What did the apostles mean when they asked "Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the Kingdom to Israel?" in Acts 1:6?
Were they still expecting Jesus to physically reign as King over the people and land of Israel? If so, Jesus doesn't correct their misunderstanding with his response. Also, how could they still think that Jesus was there to physically restore the Kingdom to Israel when their minds had been opened to understand the scriptures (Luke 24:45)?
restoration of the Kingdom to Israel
Re: restoration of the Kingdom to Israel
Maybe their minds had been opened... but they still hadn't used them yet 
It's another one of those verses of Scripture that is ambiguous-enough to leave room for multiple views. He could have been implying that Israel would be restored, but they shouldn't worry about when. He could have been dismissing their question without getting sidetracked into teaching something they weren't yet ready for (not yet having received the Spirit).
My own take is He told them to wait for the Spirit. They replied by asking if this would coincide with the restoration of Israel. What they seeking, it seems to me, is POWER. They wanted the nation of Israel to be restored to power. Jesus answer first brushes-aside the intent of their inquiry (or reminds them that the timing of the fullness of the Kingdom is not for them to know) and then emphasizes that Pentecost WILL BE the reception of true power.
It's another one of those verses of Scripture that is ambiguous-enough to leave room for multiple views. He could have been implying that Israel would be restored, but they shouldn't worry about when. He could have been dismissing their question without getting sidetracked into teaching something they weren't yet ready for (not yet having received the Spirit).
My own take is He told them to wait for the Spirit. They replied by asking if this would coincide with the restoration of Israel. What they seeking, it seems to me, is POWER. They wanted the nation of Israel to be restored to power. Jesus answer first brushes-aside the intent of their inquiry (or reminds them that the timing of the fullness of the Kingdom is not for them to know) and then emphasizes that Pentecost WILL BE the reception of true power.
Re: restoration of the Kingdom to Israel
If we accept that the disciples had their minds opened to the understanding of the scriptures (Luke 24:45), then I imagine that they might be using the term "Israel" in the sense that Paul uses it in Romans 9 (Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.) In that case, Christs response seems to be directly answering the question "It is not for you to know the time" and their was no misunderstanding to begin with. It could be that the misunderstanding is on our part in assuming that "Israel" in Act 1:6 is referring to the unrepentant Jews in the land of Israel.
Just a thought.
- Douglas
Just a thought.
- Douglas
Re: restoration of the Kingdom to Israel
I've considered that thought too, Douglas... and I think it is a worthwhile one.Douglas wrote:If we accept that the disciples had their minds opened to the understanding of the scriptures (Luke 24:45), then I imagine that they might be using the term "Israel" in the sense that Paul uses it in Romans 9 (Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.) In that case, Christs response seems to be directly answering the question "It is not for you to know the time" and their was no misunderstanding to begin with. It could be that the misunderstanding is on our part in assuming that "Israel" in Act 1:6 is referring to the unrepentant Jews in the land of Israel.
Just a thought.
- Douglas
But I lean away from it b/c it seems to me that the Apostles (perhaps especially Peter) were still in process of realizing the true definition of Israel.
Re: restoration of the Kingdom to Israel
I tend to agree with Matt that: "Maybe their minds had been opened... but they still hadn't used them yet".
Perhaps their minds were opened to understand the scriptures, but that understanding came over time with the help of the Holy Spirit.
I thought about this, but then I remembered it wasn't until later that Peter received the vision of the unclean animals. It seems to me that it was only then that he realized the Gentiles were to be included in the kingdom.Douglas wrote:If we accept that the disciples had their minds opened to the understanding of the scriptures (Luke 24:45), then I imagine that they might be using the term "Israel" in the sense that Paul uses it in Romans 9 (Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.) In that case, Christs response seems to be directly answering the question "It is not for you to know the time" and their was no misunderstanding to begin with. It could be that the misunderstanding is on our part in assuming that "Israel" in Act 1:6 is referring to the unrepentant Jews in the land of Israel.
Perhaps their minds were opened to understand the scriptures, but that understanding came over time with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Re: restoration of the Kingdom to Israel
I think they may have been confused about the exact nature of kingdom, though they understood that it was supposed to expand to encompass the whole world and it would never end. The passage in Luke 24 only really requires that they had their eyes opened to the reality of the cross and evangelism immediately after that, not necessarily all Biblical topics. The following references are to the types of kingdom promises that I think they'd have had in mind:
Isa_1:26, Isa_9:6-7; Jer_23:5-6, Jer_33:15-17, Jer_33:26; Eze_37:24-27; Dan_7:27; Hos_3:4; Joe_3:16-21; Amo_9:11; Oba_1:17-21; Mic_5:2; Zep_3:15-17; Zec_9:9
In addition to these, I think it's extremely important that we look at Daniel 7, since Luke centers the next few chapters around a key event in it:
Dan 7:13 "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
Dan 7:14 And 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 one that shall not be destroyed.
The Apostles were aware of Daniel 7 and I'd argue that it is behind a great deal of the "Son of Man" language throughout the New Testament. If, when they asked about the whether Christ was (present tense) restoring the kingdom, they had this passage in mind, then the next event in Acts becomes very powerful:
Act 1:9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.
Act 1:10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,
Act 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."
In "will come in the same way", the word "come" is erchomai, which more precisely means "arrive". We have been in the habit of seeing this as arriving back on earth in a second coming, but in the context I think it's quite possible that the angel was telling them that he'd arrive in heaven on the same cloud on which he left. In other words, watching him leave on a cloud and the angels telling them that he'd indeed arrive on a cloud was meant to bring Daniel 7 to their minds. Very soon after this we see Peter declaring that Daniel 7:13-14 had been fulfilled, which I think strengthens this argument:
Act 2:30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne,
Act 2:31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.
Act 2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand,
Act 2:35 until I make your enemies your footstool."'
Act 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
I think there are also interesting implications for Amillennialism in this passage. The Apostles ask Christ if he is in middle of restoring the kingdom to Israel. That means it hasn't happened yet. Christ tells them not to worry about the timing, but to go to Jerusalem to receive power. They do so on Pentecost. Was the kingdom restored at that point? I don't think the text implies this. Christ is sat until his enemies are made his footstool. It seems that once this happens the kingdom will be restored. That certainly didn't happen at Pentecost. For Amillennialism to work the kingdom had to be restored at some point in their future in Acts 1 and some point in our past from the point of view of 2014AD. So, when did it happen?
Doug
Isa_1:26, Isa_9:6-7; Jer_23:5-6, Jer_33:15-17, Jer_33:26; Eze_37:24-27; Dan_7:27; Hos_3:4; Joe_3:16-21; Amo_9:11; Oba_1:17-21; Mic_5:2; Zep_3:15-17; Zec_9:9
In addition to these, I think it's extremely important that we look at Daniel 7, since Luke centers the next few chapters around a key event in it:
Dan 7:13 "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.
Dan 7:14 And 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 one that shall not be destroyed.
The Apostles were aware of Daniel 7 and I'd argue that it is behind a great deal of the "Son of Man" language throughout the New Testament. If, when they asked about the whether Christ was (present tense) restoring the kingdom, they had this passage in mind, then the next event in Acts becomes very powerful:
Act 1:9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight.
Act 1:10 And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes,
Act 1:11 and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven."
In "will come in the same way", the word "come" is erchomai, which more precisely means "arrive". We have been in the habit of seeing this as arriving back on earth in a second coming, but in the context I think it's quite possible that the angel was telling them that he'd arrive in heaven on the same cloud on which he left. In other words, watching him leave on a cloud and the angels telling them that he'd indeed arrive on a cloud was meant to bring Daniel 7 to their minds. Very soon after this we see Peter declaring that Daniel 7:13-14 had been fulfilled, which I think strengthens this argument:
Act 2:30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne,
Act 2:31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
Act 2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.
Act 2:33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.
Act 2:34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, "'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand,
Act 2:35 until I make your enemies your footstool."'
Act 2:36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."
I think there are also interesting implications for Amillennialism in this passage. The Apostles ask Christ if he is in middle of restoring the kingdom to Israel. That means it hasn't happened yet. Christ tells them not to worry about the timing, but to go to Jerusalem to receive power. They do so on Pentecost. Was the kingdom restored at that point? I don't think the text implies this. Christ is sat until his enemies are made his footstool. It seems that once this happens the kingdom will be restored. That certainly didn't happen at Pentecost. For Amillennialism to work the kingdom had to be restored at some point in their future in Acts 1 and some point in our past from the point of view of 2014AD. So, when did it happen?
Doug
Re: restoration of the Kingdom to Israel
I think I disagree with this. The disciples weren't understanding the very concept of what the Kingdom entailed... so it is quite possible that the kingdom had already been restored in some sense and they just weren't aware of it. I am not of the view that the kingdom had to come in an individual event. We don't need to point to a specific day and say 'there it is'... the Kingdom is a seed that, once planted, grows. There are significant stages in the kingdom's growth. Incarnation was a significant day... Jesus' death and resurrection and ascension... Pentecost... the Gentile Mission... the Fall of Jerusalem... I think those were all major events establishing the Kingdom of God.dwilkins wrote:For Amillennialism to work the kingdom had to be restored at some point in their future in Acts 1 and some point in our past from the point of view of 2014AD. So, when did it happen?
Doug
Re: restoration of the Kingdom to Israel
I'll try to be more specific. According to Amillennialism, the millennial kingdom is ongoing now in human history. When did it begin?mattrose wrote:I think I disagree with this. The disciples weren't understanding the very concept of what the Kingdom entailed... so it is quite possible that the kingdom had already been restored in some sense and they just weren't aware of it. I am not of the view that the kingdom had to come in an individual event. We don't need to point to a specific day and say 'there it is'... the Kingdom is a seed that, once planted, grows. There are significant stages in the kingdom's growth. Incarnation was a significant day... Jesus' death and resurrection and ascension... Pentecost... the Gentile Mission... the Fall of Jerusalem... I think those were all major events establishing the Kingdom of God.dwilkins wrote:For Amillennialism to work the kingdom had to be restored at some point in their future in Acts 1 and some point in our past from the point of view of 2014AD. So, when did it happen?
Doug
Doug
Re: restoration of the Kingdom to Israel
The point of my comment was... I think it's a faulty premise to insist that 'kingdom' has to start at a specific event/moment. I don't believe there is any difference between the Kingdom of God and the 'Millennial Kingdom'. Since amillennialists believe this age will last for an indeterminate amount of time, it is not very important to find a precise starting point.dwilkins wrote:
I'll try to be more specific. According to Amillennialism, the millennial kingdom is ongoing now in human history. When did it begin?
Doug
Re: restoration of the Kingdom to Israel
I'm not sure that the kingdom of God is the Millennium. Christ was seated at the right hand of the Father, but the Millennium hadn't started yet (unless you use the ascension and session as the starting point). Since the Millennium in Rev. 20 is explicitly described as the resurrection of the saints after they'd been killed by the beast for not taking his mark, I don't think this is a very good candidate.mattrose wrote:The point of my comment was... I think it's a faulty premise to insist that 'kingdom' has to start at a specific event/moment. I don't believe there is any difference between the Kingdom of God and the 'Millennial Kingdom'. Since amillennialists believe this age will last for an indeterminate amount of time, it is not very important to find a precise starting point.dwilkins wrote:
I'll try to be more specific. According to Amillennialism, the millennial kingdom is ongoing now in human history. When did it begin?
Doug
We might not be able to nail down (or at least wouldn't agree on the conditions of) the ending point. But, I find it impossible that the kingdom promised throughout scripture has no starting point described or predicted in it. This is an even more difficult problem from the point of view of standard Amillennialism since the kingdom was supposed to start during the narrative of scripture. Since we have an obvious starting point of sin with Adam, the call of Abraham, the issuance of the Mosaic Law, the establishment of the kingdom under David, the various punishments of the Northern and Southern kingdoms, the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ, and every other important event or era expected in scripture, I find it completely implausible that the promised kingdom started during the scriptural narrative and scripture didn't mention it. Since the imagery involved includes starting small and then growing to be irresistible (Ezekiel 47's river, Daniel 2's mountain, etc.) I have no problem saying that it started small. But, the idea that the start isn't documented or can't be defined by the story of scripture seems impossible to me. It's my understanding that traditional Amillennialism uses Pentecost for this event. If it's not that, maybe we should see it as the crucifixion, resurrection, or ascension of Christ. Or, maybe it's Christ breathing the Spirit on the Apostles before Pentecost, Stephen's martyrdom, or Paul's conversion. There are plenty of events to choose from. But, it seems that one of them must represent the start of the Millennium per Amillennialism.
Doug