# Restoring the Kingdom to Israel



## blhowes

Quite often when I attended dispensational churches I'd scratch my head and wonder how they arrived at their conclusions. What they saw clear as day just didn't jump out at me.

There are one or two passages that, when I read them, I can see how you might conclude that the kingdom was postponed to a future time. One of them is in Acts 1 where Jesus is interacting with the disciples:

Act 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 
Act 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 

The verses that follow talk about their mission at hand.

In verse 6, the disciples ask if Jesus was going to restore the kingdom to Israel at that time. His response in verse 7 sounds almost like he's saying, "not now, but it will be restored to them some time in the future at a time known only to God.

What do you think about these verses?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I've wondered that too. I think though you have to look at what Jesus taught about the kingdom previously to get at what the apostles were asking. I think what they probably meant was if Jesus was going to reign now on the throne of the kingdom of Israel, in otherwords establish the eternal fulfillment and realization of the kingdom on earth. Notice he gives the same answer as he does regarding his second coming, and regarding who would sit at his right and left hand, "it is not for you to know the times" and leaves it in the hands of the Father. Just some preliminary thoughts.....


----------



## BlackCalvinist

I believe that the kingdom's physical manifestation at a future time (during a literal 1000 year millennium) is what's spoken of here. Seems pretty clear from the text. Jesus just told them 'don't worry about that right this minute...let the Father handle that.' Seems like they had a 'hope' of a physical restoration of ethnic Israel.


----------



## blhowes

Anybody else have any thoughts about this passage?

I was reminded of this passage this morning as I listened to a tape from a Bible conference I attended years ago about the present reign of Christ. The preacher used this passage as a starting point.

The main point he made about this passage was that it wasn't so much talking about the 'when' of the kingdom as much as it was talking about the 'who'. The disciples knew that Jesus wouldn't be with them much longer, and that He would be giving authority to men. They knew that God reigns over all kingdoms of the earth and that in the past he had given authority to good men and bad men. They wanted to know if God was going to give His authority to these 'butchers' (the preacher's words) who were leaders in Israel now who had had Jesus crucified. "Are you going to give the authority to THEM!!" To which Jesus essentially says "No, I'm going to give it to you"

Agree? Disagree?


----------



## ReformedWretch

The disciples were anxious for and asking about what Jesus discussed in Matthew 19:28

Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


----------



## tcalbrecht

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> In verse 6, the disciples ask if Jesus was going to restore the kingdom to Israel at that time. His response in verse 7 sounds almost like he's saying, "not now, but it will be restored to them some time in the future at a time known only to God.
> 
> What do you think about these verses?



I believe Jesus did answer their question in all that followed.



> But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.



This was Jesus' plan for enlarging "Israel". As the gospel goes out into all the world, and more of the world's population is converted, then "Israel", the kingdom of God, is "restored". Not to its fleshly glory as under the old covenant, but to the true spiritual glory that was always envisioned by God. 



> They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord As the waters cover the sea. (Isa 11:9)



The apostles never again spoke of the physical restoration of Israel in the NT.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> The apostles never again spoke of the physical restoration of Israel in the NT.


 Excellent observation.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

The disciples are expecting maybe this risen Christ is _now_ going to throw out the bums--the corrupt rabble in power, and the Romans along with them, and set up an earthly kingdom. But Jesus is departing, and he's not telling them for how long. He does tell them to get busy in a specific way, and not in a political way either.

At this moment, the disciples still have on their culturally/ethnic, Old Covenant mindset. This is the starting point for these men, and for the church. The story of Acts (the rest of the book) is the fleshing out of Jesus' gentle rebuke, and the church's reorientation away from the ingrown, narrow nationalism of Jewish identity, to their new mission as ambassadors of Christ's worldwide dominion.

I actually don't trouble myself too much what someone thinks about a future kingdom--yes/no, how it might look, whether it is a golden age, or the new heavens and earth. The fact is that the dispensationalists and many others flat out ignore Jesus' command to do kingdom work right now. Because, to them this isn't the kingdom, just a parenthesis. "King Jesus isn't extending his kingdom today; he's just picking wild grapes. Later (maybe real soon!) he'll get back to giving pomp and splendor to the Jews."


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I always saw this passage as showing the ignorance and confusion of the Apostles, nothing more. They were expecting a physical kingdom, and God had a different plan.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> The disciples were anxious for and asking about what Jesus discussed in Matthew 19:28
> 
> Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.


Thinking through what you said, trying to understand.

When the disciples asked "Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel", "restore again...to Israel" sounds like the focus is national Israel, not on the apostles. Are you saying that what the disciples had in mind when they mentioned the word 'Israel' was spiritual Israel, as in:

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> This was Jesus' plan for enlarging "Israel". As the gospel goes out into all the world, and more of the world's population is converted, then "Israel", the kingdom of God, is "restored". Not to its fleshly glory as under the old covenant, but to the true spiritual glory that was always envisioned by God.


Any thoughts about how the time element figures in? 

Disciples question: "...Wilt thou at this time..."

Jesus' response: "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power."

It sounds like he's saying not to worry about when, its up to God. It sounds like at that time it hadn't happened yet, but will some time in the future. This idea would seem to leave the door open a smidge for the dispensational interpretation (when just looking at this verse by itself). Do you think the future time that Jesus tells them not to concern themselves with is Pentecost?



> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> The apostles never again spoke of the physical restoration of Israel in the NT.


Depending on what presuppositional presuppostions you bring to the Bible, some could argue that John spoke of it (Rev 20), as did James (Acts 15:16).


----------



## JohnV

In John 11: 52 the Word talks about Jesus' messianic ministry involving the making of all people into one new nation in Him.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> In John 11: 52 the Word talks about Jesus' messianic ministry involving the making of all people into one new nation in Him.


John,
With this in mind, what do you think the disciples had in mind when they asked their question?


----------



## ReformedWretch

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by houseparent_
> The disciples were anxious for and asking about what Jesus discussed in Matthew 19:28
> 
> Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking through what you said, trying to understand.
> 
> When the disciples asked "Wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel", "restore again...to Israel" sounds like the focus is national Israel, not on the apostles. Are you saying that what the disciples had in mind when they mentioned the word 'Israel' was spiritual Israel, as in:
> 
> Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
> Rom 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Click to expand...


No, I agree with this



> I always saw this passage as showing the ignorance and confusion of the Apostles, nothing more. They were expecting a physical kingdom, and God had a different plan.


----------



## Herald

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> The fact is that the dispensationalists and many others flat out ignore Jesus' command to do kingdom work right now. Because, to them this isn't the kingdom, just a parenthesis. "King Jesus isn't extending his kingdom today; he's just picking wild grapes. Later (maybe real soon!) he'll get back to giving pomp and splendor to the Jews."



Maybe it is because I have come out of dispensationalism and still have an empathetic heart towards those who are still in it, but I cannot help but take exception at your accusation against dispensationalists (that they flat out ignore Jesus' command to do kingdom work right now). I would like you to back up that claim. First, how do you define "kingdom work?" Is "kingdom work" different than living as we ought? Prayer, study, works of charity, true and undefiled religion (James 1)...are these different than "kingdom work?" You were very specific. You did not say "some dispensationalists", you indicted the whole. Do you really believe that all dispensationalists are off on some tangent and not serving the kingdom?

I am probably taking this personal. Forgive me if it comes across that way. I have become one of the harshest critics I know regarding dispensationalism. No one is more critical of a belief than one who has left it. I am sure many of my former dispensational brethren would agree with me. I know many dispensationalists who serve God out of grateful heart and who desire to see the kingdom here on earth. I fear that a caricature of dispensationalism has been created and all future comments about dispensationalism must fit the mold. That is a nearsighted view, In my humble opinion.


----------



## JohnV

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> In John 11: 52 the Word talks about Jesus' messianic ministry involving the making of all people into one new nation in Him.
> 
> 
> 
> John,
> With this in mind, what do you think the disciples had in mind when they asked their question?
Click to expand...


It doesn't seem important to me what the disciples had in mind. I have always assumed, though, that they were still thinking and hoping for what they had been taught to believe since they were children, that a messiah would come to return Israel to a literal Davidic kingdom, with the extent of Solomon's reign. But I have not ever thought that what they were thinking made any difference to the text itself. It seems pretty clear that Jesus had something else in mind, something greater.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Does Jesus' answer "leave a door open" for an earthly-kingdom interpretation? In a way, yes.

But notice what Jesus does not do: He does not tell the disciples _a single thing_ about the contours of the future. He just tells them to get to work. His statement about the "times and seasons" doesn't imply that there will be _necessarily_ a future kingdom, the likes of which had been a common Jewish dream since the glory days of David.

If the idea is wrong, why doesn't Jesus just correct them? In part, it is because the *hope* itself isn't wrong, but the expression of the hope is incorrect. And Jesus knows that with his departure, he doesn't want to leave them with the impression that, since he just popped their bubble, Christians should become _mystics_ for his spiritual kingdom.

And in part, he doesn't just spell it all out for them, because he has already told them a great deal, and all of it is still sinking in. And because he is addressing a more fundamental error on their part.

The thing the disciples wanted was to know the future (even if it was "just around the corner"). "At this time," is equivalent to "what's next?" And this is what people want all the time. "What is God's will for my life?" "Who am I supposed to marry?" In other words, they want just a little glimpse into the future, what the road ahead looks like. But seldom does God give that kind of disclosure of his _decretive_ will. Ordinarily he gives us his _prescriptive_ will.

So right here at the beginning of the church, God gives the foundation stones of the church, the apostles, the whole blueprint, plans, history of the church. Just dumps it in their laps, right? No. He tells them to get to work. And he even sends them an angel afterward to tell them, "Why stand ye here gazing? Get back to Jerusalem!"


----------



## Contra_Mundum

> _Originally posted by BaptistInCrisis_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> The fact is that the dispensationalists and many others flat out ignore Jesus' command to do kingdom work right now. Because, to them this isn't the kingdom, just a parenthesis. "King Jesus isn't extending his kingdom today; he's just picking wild grapes. Later (maybe real soon!) he'll get back to giving pomp and splendor to the Jews."
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it is because I have come out of dispensationalism and still have an empathetic heart towards those who are still in it, but I cannot help but take exception at your accusation against dispensationalists (that they flat out ignore Jesus' command to do kingdom work right now). I would like you to back up that claim. First, how do you define "kingdom work?" Is "kingdom work" different than living as we ought? Prayer, study, works of charity, true and undefiled religion (James 1)...are these different than "kingdom work?" You were very specific. You did not say "some dispensationalists", you indicted the whole. Do you really believe that all dispensationalists are off on some tangent and not serving the kingdom?
> 
> I am probably taking this personal. Forgive me if it comes across that way. I have become one of the harshest critics I know regarding dispensationalism. No one is more critical of a belief than one who has left it. I am sure many of my former dispensational brethren would agree with me. I know many dispensationalists who serve God out of grateful heart and who desire to see the kingdom here on earth. I fear that a caricature of dispensationalism has been created and all future comments about dispensationalism must fit the mold. That is a nearsighted view, In my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

OK. I'll accept the criticism. My comments are painting with a broad brush, maybe too broad. I should say that there are many _dispensationaists_ who are nevertheless good Christians, and function and behave like Christians should in the world. I do wonder, sometimes, whether that is not in spite of their theological committments. History is serving a purpose, and it is not just to provide a "soul harvest" for a future _kingdom._

In reply, let me ask: Do disp. believe (generally) that Jesus "offered the kingdom" to the Jews, and it was rejected? And that _that same kingdom_ will, in essence, be offered again, or come again in the 2nd Coming? If so, then is there a "kingdom" in operation now? If there is in whatever sense claimed, isn't working for _it_ in a real sense different from _advancing_ "THE kingdom", the one that is yet to come?

As I understand disp. belief, what going on now is really no more than kingdom prelude, by saving souls populating a future kingdom. As far as this world goes, well "You don't polish brass on a sinking ship" (real quote). Sanctification, where it gets much mention, deals with the inner soul, its a personal thing; when we see it on the outside, that's good too. But there are no predictable "effects" of individual or collective sanctification, that are inherently _meaningful._ Because in disp. thought, _that's not kingdom._

Please correct me on any point where I have misrepresented disp. as a theological system. I do not want to heap abuse on individual adherents to this system, who are (thankfully in my view) inconsistent, or who's contributions to THE Kingdom, will surprise even themselves in heaven--and beyond.


----------



## Herald

> Please correct me on any point where I have misrepresented disp. as a theological system. I do not want to heap abuse on individual adherents to this system, who are (thankfully in my view) inconsistent, or who's contributions to THE Kingdom, will surprise even themselves in heaven--and beyond.



First off, thank you for accepting my criticism well. I am often guilty of sweeping with an equally broad brush and it is a habit I must be diligent to overcome.

In my initial response to your post I was clear to point out that I am a former dispensationalist and have become a leading critic of dispensational theology. One of my most frequent beefs with dispensationalism is its decentralized nature. Who speaks for dispensationalism? I dare say no one and everyone. There are many rank-in-file dispensationalists who truly have no idea about what they believe. They will tell you that they are waiting for the rapture, but secretly many of them do not believe it. And while the "Left Behind" series was best-selling grade "B" fiction, too many people actually derive their eschatology from it. These are just some of the problems I have with dispensationalism as a theological system.

That said, whether it be of purpose or ignorance there are many in the dispensational camp who serve our Lord in a manner (as you put it) that is inconsistent with dispensationalism. Like you, I thank God for that. I am reminded of the words of Paul:

_Philippians 1:18 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice, yes, and I will rejoice. _


----------



## ReformedWretch

> As I understand disp. belief, what going on now is really no more than kingdom prelude, by saving souls populating a future kingdom. As far as this world goes, well "You don't polish brass on a sinking ship" (real quote). Sanctification, where it gets much mention, deals with the inner soul, its a personal thing; when we see it on the outside, that's good too. But there are no predictable "effects" of individual or collective sanctification, that are inherently meaningful. Because in disp. thought, that's not kingdom.



As a former hard core dispensationalist I must say Bruce that what you wrote sounds absolutely correct.


----------

