OldRegular
Well-Known Member
The claim is made by some pre-trib-dispensational scholars that Jesus Christ came to offer the Messianic Kingdom to the Jews or Israel; that Israel rejected the offer and????????
Frankly I can find nothing in Scripture where an offer of the Messianic Kingdom is made. I can find much in Scripture where the Jews rejected the message of Jesus Christ and ultimate, led by the high priest Caiaphas, conspired to have HIM crucified on a Roman cross!
I realize many will say: "Still beating that dead horse"! However, people should understand what that dead horse really is.
Consider the following from:{http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/eschatology/dispensationalism/dispensationalist-beliefs-israel-and-the-kingdom-of-god-by-william-e-cox/}
John F. Walvoord was one of the leading scholars of pre-trig-dispensational doctrine. He served as professor of systematic theology and president of the Dallas Theological Seminary from 1952 to 1986. Following are some remarks by Walvoord on the offer of the Kingdom and its rejection taken from his book Major Bible Prophecies, pages 206ff.! I have taken the liberty of highlighting certain parts.
There are two statements in Walvoord's remarks that are troubling:
1. With this background of rejection, Jesus recognized that the kingdom He was offering would not be fulfilled soon but would come about at his second coming.
2. In a similar way the Israelites’ widespread unbelief at this point in the life of Christ changed his message from one of offering the kingdom to one of contemplating what would result in view of Israel’s rejection of him.
It seems that in both of these statements Walvoord is implying that the rejection of the supposed offer of the kingdom comes as a surprise to Jesus Christ. If that is what he means he is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ!
Frankly I can find nothing in Scripture where an offer of the Messianic Kingdom is made. I can find much in Scripture where the Jews rejected the message of Jesus Christ and ultimate, led by the high priest Caiaphas, conspired to have HIM crucified on a Roman cross!
I realize many will say: "Still beating that dead horse"! However, people should understand what that dead horse really is.
Consider the following from:{http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/eschatology/dispensationalism/dispensationalist-beliefs-israel-and-the-kingdom-of-god-by-william-e-cox/}
To return now to the dispensational teaching about the kingdom for Israel, they teach that Jesus came to earth the first time fully intending to establish an earthly millennial kingdom with his chosen people, Israel.
Clarence Larkin (Rightly Dividing the Word, p. 51), in describing the ministry of John the Baptist as a forerunner to Christ, said: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord for what? Not for the Cross but for the Kingdom.’
M.R. DeHaan, well-known radio preacher, made the following statement with reference to the first advent of our Lord (The Second Coming of Jesus, p. 98): … the kingdom of heaven is the reign of heaven’s King on earth. This Jesus offered to the nation of Israel when he came the first time, but they rejected it and he went to the cross..
W.E. Blackstone (Jesus is Coming, p. 46), who is said to share the honor with C.I. Scofield as one of those who did most to perpetuate dispensationalism in this country, said concerning the first advent: ‘He would have set up the kingdom, but they rejected and crucified Him.’
On page 998 of the Scofield Bible we read that, when Christ appeared the first time on earth to the Jewish people, the next order of revelation as it then stood should have been the setting up of the Davidic kingdom.
Lewis Sperry Chafer (Systematic Theology) said:
"The kingdom was announced by John the Baptist, Christ and the apostles. The Gospel of the Kingdom (Matt 4:23; 9:35) and the proclamation that the kingdom of heaven was at hand (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7) consisted of a legitimate offer to Israel of the promised earthly Davidic kingdom, designed particularly for Israel. However, the Jewish nation rejected their King and with him the Kingdom." (Quoted from George Ladd, Crucial Questions About the Kingdom of God, p. 50).
Why did the Christ fail in his attempt to establish a kingdom during his first advent? Dispensationalists say it was because his success depended on the consent of the Jewish nation. S.D. Gordon (Quiet Talks About Jesus, p. 131) says: ‘Everything must be done through man’s consent.’ Commenting further on this he said (sec. 4):
God proposes, man disposes. God proposed a king, and a worldwide kingdom with great prosperity and peace. Man disposed of that plan, for the bit of time and space controlled by his will.
Let the dispensationalists themselves speak at this point. S.D. Gordon (Quiet Talks About Jesus, p. 114) says:
It can be said at once that His dying was not God’s own plan. It was conceived somewhere else and yielded to by God. God has a plan of atonement by which men who were willing could be saved from sin and its effect.
That plan is given in the Old Hebrew code. To the tabernacle or temple, under prescribed regulations, a man could bring some animal which he owned. The man brought that which was his own. It represented him.
John F. Walvoord was one of the leading scholars of pre-trig-dispensational doctrine. He served as professor of systematic theology and president of the Dallas Theological Seminary from 1952 to 1986. Following are some remarks by Walvoord on the offer of the Kingdom and its rejection taken from his book Major Bible Prophecies, pages 206ff.! I have taken the liberty of highlighting certain parts.
After Jesus was rebuked by the Pharisees because the disciples' ate grain gathered on the Sabbath, Jesus deliberately healed others on the Sabbath, but he warned the people of Israel that the prophecy of Isaiah 42:1-4 concerning their hardness of heart and incapacity to receive the truth was being fulfilled. This was followed by the Pharisees' blaspheming the Holy Spirit by saying that Jesus' miracles were of Satan. Jesus declared that this was the unpardonable sin. His concluding word was that the sign of the prophet Jonah was to be fulfilled by Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection (Matthew 12:38-41).
With this background of rejection, Jesus recognized that the kingdom He was offering would not be fulfilled soon but would come about at his second coming. This is the theme of Matthew 13.
There has been much resistance to the idea that the kingdom was postponed. It must be understood that what is postponed from a human standpoint is not postponed from the divine standpoint. With God all contingencies and seeming changes of direction are known from eternity past, and there is no change in God’s central purpose.
Jesus had been offering the kingdom in the form of offering himself as the Messiah and King of Israel. This offering had been rejected as God had anticipated, and ultimately this rejection would lead to the cross of Christ, which was part of God’s plan for the redemption of the world. On the divine side this was no change of plan, but on the human side it was a change of direction regarding fulfillment of the kingdom promise. A comparison can be in the experience of Israel at Kadesh-Barnea when the children of Israel were contemplating entering the Promised Land. When the spies reported that there were giants in the land, and ten of the twelve said the land could not be conquered, the unbelief of Israel resulted in Israel’s wandering in the wilderness for forty years {Numbers 13:26-14:25} From a divine standpoint this was anticipated in the plan of God but from a human standpoint it was a postponement of the promise of the possession of the land.
In a similar way the Israelites’ widespread unbelief at this point in the life of Christ changed his message from one of offering the kingdom to one of contemplating what would result in view of Israel’s rejection of him. In keeping with this Matthew 13 reveals the character of the present age between the first and second comings of Christ. This is done by revealing aspects of the mystery of the kingdom.
There are two statements in Walvoord's remarks that are troubling:
1. With this background of rejection, Jesus recognized that the kingdom He was offering would not be fulfilled soon but would come about at his second coming.
2. In a similar way the Israelites’ widespread unbelief at this point in the life of Christ changed his message from one of offering the kingdom to one of contemplating what would result in view of Israel’s rejection of him.
It seems that in both of these statements Walvoord is implying that the rejection of the supposed offer of the kingdom comes as a surprise to Jesus Christ. If that is what he means he is questioning the deity of Jesus Christ!