How Wrong were the Disciples about the Kingdom? Thoughts on Acts 1:6

Introduction

Just before his ascension, the disciples ask Jesus, ‘Lord will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ (Acts 1:6). Commentators often criticise the disciples’ question as ignorant and wrongheaded. Derek Thomas, for example, writes, ‘It may seem almost incredible to us that the disciples could get things so utterly wrong at this point, but they did’. ¹ David Williams attributes the mistake to ‘The hardness of the disciples’ hearts’. ² Similarly, John Calvin remarks, ‘Yet their blindness is remarkable, that when they had been so fully and carefully instructed over a period of three years, they betrayed no less ignorance than if they had never heard a word’. ³ ‘Their question’, John Stott suggests, ‘must have filled Jesus with dismay. Were they still so lacking in perception?’ ⁴ And most recently Richard Pervo writes, ‘As a climax to forty days of instruction on the reign of God, however, the question is excruciatingly inept. Literary tradition permitted pupils to ask dull or inappropriate questions so that teachers could promulgate the correct view. This question is delicately posed’. ⁵

These critical remarks are often supported by three main reasons, conveniently summarised by Stott as:

The verb, the noun and the adverb of their sentence all betray doctrinal confusion about the kingdom. For the verb restore shows that they were expecting a political and territorial kingdom; the noun Israel that they were expecting a national kingdom; and the adverbial clause at this time that they were expecting its immediate establishment. ⁶

The purpose of this essay is to challenge the validity of these arguments. Despite the popularity of these arguments and their long shelf life (dating back at least to Calvin), each is flawed. The first two arise from a mistaken conception of the kingdom of God, and the third, while having some basis, overlooks the eschatological expectations that have been created following the resurrection and prior to the ascension.

Before investigating these arguments, a methodological point needs to be addressed. Two approaches can be taken: the first compiles all the material about the kingdom of God across the four canonical gospels in order to construct what the disciples had been taught about the kingdom. The disciples’ question is then set against this compilation. The second approach limits its focus to the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles and formulates from here what the disciples were taught. Neither approach is inherently superior to the other; however, one may serve as a better starting point than the other. In this essay, I will concentrate primarily on the picture of the kingdom that Luke develops in his gospel. As a reader of the two-part narrative, it is the gospel that provides the first point of information for determining what the disciples believed about the kingdom and whether their question in Acts 1:6 was in error or not. ⁷ I will range wider at points, particularly where counterpoints from the other gospels have been or might be raised, but my first point of entry will be Luke’s presentation of the kingdom.

1. A Spiritual Kingdom

The claim is often made that the kingdom of God is a matter of the heart not of a physical territory. Luke Timothy Johnson, for example, comments, ‘The kingdom of God is not a territory or political realm. It is the rule of God over human hearts’. ⁸ F. F. Bruce suggests that the desire for a physical kingdom gave way after Pentecost to a spiritual kingdom entered by repentance and faith. ⁹ This critique of the disciples consists of two issues: (1) they longed for a political kingdom like other earthly kingdoms; and (2) they desired a specific plot of land over which they would rule. I suggest that the idea that the kingdom of God is purely spiritual is wrong: the kingdom is about a territory, and it is also political.

1.1 The Kingdom as Territorial

When the Davidic kings ruled, one could easily identify the boundaries of Israel’s and God’s kingdom: they extended as far as the military had gotten. Yet, the OT authors never confined God’s kingdom simply to the military outposts. For the OT authors, God’s kingly rule through and over Israel was a visual representation of his claim to be king of the whole earth. Twice in Psalm 47 the psalmist declares that God is king over ‘the whole earth’ (vv. 2, 7). This simple claim refers to a grand theology in which God as creator is viewed as the king of all creation. For example, the psalmists often draw on the ancient understanding of creation as a conflict between God and chaos. In this view, God demonstrates his kingly rule by taming the waters (Ps. 29:3-10; 89:9-13; 93:3-5) or Leviathan (Ps. 74:12-17). He holds within his hands the heights and depths of the world (Ps. 95:3-5). He rules over the created world from his throne in heaven (Ps. 11:4; 99:1; 103:19; 113:4-6).

This same understanding of the physicality of the kingdom runs throughout the second temple Jewish texts. ¹⁰ God’s ‘all-powerful word leaped out of heaven from the royal throne’ (Wis. 18:15). The idea of God as king is, according to Nickelsburg, the ‘principle metaphor’ used in 1 Enoch. ¹¹ In one place particularly, Enoch describes entering God’s heavenly throne room (1 En. 14:18-24). It is clear from this text that Enoch envisions a particular locality over which God rules. The Songs of the Sabbath speaks of ‘the princes of the kingdom, the kingdom of the holy ones of the king of holiness’ who is located ‘in all the heights of the sanctuaries of his glorious kingdom’ (4Q405 frg. 23 col. II 10-12). The final clause clearly indicates a place.

Whenever OT and second temple Jewish authors write about God as king over creation, they do not envision a ‘purely’ spiritual kingdom. They are describing God as king over a very physical kingdom and that kingdom is the whole earth and, indeed, the whole universe. The texts that describe God as king of heaven and locate the kingdom ‘spatially’ in heaven rather than earth are not denoting some non-physical, spiritual reality. Heaven is the physical location of God’s kingdom.

Although the physical nature of the kingdom in the OT and Judaism is obvious, many NT scholars insist that when Jesus uses the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ he is referring to God’s reign rather than a physical location, a realm. The expression ‘kingdom of God’, according to John Meier, ‘is a vague and abstract-sounding locution’ that despite its more natural meaning (that of a realm) ‘is meant to conjure up the dynamic notion of God powerfully ruling over his creation, over his people, and over the history of both’. ¹² Although Meier will attempt to demonstrate this meaning from the Gospel texts, one can challenge his opening remarks about the vagueness and abstract quality of the expression. Meier does not explain how the expression is these things, and in fact the expression is grammatically identical to others: ‘kingdom of David’, ‘kingdom of Solomon’, etc. These expressions have no vagueness nor are they abstract-sounding. Depending on context they can denote a temporal reign, when identified by a temporal modifier, or the physical location over which one ruled. ¹³

In fact, when Luke uses the term βασιλϵία (basileia) to refer to one other than God’s, the term seems to denote a locality, as in Luke 21:10 (‘Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom’ [cf. 4:5; 11:17-18]), or contain both ideas of realm and reign (see Luke 19:12, 15). This more general usage implies that one should not assume from the outset that ‘kingdom of God’ must denote God’s rule and not the realm over which God rules. Also, expressions like ‘enter the kingdom of God’ or ‘inherit the kingdom of God’ make best sense as references to entering or inheriting the territory over which God reigns.

A persistent problem in much of the discussion about the kingdom of God has, in fact, been the either-or mentality: either rule or realm. This is the driving force behind claims like Meier’s and others. Yet, the quest for a single meaning – either realm or reign – is misleading. The expression ‘kingdom of …’ encompasses both ideas as it defines who is in charge of a particular place. Certainly, one aspect or the other may be more prominent in a given context. However, the insistence on a single meaning in every instance often leaves out part of the evidence.

Although there are good reasons for viewing the kingdom as a reference to a physical realm over which God rules, there are two further counterpoints that should be addressed. First, one could argue that the kingdom is basically spiritual because the Gospels regularly present the kingdom of God as conflicting with Satan’s rule. Throughout the Gospels, one way in which Jesus proclaims the kingdom is through his actions of healing and exorcism. ¹⁴ By driving out demons he is displaying God’s rule (Mark 3:22-27/Matt. 12:22-30/Luke 11:14-23). ¹⁵ From statements such as these, one could conclude that the Gospels are referring to a spiritual conflict between God and Satan. To conclude, however, that this conflict is purely spiritual and only concerned with human hearts is short-sighted. The conflict between Jesus and the demons is the manifestation on this planet of the cosmic battle that is being waged in the heavens. The battle between God and Satan is precisely a battle over territory, namely, who is going to rule this earth? We do not have here a de-territorialising of the kingdom; rather, we have a battle raging over a territory.

This is seen at the first conflict between Jesus and Satan in the account of Jesus’ temptations. Luke gives the following account of Jesus’ second temptation:

And leading him up, the devil showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment, and said to him, ‘To you I will give all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed to me, and I can give it to whom I wish. If you, then, will worship me, it will all be yours’. (4:5-7)

Satan does not offer to Jesus merely a spiritual rule over human hearts. Rather, he offers him plots of land, which include the people who live on those lands. It is something physical that Satan offers Jesus. Jesus, of course, rejects the offer because he refuses to worship Satan. He, however, does not reject Satan’s view of kingship and authority. ¹⁶

A second counterpoint could come from Jesus’ exchange with Pilate as recorded in John’s gospel which can easily give the impression that Jesus’ kingdom is spiritual but not physical. Pilate asks, ‘Are you the king of the Jews?’ and eventually he gets the answer from Jesus, ‘My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom was from this world, my servants would be fighting so that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But now my kingdom is not from here’ (John 18:33, 36). Williams, for example, draws on John 18:36 to support his criticisms of the disciples in Acts 1:6: ‘there is a certain poignancy in [the disciples’] failure right to the end to understand that the kingdom was not of this world (cf. John 18:36) but of the Spirit, to be entered only by repentance and faith’. ¹⁷

Two points, however, suggest that this is a misreading of Jesus’ reply. First, what Jesus’ rejects is Pilate’s understanding of a kingdom as consisting of military conquest. If he accepted Pilate’s view, his followers would be fighting for his release. They would storm the gates of Pilate’s home and fight the Roman soldiers. This type of kingdom, though, is denounced by Jesus. His kingdom is not the typical political kingdom of the earth. Second, Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world precisely because it originates from heaven. ¹⁸ The fact that the kingdom belongs to another realm beyond Rome’s immediate control means that this kingdom and its king are no threat to Pilate and Rome. This is why Pilate finds Jesus to be no real threat. The fact that Jesus’ kingdom belongs to heaven and is not a competing army does not make it, however, non-territorial and merely spiritual.

Far from reducing God’s kingdom merely to a spiritual rule over human hearts, God’s kingdom is an emphatic claim to rule over the whole earth through Jesus Christ. When Jesus combats with Satan and when God is described as ruling in heaven, these are not simply spiritual concepts devoid of a spatial and material reality. What the OT prophets long for and what Jesus requests in his model prayer, ‘Your kingdom come’ (Luke 11:2; Matt. 6:10), is for the present reality of God’s rule in heaven to be made visible in the human world. They want God’s kingdom to extend in its territory from heaven to earth. Thus, the claim that, as Stott puts it, ‘the kingdom of God is not a territorial concept. It does not – and cannot – figure on any map’ is fundamentally wrong. ¹⁹ The kingdom is territorial; it is about a place; and it can be put on a map – but that map is the whole world and, indeed, the whole universe.

1.2 The Kingdom as Political

The second aspect of this first critique is that the kingdom of God is not a political kingdom. Yet, in the ancient world, spiritual and political were not so easily juxtaposed. The Jewish literature testifies repeatedly that many Jews expected God to remove the foreign oppressors when he appeared to rule. The rebels, for example, held that God alone is to be ‘leader and master’ and they avoided calling any man ‘master’ (Jos., Ant. 18:23; War 2:118). Some versions of this political kingdom included a messianic figure. This figure would drive the foreign oppressors out of Jerusalem, crush all Israel’s enemies, and re-establish the boundaries of David’s kingdom. This perspective appears in the claims of the Psalms of Solomon 17:21-30:

²¹ See, Lord, and raise up for them their king, the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel in the time known to you, O God.

²² Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous rulers, to purge Jerusalem from gentiles who trample her to destruction;

²³ In wisdom and righteousness to drive out the sinners from the inheritance,

To smash the arrogance of sinners like a potter’s jar.

²⁴ To shatter all their substance with an iron rod;

to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth;

²⁵ At his warning the nations will flee from his presence; and he will condemn sinners by the thoughts of their hearts.

…

²⁹ He will judge peoples and nations in the wisdom of his righteousness. Pause.

³⁰ And he will have gentile nations serving him under his yoke, and he will glorify the Lord in (a place) prominent (above) the whole earth.

And he will purge Jerusalem (and make it) holy as it was even from the beginning. ²⁰

The traditions about the kingdom of God in Daniel were crucial during the second temple period and especially in the Jesus traditions. These texts show that a contrast between political and spiritual cannot be maintained. For example, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue in Daniel 2 and Daniel’s vision of the four beasts in chapter 7 were often interpreted in this period as earthly kingdoms. ²¹ In both visions these earthly kingdoms are climatically ended when God appears and ushers in his kingdom. There is no contrast here between cosmic/spiritual and political. The kingdom of God is set on the same level and in contrast to the world’s kingdoms. What Daniel envisions is a final kingdom, the kingdom of God and of Israel, that overtakes all other worldly kingdoms and establishes righteousness. Similarly, in chapter 10 Daniel sees an angelic figure who is sent to explain the future but this figure was held up by ‘the prince of the kingdom of Persia’ (v.13). This prince is clearly a spiritual being, and in the background lies the idea of angels ruling over individual nations. In Israel’s context this tradition is stated first in Deut. 32:8–12, according to which the Lord divides the nations among the ‘sons of God’ but he reserves for himself Israel (cf. Sir. 17:11; Jub. 15:31-32). ²² This link between the spiritual world and human political kingdoms is a clear indictor that the two should not be separated. To read, therefore, God’s kingdom as purely a ‘spiritual’ kingdom is to ignore the image of the visions and the function of the book of Daniel. ²³

If one limits the meaning of ‘political’ to a military conquest as envisioned by the rebels and the author(s) behind the Psalms of Solomon, then obviously the kingdom of God in Jesus’ view is not political. We have already seen this above with regard to John 18, and there is no evidence that Jesus sought to establish a military. This is why Rome was not really concerned with his claims to be king. Yet, this is not the only way to think about ‘political’, and if we broaden our view of ‘political’ to be claims to rule then we can think of the kingdom of God as political. The kingdom of God regularly clashes with human kingdoms, and the two are involved in a power-struggle. This perspective comes through at various points in Luke’s presentation of the kingdom.

First, from the outset Luke carefully sets his narrative into the context of Roman rule. ²⁴ The birth of John is placed within the reign of Herod (Luke 1:5). While Herod is identified as king of Judea/the Jews, the perspective is certainly widened with the birth of Jesus. Luke places this event in the context of world history with his reference to Caesar Augustus and Quirinius (2:1-2). ²⁵ Additionally, the birth account of Jesus is filled with royal imagery and Luke creates a tension between Jesus and Caesar. Roman empirical ideology advanced the claim that Rome, and specifically Caesar Augustus, brought peace to the inhabited world. ²⁶ In Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ birth, though, peace arrives when the babe is born. Here is a political claim that strikes at the very foundations of Roman rule. ²⁷ The beginning of Jesus’ ministry is also set within the context of world history (3:1).

Second, the hymns in the opening chapters of Luke’s Gospel carry strong political overtones. Mary blesses God because ‘he has shown strength with his arm’ and ‘has pulled down rulers from their thrones’ (Luke 1:51,52). Zechariah likewise speaks of God raising up a messiah who will bring ‘salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all those who hate us’ (1:71). While drawing on OT language and imagery, these prophetic hymns restate the longing for God to deliver Israel from its oppressors. Scholars have routinely downplayed the political implications of these hymns by, for example, projecting their message into the distant future or charging that the speakers were mistaken. However, these explanations will not suffice, not least because they render the opening chapters pointless. ²⁸ Rather, the political overtones must be given full weight, and when linked with the mission of Jesus it becomes apparent that what Jesus brings is a political kingdom, but one defined not by its military might but by the activity of its missionaries, who through their proclamation of the coming kingdom of God and the call to change one’s life introduce a new rule that both overtakes Satan’s claims to rule this world and Rome’s claim to control the people. In the end, then, rather than eliminating the political connotations, we should see Luke as redefining political activity around mission rather than military manoeuvres. ²⁹

A third example comes from the situation in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-9). ³⁰ A conflict arises that is centred around the charge that the Christians proclaimed Christ as King: ‘These men who have turned the world upside down have come here … and they are all acting against the decrees of Caesar by saying that there is another king, Jesus’ (Acts 17:6-7). The charge brought against the Christians is a political charge, and Luke does nothing to deny or soften it. In fact, throughout Luke’s account of the spread of the Way, unrest arises. While the Roman officials regularly find no offence being committed, this does not mean that Luke presents an apolitical proclamation. Actually, the exact opposite is the case. Luke presents a more subtle political conflict. Rowe argues rightly:

For Luke, the kingdom is obviously not a ‘human kingdom’ in the straightforward simplistic sense, and in this way the Christian mission does not threaten Rome as did, for example, the Parthian kingdom. Yet, against every Gnosticizing impulse, the vision in Acts is of a kingdom that is every bit as much a human presence as it is a divine work. That is, the kingdom of which Jesus is King is not simply ‘spiritual’ but also material and social, which is to say that it takes up space in public. ³¹

For Luke, the spread of Christianity sets awkwardly between the charge of inciting revolt and political irrelevance. It is deemed politically irrelevant, and thus merely spiritual, when Festus and Agrippa fail to realise that Christianity offers an alternative worldview centred on ‘another king’ and his resurrection (Acts 24–25). It is deemed politically threatening, and thus a cause for revolt, when the Ephesian silversmith Demetrius recognises that Christianity’s new way of living will bring to an end the economic and religious ways of Rome (Acts 19). Demetrius rightly understands the implications of the Christian mission as subverting the common ways. Festus and Agrippa rightly acknowledge that Paul is not inciting revolt. ³² Where both erred and many commentators since is the failure to realise that Luke walks between both of these ideas. For Luke, the Christian mission, which has at its centre the proclamation of the kingdom of God, is indeed turning the world upside down, but not through political revolt. What Luke envisions is not a kingdom defined by the size and might of its army; rather, he envisions a kingdom defined by the size and might of its missionaries. ³³ This version of the kingdom is as political as Rome or the rebels of Israel, but it undermines opposing forces by reshaping the worldview and lifestyles of humans. The kingdom of God in Luke’s version calls people to a new way of living, a crucified way of living (cf. Luke 14:26-27). ³⁴

The first charge brought against the disciples’ question was that they sought a physical and a political kingdom when they should have been seeking a spiritual one. This charge against the disciples, however, fails to grasp fully the Lucan understanding of the kingdom of God as God’s rule over the whole world through Jesus and advanced against rival kingdoms by the proclamation of the good news that the true king has arrived to rule. ³⁵

2. A National Kingdom for Israel

The second criticism made of the disciples is that they were just nationalists at heart. Calvin, for example, writes, ‘they also are mistaken in this, that they confine to Israel after the flesh the Kingdom of Christ which is to be extended to the farthest parts of the world’. ³⁶ Thomas voices the same criticism: ‘they still retained a view that Jesus had come to do something great for ethnic-geographical Israel’. ³⁷

This charge, however, fails to understand Luke’s views about Israel and the nations. First, it does not account for Luke’s statements about the restoration of Israel. ³⁸ For example, Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, who praises God because ‘He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David, his servant’ and in so doing fulfils his covenant promises to deliver his people and enable obedience (Luke 1:67-75). Mary, Jesus’ mother, views the coming birth of her child as the covenantal faithfulness of God toward Israel (1:54-55). The prophetess Anna, after seeing the child Jesus, speaks ‘to all who are waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem’ (2:38). The two disciples on the road to Emmaus summarise their hope that ‘he was about to redeem Israel’ (24:21). Remarkably, Jesus does not correct them for this view. Rather, he corrects their misunderstanding about how this would come about, namely, first through the suffering of the messiah and then he would enter into glory (v. 26). Peter calls his listeners to repentance and conversion precisely ‘so that times of refreshing may come from the Lord’ (Acts 3:19-21). In none of these instances does Luke seek to correct these views through other characters in his narrative or give an editorial comment to the effect: ‘we know that these views are wrong, but for historical accuracy I have recorded them’.

Second, this criticism assumes that ‘Israel’ as a distinct ethnic people will alone be blessed by the establishment of a kingdom for Israel and that there will be no blessings for non-Israelites, gentiles. Yet, this is mistaken. The traditions in the OT and second temple Jewish literature about the spread of the kingdom of God offer a range of views about the future of the gentiles, and some of these views make room for the gentiles. ³⁹ Two ideas are particularly relevant to Luke’s account. Positively, one finds in the prophets the hope that the nations will come streaming into Israel where they will acknowledge Israel’s God as the true King. Isaiah 2:2-4 expresses this well when it describes the nations worshipping in Jerusalem and peace throughout the world. Negatively, other passages describe the nations, particularly their rulers, as being destroyed in the final days. Psalm 2, (probably) an enthronement Psalm that was eventually interpreted messianically, calls for the world’s rulers to acknowledge Israel’s God and her king as the supreme rulers (vv.10-12). Psalm 48:4-7 describe the nations’ rulers as advancing against Zion, but when they saw its might, they froze and God destroyed them.

Both of these traditions are taken up across the second temple Jewish literature and represented in Luke-Acts. For example, the first appears in Simeon’s announcement about Christ as ‘a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel’ (Luke 2:32), while the second is expressed in part of Zechariah’s hymn (1.71, 74) and the use of Psalm 2 in an early Christian prayer meeting recorded in Acts 4. It seems that Luke envisions different scenarios depending on whether one accepts the claim that Jesus is God’s appointed deliver or rejects it. The dominate version in Luke’s writings, however, is the first: the restoration of Israel includes blessing being poured out on the nations. This scenario comes to the forefront in Acts as the message of the kingdom is taken into the nations (Acts 8:12; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31).

Given the portrait that Luke creates about the kingdom, there is no reason to conclude simply that the disciples were promoting ‘narrow, nationalistic aspirations’. ⁴⁰ By Luke’s portrait, everyone was aware that the kingdom would involve the nations. Thus the question raised is not ‘will the nations be included’, but ‘how will the nations come to participate in the restoration of the kingdom?’

3. The Timing of the Kingdom

Especially after the collapse of the Davidic kings and in the post-exilic period, the driving question for many was when would God’s kingdom be evident again. At what point would God intervene in Israel’s life and re-establish himself as king over them and over all the nations? This issue of timing lies at the heart of the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6, and the third criticism brought against them charges, in the words of Thomas, that ‘they made a fundamental error in thinking that it was possible to predict the future precisely by events that were occurring in the present’. ⁴¹ It is important to be clear about what the disciples had observed throughout their time with Jesus: his message about the coming kingdom throughout his life; his entrance into Jerusalem to the claims of kingship; his resurrection, a sure sign of the End; and his teaching about the Spirit and the kingdom after his resurrection. Given all this the question is entirely appropriate. For the disciples the signs of the end had manifest, and the expectation of any Jew with an eschatological outlook would be that now is the time for God to re-establish his kingdom. ⁴² Even those who judge the disciples’ question to be wrongheaded regularly acknowledge that the question arises naturally from all that they had seen and been taught. ⁴³

Among the criticisms levelled against disciples, this one alone seems to have some basis. ⁴⁴ In his response Jesus tells the disciples not to concern themselves with the when of the coming kingdom (vv. 7-8). Instead, they are to devote themselves to the task at hand. Jesus does not deny that the kingdom of God may and is, indeed, coming soon. He does not push it out to some future time after the disciples’ missionary task is completed. In fact, one could argue that in the very proclamation of the kingdom the disciples are demonstrating that the kingdom has arrived. What is sought, then, is not a climatic event at which time the kingdom becomes evident; rather, the kingdom grows and spreads through the mission efforts of the church. ⁴⁵

Conclusion

Commentators have often derided the disciples for failing to understand the nature of the kingdom introduced by Jesus. This essay has been an attempt to restore some honour to Jesus’ earliest followers. No doubt, they often misunderstood Jesus. The Gospel of Mark alone is sufficient evidence of this. Yet, in those final days before Jesus’ ascension, their question to him ‘Lord will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?’ (Acts 1:6) does not betray complete ignorance. Rather, it reflects careful listening to their Lord’s teaching. The disciples’ question was appropriate to the situation, even if they still had more to learn about the kingdom. In this instance, it is not Jesus’ first disciples who have failed to understand the nature of his kingdom, but his later followers.