No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
New Testament Eschatology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Extract
The ministry of Jesus is represented by the evangelists as itself an eschatological event. This presentation involved them (writing as they did from thirty to seventy years after the event) in paradox, but the paradox is of the essence of their faith.
It is a primary feature of the gospels that the story of Jesus is set forth as the fulfilment of OT prophecy. This is sometimes done in the crudest and most artificial manner, as for example when Jeremiah's picture of Rachel weeping for her children (Jer. 31.14 (38.15)) is applied to the massacre of the innocents (Matt. 2.17 f). Sometimes again the appeal to the OT is made in general terms without citation of a particular passage (e.g. Mark 14.21 
). The passion narratives in particular are marked by OT references and allusions, but the whole ministry is introduced by Mark (1.15) with the proclamation, πεπλ⋯ρωται ⋯ καιρóς, and the καιρóς in question is evidently the time foretold (or currently believed to have been foretold) by the prophets. That which in the past they had longed to see and hear, and had not seen and heard, was now before men, visible and audible: blessed indeed were those who could see and hear (Matt. 13.16 f; Luke 10.23 f).
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1953
References
page 225 note 1 This fact suggests that the conviction that the events in the life of Jesus must have been prophesied somewhere in the OT arose first, and that precise connexions between the events and OT passages were made subsequently. This in turn suggests that, in general, the gospel events were not simply manufactured out of OT material—though this may have been the origin of some of them.
page 225 note 2 As it now stands. Whether the parable is now in its original form is disputed. See Taylor, V., The Gospel according to St. Mark (London, 1952) p. 472 fGoogle Scholar, and the references there given.
page 227 note 1 See the general discussion of the kingdom of God (below, pp. 229–31) and in particular the literature cited in p. 231, n. 1. The perfect participle 
certainly refers to a coming which takes place before the action of the verb ῐδωσιν—they will see the kingdom ‘in a state of having come’. But the grammar does not require that the coming should be before the time when Jesus was speaking.
page 228 note 1 See Munck, J., Bulletin of the S.N.T.S. i (Oxford, 1950), p. 31Google Scholar.
page 228 note 2 Note for example the use of ⋯μ⋯ρa (Matt. 7.22, 10.15, 11.22, 24, 12.36, etc.), or συντ⋯λεια (Matt. 19.39 f, 49, 24.3, 28.20); or parabolic material such as Luke 12.35–59.
page 229 note 1 Dodd, C. H., Parables, p. 57Google Scholar. It is probable that the predictions have been affected in detail by the events described in the passion narratives. How far this process has gone it is difficult to say. Some features of the passion narratives themselves (e.g. the Gethsemane story) give rise to serious problems here.
page 229 note 2 This Dr Taylor recognises: ‘both series are coloured by Christian beliefs and hopes’ (op. cit., p. 117).
page 230 note 1 See The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition, p. 155.
page 230 note 2 It is interesting to compare the observation of Cerfaux, L. (Le Christ dans la Théologie de Saint Paul (Paris, 1951) especially p. 147fGoogle Scholar) that Paul uses the ‘pairs’ parousia-resurrection, and death-resurrection, but not death-parousia.
page 230 note 3 These words are taken from the Passover Haggadah; cf. Pesahim 10.4 He begins with the disgrace and ends with the glory. That the structure of the Pass-over celebration, and traditions and interpretations connected with it, influenced the development of Christian eschatology, and Christian thought about the death of Christ, seems very probable, but the subject is too large to discuss here. See Jeremias, J., Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu (second edition, Göttingen, 1949) passim but especially pp. 102–124Google Scholar.
page 230 note 4 Seep. 227, n. 1.
page 231 note 1 Whether Jesus used words which meant that the kingdom of God had actually arrived is a debated question. On the words 
(Mark 1.15), 
(Matt. 12.28; Luka 11.20) see Dodd, C. H.Parables, pp. 43–45Google Scholar; Expository Times, xlviii (Edinburgh, 1937), pp. 91–4 (J. Y. Campbell), pp. 138–42 (C. H. Dodd), p. 184 f (J. M. Creed). The discussion has recently been reopened by M. Black (E. T., lxiii, p. 289 f). See also Kümmel, W. G., Verheissung und Erfüllung (Basel, 1945), pp. 9–13, 63–5Google Scholar, and Michaelis, W., Der Herr verzieht nicht die Verheissung (Bern, 1942), PP. 34–43Google Scholar.
page 232 note 1 In these few lines it is impossible even to raise all the major questions, for example the fundamental question whether ‘Son of man’ is or is not a title. Discussion of the subject has however reached a very interesting stage, and I hope to return to it elsewhere.
page 232 note 2 For the best short introduction to this background material see M. Black, E.T. lx. 11–15 (cf. 32–6); also Manson, T. W., ‘The Son of man in Daniel, Enoch and the Gospels’, B.J.R.L. xxxii, pp. 171–193Google Scholar, and Black, M., ‘The Eschatology of the Similitudes of Enoch’, J.T.S. new series iii (Oxford, 1952), pp. 1–10Google Scholar. Other important works are referred to elsewhere, especially in the next few notes.
For the relevant material see W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah, pp. 174–90 and the references there; add Murmelstein, B., ‘Adam, ein Beitrag zur Messiaslehre’, Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, xxxv (1928), pp. 242–275, xxxvi (1929), pp. 51–86Google Scholar.
page 233 note 2 It is impossible here to discuss the date, integrity, etc., of the Similitudes. The best treatment known to me is that of Sjöberg, E., Der Menschensohn im Äthiopischen Henochbuch (Lund, 1946)Google Scholar. See also the fundamental edition by Charles, R. H., The Book of Enoch (2nd edition, Oxford, 1912)Google Scholar, and The Apocrypha and Pseudcpigrapha of the OT (edited by R. H. Charles, Oxford, 1913) ii, pp. 163–87.
page 233 note 3 It is possible, though by no means certain, that these words may be a Christian interpolation.
page 234 note 1 As by R. H. Charles, op. cit., p. 144 f; cf. pp. 306–9.
page 234 note 2 This is a very large question and cannot be discussed here. See the discussion and references in E. Sjöberg, op, cit., pp. 116–39. Here the simple observation may be emphasised that, whatever parallels may exist between the Son of man and the Servant of the Lord in Deutero-Isaiah, the Son of man (in 1 Enoch 37–71) does not in fact suffer.
page 234 note 3 The collective aspect of the work of the Son of man is emphasised by DrManson, T. W., who believes that in the Gospels Jesus and the disciples ‘together, so long as they adhere to Him, constitute the “Son of man”’ (Coniectanea Neotestamentica, XI (Lund, 1947), p. 146)Google Scholar. There is indeed a corporate element in the complex Son of man idea, but possibly the corpus is not so simple as this view suggests. Dr A. Schweitzer explains Mark 10.45 as shown above (p. 152); after a time Jesus perceived that it would be necessary to bear the messianic affliction alone. It may be that here too there is undue simplification; that instead of saying ‘All were the Son of man, but all fell away except Jesus’, and ‘At first Jesus believed that all must suffer; later He believed that He would suffer alone’, we must say, ‘The Son of man is the One and the Many; the One will suffer for the Many and the Many will suffer in the One’. See below, n. 2.
page 235 note 1 Corresponding to the obscurity and weakness of the kingdom of God we have, where the person of Jesus is concerned, the messianic secret. DrBornkamm, G. concluded a friendly review of The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (Nuntius Sodalicii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis, vi (1952), pp. 43–48)Google Scholar with the sentence ‘Das Geheimnis seines Messiasbewusstseins ist, wie ich meine, auch durch die Theorie des “Messiasgeheimnisses” nicht wirklich zu lüften.’ It seems to me that this is to speak of the messianic secret in the wrong terms. It is not a theory invented by us to explain difficulties in the gospels; it may have been, as Wrede and others have thought, a theory of Mark's, but for us it is a datum of the Gospel tradition; the secret is there, explain it how we may. Here it may be noted that Mark himself must have thought (rightly or wrongly) that ‘Son of man7rsquo; was an expression that kept the secret (as ‘Messiah’ would not have done), and may well have believed that it expressed both the humility and the glory of Jesus.
page 235 note 2 In this the Gospels return to a point not far from the original mythical meaning of the term ‘Son of man’; see above, pp. 232–4. Jesus the Son of man is the true, representative, primal, heavenly Man.
page 235 note 3 See among other passages Rom. 5.12–21; l Cor. 15.44–49; Phil. 2.5–11; Col. 1.15–20. It may be suggested that in this complex of material, whose roots are eschatological, lies the source of Paul's doctrine of the Church; but the point cannot be pursued here.
page 235 note 4 Agreeing with Paul are Mark 9.1, 13.30; John 21.22 and other passages
page 236 note 1 See Journal of Theological Studies, new series i (Oxford, 1950), pp. 1–3Google Scholar. We touch here the important problem discussed by DrCullmann, O. in Theologische Zeitschrift, iii (Basel, 1947) pp. 177–191Google Scholar, under the title ‘Das wahre durch die ausgebliebene Parusie gestellte neutestamentliche Problem’. See for the debate on this point an article by F. Buri (referred to by Dr Cullmann but not accessible to me) and M. Werner, op. cit.; also Michaelis, W., Der Herr verzieht nicht die Verheissung (Bern, 1942)Google Scholar. Perhaps the last word on this subject has not yet been said. Dr Cullmann seems to state very clearly (op. cit., p. 177) the problem as it now presents itself to the twentieth century Christian theologian and historian, but less clearly the problem that must have confronted the Christian theologian of the first century who watched the apostles die but saw none of the signs of the parousia. To the literature should now be added Bornkamm, G., ‘Die Verzögerung der Parusie’, in In Memoriam E. Lohmeyer (Ed. Schmauch, W., Stuttgart, 1951) pp. 116–26Google Scholar.
page 237 note 1 The origin of the ‘idealism’ of Hebrews is seen in a new light when the observation of p. 139, n. 1 is kept in mind.
page 237 note 2 This observation is independent of the precise meaning of the very obscure words 
and 
.
page 238 note 1 See Scott, E. F., The Book of Revelation (London, 1939), pp. 138–142Google Scholar; Cullmann, O., Urchristentum und Gottesdienst (second ed., Zürich, 1950), p. 11 f, and else-whereGoogle Scholar.
page 238 note 2 See in more detail E.T., lix, pp. 302–5. I may also be allowed to refer to a commentary on the Fourth Gospel which will I hope be published before long.
page 238 note 3 See further J. T.S., new series i (Oxford, 1950) pp. 8–15Google Scholar.
page 240 note 1 See Goguel, M., La Naissance du Christianisme (Paris, 1946), p. 15 fGoogle Scholar; Loisy, A., The Gospel and the Church (E.T., London, 1903), p. 166Google Scholar.
page 241 note 1 The most that can be said is that ‘certain facts in early Christian history are most adequately accounted for, if Jesus did by some means convey to his disciples his intention that the entry into the community of his followers should be accomplished outwardly by the rite of water-baptism’ (Flemington, W. F., The NT Doctrine of Baptism (London, 1948), p. 128Google Scholar). But this probably goes too far.
page 241 note 2 The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition, pp. 26–34.
page 242 note 1 See an important article, ‘Wunder und Sakrament in Neuen Testament’, by Menoud, P. H., in Th. Z., viii, PP. 161–183Google Scholar; also Fitzer, G., ‘Sakrament und Wunder im Neuen Testament’, in In Memoriam E. Lokmeyer, pp. 169–88Google Scholar.