^{Page 221 note 1} There are many forms of ‘degree-Christology’. Some are based on classical theism; they exhibit Christ as one who offered a perfect creaturely response to the Creator. Other forms presuppose another intellectual framework. Thus earlier in this century many theologians interpreted Christ, from the standpoint of Hegelian idealism, as the highest manifestation of the Absolute's self-development. More recently some writers have attempted to make Christ the supreme exemplification of the divine-human relationship posited by process-thought.

^{Page 221 note 2} Those who advocate a ‘degree-Christology’ sometimes use the term ‘incarnation’ for God's revelation in Jesus. Whether this usage is valid is a question into which I cannot enter here. But I wish to make it clear that the only meaning of the term with which I am concerned is the traditional one according to which God, though substantially distinct from the world that he created ex nihilo, assumed a created nature in Jesus.

^{Page 221 note 3} London, 1968, p. 195.Google Scholar

^{Page 222 note 1} See the beginning of Luke's gospel. Hence I agree with Wolfhart Pannenberg's assertion that ‘Christology is concerned, not only with unfolding the Christian community's confession of Christ, but above all with grounding it in the activity and fate of Jesus in the past’ (Jesus-God and Man, London, 1968, p. 28).Google Scholar

^{Page 222 note 2} For an all-inclusive and penetrating account of ‘The Jesus of history’ that is written with full awareness of the critical problems involved see Dodd's, C. H.The Founder of Christianity, especially chapters 3 and 4 (London, 1971).Google Scholar

^{Page 223 note 1} Admittedly the Greek verb I have translated ‘has arrived’ can also be translated ‘has drawn near’ or ‘is at hand’; but even if one of the latter translations is adopted, the call to repentance shows that the kingdom will come very soon; and the words ‘the time is fulfilled’ surely require the translation I have given.

^{Page 223 note 2} Luke 11: 20 (= Matt. 12:28).

^{Page 223 note 3} Mark 2: 21–22.Google Scholar

^{Page 223 note 4} Matt. 11: 19 (= Luke 7: 34).

^{Page 224 note 1} Mark 1: 22.

^{Page 224 note 2} Matt. 5: 38 (Cf. Exod. 21: 24; Lev. 24: 20; Deut. 19: 21).

^{Page 224 note 3} Essays on New Testament Themes (London, 1964, p. 39).Google Scholar

^{Page 224 note 4} Mark 1: 16–18.Google Scholar

^{Page 224 note 5} See his command to the rich man in Mark 10: 17–22 and his dealings with Zacchaeus in Luke 19: 11–10.Google Scholar

^{Page 224 note 6} Mark 11: 27–8.Google Scholar

^{Page 225 note 1} The Prayers of Jesus (London, 1967).Google Scholar

^{Page 225 note 2} That is, all knowledge of God.

^{Page 225 note 3} Jeremias adds that ‘there are numerous parallels in the gospels to the consciousness of being in a singular way the recipient and mediator of knowledge of God which is expressed in Matt. 11: 27’ (op. Cit., p. 51).Google Scholar

^{Page 225 note 4} The enigmatic nature of the historical Jesus has been well stated by Bornkamm, G. in a book that, in my opinion, is the most impressive testimony to the fact that even if we allow form-criticism its fullest rational scope (and Bornkamm allows more than I think is necessary) we are still left with a Jesus who cannot be contained within any human category. In his Jesus of Nazareth (London, 1960, p. 56) Bornkamm writes thus. ‘Jesus belongs to this world. Yet in the midst of it he is of unmistakable otherness. This is the secret of his influence and his rejection. Faith has given manifold expression to this secret. But even he who, prior to any interpretation, keeps his eyes fixed upon the historical appearance of Jesus, upon the manner of his words and works, even he meets with this his insoluble mystery’.Google Scholar

^{Page 225 note 5} Mark 9: 1, 14: 25; Matt. 6: 10 (=Luke 11: 2).

^{Page 225 note 6} See (to give a few of many possible examples) Mark 8: 38, 13 (passim) and Luke 13: 32. Doubtless scholars will continue to differ over the interpretation of the mode (or modes) of consummation that Jesus envisaged; but these differences are irrelevant to my present purpose.

^{Page 226 note 1} Acts 2: 14–36. Although I believe that this is a substantially accurate account of primitive Palestinian preaching the belief (which is not shared by many scholars) is not necessary to my argument.

^{Page 226 note 2} vv. 32–36 (the quotation is from Psalm 110: 1).Google Scholar

^{Page 226 note 3} Mark 6: 14.

^{Page 227 note 1} Dominus Noster (Cambridge, 1918, pp. 168–9). Scott's theological point remains even if we do not endorse his assumption of the sermon's historicity. (Scott's words ‘and more’ remind one of the way in which Ramsey, I. T. speaks of religious ‘disclosure-situations’. Doubtless the verbal similarity is accidental; but it is still significant).Google Scholar

^{Page 227 note 2} See Rom. 1–6passim.Google Scholar

^{Page 227 note 3} I Cor. 1: 24.

^{Page 227 note 4} I Cor. 8: 6; Col. 1:16.

^{Page 227 note 5} Phil. 2: 6 which the N.E.B. renders: ‘For the divine nature was his from the first’. (For a comprehensive and judicious discussion of this ‘hymn’ see Taylor's, V.The Person of Christ in New Testament Teaching, London, 1963, pp. 63–79.)Google Scholar

^{Page 227 note 6} 2 Cor. 4: 4 and Col. 1: 15 (which immediately precedes an affirmation of Christ's creative function.)

^{Page 227 note 7} 2 Cor. 4: 6.

^{Page 227 note 8} Col. 1: 19.

^{Page 227 note 9} A creative role is also assigned to Jesus in the opening verses of the epistle to the Hebrews where it is said that he ‘reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power’. (By ‘creation’ I mean ‘creation ex nihilo’. That Christ is God's creative instrument in this, ultimate, sense is clearly implied by ‘all things’ in I Cor. 8: 6 and Col. 1: 16.)

^{Page 228 note 1} Admittedly some texts, if read in isolation and pressed dogmatically, could be taken to militate against belief in Christ's pre-existent and complete divinity. Thus Acts 2: 34–36 could be taken to imply adoptionism. Again, 1. Cor. 15: 28 and John 14: 28 could be adduced in support of subordinationism. Obviously the Biblical writers were not systematic theologians; so that we must not expect immediate and complete consistency in all their utterances. Also these texts can be interpreted in ways that are compatible with the doctrine of the Incarnation. Thus Jesus's human victory over evil was not complete until his exaltation. Again, in his human nature he was inevitably subordinate to the Father.Google Scholar

^{Page 228 note 2} Phil. 1: 2;

^{Page 228 note 3} Acts 7: 59; 1 Cor. 1: 2; Rev. 22: 20.

^{Page 228 note 4} 1 Cor. 7: 10, 25.Google Scholar

^{Page 228 note 5} The Birth of the New Testament (London, 1962, p. 9).Google Scholar

^{Page 228 note 6} v. 11. Cf. Isa. 45: 23 where Yahweh says: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear’.

^{Page 229 note 1} I certainly do not mean that the N.T. exhibits a uniform chronological development in its teaching on Christ's person and work.

^{Page 229 note 2} It has become a fashion in some quarters to contrast the ‘Jewish’ and ‘functional’ Christology of the N.T. with later ‘Greek’ formulations that describe Christ ‘metaphysically’ in terms of his ‘status’ within the Godhead. Like so many attempts to pit Jewish against Greek thought-forms the contrast is misleading. The most primitive Christological terms (such as ‘Christ’ and ‘Lord’) imply the idea of ‘status’; Paul (whose whole cast of mind was Jewish) unquestionably used the language of ‘status’ in Philippians and Colossians; and in any case ‘function’ implies ‘status’. The last point was well made by Fuller, R. H. when he wrote that ‘it is not just a quirk of the Greek mind, but a universal human apperception, that action implies prior being-even if, as is also true, being is only apprehended in action’ (The Foundations of New Testament Christology, Fontana, ed. 1969, p. 248).Google Scholar

^{Page 229 note 3} Admittedly Hellenistic Judaism was accustomed to the idea of various quasi-hypostatic entities (principally ‘Word’ and ‘Wisdom’) through which God was related to the world; but (a) it is still debated how far these should be regarded as objectively distinct forms of being, (b) they were subordinate to God from whom they ‘emanated’ (as is clear from the classical case of the Philonic Logos), and (c) none of them was a man, a figure in history, a human form of ‘flesh’ that every Jew who could claim to be orthodox regarded as ontologically other than divine ‘spirit’.

^{Page 229 note 4} Cambridge, 1938, p. 140.Google Scholar

^{Page 230 note 1} The Making of Christian Doctrine (Cambridge, 1967, p. 87).Google Scholar

^{Page 230 note 2} The Pattern of Christian Truth (London, 1954, p. 27). Turner cites both Christian and pagan texts for the early worship of Jesus as God.Google Scholar

^{Page 231 note 1} For a discussion of this point see Karl Rahner's essay on ‘The Development of Dogma’ in his Theological Investigations, Vol. I, (London, 1961).Google Scholar

^{Page 231 note 2} I have attempted to defend this thesis in my The Christian Knowledge of God (London, 1969).Google Scholar

^{Page 231 note 3} As Farrer, A. M. observed in his essay on ‘Revelation’ in Faith and Logic (ed. by Mitchell, Basil, London, 1957). Farrer adds: ‘Intrinsic criterion is a sort of oxymoron: it means that our decision, denied the aid of ready-made criteria, must be reached by a scrutiny of the thing itself; as happens, perhaps, when we judge the merit of any great and original work of art’ (p. 102).Google Scholar

^{Page 232 note 1} It is far otherwise with Hinduism where monistic presuppositions permit the possibility that many men can be, in varying degrees, ‘incarnations’ of the Absolute. For a trenchant affirmation of the ultimate difference between Hinduism and Christianity on this point see Lewis's, H. D. contribution to World Religions (London, 1966, pp. 184–97).Google Scholar

^{Page 232 note 2} One further point must be noted. Those who hold a degree Christology often claim that their viewpoint is entailed by (or at least is compatible with) N.T. criticism, and that a merely human Jesus is more ‘relevant’ than the Chalcedonian Christ to our ‘modern situation’. But (i) form-criticism entitles us to assert little (by modern standards of historical biography) concerning the historical Jesus, (ii) what emerges-as Bornkamm shows-is an enigmatic figure who cannot be contained within any human category, and (iii) in terms of his historical situation, thought-forms, simple God-centredness, and indifference to matters of socio-political concern Jesus is eminently ‘irrelevant’ to our age.