How can we expect a future kingdom for Israel when Jesus said it's not of this world?
Here, we seem to have the silver bullet that slays the beast of premillenialism and its prophet, dispensationalism. It appears that Jesus repudiates any idea establishing an earthly kingdom. Perhaps everything we read in the Old Testament about land promises and Christ's reign on David's throne is recast in the New Testament as spiritual promises to the church?
That is one possible reading. It is also possible that we're misreading this verse. As such, let's briefly re-examine it.
The context here is the betrayal and subsequent trials of Jesus. After hearings featuring false evidence, the Jews cart Him before Pontius Pilate for final judgment and crucifixion. Jesus awaits Pilate in the Praetorium early in the morning (vv. 28-32). Pilate then enters the Praetorium without the Jews to question Jesus (vv. 28, 33).
Pilate proceeds to asks Jesus, “Are You the King of the Jews?” (v. 33). Consider the question from Pilate's point-of-view: he was tasked to keep order in Judea, and a Jewish "evildoer" (v. 30) claiming to be king would mean trouble. That makes sense of Jesus's question: is this a personal inquiry or essentially part of the charges against Him; “Are you saying this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about Me?” (v.34). In case this isn't clear, notice that Pilate pointedly asks Him “what have You done?” (v. 35); Pilate is simply trying to determine guilt.
This is the point the contested verse occurs. Let's read Jesus's words again: “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” Jesus speaks in the present active indicative, and a note in the NASB here provides the alternate translation, “My kingdom is not derived from this world.” In other words, Jesus establishes that His kingdom is not in conflict with Rome (at least, not at the moment), and points to a lack of insurrection as evidence of innocence. In case the ultimate meaning of this exchange eludes the reader, notice that Pilate exits and declares Jesus innocent (v. 38).
We have to notice the context of this verse in interpreting it.
- The Jewish leadership and disciples were absent. So, whatever else we can say about this v. 36, we can’t view it as a rebuke for their belief in an earthly kingdom.
- This was a court case, not a theological discussion on the kingdom or anything else. Pilate's interest was on guilt or innocence (vv. 35, 38), not truth (v. 38).
- The grammar of this verse does not exclude the possibility of a future earthly kingdom, only that it does not exist at the moment.
- Considering the context of the rest of His teaching, Jesus nowhere tells the Jews and disciples that they're wrong for expecting an earthly kingdom. (He does quite the opposite, but that requires another post at another time.)
As such, it seems unlikely that Jesus intended this private moment to redefine all that Moses, Psalms, and the prophets had to say about a future, earthly kingdom. It seems more likely that Jesus is simply answering Pilate's question in v. 36; there are no fights in the streets, and Jesus stands before Pilate without Rome having to put down an insurrection. Let's not take a single verse from its context to disprove the consistent teaching of Christ throughout the rest of Scripture.
So, perhaps premillennialism and even dispensationalism have a stay of execution.
