A little known concept, at least among the Christian circles I have been associated with most of my life, is the concept of the postponement of the kingdom. This concept says that the kingdom of God could have been established at the time of Yeshua’s ministry in the first century but, due to the conditions not being met, was postponed until an unknown point of time in the future. If this concept is accurate it means that the kingdom of God has not been inaugurated in the earth. This concept is in contradistinction to the popular belief of Christendom that the kingdom of God was indeed inaugurated in the first century and has been a reality in the world ever since.
In this article I will examine the biblical case for this idea and show how it provides an answer to preterism/replacement theology and to one of the main arguments of the anti-missionary rabbis.
Preterism is the belief that much (partial preterism) or all (full preterism) of biblical prophecy concerning the Messiah and Israel has already been fulfilled, namely in the first century. A sister belief to preterism is replacement theology, which teaches that God has fully rejected national Israel and that the ‘church’ has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people. In this theology all of the promises given to Israel as a people have been transferred to the church, although in a spiritual rather than literal sense.
Anti-missionary rabbis are Jewish rabbis who engage in polemical attacks against Christianity in an effort to dissuade Jews from becoming Christians and to sway doubting Christians to reject the faith. These attacks are often quite virulent and vitriolic, and can be rather persuasive to those who are not as well informed about things. Much of their assaults are focused on catholic Christianity and it’s widely accepted beliefs, such as the Trinity, the deity of the Messiah, penal substitutionary atonement, and hell as eternal conscious torment, thinking that this is what all Christians believe. But, in fact, not all who call themselves ‘Christian’ would hold to these doctrines. Moreover, their attacks are also leveled against the person of Yeshua, denying that he is the Messiah foretold in their scriptures. The main argument in this regard is that Yeshua did not fulfill the many prophecies in the Tanakh relating to the Messiah, such as reigning on the throne of David, regathering the dispersed Israelites, throwing off from Israel the yoke of oppression of foreign nations, subjecting all the nations to Israel, bringing in world peace and the cessation of war, etc. Instead, Yeshua was killed by the Romans as a dissident and his followers invented the religion of Christianity in his name.
Later we will see how the concept of the postponement of the kingdom provides the only reasonable answer to both the preterism/replacement theology and the main argument of the anti-missionary rabbis.
The Kingdom Postponed
Let me say first that the NT does not explicitly use the term ‘postponed’ in connection with the kingdom. Rather, the concept is derived from inference, i.e. from other things that are explicitly said. The Oxford online English dictionary defines the word postpone as “cause or arrange for (something) to take place at a time later than that first scheduled.” This definition fits well the data which we can glean from the synoptic gospels, mainly. This data can be boiled down to four main points:
1.The establishment of the kingdom was proclaimed as “at hand” or “near” by
John the baptizer, as well as by Yeshua and his apostles, early on in his
ministry.
2. The establishment of the kingdom was contingent.
3. The Jewish leaders rejected Yeshua as their king and led the people to do likewise.
4. After Yeshua was removed from the earth, his loyal followers are found to be in state of waiting for the establishment of the kingdom.
Because points 1. and 3. are generally not contested by anyone I will focus my attention on showing the validity of 2. and 4.
The Contingency of the Kingdom
Matt. 23:37-39 – “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing. 38Look, your house is left to you desolate. 39For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’ ”
Here Yeshua expresses his constant prior desire to take his role as king in Jerusalem. The imagery of a hen gathering her chicks under her wings is an apt metaphor for a king bringing his people under the shadow of his care and protection. This, Yeshua longed to do for the people of Jerusalem but they were unwilling to acknowledge him as their king. So the question must be asked – what would have happened if they had been willing? The answer should be obvious – if they had been willing he would have become their king and would have provided the protection and care they needed. This clearly shows that Yeshua’s entering into his divine right as Israel’s king was contingent upon the response of the Jerusalem leadership. It also shows that the kingdom of God would have then been established if this condition had been met.
The phrase “Look, your house is left for you desolate,” also speaks of the result of the unwillingness of Jerusalem’s leaders to acknowledge Yeshua as the chosen son of David. What house is Yeshua referring to? This depends on if the desolate or forsaken condition spoken of is something that was a present reality at that time or something which would ensue. The word left translates the Greek verb aphietai from the lemma aphiemi, which has a wide semantic range, in which is the meaning of to be left remaining in a place or condition. This meaning can also be found in Matt. 24:2, 40-41. If Yeshua is saying that the house, whatever house that may be, is being left desolate, i.e. will continue to be or remain desolate, then we have a clue as to what house he is referring to. I think it is safe to say that most commentators would presume the house refers to the temple, since the temple was located in Jerusalem. But if aphietai is to be understood as I have suggested, then it can’t be referring to the temple, for the temple was not desolate at that time, and would not be for another 40 yrs or so. If the condition of desolation was a condition this house was already in when Yeshua spoke these words, then the temple does not fit. But what other house, uniquely associated with Jerusalem, was in a desolate state at the time Yeshua said this? It could only refer to the royal house of David, which had a unique association with the city of Jerusalem. At the time of Yeshua the royal house of David had been abandoned for nearly six hundred years. No king from David’s line had sat on the throne in Jerusalem since king Zedekiah was carried off by Nebuchadnezzar and the city of Jerusalem was destroyed. But God had promised to restore the fallen tent of David {Amos 9:11}, no doubt, by raising up the Messiah {Jer. 23:5-6}. Because of the unwillingness of the Jerusalem leadership to acknowledge Yeshua as their king, the restoration of the Davidic throne, and hence the kingdom, which would have occurred then, was postponed, and Jerusalem’s royal house would remain desolate, until some time in the future when Jerusalem would say of Yeshua, “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”
Luke 19:41-44 – As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it 42and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. 43The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. 44They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”
Once again, Yeshua laments over Jerusalem, i.e. it’s inhabitants and their leaders, for their failure to recognize what would bring about the peace they so longed for. It is likely that the peace referred to is that peace which will be experienced by Israel in the Messianic age according to Is. 9:6-7; 52:7; 54:10-14; 66:12 and Mic. 5:2-5. Again, the implication is clear – because they did not recognize the time of their visitation {see Lk. 1:68 -79, particularly vv. 68 and 78} the peace they could have known is withheld and instead they would be destroyed. But what if they had recognized that God had visited them by raising up his chosen one, Yeshua, to be their king? This cleary shows again that the restoration of the throne of David and of the kingdom of God was contingent on the people’s ability to recognize Yeshua as their king, and their day as the appointed time of visitation. But why did the Jerusalem leadership fail to recognize these things? This leads to our next passages.
Matt. 17:10-13 – The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?” 11Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah is coming and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.
Matt. 11:14 – And if you are willing to receive it, he (John) is the Elijah who was to come.
Three of Yeshua’s apostles were privileged to accompany Yeshua when he went up Mount Hermon, and to witness the vision of Yeshua as he will appear in his glory and kingdom, and to hear the voice from the cloud designating Yeshua as God’s chosen one {see Matt. 17:1-8 and 2 Pet. 1:16-18}. Part of the vision included Moses and Elijah conversing with Yeshua. This must have got them thinking and perhaps talking about Elijah, and as they were coming down the mountain they asked Yeshua the question in v. 10. The question implies that the teachers of the law taught that the scriptures stated that Elijah must come first, i.e. prior to the Messiah. They must have been thinking that if Yeshua was the chosen one, the Messiah, as the vision and voice declared, then why had Elijah not come first. Yeshua’s answer to their question is very enlightening. The present tense form of the verb erchomai should be understood as a future action (is coming) since the accompanying verb apokatastesei is a future tense indicative. Yeshua also spoke of the certainty of this event, as the Greek word men (truly, certainly) indicates. But then Yeshua said that Elijah had already come and that they, i.e. the teachers of the law and the other leaders, did not recognize or acknowledge him, but instead rejected his ministry. Then, we are told, his disciples understood he was referring to John.
Earlier in his teaching, as recorded in Matt 11:7-19, Yeshua had spoken about John’s importance in the plan of God, confirming that John’s role was foretold in Mal. 3:1 (v. 10). He went on to speak (v.12) of how, since the days when John began to preach that the kingdom of God was near, the kingdom of God had been either forcefully advancing (middle voice) or subjected to violence (passive voice). Though this passage is not clear, it is possible to see in it a corroboration of the postponement view. If we take the verb as passive, the idea could be that that the establishment of the kingdom is being met with violent opposition. This is reflected in the translation “the kingdom of heaven suffers violence” found in KJV, ESV, NASV, HCSB, NET, ERV, and ASV. Thayer, in his lexicon, states that this “agrees neither with the time when Christ spoke the words, nor with the context.” But that is a rather inane conclusion, for if one understands the Hebraic view of the kingdom and it’s postponement, due to the failure of the Jewish leaders to acknowledge Yeshua as their appointed king, then “the kingdom is being subjected to violence” does indeed agree with the timing and the context of Yeshua’s words. What Yeshua would then be saying is this: “Since the days of John the establishment of the kingdom of heaven has met with violent opposition (the Jerusalem leadership had not responded positively to John’s message and at the time of Yeshua’s words John was in prison, having been arrested by Herod) and the violent ones (the Jerusalem leadership) are snatching it away (i.e. are the cause of it ultimately not being established).” The context that follows bears out this interpretation. In vv. 16-19 Yeshua speaks of how both John and himself have met with opposition from the leadership. This view is also confirmed by Yeshua’s parable in Matt. 21 where the Jewish leaders are depicted as wicked tenants who conspire to kill the son (the chosen son of David) of the landowner that they may take his inheritance (the kingdom).
It is in this context of the kingdom advancing toward fulfillment, but being opposed by the Jewish leadership, that Yeshua said, “And if you are willing to receive it, he (John) is the Elijah who was to come.” This is typically taken to refer to their willingness to accept the idea that John was the Elijah who was to come, but I would like to suggest that he meant that if they were willing to receive the kingdom, by acknowledging him as their chosen king, then John would fulfill the prophecy of the coming of Elijah. With this in mind let’s go back to Matt. 17:11-12. At this point in Yeshua’s ministry he had already come to know that he was being rejected and the kingdom would not be established at that time, so he assures his disciples that Elijah will come, i.e. in the future. He then reminds them of what he had said earlier (in 11:14), that in fact Elijah had already come but was rejected. The clear implication is that if the people, under the guidance of the Jerusalem leadership, had received Yeshua as their king and the kingdom would have thus become a reality, then John would have been the fulfillment of the prophecy about Elijah. But since they rejected Yeshua as their king and the kingdom was thus postponed until some future time, then the prophecy regarding the coming of Elijah was still yet to be fulfilled at that future time. This shows, once again, the contingency involved in the establishment of the kingdom. It also shows that the kingdom has not yet been established, for Elijah has not come to restore all things, as Yeshua said he must, prior to the kingdom’s etsablishment.
Another aspect of John’s role which indicates the contingency involved in the kingdom’s establishment is the nature of his mission. This comes out clearest in Luke’s gospel, where in 1:17 we are told that he would go in advance of the Lord to“make ready a people prepared for Yahweh.” John’s unique task at that point in history was to prepare a people who would be ready for what God was about to do in Israel, in fulfilling the words of the prophets regarding the coming of Messiah and the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Later in 7:27 Yeshua confirms this as John’s role by applying Mal. 3:1 to him:
“I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.”
If the establishment of the kingdom would simply come about at God’s will, regardless of the response of the people of Israel to Yeshua, then John’s mission was unnecessary. Why prepare a people who were ready for what God was about to do if their negative response would not or could not prevent it. The way that John was to prepare the people was by preaching that the kingdom was at hand and calling them to repent, i.e. to turn back to God. Those who responded to John’s message and were baptized were thus made ready for the Messiah’s appearance and could be taught by God that Yeshua was indeed his chosen one. But those who did not respond to John’s message by repentance and baptism would not be ready or prepared and would thus not be in a position to hear from the Father and acknowledge Yeshua as the king. Whether Israel, as a whole, would receive Yeshua as king was directly related to how they as a whole had responded to John’s message.
Now, Luke tells us something very significant in 7:29-30:
Now all the people who heard this, even the tax collectors, acknowledged God’s justice, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. 30.However, the Pharisees and the experts in religious law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.
I would suggest that God’s purpose or plan for the Pharisees and the experts in the law was to lead the nation in acknowledging Yeshua of Nazareth as their king and thereby inaugurating the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. But these Jewish leaders did not respond to John with repentance and so rejected God’s purpose for themselves. But, again, I ask, what if they had repented and been baptized by John and so were made ready for Yeshua’s appearance? Would they not have then fulfilled God’s purpose for themselves by first acknowledging Yeshua as king and then by leading the nation to do so as well? All of this shows the contingent nature of the kingdom, for if the people’s response to Yeshua played no role in whether or not the kingdom would be established at that time, then what purpose did John’s ministry (of making ready a people prepared for God’s visitation) serve?
Waiting for the Kingdom
Acts 1:6-7 – Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.”
This one passage contains so much that refutes preterism that it is no wonder that the preterist interpretations of it are quite imaginative. The question which the disciples ask and the answer Yeshua gives provide us with a clear testimony to the true nature of the kingdom and to the timing of it’s establishment.
The first thing to note is that, according to v. 3, the disciples had been meeting with the resurrected Yeshua over a forty day period in which Yeshua was speaking to them about the things concerning the kingdom of God. It is presumably at the end of this forty day period, just before he is taken from them, that they ask the question in v. 6. This shows that whatever Yeshua was telling them about the kingdom of God they did not understand from his words that the kingdom had already been established. So, forty days after Yeshua had been raised from the dead the kingdom was still something that the disciples were waiting for.
Next, their question can only be understood from the perspective of what the prophets had foretold and what the Jews had been waiting for, i.e. the restoration of the theocratic kingdom of Israel under the kingship of the long awaited son of David. For a thorough presentation of the view that the kingdom of God is synonymous with the theocratic kingdom of Israel see this article here. Their question precludes the idea that the kingdom was something new, something different than what the Jews had been long expecting. It also precludes the idea of the kingdom as internal or invisible. Now please understand the significance of this. After being instructed by the risen Yeshua over a forty day period, the disciple still understand the kingdom to be the restoration of the theocracy of Israel. We must believe that either Yeshua, during this forty day period, confirmed the Hebraic view of the kingdom and that the disciples understood him to be doing so, or that Yeshua taught them about some different kingdom, a spiritual or non-Jewish one, but that the disciples had completely failed to rightly comprehend his words. Yeshua’s answer confirms that they had understood him correctly for he does not rebuke them as he had done on other occassions when they were slow to understand his meaning {see Matt. 15:15-16; Mk. 8:14-21; Lk. 24:25-26}. He simply said that it was not for them to know when the kingdom would be restored. Yet many have wrongly claimed that Yeshua rebuked the disciples for thinking carnally about the kingdom. Such an interpretation of Yeshua’s words is sheer nonsense.
These final words of Yeshua to his disciples, that the Father has set a time for the restoration of the kingdom, spoken just prior to his being taken from them, fixes their frame of mind to one of waiting and expectation. Now, of course, preterists will say that, indeed, they did wait for the kingdom and it came in 70 A.D. But there are certain things that Yeshua said would happen when he came to reign in the restored kingdom of Israel that simply did not occur in 70 A.D. Of course, debating with a preterist about what scripture says is a losing battle for they will simply allegorize every passage to make it fit their view. For instance, in Matt. 19:28 Yeshua told his 12 apostles, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Now let’s think reasonably through this passage. If Yeshua, in fact, returned and the kingdom of God was established in 70 A.D., then when did the apostles ever sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel? They might say this occurred during their ministry of preaching the gospel to Israel, but that would hardly amount to sitting on twelve thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel. So they would have to allegorize the twelve thrones and the act of judging the twelve tribes because it is obvious this wasn’t literally fulfilled during the lifetime of any of the apostles. It is even likely that most of the apostles were already dead by 70 A.D., so that their supposed sitting on twelve thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel during their lifetime on earth, would have occurred before the establishment of the kingdom in 70 A.D. The only other option for the preterist would be to relegate this sitting on twelve thrones and judging the twelve tribes of Israel to a spiritual or heavenly fulfillment that began after 70 A.D.
Another passage is Matt. 8:11 where Yeshua said, “I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” Did this occur in 70 A.D. ? Well obviously not literally, but I am sure that preterists have come up with some allegorical interpretation. They would have to say that this feast occurred in heaven after 70 A.D. But the language of Yeshua suggests a literal fuflfillment, in Jerusalem, for what else could be understood by many coming from the east and the west? East and west of where? Usually when scripture speaks of east and west or north and south, unless otherwise specified, it does so in relation to Jerusalem or to the land of Israel. The face value reading of the passage is that when the kingdom is finally established and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have been raised from the dead, there will be a great feast in Jerusalem to celebrate and that many will come from lands east and west of Jerusalem or Israel to participate. But I digress.
That the assembly of believers in Yeshua the Messiah were put into a posture of waiting for Yeshua to return in order to fulfill all that God has promised to those who love him and who are allegiant to Yeshua his chosen one, can be ascertained from the following passages: Acts 1:11; 17:31; Rom. 8:18-25; 1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 3:20-21; 1 Thess. 1:9-10; Titus 2:12-13; Heb. 9:28; James 5:7; Jude 1:21; Rev. 1:9.
All of these passages are explicit that the believer’s posture is one of waiting, except for Rev. 1:9. So let’s take a look at it because it tells us just what believers are waiting for.
“I, John, your brother and co-participant in the tribulation and kingdom and patient endurance in Yeshua . . .”
This passage tells us that there are three things which believers experience in their association with Yeshua – tribulation (oppression, affliction, distress), the kingdom (ruling with Yeshua) and patient endurance (with a strong implication of waiting). The way I see this is that the tribulation is what believers experience now, in this age; the kingdom is what they will experience in the age to come; and the patient endurance is what connects the other two together. It is in this waiting period that we experience tribulation which we must patiently endure in the hope of attaining to the kingdom in the age to come. That the kingdom is a future reality should be obvious because it is not plausible that the experiences of tribulation and of ruling with Messiah in the kingdom should occur simultaneously. As it is said of Messiah that he “[had] to suffer . . . and then enter his glory” {Lk. 24:26, see also Heb. 2:9; 1 Pet. 1:11}, so is the experience of those in him {see Rom. 8:18 -21; 2 Cor. 4:17-18; 1 Pet. 1:6-7}. It is in this present age that we experience rejection and persecution and distress and oppression because of our faith. But in the age to come all of that will cease and we will experience glory and honor and immortality. The key that gets us from the present experience of suffering to the future experience of glory is the patient endurance. The preterist view combines the two experiences of suffering and reigning in the same time period and so confounds the biblical focus on waiting.
According to the preterist view, the first believers in Yeshua were awaiting the coming of Yeshua in power and glory, and that this coming was accomplished when the armies of Rome attacked and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Are we to believe that the anticipatory cry of maranatha (our Lord come) on the lips of the 1st century believers was a cry for Yeshua to come, in the armies of Rome, and destroy the Jews and Jerusalem? What benefit did they then receive from this coming of Yeshua? Did they know that that is what they were actually waiting for, or did they expect Yeshua to literally come again? If the coming of Yeshua was fulfilled spiritually, in the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 A.D., how did the lives of believers change from that point on? Did they get relief from their suffering, as 2 Thess. 1:5-9 says? NO! In fact, since then, every generation of true believers in Yeshua have suffered persecution, even down to our very day. What grace did they receive after 70 A.D. that they lacked prior to then, but had hoped to receive upon Yeshua’s return, and how did that change things {see 1 Pet. 1:13}? What salvation did these first believers receive in 70 A.D. when Yeshua ‘came again’ {see Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 1:5}? Did the believers then, and do believers today have authority over the nations {see Rev. 2:26-27}? The last time I checked, believers in almost every nation on earth are hated and mistreated and are subjected to varying degrees of persecution, just ask the Voice of the Martyrs organization. This doesn’t sound to me like creation now recognizes the followers of Messiah Yeshua to be the true sons of God, nor has the creation itself been freed from it’s bondage to corruption {see Rom. 8:18-21}. I think you get my point. The preterist view makes a mockery of what scripture says will take place when and after our Lord Yeshua is revealed in his second coming. Everything is relegated to an allegorical or spiritual, unseen fulfillment, that has no real practical effect upon anything in this present age.
The actual fact of the matter is that the promise of Yeshua’s return in glory to establish the theocratic kingdom of Israel was meant to be taken literally and was understood that way by the first disciples. The fact that they looked for it to happen in their lifetime is not a valid argument against the literal fulfillment view, due to the fact that Yeshua told them it was not for them to know the time. Even Yeshua himself did not know the timing of his glorious return. In view of this, why would the disciples, upon being told it was not for them to know, imagine that it would not occur in their lifetime? It seems to me that the reason for keeping the believers ignorant of the timing is so that they would always be waiting and watching and anticipating. As the first generation died off the next generation then watched and expected it in their lifetime, and so on with each successive generation.
An Objection to Contingency
In a recent discussion with a fellow biblical unitarian believer and friend, he shared with me his objection to the idea that the establishment of the kingdom was contingent upon the response of the Jewish people to Yeshua and that if they had acknowledged him as their king then things would have played out differently. He pointed to Acts 2:23:
This man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
His point was that it was the predetermined plan of God for Yeshua to die and therefore how could it be contingent? But we must ask, did the Jewish leaders who handed Yeshua over not have freedom of will? Were they predetermined by God to reject Yeshua as their king? Now I know that the question of freewill has been debated for centuries and my purpose here is not to rehash that debate. What I do want to do is show how this passage and perhaps others (e.g. Acts 4:28) need not be a hindrance to the kingdom postponement view. If one holds to the concept of man’s freedom of will and rejects the extreme view of God’s soveriegnty as propounded by Christians of the Reformed persuasion, then there should be no real problem reconciling the ideas of contingency with God’s predetermining certain things. Yes it was the predetermined plan of God for the Messiah to die and then be raised again, but what if how it was to be accomplished was open to God depending on what the people involved did or didn’t do? Is it possible that God builds contingency into some of his plans, and then based on his foreknowledge predetermines that if his people respond one way then he will work out his will according to that response, but if they respond in a different way then he will work out his will in a different way?
With the understanding that it was God’s predetermined plan for Messiah to die, let’s imagine what kind of contingency plan God may have had prepared if Israel as a whole had received Yeshua as their king. I can imagine that if Yeshua had been received by the Jewish leaders and the nation as a whole, and he was declared to be their king, then God could have determined for him to have been arrested by the Romans for sedition and executed. He would then have been raised from the dead on the third day and would have begun to fulfill the many prophecies written about him.
Even if one were not inclined to see that much openess to the plans of God but understands God’s predetermined plans to be more fixed or unchangable, I could still posit a scenario in which contingency would still figure in. Since Acts 2:23 mentions not only God’s set plan but also his foreknowledge, it could be that his plan is determined by what he foreknows will happen. God, foreknowing the rejection of Yeshua by the Jewish leaders, wrote into his plan the postponement of the kingdom. How God might foreknow the future free acts of men is a matter of debate and beyond the scope of this article. We don’t have to know the how in order to believe that he is able to know in advance how people will choose to act and that without coercing their wills. If this view is allowed, then God’s predeterminations, at least in some cases, could be based on his foreknowledge. If God foreknew the unbelief of the Jews regarding Yeshua he would still need to let everything play out as if there was the possibility that the Jews could have repented and acknowledged Yeshua as their king. So from the human perspective it would appear that the Jews could have chosen to receive Yeshua, but having failed to do so, the kingdom, which could have been established then, was then postponed.
Conclusion
So we have seen how contingency was built into God’s plan, leading to a postponement of the establishment of the kingdom and setting the disciples of Yeshua in a posture of waiting, even until this very day.
The preterist view came about in order to explain how it is that the many prophecies of Messiah’s coming were not fulfilled in Yeshua’s lifetime, if indeed Yeshua is the Messiah. Their solution was to say that the prophecies were fulfilled in the first century, only not literally but spiritually, invisibly, allegorically.
Anti-missionary rabbis also point to the non-fulfillment of many Messianic prophecies as evidence that Yeshua of Nazareth just doesn’t fit the bill. But what they have in common with the preterists is they do not comprehend the concept of the postponement of the kingdom. Because of the rejection of Yeshua as their king by the Jewish leadership of that day, the kingdom, which could have then been established, was withheld, being postponed until a future time known only to God. At the appointed time he will send the Lord Yeshua back to this earth in great power and glory and every unfulfilled prophecy will then be realized literally. Every eye will see him and there will be no mistaking who he is. MARANATHA!
So then, the concept of the postponement of the kingdom answers both the preterist’s concerns and the anti-missionary rabbi’s insistence that Yeshua cannot be the Messiah.
Let the Truth Come Out 