What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God
English, German (translation)
148 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1971
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
July 15, 2026
WHAT DID JESUS MEAN BY ‘THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NEAR’?
Johannes Weiss (1863-1914) was a German theologian and biblical scholar, who taught at Gӧingen, the University of Breslau, and the University of Heidelberg. He was a member of the ‘History of Religions’ school, a founder of the modern ‘Eschatological Interpretation’ of Jesus, a founder of Form Criticism, and even the one who named the hypothetical common source of Matthew and Luke as ‘Q.’
The Introduction to this 1892 book by Richard H. Hiers and David Lattimore Holland explains, “It was this work … which marks the turning point from 19th to 20th century New Testament research. Both the ‘demythologizing’ controversy and the ‘new quest for the historical Jesus,’ which first came to the attention of most American readers only in the 1950s, are responses to the eschatological interpretation of Jesus and the early Christian community. The eschatological interpretation made it clear that Jesus was not a modern man, that many of his beliefs and ideas (and those of the early church as well) cannot be presented to modern believers as articles of faith. The mythological elements… must be interpreted in categories intelligible and credible to modern men…
“Recognition of the eschatological beliefs of Jesus---a recognition that by no means took place immediately or without resistance---also meant that the historical Jesus could no longer be identified either with the modern Jesus or the ‘liberal lives of Jesus’ or with the traditional Jesus of Christian piety. Whereas the ‘old’ quest of the historical Jesus had been undertaken by liberal writers in the hope of finding a Jesus who, like themselves, could be liberated from traditional dogmas, the ‘new’ quest has been pursued by more theologically oriented writers with the hope of discovering a historical Jesus who is not altogether uncongenial, and, if possible, somehow related to the kerygmatic Christ.” (Pg. 2-3)
Weiss state, “According to the oldest report, “Jesus appeared in Galilee with a message, the content of which was briefly set forth… as follows: ‘The kingdom of God has come near.’… The meaning of this well-attested proclamation of Jesus and his disciples seems quite clear: The Kingdom (or the rule) of God has drawn so near that it stands at the door.” (Pg. 65-66)
He cites a number of attempted paraphrases of Jesus’ statement, but comments, “These paraphrasing interpretations of the alleged meaning cannot appeal, as even their proponents concede, to any passage in the Gospels in which the equation of the band of disciples with the Kingdom of God is clearly or plainly made. But that is… a serious setback. For if Jesus, as usually assumed, had been so intensely concerned as to correct the popular concept of the Kingdom, he would have had to state that concern, if it were to be understood at all, very frequently and emphatically. Surely our evangelists---at least Mark and Matthew... would not have let any such saying as this escape them.” (Pg. 69)
He argues, “What speaks more forcefully than all else against the kind of interpretation to which we have been objecting is the fact that Jesus put in the mouths of his disciples, as the FIRST petition of their prayer, the words:… ‘Thy kingdom come.’ … The meaning is not ‘may thy Kingdom grow,’ ‘may thy Kingdom be perfected,’ but rather, ‘may thy Kingdom COME.. For the disciples, the Kingdom is not yet here, not even in its beginnings… This yearning and longing for its coming, this ardent prayer for it, and the constant hope that it will come---that it will come soon---this is their religion.” (Pg. 73)
He clarifies, “we may infer indirectly that at some earlier period in his ministry Jesus believed the coming of the Kingdom closer than turned out later to be the case. Otherwise, how is one to interpret the fact that already during his lifetime he sent his disciples on a mission through the land of the Jews? To speak of a trial or practice mission does not seem to me permissible. What could be the purpose of any testing of apprenticeship if it was not carried out under the eye of the Master? Rather, the sending out of the twelve has very much the character of a ‘supporting mission.’ It purpose was to multiply the preaching about the coming Kingdom, to scatter abroad the seed of the word over larger fields than ONE sower alone could reach. But how is such a mission to be accounted for, other than on the supposition that SPEED above all was essential, that no time be lost?…. The disciples were admonished … that in case a town should not receive them, they were immediately and emphatically to abandon all further attempts to approach it and shake off the dust from their feet. Such procedure is anything but ‘pastoral,’ and certainly does not correspond to what we would expect from a preacher of the Gospel. It can only be explained on the supposition that no time may be lost with fruitless or problematical efforts. Where they meet with unresponsiveness, no more energy may be wasted there which might be better directed toward receptive souls. The expectation of the IMMEDIATE onset of the end forms the background for these ideas.” (Pg. 85-86)
He suggests, “Ordinarily, the ‘many’ on whose behalf Jesus offers his life is interpreted to mean the followers and disciples of Jesus. But why would they need a ransom? Had he not promised them upon their repentance the sure possession of the Kingdom? Had not he inspired them… with the certainty that their sins were forgiven and thus formed no obstacle to their entrance into the Kingdom?” (Pg. 88)
He asserts that in Luke 17:20, “Here all that is said is that the Kingdom of God does not come in such a way that one can observe its coming by means of certain signs. Usually it is assumed that all outward events in connection with the coming of the Kingdom of God are here repudiated, so that it comes only in an ‘inward’ manner. But this is impossible if one considers Jesus’ outlook as a whole. For example… the entire old world will break up with the coming of the Kingdom. Does this not imply outward events?… One cannot observes its coming in advance. One cannot say: Look here! Look there! See, there are the decisive signs! To illustrate how false this whole method is, he cites the fact that despite all their calculations and combinations it has escaped the Pharisees that the decisive beginnings of the rule of God are already present in their midst.” (Pg. 90-91)
He states, “Jesus supposed, and in fact said to their faces to those accompanying him, therefore probably even to the great crowds which were favorable to him… that this requirement applied to ALL OF THEM. All of them will find their family life and their usual human relationships brought to ruin. All, therefore, come under the requirement. Surely it cannot be that these most ethical relationships which were ordained by God could ever come to grief, even under the most extraordinary circumstances! But Jesus assumes that this is the rule! This would be shocking and inconceivable had Jesus meant here to proclaim an ethical law for his church, a requirement for ‘the members of the Kingdom of God.’ No, this cannot be what Jesus meant, for in the Kingdom of God there is no marriage at all.” (Pg. 111)
He summarizes, “We see from this historical survey that our modern Protestant ethic, which certainly is not a human creation but is disclosed through ‘men of God,’ does not represent a simple application of the teaching of Jesus. Jesus’ prophetic demands were born out of a religious attitude which, at any rate, in this form we cannot expect to relive in our daily experience, but only, at most, once each century. And it is important, therefore, to make clear to ourselves that, just as we always sing Luther’s words with a few reservations and modifications, so likewise, we cannot mean Jesus’ words in the exact sense that was originally intended. If this is clear to us theologians, then perhaps it will not hurt if our congregations come to know something about it too.” (Pg.113-114)
He acknowledges “two sayings which no previous interpretation has been able to make intelligible. These are the two Markan passages 2:10 (‘the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’) and 2:28 (‘the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath’)… The problem is… that in these passages the title ‘Son of man’ is absolutely unintelligible to his opponents… The passage is understandable only in terms of the thesis of Baur… who sees no more than a Hebraistic expression for ‘man.’ … Thus in the judgment of the people it is also praiseworthy that God has transferred a divine authority to mankind in the person of Jesus.” (Pg. 123-124)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the life of Jesus, and the interpretation of his words.
Johannes Weiss (1863-1914) was a German theologian and biblical scholar, who taught at Gӧingen, the University of Breslau, and the University of Heidelberg. He was a member of the ‘History of Religions’ school, a founder of the modern ‘Eschatological Interpretation’ of Jesus, a founder of Form Criticism, and even the one who named the hypothetical common source of Matthew and Luke as ‘Q.’
The Introduction to this 1892 book by Richard H. Hiers and David Lattimore Holland explains, “It was this work … which marks the turning point from 19th to 20th century New Testament research. Both the ‘demythologizing’ controversy and the ‘new quest for the historical Jesus,’ which first came to the attention of most American readers only in the 1950s, are responses to the eschatological interpretation of Jesus and the early Christian community. The eschatological interpretation made it clear that Jesus was not a modern man, that many of his beliefs and ideas (and those of the early church as well) cannot be presented to modern believers as articles of faith. The mythological elements… must be interpreted in categories intelligible and credible to modern men…
“Recognition of the eschatological beliefs of Jesus---a recognition that by no means took place immediately or without resistance---also meant that the historical Jesus could no longer be identified either with the modern Jesus or the ‘liberal lives of Jesus’ or with the traditional Jesus of Christian piety. Whereas the ‘old’ quest of the historical Jesus had been undertaken by liberal writers in the hope of finding a Jesus who, like themselves, could be liberated from traditional dogmas, the ‘new’ quest has been pursued by more theologically oriented writers with the hope of discovering a historical Jesus who is not altogether uncongenial, and, if possible, somehow related to the kerygmatic Christ.” (Pg. 2-3)
Weiss state, “According to the oldest report, “Jesus appeared in Galilee with a message, the content of which was briefly set forth… as follows: ‘The kingdom of God has come near.’… The meaning of this well-attested proclamation of Jesus and his disciples seems quite clear: The Kingdom (or the rule) of God has drawn so near that it stands at the door.” (Pg. 65-66)
He cites a number of attempted paraphrases of Jesus’ statement, but comments, “These paraphrasing interpretations of the alleged meaning cannot appeal, as even their proponents concede, to any passage in the Gospels in which the equation of the band of disciples with the Kingdom of God is clearly or plainly made. But that is… a serious setback. For if Jesus, as usually assumed, had been so intensely concerned as to correct the popular concept of the Kingdom, he would have had to state that concern, if it were to be understood at all, very frequently and emphatically. Surely our evangelists---at least Mark and Matthew... would not have let any such saying as this escape them.” (Pg. 69)
He argues, “What speaks more forcefully than all else against the kind of interpretation to which we have been objecting is the fact that Jesus put in the mouths of his disciples, as the FIRST petition of their prayer, the words:… ‘Thy kingdom come.’ … The meaning is not ‘may thy Kingdom grow,’ ‘may thy Kingdom be perfected,’ but rather, ‘may thy Kingdom COME.. For the disciples, the Kingdom is not yet here, not even in its beginnings… This yearning and longing for its coming, this ardent prayer for it, and the constant hope that it will come---that it will come soon---this is their religion.” (Pg. 73)
He clarifies, “we may infer indirectly that at some earlier period in his ministry Jesus believed the coming of the Kingdom closer than turned out later to be the case. Otherwise, how is one to interpret the fact that already during his lifetime he sent his disciples on a mission through the land of the Jews? To speak of a trial or practice mission does not seem to me permissible. What could be the purpose of any testing of apprenticeship if it was not carried out under the eye of the Master? Rather, the sending out of the twelve has very much the character of a ‘supporting mission.’ It purpose was to multiply the preaching about the coming Kingdom, to scatter abroad the seed of the word over larger fields than ONE sower alone could reach. But how is such a mission to be accounted for, other than on the supposition that SPEED above all was essential, that no time be lost?…. The disciples were admonished … that in case a town should not receive them, they were immediately and emphatically to abandon all further attempts to approach it and shake off the dust from their feet. Such procedure is anything but ‘pastoral,’ and certainly does not correspond to what we would expect from a preacher of the Gospel. It can only be explained on the supposition that no time may be lost with fruitless or problematical efforts. Where they meet with unresponsiveness, no more energy may be wasted there which might be better directed toward receptive souls. The expectation of the IMMEDIATE onset of the end forms the background for these ideas.” (Pg. 85-86)
He suggests, “Ordinarily, the ‘many’ on whose behalf Jesus offers his life is interpreted to mean the followers and disciples of Jesus. But why would they need a ransom? Had he not promised them upon their repentance the sure possession of the Kingdom? Had not he inspired them… with the certainty that their sins were forgiven and thus formed no obstacle to their entrance into the Kingdom?” (Pg. 88)
He asserts that in Luke 17:20, “Here all that is said is that the Kingdom of God does not come in such a way that one can observe its coming by means of certain signs. Usually it is assumed that all outward events in connection with the coming of the Kingdom of God are here repudiated, so that it comes only in an ‘inward’ manner. But this is impossible if one considers Jesus’ outlook as a whole. For example… the entire old world will break up with the coming of the Kingdom. Does this not imply outward events?… One cannot observes its coming in advance. One cannot say: Look here! Look there! See, there are the decisive signs! To illustrate how false this whole method is, he cites the fact that despite all their calculations and combinations it has escaped the Pharisees that the decisive beginnings of the rule of God are already present in their midst.” (Pg. 90-91)
He states, “Jesus supposed, and in fact said to their faces to those accompanying him, therefore probably even to the great crowds which were favorable to him… that this requirement applied to ALL OF THEM. All of them will find their family life and their usual human relationships brought to ruin. All, therefore, come under the requirement. Surely it cannot be that these most ethical relationships which were ordained by God could ever come to grief, even under the most extraordinary circumstances! But Jesus assumes that this is the rule! This would be shocking and inconceivable had Jesus meant here to proclaim an ethical law for his church, a requirement for ‘the members of the Kingdom of God.’ No, this cannot be what Jesus meant, for in the Kingdom of God there is no marriage at all.” (Pg. 111)
He summarizes, “We see from this historical survey that our modern Protestant ethic, which certainly is not a human creation but is disclosed through ‘men of God,’ does not represent a simple application of the teaching of Jesus. Jesus’ prophetic demands were born out of a religious attitude which, at any rate, in this form we cannot expect to relive in our daily experience, but only, at most, once each century. And it is important, therefore, to make clear to ourselves that, just as we always sing Luther’s words with a few reservations and modifications, so likewise, we cannot mean Jesus’ words in the exact sense that was originally intended. If this is clear to us theologians, then perhaps it will not hurt if our congregations come to know something about it too.” (Pg.113-114)
He acknowledges “two sayings which no previous interpretation has been able to make intelligible. These are the two Markan passages 2:10 (‘the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’) and 2:28 (‘the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath’)… The problem is… that in these passages the title ‘Son of man’ is absolutely unintelligible to his opponents… The passage is understandable only in terms of the thesis of Baur… who sees no more than a Hebraistic expression for ‘man.’ … Thus in the judgment of the people it is also praiseworthy that God has transferred a divine authority to mankind in the person of Jesus.” (Pg. 123-124)
This book will be of great interest to those studying the life of Jesus, and the interpretation of his words.
August 9, 2020
ABSOLUTE SATANIC ANTI-CHRISTIAN TRASH!
Author Weiss is a German Liberal whose ideas and false teachings undermining Christianity were followed and developed by Albert Schweitzer and Freidrich Schleiermacher. Weiss invented the "Eschatological School" claiming Jesus didn't think he was God or the Messiah and falsely/wrongly predicted the end of the world to occur around 70AD. Jesus was wrong and so Paul and the Hellenistic gentile Christians FIXED/Corrected Jesus and made Christianity to be future looking. This piece of trash book sets "Jewish Christianity" against "Greek Hellenized Pauline Christianity" to "discover" the "TRUE" Primitive Jewish Church/Christianity. Weiss rejects authorship of many books of Bible and so throws out books of the Bible as "unreliable sources." He tells you Jesus was wrong and the author of Acts was wrong. That Paul contradicts the author of Acts (who he says was not Luke). He COMPLETELY BOTCHES any valid interpretation of the book of Acts. Weiss clearly couldn't read a book. He invents fanciful misinterpretations of the Bible that he cooked up in his head and then claims these interpretations are true and so proof the authors who wrote the Bible (God and man) WERE WRONG!!!! What an arrogant man. This book is fiction and deserves an F grade.
Author Weiss is a German Liberal whose ideas and false teachings undermining Christianity were followed and developed by Albert Schweitzer and Freidrich Schleiermacher. Weiss invented the "Eschatological School" claiming Jesus didn't think he was God or the Messiah and falsely/wrongly predicted the end of the world to occur around 70AD. Jesus was wrong and so Paul and the Hellenistic gentile Christians FIXED/Corrected Jesus and made Christianity to be future looking. This piece of trash book sets "Jewish Christianity" against "Greek Hellenized Pauline Christianity" to "discover" the "TRUE" Primitive Jewish Church/Christianity. Weiss rejects authorship of many books of Bible and so throws out books of the Bible as "unreliable sources." He tells you Jesus was wrong and the author of Acts was wrong. That Paul contradicts the author of Acts (who he says was not Luke). He COMPLETELY BOTCHES any valid interpretation of the book of Acts. Weiss clearly couldn't read a book. He invents fanciful misinterpretations of the Bible that he cooked up in his head and then claims these interpretations are true and so proof the authors who wrote the Bible (God and man) WERE WRONG!!!! What an arrogant man. This book is fiction and deserves an F grade.
April 21, 2016
When reviewing books in biblical studies, a few considerations are in order, such as - How significant is the contribution? How engaging is the work? How clear and well argued is the thesis? These and other such questions can be asked, not all of them of equal importance. To my mind, the bulk of my interest in Weiss is based on his contribution to the history of research, and for the scale of his importance, he deserves a decent review; however, it must be said that, although provocative for his time, and incredibly important to the evolution of biblical studies, I do not find many of his arguments convincing, and most of them were given too little support by way of exegesis of specific texts. I think this was Weiss' aim; he was, after all, proposing something that would shake the world of Jesus research, and it seemed he was content to simply throw out these ideas in a simple and brief form, to test the waters of receptivity. It worked.
Weiss' principle argument, is that the kingdom of God in Jesus' teaching is quite different than the way in which it is conceived in the modern church. He was convinced that the kingdom is entirely eschatological, and therefore contains little relevance to the modern church. Weiss' argument was revolutionary for a late 19th century understanding, which wanted to sanitize the kingdom and use it as a launching off point for ethics, social justice, and gospel proclamation (referring to justification by faith alone). Weiss helped to completely redefine what it meant to read the gospel accounts, casting them in a much more forward looking and historical light than had been done previously. It should be noted that, at the time, it was Schweitzer, following Weiss, who really made the biggest splash in the scholarly world with these specific arguments, but looking back on it from the current perspective Weiss' contribution is recognized as influential.
Even today, 100 years after he published, I agree with Weiss that modern church communities, and modern preaching, have grossly misunderstood the kingdom. However, it is in how this is done that we diverge. I needed to see more exegesis. I agree with Weiss as to the eschatological nature of the kingdom, but disagree that it is entirely so, and I certainly disagree with its irrelevance to modern faith communities. Overall, the book deserves to be read, and it is insightful, but since Weiss the pendulum regarding the realized aspects of the kingdom in Jesus' preaching has swung into a more moderate position, and it is all the better for having done so.
Weiss' principle argument, is that the kingdom of God in Jesus' teaching is quite different than the way in which it is conceived in the modern church. He was convinced that the kingdom is entirely eschatological, and therefore contains little relevance to the modern church. Weiss' argument was revolutionary for a late 19th century understanding, which wanted to sanitize the kingdom and use it as a launching off point for ethics, social justice, and gospel proclamation (referring to justification by faith alone). Weiss helped to completely redefine what it meant to read the gospel accounts, casting them in a much more forward looking and historical light than had been done previously. It should be noted that, at the time, it was Schweitzer, following Weiss, who really made the biggest splash in the scholarly world with these specific arguments, but looking back on it from the current perspective Weiss' contribution is recognized as influential.
Even today, 100 years after he published, I agree with Weiss that modern church communities, and modern preaching, have grossly misunderstood the kingdom. However, it is in how this is done that we diverge. I needed to see more exegesis. I agree with Weiss as to the eschatological nature of the kingdom, but disagree that it is entirely so, and I certainly disagree with its irrelevance to modern faith communities. Overall, the book deserves to be read, and it is insightful, but since Weiss the pendulum regarding the realized aspects of the kingdom in Jesus' preaching has swung into a more moderate position, and it is all the better for having done so.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews