1. Pre-Understanding of "Kingdom of God"
2. The Time Is Fulfilled
   2.1. The Drawing Near of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15 = Matt 4:17)
   2.2. Blessed Eyes and Ears (Matt 13:16-17; Luke 10:23-24)
   2.3. Sermon at Nazareth (Luke 17:20-21)
3. The Kingdom of God in Salvation-Historical Context
   3.1. John and the Kingdom of God (Matt 11:11 = Luke 7:28)
   3.2. The Law and the Prophets (Luke 16:16; Matt 11:12-13)
   3.3. Parable of New and Old Treasures (Matt 13:51-52)
   3.4. Incompatibility of Old and New (Mark 2:21-22 = Matt 9:16-17 = Luke 5:36-38)
4. The Kingdom of God as Historical Process
   4.1. Parable of Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29)
   4.2. Parable of the Mustard Seed (Mark 4:30-32; Matt 13:31-33 = Luke 13:18-19)
   4.3. Parable of the Leaven (Matt 13:33 = Luke 13:20-21)
5. Kingdom of God as Inseparable from Jesus
   5.1. The Kingdom of God in Your Midst (Luke 17:20-21)
   5.2. Possibility of Exclusion of Law-Keepers from Kingdom (Matt 21:28-31)
6. Kingdom of God for Jews Alone
   6.1. Not to Gentiles or a City of the Samaritans (Matt 10:5-7)
   6.2. Bread to Dogs (Mark 7:24-30; Matt 15:21-28)
7. Appropriating the Kingdom of God
   7.1. Receiving the Kingdom as a Child (Mark 10:15 = Luke 18:17)
   7.2. Parables of the Hidden Treasure and Valuable Pearl (Matt 13:44; Matt 13:45-46)
   7.3. Seeking First the Kingdom of God (Luke 12:22-32 = Matt 6:25-34)

Ahead to: Kingdom of God as Future

In a non-rejection context, Jesus teaches that the Kingdom of God, Israel’s long-awaited eschatological salvation, is now a present reality, being the climax of all of Israel's salvation history. He sees the Kingdom as a historical process that is already underway and inseparably connected to himself. Jesus offers the Kingdom of God to Jews alone. According to Jesus, the Kingdom is be received as a gift, as something to be considered more important than anything else.

1.  Pre-Understanding of "Kingdom of God"

The question that first needs to be addressed is what sort of pre-understanding would his hearers have had of the phrase "Kingdom of God." The phrase "Kingdom of Yahweh" (malkût Yahweh) occurs in 1 Chron 28:5 to refer to Solomon's kingdom: "He has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of Yahweh over Israel." In a related passage, God promises David through the prophet Nathan that he would "settle him [Solomon] in my house and in my kingdom (malkût) forever, and his throne shall be established forever" (1 Chron 17:14). God's universal sovereignty over not just Israel but all creation is sometimes expressed as God's kingdom (or reign) in the Old Testament and second-Temple texts. In Ps 103:19, the psalmist says in synthetic parallelism, Yahweh has established his throne in the heavens and his kingdom (malkût) rules over all. Similarly, in Ps 145:11-13, God's rule over all is referred to as his kingdom (malkût) (see also the confession of Yahweh as king in Exod 15:18; Pss 93:1-4; 96:10; 97:1-6). The related term melûkah in Ps 22:29 is used to describe Yahweh's rule over the nations: "For the kingdom (melûkah) is the Yahweh's; and he rules (mšl) over the nations." Likewise, the term kingdom (mamlakah) is used in 1 Chron 29:11 to describe God's rule over all creation: "Yours is the kingdom, O Yahweh, and you exalt yourself as head over all." The Aramaic word malkûta' (kingdom) is used in Dan 4:3 [3:33]; 4:34 [4:31] to describe God's universal kingdom or reign over creation in contrast to Nebuchadnezzar's kingdom. Concerning Jacob, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon writes, "When a righteous man fled from his brother's wrath, she [Wisdom] guided him on straight paths; she showed him the kingdom of God (basileia theou)" (10:10). The meaning is that Wisdom showed Jacob God's universal sovereignty. In another Greek text, God's sovereignty is also referred to as his kingdom: "Blessed is God lives for ever, and blessed is his kingdom (basileia)" (Tobit 13:1). Likewise, in Ps. Sol. 17:3 God's eternal reign over the nations is called his kingdom, and in 1 Enoch 84:2 God is called a king who has a authority and a kingdom. In Jub. 12:19, Abraham is said to choose God and his kingly rule as a way of describing Abraham's commitment of himself to God. In T. Benj. 9:1-2, the future withdrawal of God's presence in Israel because of the latter's sin is described as follows, "The Kingdom of the Lord (basileia kuriou) will not be among you." The term "The Kingdom of God" also occurs in the Targums, the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible, where it serves as a substitute for God. For example, Targum Onkelos translates Exod 15:18 "Yahweh reigns forever" as "The Kingdom of God stands fast" and Isa 24:23 "Yahweh of hosts reigns" as "Manifest is the Kingdom of God" (see also Isa 31:4; 40:9; 52:7; Micah 4:7). As used in the Targums, the term "Kingdom of God" frequently denotes God's eternal and universal rule of creation, being devoid of eschatological content. Thus, although they would have been familiar with the term "The Kingdom of God," Jews who regularly heard the Targums read in the synagogue would not thereby necessarily be fully prepared to understand Jesus' use of the term.

What God's eschatological act of salvation will entail for Israel is enumerated in the Old Testament prophetic books. Sometimes it is explicitly connected with the reign of the Davidic Messiah, while, at other times, it is not. The following are the characteristics of Israel's eschatological salvation. 1. Promise of Restoration to the Land 1.1. Amos 9:14-15:  Amos prophesies to the northern kingdom that the exiled people will return to the land; this follows the prophecy of the restoration of David's fallen tent. 1.2. Hosea 3:5:  In the eighth century,  Hosea prophesied to the northern kingdom that, after Israel's chastisement, Israelites shall return and seek Yahweh, their God, and David, their king; this is to happen "in the latter days." 1.3. Isa 66:18-21:  Isaiah foretells the bringing back of Israel to the land by the nations as an offering. 1.4. Jer 31-33:  Repeatedly, in this section, Jeremiah prophesies a restoration of the tribes to the land. 1.5. Ezek 11; 37:  Ezekiel prophesies the return of the exiled people (11); he sees the vision of dry bones coming back to life, symbolizing the future restoration of the people (37). 1.6. Joel 3:1:  Joel—whose time period is disputed—speaks about how "in those days" when God would restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem. 2. Restoration of Temple and/or Its Supremacy 2.1. Micah 4:  Micah prophesies of the last days that the mountain of Yahweh's temple will be established and that many nations will come to it in order to worship God and learn the Torah; this will be a time of peace and prosperity. 2.2. Isa 2:  The same point is made as in Micah 4. 2.3. Isa 56:6-7: Gentiles will come to God's "holy mountain" and worship there; the Temple (house) will be a house of prayer for all nations 2.4. Jer 33:18: In the context of the restoration and the establishment of the new covenant, Jeremiah prophesies that the priests would continually serve at the Temple, offering sacrifices. 2.5. Ezek 37:26-28: In the context of the exile, it is promised that Yahweh will forever re-establish the sanctuary. 2.6. Ezek 40-48:  In the context of the destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians, Ezekiel receives a vision of the new Temple to be built after the restoration.  In 47:1-12 a river originating in the temple and flowing east is described, which makes the temple appear surreal (see Joel 3:18: same idea of a water flowing from the temple). 3. Prosperity 3.1. Amos 9:11-15:  Amos prophecies that when God raises up the booth of David that is fallen, restored Israel will have an abundance of agricultural goods. 3.2. Hosea 2:21-23:  Hosea prophesies that, after Israel's punishment, "on that day" Israel will be given agricultural prosperity, among other benefits. 3.3. Isa 65:20-23:  Isaiah prophecies that after the creation of the new heaven and earth and a new Jerusalem that there would be a time of great agricultural prosperity. 3.4. Jer 33:9:  At the restoration, Jeremiah says that God will give Jerusalem prosperity. 3.5. Joel 2:19, 23-27:  After the day of the Lord, Joel says that Yahweh will give his people all the food they need; never again will they be an object of scorn to the nations. 4. Peace and Absence of Suffering 4.1. Hosea 2:18:  Hosea prophesies that God will make a covenant with the animals for a restored and obedient people and that there will be no more war. 4.2. Micah 4:3:  Micah prophesies that there will there would no more war. 4.3. Isa 2:4:  This passage is identical to Micah 4:3. 4.4. Isa 65:20:  Isaiah prophesies that, after the creation of a new heaven and earth, there will no longer be any premature death. 4.5. Jer 33:9:  Jeremiah says that at the restoration God will give peace to Jerusalem. 5. The New Covenant, Eternal Covenant or Covenant of Peace (I take these to be synonyms) God promises through the prophets that he will renew His covenant with a regathered and a restored Israel; this will result in forgiveness, their knowing God, Yahweh's being Israel's God and their being His people and a new possibility of obedience to the Torah (resulting from an inner spiritual transformation): 5.1. Jer 31:31-34:  New covenant 5.2. Jer 32:37-41; 50:5; Ezek 16; Isa 61:8:  Eternal covenant 5.3. Ezek 34:25; Ezek 37:24-28; Isa 54:8-10:  Covenant of peace 6. The Giving of the Spirit 6.1. Ezekiel prophesies that, after the restoration to the land, God will give the Spirit: 6.2. Ezek 36:22-32 (see also Ezek 11:18-20): In this passage, Ezekiel connects the giving of the Spirit to the new possibility of obedience to the Torah after the restoration to the land; the Spirit is the causal antecedent of this new possibility. 6.3. Ezek 37:12-13:  The prophet says that after restoration the Spirit will be given. 6.4. Ezek 39:29:  Ezekiel promises that God will no longer hide his face, but pour out his Spirit on the people. 6.5. Isaiah makes two references to the future giving of the Spirit to the people:  a. 32:15 b. Isa 44:3. 6.6. Joel 2:28-32:  Joel prophesies that God will pour out His Spirit on all flesh; people will prophesy, have visions and prophetic dreams. 7. A New Heaven, a New Earth and a New Jerusalem:  Isa 65:17

    The term "The Kingdom of God," or a variation of this phrase, also sometimes occurs in the Old Testament and second-Temple texts as a way of expressing the idea of Israel's eschatological salvation (see Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 130-41; Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums, 215-18; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2.237-70). In such cases, God's kingdom or reign over creation is not yet a reality but is still future; it will be realized at the time determined by God. The term "kingdom" (meluka) occurs in Obad 21 to describe the eschatological reign of Yahweh: "And the kingdom will be Yahweh's." Likewise, in Dan 2:44, after the destruction of the four kingdoms, it is prophesied that "God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever." Similarly, in Dan 7:13-14, following the four world kingdoms, God gives to the "one like a son of man" a kingdom that will never end, an eschatological kingdom. Probably allusive of Dan 7, 4Q246 (4QAramaic Apocalypse) refers to a transitory kingdom that will be replaced by the eternal kingdom of one identified as "son of God" and "son of the most High." In this case the Kingdom belongs to the Messiah, but no doubt the idea is that God will rule through the Messiah. Similarly, in 4Q521 (4QMessianic Apocalypse), it is said that "The Lord .... will glorify the pious ones upon the throne of his kingdom forever." This is probably a reference to the exaltation of the righteous during the time of the eschatological reign of God. In 1QM 6.6, after the eschatological war between the "sons of light" and the "sons of darkness" it is said, "The Kingship (hmlwkh) shall belong to the God of Israel," which is a reference to God's eschatological reign. In Testament of Moses, Taxo anticipates that, after his and his son's death, "Then his [God's] Kingdom will appear throughout his whole creation. Then the devil will have an end." God's Kingdom in Testament of Moses is synonymous with eschatological salvation. In Sibylline Oracles, the eschatological use of "[God's] Kingdom" occurs: "Then indeed the most great Kingdom of the immortal king will become manifest over men" (3.47-48) and "And then, indeed, he will raise up a kingdom for all ages among men, he who once gave the Law to the pious" (3.767-69). In the Kaddish, an Aramaic doxology dating from the first century used to bring synagogue services to an end, eschatological salvation is described as God's eschatological reign: "Magnified and sanctified be his great name in the world that he has created according to His will. May he establish his Kingdom in your lifetime and in your days and in the lifetime of all the house of Israel, even speedily and at a near time."  In the Melkilta, an early rabbinic writing, in a discussion of the annihilation of the Amalekites (Exod 17:8-13), the phrase "his [God's] Kingdom" (mlkwtw) is used to refer to the eschatological rule of God, the time when idolatry and its practitioners will be eradicated. Both Zech 14:3, 9 are cited in the midrash as predictive of this eschatological event. (In Mek. Shirata 10.42-49 the statement from the Song of Moses in Exod 15:18 that "Yahweh reigns for ever and ever" is interpreted eschatologically in conjunction with the rebuilding of the Temple.)  In Targum Jonathan, the phrase "the kingdom of Yahweh will be revealed" is used as a substitute for three phrases in which Yahweh is described as acting savingly on behalf of Israel (Isa 31:4; 40:9; 52:7). Also in Ezek 7:7, 10, the phrase "the kingdom is revealed" is inserted into the text as a means of announcing final judgment, and in Obad 21 the phrase "the kingdom of Yahweh will be revealed" is substituted for "the kingdom will be Yahweh's. Finally, in Targum Jonathan on Zech 14:9, the idea of eschatological salvation is expressed in terms of the Kingdom of God: Zech 14:9 "Yahweh will be king" [eschatologically] is translated in the Targum as "the Kingdom of God will be revealed."

    Since it is sometimes used with this meaning, some of Jesus' contemporaries at least would have understood the phrase "Kingdom of God" to refer to the eschatological salvation foretold in the prophets and much discussed in the second-Temple period and, consequently, would already have had a pre-understanding of this important term. Jesus' hearers would easily understand Jesus' message that the Kingdom of God has arrived as the advent of eschatological salvation. This fact allowed Jesus to take the pre-existing concept of the Kingdom of God and give it a particular interpretation. (Chilton and MacDonald, Jesus and the Ethics of the Kingdom, chap. 3). In some cases, Jesus may have reshaped and or supplemented his hearers' pre-understanding of the Kingdom of God.

Second-Temple Jews referred to eschatological salvation by other terms. Positively, it is described in the Thanksgiving Hymns as "eternal salvation and peace without end, without lack” (1QH 15.14b-16 [7.18b-20]).  In 4QTime of Righteousness (4Q215a), the eschatological age brings the age of wickedness to an end: "For the age of wickedness has been completed and all evil will pas[s  away]" (2.3-4). The age of wickedness will yield to "the time of righteousness" (2.4), also called "the age of peace" (2.5).  Later in the text, it is referred to as "the rule {of righteousness} of goodness" (2.9).  In Mysteries (1Q27; 4Q299-301), eschatological salvation is referred to as "the mystery of what is to come" 4Q416 frg. 2, 3.9-10, 14-15, 18, 20-21; 4Q417 frg. 1, 1.10-12; frg. 2, 1.6, 8-9, 18-21).  In 4Q416 frg. 2, 1.5-6 = 4Q417 frg. 1, 10-12 the sage exhorts his pupil to "consider the mystery of what is to come, and understand the birth-time of salvation and who will inherit glory and trouble.  Has not rejoicing been appointed for the contrite of spirit and for those among them who mourn eternal joy?” In Psalms of Solomon, eschatological salvation is described in some detail.  At this time, the righteous will be raised and inherit eternal life, whereas destruction awaits the wicked.  Several passages bear on this. In Ps. Sol. 2.31, the author speaks God's raising him up to glory, a possible reference to bodily resurrection.  In another psalm, the author explains that there will come a time when God will "look upon" the righteous, by which is meant that he will be merciful to them and vindicate them in judgment. The ones who fear the Lord "will be raised up to eternal life" (3.12). The ones who fear the Lord, however, shall will "receive mercy" in this day, and "will live by God's mercy forever" (15.13a).  At this time, the righteous "will inherit life in joy"  (14.10; see also 12.6).

Question 

What would Jesus’ contemporaries understand by the term “Kingdom of God”?

2. The Time is Fulfilled

There are data that establish that Jesus believes that the time Israel’s eschatological salvation foretold by the prophets has arrived. What was future expectation is now present reality.

2.1. The Drawing Near of the Kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15 = Matt 4:17)

Mark 1 14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 "The time has been fulfilled," he said,"The Kingdom of God has drawn near. Repent and believe the good news!"

Matt 4:17 17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven has drawn near."

At the end of the prologue (1:1-15), Mark provides a synopsis of Jesus' message, which he intends as an introduction to his presentation of Jesus' Galilean ministry: “The time has been fulfilled and the Kingdom of God has drawn near." The first part of this synopsis of Jesus' message consists of two synthetically parallel, indicative statements. Jesus' statement in the first indicative statement that the "time" (kairos) has been fulfilled probably means that the period of time pre-determined by God before the appearance of the Kingdom of God in Israel’s history has elapsed or come to completion. When the verb "to fulfill or complete" (pleroô) is used of time the meaning can be that a designated period of time has elapsed. (See Gen LXX 25:24; 29:21; Lev 8:33; 12:4; 25:30; Num 6:5; Tobit 8:20; 10:1; 14.5; Wis 4:13; Sir 26:2; 1 Macc 3:49; Luke 21:24; Acts 9:23; Josephus., Ant. 4.78; Hs 6.5.2; Hv 2.2.5; 1 Clem 25.2; OxyP. 275.24; 491.6; PTebt. 374.10; BGU 1047 III. 12) (see also 4 Ezra 4.36-37; 2 Bar 40:3). (In the LXX the verb pleroô is most often used to translate the Hebrew ml’ ("to fill") when used of time. In the Targums, frequently the verb shlm ("to fulfill or complete") is used to translate ml’ used with respect to time, so that this may have been the word that Jesus used [Chilton, Chilton, God in Strength, 80-83].) (A partial parallel to this interpretation of Mark 1:15 is the “fulfillment” of seventy years of exile, after which Yahweh will punish the Babylonians (Jer 25:12 = LXX 25:12; 29:10 = LXX 36:10). On this interpretation, "time" denotes this age in its entirety, which has come to completion. The idea that history is divided into two ages and that this age must run its divinely foreordained course before yielding to the next age, the time of eschatological salvation, is characteristic of second-Temple Judaism.

Although there is some uncertainty, it seems that in 1QpHab 7 the time of eschatological salvation that makes its appearance in Israel’s history after the consummation of the age is known by the term the “last age” (Nwrx)h Cqh), in which case it would be a synonym for Jesus’ kingdom of God, which he proclaimed as having drawn near. Unlike the author who said that the last age had been extended beyond them, or postponed. Those alive at the time are called appropriately the last generation (1.2) (Elliger, Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer, 194). In 4QTime of Righteousness (4Q215a) it is said that the age of wickedness will yield to "the time of righteousness" (2.4), also called "the age of peace" (2.5), which are two synonyms for what Jesus called “the Kingdom of God.” See Chilton, God in Strength, 86-90. M. Black argues that the original Aramaic word that Jesus uses could not have been mt’ (the same applies to the Hebrew ng’) since eggizein when used to translate mt’ (and ng’) is completed with a predicate and not used absolutely to mean “to arrive” or “to come” (“The Kingdom of God Has Come,” ExpT 63 [1951-52] 289-90; see Aramaic Approach, 209-11). In the examples cited by Dodd the verbs mt’ and ng’ translated by eggizô are followed by the prepositions pros (le) or heôs (‘adh) with a noun or pronoun or by a noun in the dative or genitive (Ps 31:6 pros; Jon 3:6 pros; Jer 28:9 eis; Dan 4:11 heôs; Dan 4:12 use of dative alone). Black argues that if a translator saw mt’ used without a complementary predicate, he would likely not have chosen eggizô, since it renders the verb when it uses a completion. Black suggests that the original Aramaic verb was qrb. Relying upon M. Paul Joüen’s work “Notes philologiques sur les évangiles” [RSR 17 (1927), he argues that while many instances of qrb in Hebrew and Aramaic intend the idea of nearness, there are several cases where it intends an absolute nearness, or, in other words, arrival or actual contact, (1 Kgs 8:59; Ps 119:169; Lam 4:18). (It is probable that 1 Macc 9:10 eggiken [ho kairos hemon] reflects the use of qrb in the Hebrew original.) Black adds Ezek 7:6-7 (LXX 7:2-4) to the list, where the phrase qrb hyom is translated as eggiken hê hêmera in the LXX and has the meaning of arrival. (see Schlosser, Le règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus, 1.106). Black suggests that Jesus’ original saying = the parallel between the two sayings makes it likely that the original saying was qerabhath malkuth’ d‘elaha, even though this does not occur in the Targums.

    The second indicative statement summarizing Jesus’ message is that the Kingdom of God has drawn near (êggiken). There has been much debate over whether Jesus teaches that the Kingdom of God has arrived or merely that its arrival is near. In resolving this problem, it must be kept in mind that the statement, "The Kingdom of God has drawn near" stands in synthetic parallelism to "The time has been fulfilled." The context in which the verb eggizô occurs must be allowed to determine its meaning. (Mark uses the perfect tense of eggizein elsewhere in his gospel in a context where it is clear that the ideas of drawing near and having just arrived are fused together. It is said in 14:42 “Behold the one who has betrayed me has drawn near (êggiken),” but in 14:43 it is clear that having drawn near connotes arrival: “Immediately while he was still speaking, Judas, one of the twelve, came up accompanied by a crowd with swords and clubs.”) On the interpretation of "The time has been fulfilled" offered above, it follows that the Kingdom of God has arrived, not merely is near. The parallelism between the two indicative statements suggests the idea of nearness as a result of a recent arrival, "the point of initial contact as a result of reaching after" (K. W. Clark, "Realized Eschatology," JBL 59 (1940) 367-83 [369]). The fact that the verb eggizô and the Hebrew and Aramaic words that it translates can sometimes have this ambiguous meaning—even though in most cases they mean nearness without arrival—permits this interpretation. (Outside of Mark, the same construction is found in LXX Lam 4:18. In this passage is found two temporal expressions in synthetic parallelism: “Our time has drawn near; our days have been fulfilled.”) Jesus' point is that the time has just arrived. This is not to deny that the coming of the Kingdom of God is progressive, unfolding towards its consummation that lies in the future, so that Jesus’ use of the Aramaic equivalent of the verb eggizô “to draw near” rather than some verb that denotes a completed action is probably intentional. The purpose is to imply the incipient nature of the presence of the Kingdom of God. In fact, one need not choose between the conception of the Kingdom of God as either already present or near but still future because in second-Temple Judaism the eschaton was conceived as being established over a period of time. Between the period of its inception and its fulfillment Jesus could speak about the Kingdom as both a present reality and a future one.

In the Apocalypse of Weeks (1 En 93:1-10; 91:11-17) the last three “weeks” of world history represent the progress of eschatological salvation. In the eighth week the righteous will continue to be used as instruments of divine judgment: “A sword will be given to all the righteous to execute righteous judgment on all the wicked” (4QEng col. 4.12) (91:12). What seems to be described is an armed conflict between Hellenizing Jews (called “all the wicked”) and their conservative counterparts, the “righteous” and the “elect.” For this reason, the eighth week is called a “week of righteousness” (91:12). In the ninth week, it seems that all human beings (“all the sons of the earth” will accept the Law and all “all the deeds [or doers] of wickedness” will be at an end, being cast into the pit. The seventh part of the tenth week is the time of the “eternal judgment,” “the appointed time of great judgment.” Presumably, the Watchers and all human beings, both alive and dead, will be required to submit to final judgment at this time. Those who survive final judgment, the righteous, will live eternally in some form or other (91:17). In the War Scroll the struggle between the sons of light and the sons of darkness along with their angelic counterparts will last for forty years; it will consist of seven battles in which the sons of light will win three and the sons of darkness three (1.11-13). In the seventh and final battle, "the great hand of God shall overcome [Belial and al]l the angels of his dominion, and all the men of [his forces shall be destroyed forever]" (IQM 1:14-15). In 1QHab 11.19-36, the author describes the final onslaught of Belial on all of creation, referred to as “the torrents of Belial” (11[3].29, 32). The phrase “torrents of Belial” probably derives from Ps 18:5, where it denotes extreme suffering. In 1QH 11[3].19–36, it refers to the eschatological suffering brought upon the world issuing from Belial, to which God will respond by sending his heavenly warriors to defeat this hostile force (11[3].34b–36). Clearly, what is described will take some to unfold (See Knibb, The Qumran Community, 177–82; Delcor, Les Hymnes de Qumran [Hodayot], 124–35.) Likewise, the eschatological description in Sib Or. 3.657-795 is a historical process that will take more than a day or two to a certain amount of time to occur. See Becker, Jesus of Nazareth, 105-106; 118-19.

    The connection between the announcement of the Kingdom of God and the command to repent needs elucidation. The reason that Jesus requires that repentance follow upon believing the “good news” is that implicitly there is available to Jews a new possibility of forgiveness as a result of the fact that the Kingdom of God has drawn near. The unstated assumption is that the Kingdom of God includes the offer of eschatological forgiveness conditional upon repentance. The idea that forgiveness is included among the eschatological benefits promised is consistent with Jewish eschatological expectation.

The authenticity of the summary of Jesus' proclamation in Mark 1:15 has been unjustifiably questioned. It is asked whether this summary accurately reflects the essence of Jesus' message, or is a creation in whole or in part of the early church. Of the four clauses in Mark 1:15, the second clause “The Kingdom of God has drawn near” is the least likely to be rejected as inauthentic. The other three clauses, however, do not fare so well. These are sometimes said to reflect the theological conceptions of the early church and so to have originated with it. The proposition "The time is fulfilled" is parallel to Gal 4:4 and Eph 1:9-10; in addition, the idea of "fulfillment" permeates the gospels, especially the gospel of Matthew. Likewise, the kerygma of the early church is characterized by the command to repent and believe the good news (see Acts 11:17-18; 20:21). It is also suggested that the clause “The time is fulfilled” cannot be authentic because the language is too abstract to be attributable by Jesus, who prefers concrete uses of fulfillment (Mark 2:19; Luke 7:22; 10:23-24). In addition, since there are so few references in the synoptic gospels to Jesus' requiring repentance as a response to his proclamation, the suspicion is raised that the need of repentance was not a part of Jesus' message of the Kingdom. Finally, it is argued that, because Jesus' message is almost identical to that of John the Baptist, what must have occurred is that, during the transmission of the tradition, elements of John’s message migrated to become part of Jesus' own (see Matt 3:1). None of these objections is convincing. It is not more probable that the idea of the fulfillment of time originated with the early church than with Jesus. In fact, it is more believable that the early church would speak about the fullness of time because Jesus proclaimed, "The time is fulfilled." Besides, this idea antedates both the early church and Jesus anyway, so that it is not difficult to imagine Jesus using such terminology. Similarly, if Jesus proclaimed that the Kingdom of God has drawn near it would make sense that he would instruct his audience to respond by believing "the good news." The opposite is not historically credible. Moreover, the phrase “believe the good news” is unusual in Greek and probably has a Semitic background, which is consistent with an origin with Jesus rather than the Greek-speaking church. To claim that “The time is fulfilled” is too abstract of a statement for Jesus to have made is likewise not believable, as if Jesus could not think along these lines. The claim that the relative fewness of the occurrences in the tradition of Jesus' instructing his hearers to repent means that such traditions are inauthentic is equally unacceptable. First, such references are not so few as is often supposed (Matt 11:21; 12:41; Luke 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5; 15:7, 10; 16:30; see also Luke 15:17-19; 18:9-14; 19:1-10). Second, the proposal that Jesus preached that sinners would be accepted into the Kingdom without repentance runs so counter to Jewish eschatological thought that it must be rejected. To expect the content of Jesus' preaching to differ from that of John the Baptist is also unreasonable, since Jesus accepts and identifies with John’s mission.

Since the appearance of C.H. Dodd’s The Parables of the Kingdom, it has been debated whether one is justified in translating êggiken in Mark 1:15 as “has come or arrived” or whether it should be translated as “has drawn near” in the sense of being imminent but not yet present (see the discussion in Perrin, The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus, 64-66; R.A. Guelich, Mark, 1.43-44). Dodd argues that in the LXX the verb eggizô should be understood as translating the Hebrew ng', the equivalent of the Aramaic mt', both of which are used to mean “to reach” or “to arrive.” According to Dodd, “The same two verbs are translated by the verb phthanô, which appear in Matt xii. 28, Lk. xi. 20. It would appear no difference of meaning is intended between ephthasen eph' humas he basileia tou theou and êggiken hê basileia tou theou. Both imply the "arrival"” of the Kingdom” (The Parables of the Kingdom, 36-37). He interprets the verb êggiken in conformity with ephthasen and both as alternative translations of the Hebrew ng', the Aramaic mt' ("The Kingdom of God Has Come" ExpT 48 (1936-37) 138-42). Dodd, of course, is correct that various tenses of eggizô when used with a temporal sense are sometimes used to translate the Hebrew ng' and the Aramaic mt', and that, when so used, they sometimes have the meaning of “to arrive” (see ng' in Jonah 3:6; Jer 28 (51):9; Ps 31 (32):6; 106 (107):18 and mt' in Dan 4:8, 19). If the linguistic evidence from the LXX were the only evidence for it, however, Dodd’s position would be untenable, since the cases in the LXX in which eggizô has this sense are a small minority. Dodd’s critics have attempted to establish that the usual meaning of eggizô is to draw near and even if there are some exceptions to this usage. J.Y. Campbell points out that in the LXX of the 158 times that eggizô is used it translates in most of these cases (110 times) ng’ or qrb, both of which mean “to come near.” He argues that since in the LXX in the majority of cases eggizô has the meaning of "to come near" and in only a few passages is its meaning extended to mean to arrive (e.g. Jonah 3:6) there is not linguistic basis for Dodd’s conclusion ("The Kingdom of God Has Come," ExpT 48 [1936-37] 91-92; Taylor, Mark, 166-67; Kümmel, Promise and Fulfilment, 19-24; Schlosser, Le règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus, 1.106-107). Campbell also notes in opposition to Dodd that, when used in the perfect, engizein translates the Hebrew qrb, which has the meaning of "to come near" or "to approach," which is further evidence that the meaning of h1ggiken is immience and not arrival. Along the same lines, K.W. Clark argues that when not speaking about the kingdom the verb eggikein means nearness and not arrival, Dodd is unjustified in concluding that when used of the kingdom that it means arrival and not merely nearness (K. W. Clark, "Realized Eschatology," JBL 59 [1940] 367-83). Clark takes it as established that, since the term eggizein is used almost exclusively with the meaning of nearness in non-eschatological contexts, the exegete should interpret the six passages when the term is used with Kingdom of God or of Heaven as its subject with the same meaning (Mark 1:15 = Matt 4:17; Matt 3:2; Matt 10:7; Luke 10:9, 11). The five exceptions in which eggizô in the LXX is used to translate ng’ or mt’ and its meaning is “extended to the limit” to include “the point of initial contact” provide no basis for Dodd’s conclusion (Ps 32:6; Jonah 3:6; Jer 51:9 [Hebrew ng’]; Dan 4:9, 19 [Aramaic mt’]. But exceptions prove the rule.) Kümmel concedes that sometimes when used spatially eggizô may have the meaning of “coming to” in the sense of arrival (e.g. Luke 15:1; 22:47; 24:15; Acts 21:33). But when used with a temporal sense, he asserts that eggizein never has the meaning of arrival. It follows that Mark 1:15 should not be interpreted to mean that the Kingdom of God has arrived (Promise and Fulfilment, 19-25). Finally, R.H. Fuller takes exception to Dodd’s hypothesis about the meaning of h1ggiken in Mark 1:15. He claims that none of the eleven usages in the New Testament of the verb eggizein as applied to time means nearness and not arrival (The Mission and Achievement of Jesus, 21-24). It follows that Mark 1:15 should be interpreted to mean that the KofG is imminent. Dodd has established the bare possibility of translating eggizô in Mark 1:15 as "has come or arrived." Such uses of the verb are in a minority and are extensions of the meaning of to draw near to include having just arrived. Dodd’s critics will grant him that much. It would seem, however, the context in Mark 1:14-15 requires that he êggiken be interpreted to mean that the Kingdom of God has arrived in the sense of making its “point of initial contact.” Mark 1:15 requires Dodd’s translation not on account of the linguistic evidence, which taken alone would suggest the opposite position, but on account of the Markan context, since the clause "The Kingdom of God has drawn near" is in synthetic parallelism with "The time has been fulfilled" (see Gundry, Mark 64-65; Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 71-75; Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark, 7-9; Trilling, Christusverkündigung in den synoptischen Evangelien, 46-48). Fuller correctly establishes the principle that “the exceptional meaning is determined by context” (24), but then dubiously adds, “And the context does not demand the exceptional meaning here” (24). Contrary to Fuller, however, for reasons already stated, the context does demand the exceptional, which is to say, the extended meaning of eggizô. Moreover, contrary to Kümmel and Fuller, two of the eleven occurrences of eggizein used in a temporal sense in the New Testament should be interpreted to denote arrival and not simply nearness: Matt 26:45 (“Behold, the hour has arrived (h1ggiken) and the son of man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners”) and Matt 21:34 (“When the time of harvest arrived (êggiken), he sent his slaves to the vine-growers to receive his produce”) (Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus, 21-22; Kuemmel, Promise and Fulfillment, 22-23). In both cases, the meaning arrival is preferable to nearness. What is true of these two exceptions is also true of Mark 1:15: eggizô can be extended to mean recent arrival so long as the context requires it. (Yet it should be noted that Dodd’s position that the correlate of the affirmation that the KofG has arrived is that there is no future coming of the kingdom need not be accepted.) It should also be kept in mind, as R.F. Berkey has demonstrated, that eggizein and the two verbs it translates—mt’ and ng’—are sometimes used “where precise distinctions between proximity and actual contact are practically impossible to make, or where such distinctions are as a matter of fact meaningless” (“Engizein, Phtanein, and Realized Eschatology,” JBL 86 [1963] 177-87 [187]). He argues that some cases of the use of eggizô means to draw near not to arrive (Luke 7:12; 15:25; Acts 9:3; 10:9), but others in which the preferred meaning is arrival (Luke 24:15; Acts 21:33). In some instances, the meaning may be nearness but “that proximity is so advanced that the action can be or is already taking place” (183). In such cases there is not clear separation between nearness and arrival (see Luke 21:20). Used metaphorically of drawing near to God also reveals a semantic ambiguity because it is impossible to distinguish between drawing near to God and communion with God (Heb 7:19; Jas 4:8).

Inscribed Potsherd from Masada Many potsherds were found at Masada. Of particular interest is a potsherd of an amphora (vessel used to store wine) on which is inscribed the name C. Sentius Saturninus (consul for the year 19 BCE), and "To Herod King of the Jews." It seems that Herod imported wine from Rome.

2.2. Blessed Eyes and Ears (Matt 13:16-17; Luke 10:23-24)

Matthew 13 16 But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. 17 For truly I say to you that (M)many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Luke 10:23-24 23 Turning to the disciples, He said privately, "Blessed are the eyes which see the things you see, 24 for I say to you, that many prophets and kings wished to see the things which you see, and did not see them, and to hear the things which you hear, and did not hear them."

Matthew appends a saying to his Markan source from the double tradition that he considers to be relevant to the context: "But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it." This originally isolated saying functions as an interpretation of Mark 4.10-12 = Matt 13.10-15. The verbal parallels between it and Isa 6:9-10 cited in Matt 13:16 no doubt influenced its place in the gospel. In the Lukan context, this saying is conjoined with another double tradition, Luke 10:21-22 (= Matt 11:25-27): Jesus addresses the seventy-two disciples upon their return.

Luke’s version does not have the introductory amen, which he may have omitted, and he also has gar after legô. In addition, Luke has the pronoun humeis before the verb blepete, whereas Matthew does not have the pronoun and so has an enhanced parallelism. Rather than Matthew’s “prophets and righteous” Luke’s version of the saying has “prophets and kings.” Which is more original is difficult to say. It is argued that Luke’s “kings” may reflect Isa 52:15; 60:3 where kings look forward to the time of salvation (see in 11QPs-a 27.2-11 the portrayal of David to whom Yahweh gave a “discerning and enlightened spirit” [4] and who even spoke prophetically [11]) or Luke’s point may be that even the most informed of God’s purposes (prophets) and the most powerful and important men (kings) failed to see and hear what the disciples have seen and heard (Marshal, Luke, 439). Conversely, it is argued that Matthew replaces Luke’s “kings” because of his interest in the righteous (see 10:41; 23:29, 35) (Strecker, Weg der Gerechtigkeit, 197; Schulz, Spruchquelle, 420; Werner Grimm, Weil Ich dich Liebe. Die Verkündigung und Deuterjesaja, 116; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.395). The simplest explanation is that Jesus used two different versions of the saying, one with "prophets and kings" and the other "prophets and righteous."

    In this saying, Jesus says that the disciples are "blessed," because they have seen and heard things that prophets and kings (or the righteous) had desired to see and hear but were denied simply because they happened to exist at the wrong time in history. The point is that God's salvation-historical purposes have not been disclosed indiscriminately, but have been revealed only near or at the time of their realization. The disciples’ point is history is the time of the beginning of the Kingdom of God, so that what was formerly concealed is now being made known: the Kingdom of God. What for previous generations was still future is for the disciples a present reality. Probably what they see that makes them blessed is Jesus’ healings and exorcisms, both manifestations of the Kingdom of God; what they hear that makes them blessed is no doubt Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom of God.

Robinson's Arch In 1838, Edward Robinson correctly identified this protrusion at the southwest corner of the Temple as the remains of an archway leading to gate into the outer courts.  A staircase led up to this archway, while underneath the archway, parallel to the outer western wall of the Temple, was situated a street lined with shops.

2.3. Sermon at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30)

16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and as was his custom, he entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. 17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. And he opened the book and found the place where it was written, 18"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord (Isa 61:1-2). 20 And he rolled up the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.21 And he began to say to them, "Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."

Luke omits the Markan version of Jesus’ Rejection at Nazareth and replaces it with this other one, transposing it to an earlier point in the Markan framework. In the Lukan version, Jesus reads from Isa 61:1-2 in the synagogue and then announces to those present "Today, this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing." (Luke 4:13-21). It is clear that Jesus gives an eschatological interpretation to this prophetic passage, and his interpretation focuses on himself.

Since this is not how Luke handles his Markan source, it is improbable that Luke 4:16-30 is a redaction on Mark 6:1-6 even allowing for the possibility that Luke has drawn upon other sources. This is contrary to the majority of commentators: R. Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 31-32; J.A. Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.527; Chilton, God in Strength, 123-77; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew. Rethinking the Historical Jesus, 1 269-71. Bultmann does allow for the possibility that Luke 4:25-27 “is an independent piece of the tradition, which Luke has used in constructing Jesus’ sermon in the Synagogue” (116; see also Fitzmyer, Luke, 1.527). H.K. Luce suggests that there is a literary seam between 4:22a and 4:22b, which is evident from the tension that exists between the positive assessment of Jesus in the former and the rejection of Jesus in the latter (The Gospel according to S. Luke [Cambridge, 1933] 121). He concludes that Luke has combined another account with his Markan source. But it is not obvious that in Luke 4:22a should be interpreted to mean that the people in Nazareth were laudatory towards Jesus, in which case the tension disappears (see Jeremias, Jesus’ Promise to the Nations, 44-46). Schramm contends that the differences between Mark 6:4 and Luke 4:24 are not the sort attributable to Lukan redaction (Der Markus-Stoff bei Lukas, 37). In particular, Luke would not have used inserted amen legô humin hoti into his Markan source since he tends to omit or replace the word in other sayings. The proverbial nature of 4:24 accounts for the similarity with Mark 6:4 (see GTh 31: “Jesus said, "No prophet is accepted in his own village; no physician heals those who know him.")

    With the discovery of 11QMelchizedek, it is clear that Jesus was not the first to interpret Isa 61:1-2 eschatologically. In this text, Melchizedek, assumed to be an angel and almost certainly identical to Michael and the Prince of Light, is given the principal role in the eschatological salvation of the righteous and judgment of the wicked. 11QMelchizedek is based exegetically on Lev 25, the legislation on the year of jubilee, is then interpreted in light of Deut 15:2 and Isa 61:1 among other scriptural texts. The text begins with the citation of Lev 25:13 to which the parallel legislation in Deut 15:2 is brought alongside in typically midrashic fashion. In so doing, the point is established that the Torah requires the release of all debts in the year of jubilee. In his pesher on Lev. 25, the author uncovers, however, an eschatological meaning for the institution of the year of jubilee: "Its interpretation for the last days concerns the captives about whom it is said… (II. 4). Although there is a lacuna in the text, given the allusion to Isa 61:1 two lines later “And he will proclaim to them liberty” (II.6), there is little doubt that the text quoted in II.4 was from Isa 61:1 'To proclaim liberty to the captives' (Isa 61:1)." So it would seem that according to the author, there will be an eschatological year of jubilee, and will be the fulfillment of the release of the captives foretold in Isa 61:1. The term "captives" no doubt refer to the members of the community who are oppressed by their wicked compatriots and by Belial and the angels of his lot. Given the context, the who proclaims liberty to them is probably Melchizedek, which is why the members of the community are called the "inheritance of Melchizedek" (II.5) and the men of the lot of Melchizedek (II.8). Further proof of this interpretation is found in 11Q13 II.9 in the phrase "the time of the year of favor of Melchizedek," which is an unmistakable allusion to Isa 61:2 "the year of favor of Yahweh." Without reading too much into the passage, it would seem that Melchizedek is viewed as the mediator of Yahweh's eschatological favor to the community. (Melchizedek may also have been identified as the one whom Yahweh has anointed one in Isa 61:1, but this is not explicitly affirmed.)

    Like his contemporaries, Jesus assumes that Isa 61:1-2 has an eschatological reference and for this reason offers a pesher-type interpretation of this text. He interprets the anointed one in Isa 61:1, however, not as Melchizedek or another exalted salvation-historical figure, but as himself, and therefore is understood as making the claim that he is the mediator of the eschatological benefits listed in Isa 61:1-2. In other words, he is making the claim that Israel’s eschatological salvation is in the process of being fulfilled through his own activities. His hearers in the synagogue at Nazareth take offence at the audacity of his claim; indeed, if they were are of the interpretation of the "anointed one" in Isa 61:1 as Melchizedek, their consternation is understandable, for Jesus, who is from the same insignificant Galilean town as they are, is making an outrageous, salvation-historical claim about himself.

Without sufficient evidence Bultmann claims that the narrative in Mark 6:1-6 was created from the saying in 6:4 and that Luke redacts this historically fabricated Markan narrative, possibly making use of a non-Markan source (History of the Synoptic Tradition, 31-32, 116), and many follow him in this conclusion. But there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of Luke 4:16-30, since the interpretation of Isa 61:1-3 in 11Q13 makes it credible that Jesus could easily do the same. The use of the pesher type of biblical interpretation is unique to Palestinian Judaism and so the Jesus as portrayed in the Lukan text is at home with his religious historical background. Moreover, Jesus’ self-understanding reflected in the narrative as the mediator of eschatological salvation is coherent with several other pericopes (coherence). It is circular reasoning to posit the existence of a single source, the so-called Q-source, and then explain all the differences between Matthew and Luke as redactional.

Question 

Why does Jesus understand the present time to be significant?

3. The Kingdom of God in Salvation-Historical Context

There are several sayings of Jesus in which he situates the Kingdom of God in a salvation-historical context. In his view, the Kingdom is the climax of all that God has done in Israel until this point. In part, however, the Kingdom of God is at variance with expectation.

3.1. John and the Kingdom of God (Matt 11:11 = Luke 7:28)

Matt 11:11: Truly I say to you, among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Luke 7:28: I say to you, among those born of women there is no one greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

In Mt. 11.11 || Lk. 7.28 Jesus asserts how the Kingdom is the climax of salvation history by paradoxically stating the inferiority of John the Baptist in comparison to anyone in the Kingdom. This tradition belongs to a collection of traditions that relate to John the Baptist (Matt 11:2-6 = Luke 7:18-23; Matt 11:7-10 = Luke 7:24-27; Matt 11:11 = Luke 7:28; Matt 11:16-19 = Luke 7:31-35). The nature of that collection is difficult to determine, but the common order and the substantial verbatim agreement suggests that it was a written source. What occurs in the Matthean collection but is absent from Luke is Matt 11:12-13; similar material to Matt 11:12-13, however, is found in another context in Luke 16:16. What is found in the Lukan collection but not in Matthew is Luke 7:29-30. It is arguable that there were two versions of the collection of traditions about John, which differed from each other slightly in content. Matt 11:11 = Luke 7:28 probably once existed as an isolated saying before it became associated with other material relating to John in this early written collection. The introduction “(Amen) I say to you” is an indication of its original contextual independence because, if it were part of a larger discourse, such an introduction would be unnecessary since in Matt 11:9 = Luke 7:26 Jesus introduces his saying with “Indeed I say to you.” But as an isolated saying such an introduction would be necessary. The saying consists of two stichs in antithetical parallelism, and should be be considered as a unity. It is sometimes claimed that Matt 11:11 = Luke 7:28 is a post-Easter creation of the Q-community, having as its Sitz-im-Leben a conflict over legitimacy with the followers of John the Baptist over legitimacy. But there is no reason not to accept the logion as authentic, even if it was useful in the alleged conflict between the church and the followers of John the Baptist. But, of course, the point of the saying is not to diminish John in favor of Jesus, but to make a statement about the Kingdom of God as the climax of Israel’s salvation history.

    Jesus extols John (the Baptist) as greater than “all those born of a woman.” (The phrase “born of a woman” is a Semitism meaning human being with a stress on human mortality and frailty (Job 11:12 LXX; Sir 10:18; 1QH 13.14; 18.12-13, 16, 23-24; Apoc Mos. 33:2; 3 En 6:2; Gal 4:4). Although the form of the statement is comparative, the intention is superlative: John is the greatest of all human beings. In the second half of the saying Jesus adds paradoxically, “But the less in the Kingdom of God is greater than he is.” Again, the intended meaning is probably the superlative: “the least in the Kingdom of God.” What needs to be determined is whether Jesus is referring to future or present greatness. If the former, then the contrast is between the present state of the relative greatness of human beings and the future greatness of the least in the Kingdom of God. The point is that when the Kingdom comes the one who now is not great will be even greater than the greatest now (John), precisely because he or she will be in the Kingdom. If the latter, then the contrast is between John’s greatness with the greatness of the one who is now in the Kingdom of God. On this interpretation, the reason that the least in the Kingdom is greater than John is that John is not in the Kingdom of God in its initial manifestation and anyone in the Kingdom by definition is greater than anyone not in the Kingdom. Of the two, this second interpretation is preferable because the present tense (estin) is used, which implies that Jesus is referring to a present state of affairs. In addition, it is improbable that John would be excluded from the Kingdom of God in its future, final manifestation. The greatness of which Jesus speaks is defined not personal but salvation-historical, as measured by a person’s position in relation to the unfolding of the divine plan of salvation. John’s greatness consists in his salvation-historical importance as the culmination of Law and the prophets (Matt 11:13; Luke 16:16). But anyone who participates in this latest phase of salvation history, the Kingdom of God in its initial, pre-culminative manifestation, is greater than John because he serves merely to prepare for the Kingdom but is not a full participant in it. Jesus’ saying has the effect of emphasizing the Kingdom of God as a present reality.

Source

Synagogue at Gamla The Galilean town of Gamla contained a synagogue. It abutted the northeast wall of the city, and measured 25.5 x 17 meters on the exterior; it is aligned lengthwise on a northeast to southwest axis towards Jerusalem. Four rows of ornamented pillars around the center of the hall supported the synagogue's wooden roof. Its lintel was decorated with a carved rosette. Along the walls are several rows of three-stepped, stone benches. In the courtyard of the synagogue is found a mikve. Jesus and his disciples probably may have visited the town (see Mark 1:39).

3.2. The Law and the Prophets (Luke 16:16; Matt 11:12-13)

Matt 11:12: From the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of Heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. 13 For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

Luke 16:16: The Law and the Prophets were until John. Since that time, the good news of the Kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it.

In Matthew and Luke are found two similar-sounding but somewhat obscure sayings that identify John the Baptist as the means by which the transition is made between the period of the Law and the prophets and the Kingdom (Luke 16:16; Matt 11:12-13). In so doing Jesus locates the Kingdom in a salvation-historical context that includes the Law and the prophets and John the Baptist.

Whether Luke 16:16; Matt 11:12-13 are two versions of the same saying is open to debate, since there are significant differences between them. Matt 11:11-12 is included in the collection of saying related to John the Baptist (11:11-19). Luke 16:16 is one of three sayings found in Luke 16:16-18, each of which has a parallel in Matthew: 16:16 / Matt 11:12-13; 16:17 / Matt 5:18; 16:18 / Matt 5:32. The two versions of the saying in Luke 16:16 and Matt 11:12-13 each consists of three clauses, but not in the same order. Those who accept the existence of the Q-source assume that there was one original Greek version of the saying represented by Luke 16:16 = Matt 11:12-13. The fact that only in these two passages in the New Testament does the verb biazomai occur is seen as evidence that Luke 16:16 and Matt 11:12-13 began as the same saying. It is generally held that, whereas Luke 16:16a is the more original first half of the saying, Matt 11:12 preserves the more original second half. The Lukan order of the three clauses is often thought to be more original on the assumption that what prompted Matthew to move the first clause about John the Baptist to the third position was his redactional aim of connecting it with Matt 11:14, in which John is identified with Elijah. In spite of the rare word that they share, it is probably better to handle these two sayings as tradition-historically independent of each other. The differences between the two sayings are too great to be explained as redactional, so that it is more credible that Jesus made two similar utterances about John and his relation to the Kingdom of God in Aramaic both of which were translated into Greek using the same verb, biazomai. Without the assumption of the Q-hypothesis of a single literary source one is not contrained to reconstruct the tradition-history of the two texts on the assumption of a common Greek original.

    Both sayings divide salvation history into two periods, situating John the Baptist in the transition between these two periods: "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John" (Matt 11:13) and "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time, the good news of the Kingdom of God is being preached" (Luke 16:16a). In Luke's version, Jesus views the Kingdom of God as the climax of what has preceded it salvation-historically, the period of the Law and the prophets. The phrase "since that time" (apo tote) implies that Kingdom of God has already begun to be realized in history. If the phrase “until John” (mechri) is to be taken as inclusive, then John is included in the period of the Law and the prophets and not in the Kingdom. But it is possible to interpret the phrase as exclusive, in which case John is part of the Kingdom (The preposition mechri [“until”] can have an inclusive or an exclusive meaning. Luke’s two other uses of it in Acts 10:30 and 20:7 are of no use in determining whether the meaning in Luke 16:16 is inclusive or exclusive.) Similarly, in the Matthean saying, Jesus interprets John as being the culmination of the Law and the prophets, which have foretold the Kingdom of Heaven; the phrase “until John” (heôs) should be taken as modifying the verb “prophesied.” On this interpretation John is the goal or culmination of salvation-historical period characterized as the prophets and the Law, but is excluded as belonging to that period. The implication is that the previous salvation-historical period is distinct from that of the Kingdom to which John belongs, so that John represents the beginning of the fulfillment of the eschatological promise. One could also interpret Matt 11:12a as implying that John is included in the period of the Kingdom: "From the days of John the Baptist until now." It is probable that Jesus interprets John as both being included in the Kingdom because of his preparatory role, but not fully so because he was a transitional salvation-historical figure. In other words, stated positively, John functions as the "bridge" between them.

    In Luke 16:16a, Jesus says that, since the time of John the Baptist, the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed, and then adds the clause kai pas eis autên biazetai, which should probably be translated, "And everyone is forcing his way into it" (This assumes that the verb biazetai is in the deponent middle voice).

The question that now arises is whether to force one's way into the Kingdom of God is a positive or a negative act; the deponent middle voice of the verb biazomai can be used with either meaning. Jesus holds that the Kingdom of God is a present reality into which a Jew can enter in the present. But in order to enter the Kingdom of God, an extreme effort of will is required, so much so that one could describe this effort of will metaphorically as "forceful" or even "violent." In this case, Jesus uses a negative metaphor but with a paradoxically positive meaning. The subject "everyone" (pas) should be interpret as "everyone who wills to enter," so that Jesus is laying down a condition of entrance into the Kingdom of God: unwavering single-mindedness.

It is usually argued by those who hold that an original saying stands behind Luke 16:16 and Matt 11:12-13 that the Lukan hê basileia tou theou euaggelizetai is a substitution for Matthew’s more original hê basileia tou ouranôn biazetai. (see Hoffmann, Studien, 51; Schulz, Spruchquelle, 261-62; Merklein, Die Gottesherrschaft als Handlungsprinzip, 81). In Luke’s mind the verb euaggelizetai is synonymous with biazetai, on the assumption of a positive meaning for the latter. The fact that the verb euaggelizomai used with “the Kingdom of God” occurs only in Luke-Acts could be taken to imply that it was Luke who changed the original (Luke uses the verb euaggelizomai in summary passages [Luke 4:43; 8:1; Acts 8:12].) He preserves the verb in the next clause, used not of the Kingdom but those who enter it. (But it should be noted that the other uses of words with the root of bia- in Luke-Acts are negative [Acts 5:26; 21:35 (24:7); 27:41].) Such a redactional method, however, seems to be too radical for Luke given his more conservative approach to his Markan source. Moreover, Jeremias points out that it in Luke 4:43; 8:1; Acts 8:12 the verb eu0aggeli/zetai is in the deponent middle, which is characteristic of the Lukan style and vocabulary, but in 16:16 it is in the passive and the only other uses of the passive occurs in 7:22, which is pre-Lukan (see Matt 11:5) (see Bammel, “Is Luke 16, 16-18 of Baptist’s Provenience?” HTR 51 (1958) 101-106 (104).

    In Matt 11:12 Jesus says, "From the days of John the Baptist until now, the Kingdom of Heaven biazetai and biastai lay hold of it." The first exegetical task is to determine the meaning of biazetai. Two questions need to be answered. First, is the verb biazetai in the passive voice or the deponent middle? Second, is the act described by biazetai positively understood, in bonum partem, or negatively, in malem partem? If the deponent middle voice is intended then what is described is a positive act: the kingdom forcefully advances. But if the passive voice is intended, then probably a negative act is intended: the enemies of the kingdom act to destroy or hinder it. Because its association with the saying about John’s place in salvation history leads the hearer to expect some positive statement about the Kingdom of God, probably biazetai should be taken as a deponent middle, so that the meaning is positive. For the Kingdom of Heaven to "act forcefully or violently" means something like "forces its way through" or "forcefully advances." Jesus' point is that the Kingdom of Heaven has begun in human history and has been progressing towards its culmination against all opposition since the appearance of John. On this interpretation, it is God who is the agent acting forcefully on the Kingdom to bring it to realization. The opponents to whom Jesus refers may refer primarily to demonic opponents, in which case the following clause, "And biastai lay hold of it" refers to their activities (as allied with unrighteous human beings). But, more probably, parallel to Luke 16:16a, Jesus compares those who choose to enter the Kingdom of Heaven with violent men who seize what is not their own: the point of comparison is the extreme effort and single-mindedness of will required. (The violent are anything but passive or indolent.) Only those who with all their energy—“violently”—seize the opportunity to enter the kingdom will do so. Again Jesus uses a negative metaphor with a paradoxical positive meaning.

3.3. Parable of New and Old Treasures (Matt 13:52)

And Jesus said to them, "Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old."

In a saying found only in Matthew, Jesus compares the scribe who receives instruction in the Kingdom of Heaven to a man who brings out of his storehouse both old and new goods. What is in the storehouse may be food, clothing or other goods. The scribe is a man who is knowledgeable in the scriptures, having figuratively a “storehouse” of knowledge.

The scribe who brings forth something new to add to the old seems to be a convention in early Judaism (Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.447). In b. Erub. 21b, R. Chisda comments on the phrase “new and old” from Cant 7:13: “The latter (are those derived from) the words of the Torah while the former are those derived from the words of the scribes.” Likewise, in m. t. Yom. 4.6 and t. Yom. 2.14, in his interpretation of the Law, the scribe is said to bring forth a “new thing” (see m. Yad. 4.3). Although its attestation is later than the first century the convention of the scribe who brings forth new and adds it to the old was probably current in the first century, so that Jesus’ hearers would understand his point easily. Sir 39:2-3 describes the man who studies the Law as follows: “He explores the wisdom of the men of old and occupies himself with the prophecies; he treasures the discourses of famous men, and goes to the heart of involved sayings; he studies obscure parables, and is busied with the hidden meanings of the sages.” Similarly, in 1QM 10.10 the nation of Israel—equivalent to the community—is described as “learned in the Law, wise in knowledge.” In Matt 23:34 the scribes are included with the prophets and wise.

He knows what God has done in the past and has promised to do in the future. Jesus’ point is that the Kingdom of Heaven, the realization of eschatological salvation, stands in continuity with previous stages of salvation history, in no way nullifying them, but being anticipated by them. The “old” represents what the scribe knows about the previous stages of salvation history, whereas the “new” is what he has learned about the present fulfilment of the eschatological promises. Jesus expects the scribe not to miss the salvation-historical significance of the present time when the Kingdom is beginning to be manifested, but to incorporate it into the “old” of what he already knows. More importantly, he expects a scribe not to reject his teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven as a spurious and not to be content merely with the “old.” There is no reason to deny the authenticity of this saying since a parallel to Jesus’ self-understanding is found in the figure of the Teacher of Righteousness.

As a teacher, Jesus assumes a similar role to that of the Teacher of Righteousness, who claimed to have the proper of understanding of the Torah, being the one through whom God would reveal to the community "the hidden things in which Israel had gone astray" (CD 3.12-15). Or, as the Micah Pesher puts it, "[The interpretation of this co]ncerns the Teacher of Righteousness who [teaches the Law to his council] and to all those volunteering to join the chosen [of God]" (10. 1.4). More importantly, the Teacher of Righteousness also claimed to be an inspired interpreter of the prophets, as the one "to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets" (1QpHab 7.5). He is "the Priest whom God has placed wi[thin the community,] to foretell the fulfillment of all the words of his servants the prophets" (1QpHab 2.8; see 4QpPsa 3.15). In other words, the Teacher of Righteousness found inspired new interpretation of prophecy for the final generation before the eschaton. That his “new” teaching was rejected by many of his contemporaries is obvious from the Damascus Document and the Pesharim.

3.4. Incompatibility of Old and New (Mark 2:21-22 = Matt 9:16-17 = Luke 5:36-38)

Mark 2 21 "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse.  22 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."

Matthew 9 16 "No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch will pull away from the garment, making the tear worse.  17 Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

Luke 5 36 He told them this parable: "No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old.  37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.  38 No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins.

In two similar sayings set in synonymous parallelism Jesus asserts that the realization of the Kingdom of God is discontinuous with eschatological expectation. In the first saying, he expresses this idea by means of the metaphor of the inappropriateness of putting a new patch on an old garment, because, when it shrinks, the new patch will pull away from the garment and tear it further.

Matthew and Luke have minor agreements against Mark: 1. epiballei rather than Mark’s epiraptei (Matt 9:16; Luke 5:36); 2. ei de mê ge rather than Mark’s ei de mê (Matt 9:17; Luke 5:36, 37); 3. ekcheitai / ekchuthêsetai absent from Mark and apolluntai / apolountai rather than Mark’s apollutai (Matt 9:17; Luke 5:37); 4. ballousin / blêteon absent from Mark (Matt 9:17; Luke 5:38). The most significant minor agreement is epiballei rather than Mark’s epiraptei, but this can be explained as independently suggesting itself to Matthew and Luke because of epiblêma. The use of ge by Matthew (1x) and Luke (2x) is too insignificant to consider. The two other minor agreements are probably coincidental stylistic improvements of Mark. There is no need to posit the existence of non-Markan versions of these parables (see Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten, 170). There are variants of these parables in the Gospel of Thomas: “Young wine is not poured into old wineskins, or they might break, and aged wine is not poured into a new wineskin, or it might spoil. An old patch is not sewn onto a new garment, since it would create a tear" (47).

In the second saying he uses the metaphor of the inappropriateness of putting new wine into old skins, because the new wine will break the old, brittle wine skins when it ferments. The two sayings have the same formal structure: a clause beginning with no one (oudeis) followed by a clause introduced by “otherwise” (ei de mê). The point that both sayings make is the incompatibility of old and new. What Jesus asserts is that, although there is continuity between the Kingdom of God and the previous stages of salvation history that have prepared for it, his hearers must beware of seeking to understand the Kingdom of God solely in terms of expectation. The assumption is that not everything was fully understood about the Kingdom of God before its appearance. This will serve as a precaution against rejecting Jesus and his message because it is at variance with what was expected.

Question 

How does Jesus relate the Kingdom of God to John the Baptist and the period of the Law and prophets?

4. Kingdom of God as Historical Process

In Jesus’ understanding, the Kingdom of God is a historical process. It has a beginning and will grow to its culmination over a period of time. For this reason, in its initial stages it may be inconspicuous so that the indifferent or unsympathetic can deny its reality.

4.1. Parable of Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29)

26 He also said, "This is what the Kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground.  27 Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how.  28 All by itself the soil produces grain--first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head.  29 As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come."

In a parable unique to Mark, Jesus expresses the idea of the Kingdom of God as a historical process by comparing it to the event of seed that is sown, grows without the help of human beings and culminates in a harvest. The fact that this parable has no interpretation attached to it has led to disagreement on its meaning. The parable consists of three sentences: 4:26-27; 4:28; 4:29. The first sentence contains three sets of verbs in the subjunctive controlled by hôs (“as”), and focuses on a man who sows. The focus of the second sentence is on the growth of what was sown, describing the three stages of growth: blade, head and ripe grain; this continues the theme of growth from the end of the first sentence.

H.-W. Kuhn argues that tradition-historically the statements that the man does nothing and the seed grows by itself in 4:27-28 are secondary (Ältere Sammlungen im Markusevangelium, 104-12). The original point of the parable is found in 4:29. He claims 4:28b serves as transition to 4:29 but its tautologous nature is a sure sign that it serves to join 4:27-28a to the original parable. The purpose of the original parable (4:26, 29) was an exhortation to patience in light of the delay of the parousia. The point of the addition (4:27-28) is a word of comfort (Trostwort): no human activity can cause or prevent the kingdom from coming. In addition, Kuhn rejects the notion that the later 4:27-28 should be interpreted to mean that the Kingdom of God grows in the sense of developing in human history. Kuhn’s method tends to be circular: on the assumption that the parable can only make one point, he identifies different phases in the tradition-historical development. But if the parable is allrgorical then his method is in error. Moreover, Mark 4:28b since its point is to stress the development of the plant from seed to mature plant, which is absent from 4:29. Similarly, Weder claims that 4:28 is not original to the parable but was added later (Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metapheren, 104, 117-20). With the addition there is greater emphasis on the fact that the growth is God’s own concern. The idea of the phases of growth in 4:28b reflects the view of the early church that there is a period of time between Jesus and the time of the harvest (end) in which it exists. The allusion to Joel 4:13 in 4:29b is also a later addition for the purpose of asserting that the harvest is the “endzeitlichein Vollendung,” the time of final judgment (119). Without further evidence, however, Weder’s tradition-historical reconstruction is overly speculative. See Joel Marcus, The Mystery of the Kingdom of God, 165-70.

The third sentence has three verbs, and in it the man who sowed reappears, but this time as the reaper. The idea of the ripe grain connects 4:28 with 4:29. The emphasis of the parable has been placed upon the one who sows the seed (4:26: "A man sows seed upon the ground"; 4:27: "He sleeps and gets up"; 4:29: "He reaps"), on the growth of the seed and the contrast between the seed sown and the harvest (4:26 "A man sows seed upon the ground"; 4:27: "The seed sprouts and grows”; 4:28: "The ground produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head the sower”), on the earth and its incomprehensible power to bring forth grain apart from all human effort (4:27 The seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how" 4:28 "All by itself the ground produces grain") or on the harvest (4:29 “The harvest has come”). It is advisable to allow for more than one emphasis, so that the parable is interpreted allegorically, as making several, interrelated points using metaphors; this means that the several interpretations of the parable thought to be mutually exclusive are actually compatible. (In fact, it is difficult to keep the various proposed interpretations discrete, since they tend to overlap one another.)

    The fact that Jesus compares the Kingdom to a seed growing towards maturity implies that he sees the Kingdom of God as a historical process that has a beginning and an end. In spite of the differences between a seed and a fully grown plant there is an identity and continuity between them. So likewise the Kingdom of God as already present, but inconspicuous, will progress towards its incontrovertible completeness. (Jesus’ interest is the two extreme stages of the Kingdom, rather than the intermediate stages.) Given the unexpected stress on the seed's growth as independent of all assistance from human beings, Jesus is also making the point that the Kingdom is outside of the control of human beings; in the same way that a plant grows without human assistance, "all by itself" (automatê) regardless of what the sower does subsequently (“night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up”), the Kingdom of God ineluctably and necessarily grows until it reaches its completion. (In the LXX ta automata is ued of produce that grows by itself in a sabbatical year [Lev 25:5, 11].)The statement that the sower does not know how the seed grows (4:27: “though he does not know how”) likewise contributes to the idea of the Kingdom as outside of the control of human beings. The harvest should be taken to represent final judgment, which is coincidental with the Kingdom of God in its completeness; it will come inevitably, according to God's own timing. Mark 4:29b “He puts in the sickle because the harvest has arrived” is likely an allusion to eschatological judgment in Joel 4[3]:13. It is also possible that Jesus intended the sower and the reaper be identified with himself; in this case Jesus as the "sower" is the mediator of the Kingdom of God, the one through whom God's saving power is introduced into history, but as the "reaper" is also the one through whom final judgment will be executed.

C.H. Dodd argues that the point of the parable is that the Kingdom of God is now complete and is now ready to be harvested, so that Jesus sees his own mission as the realization of this harvest (The Parables of the Kingdom, 132-35; see Taylor, Mark, 266). The previous stages of the Kingdom of God, represented by the stages of growth of the grain, correspond to past salvation-historical periods in Israel's history, the most recent being the ministry of John the Baptist. It is more accurate to say that Jesus sees the seed and its growth as corresponding to the Kingdom of God, not to its salvation-historical antecedents; in Jesus' view, the Kingdom of God begins inconspicuously but "grows" to maturity. Zager argues that the allusion to Joel 4[3]:13 in 4:29 is secondary (Gottesherrschaft und Endgericht in der Verkündigung Jesu, 138-47). The reference to harvest is original to the parable, for the structure of the parable requires this: sowing (4:26-27a), growth (4:27b-28) and harvest (4:29) The two sayings about the growth in 4:27b-28 are framed by the statements about the action of the farmer (see Klauck, Allegorie, 220). But in the original parable the harvest referred to the eschatological gathering of God’s people, as in Isa 27:12-13 and in Matt 3:12, not a judgment of destruction. Since it intends the judgment of destruction, Joel 3[4]:12-13 does not belong in Mark 4:26-29, and its addition means that the original metaphor is now obscured. Zager must explain why someone who understood the parable would have added an allusion Joel 3[4]:13 and why it remained as part of the parable. It is more credible that, contrary to Zager, the harvest metaphor always referred to judgment and not to the ingathering of the people of God.

4.2. Parable of the Mustard Seed (Mark 4:30-32; Matt 13:31-33 = Luke 13:18-19)

Mark 4 30 Again he said, "What shall we say the Kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it?  31 It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground. 32 Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade."

Matthew 13 31 He told them another parable: "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field.  32 Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches."

Luke 13 18 Then Jesus asked, "What is the Kingdom of God like? What shall I compare it to? 19 It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the birds of the air perched in its branches."

Jesus uses the growth of a mustard seed to express the idea of the ‘growth’ of the Kingdom. There are two different versions of the Parable of the Mustard Seed, a Markan and non-Markan represented by Luke. (The parable is found also in Gospel of Thomas 20.)

Matthew interpolates his non-Markan version of the Parable of the Mustard Seed and the Parable of the Leaven into his Markan source (Matt 13:31-33 = Mark 4:30-32), whereas Luke keeps these two parables separate from his blocks of Markan material (Block Two: Luke 8:4-9:50 = Mark 3:31-9:40; Block Three: Luke 18:15-43 = Mark 10:13-52). Moreover, based on the fact that Matt 13:31-33 tends to alternate in agreement between Mark 4:30-32 and Luke 13:18-19, Matthew seems to have conflated his two sources (Matt 13:31: espeiren en tô agrô autou / Mark 4:31: spare epi tês gês; Matt 13:32: ho mikroteron men estin pantôn tôn spermatôn / Mark 4:31 mikroteron on pantôn tôn spermatôn tôn epi tês gês; Matt 13:32 meizon tôn lachanôn / Mark 4:32 meizon pantôn tôn lachanôn).

The differences between them, however, are negligible with respect to the meaning of the parable. Jesus compares the Kingdom of God to a mustard seed, or, more accurately, to what happens to a mustard seed when it is planted. The mustard plant (brassica nigra) begins as most inconspicuous, "the smallest of all seeds," but becomes conspicuous, a large plant (to lachanon) (Mark) or tree (to dendron) (Luke). (To call a mustard plant a tree emphasizes its size: it is almost as large as a tree.) In the parable both the contrast between the beginning and culmination of the Kingdom of God and the process of growth from the one to the other are emphasized.

The stress is not simply on the contrast between the seed and the mature mustard plant because in both versions the seed is explicitly said to grow: Mark 4:32; Luke 13:19; Matt 13:32 (see Percy, Die Botschaft Jesu, 207-11). M. Boucher writes, “Both similitudes [Growing Seed and Mustard Seed] speak of three stages: beginning development and full growth. If we reject the invalid principle that a similitude can have only one ‘point’ only, we need ignore none of these stages” (The Mysterious Parable, 55). It is often held that the stress in the parable is on the contrast between the mustard seed and the full-grown plant, but a focus on the final result of the process of growth should not be taken as exclusive of a focus on the growth itself; rather, neither one is separable from the other (see Weder, Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metapheren, 128-38). This is contrary to Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 101-102; 147; Kümmel, Promise and Fulfilment, 129-31; Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 157-58; Ladd, Presence of the Future, 234-35; Haenchen, Weg, 181-82; Schnackenburg, God’s Rule, 155-56; Carlston, The Parables of the Triple Tradition, 157-62; Dahl, "The Parables of Growth," 147-48; Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God, 194-95; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.415-21. By contrast, Schutz argues that the Q-version (in Luke) of the parable is more original, and in Luke the stress is on growth and not the contrast between the seed and the mustard plant (Spruchquelle, 298-307; see Becker, Jesus, 122-24). The Markan version, which contains the contrasting term mikro/teron / mei=zon is secondary. Again, it is probable that both versions intend to stress both the growth and the contrast.

Jesus' point is that Kingdom of God is a historical process that has begun inconspicuously in his appearance and work but will grow towards a conspicuous result, which no one will be able to deny. His parable serves as both an encouragement and a warning not to judge prematurely what is being experienced in the present. It is possible that the depiction of the mustard plant as large enough to support birds on its branches is a metaphor of the Kingdom of God as offering protection to those within it.

Citing Joseph and Aseneth 15 as evidence, Jeremias says that the verb "to dwell" (kataskênoô) is "an eschatological technical term for the incorporation of the Gentiles into the people of God," so that the birds that dwell in the mustard plant represent gentiles who will be incorporated into the Kingdom of God (Parables, 147; see Schulz, Spruchquelle, 304-306). In addition, gentiles symbolized by birds occurs in 1 En 90:30, 33, 37; Midrash to Ps 104:12; see also Judg 9:15; Lam 4:20; Bar 1:12; Sir 14:26. It is probable, however, that the birds sitting in the branches of the mature mustard plant only serve to illustrate how large the plant has become, so as to accentuate the contrast between the beginning and end. The image of a tree in which birds dwell is used as a metaphor of a kingdom in Ezek 17:22-24; 31:1-18; Dan 4:10-27, but it is doubtful that Jesus intended any allusion to any of these texts, since there are no close verbal parallels. Besides, he is describing a mustard plant which is tree-like but not a real true (contrary to Suhl, Die Funktion der alttestamentlichen Zitate und Anspielungen im Markusevangelium, 154; Laufen, Doppelüberlieferung, 179-80; Scott, Jesus, Symbol Maker for the Kingdom, 67-73).

4.3. Parable of the Leaven (Matt 13:33 = Luke 13:20)

The Parable of the Leaven is conjoined with the Parable of the Mustard Seed, and makes the same basic point as the latter (Matt (13:31-33; Luke 13:18-21).

Other parable pairs include the Parables of the Treasure and the Pearl (Matt 13:44-46) and the Parables of the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin (Luke 15:3-10). The differences between the Matthean and Lukan versions are negligible. As an introduction to the parable Matthew has allên parabolên elalêsen autois whereas Luke has kai palin eipen. The two parables were probably originally joined in whatever form of the tradition in which Matthew and Luke found them. The word palin is a word that Luke tends to avoid, so that Luke’s introduction is likely not redactional (Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangelium, 148, 230; Schulz, Spruchquelle, 307). It is possible that Matthew’s introduction is redactional, but it also may have been traditional (One should not assume that Matthew and Luke had access to an original Q-version so that all differences between them must be redactional.) The Matthean phrase “kingdom of heaven” rather than “kingdom of God” is probably redactional, since Matthew tends to replace the latter with the former in his Markan source. Finally, Luke may have replaced the original verb egkruptein with the more common simple verb kruptein, or there may have been two different verbs in two different versions of the parable.

In the parable Jesus compares the Kingdom of God to the effectiveness of a piece of leavened dough when introduced into a batch of unleavened dough. The parable emphasizes the contrast between the present and the culmination of the Kingdom of God. Just as a small amount of leaven begins its work inconspicuously but eventually produces conspicuous results, so the Kingdom of God begins inconspicuously, so that it is possible for people to not to notice it or even deny that it has begun, but it will eventually become conspicuous to all and its reality undeniable. The difference between the beginning and the end of the leaving process is merely a matter of time: just as dough that has been leavened will inexorably grow to become a huge mass of dough, so likewise, once the Kingdom of God necessarily will come to completion once it has made its appearance in history. By the use of the metaphor of leaven, Jesus also places emphasis on the growth of Kingdom of God, from its introduction in history to its consummation. His point is that the Kingdom of God is a "power" at work in history, in an analogous way in which yeast is a power in dough to cause to increase in size. There is a hyperbolic element in the parable because the woman is preparing much more dough than would be needed for a normal household (Josephus explains that a saton (sa/ton) is equivalent of one and a half Italian modii [Ant. 9.85], which is 39.4 litres of flour or about fifty pounds). Possibly Jesus’ intention is to stress the glorious nature of the Kingdom of God insofar as the original hearers would envision a comically massive volume of bread dough. Also, normally for Jews yeast was used as a negative symbol, which may have made its positive use in this parable somewhat dissonant for Jesus’ hearers. This may have the effect of communicating the point that the Kingdom of God is partially discontinuous with eschatological expectation.

Source

Blocks from Herodian Temple The Romans burned and destroyed the buildings of the inner courts, the Temple proper. Some portions of the walls of the outer courts, however, survived. The outer face of each block used in the construction of the outer wall was smoothed down. Herod's masons then chiseled a margin around the edge of each block; in this way, anyone could easily see that the wall was composed of individual blocks. The blocks were fitted together using the "dry construction" method, which means that no mortar was used in the construction.

 

Question 

According to Jesus how is the Kingdom of God to come to realization?

5. Kingdom of God as Inseparable from Jesus

Jesus sees the Kingdom of God as inseparable from himself. In his presence, the Kingdom of God is present to his contemporaries, and rejection of him is the rejection of the Kingdom.     

5.1. The Kingdom of God in Your Midst (Luke 17:20-21)

Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, he answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, "Look, here it is" or, "There it is" For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst."

Luke contains a saying in which Jesus describes the nature of the appearance of the Kingdom of God; in it he connects the Kingdom with himself.

Some unconvincingly reject the authenticity of Luke 17:20b-21, viewing the passage as Lukan redaction (Strobel, In dieser Nacht (Luk 17,34): Zu einer älteren Form der Erwartung in Luk 17,20-37,” ZTK 58 (1961) 16-39 (26-27); id., “Zu Lk 17,20f.,” BZ 7 (1963) 111-13; D. Luehrmann, Redaktion, 72; Merkelin, Gottesherrschaft, 122). Luke is not in the habit of creating sayings of Jesus (see Schlosser, Le Règne de Dieu dans les Dits de Jésus, 1.181; Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 68-74).

The Pharisees ask Jesus when the Kingdom of God will come in 17:20a. (Although not particularly Lukan, Luke 17:20a may have been composed by Luke, as is often suggested. If he did his goal was to provide a context in which to understand the apophthegma saying that follows has been suggested. But this does not mean that it is a historical fabrication.) Jesus’ response in 17:20b-21 is constructed in antithetical parallelism. The negative member of Jesus’ response consists of two coordinating clauses joined by “nor” (oude), which describe how the Kingdom of God does not come: “The Kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed (meta paratêrêseôs), nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is’ or, ‘There it is.’”

Schlosser argues that the phrase meta paratêrêseôs is Lukan redaction (Le Règne de Dieu dans les Dits de Jésus, 1.196-201). He begins by noting first the difficulty of finding a Semitic equivalent of the phrase and second the fact that the word belongs to “la langue relevée et savante” (196). These data consistent with a Lukan origin. He then observes that the construction meta + genitive is as much Lukan as it is traditional, and, since it is a hapax in the New Testament, the word paratêrêsis can no more be attributable to the tradition as to Lukan redaction (197). Yet he observes that the word is not part of common speech but a literary word and so would more likely originate with Luke than in the tradition. In fact, the verb paratereô occurs six times in the New Testament and four of these are in Luke’s writings; this supports the hypothesis that the noun paratêrêsis is also Lukan (197). Against the argument that logion 113 in Gospel of Thomas, which contains the clause “"It will not come by watching for it,” is an independent translation of the original Aramaic, Schlosser claims that the logion is literarily dependent on Luke 17:20-21. This means that it cannot be used as evidence for the originality of the phrase “with signs to be observed” in the saying. Schlosser also argues that there is no evidence to conclude that 17:20b (without the phrase “with signs to be observed”) has been added to the tradition either by Luke or the early church (199-200). In conclusion, he reconstructs the original saying, which he considers to be basically identical to what Jesus actually said, as: ouk erchetai hê basileia tou theou idou (gar) hê basileia tou theou entos estin (17:20b+21b). Schlosser’s argument is an example of trying to prove too much with too little: his reconstruction of the alleged original form of the tradition is too speculative.

    The first way in which the Kingdom does not come is “with signs to be observed.” In the context, the meaning of “signs to be observed” probably describes empirically observable phenomena associated with the inception of eschatological fulfillment. Jesus’ questioners hold the view that the coming of the Kingdom of God will be universally recognizable by its accompanying manifestations, and they want to know when Jesus believes these premonitory manifestations will begin to occur, thereby heralding the Kingdom. (On this interpretation “come” has a future meaning since it is referring to the future Kingdom of God.) The second way in which the Kingdom of God does not come is in such a way that someone could say “Look, here it is’ or, ‘There it is.” The meaning seems to be the same as “with signs to be observed.” In other words, Jesus is saying that, contrary to their expectation, the Kingdom of God will not come in such a way as to be universally recognized as such. He rejects the presupposition behind the question, namely that the Kingdom of God will come all at once as a publicly observable event. In other words, the Kingdom will not come as full-blown, so that no one could deny that it has come. Rather, Jesus' conception of the Kingdom of God is that it begins inconspicuously, so that it is possible to deny that it has come at the earliest stages of its historical development.

In 1 Enoch, God’s eschatological appearance is described three times. In such cases, that this is time of the eschaton will be universally known. First, in the introduction to the Book of Watchers, Enoch says that what he expounds is revelation pertaining to the distant future (1 En 1:2–3b). (There are parallels in vocabulary and form between 1 En 1:2–3b and the oracles of Balaam, especially Num 24:15–17.) Then comes the description of the eschatological theophany: God will come from his dwelling, identified later as “the heaven of heavens,” to Mt. Sinai in order to judge the whole world (1 En 1:3c–9). (For the biblical sources of this theophany, see, in particular, Deut 33:1–3; Jer 25:31; Micah 1:3–4.) God appears eschatologically as a warrior accompanied by his angelic armies to bring judgment not only to all human beings, but also to fallen angels known as the Watchers (1 En 1:5). As the author says in 1 En 1:9, “He comes with the myriads of his holy ones to execute judgment on all.” That the appearance is to be upon Mt. Sinai is probably due to the fact that it was on this mountain that God gave the Law to Moses; the implication is that God’s judgment will be on based on the Law. (In Deut 33:2, God appears from Sinai, and it is not the place to which he descends.) The theophany is accompanied by cosmic disturbances and upheaval, caused by God’s appearance (1 En 1:5–7) (see Exod 19:16–20; 20:18; Judg 5:4; Ps 68:7–8; Mic 1:2–4; Nah 1:5; Hab 3:6). Second, later in the Book of Watchers, on his journeys Enoch comes to a tall mountain, one of seven mountains, situated in the center of the other six (1 En 24–25). The archangel Michael explains to Enoch that on the summit of this mountain is the throne upon which God will sit when he descends to visit the earth in goodness (1 En 25:3). What is being described is the eschatological theophany for the purpose of judgment, or, to use the idiom, the time when God will “visit” the earth. Third, in the Epistle of Enoch, Enoch explains that on the day of final judgment, God will appear as a warrior and with the help of his angelic army execute eschatological judgment (1 En 100:4; see 91:7). Finally, in the discourse on eschatological judgment preserved in 4Q416 frg. 1 (= 4Q418 frg. 2), using biblical imagery, the author appears to depict the time of eschatological judgment as a theophany, with the result that all creation will respond in fear and trembling to the appearance of God as righteous judge (4Q416 frg. 1.11–15) (see Isa 24:18; Ps 77:16–18).

    The positive member of Jesus’ response is the remarkable statement that the Kingdom of God has already come: “For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst” (see Xenophon, Anab. 1.10.3; Hellen. 2.3.19; Herodotus, Hist. 7.100.3; Arrian, An. V, 22, 4. In its use in this phrase, it is a synonym for en mesô). In Aquila Exod 17:7 the Heb wnbrqb is translated as entos humôn). Jesus’ point is that the Kingdom of God is in the midst of his questioners insofar as he is in their midst, so inseparable is he from the Kingdom. Of course, the Kingdom is in its initial phases and so is still only partially and even ambiguously present. For this reason, the possibility exists to deny that it is present at all, in which case Jesus would be seen as having no salvation-historical significance at all. When it comes to completion, the Kingdom of God will be undeniable, but until then a person will be able to accept or reject Jesus’ claim that the Kingdom of God is already present insofar as he is present.

The prepositional phrase entos humôn could also be translated as "within you" (Dalman, Words of Jesus, 143-47; Dodd, Parables, 63 n 2 R. Sneed, “The Kingdom of God is within You” (Lk 17,21),” CBQ 24 (1962) 363-82. Percy argues that the reason that Kingdom does not come with signs to be observed is because the Kingdom is a purely inward phenomenon (Die Botschaft Jesu, 216-23) Moreover, the linguistic evidence may slightly favor such an interpretation (Moule, An Idiom Book of the New Testament, 83-84; But the interpretation "in the midst of you" better coheres with Jesus' understanding of the Kingdom of God as already present in its incipient stages by virtue of his own presence by virtue. In no other saying does Jesus internalize the Kingdom as a spiritual reality within. Another interpretive possibility is that Jesus is saying that the Kingdom of God is within the reach, grasp or possession of his hearers in the sense of being their disposal: “within your reach, grasp or possession” or “to take it lies among your choices and within your power” (H.J. Cadbury, “The Kingdom of God and Ourselves,” Christian Century 67 [1950] 172-73; C.H. Roberts, “The Kingdom of Heaven (Lk xvii. 21),” HTR 41 [1948] 1-8; A. Rüstow, “Entos hymon estin: Zur Deutung von Lukas 17.20-21,” ZNW 51 [1960] 197-224). The context does not support this interpretation because it must be in antithetical parallelism with come with signs to be observed: already present but hidden.

5.2. Possibility of Exclusion of Law-Keepers from Kingdom (Matt 21:28-32)

But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, "Son, go work today in the vineyard.'" 29 And he answered, "I will not"; but afterward he regretted it and went. 30 The man came to the second and said the same thing; and he answered, "I will, sir"; but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you that the tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom of God before you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him; but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, seeing this, did not even feel remorse afterward so as to believe him.

Jesus tells the Parable of the Two Sons to warn the righteous about the dire consequences of rejecting him and his message of the Kingdom (Matt 21.28-31). The parable consists of two parts, each introduced by a question. The first half begins with a rhetorical question ("But what do you think?") followed by the parable (21.28-30). In the parable a father asks his two sons to go and work in the vineyard. The first son initially declines to honor his father’s request, but later changes his mind and goes to work in the vineyard. The second son agrees to do what his father, but does not carry through on his commitment. The second half of the parable opens with a question based upon the preceding: "Which of the two did the will of his father?" The obvious answer is that the first son did the will of God.

    In 21.31b Jesus then gives his application of the parable: "Truly, I say to you that the tax-collectors and prostitutes enter into the Kingdom of God ahead of you." The father in the parable serves as a metaphor for God. So the point is that it is the one who obeys God is the one who actually does the will of God, not the one who merely promises to obey. Jesus’ meaning is that the tax-collectors and prostitutes are like the son who at first refuses to obey, but later changes his mind and goes to work in his father’s vineyard. Jesus explains that the tax-collectors and prostitutes accepted John the Baptist’s message of "the way of righteousness," by which is meant that people should repent and become obedient to God’s will as expressed in the commandments (21.32). They enter into the Kingdom of God ahead of those who only promise to do the will of God, but never actually do it. This second group of Jews, to which the tax-collectors and prostitutes are being contrasted, is those who are righteous by means of their prior obedience to the Law, who in a sense have ‘promised’ to do what God requires in the future, in particular to cooperate with God’s eschatological purposes. But, insofar as they reject John the Baptist mission and then also Jesus’ own proclamation of the Kingdom of God, they do not keep this "promise." The implication is that they will not enter at all into the Kingdom of God, not that they will enter after the tax-collectors and prostitutes. Only the one who actually does the will of God is qualified to enter the Kingdom of God, and in the present salvation-historical context to do the will of God is to accept John and Jesus as sent from God. The righteous who refuse to believe Jesus’ message of the Kingdom of God do not do the will of God, and are thereby excluded from it. Their prior record of obedience is of no avail to them.

Some have argued that the parable is Matthean redaction (H. Merkel, “Das Gleichnis von den ‘ungleichen Söhne’ (Matth XXI. 28-32),” NTS 20 (1974) 254-61; Schlosser, Le règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus, 2.451-64 [with the exception of 21:31b]; Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, 421-24; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 165=66). But apart from the improbability that Matthew would compose his own parable, there are arguably traditional elements in the parable: 1. egô, kurie; 2. pornê; 3. proagein…eis tên basileian; 4. basileia tou theou; 5. pisteuein + dat. (See E. Schweizer, Matthew, 410-12; Sand, Matthäus, 430; Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, 2.219-20 (1986, 88). There are textual variants of this parable in which the order of the sons’ responses to their father differ (Jeremias, Parables, 125 n.43; Derrett, “The Parable of the Two Sons,” Studia Theologica 25 (1971) 109-16; Kretzer, Die Herrschaft der Himmel und die Söhne des Reiches, 153-54; Weder, Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metapheren, 233-34). Whether the son who said he would go but did not precedes the son who said he would not go but did does not affect the meaning of the parable. What is only affected is the answer in 21:31a: “the first or the last.” Nevertheless, narrative logic requires that the first son refuse to go to the vineyard, for otherwise the father would not have had any reason to ask the other son to go Attempts made to argue that 21:31b as redactional, but such arguments are far too tenuous, relying too heavily on degrees of Matthean redaction detectable in 21:31b and the preceding parable (Weder, Die Gleichnisse Jesu als Metapheren, 230-38; Schlosser, Le règne de Dieu dans les dits de Jésus, 2.451-64. In the absence of convincing proof better to take 31b as original, since it would unusual for a parable to end with a question.

Questions 

In what sense is the Kingdom of God inseparable from Jesus?

6. Kingdom of God for Jews Alone

Jesus makes the the offer of the Kingdom of God to Jews alone. For him Israel’s eschatological benefits are not intended to be shared equally with other peoples. Jesus is not hostile to gentiles, unlike some of his contempories; he even heals a centurion’s servant and commends him for his faith (Mt. 8.5-13 = Lk. 7.1-10). But in a non-rejection context the Kingdom of God does not belong to them.

6.1. Not to Gentiles or a City of the Samaritans (Matt 10:5-7)

5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.  6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, preach this message: "The kingdom of heaven is near."

In Matthew's version of the sending out of the twelve, Jesus tells the disciples not to go to the gentiles or the Samaritans, but rather to restrict their activity to Jews. Matt in 10:5-25 is arguably a composite of Mark and non-Markan material, but 10:5-7, the section under consideration, does not derive from Mark. On the Q-source hypothesis its absence in Luke is explained as an omission. But if one assumes that Matthew and Luke each had access to not a single written source but some form of non-Markan material that overlapped in content, it is possible that Luke did not know the tradition represented by Matt 10:5-6 and so did not omit it. The phrase “to the gentiles” is a hapax in Matthew, and probably means towards or to a gentile town or city. The point is that the disciples are to avoid going to gentile-dominated areas with their message that the Kingdom of Heaven has drawn near. The disciples are also forbidden from going “to a city of the Samaritans,” which is a prohibition of proclaiming the Kingdom among the Samaritans. Rather, Jesus’ disciples are to restrict their activity to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." The metaphor of Israel as sheep occurs in the Bible (Jer 50:6; Ezek 34:5, 31; see Isa 53:6; Matt 9:36). The articleless “house of Israel” is a Semitism referring collectively to Jews considered as descendents of a common ancestor and so to a closed community (see LXX3 Bas 12:21; LXX Ps 117:2). The disciples are to take up Jesus’ mission of seeking and save the lost but only among their own people. They are to offer to disobedient Jews the possibility of repentance and forgiveness. What is implict is that Jesus understands the Kingdom as intended for Jews alone and not for gentiles or even Samaritans.

6.2. Bread to Dogs (Mark 7:24-30; Matt 15:21-28)

Mark 7 27 And He was saying to her, "Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 28 But she answered and said to Him, "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs."

Matthew 15 26 And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 27 But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table."

While in Tyre, Jesus initially refuses to exorcize the demon from the daughter of a Syro-Phoenician woman, whom Mark also calls a Hellênis, because this benefit of the Kingdom of God has been given only to Jews.

There is ample evidence of typical Matthean elements in 15:21-28 (Allen, Matthew, 169; Burkill, New Light on the Earliest Gospel. Seven Markan Studies, 75-80; Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten, 274; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.542-43). Characteristic Matthean words include anachôrein (v. 21); krazein (vvs. 22, 23); daimonizesthai (v. 22); proserchesthai (v. 23); prosnunein (v. 24); gar (v. 27); tote (v. 28); apo (used temporally) (v. 28); thelein (v. 28). The use of exerchesthai in a nominative participle (v. 22) is Matthean, as is also krazein + legein (v. 22); apokritheis + finite verb (v. 24); ekeinê hôra (v. 28) and kai idou (v. 22). The title huios Dauid is also typical of Matthew (9:27; 12:23; 20:30, 31 [= Mark 10:47, 48]; 21:9, 15; 22:42 [=Mark 12:35]). Several expressions are also characteristic of Matthew. The clause proselthontes hoi mathêtai autou occurs elsewhere only in Matt 13:10; 15:12. The plea for mercy eleêson me, kurie occurs also in 9:27; 17:15; 20:30-31, and the clause kai iathê hê thugtêr autês apo tês hôras ekeinês in 15:28 is similar to kai esôthê…apo tês hôras ekeinês in 9:22, iathê…en tê hôra ekeinê in 8:13 and kai etherapeuthê… apo tês hôras ekeinês in 17:18. Likewise the clause megalê sou hê pistis genêthêtô soi hôs theleis is similar to hôs episteusas genêthêtô in 8:13, hê pistis sou sesôken se in 9:22 and kata tên pistin humôn genêthêtô in 9:29. In spite of the fact that there are typically Matthean elements in Matt 15:21-28, there are too still many differences between it and Mark 7:24-30 to hold that it is a redaction of the latter (Taylor, Mark, 347; F. Hahn, Das Verständnis der Mission im Neuen Testament (WMANT 13; Neukirchen, 1963) 24, n. 4; Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthäus, 251-52; Manson, Sayings, 200-201; Roloff, Das Kerygma und der irdische Jesus, 160 n. 198; Beare, Matthew, 340. Streeter views Matt as an example of overlap between Mark and M (The Four Gospels, 259-60). The typical Matthean elements are equally as compatible with the hypothesis of Matthean comflation and redaction of both Markan and a non-Markan source.

There are two versions of this tradition, a Markan and a non-Markan version. It is probable that the differences between Mark's version and that found in Matthew is the result of Matthew's conflation of a non-Markan version of this tradition with the Markan. Matthew is dependent on Mark 7:27-28 for the dialogue in Matt 15:26-27, but Matt 15:22-25 seems to derive from a non-Markan source. Also Matthew has omitted Mark 7:24b; 7:26 as unnecessary. In the non-Markan version what is implied in Mark is made explicit that Jesus at first ignores the woman’s request for help: “Jesus did not answer a word” (15:23a). His disciples also had no interest in helping the woman: “And his disciples came to him and said him, ‘Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us’” (15:23b). (According to Mark 7:24b, Jesus intended to remain incognito while outside of Galilee, which may explain in part his not responding to the woman’s plea.) Since she persists, Jesus has no choice but to respond to her. Using a metaphor, he asks rhetorically, “It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs?" (For the use of “son,” “sons” or “children” to refer to Israel, see Exod 4:22; Deut 14:1; Isa 1:2; Jub. 1:24.) In this context, bread is a metaphor for the totality of Israel’s eschatological benefits, one benefit of which is freedom from Satan’s dominion. Jesus contrasts children with dogs in order to make the point of the favored status of Jews as the covenant people: in the same way that a dog has no status comparable to that of children, so gentiles cannot compare salvation-historically to Jews, to whom have been given the promise of the Kingdom of God. What the woman is asking for is not her right since she is not a Jew, but a gentile. It should be noted that the use of “dog” to describe the woman’s child has obvious negative connotations since the term was used derisively to refer to gentiles.

In the Bible, the term “dog” (klb) serves as a term of denigration for others or oneself (Deut 23:19; 1 Sam 17:43; 24:14; 2 Sam 9:8; 16:9; 2 Kings 8:13; Ps 22:17, 21; 59:7, 15; Prov 26:11; see Sir 13:18). In 1 Enoch 89:42, 43, 46, 47, 49; 90:4. See Str B 1.724-26 for rabbinic uses of “dog.” The use of the diminutive kunaria is probably not intended to mitigate the negative connotations of calling gentiles dogs, since the diminutive is common in Koine Greek without an actual diminutive intended (T.A. Burkill, The Syrophoenician Woman: Mark 7:24-31 TU 102 (StudEv IV) Berlin 1968, 170-73; Carlston, The Parables of the Triple Tradition, 170). Besides, if Jesus spoke Aramaic to her, he would probably have used the word klb'.

The woman’s clever reponse that even the dogs are allowed to eat the crumbs that fall from the children’s table prompts Jesus to grant her what she requested, since this is a display of persistent faith. Nevertheless, her situation is the exception that proves the rule that Jesus restricts his mission to his own people.

Adopting a form-critical approach, Bultmann argues that Matt 15:24 has its origin in the Palestinian church and was created to address the question of the mission to the gentiles; the saying belongs to the type that has terminology that looks back to the historical appearance of Jesus as a whole and has terminology of a later time similar to what is found in John 18:37; 8:42; 16:28; 3:19 (History of the Synoptic Tradition, 155-56, 163). Bultmann’s arguments are not convincing as Jeremias makes clear (Jesus’ Promise to the Nations, 27-28). Carlston rejects the authenticity of Matt 10:6; 15:24, arguing that these sayings must come from early Christian controversies (The Parables of the Triple Tradition, 168-74). His arguments are as follows: 1. Contrary to what is implied in these sayings, Jesus accepted the Old Testament view that gentiles would share in the Messianic blessings; 2. Jesus’ attitude to the poor, women and non-Jews was too generous to be compatible with calling the woman a “dog”; 3. The narrative is not realistic enough to be historically authentic because the woman’s answers “are too instant and clever” (172) and the implication that it was the woman’s wit that won her a hearing, which is historically implausible; 4. The healing occurs at a distance, which is a legendary trait and a sure indication of non-historicity; 5. Jesus is portrayed as having “played a somewhat unfair game with an honest suppliant” and so appears too insensitive to be historically credible. Carlston’s judgment are too subjective to be convincing, especially since he wrongly assumes that Jesus did not intentionally restrict his mission to Jews. Klauck rejects the authenticity of Mark 7:2-28 as it stands, the saying and the framework; the origin is the early church and the post-Easter dispute about the mission to the gentiles, which had to do with table fellowship, But he does hold that behind Mark 7:27b is the fact that Jesus did restrict his mission to Jews; the saying was then used by Jews or Jewish Christians and then used ironically and thereby refuted (Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten, 277-78). Why the tradition must be explained as resulting from the early church’s dispute about gentiles, however, is not at all clear.

    Mark and Matthew each have an additional saying. In Mark 7:27a, before he tells the woman that it not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs, Jesus says, “First let the children eat all they want," which somewhat mitigates the harshness of Jesus’ subsequent response, since he could be interpreted as saying that gentiles will eventually receive eschatological benefits, but only after Israel. This outlook is consistent with biblical prophecies concerning gentiles. (Biblical prophecies of gentiles sharing in Israel’s eschatological blessings include Isa 2:2-4; 41:21-29; 42:10-17; 45:14, 22; 60; Micah 4:1-2; Zeph 3:8-10.) Nevertheless, such a concession is of no immediate consolation to this gentile woman and her demonized daughter, and would do little to placate her. In Matt 15:24, Jesus explains to the woman, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel,” which is a warrant for his refusal to help her. (The formulation ouk…ei mê is a Semitism translating l'...'l' and meaning “only.”) The saying gives an important insight into Jesus’ understanding of his mission: he restricts the offer of the Kingdom of God to Jews, those to whom it was promised, and considers it his calling to bring disobedient Jews into the Kingdom.

Those involved in Markan redaction history often interpret either the word “first” (prw~ton) or the entire passage (7:27a) as an addition to the tradition. It is said that the woman’s response in 7:28 is to the harsh reply in 7:27b, so that the more positive statement that gentiles will benefit after Israel in 7:27a creates an incongruity in the narrative. But an examination of the narrative reveals that the woman’s response presupposes that Jesus said to her that the children should first be fed because she wittingly retorts that the dogs could eat at the same time as the children if allowed to eat their crumbs. For this reason, the gar-clause provides the justification for the statement in 7:27a (Gundry, Mark, 378). In addition, the woman’s persistence after being refused presupposes some hope given to her, as is found in 7:27a (Taylor, Mark, 350). On the assumption that Matt 15:21-28 is a redaction of Mark 7:24-30, it is often argued that 15:24 is either an isolated saying that Matthew inserted into his Markan source or is a Matthean creation based on 10:6 (see the discussion in Davies and Allison, Matthew 2.550-51). But probably, 15:24 was in Matthew’s version of the tradition, contrary to Arens (The ELTHON-Sayings in the Synoptic Gospels. A Historical-Critical Investigation, 315-19).

Question

To whom is the Kingdom to be offered? Why?

7. Appropriating the Kingdom of God

7.1. Receiving the Kingdom as a Child (Mark 10:15 = Luke 18:17)

Mark 10:15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the Kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

Luke 18:17 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the Kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

In the Markan account of Jesus' Blessing of the Children is found a saying in which Jesus compares the manner in which one receives of the "Kingdom of God" to that of being a child: "Anyone who will not receive the Kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."  It is probable that this passage was originally an independent saying that has been interpolated into what form-critically would be classified as an apophthegma. The link word paidia facilitated the interpolation of this saying. The point seems to be that a person must receive the Kingdom of God as a free gift, with no claims of merit. A child in Jesus' society could make no claim on his superiors; whatever benefits he received from them were gratuitous and unearned. So likewise, those who receive the Kingdom of God as a child receive it as a gift, without any pretensions to having merited this privilege. The disobedient "receive the Kingdom of God" merely on the condition of repentance; in other words, they receive the benefits of eschatological salvation participation without merit. The assumption is that their prior disobedience would have resulted in their eschatological condemnation. Presumably, the righteous also receive the Kingdom of God as a gift, insofar as it is a manifestation of God's eschatological mercy.

7.2. Parables of the Hidden Treasure and Valuable Pearl (Matt 13:44; Matt 13:45-46)

44 The Kingdom of Heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field. 45 "Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls.  46 When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

Jesus tells two thematically-related parables to describe what is required of the one who hears about the Kingdom of God. First, he says that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a valuable treasure in a field that must be procured at any cost to the purchaser. (In the ancient world, coins and other non-perishable valuables were often buried in the ground for safekeeping.) Second, he compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a valuable pearl that is worth more than anything a merchant already possesses and must be procured at any cost to the merchant. The response required of the one who hears about the Kingdom of God is to procure enter into it at all costs, since it itself is valuable beyond all description.

7.3. Seeking First the Kingdom of God (Luke 12:22-32 = Matt 6:25-34)

Luke 12:31 But seek his Kingdom, and these things will be added unto to you.

Matthew 6:33 But seek first his Kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.

Jesus teaches his disciples not to worry, but to trust God to meet all of their material needs. In Matt 6:33, Jesus says, "Seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness and all these things will be added unto you," and in Luke 12:31, "Seek his Kingdom, and these things shall be added unto you."

Matthew and Luke have versions of the same tradition, but in different contexts (Matthew includes it a part of his Sermon on the Mount, whereas Luke places it in his Travel Narrative). The degree of verbatim agreement between Luke 12:22-32 and Matt 6:25-34 is high. (It is probable that Luke is responsible for the clause "And he said to the disciples" [eipen de pros tous mathêtas] and that he changed the original "look at" [emblepsate] to "consider" [katanoêsate] in 12:24, 27, because this word is found only in Luke and Acts apart from one occurrence in Matt 7:3 = Luke 6:41. Matthew may have changed the original "the ravens" [tous korakas] to the more general "the birds of heaven" [ta pateina tou ouranou] [see Schulz, Spruchquelle, 149-57; Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums, 216-18]. In Matthew's version Jesus asks his disciples rhetorical questions [6:25, 30], whereas in Luke's version Jesus makes declarative statements [12:23, 28]. Which, if either, is more original, however, is impossible to determine.)

Jesus establishes a hierarchy of concerns, with the Kingdom of God (Heaven) having priority over one's material needs. To seek the Kingdom of God (and his righteousness) is to remain in the Kingdom of God by obedience to the Law. (Of course, this implies the acceptance of the messenger of the Kingdom of God, Jesus.)

Most exegetes claim that the author of Matthew is responsible for the interpolation of the phrase “and his righteousness” into his source, because of his interest in righteousness as a theme; the assumption is that every occurrence of the theme of "righteousness" is redactional (Matt 3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1; 21:32) (see Schulz, Spruchquelle, 152; Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 113). Luke’s version “Seek his Kingdom, and these things shall be added unto you” (12:31) is usually assumed to be more original, deriving from the hypothetical Q-source. But to claim that Matthew interpolated every reference to "righteousness" in his gospel is unjustifiably skeptical. Besides only when one assumes that there was originally only one version of this saying is such a hypothesis required. It is equally possible that the Matthean version of the tradition contained the phrase or that the author of Matthew knew both versions and preferred the fuller one. But even if the author did insert it, the phrase “and his righteousness” is simply explicative of what it means to seek the Kingdom of Heaven.

(Most exegetes claim that Matthew is responsible for the interpolation of the phrase "and his righteousness" (kai tên dikaiosunên autou) into his source, because of his interest in righteousness as a theme. If the one who seeks the Kingdom of God has been disobedient up to that point then seeking the Kingdom of God will require repentance, turning from sin to obedience. In this case, Jesus' directive would be another way of saying "Repent and believe the good news" (Mark 1:15). (When one does this, God will meet all material needs.)

    Luke's version of the tradition concludes with Jesus' saying, "Do not fear, little flock, because it has pleased the Father to give to you the kingdom" (12:32) (see possible allusion to Dan 7:13-14). Matthew does not have this saying, so that it is probable that Luke 12:32 was originally an isolated saying, which became attached to Luke 12:22-32 because of the link words "kingdom" (basileia) and "father" (patêr). (Marshall, Luke, 530). To be given the kingdom is to receive the benefits of the God's eschatological salvation not only in the present but, more importantly, in the future (see Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 110-14). Jesus is reassuring his disciples that God will be faithful to give to them what he has promised.

Question

What does Jesus teach about appropriating the Kingdom of God?

Ahead to: Kingdom of God as Future

BACK TO INDEX PAGE