Why Hasn’t Jesus Returned Yet?

[psimmond]

I've been spending a lot of time studying different eschatological views, and I wrote this post that I hope some might finding interesting and perhaps helpful:
http://www.simmondses.com/2017/10/21/wh ... urned-yet/.

At the end of the post is a link to seven proposals to explain the delay, or lack thereof...

[Paidion]

Hi Peter. Did you happen to make a mistake in that link? As it stands, it doesn't seem to work.

[psimmond]

Paidion, thanks for pointing that out! Somehow I had a "W" at the beginning of the url. It appears to work now. Sorry everyone!

[mattrose]

For my part, I believe the 'this generation' verse applied to AD70

And I believe Jesus hasn't returned yet because the church has not established the quality and quantity of the Kingdom of Earth that God is looking for. We have Spirit filled work to do.

[psimmond]

mattrose, that sounds like N.T. Wright's position. Is your view about the same as his, or is your view more postmillennial? And do you think there's any way to measure the quality and quantity, or are we just left to shoot for an ambiguous goal?

[mattrose]

mattrose, that sounds like N.T. Wright's position. Is your view about the same as his, or is your view more postmillennial? And do you think there's any way to measure the quality and quantity, or are we just left to shoot for an ambiguous goal?

1. I would think my position is similar to (and somewhat influenced by) NT Wright

2. I consider myself amillennial, but such an optimistic one that the postmillennial labels don't bother me

3. I don't think the quality/quantity can easily be measured, but nor do I think they are ambiguous. In terms of quantity, God is waiting for people from every nation/tribe. In terms of quality, God is waiting for Christlikeness (maturity). The hard part of judging this is that the world is pretty big and the church is in different stages of growth in different parts.

[psimmond]

mattrose, I think Wright's explanation is very strained at points and too easily cries "metaphorical" when passages don't align with his view. The Jews expected the coming of an earthly kingdom, and I see nothing in the Synoptics to suggest Jesus expected the soon-coming kingdom to be anything different. Yes, Jesus mentioned a delay (Mark 4:26-32; Matthew 13:31-42), but I think 2000 years stretches the usefulness of already/not yet to the point that it just comes across as bad apologetics. I'm not saying Wright is wrong, but when an interpretation requires this much exegetical gymnastics, I don't think it should be near the top of the list.

[mattrose]

mattrose, I think Wright's explanation is very strained at points and too easily cries "metaphorical" when passages don't align with his view. The Jews expected the coming of an earthly kingdom, and I see nothing in the Synoptics to suggest Jesus expected the soon-coming kingdom to be anything different. Yes, Jesus mentioned a delay (Mark 4:26-32; Matthew 13:31-42), but I think 2000 years stretches the usefulness of already/not yet to the point that it just comes across as bad apologetics. I'm not saying Wright is wrong, but when an interpretation requires this much exegetical gymnastics, I don't think it should be near the top of the list.

I doubt Adam & Eve (let alone the serpent) would have predicted a 4,000+ year delay in the arrival of the 'offspring' of Eve coming to crush the serpents head. I'd imagine that they imagined it would be Cain or Abel or Seth that would accomplish that victory.

Jesus predicted a delay (as you noted), but he didn't know the length of that delay so I'm not sure why the reality of its length should be surprising (since no duration was clarified). Since we subsequently find that the delay was the result of God patiently waiting for quality (Christian maturity) and quantity (Christian evangelism), it is not really surprising at all to think that this process would take hundreds or thousands of years.

In short, I guess I just don't see it as 'bad apologetics'. It just seems like the best interpretation of the text to me. I don't perceive the 'exegetical gymnastics' that you seem to.

[psimmond]

Hi mattrose,
I think Wright's view is a stretch exegetically because in the Synoptics, the phrase "all these things" which were to take part in their generation included the parousia, not just the judgment on Jerusalem. So the expectation was that Jesus would return while some of them were still living, not at the creation of the new world thousands of years in the future.

Regarding the serpent in Genesis, the idea that the bit about crushing his head was a messianic prophecy is not nearly as popular as it once was. I don't think anyone viewed this as a messianic prophecy until the church fathers used it to elevate the virgin Mary.

[mattrose]

Hi mattrose,
I think Wright's view is a stretch exegetically because in the Synoptics, the phrase "all these things" which were to take part in their generation included the parousia, not just the judgment on Jerusalem. So the expectation was that Jesus would return while some of them were still living, not at the creation of the new world thousands of years in the future.

I guess I don't understand your point. I do believe that 'all these things' (things mentioned in Matthew 24:4-31) happened already. Jesus did 'come' in judgment (in addition to 'coming' up to the throne). I think it is a mistake to think that all 'coming' language references the 2nd Coming.

Regarding the serpent in Genesis, the idea that the bit about crushing his head was a messianic prophecy is not nearly as popular as it once was. I don't think anyone viewed this as a messianic prophecy until the church fathers used it to elevate the virgin Mary.

My interpretation is christocentric. I believe Christians are taught to read the Old Testament with Christ in mind. All the Scriptures are really about him. So I have no problem accepting that something that wasn't often recognized as Messianic actually is Messianic. And that passage, in particular, seems rather obvious, to me, to be a promise of Christ.