The Theocratic Program Offered At The First Advent Of Christ – Part 2

I. The Theocratic Program Offered At The First Advent Of Christ – Part 2.

II. Four Aspects To Part 2 (A-D).

A. The Theocratic Offer In Relation To The Old Testament Prophecies. 

The authenticity of the kingdom offer was substantiated by an appeal to the Old Testament promise. On numerous occasions the Lord explains a course of action, about which question had been raised, by appealing to Old Testament Messianic promises to show that He fulfilled that which Messiah would do at His coming. His right to possess the temple of God and cleanse it is justified by an appeal to a Psalm that was recognized as Messianic (John 2:17 with Ps. 69). His first public appearance in the synagogue brings forth a statement of Messiah’s work (Luke 4:18-19 with Isa. 61:1). The question as to whether He has been preceded by the promised Herald is established from the Messianic Scriptures (Luke 7:27 with Mal. 3:1). The question as to whether He is qualified to be the Messiah, personally, brings forth an exposition of the Messianic promise (Luke 20:41-44). The final cleansing of the temple is justified again by an appeal to the Messianic promise (Matt. 21:13 with Isa. 56:7). In the resurrection ministry Christ clearly established the relationship between the Old Testament prophets and Himself (Luke 24:25-27). Such citations are sufficient to show that Christ constantly appealed to the theocratic kingdom promises to explain His course of action.   

B. 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 your midst” (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.  

C. The Contingency Of The Offer.

 1. 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. 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.

2. 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 you 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 does first come and restore all thing,” He assures the disciples; but He adds, “I say unto you that Elijah is come already, and they knew him not.” [The sequence of thought is as follows: (1) Elijah is coming as the restorer (Mal 4:5; (2) he came, unrecognizable in the person of John the Baptist, and was killed; (3) Christ (the Son of Man) faces a like fate. The disciples seem to grasp only the first two points.]

3. 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. Throughout both Testaments the blessings of the theocratic kingdom were made to depend upon the repentance of the individual and the reception of a new heart from the Messiah. Even in the theocratic administration of the Old Testament the unbeliever and the defiled were cut off from participation with the believing and prepared people. This is clearly presented by Peter in Acts when He calls upon the nation to repent (Acts 2:38; 3:19).   

D. The Bona Fide Offer.

 1. 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. 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. 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 (2 Sam 7:8-16) would have been most gloriously reestablished under the the Messiah.  

 2. 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.

 3. 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., chap. 32; 2 Chron. 7:12-22; Isa. 48:18; Ps. 81:8-16, etc.

4. Paul’s argument in Romans proceeds on the supposition that the nation had the power of choice, that it willfully 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.

 5. The principle that God makes a genuine offer, even though it is foreknown that it will not be accepted, is recognized in Scripture.   This first offer of the kingdom had been typified by the events at Kadesh-Barnea. There, this same nation, which had already tasted the discomforts of the desert, were given an opportunity to immediately enter their promised land. Thus, left to choose, they failed to enter, and returned to forty years more of wilderness wandering and added judgments. They might have entered the land in blessing; God knew they would not. Still, it was through their own choice that the blessing was postponed. Later they were brought again to the land after their judgments and afflictions in the wilderness. This time, however, it was without reference to their own choice.   

 6. There are some who hold that the offer could not have been a genuine offer because the Old Testament predicted His sufferings first, then His glory to follow. It is contended that the order makes the death necessarily to come first, and therefore there could have been no genuine offer of the kingdom. It is sufficient to point out that the prophets saw the events in the light of the rejection, in the actual order in which it took place, not in its contingent order. This order does not violate the genuineness of the offer, but does show that the rejection of the offer was the appointed means of accomplishing God’s desired end. 

7. Some contend that neither, the Lord nor John, ever offered Israel an earthly kingdom, but only a spiritual kingdom. Such a view entirely fails to comprehend the nature of “the kingdom” preached by John, the Lord, and His disciples. The fact has been shown that they preached the same kingdom that the Old Testament promised, and Israel expected without change of concept whatsoever