CHAPTER IV THE REACTION AGAINST AUTHORITY (continued) In the last chapter I devoted a good deal of space to the consideration of the Ritschlian Theology of faith. I deliberately did so, not because modern Protestantism as a whole has been consciously captured by Ritschlianism, but because Ritschlianism is the clearest presentation of the implicit theology of Protestantism generally, wherever it has abandoned its reliance, in the old-fashioned sense, upon the letter of the Bible. To this extent I believe the claim made by the Ritschlians themselves to have been the first theologians who have developed to its logical conclusion the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith to be a true one. There is, however, another side to the teaching of Ritschl which is equally illuminating, as affording the clue to the interpretation of an aspect of modern Protestant Christianity which is even more prominent to-day than its doctrine of faith and corresponding conception of piety-I mean the new prominence which Ritschlianism gives to the idea of the Kingdom of God, conceived as 'the universal moral community, the aspect under which humanity is included in God's purpose for Himself.'1 This is not indeed precisely the New Testament conception of the Kingdom of God, nor was it primarily derived from an historical exegesis of the New Testament texts. It is primarily a philosophical conception, derived by Ritschl from the teaching of Kant, though of course since Ritschl made it one of the two foci' of Christianity 2 the New Testament has very widely been read in the light of it. It came to be very commonly believed that the phrase Kingdom of God' in the New Testament denoted either an inward principle of spiritual life in the soul of the individual believer-in which connexion great play was made with the Lucan saying, 'The Kingdom of God is within you'3—or an ideal state of human society to be gradually realised and brought about by the efforts of believers, who were not merely to pray but to work for the doing of God's will upon the earth. The coming of God's Kingdom was regarded as the goal of Christian endeavour, a task or enterprise to which believers everywhere were to set their hands. This particular reading of the New Testament has been effectively challenged in the name of historical science by the so-called ' eschatological' school of Schweitzer and the late Johannes Weiss, who, whatever the exaggerations of which they may have been guilty 1 Quoted by Garvie from Herrmann's Die Religion im Verhältnis zum Welterkennen und zur Sittlichkeit. The translation is apparently Garvie's. 2 The reference is to Ritschl's famous description of Christianity as an ellipse with two foci'-the two foci in question being Justification by Faith and the Kingdom of God. 3 Luke xvii. 21. in the development of their thesis, would seem in the main issues to have succeeded in making good their point. The newer reading of the documents is broadly as follows. In the New Testament the Kingdom of God means, in the first place, the Sovereignty of God, regarded as being about to be decisively and victoriously asserted in such a fashion as to involve the downfall of all hostile and evil forces, and the complete and final end of whatever in the world as it actually is-i.e., in the present' Age'is not in accordance with God's will. The idea is thus primarily an eschatological conception: it is concerned with the 'Age to Come': as such it is an object of prayer and of Christian longing and future hope. In the second place, inasmuch as in Judaism too it was held that when God established His Malkuth or 'Sovereignty' the saints were to 'possess ' it,1 the 'little flock' who formed the nucleus of the true Israel after the Spirit were the destined inheritors of the Kingdom of God,2 and to 'enter the Kingdom was equivalent to entering into 'life' (i.e., primarily eternal life' in the eschatological sense). The Kingdom thus becomes practically identified with eternal salvation; it is in any case an object of primary concern, a treasure worth the sacrifice of everything else.5 Of course, the joys of the Kingdom are spiritual-its essence is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. In certain of the parables 1 Daniel vii. 22. 3 Cf. Mark x. 23 with x. 17. 4 2 Luke xii. 32. 4 Matt. vi. 33. 6 Rom. xiv. 17. in S. Matthew the Kingdom of God1 appears to be identified with the world 2 or with the Christian Ecclesia,3 regarded as the present and provisional sphere of God's Sovereignty; but the eschatological reference is seen in the fact that these are parables of the judgment—they look forward to the end of the Age,' when all things that cause stumbling and they that do iniquity' shall be removed from the sphere of God's Sovereignty. It is notorious that the earliest Christianity thought of the 'end of the Age' and the Judgment as close at hand: in the teaching of our Lord also the Kingdom is at hand-that fact constitutes the urgency of His call to repentance.5 This Age and the Age to Come already begin, as it were, to overlap ; and in mighty works of the Spirit the Kingdom of God has come unexpectedly upon men (ἔφθασεν ἐφ' ὑμᾶς); 6 it is in their midst though they do not realise it; the consummation may be rapid as the growth of a mustard-plant, inscrutable as the working of leaven in meal.9 Christians, in particular, are already living, in a certain sense, in the Age to Come: their 'citizenship' is 'in heaven,' 10 and they have 'tasted' the powers of the Coming Age.' 11 Divergence of view is possible as to the meaning 1 The Matthaean phrase Kingdom of heaven,' or more accurately Kingdom of the heavens,' is identical in meaning with 'Kingdom of God,' 'Heaven' or 'the Heavens' being an accepted Jewish paraphrase for the Divine Name. 3 Matt. xiii. 47 sqq. 5 Mark i. 15. 6 Matt. xii. 28. Luke xvii. 21. I cannot but think that ἐντὸς ὑμῶν in this verse is an attempt to render some Aramaic phrase meaning 2 Matt. xiii. 24 sqq., 36 sqq. 4 Matt. xiii. 41. ' in your midst.' Matt. xiii. 33. 8 Matt. xiii. 31-32. 10 Philippians iii. 20. 11 Heb. vi. 5. of certain of these texts. Some scholars lay more stress upon the view that the Kingdom in some passages is regarded as being already present, albeit proleptically and in an incomplete form. Others defend still the older view that the parables of the Leaven and of the Mustard Seed, as also that of the Sower (which appears primarily to reflect our Lord's own personal experience as a preacher), are intended to express the idea of the growth from insignificant beginnings of the Christian Church, regarded as virtually equivalent to the Kingdom, as being the sphere of its partial realisation. Nevertheless the propositions cannot well be disputed (1) that the term 'Kingdom of God' in the New Testament expresses, primarily at least, an eschatological conception; (2) that by the phrase 'Kingdom of God,' whether the Kingdom is rightly to be regarded as partly present or as wholly future, is meant primarily an assertion of the Divine Sovereignty; and (3) that in that meaning of it in which the Kingdom is regarded as future, its establishment is not in the New Testament represented as being the task or duty of the Christian Church. The Kingdom is regarded as being wholly the gift and the work of God, who will bring it to pass in His good time. The Lord Jesus of the Gospels is not the 'Founder' of the Kingdom: He is the Son of Man who announces God's Kingdom as close at hand, and who is at the same time the Messianic Redeemer of God's people. The task which in the New Testament is assigned to the Christian Church is essentially preparatory to the coming of the Kingdom. It is not that of 'building' |