All Israel will be Saved, but Not All Israel

American Vision ^ | January 7, 2011 | Joel McDurmon

[topcat54]

the whole world

BTW, neither passage speaks of “the whole world.” The context is “the tribes of the earth” (or land), meaning those who are dwelling in the land of Israel. The days of vengeance surrounding AD70 were against the tribes of the land.

[dartuser]

In precisely the way that Jesus told the high priest he would be witness to these events. Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven." (Matt. 26:64)

Do you have any evidence that Caiaphus was still alive in 70 AD? He became the high priest in AD 18, seems like he would have been long dead by AD 70.

[dartuser]

BTW, neither passage speaks of “the whole world.” The context is “the tribes of the earth” (or land), meaning those who are dwelling in the land of Israel.

The immediate context in Matt 24 is harldy local ...

29 But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken,
30 and then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory.

Sun being darkened? Moon not giving its light? ... seems like Jesus is describing cosmic things that the entire world will witness ... Rev 1:7 "every eye will see Him" ...

[topcat54]

Do you have any evidence that Caiaphus was still alive in 70 AD? He became the high priest in AD 18, seems like he would have been long dead by AD 70.

Interesting, but not necessary since Jesus was speaking to an office holder. The office of high priest is what existed and what was done away with once for all time in AD70.

[topcat54]

The immediate context in Matt 24 is harldy local ...

The context of Matt. 24:4-34 is entirely local. You have to read the passage in light of the rest of the Bible, not according to the thoughts and imaginations of futurists.

One of the problems is the term "great tribulation". Jesus speaks of the "coming of the Son of Man". He declares that "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken". Surely these things have not been fulfilled. But they have! The language that He is using is commonly found in the Old Testament. Such passages as Exodus 11:6; Ezekiel 5:9; Daniel 9:12; 12: 1; and Joel 2: 2 are but a few. The cosmic problem introduced in Matthew 23 is answered in the Old Testament imagery in passages like Isaiah 13:10; 34: 4-5; Ezekiel 32:7; and Amos 8:9. In Daniel's prophecy (Daniel 7: 13-14) he speaks of the Son of Man coming up in clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days. In Daniel's vision, the ascension of the Son of Man is connected with a judgment upon the nations during the time of the Roman Empire (Daniel 7: 9-12, 18, 22, 26-27). When we take into consideration the language, there is no doubt that Jesus was talking to a generation that by 70 A.D. would see in Jerusalem's destruction, the fulfillment to His words. ( An Eschatology of Victory )

For an additional explanation of the prophetic imagery, see The Dating of Revelation by Jack Van Deventer

[topcat54]

Appearance of the Sign

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matt. 24:29-31)

Coming in the Clouds

The third and final clause of verse 30 says, "and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." This clause has been thought to relate definitely to the second, visible, and personal coming of the Lord. But in the light of well-defined biblical language, the reference is rather to a coming in terms of the events of his providence in judgment against his enemies and in deliverance of his people.

It should be noted carefully that neither this verse nor this particular clause indicates a coming upon earth. Some have read into this clause that Jesus was actually descending to the earth for the purpose of taking up a reign in the city of Jerusalem. Nothing like that is indicated. As a matter of fact, there is not a single verse in the New Testament to indicate that Christ will reign upon a material throne in the material city of Jerusalem. This thought has been imported by a carnal interpretation of Old Testament passages. Christ is actually seated now upon his Messianic throne.

Many commentators have taken it for granted that the expression "coming in the clouds" refers to a visible coming of Christ. A careful study of the Scriptures, however, reveals that that is not a necessary interpretation. A similar expression occurs in Isaiah 19:1, "Behold, the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it." Although this passage speaks of the Lord riding upon a cloud and of his presence, nevertheless we know that the Egyptians did not see the Lord in a personal, visible way. The Lord riding upon a swift cloud indicated a coming in judgment against the Egyptians.

A similar type of expression concerning judgment is found in Psalm 97:2,3: "Clouds and darkness are round him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne. A fire goeth before him, and burneth up his enemies round about." In speaking of the mighty power of God the Psalmist uses this expression: "Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters; who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind" (Ps. 104:3). The expression "who maketh the clouds his chariot," is no different from "coming in the clouds of heaven." In the Psalms there is no thought of a personal, visible coming of the Lord, but rather references to his judgment and power.

Following the well-defined biblical sense of such expression the last clause of verse 30 may well be interpreted then to indicate a coming in judgment and power: judgment against his enemies and power to the establishment of his kingdom.

This interpretation is borne out by the words of Christ in other passages when he indicated that he was coming before the contemporary generation would pass away. He said: "Verily I say unto you, there shall be some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:28). Christ was saying that some of the people actually standing before him and listening to him would not die until they saw the Son of man coming in his kingdom. This could hardly refer to a personal and visible coming in that generation.

The same thought in conveyed in Christ's words to the High Priest: "Thou hast said: Nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matt. 26:64). This High Priest was to see Christ sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven. Can this possibly refer to Christ's second coming when the description "sitting on the right hand of power" precludes such interpretation. It means rather that after the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus would ascend into heaven and take his place on the right hand of God, the Father, as described in Daniel 7:13,14: "I saw in the night vision, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." When Christ ascended into heaven he was seated upon his Messianic throne. This is in full accord with the declaration of Christ as he was about to ascend into heaven: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." One of the first manifestation of the power and glory of Messiah was the destruction of the city that refused to accept him as King and Saviour. This act of judgment gave evidence that all power had indeed been given unto him. He did come in the clouds of heaven and rained destruction upon those who had rejected and crucified him. This caused the tribes of the earth to mourn. The sign of the reigning Christ was seen in the destruction of Jerusalem. The contemporary generation, indicated in verse 34, witnessed fulfillment of these things as Christ had prophesied.

J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1971, pp. 140-143

[dartuser]

Interesting, but not necessary since Jesus was speaking to an office holder.

Even though we don't agree on much, I have found that you usually have well thought out and cogent answers to all my questions. But this response is a cop-out. For you to claim Jesus was talking to the office of high priest instead of the person of the high priest is well beneath your usual concreteness.

[topcat54]

Even though we don't agree on much, I have found that you usually have well thought out and cogent answers to all my questions. But this response is a cop-out. For you to claim Jesus was talking to the office of high priest instead of the person of the high priest is well beneath your usual concreteness.

The days of vengeance were God’s final action against the apostate Jewish nation who rejected the son of the landowner. The office of the high priest represented that antagonism between the nation and God. Since I’m not a hard core literalist, that seems sufficient to fit the circumstances.

It’s a representation issue.

Now it was Caiaphas who advised the Jews that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

The irony is that Jesus did die for His elect people, while the high priest and other Jewish leaders were leading the rest of the people to destruction. The kingdom was about to be removed from the leadership (Matt. 21:43).

In any event, we don’t have the chronology so it is quite possible that the particular individual named in the gospel was an eye-witness to the events of AD70, or that someone else who was present at the time was there in AD70. (The “you shall see” is in the plural.)

And what would be your explanation for the text that better fits the circumstances?

[dartuser]

What he fails to understand in this analysis is that the term עִם־עֲנָנֵ֣י שְׁ (LXX νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) is used in only 2 places in the entire Bible. Dan 7, and Matt 24 (parallel passage in Mark 14). It is a technical term.

Therefore, "this is just like that" doesn't pass for scholarly treatment in any respect.

[topcat54]

BTW, I think the statement in Matt. 26:64 is similar to Jesus’ statement elsewhere, “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” It gives us a basic timeframe for the topic under consideration. It’s all within the time span of “this generation.”

[topcat54]

What he fails to understand in this analysis is that the term עִם־עֲנָנֵ֣י שְׁ (LXX νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) is used in only 2 places in the entire Bible. Dan 7, and Matt 24 (parallel passage in Mark 14). It is a technical term.

Can you be more specific?

[cinciella]

“...In Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 7: 13-14) he speaks of the Son of Man coming up in clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days. In Daniel’s vision, the ascension of the Son of Man is connected with a judgment upon the nations during the time of the Roman Empire (Daniel 7: 9-12, 18, 22, 26-27). When we take into consideration the language, there is no doubt that Jesus was talking to a generation that by 70 A.D. would see in Jerusalem’s destruction, the fulfillment to His words. ( An Eschatology of Victory ):

Here is what Daniel 7:21-22, 27 actually says:

21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom. 27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of all the kingdoms under heaven will be handed over to the holy people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.’”

HARDLY SOUNDS LIKE THE TIME OF JUDGMENT THAT OCCURRED IN AD 70.

In most every other example brought to you on this thread, you try to explain it away in a manner that is so underwhelming, it just doesn’t fit. (Such as, when the text actually says the “whole world” you attempt to explain it away, saying that the text really means “the land of Israel”. There are many other examples.

This Daniel text however, is a complete contradiction to your position.

Interestingly, the “futurist” position always fits with the text. We don’t have to change the meaning, the intention, a few facts here or there, nothing. It just fits.

[topcat54]

is used in only 2 places in the entire Bible. Dan 7, and Matt 24 (parallel passage in Mark 14). It is a technical term.

One correction, the phrase in Mark 14 is the parallel to Matthew 26, not Matthew 24. Mark 13:26 is the parallel of Matthew 24, and it does not use the same precise phrase “clouds of heaven”

Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. (Mark 13:26)

I’m still looking for your explanation on the significance of the “technical term” in your view.

[topcat54]

Here is what Daniel 7:21-22, 27 actually says:

I believe the author’s point is that the cosmic language of Daniel 7 is representative of eternal, spiritual events.

9 "I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire;
10 A fiery stream issued And came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened.
11 "I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame.
12 As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.
18 But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.'
22 until the Ancient of Days came, and a judgment was made in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for the saints to possess the kingdom.
26 'But the court shall be seated, And they shall take away his dominion, To consume and destroy it forever.
27 Then the kingdom and dominion, And the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, Shall be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, And all dominions shall serve and obey Him.'

This passage speaks of judgment upon the nations, the end of the Daniel’s earthly kingdoms, and the establishment of Christ’s eternal kingdom. All this happened when Christ came to earth the first time. You’re not disputing that Jesus ascended to the Ancient of Days ala Daniel 7:13,14 and was given His kingdom, are you?

13 "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. 14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.

Such as, when the text actually says the “whole world” you attempt to explain it away, saying that the text really means “the land of Israel”. There are many other examples.

Where does the text use the phrase “whole world” to mean the entire surface of the earth is a geophysical sense? You’re imagining things that are not in the text.

[dartuser]

So many exegetical and theological errors here ...

there is not a single verse in the New Testament to indicate that Christ will reign upon a material throne in the material city of Jerusalem.

And by this he is making the veiled claim that it is taught nowhere in the Bible, which is patently absurd.

This thought has been imported by a carnal interpretation of Old Testament passages. Christ is actually seated now upon his Messianic throne.

LOL ... carnal interpretation? Didnt realize an interpretation could be carnal. Is this in opposition to his "spiritual" interpretation? Is he espousing sensus plenior?

Christ is NOT sitting on His Messianic throne now. Rev 3:21 clearly demonstrates that.

"He who overcomes, I will grant (future active indicative) to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame (aorist active indicative) and sat down (aorist active indicative) with My Father on His throne. (Rev 3:21 NAS)

If language means anything anymore, there is no denying that Jesus is seated on His Fathers throne right now, and His throne is something different that He will sit down on in the future. That is His Messianic throne.

Again, coming in the clouds of heaven is a technical term, trying to compare this to chariots of clouds is meaningless.

[dartuser]

Technical term, meaning it stands alone for interpretive consideration. It makes no sense to compare technical terms with non-technical terms like he has done. "This is similar to that" provides no interpretive parallels when the thing being compared to is a technical term. So when he says

The expression "who maketh the clouds his chariot," is no different from "coming in the clouds of heaven."

it has no basis in exegetical rationality.

[dartuser]

Yup, you’re right ... my mistake.

[dartuser]

This passage speaks of judgment upon the nations, the end of the Daniel’s earthly kingdoms, and the establishment of Christ’s eternal kingdom. All this happened when Christ came to earth the first time.

How? The Roman empire existed for several hundred years after the coming of Christ. And it certainly didn't end in AD 70. So Dan 7 could not have been fulfilled in AD 70 since the Roman kingdom was still in existance.

You’re not disputing that Jesus ascended to the Ancient of Days ala Daniel 7:13, 14 and was given His kingdom, are you?

Coming in the clouds of heaven is a second coming concept; not a first coming concept. This presentation in front of the Ancient of Days occurs after the 2nd coming; after Christ has executed judgment upon the earth at His second coming. Then he receives the kingdom.

You take "this generation" in Matt 23:36 as contemporary Jews during Jesus days. Verse 38 clearly speaks of the desolation, which you would claim happened in AD 70. But then following in verse 39

For I say to you, from now on you shall not see Me until you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!'

you have the term 'ὁ ἐρχόμενος' ... 'the Coming One ...' which is clearly Messianic! Now if Matt 23-24 was completely fulfilled in AD 70, you are now in a position to have to explain how the nation of Israel came to recognize Jesus as the Messiah in AD 70. The point is that the event in verse 38 (destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70) absolutely cannot be in view in verse 39. It would be intellectual suicide to claim that the Jews viewed the decimation of their people in Jerusalem as a blessed coming of their Messiah. 23:39 is rather best understood as the future fulfillment of Zech 12:10, which we have discussed. Since 23:39 could not have happened in AD 70, the thesis that it all happened in AD 70 is suspect.

[topcat54]

Technical term, meaning it stands alone for interpretive consideration.

What is your source for this claim? Can you demonstrate this from the Bible?

[topcat54]

Yup, you’re right ... my mistake.

That seems to undercut the significance of your claim regarding a technical term. If it's used here but not used there even in the same context, e.g., Matt. 24 to Mark 13, what's the point about it being a “technical term?”