The Kingdom of Iron and Clay, or Iron and Concrete?

[TrevorL]

Greetings again “brotherly love”,

I appreciate your two replies. I hope we can come to a better understanding of some of these things. 

I dont think the message would have been relevant at that time. It says "in the last days". In order to have a last days, there needs to be a first days. This wouls have been inaugurated with the last days of Covenant Israel. This happened, and Peter uses this along with Joel 2, when the holy Spirit came at Pentecost.Ironically, covenant Israel was destroyed one generation after pentecost.

I believe that the message was relevant to Isaiah’s contemporaries, and a brief examination of the circumstances helps. I believe that Isaiah 2 was given during the reign of Uzziah. He was a king that had prospered by God’s help and had listened to and had been guided by Zechariah the prophet (not the writing Zechariah). Uzziah had also specialised in instruments of warfare. Possibly after the death of Zechariah, Isaiah gave his prophecy concerning Jerusalem where although it is not spelled out in exact terms, the Messiah will be enthroned as the King-Priest over Israel soon after a major battle had ensued. The surrounding nations would be rebuked, accept that their warfare was no longer of any value, turning their instruments of war into instruments of agriculture. They would then seek to go up to Jerusalem to learn the teachings and ways of God.

Uzziah did not heed the message of Isaiah, and perhaps even acted in disdain of Isaiah’s vision. It is recorded that his prosperity and success led to pride and he sought to combine with his kingly role, the role of the priest and he entered the Holy Place with an incense burner. He was struck with leprosy and eventually died without open restoration. The rest of Isaiah 2 also is relevant as it speaks on the pride and idolatry of the nation, and the erthquake that God would bring upon them to humble them. This earthquake occurred during Uzziah’s reign and is a type of the earthquake yet to occur mentioned in Zechariah 14.

The vision of Isaiah 2:1-4 is in stark contrast to Uzziah’s reliance on warfare rather than humility and trust in God’s deliverance. Three kings later, Hezekiah was faced with the Assyrian invasion, and as a result of his humility and trust in God he was delivered. This was also at a time of his leprosy and healing. Isaiah 53 is based upon this dual circumstance, and in effect Hezekiah acted the roles of both king and priest. Hezekiah was as a result exalted in the sight of the nations and for a period warfare ceased and agriculture returned.

Thus Isaiah 2 and Isaiah 53 were relevant to the times, but they spoke principally of the sufferings of Christ and the glory that follows. I also believe that Isaiah 2 is very relevant today because of the strong contrast to Israel’s pride and trust in armaments, rather than a trust in God and the scene depicted in Isaiah 2:1-4 of Messiah’s future king-priest reign over the earth after the earthquake of Isaiah 2 and Zechariah 14 where warfare will cease and the word of God will be taught to the nations.

There is no gentile church, the kingdom is made up of faithful Jews and Gentiles alike...true Israel. you are in that kingdom, and it is a shame you dont believe it.

I stand corrected, but the gospel message spread more to the Gentiles after Christ’s resurrection. Perhaps I should have used the term the Christian Church or Ekklesia, made up of Jews and Gentiles after the resurrection, and the greater growth of this was amongst the Gentiles with the preaching by Paul. Daniel 2:35,44 and 2 Timothy 4:1 speak of the Kingdom being established at the return of Jesus, and this particular Kingdom may well be an extension of the rule of Christ over the present believers. But it speaks especially of the complete replacing of the present kingdoms of men with the Kingdom of God.

Mt zion is a metaphor for God;s kingdom, and God's kingdom has gone out to the whole world

Peter uses this along with Joel 2 in acts 2, when

  I see Mt Zion more as a reality, and the use of Mt Zion in Apostolic times in spiritual terms does not negate the future reality of Jesus’ return and sitting upon the throne of David as King-Priest during the 1000 years.

I am not intimidated by Issac Newton and the other references about Rome being the 4th beast fighting with goths and vandals.

I was only giving these as an example that many understand the 4th kingdom of Daniel 2 as Rome and then the division of the Kingdom of Rome.

The prediction of daniel 7 is that the Messiah would ascend to the Ancient of days after the fourth beast had come and gone. The New Testament quotes this. Jesus did not come in His first advent after the roman Empire, barbarian tribes, or some Catholic scenarios.

This seems to be a foundation of your view, but I read Daniel 7 as dealing with the four beasts, then the introduction of Jesus in his exaltation to heaven. I do not see that Daniel 7 proves that Jesus was exalted after the destruction of the 4th beast. Jesus only destroys the 4th beast at his return from heaven as Daniel 7 describes.

Kind regards
Trevor