The 1000 year Millennium from the Bible

[EarlyActs]

As a former linguist this and what you said about verse 21 has left me with a headache. It makes absolutely no sense.

""17 “And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also. 18 But the things which God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, that His [h]Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled. 19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the [i]Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the [j]period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.""

One word here "receive" may not mean keep, but put together "whom heaven must receive until" and it is the idea of the sentence. This "that He may send Jesus" added to that, speaks of His second coming. His bodily/physical return. How did heaven "receive" Him? Bodily/physically. The period of the restoration of all things is in the future.

That is not what is happening in the context. They are praying to God, and praising Him.
"23 When they had been released, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O [p]Lord, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said,

‘Why did the [q]Gentiles rage,
And the peoples devise futile things?
26 ‘The kings of the earth [r]took their stand,
And the rulers were gathered together
Against the Lord and against His [s]Christ.’"

They are praying and calling to God with who He is and what He has done. It is an awesome way to praise. Recognize God for His greatness.

This is a lot, that I will try to summarize. The enthronement is not the gospel. It is the Father's inheritance to the Son, as identified by the scroll with seven seals in Revelation. The last will and testament (though not last, because He is eternal) of the Father to the Son. The time when the creation is restored to its proper place. However, at the end, since the "works of the earth" that is sin, will be destroyed, There will be a new uncorrupt creation that comes in. (New heavens, new earth, and new Jerusalem.) Perhaps I will revisit some of the finer parts of the above, but as I said, this is giving me a headache.

lol, I'm not going to explain Acts 2-4 by an abstruse Judaic reference to the Rev! The other way around my friend.

It doesn't matter if the enthronement is not the Gospel; I never said so. I said it took place. I said it is the completion of the Davidics because Is 55 explains it. It is an imperative enthronement; since it has taken place all people are compelled to 'honor the Son, lest he be angry with you...'

The fact that all is resolved in the NHNE and not in the mill with its concluding collapse is exactly why the mill is no golden age that I know of, and never mentioned in the letters in normal teaching. It is a case why 'a long reign of Christ' is happening now. 1000 is used many times in OT for 'spanning past generations.'

 

[EarlyActs]

There is a good news about the resurrection: Israel has its King! That is why Acts 2 ends thunderous: God has made Jesus Lord and Christ (in the resurrection). Slightly different from the good news about justification.

 

[EarlyActs]

Here is a good way to dial in to the historic sense of the Rev:





Barnett, BEHIND THE SCENES OF THE NT: “Patmos”. IVP, 1994.

Using coded language John writes of the menace of Rome to Christians. Rome is portrayed as the instrument of “a great red dragon…” (ch 12).
This dragon gave authority to two beasts, a sea beast and an earth beast, to “make war on the saints…” (ch 13). The sea beast (from his location) is John’s code for the Roman emperor (who had just required all people to refer to him as “Lord and God”), while the earth beast represents the high priest of Asia, who officiates at the major cultic activities within in the province… The earth beast engages in magical arts to hoodwink the populace into worshipping the image of the “sea beast” (ch 13).
Although the dragon appears to be rampant on earth he is in fact, bound, limited, circumscribed through the period between Christ’s resurrection and his return—symbolically a thousand years (ch 20). Those who have lost their lives for Jesus’ sake, …reign with him throughout the millenium, sharing his victory over the dragon.
John’s book, therefore, was written above all to strengthen and encourage Christians facing harassment and persecution from Roman officials in the city s of the Province of Asia. John was deeply conscious of the political events in the wider world. He made many references, in particular, to the critical events of the sixties, but in tantalizing and elusive ways.
The massing of the dreaded Parthian cavalry near the Euphrates in AD 62 and the barely averted conflict with Rome’s eastern legions appears to be in mind on a number occasions (chs 6, 9). John develops horrific images of fiendish galloping cavalry based, apparently, on his knowledge of the Parthians and Euphrates region.
The great fire which devasted the world capital in AD 64 seems to have supplied John with imagery for the coming judgment of the “harlot city.” Despite her gaudy opulence and immorality and her immense wealth and power (inspired by memories of Claudius wife, the notorious Messalina?), God will bring upon her overwhelming destruction in a single day. (ch 18)
Once again John has apparently taken an event in recent history and converted it into powerfully vivid apocalyptic language.
Nero’s bloody onslaught on Christians which followed and was a direct result of the fire of Rome also provided much of John’s descriptive language. He wrote about the woman, the harlot Rome in ch 17 and 13.
The writer’s enigmatic description of the two witnesses/two prophets who were killed and who bodies lay in the streets of the great city (ch 11) is probably but not certainly) a reference to the martyr-deaths of the apostles Peter and Paul which occurred in Rome during Nero’s persecutions. (ch 11).
Nero’s own career ended in disaster. He was condemned by the Senate…and took his own life. There were widespread beliefs in Nero redivivus that may lay behind Johns’ description of one of the heads of the sea beast which revived. (ch 13)
Nero dominated the sixties. To that point in history he had been the greatest enemy of the Christians, satanic in his dimension of evil…
The eighth king is, in all probability, Domitian. …John was using the events of the recent past to depict the future…
In contrast to Domitian’s requirement to worship him, the true Lord of Lords and King of Kings declares a gospel from heaven in which we are to worship God. It is only in this century that scholars have begun to have an appreciation of John’s profound awareness of and audacious attack upon the theological pretentiousness of Roman civilization.
It is, in my opinion, of great significance that John used the dramatic historical events within his book. In earlier decades, Christians had expected Jesus to return at any moment (2 Th 2, 3). If one had experienced the firey destruction of the ‘eternal city’ in AD 64 and the bloodbath that followed, removing as it did the great apostles Peter and Paul, or the sacking of Mount Zion and desecration of the Holy Place in AD 70, it would easily have seemed that the end would come at any moment.
But…in fact John saw the return of Jesus as not occurring for some considerable time.

--pages 237—241.

 

[TMSO]

they are your enemies...
He only meant the unbelieving part. There is black and white about believing. There is not black and white about race, class, gender.

Don't lose the context. They are our enemies for the sake of the gospel. He doesn't mean only the unbelieving part. He isn't even talking about that. He is dealing with the fact that, yes they rejected the Messiah, and yes, they are contrary, but it is through their rejection that the gospel came to the Gentiles. Eventually, they too will be restored. (The remnant.) Then they won't be the enemy for the sake of the gospel any longer.

 

[TMSO]

not written/compiled until after 70AD
That's a dilly. The verbal account was underway right away; it can be seen in early Acts in Peter's various collections, growing, building. Luke completed his material by the time the hearings of Paul were expected in the early 60s; referred to many other accounts underway.

Based on size, which is safe, we have Mark first, serving Peter, and Peter is early as it gets. Then Matthew, then Luke, as it is hard to see Matthew not starting early, being a bookkeeper, and Luke not starting until Acts 16 when he joins in Paul's band.

It is still a future fulfillment in Matthew. You can throw out the Bible and say it isn't inspired because Matthew puts this after Jesus visits Jerusalem, and then never goes to Jerusalem again, but that is what you have. A direct connection to Israel rejecting the Messiah, and Jesus saying that some time in the future, at His second coming specifically, they will accept their Messiah. (The remnant that remains.)

 

[TMSO]

'leistes'
I have some 40 years in a literary lexicon (Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich). I wouldn't use a numeric if I was paid. The approach is almost the opposite of what you want. Another acceptable English term is an insurrectionist, as found in the period literature. It would be good if you got familiar with the concept of a literary lexicon. The temple was made a fortress by zealot groups even before John of Gischala took over, butchering the other two leaders.

It is part of being a historian instead of a futurian.

If you were a historian, you would have done proper research. The first thing to consider is that there are FOUR gospels. Paul also used the word once. It is obvious Paul did not mean insurrectionists, because Jewish insurrectionists would have been his countrymen, and he mentions his countrymen separately in the same verse. The word leistes is also translated as robbers in that verse as well.

This is where things get really shaky. In Mark, we have the same take on the Father's house. The same word is used to say that Jesus was crucified between two robbers. A different word is used to say that Barrabas is an insurrectionist. All in the same book. As such, why didn't Mark use the word for insurrectionist when dealing with the money changers?
Mark 11
"15 And they come to Jerusalem, and Jesus having gone into the temple, began to cast forth those selling and buying in the temple, and the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling the doves, he overthrew,
16 and he did not suffer that any might bear a vessel through the temple,
17 and he was teaching, saying to them, `Hath it not been written -- My house a house of prayer shall be called for all the nations, and ye did make it a den of robbers?'"(YLT)

Mark 15
"6 And at every feast he was releasing to them one prisoner, whomsoever they were asking;
7 and there was [one] named Barabbas, bound with those making insurrection with him, who had in the insurrection committed murder.(YLT)

with the insurrectionists

στάσει (stasei)

4714a: a rebel, revolutionist

from stasiazó (to rebel)

27 And with him they crucify two robbers, one on the right hand, and one on his left,

Jesus was calling those who were preying off of foreign visitors who could not afford to bring sacrificial animals with them to the temple, robbers. And the church leaders were in with them on it. It was like setting up a strip mall in the temple. Get your sacrificial animals here. They were charging above price, and the church leaders would just say the extra money was going to the upkeep of the temple. And this was in the outer court, so it affected those who travelled to go to the temple/foreigners. This is why scripture says that Jesus was driven by zeal for His Father's house. They had quite the racket going.

 

[TMSO]

The Rev is all that is needed...
A little confusing here, but so was I. The Rev is not primarily about the distant future (the 'time is at hand' always meant shortly).

Again, it is clear from the millennium talk, and some of the prophecies given, that it turned out to be future. The end of the millennium is shown to be the close of the age of man, and the end of creation, with the New heavens and the New Earth coming afterwards. Given that Jesus spoke about the same thing it Matthew 24, that makes both Matthew 24 and the end of the millennium/New heavens and New Earth, future events that have not happened yet. Consider it this way. If Jesus told the disciples He would come back in (let's pick on Harold Camping) 1993 I believe it was (maybe 1992), and the disciples told that to everyone, who would consider persevering to the end? It's going to be long after they are dead and gone. Perhaps that is why Jesus told the disciples it is not for them to know the times and the seasons. It would be damaging to the church. Remember the parable of the servant and master, where the master went away and left the servant to watch the house while he was gone. The master did not tell the servant when he was returning. So, obviously it would be understood that the master was coming back some time. What did the servant do? Partied, and did whatever he wanted, and did not clean up after himself. The master returned at a time unknown to the servant and caught him in the act. That servant played the fool because he didn't believe the master was coming back for some time. The imperative that Jesus is coming back soon puts the hope into view, and gives reason to persevere. To occupy until He comes, that we not be caught unawares.

Imagine if Paul told the Corinthians that they have nothing to worry about with sin because Jesus isn't coming soon. In fact, not until 1992. Would they feel any imperative need to repent? Why not have fun? The only thing that would put a crimp on it is their death, not Jesus return. Since we don't know when Jesus will return, it is always "soon". If we don't focus on that, we will be caught unawares by His coming. We may be doing the right thing, or we may be ashamed.

"Needed to fulfill that": the event fulfills it not the book "The Revelation." the people who would not taste death until they had seen the Lord come in power is that generation. Certainly part of that is Pentecost but also the destruction. And they did. The meaning of the destruction is a very powerful warning to all rulers everywhere that the Son must be honored. In the early 1800s it affected the leading legal team of Erskine in London! But it is not decisive about the nations' final day of judgement which has not occurred.

Wow. Leaning on one's own understanding. Didn't Jesus say "see" the Lord coming in the Kingdom? Didn't John have a vision of all of this? The world didn't end at 70AD did it? (Complete end, as the disciples asked about.) Revelation goes to the "complete end", because it is future. Some may have an early seen fulfillment, but there is a future fulfillment which leads to the "complete" end, that comes at the end of the millennium, before leading into the NHNE

 

[TMSO]

That is not what is happening in the context.
I have no idea what you mean by your context, but they lament the opposition that is continuing, the after-rejection. They accept that the power and will of God let the murder happen. You are being complicated, opposing for opposing sake.

The rest of the context:
"
27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.”

31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness."

27-28 speaks of the fulfillment of the prophecy, the kings of the earth (Herod and Pontius Pilate) and the rulers (Gentiles and the people of Israel, which includes the religious leaders). Now look on their threats, and grant Your servants boldness. Where are they speaking about rejection/after-rejection. What are they speakin og? "whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done". Don't read too much into it. The purpose of the prayer was the request that they be bolder and that God would move. And what happened? God answered and "they spoke the word of God with boldness." I guess you can say they are seeing rejection, but to use that to build a belief... that may be reading too much into it. I don't think they were even thinking about rejection, since they asked to speak with boldness. It isn't difficult to guess that they wanted to save as many as they could. This is Acts, a record of church history up to just before Paul is executed. As a historian, I would consider it as such. There is theology mixed in, but the main purpose is the story of the beginning of the church.

 

[TMSO]

What possible moral force is there to tell these languishers that X000 years in the future they personally will see him if they declare the line from that Psalm to him? Please be a realist when you are reading the text.

SEE. SEE HIM. Both John and Paul had visions of heaven, though Paul won't tell us exactly what he saw. John was told to record what he... saw. So, I am being a realist. He saw it. He personally spoke to people. He saw Christ come and set up His kingdom at the millennium, and saw the end of the world. He saw everything that Jesus told the disciples that they may see. This is why tradition states that John died a natural death of old age. They actually tried to execute him and he didn't die. Jesus said SOME would see, however, John is the only one who lived past 70AD. What happened to "some"? Paul supposedly saw it, however, to include him it can't mean literally saw the literal thing. It would be a vision.

There are studies on the contradiction of seeing but not seeing, if you need to familiarize. It is an extended analogy in John, ch 9 when he heals a blind man. It is a famous line from Isaiah.

More importantly: not every future tense in the NT is a prediction!!! The future tense can be used to role play, to prod, to compel. The simplistic futurist says everything in future tense is (ca-ching) Christ is popping in a prophecy (a prognostication)--which forgets that the job of prophets is to expose sin, not be Nostradamus-wannabees.

True. Daniel didn't give one single predictive prophecy. The disciples specifically asked questions that required prophecy to answer. But sure, I guess I could agree that Jesus was a Nostradamus wannabe. Almost, but I'm sure He wasn't. Daniel wasn't either. Elijah wasn't, Elisha wasn't, etc.

 

[EarlyActs]

To TMSO:
I find that the NT letters consistently refer to the end of this world without a millenium before the NHNE. Heb 1-2, 2 Pet 3, etc. Why have a millenium on it that ends in a little rebellion?

 

[EarlyActs]

The rest of the context:
"
27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done. 29 Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, 30 by stretching out Your hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.”

31 And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness."

27-28 speaks of the fulfillment of the prophecy, the kings of the earth (Herod and Pontius Pilate) and the rulers (Gentiles and the people of Israel, which includes the religious leaders). Now look on their threats, and grant Your servants boldness. Where are they speaking about rejection/after-rejection. What are they speakin og? "whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done". Don't read too much into it. The purpose of the prayer was the request that they be bolder and that God would move. And what happened? God answered and "they spoke the word of God with boldness." I guess you can say they are seeing rejection, but to use that to build a belief... that may be reading too much into it. I don't think they were even thinking about rejection, since they asked to speak with boldness. It isn't difficult to guess that they wanted to save as many as they could. This is Acts, a record of church history up to just before Paul is executed. As a historian, I would consider it as such. There is theology mixed in, but the main purpose is the story of the beginning of the church.

lol, "reading rejection into it."

"Why do the nations rage ... against the Lord and his Anointed?" Can you spot the rejection?

The sooner you stop injecting what D'ism has attempted for 150 years the better, my friend.

 

[TMSO]

lol, I'm not going to explain Acts 2-4 by an abstruse Judaic reference to the Rev! The other way around my friend.

It doesn't matter if the enthronement is not the Gospel; I never said so. I said it took place. I said it is the completion of the Davidics because Is 55 explains it. It is an imperative enthronement; since it has taken place all people are compelled to 'honor the Son, lest he be angry with you...'

The fact that all is resolved in the NHNE and not in the mill with its concluding collapse is exactly why the mill is no golden age that I know of, and never mentioned in the letters in normal teaching. It is a case why 'a long reign of Christ' is happening now. 1000 is used many times in OT for 'spanning past generations.'

The kingdom is a reflection of the ruler. So what are you saying? Look at the world today, and understand that it reflects the ruler. Who is the ruler? Satan at this time, until he is defeated. Hence this is a world still full of sin.

 

[TMSO]

lol, "reading rejection into it."

"Why do the nations rage ... against the Lord and his Anointed?" Can you spot the rejection?

The sooner you stop injecting what D'ism has attempted for 150 years the better, my friend.

The nations point to gentiles. Oh...I see. The gentiles rejected.

 

[EarlyActs]

Here's a good reminder of what we have in the enthroned King, which has been known for generations:


CROWN HIM WITH MANY CROWNS
Bridges and Thring, 1852

1. Crown Him with many crowns,
   The Lamb upon His throne;
   Hark! How the heav’nly anthem drowns
   All music but its own!
   Awake, my soul and sing
   Of Him Who died for thee,
   And hail Him as thy matchless King
   Through all eternity.
2. Crown Him the Lord of love!
   Behold His hands and side—
   Rich wounds, yet visible above,
   In beauty glorified.
   No angel in the sky
   Can fully bear that sight,
   But downward bends His wond’ring eye
   At mysteries so bright.
3. Crown Him the Lord of life!
   Who triumphed o’er the grave,
   Who rose victorious in the strife
   For those He came to save.
   His glories now we sing,
   Who died, and rose on high,
   Who died eternal life to bring,
   And lives that death may die.
4. Crown Him the Lord of heav’n!
   One with the Father known,
   One with the Spirit through Him giv’n
   From yonder glorious throne,
   To Thee be endless praise,
   For Thou for us hast died;
   Be Thou, O Lord, through endless days
   Adored and magnified.

The celebration of Christ in heaven is found in Acts 2-4, Heb 11-13, and this hymn cites Rev 4 and 19 as its source. He is enthroned because he stooped to the depths to save believers.

 

[TMSO]

Here's a good reminder of what we have in the enthroned King, which has been known for generations:


CROWN HIM WITH MANY CROWNS
Bridges and Thring, 1852

1. Crown Him with many crowns,
   The Lamb upon His throne;
   Hark! How the heav’nly anthem drowns
   All music but its own!
   Awake, my soul and sing
   Of Him Who died for thee,
   And hail Him as thy matchless King
   Through all eternity.
2. Crown Him the Lord of love!
   Behold His hands and side—
   Rich wounds, yet visible above,
   In beauty glorified.
   No angel in the sky
   Can fully bear that sight,
   But downward bends His wond’ring eye
   At mysteries so bright.
3. Crown Him the Lord of life!
   Who triumphed o’er the grave,
   Who rose victorious in the strife
   For those He came to save.
   His glories now we sing,
   Who died, and rose on high,
   Who died eternal life to bring,
   And lives that death may die.
4. Crown Him the Lord of heav’n!
   One with the Father known,
   One with the Spirit through Him giv’n
   From yonder glorious throne,
   To Thee be endless praise,
   For Thou for us hast died;
   Be Thou, O Lord, through endless days
   Adored and magnified.

The celebration of Christ in heaven is found in Acts 2-4, Heb 11-13, and this hymn cites Rev 4 and 19 as its source. He is enthroned because he stooped to the depths to save believers.

I thought David made it clear that it is the Father enthroned. (Sit at my right hand...) The place of honor, but does it mean enthroned? Note again, it says UNTIL, so this condition changes. Which is why I point to I Corinthians 15. His true enthronement as the ruler/king of Earth is when He crushes the former ruler. The Kingdom will be a true reflection of who He is, instead not a reflection of who Satan is. Again, the main purpose of Revelation is to reveal Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God, and upcoming King of creation. (Hence the scroll of seven seals, and Him personally coming down to crush His gathered enemies, and a restoration of the Kingdom. (God rejected by Israel, human kings, the God-man King.) All rule, authority, etc. will be done away with when He is King. He will be it. Then Satan, death and hades will be removed, and God will destroy the old heavens/earth, and bring in NHNE. The sin corrupted creation destroyed, a sinless creation brought in.

 

[EarlyActs]

I thought David made it clear that it is the Father enthroned. (Sit at my right hand...) The place of honor, but does it mean enthroned? Note again, it says UNTIL, so this condition changes. Which is why I point to I Corinthians 15. His true enthronement as the ruler/king of Earth is when He crushes the former ruler. The Kingdom will be a true reflection of who He is, instead not a reflection of who Satan is. Again, the main purpose of Revelation is to reveal Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God, and upcoming King of creation. (Hence the scroll of seven seals, and Him personally coming down to crush His gathered enemies, and a restoration of the Kingdom. (God rejected by Israel, human kings, the God-man King.) All rule, authority, etc. will be done away with when He is King. He will be it. Then Satan, death and hades will be removed, and God will destroy the old heavens/earth, and bring in NHNE. The sin corrupted creation destroyed, a sinless creation brought in.

Sorry , words mean things. “David saw the coming enthronement and spoke of the resurrection.” It’s that simple. If you could just stay in Acts 2 for more than 10 seconds and stop trying to make your own mental system out of many other passages, it would be coherent. God has made him Lord and Christ. The celebration and publication of his position is the long-awaited arrival of the Spirit which the OT says would automatically take the Gospel to the known world, and it did. The near and the far off.

If you would just for once let the unit form its own complete picture.

There is a distant future event but it does not matter by comparison, is not Judaic/Davidic, and happens quickly not protracted.

 

[EarlyActs]

Acts 13: an official transcript of what was taught in synagogues; the promises to the fathers are fulfilled in the resurrection, providing justification
15: the resolution of the issue of the Gentiles and the law through Amos 9
26: the explanation of fulfilled hope to Israel’s leaders

 

[EarlyActs]

Acts 26: Israel should not be here at the temple seeking a restored kingdom; they should be like me—a missionary to the nations.

 

[TMSO]

Sorry , words mean things. “David saw the coming enthronement and spoke of the resurrection.” It’s that simple. If you could just stay in Acts 2 for more than 10 seconds and stop trying to make your own mental system out of many other passages, it would be coherent. God has made him Lord and Christ. The celebration and publication of his position is the long-awaited arrival of the Spirit which the OT says would automatically take the Gospel to the known world, and it did. The near and the far off.

I know, exegesis is the devil... Don't you dare pull from other passages...

If you would just for once let the unit form its own complete picture.

There is a distant future event but it does not matter by comparison, is not Judaic/Davidic, and happens quickly not protracted.

So, God breaks prophecy in Jeremiah. Okay.

 

[EarlyActs]

I know, exegesis is the devil... Don't you dare pull from other passages...

So, God breaks prophecy in Jeremiah. Okay.

It is actually 'eisegesis' to force an outside context into what is there.

Nothing is broken about Jeremiah; the new covenant is in effect in the gospels, in Hebrews, in 2 Cor 3-5. How did Paul fail to mention some future episode in such passages? How did he forget in the heat of the exchange in Acts 26? He could easily have said, 'hey guys, chill; your kingdom is coming in the distant future!' It is not there!

There is no place in the NT that I know of that a future kingdom is inserted when it would matter to the topic! Even in Rom 11, to add that feature is to miss that the Isaiah quote is historically-oriented, and that saved means justified from sins ("taken away") all through Romans. there is no reason, out of nowhere, to suddenly be obsessed with a Judaic kingdom for Israel. Nowhere else has it mattered in Romans, etc.