Part 3 of this series
In Part 1 of my blog post on this topic, I laid out the position I hold regarding the titular questions, then exegeted it from Scripture. In this post, I’ll deal with the proof-texts Pulliam offers for the notion that Jesus’ reign is present to the fullest extent it will ever have: Acts 2:30-36, Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20-23, and 1 Corinthians 15:20-26.
Acts 2:30-36
He presents the first of these in a chart on p. 85 (in Lesson 8) that’d take a lot of work for me to replicate to a degree I’d be personally satisfied with, so I’ll just present a photo of the page and show the problems with his analysis before presenting Pulliam’s claims about the other proof-texts. Please read the page shown in the photo before reading my response underneath it.
As a quick aside, Pulliam’s claim above the chart about why Peter quoted Psalm 16 (verses 8-11 LXX, to be exact, in Acts 2:25-28) ignores the Psalm itself. Nowhere in the Masoretic or Septuagint versions of Psalm 16 is there any mention of a throne, kingdom, etc.; linking the “inheritance”, “cup”, and “heritage” mentioned in verses 5 & 6 with David’s throne is an unwarranted leap, given that even commoners were understood as having their own of each of these things (ever heard the saying “my cup runneth over”?). Pulliam is once again assuming that Peter was interpreting Old Testament prophecy mystically, despite a lack of incontrovertible evidence that the Apostles ever operated that way. Psalm 16:8-11 was certainly fulfilled in Jesus’ resurrection, but Jesus sitting on David’s throne can’t be gotten from that passage, or even the rest of the Psalm leading up to it. Even in Acts 2, Jesus being “exalted to the right hand of God” need not imply exaltation to David’s throne; in fact, Peter and David went on to state (in Acts 2:34-35 and Psalm 110:1, respectively) that Jesus won’t be on David’s throne as long as he’s at God’s right hand, as we’ll see below.
Moving on to the chart itself, you may have already noticed that Pulliam was quite selective in what he chose to boldface in the left-hand column of his chart; but I actually agree with most of the points Pulliam brings out in the right-hand column. So I’ll just quote the snippets in the right-hand column where I disagree before explaining what’s wrong with them.
“The descendant also received from the Father what had been promised by the Holy Spirit.”
Pulliam is clearly linking the phrase “the promise of the Holy Spirit” with the prophecy given through David. But note that the Holy Spirit hadn’t actually been mentioned anywhere in this passage since the quotation from Joel; rather, Pulliam imported that idea into the text by appealing to a letter that Peter wouldn’t write until over 35 years later! Also, not only was Peter giving this sermon at Pentecost of A.D. 30, but while Pulliam boldfaced the phrase “having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit,” he failed to boldface the phrase “He has poured forth this which you both see and hear” immediately after it! Just a few weeks earlier, Jesus himself had given his disciples a heads-up that he would send them the Holy Spirit (John 16:7). Clearly, the greater context and historical background to Peter’s statement in verse 33 indicates that “the promise of the Holy Spirit” was the promise that the Holy Spirit would be poured out on believers; that is, the Holy Spirit is what had been promised (see how flexible that little word “of” is?)! As I’ve explained elsewhere, Peter was saying that the events of Pentecost were a one-time microcosm of what would be occurring all the time once Joel’s prophecy is fulfilled.
“David said of his descendant’s position…
Question: What was the significance of Peter bringing up the throne of David, Jesus being the promised descendant to receive that throne, and then telling his hearers that God had made Him “both Lord and Christ”?”
Pulliam is trying to paint the reader into a corner, forcing them to conclude that Jesus is sitting on David’s throne already — but he does so by ignoring a critical detail in what “David said of his descendant’s position”: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet.’” As I’ll explain more thoroughly in a future post{I’ll link directly to the relevant paragraph once I’ve uploaded it}, since Jesus’ enemies being made his footstool is a metaphor for them being placed under his kingly authority, and the tense of the verb for “make” in the OT verse being quoted here (Psalm 110:1) tells us that subjugation process won’t even begin until Jesus is no longer at the Father’s right hand (a position we all agree Jesus is at right now), Jesus must have a kingly reign over his enemies that won’t begin until he’s left his Father’s right side! Why the phrasing “has made Him both Lord and Christ”? Because as I explained in Part 1, Jesus is presently Lord and Christ over the heavenly dominions (which, at the time Peter said this, would’ve included the 11 Disciples, Matthias, and the 108 other people — per Acts 1:15 — that the Apostles had baptized before the events of Pentecost A.D. 30; Matthew 28:19 & Mark 16:16 show that Jesus commanded this of them before sending the Holy Spirit at Pentecost1, so it makes sense that they would’ve gotten started on it just after receiving the Great Commission!) as a co-regent with the Father; those things presently outside the heavenly dominions (unbelievers, disbelievers, governments, economies, societies, etc.) are generally under the dominion of Satan, the “god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4 KJV), who himself can only do what the Father allows him to.
Intimidation Trying to Pass as Exegesis
Now let’s deal with Pulliam’s other three proof-texts. But let’s start off by considering the intimidation tactic that Pulliam engages in after his initial run-through of all three.
[From lesson 8] What more is there for God to give Jesus regarding rule and authority? All authority has been given to him (Mt 28:18). To say that there is more to give denies His very own words! Is there more dominion or power for Him to receive? Paul wrote, “He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 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. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.” (Eph 1:20-23) Paul also wrote, “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.” (I Cor 15:25f) Would the Dispensationalist tell us that this one enemy makes his rule incomplete?” Even in the 1,000 year reign, which the Dispensationalist looks for, that enemy will not have been vanquished (Isa 65:20). Are we to conclude that sitting on earth would make Jesus more powerful than He presently is in heaven? Certainly not.
Not only is Dispensationalism wrong regarding the rule of Jesus on David’s throne, but it is also blasphemous. To deny that Jesus has the prophesied position Scripture presently places Him in, is an act of speaking against the King’s authority. This is no innocent opinion that one may toy with and remain in God’s favor. This is about Jesus presently ruling until the time when He will turn the kingdom over to the Father (I Cor 15:24-25 studied in lessons 14 & 20).
[From lesson 14]…Paul dealt with a different problem among the Corinthians. Some were saying that there is no resurrection.[I Corinthians 15:12.] Paul quickly gets to the point, showing the inconsistencies of false teachers, and providing a picture of hope in the resurrection of Jesus. He points out that they cannot deny a general resurrection and uphold Jesus’ resurrection at the same time. Jesus is actually described as the “firstfruits,” which necessarily implies more to come.[I Corinthians 15:23.] So, when Jesus comes again, the Corinthians could be sure that a resurrection will take place. When Jesus does come, Paul says, “then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father.”[I Corinthians 15:24.] Rather than the beginning of a Millennial reign, the coming of Jesus will be the end of His reign, because He will relinquish His present rule over the kingdom to the Father. Jesus is presently reigning until He has put all of His enemies under His feet. The last enemy will be death.[I Corinthians 15:26.] He will have conquered that enemy in this final and glorious resurrection about which Paul is writing.
[From lesson 20]…In fact, we must wonder why the Dispensationalist insists on inserting 1,000 years between verses 23 and 24 (see chart at left). Christ is already reigning over a kingdom, so, when these events occur, “then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to” God (I Cor 15:20-25). God makes it simple, people make it hard.
{“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 87-88, 147-148, 219. Italics, boldface, and capitalization in original. Scripture citations in brackets are the footnotes Pulliam indicates at that point in the body text.}
I’ll give you the chart mentioned in that last snippet later. But first, note that Pulliam is calling the idea that Jesus isn’t on David’s throne right now “blasphemous”. I presume this is why he told me to my face that he disagrees with my assessment that “your view on eschatology is only a matter of salvation if ending up wrong about it leads you to fall away” {HIDMF, p. ###. Boldface in original.} Now, just to clear the air a little, let’s consider what I explain in my book about blasphemy: “The word “blasphemy” is religiously-charged in our day, but the Greek word had a much broader meaning. The word βλασφημία (blasphēmia, pronounced blah-sfay-MEE-ah; Strong’s Number G988) more generally meant: “slander, detraction, speech injurious to another’s good name”.” {HIDMF p. 68. Italics in original.} Based on the sentence after the italicized instance of “blasphemous”, I presume that Pulliam is also using this definition. Now, if a Christian were to claim that Jesus isn’t reigning over Christians right now, I agree that would constitute slander against the one they’re supposed to be calling their Lord! However, if a Christian were to claim that Jesus isn’t on David’s throne right now, that would be slanderous only if we can conclusively demonstrate that the Bible clearly teaches that he is (in which case, claiming he’s not would constitute “detraction”). It’s clear throughout the NT that Jesus is presently at the right side of the Father, but no passage explicitly teaches that Jesus is on David’s throne at the Father’s right side. The sheer number of passages I’ve brought to bear in Part 1 showing that Jesus’ reign is not yet in its fullest form, and in fact is talked about as future throughout the epistle to the Hebrews, makes it clear that Pulliam can’t claim Jesus being on David’s throne (reigning to the fullest) now has been conclusively demonstrated (indeed, I’ve already shown that his argument from Acts 2:30-36 isn’t even close to conclusive!). However, he can weaken my position considerably by explaining how all of the passages I’ve raised that contradict his claims, actually don’t contradict his claims. If Pulliam (or anyone else who happens to be reading this) thinks they can do this with all of the passages I’ve raised throughout this series, feel free to do so; but make sure your overall position is at least as internally consistent throughout as mine is.
Now, returning to Pulliam’s remarks about his proof-texts (yes, the 1 Corinthians passage is the only one he says anything of substance about in multiple places), note that the latter 3 of these 4 paragraphs assume that Pulliam has already proven that Jesus’ reign is present in its fullest form. Since we’ve already seen the problems with the argument he made on p. 85, only the first paragraph of the previous blockquote can be considered a still-viable attempt to prove this.
The 3 remaining proof-texts are Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20-23, and 1 Corinthians 15:20-26. These proof-texts for Jesus’ rule being at its fullest extent now all suffer from the same problem: the Greek text doesn’t support Pulliam’s claims!
Matthew 28:18
At first glance, Matthew 28:18 looks particularly straightforward: “And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”” (1995 NASB, boldface added). The perfect tense of the emphasized phrase is certainly compelling–or it would be, if the Greek verb being translated was itself in the perfect tense! The Greek word, ἐδόθη, is actually the aorist, passive, indicative, 3rd person, singular form of δίδωμι (G1325): it properly means “was given”. In Greek, the perfect indicative denotes an action done in the past whose results are still ongoing; the aorist indicative denotes an action done in the past, but says nothing about the results (or even if there were any results). This subtle difference means that the Greek text doesn’t demand that Jesus had “all authority in heaven and on earth” at the time he said this.
The obvious next question is: “So if Jesus meant that ‘All authority in heaven and on earth was given to me’, then what was he talking about”? This would simply be a reference to all the occasions in the OT where the Son of God, before becoming human, had interacted with humans in his Father’s name and on His behalf — and thus, with His authority (which was, of course, over everything “in heaven and on earth”). Jesus relinquished this authority when he entered Mary’s womb (Philippians 2:7), but he was now effectively telling his disciples: “My Father gave me all authority in heaven and on earth before–so He can do it again, and He will do it again!”
In fact, I’m struck by how closely the portion of the Great Commission preserved in Matthew parallels the suzerainty treaty format followed by the book of Deuteronomy {HIDMF, p. 90}:
| Deuteronomy | Suzerainty Treaty Section | Purpose of Section | Matthew 28:18-20 (my translation of the Greek) |
| 1:1-5 | Preamble | Identify the author of the covenant | And Jesus, having come near, spoke to them, saying, |
| 1:6-3:29 | Historical Prologue | A retrospect of the past relationship of the two parties involved, giving past benevolence by the suzerain as a basis for gratitude and future obedience on the part of the vassals | “All authority was given to Me in heaven and on the earth. |
| 4-26 | Stipulations | Outline the obligations the suzerain is laying on the vassals | Setting out, therefore, you must make students of all the nations, immersing them unto the name [i.e., “the authority”] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit/Breath, |
| 28:1-68 | Blessings and Curses | To be brought upon the vassals for keeping or breaking the covenant | […all the nations] in My name,2 |
| 31:9,24-26 | Deposition | Place a copy of the treaty in the vassals’ sanctuary | teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you; [see also 1 Corinthians 6:19 regarding Deposition] |
| 31:10-12 | Periodic Public Reading | To remind the people of the covenant terms | |
| 31:30-32:47 | Witness | Self-explanatory | and behold, I am with you all the days, until the border [literally, “the together-end”] of the age.” |
It’s not a perfect parallel, but it’s close enough that the Jews Matthew originally wrote his Gospel to would’ve at least thought, “this seems familiar…”. Also bear in mind that this format would’ve been different from anything else they would’ve been familiar with, since suzerainty treaties hadn’t been divided into these particular sections in over 1,000 years — this style was in vogue in the 14th & 13th centuries B.C., and of all known suzerainty treaties from around that time, only Deuteronomy (written in the late 15th century B.C.) placed the Witness section after all the other sections. As such, Matthew 28:18-20 having the sections in this order had to be intentional. Indeed, I’m hard-pressed to think of a more effective way for Jesus to convey to his 11 remaining disciples (or for Matthew to convey to his Jewish readers) that his commands superseded the Mosaic Covenant (which had been finalized by Deuteronomy)! The important point for our purposes here is that Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:18 parallel the Historical Prologue section of a 2nd-millennium-B.C. suzerainty treaty, one purpose of which is to bring up past benevolence by the suzerain to justify future obedience of the vassals. This lines up perfectly with my paraphrase of what Jesus was telling his 11 remaining disciples here: “My Father gave me all authority in heaven and on earth before [so I could interact with Our people for their benefit and Our enemies for their destruction]–so He can do it again, and He will do it again!”
Even so, going with the usual “has been given” interpretation doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion Pulliam’s trying to draw. Since this statement is immediately followed by “Setting out, therefore…”, the implication is that the very authority being referred to in verse 18 was now being passed on to the Apostles to enable them to fulfill the Great Commission. Hence, this authority is limited in scope to the purposes of the Great Commission: this includes the authority to preach the Gospel and the New Covenant, the authority to declare the Mosaic Law obsolete for the faithful, the authority to contradict the apostate Levitical priesthood, the authority to proclaim the new means of salvation, etc. While this solution to the apparent conflict would be much more simple and straightforward, I find it difficult to pass off how perfectly the “was given” interpretation lines up with the format of Deuteronomy as a mere coincidence. I guess I’ll need some more time to make up my own mind on my preferred solution, but what’s certain for now is that Pulliam’s conclusion is not a necessary inference from this verse.
Ephesians 1:20-23
Pulliam’s next proof-text was Ephesians 1:20-23:
which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places [actually, “in the heavenly dominions”; see my explanation in Part 1], 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. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. (1995 NASB, boldface added)
The main issue with this passage is pretty much the same as what we saw in Part 1 for Ephesians 6:12 — the phrase “to the church” is acting as a qualifier for both instances of “all things” in the phrase “He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things” (after all, aren’t both instances of “all things” referring to the same “things”?). But there’s an extra twist this time: in the Greek, the boldfaced phrase is τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. This phrase is in the dative case, which normally has a preposition attached to it. But this phrase has no Greek preposition attached to it, so the intended preposition must be inferred. Most English translations infer the preposition to be “to”, but the resulting sentence with the phrase surrounding the first instance of “all things” (“He put all things in subjection under His feet… to the church”) hardly makes sense. So what happens if we infer the intended preposition to be “in” (the most-common dative-case preposition) instead, as the LGV does {scroll to p. 4 in the PDF}? “And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things in the church.” Clearly, the qualifier “in the church” makes sense with both halves of this phrase! Hence, this verse is referring to Jesus having authority and being head over “all things in the church”; this phrase is limiting the scope of Jesus’ present authority — precisely what Pulliam is trying to claim the NT doesn’t do!
And now you know why, in Part 1, I defined the scope of Christ’s authority at present as including “Christian institutions, such as Christian households, churches, seminaries, parachurch organizations, etc.”: all such institutions have overtly submitted themselves to Christ’s authority (in contrast to secular institutions, which are still under worldly authority)! That’s not to say that Christian institutions aren’t also subject to worldly authorities, but that their allegiance to Christ supersedes their allegiance to “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” – that is, worldly institutions that are presently outside the heavenly dominions, but will become subject to Jesus “in the [age] to come”; for now, they’re under the thumb of Satan, whose own authority is limited by the Father, who in turn has presently delegated authority over Christians and their institutions to His co-regent, Jesus.
1 Corinthians 15:20-26
That makes for an excellent segue into Pulliam’s last still-viable proof-text for Jesus’ authority being at its fullest extent now. Given how long this discussion has gone on since I quoted what Pulliam had to say about these verses, let’s repeat those snippets first:
Paul also wrote, “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.” (I Cor 15:25f) Would the Dispensationalist tell us that this one enemy makes his rule incomplete?” Even in the 1,000 year reign, which the Dispensationalist looks for, that enemy will not have been vanquished (Isa 65:20). Are we to conclude that sitting on earth would make Jesus more powerful than He presently is in heaven? Certainly not.
…This is about Jesus presently ruling until the time when He will turn the kingdom over to the Father (I Cor 15:24-25 studied in lessons 14 & 20).
…Paul dealt with a different problem among the Corinthians. Some were saying that there is no resurrection.[I Corinthians 15:12.] Paul quickly gets to the point, showing the inconsistencies of false teachers, and providing a picture of hope in the resurrection of Jesus. He points out that they cannot deny a general resurrection and uphold Jesus’ resurrection at the same time. Jesus is actually described as the “firstfruits,” which necessarily implies more to come.[I Corinthians 15:23.] So, when Jesus comes again, the Corinthians could be sure that a resurrection will take place. When Jesus does come, Paul says, “then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father.”[I Corinthians 15:24.] Rather than the beginning of a Millennial reign, the coming of Jesus will be the end of His reign, because He will relinquish His present rule over the kingdom to the Father. Jesus is presently reigning until He has put all of His enemies under His feet. The last enemy will be death.[I Corinthians 15:26.] He will have conquered that enemy in this final and glorious resurrection about which Paul is writing.
…In fact, we must wonder why the Dispensationalist insists on inserting 1,000 years between verses 23 and 24 (see chart at left). Christ is already reigning over a kingdom, so, when these events occur, “then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to” God (I Cor 15:20-25). God makes it simple, people make it hard.
{“In the Days of Those Kings: A 24 Lesson Adult Bible Class Study on the Error of Dispensationalism”. Pulliam, Bob. 2015. Houston, TX: Book Pillar Publishing. 88, 147-148, 219. Italics, boldface, and capitalization in original. Scripture citations in brackets are the footnotes Pulliam indicates at that point in the body text.}
Finally, Pulliam quotes all 7 of these verses in the chart he mentioned in that snippet from p. 219, so I’ll let that chart speak for itself:
I disagree with the A.D. 33 date for Jesus’ resurrection (it was actually A.D. 30 {HIDMF p. ###-###}), and with the dispensationalist idea that the rapture precedes the 2nd coming by 7 years (they’ll actually occur at the same time {HIDMF p. ###-###}). But with respect to the present topic, that’s just nitpicking.
Right off the bat, we can see that his recommendation to “compare with Heb 1:8-13 & 10:12-13” doesn’t help him! I showed in Part 1 that Hebrews 1:13 & 10:12-13 both place Jesus’ reign over his enemies in the future (the former is quoting Psalm 110:1, the Hebrew text of which has the verb for “make” in the imperfect tense, which indicates an action that’s not yet complete — either entirely future or in-progress; hence, the relevant phrase is actually saying “sit at my right side, until I am in the process of making your enemies your footstool” — in conjunction with the word for “until”, this forces us to conclude that the process of Jesus’ enemies being made his footstool won’t begin until he’s no longer at the Father’s right side).
Now, I obviously agree with most of the points Pulliam made on p. 147-148 about 1 Corinthians 15. In fact, I agree with everything in that paragraph up to and including the phrase “a resurrection will take place”. It’s not until he starts talking about verse 24 that I start to disagree with him — and that photo of his chart on p. 218 contains the crux of the issue: the inferences he draws from the word “then” in verse 24. The Greek word is εἶτα (G1534), which can mean “then”, “next”, “after that”, “afterwards”, etc. In fact, Strong’s Concordance defines this word as “a particle of succession (in time or logical enumeration)”. However, the word for “after that” in verse 23 is ἔπειτα (G1899), which is εἶτα prefixed with ἐπί (G1909), meaning “upon”; hence, ἔπειτα means “thereupon”. “Upon” what? “Upon” the resurrection of “those who are Christ’s at His coming [parousia; G3952]”. The boldfaced phrase refers to Jesus’ physical return, something that hasn’t happened yet — again, parousia was originally a word for a visit from a ruler (featuring pomp, celebration, and addressing of requests and/or grievances), which demands that the ruler be physically present, and Jesus hasn’t been physically present since he ascended to the Father in his disciples’ presence in Acts 13; this gives us a timing element for the resurrection Paul was talking about here. As such, I can turn Pulliam’s question at the bottom of this chart back on him: If “after that” in verse 23 could refer to an event occurring at least 1,991 years after the event mentioned just before it, why can’t “then” in verse 24 refer to an event happening only 1,000 years after the event mentioned just before it? Indeed, Koine Greek had a word that would’ve worked excellently here for placing “the end” at the same time as “His parousia”: τότε (G5119), meaning “at that time”. In fact, this word is used further into the same passage: “When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.” (1 Corinthians 15:28 1995 NASB, underlining added). All these considerations together make it virtually certain that εἶτα in verse 24 was intended to indicate the order of the events it connects, not the immediacy of one event relative to the other.
“For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death.” (I Cor 15:25f) Would the Dispensationalist tell us that this one enemy makes his rule incomplete?” Even in the 1,000 year reign, which the Dispensationalist looks for, that enemy will not have been vanquished (Isa 65:20). Are we to conclude that sitting on earth would make Jesus more powerful than He presently is in heaven? Certainly not.
No, what makes Jesus’ rule incomplete is the fact that, at present, only those who are willing to submit to him are under his authority; those who aren’t willing to submit to him get away with it for now. Upon his return, those who aren’t willing to submit to him will be under his authority whether they like it or not; that is what will make him more powerful than ruling over only believers from heaven. And once the very last wicked person dies in the Lake of Fire at the end of the Millennium, that is when death “will be abolished”. Jesus will have plenty of other enemies to conquer before then! (After all, Isaiah 63:1-6 tells us that the day Jesus returns will be a bloodbath! And Psalm 2:9a LXX informs us that the Father promised His Son “You will shepherd them with a rod of iron” — see Revelation 2:27, 12:5, & 19:15, where this phrase is consistently quoted with “shepherd” instead of “smash”, as seen in the Masoretic Text — implying that Jesus will be using force to some degree!)
Also note that every instance of “He” and “His” in verse 25 is capitalized; Pulliam seems to be assuming that all 4 instances refer to Jesus, and that none of them refer to the Father. But consider how Warner translated this verse to try making this more explicit: “(For it is necessary for [God] to reign until He should place all enemies under His feet).” (LGV, content in brackets in original) He justifies this in a footnote by saying that: “The personal pronoun “Him” refers back to the Father, not to the Son.” After all, the Father is explicitly mentioned in the previous verse. Hence, verse 25 could just as easily be saying that God the Father is to continue reigning over whatever His Son doesn’t until He places all enemies under His Son’s feet (Warner cross-references this with Psalm 110:1, Hebrews 2:8-9, & 10:13 — which put Jesus’ reign over the earth & his enemies after his present time at the Father’s right side).
Conclusion
In conclusion, not a single passage Pulliam gave to prove that Jesus is on David’s throne right now, reigning to the fullest, conclusively does so. All of the passages he offered cohere with my position just fine. Warner once summarized the arguments for the false doctrine of “Once Saved Always Saved” by saying the case for it “is based on proof texting a few select verses, ignoring many conflicting Scriptures, taking certain verses out of context, and pressing grammatical points that are not demanded by the Greek text.”{Scroll to p. 5 of the PDF} We have now seen that the same can be said of the idea that Jesus is presently on David’s throne and that his reign is already at its fullest extent.
- Admittedly, there’s an archaic variant reading of Matthew 28:19, preserved by several {scroll to pages 11-15 in the PDF} of Eusebius’ ante-Nicene writings and some eastern writers like Aphrahat and Chrysostom, that didn’t include a command to baptize, simply reading: “Going, [or “Go ye and”] make disciples of all the nations in my name.” {e.g., scroll to chapter 46 in this document} I hope to investigate the viability of this reading more thoroughly in a future post. For now, let’s just say there’s a reason the last column of my table further into this post specifies that it’s my translation of the Greek. On the other hand, the overall patristic and manuscript evidence favors the idea that the so-called “Longer Ending” (Mark 16:9-20) was the original ending to Mark’s Gospel, so verse 16 does constitute a divinely-inspired command to baptize (and an exegetically-conclusive one, at that!) before Jesus’ ascension. ↩︎
- If we take (for the sake of argument; I’m not ready to be dogmatic about this!) the Aramaic variant preserved by Eusebius (taken from the Aramaic copy of Matthew that was at the library in Caesarea, where Eusebius worked) as the original reading, then this phrase would arguably fall under “Blessings” in light of something Eusebius happened to bring out about this particular phrase (which was evidently a single word in the original text):
“But observe of Him, who availed himself of nothing either human or mortal, how, in reality, He again put forth the word of God in the precept, which He gave to these His powerless Disciples, (viz.) “Go ye and make Disciples of all nations!” It is likely too, His Disciples would thus address their Lord, by way of answer: How can we do this? For, How can we preach to the Romans? And, How can we discourse with the Egyptians? What diction can we use against the Greeks; being brought up in the Syrian language only? How can we persuade the Persians, the Armenians, the Chaldeans, the Scythians, the Hindoos [Hindus; i.e., Indians], and other nations called Barbarians, to desert the gods of their forefathers, and to worship the one Creator of all things? And, upon What superiority of words can we rely, that we shall succeed in this? Or. How can we hope, that we shall prevail in the things attempted? (viz.) that we shall legislate for all nations, in direct opposition to the laws laid down from ancient times, (and this) against their gods? And, What power have we upon which to trust, that we shall succeed in this enterprise? These things therefore, the Disciples of our Saviour would either have thought, or said. But He who was their Lord solved, by one additional word, the aggregate of the things of which they doubted, (and) pledged them by saying, ”Ye shall conquer in my name.” For it was not that He commanded them, simply and indiscriminately, to go and make Disciples of all nations; but with this excellent addition which He delivered, (viz): “In my name.” Since it was by the power of His name that all this came to pass; as the Apostle has said, “God has given Him a name, which is superior to every name: that, at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow which is in heaven, and which is in earth, and which is beneath the earth.” It is likely therefore, that He would shew forth the excellency of the unseen power, which was hidden from the many, by His name; and, (accordingly) He made the addition, “In my name.” He thus accurately foretold moreover, something which should come to pass, (when) He said, “It is expedient that this my Gospel be preached in the whole world, for the testimony of all nations.” Now, this matter was then declared in a corner of the earth, so that those only who were at hand could have heard it. But, How could they have believed Him when He said this, unless they had taken experiment as to the truth of His words, from the other Divine acts which were done by Him? For this, you are compelled to confess when it is considered, that they gave credence to what He said. For, when He gave them the command, not so much as one sought to be excused; but they confided in what He had intimated: and, just as His promises had been, so DID they make Disciples of the whole race of men! They did go forth from their own land into all nations; and, in a short time, His words were seen in effect! His Gospel was therefore shortly preached, throughout the whole creation, for the testimony of all nations, so that the Barbarians and Greeks received the Scriptures, respecting the common Saviour of all, in the handwriting of their Progenitors, and in the words of their spiritual Fathers.“
{Eusebius. Theophania. Book V. Chapter 46. Italics indicate Biblical quotations. Boldface mine.}
The fact that this reading would make the overall structure of Matthew 28:18-20 line up even more with the suzerainty treaty format of Deuteronomy than what we see in extant manuscripts is certainly intriguing, especially considering that Eusebius almost certainly wouldn’t have known about the sections in 14th-century B.C. suzerainty treaties, and thus couldn’t have made this connection between Matthew 28:18-20 and the section purposes himself. ↩︎ - About the closest Jesus has come to being back on earth since then was the times when he appeared to Paul, and then to John in the vision recorded in the book of Revelation. But in both cases, Jesus was still at the Father’s side; it’s just that Paul and John were there in “visions and revelations of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 12:1c KJV). The Greek word for “visions” (G3701) in this verse is often used in Scripture for experiences that don’t actually relocate a prophet, but appear real and tangible to their perception (e.g., see Luke 1:22, 24:23, and the LXX of Daniel 9:23, 10:1,7,8,16); note that Paul’s companions on the road to Damascus could see Paul and hear him and Jesus talking (but even then, they couldn’t understand them because the conversation was in Hebrew/Aramaic, but his companions only knew Greek; see Acts 9:7, 22:9, & 26:14), but couldn’t see Jesus. For a fuller explanation of Jesus’ appearances to Paul (yes, there was more than one!), see the Notes on 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 LGV {scroll to p. 16 in the PDF}. ↩︎