No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
The Old Testament is, from one point of view, primarily the X record of the growth of religious ideas among the Hebrews. Yet, despite the variety of the religious ideas of the Old Testament at different stages in Hebrew history, it is possible to speak of the theology of the Old Testament without the word ‘theology’ being just another name for religious development. This is because there are certain beliefs about God and man and their relationship one to the other as saviour and saved which characterise the Old Testament as a finished and complete whole, as an entity. From another point of view the Old Testament is the record of the divine revelation in salvation vouchsafed to Israel by her God. If God speaks now through Moses, now through Isaiah of Jerusalem, now through the nameless exilic prophet, at different times ‘by divers portions and in divers manners’, yet His revelation is basically ever the same. The essential unity of outlook and faith in the Old Testament, transcending its diversities, is a pointer to the genuineness of the revelation and a guarantee of its substantially correct though inevitably imperfect apprehension by those to whom it was granted.
The differences within the Old Testament are, nevertheless, often more obvious than this basic theological unity. The opposite might be said of the New Testament. This is just what we should expect, because while the Old Testament spans many centuries, the New was completed within a matter of decades.
page 276 note 1 Filson, F. V., The New Testament against its Environment, 1950, p. 9Google Scholar.
page 276 note 2 See Hunter, A. M., The Unify of the New Testament, 1943Google Scholar.
page 276 note 3 Origen, Commentary on John, 1.14.
page 277 note 1 This use of the terms does not concern the validity of those parts of New Testament theology to which they are applied.
page 277 note 2 The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, 1936.
page 277 note 3 2.14–36. 38 f, 3.12–26 4.8–12, 10.34–43.
page 278 note 1 Mark 8.29 f.
page 278 note 2 Mark 14.61 f.
page 278 note 3 Matt. 4.3, 6; Luke 4.3, 9.
page 278 note 4 Mark 12.35–37; see Maroon, T. W., The Teaching of Jems, 2nd edn., 1935, p. 266 fGoogle Scholar.
page 278 note 5 Mark 10.45.
page 278 note 6 Isa. 53.12. Acts explicitly calls Jesus the Servant (3.13, 26, 4.27, 30, where the Greek word is pats).
page 278 note 7 Mark 14.62.
page 278 note 8 Isa. 52.13.
page 278 note 9 Mark 8.38, 13.26, 14.62; Matt. 25.31.
page 278 note 10 Mark 8.38; Matt. 16.27, 25.31. See the writer's The Christian Significance of the Old Testament, 1949, p. 91, n. 2.
page 279 note 1 Mark 8.31, 9.31, 10.34.
page 279 note 2 Ps. 16.10; Hos. 6.2.
page 279 note 3 Rom. 10.9, 14.9; 1 Cor. 12.3, 16.22; Phil. 2.11.
page 279 note 4 Its occurrence in Acts 7.56, the only one outside the Gospels, is not in a sermon, but belongs to (the representation of) a vision.
page 279 note 5 Only once in the Gospels (John 12.34) is the title used by anyone else.
page 279 note 6 For development of the substance of the next three paragraphs see the writer's The Lord's Supper in the New Testament, 1952.
page 279 note 7 Reichgotles und Kirche im Neuen Testament, 1929, pp. 218, 228.
page 280 note 1 The Church, 1950, p. 40, translated by J. R. Coates from Kittel's Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament.
page 280 note 2 Matt. 16.18, if not authentic, testifies to the early Church's belief in its dominical foundation. It may well be genuine, but the view which is here supported is not dependent on this verse alone.
page 280 note 3 Luke 19.32.
page 280 note 4 Dan. 7.37.
page 280 note 5 Matt. 19.28; Luke 22.30.
page 281 note 1 K. L. Schmidt, op. cit., pp. 48–50.
page 281 note 2 Cf. Acts 2.36; Rom. 1.4.
page 281 note 3 I Cor. 11.23.
page 281 note 4 ‘Do this in remembrance of me’, I Cor. 11.24; Luke 22.19.
page 281 note 5 Luke 24.49; Acts 1.4 f; cf. Acts 2.33.
page 282 note 1 Acts 10.38.
page 282 note 2 Cf. John 3.22 and 4.1 with the correction in 4.2.
page 282 note 3 Acts 2.38.
page 282 note 4 Matt. 28.19.
page 282 note 5 Acts 2.41 f.
page 283 note 1 I Cor. 15.3.
page 283 note 2 Rom. 4.25; Gal. 1.4.
page 283 note 3 Col. 2.15 as translated by Scott, C. A. Anderson, Christianity according to St. Paul, 1927, p. 34Google Scholar.
page 283 note 4 Rom. 8.2 f, 7.24 f.
page 284 note 1 Cf. 6.20.
page 284 note 2 John 1.3, 10.
page 284 note 3 Prov. 8.22–31.
page 284 note 4 Wisd. of Sol. 9.1 f.
page 285 note 1 I Cor. 1.24; 2 Cor. 4.4.
page 285 note 2 I Cor. 8.6.
page 285 note 3 Col. 1.15–17. A similar Christology is held by the unknown author of the Epistle to the Hebrews; see 1.2 f.
page 285 note 4 e.g. Acts 2.38; 1 Cor. 6.11, 12.13.
page 286 note 1 p. 58.