The author of the article then states that since Jesus did not correct them He must have been in agreement with the presumption of their question. The author writes:
His answer assumes a future Israel, and thereby in this shared assumption with the disciples Jesus defers the answer to when the kingdom will be restored to Israel to the Father’s sovereign timing.Logically, this is a classical example of the fallacy of the argument from silence. Put simply, silence does not necessarily imply agreement. Remember the elementary school quote about what happens when we ass-u-me?
What did Jesus agree with?
Did Jesus agree that Israel had a future as a people? He did not say either way. What did their question indicate? What they did know is that Jesus was the King of Israel and He had risen from the dead. Why didn't the King take authority over His kingdom and do it immediately? Why stay in a small group even after the resurrection? Why not march straight up to Herod's palace and take control? They had asked this same question in different forms at many times in the past. Each time it demonstrated that they still did not get it. Why is this time different?
Jesus' answer pre-figures what was about to happen. The King was taken away from them once already in death, but He was raised from the dead. What happened next clearly took them by surprise, the King was once again taken away from them. They were so stunned that they kept looking up into the sky. In fact, they were so taken back that an angel came and told them to stop looking up. Jesus would return, the angel said, in the same manner in which He had departed.
What Was the Expectation of the Apostles?
Even after being with Jesus for 40 days between the empty tomb and the ascension they did not understand that Jesus would be departing. So much for their understanding of the Kingdom of God. The one thing that they did know is who the King was, Jesus. What the author of this paper asks us to believe is that they were taught about some future kingdom and then surprised when the King left them. The core argument of the page is then refuted by the very text which the author claims supports his position.
Secondly, the assumption of the author is that the Kingdom of God is future, relating to the reign of Jesus from the Earth, rather than present with Jesus reigning right now from Heaven. When Jesus preached the kingdom of God and the disciples asked about the Kingdom and Israel the two are not necessarily referring to the same thing. To the disciples, the Kingdom was still an earthly and immediate expectation. To Jesus is was also immediate, but for Jesus it would be the age of the Spirit of God in the church.
Thirdly, the apostles demonstrate that prior to Acts 2 when the Holy Spirit came, they had an amazing ability to listen to teaching and not get it. Jesus had told the apostles many times about how He was going to die and then be raised up. What was so special about the 40 days when they did not get it in 3-1/2 years?
The question that the Apostles asked could also be stated as a question, "If you really are the King, why not take the Kingdom now"?
Paul's statement at the end of Acts says it all:
Act 28:28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.The Jews rejected Jesus and the Gospel was first offered to them. Rather than accept Jesus as their King, they chose to follow false prophets and they went to their own deaths in 67-70 AD.
What did Luke Mean by Kingdom of God?
Luke explains later what he means by the Kingdom of God:
Act 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.The preaching about the Kingdom of God is that the King is Risen!
Amen
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment