^{page 62 note 1} ‘The attitude of man in which he receives the gift of “God's righteousness” and in which the divine deed of salvation accomplishes itself within him is faith.…

‘At the outset, it may be simply saie, that “faith” is the condition for the receipt of “righteousness”, taking the place of “works”, which in the Jewish view constitute that condition. It may also be simply said at the outset that such “faith” is the acceptance of the Christian message—following a usage that developed in the missionary enterprise of Hellenistic Christianity.’ Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (2 vols., London, 1951, 1955), I 314Google Scholar

^{page 62 note 2} ‘Paul understands faith primarily as obedience; he understands the act of faith as an act of obedience.’ ibid., p. 314. See discussion, pp. 314–17.

^{page 62 note 3} ‘For Paul the acceptance of the nessage in faith takes the form of an act of obedience because of the fact that the message which demands acknowledgment of the crucified Jesus as Lord demands of man the surrender of his previous understanding of himself, the reversal of the direction his will has previously had.’ ibid., p. 315.

‘“Faith” is the acceptance of the kerygma not as mere cognisance of it and agreement with it but as that genuine obedience to it which includes a new understanding of one's self. Therefore, it cannot be an act that takes place once and then becomes a thing of the past.… It determines one's living in its manifold historical reality, and there is no moment in which the man of faith is released from the obedience of constantly living out of the “grace” of God.’ ibid., p. 324.

^{page 63 note 1} ibid., p. 300.

^{page 63 note 2} Wood, H. G. (‘The Conversion of St. Paul: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences’, in New Testament Studies, I (1954), pp. 280–2)Google Scholar is right, I believe, in his insistence contra Bultmann that Paul's willingness to reassess his life under the judgment of God in the light of the Cross was, strictly speaking, a consequence of his conversion rather than a constituent element in it. With regard to the actual content of the conversion experience per se I am inclined to agree with Nock, A. D. (St. Paul (New York, 1938), pp. 74ff)Google Scholar that it was ‘a sudden intuition’ of the truth of the Resurrection—‘that the condemned criminal was in fact the Anointed One of God’, and that immediately ‘thereafter Paul had to readjust his whole thinking’. The very way in which Paul supplements the traditio resurrections (1 Cor. 15.3–7) with his own vision of the risen Lord (v. 8), and the cardinal position which he assigns to the Resurrection in Christain doctrine (1 Cor. 15.12–19), it seems to me, tend to confirm the position of Nock and Wood.

^{page 63 note 3} Gal. 4.6; Rom. 8.15.

^{page 63 note 4} Mark 14.36. Neither Matthew (26.42) nor Luke (22.42) keep this strange bilingual combination in their accounts. Matthew simplifies the address to пάτηρ μον while Luke has only the vocative пάτηρ.

^{page 64 note 1} Gould, J. B., The Gospel According to Mark (I.C.C., New York, 1896), p. 270Google Scholar. For the opposite view, that the bilingual expression was original with Jesus, see Lagrange, M. P., L'évangile selon Saint Mark (4th ed., Paris, reprint 1947), p. 388.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 2} Sanday, Wm. and Headlam, A. C., The Epistle to the Romans (I.C.C., New York, 1896), p. 203.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 3} Lightfoot, J. B., St. Paul's Epistle o the Galatians (London, 1902), p. 169.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 4} Loisy, A., Épître aux Galates (Paris, 1916), p. 166.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 5} Schlier, Heinrich, Der Brief an die Galater (Göttingen, 1949), p. 140.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 6} The conclusions of Professor Vernon McCasland in a recent article [‘Father, Abba’ in Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXII (06 1953), pp. 79–91]Google Scholar are, considered against the historical context, incredible. He holds that by the time Paul writes, using the expression in addressing Churches of the Gentile mission, άββά has become a metonym for God, its Aramaic meaning already forgotten, and ό пατήρ an appellative, so that the whole expression means, ‘O God, my Father’. Thus it is virtually meaningless by mid-first century, at the very time when it first appears in our sources, and when Paul is obviously appealing to it because of its common currency and because it is saturated with profound significance. Furthermore, if McCasland's conclusions are correct, and Paul is writing for Gentile Christians, why should he not have written θεέ, ό пατήρ if that is what he meant? The fact is that both Romans and Galatians are, on the basis of internal evidence, addressed to communities where there are sizable Jewish groups; and the meaning of so common an Aramaic term as אבא can scarcely have been unknown.

^{page 65 note 1} Robinson, J. A. T., ‘One Baptism’, in Scottish Journal of Theology (Vol. 6, 09 1953), pp. 257–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. p. 262f.

^{page 65 note 2} Cf. also in the Captivity correspondence, Col. 2.6–15; Eph. 5.1–21, 25–27.

^{page 65 note 3} Rom. 6.3ff.

^{page 65 note 4} Dibelius, M., Paul (Philadelphia, 1953), pp. 93f, 105fGoogle Scholar, for the mystery garment figure.

^{page 66 note 1} William Sanday saw this passage as a baptismal reference, and paraphrased it thus as early as 1896: ‘When you were first baptised, and the communication of the Holy Spirit sealed your admission into the Christian fold, the energies which He imparted were surely not those of a slave. You had not once more to tremble under the lash of the Law. No! He gave you rather the proud inspiring consciousness of men admitted into His family, adopted as his sons. And the consciousness of that relation unlocks our lips in tender, filial appeal to God as our Father. Two voices are distinctly heard: one we know to be that of the Holy Spirit; the other is the voice of our own consciousness. And both bear witness to the same fact, that we are children of God.’ Op. cit., p. 201f.

^{page 66 note 2} This is apparent from the way in which Paul refers indirectly to Baptism in 1 Cor. 1.13ff. Cf. Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, I, 133ff 311ff.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 1} See Robinson's comments on this verse, op. cit., p. 259. Cf. Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen, 1931), p. 73.Google Scholar

^{page 67 note 2} ‘We have to realise that in Baptism there happens to us that which in the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus Christ took place for us. Baptism is not merely a reflection of that occurrence, as Barth teaches. It does not merely point to it. Its character is not merely cognitive or significatory. On the contrary, in it—that is, in the occurrence of Baptism itself—we have to do with what Christ did as what God does to us on whose behalf that which is proclaimed in the Cross and Resurrection of Christ took place. Baptism is therefore the appropriation of the work of Christ as it took place “for us” and indeed “for me”.’ Vogel, Heinrich, ‘The First Sacrament: Baptism’, in SJT (Vol. 7, 03 1954), p. 45CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See full discussion, pp. 44–51. Of. also Heron, John, ‘The Theology of Baptism’ in SJT (Vol. 8, 03 1955), p. 42f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 67 note 3} Rom. 8. 16f.

^{page 67 note 4} Mark 14.36. Note the reference to the cup here, and in Mark 10.38 quoted above.

^{page 68 note 1} Cullmann, Oscar, Baptism in the New Testament (Chicago, 1950), p. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 2} Robinson, J. A. T., op. cit., p. 268f.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 3} A distinctively Pauline contribution to the theology of Baptism, drawn from Gnostic thought. Bultmann, R., Theology of the Mew Testament, I, pp. 141, 178, 298–300, 311ff.Google Scholar

^{page 68 note 4} Gal. 3.26, 4.5–7, Rom. 8.14, 19; cf. 2 Cor. 6.18, Rom. 9.26.

^{page 68 note 5} Gal. 4.28, 31, Rom. 8.16, 17, 21, 9.7, 8, Phil. 2.15.

^{page 69 note 1} 1 Cor. 10.16–17, 12.12f, 14–27, Rom. 12.4–5.

^{page 69 note 2} Cf. пοτίζειν here with пοτήριον, Mark 10.38, 14.36.

^{page 69 note 3} Mark 14.36.

^{page 69 note 4} Gal. 4.6–7.

^{page 69 note 5} Rom: 8.14–17.

^{page 70 note 1} Cf. Isa. 60.1–2; also Isa. 9.2; 2 Cor. 4.6.

^{page 70 note 2} I Cor. 12.3.

^{page 70 note 3} Gal. 4.6; Rom. 8.14–16.