All Israel will be Saved, but Not All Israel

How? The Roman empire existed for several hundred years after the coming of Christ.

True, but the passage does not require an instantaneous switch from the kingdom of men to the heavenly kingdom of Jesus Christ. In fact larger context of Daniel indicates as much.

34 You watched while a stone was cut out without hands, which struck the image on its feet of iron and clay, and broke them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold were crushed together, and became like chaff from the summer threshing floors; the wind carried them away so that no trace of them was found. And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
44 And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. 45 Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold--the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure." (Daniel 2)

The kingdom of God is being set up even in the presence of the other kingdoms. “And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.”

Coming in the clouds of heaven is a second coming concept; not a first coming concept.

That's a theory that needs to be proven from Scripture, not asserted in a raw fashion. I've provided my explanation in the form of the notes from Marcellus Kik. His position, being thoroughly biblical, is my position. I will wait for your careful exegesis of the relevant text.

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

Yes, and? I never denied that it was not messianic.

Now if Matt 23-24 was completely fulfilled in AD 70,

I don't think I said that. There are portions of Matthew 24 and 25 that are still future.

“See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!'” (vv. 38,39)

The point is that the event in verse 38 (destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70) absolutely cannot be in view in verse 39.

I'm missing the force of your argument. Explain why verse 39 cannot possibly be said in the context of a prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem? I'm not seeing it.

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

Raw assertion until demonstrated. The fact is that nowhere in the NT discussion of the kingdom is it asserted that Jesus will sit on a material throne in material Jerusalem. It's not even taught in Rev. 20, the so-called millennial chapter.

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

But wait, the so-called messianic throne is not Jesus', it's David's. So you're still stuck. There is no throne of the Messiah even in the OT.

You problem is that you keeping trying to “literally” multiply thrones. Really, are we to presume the Father's throne and Christ's throne are two different thrones?

But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; (Matt. 5:34)

Whose throne is this verse speaking of? And what does it mean that heaven is God's throne? And who is seated on this throne?

So many thrones so little time.

Sorry, but the future tense found that passage is wrt believers, not Jesus. The fact that we will (future) sit with Him does not mean that He is not now seated on that throne of David. How can you have a king and a kingdom without a throne. There is but one throne. Rev. 3:21 is a matter of identification. We will identify with the glory of Christ just as He was identified with glory of the Father.

It seems that working at the denial of these things against Scripture is more work than just accepting what the text says.

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

You keep saying this without any proof of concept.

A couple questions/issues from our previous exchange that I don't think got answered:

One more thing— and I realize I ask a lot of questions but I asked this before — is the MK throne of David the actual very same throne that David and Solomon, et al sat on 2500 or so years ago? If so, where is it today?

You wrote: I should have been more clear ... the "taken away into judgment" that is mentioned in Matt 24 is merely death. At the second coming Christ kills all unbelievers. Their final judgment awaits the GWT judgment after the MK. Sorry about that.

And I asked:

So what coming and judgment is being pictured in Matt. 25:31ff?

31 " When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.
33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.

It says “when He comes … then He will judge.”

The kingdom of God is being set up even in the presence of the other kingdoms.

That is foreign to the context of Daniel. Israel has just been overthrown and sent into exile by the Babylonians. Then Daniel has these visions of coming kingdoms ... each was a visible, earthly kingdom. Each had a king, which in the OT concept was not distinct from the kingdom. (You o King are that head of gold ... and after you, another kingdom ...). Each of the kingdoms mentioned in Daniel, was overthrown by the next kingdom in entirety. There was no partial kingdoms lingering on while the others completed their "setup." Nebacheddnezzer had no role during the Medio-Persian empire ... etc. etc. The previous empire was overthrown by the next ... the Greeks ... then the Romans. There are a few points here.

First, the coming kingdom is an earthly kingdom, since the others were. There is nothing in the context of Daniel that suggests the nature of the coming kingdom is not visible and earthly.
Second, the Roman empire was still in existance in AD 70 and was not overthrown by the events of AD 70.
Third, to suggest that another earthly kingdom could exert dominance over the world while the Messianic kingdom was being set up does injustice to His reign. It hardly conveys the idea of "ruling with a rod of iron."
Forth, the Daniel 7 prophecy clearly says that all nations will serve Him. That is clearly not happening now and you are forced to come up with an alternate meaning for "that all the peoples, nations, and men of every language might serve Him."

Coming in the clouds of heaven is a second coming concept; not a first coming concept.

That's a theory that needs to be proven from Scripture, not asserted in a raw fashion.

Correlation of Dan 7:13, Zech 12:10, Matt 24:30, and Rev 1:7 establishes the position. I have gone through it enough times ... the context of Dan 7 and Zech 12 is the escatalogical redemption and deliverance of Israel, not her judgement. The Matt and Rev passages indicate a universal event that is still future. Jesus return will be viewed by the entire world, not just those in Israel in 70 AD.

I'm missing the force of your argument. Explain why verse 39 cannot possibly be said in the context of a prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem? I'm not seeing it.

The Jews didnt repent in AD 70. I assume you would agree to that. Verse 39 implies their national repentance as "the coming one" is a messianic term. Point is ... verse 38 happened in AD 70, verse 39 didnt happen in AD 70. According to the preterist view, everything described in Matt 23, 24 (up to your stopping point, is that verse 30 for you? Im not sure where you put the break) had to occur to "this generation." Well verse 39 includes Jesus using the 2nd person plural (You will not see me ... ) so that has to be the same people as "this generation." ... So we have one item excluded from "all these things" ... which did not occur to "this generation" ...

In truth, I have never seen a preterist have an explanation for this ... you could be the first !!

OK topcat ... I think we beat this thread to death lol ... I will view your response to this and then wait for another topic on another day ... was a good discussion. Do you have a reference for Kik's work?

That is foreign to the context of Daniel.

Not at all, since I quoted specifically the vision where this is identified.

And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; (Dan. 2:44)

This is speaking of Christ’s eternal kingdom established even while the remnant of the four earthly kingdoms was active.

Correlation of Dan 7:13, Zech 12:10, Matt 24:30, and Rev 1:7 establishes the position. I have gone through it enough times ...

You have claimed repeatedly that this is a “technical term” but you have yet to tell me what that means or how you arrived at that conclusion. Perhaps you wish to modify you claim.

The fact is that “coming in clouds” etc are all references to God’s majestic power where He rules and judges the nations. Often He does this by employing one nation against another; Babylon against Israel, Medes-Persians against Babylon, Rome against Israel. It does not involve physical atmospheric conditions.

Verse 39 implies their national repentance as "the coming one" is a messianic term. Point is ... verse 38 happened in AD 70, verse 39 didnt happen in AD 70

That’s quite possible. I don’t see the two verses linked at the hip chronologically as you seem to require. I also don’t see the notion of “national repentance” as clearly as you apparently do. It could just be a statement of confession. E.g., In Romans 14 we read, "For it is written: ‘As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.’" Some tongues will be willing and some will be not.

It is possible to take verse 39 as a parenthetical comment about something that may be post-judgment. I don’t see anything in the text that requires them to be linked chronologically, just logically.

How ‘bout the other two question from our previous interaction? One is directly related to our discussion here on the throne of David. Your responses should prove interesting.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.