I.

By the Rev. J. H. BERNARD, D.D., Trinity College, Dublin.

THE phrase "kingdom of God," which occurs in all four Gospels, is not to be distinguished from "kingdom of heaven," which is peculiar to St. Matthew. Either is a phrase which would have had a well-understood meaning to a Jew. The Hebrew theocracy had been a "kingdom of God" among men, and the expectation of the kingdom of the Messiah to be established on earth was vivid and universal, as we see not only from passing phrases in the New Testament (e.g. Acts i. 6), but from the pseudepigraphical literature in which. the hopes and fears of the later Jews appear. The "old covenant" was to be replaced by the new (cf. Jer. xxxi. 31-34 with Heb. viii. 8-11). The kingdom of Christ on earth was to be the "fulfilling" of the Jewish theocracy (Matt. xxi. 43), as in turn it pointed forward to its own consummation in heaven. Its laws were definite (Matt. v.-vii., etc.; cf. also Acts i. 3), its organisation visible (Matt. xvi. 18, 19, where it is implicitly identified with the KkAnoia), its subjects bad as well as good (Matt. xiii. 24); but yet its dominion was to be primarily over the heart and conscience. Existing in the world, it does not derive its authority therefrom (John xviii. 36). Thus the equivalent expressions "kingdom of God," "kingdom of heaven," "My kingdom," are always used of the Church of Christ (a) on earth (Mark iv. 30; Luke ix. 27, etc.), or (b) in heaven (Mark xiv. 25; Luke xiii. 28, etc.). The continuity between the Christian life here and hereafter, the unity of the Church militant and the Church triumphant are such prominent thoughts in the New Testament that it is often not easy sharply to distinguish meaning (a) from meaning (b).

It has been urged that the words of Luke xvii. 21 preclude the idea that the "kingdom of God" is any visible society. But it is extremely doubtful whether "within you" is the meaning of evTÒS

ὑμῶν here. For "In the midst of you" or "amongst you" is (i.) a quite legitimate rendering of the Greek (see Meyer in loc. for classical parallels), and (ii) is more suitable to the context. The Pharisees are the persons addressed, and it is not easy to see how it could be said that the kingdom of God was pre-eminently in them. Alford, Bengel, De Wette, and others, as well as Meyer, support the rendering "amongst you.

It is worth observing that the anxiety displayed by the early Christian apologists to show that the "kingdom of God" was, whatever might appear to the contrary, a spiritual kingdom in essence, indicates that the identification of it with the Christian society was, from the first, conspicuous.

II.

By the Rev. Professor JAMES Orr, D.D.,
Edinburgh.

It is no easy task to state in precise words the really exhaustless meaning of that great expression of Christ "the kingdom of heaven," or "the kingdom of God."1 It is evident that in His preaching of the kingdom Jesus meant to attach Himself to an already existing notion, i.e. to the hopes of a Messianic kingdom in his time and nation, and specially to the better class of these hopes in the more spiritual part of the people (Luke ii. 38); and further, to the idea of the kingdom already developed in the Old Testament. This means more than that Jesus merely used the term in a spirit of accommodation, putting into it an entirely different meaning from His hearers. It means that He was in essential identity with the hopes of His nation, so far as these had a root in Old Testament ideas, and, with all their imper

66

1 I do not discuss the difference of these terms, or the question as to which of them Christ Himself habitually used. Kingdom of heaven "is found in Matthew, with only five exceptions; the other evangelists invariably use kingdom of God." The difference may be explained, if we suppose that Jesus, in His Aramaic preaching to the peasantry of Galilee, used habitually the current Hebrew phrase "kingdom of heaven"; while the Greek translators might either, as with our existing Matthew, keep this expression, or might render it by its equivalent, the "kingdom of God," as in the other Gospels.

fections, held fast certain great features of the Old Testament conception. We can see that He took over, even, many of the eschatological features of the popular hopes, and gave them a new setting in His own teaching.

Yet it is not less evident to a reader of the Gospels that through the action of the new and higher ideas which Jesus introduced in the sphere of religion and morality, He so vitally transformed these existing ideas as practically to create a new conception-something fresh and original-which constitutes His own distinctive conception of the kingdom. Yet so great is the fulness of thoughts which Jesus imports into this conception,-under so many sides and aspects does He present it in His teaching, that it is exceedingly difficult to find any one phrase or formula which adequately sums them up, or does more than present some very partial aspect of the truth. We may say, e.g. with Tholuck, attaching ourselves to the idea of the Old Testament theocracy, though without its limitations, that the kingdom is "an organised community which has the principle of its life in the will of the personal God"; or may, with Ritschl, define it as an ethical society, "in which the members are bound together by love to God and love to man, and act solely from the motive of love." But how little does either of these expressions tell us of the real nature of this great divine commonwealth, full of saving grace and spiritual blessings to men, which Christ came to found! We may, indeed, speak generally of the kingdom as a "reign" of God, and may properly enough differentiate it from God's ordinary providential rule in the worlds of matter and of mind, which is never for a moment suspended, by saying that it is a moral rule-a rule in the hearts of men, a rule by moral means over willing and obedient subjects. Or we may again point out, what it is assuredly most important to observe, that it is an error to view the kingdom of God as confined solely to the inward life, or even to narrow it down to identity with the Church. Its domain, if we interpret Jesus rightly, is to extend till it includes everything. It is a principle working from within outwards for the renewal and transformation of every department of our earthly existence society, family life, art, literature, family life, art, literature, government, commerce, etc. And it ends in glory. But when all this is said, we are far from having explained what kind of principle it is, or

in what its essence as the kingdom of God peculiarly consists.

Here, again, when we turn to Christ's teaching, we are dazzled, and perhaps not a little bewildered, at the multiplicity of forms in which Christ unfolds the content of His conception. Now the kingdom is spoken of as a power in the soul of the individual, now as a leaven in the world working for its spiritual transformation, now as a mixture of wheat and tares, now as a sum of blessings (the summum bonum) which a seeks for, or again unexpectedly finds, now as something altogether future and celestial, etc. Amidst these varying images and statements, however, some things stand out clear. One thing is the connexion of the kingdom with Christ's own Person. He is not simply the founder of the kingdom (by His teaching, practical exhibitions of sympathy and grace, and expiatory death), and not simply the type and representative of the new relation of sonship to God into which men are invited to enter through Him,-but it is His kingdom as well as the Father's, and He is Lord and King over it (e.g. Matt. xiii. 41, xvi. 28, xx. 21, xxv. 34, 40). It is connected with His Person as "Son of Man" and "Son of God"-with His Messiahship. Another thing is that this kingdom is already in existence, and planted as a growing, developing reality in men's hearts and in society. I do not see how any one can study Christ's parables and doubt this fact. Further, as a kingdom developing from an inward principle of life (the seed is the "truth," the "word" of the kingdom), it is a kingdom entirely spiritual, free alike from national and ceremonial limitations, working in its own powers, and by its own laws, and destined in the end to embrace all peoples. Finally, it is a kingdom which pursues its development through a succession of crises, culminates in its earthly form in a judgment, and separation of good and bad, and attains its perfection in new conditions. as a kingdom of glory (Matt. xiii. 43; xxv. 34, 46).

Even these determinations—it must still be said -do not take us into the inner nature and essence of this kingdom. To reach this we have to understand Christ's doctrine of God, whose kingdom it is-"the kingdom of their Father" (Matt. xiii. 43)

-His doctrine of man's destination to sonship with God, His doctrine of righteousness as a development of the law of love, His doctrine, too, of man's

с

existing moral state, and wants and needs as a sinner, and of God's gracious dispositions towards him, and treatment of him in that state,—all matters which cannot be entered into here. Only we cannot err in finding the root of Christ's conception of His kingdom in His own perfect consciousness of His filial relation to His Father, together with the new views of religion, of righteousness, of duty, of blessedness, etc., which this involved. Further, the fullest emphasis must be laid on the fact that the kingdom in Christ's conception of it is a kingdom of "grace"-the message of it "good tidings." Its proclamation is a gospel, and it brings to man at once the fullest provision for his needs as a sinner, the highest satisfaction of his moral life, and the noblest end for his practical realisation. God's royalty in His kingdom is shown not less by gift than by rule; it is gracious, unstinted, limitless giving which is the foundation of the whole. The kingdom in this light is the sphere of the Father's gracious, unbounded, self-communication for the spiritual blessing and enrichment of His people—the realm of the eternal life.

It lies in the nature of this kingdom that it has power-like every other thing of life-to create for itself the organs for its own realisation. That Christ contemplated the union of the members of His kingdom into a visible society-or Church-is evident from many indications; and the important functions which Christ entrusts to this society are evident from the terms in which He speaks of it, the promises He gives to it, the authority He confers upon it, the sacraments He leaves with it, and the assurances of his perpetual presence which are among His last words to it. But while the Church is central among the organs which exist for the realisation of the end of Christ's kingdom,— and we must take the Church here in no narrow sense, while it is perhaps the only organ of direct divine appointment, as it is in fact the only form of society which has ever directly attempted to give embodiment to this kingdom,—we need not claim for it exclusiveness in this respect. There is no reason why every form of organised effort for the moral and social elevation of human beings, and for the promotion of higher ideals of purity and duty in all the spheres of human existence,-so far as such effort is inspired by Christ's spirit, and proceeds on avowedly Christian lines,-should not regard itself as belonging to Christ's kingdom, and

in affiliation with its great central organ-the Church. As a final, though imperfect, attempt at definition, might we not say, in light of what has precededthe kingdom of God is that new, spiritual, invisible, order of things introduced into the world by Christ, which is, on the one hand, the reign of God in His Fatherly love and grace in hearts trustfully sub mitted to Him through His Son, and, on the other, the union of those thus saved and blessed for the doing of God's will, and the realisation of righteousness, which is but another name for the divine supremacy, in all the spheres and departments of their earthly existence, yet with the hope of a longer and fuller existence in eternity, when God shall be truly "all in all." But I feel even when writing these words, how altogether unworthy and inadequate they are to do any justice to the great divine conception of the Saviour.

III.

By the Rev. CALEB SCOTT, D.D., Principal of the Lancashire Independent College, Manchester.

To my thinking, the first question which the expression "kingdom of God" or "of heaven," as used by our Lord, suggests is, Who is the King? It may be said the answer to that question is involved in the phrase itself. God must be the King of the kingdom of God. But the accuracy of such a reply is open to question. Surely the fact is full of significance, that whilst the phrase "kingdom of God" was so often on the lips of Jesus, He never once spoke of God as the King of that kingdom. Indeed, the only instance in which it can be contended He used the word "King" of God was when, speaking of Jerusalem, He quoted the words, "It is the city of the great King." Christ Himself is the King of that kingdom. It pertains to His mediatorial work. He founded it and laid down its laws. Absolute allegiance to Him is the one condition of entrance. Wherever that condition is found, there is membership of that kingdom. The phrase suggests the ideas of authority and rule-the authority and rule of Jesus Christ. It suggests the ideas of submission and obedience submission and obedience to Jesus Christ. Doubtless it suggests many other thoughts about the relation of the members of that kingdom to each other and to outsiders, but in every aspect

of that kingdom the dominant thought is absolute allegiance to Jesus Christ.

His

Now the word "kingdom" does not carry with it the idea of finality. It is associated with conflict, struggle, subjection, compulsion. The loftiest thought of our Lord respecting the state of things which will be ushered in when the divine purposes are fulfilled is not found in the word "kingdom" and what it connotes. It is found in the word "Father" and what it connotes. As used by our Lord that word when properly understood does not require to be bolstered up by any other word whatever, whether "Sovereign" or any other. It was never so bolstered up by Jesus Christ. words are "The Father," "My Father," "Your Father," "Holy Father," "Righteous Father." The ideas of solidarity, fellowship, brotherhood, are doubtless not absent from the phrase "Kingdom of God," but they are far more luminous as they gather around the word "Father." Such a thought, as losing the idea of Fatherhood and what it implies, in something higher is a thought which cannot be entertained; but the thought of the absorption of the idea of kingdom in something higher is not absent from the theology of the Apostle Paul. spoke of a time when the Mediator shall deliver up the kingdom to the Father. In the Father is to be found "the infinite rest and repose, after the close of that long struggle for which alone power and authority are needed." All that the word "King" suggests, which differentiates it from the word "Father," belongs to what is transitory. Nothing that the word Father, rightly interpreted according to its inmost meaning, suggests can ever pass away.

IV.

By the Rev. Professor ALEXANDER Stewart, D.D., Aberdeen.

"The kingdom of God," as used by our Lord, signified the whole sphere in which the will of God, as an ethical power, is recognised and obeyed. It was the reign of righteousness. The idea was so far traditional; in it the theocracy of Israel, the ideal of the prophets, was still further purified and enlarged. In our Lord's use of it, a certain elasticity is apparent, which is, however, never vagueness. The "kingdom" may be in germ, in process of being realised, or ideally perfect and complete. It has two sides-the intensive, the qualities which distinguish it;1 and the extensive, the moral beings whom it includes, and so far as they are under its influence.2 It is, however, the former much more, and more frequently, than the latter. It is inward, spiritual, invisible, but ever struggling, as it were, towards outward expression and realisation; hence it sometimes appears to be identified with such expression, however inadequate this may yet be. In the future, however, the outward and inward shall correspond. Perhaps what Jesus means by the "kingdom of God" is best seen from the position He gives it in the Lord's Prayer. God's kingdom begins when His kingdom begins when His "name is hallowed," with the turning of the heart in loyalty and devotion towards Him; and is perfected when His "will is done, as in heaven so in earth."

1 E.g. Matt. vi. 33; Luke xvii. 20, 21; John iii. 3. 2 Matt. xxi. 31; Mark x. 14; Luke vii. 28.

3 Mark ix. 47, x. 24; Luke xiii. 28, xiv. 15-24, xxii. 16.

The

the Synoptic Gospels. If I should ever be persuaded of the truth of the documentary hypothesis, I should treat the question of the external evidences for the order of the four Gospels in just the same way as I have done.

3. I cannot admit that all the evidences prior to 200 A.D., with the single exception of Irenæus, support Mr. Halcombe's order. I claim for the opposite view the Muratorian fragment on the Canon, the text of which I do not believe to have

been corrupted, as Mr. Halcombe supposes.

Clement of Alexandria, "giving the tradition of the primitive fathers," says that, "John, last of all, observing that the material facts had been exhibited in the other Gospels, produced at the instigation of his acquaintances, and under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, a spiritual gospel" (Eusebius, H. E. vi. 14). The Syrian versions also, the oldest of which belong to the second century, do not give Mr. Halcombe's order. The fragments of the Curetonian Syriac have at present a peculiar order of their own Matthew, Mark, John, Luke. But nothing is extant of the version of St. Mark except

St. John's Gospel is the root, a most unfortunate and misleading one.

9. The assertion that the evidences on which I rely neutralise one another does not seem to me to be warranted.

Therefore I see no reason to recede from the position which I took up in my first article. ARTHUR WRIGHT.

Queens' College, Cambridge.

which in the common text St. Mark is concluded. In the newly-discovered palimpsest, however, of this version, all these twelve verses are omitted, a most significant fact; and St. Luke's Gospel follows St. Mark xvi. 8 immediately on the same page, with no space left between. The four Gospels stand in the common order: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.

4. Again, I further reduce Mr. Halcombe's fourteen witnesses by denying that the Apostolical Constitutions and the Synopsis of Scripture are genuine apostolical works. I cannot allow that they or the vocabularies of the Memphitic and Thebaic versions, or Tertullian's fourth book against Marcion, or the Eastern Lectionaries belong to the second century. I do not admit that Papias supports Mr. Halcombe. Tatian's evidence is ambiguous.

The division of the gospel into Gospels by apostles and Gospels by disciples of apostles does not appear to me to be "universally prevalent." The absurd and late tradition that the Apostles' Creed was composed by the twelve apostles, each contributing one clause, seems to me to testify nothing respecting the date or composition of the Gospels.

5. I cannot accept Mr. Halcombe's inferences from the testimony of Irenæus.

6. I do not allow that because St. Luke in his preface to the Acts of the Apostles uses the word Móyos to mean "treatise," therefore the same word must mean "written treatises" or "Gospels" in the Epistles. The derivation and the Old Testament use of the term appear to me to point very decidedly the other way. When St. John wrote "In the beginning was the word (Aóyos)," he was not thinking of the Gospels.

7. I cannot but think Mr. Halcombe's comparison of the three Gospels to a tree, of which

Aramaic Gospel.1

a little work, The First Three Gospels in Greek arranged in Parallel Columns, which I published in 1882, I gave a long list of these "duplicates," but I there called them "conflate readings," adopting Westcott and Hort's term, in order to indicate that they are combinations of words and phrases to be found in the Greek of Matthew and Luke, or of Matthew or Luke alone. My object was to establish the posteriority of Mark to Matthew and Luke, in the same manner as Drs. Westcott and Hort had proved the posteriority of Syrian to Western and other readings by their analysis of conflate readings. Unfortunately, my knowledge of Aramaic is too meagre to allow me to judge whether Professor Marshall has proved his thesis in the first portion of his article in THE EXPOSITORY TIMES for March, but I join issue with him at once on this question as it bears on the matter of these conflate or combined readings. In biblical criticism as well as in physical science, it is a sound rule to follow the maxim: Entia non sunt multiplicanda præter necessitatem. The "two renderings of the Aramaic" are, in my opinion, such "unnecessary essences." The phenomena of Mark's Gospel can be perfectly well explained by causes already existent, viz. in the Greek Gospels of Matthew and Luke. As a recent

1 Dr. Campbell's paper reached us just too late for our June issue, for which it was evidently written.-EDITOR.