Beyond An Inheritance

From the early centuries of the Christian era to our day, expositors of the Gospels have struggled with Jesus’ teachings on the kingdom of heaven, particularly with their temporal dimension. Will the kingdom of heaven appear one day in the future when the Son of Man suddenly comes? Or, has it been germinating like a seed with much potential for growth? Perhaps as C. H. Dodd suggested, it should be described as both realized and eschatological: germinal in reference to the past (and present), but explosive in regard to its coming manifestation.1

The lack of clarity emanates from the Gospels themselves. A single synoptic evangelist can speak of the kingdom of heaven as both a present reality and an approaching event. For example, compare Luke 11:20 with 19:11.2 The Synoptic Gospels also contain verses in parallel where the kingdom of heaven seems to have been equated with eternal life in one of them. For example, compare Matt 5:29-30 and 18:8-9 with Mark 9:47. In the case of the Gospel of John, its author introduced a remarkable innovation laden with theological implications. Unlike the other synoptic writers, he depicted Jesus as repeatedly speaking about himself and eternal life as opposed to speaking about the kingdom of heaven.3 The uneven data have bedeviled expositors throughout the centuries, and in an effort to reconcile that data, most have described the kingdom of heaven as more of a future event associated with the Son of Man’s coming, or even as synonymous with eternal life.4

Although Realized Eschatology may be an attractive way of harmonizing what the Gospels say about the kingdom of heaven, I prefer searching elsewhere for a way to reconcile the uneven data. Morton Smith once articulated an insightful observation about competing eschatological expectations which flourished side by side in ancient Jewish and Christian communities.

Now all this variety in the matter of messianic expectations is merely one detail . . . of the even greater variety of eschatological expectations current in the two centuries before and after the time of Jesus. . . . But the point to be noted is that these contradictory theories evidently flourished side by side in the early rabbinic and Christian and Qumran communities which copied the texts and repeated the sayings. What is more, quite contradictory theories are often preserved side by side in the same document.5

Could it be that Jesus’ original teachings about the kingdom of heaven ran counter to certain widely and strongly held messianic-eschatological expectations? If so, could those who had a hand in compiling and editing the Synoptic Tradition have introduced elements of their own expectations into it? Brad Young may have had this type of scenario in mind when he speculated that “. . . two distinct teachings of Jesus became fused. The one, the coming of the Son of Man, was an eschatological event to be realized in the future. The other, the Kingdom of Heaven, was an active dynamic force in the present, connected with Jesus’ ministry and the work of his followers.”6

According to the narrative of The Last Judgment,7 the Son of Man comes to separate the nations (i.e., the Gentiles) according to their deeds. Those whom he deems righteous will inherit a kingdom which was prepared at the creation of the world. The context suggests that inheriting this kingdom is the same as inheriting eternal life. Unlike synoptic verses which speak of the kingdom of heaven, in Matt 25:34 the verb “to enter” is not used and the noun “kingdom” is not in construct with a second noun like “heaven” or “God.” Here the usage of the noun “kingdom” seems to be authentic and probably reflects Jesus’ own language.

How should the other “distinct [teaching]” of Jesus be described?8 Should the kingdom of heaven be advanced into the future and linked with the events of The Last Judgment, because a handful of synoptic verses imply its imminent appearance or its equation with eternal life? Or, as Smith observed for late Second Temple literature in general, and as Young suggested for the Synoptic Tradition in particular, could expressions of “contradictory theories” have been “preserved side by side” in three synoptic documents? And, thus, could “two distinct teachings of Jesus” have lost their distinctiveness in the very human scribal and protracted process of compiling, writing, and editing the Synoptic Gospels?

Significant theological questions arise in the wake of this assumption. For example, if entering the kingdom of heaven and inheriting eternal life are complementary, but two distinct elements within Jesus’ conceptual framework, then could a person inherit the one with entering the other? Or, asked differently, are the entry and inheritance requirements identical? As a preliminary exercise for fielding such questions, I will collect examples of synoptic parlance and group them according to synonymous and antithetical conceptual and temporal relationships.

Consider the following passages where synonymous expressions forming one group can be found. As already noted above, the Son of Man will tell the righteous to “inherit the kingdom prepared . . . from the foundation of the world.” According to The Parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus, angels carried poor and oozing Lazarus to Abraham’s bosom. In the Lukan version of The Two Thieves, Jesus turned to one of them and said, “Today you will be with me in Paradise.”9 And, in Mark 10:17 and Luke 18:18, an affluent young man asked what he must do in order to inherit eternal life. Thus, the kingdom of Matt 25:34, Abraham’s bosom, Paradise, and eternal life form a group of equivalents.10

A second group of synonymous expressions has an antithetical conceptual (but not temporal) relationship to the first. In The Last Judgment, the Son of Man will banish those on his left to eternal fire. According to The Parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus, the callous man who neglected Lazarus found himself in Hades. In a saying about lustful looks included in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made his point by recommending an exaggerated solution for remaining free of sin and avoiding Gehenna.11 Eternal fire, Hades, and Gehenna apparently refer to one and the same parched lot.

The kingdom of heaven and its equivalents form a third and distinct group of expressions. A common example belonging to this group is how the synoptic writers switched back and forth between the phrases “kingdom of heaven” and “kingdom of God.” Heaven is simply a Hebraic substitute for God’s name. (Pious Jews employ circumlocutions in order to speak about God without pronouncing his name.) Thus, Matt 19:23 speaks of entering the kingdom of heaven, while the parallel in Luke 18:24 uses the kingdom of God. Greek readers probably benefited from Luke’s less Semitic idiom.

Becoming a disciple is a less obvious, but highly significant conceptual equivalent to entering the kingdom of heaven. When Jesus invited somebody to follow him, he set before that person the opportunity and challenge of entering the kingdom of heaven. This equation emerges clearly in the dramatic dialogue between Jesus and the rich young man which spans two pericopes—The Rich Young Man and On Riches & the Rewards of Discipleship. Thus, according to synoptic parlance, responding in an affirmative manner to Jesus’ call to discipleship and entering the kingdom of heaven (or kingdom of God) were equivalent actions. Robert Lindsey already noted the link between Jesus’ kingdom movement and his double imperative to leave and follow: “Jesus’ way appears to have been to find men, simple or profound, who would be willing to ‘leave all and follow him.’ He was to make out of them a Kingdom—a movement—which would . . . eventually burst the bonds of locality and nationality.”12

Now the challenge of identifying a concept with an antithetical conceptual (but not temporal) relationship to the kingdom of heaven remains. As enticing as it may be, entering the kingdom of heaven and being cast into eternal fire should not be treated as occupying places at the opposite ends of a conceptual spectrum.13 Eternal fire and eternal life are conceptual (but not temporal) opposites. (Cf., Matt 25:34, 41 with v. 46). Finding a concept to pair antithetically with the kingdom of heaven requires some effort and knowledge of rabbinic literature.

As a start, consider first Luke 18:30. Its parallel structure implies a temporal contrast. According to this verse, Jesus promised much more “in this time” and eternal life “in the age to come” to those who had left family and home for the kingdom of God. Upon reading this verse, anybody who is familiar with early rabbinic literature cannot help but think of the contrasting Hebrew idioms haolam hazeh (lit. “this world”) and haolam haba (lit. “the world to come”).14 In this saying, the kingdom of God is associated with “this time,” whereas eternal life has been paired with the “age to come.” The parts of the parallelism form a complex type of antithetical-synthetic structure: present sacrifice plus present reward are juxtaposed with eternal life as the greater future reward.15 The structure of the parallelism treats the kingdom of God as belonging to the present. From a temporal perspective, it has been contrasted with the futurity of eternal life. Thus, just as eternal life and Gehenna (eternal fire) are opposites, and both belong to the future, in the quest for a concept to pair antithetically with the kingdom of heaven (or God), I will try to find one associated with the present.

As part of his saying from Avot 3:5, Rabbi Nehunya described those who accept the yoke of Torah as emancipated from the yoke of mundane matters (Heb. derek eretz).16 As Hanock Albeck commented, this yoke refers to the burden of financially supporting oneself.17 In other words, a person who has fully devoted himself to a life of Torah is presumed to have been relieved of his worries about the material necessities of life.18 As David Bivin noted, Jesus and the early rabbis probably did not refer to the kingdom of heaven as if it were a yoke.19 Nevertheless, Jesus did speak about the demands of discipleship in a manner similar to how the rabbis would speak at a later time of an austere lifestyle centered on Torah. In the Sermon on the Mount, in the pericope called On Anxiety, Jesus’ rhetorical imperatives to look at the birds and the lilies suggest that he probably would have placed the kingdom of heaven and the complete reliance upon God’s provision associated with it at one end of the conceptual spectrum, and at the other, the burdens which material desires and the necessities of life impose upon us. The rabbis referred to these burdens collectively as the yoke of mundane matters.

Pausing for a moment to synthesize what has been said so far, one could set up the following comparison. The kingdom of heaven is to derek eretz (as used in Avot 3:5) as eternal life is to Gehenna. What this comparative structure implies is that those who have entered the kingdom of heaven have been manumitted from the yoke of derek eretz, while those who inherit eternal life happily avoid Gehenna (i.e., Hades). The first part of the comparison pairs two concepts rooted in the present, whereas the second part pairs two associated with the future. As helpful as this comparison may be, one should refrain from overloading its conceptual capacity by assuming that those who do not enter the kingdom automatically find themselves assigned to Gehenna. Conversely, all who inherit eternal life may not have previously entered the kingdom of heaven. And, of course, those who carried the yoke of derek eretz are not automatically banished to Gehenna.

The above collection of passages offers a fragmentary description of the candidacy requirements for inheriting eternal life. The pericopes On Adultery & Divorce and The Rich Young Man suggest that those who govern their lives according to the spirit of the Decalogue may inherit eternal life.20 The Last Judgment and The Parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus indicate that those who act mercifully toward the destitute may inherit the same.21 Feeding the hungry, hydrating the thirsty, welcoming strangers, clothing the naked, and visiting those who are ill and in prison make a favorable impression on the Son of Man. On the other hand, those who neglect the poor in their midst run the risk of sharing the anonymous rich man’s fate (i.e., a place remote from Abraham’s bosom). Failing to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, and etc. provokes the Son of Man. According to the Sermon on the Mount, violators of the Ten Commandments in spirit and letter, especially murderers and adulterers, run the risk of being thrown into Gehenna. Religious hypocrites should also be added to this list.22

In the Lukan version of The Lawyer’s Question, an expert in Jewish law summed up the quintessential objective at which the religious life aims: to love God with all of one’s heart, soul, and might, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself. Jesus affirmed the correctness of the lawyer’s reply and then added, “Do this and you will live!” With these closing words, Jesus alluded to Lev 18:5, a verse which has had a history of being understood in Jewish tradition as promising eternal life.23 Yet Jesus’ call to discipleship carried a tone of urgency. Much work needed to be done, but few had stepped forward. Some who desired to follow but wanted to delay to say farewell or to bury a loved one (who may not have died yet—the potential disciple wanting to fulfill his obligation to a loved one before accepting Jesus’ call to leave and follow). Jesus’ response: there were no deferments!

To enter the kingdom of heaven meant participating in a new economy. Simon Peter and the two sons of Zebedee left personal property and their fishing business.24 Levi abandoned his lucrative profession of tax collecting.25 Once these men joined Jesus, they adopted a lifestyle of absolute dependence on God’s provision. Hence, Jesus taught them to pray, “Give us this day our daily bread.”26 Jesus cautioned against making a hasty decision to follow.27 He compared the risk factor to marching against an army of 20,000 with one half that size. Perhaps while motioning toward a man laden with a wooden beam en route to a cruel death, he spoke of the willingness which a disciple must have to bear his cross.

The kingdom of heaven was not easily entered.28 Entering could be more difficult than coaxing a camel through the eye of a needle. Its entry requirements exceed the demands of the Ten Commandments and intermittent charitable deeds. Admission required irrational and radical allegiance to Jesus’ lordship expressed through personal sacrifice, absolute reliance on God’s provision, and acceptance of risk.29 In essence, Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 served as its point of departure, and not as an objective at which to aim.

The upright young man walked away sad. Although he had been an observant Jew since adolescence, he could not sell all his possessions and disperse the proceeds to the poor in exchange for treasure in heaven and the opportunity to follow. John the Baptist endured hardship for the sake of his version of the messianic task.30 (Herod eventually executed him for his bold preaching.) Yet, according to the incomplete historical records of the Synoptic Tradition, John probably pursued his program even to his last day and remained apart from Jesus’ kingdom movement. Consequently, Jesus remarked that the smallest in the kingdom of heaven was greater than John.31 John’s messianic-eschatological expectations may have become so calcified that he could not embrace a new possibility. For very different reasons, these two men apparently declined to enter the kingdom of heaven. We have no record of them joining Jesus’ band of disciples. Nevertheless, if the rich young man and John the Baptist remained outside the kingdom of heaven, I anticipate that when the Son of Man comes and sits on his glorious throne to separate the sheep from the goats, he will happily tell both of them to step to the right.

After finishing an initial draft of this article, I asked a few friends to read it and offer their candid opinions. Each of them suggested that I should elaborate more on the article’s relevance for contemporary theological issues. Here I will attempt to satisfy their expectations, but before doing so, I remind the reader that this article, and especially its appendix, should be characterized as exploratory. I have written them with neither definitive nor dogmatic intentions. In the article, I have simply attempted to delineate the fuzzy borders of certain complementary, but largely independent, synoptic concepts.

From the start, I want to say that to inherit eternal life is no mean achievement. In most cases, to gain such an inheritance requires a life well-lived.32 Pious, upright, kind, generous people are good candidates for inheriting eternal life. Consider, for example, the rich young ruler and John the Baptist. Certainly there are modern candidates as well. Entering the kingdom of heaven goes beyond piety, uprightness, kindness, and generosity. It cannot be contained within the walls of an institution or adequately expressed by the dogma of a community. It requires subscribing to a new economy which is sustained by God’s provision and not material wealth. Those who participate in this economy have joined a movement whose values are inverted, whose agenda is transparent, and whose hierarchy is horizontal. Not many enter the kingdom of heaven. It requires an irrational and radical allegiance to Jesus’ lordship. His kingdom movement is characterized by an expansive redemptive vision which most would dismiss as idealistic folly. To reply to such a reaction might be impossible, if it were not for people like Francesco Bernardone and Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu. Better known as Saint Francis and Mother Teresa, they left a redemptive imprint on history.33

To assume that the requirements for entering the kingdom of heaven and inheriting eternal life overlap without losing their integrity as separate categories solves certain old problems, while raising new questions. I will offer three examples below:

1) If the Son of Man will come one day to decide who will inherit eternal life, then the Synagogue and Church have little basis for competing claims of exclusivity. Rabbinic Judaism has maintained for centuries that a person will be judged according to his or her deeds. Likewise, according to Matt 25:31-46, the Son of Man will determine a candidate’s fate based on his or her previous merciful conduct. The criteria for judgment which are mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels seem to be in general harmony with those emphasized in the best of rabbinic literature. Thus, the Synagogue and the Church could find much common ground in centering on the criteria for judgment as opposed to the identity of the judge.

2) If I were to compose a sound bite in order to capture the essence of entering the kingdom of heaven, I might suggest that through the radical obedience of a few, God touches the lives of many in a palpable redemptive way. His touch of redemption comes with no expectations and it is typically manifested among those whom one 19^th century American social reformer called the “dangerous classes” and “debased poor.”34 This type of redemptive extremism (as exemplified by Bill Tomes and Mary Clarke) leads to a spread of the Christian faith which rarely offends. The rabbinic concept of receiving the kingdom of heaven (i.e., yielding one’s will to the Divine will), although it is a very important starting point for gaining key insights into Jesus’ teachings, differs from the synoptic concept of entering the kingdom of heaven. Thus, rabbinic Jews can receive the kingdom of heaven while Christians pursue entering it without either party causing injury to the other. The latter, however, is not “institutional-tight” nor confined to the pale of a community. Therefore, it transcends the (sad) ongoing relationship between the Synagogue and Church. Pious Jews should be able to endorse activity associated with entry into the kingdom of heaven, and even rejoice because of it, while Christians who have entered Jesus’ movement or who labor on the outside to facilitate its expansion embrace a humane and very conservative theology which has emancipated itself from all elements of anti-Judaism.

3) When surveying the activities and programs which characterize American and Western European churches, I am inclined to associate most of them with the cultivation of excellent candidates for inheriting eternal life. Pastors, preachers, and priests regularly exhort their congregations to uphold the Ten Commandments and to be generous in their giving. But, often we describe ourselves as if we were meeting the high standards required for entering the kingdom of heaven. Or, we equate the requirements for entry with those for inheriting eternal life. In other words, human nature presses us to sidestep the unappealing aspects of Jesus’ teachings. We facilitate this artful dodge by inflating the assessment of our Christian lives while varnishing over the demands of Jesus’ words. To compensate for this inclination, I would suggest mustering the courage to face Jesus’ terms of discipleship, while at the same time deflating the assessment of our piety. Such an adjustment would need to be introduced first and foremost in our pulpits. The language of our sermons and the lyrics of some of our songs would need to change. I realize that this suggestion may seem impractical or even amusing, but it could be the right first step for breathing new life into our congregations by stimulating corporate repentance.

Endnotes

1 I have written in “reference to the past” because of Dodd’s use of the adjectives “unprecedented” and “unrepeatable.” I have added “and present” in parentheses because of his phrase “now in actual process.” I find Dodd’s conclusion nearly as ambiguous as the synoptic data which he intended to clarify. See C. H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (rev. ed.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961), 35.

2 The kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven are one and the same. See the paragraph below about the kingdom of heaven and its conceptual equivalents.

3 The “kingdom of God” is mentioned two times in the fourth gospel. See John 3:3, 5. I have already written about this topic in a popular booklet called The Kingdom of Heaven (Tulsa: HaKesher, 1998), 20-21. Regarding the Johanine portrayal of Jesus, Krister Stendahl commented: “In the synoptic tradition, however, —of which the Sermon on the Mount is a part—Jesus does not speak about himself. He speaks about the kingdom. But in the Gospel of John every symbol, every image, that occurs about the kingdom is transposed into an image for Jesus. Jesus tells stories about the shepherd and the sheep. But in John, Jesus is the Good Shepherd. Jesus tells stories about the seed of the kingdom. But in John, Jesus is the seed” (Meanings: The Bible as Document and as Guide (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 109.

4 The writer of Mark’s Gospel seems to have played an early role in equating the kingdom of God with life (i.e., eternal life). CF., Mark 9:43, 45 with v. 47. He apparently regarded eternal life and the kingdom of God as interchangeable, and both of these as antithetical to Gehenna. (Cf., Matt 5:29-30. These verses mention neither life (i.e., eternal life) nor the kingdom of God. Cf., Matt 18:8-9. These verses do not mention the kingdom of God.) Some modern commentators have followed Mark’s lead. For example, George E. Ladd wrote, “The Age to Come and the Kingdom of God are sometimes interchangeable termsl . . . . Resurrection life is therefore eternal life—the life of the Age to Come—the life of the Kingdom of God” (A Theology of the New Testament (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 44.

5 Morton Smith, “What Is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures?” JBL 78 (1959): 69. I am indebted to Gary Alley for bringing this article to my attention.

6 Brad Young, The Jewish Background to the Lord’s Prayer (Austin: Center for Judaic-Christian Studies, 1984; repr., Tulsa: Gospel Research Foundation, 1999), 42, note 20. For further discussion about the possible fusion of the coming of the Son of Man motif with the kingdom of heaven, see the appendix of my The Kingdom of Heaven. Not, too, that the Synoptic Tradition also includes uneven data regarding another topic as well. Does eternal life begin once a person dies, or after the resurrection of the dead? Could this ambiguity also reflect competing views of editors who contributed to the Synoptic Tradition? A similar inconsistent approach to when eternal life begins may be found in rabbinic literature. See Max Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind (3^rd ed.; New York: Bloch Publishing, 1972), 363-364.

7 To identify synoptic passages, I have used Kurt Aland’s pericope titles. See his “Index of the Gospel Parallels” in Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek-English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (6^th rev. ed.; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983), 341-355.

8 For the reader who is limited to English, the various ways in which the Hebrew word malkhut (lit. “kingdom”) is used can be confusing. Like a phrase of jargon, “the kingdom of heaven” is repeatedly used in the Synoptic Gospels and rabbinic literature. To distinguish this specific use of “kingdom” from other occurrences, it typically appears in the construct form. The most common examples of it in the construct form are malkhut shamaim (lit. “the kingdom of heaven”), malkhuto (lit. “his kingdom”), and malkhutkha (lit. “your kingdom”).

9 See David Flusser’s remarks on Luke 23:39-43, Jesus (2^nd corrected and augmented ed.; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1998), 171-172, note 78.

10 See the preceding note and the second part of note 6.

11 According to ancient literary sources, those members of the body through which transgression is committed will be punished in Gehenna more severely than other parts of the body. See Saul Lieberman, Texts and Studies (New York: Ktav Publishing, 1974), 46-47.

12 Robert Lindsey, Jesus Rabbi and Lord: The Hebrew Story of Jesus Behind Our Gospels (Oak Creek, Wisc.: Cornerstone Publishing, 1990), 71-72.

13 Cf., above note 4.

14 The Hebrew word olam carries various nuances. See Marcus Jastro, A Dictionary of the Targum, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Jastrow Publishers, 1967), 1052.

15 “In the synthetic parallelism, which is not well named, the second stich advances the thought of the first, rather than repeating it.” William Lasor, David Hubbard, and Fredrick Bush, Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form, and Background of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 310.

16 Rabbi Nehunya’s saying actually mentions three types of yokes: 1) Torah, 2) ruling authority (Heb. malkhut), and 3) mundane matters (Heb. derek eretz). Jesus made good use of the concept oal derek eretz (i.e., the yoke of mundane matters). See, for example, On Anxiety, On Serving Two Masters, and The Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:11). Nevertheless, this parlance of Avot 3:5 has no linguistic equivalent in the synoptics. The same is true for oal malkhut (i.e., the yoke of ruling authority). Although this sister concept is not clearly delineated in the synoptics, it can be detected in two pericopes, On Retaliation (Matt 6:41) and On Paying Tribute to Caesar. Regarding Matt 6:41, Jesus probably had a Roman legionnaire in mind when he suggested going two miles when forced to go only one. Apparently, in his approach to the yoke of ruling authority, Jesus viewed the demands of government as having little or no impact on the expansion of his kingdom movement. Caesar usually simply wanted money or labor, whereas God sought singular devotion from those who had entered the realm of his reign (i.e., the kingdom of heaven). Moreover, Jesus seems to have kept in focus the fact that temporal power was exercised by people who, despite their vanities and vices, still carried the imprint of God’s image and benefited from his sun and rain.

17 Hanock Albeck, The Mishnah, Seder Nezikin (Tel-Aviv: Dvir, 1988), 364. Note, too, Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahman’s saying in Lev. Rab. 19:1 and its conceptual similarity to On Anxiety. Birds, specifically ravens, play a key role in both contexts. See Mordecai Margulies, ed. Midrash Wayyikra Rabbah, Part 1 (3rd ed.; New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993), 414.

18 I have benefited from Judah Goldin, especially in his rendering of derek eretz as “mundane matters” (The Living Talmud: The Wisdom of the Fathers and Its Classical Commentaries (New York: Mentor Books, 1957), 124-125). Goldin translated the comments of several classical Jewish commentators on Avot 3:5. I will repeat three of those commentators’ remarks on the phrase “yoke of mundane matters:” 1) “That is, livelihood worries. Heaven will provide for [the scholar]” (Machsor Vitry); 2) “[This] refers to the necessity of providing for temporal needs” (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, better known as Maimonides); and 3) “[By this] is meant a person’s preoccupation with the details of living, bodily needs like food and drink and clothing and a place to live and marrying and raising children and other such things” (Joseph ben Judah ibn Aknin).

19 Brad Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables (Mahwah, N.J.: Paulist Press, 1989; repr., Tulsa: Gospel Research Foundation, 1999), 227, note 30a.

20 I did not include The Lawyer’s Question in this short list because, although Luke portrays the lawyer as testing Jesus with a question about eternal life, Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus was asked a question about the most important commandment.

21 In the Parble of the Rich Man & Lazarus, Lazarus is described as being poor and full of sores. Within some Jewish circles in antiquity, Lazarus’ chronic suffering would have been viewed as weighing in favor of his inheriting eternal life. According to b. Erub. 41b, people who suffer from poverty, diseases of the digestive tract, and the cruelties of the Roman government will be exempt from Gehenna. Cf., Isa 57:15-16 and Ps 34:18.

22 Cf., Matt 7:22-23. The words “depart from me, you doers of injustice” are reminiscent of Matt 25:41. According to Robert Lindsey, “In this latter saying [Matt 7:22-23] it is clear Jesus is talking about the day of judgment. These two sayings [Matt 7:21 and vs. 22-23] have apparently been put together by a late editor because he found each saying using the double “Lord, Lord” (Jesus Rabbi and Lord, 109).

23 Cf., Sifra, Akharei Mot, par. 8 on Lev 18:5.

24 Luke 5:11.

25 Luke 5:28. Cf., Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10), the story about the chief tax collector. Zacchaeus gave half of his wealth to the poor. It is hard to know whether Zacchaeus was giving charity and restoring fourfold to anybody whom he may have defrauded even before he encountered Jesus. (This point of grammar needs to be pursued and clarified by a scholar with expertise in Hellenistic Greek.) If so, then Jesus’ affirmation of Zacchaeus as a son of Abraham may have been a statement directed at fellow Jews watching the incident. (This possibility was raised in a discussion among Randy Buth, Chanah Safrai, David Bivin, and myself in Jerusalem, Israel.) Tax collectors were regarded as thieves, and Jewish collectors were seen as collaborating with the despised Roman government. (Zacchaeus’ name indicates that he was a Jew.) At any rate, no mention is made of the kingdom of heaven in the pericope, nor did Jesus instruct Zacchaeus to follow him. Apparently, Zacchaeus continued to collect taxes for Caesar. I assume, however, that he provided material support for Jesus’ band of disciples.

26 Matt 6:11. Cf., the Lukan parallel to this verse. Luke may have struggled with the implications of this line of the prayer. According to David Flusser, “Jesus drew even a more radical conclusion from the opinion that the present day contains its own blessing. He taught his disciples to pray: ‘Give us this day our daily bread.’ Even when one prays, one is to pray for the food of the present day only. Luke (11:3) did not understand Jesus’ Hillelite paradoxical formulation and rendered the original wording as follows: ‘Give us each day our daily bread’” (“Hillel and Jesus: Two Ways of Self-Awareness,” in Hillel and Jesus: Comparisons of Two Major Religious Leaders, eds. James Charlesworth and Loren Johns (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), p. 72). Note also Young, The Jewish Background to the Lord’s Prayer, 24-27.

27 Luke 14:25-33.

28 Jesus’ use of the verb “to enter” (probably Heb. lavoh, lit. “to come”) may support my claim that joining Jesus’ kingdom movement came at high personal cost. As has been documented by R. Lindsey, D. Flusser, D. Bivin, B. Young, myself and others, Jesus’ use of the kingdom of heaven resembles, but was certainly not identical with, rabbinic usage of the phrase. The rabbis preferred coupling the phrase with the verb “to receive.” They also spoke of seeing the kingdom of heaven. For example, see the prayer for the Friday Evening Service. At the start of each Sabbath, pious Jews recite that Israel “gladly received his kingdom” and that the people saw his kingdom at the Red Sea (Prayer Book for Jews in the Armed Forces of the United States (abr. And rev. ed.; New York: National Jewish Welfare Board, 1943), 23-24). (In the Synoptic Tradition, the verb “to receive” does not appear coupled with the kingdom of heaven. Regarding the verb “to see,” note Matt 11:4-5 and 13:17. The implied direct object of the verb “to see” is probably his kingdom (the kingdom of heaven), i.e., the palpable manifestations of God’s redemptive activity, whereas the implied direct object of the verb “to hear” is probably the reports circulating about the miracles of healing.) The verb “to enter” (Heb. lavoh) was used by the writer of Ben Sira (the Heb. orig. of Sirach), the Dead Sea Sect, and later by the rabbis in a way which carried covenantal connotations. “The phrase, ‘entry into the covenant of Abraham our father,’ used to this day for the ceremony of circumcision, is already found in the Damascus Document 12:11” (Israel Moses Ta-Shma, “Abraham,” EncJud 2:116). Ben Sira 44:20 also speaks of Abraham entering into a covenant with God. The Dead Sea Sect used the verb “to enter” to speak about joining their community which required coming into a covenant with God. For example, see 1QS 1:16. In CD 6:19 and 8:21, the members of the sect are referred to as “those who have entered the new covenant.” When speaking of potential converts, the rabbis spoke in a similar manner. According to Saul Lieberman, “The word bain [lit. “coming, entering”] is a shortened technical term for coming to embrace a new faith (or new principles)” (Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1994), 80. Those who joined the Dead Sea Sect were required to relinquish their wealth to the sect and to submit to its austere code of conduct. (Cf., Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-37.) For linguistic reasons, note well 1 QS 5:7 where the Hebrew preposition following the verb “to enter” is not the usual letter bet, but the letter lamed. The Hebrew preposition lamed (lit. “to”) corresponds closely to the Greek preposition eis. Commenting on the verb “to enter” in the sectarian literature of the Dead Sea Sect and rabbinic literature, Lieberman already called attention to 1QS 5:7 (Texts and Studies, 203). The content of this footnote was drawn from a lecture which I gave in Redlands, CA on March 6, 1999 at an annual conference which the Centre for the Study of Biblical Research sponsored.

29 Cf., Matt 7:21. Jesus recognized that sometimes a gap exists between a person’s words and deeds, or that self-perception could be inflated. Saying “Lord, Lord” was easy, but genuine allegiance was another matter. Verse 21 is probably a floating saying of Jesus and should not be treated as being originally connected with vs. 20 and 22-23. According to Lindsey, “Occasionally he [the editor] placed together sayings (which appeared originally in quite different contexts) on the basis of some common word in the newly joined texts: one of these we saw in Matthew 7:21 where ‘Lord, Lord’ appears in a text dealing with people joining the Kingdom of God during Jesus’ ministry while next to this, in Matthew 7:22, 23 we find ‘Lord, Lord’ in a text dealing with the judgment at the end of the age” (Jesus Rabbi and Lord, 210). Cf., above note 22.

30 Cf., Flusser, Jesus, 258-275.

31 Matt 11:11.

32 Near the end of his long life, Benjamin Franklin wrote in a letter to his old friend Ezra Stiles the following:

Here is my creed. I believe in one God, creator of the universe. That he governs it by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

(Excerpted from H. W. Brands, The First American: The Life and Times of Benjamin Franklin (New York: Anchor Books, 2002), 707. In the current writer’s opinion, Franklin communicated with an economy of words what lies at the core of a (Jewish or Christian) life well-lived.

33 I have noticed in books about Saint Francis and Mother Teresa that these two gravitated toward verses in the Synoptic Gospels. These verses tend to be the same verses which Robert Lindsey claimed were the least redacted and, therefore, the most authentic of the Synoptic Tradition. This observation requires further investigation to determine its validity.

34 See now Ronald Walters, American Reformers 1815-1860 (rev. ed.; New York: Hill and Wang, 1997), 181-182. See especially Ron Stodghill’s article about Brother Bill Tomes (“In the Line of Fire,” Time (20 Apr 1998): n.p.) and Mary Jordan and Kevin Sullivan’s biography of Mary Clarke (i.e., Mother Antonia) (The Prison Angel (New York: Penguin Press, 2005)).