Kingdom of God/Hezven (4646; (2:5.12, 03:4 | ané the book closes with a description of the messianic age (7:15.17, 6212-16) (see Caragounis 1980, S+119) ‘The book of { Esro conflates the earthly with the transcendental Messiah (12:22), who dies after reign- ang for 400 years (728%. other versions have various: ly 1,00) and 30 years, The Davidic descent of the Messiah is perhaps hic way of sresing continuity in messianic thought, though te content is that of @ transcendental Messiah, as seen from (eg) 1233234 1326 (see Caragounis 86, 11931). In the Qumran serals the erm mafkit occurs over a dozen times, but probably only once of God's Kingdom (1QM 12:7), most of the rest referring to Istael’s kingdom. The idea of God's kingdom is, however, latent in the securians’ belief that they constituted God's tre people who were to fight the esthatologial tate azanst God's enemies (5 Deal Se Scroll; on Judaian general, see Schaver 192. 554), 4 Jesus and the Kingsom of God. Inthe teaching of Jesus the discussion of the kingdom of God revolves aroun’ oxo questions (1) she charac ter and (2) the immizence of the kingdom of God. ‘These two questions are imerrelated and have been. atthe center of scholar dieussion during the past Inundired years. 4, Jes? Dynamic Vier, Jesus concepuon of the kingdom of God had consinury with the OT promise a well as shared cenain fearures with apocalyptic Juéaism, panicularly Daniel, but wert beyond them in ‘cenain important respec: ()] the kingdom of God was primarily dynamic rather than 2. geographical cenity, (2) was conneaed wih the destinyof the Son fof man; (3) entrance imo it was not based on the covenant oF confined w Jews pancipation and (4) whereas in apocalypsicism it was a vague future hope, in Jesus its definite ane ixminent: infact t demands immediae response, ‘With the apocalypcss Jesus held thatthe kingdom of Gor wae no haman achievement but an act of God. However, unlike them be did not expect the kingdom of God 10 follow on upheavals and catastophes, but to appearin a gondle, quot and unebirasive manner. ‘The eatasrophic elemen: for jesus lyin the upheaval his call cused to his folowers’ relations with their family," friends and even their own self. Jesus followers should be wilias to~hate” their own life in ‘order to be worhy of him. worhy of the kingdom of Gos (we Discipleship) 4.2. The Kingdom As Pres: or Future—The Modern Debate. I modern dissssion the Kingdom of God in 420 11:20). His claim was that LX usage translating the Aramaic of Daniel, Modern Greek idiomatic usage: and the parables* of the kingdom al lent their united support to his thesis that the kingdam of God was already a present reality during Jesus’ ministry, The decisive event had occurred in the coming of Jesus. Jesus’ healings,” panicularly his casting out of demons the teaching of Jesus has actualized three questions: (1) What is ts essence? (2) How is it related 10 Jesos person and work? (3) When does it come? Tn the past hundred years since the work of A Risch and J. Weiss the Kingdom of God has been at the cemer of discusion and the three questions bore have teccived a vatiery of answer. Ritschl, influenced by Kant’ idealistic philosophy, conceived ‘of the kingdom of God in primarily ethical erms as the organeation of redeemed humanity, whose factions are inspired by love (o Historical Jers) ‘The interest generated by Rischl's work gave rise to several interpretations of the kingdom of God, principally (1) the sndividualisic, spiritual and non: eschatological interpretation (which located the kingdom of God in the experience of @ person's own hea, an interpretation which was associated with the Nberal schoo}, for whieh the essence of Christianity Tay in certain general principles taught br Jesus, as ‘eg the fatherhcod of God and the brotherhood of all people fe, A. von Hamack, 1886, and W. Her ‘maaan, 1901]h @) the Social Gospel motement in Germany (C. Blumbardk ¢ 1900, and L. Ragaz, 1812) and especially in America with its emphasis on 3 present sotial order based on love and solidarity (5. Machevs, 1897; F.C. Peabody, 900; and particularly W, Rauschenbusch, 1912 Bat the most important interpretation for che continued scholarly discossion was given by Rusts ‘sen son-inase,J Weiss, in his epoch making work Die Pradgt fs vom Reihe Gates (1892, ET Jesu’ Prolana: tion afte Kingdom of God 1971) Weiss reacted strongly against Rich's interpretation, emphasizing the future, eschatological and apocalyptic character of the kingdom of God which is oppesed by the kingdom: of Satan, The kingdom of God would erupt suddenly, be solely the nork of God and sweep away dhe present order. The work of Weiss aroused a orm and with i an unprecedented interest in the theme of the Kingdom of God. In the hands of A Schweitzer the Jine Weiss had struck cut became Inown as Kons ‘qumte Exhatologie ("consistent “futurist” or "thor ‘oughgoing eschaology”). In due time this found is oppasite pole in Dodd's realized eschatology. In he meantime Dalman (1898), by means of philology demonstrated the dynamic character of the kingdom of God in judaism and the NT, which has been the basic assumption of almost all subsequent discussions [According wo Dalman the ide of kingdom of God has 1g teritoial or geographical reference but expresses ‘dynamically the kingly rule of God which is basicaly ‘esctuatological. Hawever, the chcological interpret tion was giten by A. Schweitzer came closest to a “genuine synthesis of realized and Fomirist exchatology in the teaching of our Lord” (Beasley-Murray 1954, 103), Thus, while duly recog- nizing the future character of sayings admizing am interval between the passion and the Parousia (Mk 2218-20; 838 par. Lk 12:89), he understands the eplzhasen of Mathew 12:28, with Dodd, a3 “has come™ at sa the las imax; the 546). And schatolog. rks, ho for ork ihe der D. of ical ind ing ich dae of wit al