Xii The Future Of The Lord

Xii The Future Of The Lord

XII THE FUTURE OF THE LORD

SECTION 74. THE LIFE OF EXPECTATION. THE "NEARNESS"

In the preceding study it has been apparent time and again how much the whole of Paul's preaching is determined by the all-important fact that in Christ's advent and work, especially in his death and resurrection, the divine work of redemption in history has reached its fulfillment and the redemptive dispensation of the great future promised by God and foretold by prophecy has become present time: "Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:2). We have been able to trace how all the central subjects of Paul's proclamation of redemption — the revelation of the righteousness of God, the new life of believers, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the church as the new people of God and as the body of Christ — must be understood in the light of this central motif of fulfillment and thus in their fundamentally eschatological and redemptive-historical determination. Along with that, however, we have been able to observe repeatedly that this promise of redemption fulfilled in Christ and the great day of salvation that has dawned with his death and exaltation as yet bear a character that is only in principle and provisional. They do not yet signify the end of the expectation of redemption and do not yet render the Christian hope superfluous. For this reason the "already" and the triumphant "but now" of the fulfillment are always coupled with the "not yet." The revelation of the righteousness of God does indeed guarantee the hope of the glory of God (Rom. 5:2), but does not yet signify the obtaining of this glory in the present time. Nor does the redemptive indicative of having died and having been raised with Christ make the necessity of the imperative in the struggle against sin superfluous. And the Spirit, however much the evidence of deliverance given in Christ from slavery under the law and sin, is still only the earnest and the firstfruits of the perfect redemption. In a word: the certainty that in Christ the day of salvation, the acceptable time, has dawned does not mean the end of redemptive expectation, but only makes it increase in intensity.

This expectation of the coming of the Lord and what accompanies it is one of the most central and powerful motifs of Paul's preaching. There are passages in which, in discussing specific questions or conditions in the church, he devotes deliberate and detailed attention to it — especially in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, but also in 1 Corinthians 15. We shall have to return to them. But in addition to these passages, the extent to which Christ's parousia determines his attention and preaching appears in many ways. He can define the content of conversion and of the Christian life as "waiting for his [God's] Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come" (1 Thess. 1:10), or as "a godly life in this world, in expectation of the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus" (Tit. 2:13). In 1 Corinthians 1:7 he further defines the confirmation of the gospel in the church as "not lacking in any spiritual gift," and as "waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ" (cf. Phil. 3:20). This expectation, which can be called the content of the apostolic testimony (2 Thess. 1:10), is also a powerful motive for the Christian life (1 Thess. 2:12). Again and again the apostle confronts the church with the day of Christ, on which it will have to appear before its Lord pure and blameless (Phil. 1:10; 1 Thess. 3:13; 5:23; 1 Cor. 1:8). This motive is the more urgent because by this church Paul evidently does not mean the church in its already glorified mode of existence after the resurrection, but simply in its historical appearance, directed toward the parousia. Its calling to holiness and blamelessness he places in the very concrete light of the expected coming of the Lord, and it is the church with whom as his glorying he hopes to enter into the presence of the Lord at his coming (2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 2:16), indeed it is his hope, his joy, and crown of honor before his Lord (1 Thess. 2:19, 20). It is with a view to that approaching day that believers are to cast off the works of darkness and to put on the armor of light. It is now time to awaken out of sleep; salvation is already nearer than when they first believed. The night is far spent, and the day is at hand. One is therefore to walk becomingly as in the day and no longer in the sins of darkness (Rom. 13:11-13). One meets with the same motifs in 1 Thessalonians 5:2-8. It is clear both that the motif of fulfillment, of already belonging to the day, finds expression here, and on the other hand that, as the great day of the Lord, this day is coming and with its beams is illuminating the present.

The coming of the Lord can for this reason not only be a motive for sanctification, but also a source and ground of comfort in the present "affliction," a word that does not merely refer to an incidental setback or difficulty, but very definitely characterizes the last phase of the present world preceding the coming of Christ.¹ Therefore the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven also signifies rest for those who are now in that distress (2 Thess. 1:6ff.). Because of this hope of the glory of God the church may glory in this affliction (Rom. 5:2-5). Affliction, suffering, and glory frequently occur in one context (Rom. 8:18), indeed in the former lie the announcement and proof of the latter (Rom. 8:19-23). Hope in the appearing of Christ (Tit. 2:13) is accordingly the distinguishing mark of the Christian life (Rom. 8:24; Gal. 5:5). As the one who will appear, Christ is the hope of glory (Col. 1:27), or in the absolute sense "our hope" (1 Tim. 1:1), with whose manifestation the church, too, will be manifested in glory (Col. 3:4). It is this glory which is time and again held out in prospect to the church that now finds itself in distress and suffering (1 Cor. 15:43; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:17; Eph. 1:18; Phil. 3:4; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 1:10), and on which its hope is set (Col. 1:5; 1 Thess. 5:8; Tit. 1:2; 2:13; 3:7). And with what intensity this expectation is charged all those passages prove in which the apostle strongly accentuates the "not yet" of the present. There the sparks shoot, as it were, to and fro between the two poles (Rom. 8:18ff.; 2 Cor. 4:16-18); there it is evident what a living and fervent longing supports and glows through all the preaching of the apostle (cf. Rom. 7:24, 25; 8:23, et al.).²

In view of the important place the future expectation occupies in Paul's preaching and the actual significance he ascribes to it, it is no wonder that the query as to the eschatological perspective in a temporal respect has frequently been raised. In so doing the question in particular that has been dealt with repeatedly is whether he considered the parousia of the Lord as an event still to be experienced by him, or by his generation, and proceeds from that idea in his epistles. It is not a matter of a simple yes or no answer to this specific question, but above all of that which is closely bound up with it as to how Paul viewed the present life and its development in the light of the coming parousia.

Now in our opinion it is difficult to doubt that not only the ancient Christian church, but Paul, too, in the epistles that have come down to us, did not make allowance for a centuries-long continuing development of the present world order. The manner in which he speaks, for example, in Romans 13:11ff., of the approaching of salvation (that, is to say, the parousia of Christ — "salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed") points to the fact that the apostle did not expect Christ's coming to be in the distant future.³ This may also appear from the words of Philippians 4:5, likewise to be understood to a temporal effect: "The Lord is at hand." Further, reference is to be made to the pronouncement in 1 Corinthians 7:29: "I mean this, brethren, the time is short."⁴ In view of what follows this, in which the church is exhorted not to cling to the present life, because "the outward form of this world"⁵ is passing away (vv. 29ff.), the "shortness" of the time is to be taken as the remaining temporal duration of this world and not merely of the individual life of believers.⁶ Although the qualification "short" (compressed) does not any more than "at hand" give a precise definition and can be taken more or less broadly, it is nevertheless clear that Paul sees in this "shortness" an urgent motive even for his readers of that day. The shortness of the time, the nearness of salvation, is a matter of great relevance, which heightens the earnestness of the paraenesis (cf. Phil. 4:5ff.).

And not only does the apostle see the life of the church from this point of view, when he warns it not to continue to cleave to the present life and to be holy in view of the nearness of the day of the Lord (Phil. 1:10; 1 Thess. 3:13; 5:23; 1 Cor. 1:8), but it also determines his view of the world around him. He hears in the whole creation a groaning for redemption, which has the character of an eager longing⁷ of the creature⁸ subjected to death and perishableness, of being already in travail, reaching out in pain toward a new birth (Rom. 8:19, 20, 22). He also sees in all this the approaching end of the power of darkness, which still appears as the world-ruling principle (Eph. 6:12). For God will soon ( en tachei) crush Satan under the feet of the church, in accordance with the promise given at the ejection of man from Paradise (Rom. 16:20).

.

Interpreters frequently go further and suppose that Paul counted on himself still living to see the parousia of Christ, and that he awakened that expectation in the church. Appeal is made to two passages in particular for that purpose, namely, 1 Thessalonians 4:13ff. and 1 Corinthians 15:51. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13 Paul goes into the anxiety that has arisen in the church concerning those among them who have died and had thus not lived to see the coming of Christ. This is said to point to the fact that during his time in Thessalonica he had not spoken of this possibility, that Christians should die before the parousia. It is also supposed to be clearly evident, when in 1 Thessalonians 4:13 he attempts to remove this anxiety, that neither he himself nor his readers have thought of their own dying before the parousia. Appeal is then made especially to the "we" in the words: "we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord [or: we who continue to live until the coming of the Lord], shall in no case precede those who have fallen asleep" (1 Thess. 4:15; cf. v. 17).⁹ And a similar conclusion is attached to 1 Corinthians 15:51: "Behold, I tell you a mystery: we all shall not sleep, but we shall be changed." Paul is said to have declared herewith that not all Christians of his time, nor he himself, would die before the parousia. And it is alleged that this cannot be set aside, for example, by referring the fact that all shall not sleep, not to Paul and those whom he addresses themselves, but just to those who are alive at the parousia.¹⁰

Now in the light of the "nearness" pronouncements that have already been cited, one can hardly contend that personally living to see the parousia was a thought that was far removed from Paul's mind; rather, the reverse seems to be the case. Likewise the fact that the church at Thessalonica could place the death of believers before Christ's coming only with difficulty points out how relevant it had found the announcement of the parousia in the apostolic preaching and how much that event had come, as it were, to fill its whole horizon (cf. 1 Thess. 1:9, 10). It is something else again, however, whether Paul, either in his preaching or in his epistles, may be said to have left no place for another possibility, so that one would be permitted to take the words "we who are left alive," etc., in I Thessalonians 4:15, 17, only in a positive and not in a hypothetical or at least a facultative sense ("so far as we," etc.). And this is, on further reflection, surely a contention that is difficult to maintain. First of all, it is not in any sense apparent from Paul's answer to the church that the death of members of the congregation before the parousia constituted a problem for him. Rather his answer is evidence to the contrary. He is able indeed to appeal to a word of the Lord in which the fate of those who died (before the parousia) as well as that of survivors had been foreseen. In addition, if it had been the presupposition of Paul's preaching that believers continue to live till the parousia, he would already have attributed a certain immortality to himself and his fellow believers, something that is altogether in conflict with the manner in which he generally speaks of his own life and death and that of his fellow-believers (cf., e.g., 1 Thess. 5:10; Rom. 14:7-9; 8:10, 11, to say nothing of such passages as Phil. 1:22ff.; 2:17; 2 Cor. 4:11; 5:1ff.; 2 Tim. 4:6, in which the possibility, in part even the expectation, of dying before the coming of Christ is explicitly posited).

This scarcely deniable fact has accordingly given rise to the theory that a certain contradiction exists in Paul's pronouncements on death; there is said to be a juxtaposition of the eschatological expectation of the parousia and an individual hope in the period after death, which would in a sense give expression to the peculiarity of Paul's faith.¹¹ More radical and in a certain respect more plausible is the view that as time went on Paul changed his mind.¹² Inasmuch, however, as the "old" standpoint is seen to emerge in 1 Corinthians 15 and the "new" in 2 Corinthians 5:1ff., one is surely obliged to reach the bold assertion that that change came about in the one- or two-year interval between the first and second epistles to the Corinthians.¹³ But all these theories are untenable. How could Paul have been able to "introduce" these sweeping "alterations" in his epistles to Corinth, written in such rapid succession, without speaking so much as one word of justification concerning them, while both in 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 5 he deals with death explicitly and at length? But then, how could he persist so long (up to the writing of 2 Cor.) in this "old" conception? How many believers had he, who wrote his epistles twenty years and more after his conversion, already seen pass away? And how could he then, whether in his preaching or in his first epistles, have given people the impression that they were no longer to die? That he himself would thereby occupy an exceptional position is just as incapable of being made plausible. In the passages to which appeal is made, in 1 Thessalonians 4:15ff. as well as in 1 Corinthians 15:51, he speaks of "we." This "we" can accordingly signify nothing other than a general designation that has a facultative thrust: "we," insofar as we are permitted to experience this and insofar as this will be found to apply to us (cf., e.g., Rom. 15:1). One will thus be allowed to conclude that living to see the parousia was for Paul indeed a real possibility, we may perhaps say the object of his hope and expectation, but that both for his own faith and for his paraenesis this expectation was in no way a conditio sine qua non. The force of his expectation for the future and of his paraenesis is to be sure dependent on the appearing of Christ in glory, and on its significance for the present, but not on still being alive to see this appearing.

This ascertainment, however important it may be, does not, however, alter the fact that Paul's preaching and particularly the paraenesis resulting from it was, as we have seen, very strongly conditioned by the nearness of Christ's parousia. And the question can arise whether this motif does not in a decisive way make the validity of the pronouncements and exhortations conditioned by it dependent on the shortness of the time still remaining to the world. One will certainly have to keep fully in view that in Paul also every computation of the time of the parousia is entirely lacking, and that furthermore, as we shall see in greater detail, he also takes a strong position against the failure to observe what is yet to take place in the interval that remains (cf., e.g., 2 Thess. 2:3ff.). One can certainly say, therefore, that the connection between the nearness and the incalculability of the end is highly essential for understanding the Pauline Naherwartung. ¹⁴On the other hand, this may not lead to such a relativizing of the "nearness" that the moment of time situated in it would scarcely play a part any longer and one would find in the "nearness" only the expression of the earnestness of the preaching or something of that sort. For however much the nearness pronouncements lie outside the sphere of calculation and numerical speculation, it does not alter the fact that this nearness is not to be eliminated as a category of time or to be converted into a general denotation of mystical or transcendental "nearness."

Another consideration seems to us to be no less important, therefore, for a correct understanding of this nearness and for the continuing validity of the pronouncements and paraenesis motivated by it: the indissoluble unity of the perfect tense and the future tense of the New Testament eschatology in general and of the Pauline in particular. This element becomes clear to us when we get a better view of the ground for these nearness pronouncements in Paul and along with that of the nature of this nearness. For it is plain that Paul does not derive the nearness of Christ's parousia from any special knowledge or insight concerning the time within which this parousia is to be expected — it is precisely with respect to that that he acknowledges his ignorance (1 Thess. 5:1, 2) — but rather from the overwhelming significance of the eschatological time of redemption that has already been entered upon with Christ's first advent. The certainty of standing in this all-embracing turning point of the times for him makes the parousia, too, such a relevant reality filling the whole of his horizon. Time and again we accordingly see that both these motifs — that of the "realized" and that of the still "prospective" eschatology — are brought into immediate relation with each other and, as it were, flow over into one another; and that the paraenesis that points toward the nearness of Christ's coming is borne by what the church already is and already has in Christ. When, for example, it is said to the church in 1 Thessalonians 5:4: "but you, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief," this does not mean that the church in distinction from others is in fact informed as to "the times and the seasons" and that it does not apply to it that the day of the Lord "so comes as a thief in the night." It means instead that as standing in the light that has already appeared and as "sons" of the day that has already dawned (cf. v. 5), the church is no longer able carelessly to put off the clay of the Lord, but rather goes to meet it and expects it in soberness and watchfulness (vv. 6ff.). Similarly, when it is said to believers in Romans 13:12 that the night is far gone and the day is at hand, there is not here in the first place a reference to the light that is still to come, but to that which already has come. "Children of the light" in the New Testament and with Paul does not mean merely: destined for the coming light, but in the first place: standing in the light that has already appeared. And "the day," of which there is mention in Romans 13 ("the day is at hand . . . let us walk becomingly as in broad daylight"), is to be understood, therefore, not only as the day of the judgment or of the parousia, but as the redemptive dispensation that has already dawned in Christ. In the inseparable and reciprocal linking of the perfect with the future and of the future with the perfect, the real motivation and the nature of the nearness pronouncements are to be sought, and the perfect- and future-aspect of Christ's coming time and again encroach upon each other. The one cannot exist without the other, cannot be thought of without the other, and automatically summons the other therefore as an indispensable complement to itself.

As a result, Paul's preaching with regard to the character or meaning of the interval (between Christ's ascension and parousia) exhibits a remarkable ambivalence. Starting from the entrance of what has already taken place, proclaimed with so much force, the conclusion seems to be obvious that for this present world, too, an entirely new future, a new basis of life has opened up. Yet this conclusion is not drawn in the temporal sense. There is no new perspective forcing its way through as a view of the future or of the mandate of the church spanning the ages. Rather the new present thus understood remains in respect of time most closely bound to the future. An adequate period of time scarcely appears to be left over for a development of the kingdom of Christ in the present world. And this is the more striking because the universality — preached with such great power especially by Paul — of the salvation that has made its appearance in Christ and its proclamation in the world seem to make an extension of the temporal and spatial horizon of this world, as it were, inevitable. This spatial and even cosmic perspective is accordingly abundantly present in Paul, but yet not in the sense that it would form the foundation for an accompanying expansion of the time of the present world. Rather, the universal preaching to all nations and in the whole world is seen as a matter the execution of which may already be pointed out, but not as the beginning of a new path the end of which is as yet unforeseeable (cf. Col. 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 15:19, 23). Undoubtedly its fulfillment, too, is not to be calculated by human standards, and the apostle here makes everything conditional on the fullness determined in God's counsel of redemption (cf. Rom. 11:12, 25). But acknowledging that does not prevent him from concentrating on the nearness of the parousia and wakening the church to it.

On the other hand, it is of no less importance to observe that this eschatological determination of Paul's preaching and paraenesis nowhere asserts itself as a depreciation of life in the present world. Even in the oldest epistles there is no trace whatever of that; rather, he resists precisely those who from the early coming of the Lord want to infer a lesser evaluation of the present life (2 Thess. 3:6ff.). Opposition and suffering in this world do weigh heavily on him, especially with a view to the church. He sees this "affliction" in an eschatological light and, as we have already seen in another context, because this distress is evaluated eschatologically, in a specific situation he makes a strong reservation in the unqualified acceptance, for example, of married life (1 Cor. 7:29ff.). But on the other hand it is just this distress which is for him the motive for stirring up the church to stand positively in the world. Because the days are evil, the church is to make the most of the opportunity (still) given it (Eph. 5:15, 16; Col. 4:5). What is meant by this "opportunity" is not merely a favorable point of time in general, but the continuance of the time of the present life. It is this opportunity which is now to be made the most of (literally: "to buy up"); all the possibilities present in it are to be used. And to what purpose? To walk carefully and wisely (Eph. 5:15), in particular toward those who are without (Col. 4:5, 6), to do good toward all men and especially toward those who are of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10). Again and again this kairos is pointed to (cf. Rom. 13:11) as the critical juncture, as the special opportunity, in which the church is to place the insight that has been given it into the will of God (Eph. 5:15) at the service of others, and is to know its special responsibility. This consists also in acknowledging and maintaining the ordinance God has given for the continued existence and organization of natural life. The passage on the authorities in Romans 13 immediately precedes: you know the Kairos, being faced with the coming of the Lord (Rom. 13:11). The same holds for the admonition to a regular and orderly life in 1 Thessalonians 5:14 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6ff. And in 1 Timothy 4:1ff. the apostle warns that "in the last times," as the Spirit expressly says, some will fall away from the faith, among other things, by forbidding to marry and demanding abstinence from foods that God has created. Whereas in 1 Corinthians 7, therefore, the view of the impending distress and the shortness of the time leads him to great reserve with respect to entering into marriage, here he warns, likewise with an appeal to "the last days," against all kinds of self-willed religion and ascetic practices that bring marriage into discredit. The one is not in conflict with the other. Both together give us a correct insight into the eschatological determination of Paul's paraenetic preaching for the interim period. The eschatological motive, the consciousness of the coming of the Lord as near at hand, has not a negative, but a positive significance for life in the present time. It does not make the responsibility for that life relative, but rather elevates it. It is consequently not so that in a prolongation of the present world time this eschatological preaching and paraenesis would lose its validity or meaning. The contrary is rather the case. There is nothing that makes believers aware with greater seriousness of their responsibility for the present life than the manner in which the motive of the nearness of the parousia functions in Paul's preaching.

On account of this not only material, but also temporal connection of the perfect tense and the future tense, there is in Paul's nearness pronouncements, according to the nature of prophecy,¹⁵ a clear proleptic element. In spite of all its provisional character that cries out for the consummation, the perfect would appear, even for the present existence of life and the world, to have a more inclusive significance and to span a larger period than could be perceived a priori at the turning point of the times. For that matter, as we have already seen, all the conditions for such a protracted development are implicit in Paul's preaching itself. Not only does the preaching of the gospel itself, in its character of inviting, enlisting, compelling to decision, in its proclamation of God's will to reconciliation and of his longsuffering toward all men, ask time and again, as it were, for more space and more time, before the irrevocableness of the end that accompanies the parousia enters in (cf., e.g., Luke 13:8).¹⁶ But further, one is to think here of the depth of God's wisdom, the unsearchableness of his judgments, and the inscrutableness of his ways, again and again confessed by Paul (cf. Rom. 11:33), or, as it is called in Ephesians 3:18: the breadth and length and height and depth of God's work of redemption and of the love of Christ that surpasses all knowledge. These universal dimensions of what has taken place in Christ, embracing the whole creation, contain a multiplicity of viewpoints also for the regenerating power of the gospel in the present world and for the continuing unlocking of the plan of God's counsel with respect to history. The result of all this has accordingly been that with the prolongation of the time of the present world Paul's preaching has not become unintelligible,¹⁷ but for the church has ever and again been full of positive guidance and direction in its course through history. For this preaching is and remains, even when it draws the future of the Lord, as it were, within the boundaries of the present, preaching of the victory that Christ has already gained over the powers of darkness. Therefore every reflection on what has been called the meaning of history or of the interim time is not to start from "the problem of the delay of the parousia," but rather from this all-embracing motif of fulfillment.¹⁸

When this takes place in the spirit and power of the Apostle Paul, the nearness of Christ's coming will not thereby fade into the background as an expectation becoming ever more obscured. For Christ is one, and it holds with respect to the problem of the relevance of the "at hand" that Christ is not divided. In the final analysis the "at hand" does not involve a question of the importance of the length of the intervening period, but of the inseparability of the future from the perfect. This "at hand" is not only the expression therefore of individual human "understanding of Being" ( Seinsverständnis), in which the meaning of history would be swallowed up by eschatology;¹⁹ it rather, first and foremost, gives testimony to the irresistible progress and haste of the divine work in its all-embracing sense (cf. Luke 18:8). But "at hand" thus understood will not be able to find its standard only in the unity and inseparability of present and future, as faith, standing on the turning point of the times, prophetically takes them together in one glance; it will also have to be understood ever and again out of the divine dimensions indicated by the gospel itself of the counsel of God and of its realization in history. It is only in this sense that "at hand" retains its relation to history, and at the same time does not lose its significance in the relativity of human historical consciousness.

SECTION 75. DEATH BEFORE THE PAROUSIA. THE " INTERMEDIATESTATE"

Before going further into Paul's expectation for the future in general, we have to give attention here also to the question frequently treated in recent years whether there is a place in this expectation for the so called intermediate state between death and the resurrection, and if so, in what this state consists.²⁰ In the preceding section we have seen that the death of believers before the parousia is not an "unforeseen thing" in Paul's preaching, so that one may anticipate that the church is not left in doubt concerning the fate of deceased believers. Paul prefers to speak of this dying as "falling asleep" (koimasthai; cf. 1 Cor. 11:30; 15:6, 18, 20; 1 Thess. 4:13ff.). Likewise he denotes having already died as "sleeping" (katheudein; Eph. 5:14; 1 Thess. 5:10).²¹

The question has indeed been asked whether by this description the condition of deceased believers before the parousia is also thought of as a sleep in which all activity and consciousness cease and from which they will only awaken at the resurrection.²² But it is certainly incorrect to take the words "to fall asleep" and "to sleep" as an explication of the manner of continued existence after death. For first of all, this expression is not a distinctive characteristic only of the preaching of Paul and of the New Testament as a whole. It also occurs in all sorts of places outside the sphere of the Bible.²³ And in the second place, there are other pronouncements in Paul that define the significance of this intermediate state in a manner much more his own.

Besides this, these pronouncements are of an indirect sort, and one cannot speak of a doctrine concerning the intermediate state in Paul, The clearest passage is surely Philippians 1:20ff. The apostle here posits the possibility that he will not survive his imprisonment. The chief thing for him, however, is that Christ be glorified in his body (his present existence), "whether by my life, or by my death" (v. 20). He can speak in this way because, as he adds in verse 21, for him living is Christ and dying gain. What he means by this is clarified further along when he says that he does not know what he ought to choose and that he is hard pressed between the two: his desire is "to depart and be with Christ; for it is better by far"; yet for the church it is more profitable that he remain.

On the relation of verses 20 and 21 there is much difference of opinion.²⁴ The most natural view is that by "living" and "dying" in verse 21 Paul is reflecting on "whether by my life or by my death" in verse 20. The difficulty lies in this, however, that both predicates in verse 21, "Christ" and "gain," seem to lend themselves less well to a description of the distinction between living and dying. For this reason some choose to take verse 21 as a further explication of the last three words in verse 20: for inasmuch as for me to live is Christ, therefore to die for me is only gain. Verse 22 would then hark back to the possibility posited in verse 20 of continuing to live on earth and throw light on its importance.²⁵ Others think that verse 21 does not have reference so much to Paul's own lot as indeed to what he calls in verse 20 the magnifying of Christ. This would take place by his life as well as by his death. For the life of Paul is a demonstration of the glory of Christ. If he must die for Christ, then this applies still more, and this is to be taken as "gain" in that sense, whether with a view to the proclamation of the gospel, or as a gain for Paul when he has to render an account of his work before God. In both cases "gain" would not be a description of what was in store for Paul immediately after death and thus not be a qualification of the intermediate state.²⁶

However one is to understand precisely the transition from verse 20 to verse 21, the words "to die is gain" will have to be taken in the first place as a denotation of what applies to Paul himself.²⁷ The words "to me" are emphatically put first and go with the whole sentence.²⁸ In them he also harks back to what has gone before, in which it is not only a question of the continuing proclamation of the gospel but of his own lot as well (cf. vv. 12, 20a). Both members of verse 21 are thereby certainly not to be taken as an antithetic parallelism, in the sense that they set life and death over against each other. The intention is simply to say that (continuing) to live or to die makes no fundamental difference. Living (Christ) and dying (gain) are accordingly not placed over against each other, but the latter is rather a result of the former. That he nevertheless can call dying "gain" is because life in the flesh presents all kinds of trouble, trials, and limitations with regard to what Christ means for him. To that effect one will also have to understand the pronouncement in verses 23 and 24, that he desires to depart (to die) and to be with Christ; for that is better by far. The words "be with Christ" denote therefore what dying means for Paul. He employs the same expression in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. There it has reference, however, to the existence of believers after the parousia, that is to say, after the resurrection and the union with those who are then still alive. In Philippians 1:23 something else is apparently intended, however, namely, a transition that takes place at death, and one will not therefore be allowed to regard the resurrection as tacitly presupposed. For then the alternative of remaining with you or being with Christ is no longer a genuine alternative, and "no longer to remain with you" would not mean at once "to be with Christ." To be with Christ therefore denotes the condition of believers immediately after their death.²⁹ (Concerning the "how" see below, p. 505.)

Another passage that demands further examination for the idea of the intermediate state in Paul's epistles is 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. The exegesis is difficult, and there is much difference of opinion concerning the main point as well as the various parts. Referring to what he has said in the preceding passage about the eternal glory in which believers are to share and which makes them consider their temporary affliction as slight, however grievous it may seem (2 Cor. 4:17), the apostle comes first of all to the statement: "For we know that if our earthly tent-house is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house in the heavens which is not made with hands and is eternal" (v. 1).

The words "for we know," etc., give a further motivation to what has been said before about not looking to the visible, which is temporal, but to the invisible and eternal. "Temporal" and "eternal" are then more fully defined, the former as "our earthly tent-house." However one chooses to explain this expression further,³⁰ it is clear from the whole context that what is meant here is the temporal mode of existence of man in the earthly body. Its dissolution commences already in the present assaults and afflictions mentioned by Paul in the preceding passage (the decay of the outward man; 4:16), and has its completion in death.³¹ Being in that destruction and looking to the death that ever threatens him, Paul then gives testimony to what he knows by faith concerning the invisible and eternal, the building he expects from God, not made with hands but eternal in the heavens.

The question directly arises along with this as to whether what is meant here is something that believers are to receive immediately at their death (whether as an "intermediate state"³² or as a definitive mode of existence taking effect at once after death³³), or whether there is mention here of what is to be realized at the parousia, that is, the new body. For the first conception appeal is made to the words "we have," and these are then so taken that as soon as our earthly house, etc., is demolished, we "have" and also obtain our heavenly house forthwith. But in the first place just such a "forthwith" is missing.³⁴ And further, from the correlation between "building from God," "heavenly house," and "earthly tent-house" as well as from what follows it is to be concluded with certainty that what is meant by this "new building" is the glorified counterpart of the earthly body, and in the whole of Paul's proclamation this is to be understood in no other way than as that which will take place at Christ's coming. The pronouncement of verse 1 will thus denote the whole future in which believers share in Christ (cf. 4:17); "have" thus has an anticipatory³⁵ significance;³⁶ it can also be understood as having something coming to them in heaven, a gift that has been prepared and hidden for them there and in which at the manifestation of Christ believers will also be manifest (Col. 3:3, 4).³⁷

This knowledge concerning the building to be expected from God is further motivated as follows: "For in this [in this respect, or in this temporal existence] we groan, longing to be clothed upon with our habitation which is from heaven; inasmuch as [only] after having put it on we shall not be found naked" (2 Cor. 5:2, 3).

There is in the present "groaning," negatively, a clear indication and confirmation of what believers may expect (cf. Rom. 8:19ff.). Their suffering merely stirs up even more their eager longing "to be covered over" with the habitation from heaven. The words employed here also express that what is intended is not life in heaven before the parousia, but receiving from heaven a new dwelling or new garment in the sense of a new body. This takes place at the parousia.³⁸ Regarding verse 4 many are of the opinion that by "being covered over" Paul is not thinking of the resurrection of the dead, but of the transformation of those who will still be alive at the parousia. There would then be mention not of putting off the body, being unclothed, but of putting on the new body, as it were, over the old.³⁹ But this conception is too limited.⁴⁰ It is a question here in general of the new body, becoming conformed to the glorified body of Christ (1 Cor. 15:51; Phil. 3:21), when "the mortal shall be swallowed up by life" (v. 4; cf. 1 Cor. 15:53, 54).

Verse 3 can perhaps best⁴¹ be taken as the motivation of the longing described in verse 2;⁴² it says then that only when investiture with the dwelling from heaven takes place shall we not be found naked, that is to say, shall we no longer be subject to the threatened character and destruction of the present mode of existence.⁴³

Verse 4 harks back to "the groaning" of verse 2: " . . . for we who [still] dwell in the tent groan, being oppressed, not for the reason that we would be unclothed, but clothed, so that the mortal may be swallowed up by life."

It is still more evident here than in verse 2 that the concern in this pericope is indeed with the present and the future life, not merely in the anthropological sense of old and new corporeality, but in the qualitative-existential sense of whether or not subject any longer to death. That "to be unclothed" has reference here to the perishing of the present existence in the body (cf. 4:16) and not to condemnation in the judgment,⁴⁴appears from the contrast in the final clause where there is mention of the swallowing up of the mortal in the sense of the weak, perishable, threatened life (cf. 1 Cor. 15:53, 54). T o be "unclothed" and to be "clothed" therefore refer to the perishing of the old and the "putting on" of the new existence. there is mention of the swallowing up of the mortal in the sense of the weak, perishable, threatened life (cf. 1 Cor. 15:53, 54). T o be "unclothed" and to be "clothed" therefore refer to the perishing of the old and the "putting on" of the new existence.

Now it has been contended that by to "be unclothed" Paul cannot mean death. For how could he who elsewhere speaks of it as "gain" and calls the (intermediate) state that follows "being with Christ" (Phil. 1:23) here describe this condition as a "dreadful nakedness"?⁴⁵ But this line of reasoning will not hold up. For first of all, it would then surely not be the "intermediate state" following death, but death itself that he terms "being unclothed."⁴⁶But one is thinking altogether too much in abstract anthropological notions when he speaks of a "bodiless continued existence," etc. Paul here is thinking much more pregnantly. He does not speak of the body per se and his contrast is not: to be with or without body. It is for him a matter of two different modes of existence, qualified to be sure by the body, but then in the sense of the "body of our humiliation" (as he puts it in Phil. 3:21), that is, the imperfect mode of existence subject to affliction and death, and the glorified body, sharing in the glory of God (for this contrast cf. also 4:17). For this reason "to be unclothed" also includes more than death alone. It has reference to all that has already been said in the preceding pericope on the vulnerability, affliction, being threatened with death in the present body, "bearing about in the body the putting to death of Jesus," "always being given up to death," "the working of death in our mortal flesh," the "wasting away of the outward man" (cf. 4:7-17). Out of this body of death he sighs for the glory of God in the new body. " T o be unclothed" (v. 4) does not mean therefore merely "to be bodliless," as an anthropological (Greek!) denotation, but. to be given up to death in the comprehensive sense of the word. Conversely, "not to be found naked" and "to be clothed" (vv. 2-4) mean not only: no longer to be bodiless, but: to share in the full glory of God, undoubtedly because of receiving the new glorified "body." In this contrast the "intermediate state" recedes entirely into the background.⁴⁷ In verses 1-5 it is a matter only of the contrast between the believer's being demolished in his temporal mode of existence and the share to be expected in the glory of God in the resurrection.

In this train of thought it can be understood how in verses 5-10 Paul is able to present the "intermediate state" finally as a (temporary) deliverance over against life in the present body:

But he who has prepared us for this very thing [i.e., for this being clothed, etc.] is God, who has given us the earnest of the Spirit. We are always therefore of good courage, even though we know that as long as we reside in the body, we live away from the Lord; for we walk by faith and not by sight. But we are of good courage, and are willing rather to depart from the body and to take up abode with the Lord. Wherefore we also make it our aim, whether by our remaining or our departing, to be well pleasing to him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ... (2 Cor. 5:5-10a).

These words hark back to what has been said previously (cf. 4:16) of perseverance and good courage in the midst of all decay and affliction. Because God has destined us for the coming glory, and given us his Spirit as an earnest of it, there is every reason to be of good courage, even though we know that as long as we are yet in this body, we live away, absent from the Lord. For we still walk in faith. Nevertheless there is that good courage, and, if we were to be faced with the choice, we are the more ready⁴⁸ to accept death and thus to break up residence in the body and to take up abode with the Lord. Because of that expectation and the earnest given of it, we see also as the real purpose of life to be well pleasing to the Lord, whether by staying or by departing. "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of C h r i s t . . . ."

The question arises here anew whether by this "breaking up" and "taking up abode" Paul means the transition that is to be carried into effect in the resurrection, or that which already takes place before the resurrection, at death. In the latter case what is intended by "to take up abode with the Lord" is therefore the intermediate state. And the purport of 2 Corinthians 5:1-10 is then, to summarize it in a few words: In the certain expectation of the life of the resurrection and the new body promised by God, we do not lose heart in the midst of all the assaults and peril of death, and we are also more willing, if this should be the will of God, to leave our bodily existence and even now to be united by death with Christ. Paul wishes to say therefore that with a view to the great future he is prepared to continue to endure affliction and, even more, to accept death for Christ's sake.

Although because of the varying imagery the mode of expression can occasion confusion,⁴⁹ this conception which by "to take up abode with the Lord" understands the intermediate state (that sets in when the "breaking up" of the body takes place) seems most worthy of recommendation. For first of all, these expressions are less suited to indicate the transition from this body to the body of the resurrection. There is mention of leaving the body (v. 8) — not of moving into another body, but of "taking up abode with the Lord." As long as at the breaking up of the earthly tent-house the new bodily dwelling is not there, living with the Lord takes place. This expression in itself can hardly as yet denote the resurrection;⁵⁰ it enables us to know in any case what occurs when the body is abandoned.

But in the second place, the expression in verse 9 — "whether by remaining or by departing" — can scarcely be understood otherwise than as: whether by our living or by our dying. Paul does not place his own preference above everything else, but the manner in which he can best serve God and be well pleasing to him. This "whether . . . or" apparently has the same significance as the corresponding expressions in 1 Thessalonians 5:10: Romans 14:8; cf. Philippians 1:23, 24. And with that it is said therefore that, in expectation of the glorified life of the resurrection, he sees as his highest desire whether by his life or by his death⁵¹ to be well pleasing to God; though if he were put to the choice he would choose the latter because it means at the same time to be permitted to take up abode with Christ.

If this exegesis is, as we think, the correct one, then the intermediate state is in fact spoken of in 2 Corinthians 5:8 and that indeed as "taking up abode with the Lord." That an entirely new idea would herewith be introduced into this pericope, which first speaks of the resurrection, is only correct when one starts from the view that Paul is here giving instruction on the future of believers. He is speaking, however, out of a concrete situation and says what it is that comforts and stirs him in it. Above and beyond all else it is the hope of the resurrection. God will substitute the new body for that which is now being demolished. But though that day should not yet dawn, he would nevertheless be of good courage, even in the affliction he had now, to surrender his life in death. Indeed, he would even prefer it above this life of trials and persecutions in the earthly body. For then he might already take up his abode with the Lord. The idea of the "intermediate state" is no Fremdkörper here. It comes to the fore of itself, as it were, when the great future is still waiting and death is nevertheless an immediate reality. The idea is the more acceptable because it entirely corresponds with the pronouncement of Philippians 1:20ff. (also as regards the climate of the context, living under pressure, giving preference to death). What there is called "to be with the Lord" is here described as "taking up abode with the Lord," two expressions of which one cannot deny that they can easily mean the same thing and admit of easily being bound together.

If within the framework of Paul's preaching there is thus no doubt of the reality of believers being with Christ immediately after their death, much more difficult is the answer to the question as to what significance is to be ascribed to this reality and what place it occupies in the whole of the salvation proclaimed by Paul.

So far as the latter is concerned, first of all, one may undoubtedly, say that in the epistles preserved to us separate and deliberate attention is not devoted to the state of deceased believers after death and before the parousia. In both passages that have been discussed this reality is mentioned with a single word, a word that indeed is to the point but is not further explained. And this is all the more striking because it is the great future that begins with the resurrection that so frequently has Paul's attention. The intermediate state is not spoken of as a separate ground of comfort. However much the certainty with which " to be with Christ" is posited as an indication of the bond between Christ and believers that cannot be broken even by death, yet this expectation apparently does not have an "independent existence" for Paul, but is entirely taken up in the hope of the resurrection, and would not exist without it (cf. 1 Cor. 15:18; 1 Thess. 4:13ff.). Some have wanted indeed to conclude from this that Paul knew nothing of a provisional state of blessedness. Otherwise — so it is said — he would surely have comforted the church with it.⁵² But this conclusion is not compelling.⁵³ All that can be inferred from Paul's reasoning is that without the resurrection there is no hope at all for deceased believers.

It is certainly true therefore that to be with Christ after death and before the resurrection does not have the full redemptive significance in Paul's epistles that the resurrection has. For this reason all hope is focused on the resurrection and not on death, death before the resurrection can be a cause of sorrow and bewilderment for the church, and Paul can explain the death of members of the church as a chastisement on the part of the Lord (1 Cor. 11:30ff.). But this does not mean that deceased believers can only be spoken of before the resurrection in terms of death and not of life. Without question any appeal is lacking here to an immortality that would be native to man or to anything in man. The massive point of view is here again the christological one. 'There is mention not only of those who have "fallen asleep in Christ" (1 Cor. 15:18),⁵⁴ but also of "the dead in Christ" (1 Thess. 4:16). The bond with Christ, having been included in him and sharing in him, does not therefore cease with death (cf. Rom. 8:38; 14:8). Just as believers, whether they live or die, are the Lord's, so Christ also, because he died and came to life again, is Lord both of the dead and of the living (Rom. 14:9). From this all-embracing viewpoint of the belonging of believers to Christ, their communion with him, their inclusion in him, we are also to understand the fact of believers being with Christ directly after their death (Phil. 1:23), as well as after the resurrection (1 Thess. 4:17; 5:10). Only, that which is first in order of time does not stand first in order of faith. But it is on that account no less real and essential.

To the question as to how we must conceive of this "being with Christ" immediately after death we receive no further answer. Anthropologically it is not explained, not even in 2 Corinthians 5 and in Philippians 1. Negatively it is called departing or moving out of the body (ekdēmēsai ek tou sōmatos; 2 Cor. 5:8), and it is placed over against "remaining in the flesh" (Phil. 1:24); the transition is described as "taking up abode with the Lord." We have already questioned⁵⁵ the view that suggests that the "nakedness" of 2 Corinthians 5:3 is a designation of the state between death and the resurrection. The soul is nowhere spoken of in this context as the subject of continued existence after death, however frequently 2 Corinthians 5 and Philippians 1 have been interpreted in this way.⁵⁶ Even of living believers Paul says in Colossians 3:3 that their life is hid (in heaven) with Christ in God. The question is whether we are able to say anything more about being with Christ after death than that it is an existence hidden with Christ in heaven, which is one day to be revealed with him. It is to be no longer in the earthly body and therefore freed from all imperfection, sin, and affliction in this body. For that reason it can also be described by Paul as "gain," which therefore is to be preferred above the trials, the "putting to death in the body," always being given up to death in this life (2 Cor. 5:8; cf. 4:10, 11). "From this perspective death is a gain by comparison with present life."⁵⁷ On the other hand, it is not yet to be in the glorified body and thus for us an inconceivable mode of human existence. Yet the expressions "to be with Christ" and "to take up abode with the Lord" lead us to think of more than a negative no-longer and not-yet. Greijdanus notes, in connection with Philippians 1:23, that to be with Christ indicates not only presence, but close union and fellowship as well, and he defines this then as "to be personally with the Lord, to see him, to be permitted to share in his company, to live in his presence,"⁵⁸ though a little further along he adds (when writing on "for this is better by far") that these words do not give a description, but awaken a supposition, give an impression.⁵⁹ Others express themselves in still other ways.⁶⁰ We can give no other expression to it than that which Paul says in another connection: nothing will separate us from the love of Christ (Rom. 8:35, 38ff.). As he there explicitly declares, this holds for death as well. It will bring about no separation between Christ and us. This presupposes continuity not of love only, but also of the object of love. It means that we are kept in the omnipotence of God's love in Christ, and for this reason, even when death comes, we are more than conquerors (Rom. 8:36, 37).

SECTION 76. THE REVELATION OF THE MAN OF LAWLESSNESS

(a) Sequence and delay in eschatological occurrence

In addition to what has already been said in general in Section 74 of the intervening period between Christ's coming in the flesh and his expected parousia, certain events are still to be dealt with in particular, events that, likewise according to the epistles of Paul, precede the parousia. It is not a question here of the continuation of history in general, but in a more restricted sense of eschatological phenomena in which a "program" established by God with respect to the great end time manifests itself. Just as a "fulness of the time" can be spoken of regarding Christ's advent in the flesh (Gal. 4:4; cf. Eph. 1:10), that is to say, a fulfillment of the divine plan of redemption "in its own time" (1 Tira. 2:6; Tit. 1:3; Rom. 5:6), so also with respect to the parousia of the Lord not only has a specific time been fixed, but also an order of events that must come to fulfillment at the appointed moment of time and thus "in their own times" (cf. 2 Thess. 2:6). In the epistles of Paul, as elsewhere in the New Testament, this is also denoted with the term "must" (take place) (cf. 1 Cor. 15:25, 53), whereby expression is not given to a certain deterministic view of history, but reflection is focused on the order of events established in God's counsel of redemption. We come into contact with that most clearly in Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, where he says, among other things, that the day of the Lord is not coming before certain other events have "first" taken place.

We have to do here with a phenomenon that one may perhaps call the essence of the (Old and) New Testament apocalyptic.⁶¹ It is a matter there of the revelation of what according to its nature, i.e., because of belonging to the hidden counsel of God, is a "mystery." These secrets or mysteries are "revealed" when by their realization at the time appointed they are manifested. But their revelation also takes place in the a priori divine announcement to those who have been privileged to that end (cf. Dan. 2:28 [LXX]; Rev. 1:1; Eph. 3:3). In this sense, in relation to the future of the Lord, we have to do with apocalyptic passages in Paul's epistles as well (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 15:51ff.; 1 Thess. 4:13-18). And these also have reference in part to what precedes the parousia of the Lord (2 Thess. 2:1-11; cf. Rom. 11:25).

All this is not concerned with a computation of the time of the parousia or with a "repertorial eschatology" presently so much controverted in the footsteps of K. Rahner.⁶² As has already been observed, immediately after the great apocalyptic passage on the parousia in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul writes with reference to "the times and the seasons"⁶³ that the church "knows accurately" that the day of the Lord is coming as a thief in the night. In this respect he associates himself entirely with ideas from the prophecies and the teaching of Jesus, in which the fact that the day of the Lord is unknown and the sudden and surprising character of its coming are frequently pointed out (cf. Isa. 13:6-8; Matt. 24:38; Luke 21:34; cf. also Acts 1:7; Luke 12:39ff.; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 3:3; 16:15). The unknown time of the day of the Lord, as appears from what follows 1 Thessalonians 5:1, is for Paul no occasion for computation or speculation,⁶⁴ but for paraenesis to be watchful and sober.

It is another matter, however, that the church may have knowledge of certain events that are antecedent to the day of the Lord and from which it can in a certain respect be gathered whether the way for the coming of the Lord is already "free." What is intended here is not only the eschatological or apocalyptic "interpretation," for example, of catastrophic events in nature or in the history of the nations, in which the all-encompassing and crisis-producing character of the day of the Lord is already "recognized" by faith, but also an attentiveness to such events or situations, without the realization of which the end "cannot" yet come. This does not mean that one is thus informed as to the precise facts of the history of the end and on that ground is able to arrive at a sketch or "photographic likeness" of what is yet to take place. It does imply that, also with regard to Christ's parousia, the fullness of the time is determined by factors or developments that must first come to the fulfillment set for them in the counsel of God.

This element in the eschatology of the New Testament — with which we meet in Jesus as well as in Paul (cf., e.g., Mark 13:7, 10; Luke 21:9; 2 Thess. 2:3) — introduces a certain delay into the end event and the expectation corresponding with it, and prevents such an actualization of the "signs of the times," etc., whereby all temporal differentiation and shading in the "at hand" is practically removed. There are definite sequences here, by which the one thing cannot occur before something else has "first" taken place.⁶⁵ One can here again feel strongly the problem of the Naherwartung and ask himself what the permanent theological significance is of the developments in history apparently expected on a short-term basis; on the other hand, one will have to be on his guard against the illusion that he is able to maintain the significance of the apocalyptic when he fails to do justice to this element of delay. Such a "de-apocalypticizing" of the New Testament eschatology is hardly to be reconciled any longer at least with the reiterated "first," "then," "thereafter," in the apocalyptic passages in the teaching of Jesus and Paul (cf. Luke 21:12; 1 Cor. 15:23, 24; 2 Thess. 2:3).

Now although, so far as we can see, Paul does not speak of precursory "signs" of the day of the Lord, there are in him, too, all kinds of direct and indirect indications that further define and in part limit the proximity of the day of the Lord. Such an indirect datum, for example, underlies the train of thought in Romans 11, where the future of Israel is spoken of and in conjunction with it the corning in of "the fulness [the full number] of the gentiles" (Rom. 11:25), just as in verse 12 there is mention of the "fulness" of Israel. In both instances we have to do in the word "fulness" (plērōma) with an eschatological notion, that is to say, with a "full number" determined by God in his redemptive counsel, of the gentiles and Jews respectively, who will share in the salvation of the Lord and "come into" it.⁶⁶ It is here implied therefore that history cannot meet its end before this fullness has been reached. At the same time a very close relation is clearly established between the progress and fruit of the preaching of the gospel on the one hand and the parousia of Christ on the other. One can also ask to what extent the universal character of the preaching of the gospel and the worldwide character of the mandate of Paul himself, as he speaks of it, for example, in Colossians 1:6, 23; 1 Timothy 3:16; cf. Romans 15:23, 24, also determined the time of Christ's parousia for his own consciousness (cf. Matt. 24:14; Rev. 6:1-8; Acts 1:6ff.; Mark 16:15; Matt. 28:19). Though he does not allude to this in so many words, one may certainly regard such a connection as present also in the Pauline view of history and the future.⁶⁷

A very direct and express indication of what must yet precede the parousia and still stands in the way of its coming is contained in the well-known pericope on "the man of lawlessness" or "of sin" in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12. Here the apostle deals directly with an overstrung Naherwartung that cropped up in the church, perhaps in consequence of what he had written in his first epistle (cf. 1 Thess. 4:13-17), and which he qualifies as being quickly shaken in mind and troubled, as though the (time of the) day of the Lord were come (already).⁶⁸ Against such a conception, according to which nothing more would stand in the way of the coming of the day of the Lord, Paul now sets the fact that other things must take place "first." He mentions here (1) the revelation of "the man of lawlessness," (2) the "falling away" that accompanies this, and (3) the one who (or that which) "restrains."

(b) The man of lawlessness

The central datum of this announcement is of course the figure of the man of lawlessness,⁶⁹ or of sin.⁷⁰ Paul speaks of him in eschatological, apocalyptic terminology. Three times there is mention of his "revelation" (vv. 3, 6, 8), further described in verse 6 as to "be revealed in his own time," also of his "parousia" (v. 9). The reverse side is that he is now still "hidden." The meaning of this terminology is not that the man of lawlessness enters into history from a kind of pre-existence, but that the time appointed by God for this appearance has not yet come, and the man of lawlessness is therefore still "hidden," that is to say, has not yet materialized.⁷¹

The question of course arises as to whether anything further is to be said on the origin of this eschatological expectation and representation in Paul. Of particular importance here, first of all, is the clear reflection of Daniel 11:36. This applies especially to the words "exalts himself against all that is called God," ascribed to the man of lawlessness. The words "takes his seat in the temple of God" will also have to be explained in this light. Although they do not occur elsewhere in this connection, they are apparently meant to describe with other words what is said in Daniel on the profanation of the temple (cf. 11:31), a passage that is also cited in Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14. Finally, the falling away or apostasy to be discussed still further is also a term from Daniel 11:32.

If we look farther about us into the pre-Christian tradition, then it must be ascertained that in the Jewish expectation for the future the figure from Daniel as an anti-divine eschatological appearance apparently played no further part. While falling away from God and from the law as a distinguishing feature of the time preceding the advent of the Messiah is frequently spoken of in the Jewish writings,⁷² Judaism at approximately the beginning of the Christian era did not know the expectation of a man of sin in whom unrighteousness is concentrated and of whom Satan makes use as the anti-Messiah in the final revelation of ungodliness. In the nationally slanted Jewish expectation the last ruler of Rome sometimes does appear as the great antagonist of the anticipated Messiah (so, e.g., in the Apocalypse of Baruch⁷³). Mention is also made a few times of a tyrant in the great end time who is described in obscure words and is difficult to identify further. Thus, for example, in 4 Ezra 5, 6, where in the description of the great allembracing revolution in the last time a ruler is spoken of "whom the inhabitants of the earth do not expect." Some think they detect in this figure, whose shape otherwise remains very vague, the features of the antichrist.⁷⁴ In the pre-Christian writing Assumption of Moses, cap. 8, too, a tyrant makes his appearance in the great end time, not however as the anti-Messiah.⁷⁵ In these tyrannical figures and shapes in whom the portrayal of Antiochus IV possibly lingers on (although this is not very clearly demonstrable), the enmity of the devil against God is manifested, which reaches its peak in the great end time. However, one cannot simply identify these tyrants of the nations with the man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2. The latter bears much more the character of a false prophet who leads men astray not so much with outward force as with lying wonders, and whose character is defined above all by his godlessness and immorality carried to an extreme.⁷⁶

If therefore the pre-Christian tradition (apart from Daniel) does not yield much for the "genealogy" of the expectation enunciated by Paul with so much certainty in 2 Thessalonians 2, on the other hand it is clear that this expectation in 2 Thessalonians 2 is not to be traced back exclusively to the prophecies of Daniel. The delineation of Paul bears a much too shaded character for that; it also allows other expressions from the Old Testament to have a part in it (cf. Isa. 14:13, 14; Ezek. 28:2; Isa. 11:4), and will in any case have to be understood in the context of a broader Christian tradition. What is said in 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7 about the antichrist is to be pointed out in particular, where the features of an anti-Christian seducer also stand out (and not those of a military tyrant) (cf. Rev. 13:11-18); while the motif of craving for divine honor and worship by the man of sin, likewise missing outside the New Testament, perhaps underlies the delineation of Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14.⁷⁷ In its turn this broader Christian tradition is unquestionably dependent on Daniel 11 (cf. Matt. 24:15; Rev. 13:5) and the Old Testament motifs, even though it is apparent in 2 Thessalonians 2 as well as elsewhere that the expectation that there emerges had acquired an existence of its own and bears a specifically Christian signature.⁷⁸

Furthermore, so far as the entrance of these ideas into the Christian expectation for the future is concerned, one can point out first of all that the figure sketched in Daniel 11, although having reference in the first place to Antiochus Epiphanes, is placed in a clearly eschatological context (cf., e.g., Dan. 11:40), and thus continued to retain its position in the apocalyptic literature.⁷⁹ To what extent the prophecy of Daniel 11 already intended to refer beyond Antiochus to a more distant future is a question that need not be decided in this context.⁸⁰ In view of the great significance the prophecy of Daniel occupied from the very outset in the proclamation of Jesus (in particular the figure of the Son of Man; Dan. 7:13), it is not strange that other eschatologicalapocalyptic features from Daniel have also passed over into the Christian expectation for the future. And that this was the case in particular with the figure from Daniel 11 can also be explained by the fact that his appearance constitutes the ending of the eschatological perspective of Daniel.

At the same time all the Old Testament prophecies that have reference to the war waged ever since Paradise between God and Satan have come to stand in an entirely new light through the advent of Jesus Christ, and have acquired the highest possible relevance (cf. Rom. 16:20 —with an obvious allusion to Gen. 3:15). Paul accordingly makes use of the language of prophecy by applying what is said there of God's triumph over his enemies to Christ: "whom [the lawless one] the Lord will slay with the breath of his mouth" (cf. Isa. 11:4).

The most striking thing of course is that this power inimical to God is concentrated here in the figure of what Paul calls the man of lawlessness. Undoubtedly this also finds its explanation in the anti-God appearance of certain human figures in Israel's history and in the eschatological-apocalyptical delineation of them in prophecy, particularly in that of Antiochus IV in the prophecy of Daniel. Furthermore, it is certainly indicated as well in the denotation "the man of lawlessness" that this man is not merely a pre-eminently godless individual, but that in him the humanity hostile to God comes to a definitive, eschatological revelation. In this striking qualification Paul's corporate way of thinking unquestionably plays a part. Just as elsewhere he places Adam and Christ over against one another as the first and second "man," as the great representatives of two different orders of men, so the figure of "the man of lawlessness" is clearly intended as the final, eschatological counterpart of the man Jesus Christ, who was sent by God to overthrow the works of Satan. The traits with which the man of lawlessness is described in 2 Thessalonians 2 provide the clearest evidence that not only the prophecy of Daniel, but the appearance and the glory of the man Jesus Christ himself as well determined the representation of the man of sin. His coming, just as that of Christ, is called a parousia; it is marked by all manner of powers, signs, and wonders, like those of Christ in the past; indeed, whether deliberately or not, in his wicked ambition he can even be called by the name that is given to the betrayer Judas: "son of perdition" (v. 3; cf. John 17:12). All his striving directed toward destruction and evil likewise presupposes the coming of Christ and the nature of his redeeming activity: it has effect with those who have not received "the love of the truth" (of the gospel) and works itself out in "faith in the lie" in those who "did not believe the truth." What the lie is here is defined by the truth of Christ; what faith is here stands over against faith in the gospel. "Without Christ [the antichrist] is absolutely unthinkable... he exists by fighting against everything Christ means in the world."⁸¹ "This apostasy... cannot be depicted as an isolated moral phenomenon. Like the antichrist, it always stands in relation to Him who is the First and the Last."⁸² However much the appearance of the man of lawlessness was prefigured in the Old Testament prophecy therefore, its Pauline specification, as also the denotation "the man of lawlessness" itself, is clearly oriented to the fundamental lines of his whole theology: the man of sin is the last and highest revelation of man (humanity) inimical to God,⁸³ the human adversary of the man Jesus Christ, in whom the divine kingdom and the divine work has become flesh and blood. The antithesis between God and Satan that dominates history is decided on the human plane, but then not merely in every man individually, but in those who as the man represent humanity in the great junctures of history (beginning, "middle," and end) in a decisive way for salvation or destruction.

In the light of the foregoing the question is also to be considered as to whether it is possible to say anything more about the identity of the man of sin sketched out in 2 Thessalonians 2.

First of all one will be permitted to take it as certain that in Paul's train of thought it is not a collectivum but a person who is intended by this man. Though elsewhere in the New Testament in the end of the days pseudo-prophets and pseudo-christs (not the same as antichrist) are foretold (Matt. 24:24; cf. 1 John 4:1), and there is mention of "many antichrists" already in the present (1 John 2:18 — evidently as precursors⁸⁴ of the antichrist), a fact that also leads to a more collective use of the name antichrist (1 John 2:22; 4:3; 2 John 7), the conception in 2 Thessalonians 2 is certainly a different one. Here it is said specifically that the man of sin has not yet appeared. Nor can one posit that Paul has only the "last" or "real" antichrist in view. We do not find such a distinction here.⁸⁵

This does not alter the fact, however, that in Paul, too, the antichrist is not to be thought of apart from the whole power and disposition in history that is hostile to God and to Christ. In 2 Thessalonians 2:7 the mystery of lawlessness now already at work is placed in the closest relationship with the revelation of the man of lawlessness. For this reason the representation given elsewhere (1 John, 2 John) of many "antichrists" need not be in conflict with that of 2 Thessalonians 2. Here again we may certainly judge by analogy with the person and work of Christ, of whom after all the antichrist constitutes the opponent. As Christ is a person, but at the same time one with all who believe in him and are under his sovereignty, so the antichrist is not only a godless individual, but a concentration of godlessness that already goes forth before him and which joins all who follow him at his appearance into a unity with him. It is just on this account that not the mystery of lawlessness, but indeed the man of godlessness is still kept under, because at his appearance unbelief, lawlessness, and godlessness will attempt to set themselves as an organic unity over against God and Christ. And in proportion as his precursors manage to bring godlessness the more to a coherent unity they will also the more exhibit the image of the antichrist and the caricature of the image of Christ. Therefore, finally, the restrainer will also "get out of the way" and give the antichrist opportunity to reveal himself, in order that in him, as in the man of lawlessness, Christ shall do away at once with all of the godlessness put into the field against him by Satan. For with the destruction of the antichrist there is no longer any place on earth for sin.

In this train of thought the antichrist is clearly more than a single person who makes his appearance at the end of the ages. What makes him the antichrist is all the lawlessness, the mystery of which is already at work and of which others (as his precursors) are already the bearers and organizers. On the other hand it is altogether in the line of Paul's eschatological and redemptive-historical thinking that he does not stop with an "it," with an idea, or with a force, but that the organic and corporate unity of human life finds its bearer and representative, as in Adam and Christ, so also in the antichrist, in a specific person. The antichrist would be no antichrist if he were not the personal concentration point of lawlessness, if he were not the man of lawlessness.

I arrive here at a somewhat different view from that which has been defended in two important works of recent years, namely, G. C. Berkouwer's The Return of Christ, and R. Schippers' monograph, Mythologie en Eschatologie in 2 Thessalonicensen 2:1-17, 1961.

Berkouwer starts from the passages in 1 and 2 John and posits that "we ought not to read and interpret John on the basis of Paul" (2 Thess. 2) (p. 265). He then points out that John sees the antichrist in the present and that according to 1 John 2:22 he is the antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. One may not, in his opinion, resolve the difficulty that the antichrist is spoken of in 1 John both in the plural and in the singular by speaking of (present) "precursors" of the (future) antichrist. "There is no hint here of two concepts concerning present and future" (p. 265). The one antichrist makes his appearance in the reality of the great heresy. Berkouwer associates himself with Althaus when the latter says that (with the antichrist) it is and must be a matter of a present actuality of battle. He also thinks that there is reason to call into question the personal character of the man of lawlessness. The fact that in 2 Thessalonians 2 he is spoken of so "personally" cannot in his view be determinative. This speaking of him as a person also occurs in John, and there it is a question of "antichrist already present" (p. 270). For Berkouwer, too, it is primarily a matter of the present relevance of the antichrist. If room were to come in for a long development up until the "end time," then one would fail to appreciate the "actuality that Paul is trying to preserve" (pp. 270f.). In his view there is accordingly "no reason to posit with certainty on the basis of the New Testament that the antichrist as portrayed there is a person of the end of history" (p. 271). He qualifies his exposition as that of a "continuous actuality and reinterpretation" and writes that one must be more apprehensive of weakening the earnestness of this preaching when one thinks of the antichrist as of a future figure, whereby we then only have to do with "precursors," than when one thinks of the anti-Christian power (p. 282). be determinative. This speaking of him as a person also occurs in John, and there it is a question of "antichrist already present" (p. 270). For Berkouwer, too, it is primarily a matter of the present relevance of the antichrist. If room were to come in for a long development up until the "end time," then one would fail to appreciate the "actuality that Paul is trying to preserve" (pp. 270f.). In his view there is accordingly "no reason to posit with certainty on the basis of the New Testament that the antichrist as portrayed there is a person of the end of history" (p. 271). He qualifies his exposition as that of a "continuous actuality and reinterpretation" and writes that one must be more apprehensive of weakening the earnestness of this preaching when one thinks of the antichrist as of a future figure, whereby we then only have to do with "precursors," than when one thinks of the anti-Christian power (p. 282).

In this manner 1 John is to be sure not interpreted according to Paul, but Paul according to a certain interpretation of 1 John. It is questionable, however, whether within the limits drawn by this interpretation 2 Thessalonians 2 can as yet be given its full weight. For irrespective of the undoubtedly personal character of the "man of lawlessness" drawn here, it is a question in 2 Thessalonians precisely of a figure who is not yet and cannot yet be because of the "restrainer." It is striking that Berkouwer does not in this context speak further of "this restrainer." He deals with the question earlier in his book. There he writes (in my view quite correctly) that a "not yet" of the coming of the man of sin "and the continuity of time are here mentioned in one breath" (p. 125); even though we do not know exactly what Paul meant by this restraining, "a case can undoubtedly be made for a retardation . . . a restraining of the manifestation of lawlessness" (p. 127). It is not clear how Berkouwer wishes to link this postponement of the coming of the man of sin with his opposition to a conception whereby the antichrist would not yet fully be an actual reality. One can say of course that if the preaching with reference to the antichrist intends to be relevant in the sense of 1 John 2, this restraint and this postponement cannot be shifted to a distant future; but this is a matter that touches the whole Naherwartung, that is to say, not only the parousia of the antichrist, but also that of Christ. For both the restraint and the coming of the two stand in immediate relation to each other. Paul's concern in 2 Thessalonians 2 does not accordingly consist in the first place in that he wishes to "protect" the present relevance of the antichrist, but that, with all pastoral care for the seriousness of the present, he wants to counter the overstrung Naherwartung with respect to the parousia of Christ. And he does that by pointing to "the retardation," "the delay." The mystery of lawlessness is already at work. The "power" is already busy, "the man" is not yet there. A "reconciliation" with 1 John 2 is not only possible here, but also entirely obvious. And is there still, even though one need not attach any special value to the word, any real ground for rejecting the idea of "precursors" of the antichrist? Does it not lie altogether in the line of the Johannine train of thought to make the great future (the resurrection, the judgment, etc.) present, without denying therewith the future reality of the resurrection, etc., as an incisive and (in its significance of consummation) once-for-all event, to be distinguished from it? And is there not on this account more that argues for the present tense of 1 John 2 — "this is the antichrist," to be understood in that sense — than that out of a certain absolutizing of this present tense one would leave no room for a definitive parousia that has not yet appeared of the man of lawlessness in Paul (and of the antichrist in John)? Why must one offer resistance to the idea that what is now a "power" could in the future be a person as well? And that the power even now manifesting itself will in the future bear the character of a final, decisive defiance concentrated in one person?

This is not of course to say that in 2 Thessalonians we receive an exactly sketched "plan" of the future, or have to do with "reportorial eschatology." In the continuing interpretation of these apocalyptic ideas one will also have to take account of the fact that they were viewed, as it were, at short range and thereby understood as well within the framework of a time now past. That undoubtedly makes necessary a continuing reinterpretation, or a " 'pneumatic-historic' view of the antichrist" (p. 275). But in so doing all the knots of delay (of "already" and "not yet" and "first" and "then" or "thereafter") nevertheless cannot be undone.

The views of Schippers are also of importance here. He writes that "the biblical apocalypses, deriving from Old Testament prophecy and, if one wish, also from Old Testament apocalyptic, illuminate the permanent eschatological character of history, that is to say, its character as precursory sign, in which the eschaton of the consummation of the future is permanent or at least present again and again anew" (p. 14). And further: " . . . there is an only but acute 'future,' threatening and redeeming in this "present," with a near removal of the temporal distance." "It is not so that in the biblical apocalypses an 'organic' process is foretold with final products as results of an historical development" (against Berkhof). "One may not spread out what was expected by the first generation as very near future over a world history with a separate 'end of the times,' to which then the suggestion is always joined that the apex of a development long past must still come" (p. 14). "The object of Jesus and Paul was no other —when they spoke of the apostasy and of the personalized lawlessness — than radically to cut off the idea that He had returned or that there was still time before He came back" (p. 15).

Likewise with what is said in 2 Thessalonians 2 of "the mysterious factor" of the restraint one must be careful not to introduce "the long pathways of history" into the text of Paul. The restraining is highly relevant to the present. It consists in the divine holding back, and "it is present as often as the temptations of apostasy shall touch the people of God in their theocratic solidarity, and the man of lawlessness reveals himself with his sacrilegious demonstrations" (p. 23).

In our opinion one must ask whether in this view of the significance of history between the present and the consummation justice is still done to the deferment of that which must "yet" take place, the programmatic character of New Testament eschatology as the realization of the divine mystery. In Schippers this is also to be felt most clearly in his paraphrase of what is intended by the restraint in 2 Thessalonians 2. This restraint is not there defined as that which separates us from the man of lawlessness who has not yet come, but as the detaining power of God, which is present whenever and as often as the man of lawlessness (already now) reveals himself. That this last is something other than what is said in 2 Thessalonians 2 on the restraint needs no further demonstration.

That the biblical apocalypses elucidate the permanently eschatological character of history is undoubtedly a correct and valuable typification. But one will have to take account of the prophetic-proleptic character of the "nearness" of Christ's parousia in order to continue to understand anything of the "meaning" of the progression of history. The New Testament approaches this meaning from the redemptive-historical perfect tense as well as from the apocalyptic deferment of that which must "yet" and "first" take place before the end has come and can come. 2 Thessalonians 2 is the locus classicus for this last, and therefore does not permit itself to be melted down into an undifferentiated concept of nearness, with whatever justice the latter lays emphasis on the present, eschatological seriousness of the here and now of history. It pertains precisely to the essence of the New Testament apocalypses that they indicate the articulations in the consummating work of God in history. Theological exegesis of these apocalypses will consequently not be able to pass this by if it does not wish, in place of falling on the Scylla of a "reportorial-eschatology," to suffer shipwreck on the Charybdis of a "de-apocalypticizing" in which the coming of the eschaton is detached from the progress of history.

All this, in the second place, is to say that it is a matter here of a human person, and that it is not, for example, the devil himself who is intended. The question: "Who is this? Perhaps Satan?" was already answered by Chrysostom in the negative, with a reference to verse 9 where it is surely said that the lawless one is to derive his power and appearance from Satan.⁸⁶ Some point, to be sure, to the figure of Belial in the later Jewish apocalyptic writings and think they see an indication of the antichrist in this; but Paul in any case distinguishes Belial clearly from the man of sin (cf. 2 Cor. 6:15).⁸⁷

Furthermore, all kinds of speculations have been devoted to the origin of the man of sin. According to some the antichrist was thought of as a pseudo-messiah of the Jews.⁸⁸ Paul's sharp condemnation of the Jews in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, sitting in the temple (of Israel), and other traits are said to point to that.⁸⁹ Moreover, according to some of the early Christian writers, the antichrist would be descended from the tribe of Dan. Bousset chose to see in that the cropping up of a pre-Christian Jewish tradition.⁹⁰ But to our knowledge no evidence has so far been adduced from the Jewish literature for it. This conception is usually related to the absence of the tribe of Dan in Revelation 7:5ff., and to the allegorizing exegesis of certain unfavorable qualifications of Dan in the Old Testament (cf. Gen. 49:16, 17; Deut. 33:22, et al.).⁹¹ The great objection to this whole identification of the antichrist with a Jewish messiah, however, lies in the fact that the latter can scarcely be conceived of as one who as God's great adversary could let divine honor be paid him in the temple. There are of course a great many (anti-)messianic features in the delineation of 2 Thessalonians 2 (see above), but that he would represent himself as the Messiah sent by God is simply in conflict with the presentation of 2 Thessalonians.

Others have attempted the zeitgeschichtliche interpretation here. Starting from the fact that in Daniel 11a heathen usurper is intended, they have wished to find a similar figure of a later time again in 2 Thessalonians 2. Some have wanted to establish a connection with the antichrist in the Revelation of John, which is again identified with the legend of Nero redivivus that lived on among the people. This implies, of course, that 2 Thessalonians 2 did not come from the pen of Paul, inasmuch as Nero died in A.D. 68. But this view, which has no foundation whatever in the text and can point out no literary agreement between Revelation and 2 Thessalonians, has again been abandoned by the later radical criticism itself.⁹² The whole notion that Paul would have assigned the role of the man of sin to (a representative of) the Roman imperium has no basis in the words of the text and in the apostle's whole world of thought. And the same thing applies to every zeitgeschichtliche political explanation.

Another view still is that the man of sin is not to be a Jew or a gentile, but an apostate Christian: the antichrist cannot arise out of heathenism, but only out of a Christianized-dechristianized world.⁹³ Appeal is then made especially to the fact that there is mention in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 of "the" falling away, by which the falling away from Christ is understood, as well as to the a-theistic (not heathen) character of the godlessness unleashed by the antichrist. The pronouncement that the man of lawlessness will "take his seat in the temple of God" (2 Thess. 2:4) has likewise frequently been seen as an indication that the antichrist will magnify himself in the church, and that the danger therefore will come "from within."⁹⁴

It is questionable, however, whether with such an exegesis one does justice to the apocalyptic character of the pronouncements in 2 Thessalonians 2. The particulars in the portrayal of the man of sin obviously do not have the purpose of foretelling definite historical particulars and giving indications concerning the concrete manifestation of the man of the future. These particulars are too general and too traditionally determined for that. The concept "falling away" stems from Daniel 11:32 and on that account, at least in its origin, is not a specifically Christian concept. Nor is the "atheism" of the man of sin a proof that it would here have to be a matter of post-Christian nihilism, for the words that describe this atheism are drawn from the portrayal of Antiochus IV in Daniel 11. And as regards "sitting in the temple," no more than one is able to say on this ground that Paul expected the man of sin in the temple at Jerusalem is one able to let this datum refer to the appearance of the man of sin in the church after the destruction of the temple. With the temple certainly the temple at Jerusalem is in the first instance to be thought of. One must not, however, fail to appreciate the apocalyptic character of the delineation. That which is still hidden, which as future event is still incapable of description, is denoted with the help of available notions borrowed from the present. To sit in the temple is a divine attribute, the arrogating to oneself of divine honor. No conclusions are to be drawn from that for the time and place in which the man of sin will make his appearance.⁹⁵

This is not to say of course that the man of sin and the apostasy unleashed by him will not be able in one way or another to answer to the interpretations mentioned above; still less, that already in the course of history there are not all sorts of phenomena of apostasy and opposition to God in the manner of 1 John 2 in a personifying sense that would have been or would yet be recognizable. The question is only whether in 2 Thessalonians 2 this apostasy and opposition to God would already be denoted in all kinds of concrete future manifestations. One will have to maintain a clear distinction here between what is (or is not) to be determined on the basis of the text about the manifestation and recognition of the man of sin and the mystery of lawlessness in all kinds of present, concrete phenomena.

In keeping with this apocalyptic character of the delineation, the answer to other questions that one would like to ask about a purely historical announcement⁹⁶ remains obscure. Thus, for example, the manner in which the man of sin will "appear" and will be destroyed by Christ. The sketch of the man of sin, however much described as a person, admits of no further "historicizing" explanation. It is part of the character of the apocalyptic to speak in images, to repeat traditional descriptions, by which the historical reality announced continues and must continue to lie under the veil of "mystery."⁹⁷

↑ Back to top