"...the right hand of God..." (i.e. Stephen's Vision)

[Sargon]

Act 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

Act 7:56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

We are often told that the "right hand" in this instance is merely symbolic. It is said that it simply designates a position of favor. But, what about this passage from the OT?

1Ki 22:19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.

Was this vision also symbolic? I rather think it isn't. The host of heaven are found on his right and left hand, and no indication is given that those on the right are favored.

Certainly, there are instances in which "right hand" and "left hand" are used symbolically. But, those seem to be limited to religious conversation, and not to actual descriptions of visible things. For example, if Stephen was not actually seeing Jesus on the literal right hand of God, then what was Stephen seeing?

Furthermore, imagine the confusion if every reference to the "right hand" and "left hand" were interpreted symbolically in ancient Israel. Everyone would be fighting over who gets to sit on Jesus' right side during meals, sermons, and sleep. Perhaps nobody would ever turn left, but would pull a Zoolander and make two rights instead. You can see the problematic nature of interpreting every "right hand" reference symbolically.

Finally, some argue that seeing the "glory" of God the Father is not the same as seeing God the Father himself. Well, then what does it mean to see God's glory? Is glory now a physical object that can be seen?

[jadams_4242]

We are often told that the "right hand" in this instance is merely symbolic. It is said that it simply designates a position of favor. But, what about this passage from the OT?

Was this vision also symbolic? I rather think it isn't. The host of heaven are found on his right and left hand, and no indication is given that those on the right are favored.

Certainly, there are instances in which "right hand" and "left hand" are used symbolically. But, those seem to be limited to religious conversation, and not to actual descriptions of visible things. For example, if Stephen was not actually seeing Jesus on the literal right hand of God, then what was Stephen seeing?

Furthermore, imagine the confusion if every reference to the "right hand" and "left hand" were interpreted symbolically in ancient Israel. Everyone would be fighting over who gets to sit on Jesus' right side during meals, sermons, and sleep. Perhaps nobody would ever turn left, but would pull a Zoolander and make two rights instead. You can see the problematic nature of interpreting every "right hand" reference symbolically.

Finally, some argue that seeing the "glory" of God the Father is not the same as seeing God the Father himself. Well, then what does it mean to see God's glory? Is glory now a physical object that can be seen?

I think glory is just that; "glory", and we dont understand what glory is, we have ideas, but we do not know.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I think this stuff depends on the translation. For example, what are the words behind the verb "see" here? Did it carry the same connotation then which we hold to it now?

[Sargon]

I think this stuff depends on the translation. For example, what are the words behind the verb "see" here? Did it carry the same connotation then which we hold to it now?

From what I can tell, by reading the concordance at BLB, "to see" is pretty straightforward, with no nuances.

[soren]

We are often told that the "right hand" in this instance is merely symbolic. It is said that it simply designates a position of favor. But, what about this passage from the OT?

Was this vision also symbolic? I rather think it isn't. The host of heaven are found on his right and left hand, and no indication is given that those on the right are favored.

Certainly, there are instances in which "right hand" and "left hand" are used symbolically. But, those seem to be limited to religious conversation, and not to actual descriptions of visible things. For example, if Stephen was not actually seeing Jesus on the literal right hand of God, then what was Stephen seeing?

Furthermore, imagine the confusion if every reference to the "right hand" and "left hand" were interpreted symbolically in ancient Israel. Everyone would be fighting over who gets to sit on Jesus' right side during meals, sermons, and sleep. Perhaps nobody would ever turn left, but would pull a Zoolander and make two rights instead. You can see the problematic nature of interpreting every "right hand" reference symbolically.

Finally, some argue that seeing the "glory" of God the Father is not the same as seeing God the Father himself. Well, then what does it mean to see God's glory? Is glory now a physical object that can be seen?

We don't have to say the the "right hand" must be literal, only that the text does not demand a literal reading. As it happens, there is good warrant to read it figuratively because of the New Testament interpretation of Ps. 110:1 as a prophesy of Christ: " The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." See Matt 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:43, Acts 2:35, Heb 1:3. It is obvious that Ps 110 is metaphorical, and the frequency of this verse in the NT argues that we should read Stephen's vision in that light.

Lacking any special real reason to claim that the hand is literal, it is a big jump to go from seeing God's "glory" to seeing a physical man. A very poor proof-text this is.

[coolrok7]

We are often told that the "right hand" in this instance is merely symbolic. It is said that it simply designates a position of favor. But, what about this passage from the OT?

Was this vision also symbolic? I rather think it isn't. The host of heaven are found on his right and left hand, and no indication is given that those on the right are favored.

Certainly, there are instances in which "right hand" and "left hand" are used symbolically. But, those seem to be limited to religious conversation, and not to actual descriptions of visible things. For example, if Stephen was not actually seeing Jesus on the literal right hand of God, then what was Stephen seeing?

Furthermore, imagine the confusion if every reference to the "right hand" and "left hand" were interpreted symbolically in ancient Israel. Everyone would be fighting over who gets to sit on Jesus' right side during meals, sermons, and sleep. Perhaps nobody would ever turn left, but would pull a Zoolander and make two rights instead. You can see the problematic nature of interpreting every "right hand" reference symbolically.

Finally, some argue that seeing the "glory" of God the Father is not the same as seeing God the Father himself. Well, then what does it mean to see God's glory? Is glory now a physical object that can be seen?

When one is looking at something with one's own eyes and takes a picture of whatever one takes a picture of, what ones sees with the eye is usually a one to one correspondence with the image on the film. When one has a vision, what one "sees" is not necessarily the way the thing "seen" is the way it is in reality. It is a "vision". The context will usually help determine the literalness of what is being stated in Scripture.

For example when Moses saw the "burning bush" and he heard the voice speaking to him it didn't mean God was actually the burning bush. It was a maifestation of God's ability to cause what Moses saw (a bush) to not be consumed and yet had the appearence of burning. Likewise in Stephen's vision, it didn't mean what he saw was literally the way it was, like a video feed in today's context of history.

[Ron Beron]

We are often told that the "right hand" in this instance is merely symbolic. It is said that it simply designates a position of favor. But, what about this passage from the OT?

Was this vision also symbolic? I rather think it isn't. The host of heaven are found on his right and left hand, and no indication is given that those on the right are favored.

Certainly, there are instances in which "right hand" and "left hand" are used symbolically. But, those seem to be limited to religious conversation, and not to actual descriptions of visible things. For example, if Stephen was not actually seeing Jesus on the literal right hand of God, then what was Stephen seeing?

Furthermore, imagine the confusion if every reference to the "right hand" and "left hand" were interpreted symbolically in ancient Israel. Everyone would be fighting over who gets to sit on Jesus' right side during meals, sermons, and sleep. Perhaps nobody would ever turn left, but would pull a Zoolander and make two rights instead. You can see the problematic nature of interpreting every "right hand" reference symbolically.

Finally, some argue that seeing the "glory" of God the Father is not the same as seeing God the Father himself. Well, then what does it mean to see God's glory? Is glory now a physical object that can be seen?

Ironically this came up yesterday with my students from the Middle East. The right hand is the preferred hand. The left is more offensive. One eats and greets with the right and not the left. This is purely anecdotal, but their consensus was unanimous. I would go with the literal meaning.

[Sargon]

We don't have to say the the "right hand" must be literal, only that the text does not demand a literal reading. As it happens, there is good warrant to read it figuratively because of the New Testament interpretation of Ps. 110:1 as a prophesy of Christ: " The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." See Matt 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:43, Acts 2:35, Heb 1:3. It is obvious that Ps 110 is metaphorical, and the frequency of this verse in the NT argues that we should read Stephen's vision in that light.

Lacking any special real reason to claim that the hand is literal, it is a big jump to go from seeing God's "glory" to seeing a physical man. A very poor proof-text this is.

Do you believe that as Stephen lay bloody and dying and beholding the most spectacular vision of his life, that he quoted scripture instead of actually describing what he was seeing?

As I said earlier, it is certain that the "right hand" is symbolic. Ron Beron has emphasized that even further than I did. But, again, I must ask the question: What was Stephen actually seeing, if not what he described? Did he actually see Jesus standing on the right side of God? Or, did he see something different from that and instead of actually describing it chose to quote scripture?

Also, what of the passage from 1 Kings? Does it not indicate that the right hand is not necessarily favored over the left hand in theophoric visions? In fact, the theophany from 1 Kings seems more relevant for interpreting Stephen's theophany than other passages, since it is in fact a theophany.

When one is looking at something with one's own eyes and takes a picture of whatever one takes a picture of, what ones sees with the eye is usually a one to one correspondence with the image on the film. When one has a vision, what one "sees" is not necessarily the way the thing "seen" is the way it is in reality. It is a "vision". The context will usually help determine the literalness of what is being stated in Scripture.

For example when Moses saw the "burning bush" and he heard the voice speaking to him it didn't mean God was actually the burning bush. It was a maifestation of God's ability to cause what Moses saw (a bush) to not be consumed and yet had the appearence of burning. Likewise in Stephen's vision, it didn't mean what he saw was literally the way it was, like a video feed in today's context of history.

Well, if we take that route I have problem asserting that what Joseph saw was a "vision" just like Moses' or Stephen's. Whatever Joseph saw, he was made known that it represented God the Father. Perhaps it was just a hologram.

[ERMD]

Obviously, the Bible can be taken literally, at face value.

Except when it can't.

I think Biblical literalists have a difficult time with this particular account.

[volgadon]

The left hand is what you wipe yourself with. That out of theway I must ask if it wasn't literal and just a metaphor for Christ's favoured position, how was that depicted?

[soren]

Do you believe that as Stephen lay bloody and dying and beholding the most spectacular vision of his life, that he quoted scripture instead of actually describing what he was seeing?

I have not suggested that Stephen was quoting scripture instead of describing what he saw. What I am saying is that what he saw was Jesus enthroned in glory, which he aptly described as "standing at the right hand of God." â??Right handâ? is an idiom, and the literal meaning of the idiom is â??Godâ??s favor, power, etc.â? Thus the debate is not about whether the text is literal, but whether its literal meaning operates on a verbal or idiomatic level. Since it is idiomatic in the psalm Stephen quoting, it is fair to read it idiomatically. The error of claiming that it is a physical hand is not that it takes the text too literally, but that it mistakes what the literal meaning actually is.

When Jesus is being crucified, he quotes a messianic Psalm about himself; likewise the citation of Ps 110 is appropriate in the context of Stephenâ??s death. Stephen's discourse, for which he is stoned, is a subversive (to the Pharisees) retelling of Old Testament history in which he calls attention to the covenants received by sons who were not first-born. This is a precedent for bringing gentiles, as opposed to the â??first-bornâ? Israelites, into the covenant, apart from the Mosaic Law. A major theme in Luke and Acts is that Jesus inherits the kingdom of David, fulfilling a covenant made with a lesser brother. Stephen dies witnessing the enthronement of Jesus according to that covenant. In context, the citation of Ps. 110 fits perfectly with all that Stephen has said before. It provides a capstone to his argument and vindicates his message of the Old Covenantâ??s fulfillment in Christ. Not only is there warrant to read it this way, but the text begs for it. Thereâ??s even a footstool reference a few verses before.

As I said earlier, it is certain that the "right hand" is symbolic. Ron Beron has emphasized that even further than I did. But, again, I must ask the question: What was Stephen actually seeing, if not what he described? Did he actually see Jesus standing on the right side of God? Or, did he see something different from that and instead of actually describing it chose to quote scripture?Also, what of the passage from 1 Kings? Does it not indicate that the right hand is not necessarily favored over the left hand in theophoric visions? In fact, the theophany from 1 Kings seems more relevant for interpreting Stephen's theophany than other passages, since it is in fact a theophany.Well, if we take that route I have problem asserting that what Joseph saw was a "vision" just like Moses' or Stephen's. Whatever Joseph saw, he was made known that it represented God the Father. Perhaps it was just a hologram.

This entire line of argument seems to suppose that I would have something to lose theologically if the LDS reading of Acts 7:56 were right. As it happens, I would not. Because Catholic exegesis is based on the spiritual tradition whose primary claim is that every part of the Old Testament is about Christ, it has been common since the earliest centuries for Catholics to read the Old Testament with an eye to discerning hidden representations of the Trinity, including figures of God the Father. If you study this subject, you will find that Catholic theology identifies several more physical manifestations of the Father in the Old Testament than Mormonism does. I can think of two examples off-hand. First, we read Danielâ??s vision of the Ancient of Days in reference to the Father rather than to Adam. Another example is the visit of the three angels to Abraham to announce the birth of Isaac in Gen 19. This has traditionally been understood as an allegory of the Trinity, and is thus depicted by the Orthodox Saint Andrei Rublev in the most famous icon ever made:

Images like this are not problematic for Catholics. On the contrary, our theology celebrates them.The reason I object to reading the vision in the way that Mormons General Authorities would have us read it is simply that it is bad exegesis. By pointing out its most basic error, I do not imply that the text poses any theological threat otherwise. I have often lamented that this particular text is so popular among Mormons, because pointing out its ground-floor exegetical fallacy distracts from the more important topic of how to interpret biblical theophanies in general, particularly those in which God the Father appears in human form. We could have a better conversation if Mormons used stronger texts.

If I wanted to make the Mormon case, the text I would probably turn to is Rev 5:13, which distinguishes the Lamb (Jesus) from "him that sitteth upon the throne" (the Father). The force of this verse is that it really is about a vision of an enthroned man, who is evidently distinct and physically separate from the Son. But while this verse makes the best case for Mormonism, it also provides the answer, because the shape of the lamb has implications about the literal and allegorical meanings of the verse: John really did see a bloody lamb, yet Jesus is not a lamb by nature. The lamb represents something true about Jesus, that he is a sacrificial offering for the people, and that he is to be worshipped under the aspect of his sacrificial death (which incidentally disproves the main Mormon objection to the crucifix). If the real vision of the lamb does not imply that Jesus is a lamb by nature, there can be no necessity in claiming that the real vision of the man on the throne indicates that the Father is human by nature. The throne indicates lordship; that makes the vision real and true, even if it does not depict physical reality.

By reading the text this way, we find more proportionality in the vision than otherwise, and more opportunity for theological insight. It makes little sense on a literary level to interpret the lamb allegorically but the enthroned man literally. It seems if one of the figures is allegorical, the other should be as well. The theological insight we can gain from it is that the joint depiction of the Fatherâ??s kingship and the Sonâ??s sacrifice points to the priestly mediation of Christ, who by means of his blood stands as our advocate before the throne of judgment. That is a more profound meaning than how many limbs God has, and it is not a meaning one would naturally arrive at by a hermeneutic of strict literalism.