The Narrow Path Ministries

Isaiah 11:11-12
In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt, from Cush, from Elam, from Babylonia, from Hamath and from the islands of the sea. He will raise a banner for the nations and gather the exiles of Israel; he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth.

If I understand your position correctly, all O. T. references to the regathering of Israel pertain to the regathering from Babylon which began around 537 B.C under Sheshbazzar with 2 subsequent migrations during that period.

How would you then interpret Isaiah 11:11,12? If a second regathering of the Jews to the land of Israel is not spoken of in the O. T., then these Scriptures would be the most difficult to defend against for 2 reasons:

1. The reference to “a second time”. Assuming the first is the regathering from the Babylonian captivity.

2. The reference to “scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth”. Even if we do not take “the four quarters of the earth” literally, this does suggest a much more extensive geographical area than Babylon.

I would appreciate your thoughts on these Scriptures. Thanks

Throughout Isaiah, and the books of the prophets generally, there are numerous passages about the age of the messianic kingdom. Some of these passages mention and focus on the Messiah Himself, others just describe the features of that age, and some of them, like Isaiah 11, include both. There can be little reason to doubt that it is invariably the same age that is described in all of these passages, though each passage contains its own selection of features from a common pool. The most common characteristics of these passages are the mention of universal peace and prosperity, a highway established for the return of pilgrims to Zion, the justice of the Messiah's administration, the rejoicing of God's people, and the subjection of the Gentiles. There are other features of the messianic age that occur in such passages, but these seem to be mentioned more frequently than most.

One of the themes common to many of these descriptive passages is the idea that God will bring about another "exodus." Images of escape from Egypt and crossing the parted sea dry-shod are sometimes used in these descriptions. Also, predictions of the fall of Babylon and the return of the exiles to Jerusalem often blend into descriptions of the glories of the messianic age (this is very common, for example, in Jeremiah and Ezekiel). Both the Exodus and the return of the exiles from Babylon provide prototypes of a greater salvation that the prophets foresee coming with the advent of Messiah.

The great controvery between premillennial and amillennial interpreters of the Old Testament focuses very largely on the question of the fulfillment of these "kingdom-age" passages. Both camps agree that the age in question requires the advent of Christ for its establishment. The question is whether it is the first or the second coming of Christ that brings these things into reality. If the first, then the kingdom passages are describing the present age of the Church, the effects of Christ's first coming; if the second, then it describes an age to be inaugurated by the second coming, usually identified with a future millennial kingdom.

Another aspect of this controversy is just how literally these passages are intended to be understood. Are they speaking precisely and literally, or are they expressing something through the use of symbolic language?

The premillennial view applies these passages to the future millennialism, to be brought about by the second coming of Christ. They (especially the dispensationalists among them), take the language as literally as possible. The amillennial view, following the example of the New Testament writers and the historical church, spiritualize the passages and apply them to the age established at Christ's first coming.

If it seem disingenuous for me to say that the New Testament writers universally applied these passages to the church age, I would simply invite anyone skeptical about this to note every case in the New Testament in which such passages are quoted. You will find that the writers, without exception, cite these passages in order to establish some point about the present age. It was my noticing this, thirty years ago, that started me on my journey out of dispensationalism, and eventually into amillennialism.

Isaiah 11 is a great place to observe this phenomenon. It begins with the Messiah springing up as a Branch out of Jesse's roots (Isaiah 11:1). This is a clear reference to the first coming of Christ, since He will not spring out of His ancestors' roots at His second coming.

Then we read of the Spirit of the Lord resting upon Him (v.2). The same detail is mentioned in Isaiah 61:1, which Christ quotes as being fulfilled during His earthly ministry (Luke 4:18-21).

Isaiah then tells of Christ's character and discernment (v.3) and of His championing the cause of the poor and downtrodden (v.4). One needs only to read the Gospel accounts in order to see the fulfillment opf these things. Some may have trouble with the clauses in v.4: "He shall strike the land with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked." This is a figurative reference to the impact of His preaching, as seen in the use of similar imagery about the Old Testament prophets: "Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets. I have slain them by the words of my mouth" (Hos.6:5). Paul refers to himself, in his pre-conversion period, as being "slain" by the word of God (Rom.7:11).

Isaiah 11:6—9 describes idyllic peace between the former enemies, Jews and Gentiles, using the common Old Testament imagery of the Jews being God's flock and herd, and the Gentiles being likened to predatory animals that prey on domestic creatures. The language of verses 8 and 9 is echoed in Luke 10:19, where Jesus applies it to His disciples presently having authority over the demonic powers.

The gathering of the Gentiles to Christ is then mentioned in Isaiah 11:10-12, which Paul quotes in Romans 15:12, and applies to his Gentile mission. Also the remnant of Israel and Judah are gathered in the same period—the church age (Isa.11:12). This gathering is not geographical , but spiritual. In the previous chapter, Isaiah has mentioned this returning of the remnant "to the mighty God" (Isaiah 10:21). A chapter earlier, Christ is called "the mighty God" (9:6). Paul quotes the Isaiah 10 passage and applies it to the present salvation of the remnant of Israel, who have come to Christ (Rom.9:27).

Isaiah 11:13—16 uses the common Old Testament device of naming ancient enemies of Israel as representative either of Gentiles generally, or of the spiritual enemies of the saints. The mention of the Philistines, Edom, Moab and Ammon (v.14), for example, cannot be literal, since these ethnic groups and their nations have passed from history in pre-Christian times. The passage is most likely a stylistic prediction of God's people being vindicated and victorious over their enemies, whether physical or spiritual.

The "highway" motif appears in Isaiah 11:16; 35:8; 40:3; and elsewhere. It is a common feature in these kingdom passages. We need not speculate about the time of its fulfillment. The New Testament is explicit in declaring that the building of this highway began with the preaching of John the Baptist (Isaiah 40:3 is quoted to this effect by all four Gospels).

Thus it is demonstrable beyond any reasonable doubt that the New Testament writers saw this chapter as predicting the age of the church, in which they were living. What is true of Isaiah 11 can as easily be shown to be true of most of the other passages of the same sort in the prophets. No New Testament writer ever applied any of these passages to what we call "the end times."

To get to your question directly, the "second time" of regathering, mentioned in Isaiah 11:11 is not presupposing the gathering from Babylon as the "first time." When Isaiah wrote this, there had been no previous mention in scripture of the Babylonian exile, nor of the subsequent regathering. Isaiah's audience would not have had any frame of reference for thinking of the "second time" being subsequent to a regathering from Babylon—but there was a historical precedent that would have occurred to them immediately.

In the context, it seems clear that the "first" gathering of His people from foreign oppression was the Exodus itself. From the vantage point of Isaiah's generation, this would be the only historic referent that would make any sense. Besides, a few verses later, Isaiah tells us that the previous gathering was the exodus—"...as it was for Israel in the day that he came up from the land of Egypt" (v.16; the previous verse mentions crossing "the Sea of Egypt...dry-shod").

The "second" exodus is, of course, our salvation. Moses and Elijah, on the mount of transfiguration, discussed with Jesus "the exodus that He was about to accomplish in Jerusalem" (Luke 9:31). Paul likened our salvation to the Israelites' crossing the Red Sea (1 Cor.10:1-6), and there are many other evidences that the New Testament writers saw the cross and the resurrection of Christ as fulfilling the typology of the exodus (e.g., 1 Cor.5:7).

Thus there is no mention here of either the gathering of the Jews from Babylon, in 539 BC, nor of another gathering of the Jews in the end times. It is a reference to the first and second exoduses—the second of which is the exodus of all God's people, Jews and Gentiles, from all nations on earth, out of the bondage of sin and into the kingdom of the Messiah—the new Zion (Heb.12:22-23).

Thank you for your thoroughness in addressing this issue. One thing is clear to me, Christians have been historically guilty of minimizing the completed work of Christ and attributing too much to a future period. Like Martha we eagerly affirm “I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day.”, and miss what He has already done and can do in the present age.

So it is clear to me that the Scriptural evidence for the re-gathering of the Jews to the land of Israel in the 20th Century is non-existent. However, it cannot be ignored that God has had a providential hand in allowing the rebirth of the nation in 1948 and has preserved it through ongoing threats. In saying this, I in no way condone any injustices that have been done to achieve these objectives. If the Lord were truly in control of this situation, I believe His solution would involve Semetic brethren dwelling together in unity (e.g. Isaiah 11:6), which is not likely to occur in this present (fallen) age.

If I may pose one more follow-up question on this issue. How would you view the re-gathering of the Jews to the land of Israel? Do you see any prophetic relevance to these events? For one, it has provided a refuge for Jews who have been displaced from the former Soviet Union and an opportunity to hear the gospel. Through the efforts of the Messianic community in Israel, many (though still a relatively small remnant) have come to faith. So in this, I see the present political configuration as serving God’s purposes.

I agree with your comments above completely. As for your question about God working out His purpose among the Jews who have regathered in modern Israel, I have no doubt that He is doing so, as I believe that God is working in every significant geopolitical development. I don't know if the re-establishment of Israel as a nation will promote the salvation of the Jews, ultimately, or not. I know only that God is sovereign over nations and rulers, and that He wants all the Jews (as well as Gentiles) to be saved. I do not necessarily see, however, the fulfillment of any specific predicted purpose in this re-establishment.

If the Jews, by obtaining their sovereignty in 1948 could have guaranteed for themselves a just and secure society, such as would prevent any future holocaust, I might see the establishment of modern Israel as an unmixed blessing...though earthly security might rather disincline them, not incline them, toward considering Christ as their Messiah. Unfortunately, not all that they do would stand the ethical scrutiny even of Moses and their own prophets, and the people living in the land are far from secure. The outcome of all of this remains to be seen, and is not (in my opinion) predicted anywhere in scripture.

Steve, thank you for your extremely thorough reply. It took your verse-by-verse explanation of the amillenial position as regards Isaiah 11 to help me to understand where that position is coming from and whence it derives its support.

I disagree, but I respect your well thought-out arguments quite a lot. Let me show you some things that you may find interesting in this regard.

The Old Testament prophets, as you've shown, often used so-called "Messianic symbolism" in their prophecies. These prophecies can't always clearly be assigned to end-time events, or even (sometimes) to events describing the first or second coming of Christ. Rather, they might be referring to other, totally separate historical events. (For instance, Cyrus was described as a type of the Messiah in Isaiah 45:1. Right?)

The prophets also used apocalyptic symbolism in the same way. Sometimes it clearly referred to the end-time, and sometimes it was a reference to a historical event such as the destruction of Jerusalem. Jeremiah 4:22-28 talks about the destruction of Jerusalem as a sort of 'Creation in reverse,' for example.

Here's an interesting question. Why would the prophets do this? What was the purpose of setting near-term historical events on the same level as the coming of the Messiah and/or the end of human history?

This comes directly from a proper understanding of Old Testament symbolism, actually. I've been making a study of it for several years now, and I've come to some very fascinating conclusions. I'd like to share them with the readership here.

As I'm sure you're aware, there is an orthodox Jewish belief in a 7000 year span of human history. They derive this from a figurative interpretation of the Creation week in Genesis 1-2. Now, given what I've just explained above concerning how the prophets talked about historical events, I'd like you to read the following article. It's written from a Jewish perspective but I think they're seriously on to something.

The Two Creation Stories in Genesis

To briefly sum up, the biblical writers often used what's called a chiasmus - a way of structuring the text for ease of memorization, chanting, or as a means of clarification. When the bible was first written, very few people had a copy of their own. So, they had to settle for memorizing the text, often by singing parts of it.

A good example of a chiasmus is found in Genesis 6:22:

A - Thus did Noah
B - according to all that God commanded him
A' - so did he.

As you can see, A' is a parallel of A. Chiasm (the plural of chiasmus) can be written inverted, e.g. A - B - A' as above; doubled inverted, e.g., A - B - B' - A'; and repeating, e.g. A - B - A' - B'.

According to the article above, THE WHOLE OF GENESIS 1-3 IS AN INVERTED CHIASMUS WITH THE SABBATH DAY AS THE CENTRAL POINT OF EMPHASIS.

If one looks at the text in that fashion, then we begin with darkness and end with exile from the Garden. So, it would make complete and perfect sense that Jeremiah would talk about the exile from Babylon in terms of 'Creation in reverse.' That's literally how the Creation account is structured! There's the "good" part, leading up to the Sabbath, and the 'backwards' part, ending with the exile.

So that explains why the prophets would talk about historical events in terms of apocalyptic, 'Creation in reverse' symbolism. But what about the symbolism of the Messiah?

It gets even better here. Genesis 3:14-15 was, indeed, anciently understood to be a reference to the Messiah. But they didn't understand the passage in just that sense. They also looked at it collectively. In other words, the descendants, plural, of Eve would crush the descendants of the serpent. The Dead Sea Scrolls referred to them as the "sons of light" versus the "sons of darkness." The Jews today often look at it collectively and spiritually. The descendants of Eve - referring to Israel - figuratively crushing the head of the serpent which represents the Evil Inclination within us. One can just as well look at it singularly and spiritually as well. Jesus, as the Messiah, will not only defeat Satan literally, at the time of the end. He's also already defeated Satan spiritually, by overcoming sin in the flesh.

A messiah - an "anointed one" in Hebrew - is thus basically an overcomer, both outwardly and inwardly. Kings, priests, and prophets in ancient Israel were anointed as a type of the Messiah that they foreshadowed, but they were anointed to symbolize their ability to overcome. Naturally, they didn't all measure up! But that was what they were being called to do.

Now, to reconnect this back with the Creation account, the earth rising up out of the water was meant to symbolize the 'birth' of the world, as it were. In the same way, a baby is born out of 'water' in the form of the amniotic fluid of the womb. The "light" on the first day of Creation was literally the Holy Spirit lighting up like a star (I can clarify the details on this later, for the sake of brevity). In the same way, a baby receives physical life via the Holy Spirit when it takes its first breath at birth. We already understand people to receive spiritual life at baptism. This is just the other half of the coin.

You can probably already see where I'm going with this. The Star of Bethlehem was likewise a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, specifically intended to herald the birth of the Messiah. When the Holy Spirit lit up on the first day of Creation, it was heralding the birth of the Messiah even then! (Corruptions of this can be seen in some of the ancient cultures in the Middle East. They simply copied and twisted the knowledge that was understood by Adam and his descendants, coming out of the Garden of Eden.)

In Isaiah 7, there's an obscure reference to this in verse 11 where the Lord says to Ahaz to "ask a sign ...either in the depth, or in the height above." This is talking about the waters of Creation - the "depth" - and the heavenly appearance of the Holy Spirit - the "height above". In Isaiah 9:2, we see this heavenly sign appearing to herald the birth of Isaiah's son Immanuel, who foreshadowed the Messiah.

To get back to Isaiah 11, now try comparing this with Creation symbolism. In verse 1 we have a Rod growing out of the stem of Jesse, parallel to the righteous descendant of Adam and Eve. The Spirit of the Lord rests upon Him, just as it lit up to herald the Messiah at Creation and was then breathed into Adam's nostrils. Verses 6-9 refer back to the creation of the animals, using them to symbolize the other nations that came into existence before Israel (representing Adam) did. Verse 9 particularly harks back to the earth rising out of the waters of Creation, which are also symbolic of baptism. Verse 10 mentions the "rest" of the Lord, tying in directly with the Sabbath rest of Creation. Then we see a reference to the regathering of a remnant, which completes the cycle of history beginning with Adam's exile from Eden, from the presence of God.

The Philistines, Edom and Moab are parallels with the descendants of Cain. As it says in Genesis 4:15, Cain would be revenged sevenfold if he were to be murdered. What God was saying about Cain wasn't anything other than an explanation of the natural consequences of how Cain would act in the world. He and his descendants would act with violent hatred and revenge towards others. (Also compare Gen. 6:13.) This is exactly what the terrorists are doing today!!

To conclude, even if Isaiah 11 can be shown to apply in type to Christ's first coming - or even to any other historical event such as the return from the Babylonian exile - it's ultimately a reference to the apocalyptic end of history because it's completing the cycle of history which began at Creation.

Does that not make perfect sense?

Damon

Hi Damon,

Thanks for sharing these insights. They are interesting and sensible. I know that a prophetic passage may have layers of meaning, and that sometimes an historic fulfillment may serve as a type of a later fulfillment. How often this is the case, I cannot tell.

If the New Testament identifies a second fulfillment of a prophecy that seems to have been previously fulfilled in history, then we have an indisputable case of the above phenomenon. When the New Testament does not do this for us, we are left to speculate about the possibilities.

I am not sure of any Old or New Testament passages that would apply the material in Isaiah 11 to a future situation at, or just before, the second coming of Christ, but there may be meanings there that have not been specifically identified for us by the biblical writers. If this is so, I suppose, we will only know about it for sure by the event itself.

Blessings!

Thanks Steve, I've just begun a study throught the book of Isaiah. I'm trying to cross-reference every New Testament quotation and see how the apostles applied them. I'll take on board everything you've said above and I'd like to consider every single reference you have given. Alot is going to depend on whether the NT requires us to understand these prohecies as not having a future, literal fulfillment. As a result, it's gonna take me some time so bear with me!

Just one quick-ish thing. I've been taught (I think wisely) to understand any scripture in the way in which the original audience would have understood them. You seem to affirm this when you say:

When Isaiah wrote this, there had been no previous mention in scripture of the Babylonian exile, nor of the subsequent regathering. Isaiah's audience would not have had any frame of reference for thinking of the "second time" being subsequent to a regathering from Babylon—but there was a historical precedent that would have occurred to them immediately.

In the context, it seems clear that the "first" gathering of His people from foreign oppression was the Exodus itself. From the vantage point of Isaiah's generation, this would be the only historic referent that would make any sense.

But looking at Isaiah 11, if we agree that the exodus out of Egypt was the historical antecedant (which seems at least likely) then does it not seem reasonable to say that the contemporary audience would have been anticipating an event of a similar nature? i.e. would they not have uderstood Isaiah to have been saying that...

- the prophecy was literally about the literal Jewish people
- the Jews would be 'sown' (placed/taken) into the actual lands mentioned (the lands still exist even if some of the nations may not)

Also, would the orignal audience have understood Isaiah to have been predicting that...

- the literal Jews would literally be taken from out of these lands and then brough back into the literal land of Israel
- the literal Jews would enjoy military victory over literal Gentile nations (btw - About the extinction of these nations - don't forget that Herod was an edomite. But even if we allow that these historic enemies of Israel were being used symbolically - is it not reasonable to suggest that Isaiah was speaking about (literal) nations who would be enemies of Israel?

Or would you say that the language Isiah uses was deliberately written in such a way so the original audience would not understanding him?

It is not necessary to believe that the Jews to whom the prophets spoke would have understood the prophecies correctly. In fact, among the Jews, the rabbis had quite a variety of interpretations of most of the kingdom/messiah perophecies, so that they could not all have been right—though they could all be wrong.

The woman at the well, though a Samaritan, had the correct attitude: "I know that Messiah is coming. When He comes, He will tell us all things" (John 4:25). This is true. To the crowds of Jews, Jesus spoke only in parables that they could not understand—just as they did not understand the prophecies of the Old Testament (Acts 13:27). However, "when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples" (Mark 4:34).

God was not obligated to give an understanding of His plan to the Jews who would reject His Messiah. However, to those who received the Messiah (which all were obligated to do, but most didn't), "He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the scriptures" (Luke 24:45). This special endowment would hardly have been necessary, had the Jews in general already understood the scriptures correctly. However, according to Paul, with those Jews who reject Messiah, "the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ" (2 Cor.3:14).

It should be remembered that everything God said through the prophets was in poetry, which, in itself, indicates the need for caution in applying a literal hermeneutic. So unclear were these predictions to the average Jew that even the prophets themselves did not understand their own meaning—as Peter tells us:

"Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering..." (1 Pet.1:10-12)

Why didn't the Jews understand the meaning of these prophecies? Because the meanings were spiritual, not literal, and "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14).

Therefore, the Jews, for example, understood the prophecy about Elijah (Mal.4:5-6) to be about the literal Elijah. Jesus, by contrast, told the people, "If you are willing to receive it," John is Elijah who was predicted to come (Matt.11:14). Why would they not be willing to receive it? Because it was a spiritual truth, and the natural man does not receive such things.

When we study the way in which the New Testament writers (spiritual men) interpreted Old Testament scriptures, we will find that they always spiritualized the kingdom texts that the Jews and the dispensationalists insist on taking literally. The disciples were "willing to receive" the spiritual fulfillment—most of the Jews (and the dispensationalists) clearly were not.

The spiritual deliverance of the Messiah, seen as the antitype of the original exodus, is not an uncommon theme of the prophets, nor of the New Testament. The sixth lecture in my "Topical Look at Isaiah" series (available under "Topical Lectures" at my website) covers this subject in more detail than I can do here.

God bless.

Why didn't the Jews understand the meaning of these prophecies? Because the meanings were spiritual, not literal, and "the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor.2:14).

I know what you mean, but we need to be careful with our terms. It is possible for a prophecy to be both spiritual and literal! After all, Isaiah prophesied that a virgin would give birth to a son - and this literally came true - thank God!.

When we study the way in which the New Testament writers (spiritual men) interpreted Old Testament scriptures, we will find that they always spiritualized the kingdom texts that the Jews and the dispensationalists insist on taking literally. The disciples were "willing to receive" the spiritual fulfillment—most of the Jews (and the dispensationalists) clearly were not.

Is it really accurate to say that a spiritual man will necessarily understand the prophecies in question in a non-literal manner? What about Zecharias, father of John the baptizer:

67 ...Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:
68 “ Blessed is the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited and redeemed His people,
69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us [Israel]
In the house of His servant David,
70 As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets,
Who have been since the world began,
71 That we [Israel] should be saved from our enemies
And from the hand of all who hate us [Israel], 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers
And to remember His holy covenant,
73 The oath which He swore to our father Abraham:
74 To grant us that we [Israel],
Being delivered from the hand of our enemies,
Might serve Him without fear,
75 In holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life.”

Zecharias understood that the prophets had prophesied the coming of a horn of Salvation in David's house. This is obviously a reference to his soon-to-be-born nephew, Jesus (imagine being Jesus' uncle. How cool must that have been!). But then the Holy Spirit moves Zecharias to speak of a time when Israel would be saved/delivered from her enemies and from the hand of all who hate them. It appears that he was anticipating a time when Israel's enemies would be literally crushed under the feet of Messiah? If not, how do you suppose we should understand these words?

Furthermore, there's another set of saints who seemed to be understanding similar prophecies in a similar, literal manner:

1 The former account I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, 2 until the day in which He was taken up, after He through the Holy Spirit had given commandments to the apostles whom He had chosen, 3 to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking ["continually speaking" - i.e. over the forty days] of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.
4 And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me; 5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked [Greek: "kept on asking" i.e. over the forty days] Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority. 8 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.”

Here are 11 men whom the Lord Jesus has spent three years preparing prior to His crucifixion. As you noted, while He would speak in parables to the masses, he would expound on his teachings in private. interestingly, many of these parables concerned the kingdom of God. After His crucifixion, he then spent another 40 days giving the apostles intensive teaching. The subject of this teaching was thing "pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

All through this time (as indicated by the imperfect tense of the verb "ask") the 11 kept on asking Him not whether He the Kingdom would be returned to (literal) Israel, but when this would happen. They seemed to understand that the prophets and Jesus Himself prophesied a coming, literal return of the Kingdom to Israel, whch they understood to be the same literal nation of Israel of the Old Testament. Jesus' response was to correct their eagerness to know when this would happen. Unlike many Christians today, Jesus, THE Prophet, doesn't tell them they were wrong to be anticipating such things.

So in the New Testament, we have spiritual men who seemed to be applying what you might call a 'literal hermenuetic' in understanding the words of the prophets concerning the 'kingdom texts' under the inspiration of the holy Spirit and with the blessing of the Messiah Himself!

Or am I mis-intepreting these texts (and thus betraying myself to be a "carnal" dispensationalist )?

Ely,

Some prophecies were to be fulfilled in a literal fashion, and the New Testament writers acknowledge this. However, they never interpreted any of the kingdom prophecies as having a literal fulfillment.

The question asked by the disciples, in Acts 1:6, has been dealt with several times at this forum, and I think very adequately. To reiterate, the idea of the kingdom being restored to Israel was not an idea to abandon, but to understand correctly. Jesus' answer, alludiing to the kingdom passage in Psalm 2:8, gave them the spiritual explanation of how the kingdom was to be given to "Israel"—namely, that the King's authority would be spread to all nations by the witness of His empowered emmisaries (Acts 1:7-8).

Whatever their thoughts may have been on the topic at the time of asking their question, it remains undeniably true that they never once expressed a belief in this literal kingdom concept after Pentecost, but consistently said that the prophecies had been fulfilled in the enthronement of Christ at God's right hand. Anyone can prove this to himself simply by examining the content of the sermons in Acts, and the relevant passages in the epistles.

The prophecy of Zecharias about Israel's deliverance from enemies is best understood as the deliverance of spiritual Israel from their spiritual foes. The angel had said, "He shall save His people from theirs sins [not from their political enemies]" (Matt.1:21). If Zecharias' prophecy was about the overthrow of the political enemies of national Israel, he would then have to be regarded as a false prophet, since that did not occur on the occasion of the Messiah's first coming—which was the occasion about which he was prophesying. There is no reference, in Zechariah's vision, to the second coming of the "Horn," and there is nothing other than the cross that qualifies so well for the "redeeming" of God's people (Luke 1:68-70).