Question about Caiaphas

[asterisktom]

Here is Matt. 26:57-66

57 And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

58 But Peter followed Him at a distance to the high priest’s courtyard. And he went in and sat with the servants to see the end.

59 Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death,

60 but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward

61 and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’”

62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?”

63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

66 What do you think?”
They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”

Notice especially the parts underlined. The story is familiar. Jesus is accused, confesses His deity, and then makes a remarkable prediction in verse 64. Now notice: He is speaking first of all personally to Caiaphas and, secondly, to the other "scribes and elders". Caiaphas is told that you (plural - the hearers with him) will "see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

When did Caiaphas and/or the other scribes and elders see Him coming on the clouds of heaven?

Is it still future? This is a problem for those who believe that the wicked dead are not raised up until after Millennium. If Caiaphas and company are not raised up until then they will not be able to see Christ "coming on the clouds of heaven" as He promised.

 

[swaimj]

Wow, Tom! That's a tough one. Which once again raises the question, why do you start your study with difficult passages? Why not look at the passages whose meaning is so crystal clear that it cannot be missed and then interpret the difficult passage in that light? If I do that, the answer to the question about Caiaphus is simple and straitforward.

My computer is on the blitz, so I will probably be off line today. Sorry for my non-replies hereafter.

 

[RAdam]

Well let me ask you, when did they see Jesus sitting on the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven?

 

[asterisktom]

Well let me ask you, when did they see Jesus sitting on the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven?

OK, two non-answers. Interestingly, there were different modes of deflection. Interesting but expected.

To Swaimj:
No, it is not a tough one at all. It is tough for you, not for me. And, once again, you assume that I "started my study" with this one. I didn't. It just occurred to me last night, plain and simple.

I like your good advice about starting with the plain and simple passages and using them to explain the obscure ones. That is certainly good that we both do that. I am doing that - but my plain-and-simples. clearly, are not your plain-and-simples.

Come to think of it, I also like that you gave the question a fair shot, and didn't try to hide your lack of answer, like RAdam did. That is why I answered your comments in greater detail.

Take care. I hope you get your computer taken care of.

 

[asterisktom]

Well let me ask you, when did they see Jesus sitting on the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven?

Don't question questions. Answer questions. Or show me how my question is moot - something. And then you will be taken more seriously.

I don't mean this in a snarky way. I would most gladly answer your question, but after I get an answer from mine.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here is Matt. 26:57-66

57 And those who had laid hold of Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.

58 But Peter followed Him at a distance to the high priest’s courtyard. And he went in and sat with the servants to see the end.

59 Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death,

60 but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward

61 and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’”

62 And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?”

63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”

64 Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

65 Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, “He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!

66 What do you think?”
They answered and said, “He is deserving of death.”

Notice especially the parts underlined. The story is familiar. Jesus is accused, confesses His deity, and then makes a remarkable prediction in verse 64. Now notice: He is speaking first of all personally to Caiaphas and, secondly, to the other "scribes and elders". Caiaphas is told that you (plural - the hearers with him) will "see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

When did Caiaphas and/or the other scribes and elders see Him coming on the clouds of heaven?

Is it still future? This is a problem for those who believe that the wicked dead are not raised up until after Millennium. If Caiaphas and company are not raised up until then they will not be able to see Christ "coming on the clouds of heaven" as He promised.

That's an embarrassing quote for Christianity as CS Lewis says.

 

[asterisktom]

That's an embarrassing quote for Christianity as CS Lewis says.

Yes, indeedy! I wrote a whole article on the passage, focusing on Lewis's disbelief:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/725885454/matthew-2435-the-most-embarrassing-verse-in-the-bible-cs-lewis/


People like to quote Lewis because he is so urbane, well-spoken, clearly intelligent. Yet, at the core, there several pieces of evidence that he had a low view of Scripture, and a very feeble grasp on justification by faith, among other doctrines. But that would not be for this thread.

 

[just-want-peace]

Yes, indeedy! I wrote a whole article on the passage, focusing on Lewis's disbelief:
http://asterisktom.xanga.com/725885454/matthew-2435-the-most-embarrassing-verse-in-the-bible-cs-lewis/


People like to quote Lewis because he is so urbane, well-spoken, clearly intelligent. Yet, at the core, there several pieces of evidence that he had a low view of Scripture, and a very feeble grasp on justification by faith, among other doctrines. But that would not be for this thread.

Excellent point!

Anything outside the Word itself is tainted with the bias, opinion, prejudice, etc of the commentator; regardless of how mature or dedicated he is to the Faith!

Can't help be recall how I used to love Barclay; til I realized his left-handed approach to the miracles in Scripture. Still like him, but certainly look closely when he discusses anything remotely dealing with doctrine and/or miracles!

As the old saw goes in essence; Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

IOW compare the teachings of "whoever" with Scripture, and excise all that does "not compute"!

 

[RAdam]

Don't question questions. Answer questions. Or show me how my question is moot - something. And then you will be taken more seriously.

I don't mean this in a snarky way. I would most gladly answer your question, but after I get an answer from mine.

So if I do something I'll "be taken more seriously?" Ok. This is just a message board.

Anyway, I'll gladly tell you my view, but I want yours first. After all, you brought it up. It looks like bait to me, and I'm not very much in the habit of jumping at that. Tell me your view and we'll discuss.

 

[asterisktom]

Excellent point!

Anything outside the Word itself is tainted with the bias, opinion, prejudice, etc of the commentator; regardless of how mature or dedicated he is to the Faith!

Can't help be recall how I used to love Barclay; til I realized his left-handed approach to the miracles in Scripture. Still like him, but certainly look closely when he discusses anything remotely dealing with doctrine and/or miracles!

As the old saw goes in essence; Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

IOW compare the teachings of "whoever" with Scripture, and excise all that does "not compute"!

Agreed.

BTW, when I was a younger Christian I had a strong affinity for Barclay myself. And I had the same wake-up concerning his teachings on miracles.

On a side-note, I have in my possession a personal letter from Barclay, written in the 50s. Actually it is at my Dad's house. He had bought an old book at a used bookstore when we lived in Edinburgh, Scotland in the 50s. The letter, written to an admiring lady, was inside the book!

 

[asterisktom]

It looks like bait to me, and I'm not very much in the habit of jumping at that. Tell me your view and we'll discuss.

It's not bait. I asked a question. You didn't answer. Make room for someone who will.

For my views, just look at my posts.

 

[RAdam]

Why won't you present your views? I don't get it. You brought it up. Are you hiding something? Why won't you simply state what your view is on that text?

 

[asterisktom]

Why won't you present your views? I don't get it. You brought it up. Are you hiding something? Why won't you simply state what your view is on that text?

Why won't you simply answer my question - third time now.

If I stated my view, then that would be discussed and not the Caiaphas question.

OK, just so no one thinks I am hiding anything: I am a Preterist, a (as some would call it) Full-Preterist. Read more about it here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=65347

But I do not want that to derail this thread. I want someone to give me a reasonable, biblical answer to the Caiaphas question.

The two main sets of evidence that led me to Preterism were
1. The impressive interlocking of biblical passages (cross-references) as I studied books in the Bible (esp. Matthew, Hebrews, Isa., Dan, and Zech. - all those I did series of studies on).
2. The lack of answers to problem verses - like the one above - from Dispensationalists.

 

[swaimj]

Here is the verse in question, from the ESV:

Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven".

First, note that Jesus says "hereafter" (NASB) or "from now on". Two events are then described: Jesus seated at the right hand of power and Jesus coming in the clouds. I think the key question being asked on this thread is: when do these events occur? It is clear that neither event, or if one holds that they are two aspects of the same event, occurs immediately. So the term or phrase "hereafter" or "from now on" does not entail an immediate start. The leaders did not observe Jesus ascending to power nor coming in the clouds at that instant.

Can we find an indication elsewhere that these events have occurred either together or separately?

It is apparent that the first event has occurred. In the book of Acts, as Stephen is stoned, he looks into heaven and "saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." This stance by Christ to the right hand of God occurred at his ascension.

The "coming on the clouds of heaven" event is apparently a separate event. I can find no indication in the scriptures that it has already occurred. Please corrent me if I'm wrong here. Therefore I would consider it a future event.

So, in what sense did the priests "see" the event of which Jesus spoke? Did they see Him seated at the right hand of power? Did they see Him "coming on the clouds"? The ascension occurred within their lifetime. As unbelievers, it is hard to see how they would have seen Jesus at the right hand literally and physically as Stephen did nor am I aware of a record of it. However, in Acts when they arrested Peter and John and brought them to their council, they certainly saw the results of Christ's authority and unwittingly had to acknowledge the display of power through the disciples. What about "seeing" Jesus coming in the clouds? Since this has not yet occurred, and since the priests are all now dead, how do they see it? Ultimately, the nation of Israel will witness Jesus coming in the clouds at His return and at that time they "will look on Him whom they have pierced" and "every eye shall see him".

 

[asterisktom]

Here is the verse in question, from the ESV:

Jesus said to him, "You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven".

First, note that Jesus says "hereafter" (NASB) or "from now on". Two events are then described: Jesus seated at the right hand of power and Jesus coming in the clouds. I think the key question being asked on this thread is: when do these events occur? It is clear that neither event, or if one holds that they are two aspects of the same event, occurs immediately. So the term or phrase "hereafter" or "from now on" does not entail an immediate start. The leaders did not observe Jesus ascending to power nor coming in the clouds at that instant.

Can we find an indication elsewhere that these events have occurred either together or separately?

It is apparent that the first event has occurred. In the book of Acts, as Stephen is stoned, he looks into heaven and "saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, "Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." This stance by Christ to the right hand of God occurred at his ascension.

The "coming on the clouds of heaven" event is apparently a separate event. I can find no indication in the scriptures that it has already occurred. Please corrent me if I'm wrong here. Therefore I would consider it a future event.

So, in what sense did the priests "see" the event of which Jesus spoke? Did they see Him seated at the right hand of power? Did they see Him "coming on the clouds"? The ascension occurred within their lifetime. As unbelievers, it is hard to see how they would have seen Jesus at the right hand literally and physically as Stephen did nor am I aware of a record of it. However, in Acts when they arrested Peter and John and brought them to their council, they certainly saw the results of Christ's authority and unwittingly had to acknowledge the display of power through the disciples. What about "seeing" Jesus coming in the clouds? Since this has not yet occurred, and since the priests are all now dead, how do they see it? Ultimately, the nation of Israel will witness Jesus coming in the clouds at His return and at that time they "will look on Him whom they have pierced" and "every eye shall see him".

You wrote a lot but you just didn't answer the question. In order to come to your conclusion above you have to seriously wrest Jesus' words, and totally ignore how His hearers would have understood them.

 

[swaimj]

I answered the questions directly.

I don't have to speculate as to how the hearers "would have" responded. Their response is recorded in the text.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

aster,

Why are most of your posts related to eschatology?

 

[asterisktom]

aster,

Why are most of your posts related to eschatology?

They are not. Most of them seem to be eschatology to you, I suppose, to me they are Christ-related.

Another reason, now that I think of it, is that I seem to get more flak on these (seemingly) eschatological posts.

Take a look at my articles at Xanga and you will see a much wider variety of subjects.

 

[Grasshopper]

Wow, Tom! That's a tough one. Which once again raises the question, why do you start your study with difficult passages? Why not look at the passages whose meaning is so crystal clear that it cannot be missed and then interpret the difficult passage in that light? If I do that, the answer to the question about Caiaphus is simple and straitforward.

That what preterists say about the numerous clear time-statements throughout the NT.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Wow, Tom! That's a tough one. Which once again raises the question, why do you start your study with difficult passages? Why not look at the passages whose meaning is so crystal clear that it cannot be missed and then interpret the difficult passage in that light? If I do that, the answer to the question about Caiaphus is simple and straitforward.

My computer is on the blitz, so I will probably be off line today. Sorry for my non-replies hereafter.

Now that is a proper biblical interpretive skill.