^{page 27 note 1} Kümmel, W. G., Promise and Fulfilment (London, 1957), pp. 141–55.Google Scholar Cf. Perrin, N., The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (Philadelphia, 1963), p. 159.Google Scholar

^{page 27 note 2} Since The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (London, 1936, pp. 84–7)Google ScholarProfessor Dodd himself has gone beyond ‘realized eschatology’. In The Second Coming of Christ (Cambridge, 1951, p. 17)Google Scholar, for example, he recognizes an expectation of a final consummation in Jesus' teaching. However, since it is ‘beyond history’, it is doubtful that Dodd allows for a ‘future’ eschatology any more than before. Cf. Lundström, G., The Kingdom of God in the Teaching of Jesus (Richmond, Virginie, 1963), p. 250.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 1} Acts i. 5; xi. 16. The Fourth Gospel, which like Mark and Acts omits ‘in fire’, has the same meaning. Cf. John, i. 33; vii. 39; xx. 22.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 2} Wellhausen, J., Das Evangelium Matthaei (Berlin, 1904), p. 6Google Scholar; Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels (London, 1927), p. 206Google Scholar; Creed, J. M., The Gospel According to St Luke (London, 1930), p. 54Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York, 1963 (1931)), p. 111 n.Google Scholar; Manson, T. W., The Sayings of Jesus (London, 1949), p. 41Google Scholar; Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St Mark (London, 1959), p. 157Google Scholar; cf. Kraeling, C. H., John the Baptist (New York, 1951), pp. 58–64, 114–18.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 3} Barrett, C. K., The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London, 1958), p. 126.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 4} Luke, iii. 17Google Scholar; cf. Isa, . xxxi. 9, lxvi. 15 f.Google Scholar; Amos, vii. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 5} Bultmann, op. cit.

^{page 28 note 6} Taylor, op. cit. This objection carries weight only on the supposition that John could say nothing new; for this teaching is presented as the core of the Baptist's message. One cannot rule out the possibility, moreover, that for the Qumran sect the eschatological gift of a holy spirit was an act of Messiah. Cf. Black, M., The Scrolls and Christian Origins (London, 1961), p. 135Google Scholar; 1 QS iv. 21; Test. Levi, xviii. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 28 note 7} Bultmann, (op. cit. pp. 24, 153 f.)Google Scholar admits as much. He regards Mark x. 38 f. as ‘a clear vaticinium ex eventu’ in which ‘the way to exaltation lies through martyrdom’. For him Luke xii. 49 f. also is a construction of the Church, perhaps a Gnostic motif in which a destructive ‘fire’ on earth corresponds to the Spirit's baptismal anointing of the Redeemer in heaven.

^{page 28 note 8} Cf. Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W. (Bauer, W.), Greek–English Lexicon (Chicago, 1957), S.V.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 1} In the Old Testament and Judaism fire is a rather common symbol or description of divine or angelic glory. Cf. Lang, F., T.W.N.T. vi, 934 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Exod, . xix. 18Google Scholar; II Kings, vi. 17Google Scholar; Ps. civ. 4; Enoch, xiv. 9 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 2} That is, Israel will be ‘winnowed’, cleansed and refined by the destruction of evil-doers. Cf. Gray, G. B., The Book of Isaiah (New York, 1912), 1, 80.Google Scholar Possibly, however, it is a cleansing fire signifying only ‘das Wunder der Umwandlung sündiger Menschen’ ( Eichrodt, W., Der Heilige in Israel, Stuttgart, 1960, p. 64).Google Scholar Cf. Exod, . iii. 2Google Scholar; Sanh, . 39a.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 3} Cf. Mark, ix. 48 f.Google Scholar; Rev. xix. 12, 20. ‘Blood and fire’ (Acts ii. 19) may indicate only general disaster ( Bewer, J. A., Obadiah and Joel, New York, 1911, pp. 123 f.Google Scholar). More likely the phrase alludes to the plagues of the Exodus (recently, Weiser, A., Das Buch der Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, Göttingen, 1959, pp. 120 f.)Google Scholar. Cf. Exod, . vii. 17Google Scholar; ix. 24; Rev. viii. 7 f. It is standard apocalyptic imagery. Cf. Lang, F., T.W.N.T. vi, 947.Google Scholar

^{page 29 note 4} Cf: also Enoch, xiv. 9–22; xviii. 9 ff.Google Scholar In 4 Ezra xiii. 10; xiv. 39 fire is, respectively, the agent by which Messiah destroys his enemies and the symbol of prophetic inspiration in the Holy Spirit. Cf. Philo, , Quis rerum, LI (251) on Exod. xix. 18Google Scholar; de vita Mosis, 1, 13 (69 f.)Google Scholar.

^{page 29 note 5} If one wishes to venture it, John's baptism ‘in water’ also could be taken as originally a token of judgement. Cf. II Pet, . iii. 6 f.Google Scholar; Isa, . iv. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 1} The problem has no easy solution. ‘Fire’ may represent a pesher in a Q tradition to the Pentecostal experience. Or ‘Holy Spirit’ may represent an interpretative explanation of the original ‘fire’, an explanation substituted by Mark (or his source) and conflated by Q. The order, ‘Holy Spirit and fire’, favours the former. Favouring the latter are passages in which ‘Holy Spirit’ appears to be a secondary substitution (cf. Matt, . xii. 28Google Scholar; Luke, xi. 13) and the fact that Jesus himself used ‘fire’ in this fashion (Google ScholarMark, ix. 49Google Scholar; Luke, xii. 49). Instances of agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark are too few to establish any tendency on the part of Q traditions toward this type of conflation. Cf.Google ScholarLuke, ix. 41Google Scholar = Matt, . xvii. 17Google Scholar; Mark, viii. 35.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 2} Cf. Plummer, A., The Gospel According to St Luke (Edinburgh, 1922), p. 249Google Scholar; Manson, T. W., The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge, 1951), pp. 279–82.Google Scholar

^{page 30 note 3} Assuming the earliest dates for the Gospels, they can be placed only at the outer limits of Jesus' generation. Yet they all anticipate a considerable interval following the destruction of Jerusalem before the end. Cf. Mark, xiii. 10, 21 ff.Google Scholar; Matt, . xxiv. 23 ff.Google Scholar; Luke, xx. 24.Google ScholarKümmel, (op. cit. pp. 25, 60Google Scholar), who sees here and in Mark xiii. 32 an anticipation of the parousia in Jesus' generation, interprets the sayings in isolation from their contexts. Conzelmann, H. (The Theology of St Luke, London, p. 126Google Scholar) correctly observes that ‘anti-apocalyptic’ not only is a Lukan motif but is present already in Mark.

^{page 30 note 4} This motif is common in the New Testament. Cf. Luke, xxii. 28 ff.Google Scholar: Acts xiv. 22; Rom, . viii. 17Google Scholar; I Pet. iv. 12 ff.; Rev. vi. 11.

^{page 31 note 1} Mark, xiii. 26Google Scholar; Matt, . xxv. 31Google Scholar; cf. II Thess. i. 8 f.; Tit. ii. 13; I Pet. iv. 13. Dodd, C. H. (The Parables of the Kingdom, London, 1936, pp. 93 ff.Google Scholar) thinks that the parousia reference is secondary, but that is beside the point here.

^{page 31 note 2} The term elsewhere denotes the exposed plight of the unrighteous at the last judgement. Cf. Dan, . xii. 2Google Scholar; I John, ii. 28Google Scholar; Rev. iii. 17 f.; Ellis, E. E., Paul and his Recent Interpreters (Grand Rapids, 1961), pp. 44 f.Google Scholar ( = New Testament Studies, vi, 1959–60, 220 f.).Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 3} Cf. Taylor, V., p. 386Google Scholar; Kümmel, , op. cit. p. 25.Google Scholar Whether Luke, ix. 26Google Scholar = Mark, viii. 38Google Scholar is an altered form, original to the series (Burney), or an added unit (e.g. Kümmel, Taylor) is difficult to say. Cf. Burney, C. F., The Poetry of our Lord (Oxford, 1925), p. 142 n.Google Scholar; Kümmel, , op. cit. p. 44Google Scholar; Taylor, , op. cit. p. 382.Google Scholar

^{page 31 note 4} It appears likely that the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark as well as other textual phenomena point to a ‘Q’ tradition of this pericope. Dodd and Burney (following Streeter?) have so argued for Mark viii. 38. Cf. Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels (London, 1927), p. 521Google Scholar; in Synoptic Problem, ed. Sanday, W. (Oxford, 1911), pp. 428 f.Google Scholar; Burney, , op. cit. p. 142 n.Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., Parables, p. 94.Google Scholar Also, Black, M. (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford, 1946, p. 73)Google Scholar has noted that some textual variation between the Markan and Lukan forms of the verse may reflect a common Aramaic Vorlage. Compare Mark's (viii. 38 = Luke, ix. 26Google Scholar) one-armed saying with the similar full-orbed parallelism at Luke xii. 8 f. = Matt, . x. 32 f.Google Scholar; his addition of και το⋯ εύαγγελίου ( Mark, viii. 35Google Scholar; cf. x. 29); Bultmann, , op. cit. p. 111.Google Scholar If in the pre-Markan tradition this pericope already was joined to the Transfiguration episode, the case is strengthened for a parallel Q tradition of the whole. Note the Markan variants from Matthew = Luke at Mark ix. 2, 4, 6, 7. Cf. Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Berlin, 1961), p. 191.Google ScholarHaenchen, E. (Novum Testamentum, vi, 1963, 96)Google Scholar concludes, on insufficient grounds, that the structure of Mark viii. 27-ix. 1 is a Markan composition.

^{page 31 note 5} Everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God. It may be noted that the original ending of Luke ix. 26 completed a lengthened fourth line and climaxed the series in a fashion similar to that observed, for example, in the beatitudes. Cf. Luke, vi. 20 ff.Google Scholar; Daube, D., The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 196–201.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 1} Kümmel, (op. cit. pp. 28 f., 149)Google Scholar, taking τινες to refer to long-lived persons in the audience, observes that the parousia was not made immediate. This is true of the original setting, but it is less appropriate to say of the later situation when the verse was inserted here. Bultmann, (op. cit. p. 121)Google Scholar and others, who take the verse as a post-resurrection creation, think that τινες introduces a ‘delay’ in the parousia expectation. Cf. Conzelmann, , op. cit. p. 104 n.Google Scholar But as a substitute for the original parallelism it carries just the opposite meaning in the context.

^{page 32 note 2} When modifying a negative main clause, the conjunction, ἕως, regularly signifies that the event in the main clause will in fact occur when the statement of the dependent clause is fulfilled, Cf. Matt, . xvii. 9Google Scholar; xxiii. 39; Luke, xxii. 16, 34Google Scholar; John, ix. 18Google Scholar; Acts xxiii. 12; I Cor. iv. 5. There appear to be no certain exceptions to this rule in the New Testament although some passages are unclear. Elsewhere the ἕως clause sometimes absolutizes the negative. Cf. Isa, . xlii. 4Google Scholar; Barn, . xxi. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 32 note 3} The closest verbal parallel is John, iii. 3Google Scholar: ίδεīν τ⋯ν βασιλείαν τ ⋯υ θε ⋯υ. Bultmann, R. (Das Evangelium Johannes, Göttingen, 1959, p. 95 n.)Google Scholar regards the verse as a traditional saying.

^{page 32 note 4} Conzelmann, (op. cit. p. 103)Google Scholar rightly points to this; but it is a mistake to regard this sense of ‘seeing’ to be ‘peculiar to Luke’ (p. 192).

^{page 32 note 5} Matt, . xiii. 11Google Scholar= Luke, viii. 10Google Scholar has ‘to know (γν⋯ναι) the mysteries of the kingdom’. This agreement against Mark may point to a Q tradition of the saying.

^{page 32 note 6} Mark, viii. 17 f.Google Scholar Note the same reaction in John, vi. 26, 36Google Scholar, where the people, seeing, saw not. This fact then is tied to Isa, . vi. 9 f.Google Scholar in John, xii. 37–40.Google ScholarTaylor, (op. cit. pp. 257 f.)Google Scholar thinks that the connexion of Isa, . vi. 9 f.Google Scholar with the ‘signs’ generally is the original, pre-resurrection application; the specific application to parables was later, though pre-Markan. Cf. Lindars, B., New Testament Apologetic (London, 1961), p. 159.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 1} Luke, x. 9, 11Google Scholar: ἤγγικεν έφ ὐμ⋯ς. The context shows that it means not the chronological imminence of a future reality but the discriminating, ‘local’ imminence of a present reality: ‘the kingdom of God has come close to you’ (N.E.B.). Cf. Mark, xii. 34Google Scholar; Black, M., The Expository Times, LXIII (1952), 289 f.Google Scholar

^{page 33 note 2} Kümmel, (op. cit. pp. 23 f., 105–9)Google Scholar does not allow this. But the problem cannot be solved by the different and ambiguous wording, ἤγγικεν and ἕφθασεν the context should be allowed to have its full weight.

^{page 33 note 3} Most likely the idea was present at least in some Q traditions, since ‘these things’ of Luke, x. 21 f.Google Scholar= Matt, . xi. 25 ff.Google Scholar are the very signs that Jesus declared ( Luke, xi. 20)Google Scholar to be a present manifestation of the kingdom of God in their midst. This conclusion is strengthened if the agreement of Matt, . xiii. 11Google Scholar and Luke, viii. 10Google Scholar against Mark is, contra Streeter ( op. cit. p. 313)Google Scholar, assigned to a Q source.

^{page 33 note 4} This supposes, against Lindars ( op. cit. pp. 18 f., 30, 161 f.Google Scholar), that the rejection of his message already was an issue in Jesus' ministry and that he made use of the Old Testament to explain it.

^{page 33 note 5} Matt, . xiii. 11Google Scholar= Luke, viii. 10Google Scholar; Matt, . xi. 25 ff.Google Scholar = Luke, x. 21 f.Google Scholar (cf. Matt, . xvi. 16 f.Google Scholar; John, vi. 40, 69 f.Google Scholar); John, iii. 3.Google Scholar John represents an adaptation of ‘present’ eschatology to his situation. Dodd, C. H. (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1954, p. 304Google Scholar) reflects an older (and less satisfactory) reconstruction when he characterizes John, iii. 3Google Scholar as a ‘Johannine transmutation’ of futurist into realized eschatology.

^{page 34 note 1} Note the oscillation in Mark: in Mark, iv. 11 f.Google Scholar the mysteries are ‘given’ to the disciples; in Mark, viii. 17Google Scholar they do ‘not yet perceive’. Perhaps the successive stages of revelation in John, i. 49 ff.Google Scholar are a better analogy. After Nathanael's confession Jesus replies, ‘You shall see greater things’. Cf. Manson, , Teaching, pp. 119 f.Google Scholar J. M. Creed probably is correct, against Dodd, C. H., that the ‘coming in power’ (and not merely the ‘seeing’) is future and refers to a subsequent manifestation of the kingdom (Expository Times, XLVIII, 1936–7, 141 f., 184 f.).Google Scholar Indeed, Dodd, (p. 142Google Scholar) concedes this. ‘Future event’, however, does not necessarily mean ‘parousia’, as Dodd rightly insists.

^{page 34 note 2} The Matthean, (xvi. 28Google Scholar) alteration ‘Son of man coming in his kingdom’ is a different matter. However, in Matt, . x. 23Google Scholar the similar phrase in Matthew's mind can hardly mean the parousia (cf. Matt, . x. 18; xii. 18Google Scholar). Kümmel, (op. cit. pp. 62 ff.Google Scholar) interprets the verse in isolation from the context; Jeremias, J. (Jesus' Promise to the Nations, London, 1958, p. 20Google Scholar) proposes the unusual expedient of a post-parousia mission.

^{page 34 note 3} As Dodd, C. H. (Expository Times, XLVIII, 1936–7, 141 f.Google Scholar) has shown, the implication is not that the ‘coming’ is seen but that the kingdom first is present and then is ‘perceived’ to be present by ‘some’.

^{page 34 note 4} Cf. Rom, . i. 4Google Scholar; I Cor. iv. 20; Col. i. 11–13; II Thess. i. 7, 11; I Pet. i. 5. Mark, xiii. 26Google Scholar has μετ⋯δυνάμεως.

^{page 34 note 5} E.g. Luke, iv. 14, 36Google Scholar; ix. 1 f.; x. 9, 13; Acts i. 8; iv. 7.

^{page 34 note 6} E.g. Mark, xiii. 26 f.Google Scholar; xiv. 62; Matt, . xxv. 31Google Scholar; II Thess. i. 7 ff.; cf. I Thess. iv. 16 f.; Rev. i. 7.

^{page 34 note 7} For Luke the two prophets may correspond to angelic figures. Cf. Luke, ix. 30, 32Google Scholar with Luke, xxiv. 4Google Scholar; Acts i. 10.

^{page 34 note 8} Several scholars have argued along these lines. Cf. Taylor, , op. cit. pp. 387 f.Google Scholar

^{page 34 note 9} Luke, ix. 28Google Scholar may involve a symbolic identification of the transfiguration with a reality of the ‘eighth day’ of creation, i.e. of the new ‘resurrection’ age. Cf. Barn, . xv. 8 f.Google Scholar; Justin, , Dial. 138.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 1} In Luke, xvi. 16, 19–31Google Scholar the present good news of the kingdom precedes a parable on future reward and judgement; in Luke, xvii. 20 f., 22–37Google Scholar a declaration of the presence of the kingdom precedes a series of parousia sayings.

^{page 35 note 2} Contra, apparently, Robinson, J. M., Current Issues in New Testament Interpretation, ed. Klassen, W. and Snyder, G. F. (New York, 1962), pp. 103 f.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 3} Recently, Ladd, G. E., Jesus and the Kingdom (New York, 1964), p. 132Google Scholar; so, Rengstorf, K. H., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Göttingen, 1958), p. 273Google Scholar; Plummer, , op. cit. p. 535Google Scholar; Schlatter, A., Das Evangelium des Lukas (Stuttgart, 1960 (1931)), p. 447Google Scholar, who properly does not regard the variant readings έν and είς to be decisive for the question. Contra: Lampe, G. W. H., ‘Luke’, Peake's Commentary, ed. Black, M. (Edinburgh, 1962), p. 841.Google Scholar

^{page 35 note 4} One example is II Baruch, xxx. 1 f.Google Scholar (cf. lxxii-lxxiii): ‘ When the time of the advent of the Messiah is fulfilled…He shall return in glory. Then all who have fallen asleep in hope of Him shall rise again.’ The resurrection and last judgement often are thought to come after the (temporary) messianic reign. Cf. Schürer, E., A History of the Jewish People (New York, 1892), 11, ii, 175–81Google Scholar; Bousset, W., Die Religion des Judentums (Tübingen, 1926), pp. 259 ff.Google Scholar; Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (Oxford, 1913), 1, 131Google Scholar (on II Macc. vii).

^{page 36 note 1} The parallels to Mark, ix. 1; xiv. 61 f.Google Scholar, for example, show the way in which the Gospel tradition could shape such a saying. More unlikely is the view that the whole incident is a later creation. In support of this Bultmann, R. (Tradition, p. 309Google Scholar) draws a (questionable) analogy between the development from Mark, (xiv. 27Google Scholar) to Luke and the tendency of a folk-tale over the centuries to individualize and differentiate. But the Lukan story probably is not his elaboration of Mark; it represents a separate unit of tradition. Perhaps pertinently, Luke sometimes prefers σύν to μετά (cf. Luke, viii. 38Google Scholar with Mark, v. 18Google Scholar; Luke, xxii. 14Google Scholar with Mark, xiv. 17Google Scholar; Luke, xxii. 56Google Scholar with Mark, xiv. 67Google Scholar; άληθ⋯ς to άμήν (cf. Luke, ix. 27Google Scholar; xii. 44; xxi. 3 with Mark, ix. 1Google Scholar; Matt, . xxiv. 47Google Scholar; Mark, xii. 43Google Scholar). More importantly, μιμνήσκω always elsewhere in Luke—five times—derives from his special, usually ‘hebraizing’, traditional material (cf. Rehkopf, F., Die lukanische Sonderquelle, Tübingen, 1959, p. 95).Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 2} Cf. Luke, xxi. 7Google Scholar D with Matt, . xxiv. 3.Google Scholar The closest verbal parallel to the majority reading is Matt, . xvi. 28Google Scholar: ‘the Son of man coming in his kindgom’ . As noted above, a parousia interpretation is not entirely certain for this saying. Cf. Matt, . xxv. 31, 34.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 3} Cf. Conzelmann, , op. cit. p. 119 n.Google Scholar; Luke, xix. 38Google Scholar; Acts i. 6.

^{page 36 note 4} Cf. Kosmala, H., Hebräer-Essener-Christen (Leiden, 1959), pp. 418–20.Google Scholar For God to ‘remember’ a person means for him to act with regard to the person. Cf. Jeremias, J., The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Oxford, 1955), p. 163.Google Scholar

^{page 36 note 5} This figures in Kümmel's, (op. cit. p. 74Google Scholar) rejection of the verse as unauthentic.

^{page 36 note 6} This figures in Goguel's, M. (The Life of Jesus, New York, 1960 (1933), p. 539Google Scholar) rejection of the verse since it is at odds with the ‘resurrection’ eschatology of primitive Christianity.

^{page 36 note 7} A few reasonably early witnesses place the term with the preceding clause: ‘I say to you today’ (sy^c), or ‘today I say to you’ (Gos. of Nicodemus 26 = Descent 10). The construction is not impossible (e.g. Deut, . xxx. 18Google Scholar LXX), but it is out of harmony with the form of the ‘Amen sayings’ of the Gospels (cf. Mark, xiv. 30Google Scholar). The variants, as well as the omission of the verse by Marcion, may reflect the conviction that the usual reading of the verse was in conflict with Matt, . xii. 40.Google Scholar Cf. Westcott, B. F. and Hort, F. J. A., The New Testament: Appendix (London, 1882), pp. 68 f.Google Scholar; Rauer, M., Origenes, Werke (Leipzig, 1930), ix, 373Google Scholar; Tischendorf, C., Novum Testamentum Graece (Lipsiae, 1872), 1, 714 f.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 1} Cullmann, O., Christ and Time (London, 1951), p. 44.Google Scholar In Acts xvii. 30 f. the ‘now’ is subsequent to the ‘times of ignorance’ and a prelude to the ‘day’ of judgement and of final redemption. Cf. Luke, xvii. 30Google Scholar; Rom, . ii. 5Google Scholar; I Cor. v. 5. This frame of reference is fundamental for Luke's eschatology.

^{page 37 note 2} Luke, xxii. 69.Google Scholar Like John, (xii. 31; xiii. 31Google Scholar), Luke apparently views the death-resurrection-exaltation of Jesus as one event. Therefore, the ‘today’ of Luke, xxiii. 43Google Scholar should not be pin-pointed either at Good Friday or Easter Sunday. If from the lips of Jesus, it anticipates that the presence of the kingdom in his sign-miracles now will be manifest in his resurrection-exaltation. If a post-resurrection addition, it shifts Jesus' future, parousia, promise to his present exaltation.

^{page 37 note 3} Dupont, J., ΣγΝΧΡΙΣΤωΙ: L' Union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul (Louvain, 1952), pp. 92 f., 168.Google ScholarDupont, (pp. 18 f.Google Scholar) finds little difference in the sense of μετά and σύν; the latter represents a finer style. Cf. Mark, ii. 26 DGoogle Scholar; Luke, vii. 6 D; xxiv. 29 D.Google Scholar

^{page 37 note 4} Cf. Dupont, , op. cit. pp. 189–91.Google Scholar It is not, as Dupont seems to suppose, just a matter of change in the time of fulfilment and the emphasis upon individual fellowship. His (traditional) view requires a fundamental alteration in Paul's view of man and of death. Cf. I Cor. xv. 17 f., 53 ff.

^{page 38 note 1} Ellis, E. E., op. cit. p. 46Google Scholar ( = N.T.S. vi, 1959–60, 222).Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 2} E.g. Gal. ii. 20; Eph. ii. 5 f. ; cf. Ellis, , op. cit. pp. 36–40Google Scholar ( = N.T.S. vi, 1959–60, 212–16Google Scholar). Hahn, W. T. (Das Mitsterben und Mitauferstehung mit Christus bei Paulus, Gütersloh, 1937, pp. 96 f.Google Scholar) correctly sees that this involves ‘contemporaneity’ with the Christ event. Unfortunately he seeks to explain this from existentialist philosophy rather than from (exegetically preferable) Semitic categories of corporate solidarity. Cf. Shedd, R. P., Man in Community (London, 1958), pp. 56 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 3} It is mistaken, then, to say with Deissmann that regularly describes the Christians' present relation to Christ and σὺν χριστ the relation to Christ after death. Cf. Deissmann, G. A., Die neutestamentliche Formel ‘in Christo Jesu’ (Marburg, 1892), p. 126.Google Scholar For a recent summary and perceptive critique of studies of the σ⋯ν χριστ formula since Deissmann see Schnackenburg, R., Baptism in the Thought of St Paul (Oxford, 1964), pp. 170–7.Google Scholar Cf. Robinson, J. A. T., The Body (London, 1953), pp. 62 f.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 4} Grundmann, W. (T.W.N.T. vii, 793, 795Google Scholar) supposes that in Col. iii. 4 death is viewed as a departure (Hingang) to the ‘hidden’ life in Christ and that, therefore, the intermediate state includes the individual realization of and participation in the corporate reality ( Luke, xxiii. 43Google Scholar). But for Paul the ‘hidden’ life is not entered at death but is present from conversion. It is individually realized not at death but at the parousia.

^{page 38 note 5} Cf. N.E.B.: ‘those who died as Christians’; Ellis, , op. cit. p. 40 n.Google Scholar ( = N.T.S. vi, 1953–60, 216 n.Google Scholar); I Thess. iv. 16 (οί νεκροί έν χριστ); I Cor. xv. 18 (οι κοιμνθέντες έν χρıστ); I Thess. iv. 1 (έν κυρί) with I Thess. iv. 2 (δἰα τ ⋯υ κυρίου); Frame, J. E., Epistles of St Paul to the Thessalonians (Edinburgh, 1912), pp. 169 f.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 1} Cf. II Cor. xiii. 4: ; Morris, L., Epistles to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, 1959);Google ScholarMilligan, G., The First Epistle to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids, 1953 (1908)), p. 70Google Scholar: ‘through union with their Lord believers have an actual part in his experience’. Rom, . xiv. 8 f.Google Scholar expresses a similar idea: ‘…if we live, we always live in relation to the Lord (τ κυρί), and if we die, we always die in relation to the Lord.… For Christ died and lived again for the very purpose of being Lord of both the dead and the living’ (Williams).

^{page 39 note 2} Cf. Best, E., One Body in Christ (London, 1955), pp. 56 f.Google Scholar: ‘the formula, “with Christ”, suggests to us the inclusion of Christians in Christ’. I Cor. xii. 26 is a clue for the meaning of the συν-compounds in the texts relating to union with Christ. Cf. Schnackenburg, , op. cit. p. 175.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 3} Cf. I Thess. iv. 14 ff.; Col. iii. 4. So, Jones, M., The Epistle to the Philippians (London, 1918), p. lxxxiiiGoogle Scholar: ‘the thought here transcends all experience of an intermediate state and obliterates the interval between death and the full consummation of blessedness.’ On this interpretation Paul's ‘desire’ is a third, ‘far better’ alternative to the ‘hard pressed’ choice between life έν σαρκί and death. This view cannot be ruled out (cf. Sevenster, J. N., N.T.S. 1, 1954–5, 296Google Scholar). If one wishes to speculate, the third alternative might be translation. Cf. IV Ezra, xiv. 9Google Scholar: ‘thou shalt be taken up (recipieris) from among men, and henceforth thou shalt remain with (cum) my Son, and with such as are like thee, until the times be ended.’ But άναλ⋯σαι apparently will not bear this meaning.

^{page 39 note 4} Cf. Ellis, , op. cit. pp. 39f.Google Scholar ( = N.T.S. vi, 1959–60, 215 f.Google Scholar). The thought is similar to II Cor. iv. 10 ff.

^{page 39 note 5} In accord with Paul's aeon-eschatology the time of individual actualization of the with-Christ life awaits the parousia (cf. Phil, . iii. 21Google Scholar). The thought is similar to II Cor. v. 3 f.: those who in life or death are clothed (ένδυσάμενοι) in the corporate body of Christ will be ‘clothed upon’ (έπενδύσασθαι) with immortality individually at the parousia-resurrection. Cf. Ellis, , op. cit. p. 45 n.Google Scholar ( = N.T.S. vi, 1959–60, 221 n.).Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 6} The precise terminology does not occur. Apart from Luke xxiii. 43 the closest approximation is the personal association of the disciples ‘with Jesus’ in the pre-resurrection mission. Cf. Acts iv. 13; Luke, viii. 1; xxii. 14Google Scholar, 28 (μετ έμο⋯), 56. Perhaps the clause, ‘proclaiming with Jesus’ (Acts iv. 2), is not best understood corporately. Haenchen, E., Die Apostelgeschichte (Göttingen, 1959), p. 174 n.Google Scholar; cf. Eph, . iv. 17.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 7} Cf. Schweizer, E., T.W.N.T. vii, 1069 f.Google Scholar; Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1955), pp. 56 f.Google Scholar; Shedd, , op. cit. pp. 164 f.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 8} Cf. Via, D. O., Scottish Journal of Theology, xi (1958), 271–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Davies, W. D., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 97 f.Google Scholar; Ellis, E. E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1957), pp. 90 ff.Google Scholar An Adam-Christ typology probably underlies the Lukan genealogy ( Luke, iii. 38Google Scholar); Christ's corporate identification with the Christian community is presupposed in the question of the risen Jesus to Paul: ‘Why do you persecute me?’ (Acts ix. 4).

^{page 40 note 1} Cf. Col. iii. 3; Ellis, E. E., N.T.S. x (1963–4), 275 f.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 2} 2 Mark, xv. 29 f.Google Scholar; cf. xiv. 58. Luke takes up the temple question in Stephen's speech (Acts vii. 48), and this may be sufficient reason for omitting it in the passion narrative. But why was the saying to the robber chosen to replace it?

^{page 40 note 3} Test. Levi xviii. 10. Taken from man after the Fall, Paradise was viewed to have a continuing ‘hidden’ existence. (It is difficult to determine in what measure this idea reflected only poetic symbolism.) It never was located in Sheol but was placed in heaven or a remote earthly spot. Cf. Billerbeck, H. L. Strack-P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (München, 1924), 11, 227Google Scholar; Bousset, W., Die Religion des Judentums (Tübingen, 1926), pp. 282–6.Google Scholar It was to be restored to men only in the coming age (cf. II Baruch li. 10 f.). However, some elements in Judaism believed that the ‘souls’ of some of the righteous went there at death ( Enoch, lx. 8, 23Google Scholar; cf. Jos, . Wars iii. 8. 5Google Scholar). Revelation (ii. 7; xxii. 2Google Scholar) reflects the former conviction; Paul speaks of a present exaltation to paradise, physically or in a vision (II Cor. xii. 2 ff.; cf. I Cor. vi. 18: έκτός). Cf. Charles, R. H., The Revelation of St John (Edinburgh, 1920), ii, 160 f.Google Scholar; Strack-Billerbeck, , op. cit. iv, 1130 ff., 1144 f.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 4} There may be more than a coincidental relation between ‘today-with me-paradise’ in Luke, xxiii. 43Google Scholar and ‘today-partakers of Christ-sabbath rest’ in Heb, . iii. 6–19.Google Scholar The temple typology is the context of the latter passage. (Cf. Heb, . iii. 6Google Scholar: ) Although rejected by a number of commentators, ‘partakers of Christ’ ( Heb, . iii. 14Google Scholar A.V.), therefore, probably is best understood of a corporate relationship. Cf. Heb, . vi. 4Google Scholar; Westcott, B. F., The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 84 f.Google Scholar; Michel, O., Der Brief an die Hebräer (Göttingen, 1955), p. 107.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 5} Cf. Luke, xvi. 14, 19 ff.Google Scholar; xvii. 20 f., 22 ff.

^{page 40 note 6} Cf. Ellis, E. E., The World of St John (London, 1965), pp. 37–42.Google Scholar

^{page 41 note 1} Recently, Dodd, C. H., Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 8 f., 423 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar