Basic HTML Version
693
which both names are employed to designate Israel, the Old Testament Church of God, Isa.
49:14; 51:3; 52:1,2. And this use of the terms passes right over into the New Testament, Gal.
4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 3:12; 21:9. It is remarkable that the New Testament, which is the
fulfilment of the Old, contains no indication whatsoever of the re-establishment of the Old
Testament theocracy by Jesus, nor a single undisputed positive prediction of its restoration,
while it does contain abundant indications of the spiritual fulfilment of the promises given to
Israel, Matt. 21:43; Acts 2:29-36, 15:14-18; Rom. 9:25, 26; Heb. 8:8-13; I Pet. 2:9; Rev. 1:6; 5:10.
For further details on the spiritualization found in Scripture the work of Dr. Wijngaarden on The
Future of the Kingdom may be consulted. The New Testament certainly does not favor the
literalism of the Premillenarians. Moreover this literalism lands them in all kinds of absurdities,
for it involves the future restoration of all the former historical conditions of Israel’s life: the
great world powers of the Old Testament (Egyptians, Assyrians, and Babylonians), and the
neighboring nations of Israel (Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and Philistines) must again
appear on the scene, Isa. 11:14; Amos 9:12; Joel 3:19; Mic. 5:5,6; Rev. 18. The temple will have
to be rebuilt, Isa. 2:2,3; Mic. 4:1,2; Zech. 14:16-22; Ezek. 40-48, the sons of Zadok will again
have to serve as priests, Ezek. 44:15-41; 48:11-14, and even sin and trespass offerings will again
have to be brought upon the altar, not for commemoration (as some Premillenarians would
have it), but for atonement, Ezek. 42:13; 43:18-27. And in addition to all that, the altered
situation would make it necessary for all the nations to visit Jerusalem from year to year, in
order to celebrate the feast of tabernacles, Zech. 14:16, and even from week to week, to
worship before Jehovah, Isa. 66:23.
b. The so-called postponement theory, which is a necessary link in the premillennial scheme, is
devoid of all Scriptural basis. According to it John and Jesus proclaimed that the Kingdom, that
is, the Jewish theocracy, was at hand. But because the Jews did not repent and believe, Jesus
postponed its establishment until His second coming. The pivotal point marking the change is
placed by Scofield in Matt. 11:20, by others in Matt. 12, and by others still later. Before that
turning point Jesus did not concern Himself with the Gentiles, but preached the gospel of the
kingdom to Israel; and after that He did not preach the kingdom any more, but only predicted
its future coming and offered rest to the weary of both Israel and the Gentiles. But it cannot be
maintained that Jesus did not concern Himself with the Gentiles before the supposed turning
point, cf. Matt. 8:5-13; John 4:1-42, nor that after it He ceased to preach the kingdom, Matt. 13;
Luke 10:1-11. There is absolutely no proof that Jesus preached two different gospels, first the
gospel of the kingdom and then the gospel of the grace of God; in the light of Scripture this
distinction is untenable. Jesus never had in mind the re-establishment of the Old Testament
theocracy, but the introduction of the spiritual reality, of which the Old Testament kingdom
was but a type, Matt. 8:11,12; 13:31-33; 21:43; Luke 17:21; John 3:3; 18:36,37 (comp. Rom.
14:17). He did not postpone the task for which He had come into the world, but actually