The eternal Word had an impelling purpose which would motivate him to divest himself of his heavenly status and to come to this earth in human form. It was the will of the Father that he do so, yet we are not to conclude that it was against the will of the Word to become his Son. His purpose was to bear the guilt of the sins of mankind by giving himself as an atonement. This was planned “before the foundation of the world” (l Pet. 1:21). So his purpose from the beginning pointed to the cross.

At the outset of his ministry, just after God acknowledged him as His Son at Jesus’ baptism, Satan tempted him. What temptation would be worthy of divinity? Certainly it was not the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, or the vainglory of life as we have interpreted so trivially. Satan set out to defeat Christ’s higher purpose to seek and to save the lost, which would demand the cross. What appeals could Satan offer?

First, he let Jesus feel human need. Lesser men have endured fasting longer even as did the Irish patriots who starved themselves in 1981. There would have been no sin in eating food or for the Creator to turn stones into food.

In this temptation the devil seems to be saying, “Now you know how it feels to be hungry and suffer with humanity. Millions are hungry, sick, cold, homeless, and in various other miseries. You have the power to remedy this. Make bread and earthly supplies to relieve them. Hear their cry. You can make this earth into a paradise.” But Jesus is responding, “Man cannot live by the bread of earthly relief alone. He must have spiritual healing which can only come through the cross. A renewed Eden on earth is not the answer.”

Then Jesus looked down from the height of the temple upon the people who would be crying out for his crucifixion within three years. He had the power to awe them into obedience by his miraculous demonstrations. In that state of submission, none would have cried out for his death; so, the cross would have been avoided, leaving man in his sin. It would have compromised sin instead of atoning for it.

In the third facet of this one great temptation, after he is shown all the kingdoms of the world in panorama, Satan seems to be saying, “If you will join forces with me with all your infinite power and wisdom, you can easily rule over all mankind. If you resist me, there will be rebellion, suffering, and sorrow in continual alienation from God.” Even though an earthly, materialistic kingdom would avoid the cross, it would be a perpetual reign over a world lost in sin.

There has been a very popular revival of premillennial teachings in the last few years. The multitude is spreading the palm branches and shouting, “Hosanna!” with the same intent of making Jesus an earthly king that those sincere disciples had when they welcomed him into Jerusalem. Even after all his many parables explaining the spiritual nature of his reign, they still wanted to crown him as a civil ruler on an earthly, governmental throne. That is what the devil had been tempting him to become! That would have enabled him to avoid the cross! The world would still have been in sin!

It is being taught that Jesus came to set up the Jewish kingdom but that his plan was frustrated by the rejection of the Jews; so he set up the church phase of the kingdom instead while postponing the real kingdom until he comes again. Such a claim implies that if the plan to establish his kingdom had not been thwarted by their rejecting and crucifying him, he would not have died on the cross! Are modern voices joining Satan’s in the great temptation?

The Jews did not reject and kill Jesus because he wanted to restore the throne of David but because he declared himself to be the Son of God and the savior of the world. They would have welcomed him as a king but not as a savior. Their cross which would make him the savior and the spiritual king would become foolishness to those who wished for earthly restoration.

If the Jews could thwart the plans of God, was the cross in the plan from the beginning? If it came as a result of man’s rejection, then the cross of atonement was an improvisation rather than a part of God’s eternal plan. Peter ruled out any thought that the death of Jesus might have been unforeseen when he declared that Jesus was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:22f).

If man could prevent God’s fulfillment of prophecies to raise Jesus to sit on David’s throne once, can he do it again in some time to come? How can we trust God if he lets man rule his will and purposes and defeat his promises?

Because the Jews were looking for a restoration of their earthly kingdom, Jesus did extensive teaching to impress them that his kingdom and rule would be spiritual. His subjects would enter the kingdom by a spiritual birth. He was crowned at the right hand of God after his atonement, resurrection, and ascension and has sent the Holy Spirit to guide his spiritual people. In this universal kingdom, no nationality or race is regarded any more, for we are all one in Christ. The Jew lost his favored status when God caused all nations to flow into his one, universal, spiritual kingdom under the reign of him who went to the cross for all. To those who look forward to the restoration of fleshly Israel and establishment of an earthly kingdom, I ask with Paul, “Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now ending (perfected, ASV) in the flesh?” (Gal. 3:3). Think of it: Christ, the universal king, on a localized earthly throne aided by fleshly administrators, regressing from the heavenly and spiritual to the earthly and fleshly!

The entire earthly kingdom concept would make Jesus’ great temptation meaningless and the cross unnecessary and outside of God’s original plan. If that had been Jesus’ purpose in coming, then the devil would have only been encouraging Jesus instead of tempting him in his encounters with him in the wilderness and in Gethsemane.

In making these strong statements about premillennial views, I am not saying that those who hold them deny that the cross was in God’s plan or deny that the atonement was necessary. But I am contending that they would be denying such if they were consistent. In this case, to say the least, their inconsistency is a blessing! And, even though you may hold these beliefs which I think are erroneous, you are still my brother or sister in the Lord.