CHAPTER IV

THE SECRET OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD

1. The Parables of the Secret of the Kingdom of God.

WE have to do here with the “secret of the Kingdom of God” (Mk 4:11), which is dealt with in the parables of the sower, of the self-growing seed, of the grain of mustard, and of the leaven. We commonly find in these parables the illustration of a constant and gradually unfolding through which the petty initial stage of a development is connected with the glorious final stage. The seed that is sown already contains the harvest, inasmuch as each seed is devised for the production of plant and fruit. They develop from the seed by natural law. So it is likewise with the development of the Kingdom of God from small and obscure beginnings.

This attractive interpretation of the parables takes from them, however, the character of _secrets,_ for the illustration of a steady unfolding through the processes of nature is no secret. Hence it is that we fail to understand what the secret is in these parables. [pg 107] We interpret them according to our scientific knowledge of nature which enables us to unite even such different stages as these by the conception of development.

By reason of the immediateness with which the unschooled spirit of olden time observed the world, nature had, however, still secrets to offer,—in the fact, namely, that she produced two utterly distinct conditions in a sequence, the connection of which was just as certain as it was inexplicable. This immediateness is the note of Jesus’ parables. The conception of development in nature which is contemplated in the modern explanation is not at all brought into prominence, but the exposition is rather devised to place the two conditions so immediately side by side that one is compelled to raise the question, How can the final stage proceed from the initial stage?

1. A man sowed seed. A great part of the seed was lost on account of circumstances the most diverse—and yet the produce of the corn which fell upon good ground was so great that it restored the seed sown thirty, sixty, even an hundred fold.

The detailed interpretation of the description of this loss, and the application to particular classes of men, as it lies before us in [pg 108] Mk 4:13-20, is the product of a later view which perceived no longer any secret in the parable. Originally, however, the single points of the description were not independent, but the seed which was lost upon the path, or upon the stony ground, or among the thorns, together with that which the fowls of heaven devoured, constituted altogether a unified contrast to that which fell upon good ground. The manner in which it was destroyed has no importance for the parable. In spite of the description so wonderfully wrought out, this saying of Jesus expresses one single thought: So small, considering all that was lost, was the sowing; and yet the harvest so great!—Therein lies the secret.

2. A man scattered seed upon the ground. He slept, went about his affairs, and concerned himself no further about the seed. Before he realised it the harvest stood already in the field, and he could send his servants to gather it in. How did it come to pass that after the seed was sunk in the earth the ground _of itself_ brought forth the blade, the ear, and the full corn?—That is the secret.

3. A grain of mustard seed was sown; from it sprouted a great shrub, with [pg 109] branches under which the birds of the heaven could lodge. How did it come to pass, since the mustard seed is so small?—That is the secret.

4. A woman added a little leaven to a great mass of dough. Afterwards the whole lump was “leaven.” How can a little leaven leaven a whole great lump?—That is the secret.

These parables are not at all devised to be interpreted and understood; rather they are calculated to make the hearers observant of the fact that in the affairs of the Kingdom of God a secret is preparing like that which they experience in nature. They are _signals._ As the harvest follows upon the seed-sowing, without it being possible for any one to say how it comes about; so, as the sequel to Jesus’ preaching, will the Kingdom of God come with power. Small as is the circle which he gathers about himself in comparison with the greatness of God’s Kingdom, it is none the less certain that the Kingdom will come as a consequence of this moral renewal, restricted as it is in scope. It is no less confidently to be expected than that the seed, which while he speaks is slumbering in the ground, will bring forth a glorious harvest. Watch not only for the harvest, but watch for the Kingdom of God!—so speaks [pg 110] the spiritual sower to the Galileans at the season of the seed-sowing. They ought to have the presentiment that the moral renewal in consequence of his preaching stands in a necessary but inexplicable connection with the dawning of the Kingdom of God. The same God who through his mysterious power in nature brings the harvest to pass will also bring to pass the Kingdom of God.

Therefore, when it was the season of the harvest, he sent his Disciples forth to proclaim: The Kingdom of God is at hand.

2. The Secret of the Kingdom of God in the Address to the People after the Mission of the Twelve.

Jesus was alone. The Disciples carried the news of the nearness of the Kingdom throughout the cities of Israel. While the people thronged him there came the emissaries of the Baptist with their question. He dismissed them with the answer: the Kingdom stands before the door, one needs only the language of the signs and wonders in order to understand. Turning to the people he speaks of the significance of the Baptist and of his office. With this he lets drop a hint of mystery (Mt 11:14, “If you are able [pg 111] to conceive it,” Mt 11:15, “he hath ears to hear, let him hear”). John is Elijah, i. e. the personality whose advent marks the immediate dawning of the Kingdom. “From the days of John the Baptist until this moment the Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John; and, if ye are able to conceive it, this is Elijah, which is to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear” (Mt 11:12-15).

This saying resists all exegesis, for it does not in the least contain the thought that the individuals gain access to the Kingdom by force. What might that mean anyway? In what sense does that come to pass from the days of the Baptist on? The picture which Jesus employs is unintelligible if it has to do with the entrance of individuals into the Kingdom. It remains just as incomprehensible, however, if it is supposed to refer to the realisation of the Kingdom through gradual development. In the first place, the image of an act of violence contradicts the notion of development; in the second place, the beginning of this compelling force must be dated not from John but from Jesus.

It is a question of the secret of the Kingdom of God,—hence the hint: He that hath [pg 112] ears to hear, let him hear. This phrase occurs only in connection with the parables of the secret of the Kingdom and as the conclusion of apocalyptic sayings (cf. the use of the expression in the Apocalypse: 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22). Repentance and moral renewal in prospect of the Kingdom of God are like a pressure which is exerted in order to compel its appearance. This movement had begun with the days of the Baptist. The men of violence who take it by force are they which put into practice the moral renewal. They draw it with power down to the earth.

The saying in the speech about the Baptist and the parables of the Kingdom of God mutually explain and supplement one another. The parables bring chiefly into prominence the _incommensurateness_ of the relation between the moral renewal that is practised and the consummation of the Kingdom of God, while the image in the speech after the Mission dwells more upon the compelling connection between the two.

3. The Secret of the Kingdom of God in the Light of the Prophetic and Jewish Expectation.

Jesus’ ethics is closely connected with that of the Old Testament prophets, inasmuch as [pg 113] both are alike conditioned by the expectation of a state of perfection which God is to bring about. But also the secret of the Kingdom of God, according to which the moral renewal hastens the supernatural coming of the Kingdom, corresponds with the fundamental thought of the Prophets. In the case of the Prophets, the relation between the moral reform which they would bring about and the glorious condition which God will bring to pass at the Day of Judgment is not that of a mere temporal sequence, but it rests upon a supernatural causal connection. Godless behaviour brings nearer the Day of Judgment and of condemnation. Therefore, God chastises the people and gives them into the hand of their oppressors. When, however, they determine to reform their ways, when they seek refuge in him alone with trusting faith, when righteousness and truth prevail among them, then will the Lord deliver them from their oppressors, and his glory will be manifest over Israel, to whom the heathen will do service. In that day there will then be peace poured out over the whole world, over nature as well as man.

After the Exile this thought was still operative in the conception of the Law. By the observance of the Law the promised glorious [pg 114] estate will be wrung from God. Not the individual but the collectivity influences God through the Law. This generic mode of thought is the primary, the individual mode is secondary. “Israel would be redeemed if only it observed two Sabbaths faithfully.” (Schabbath 118_b_. Wünsche, _System der altsynagogalen Palästinensischen Theologie,_ 1880, p. 299). Here we meet with the early prophetic thought in legalistic form.

In general, however, it was the individualistic view which prevailed later. The Law, and moral conduct in general, were only the preparation for the expected estate of glory. The lively generic view of the Prophets was replaced by individualistic and lifeless conception. Eschatology became a problem of accounting and ethics became casuistry.

Jesus, however, reached back after the fundamental conception of the prophetic period, and it is only the _form_ in which he conceives of the emergence of the final event which bears the stamp of later Judaism. He no longer conceives of it as an intervention of God in the history of the nations, as did the Prophets; but rather as a final cosmical catastrophe. His eschatology is the apocalyptic [pg 115] of the book of Daniel, since the Kingdom is to be brought about by the Son of Man when he appears upon the clouds of heaven (Mk 8:38- 9:1).

_The secret of the Kingdom of God is therefore the synthesis effected by a sovereign spirit between the early prophetic ethics and the apocalyptic of the book of Daniel._ Hence it is that Jesus’ eschatology was rooted in his age and yet stands so high above it. For his contemporaries it was a question of _waiting for_ the Kingdom, of excogitating and depicting every incident of the great catastrophe, and of preparing for the same; while for Jesus it was a question of _bringing to pass_ the expected event through the moral renovation. _Eschatological ethics is transformed into ethical eschatology._

4. The Secret of the Kingdom of God and the Assumption of a Fortunate Galilean Period.

According to the secret of the Kingdom of God, the coming of the Kingdom is not dependent upon the broad success of Jesus’ preaching. Indeed, he expressly emphasises the fact that the limitation of the circle which performs the moral renovation stands in no [pg 116] relation whatever to the all-embracing greatness of the Kingdom which is to come about by reason of their conduct. It suffices that a scanty part of the seed falls upon good ground—and the overplentiful harvest is there, through God’s power. Not by the multitude but by the men of violence is the Kingdom compelled to appear.

Hence the secret of the Kingdom of God makes the assumption of a fortunate Galilean period entirely superfluous. Jesus can enjoy the expectation of the speedy realisation of the Kingdom even when he experiences the greatest ill[ ]success and when whole districts close themselves against his preaching. They do not thereby delay the coming of the Kingdom of God but only deliver themselves to the judgment, for the Kingdom comes necessarily by reason of the moral renewal of the circle which gathered about Jesus.

The justice of this interpretation of the secret of the Kingdom of God is shown therefore, in the fact that it renders unnecessary, as an explanation of Jesus’ life, an assumption which is otherwise absolutely unavoidable but cannot in any way be historically confirmed.

[pg 117]

5. The Secret of the Kingdom of God and the Universalism of Jesus.

So long as the moral renewal upon the basis of Jesus’ preaching is brought into relation with the realisation of the Kingdom through the modern thought of evolutionary development the factor correlative to the perfection of the Kingdom is likewise modern, that is, “humanity as a moral whole.” One attributes then to Jesus’ reflection upon the growth of the new moral community which he founded, foresight of its gradual extension till it embraces the whole of Israel—here, however, the thought of Jesus stops; one may not attribute to him universalistic ideas, for the commission to the Disciples shows that he did not reflect about a moral renewal beyond the borders of Israel. (Mt 10:5, 6): Go [not] into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

The preaching of the Kingdom of God is therefore particularistic; the Kingdom itself, however, is universalistic, “for they shall come from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south.” The generation which required a miracle shall experience [pg 118] such: The Ninevites shall arise at the Day of Judgment and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah, “and here is a greater than Jonah.” Also the Queen of the South shall rise in judgment against the contemporaries of Jesus, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, “and behold, a greater than Solomon is here” (Mt 12:41-42).

For the modern consciousness, because it applies to everything the rubrics of evolution, there is an insuperable contradiction between the particularism of the preaching of the Kingdom and the universalism of its consummation. In the secret of the Kingdom of God, however, particularism and universalism go together. The Kingdom is universalistic, for it arises out of a cosmic act by which God awakes unto glory the righteous of all times and of all peoples. The bringing about of the Kingdom, on the other hand, is dependent upon particularism, for it is to be forced to approach by the moral renewal of the contemporaries of Jesus. Salvation comes out of Israel.

[pg 119]

6. The Secret of the Kingdom of God and Jesus’ Attitude towards the Law and the State.

Jesus did not declare himself either for the Law or against it. He recognised it simply as an existing fact without binding himself to it. He felt no obligation to decide in principle whether it was to be regarded as binding or as not binding. For him this was a question of no practical importance. The real concern was the new morality, not the Law. This Law was for him holy and inviolable in so far as it pointed the way to the new morality. But therewith it did away with itself, for in the Kingdom which comes into being on account of the new morality the Law is abrogated, since the accomplished condition is super-legal and super-ethical. Up to this point it had a right to last. Whether the Law should also be binding upon his followers in the future was a question which did not exist for Jesus; it was history which first proposed this problem to the primitive Church.

It was the same with regard to the State. The question which was put to him in the Jerusalem days had for him no practical importance. As he replied to the Pharisees’ question, whether one should give tribute to [pg 120] Cæsar, he had no thought of defining his attitude towards the State or determining that of his followers. How could any one be concerned at all about such things! The State was simply earthly, therefore ungodly, dominination [domination]. Its duration extended, therefore, only to the dawn of God’s dominion. As this was near at hand, what need had one to decide if one would be tributary to the world-power or no? One might as well submit to it, its end was in fact near. Give to Cæsar what is Cæsar’s and to God what is God’s (Mk 12:17)—this word is uttered with a sovereign irony against the Pharisees, who understood so little the signs of the time that this still appeared to them a question of importance. They are just as foolish in the matter of the Kingdom of God as the Sadducees with their catch-question to which husband the seven times married wife should belong at the resurrection; for they, too, leave one thing out of account—the power of God (Mk 12:24).

7. The Modern Element in Jesus’ Eschatology.

“Let it be the maxim in every scientific investigation for one to pursue undisturbed the due course of it with all possible exactitude [pg 121] and frankness, not considering what it may collide with outside of its own field, but following it out, so far as one can, truly and completely for itself alone. Frequent observation has convinced me that when one has brought this task to an end, that which in the midst of it appeared to me for the time being very questionable with respect to other teaching outside, if only I closed my eyes to this questionableness and attended merely to my task till it was finished, finally in unexpected wise proved to be in perfect agreement with those very teachings,—though the truth had presented itself without the least reference to those teachings, without partiality and prejudice for them.”(Footnote. _Kritik der praktischen Vernunft. _ Ed. Reclam, p. 129.)

Kant uttered this profound word at the moment when the correspondence of the notion of transcendental freedom with the practical first occurred to him. The case is the same with the relation of Jesus’ ethics to his eschatology. It is a postulate of our Christian conviction that the ethics of Jesus in its basic thoughts is modern. Hence we come back again and again to the search after the modern element in his ethics, and for this cause we force into the background his eschatology, [pg 122] since it appears to us unmodern. If, however, one resolves to ignore for a moment this interest, which is so deeply grounded in our being and so well justified, and regards the relation of Jesus’ eschatology to his ethics simply for itself, as a purely historical question, the investigation brings to light the astonishing result that the latter (i. e. Jesus’ ethics) is modern in a far higher degree than any one hitherto has dared to hope. Jesus’ ethics is modern, not because the eschatology can be reduced somehow to a mere accompaniment, but precisely because the ethics is absolutely dependent upon this eschatology! The fact is, this eschatology itself, as it is exhibited in the secret of the Kingdom of God, is thoroughly modern, inasmuch as it is dominated by the thought that the Kingdom of God is to come by reason of the religious-moral renovation which the believers perform. _Every moral-religious performance is therefore labour for the coming of the Kingdom of God._

As the eschatology in this ethical-eschatological Weltanschauung gradually faded in the course of history, there remained an ethical Weltanschauung in which the eschatology persisted in the form of an imperishable faith in the final triumph of the good. The [pg 123] secret of the Kingdom of God contains the secret of the whole Christian Weltanschauung. The ethical eschatology of Jesus is the _heroic form_ in which the modern-Christian Weltanschauung first entered into history!

[pg 124]