On the Offer of the Kingdom to Israel

Alright, I have been debating how deep to wander into this whole premillennial - amillennial debate.  I know this is the kind of thing that usually ends up generating more heat than light and I know I'll probably regret wading in too deep, but here goes.

My first post about this a few days ago with the pic of Shaq was just meant to be a funny, tadly snide retort, hopefully getting the point across that I disagreed strongly with MacArthur without being too mean-spirited.  My last post was kind of on the issue but dealing with a broader problem.  This post will deal more with some of the actual issues involved.  Actually, this post will deal with one small sliver of an issue.

I want to offer a reaction to something I have heard and I want to admit up front that I am not sure I have heard what I think I have heard correctly, if you hear what I"m saying.

The issue is this - I have heard many times about an offer of the kingdom which Jesus made to the Jews that they rejected, thus necessitating a turn to the Gentiles.  My questions are - when was this offer made and what kind of kingdom was offered?  My assumption (and this is the part I may not have heard correctly, so please correct me if I am wrong) is that the offer of the kingdom was made to Israel many times throughout the earthly ministry of Jesus and that the rejection came about at the crucifixion or around the time of the passion week.

My other assumption is that the kind of kingdom that was being offered was the glorious kingdom the premils believe was promised in the OT, a kingdom with Israel at the head of the nations.   

If those assumptions are wrong then the rest of what I say will miss it's mark - and if so feel free to call me crazy, or worse.  Also, when I say premil in this post I am referring to the dispensational premils.

My response centers on the second matter - the nature of the kingdom that Jesus offered Israel.  I contend that there is nothing in the ministry of Jesus to substantiate that He was offering a glorious and victorious kingdom to Israel.

My (admittedly limited) Scriptural backing for this is the Sermon on the Mount.  I happen to be preaching through the Sermon on the Mount right now so it is fresh on my mind.  If I am understanding the premil scheme right, or maybe this is just certain parts of the dispensational premil scheme, then at the time of the Sermon on the Mount Jesus was describing the character of life in the kingdom He was bringing.  At this point the real serious conflicts with the Jewish leaders had not been enjoined and so (again using my potentially wrong understanding of things) the alleged offer of the kingdom to the Jews would have been on the table at this time.

If all of that is true then the kingdom Jesus was offering, as He Himself described it, was not to be a glorious kingdom with Israel at the head of the nations.  It was to be a kingdom whose citizens would be poor in spirit, mourners, meek, and persecuted, a la the Beatitudes.  Even if we say that those are the people who were to be vindicated and thus relieved of their poverty of spirit, mournfulness, meekness,  and persecution the rest of the sermon does not describe a glorified and victorious kingdom. 

It is a kingdom where a kingdom-citizen's adversaries may take him to court and win, and where kingdom citizens face the threat of imprisonment (5:25-26).   It is a kingdom where evil people will be striking kingdom citizens on the cheek, suing them and forcing them to carry their packs for a mile (5:38-42).  It is a kingdom where the citizens must interact with their enemies and the unrighteous, and where they are not commanded to rule over those people, but to love and pray for them (5:43-48).

You could go and and see more characteristics of what the kingdom would look like, but my point is that if the Sermon on the Mount is any indication of what the kingdom looks like it does not appear that Jesus was offering Israel a glorious and victorious kingdom.

This kingdom looks more like, dare I say it, the kingdom described in the amil or postmil scheme of things.  It is a kingdom that has come, is coming and will come.  It looks like a kingdom that would be inaugurated at the first coming of Christ, and that would advance and progress through the earth through great trial, difficulty and persecution, and that would find it's consummation in the second coming of Christ.

Now, let me say that with that last paragraph I do not mean to say that the Sermon on the Mount proves the amil or postmil point of view.  What I am saying is that the Sermon on the Mount is consistent with those schemes and it seems to me to be a huge stumbling block to any notion that Jesus was offering the people of Israel a glorious and victorious kingdom.

Related Tags: Religion, Theology, Church, Christian, Christianity, Eschatology, Premillennial, Premmillennialism, Amillennial, Amillennialism