steve wrote:Didn't mean to ignore you, Allyn. I actually did not see your last post because it was at the bottom of the previous page, and I generally click automatically to the most current page. I am not used to being in the discussion while it is rapidly being added to. You wrote:
I can see how a comparison with Daniel 7:13-14 might incline one to think that the enthronement of the Son of Man in glory could be a reference to the ascension. If the verses following described something different from what they describe, I would probably take this approach. I could see the sheep being the Jewish remnant entering the kingdom of God (the church) in the first century, and the goats being the apostate Jews who, based upon their ill-treatment of their fellows, were consigned to outer darkness (the term is not used in this parable, but it is used in the parable preceding this one—v.30). That would be very neat, and I would really love to have that option. My problem is that the parable does not deal with categories within Israel, but with "all nations" (v.32), which changes the picture. Perhaps, if that hurdle could be reasonably overcome, I might see this parable your way.I would have to agree with you, Steve, that there is a better argument for FP then the ones currently underway in this thread. I believe we are able to understand those arguments from Scripture alone. As a small example, I cannot understand how the partial preterist takes Matthew 25:31 to mean a future second coming of Christ. Personally I would like for you to address this for me. How can it be justified as the second coming and not as His ascension? Is it purely traditional thought or is there support from Scripture that this is what is referenced?
However, I do not believe that the hope of a future resurrection (such as I believe to be biblically promised) rests upon the interpretation of this parable. There is much on this subject written to Gentile readers (e.g., the Corinthians, the Philippians and the Thessalonians), whose fortunes could hardly be said to have been significantly affected by events of AD70.
My view of the progress of Jesus' reign is similar to that of David's reign, whom I regard as a type of Christ. David was anointed king by Samuel in a more-or-less private ceremony—as Jesus was anointed king at His baptism. Shortly afterward, when he fled from Saul, David became the de facto king ("captain") of a growing number of rag-tag followers, who suffered with him during the season of his national rejection—as Jesus, since His enthronement in heaven, has become King to such a group of followers in this present age. Finally, upon the death of Saul, David became the universal ruler of Judah, and then all Israel, and those who had suffered with him were elevated with him to positions of responsibility in the government and the military—as Jesus, in a yet future event, will be acknowledged as King by all people ("every knee...and every tongue..."), and those who are loyal to HIm at this time will then reign with Him.
Thus, I see the advancing reign of Christ to have three installments: His anointing, His unpopular reign, and His universal reign. We live during the second of these installments. I believe that Matthew 25:31ff refers to the third.
Thanks Steve, I knew you weren't ignoring me. It was my way of being humorous. I appreciate your post and I want to pursue it a little further so if you will indulge me I plan to do a follow-up to what you said. This will come in the next day or so but to be honest, I don't feel like it much right now. Hows that for honesty?
Catch you later.