The work of preparing for the coming Reign did not cease with the murder of John. Jesus had personally begun proclaiming the same message immediately after his baptism (Matt. 4:17). He later commissioned twelve envoys who were sent out with the instruction, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And preach as you go, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand'" (Matt. 10:5-7). A short time later, he appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. These were instructed to say "The kingdom of God has come near you" (Luke 10:9). It is evident that there was no lack of public attestation to the forthcoming Reign.
In preparation for the approaching Reign it was necessary that Jesus describe its nature, character and relationships, although his teaching was as little understood by his hearers as by many who read his words in these days. Varying phases of the subject were introduced as opportunity afforded a chance to illustrate its peculiarities, and a lack of attention to the background of the instruction has created much confusion. Illustrative of this are the conflicting views as to when the Reign began. As to this matter, it would seem that certain facts are incontestable.
1. The Reign did not begin during the lifetime of John, the forerunner, for after his decease, eighty-three persons, one of them being the Son of God himself, traveled up and down the land proclaiming that it was drawing nigh.
2. It had not yet come when Peter made his noble confession of the Messiahship and Sonship of Jesus, for it was after this that Jesus declared, "Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste of death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matt. 16:28).
3. It had not come at the time of the last supper, the night before Jesus died, for he then said with reference to the fruit of the vine, "Take this and divide it among yourselves; for I tell you that from now on I shall not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" (Luke 22:18).
4. It had not come at the resurrection of Jesus, for it was subsequent to that event, when the selected envoys asked, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" which demonstrates that not only had it not arrived, but the very ambassadors did not yet comprehend its nature.
5. It could not begin until Jesus left the earth, for he had to leave his servants and go to a far country (heaven) to receive kingly power (Luke 19:12). It was when he came with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days, and was presented before him, that there was given him dominion, glory, and a kingdom (Daniel 7:13,14).
But this leaves unresolved some difficulties created by the language of Jesus during the period when he was preparing men for the coming Reign. We must harmonize those passages with the facts above stated.
"The law and the prophets were until John; since then the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently" (Luke 16:16). "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you'" (Matt. 21:31). It is asked how persons can enter a kingdom which is not yet existent.
It must be remembered that the kingdom of heaven is built upon certain principles. These principles were enunciated and explained prior to the introduction of the new regime and in preparation for its coming. And while the kingdom was established in one day, it was only after much indoctrination of the basic truths. Those who previously grasped the principles and comprehended the significant reformation these principles were to work in the life of each individual, were spoken of as pressing into the kingdom. Words may have both a literal and figurative meaning.
The chief priests and elders of the Jews had just questioned the authority of Jesus. In reply, Jesus said, "Truly, I say unto you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed him; and even when you saw it, you did not afterward repent and believe him." "Going into the kingdom" as used here simply meant to believe in the testimony of John that the Reign was approaching, and to make such amendment of life as was compatible with the information. Such persons as did this were entering the kingdom in prospect.
The scribes and lawyers, by their traditions and opinions, not only made void the law, but confused men and women, until the principles of truth were made obscure. Thus they "shut the kingdom of heaven against men" by their interpretations and endless wranglings, for they neither entered themselves (by acceptance of the truth concerning the Messiah) nor allowed others who would enter to go in (Matt. 23:13). The people generally had to depend for knowledge upon what their leaders taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat (Matt. 23:1). This instruction was based on the law and the prophets. Until John came, the law and the prophets were thus said to be the instructors, but when John came, he declared the approaching Reign of heaven, with such effect that men and women, fervently, excitedly, and anxiously pressed to enter the new relationship, as those who would crush violently against the gates of a city to gain admission. The announcement of a Reign in which all might participate aroused a feeling among the Jewish people such as had not been known through centuries of oppression. "When the people saw the sign which he (Jesus) had done, they said, 'This is indeed the prophet which is to come into the world...' they were about to come and take him by force to make him king" (John 6: 14, 15).
When Jesus once healed a blind and dumb demoniac, the people, stricken with amazement, acclaimed him as the son of David. But the Pharisees, incensed by this public acknowledgement of him, scoffingly remarked that it was only by Beelzebul, chief prince of the demons, that he worked such miracles. In refutation of their accusation, Jesus filed the following logical objections.
1. This would mean division in the realm of the demons, and would result in the downfall of Satan's kingdom, if Satan was engaged in the task of throwing out his own agents.
2. The superiority of Jesus over Satan would be demonstrated, for no strong man would allow another to enter in and throw out his goods, unless he first overcame, subdued and bound the owner.
3. The fact that others among their own number were exorcists, and they acknowledged their ability to rid men of demons militated against their charge that it was by the prince of demons.
On the other hand, Jesus argued that if he acted by the Spirit of God, the kingdom of God had come upon them. This simply meant that such manifestations of power were of the nature which the prophets had predicted would accompany the kingdom of heaven. Isaiah had painted a preview of the Messiah with the Spirit of the Lord God upon him, because the Lord had anointed him to proclaim liberty to the captives (Isa. 61:1). If, by the Spirit of God, the demoniac captives were freed, it would be a proof that the age of the Messianic Reign was upon them. That the Reign had not yet actually come is evident from the fact that the Pharisees later on asked when the kingdom was coming (Luke 17:20).
Some are confused by the reply given on this occasion, for Jesus answered them, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is within you."
This did not imply that the kingdom had already come. The point of consideration in the reply of Jesus was the nature of the kingdom. The Pharisees thought they would be able to see its coming as men saw the occupation of territory by the Roman legions. But the kingdom of heaven would not be accompanied with clash of arms, fanfare of trumpets, marching troops, or political upheaval. Nor would men point to this city or that as the seat of the government or the center of authority. The realm of the authority would be the hearts of men; the overthrow accomplished would be that of the sinful dispositions of men.
The Reign of heaven was approaching men, but those who grasped the fundamental elements of that Reign, were spoken of as drawing near to it. A certain scribe, having listened to Jesus as he refuted and routed a number of taunting critics, perceiving the justness of his reply, came to him, and proposed the question as to which commandment was chief of all. Jesus answered, "The chief of all the commandments is, 'Hearken, Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is one,' and 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. The second resembles it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no greater commandment than these." The scribe admitted the answer was an excellent one, and declared that the commandments recited by Jesus represented more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices. "Jesus, observing how pertinently he had answered said to him, 'You are not far from the kingdom of God" (Mark 12:28-34).
Upon one such occasion Jesus took the opportunity afforded to teach a lesson relative to the nature of the kingdom. This he did by the use of an object lesson which demonstrated his ability as an instructor. Jesus believed in the use of visual aids to enforce spiritual truths. He suddenly called a little child unto him and placed the lad in the midst of the disciples. It is interesting to note that ancient tradition identifies the child as Ignatius, who became one of the most noted fathers of the early church. Regardless of identity, the child was docilely compliant with the request of Jesus and came quickly and meekly.
Jesus said, "Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 18:3). One interesting phase of the dispute lies in the fact that this occurred after Jesus had promised the keys of the kingdom unto Peter, and the argument over primacy demonstrates conclusively that Peter did not consider it had been resolved in his favor. Now the disciples are informed that even entrance into the kingdom will demand a complete turning, a reversal of attitude. Worldly ambition is not a key to power, but a bar to the gate. The renunciation of the disposition to seek prestige and pre-eminence is essential to admission.
A little child, wholly dependent upon others, truthful, obedient, and without political ambition, represents the ideal for which citizens of the kingdom must strive. What a rebuke to pride, pomp and power. The recapture of that innocence, freedom from passion and strife, and sense of dependency, which characterized us in the first bloom of childhood should constitute our chief aim in life. We go forward by going backward! We gain by putting off; we win by divesting ourselves of that which we have accumulated. It is regrettable that many accumulate years and become childish, when the teaching of Jesus is that we should turn back and become child-like. "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
From the discourse familiarly called "The Sermon on the Mount" we learn several facts bearing upon the nature of the kingdom and the character of its citizenry. In a memorable passage, in which Jesus distinguishes between true Judaism and the degenerate form of it taught by the scribes and Pharisees, he shows that his task is the fulfillment of the first and the abrogation of the last. One can almost sense the questions passing back and forth among those who composed the huge gathering at the mount. How does this Nazarene propose to accomplish his task? Will be publicly denounce the prophets and declare them of no value? Will he destroy Moses and himself assume the place of the Torah? Will he inaugurate a kingdom with himself upon the throne, dispensing the wisdom of God directly to all who enquire?
Jesus was not unaware of the thoughts which perplexed his auditors. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy but to fulfill" (Matt. 5:17). Here is an intimation that the law and the prophets were to be consummated by a person superior to both. Contrary to the reasoning of the Jews, the Torah was not the end in itself, but the means to an end. It was a child-conductor to lead to Christ and could never fulfill its highest mission until it delivered those in its charge unto him.
Jesus continues: "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law until all be fulfilled." Instead of showing a spirit of disrespect for the Torah and the prophets, he emphasizes that the minutest portions of it are of great worth in the divine arrangement. This was a contrast with the scribes who divided the precepts into various classes, some of which were considered binding, but others of which might be disregarded. The jot was the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet, the yod. The tittle was a small point by which similar letters were distinguished from each other. In this case they are used figuratively to indicate that the slightest principle of divine law would not fail of accomplishment in the eternal purpose.
"Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." The context shows that Jesus is talking about the commandments in the law and the prophets. It is not to be understood that these will constitute the code in the kingdom of heaven. But they were given by the authority of God, and to wilfully violate one commandment constitutes a definite insult to the majesty of heaven, and to actually teach men to do this is a flagrant sin. Greatness in the kingdom is predicated upon a proper attitude toward God and his word.
"For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven." The scribes were devoted to the work of reading and studying the law and were the recognized expounders of it. The Pharisees were punctilious in observance of the letter of the law. Both groups often overlooked the spirit of the law in their interminable arguments about the details of it. This is best illustrated by the indictment, "Alas for you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for you pay tithe on mint, dill, and cumin, while you have neglected the weightier requirements of the Law--just judgment, mercy and faithful dealing...You blind guides, straining out the gnat while you gulp down the camel!" (Matt. 23:23, 24. Weymouth).
When Jesus spoke of entrance into the kingdom demanding a righteousness exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees, he was not talking of the hypocrites among them. The thought is that "Unless your concept of righteousness is of a higher nature than that attained by scribes and Pharisees, admission to the kingdom of heaven cannot be secured." What a lesson for those who would degenerate kingdom life into an endless series of squabbles over incidentals while wholly ignoring the spirit or essence of truth.
In this same address, Jesus, speaking about the time of final separation declared, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21). Assuredly this has reference to the kingdom in its final phase, but is there not here also a basis or condition of admission into the kingdom over which the Messiah rules? Can one come into such a sacred relationship except upon the obedience to the Father's will?
Our review of the teaching of the Christ would not be complete if we ignored his statements occasioned by the query of a certain wealthy young ruler, who came running to kneel before Jesus. This young man desired to know what good thing he might do in order to secure eternal life. He was informed that if he would enter into life, he must keep the commandments. This no doubt was disappointing, for it was probable that he expected a new formula or panacea for the ills of the world, and as a key to the mysteries of life. To be pointed to the commandments which he had memorized and observed from his youth was altogether too commonplace. He no doubt had a sense of emptiness and futility, a hunger which was not satisfied. In order to fill his heart with assurance he seeks for that secret which will bring him hope. "What lack I yet?"
Mark records that Jesus looked at him and loved him. There could now be no compromise, a soul was in the balance, and the test must be faced. Jesus said, "One thing is lacking in you: go, sell all you possess and give the proceeds to the poor, and you shall have riches in heaven; and come and be a follower of mine." This may seem a harsh requirement and a hard demand. Yet, in a sense, it is made of all of us. We do not hesitate to make a general application of the words "Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth...but rather lay up treasures in heaven...for where a man's treasure is, there will his heart be also." The only difference in the two statements is that one proposes a test for him who is in the process of laying up treasure, while this has to do with one who already has it accumulated. The faith required to divest one's self of amassed wealth to have treasure in heaven, is equal to that required to keep from amassing wealth for the same reason. Neither will succeed if there is a tendency to trust in wealth as an evidence of security.
It required this to bring the young man face to face with himself. It was revealed that money in the bank meant more than treasure in heaven, that before he would sell what he already possessed, he would forfeit all hope of eternal life. This served to demonstrate how vain was his boast that he had kept the law inviolate from his youth. He would likely have violated every command in the Decalogue to have preserved his fortune, thus he had not really kept the law at all, because his heart was not right. He had kept his eye on the commandments and his heart on his bank statement. The emptiness which drove him to Jesus was lack of real spiritual motive. The end of his visit is a sad record. "At these words his brow darkened, and he went away sad; for he was possessed of great wealth."
When the young ruler departed, Jesus said to the disciples, "I solemnly tell you that it is with difficulty that a rich man will enter the Kingdom of the Heavens. I repeat it to you: it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God." (Matt. 19:23, 24. Weymouth). The apostles were dumbfounded at this and asked, "Who then can be saved?" To this Jesus replied, "With men this is impossible, but with God everything is possible." This can only be understood in the light of conditions in that day.
The disciples were generally poor, humble men, who had been accustomed to hardships and toil. They beheld the wealthy and opulent class, living in luxury, and basking in the prestige which was theirs. It appeared that they could have anything they desired. If those who had all the privileges and conveniences of life could not attain the goal, it appeared there would be no hope for the poverty-stricken masses. But the words of Jesus demonstrated that God could accomplish what man could not dream of doing. The kingdom of heaven does not depend upon earthly wealth or power for survival. Citizenship therein is secured by turning to child-like humility, by adoption of a high standard of righteousness, and by obedience to the Father's will.
The teaching of Jesus relative to the kingdom is like a diamond of many facets, sparkling and scintillating with different flashes as the light reflects upon it. One cannot begin to grasp its fulness by consideration of one or two aspects. This is evident when we recall that sometimes the kingdom is referred to as something which can be wrested from its citizens and given to others, sometimes it is portrayed as a state or condition; again it is depicted as an inheritance. The diversity is well illustrated by the variety of parables given. "He told them many things in parables." (Matt. 13:3).
After relating the parable of the sower, "The disciples proceeded to ask him what the parable meant. 'To you,' He replied, 'it is granted to know the secrets of the Kingdom of God; but all others are taught by parables, in order that they may see and yet not see, and may hear and yet not understand'" (Luke 8:9, 10. Weymouth). Matthew records the event thus, "And His disciples came and asked Him, 'Why do you speak to them in figurative language?' He replied, 'Because while to you it is granted to know the secrets of the Kingdom of the Heavens, to them it is not...I speak to them in figurative language for this reason, that while looking they do not see, and while hearing, they neither hear nor understand...To you then I will explain the parable of the Sower'" (13:10-18). The multitude who heard Jesus did not understand the kingdom by considering the parables; instead, we understand the parables by considering the kingdom.
There are exceptions to all rules, and while the above was generally true, there were a few notable cases which did not conform to the pattern. One of these concerned the wicked vine-dressers. The parable depicted a householder who planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, hewed out a vine-vat in it, and built a strong lodge in its midst. He then left it in the hands of vine-dressers and traveled abroad. One cannot help but see the similarity between this parable and the one recounted in Isaiah 5. The vineyard represented God's people planted as choice vines in the promised land, the fence was the law which restrained them and kept out alien influences. The winepress indicated God's expectation of fruitfulness, while the watchman's tower or keeper's lodge shows the protective care manifested toward God's chosen ones.
The vine-dressers were the leaders of the people, the priests, scribes and Pharisees. As the teachers and instructors, they were to fertilize the hearts of men by proper doctrine, prune out the dead wood of indifference and neglect, and exercise a continuous watchful regard. The vineyard was leased to them and they were expected to produce fruit as payment for the stewardship intrusted to them.
Just as it is in the realm of horticulture, so it is in the history of nations. There is a time when fruit is to be expected and the cultivation and effort bestowed should pay dividends. Accordingly, "when vintage time approached, he sent his servants to the vine-dressers to receive his grapes; but the vine-dressers seized the servants, and one they cruelly beat, one they killed, one they pelted with stones." This indicates that God expected the grapes of justice and righteousness from Israel (Isa. 5:7) long before the advent of the Messiah. The servants dispatched to collect his dues were the prophets, but the cruel and vindictive leaders of the people entreated these heavenly envoys in a shameful fashion, even putting some of them to death.
The persistence of God in attempting corrective measures, his longsuffering extended in hope of repentance, his forbearance in the face of insult, all of these are illustrated in the statement regarding the householder, "Again he sent another party of servants more numerous than the first," but the futility of the effort is seen in the result, "And them they treated in the same manner." The word of God through Jeremiah is appropriate at this point. "I have sent to you all my servants the prophets, sending them persistently, saying, 'Turn now every one of you from his evil way, and amend your doings, and do not go after other gods to serve them, and then you shall dwell in the land which I gave to you and your fathers.' But you did not incline your ear or listen to me." (35:15)
"Later still he sent to them his son, saying, 'They will respect my son.' But the vine-dressers when they saw the son, said one to another, 'Here comes the heir: come let us kill him and get his inheritance.' So they seized him, dragged him out of the vineyard and killed him." This constituted the crowning act of disrespect for the right and majesty of heaven, as evidenced by Jesus in his indictment of that generation. "You witness against your selves, that you are the sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then the measure of your fathers" (Matt. 23:31, 32). What was lacking in the completion of the persecution of servants was made up in the murder of the Son.
The first portion of this parable was history, the part we are now considering was prophecy. It is pregnant with meaning. Note that the vine-dressers, representing the leaders of Judaism, admit among themselves that the son is the heir and entitled to the patrimony. They do not plot his death because of mistaken identity, but because they recognize him. The plot to kill the son is an exact picture of what transpired. "From that day forward they planned and schemed in order to put him to death" (John 11:53). The very expressions are significant of the manner of his betrayal--seized, dragged, killed.
Of outstanding importance is the reason assigned by the vine-dressers for killing the son. "Let us kill him and get his inheritance." The hierarchy of Israel determined to keep the divine bounty for physical Israel. They believed that by getting the son out of the way, they could rule over God's people, and keep earthly control over the theocracy. By this means they could keep the favor of Rome and continue as a political power. "The high priests and Pharisees therefore held a meeting of the Sanhedrin. 'What steps are we taking,' they asked one another; 'for that man is performing a great number of miracles. If we leave him alone in this way, everybody will believe in him, and the Romans will come and blot out both our city and our nation'" (John 11:47, 48). Little did they realize that their rejection of the Son would produce the very catastrophe they sought to avert.
In the account of Matthew, the priests and Pharisees are led to pronounce their own sentence and express their own fate. The question is asked, "When the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to the vine-dressers?" The answer was, "He will put the wretches to a wretched death, and will entrust the vineyard to other vine-dressers who will render the produce to him at the vintage season." This pronouncement of the just deserts of the Jewish commonwealth by its own leaders will exonerate God from any charge of injustice to the nation. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the forces of Titus was merely the execution of this self-imposed sentence. Our Lord concludes, "That, I tell you, is the reason why the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and given to a nation which will produce the fruits thereof." Spiritual Israel will accomplish that in which physical Israel failed.
The record says, "After listening to his parables, the high priest and the Pharisees perceived that he was speaking about them; but though they were eager to lay hands upon him, they were afraid of the people, for by them he was regarded as a prophet" (Matt. 21:45, 46). The fact that the leaders of Jewish thought understood that Jesus was speaking about them makes their subsequent act in killing the Son all the more heinous. The parable itself should have been a warning, but was not regarded as such. Instead, it seemed only to have increased resentment as truth often does in the hearts of those who thus prove themselves unworthy.
Our present purpose is not to present a book on the parables, even though many of these illustrate vital features about the kingdom. Space will not permit an analysis of them all. The extensive growth of the kingdom is illustrated by the mustard-seed; the intensive growth by the leaven in dough; the accidental discovery of truth by some is portrayed by the treasure hidden in a field; the discovery as a result of long and eager search is depicted in the finding of the pearl of great price. The universality of it is found in the parable of the net cast into the waters of the sea; the final purging and separation, in the story of the tares.
Thus did the heir to the throne lay the foundation of his rule by mixing and mingling with his future subjects. Like a prince who forsakes the palace to dwell in the slums, that he may understand the problems of those who compose his realm, so did Jesus live with the poor of this world that he might convince them of a sympathetic heart and an attentive ear in their times of suffering and distress. This was genuine preparation for the kingdom.