16- DID JESUS MAKE AN "OFFER OF THE KINGDOM" ?

Another name for this study could be : THE MISSUNDERSTOOD MESSIAH. Better yet, THE MISUNDERSTANDING INTERPRETERS. There is a diversity of views and interpretations out there in the search for the real Jesus and his real teachings.

With in dispensational circles, there are about three major views. The Scofield Bible takes the position that Jesus did offer the kingdom to Israel. J. Sidlow Baxter in his two books The Strategic Grasp of the Bible and Explore the Book presents a strong case why the Scofield position is weak and unacceptable He then presents a two-fold position: the kingdom was offered during the ministry of the Lord Jesus AND during the opening chapters of the book of Acts.

The late Alva J. McClain in The Greatness Of The Kingdom gives a similar position which has the 'offer' of the kingdom performed by the Lord in the Gospels AND '….another offer of the King and His Kingdom was to be made to the nation of Israel(Acts 3:19-21).' ( page 396) Baxter and McClain would then have a re-offer of the kingdom in early Acts.

The late Charles F. Baker in his writings, A Dispensational Theology and Understanding the Book of Acts takes a position that there is no offer of the kingdom at all in the Gospels, only after the cross and resurrection do you find an 'offer' of the kingdom as seen in the early chapters of Acts.

Analysis of the Scofield Position This position contends for a 'bona fide' offer of the kingdom in Jesus' ministry. When this 'offer' is rejected by the nation of Israel, this then becomes the basis for God's rejection of Israel and the subsequent introduction of a new program, the church, which is the spiritual body of Christ , with Christ as the Head of that Body. One of the problems with this position is to make a decision when this 'rejection' takes place.

Both the 'Old' Scofield (page 1011, note 1) and the 'New' (page 1010, note 1), at Matt. 11:20, contend that the kingdom has been 'morally rejected'. There is then ( in note 2 ) a contention made that at/near/around Matt. 11:25-28, there is The new Message of Jesus: not the kingdom but personal discipleship. Note 1, ended with this : The final official rejection is later (Matt. 27:31-37). But there is more. Note 2 of the 'Old' Scofield says that there is another 'final' 'rejection' of the risen Christ. The 'New' drops this idea, but the same references are left. In Acts 3, the note (no. 1) calls this 'offer' an appeal. Interesting, in this note is terminology that seems alien and/or foreign to fundamental/evangelical vocabulary. What is "national" repentance ? Also, when did Jesus abandon this so-called 'new message', supposedly began in Matt. 11:25-28 and return to the old 'offer' of the kingdom, in order for Israel to make a final official rejection of that particular offer ?

Analysis of the Baxter's and McClain's Positions- Offer and Re-Offer Baxter 'slam-dunks' the Scofield position. He does a very good job in exposing the mystery-form theology found in the notes of Scofield in Matthew 13.This is a pathetic case of eisegesis. (Even John MacArthur, a self-appointed savior from 'extreme' no-lordship dispensationalism, a so-called 'dispensational' critic of the Chafer/Dallas Seminary position [followers of Scofield] swallows this 'mystery-form eisegesis in his book, The Gospel According To Jesus. [Part three, chapters 10-14] )

McClain's position labors to explain away the inconsistencies of having Christ teach in his post-resurrection ministry about the kingdom of God, then the church begins on Pentecost in Acts 2 and in Acts 3 there is another offer of the kingdom to Israel. He, like many who teach that the church, the body of Christ began on Pentecost, equates the word transition, like the word love, with the ability of covering a multitude of sins. ( It is this writers's opinion that the 'sins' covered are those of McClain and his followers, not those of the Biblical personalities within the context of the first three chapters of Acts.)

" In summary, therefore, we may say that the chief subject of our Lord's post-resurrection ministry was the "kingdom of God"; and the Biblical record contains no mention of the "Church" as such. This omission does not necessarily mean that the latter was not discussed at all (for it doubtless was ) ; but it does mean that the Church must have occupied a wholly subordinate place in this period of Christ's teaching." ( page 391)

The paragraph above illustrates the upside/down thinking of this theologian. How could the doctrine of the "Church' at this time ( after the resurrection )have a subordinate place in the teachings of Christ ? If the final rejection of Israel was the crucifixion, when would God begin to reveal a new plan and program ? If ever there was such a time it would have been before the Lord ascends into glory and leaves behind a group of disciples left holding an empty bag of knowledge about what actually is to happen on Pentecost that the Father, Son, or the Spirit had not filled! This kind of round-about-double-speak is necessary for that position. In A Bible Handbook of the Acts of the Apostles, page 123, there is an illustration of the silly and goofy position that accepts as truth the ignorance of the people such as Peter as to what was actually happening on Pentecost. Here is the quote :

"Even on Pentecost, when the Spirit is 'outpoured,' this mystery remains hidden.
Neither Israel, the disciples, nor Peter who quotes Joel 2 to explain the events,
understood the full scope of the work. Particularly Peter did not comprehend Spirit
baptism and its inclusion of Gentiles into one body with Jews on equal footing."

The question that needs to be asked by the serious minded student is : Does my God operate like that ? Does my theology make God look so helpless ? Is the problem with God's ways? Or, is the problem with these kind of thinkers and theologians who have really gotten it wrong(at least at this point) !?!

[ Although there may be strong disagreement with Scofield, Chafer, McClain and others of the school of thought, who accept and teach an offer of the kingdom in the Gospel records, this is not to imply that there should be a total rejection of all their teachings nor does this intend to detract from their loyalty and devotion to the Lord Jesus Christ as they speak and teach as they understand. Nor would this be an attempt to distance one from these men as if they had a case of some kind of spiritual leprosy, because we do not see eye to eye in these particular matters. ]

Analysis of Charles Baker's Position Many of the problems of the above positions have their solution in Baker's proposition. That is, there is a more harmonious unfolding of the total facts than the seemingly contradictory and inconsistent explanations given by the above views. Mr. Baker does not teach that the Church, the Body of Christ began on Pentecost, but through the ministry of the Apostle Paul. He does not have to deal with a mixture of doctrine that is dealing with first, Israel in Acts 1 and the Church seemingly in Acts 2, then with Israel again in Acts 3.

The Author's Position and Scriptural Support This author firmly believes that there is a need to drop the vocabulary of 'offer of the kingdom'. Although this is a sincere attempt to portray exactly what happened in the ministry of Christ, it has failed to live up to expectations.

The Lord gives a simple outline that unfolds his life and ministry in two words: cross and crown. In Luke 24:25-26; 44- 46, the Lord states that the outline is given by the prophets. The 'order' of events was sufferings first, and then to enter the glory. First the CROSS THEN THE GLORY. The cross comes before the crown. The cross comes before the kingdom.

Peter makes it clear in his Acts message that God's plain order in the Prophets was to have Christ first suffer- Acts 3:18 Then, God raised this Son-Acts 3:25 In Peter's first epistle, 1:11, he again lays out the simple, but major, prophetic outline of events in the life and ministry of Christ : "when he testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory to follow."

The Lord Jesus could not offer Israel something which He could not deliver. He could not and did not offer the kingdom even with the knowledge that he knew that this offer would be rejected. God does not play God. The cross was a moral/ethical necessity, which had to be enacted, before the kingdom could become a reality.

Although it seems to be true that when John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus came preaching that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, there was a sense of recognition, relatedness, relevance and familiarity of that term among the many listeners. But this does not indicate, mean or imply that the crowds had such a grasp of the subject, that Jesus did not need to define this same terminology. Case in point : Matthew's record of Jesus' teaching ministry on the very subject of the kingdom. Jesus was constantly teaching on the kingdom, and saying, "The kingdom is like …….." He did this at the beginning, middle and at the end of his ministry. Check it out.

What Really Happened ? John the Baptist and Jesus both preached the same message to Israel. Cf. Matt. 3:2 and 4:17, 23. So, did John 'offer' the kingdom to Israel before Christ came on the scene ?

Rather than try to sincerely put dialect into Jesus' conversation and preaching or give an interpretive response from the crowds, we should be prepared to follow the dictum : We will speak, when the Lord has spoken. Otherwise, we will be silent.

John and Jesus made an appeal, prepared an opportunity for the listeners to respond, gave an invitation for the listeners to repent and to believe. This was not an offer of the kingdom. This was an opportunity to become prepared.

This is almost the language of those who say that Jesus offered the kingdom to Israel. But it falls short of that particular interpretation, which really amounts to an over-stepping of good, common sense and interpretive restraint.

What Have We Lost and What Have We Gained ? Hopefully, we should gain an understanding that good men of faith are not always right. We should see this as we look in the mirror everyday. We have the tremendous opportunity to sift through the theology of these men and take the risk to fine-tune their position gained through years of meditation, prayer and study.

[Clarence Jordan, translator of his Cotton Patch Version of the New Testament was a pioneer in race relations. He tells how he could never follow his father in the social segregation of the South. This was a hard decision. But he made it. This was not the popular way to go. But that was the correct decision to be made. It was not a matter of loving or not loving his father, respecting or not respecting his father.]

May our prayer be that God will be gracious and give us the grace to be gracious.


Return to Index of Jerry's Writings

e-mail Jerry Sterchi