When Jesus Began to Rule
Scriptures indicating that Jesus was a king long before 1914:
Psalm 110:1 - Cited here because it is quoted several times by NT writers in connection with Jesus. Note also Ps 110:2 which describes God as 'extending' the Lord's dominion beyond "Zion." This implies that "sitting at God's right hand" in Ps 110:1 is referring to a position of rulership, not merely waiting to rule. This is also reminiscent of Rev 6:2 where the rider is 'crowned' and then 'goes forth to conquer.' The following NT verses quote or allude to Ps 110:1:
Heb 10:12-13 - Alludes to Ps 110:1 and speaks of Jesus already (at the time the book of Hebrews was written) sitting at God's right hand awaiting the all of his enemies to be placed under his feet (like a footstool). (Compare also Lu 22:69)
1 Cor 15:24-26 - Alludes also to Ps 110:1 but says Jesus must "rule as king" (instead of 'sit at God's right hand') until God places all of his enemies under his feet. Thus, "ruling as king" in 1Co 15:24-26 is the equivalent to "sitting at God's right hand" in Heb 10:12-13.
Eph 1:20, 21 - Also alludes to Ps 110:1, and says Jesus is (already at the time of writing of Ephesians) above every government in this age.
Mt 3:17 At Jesus' baptism God speaks and says, "You are my son." This is understood to be an allusion or quote from Ps 2:7. Ps 2:6 has God saying that He has installed His king on Mt Zion. Then Ps 2:7 has the installed king saying that God will say he is His son. (Compare Ps 2:7 NET) Additionally,the context that follows encourages the kings of the earth to be obedient to God's installed king. Thus showing that Jesus becomes king while the national rulers still have the option of obeying him or choosing not to. (Ps 2:8-9, 10-12)
Mt 21:1-11 The account of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem presents Jesus as a king, and quotes from Zech 9:9 in support of this. (Lu 19:37, 38; Mk 11:9, 10)
Mt 28:18 - Jesus has already been granted (33 AD) 'all authority in heaven and on earth.' So the question could be asked, What more authority could he yet gain?
Lu 22:29 NET Where Jesus tells his apostles, "Thus I grant [present tense verb] to you a kingdom, just as my Father granted [aorist verb - already done] to me." This is why Jesus could tell Pilate he was a king in Jn 18:36, 37 (see next). It might also be used to say that Jesus became a king when he became the Messiah at his baptism.
Jn 18:37 Where Pilate asks Jesus if he is a king. Jesus replies, "You say that I am a king." Regarding this reply, Constables Notes
Pilate did not understand the distinctions between Jesus’ kingdom and his own that Jesus was making [in Jn 18:36]. He did understand that Jesus was claiming to have a kingdom. Consequently he next tried to get Jesus to claim unequivocally that He was a king. Jesus admitted that He was a king, but He needed to say more about His reign if Pilate was to understand the nature of His kingship. Jesus had defined His kingdom negatively (Jn 18:36). Now He defined His mission as a king positively. [End of quote]
Compare Lu 22:70-71 where Jesus uses a similar reply ("You say that I am ...") as in Jn 18:37 and it is taken as a positive answer to their question. Matthew 26:63-65 has Jesus answering in the same way ("You have said it yourself") as in Lu 22:70-71. But compare Mark's version of this same account where Mark's account of this same incident has Jesus answering directly in the affirmative ("I am"), showing that Mark understood Jesus answer ("You say that I am") as an affirmative answer. (Mk 14:61-63)
Php 2:9-11 Speaks of Jesus already having the 'name above every other in heaven and earth.' This parallels well with Mt 28:18.
Col 1:13; 2:10 "The kingdom of the Son . . ." which Christians were already being transferred into in Paul's day. And thus, if the Son has a kingdom, it would imply that he was also a king or ruler.
1 Tim 6:15, 16 (If applicable to Son) says he is now (at time of writing in 1st century) a king. (See w05 9/1 p.27 for Society view.) But see the discussion in this thread
where it is more likely that these verses are a doxology to the Father.
Heb 2:9 The writer of Hebrews says "we see ... [Jesus] crowned
[verb perfect - meaning completed action] with glory and honor."
Heb 6:20 "Jesus ... having become
[aorist verb indicating completed action] a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." The writer of Hebrews goes on to show what the difference is between being a high priest like Aaron and a high priest like Melchizedek. (Heb 7:1, 2, 11) The difference is that Melchizedek was both a priest and a king. (See also Heb 5:6, 10)
1Pe 3:21-22 Peter links Jesus' having "angels, authorities and powers" made subject to him after having been raised from the dead and sitting at God's right hand. "Sitting at God's right hand" is not merely like being in a waiting room, but is a position of rulership. "Sitting at God's right hand" is another allusion to Ps 110:1.
Rev 1:4, 5 Jesus claims to be (note present tense) the 'ruler of the kings of the earth' (told to John, c. 96 AD; quoting/alluding to Ps 89:27)
Rev 2:26, 27 Jesus promises to give followers "authority over the nations" "just as I have received
(perfect, indicative, active verb) from my Father" (Again, note Jesus describing what he already had.)
Rev 3:7 Jesus already had "the key of David" (Present tense, alluding to authority involving the Davidic rulership covenant)
Rev 3:21 'Sat down with my Father on his throne.' (aorist, indicative, active verbs indicating it was something he had already done, in the message to the seven (1st century) congregations.) Regarding this verse and the verb tenses used within it:
The context of Rev 3:21 makes it pretty clear how the aorist verbs in this verse are being used.
Rev 3:21 NET: "I will grant (future indicative) the one who conquers (present participle) permission to sit (aorist infinitive) with me on my throne, just as I too conquered (aorist indicative) and sat down (aorist indicative) with my Father on his throne."
Regarding the indicative mood and what it indicates: See here
.The indicative mood basically indicates a statement of fact or intention.
Jesus uses the future tense to describe what he will do in the future if they presently "conquer." They will "sit," which is aorist. (Although the aorist tense often is used as the equivalent to the English past tense, it can also be used of the present or future. It views the action as a whole and/or in summary fashion. The context is used by translators to decide in which English tense to render it.)
Then, Jesus points out that what will happen with them is what has already happened to him. He 'conquered
(aorist tense) AND sat down
(also aorist tense) ...' Now, consider this: Who would argue that Jesus' conquering did not have reference to his experience during his 1st advent, which was several decades previous to when John received this message to give to the Laodiceans? The aorist tense (along with the conjunction "and") is being used in these two verbs to describe the fact that Jesus both 'conquered AND sat down
It is fairly obvious that in this verse, and with those two verbs in particular ('conquered and sat down'), the aorist tense is being used in the same way as a past tense in English would be used. And every translation I have seen understands it this way.
Rev 17:14 "''. . . is Lord of lords and King of kings." (Note present tense of "is")
Some verses that one might use to object:
Some additional points I wanted to link to this post:
Dan 2:44 'God sets up Kingdom in the days of those kings.'
Note the context (Daniel talking with Nebuchadnezzar). "In the days of THOSE kings" could refer to any point in time during the earthly kingdoms that follow Nebuchadnezzar's. Saying it has to be during the time of the feet would be forcing it to say something precise, when it isn't.
Mt 6:9, 10 "Let your kingdom come."
This more probably refers to the Kingdom taking action, not the crowning of the King of the kingdom.
Luke 19:11-27 The parable of the minas.
Some use this parable to say that it would be a long time before Jesus receives his kingdom. But note several points about the parable:
Mt 16:28; 17:2 The Transfiguration.
1. It's purpose was to address the audience's idea that "the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately." (Lu 19:11) The crowd's idea was not concerning when "Jesus" would be crowned, but when "the kingdom of God" would "appear." (Greek anaphainó; Strong's 398) The people expecting the kingdom to "appear immediately" were wanting "the kingdom of God" to begin manifesting itself in behalf of Israel. (Cmp. Acts 1:6)
2. In the parable the "nobleman" (representing Jesus) "went to a distant land (representing heaven) to receive for himself a kingdom and then return." (Lu 19:12 NET) Luke 19:15 says, "When he returned, having received the kingdom . . ." (ESV) The NWT has, "When he eventually got back after having secured the kingly power . . ." The verse does not say how long the nobleman had to wait at "the distant land" to 'receive the kingdom.' It only implies that it took awhile for the nobleman to return.
3. On how long it took Jesus to travel from earth to heaven, see post # 30 in this thread.
The parable shows that it would be awhile before "the kingdom of God" would "appear" or take visible action. When Jesus would actually receive his 'kingship' before returning is not addressed in the parable. Using this parable to say that Jesus had to wait a long time to receive his kingship is a misapplication of the parable. And such a view would also contradict the many verses cited above. (Also, compare the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven which describe the kingdom as having small beginnings and 'hidden' effects before it fully manifests itself. - Mt 13:31-32, 33)
(See also Mk 9:1-3; Lu 9:27, 29; 2Pe 1:17, 19) Does the transfiguration indicate Jesus begins ruling in a still future time? See post # 49 in this thread for a discussion of this.
Concerning the kingdom in the Lord's Prayer: See here
and the ensuing discussion to the end of the thread.
2. This thread
discusses the possible difference between "the kingdom of heaven" (singular) and "the kingdom of the heavens" (plural). There is also some discussion about the 'now and yet future' aspect of the kingdom (sometimes referred to as "inaugurated eschatology").
See post # 5 in this thread for a discussion of the phrase, "the kingdom of God/heaven has drawn near" from Mt 3:1.
Posts # 13, 15, 17 (starting here
) discuss, in part, the subject of "Inaugurated Eschatology." This is the idea of the "now and yet future" aspect of God's Kingdom. The Kingdom starts in a small way, affecting individuals, but in time, intervenes into the affairs of all mankind. (Compare Mt 13:31, 32, 33) See also this post
, and this post
towards the bottom of it.
For a listing of verses showing when Jesus becomes the Messiah or Christ (that is, while on earth): See this post
On Heb 5:9 see post # 3 below in this thread.
On the so-called "composite sign" (WT's phrasing) of Mt 24, Mk 13 & Lu 21, see post # 16 of this thread for links to discussions of each part.
On whether 1914 CE is a significant point in time regarding the Divine scheme of things, see this thread
On when Satan was cast out of heaven, see this thread
. This is significant because in Rev 12, the war and casting out of Satan (Rev 12:7-10) occurs after the "child," "who is to rule all the nations," is 'caught away to God's throne.' (Rev 12:5) So if Satan's being cast out of heaven can be located in time, then, the 'child's being caught away to God's throne' would have to be before that time.