According to McKenzie, he has "been studying Bible prophecy for the last 25 years". Unfortunately, he lacks any formal training in Biblical languages and the serious study of religion. That might explain why the results of the 25 years of studying remain somewhat disappointing. First, McKenzie's position is not the classic preterist position. Instead, he argues – following most futurist and historicist scholars – that the fourth kingdom in the Book of Daniel should be identified with the Roman Empire. We have already pointed out reasons for rejecting this interpretation (see the first 6 parts of "How not to interpret the Book of Daniel). In the following, we'll deal with McKenzie's criticism of the classic preterist understanding of Daniel's prophecies.
In his commentary on Daniel, Moses Stuart Stuart attempts to take the critical position (i.e. that Daniel shows primarily the events surrounding Antiochus IV) and harmonize it with the NT teaching that the kingdom of God came in the first century AD. He maintains that Daniel 7 shows the kingdom of God being established after the fourth empire (Dan 7:7-14). This position has at least two problems:But all of this is wrong!
First, Daniel 2:44-45 says that the kingdom of God would be established either during the kings of the fourth empire or during the reign of the kings of all four empires. Either way, Daniel 2 does not say that the kingdom of God would be established after the fourth kingdom. Daniel 7 settles the matter, however, by clearly showing the kingdom being established during the fourth kingdom (Dan. 7:17-21). (McKenzie, The Antichrist and the Second Coming, p. 428)
First, Stuart does not attempt "to take the critical" position". He advocates the classic preterist position, which probably is the oldest interpretation of Daniel (cf. 1-2 Maccabees, Book of Revelation, Qumran).
Second, Dan 2 does not indicate that the stone arrives at the time of the fourth kingdom per se.
In what follows I will explain why I do not share McKenzie's identification of "these kings" (Dan 2:44) with the kings of the fourth kingdom (or the kings of all four empires).
McKenzie's interpretation does not hold up under scrutiny for the following reasons:
(a) The phrase "these kings" (or "those kings") in Dan 2:44a suggests that the kings referred to are already known (viz. mentioned before), but the preceding co-text (vv. 41–43) has "not specifically said that the fourth regime constituted a dynasty rather than just one reign" (Goldingay, Daniel, p. 52). Thus, Mckenzie's interpretation lacks (text) linguistic support. An appeal to an interpretation 'ad sensum' is only justified if a logical and/or grammatical linguistic reference point is missing. But we do have such a reference point – cf. (b):
(b) The Aramaic word mlk ('king') is found in vv. 37-38, where a certain king (Nebuchadnezzar) is identified with the first part of the statue (viz. the head). However, in v. 39 we read: "After you [= king Nebuchadnezzar] shall arise another [!] kingdom (…)" (NRSV). Obviously, "king" and "kingdoms" are used synonymously. Now, if we accept this and that king Nebuchadnezzar represents the Neo-Babylonian Empire and that the first part of the statue may be identified with Neo-Babylonia (as a "king" might be seen as the "symbol and incarnation" of a kingdom, then we do have a linguistic counterpart, or reference point, to "these kings" in v. 44a. Thus, "these kings" in v. 44b should be identified with all the four kingdoms [= the four parts of the statue], as confirmed by v. 44b: "It [= the messianic kingdom] shall crush all these kingdoms [= all four kingdoms] and bring them to an end" (NRSV).
(c) The (text) linguistic analysis in (b) is again supported by some important exegetical observations:
(i) All parts of the statue are destroyed (by the stone) at the same time (cf. vv. 34-35; 45); this is made explicit by the use of the temporal verb khde ('as one', 'simultaneously') in v. 35.
(ii) The parallelism between "those kings" and "all these kingdoms" vv. 44a and 44b (NRSV):
[44a] "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed (…).
[44b] "It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand for ever."
(iii) The identification of "kings" with "kingdoms" is supported by Vulgata and at least six mss of Th (Hartman & Di Lella, The Book of Daniel, p. 141). One should also note that he difference between "kings" in v. 44 MT (malkayyâ) and corresponding Aramaic molkayyâ ('kingdoms') is only a matter of different vocalising.
For scholars advocating the same position on "those kings" in Dan 2:44 as outlined above, one could mention: (besides E. Young, Daniel, 1954) K. Marti (Das Buch Daniel, 1901); A. Bentzen (Daniel, 1952); O. Plöger (Das Buch Daniel, 1965); Hartman & Di Lella (The Book of Daniel, 1978); J. Goldingay (Daniel, 1989).
Thus, the coming of the stone does not influence the fourth part more than the first three parts of the statue. Obviously, the meaning here is theological, not chronological (although a chronology might be adduced).
According to Dan 7, it is clear that the coming of one like the son of a man happens after the fall of the fourth kingdom. Dan 7 does not say or in any way indicate that the fourth kingdom would be even more powerful and continue for centuries after the killing of the little horn. Dan 7 does not even suggest that the fourth kingdom would continue to exist after the "kingdom" was given to the holy ones of the Most High. All of this happens after the fall of the fourth kingdom. True, it is not said when (how long after the fall of the fourth kingdom) it would happen. Nevertheless, the chronological order is clear: first end of fourth kingdom, then coming of one like the son of a man with the holy ones inheriting the kingdom.
Second, if Stuart's position were correct, it would make Daniel 2 the sloppiest prophecy God ever gave. If the kingdom of God was to come in the first century AD, why would God stop showing empires in Daniel beyond the second century BC? If Stuart were right, why would God not even show the Roman Empire in Daniel, if indeed that empire would be in power when the kingdom of God intervened in history? If Stuart were correct, it would not make sense for God to have out the Roman Empire in Daniel's prophecy of the coming of the kingdom. (McKenzie, The Antichrist and the Second Coming, p. 428f.)Look who's talking! As pointed out by Stuart: any identification of the fourth kingdom with Rome "seems to be an exegetical impossibility" (Stuart, A Commentary on Daniel, p. 188). The same goes for McKenzie's identification of the little horn with Titus. As we know, Titus didn't die in 70 CE. On the contrary, he became emperor in 79 CE and died in 82 CE.
Of course, the classic preterist position does not make any prophecy in the Book of Daniel sloppy! What we have in Dan 2 is the coordinated destruction of four successive kingdoms by the same force (viz. the Messiah, sent by God). The vision makes it impossible for us to argue that the Messiah were to come during the fourth kingdom rather than the first, second or third kingdom. From a certain perspective, his coming would be relevant to all of them, because they were all destroyed because of his coming.If we relate the fourth kingdom with Antiochus IV this understanding of the vision actually makes sense historically: If Antiochus had finished his extremely Anti-Semitic policy, he would probably have accomplished what Hitler and Nazi-Germany tried some two millennia later, and the royal Seed of David would have been lost for ever. Dan 2 demonstrates that God is in control; the fourth kingdom was destroyed and it made room for God's kingdom. This is why the stone grew into a mountain after the destruction of the statue (and therefore the fourth kingdom).
Finally, McKenzie argues:
Daniel 7 does not show the kingdom of God being established after the demise of the fourth kingdom. The kingdom was to be established in the days of the ten kings of the fourth kingdom, when the little eleventh horn would arise (Dan. 7:23-27). It helps to understand that the visions of Daniel 7 show two events: the AD 30 ascension of Jesus, the Son of Man, to the Father (Dan. 7:13-14) and the AD 70 coming of God (Dan 7:8-12, 21-27; cf. Rev. 19:11-20:14). (McKenzie, The Antichrist and the Second Coming, p. 429)As we have already demonstrated, McKenzie is wrong regarding Dan 2:44. Now it is clear that heis wrong as to Dan 7 as well. The Aramaic text in Dan 7:21–22 does not necessarily support the idea that the saints received the kingdom at the same time as the little horn was destroyed. For instance, the NET Bible renders Dan 7:21–22 like this: " While I was watching, that horn began to wage war against the holy ones and was defeating them,  until the Ancient of Days came and judgment was rendered in favor of the holy ones of the Most High. Then the time arrived for the holy ones to take possession of the kingdom." Cf. Dan 7:26–27 (NET, NAB).
We have to remember that both Dan 7:21–22 and Dan 7:26–27 are based on the vision in Dan 7:8-10 and 13–14 (cf. Dan 7:15ff.). In fact, the Book of Daniel does not say how long it could/should take from the fall of the fourth kingdom until the saints inherited the kingdom. But it does make it clear that it would happen after, not during or before, the fall of the fourth kingdom. Egypt fell about 30-40 years (= one generation) before the first advent of Christ (the arrival of the messianic kingdom); that is close enough for me.
Like in the prophecy in Dan 2, the vision in Dan 7 demonstrates that the line of four kingdoms would be destroyed before and because of the arrival of one like the son of man and his everlasting kingdom. Surely, from a Christian perspective the fourth kingdoms cannot be the Roman Empire unless one seriously would argue that the fourth kingdom was destroyed in the fourth century CE.