CHAPTER IV

THE KINGDOM OF GOD

II. IN PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY

We now

Nationalism of primitive Christianity. come to the consideration of the place which the Kingdom of God occupied in apostolic preaching, and the reason why it continued to be associated with the name of Jesus, although Jesus Himself had apparently been silenced in a most cruel and tragical fashion. The first thing to be clearly understood in this connection is that the primitive Christians thought almost precisely what the Jews did about the Kingdom and the manner of its coming. The one great point of difference between Jew and Christian was that the latter declared Jesus to be the Messiah, whereas the former contemptuously maintained that He was not. In practically all other respects their views and expectations were identical. The Christians did not know that they had a new religion; they supposed themselves to be loyal Jews, just as the Methodists eighteen centuries later supposed themselves to be orthodox members of the Church of England until they were turned out of it. There was one conspicuous differ

88

ence between orthodox Judaism and the Judaism of the followers of Jesus; the former was dis-spirited and morally powerless, while the latter was full of enthusiasm and spiritual energy. We have already seen that what chiefly differentiated the preaching of Jesus from that of the ordinary religious teachers of the time was the moral passion that informed it; exactly the same difference is observable between Jews and Christians in New Testament times.

The followers of Jesus did not call themselves Christians; they never thought of such a thing. We read that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts xi. 26), but we do not read that they ever voluntarily assumed the name. Like the terms Quaker and Puritan, the name "Christian was at first fastened upon its wearers as a sort of popular nickname, by which they were distinguished from ordinary folk. Even then the name could not have been one which took its rise in Jewish circles, for, literally construed, it meant believers in or followers of the Messiah. No orthodox Jew could admit for a moment that the adherents of an executed criminal were genuine believers in the Messiah. Thus the very name is an indication that the new religion very early broke its way through the exclusiveness of ordinary Jewish religious ideas. It is not to be supposed that such an important departure could have been made without struggle and hesitation, and when we come

to examine New Testament literature in the light thrown upon it by modern historical criticism, we can see that the struggle and hesitation must have been considerable. The step thus taken was most momentous in its after effects, for it made possible the transformation of the new religious society into a world-wide organisation which has survived the decay of one great civilisation, and become the guiding influence in the rise of another which is still vigorous, and bids fair to become universal. That this step was ever taken at all was due principally to the energy of one man, Saul of Tarsus, better known as the apostle Paul. But for Paul Christianity would have struggled on for a while as a small Jewish sect and then disappeared from history; that is, unless its moral power might have been continued such as to break through all barriers of national prejudice.

The situation at the death of Jesus. But our chief concern at present is with the gospel which these first Christians believed they had to preach. We shall see as we proceed that Paul had some influence upon that also, and not wholly for the best. In order that we may understand how this came about, let us briefly examine the situation as it appeared to the followers of Jesus when their Master had been put to death. Naturally enough, their first feeling must have been one of utter consternation. The little group of Gali

leans who had accompanied Him on His last journey to Jerusalem did so in the confident expectation that something portentous would take place there, perhaps a public and national recognition of the Messianic dignity of Jesus. True, they had some misgivings on the subject, if we are to credit the Johannine reference to the anxiety they are said to have felt for His safety in the great capital. "Master, the Jews of late sought to stone Thee, and goest Thou thither again?" But we may take it as fairly certain that their simple-hearted enthusiasm for their leader led them to form the most extravagant anticipations concerning the crisis which they supposed to be at hand. They even began to compete with each other for positions of authority in the new order which should follow the upheaval. They wanted to be great officials. "Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on Thy right hand, and the other on the left in Thy kingdom," was a fond mother's prayer (Matt. XX. 21). Jesus did not rebuke the matter-of-fact nature of this kind of expectation, although he forbade selfish ambition. On the contrary, He seems to have encouraged it:

"Ye are they which have continued with Me in My trials; and I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as My Father appointed unto Me, that ye may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom; and ye shall sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Luke xxii. 28–30).

Could anything be more realistic? Already they

were partitioning out the great offices of State among themselves! The triumphal entry into Jerusalem would go far to confirm their vivid belief in the golden future, and nowhere is this belief more clearly expressed than in the account of what took place at the Passover celebration in the upper room - the Last Supper, as it afterwards came to be called:

"I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom" (Matt. xxvi. 29).

Sayings like these show how strong and assured was the belief of these simple men that some stupendous revolution was about to take place. That they should think of themselves as fitted to occupy such exalted stations as are here indicated is somewhat pathetic, and shows how little they knew of the great world of which Rome was the centre. When they actually saw their Master helpless in the hands of His enemies; when they heard of the derision and cruelty to which He had been exposed; when their women returned from watching the dreadful scene on Calvary, their disillusionment must have seemed complete. The very description of the sufferer, affixed to the cross by the orders of the Roman governor, was a mockery of their hopes

"This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (Matt. xxvii. 37). What an ending to a glorious dream! Here were they, far from home, rustic strangers in the