(c) Another special use of the term ' kingdom of heaven,' and yet one that is easily derived from its fundamental idea, is found in a considerable num- ber of passages. Thus Jesus said, ' It is better to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than lla^•ing two eyes to be cast into Gehenna' (Mk 9^'). Since Gehenna stands here in contrast to the kingdom of God, it is obvious that the latter term denotes the place to which the righteous go at death. Again we read, ' Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, sliall enter into the kingdom of hen^•pn : but he that doeth the will of mv Father wlio i~ in k-iv.ii' (Mt 7-'). It is plain 'from the follow iiiu \ II-.- tliat Jesus is thinking of the end of the ].i. -. ni a_. . and therefore the kingdom of hea\ . 11 i- Ian a -ynonj'm for heaven as the abode
of th.- Ml- 1. It is used in the same sense when
Jesu^ > ay- (hat iii.inj- shall come from the east and the\\i--t, anil >it ilown with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven (8") ; and again, in the parable of the Tares, when it is said that the righteous, after the judgment of the wicked, shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father (13«).
Tlie prominent thought in these passages is the place to be occupied by those who are under the rule of God, rather than that rule itself. The kingdom of heaven in this sense alone is wholly eschatological. It belongs entirely to the future. Yet it is by no means the Jewish apocalyptic kingdom even in these passages. It is open to Gentiles as well as Jews (8"- '-), and it is not a kingdom for this earth. It is where the spirits of tlie patriarchs are now.
Such are the special uses of the term ' kingdom of heaven ' in the words of Jesus. No one of tliem furnishes a conception that binds the various uses together as does the idea of the rule of God.
5. The ideal of Jesus and that of the scribes.— Jesus' conception of the kingdom of heaven was not developed out of that of the seniles. It was the antithesis of that. The story of the Tempta- tion marks the definite rejerfi.'ii of tho impular idea. For there would have I . . n im jliuuI for the temptation of Jesus, in reu i.i to ila .M.^sianic office, if that ideal which He j-nt away a- funda- mentally e\-il had not been the ideal of His i)eoi)le. His ideal was born out of His own inner experi- ence of the rule of God. Hence for Him the kingdom in its fundamental idea was something
KINGDOM OF GOD (OR HEAVEN)
KNEELING
935
/•v.,/,»
_ .if (he TalnuKl.
;.'■ til'' ilcliverance iM' liDiii witlidut, mir- .111 within. The Jews ■ of the Messiah seem
to be realized from witliin, quietly and gradually, by spiritual means. The scribes, on the contrary, looked for a kingdom to be realized from without, in a spectacular and supernatural manner. This is plain from certain references in the Gospel itself. Thus, when Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on an ass, and all the crowds shouted Hosanna, His dis- ciples thought that He was now at last to set up a visible Messinnic banner, and tliey hailed the coroire*/ kin'.;ilimi <.f llirir fnllicv D.'uiil (Mk 11"). Thus the <'-i,il)li-liiiiri]t ..I tin- kiim.liiiii was associ- ated in tlirii inin.K » n h oiiluanl |"Mii]i. Thedis- ciples of .l.-u-, r\, II alter tlie resurrection, seem to have thduuln I lial Ihe kingdom was to be set uji in some iniiarii|(,u , maiiner, at any rate it was not to come thrninili Ihrm (Ac V").
This idea, of the Uingdum is c.nini.in al.M, in utla r Jewish ^v^itings. Thus, < Solomon yie read that the M ungodly nations by llic biv: He alone will ota'l-1" li :l<
the same purport <
Deliverance by 'I,
oi Israel by Mosr , i- in .,
aculously, and not at all fi
who are alive at the comin
to have no more to do witli the establishment of
the kingdom than the Jews who are dead, and
who at the beginning of the Messianic age are
raised up to enjoy the kingdom (see Weber, Jiid.
Tkeol.- pp. 347-354 ; Hilgenfeld, Die jiid. Apoka-
lyptik, p. 86).
Again, the popular conception of the kingdom of heaven in the time of Jesus was thoroughly political and national. This is made plain by the Gospel. Thus, e.g., the third temptation of .lesus presupposes that people tliiMijlii .f tin- kiipjilom as a political organism. For llie .iijji ^( ion llial .lesus
might secure all the kin-.l - i>\ ihr woiM and
their glory — He a rarpc'iilrr tium ihc I it I In (..«ii nf Nazareth, poor and .i- yrl wiilioui a fnlluwiT would have been ii-yrhdldi^icilly iiii|iii~-^ilili', li.nl not the popular view a^^oi-i.air.l w.a l,|-\vi,lc p<iliii<-al dominion with Messialisliip ; and it would not have been a temptation of any power to the mind of Jesus, had it not been deeply rooted in the Jew^isb heart, and had it not seemed to have strong sup- port in the OT itself.
The Fourth Evangelist tells us that after the miracle of feeding the five thousand, Jesus per- ceived that the people were about to make Him kin^ (Jn 6"). This word is capable only of a political meaning in this place, and therefore shows that the Galila;an idea of the kingdom was pol- itical. The character and strength of the popular view are seen in tlie request of Salome, seconded by James and .Jolin (Mk 10"), and in the question of the disciples wlio, after the resurrection, asked the Lord if He woulil now restore the kingdom to Israel (Ac 1").