KINGDOM - OLOGY 28

The problems of contingency in relation to the Mediatorial Kingdom

            The fact of contingency is so intricately interwoven with the whole scheme of eschatology (last things) that it is difficult to isolate them without touching upon some other facet of the subject. Because the scope of the subject is so broad, it has been necessary for me to limit my exploration. I will, therefore, select what seems to me to be some of the outstanding problems involved, trusting that they may provide a structure within which some of the more minor details can be handled.

1. Let us begin with contingency as it relates to the principle of interpretation. Until the nature of the guidelines is clearly spelled out, it is impossible to know what paths to pursue in search of the truth. The only system of eschatology that employs literalism is that of Dispensational Premillennialism. This method of Scriptural interpretation provides an unyielding and rigid measure of truth. Any other system is highly subjective and depends largely on the ingenuity of the interpreter. At times he may employ literalism, but at others he may engage in spiritualization. And one sometimes gets the impression that he makes the rules as he plays the game. But this is not to suggest that every nuance and device of human expression is not prevalent in literalism. All that literalism demands is that the immediate or larger context of the Scriptures has the right to dictate the meaning. Thus, this method of interpretation removes the rule of measure outside the whim of the interpreter.

            Contingency is vitally bound up with literal interpretation. When the Scriptures declare that the Kingdom has drawn near, it must mean that the King who is the center of this Kingdom is on hand (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:15). There were some who thought that the Kingdom would appear right on the spot, and especially because they were near Jerusalem. But Christ declared that there would be delay in establishing the Kingdom, for He must go into a far country and then return with it. Surely this must mean that the Kingdom was postponed. When Christ declared upon numerous occasions that He wanted to gather Israel into a kingdom, human contingency entered into the picture at that point when the people declared that they would not have this man reign over them. Literalism demands that one take these facts at face value and understand a postponement.

2. Contingency is inextricably related to Premillennialism. Premillennialism is based upon a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Therefore, Amillennialists and Postmillennialists are pursuing a lost cause if this is so. So they vigorously deny literal interpretation in order to protect their own view. Volumes have been devoted entirely to a detailed exegetical study of all the Old Testament passages that might bear in any way on the future restoration of Israel. The outcome is an emasculated body of Scripture. Much of the Scripture bearing on the kingdom and its relation to Israel is ignored, and much more is spiritualized until it no longer retains the meaning originally intended.

            By the method of spiritualization, the thousand years of Revelation 20 is removed. A thousand no longer means a thousand, and the period of the Church between the two advents is declared to be the area of the Kingdom. It is not material or earthly, but spiritual and heavenly, with the King reigning from Heaven. And the Jews have no national existence or special position, except as they become members of the Church. While Amillennialism affirms this to be its system of end time developments, Premillennialists must take almost a diametrically opposite position because of literal interpretation.

            One thing is clear in Premillennialism. The covenants, the promises, and the prophecies of the Old Testament literally point forward to an earthly kingdom on the earth in which Jewry will occupy a privileged position, and the Gentiles will participate in the benefits. And it is also clear that because of the apostasy in Israel the Shekinah glory departed and the kingdom was withdrawn. The human contingency resulted in divine withdrawal. At Christ's first coming the rejection of the king sealed the divine withdrawal of the Kingdom. But the withdrawal was only temporary. Through the centuries God would preserve this people and a remnant would one day look for the return of the King. At His coming there would be repentance and confession of sin and acknowledgement that "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord." All this was to happen before the thousand years were initiated (Hos. 3:4-5; Isa. 53:1-6; Rev. 20:4-6; Zech. 12:1-3; 14:1-3; Matt. 23:39).

3. Contingency possesses a logical connection with postponement. Let an outstanding Amillennialist state the case in the negative: 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 Matthew 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 refutation of this amazing analysis of the postponement theory, it must be admitted that the very Scriptures used to support his evaluation actually teach the very things he is attempting to disprove. Matthew 11 and 12 are vehement denunciations of the spiritual degeneration in Israel and the resultant rejection of the King. There was no better time for Christ to pronounce judgment upon this nation (Matt. 11:20-24; 12:14-21). Not one passage cited establishes the point that the kingdom was not about to be postponed. As for His concern for Gentiles before this turning point, three of the passages have only to do with Jews, and one dealing with a centurion's son is a matter of divine mercy. But He even uses this occasion for denouncing unbelief in Israel and for pointing out that Gentiles will at last share in the coming kingdom. As for two gospels, nothing could be farther from the truth. There is but one gospel as held by Premillennialists. But there are many aspects to that gospel. As to source, it is the gospel of God; as to subject, it is the gospel of Christ; as to nature, it is the gospel of grace; as to duration, it is the everlasting gospel; as to the great destination, it is the gospel of the kingdom. But this is hardly true among Amillennialists, for they teach a gospel of works and a gospel of grace under the headings of a "covenant of works" and a "covenant of grace."

4. Contingency is associated with the doctrine of the Church. Ever since the spiritualization of Scripture began, it was possible to equate the church with Israel, and use the terms interchangeably. Covenant theology follows this pattern of interpretation, and this pattern of interpretation leads logically to the eschatological system of Amillennialism. In such theological systems the Church is traced through the patriarchal period and the Mosaic period, and it is finally concluded that "The New Testament Church is essentially one with the Church of the old dispensation. These conclusions are drawn without any concern for the fact that the Church is described as a mystery which was hidden until the time of Paul (Eph. 3:1-6), and did not begin until after the rejection and postponement of the kingdom” (Matt. 16:18).

            Inasmuch as human contingency is definitely associated with the postponement of the Kingdom and this postponement had to do with the nation of Israel, it is difficult to see how Israel and the Church being essentially the same, there could have been any postponement growing out of the human factor. After all, the kingdom continues but is merely translated into a spiritual reign in the heart with the King making heaven the base of His operations. What do these words of Peter, addressed to Jews, mean?

“Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3:19-21). Do they not project one back into the Old Testament with its promises of an earthly kingdom, but now postponed because of rejection on the part of Israel? Do they not suggest that the human factor still stands as an obstacle in the way of restoration of the Kingdom? And what restoration could there be now that the kingdom has already begun in the Church? It is not restoration to recognize what you already have.