no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power."1 Yet again, it is a silent, spiritual, immanent presence: "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, There! for lo, the kingdom of God is within you."

"2

What unity of teaching is it possible to discover within these apparently conflicting and incompatible aspects of the kingdom?3 In the first place, certain difficulties of interpretation may be removed by recalling the circumstances under which the teaching of Jesus was given. The phrase was familiar to his hearers. It summed up to their minds the fulfilment of their national hopes and of their Messianic dreams. Yet to the Hebrews themselves it had become a confused and waver

1 Mark ix. I.

2 Luke xvii. 20, 21.

The history of modern interpretations of the doctrine of the kingdom is told in detail by Schnedermann, "Jesu Verkündigung und Lehre vom Reiche Gottes," I, 86 ff. The conclusion of the author which, he remarks (s. 173), "has been recognized by no other inquirer," and which subordinates the idea of the kingdom in the teaching of Jesus, seems unlikely to obtain acceptance; e.g. s. 173, "The assumption that Jesus laid great weight on the idea of the kingdom for its own sake is wholly unfounded" (aus der Luft gegriffen); and s. 195, “The conception of the kingdom lies, in the teaching of Jesus, in the Israelitic background."

4 Ex. xix. 6; Dan. ii. 44. See: Wendt, "Teaching of Jesus," I, 174, and note; Holtzmann, "New Testament Theology," I, 225 ff.; Stevens, "Theology of New Testament," p. 28 ff.; Beyschlag, "New Testament Theology," I, 43; and the detailed and learned survey of four "stadia" in Jewish thought in Toy, "Judaism and Christianity," 1896, 303–371.

ing conception. Sometimes it had taken the form of a political scheme of national emancipation; sometimes it was the expression of a religious dream of Messianic glory. Thus, even to those who were looking and longing for the kingdom of God, it was not a clearly defined and specific hope. On this flexible phrase, then, with its capacity for spiritualization, Jesus fastens when he desires to describe his mission. He knows that his conception of it is not that which is popularly current among his people, but he utilizes the only phrase which is in the least adequate for his teaching, believing that the kingdom of which he speaks is not only in no way contrary to the national hope, but in reality represents the interior truth of that national ideal.

meets.

One misinterpretation of his message he distinctly The kingdom, as he announces it, is certainly not to take that form of a political restoration to which many of his contemporaries had degraded their social ideal. The blessings of that kingdom are not for the great or powerful, but for the humble ministers of others' needs. "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”1 "Whosoever would become great among you, shall minister." your "2 "My kingdom," he explicitly says, "is not of this world; "8 and again, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and

be

1 Matt. xviii. 4.

2 Mark x. 43.

* John xviii. 36.

the leaven of Herod,"1-the desire, that is to say, of political supremacy or of party rule.

2

A second conception of the kingdom of heaven current in the time of Jesus cannot be so lightly dismissed. It is that of an apocalyptic consummation of the Messiah's rule, a view which obviously prevailed in much Jewish literature of the time, and which is deeply imbedded in the gospel story. It has been held, therefore, with ingenuity and learning, that Jesus shared, with his people and his age, these eschatological ideals, and that the key of his teaching concerning the kingdom is to be sought, not in his more spiritualized sayings, but in the apocalyptic utterances and prophecies of the gos

1 Mark viii. 15.

2 Wendt, I, 364 ff.; Beyschlag, I, 47; Shailer Mathews, "Social Teaching of Jesus," 45.

8 This view has been elaborated, with variations in detail, in two prize essays of the Hague Society for the defence of the Christian Religion, by Issel, " Die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes im N. T.," 1891; and Schmoller, "Die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes in den Schriften des N. T.," 1891 (s. 102 ff.); and in the more famous treatise, confessedly suggested by Schmoller, of Joh. Weiss, "Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes," 1892. See the summary of his conclusions, ss. 61, 62; and his intention, announced at the outset, "to exhibit the thoroughly apocalyptic and eschatological character of the idea of Jesus." See also, of the same tendency, Bousset, "Jesu Predigt in ihrem Gegensatz zum Judentum," 1892 (s. 100 ff.); Schnedermann (op. cit.), s. 190, "This kingdom of God is in no sense a result to be achieved (Aufgabe). The refutation of the utterances of Ritschl to this effect by Haupt, Köstlin, Schmoller, J. Weiss, and others, is to be recognized and commended as an important achievement of the latest inquiry. Rather it is a free gift (Gabe) as Schmoller and J. Weiss have made plain."

pels. There are, beyond doubt, many passages which lend themselves to this view; and the method of those New Testament critics who interpret the teaching of Jesus in its relation to the antecedent traditions and ideals of Hebrew faith, has been most illuminating and fruitful. It is difficult, however, to subordinate in the teaching of Jesus the spiritual sayings to these Hebraic hopes. In disposing of one difficulty of interpretation another difficulty is introduced. If the mind of Jesus was thus supremely concerned with an apocalyptic kingdom, how can he have referred to it as "within"? To believe that the spiritual and ethical teaching concerning the kingdom should have been superimposed by the followers of Jesus on the view really held by their Master, is contrary to every indication in the gospels of the true relation between Jesus and his disciples. The well-known phrase of Matthew Arnold, "Jesus above the heads of his reporters," is one of the safest canons of the New Testament interpretation. The more spiritual and ethical a teaching is, the more likely it is to have come from the Teacher's lips. Thus, if the apocalyptic passages are to be accepted at all, it must at least be in connection with that other form of proclamation which describes the kingdom as a spiritual and already present reality. "Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see; "1 "the kingdom of God is come upon you."2

1 Luke x. 23.

2 Matt. xii. 28. So with much force, Erich Haupt, "Die escha

What interpretation, then, shall be offered of this relationship between a kingdom which is at hand and a kingdom which is to come to pass in the world of heaven? Three possibilities have had serious consideration. It may be, in the first place, suggested, in opposition to the view just presented, that it is the apocalyptic passages which are superadded, and that they represent the thought of the disciples, derived from the Hebrew tradition, rather than the mind of the Master.1 Such a conclusion, however, would seem to be the last resort of criticism. It may be, indeed, believed that to many a saying of Jesus there was given a heightened color through the report of evangelists steeped in apocalyptic literature; but to eliminate from the record all anticipation on the part of Jesus of a future consummation is to reject without other cause large portions of the narrative.

tologischen Aussagen Jesu," 1895, s. 77 ff., "The solution of the problem appears to me attained only when our inquiry begins at the opposite point from that now usually occupied, with those passages in which the kingdom of God is described as present. These passages form the interior climax of the message of Jesus. Here he shows that it is no new and noble Judaism that he brings. The chief element in the kingdom of God-communion with God, the relation of children to a Father — is a present possession."

1 See the restrained yet candid judgments of Toy, "Judaism and Christianity," p. 260 ff., "That they [the eschatological discussions] were not delivered by Jesus in the form in which we now have them may probably be inferred from the consideration already mentioned - that the disciples for some time after his death show no knowledge of their contents. The power of the founder of Christianity was in his moral personality and in his conception of a thoroughly spiritual society."

H