In Proposition 68, George Peters states:
“This Kingdom is then essentially a Jewish Kingdom.”
This goes without saying based on all the evidence presented by Peters thus far from Scripture. The covenant promises were made by God to the Jewish people and by the grace of God and in accordance with His covenant promises made to that people, the Gentiles (us) are being grafted into that nation and when the Kingdom is established, into that Kingdom.
The most notable observation Peters presents in Proposition 68 is the following:
“It is fully admitted by able writers, of all classes, that the Scriptures, taken in their literal aspect, do expressly teach a Jewish Kingdom; but our opponents contend that this literal rendering is to be discarded for a spiritual or mystical one, mainly on the ground that the literal has not been verified. But we cannot, dare not thus receive the Word of God. This Jewish form is decidedly in our favor; we accept of it gratefully, and with it of the reproach heaped upon it. For it is Jewish, based on Jewish covenants, the Jewish Scriptures, the Jewish Prophets and Apostles, the Jewish nationality connected with the Theocratic ordering, and the Jewish Son of Man in descent and office. We would not abate this, if we could, believing it to be indispensable in order to preserve the true doctrine of the Kingdom, and the unity of Purpose in its establishment. The time too, if we are to credit recent utterances, has gone by when sober reasoning based on Scripture is to be set aside by charges of doctrine being “too Jewish.” Able works, showing the intimate connection of the Old and New Testaments, acknowledging and pressing our indebtedness to that which is “Jewish”, are paving the way for such a result among the pious thoughtful. The masses, indeed, will not be reached, but the scholarly, if also devout, cannot overlook it.”
I hear the accusation quite a bit, namely what Peters is noting – “that approach is too Jewish. We are under grace so all that Jewish stuff is irrelevant. Plus, the rejected Jesus so God has rejected them as a people, replacing them with the Gentile Church as the new bride.” The response to such nonsense should be all the realities Peters notes in his observation. Those who reject that heritage, the roots of the faith, fail to understand the nature of being grafted in and being adopted. Trying to reject biblical realities or trying to spiritualize them in the name of taking a literal approach to Scripture (i.e. the notions often presented under the umbrella of dispensationalism), is a failure to recognize the Jewishness of the faith and the nation of people the covenants were given to by God. It is a sad thing that the masses have not been reached regarding this reality. I will submit I am seeing a surge in the masses in understanding this important truth. Many of those people are taking a beating from fellow believers for recognizing the truths noted by Peters and in turn, rightly allowing those truths to impact their grasp of Scripture. To some degree I have seen a turn with some academics, but unfortunately, many academics remain committed to their theological systems regardless of whether their approach needs adjusted to conform to biblical truths – such as the Jewish nature of what we are currently discussing.