Although it was the central theme of Jesus' proclamation and demonstration, many, as Jesus foretold, still do not see the Kingdom of God. In Acts 1 Luke records that Jesus presented himself alive to them and spoke to them about the kingdom of God. The disciples however revert to thinking about the eschatology restoration of Israel as they had in the past.
Gilley teaches that the exchange between the disciples and Jesus in Acts 1 reveals that "the kingdom was still coming" and that it "had not yet come". Gilley rightly sees this questioning by the disciples as being about the restoration of Israel but he then proffers that since Jesus doesn't confront this as he would, it is evidence that the Kingdom is not already.
"If the kingdom was on earth at that moment, whether in their hearts or in another form, they would not have asked such a question. The only thing they did not know was the timing." writes Gilley. I think that is not what it proves, it only demonstrates their level of understanding at the time - which coincidentally matches Gilleys.
Gilley claims the disciples were on target because Jesus doesn't deny the kingdom is coming. He quotes John MacArthur “If they are mistaken about this, Jesus’ failure to correct them is mystifying and deceptive.” The disciples had the present rejection and future salvation of Israel in mind. The fact that Jesus didn't respond as MacArthur or Gilley might doesn't prove what they claim. Jesus is unlike MacArthur and Gilley in that the trademark of His life wasn't to seek out and confront others doctrinally.
The eschatological fulfillment of Israel will be real (Ro 9-11) but it is future and that's exactly why Jesus didn't confront them. Gilley is correct there but Jesus' response is (as it is so many times) much deeper than the question being asked. He points to the more real Kingdom of God in the present. Jesus takes political significance out of the dialogue and inserts the power and working of the Holy Spirit. They are thinking political while He is thinking spiritual. How will we be His witnesses in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria? By the power of the Holy Spirit. In that power will be demonstration and proclamation of the Kingdom of God.
The Kingdom of God, contrary to Gilley's implication, is in fact here when we discuss it in the sense of the Gospel (Acts 8.12; 19.8; 20.24; 28.23, 31) and not in the sense of a restored Israel.
Gilley makes the same mistake that Jesus' disciples and the Jews made, that is he thinks "The kingdom would take form as promised. Through-out the Gospels it was obvious that the Jewish people were expecting the Messianic kingdom as foretold in the Old Testament prophecies. Jesus never contradicted their basic understanding of that kingdom."
He later exposes his cessationist worldview by repeating the mantra ... "The Kingdom [or gifts or whatever] is prominent in the Gospels but begins to fade in the Acts and the epistles. The word “kingdom” is found only five more times in Acts. Each of these passages references the kingdom but none gives us any more details about the kingdom than we already processed from the Old Testament and the Gospels. Of the 18 references to a kingdom in the epistles, most are referring to a future kingdom."
Somehow Gilley is able to read all of those teachings by Jesus of the Kingdom of God and of all of His demonstration of the Kingdom and is able to only see a political restoration. All I can say is let him who has ears hear.
I had to laugh at myself when I read these words by Gilley:
The emergent church has badly misunderstood the biblical teaching on the kingdom of God. Actually, it has chosen to ignore what the Scriptures teach and has chosen to impose its own understanding of the kingdom in order to set forth its own agenda for the church and the world. One is reminded of Jesus’ warning to the Pharisees in Matthew 15:3, 6, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?” Then he said, “By this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your traditions.” Without question the emergent church is doing something very similar today.
I wanted to use those exact words but about Gilley.
Technorati Tags: cessationism, Kingdom of God
2 comments:
Wow. All that is too deep for me. One observation. You wrote, "Jesus is unlike MacArthur and Gilley in that the trademark of His life wasn't to seek out and confront others doctrinally."
I'm not sure I agree. It may have not been the trademark of Jesus, but he often did it. He often pointed out and corrected their misunderstanding or misuse of the Scriptures. True, His trademark may have not been to seek the misdirected, but He regularly confronted them. I would go so far as to say that the character of Jesus was to correct error when He saw it rather than let it go. He also was pretty harse on those who taught false doctrine. Search for "woe".
Yes - but that is not the way you would summarize His ministry. While He taught doctrine, He didn't come for that, He came to set us free. He was always pointing to something higher and redeeming from captivity.
That's not the mark left by many evangelicals.
Post a Comment