Skip to main content

Sitting to the Right


In many places the New Testament tells us Jesus is sitting to the right of the Father. Matthew, Mark, and Luke each record an exchange Jesus had with Pontius Pilate shortly before the crucifixion; Pilate asked Jesus point blank if He was the Christ, and Jesus replied, “If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I ask you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God (Luke 22:67-69).”

 

Many people know that the right hand was the seat of prominence in their culture. The seat to the right of the one throwing a banquet was reserved for the guest of honor, and it is why the disciples argued internally over who would sit at Jesus’ right side in the kingdom. 

 

But the seat to the right also has another cool meaning. In ancient Jewish courts there was a scribe seated to the left and the right of the judge. Once his verdict was rendered one of the scribes would go to work. If the verdict was guilty, the scribe to the judge’s left would write out the verdict and subsequent sentence, and hand it over to the officer (and maybe the executioner!).

 

However, if the verdict was not guilty, the scribe on the right side would pen the acquittal. 

 

Too many people picture Jesus sitting to the judge’s left, furiously scribbling down guilty verdicts. But Jesus told Nicodemus that He did not come to condemn the world, but to save it (John 3:17). It is true that the world is condemned already because of unbelief, but that is humanity condemning itself. Jesus came, not to write guilty verdicts, but acquittals for all those who would put their trust in Him and call out for salvation. 

 

One day you will stand before the Judge of all the Earth (Genesis 18:25) in His courtroom. Will your verdict be guilty or not guilty? Jesus wants to write your acquittal; it’s why He is sitting to the right of the Judge. Call out to Him today before it is too late.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The “Christians Hate Gays” Myth

During these Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) hearings before the Supreme Court I keep hearing how much Christians hate gay people. This was news to me since I am a Christian and I don’t hate gay people. I also go to church with over 1000 other Christians, and if any of them hate gay people, they sure haven’t told me. Before moving to South Carolina I worked at or attended several churches in Texas; prior to that I spent a decade going to church in Florida. Guess what? No one hated gay people. In fact, I don’t know any Christians who hate anybody. The very uniform of a believer is his love, and if a person does not show consistent love, then he is not actually a believer. Are there non-believers who hate gay people and claim to be Christian? Of course. But that doesn’t represent Jesus or His church. Equating  hateful sign-wavers with Christianity is like equating a kindergarten baseball team to the New York Yankees. They may claim to be playing the same

To Save a Life

(Like my blog about the peace symbol, this blog was written as a default response to all the parents, students, and other people who are asking my opinion of To Save a Life.) By now you have probably heard of the movie To Save a Life, which opened nation-wide in theaters on January 22nd. The movie deals with so many issues that teens face today, like suicide, cutting, drinking, drugs, premarital sex, teen pregnancy, and abortion. At first glance this movie looks like an awesome resource that we should recommend for our teens, parents, youth pastors, and youth workers. But a closer look at the movie reveals a few disturbing things. For starters, according to pluggedin.com, there are 2 uses of the “A” word, 5 uses of hell (used as a curse word), and once the “D” word is used. There are other crude terms used to describe a girl, and crude terms for referring to sexual activity. There is also a bedroom scene that shows a girl removing a boy’s shirt, then afterwards the girl putting he

Famous Frauds in Homosexual Science Part 2: Twin Studies

A second piece of shoddy science has been heralded as proving people are born gay. This time, instead of cadavers, living twins were studied. This study compared male identical twins to male fraternal twins; in each set of twins, at least one man was homosexual. 22% of the fraternal twins showed both brothers to be gay, compared to 52% of the identical twins. Since identical twins are closer genetically than fraternal twins, this study claimed that genetics play in to homosexuality, or that people are born gay. But an obvious question that arose from this study is, why did 48% of the identical twins only have one gay brother? If they are so close genetically, then 100% of the identical twins should have two gay brothers. This study does more harm than good to the argument from genetics. There are other factors to be considered. One is that the men doing the study (Richard Pillard and Michael Bailey) could have intentionally picked fraternal twins that the