heaven ' (though not exactly in the sense usually assigned to it ; see below under ii.) occurs rs- Ileal edly in the Talmud. It seems, therefore, on the whole |iidbable that both forms were used by our Lord Himself. In any case they may be re- garded as equivalents.
(ii.) Neaninij. — The phrase in both its forms is ambiguous : it may mean either ' kingdom ' or ■reign,' 'sovereignty,' 'rule' of heaven, or of God. It appears that in the Talmud the latter signification is the more common (Schiirer, AT Zeitycsfh.'-^ ii. 539 n. [ICng. tr. 11. ii. 171] ; Eder- sheim, Life (iml Times, etc. i. 207 f.). And th<iugh the former is that more usually adopted by com- mentators, there seems to be no reason why recourse sliould not be had to the latter where it is more natural (as, e.f/., in Lk 1'^'- -'). The jihrase covers both senses, and the one will frequently be found to shade off into the other. The best delini- tion known to the writer is one given incidentally by Dr. llort {Life and Letters, ii. 27:i), 'the wnrlii of invisible laws by which (iod is ruling and bh'ss- ing His creatures.' This is the most fundamental meaning; all others are secondary. The 'laws' in question are 'a world,' inasmuch as they have a connexion and coherence of their own ; they form a system, a cosmos within the cosmos ; they come direct from 'heaven," or from God; and they are ' invisil)lc ' in their origin, though they may work their way to visibility.
(iii.) Assiieiations. — 'I'lie sen.se just assigned was that which was most fundamental in the thought of Jesus. It was that which He saw ought to be the true sense, however much it miglit be uiis.sed by His con- temporaries. It was deeper and subtler than the conception of I'salniist and I'rophet. even than the bright and exhilarating picture of I's H.">'i-i'i, because it was compatible with any kind of social conditioii, and becau.se it did not turn mainly on the majestic exercise of power. And if this was true of the later and more developed conception, much more was it true of the earlier notion of the theocracy, which was simply that of the Lsraelite State with a Trophet or .ludge at the head in.^tead of a King (1 S 12'-'-). The contemporaries of Jesus when they spoke of the 'Kingdom of God' thought cliieHy of an empire contrasted with the great world-empires, more particularly the Homan, which galled them at the moment. And the two features which caught their imagination most were the throwing off of the hated yoke and the transference of supri'inacy from the heathen to Israel. This was to be brought about by a cata.s- troplie which was to close the existing order of things, and which therefore took a shape that was eschatoUigical.
This esohatological and catastrophic side Jesus did not repudiate, though He gave a different turn to it, but the essence of His conception was inde- |iendent of all convulsions. The simplest para- ]iliiase for 'the Kingdom of (iod' is the ehiuse which follows the petition for the coining of the Kingdom iu the Lord's I'r.ayer: 'Thy will be done on earlh, as it is in heaven.' The only ditTerenee is that the I'rayer perhaps hints rather more at the co-operation of human wills. This is not excluded in tile idea of the Kingdom, which is, however, )>rlinarily the working out of the Will of God by Goil Himself.
(iv.) The Xature of the Kineidom : how far Stijier- nntural/ — The very name of the Kingdom • of heaven or of God ' implies that it has it.s origin in the world above. It 'comes' (I'px"'''''". -"^'t '■' '. Mk '.)', Lk 111 \T^; iyyti'", Mt :!- I'" l(t" etc.; 4,tldiety, Mt l-2-'»=Lk 11-'); it is 'given' (.Mt 21"l and ' received ' (Mk ll»i'= Lk IS'") ; it is • pr«'i>are.l ' by (iod (Mt2.')'*) ; it is 'inherited' (i'<.), and mm 'enter into' it (.Mt 6'-' l!*-'', Jn S^) ; it Ls an obj.c*
620
JESUS CHRIST
JEsrS CHRIST
of 'search' (Mt 6*' = IA 12". Mt 13"). All this luc-nim that it is not built up by the labour of man, it is not a product of development from below, but ' of the creative activity of God ' (LUtfjert, lieich (iottes, p. 28). It is a gift best()\ved, not sonie- tliins; to he done, but sonietliing to be enjoycil {'Xie eine Auf^'abe, wohl aber eine Oabe,' Holiz- niann, .V7' Tit. p. 2112. partly after Liiluert). It is a prize, the liijjhest of all prizes ^Mt !;!*<-♦"), corresponding to the summum bonuni of pagan philosophy.
This part of the conception has a considerable raiiite, according as the contf.\l points to the piipular view of the .Me.s.sianic Kingdom as im- plying outward conditions of sjilendimr, abund- aiu'e, and enjoyment, or as it ))olnl-s to what we have called the inner thought of Jesus, the in- visible laws of (iod's workinu. taken into and welcomed by the individual soul, a.s in the parables of the I'earl and the Treasure in the Field.
These parables show that there is a place, though a subordinate place, left for human effort, the vo-operation of the human will with the Divijie. The prueess of 'seeking' implies both effort and reiuniciation. There must be a concentrating of the powers of the soul upon the Will of (iod, if that Will is to be really done ; but where it is done it brink's its own e.'cceeding great reward (Lk ti*'*).