^{page 399 note 1} We may add, it is in the O.T. often affirmed, however practical the motives are.

^{page 399 note 2} At least in Phil. ii. 6 ff. I find it hard to believe they are far away.

^{page 399 note 3} Cf. John, i. I; xvii. 5, 24.Google Scholar

^{page 399 note 4} John, i. 14Google Scholar; I John, iv. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 400 note 1} E.g. Acts ii. 36 (God has made him both Lord and Christ) should not be taken as an ontological statement about Christ's nature. If it is, it seems to suggest an ‘adoptionist’ view. But no statement about his nature is intended-only about his exaltation.

^{page 400 note 2} The affirmations about Jesus may be presented in sentences containing the verb ‘to be’. E.g. Mark iv. 41 τί7sfgr; άρα ούτς έστıν viii. 29 τίνα με λέγετε είναı. But that does not mean that the affirmations are ontological.

Other instances can be adduced of the danger of ontologizing. In the study of the Pauline view of man it is agreed that in general St Paul is not a dualist. But some of his statements in Romans vii cause acute embarrassment, because they appear to suggest that for him man's physical nature is inherently evil and a higher, mental, faculty is inherently pure; cf. verses 18, 22, 25. But I strongly doubt whether St Paul is making ontological statements about a substance called σάρξ and another called . Rather, he is talking about a tangled human experience: I do, in a sense (he is saying), approve of the good, of the law, but only with my mind; that is, my will to do what is right never gets beyond the level of intention. No statement about the unchanging nature of vovs is intended, only about the situation described. Instances are found elsewhere of and similar words used in contexts referring to evil. Similarly with σάρξ. Though it can be used of man's physical nature, it is also used in more complex ways, of man's involvement in the sinful human situation.

Even greater embarrassment is caused by statements in the Johannine writings which imply an ontological dualism. E.g. I John iii. 9. In this case we can only say that the author can hardly mean us to take his words ontologically. But if so he has done his best to mislead us.

^{page 401 note 1} The use of a title establishes that some Christology is intended. But the titles are wide, and admit of varieties of interpretation. The high-sounding title ‘Messiah’, if intended in an exclusively nationalist and political sense, would yield a comparatively low Christology.

^{page 401 note 2} This latter phenomenon is a striking characteristic of the tradition, and is more basic than Mark's picture of a deliberate Messianic secret. Mark seems to suggest that there is a clear-cut doctrine of Christ which would have been openly presented but which Jesus preferred to conceal for a time. We may set this aside as a theory of Mark's, but we are still left with basic material which contains an element of enigma or ambiguity.

^{page 402 note 1} The bottom step of the ladder is included for convenience and completeness. No true Jew would ostensibly repudiate all his nation's hope. But there must have been many for whom it was in practice irrelevant. How much life had it for the Sadducees? or for Philo?

Inside the Church's traditional material we shall naturally not find an explicit repudiation of Christology. But in much of the material both Christology and eschatology are quiescent; e.g. passages which treat of God's fatherly concern and his demand in a very general way, with no reference to any crisis.

^{page 402 note 2} Is it correct to claim that (d) is an advance upon (c)? Does the actual occurrence of the event in the presence of the prophet mark out that prophet as unique? Not, perhaps, if the character of the event is exclusively judgement. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were present to interpret God's act as judgement, and form a precedent for a prophet of judgement. But they did not see the positive hopes of their message fulfilled; the return from exile did not fulfil them either. If the event interpreted by Jesus is a final deliverance, an entry into the true promised land, then Jesus is a higher Moses, a higher Joshua.

^{page 402 note 3} One of the traits in the gospels which characterize Jesus as a prophet is his use of prophetic symbolism. The cursing of the fig-tree, seen as the pronouncement of doom on Judah, is the best example, a close parallel with Jeremiah in content as well as form. But there are others which are parallel with Jeremiah in form, but very different in content. E.g. the Triumphal Entry, and the sign of the Bread and Wine at the last Supper. They have the form of prophetic symbols, but the content of what is symbolized is not some event outside Jesus, but his own kingship, and his death.

^{page 402 note 4} Cf. Mark, xii. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 5} Cf. Mark, viii. 38.Google Scholar

^{page 402 note 6} Matt. xxiii. 34–6; Luke xi. 49–51. In Luke, the prediction of the fate of the prophets is ascribed to ‘the wisdom of God’; and so the rejection of Jesus is seen as the last and decisive rejection. In Matthew, however, the words are directly ascribed to Jesus, not to the wisdom of God. It is Jesus himself who sends the prophets that are slain. This seems to eliminate the implication that he is the last and most important of the prophet-martyrs; he stands above them. Other instances of significant changes made by Matthew are given below, pp. 404 ff.

^{page 403 note 1} Cf. the various writings of T. W. Manson. Extra support seems to be given to this interpretation by the predictions that the Son of Man will rise again after three days (Mark viii. 31; ix. 31; X. 34). There appears to be an echo of Hos. vi. 2, where the reference is to the fate of the People of God. Jesus therefore ascribes to himself under the title ‘Son of Man’ the destiny of Israel.

^{page 403 note 2} Cf. Mark, xiv. 27, cit. Zech. xiii. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 403 note 3} The title ‘Lord’ is used by Luke. It seems to be given, through question rather than assertion, in Mark xii. 35–7. ‘Authority’ is a characteristic note of the tradition. Its source in God is clearly implied (cf. Mark xi. 27–33); but its extent is often left ambiguous. See also below p. 406.

^{page 404 note 1} To avoid misunderstanding, I should explain that I believe that Mark's Christology and theology may well be deeper or richer at many points than Matthew's. The ‘advance’ upon Mark ‘apparent’ in Matthew may often be only superficial.

^{page 404 note 2} Mark, xi. 1–10Google Scholar; Matt, . xxi. 1–9Google Scholar; Luke, xix. 28–38Google Scholar; cf. John, xii. 12–19.Google Scholar

^{page 404 note 3} . Should it be translated ‘horse’?

^{page 404 note 4} In Matthew it is achieved as follows: (I) Zech, ix. 9, with the words ‘thy king cometh’, is explicitly quoted; and the animal becomes an νος with a foal; (2) the crowds cry ‘Hosanna to the son of David’. Luke and John both include the title ‘king’ in what the crowds say of Jesus. John, like Matthew, quotes Zech. ix. 9, and makes the animal an άρıον.

^{page 404 note 5} Cf. Mark's tendency to use the 3rd p. plural when relating the movements of Jesus and his disciples with the tendency of Matthew and Luke to substitute the 3rd p. singular. This change concentrates the spotlight on the central figure.

^{page 405 note 1} Matthew shows a certain impatience with any veiling or ambiguity; cf. the open confession υίς εί (xiv. 32) at the end of the narrative of the walking on the water. Mark's account (vi. 45–52) is stimulating to faith, but not explicit.

^{page 405 note 2} Mark, ii. 23–8Google Scholar; Matt, . xii. 1–8Google Scholar; Luke, vi. 1–5.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 3} Matt, . xii. 5–6.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 4} Absent also from Luke.

^{page 405 note 5} Cf. xxvi. 2, 25, 50, 53. Cf. also Matthew's handling of the baptism of Jesus by John, and his care to efface any possible impression that Jesus needed to repent or be forgiven.

^{page 405 note 6} Matt, . xvi. 27; the Son of Man comes with his angelsGoogle Scholar; in Mark, viii. 38 with the holy angels. And compare Matt. x. 32–3 with Mark viii. 38 and Luke xii. 8–9.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 7} Mark, x. 17–18Google Scholar; Matt, . xix. 16–17. The rich man's original question and address are similarly altered in Matthew.Google Scholar

^{page 405 note 8} Mark may himself be aware of the ontological implications; but he does not let them obtrude at all. The statements in Mark (and elsewhere) that Jesus has ‘come’ for this or that purpose are compatible with a belief in his pre-existence, but do not require it.

^{page 406 note 1} Mark, ii. 1–12Google Scholar; Matt, . ix. 1–8.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 2} Mark, ii. 7Google Scholar; cf. Matt, . ix. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 3} Matt, . ix. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 4} Matt, . x. 40; cf. xviii. 5 and Mark ix. 37; Luke ix. 48; x. 16.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 5} Matt, . i. 23.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 6} Matt, . xviii. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 406 note 7} Matt, . xxviii. 20.Google Scholar

^{page 407 note 1} E.g. Mark i. 15b (‘believe in the gospel’), ix. 41 (‘because you are followers of the Messiah’). The universal Christian mission is hinted at, probably more definitely than Jesus ever suggested (e.g. vii. 27 ‘let the children first be filled’). But if his work was to bring about the crisis for God's people, the world-wide mission was a natural consequence. Mark is thus hinting at an implication of something which he firmly believed to be true.

^{page 407 note 2} The speeches in Acts are sometimes held to lack a theology of the Cross. But this is not so; they do not see it solely as the act of enemies, a mistake which God has now rectified; it is itself a part of God's purpose. In his gospel, Luke presents the same general picture of the Cross as we have in Mark, in spite of the absence of the phrase λ⋯τρον ⋯ντ⋯ πολλ⋯ν and doubts about the text of the Last Supper. If there are gaps here, there is also compensation: Luke brings out very strongly the fight against the powers of evil, and thus helps to link the Ministry and the Passion.

^{page 407 note 3} It is the existence and understanding of this material which has made the old liberal position untenable, and refuted the assumption that if the most striking Messianic passages were struck out the remainder of the tradition would be non-Christological. It is now seen that the Christology is too deeply rooted in the tradition for such a hypothesis.

Modern radicals hold different ground. They recognize that the tradition is Christological throughout; but question whether genuine historical traditions about Jesus can readily be recovered.

^{page 407 note 4} Cf. the Triumphal Entry, already discussed.

^{page 407 note 5} Cf. Matt. xii. 41–2 = Luke xi. 32, 31: ‘something greater than Jonah (Solomon) is here.’ πλɛῑον is neuter. Cf. also Matt. xiii. 16–17 (Luke x. 23–4).

^{page 407 note 6} Notably Luke xi. 14–20; vii. 22.

^{page 408 note 1} Matt. xi. 21.

^{page 408 note 2} Markxi. 22.

^{page 408 note 3} In Mark x. 1–9 Jesus answers a question about divorce, and arrives at a ruling after an illuminating quotation from Genesis. Similar appeals to men's judgement are common. Jesus is confident that the honest listener, given some stimulus and guidance, will reach the same conclusion. But contrast with this Matt. v. 31–2, where Jesus' ruling is given ‘authoritatively’, without explanation. It may be that men recognized his ‘authority’ through the intrinsic quality of his teaching, and that there has been a shift in emphasis in the tradition at this point. I remember hearing Dr Tillich warn his class of students not to regard him as ‘an authority in principle’, although he hoped they might rely on him as ‘an authority in fact’. It may help to keep this distinction in mind when considering the authority of Jesus.

^{page 408 note 4} Cf. the disputed passage Matt. xi. 27 (= Luke x. 22), and the teaching of John (i. 12) and St Paul (e.g. Gal. iv. 5). But it should be remembered that St Paul is writing mainly with Gentile converts in mind. In so far as he has in mind the relationship of Christianity to Judaism, he uses the father-son analogy from a different point of view; under the law, men were in the position of wards or minors, and with the coming of Christ they are able to enter into their adult status (Gal. iii. 25).

^{page 409 note 1} Cf. Matt, . vi. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 2} Mark, vii. 27.Google Scholar

^{page 409 note 3} I am attracted by the dictum ascribed to a certain prelate: ‘I do not like acting on principles until I see how they will work out.’