In Dr. Ehrman’s Jesus Before the Gospels, he states on page 108 that the heart of Jesus’s teachings was “The time has been fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe the good news.” If “at hand” means happening or present at that very time, then how is it referring to a future time regardless of how soon that future time is?
Greg Matthews said
I believe “at hand” means near, not the present exactly, but getting near. Like “nigh”.
That’s what most believe and yet there are other verses such as Matthew 6:33 (“but first seek His kingdom”) as though it is in the here and now and not some future time.
About a year or so ago Prof Ehrman had several blog posts on the Kingdom of God. He wrote that Jesus believed the Kingdom of God was something yet to come. Since the coming of the Kingdom of God was a future end-times event Jesus taught his disciples that they needed to prepare for it because when it got here all kinds of things would happen like the meek inheriting the Earth, the first would be last and the last would be first, etc etc. In order to prepare themselves they needed to shed the things of this life so that’s why Jesus talked about giving away money to the poor and your possessions etc.
The section of Matthew 6:25-34 is instruction for letting go of worldy concerns in the here and now in order to prepare for the Kingdom of God. See how he trivializes the concern of the disciples for their clothing in 6:28?
All that said, there are some who theorize that perhaps the followers of Jesus after his death believed they were experiencing the Kingdom of God or that they could potentially achieve it themselves. The community that produced the Gospel of Thomas seemed to think so.
spiker said
Good point, J. There’s some ambiguity about whether the kingdom was already present. Luke?
Yes, spiker! Luke 9:1 – 2 is can’t be about the twelve being sent out to preach about Jesus dying for sins. He was still alive so that’s not it, right? They were sent to preach about the kingdom of God.
Then Matthew 6:33: But seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added to you. “…these things…” seem to refer to material possessions. (Read Matthew 6: 31 and 32.
Well there’s clearly some tension in the gospels between the teaching of an imminent kingdom by the historical Jesus and the view that came to be dominant in the church. It must have been apparent by the time the gospels were written that Jesus might not come any day now but the traditions that seem most authentic are filled with just that expectation. We have to appreciate the honesty of the gospel writers in including the early sayings of the tradition. It is hard to see how one could spend the effort to write a gospel if you really thought Jesus was going to return next Tues after lunch.
Stephen said
Well there’s clearly some tension in the gospels between the teaching of an imminent kingdom by the historical Jesus and the view that came to be dominant in the church. It must have been apparent by the time the gospels were written that Jesus might not come any day now but the traditions that seem most authentic are filled with just that expectation. We have to appreciate the honesty of the gospel writers in including the early sayings of the tradition. It is hard to see how one could spend the effort to write a gospel if you really thought Jesus was going to return next Tues after lunch.
So true. Going back to “at hand” versus Greg’s “nigh”, would all those kingdom parables in Matthew 13:31 & 44-47, Mark 4:31, and Luke 13:18-21 be in the present tense if the kingdom was merely nigh and not present in the moment Jesus was teaching those parables?
Judith said
So true. Going back to “at hand” versus Greg’s “nigh”, would all those kingdom parables in Matthew 13:31 & 44-47, Mark 4:31, and Luke 13:18-21 be in the present tense if the kingdom was merely nigh and not present in the moment Jesus was teaching those parables?
Put another way, wouldn’t the parables begin with “The kingdom of heaven WILL BE like a mustard seed” instead of “The kingdom of heaven IS LIKE a mustard see…” etc.
Judith said
Put another way, wouldn’t the parables begin with “The kingdom of heaven WILL BE like a mustard seed” instead of “The kingdom of heaven IS LIKE a mustard see…” etc.
That’s just semantics in my opinion…. Google the definition of “at hand” if you don’t trust my definition. Just do a search on:
define:at hand
Greg Matthews said
That’s just semantics in my opinion…. Google the definition of “at hand” if you don’t trust my definition. Just do a search on:
define:at hand
Yes, it’s a true definition but so is the one I am considering.
All this is out of a sense of wonder that had those hearing Jesus’s message about the kingdom of God being at hand NOW AND IN THE PRESENT, could there possibly have been some who would have taken it to heart, believed in it and changed much of humanity by living out in their lives the directives to not value those things that rust etc., to have esteem for those who serve others, to treat everyone as a brother etc.
Of course, and I think that happened, but who ever did was probably closer to what the Markan community was. GoM was the only one written anywhere NEAR Galilee. Both Luke and Matthew, I believe, as do many scholars, were written outside of Palestine. Their communities were Greek speaking so they were presumably Hellenes who didn’t have the same understanding for “the Kingdom of God” as Mark’s community did. Matthew goes so far as to call it something else: “the Kingdom of Heaven” (with only I think two exceptions) so how well did he know of it as Mark’s community possibly did? Had the meaning of it evolved by the time of Matthew?
Looking at Mark the majority of “KoG” sayings are in Q and those are pre-Markan. How far back do they go? For the sake of argument, let’s say they go back to Jesus since they fit with his presumably apocalyptic message.
How many of the mentions of the KoG in Matthew and Luke came directly from them copying and reworking Mark? I don’t know the answer to that, but since most of Mark’s sayings are in Q then presumably a lot of them from Matthew and Luke, since they copied Q from Mark and edited it, can claim a tradition older than the communities of either. As we’ve seen, the earliest churches evolved quite rapidly and in more ways than we can probably conceive. I think we have to envision the concept of the KoG in Matthew and Luke within the framework of Christian communities that had evolved differently than Marks or which were remarkably different from Mark to start off with.
Judith said
Yes, spiker! Luke 9:1 – 2 is can’t be about the twelve being sent out to preach about Jesus dying for sins. He was still alive so that’s not it, right? They were sent to preach about the kingdom of God.
You seem to be thinking of this in the sense of the Great Commission, but suppose, for the sake of argument, this is something else. Unlike the directive of the Great Commission (to make disciples of all men) this is “to proclaim the kingdom of God”. There’s nothing there about Jesus dying for sins.
It makes sense that an apocalyptic Jesus (before his fateful trip to Jerusalem) who is teaching the immanence of KoG, would send his disciples to cover more territory: If the message was, the end is nigh, you’d better get right with god, it makes sense that after some time with him, he may have felt they could be on their own.
Judith said
Put another way, wouldn’t the parables begin with “The kingdom of heaven WILL BE like a mustard seed” instead of “The kingdom of heaven IS LIKE a mustard see…” etc.
Bare in mind, the KoG was to be established on earth, but I don’t think that means it didn’t already exist in heaven so to speak.
Kind of like Dunkin Donuts is a good place to get coffee, and you’ll see that when one comes to your town 🙂
spiker said
Judith said
Put another way, wouldn’t the parables begin with “The kingdom of heaven WILL BE like a mustard seed” instead of “The kingdom of heaven IS LIKE a mustard see…” etc.
Bare in mind, the KoG was to be established on earth, but I don’t think that means it didn’t already exist in heaven so to speak.
Kind of like Dunkin Donuts is a good place to get coffee, and you’ll see that when one comes to your town 🙂
spiker, With your sense of fun and Greg’s dedication, The Forum is in good hands!
Judith
Are you saying Greg is not fun?
You know now that I think about it the mustard seed parable or better yet the pearl of great price suggests that KoG could be
read as an individual achievement. I say that mainly because it can be found. However, I am suspicious of the authenticity of those passages.
Greg Matthews said
Of course, and I think that happened, but who ever did was probably closer to what the Markan community was. GoM was the only one written anywhere NEAR Galilee. Both Luke and Matthew, I believe, as do many scholars, were written outside of Palestine. Their communities were Greek speaking so they were presumably Hellenes who didn’t have the same understanding for “the Kingdom of God” as Mark’s community did. Matthew goes so far as to call it something else: “the Kingdom of Heaven” (with only I think two exceptions) so how well did he know of it as Mark’s community possibly did? Had the meaning of it evolved by the time of Matthew?Looking at Mark the majority of “KoG” sayings are in Q and those are pre-Markan. How far back do they go? For the sake of argument, let’s say they go back to Jesus since they fit with his presumably apocalyptic message.
How many of the mentions of the KoG in Matthew and Luke came directly from them copying and reworking Mark? I don’t know the answer to that, but since most of Mark’s sayings are in Q then presumably a lot of them from Matthew and Luke, since they copied Q from Mark and edited it, can claim a tradition older than the communities of either. As we’ve seen, the earliest churches evolved quite rapidly and in more ways than we can probably conceive. I think we have to envision the concept of the KoG in Matthew and Luke within the framework of Christian communities that had evolved differently than Marks or which were remarkably different from Mark to start off with.
Greg,
The very day of this reply, I read page 223 of Jesus Before the Gospels that further goes into what you said. So, that was good for better understanding the issue.
Still, with Paul’s distinctly different gospel and vowing that it was the true gospel, how could there not be real confusion even today as to what the gospel of Jesus is.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert