Jesus' Proclamation of t h e K i n g d o m of God

Editorial Board Paul Achtemeier Union Theological Seminary Richmond. the A m e r i c a n Society of Papyrologists. the Society of Biblical L i t e r a t u r e . Murphy Duke University Divinity School Jacob Neusner Program in Judaic Studies Brown University . and B r o w n J u d a i c Studies. Virginia Elizabeth Clark Duke University Divinity School John Dillenberger Berkeley.Scholars Press Reprints and Translations Series Published through the cooperation and support of the A m e r i ­ can A c a d e m y of Religion. the A m e r i c a n Philolog­ ical Association. California Ernest Frerichs Program in Judaic Studies Brown University Joseph Kitagawa The Divinity School University of Chicago Ludwig Koenen Department of Classical Studies University of Michigan Roland E.

California .Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God Johannes Weiss Translated. and with an Introduction by Richard H y d e Hiers and David Larrimore Holland Scholars Press Chico. edited.

Reprint. Includes index.1 9 1 4 . 1. e 1 9 7 1 by Fortress Press Scholars Press Reprint. paper) Printed in the United States of A m e r i c a on acid-free paper . IV. 1 9 7 1 . II. Originally published: Philadelphia : Fortress Press.K5W4513 1 9 8 5 231. Holland. Jesus Christ—Teachings. Bibliography: p.8 9 1 3 0 . David L a r r i m o r e . Title. Johannes. III. Kingdom of God. Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom of God. 2.7'2 85-2502 ISBN 0 .8 5 9 . (Lives of Jesus series). 1 9 8 5 Reprinted b y permission of Fortress Press L i b r a r y of C o n g r e s s C a t a l o g i n g in P u b l i c a t i o n Weiss. Jesu vom Reiche (First edition. I. 1 8 6 3 . Richard H. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. (Scholars Press reprints and translations series) Data Translation of: Die Predigt Jesu v o m Reiche Gottes. Hiers. [BS2417. Series.Jesus' Proclamation of t h e K i n g d o m of God Johannes Weiss Edited by Richard Hyde Hiers and David L a r r i m o r e Holland This book is a translation of Die Predigt Gottes 1892).8 (alk.

The Ethics of Preparation 13. 3. 4. The Coming Transformation 10. Jesus' Role in the Establishment of the Kingdom 7. The Judgment and the Fate of the Condemned 1 1 . Jesus' Expectation at the Last Supper 8. The Meaning of Salvation in the Kingdom of God 12. When Did Jesus Expect the Kingdom to Come? 9.CONTENTS Abbreviations F o r e w o r d by Rudolf Bultmann Introduction by the Editors The Text of Jesus' Preface Introduction Evaluation of the Sources Repentance and the Coming of the Kingdom Was the Kingdom of God Present? Jesus' W a r f a r e against Satan's Kingdom Was Jesus the "Founder" of the Kingdom of God? 6. Jesus' Future Role: the Son of Man Summary Conclusions Bibliography of the Major Writings of Johannes Weiss Indexes 138 143 1. 5. 2. Proclamation of the Kingdom of vi vii 1 God 56 57 60 65 67 74 79 81 83 84 92 96 101 105 114 129 131 .

1922-28) TSK: Theologische Studien und Kritiken ZNW: Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft ZThK: Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche vi . Kommentar zum N. Strack and P. aus Talmud und Midrasch (1-4. L.ABBREVIATIONS HTR: Harvard Theological Review JA AR: Journal of the American Academy of Religion JBL: Journal of Biblical Literature JBR: Journal of Bible and Religion JR: Journal of Religion JTS: Journal of Theological Studies NT: Novum Testamentum NTS: New Testament Studies RGG: Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart SBT: Studies in Biblical Theology SJT: Scottish Journal of Theology Strack-Billerbeck: H.T. Billerbeck.

however. Johannes Weiss's judgment on the matter has prevailed triumphantly. . indeed. . the "interim"* Originally published in Theologische Blätter 1 8 ( 1 9 3 9 ) ." But de­ spite numerous rejoinders and attempts to distort it. Here a con­ sistent and comprehensive understanding of the eschato­ logical character of the person and proclamation of Jesus was achieved and the course of further research definitively indicated. . pp. it came as a shock to the theological world. . Then. At that time even W e i s s himself could not have appreciated the importance of his findings. 2 4 2 . has become self-evident. Reproduced here in English translation by permission of Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.2 4 6 . "If the Kingdom of God is an eschatological matter. . then it is a useless concept so far as dogmatics is concerned. I still recall how Julius Kaftan in his lectures on dogmatics said. his book Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes .1 9 1 4 ) is characterized in the sec­ ond edition of Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart as "one of the founders of the eschatological movement in critical theology. and republished as a foreword to Predigt ( 1 9 6 4 ) . established his reputation. and systematic theology draws the consequences from this recognition.FOREWORD Rudolf Bultmann* Johannes W e i s s ( 1 8 6 3 . Today the eschatological meaning of the preaching of Jesus. of the earliest Christian preaching generally." In fact. Most jolting were the consequences of the new insight for the understanding of J e s u s ' ethical instruction: The negative character of his crucial demands. 3 .

precisely because it pushed the ideas of the New Testament back into the past. How all this has worked itself out cannot be traced here. But one does well indeed to remem­ ber that the work once done by Johannes W e i s s . . as­ sisted in bringing forth a new and authentic understanding of the New Testament proclamation which at present is working itself out in all areas of theology. Johannes Weiss's Predigt Jesu in particular has been of special importance. W i l h e l m Heitmiiller and their colleagues.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM character of his ethics. And for precisely that reason. and because over against a middle class conception of Christianity it brought the strangeness of the New Testament startlingly to light. Wilhelm Bousset. Hermann Gunkel.

Albrecht Ritschl. Göttingen and Breslau between 1 8 8 2 . likewise. the noted New Testament scholar. W h e n he died. W e i s s accepted a call to become Professor (ordent­ licher Professor) for New Testament at the University of Marburg in 1 8 9 5 . As a licentiatus tbeologiae. and three years later he moved to the University of Heidelberg where he remained until his sud­ den death at the age of fifty-one on August 14. 5 . distinguished him from others of that school of thought. commentator and textual critic. he became a Privatdozent for New Testament in the University of Göttingen in 1888. 1914. but also a rather wide range of social and reli­ gious interests. Hiers and David Larrimore NOTE Holland BIOGRAPHICAL Johannes Weiss was born in Kiel. 1 5 ff. his attitudes toward the German theologian.INTRODUCTION Richard H. He is generally associated with the socalled History of Religions School (Religionsgeschichtliche Schule) of German scholarship. See Bibliography for a partial listing. Johannes W e i s s ' s education w a s at the Universities of Mar­ burg. 1863. though it is clear that his father's rather conservative perspective w a s not altogether obliterated from his outlook.1 2 . Germany. His scholarly work encompassed not only his New Testament specialties. on Decem­ ber 13. 1 . Berlin. He was the son of Bernhard Weiss.1 8 8 8 . pp. See below. 2. 1 2 1. T w o years later he became an associate professor (ausser­ ordentlicher Professor) of New Testament at the same uni­ versity.

But although both are informed by and consonant with Weiss's interpretation of New Testament eschatology. are responses to the eschatological interpretation of Jesus and the early Christian community. perhaps best known among them is Rudolf Bultmann.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM Weiss left his Das Urchristentum (Earliest Christianity). Both the "demythologizing" controversy and the " n e w quest of the historical J e s u s . Both of these substantial works are important in their own right. Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes ( 1892. unfinished. C. 3 1 2 It w a s this work. It was completed by his friend and colleague. Grant's "Preface to the Torchbook Edition" of Earliest Christianity (New Y o r k : Harper. 1 9 5 9 ) . Some are also acquainted with his commentary on Mark. 2 . which marks the turning point from nineteenth to twentieth century New Testa­ ment research. that many of his beliefs and ideas ( a n d those of the early church as w e l l ) cannot be presented to modern 3. Das alteste Evangelium. 1900). Weiss also left an important legacy of students whom he had trained. see Bibliography. " which first came to the attention of most American readers only in the 1950s. neither contains a system­ atic presentation of his findings with respect to this basic question. Rudolf Knopf. 1 :v—xi. one of his most important and majestic works. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF W E I S S ' S PREDIGT Johannes Weiss is a name familiar to English-reading students primarily in connection with his Earliest Christi­ anity. And yet the work in which these findings appear. strangely has been neglected by British and American New Testament critics and theologians. For citations of Weiss's major works. T h e eschato­ logical interpretation made it clear that Jesus w a s not a modern man. A short resume of Weiss's career and writings is given in F. however.

The "old" quest was not without other dogmatic interests. A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (London: SCM. 4. pp. His classic statement of 1 9 4 1 . " 4 Recognition of the eschatological beliefs of J e s u s — a recognition that by no means took place immediately or without resistance—also meant that the historical Jesus could no longer be identified either with the modern Jesus of the "liberal lives of J e s u s " or with the traditional Jesus of Christian piety." is printed as the first essay in Hans W e r n e r Bartsch. 44. Whereas the " o l d " quest of the histor­ ical Jesus had been undertaken by liberal writers in the hope of finding a Jesus who. 7 6 f. But it certainly was Bultmann's intention to express thereby the "understanding of exist­ ence" contained in such " m y t h s . however: see Reinhard Slenczka. Cf. 1 9 6 7 ) . Fuller ( N e w Y o r k : Harper Torchbooks. and. 1 9 5 9 ) . see Daniel L. 3 . Robinson. Kerygma and Myth. Of course. Deegan. if possible." SJT 1 5 ( 1 9 6 2 ) : 1 3 3 . could be liber­ ated from traditional dogmas/' the " n e w " quest has been pursued by more theologically oriented writers with the hope of discovering a historical Jesus who is not altogether uncongenial." NT 4 ( I 9 6 0 ) : 131 ff. somehow related to the kerygmatic Christ. "New Testament and Mythology. R. the choice of existentialist categories by Bultmann and his school did not follow inevitably from Weiss's recog­ nition of the gap between the eschatological beliefs of Jesus and those of modern men.5 0 . Geschichtlichkeit und Personsein Jesu Christ/ (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.INTRODUCTION believers as articles of faith. 5. "The Problem of the Messianic Self-consciousness of Jesus. 1 9 6 1 ) . Jesus Christ and Mythology (New Y o r k : Scribner's. 1 . like themselves. H. pp. trans. "Albrecht Ritschl on the Historical Jesus. ed.4 4 . see also Rudolf Bultmann.. 1 9 5 8 ) . The mythological elements— so Rudolf Bultmann proposed —must be interpreted in categories intelligible and credible to modern men. Paul W . But Robinson misrepre­ sents the "old" quest when he claims that its intent was to present the historical Jesus "as a proven divine fact": James M. Meyer. For a critique of Robinson and defense of Ritschl in this connection.

against the stream of then contem­ porary theology. He was certainly as aware that the synop­ tic tradition had a history prior to its literary fixation as were such contemporaries as Martin Kahler and Wilhelm W r e d e : "Every narrative that has been preserved. Earliest Christianity. that theology had been growing accustomed to the idea that the Christian religion was concerned primarily with religious experience of which Jesus was the great teacher and exemplar. every saying that has survived. Since the time of Schleier­ macher.. In order to ap­ preciate both the theological impact and the critical sub­ stance of the book. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. it seems fitting to take up these two questions separately. was understood to refer ultimately to this experience. The Kingdom of God. and Das älteste Evangelium 1 9 0 3 ) .. 1 : 1 2 . 6 Its Theological Impact The appearance of Johannes Weiss's Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes in 1892 produced a major crisis in Euro­ pean Protestant liberal theology. 1 2 0 ff. 2 4 . 1 ff. see also Predigt . Wilhelm Herrmann and Adolf von Harnack. understood it to mean the rule of God in the hearts of men. about which Jesus had preached and taught. is evidence of some particular in­ terest on the part of the primitive church. pp.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM One might also recognize W e i s s as one of the prophets of form criticism. pp.. for example." But his most important contribution remains his recognition of the eschatological beliefs of Jesus and the early church and espe­ cially his willingness. In circles more influ­ enced by Immanuel Kant and Albrecht Ritschl. such as those of J u l i u s Kaftan in Germany and the so-called Social Gospel movement as represented by W a l t e r Rauschen6. 1 7 6 ff. Weiss. 36 ff. to try to discover what Jesus really understood the Kingdom of God to mean.

INTRODUCTION

busch in America, the Kingdom w a s construed to mean the exercise of the moral life in society. The Kingdom of God was thought to be both immanent in individual religious experience and to be realized gradually in an ideal society on earth. In less than sixty-seven pages, W e i s s demonstrated that Jesus did not regard the Kingdom of God as a religious experience. The Kingdom of God as Jesus thought of it is never some­ thing subjective, inward, or spiritual, but is always the ob­ jective messianic Kingdom, which usually is pictured as a territory into which one enters, or as a land in which one has a share, or as a treasure which comes down from heaven.
7

W e i s s thereby also prevented his contemporaries from continuing to identify their idea of the Kingdom as supreme ethical ideal with what Jesus meant by it. In setting forth the results of his research, W e i s s raised two major questions. His primary concern w a s w i t h the historical question: W h a t does the New Testament reveal Jesus to have thought and taught about the Kingdom of God? But at the same time a second, essentially theological question also emerged: W h a t is and what ought to be the relationship between J e s u s ' notion of the Kingdom and that of his disciples and of the church subsequently? In other words, W e i s s w a s able to keep the historical and theological questions radically distinct in his own mind, and for that reason, so must w e in our treatment of them here. To turn to the first of the problems: W e i s s w a s prodded into print by the growing tension between his own New Testament studies and the views of Ritschl (his father-inlaw as well as his teacher) and the other liberal theologians
7. See below, p. 1 3 3 .

5

J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E

KINGDOM

(especially those influenced by Kant and the theology of the E n l i g h t e n m e n t ) which he and his generation of stu­ dents had imbibed. No doubt filial respect caused him to delay publication of his views until 1892, three years after the death of Ritschl, but by then he felt it necessary to make his findings public. As he writes in the foreword to his second edition of the Predigt,
8

. . . the clear perception that Ritschl's idea of the Kingdom of God and the corresponding idea in the proclamation of Jesus were two very different things disturbed me quite early. My publication of 1 8 9 2 was an attempt to stress this difference sharply and vigorously. . . . The modern theological assertion is of a completely different form and mood from that of the earliest Christian notion.
9

8. Weiss's Die Idee des Reiches Gotles in der Theologie (Giessen: J . Ricker'sche, 1 9 0 1 ) contains a succinct and more explicit statement than Predigt of Weiss's conviction that Ritschl's views were derived from the Enlightenment. (N.B.: Throughout the editor's introduction, Predigt ' ' will be used for the first through the third editions respectively of Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes. The third edition was edited by Fer­ dinand Hahn with a foreword by Rudolf Bultmann and published in Gottingen by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht in 1 9 6 4 ; except for Hahn's intro­ duction and a different pagination for the preface by Weiss, the text in the third edition is identical with that of the second, which was published by Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1 9 0 0 . ) 9. Predigt , p. v. ( = Predigt , p. x i . ) Though the main thrust of J . Weiss's historical-critical study was directed against the kind of liberal theological position represented by his father-in-law, A . Ritschl, there was also a tacit repudiation of the more conservative theology of his father, Bernhard Weiss. The latter's Life of Jesus, published in 1 8 8 2 , trans. J . W . Hope (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1 8 8 3 - 8 4 ) , had been written as if there were no significant differences between the historical Jesus of the synoptic Gospels and traditional Christian affirmations about him. Accordingly, the elder W e i s s did not bring the question of Jesus' eschatological beliefs into focus. B. W e i s s was still living when Die Predigt was published, and his son pays him due respect (e.g., infra, pp. 6 1 , 1 2 4 ) . But the implications of J . Weiss's position pointed not only to the end of the era of liberal theology, but also placed in serious doubt the conservative equation of the historical Jesus with the Christ of tradi­ tional or "Biblical" piety.
1 1 2 3 2 3

6

INTRODUCTION

W h e n W e i s s turned from current theology to the New Testament evidence, which he viewed through the eyes of the best critical scholarship of his time, he saw Jesus pro­ claiming a Kingdom of God which was unfamiliar. Ritschl's putative identification of his own view of the Kingdom with that of Jesus seemed false to W e i s s . Whatever theo­ logical verdict one might render on Ritschl's notion of the Kingdom, one dared not, one could not—at least not on the New Testament's witness—confuse that view with what Jesus had thought and taught. Hence the first edition of the Predigt was at once a positive statement of the re­ sults of W e i s s ' s New Testament research and a protest against what he regarded to be Ritschl's misunderstand­ ings. Much of the form of W e i s s ' s statement is controlled by this negative impulse. As a historian, he w a s determined to spike the weapons in the liberal arsenal. Therefore he set out not only to describe J e s u s ' views of the Kingdom of God accurately, but also to disarm the positions espoused by Ritschl and his followers and to defuse each of the exegetical arguments they had adapted to fortify their case.

The Eschatological

Kingdom

vs. the

Ritschlian

The Kingdom of God which Weiss found on J e s u s ' lips in the New Testament had very different characteristics from that of Ritschl. Ritschl had said,
10

Those who believe in Christ are the Kingdom of God insofar as they, without reckoning the differences of sex, condition or nationality against each other, act reciprocally out of love and so bring forth on all possible levels and to the ends of the
1 0 . On the w h o l e question of the role of W e i s s in the breakup of this sort of liberal theology, see. D. L. Holland, "History, Theology and the Kingdom of God: A Contribution of Johannes W e i s s to Twentieth Cen­ tury Theology," Biblical Research 13 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 5 4 - 6 6 .

7

7 4 . vol. 3.8 1 .1 1 5 . p. pp. and cf. 82. 2 p. cf. pp. a methodology 14 15 1 1 . e v e n t . Die christliche Versöhnung'' 12. W e i s s employs this sort of apoc­ alyptic framework as his major touchstone of authenticity for distinguishing that which is genuinely attributable to Jesus in the New Testament from that which is plausibly the creation of the faith of the early church. 11 The sort of Kingdom of God W e i s s traced to Jesus. One of the consequences of this line of thought is that a sharp dualism appears not only between the world above and this world below. W h a t happens here simply mir­ rors what has already happened decisively above. " The Kingdom was not primarily an ethical relationship of love for God and man. See below. Albrecht Ritsehl.7 9 . p. 7 4 . below. See below. and in this case that means an eschatological. Predigt . Predigt . 8 . pp. 2 9 ff. 1 8 9 5 ) . 2 14. Predigt . but also between the rule of God and the rule of S a t a n . pp. 12 13 W e i s s traced the source of J e s u s ' notion of the Kingdom of God primarily to so-called late J e w i s h apocalypticism. 1 3 . w a s first of all " a religious. 1 1 3 . 1 4 6 . which gave his proclamation a "religio-forensic character" and severed its customary connections with the ethical idealism of nine­ teenth century liberal theology as Weiss knew it. Both sorts of dualism stand in conscious rebuke to the Ritschlian identification with J e s u s ' of its own mon­ istic views of the Kingdom as a situation to be worked out here on earth among men. 1 5 . how­ ever. Moreover. und (Bonn: Marcus. 1 4 6 . 2 1 Lehre von der Rechtfertigung 132-135. there was a dualism of worlds. one above and one here below. In that thought-milieu. Predigt . the eschatology in which Jesus had framed his concept of the Kingdom was apocalyptic eschatology. 2 7 1 .J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM human race the expanding community of moral conviction and moral goods. The whole Ritschlian concept w a s out of kilter from this point of view.

the millenial reign. Predigt*. the Kingdom is not susceptible of being transposed into the world. " To the ques­ tion of whether Jesus expected the end to come immedi­ ately or whether he thought in terms of its being delayed until some time further off. Secondly. the alcov fiikXcDv. Weiss finds a number of characteristically apocalyptic and eschatological elements in Jesus' view of the Kingdom. Christian Walther. It is supramundane: "this old world cannot assimilate the Kingdom of God. At first. he suggests. p. 8 4 . for further discussion of this matter. but the people had not re­ pented. Weiss finds a double answer in the New Testament. the Kingdom of God w a s a matter for the future. See below. Predigt . Predigt . pp. says Weiss. pp.. 1 8 . Cf. Jesus. it is clear that Jesus expected the end imminently. he stands with one foot already in the future w o r l d . it must become n e w . Typen des Reich-Gottes-Verstdndnisses (Munich: Kaiser. and so forth.9 2 . pp. 20. "He ( J e s u s ) has nothing in common with this world.1 3 1 . not the present. Cf. H e then came to the conviction that the Kingdom would not come before his death and even that his own death would have a part in making it possible: his death would be a ransom for the people who were not responding 16 17 18 19 20 1 6 . 8 6 f.INTRODUCTION which made the reproof of Ritschlian exegesis still more pronounced. See below. 1 6 1 f. " Whether conceived in terms of individual or collective morality or in terms of civic or ecclesiastical life. But later in his life. All things were to come to their culmination shortly with the resurrection. the judgment. Jesus' outlook on this matter shifted. 2 1 9 . 1 4 5 . Consequently. 1 2 9 . see below. awaited a new heaven and a new earth. 1 9 6 1 ) . pp.. 19. 93 ff. pp. Important among them is the radical tran­ scendence of the Kingdom of God. He had been preaching a call to repentance. 77 ff. 1 7 .

. W . 6 7 ) . See below. . See below. Men could pray that the Kingdom might come. 8 4 . 2 24.. but not before his own death had paved the way for it. T. and Predigl . Adolf von Harnack thought that Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom as both gift and task (What Is Christianity? trans. 2 4 0 ) . To think that was to grasp J e s u s ' meaning inade­ quately. 22. fourthly. and that includes Jesus. esp. in The Quest of the Historical Jesus. " It is not a positive ideal of worldly morality. The end w a s still to come soon. 23. however. The Kingdom was a gift. Thirdly. 1 9 5 7 ] . Perhaps the ethic of Jesus. p. That remained forever solely the prerogative of God. B. the only via­ ble attitude to take vis-a-vis the advent of the Kingdom was one of passivity. is most appropriately labeled a "penitential e t h i c . Cf. 10 . pp. ( i n ) character. but they could do nothing to bring it into existence. 11 pp. Predigt . And such is what Weiss marks out in Jesus' teachings. "Either the Kingdom is here or it is not yet h e r e ! " And. completely negative .. 22 23 The ethic which one automatically expects to emerge from this view of the coming Kingdom will be negative and lean toward asceticism.. 145 ff. not an assignment. trans.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E 21 KINGDOM to his call to repent. it is. enjoined to live so as to be prepared for the com24 2 1 2 1 . The orientation will be away from this world and toward the future world. 1 9 5 0 ) . 74 ff. pp. in fact. pp. 25. as Weiss details it. Saunders [New Y o r k : Harper Torchbooks. . For every man. such as Ritschl and his followers were disposed to elaborate.8 9 . writes as follows: Weiss's "ethic is . 82 ff. . 73 f. the Kingdom was not to develop gradually from a small beginning. pp. Albert Schweitzer. Liberal theology regarded it mainly as assignment: through moral effort. Both Weiss and Schweitzer understand Jesus to mean that only those who gave up all worldly ties and treasures would be fit to enter the Kingdom. Montgomery (New Y o r k : Macmillan. Cf. not so much an ethic as a penitential discipline" (p. men were to build the Kingdom on earth. but the diametric opposite. ' Every man is. it was not Jesus' mission—or even his view of his mission—to found or inaugurate the King­ dom.

.. Ethics almost constitutes a sort of self-preparation of a psychological sort. pp. however. 29. 27. "Jesus proclaimed what God desired of those who wished in the future to participate in the Kingdom of God. one acts in such and such a way because of the impending advent of the King­ dom. 2 1 2 2 11 . 1 3 2 134. " Thus. 1 2 6 . Bertelsmann. but 26. Predigt . 1 5 0 f. Cf."" The end is upon us! Repent and get your­ selves ready to enter the Kingdom! That is the crucial mes­ sage.. as Folke Holmström suggests. p. 1 6 0 . You yourselves can do nothing to effect the coming of the Kingdom of God. 7 1 . pp. esp. It is rather the motive for one's ethical life. pp. trans. 6 3 . 1 3 8 f. 1 3 8 . 1 5 7 . 1 9 3 6 ) . that there is a specific denial in Weiss's study of any attempt to identify the Kingdom with J e s u s ' circle of disciples. Idealistic theology in many of its forms had too readily granted that identification. and Predigt*. pp. Any theory of rewards and punishments relating the notion of the Kingdom of God and ethics.. pp. The new morality which he proclaimed was thought of as a con­ dition for entrance into the Kingdom of G o d .INTRODUCTION ing Kingdom. 28. Weiss rejects out of hand. cf. 7 4 . 7 6 f. Del eskalologiska motiret i nutida tvologi (Stock­ holm. Predigt . p. The Kingdom itself is eitel Gnade (nothing but g r a c e ) ! 27 28 29 It should be noted. cf. p. 1 0 3 ff. 1 0 5 ff. pp. p. also Predigt . the role of the Kingdom in ethics is very different from Ritschl's assessment. 1 9 3 3 ) . and you can prepare yourselves so as to be ready when it comes. as Weiss reads Jesus' teachings. Harold Kruska (Güter­ sloh: C. further. 1 0 5 ff. cf. 1 2 3 . Folke Holmström. below. p. 6 9 . God will see to that himself in his own good time. pp.1 2 5 . also below.7 3 . 95 f. See below. cf. an abridged German translation of this work appeared under the title Das eschatologische Denken der Gegenwart. It is no longer the goal man strives to realize in his ethical life. Predigt . But its appearance is close at hand. Svenska Kyrkans Diakonistyrelses.

pp. 33. There is. p. of course. 12 . Cf. See below. Predigt . One can conceive of his not having raised the question in this form at all save for the fact that this w a s the w a y liberal German theology was discussing this portion of the whole complex of problems surrounding the notion of the King­ dom of God.9 9 . pp. W e i s s encountered a major difficulty: certain dominical sayings which give every appearance of regarding the Kingdom as present. the discussion in general in Predigt . 6 5 . pp. 32. It w a s properly antici­ pated as an event to be brought about solely by the agency of God in the near future. 7 8 . the kingdom of God is in the midst of y o u " ) as the result of "prophetic e n t h u s i a s m " and to relegate the "presence" sayings in general to a paradoxical manner of speaking or to "expressions of spiritual e c s t a s y .8 1 . " As he writes in 1 31 32 33 30. pp. he is forced to treat Luke 1 7 : 2 1 ( " . and in Predigt . See below. This argument is a good illustration of the w a y in which W e i s s ' s exposition w a s controlled by his desire to rebuff the interpretation of the Ritschlians. 3 1 . a certain innate plausibility in Weiss's treating the question of the relationship of the disciples to the Kingdom. 7 2 . for behold. 78 f. 9 0 . 6 5 . Predigt . 8 7 . but there is certainly no necessity for his hav­ ing raised the question with just this facet highlighted. 30 Weiss thus found Jesus teaching about the Kingdom of God in purely eschatological terms. See below.. . 68 ft. for in­ stance. Predigt . .JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM Weiss is explicit in his argument that the Kingdom of God does not consist in the disciples' recognition of the lord­ ship of God in J e s u s . One needed to prepare himself for its advent—that was the meaning of the preaching of Jesus—but one could then only wait passively for its com­ ingi n working out his eschatological interpretation of the New Testament data. pp. cf. In Predigt . p. pp.7 5 . 1 2 9 . 2 2 1 2 2 below.8 8 .

2 36. Basically these exceptional state­ ments do not alter the judgment that J e s u s ' role in respect to the coming Kingdom is one of preparing the people for its future incursion. Thus W e i s s ' s final conclu­ sion respecting the problems raised by these sayings is that they represent not so much shifts in J e s u s ' understanding as nuances of mood. not one of presiding over its inaugura­ tion or development. pp. though he himself was still engaged in the battle here below. Predigt . " . 13 . . 11 p. it is only an intensification of his general cer­ tainty if now and then in joyful prophetic enthusiasm Jesus leaps across the short span of expectancy and speaks as if he were already at the g o a l . 7 4 . It is an interesting feature of Weiss's whole enter­ prise in the two editions of the Predigt that he deals with this further question: Should J e s u s ' conception of the Kingdom be normative for subsequent Christian under­ standing? This question constitutes the second of the com cerns mentioned above ( p . particularly in his exorcistic ac­ tions. 35. 7 0 f. 9 9 . pp.. " There is also a sense in which Jesus. 5 ) . the victory against the forces of Satan is in some meaningful w a y already assured. A related problem lies in what W e i s s describes as a dichotomy between J e s u s ' views of the Kingdom and those of the earliest church as they are attested in the New Testa­ ment. To observe this also helps to explain J e s u s ' occasional proleptic utterances about the Kingdom's presence. See below. 7 0 .INTRODUCTION Predigt'. Predigt . . Weiss discovered that even J e s u s ' disciples' idea of the Kingdom of God differed from J e s u s ' : they weakened its eschatological character and brought it into the center of 34 85 36 34. was aware that the forces of Satan had been broken in the world above and that. according to W e i s s .7 9 .

See below. His interpretation of this phe­ nomenon comes out perhaps most clearly in his treatment of Matt.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM their thought not as a future event but as something already present. Rolf Schäfer. 61 f. 7 2 . to use the thought-world of apocalypticism as the keystone for J e s u s ' genuine teach­ ings is to take something foreign to the synoptic materials by which to judge them without first seeing what it is they can tell us. cf. 13:24 ff. pp. Rolf Schäfer has restated an important kind of criticism of this facet of Weiss's w o r k . 37 Before w e go on to the question of the perpetuation of that hiatus in modern theology and Weiss's comments upon it. 2 Johannes 14 . 40. For Schäfer. W e i s s found this quite comprehensible in view of the fact that these men. had a sense of the new order of things and the pres­ ence of the Kingdom in Jesus himself which obscured their perception of the eschatological kernel of J e s u s ' own under­ standing of the Kingdom. 38. Weiss admits the evangelist understood his materials in terms of a present Kingdom but denies that the parable of the tares is really susceptible to that sort of exegesis. pp.. living as they did in the presence of Jesus. W h e n one is trying consciously to rule out the views of the later church and to recapture 38 37. 48. a word or two is in order respecting the adequacy of Weiss's eschatological criterion for the authenticity of the tradition attributed to Jesus. He sees a methodological contradiction in Weiss's work at this point.8 8 . "Das Reich Gottes bei Albrecht Ritsehl und Weiss. Such a rendering misses Jesus' message in the par­ able. He suggests that the very standard Weiss employs to dis­ tinguish J e s u s ' words from those created by the faith of the church is artificial." ZThK 61 ( 1 9 6 4 ) : 6 8 . and historical integrity demands w e release it from the scheme in which the evangelist has enmeshed it. Predigt . Thus Weiss exposes an important hiatus between the proclama­ tions of Jesus and the early church.

Moreover. W e i s s had to put his case as strongly as possible. or they must be elimi­ nated for one reason or another. pp. 73 ft. more important still. 7 0 . such a charge can scarcely be wholly denied. 11 pp. 4 1 . sec­ tions from John. the major charge against Weiss's apocalyptic eschatology as a stand­ ard of authenticity is that it amounts to a petitio principii.7 4 . it was clearly in order to counter the opposite interpretation at the hands of the Ritschlians. he thinks. pp. 40. See below.. it forces him to be a sort of Marcionite with respect to those portions of the text which do not readily support his theory. And. this criterion causes W e i s s to impute an apocalyptic sense to words which would not automatically incur such a meaning. 74 f. 82 ff. pp.. 39 40 In a certain sense. This is especially the case when W e i s s uses later materials—Pauline passages. the leaven. 63 f. If he denied interpretations which described the growth and expansion and develop­ ment of the Kingdom when he treated these parables. viz. Ibid. If he overemphasized the eschatological aspects of the parables of the sower.. Furthermore. See below. In other words.. to ignore the apocalyptic character of the New Testament materials. 92 f. of course. it is inappro­ priate to subordinate the ethical teachings ascribed to Jesus to the apocalyptic m a t e r i a l . it was 41 39. and even portions from the Revelation— to embellish and corroborate his points. That Weiss sought to interpret the synoptic evidence with the help of other contemporary sources where similar or related apoc­ alyptic concepts appear is certainly a less dubious procedure than that which was customary in his time. he suggests. but the point is overstated. either such texts must be "corrected" to fit his view. 15 . the mustard seed. cf. in the academic and theological context in which the Predigt appeared.. the tares and the seeds growing secretly. 1 2 7 .INTRODUCTION the pristine teaching of Jesus. Predigt .

He especially wanted to let the historical data speak for them­ selves. and. Nevertheless W e can now return to the question of the relationship between J e s u s ' proclamation of the Kingdom of God and the church's. on the question of their relation­ ship. that even among the disciples there had apparently been no ability to appropriate J e s u s ' idea without modification and mutation. the question of the relation of the re­ sults of historical scholarship and contemporary theology. 2 Ritschlian Theology. Weiss as a historian and a theologian tried earnestly and honestly to ask how historical results coalesce with and im­ pinge upon modern forms of the faith. The timeli­ ness of that question for today scarcely needs to be labored.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM primarily to win a hearing for certain data and for an inter­ pretive option which were being totally neglected. That i s . To be sure. Perhaps it would be fairer to W e i s s to suggest that his criterion con­ stitutes an exaggerated exegetical emphasis rather than a petitio principa. Weiss also believed his inter­ pretations to be essentially correct as well as an essential corrective for liberal theology's misconceptions—the vigor with which he defended his work against his critics in Predigt attests to that—but the taut form in which he couched his first statement is rendered comprehensible and excusable in terms of the historical situation in which he wrote. in recognizing that the earliest church had not followed Jesus' lead. also articulated an issue which went beyond the historical questions of J e s u s ' eschatology. even if that eventuated in a break between New Testament exegesis and contemporary systematic theology. W e i s s . namely. he raises the question of hermeneutics. he would allow the chips to fall where they might. He wanted to do both the historical and the contemporary theological tasks as well as possible. 16 .

That he regarded this gap as continuing down into the present from the earliest church is plain in his treatment of the position of Julius Wellhausen in Predigt . Cf." in Skizzen und Vorarbeiten. esp. where he writes as follows: But however modernizing and dogmatizing Ritschl's biblicaltheological foundation may be.2 1 5 . the idea of the Kingdom of God as he formulates it need not therefore be unusable. And if it is only useful and 42. 43. 2 42 43 44 The basis for W e i s s ' s attitude is clearly presented in his work Die Idee des Reiches Gottes in der Theologie (The Idea of the Kingdom of God in T h e o l o g y ) . 6 0 . is never used in unabridged and undistorted form.. 44. For history shows that the idea of Jesus. " namely. sechstes Heft (Berlin: Georg Reimer. that Weiss did not really trace this issue in all its ramifications through the history of Christian theology. H e is quite complimentary of Wellhausen's treatment of the suprahistorical meaning of the Kingdom. he discovered a continuing hiatus between Jesus' and the church's thought on the Kingdom. „Des Menschen Sohn. but sees it rather as yet another example of the de-eschatologizing which is already evident in the New Testament tradition. 1 8 9 9 ) .INTRODUCTION As he examined both the New Testament and contem­ porary theology. but then goes on to say that "Wellhausen suc­ cumbs here to an old and widespread theological tradition which goes back finally to the Gospel of J o h n . Weiss does not treat Wellhausen's view as a uniquely modern malady. pp. 5 5 .. 2 2 17 . but is always transposed and reinterpreted. W e i s s treats this point in Predtgt . 1 8 7 . pp. p. Predigt .6 5 .6 4 . pp. 6 0 . the immanent and ethical interpretation of the Kingdom. except in the most ancient period. Predigt*. It is worth noting. It was sim­ ply impossible to use it otherwise. Julius W e l l h a u s e n . however. W e i s s singled Wellhausen out as one who saw the Kingdom of God through Goethian glasses. That is to say.

To make his position even clearer. p. in fact. Nach- 46. W h e n one compares the t w o 45.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM pertinent in another form. cf. Historically speaking. 1 1 3 . W e i s s was certainly neither a proto"fundamentalist" nor one w h o s e call w a s simply "back to the Bible!" He did not deny modern thought its viability. so modified that only the name still re­ mains the same. W e i s s w a s willing to ask if "Kingdom of G o d " was an appropriate designation for the modern concept. But the theological evaluation of that discrepancy was a separate matter.. The ques­ tion arises whether it is not thereby divested of its essential traits and. But he wanted to be sure his peers fully recognized that modern thought is not identical w i t h Jesus' thought and expressions. then a use which deviates from the Bible appears to me at least inoffensive—especially if one is clear about the difference and regards it as essential. W e i s s regarded the historical and theological ques­ tions as separable. Jesus' v i e w of the Kingdom was eschatological but that of the church in Weiss's day was not. folge Christi und die Predigt p. 1 8 9 5 ) . See below. 1 3 4 f. Idee des Reiches Cottes. cf. differing as it does from Jesus' use of the term. Die der Gegenwart (Gôttingen: Vandenhoeck & Nachfolge). p. 45 That is. But it is now neces­ sary to ask whether it is really possible for theology to em­ ploy the idea of the Kingdom of God for the purpose for which it has recently been considered serviceable. pp. 1 3 1 . Weiss. certainly not in the sense that Jesus' had been. 1 6 8 (hereafter cited as 18 . Jesus' idea of the Kingdom of God appears to be inextrica­ bly involved with a number of eschatological-apocalyptic views which systematic theology has been accustomed to take over without critical examination. Ruprecht. 40 The position W e i s s himself wants to embrace can be traced in his various w o r k s . Johannes W e i s s .

it is clear that his historical position remained the same. It is this latter element which introduces a certain diffuseness in Weiss's statement in the second. In the eight years that lay between his two statements. Weiss.5 and was a clear declaration by Weiss that whatever the results of his his­ torical research. Ibid. second. 19 . One sees this position also emerging in a long article Weiss con­ tributed to the Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft entitled "Das Problem der Entstehung des Christentums" (The Problem of the Origin of Christianity) . there appears to be a certain minoration of the eschatological outlook of the first edition. Die Nachfolge Christi und die Predigt der Gegenwart ( T h e Imitation of Christ and Contemporary P r e a c h i n g ) for example. expanded edition. 48. he seems to have modified his views only in two respects: first. he could be somewhat less relentless in the exposition of his argument and the absoluteness of his terminology (as we shall see l a t e r ) . the theological position demanded by the present was that approximated by liberal theology. This alteration appears less as a change of mind or the result of new re­ search than as a difference in the language chosen to ex­ pound the same historical materials. the later edition shows some traces of Weiss's own theological affin­ ity for precisely the same Ritschlian position whose histori­ cal assumptions he so vigorously rejected. Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft 16 ( 1 9 1 3 ) : 423-515. By the time of Predigt*. appeared in 189. There he writes as follows: 47 4 8 For whoever already experiences the help and grace of God in the present life and has learned to rely on them has by that fact in principle overcome metaphysical dualism and 47.INTRODUCTION editions of the Predigt. This ambiguity becomes especially clear in the context of Weiss's other post-1892 writings which handle the same questions.

in itself.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM the tension toward the future. 2 pp. Ibid. in the second edition W e i s s talked about the relation of the future and present sayings of Jesus concerning the Kingdom of God as nuances of mood. For example. ) 2 1 2 50 W h a t w e have here labeled a diminution or minoration of the strict eschatology of Predigt by the time of Predigt is. the treatment of the commandment to love God and neighbor in Predigt is handled as one of a series of noneschatological sayings which represent a differ­ ent side of J e s u s ' teachings. 49 The author of Predigt' would scarcely have written those lines even though they do not necessarily contradict the historical position he was expounding there. have a kind of abiding relevance which Jesus' own eschatological words by their very nature can­ not have. 50. 20 . These noneschatological sayings. 4 5 1 .. Or. Weiss suggests. as suggested. p. but in the first edition he found them rather more embarrassing exceptions to his stated position. to take another example. Certainly the emphasis has shifted.1 3 8 . for the most part—of his own theology. 1 3 4 . Jesus repeated ethical dicta which were in common currency in his time and which reflect a more world-affirming tone than his own eschatological teachings. Now his own questions as a son of 1 2 49. In this mood. Predigt . Here the belief in God which. But W e i s s the liberal Ritschlian theologian is apparent also in Predigt (he had managed to remain largely hidden in Predigt ). Now we observe this also in the proclamation of Jesus. less an intentional change on W e i s s ' s part than a reflection—disallowed in the first edition. ( S e e the discussion b e l o w . is completely uneschatological stands next to the eschatological frame of mind like something that can hardly be reconciled to i t . He had made his point against the Ritschlians.

to insist that the church in subsequent ages had to ad­ here to interpretations which were identical with those held by Jesus. cf. an 'ordinance for the Kingdom of G o d ' . 1 4 3 . 51 52 Nevertheless. 1 6 2 . And it was precisely those sorts of exegetical aberra­ tions which Weiss rejected. The difficulty which had evoked them W e i s s could appreciate. respecting Jesus' mandates. 5 1 . H e w a s not prepared. how­ ever. after all the historical work w a s done. " It had seemed to the church that those absolute commandments. Predigt'. The plain meaning of the New Testament texts. " I t is self-evident that Jesus did not in­ tend with them to promulgate for Christianity in* all ages a continuing ethical l a w . w a s utterly inapplica­ ble in any literal sense to succeeding ages: J e s u s ' command­ ments were moral absolutes. p. but they were impossible to obey because they were inappropriate to changing situa­ tions. which was produced later. 52.g. W e i s s w a s perfectly willing to accept the results of honest historical scholar­ ship. 117. whatever they might be. Clement of Alex­ andria and Origen) had recognized. He was ready to allow a radical hiatus to exist between J e s u s ' teachings and those of subsequent Christians. Predigt . Nachfolge. but as solutions they were unacceptable. W e i s s shared that judgment and notes. into the words and the faith of J e s u s . Indeed. had somehow either to be alle­ gorized away or disposed of by some sort of exegetical exer­ cise.INTRODUCTION liberal theology could come to the fore w i t h some sense of security against misunderstanding. therefore.. " W e must protest only against one who wants to eisegete this view. 21 . for they attempted to confuse the his­ torical and theological tasks by making their own findings seem to come from Jesus himself. 1 p. p. " Historical integrity was required. as even the earliest Christian exegetes (e. he could see no alternative to that posi­ tion.

Predigt . " The same view was incipiently present in Predigt : " W e no longer pray ' M a y grace come and the world pass away'. had almost nothing explicit to say respecting modern ethical issues. 2 3 55. W e i s s found.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM Weiss w a s still to maintain that the "modern" (sc. there he says. that the historical Jesus. as did Schweitzer after him." 22 . correctly understood and correctly expressed. p. 1 3 5 . and that one is obliged to bequeath the coming generation a better world than one r e c e i v e d . but w e pass our lives in the joyful certainty that this world will evermore become the showplace of a 'humanity of G o d ' . "It can scarcely be imagined what a transformation of mood and ideas has taken place since it has become clear to mankind that they also have indeed to prepare this world as a place for the Kingdom of God. Consequently. 1 6 3 . 1 6 4 . are proper to us. and not the views our historical research shows us Jesus held. Nachfolge. His point was simple. " Further. Ritschlian) notions of the Kingdom of God were the best for Christianity in his time. Cf. p. p. "For these "hew questions. v ( = Predigt . x i ) : "I am still of the opinion today that his (Ritschl's) system and precisely this central idea represent that form of dogmatic statement which is best suited to draw our race to the Christian religion and. " And this modern notion of the Kingdom could be described by W e i s s as follows: 53 54 1 55 53. p. those words of Jesus give no directive however much one may want to apply t h e m . and it marked his views off from those of the other liberal theo­ logians: W e i s s did not need to have his own position seem to be identical with Jesus'. p. if our mod­ ern notions of the Kingdom of God can help us with these issues. Nachfolge. for instance. 54. to awaken and nurture a healthy and powerful religious life such as we need today. See below. This position comes to lucid expression all through Weiss's Nachfolge. they. with his concern for an eschatological Kingdom.

humble and faithful use of our position as children of our kingly Father. p. to the close of the a g e . " It would be wrong to imply. is present within humanity. p. For even if W e i s s refuses to re­ late them by means of what he considers bad exegesis so that modern versions—or perversions—of what Jesus is supposed to have taught are denied the authority of " a s Jesus taught. but only the exalted Christ. 2 8 : 2 0 b . w e can still rely upon the guidance of the exalted Christ. 1 6 4 . His passionate 57 56. 23 . 57. Nachfolge. 1 6 8 . and if we are determined to cooperate with his wish in the strengthening and extension of the rule of God within our­ selves and others and in his way to make the right. 50 Neither historical research and modern theology nor the historical Jesus and the modern situation need be com­ pletely divorced. Nachfolge. however. that w e cannot have hints from the synoptic accounts of what w e might find Jesus doing were he to reappear among us. I am with you always. " l o . which. but he relies explicitly and entirely on the veracity of Matt. of whom w e be­ lieve that were he among us today." he attempts another sort of reconciliation between Jesus and the present. If the eschatological words of Jesus give us no directive for our new questions. our leader in (the social) struggle cannot be the his­ torical Christ. reverent.to the ideas which God reveals to us through h i s t o r y .INTRODUCTION We can trust permanently in the love of God with good con­ science only if we desire with all our determination to be fellow-members of the community of the Kingdom of God. however. since Christ's work. he would lead us in re­ organizing the world according. " Just how that relationship with the exalted Christ is to come about and how it is to be described and what the relationship is between him and the historical Christ are matters Weiss does not clarify. "Here again.

that Bultmann describes Weiss's 58. p. But a few words may be permitted. I remember that Julius Kaftan. is the sort of thing Weiss feels the world is now called upon by God to produce. 1 3 . 1 4 5 . Predigl*. became convinced that Weiss was correct. J . Jesus Christ and Mythology. then. He would set out to work for it in the framework of history. theologians as well as lay­ men were excited and frightened by the theories of Johannes Weiss. Rudolf Bultmann has summarized the impact of Weiss's thesis upon the historical foundations of liberal theology: When I began to study theology. but one which delights in the w o r l d . possibly—in accord with his wholesome and luminous inmost nature—he would have become the founder of just as serious an 'evangelical' ethic. said: "If Johannes Weiss is right and the conception of the kingdom of God is an eschatological one." But in the following years the theologians. 24 . in our circumstances. then it is impossible to make use of this conception in dog­ matics. Kaftan among them. rather than a reproduction of J e s u s ' eschatological stance. simply wait patiently for the coming of the Kingdom. At one point Weiss goes so far as to claim of the historical Jesus that even " H a d he not been drawn into the messianic move­ ment through the call at the Jordan. But w e should not expect that he would simply repeat the Sermon on the Mount for us.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM love for God and man and his earnest desire to bring all men to God would surely span the centuries. my teacher in dog­ matics in Berlin. 59 It is not surprising. Nor would he. " This. Bultmann. 58 Subsequent Response To review the subsequent discussions of the significance of eschatology for theology and ethics would require space beyond that allotted for this introduction. p. 59.

it needs scarcely be men­ tioned that the term "Kingdom of God" has now passed out of currency. Schweitzer wrote a new foreword in 1 9 5 0 for the 6th edition of Geschichte (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck]. Once the watchword of the Social Gospel movement. 62. The Quest. It closes one epoch and begins another. 1 9 6 8 ) . 1 9 4 3 ) . for instance. Black. 1 9 6 4 ) . Ibid." Albert Schweitzer had earlier acclaimed it "one of the most important works in historical theology. Coates—rather freely —in the 3rd English edition of The Quest (London: A . pp. The impact of the eschatological interpretation upon sys­ tematic theology has been somewhat less decisive. Niebuhr's appreciation of the significance of the future eschatological fulfillment of the human situation ap­ pears in the second volume of his Gifford Lectures." It is not the Kingdom of God.1 3 0 . originally published in English in 1 9 1 0 . & C.Y o r k : Scribner's. 1 2 4 ff. 239. translated. 1 9 0 6 ) . pp.It should be noted that this book. but. esp.. in the terminology of Reinhold Niebuhr. p. pp. this category has given place to others. It seems to break a spell. Reinhold Niebuhr. The latter edition has been reprinted. A revised and expanded edition was published in 1 9 1 3 under the title. Cf. at best. The Nature and Destiny of Man (New. Schweitzer also reviewed his position with respect to Jesus' understanding of the Kingdom in another manuscript completed in 1 9 5 1 : The Kingdom of God and Primitive Christianity ( N e w Y o r k : Seabury. perhaps. 6 8 . Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tubingen: M o h r [Siebeck]. 1 9 1 3 ) . 1 9 6 5 ) .3 0 0 ." In the realm of moral theology. Harvey Cox's hopeful effort to revive the Kingdom of God as a basic category for contemporary social ethics: The Secular City ( N e w Y o r k : Macmillan. to "prophetic religion. Prior to 61 62 60 60. Schweitzer. 1 2 . "proximate solutions" which men strive to achieve on earth. 1 9 5 1 ) in which he restated and reaffirmed his basic viewpoint.1 1 3 . p. was translated from Schweitzer's Von Reimarus zu Wrede (Tubingen: M o h r [Siebeck].INTRODUCTION little book as "epoch-making. which looked for the establishment of the Kingdom—slowly. but not. 1 1 0 . 6 1 . but surely—on earth through human moral effort. 25 . This new foreword is translated by J . 2 4 4 . to date. R.

" is tenuous and problematic ( a point of concern to many of Bultmann's " p u p i l s . some of which have been trans­ lated by R. For criticism of Bultmann's (and his followers') tendency to eliminate the significance of the Kingdom as future event. 2 (London: SPCK. 1. but for the most part. the "Christ event. there was no need for a program of de­ my thologizing. Bultmann insists that the traces of a futuristic eschatology which ap83 6 3 . " but also by preachers and the writers of dogmatics. Kasemann). covertly and even subconsciously.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM the discovery of Jesus' ( a n d early Christianity's) eschatological world-view. 1 9 6 2 ) ." Further to justify this procedure. Eschatology had been demythologized. 1 9 5 3 . consti­ tutes the eschatological moment.g. " e. What Do We Know About Jesus? (Philadelphia: Westminster. E. 1 9 6 8 ) . by the writers of the "lives of J e s u s . But in Bultmann's in­ terpretation of eschatology. Escha­ tology was generally treated as meaning life after death. H. linking one with the "eschatological event. and the Kingdom of God was equated—if not with social progress a n d / o r individual religious experience—with the church. see Otto Betz. 26 . If the link between the present eschatological moment and the past.4 7 . Rudolf Bultmann proposed to express the essential mean­ ing of New Testament eschatology in existentialist cate­ gories. not only. 4 5 . pp. especially the "dead in Christ" now in heaven. in fact. the line to the future seems to be missing entirely. Bultmann believes that the virtual elimination of the future may be justified by pointing to the Fourth Gospel's proclivity toward "realized eschatology. nearly everything is concen­ trated upon the present. as w e shall see." Jesus Christ. Fuller: Kerygma and Myth. See the discussions in the several volumes edited by Hans W e r n e r Bartsch entitled Kerygma and Mythos. one makes a deci­ sion of final consequence for his own future. In the " n o w " or "crisis of decision." in response to the address or demand of the kerygma. This " n o w " of hearing and responding to the kerygma..

Tillich used the cate­ gory "Kingdom of G o d " as a subtitle in volume 3 of his Systematic Theology. who has already a p p e a r e d . thought in terms of an evolutionary or developmental teleology: respectively. Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Teilhard de Chardin. neither takes chronological futurity seriously.. The same is true of most of the so-called post-Bultmannian writers. V. 1 3 9 . like that of the Fourth Gospel. begins and all but ends with the in­ carnation. pp. . 1 9 6 4 ) . the general tendency of these writers is toward realized eschatology. 27 . (Philadelphia: Westminster. Each interprets eschatology pri­ marily in terms of his respective theological interest. for "the 'end' as the meaning of redemptive history . and James M . Oscar Cullmann. Giinther Bornkamm. e. Oscar Cullmann's Christ and Time presents another interpretation of the meaning of New Testament eschatology: Christ stands midway between the beginning and end of time and history —the end is yet to come as "final completion.g. Hans Conzelmann. Filson. the Kingdom of God 64. both of whom have posthumously enjoyed con­ siderable interest recently in America. " and toward increas­ ing consciousness on the part of being. but wrote as if he had not yet heard of W e i s s or Schweitzer. Barth w i t h the past and (to h i m ) objective events from J e s u s ' incarnation through his ascension. " So far as dogmatics is concerned. trans.4 3 . is Jesus Christ. Bultmann is preoccupied with the present sub­ jective moment of existential decision. rev." but the " w h e n " makes no difference.INTRODUCTION pear in John should be discounted as secondary interpola­ tions! Karl Barth's interpretation of eschatology. F. . Robinson. toward a secular world "come of a g e . ed. 64 Various other eschatological doctrines appear which are less influenced by the eschatological interpretation of the New Testament. For Tillich. Christ and Time.

J r . it had generally been supposed that J-esus did not really believe that the Kingdom of God or messianic age would soon appear. chs. as had been the custom among the nineteenth century writers of "lives of J e s u s . . D . 6 7 . The Quest. These topics had been subsumed under theo­ logical ethics. and intention would have to be attempted. in Systematic Theology 2." JR 46 ( 1 9 6 6 ) : 1 4 6 . "utilizes C. 1 9 5 4 ) . indeed. 1 9 6 3 ) . It is unlikely. " Now a more historically accurate account of his preaching." Recently. M. Paul Tillich. 66. that it will be tacitly demythologized or simply ignored. H. of Chicago Press. Theology of Hope. 3 9 4 . Smith. it w a s no longer pos­ sible for modern interpreters to fashion the "historical J e s u s " after their own images. W . activity. however. x i v . and "Resurrection as Hope. neces­ sary to raise the more basic question: W h a t religious mean­ ing do these beliefs express? Bultmann's famous program of "demythologizing" is concerned with precisely this ques­ tion. esp." HTR 6 1 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 1 2 9 . observes that Tillich. 1 9 6 7 ) . New Y o r k : Harper. pp. however. W h e n the eschatological beliefs of Jesus were taken seriously. trans. But now it w a s possible and. 65 68 The Consequences for New Testament Research Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes also opened a new era in New Testament research.4 2 3 . Systematic Theology. J . 3 (Chicago: Univ. esp. xx. Jürgen Moltmann. those of Jürgen M ö l l m a n n . Christian Hope and the Second Coming (Philadelphia: Westminster. The new appreciation of eschatology also made possi87 65. A l s o Paul S. W h a t place eschatology will have in future discussions of dog­ matics remains to be seen.4 8 .JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM meant basically "the transition from the temporal to the eternal. new efforts to express the signifi­ cance of the eschatological future for theology have ap­ peared. Leitch (London: SCM. See Schweitzer. 28 .x v i . Hither­ to. Dodd's realized eschatology as the true understanding of Jesus' Kingdom proclamation": "The Historical Jesus in Paul Tillich's Christology. most notably. Minear.

see below. which was to be interpreted as "highest good" and "highest task" (p. The Lives of Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress.. 1: 37 ff. The interpretation of Jesus as a political messiah or revolutionary has recently been popularized in the writings of S. He notes with apprecia­ tion the appearance in 1891 of the volumes by Otto Schmoller and Ernst I s s e l . Schmoller also anticipated Weiss's and Schweitzer's interpretation of the relation of ethics and eschatology: Jesus proclaimed repentance as "a condition for admission into the Kingdom" (p. 1 9 7 0 ) . Brandon and H. J . and Ernst Issel. J . 69. F. Kend r i c k G r o b e l ( N e w Y o r k : Scribner's. 1 5 5 . He maintained that Jesus came as Messiah. ed. trans. Brill. Schmoller's interpretation more closely approaches that of Johannes W e i s s and Albert Schweitzer. 5 1 ) . 1 9 5 4 ) . 1 8 9 1 ) . p. the Kingdom of God was as yet present only in heaven. E. Hermann Samuel Reimarus. Die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes in den Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Leiden: E. 1 8 9 1 ) . G. 1 t 29 . had proposed that Jesus and his disciples shared the eschatological beliefs of their contemporaries and had gone on to claim that Jesus under­ stood his role as that of the political messiah who would lead his people in revolt against the Roman authorities and thereby establish the messianic Kingdom. in the eighteenth century. which now could be characterized as the "eschatological congregation. however. the first to identify the eschato­ logical character of Jesus' beliefs. J . 1 7 7 8 ) . Rudolf Bultmann. but insisted that Jesus a l s o looked forward to the consummation of the Kingdom or its coming "in power" at the time of the Judgment. G. Brill. Die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes im Neuen Testament (Leiden: E.1 7 0 ) . Von dem Zwecke Jesu und seiner ]linger." 88 Earlier Eschatological Theories Weiss w a s not.. pp. And Hermann Samuel Reimarus. Theology of the New Testment. Though it is 69 70 68. Otto Schmoller. Schonfield. 56.INTRODUCTION ble a more accurate understanding of the beliefs and expec­ tations of the early Christian community. E. it would first come to earth upon Jesus' return in the future (see esp. but that his earthly ministry was preparatory. 70. This work has been published as Reimarus: Fragments. W e i s s commended both in his preface to Predigt . Lessing (Berlin: Sander.g. 4 4 ) . Issel maintained that Jesus regarded himself as the "Founder" of the Kingdom of God.

There is no mention of W e i s s in Schweitzer's own "sketch" of the life of Jesus published in 1 9 0 1 .8 . See below. 13 f. 1 9 2 5 .J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM now generally agreed that Reimarus was mistaken in clas­ sifying Jesus mainly as a political and revolutionary messiah. The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (London: A . Eine Skizze des Lebens Jesu (Tubingen: Mohr [Siebeck].. but none had set it forth as clearly and simply as did W e i s s in 1892. 1 30 . 73. Schweitzer and Consistent Eschatology Weiss was soon joined by a formidable ally. F. not human arms. pp. Albert Schweitzer. 1 9 0 1 ) . But God himself. T. but many of his conclusions w e r e similar to Weiss's. 1 0 2 f. the Roman authorities naturally would no longer rule.owrie.. Ap­ parently Schweitzer had not as yet read either edition of Weiss's w o r k . 71 Weiss. 1 9 5 0 ) . would bring about this "revolution. Schweitzer later believed in retrospect that he had gone further than W e i s s . Das Messiani/atsund Leidensgehejmnis. W h i l e W e i s s had defined the es7 2 73 7 1 . Out of My Life and Thought. W e i s s was to follow him and recognize that J e s u s ' eschatological expectation did indeed contain radical politi­ cal implications: when the Kingdom of God w a s estab­ lished. 1 9 3 3 . & C. I.1 2 5 . cf. Albert Schweitzer. N e w Y o r k : Macmillan. Evidently Schweitzer's position was based on his own independent studies of the text beginning as early as 1 8 9 4 : see Albert Schweitzer. trans." Men could only wait and make themselves ready for this momentous event and e r a . and W i l h e l m Baldensperger. Black. F. had partially grasped the eschatological character of J e s u s ' beliefs and ministry also. A few others such as D. pp. Campion (New Y o r k : Henry Holt & Co. C. 1 9 4 9 ) . 72. Strauss. Predigt . W . in his first Life of Jesus ( 1 8 3 5 ) . W . Jesus and the twelve disciples would then reign over the members of the Kingdom. Ghillany. trans. The latter's Skizze des Lebens Jesu (Sketch of the Life of J e s u s ) appeared a year after the publication of Weiss's revised and expanded edition of the Predigt. 1 2 1 . pp. 6 .

C. The Quest . The Kingdom Work and Words of Jesus p. Out of My Life and Thought. Schweitzer. 32. 75 Curiously. 31 . " 7 4 . Norman Perrin. 48. In the face of this evi­ dence. pp. McCown.INTRODUCTION chatological elements in J e s u s ' preaching accurately. n . n. Jesus and the Kingdom (New Y o r k : Harper. 1 of God in the Teaching of Jesus p. Quest (1950). . Norman Perrin. 1 2 9 . 4 ff. apparently expressed the idea that the Kingdom was future. Dodd notes. 3 9 0 f. 76. 75. "conséquente Eschatologie" w a s de70 74. 2 2 0 . The pp. ) .. Schweitzer used the term konsequente Eschatologie ("consistent" or "thorough-going" eschatology) to differ­ entiate his own theory that "the whole public work of J e s u s " is to be explained by reference to his eschatological beliefs from Weiss's application of "the eschatological ex­ planation only to the preaching of Jesus. d . n. Cadoux makes the same mistake: The Historic Mission of Jesus (New Y o r k : Harper. the precise meaning of konsequente Eschato­ logie has escaped most ( but especially Anglo-Saxon ) inter­ preters. while others implied that it was present. . 1 9 6 4 ) . Cecil J . 1 9 6 3 ) . pp. 1. Dodd thinks that "conséquente Eschatologie" referred only to J e s u s ' sayings about the Kingdom. p. C. Son of Man. 1 2 . Ladd. 1. Archibald M. and C. He makes Jesus think and talk eschatologically without proceeding to the natural inference that His actions also must have been determined by eschatological ideas. Schweitzer. (Weiss) comes to a stop halfway.. Some of the sayings. for instance. he failed—in Schweitzer's judgment—to recognize the eschatological character of J e s u s ' ministry. Hunter declares that Weiss was a proponent of "consistent eschatology": The (Philadelphia: Westminster. Geschichte. Cf." JR 28 ( 1 9 4 8 ) : 2. supposes that Schweitzer applied the term to W e i s s ' s interpretation as well as to his o w n . he suggests. (Philadelphia: Westminster. Schweitzer. p. 3 5 1 . p. 1950). "Jesus. H. So also George E. 3 5 0 f.

1 4 4 . 1 9 3 4 ) . But he also explained some of his actions ac­ cordingly. work out as precise a theory in this connection as Schweit­ zer does. from his position of lordship. one can do so legitimately only if one is prepared to think of the matter in terms of this mythological idea of his warfare against Satan's kingdom. 35 ff. H. In fact. pp. 9 1 . 7 6 f. So also Paul Volz. The latter explained that Jesus w a s convinced that 77. if one wishes to speak of Jesus as the "Founder" of the Kingdom of God." Strack-Billerbeck present evidence that first to fifth century Judaism took Satan and the demons quite seriously: 1. may have exaggerated the differ­ ence between konsequente Eschatologie and Weiss's theory. (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck]. Jesus " i s conscious of carrying on a struggle against the Satanic kingdom" whereby "he was taking ever vaster provinces of this kingdom away from the rule of the Prince of this w o r l d . 1 1 6 f. p. 79. 5 0 1 . ed. In these exorcisms. 4. ( N e w Y o r k : Scribner's. See below. Weiss states. 6 8 . The Parables of the Kingdom. 8. cf. Dodd. 77 78 79 Weiss also connects J e s u s ' decision to die in Jerusalem with his eschatological beliefs. Predigt . He does not. 78. 1 9 6 1 ) .. "He (Jesus)-prepares the way for the Kingdom of God in that he is successfully engaged in driving the present ruler of this age. however. pp. 2 32 . to be sure.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM vised as a "compromise" which represented the Kingdom "as coming very. also Samuel Sandmel. pp. Satan. 2nd rev. Cf. very soon. 1 3 6 . p. Weiss did interpret Jesus' thought and sayings eschatologically. 1 9 6 9 ) . 2nd ed. Indeed. The First Christian Century in Judaism and Christianity (New Y o r k : Oxford. See below." This explanation of konse­ quente Eschatologie and its inception is. he suggests.5 3 5 . totally erroneous. Schweitzer. where Weiss also writes. 8 0 . 34. of course. Weiss pays-more attention than Schweit­ zer himself to Jesus' activity as exorcist. Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde. pp. C. " W e i s s regards this activity of Jesus as preliminary to and preparatory for the coming of the Kingdom.

His death. p. He realized then that his death would be the means whereby the obstacle of guilt w a s to be removed. cf. At points. Once again. 1 0 3 : "His death cannot signify the ruin of his work. Nor does W e i s s develop an explicit connection between Jesus' sacri­ ficial death and the future coming of the Kingdom in his analysis of Mark 1 0 : 4 5 in Predigt . 8 6 .INTRODUCTION the final tribulation ( o 7retpao-)u. also Predigt . Many interpreters since W e i s s have hinted at 2 1 33 . would contribute to the establishment of the Kingdom. " The "sin offering" of his 81 82 80. it is not clear how Weiss thought Jesus believed that his death would "contribute to the establish­ ment of the Kingdom of G o d . At the same time he would be removing the final obstacle in the way of the Kingdom's appearance. 82. Nevertheless. had succeeded in arousing the people to repentance. pp. however. See below. 1 3 0 . Weiss does hint at some approximation of this theory. Jesus did not seek to die. however. but only a means for the establish­ ment of the Kingdom of God. See below. W e i s s states that Jesus understood that the Kingdom would not come until his followers. Instead of the tribulation. and thereby spare them the necessity of sharing that fate. Again. thus. 80 Elsewhere. p." 8 1 . by their preaching. Weiss states that Jesus regarded his death as a "sin offering" which would ransom the people from the otherwise inevitable death penalty. that to date the tribulation had not yet occurred. " the elect. they must repent or the "sin offering" will be forfeited and they will be abandoned to destruction at the time of judg­ ment. In Jerusalem. 1 0 0 .8 9 .oç ) must be endured before the Kingdom could come. but came to recognize that his enemies would kill him before the King­ dom could come. namely. Jesus deliberately provoked the authorities into executing him so that he himself might suffer on behalf of " m a n y . Weiss proposes that the sin or guilt of the people was the "obstacle" to be atoned for before the King­ dom could come.

Oscar Cullmann. it has had little impact on British and American New Testament scholarship. A. Lord and Christ (New Y o r k : Harper. ed. serve as a ransom for sinners. A. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus.g. Subsequent Responses to Die Predigt and Eschatology Strangely enough. E. Julius Wellhausen. T. making it possible for them to inherit the Kingdom. Murray (New Y o r k : Herder & Herder. 1 9 5 0 ) . 1 9 5 7 ) . pp. Bundy. Branscomb. M. more re­ cently. providing only that they repent in the final remaining moments of history. John Knox.. W . 34 . Amos W i l d e r . H. John A. Le Re/our du Christ (Neuchatel. pp. A . Schweitzer is partly. Joachim Jeremias. 2 5 0 ff. B. Paul W e r n l e . H. 8 3 . 1 9 5 8 ) . G. Robinson. trans. 1 9 4 4 ) . Rudolf Bultmann and W . 84. W . but like Weiss. in any case. 8 5 . although Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes aroused considerable response among European w r i t e r s . B. E. Kiimmel. in footnotes. Robinson. Jesus and His Coming (New Y o r k : Abingdon. ( N e w Y o r k : Harper. Manson. 2 6 f. Paris: Delachaux et Niestle. 8 1 . J .. 1 9 6 3 ) . trans. pp. 1 3 . J . Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus.g. p. p. The title appears in Amos W i l d e r ' s Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesusf* but only in the bibliography. Weiss did not claim that Jesus sought to die in Jerusalem. Bacon. J . they generally leave their under­ standing vague: e. F.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM death would only be effective when the people had re­ pented. rev. It would. and E. Jesus and His Coming ( N e w Y o r k : Abingdon. but it does not figure in their 83 85 some such connection. God's Rule and Kingdom. Robinson and John Knox refer to it. Scott make no mention of it in their writings. 1 5 2 . once each. C. Hunter. T. W i l h e l m Bousset. only that he believed his death would somehow contribute to the coming of the Kingdom. W . 1 4 8 .. but not entirely. E. Ehrhardt (Oxford: Basil Blackwell. when­ ever it should come. 1 9 5 7 ) . 85. Jesus. T. A. 1 9 5 5 ) . Dodd. correct in saying that Weiss applied the eschatological interpretation only to J e s u s ' thought and teaching. Rudolf Schnackenburg. p. Colwell. C. T.

. however. H. Bacon. H. Ibid. There is virtually no mention of Weiss's Predigt. W e i s s . in 1 9 0 7 . The viewpoint here was still very largely controlled by the literature of A. with some refer­ ence also to B. Two other articles. He notes that he could find no copy of Predigt in Oxford. 8 8 . Beyschlag. pp. W e i s s . W i l l i a m Sanday. the other by W i l l i a m S a n d a y . C l a r k ) . 2 ( 1 8 9 9 ) .. 8 9 . James Hastings. 1 9 0 8 ) . or even of eschatology. Wendt. 5 6 . H. The Life of Jesus in Recent Research (New Y o r k : Oxford. & T. H. Nearly all of these writers refer to Schweitzer as if he were the inventor of the eschatological interpretation. but neither article appears to have been informed by a reading of the little book. Wendt. Ritschl. fully half of which he ac­ knowledges " a s really based upon Schweitzer's l a b o u r s . 362 ff. An article by Bacon in 1 9 0 3 . one by W . 4 ( 1 9 0 2 ) . and W .INTRODUCTION discussions of Jesus' eschatological beliefs. 4 5 . 603 ff. the leading authorities remained B. The articles which mention the Kingdom of God treat it primarily as a spiritual entity founded by Jesus. 8 7 . located the Cambridge Library copy! 1 35 . in The Life of Jesus in Recent Research. Later. ed. list Predigt among recent monographs. at last. in the Journal of Biblical Literature and the American Journal of Theology during the decade following 1 8 9 2 . For such American writers as Shailer Mathews and Benjamin W . evi­ dences Weiss's and/or Schweitzer's influence—though he 86 1 87 88 1 9. Adams Brown.. Dictionary of the Bible (Edinburgh: T. Ibid. but had. p. " Sanday admits that he had "unfortunately missed the first edition [Predigt } when it came out" and had to base his sketch of Weiss's position "mainly on Schweitzer's sum­ m a r y " in Von Reimarus zu Wrede.9 8 6 . Holtzmann. pp.. H. respectively.6 0 . pp. Weiss's name does not appear among the references in the articles "Eschatology of the New Testament" and "Kingdom of G o d " in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible ( 1 8 9 8 . J . 1 8 9 9 ) ..

pos­ sibly. Dodd. J r . 9 1 . 1 3 . especially 9 3 94 90. 9 3 . . the present publication of the Predigt in English should not be merely of anti­ quarian interest. however. Cobb. In his chapter on the Kingdom of God. in his more recent study. in JR 4 9 ( 1 9 6 9 ) : 6 1 ." JBL 22 ( 1 9 0 3 ) : 7 . 36 . especially since C. " On the other hand. it has seemed to many interpreters. 9 1 92 The great majority of European New Testament schol­ ars. for Christianity was not fashioned out of the story of Jesus.2 3 . 1 6 . in part. In any case. "To­ day nobody doubts that J e s u s ' conception of the Kingdom of God is an eschatological one—at least in European the­ ology . however. have accepted Weiss's and Schweitzer's con­ clusion that Jesus expected the Kingdom to come in the near future. ( A recent notable exception is Norman Perrin. . From the lack of attention it has been given. Here Bacon affirms that Jesus shared the apocalyptic beliefs of his contemporaries and. 1 9 3 6 and 1 9 6 1 ) . Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus ( N e w Y o r k : Harper. Parables rev. Kiimmel and J ." Benjamin W . 1 9 4 f.. H. 1 9 6 7 ) . he makes no reference to its future coming! For further criticism of Perrin's attempt to eliminate Jesus' futuristic expectation. in which his predilection for "realized eschatology" is still more obvious. B. Indeed. Nearly every subsequent Anglo-Saxon writer refers to Schweitzer's The Quest. Like Bultmann after him. indeed. pp. 92. Bultmann. one receives the impression that the Predigt has been generally unknown in Britain and America. Bacon.JESUS' PROCLAMATION 90 OF T H E KINGDOM mentions neither's n a m e . G. 1 9 3 5 . He does not mention Weiss.6 5 . Dodd's exegetical efforts on behalf of so-called realized eschatology. C. in 1956 Bultmann could write. H. Jesus Christ and Mythology. because copies of it have been unavailable. (London: Nisbet & Co. ) The fact that Weiss's book has not previously been translated may also be a factor. "Ultimate Problems of Biblical Science. Judgment and Kingdom. of the Kingdom p. who de­ votes several pages to a review of Weiss's position. Kingdom of God. emphasized the imminence of the Parousia. .1 4 . but upon it: upon the knowledge of Christ "according to the Spirit. 9 4 . Bacon viewed Jesus' fallibility with equanimity. Perrin. see the reviews by W . .

de Jongste. other New Testament scholars are willing to go quite so far. Several of the hypotheses put forth since 1900 had appeared earlier in similar form and been re­ jected by W e i s s ." H o w is this apparently contradictory evidence to be explained? Weiss's position. has been this: How could Jesus have thought of the Kingdom as both present and future? Some of the synoptic evidence makes it clear that Jesus expected the Kingdom to come in the future. sometimes designated respectively the "fulfillment of the Kingdom" and the "consummation" or "comple­ tion" of the Kingdom. 1 5 9 ) . or. Other synoptic evidence lends support to "realized escha­ tology. pp. trans. for that matter.g. but compare p. But Dodd's latest revision of Parables of the Kingdom (1961) reveals no change in his basic position. pp.. Among these was the proposal that Jesus visualized the arrival of the Kingdom in two stages or phases. 1 0 5 .. 9 6 . O. Zorn (Nutley. The Coming of the Kingdom. however. the 06 95. H.J. R.. Kingdom of God. 1 9 6 2 ) .: The Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Co. N. 47 ff. All these eschatological phe­ nomena were already realized. Herman Ridderbos. Jesus and Kingdom. Few. 95 The Relation of the Future Kingdom "Realized Eschatology" to One of the central questions in New Testament study for the last several decades. Advocated more recently by Ladd. that in some way or other Jesus also thought that the Kingdom was present. therefore.. As Weiss countered.INTRODUCTION in Britain and America. Thus also Oscar Cullmann 37 . ed. of the Messiah (or Son of m a n ) or Judgment. Perrin. if any. Dodd main­ tains that Jesus believed that the Kingdom of God was entirely present: there would be no future coming of the Kingdom of God. Some of Dodd's interpreters have claimed that he has retreated from "realized eschatology" in recent years (e. 1 0 1 ff. 56. p.

C. but Jesus is nowhere reported to have said that the Kingdom had been fulfilled. and a future "consummation.g. Perrin's exegesis of this petition is implausible: Rediscovering.2 1 ) . pp. 1 6 0 f. Luke 4 : 1 8 . the old world will be broken up and transformed. Manson. Cf. however. See below. Mark 1 3 : 2 6 = Matt. 9 8 . See below. 9 7 .ei does not mean that it is already present. Matt. but in each case it is the consumma­ tion or close of the present age. G. not of the Kingdom of God.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM synoptic evidence does not support such a distinction. they will see it when it comes with power (iv Swdfiei).the phrase is secondary. the fact that the King­ dom was expected to come iv 8vvafJ. 9 7 . 160 f. but that does not mean that it is now present without power—or even in any preliminary way at all. Kummel. 92 f. 7 3 . p. Dodd. See below. even violence and destruction. E. 1 0 6 f.g. pp. The term o-wreXeta (rov) ai<2i>os ("consummation" or "close of the a g e " ) appears five times in Matthew. p. and the time is fulfilled ( M a r k 1 : 1 5 ) . 38 . it will be " w i t h p o w e r " or "powerfully". 9 9 . Perrin suggests a similar distinction between men's present "experience" of the Kingdom. H. The phrase "in power" is used elsewhere to characterize the way in which the Son of man will come: e. but hidden." W h e n the Kingdom comes.g." Rediscovering. but for its coming. and Predigt*. pp. 1 0 0 .. In any event. doing away with the old world or the present age in a dramatic and universally visible f a s h i o n ? W h e n the Kingdom comes. W e i s s urges that. How else would the Kingdom of God come but with power. Luke 1 7 : 2 2 . W . 2 4 : 3 0 =• Luke 2 1 : 2 7 . author's footnote. 91 Some interpreters have urged that Mark 9:1 implies that Jesus believed that the Kingdom was already present. 6 : 1 0 .3 7 .. pp. and Weiss's comment: "The establish­ ment of the Kingdom of God will not take place in a corner. 99 100 98 and W . T. Jesus did not teach his disciples to pray for the completion of the Kingdom. Those standing here cannot see it.. Prophecies are fulfilled (e. Against this line of interpretation.

8 6 . 7 9 . e. W i l l i a m Barclay. 7 6 . made it plain in 1892 that the equation of the Kingdom with Jesus' disci­ ples or the church cannot be attributed to J e s u s .g. "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed. W . 1 0 4 .8 0 . . the discussion above.8 1 . Cf. pp. pp. pp. Thus. 101 Again. Kummel. 105. SBT no. 102 103 104 105 1 0 1 . D. pp. 102. The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK. But the Kingdom can hardly be identi­ fied with his person or ministry: Jesus' ministry is prepara­ tory. can be so construed only arbitrarily. to the band of disciples that was gathering about him. a recent Catholic writer. (London: S C M . pp. Moore. 1 9 5 7 ) : 1 0 5 ff. W e i s s . H. See below. See below. C. Karl Adam. I 9 6 0 ) . among other Roman Cath­ olic writers. The advocate of this theory generally leans heavily on Luke 1 7 : 2 0 f. pp. 232 f. The Mind of Jesus (London: SCM. 1 9 6 6 ) .INTRODUCTION A few scholars have urged that at least some of Jesus' sayings about the present Kingdom referred to the church. 6 1 . 23. or at any rate. A. One might. but not in the manner in which that term is ordinarily u s e d . 8 9 ." HTR 6 1 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 2 1 7 ff. pp. 1 5 6 57. cf. 1 1 f. Barton. 104.6 2 . Barrett. " ) That saying. pp. for instance. Predigt*. properly speak of Jesus as the "Founder" of the Kingdom. This view is championed. 6 8 . 8 3 f. M. . however. W . 1 9 4 7 ) . W e i s s continued to insist on this point in Predigt . it has been asserted that Jesus thought that the Kingdom had already come in his own person or minis­ t r y . See below. See below. the kingdom of God is in the midst of y o u . trans. 1 7 6 f. nor will they say.. however. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 13 (Leiden: Brill. 72 f. K. Promise and fulfillment. But the best support Koester can find for his proposal is Gospel of Thomas 9 1 ! 2 103. Koester has recently proposed that Jesus proclaimed that the Kingdom was present in his words or message: "One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels. he concedes. he answered them. p. G. argues against this equation: God's Rule. here it i s ! ' or 'There!' for behold. ( .9 1 . The Parousia in the New Testament. T. by Ernst Troeltsch. Schnackenburg. Weiss i n s i s t s . 6 3 .7 0 .. Manson and. pp. L. 'Lo. pp. 39 .

2 3 6 . pp. E. 2 1 : 3 1 ) which are supposed to show that there are some who have already entered the Kingdom simply cannot be so understood. provides. insists: " A l l the sayings about entering into the Kingdom refer to the coming King­ dom which is often characterized as L i f e . p. 1 9 6 3 ) . for example. Ladd." 2 108. " If the King­ dom were present only in Jesus and his works. Against such a view.Die Spriiche vom Eingehen in das Reiche Gottes. In the mean­ time. I l l .. Cf. thinks that Jesus understood the Kingdom to be present in his own person. enter it. 109. the future would bring the Last Judg­ ment and Parousia or Final Consummation. Weiss had already declared: "There can be no doubt that Jesus regarded ( t h e ) Judgment as prior to the establishment of the K i n g d o m . A briefer but excellent survey is also presented by Ridderbos. Gosta Lundstrom. p. rev. Lundstrom's book. Thus T. Gosta Lundstrom. ed. 1 1 2 : "The way to Life or the Kingdom leads through the Judgment. 1 0 7 . 2 pp. Joachim Jeremias. W . Predigt . 107 108 109 if Weiss considered these several theories incorrect. 7 9 f. pp. man could enter the Kingdom of God.9 2 . where the fate of individuals is decided." Z N I F 27 ( 1 9 2 8 ) : 1 6 3 .. x i i . Anyone who presumes to find the presence of the Kingdom in Matt. Bulman (Richmond: John K n o x . . like Perrin's. The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus. which bears the same title as Perrin's and was published in English the same year. Matt. Manson and G. trans. 1 2 5 . following Hans Windisch.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E 108 KINGDOM O t h e r s have proposed that Jesus understood the King­ dom to be present. 2 3 : 1 3 cannot be helped and must be left to his un­ fortunate opinion. a valuable review of the history of the interpretation of Jesus' conception of the Kingdom of God from W e i s s to the present. one could not yet. Matt. 9 6 f. See below. Similarly. pp. 1 1 : 1 1 . 40 .g. of course. Matt. Predigt . Coming of the Kingdom. J . who. like Werner GeorgKiimmel. " His point is that the passages (e. ( N e w Y o r k : Scribner's. The Parables of Jesus. 7 : 1 4 ) . he 1 0 6 . 2 1 : 3 1 means only that the tax collectors and harlots "have a head start along the way that leads to life" (cf.x x x i . 1 9 6 3 ) .

like Bultmann. 1 0 8 f." Such. G i l m o u r (Philadelphia: Westminster. 7 0 : " W h e t h e r he favors the one expression or the other depends on what suits his mood at the time. Fuller also speaks of the "proleptic" presence not of the Kingdom but of its "powers" or "signs. These utterances appear when Jesus w a s ex­ cited by the victories he and his disciples had won against Satan's household. Hans Windisch. 7 1 ." The Mission and Achievement of Jesus. MacL.. in his judgment.' But one can also say. pp. On a few oc­ casions. are free from eschatological overtones. 41 . 1 1 3 . 95 f. 1 9 5 0 ) . as noted a b o v e . pp. trans. 2 pp. It is worth noting here that R. In both editions of the Predigt he proposed that Jesus ordinarily thought that the coming of the Kingdom would take place in the future. p. proleptically: 'It is storming. Predigt . and the first buds begin to swell. in effect. " M a y the King­ dom of God come. Thus in Predigt . Here. H. They are. 1 9 5 4 ) : 2 9 . maintains that Jesus re­ garded the Kingdom as future.' Or. when the sun shines warm and brightly for the first time. they reflect moments of sheer enthusi­ asm in which his mood w a s temporarily one of exaltation and t r i u m p h . Fuller. 12 (London: SCM. Like W e i s s . exceptions to the usual dominical mood expressed in his prayer. as if it were already there with all its splendour?" 11 1 1 2 .INTRODUCTION did have some alternative suggestions to offer with respect to the main problem. See above. W h e n storm clouds gather and the lightning flashes on the horizon. 50. however. deliver us from the Evil O n e ! " It should be noted that the idea of Jesus' different sayings corresponding to different moods is also implicit in Hans Windisch's identification of " w i s d o m " teachings which.' But who w i l l restrain his feeling of yearning when it joyfully welcomes in these first signs the whole springtime. again. Jesus spoke of the presence of the Kingdom as if it were already an accom­ plished fact. though "dawning. 39 f. too. is Weiss's position. 12 f. one may say: 'A thunder storm is coming. The Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount. S. Windisch maintained that Jesus normally thought and spoke of the Kingdom as future. 1 1 1 . SBT no. one w i l l usually say: 'Spring is near. however. 110 111 112 113 Weiss's most important theory as to how Jesus could 1 1 0 .

1 2 : 7 . so many interpreters assert. p." But exorcism is not designated as "plundering" in Mark 3 : 2 7 . 28 f. C. do not regard the exorcisms as preparatory to the coming of the Kingdom.7 . he assumes—indeed. K. 1 1 6 . even though Satan still rules on earth ( L u k e 4 : 5 . Weiss interprets Jesus' healings and exorcisms as a campaign against the kingdom of Satan and on behalf of the Kingdom of G o d . 7 4 ." God's Kingdom may obtain in heaven. p. pp. at the "temptation" ( M a r k 1 : 1 2 f . (Thus Reginald H. 4 : 8 f . Holy Spirit.g. At any rate. pp. 6 : 1 0 ) : in heaven God's will is already done. See below. pp. 3 8 ) . 68. 7 4 ff. Jesus is binding Satan's power. Barrett. Perhaps Jesus thought he had over­ come Satan at the outset of his m i n i s t r y . 9 6 ff. 3 8 ..8 1 . " No such expression is to be found in 114 l l s 116 117 118 1 1 4 . See below. therefore. This conception. Most of them speak of these activities as manifestations of the "powers of the Kingdom of G o d . ) . 1 1 7 . James M. A l a n Richardson. See below. Matt. See below. Satan had already been bound. 7 9 . 1 1 5 . but it has not yet become a historical event.. the rule of God is al­ ready gaining ground. is also implied in the Matthean version of the Lord's Prayer ( M a t t . E. Instead. cf. pp.1 2 .JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM have thought the Kingdom both present and future invokes the two-story universe. 42 . ) . 8 0 f. but it has not yet been established on e a r t h . p. but it has not yet come or is just beginning to come on e a r t h . The Kingdom is present in heaven. There is another possibility: by casting out demons.. asserts— that the meaning of Mark 3 : 2 7 is that Jesus was "plundering" Satan's household: "Exorcism is specifically designated as 'plundering' in 3 : 2 7 " (p. These writers. Few of the subsequent interpreters of Jesus' exorcisms or " m i r a c l e s " hint that there might be any connection between this aspect of his ministry and his other basic concern: preaching in prepara­ tion for the coming of the Kingdom. "Satan's kingdom is already broken. 1 9 4 1 ) . clearly assumed in Rev. S B T no. Like many writers. Predigt". 21 (London: SCM. 1 9 5 7 ) . Robinson urges that the struggle against the demons was an important part of Jesus' historical ministry: The Problem of History in Mark. 1 1 8 . they view them as signs of its presence or "dawning. The Miracle Stories of the Gospels (London: SCM.

The victories over the demons spell Satan's ultimate doom: thus Jesus' prophetic vision of Satan's impending collapse is in­ spired by the disciples' report of their successes against the demons (Luke 1 0 : 1 7 f . 1 9 6 3 ] . Kee proposes ( w i t h respect to Mark 9 : 2 1 ff. 2 4 4 ] . SBT no. Interpreting the Miracles [Philadelphia: Westminster. " Once Satan's forces have been overcome on earth. ) In that case. Mauser's brief discussion of the temptation notes that Mark did not understand that Jesus won a victory over Satan in the wilderness or ceased to be tempted by him after­ wards. a vitality which Robinson and Mauser recognize. rather than as a sign of its presence or of the presence of its " p o w e r s . Ernest Best. Such an interpretation is also suggested by Howard C. but do not explain.ixav (= ) represents "the word of command by which God's agent defeats his enemies. ] The assumption that Jesus "defeated" or "bound" Satan in the wilderness or elsewhere at the outset of his ministry does not account for Satan's subsequent vitality. 43 . pp. 1 3 0 f . It is an exegetical inven­ tion. W e i s s takes the position that Jesus regarded his cam­ paign against the demons as preparatory to the coming of the Kingdom. the Kingdom which was already present in heaven could also be established on earth. If one assumes." NTS 14 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 232-46. Other theories.INTRODUCTION the synoptic tradition. "The Terminology of Mark's Exorcism Stories.) that kiri.Ti. 40 f. Fuller. Christ in the Wilderness. as the editors do. one cannot be certain what his reaction to them might have been. yet Mauser maintains that Mark 3 : 2 7 means that Jesus has already "bound" Satan! [Ulrich Mauser. however. with realized eschatology. 39 (London: S C M . Press. 1 9 6 3 ) : 9 6 . but does not combine this. Since W e i s s ' s time. thus preparing for the coming of God's kingdom" [p. as do Richard­ son and Robinson. that W e i s s ' s historical and exegetical position is to be taken seriously. The Temptation and Passion ( N e w Y o r k : Cam­ bridge Univ. 1 9 6 5 ) presents the typical speculation that Jesus had defeated Satan in the wilderness. ) . numerous other expla­ nations have been advanced in regard to the problem: How did Jesus understand the Kingdom to be both present and future? Since Weiss himself did not refer to these more recent types of explanations. the following summary and critique of such recent and current theories might be of some value.1 0 2 . there would be no need to posit any previous "binding" of Satan by Jesus in the wilderness or elsewhere: the binding is taking place in his exorcisms. Kee.

Paul Schubert. trans. These writers. Smith and E. 2 0 5 ) . G. p. H. in contrast to most of the interpreters before (and after) W e i s s and Schweitzer who have been more concerned to dispose of it. Hiers. pp. to expose the meaning of New Testament eschatology. however. 7 1 . 51 f. which was that the Kingdom of God had already come. 3 6 . C. 1 8 3 fT. "Escha­ tology and Methodology." JR 43 ( 1 9 6 3 ) : 3 0 3 . appear more interested in explaining Jesus' futuristic expectation away.8 5 .. Among various journal articles: Clarence T. Jesus and the Future (London: Macmillan. pp.. 7 3 . A s Ernst Lohmeyer pointed out in Kerygma and Myth 1 : 1 2 8 . H. 2nd ed. "Realized Eschatology. 2nd ed. H. Bultmann explains Jesus' eschatological language as mythological garments in which he cloaked his true (exis­ tentialist) understanding of the human situation. W e i s s took note of the mixture of subjective and dogmatic with exegetical considerations evident in the interest many interpreters showed in promoting the idea that Jesus thought the Kingdom to be present: Predigt ." JBL 56 ( 1 9 3 7 ) : 1 7 . "Thy Kingdom Come. pp. Craig. Bultmann is less guilty of this procedure than the others: but even he sometimes presents Jesus as teacher of the timeless ( o r perpetually recurrent) existentialist now of decision. any " s y m b o l i c " theory leaves unex119 1 1 9 . 1 . M i l l a r Burrows. pp.1 5 . P. 1 2 .3 2 . Thus. 1 9 5 4 ) .8 . 44 . Scott. R. 1 4 3 fT. 1 3 1 . W i l d e r and others have proposed that Jesus' references to the future coming of the Kingdom were "only symbolic" or "stylistic.5 7 ." JBL 7 4 ( 1 9 5 5 ) : 1 . W . Promise and Fulfillment. Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas. Jesus and the Word. in general. 1 9 5 3 ) . See also Martin W e r n e r . and R. e. F. (Bern: Haupt. 1 9 6 0 ) .2 6 ." His apocalyptic imagery w a s no more than a vehicle for his real meaning. Bultmann's demythologizing sometimes means. 1 9 5 8 ) . Dodd.g. 1 9 3 4 ." JBL 8 5 ( 1 9 6 6 ) : 1 7 5 . Moreover..5 2 . (Berlin: Topelmann." despite his announced intention to interpret the meaning of the myth. Amos N. the future coming of the Kingdom of God disappears. In the process. "The Synoptic Gospels and Eschatology. L. G . Beasley-Murray.1 8 4 . But one should give Bultmann credit for attempting. than in showing how he could have believed the Kingdom both present and fu­ ture. Lantero ( N e w Y o r k : Scribner's. "the abolition of the myth.. as he says in response to Lohmeyer (ibid.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM E. in practice. pp. pp. Kummel.3 0 8 . Erich 2 Grasser. Das Problem der Parusieverzbgerung in den Synoptischen Evan- gelien und in der Apostelgeschichte." JBR 1 4 ( 1 9 4 6 ) : 1 5 5 . and "Futuristic and Realized Eschatology in the Earliest Stages of Chirstianity.

here!' or 'There!'?".INTRODUCTION plained why Jesus should have wished to obscure his " r e a l " message that the Kingdom had already arrived by speaking of its coming in the future. p." 120 Harnack's solution to the problem w a s different: Jesus believed that the Kingdom w a s already present as the rule of God in the hearts of individuals. 'Lo. the synoptic evidence cannot be sorted out into any two such periods without arbitrarily rearrang123 124 1 2 0 . 1 2 1 . rejected a similar theory: "This w a s no mere image or empty idea. JAAR 35 ( 1 9 6 7 ) : 3 7 9 . T. Harnack urged. Manson pro­ posed. 1 2 4 . What is Christianity?. The Teaching of Jesus ( N e w Y o r k : Cambridge Univ. Harnack.3 8 4 . He also looked for its dramatic establishment in the future. Holtzmann. on the other hand.. Herman Ridderbos. Hiers. W . p. pp. pp. 1 9 5 1 ) . but Jesus simply failed to perceive the contradiction! It is evident that neither Jesus nor the evangelists felt it necessary to explain such a contradiction. 54 f. finds that Jesus spoke of it as pres­ ent in the first part of his ministry. W . Even Harnack. and. J . Press. 121 122 Some other interpreters divide Jesus' ministry into two periods. Jesus spoke of the Kingdom as a coming future event. 53. T. In the second period (after Peter's "confession"). Ibid. earlier. But it may be that there w a s no con­ tradiction to explain! The claim that Jesus viewed the King­ dom of God as his rule in the hearts of men does not carry the weight of probability. H. Ridderbos. Coming of the Kingdom. 1 2 2 . "We can see that these ideas are incompatible. 45 . " W h y W i l l They Not Say. However. but in the latter part came to think of it as something which w a s still to be ful­ filled. it was a truth which he saw and felt most vividly. as early as 1900. 1 1 9 . he spoke of it as having already c o m e . In the first part of his ministry. Manson. H. 4 6 8 .3 1 . See R. 1 2 3 .

It is remarkable that Jeremias seems to feel no need to justify this distinction. rule. But precisely the point at issue is whether or not God reigns on earth. pp. 2 3 .2 3 8 . dominion or Herrschaft of God. the future sayings to the realm. But. Ladd himself holds this view only inconsistently. Jesus and Kingdom. The proposal has been made. But in that case. that the term 17 /3ao-ikela ( l i k e its Semitic counterparts) has two distinguishable meanings: The reign. which. JBL 81 ( 1 9 6 2 ) : 2 3 0 . and the realm. sovereignty. 1 2 6 . 1 1 8 . pp. one must ask. for Jesus and his con­ temporaries w a s always present. kingdom.1 4 5 . which has yet to be established on e a r t h . most recently by George Eldon Ladd. to explain the relation (if a n y ) between these various terms. "The Kingdom of God: Reign or Realm?". Kingdom of God. 125 Joachim Jeremias recognizes a distinction between the "Kingdom of God" and the " M e s s i a n i c " or "New A g e . even if his power w a s being overcome. 1 2 2 . The sayings about the present Kingdom refer to the eternal reign of God. " The Kingdom of God will be ushered in by the Judgment at some time in the future. Moreover.. Weiss's study suggests that Jesus believed that Satan still ruled here. for later in his book he speaks of the present realm of God as "the new A g e " which Jesus declared men could enter. in what sense can it be said that God " r e i g n s " on earth? If God reigns on earth. presumably. Jesus understood and proclaimed that the "Messianic A g e " or "New A g e " had c o m e . which Jesus expected in the fu­ ture. also his article. Jeremias. esp. 1 5 1 f. Parables ( 1 9 6 3 ) . " which does not 120 1 2 5 . domain or Reich of God. or to ac­ count for the expression "Messianic A g e . his Kingdom is already estab­ lished here: the realm of earth is his. Jeremias maintains. Ladd. 1 1 8 . This interpretation was pioneered by Gustaf Dalman: see Perrin. kingly power. pp. 46 .JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM ing the text in accordance with the result one has deter­ mined to establish. 2 2 6 f.2 8 .

regarded the futurity of the King­ dom as unessential and thus expendable. such as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Dodd. among others) that many of the futuristic sayings were interpolated by the church. rather than explaining the relation between the conceptions. but like the "symbolic" theory. There were still other theories. for instance. Various other writers attempt to show that for Jesus and his disciples. Recently Pannenberg has attempted to explain the juxta­ position of present and future: W o l f h a r t Pannenberg. also. pp. 1 2 8 . Jeremias.. however.1 1 3 . Perrin.7 7 . 1 2 9 . Harnack. pp. V . Rediscovering. There were. and elsewhere intimates that Jesus thought that the Kingdom of God w a s beginning to be p r e s e n t . for example. Like Harnack. whereas Pannenberg defends its 47 . Here Jeremias seems to use the terms "Messianic Age" and "Kingdom of G o d " synonomously. Hans Conzelmann has suggested a distinction 1 2 7 128 129 1 2 7 . imputed to Jesus. insists (as the nineteenth century liberal writers had before him) that the Kingdom of God meant primarily human religious "experience": ibid. 1 4 9 . pp. he declares. takes shape whenever men respond in obedience to God. even though the Judgment had not yet taken place. Eschatologie. Parables ( 1 9 6 3 ) . F i n a l l y . 7 1 . 1 52 f. "Appearance as the Arrival of the Future.INTRODUCTION appear in the synoptic tradition. present and future had no temporal meaning.. D . In at least one place he declares that the "Messianic A g e " is still to come. Thus Volz. the theories (both advocated by C. trans." (Christ and Time. 89. p. most of them seem to have been aimed at disposing of the futuristic expectation. of a present and a future coming of the Kingdom. the latter's proposal that God's Reign is present in men's obedience is remi­ niscent of the former's definition of the Kingdom as the rule of God in the hearts of men. H. originally. 2 0 4 ff." ]AAR 35 ( 1 9 6 7 ) : 1 1 1 . pp. 8 2 . Thus. 7 4 . F. Filson [Philadelphia: Westminster. 1 5 1 f. to future historical or political crises which Jesus saw looming on the horizon. The "presence" or "appearance" of the Kingdom ( o r "Reign") of God. 8 4 ) . 1 9 5 0 ] . Pannenberg tends to equate "God" and "Kingdom of God". No distinction between the "Coming A g e " and any preliminary "Messianic A g e " was known in Jewish thought before the end of the first century A . Nowhere in the New Testament is it stated by Jesus or anyone else that the "New A g e " has come. Furthermore. Oscar Cullmann seeks to resolve the tension between present and future by claiming that "in Christ time is divided anew. 6 7 . Jeremias does not succeed in maintaining a distinction between these categories. or that some of them referred. 1 2 6 .

Conzelmann urged that the eschatological salvation proclaimed and expected by Jesus was present to his hearers and is accessible for "us" today. H. " 130 131 It is remarkable that so many different theories have been advanced. pp. Hedrick (Philadelphia: Westminster. B. Cf. trans. 6 4 4 ) . D . esp. W h a t is problematic is the question how he may also have understood it to be present. but he. G." JAAR 37 ( 1 9 6 9 ) : 4 9 . Martin Dibelius. 1 7 1 . were the "signs of the King­ dom" already present "in your m i d s t .J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM between the "manifestation" of the Kingdom of God in Jesus' ministry and its future coming. Dodd) it is conceded that Jesus expected the Kingdom to come in the future. Grant 48 . pp. and Pannenberg's more recent collection of essays. H e attributes this distinction to Luke. Hans Conzelmann. "Eschatology and History in Luke-Acts. See also p. 1 3 0 . 73 ff. trans. 1 9 6 0 ) . pp. trans. G. 1 0 5 .4 5 ] . 3 1 3 1 . and that none of them has gained general support. David Granskou (New Y o r k : Macmillan. Charles H.6 3 . once more. 3 ( 1 9 5 9 ) : 6 4 1 . 1 9 6 8 ) .4 5 .. and perhaps also to Jesus. Earlier. 1 9 4 9 ) . Similarly in his article "Jesus Christus" [ R G G . 1 9 7 0 ) .2 2 2 . Pannenberg et al." Jesus and Man's Hope. Mar­ tin Dibelius had interpreted Luke 1 7 : 2 0 f. whether he thought of it as presfundamental importance in Jesus' message and ministry.5 7 . pp. 1 4 2 . ed. "The Redaction Critical Quest for Luke the Theologian. 1 2 2 f. Theology and the Kingdom of God (Philadelphia: Westminster. Talbert. his message and deeds. Perhaps it would be timely to ask. Buttrick (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. C. In each instance (except for C. and F. 5 2 . Francis. 1 9 6 9 ) . The former was the "main declaration" (of Jesus? ) . pp. Buswell (New Y o r k : Harper. See also W . Luke. C. The Theology of St. him­ self. the latter was less important. though the kingdom of God has not yet come (p. not the Kingdom itself. It w a s the manifestation of the Kingdom that w a s present. Jesus. Revelation as History. Jeremias' questionable distinction between the "New Age" and the Kingdom of God. Conzelmann's dismissal of the imminent expectation from Lukan eschatology has been challenged recently in two excellent articles: Fred O. similarly: Jesus proclaimed the future coming of the Kingdom. Salvation is known existentially in the present moment: the "new time" is here.

The additional e x c u r s e s and background material with respect to Old Testament and J e w i s h concepts of the K i n g d o m presented in the 133 134 135 1 3 2 . 1 1 : 1 2 . It is the judgment of the editors that the first edition presents Weiss's thesis more clearly and force­ fully than the second. 1 9 6 2 ) : 28-52. Matt. SBT no. J o h n and Jesus" ( 1 9 5 8 ) in his Twelve New Testament Studies.INTRODUCTION ent in any way. an amplifi­ cation. The second edition constitutes primarily an explication. Mark 1 0 : 4 5 and the sayings at the Last Supper.2 1 . THE FIRST AND REVISED EDITIONS The question will naturally arise why the revised and expanded edition of 1900 was not translated instead of the first e d i t i o n . See also above. 1 3 4 . Luke 1 6 : 1 6 . and so on—has dominated twentieth century study of Jesus. pp. Elijah had a p p e a r e d . 34 (London: S C M . the final campaign against Satan's household w a s under way. It obviously does so more compactly: 67 as compared with 2 1 0 pages. 1 8 . 1 3 3 . the preaching of repentance in prospect of the near­ ness of the Judgment and the Kingdom had begun. "Elijah. A . pp. 6 : 3 3 and the Sinaioovvri deov. A n illustration of the sort of expansion W e i s s provides can be taken from Predigt . But did Jesus also believe that the Kingdom of God had come? 132 Because this network of problems—involving the King­ dom of God. respectively. See J . and the nonmessianic Son of man sayings. Robinson. the self-interpretation of Jesus. the relation of Jesus' message to that of the early church. Matt. the issue of whether Jesus was " w r o n g " in his fundamental expecta­ tion. 1 3 5 . These treat. whence it would soon come to earth. T. 30 ff. other than in heaven. the Beatitudes. There Weiss traces the dualism of apoca2 49 . There can be little doubt that Jesus regarded certain preliminary and preparatory eschatological phe­ nomena as present or being realized. it is useful to read for oneself the little book that set the whole discussion in motion. an intensification. and an adjustment of the argument of the first edition.

1 137. in the second edition. is a name properly applied only to those Persians who fled to India in the seventh and eighth centuries to avoid Muslim persecution. 8 4 f. the leaven and the tares as if they had nothing to do with the Kingdom of God. pp. And. the editors adjudged the lack of these expansions a virtue rather than a vice in the present translation. The Parsees did maintain their Zoroastrian faith. insignifi­ cance and overwhelming significance. Any reference to the Kingdom is by evangelistic accretion from Mark 4 : 1 1 . Their meaning for the Kingdom lies in their contrasting smallness and largeness. but W e i s s ' s argument neither derives from nor rests upon this sort of support. as he says. Predigt*. but only. Predigt . with the fate of the proclaimed word. the mustard seed. the presence of the Kingdom is again acknowledged and the idea of development rejected. In a very few instances. See below. Here they are admitted to have a connection with the Kingdom of God and only illicit notions of growth or development are denied. 2 1 136 1 137 1 3 8 lyptic eschatology back not to the Old Testament. 82 f. Hence.'). "Parsee. Other such instances of modification are indicated in the editors' footnotes. pp. however. Zoroastrianism: Weiss's confusion of Zoroastrianism per se with the Parsees was a common error of his time. W e i s s treats the parables of the sower. Frequently Weiss's expansions of this sort rest upon scholarly judgments and an antiquated bibliography which can no longer stand critical scrutiny. 50 . since Weiss's argument is independent of this kind of material and is so presented in Predigt . 1 3 6 . and its absence from the first edition here translated is an advantage rather than a detriment to his reader today. but to Persian "Parseeism" (sc. the parable of the seed growing secretly is finally dealt w i t h . in Predigt . 1 pp." of course. the par­ ables of the mustard seed and the leaven are treated differ­ e n t l y . 72 f. In Predigt . 1 3 8 . W e i s s modified his interpreta­ tion to some degree in Predigt . However. In it. An illustration lies in his treatment of the parables.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM second edition are still of value.

p. it was possible for him to relax his treatment of the texts somewhat. Weiss could scarcely get an adequate hearing for his alternate position if he al­ lowed even the possibility that the position they espoused had exegetical plausibility. after all. the frontal as­ sault was over. Precisely those pericopes were. 2 0 . goodness and mercy of God shining through the clouds like the sun.INTRODUCTION Perhaps it would be well to add at this point once again that it w a s Weiss's need to make a strong negative case against the Ritschlian school of thought in the first edition which made him reticent to admit the presence of any allu­ sion to the Kingdom of God in those parables. At such moments 139 140 The lilies of the field speak to him. But fundamentally. 141 139. His point had been made. In its absence Jesus felt the love. 1 3 5 . through their beauty. 1 4 0 . 6. Jesus experienced the prophetic spirit only intermittently. Another reason for translating the first edition is that the second has recently been reprinted. 1 4 1 . See above. 51 . of the never-tiring providence of the Creator. Weiss does take occasion in the second edition to elabo­ rate a point which is only briefly suggested in our present work. the main sources of support used by the liberal theologians to buttress their position. Predigt'. In the eye of a child. namely. and above his head he watches the movement of the stars as they had been moving since eternity. given the strength of that view. and. Weiss had seen little reason to alter the main outlines of his original discussion. that many of J e s u s ' sayings were not deter­ mined or conditioned by his eschatological b e l i e f s . who loves children. In the second edition of his work. p. See note 8 above. p. and so will be available to those readers who wish to examine W e i s s ' s more detailed treatment of the subject. he catches a glimpse of the nature of God.

His figure encounters us on the pages of the Gospels in storm and strife. Weiss continues. in which there is little trace of world-weariness and asceticism. 1 4 4 . but more as a preacher and reformer than as a herald of the Kingdom of G o d . in the storm of prophetic inspiration." "Out of such a mood were born those sayings and parables whose freshness will never grow old. . 1 4 2 . p. in the actual "proclamation" of Jesus at all. to be sure." which is usually re­ garded as the basic core (Kern und Stern) of his proclama­ tion. Predigt*. not by Jesus. 1 4 3 . 52 . 142 One might wish to suggest. he undoubtedly speaks. W e i s s does not specify which among Jesus' sayings and parables fall into this category. J e s u s ' antipharisaic ethic is not related to his eschatological preaching. Ibid. " Curiously. 1 3 7 . especially the Pharisees. p. but a man among men. that in such sayings one encounters the true inward nature of Jesus. " A great many of his ethical ideas are expressed in the discussions with these op­ ponents. " 1 4 3 144 The "double-love commandment. Predigt'. . . as. as a prophet. and it does not appear in the Sermon on the Mount or. .J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM At such moments he no longer was thinking of the end of the world. it w a s formulated by a scribe. is also independent of the eschatological viewpoint. Nevertheless. really. how­ ever. 1 3 6 . . "But the historian will also readily recognize that this is only one side of the picture that tradition offers us. for example. of the end of the world and of j u d g m e n t . "Then he is no longer the dark and harsh proph­ et. . " W h e n Jesus defends the divine institution of marriage or the sanctity of oaths against the frivolous casuistry of the rabbis. and in struggle with opponents. a child of God among children of God. Actually. in the case of the dispute about hand-washing. For the most part.

Predigt'. it is as clear in the second as in the first edition that Weiss found Jesus' proclamation set forth in the context of that expectation. 1 53 . Predigt . Hiers. the secondary literature and authors mentioned by W e i s s have been included. grounded in the fearful gravity of the present moment. They are. 1 0 f. Cf. was preached as the condition for entrance into the Kingdom. were not entirely grounded upon the eschatological expectation. 1 3 7 f. it is serviceable as a regulative principle for Christian ethics in all times to c o m e . p. but none has succeeded in demonstrating the inaccuracy of the characterization either. J e s u s ' " n e w ethic. then.INTRODUCTION because it can be detached from his messianic preaching. 1 4 7 . Weiss makes clear in Predigt what was earlier hinted in Predigt': that J e s u s ' teaching and outlook. Few interpreters have been willing to concede that Jesus' ethic was either a "penitential" or an "interim" ethic. pp. 1 3 8 . " This is the penitential ethic of prepara­ tion described a b o v e . H. 145 146 147 1 NOTE BY THE TRANSLATORS-EDITORS As an aid to readers who might wish to pursue these references. "Interim Ethics. It is not necessary. 1 4 5 ." however. The greatest crisis in world history stands before the d o o r . " H i s ( J e s u s ' ) demands are not derived from some idea of a per­ fect human society or from generally valid ethical norms. pp. Apart from a few moments of prophetic inspiration when Jesus spoke of it as if it had already come. he consistently looked for the coming of the Kingdom in the near future." Theology and Life 9 ( 1 9 6 6 ) : 220-233. not as the ethic of the realized Kingdom of God. especially concerning God's love for his creatures and the commandment of love as basis for the relationships among men. 1 4 6 . In effect. See above. Nevertheless. rather. R. however.

" 2 1 Obviously. 54 . But he presented many of these questions clearly for the first time. Stimmung as "attitude". who have also introduced a number of new paragraph divisions within the text. Herrscbaft is generally rendered as " r u l e " and Reich as " k i n g d o m " . Weiss was in no position to answer defini­ tively all questions about J e s u s ' eschatological beliefs. except for the eleventh which Weiss himself had in­ cluded. Those who wish to carry the discussion of these questions forward to a still more precise account of the matter can hardly do better than to begin with Weiss's presentation. especially in Predigt . the editors have provided a number of additional footnotes to indicate significant references. His position in this volume speaks for itself. Obviously much has to be omitted. The chapter head­ ings.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM to read W e i s s with this material at hand. Some attempt has been made to standardize the translation of important words: for instance. Since the discussion of many points has moved on since 1892. and verwirklichen as "to actu­ alize. have been added by the editors. All of the additions to the text and notes by the translators-editors are in brackets. since a sub­ stantial portion of later New Testament research is adum­ brated in Predigt . without regard to the dogmatic fears and desires of conservative or liberal theologies. including sev­ eral places where Weiss himself corrected or further de­ veloped certain points in his own later writings.

JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD by Jobannes Weiss .

which I drafted some time ago. JOHANNES W E I S S Gottingen. I welcome. 1 8 9 2 56 . was presented to me by the appear­ ance of the books by Schmoller and Issel concerning the doctrine of the Kingdom of God in the New Testament. to make clear the completely apocalyptic and eschatological character of Jesus' idea of the Kingdom. Since both of these books will probably evoke a lively debate. both of which appeared in Leiden in 1891 as prize-winning essays. I should not wish to keep back my views on this question which I have developed independently. particularly in Schmoller's book. January 2 4 . the same interest which I am pursuing. and I hope that I have adduced a number of supplementary points which will help to clarify this im­ portant question. namely.PREFACE The immediate occasion for publishing this essay.

rather than Paul's doctrine of justi­ fication. and the Kingdom of God are reviewed briefly by H. See above. W e i s s refers to that theological movement in late nineteenth century German theology of which Albrecht Ritschl is probably the most influential representative. 1 9 5 1 ) ." "modern. " which otherwise always more or less fall apart." from the religious-ethical reactions of individuals is a necessary con­ sequence of the separation of the two disciplines which in turn follows from the mechanical demarcation between justification and new life. It is possible on this basis to include in a unified perspective both "dogmatics" and " e t h i c s . "of the action of God upon men. The application of this important orientation will even prove useful for practical theology and the preaching of the Gospel. Christ and Culture ( N e w Y o r k : Harper.. Ritschl's conceptions of justification. 4 ff. 9 6 . For it is an open secret that preaching and instruction which proceed according to 1 1.(INTRODUCTION] One of the most gratifying and promising aspects of re­ cent theology is its serious attention to and emphasis upon the concept "Kingdom of God." Even to common historical sense it must appear appropriate when describing the posi­ tive character of the Christian religion and the historical circumstances under which it arose to take as the point of departure and center of systematic theology the main ideas of Jesus' proclamation. pp." or "the newer" theology. The artificial isolation of religious experiences. This likewise gives a more satisfactory basis for a really systematic arrangement of the series of Christian con­ cepts which theology has to offer with respect to the special tasks for our time.1 0 1 . pp. at least where systematic theology is constructed on the pattern of the doctrine of justification. ethics. 1 6 ff. Richard Niebuhr. ] 57 . [By "recent.

? ) . and therefore not practical enough. yet humble 58 ." This word always necessarily calls forth the image of a single. himself a king. and devel­ oped within the congregation may. First of all. if it calls men seriously and enthusiastically into the Kingdom of God. Moreover. as the acceptance of a sinner who until then had been completely estranged from God.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM the pattern of the ordo salutis in the old Protestant sense. but shows instead how the Christian born. the factor of gradual educa­ tion through God's grace must necessarily be neglected where all one's energy is directed toward presenting the fundamental act of justification and forgiveness of sins. And it must show that these tasks are possible only to one who feeds his soul with power from on high. and commit their energies to his service. there are still difficulties and dangers in the use of the word "justification. by means of which he. the doctrine of redemption which is defined over against a general conception of sin is not concrete. raised. More recent dogmatics (exhibiting an enormous step forward) shows that it no longer pictures justification as a detached experience. the organic connection between the religious good and the ethical ideal does not stand out clearly enough. hope for the grace of God. however. But then if something of the sort is not experienced. what emerges will be either pietistic self-torment. It will not miss its mark if it can show how limited yet how abundant. Preaching surely will not miss its mark. But even so. or indifference toward an unintel­ ligible doctrine. dramatic act of pardon ( SIKCU&XXI. bounce off the majority of our contemporaries without effect. Such is the case for several reasons. Finally. how grave and yet how exalted are the tasks which God gives to his ser­ vants in this Kingdom. despite his sin. how simple and yet how immeasurably difficult. into the company of those who en­ trust themselves to God as King and Leader of their lives.

Theology must insist only on one thing if it wants to remain clear concerning itself and conscious of its procedures. But w e can never do this if w e immediately con­ front our congregations with the greatest and most difficult things in Christianity. will grow up of its own accord in minds prepared for it. Every dogmatics which employs Biblical concepts is always in the more or less clearly perceived danger of stripping these concepts of their original historical character by reinterpreting or con­ verting them to new purposes in accordance w i t h new viewpoints. the real problem is. Rather. it is sufficiently evident that w e ought to be grateful for the new emphasis upon this central idea of Jesus. first of all. w e can succeed only if w e introduce them inductively to Christian living (both ethical and religious) in its simplest and most concrete form. to submit the historical foundations of this concept to a thorough investigation. that "faith" in the higher sense. 59 . as the heroes of our religion know it. Instead. W e are not today in the kind of situation where our preach­ ing has only to direct a surplus of religion into the correct paths. For in all areas of the intellectual life. when w e once more have a Christian community in which new and tender life is sheltered and can prosper. which require sensitive and believ­ ing minds if they are to be understood. Our principal task does not consist in finding some way to solve the religious questions that people find per­ plexing. and proceed deduc­ tively to derive from these the requirements for the moral life. Then it will come about. namely. to reawaken religion.INTRODUCTION and joyous as a child. allows God to lead and form his life. however. From what has been said. it is necessarily the case that words and concepts are transformed by later generations into new coinage and new meaning. There can be no objection to this procedure as such. It therefore seems all the more neces­ sary.

parables. [Cf. [ E V A L U A T I O N 2 OF THE SOURCES] The problem is already complicated enough because of the nature of the sources. It is dispensable to a large degree from our study since it furnishes few direct sayings concerning the Kingdom of God. for at precisely those points which relate to our theme w e have to take note of secondary displacement of the original material. pp. ] 60 . In this regard. 1. But even the synoptic Gospels can be used only with certain qualifica­ tions. Furthermore.4 0 . I believe it must be maintained that 3 2. Many today would also concur in re­ garding Mark. or at any rate alien. 3 6 . that he wishes to issue the old coinage at a new rate of ex­ change. ideas into Jesus' thought-world. one may venture to acknowledge a source " Q " which contained predominantly sayings and which can be—though it has admittedly not yet been—re­ constructed from Matthew and Luke. like the later European form critics. { W e i s s ." and if we do it with special care lest w e import mod­ ern. considered Mark's chro­ nology unreliable: Predigt'. ] 3. it might not be superfluous if w e attempt once more to identify the original historical mean­ ing which Jesus connected with the words "Kingdom of God. over against a recent tendency in criticism. or at least a writing " A " of like scope and composition to Mark. for the sake of clarity.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM that one should acknowledge whether and how far w e today are removed from the original meaning of the con­ cepts. and that one should declare. and sayings. 38 f . Predigt*. The contemporary state of Gos­ pel criticism justifies our excluding the Gospel of John almost totally from our investigation. And one may also posit a special source for Luke " L Q " containing narratives. as the skeleton for both of the other Gospels. pp. In addition.

4 0 . Primitive Christianity: Its Writings and Teachings in Their Historical Connections. But even so. ) — t h e ecclesia visibilis—from the ßacriKtia TOV irarpSs.5 0 ) . Das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptische Parallelen erklärt (Berlin: W . 3 6 . under the lord­ ship of the Son of man. Montgomery. and also the redaction of the Judgment Scene ( M a t t . consequently.4 6 ) . the righteous were to dwell together with the sinners in the Kingdom of Christ. 2 vols. Matthew 1 3 : 4 1 distinguishes a ßacrikeia of the Son of man (cf. pp. [Trans. Reimer.4 9 . 1 8 8 7 ) . These. the simile of the fishnet (Matt.EVALUATION OF T H E SOURCES Luke is not dependent on Matthew (and vice v e r s a ) . 1 3 : 2 4 . ( N e w Y o r k : G.] 5. W . 538 ff. 1 8 7 2 ) . Das Urchristentum. For an assessment of this question. Predigt . but with the a-vvreXeia TOV awuvo? 4 5 fi 4. John 18:36 f . cannot serve as direct sources for us because they contain a conception of the Kingdom of God formed from the standpoint of the later community by analogy to certain Pauline formulations. 2: 382 ff. P. Hertz. Otto Pfleiderer. among other things. and London: W i l l i a m s & Norgate. and it points in the direction of the Apologists.4 3 ) . On this point I regard as conclusive. to the latest components of the Gospel. Until then. 2 5 : 3 1 . 1 9 0 9 ) .3 0 . 1 3 : 4 7 . } 2 61 . there are certain passages of this Gospel— to be selected with prudence of course—which are custom­ arily preferred in construing Jesus' conception of the Kingdom of God. Putnam's Sons. the evidence set forth by Pfleiderer which indicates that our first Gospel [ M a t t h e w ] was composed at a very late date: it already contains signs of the church's becoming catholic. in the judgment of many scholars. pp. seine Schriften und Lehren. I shall pass by for the time being the question of the sources of Mark or "A" as hardly yet soluble. 1 9 0 6 . 6. which belong. in geschichtlichem Zusammenhang beschrieben (Berlin: G. particularly the explanation of the para­ ble of the tares and the Matthean redaction of the parable itself ( M a t t . see especially Bernhard Weiss. [Cf. Although I certainly consider it important.

e. Dalman's proposal that Jesus himself used the ex­ pression as a circumlocution... 2 1 : 3 1 and 6 : 1 0 ) . w h o .g. An expression which ap­ pears only in Matthew and John ( 3 : 5 ) . to be connected to that general shift in the conception of the Kingdom of God which has just been 7 7. This conception of a ficuriXeia TOV Xpcarov which then will be separate from the fiao-ikeia Oeov is reported to us first by Paul (Col. See Predigt*. 1 Cor. 2 5 : 4 6 ) or inherit the Kingdom which the Father had prepared for them from the foundation of the world. after a complete victory. ] 62 . it w a s invented from the standpoint of the ancient congregations who. expresses here only one common early Christian view. Matt. one of several Jewish features of the "First" evangelist. Furthermore. they hope for his definitive overthrow of God's enemies until. Weiss denies the validity of G. but not in the Logia " Q " . In any case. 1 2 : 2 8 . in the exalted Kvpios. presents little claim to be re­ garded as original. Mark and "Q" (e.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM ( M a t t . Equally little do I regard the characteristics which might perhaps be derived from the phrase fiao-tXeia TCOV ovpavcov as features of the original idea.. the divine regent of the world. Because these conceptions belong within this thought-world of early Christianity. p. the strong hand of God himself will take up the reins once more. 1:13 f. 1 3 : 3 9 ) . we can­ not consider them among the authentic statements of Jesus. [The expression "Kingdom of Heaven" in John 3:5 is attested by only a few manuscript traditions. noting that the term "Kingdom of God" appears regularly in the earliest sources. recognize Christ. and pro­ ceed from belief in the Exalted One (Acts 2 : 3 6 ) . 2 5 : 3 1 ) . and one is continually constrained to declare it one of Matthew's most characteristic ideas. ) . when Christ as /3ao-i\cv? will sit in judg­ ment ( M a t t . 4 3 . indeed. commissioned to reign for a time as God's representative. It appears. Matt. the righteous will enter into life ( M a t t . 15:24 f .g. however. Its common usage in Matthew is now generally regarded as a circumlocution or substitute for the divine name.

1 3 : 1 0 .3 0 5 . p. the verse originally read: vplv hehorai yv&vai TCL p-vo-rripia TTJ<. ed. or as genitive of origin.) ofjiola icrnv. especially concerning the form in which they appear in Matthew. In no case. One gains the impression—and this is certainly the meaning of the evangelists—that the parables which are not compre8 9 8. Joachim Jeremias offers the same proposal: The Parables of Jesus. 2 2 5 . [ W e i s s elaborates this point in Predigl . it is as with .3 2 1 ] . etc.1 0 ) . 2 8 9 . eKeivots" 8e iv -irapafioXcus. 2 9 7 . . 45 ff. may one regard this peculiarity of the first evangelist as the viewpoint of Jesus himself. More important is the fact that the whole point of view which regards the parables as a description of conditions within the Kingdom of God cannot be taken as binding for our strictly historical way of thinking. 1 9 6 3 ) . It is generally recognized that this com­ parison is to be understood only in a very loose sense. ovp. rev. " might well approximate the vagueness of the formula. the ySacriXeta still always appears to be thought of as complete­ ly transcendent and distinct from the present ftacriXeia of Christ on earth.1 3 . whether as a designation of place. ( N e w Y o r k : Scribner's. Cf. pp. therefore. 2 1 ) . That method is de­ rived from a saying of Jesus in Mark 4 : 1 1 . the present textual form of which departs from the original of " A " which can still be recognized today from the Matthean and Lukan parallels. Luke 8 : 9 . another preliminary remark concerning the parables is in order. 1 8 9 1 ["Die Parabelrede bei Marcus. ySacriXeias TOV 0eov. .E V A L U A T I O N OF T H E SOURCES described." pp. my essay on the parable discourse in Mark in Studien und Kritiken. The translation " W i t h the Kingdom of God. pp. ] 9. 9eov ( r . or as simple subjective genitive (essen­ tially equivalent to TOV Qeov in Luke 1 5 : 1 8 . According to the testimony of both these references ( M a t t . Likewise. A great many of them are intro­ duced by a formula such as r/ fiaanXeia r. 2 63 . For however one may interpret the genitive form of rSiv ovpavStv.

But now it is to be observed that: 1 ) a great many parables which are intro­ duced in this manner have nothing at all to do with the Kingdom of God or can be related to it only with difficulty. pp." In any case.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM hended by the people are supposed to present "secrets of the Kingdom of God. pp. 11 10. From this. is applied by the evangelists to the parables.) [ A n d cf. 303 ft. as coincident with the concern of the Gospel or with the community of the disciples.") Dodd and 64 . which. the systems of Schleiermacher. W e i s s might well include possibly Bultmann in this list. the idea of the King­ dom of God without regard to those parables. 1 10 Finally. w e are obliged to disregard this interpretation entirely and to explain these parables. . 9 above. without regard to the Kingdom of God and. and 2 ) in many cases the evangelists themselves abandon that formula and along with it the basic viewpoint as to the meaning of the parables. Ritschl. which is regarded. w h i c h — though one is usually unaware of it—governs our religious and scholarly manner of speaking and thinking to a very considerable degree. Compare. Sludjen und Kritiken. originally had a different meaning. 82 ff. Cf. Cf. first of all. 60-64. it will be necessary to be careful in our historical description not to let ourselves be influenced by the lan­ guage and religious outlook of the Fourth Gospel. Predigt . Predigt*. for example. 1 8 9 1 . one may suspect that the expression in Mark 4 : 1 1 . conversely. because of the phrase h irapafsoKaU. what is intended is a description of the circumstances of the Kingdom of God." But how this expression is to be understood is not entirely clear. This saying in Mark inspired the other evangelists to attach this for­ mula to a w i d e range of other parables. Usually one thinks of the "secret laws which are valid in the Kingdom of God" or the "secret means by which the rule of God will be estab­ lished. Because of this situation and be­ cause of the often extremely clumsy style of the introduc­ tion.] 1 p p 1 1 . Kaftan and others. [ W e r e he writing today. in some way or other. (See n.

6 5 . fieravoelre /cat wiareiere iv r<j> evayyeXiw TOV ffeov. The reading given above is also supported by Matt.ua TOV dtov (Luke (Luke 10:9). one might come to suspect that the reading in " A " was originally only Ki>pv<rowv TO ei5a77e\io>' ttjs (SacnXeias Xeywv HfTavoeirc. would not have been in " A " at all (it is missing also in Mark 6 : 1 2 } . 8 : 1 ) speaks of tvayycXi^oSai Tr\v fiao-iXeiav.( o n ) rjyyiKcv rj fiaaiXila. the content of which was briefly set forth in " A " as follows: fieravotlnryyyiKtv yap 17 /JacriXeia TOV a ~ aeov. [On this genera] section.. Our present text in Mark is enlarged by the Paulinizing formulation: TTCTrX^pwrai 6 Kaipds Kai tfyytKev ij fHaffikeia TOV Beov.R E P E N T A N C E AND T H E C O M I N G OF T H E KINGDOM 2. what has been said would also be true of our present Marcan t e x t ) : instead of eiayycXiov TOV 6tov. If one considers. pesh. Predigl . we read: iropevo/j. etc. To be sure. and goth (if one does not opt for the reading given in the text. vg. 13 This brief summary seems to be established even more firmly by the Sayings source " Q " . and in i t . [ M a r k 1 : 1 5 ] . ir\rjv TOVTO ywoio-KtTt.evoi ovpavwv Se KrjpvcnrtTt Aeyovres. pp. cf. they read tiayyiXior rijs /SocriXei'as TOV Seov. 9 : 3 5 ) . and that Luke also ( 4 : 4 3 . in that case. 4 : 1 7 . 4 : 2 3 . Thus in J e s u s ' instructions to his disciples on the occasion of his sending them forth. 1 0 : 7 ) . but would have been supplied by the last editor of Mark in accordance with a saying which appears several times in the Logia. which seems to be reproduced from the same source. Jesus appeared in Galilee with a message. The meaning of this well-attested proclamation of Jesus and his disciples seems quite clear: the Kingdom (or the 12. OTL rjyyiKtv rj fiaaiXua TOV Otov 10:11). Then the formula rjyyiKey. it might be possible that a recollection of the original wording in " A " may be preserved in the codices A and D. [REPENTANCE AND THE COMING OF THE K I N G D O M } 12 According to the oldest report. avTolsijyyiKiv kgu \eytT€ t<fj' i'/xds i) ¡iauiX.9 9 . 5 2 65 . ] 1 3 . TU>V (Matt. aeth. of course. the fact that Matthew twice has the phrase ciayyeXiov r»js patriXeias in other passages (Matt.

7 3 . The relevant data are as follows: Dan.The similarity of both ideas is still more surprising if one thinks of the context. 6 9 . oipavov. [See. but by the L X X with Tjyywre. But is the difference between these two terms really so great? In the case of Dan. It is custom­ arily assumed that •ijyyiKev is to be differentiated linguis­ tically and materially from e4>0ao-ev. 4 : 8 . there is in Matt..g. [Cf.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E K I N G D O M r u l e ) of God has drawn so near that it stands at the door. quite probably secondary. Luke 2 1 : 3 1 — t h e Kingdom of G o d ) .] 1 5 . 4:21: LXX: Theod. the same verb SOD is trans­ lated by Theodotion with ecf)0aae. which the L X X renders in other passages with Trapfjv (Dan. In addition to yyyyiKtv k$ vfias 17 ftacriXeia TOV 0eov. pp." as W e i s s doubtless realized. 2 4 : 3 3 which refers to that time in the future when the Son of man will be near (cf. 7:13 ) or with V/f « (Dan. Dan. L X X : i] Kopvipij avTov tfyyurev eo)s r. Dan. it is extreme­ ly near. by the finger of God. e^dacrev 17 f3ao-i\eia TOV deov. 1 2 : 2 8 ( a n d in. Predigt . i.: TO vipos airov 1 2 i<p8a<rev ews TOV oipavoi. there is yet another saying reminiscent of Luke 1 0 : 9 . The expression "at the door.. in its present structure. 66 . Here W e i s s simply uses it to symbolize the imminent expectation which he finds evidenced in the message of Jesus and his disciples to their contemporaries." Likewise in the speech at the sending out of the dis­ ciples. 4 : 2 1 ) . but a real coming into contact. cast out demons. ] 1 6 . Luke 1 1 : 2 0 ) the expression: efiQacrev icf*' V / I F I ? 17 fiao-Lktia TOV deov. If w e 14 15 16 1 4 . Moreover. then. while the fiao-tkda is not yet here. signifies not merely an approach. Therefore. Theod.: i<t>$a<rev. Luke 11 says: "If I.e. the term -qyyLKev follows directly upon the success­ ful healings by the disciples. e. The people among whom the disciples carry out their mission are expected to infer and perceive from the healings that the Kingdom of God is close by ( o r perhaps even already present? ) .the parallel pas­ sage. as you yourselves can infer. and is. 4 : 8 : NV0t?5 XDO PIDIIl. Luke 1 0 : 9 . with real success. comes from the apocalyptic prediction in Mark 1 3 : 2 9 = Matt. From the context it turns out that the verb in question.

the sayings in which he speaks proleptically of its presence are the ex­ ceptions. [ W e i s s expands his discussion of these verbs in Predigt . pp. 7 3 .2 5 .e. pp." JBL 59 ( 1 9 4 0 ) : 3 6 7 . both seem to intertwine: from a certain perspective the same Kingdom is still future which from another is already present. Without drawing further conclusions from this for the present. 12 f. w e only point out that one cannot base a distinc­ tion between the ideas of drawing near and being already present upon alternation of the Greek verbs. [ W A S THE KINGDOM OF GOD PRESENT?] It is rather generally conceded that the surmise just pre­ sented is correct: i. see Kenneth W . Berkey argues on behalf of "realized eschatology." JBL 82 ( 1 9 6 3 ) : 1 7 7 . * 6 A N E I N . statements in which the rule of God already appears actualized. [Cf. despite the double Greek terminology. except in a restricted sense.1 8 7 . [For further references. there are. W h e t h e r Jesus declares the Kingdom present or future depends on his mood at the time. 1 9 5 7 ) : 1 9 . "EITIZEIN.] 2 1 8 .8 3 . For references to subsequent studies of these verbs.WAS THE K I N G D O M O F GOD PRESENT? may assume. And one can probably say that this intertwin­ ing of present and future. Barton. gives dogmatics the right to use the 18 7 : 1 3 : L X X : Traprjp. ] 1 7 . it is already touching y o u . note 1 7 . that both times ( i n Luke 10:9 and 1 1 : 2 0 ) the Aramaic KDD is at the root (though the Peschitta has mp in both p l a c e s ) . W e r n e r Georg Kummel.. Promise and Fulfilment. especially the statements con­ cerning the present.7 3 . "Realized Eschatology. Predigt'. 23 (London: SCM. ] 67 . and Clark shows that neither verb can mean that the Kingdom has become a matter of present experience. But he normally proclaimed its coming in the future. 6 9 ." Kummel against it. M. the two passages would still only say: the jSatriXeia has come into your very midst. See above. and Realized Eschatology. 17 3.8 8 . pp. Theod. Clark. and Robert Berkey. see below. D. trans.: itt>6aoev (in the passage about the Son of m a n ) . SBT no. Instead. that though Jesus generally pictured the Kingdom of God as still future. on the other hand.

Marcus. oip. 2.J E S U S ' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM idea of the Kingdom of God as the central concept of the Christian world-view. within the community of his adherents (his discip l e s ) . " namely. ed. Hertz. If originally it were only eschatological or regarded as such. d .4 1 . 1 8 9 0 ) . 4 9 ." but also in full enjoyment of "the Fatherly rule of G o d . [The Teaching of Jesus. 2 1 . /u€i£a>v avTov = 'Icadvvov io-Tiv). ) .7 0 . pp. Albrecht Ritsehl. of course. and some who are already in i t . ] 20.] 5 3 68 . based on 3rd rev." as a community of men who are not only in the "right attitude of obedience. vol. it is evident that there are already some who enter the Kingdom of God. 1 1 : 3 . 1: 6 7 . But one must now face the question: In what sense did Jesus speak of a presence of the ßacriXeia TOV Otov. Probably the most widespread of these interpretations is formulated something like this: "According to Matt. It is conceded. "those who see in Jesus the Expected O n e " ( M a t t . vol. n . Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung (Bonn: A . 1 1 : 1 1 (6 puKporepos Iv TTJ /SacrtXeta T. 2 : 2 6 . " And the latest portrayer of the "Teachings of J e s u s " has defined the "Kingdom of God.5 1 . 1 8 8 2 . 2. ch. Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Berlin: W . " 19 2 0 21 19. sec. Eaton. most people today would consider it unsuitable for dogmatics. 1 8 8 9 ) . 2 1 : 3 1 (npod-yoverIP V/JLCL^ et? TTJV ßacriXtlav TOV Oeov) and Matt. They are aready within the Kingdom of God. 1 8 8 8 ) . Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. John W i l s o n ( N e w Y o r k : Scribner's. Hans Hinrich W e n d t . [trans. and is this the sense in which the concept is normally used today? A number of attempted interpretations must be examined. Clark. 5. Die Lehre Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. trans. that it is not yet the case that those who believe in the Messiah compose or constitute the Kingdom of God—"nowhere does Jesus designate the company of his disciples as the Kingdom of G o d " — b u t " h e brings the rule of God to life. 6 ) . D . 1 8 8 3 ) . 5. ch. 1 4 . insofar as it already is realized in the present. Bernhard Weiss..

a serious drawback. 1 1 : 1 2 in a separate excursus in Predigt*. In this connection. pp. would not have let any such saying as this escape them. 21:31 ] . He maintains that it refers to those w h o wish to force entrance into the Kingdom (cf. to any passage in the Gospels in which the equation of the band of disciples w i t h the Kingdom of God is clearly or plainly made. [ M a t t . this distinction is applied to Christ. if it w e r e to be understood at all. he would have had to state that concern. H.. as is usually assumed. furthermore. But that is. regard it as 69 . Notice.g. E. Moreover. 1 0 : 6 ) . W h e n it says the tax collectors and prosti­ tutes precede the leaders of the people et? TTJV fiacriXeiav r. But they are by no means within the Kingdom of God. Several writers. Surely our evangelists— at least M a r k and M a t t h e w — w h o are moving toward iden­ tifying the fiacriXeia r. they are travel­ ing toward it. it only means that they are ahead of them on the w a y that leads to the Kingdom of God: they have a head start. how Mark 9 : 1 seems to contrast the j3a<7(\fi'a TOO Seov (which appears only in our present M a r k ) as the fulfilled the unfinished earthly one. see Romans with the same addition. 0. after all. very frequently and emphatically. Luke 1 3 : 2 4 ) or gain possession of it by force (Rom.. 1 9 2 . e. as even their proponents concede. [ W e i s s treats Matt.g. where. Dodd and G. but also the explicit distinction be­ tween the present /3ao-i\eia r. e. 0. rather. The passages.WAS THE KINGDOM O F GOD PRESENT? These paraphrasing interpretations of the alleged mean­ ing cannot appeal. they set a good example. which are presented by way of evidence for these interpretations likewise give them little support. And the notion that Matt. The meaning and authenticity of this verse continue to be disputed. Ladd. Xpicrrov and the future heavenly Kingdom. 2 3 . had been so intensely concerned to correct the popular concept of the Kingdom. Matthew finds it necessary to introduce not only the concept eKKXrjcria. For if Jesus. 1 1 : 1 1 presupposes the possibility that some already may be in the Kingdom of God is proven to be quite the opposite by the next v e r s e : 22 23 2 2 . et> dvvdfiei /3o<ri\ei'a of 1 : 4 .1 9 7 . C. with the contemporary church.

] 24. Rudolf Otto thought that it referred to Jesus' followers w h o press their way into it with all their power and determination: The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man. Hiers. 24 According to this view. Jesus rebukes them because they wish to seize by force what they should be waiting for instead. the time of the actualized Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Tradition (Gainesville.: Univ. 70 . TWV ovpavwv apTrd^ovcriv H o w these interpreters would like to deduce from this something other than that since the days of John. then. 2: 3 0 3 . They want to climb up to heaven to haul the King­ dom down ( R o m .6 5 . Another recent theory places it in the context of the early church as an answer to the claim of its persecutors that Jesus wished to seize God-likeness or the rule of heaven for himself: Georg Braumann. is already at hand. there has dawned a movement of passionate longing for the Kingdom! Wendt. Lehre fesu. 1 9 3 8 ) .J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM drrb Se rwv rffiepaJv 'Icodvuov fiid&Tat rod /3<nrTLcrTov KO. W e n d t . Fla. 5 7 . "Dem Himmelreich wird Gerwalt angetan. 3 6 .v avrbv Iva iroir)o-<x>o-Lv ySacriXea (John 6 : 1 5 ) . B. see R. pp. W o o l f (London: Lutter­ worth Press. For further notes on Matt. trans. Jesus would have described those who had perceived in him the Expected One and had entered "into the Kingdom of G o d " with a most extraordi­ nary figure: as /3iaaral dpTrdl.. F. explains it otherwise: Therefore the time of waiting and hoping for the future Kingdom is over. 1 1 : 1 1 and 1 1 : 1 2 . 1 0 9 ff.L KCLL dpird£et. Is that conceivable? I contend that these words can and must be understood only in the sense of a rebuke. where what matters is to make oneself a member of this Kingdom by energetic resolve.4 2 . of Florida Press.1 /3tao-Tal I G J ? dprt 17 fiao-Lkeia avT-qv. This word of rebuke evidence for "realized eschatology. of course. 1 9 7 0 ) ." Others construe it as anti-Baptist polemic. 1 0 : 6 ) . H. Filson. V . This does fundamental violence to the standpoint of one who fled from the people as soon as he realized OTL fiekkovcnv epx*o-6a. Jesus is describing the kind of peo­ ple who had been aroused by the Baptist's preaching to the point of impassioned agitation. L. pp.ovTe<." ZNW 52 ( 1 9 6 1 ) : 104-09.

it belongs to them. [ W e i s s discusses Matt. 8 0 . chapter 9. Die Lehre vom Reiche Gottes in den Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Leiden: E. with respect to Matthew 1 1 : 1 1 whether kv TJI {iaaiXcia is to be construed with puKporepos or with ^lei'fwi/ kariv.8 8 . will play a very minor role (precisely 25 26 25. and vice versa." On this point in general. John is so completely foreign to the Kingdom of God that someone. 1 8 9 2 ) . 5:3. To put it another way. and that the main fault. 26. Otto Schmoller. there is still the question. would far surpass him. but with the dawn of the messianic Kingdom. and whether he used a copula here at all. even though he has not yet come into possession of it. pp. 7 8 . is impassioned impatience.WAS THE K I N G D O M OF GOD PRESENT? declares. just as the inheritance belongs to the heir. the greatest man of the present age. so there John also. p. see Predigt . or it is present and means: It is theirs by right. Cf. W i l h e l m Baldensperger.8 2 . that there is as yet no Kingdom of God as a community or concrete entity. therefore. since w e have before us only the view of a translator. J . 1 1 : 1 1 at greater length in Predigt . W e i s s regards this as an instance of the general reversal of values which Jesus expected in the coming age: " W h o e v e r is great here."] 2 2 2 71 . it follows that the words o ixinporepo? iv T7J /SacriAeta are to be understood hypothetically. 8 ) . will be small there. which is to be rebuked even in the Baptist and which he had in fact called into being. below. pp. ) Here the translation is either from an Aramaic future (note the future tense in the adjacent verses). its members are changed "to a supernatural condition akin to that of the angels" (Out of My Life and Thought. 1 3 2 . 40. In his whole manner. however. It is just as erroneous to draw conclusions from the iarlv in Matt. 1 0 (Cf. will be greater than John. From this. It is impermissible to press the present tense of karlv for w e do not know whether Jesus spoke in the preterite or the future. Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu im Lichte der messianischen Hoffnungen seiner Zeit (Strassburg: Heitz. p. though in other respects much less important. and takes the position that the point of the saying lies in the contrast between the present age and the coming age. More­ over. Brill. if he succeeds in entering it at a l l . Weiss's later interpretation is more like that suggested by Schweitzer: John is the greatest natural man of the natural w o r l d . just as the relations of rank generally will be reversed in the Kingdom of God. Even the least important member of the Kingdom then. p. is now. "The Coming Trans­ formation. 1 8 9 1 ) . were he even just barely within the Kingdom of God.

there is the basic idea that an obstructed and seemingly un­ successful preaching will at last. n. have its reward and result. On the contrary. Weiss. Here again. such as the parables of the seed.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM because of his impatient doubt) as compared with the "little ones" who waited quietly. pp. through God's interven­ tion. of the grain of mustard seed. p. B. or to think of it as being actualized in them. and faithfully until the coming of the /3acriA. too. I have no doubt but that our evangelists allegorically explain the field of grain as referring to the con­ temporary church. 1 8 9 1 . and of the leaven. and the bread dough as referring to the world which was to be brought to fulfillment by the church. the introductory formula derived from M a r k 4 : 1 1 may quite easily mislead us. patiently. this does not give any occasion for seeing here an allusion to the actualization of the Kingdom of God within the group of disciples. Supporters of the contrary view could draw some further support from certain of the parables. 72 . so that they might be introduced more appropriately with the formula 6(IOL6V ecrri . such 27 28 27. as it can be reconstructed from Matthew and M a r k . The two about the mustard seed and the leaven. 9 . Lehrbuch. Studien und Kritiken. Thus even these passages do not give one the right to identify the Kingdom of God in any sense with the group of disciples. But whether this is the meaning Jesus associated with these parables is far from certain.TO e v a y y e AIOV (or o Xoyo?). as is evident from their position after the parable of the s o w e r . From this it also follows that one cannot expound Luke 1 7 : 2 1 in that sense either. 3 1 8 . W h e n Jesus says here that the (3ao-i\eia TOV deov is already in the midst of the Pharisees.eia. 1 5 9 ff. ) 28. Cf. (See above. of the tares. the mustard tree as referring to the out­ wardly visible and expanding Kingdom. cer­ tainly intend to describe the fate of the proclaimed word. Behind the parable of the tares.

W h a t speaks more forcefully than all else against the kind of interpretation to which w e have been objecting is the fact that Jesus put in the mouths of his disciples. nor even to the establishment of a new righteousness. the /3ao-t. not even in its beginnings. Dogmengeschichte (Freiburg: M o h r [Siebeck].. The meaning is not "may thy Kingdom g r o w ." For the disciples.\eia has been realized in some mysterious manner. or it is not yet here. and the constant hope that it will come— that it will come soon—this is their religion. 1: 7 1 0 ff. (Trans. it refers neither to the gathering of a group of disciples. 1 9 0 2 ) . since Jesus' words. therefore Jesus bids them: ¿ f r e i r é TT)V fiao-ikaav (Luke 1 2 : 3 1 ) . but to mysterious events. " m a y thy Kingdom come. as the first petition of their p r a y e r .1 8 9 0 ) . " "may thy Kingdom be perfected. in some way or other. the ySacrtXeia is not yet here. Either the ySacriXeta is here. For the disciples and 29 30 29. the words: ¿Acerco 17 fiacriXeia crov. Adolf von Harnack. 30. For they can only be understood to mean that without the Pharisees' observing it. Brown & Co. contain a paradox. History of Dogma (Boston: Little. 2: 3 1 8 ff. which are invisible to the perverse eye. More will be said below as to what Jesus meant here. This yearning and longing for its coming. Therefore. N. Let us be careful lest somehow or other w e play down this fact and these words. Buchanon. The words ayiaaBriTw TÓ OVOIIÓ. 1 8 8 8 . <rov comprise only a reverent.WAS THE K I N G D O M O F GOD PRESENT? a meaning is improbable. Just as there can be no different stages of its being—without prejudice to what Harnack has explained concerning its preexistence — s o likewise there are no stages of its coming. W e would import an opaque and confusing element into this unified and clearly unambiguous religious frame of mind were w e to think somehow of a "coming in an ever higher degree" or of a growth or increase of the Kingdom." but rather. this ardent prayer for it. liturgical introductory formula.) 2 73 .

1 9 3 4 ) . but even already enacted in heaven. Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde. then. ] 32. A classical example of this is Rev. Matt: 12:28 and Luke 1 7 : 2 1 . 8 8 . More­ over. 1 3 : 1 7 ) . 4. [So also Paul Volz. p. But this answer is insufficient. for him it is the most com­ pelling reality! W e have to bear in mind that for the Israel­ ites. and likewise for Jesus. what happens on earth has its exact parallel in heaven. in the form of the dragon. W h a t seems paradoxical to us is not so at all from J e s u s ' standpoint. All history is only the consequence. The world of men and history is only the lower floor of the world's struc­ ture. or parallel copy of heavenly events. effect. there existed a twofold world. one might say: in a paradoxical w a y . are spoken in re­ joinder to opponents who dismiss its presence. 7." Interpretation 22 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 1 3 5 ff.] 2 74 . Predigt . Certainly the two principal passages. Both parts make up the Koo-fios ( 1 Cor. and Otto Betz. Thus an event which on earth is only just beginning to take place may not merely be already de­ termined.9 5 . [Cf. (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck]. 1 2 : 7 ff. [ J E S U S ' W A R F A R E AGAINST SATAN'S K I N G D O M ] In what sense. 4 : 9 ) . does Jesus speak of a "presence" of the Kingdom of God? To put it superficially. "The Kerygma of Luke. pp. Satan. the fact that glorious prophecies have been ful­ filled in their presence is surely sufficient basis for this declaration—but the one great and foremost promise still remains to be fulfilled. 2nd ed.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM for the early church it is not yet here. and thus also a twofold occurrence of events. The world of the angels and spirits is erected above that. is cast down from heaven by Michael and his 31 32 3 1 . And when Jesus calls them blessed because of what they see and hear ( M a t t .

] 75 . it is robbed of its might. they must now be fought 33 33. facts which were settled and established once for all time in the great battle with the spirits. whereupon the heavenly hosts begin to sing the song of triumph: apri eyevero 1 7 cruyrr)pia /ecu 1 7 Swa/ii? Kal 1 7 ^SacrtXeia TOV Otov y)ii£>v . W e are constantly tempted to employ certain vague phrases—e. can observe this struggle with equanimity. their cra. but the believer is as firmly convinced of them as he is of his own existence. Kendrick Grobel ( N e w Y o r k : Scribner's. 1 9 5 4 ) . 6 : 6 ) . they are facts which are invisible to the unperceiving eye. rhetorical language" in his Theology of the New Testament. as well. " "basically. That is not our privi­ lege. trans. o n ifiXrjd'iiv 6 Karr/ycDp TCOV aSeXe/xwv -r)fiQ)v ( R e v . his power is broken and gradually w i l l be overcome on earth.J E S U S ' W A R F A R E AGAINST SATAN'S KINGDOM angels. sin in the flesh is con­ demned by the death of Christ ( R o m . 3:3 ) . "so to say. when Christ ( o r G o d ) dve^eSvcraTO r a s APX<i9 Kal r a s e^oucrias Kal iSeiy/xaTLcriv kv Trapprjcria (Col. however. " " i n principle" — i n order to play down these thoughts which were under­ stood quite seriously and realistically. A further example: for Paul." "the idea i s . and therefore the Christians are dead (Col. 1 2 : 1 0 ) . however. but a living.g. for Satan is already overthrown.. Here the struggle is just beginning. for to Paul these are not metaphors but facts." " a s it w e r e . But while these realities have transpired in the realm between heaven and earth. To be sure. God's rule is won in a fully real sense. One who sees this. 1 : 2 4 4 f . powerful entity—this crap£ is put to death. [Cf. 2 : 1 5 ) .pt. 8 : 3 ) because the awpia T 7 j 5 ap-apria? is destroyed (Rom. Yet the fiacriXeia TOV 0eov is still in no way realized on earth. Not just the o-ap£ of Christ. . no longer exists. Through the fall of Satan. . but o-apf everywhere—this great collec­ tive substance which in Paul's thought is no vague idea. Rudolf Bultmann's ambiguous interpretation of such terms as "figurative.

3 7 .4 5 . which lends substantial support to Weiss's theory that through exorcising demons Jesus was preparing for the coming of the Kingdom of God (See above. and the decisive major events off s t a g e . Colin Campbell. Critical Studies in St. pp. "Jesu heiliger Krieg. the relation of the Prologue of the Gospel of John to the Gospel itself. ] 36. [ V i z . And when. too. Jesus naturally shared the view that demoniacs were actually possessed by spirits. Therefore. n. Kingdom of God. 1 9 6 3 ) .4 6 . J e s u s ' whole life is regarded as a struggle on the part of the bearer of the Spirit of God against the kingdom of S a t a n ." NT 2 ( 1 9 5 8 ) : 1 1 6 . Bfackwood & Sons. Its 7rpa£ei? are still here and demand watchfulness and endurance. ] 76 .5 6 . et a t . Spirit of God (London: A . one sees this parallelism of events—this distinction between what is happening on stage. Black. Luke's Gospel (Edinburgh and London: W. has already re­ ceived the deathblow. it is nevertheless necessary to strug­ gle against it as if it were still alive. through the impact of his powerful personality. he freed them from their demonic ty34 35 36 34." NTS 1 4 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 2 3 2 . 2 4 . Cf. "The Terminology of Mark's Exorcism Stories. 42 f. This is to be seen most clearly in the exorcisms. John Edmund Yates. 1 1 8 ) .J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM out on earth. Luke 1 7 : 2 1 . Mark does make this connection. It has recently been shown how in the Gospel of Luke. although Christians are already dead. and Hiers. pp. 1 9 5 7 ) .. 1 8 9 1 ) . He is conscious of carrying on a strug­ gle against the Satanic kingdom. [That Luks connects the Spirit with exorcism has since been disputed: Eduard Schweizer. 35. 1 2 : 2 8 . Matt. 3 0 . Kee. Robinson has ably demonstrated in The Problem of History in Mark (Naperville: Allenson. & C. pp. through the upsurge of fear and confidence which he aroused in the sick. See also Howard C. The Spirit and the Kingdom (London: SPCK. Here. I 9 6 0 ) . as James M. Thus also Otto Betz. In this light w e understand the problematic sayings and views of Jesus under consideration h e r e . The evan­ gelist's basic idea here rests upon unquestionably authentic utterances of Jesus. 9 0 ff. although the great world power crapt. esp. pp.

they do not see. H e clearly wishes to impress upon the minds of his malevolent ques­ tioners how. defeat for the "Enemy. W h a t is taking place in their midst—how on all sides the power of the devil is being defeated and consequently (because of the utter opposition between the jSacriXeta TOV 0eov and 37 37. Certainly this fact was not an obvious one. J e s u s ' answer evidently struck them as startling. yet no less certain. see below. To Jesus. he knew that he w a s doing decisive damage to the well-organized kingdom of Satan. Therefore Jesus asserts something here which generally he does not presuppose elsewhere: that the fHacriXeia is already here in some invisible fashion. and would have been admitted least of all by his opponents. though they have eyes.9 1 . Accordingly. For this reason they would have understood this saying of Jesus no better than they did the other. p p . H e was taking ever vaster provinces of this kingdom away from the rule of the Prince of this world. all referred back to great decisive events in the kingdom of the Spirits.J E S U S ' W A R F A R E AGAINST SATAN'S KINGDOM rants. so gradually." This meaning comes out in that very important dispute with his adversaries when they charged him with being in league with Beelzebul. but in J e s u s ' prophetic consciousness it was incontrovert­ ible. Luke 1 7 : 2 1 . A s to oi fieri jrapoTijpijffeíoj. what could be observed out­ wardly in his success in healing. 8 9 . what amazed his friends and aroused the suspicions of his enemies. To be sure. Here he showed how absurd it w a s of them to suppose an alliance with Beelzebul for the de­ struction of Satan's kingdom ( M a t t . 1 2 : 2 5 . and that instead. and moving from the inward to the outward.2 7 ) . the Pharisees were unaccustomed to the idea that the establishment of the Kingdom would proceed from God's side so quietly. 77 . they ought ( d p a ) to draw the conclusion from his successful exorcisms that the kingly rule of God was already begun. every visible healing signified an invisible.

Therefore. if Jesus already speaks of a King­ dom of God which is present. as if God's rule were realized from the side of men. to whom for a while the world had been subjected [ L u k e 4 : 6 ] . is being broken. 1 9 3 2 ) . pp. This also would have been the content of the preaching in Nazareth ( L u k e 4 : 1 7 ) . and in response to scoffing 38 38. according to Luke 1 0 : 9 . pp. In these two sayings. Although they normally thought only about the glorious external establishment of the messianic Kingdom. Eschatologie. what is described here is the altogether supranatural and superhistorical establishment of the power of God over Satan. esp. Rather. and the early Christians generally. It is noteworthy that these expressions are uttered in a con­ text of fiercely hostile attack. and possibly even that of the KTjpvyp. "Cosmological References in the Qumran Doctrine of the T w o Spirits and in Old Testament Imagery. it is not because there is pres­ ent a community of disciples among whom God's will is done.8 9 . who above all others is the source of evil. V o l z calls attention especially to Testament of Daniel 5 and 6. Kohlhammer. notably the War Scroll. Both V o l z and Grundmann substantiate Weiss's contention that Jesus. 8 6 . Der Begriff der Kraft in der neutestamentlichen Gedankenwelt (Stuttgart: W . See Herbert G. when an awareness of victory comes over him. which aptly illustrates the mean­ ing as understood by Jesus and his contemporaries. But these are moments of sublime prophetic en­ thusiasm. at least if w e have been correct in equating rjyyiKtv with e^dacrev. The Qumran literature. Volz.1 4 .a in Mark 1:14. regarding the "Kingdom of Satan" in Jewish literature. May. See also W a l t e r Grundmann. shared the cosmic dualism of their Jewish contemporaries. W i t h this opposition between fiaaiXeia TOV 8eov and /SacnXei'a TOV ffarora. Jesus does so because by his own activity the power of Satan. cf. Jesus stressed a side of the matter which usually is not em­ phasized elsewhere." JBL 82 ( 1 9 6 3 ) : 1 . gives further evidence concerning the contemporary concept.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM the ygao-tXeia TOV craravd) the rule of God is already be­ ginning—escapes them completely. [See P. 4 6 74. were to awaken the people to this realization. ] 78 . The disciples too. Assumption of Moses 1 0 : 2 .

[ W A S JESUS THE "FOUNDER" OF THE KINGDOM OF G O D ? ] Along with the interpretation which has just been re­ jected. there is another one related to it which might also be discussed here briefly. [ M a t t . In such moments it may have become clear to Jesus that he knew and saw more than did these dull observers who still refused to notice any change in the course of the world ( L u k e 12:54 ff. there is no reliably attested saying of Jesus in which he designates himself as founder 79 . but it has not yet become a historical event. Alongside such expressions as these. This relationship between these two types of sayings is to be explained by reference to the parallelism im­ plicit in the religious viewpoint mentioned above: Satan's kingdom is already broken.8 3 ] . Aside from Matt. 5. 1 6 : 1 7 f. The recent dogmatic inter­ pretation of the concept fiacrikeia rov deov speaks unhesi­ tatingly of Jesus as the "Founder" and "Establisher" of the Kingdom of God. the rule of God is already gain­ ing ground.). it is just as certain that such a conception or expression is far-removed from the sphere of Jesus' ideas. The Kingdom of God. although the question will be treated more fully below [pp. in the form that Jesus expected it. Though in retrospect we certainly can say as a judg­ ment of faith that Jesus established the Kingdom of God within his church. however.WAS JESUS THE " F O U N D E R " OF T H E KINGDOM? questions ( L u k e 1 7 : 2 0 . stands a great profusion of sayings in which the establishment of the Kingdom remains reserved for the future.. 1 2 : 2 4 ] ) . is not yet established on earth. 8 1 . whether near or distant. without bothering to inquire whether this use of the term reflects Jesus' understanding or ours instead.

Lehre Jesu."] 40. pp. the demons. He is the sower. for he never says that it is his task airoKadio-Tdvcu TV)V fiao-Lketav T£> 'lcrpa-qk. superhistorical basis for all the success of Jesus and his disciples is the fact that Satan has fallen. but this interpretation is arbitrary since Jesus' 39 4 0 39. Indeed. but all this is only preparatory. W e i s s also cites the transfiguration ( M a r k 9 : 2 ff. Such an idea is altogether impos­ sible from the standpoint of J e s u s ' outlook as a whole.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM of God's Kingdom... the present world had been handed over to him by God ( L u k e 4 : 6 ) for him to rule and enslave. who scatters the seed of the W o r d in men's hearts. and within that Kingdom? Only in one respect is Jesus more important than the sower or a mere preparer: he prepares the way for the Kingdom of God in that he is successfully engaged in driving the present imperious Ruler of aiwv OVTO5. Satan. whether in a vision of the sort that he had experienced at his baptism and tempta­ tion. [In Predict . accord­ ing to Luke 10:18 ft. and the Kingdom of G o d has dawned (angebrochen). W e n d t .) and the "analogous experience" described in John 1 2 : 3 1 a : "The result is the unshakable certainty that the power of Satan is done with. Jesus w a s convinced ( i d e w p o v v ) . as we shall see when w e attempt to answer the more far-reach­ ing question: W h a t role did Jesus assign to himself with respect to the establishment of the Kingdom of God.1 6 ) . the real. 2: 3 0 1 f. E. Previously he had held a position in heaven as one among the other angels of God. and thereby the backbone of his dominion is broken. that such w a s the case. Thus it is to be understood that his agents. Now he has fallen from heaven. Usually this decopelv is presumed to have taken place sometime during the absence of the seventy ( L u k e 1 0 : 1 .g. or in some moment of inner assurance. 9 2 f. 2 80 . also are no longer in a position to offer any resistance to the power­ ful command of Jesus or even to the mere naming of his feared name. indeed. from his position of lordship..

n. ) . the question as to how Jesus related himself to the establishment of the Kingdom of God. and on grounds of internal probability... to look for some earlier occasion. which is mythological from our standpoint. nor want to understand it in this completely supranaturalistic way of looking at things.J E S U S ' ROLE IN T H E KINGDOM own earlier success presupposes the fall of Satan ( L u k e 1 1 : 2 1 f . H o w we ourselves are to think of this struggle can only be conjectured—what alone matters is the result of the struggle as it later lived on in Jesus' consciousness. according to the testimony of the Gospels. pp. that most people will neither be satisfied with this more negative description of the concept. It is necessary. the substance of the reports in the Gospels must some­ how or other be derived from sayings of Jesus to the effect that at the beginning of his activity he had overcome Satan. 1 1 8 . The "victory over the strong one" [ M a r k 3:27 and parallels] has been regarded quite correctly by many as an allusion to the temptation. however. 4 1 6. 42 f.) . 2 2 : 3 1 f. however. however. I imagine. However one may interpret this. if one keeps in view the destruction of the kingdom of Satan ( 1 John 3 : 8 ) . at least in a preliminary w a y . ] 81 . to raise. W h a t role did he assign to himself in connection with its coming? It cannot be stressed too emphatically that. so that the Swa/xi? of the Adversary is under control and can no longer harm him or his followers ( L u k e 1 0 : 1 7 ff. then. besides overcoming Sa4 1 . [See above. the activity of Jesus. [ J E S U S ' ROLE IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE K I N G D O M ] It is important at this point. There can be no objection to speaking of Jesus as "Founder of the Kingdom of God" if one is willing to think of it in these terms just described—that is.

It is evident from a great number of passages that Jesus thinks the establishment of the /3ao-LXeia TOV 0€ov will be mediated solely by God's supernatural intervention.. which are unanimously attested by the synoptic Gospels. and in Predigt . ] 2 82 . 1 7 5 . 42 42. he has nothing in common with the Son of man. 1 5 4 ff. Thus even he cannot intervene in the development of the King­ dom of God. Even though the "Son of m a n " is assigned a prominent role in this connection. that in principle this activity is not basically different from that of the Baptist. in Twelve New Testament Studies. He has to wait. But Jesus believed that he would become the Messiah.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM tan's kingdom. But also Reginald H. his entire activity is not of messianic. W h a t is re­ ferred to here is not J e s u s ' baptizing (John 3 : 2 5 . Indeed. seems to have consisted in evayyeki^ecrOaL. except the claim that he will become the Son of m a n . but of preparatory character. The Foundations of New Testament Christology (New Y o r k : Scribner's. see John A . ) ." while the Baptist's is considered preparatory. T. in fact. Neither did the early church so regard him.6 2 . pp. Thus. just as the people have to wait. are exactly the same. announcing the coming of the Kingdom of God. Robinson. pp. Both. In this connection. 1 1 5 ff. SBT no. It must be emphasized.1 5 3 . 34 (London: SCM. Fuller. 1 5 8 . pp. Any human activity in connection with it thus is ruled out completely. 2: 7 3 3 . and Earliest Christianity ( N e w Y o r k : Harper.. 1 9 6 5 ) esp. 1 6 6 . 4 : 1 f f . but rather his call to repentance and announcement of the nearness of the Kingdom. 1 9 6 2 ) : 1 3 9 . w e shall see later on that the predicate "Son of man" is always associ­ ated in J e s u s ' self-consciousness with the idea of an "exal­ tation" ( J o h n 3 : 1 4 ) . and the early church expected him to come as such. [ W e i s s maintains and develops this interpretation of Jesus' "messi­ anic self-consciousness" below. Jesus did not regard himself as the Christ during his earthly ministry. I do not see how this activity is to be construed as "properly messianic. "The Most Primi­ tive Christology of A l l ? " . 1 9 5 9 ) . a prophet. one may say: Precisely from Jesus' own standpoint. since Jesus is now a rabbi. moreover.

It is promised to the little flock. therefore God will vindicate and redeem his elect ( L u k e 1 2 : 3 2 . For mankind. then. 6 : 3 3 . as the Didache ( 1 0 : 6 ) expresses it. 6 : 3 4 ) . [ J E S U S ' EXPECTATION AT T H E L A S T SUPPER ( L u k e 2 2 : 1 4 . he is willing to ren­ der unto Caesar what is Caesar's ( M a r k 1 2 : 1 7 ) . may grace come and the world pass a w a y ! J e s u s ' words at the Last 83 . is the situation: Even if in isolated moments of exaltation the Master glimpsed the secret progress of the rule of God. and in his eyes the fiiao-Tai. J e s u s ' attitude in general is the same as that which he assumed his disciples shared. Since he himself is averse to every revolutionary movement. And however much one may long for the days of the Son of man. who wish to force the coming of the Kingdom ( M a t t . but only by preparing oneself and acquiring the righteousness which God commends (Matt. this means: Pray that the Kingdom may come. 7. 1 8 : 7 . One is to strive to press in through the narrow gate ( L u k e 1 3 : 2 4 ) . Certainly one is to seek the /tacriAeta. to say nothing of being able to do any­ thing about it. and trust that it will come. 5 : 2 0 ) . They are irreligious. In the same way. and thus for Jesus also. commit the great­ est offense. for the Father has reserved the time and the hour to his own au­ thority (Acts 1 : 7 ) . and the kingdom of Satan pass away. but not to be anxious for the morrow ( M a t t . Or. he flees when men want to make him King (John 6 : 1 5 ) . 21:28). The Kingdom does not on that account come any more quickly. it profits nothing ( L u k e 1 7 : 2 2 ) .3 0 ) ] This. and as long as God has not yet intervened. Not even the Son and the angels know it ( M a r k 1 3 : 3 2 ) . 1 1 : 1 2 ) .JESÚS' EXPECTATION AT THE LAST SUPPER until God once again definitively takes up the rule. namely: May the Kingdom of God come.

This fiao-ikeia consists in their ruling over the twelve tribes.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM Supper show how little he thought of himself as leaving the "Kingdom of God" behind in the form of his group of dis­ ciples: he will not again drink of the fruit of the vine until the Kingdom of God has come ( L u k e 2 2 : 1 8 ) . had been obliged to wait in patience? It is unnecessary to list other passages in addition to these. still had not been established? Another farewell saying reported by Luke at the Last Supper ( L u k e 2 2 : 2 8 ff. for how were they to ascend to the " t w e l v e thrones" when he. final43. i. a spiritual claim to the rule. ( N e w Y o r k : Scribner's.) expresses this sadly: as his be­ quest to his faithful followers. ] 84 . he leaves the ^acrtXeta which his Father had made over to him in a hia6r)Kj). they could only detract from this intrinsically convincing mood. trans. " Is stronger proof needed to show that Jesus parted from this life with the painful realization that the Kingdom of God. rev. 1 9 6 6 ) . Perrin. himself. ed. Jesus had as yet experienced none of this rule himself. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. was an invisible crown.. Then and there he will drink it " a n e w . [ A futuristic interpretation of Jesus' expectation at the Last Supper is presented also by Joachim Jeremias. this blessed hope. a contractual promise. His fiacriXeia. N. he could not bequeath even to his own. bequeathed to him by God. [ W H E N DID JESUS EXPECT KINGDOM T O C O M E ? ] THE W e now ask somewhat more precisely: W h e n and how did Jesus think the actualization of the Kingdom of God would take place? W h a t will be the blessings that it brings? What are the conditions for participation in i t ? And. More than this claim.e. which he had pro­ claimed to be so near. 43 8. their spiritually more powerful Master. which he now left behind to his disciples.

W H E N DID J E S U S E X P E C T T H E KINGDOM? Iy. Luke 1 0 : 1 0 ) that in case a town should not receive them. But how is such a mission to be accounted for.1 0 5 . Its purpose w a s to multiply the preaching about the coming Kingdom. W e have no direct utterances from Jesus on this. Predigfi. W h a t could be the use of any testing or apprenticeship if it w a s not carried out under the eye of the Master? Rather. 1 0 : 1 4 . The disciples were admon­ ished ( M a t t . 1 0 0 . they were immediately and em­ phatically to abandon all further attempts to approach it 4 4 44. the sending out of the twelve has very much the character of a supporting mission. as implying a quite imminent establishment of the Kingdom. how is one to interpret the fact that already during his lifetime he sent his disciples on a mission through the land of the J e w s ? To speak of a trial or practice mission does not seem to me permissible. when did he expect the establishment of the Kingdom to occur? The words of farewell mentioned just above. Otherwise. what the fact of the mission of the disciples it­ self teaches us is expressed still more clearly in certain of the instructions to the disciples. to scatter abroad the seed of the word over larger fields than owe power alone could reach. For the question arises whether Jesus w a s always so resigned to this view. cannot by themselves provide an answer to this question. that no time be lost? Moreover. in the sense dis­ cussed above. unless one chooses to regard r/y/LKev. what will be the place of Jesus himself in this King­ dom? First of all. other than on the supposition that speed above all w a s essential. or whether there had not been mo­ ments when he hoped that he might yet live to see that great event. according to which this is to take place only after his death. But we may infer indirectly that at some earlier period in his ministry Jesus believed the coming of the Kingdom closer than turned out later to be the case. [Cf. ] 85 . pp.

9 here appears more clearly in Predig/ . It can only be explained on the supposition that no time may be lost with fruitless or problematical efforts. because of delayed. Jesus became convinced that the end had been postponed. That which was so eagerly awaited w a s not yet happening. Such procedure is anything but "pastoral. 1 1 : 1 1 f . Most of the seed had been lost immediately in indifference. W h e r e they meet with unresponsiveness. but this is precisely what Jesus had to condemn ( M a t t . the people had not yet brought forth in their ethical behavior the mature fruit of a genuine fxerdvoia. See also Hiers. thoughtlessness. how­ ever. where he says that at that the end. he became certain the lack of repentance by the people. no more energy dare be wasted there which might better be directed toward recep­ tive souls. they opposed Jesus and blasphemed the Spirit which was working in him. it was apparent that the Kingdom could not yet come. the leaders of the people explicitly rejected the purpose of God ( Luke 7 : 3 0 ) . See above." and certainly does not correspond to what we would expect from a preacher of the Gospel. The expectation of the immediate onset of the end forms the background for these i d e a s . ) . The W o r d of Jesus and his messengers had borne fruit only in a small number of hearts. pp." NT 2 ( 1 9 5 8 ) : 2 2 8 . pp. 6 6 . Kingdom of God. a messianic-revolution­ ary movement had broken out. and to one who looked more deeply. They thus committed an un45. 45 But under the pressure of certain circumstances.7 1 . [ W h a t W e i s s means f. [This kind of interpretation of the "missionary instructions" has also been supported by Dom Jacques Dupont. To be sure. In general. ] 46.2 4 4 .JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM and shake off its dust from their feet.. and in the cares and pleasures of life. To date. had been f] 2 48 86 . pp. 1 0 1 some point in Jesus' ministry. " 'Vous n'aurez pas achevé les villes d' Israel avant que le fils de l'homme ne vienne'. The people still wandered about like sheep without a shepherd. But what was worse. things had remained pretty much as they were.

. 8 : 1 2 ) . Matthew (New Y o r k : Harper. 1 9 6 1 ) . And now. It must rather be a means for bringing about the final goal. had to be removed. you sinners. 2 1 : 4 3 ) appears only in the First Gospel. so nothing good will be yours. the leaders as well as those whom they misled: Woe to you. ) unless some special deliverance occurs. but not originally in the present context: e. and that he would not live to see this happen. Even more startling is the fact that it turns out that the sons of the Kingdom. for through your folly you shall per­ ish. and do not hope. Many critics now consider it secondary: e.) can be applied to the whole people. he seized upon the audacious and paradoxical 4 7 47. pp. 3 1 4 f. Jesus concluded that the establishment by God of the messianic Kingdom could not yet take place. Ernst Lohmeyer. But from J e s u s ' religious understanding of his whole life. and for the day of tribulation and great shame for your spirit. you fools. Both from this line of thought and from pondering the relentless enmity of his opponents. and as you do not give heed to the wise. 1 9 5 6 ) .W H E N DID J E S U S E X P E C T T H E KINGDOM? forgivable sin and therefore are excluded from the King­ dom of God. know that you are prepared for the day of destruction. Some think it may be dominical.g. [The latter saying (Matt. instead you shall depart and die. 2 2 9 . The Gospel According to St. ] 87 . Das Evangelium des Matthdus. and that the Kingdom must be taken from them (Matt. And since the sin which will cause his death is at the same time the chief obstacle to the coming of the Kingdom. Thus the threat of the prophet Enoch ( 9 8 : 9 f.. for there is no ransom for you. but first must fall victim to the hatred of his opponents. 2 1 : 4 3 f . that an enormous obsta­ cle. W e r n e r Schmauch (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Filson. that you will live.g. p. the guilt of the people. those to whom the j3acri\eia belongs as the inheritance belongs to its heir. must be cast into outer darkness ( M a t t . this could not mean the failure of his work. Floyd V . for you are prepared for the day of the great judgment. ed.

Jesus does not say what would have been so easy to say if that had been his meaning: wrkp vpSiv. the people themselves. 6 3 . Because J e s u s ' 48 4 49 48. which are miss­ i n g in [ C o d e x ] D and i t .) Only in this way is it comprehensible that a completely 88 . but. in my judgment. nevertheless. this is admittedly spoken from the viewpoint of covenant sacrifice. and in any case are influenced by Paulinism.2 0 . He must give up his life wrkp T T O X X W V as a \vrpov. Ordinarily. Only such an interpretation as this can explain how it is that there is no mention of the saving significance of Christ's death for the church in the earliest Jewish-Christian community. (The documents of this community. J e s u s ' death is first of all the sin offering for the people. so also must his body be killed and his blood flow imep troWav (Mark 14:24). 2. The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge and London: Macmillan.JESUS' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM idea—or the idea seized him—that his death itself should be the ransom for the people otherwise destined to destruc­ tion ( M a r k 1 0 : 4 5 ) . At the same time. Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. 4 9 ." That reading first appears in Paul ( 1 Cor. 11:24 f. 1 8 9 5 ) . the " m a n y " on whose behalf Jesus offers up his life is interpreted to mean the followers and disciples of Jesus. even the words at the Last Supper (according to the synoptic tradi­ tion represented by M a r k ) still say only that as the bread is broken and the wine poured out.) and in the non-genuine words in Luke 2 2 : 1 9 b . as he had the paralytic and the woman apprehended in adultery. "for you. But why would they need a ransom? Had he not promised them upon their repentance the sure possession of the Kingdom? Had he not inspired them. with the certainty that their sins were forgiven and thus formed no obstacle to their entrance into the Kingdom? And. app. vol. which naturally benefits all members of the covenant. which the many. could not offer. include only the Epistle of James and the sources of the Gospels—the Logia and the "Ebionite source of Luke"— but not 1 Peter.

W H E N DID J E S U S E X P E C T T H E

KINGDOM?

unavoidable death is thus inserted into the chain of divine Salvation-decrees [Heilsratschliisse~\, a further conclusion is apparent. His death is only something preliminary, a transitional stage to a heavenly existence with the Father, where he will be installed in heavenly splendor. This state of exaltation, also, is not permanent, but needs continue only until the repentance which Jesus was unable to obtain from the people—until the reformation which the Baptist initiated, and which Jesus carried forward but left unfinished—is brought to completion through the preaching of repentance by his followers (Acts 3:19 ff.). After that, he will come again with all the magnificence and splendor that had been expected of the Messiah since the days of Daniel. When will that be? W h e n is the Kingdom of God coming? So ask the Pharisees, half curiously, half in ridicule ( L u k e 1 7 : 2 0 f . ) . Jesus' answer is difficult to interpret, for the words oi /¿era. TrapaTrjpy¡o-eü)<; seem at first glance to constitute a more precise definition of epx^rai: One accordingly expects some kind of characterization of the Kingdom of God itself, or of the manner of its coming. From this feeling arises the interpretation still represented by Weizsäcker
50

different viewpoint with regard to the Last Supper from Paul's is still to be found in the Didache (10). 50. It is incomprehensible to me how W e n d t (Lehre Jesu, 2: 542 ff. [Hans Hinrich W e n d t , Die Lehre Jesu (Göttingen, 1 8 8 6 ) , trans. J . W i l s o n , The Teaching of Jesus (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1 8 9 2 ) , 2: 2 6 5 f f . ] ) can say that Jesus' certainty of his resurrection is no proof of his special messianic self-consciousness, but rather that he only applied to himself the same idea of the resurrection which he preached to his followers. Such a view ignores the basic difference between the raising of Jesus and that of his disciples, which is that the latter, if they die prior to the coming of the Kingdom, will be raised at the messianic judgment, whereas Jesus w i l l depart from Hades at once. To be sure, the Ebionite source of Luke, which seems to have modified essentially the idea of the Kingdom of God (Luke 2 3 : 4 3 ) , assumed a direct entrance into heaven for the faithful also, but this is scarcely what Jesus meant. [ W e i s s seems to have changed his mind about this point later. See below, n. 1 0 0 . ]

89

J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E K I N G D O M

and W e n d t : not with ostentatious display, which is essen­ tially the same as Luther's; not with outward manifesta­ tions. But the word irapaTrip-qo-is can mean nothing of the kind. After all, to adhere to the literal meaning of the word, the TrapaTrjprjo-a; takes place on the side of the waiting peo­ ple. This is indeed surprising, but Luke 9 : 3 9 illustrates the same grammatical usage: KCU 18OI> Trvevpa Xapftdvei avrbv
Kal €^ai^)VT]<; KpdC,€L xal cnrapdcrcret avrbv

/U,era

d<j)pov.

Here, likewise, fierd drfjpov refers to an attendant circum­ stance which, strictly speaking, characterizes not the afflict­ ing demon, but the afflicted invalid. So, too, in the passage in question, Luke 17:20 f. Here all that is said is that the Kingdom of God does not come in such a way that one can observe its coming by means of certain signs. Usually it is assumed that all outward events in connection with the coming of the Kingdom of God are here repudiated, so that it comes only in an " i n w a r d " manner. But this is impossible if one considers J e s u s ' outlook as a whole. For example, as we will see, the entire old world will break u p with the coming of the Kingdom. Does not this imply outward events? The word napaTrjpiqcn.? is borrowed from astro­ nomical terminology, where it is used, for instance, in speaking of the observation of certain signs by which one detects an imminent heavenly event, such as a solar eclipse. It is used in this sense here, also. It constitutes a pronounce­ ment against the method of the apocalyptist. T h e apocalyptist feels that by combining prophecies and deciphering the signs of the times he is able to determine from trapaTrjpr]o-L<; how long it will be until the Kingdom of God comes. Jesus rejects this whole procedure, as the following discourse ( L u k e 1 7 : 2 1 ff.) shows. One cannot observe its coming in advance. One cannot say: Look here! Look there! See, there are the decisive signs! To illustrate how false this whole method is, he cites the fact that despite all their

90

W H E N DID J E S U S E X P E C T T H E

KINGDOM?

calculations and combinations it has escaped the Pharisees that the decisive beginnings of the rule of God are already present in their midst. And now Jesus shows how suddenly and surprisingly the coming of the Son of man will take shape, overthrowing all speculations. This difficult saying, therefore, is parallel in substance to that of Mark 1 3 : 3 2 : "But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." This is a matter of religious principle. So long as the time of the end can somehow be calculated, the establishment of the Kingdom remains a human work. But for Jesus it is unqual­ ifiedly the work of God, and therefore to be left to God in every respect.
51

Moreover, he regarded another matter as thoroughly settled. Whatever uncertainty there may be as to the exact time of the Second Coming, it is only conceivable within the lifetime of the generation among which Jesus worked. This does not contradict what has been said before. The end is to occur sometime within the important period of the next ten, twenty, or thirty years; it should not be stated any more precisely than this. This positing of a terminus post quern non, however, is not based at all on combination and calculation, but is an immediate intuitive religious cer­ tainty.
5 1 . Part of the interpretation which I set forth in Studien und Kritiken, 1 8 9 2 , pp. 2 4 7 f. (see below, n. 5 3 ) , is marked by a lack of clarity which I hope may be overcome in the discussion above. I owe this clarification substantially to a conversation with Professor Dr. Leo in Gottingen. [ W e i s s develops this interpretation somewhat more fully in Predigt , pp. 8 5 - 8 8 . There he suggests that Luke 1 7 : 2 0 a is a "trick question" by which the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus. They wanted him to state when the Kingdom would come, so that when it failed to do so, they could then expose him as a fraud. For further discussion of Luke 1 7 : 2 0 - 2 1 , see Hiers, Kingdom of Cod, pp. 2 2 - 2 9 . Jacques W i n a n d y , O.S.B., interprets Mark 1 3 : 3 2 basically as W e i s s does here: "Le Logion de I'lgnorance," Revue Biblique 75 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 6 3 - 7 9 . ]
1

91

It is described exactly in the sixth chapter of Revelation: The sun will be darkened. The parousia speech in Luke 17 [vv. 2 Pet. pp. pp. 1 8 9 2 . but the decisive signs are enumer­ ated in M a r k 1 3 : 2 4 . 22 ff. and the stars will fall from the 53 52. 3 : 9 ] . 92 . so too will the appearance of the Son of man take place before the whole world. rather. [ T H E COMING TRANSFORMATION] 52 W e now ask how Jesus conceived of the events related to God's establishment of the Kingdom. suffered. 1 0 5 . It begins with wars and insurrection. he will remain away long enough to leave the people ample time for repentance and regeneration [Cf. Cf. Certainly the suddenness of its coming is the main point of the comparison. [Cf. the moon will no longer give its light. First of all.2 5 a . That it is a matter of a world-wide event is also evidenced by the other parousia saying which can be sifted out of M a r k 1 3 . but its universality and destructiveness are also important. and that he will make things clear between them and himself. It is only natural and human in this regard that Jesus w a s not think­ ing about his return at some distant time. Therefore.1 1 1 ] Studien 53. It will then be comparable to the deluge in the time of Noah.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM It means that Jesus will carry forward his work with these men with whom he had begun it. visible to all. In these terms w e can see how the postponement of the end and the different statements concerning it may be rendered intelligible. and died. 2 4 6 . Prediga. "Die Komposition der synoptischen Wiederkunftsrede. just as light­ ning flashes across the whole sky. the establishment of the Kingdom will not be accomplished somewhere in a corner.2 7 0 ." und Kritiken. but about the men for whom he lived. 9. that he must make good his word to them in good things as in evil.] brings up a number of points.

The answer to the disciples' question in Mark 13:4 f. . 5. For it will not be able to bring the things that have been promised to the righ­ teous in their appointed times. however strange it may seem to us. . 1 9 : 2 8 ) . . . non capiet portare quae in temporibus justis repromissa sunt. 2 1 : 1 . W h a t is pictured in these words is neither more nor less than what is drawn in rather more dramatic colors in Rev. [ T h e passage cited here is taken from the R S V Apocrypha. 6 : 1 2 . Naturally. the field where the good has been sown will not come. everything must be­ come new ( R e v . As it now stands. .. too. has been sown.THE COMING TRANSFORMATION heavens. this land will no longer be a parade ground for for54. W h e n the Kingdom of God has come. w e should avoid at the outset any kind of reformulation of this idea. In any case. arising in new splendor. Jesus. the place where the evil has been sown does not pass away. because this age is full of sad­ ness and infirmities. . si ergo . 54 This event of a new creation and transformation of the world is most clearly intimated by Jesus in the word iraXtyyeveaia ( M a t t . seems to have expected a new heaven and a new earth. . 2 Pet. non venial ( = veniet oi <?\0flj ager. 4 Ezra [2 Esdras] 4 : 2 6 ff. Seminatum est enim malum. . The J e w i s h author of 4 Ezra had already expressed the standard idea: . If therefore . And the land which will produce this never-withering vine is the promised land. is found in verse 2 9 : OTCLV iS^re ravra yivofieva yLvaxrKeTt o n e y y v s icrnp em dvpcus. non discesserit locus ubi seminatum est malum. 3 : 1 0 ) . it expresses what the early Christians meant: This old world cannot assimilate the Kingdom of God. quoniam plenum maestitia est saeculum hoc et inftrmatibus. . For the evil .~\ 93 . ubi seminatum est bonum. the Latin text given by W e i s s reads as follows: jestinans festinat saeculum pertransire. . . . . he declared that he would drink of the fruit of the vine anew in the Kingdom of God his Father ( M a r k 1 4 : 2 5 ) . . the aiwv piXXcov.1 7 : the breakup of the old world which will bury even the temple in its ruins [ M a r k 1 3 : 2 ] . the age is hastening swiftly to its end.

Indeed. if they are to enjoy the treasures which are insusceptible to rust and moths ( M a t t . Mark 1 2 : 2 5 ) that they will then be like the angels in heaven. p. much in the same way as the passage cited in Enoch demonstrates the Pal­ estinian view: they will be "spiritual. ." TrvevfiartKoi. enjoying eternal and undying life.5 6 ) : 1 5 1 . ] 56. . 1 5 : 5 0 : " . then naturally they may not bring with them their old nature of flesh and blood ( 1 Cor. Jesus himself stated positively ( M a t t . (poteris) intelligere incorruptionem. 6 : 1 9 f .3 0 7 . "Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom." NTS 2 ( 1 9 5 5 . 5 : 9 . Abba (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. But even the peoples who are to live in this Kingdom must also participate in that transfor­ mation. " W h y have you (angels) forsaken the high holy everlasting heaven? . Eucharistic Words. . see Joachim Jeremías. Charles: "How. See also Jeremías.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM eign armies or a colony for exploitation by fortune-seeking rulers. for all generations of the world. if they wish to sit at the heavenly banquet. Therefore I made no women for you. 1 7 2 . Weiss's text reads: quomodo. pp. 1 5 is much the same as Weiss's: "This. Enoch 1 5 : 3 . while you were yet spiritual. the new revelation: the change of the living and the dead takes place immediately at the Parousia" (Abba. and partaking of eternal life. 5 : 8 ) . 1 9 6 6 ) . 1 9 1 3 ) . however. 2: 565. the meek who ardently long for it but now are pariahs in this land which. presupposes (at least in the case of those who live to see the Parousia) a "transformation. you denied yourselves with women. . should it be possible for a mortal in a corruptible world to understand the ways of the Incorruptible?" Robert Henry Charles. . but the sole possession of the Trpati<s. reprinted in Jeremías' book. But before. holy. then. you were spiritual. W i t h respect to 1 Cor. If they are to see God ( M a t t . Cf. flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of G o d " ) : "and how can one who is already worn out by the corrupt world understand incorruption?" ( 4 Ezra 4 : 1 1 ) . is theirs. .7 ) .. 3 0 7 ) . Jeremías' interpretation of 1 Cor." as 5 5 66 55. by divine right. Such a situation. qui existís in corrupto saeculo. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament (Ox­ ford: Clarendon. p. .5 9 . 2 9 8 . 1 5 : 5 0 ff." 94 . exalted above all earthly needs (cf. then seems to be the mystery. [Translation from the RSV. ) .

e. Matt. i. and—departing from the Johannine text (dvcodev)—read approximately as follows: idv JIT) dvayevvrjdrJTe. [Cf. 1 5 1 ff.] 58. " instead of on its own terms. which is also echoed in 1 Pet. 1 8 : 3 . 7.THE COMING TRANSFORMATION Paul says ( 1 Cor. John clearly identifies the avwOev y e w ^ m ? in verse 6 with what the Christian experiences in baptism. Justin. They no longer need a transformation. Ps. 1 5 : 5 2 ) .-Clement. pp. But one can hardly dispute its basic authenticity. 2 3 . with what s8 59 57. To be sure. 1 9 : 2 8 ] . and have become TrvevfiaraDid Jesus express himself concerning the mystery of the transformation de­ scribed by Paul in 1 Cor.. Thomas 46b. The expression fiaoiKtLa T&V oipavQv makes me think it unlikely. Apology 1. 26. 6 . because it has to do only with those who come into the Kingdom of God through death and resurrection.? Possibly one can appeal here to John 3 : 3 . you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. it is used in connection with baptism. They must in some w a y partici­ pate in the Trakiyyeveo-ia [Matt. 6 1 . Whether this saying comes from the Logia is not certain. 1 8 9 1 ) . Cf." (Cf. 1 5 : 5 1 f. "Unless you are born again. 95 . Indeed. Clement of Alexandria. The suspicion that is raised against it is really based upon the fact that the saying is explained in terms of Paul or the Pauline " J o h n . 1:3. the question arises whether one would not do better to interpret this term as referring to the transforma­ tion of individuals ( a s -yeveaia seems to s u g g e s t ) . W i l h e l m Bousset. since they have already laid aside the crapf in death. or to the saying underlying it. rather than the world. Homily 1 1 . Die Evangeliencilate Justins des Martyrers in ihrem Wert fur die Evangelienkritik (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. In Titus 3 : 5 . Is there any other saying of Jesus bearing on this point? W e cannot apply his saying in the discussion with the Sadducees ( M a r k 1 2 : 2 5 ) here. ov (JLT) eio-e\dr)Te ei? TT)V (iacrikeiav TU>V ovpava>v. ) 59. It seems to me that there is evidence'" that a saying of the Lord was in circulation in the second century. 8 2 . Exhortation to the Greeks 9.

By this he means the completely new beginning of an ethical-religious life. 9 2 ff. for the fundamental transformation of life which he demanded of his disciples was consistently represented as one's own act without any mention of the Holy Spirit. must experience a new procreation. 5 : 1 7 . then. Everyone who wishes to enter the Kingdom of God and see its blessings. Let me now raise the question whether the dvayzvvdcr&'cu spoken of by Jesus does not refer in­ stead to the transformation of the individual at the Parousia.] 6 1 . } 1 96 .J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E 6 0 KINGDOM Paul calls Kcuvi) KTIO-I? in 2 Cor. pp. [Cf. 1 8 8 8 ) . that this deeply reli­ gious term.1 1 3 . Must one assume. Predigt . a second birth: made from a being of flesh and blood. had been used by Jesus merely as a figure of speech: to be transformed as radically as one who is begotten a second time? This would be an unwarranted spiritualization of his real meaning. In any case. which means an actual transformation by God. [See above. is the Judgment It is not certain whether this fol­ lows the destruction of the old world or precedes it. Is this the same meaning Jesus had in mind? It seems unlikely. 1 1 1 . pp. [ T H E JUDGMENT AND THE OF THE CONDEMNED] FATE Another major event. it must be examined before w e ask about the positive side of salvation in the Kingdom of God. which is there the moment the Spirit of God enters as a new factor into the life of the individual Christian and begins to transform it. he must be made into a nvevfia- 10. Cf. Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geisles nach der populdren Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit u»d nach der Lehre des Apostels Paulas (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprechr. Hermann Gunkel. There can be no 01 60. next to the transformation of the world.

the immanent Icùrj. Brill. Here it is presupposed that those to whom the words 82 62. For them the only things that really matter are the ideas of the present ySacrtXeta. 4 7 . M a r k 9:43 ff. 1 1 9 . The representatives of this approach support it by reference to such thoroughly secondary passages as M a r k 9:1 and Matt. H e w a s in complete agreement w i t h the Baptist on this point. urging that in J e s u s ' preaching the Judgment is thought of as the conclusion to the "present Kingdom of God. Schmoller. and the /cpicriç of the present time. J . If we turn to the accredited sayings of Jesus. since the decisive words iv Svvdfiei are not to be found in the parallels. 1 3 : 3 7 . 1 8 9 1 ) . as a beginning and preparation for the "Kingdom of completion. This reworking of J e s u s ' idea is of the greatest historical importance—for the first time it made possible a Christian world-history—but it is nevertheless a transformation of the original idea. This conception of the o-wréXeia TOV aîaivoç is exactly parallel to the Johannine conception of the ècrxaTTj rjp. Rom. There will be many who will attack this thesis. The Matthean passages are written from the viewpoint of the later generation which distinguished the present fiacnXeia TOV Xpio-Tov from the future Kingdom of God. Even Ernst Issel." One sees that here too the attempt to distinguish two stages in the advent of the Kingdom of God results in hopeless complication. Mark 9 : 1 can prove nothing. 97 .THE J U D G M E N T AND T H E F A T E OF T H E CONDEMNED doubt that Jesus regarded this Judgment as prior to the establishment of the Kingdom. belongs with these. which can prove nothing. however." occurring at the o-wrékeia TOV aitovos (TOVTOV). especially instructs us most clearly as to the relationship between Judgment and the establishment of the Kingdom. p. Die Lehre vom Reicbe Gotles im Neuen Testament (Leiden: E. and in any case are a later Paulinizing addition (cf. opposes this distinction in a first-rate manner. 1 : 4 ) .5 0 .épa. 4 3 . They both speak of this end of things as a definite but still distant time.

"ppvy/ios does not mean chattering with cold. since J e s u s ' sayings on this point are not uniform. 1 1 2 .. N. Buchanan. the ancient inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. ) . or.1 8 9 2 ) . 1 . the "peo­ ple of Nineveh from the time of Jonah. 1 8 9 1 . regard it as an objective description of the 0 3 04 6 3 . that the way to life or to the f3ao-t. Neutestamentliche Theologie. the Queen of Sheba from the days of Solomon ( M a t t . This much alone is clear: the most grievous part of their punish­ ment is exclusion from the Kingdom of God. ) . " In Matt. And now the alternative is put to them: either to enter into life ( v .\tia leads through the Judgment. oder. he proposed. Historical Account of the Teaching of Jesus and of Primitive Christianity According to the New Testament Sources (Edinburgh: T. ] 2 98 . in which the fate of the individual is to be decided. ) . [Trans. therefore. 1 : 2 0 0 . Clark. Instead.] 64. where there will be wailing and chattering of teeth. even the other nations. therefore. 8 : 1 1 f . but also the (resurrected) dead. Geschichtliche Darstellung der Lehren Jesu und des Urchristenthums nach den neutestamentlichen Quellen (Halle: Strien. This is ex­ pressed in the imagery of the parables: some will be thrust out into outer darkness. Luke 1 1 : 3 1 f. This is the dark and dreadful back side of the bright and cheerful picture of salvation in the Kingdom of God described in the same saying: the elect in the bright warm banquet hall at the messianic table with the patriarchs ( M a t t . 2 5 : 3 1 f. 1 : 2 0 4 f. & T. Very little can be said with precision concerning the fate of the condemned. It is evident. The formula which is more frequently utilized is derived from this image. [In Predigt W e i s s noted that he no longer considered this interpre­ tation correct. W i l l i b a l d Beyschlag. 1 2 : 4 1 f. One may not. n. but gnashing in rage and despair" (p. New Testament Theology. Not only will those who are still alive participate in this Judgment.. 1 8 9 5 ) . all the nations even pass before the judgment throne of the Son of man.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM are addressed will live to see the coming of the Kingdom. 45: ets TTJV fiao-ikeiav TOV deov) with a mutilated member or to be thrown into the yeevva in full possession of all their members.

like his contemporaries. 1 0 0 . presents a special case. in contrast to the bosom of Abraham. which is also from this source). 46. the messianic realm of joy. ) . Perthes. Isaiah 6 6 : 2 4 ] . cf. A . This would then be still another development of the idea of the Kingdom of God.THE J U D G M E N T AND T H E F A T E OF T H E CONDEMNED place of the damned. i. but as a fiery furnace. 2 5 : 4 1 . and is thus probably an addition by the revisor [cf. The parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus is derived from the Jewish-Christian (Ebionite) special source of Luke (cf." SJT 23 ( 1 9 7 0 ) : 7 7 . Luke 2 3 : 4 3 .e. rather. which originated in the later Jerusalem community. Mark 9 : 4 8 has no parallels.. annihilated. Of course this was no meta­ phor. and where. More often this place is pictured not as one of cold darkness. Perhaps this source already has the idea (Luke 2 3 : 4 2 . p. "The Problem Posed by the Severe Sayings Attributed to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. 46 (eternal fire. according to the following reading: ev rfj (SaoiXcia aov) that since Christ's ascension. but pass over directly after death into the final state of messianic bliss (cf. The former is assumed in Mark 8 : 3 5 . evidently w a s thinking of the gruesome valley near Jerusalem [ G e h e n n a ] in which the Israelites once sacrificed their children to Moloch. 2 5 : 4 1 . Paradise (Luke 2 3 : 4 3 .] 99 ..9 1 .9 1 ) . or subjected to an eternal tor­ ment. i. 1 3 6 . the great Judgment was to take place. Fairhurst's own position is much like Weiss's. see Alan M. Luke 1 6 : 2 3 ff. Eine vorkanonische Ueberliejerung des Lukas in Eiangelium und Aposlelgeschichte [Gotha: F. Mark 9 : 4 8 . 65 6 5 . 1 8 9 1 ] ) . Likewise in Luke 1 6 : 2 3 ff. following the ancient Israelite view. seems in general to represent the view that the righteous do not have to wait for the messianic Judgment. and Luke 16:23 ff. according to the usual Jewish expecta­ tion (cf. but rather of a tormented existence. It is more probable that Jesus. had in mind a final extermination and annihilation of the persistently disobedient. Enoch 9 0 . Jesus. 8 : 1 1 f f . the latter in Matt.. Fairhurst. The sayings are ambiguous in regard to the question whether the condemned were ultimately to be burned up completely. were quite possibly first formulated by the redactor of that Gospel. apart from its relationship with that imagery. under the Kvpios rfjs So£7js (James 2 : 1 f . The verses in Matt. Paul Feine. This writing. the messianic Kingdom is already established in heaven. To which prospect Jesus inclined cannot be said with certainty. eternal punishment). ) . For a good re­ view and critique of recent interpretations of Jesus' ideas concerning the fate of the condemned. [See below. "Hades" is not a place merely of a shadowy.e. Matt. n.

is perfectly natural in Jewish thought. They lie who accuse Jesus of alliance with the devil or of being possessed. however strange it may seem to us. But if at that time there is still no repentance. a matter of conscious rebellion. 1 2 : 2 2 . But these are only the leaders of the people. i. and thereby affront God himself. but rather. the com­ panion of tax collectors and sinners—but these words are aimed only against his person. they have reviled the Son of man—he is a glutton and a wine-boozer. and thereby ransomed them from the otherwise inevitable death penal­ ty. therefore. 100 . so they impugn it. Sins done in error can be forgiven. the offer­ ing will be forfeited. the conscious denial that the Holy Spirit is active in the work of Jesus. which. which the messianic judge com­ missioned by God will count as sins done in ignorance or as misdemeanors—if the people will repent for them at least at the time of Jesus' resurrection. Nevertheless. is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. To be sure. both in this world and the next. It is not yet.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM Absolute clarity as to the kind of punishment to be meted out cannot. not against God himself. Anyone who has ever seriously considered the characteristic severity and forcefulness of Jesus' thought will be astounded not that he actually de­ clared a certain degree of sin to be unforgivable. The great mass of the people have not ventured this insolence. but only of foolish blindness. it is possible to recognize in J e s u s ' view a distinction of degrees or types of sin. They cannot dispute the superhuman power of J e s u s ' activities.e. therefore.. Jesus even recognized a distinction between forgivable and unforgiv­ able sins [ M a t t . and the people abandoned to destruc­ tion.3 2 ] . for through the sacrifice of his life Jesus made the necessary sin offering for the people. that he extended the limits of what constitute forgivable sins as much as he did. W h a t is unforgivable. be hoped for.

it was opposed to. 12:45 Jesus is describing his experience with this genera­ tion. and if originally all the afflic­ tions which Jesus healed were traced. to the 86 66. for Jesus. ultimately. pp. 23 ff. what did he understand the impending but still future Kingdom of God to mean? And what did he wish his hearers to understand by it? It is generally conceded that Jesus adopted this concept primarily and predominant­ ly in the sense in which it was understood by his contempo­ raries and without correcting it. 1 1 . if w e note how the demons regard him as the one who has come to destroy them. Die Pharisäer und Sadducäer.THE M E A N I N G OF S A L V A T I O N IN T H E KINGDOM Considered in this light. 101 . Certainly this is true. the sayings of Jesus concerning sentencing to destruction seem more understandable and milder than when w e add in modern or Pauline concepts of sin and retribution. But if in Matt. But this tells us little. Julius Wellhausen. the ßacriXeia TOV deov is set over against that of Satan. THE MEANING OF S A L V A T I O N IN THE KINGDOM OF GOD W e now ask: If Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of God without generally defining this conception more closely for his hearers. Matt. Untersuchung 1 8 7 4 ) . Bamberg. and in this connection uses the idea of demon exor­ cism. The question arises whether this is only a passing thought or whether it is fundamental to J e s u s ' way of think­ ing. so long as w e do not know what. It has already been shown that in an important passage. 1 2 : 2 8 . Few passages yield any direct evidence. Eine zur inneren jüdischen Geschichte (Greifswald: L. But what w a s this sense? W e l l h a u s e n expressed the prevail­ ing viewpoint when he said that the Malkuth is always to to be conceived antithetically: the Kingdom of God in op­ position to another ßaaCKeia.

. 102 . But what was expressed here in principle. 8 : 1 6 . 7 8 The deliverance of the people from their enemies and oppressors belongs in this context.1 7 . TOV 6ZOV this was to be a matter of foremost importance. i. w i t h only his angels and celestial powers. then we realize that Jesus conceived of his work as a struggle against Satan. but God will establish the Kingdom of God without human hands. horse. was shown in prac­ tice in John 6 : 1 5 . perhaps even as glorious a kingdom as David's had been. Issel. is nothing more than the self-evi­ dent consequence of what has previously been stated. pp. for they have lost their power ( L u k e 1 0 : 1 8 ) .J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM influence of Satan ( M a t t . Luke 1 3 : 1 6 ) . 41 ff. CI." except perhaps Luke 4 : 6 . Yet there can be no doubt that in the fiao-Ckda. 68.. if the Rule of God primarily brings release from all affliction of body and soul (from all tristitia: Assumption of Moses. then the evil spirits to whom the people have been subjected must give w a y . To hope for the Kingdom of God in the transcendental 9 67." This opposition also determines the meaning of the salvation brought by the Kingdom of God. or rider. Some may think that the earthly-political character of the idea must be denied in view of the story about tribute money [ M a r k 1 2 : 1 7 ] . Luke 2 2 : 2 5 expresses only great disdain. 1 0 : 2 ) . John 8 : 3 2 .. 43 f." and the opposition between God and mammon as really between God and Satan. As we have seen already. 1 2 : 3 1 . 69. There are no direct say­ ings of Jesus in which the Roman rule is represented as Satan's work. H o w can one expect even the slightest inclination on J e s u s ' part towards any kind of revolutionary act? By force and insur­ rection men might establish a Davidic monarchy.e. thinks similarly on this point.. and finally emerges clearly in the repri­ mand of Matt. 1 1 : 1 1 f. 1 John 3:8. Lehre vom Reiche Gotles. between the Kingdom of God and Satan.

the formula "to possess the Kingdom of God. This idea obviously had political implica­ tions (though Jesus did not stress them). He promises those who yearn for righteousness a complete deliverance from their oppressors and the full restoration of their rights. 70 By way of counter-evidence. But these are only 70. in Luke 1:68 f. 3 7 : 1 1 . Josephus noted as a characteristic of Pharisaic piety that they would rather let themselves be killed than join with the cunning power-politics of the Sadducees." or "to enter the Kingdom of God" means nothing but this: In this Kingdom. but that only God should bring it about. the danger of riches to the soul. But when he promises the 7rpaet5 ( M a t t . "arisen in new glory and splendor" (Ps. this meant that there at last they were to be masters. especially that of Zechariah.). pp.. 5:5) that they were to inherit the land of promise. and so forth. the land of promise. 121 ff. [In Predigfi Weiss also cites Enoch 90:20. This is not to say that he did not believe in any kind of political restoration. will be possessed and ruled by t h e m . where now they are still ser­ vants. ) . And. Enoch 5 : 1 7 ) . This is how the JewishChristian psalms in the first two chapters of Luke under­ stand it. A person of Jesus' markedly religious temperament would necessarily have agreed with them completely. finally. He points out that the expressions "entering the Kingdom" and "inheriting the Kingdom" are derived from the ancient idea of "entering" or "inheriting" the Promised Land. 7 1 75. as before him the Psalmist ( 3 7 : 1 1 ) and Enoch (5:1) had promised they would. namely Israel. " W h a t place is left for the Roman Empire?" (Predigt'.] 103 . someone might point to the sayings regarding the worthlessness of earthly goods.THE M E A N I N G OF S A L V A T I O N IN T H E KINGDOM sense that Jesus understood it and to undertake revolution are as different as fire and water. risen anew in more beautiful splendor. for if the Messiah and the elect were to rule Palestine. He cites Daniel 7 as basis for the expectation that the righteous would share the task of "ruling" with the Messiah in the Kingdom (Luke 22: 29 f . cf.

pure. Jesus w a s so sparing and. and spiritual condition. reserve and sobriety. namely. but with modesty. He did not allow himself or his disciples to revel in these prospects. 6:19 f. admoni­ tions to detach one's self completely from alwv ovro? in order to be the more fully prepared for the aloyv fiiWcuv. apocalyptists and his contemporaries. the d-qcravpoi ( M a t t . proves nothing about the so-called earthly or outward splendor of the future age. sitting on the throne and judging—even this is meant concretely and literally—all these things will be re­ fined and transfigured by the heavenly So£a of God. the joys of the great messianic banquet. exaltation and power. And then. They will still be there in the new world. would be to fail to recognize one of the important characteristics in the portrait of our Lord which makes him tower over prophets. His greatness con­ sisted in the fact that he followed the traditional scheme. He kept his eye all the more seriously on that which according to his entire religious and ethical sensibility was most crucial: what w a s genuinely religious in the Kingdom of God. in whose light all things will shine in splendor. that in these things which con­ cern the "color" of the messianic salvation. un­ worldly. But these "external-political goods"—which are usually mentioned with a shrug of the shoulders and without understanding— are by no means absent from Jesus' picture of the future.) will be opened. but all that clings to things of flesh and blood. and ethical preparation for its coming. therefore.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM intended as warnings for the time of preparation. because all these valuable things will be present there in a completely different. This devaluation of the goods of this alav. will have dropped away. as it were. and sin and impurity. in other words. 104 . And who would really wish to venture that these are only fantasies which have nothing to do with serious thought? To do so. so conventional. certainly.

can be understood in neither its negative nor its positive aspects if it is detached from its religious. however.In accordance with the whole basic re­ ligious stance of Jesus. 2 as teacher of the orthodox Jesus as gen­ eschatological 105 . a sum­ mons to turn away from " w o r l d l i n e s s . The new righteousness which Jesus demands of his disciples. After the previous discussion. without taking into account the apparatus which serves to explain them. this repentance is understood equal­ ly if not more as a negative and ascetic ideal than as a really positive moral one. To those who would serve peace here. [ T H E ETHICS OF PREPARATION] How pure and separate from the things of aiwv OVTOÇ Jesus considered this communion with God to be. because the Kingdom of God has drawn 71 72 7 1 . ] 72. It is a serious and powerful summons to repentance. 5 : 2 0 ) . but rather the BLKOLLOO-VPT) which is the condition for en­ trance into the Kingdom of God ( M a t t .THE E T H I C S OF PREPARATION He sounded the mellowest tones.e. as sons of God. edifying for all time. to inten­ sive preparation for the Kingdom of God. " in a word. 1 3 8 . when he promised comfort to those in sorrow and to the pure in heart that they should see God. it is hardly necessary to say again that the "righteousness of the Kingdom of God" does not signify the ethical perfection which members of the Kingdom possess or achieve in the Kingdom of God. it is promised that there. Therefore the rationalism which conceived of Jesus only a new ethics acted just as unhistorically as those who hold revelation-faith which regarded the ethical prescriptions of erally valid revelations. i.. 12.1 4 0 . Predigt . who wait with him for the King­ dom of God and hope to enter it. in this case. its eschatological con­ t e x t : "Repent. appears first of all. It is the result of fierdvoLa. they may glorify God in the company of the angels. pp. in the other side of Jesus' preaching. [Cf.

and especial­ ly their simplicity and unfailing accuracy of perception. For. They are to become like chil­ dren ( M a t t . the demand is valid for all who hear it. Basically. 1 3 3 . himself. Just as in the Lord's Prayer the petition for the coming of the Kingdom of God stands at the beginning. 2 1 : 3 2 ) . but it is a still distant one. repent­ ance involves something else. 1 8 : 4 ) in terms of the requirement of humility and lowliness. 5:20 as " m o r a l i t y " in the modern sense of the word? It is. questions the appropriateness modernizing formula: infra. passionate desire for the Kingdom is to be the mood that governs all else." before all else. as Matt. not merely for tax collectors and sinners. 73 But is this really the characteristic of children that Jesus had in mind when he set them up as a model ? Is it not rather their lack of self-consciousness and directness. This is the meaning of Jesus' demand for repentance. pp. which must be taken quite seriously. much more is required of the great mass of ordinary people. which is just as much a new relation­ ship to God as it is to the world. so thor­ oughly colored by the religious that we would do better to speak of a new piety. [Weiss. in any case. "first. But for them. which can be reached only if one gives up everything else for it. note carefully.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM near." The nearness of the Kingdom is the motive for the new morality (cf.5 says. gifts which are natural in children but can be granted to 73. Matthew explains this ( M a t t . Can one really con­ strue this "righteousness" of Matt. ] of this kind of 106 . they have to turn about (tVio-Tpe<£eiv) to the way of righteousness ( M a t t . Luke 1 2 : 5 7 — 1 3 : 9 ) . as Luke 1 3 : 1 . The Kingdom of God is the highest good. as the parables of the pearl and the treasure in the field show. The latter's task is relatively easy: they have only to make the fundamental break. 1 8 : 2 ) . 6:33 properly explains. here also. All have need of repentance.1 3 5 . indeed. Its motto is: Seek the Kingdom of God ( L u k e 1 2 : 3 1 ) .

8 ) . Col. That mammon is named in the passage is directly related to the fact that as Jesus saw it wealth is the strongest tie that chains men to this world. evi­ dent throughout Jesus' outlook. which is the altogether wonderful thing? But the same Matthew has arranged several groups of sayings in the Sermon on the Mount in an extremely per­ ceptive order which certainly corresponds to Jesus' mean­ ing. This evidently was to mean that just as man needs a true. already feel themselves to be citizens of heaven (Phil. One can serve God and through such service show himself worthy of the coming age ( L u k e 2 0 : 3 5 ) only if he tears himself free from that slavery. a man with two souls (James 1 : 6 . 107 .T H E E T H I C S OF PREPARATION adults only by God. single. 3 : 2 : r a &vw ippovtiTt r a etri rrjs 717s." This saying reflects the thor­ ough opposition between aicov OVTO? and aicov /lekXcov. 74 To many epochs of Christianity these sayings have 74. You can­ not serve God and mammon. Whoever waits for the Kingdom dares not be divided. "No one can serve two masters. though still on earth.3 4 ] . ordi­ narily a rich man can be saved for the Kingdom of God only through a divine miracle ( M a r k 1 0 : 2 7 ) . the demon which reduces man to slavery. there is your heart. 3 : 2 0 ) . is still only one of the agents of the deb? TOV aicovos TOVTOV." and this heart should not linger on earth w i t h its thoughts and desires. for "where your treasure is. singlemindedness. but rather. It is even so strong that. which Matthew grouped around the sayings about the eye [ 6 : 1 9 . These are the sayings about laying up treasures. and unclouded eye in order to see. simplicity. from whence they await the Kingdom of God. as Paul said. For mammon. and therefore stands in ex­ clusive opposition to God. if he truly wishes to prepare himself for the Kingdom of God. Therefore one must not gather up treasures on earth. so likewise he needs CL7T\6TT]^. about serving two masters and about anxiety. Christians.

Here it is considerably more difficult 75 75. in order to await the new world.e. since TO o~)(fjfia rov Koap. and the state..J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM seemed too hard." many rich Christians. Instead. indeed many rich churches have dared to remain rich. and although Jesus declared. God himself must come and make everything new. whereas they ought to be free of it.] 108 . 7 : 3 1 ) . more or less without comment. money can only be harmful to the soul. I believe that Chris­ tianity has. I do not believe that it is because they have consciously counted on the saying " w i t h God it is possible. " w i t h men it is impos­ sible. That money might be a means to moral ends." i. For the world has grown old. does not even come into con­ sideration here. and human labor can no longer create anything really good or enduring upon it. It would be more truth­ ful to take one's stand historically with respect to these matters. the foundation of a moral life's work. laid this view of Jesus aside and has sought to compromise the serious­ ness of the saying by means of all kinds of devious interpre­ tations and erosions of its meaning. The same is true with respect to the evaluation of the "ethical goods" and institutions: secular vocation. for in that case it still would have been much more devout to become poor than to count on a miracle. on a special intervention. the tool of good and beneficial activity in the service of God's mankind. [Weiss's term is bürgerliche Beruf. It is only a fetter which binds men to a world ruled and corrupted by the devil.ov TOVTOV irapdyei ( 1 Cor. Since the rod has been broken over aicav OVTO<S. At most. and despite the explicit and earnest warn­ ing of Jesus that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. and to understand them from the perspective of Jesus' eschatological and dualistic viewpoint. money is still good for alms for the alleviation of the worst distress. mar­ riage.

]. This is even clearer with respect to his opinions on family life. it will turn out that our previous understand­ ing of J e s u s ' sayings. It cannot be denied that from J e s u s ' standpoint. has been based upon our indulging in certain qualifications. upon our looking at matters from a fundamentally different point of view. together with the system of Christian ethics which w e have developed out of them. and indirectly even in the parable of the unjust steward. however. For if w e really do so. The fact remains. but the fact that Jesus and his disciples pursued no vocation is sufficient evidence to show that he regarded it as a hindrance to real preparation for the Kingdom of God. And even if there were no direct sayings concerning life in one's secular vocation. entanglement in trade and traffic. The same Jesus who thought so highly of marriage that he regarded anyone who put marriage asunder as breaking the first marriage [Matt. nevertheless uttered this unprecedentedly sharp saying: "If anyone comes to me 109 . reinterpretations. that as concerns our attitude. and ought at least to be men­ tioned.THE E T H I C S OF PREPARATION for us to keep the historical facts clearly in view. 19:4 ff. It is true that w e have little in the w a y of direct sayings to prove this. involved at least dangers which should make one glad to give it up for the sake of the Kingdom of God. life in one's secular calling. and above all. The nearest con­ tact Protestant ethics has with the sayings of Jesus is in the area of secular vocation. w e perceive the mat­ ter of secular vocation today exactly opposite to the w a y Jesus did. we would have in Jesus' own sense of calling and conduct of his own life an example which would clearly illumine the religious nature of the performance of one's calling. For at least in the parable of the talents. fidelity in one's calling is declared to be the ideal demanded by God. From this w e could draw thousandfold application to the problems of secular vocation.

accept­ ance of extreme suffering. He does not mention "interim ethics" or attempt to relate the sayings to Jesus' belief in the imminence of the Kingdom! ] 110 . This is probably added by Luke. yea. 1 0 : 1 . 1 8 : 2 9 . and could be retained only to the detriment of the tasks necessary within the Kingdom of God. earthly goods. For a recent discussion of Luke 1 4 : 2 6 . that the blessings in question give an occasion for sin. who spoke the words found in Mark 7 : 1 0 ff. A . . never7 6 . [ = The Teaching of Jesus." Interpretation 23 ( 1 9 6 9 ) : 429 ff. "Jesus and The Family. and the earthly life as such are incom­ patible with the righteousness demanded in the Kingdom of God. Harrisville treats such sayings as instances of Jesus' opposition to Jewish legalism. W e n d t . and renunciation of all possessions whatsoever were necessary for all his disciples. 77..). Now it is not the case. foot and eye (Mark 9:43 ff. 2: 62 f. Harrisville. cf. that fellowship with one's earthly family. 77 These words are quoted in extenso because they are typical of the current interpretation of these things.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM 7 6 and does not hate his father and his mother (and his w i f e ) and his brothers and sisters. Commenting on this point W e n d t says: W e must first determine whether even in the sayings from the Logia. Lehre fesu. . in Luke 1 4 : 2 6 . The same Jesus . Even though these interpreters concede that this demand w a s addressed to all disciples generally and without qualification. 2 7 . where he declares without qualification that separation from dearest relatives. according to Jesus' outlook as ex­ pressed in other passages. Jesus still had in mind the same stipulation which was strictly specified in the above-mentioned demands for cutting off hand. see R.3 3 . even his own life. namely. The rendering here is by the present translators. and must therefore be sacrificed under all circum­ stances. 2: 382 f. Matt.1 2 . 5 : 1 3 f cannot at the same time have meant and taught that the abandonment of all ties to the nearest members of one's family has value as such and is commanded for the sake of the Kingdom of G o d . he can­ not be my disciple" ( L u k e 1 4 : 2 6 ) .

and saw in them only a crowd of plan-makers and sanguine opti­ mists. a limping between two sides. H e knows — h o w e v e r much goodwill they may have. 2: 382 f . That puaeiv does not mean the intention of hurting one's family. ) is obvious. they will not be able to succeed in the tflrtlv rr)v /3acnXiiav which he demands. "lest these things lead to sin." words never spoken by Jesus. like the physician who con­ fronts his patient with the choice between a perilous opera­ tion or letting things take their course. The truth is. however much they may even long for the Kingdom of God with all their might—that so long as they continue in their former rela­ tionships.THE E T H I C S OF PREPARATION theless. ) . All. Surely it cannot be that these most ethical relationships which were ordained by God could ever come to grief. but struck with deep sadness on account of their well-meant but basically superficial way of life. a requirement for "the members of the Kingdom of God. come under the requirement. and in fact said to their faces to those accompanying him. that Jesus supposed. All of them will find their family life and their usual human relationships brought to ruin. Jesus was impressed by the zeal of this o'xAoi. however. in their exegesis they add the restrictive clause. a 78 7 8 . to the frightful challenge." No—this cannot have been what Jesus meant. A half-preparation. even under extraordinary circum­ stances! But Jesus assumes that this is the r u l e ! This would be shocking and inconceivable had Jesus meant here to proclaim an ethical law for his church. but only complete inner detachment from them ( W e n d t . H e summons them. A half-remedy will not do. for in the Kingdom of God there is no marriage at all. there­ fore. Ill . that this requirement applied to all of them. who still lacked the slightest suspicion as to what really w a s required of them ( L u k e 14:28—33). therefore. therefore probably even to the great crowds which were favorable to him ( L u k e 1 4 : 2 5 f . Lehre Jesu.

And. Let them go. W e n d t recalls Luther's verse: Though they take our body." I might well point out that Luther's words originate not only in a mood of battle. rank. it is the watch­ word for the few who know that everything now rests on the edge of the sword: at any moment death or ( i n J e s u s ' sense) the destruction of the world can break in upon us. How can one under­ stand these heroic words.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM serving of two masters. One should not read more into the saying about tribute money than was meant by it. they matter not. Jesus intends no more than to repudiate revolution. and grasp at what comes from above with both hands. but in a completely eschatological mood. child and wife. or at least one of prep­ aration for death. To construe these words as merely figurative is to weaken and falsify their meaning. goods. Cast them away. have lost all value now that the world is ripe for destruction? Now they can only hinder and hold back. "The Kingdom must remain o u r s ! " "Though they take our body. therefore. 112 ." All this makes it clear that it is not meant as a regulation governing the behavior of a permanent moral community. when such ex­ treme external sacrifices for the sake of the Gospel—which in the periods of peace after the victory appear only as pos­ sibility and exception—must be regarded as a matter of necessity and principle. . from any other standpoint than this: the things of this world. let us be free from everything that pulls us down and would hold us here! A further comment about Jesus' attitude toward the state might almost be superfluous. is impossible. . Instead. . " W e must understand these words as arising from the mood of battle. by which ever so many bonds of tender affection are to be torn asunder. however high and godly they may be in themselves.

1 8 . his antipharisaic ethics. ) . which certainly is not a human creation but is disclosed through "men of G o d . but remarks that he had indicated here in the first edition that his account of Jesus' ethics could only be given in the form of a "sketch" and was. to a certain extent. at most. fair. W e see from this historical survey that our modern Protestant ethic. it does not come by the hand of m a n . w e cannot mean J e s u s ' words in the exact sense that w a s originally in79 80 79. apparently in the same sense. pp. clear and godly soul perceives as self-evident" ( p p . He then describes certain segments of Jesus' ethical message which he believed were not tied up with his eschatological outlook: "those maxims which are full of the purest and deepest wisdom . 1 3 5 f . W e i s s con­ cedes that this charge is. Goethe and Carlyle. to make clear to our­ selves that.. ] 80. that it had presented Jesus' world-view too one-sidedly and exaggerated the negative. 1 3 8 . above also pp. because the state is ordained by God as the sphere of an ethical activity.) that the 1 8 9 2 edition of his work had provoked the charge that it had tied Jesus' ethical preaching too closely to his eschatological proclamation. to insist that Jesus did not expect history or the world to continue. Die Nachfolge Christi und die Predigt der Gegenwart (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. pp. of course. W e i s s goes on. where he refers to Luther. but only. and his endorsement of the "double-love commandment" (pp. however. at any rate. which simply and serenely stated what his pure. incomplete. Jesus' prophetic demands were born out of a religious attitude which.1 5 4 .THE E T H I C S OF PREPARATION not. This view of "righteousness" (not "of the Kingdom of God.. therefore. Cf. 1 3 4 f. but rather." but "for the Kingdom of G o d " ) could. necessarily. 1 8 9 5 ) . " does not repre­ sent a simple application of the teaching of Jesus. 1 3 7 f . ) . . ) . because it is im­ pious to anticipate God's action. [ W e i s s noted later (Predig/ . pp. pp. H e gives his Kingdom. ] 2 113 . only remain a sketch in the present writing. 1 7 3 f. 1 6 . just as w e always sing Luther's words with a few reservations and modifications. so likewise. See also above. And it is important. once each cen­ tury. 52 f . [See Johannes Weiss. in this form w e cannot expect to relive in our daily experience. 1 3 8 f . however. . ascetic and world-renouncing aspects of his ethics. He develops this latter point in greater detail. and that "the new morality which he preaches is thought of as condition for entrance into the Kingdom of God" (pp. 1 0 {.

no different from that of John. pp. Ritschlian] 114 . see our concluding remarks [Infra. an application which has completely stripped away the original eschatologicalapocalyptical meaning of the idea. Thus w e learn from the foregoing discussion that as Jesus conceived of it. is the difference between Jesus and the Baptist? They both preach only the nearness of the Kingdom of God. as w e have already seen above. in principle.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM tended. W h a t is unique about the activity and the person of Jesus that distinguishes him from all the apocalyptic preachers? Here " a c t i v i t y " and "per­ son" must be clearly differentiated! For. if such is the case. they call men to repent­ ance and gather a circle of disciples who prepare themselves for the coming of the Kingdom. is unjustified. one proceeds in an only apparently biblical manner if one uses the term in a sense different from that of Jesus. then perhaps it will not hurt if our congregations come to know something about it too.. 81. [ J E S U S ' FUTURE ROLE: THE SON OF M A N ] But for some time the reader will have been asking im­ patiently. Indeed. the activity of Jesus is certainly. This is to say that there can be no talk of an innertvorldly development of the Kingdom of God in the mind of Jesus! On the basis of this finding. [I. 81 13.e. If this is clear to us theologians. the Kingdom of God is a radically superworldly entity which stands in diametric opposition to this world.}. 131 ff. For more on this point. it seems to fol­ low that the dogmatic religious-ethical application of this idea in more recent theology. Both men are moved by the overwhelming certainty that God is about to assert his rule. what then.

82 One basic difference is that in John's own opinion ( L u k e 3 : 1 6 ) . Whatever form the event may have taken. ] 83. And in the same w a y that John would have thought it a pretentious sacrilege to be­ lieve that he himself could bring the Kingdom of God to pass. 7 4 . on the other hand. [ W e i s s develops his interpretation of Jesus' "messianic self-con­ sciousness" and the "Son of man" at greater length in Predigt'. so for Jesus too. His position is not essentially different. [See above. pp. This indebtedness may be seen in the preceding discussion as well. rather he expected that with the manifestation of the Kingdom he would become the Messiah or Son of man (pp. Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu (see above. For him also the thing to do w a s to wait and to work in preparation for the Kingdom.1 7 8 .J E S U S ' F U T U R E ROLE: THE SON OF MAN They both employ every means to make the people ready for their encounter with God. but he does state more forcefully that Jesus did not think of himself as Messiah or Son of man /« the present. 1 6 6 . that of Jesus' messianic self-conscious­ ness} The experience at his baptism is the birthplace of this consciousness. John would have a place in the Kingdom of God like that of others.8 1 . Baldensperger has rendered a service in stressing the fact that this certainty felt by Jesus. 1 7 5 ) . Jesus. it is certain that here Jesus became convinced that he was the Son of God whom God had appointed to bring in the messianic future. though far from being a clear and objective concept. 1 5 4 . Here w e come to the final and most important point. The following discussion will show especially how much I am in­ debted to Baldensperger's book. Thus it bore all the marks of a cer­ tainty of faith: utter firmness of conviction. " the King. yet conscious­ ness of an enormous paradox. such a "founding" or "establishing" of the Kingdom on the part of men would have been un­ thinkable. pp. n. as well as in Jesus' ( L u k e 7 : 2 8 ) . was aware that in this Kingdom he himself would be the " M e s s i a h . which is at the same time the principal problem with which any theology must come to terms. with all the fervor of the con3 82. namely. ] 115 . w a s altogether religious in character. 2 6 ) .

84 84. For even if he repudiated the w a y of revolution. at any rate. many scholars have urged that Enoch. too. and thus even certain parts of chapter 7. to mention only one point. it still would have been possible and conceiv­ able that by some special act God might exalt him as King of his people. If one were to read Daniel 9 in the Apocalypse of Baruch or Ezra. absolute clarity as to the course of the future. and no one else. ever imagine that he would be the Mes­ siah? At the very most. however magnificent such a one might be: according to the scripture he must be David's Lord. can be meant.D. Matthew Black. as Baldensperger rightly remarks. 1 8 9 1 . the Similitudes of Enoch (En. 7 0 . has defended the Similitudes' usefulness as a clue to preChristian Jewish messianism. have questioned for some t i m e ) . 6 9 breaks down. even after hearing that voice from heaven. Lagarde's essay imposes upon theology the duty of examining the book of Daniel with respect to its integrity (which I. This means that Jesus turned away from the Davidic conception of the Messiah to a loftier image of the Messiah.6 9 ) can have no value as a source for pre-Christian Judaism because of its late date. 507 ff. Could it be that the book of Daniel. But even if he let people call him by the title "Son of David. while proposing that the conception of the 116 . was edited after A. This can only signify.) that Daniel 7 dates from A. nevertheless humble shock at the audacity of this idea. Indeed. that the Messiah must be more than an heir and successor to the throne of David. how should the carpenter's son from Nazareth. however. where Antiochus Epiphanes alone. or. For Jesus. the idea of the rule of David might have occurred to him. see his conversation with the scribes in Mark 1 2 : 3 0 if. The theory of Paul Anton de Lagarde (Gbttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. As evidence for this. at 7 : 2 5 . pp. to whom even David looks up with reverence. 7 0 ? [Since Weiss's time." he nevertheless repudiated it as an inap­ propriate characterization of the Messiah.D.D. 3 7 . it w o u l d not occur to him to doubt that the author wrote after A. yet a complete uncertainty as to the means and path that were to lead to it.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM sciousness of sonship ( M a t t . the proper form in which the figure of the Messiah w a s to be thought of was the Son of man of Daniel and Enoch. Be that as it may. 1 1 : 2 7 ) .

" JBL 7 9 ( 1 9 6 0 ) : 1 1 9 . D. proposes that Jesus identified himself with the Son of man: he would be "both counsel for the defense and for the prosecution" at the last judg­ ment. on the other hand. Tödt has furnished a thorough study of this title in his recent monograph. ] 8 5 . [Heinz E. the following articles might also be mentioned: Peter C. in which it is not human but only divine intervention that settles matters. 3 ( 1 9 5 2 ) : 1 ." ZNW 58 ( 1 9 6 7 ) : 1 5 9 . "The Function of the Son of Man According to the Synoptic Gospels. Teeple. "Die älteste Schicht der Menschen­ sohn-Logien. Recently it has been suggested that Jesus may have applied the term "Son of man" to himself as a "euphemism" [circumlocution?] for 117 .6 1 . n.6 3 ) : 2 5 6 . believes that when Jesus spoke of the coming of the Son of man. he was expecting someone other than himself to fill that role. "The Son of Man Again. "Jesus und der Menschensohn.7 2 . "The Son of Man and the Problem of Historical Knowledge. 7 0 . the more promi­ nent w a s the purely religious character of this self-con­ sciousness.1 0 . Be that as it may. "The Origin of the Son of Man Christology. and there­ by bequeathed to our theology one of the greatest and most difficult problems w e have. as Baldensperger properly emphasizes.7 1 ("The Eschatology of the Similitudes of Enoch. Teeple traces it to a later Hellenistic-Jewish Christianity. "The Son of Man. The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition. Among the plethora of recent literature on the subject." JR 41 ( 1 9 6 1 ) : 9 1 . trans." JBL 8 4 ( 1 9 6 4 ) : 2 1 3 . 85 Son of man contained here represents a reworking of the earlier idea found in En.7 4 . But the idea that the Son of man would be judge comes from a later Jewish-Christian segment of the church: Ed. Schweizer.2 9 .s. Tödt." ZThK 6 0 ( 1 9 6 3 ) : 1 3 3 7 7 . Barton (Philadelphia: Westminster. Hodg­ son. It has recently been argued that the "Son of man" Christology is entirely secondary: Ph. Eduard Schweizer." JTS." NTS 1 5 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 4 5 . 1 9 6 5 ) . M. Joachim Jeremias. Vielhauer.J E S U S ' F U T U R E R O L E : T H E SON O F MAN This idea." NTS 9 ( 1 9 6 2 . but at the same time. Robert Maddox. Jesus chose this self-designation as the most suitable ex­ pression of his attitude towards the messiahship. expresses a purely religious and thoroughly transcendental messianic hope.5 0 . The more transcendent J e s u s ' vision of the Son of man clad in heavenly splendor. Howard M . Vielhauer believes that this Christology origi­ nated in the primitive Palestinian Church. his own relationship to that figure became more problematic.1 0 8 . like Bultmann. one which up until today has not found a definitive solution.

that the Son of man question still "has not found a definitive solution. J . Borsch deals with the ancient myth of the Primal Man. 8:19 f . The "Son of man" (namely. JBL 8 7 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 2 5 7 . " 'The Son of Man'—a Euphe­ mism?". See also the monographs by A ." And one need put the term "Son of m a n " mentally in quotation marks only once to realize that reference to prophecy is implied in these predictions of the Parousia. ) . Daniel's) will come in his kingly rule ( M a t t . Jesus' use of the term is more difficult. Massingberd Ford. in the majority of parousia sayings. but here perhaps it is the residue of a certain parabolic manner of speaking. 1 9 6 4 ) and Frederick H. the passion announcements and the saying about the foxes (Matt. firmly established scriptural term. Borsch. 11:27 and Mark 1 3 : 3 2 . To the scribe who wanted to follow him. Jesus and the Son of Man (Philadelphia: Fortress. however. one will also under­ stand why it was that. Higgins. B. How does it happen that when Jesus speaks of the Son of man he always speaks in the third person. it seems to me to imply a kind of abbrevi­ ated hint of prophecy. It is safe to say. in those passages in which he is referring to his present appearance. thus speaking of himself in an objective manner? To be sure.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM Our attempt at explaining this begins with an apparent superficiality. So. 1 9 6 7 ) . 1 6 : 2 8 ) . this form also occurs in Matt. In the majority of cases where the term "Son of m a n " occurs. he said "Son of God": J . namely."] 118 . when Jesus wished to make clear the certainty of his Second Coming. as if to put quotation marks around it. The Son of Man in Myth and History (Philadel­ phia: Westminster. for example. he did not say " I will come again.6 6 . Here there is but one explana­ tion: the term is not a simple self-designation. one might well supply something like the following: then "the prophecy that the 'Son of man' comes on the clouds of heaven will be fulfilled." but chose instead this familiar. If one understands all this. in 1 9 7 1 . but was chosen w i t h special purpose.

and forms a contrast to the passion announcement. however. It has long been recognized that the equation of the exaltation with the crucifixion may perhaps be correct from the stand8 6 . [ W e i s s seems to have in mind Mark 1 0 : 3 7 . the term is borrowed to some de­ gree from the mouth of his adherents. regard himself as the Son of man? One could not imagine a greater contrast between this name and the re­ ality. This is not surprising. must suffer and die. 13:26. 86 W e will now claim provisionally the following result: in the group of parousia sayings. That the "Son of man. in m e ) which is prophesied about the Son of man. such a usage would have been grotesque. In the group of passion announcements. this is only a stage through which he must pass. The one of whom you expect the highest things." whom one can only imagine appearing in glory. But in none of these cases is the predicate a plain and simple self-designation. the predicate Son of man means everything will be fulfilled (that is to say. is unheard of. To be sure. and die. the Son of man. But be prepared for something different: The 'Son of man. And so you expect to find glory and honor in following me. is the one who has nowhere to lay his head.] 1 4 : 6 2 . Therefore J e s u s ' employment of the title seems to be meant more as a claim than as an actual self-designation. This is even more true in the case of the passion announcements. for after his death the Son of man will receive everything that people expect to be his in hisSo^a.4 5 . For how can a man. from the J e w i s h standpoint. In fact. and possibly 119 .J E S U S ' FUTURE ROLE: THE SON O F MAN in effect: " Y o u believe that you find in me the Messiah. suffer. a simple rabbi in J e s u s ' situ­ ation. Perhaps John 3:14 sheds light on Jesus' meaning.' who is destined for heavenly lordship." The effect of the saying lies in the contrast. who seems to you destined to be the "Son of man"—must experience privation.

the certain hope that this office would be conferred upon him." an exaltation through which it must become unmistakably clear to all the people that he was the Son of man. This interpretation of the messianic title receives note­ worthy corroboration from the old Jewish-Christian source which runs through certain parts of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of the Acts and which. it is to be understood only in this sense of a claim. It did not occur to the early Jewish-Christian community to say that Jesus of Naz­ areth was the Messiah when he went about on earth bat­ tling the devil (Acts 1 0 : 3 8 ) . 52. For the tertium comparationis with which the bronze serpent is compared is not death.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM point of the evangelists (John 12:32 f . ) . Acts 3 : 2 2 . but that such cannot have been what Jesus had in mind. In any case. or. See Paul Feine. They have to be able to behold the Savior. Again and again this source designates the earthly Jesus as 7rpo<£">)Vr?s. But he is to become the Son of man. If we may use this Johannine saying here. but solely the elevation before the eyes of the people. Luke 7 : 1 6 . no. When Jesus used the title. 1 8 9 2 ) . he did not call himself this in the same way as he could have called himself. 2 7 3 . 8 8 .7 6 ] . This is the only w a y a J e w 87 88 8 7 . H e is a prophet before the eyes of all. whether at some point during his lifetime. 120 . 3 9 . we learn what otherwise w e would have to infer as hypoth­ esis: that Jesus hoped for an "exaltation. and [Weiss's review of it in] Theologische Lheraturzeitung [17. Jahrgang. 2 4 : 1 9 . a son of David or a prophet. originated in Jerusalem circles in the s i x t i e s . 1 3 : 3 3 . after he had passed through death. he must be raised from his insignificant existence to a glorious height. for instance. and Peter de­ clares quite clearly that God made the Jesus whom the J e w s crucified Lord and Messiah through the resurrection and exaltation (Acts 2 : 3 6 ) . Eine vorkanonische Veberlieferung (see above. 6 5 ) . 7 : 3 7 . 1 1 (May. as he became ever more convinced. therefore. n. in its essentials. there­ fore. cols.

" Jesus undoubtedly designated himself as the Messiah. W h e n Jesus asks here: " W h o do the people say that the Son of man i s ? " and receives this reply: " Y o u are the Messiah. not in the sense of a simple selfdesignation. Matt. 16:13 is often named as the starting point for the whole subject.J E S U S ' FUTURE ROLE: T H E SON O F MAN could think of it. Therefore. his messiahship was only a claim.fjt. The only matter in doubt is whether they will ascribe the title of Messiah to this son of man. But this interpretation betrays the false critical standpoint from which its representatives proceed. so long as he w a s on earth. these do not exhaust all the evidence. the name which is above every name ( P h i l . 1:4 is in complete accord with this interpretation w e have offered. For Jesus sup­ poses that the title "Son of m a n " is familiar to the disciples and intelligible to them without need for question or fur­ ther explanation.pt.ei. The most difficult passages have not yet been discussed." this is ordinarily taken as proof that Son of man and Messiah cannot be the same thing. which only came into effect when he entered into possession of his Kk^povop-la which consisted in the heavenly So£a ( R o m . At least this is the meaning in the two prin­ cipal groups of sayings. A glance at the parallels demonstrates what is evident upon closer scrutiny of the first evangelist. To be sure.. a title to be inherited. but he first be­ came vto? TOV deov iv 8vva. that the editor of Matthew w a s so familiar with "Son of m a n " as a designation for the person of Jesus 121 . but rather in the sense of a claim arising out of strong faith. the parousia sayings and the pas­ sion predictions. is naturally the name " M e s s i a h . 2 : 9 ) . and even Paul advocates this. through the exaltation. On this basis. " and Rom. w e are surely justified in taking the view that by using the title "Son of man. For the name which is given Jesus at his exaltation. Jesus w a s already vios rov deov when he w a s still alive in the cra. 8 : 1 7 ) .

Die synoptischen Evangelien nach der Form ihres Inhaltes (Heidelberg: K. Holsten. 1 6 : 2 3 ) inserted the name "Son of m a n " in those places where Jesus could have spoken only in the first person. e. that the earliest recorders of Jesus' words (just as in the case of Matt. for they could by no means have granted the supposition that he w a s the "Son of m a n " ? Even if Jesus had here deliberately laid claim to this rank. then it is quite possible and a priori probable.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM that he simply substituted it for the original found in the parallels." But it does nevertheless teach something of interest. W e have here only a further proof that the First Gospel is more secondary in character than the others. 1 8 8 6 ) . Matt. there are a number of passages in which the name has no significance as a self-designation. Die drei ursprünglichen. Here it is only equivalent to " I . and hoped to see him again as such. In this Logia passage. 1 8 8 3 ) . Groos. the term remains quite irrelevant to the question of J e s u s ' messiahship.g. [Holsten maintained the priority of an Aramaic Matthew to Mark. W h a t is this title which contains the messianic claim sup­ posed to mean to people who surely would have had to re­ gard its use here as sheer and absurd presumption? H o w were the people supposed to understand that Jesus spoke here of himself. If it is true that "Son of m a n " was Jesus' customary self-designation and that the early communities found nothing strange about this title since they thought of Jesus as existing in heaven with this name and form (Acts 7 : 5 6 ) . where the only concern is to compare the appearance of the prophet Jesus with that of the Bap­ tist. as such. C. without any kind of eschatological or messianic charac­ teristics. In fact. 1 1 : 1 9 = Luke 7 : 3 4 . the term vibs TOV avOpomov is extremely strange. noch unge­ schriebenen Evangelien ( K a r l s r u h e : Reuther. " 89 89. ] 122 .. therefore. Despite Holsten. This passage. tells absolutely nothing as to the sense in which Jesus spoke of himself as "Son of man. but is. absurd and unnatural.

. as the use of the article o before mos shows. G. Jesus had proclaimed to the paralytic the re­ mission of his sins.2 0 8 . that in these passages the title "Son of man" is absolutely unintelligible to his op­ ponents. Boobyer. avOpomov O J N m ) no more than a Hebrais­ tic expression for " m a n . however. who.] 9 1 . 1 2 0 ) . These are the two Markan passages 2 : 1 0 and 2 : 2 8 . but God alone? Jesus had said: " S o that you know that the Son of man has full authority to forgive sins. pp." so that "you" = "Christian readers" (p. [Cf. The problem is. he meant other men. [ W e i s s treats these two passages more closely in an excursus in Predigl . de Lagarde. expressive of the deepest secret of J e s u s ' faith and hope. He continued to maintain that in both places when Jesus spoke of the Son of man. " Now none of his oppo­ nents doubted that the Messiah has this authority! But they would be quite opposed to any supposition on J e s u s ' part that he himself was the Messiah. W h o can forgive sins. " Naturally this is not what it means to Mark. who see in vto? r. W h a t would this term.J E S U S ' F U T U R E ROLE: THE SON OF MAN It seems to me most natural to assume that it w a s the transcriber of the tradition who first inserted the familiar title in this passage. . The matter is simple enough. Boobyer believes that the clause was written as an editorial "remark to the Christian readers of the Gospel. ] 2 123 . It is not that they are placed on Jesus' lips so early in M a r k ' s Gospel that makes them strange.2 0 . H. and thereby brought upon himself the charge of blasphemy. This combination of ideas would be altogether absurd! The passage is understandable only in terms of the thesis of Baur. rather. not merely himself. 2 0 3 . yet usually it is glossed over. Very likely. et al. have been doing in this unceremonious place? But two sayings remain which no previous interpretation has been able to make intelligible. finds the messianic title here as in other passages. "Mark 2 : 1 0 a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic." HTR 47 ( 1 9 5 4 ) : 1 1 5 . . Jesus had used the term in the Hebra9 0 9 1 90. .

Thus in the judgment of the people it is also praiseworthy that God has transferred a divine authority to mankind in the person of J e s u s . viz. in that here too the evidence set before his opponents is null and void so long as they do not admit that Jesus is the Son of man. [The "men" who may now forgive sins are not all men or men generally. Cf. or mankind. but now.. The reference to the forgiveness of sins does not show that Jesus thought himself to be the Messiah. Weiss has proposed that Matthew is not dependent here on Mark. [See. that the lesser. " The complaint raised w a s that Jesus arrogated to himself something that was a matter for God and not for a man. championed a similar thesis with respect to Mark 2 : 2 8 . viz. "Den Menschen. 92 93 The situation in Mark 2 : 2 8 is the same as in 2 : 1 0 . nevertheless 2 124 .. Dr. 2 0 7 ) . Lie. healing.] 94. Jesus wished to refute this accusation by demonstrating through the greater. that the saying in 2 : 2 7 is missing in 94 92. on the occasion of his promo­ tion to Licentiate.] 93. but like the healing of the sick. at which time the saints w i l l rule the world (Predigt . received this divine prerogative. This interpre­ tation is confirmed by the text of Matthew. p. had also been granted to men. B." i. at the door to the messianic age.. however. M y colleague. For Matt. Alfred Rahlfs. and cannot at all support the usual interpretation: I'SoWes Se 0 1 o ' X A O I e<f)o^ridr}o-av KOL ibo^ao-av TOV Oebv TOV SSVTCL i^ovcriav Toiavrqv rot? avdpamoK. Matt 6 : 1 2 .7 5 . but the "elect. "for the good of" men rather than "to" men. W o l f g a n g Schenk. and if I am not in complete agreement with his exposition. " m a n ." the saints who will share with Jesus the task of ruling the world. man. In prep­ aration for the coming of the Kingdom. 9:8 is in accord with the idea w e have suggested." ZNW 54 ( 1 9 6 3 ) : 2 7 2 . Not that it w a s granted to all times and to every man. but presents an original version.e. authority to forgive sins..JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM istic sense. namely. Schenk reads "for. Jesus' disciples were both to forgive sins and to pray for forgiveness of their own offenses. But at this point another circumstance has to be considered. it showns that the Kingdom is coming. on Matt 9 : 8 . This much-contested thesis proves itself here brilliantly.

W h y these Jewish Christians w o u l d have ceased to observe the Sabbath. but as two parallels. W h e n the redactor edited the earlier writing. Hay." But Hay. 9 5 . Now this conclusion is complete­ ly unjustified. ] 125 . eschatological prerogatives. "in controversy w i t h the Pharisees. " JBL 8 9 ( 1 9 7 0 ) : 6 9 . " However. [F. like Beare. but refer it to Jesus' own mes­ sianic. For all of Jesus' sayings about the Sabbath ultimately mean that the Sabbath exists for the benefit of men. For this reason it might be thought that the verse should be disregarded as an addition by Deutero-Mark to " A . Therefore it appears that in verse 2 8 . " It will then follow that verse 27 and verse 28 are not related to each other as premise and inference. it is declared in both that man is lord over the Sabbath. attributes the saying to the early Church: "Both are intended to validate the actions of the members of the Christian community. vio? TOV CLVQpdyrrov (not in M a r k ' s sense.JESUS' FUTURE ROLE: THE SON OF MAN the parallels in Matthew and Luke. that man generally. or. but in J e s u s ' ) is to be regarded as a designation for " m a n . w h o took exception to the failure of Christian J e w s to keep the Sabbath" ("The Sabbath W a s Made for M a n ? " . and may employ it for his own benefit. is some­ thing much more significant. Most modern com­ mentators consider the verse authentic. at any rate." "The Son of Man in Mark 2 : 1 0 and 2 : 2 8 . and that man is not to be a slave to the Sabbath. Beare considers it unthinkable that such could have been Jesus' meaning. can dispose of the Sabbath for his own u s e . Mark intends it to follow in verse 28 ( w o r e ) . W .7 5 . and so assigns it to the apostolic church of Palestine. rather. Formulated in somewhat different w a y s . " A . that the Son of man has the right of free disposal over the Sabbath. That this is true for the Messiah is obvious. JBL 7 9 ( I 9 6 0 ) : 1 3 5 ) . the idea expressed in M a r k 2 : 2 7 is the only one that makes any reasonable sense here. however. namely. has recently endorsed the view that "son of man" in Mark 2 : 1 0 and 28 means simply "man. For this saying. Beare does not say. L. S. W h a t really must follow. " he retained the 95 I gladly acknowledge that I am obliged to him for hinting that the solution to the difficulty is to be found in the text. not merely the Messiah.

The Father has given the Son full authority to execute judgment because he is vibs avdpcoTTOV. one that casts a critical light on the sense in which Jesus used the term: John 5 : 2 6 f. 126 . 1 1 : 1 9 . This saying shows clearly that "being S o n " meant something other to him than "being Son of man. The third and fourth groups comprise the passion and parousia sayings. he lives and breathes in the blessed awareness of enjoying his Father's fullest confidence. and inserted the saying ( v . the title is mistakenly understood by the evan­ gelists as if Jesus had designated himself on these occasions as Messiah.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM words 6 vibs TOV avdpcorrov ( w i t h the article) which were already present in the text. he has claim to this full authority. only it is much clearer. while in fact the expression originally meant only " m a n " . There is still one more passage to be discussed here. 1 6 : 1 3 ) as to the mean­ ing that Jesus ascribed to the title. in a second group." Jesus is truly Son of God during his earthly ministry. On the other hand. with the result that nothing can be learned from these passages (Matt. the evangelists have in­ serted the current name "Son of m a n " in place of the first person singular. But he is not yet "Son of m a n " so long as he has not received the full authority of messianic judg­ ment. The connection which he made between them with the word coo-re is assuredly awk­ ward. W e may summarize what has been said about the title Son of man as follows: in one group of sayings ( M a r k 2:10. it nevertheless expresses precisely the mean­ ing which w e believe is signified by the synoptic sayings. 2 7 ) without noticing that he was putting next to one another two originally parallel sayings. Whether this saying was spoken by Jesus or not. In these sayings. Jesus characterizes himself both indirectly and ob­ jectively as the one to whom the messianic predicate "Son of m a n " belongs. 2 8 ) .

) . 3 : 2 1 . the /3ao-L\eia would be given back to God? Or did he mean that this fellowship of the Kingdom. will be made rulers ( a n office which consists principally in Kpiveiv) over the twelve tribes of Israel ( L u k e 2 2 : 2 8 f f . it is he who will receive rule over all the members of the future Kingdom of God. 2 5 : 3 1 . Specifically.) and Matt. already be­ longs to him. therefore. Did he intend. humbled himself while on earth. of the heir. Undoubtedly in doing so he is only carrying out God's decisions. the inheritance. but now over a perfected humanity? Or did he think of his messianic dominion as a joint governorship with the Father ( R e v . but especially the Jewish people. would serve God. But because it is Jesus who. On this basis w e have the answer to the question as to what position Jesus understands himself to have in the Kingdom of God. that even in his lifetime Jesus has this office. but it is the office of the claimant. The rule. 15:24 f. that after his victory over the enemy or after a certain period of ruling. Luke 2 3 : 4 2 ) before whose throne of judgment all peoples. 2 0 : 4 ) . perhaps after a thousand years ( R e v . In the present. his twelve disciples. 7 : 1 5 . 1 7 ) ? The fact that these 127 . he wants to be no more than S i S a o . 1 3 : 4 3 .J E S U S ' F U T U R E R O L E : T H E SON O F M A N because he is "Son of m a n . above all others." the King ( M a t t . who have endured all test­ ings w i t h him. with Paul ( 1 Cor.K A X O ? KCU K v p i o s of his disciples (John 1 3 : 1 3 ) . so that a new heaven would span the new earth. It may be asked how Jesus thought of his position in rela­ tion to God. " W e see. but he w i l l be more in the future: the messianic Judge. but he has not yet taken possession of it. must appear. whom the Baptist promised would be "one who is might­ ier. 34. for only those for whom it is prepared by God will be given a share in the rule over their fellow members of God's Kingdom ( M a r k 1 0 : 4 0 ) . in which God would reign as before. with the XpioTo? at its head.

Even in all the glory of the heavenly splendor. This notion has something strange about it for our modern way of thinking. is able to feel himself called to be a prophet without spiritual presumption or falsehood. but lives rather in and for God. but also for the religious imagination. to whom it is in some measure natural that he should be entrusted with all things by God because he has opened and offered his soul to God without reservation. The heavenly crown which he will wear as "Son of m a n " is like the crown of thorns. at least to the extent that there can be no question of presumption because of it. From a religious standpoint. it will be the high­ est and most precious task of God's Anointed continually to lead the members of his Kingdom into the presence of 128 . A few comments may be offered by way of explanation and introduction: Jesus' messianic self-consciousness is only understandable within the framework of his con­ sciousness of sonship. He alone may and can believe himself to be the Messiah in truth and without fanaticism. Jesus reached the religious convic­ tion that he had been chosen to be Judge and Ruler in the Kingdom of God. Only the man who has for a long time ceased to live his own life. One more comment might be added: the sov­ ereignty to which Jesus is called is distinct from all human sovereignties in that it is achieved through service and sacri­ fice. The important thing is that by virtue of his baptismal experience.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM different viewpoints are to be found in primitive Chris­ tianity constitutes ample evidence that w e do not have clear and definite declarations by Jesus on this subject. It is extremely difficult for us to think our way into this self-consciousness. He could understand this commis­ sion from God and make it his own only because even prior to this experience. the question is relatively unimportant. his soul in some way lived in God in a fashion analogous to nothing w e can imagine.

3 ) Not even Jesus can bring. a preliminary one. or found the 129 . To be sure. 2 ) In general. and cannot be dissociated from it. W e meant only to show that the messianic consciousness of Jesus. as expressed in the name Son of man. [SUMMARY] Let me now summarize once more the principal results of our study: 1 ) J e s u s ' activity is governed by the strong and unwav­ ering feeling that the messianic time is imminent. It will be as the Book of Revelation says: the Lamb . . however. In particular. in worship and humility before the Father. .SUMMARY God. not all of the questions which surround the "messianic self-consciousness of J e s u s " have even been touched upon in the preceding discussion. The disciples were to pray for the coming of the King­ dom. but men could do nothing to establish it. establish. also partici­ pates in the thoroughly transcendental and apocalyptic character of Jesus' idea of the Kingdom of God. That was not the problem with which w e were primarily concerned here. w i l l be their shepherd and he will guide them to springs of living water (Rev. and the King­ dom of Completion. as if there were somehow two stages.7:17). he even had moments of prophetic vision when he per­ ceived the opposing kingdom of Satan as already overcome and broken. In fact. Jesus rec­ ognized no preliminary actualization of the rule of God in the form of the new piety of his circle of disciples. At such moments as these he declared with daring faith that the Kingdom of God had actually already dawned. Jesus made no such distinc­ tion. Indeed. the actualization of the King­ dom of God has yet to take place.

since the coming of the Kingdom cannot be deter­ mined in advance by observation of signs or calculation. 7 ) At the same time. 4 ) The messianic consciousness of Jesus consists of the certainty that when God has established the Kingdom. and create a new world. not only over those who are still alive at the coming of the Son of man. he will return upon the clouds of heaven at the establishment of the King­ dom.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM Kingdom of God. Even mankind is to participate in this transforma­ tion and become like the angels. After that. and make his contribution to the establishment of the Kingdom in Israel by his death. but also over those who will then be raised from the dead. humility and renunciation. 8 ) The land of Palestine will arise in a new and glorious splendor. await the Kingdom of God. Alien peoples will no longer rule over it. In the meantime. with repentance. judgment and rule will be transferred to him. only God can do so. God will destroy this old world which is ruled and spoiled by the devil. he must cross death's thresh­ old. he gradually became certain that before this could happen. God himself must take control. and do so within the lifetime of the generation which had rejected him. and will make him Lord and Mes­ siah (Acts 2 : 3 6 ) . 6 ) But when it comes. with a new righteousness. Jesus can only battle against the devil with the power imparted to him by the divine Spirit. and gather a band of followers who. 5 ) Although Jesus initially hoped to live to see the es­ tablishment of the Kingdom. forming the center of the new Kingdom. good and evil. but will come to ac130 . Jesus does not fix the time when this will take place more exactly. J e w s and Gentiles alike. to which he is entitled (John 5:21). the Judgment will take place. God will raise him to the office of "Son of m a n " ( John 3:14 ) .

at least have to mitigate the ardent eschatological tone of J e s u s ' proclamation. Thus it is explained first. But now it is necessary to inquire whether it is really possible for theology to employ the idea of the Kingdom of God in the manner in which it has re­ cently been considered appropriate. and serve him in eternal righteousness. finally. [CONCLUSIONS] The results just summarized present peculiar difficulties for systematic and practical theology. therefore. 1 0 ) The rule of God is not suspended by the rule of the Messiah. It would. Protestant theology. 9 ) Jesus and his faithful ones will rule over this new­ born people of the twelve tribes. that although the Kingdom of God has secondary sig- 131 . or that Jesus reigns under the higher sovereignty of God. innocence. however. whether it be that they reign together side by side. but thereby actualized. J e s u s ' consciousness of the near­ ness of the Kingdom is a feature that cannot be disposed of. generally regards its task to be that of framing a unified Christian view of the world and life. which will include even the Gentiles. instead those who are in God's Kingdom shall behold the living God. Thus. J e s u s ' idea of the Kingdom of God appears to be inextricably involved with a number of eschatological-apocalyptical views which sys­ tematic theology has been accustomed to take over without critical examination. There will be neither sadness nor sin. for example. The question arises whether it is not thereby divested of its essential traits and. which is supposed to be authoritative both for the individual and for all people for a long time to come.CONCLUSIONS knowledge God as Lord. so modified that only the name still remains the same. and bliss.

but is nothing other than the highest religious Good. who in his volume on Das Wesen der christlichen Religion^ represents the Kingdom of God even in J e s u s ' preaching less as a "community of m e n " than as the highest "religious good." Kaftan stresses. This does not imply a pharisaic con­ ception of reward. The reference is to Max Reischle. against Reischle among others.. The only thing man can do about it is to perform the conditions required by God." w e should think of it primarily as the invisible community of men who venture to honor God as their King and Father and seek to obtain the effectiveness and extension of his rule among themselves and others by fulfillment of his will. Ein Won zur Controverse iiber die Mystik in der Theologie (Freiburg im Breisgau: M o h r [Siebeck]. pp. quite correctly. hence.J E S U S ' P R O C L A M A T I O N OF T H E KINGDOM nificance for us as the "heavenly Kingdom of Completion. A new point of view concerning both the ideas of Jesus and dogmatics has recently been attempted: specifically by J . 4 0 . w e can recognize that this conception is incorrect. that the dominant idea in J e s u s ' proclamation is "not that of a Kingdom of ethical righteous­ ness in the world. [Basel: C. The actualization of the Kingdom of God is not a matter for human initiative. but naturally only a person who is entire­ ly detached from aicov ouro? can really possess and enjoy this Good in the Kingdom of God." After all that we have previously said. in Jesus' view. The Kingdom of God. 1 8 8 6 ) . 1 8 8 8 ] ." W i t h this Kaftan contrasts the Kingdom of God as "supreme ethical ideal". transcendent Kingdom of Blessedness. p. ] 132 . Das Wesen. is never an ethical ideal. a Good which God grants on certain conditions. [Kaftan. but entirely a matter of God's initiative. 2nd ed. participa97 9 6 . Detloff's Buchhandlung.4 3 . Kaftan. pp. Otherwise he lacks com­ pletely the proper spiritual disposition. 2 3 6 ff. but that of a superworldly. 9 7 . 2 3 9 . as such it is "inner worldly and its actualization a matter involving human initiative [Selbstthatigkeit].

He obviously means the principal blessings which will be imparted to men in the messianic Kingdom—God's nearness and being completely a child of God—which Jesus already fully possessed. His God-consciousness was so vivid that it awakened and confirmed his conviction that he lived in this Kingdom. which includes many goods of a religious kind. Baldensperger. pp.CONCLUSIONS tion in this Kingdom corresponds only to that which is spiritually possible. 98 . because both are always present. or spiritual. But modern notions easily creep in. side by side. what is basically new in the preaching of Jesus is the shift from the category of place to that of quality. even with the for­ mula "the Kingdom of God is 'highest Good. . inward. the term Kingdom of God also designated that which Jesus. or as a land in which one has a share. 1 3 2 ff. The parables of the treasure and the pearl are as opposed to the meaning of a present 133 . or as a treasure which comes down from heaven. 99. 99 9 8 . in the idea of the Kingdom of God: the picture of a place and the Good." The Kingdom of God as Jesus thought of it is never something subjective. But this highest Good is certainly never connected with the ex­ pression "Kingdom of God. H e says. is present here. This interpretation of the Kingdom of God as an innerworldly ethical ideal is a vestige of the Kantian idea and does not hold up before a more precise historical examination. but is always the objective messianic Kingdom. According to Baldensperger. what he felt in his own soul. for his part.' " On this point even Baldensperger showed his bondage to the older dogmatic-exegetical method. But this distinction is inadequate. which usually is pictured as a territory into which one enters. Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu. something surprising in the case of Baldensperger. . The linguistic form of this thesis alone ( w h a t does it mean: "to bear a Kingdom in oneself"? ) can teach us that an un­ dissolved dogmatic residue. possessed already. or bore it in himself.

JESUS' PROCLAMATION

OF T H E

KINGDOM

One must say, therefore, that the idea of the highest Good, which Kaftan has described with such eloquent words as the basic idea of Christianity, may not, strictly speaking, be tied to J e s u s ' idea of the Kingdom of God, for the latter signifies a still future and objective Good. More­ over, Jesus does not use the term "Kingdom of God" to refer to the "supreme ethical ideal," for the "righteous­ ness" which he demanded is nothing but the condition for the future enjoyment of that objective Good. For Jesus, the highest, present, personal Good is, in­ stead, the consciousness of the love and care of the heavenly Father, of being a child of God [die Gotteskindschaft]. He himself lived in the enjoyment of this love, with a certainty and freshness which we cannot imitate, and also invited and instructed his disciples to lay hold of this highest Good in thankfulness and joy. The supreme ethical ideal is to serve God the Father with surrender of the whole heart, and to become free from the world. The highest proofs of this freedom from the world are the love of one's enemy, and the sacrifice of one's life for the sake of God. It is now possible indeed to embrace both of these sides of the Chris­ tian life under the inclusive category "Kingdom of God." This, then, would signify the invisible community estab­ lished by Jesus and comprised of men who call upon God as Father and honor him as King. But then one will have to say more exactly, that in the Kingdom of God w e have the highest Good, that of being children of God, and w e ear­ nestly endeavor to obtain the highest ethical ideal, that of perfectly fulfilling God's will. If one would like a shorter formulation, one might say (corresponding to the meaning of the word fiacnkeia): the Rule of God is the highest religious Good and the supreme ethical ideal.
spiritual Good as they could be, for they teach that one sacrifice in order to reach a still distant Good. must make

134

CONCLUSIONS

But this conception of ours of the /3ao-i\eia TOV dtov parts company with Jesus' at the most decisive point. We do not mean the religious side of this concept antithetically, as the counterpart to aitov OUTOS, but merely thetically: it expresses our belief that God the Creator maintains his con­ trol over this world, and governs it for the spiritual benefit of his children. Its ethical side is thoroughly unbiblical and un-Jewish, inasmuch as the notion of an "actualization of the Rule of God" by human ethical activity is completely contrary to the transcendentalism of J e s u s ' idea. Under these circumstances, one will perhaps judge the connection of the modern dogmatic idea with the words of Jesus to be a purely external one. This is, in fact, the case. That which is universally valid in Jesus' preaching, which should form the kernel of our systematic theology is not his idea of the Kingdom of God, but that of the religious and ethical fel­ lowship of the children of God. This is not to say that one ought no longer to use the concept "Kingdom of God" in the current manner. On the contrary, it seems to me, as a matter of fact, that it should be the proper watchword of modern theology. Only the admission must be demanded that w e use it in a different sense from Jesus'. The real difference between our modern Protestant world-view and that of primitive Christianity i s , therefore, that w e do not share the eschatological attitude, namely, that TO crxTj/xa TOU K00710V TOVTOV irapayei. W e no longer pray, " M a y grace come and the world pass a w a y , " but we pass our lives in the joyful confidence that this world will evermore become the showplace of the people of God. But another attitude has silently come among us in place of the strictly eschatological one—and where it is not present, preaching and instruction should do all they can to awaken it. The world will further endure, but w e , as individuals, will soon leave it. Thereby, w e will at least approximate 135

CONCLUSIONS

Jesus' attitude in a different sense, if w e make the basis of our life the precept spoken by a wise man of our day: " L i v e as if you were dying." W e do not await a Kingdom of God which is to come down from heaven to earth and abolish this world, but w e do hope to be gathered with the church of Jesus Christ into the heavenly ySacrtXeta. In this sense we, too, can feel and say, as did the Christians of old: "Thy Kingdom c o m e ! "
100

1 0 0 . W e would call attention here once more (see above, p. 9 7 ) to the fact that this transformation of the idea of the Kingdom of God is perhaps already very ancient. As early as in the Jewish-Christian source of Luke, which contains the parable of poor Lazarus, the episode of the thief on the cross and perhaps also the saying in Acts 1 4 : 2 2 , the idea seems to be present that when the faithful and righteous die, they are directly transported into the messianic Kingdom, which is in Paradise or Heaven. To be sure, the idea of the return of the Son of man was also retained along with this. [In Predigt , Weiss attributes the sayings in Luke about the immediate fate of Lazarus and the thief ( 1 6 : 2 2 f.; 2 3 : 4 3 ) to Jesus himself. He explains the former as follows: "Jesus' thought, like popular thought about such matters was unsystematic" (p. 1 1 3 ) . Jesus had in mind the Isaianic prophecies, e.g.. Is. 6 5 : 1 3 - 2 5 and 3 5 : 1 0 (pp. 1 1 7 f . ) . The thief, he considers, was a special case. Jesus will take him directly to the place where the righteous and elect are to have their ultimate dwelling (Enoch 3 9 : 6 , 7 ) , not to any intermediate place (cf. John 1 4 : 2 f . ) , ( p p . 1 1 3 f . ) . Weiss makes no reference to "Luke's Ebionite source" in his discussion of these verses in the second edition. Cf. above, p. 9 9 , n. 6 5 . He observes that Paul also expected that some, including himself, might go directly from life on earth to life with the Lord: cf. 2 Cor. 5 . 4 - 1 0 ; Phil. 1 : 2 3 ; 1 Thess. 4 : 1 6 f. He proposes that the two views may be unified through the perspective expressed in Enoch 3 8 : 1 ff., in which the assembly of the righteous in heaven (cf. Heb. 1 2 : 2 3 ) will appear together with the Messiah at the time when those righteous and elect w h o are still on earth are judged and separated from the sinners (pp. 1 1 4 f . ) . ]
1

136

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND INDEXES .

4 7 . Reihe. 2. 138 . 5 5 5 ." TSR 6 3 . 1892 Die Evangelien des Markus und Lukas.. 3 6 0 . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht." Deutsche Wochenbericht 3. "Nothwendige Reformen in der evangelischen Kirche. "Die Komposition der synoptischen Studien und Kritiken. 1891 "Die Parabelrede bei Marcus. Wiederkunftsrede. 1890 "Die Verteidigung Jesu gegen den Vorwurf des Bündnisses mit Beelzebul. Heft 7 ) . Ein Beitrag zur Frauenfrage.6 2 . Leipzig: Grunow. 3 4 5 . 2 8 9 - Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes. pp." Studien und Kritiken. 334 f. (Evangelisch-soziale Zeitfragen. pp. 2 4 6 ." pp. Göttingen: Neu-Ruppin (Inaugural Dissertation). pp. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Second revised edition: 1 9 0 0 . with B.6 9 .B I B L I O G R A P H Y OF THE M A J O R W R I T I N G S OF JOHANNES WEISS 1888 Der Barnabasbrief kritisch untersucht mit besonderer Berück­ sichtigung seiner Beurteiling des Alten Testaments und seines Verhältnisses zu den neutestamentlichen Schriften. 321. Third edition. Weiss (Meyers Kommentar). Frauenberuf.2 7 0 .

1900 "Der Eingang des ersten Korintherbriefes." TSK 6 8 . 1 6 5 .9 6 .2 4 7 . "Apostelgeschichte und apostolisches Zeitalter. Bernhard Weiss zu seinem 70. " TSK 69. third edition. 2 5 2 . "Paulinische Probleme II. 7 . Oberkonsistorialrath Prof." Theologische 36. 4.7 7 .BIBLIOGRAPHY edited and with an introduction by Ferdinand Hahn. with an accompanying note by Rudolf Bultmann: 1 9 6 4 ." Rundschau 1 ( 1 8 9 7 . p p . Bd. 3 7 1 . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1898 "Dämonen" and "Dämonische" in Hauck's Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche.o v . 1 8 9 7 .3 3 . pp. pp. 4 0 8 . 1897 Beiträge zur paulinischen Rhetorik. pp. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1893 "Das Judenchristentum in der Apostelgeschichte. Leip­ zig: Hinrichs. Die Chronologie der Paulinischen Briefe. Geburtstage dargebracht. 139 . pp. 2 2 7 ~ Theologische Ueber die Absicht und den literarischen Charakter der Apostel­ geschichte. p p . Dr. ) "Neue Logia." TSK 1 3 . Göttin­ "Paulinische Probleme. pp." TSK 6 6 . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Göttingen-. (This short work also appeared in Theologische Studien: Herrn Wirkt. pp. der Gegenwart. 480-540. Die Formel iv Xp«n-ai ' l ^ o . Rundschau 1 ( 1 8 9 7 .1 9 .9 8 ) . 3 5 7 62. 1895 Die Nachfolge Christi und die Predigt gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.9 8 ) .

Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis des Markusevangeliums und der ältesten evangelischen Ueberlieferung. pp. 1. "Passion Week" vol. des Johannes. 1902 Die christliche Freiheit nach der Verkündigung Paulus. Second revised edition. Giessen: J . pp.2 8 Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments. pp. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. and others. des Reiches Gottes Göttingen: Vandenhoeck in der Theologie. 1904 Die Offenbarung Religionsgeschichte. 2. 323 ff. & Ruprecht. 2 5 . 140 . 1906 Articles in James Hastings. 1 . Weiss was general editor and was responsible for the Synoptics and Revelation in particular). A Dictionary pels. 2d edition. 9 3 1 f.JESUS' PROCLAMATION OF T H E KINGDOM Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.9 . Wilhelm Bousset. 1901 Die Idee Ricker. Theologische Rund­ of Christ and the Gos­ "Acts of the Apostles" vol. 1905 "Wellhausens Evangelienkommentar. New York: Scribner's: "Ethics" vol. 5 4 3 . pp. Ein Beitrag zur literatur.4 7 "King" vol.und Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 1 9 1 3 ." schau 8. Wilhelm Heitmüller. des Apostels 1903 Das älteste Evangelium. neu übersetzt und erklärt (in collaboration with Hermann Gunkel. pp. 1. 1.

4 2 3 .B. 1 1 . "Zum Märtyrertod der Zebedäiden. pp. pp. J . Trans. Die Anfänge des Dogmas. 1 6 7 . Paulus und Jesus. p. 1912 Ueber die Kraft. London and New York: Harper.BIBLIOGRAPHY 1908 Die Aufgaben der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft Gegenwart. p p . Björnsons Drama und das religiöse Tübingen: J. 1 9 1 1 . 1910 Der erste Korintherbrief (Meyer Kommentar." ZNW 1 1 . Mohr Geschichte? Eine Ausein­ Jenson. H. Tübin­ gen: J. Problem." Protestantische hefte 1 6 .C.6 0 . V. 141 für . Jesus im Glauben des Urchristentums.C. (Paul Siebeck). Paul and Jesus.C.Mohr (Paul Siebeck).C.B. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.B." ZNW "Zum reichen Jüngling. " ZNW 79-83. "Das Herrenmahl der Urgemeinde. Trans. Christ: the Beginnings of Dogma. Monats­ 1913 "Das Problem der Entstehung des Christentums. (Mark 1 0 : 1 3 .1 7 ) . Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Tübingen: J. Tübingen: J. "EYOY2 bei Markus. Tübingen: J.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)." Archiv Religionswissenschaft 1 6 . pp. David. Drews. Chaynor.5 1 5 . 1 1 . 9.C. 1909 Christus. 5 3 .B. in der Die Geschichtlichkeit Jesu (with Georg Grützmacher). Auflage). 1 2 4 . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Jesus von Nazareth: Mythus oder andersetzung mit Kalt ho ff. Boston: American Unitarian Association. D.3 3 . Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

JESUS' PROCLAMATION

OF T H E

KINGDOM

"The Significance of Paul for Modern Christians." American Journal of Theology 1 7 , pp. 3 5 2 - 6 7 . (Published posthumously inZNW 1 9 [ 1 9 1 9 - 2 0 ] , p p . 1 2 7 - 4 2 ) . Synoptische Tafeln zu den drei älteren Evangelien scheidung der Quellen in vierfachem Farbendruck. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 2d edition, 1 9 2 0 . 1914 Das Urchristentum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Trans, four friends, ed. F. C. Grant, The History of Primitive Christianity. New York: Erickson, 1 9 3 7 . Reprinted: New York: Harper, 1 9 5 9 (2 vol. Paperback). Weiss's conversations with other scholars working on the Synoptics can be traced in Theologische Rundschau: vol. 1 ( 1 8 9 7 - 9 8 ) pp. 2 8 8 - 9 7 2 (1899) pp. 1 4 0 - 5 2 4(1901) pp. 1 4 8 - 6 1 6 (1903) pp. 1 9 9 - 2 1 1 11 ( 1 9 0 8 ) pp. 9 2 - 1 0 5 , 1 2 2 - 3 3 16(1913) pp. 1 8 3 - 9 6 , 2 1 9 - 2 5 Weiss also wrote on a wide range of popular topics; see, e.g., Christ und Welt 8 ( 1 8 9 4 ) , 1 1 ( 1 8 9 7 ) , 12 ( 1 8 9 8 ) . mit Unter­ Göttingen:

142

INDEX OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES

OLD TESTAMENT Psalms 37:11—103 Isaiah :10—136 :13-25—136 •24—99 Daniel 4:8—66 4:21—66 7—103, 1 1 6 7 1 3 — 6 6 f. 7:25—116 9—116

APOCRYPHA A N D PSEUDEPIGRAPHA 4 Ezra 4:11—94 4:26ff.—93 Enoch 5:7—103 5:17—103 15:3-7—94 37-69—116 38:1 ff.—136 39:6 f . — 1 3 6 70-71—117 90-91—99 90:20—103 98:9 f.—87 Testament of Daniel 5-6—78 Assumption of Moses 10:2—78, 102

13:10-13—63 13:17—74 Matthew 13:24 ff.—14, 61 4:8 f.—42 13:36-43—61 4:17—65 13:37—97 4:23—65 13:39—62 5:3—71 13:41—61 5:5—103 13:43—97, 127 5:8 f.—94 1 3 : 4 7 - 5 0 — 6 1 , 97 5:10—71 1 6 : 1 3 — 1 2 1 , 126 5:13 f . — 1 1 0 16:17 f.—79 5:20—83, 105 f. 16:23—122 6:9—73 16:28—118 6:10—38, 42, 62, 73 18:2—106 612—124 18:3—95 6:19 f.—94, 104 18:4—106 6:19-34—107 19:4 ff.—109 6:33—49, 83, 1 0 6 19:28—93-95 6:34—83 2 1 : 3 1 — 4 0 , 62, 68 f. 7:14—40 21:32—106 8:11 f.—98 21:43 f.—87 8:11 ff.—99 23:13—40 8:12—87 24:30—38 8:16 f.—102 24:33—66 8:19 f . — 1 1 8 f. 25:31—62, 127 9:8—124 25:31 f.—98 9:35—65 25:31-46—61 10:7—65 25:34—127 10:14—85 25:41—99 11:3—68 25:46—62, 99 11:6—68 28:20—23 11:11—40, 68-71 1 1 : 1 1 f.—86, 102 1 1 : 1 2 — 4 9 , 69 f., 83 Mark 1 1 : 1 9 — 1 2 2 , 126 1:12 f.—42 11:27—116, 118 1:14—78 12:22-32—100 1 : 1 5 — 3 8 , 65 12:24—79 2:10—123-126 12:25-27—77 12:28—62, 66, 7 4 , 76, 101 2 : 2 7 — 1 2 4 - 1 2 6 2:28—123-126 12:41 f.—98 3:27—42 f., 81 12:45—101

NEW TESTAMENT

143

INDEXES

4 : 1 1 — 5 0 , 63 f., 72 6:12—65 7:10 ff.—110 8:35—99 9:1—38, 69, 97 9:2 ff.—80 9:21 ff—43 9:43 ff—97, 1 1 0 9:45—98 9:48—99 10:1-12—110 10:27—107 f. 10:37-45—119 10:40—127 1 0 : 4 5 — 3 3 , 49, 88 1 2 : 1 7 — 8 3 , 102 12:25—94 f. 12:30 ff.—116 13—92 13:2—93 1 3 : 4 f.—93 13:24 f.—92 13:26—38, 1 1 9 13:29—66, 93 13:32—83, 91, 118 14:24—88 14:25—93 14:62—119 Luke 1:68 f.—103 1.71-75—103 3:16—115 4:5-7—42 4:6—78, 80, 102 4.17—78 4:18-21—38 4:43—65 7:16—120 7:28—115 7:30—86 7:34—122 7:39—120 8:1—65 8:9-10—63 9:39—90 10:1-16—80 1 0 : 9 — 6 5 - 6 7 , 78 10.10—85 10:11—65 10:17 f.—43

10:17 ff.—81 10:18—102 10:18 ff.—80 11:20—66 f. 11:21 f.—81 1 2 : 3 1 — 7 3 , 98, 106 12:32—83 12:54 ff.—79 12:57-13:9—106 13:1-5—106 13:16—102 13:24—69, 84 13:33—120 14:25 f . — 1 1 1 1 4 : 2 6 — 1 0 9 f. 1 4 : 2 7 - 3 3 — 1 1 0 f. 15:18—63 15:21—63 16:16—49 16:22 f . — 1 3 6 16:23 ff.—99 17:20—79, 91 17:20 f . - 3 9 , 48, 8 9 - 9 1 1 7 : 2 1 — 1 2 , 7 2 - 7 4 , 76 f. 17:21 ff.— 90 f. 17:22—83 17:22 ff.—92 17:22-37—38 18:7—83 18:29—110 20:35—107 21:27—38 21:28—83 21:31—66 2 2 : 1 4 - 3 0 — 8 3 (• 22:18—84 22:19 f.—88 22:25—102 22:28 ff.—84, 127 22:29 f . — 1 0 3 22:31 f.—81 23:42—99, 127 23:43—89, 99, 136 24:19—120 John 3:3—95 3:5—62 3:6—95 3:14—82, 1 1 9 , 130 3:25-82

4:1 ff—82 5:26 f . — 1 2 6 5:27—130 6:15—70, 83, 102 8:32—102 8:43 f.—102 1 2 : 3 1 — 8 0 , 102 12:32 f . — 1 2 0 13:13—127 14:2 f . — 1 3 6 18:36 f.—61 Acts 1:7—83 2:36—62, 1 2 1 , 130 3:19 ff.—89 3:22—120 7:37—120 7:52—120 7:56—122 10:38—120 14:22—136 Romans 1:4—69, 97, 121 6:6—75 8:3—75 8:17—121 10:6—69 f. 1 Corinthians 4:9—74 7:31—108 11:24 f.—88 15:24 f.—62, 127 15:50-52—94 f. 2 Corinthians 5:4-10—136 5:17—96 Philippians 1:23—136 2:9—121 3:20—107 Colossians 1:13 f-—62 2:15—75 3:2—107 3:3-75

144

. 12-17—93 15—127 1 7 — 1 2 7 . 129 12:7 ff. 102 12:10—75 20:4—127 21:1—93 21:5—93 POST-CANONICAL Revelation 3:21—127 6—92 f.9 9 1 Peter 1:3—95 1:23—95 2 Pr/w 3:9—92 3:10—93 1 John 3:8—81. 74 Thomas 46—95 91—39 Vidache 10—89 10:6—83 145 .. — 1 3 6 Titus 3:5—95 Hebrews 12:23—136 James 1:6-8.-107 2:1 f.INDEXES 1 Thcsialonians 4:16 f .-42.

64. J . F. 24. 1 f. 75.. 125 Beaslev-Murrav.. W . 44. xii. 67.. J . 6. K. H. 3. . . J . 96 146 . Burrows. 44 Grobel. 3 Dibelius. .. 27 Borsch. W. 4 1 . G . E. D. 44 Berkev. E. ConzeJmann. R. J . 82 Ghillany. von. 67' Best... G . 69 f. 94 Clark. 78 Gunkel. S.1 1 7 . G. H. 48 Grässer. viii Füller. 17. Dupont. 95 Brandon.. 99 Feine. 30 Carlyle.. 1 1 6 Bacon. R. M.. . 3 {. K.... K.' B .. 76 Bevschlag. 133 f. MacL. E. 1 1 7 Bartsch. viii Fairhurst. 34 f. 120 Filson. 34.. W. 48 Fuchs. 37. 48 Grant. H. 1 1 5 . T. \V. K. 73. 62 Deegan. 27 Barton. C.. G.. 1 1 8 Bousett.. C. 25 Cohb. viii Ehrhardt. . L. H. P. Barclay. 41 Goethe.INDEX OF NAMES Adam.. 2 1 . G . 70. 36. viii.. R. . W. J.. C . F. 46.. 35. 26 Baur. O. V.. . 67 Clement of Alexandria. 26. D. 39 Antiochus Epiphanes. W. M . .. G . J . 34.. . H. J.. 75 Grundmann... S. 87 F o r d . G. A ... 34 f. 44 Cullmann. 123 Bornkamm. A . W . D. 4 1 . M. H. 98 Bulman. E. J r . R-. O. 44. xii. 48 Cadoux. . 36 Colwcll. 31 f. 42 Barth. 2. C. 39 Barrett. 26. C . B. N... 1 1 6 Bonhoeffer. . . 27. S. P. 1 1 8 Francis. 26-29. F. M. 39. F. T. 1 1 3 Granskou. ix Charles.. . F. 48 Dodd. E. 1 1 3 Case... D... B. 47. 39... 44 Buswell.. xi {. A. M. 25 Craig.. W.. 74.. 68 Ebeling. 95 Coates. 47 Da/man. 31 Campbell. W.. 27 Boobyer. D. W. 123 Beare. ... 34 Eliot. 28... 7 1 . 34 f. 1 1 7 Bundy. H. H. 86 Eaton. 32 Black. . 99. K. 27. ] . 3 4 3 8 .. T. 34. 43 Betz. 40 Bultmann.. 70 Brown. 29 Branscomb. G . 47 f. O. 76 Campion. F. C . R.. 64. Braumann. 29. C. G. 34-36 Baldcnsperger... F. C. F. C .4 3 . 98 Bil'lerbeck. H. 47 / Cox.. W. 35 Buchanon. R. W. 30 Gilmour. W . . 27. 30. H..

. W . 112 f. . C . 57 Nicbuhr. W. G .. 28 147 . W. .. A . P. 7 Holmström. 88 Hunter. . R. J. R. S.. P. 61 Moore. 25 Origen. E . E. . 3... 122 Holtzmann. 36. W .. 34. . 30 Lundström.. 117 Manson. 39 Kruska. 94. 40. 19 f.. 95 Kaftan. 44. R. Reischle. W . 84 Pfleiderer. J r . J . 84. C . . H. 22. 3 Smith. E . W . 44 f. McCown. H. 46. . 7 1 . . W . 71 Schweizer. 1 1 4 Robinson. 134 Kahler. H. 34. M . 102 Jeremias. R. .. A. Koester. A. 3 1 ..4 0 . A. J . 49.. .. 124 Schleiermacher. O. L.. 67 Ladd. 124 Rauschenbusch.. R.. G . 34. ix f. 1 1 6 . 125 Hedrick. H. 82 R o b i n s o n . 46 f. 64. 86.-Clement.. . 70.. 103 Justin Martyr. 31. O. 11 Holsten. 110 Hay. I. . E . 27. . 6 Hort. 4 f. . 25.. 3 . Issel. ] . H. J . 4. L . 34 f.enberg.. W . E . 44. 76 Sanday. ] .INDEXES Hahn. 6 Harnack. 45. 44. E . 47 f. F. J . 1 1 7 Holland. 76. 3 Minear. 68. 1 4 . 90.. viii... 42 f. W. 44 Shubert.. 39 Schonfield. 61 Ps. 28 Moltmann. 36-38. H. 37. 35. 4 6 . 70 Panr. 95 Rahlk. 87 Schmoller. 45 Mathews. Petrin. 1 0 . 76 Knopf. . A. S. R. C. 47. 26 Kee. 29. J .. L. E. R..1 2 .. . 87 Lowrie. 40. H.. T. D. . M. 45 Ritsehl.. 56. 34 Niebuhr. 57.. 4. de Lagarde. 97 Schnackenburg. 45 Hope. ix. xii Herrmann. viii. 29 Schweitzer.. von. 31. 34 f.. 44 Leiten. .1 7 . J . 10 Schäfer.. T... 28 Montgomery. 1. 35. 43. 31 Maddox. H. S.. 1 1 7 de Jongste. U. . B. 91 Higgins. H. 32 Saunders. 6 Käsemann. 53. . 56. B. C. A . 5 1 .. S.. 40. 123 Lantero. 29. W . W . M . ix f. A . 42 f. 29 f. M. 76. R. 4. G . 38-40. 69 f. 27-36. . 40 Luther. . . 21 Otto. 132 Richardson. A. 24.. 4 Hiers. H. 37. W. 64 Schmauch.. P. 34 f. H. . 14 Schenk. 1 1 7 Scott. 34 f.. 10. 1 0 . 34 f.. 43 May... B. R. P. . 22. F .. J . . M. W. 1 1 8 Hodgson.. M. A . xi.. 78 Meyer. 11 Kümmel. F. 4 Kant. viii. J .. . 4. 39 Murray. P. 2 Knox. 44 Slenczka. 35 Sandmel. F . F. G . D . J . T. C .. S.. 64. viii. . 48 Heitmüller. . 3 8 .. 35 Mauser. H. 132. 73 Harrisvillc. Reimarus. A . . Ridderbos.. N. A . R. A. 97. J . 63.. 28 Lohmeyer. 40.4 8 . 37 Josephus. C ....

44 Wilson. 88 Wilder. 1. . F. P.. 27 f. 68. Woolf... Garamond 148 . 1 1 7 Volz. 39 VielKauer. J . K. P. E. 1 1 7 Teilhard de Chardin.. H. 89 £. E. B. 1 1 7 Troeltsch. 76 Smith.. . C. B. A. M . C . 74. P. 89 f. 34. 6.. J . 35. 68. H. L. viii. H.. 34 Westcotr. D. P. 80. L... N. 44 Strauss.. 47. 30 Talberc. Tödr. J .. 78 Walther. 44 Wernle. .. 89 Winandv. . B.. 9 Weiss. 34. 32. W . 1 7 . 40 f. H.. 91 Windisch. M. Wellhausen. J . 101 Wende. 27 Theodotion. H. P. E.. 124 Type.INDEXES Weizsächer... 68. 35. 4 Yates. 110-112 Werner. 70 Wrede. 6 1 . 72.. 48 Teeple.. 70. F. . 11 on 12 and 1 0 on 1 1 Garamond Display. H. 66 Tillich. H.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful