THE KINGDOM OF GOD UNIVERSITY OF 31 CALIFORNI Now, while we do not deny a development in Jesus' doctrine of the Kingdom, we cannot help thinking that this is a statement of the case which the facts do not warrant. This theory does not attribute to the mind of Jesus as great a breadth and spirituality of view as the prophets themselves enjoyed. It is derogatory to the originality of Jesus. We maintain, on the contrary, that he took up the best ideals of Jewish prophecy and lifted them to even grander heights. He set aside the limitations of view in which the idea of the Kingdom of God had been apprehended in Old Testament times, and gave that idea its true universality and spirituality. The Kingdom of God was for him something larger, because more spiritual, than the Jewish state had ever been; something more spiritual than any outward organization could ever be. Jesus' idea of the Kingdom was rooted in the Old Testament, but it rose above the limited conceptions in which the Old Testament had presented the Messianic hope; much more did it rise above the popular ideals and stand in sharp contrast to them. JESUS' CONCEPTION OF THE KINGDOM This view is confirmed by the very way in which Jesus appeared announcing his Kingdom. He proclaimed it as something new and distinctive. The time of preparation for it had passed; he was now to begin its establishment (Mk. i. 15). What he says of his truth in general is applicable to his doctrine of the Kingdom; it is new cloth and must not be stitched onto the old garment of Judaism; it is new wine and must not be put into old wineskins (Mk. ii. 21, 22). It was not strange that the people were astonished at his teaching (Mt. vii. 28, 29; Mk. i. 27), because there was in it a breadth of view and an elevated spirituality to which they were wholly unaccustomed. But we have still more direct proof that Jesus' idea of the Kingdom was far removed from this notion of a prosperous political commonwealth. The Gospels narrate a series of incidents in which his view comes out in strongest contrast to that conception. What else, indeed, is the meaning of his temptation at the very beginning of his ministry? Whatever view be taken of the historical THE MEANING OF character of that event, all our sources bear witness to the fact that on the very threshold of his public work Jesus TIMTATIONS faced the choice between the temporal and spiritual con KINGDOM ceptions of his messiahship. The popular demand for a wonder-working leader who should achieve power and glory in the world he promptly and decisively repudiated. He chose instead the method of spiritual leadership and the way of self-sacrifice. The same idea of the Kingdom is clearly reflected when, being asked, who is greatest in the Kingdom of God, he replies that humility is the test of greatness in that Kingdom (Mt. xviii. 4). Of similar import is his saying that he who serves most is greatest in his Kingdom (Mt. xx. 26). But even more sharply does the contrast between the political conception of the Kingdom and Jesus' idea appear when, being asked by the Pharisees when the NOT A POLITKA, Kingdom of God should come, he said, "The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, There! for lo, the Kingdom of God is in the midst of you" (Lk. xvii. 20, 21). In view of this contrast we are not surprised to find that after the resurrection his disciples had not entered sufficiently into his thought to suppose that the expected Kingdom had yet DI SASP STMENT been established. "We hoped that it was he which should redeem Israel" (Lk. xxiv. 21), they said, but it is clear that they regarded this hope as disappointed. To the same purpose was the question which they put to him during the forty days: "Lord, dost thou at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?" (Acts i. 6). It is obvious that by the redemption of Israel and the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel they referred to the reëstablishment of the Jewish state and the fulfilment of the nation's hopes for temporal prosperity and victory over its foes. Jesus' whole teaching and conduct during his entire ministry. had not seemed to them, who had constantly heard and observed him, to have accomplished anything in this direction. From their standpoint he had done nothing which looked toward Israel's redemption. It may not be perfectly easy to explain why, on the supposition that Jesus' THE view was in sharp contrast to the popular idea, his disciples had not been able to rise into fuller sympathy with his conception; but it is certainly far harder to explain why, on the supposition that his view resembled the popular expectation, the disciples, who still cherished the popular idea, should have regarded his teaching and action as standing in sharpest contrast to all their long-cherished hopes. No conclusion is warranted except this, that the DISAPPOINTMENT teaching of Jesus concerning his Kingdom and his method of establishing it were so wholly out of line with the ambi- 7 Jesus taught that membership in the Kingdom was dependent upon certain ethical and spiritual qualities. The Kingdom is composed of those who possess a certain kind of character. It cannot, therefore, be an outward organization whose members are bound together by any such bonds as common ancestry, language, self-interest, or the occupancy of a common territory. If Matthew's version of the beatitudes is followed, they contain a forcible setting. forth of the spiritual qualifications for membership in the Kingdom. Humility, meekness, eager desire for righteousness, mercifulness, purity of heart, and peacemaking are the conditions of participating in the Kingdom and the characteristics of its members. It has been the more common view of interpreters that Matthew's version was more original than Luke's (vi. 20 sq.) which represents Jesus as offering the blessings of the Kingdom to those who are literally, rather than spiritually, poor, hungry, and sorrowing. But if Luke's version is followed, the inward, 1 So, for example, Tholuck, Meyer, and Weiss. Meyer says: "Certainly Luke has the later form of the tradition, which of necessity took its rise in consequence of the affliction of the persecuted Christians, etc. This, also, is especially true of the denunciations of woe, which were still unknown to the first evangelist." Commentary, ad loc. Lk. vi. 20. D DISCIPLES MEMER.h IN THE BLESSINGS THE NINGDOM spiritual nature of the Kingdom is clearly implied. It cannot be supposed that Jesus teaches that the physically poor, wretched, and outcast, as such, compose his Kingdom. He must mean (according to Luke) that the blessings of the Kingdom are a reward for hardships and sufferings voluntarily endured. The Kingdom is a compensation for distress, calamity, and want because it is a spiritual treasure. Its joys and comforts are an antidote for the miseries of earth. In this view of the original import of the beatitudes, even more than in that which Matthew has given, is the Kingdom presented as a spiritual good, a boon to the inner life. In either case, participation in it must be dependent upon inner conditions or qualities of life. Formally different as the beatitudes are in the two Gospels, both versions clearly imply the spiritual nature of the Kingdom. One of the most significant hints respecting the nature of the Kingdom is contained in the Lord's prayer. Jesus taught his disciples to pray: "Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth" (Mt. vi. 10). The second of these petitions is an explanation and amplification of the first. The Kingdom comes in proportion Holtzmann, Wendt, and Briggs, however, hold to the greater originality of Luke's version. According to Wendt, the beatitudes originally expressed, not the conditions of participating in the salvation of the Kingdom, but the worth of this salvation: Even the poor are really rich; the sorrowful are really happy, if they possess this heavenly good. The woes are regarded as the reverse side of these blessings. Lehre Jesu, pp. 5357. A similar view is taken by Briggs, who urges literary considerations in favor of the originality of Luke, and lays stress upon the voluntariness of the poverty and hardships which were the condition of sharing in the blessings of the Kingdom. Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 172, 173. 1 Wendt, Lehre Jesu, pp. 97, 98, following Luke's version (xi. 2 sq.) of the prayer in preference to Matthew's, treats the words: "Thy will be done," etc., as an addition by the first evangelist. No reason is given for this judgment, and it seems to involve an unwarranted impoverishment of the prayer. Weiss justly remarks that the first petition points to the preliminary condition, the third to the final purpose of the coming Kingdom, thus suggesting a logical sequence and completeness of thought. Moreover, a reminiscence of the third petition is found not only in Matthew (xxvi. 42), but in Luke (xxii. 42). "Luke," adds Weiss, "has omitted this petition, because if the second one is fully granted, it involves the fulfilment of the third; and that was sufficient for his Gentile readers. It was not without special purpose, however, that Jesus added this request. as God's will is done among men. The Kingdom is com posed of all who obey that will. The perfect doing of God's will by men would be the perfection of his Kingdom on earth. Although Jesus has nowhere explicitly defined the phrase, Kingdom of God, a clear view of its essential nature, as he conceived it, is implied in these words. They justify the conclusion that by the Kingdom of God Jesus meant "the reign of divine love exercised by God in his grace over human hearts believing in his love, and constrained thereby to yield him grateful affection and devoted service." 1 Another prominent idea of Jesus respecting the Kingdom is that it is a growing affair. Its coming is a long historical process. Various aspects of this progress of the Kingdom in the world are set forth in a group of parables which are designed to illustrate its nature. One of the most significant of these is preserved by Mark alone (iv. 26-29). It likens the growth of the Kingdom to the slow and mysterious development of seed-grain when it is sown in the earth. It pictures the husbandman as sowing the seed and then waiting while Nature does her work. He sleeps and rises awaiting the movement of the divinely appointed process, and powerless to understand the mystery of growth. Meantime, the natural processes are going forward. "The earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear.” "So is the Kingdom of God." It comes slowly, silently, mysteriously. Divine forces are operating to carry for ward its development. In a rudimentary form the Kingdom of God had always been in the world; in an important sense it came when Christ came and entered upon his historic mission; but in a still wider view it keeps on coming through all the courses of human history, and The perfect realization of the Kingdom of God will undoubtedly bring with it the fulness of all promised blessings, but the desires of the disciples were still preponderatingly directed to the external welfare of the nation.” Life of Christ, II. 350 (Bk. IV. ch. xi.); cf. Das Matthäusevangelium, p. 184. 1 Bruce, Kingdom of God, p. 46. |