Revelation 5:5-10 Jesus Worshipped As God In The Heavenly Throne Room.
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ต.ค. 2024
- The short section we tackle today has so much content which is profound and frankly mind blowing, that it simply needs to be considered fully and with care. Understanding what John saw here, and how Jesus was received in the Throne Room of God, destroys the cult's beliefs about the nature of Jesus.
Jesus is shown to be the only one qualified to take the scroll, read it, understand it and implement what will be shown for the remainder of the book. In this section we see the first of three groups ascribing worship to Jesus, referred to as, "Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, and a Lamb as though it had been slain" All this before the Father who is seated, having held the scroll before Jesus takes it. This will be followed by angels and all of creation taking their turn at praise and worship of The Lamb.
It simply cannot be over-emphasized that we must recognize that the same Jesus who suffered and died to conquer sin and death is the same who will be seen as King above all kings and Lord above all lords. He is Majesty, He is man and He is Almighty God.
![[UNCUT] บอสพอล แผลงฤทธิ์ บอสพระ-นักร้อง ก. โดนแฉยับ! I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 21 ต.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XKf6HeftoPI/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you, Lord, for You are worthy!
Another comment: your thoughts on the prayers of the saints and how these are prayers that will be answered "yes" but not yet. I've read this passage numerous times but never could grasp what those prayers were. Your words are still very much with me - there have been so many times that I wanted to ask the Lord to make all this insanity just stop (!) but wasn't sure that such a request was okay. So I censored myself, all the while fully aware that He knew what I was thinking. Gets quite confusing. Thank you, Pastor Chris, for those words. I now feel much more free to express this sort of thing to Him. I know that He hears all of our prayers and He answers all of them - just not always "yes." Thank you. And thanks to the Lord for His Word.
So good! Your understanding and ability to teach the Word is truly amazing and such a tremendous blessing! Thank you verily!
It is a joy to do, and always a blessing to read through it first, before I record it.
Hubs and I are really enjoying these studies. Chocked full of info and easy to follow along. To God be all the glory!
It's comforting to know that our prayers for all this insanity to stop and for Jesus's soon return are heard and treasured by God and will one day be answered
Hi Pastor Chris. I really appreciate you taking the time to teach the Word of God. Quick question - do you think the idea of the 7 attributes of the Holy Spirit in Isaiah 11 comes from the Septuagint?
Isaiah 11:2 ... πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ συνέσεως, πνεῦμα βουλῆς καὶ ἰσχύος, πνεῦμα γνώσεως καὶ εὐσεβείας· 11:3 ἐμπλήσει αὐτὸν πνεῦμα φόβου θεοῦ ...
... the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and godliness shall fill Him the spirit of the fear of God ...
Amen🙏🏻‼️
❤🙏🏼
Hello, You bring up the Greek words petra/petros argument and I believe it’s important to note to the viewers that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the word in the Aramaic is Kepha for Peter and Rock. There is no distinction in Aramaic in this verse, like you are suggesting. There is no distinction in this verse that says this word means a small stone and this word means boulder or bedrock foundation. Simply Jesus would have said, you are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my church. An interesting note is to look at Matthew 16 in the French. It came from the same Greek translation but a different language and it only has one word for both-Pierre. It reads, you are Pierre and upon this Pierre I will build my church. Also, many non-Catholic Biblical scholars admit that Peter is indeed the rock.
Hi! You bring up a good point. However, I think it's reasonable to expect that Jesus also spoke Hebrew (he read the OT scriptures), Greek and Latin. I am reminded that, while humans were the scribes of Scripture, the Holy Spirit was its author. It's pretty settled that the NT was written in Greek. There are places in Scripture, such as portions of Daniel, which were written in Aramaic while the rest was in Hebrew. So, while He spoke in Aramaic as an everyday language while He was here, the Holy Spirit moved those holy men of God to write the NT in Greek. Just a thought🙏
The record of the passage is Greek, which is what God used to convey the record. There would be option in the Greek to say it in a lesser way, if Peter were the foundation of some new institution, as in repeating Petros. In the places where Petra is used of an individual, including LXX, it always reflects Jesus and none other. Which is why Peter quotes the passage to reflect Jesus, as does Paul and not himself.
Besides, there are plenty of other reasons how we know that Jesus is the foundation of the church and not a fallen man. He did not the authority in Jerusalem (Acts 15) or in the gentile church. James and Paul were those men and Paul even concedes no authority over himself, but God alone. If Peter were some over arching vicar then Paul would have considered himself subordinate to Peter. After Acts 10, compared to Paul, Peter is in a considerably lesser role in the church.
@@chrisquintanaoldpaththeolo6130 Thanks for your comments and they have the same sentiment that it was written in Greek. Some like to lean on this heavily and I would like to make a quick side note. The earliest manuscripts we have of any of the books of the New Testament are in Greek, yet not a single manuscript is an original. They’re all copies. From the mere fact of Greek manuscripts we can’t conclude that the originals must have been written in Greek. Yes, there may be a presumption of that, but not actually a proof.
Secondly, your reading of Matt 16 and differentiating two different words doesn’t fit well with the context. For example, when God changes names it’s for a significant reason, and with your reading you are saying Jesus changed Simon’s name just to minimize or diminish him and point out that he is an insignificant stone. The result is “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! You are an insignificant little pebble. Here are the keys to the kingdom of heaven!” Such an incongruous sequence of statements would have been not merely odd, but inexplicable.
And thirdly, I think D.A Carson gives responses to your claims from your first paragraph and just gives insight to the thought, reason and a history of using two words in Greek. Carson says in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. “Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." Carson also says in the -Zondervan NIV Bible Commentry. “The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.”
@@daveevans3276 And we can find people who can argue the grammar all day long, can't we? I will avoid that, since it is fruitless. It is why I prefer to let the text settle the matter, internally. As I mentioned above, and will add this further, scripture is the best interpreter of scripture.
Point 1. In every case where Petra is used of an individual, it always points to Jesus, without exception. (Matthew 7:24, 25, Romans 9:33, I Corinthians 10:4, I Peter 2:8)
Point 2. If Peter was made pope, then there would need to be priests and a priesthood. Yet there is nothing in scripture giving instructions about a priesthood, nor its function. For the Old Testament priesthood the details and instructions have entire books dedicated to the topic, with minute detail. So it begs the question, if God wanted a priesthood, then why is there no such demand? We find no instruction and how-to manual for new priesthood, which is bound to fail, just like the last one, since it is man centered. In fact the word for priest exists in the New Testament, but always of the Old Testament one.
Point 3. The most obvious one, since Jesus completed all that is needed, (Hebrews 9 and 10) why would a priesthood be needed?
What we see in the RCC is a monolithic, top down structure, which has grown over time. The doctrine and theology also has become larger and more absurd over time as well, since there is no instruction given for their power and structure in scripture. This is precisely what we would expect in the absence of a mandate from God for the institution. When Jesus gave a church, He did not give us an institution, but an entity.
If we look at the words of Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 and believe Jesus refers to Peter's statement about Jesus, that makes Jesus the Rock upon which the church is built, and the church entity has the keys, of which Peter would play a primary role, through Acts 10.
@@chrisquintanaoldpaththeolo6130 Thanks for responding. First, just some preliminary notes. It should be recognized that your position is not merely an argument against Peter as the rock, but an argument for one specific alternative rock, Jesus himself - not Peter’s faith, Peter’s confession, the truth Peter has confessed, etc. Those who advocate for any of those other “rocks” gain no support by appealing to Jesus the foundation stone.
Secondly, some like to quote 1 Cor 3:11. This verse calls Jesus the “foundation,” but you brought up 1 Peter 2:6. And in this verse it calls him “a cornerstone chosen and precious”- not a foundation, nor bedrock or solid rock, but a detached stone (Lithos) that has been cut and placed. For that matter, 1 Cor 3:11 also does not describe bedrock or solid rock, since Paul speaks of laying the foundation, i.e., a foundation of laid stones. Even so, 1 Cor 3 makes Jesus the whole foundation, while 1 Peter 2:6 merely makes him the cornerstone, part of a larger foundation. As for 1 Cor 10:4-a verse that actually uses petra - the “rock” that followed the Hebrews in the wilderness is not a foundational stone of any kind; nothing is built on it.
We have seen that different images can have the same referent. But the reverse is also true: A single image can be used of different referents - and foundational imagery is applied in different ways in the New Testament. Most notably, Eph 2:20 repeats the image of Christ as cornerstone, but adds “the foundation of the apostles and prophets.” A variation on this image appears in Rev 21:14, where John speaks of “twelve foundations” bearing the names of the twelve apostles. Neither of these describes Jesus as the sole foundation, as per 1 Cor 3.
In the case of Matt 16:18, moreover, Jesus explicitly gives himself a role other than foundation or cornerstone: He is the one building on the rock. While a single referent can have multiple images, the image of building on the rock is essentially one image, not two. To construe Jesus as saying “Upon me I will build” seems odd to say the least- particularly coming from those who claim that a “stone” and a “rock” can never be the same thing, but now have no trouble imagining a builder who is also a foundation building on himself! (Incidentally, note the contrast with 1 Cor 3, where Paul speaks of others building on the foundation of Jesus. Sometimes others build on Jesus; sometimes Jesus builds on others.)
It should be noted here that Jesus does not actually speak here of a “foundation,” but only of building his church upon “this rock.” The intended image here may be foundational bedrock (as per the parable of the wise and foolish builders), but it could also be that “this rock” is not the entire foundation, but part of a larger foundation- one of a number of foundation-stones, perhaps, as in Eph 2:20 and Rev 21:14. One could argue, then, that just as Jesus here confers on Peter the power of binding and loosing, but later confers the same power on the company of the Twelve (Matt 18:18), so Jesus here speaks of building the church on Peter, but not in a sense that would exclude all of the apostles together forming the church’s foundation. In that case, the images in Matt16:18 and Eph 2:20 would be convergent, not disparate.