In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus formally outlined his conceptions of ethical and religious life as distinguished from those then current. It was the platform of the Kingdom of G.o.d. We might expect it to begin with denunciation. Instead it opens with a spontaneous burst of joy. A great good was coming. It would bring a store of blessings to all who had the inward qualifications to receive them. All who felt the divine dissatisfaction with themselves and the craving for social justice and righteousness, would get their satisfaction (v. 3, 4, 6). The higher social virtues, gentleness, purity of heart, peaceableness, would get recognition and gain ascendancy (v. 5, 7, 8, 9). But the climax of praise and promise is for those who propagated righteousness where it was not wanted, and suffered for it (v. 10-12). "These words belong to the greatest ever uttered" (Hegel). They are pure religion, and they were called forth by religious faith in a social ideal.

Have we known men and women who had some of these qualities, who lived within the Kingdom of G.o.d, and who enjoyed its blessings? If they have enn.o.bled our life, let us think of them a moment with a silent benediction.

Study for the Week

We see from the pa.s.sages we have studied that the mind of Jesus was centered on a great hope which was just ahead. It was so beautiful that even in antic.i.p.ation it was filling his soul with joy and he knew it would bless all who shared in it. It seemed to him so valuable and engrossing that a man ought to stake his whole life on attaining it, and subordinate all other aims to this dominant desire.

I

He spoke of this great good as "the Kingdom of G.o.d." Even a superficial reading of the first three Gospels shows that this was the pivot of his teaching. Yet he nowhere defines the phrase. He took an understanding of it for granted with his hearers, and simply announced that it was now close at hand, and they must act accordingly. What did the words mean to them? The idea covered by the phrase was an historic product of the Jewish people, and we shall have to understand it as such.

The Hebrew prophets had concentrated their incomparable religious energy on the simple demand for righteousness, especially in social and national life. The actual life of the nation, especially of its ruling cla.s.ses, of course never squared with the religious ideal. The injustice and oppression around them seemed intolerable to the prophets, just because the ethical imperative within them was so strong. So their unsatisfied desire for righteousness took the form of an ardent expectation of a coming day when things would be as they ought to be. G.o.d would make bare his holy arm to punish the wicked, to sift the good, to establish his law, and to vindicate the rights of the oppressed. This great "day of Jehovah"

would inaugurate a new age, the Kingdom of G.o.d, the Reign of G.o.d. The phrase, then, embodies the social ideal of the finest religious minds of a unique people. The essential thing in it is the projection into the future of the demand for a just social order. The prophets looked to a direct miraculous act of G.o.d to realize their vision, but they were in close touch with the facts of political life and always demanded social action on the human side.

Plato's Republic and More's Utopia are intellectual productions which have appealed to single idealistic minds. The Hebrew prophets succeeded in socializing their ideal. By the force of religion they wrought the conception of the Kingdom of G.o.d into the common mind of a nation as a traditional conviction which was a.s.similated by every new generation.

But when a great idea is appropriated by the ma.s.ses, it is sure to become cruder to suit their intellect and their need; and when a national ideal is handed on for centuries, it will change with the changing fortunes of the people that holds it. When the Hebrew nation came under the foreign rule of the a.s.syrians, Persians, and finally the Romans, its freedom and chance for political action were lost, and its political ideals, too, deteriorated. The Kingdom hope became theological, artificial, a scheme of epochs of predetermined length and of marvelous stage settings. Yet, even in this form, it was a splendid hope of emanc.i.p.ation, of national greatness, and of future justice and fraternity, and it helped to keep the nation's soul alive amid crushing sorrows.

The people at the time of Jesus in the main held this apocalyptic conception of the Kingdom. It was to come as a divine catastrophe, beginning with an act of judgment and resulting in a glorious Jewish imperialism. Jesus shared the substance of the expectation, but as a true spiritual leader he reconstructed, clarified, and elevated the hope of the ma.s.ses. He would have nothing to do with any plans involving blood-shed and force revolution. The Hebrew Jehovah became "our Father in heaven" and this democratized the Reign of Jehovah. The pious Jew expected G.o.d to enforce the ceremonial laws; Jesus had little to say about religious ceremonial, and a great deal about righteousness and love. Under his hands the Jewish imperialistic dream changed into a call for universal human fraternity. He repeatedly and emphatically explained the coming of the Kingdom in terms taken from biological growth, and his thoughts seem to have verged away from the popular catastrophic ideas toward ideas of organic development. These changes-if we have correctly interpreted them-represent Jesus' own contribution to the history of the Kingdom ideal, and they are all in the same direction in which the modern mind has moved. (For a fuller statement of these modifications see Rauschenbusch, "Christianizing the Social Order," p. 48-68.)

II

So much by way of historical information. Now let us emphasize again that this social ideal seemed to Jesus so fair and fine that he gave his whole soul to it. Naturally he would. Since he loved men and believed in their solidarity, the conception of a G.o.d-filled humanity living in a righteous social order, which would give free play to love and would bind all in close ties, would be the only satisfying outlook for him. He promised that all who hungered and thirsted after righteousness would be satisfied in the Kingdom, and he was himself the chief of these. The Kingdom of G.o.d was his fatherland, in which his spirit lived with G.o.d; and with that vision of perfect humanity before him, he kept its calm and tranquillity amid the enmity of men as he sought to win men to its better ways.

The Kingdom of G.o.d is the highest good. The idea of G.o.d is the highest and most comprehensive conception in philosophy; the idea of the Kingdom of G.o.d is the highest and broadest idea in sociology and ethics. It is so high and broad that many find it hard even to grasp the idea. Just as a barbaric tribe of hunters or fishermen would find it impossible to comprehend the social coherence and the patriotism of a nation of a hundred millions; just as the narrow nationalist of today falls down intellectually and morally when he confronts world-forces and relations: so we who are trained to think in terms of family and State, give out when we are to treat the Kingdom of G.o.d as a reality. It takes faith of the intellect to comprehend a stage of evolution before it is reached. It takes faith of character to launch yourself toward a great moral goal before its tangible and profitable elements are within reach. It takes more moral daring today than for a century past to believe in the reemergence and final victory of G.o.d's social order. But this is the time for all true believers to square their shoulders and say with Galileo, "And yet it moves."

Any man whose soul is kindled by the conception of the Kingdom of G.o.d is a real man. Whoever loves the idea, must turn it into reality as far as life lets him. Whoever tries it, will suffer. But even if he suffers, he will be more blessed and more truly a man than he would be if he did not try.

In seeking the Kingdom he realizes himself. "He that loseth his life for my sake, shall find it."

III

Jesus bade us "seek first the Kingdom of G.o.d and his righteousness," and he obeyed his own call. The main object of his life was the ideal social order and the perfect ethic. Now if Jesus is our ideal of human goodness, is any goodness good unless it works in the same direction? If a man is of flawless private life, but is indifferent to any social ideal, or even hostile to all attempts at better justice and greater fraternity, is he really good? Even a strong desire for personal perfection, if there is no desire for a regeneration of society in it, must be rated as sub-Christian because it is lacking in the sense of solidarity and may be lacking in love.

Suggestions for Thought and Discussion

I. _The Power of a Great Idea_

1. Did the idea of the Kingdom of G.o.d ever play a part in your religious education?

2. Did you feel any response to it in studying this lesson? Does it have reality?

3. Suppose an entire study group should fail to see anything in it, would that prove it valueless?

II. _Historical Changes in the Kingdom Ideal_

1. How did the Kingdom ideal take shape in the minds of the Hebrew prophets?

2. Explain the nature of the apocalyptic hope and its divergence from the prophetic ideal.

3. What pa.s.sages seem to throw the most light on Jesus' conception of it, and his feeling about it? What do you think about the Beat.i.tudes from this point of view?

4. At what points did Jesus clarify and elevate the hereditary hope of his nation? Summarize the conception of the Kingdom as it lay in the mind of Jesus.

III. _Present Possibilities of the Kingdom Idea_

1. What value would the preaching of the Kingdom of G.o.d have in evangelistic work today?

2. How would it affect religious education and the moral outlook of the young?

3. How would the possession of the Kingdom faith equip the Church for leadership in an age of social movements and unrest?

4. How does the Kingdom hope add to the joyousness of the Christian life?

5. How does Jesus' conception of the Kingdom of G.o.d connect with the great social and national hopes of today?

IV. _For Special Discussion_

1. How does a man realize himself in seeking the Kingdom? How does a man realize the Kingdom in developing himself?

2. Does the idea seem to offer a religious vehicle for conceptions you have derived from sociological work?

3. Does a social concept like the "Kingdom of G.o.d" gain anything for its practical efficiency today from being ancient, and from being religious?

4. Will such a concept ever be effective with the ma.s.ses unless it is essentially religious?

Chapter V. The Kingdom Of G.o.d: Its Tasks

_The Right Social Order is the Supreme Task for Each_

The perfect social order is the highest good. In so far as it is a gift of G.o.d, offered to the individual like the fertile earth and the oxygen of the air, we must appropriate it and enjoy every approximation to the perfect society. But what is the responsibility of the individual toward the achievement of the ideal social order? What task does it lay on him?

How did Jesus see this problem? It is finely stated in the words with which emile de Laveleye closes his book "Sur la propriete": "There is a social order which is the best. Necessarily it is not always the present order. Else why should we seek to change the latter? But it is that order which ought to exist to realize the greatest good for humanity. G.o.d knows it and wills it. It is for man to discover and establish it."