Did Jesus Correct the Disciples’ View of the Kingdom?

By John A. McLean

[John A. McLean is president of Michigan Theological Seminary, Ann Arbor, Michigan.]

Just before Jesus ascended to heaven, His 11 disciples asked Him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6, NIV). He responded, “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority” (v. 7, NIV). This brief answer (along with Jesus’ words in verse 8 about the coming of the Holy Spirit) did not reveal much about the kingdom.

This fact has led students to speculate on what Jesus meant in these verses. For example Neil suggests that a group larger than the 11 disciples was present, a group that therefore did not understand the true nature of the kingdom. He argues,

The question, implying the common expectation of a national triumph for the Jews over the Romans by the agency of the Messiah, could hardly have been asked by those who had so recently been enlightened. It could, however, have been asked by others who had not heard the Lord’s words on the subject, and who had now gathered together for this final scene before his Ascension.[1]

This explanation depends on at least two assumptions that cannot be proven and that in fact contradict the context of Acts 1. Acts 1:13 clearly shows that the group with Jesus included only the Eleven. Furthermore, since Jesus had appeared to them “over a period of forty days…speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God” (v. 3), His audience just before His ascension was not ignorant of His teaching of the kingdom of God. Harrison points out that the disciples continued to expect the kingdom in spite of Jesus’ clear teachings that He was to suffer and die, and after the postresurrection appearances they would certainly have concluded that He would restore the kingdom.[2]

Neil’s second assumption is that the true nature of the kingdom of God had nothing to do with a common expectation of national interests by the Jews.[3] However, he offers no evidence to demonstrate that the kingdom of God did not involve such national interests. Furthermore Jesus did not correct the disciples but only informed them that the timing of the kingdom’s restoration was not for them to know.

Lüdemann maintains that Jesus meant the kingdom was to be replaced to Israel by the Spirit. He states, “The kingdom is replaced by the Spirit (v. 3b, Jesus’ preaching of the kingdom of God, is to be interpreted in this pneumatological, ecclesiological sense). In this way the time of the parousia is shifted into an indeterminate (but not uncertain: v. 11; 17.31) future.”[4] Without any significant argumentation Lüdemann simply assumes that the Holy Spirit’s coming replaced the kingdom.

The mention of the promise of the Father, which was the baptism of the Holy Spirit, however, probably gave rise to the disciples’ question about the timing of the kingdom’s arrival. “In Jewish expectations, the restoration of Israel’s fortunes would be marked by the revived activity of God’s Spirit, which had been withheld since the last of the prophets.”[5] The coming of the Holy Spirit was anticipated in Old Testament prophecy (Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 39:29; Joel 2:28; Zech 12:10). Haenchen argues likewise that “the earliest Christians regarded the outpouring of the Spirit as a sign that the end of the world was at hand,” and the coming of the kingdom was associated with this consummation.[6] Jesus did not redefine Israel’s kingdom but only declined to give the timing of the kingdom. Also if the coming of the Spirit replaced the kingdom, Jesus would have contradicted Himself. Though Jesus said they were not to know the time of the kingdom, He did give them an idea of the timing of the coming of the Holy Spirit (“not many days from now,” Acts 1:5). They were to wait for the Holy Spirit’s coming, which would be soon, and then they were to be witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria, and the remotest parts of the earth (vv. 4, 8).

Another view is suggested by Carter and Earle.

Christ mildly rebukes the disciples’ query concerning the restoration of the kingdom. He does not deny that He has a kingdom to restore. In fact He admits that His plan provides for a universal kingdom over the souls of men (vs. 8), though that plan is not for a narrow, limited, material kingdom such as His Jewish disciples had conceived.[7]

The mild rebuke Carter and Earle suggest is difficult to establish from the text. Jesus did not rebuke the disciples; He only declined to reveal to them the timing of the kingdom (cf. Mark 13:32).[8] He had already promised them they would “eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:30). Therefore it is implausible that Jesus would rebuke the disciples for believing in something He had previously taught them.

Kistemaker maintains that the kingdom is a spiritual kingdom[9] rather than a national, political entity. The difficulty with this position is that he gives exegetical evidence why the kingdom could be understood as a nationalistic, political kingdom, and then dismisses it for a spiritual kingdom. He assumes an interpretation of a spiritual Israel but offers little proof. Even Lenski, who does not accept a future for national Israel, maintains that the disciples thought of a glorious earthly rule for Israel, the Jewish people, through Jesus, the Messiah, when He would return. Jesus answered only regarding the times and the seasons and did not explain the kingdom (see v. 3) and how Israel (the remnant, Rom 9:27; 11:5) would have the kingdom restored. The fact that the apostles still expressed strong earthly conceptions by their question can scarcely be denied.[10]

Kistemaker seems to suggest that since there is a spiritual dynamic to the kingdom it cannot also have a national or political aspect. He says that since Jesus referred to the timing of the kingdom and a universal witness, the passage refers to the restoration of spiritual Israel.[11]

These disciples, however, were the same ones to whom Jesus had explained the Scriptures (Luke 24:32), whose minds He had opened to understand the Scriptures (v. 45), and with whom He had spent 40 days speaking about the kingdom of God (Acts 1:3). Therefore it is highly unlikely they would have thought He meant to alter the meaning of the kingdom by excluding its national, political character. Therefore rather than correcting the disciples’ understanding of a kingdom He led them to expect a kingdom at some undisclosed time period.

Bruce also contends that the kingdom for Israel must be redefined as a spiritual kingdom.

The question in v. 6 appears to have been the last flicker of their former burning expectation of an imminent political theocracy with themselves as its chief executives. From this time forth they devoted themselves to the proclamation and service of God’s spiritual kingdom.[12]

The difficulty with this proposal is that Jesus did not redefine the kingdom by mandating the proclamation of the gospel. The proclamation of the gospel was a central focus of Peter’s sermons and his anticipation was that “the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord…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” (Acts 3:19, 21). Peter’s language reflected his continued expectation of the coming of the kingdom (cf. Acts 1:11; Matt 17:11).

Jesus’ response seems to affirm the disciples’ belief in the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. He did not rebuke them nor did He correct them by suggesting there was no future for Israel. Instead He affirmed their belief but informed them that it was not their privilege to know the timing of the restoration.

The fact that Jesus did not correct the disciples’ view of the kingdom suggests the correctness of their perception of it. An examination of the Gospels demonstrates the weight of this argument. Much of the ministry of Jesus is presented in the form of rebuke or correction. Nearly half of Matthew and Mark includes “correction materials” and nearly one-third of Luke and John consists of such material. Jesus employed many different means in His teaching ministry in order to correct the errant thinking of the people.[13]

The Gospel of Luke records 26 questions asked of Jesus.[14] All but two of these questions received an answer from Him (Luke 22:64; 24:18). Jesus answered questions and corrected misconceptions the people had. This pattern is typical of the other Gospels. The Gospels record more than one hundred questions addressed to Jesus. He did not reply to two questions that needed no answer: one before the high priest (Matt 26:62–63), and a second before Pilate (27:13). He answered one question with a question (21:23–27), and offered a partial reply to another (John 12:34). In all the others He responded with a full answer in which He corrected wrong thinking by the audience. The ministry of Jesus focused, in part, on correcting false doctrine and rebuking errant teachers. However, it is noteworthy that Jesus did not correct the disciples’ question about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Therefore in view of the consistent ministry of Jesus to correct the disciples when they were in error, it seems correct to conclude that in their question in Acts 1:6 they properly anticipated a future restoration of the kingdom for Israel.

Exegetical Questions about the Question

To understand the significance of Jesus’ silence in not correcting the 11 disciples in Acts 1:7, a number of exegetical questions need to be considered. What did the disciples mean when they suggested a “restoration” of the kingdom (v. 6)? What was the disciples’ concept of the kingdom as presented in Luke’s writing? What does the term “Israel” mean in Luke-Acts? How did the disciples understand Jesus’ answer?

What Does It Mean to “Restore” the Kingdom?

Jesus addressed the concept of the restoration of all things immediately after His transfiguration. The disciples asked, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first” (Matt 17:10; Mark 9:11)? Jesus’ responded, “Elijah is coming and will restore all things” (Matt 17:11; Mark 9:12). This prophecy relates to Malachi 4:4–6, which predicted that Elijah would come before the great and terrible day of the Lord. Jesus affirmed that John the Baptist had come to fulfill this role, but John was rejected (Matt 17:12–13). As the forerunner of Jesus, John did prepare the way for a future restoration based on the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Peter referred to a “period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time” (Acts 3:21). Jeremiah spoke prophetically of the restoration (ἀποκαθιστᾶν, LXX) of Israel to the land of Palestine (Jer 15:19; 16:15; 23:8; 24:6; 50:19; cf. Hos 11:11). Peter argued from Genesis 12, Deuteronomy 18, and all the prophets who spoke from Samuel onward (Acts 3:22–26), that Jesus is the greater Prophet who would bless them when they turned from their wicked ways. If the statements of Jesus and these Old Testament prophecies are part of the formation of the disciples’ concept of restoration, then the disciples were thinking in terms of the reestablishment of some kingdom for national Israel.

What Was The Disciples’ Concept of the Kingdom in Luke’s Writings?

Luke presented the kingdom (βασιλεία) as having present and future aspects. The concept of a kingdom is first recorded in Luke as part of the announcement of the birth of Jesus. The angel announced, “The Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end” (Luke 1:32–33). This everlasting kingdom is identified with national Israel by the phrase “over the house of Jacob.”

Jesus preached “the kingdom of God” (Luke 4:43; 8:1; 9:11), and He commissioned the disciples to preach this same message (9:2, 60). He told the disciples that they should inform the people that the kingdom of God was near (10:9–11), and He told the Pharisees that the kingdom of God was in their midst (17:21).

When Jesus taught the disciples to pray, “Thy kingdom come” (11:2), this pointed to the future. This future kingdom will include the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles (13:28–29; 22:30; Matt 8:11). Before the Triumphal Entry, as the disciples approached Jerusalem, they anticipated the immediate appearance of the kingdom of God (Luke 19:11). Jesus gave the disciples a number of signs (21:25–28) by which they could recognize that the kingdom of God was near (21:31). At the last Passover Jesus referred to the future aspect of the kingdom of God when He stated He would not eat the Passover meal again “until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (22:16–18).

This future aspect of the kingdom is further defined in Jesus’ response to the disciples’ arguing over which of them was the greatest. “And you are those who have stood by Me in My trials; and just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22:28–30). Jesus clearly led the disciples to believe in a future kingdom for Israel in which they would reign with Him over the 12 tribes.

The preaching of the kingdom of God continues as a central focus in Acts, but little definition is given to the phrase. Philip preached “the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12). Paul taught that “through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God” (14:22). Paul made the kingdom of God a central topic in his preaching (19:8; 20:25; 28:31), and in Rome he sought to convince the Jews, “explaining to them by solemnly testifying about the kingdom of God, and trying to persuade them concerning Jesus, from both the Law of Moses and from the Prophets” (28:23). The phrase ἀπό τε τοῦ νόμου Μωῢσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν probably modifies both participles διαμαρτυρόμενος and πείθων, suggesting that the understanding of the kingdom of God included a definition shaped by the Old Testament. The kingdom of God in the Old Testament is certainly depicted as a kingdom for the nation Israel, in the land of Palestine, with a descendant from the Davidic line ruling over it (2 Sam 7). The disciples’ concept of a kingdom involved national Israel.

What Does the Term “Israel” Mean in Luke-Acts?

Luke recorded that Jesus taught a present and future aspect to the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God was present in their midst, probably because of Jesus’ presence among them. Yet, there was a future aspect that was yet to be fulfilled. The disciples were taught that they would share in the future kingdom of Israel by reigning with Christ over the 12 tribes of Israel. They also anticipated that it could come at any moment. The preaching of the early church contained the message of the kingdom of God, and Paul argued for this kingdom based on the writings of Moses and the Prophets. The future kingdom for the nation Israel is defined by Old Testament prophecy and will be fulfilled by Jesus Christ when He returns to reign. This kingdom will involve a banquet in which the disciples and patriarchs will participate. Jesus Christ will share in a Passover festival when this kingdom is fulfilled.

A survey of the Lucan writings demonstrates that Luke used the word “Israel” in an ethnic and national sense. “Israel” occurs 12 times in the Gospel of Luke, and each time it clearly refers to national Israel and/or its people.[15] When the disciples thought about Israel, they thought about God’s people, the Jews, who composed the 12 tribes, for whom the kingdom of God meant deliverance and redemption and over whom they would someday rule with Jesus Christ.

This same meaning continues in Acts. Peter addressed the many “Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, from every nation under heaven” (Acts 2:5) as “Men of Israel” (῍Ανδρες =Λσραηλῖται, 2:22; 3:12). When he called the people to repentance and faith, he addressed them as the “house of Israel” and the “people of Israel” (2:36; 4:10; also see 5:21; 10:36). Luke continued this national identification of Israel as he identified the ruling Council, which was directing the persecutions, as “all the Senate of the sons of Israel” (5:21; cf. v. 35).

Paul’s ministry also maintained this national identification of Israel. Ananias was told by the Lord that Paul was “a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (9:15).

The terms “Israel” and “Israelite” occur 32 times in Luke-Acts. In each occurrence the terms refer to the people of Israel as a national entity. Therefore it seems correct to understand that the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 referred to a restoration of a kingdom to the nation of Israel. They were asking Jesus about the timing of the future restoration of the Davidic kingdom of Israel as described and defined in the Old Testament.

What Was the Disciples’ Understanding of Eschatology?

What did the disciples understand about future things, based on the information Jesus gave them just before His ascension? No doubt they understood these five points.

1. The Holy Spirit will come (1:5, 8).
2. The Holy Spirit will baptize them (1:5, 8).
3. The power of the Holy Spirit will enable them to witness (1:8).
4. Jesus will come again in the same way He ascended (1:11).
5. The Father has fixed the time by His own authority for restoring the kingdom to Israel (1:7).

In Peter’s sermon in Acts 3:12–26, he used language that shows he anticipated that the kingdom would be restored to Israel. Peter’s audience consisted of Jews, whom he exhorted, “Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away” (v. 19). Repentance is a prerequisite to the reception of the blessings of salvation (2:38).[16] As a result of repentance the “times of refreshing [καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως] may come from the presence of the Lord” (3:19, UBS, v. 20) and the Father will send the Son at the “period [χρόνων] of restoration of all things” (v. 21). Krodel notes that “kairoi and chronoi appear in reverse sequence in 1:7 and the verb ‘restore’ of 1:6 reappears as the noun ‘restoration’ or ‘establishing’ in 3:21 .”[17] This parallel language indicates a parallel in subject content.

What is the meaning of the phrase “times of refreshing” (καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως) in 3:19 ? It is difficult to determine the meaning partly because of the limited usage of ἀνάψυξις in the Scriptures. One occurrence of ἀνάψυξις is in the Septuagint translation of Exodus 8:15: “When Pharaoh saw that there was relief [ἀνάψυξις], he hardened his heart and did not listen to them, as the Lord had said.” =Ανάψυξις refers to the relief Egypt experienced after the plague of the frogs had ceased. The ἀνάψυξις in Acts 3:19 that will result from repentance is more than the absence of judgment because it also involves the positive benefit of the personal presence of the Lord (v. 20).[18]

Bock argues for two separate time periods for these events in support of his “already, not yet” view on the Davidic kingdom.[19] He says the “periods of refreshing” refer to the present time when sins can be wiped away through repentance,[20] and that the “times of restoration of all things” refers to the millennium. “Among the points in support of this distinction is that in the LXX translation by Symmachus, a reference to the descent of the Spirit in Isaiah 32:15 uses the term ἀνάψυξις (refreshment), a term related to the one in Acts 3:20.”[21] However, the context of Isaiah 32:15 refers to millennial blessings to national Israel, a fact that supports the single-stage restoration view, not a two-phase “already, not yet” restoration.

Walker suggests a two-stage restoration in Acts 3:19–21. He, like Bock, maintains that the καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως (“times of refreshing”) relates to special experiences of grace and blessing in this age, whereas the χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως (“period of restoration”) in verse 21 refers to the climactic age of blessings for the nation of Israel in fulfillment of Old Testament messianic promises.[22]

Lenski maintains that the phrase “times of refreshing” (καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως) refers to “longer or shorter periods of spiritual enjoyment when men who repent and are justified are given times in which to feel the sweetness of God’s grace in Christ without disturbance.”[23] Though Walker’s and Lenski’s suggestion may be true of the Christian experience at times, it is not supported by the reading of the text. These times of refreshing will take place in the personal presence of Christ when God the Father sends Him to earth again. These times of refreshing will occur at the period of the restoration (ἀποκατάστασις) of all things (v. 21). Interestingly Josephus used ἀποκατάστασις to refer to the restoration of the Jews to the land of Palestine.[24]

The main weakness in dividing these two events into separate time periods is that the text connects the events with a coordinating και (“and”) in Acts 3:20. The syntactical structure coordinates the two verbs ἔλθωσιν (“come,” v. 19) and ἀποστείλῃ (“send”) of the subordinate clause ὅπως ἂν in verse 20 with the two main verbs μετανοήσατε (“repent”) and ἐπιστρέψατε (“return”) in verse 19. Repentance and turning to God result in the coming of the times of refreshing and the sending of Jesus Christ at the restoration of all things God spoke about in the prophets. The sending of Jesus Christ will provide the personal presence that will result in the times of refreshing. These results are not events separated by time. They are mutual benefits that will come when the Father sends the Son so that believers may be refreshed in His presence. Conzelmann argues that “the parallelism between the two halves of the verse shows that the καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως, ‘times of refreshing,’ are not intervals of respite in the eschatological distress, but rather the final salvation (like the χρόνοι ἀποκαταστάσεως, ‘restoration’).”[25] Peter referred to this restoration in 2 Peter 3:13: “But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.” The promise of new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells is given in Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 60:21; 65:17–25; 66:22.[26]

The second result of Israel’s repentance is that God will “send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration [ἀποκαταστάσεως] of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time” (Acts 3:20–21). These verses parallel points four and five of the disciples’ understanding from Acts 1 (see p. 222).

Bruce suggests that ἀποκατάστασις should be translated “fulfillment” or “establishment.” He maintains that the fulfillment (ἀποκατάστασις) in 3:21 is much wider in scope than the restoration (ἀποκαθιστάνω) in 1:6. He concludes, “The ἀποκατάστασις here appears to be identical with the παλιγγενεσία (‘regeneration’) of Matthew 19:28. But the idea of restoration is not excluded; the final inauguration of the new age is accompanied by a renovation of all nature (cf. Rom 8:18–23).”[27]

However, a weakness in this view is that Bruce relates ἀποκατάστασις to παλιγγενεσία rather than accepting the relationship between ἀποκαθιστάνω and ἀποκατάστασις. This disregards textual and lexical parallels in Acts 3.

It is this writer’s view that in Acts 3 Peter was not offering the kingdom to Israel, but rather was preaching a message of repentance that reflected his understanding of eschatology. The timing of the kingdom, the nature of the Church Age, and the inclusion of the Gentiles were not fully understood by Peter at that time. What Peter was preaching was accurate but it was not complete. He was correct but not exhaustive because of his limited understanding at that time.

This lack of understanding and need of further revelation is demonstrated in Acts 10. After having received the vision of the great sheet that was filled with unclean animals, Peter was instructed by the Holy Spirit to go to the home of Cornelius in Caesarea. This was a difficult request for Peter because devout Jews did not have intimate dealings with the Gentiles. After Peter had entered into Cornelius’s home, he stated, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a man who is a Jew to associate with a foreigner or to visit him; and yet God has shown me that I should not call any man unholy or unclean. That is why I came without even raising any objection when I was sent for” (Acts 10:28–29). Later he added, “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him” (vv. 34–35).

These verses demonstrate that there were doctrinal facts that Peter did not understand until several years after Pentecost. Peter learned that the Gentiles were not to be considered unclean, for God had accepted them. He understood for the first time that all men from every nation who trust the Lord are accepted by Him (10:35). This acceptance is based on knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ (vv. 38–43). The evidence of Peter’s ignorance of these truths argues for the disciples’ understanding of a national Israel in Acts 1–3 since they did not have any concept of the church as a so-called “spiritual Israel.”

The issue of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the church was still unsettled many years later as verified in Acts 15 (Autumn, A.D. 49).[28] The question faced by the Council of Jerusalem was whether a Gentile had to become a Jew in order to become a Christian. This debate was settled by the testimonies of Peter, Paul, and Barnabas that God was taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. Acts demonstrates the fact of progressive revelation concerning the nature of the church and eschatology. Therefore it seems probable that Peter’s sermon in Acts 3 was not a reoffer of the kingdom, but rather was an exhortation to repent in view of God’s future restoration of the kingdom. It was not Peter’s prerogative to offer the kingdom since the timing was appointed by the Father’s authority (Acts 1:7; 3:20–21). Peter’s sermon reflected his belief that repentance was necessary so that God could someday restore the kingdom to Israel.

The following shows the parallels between Acts 1 and 2–3 concerning truths about the Holy Spirit and eschatology.

Acts 1	Acts 2–3
1. The Holy Spirit will come (1:5, 8).	1. The Holy Spirit came (2:1–4).
2. The Holy Spirit will baptize them (1:5, 8).	2. The baptism of the Holy Spirit occurred (2:1–4).
3. The power of the Holy Spirit will enable them to witness (1:8).	3. The Holy Spirit enabled them to witness (2:14–42; 3:12–26).
4. Jesus will come again in the same way He ascended (1:11).	4. Jesus will come again (3:19–20).
5. The Father has fixed the time by His own authority for restoring the kingdom to Israel (1:7).	5. The Father will send Jesus the Messiah for the restoration of all things (3:20–21).

 Conclusion

Throughout the Gospels Jesus corrected the disciples’ and others’ false ideas on a number of occasions. But He did not correct the disciples in Acts 1:6–8; therefore it must be concluded that their perception of a future kingdom was correct.

The disciples’ conceived of a future national kingdom for ethnic Israel in which they will reign with Christ. This restoration was shaped by the writings of the Old Testament Law and the Prophets, which anticipated a fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom that will be literal, political, geographical, and national. Peter’s sermon in Acts 3:12–26 evidences his continued belief that this national kingdom would be restored. Therefore believers should anticipate not only the second coming of Jesus Christ but also His establishment of a future kingdom for the nation Israel.

Notes

1. William Neil, The Acts of the Apostles (Greenwood, SC: Attic Press, 1986), 65–66. See also I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 60, for a similar proposal.
2. Everett F. Harrison, Acts: The Expanding Church (Chicago: Moody, 1989), 39.
3. Neil, The Acts of the Apostles, 65.
4. Gerd Lüdemann, Early Christianity according to the Traditions of Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 26.
5. Richard N. Longenecker, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 9:256.
6. Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), 143.
7. Charles W. Carter and Ralph Earle, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 8. Longenecker accepts a future for national Israel but suggests the disciples’ question was misguided (“The Acts of the Apostles,” 256).
8. Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles, 5.
9. Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 52.
10. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 29–30.
11. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, 52.
12. F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 38. Also see John R. W. Stott, The Spirit, the Church, the World, the Message of Acts (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990), 40–41.
13. The following are categories in which the “correction materials” may be grouped: correction by miracles (e.g., Mark 2:10–11); by discourse (e.g., Matt 5–7); by parable (e.g., Luke 15); by direct rebuke (e.g., Matt 23:13–36); by example (e.g., John 13:1–20); and by questions and answers.
14. Luke 2:48; 4:34 (two); 6:2; 7:20; 8:28; 9:54; 10:25, 29, 40; 12:41; 13:23; 17:37; 18:18, 26; 20:2, 22, 33; 21:7 (two); 22:49, 64, 70; 23:3, 39; 24:18 .
15. Luke 1:16, 54, 68, 80; 2:25, 32, 34; 4:25, 27; 7:9; 22:30; 24:21 .
16. David J. Williams suggests that “repentance and faith become almost synonymous (cf. 9:35; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19; 26:18, 20; 28:27)” (Acts [San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985], 55).
17. Gerhard A. Krodel, Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), 104–5.
18. The phrase ἀπο προσώπου occurs six times in the New Testament (Acts 3:19 [UBS, v. 20 ]; 5:41; 7:45; 2 Thess 1:9; Rev 6:16; 12:14). Each time it represents the personal presence of the objective genitive that follows.
19. Darrell L. Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ,” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, ed. Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 56–59.
20. Ibid., 57. Bock footnotes (57, n. 29) two major works in support of a two-period view: William Lane, “Times of Refreshment: A Study of Eschatological Periodization in Judaism and Christianity” (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1962), 164–86, and P. F. Feiler, “Jesus the Prophet: The Hidden Portrayal of Jesus as the Prophet Like Moses” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1985), 81–90. Bock acknowledges that his view on the Davidic kingdom, however, can be maintained apart from a two-period view of Acts 3:19–20.
21. Bock, “The Reign of the Lord Christ,” 57.
22. Thomas Walker, The Acts of the Apostles (Chicago: Moody, 1965), 77–78. Also see Kistemaker, Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, 136. For additional support Walker footnotes references to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “ἀποκαθίστημι,” by Albrecht Oepke, 1:391; the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, s.v. “ἀποκατάστασις,” by Hans-Georg Link, 3:148; and John Albert Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, ed. Andrew R. Fausset, 5 vols. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1877), 2:545.
23. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles, 141-42.
24. Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews 11. 3. 8.
25. Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 29.
26. Williams, Acts, 56. Williams suggests that “the holy prophets” may refer to passages such as Isaiah 34:4; 51:6; and 65:17 .
27. Bruce, The Book of Acts, 91, n. 36. Also see F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 143–44.
28. H. Wayne House, Chronological and Background Charts of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 124.