the heart of "the world" but they did it without knowing that it was a judgement against themselves. Hester Cholmondeley got it right:
"Man as of old by himself is priced.
For thirty pieces Judas sold himself, not Christ."
The cross was the instrument that the Romans reserved especially for rebels, for people who would not accept their authority and Jesus came to inaugurate the (Messianic) kingdom of God. Since that was true he came as one who was born to be king and that meant there had to be a clash of empires.
He would make no Herodian compromise with Rome, there'd be no asking Rome for a piece of the action or permission to exist—it was all out war; it was him or them.
Of course Jesus was opposed to Rome but he was opposed to something vaster, something of which Rome was the current expression—the world spirit; the anti-God, anti-holiness and anti-life driving force that constitutes "the world".
The humiliating and death-bringing cross was the expression of Rome's heart but it was also the final weapon of Rome—they had nothing else. If their coercive power, which was fully and definitively expressed in the cross couldn't gain for them what they sought they were beaten. Christ absorbed it, embraced death on a cross and conquered it by rising to glory and immortality. This was the method by which he defeated Rome and "the world" that corrupt and ruthless Rome made visible.
In Matthew 16:21-23 Jesus spoke of his death and Peter refused to accept "defeatist talk" even from Jesus but the Master rebuked him with unbridled severity because Peter would have used the instruments of Rome (and "the world") to bring about the Messianic kingdom, which in that case would not have been the kingdom of God (see John 18:36).
Christ's view of the cross was not Peter's even though the views intersected. Jesus knew what the cross stood for but he also knew that the only way to defeat what the cross stood for was to embrace it and defeat it. Peter saw the cross as defeat by Roman hands and thought the way to defeat it was to avoid it and the way to avoid it was to bring death to the enemies. He didn't know—despite his devotion to Jesus—what Paul later knew, that in the cross the wilder powers and authorities were disarmed (Colossians 2:15).
But not all Jews were devoted to the Messiah so when they perceived him to be a threat to their lives and status (be sure to see John 11:47-53), to save themselves they made an alliance with Rome and rejected Jesus as King (be sure to see John 19:12-15 along with Matthew 16:25). Thus Israel joined Rome in rejecting the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus Christ which is why Peter in Acts 2:23 says they (the Jews) had by "lawless" hands crucified and slain the Messiah. The disciples make the same point in Acts 4:24-27. Israel and the Romans both used the cross against Jesus for the same reason: self-preservation! In both cases the cross expressed the heart of people who would not have this man to be king over them and in both cases they became the vehicle of the world-spirit. In seeking to destroy him they destroyed themselves.
The judgement of God on Rome is developed in the book of Revelation and the judgement on Israel is alluded to in many texts and there's one right here in Matthew 16 where Peter had confessed Jesus as Messiah but rejected Jesus' agenda and method. Israel to save its life would lose it. Israel to save its life joined Rome in killing Jesus but he warned that this would bring judgement on a nation that rejected the kingdom of God in the hands of Jesus.
That judgement would be publicly exhibited before that generation passed away. Jesus said that some of the people he was speaking to would still be alive to see the visible demonstration of his kingly power (Matthew 16:24-28 and Luke 9:23-27). We have the same story in Mark 8:31—9:1 where we're told that he said these things in the presence of the multitude (8:34). To refuse to align themselves with him as the Messiah in order to save themselves (8:35-37) would result in judgement and the irony of it is that Jesus would come in judgement on them through the very people they made their unholy alliance with (Rome).
The coming of Jesus in these Matthew, Mark and Luke texts is not the final coming of Jesus. It is one of his comings (see Revelation 2—3 for numerous "comings," some that would or would not take place depending on the response of the people), and he said it would occur soon and that some of the people listening to him would be alive to see it happening. [Note again that the book of Revelation develops the judgement rendered on the Roman Empire as Matthew 16:27-28; 24:1-34, Mark 8:38—9:1 and Luke 9:23-27 speak of the judgement on Israel.]
The cross was the Lord's victory over all the powers (see again Colossians 2:15) and his resurrection and exaltation made him Lord of All, but who saw the resurrected Jesus? Who saw him ascend in glory to immortality and to his place as King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Only a handful of people biased in his favour so who's going to believe them?
Judgement and blessing were to follow the exaltation of Jesus (compare Matthew 3:11-12). In Acts 2: 1-36, especially 33-36, we have the blessings poured out via the coming of the Holy Spirit as the prophets and the Baptist said would happen. Peter uses Joel and David to conclude this: "Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made him whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." There is nothing future about this! The miracles these people were seeing and hearing were the objective proof that Jesus had already been exalted to God's throne.
Here was blessing poured out on the new Israel (that is, on believing Jews who placed their faith in Jesus; unbelieving Jews would be cut off from among the people—Acts 3:21-26). When judgement comes on unbelieving Israel it would be the proof that Jesus had been made Lord despite what Israel and the Gentiles conspired to do. The One who would render judgement on a nation that sought to save its own life would be the One that Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 17:5-8 proclaimed as King. The judgement in AD 70, which in my view is what Matthew 16 speaks about, is the public manifestation of Jesus' royal power—not the beginning of it. [Note that in the judgement on Rome, dealt with in the book of Revelation, Jesus is already ruler of the kings of the earth and King of Kings and Lord of Lords before the "battle of Armageddon" (see 1:5; 17:14 and 19:16).
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Noah Singing to His Wife!!!!
from Weekly Archives
Noah singing to his wife
Human love can be an astonishing and inspiring thing. I’m talking about romantic love which at its best knows what’s it like to feel the heart lurch when some special person walks into the room but also knows how to give itself—come what may—through all of life to that same person.
I believe that human love (romance included) is a profound gift from God but I think I’m aware that as soon as the gift leaves his hand it’s no longer quite what he gave. That might need chewed on for a while but there’s no doubt in my mind that however sinful humans are, by the grace of God they’re capable of fascinating demonstrations of warm loyalty and happy self-sacrifice. They’re capable of seeing beyond themselves to what pleases someone else and while it’s true (certainly!) that they get pleasure in their self-forgetfulness they don’t do it with the commercial spirit. “If I love her/him I will find happiness in return.” None of that! Choice is never obliterated in the relationship but after a time it takes a back-seat and the lover is carried along with the person of the beloved.
Only a thoroughly hedonistic person—ruled by the pelvic region—is untouched by Noah’s song to his wife. The musical Two by Two is a humorous reflection on Noah and his ark. In 1970, Richard Rodgers, Martin Charnin, Peter Stone (using Clifford Odets, “Flowering Peach”) combined their talents and have Noah sing to his wife.
I do not know a day I did not love you.
I can’t remember when love wasn’t there.
The planting when the earth ran through your fingers.
The harvest when the sun shines in your hair.
I do not know I day I did not need you
For sharing every moment that I spent
I needed you before I ever knew you
Before I knew what needing someone meant.
And if we ever were to have tomorrow
One fact alone is full and filled with song
You will not know a day I do not love you
The way that I have loved you all along.
In the face of a global flood with the future filled with mystery and maybe uncertainty you can imagine his heart pouring that out.
The good news is that Noah isn’t dead. He’s alive and well in a countless number that—whatever their failures and limitations—have hearts that can think such thoughts and long for such loveliness. [Think I'll go and give Ethel my imitation of Tony Bennett.]
Noah singing to his wife
Human love can be an astonishing and inspiring thing. I’m talking about romantic love which at its best knows what’s it like to feel the heart lurch when some special person walks into the room but also knows how to give itself—come what may—through all of life to that same person.
I believe that human love (romance included) is a profound gift from God but I think I’m aware that as soon as the gift leaves his hand it’s no longer quite what he gave. That might need chewed on for a while but there’s no doubt in my mind that however sinful humans are, by the grace of God they’re capable of fascinating demonstrations of warm loyalty and happy self-sacrifice. They’re capable of seeing beyond themselves to what pleases someone else and while it’s true (certainly!) that they get pleasure in their self-forgetfulness they don’t do it with the commercial spirit. “If I love her/him I will find happiness in return.” None of that! Choice is never obliterated in the relationship but after a time it takes a back-seat and the lover is carried along with the person of the beloved.
Only a thoroughly hedonistic person—ruled by the pelvic region—is untouched by Noah’s song to his wife. The musical Two by Two is a humorous reflection on Noah and his ark. In 1970, Richard Rodgers, Martin Charnin, Peter Stone (using Clifford Odets, “Flowering Peach”) combined their talents and have Noah sing to his wife.
I do not know a day I did not love you.
I can’t remember when love wasn’t there.
The planting when the earth ran through your fingers.
The harvest when the sun shines in your hair.
I do not know I day I did not need you
For sharing every moment that I spent
I needed you before I ever knew you
Before I knew what needing someone meant.
And if we ever were to have tomorrow
One fact alone is full and filled with song
You will not know a day I do not love you
The way that I have loved you all along.
In the face of a global flood with the future filled with mystery and maybe uncertainty you can imagine his heart pouring that out.
The good news is that Noah isn’t dead. He’s alive and well in a countless number that—whatever their failures and limitations—have hearts that can think such thoughts and long for such loveliness. [Think I'll go and give Ethel my imitation of Tony Bennett.]
Sunday, February 26, 2006
REVELATION: THE STORYLINE
from Book of Revelation
Revelation: The storyline
Be sure to see the other remarks in this section for a little more:
http://www.jimmcguiggan.com/revelation/home.asp
And maybe:
Saturday, January 28, 2006
%20181.2.jpg)
%20770.1.jpg)
%20771.1.jpg)
Wilderness Family
We mainly like to go Camping, Hunting, & Fishing.
Though my son & I went to Oahu last June (2005). Here's a ccouple of pictures of what we saw.
Frank
Though my son & I went to Oahu last June (2005). Here's a ccouple of pictures of what we saw.
Frank
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)