^{page 138 note 1} The difference between prophetic and apocalyptic eschatology must not be exaggerated. The two forms of eschatological thought often appear side by side in the same work. The distinction however is valid and useful.

^{page 138 note 2} ‘Speaking generally, the prophets foretold the future that should arise out of the present, while the apocalyptists foretold the future that should break into the present’ (H. H. Rowley, op. cit., p. 34).

^{page 139 note 1} It is worth noting here that apocalyptic in its own nature involves two kinds of (limited) dualism. The contrast between this world and the ‘other’ heavenly world of supra-sensual reality is often loosely described as ‘Platonic’ and supposed to be quite foreign to Judaism; but this is not so. It is difficult to draw a sharp line between apocalyptic and gnosticism—a fact with large consequences.

^{page 139 note 2} Frost, S. B. (Old Testament Apocalyptic, London, 1952), pp. 32–45Google Scholar, cf. p. 247 f) rightly insists that myth is not the origin of eschatology, but that ‘apocalyptic is to be recognised as mythologised eschatology’ (op. cit., p. 39).

^{page 140 note 1} The only example that can be given in this article is that of the title ‘Son of man'; in a following article this will be briefly discussed.

^{page 140 note 2} For example, about the kingdom (kingship) of God, or the Messiah. See S. B. Frost, op. cit., pp. 39 f, 57–67, and the references there given.

^{page 140 note 3} ‘Both prophets and apocalyptists were men who spoke to their own generation, and who spoke because they felt a divine urge within them. The form and content of their message varied from age to age, according to the circumstances and conditions of their day. But it was ever the conscious delivery to men of what was believed to be God's word to them’ (H. H. Rowley, op. cit., p. 14).

^{page 140 note 4} It must be remembered that within this broad standardisation the variety in detail was immense, so that it is quite impossible to speak of one Jewish ‘messianic hope’. There were as many different ‘messianic hopes’ as there were messianic, or apocalyptic, writers.

^{page 140 note 5} Specific action was taken against those who denied that there were two ages; cf. Berakoth 9.5: At the close of every Benediction in the Temple they used to say, ‘From everlasting’ (); but after the heretics (Sadducees) had taught corruptly and said that there is but one world (), it was ordained that they should say, ‘From everlasting to everlasting’ ().

^{page 140 note 6} For example, Pesahim 50a, Not as This Age will be the Age to Gome ).

^{page 141 note 1} R. Jacob (probably in the latter half of the second century A.D.) said: ‘This world () is like a vestibule before the world to come (): prepare thyself in the vestibule that thou mayest enter into the banqueting hall.’

^{page 141 note 2} Further difficulty arises from the fact that it is not always clear whether refers to the temporary messianic kingdom in this world or to a future beyond all earthly history.

^{page 141 note 3} Strack, H. L. and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, i (Munich, 1922), p. 178.Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 1} Many scholars consider Galatians to be the earliest epistle, for reasons which do not seem to me satisfactory. The matter is not relevant to the present subject and cannot be discussed here. See Lietzmann, H., An die Galater (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 10), 3rd edition (Tübingen, 1932).Google Scholar

^{page 143 note 2} It has been maintained (notably by Dodd, C. H., Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, xviii (Manchester, 1934), pp. 93–101)Google Scholar that there is a real development in Paul‘s eschatological thought; in the later epistles he gave up his belief in an imminent parousia, and I Cor. 15 marks an intermediate stage. On the whole, it seems more probable that Paul took note of the deaths which had taken place and perhaps also came to believe that his own death would happen earlier than at first seemed to him likely, than that he radically altered his opinion about the time of the parousia.

^{page 143 note 3} Here a clear distinction is drawn between the messianic age and the ultimate future. See p. 140, n. 6.

^{page 144 note 1} The use of κλνρoνoμɛîν recalls the rabbinic ; see above, p. 140.

^{page 144 note 2} C. H. Dodd (B.J.R.L., xviii, p. 96) takes this verse to mean that the Lord is near those who call upon Him (cf. Ps. 145 (144). 18), rather than that He is about to come from heaven. His interpretation seems, however, somewhat forced.

^{page 145 note 1} See especially Knox, W. L., St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge' 1939)Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 2} I have given some of the evidence in The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London, 1947), p. 120Google Scholar; see also Eichrodt, W., Theologie des Alten Testaments, ii (Berlin, 1948), pp. 25–27Google Scholar (Der Geist Gottes ah die Kraft der Vollendung irn neuen Aeon), and Davies, W. D., Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1948), pp. 203 ff, 215 f.Google Scholar

^{page 145 note 3} This adjective describes a relationship, not an ethical quality (see especially Bultmann, R., Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tubingen, 1948), pp. 268–270)Google Scholar; if this is not grasped it is impossible to make sense of Paul's doctrine of justification.

^{page 146 note 1} κaτaλλáσσєιν with its cognates and compounds. The notion of reconciliation—the rectification of man's relationship with God'is ciosely parallel to that of justification; cf. especially Rom. 5.g f.

^{page 146 note 2} e.g. Isa. 9.6; Ezek. 34.25; Hag. 2.9; Ps. 29 (28).n; 4 Ezra 13.47; I Enoch 58.4; T. Levi 18.4; 2 Bar. 73.1.

^{page 146 note 3} . It makes little difference which reading is accepted. If the subjunctive is read it must be translated, in accordance with Paul's thought, ‘Let us enjoy (the) peace (we already in truth possess)’.

^{page 146 note 4} Dan. 7.27; 1 Enoch 62.7 f, 14 f. See Schweitzer, A., The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (E. T., London, 1931), pp. 101–105.Google Scholar

^{page 148 note 1} In Rom. 9–11 Paul works out the position of Israel in what are fundamentally eschatological terms. Instead of accepting righteousness by faith, that is, as a gracious gift given by God on His terms and in His own time, Israel had sought to achieve it by its own works (Rom. 9.31 f), thus attempting to lay constraint upon God. This was why when the last days came Israel rejected the offer of righteousness. Paul hoped however that the Gentiles‘ faith would provoke Israel to abandon works for faith.

^{page 148 note 2} See (among many books and articles) Deissmann, A., Die neutestamentliche Formel ‘in Christo Jesu’ (Marburg, 1892)Google Scholar; Weiss, J., The History of Primitive Christianity (E. T., London, 1937), pp. 463–471Google Scholar; Kennedy, H. A. A., The Theology of the Epistles (London, 1934), pp. 119–25Google Scholar; Schweitzer, A., Mysticism, pp. 122–5Google Scholar, a nd many other passages; W. D. Davies, op. cit., pp. 86–110.

^{page 149 note 1} See for example Rom. 2.12–3.4, 7.1–25; 2 Cor. 3.4–18; Gal. 3.1–4.7; Col. 2.13–15.

^{page 149 note 2} See Davies, W. D., Torah in the Messianic Age andlar the Age to Come (Journal of Biblical Literature Monograph Series, Vol. VII, Philadelphia, 1952).Google Scholar

^{page 150 note 1} A rigid apocalyptic can itself confine God within the future so that he ceases to be the living God; see S. B. Frost, op. cit., pp. 255–7.

^{page 150 note 2} The figure is Dr Rawlinson's.

^{page 150 note 3} Acts 10.38; 2.23, 3.13–15, 4.10 f, 27, 10.39; 2.24–32, 36, 3.15, 4.10 f, 10.40 f; 2.33; 3.19–21, 10.42. See Dodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments (London, 1944), pp. 7–35.Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 1} It would be easy to add more than as many names again. It is necessary, however, to make a selection, and I have tried to indicate some of the landmarks in the discussion.

^{page 151 note 2} Especially Die eschatologische Predigt Jesu vom Rekhe Gottes (Göttingen, 1892, 1900).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 3} The Mystery of the Kingdom of God (E. T., London, 1925)Google Scholar; The Quest of the Historical Jesus (E. T., London, 1936; see also p. 153, n. 1)Google Scholar; Paul and his Interpreters (E. T., London, 1912)Google Scholar; Mysticism (see p. 148, n. 2).

^{page 151 note 4} The Words of Jesus (E.T., Edinburgh, 1909)Google Scholar; especially valuable for the linguistic background of ‘Kingdom of God’ and ‘Son of man’.

^{page 151 note 5} The Gospel and the Church (E. T., London, 1903)Google Scholar; Les Évangiles Synoptiquts (Ceffonds, 1907)Google Scholar; and other works.

^{page 151 note 6} The Eschatology of the Gospels (London, 1910).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 7} Jesus and the Word (E. T., London, 1935)Google Scholar; Theologie (see p. 145, n. 3); and other works.

^{page 151 note 8} Die Eschatologie des Rekhes Gottes bei Jesus (Gütersloh, 1931).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 9} Cambridge Sermons (London, 1938), pp. 1–38Google Scholar; and other works.

^{page 151 note 10} The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man (E. T., London, 1938).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 11} Jesus the Messiah (London, 1943).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 12} The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge, 1935)Google Scholar; B.J.R.L., xxxii, 171–93.

^{page 151 note 13} Le Royaume de Dieu et sa Venue (Paris, 1937).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 14} The Parables of the Kingdom (London, 1935)Google Scholar; Apostolic Preaching (see p. 150, n. 3); and other works.

^{page 151 note 15} History and Interpretation in the Gospels (London, 1935)Google Scholar; Locality and Doctrine in the Gospels (London, 1938).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 16} The Historic Mission of Jesus (London, 1941).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 17} Verheissung und Erfüllung (Basel, 1945).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 18} Christ and Time (E. T., London, 1951)Google Scholar; and other works.

^{page 151 note 19} Die Entstehung des, Christlichen Dogmas (Bern, 1941).Google Scholar

^{page 151 note 20} L'Institution et L'Éoenement (Neuchâtel and Paris, 1950).Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 1} See the Vorrede (v—xix) in the latest (German) edition of his book on the quest of the historical Jesus—Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen, 1951).Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 2} For example, M. Werner, op. cit.

^{page 154 note 1} I am acutely aware that in these paragraphs I have caricatured rather than portrayed the views of Dr Schweitzer and Professor Dodd, both of them scholars to whom I am greatly indebted and for whom I have so great an admiration that to misrepresent them, even with the excuse that brevity is required of me, would be uncommonly grievous to me. I hope that though I have omitted much, yet in what I have set down .