Why Did the Savior Come to Earth? (Part 3)

Click here to read Part 1 in this series.
Click here to read Part 2 in this series.

On one hand, the scriptures teach that Jesus, the Savior, came to earth to redeem the nation of Israel, to rise up as King, and to establish a mighty kingdom that would have roots in Jerusalem but would extend to all the earth. On the other hand, we are also told that the Messiah would be rejected by the people, cursed, scourged, and crucified as the Lamb of God. Jesus Himself seemed to be confused, for He taught the concept of a kingdom that would be established in the first century while simultaneously teaching the inevitability of suffering and persecution...even foretelling His own death.

In the first article in this series, we emphasized the "on one hand" and then in the last article (Part 2), we turned our attention to the "on the other hand." I concluded the second article with the following probing question: do these two concepts contradict. They seem to, don't they? But as I pointed out then, they actually do not contradict in any way, shape or form; rather, we can easily harmonize the ideas of Jesus as King and Jesus as the Lamb of God. In this article, I'd like to explain that.

In order to achieve harmony, we have to understand something about the kingdom of the Messiah. The kingdom that was prophesied in the Old Testament, and the kingdom that Jesus said was "at hand" then in the early part of the first century, was not the kind of kingdom to which we as earthly residents are accustomed. What I mean is that it was not an earthly kingdom in the likeness of Rome or Britain with a physical throne and territorial domain that is conquered by the threat and/or use of brute force. Rather, Jesus' kingdom was spiritual in nature, with its throne, not on earth, but in heaven, and with territory that was defined, not by geographic regions, but by the souls of men and women, conquered by the "two-edged sword," the word of God and gospel of Christ! And let it be known here at the outset: this kingdom WAS established.

Again, this is the mistake that the early Jews made, and that many denominational folks make today. They assume that the kingdom of David's descendent, Jesus (the messianic kingdom) was a physical kingdom, like that of David...only greater and farther-reaching. Obviously, Jesus didn't establish this kind of kingdom, and so it is assumed that Jesus failed and therefore will have to return a second time to "get it right."

While passages like Psalm 2 and Zechariah 14 speak of a messianic kingdom, the language must be interpreted spiritually...and the reason that we are to interpret it spiritually is because a careful and thorough study of the whole Bible mandates a spiritual interpretation.

For example, in Jeremiah 22: 24, 30, notice what is written about the royal line of David:

"'As I live,' says the Lord, 'though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet ring on My right hand, yet I would pluck you off'...Thus says the Lord: 'Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for none of his descendents shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah."

Coniah is the "Jehoiachin" of 2 Kings 24. He was the second-to-last king to rule in Jerusalem over the southern kingdom of Judah, and he was - as were ALL the kings of Judah - a descendent of the royal line of David. Coniah was taken as a prisoner to Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jerusalem. The only other man to rule after Coniah was Zedekiah, and Zedekiah was Coniah's uncle, not his son. So in other words (and this is what Jeremiah is saying in Jeremiah 22), genealogically speaking, Coniah was the LAST one in the line of David that would reign physically in Jerusalem. If that's the case (and it is, obviously), Jesus, being a descendent of David, could not possibly reign as King in Jerusalem. And yet, He would become King of Israel. Notice what is said a few verses later, in Jeremiah 23:5-6:

"'Behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord, that I will raise to David a Branch of righteousness; a King shall reign and prosper, and execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. In His days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell safely; now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

 So, let's get this straight. Coniah was the last one in the davidic line that would reign as King in Jerusalem...and yet there would be another in the davidic line - Jesus- that WOULD reign as King.

Don't worry, we'll make sense of this in just a moment...

In Daniel 2, we find Daniel's interpretation of the dream of the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar. The king dreamt of an image that consisted of four parts: a head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, and fourthly, legs of iron and clay (vs. 32-33). In the dream, a stone "cut out without hands" came and struck this image, forming a "great mountain" that "filled the earth" (vs. 35). What did all of this mean? That's what the king wanted to know, and Daniel was there to provide an answer. In short, the four different parts of the image represented four kingdoms. Nebuchadnezzar (Babylon) was the head of gold (vs. 38). Daniel goes on...

"...But after you (Babylon) shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything..." (vs. 39-40).

So we find a succession of four kingdoms, the first being Babylon.

Now turn to Daniel 7, to what we call Daniel's "vision of the Ancient of Days." In the beginning of the chapter, we learn that four earthly kingdoms are symbolically represented by four different animals: a lion, a bear, a leopard, and then a "fourth beast" that was "dreadful and terrible" with "ten horns" (vs. 7). You can compare the structure of Daniel 7:1-6 to what we just read in Daniel 2. In fact, here in Daniel 7, these four beasts are plainly said to represent kings, or more specifically, kingdoms (Dan. 7:17, 23).

We've already established that the first kingdom was the Babylonian empire. According to Daniel 5:28-31, the second kingdom in this line was the Medo-Persian empire. Daniel 8:20-22 indicates that the Grecian empire is the third kingdom in this line. The fourth kingdom, although not specifically named in Daniel, was the great Roman empire. History confirms all of this, that these four kingdoms existed in this order.

In both Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, the point is made that during the existence of the FOURTH kingdom (Rome), God would set up a kingdom.

"And the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth...(and then Daniel's interpretation of the stone)...And in the days of these kings (the kings of the fourth kingdom, Rome) the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever" (Dan. 2:35, 44).

 "I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn (one of the kings of the fourth kingdom, see vs.8) was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. And for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. I was watching in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came TO the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. THEN to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed" (Dan. 7:11-14).

 And so both Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 present the same timelines and the same basic facts. Four kingdoms would exist: first, the Babylonian; second, the Persian; third, the Grecian; fourth, the Roman. The Roman kingdom was going to consist of a line of kings (the Caesars, obviously). But what is most significant is that during the days of the Roman kingdom, the "Son of Man" would establish an everlasting kingdom.

BUT NOTICE - and this is CRITICAL - the point at which the kingdom would be established according to divine prophecy. The plan was NOT for Jesus to come to earth and establish Himself as King in Jerusalem on earth. Again, Jeremiah has already told us that Coniah was the last davidic king to do that. Instead, Jesus' kingdom would be established specifically when He went "TO" the Father. In other words, Jesus' reign as King would begin, not when He came FROM the Father to earth, but when He left the earth and went back to the Father. His throne would be in heaven, not Jerusalem.

And so the apostle Peter was correct when he said the following to the Jews on the day of Pentecost (just ten days after Christ's ascension):

"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sword an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on His throne...Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear" (Ac. 2:29-30, 33).

 The kingdom of Christ WAS established according to prophesy during the days of the Roman kingdom; Jesus became king, not in the physical sense, but in the spiritual sense. His kingdom was NOT like the kingdoms of Babylon, Persia, Greece or Rome - there was no earthly throne or dominion. The kingdom of Messiah, rather than begin prevented by the Messiah's crucifixion, was established spiritually BECAUSE of the crucifixion and ultimately the resurrection and ascension. This is what Jeremiah and Daniel prophesied, what Isaiah prophesied, what Peter taught, and what Jesus Himself taught...

"Then Pilate entered the Praetorium again, called Jesus, and said to Him, 'Are you the King of the Jews?' Jesus answered, 'My kingdom is not of this world...'" (John 18:33, 36).

Folks, Jesus didn't come to earth to set up a physical kingdom, and then, because He was rejected, have to resort to "Plan B" (i.e. the cross). Jesus came TO be rejected, to be crucified, and to establish a SPIRITUAL kingdom that would have worldwide dominion.

And it does. The kingdom of Christ consists of all the saved of every nation who bow before the great King of kings, Jesus Christ who reigns from heaven at the right hand of the Father. So Paul was right when he told the Colossians that they had already been transferred INTO the kingdom (Col. 1:13). John was right when he identified himself and those to whom he was writing as members of the kingdom (Rev. 1:9). And Paul again was right in 1 Corinthians 15:24-25 when he wrote that Jesus was and is reigning NOW...and will reign until the end, when He returns to gather the citizens of the kingdom (on earth) that we might go to spend eternity with Him in the heavenly kingdom.

Those who argue that Jesus came to establish a physical kingdom are wrong, and those who teach a FUTURE messianic kingdom on earth are equally wrong. These verses and points leave no room for doubt.

I know that there are still some questions that you might have. If so, comment below. I look forward to the exchange. NOTE: I recently preached a sermon on Isaiah 11, a chapter that has a lot of relevance to this discussion. Click here and then scroll down until you see the sermon title; stream it from the website or download and listen at your leisure.