At first sight the contrast between the apostolic gospel and the teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics, as respects the use made of this idea of the King- dom, IB sufficiently marked ; but when we consider the subject a little more carefully — looking rather to the essence of the doctrine than to the language employed — a substantial harmony is apparent. It is ulain, from the notices in the Ac above cited, ana from the incidental references, that ' the kingdom of (5od ' was still a recognized formula to cover all the contents of Christian preaching; though, for the reasons already assigned, it had no longer the same prominence as at an earlier period ; ami, while the prevailing tendency was to limit this title to the kingdom of the future, and to con- nect it with the Parousia (e.o. 2 Th 1», 2 Ti 4'- », where ^Titpdyeia), there are still a few ca-ses which show that it was also applied to the present ex- perience and state of privilege of Christians. Such, e.g., are Ko 14", where the kingilom of God is declared to consist, not in meat and drink, but in ' righteousne.'.,s, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost'; and Col l'-", where Ixdicvcrs are spoken of as already 'translated' into 'the kingdom of the Son of iiis love.' Apart, however, from the mere use of the tenii, — which is a secondarj' matter, — we cannot fail to see that ever>'tliing that Christ tncani by the iire-sent being of His kingdom is fully recognized and insisted on by the a|>ostolic writers ; Chri.st Ilimself is 'the Lord' (i Ki'/noi); He is CNaltcd to the place of universjil dominion at GimI's right han.l (Ac •»"=«, 1 Co Ij*^ », Ki.li 1 »•=», V\\ •»"', Ho 1»'», Ja'2', I PS" etc.): the kingdom is that of God and ./ Christ (Eph 5*, Col l"*); He exer cisc'H, therefore, a present nnlimitttt sway in aiii( over Uis people, and over all things for tueir take
856
kingdojm of god
KINGS. I. AND IL
(Epli 1"). Believers, again, are 'sons of Goil'; lire, 'ike Isr., 'an elect race, a royal priestliood, a holy nation, a people of God's own possession,' lalleJ ' out of darkness into his marvellous light,' ' a people of Goil '(IP 2' '") ; they are renewed and dwelt in by His Spirit, which gives them the victory over sin in their members (Ro 7^ S''*) ; grace ' reigns' in them (Ro 5-' 6'^- "• ") ; — in short, everything that can constitute a present kingdom of God on earth is acknowledged as existing in their case. If, therefore, there is any contrast with the teaching of Christ, it is in the advance to a higher, richer conception of the spiritual life than was possible at an elementary stage of instruction.
As respects the peculiarities of the doctrine of the kingdom of God in the Pauline Epistles, it is not necessary to add nmch to what has been said. The kingdom, in the apostle's Wew, as in Christ's own teacliing, is connected with 'a redemption (ds-oXiW-pu<ris) through his blood,' and >vith forgive- ness ol sins (Col l", cf. Eph 1'). In its form of glory it awaits the appearing of Christ (2 Th 1'"'", 2 Ti 4'- *). But as in Rev we have the millennial doctrine, so in St. Paul we have tlie doctrine of the development of the man of sin and of the apostasy prior to the advent (2 Th 2'"'", cf. Mt 24"- '■-). It is still a moot question how far this doctrine is moulded upon current representations of Antichrist, and how far it is original (cf. refer- ences in Stanton's Jetinsh and Christian Messiah, p. 310). In St. John's Epistles the idea is more generalized ( 1 Jn 2'*- ^ 4') ; while in the Apocalypse it assumes the threefold form of the Beast, the False Prophet, and the AVoman (Rev 13. 17). Finally, St. Paul alone gives us the sublime idea of an ultimate rendering up of the mediatorial kingdom by the Son to the Father, ' that God may be all in all '(1 Co IS^*).
It lies beyond the scope of this article to discuss the various shapes which this great scriptural idea of the kingdom of God has assumed in its course down the ages. The chief are the Patristic Chiliastic idea ; the Mediaeval or Catholic idea (as in Augustine, who, however, has glimpses of a wider truth in his Citi/ of God) ; the Refor- mation idea, which still identifies the kingdom too exclusively with the Church ; and the various modern forms of conception in the Church and schools from Kant downwards. A great im- pulse has been given to the study of this notion by the later Ritschlian theologians, who have done much to restore it to its just importance. It must however, always remain doubtful — and the diversi- ties in the apostolic teaching give additional force to the doubt — how far this single idea of the king- dom of God is fitted to serve as the principle of an exhaustive system of theology. Its proper place would seem to be within the system as denning the end in the light of which God's whole purpose in Christ is to be read ; and in this way it is fitted to render essential service as the bond of union between dogmatic theology and Christian ethics — two departments which have hitherto stood too far apart. It does this service by introducing the idea of an end which is at the some time an aim — in setting before the individual as his life-task the realization of that kingdom of God which is God's own end in creation and redemption. The social tendencies of our age give this idea of the kingdom of God a special value for our own time ; and we may expect that its importance will be increasingly recognized, — on the one hand, in its ennobling ettect on the conception of Christian work, and the higher spirit of unity it tends to engender in those engaged in it ; and, on the other, in broadening the conception of Christian duty as einbra:ijig the obligation to labour for the suprem-