Israel, the Kingdom, and Acts 1
June 12th, 2007
(By Matt Waymeyer)
Many theologians deny that the ethnic nation of Israel has any kind of distinct role in the future plan of God. According to Bruce K. Waltke, “no clear passage [of Scripture] teaches the restoration of national Israel” because “the Jewish nation no longer has a place as the special people of God.” In the words of Herman Ridderbos, “The church . . . as the people of the New Covenant has taken the place of Israel, and national Israel is nothing other than the empty shell from which the pearl has been removed and which has lost its function in the history of redemption.”
One of the many passages which present a problem for this view is Acts 1:6-7. In verse 6, just before Jesus ascended into heaven, the eleven disciples asked Him: “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” This question is profound, and its meaning is unmistakable. In fact, even covenant theologian O. Palmer Robertson—who denies a future restoration of Israel—summarizes it quite well:
What can be said about the nature of this kingdom as understood by the disciples? The fact that they spoke of its being “restored to Israel” indicates that they were thinking of it as a national entity with its center located in Jerusalem and its domain encompassing the land of their fathers. They were expressing the Jewish hope that God would establish his rule, so that Israel would be freed from its enemies and reconstituted as the great nation that it once was.
The significance here is obvious: At the time of Christ’s ascension, the disciples were still expecting a future restoration of the kingdom to the ethnic nation of Israel. How, then, is it reasonable to deny a future for Israel?
One response is to say that the disciples were significantly misguided in their thinking. According to John Calvin, “[T]heir blindness is remarkable, that when they had been so fully and carefully instructed over a period of three years, they betrayed no less ignorance than if they had never heard a word. There are as many errors in this question as words.” Similarly, according to Robertson, “these disciples’ understanding of the nature of Christ’s kingdom was little better than had been displayed by the Jews in the days of the Maccabees or by the Zealots in Jesus’ own day.” In other words, even though the disciples fully expected the kingdom to be restored to the nation, this expectation was in vain, and it betrayed an astonishing ignorance of both the nature and the recipients of the kingdom.
Although the disciples were certainly misguided and in need of correction on several occasions throughout the ministry of Christ, it is difficult to believe that this was one of them. Instead, Acts 1:6-7 clearly indicates that there is indeed a future for the nation of Israel in the redemptive plan of God. I say this for two reasons.
The Context of the Question
The disciples’ question did not come in a vacuum. It came at the end of the 40-day period between the resurrection and ascension of Christ in which He appeared to the disciples and continued to teach them. It is reasonable to assume that Jesus taught them many things during this time, but Acts 1:3 mentions only one: “the things concerning the kingdom of God.”
As Jews, the disciples were certainly aware of the OT prophecies concerning the kingdom that would be restored to Israel, and during the earthly ministry of Christ, they continued to expect this very restoration. And although they did not initially understand that the death of Christ was necessary for its establishment, they listened to the resurrected Jesus teach about the kingdom over a 40-day period, and at its conclusion, one thing remained clear in all of their minds: the kingdom would be restored to Israel.
The content of Jesus’ teaching must have included an explanation of the nature and recipients of the kingdom. That much seems undeniable. In addition, the hours of instruction would have provided ample opportunity for dialogue, including questions from the disciples and clarifications from Jesus. Therefore, those who insist that the disciples were misguided in Acts 1:6 must believe that even though Jesus taught them clearly about these things, somehow they were not able to understand even the basics of what He said. This seems implausible, particularly in light of Luke 24:45.
According to Luke 24:45, Jesus not only taught His disciples during this time period, but He also “opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.” The Greek verb translated “opened” is the word used in Acts 16:14 of how the Lord “opened” Lydia’s heart to respond to the gospel. In Luke 24:45 it speaks of a supernatural opening of the disciples’ minds which enabled them to understand the things spoken about Jesus throughout the Old Testament.
In light of this, how can one insist that the disciples were deceived in thinking that God was planning to restore the kingdom to the nation of Israel? Jesus Himself instructed them clearly, and He even enlightened their minds to understand the things He taught, so how could they be so radically misinformed about features of the kingdom as basic as its nature and recipients? As Robert L. Saucy writes:
There is no question but that the disciples had difficulty with some of the spiritual teaching about the kingdom. This is evident in their failure to understand the teaching of Jesus at some points, especially with regard to the salvation of the kingdom through his death. But to charge them with a total misunderstanding of the kingdom hope of Israel based on an alleged reinterpretation of this hope is difficult to substantiate in Scripture.
The Answer to the Question
If the disciples were so radically misinformed about the nature and recipients of the promised kingdom, one would certainly expect Jesus to have set the record straight, to have provided the needed correction at this crucial moment in redemptive history. After all, He was commissioning His disciples to be His witnesses to the nations, and this was their final question before His departure. In addition, Jesus’ consistent track record was that of correcting those who were in error. But here He provides no correction whatsoever. Instead, He simply says: “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority” (Acts 1:7).
Picture a little girl asking her father: “Daddy, is today the day that you are going to give me a pony?” To which her father responds: “Sweetie, it is not for you to know when.” What would this so obviously imply about whether or not her father was planning to give his daughter a pony, especially if he had previously promised her one? Rather than explaining that there was a misunderstanding and that he had never intended to give her a pony, the father has confirmed his daughter’s hope by simply saying that the timing is not for her to know. In Acts 1:6-7, Jesus does the same thing with the kingdom promised to Israel.
Some have responded by insisting that Jesus redefines the promised kingdom in His very next statement: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). According to this view, the kingdom promised by Jesus is different from the nationalistic expectations of the disciples. Instead, the kingdom would be established as the Holy Spirit worked through the disciples as they proclaimed the gospel throughout the earth.
The problem with this view is that it still does not account for Jesus’ failure to correct the disciples. In the collective mind of the eleven, the question was not if, but when, and rather than setting the record straight, Jesus confirmed their understanding by saying that the timing was not for them to know. It seems more than a little naïve to think that Jesus’ simple statement in Acts 1:8 would have succeeded in redefining the kingdom in the disciples’ minds when 40 days of instruction and enlightenment had failed to do just that.
The words of Jesus in Acts 1:8 are perfectly compatible with the disciples’ view that the kingdom would be restored to Israel, and those words give no indication that a correction or redefinition was being offered. The disciples asked Jesus if now was the time (v. 6), and He responded by saying it was not for them to know the time (v. 7). However, their immediate objective involved something they could know, namely that the Holy Spirit would come shortly and empower them to be His witnesses to the nations (v. 8 ). As Saucy writes, “This was to be their immediate concern before the final fulfillment of their hope for their people Israel.”
According to Jesus, God the Father not only knows the timing of Israel’s restoration, but He Himself has fixed the day (Acts 1:7). This is reminiscent of Mark 13:32 where Jesus said that only the Father knows the timing of the Second Coming. The connection here is interesting, especially in light of the biblical teaching elsewhere that the restoration of Israel will coincide with the return of Christ, the Deliverer who will take away their sins (Romans 11:25-27). At this time, the nation will look upon the One they have pierced and embrace the Messiah, receiving the covenant blessings of a God who is faithful to keep His promises.
It’s not a matter of if, but when.
This is probably the strongest arguement used in Dispensationalism for a Jewish Kingdom. However, the kingdom Jesus had in mind was more than what the Jewish legends described. Basically, he told them to put away their Dispensational charts! Here is the letter I wrote to John MacArthur concerning his Shepherds Conference message on Israel and the Church:
Dear John:
I pray that you are doing well and the Lord keeps you daily with your busy schedule. Thank you for the Shepherd’s Conference CD and article. I won’t go into a long defense of my Eschatology or views on the Church and Israel because I settled this question about 20 years ago when I became Reformed. I do believe in a future plan for Jews as described in Romans 9-11 as you preached it from Romans. Many Reformed people do believe that God has an Election of National Israel for Salvation — they will come to Salvation in Jesus Christ through the Church. The Bible teaches it very clearly — I believe it. Enclosed I have sent you a very interesting article by Stephen Sizer on the “American Apocalypse” which gives an excellent critique of Dispensationalism. This was from the Plain Truth Ministries Magazine (www.Ptm.Org) which is not part of the Worldwide Church of God. With a few reservations on their Theology — they do have some good freelance writers. Let me also recommend Early Christian Writings by Penguin Books. The Apostolic Fathers have a lot to say about the Church and Israel — which shows that they understood that the promises of the Covenant were fulfilled in Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch especially. Not that the early Apostolic Fathers were free of error (they had much, but so do we), their understanding of Basic Theology is far from the modern Dispensational movement and the false dichotomy between Israel and the Church. I know you are a leaky Dispensationalist (Thank the Lord my ship sunk years ago LOL) and have not “swallowed” all the ridiculous interpretations and extreme literalism that is applied to the Old Testament prophecies. I brought this up with Taylor Jones (I love that man — Fine Christian!) on my question about the Asteroid impacts and the age of the earth. So, I really should of stayed away from this topic — but it so much illustrated my point about the extreme wooden interpretations using the so called “Literal-Historical” method of interpretation. Since I let Pandora out of the box, let me let her play for a bit!
When I interpret Scripture — I use the Literal-Historical-Grammatical method, just like you (In fact, I learned it from you)! I first go to the clear passages of the New Testament and then interpret the Old Testament images from known doctrine. Dispensationalists first go to the prophetic passages and always woodenly interpret literally prophetic passages and then make them doctrine. No system in Eschatology is perfect and I still have many questions — like the Millennial Temple in Ezekiel? Don’t understand it, but I know there is probably a reasonable interpretation somewhere. What is important to my Salvation — that I do understand — Praise the Lord!
I believe all the Covenants are fulfilled in Christ - not in the Jews. Galatians tells us that the promise is not to “seeds,” but “seed” — and that is Christ. It is unconditional — it is based on Christ’s work and not ours or the Jews. Here is the problem I have with Premillenial Dispensationalism (Historical Premillenialism is an OK position). Dispensationalists make a distinction between the Old Testament Church (Israel) and the New Testament Church. They assume that Israel was not redeemed the same way as the Saints in the New Testament. The fullness of the Holy Spirit is the unique aspect of the New Testament Church. Dispensationalists have the idea, which is false, that the Church is a “parenthesis” and the “mystery” that Paul speaks about in Ephesians is that the Old Testament Prophets never saw a Church age. The “mystery” that Paul was talking about is …that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body (not two entities), and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel…(Eph. 3:6) The “mystery” (too profound for words) is that both Jew and Gentile would be one in Christ! I urge anyone to read the History of Dispensationalism and the founder Darby — it is a rotten system of error and schism — and it keeps changing yearly! I was watching a 3 hour special on the “History Channel” on “The End Times and Revelation.” It got into many of the systems of thought on Revelation and spent a great deal of time exploring Dispensationalism and its history. I would rather read the Apostolic Fathers on their view of the Church than Darby, Scofield, Walvoord, Ryrie and Hal Lindsey. These “Rapture” series books by Tim Lehaye are more like Science Fiction Novels with ridiculous Bible exposition! Of course, John, I don’t put you in their company — You are a true man of God and still the best Bible expositor I ever heard. I love your ministry, and love you, more than words can tell. Like I said before, I settled this issue twenty years ago with intensive study — I reject Dispensationalism for these reasons:
1. It was not believed by the Early Church.
2. Israel is the Church in its Infancy — Pentecost is the fullness of the Church
3. Salvation has always been through grace and Faith in Jesus Christ
4. There are no distinct different Dispensations on how God worked with man and this “Does not rightly divide the Word of Truth.”
5. The Covenant of blessing was made through Abraham and His “seed” - not “seeds” (National Israel) — the “seed” being Christ.
6. There is no “parenthesis.” The Old Testament Saints and New Testament Saints were Saved the same way. The fullness of the Spirit was unique in the New Covenant. Old Testament believers were Saved the same way with the Holy Spirit.
7. No Eschatological system (Premillenialism, Amillenialism, and Post-Millennialism) is perfect in interpretation. I believe Revelation should be interpretive as an allegory and presents the Church from Christ’s First Advent to His Second Advent. I like William Hendricksen’s “More than Conquerors” Commentary the best on Revelation. I hold to a General Resurrection and Second Coming like the Bible teaches — I don’t see a “Rapture” for the Church and a Second Coming for the Jews.
8. All the Covenants have been fulfilled in Christ (Abrahamic, Davidic etc.) — Sorry John, I don’t buy all that land stuff and the “Millennial Zionism” that is being preached. I believe Christ is ruling now since his ascension and he doesn’t have to rebuild Jerusalem to sit on David’s throne! (You see the extreme literalism that drives Evangelical Fundamentalism). Based on Romans 9-11, there is an Election of Jews that will be Saved and then “all Israel will be Saved.”
This was not meant to be a polemic against Dispensationalism — I am just sharing quickly my understanding of Israel and the Church. I know you aren’t as extreme as some of these points I have made. I really think all this millennial madness in Evangelicalism should be targeted instead of the Reformed ministers — our understanding of Salvation and End times has been around much longer — and the Lord has used us to preach the truth. Of course we have many problems too — extreme pride, legalism, and God help us — Evangelism.
God Bless You John,
Wayne Sacchi
“look upon the One they have pierced”
This OT verse was fulfilled in John 19:37 I believe.
This was a very well balanced teaching. Very good thoughts to ponder.
I go back and forth with the nation of Israel. I lean toward the Church being the Israel of God,( Gal. 6:16; 1 Pet. 2:9;John 10:16), and yet there’s some fine teachings that show the other siide, like this one.
Thanks for sharing.
This argument is basically a “one would certainly expect” type of argument, which standing alone is a very thin reed. It’s more an argument from silence. The supports on either side of it are not so strong, IMO.
For example, Luke 24:45 can’t be viewed in isolation. In v. 44 Jesus explains that the context is “me.” IOW, he was opening their minds to what Scripture said about HIM, about his suffering and what it meant, about repentance and forgiveness of sins (vv. 46, 47). This context has nothing to do with Israel. And Jesus also said there was “power” yet to come on them (v. 49). This did not happen until after Acts 1, and we must conclude it was a power to interpret prophecy, for that is the first thing Peter does in Acts 2.
If one is to use the “one would certainly expect” argument here, one would CERTAINLY expect the Apostles, after Acts 2, to be teaching and preaching the land based promise for ethnic Israel ALL THE TIME. But they do not! No mention of it anywhere. “One would certainly expect” Paul to write about it somewhere in Ro. 9-11. But it’s not there!
Thus, it seems the “one would certainly expect” argument is actually fatal to the future kingdom for Israel theory.
JSB,
I disagree with you’re conclusion about expecting the apostles to teach about the land kingdom of Israel. While fulfillment of prophecy is very important, i.e. if God does not do what He says He will do, then He would be a liar, the apostles were obviously much more concerned with Christ and Him crucified. Preaching to Israel about the land God promised to them would in no way further the gospel message. One would certainly expect the apostles teachings to be establishing the church both from without (salvation) and from within (holy living), which is what we see.
Interestingly, Paul felt that the Lord’s second coming was so important that he taught the Thessalonians about it even though he was only with them for 3 weeks. Perhaps it is more important to ask why the Holy Spirit didn’t direct him to record those teachings for our posterity.
Thank you Matt for this article and for your book Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate that’s helped me so. This isn’t the “strongest argument” for me, just adds to the case. Maybe for me Jeremiah chapters 30-31 are the strongest. God says to tell the nations that “He who scattered Israel will gather him” (from Jer 31:10). Seeing as the Church doesn’t fit the first part, having been “scattered” by God, then it doesn’t make sense that it can be the Israel spoken of as being “gathered” either. And the context, such as in Jer 30:3, speaks of both “Israel” and “Judah” when discussing the restoration back to the land, which wouldn’t make sense if Israel was the Church, because then who would Judah be referring to? And it doesn’t really make sense that the “gathering” of Jer 31:10 could be some spiritual gathering of Jews into the Church either since the scattering was physical as was the land referred to. I truly can’t understand the lengths those attached to covenant theology tradition go to to deny the voluminous testimony of scripture regarding Israel’s restoration.
Ps 105:8-11:
“He has remembered His covenant FOREVER…Then He confirmed it to Jacob for a statue, to Israel as an EVERLASTING covenant, saying, ‘to you I will give the land of Canaan as the portion of your inheritance…’”
Wayne and JSB made some very good points here. I too find that the argument posted by Matt Waymeyer is based solely on silence. But what did Jesus actually say concerning the kingdom? In John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” This is what Jesus said to the thief on the cross when the thief said to Jesus (from Luke 23:42-43) Then he said to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom.” And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” Jesus answers the Pharisees question concerning the coming of the kingdom of God in Luke 17:20-21 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.” In Luke 13:22-30 Jesus taught this to the Jews concerning the kingdom of God, And He went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?” And He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open for us,’ and He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know you, where you are from,’ then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’ But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’ There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out. They will come from the east and the west, from the north and the south, and sit down in the kingdom of God. And indeed there are last who will be first, and there are first who will be last.”
I find what Jesus actually said concerning the kingdom of God is a lot different than what Matt Waymeyer seems to imply based on mere assumptions simply from the silence of scripture.
RandyT
Zechariah 8:23 “Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘In those days ten men from every language of the nations shall grasp the sleeve of a Jewish man, saying, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.” ‘ ”
I’m kind of ignorant on these prophetic matters but isn’t this speaking of a literal Jewish kingdom ruled over by Christ?
Now I’m confused…Are there 3 Salvation plans?
1, For ALL the Jews,
2. For ALL the Infants/Children
3. For the elect ONLY
And the rest goes to hell?
A few people have dismissed what Matt wrote as an argument from “silence.” I am not sure that is fair to what Matt actually wrote. He dealt quite patiently with Jesus’ response to the disciples question. The disciples asked a question, and Jesus answered it, and Matt wrote about both the question and the answer.
Instead of dismissing the question, answer, and Matt’s treatment of them as “silence”, I would like to hear an a-mil person deal with the content of the question, answer, or Matt’s piece, rather than dismiss it without comment.
Thanks,
Jesse
Jesse Johnson wrote “A few people have dismissed what Matt wrote as an argument from “silence.” I am not sure that is fair to what Matt actually wrote. He dealt quite patiently with Jesus’ response to the disciples question. The disciples asked a question, and Jesus answered it, and Matt wrote about both the question and the answer.
Instead of dismissing the question, answer, and Matt’s treatment of them as “silence”, I would like to hear an a-mil person deal with the content of the question, answer, or Matt’s piece, rather than dismiss it without comment.”
I believe that Jesus answer was that it was not for us to know, for this is how he began verse 7 “It is not for you to know”. If Jesus wanted us to know he would tell us. There is no reason for us to speculate here.
But what Jesus did want us to know is seen in John 18:36 “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”
RandyT
Both Old and New Testament authors, building and enlarging upon the expectations of their predecessors, worked in sequence towards an ultimate goal - the establishment of an ideal kingdom - the Kingdom of God on earth - to be ruled over by an earthly king.
The intent of the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke was towards the end of proving that Jesus of Nazareth was entitled BY BIRTH to sit on this throne. If he were not, they could not claim - and be believed - that the hoped-for Hebrew ‘messiah’ had come. The promise to Mary that her son would “sit on the throne of his father David” has not yet been fulfilled.
A popular misconception is that the apostles were expecting the immediate appearance of the Kingdom of God. The first disciples became Jesus’ followers in the belief that he was the promised Messiah, the great King who was to come. They were correct about the man but wrong in their assumption that the foretold kingdom was to be established immediately. Jesus corrected their assumption with the parable concerning a certain nobleman who went into a far country to receive a kingdom, and then returned. It is clear that Jesus did not expect to establish his kingdom until after he returned from that “far country.”
In speaking of the ‘last days’ the New Testament authors meant the last days of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant had arrived, and with it the invisible Kingdom of God, existing in the spirit of those who carried out the commandments of Jesus. The “last days” of the Old were thus the first days of the New.
The New Testament writers also proclaimed that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled all the expectations concerning this earthly king but in a totally ‘unexpected’ way, that the ’spiritual’ Kingdom of God was now in existence, but that Jesus would one day return to take up his rightful place as ‘literal’ King of Israel. “The Kingdom of this world has become the Kingdom of God and of his Christ” (Rev 11:15).
The Greek text of John 18:36 [he basileia he eme ouk estin ek tou kosmos toutou] translates as “My kingship is not of this world.” Only by examining the Hebrew standing behind the Greek of John’s gospel will we succeed in understanding the true meaning and emphasis of John’s “world.” In a number of texts, including 18:36, the Greek word ‘kosmos’ did not carry the meaning of a ‘physical universe’ but rather was based on the Hebrew expression olam-ha-zeh, olam-he-bah [the ‘present age’ contrasted with the ‘age to come]. The meaning of the ending of the verse then follows naturally “but now is my kingdom not from hence.” [ASV] See also 8:23 and 12:31.
John also clarifies his use of the word “world” in Chapter 2. “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.” (John 2:16-17)
At all times, the ‘Kingdom of God’ was an earthly kingdom to be ruled over by an earthly king.
@RandyT
I’ve heard John 18:36 brought up various times by those of the amill position, but still cannot understand the basis for the conclusions they draw from this text. Can you please clarify the following questions for me?
1)What in this verse or its context leads you to think that the physical kingdom promised by the OT prophets is somehow redefined or even referenced by this text? To me at least, it seems like you are making an argument from silence that contradicts previously revealed Scripture, whereas Matt’s conclusions from Acts 1 are consistent with previously revealed Scripture. Please help me understand where you’re coming from.
2) It seems like you are operating on the assumption that if a kingdom is not “of this world” (ek tou kosmou toutou) then it cannot be “in the world” (en tou kosmou). Jesus uses both phrases to refer to his disciples in John 17. They were “in the world” (John 17:11), but not “of the world” (John 17:14, 16). Can you provide the basis for making this assumption?
Thanks,
Massimo
Thanks, Matt. My Pastor has recently begun, what will likely become a 2-quarter class, on the Kingdom of God (and the eschatological implications of different interpretations)
I’m an avid student of theology (still a pretty new Christian though…this June will be 1-year), and this is one area of doctrine that I’ve been ignorant of for long enough.
Thank you for the thorough explanation of this particular argument. I’ve read quite a bit of material, overflowing with superficial and shallow arguments (from all sides); and, preparations such as this, are always a breath of fresh air.
Thanks again, Matt!
Kristine
If I was witnessing to someone who did not accept Christ or the NT, then would it be valid for me to attempt to convert them to Judaism in hopes that this “future restoration” happens within my lifetime?
Art,
A person could not accept the OT without receiving Christ when he came. That is the point of Jesus’ rebuke to the religious leaders in John 8. The Old Testament speaks of Christ, and points to him. If you believe that then, you submit to Christ.
John 5:46-47 f you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”
Jesse
Jesse
Massimo wrote “1)What in this verse or its context leads you to think that the physical kingdom promised by the OT prophets is somehow redefined or even referenced by this text? To me at least, it seems like you are making an argument from silence that contradicts previously revealed Scripture, whereas Matt’s conclusions from Acts 1 are consistent with previously revealed Scripture. Please help me understand where you’re coming from.”
I don’t quiet understand what you are saying here. Can you give me an example of what you are referring to. In my studying of eschatology I know that there are some people who believe that not all the promises of Genesis through Deuteronomy has been fulfilled concerning Israel. But this is contrary to what the word of God says. For in Joshua 21:43-45 says “So the LORD gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. The LORD gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. Not a word failed of any good thing which the LORD had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.” And Joshua 23:14-16 “Behold, this day I am going the way of all the earth. And you know in all your hearts and in all your souls that not one thing has failed of all the good things which the LORD your God spoke concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one word of them has failed. Therefore it shall come to pass, that as all the good things have come upon you which the LORD your God promised you, so the LORD will bring upon you all harmful things, until He has destroyed you from this good land which the LORD your God has given you. When you have transgressed the covenant of the LORD your God, which He commanded you, and have gone and served other gods, and bowed down to them, then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and you shall perish quickly from the good land which He has given you.”
Massimo wrote “2) It seems like you are operating on the assumption that if a kingdom is not “of this world” (ek tou kosmou toutou) then it cannot be “in the world” (en tou kosmou). Jesus uses both phrases to refer to his disciples in John 17. They were “in the world” (John 17:11), but not “of the world” (John 17:14, 16). Can you provide the basis for making this assumption?”
The New Testament, for example, Luke 17:20-21 Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”
RandyT
Jesse,
You said:
BOQ
A person could not accept the OT without receiving Christ when he came.
EOQ
The Pharisees and Sadducees did a pretty good job…as did the flourishing 1st century Jewish community.
You can accept the OT without accepting that it points to Christ….as the Jewish community has done for thousands of years.
The question becomes, “are they understanding it correctly?” To which the answer is “no” and which is the purpose of Christ’s rebuke.
And my question was not answered.
Randy,
Many of the land promises were post-Joshua. For example, Ezekiel 36 (especially verse 28), 37 (esp. verse 25), Jeremiah 30:3, as well as several passages from the minor prophets. These passages are all post Joshua.
Thanks,
Jesse
Randy,
The Joshua 21:43-45 verse you cited as seeming to support the position that the promises to Israel have been fulfilled not only struck me as inconsistent with other scripture that, as Jesse’s reply mentions, points to still future fulfillments, but also seemed outright contradictory with Judges 1:21 (”But the sons of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites…”), and the way I reconcile the Joshua verses with the overwhelming verses to the contrary is by taking it in this broader context and noting such points that even though land was given, man didn’t always do his part in possessing it (for ex the list in Judges 1:27 “But Manasseh did not take possession of Beth-shean and its villages, or …”)
Jesse Johnson,
If Ezekiel 37:25 gave a time of 1,000 years I would say that you have made a very good point here. Ezekiel 37:25 does tell us how long this will be, but it is not for 1,000 years as the pre-mill people are trying to tell us. How long is it?
Ezekiel 37:25 “Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children’s children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever.”
It is forever. Forever does not equal 1,000 years. Is there another explanation here. Yes, it can be referring to eternity when the new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven as we read in Revelation 21:1-8 ” Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”
Then He who sat on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” And He said to me, “Write, for these words are true and faithful.”
And He said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts. He who overcomes shall inherit all things, and I will be his God and he shall be My son. But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
This is exactly what Jesus taught in John 14:1-4 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
Randy,
Sorry I couldn’t get back to you earlier in the week–it got busy. Thanks for your reply. I didn’t want to leave you without any response. I think some of the questions regarding OT promises post-Joshua, if not all have been answered by Matt Weymeyer or Nate B on the 6/13 or 6/14 comments thread. I just wanted to understand a bit more of where you were coming from.
Thanks.
Massimo