As we continue this discussion, following the previous post on the announcement of the Kingdom, we are going to follow the disciples along their ministry with Jesus. We will trace the steps of the disciples, observing their questions posed to Jesus, and observing how Jesus responded. The Jews’ familiarity with prophecy and with God’s consistent method of fulfillment would have led them to form strong and justified convictions and expectations of the Kingdom and the Messiah. Our goal is to present, from the Scriptures, what would have led them to these expectations and then search for evidence leaning in favor of either the correction or confirmation of these expectations in the NT record.

In today’s post we will we give special attention to one passage in particular in Acts. In addition, beginning in today’s post and with subsequent ones on this subject, we will study the 20th proposition/section from The Theocratic Kingdom as we explore the Scriptures to find answers on this subject.

Prop. 20—"To comprehend the subject of the kingdom, it is necessary to notice the belief and the expectations of the more pious portion of the Jews."

Circumstances of The Age

From the intro to this section of The Theocratic Kingdom, Peters reminds us of some important things to bear in mind:

Modern systems of theology are erected in such an elaborate and systematic mode, a scientific and philosophical manner, that they are widely different from the simple and unscientific—yet purposely designed—treatment of doctrine in the Bible. The effect sometimes is, that the student, attracted by the elegance and magnitude of the superstructure of such systems, underrates the more rugged but firmer stones of the foundation in the Scriptures. Impressed by modern modes of thinking and the results of modern thought, he forgets to transport himself back to the ancient manner of thinking and expression. He lives in a world very different from that which existed when prophets predicted and disciples preached. This naturally leads to misconception and misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Hence it is, that the rule (which Horne, in Introd., justly remarks, is constantly violated by commentators and others) appropriately commends itself: “We must endeavor to carry ourselves back to the very times and places in which they (the Scriptures) were written, and realize the ideas and modes of thinking of the sacred writers.” (Prop. 20, Intro)

With the benefit of now having a completed revelation of the Word of God, we have formed our systems of theology. These systems, while well intentioned, often become a rigid filter that causes us to see only what conforms to it. These “superstructures” are so complex, that concepts so simply presented in the Scriptures (which we will soon discuss), are obscured as they’re forced to fit into these “elegant” systems. While systems of theology aid in our understanding of the Scriptures as a whole, helping us to be grounded in unchanging doctrine, they should never lead us to feel justified to undermine or ignore the interpretations and beliefs of those living in our Lord’s day and before. If one’s theology does do this, then there is something fundamentally wrong with it, since no new revelation overrules or reinterprets what God has declared to be—Even the law, a fundamental aspect of the prior age, which was always meant to point to something and someone greater, Jesus Himself said He did not come to abolish it, but rather fulfill it; it was not even overruled but rather consummated. In this same way, the Kingdom of God is not something to be abolished, transformed, or redefined. Considering all of this and the prior discussion, on the announcement of the Kingdom and the sending forth of the disciples and seventy men to preach it, Peters is absolutely correct in saying the following:

It is folly to suppose that we know the nature of that Kingdom better than they did, who were expressly commissioned to hold it forth as an inducement to repentance. If they were in error on so important and fundamental a point, it is unreasonable to suppose that Jesus would leave them in error, send them forth to disseminate error, and thus allow them, commissioned by Himself, to deceive the people. It is incredible, and yet if we are to believe eminent and good men, Jesus actually sent forth His disciples to preach erroneous doctrine! No gloss, however artful, no apology however skillful, can cover up this ugly feature in this supposed case; there it stands, boldly and defiantly presented by infidels, and prominently held forth even by many believers. Any theory, however plausible, esteemed, fortified by great names, which makes the first preachers of the Kingdom proclaim what they did not understand, preach what was an untruth—such a theory is radically wrong, and virtually, with all its profuse apologies, makes Jesus Himself the sender forth of false preachers. If the Kingdom is not that which they taught, what must we think of the instruction of Him who commissioned them? Thank God, the Word itself is consistent, and it repels a charge which human wisdom has foisted upon it in its blindness, in order to make out of the church the predicted Kingdom of God. Here is the difficulty: men judge these preachers under a misconceived theory, and consequently with prejudice. (Prop. 43, Obs. 2)

In his chapter discussing the announcement of the Kingdom, Alva McClain concurs with George Peters as he emphasizes the importance of paying attention to the time and circumstances when Jesus preached the message of the Kingdom:

In approaching this important body of Biblical material, it is possible for interpreters to forget that the stream of history never stands still, not even in the comparatively brief time-span of Christ’s public ministry. His teachings about the Kingdom, therefore, cannot be read with understanding apart from the constantly changing historical situation. This principle has been rightly stressed by scholars in connection with the great expanse of Old Testament history. It is no less important in dealing with the gospel records, when the very narrowness of the time increased the swiftness of the current. Hence we shall do well, not only to heed exactly what the incarnate King said about His Kingdom, but also to give careful attention to the time and circumstances when He said what He did.¹

In this discussion and the ones to follow we are going to heed these challenges. We will set aside preconceived notions and look at what is plainly stated in the Word. Let’s ponder the questions: Were the Jews and Christ’s own disciples in error for expecting a literal Kingdom on this earth, with the Messiah ruling over it as King? Did the Jews and disciples misinterpret the prophetic promises of the Kingdom, not understanding that the kingdom preached by Jesus, and the disciples themselves, contained some other meaning?—for we agree with Peters, looking back at the Kingdom announcement, when he states what should be done with further revelation of God’s purpose and plan:

Would it not be well to reflect over that which Peter tells us (1 Peter 1:10-12), and not hastily accuse those to whom things were revealed, and to whom the proclamation of the Kingdom was entrusted, as knowing nothing of the true nature of the Kingdom and its resultant salvation. We, having the advantage of additional revelations and fulfillment, know indeed more respecting the method of God’s procedure, the duration of the postponement, the manner in which the Kingdom is to be manifested, the events which are to precede and accompany it; but they, as well as we now can, knew the main, leading predictions concerning the Kingdom, correctly apprehended the great outlines, perfectly comprehended its nature and relationship to Christ—for all these were plainly given in the Scriptures, connected with covenanted promises and confirmed by oath. The difficulties of distinguishing between the First and Sec. Advents, . . . a smitten and triumphant Saviour, a crucified and exalted King, etc., did not, by any means, efface a scriptural view of the Kingdom itself. . . . for, if otherwise, then no satisfactory reason can be assigned for the extraordinary manner in which the New Testament opens, taking, as it does, a previous knowledge of the Kingdom for granted . . . (Prop. 20, Obs. 8)

We can now understand more clearly God’s purpose and plan, how Christ’s sacrifice relates to the Kingdom, to Israel, to the engrafting of Gentiles, and finally how this Kingdom will come. What many do is point to the non-fulfillment of the things expected and say, “Look! See! Their faith was misguided, their interpretations faulty, they misunderstood the prophets and the true nature of the Kingdom…” What could lead many competent commentators of the Word to make such an unwarranted and consequential claim? Surely, it’s because of their hasty conclusion that since none of the things expected and anticipated were fulfilled at Christ’s first advent, then they never will be. Therefore, if none of these things took place, despite them being set in stone in the inspired Record, then they must have been fulfilled in some other way, namely spiritually or allegorically. But see how we got here?—it’s circular. We’re forced to employ a spiritual interpretation based on a hasty conclusion; the Kingdom is spiritual because the events did not occur as expected, and the events did not occur as expected because they were to be interpreted spiritually. This rash conclusion is far too often taken for granted as fact, and, therefore, the theology that defends a presently established Kingdom fundamentally rests upon the arbitrary demand to spiritualize—this creates a self-serving interpretative framework, full of confirmation biases where anything can and will be made to agree with the conclusion.

Discussions With Christ

It is unfortunate that the loyalty to a system of theology can sometimes prove to be stronger than the loyalty to the undiluted teaching of the Word itself. Christian theologians, possibly without realizing it, are making it so evident that they are under the influence of their own system when they expound in their commentaries particularly on the beliefs and expectations of the Jewish faith, which inseparably includes the Lord’s disciples. The irony and fallacy is that the accusations of holding to “prejudices” and “biases” that these commentators make against the Jews, they are guilty of themselves—to reiterate Peters’ words from earlier, “men judge these preachers [of the Kingdom] under a misconceived theory, and consequently with prejudice.” As we have seen from the previous post, critics, often unbelievers, take advantage of the cracked foundation that modern Kingdom interpretations of the church are built upon (e.g. the theories accounting for the preaching of the Kingdom) and form their own destructive arguments against the Scriptures. In this discussion we are going to prove that the expectations of the Jews’ (and in later posts, the early church’s) faith are valid and stand yet to be fulfilled. In addition, we will show why the popular explanations given to account for expectations of the disciples are nothing short of damaging to the Word and to the reliability and intelligence of the people with whom the truths of the Kingdom were entrusted. With that being said, let’s now take a look at what’s recorded in the Scriptures

The Disciples’ Question

6 So, when they had come together, they began asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time that You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 But He said to them, “It is not for you to know periods of time or appointed times which the Father has set by His own authority
Acts 1:6-7

Alright, so what’s going on here? What is so significant about this short conversation between Jesus and His disciples?

Modern Eisegesis

Some of the most classic and timeless commentaries are genuinely oblivious to, intentionally ignore, or undermine the significance of this conversation, especially in consideration of the historical context and biblical narrative up to this point. For example, take the notable commentator Matthew Henry, who, in his exposition on Acts, make the following comment on the forty days spent with Jesus prior to this question in verse 6: “He instructed them more in the nature of [the Kingdom], as a Kingdom of grace in this world and of glory in the other.”

Where, I ask, do the Scriptures say Christ instructed them on a “Kingdom of grace”? Without explanation, Henry infers the type of Kingdom instructed to them within those forty days. Nowhere in this chapter of Acts—nor in the parallel context in Luke’s Gospel—do we find a description of the discussion as purported by Henry. We will show later in this discussion, contrary to this claim, how we can know what was discussed rather than make biased inferences. Immediately, this is evidence of his preconceived notions influencing his exposition. We find no such phrase, “Kingdom of grace,” in this passage, nor do we find the Apostles ever teaching a “Kingdom of grace” in the rest of the NT. In fact, their original goal and purpose of preaching, the very manner in which they preached the Kingdom, as it was in the days of Jesus’ ministry, i.e., the “gospel of the Kingdom,” ceases to be a part of their mission at this point. With one final reminder, Christ redirects their focus and mission to what the Apostles call a gospel of Christ and of God (Rom. 1:9, 15:16; 2 Cor. 11:7, etc…). Heeding Christ’s instruction during these forty days, the kingdom ceases to be their primary focus, for that they now know is to come at the appointed time—this becomes plainly evident from how the Epistles to follow always refer to the kingdom as something pertaining to the end of this age, not something currently being enjoyed—and now their mission is not a kingdom-Gospel, but one of teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ (Acts 5:42).

Continuing from Henry’s exposition, he makes the following comment on the disciples’ question in verse 6, saying, “Christ came to set up his own kingdom, and that a kingdom of heaven, not to restore the kingdom to Israel, an earthly kingdom.” Right here, Henry makes evident his own biased notion by failing to see that, as the disciples no doubt correctly understood, a), “His own Kingdom,” and the Kingdom restored to Israel, are one, and the Kingdom of Heaven was to come down in consummation on this earth, and b), Jesus’s very presence had already begun to bring that kingdom of heaven down onto earth with the intent to fulfill what had been previously spoken, hence the constant proclamations of its being near or at hand. In a blindness to their system, commentators who make these assertions forget that our Lord Himself taught these very disciples to pray: “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven“. (see next post about the Lord’s prayer).

Therefore, this claim grossly presupposes the meaning assigned to “kingdom” (see prior post) and makes such a sweeping statement, essentially putting oneself between the disciples and Christ, and providing an answer that Christ did not give. Then, continuing in Henry’s commentary, after accusing the disciples of holding to “prejudices of education,” Henry says, regarding their understanding of the prophets, “The disciples, having sucked in this notion with their milk that the Messiah was to be a temporal prince, were long before they could be brought to have any idea of his kingdom as spiritual.” Also, Alexander MacLaren, in his own exposition, similarly says, “They had not learned so much from the forty days’ instructions concerning the kingdom as to be free from their old Jewish notions.” Then, after chiding the disciples for believing that Christ could establish the Kingdom whenever He wanted to, says, “Our Lord does not deal with their misconceptions which could only be cured by time and events.”

If the Kingdom is not such as these Jews held it to be, who is justly chargeable with their error, if it be not the great Author of those prophecies? Every reflection cast upon the Jewish faith in this direction in fact recoils back upon the Giver of the predictions, seeing that on their surface is the meaning which led to the universal belief…His language, or the ideas conveyed by the same, involve the God directly, personally, and, therefore we cannot, dare not, believe that He will give a revelation that will, if the grammatical sense is received, lead into error. (Prop. 21, Obs. 3)

I believe this is precisely what George Peters is acknowledging when he says the following:

The Apologetics of the Church makes too many concessions to unbelievers respecting the Jewish and Primitive faith, and, alas, too many sneers . . . are cast at their “low,” “groveling,” “carnal” views of the Kingdom. Gentiles, in their self-approbation of position and favor, forget the caution given by Paul in Romans 11:20. . . . If they did make a mistake in their absorbing contemplation of the glorious Kingdom of the Messiah so as to overlook the antecedent humiliation, suffering, and death of the King, let not the man accuse them of ignorance concerning the Kingdom, which led to such a restrainment of prediction, when he today reverses their conduct by confining himself so much to the sacrifice that he overlooks the Kingdom. (Prop. 20, Obs. 8) 

With that, let’s now take an objective and close look at this passage in the first chapter of Acts. There are two very significant things that can be observed here. Both of the following will be further unpacked in this discussion:

• Down to the ascension of Christ, the disciples continued to hold to a literal interpretation of the prophets and understanding that the Kingdom pertained to the restoration of Israel.
• In Jesus’s response there is neither a rebuke nor a correction of their assumptions.

Let’s further examine the first point and unpack it into four observations.

Four Observations

1. Restoration of a Kingdom

The disciples expected a restoration of a Kingdom. The Greek verb used here is apokathistēmi which means to restore something to its former place or state. You cannot restore what has never existed. Thayer’s Greek Lexicon cites Acts 1:6 and defines this Greek word in this context as “of the restoration of dominion.” Also, the Vine’s Expository Dictionary defines it as follows: of the Divine “restoration” of Israel and conditions affected by it, including the renewal of the covenant broken by them (Matt. 17:11; Mark 9:12; Acts 1:6). No other “dominion” would be referred to other than that which Israel once experienced as a theocratic Kingdom set up at Mt. Sinai.

To this point, Peters succinctly writes,

It is universally admitted by writers of prominence (e.g. Neander, Hagenbnch, Schaff, Kurtz, etc.), whatever their respective views concerning the Kingdom itself, that the Jews, including the pious, held to a personal coming of the Messiah, the literal restoration of the Davidic throne and kingdom, the personal reign of Messiah on David’s throne, the resultant exaltation of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, and the fulfillment of the Millennial descriptions in that reign. It is also acknowledged that the utterances of Luke 1:71; Acts 1:6; Luke 2:26, 30, etc., include the above belief, and that down, at least to the day of Pentecost, the Jews, the disciples, and even the apostles held to such a view. It is not denied, by able Protestant or Romanist, Christian or Unbeliever, that they regarded the prophecies and covenanted promises as literal (i.e. in their naked grammatical sense); and, believing in their fulfillment, looked for such a restoration of the Davidic Kingdom under the Messiah, with an increased power and glory befitting the majesty of the predicted King; and also that the pious of former ages would be raised up from the dead to enjoy the same. (Prop. 20, Obs. 1)

2. A Kingdom Not Presently Established

In their question, the disciples make evident their understanding that no Kingdom was presently established. The same verbiage used here to indicate the future expectation of these things is also used by Christ when referring to His Kingdom to be established at his second advent (Matt. 19:28; Luke 21:31; 22:18, 30).

Peters, first referencing the forty days, also recognizes the futurity of the Kingdom in their question posed to Christ, saying,

The conversation between Jesus and the disciples pertaining to the Kingdom, and the question of the latter just before the ascension, most effectually disproves the assertions of eminent writers that the Kingdom was already established sometime in the ministry or life of Jesus (Prop. 56). The narrative given by Luke unmistakably proves that such theories are incorrect, since the apostles—hearers and preachers, and confidants—knew nothing whatever of such an already established Kingdom. Their preaching, instructions, etc., manifest that they had not even the most distant idea of such an important measure if it had really existed. It is impossible to credit such theories over against the direct testimony of men, who, of all persons living, were the most likely to know and express the truth. Strange that learned men and able theologians can find a covenanted Kingdom existing (even if it is one in the heart) during the ministry of Christ, when the apostles, at this most favorable period, were utterly unconscious of the same. (Prop. 69, Obs. 4)

3. A Kingdom Restored to Israel

In their question, the disciples expect this Kingdom to be a restoration of what Israel once experienced in relation to OT history and prophecy. In the massive “Bibelwerk” commentary by Calvinist theologian, Johann Peter Lange, it says the following regarding the Kingdom anticipated by the disciples in this question:

The Kingdom which is the object of their hope, is a kingdom of Israel, a theocratic kingdom, deriving its existence and reality from the Messiah, and intended to give liberty, greatness and dominion to the people of Israel, who were at the time oppressed by a heavy yoke.”²

This corroborates the argument that George Peters gives in his Prop. 68 that the Scriptures couldn’t make in any clearer that this is a Kingdom bound by covenant to Israel:

This follows from the Abrahamic, Sinaitic, and Davidic covenants; this is uniformly taught by the Prophets in associating and identifying the Kingdom with the nationality of the Jews; this again is confirmed by the election of the Jewish nation, the oneness of the Kingdom, the preaching of John, Jesus, and the disciples, the renewed covenant, the offer of the Kingdom, the engrafting of Gentiles, the rejection of the nation only until the times of the Gentiles are ended, the postponement of the Kingdom, etc. The whole tenor and analogy of Scripture sustain this position; and it is but a weak, unsatisfactory, inconsistent procedure to deny what is so plainly the burden of Holy Writ. (Prop. 68, Intro)

While it’s clear to whom the disciples expected the Kingdom to be restored, it’s necessary to add that the concept, that this Kingdom is a Kingdom promised to Israel, cannot be denied without denying the plain statements by our Lord Himself. When commissioning the men to preach the Kingdom, He gives explicit instruction to restrict the message to Israel alone (Matthew 10:5–6 & 15:24). Pondering why this is the case, George Peters writes,

For some reason, a decided and exclusive preference is given to the Jewish nation. Why is this? If, as persons now so confidently assert, there is nothing in being a Jew, a real descendant of Abraham’s, how comes it at this crisis, that, when the Kingdom is preached, express charges and admonitions are given to avoid the Gentiles? Simply and solely because by the promise made to Abraham, by their previous Theocratic relationship, and by their national adoption in the Davidic covenant, the Kingdom that was preached, viz.: the restoration of the Theocratic-Davidic, belonged, as per covenant, exclusively to them. It would have been a violation of God’s oath to have passed by these covenanted people and to have turned to Gentiles, with whom no special covenant was thus made. This procedure of John, Jesus, and the disciples, in accordance with sacred covenanted relationship (but the subject of ignorant and unbelieving ridicule), teaches a fixed, fundamental truth, which must by no means be overlooked, viz.: that the regular lineal believing descendants of Abraham—the nationality of David—with those adopted (Prop. 29) by them, were entitled, by covenant, to this Kingdom. Hence the Kingdom was preached to them—tendered to them individually and nationally, and it was left to their choice to accept of it or to refuse it, because it was also in the Divine Purpose to bestow it upon “a willing people,” to the descendants of Abraham and those adopted, who made themselves worthy of a Theocratic Kingdom by faith, obedience, and holiness. The offer of the Kingdom is not in violation of but in unison with free moral agency. (Prop. 54, Obs. 2)

Future posts may be dedicated to this point, but this reference to the beginning of Christ’s ministry is ample proof that Christ came to preach and fulfill the Kingdom as promised in His covenant to Abraham and renewed in David. The future engrafting of the Gentiles in order to become coheirs, and the partial hardening of Israel upon her unwillingness to receive the King, is consistent with God’s revelation that it was Israel to whom the Kingdom was promised and to whom it will still be restored, hence the reference to Israel in the disciples’ question.

4. Timing of the Kingdom

Lastly, this question shows that the single factor that they did not understand was not related to the fundamental aspects of the Kingdom—as we’ve discussed before that their knowledge of the Kingdom was taken for granted—but rather the time of its establishment.

In a commentary on Acts, the Scottish theologian, William Arnot, creates a beautiful analogy to emphasize the disciples’ eagerness for the establishment of this Kingdom, hoping it would commence in their lifetime, but also, unforeseen by them at this time, a necessary postponement:

When you look up to the sky on a clear night, and fix your eye on two stars shining near each other with equal brightness, they seem to your sense equally distant from the earth … Into the spiritual firmament these men of Galilee looked under the instruction of the Lord, but as yet they looked as children. They saw objects distinctly ; but they could not judge correctly of relative distances and magnitudes. The two objects were clearly set before them in the writings of the prophets and the words of Jesus,– these two, their own baptism with the Holy Ghost as with fire, and the restoration of the kingdom to Israel – the union of all nations under David’s sceptre in the New Jerusalem. The Master had now given them the distance of one of these objects : it was at hand – ‘Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.’ … It was natural that they should expect that the same bright particular star, which they had been accustomed to see shining side by side with it in the pure expanse, would approach also at the same time. Hence their questions, ‘Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?’³

Even George Ladd, who purported the dual-kingdom theory, found it hard to ignore the significance in this question. When commenting on this passage, he not only observes Jesus’s response—which is discussed later—but also that only the matter of timing is what was unaddressed: “Jesus did not answer with a flat denial that the Kingdom had nothing to do with Israel. Rather, he said it was not given to them to understand the full program of God.”⁴

It is also interesting to see the explanations given by commentators in George Peters’ day, particularly how Lightfoot handles the disciples’ question. From these, and the others we presented before, it is evident of a failing theology when commentators resort to unwarranted, unsupported, and damaging explanations for what appears to contradict their theology. The following is cited from the 56th proposition, where Peters systematically shows from Scripture that Christ did not establish the Kingdom during His ministry. In the second observation to this proposition, Peters highlights the fact that the disciples were only in error in expecting the Kingdom to commence immediately:

Commentators frankly admit the views of the apostles. Thus e.g. Bloomfield loci says that the word rendered “restore” “signifies properly to restore anything, which has suffered change, to its former state; and it is not unfrequently used (as here and in Matthew 17:11 and Mark 9:12) of restoring a ruined kingdom or government to its ancient form, and there is usually implied some improvement upon that.” He admits that the apostles “thought that Christ would then restore the Kingdom of Judea to its former consequence,” etc. Thus Barnes loci, Olshausen, and other commentators. To make this, as Lightfoot, a question asked in indignation against the Jews, as if it meant “Wilt Thou confer dominion on a nation which has just put Thee to death?” is so far-fetched and unworthy of serious consideration that our opponents—even Barnes, who quotes him—reject it, saying: “The answer of the Saviour shows that this was not the design of the question.” Dr. Increase Mather (The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation, p. 130) gives the general Millenarian interpretation: “Christ did not say to them that there should never be any such restoration of the Kingdom to Israel as their thoughts were running upon; only He telleth them that the times and seasons were not for them to know; thereby acknowledging that such a Kingdom should indeed be, as they did from the holy prophets expect. Herein was their error, not in expecting a glorious appearing of the Kingdom of God, but in that they made account that this would be immediately.” (Prop. 56, Obs. 2)

In Lange’s commentary, it also recognizes a) lack of rebuke or correction, and b) Christ’s reply only concerns the time issue—all of which would only further confirm the disciples’ expectations:

The answer of the Lord, which has been frequently, and, indeed, in some cases, grossly, misinterpreted, exhibits as much divine wisdom as human tenderness; it is intended rather to instruct than to rebuke. He does not deny them the privilege of asking, but only the right to know the times or the seasons which the father, who alone possesses sovereign power, has appointed.

Christ’s Response

No Rebuke or Correction

Now that we have dissected the question, let’s now look at the second point, the response: In Jesus’s response there is neither a rebuke nor a correction of their assumptions.

7 But He said to them, “It is not for you to know periods of time or appointed times which the Father has set by His own authority
Acts 1:7

We will soon trace the NT to show that leading up to this point just before the Ascension the disciples and other Jews never wavered in their expectations, making quite clear that they held to a literal interpretation of the prophets. If, as other viewpoints, e.g., in AM or PoM, would tell us, that this was a “carnal” or “prejudiced” understanding, that Jesus adopted only the spiritual elements and already established His Kingdom, then at this very moment recorded in Acts 1:6, how could Christ respond in the way he did? In the reply given, there is neither a rebuke nor a correction of their assumptions.

Peters remarks on a significant observation:

It is noticeable, that in all the rebukes given to the Jews by John the Baptist, by Jesus and the apostles, not one refers to their belief and expectations concerning the Kingdom. The rebukes pertain to their superstition, traditions, bigotry, hypocrisy, pride, ostentation, violation of duty, etc., but nothing is alleged that they misapprehended the Kingdom of the prophets in its fundamental aspects. This is indeed abundantly taken for granted by theologians, but without the least proof to sustain it. (Prop. 20, Obs. 2)

In consideration of their expectations and the circumstances surround this conversation, how could Christ, who is about to ascend moments later, leave His disciples without a final correction?

Recognizing the significance in Christ’s reply is Alva McClain who says the following regarding the lack of any rebuke or correction:

If, because of her sins, God was now done forever with the historical nation of Israel; if all her divine covenants were now to be taken away and given to the Church; if the throne of David was now to be transferred from earth to heaven; if the glorious utterances of the prophets are only “beautiful dreams” never to be realized in the reign of Messiah in a Kingdom on earth where all war and disease and injustice shall have been abolished; if the sickly cast of platonic dualism is now to be thrown over great areas of Old Testament prediction in which the brightest aspirations of humanity are divinely validated — how simple it would have been for our Lord Jesus Christ to have set the apostles right in a single utterance. But there is no record of such an utterance at this crucial point.⁵

Old Testament Exposition

Let’s now take a step back a few verses. What does Luke tell us the disciples were doing prior to this conversation with Jesus?

To these He also presented Himself alive after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days and speaking of things regarding the kingdom of God.
Acts 1:3

Contrary to Matthew Henry’s inference on the discussion that took place during the forty days, we are given insight to what truly did by Luke at the end of his Gospel. We are told in Luke 24:26-27 & 46 that Christ expounded the OT, showing how it testified about Himself and His suffering and future glory. Alva McClain calls this discussion an “exposition of the Old Testament testimony” and makes the following observation:

In this teaching, the fact of His resurrection became the connecting link between the suffering and glory, solving the mystery of a Messiah who must die for His people and yet who also must reign over them gloriously in a coming Kingdom. It was this vital connection that gave to the resurrection so prominent a place in the doctrinal preaching of the early chapter of Acts.⁶

Remaining only here in this first chapter of Acts, what have learned? Jesus spends longer than an entire month with His disciples, giving them a special lesson specifically on the Kingdom of God. After this period of forty days the disciples must have been more enlightened on the Kingdom than anyone on the planet! They then ask Jesus a question that, as unpacked above, makes quite clear that their expectations of the Kingdom of God were in line with the literal teaching of the OT. Considering this, it becomes obvious then why their question was, is it at this time. . .?, for they weren’t unlearned on what the Kingdom is to be, but at this point were probably even more eager than before to see the long-awaited Kingdom finally established.

Recognizing the unwarranted and rash accusations, found in some commentaries, of ignorance and misconceptions, Peters is absolutely correct in saying,

The death of Jesus took place; His resurrection occurred; He remained after His resurrection with those previously sent-forth preachers of the Kingdom “forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). It is exceedingly difficult to conceive, when the Kingdom was the principal topic of conversation, that if these apostles were still ignorant of the very nature of the Kingdom and Christ’s death was to be the medium for their enlightenment, some decided information to remove the alleged “error” was not granted to them during these forty days. The tenor of the narrative shows that in all their conversations respecting the Kingdom nothing was said that changed the faith of the apostles. They still held the belief that they had authoritatively preached . . . The reply of Jesus, as we already had occasion to observe, confirms their belief; for instead of rejecting their idea of the nature of the Kingdom, He takes that for granted as substantially correct, and only refers to the time when it should again be restored to Israel as something reserved by the Father, thus meeting the question proposed which related to the time. (Prop. 69, Obs. 3)

In Lange’s commentary, Lechler notes on Acts 1:7 the lack of rebuke, and instead a focus on the time of the Kingdom:

As to the fact itself, the coming of the kingdom, and as to Israel’s privilege with respect to the latter, they entertained no doubt; and the Lord was so far from disapproving of such an expectation, that he rather confirmed it by declaring that the Father had fixed the times. Now we know that neither a period nor an epoch can be affirmed concerning an event which is only imaginary—Those interpreters have altogether mistaken the sense, who maintain that Jesus here entirely rejects the conceptions entertained by his apostles respecting the Messianic kingdom, for this is by no means the case. He did not deny that either their expectation of the appearance on earth of his glorious kingdom in its reality, or their hope of the glorious future which that kingdom opened to the people of Israel, was well founded; he simply subdued their eager curiosity respecting the time, and directed their attention to the practical duties which they were to perform at the present period.

That this question posed by the disciples, and Christ’s reply to it, was one related to time, is in harmony with Christ’s prior teaching. Peters links this conversation to earlier in the Gospels, saying,

The exact time when the Father will give this Kingdom to “the Son of Man” is not revealed. Signs are indeed given in the fulfillment of predictions, etc., by which an approximative (comp. Props. 173 and 174) knowledge may be gained, but the precise time is reserved by the Father as something exclusively pertaining to Himself, Acts 1:7; Mark 13:32; Matthew 24:36. (Prop. 83, Obs. 8)

In agreement with Peters is Alva McClain⁷ who finds this same harmony which shows why Christ had no need to correct or rebuke the disciples, but only to answer their curiosity about timing. McClain recognizes that during Christ’s ministry, the one factor about the Kingdom left unrevealed was the chronology, and that prior to Christ’s death, Christ made clear three different things:

1. The Kingdom which is now rejected will be set up at Christ’s second advent (Matt. 25:31-32)
2. The time of the advent will be unrevealed (Mark 13:32-33)
3. Christ’s return is something to be looked for at any moment (Matt. 24:42, 44, 50; Mark 13:32-33, 35; Luke 12:40, 46; 21:36)

In the subsequent posts we will deal with the questions and concerns expressed by the Jews about the Kingdom, but it is necessary to point out that McClain’s observations are substantially corroborated by many of Jesus’ answers given to them and His disciples throughout His ministry. For example, we’re told that at one point when Jesus was in Jerusalem, the Jews thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately (Luke 19:11). In response to this, Jesus does not rebuke their expectation of a temporal Kingdom, but instead provides an answer that would actually confirm it, by way of a parable that corrects only their timing assumption, and reveals the interim period between His departure (Luke 19:12) and His return to establish the Kingdom (Luke 19:15). This parable would leave them with no reason to readjust their expectations other than their understanding of the chronology.

Change of Focus

As we’ve observed so far, Jesus answers His disciples, not with a rebuke of their expectations of the fundamental aspects of the Kingdom, but rather in a way to divert their focus from times and dates, onto an immediate, practical duty (Acts 1:8) until the King returns. McClain makes the observation on Acts 1:2 that Christ had given the disciples prior orders and commandments and that this is a reference to Matt. 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-18, Luke 24:46-49, John 21:15-17, & Acts 1:7-8. This is where the mission shifts from being Kingdom oriented to preaching salvation in Christ. McClain then adds that,

Having informed them concerning “the things pertaining to the kingdom of God,” an also as to His own place in relation to that Kingdom, He now outlines a definite program of action to be followed by His disciples during the interregnum until He returns to establish the Kingdom.⁸

Jesus “gathered up the broken ends of their energy, and fastened them to an immediate work”⁹; Jesus reminds them of their new duties; no longer is there an exclusive message of the Kingdom to the lost sheep of the House of Israel (Matt. 10:6), but now a call to preach Christ as far as the remotest part of the earth (Acts 1:8). Christ departs, and the Epistles that follow in the rest of the NT undoubtedly prove that the Apostles continued to expect and teach the prophesied earthly Kingdom as something to be awaited as an heir upon an adoption through the Christ.

Key Concepts

Recommended Sources

Kingdom Expectations & Disciples’ Knowledge

• Book: The Theocratic Kingdom (Prop. 20, 43, & 69)
  • In these three sections, George Peters exhaustively proves, with ample Scripture, how the disciples were never ignorant of the Kingdom despite so much commentary to the contrary.
• Book: The Greatness of The Kingdom by Alva McClain
  • Primarily in Parts 4 & 5: The Mediatorial Kingdom in Gospels, Acts, & Epistles (chapters 19-26)

1. McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God. BMH Books, 2018, p. 267
2. Lange, Johann Peter. “Commentary on Acts 1”. “Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical”. Acts 1:6. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/lcc/acts-1.html. 1857-84.
3. Arnot, William. The Church in the House: a series of lessons on the Acts of the Apostles. Robert Carter & Brothers, 1873, pp. 8-9.
4. Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974, pp. 332-333
5. McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom: An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God. BMH Books, 2018, p. 394
6. Ibid., 391
7. Ibid., 395
8. Ibid., 391
9. Arnot, William. The Church in the House: a series of lessons on the Acts of the Apostles. Robert Carter & Brothers, 1873, pp. 8-9.