The Messianic Kingdom?

[OldRegular]

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/}

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!

 

[JonC]

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!

It would seem that the position you describe would have to assume that the intent of the Old Covenant was indeed salvation. If so (if I understand correctly) then there is no need to go any further to disprove the theory.

 

[OldRegular]

It would seem that the position you describe would have to assume that the intent of the Old Covenant was indeed salvation. If so (if I understand correctly) then there is no need to go any further to disprove the theory.

There were several "Old Covenants" but the purpose of GOD has always been the salvation of HIS people. That initial promise in time was recorded in Genesis 3:15. And by HIS people I mean all HIS people among both Israel and Gentiles.

That being said I don't see how it addresses the OP!

 

[tyndale1946]

There were several "Old Covenants" but the purpose of GOD has always been the salvation of HIS people. That initial promise in time was recorded in Genesis 3:15. And by HIS people I mean all HIS people among both Israel and Gentiles.

That being said I don't see how it addresses the OP!

I will address this... Didn't the Messianic Kingdom start at the day of Pentecost?... Brother Glen

 

[OldRegular]

I will address this... Didn't the Messianic Kingdom start at the day of Pentecost?... Brother Glen

I suppose one could say that! In the Epistle to the Saints at Colossi the Apostle Paul writes:

Colossians 1:1-4; 12-20
1. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
2. To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,
4. Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which ye have to all the saints,

12. Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14. In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15. Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16. For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17. And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;
20. And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Notice in particular Verses 12, 13
12. Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Since believers are translated by GOD into the Kingdom of HIS Son and since the Son, Jesus, is the Messiah by extension we might say the Messianic Kingdom started at Pentecost. Since HE is also GOD I suggest that believers are translated into the Kingdom of GOD. However, Scripture also tells us that Jesus Christ came preaching the gospel of Kingdom of GOD I would say that the Kingdom of GOD actually preceded Pentecost. Those Verses in which the Gospel of the Kingdom of GOD is mentioned or where the Kingdom of GOD is mentioned are numerous and I hesitate to list all go them. However the following illustrate my point:

Matthew 12:28. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

Supposedly, according to Walvoord in the remarks I presented above, Jesus Christ changed His message after Chapter 12 of Matthew's Gospel. I am unable to see that but?????

John 3:3. Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

 

[OldRegular]

Given that Larkin, DeHaan, Blackstone, Scofield, Chafer, Gordon, and Walvoord, all quoted above, believe that Jesus Christ offered the Messianic Kingdom to Israel how would they explain the following Scripture?

John 12:23-33
23. And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified.
24. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
25. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
26. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.
27. Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
28. Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29. The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
30. Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
31. Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
32. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
33. This he said, signifying what death he should die.

Of particular significance is Verse 27: Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

Every person who is born will die unless Jesus Christ returns first. However, only one person was born for the specific purpose of dying, Jesus Christ.

Those who believe that Jesus Christ offered the Messianic Kingdom to the Jews, and I realize many on this BB do not believe that, will have no success proving that from Scripture.

 

[JonC]

That being said I don't see how it addresses the OP!

What I was referring to was your Chafer quote. The notion that Matthew 3:2, 4:17 and 10:7 introduces the Gospel of the Kingdom consisting of a legitimate offer to Israel of the promised earthly Davidic kingdom drags with it the Old Covenant. It misunderstands the purpose of the Old Covenant…if you disagree, then we can easily substitute the “promised earthly Davidic kingdom” (but I think Old Covenant a better usage). If your purpose was to prove the theory false, then you did so with the Chafer quote. It ignores God’s one redemption plan from start to finish and builds in it several attempts, reactions, and counter-reactions…some failed, and some I suppose successful….by God.

 

[OldRegular]

What I was referring to was your Chafer quote. The notion that Matthew 3:2, 4:17 and 10:7 introduces the Gospel of the Kingdom consisting of a legitimate offer to Israel of the promised earthly Davidic kingdom drags with it the Old Covenant. It misunderstands the purpose of the Old Covenant…if you disagree, then we can easily substitute the “promised earthly Davidic kingdom” (but I think Old Covenant a better usage). If your purpose was to prove the theory false, then you did so with the Chafer quote. It ignores God’s one redemption plan from start to finish and builds in it several attempts, reactions, and counter-reactions…some failed, and some I suppose successful….by God.

I believe you are finally getting through to me, not your fault. I agree that Old Covenant is likely better than the “promised earthly Davidic kingdom”. I believe your statement

It ignores God’s one redemption plan from start to finish and builds in it several attempts, reactions, and counter-reactions…some failed, and some I suppose successful….by God.

appropriately demonstrates, as well as could be expressed, the problem of dispensational doctrine.

I believe that GOD called Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, Judah and the lineage of Judah for the specific purpose of bringing Jesus Christ into the world. Of course in the meantime Israel was supposed to be a witness of GOD to a pagan world. Scripture tells us: But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, {Galatians 4:4}

I believe that the major reason I strongly oppose dispensational doctrine is that, in spite of the denial of all on this BB, it seems to make light of the Incarnation, Life, and ultimately the murder of Jesus Christ. Scripture tells us that Jesus Christ died for the sins of those who believe in HIM and for the Church. I don't see where it says he died for National/ethnic Israel!

I hope I have responded appropriately. I am very tired!

 

[JonC]

I hope I have responded appropriately. I am very tired!

Yes sir, you responded appropriately and I appreciate your reply.

I do have an issue with dispensationalism, but I also have an issue with covenant theology . It is not that I deny that God has revealed Himself in different ways at different times. It is not that I deny that God deals with man through covenantal relationship. But I disagree that either approach in and of itself is sufficient to embody a theology of salvation history or of God’s redemptive plan. That said, I do not see anything in your posts to which I would take exception. I think we agree here.

BTW, I am from the “Palmetto State.” I have not been there for a few years, but my wife and I were talking about taking the trip to see family this summer.

 

[Iconoclast]

From Gary North

FIND THE MISSING RAPTURE....

24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[Iconoclast]

http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/rapture_fever.pdf

Dispensationalism hypothesizes a gap of an indeterminate
period of time after the fulfillment of the prophecies of the
69thweekatthe crucifixion of Christ and the (supposedly)as yet unfulfilled prophecies, which they say will be fulfilled during the 70thweek,which they define as the Great Tribulation era which begins after the Rapture, i.e., after the Christians are
removed from the earth and pulled secretly into heaven by
5. The revised curriculum at Dallas,introduced in the fall of1991,indicate show
little of that tradition remains.
6. JohnEWalvoord, The Rapture Question, revised and enlarged edition(Grand
Rapids,Michigan:Zondervan,1979),p.25.
22 RAPTUREFEVER
Jesus. As Walvoord insisted, "a parenthesis of time involving the
whole present age is indicated."7 That is to say, from the crucifixion of Christ to the Rapture, the clock of prophecy cannot tick, let
alone tock. This means that not a single Bible prophecy can be
fulfilled during this gap,which dispensationalists call" the parenthesis" and the"Church Age."(Non-dispensational theology
insists that the entire New Testament period is the Church's
age. The doctrine of the Church Age is one of the central pillars of dispensational principles of Bible interpretation- perhaps the centralpilla

 

[OldRegular]

From Gary North

FIND THE MISSING RAPTURE....

24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Remarkable how that parable meshes with the Judgment of the sheep and goats and then with the general resurrection at the Return of Jesus Christ followed by the White Throne Judgment and the New Heavens and New Earth!

 

[DHK]

http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/pdf/rapture_fever.pdf

However, Icon:

22 RAPTUREFEVER
Jesus. As Walvoord insisted, "a parenthesis of time involving the
whole present age is indicated."7 That is to say, from the crucifixion of Christ to the Rapture, the clock of prophecy cannot tick, let
alone tock. This means that not a single Bible prophecy can be
fulfilled during this gap,which dispensationalists call" the parenthesis" and the"Church Age."(Non-dispensational theology
insists that the entire New Testament period is the Church's
age. The doctrine of the Church Age is one of the central pillars of dispensational principles of Bible interpretation- perhaps the centralpilla

It is a useless source when it doesn't describe what most dispensationalists believe. It is not accurate at all. So why use it?

 

[OldRegular]

Yes sir, you responded appropriately and I appreciate your reply.

I do have an issue with dispensationalism, but I also have an issue with covenant theology . It is not that I deny that God has revealed Himself in different ways at different times. It is not that I deny that God deals with man through covenantal relationship. But I disagree that either approach in and of itself is sufficient to embody a theology of salvation history or of God’s redemptive plan. That said, I do not see anything in your posts to which I would take exception. I think we agree here.

BTW, I am from the “Palmetto State.” I have not been there for a few years, but my wife and I were talking about taking the trip to see family this summer.

Jon,

Sorry I have not responded to your post. I have been doing some thinking about it and will respond more fully later. For now I would consider myself in the Covenant camp because I believe that Scripture shows that GOD deals with man through Covenants. More later!

 

[Iconoclast]

However, Icon:

It is a useless source when it doesn't describe what most dispensationalists believe. It is not accurate at all. So why use it?

DHK,

I am glad if current dispensationalists are changing.These ideas in this source were the original mainstream ideas that were taught and I and O.R> learned.

He has been very accurate with his quotes and I offer these as support. If most dispensationalists no longer hold this that is fine with me and I can be glad that all see the error of it.....I think they need to go a bit further perhaps.

I still have cassettes from Believers chapel in Dallas teaching these things...I am getting older but this was not ancient history.

 

[revmwc]

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!

You seem to have Conveniently left out some important portions of this to try and sway what was said to your belief of Darbyism as you have called it.

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

As most of the Depensational pre-trib camp have stated over and over "On the divine side this was no change of plan." God always intended for the Gentile and Jew alike to be saved. He foreknew from Eternity past that the Nation Israel as a whole "rejected as God had anticipated[/COLOR], and ultimately this rejection would lead to the cross of Christ, which was part of God’s plan for the redemption of the world."

Thereby God's plan always was for the church age the Dispensation of Grace as Paul called it to occur. God offers salvation to each and every individual many reject so great a salvation, guess what God knows who will and who will not receive Christ, Romans 8:29-30,
29 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."


Just as He foreknew Israel as a nation would reject Christ. Why because Jesus had to die in order to become the Propitiation for the sins of mankind.
He even allowed Daniel to prophesy that "Messiah would be cutoff" Daniel 9:26 "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."

No matter how you trice to slice and dice the point Walvoord and the others were making is that God's plan involved His foreknowledge and by that Foreknowledge God and Christ knew Israel would reject Christ and the promised Kingdom, just as they rejected God's plan in the wilderness. God foreknew and therefore had planned for another period of time to occur after the rejection of Christ. God also planned for His wrath to be reigned down upon those who rejected Him in the forrm of the Tribulation, but the overcomers would not be subject to that wrath thus the Snatching Away of the Bride prior to the 7 years of tribulation. Then the PROMISED KINGDOM would come, why because God made a Covenant with Israel that He would establish a Kingdom in which Messiah would reign. It must come and God still has it planned. O.T. prophecy must be fulfilled for two reasons. First if it is not literally fulfilled that would make Daniel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zecariah and others false prophets and all their prophecy must be reject even the ones that were literally fulfilled at the first advent. Second the Kingdom must come literally because God made a Promise and Covenant with Israel for that Kingdom to come a literal earthly Kingdom. Nothing you show from any of these men's writings says anything different.

 

[percho]

From Gary North



Remarkable how that parable meshes with the Judgment of the sheep and goats and then with the general resurrection at the Return of Jesus Christ followed by the White Throne Judgment and the New Heavens and New Earth!

I find this verse interesting.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

Do you want to be, left behind," or taken?

 

[OldRegular]

You seem to have Conveniently left out some important portions of this to try and sway what was said to your belief of Darbyism as you have called it.

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

The dishonesty of you Darbyites is incredible:

From the OP:

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.

revmwc, You are beyond pathetic!

 

[OldRegular]

From the OP:

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!

No one seems to want to address the comments by Walvoord above which I believe question the deity of Jesus Christ!

 

[revmwc]

From the OP:



No one seems to want to address the comments by Walvoord above which I believe question the deity of Jesus Christ!

We don't cherry pick it like you do. You zoom in on one thing said but the balance explained the position and you just start name calling.

Look again how the portion you posted concluded:

"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."

What does it attribute to God?

Where do you as you seem to believe the Parenthesis church in all this being a doctrine?

He clearly states the church was anticipated and in God's plan all along. Man sees the gap and questions.