Why hasn't Jesus come back yet?

[Dorothy Mae]

This is Dispensationalism. It began in the 1800s and contradicts much of scripture It has no direct link to scripture but uses scripture out of context to support its theory. Not tied to historic Christianity. You need to study opposing views because of it's mind boggling twists and tangles.

Made a lot of money for some who spread it too!

 

[Dorothy Mae]

When and how did Jesus "send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and … gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other" back in AD70 (Mat 24:31 and Mark 13:27)?

He is doing that now. Angels means messengers. He is sending his messengers still to gather those into his body who want this. It is an ongoing process, not a Disneyland ride.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I've been hearing it for some time. It would be illegal to name names without evidence. I believe many have innocent blood on their hands in their rabid support for Israel.

In my view they’ve just been duped into being Zionists as though that’s good christianity. When I read the opinion of Jesus on Israel, I changed my thinking.

 

[sovereigngrace]

He is doing that now. Angels means messengers. He is sending his messengers still to gather those into his body who want this. It is an ongoing process, not a Disneyland ride.

That doesn't make sense. How is He gathering His elect together in heaven, and for what purpose?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

That doesn't make sense. How is He gathering His elect together in heaven, and for what purpose?

It says gathering from the ends of the earth. The gospel is going out by messengers.

 

[sovereigngrace]

There were not waiting for the bodily return of Jesus and said so. Paul wrote that the man of sin needed to be revealed. The Revelation of John speaks of a judgement, not a bodily return which will not happen until the enemies of Christ become a footstool for his feet, that is friends. They wrote constantly that this needs to happen in the world first.

So Jesus is not coming back anytime soon. He came in judgment at the end of the age of the Mosaic covenant. Those who pierced him saw this as he said they would. The events in Matthew 24 were fulfilled. Not the kingdoms of this world are becoming the kingdom of our Lord, step by step. That is my view.

So, you believe we are now living in "the age to come"?

 

[sovereigngrace]

It says gathering from the ends of the earth. The gospel is going out by messengers.

But it is not the angels that preach the Gospel, it is the elect! This is the same group who the angels in view actually gather at the end. You are getting all mixed up here.

 

[sovereigngrace]

It says gathering from the ends of the earth. The gospel is going out by messengers.

No, He actually said in Mat 24:31: "they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

 

[Dorothy Mae]

But it is not the angels that preach the Gospel, it is the elect! This is the same group who the angels in view actually gather at the end. You are getting all mixed up here.

The word means messenger. Same word used to describe human messengers. The messengers are gathering as we speak. Angels are not holding a round-up later. You are believing a false teaching. There is no rapture. There’s a resurrection true, but not an angel rounding us up.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

No, He actually said in Mat 24:31: "they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

The four winds refers to the ends of the earth. And why would angels have to round up all the inhabitants of heaven? That makes no sense. In Heaven He just needs to send out the call.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

So, you believe we are now living in "the age to come"?

In 10AD, it was the age to come. The age of the Mosaic law covenant age ended. We are living in the new covenant age.

So same as the scriptures talking the coming of the Christ are talking about the past to us but not to them, many scriptures talked about their future but our past.

Jesus will return bodily but will only leave the throne in heaven when his enemies are made a footstool for his feet (friends.)

 

[sovereigngrace]

The four winds refers to the ends of the earth. And why would angels have to round up all the inhabitants of heaven? That makes no sense. In Heaven He just needs to send out the call.

Your teachers have taught you wrong. We are all gathered together in the air when Jesus comes. The angels do the gathering. Please read the text!

He actually said in Mat 24:31: "they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

 

[sovereigngrace]

In 10AD, it was the age to come. The age of the Mosaic law covenant age ended. We are living in the new covenant age.

So same as the scriptures talking the coming of the Christ are talking about the past to us but not to them, many scriptures talked about their future but our past.

Jesus will return bodily but will only leave the throne in heaven when his enemies are made a footstool for his feet (friends.)

1. What happened in 10AD?
2. So, you believe in 3 ages - this age, the age to come, the age to come after the age to come?
3. So, has corruption ended? Has sin ended? Has death ended? Has marriage ended? Has the curse ended? Has Jesus wiped away all tears?

 

[sovereigngrace]

Are all the "imminent" words we find in the NT just as broad?
"Soon, shortly, about to take place, in a very little while, without delay, near, Immediately, etc...
Do all of these have such an elastic, changeable meaning that render them effectively meaningless?

What happens to those who are alive when Christ comes literally and physically again at the end?

 

[witness12]

By His Spirit He is with us and we get glimpses...

What do you think His Spirit is?
Who is the Spirit?

 

[mindlight]

Rather, I'm letting scripture interpret scripture, but for the sake of the argument,
Let's replace Fulness with FULL NUMBER in all the passages where the word fulness is used (that I supplied for you) and see if your interpretation works:

John 1:16
And of his full number have all we received, and grace for grace.

Romans 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their full number?

Romans 15:29 And I am sure that, when I come unto you, I shall come in the full number of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.

Ephesians 1:23 Which is his body, the full number of him that filleth all in all.

Really? You're going to stick with that?
Fullness means Full number when we find it in the NT?

Strong's Concordance

pléróma: fullness, a filling up

Original Word: πλήρωμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: pléróma
Phonetic Spelling: (play'-ro-mah)
Definition: fullness, a filling up
Usage: (a) a fill, fullness; full complement; supply, patch, supplement, (b) fullness, filling, fulfillment, completion.

HELPS Word-studies

Cognate: 4138 plḗrōma – "sum total, fulness, even (super) abundance" (BAGD). See 4130 (plēthō).

 

[mindlight]

Who gave the Church the authority to determine which teaching are spiritually appropriate for other humans?

Consensus is a horrible barometer for truth.

You did not read my post and have misunderstood how the church resolved these issues in the crucial years after the apostles:

The rule of faith they established to guard against heretics and false teachers involved:

1) The apostolic succession. Leaders directly trained and informed by the apostles and those they trained were most likely to know what they were talking about.

2) Agreed upon scriptures, they accepted as most authoritative trusted sources like the apostles themselves or those that had been directly vetted by them

3) continuity with OT. 1Clement for instance is saturated with OT references and prophecies fulfilled by Jesus

They rejected

1) The Gnostic Valentinius who basically was a smart alec who thought he knew better than God

2) Marcion, whose rejection of the Jewish OT and Greek presuppositions about Demiurges and other nonsence caused him to lack all perspective and understanding

3) Montanists who went beyond what was said quoting new prophecies that did not come true and new revelations that went beyond what the church as a whole accepted

 

[mindlight]

What do you think His Spirit is?
Who is the Spirit?

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord the Giver of Life who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets.

 

[Kaon]

You did not read my post and have misunderstood how the church resolved these issues in the crucial years after the apostles:

The rule of faith they established to guard against heretics and false teachers involved:

1) The apostolic succession. Leaders directly trained and informed by the apostles and those they trained were most likely to know what they were talking about.

2) Agreed upon scriptures, they accepted as most authoritative trusted sources like the apostles themselves or those that had been directly vetted by them

3) continuity with OT. 1Clement for instance is saturated with OT references and prophecies fulfilled by Jesus

They rejected

1) The Gnostic Valentinius who basically was a smart alec who thought he knew better than God

2) Marcion, whose rejection of the Jewish OT and Greek presuppositions about Demiurges and other nonsence caused him to lack all perspective and understanding

3) Montanists who went beyond what was said quoting new prophecies that did not come true and new revelations that went beyond what the church as a whole accepted

I didn't misread anything; so far I hear that men gave men the authority to amend and choose which books are digestible as spiritually enriching for other humans.

DID the Most High give humans the authority to determine what is spiritually profitable yo other humans? Or, did the Most High charge each individual with seeking the truth and testing the spirits of everything that comes to us?

How did men get the authority to make a hierarchy in Church - the same system that the Redeemer preached against?

 

[Josheb]

Had Paul preached to the Mayans in central America? The end of that Matthew passage states the gospel 'shall be preached in the whole world' and 'then the end will come.' So if the end hasn't yet come, maybe the gospel hasn't yet been sufficiently preached in the whole world?

Pay attention to the details, Chris. Paul didn't say he had preached the gospel throughout all creation. He simply said the gospel had been thusly preached.

When you say, "The end has not come therefore the gospel has not been preached in the whole world" you are arguing a post hoc argument and post hoc arguments are always fallacious. Besides, we don't render the By by history, we render history by the Bible.


So open your mind to what the Bible states. Don't add to it things like "Paul didn't preach to the Mayans" when Paul never claimed to have done so. That's evidence of your blocks to understanding, not mine. Relax. Ask yourself if you want to understand differently than you currently do because if not the nothing I post hereafter will make any difference to you and you are wasting both our time. Do you want to understand or not?


Paul said the gospel had been preached throughout all creation. Paul also stated the gospel had been preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8). Paul did not go back in time to preach to Abraham any more than he sailed to Mesoamerica and preach to the Mayans. God preached the gospel to Abraham, not Paul. And since Moses recorded that event in the Pentateuch Abarham must have shared that experience to someone and they with another until the point at which Moses put it all down in writing as God inspired.

But that's not really what's going on with Paul's claim the gospel has been preached throughout all creation. Colossians 1:23 is more likely a reference to the known world, not the entire planet earth. This is common throughout the Bible; the word "world" or phrases like "throughout the entire world" are meant to mean the known world. Sometimes it does mean the entire planet. Exegesis is required to determine the correct understanding.

Did Paul mean literally mean all of creation?

Did Jesus literally mean the entire world?

Do we say, "Yes, Jesus did mean the entire world but no, Paul did not literally mean all of creation?" What would be the exegetical basis for treating these to statement differently? If we treat them in identical manner then Jesus meant the entire world and Paul - under the inspiration of God - mean the entire creation. If we say Paul was mistaken then we have drawn into question the inspired nature of that statement and thereby all that Paul wrote. So odon't be so quick to dismiss what Paul said.

Take a look at what Tertullus says in accusing Paul in Acts 24,

Acts 24:1-5
"After five days the high priest Ananias came down with some elders, with an attorney named Tertullus, and they brought charges to the governor against Paul. After Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying to the governor, 'Since we have through you attained much peace, and since by your providence reforms are being carried out for this nation, we acknowledge this in every way and everywhere, most excellent Felix, with all thankfulness. But, that I may not weary you any further, I beg you to grant us, by your kindness, a brief hearing. For we have found this man a real pest and a fellow who stirs up dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes."​

Were there Jews living throughout the world? Were there Jews living among the first century Japanese? Were there Jews living among the first century Native Americans? Not likely. Tertullus' reference is to that of the known world.

Tak a look at what Paul wrote in the opening of Romans,

Romans 1:8
"First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world."​

Again: we understand Paul was either using hyperbole or his was a reference to the known world, not the literal entirety of the planet earth.

Consider your post hoc argument in light of what Jesus said when the woman washed his feet with perfume. At that event Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, wherever this gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her." Does that mean if that woman is not honored then the gospel has not been preached. No, of course not. That would be the cart before the horse.

Or consider what John wrote when he stated, "We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." (1 Jn. 5:18-19). Did satan literally have power over whole world? If so then that means satan had power over John when John wrote that sentence. It means satan had/has power over the church. Did John know about what power satan had in Thailand, Botswana, Nova Scotia, or Argentina? Logic tells us this is hyperbole because Jesus is king of kings and lord of lords and satan does not have power over everything. All power was given to Christ (Mt. 28:18) and it is within that context that John was writing.


These literary devices occur throughout the entirety of the Bible. Often times a mention of "the whole world," literally means the literal entirety of the literal world but often times it does not. The former can be seen abundantly in the Psalms anytime God's creation or His sovereignty is mentioned. This is not always the case with all mentions of the "the whole world," or "the whole earth," especially in prophesy where figures of speech and other literary devices are employed. One of the facts of the Bible that stands out in comparison to other forms of literature is its unique use of language. We take these things for granted nowadays but the writings we now call the Bible were new in nature, not just new in content.

Understanding the rules of exegesis provides the means of correctly understanding God's word. We read a sentence as written unless we have reason in the surrounding text not to do so. It is, therefore, understandable why we would read Mt. 24:14 literally but that same principle would require us to read Col. 1:23. Waht, exegetically, would prompt us to read one sentence literally but not the other? Or what, exegetically, would prompt us to read both sentences literally or both sentences figuratively? To answer that question we'd have to examine the rest of what is being said in each passage. Proof-texting is always bad practice.




When Jesus is speaking in Matthew 24 he is answer a specific question. Earlier that day he declared judgment upon the Pharisees and scribes and, as he left the temple, he stated the temple was going to be torn down. Later that evening after they had traversed the saddle and climbed the Mount of Olives, as they were looking down upon Jerusalem only a few hundred feet above the temple's roof Jesus was asked one single, solitary, three-part question.

Matthew 24:3
"As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, 'Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?'"​

That's it! Everything Jesus says thereafter is in answer to that question.

1) When is the judgment upon the Pharisees and the tearing down of the temple going to happen?

2) What will be sign of your coming? (not his actual coming, only the "sign" of his coming)

3) What will be the sign of the end of the age? (not the end of time, nor the end of the world)​

And I'm sure that you are aware much has been made of the Matthew 24 discourse in neglect of the question asked. Many, many people ignore the context or otherwise abuse the context of that question. In this post I have endeavored to limited commentary to what the scriptures actually state and how we might exegetically read, understand, and possible interpret what is stated. We can discuss the meaning of what is stated but what is stated is not and cannot be disputed.


Jesus said the gospel of the kingdom would be preached all over the world.

Paul said the gospel had been preached in all creation.


I stated the facts of scripture.

You think, "Had Paul preached to the Mayans in central America?" is a cogent response.

It is not.

Neither is a post hoc fallacy.

So ask yourself if you are open to this conversation because if not then just ignore my post because I'm not interested in wasting my time and effort with posters who have no interest in exegetically considering what scripture states. You choose.


(my apologies for the length)