You successfully added to your cart! You can either continue shopping, or checkout now if you'd like.
Note: If you'd like to continue shopping, you can always access your cart from the icon at the upper-right of every page.
Dispensationalists teach that the Jews rejected the Davidic Kingdom that Jesus offered to them, and that for this reason it was deferred or postponed to a future time.
I do not question the Jewish rejection of the Davidic Kingdom. That much is obvious to a Christian, though Jews have a differing opinion on this, of course. But dispensationalists lack an understanding of the conflict within the Davidic Kingdom itself between David and Absalom, and so they do not truly understand the nature of the conflict. Nor do they understand its resolution.
Absalom usurped the throne from David. David was a type of Christ, and Absalom was a type of "Antichrist." The term "antichrist" is a New Testament word that uses the Greek term anti, which means "in place of." The word is used in Matt. 2:22, where we read that "Archelaeus was reigning over Judea in place of his father Herod."
Archelaeus was not a usurper, for he came to the throne in a legitimate way--when his father died. So the term anti does not necessary mean "against" or "in opposition to," as we normally use the term. In fact, if we consider the fact that the throne from which David himself ruled was the throne of Christ, then we are compelled to admit that David himself was ruling "in place of" Christ. In that sense, David rule anti-Christ, but this was not in a negative sense.
It is only negative when the deputy ruler who sits in the throne of another usurps authority and rules according to his own will, rather than according to the will of true Heir of the throne.
If Absalom had waited for David to die, and if he had been called to rule in place of his father, he would not have been an anti-David (or "antichrist") in the negative sense. But he blatantly usurped the throne and forced David to flee, though David was the legitimate heir of the throne, anointed by Samuel. This is what made Absalom an Antichrist as we normally define it negatively.
Though Absalom was allowed to sit in the throne, the Kingdom went with David. God did not recognize Absalom as the true king sitting on the throne. Thus, even though David was in exile, and the throne on earth was in dispute, the Kingdom of God resided within David--as it did within the hearts of all who followed him.
In the New Testament the chief priests usurped the throne of David from the legitimate Heir of the throne--Jesus Christ. This is made very clear in the parable in Matt. 21, where Jesus puts words into the mouths of the chief priests in verses 38 and 39, saying,
"But when the vine-growers saw the son, they said among themselves, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance.' And they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him."
Obviously, this was a reference to the chief priests who seized the inheritance of the Son, Jesus Christ. In the parable, they recognized who He was, and this was their motive for killing Him. It was NOT a case of mistaken identity any more than Absalom mistook David's identity. No, even as Absalom overthrew David with full knowledge of who he was, so also did the chief priests usurp the throne of Jesus Christ with full knowledge of who he was.
So even as David left town and made a sacrifice upon the summit (rosh, "head, skull") of the Mount of Olives, so also did Jesus bear His cross outside the camp upon the same spot, "the place of the skull (summit)" (Matt. 27:33), making the great sacrifice for the sin of the world.
In 2 Samuel 18, the resolution of the problem came with the "second coming" of David. This also prophesies of the second coming of Christ. In this story of David, we find no evidence that David and Absalom made any negotiations. There is no evidence that David made a deal with Absalom, saying, "If you recognize me as king, then I will make you second in command."
No, far from it. Absalom was unrepentant to the end, and it resulted in his death (2 Sam. 18:15). To be sure, it was not David's desire for Absalom to be killed, nor is it our desire today that the antitypes of Absalom be killed. Nonetheless, it is what it is, and I cannot change the story any more than David could.
And so we ought to recognize reality. Those who think that the Jews today will repent at the last minute and accept Christ when they see Him returning are destroying the Scriptures--particularly the story of David's second coming in 2 Samuel 18.
Dispensationalism is a view that represents and supports Ahithophel, and his NT counterpart, Judas. Ahithophel was David's counselor and friend who betrayed him at Hebron, which is Kerioth-Arba. David wrote about Ahithophel in Psalm 55:13, 14,
"But it is you, a man my equal, my companion and my familiar FRIEND. We who had sweet fellowship together, walked in the house of God in the throng."
In the New Testament, Judas was also a "Man of Kerioth," or Ish-Kerioth (Iscariot). Jesus called him "friend" (Matt. 26:50). He was a disciple who believed in Jesus, but who betrayed him because of other heart issues. And so the betrayers are also friends, disciples--today we know them as Christians. Dispensationalism betrays Christ today, even as Ahithophel and Judas betrayed David and Jesus long ago. They betray Christ by backing the Absalom company that usurped the Scepter of Judah in Jesus' day and in 1948 usurped the Birthright of Joseph by adopting the Birthright name: ISRAEL.
It is fortunate for the Dispensationalists that they are wrong about Judas going to hell and burning forever. If the Dispensationalists were correct in their doctrine of eternal punishment, then they would be condemning themselves without realizing it. But the Bible teaches the Restoration of All Things, and this includes Ahithophel, Judas, and the Dispensationalists today. Yet both Ahithophel and Judas hanged themselves when they saw the results of their betrayal. It makes me wonder how that type will be fulfilled in the modern antitype.
Consider the fact that many Christians today donate money to send more Jews to Palestine. Consider also that Isaiah 29 and Jeremiah 19 prophesy the total destruction of Jerusalem, and that land will become uninhabitable. These same Christians who help Jews travel to their own destruction believe that most of the Jews will be killed. So why do they assist in Jewish destruction?
It is because they hope to force the world into a crisis to bring about Armageddon and the destruction of about 99 percent of the Jews--all but 144,000 survivors, they say. This will supposedly force Christ to return to save the day.
That was reputed to be the thinking of Judas. Judas thought that if he could just put Jesus into a position that would force Him to manifest His power to save Himself, then the nation would recognize Him as the Messiah. The plan backfired, and Judas hanged himself. What do you suppose will happen to the Dispensationalists in our day, after Jerusalem is destroyed "even as one breaks a potter's vessel which cannot be repaired"? (Jer. 19:11)
It makes me wonder sometimes how many Christian leaders will literally hang themselves or simply die of heart attacks. What will they do when the destruction hits and they find that they are not raptured?
Dispensationalism today teaches the ultimate triumph of Absalom's Kingdom, which they mistakenly identify as the Kingdom of David. It is important to know the Scriptures, for this can make the difference between proclaiming the Gospel of Absalom's Kingdom and the Gospel of the Kingdom of David (Christ).