|
Post by Josh on Sept 4, 2014 12:03:34 GMT -8
Acts 1 New International Version (NIV) Jesus Taken Up Into Heaven
1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” 6 Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them: “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” 9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.” Chris, Jay, and anyone else interested:
A couple questions about Acts chapter 1 from an eschatology perspective.
What do you think the disicples meant by Jesus "restoring the kingdom to Israel"? Does Jesus' answer imply that he was rejecting their expectation, delaying it, or seeking to transform it? Do you see the reference to a cloud as synonymous with Daniel's reference to the Messiah "coming on the clouds to the Ancient of Days"? What do you think verse 11 is stressing when it says jesus will "come back in the same way" they had seen him go? Is a bodily and visible return being emphasized or something else?
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 5, 2014 16:21:28 GMT -8
I address your 4 questions in order: 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: - He kind of answers the timing issue, but skips over correcting their misunderstanding of the Israeli kingdom.
- Or he address both the issue of timing, and their misunderstanding
I believe he does the 2nd. 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 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. Second, Christ remind 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 I get to choose when, because 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 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 such question is 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.
3 & 4 - What I am about to present here various from what I have espoused on this forum before as my understanding is changing somewhat, even over the past few weeks.
I think the travelling on/in the clouds does relate to Daniel, along with Mt 24:30 and its parallel passages, and also with Revelation 1:7; 14:14, the imagery is really related to Christ's glory, power, reign, and ultimately the assumption of his rightful position. Jesus' leaving was to receive his glory, power/dominion, and kingdom, and his return will be in the same way, receiving his glory, dominion, and kingdom. His leaving was to assume his position, and his return will be the same, to assume his position.
This understanding, then runs into the dilemma, did his future return as foretold in Acts 1:11 occur in 70 AD as he returned to finish establishing his position with the church - which is his glory and his kingdom, and an extension of his dominion - by finalizing his destruction of the nation of Israel. I believe one is correct to see 70 AD as the likely fulfillment of the Acts 1:11 return.
I think the disciples understood they had already fulfilled Acts 1:8, a condition laid out in Mt 24:14 as preliminary to the events of 70 AD. This would relate Christ's coming as described in Mt 24:30 - which we know happened in 70 AD - with the coming as foretold in Ac 1:11.
Thus, as opposed to my previous understanding that Mt 24:30's coming of Christ really related to a going of Christ to see God, as foretold by Daniel, I believe the Mt 24:30 coming was really a coming as foretold by the angelic beings in Acts 1:10-11. The reason Mt 24 uses the same language to refer to Christ's coming in 70 AD as Daniel does to describe Christ's coming up to God which happened almost 40 years prior to 70 AD, is exactly stated by Ac 1:11. Christ came in 70 AD as he left in 33ish AD, therefore the same language can speak about both events.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 5, 2014 19:01:50 GMT -8
Agreed. Chrysostom seemed to things so too :
"Without saying anything to him of the Holy Spirit, they put this question: 'Lord will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?' They did not ask when but whether it would be at this time, so eager were they to learn the day. But it seems to me they had no clear notion of the nature of the kingdom, for the spirit had not yet instructed them.... For their affections were still formed by sensible objects. They had not yet become better than they were before. Thus from now on [presumably, after Pentecost] they had higher conceptions concerning Christ."
Interestingly, he goes on to an analogy similar to your "child/cookie" one.
That said, I think it's possible that Jesus response isn't just telling them they are off base, but perhaps a coy way of saying, "You're focused on the wrong understanding of the kingdom. But the real restoration of the kingdom, the thing you're asking for, is actually happening right now, and you'll see that in forty days." I think the ascension probably marks the enthronement of Jesus (the cloud at the ascension being reminiscent of the cloud in Daniel 7 when the Son of Man receives the Kingdom from the Ancient of Days). Therefore, I'd argue that Pentecost is the day Jesus enthronement and kingdom are announced to the world as having arrived. Perhaps AD 70 then is the announcement that the Kingdom has finally overthrown satan's kingdom decisively. We might have slightly different interpretations on what these events (ascension, Pentecost, AD 70) symbolize but I think we are agreed that they are progressive announcements of the kingdom.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 5, 2014 19:09:28 GMT -8
Basically you're saying that the words "in this same way" refer not to the bodily nature of the ascension, but to the cloud-attended assumption of kingship, right? The view has merit, but if that is the case, a passage that is often used to emphasize a physical future coming of Jesus is lost. I believe it is important to maintain the physicality of Jesus' resurrection (and our own eventual one), so if this passage is not used to bolster that, one call still point to other reasons to argue that we will one day, in our glorified state, be in the physical presence of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 5, 2014 22:06:00 GMT -8
Agreed. Chrysostom seemed to things so too :
"Without saying anything to him of the Holy Spirit, they put this question: 'Lord will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?' They did not ask when but whether it would be at this time, so eager were they to learn the day. But it seems to me they had no clear notion of the nature of the kingdom, for the spirit had not yet instructed them.... For their affections were still formed by sensible objects. They had not yet become better than they were before. Thus from now on [presumably, after Pentecost] they had higher conceptions concerning Christ."
Interestingly, he goes on to an analogy similar to your "child/cookie" one.
That said, I think it's possible that Jesus response isn't just telling them they are off base, but perhaps a coy way of saying, "You're focused on the wrong understanding of the kingdom. But the real restoration of the kingdom, the thing you're asking for, is actually happening right now, and you'll see that in forty days." I think the ascension probably marks the enthronement of Jesus (the cloud at the ascension being reminiscent of the cloud in Daniel 7 when the Son of Man receives the Kingdom from the Ancient of Days). Therefore, I'd argue that Pentecost is the day Jesus enthronement and kingdom are announced to the world as having arrived. Perhaps AD 70 then is the announcement that the Kingdom has finally overthrown satan's kingdom decisively. We might have slightly different interpretations on what these events (ascension, Pentecost, AD 70) symbolize but I think we are agreed that they are progressive announcements of the kingdom. I agree on the progressive nature of the kingdom's entry/announcement. I think the difficulty lies in such a phasing in of the kingdom. It is similar to any newly establish rule I suppose. Do you say the rule began during the initial defeat of the previous leadership? During the surrender ceremony? Once all the pockets of resistance have been rooted out? All of them in some manner are stepping stones for the entire entry of the new ruler. I think one can see Christ's rule in these stages that any earthly king might follow: - The rightful king goes to the capitol city to place himself upon the throne (Acts 1:9 & Daniel 7)
- The king then gives initial authority and key positions to his loyal followers (Acts 1:8; Acts 2, Pentecost), and sends them out to announce his rule, gathering all others who will honor him (Acts 3 and on)
- Finally, the king comes down in judgment on all rebels (Mt 24, Acts 1:11, 70 AD)
It is the chain of events that I even see in historical coups, and the general idea I gather from scripture.
Basically you're saying that the words "in this same way" refer not to the bodily nature of the ascension, but to the cloud-attended assumption of kingship, right? The view has merit, but if that is the case, a passage that is often used to emphasize a physical future coming of Jesus is lost. It believe it is important to maintain the physicality of Jesus' resurrection (and our own eventual one), so if this passage is not used to bolster that, one call still point to other reasons to argue that we will one day, in our glorified state, be in the physical presence of Christ.
I see the reference "same way" to not refer to similar visuals, but to a similar character/style. The style being with glory, power, and dominion. Characteristics which Daniel says were involved in Christ's ascension, and something Christ said would be involved in the events of his coming in 70 AD. I do not deny what the disciples saw, but do not believe the visual was the point.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 6, 2014 8:20:07 GMT -8
Seems like a reasonable theory to me.
I've always assumed the traditional view on this, that the angels were referring to a physical return of Jesus. But I see no reason that "in like manner" cannot to refer to some other aspect like miraculously, or in glory/power/dominion as Jaybee suggested.
Josh wrote:
I've never understood why the physical second coming was so important in maintaining a physical resurrection. The two are not so interdependent as that IMO. It seems to me that Jesus' resurrection body is not limited to full time physicality. I think He can manifest physicality at any time, as he demonstrated post resurrection, but for the most part exists spiritually. I don't imagine a physical corner of the universe somewhere right now where you could theoretically find Jesus in the flesh. I believe he possesses (and eventually we will too) a transdimensional quality that allows him to pass into and out of the limited dimension of physical material.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 6, 2014 8:53:35 GMT -8
jaybee wrote:
It is the chain of events that I even see in historical coups, and the general idea I gather from scripture. Agreed, and nice way of putting it The only hitch is that there is ongoing spiritual warfare after step 3. So, do we see that as continued pockets of resistance? Insurgencies?
Chris wrote:
I think we have a somewhat different idea of what the "resurrection body" will look like. How I see it (my conception based on clues in Scripture and multi-dimensional theory as best as I can understand it) is that once we have received our resurrection bodies, we are forever physical. I don't see it as something we "switch on and switch off". But that physicality is able to transcend dimensionality. And perhaps it is so able to transcend dimensionality that it would be silly to speak of anyone as existing in a "particular corner" of the universe, but still, they are always physical. Just like a rock or tree doesn't "not exist" in higher dimensions (it just probably looks very different and can be interacted with in very different ways), I think we can always be physical. That's how I see it.
On a personal level, why it's important to me is that I have always had a strong and vivid hope of "seeing Jesus face to face", of "walking with him, talking with him" in the flesh. I can relate to Job:
Job 19:
25 I know that my redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand on the earth.
26 And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God;
27 I myself will see him with my own eyes—I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me!
A disembodied reunion with Jesus (and the saints) between death and resurrection sounds great, but I look forward to the face to face. And I'm glad that God delights in physicality.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 6, 2014 9:29:54 GMT -8
I believe it is important to maintain the physicality of Jesus' resurrection (and our own eventual one)... The problem I would take with this quote is that regardless of our desire, we cannot maintain something if it is not in scripture. It can be our desire to hold onto some understanding which does not permit us to see scripture clearly. This is exactly the problem I run into with people unwilling to consider even the smallest degree of some "new" doctrine. They are married to the vision of the future to such a degree, that they cannot let scripture repaint it. This is one of the biggest issues with telling my understanding of Rev 21 to people. They have become so set on the visual of the NHNE, and even preaching it, that they believe THAT understanding must be maintained at all costs. Not because it is scriptural, but because it is so sown into the fabric of Christendom. I don't care if they disagree based upon solid scriptural support, but to tell me they cannot believe simply because they have grown up looking forward to the day they see heaven as described in Rev 21 is in error if they cannot support the idea apart from a desire to see it. I talked to one of my professors about the evidence against a 6 day creation, and he agreed with me! Yet, when I asked why he taught a literal 6 day creation, he said it is because the people are so believing in it, that to shake that fundamental idea would be to shake their entire faith. Therefore, he maintained the need to teach what he does not feel supported by scripture, to not cause people to lose their entire faith in everything they thought they knew. I don't believe you are one to fall into this error, I just am overly sensitive to your choice of words as they sound similar to those who choose the ideology they are married to over scripture. That said, while I believe many key verses traditionally given to the bodily 2nd coming of Christ are really referring to his coming in 70 AD - Mt 24, Ac 1, 1Th 4-5, etc - I still believe a culminating day can be pointed to. A day perhaps generally in line with the traditional idea of the 2nd coming.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 6, 2014 9:58:40 GMT -8
Josh, a non-physical 2nd coming of Christ does not necessitate a strictly "disembodied reunion". That was my point. One does not necessarily demand the other.
I don't think quite understand what you were saying about the nature of resurrection bodies, perhaps you can unpack that a little. If there physical, they're also spatial, aren't they? Which means there would have to be a "corner of the universe" in which to theoretically find Jesus. Unless you are talking about a different universe or something. Help me understand what you're implying.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Sept 6, 2014 9:59:17 GMT -8
Agreed, and nice way of putting it The only hitch is that there is ongoing spiritual warfare after step 3. So, do we see that as continued pockets of resistance? Insurgencies?
I see the establishment of Christ to coincide with a cleaning of his house. That was essentially completed in 70 AD, he did not clean up the world, rather he cleaned OUT his kingdom. Spiritual warfare today is different. In 70 AD, Christ specifically dealt with matters "within" his kingdom, the religious leaders of Israel who he called the sons of Satan, or members of Satan's synagogue. He was settling matters within his kingdom, removing the tares of Satan from among the wheat as he gathered his first harvest, or perhaps the first fruit. Internal kingdom cleaning is a different thing from leading you kingdom in war against another kingdom. In one you are cleaning up infiltrators within your borders, in another you are attacking the enemies borders. I see today's spiritual warfare as kingdom against kingdom, not internal clean up. EDIT: You might say that leading up to 70 AD Christ was dealing with two fronts. Internal fighting within his borders, and fighting kingdom against kingdom. After 70 AD, he settled a lot of the internal issue, this does not mean a national leader does not have to continually police within his kingdom, but it is different, and more focus can be outward to expand his rightful rule everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 6, 2014 18:17:49 GMT -8
Josh, a non-physical 2nd coming of Christ does not necessitate a strictly "disembodied reunion". That was my point. One does not necessarily demand the other. I don't think quite understand what you were saying about the nature of resurrection bodies, perhaps you can unpack that a little. If there physical, they're also spatial, aren't they? Which means there would have to be a "corner of the universe" in which to theoretically find Jesus. Unless you are talking about a different universe or something. Help me understand what you're implying. You're right, one doesn't necessarily follow another. But, what I'm proposing is that Jesus doesn't need to switch back and forth between spiritual and physical if he transcends dimensions. Of course, I'm no physicist, and my knowledge just comes from popular level books on the subject, but let me unpack it a bit:
If a being transcends spatial dimensions plus the time dimension, then that being, though technically in one place all the time, could manipulate matter and move so fast that it could easily seem to be everywhere at once if it so chose.
I don't think in our resurrection bodies we will necessarily transcend all dimensions like that, but if Jesus does, then, though physical, he would always be accessible to all whenever needed.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 6, 2014 18:22:41 GMT -8
Jay, I like your within/ without explanation. The AD 70 event should be seen as the final decisive vindication of Jesus' kingdom in the context of Israel*, but it is also a decisive pronouncement against the outside powers of the world- that the devil has been bound from his deceptive reign over the nations.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 6, 2014 20:40:18 GMT -8
If a being transcends spatial dimensions plus the time dimension, then that being, though technically in one place all the time, could manipulate matter and move so fast that it could easily seem to be everywhere at once if it so chose.
I don't think in our resurrection bodies we will necessarily transcend all dimensions like that, but if Jesus does, then, though physical, he would always be accessible to all whenever needed.
Aren't we assuming a major distinction between the physical and spiritual dimension? What does physics know about the spiritual dimension anyway? After all, demons and angels have been known to cross into the physical world somehow. Perhaps it's not as distinct as we think it is.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 6, 2014 21:20:11 GMT -8
Getting back to Acts 1:10-11 I found something interesting I've never noticed before.
In Acts 3:21 Peter says, in the NIV and NKJ, that heaven must hold Jesus until the time comes for the restoration of all things, as promised by the prophets. As that stands, it sounds more like the final judgment/ end of death.
However, interestingly, the NASB translates it:
21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.
In this translation (as well as the ESV which is very similar) two meanings are slightly more nuanced. The "all things" becomes more clearly "all the things about which God spoke", thereby limiting its scope (arguably to the topic of predictions about God's coming kingdom). Also, the use of "period of restoration" fits nicely with the idea of an AD 70 coming, in which God begins his "new heavens and new earth" project in AD 70.
I'll have to check out the Greek on 3:21 when I get a chance.
|
|