Lecture 9.docx

Resurrection Proclamation in Acts. We\'re on about\... Actually turn back in your notes to the section about page 30 that says the resurrection was repeatedly proclaimed in apostolic preaching. Some of you need this resurrection proclamation in Acts. I think Chris needs it and Steve can turn back to...

Resurrection Proclamation in Acts. We\'re on about\... Actually turn back in your notes to the section about page 30 that says the resurrection was repeatedly proclaimed in apostolic preaching. Some of you need this resurrection proclamation in Acts. I think Chris needs it and Steve can turn back to about page 30 This is the importance of these events, seen in them being foretold in the Old Testament, foretold by Christ Himself, typified in the Old Testament and proclaimed repeatedly in apostolic preaching. Just found it interesting. Looking through Acts you can do a far more detailed study of the proclamation of the resurrection in the Book of Acts for yourself. But just in a survey of that you can see that it doesn\'t have to be a similar context completely. There is still the proclamation. That God raised Christ from the dead. Chapter 2 verses 23 through 24. Well-known verse. This man delivered up by the predetermined counsel and foreknowledge of God. You nailed to a cross by the hand of godless men and put him to death. And god raised him up again putting an end to the agony of death since it was impossible for him to be held in its power. Lawless hands, thinking they were doing what they wanted to do, crucified and put the Christ to death. And they are told clearly by Peter, God reversed that. It was impossible for death to hold him, because then you can fill out the plan of God was involved. In fact, I\'ve noted for you in context, is God\'s attestation and determination. Attested. To you by God with miracles and wonders and signs. This is the Messiah. Those who were the faithful remnant understood that. The Old Testament prophecies had been fulfilled. This was the one who was doing what God said he would do. And you know God\'s determination was involved in verse 23 because of the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God. would include His death, His burial and His resurrection. And verse 36 must have struck the listeners with some force. Did all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ? This Jesus whom you crucified. And they were pissed to the heart. What do we do? What shall we do? And they are called upon to repent. You can fit that in with the program for Israel. You can cross reference, speaking to Jews here, you can cross reference to Zechariah, or similar wording is used. They were pierced through as they realized who it was. They crucified, it\'s not a fulfillment of Zechariah, but it\'s certainly reminiscent of that important verse. It was necessary for the Christ to die, cross-referenced to Luke 24, 46. Acts 2, 23 through 24 should be cross-referenced with the words of context that I\'ve given. It\'s Luke 24, 46. Necessary for the Christ to die and rise again. 3 verse 14 and 15 is in that passage, that message, that re-offers the kingdom to Israel. We talked about that. And killed the Prince of Life, whom God raised from the dead. You notice it\'s a\... It\'s a statement that just occurs in the preaching. It\'s not a focus of attention necessarily upon the resurrection, but upon the identity of the Christ, other things concerning Him, and mentions His death, and then mentions, almost as an automatic follow-up, whom God raised, not to forget what God had done. In exchange, in the context, there\'s an exchange of the Holy One for a murderer, which should cause you to stop and reflect on the nature of the events of that time. Peter says, of which we are all witnesses, they can attest to both His death and resurrection. In verse 18 is another reminder. But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he has thus fulfilled. Done what he said, having raised up his servant Jesus, sent him to bless, verse 26, to bless you, his men of Israel, by turning every one of you from your wicked ways. God\'s direct involvement in soteriology there. Verse 13. Jesus is specifically identified as the one whom you delivered up and disowned in the presence of Pilate. When Pilate did what they couldn\'t do, wanted to do what they should do, release him, you disowned the Christ. But it\'s been reversed. Chapter 5 and verse 30. Running. Message after message. Popping up. The God of our fathers raised up Jesus. Whom you murdered. Or had put to death. By hanging him on a cross. And they would catch the significance of that. In terms of the Old Testament. Amen. God has exalted to His right hand. So it\'s not just resurrection that\'s been referred to, but there\'s ascension and exaltation that bears mention as well. Forgiveness of sins and repentance. And again, we are His witnesses. And so is the Holy Spirit, confirming for the believer on his heart and mind that the resurrection is indeed a true historical event. In every case you can trace the flow of thought in the context anyway. You know how to do that. That\'s why I\'m doing a quick survey, 752. I think this is a model of the discussions, the messages, the talk, the conversations of the apostles to mention the resurrection. Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who previously announced the coming of the righteous one. I find that interesting, the holy and righteous one, prince of life. These alternative titles. That emphasize so strongly who Jesus was and the mission he was on. Whose betrayers and murderers you have now become. Picked up again that theme of kill and disown. Resisted the Holy Spirit. Mentioned in the context. killed the foretellers of the just one didn\'t see what God was doing verse 56 Jesus standing at This is testimony of Stephen. He had been full of the Holy Spirit. He gazed intently into heaven, saw the glory of God. And Jesus standing at the right hand, and he said, behold, I see the heavens opened up on the Son of Man. They knew who that was, right? Standing at the right hand of God, the ascended Lord. place of exaltation. Emphasis now on exaltation again. Chapter 10 follows similarly verses 39 and 40. They also put him to death by hanging him on a cross. God raised him up the third day, granted that he should become visible. An important point, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God. That is to say, us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. He ordered us to preach to the people, solemnly testify that this is the one God has appointed, etc. Jesus has been proclaimed as Lord of all. He had been anointed with the Spirit and power, picks up the theme of attestation from chapter 2. Showed openly to witnesses. Do you realize the significance of that statement? Not to all people, but to witnesses who were chosen. It\'s a re-emphasis on the sovereignty of God over the lives of those men and the events of the time. Very clearly so. Plus, think about God orchestrating 500 witnesses at one time. I think the message has been delivered. You cannot deny the resurrection at all. Chapter 13, 28-30. No ground for putting him to death, but they ask Pilate that he be executed anyway. But God raised him from the dead. Had nauseam in a good sense repeatedly, again and again, same theme. In context, these who reacted against the Christ, reacted because they didn\'t know him nor the voice of the prophets, which is plain common sense. Wouldn\'t listen. It didn\'t matter, there was no cause of death in him. Justice was not the issue here. It was a reaction against the Son of God. And they fulfilled all that was written on him, verse 29 and verse 27. It\'s what God intended them to do. God raised him a repeated refrain again, verse 33, verse 34, and verse 37, and a reminder that through this man\'s sins forgiven, he\'s preached. I think it raises the point, without the resurrection, the forgiveness they were preaching. would be what it is. Paul reasoned from the Scriptures in Chapter 17, going back to the Old Testament and doing what most of us cannot do. Frankly, if you\'re going to deal with Jewish people, you have to learn to deal with it. But demonstrating from the scriptures again and again, that Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead. This Jesus whom I preach to you is the Christ. Went to the local synagogue. But his preaching was more fruitful among the Gentiles, not among the Jews. And as you follow through Revelation, the progress of Revelation, you realize that that switching to the Gentiles was going to occur because the veil is over the face of the Jew. With regards to these things, you have to go back to Romans 9, 10 and 11. Proclamation of the Resurrection. And I haven\'t given you all of them. You can go to Chapter 23 as well. I\'ll just mention that to you chapter 23 verse 6 through 8 Similar theme chapter 24 15 through 21 Acts 24 15 through 21 Acts 26 23 23 Yeah, it\'s 26 23 I just wanted to show you that there is a repeated emphasis. It could be an interesting study following through the complete argumentation in context, the reactions to the message, the reactions afterwards, but those who continue to disbelieve and those who have believed, the similarity of vocabulary that has been used by the apostles, the points being made in the history of the nation there in Palestine and beyond. There was one who died, but he\'s alive. There has been an ascension and there is an exaltation message given. I\'ll give that out later. I want you to turn back to where we left off. Section on the Ascension on page 33. Ascension on page 33. Just before that section on the Ascension, you\'ve got a little box there or a little note that says, see Geisler, the battle for the resurrection for a critique of Mary Harris\'s concept of spiritual body, immaterial, invisible, to which Geisler reacted so strongly. You should have in that response, do you have it? It was a real body of substance, of flesh and bones, could take in food still different to ours. I\'m pretty sure we finished there with Ofentos. Do you have that in that section? Some do, some don\'t. Geisler\'s reaction or response to Murray? is that there was a real body. See my hands and my feet. Geisler wrote the article that critiqued Murray Harris. A body of substance, handle me and see. A flesh and bones more specifically in John 2027. But a body that was different from ours in that it could pass through solid matter, could appear and disappear, whatever the mechanics of that would possibly be. And it\'s the same idea. There is a continuity of identity. In the person of Christ, notwithstanding the fact that his body is obviously changed. It\'s now a glorified body. A continuity of identity, I myself. It\'s not just an appearance of somebody who has marks. It\'s a body. It\'s a physicality to the resurrection, with the marks of the crucifixion and the wound in the side. And then you come and have to deal with the ascension, but I\'m going to just remind you of something from\... In fact, this is where we finished. You\'ve got to remember that one. You do? Good. Impossible to die, impossible to age, insusceptible to illness and disease, impossible to injure, able to vanish and reappear at will, which may only be in reference to Christ for a series of appearances on earth. It is not indicative. Number five is not indicative of us in the resurrected state. There is no indication that normality for us will be. Okay, appearing and disappearing. It\'s a very unique situation there with Christ and the disciples. Can you see that up there? Yeah. Impossible to die. I\'ll leave that there for a second. 1 Corinthians 15, as you know, is the key chapter on the resurrection. You don\'t have to take this down. I\'m just going to put something up to give you a quick reminder of the thrust of 1 Corinthians 15. That will reappear and disappear. I\'ll leave it there. okay 1st Corinthians 15 verse 42 says so also it\'s in the argumentation for the body so also is the resurrection of the dead the body is sown in corruption dishonor and weakness that\'s our body that\'s been referred to It\'s part of the corruption and decay that has come from the fall of man It\'s clear from the text is this contrast between the two bodies there obvious contrast but obvious continuity of identity That body is raised in incorruption, glory and power. There\'s a radical transformation, radical change that is affected. It\'s just like the seed that is sown must die before it can bring forth fruit. So it\'s not exactly the same body. There is a change. No longer subject to decay that\'s been reversed completely. No more aging, complete reversal. Has a glory of its own belonging. to where it is suited for that time, has the attributes and so on that are necessary for a body in eternity. And it\'s been raised because of the power of God that raised Christ from the dead. You can follow the argument in 1 Corinthians 15 quite easily. Point. This here is a whole different order of life, a whole different order of existence, completely unlike anything we know today. And I\'m preaching to the choir. It continues the argument. A natural body, a spiritual body if it\'s natural. And it\'s different from the one that\'s spiritual. It starts out natural and becomes spiritual. He says that\'s the order that things are going to be. The natural body was from Adam, progenitor of the human race. the first man on earth, all descendants like him, in the image of God, in the image of Adam, bearing the image of the earthy. Corruption and mortality marks that existence. But that body is raised to spiritual body, soma, pneumatikon, transformed. It\'s a spiritual body. From Adam, the second Adam, the life-giving Spirit, who is the Lord from heaven, that\'s Christ of course. And as a result of that, we bear the image of the heavenly, we will be like him. You can cross-reference here to Philippians 3. And we now move to a state of incorruption and immortality. It\'s not just flesh and blood as we know it But a imperishable Body of substance The thrust of first contains 15 lays it down clearly and In fact, it becomes obvious you deny it the resurrection you deny the faith you This is part of what God designed. then I\'ll deal with them. So here\'s what I\'ll get for you to be copied. When you talk, and I\'ll photocopy this for you by Thursday, when you talk about resurrection, take the words of Robert Kevin, Jesus rose to eternal life. in a radically transformed body. It can be described as immortal, glorious, powerful and supernatural. In this new mode of existence, and that\'s exactly what it is, Jesus was not bound by the physical limitations of this universe, but possessed superhuman powers, and he\'s referring of course to the fact that he could appear and disappear, not restrained by locked doors, closed windows or walls. radical I think the point I want you to remember is radically transformed body continuity of identity same person recognizable but radically changed so the definition of the resurrection I\'d like you to use and you didn\'t get this one either okay It\'s the transformation of a corpse into a living supernatural body, using the two together. It needs to be sharply distinguished from the resuscitation of a dead individual. It\'s not going back to what he was before he died. And Robert Cavern stresses that point very strongly. It\'s not a resuscitation. Mere giving back of life. To live temporarily. That\'s not where we\'re going. These two will be given to you. This one will come under the title, Definition of Resurrection. Now it\'s future. That\'s three questions you\'ve been given. You should know this definition. I\'m sure it will be part of one answer. If you bring out the radical transformed yeah I\'ll give it to you by Thursday. This one you have, pass that one around we don\'t need it right now so there\'s time for it to pass around. Let\'s come to the ascension. A departure and a reception. I described it like that. So when I say, what was the nature of what took place at the death of Christ? Separation, substitution. What was the nature of what took place at the resurrection of Christ? We talk about reunion, material and immaterial. And then the ascension would be a departure and a reception. a departure from this earth physically, visibly, and a reception physically, visibly, bodily into heaven. Passing from earth to heaven, made very clear in Acts 1 verses 9 through 11, He was lifted up from before them, He was received up into glory as He went through the heavens. In fact the word that is used in verse 9 lifted up, I believe is used elsewhere to refer to being taken aboard a ship. Being lifted up, taken into glory, passed through the heavens and has gone into, it\'s been a transition from one state to another. Life on earth ends, resurrected life on earth, that is, an exalted life in heaven begins. moved from one state to the other state 1st Timothy 3 16 speaks about being received up into glory as part of that hymnal or poetic confessional And he\'s now with the father Seated at the right hand of the father waiting to take up his kingdom So that when I\'ve just given you ascension and exaltation Cross that resurrection because you\'ve got the definition elsewhere Here\'s the definition of ascension and exaltation. And please note these because there is on the part of some a blending of ascension and exaltation. The removal of the resurrected body of Jesus from space and time into the immediate presence of God. becoming holy and totally removed from that world of time and space and is in the closest proximity to the Eternal Father. Signals of course the final change, the transition. Exaltation is that act of God the Father whereby his incarnate Son was raised from death itself through resurrection and ascension. Please catch the two together. Through resurrection and ascension to the position of preeminence in the cosmos and heaven to share in the power and glory of the Son to sit at his right hand as his vice regent. Extracted these or adapted these words from Peter Toon\'s article. On Christ\'s ascension. Removal from time and space. Into the eternal state. Exaltation. Takes the resurrection and the ascension and puts him. Into the status. Of being the glorified. Man. The vice regent in glory. I guess my question is how do we maintain that Jesus still has a, even in any sense, physical body and not refer to it and say that he\'s out of space or even to use the term of proximity. How can we speak about Christ having a body? If we are talking about time and space, proximity to the Father, now that He\'s out of time and space, that catch your question. The Lutherans answered that question by speaking about the ubiquity of the Body of Christ, the quality that was given to it by the Divine Nature. That\'s one answer that was trying to be given. But that was how they explained the concept of St. James. Yeah. I\'m trying to think of the exact phrase I want to use. You have to speak in terms of manifested presence. The body of Christ manifests His presence. In heaven. That\'s where He is. So when you talk about Him, you say, proximity to the Father. It\'s a localized, manifested presence. Yet, as we mentioned before, that is never seen as altering, as redefining, as restricting, or acting as some form of constraint upon His attributes of Deity. So you step again over into that. Here\'s an incredible mystery that is not explained. He\'s the God-man. He\'s still the man, Christ Jesus, in Heaven. He has a glorified body which is the model for ours. So he has a body suited for eternity. And heaven has received into it, into the presence of God, a glorified human body for the second person of the Trinity. Manifested localized presence. You can speak about the manifested presence of God is in the third heaven, yet there is an omnipresence of God as well. You talk like that to explain the fact that God is in heaven looking down on earth yet God is everywhere. You talk about manifested presence. Omnipresence. That\'s a good way to explain the tension that you find yourself in with Christ, in a glorified body. There\'s no sense in which the ascension sees Him shedding. His humanity as He passes through the heavens to be received into glory. No sense of that at all. Lifted up, received. Otherwise you\'ve got the state of resurrected temporarily for 40 days, teaching the disciples. And then, now that you know I\'ve resurrected from the dead, let\'s dispense with the unnecessary. And it would be like something like coming out of a cocoon, you know. Let me shed what I don\'t need. No, because resurrection is the reunion. Of body and of immaterial and material for us as well, with no thought of losing it. Yeah, I guess it\'s just difficult for me to think in terms of somehow material\... Well, you can\'t think of it. \...with no space. You can\'t think of it. You can only think up to a certain point, and then all the pieces go waving. They\'re saying, you can\'t tie me together. And you can\'t. Some things are kept in the secret counsels of God. and we believe. This is what you said, this is what you sow. Wish I could tie it all together. Put the final piece in the jigsaw puzzle. Blaze of glory, got it. Dance around the table. Jigsaw\'s been finished. It\'s\... It\'s just simply not that easy. It\'s an excellent question and we have to ask the question. But the attitude then towards Revelation is, I can ask the question, Revelation says this, says this, says this. Is there any facts I can draw? Any answer I can give is this one. Does it satisfy me in terms of intellectual curiosity and a sense of I\'ve solved the puzzle? No. So, go back to the text. Can you use, when Paul writes to Timothy and says there\'s only one meteor between men, and God the man creates Jesus as proof that he maintains his humanity? Yeah, you do. It\'s one of the proof texts. I empathize. I was doing some more reading a little earlier. to see if there was anybody that had resolved it. Ken you asked about something and what\'s your name again? Blue shirt? Adam. Sorry I didn\'t mean to forget. You also made a comment. I took out Shed and had another look at Shed, Grudem, Strong, Buzzwill, Enns, Bancroft. To look at this question of body, soul and spirit, took out the standard systematic theologies, and they all acknowledge. That you have the evidence for the fact that he had a body. And there\'s no problem with that. We all know he had a body. But there are verses that talk about his soul. Now my soul has become troubled. What shall I say? Now I suppose you could translate that and it would be okay. Now I am deeply troubled. What shall I say? But the use of soul, I think in a context like this, is showing something of the depth of his feelings or his emotion. I\'m really troubled with him. Where I think, move, reason, decide, have my being that is inside me. I\'m troubled. Soul is deeply grieved, Matthew records, to the point of death. There was sense inside. Because you will not abandon my soul. What does that mean? It\'s more than just me. You probably could come up with, grammatically, a case for, you will not abandon me to Hades. But what goes to Hades? That you can establish from elsewhere in scripture. The immaterial. Until the day of the resurrection when the soul and body are joined back together. And interestingly enough not just Suhe but Numa. Used, cried out again with a loud voice and you\'d it up. He\'s Numa. Spirit. Aware in his spirit, inside, in his heart, mind, in his thoughts, in that whatever it is within me that does the thinking, reasoning, rationalizing, sensing, emotion, analyzing. Where in his spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves spoke to them. You know there\'s more than a body. Sighing deeply in his spirit. Crying out with a loud voice farther into your hands, I commit. My spirit or my soul. troubled in spirit, testified, etc. Now it was interesting, I believe it was the Blue, it\'s a Blue systematic theology, practical Christian theology. Who\'s there? Berachman. Speaks about body, soul and spirit. because he has a trichotomy. The others all say there was a material and immaterial. There was what made him fully human, but not just a body. And none of them sought to explain the enigma. It\'s just a, it\'s just another part of the mystery of the person of Christ. The results of these three critical historical events. His death had results in relation to the believer and the world. That\'s obvious from the doctrine of salvation that\'s everything covered in theology three. To Satan, his host, I\'ll just make mention of John 12 in Hebrews 2 and we\'ll pick up on that again under Satan. To God the Father, it certainly revealed the love of God for enemies, for sinners, and it revealed the righteousness and wisdom of God. as well. He remained just, even though he justified the guilty. And you can make a note, such as Isaiah 53 verse 10. It revealed the wrath of God too. The death of Christ was essential to deflect or appease the wrath of God. There were results to Christ himself. He\'d laid the foundation of his high priestly work where the wording says he obtained eternal redemption And certainly his death would secure ultimately his exaltation above all things It\'s the promise of what God would do in Philippians 2 It\'s a life that he was able to lay down, a life that he was able to pick up again. Hebrews 2.9 says that he was crowned with glory and honor. Talks about the mercy of God and Christ\'s taste in death for every man. He\'s therefore exalted above all things. He has done what no other could do. His resurrection also had results. It fulfilled the promise made to the Old Testament fathers. It\'s recorded in Acts 13, 32-37. That was obvious from the survey and the messages from Acts. He\'d set up his identity clearly as the Son of God. Romans 1 verse 4. In fact, at this point you could say that all claims he made are fully vindicated. He is indeed whom he proclaimed himself to be and whom others proclaimed him to be. And the resurrection validated Christ\'s atoning work. It\'s the sort of thing where you just run up a list like a grocery list. It was through his blood. It was through Him dying and being raised to great gain that you have the essence of the Gospel message. If that\'s not true, then our preaching, our believing is in vain and we are of all men most miserable. Please the believers future resurrection and possession of a glorified body. First fruits indicates that, 1 Corinthians 15. The promise of Philippians 3 that our body shall be transformed by the power that Christ has to make our bodies like unto His. And we look out into the future with hope because of what is promised in 1 Peter 1, cause to be born again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. We are protected by the power of God for the salvation to be revealed at the last time. And it guarantees, and Paul preached that to the pagans, Acts 17, guarantees the final judgment of the world. The resurrected Christ is the judge. Anticipates what he will do in the future. Centron had its results too. And cross-reference you to Daughter\'s article for an excellent summary of the results of the ascension. Eight reasons actually he spells out for why it is so significant. Mark the end of his first coming. By that he means, and we\'d agree, that the kinesis has ended self-limitation, self-emptying. He\'s over the state of humiliation as a servant. He\'s over. So is his servanthood. He\'s over. He\'s the glorified king. Yes, dear. If you say his kinesis is over, does that mean he\'s no longer a god-man and that he\'s just back to being a god? No, he\'s the god-man, but he\'s not. a slave. It\'s not in a state of humiliation. That\'s what we mean. It doesn\'t mean reversal at all. It\'s not humble state, that\'s exalted status. That\'s the change. Yeah, I was thinking about expecting that question. I was thinking about it just as you asked. raised to glory, so that he now hears the finality of it, so that he has an exalted position. In fact, his prayer, glorify me with the glory I had with you before the world was, John 17, has been fully answered. been in a resurrected state with these disciples, he had demonstrated very clearly in convincing ways that he was indeed the Christ in a resurrected state. Now his final departure is convincing. Somebody put it like this, had to be so convincing that his disciples would not expect the come and go pattern to continue. I will be with you. is a statement that he could make, but it was not, I will appear to see you there and then to see you there. That come and go pattern was over. He\'s gone until he comes again. I think it\'s daughters who speaks about it as when you start looking to the future, your reference point in terms of thinking about what will be is the ascension. He will return in clouds, just like you\'ve seen him go. So where is he now? Is what the ascension answers. If he\'s not risen\... and at the Father\'s right hand, then He will not be returning from heaven. And perhaps we could conclude with daughters, I think we can, that there will be no intercession on behalf of believers. There would have been no need to attest a gospel message that included the perspective that you see in 1 Thessalonians 1, to wait for his Son from heaven, who delivers from the wrath to come. It began His high priestly work, for sure. Sacrifice had been accepted, accomplished its purpose, and we come back to the point we\'ve made already, the entrance of resurrected humanity into heaven. He\'s the forerunner, the first fruits. The ascension also settled the supremacy of Christ, exalted as the Lord above all things. He is Lord of all. You can see the emphasis on that in the verses I\'ve given you. His present work through the Spirit. You can look at John 16, 5-7 and Acts 2-33. You\'ve seen Acts 2-33, just let me get the wording for John 16. 5-7. He would not be with them anymore. But now I\'m going to Him who sent me, and none of you asks me, where are you going? But because I\'ve said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go. It\'s a key verse. For if I do not go away, the helper shall not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And then you continue to read and you realize the Spirit would take the place of Christ for them. There would be a difference in terms of how you\'d be present with them. Radical difference. So based upon John 16 and Acts 2, what would not have taken place if there had been no ascension? It\'s a very simple question. Doris answers it in a number of ways. I\'ve said the answer is fourfold. You can get that from his article. But what would they be? What would not have taken place if the ascension had not occurred? Spirit coming? Certainly there would be no sending of the Spirit. No intercession. I suppose he could have done the intercession down here but specifically in the presence of God seated at the right hand as our advocate. Yeah, it would be no final victory. He would still be here. If he\'s still here, the Spirit has not come, then what does not take place? A significant event on the calendar for the church. There would be no Pentecost. No Pentecost. No comforter. What is distinct about you and I in terms of the Spirit? The faithful remnant would have a relationship with the Lord, but we would have something belonging to that relationship they don\'t have. No, yeah, thanks. No indwelling. Unless of course you believe that indwelling belongs to the Old Testament saints. There would be no greater work for the believers because they\'d still be in the presence of Christ. There would be no preparation of a future home. John 14. significant changes of the whole calendar and of the series of events if there is no ascension. Take a careful look at daughters and fill out the answer to that question. Pick the four fourfold response. Verify it. then you might even be able to add to the sentences. Of course we have an advocate at the Father\'s right hand, whom I must point out continually pleads our case absolutely, continually appears in God\'s presence for us, continually in sympathy with our weaknesses. We are worshipping a living Savior, a risen Savior and ascended Lord, who is continually our advocate. I think it was daughters who said Easter is incomplete, Pentecost is impeded, second coming is perhaps impossible if the ascension did not take place as an actual event. Guarantees triumph over all his enemies. Jews understood the significance of that statement and asked, what shall we do? It guarantees the second coming. Without the ascension, you have no reference point that says he comes back, just like you\'ve seen him go. So when we wait for the second advent, we\'re waiting for the ascended, exalted Christ to return. Now let me step back a little here and ask you this question. When He was resurrected and the resurrection is followed by the ascension and the exaltation, how do you explain the order of those events? Close together, some being repeated, number of views have developed. View number one, seize the resurrection followed by ascension and exaltation forty days later. Ascension and exaltation being combined as one event. It explains the delay in the ascension after the resurrection by assuming that his resurrected status needed improvement or settling down or coming to some point where he could be changed from one glory to a greater glory. Let me do it like this. Too much. Toon mentions these examples. I ascend to my father. John 20, 17 is one of the verses that\'s referred to. resurrection followed by ascension and exaltation 40 days later. The ascension and exaltation can be taken separately. The ascension occurred, the exaltation is later because he couldn\'t be exalted until his resurrected body improved, held in the 19th century. View two It says we have the resurrection on Easter morning. With the ascension and the exaltation on Easter evening. New. Get the chronology. Resurrection in the morn. Ascension and exaltation in the eve. 40 days, therefore, understood symbolically. Interesting. Can\'t have actual 40 days, as it is expressed, must do something to it. These were brief appearances in Judea and Galilee, and they continued long enough until the disciples fully understood that Christ had been indeed resurrected. And that\'s when he led them to the mountain for the final departure. You\'ve got it. I am he. It\'s now time to go. So the ascension from the mountain is something that occurs after a symbolical period. Because he\'s already gone to heaven. He\'s already been ascended and exalted. So the person that\'s appearing to them is one that is coming back from heaven. And the reason they speak for the fact that he had to be exalted and come back to see them is simply because coming from his lips in the Great Commission is the statement all authority is given unto me. So therefore, he must have been in an exalted state to be able to make such a statement. All authority is mine. Okay? Second, in John 20, 22, he said to the disciples, receive the Spirit. Only an exalted Christ, according to view 2, can bestow the Spirit on the disciples. So when they saw him, he had to have been exalted. Interesting. But Luke\'s 40 days shows you what? 40 days of resurrected Lord dealing with his disciples is climaxed by the ascension. It is not post ascension appearances. This is view three. Add to the mix a little, yeah? Resurrection, ascension and exaltation on Easter morning, followed by a series of appearances from heaven. So you have a four stage scenario. Resurrection, invisible ascension. an exaltation and then a dramatized ascension. It\'s not that much different from view 2 except it all occurs on Easter morning. When he died, then he arose, went to heaven. right away. It\'s a seamless, smooth seamless thing. And a series of appearances from heaven. And one of the reasons given is that when he was absent from his disciples, it\'s sort of stupid to think. It would be unreasonable, let me use that word, unreasonable to think that he stayed in some intermediate earthbound state. You know, that he disappeared from them, so must have gone back to heaven, then had another appearance, down to speak to them, taught them what they needed to know, two hour class over, back to heaven to the presence of the Lord. That\'s part of the explanation. It would be unreasonable to think of an earthbound state for a resurrected Lord, exalted to the right hand, and appears. A visitation from the exalted and eternal world to which his glorified body, which is taken to be body of his glory, belongs. He belongs there, not here. So there\'s a series of appearances. presentation given, and F.F. Bruce would explain it this way, is that in John 17, 20 verse 17, he said to the woman, don\'t cling to me. Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.\" Invisible ascension into glory. That\'s why he said to her, don\'t touch me. Here is in Luke 24 and other passages. He says, handle me, touch me, see. That is said to take place post-invisible ascension. You follow? Chronologically it\'s easy to follow. What about this? statement of Jesus in John 20. Stop clinging to me. And she was probably holding on to his feet. Stop doing what you\'re doing. And then you have a perfect indicative act of anabina. Perfect indicative. I have not yet ascended to my Father. Don\'t hang on to my body. I have not yet ascended. How do you understand that? If I take the perfect Akshiyan\'s art as it is, I have not yet ascended and remained ascended. Okay, perfect tense, verbal aspect. Or perhaps, DA Carson, I notice, the alternative translation, I am not yet in the ascended state. So don\'t try and hold me here. I\'ve got to go. So he said, tell them, present, I ascend to the Father. Did that mean right then? What classification of the present is possible? I ascend to my Father. I ascend to my Father. Dramatic, is that fit? Futuristic? I ascend meaning shortly I think it would be, I think it\'s a futuristic present It\'s going to occur Or dramatic It didn\'t mean there had to be an ascension right then and there. Otherwise how do you explain the ascension of excellent? That is a climax to the events. It seems to be the best way to take it. Therefore just exactly as they are. Did he go to heaven? when he died. Good question. Where was he? Where was he between his death and resurrection? Have any idea? You probably don\'t. Let\'s try it this way. Wrong one. Let me see. I\'ll give you a clean one. Here we are. Let me give you an overview. Then focus in. See the either ors? is an either or, followed by an either or, followed by a further either or. So it\'s not as simple an answer as at first you might think. Let me go to the top one. Top two. Either in the presence of the Father in heaven, which can be based inferentially, Luke 23 and John 19 when the spirit separated from the body went into the presence of the Lord or yeah yes I\'ll include it on Thursday Yeah, because it\'s a little much to get down, so just follow. Always on a preaching assignment to Hades, in the presence of the Lord. was sent to preach based upon a certain understanding of 1 Peter 3, the number of other passages taken in support. And on the preaching assignment, there\'s an either or. Either he proclaimed the good news, or he proclaimed the bad news. I\'ve heard both. Proclamation of the good news. that he had died, sins have been taken care of, or the bad news that he triumphed and they were finished. I\'ve come to confirm, eternally you\'re dead. There\'s no chance. In dealing with the good news, it\'s either to the wicked dead, let\'s move that up, with a second chance offer of the Gospel. cross it out, or to the saved dead with an announcement of release for Old Testament believers. They were now able to enter heaven with Christ, which they could not do before. or a proclamation of the bad news, either generally to the spirits in prison, or specifically to bound demons in the abyss. Options have been provided. It\'s kind of interesting. Best understanding. Seemed to be that put forward by Grudem in his systematic theology and backed up by, I found I didn\'t know I had a copy of this, I won\'t copy this for you but you can get a copy for yourself This article by John Feinberg The title suggests that it\'s delivering a little more than what you want. 1 Peter 3, 18-20, ancient mythology in the intermediate state, actually deals with the fact that Christ, this is not what Christ did between his death and resurrection, but what he did through the Spirit at the time of Noah. at the time Noah preached. And those who disobeyed Noah are now the ones that are the spirits in prison. Didn\'t go to them then, but went to them before, at the time of Noah. This would come down to whether you wish to make the statement, he descended into Hades, which is in the Apostles Creed, or he went into glory. The effect was, of course, that those who disbelieved at the time of Noah\'s preaching were now the spirits in prison. They heard a message at one time. Now, of course, that fate of theirs is indeed settled. This is Westminster Theological Journal. Westminster Theological Journal of 1986. Feinberg and Grudem actually agreeing on the conclusion. Seems best to conclude the most probable understanding. Of this passage does not warrant the conclusion The verse forms a mere parenthesis It\'s an integral part of Peter\'s argument It\'s highly improbable that it has anything to do with Christ preaching to dead people evil angels or an underworld If scripture does teach anything about an underworld One cannot demonstrate so from first Peter 3 18 through 22 three detailed analysis Whatever one wants to say about biblical teaching concerning the intermediate state he must say it on the basis of some other passage than this one There was no intermediate state to which the gospel was preached Certainly not in the sense of a second chance when the sense of floating in triumph those that heard and who are now in a state of lostness for those who heard preaching of Christ through Noah in Noah\'s day. You can check the MacArthur study Bible for a quick summary of a similar conclusion. Thank you.