The above chart gives my understanding of the kingdom program in the bible, with minor changes. The kingdom promised in the old testament to Israel was offered (or presented) to Israel in the person of the Messiah the King, but they having rejected him rejected his kingdom (the nation as a whole) and thus we now in the church age have the kingdom in mystery form, the theocratic kingdom of the prophecies being postponed until the second coming. Many scriptures need to be studied that relate to this question.
Some Amillennialists that I heard when I was a Hardshell Baptist would denounce as ridiculous the idea that the kingdom was offered to Israel and that it was postponed. But, to this we may look at other such things that were postponed due to the unbelief and impenitence of people. The Israelite nation that came out of Egyptian bondage could have entered into the land of promise within two years but its entering was postponed for another thirty eight years. Other examples we could give but will let the above suffice. Perhaps a better word than "postponed" would be "delayed." There are delays in God's program. In Revelation we have the words "delay shall be no more" (Rev. 10: 7) We also have the words of Christ who said:
"And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened." (Matt. 24: 22)
"Those days" may be shortened or lengthened, i.e. delayed. So the apostle Peter also spoke of how believers are "looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God" (II Peter 3: 12). So, some things in God's program for the ages may be hastened and some delayed.
Now let us proceed further in addressing the question as to whether the kingdom was offered to the Jewish nation. In doing this let us continue with our citations from Pentecost on this point. Keep in mind that there are several central questions involved in this subject: 1) what is the kingdom of God announced by John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles? 2) was it postponed or delayed until the second coming? 3) was the type of kingdom altered so that the kingdom is now purely spiritual? 4) was the creation of the new testament church the kingdom of God promised by the old testament prophets?
Pentecost says under the sub-heading "The relation of Christ to the offer":
"The kingdom was offered in the person of the king. The Lord’s statement is: “behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21). The Lord is not asserting that His kingdom was to be a spiritual kingdom in the hearts of men. Such is contrary to the entire tenor of the Word of God. He is asserting that the kingdom to which they were looking was already “at hand” in the person of the king. The rightful king was present and all that was required was repentance on the part of the nation and a reception of Christ as the theocratic Messiah."
That is true. A bible student should read how Pentecost traces the various movements in the Book of Matthew which show how and when the kingdom was offered, when it was rejected, and when the Lord announced how the kingdom would be postponed and the kingdom would exist only in mystery form throughout the age of the church.
Pentecost writes further under the sub-heading "The contingency of the offer":
"The offer of the kingdom was a contingent offer. God knew full-well the response of the nation Israel to the offer of the kingdom, yet the establishment of the theocratic kingdom depended upon the repentance of the nation, the recognition of John the Baptist as the promised forerunner, and the reception of Jesus Christ as the theocratic king. McClain says:
More than one expositor has stumbled over the ultimatum of Christ, “I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The only adequate explanation is to see, what our Lord understood clearly, the contingent nature of His message of the Kingdom. To put the matter in a word: the immediate and complete establishment of His Kingdom depended upon the attitude of the nation of Israel, to whom pertained the divine promises and covenants.…That our Lord clearly understood the contingent nature of His Kingdom message is plain from His evaluation of John the Baptist and his meteoric career. Every intelligent Jew knew that the final word of the final Old Testament prophet predicted the appearance of Elijah as the precursor to the establishment of the Kingdom. And Jesus declares, in Matthew 11, concerning John, “If ye are willing to receive him, this is Elijah, that is to come.” Still later, when historical events have demonstrated the certainty of His rejection and death at the hands of the Jewish nation, our Lord again refers to John, but now the die is cast, “Elijah indeed cometh, and shall restore all things,” He assures the disciples; but He adds, “I say unto you that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not.” I do not hesitate to say that you have here the key to one of the most puzzling problems of New Testament eschatology in relation to the Kingdom: The immediate establishment of the Mediatorial Kingdom on earth was contingent upon the attitude of Israel."
The rejection of Israel's Messiah and King by its leaders and by the general population was not a surprise to the Lord. He knew in advance that this rejection of the King and kingdom would occur. Even the old testament prophets spoke of this rejection such as in Isaiah chapter fifty three. Joseph being rejected by his brethren and sold into Egypt foreshadowed it. His plan in regard to both the kingdom of God and the salvation of Jews and Gentiles had this rejection included in it. What Pentecost points out in the above citation affirms that Christ pushed the establishment of the kingdom to his second coming, and to a future coming of Elijah the prophet.
Under the sub-heading "The bona fide offer" Pentecost wrote:
"This offer of the kingdom was, nevertheless, a bona fide offer. It would be a mockery for God to present the theocratic kingdom if it were not a genuine offer. Peters says: This Kingdom was offered to the nation in good faith, i.e. it would have been bestowed provided the nation had repented. The foreknown result made no difference in the tender of it, so far as the free agency of the nation is concerned; that result flowed from a voluntary choice. The national unbelief did not change God’s faithfulness, Rom. 3:3 (did not change God's plans or his word of promise- SG). It would be derogatory to the mission of Christ to take any other view of it, and the sincerity and desire of Jesus that the nation might accept, is witnessed in His tears over Jerusalem, in His address to it, in His unceasing labors, in sending out the twelve and the seventy, and in His works of mercy and love. It follows, then, that the Jews had the privilege accorded to them of accepting the Kingdom, and if the condition annexed to it had been complied with, then the Kingdom of David would have been most gloriously reestablished under the Messiah."
God's foreknowledge that the Jews as a whole, with only few exceptions, would reject Jesus their King and the kingdom of God, did not prevent him from sincerely offering himself and the kingdom. We could say the same thing about the gift of salvation. God knows who is going to accept the gift and who will refuse it, yet he still sincerely offers salvation to all.
Pentecost writes further:
"There are many who argue that the bona fide offer of a kingdom at the first advent minimizes the cross and leaves no place for the accomplishment of the redemptive program of God. In reply to this contention it may be said that the offer and the rejection of the theocratic kingdom was the design of God by which His eternal purpose was actually accomplished. That which accomplished the divine purpose of salvation through Christ’s death was the rejection of a kingdom offered to Israel. Peters well observes:
The question, How, then, would the atonement have been made by the shedding of blood? has nothing whatever to do with the sincerity of this offer, for “the manifold wisdom of God” would have been equal to the emergency, either by antedating to some other period, or by providing for it previously; or in some other, to us unknown, way. As it was, God’s purposes, His determinate counsel, are shaped by what was a foreseen voluntary choice of the nation. God’s mercy was willing to bestow, but the nation’s depravity prevented the gift. That the Kingdom would have been established had the nation believed, is evident from Deut., ch. 32; 2 Chron. 7:12-22; Isa. 48:18; Ps. 81:8-16, etc. …Paul’s argument in Romans proceeds on the supposition that the nation had the power of choice, that it wilfully chose the evil, and that God in mercy overruled its fall for the salvation of the Gentiles. They stumbled and fell, not through necessity, and not because God’s Purpose required it, but solely through their own unbelief; and God’s plan, as the Omniscient, embraced the same as a foreknown result, and made provision accordingly."
Recall the words of the apostle John - "he came unto his own and his own received him not." (John 1: 11) This rejection of "the King of the Jews" by the Jews generally (with few individual exceptions of course) was a rejection of the promised kingdom of God by the Jewish prophets and on this Paul has much to say in the eleventh chapter of his Roman epistle. There he writes:
"11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 12 Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 13 For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, 14 if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?" (Vss. 11-15 nkjv)
The rejection of the Messiah by Israel was foreknown and God's plan was circumscribed by that fact. It was included in his plan. Because Israel rejected him and his kingdom, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Further, salvation coming to the Gentiles will work to provoke Israel to one day realize their error and turn to Christ in repentance and faith. Recall the words of Jesus to the nation of Israel: “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it. (Matt. 21: 43 nkjv) This nation is described by Peter when he writes to the members of the church (or body of Christ):
"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." (I Peter 2: 9 nkjv)
Though the Jews and their leaders rejected Christ, yet there was an exception. Some individual Jews and Gentiles did accept Christ and they are addressed as being that nation or people to whom the promises of the kingdom belong. But, that does not negate the truth that one day the entire nation of the Jews will become believers in their Messiah and when God will fulfill all his covenant promises made to them. Notice these words from the Gospel of Luke:
"Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately. A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return." (Luke 19: 11-12 nkjv)
This is another decisive text. Rather than affirming that the kingdom of God promised by the old testament prophets was now fulfilled, was not set up and established on earth, the text says the kingdom of God did not immediately appear but that Christ left this world and went into heaven (far country) in order to there receive the kingdom and to return, at which time of his coming the kingdom of God will be fully realized.
In the next chapter we will continue with these things.
No comments:
Post a Comment