JESUS
CHRIST
exacting
and
more
difficult
to
maintain'
(p.
252).
To
a
pessimiatically
tinged
scepticism
there
may
be
something
congenial
in
this
representation.
As
a
fact
the
idea
of
degeneration
is
borrowed
from
the
career
of
Mohammed,
and
has
no
support
except
in
the
assumption
that
Jesus
was
uncommissioned
to
represent
the
Divine
wrath
against
sin.
Very
different
was
the
insight
of
liim
who
wrote
that
He
'
learned
obedience
by
the
things
which
he
suffered,'
and
was
thus
made
perfect
(He
5^-
^).
From
the
Hellenic
point
of
view
it
is
a
common
criticism
that
the
character
of
Jesus
is
one-sided
or
fragmentary.
There
are,
it
is
said,
elements
of
human
excellence
which
He
either
did
not
possess
or
which
He
deliberately
undervalued
and
renounced.
There
were
whole
spheres
of
valuable
human
experience
into
which
He
did
not
enter
—
married
life,
political
service,
scientific
labour,
the
realm
of
sesthetic
interests.
His
attitude,
also,
to
the
economic
side
of
human
affairs
was
unsatisfactory:
He
taught
men
to
despise
wealth
and
distribute
it
among
the
poor,
and
thus
struck
at
the
veiy
foundations
of
the
social
fabric.
In
reply
to
this
indictment,
it
is
sometimes
urged
that
the
character
of
Jesus
actually
included
most
elements
which
enter
into
the
Hellenic
ideal
—
notably
the
aesthetic
sense
as
seen
in
His
close
ob-servance
and
love
of
things
beautiful,
intellectual
vitality
and
acquisitiveness,
and
the
temperate
enjoyment
of
the
pleasures
of
the
table
in
the
society
of
His
friends.
It
is
also
pointed
out
that
His
principles
sanction
a
much
wider
range
of
activity
than
He
Himself
actually
exemplified.
In
His
love
to
man,
which
designed
to
bestow
every
form
of
real
good,
there
lay
the
sanction
of
all
the
activities
—
scientific,
economic,
political,
as
well
as
religious
and
phil-anthropic,
wiiich
fill
out
with
helpful
service
the
various
spheres
of
duty
in
the
modem
world.
At
the
same
time
it
must
be
admitted
that
Jesus
was
not
the
universal
man
in
the
literal
sense,
but
was
limited
in
His
equipment
and
aim
by
the
special
character
of
His
mission.
He
was
ascetic
in
the
sense
that
in
His
scheme
of
values
He
severely
subor-dinated
all
the
goods
of
this
world
to
spiritual
blessings,
and
taught
that
the
first
w6re
to
be
despised
and
renounced
in
the
measure
in
which
they
imperilled
the
second.
He
exemplified
self
-limitationandself
-sacrifice,
not
indeed
as
an
end
in
itself,
but
as
a
necessary
condition
of
accomplishing
the
highest
for
God
and
man,
17.
The
fundamental
ideas
of
our
Lord's
teaching.
—
It
is
one
of
the
gains
of
modern
theology
that
Biblical
Theology
is
separated
from
Dogmatics,
ai;id
that
the
sacred
writers
are
allowed
to
speak
for
themselves
without
being
forced
Into
consistency
with
a
system
of
ecclesiastical
doctrine.
In
pursuance
of
this
historical
task,
interest
has
centred
chiefly
in
the
attempt
to
ex-pound
and
systematize
the
teaching
of
Jesus.
It
was
naturally
felt
that
no
Christian
documents
are
so
valuable
for
an
understanding
of
the
Christian
religion
as
those
which
contain
the
teaching
of
the
Founder,
and
that,
indispensable
as
the
ApostoUc
writings
are,
they
are
in
a
very
real
sense
derivative
and
supplementary.
Experience
also
showed
that
the
teaching
of
Jesus,
which
in
the
oral
tradition
was
for
a
time
the
main
suste-nance
of
the
Primitive
Church,
has
been
able
to
quicken
and
refresh
the
religious
life
of
not
a
few
in
the
modern
world
who
had
ceased
to
feel
the
power
of
the
stereotyped
phrases
of
a
traditional
theology.
An
account
of
our
Lord's
teaching,
it
has
to
be
added,
is
properly
based
on
the
Synoptics.
The
authentic
matter
of
the
Fourth
Gospel
is
so
inextricably
blended
with
believing
ex-perience
and
reflexion
that
it
can
only
be
set
forth
as
a
supplement
to
the
heads
of
doctrine
collected
from
the
Synoptists
(Wendt),
or
utilized
as
a
source
for
the
Johannine
Theology
(Weiss).
In
addition
to
the
sketches
in
the
great
manuals
of
NT
Theology
(Weiss,
Bibl.
Theal.
des
NT,
Eng.
tr.
1882-3;
Beysohlag,
NT
Theol
Eng.
tr
1891;
Holtzmann.
Lehrbuch
derNT
Theol.,
1897;
Stevens,
Theol.
of
NT,
1899),
there
are
numerous
monographs,
of
which
the
most
important
is
Wendt,
LehreJesu
(Eng.tr.
1892),
and
the
most
mteresting
are
Bruce,
The
Kingdom
of
God,
1890.
and
Hamack,
Das
Weien
des
Christenthums
(Eng.
tr.
1901).
A.
The
Kingdom
oi'
God.
—
The
Evangelists
give
as
the
summary
description
of
the
message
of
Jesus
—
'
the
gospel
of
the
kingdom.'
'And
Jesus
went
about
in
all
Galilee,
teaching
in
their
synagogues,
and
preaching
the
gospel
of
the
kingdom
'
(Mt
4«;
cf.
Mk
1"-
",
Lk
m.
As
Jesus
was
conscious
of
being
the
promised
Messiah,
JESUS
CHRIST
it
was
natural
that
His
teaching
ministry
should
be
largely
directed
to
setting
forth
the
nature,
the
privileges,
and
the
laws
of
the
Messianic
Kingdom.
Most
modern
expositors,
accordingly,
have
treated
the
idea
of
the
Kingdom
as
central,
and
as
supplying
a
scheme
under
which
the
whole
body
of
the
teaching
may
be
systematic-ally
arranged.
Thus,
after
determining
the
nature
of
the
Kingdom
in
relation
to
the
past
of
Israel,
and
to
the
ideas
of
contemporary
Judaism,
Weiss
treats
of
the
coming
of
the
Kingdom
in
the
Messiah
and
His
work,
of
its
realization
in
the
righteousness
and
the
privileges
of
its
members,
and
of
its
predicted
consummation
in
the
future.
(1)
Thenature
of
the
Kingdom.
—
InelucidatingChrist's
conception
of
the
Kingdom,
it
is
usual
to
begin
by
con-trasting
it
with
pre-existing
ideas.
In
the
first
place,
it
is
clear
that,
while
Jesus
claimed
to
fulfil
OT
prophecy,
and
to
be
the
Messiah
for
whom
the
people
waited.
He
broke
with
the
general
strain
of
Messianic
prophecy
and
expectation
in
the
important
particular
that
He
rejected
the
conception
that
the
Kingdom
would
exist
in
the
form
of
a
poUtical
organization.
It
was
a
very
natural
aspira-tion
for
the
Jews
to
desire
to
be
free
and
powerful,
and
more
than
a
respectable
ambition,
when
it
is
remembered
that
the
Empire
of
which
they
dreamed
was
to
carry
in
its
train
the
worship
and
service
of
the
true
God;
but
Jesus
substituted
for
the
political
conception
the
idea
of
a
Kingdom
which
was
spiritual
in
its
nature,
and
by
consequence
universal.
Its
essentially
spiritual
char-acter
is
shown
by
the
nature
of
its
blessings
—
among
which
there
is
frequent
mention
of
the
forgiveness
of
sins,
righteousness,
and
the
like,
but
little
of
earthly
good
and
nothing
of
poUtical
power.
A
Kingdom
which
'Cometh
not
with
observation'
(Lk
IT")
could
not
be
of
the
same
kind
with
the
kingdom
of
the
Macca-bees
or
the
Roman
Empire.
And
if
it
was
a
spiritual
Kingdom,
in
which
membership
was
granted
on
terms
of
faith
and
love,
it
followed
that
it
was
in
principle
a
universal
Kingdom.
It
was
no
monopoly
of
those
of
Jewish
birth,
for
not
all
Jews
had
faith,
and
of
some
who
were
Gentiles
He
said
that
He
had
not
found
so
great
faith
in
Israel
(Mt
8'°).
'Many
shall
come
from
the
east
and
the
west
.
.
.
but
the
sons
of
the
kingdom
shall
be
cast
forth
into
the
outer
darkness
'
(vv."-
").
The
further
elucidation
of
its
nature
may
be
carried
out
by
the
help
of
an
analysis
of
the
idea
of
a
kingdom.
It
involves
authority
and
rule
(doctrine
of
God
and
of
the
Messiah),
blessings
which
are
enjoyed
by
the
citizens
(the
Kingdom
as
'
a
good,'
the
privileges),
laws
which
are
enacted
and
enforced
(the
righteousness
of
the
Kingdom),
a
title
to
citizenship
(conditions
of
entrance),
an
organiza-tion
of
the
subjects
in
community
of
life
and
service
(the
Kingdom
as
a
community,
doctrine
of
the
Church),
a
future
and
a
destiny
(doctrine
of
the
Last
Things).
The
Kingdom
as
present
and
as
future.
—
One
of
the
diffi-culties
of
the
subject
is
that
in
some
passages
Jesus
speaks
of
the
Kingdom
as
present,
while
in
many
others
He
speaks
of
it
as
future;
and
there
has
been
a
wide
difference
of
opinion
as
to
the
relation
of
the
two
sets
of
utterances,
and
the
importance
to
be
attributed
to
the
eschatological
series.
(i)
The
Kingdom
as
a
present
reality.
—
^That
the
Kingdom
had
come,
and
was
a
present
reality
on
earth
when
He
taught
and
laboured^
is
stated
in
a
number
of
passages.
He
speaks
of
His
mighty
works
as
proof.
'
If
I
by
the
spirit
of
God
cast
out
devils,
then
is
the
kingdom
of
God
come
upon
you'
(Mt
1228;
cf.
Lk
lO'S).
In
the
same
sense^
it
i3_
said
'the
kingdom
of
God
is
among
you,'
(not
'within
you,'
which
could
not
have
been
said
to
the
Pharisees
(Lk
17^')).
It
is
also
implied
that
there
are
those
who
are
already
in
the
Kingdom
(Mt
11").
The
parables
of
the
Mustard
Seed
and
the
Leaven
(Mt
13"-''),
and
also
of
the
Seed
Growing
Secretly
(Mk
4i»-»),
seem
clearly
to
teach
that
the
Kingdom
was
then
present
in
the
world
in
small
and
lowly
beginnings,
whion
were
to
be
succeeded
by
a
process
of
wonderful
growth
and
expansion.
(ii)
The
Kingdom
as
a
future
event.
—
In
a
larger
number
of
oases
He
spoke
of
the
Kingdom,
and
of
entrance
into
