DISSERTATION,

&c., &c.

§. I.

THAT the expectation of some heavenly kingdom had been long entertained by Christ's hearers, may be even inferred from the circumstance, that both our Lord himself, (a) and John

1

(a) Matt. ly. 17.

1 The extracts made by WETSTEIN from the Rabbinical writings, at Matt. 111. 2. are all of them, I think, irrelevant. To this conclusion I have been led, in the first place, by considering the period at which these authors lived: for though we may allow the earlier of them in particular, and those who approach nearest to the apostolic age, to be brought forward for the purpose of illustrating and confirming ancient authorities, yet with KEIL (Hist. Dogmatis de regno Messiæ Christi et apostolorum ætate, ad illustranda N. T. loca accommodate exposita, Lips. 1781. p. 6.) [See KEIL, Opusc. Acad. p. 29. Lips. 1821.-Tr. ] I am reluctant, for many reasons, to receive them as witnesses. The consideration, however, which weighs the most with me, is, that the Rabbinical modes of expression, as has been observed by KOPPE, (Vol. 1. N. T. gr. p. 227.) are exceedingly different from that idea of the heavenly kingdom, which is the object of my inquiries. The subject which I propose to discuss is some heavenly kingdom, which was expected in course of time; whereas, on the other hand, those Rabbinical writers usually speak of that ancient heavenly government maintained

the Baptist before him,(b) no sooner made their public appear ance, than they immediately touched upon this topic of the kingdom of heaven, as one that was quite familiar to all; and that furnished an extremely suitable argument by which to persuade their countrymen to repentance. And the testimony of JOSEPHUS, confirmed thus far by a comparison with the sacred books, leaves us no room for doubt respecting the sources whence the Jews derived their expectation; since, from the time of David, who peculiarly became possessor of a kingdom divinely conferred, we see promised a certain king, distinguished by many appellations, who was to be of the stock of

(b) Matt. 111. 2.

over all things (the monarchy, as it is called by Philo, p. 812 ss. ed. Fr.) by Jehovah, the one true God, who, particularly in the later periods of the Jewish commonwealth, was usually distinguished from the idols made in the land, by the name of heavenly king, (Dan. iv. 34,) and God of heaven; (11. 18. 28.) and by becoming subject to the same, understand the duty of acknowledging one God, of professing his name by reciting the formula in Deut. vi. 4, and of reverently keeping his commandments. I do not however deny, that the term kingdom of heaven is perhaps, in the N. T. itself, though very rarely, applied to the perpetual government of God over all things; (Ps. c. 19. CXLV. 1.1 ss.. 1. Tim. I. 17. vi. 15.) so that Matt. xvIII. 23, may be thus rendered: "that function of the divine government, by which forgiveness is extended to any one, is regulated by the same principle which an earthly king pursued, who, &c., i. e. God (v. 35.) proceeds in like manner with a king, who, &c."

2 L. VI. de bell. Jud. c. 5. §. 4. Add TACITUS, L. v. Histor. c. 13. 3 Saul was made king, it is true, by divine authority; but this was a thing extorted by the importunity of the people. (1. Sam. viii-x. III. 12 s.) David, on the contrary, by the divine choice, was not only made king, (xm. 14. xv. 28. xvI. 1. Acts, XII. 22.) but was also honored with the privilege (11. Sam. vII. 11 ss.) of transmitting an hereditary kingdom to his descendants. For though God could not but disapprove of (1. Sam. vi. 7.) the entreaties of the Israelites for a king, to the absolute rejection of himself; yet afterwards he signified, on another occasion, that there was nothing in the designs of his Providence which opposed the administration, by human instrumentality, of that kingdom, which, being his own, (x11. 12.) was therefore heavenly, or divine. To what those designs had reference, both the history of David's progeny, invested with a heavenly, or divine kingdom, far more august than that of David or Solomon, and the prophecies of the O. T. themselves, clearly explain.

David,' far superior to all kings, (c) lord not only of the Jews, but of all nations, (d) everlasting, (e) to be exalted to a government altogether divine, (ƒ) but, previously to the attainment of that dignity, (g) was to endure the last extremity of suffering for the salvation of many. (h)

This kingdom therefore of the Messiah, (i) since it is both divinely conferred, (j) and is itself divine, (k) has obtained

(c) Ps. LXXXIX. 28. 11.
(e) 11. Sam. vII. 13. 16.
(f) Ps. cx. 1.

(d) Dan. vii. 13 s. Ps. LXXXIX. 30. 37 s. Isai. LIII. 10. Dan. vii. 14. (g) Isai. LII. 13. (h) LIII. 3 ss.

(i) Eph. v. 5. Matt. xin. 41. Luke xx11. 30. Rev. 1. 9. Matt. xv. 34. 40.

Rev. 1. 5. XVII. 14. xix. 16.

(j) 11. Sam. vII. 12. 14. Ps. 11. 6. 7. comp. Heb. v. 5. (k) Ps. cx. 1.

When David thought of building a house to the honor of God, (11. Sam. VII. 5 ss.) God promised on the other hand, that he would sooner build a house for David, (v. 11. 27.) i. e. bestow a family (v. 18 s. 25 s. 29.) upon him, (Deut. xxv. 9. Exod. 1. 21.) and enrich it (Compare Ps. LXXXIX. 5. Obss. gramm. p. 11.) with great blessings. (11. Sam. vII. 29.) It is not to be doubted, therefore, that y in v. 12, signifies the whole family () of David, (v. 16. comp. Ps. LXXXIX. 37.) and his posterity (v. 31. comp. II. Sam. vii. 14. 12.) even to a remote generation, v. 19. But if the reference is to the whole family of David, it is certainly also allowable to ascribe to this family things, which, though they did not apply to all and each of the posterity of David, yet certainly did to many of them, as v. 14, at the end, or to one of them, as Solomon, the builder of the temple (v. 13). We ought not to be surprised, therefore, if, in 11. Sam. vII. principal reference should be made to one particular man (comp. Dan. vII. 13), who should be singularly conspicuous among all the posterity of David, and give stability to the whole royal family. And as this might very properly have been done, so it actually is the fact that it was; as appears, on the one hand, from the consideration, that, if we except Christ, the offspring of David was clearly, according to the testimony of history, not placed in that eternal (11. Sam. vII. 13. 16. comp. with Ps. LXXXIX. 30. 37 s.) and most illustrious (v. 28.) kingdom; and as it might have been inferred, moreover, even in David's time, from a true interpretation of the divine prophecy contained in Ps. cx. n. For mention is there made of a certain peculiar king, placed by God (n. 6.) upon Mount Sion, where David sat; the reference is, therefore, to some successor of David, who, most truly of all, should be both the Son of God (v. 7. comp. with II. Sam. vii. 14), and possess divine (comp. 1. Sam. x11. 12. note 3.) or heavenly power (Ps. cx. 1.).

5 Hence it is also called the kingdom of the Father, Matt. xxvi. 29. vi, 10. Luke, x1. 2.

the name of the kingdom of God or also, it is called the kingdom" xar'

of heaven; sometimes, xv, as being that which

was so well known, both from the sacred books of the Jews, and from the gospel, of which it is the sum and substance, that none could fail to understand the true signification of the term.

§. II.

It cannot indeed be denied, that the prevalent opinion in the time of Christ with regard to Messiah's kingdom, was far removed from the true conception of its character; and that the Jews, whose thoughts entirely overlooked those prophecies which related to the death of Christ, and the rest of his humiliation, (1) supposed the grandeur of the kingdom of heaven to consist in temporal riches and power, and in the splendor of their capital; (m) and while they were deceived by

(1) Luke, xxiv. 20 s. 25 s. XVIII. 34. John, XII. 34.

(m) Luke, xix. 11.

6 St. Matthew, in his Hebrew gospel, uses this expression most frequently; (e. g. Matt. iv. 17. x. 7. x. 11, 24. 31. 33. v. 3. xix. 23.) instead of which, both the Greek interpreter of St. Matthew, (e. g. XII. 28. xix. 24. comp. über den zweck der evl. Gesch. Joh. p. 369.) and more frequently still the other e vangelists, (e. g. Mark, 1. 15. Luke, x. 9. 11. vi. 10. Mark, Iv. 11. 26. 30. Luke, xi. 18. 20. vi. 20. Mark, x. 23-25.) make mention of the kingdom of God. I have no doubt that the word heaven, in that phrase of St. Matthew, has the signification of the God of heaven. (Dan. 11. 44. note 1.) See Matt. xx1. 25. Luke, xx. 4s. xv. 18. Dan. IV. 23. and WETSTEIN, ad Matt. I. c.

7 Matt. IV. 23. ix. 35. xIII. 19. xxiv. 14.

3 Mark, 1. 14. Luke, Iv. 43. VIII. 1. IX. 2. 11. 60. xvi. 16. Acts, 1. 3. vIII. 12. XIX. 8. xx 25. xxviii. 23 31.

That the Jews connected the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem with the commencement of the kingdom of heaven, cannot be proved from the example of the apostles: (Matt. XXIV. 3) for these had been informed of that catastrophe not through Jewish instruction, but by the prediction of our Lord; (v. 2. Luke, xix. 44.) and they were so struck with the strangeness of the annunciation, that they thought the world itself, with whose duration they had connected that of their temple, would be overwhelmed in the same overthrow. Nor am I at all influenced by that passage of the Gemarists, adduced by LIGHTFOOT at Matt. 11.

10

the vain expectation, that, having expelled the Romans, (n), they should ere long (o) recover (p) and extend their dominion, in regard to the real grandeur and glory of the Messiah's reign (q) were shamefully ignorant. (r) We are not, however, to imagine, that Jesus and his apostles were obliged, on this account, either to make no mention at all of the kingdom of heaven, or to maintain that notion of it which, though by no means correct, was yet the only one known to their hearers. It may be observed, on the one hand, that it was altogether becoming in divine teachers generally, and peculiarly so in the Messiah, to restore that true idea of the kingdom of heaven which had been pointed out by the prophets. But, besides this, the prevalent opinion of the Jews is not to be deemed so entirely false, but that they may have had some little insight, at least, into that true sense, which is defined in the ancient prophecies, and repeated in the New Testament; and that while, under the teaching of Jesus and his ambassadors, they unlearned what had been superadded by the erroneous interpretation of the Jews, and discovered what it had hidden from the view, they may have been, meanwhile, led to a change of views, by the general (s) doctrine

(n) Luke, xxiv. 21, Acts, xvII. 7. John, xix. 12. compare Luke, xxın. 2.
(p) Acts, 1. 6.
(q) Matt. xx11. 43 s.
(s) Comp. Matt. xx. 21. with Mark, x. 37.

(0) XIX. 11.
(r) v. 46.

1; since, as it is allowed even by KEIL himself, who lays great stress upon the citation just mentioned, (p. 9.) [ KEIL, Opus. Acad. p. 32. Lips. 1821. -Tr.] the talmudical writings are to be referred to not so much for the purpose of proof, as for that of illustrating and confirming points already, from other quarters, well ascertained and established. We have the testimony, moreover, of JOSEPHUS, (see note 2.) that, by the expectation of the Messiah, (comp. Matt. XXIV 4 s. 23-26,) the Jews were rather led into the hope, that it might become their duty to contend fiercely with the Romans for their liberty, city, and temple. Other traces of the opinion respecting the wonderful security of the temple, are to be found in Acts, vi. 11 ss; and in JOSEPHUS, L. VI. de bell. Jud. c. 2. §. 1.

10 See several well-known passages of JOSEPHUS, TACITUS (note 2,) and SUETONIUS (in Vespasian, 4.).