None:
Polyps:
Strongs:

The Right Hand Of Power

To get straight to the point, here are the verses pertaining to Jesus' trial by guilty. (couldn't resist - my apologies.)

Mat 26:59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
Mat 26:60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,
Mat 26:61 And said, this fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.
Mat 26:62 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?
Mat 26:63 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.
Mat 26:64 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.
Mat 26:65 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.
Mat 26:66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.


It seems at first glance Jesus answers a question that has not been asked. Did Caiaphas really call Jesus the Christ? - Well, yes he did and maybe he didn't intend to. By attempting to convict Jesus Christ in a lie by "swearing him in" by his priestly authority (adjure) by the "living God" - Caiaphas has asked Jesus to swear by himself. Whilst he intended Jesus to convict himself in a lie and prove his "sin", or to sell himself short somehow is unsaid.

Jesus answer, that afterwards the high priest himself would see Jesus Christ sitting on the right hand of power is so often misinterpreted. How can anyone in their right mind interpret this as some prophecy of a rapture? Whilst Jesus' second coming is sound doctrine - this statement of Christ was intended for Caiaphas and those with him, right there, right then.

The right hand of power, is the position that Jesus will occupy - that we know. It is more complete to acknowledge that not merely Jesus Christ's teaching, but His person occupy this position through the saving power of God. By reading the study in the previous page, the right hand of power is not occupied by Jesus alone, but by his disciples who continue his ministry and spread the good news.

Jesus is not saying that these jewish rulers will be saved, but they will see the evidence of God's salvation and grace all about them as his gospel and kingdom spread. This very evidence will be plain within their lifetimes, and they will have to acknowledge that Jesus wins many times more saved souls then they and theirs will.

The first statement, of Christ sitting on the right hand of power is definite evidence of the absolute conviction and confidence of His saving work in His followers. The second, requires a little clarity of translation. "Clouds" translates more properly, "cloudiness" and "Heaven" translates more fully as pertaining to "elevation" or the state of such. It is also referred to in Christianity as "the gospel".

Therefore, Christ is stating flat out that they do not believe He is the Christ they wanted, yet they will see others who are convinced, and many who persue such confidence and conviction though they have not concretely understood as those who have. These are like those looking through a fog unclearly. Jesus is their goal, and will be their reward.

By stating that those who follow him will have total certainty of his gospel or will reach it, Jesus attests to his position as saviour. The certainty of the clarity of the gospel of Christ; in full, or in part: as will be observed by those who condemn Christ in this trial, answers their questions that he is indeed the Christ, the Son of God.

One last point. - That Christ is at rest, sitting at the right hand of power, Christ commits to them that HE will be the only Saviour, with the only gospel that can save. All who attain or preach salvation truthfully will do so through Him. The jewish state of physical Israel is bankrupt with respect to God. I feel it is this statement that Caiaphas felt was his spoken blasphemy: It is the only outcome that appears to confirm the false witnesses against Jesus.


I'm not one for numerology, but ch:26 v66, The outright rejection of the gospel truth, the Son, the Holy Spirit and the blasphemy of the Father*. Moving someone to the state of an unforgivable beast: "To six hundred threescore and six" (2 - 6 - 6 - 6) is a weird coincidence.

*It is one thing to assume that there is a need to build a temple once it is known there is a God to worship. There is obviously something wrong in assuming that since there is a temple, then the God must be there. By equating the statements "There is a temple in the land of Israel" with "There is a God in the temple", they associate the favour of God with the people's presence in the land because there is a temple. Such a false association that God favours geographically, was not an association that God allowed to stand the test of time. Every commandment and warning from of God is disregarded in favour of this false doctrine, and ends in a false God.

The verse at the footer of every page on this site puts it in succint fashion. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." Interpreted; that Jesus is the only temple mount upon which His messengers will ascend to worship and go out to preach - and God will pour out His Spirit upon them as heaven is open to them. (they dwell in heavenly places).

Jesus famous' retort to the astonishment of His disciples at the withering away of the fig tree also comes to mind. If a believer has even the smallest amount of faith then there is no need for a physical temple or a temple mount in Christianity. It may as well be cast into the sea - Which indeed it prophetically has been! (Peoples, nations, multitudes and languages - that is that "sea") For the majority of the last two thousand years it has been in the possession of non-jews, with no effect on the existence of the one true God.

A little thought experiment comes to mind. If a shrine could be removed and we logically infer that God would not cease to exist as a consequence; then if there are two such shrines -each arguing that theirs is the "correct one" - will God favour one over the other? I would state categorically "no". Then, is it true that a divine connection is present? Modally, there is no such connection - God does not dwell in a temple made with hands. Every shrine is then "struck" from heaven. In this manner, they "could all go" and God would be no more poorer for it.


Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page