^{page 369 note 1} Acts 2.14–21.

^{page 369 note 2} ἤγγικευ can be rendered either ‘is at hand’ or ‘has arrived’. Too much can be made of this difference. Obviously the Kingdom had not fully come at this point in Jesus' ministry; but at the least His words marked ‘the beginning of the end’.

^{page 369 note 3} Luke 4.16–21.

^{page 369 note 4} Luke 11.20; Matt. 12.28.

^{page 369 note 5} Luke 22.29–30.

^{page 369 note 6} 2 Cor. 5.17.

^{page 369 note 7} 1 Cor. 10.11.

^{page 370 note 1} Heb. 12.22.

^{page 370 note 2} Rom. 6.4.

^{page 370 note 3} Heb. 12.28. A list of virtues follows in ch. 13.

^{page 370 note 4} See especially 1 John 3.14–15.

^{page 370 note 5} Dodd himself has endorsed this change (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1953, p. 447).

^{page 370 note 6} This double nature of the end as something present and yet to come is shown by the use of ἔσχατον in 1 Pet. 1 to signify both ‘the salvation ready to be revealed’ (5) and the redemptive sacrifice of Christ which occurred ‘at the end of the times’ (20).

^{page 370 note 7} Matt. 6.10=Luke 11.2 where the aorist ⋯λθ⋯τω suggests a single, instantaneous act.

^{page 371 note 1} Heb. 6.4–5.

^{page 371 note 2} 2 Cor. 1.22. The seal doubtless refers to baptism which corresponds to the ‘seal of circumcision’ (Rom. 4.11).

^{page 371 note 3} 1 Cor. 15.35–50.

^{page 371 note 4} Rom. 8.24.

^{page 371 note 5} Col. 1.27.

^{page 371 note 6} Rom. 8. 24–25.

^{page 372 note 1} 1 Thess. 1.3.

^{page 372 note 2} In the LXX (Gen. 6.9, Exod. 12.5, Deut. 18.13) τ⋯λειος translates the Hebrew tamim which signifies that which is whole, entire, intact. Thus James associates τ⋯λειοι with ⋯λ⋯κληροι (1.4). The moral exhortations of the epistles would have no point if Christians had already reached this state.

^{page 372 note 3} Phil. 3.12.

^{page 372 note 4} Heb. 2.10, 5.8–10.

^{page 372 note 5} Col. 1.28, 4.12; James 1.4.

^{page 372 note 6} Matt. 5.48. Luke (6.36) has ‘merciful’ where Matthew has ‘perfect’. M. Black concludes from the paronomasia in the Aramaic equivalent to Matt. 5.47–48 that Matthew preserves the original form of the saying as spoken by Jesus, and that the Lucan variant is due to the influence of the Targum, Pseudo-Jonathan of Lev. 22.28 (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford 1946, 138–139)Google Scholar. In Matt. 19.16–21 Jesus again identifies perfection with selfless generosity.

^{page 372 note 7} Col. 3.14. Paul means that love unites and perfects all the other virtues.

^{page 373 note 1} John 17.23.

^{page 373 note 2} 1 Cor. 13.10.

^{page 373 note 3} Eph. 1. 10.

^{page 373 note 4} 1 Cor. 2.6 where τ⋯λειοι signifies those who have achieved a sufficient degree of perfection in love for them to receive the higher wisdom (σοφ⋯α) which Paul would like to communicate. That the Corinthians have failed to achieve it is shown by their jealousy and party-strife. τ⋯λειος here has a sense which is not contained in the English ‘perfect’. It stands in contrast to ν⋯πιος (babe) and means a person who is morally ‘grown-up’ or ‘mature’—a meaning which the word has in Philo and Heb. 5.14. One can be morally mature (relatively perfect) without being completely blameless (absolutely perfect); one can be in sight of the goal, and live under its inspiration, without actually having reached it. Similarly in Phil. 3.15 τ⋯λειοι indicates a relative, not an absolute, perfection; for in v. 12 Paul admits that he himself has not yet been made perfect.

^{page 374 note 1} The Gospel and the Law of Christ (London, 1949), pp. 17–18Google Scholar. See also Gospel and Law (Cambridge 1951), pp. 71–74.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 2} For specimen texts see 1 Thess. 4. 15–17, 1 Cor. 7, Phil. 3.20–21, 1 John 2.18, Heb. 9.28, 1 Pet. 4.7, 2 Pet. 3.8–10, Rev. 22.12, 20.

^{page 374 note 3} The present writer has surveyed the evidence in The Scottish Journal of Theology, June 1959, pp. 171–92.

^{page 374 note 4} The English translation (first made in 1910) of Von Reimarus zu Wrede (published in 1906).

^{page 375 note 1} Matt. 11.16–19=Luke 7.31–35.

^{page 375 note 2} The Vision of God (London, 1931), p. 67.Google Scholar

^{page 375 note 3} It must be remembered that the more extreme injunctions of Jesus to renounce property and wealth (Mark 6.8–9, Matt. 19.16–21) are directed towards those who would form the inner band of His disciples. He did not require Zacchaeus to abandon his riches entirely but was content with such amends as Zacchaeus was prepared to make (Luke 19.1–10). The incident is recorded only by Luke who was (as Kirk points out) the most ascetical of the evangelists. Certainly Jesus always condemned wrongful attachment to money and anxiety about it; but so did many other moral teachers in the ancient world.

^{page 376 note 1} Matt. 6.25–34.

^{page 376 note 2} Matt. 5.48.

^{page 376 note 3} It is true that Jesus sometimes uses the language of‘reward’ in speaking of the blessings that the righteous will obtain in the life to come. But four points must be noted. Firstly, the ‘reward’ is always spiritual, and so is strictly continuous with ‘righteousness’ for which it is given. Secondly, the word ‘reward’ is no more than a vivid manner of stating the axiom that in a world governed by a just, omnipotent God right conduct must lead to good consequences as surely as wrong actions must lead to bad. Thirdly, the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard shows that a divine reward cannot be earned by human merit; like everything else in the Christian life it is a gift of grace. Fourthly, ‘reward and punishment never determine the content of the moral demand itself’ (Bornkamm, G., Jesus of Nazareth, English trans., London, 1960, p. 141)Google Scholar. According to Jesus ‘the essential sanction for righteousness is the nature of God’ (Wilder, A. N., Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus, New York, 1950, p. 133).Google Scholar

^{page 377 note 1} Mark 13.32–37 (=Luke 12.35–40), Luke 19.11–27=Matt. 25.14–30, and Luke 12.54.

^{page 377 note 2} The parable of the Rich Fool (Luke 12.13–21). Memento mori is a prominent theme among the Greek and Latin moralists. Whether Christ comes soon or late it is true—and in the face of death it is felt to be terrifyingly true—that ‘the world passes away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides for ever’ (1 John 2.17).

^{page 377 note 3} 1 Thess. 5.6.

^{page 377 note 4} Rom. 13.11–12.

^{page 378 note 1} Paul's general advice in 29b–31a to remain detached from the world while engaged in it remains valid outside its apocalyptic context. The advice has been repeated in varying language by Christian thinkers of every school.

^{page 379 note 1} 1 Cor. 5.10, 10.27.

^{page 379 note 2} Rom. 13.1–7, 1 Pet. 2.13–17.

^{page 379 note 3} Scott, E. F., Man and Society in the New Testament (New York, 1947), p. 193.Google Scholar

^{page 379 note 4} 1 Cor. 7.20–24. Within the Church slaves and freemen enjoyed complete parity (Gal, 3.28, Col. 3.11, and the epistle to Philemon). The contrast between conditions of life in the two ages could hardly be more marked.

^{page 379 note 5} 1 Cor. 1.26.

^{page 379 note 6} This consideration bears even more acutely on the teaching of Jesus Himself. Those whom He taught were mainly peasants who had no voice in the government of their land. The only thing most of them could render to Caesar was tribute. This historical setting does not mean that Jesus' ethics are inapplicable to a more complex society; it merely explains (in part, and from a human standpoint) why He Himself did not make the application.

^{page 381 note 1} The Divine Imperative (English trans., London, 1937), p. 228.Google Scholar

^{page 381 note 2} Col. 3.11.