Acts 1:1-9: “The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.”
I used to use this passage as a proof-text for Premillennialism, when I held to that school of thought. However, I believe a closer examination of the narrative shows a different story to that argued by that belief. Many Premillennialists advance the disciples question to Christ in Acts 1:6 relating to the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, as evidence that Christ is going to set up a future physical temporal kingdom on this earth for 1000 years after His second coming. I believe such an interpretation emanates more from a partial preconceived idea of the word “kingdom” rather than any direct or indirect allusion to, or a clear description of, a post-Second Coming earthly physical millennial kingdom in this passage.
The two verses that go before Acts 1:6 (relating to the disciples’ question) support the idea of a spiritual kingdom. The two verses that follow Acts 1:6 (relating to the disciples’ question) show the Lord giving a spiritual response to their question.
Before the question came Christ was exhorting the disciples on the need for patience as they awaited the empowerment of the Holy Ghost to take the Gospel out to “the whosoever.” Everything about the context is spiritual. The Lord was stating “that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence” (Acts 1:4-5).
Surely an unbiased look at these introductory comments would give us insight into what the Lord was teaching and what actually provoked the question that followed it. Undoubtedly the Lord was giving spiritual instruction about a spiritual kingdom that would shortly come with great power and fire? This is not territorial language.
What is “the Promise of the Father” here? Is it a material physical kingdom or is it a spiritual heavenly kingdom? Is it a millennial kingdom similar to this evil age, filled with death and rebellion, or was He speaking of the power of the Holy Ghost that would fall upon the disciples to empower them to bring the good news of Christ to all nations – starting in Jerusalem?
Evidently, Christ was referring to the day of Pentecost where the Church received its Holy Ghost baptism of fire. The whole discourse here is spiritual and revolved around the development of this spiritual kingdom subsequent to Christ’s ascension. Jesus confirms this again in Luke 24:46-49: “Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power (or dunamis) from on high.”
The promise of the Father was the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which was a power from on high that endued them for service.
Jesus had previously said to the disciples in Mark 9:1: “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power (or dunamis).”
Christ was speaking of Pentecost. He said the disciples would not die until they had “seen the kingdom come with power” – referring here the Church’s baptism of fire to win a lost world. It didn’t mean they would die when that happened.
The disciples then interjected with a question: “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?”
Premillennialists attribute much extravagant, extensive and grandiose detail to this simple question. They build a whole school of thought pertaining to a supposed period after the second coming out of this basic inquiry. They call it a millennial age and make it a Jewish-orientated kingdom. Nevertheless, and significantly, New Testament Scripture knows nothing of such an old-covenant-type Jewish age. That has been reduced to the history books.
What Premillennialists fail to see is: there is no mention of a future period after the second coming in the question, neither is there any intimation of that. There is not even any mention of the second coming, never mind a belief in a thousand-year reign of Christ on a still corrupt earth! No one could derive such a doctrine from this straightforward question. It would have to be taught elsewhere for it to enjoy veracity.
The most that we could take from this is that they may indeed have anticipated the introduction of a parochial, territorial and old-covenant-type physical kingdom. But that is far from a foregone conclusion. We can only, at best, speculate on that. Even if that was their assumption, that in no way proves that it was a legitimate hope. The disciples were often misguided in their expectations and narrow-minded in their tribal aspirations. They frequently saw no further than the borders of Israel. We see that played in the book of Acts, with their reluctance to advance the Gospel to the Gentiles.
It is hard to read the motives and intention of the question. Many times, the disciples were not getting the full meaning of Christ’s teaching. He sent His whole ministry correcting and re-directing them. So it could have been a patriotic desire. But Christ’s response nails it. That is what is key, not the disciples’ question. Premils tend to ignore the context and response and just talk about one verse in this narrative. That is because it suits their theology.
Regardless, it doesn’t really matter what the disciples thought, we need to rather ascertain what Christ thought and taught. We should remember: that this question came in the midst of a spiritual discourse about the kingdom of God arriving in power at Pentecost. Christ’s reply is key. It is powerful. It is direct. It nails the literalist’s interpretation of this in a carnal earthly sense.
