11. Царство Божие

The term “kingdom of God” serves in the Gospel as the most general designation of the subject of Christ’s teaching. Evangelist Matthew depicts the preaching activity of Christ in the following words: “Jesus went through all Galilee, through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom.” 1280. Another Evangelist, Luke, calls the kingdom of God the proper subject of the Gospel, that which gave Christ’s preaching the character of the gospel: He preached and preached the gospel of the kingdom of God 1281. The gospel of Christ is the gospel kingdom of God 1282. The first words with which His preaching to the Jews began were: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” 1283 When He was held in one city, He said that “I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities, for for this purpose I was sent” 1284. He spoke with the people about the kingdom of God. preach the kingdom of God 1286. His own teaching was the word of the kingdom, ὁλόγος τῆς βασιλε ί ας 1287. His parables were a picture of the kingdom of God: “to what shall we compare the kingdom of God? or what kind of parable will we depict it? 1288 “The kingdom of heaven is like” - this is how the gospel parables usually begin. What distinguishes His disciples from other people is nothing more than an understanding of the mystery of the kingdom of God (τὸ μυστ ή ριον δέδοται τῆς βασιλε ί ας τοῦ θεοῦ) 1289. The Gospel generally speaks of a scribe who was taught the kingdom of heaven 1290. In the gospel of the kingdom of God and its advent, Christ indicated the main sign of the New Testament times 1291. However, this basic expression of the Gospel, like all other basic gospel concepts, does not represent a new Christian word, but was borrowed by the New Testament Teacher from the Old Testament Jewish treasury. The Gospel teaching was addressed to listeners who were “waiting for the kingdom of God” 1292. The forerunner of Christ, John the Baptist, preached the imminent arrival of the kingdom of God in 1293. The first words of the gospel sermon were a repetition of these words of the Baptist. Preaching the kingdom of God, Christ met the definite and stable expectations of the Jewish people. This alone forces us to be restrained in establishing the meaning of this term in the system of Gospel teaching. The same thing is suggested to us by comparing the Old Testament Jewish expectations, united in the idea of ​​the kingdom of God, with the Gospel teaching in their content. The Old Testament Jewish idea of ​​the kingdom of God has two features: theocratic-political and apocalyptic, transcendental-eschatological. According to the theocratic-political expectations of Judaism, the kingdom of God replaces the world monarchies, takes their place and, therefore, is likened to them in the earthly territory of dominion and in its character. The theocratic kingdom differs from the world monarchies it replaces only in the sense that power belongs to this kingdom. To God Himself; however, this difference is not unconditional, since God reigns over the world through the mediation of the Jewish people and their Messiah-king. Thus, the Jews, expecting the kingdom of God, were actually waiting for the consolation of Israel 1294, the kingdom of Israel over the world 1295. To these ancient expectations, during the time of Judaism, a new feature was added, the apocalyptic one. To the Jews, the kingdom of God seemed to be a good or order pre-existing in heaven and revealed on earth in time. When Christ approached Jerusalem for the last time, the Jews thought that the kingdom of God would soon open, appear (ἀναφαίνεσθαι) 1296. In the minds of the Jews, this replacement of the kingdoms of the earth by the kingdom of heaven merged with the eschatological change from this age to a new age. We also find these features in the Gospel language. In the evangelical speeches about the kingdom of God, a theocratic connotation appears noticeably. This is how Christ speaks about the kingdom of the Son of Man, about His kingdom 1297. The kingdom of the Son of man is the same kingdom of God: while Matthew speaks of the Son of man coming in His kingdom, in the corresponding places in Mark and Luke we read about the coming of the kingdom of God 1298. The kingdom of the Son of Man must be understood precisely theocratically, as can be seen from the direct words of Christ that He received the kingdom from the Father 1299, and from the parable in which He calls Himself the royal son 1300. The theocratic nature of the kingdom of God is also presupposed by the fact that the disciples of Christ, the sons of the kingdom, participate in His glory, in His kingdom 1301, and to them, this small flock, the Father was pleased to give the kingdom 1302. Therefore, the expression “sons of the kingdom” (οἱ υἱοὶ τῆς βασιλε ί ας) 1303 means “royal sons”, heirs of the kingdom 1304. From the Jews, these natural sons of the kingdom, it was taken away and given to the little ones, the flock of Christ 1305. The relationship between the reign of Christ and the reign of the new sons of the kingdom, His little flock, is that He, having received the kingdom from the Father, transfers it to the disciples 1306. The same nature of the kingdom of Christ is evidenced by the earthly area of ​​its spread 1307 and the fact that its onset is preceded by historical events 1308. The apocalyptic nature of the kingdom of God is brought out even more sharply in the speeches of Christ. It is called prepared from the creation of the world 1309. It awaits the righteous in heaven 1310. The disciples are commanded to prepare for themselves treasure in heaven 1311. We also read about the names of the apostles written in heaven, and about the eternal abodes 1312. The frequently found saying in the Gospels “enter the kingdom of heaven (of God)” is explained by the transcendental nature of the kingdom of God 1313. The super-usable heavenly kingdom is in connection with earthly life. At the zenith, man prepares for the kingdom of God, for the heavenly reward 1314. Moreover, the Kingdom of God comes to earth from heaven and is revealed here: Christ taught His disciples to pray to the Heavenly Father, so that His name would be hallowed, His kingdom would come, and His will would be done, on earth as in heaven 1315. The revelation of the kingdom of God on earth, its coming from heaven, forms a historical era. Already the first word of the Gospel sermon is that the time has come to pass and the kingdom of God is at hand ( τοῦ θεοῦ) 1316, refers to the Jewish idea of ​​a predetermined date for the revelation of the heavenly kingdom. In this regard, the more specific words of Christ in the commandment to the apostles sent to preach deserve attention: “say to them: the kingdom of God has come near to you” 1317. According to these words, the blessings of the kingdom of God pre-existing in heaven descend to man and approach him. The same meaning is hidden in the more energetic expression ἔφθασενἐφ ᾿ ὑμ ᾶ ς from Christ’s speech to the Jews: “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then, of course, the kingdom of God has come upon you (has come upon you, overtaken you)” 1318. Even the words about publicans and harlots that they are ahead of the lawyers on the way to the kingdom of God 1319 reflect the Judaistic idea of ​​the space-time trench of the kingdom of God. The Jewish apocalypticism seeps in more noticeably in the Gospel image of the coming kingdom of God, coming at the end of the age. So in the explanation of the parable of the tares, which attracts attention by the fact that it distinguishes the kingdom of the Son of man, as embracing, together with the righteous, also the temptations of those who practice lawlessness, and the kingdom of the Father, as the kingdom of glory and power 1320. In the same language, Christ said that some of those who heard His sermon before their death would see the kingdom of God come in power 1321. That the coming of the kingdom of God is not limited to the theocratic form and the earthly sphere, but has apocalyptic prospects, this is confirmed by the fact that it is preceded only by historical events, but also by world catastrophes, eclipses of the sun and moon, the fall of stars 1322. Heaven and earth will pass away 1323, this age will end 1324, everything will be new 1325, “new wine in the kingdom of God” 1326. With two types of the kingdom of God, theocratic and apocalyptic, there is, perhaps, a double term in connection: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven, so that the first has a theocratic meaning, the second - apocalyptic. However, “the kingdom of God” is used not only in the active meaning, i.e. in the theocratic meaning of the reign of God, but also in the passive meaning of the region and the order, embracing both theocratic and apocalyptic application. "The Kingdom of Heaven" is almost limited to the pages of the first Gospel of 1327. It must be understood in the sense of the apocalyptic language of Judaism, i.e. in the meaning of the order of life realized in heaven, coming from there to earth, revealing itself in time. “The Kingdom of Heaven” (ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν) is a kingdom from heaven, like the Heavenly Father - Father from heaven (πατὴρ ὁἐξ οὐρανοῦ) 1328. However, in the Gospel of Matthew, along with the “kingdom of heaven,” the “kingdom of God” is used completely indifferently. It is also known that in the Jewish language the word “heaven” replaces the name of God 1329, and the kingdom of heaven means the same as the kingdom of God 1330. There is no reason to insist on a sharp and stable difference between these sayings. This is the theocratic-apocalyptic language of the Gospel teaching about the kingdom of God. But even what we know in general about the method of the Gospel teaching does not allow us to identify its Old Testament Jewish language with its content. So, in particular, the theocratic-apocalyptic background of the Gospel teaching about the kingdom of God does not constitute the whole of this teaching, or even part of it. In fact, the Gospel teaching, given to us in all its other sections - about the Heavenly Father, about spiritual righteousness, about eternal life, about salvation - forces us in its entirety to admit that Jewish theocratic-apocalyptic ideas about the kingdom of God cannot be included in the content of the Gospel. Here are added the direct indications of the Gospel, revealing its negative attitude specifically towards these Jewish ideas. On the issue of Old Testament theocratism, the political nature of the kingdom of God, we have reached us with the words of Christ about the spiritual nature of His kingdom, which do not allow two interpretations: His kingdom is not of this world (οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κ ό σμου τούτου), it has absolutely no form, methods and goals of earthly kingdoms, in these respects it is not from here (οὐκ ἔστιν ἐντεῦθεν), - it is in the dominion of truth 1331. Just as decisively, the Gospel rejects the apocalyptic ideas of Judaism. To the Pharisees’ question when the kingdom of God will come, a question that clearly exposes Jewish ideas about the kingdom of God as a good thing revealed from heaven at a predetermined time, Christ answered: “the kingdom of God will not come with observation (μετὰ παρατηρήσεως so that it can be observed in a noticeable way), and they will not say: here it is or there. For, behold, the kingdom of God is within you, among you" (ἐντὸς ὑμῶνἐστίν) 1332. The last expression εντὸς ὑμῶν leaves the possibility of two understandings: either “within you” or “among you”. In favor of the latter translation, they cite the argument that Christ’s words were addressed to the Pharisees, in whose souls there was no kingdom of God. This argument, however, does not have compelling force, since “within you” can be taken in the general sense, “within a person,” “in his spirit.” And if we stop at the translation “among you,” then the indisputable inconspicuousness of the advent of the kingdom of God will still remain: the Jews, in pursuit of external signs of the kingdom of God, overlooked its beginning, since it, with the coming of Christ, was already becoming a reality, realized among them, although imperceptibly for them. Here we need to remember the word of Christ that only the Heavenly Father knows about “that day and hour” 1333, that it cannot be known about it humanly, that this period is not determined rationally 1334. This is all quite convincing, but we can go even further. It is not difficult to notice a consistent and stable parallelism in the gospel speeches between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Christ, the coming or revelation of the kingdom of God and the coming or revelation of the Son of Man. So Matt. XVI, 28 “The Son of Man coming in his kingdom”, and in Mark IX, 1 and Luke. IX, 27 “the kingdom of God has come with power.” Or: in Luke. XVII, 30 “revelation (ἀποκαλύπτεται) of the Son of Man”, and XIX, and “revelation (ἀναφαίνεσθαι) of the kingdom of God.” And this parallelism is based on the essence of the matter. The advent of the kingdom of God, its coming in power, for Christ is evidenced not by external signs, but by the reality of the inner good, the reality of God's filial self-consciousness. For the evangelical point of view, in contrast to the Jewish one, the first place is not the kingdom of God, but the king of this kingdom. The Gospel judgment is not this: “if the kingdom of God has come, then someone must be king,” but this: “if the king has come, then, therefore, the kingdom of God has come.” Christ said: “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you” 1335. In the worldview of the Jews, the goals and properties of the kingdom of God determined the tasks, properties and methods of its Messiah-king; in the Gospel, the properties and goals of Christ, the Son of Man, predetermine without the slightest remainder the character of the kingdom of God. When Christ demanded from His listeners to leave home, wife, brothers, parents, children for the sake of the kingdom of God (ἕ νεκεν τῆς βασιλε ί ας τοῦ θεοῦ Luke XVIII, 29), then this demand for them was real and entirely a demand to leave home, brothers, sisters, father, mother, wife, children, land for the sake of Christ and His Gospel (ἕ νεκεν ἐμοῦ καὶ ἕ νεκεν τοῦ εὐαγγελ ί ου Mp. X, 29). Therefore, everything that we know about Christ’s personal negative attitude towards the Jewish ideal of the Messiah, the son of David, and towards the apocalyptic image of the Son of Man, is decisive for the Gospel teaching about the kingdom of God. Christ begins His sermon with the religious ideas of Judaism about the kingdom of God, accepts the offer of the Jews to take the place of the king in the theocratic kingdom and solemnly goes to Jerusalem, the capital of this kingdom, but does not go on the clouds of heaven and not even on a horse, but on a donkey, meek and humiliated, and along the royal path He brings into the boundaries of Judaism a new spirit, which the old forms of Jewish expectations are not able to bear. With the replacement of external theocracy by the dominance of truth and with the replacement of the heavenly glory of the Son of Man by the external humiliation of Christ from Jewish theocratism, from Jewish apocalypticism there is nothing left for the Gospel teaching about the kingdom of God. This conclusion must be recognized not only as indisputable, but also obvious. However, this does not exhaust the whole question. If for the Gospel term “kingdom of God”, for its content, nothing remains from the Jewish worldview, and it is a conventional sign under which a new teaching is carried out, then there still remains the possibility of two ways of the Gospel teaching: either it gives a new concept of the kingdom of God, a new idea of ​​it, or this term remains only a conventional sign for the entire new teaching without specific content. General literary traditions lead us to expect the first half of this alternative: each new philosophical doctrine, borrowing old terms, can avoid ambiguities and mysteries by clarifying and accurately formulating new concepts combined with them. Meanwhile, the Gospel in its teaching about the kingdom of God follows a different alternative path: it does not have its own idea of ​​the kingdom of God; its speech about the kingdom of God has all the signs of a continuous parable, a riddle. There is no gospel idea of ​​the kingdom of God, and it would be a clear mistake to think that any gospel content can be deductively extracted from the concept of the kingdom of God. And if, on the one hand, it is impossible to imagine the historical appearance of the Gospel teaching without its antithetical relationship to Jewish concepts, in general, and to the Jewish concept of the kingdom of God, in particular; then, on the other hand, the positive content of the Gospel can be presented completely without mentioning the term “kingdom of God”, completely without resorting to the concept of the kingdom of God 1336. The Jewish concept of the kingdom of God is not replaced in the Gospel by a new concept of the kingdom of God, a new idea, but serves for the gospel teaching as a conditional image, or form, which is filled with new expanded content. This can be said about each of the basic gospel concepts borrowed from the Jewish treasury, especially about the kingdom of God, which is the most general form of gospel teaching. The Old Testament concepts of righteousness, eternal life, and salvation correspond to the New Testament concepts of spiritual righteousness, eternal life and salvation: although the nature of figurativeness and convention cannot be eliminated from these New Testament terms, although these New Testament concepts differ from the corresponding Old Testament concepts not only in the novelty of content, but also in volume, since the Old Testament concepts had conditional definiteness and accuracy, while in the New Testament terms the common religious concept comes to the fore experience, and it is easier to distinguish between righteousness and salvation, work and reward on Old Testament soil than on New Testament soil, nevertheless, some correspondence in the content of concepts and their scope can be indicated. Meanwhile, the Old Testament image of the kingdom of God, with which certain religious ideas and certain expectations were associated, does not find anything specifically corresponding in the Gospel, since this image serves here as a symbol not of a specific group of ideas, but of the entire Gospel teaching, all the good of the Gospel, or, better said, the one good of the Gospel. Due to this extreme commonality, the gospel term of the kingdom of God is more distant from the experimental foundations of the new religion and is devoid of its own content than the other basic gospel terms: it is not one along with others, but embraces others. If sonship of God, spiritual righteousness, eternal life and salvation constitute different aspects of the evangelical religion, then the image of the kingdom of God does not denote a new side, not a new department in the evangelical teaching, but generalizes all these sides, all these departments. This is the most general form of the Gospel teaching: it is filled with all other departments of the Gospel teaching and without them it turns out to be an empty form. We have already seen that in the Gospel, next to the image of the kingdom of God, there are images of Christ the King and the Son of Man, and, through these images, the teaching about the kingdom of God is replaced by the teaching about Christian salvation. The entire content of Christian salvation is introduced into the framework of the Old Testament Jewish image of the kingdom of God. But evangelical soteriology embraces the more real values ​​of divine experience, spiritual righteousness and eternal life, and all these values ​​are conceived in the image of the kingdom of God. Thus, apart from the Gospel of God's filial experience, there is no path to the kingdom of God. The New Testament kingdom of God is the kingdom of the Heavenly Father 1337. This is where the first fatal breach is made in the harmonious system of Jewish aspirations, and the replacement of Judaism with the New Testament spirit begins: the kingdom of God is not an external theocracy among God’s chosen people, but it is a spiritual kingdom that is given to believers from the Heavenly Father. Everything that is inspired by the truth of God-fatherhood, all this is included in the circle of thoughts and feelings that realize the kingdom of God. In the Gospel prayer, apparently, everything is old - the sanctification of the name of Jehovah, and the coming of His kingdom, and the fulfillment of His will, but a new beginning - faith in the Heavenly Father, and this initial light permeates all the old images: in the mouths of Christ and His disciples the name of the Father is sanctified, the kingdom of the Father comes, the will of the Father is fulfilled. The idea of ​​the Heavenly Father gives a kind of imprint to everything it comes into contact with. Through this idea, the form of the kingdom of God is warmed by the warmth of love and forgiveness. Since the Heavenly Father commands to forgive those who sin, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants and who has mercy on the merciful and is angry with the unmerciful 1338. Only the one who loves God and neighbor with all his heart is not far from the kingdom of heaven 1339. This new spirit of the Gospel is brought into the deepest wilds of Judaism and illuminates them with its new radiance: the kingdom prepared from the creation of the world is inherited by those blessed by the Heavenly Father, who loved the lesser brothers of Christ 1340. The Gospel did not teach the Jews that there would be a judgment, that the Son of Man would come in His glory and sit on the throne of His glory - the Jews themselves were waiting for all this: the Gospel taught them and teaches us, for which man will be judged and condemned... Then the kingdom of God stands in connection with righteousness. New Testament righteousness serves as the vestment of theanthropic love, and since love first of all fills the form of the kingdom of God, then righteousness has the same meaning for the kingdom of God. Only those possessing spiritual righteousness can enter the kingdom of God 1341. In the Gospel teaching about the kingdom of God, it is not announced that the kingdom of God has come or will come, but the condition under which one can enter the kingdom of God. The Gospel does not explain to the Jews whether they understand the kingdom of God correctly or incorrectly, and what exactly should be understood by it. It accepts their expectations and draws inevitable conclusions from them: it explains that those who wait for the kingdom of God are committed to God's truth. The kingdom of God will not be entered by the one who hypocritically glorifies the Lord, but by the one who fulfills the will of the Heavenly Father 1342, who teaches others and fulfills what is commanded himself 1343. The expectation of the kingdom of God from the gospel point of view turns out to be the path leading to the righteousness of God, and the image of the kingdom of God becomes the form in which righteousness is preached. The search for the kingdom of God, if it does not serve as a cover for earthly calculations, if it is sincere and effective, is a search for the truth of God: “seek first the kingdom and its righteousness” αὐτοῦ) 1344. It is noteworthy that the requirement of resolute adherence to the truth of God and the requirement of limitless sacrifice for the kingdom of God seem to be mutually interchangeable. On the one hand, the Gospel pleases those who hunger and thirst for truth, rushing towards it with all the strength of their souls, enduring all kinds of persecution for its sake, and not stopping at any sacrifices for it 1345. On the other hand, it demands sacrifice for the sake of the kingdom of God even with its right hand and right eye 1346; it speaks of castration for the kingdom of heaven 1347 and about leaving home, parents, children for him 1348; it compares the kingdom of God to a treasure and a pearl of great price, for the sake of which a person sells all his possessions 1349. It is easy to see that the kingdom of God makes such demands on people, since it contains the truth of God. Through the efforts of the gospel truth, the kingdom of God moves from the realm of passive dreams and relaxing expectations into the realm of active activity, awakened power 1350. It is characteristic of the Gospel teaching that the approach and even the onset of the kingdom of God, the fulfillment of predetermined times, not only does not weaken the tension with which the kingdom of God was expected, but strengthens it, transfers it from the realm of feeling to the realm of will. The time has come and the kingdom of God has come - this means that the time of dreams has come and the time of intense spiritual activity has come, the time of reviving repentance and saving faith in the Gospel 1351. The time has come for the awakening of the forces of the human spirit, the time of irrevocable decision and boundless work, since no one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God 1352. The Kingdom of God rewards effort and labor with its benefits and is given to workers: the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard 1353. This also includes the parables of the faithful and prudent servant and the talents 1354. We already know that the righteousness preached in the Gospel is not external, legalistic, but spiritual, creative, and that legal language has a figurative meaning in the Gospel, but this justifies the special importance of combining the kingdom of God with righteousness, as a condition for its occurrence: a consequence of the spiritual nature of New Testament righteousness, its combination with the kingdom of God indicates in it not an external condition, but the subjective basis and real content of the kingdom of God. And the Apostle Paul remains faithful to the spirit of the gospel sermon, testifying at the same time to the revolution it produced in the Jewish worldview, when he writes that the kingdom of God (ἡ βασιλε ί α τοῦ θεοῦ) is righteousness itself (δικαιοσύνη ) - righteousness, peace and joy in the holy spirit 1355. And if the kingdom of God in the Gospel is presented as a reward, and ejection from the kingdom as a punishment 1356, then this does not force us to distinguish between righteousness and the kingdom of God - this only means that the kingdom of God is more than righteousness. But righteousness is included in the content of the kingdom of God - and not only righteousness, but also everything that fills the very truth of the New Testament, realizes it in a more concrete form. The Kingdom of God belongs to the poor in spirit, to children and those who have humbled themselves like children; on the contrary, it is difficult for those who have wealth or hope for good deeds to enter the Kingdom of God 1357, etc. In all these combinations, the emphasis is not on the reward, but on the condition, on the spiritual energy that determines the kingdom of God: spiritual effort gives content to the kingdom of God, and in the condition of its advent lies a silent but irremovable correction of old ideas about the kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God became in the Gospel preaching a trap for all those who expected it: the Kingdom of God truly and inalienably belongs only to those who bear “its fruits” 1358. However, the kingdom of God is not limited to righteousness alone. It is not the work of human powers alone, but at the same time it is a divine gift. It is not only a task for a person, but also a benefit for him. The Kingdom of God is not only righteousness, but also eternal life. If the Heavenly Father, by the nature of His goodness, can give only good things to a person, and all true benefits are sent by the Heavenly Father 1359; if, then, the kingdom of heaven is prepared for the righteous by the Heavenly Father, and He deigned to give the kingdom to believers 1360, then, consequently, the kingdom of God is that good, or the totality of those benefits that are given to people by the Heavenly Father. The Kingdom of God not only instills in man an ethical duty, requires effort and deeds from him, but also makes possible for him an intimate experience of religious absoluteness, makes the good of eternal life a reality for him. And those sacrifices that are required from man to establish the kingdom of God on earth are not sacrifices of severe duty, but joyful sacrifices of lower goods for the sake of higher goods. We are commanded to seek first of all the kingdom of God and its righteousness, because with the advent of the kingdom of God everything else will be added to us 1361, i.e. complete satisfaction will come. For the sake of the kingdom of God, a person is required to leave all his possessions, to cut off everything that tempts him, but to make these sacrifices to a person “joyfully,” since the kingdom of heaven is a treasure with which nothing can compare in value 1362. Как благо абсолютной жизни, превышающее всякую земную ценность, царство Божие устрояется на земле Божией силою: оно есть откровение божественной жизни, божественной абсолютности, в пределах человеческого опыта. When Christ explained to His disciples how difficult it is for those who hope for wealth to enter the kingdom of God, and the disciples, extremely amazed, said to each other: who can be saved, He answered: with people this is impossible, but with God everything is possible 1363. The kingdom of God is not human, but God's work. Since God is above the world, His action in the world for the establishment of His kingdom is distinguished by its creative and supernatural, miraculous character. The Kingdom of God is a work of divine creativity; and it comes to earth in the form of miracles that bring salvation and health to a person and remove suffering and disaster from him. Miracles are the beginning of the kingdom of God, its sign, its implementation. They are a sign of a new time. In this sense, Christ answered the doubt of John 1364, the unbelief of the cities of 1365 and the blasphemy of the Pharisees 1366. However, Christ's miracles were only a symbol of the spiritual benefits of eternal life 1367. The true good that is bestowed by the Heavenly Father is the holy spirit 1368, i.e. communication with God, the assimilation of His divine life is a true good in spiritual eternal life. For the Gospel, spiritual eternal life coincides with the kingdom of God and provides it with essential content. This coincidence is easy to confirm textually. The Gospel expressions “eternal life” and “the kingdom of God” are replaced by one another: “to have eternal life” 1369, or “to inherit eternal life” 1370, “to enter into life” 1371, “the path leading to life” 1372 - these expressions are used in the same meaning as “to inherit the kingdom” 1373, “to enter the kingdom of God” 1374, “enter the kingdom of heaven” 1375, the path to the kingdom of God, on which you can be ahead or behind others 1376. The Kingdom of God coincides with eternal life, since it means the fullness of the benefits bestowed by the Heavenly Father. And all the private aspects of eternal life, its private benefits, are the blessings of the kingdom of God - the blessings of sonship with God, freedom, knowledge of the truth, forgiveness, etc. Like righteousness and eternal life, the kingdom of God is not the future, or only the future: it is the present. The Kingdom of God has already approached people 1377, reached them 1378, it is preached 1379, it is among people and in their hearts 1380, it is taken by force and those who use force enter it 1381, tax collectors and harlots go into the kingdom of God ahead of the lawyers 1382, and the rich enter it with difficulty ( εἰσπορεύονται) 1383. The Gospel knows people who castrated themselves for the kingdom of God 1384, left a home for it, parents 1385, etc. On the contrary, the scribes and Pharisees close the kingdom of heaven from people, do not enter themselves and hinder others 1386. The idea of ​​realized reality is introduced into the very images of Jewish apocalypticism. We have briefly, schematically outlined the content of the kingdom of God: to present the gospel teaching about the kingdom of God in more detail and more fully would mean repeating the entire gospel teaching about sonship with God, spiritual righteousness, eternal life and salvation. However, the doctrine of sonship with God, spiritual righteousness, eternal life and salvation does not exhaust the Gospel teaching about the kingdom of God. An ecclesiastic element must also be included in its scope. It would be possible to present the Gospel teaching about the church earlier than the teaching about the kingdom of God in order to support the idea of ​​the formal meaning of the kingdom of God in the system of gospel teaching. But in general, artificial consistency is not in the spirit of the Gospel system. Churchhood differs from other evangelical realities in that it really corresponds to the old ideas about the kingdom of God. Divine absoluteness, spiritual righteousness, eternal life and salvation, in their Gospel sense, are not comparable in content with Jewish ideas about the kingdom of God. On the contrary, the concept of the church, as a society of disciples of the Gospel, directly corresponds to the ancient concept of the kingdom of God, since the idea of ​​the kingdom of God inevitably presupposes, in addition to the royal power of God and the area of ​​His dominion, an organized union of its constituent parts 1387. Therefore, the ecclesiastic element of the gospel sermon is quite appropriate in the gospel teaching about the kingdom of God. Whereas for the new spiritual values ​​of sonship of God, righteousness, eternal life and salvation, the old image of the kingdom of God turns out to be only a refined symbol of them, an abstract symbol of the idea of ​​the reign of God in the soul of man, and this symbolization is achieved by a tangible betrayal of the old idea and the inevitable imagery of a new idea - in the evangelical church, the image of the kingdom of God is, as it were, embodied, receives flesh and blood, and becomes a reality. However, one should not exaggerate this importance of the church for the Gospel teaching about the kingdom of God. Two points in this subject need to be taken into account and given due weight. Firstly, the church constitutes only one side in the Gospel teaching about the kingdom of God, and this side does not cancel its content, which is given to it by the realities of sonship, spiritual righteousness, eternal life and salvation, and for which the image of the kingdom of God remains a symbolic form. Secondly, in the Gospel teaching, the church has not a primary meaning, but a derivative, secondary one. These remarks are enough to make it clear that the real correspondence of the New Testament church and the Jewish image of the kingdom of God, eliminating the artificial sequence of abstract thinking from the Gospel system, does not cancel anything in the main thought about the formal-symbolic meaning of the kingdom of God on the pages of the Gospel, so that this real content of the kingdom of God should be considered as a partial addition to its main meaning, and not as a modification of the latter. Here it would be a mistake to lose sight of the fact that evangelical churchliness in no way represents a conclusion from the idea of ​​the kingdom of God, that it is based on its own evangelical foundations, so that its correspondence to the ancient image of the kingdom of God is nothing more than an analogy 1388. Thus, churchliness does not constitute an external growth in the evangelical system, and the evangelical teaching about the church is entirely explained from its basic data 1389. In theology, much space is devoted to discussions on the relationship of the kingdom of God to the church. This question is usually obscured from two sides. On the one hand, by the kingdom of God we mean not a symbolic image that conventionally denotes the general content of the Gospel, but a certain idea with specific content. On the other hand, they confuse the modern appearance of the church with the meaning of the Gospel speeches about the church. In this way, the relationship between Jewish theocratic-apocalyptic thought, more or less humanized in severity, and the modern church system is established. One can argue about the interest of these comparisons, but it is beyond dispute that “they do not affect the teaching of the Gospel. We have seen that in the Gospel the kingdom of God designates not a specific idea, but the entire content of the Gospel teaching - and we can easily see that for the Gospel the church is a secondary reality, arising from the basic data of the Gospel preaching. The relationship of the kingdom of God to the church turns out to be the relationship of the whole (the gospel teaching) to its part 1390. The word church is found in the Gospel only twice, and it is in the Gospel of Matthew: XVI, 18. 19 in Christ’s response to Peter’s confession about the creation of “His church” on “this rock” (confession) and about giving him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, - XVIII, 15 – 20 in Christ’s commandment to inform the church about a sinful brother and His promise to be where two or three are gathered in His name. In the language of Matthew's Gospel we see the most traces of the Jewish worldview - and this gives no small significance to the fact that the word church is found only in this Gospel. This word is taken from Jewish vocabulary. The Jews had the concept of a church, a religious society, a kahal, as a society of true worshipers of Jehovah, which did not coincide with the political and national borders of Israel. And Christ, thus, was not the first to create a church of true worshipers of God - He created His church. He told Peter: the Jews have their own church, but from My disciples I will create My church. The Greek word ἐκκλησία, corresponding to the Hebrew קָהָל 1391, from the verb ἐκκαλέω (to call, summon, choose), means a representative assembly, generally an assembly 1392. Christ “chose His disciples” 1393, although this was not their election as representatives of the world, but their separation from the world (ἐγὼ ἐξελεξάμην ὑμ ᾶ ς ἐκ τοῦ κ ό σμου) as not belonging to the world ( ἐκ τοῦ κ ό σμου οὐκ ἐστέ), alien and hated to him 1394. Let us add to this concept of election the concept of union, society 1395 - and we get the New Testament teaching about the church. In place of the Jewish church, which could never shake off the national theocratic dust, Christ establishes His church as a spiritual society of believers in the Heavenly Father, the sons of God. Along with the inheritance of the Jewish concept of the church, the idea of ​​​​rejecting Judaism is given; along with the old form, a new content is given. However, the idea of ​​a chosen society remains intermediary, and the concept of the church in the Gospel does not have the specific mystical meaning of the body of Christ that it received in the epistles of the Apostle Paul. The words about the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” refer us to Isa. XXII, 22, where we are talking about the “calling” of Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, to whom the power taken away from the “ruler of the palace” and the key to the house of David are transferred, so that “he will open, and no one will forbid, prohibition, and no one will open.” The image of the key and its use refers to the power of the “chief of the palace.” This image in the words of Christ is applied to the kingdom of heaven. Power over the New Testament palace, over the kingdom of heaven, is transferred to those who believe in the Heavenly Father, who have the freedom of the sons of God. Likewise, in another place, in the commandment to transfer a controversial matter to the court of the church, also in ecclesiasticality itself, the specific sacramental character and definite structure of church life is not yet seen. The church here is rather assumed as an existing form of community life, rather than being established again. And of course the Jewish church is clearly understood, as it irresistibly follows from the words “let him (the disobedient) be to you as a pagan and a tax collector,” i.e. rejected from the Jewish church. It is not difficult to understand that the meaning of churchliness for the disciples of the Gospel stems not from the idea of ​​the church, but from the real principles of the Gospel experience, which determines the derivative value of church life. The true and inalienable good of the gospel belongs to the regenerate person; it cannot be realized without the free creativity of the spirit; for its absolute requirements the only and indispensable field of application is in free personal energy. Therefore, from the evangelical point of view, a spiritually born personality constitutes an incomparable, incomparable value. On the contrary, the absoluteness of the gospel life cannot be expressed in any institutions, in any external system, or in any social form, which is inevitably conditional and limited. Therefore, for bearers of the gospel life, churchliness does not have the meaning of an intrinsic social system. The question is, what comes first in the Christian church – the spiritual life of its members, forming a society, or the social system, as a producer of Christian souls. From an evangelical point of view, there can be only one answer to this question: in Christianity, the main reality and irreplaceable value belongs to the individual spirit, and the Christian church is a union of believers in a society, a flock of disciples of Christ. In relation to believers, the church has a meaning that is not productive, but derivative. The believers are not from the church, but the church is from the believers. No matter how great the role of the church is in the birth of new sons of the gospel kingdom and in the matter of their preservation and growth, in any case in the ecclesiastical sphere the elements are more valuable and more important than the social form that unites them. From a physical point of view, the life of one must be sacrificed for the salvation of the people, 1396 and from a social-utilitarian point of view, the good of each must be limited for the benefit of all; but in the church, as in the kingdom of absolute individuals, there can be no sacrifice of the spiritual good of everyone and no restrictions on the spiritual freedom of individuals for the prosperity of the social system. The believers are not for the church, but the church is for the believers. Hence, some negative conclusions on the ecclesiastic issue are inevitable. However, this denial cannot be unlimited. It cannot be denied that the union of believers in society makes the social system inevitable, that it is a historical force that is promised victory over the world 1397, and that it acquires mysterious properties 1398 that exceed individual capabilities in relation to nature. Without denying these aspects of church life, one must not only forget that the center of gravity of the evangelical view is not here, but in the religious and ethical genesis of the Christian church. The sons of the Gospel are formed into “their” church according to the essence of spiritual life, according to the effect of their love for each other 1399 - and all the basic properties of Christian society flow from the essential principles of personal Christian experience. The first property of the church of believers in Christ is its universality. Although the Jews had the concept of the church as a society of true worshipers of God without distinction between national and state, the presence of this concept was on their part a concession to the force of circumstances, and churchism in their view was always suppressed by national aspirations. On the contrary, the Church of Christ is unconditionally universal, since sonship of God knows no natural or national limits 1400. Universality forms a decisive contrast between the kingdom of Christ and Jewish aspirations. The second fundamental feature of the evangelical church is the spirit of service and meekness, diametrically opposed to the spirit of worldly kingdoms 1401 and revealed both in the internal relations of the church and in its external relations to the world. The princes of the nations rule over them, and the nobles rule over them, but the order is different in the church of Christ. Here the primacy belongs to the one who serves others, and, conversely, whoever is greater than others must serve others, just as the Son of Man came to serve 1402. He washed the disciples’ feet and commanded them to “wash one another’s feet” 1403. There are two thoughts in the teaching of Christ. Firstly, who wants to be big, i.e. whoever wants to take precedence in the kingdom of God, to sit on the thrones of glory, can achieve his goal the only way if he takes the very last place and becomes a slave for everyone. Secondly, whoever is greater, either by natural forces, or by the conditions of society, and most importantly - by the gifts of eternal life, must serve everyone, be a slave to everyone. This two-part thought irrevocably undermines the possibility of power in the church of the disciples of Christ. Here power is replaced by service. There can be no place here for any external authority 1404. Christianity allows only such churchliness, which does not eliminate the absoluteness and freedom of spiritual life, since every believer is directly united with Christ, everyone carries his Heavenly Father in his heart. Everything that has the slightest sign of power and authority, all that, breaking into the church sphere, is a substitute for the gospel spirit. Likewise, in its external relations, the Church of Christ is a kingdom not of this world 1405, a new spirit 1406 breathes in it: its “ministers” cannot form a military guard around the “authority”, it cannot bring down heavenly fire to destroy human souls. She can oppose the external force of judgment, persecution and persecution only by martyrdom, the shame of expulsions and slander 1407. The Church must never forget “the last promises given to her - the last victory over the world; but she can conquer the world in the Christian spirit only through the victory of meekness 1408. With the salt of abundant spiritual life and the light of good deeds, this flock of the meek is called to glorify the Heavenly Father before the eyes of the world: this alone is its calling 1409. The true society of Christ’s disciples is a society of “ministers” of the world: they must be scattered in hospitals, in prisons, everywhere where there is grief, poverty, suffering, illness - they must dry tears, calm grief, bring light and joy everywhere. They must entangle the whole world with the bonds of their love, carry the light of the Gospel throughout the world, and penetrate all humanity with the rays of eternal life. Just as in the soul of every believer the kingdom of heaven is likened to a mustard seed and leaven, so it must cover the whole earth with its branches and shelter in them all those in need of protection, it must leaven with its spirit all of humanity, all of history. By the nature of churchliness, the kingdom of God becomes a historical force and takes on a historical appearance. While serving the world, the church itself lives and grows at the expense of the world. She takes her members from the world. This is the catch of the Son of man, this is his sowing. This affects the relativity of human forces, will and its decisions. Germination and fruiting depend on the properties of the soil on which the seed falls 1410. In the church itself there are members of different dignity, so that the kingdom of heaven is likened to a field in which tares appear among the wheat, a net that captured fish, both good and bad 1411, and a wedding feast that was filled with both good and evil 1412. The kingdom of the Son of Man embraces, together with the righteous, temptations and those who practice iniquity 1413. Many are called, few are chosen: the tares will be burned, the bad fish will be thrown out, the evil ones will be driven out of the feast. However, this division will be made by the Son of Man himself when the “harvest” comes, “at the end of the age.” The power to do this was not given to his slaves, lest they pull up the wheat along with the tares, throw away the good fish along with the bad ones, and drive out the guests under the guise of evil and good 1414. In the form of the church, Christianity acquires the significance of historical force; at the same time, it is subject to the law of conditional growth, gradual development. “The kingdom of God is like how a man threw a seed into the ground, and sleeps and rises night and day, and how the seed sprouts and grows, he does not know. The earth bears fruit by itself, first the greenery, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. When the fruit is ripe, he immediately sends in the sickle, because the harvest has come” 1415. This parable signifies the inconspicuousness of a person's growth in his own spiritual life, but it also has application to the historical growth of church Christianity. And then by the tributary “man” we must understand the Son of Man, or the Heavenly Father. Just as a person, having thrown a seed into the ground, cannot interfere with its growth, but must allow it to grow through the productive power and laws of the earth; So the Son of Man, who sows the seed, having planted the Gospel, allows it to grow in the society of people according to the laws of human history. How the earth produces from grain first greenery, then an ear, and finally a full grain in the ear; so the kingdom of God on earth is established and grows gradually. And in other parables it is given to understand the gradual growth of the kingdom of God. Thus, the kingdom of God is likened to a mustard seed, which, when sown in the ground, is smaller than all the seeds on earth, and when it grows, it is larger than all the grains, and grows gradually - when sown, it sprouts and becomes larger than all the grains, and puts out large branches 1416. The same is said in the parable of the leaven, which the woman put in three measures of flour until it was all leavened 1417. Churchliness gives final completion to the eschatological prospects of Christianity 1418. The roots of Christian eschatology are affirmed in the evangelical doctrine of eternal life and in evangelical Christology, and it finds its completion in Christian churchliness. Of all the points of the Gospel system, Christian eschatology is the point most distant from the experimental foundations of the Gospel. And here lies the reason that the most vivid images of folk Christian fantasy are associated with this point, and on this point there is the sharpest divergence of opinions in scientific biblical theology. And equally, both in the field of folk Christian fantasy and in the field of biblical and theological there is not a single solid point of support 1419. In order to find a solid basis for our reasoning, in order to unmistakably understand the essence and limits of the Gospel teaching on the eschatological question, we must be able to distinguish in the Gospel teaching between the grain and the shell, between what the Gospel teaches and what constitutes the background of its teaching - we must be able to limit ourselves to the basic and general where the details have the character of a secondary one, and refrain from gnostic illumination of these secondary details. As in an artistic picture, according to the laws of perspective and according to lighting conditions, one comes to the fore and appears in larger sizes and in clearer outlines than the other, and some sides are illuminated brighter than others; So in the religious field, the experimental foundations are most clearly presented, and the brightness of the illumination weakens as one moves away from them - and here some aspects are accessible to clear understanding, while others are turned to mystical depth. It is necessary to separately represent the basic and general grain of the teaching, its experimental foundations accessible to clear understanding and, finally, the receding mystical depths. The main and common thing in evangelical eschatology is given by faith in the victory of the Heavenly Father over time, in His future judgment over history. In this sense, eschatology constitutes a necessary link in the system of the evangelical worldview. Evangelical sonship with God, God-filial absoluteness, is revealed in three objective respects: religious-ethical anthropocentrism replaces the Christian’s natural strength, evangelical universalism transcends all spatial boundaries of human society, and, finally, Christian eschatology extends the power of spiritual life over the boundaries of time, over the last day of history, over the extreme result of global development. And without this last link in the system of Christian faith, spiritual life, limitless in other directions, would be constrained by the force of time. The Christian consciousness could not bear this limit. Spiritual life would shrink into convulsions of madness if time stood before it as a hopeless wall, if the last word remained with the dark power of blind fate and the dark power of evil. Christianity would not be a religion, but a subjective dream, if it were not animated by faith in the limitless power of the Heavenly Father, in the final light of His judgment. Faith in the coming judgment of the Heavenly Father and in His power over time is integral to the Gospel. At the same time, Christian eschatology takes its content only from the Gospel, and not from the idea of ​​​​divine judgment and God's omnipotence. This is the limit to our curiosity and the source of the unique character of Christian eschatology. We dare not fill the eschatological scheme with what is human (τὰ τῶν ἀνθρώπων); we can fill it only with what is God's (τὰ του θεοῦ). There is no human knowledge about that day or hour 1420. And the power of the Heavenly Father, originally revealed in the miracles of the Gospels, will appear at the end of time in a form about which we cannot now form any idea, but it will not be revealed in the course of time. Gospel eschatology is possible, but gospel chronology is impossible. Just as evangelical anthropocentrism is not cosmological anthropocentrism and evangelical universalism does not equal natural universality, so the eschatological power of the Heavenly Father does not have chronological visibility. Prepared by invisible spiritual forces, the final victory of the Heavenly Father will never violate natural-historical necessity, and people throughout history will eat, drink, marry and be given in marriage, as it was in the days before the unexpected flood of 1421, and even the tares will grow to the end along with the wheat. At the same time, this constitutes a characteristic feature of Christian eschatology, in contrast to Jewish eschatology, that a Christian, by the very nature of his spiritual life, is not turned with all his soul forward. Much and important things can be said in support of the future benefits of the final victory of the Heavenly Father. Despite the inexhaustibility and limitlessness of the internal. the bliss of spiritual life, the latter is limited from the outside by natural-historical force, which it reflects only by the power of faith and self-denial, so that spiritual good is not the only reality for him, but is given in suffering and humiliation of temporary life. And one can imagine the elimination of this external border in the coming heavenly kingdom of the Heavenly Father, when the tares will not shade the wheat and spiritual good will constitute the only reality. With all this, spiritual good is so valuable in itself and has such a self-evident reality that the first and main aspiration of a Christian is not aspiration for the future, but aspiration for real victory over the world through the power of faith, for overcoming visible suffering and humiliation with the inner fullness of spiritual life. The Jew was with all his heart turned to the future, and his expectations of future benefits devalued the present for him. Not so in a Christian. He clings with his soul not to the future, not to the succession of futures to the present, but to the eternal, which is above time, is realized in the present and has power over the future. A Christian is not without hope, but his treasure is not in the future. He is undaunted by the future, but what he most importantly seeks is not the future: he first of all seeks the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and everything else is added to this 1422. Despite the extinguished need for a long existence and the feeling of an approaching end, he does not worry about the morning of the “last” day, just as he does not worry about the morning of tomorrow 1423. Christian eschatology is far removed from the experimental foundations of the Gospel, both in its popular form and in its mystical side, but it sinks its roots into the very basis of the Gospel. And the main task of presenting gospel eschatology must be to point to these roots. Evangelical eschatology is rooted in the Evangelical doctrine of eternal life and in Evangelical Christology. The concept of eternal life, which is not affected by death, is elusive to it, - divine spiritual life, accessible to man within the limits of temporary existence and not knowing the boundaries of death, - spiritual life, which has a predetermined entanglement with death, which it inevitably conquers in the glory of the resurrection - this is the first basis and first content of Christian eschatology. And in. On this basis, in this content, nothing can be changed, even if we focus all our attention on the eschatological end of Christianity. This concentrated attention will not give us any new knowledge, and all our Gnostic requests meet only negative limits. We cannot transfer anything sensual or earthly into our ideas about the afterlife, since the spiritual life that will cross the threshold of death is the divine life in us, and the resurrection is determined solely by its predetermined connection with death and its inevitable victory over death, so that there is absolutely no room left for either pagan spiritualistic Gnosticism or Jewish sensual ideas about the resurrection. There is also no place in Christian eschatology for religious jurisprudence, and life after the resurrection cannot be considered as a future reward, giving the afterlife a sensual, earthly character. To this eschatological content, which is given in the concept of eternal life and is now accessible to our spiritual experience, only something new is added from the churchliness of the disciples of the Gospel. If the essence of spiritual life is love, which with the power of reciprocity unites the disciples of the Gospel into a spiritual community, then it is quite possible to assume that the sons of God, and as sons of the resurrection, united by love, will have an objective reality for each other - will not only be alive for God, but also alive for each other. And if this objectivity is called somaticity, then we have the concept of somatic resurrection. You just need to remember that, firstly, there can be nothing sensual in this somaticity 1424 and that, secondly, this is the side of Christian eschatology that is most removed from the experimental foundations of spiritual life, this is a mystical secret that we can anticipate in the experience of love, but cannot imagine rationally. Further, the main content of Christian eschatology is given by the idea of ​​the coming of the Son of Man - in the death of Christ, His resurrection and the gift of the Holy Spirit to the disciples. In the eschatological application of this idea, it is necessary to exhaust the entire historical relationship of the death and resurrection of Christ to the first disciples of Christ, who experienced both His death and His resurrection. But the coming of the Son of Man is not limited to the historical form of this relationship. This alone transcends the boundaries of this historical form, that all subsequent believers join in the experience of the apostles, that they all experience the death and resurrection of Christ, that for each of them Christ died and rose again. And this is not enough. As for the first believers, the reality of the resurrection of Christ was not a subjective dream, but He appeared to their entire community, with the objectivity of His appearances uniting them, and the Holy Spirit was revealed in their congregation in visible gifts; so in the churchliness of the sons of the resurrection the condition of the objective parousia of Christ is given to them. Just as the sons of the resurrection are alive to God and alive to one another, so Christ is alive to them. However, it must again be said that this mystery is hidden from us under the symbolic facts of the primal church, and we cannot treat it Gnosti cally. Finally, the church of the living, in the reality of its historical development, is not deprived of the opportunity to see the coming of Christ and experience His judgment. On this path there is a possible twofold temptation for the disciples of the Gospel. Firstly, the appearance of false Christs, simulating the visible second coming of Christ 1425, while His actual coming, without spatio-temporal certainty and not clothed in sensory forms, will take place in the ordinary course of human life 1426. This last circumstance can give rise to the opposite temptation for believers. Waiting for the visible second coming of Christ, they come to the idea that the Lord has delayed, and to doubt His promise 1427. In this regard, the Gospel is illustrated by the facts of early church history, when the tense expectation of the imminent glorious coming of Christ gave way in the hearts of some to insolent abuse of the unfulfilled promise 1428. But the Gospel already instructs that the coming of Christ will be unexpected, at an unforeseen hour, elusive, but real 1429. This sufficiently substantiates the gospel call to watchfulness. Christians cannot rest in the certain quick hour, nor in the long delay of Christ. The time of the coming of Christ and His judgment over the living represents an insoluble antinomy from a sensual point of view, but from the evangelical point of view this antinomy is easily reconciled. We do not know the hour when the Lord will come, but He does come at a time at which we only expect, at an hour at which we do not think 1430 ... He comes in the destinies of His church, He executes judgment on the Christian nations, which should bear the fruits of the kingdom of God 1431. His judgment on rejected Israel is a type of His judgment on the historical reality of the church... Bow. VIII, 1; cp. IV, 43; XVI, 16. Matt. XXIV, 14; Mf. I, 15. Bow. IX, 2; X, 9; Matt. X, 7 Wed. Onion. IX, 60. Matt. IV, 30; Onion. XIII, 18. Matt. IV, 11; Matt. XIII, 11; Onion. VIII. 10. Onion. XVI, 16; Mf. XI, 12. Matt. XV, 43; Onion. XXIII, 51. Matt. XIII, 41; XVI, 28; XXV, 31 ff. XXVII, 11 par. Also (in parables) Luke. XIX, 12; Mf. XVIII, 23; XXII, 2. Mf. XVI, 28; MP. IX, 1; Onion. IX, 27. Matt. XIX, 28; Onion. XXII, 30. Mf. VI, 12; VIII, 11; Onion. VI, 23; XIII, 28. 29. Mf. VI, 20 par. XIX, 21 par. Onion. X, 20; XVI, 9; John XIV, 2. Mf. V, 20; VII, 21; XVIII, 3; XIX, 23. 24; MP. IX, 47; X, 23. 24. 25; Luke, XVIII, 24. 25. It is noteworthy that “enter” is usually in futur. Mf. XVI, 19; XXV, 34 ff. etc. Mf. VI, 9. 10; Onion. XI, 2. Matt. XII, 28; Onion. XI, 20. Mf. IX, 1; Onion. IX, 27; XXI, 32. Matt. XXIV, 29; MP. XIII, 24. 25; Onion. XXI, 25. Mf. III, 2; IV, 17, etc. From other Gospels. John III, 5. Mf. V, 34; XXIII, 22; MP. XI, 30; Onion. XV, 18. Mf. VIII, 11= Luke. XIII, 28. 29. Mf. XII, 28; Onion. XI, 20. This thesis is not news for serious theological science, but it is all the more insistently necessary to present it in view of the pathological tendency of feuilleton theology to abuse the idea of ​​the kingdom of God. These abuses began a long time ago (and church history could teach us a lot), but journalistic literature on the question of the kingdom of God has become especially intrusive in recent times, during the period of religious or Christian society. The modern demands for religious sanctification of public life are so urgent that weak thinkers cannot help but fall into the temptation to subordinate religion to the current interests of the social program. While in the hearts of deep natures religion invariably holds at the height of eternity, giving complete freedom to social convention and sanctifying it from the subterranean depths of personal absoluteness, public figures and publicists of every era invariably want religion to stand for emerging interests and for the established order. If in the old days Christianity was called for the purposes of the political structure of societies, strengthening power, and instilling militancy, then in our time there are social and economic interests and Christianity should have no other purpose other than the organization of cooperation, mutual assistance, concern for public health, the prosperity of folk art, etc. This is where the idea of ​​the kingdom of God takes on primary significance. On the one hand, this image gives an indisputable hint at some kind of elimination of social evils, at some kind of establishment of public good in the earthly vale, at some kind of solution to programmatic issues that torment our souls. On the other hand, the emptiness of the Gospel image of the kingdom of God is seductive, the absence of any positive principles restraining thought is seductive, the reckless opportunity for weak thinkers to surrender to the flow of desires and ideals inspired by modernity is seductive. And so, whatever social ideals pass through the soft soul of the feuilletonist-theologian, they are all hastily and frivolously placed under the flag that flutters the idea of ​​the kingdom of God. And these are even comparatively deeper thinkers and comparatively more religious souls if such publicist theologians resurrect the Old Testament idea of ​​the kingdom of God, although instead of resurrected life we ​​can only observe an artificially animated puppet, since theocracy against the gospel background is doomed in advance to the fate of a stillborn concept. Usually, simple humanitarian ideals and everyday social desires are brought under the banner of this idea. They hope, with the help of the vague image of the kingdom of God, as some kind of panacea, to pacify all the issues that concern us - family, church-state, etc. They are not even embarrassed by the fact that in this case there is no living spring at hand from which one could draw guiding principles, that they are dealing with an empty well, that they are putting into circulation borrowed magic from outside. And maybe this moisture does not always turn out to be salt water, which does not quench thirst, maybe it is fresh water, necessary and useful; but in any case, this is not a deep, inexhaustible religious spring, but utilitarian market circles: it is not difficult to indicate the source of this pseudo-religious coverage of life in the leading article of a fashionable newspaper and in skinny social brochures. Scientific theology has the duty to tear off the mask from these buffoonish theologian-publicists and declare with all decisiveness: the gospel idea of ​​the kingdom of God does not exist. In the system of evangelical teaching, “the kingdom of God invariably appears in the bright features of the Old Testament image, while the real content of the Old Testament ideas associated with it is decisively rejected, and the image itself is filled not with specific new content, but with the general gospel teaching. The novelty of the content and the expanded volume, which the old image can no longer contain, make the latter an extremely conventional designation for evangelical preaching. And in the hands of theological publicists and feuilleton theologians, this conventional sign, taken in its special meaning, is deprived of any content and turns out to be a demonstrative rag, a childish trinket. M f. ΧΧ VI, 29; Onion. XII, 32. Matt. V, 20 Wed. XIII, 43; XXV, 46. Mf. V, 29.30; XVIII, 8.9; MP. IX, 43–47. Mf. XI, 12; Onion. XVI, 16. Matt. XXIV, 45 – 51; XXV, 14–18. Mf. XXV, 34; Onion. XII, 32. Matt. VI, 33; Onion. XII, 31. Matt. VII, 11 = Luke. XI, 13. Mf. X, 17; Onion. XVIII, 18. Mf. IX, 47 Wed. with IX, 43. 45 and Matt. XVIII, 8.9; Mf. XIX, 24 Wed. from XIX, 16. 17; Onion. XVIII, 24. 25. Matt. VII, 27, Wed. c VII, 14; XVIII, 3; XIX, 23 Wed. from 24. Matt. IV, 17; X, 7; MP. I, 15. Bow. XVI, 16 Wed. Matt. XI, 5; Onion. VII, 22: πτωχοὶεὐαγγελίζονται Wed. also Luke. IV, 18 – 21. Matt. XI, 12; Onion. XVI, 16. Onion. XVIII, 24. Wed. for praes. Matt. XI, 11; XVIII, 1; XIX, 14; MP X, 14.15; Onion. ХVIII, 16, 17; John III, 3. 5. Wed. Mf. XII, 25 – 28 par. This is the coincidence of one aspect (not the most essential) of the Jewish “kingdom of God” with one point (also not essential) of the Gospel teaching. Beginning writers in general, and theologians in particular, have an irresistible tendency to exaggerate the subject of discussion. This is accompanied by the usual specialty of theological monographs. Anyone who has chosen some church historical figure as the subject of his dissertation inevitably seems to think that this is a leading church figure. Anyone who has focused his attention on any theological question, taken out of the system of Christian thought, invariably comes to the conviction that this is a question of paramount importance. This tendency swells especially if the question raised is imbued with modern interests of religious practice. Only scientific experience, objectivity of thought and systematic outlook teach one to appreciate the proper place of each link in the chain of Christian teaching. Pure scientific interest is to exhaust the entire content of this or that monument and protect it from any third-party additions, to indicate what is in it and what is not, to highlight the most important points in the system and indicate its place as the least important. In the presentation of the Gospel teaching today, the most important thing should be considered firmness and consistency in distinguishing between what the Gospel teaches and what it does not teach. In particular, in the matter of the church, it is important to understand as clearly as possible both what the Gospel teaches and what it does not teach. In the evangelical system, only that image of the church can find a place that is included in the basic outlines of evangelical thought and is explained from the essential terms of evangelical preaching. Here you especially need to remember the boundaries of the issue, the degree of its importance... Along with this essential relationship between the kingdom of God and the church, it is not difficult to understand the possibility of the popular idea of ​​the coincidence of the kingdom of God and the church. Despite the main drawback of this idea - the oblivion that not the entire kingdom of God (neither in the Gospel sense nor in the Jewish sense) coincides with the church - this idea is still closer to the truth than the pseudo-scientific fabrications of feuilleton theology on the topic of the church as a form or type of the kingdom of God. Eg. Heb. IX, 12 – Ps. XXI (Heb. XXII), 23. John XIV, 16 – 17; XV, 26; Acts I, 4–5; II, 1 – 4. Wed. Fundamentals of Christianity, vol. 1, p. 362 pp. vol. III, p. 128 ff. Mf. VIII, 11. 12; Onion. XIII, 28, 29, etc. Mf. XX, 25 – 28; MP IX. 35; X, 42–45; Onion. IX, 48; XXII, 25–27. Matt. V, 10. 11; X, 17. 18 par. Matt. V, 5; Onion. XII, 82. Mf. XXII, 1 – 14; Onion. XIV, 16 – 24. The other is inspired by the task of the church to be salt and light for the world, to glorify the Heavenly Father in its eyes with good deeds. In view of this task, the church must monitor its reputation, protect its certain appearance, cut off from itself everything extraneous, everything that covers it, erases its boundary lines, depersonalizes it in the eyes of outsiders. And obviously, in the name of this task, she must eject from her midst all hypocrisy, all those pestering her for some selfish motives, covering up the achievement of earthly interests with her name. But this is not at all the same as pulling out chaff. The Gospel word about the tares is purely trivial. There are tares and tares. There are tares, like weeds, and there are “tares” as representatives of personal initiative, seekers of new experiences, bearers of “their” beginning in religion, their thoughts. It is not given to slaves to spew out these: in the pursuit of these tares, the wheat inevitably suffers Matt. XIII, 31. 32 ;Mp. IV, 81. 32; Onion. XIII, 19. Mf. XIII, 33; Onion. XIII, 21. And here again the basis is given for the popular understanding of the kingdom of heaven in the eschatological sense. In relation to Christian eschatology to the Jewish apocalyptic image of the kingdom of God, one can say approximately the same thing that has been said about the relationship of the church to the kingdom of God - and this is all the more so since churchliness completes the eschatological prospects of Christianity. The eschatological enlightenment in Christianity corresponds to the eschatological direction of Jewish religious thought, embodied in the image of the kingdom of God, and the church-popular representation of the kingdom of heaven sins in that it borrows specific content from Jewish eschatology, forgetting about the evangelical roots of Christian eschatology, but it is still more consistent with the evangelical teaching about the kingdom God's than the scientific and philosophical idea of the kingdom of God. In particular, in biblical and theological science the position of the eschatological question must be recognized as completely hopeless. She, behind the fog of the Gospel words, absolutely cannot grasp any definite reality and therefore, in understanding detached and isolated sayings, she gives herself over to the uncontrollable waves of all kinds of arbitrariness. Hypotheses that dominate here are radically opposed and completely exclude each other. Here, truly, in mutual struggle and in constant change of opinions, the dead bury their dead. Matt. ΧΧ IV, 36; MP. XIII, 32. 1 Cor. XV, 4–4: σόμα πνευματικόν. Matt. XXIV, 5. 11. 23. 24. 26 par. Mf. XXIV, 27. 37 – 38 par. Mf. XXIV, 48. 49 par. XXV, 5. 19. Mf. XXIV, 36. 44 ff. steam. You might be interested in: