The Son of Man returns with and for his people

[quietthinker]

I remain confused, but I appreciate the added information. Yes, I'm trying to figure out, from Paul's perspective, what he's saying. Is he bringing departed spirits to their bodies, or transforming them in heaven using the metaphorical term, "raised up?"

If their bodies do not exist on earth in the form of elements to be produced as bodies, then God may make these immortal bodies out of thin air in heaven, and then bring them and their bodies with Christ to be revealed on earth.

And if Jesus and his saints are revealed on earth, is this revelation largely in the sky or down on the earth? What does it mean for Jesus to come in the same way he left? Is this a landing on earth? Or is this simply a revelation of his return in the form of a reestablished Christianity on earth?

The problem and the confusion as I see it Randy is the premise of human being immortal.
If the Serpent's lie to Eve in Eden is believed (and most do) in that they believe when one dies one either goes to Heaven or Hell they are saying you will not die (immortal) ie, you are with in bliss or in torment. The result of this understanding is not being able to clearly decipher both Jesus' and Pauls words.

One the other hand, if one believes that one dies just as God told Eve she would if she ate of the forbidden fruit then the problem and the confusion vanishes. It vanishes because one knows that there is no consciousness in the grave; the same grave that Jesus will call people from at their resurrection. The breath of life which was taken from people at their death will again be united with the elements (body) which in turn becomes animated and consciousness subsequently restored (living soul)

Immortality is then bestowed upon all who look for his appearing/ trusted his promises (God's people from all ages)

 

[quietthinker]

And if Jesus and his saints are revealed on earth, is this revelation largely in the sky or down on the earth? What does it mean for Jesus to come in the same way he left? Is this a landing on earth?

Jesus return will be in the clouds of heaven. I personally believe these clouds will be millions of angels but if one wants to think it'll be water vapour, I'm not going to argue it. His return will be a rescue mission, he will not touch the earth at this event.
There is another event (return) spoken of in Revelation 20 & 21 some time later. It is at this event that his feet will touch the Mount of Olives.

 

[CadyandZoe]

That makes a lot of sense to me because at the time Jesus said this he was still under the OT Law, which would only address the future of national Israel. Their hope would be in a Christian restoration. Still, it somehow seems connected to Paul's sense of the coming of the Lord for all of God's People. Perhaps with the advent of the NT Period and with the inclusion of Gentile believers, the Hope of Israel became expanded into the Hope of Nations?

A friend of mine talks about "the Gospel to the Gentiles" and "the Gospel to the Jews" The Gospel to the Gentiles is concerned with personal, individual salvation, which is our hope as individuals. The Gospel to the Jews includes everything contained in the gospel to the Gentiles, but it also includes good news concerning the nation of Israel taken as a whole.

Accordingly, there will be two gatherings: The gathering of Gentile believers to meet the Lord in the air; and the gathering of the Hebrew believers to Jerusalem to meet with the Lord there. I am taking my cues from passages like the following:

Revelation 14:1

Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.​

​

The 144k were gathered in Jerusalem earlier, and the Lord will meet with them there.

In the following passage, I believe that the name "Azel" is a Hebrew homonym meaning "the place of gathering." During a time of great distress, the people will flee to Jerusalem in order to pray for God to save them and their nation. But in order to enter Jerusalem, God will open up a valley through which they can enter Jerusalem. The people will walk through the valley to "Azel" with the Lord on Mt. Zion.

Zechariah 14:4-5

In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him! ​

​

So then, the saints are gathered to meet Jesus in the air at the time of the great harvest. Revelation 14:14-16
The 144K are gathered in Jerusalem to meet with Jesus on Mt. Zion. Revelation 14:1-5
And the enemies of God are gathered in Jerusalem to become the grapes of God's wrath. Revelation 14:17-20

The Jews are gathered first. That's why they are called "the firstfruits."

 

[Timtofly]

You made a statement and then proceeded to quote a verse that contradicts your statement.

Please ask God for wisdom (James 1:5-7).

You made a statement unrelated to the thread, that contradicts your own private interpretation. You think you have wisdom, but you do not.

Are those alive at the Second Coming going to be physically resurrected or changed?

The verse does not say resurrected. The ongoing theme is to be made alive. It is not about a resurrection in the sense of a spiritual resurrection, nor a physical resurrection. Are you spiritually dead, right now yourself? If no, then no resurrection. Are you physically dead right now? If no, then no resurrection. Will you be made alive at the Second Coming if it happens in the middle of viewing some online forum? If not, then you are dead both spiritually and physically, and certainly won't be resurrected. You will be be in the middle of chaos after everything around you gets burned up, and you will be asking yourself how will I stand in the wrath that is to come.

 

[Randy Kluth]

A friend of mine talks about "the Gospel to the Gentiles" and "the Gospel to the Jews" The Gospel to the Gentiles is concerned with personal, individual salvation, which is our hope as individuals. The Gospel to the Jews includes everything contained in the gospel to the Gentiles, but it also includes good news concerning the nation of Israel taken as a whole.

Accordingly, there will be two gatherings: The gathering of Gentile believers to meet the Lord in the air; and the gathering of the Hebrew believers to Jerusalem to meet with the Lord there. I am taking my cues from passages like the following:

Revelation 14:1

Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.​

​

The 144k were gathered in Jerusalem earlier, and the Lord will meet with them there.

In the following passage, I believe that the name "Azel" is a Hebrew homonym meaning "the place of gathering." During a time of great distress, the people will flee to Jerusalem in order to pray for God to save them and their nation. But in order to enter Jerusalem, God will open up a valley through which they can enter Jerusalem. The people will walk through the valley to "Azel" with the Lord on Mt. Zion.

Zechariah 14:4-5

In that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south. You will flee by the valley of My mountains, for the valley of the mountains will reach to Azel; yes, you will flee just as you fled before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the Lord, my God, will come, and all the holy ones with Him! ​

​

So then, the saints are gathered to meet Jesus in the air at the time of the great harvest. Revelation 14:14-16
The 144K are gathered in Jerusalem to meet with Jesus on Mt. Zion. Revelation 14:1-5
And the enemies of God are gathered in Jerusalem to become the grapes of God's wrath. Revelation 14:17-20

The Jews are gathered first. That's why they are called "the firstfruits."

Yes, but I take a less popular tack when I say that not only does Israel have a national future, but so does the international Church. Israel is but one of many nations, and a smaller one at that!

God has promised Abraham "nations"--plural, and I wouldn't expect God to promise nationhood only to Israel and not to the Gentile nations of the world that like Israel enter into a covenant relationship with God. Israel was promised a lasting nationhood. And I believe God has promised Abraham many nations a lasting nationhood as well, in particular in the NT period with the New Covenant. There have been many Christian nations, although being less than ideal many dismiss them as phony.

But that's just my view. Today, Christian Nationalism is a modern, more corrupted product, I believe. It is perhaps too political and too manipulative to properly represent what I'm talking about. Once Christianity has fully separated from the corrupt political state, it can no longer be looked at as a Christian nation. It has regressed. But this step is often necessary.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes, but I take a less popular tack when I say that not only does Israel have a national future, but so does the international Church. Israel is but one of many nations, and a smaller one at that!

God has promised Abraham "nations"--plural, and I wouldn't expect God to promise nationhood only to Israel and not to the Gentile nations of the world that like Israel enter into a covenant relationship with God. Israel was promised a lasting nationhood. And I believe God has promised Abraham many nations a lasting nationhood as well, in particular in the NT period with the New Covenant. There have been many Christian nations, although being less than ideal many dismiss them as phony.

But that's just my view. Today, Christian Nationalism is a modern, more corrupted product, I believe. It is perhaps too political and too manipulative to properly represent what I'm talking about. Once Christianity has fully separated from the corrupt political state, it can no longer be looked at as a Christian nation. It has regressed. But this step is often necessary.

Think about the following verses and let me know what you think of them and if they speak to your point one way or the other.

Revelation 21:25-27

In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.​

 

[Randy Kluth]

Think about the following verses and let me know what you think of them and if they speak to your point one way or the other.

Revelation 21:25-27

In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.​

That is one verse that has always posed questions to me, and I've never been sure about it. But it certainly could figure in to what I'm saying I believe.

But my logic is pretty simple to understand. If God called Israel as a single nation under the Old Covenant, then God, being the same always, can also call NT nations into being as such.

I do realize that Israel failed ultimately under the Law, and that NT Christian nations have failed likewise. But for me, that begs for the reason Christ has to come back, to eliminate those causes for the failure of Christian nations, and for the failure of Israel under the Law.

I'm not even arguing for a 100% "saved" population--only for nations that subscribe only to the Christian faith as law for their populations. They have existed in history, imperfectly, and they can likely exist even better during the Millennium.

But these things are highly speculative. They are only my opinion based on my understanding of the Abrahamic Promise.

 

[quietthinker]

But these things are highly speculative. They are only my opinion based on my understanding of the Abrahamic Promise.

Could it be possible that your understanding of the Abrahamic promises require revisiting?

 

[Randy Kluth]

Could it be possible that your understanding of the Abrahamic promises require revisiting?

I'm open to reformation of views ALWAYS! I know God is listening....

 

[Keraz]

But that's just my view. Today, Christian Nationalism is a modern, more corrupted product

Yes; sone in the Church fail the standard of faith required for a true Christian, but all who are faithful believers and keepers of the Commandments, ARE the nation, the people group of God, The nation that bears the proper fruit. fruit of the Spirit] Matthew 21:43

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes; sone in the Church fail the standard of faith required for a true Christian, but all who are faithful believers and keepers of the Commandments, ARE the nation, the people group of God, The nation that bears the proper fruit. fruit of the Spirit] Matthew 21:43

Thanks brother. You know that I don't interpret the International Church as a "nation," but still, it is a reasonable position to take inasmuch as we are one People, Christ's Bride.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, I think Jesus was aware that his Gospel would eventually be transferred outside of Israel. But during his earthly ministry he largely focused only on Israel. At that time the Jews considered the pagan Gentiles "dogs."

This doesn't matter. He knew that the elect, at His coming at the end of the age, would include Gentiles. That is what matters. I see no basis whatsoever for thinking that Matthew 24:29-31 is speaking of a different event than 1 Thess 4:14-17.

 

[CadyandZoe]

This doesn't matter. He knew that the elect, at His coming at the end of the age, would include Gentiles. That is what matters. I see no basis whatsoever for thinking that Matthew 24:29-31 is speaking of a different event than 1 Thess 4:14-17.

Isn't Jesus speaking into a Jewish context? He is speaking about the temple yes?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I'm not accusing anybody of being into Replacement Theology. I'm saying they *do* hold to Replacement Theology. I provided a Wikipedia definition of Supersessionism, and this belief is exactly what some of you are teaching here. Why be ashamed of what you believe? Why reject what those beliefs are typically called?

I've already explained this to you several times. In my view no one is replaced.

The description of the cultivated olive tree by Paul in Romans 11 is a description of my view. What Paul described there represents unbelieving Israelites like the first century Pharisees and scribes being cut off from the kingdom of God (as Jesus talked about in Matthew 21:43-45) because of unbelief and believing Gentiles being grafted in because of their faith. And believing Israelites remained in the kingdom of God. Who is being replaced in this scenario? No one.

The unbelieving Israelites are not replaced by the believing Gentiles. Anyone who believes is grafted in, including Israelites and Gentiles. And the ones who were cut off were given the opportunity to be grafted in again (these were the ones who had stumbled but did not fall beyond recovery that Paul hoped to lead to salvation (Romans 11:11-14). So, it's a case of people being cut off because of unbelief and grafted in because of faith. No one is being replaced. So, the word "replacement" in replacement theology misrepresents what I (and many others) actually believe.

This isn't an attack on you or anybody here. This is just an abbreviated way of saying what you believe. Yes, I believe in the New Covenant, superseding the Old Covenant. Yes, I believe the Kingdom of God was taken from the Jewish People and given to the Gentiles.

First of all, the kingdom of God was not taken from all Jewish people. You understand that, right? It was only taken from unbelievers like the Pharisees and scribes (read Matthew 21:43-45). And this was God's plan from the beginning, right? Surely, He planned to save Gentiles and not just the Jews from the beginning. So, from that perspective no one is replaced. Yes, the new covenant replaced the old covenant, but that was God's plan all along. It's not as if Plan A went awry and then was replaced by Plan B.

But that doesn't mean we can confuse who "Israel" is and who the "international Church" is!

What do you mean? You're talking as if there was just one Israel, but that is not the case. Just read Romans 9:6-8 where Paul very clearly differentiates between two Israels. There is no confusion with the difference between the two. Spiritual Israel has nothing to do with one's nationality, as Paul made clear in that passage. Spiritual Israel consists of the children of God and of the promise rather than having anything to do with which nation someone descended from. We can read Galatians 3:26-29 to see who the children of God and children of the promise are. It's all those who belong to Christ.

Nor does it mean that nations cannot become legitimately-Christian nations, ie nations based on Christian law and morals.

The concept of Christian nations is something that you made up and is not taught anywhere in scripture.

If Israel is rejected in the present age,

Israel has never been rejected in the present age. This is where you are wrong. Have you not read this:

Romans 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? 4 And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

There was a remnant of believers in Israel in Paul's day (Romans 11:5). Long ago, on the day of Pentecost alone, 3,000 of them were saved. And some have been saved ever since. You are the one trying to say that Israel was rejected, but scripture never teaches that. God wants all people from all nations to be saved and that has always been the case.

they can make a comeback in the next age if you're Premillennial. But I hadn't intended to get into that battle here.

Paul never referred to the nation itself as being grafted back in. In Romans 11 he referred to branches being cut off because of unbelief and being grafted in because of faith. And he indicated that the branches that were cut off could be grafted back in if they did "not persist in unbelief" (Romans 11:23). People like you have the false impression that he was talking about the nation being grafted back in one day, but it isn't nations that are grafted in because of faith, it's individuals. The very individuals who were cut off because of unbelief back then had the opportunity to be grafted back in if they did "not persist in unbelief". The ones who were cut off are the ones Paul talked about here:

Romans 11:11 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12 But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! 13 I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I take pride in my ministry 14 in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them.

People like you think that Paul indicated that the Israelites who were cut off back then had fallen beyond recovery and salvation was put on hold for Israel until some future time. That is not at all what Paul taught. Instead, he made it very clear that they did not "fall beyond recovery". That's why he had "the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them". Paul was clearly not postponing the salvation of Israelites the way people like you do. He had the hope of saving some of them back then. And some of them were saved by the preaching of the gospel and by being made envious of the salvation that the Gentiles had. That has been going on ever since.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Isn't Jesus speaking into a Jewish context? He is speaking about the temple yes?

He partly spoke about that, yes, but He was asked two questions. One related to the destruction of the temple buildings and one related to His second coming at the end of the age. He answered both of them. The part regarding the gathering of the elect relates to the second question and His second coming at the end of the age has not yet occurred.

 

[ScottA]

I'm not entirely clear on how I, as a Postrib, feel Jesus comes back with his saints, let me speculate a little. We have these 2 important passages regarding Jesus' 2nd Coming with and for his Church. Dad raised an important question in my mind: does Christ come with or for his Church, or both?

My initial thought here is that when we look at these 2 passages together, it appears that Christ comes with the departed saints and for Christians who are still alive on earth. What do you think?...

Matt 24.30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."

1 Thes 4.14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

It really appears to me that there are 2 stages here. 1st, the sign of the Son of Man appears in heaven. That is when he "bring with him those who have fallen asleep in him." 2nd, Jesus gathers his elect from the four winds, which sounds very much like a gathering to the clouds. And indeed Paul confirms that it is a gathering to the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

So we have a 2 step process, Christ appearing with his departed saints, and then his gathering those still alive to the clouds. However, we are told in Acts 1 that he is coming again in the same way he left. That means the appearance of the Son of Man in the clouds must be followed by his appearance on earth. In Zechariah 14, we read that it will be on the Mt. of Olives, a literal place on earth.

Zech 14.4 On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south.

2 Sam 15 tells the story how David, who suffered a conspiracy in Jerusalem, left the city and went up on the Mt. of Olives. Interestingly, David expresses hope that God will allow him to return later, to visit Jerusalem again and see the place where the ark is to be. This place, that Jesus is returning to, will show the completion of his promise to Israel, to return to the very people who have rejected him.

This is a question of timing.

The problem is the subject (ultimately being God and eternity) does not include time, while the experience of being received unto Him, does. Are you with me?

The setting is both sides of the divide between God and mankind who has been driven out of His presence. On the heavenly side, the account is only true without regard to times which do not there exist. While on the worldly side things are not the same, yesterday, today, and...and well, there is no forever. This is what Paul eluded to when he qualified his statement regarding the timing of events in 1 Corinthians 15:23 saying, "But each one in his own order." One could easily misunderstand his clarification as meaning "each" group--except that the word for "one" he used means each "individual." Here is that passage:

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 1 Corinthians 15:22-24​

​

In conclusion then, indeed, the words of truth must be "rightly divided" between what is referred to from God's side of the equation, from those referring to the side of just how it is experienced in this world. Which then becomes like the saying "we were crucified with Christ" rather than saying "Christ was crucified then, but I am now also crucified." Let there be no doubt, but that it has been correctly stated in the scriptures as "were" (past tense).

And that is just one example of such timing. Knowing then that the scriptures have not confused the past or present tense, but have stated it all correctly with respect to the great divide between time and eternity-- how then should we therefore understand such clear statements made such as "before the foundation of the world?" How indeed!

 

[CadyandZoe]

He partly spoke about that, yes, but He was asked two questions. One related to the destruction of the temple buildings and one related to His second coming at the end of the age. He answered both of them. The part regarding the gathering of the elect relates to the second question and His second coming at the end of the age has not yet occurred.

There are two gatherings of Hebrews left to be fulfilled. Did you consider that Jesus might be talking about one of those?

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

There are two gatherings of Hebrews left to be fulfilled. Did you consider that Jesus might be talking about one of those?

How can I answer that question when you don't explain what you're talking about? What are these two future gatherings of Hebrews that you're referring to here?

 

[covenantee]

There are two gatherings of Hebrews left to be fulfilled. Did you consider that Jesus might be talking about one of those?

After more than three millennia since Abraham of natural genetic diffusion and dispersion, Abraham's DNA is ubiquitous in every individual on earth.

So if you're defining Hebrews as Abraham's genetic progeny, then the entire human race is Hebrew.

What two gatherings of the entire human race would you be referring to?

 

[Randy Kluth]

This is a question of timing.

The problem is the subject (ultimately being God and eternity) does not include time, while the experience of being received unto Him, does. Are you with me?

The setting is both sides of the divide between God and mankind who has been driven out of His presence. On the heavenly side, the account is only true without regard to times which do not there exist. While on the worldly side things are not the same, yesterday, today, and...and well, there is no forever. This is what Paul eluded to when he qualified his statement regarding the timing of events in 1 Corinthians 15:23 saying, "But each one in his own order." One could easily misunderstand his clarification as meaning "each" group--except that the word for "one" he used means each "individual." Here is that passage:

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 1 Corinthians 15:22-24​

​

In conclusion then, indeed, the words of truth must be "rightly divided" between what is referred to from God's side of the equation, from those referring to the side of just how it is experienced in this world. Which then becomes like the saying "we were crucified with Christ" rather than saying "Christ was crucified then, but I am now also crucified." Let there be no doubt, but that it has been correctly stated in the scriptures as "were" (past tense).

And that is just one example of such timing. Knowing then that the scriptures have not confused the past or present tense, but have stated it all correctly with respect to the great divide between time and eternity-- how then should we therefore understand such clear statements made such as "before the foundation of the world?" How indeed!

Well yes, the created world takes place in time, whereas God exists outside of time, before, during, and after it. He sees the whole creation event as being resolved internally, while He exists outside of it determining its outcome, as well as the parameters within which it reaches its outcome.

But the coming of the Lord with and for His Saints involves us in time, whether or not we've gone to be with the Lord. The eternal nature of God may render us eternal, but it does not render us "uncreated."

And so, I believe we will retain the element of time for all eternity, while God continues outside of it, having already determined its end, as well as our existence within it, even if ultimately resolved.

I still have to understand whether Christ comes back with saints or whether he comes back for saints. Both appear to be true, but do they take place at the same time? That's the question.