When I was a new Christian in my twenties, I worshiped at a church, The Falls Church, which frequently recited the Nicene Creed as a part of Sunday worship. This creed is a result of the Council of Nicea held in 325 A.D. And one of the proclamations in that creed is “…. he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father…” The Nicene Creed captured this truth from Scripture considering it is stated in this Hebrews passage, and there is a similar statement in Ephesians 1:20. On an occasion when I started thinking about that statement, I was perplexed as to why Jesus needed to sit down until coming again. And if one with the Father, I would think He should be described as more than simply being at the right hand?
Fortunately, Dr. Neil Lightfoot
clarifies the first question. “…His
sitting suggests His kingly state…” (1)
Jesus does not need to simply sit down in heaven. The phrase is symbolic supporting the Kingship
of Jesus as the author of Hebrews continues giving evidence and illustrations
that Jesus is both High Priest and King of heaven.
Regarding Jesus being relegated to the “right
hand,” there is nothing like a great Bible dictionary from 1901 to answer that
question: “Figuratively the power of the Almighty…” (2) Within
the song that Moses and other Israelites sang to YHWH are the verses: “Your
right hand, O’LORD was majestic in power.
Your right hand, O’LORD, shattered the enemy” (Exodus 15:6 NIV). The emphasis for the statement that Jesus is
at the right hand of the Majesty is not to say that Jesus is less than
Majestic, rather to symbolically show that Jesus is victorious. The One who was qualified by suffering to be
the High Priest need sacrifice no more.
It is finished! Jesus is the
victor, and the victory was of the highest honor.
Doing something different here by getting
away from our text, yet keeping in the spirit of the book of Hebrews, I say a
few things about the Council of Nicea since I brought up this subject which is
less familiar in the U.S. culture today.
First, in my opinion, a huge omission from the creed is the lack of a
statement about the atonement. I do not
know whose hypothesis is correct regarding a reason why. My speculation is the Christians at the
Council of Nicea simply took it for granted.
If so, in my opinion it is a tragic omission. As we have learned, the author of Hebrews
focuses us on the atonement of Jesus!
Secondly, the person who called the Council was the Roman emperor Constantine, and Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, wrote about the Council. To stick with one problem with these two; other writings by both of these men expose that they blamed the entire Jewish ethnic group for the crucifixion of Jesus. (3) They were wrong. First, it is evil to blame an ethnic group for a crime committed by a small group of people. Second, Jesus forgave the people who crucified him. All Christians should do likewise. Thirdly, Jesus died for all sinners; it was His plan. Thus ultimately all sinners are responsible for the death of Jesus. That includes you and me. Praise be to God, there is forgiveness of sins offered to all by Jesus the Messiah, which came through His sacrifice, which He made since Jesus loves all people.
Concluding with positive news on the Council of Nicea: it included Christian leaders from a wide area there in 325 A.D. Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea who tackled an early Christian history endeavor, though a downright weird writer, preserved priceless early Christian history. Sometimes called Eusebius Pamphilus, the second name apparently taken from a mentor who was a martyr, he gives us insight into the attendees. Note that “bishop” is a word adopted by many in early churches as a title for an “overseer.” “....while the present assembly included more than two hundred and fifty bishops; but such a multitude of presbyters, deacons and acolothists accompanied them, that it was difficult to determine their number.” (4) And Christians came from all over the place! “Sacred” is not the word I would have chosen for a bunch of Christians having a big meeting, but I want you to get a feel of the voice of the author. “The sacred edifice, as if enlarged by the pleasure of God, enclosed at the same time within its walls, both Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians, Arabians, and inhabitants of Palestine; Egyptians, Thebeans, and Lybians, with others arriving from Mesopotamia. A bishop from Persia was also present. Nor was the Scythian absent from this assembly. Pontus, also, and Galatia, Pamphylia and Cappadocia, Asia and Phrygia furnished representatives from their most able divines. Thracians too, Macedonians, Achaians and Epirotes, and those who resided at a vast distance beyond them, were convened. That illustrious Spaniard, who is so highly spoken of, took his seat with the others.” (5) Early Christianity was ethnically diverse. That is what the New Covenant is all about, since Jesus died as the perfect sacrifice for all people, and people of every ethnic group have an opportunity to believe in Jesus.
Secondly, the person who called the Council was the Roman emperor Constantine, and Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, wrote about the Council. To stick with one problem with these two; other writings by both of these men expose that they blamed the entire Jewish ethnic group for the crucifixion of Jesus. (3) They were wrong. First, it is evil to blame an ethnic group for a crime committed by a small group of people. Second, Jesus forgave the people who crucified him. All Christians should do likewise. Thirdly, Jesus died for all sinners; it was His plan. Thus ultimately all sinners are responsible for the death of Jesus. That includes you and me. Praise be to God, there is forgiveness of sins offered to all by Jesus the Messiah, which came through His sacrifice, which He made since Jesus loves all people.
Concluding with positive news on the Council of Nicea: it included Christian leaders from a wide area there in 325 A.D. Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea who tackled an early Christian history endeavor, though a downright weird writer, preserved priceless early Christian history. Sometimes called Eusebius Pamphilus, the second name apparently taken from a mentor who was a martyr, he gives us insight into the attendees. Note that “bishop” is a word adopted by many in early churches as a title for an “overseer.” “....while the present assembly included more than two hundred and fifty bishops; but such a multitude of presbyters, deacons and acolothists accompanied them, that it was difficult to determine their number.” (4) And Christians came from all over the place! “Sacred” is not the word I would have chosen for a bunch of Christians having a big meeting, but I want you to get a feel of the voice of the author. “The sacred edifice, as if enlarged by the pleasure of God, enclosed at the same time within its walls, both Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians, Arabians, and inhabitants of Palestine; Egyptians, Thebeans, and Lybians, with others arriving from Mesopotamia. A bishop from Persia was also present. Nor was the Scythian absent from this assembly. Pontus, also, and Galatia, Pamphylia and Cappadocia, Asia and Phrygia furnished representatives from their most able divines. Thracians too, Macedonians, Achaians and Epirotes, and those who resided at a vast distance beyond them, were convened. That illustrious Spaniard, who is so highly spoken of, took his seat with the others.” (5) Early Christianity was ethnically diverse. That is what the New Covenant is all about, since Jesus died as the perfect sacrifice for all people, and people of every ethnic group have an opportunity to believe in Jesus.
Hunter
Irvine
(1) Neil R. Lightfoot, Jesus Christ Today: A Commentary on the
Book of Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 154.
(2) Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Philadelphia: A.J. Holman Company, 1901), 261.
(3) See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History: Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.F. Cruse (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1998), 70-71 & 424.
(4) Ibid., 391.
(5) Ibid., 390.
(2) Smith’s Bible Dictionary (Philadelphia: A.J. Holman Company, 1901), 261.
(3) See Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History: Complete and Unabridged, trans. C.F. Cruse (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1998), 70-71 & 424.
(4) Ibid., 391.
(5) Ibid., 390.
