Interplanner
Well-known member
A recent radio sermon on Acts 19 shows what happens when people don't really know what the NT means by kingdom of God.
The pastor, though not a national broadcast, said that Paul sometimes uses this kingdom of God expression to mean the spiritual realm and sometimes to mean heaven. This time, however, Paul meant the age when 'God will rule in Israel on earth in a future kingdom.' He went on to note that Paul spent three months at an Ephesus synagogue, demonstrating that Jesus was the Christ. When there was too much resistance, he set up his own 'school' which reached everyone in the area over the next 2 years.
It all seems right until we look a bit closer at that problem of resistance. Why would followers of Judaism have any trouble with a guy saying the kingdom was the spiritual realm, or heaven? Most people will answer that that was not the problem, the problem was saying that 'Jesus was the Christ.' Ie, that that expression has a sort of pointedness to it that everyone knows has nothing to do with eschatology or that future kingdom on earth; it is just an offense of its own.
Really? Sorry, but that is not what happened or how this is put together.
1, the signs and wonders that the kingdom was present were with Paul. They are all through the context.
2, the assumption that he must have meant a future earthly reign on earth does not have any basis. The 'millenium' is not mentioned in any ordinary language passage, only in the symbols of Rev and there is nothing Judaic about it. The new Jerusalem does not come to earth during it. But the apostles do not tell the Jews that the kingdom they seek will come at a future time. There is no evidence that they did, and no indication that such an appeal would have kept the Jews in their audience. Instead, things usually go like here (mostly agressive rejection) or Acts 26, where Paul appeals to them that the hope for Israel that they seek does not need to be waited for; it is available now, but is not the theocracy they imagine, nor will it be.
In fact, in Acts 26, Paul's life is in the balance, and he still doesn't tell them what the pop pastor thinks! That's the real test.
3, to teach that Jesus was the Christ (see the last verse of 18) meant what it meant in Acts 13: all the promises and all the divine activity mentioned in Dan 9 and Is 53 were fulfilled in Christ. That is the best complete sample apostolic sermon. Christ was meant to bring justification from sins, and he did, and this was the destiny of Israel. This was proven by the Father by raising him from death and corruption. This is the message, combined with the fact that proclaiming it is the kingdom of God, that annoyed followers of Judaism. This is what they tried to stop. This is what they have been persecuting Paul for, ever since his conversion, when he was the one persecuting.
4, the pop pastor said that Jesus fulfilled some prophecy in his first coming but there was a pile that was not touched. Well, it doesn't work that way. That kind of thinking comes from a person reading the OT directly and becoming totally convinced that they've found something that is supposed to happen in modern times. What they miss is that there are 2500 usages of the OT by the apostles, and they take a different shape.
There is no attempt by the NT to account for every single passage. What matters to the apostles is that they do not go beyond Moses and the Prophets (Acts 26) in proclaiming the suffering and glory that followed that suffering--the two things that show that Jesus was the Christ. And it also matters very much that the mission that this Gospel generates is propelled; it is a mission that involves only two simple elements: this message and the nations. No one could miss the historic fact that the Pentecost event had jumpstarted it with all those people returning home with this news.
But on that, here is another problem posed by the pastor. He used the expression 'the mighty acts of God' as though the signs and marvels of Pentecost was the thing proclaimed by the apostles. Ie, they got up and told people 'see this might wind, tongues etc.? You could do this too, here is how...' (The subject of this sermon was: how do you get God's power for your Christian work?) This is a complete distortion of what happened. Pentecost was God's work, honoring Christ and making his name known (I Tim 3:16). It was the preaching of the power of the resurrection and grace. The resurrection had proven we (the worst of us) could be justified from our sins. Because that Christ was being honored, God glorified Christ with his Spirit who gave gifts to men to go back to their various home countries with.
It is pretty sad that so much background is missing, not only in that pastor, but in his listeners and the mass listeners and the editorial board of that major radio station.
The pastor, though not a national broadcast, said that Paul sometimes uses this kingdom of God expression to mean the spiritual realm and sometimes to mean heaven. This time, however, Paul meant the age when 'God will rule in Israel on earth in a future kingdom.' He went on to note that Paul spent three months at an Ephesus synagogue, demonstrating that Jesus was the Christ. When there was too much resistance, he set up his own 'school' which reached everyone in the area over the next 2 years.
It all seems right until we look a bit closer at that problem of resistance. Why would followers of Judaism have any trouble with a guy saying the kingdom was the spiritual realm, or heaven? Most people will answer that that was not the problem, the problem was saying that 'Jesus was the Christ.' Ie, that that expression has a sort of pointedness to it that everyone knows has nothing to do with eschatology or that future kingdom on earth; it is just an offense of its own.
Really? Sorry, but that is not what happened or how this is put together.
1, the signs and wonders that the kingdom was present were with Paul. They are all through the context.
2, the assumption that he must have meant a future earthly reign on earth does not have any basis. The 'millenium' is not mentioned in any ordinary language passage, only in the symbols of Rev and there is nothing Judaic about it. The new Jerusalem does not come to earth during it. But the apostles do not tell the Jews that the kingdom they seek will come at a future time. There is no evidence that they did, and no indication that such an appeal would have kept the Jews in their audience. Instead, things usually go like here (mostly agressive rejection) or Acts 26, where Paul appeals to them that the hope for Israel that they seek does not need to be waited for; it is available now, but is not the theocracy they imagine, nor will it be.
In fact, in Acts 26, Paul's life is in the balance, and he still doesn't tell them what the pop pastor thinks! That's the real test.
3, to teach that Jesus was the Christ (see the last verse of 18) meant what it meant in Acts 13: all the promises and all the divine activity mentioned in Dan 9 and Is 53 were fulfilled in Christ. That is the best complete sample apostolic sermon. Christ was meant to bring justification from sins, and he did, and this was the destiny of Israel. This was proven by the Father by raising him from death and corruption. This is the message, combined with the fact that proclaiming it is the kingdom of God, that annoyed followers of Judaism. This is what they tried to stop. This is what they have been persecuting Paul for, ever since his conversion, when he was the one persecuting.
4, the pop pastor said that Jesus fulfilled some prophecy in his first coming but there was a pile that was not touched. Well, it doesn't work that way. That kind of thinking comes from a person reading the OT directly and becoming totally convinced that they've found something that is supposed to happen in modern times. What they miss is that there are 2500 usages of the OT by the apostles, and they take a different shape.
There is no attempt by the NT to account for every single passage. What matters to the apostles is that they do not go beyond Moses and the Prophets (Acts 26) in proclaiming the suffering and glory that followed that suffering--the two things that show that Jesus was the Christ. And it also matters very much that the mission that this Gospel generates is propelled; it is a mission that involves only two simple elements: this message and the nations. No one could miss the historic fact that the Pentecost event had jumpstarted it with all those people returning home with this news.
But on that, here is another problem posed by the pastor. He used the expression 'the mighty acts of God' as though the signs and marvels of Pentecost was the thing proclaimed by the apostles. Ie, they got up and told people 'see this might wind, tongues etc.? You could do this too, here is how...' (The subject of this sermon was: how do you get God's power for your Christian work?) This is a complete distortion of what happened. Pentecost was God's work, honoring Christ and making his name known (I Tim 3:16). It was the preaching of the power of the resurrection and grace. The resurrection had proven we (the worst of us) could be justified from our sins. Because that Christ was being honored, God glorified Christ with his Spirit who gave gifts to men to go back to their various home countries with.
It is pretty sad that so much background is missing, not only in that pastor, but in his listeners and the mass listeners and the editorial board of that major radio station.