restoration of the Kingdom to Israel

[mattrose]

I find it completely implausible that the promised kingdom started during the scriptural narrative and scripture didn't mention it.... the idea that the start isn't documented or can't be defined by the story of scripture seems impossible to me.

I find it completely implausible that you don't see the entire New Testament as a statement of the kingdom's beginning!

It's my understanding that traditional Amillennialism uses Pentecost for this event. If it's not that, maybe we should see it as the crucifixion, resurrection, or ascension of Christ. Or, maybe it's Christ breathing the Spirit on the Apostles before Pentecost, Stephen's martyrdom, or Paul's conversion. There are plenty of events to choose from. But, it seems that one of them must represent the start of the Millennium per Amillennialism.

Doug

I still disagree that 1 single event MUST be the all-encompassing event which started the 'millennium.' I think you are putting too much emphasis on 'the millennium.' It receives almost zero attention in Scripture. What does receive attention is the development of a people of God (the Kingdom of God). And the development of a people group happens in stages of growth.

[Douglas]

A kingdom is nothing more than a king with subjects. Jesus Christ is King, and His first subjects were his disciples. Therefore the kingdom started with Him at the point he had subjects, which in my mind started at the beginning of His ministry.

Does that make sense?

- Douglas

[mattrose]

Makes sense to me. I'd just add that there are some other significant events that in some sense 'mark' the beginning of a kingdom.

Thinking of an earthly kingdom, what might constitute the 'beginning' of it? The birth of the founding king? A group of supporters emerging? A significant military victory? The first time the King actually sits on the throne? The establishment of some sort of law? The invitation for locals to affiliate? The demolition of the previous ruler's castle? One could argue any or all of these events might count as the beginning of the kingdom.

[TheEditor]

"He delivered us from the authority of the darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins." (Colossians 1:13-14)

This was written sometime about 59-61 C.E. Paul describes something that has already happened. The "Kingdom" is just a way of bringing to mind certain dynamics. I don't think of it in the same way that we think of a kingdom now, only to the extent that Christ is described as "King" or "Ruler".

Regards, Brenden.

[Douglas]

I have heard it said by some teachers that David in the old testament was a type of Christ. If we study how David became king (declaration, anointing, inauguration, ect ) is there any correlation that we might make of when Jesus Christ became king in the sense of the question that was posted at the beginning? I am not sure if one might be able to extrapolate something from that or not, I will have to dig into that.

- Douglas

[steve]

I'm not sure that the kingdom of God is the Millennium. Christ was seated at the right hand of the Father, but the Millennium hadn't started yet (unless you use the ascension and session as the starting point). Since the Millennium in Rev. 20 is explicitly described as the resurrection of the saints after they'd been killed by the beast for not taking his mark, I don't think this is a very good candidate.

The phraseology of Revelation 20:4-6 has been interpreted variously. "This is the first resurrection" (in my opinion) means, "This is the age of the first resurrection" (i.e., the thousand years corresponds to the time when people experience the first [spiritual] resurrection, which is rebirth in Christ), just as Christ's words, "in the resurrection" (Matt.22:30) refers to the era of physical resurrection. If "the millennium" means "a long period of time during which God's people live in the power of a spiritual resurrection" (i.e., now), then its beginning would be when disciples received the Holy Spirit—which, in the case of the apostles, seems to have been on the Sunday afternoon following Christ's resurrection (John 20:22).

We might not be able to nail down (or at least wouldn't agree on the conditions of) the ending point. But, I find it impossible that the kingdom promised throughout scripture has no starting point described or predicted in it.

Matt and Douglas got around to saying what I intended to say before I did. I too was thinking of David—did his kingdom begin when he was anointed by Samuel (corresponding to the baptism of Jesus)? or when the first 400 men acknowledged him as their commander when he fled from Saul (corresponding to Jesus acquiring disciples)? or when Saul was killed and David proclaimed king over Judah (corresponding, perhaps, to Satan's defeat at Calvary)? or when Ishbosheth was killed and David ruled all of Israel (possibly corresponding to Christ's universal reign over the earth)? Couldn't one use any of these as a beginning point, depending on which phase of David's rule was under consideration?

Likewise, when was America founded? Was it with the first European settlements in North America? or the signing of the Declaration of Independence? or the winning of the Revolutionary War? or the drafting of the Constitution? or the election of Washington as first President?

You see, it is not strange at all to suggest that the kingdom was established in stages, but clearly was already present, in some sense, in the lifetime of Jesus (Matt.12:28; Luke 17:20-21) and in the lifetime of Paul (Col.1:13; Rom.14:17). A further development in the coming of the kingdom in power was the defeat of those who had opposed and crucified Christ, in AD70 (Matt.16:28). One, like myself, who is not full-preterist, could additionally anticipate yet another stage of its coming, when "the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ" (Rev.11:15).

[robbyyoung]

Well one thing is for sure, Christ's Kingdom will go through seemingly countless "ages", Eph 2:7 & 3:21. Whether realized or anticipated, what is counted as an age?

God Bless?

[dwilkins]

"The phraseology of Revelation 20:4-6 has been interpreted variously. "This is the first resurrection" (in my opinion) means, "This is the age of the first resurrection" (i.e., the thousand years corresponds to the time when people experience the first [spiritual] resurrection, which is rebirth in Christ), just as Christ's words, "in the resurrection" (Matt.22:30) refers to the era of physical resurrection. If "the millennium" means "a long period of time during which God's people live in the power of a spiritual resurrection" (i.e., now), then its beginning would be when disciples received the Holy Spirit—which, in the case of the apostles, seems to have been on the Sunday afternoon following Christ's resurrection (John 20:22)."

I think this is the primary error of traditional Amillennialism. Here's the actual verse:

Rev 20:4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

There is no implication here that the first resurrection belongs to anyone other than those who have died as martyrs for not taking the mark of the beast. I understand that it has become the tradition of Amillennialism to say that it's synonymous to coming to faith in Christ, etc. But, that's not actually in the text. That's simply a theological conclusion based on a need to fit a second resurrection into the narrative. I'm not saying that resurrection language isn't used for salvation, etc. I'm just saying that Rev. 20:4 doesn't claim to be about that.

As for a generic feel for the kingdom of God in the New Testament, McClain does a decent job of pointing out that God has always been in charge, so if you want to be precise the kingdom has always existed. But, my point is more focused to the promised kingdom that the Apostles say didn't exist yet as of Acts 1.

Doug

[jaydam]

I'd like your guys' input on my consideration of the initial question:

1 - I don't think the disciples still understood what the kingdom was to look like, so I think their question was misguided. Look at how Peter later has to learn of the Gentile inclusion in the kingdom. Paul ran into issues where Jews wanted to turn Gentiles into Jewish proselytes. The Jews could not think outside the box, and believed that the kingdom had to be composed of Jews - essentially, the Jews were guilty of racism. Although it would appear they were open to outsiders, those outsiders were expected to become Jewish.

It is interesting that the word "to" is used, because if I was to ask the question I might say, "kingdom of Israel." But they obviously understood on some level that Israel's kingdom was not just in decline and needed restoring to its previous state, the kingdom OF Israel no longer really existed. Before the kingdom OF Israel could be restored, "kingdom" needed to be restored TO (infused into) Israel. They wanted Israel restored to power/authority/independence.

2 - Christ's response could be taken two ways:

a - He kind of answers the timing issue, but skips over correcting their misunderstanding of the Israeli kingdom.
b - Or he address both the issue of timing, and their misunderstanding

I believe he does "b." Perhaps the Jews had this arrogant idea of themselves, and not just the role they thought they would play, but the role God needed them to play - God needed them, and in his need he would obviously have to restore them, and give them power on earth.

The arrogance of their question comes from its underlying assumption. Much like a child asking a parent, "Is this the time you are now going to give me my cookie?" The child has already made the assumption for the parent that the parent IS/SHOULD/WILL give the child a cookie. In the same manner, the disciples' question assumes God IS/SHOULD/WILL give Israel their kingdom - power on earth.

Christ's answer first of all puts them in their place regarding their "pay grade" related to how much they are permitted to know. Second, Christ reminds them who really holds the kingdom and authority. Christ's answer would be much like the cookie giving parent saying, "It isn't for you to know when I will give a cookie, because not only do I get to choose when, I really have control over if I EVEN give a cookie." The child's presumption that they are to get a cookie might be correct, just like the disciples' understanding based upon prophecy is a little correct, but the question is dishonoring. If one believes they are to get a cookie, they will trust that the cookie giver will give it at the right time, no question needed.

I think Christ strikes at the heart of the presumptive question by reminding them they are not in a high enough position to know times, times which are dictated by the real king. Reminding the disciples of their place, along with reminding them that even a kingdom given to Israel holds no real power.

BUT after dashing their visions of greatness and restoration by "putting" them in their place, he encourages them that they are to receive power, and they will play a vital, personal role for him as witnesses.

[robbyyoung]

I am not of the view that the kingdom had to come in an individual event. We don't need to point to a specific day and say 'there it is'... the Kingdom is a seed that, once planted, grows. There are significant stages in the kingdom's growth.

Hi Matt,

I'm going to have to disagree with this understanding. Yeshua covered all aspects of the timing issue concerning the restoration by using "chronos and kairos" together, in the same thought process, to go above and beyond The Disciples "chronos" usage. Therefore, Yeshua's use of "kairos" testifies to the Father's FIXED and APPOINTED TIME for the beginning and consummation of the restoration. So there is "A DAY" set for this to happen. Whether it was past or yet future is another question, but the "restoration" has a beginning and consummated end. The growth of The Kingdom is a product of its restoration. They are not one in the same.

IMHO, The Kingdom's restoration was consummated to the true Israel of God at "The Rapture", which was denoted as "The End" for The Church's witness against national Israel. Rev 2:26-27 let's us know that those surviving, To This End, gets to rule and judge The Nations alongside Yeshua, in this consummated Kingdom. This judgement is the "Wrath of God" against Old Covenant Israel, starting in 68AD and ending at The Temple's destruction in 70AD. Therefore, "The Rapture" was obviously prior to The Wrath of God in 68AD. I'm still working on the start of it restoration.

The Kingdom has been restored and thriving since those days.

God Bless.