(c) The restraint
(c) The restraint
Furthermore, the old question98 regarding the restraint or the restrainer in 2 Thessalonians 2:6, 7 is deserving of separate discussion. For after the man of lawlessness is spoken of in the first verses, the argument proceeds as follows:
Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you this?
And you know what is restraining him now, so that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. [Everything waits] only until he who now restrains shall have got out of the way. And then will the lawless one be revealed... (2 Thess. 2:5-8).
Although because of the difficult sentence structure not everything is entirely clear, yet the train of thought can surely be followed. When he was in Thessalonica Paul prepared the church for the coming of the man of lawlessness. For this reason the church could also know what still checks the lawless one,99 so that he cannot reveal himself before the time appointed to him. For the mystery of lawlessness is even now at work. But all this still bears only a provisional character, until the one who now restrains shall have got out of the way, have disappeared from the scene.
The question now is, who or what is meant by this restraint? At the very outset the alternate use of the masculine and the neuter is striking. Notwithstanding a few divergent opinions, scholars are generally in agreement that in both cases the meaning is essentially the same. The verb katechein too (in both cases used absolutely, which seems to point to a current terminology) can be translated in more than one way: to restrain, hold fast, keep under. The thought is apparently that there is a power or a person that now still prevents the man of lawlessness from appearing. In the main the following conceptions exist on this point.
(1) That which restrains is the Roman imperium and the restrainer is the person of the emperor as the representative of this Imperium. This view is already to be found in Tertullian, and was subsequently followed by a great number of exegetes.100 It is supported by Paul's positive attitude toward government (Rom. 13; 1 Tim. 2). As civis Romanus he more than once appealed to the Roman legal order that protected him (Acts 16:37ff.; 22:25, 29). This conception is able to explain the alternate masculine and neuter use of restrain. An allusion has even been seen in the word "to restrain" (katechein) to the name of the then reigning emperor Claudius (claudo= to shut, to close, to prevent).101
But on further reflection this view has nevertheless not proved to be sound. In the first place, unless one wants to speak of an unfulfilled prophecy, he has to shift over from the Roman government to government in general as the restrainer of the antichrist, whereby the alternation of neuter and masculine is obscured. For who then is "the" restrainer? Furthermore, the whole idea of government as restrainer is not in harmony with the character ascribed to the antichrist. The man of lawlessness does not make his appearance as a usurper of power who only would get opportunity if the legal order represented by the government were done away with; he is rather a religious seducer. And is one able then to say that the government, here to be thought of in particular as the Roman government, was the great opponent and restrainer of such an anti-God appearance? It did not champion the rights of the true God, but provided for tranquillity and order. From the viewpoint of arrogating divine honor to themselves many Roman emperors were rather allies than restrainers of the antichrist (Rev. 13). The character of the antichrist as false prophet in our view really makes this political explanation impossible.
(2) Another view is one that is already to be met with in some church fathers, and in Calvin, and which has subsequently been defended especially by Cullmann102 and in his footsteps by Munck.103 It finds the restraining of the antichrist in the fact that the gospel must first be proclaimed to all peoples. Only when this has happened can the end come. Interpreters point for this to all sorts of data in the New Testament that relate the end of the world to the progress of the preaching of the gospel. Cullmann and Munck go so far here that in the restrainer they wish to discover Paul himself, who after all viewed himself in a special sense as the apostle of the gentiles.
But however much may be attached to this significance of the preaching of the gospel elsewhere in the New Testament, there is no indication whatever that this is the case in 2 Thessalonians 2.104 If it were, Paul has surely spoken of it in very obscure terms. This objection itself, which has been urged against the conception time and again since Chrysostom, makes it difficult to accept. And it is still more improbable that Paul looked on himself as the great restrainer, and viewed his own death as the removal of the obstacle in the way of the antichrist. For where does it appear that he attributed such a significance to himself? And when he speaks elsewhere of the possibility of his approaching death, could he have kept silent about the startling consequences bound up with it? That Paul considered himself (and then, as the issue showed, entirely wrongly) to be the restrainer is thus without more ado to be rejected. Even if one leaves this last out of consideration (and the question of the restrainer thus remains open), the idea that the preaching of the gospel is intended by the restraining is nevertheless not simply to be accepted. For then, regardless of the obscurity of the description, the close of verse 7 remains unintelligible. How can it be true of the preaching or the preacher of the gospel that it (he) "disappears from the scene" or "gets out of the way"? Does Paul then foresee a time when the proclamation of the gospel comes to an end?
These and similar objections make it impossible to follow explanations formerly adhered to, according to which the Holy Spirit, the good teachers, the apostles, etc., were meant by the restraint (restrainer).105 Both so far as the choice of words in 2 Thessalonians and the matter itself are concerned, in no way whatever can all this be made probable.
(3) The question may be put as to whether interpretation is on the right track when it seeks the cause of the restraint in specific demonstrable historical factors. As is also evident from the subsequent "revealed in his own time," we have to do here with typical apocalyptic terminology.106 This "restraint" is in general to be defined as that which, in virtue of the counsel of God applying to it, checks the outbreak of satanic godlessness in the man of sin before the time appointed for it by God. What is said in Revelation 20:2 about the shutting up and binding of Satan has not unjustly been called to mind107 (cf. Luke 8:31). It is also remarkable that papyri have been found in which, with the employment of the same word ("restrain," or "keep under"), there is mention of the keeping in check of the mythological dragon by the deity or by the angel Michael.108 This last may bring us back once again to Daniel in which Michael is spoken of in more than one place, who in the final struggle stands by the people of God (cf. Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1).109
Without identifying all these representations we can nevertheless form an idea of what that which restrains or the restrainer could mean: a supernatural power or a ruler ordained by God (in Rev. 20 "a strong angel") who checks the final revelation of the power of Satan,110 until the time set for the man of sin has come. One may perhaps also think of God himself.111 In any case, it is a matter of a specific act in the eschatological drama planned in the counsel of God, whereby the "time" belonging with it is also determined by all the factors that are at work in the divine economy of redemption with regard to the end of things (e.g., the progress of the gospel). But there is no basis for wishing to be specific here, nor is it in harmony with the apocalyptic character of the text to do so.112 Paul does not allude here — so we think — to specific historical phenomena or events, but speaks in apocalyptic language of the supernatural factors that determine the restraining of the last things.
One can still consider whether katechein is to be translated by "restrain" or by "hold fast," "keep in check." In the latter case one has surely to arrive at the idea that "the man of sin" already exists, but must yet be kept in check. Although this idea, as long as it is concerned with the operation of the power of Satan himself, is very apposite, and in verse 7 where the person in question is closely related to "the mystery of iniquity" would certainly be in place, yet in verse 6 the object of "that which restrains" is apparently the man of sin. And that in one way or another he would have to be and could be kept in check before his revelation (appearance in history) is a thing difficult to imagine. As the man of sin he is hardly conceivable outside history. For this reason one will perhaps have to give preference to the translation "to restrain" because this allows a more figurative interpretation and can be understood not so much of the checking of the man of sin himself as indeed of his appearance and revelation. But it is also possible that in the apocalyptic language the apostle here employs all this is not to be so rigidly distinguished, and that the man of sin is spoken of as a figure who is now still held back, kept in check, without this presupposing a "pre-existence." The vivid and realistic representation that is proper to the apocalyptic does indeed argue in some degree for this conception, in which the divine moment of power receives somewhat more emphasis.113
(d) The apostasy
Finally, as concerns the godlessness that is to reach its peak in the man of lawlessness, Paul speaks of it in two typical eschatological terms, "the falling away" (apostasy, v. 3) and "the mystery of godlessness" (v. 7). This is usually so interpreted that the reality denoted by "the apostasy" coincides with the time of the lawless one and therefore at the moment that he writes this has not yet, at least not yet fully, taken effect. There is much to be said for this explanation, for it is said in verse 3 that the day of the Lord will not come except the apostasy come first. And this — thus the reasoning — is not yet the case. Whether, as some do, one is simply to identify the apostasy with the man of godlessness114 is still another question. In Daniel 11:32 there is also mention of "the falling away," but there more as the consequence and effect of the appearance of the great adversary than as this appearance itself. In our opinion, this is in any case included in the apostasy. It follows from the manner in which the appearance of the man of lawlessness is described. Because Satan will place his power at his disposal, he will be able to do powers, signs, and lying wonders. What is meant by this is that the wonders of the lawless one have a mendacious, deceitful purpose. They lead men astray. In concurrence with that it is said that his appearance is attended with all kinds of unrighteous deceit for those who are perishing. Those who are already on the road to ruin are totally beguiled and misled by the deceptive delusions of God's arrogant adversary and the manifestations of his power, so that they will no longer escape the destruction toward which they are bound. This does not remove their responsibility, for that they are delivered up to this destruction is the consequence of the fact that they "have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God sends them the working of error that they should believe the lie, so that all should be judged who have not believed the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness" (vv. 10-12). Here Paul makes a close connection between the working of the man of sin and the gospel. Not believing the truth of the gospel is the cause for which men fall prey to the fascination of the satanic power through the man of lawlessness. In this link between unbelief in the gospel and falling into the power of the godless seducer the old prophetic predictions of the struggle between God and Satan are given new relevance for the church (cf. 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7).
This falling away, the apostle now writes, has at present not yet come to its full unfolding. Although unbelief and godlessness are even now present, another revelation is to be expected, an explosion of sin, still to be distinguished from the present godlessness in compass, design, and consequence. That is the apostasy. But "the mystery of lawlessness" is even now at work. "Mystery," just as "revelation," is to be understood here in relation to the eschatological event determined by God. Insofar as this has not yet come to realization, it is "mystery," that is to say, has not yet appeared. That applies in general to the apostasy or lawlessness intended here. Yet the working of the anomia, which is nothing other than the apostasy mentioned in verse 3, has already begun. It is to be sought in opposition and enmity to the gospel and in the means employed to that end. For just as the final decision falls in the encounter of Christ with the man of lawlessness, so the enmity revealing itself against the gospel of Christ also bears an eschatological character. No further decision is reached other than that which must already be made now with respect to Christ and his gospel. Therefore this decision discloses even now what the issue is to be in the final stage between God and Satan, between Christ and the antichrist. It is consequently to that that Paul directs the church's attention, and wants to teach it thus to understand the character of the time in which it lives.
In summary, we may ascertain that the passage preserved to us in 2 Thessalonians 2 on the revelation of the man of lawlessness signifies a remarkable and important contribution for our insight into Paul's expectation for the future and his view of history. So far as the former is concerned, in no respect does it mean a breaking through or abrogation of the pronouncements on nearness. What is said about the restraining is also to be understood in the framework of these nearness pronouncements. What is said on the still to be expected revelation of the man of lawlessness does confirm what we have already been able to determine in general on the perspective for the future. It embraces all manner of universal elements, the temporal and spatial implications of which are a priori incalculable, and which give the words "at hand" a strongly proleptic-prophetic character. This applies to the pleroma of the gentiles and of Israel; it also applies to the man of lawlessness, if one is, as we think, to attribute a representative significance to this denotation. All that has been said earlier, therefore, on the nature of this future expectation and this future perspective also applies to the expectation of this last and universal revelation of the mystery of lawlessness and finds further confirmation in it.
For understanding Paul's view of history, too, the pericope of 2 Thessalonians 2 is of paramount importance. It gives us some insight into the strongly dramatic and antithetic character of Paul's conception of history. It is dominated by the great opposition between God and Satan, between the power of the truth and that of the lie. In that struggle the coming of Christ signifies the decisive turning point. But for this reason his coming also evokes the parousia of the man of lawlessness. The mystery of lawlessness has therefore already come into operation as the beginning of the final struggle, and Christ's parousia is not to be thought of apart from the antecedent parousia of the man of lawlessness. The thing itself and the perspective are indissolubly bound up with each other, and together they determine Paul's view of history as well as that of the New Testament as a whole.
This look at the future and history bears an apocalyptic character. Therein on the one hand is its possibility, on the other its limitation. The possibility: for this apocalyptic "works" with the last and most powerful motifs of the prophecy of Israel and applies them to the history of the world. And the Christian apocalyptic brings these all under the denominator of the new and all-embracing revelation of the divine work of redemption in Christ. This is the possibility, the strength, and the imperishable worth of the New Testament apocalyptic. It comprises for the church the "final" comfort and hope and certitude of victory. On the other hand, in the apocalyptic character of the New Testament expectation for the future is also its limitation. The limitation of clarity, of concrete knowledge, of the possibility of being able to survey history in its factual progress. Here accordingly lies the failure of every interpretation that sees in the apocalyptic a means to becoming "informed" about this concreteness and factualness of the future event. Here, too, lies the justice of the criticism of "reportorialeschatology." For the knowledge of the prophet is something other than sharing in divine omniscience. Nevertheless, this prophecy joins the kingdom of God with history, and it teaches us to see history under the decisive points of view. This insight into the Christian apocalyptic can also make us understand in the proper light the abiding significance of 2 Thessalonians 2 for the church. It elevates the church above the level on which only individual decisions take place and teaches it to understand something of the dimensions that define the work of Christ and with it the time of his parousia.
SECTION 77. THE PAROUSIA
In Paul's epistles we are given no complete or rounded off "doctrine" or description of the parousia of Christ and of the great events that are to take place along with it. On the one hand, this is certainly bound up with the apocalyptic character of this event, hidden in the counsel of God, which does not as an existing event admit of being narrated or described by means of human historiography. On the other hand, account is also to be taken here of the already frequently observed character of Paul's epistles as occasional writings, even if there is differentiation with respect to this character of his epistles. As regards the description of the "last things" (taken in the narrower sense), this "situational" element of the preaching and instruction contained in his epistles holds very clearly indeed. In only a few epistles does he go into this more fully, in connection with specific questions and situations in the churches. Here too, however, it does not amount to a "systematic" exposition, but to an elucidation of the great events of the end from a specific point of view, frequently also with an appeal to the preaching that has preceded the epistles (cf. 1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:5), and to that which the church "knows" or at least ought to "know" (cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 6:2, 3), without the content and origin of this knowledge thereby being fully explained. All this means that we can speak of a "doctrine of the last things" in Paul only in a fragmentary sense, even where it concerns the manner of the parousia itself and the events attending it. This fragmentary character will also have to make us very careful, therefore, in drawing conclusions and in bringing the separate data together.
Of importance for a correct conception of the matter, first of all, is the terminology with which Paul describes the coming of the Lord. This in the main is the following.
(a) The coming (parousia) of Christ (1 Cor. 15:23; cf. the variant in 1:8), or of our Lord Jesus (1 Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8). The word "parousia" means115 coming, arrival, and presence. It is employed in an entirely neutral sense without technical or special significance. In Hellenism, however, it also serves frequently to denote the visit of dignitaries, kings, generals, etc., as well as the coming, the appearance of gods. The term "parousia" has this technical meaning in Paul — but then, of course, with a content entirely its own116 — especially in 1 and 2 Thessalonians. There and in 1 Corinthians 15:23 it very definitely does not mean "return,"117 nor is parousia used in Paul (or elsewhere in the New Testament) of the first advent of Christ. The parousia of the Lord denotes the expected manifestation of Christ, as the definitive, ultimate revelation of his glory. "Coming" therefore has the connotation of the revelation of glory, the glorious coming and the presence linked with it.
(b) A second term with which Paul denotes the great future is that of the epiphany of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6:14); of our Savior Jesus Christ (2 Tim. 1:10); his epiphany and his kingdom (2 Tim. 4:1; cf. v. 8); the epiphany of the glory of our great God and Savior (Tit. 2:13). Finally, the combination of epiphany and parousia is still to be mentioned (2 Thess. 2:8: "whom [the lawless one] the Lord Jesus will bring to nought by the epiphany of his parousia"). Although epiphany, otherwise than parousia, does once allude to Christ's first coming (2 Tim. 1:10), it is generally employed exclusively for Christ's definitive118 coming in glory. The word was particularly suited for this purpose because in the Hellenistic world it had acquired the additional significance of a solemn, glorious appearance or entrance, as, for example, of the Hellenistic rulers.
(c) In the third place, the word "revelation" ( apokalypsis) is likewise used for Christ's coming in glory (2 Thess. 1:7: "at the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ from heaven"; cf. 1 Cor. 1:7: "waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ from heaven"). In these combinations it is not Christ who reveals "something," but he is himself revealed, that is to say, he emerges from the hiddenness in which he now is. In that same sense, although with another word ( phaneroo), there is mention in Colossians 3:4 of the manifestation of Christ, with which then the manifestation of the church with him in glory is joined. In distinction from the first two words there is in "revelation" the thought of a preceding period of concealment or hiddenness.
(d) Finally, those expressions are still to be mentioned in which the coming of Christ is denoted as "the day," sometimes used absolutely (1 Thess. 5:4: "you are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you as a thief"; likewise 1 Cor. 3:13: "each man's work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed with fire"); compare also the expression "that day" (2 Tim. 1:12, 18; 4:8). In Romans 2:5, too, one finds the combination of "day" and "revelation" ("the day of wrath and of the revelation of the righteous judgment of God"). Again, the day is further qualified as "the day of the Lord" (1 Thess. 5:2; 2 Thess. 2:2; 1 Cor. 5:5 [in the reading followed by most]; cf. 1 Cor. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:14), or "of Christ Jesus" (Phil. 1:6; cf. 1:10; 2:16). This term stems from the Old Testament, where the day of Yahweh is frequently spoken of as the future revelation of his power. In some of the passages we have cited "the day of the Lord" can still be understood as the day of God; in view of the further additions in other passages it is more probable, however, that by "the Lord" all along Christ must be understood. Here again we have proof of the extent to which the great future is in the epistles of Paul entirely concentrated about Christ, even though the terminology is not originally Messianic, but theological.119 However, while in the Old Testament and especially in the late Jewish usage some degree of diversity presents itself with respect to the content and temporal delimitation of the expression "the day of the Lord," in the epistles of Paul the day of the Lord is given with the revelation or coming (parousia) of Christ, whereby then with the expression "day of the Lord," in harmony with the usage of the Old Testament, it is a matter especially of the judgment120 to be executed by Christ. Yet in 1 Thessalonians 5:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:2 it is not specifically the judgment, but the coming of the Lord, his parousia in general, that is to be understood by the day of the Lord. In all these descriptions it is a matter of a general denotation of the great future that dawns with Christ's coming.
The passages where the parousia and its significance come up for discussion more fully and directly are 1 Thessalonians 4:15-18 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10. Although certain features of this epiphany are also mentioned a few times elsewhere — so, for example, in 2 Thessalonians 2:8, already discussed, where it is said that the Lord Jesus will slay the lawless one by the breath of his mouth and bring him to nought by the epiphany of his coming; as well as in 1 Thessalonians 3:13, where the parousia of Christ "with all his saints" is spoken of —yet the abovementioned passages are in this respect much more detailed. Both passages, however, have an exceedingly practical purport, which can also account for the fact that at one time the judging and punishing character of the parousia comes to the fore (2 Thess. 1), while at another light is cast on the appearing of Christ's coming exclusively in its saving significance (1 Thess. 4).
In 2 Thessalonians 1 the apostle goes into the difficult situation in which the church finds itself, particularly into the affliction to which it is exposed from the side of its enemies. He declares then that God will openly give it justice by requiting with affliction those who now afflict it, and rest to those who are afflicted at the parousia of Christ, which he then describes as follows: " . . . at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power, in flaming fire, inflicting punishment upon those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus; they shall pay the penalty with an eternal destruction, far from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all who have believed . . . in that day" (vv. 7ff.).
If one looks more closely at this description, it appears to represent the parousia of Christ as a descent from heaven, together with his holy angels, in the same manner as elsewhere (cf. 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:16; Matt. 24:31). This description already associates itself closely with that of the Old Testament theophanies (cf., e.g., Zech. 14:5; Jude 14 with a quotation from En. 1:9). This applies in still greater measure to the succeeding words, borrowed from various passages in the Old Testament where the appearing of God is described and his punitive judgment on his enemies is announced (cf. Exod. 3:2 — the flame of fire in the appearance of the Lord to Moses at Horeb; Isa. 66:4, 15; Jer. 10:25; Ps. 68:36; Isa. 2:11, 17). It is apparent from this, therefore, how much the parousia of Christ is linked to the coming of Yahweh in judgment according to Old Testament prophecy, both as regards its substance and its representation.121
In 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, moreover, the discriminating significance of the parousia is in the foreground. Although, as is evident elsewhere, the judgment is also to concern believers and the fire is also to prove their work (see Section 79), here the separation between believers and unbelievers is especially alluded to. Christ's appearing in majesty and glory means punitive judgment, eternal ruin for those who do not know God and who are disobedient; and this is then denoted as an exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from participation in his glory (cf. Matt. 7:23, et al.). This in absolute contrast with the lot of those who belong to Christ and whose glory will consist in that they will always be with the Lord (1 Thess. 4:17).122 Here, in 2 Thessalonians 1, this is expressed in words in which Psalm 67 (68):36 and 88 (89) :8 (LXX) sound through, namely, that the Lord comes to be glorified in his saints (believers, his own) and to be beheld with wonder by all who have believed. For them his coming means to share in his glory, above all reverent and worshipful amazement at the glory with which he himself is clothed. Thus at his coming the division is carried into effect, and the roles are to be reversed: there will be retribution on the heads of the afflicters, relief and rest for the afflicted (vv. 6, 7). The revelation of Christ also means the revelation of righteousness, both in its redeeming and in its retributive significance. himself is clothed. Thus at his coming the division is carried into effect, and the roles are to be reversed: there will be retribution on the heads of the afflicters, relief and rest for the afflicted (vv. 6, 7). The revelation of Christ also means the revelation of righteousness, both in its redeeming and in its retributive significance.
Of no less importance for insight into this discriminatory significance of the parousia is the well-known pericope of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Here again the church does not receive a complete description in sequence of all that is to take place at the coming of the Lord, but further instruction with respect to the lot of believers who have fallen asleep before the parousia. Uncertainty and anxiety had apparently arisen about them. The church itself still hoped to be permitted to experience the parousia of Christ as a whole. But how must one conceive of the fate of those who have already died, if in the great moment of Christ's appearance they were no longer able to go to meet him with the church?
It is apparently not a question here, as in 1 Corinthians 15, of upholding the reality of the resurrection, but of the manner in which deceased believers are to be involved directly and at the first appearing of Christ at the parousia.123 Would those who are dead have to miss the great moment of Christ's appearing, which they, too, so earnestly anticipated? It may be that for the consciousness of the church the parousia and the resurrection of the dead still lay far apart, and the latter was conceived of as a final phase, entered on only much later (after the parousia and the reign of Christ on earth beginning with it).124 Or perhaps the whole fate of deceased believers was an obscure matter for the church.
However this may be, Paul's instruction is here directed toward convincing the church that deceased believers will from the very outset share in the glory of Christ's parousia no less than those who are still alive. Here again the point of departure of the line of reasoning lies in the bond that joins Christ with all his own, even with those who have died: "for if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep through Jesus125 will God bring with him" (1 Thess. 4:14). That which is especially in view in this pronouncement lies in the final words: "bring with him." They say something still more than "will cause them to arise with him," for with that the share of deceased believers in the parousia would not yet have been elucidated. The meaning is no less than that God will make them appear with Christ in his parousia, that is to say, they will be in his company, at his side, when Christ appears. How this is intended only becomes clear from the following verses. For the apostle explains what goes before with "a word of the Lord" in this way, that "we who are alive, who are left until the parousia of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep." This (not) preceding apparently has reference to the same occurrence as that which is expressed in verse 14 with the words "bring with him" or "cause to come with him." It is a question of the way in which believers, both those who have died and survivors, are to be involved at the parousia and will share in its glory. How this is to take place is then explained as follows, in the description of the parousia itself: "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we shall always be with the Lord" (vv. 16ff.).
This description of the parousia — the most detailed we are given in the epistles of Paul — bears a pronouncedly apocalyptic character, partly making use of features that occur elsewhere in the delineations of theophanies. The representation describes occurrences that fall outside the present mode of human existence. In the manner of apocalypses it places these within the framework of the world picture of that day, and thus gives human vividness to the divine occurrence, which, however, no longer admits of being interpreted in the manner of human history. There is mention of a "shout of command" (going out over the whole earth), the "voice of the archangel," and "the trumpet of God." So far as the meaning of this representation is concerned, one can ask whether we have to do here with a threefold act in the divine event, or whether the same thing is intended in three different ways, namely, the signal for the commencement of the great event. Is the "shout of command" the voice of God or of Christ? Does this command apply to the descent of Christ himself, or is it already addressed to the dead? One can ask similar questions about "the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God."126 The expressions employed here also form the regular material of descriptions of theophanies, of the day of the Lord, and of the coming of Christ related to it.127 Angels are always present in the eschatological occurrence, as accompanying attendants of Christ, as co-executors of the final events (cf., e.g., Matt. 13:39, 49; 16:27; Mark 8:38; Matt. 25:31, et al.; Luke 12:8ff.; 2 Thess. 1:7).128 Elsewhere Paul speaks of the coming of Christ "with all his saints" (1 Thess. 3:13), among whom angels are also to be understood. "The trumpet" also has a specifically eschatological significance. Some think that the blast of the trumpet in theophanies denotes the indescribable voice of God.129 However this may be, as already in the Old Testament the theophany at Mt. Sinai (Exod. 19:16) and the day of Yahweh must be announced with the blast of the trumpet and also consist in the sound of the trumpet (cf. Joel 2:1; Zeph. 1:16; Isa. 27:13; Zech. 9:14), so in the New Testament the Apocalypse is full of trumpets, angels with trumpets, etc. (cf. also Matt. 24:31). Paul speaks of it in 1 Corinthians 15:52 as the last trumpet that announces the resurrection. Likewise in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the blast of the trumpet and the raising of the dead must be understood in close relation to each other.130 Who it is that blows the trumpet is not said; it is "the great trumpet" (Matt. 24:31), the "last trumpet" (1 Cor. 15:32), the "trumpet of God" (1 Thess. 4:16).131 All this, however, does not have an independent significance in the description of 1 Thessalonians 4. It is the eschatological-apocalyptic entourage of what is meant to be said here of the parousia: that all believers, those who have died as well as those who remain alive, will share at once and together in the glory of Christ's parousia. This is also the meaning of the resurrection of the dead here indicated in only a few words. The mention of it serves only to remove any suggestion as though deceased believers would not immediately be there and as though their redemptive and glorification were unclear or must still await a further order. Rather, their resurrection will take place first of all, when the appearing of Christ is announced by voices and trumpet blast. Only thereafter will the collective meeting and uniting with Christ of the dead and the living take place. In what way the latter are to experience this meeting, that is to say, in what mode of existence, is not said. To wish to infer from this that in 1 Thessalonians Paul had not yet come to the idea of the "change" of which he speaks in 1 Corinthians 15:52 is altogether without foundation; just as it is to wish to assume that the resurrection of those already dead would take place in the same body as that in which they had lived before. All this is not further spoken of here. One will have to interpret Paul with Paul, however, and not with all sorts of ideas that are to be found here and there in the late Jewish literature; and one will furthermore have to bear in mind that the apostle is not concerned here with a rounded off "eschatology," but only with upholding the simultaneous and collective involvement of the dead and the living in the parousia of Christ.
This is done then in the remarkable words of verse 17, which speak of being "caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." This denotes a supernatural translation, of which there is likewise mention elsewhere in an apocalyptic context (Rev. 12:5), also indeed in the sense of a visionary translation (2 Cor. 12:2, 4; cf., however, Acts 8:39) The clouds, too, form a fixed apocalyptic motif. Of the Son of Man it is said continually that he is to come on or with the clouds, referring to Daniel 7:13 (cf. Mark 13:26; 14:62; Matt. 26:64; Luke 21:27; Rev. 1:7; 14:14ff.). In the Old Testament theophanies, too, the cloud occurs repeatedly as manifestation, seat, vehicle of God (cf. Ps. 97:2; Isa. 19:1; Exod. 19:9, 16, et al.). In 1 Thessalonians 4 the cloud constitutes the manifestation of the glory of Christ, in which his own are permitted to participate. What is meant then is the beginning of this union, the meeting. In the descent of Christ from heaven his own are taken up in his transcendent appearance ("in the air"), certainly not to remain there,132 or from thence to return to heaven, but to be by him and with him when he appears on earth.
Where the origin of this idea is to be sought is disputed. It is often thought that the ceremony of the "bringing in" of Hellenistic princes in connection with their visit to a specific city or region was of influence in the description of the parousia. One finds both the word parousia and eis apantēsin in the descriptions of these joyous entries. The inhabitants of the city, insofar as they had no bad conscience, went to meet the ruler in order then to march into the city in his retinue or otherwise to observe his entry. Likewise the figure of the crown of which Paul speaks in connection with the parousia of 1 Thessalonians 2:19, 20 ("What is.. . our crown of glorying [ stephanos kauchēseōs] before our Lord Jesus at his parousia? Is it not you?") is often explained from this context. For they presented the ruler with crowns or garlands, or adorned themselves with them when they went to meet him (cf., e.g., Deissmann, Licht vom Osten, 4th ed., 1923, p. 315, and especially E. Peterson, "Die Einholung des Kyrios," ZST, 1929/30, pp. 682ff.; the same author in TDNT, I, p. 380; see also Sabbe, in Collationes Brugenses et Gandavenses, IX, pp. 97ff.). This explanation is followed by many and does indeed offer striking points of contact.
Others, however, are of the opinion that the background is to be sought entirely in the apocalyptic ideas of the Old Testament and Judaism. In his extensive discussion of this question Dupont, [SYN CHRISTO], pp. 64ff., has pointed in particular to the description of the theophany at Mt. Sinai (Exod. 19:10-18), where there is also mention (LXX) of hai phōnai kai hai salpinges, which were heard at the coming of the Lord. On the third day— so it follows — there were voices and lightning and a thick cloud ( nephele), and the sound of the trumpet ( phone tes salpingos) rang out loudly. And Moses led the people forth to meet God ( exēgagen M. ton laon eis synantesin tou Theou, etc.). Dupont is of the opinion that in this whole apocalypticeschatological context (of I Thess. 4) "the point of departure is to be found in the story of the theophany at Sinai, which inspires the apocalyptic context of this passage of Paul's letter" ( ibid., pp. 71, 73). Although the comparison with the bringing in of the Hellenistic princes is striking and was also, for example, employed by Chrysostom as an explanation, the apocalyptic character of the description in I Thessalonians 4 and the Old Testament elements undoubtedly to be found in it argue not a little in favor of Dupont's mode of interpretation. Sabbe has worked this out still further and provided a number of additions ( Collationes Brugenses, IX, pp. 99-113).
It is plain that this going of believers to meet the Lord has the meaning of being placed at Christ's side at his coming, the open demonstration of belonging to him and being his people. The same thing is intended in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 when "our joining together"133 with Christ at his parousia is spoken of, and in Colossians 3:4: "your being manifested with him in glory." With that the expression in 1 Thessalonians 4:14 — "them . . . will God bring with him" — has been sufficiently explained. God will make them come with Christ in his triumphant appearance. It cannot mean "bring with him from heaven," for they are simply to go to meet him. Likewise there is no thought of a return to heaven.134 For Christ's parousia is directed just toward the earth. It is being included in his company, moving in his retinue, coming with Christ in his glory. It means also to be separated forthwith from those for whom Christ's parousia is unto condemnation and therefore deliverance "from the wrath to come" (1 Thess. 1:10).
How all this is to be realized and what follows on this union is not further explained here. The description ends with the words: "and so we shall always be with the Lord." This is the summary and climax of all that has gone before. When this point has been reached, the apostle breaks off, and he says that the church is to comfort itself with it, both for its dead and for itself. The christological viewpoint constitutes the new integrating point of the age-old involvement of the people of God in the revelation of the glory of the Lord. Christ is the central point, the certainty, the ground for the hope of glory. The old is not thereby set aside, however, but used and illuminated in view of its capacity for expression.135 But the hope is directed toward Christ, toward always being with him. That is the new qualification, concentrated in one word, of the salvation of the future of the Lord for his people described in all kinds of grandiose forms and conceptions but still always indescribable.
SECTION 78. THE RESURRECTION
As has already been apparent in the preceding section, the redemptive significance of the parousia of Christ for the church above everything else lies in the fact that immediately with Christ's appearing believers who have fallen asleep will arise and — this we may add at once136 — those who then remain alive will be changed.
Whereas other events connected with the great future come up for discussion in Paul's epistles only in part or incidentally, the resurrection of the dead and the renewing of the body are part of the central substance of his proclamation of the gospel. To be sure, one can term 1 Corinthians 15 in a special sense "the" chapter of the resurrection — both of Christ and of believers — but this does not alter the fact that the resurrection of believers is set before the church time and again in many different contexts as the great redemptive occurrence of the future. It springs directly from and has its explanation in the reality of the resurrection of Christ, the center of the Pauline proclamation (Rom. 8:11; 1 Cor. 6:14; 2 Cor. 4:14). His own people were already included in Christ's resurrection, and baptism is the sacramental incorporation into this redemptive event (Rom. 6:4fL; Col. 2:12; 3:1). The actual renewal of their life is the likeness of Christ's resurrection (Rom. 6:5); in it the resurrection of Christ is already working itself out (Rom. 6:8; 2 Cor. 4:10ff.), and will work itself out more and more (2 Cor. 3:18). It is this having been raised with Christ, this being permitted to know oneself alive for God in Christ (Rom. 6:11), this having already put on the new man (of the resurrection) (Col. 3:10), which has its consummation in the resurrection from the dead at Christ's parousia. And in proportion as believers may be the more forcefully aware of having been included in this spiritual event of renewal, they will also be the more fervent for its full outworking in the resurrection of the dead (Phil. 3:11ff.).
Because of this all-controlling significance of Christ's resurrection for the future of his people, Christ can also be called the Firstfruits (aparche) of those who have fallen asleep (1 Cor. 15:20, 23). "Firstfruits" is a qualification borrowed from the harvest. The firstfruits represent the whole of the anticipated and still to be ingathered crop, are the evidence that the new harvest, that is to say here, the new aeon, has come. To the same effect there is mention in Colossians of the Beginning, the Firstborn from the dead (cf. Rom. 8:29). Both terms do not say only that in order of time Christ is the beginning of the resurrection, but also that the beginning made by him was decisive and opened the way for the "many brethren" who belong to this Firstborn.137 He has robbed death of its power (2 Tim. 1:10), given his own victory over death (1 Cor. 15:57). His resurrection and that of his people form an unbreakable unity.
From this exclusively christological approach to the resurrection of believers is also to be understood the connection Paul makes repeatedly between the resurrection and the Holy Spirit.138 For it was the Spirit who in Christ's resurrection was overpoweringly at work. Christ was also endowed with the Spirit before his resurrection, and he was driven and led by the Spirit (Matt. 3:16; 4:1, et al.).139But before the resurrection Christ's existence was also determined by the fact that he was "in the flesh" (Rom. 1:3; 1 Tim. 3:16). And while this "flesh" meant for Christ the subjection to death of the old aeon — for God sent him "in the likeness of the flesh of sin" (Rom. 8:3) — the Spirit is the Author of the redeemed and imperishable life of the new aeon (2 Cor. 3:17, 18). For this reason the resurrection of Christ is particularly related to the Spirit. In the resurrection he was "justified by the Spirit" (1 Tim. 3:16), that is to say, in the sight of all declared to be right. The glory and power of God according to "the Spirit of holiness" were given to Christ at his resurrection (Rom. 1:4).140 However, this does not mean that he no longer had any part in the corporeal — precisely his resurrection is proof to the contrary — but that he has been freed from the weakness and humiliation of the flesh, and he himself is given disposal over the Spirit, so that his new mode of existence can be identified with that of the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17; 1 Cor. 15:45). For this reason, by way of a synonym and equivalent of the work of the Spirit in the resurrection, there can also be mention of Christ's being raised from the dead "by the glory of the Father" and of his life "from the power of God" (Rom. 6:4; 2 Cor. 13:4). proof to the contrary — but that he has been freed from the weakness and humiliation of the flesh, and he himself is given disposal over the Spirit, so that his new mode of existence can be identified with that of the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17; 1 Cor. 15:45). For this reason, by way of a synonym and equivalent of the work of the Spirit in the resurrection, there can also be mention of Christ's being raised from the dead "by the glory of the Father" and of his life "from the power of God" (Rom. 6:4; 2 Cor. 13:4).
In this regime of the power and glory of the Spirit as the Creator of the new life believers are now included in virtue of their belonging to Christ (Rom. 8:9). Therefore their temporal-corporeal existence (just as that of Christ) is indeed subject to death because of sin (condemned in the body of Christ), but in its place the Spirit gives life because of righteousness (wrought in Christ) (Rom. 8:10).141 And that also means for them, therefore, the quickening of their mortal bodies by the Spirit of Christ, who dwells in them (Rom. 8:11).
All this can enable us better to understand that Paul, particularly in 1 Corinthians 15, so forcefully upholds the resurrection of the dead over against those, apparently even in the church, who denied it. At the present time142 it is often assumed that in this denial of the resurrection we are to see a spiritualistic heresy that is perhaps also in view in 2 Timothy 2:18 (men who contended that "the resurrection is past already"). It was not the resurrection of Christ that was denied, nor that believers shared in it, but it was said that the latter is to be understood in an exclusively spiritual sense, and to consist in the perfection to be attained already in this life, whereupon no resurrection of the body need follow. However one chooses further to assess the spiritual background of this heresy, the denial of the bodily resurrection of believers is the cardinal point on which the argument of the apostle is concentrated.143
Its construction144 is very clear and impressive. After the explicit repetition and confirmation of the apostolic paradosis concerning the resurrection of Christ as the foundation stone and basis of all that must be said in what follows, Paul comes in verse 12 to the assertion of those who say that there is no resurrection of the dead. Over against that he first maintains with great force the that (hoti; v. 12) and thereafter discusses, beginning with verse 35, the how (pos) of the resurrection. In the first part he posits plainly that the denial of the resurrection of the dead would bring the resurrection of Christ into question (which was apparently not denied by the heresy), indeed, all the content of the apostolic preaching and of the Christian faith. Already here he places Christ over against Adam in order to make clear the indissoluble connection between Christ and his own, likewise so far as the resurrection is concerned (vv. 22ff.). In so doing he already goes into the sequence of events at the parousia (vv. 23-29), to return thereafter to the consequences that the omitting of the resurrection would have for himself as well as for the church; it would make all his life-and-death struggle for the gospel senseless, and it could, if death after all means the end of everything, only give occasion to libertinism: "let us eat and drink . . ." (vv. 30-34). In this context he speaks also of being "baptized for the dead" (v. 29), an allusion to a practice of which, despite all the research that has been devoted to it,145 it cannot be said that its meaning is clear to us. In this context this allusion serves, however, as (supplementary) argument against those who denied the resurrection and did apparently consider this baptism for the dead meaningful. The main thing in the whole argument is, however: (a) Christ's unquestioned resurrection implies the resurrection of his own; and (b) without the hope of the resurrection at Christ's parousia the Christian life and the Christian life-struggle lose their meaning. And he adds to this in verse 34, with a not indistinct recollection of Christ's answer to the Sadducees (Matt. 22:29, 33), that those who deny the resurrection have no idea who God is.146
In verse 35, then, he begins his exposition of the how, referring to the questions of those who opposed it (introduced in the manner of the diatribe): "but — someone will say — how are the dead raised? and with what kind of body do they come?" It appears from the answer that this "how" has yet again a twofold aspect. In verses 36-50 the quality of the resurrection body is first dealt with, and then, in verses 51ff., the manner in which the resurrection event takes place.147 So far as the former is concerned, Paul makes use of a double analogy. First of all, he employs that of the seed.148 It is also true of seed that it comes to new life only if it has first died (v. 36). And one can learn from it at the same time that the quality of what shall be must not be measured by what one sees die. For it applies to sowing, too, that it is not "the future body," but only the single ("naked") grain, whether of wheat or of something else, that is sowed. Here the almighty and absolute power of God prevails, who not only gives each seed its own (future) "body," but also gives men and animals, birds and fish, another "flesh," i.e., their own earthly manner of existence. So great and unimaginable are the riches God has at his disposal for giving each a "body" as he has chosen. And that holds not only for what is on earth, but also for what appears in the heavens. Their glory is of another order than that which is on earth, but the heavenly bodies differ again among themselves (vv. 37-41).
When in conclusion the apostle now adds: "so is it also with the resurrection of the dead," he not only elucidates the possibility and quality of the resurrection body with a reference to the various modes of existence God in his omnipotence has bestowed on his creatures, but he has already, and certainly not without design, placed the heavenly149 and the earthly over against each other, a contrast to which he shortly returns in the analogy of the first and second Adam (cf. vv. 47ff.).
The transition from the first analogy (that of the seed) to the second forms the fourfold contrast between what is sown and raised.
It is sown in corruption,
it is raised in incorruption;
it is sown in dishonor,
it is raised in glory;
it is sown in weakness,
it is raised in power;
it is sown a psychical body,
it is raised a pneumatic body.
With this last contrast (psychical-pneumatic) we have come to a new crucial point in the argument which is elucidated with a new appeal to the analogy between Christ and Adam (vv. 44bff.). Only hence can the psychical-pneumatic contrast be understood in its proper meaning.150 That which comes about anthropologically in the believer (in being "sown" and "raised") derives its significance from the fact that the mode of existence of his body before death is determined by that of the first Adam (and is therefore "psychical") and that in being raised it is determined by the second Adam (and is therefore "pneumatic"). In this light the pronouncement, which at first glance is not very transparent, is to be understood: "if there is a psychical body, there is also a pneumatic body," as also that the psychical is first and only then the pneumatic. All this is not in the nature of the human in itself — for why from the existence of a psychical and mortal body should that of a pneumatic and immortal body coming later have to follow? — but springs from the succession of the first Adam by the second and from the two different modes of existence pertaining to them. For this reason the psychical mode of existence (participating in the existence of the first Adam) is followed by the pneumatic (sharing in the second Adam). The anthropological contrast is anchored in the redemptive-historical.
The content of this psychical and pneumatic contrast is accordingly — in the second place — explained from the first man Adam and the last or second Adam, Christ. If "psychical" means belonging to the first Adam, "pneumatic" to the second, the one as well as the other is to be further elucidated on the ground of what is known concerning these two "men."151
As regards the first Adam Paul is able to appeal directly to Scripture: because God breathed into him the breath of life (Gen. 2:7), he became "living soul," he received life, which is therefore qualified as psychical (v. 46), a little further along as "from the earth, earthy" (once again referring to Gen. 2:7), and to which then the qualifications "flesh and blood" (v. 50), and "mortal" and "perishable" (v. 53) have reference.152 All the descendants of the first Adam are sharers of this life. For as was the earthy, such are those who are earthy (v. 48).
Now over against this first Adam as living soul stands Christ, the second and last Adam, as life-giving Spirit, as well as the pneumatic body determined by him over against the psychical that is derived from the first Adam. It is clear from the manner in which the pneumatic is here connected to Christ that psychical and pneumatic do not stand over against each other as the lower and higher in the sense of a dualistic anthropology,153 but as two modes of bodily existence, of which the resurrection of Christ forms the turning point. Paul therefore does not in general set Christ as "living Spirit" over against Adam as living soul, but says that Christ has become life-giving Spirit. Just as with Adam, this last denotes a beginning, which in this context is scarcely to be understood otherwise than of Christ's resurrection. From then on Christ not only "had" the Spirit, but he himself "was" the Spirit (cf. 2 Cor. 3:17), which is not to say that there would no longer be a distinction between the subject of Christ and of the Spirit, but that not only for himself but also for his own he has the Spirit at his disposal.154 Therefore Paul speaks of Christ as the life-giving Spirit, by which he again establishes the relation between the Spirit and the resurrection in Christ. For this reason belonging to Christ not only consists in the gift of the pneuma in this life, but reaches out to the still to be expected quickening in accordance with Christ's resurrection (cf. v. 22). Therefore Paul also follows this up by saying in verse 46 that the spiritual (body) is not first, but the psychical, and then the spiritual. One is again not to see in this a broad pronouncement on what has priority in a general anthropological respect,155 but rather a rejection156 of the view that the pneumatic represents a primal datum that would be antecedent to a psychical existence sunk away from it or opposed to it and in which man does not receive a share till through Christ's coming and resurrection. Paul sets against that precisely the redemptive-historical character of the body given in Christ and of the life-giving power of the Spirit. The first and second Adam do not represent two timeless, dualistic "principles" or modes of existence standing over against each other, but stand to each other in a redemptive-historical (typical-antitypical; Rom. 5:14) relation, whereby Adam is "the first" and Christ "the second" or "the last" in the divine economy of redemption. Therefore it also applies to believers that they will bear the image of the latter, just as they have borne the image of the former (cf. v. 49). Thus when in this context it is said of Christ that he is the second man from heaven157 and he is for this reason called the heavenly (v. 48), that is not an allusion to his heavenly pre-existence, nor a characteristic datum of Christ's whole human existence. Not only would it be difficult to reconcile that with what is said, for example, in Romans 8:3 of Christ's coming in the likeness of sinful flesh,158 but also his own could not be called "the heavenly," as is done in verse 48, without contradiction with what is here first said of their earthly origin. The expression "from heaven" or "heavenly" gives a further qualification of the second man as the Risen One. It indicates that as the second Adam and as the Inaugurator of the new life of the resurrection Christ lives from the power of the heavenly, divine Spirit. In that sense accordingly those who belong to him can be spoken of as "the heavenly." They are not such because they come from heaven, or are going to heaven, but because they belong to Christ as the one living from divine power and in this way will bear the image of the heavenly, as they have once borne the image of the earthy. This future, heavenly image can now also be called the pneumatic body.159 Pneuma and pneumatic thus do not denote a new substance, but a new determination or origin. The new body does not "consist of" pneuma, but is brought forth and determined by the divine, heavenly power.160 For that reason (and not on the ground of what is inherent in the pneumatic "substance") it can now be said of this body that it is imperishable, immortal, the very model of glory and power (vv. 42, 43, 48, 53).
Paul can also write in Philippians 3:21 therefore that Christ will change our humiliated body so that it becomes conformed to his glorified body, according to the power whereby he is able even to subject all things to himself. Here again Christ himself is the one who — as life-giving Spirit — will change the body of his people. The relation between Christ's mode of existence as the Risen One and that of believers is expressed very clearly. What in 1 Corinthians 15:49 is called "bearing the image of the heavenly," is called here "becoming conformed to his [Christ's] glorified body" (cf. Rom. 8:29, where the combination of both elements occurs: "becoming conformed to the image of his [God's] Son"). One will thereby have to take the word "conformed" not only as a likeness in appearance or shape, but in mode of existence. It is a question of receiving a share in the glory of Christ, the bearing of his image. Although the first man is also called the image and the glory of God (1 Cor. 11:7), he was this nevertheless within the limits of his original mortal existence derived from the earth. Over against that, becoming conformed to the glorified body of Christ (or, as Rom. 8:29 says, to the image of God's Son) signifies sharing in the glory of God in the recreation by the Spirit, the imperishable and immortal body of the resurrection.
Still deserving of separate discussion are verses 50-54, where the preceding argument essentially comes to its conclusion:
Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither does corruption inherit incorruption.
Behold, I tell you a mystery: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet: for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
There is much dispute as to whether verse 50 adds a new element to what has gone before or summarizes and confirms it. Some suppose that in verse 50 Paul dissociates himself from the materialistic, Jewish conception of the resurrection in order thereafter to come to speak of the lot of those who will still be alive at the parousia of Christ and thus will not rise from the dead.161 In a detailed essay Jeremias has contended that verses 50-54 were devoted to the twofold significance that the parousia has for those who are then dead and for those who have not yet died. Already in verse 50 there is said to be a distinction between the two. By "flesh and blood" those are then intended who are alive at the parousia, by "the corruptible" the bodies in decay of those who have fallen asleep.162 So verse 50 would already reach out to verses 51 and 52. Verses 53 and 54 also would not contain a synonymous but a synthetic parallelism: the "corruptible" are the dead, the "mortal" that which is still confronted with death, the living. The whole then forms a further answer to the how? in verse 35, that is, of the first question: how are the dead raised up? after the second question of verse 35 has been dealt with in verses 36-49: with what body will they come?163 And the effect of it would be that, in divergence from the Jewish expectation and from 1 Thessalonians 4 (where nothing is said of the transformation of the survivors), Paul here pronounces as a new revelation that the change of the living and the dead takes place immediately at the parousia.
In our opinion, however, the whole interpretation that beginning with verse 50 Paul is turning against a Jewish-materialistic conception of the resurrection is incorrect. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul is not dealing with a materialistic, but with a spiritualistic conception of the resurrection. Over against this idea, according to which the resurrection has taken place already in this life (cf. v. 19) and thus in this body, Paul, after first elucidating the manner of the resurrection and with the aid of the analogy of the seed and of the redemptive-historical contrast of Adam and Christ, establishes the necessity of this resurrection with great force, beginning with verse 50. "Now this I say" (v. 50) thus does not usher in a contrast, nor an entirely new thought, but brings to the fore the heart of the matter that is at stake in 1 Corinthians 15 with great force and with a final, conclusive argument, i.e., that of its necessity and indispensability.
He first puts the argument negatively (in v. 50). That in so doing he is already distinguishing between those still alive ("flesh and blood") and those who have already died ("the corruptible") is hardly plausible on the ground of the terms employed. "This" perishable, as he expresses it in verse 53, obviously refers, just as "this" mortal, to the existing earthly life and earthly body, and not to that which is in process of decomposition in the grave. In addition this conception is the consequence of the idea that Paul's special object in these verses is a further revelation about what is to take place at the parousia — on the one hand with the survivors, on the other with those who have died. This is the point of view of 1 Thessalonians 4, as we have seen. But it is not the point of view here. It is a matter in general of maintaining the future resurrection of the body over against those who denied it. Verse 51 is also in that line of thought. It carries on the reasoning of verse 50. Even though all will not sleep164 — the first clause of verse 51 has a concessive force — what is said in verse 50 also applies to the survivors. To that end the apostle discloses a "mystery," something that is still concealed in the veils of the divine counsel, but is to be realized before long. How he is in a position to speak thus he does not explain further. In 1 Thessalonians 4:15 he makes a similar pronouncement on the ground of "a word of the Lord." It is possible that the mystery in 1 Corinthians 15:51 is also to be understood in this way. It is also possible, however, that "mystery" here denotes that which has not yet been realized, but for one who has insight into the way of the Lord, as the apostle and the prophet, is even so not unknown (cf. Rom. 11:25; 1 Cor. 13:2). But, in any case, the announcement of this mystery is not intended only as an announcement, but serves to elucidate further what is expressed in verse 50; no one, not even those who are alive at the parousia, can in this body inherit the kingdom of God. When the last trumpet sounds, those who have died will be raised imperishable (that is, in a new body) and we, insofar as we have not fallen asleep, shall be changed. For — so verse 53, with the adducing of the ground for which this is to take place thus — this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal immortality. This is the positive statement of what is expressed negatively in verse 50. It is a question of "must," of the necessity laid down by God of the resurrection (c.q., of the change) and of the new body. And then (only), when this all shall have taken place, the prophecy of the swallowing up of death in victory will be fulfilled.
In this train of thought, which fits entirely in the framework of the argument of 1 Corinthians 15 carried on to this point and forms its impressive conclusion, there is no need whatever to think of some implied alteration or another in the Pauline expectation for the future.165When there is mention here of a "change" of those still alive at the parousia, this is not to be regarded as the breaking through of a new insight taking the place of a Jewish conception still maintained in 1 Thessalonians 4, according to which the dead would appear in their former bodies and there would as yet be no question of a "change" of the survivors. For there is no reason whatever to think that when Paul speaks of the resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, he intends another resurrection than that in 1 Corinthians 15; and just as little that the "change" of the survivors signifies something new with respect to 1 Thessalonians 4. Although it is true that this "change" is not mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 4, the argumentum e silentio says nothing because in 1 Thessalonians 4 something entirely different is under discussion, i.e., the lot of those who have died before the parousia. This whole reasoning rests on the incorrect conception that in 1 Corinthians 15:50 ("flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God") Paul is dissociating himself from a "materializing" conception of the resurrection body that he himself once held (in part), whereas it was, as everyone must recognize, precisely the spiritualizing heresy in Corinth that he combats in this chapter. That without any further indication he would in verse 50 suddenly change front is even in itself difficult to suppose, but also finds no support whatever in the clearly anti-spiritualizing purport of verses 50-54. The contrary is rather the case.
One can ask finally whether anything further is to be said in an anthropological respect about the bodily resurrection that Paul so vigorously upholds. This question also touches the manner in which the apostle gives expression to the continuity of the present and future life.
So far as the first is concerned, it is of importance to keep in view that Paul constantly denotes the future resurrection as the being raised, the glorifying of the body. The manner in which he expresses himself in so doing signifies a clear corroboration of what we have already been able to observe in general with regard to the Pauline use of "body."166 There is mention here of "body" and not, for example, of "flesh." "Flesh," even when it is not used in the sense of sinful existence, always has the meaning of that which is only temporal. It denotes man in his weakness and mortality.167 "Body," on the other hand, typifies man as he has been created by God, for God's glory, and to his service and therefore as he is raised from the dead and saved by God. This is not of course to say that the human body as it now exists is not to die and perish or be changed. In that sense it applies to the present body no less than to "flesh and blood" that it cannot inherit the kingdom of God. But what is raised and changed is nevertheless denoted as "body.
Furthermore, it is of paramount importance that "body" in this context, too, does not denote the material "part" of man, to be distinguished from the "soul" or the "spirit," in the sense of the Greek dichotomy, but rather man's whole mode of existence, before as well as after the resurrection. Insofar as there is mention of "soul" in the pronouncements discussed here, this serves simply as a further qualification of man in his temporal and perishable existence. And insofar as there is mention of the "spiritual," it is the glorified character of the new body originating from the Holy Spirit that is denoted, and the question as to whether or not it is material remains entirely out of consideration. That "body" here denotes the whole man is apparent also from the practically synonymous use of "raising of the body" in 1 Corinthians 15:44 with "resurrection of the dead" in verse 42; just as it is said in verse 52 that "the dead" will be raised and that "we" shall be changed. On the other hand, a distinction is again made in verse 35 between the subject of the risen man and his body ("with what kind of body do they come?"), and it is said in verse 49 that "we" have borne the image of the earthy (the natural body of v. 44) and that "we" shall bear the image of the heavenly (the spiritual body of v. 44). However difficult it may be to come to adequate distinctions here, it can be ascertained that the "I" of man can at one time be identified with his body, then again distinguished from it. The body thus denotes the total mode of existence of man, before and after his resurrection, but then in such a way that man himself (the "I"), as the bearer (v. 49) respectively of the image of the earthy and of the heavenly, is once again to be distinguished from it. In the same manner it can at one time be said that "we" shall all be changed (1 Cor. 15:51, 52), then again that "our body" will be changed168 (Phil. 3:21).
If nothing other is here the object of the raising of the body than man himself in the totality of his functions and capacities and if that which is raised is not to be restricted to the material and visible aspects of the present man, then the question emerges as to the continuity and identity of life before and after the resurrection. The figure employed by Paul of the seed and sowing is often related to this, and the conclusion drawn from it that just as "the germ" of the seed is continued in the life of the new plant, so a continuity and identity of the natural and spiritual body is capable of being vindicated.169
But a more than superficial consideration of the text teaches that the whole metaphor of the seed and sowing is not intended to establish such a connection, and in any case is not so applied. It is just said that what is sown dies and is made alive. Of a kernel or germ that remains alive there is therefore not only no mention, but also no presupposition. The thought is rather that the one is substituted for the other. It is not being reaped or harvested that stands over against being sown, but being raised. The first represents the old that died, the second the new that is raised by the omnipotence of God; and for the latter, reference is then made to the sovereignty of God in giving every being its own body and its own glory. The continuity and identity is consequently not to be sought in something that passes from the old body into the new body, but in the miraculous power of God. The same thing is implied in 1 Corinthians 15:47. In the first clause it is said indeed of what "material" the first man consists (of the earth earthy); but in the second clause it is said of "the second man" and the humanity derived from him that he is "from heaven," whereby not his "substantiality," but his divine origin, his miraculous character, is denoted.170 In this miraculous power of God the continuity and the identity between the psychical and the pneumatic body is guaranteed. And it is on that ground that Paul can say that "the dead" will be raised and that "we" shall be changed. Although this "we" cannot be made transparent anthropologically, he nevertheless confesses the identity in anthropological terms as well.
He is also able to express it in a christological way. It is the deadin-Christ who will rise, and it is in virtue of that corporate unity with Christ that those who die in him will be raised by him. Not only does the identity lie in this belonging to him, but also the continuity, which is not (temporarily) abrogated even by death, and this also holds for those who have fallen asleep before the parousia. Here the reality of the "intermediate state"171 fits in, although Paul does not say a word about it in 1 Corinthians 15. It consists in being "of the Lord" and "with Christ" and "with the Lord," for those who have died also. As those who in this way belong and continue to belong to the Lord they will rise.
Finally, there is again the pneumatological viewpoint. For what is true of being joined to Christ is also true of believers as being "in the Spirit," that is to say, living under his regime (Rom. 8:9). The same Spirit, in virtue of whose omnipotence the body of the resurrection is a "spiritual body," even now dwells and works in believers as living souls. What establishes the connection between life before and after the resurrection and what "passes over" from the one into the other is the Spirit and being under the rulership of the Spirit. Insofar as man is flesh and blood he will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50), but the kingdom of God is nevertheless already present time in righteousness, peace, and joy through the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17). What "abides" is faith, hope, and love (1 Cor. 13:13). That undoubtedly presupposes the human mode of existence, a future "ontological" structure of man, in virtue of which even after the resurrection he can believe, hope, and love. On that account the resurrection of the body pertains to the inalienable content of the Christian kerygma. Believers will bear the image of the heavenly as men and not as other beings. The Spirit not only works in man, therefore, but also renews his manhood. But the secret of the continuity does not lie in the human "being," but in the Spirit. And the firm ground of the belief that the mortal will one day put on immortality is in conformity with it. He who has prepared us to that end is God, who has given us the Spirit as an earnest (2 Cor. 5:5). In that sense the renewing and working of the Spirit in believers during their present life can also be understood as a beginning of the resurrection of the body, and be described by Paul in this way (cf. 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:10, 11, 16, 17; Eph. 5:14; Phil. 3:10, 11). So the shining of the glory of the future life illuminates them even now (2 Cor. 3:18; 4:6), a firstfruit and earnest, in the present time of their resurrection from the dead (cf. Gal. 6:8; Rom. 8:23; 2 Cor. 5:5).172
The apostle does not give a further representation of this resurrection body or life. It is a "body of glory" (Phil. 3:21; 1 Cor. 15:43), the mirroring in perfection of the glory of the Lord, being transformed after his image from glory to glory (2 Cor. 3:18). It is, likewise in sharing in the gifts of the Spirit, a doing away with and putting off of that which is still "in part" (1 Cor. 13:9, 10). It is no longer to walk in faith but in sight (2 Cor. 5:7), no longer to see by a mirror in riddles but face to face; knowing as we ourselves are known (1 Cor. 13:12). This existence can also be described in the expression "to be always with the Lord" (1 Thess. 4:18).
SECTION 79. THE JUDGMENT
In Paul's expectation for the future the last judgment is closely connected with the parousia of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead.
We have already mentioned173 the qualification of the parousia as "the day of the Lord" and the thought of the judgment linked with it. Paul here stands entirely in the tradition of the Old Testament and of Judaism, in which the day of the Lord signifies both redemption and judgment (cf. Amos 5:18ff.). That God will one day judge the world is for him an axiom. When in Romans 3:5ff. he repudiates the thought that God could act unjustly he appeals to the fact that God is after all to judge the world. This he will do without respect of persons (Rom. 2:11); he will bring the hidden things to light (Rom. 2:16); and he will render to every man according to his works (Rom. 2:6). This general expectation is now, as in the whole of the New Testament, linked with that of the parousia of Christ. Paul charges Timothy by God and by Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead (2 Tim. 4:1). That which in the Old Testament has reference to God's judging and punishing righteousness is in quoting simply applied to Christ (cf., e.g., 2 Thess. 1:8ff.; 2:8). There is mention at one time of appearing before the judgment seat of God (Rom. 14:10), then again before that of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10). There is thus no consistent and exclusive usage. The theological and christological viewpoints go together. But what is said about the coming judgment and the day of the Lord is concentrated even so about the work and the parousia of Christ. Therein lies the stronger pregnance of judgment in Paul (and in general in the New Testament) in comparison with that of the Old Testament and later Jewish apocalyptic.174
We have already seen175 that the judgment and the revelation of the wrath of God are not spoken of only in a future sense, but that Paul draws the attention of his readers to the fact that this wrath — that is to say, the judgment —is already revealing itself (Rom. l:18ff.). Therein the restraint is already broken that God has exercised till now and which is intended to lead men to repentance (Rom. 3:26; 2:4); just as already in the death of Christ he shows his righteousness, both judging and acquitting (Rom. 3:25, 26).176 Likewise the present revelation of God's judgment can be spoken of with reference to the affliction and persecution to which the church must presently be exposed. In 2 Thessalonians 1:5 Paul terms that an "evidence of the righteous judgment of God." The meaning is that these persecutions177 disclose the share of believers in the coming kingdom, just as for their opponents they are an evidence of their judgment (Phil. 1:28).
The judgment of Christ, too, is sometimes spoken of already in a present sense, especially with reference to the church. The apostle points this judgment out in the cases of sickness and death that occurred in the church of Corinth as a result of the profanation of the Lord's Supper178(1 Cor. 11:30, 31). It does not have a definitive, condemnatory significance, but is intended simply to warn the church against it (v. 32). It is meant as a chastisement and as a stimulus for subjecting itself to a searching examination. Elsewhere Paul speaks to a still stronger effect of the judgment on sinners in the church even now coming about in the power of Christ; here again, however, as a judgment that must have the goal of salvation and not only destruction (1 Cor. 5:4ff.).179
The proper focus of the Pauline pronouncements on the judgment lies, however, in the parousia of Christ. We have already seen180 how the separative significance of Christ's parousia governs its description in the great passage of 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10. That which now becomes knowable of this judgment in the opposition to the church (cf. Phil. 1:28) points toward the great reversal of all things to be expected at the coming of Christ (2 Thess. l:6ff.).
So far, first of all, as the representation of the great judgment at Christ's coming is concerned, this is done from various points of view that are not always easy to combine. At one time all the accent is placed on the common significance of the judgment, applying to all in the same way. So, for example, in Romans 2:1-16, where against Jewish self-conceit Paul with great emphasis sets the fact that on the day of wrath and of the revelation of his righteous judgment God will render to every man according to his works. For there is no acceptance of persons with God. Not the hearers, but the doers of the law will be justified in the day when God judges the secrets of men. That Paul here does not merely occupy "pre-evangelical" ground in order to carry the idea of righteousness from works ad absurdum181 appears sufficiently clearly from such a pronouncement as Romans 14:10, 11, where against the inclination to discrimination within the church he points to the coming judgment: "for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God." And in 2 Corinthians 5:10, where the judgment seat of Christ is mentioned in the same terms, the general warning follows: "so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body." For this universality of the judgment Paul in Romans 14:11 appeals to the prophetic words of Isaiah 49:18 and 45:23: "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow before me."
Elsewhere, however, it is not the commonness but the separation in the coming judgment that is to the fore. Already at the appearing of Christ the great separation is carried into effect. For the unbelieving and ungodly Christ's coming signifies judgment and destruction. He reveals himself with flaming fire to execute judgment on those who are unbelieving and disobedient and to exclude them from his blessed presence; while in that day he will be glorified in his saints and be marvelled at in them (2 Thess. 1:8ff.). For his saints, in distinction from those who do not belong to him, will at once be caught up to meet him at his appearing (1 Thess. 4:17). Of an antecedent common act of judgment there is no mention.
There need, of course, be no contradiction between the two. We have to do here with two different points of view: believers will not come to the judgment in the same manner as unbelievers and the ungodly, but rather are secured against it by Christ (1 Thess. 1:10); on the other hand, God will do justice to all and according to the same standard (cf. also Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:24, 25). Here again it appears that the presentation of the eschatological reality is fragmentary, is not intended to be nor can be a source of information, but under all kinds of traditional figures and phrases makes the church understand the absolute significance of being with or against Christ, not only with an eye to the present, but also to the great future. So there can be mention in two different senses of the fire with which the day of the Lord will appear (1 Cor. 3:13). On the one hand there is in this fire an indication of the inexorableness of punishment and the irretrievableness of those who fall under the judgment of God (2 Thess. 1:8), a punishment and a fate from which Christ will keep and deliver his own (1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9; Rom. 5:9); on the other hand, the fire of the judgment as a refining fire concerns all human work, even that of those who have built on the foundation of Christ. The fire will burn away and consume all that is shoddy in it. However, it will not devour the believer himself. He will be saved, but as through fire (1 Cor. 3:13-15).
How much we have to do here with realities the presentation of which in a great many respects bears a fragmentary and inadequate character is evident surely from the impossibility of coming from the various elements and moments of this preaching of judgment to an at all rounded off and systematic conception. Paul's pronouncements here bear the character of flashing, prophetic warnings, which illuminate for an instant the awful seriousness of the great future, not of a doctrine that in fixed order and piece by piece indicates the component parts of the picture of the future and combines them with each other into an integral unity. This applies in particular to the punitive judgment on unbelievers and the ungodly. Paul declares the certainty of this judgment in an unmistakable way, in many respects with words that have been derived from the Old Testament preaching of judgment. He speaks of it as ruin, death, payment with an eternal destruction (1 Thess. 5:3; 2 Thess. 1:9; Phil. 1:28; 3:19; Rom. 6:21); wrath, indignation, tribulation, anguish (Rom. 2:8, 9). But nowhere is the how, the where, or the how long "treated" as a separate "subject" of Christian doctrine in the epistles of Paul that have been preserved to us. Thus the question can be asked, for example, whether the judgment on unbelievers and the ungodly, as that on believers, presupposes a resurrection and whether one can thus extend what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 about the resurrection of the body to unbelievers as well. On the one hand such a resurrection seems essential when one takes into consideration that the judgment appears to be effected with the coming of Christ on earth and, according to the presentation, in the sphere of what is visible and in the full sense human. On the other hand it is indisputable that the whole maintenance of the resurrection against the contradiction of it in Corinth rests on the unity of Christ and his own and is therefore applicable only to the latter. It is also difficult to draw a conclusion on the ground of 2 Thessalonians 1:8ff. For here it is apparently only those alive at Christ's coming who are in view. We cannot therefore conclude otherwise than that, although the thought of a general resurrection of the dead seems most to correspond to the nature of the judgment that is to take place with the parousia and is also in harmony with what is communicated to us in Acts 24:15 as a pronouncement of Paul, his epistles neither directly nor indirectly contain any data on the basis of which we could come to know further the expectation and thought of the apostle with respect to it.
As concerns the judgment on those who belong to Christ by faith, the thought is here certainly that the resurrection precedes the judgment. Yet here again every programmatic description of a sequence of events and how it is to happen is lacking. What gives Paul's judgment pronouncements a character of their own is that Christ forms the point of concentration and integration of all the traditional ideas, as we find them also in the Old Testament and in part in later Judaism as well, and that the preaching of the judgment therefore is preaching of Christ. This means that life as it now stands has, to be sure, already found its initial criterion in Christ, but still awaits its definitive judgment in his future revelation. Only when Christ is revealed in glory will his own also be manifested (Col. 3:3, 4). His coming is the revealing of the sons of God, for which the whole creation waits with outstretched neck (Rom. 8:19). But at the same time this revelatory character of the parousia is a cause for watchfulness and self-examination. This thought of revelation or disclosing is one of the dominating motifs in Paul's preaching of judgment. Every man's work will then become manifest (phaneron genesetai). For the day will declare it (deloo), because it will be revealed (apokalypto) with fire, and the fire will prove (dokimazo) of what sort every man's work is (1 Cor. 3:13). Therefore no one is to judge before the time, that is, before the Lord has come who will bring to light (photizo) the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart; and then each man will receive his commendation from God (1 Cor. 4:5). Then the great unmasking of that which is now done in secret is also to take place. For all this becomes visible (phaneroō) when it is exposed (elenchō) by the light, for all that becomes visible is light. Therefore it is said: "awake thou that sleepest and arise from the dead, and Christ will shine (epiphauō) upon thee" (Eph. 5:13, 14).
On the one hand this central place of Christ in the Pauline preaching of judgment does not, as we have already been able to ascertain in another context,182 abolish the reality of the judgment as the divine judgment on every man's deeds and as reward according to works. For God has created his own in Christ Jesus for good works (Eph. 2:10), and therefore their belonging to him must be manifested in good works. Hence Paul's pronouncements on the judgment as the receiving of what each one has done, the reaping of what he has sown, etc. (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 6:7ff.; Eph. 6:8). On the other hand the comfort and certainty of believers also lie in the fact that Christ will judge the world. They will be manifested in their belonging to him, and no one will be able to bring any charge against them (Rom. 8:33). They will be placed at his side and with him judge the world, and even the angels (1 Cor. 6:2, 3).
SECTION 80. THE CONSUMMATION. THE ETERNAL STATE
The parousia of Christ with the accompanying resurrection of the dead and execution of the judgment at the same time forms the transition to the consummation of all things and the eternal state. The work of Christ is then completed and through him all things return to God (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6).
Scholars have not infrequently thought themselves able to observe further in Paul a final interim phase between that which is to take place at Christ's parousia and the end of all things, namely, that of an "intermediate kingdom" after the (first) resurrection and before the consummation. They appeal for this in particular to 1 Corinthians 15:23ff., and in conjunction with that to 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Without mentioning the word, Paul is said here to give expression to what is called in the Apocalypse of John the millennial kingdom.
This conception is very old and has often been refuted.183 Nevertheless it emerges time and again and also has defenders in more recent literature.184 The view is presented in more than one way. They go farthest who consider that in 1 Corinthians 15 not only is an "intermediate kingdom" indicated, but also two resurrections. Appeal is then made to the familiar passage in 1 Corinthians 15:22ff.:
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall they be made alive. But each in his own order (tagmati): Christ as the firstfruits; then ( epeita) they that are Christ's at his parousia;
thereafter ( eita) the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when he shall have abolished all rule and authority and power....
First of all, those who hold this view appeal for the idea of a double resurrection to the words: all shall be made alive in Christ. This would already presuppose more than the resurrection of believers at Christ's parousia. They think that with the words "then" and "thereafter " in verses 23 and 24, there is mention not of one, but of two resurrections (after that of Christ). On this account some185 wish to translate the words "thereafter the end" by "thereafter the rest," whereby the remaining persons (unbelieving Jews and gentiles186) not yet made alive at the first resurrection are to be understood. Others who shrink from this translation are nevertheless of the opinion that by "the end" the end of the event of the resurrection is denoted.187 Finally, in harmony with all this, instead of the translation "order" in verse 23 the word is also rendered by "class" or "division,"188 whereby once again the two groups of those who have been made alive are said to be intended. The second resurrection would then come at the close of the "intermediate kingdom," in which the final battle is fought against the powers (v. 24). Some also suppose, finally, that they find support for this conception in 1 Thessalonians 4: the anxiety there discussed with respect to deceased believers would then have no reference to their resurrection in general, but to their share in the first resurrection.189 This accordingly is alleged to be the reason why Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 that those who are alive will in no case "precede" those who have fallen asleep.
This whole conception is untenable, however. Not only does it rest on the introduction of the idea (taken from Rev. 20) of the millennial kingdom into the context of 1 Corinthians 15:22ff.,190 but it is also not to be reconciled with the clear meaning of this passage. In the first place, how could one understand the expression "all in Christ shall be made alive" other than of "those who are Christ's"? It would be altogether in conflict with the continuous significance of this typical Pauline corporate usage.191 "All" can here mean only: all who belong to Christ. Of another resurrection Paul does not mean to speak in 1 Corinthians 15. There is therefore no reason for, but indeed a great objection against, thinking of different groups of persons (to be raised) in verses 23ff. and to that end translating tagma in verse 23 by "division," "class," and telos in verse 24 by "rest." Not only do these words lend themselves very little to that and is telos in particular very clearly robbed of its obvious sense (see below), but there is also no occasion in the course of the argument to think of any such successive series of quickenings or resurrections. The apostle certainly wants to fix the church in a specific sequence or order (tagma) in the resurrection event, but this concerns (a) Christ as firstfruits and (b) those who are Christ's in his parousia. When the words "thereafter (eita) the end" follow, it is not at all necessary to see in this "thereafter" a continuation of the "then" (epeita) in verse 23, in the sense that the words "thereafter the end" denote the final phase of the resurrection event. The intention is exclusively that the church continue to distinguish between the order in the resurrection of Christ and that of believers at his parousia; and that "thereafter" or "then"192 the end comes. One must surely keep the purport of the whole argument in view here. Paul polemicizes against those who as members of the church (cf. 1 Cor. 15:12) apparently did believe in the resurrection of Christ but no longer expected a resurrection of the dead. Over against this error Paul sets the divine order: Christ as the firstfruits; thereafter, at the parousia, those who are Christ's. In this train of thought not only is there no occasion for a third category following that, but it also falls entirely outside the sphere of thought. The words "thereafter the end" are intended to say that "then and not before" will the end, the consummation, have come. The church may and must now still live in expectation, therefore. Christ will only have completed his work with and after the resurrection of believers in his parousia. Thus by "end" in this context is not to be understood the outcome of things, but, as the use of this word in an eschatological context also teaches elsewhere: the consummation of the world, the completion that at the same time signifies a new beginning of what has thus been completed and which is described in verse 28 with the words "that God may be all in all."193
If in the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:22ff. one will therefore have to abandon entirely the idea of a second resurrection, the less extreme conception of an "intermediate kingdom" between the parousia (v. 23) and the end (v. 24) is likewise not to be derived from the text, but is clearly read into it. In recent years this conception has been advocated especially by Cullmann. He lays the emphasis on the last part of verse 24, in which there is mention of the transfer of the kingship from Christ to the Father, when he shall have destroyed all the powers. Cullmann thinks that therewith the last phase of Christ's work is denoted, namely, the destruction of the already conquered powers, and this would then take place in a "final act" falling between "parousia" and "end," which is elsewhere called the millennial kingdom.194
The great objection to this view is that one would have to assume this entire "intermediate kingdom" only on the ground of the words "thereafter (the end)." We have already set forth above that these words find a very natural explanation if one takes the parousia as the overture of the end setting in immediately thereafter. On the other hand, great objections against this conception of the intermediate kingdom arise out of the text as well. It is difficult to conclude otherwise from 1 Corinthians 15:50ff. than that the parousia itself and the resurrection taking place with it signify the end of the power of death. And inasmuch as death is the last enemy, the destruction of the remaining powers ("when he shall have destroyed all rule and authority and power") will have to be understood not as a final struggle beginning after the parousia, but as the definitive victory of Christ that has already begun in his cross and resurrection and exaltation (cf., e.g., Col. 2:15), and is now finally settled at, and in virtue of, his parousia195 (cf. 2 Thess. 2:8). This view seems to us, at least on the ground of the Pauline pronouncements, much more acceptable than that one still has to conceive of a battle for the destruction of the powers and of death, which would in the parousia have only its beginning and point of departure. Such a final phase or intermediate kingdom must in any case be introduced into the text as a presupposition,196 and has no basis in all Paul's preaching of the last things, so far as that is known to us.197
If 1 Corinthians 15:23ff. thus furnishes no ground for the view that with the parousia only a provisional objective has as yet been reached, on the other hand there is here a further explication of the condition ushered in by the parousia and the resurrection of the dead: the consummation, the delivering up by Christ to the Father of the kingdom now no longer challenged by any power whatever, the fact that God is all in all.
In these pronouncements the theocentric point of view comes to the fore with particular force. Elsewhere the condition of consummation dawning for believers is described more in christocentric categories. The most inclusive description surely, as we have already been able to observe, is that of 1 Thessalonians 4:17: "to be always with the Lord." This being with Christ denotes a communion that, as has been pointed out by Dupont in particular,198 must be taken in a very comprehensive way. The content of this being-with-Christ is accordingly elucidated and explained in other pronouncements in a great many ways. In 2 Timothy 2:12 this "living with him" is further defined as "reigning with him." And the same idea is present in Romans 5:17, where there is mention of the justified "reigning in [eternal] life through the One Jesus Christ." Elsewhere this "being with Christ" finds explanation in the expressions: "be glorified with him," "joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17), and "having an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ" (Eph. 5:5).
In general there is of course no contradiction in this twofold (theocentric and christocentric) point of view. All things are from God and through God and unto God (Rom. 11:36). The new life of the resurrection is for those who are Christ's, therefore, a life before God, at his disposal and to his glory (Rom. 6:11, 13). What they receive in communion with Christ is the riches of the glory of God, which he gives to his saints as their inheritance (Eph. 1:18). In being joint-heirs with Christ they are joint-heirs of God (Rom. 8:17; Col. 1:12). And this inheritance in Christ's kingdom (Eph. 5:5) is nothing other than to share in the kingdom of God (Rom. 14:17). But on the other hand, the fundamental thought of all Paul's preaching of salvation is that they do not receive this otherwise than in communion with Christ, that they have been chosen in him from before the foundation of the world to live holy and blameless lives before God and to be conformed to his image that he might be the firstborn among many brethren (Eph. 1:4; Rom. 8:29ff.).
One may ask, to be sure, whether the transfer of the kingship by Christ to the Father so expressly declared in 1 Corinthians 15:24 must be seen as an end of Christ's dominion,199 and further whether this is still in harmony with the pronouncements (also of Paul) in which the consummation is described as a ruling or kingship together with Christ. Some 200 have consequently wished to explain these latter pronouncements as alluding to the "intermediate kingdom." But this rests merely on the a priori of the to be rejected chiliastic view of 1 Corinthians 15:23ff., and is refuted by the passages in question hemselves.201
In our opinion we encounter here again the frequently signalized phenomenon that Paul's "eschatology," at least in its terminology, does not form a closed system and that he gives expression to the same matter in various ways, even though this sometimes involves the appearance of mutual contradiction. This also applies to what is called in 1 Corinthians 15 the delivering up of the kingship of Christ to the Father and the subjection of the Son to the one who has subjected all things to him. Here the thought of the conclusion of the economy of redemption carried out by Christ is at the fore. The purpose for which he was sent by God (cf., e.g., Rom. 8:3ff.; Gal. 4:4ff.) and for which he has been invested with divine authority will then have been attained. The giving back of the accomplished commission and the authority pertaining to it, the commencement of the now undisturbed dominion of God over all things, is therefore no strange or startling idea. It rather throws light on the tact that Christ has completed his task in perfection and that the glory of God, no longer clouded by the power of sin and death, can now reveal itself in full luster.
One can thereby ask himself whether in the context of 1 Corinthians 15 there was for Paul a special occasion for regarding the consummation from this point of view. If we rightly proceed from the presupposition that in 1 Corinthians 15 the apostle is pleading against an anticipating and spiritualizing heresy, this could provide the explanation for his expressing himself in this particular way. For this heresy apparently had no eye for the still provisional character of Christ's victory and for the consummation still to be awaited. Only then — so the Corinthians had to learn to understand — will the consummation and the perfection have come, when in all the world nothing any longer raises itself against God, and Christ has subdued all the enemies, finally even death; for this is the word in which Christ's power and commission are described: "he [God] has put all things in subjection under his feet" (vv. 25-27a). But this word also implies that God was himself the great Initiator and Authorizer and that therefore the state of perfection (to telos) cannot be spoken of before God himself again fills all things with his glorious presence (vv. 27b-28). The manner in which in the consummation of his work Christ is thereby made subordinate to the Father is thus not to be regarded as an eschatological extra of 1 Corinthians 15,202 but rather as a specific aspect of the great future, which was of particular importance for Paul's argumentation in 1 Corinthians 15 and was therefore formulated by him in this pregnant way.
On the other hand it must be clear that this transfer of kingship and this self-subjection of the Son to the Father does not mean that from that moment on he is really no longer to be spoken of as the Son, or that no power or dominion is any longer due him. Just as he, as the Son, was in his pre-existence clothed with the glory of God (Phil. 2:6ff.; Col. 1:15, et al.), so also the honor and glory he received at his exaltation are not of a temporary nature (Phil. 2:9ff.; Eph. 1:21). Therefore in him all things have their purpose and subsistence, as they also have their existence through him (Col. 1:16, 17). And for this reason the glory of those whom God has destined to be conformed to his image (Rom. 8:29) can also consist in the fact that they may share in his power and in his dominion (cf. Rom. 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:12). To see in this a contradiction with I Corinthians 15:24, 28, would signify a failure to appreciate the considerable nuances that characterize biblical language. Christ's kingly power need not end at the point at which he transfers to God the subjection of all powers as a thing accomplished by him. Different but not contradictory points of view are under discussion here, a fact that — even though one cannot perceive it in every respect — one will the more easily accept if he grasps what realities are here at issue. These are not to be spoken of in one all-embracing look, but now from this, then again from another point of view.
With this twofold point of view, namely, that God will be all and in all and that we shall always be with the Lord, everything has really been said that can be said on the consummation commencing with Christ's parousia. Paul's attention for what is to be in the coming kingdom is always concentrated on this twofold viewpoint. This does not alter the fact that he gives expression to the content of this life with Christ and the "all" with which God will fill all in various ways: it is being saved by his life (Rom. 5:10); salvation with eternal glory (2 Tim. 2:10); honor and immortality (Rom. 2:7; 1 Cor. 15:42ff.; 2 Tim. 1:10); eternal glory (2 Cor. 4:17); seeing face to face (I Cor. 13:12); fulfillment of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17); perfect knowing (1 Cor. 13:12). All are concepts of salvation, descriptions of God's imperishable gift, every one of which has its own context, origin, and nuance, and offers its own special contribution in order to make what is unutterable (2 Cor. 12:4) nevertheless known even now in part. But all these words, likewise as qualifications of the life of the consummation, receive their particular meaning and content only from the gospel of the revelation of the mystery preached by Paul in an incomparable multiplicity of aspects.
1. Cf. Rigaux, Th., and Schlier, TDNT, III, pp. 143ff., s. v. thlibo.
2. Cf. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, pp. 115ff.
3. On the basis of certain Jewish speculations on "the days of the Messiah" (the time between the first appearing of the Messiah and the transcendent dawning of the new aeon), Schoeps thinks that Paul reckoned with an interval of forty years. When he wrote the Epistle to the Romans approximately twenty-five years of this total had elapsed, so that fifteen years still separated him from the parousia (Paul, pp. 100f.). But irrespective of what Paul writes elsewhere about ignorance concerning the time, it must be urged against the application of this speculation to his expectation for the future that it attempts to press Paul's "eschatology" into one or another contemporaneous Jewish schema. Against this method (followed by Schweitzer as well) see above, pp. 52ff.
4. Ho kairos synestalmenos estin, properly: has been drawn together, shortened. Some wish to understand this of a divine act of shortening. But it is more probable that the expression simply means "short" (cf. Arndt-Gingrich-Bauer, p. 802, s.v. systello).
5. To schema tou kosmou toutou: "This world in its distinctive manifestation (or form)" (Schneider, TDNT, VII, p. 956, s.v. schema).
6. Cf. G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, p. 81, who rejects as "unrealistic" the
exegesis according to which one is not to take soteria in Rom. 13 in an eschatological sense or has to understand the shortness of the time in 1 Cor. 7:29 of the nearness of death for every individual person. For the various Roman Catholic conceptions of the Naherwartung in Paul, see the survey of Rigaux, Th., p. 223.
7. Apokaradokia, from kara (head) and dekomai (expect), not "with uplifted head," but "with outstretched neck," "eager longing."
8. For ktisis see my Rom., pp. 185, 186.
9. See, e.g., Dibelius, Th., pp. 23, 24; also Cullmann, Christ and Time, p. 76.
10. So, e.g., Kümmel in Lietzmann-Kümmel, Cor., p. 196. In so doing he directs himself against Allo.
11. So Dibelius in his excursus on Phil. 1:23 (An die Philipper, 3rd ed., 1937, p. 69).
12. See, e.g., Cullmann, Christ and Time, p. 88.
13. So Schoeps, Paul, p. 103.
14. See Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, p. 90.
15. On this point see also T. van der Walt, Die koninkryk van God — naby!, 1962, pp. 208ff.
16. For this motif in the preaching of Jesus and the provisional modality of the coming of the kingdom of God bound up with it see my The Coming of the Kingdom, pp. 148ff.
17. For this viewpoint see also the writings of Cullmann in his criticism of the consistent eschatology (cf. above, p. 43); also Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, pp. 73ff., 91ff. For his part Schweitzer, too, recognizes with respect to Paul's ethics: "As though he had an intuition that it might be the fate of Christianity to have to make terms with the continuance of the natural world, he reaches by his spirituality that attitude towards earthly things by means of which Christianity must henceforth maintain its place in the world. Though living and thinking in his own day, he is at the same time preparing the future" ( The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, p. 332).
18. See also H. Berkhof, Christ the Meaning of History, pp. 78f.
19. Cf, Bultmann, History and Eschatology, p. 43: "But although the history of the nation and the world had lost interest for Paul, he brings to light another phenomenon, the historicity of man, the true historical life of the human being, the history which everyone experiences for himself and by which he gains his real essence." Against this existentialistic interpretation of eschatology see, e.g., N. Q. Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul, pp. 71ff.; also C. Müller, Gottes Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk, pp. 104ff.; and Käsemann, "On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic," New Testament Questions of Today, pp. 130ff.
20. See, e.g., P. H. Menoud, Le sort des trespasses, 1945: J. N. Sevenster, "Einige Bemerkungen über den 'Zwischenzustand' bei Paulus," NTS, I, 1955, pp. 291ff.; the same author, "Some remarks on the [gymnos] in 2 Cor. V. 3," in Studia Paulina, 1953; J. Dupont, [SYN CHRISTO], l'Union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul, I, 1952, pp. I71ff.; O. Cullmann, "Unsterblichkeit der Seele und Auferstehung der Toten," TZ, 1956, pp. 126ff.; E. E. Ellis, "The Structure of Pauline Eschatology (II Corinthians V.l-10)," in Paul and His Recent Interpreters, pp. 35ff. (see also the literature given there, p. 35, n. 2); B. Telder, Sterven ... en dan?, 1960; G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, pp. 32ff. See also the study of G. Vos, important for the entire Pauline "eschatology," The Pauline Eschatology; and K. Dijk, Tussen sterven en opstanding, 2nd ed., 1955.
21. For both concepts see also O. Michel, Die Christliche Hoffnung, 1936, pp. 40ff.
22. Cf., e.g., Bultmann, TDNT, III, p. 17: "On the intermediate state between death and the resurrection the NT gives us no explicit information. It is thought of as a sleep unless the various authors suggest other conceptions."
23. Cf. P. H. Menoud, Le sort des tréspassés, p. 46: "But one must take care not to construct an entire psychology of the deceased on the basis of this expression 'those who sleep,' considering that it is an old image in the world, a euphemism employed as well by those who have no hope whatever of an 'awakening' of the deceased...." See also Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 142ff.
24. See, e.g., the discussion of the various opinions in Greijdanus, De brief van den Apostel Paulus aan de Gemeente te Philippi, 1937, pp. 137ff.
25. In this sense Dibelius, An die Philipper, p. 87.
26. Cf. for these conceptions P. Bonnard, l'Épitre de Saint Paul aux Philippiens, 1950, p. 28.
27. So correctly W. Michaelis as well (Der Brief des Paulus an die Philipper, 1935, p. 25).
28. This is wrongly denied by Telder, Sterven ... an dan?, pp. 93ff.
29. So rightly also Dibelius, An die Philipper, p. 69; cf. Greijdanus as well (De brief aan de Gerneente te Philippi, pp. 144, 145), against Michaelis, who considers the condition "on the other side of the resurrection" to be spoken of (Der Brief an die Philipper, p. 27). According to Michaelis Paul thought of the "intermediate state" as a sleep (1 Thess. 5:10), and as a continuation of the tou Kyriou einai. J. N. Sevenster writes that Paul must certainly have conceived of an intermediate state. He does not wish, however, to say with absolute certainty that the syn Christo einai (Phil. 1:23) or the endemesai pros ton Kyrion (2 Cor. 5:8) has reference to this intermediate state: "It could also be — although I consider it improbable — that Paul is speaking in a certain sense proleptically of the glory of the day of the Lord," in NTS, I, p. 296; see also his Leven en dood in de brieven van Paulus, 1954, p. 133, where he considers it more probable that Paul sees the time immediately after death as the beginning of the full glory. Grosheide expresses himself in passing (in a note) as follows; "I prefer to view it so, that dying for Paul means to experience the return" (1 Cor., p. 140, n. 2; cf. p. 142). He thus apparently assumes no conscious intermediate state. Bultmann, Theology, I, p. 346, thinks that Paul "gets into contradiction with the resurrection doctrine when he hopes in Phil. 1:23 that his 'being with Christ' will begin immediately after his death" and that "this contradiction betrays how little difference it makes what images are used." But that Paul (in one and the same epistle; cf. Phil. 1:6; 3:20ff.) should have become entangled in contradictory ideas at such a basic point is surely difficult to accept. The syn Christo einai must have had for Paul a specific content immediately after death and thus before the resurrection. Otherwise, H. M. Matter as well (De brief aan de Philippenzen, 1965, p. 33).
30. Cf., e.g., J. Dupont, [ SYN CHRISTO], pp. 145ff. (as dwelling place of God); W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 2nd ed., 1955, p. 313, who finds an allusion here to dwelling in tabernacles, following T. W. Manson.
31. R. Bultmann, Exegetische Probleme des zweiten Korintherbriefes, 1947, pp. 9ff., thinks that kataluthenai can also refer to the moment of the parousia (cf. Bachmann in Zahn's commentary). But after all that has been said in the foregoing (2 Cor. 4) about death, this is not very credible, irrespective of the unusualness of the terminology, if this should have reference to what takes place at the parousia.
32. So Schlatter, Erläuterungen ( Kor.), 1920, pp. 194ff. He takes "house" not as new body, but as abode in heaven before the resurrection. Likewise Grosheide, who with "tent-house" does not wish to think of the earthly body, but of the "outward man" of 4:16, and under the "building in the heavens" the "inward man." In our view, especially so far as the latter is concerned, a not very transparent idea.
33. This goes much further than the conception mentioned in note 32. It presupposes that in our text the whole idea of the parousia and the resurrection of the body has been relinquished and that in its place appears that of the glorified continued existence of souls in heaven. In this a "development" of the Pauline eschatology in the direction of Greek thought would then reveal itself. So especially some of the older "liberal" exegetes, but also W. L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles, 1939, pp. 128ff.; different again, W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, pp. 308-332. The latter speaks of a "juxtaposition of two different views" in Paul. The first would be represented by 1 Cor. 15. Here there is mention of the resurrection of the body at the parousia. On the other hand 2 Cor. 5 would speak of the heavenly body that is given to believers immediately at death. Davies thinks that both representations hark back to similar ideas in Judaism, and that the latter in Paul would thus not arise directly from Greek thought. However, against this whole view of a twofold eschatology in 1 Cor. 15 and 2 Cor. 5 see already Lietzmann, Cor., pp. 118, 119, and A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 1951 (1915), pp. 160ff. Further also Wendland, Cor., pp. 129ff.; J. Dupont, [SYN CHRISTO], l'Union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul, pp. 137-139; J. N. Sevenster, Leven en dood in de brieven van Paulus, pp. 124ff. It is, i.a., rightly pointed out that it would surely be very strange were Paul in the time between 1 Cor. and 2 Cor. to have come to this "development," and then to have returned, e.g., in Rom., to his original idea.
34. Cf. Bultmann, loc. cit.
35. Plummer writes: "The present tense is often used as a future, which is absolutely certain" ( Commentary on Second Corinthians, p. 144).
36. Cf. E. E. Ellis, Paul and His Recent Interpreters, pp. 41ff.: Paul here is thinking not in the first place of individual bodies, but of what believers have together in Christ and will receive at the parousia.
37. So, e.g., Wendland, Cor., p. 127.
38. So Schlatter as well, in contrast with his interpretation of v. 1. Grosheide takes v. 2 in the same sense as v. 1 (see n. 32).
39. They wish to read this from ependysasthai: not to be "clothed," but "clothed over."
40. See also the counter-arguments of Bultmann, Exegetische Probleme, pp. 11, 12.
41. The interpretation of v. 3 is exceedingly difficult. The text also is not certain, although eiper in place of ei ge makes little difference, and the reading ekinstead of en- dysamenoi is very likely not original. Ei ge, translated causally by us (Bl.-Debr., Par. 493, 2, here gives the meaning siquidem), is taken concessively or even
conditionally by others. The concessive translation "although" (so, e.g., Reitzenstein, Allo, G. Vos), if it is even possible, offers little to go by. Paul would then wish to say that believers in any case, that is to say, irrespective of this clothing from heaven, will not be found "naked." But the meaning of it is difficult to understand (Vos therefore decides for ekdysamenoi and thinks thereby of dying; cf. also H. Bavinck, Geref. Dogmatiek, IV, 4th ed., 1930, p. 596); it consists in a reserve that we do not expect after the heavily charged words of v. 2. The conditional meaning "if at least" (so, e.g., Oepke, TDNT, I, p. 774; Schlatter, Erläuterungen, p. 196; Schrenk, TDNT, I, p. 560; Kümmel, in Lietzmann-Kümmel, Cor., p. 203) is to be rejected, if a condition were made with it. which possibly could not be fulfilled and the longing expressed in v. 2 thus would not be brought to fulfillment; for that Paul is still uncertain for himself and his own with respect to such a nakedness (however that may be taken) is not to be squared with the certainty of v. 1 (cf. vv. 5ff.). There is indeed a certain condition in v. 3, but one that will assuredly be fulfilled according to the conviction of Paul's faith (cf. the eiper in Rom. 8:9 and the ei in Col. 3:1). Decisive, however, is the causal "for because only so" (cf. the translation of Lietzmann, Cor., p. 120, and of Wendland, Cor., p. 126). Bultmann, too, takes ei ge kai causally. He thinks, however, that this only gives a good sense if one reads, not en-, but ekdysamenoi ( Exegetische Probleme, p. 11). But to the much more trustworthy reading endysamenoi a good sense can be attached; see the translation above.
42. "V. 3 states again the actual basis of the longing" (Bultmann, Exegetische Probleme, p. 11).
43. Some take this as the fate of the damned; so, e.g., Schlatter, Erläuterungen, p. 196; Ellis, Paul and His Recent Interpreters, p. 43 ("the fate of unbelievers"); Schrenk, TDNT, I, p. 560, s. v. bareo; Oepke, TDNT, I, pp. 774f., s. v. gymnos ("the final destiny of unbelievers, for whom there will be no heavenly body"). But what is the motive for which Paul would at once posit this possibility for himself and believers? Most accordingly think here only of the condition of "being without body," without the additional significance of "being condemned." This "being naked" would in consequence already apply to the state between death and the parousia. Then gymnos would be an anthropological qualification, in a dichotomistic sense. In our view, Paul is here thinking, however, in other, more qualitative categories; see further at v. 4.
Grosheide wishes to take endysamenoi as "clothed with the righteousness of Christ," and gymnos as the unchanged man ( Cor., pp. 144, 145), with an appeal to Rom. 13:14 and Gal. 3:27. But endysamenoi is nowhere used absolutely in this meaning. In the context of 2 Cor. 5 this would also be a metabasis eis allo genos: Paul is here speaking of other things.
44. So Oepke, TDNT, II, p. 318 (cf. above, n. 43).
45. Oepke, TDNT, I, p. 774; cf. II, p. 318.
46. So, e.g., Schrenk, TDNT, I, p. 560, s. v. bareo.
47. Cf. J. N. Sevenster, "Some remarks on the [ gymnos] in 2 Cor. V. 3," in Studia Paulina, p. 207, who, however, still takes the gymnos too much as "the state between death and resurrection." Is this not still too Greek (however much Sevenster places the emphasis on the contrast beween Plato, Philo, et al., and Paul)? In our view gymnos here does not denote a state of incorporeality, but the lacking (still) of the glory of God, even in this body.
48. Eudokoumen mallon. In this construction of eudokein plus the infinitive it is a question of what in a choice clinches the decision, if the better deserves the preference (cf. Schrenk, TDNT, II, p. 741; see also Arndt-Gingrich-Bauer, p. 319, s. v.: " wish rather, prefer"; and Liddell-Scott, Greek- English Lexicon, s. v.: "c. inf., consent, agree to do .. . to be ready, willing" [cf. 1 Thess. 2:8]). Cf. also Plummer, Second Corinthians, pp. 152, 153, who speaks of "goodwill, contentment," and then continues: "This goodwill and contentment is not quite the same as [ thelomen] (v. 4) or [ epipothountes] (v. 2). It is possible to long for one thing, and yet be content with, or even prefer, another, because one knows that the latter is well worth having and perhaps better for one." The ekdemesai ek tou somatos, etc., is thus not simply something desirable, but a matter to which Paul, on account of the hope that is in him, would give preference, if he were put to the choice.
49. In v. 6 endemountes refers to life in the body, ekdemoumen to being away from Christ; in v. 8 ekdemesai refers to dying and endemesai to taking up abode with Christ. In v. 9, finally, endemountes means: to continue to live (as in v. 6); ekdemountes: to die (as in v. 8). The translation of the Dutch Bible Society (and
the ASV and RSV), "whether at home or away," does not, in our view, touch the specific character of the pronouncement and is therefore unclear: what is meant here by "at home"?
50. Cf. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, p. 194: " . . . he would scarcely have expressed himself precisely thus, had he meant that immediately another body would be substituted, for the state in such a new body would hardly be describable as the state of one absent from the body" ( ekdemesai ek tou somatos).
51. If one will not understand ekdemountes of dying, then one comes (in view also of the function this ekdemein is intended to have: to be well pleasing to God!) to all manner of tortuous explanations. Lietzmann takes it as the possibility after death of preparing oneself for the judgment, a thought that not only is not implied in this word, but with which we meet nowhere in Paul. Pop paraphrases ekdemountes as the new mode of existence of one who has been raised from the dead ( De tweede brief van Paulus aan de Korinthiers, 2nd ed., 1962). But this is too far removed from the meaning of the words. Wendland translates ekdemountes "in der Fremde" and then understands by that "full fellowship with the Lord," the "life of the consummation," after the resurrection ( Cor., p. 129), however without thinking of a preparation for the judgment. But then there is no connection with v. 10. If on the other hand one lakes ekdemountes in direct connection with v. 8 as dying, then there is no difficulty and the pronouncement acquires a clear sense.
52. Telder, Sterven ...en dan?, pp. 30, 31.
53. For the correct view of these passages see also Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, p. 146.
54. Whether we are to take dia tou Iesou in 1 Thess. 4:16 with koimethentas or with axei is a question that exegesis has not decided; see, e.g., the detailed discussion by Rigaux, Th., pp. 535ff.; cf. further below, n. 125.
55. Cf. p. 503.
56. See the critical discussion of Sevenster, Studia Paulina, p. 211.
57. Menoud, Le sort des tréspassés, p. 41.
58. Cor., pp. 144, 145; cf. Calvin on Phil. 1:23: "Paul openly declares that we enjoy Christ's presence on being set free" (against the doctrine of soul sleep); see Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, pp. 48ff.
59. Greijdanus, ibid., p. 146; G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, p. 145, concludes from this that here at the least a conscious continued existence must be thought of and not a soul sleep or something of that sort: "the whole contrast of 'worse' or 'better' loses its significance, if consciousness, the only organ of difference in appraisal, be denied."
60. On this point Cullmann speaks of "a particular nearness to Christ," in which those who die in Christ find themselves before the end (the resurrection). They are "in Abraham's bosom" (Luke 16:23) or, according to Rev. 6:9, "under the altar" or "with Christ." All these are only figures for "proximity to God." "The most familiar image, however, is: 'they are sleeping.' " With this, according to Cullmann, not only is the "impression" reproduced that the survivors receive. The expression says more — so Cullmann — and "actually refers, like the 'rest' of Rev. 14:13, to the state in which those who die before the parousia are." Besides this, he too denies that on the ground of the New Testament one can come to certain speculations on this intermediate state. One cannot say more of it than that this state exists and that it already signifies "being joined with Christ (by virtue of the Holy Spirit)" (O. Cullmann, "Unsterblichkeit der Seele und Auferstehung der Toten," TZ, pp. 150, 151). Vos rightly maintains that the thought of absolute "rest" can scarcely lend anything desirable to death, unless from the viewpoint of "a morbidly pessimistic appraisal of life" (p. 146).
61. Cf. M. A. Beek, Inleiding in de Joodse Apokalyptiek van het oud- en nieuwtestamentische tijdvak, 1950, p. 73.
62. K. Rahner, "The Hermeneutics of Eschatological Assertion," in Theological Investigations, IV, ET 1966, pp. 323ff.
63. The expression hoi chronoi kai hoi kairoi is in this context a set phrase, more or less in the form of a hendiadys (cf. Acts 1:7). See further Rigaux, Th., pp. .553ff.
64. It is well known that all kinds of calculations have been made from the numbers in the Book of Daniel, in Jewish as well as in later Christian circles. Not only did Augustine urge serious objections against that —because the computation of the end of the world in his view did damage to the readiness of Christians daily to face the judgment —but the rabbis also warned against such a "heshbôn haqqes" and even denied those who made themselves guilty of this a share in the world to
come (cf. Beek, Inleiding, p. 75; Strack-Billerbeck, IV, 2, p. 1013). That these calculations were nevertheless zealously practiced is certainly evident from the detailed survey in Strack-Billerbeck, IV, 2, pp. 977-1015.
65. For this proton cf. Michaelis, TDNT, VI, p. 870: proton serves frequently "to emphasize the observance of the divinely established sequence of eschatological events." For this whole deferment of the eschaton see Cullmann, Christ and Time, e.g., on pp. 66f.: "The time character of the future becomes especially clear from the fact that the eschatological drama, as it is pictured in the Apocalypses, including the New Testament ones, takes place in a thoroughly chronological progression.... In these writings we hear of 'afterward' and 'then,' and this occurs not merely in the book of Revelation, but particularly in Paul." For the "rehabilitation" of apocalyptic thus conceived (against a one-sided actualistic or existentialistic interpretation) see also the survey of the relevant newer literature in Cullmann, Salvation in History, pp. 57ff.
66. That pleroma does not here denote merely a quantitative limit, but rather has a qualitative significance that is further defined by the expression pas Israel in 11:26 can here be left out of consideration (cf. above, pp. 357ff. and my Rom., pp. 254ff.).
67. Cf. above, p. 494. On this point see J . Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, pp. 39ff., following Cullmann. Munck's exposition is forced here and there, however, also in connection with his view of ho katechon in 2 Thess. 2; see below, pp. 523f.
68. Hos hoti enesteken he hemera tou Theou. The expression enesteken denotes the present. For this reason many translate: "as if the day of the Lord had already dawned"; see, e.g., Rigaux, Les Épitres aux Thessaloniciens, p. 653; R. Schippers, Mythologie en Eschatologie in 2 Thess. 2:1-17, 1961, p. 7. The latter thinks that Paul here alludes to a gnostic heresy. But in this case we might expect another kind of opposition from the side of Paul, namely, not an emphasizing of the "not yet" (as is now the case), but of the reality of the still to be expected parousia (as in 1 Cor. 15 with reference to the resurrection). Paul's answer, in other words, is not anti-spiritualistic, but directed against a conception that was unable to give content to the interim before the parousia and led to all kinds of disturbance and over-excitement. Therefore enesteken must here surely have a somewhat broader meaning; cf., e.g., Oepke, TDNT, II, p. 544, n. 2, who (i.a., with an appeal to Bl.-Debr., Par. 323, 3) translates by "in process of coming" and appeals for that also to the non-spiritualizing character of the heresy.
69. Ho anthropos tes anomias. For anomia as an eschatological datum see Schippers, Mythologie en Eschatologie, pp. 11, 12.
70. Tes hamartias, in other, mostly later, textual witnesses.
71. For this use of apokalyphthenai, etc., see, e.g., Rom. 1:17; 8:18; 1 Cor. 3:13; Gal. 3:23, et al. Cf. above, pp. 46ff.
72. Cf., e.g., Strack-Billerbeck, III, p. 637; IV, 2, pp. 977ff.
73. Strack-Billerbeck, IV, p. 638. For discussion of this passage from Baruch see also B. Rigaux, l'Antéchrist, 1932, p. 189.
74. So, e.g., W. Bousset and H. Gressmann, Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter, 3rd ed., 1926, p. 255; Rigaux, l'Antéchrist, p. 184.
75. Cf. Bousset-Gressmann, ibid., pp. 254, 255; Strack-Billerbeck, III, p. 638.
76. Bousset-Gressmann also write: "This idea is of course only indirectly preserved by Christian evidences"; they add, however, that "it probably stems from Judaism" ( ibid., p. 256).
77. The masculine form of the participle hestekota in Mark (in Matt. the neuter hestos) could also point to this; see, however, my The Coming of the Kingdom, pp. 488ff., 533, n. 105.
78. For a comparison of the Synoptic motifs and 2 Thess. 2 see Rigaux, Th., p. 101.
79. For the phenomenon of the continuing actualizing of certain apocalyptic ideas, see, e.g., also M. A. Beek, Inleiding in de Joodse Apokalyptiek van het oud- en nieuwtestamentische tijdvak, pp. 74ff.
80. On this see, e.g., Rigaux, l'Antéchrist, pp. 172, 173.
81. H. Berkhof, Christ the Meaning of History, p. 115.
82. G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, pp. 283f.
83. Ho anthropos tes anomias is therefore more than a usage "in Semitic fashion to express relationship to something abstract" (Jeremias, TDNT, I, p. 364). Rather, the specific character of the expression lies in the representative significance of ho anthropos, further qualified by the genitive tes anomias.
84. See also below, p. 517.
85. Cf. the very elaborate discussion of and opposition to the contrary standpoint (of Allo and Bury) by Rigaux in l'Antéchrist, pp. 270-287 and in Th., p. 269. See also R. J. van der Meulen, "Veractualisering van de Antichrist," in Arcana Revelata, 1951, p. 75.
86. Cf. Dibelius, Th., p. 48. For this identification (among others by Celsus) see Rigaux, Th., p. 270; for its refutation, see the detailed argument of Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 112ff.
87. For Belial (or Beliar) see Beek, Inleiding, pp. 100ff.
88. So, e.g., Dibelius, with a reference to 2:11, 12.
89. See the detailed exposition in Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 114ff., who himself rejects this opinion, however,
90. W. Bousset, Der Antichrist, 1895, pp. 108ff.
91. Cf. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, p. 119.
92. See, e.g., H. J. Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Theologie, II, 2nd ed., 1911, p. 214; A. Jülicher-E. Fascher, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 7th ed., 1931, p. 64. "
93. Berkhof, Christ the Meaning of History, pp. 115f.
94. For this interpretation, in the Reformers (the antichrist is papal power) as well as in some later writers, see Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, pp. 268ff.
95. See Rigaux, Th., p. 661; and Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, p. 124: "The 'sitting in the temple of God' only sums up in one terse image that unholiest offense offered to the Holiest of Beings."
96. See, e.g., in Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 126ff.
97. Cf. Rigaux, Th., pp. 267ff.: "Paul has used these themes and texts according to the rule of the genre and the character of his writing.... The genre is apocalyptic. Consequently, we know that recourse to certain previous descriptions is natural, that the borrowings from the past retain a connotation from their origin to color the present, but that they ought to be interpreted in the light of the particular intent of the author who turns to them. Moreover, we know that borrowing the formulas causes words to lose the tie with reality that they have in ordinary language. In the language of the apocalypses, images abound and give the descriptions a stamp of mystery and majesty which it is not necessary to translate in terms of realities that are adequate to the words expressed.
98. For the older literature see, e.g., the detailed survey of G. Wohlenberg, Der erste und zweite Thessalonicherbrief, 2nd ed., 1909, pp. 177ff. For the more recent literature, e.g., the detailed discussion in the above-mentioned monograph of Schippers.
99. On the nyn before to katechon in v. 6 there is much difference of opinion. In the main three views are to be distinguished: (a) nyn belongs with to katechon and thus stands over against en to autou kairo; (b) nyn belongs with oidate and stands over against eti in v. 5. Meaning: now you know what you did not know when I was still with you; (c) nyn stands indeed over against eti on in v. 5, but without involving oidate in this contrast. Kai nyn is more or less independent and indicates the difference in circumstances between Paul's time at Thessalonica and now. Translation: "and now, you know what restrains," etc. Between (b) and (c) there is no essential difference. In both cases it is presupposed that since Paul's first instruction (v. 5), new light had been cast on the matter because a new development had occurred, by which the church was now informed of the restraint of the revelation of the man of lawlessness. In our opinion, however, there is more to be said for linking nyn with to katechon. Grammatically there is no objection against it (cf. Bl.-Debr., Par. 474, 5, under c). It also concurs very well with v. 5, where Paul appeals to the instruction he has given, which indicates the ground for oidate. In this way we need not make the difficulties greater than they are already, namely, by having still to give an answer to the question as to what would have occurred as the new element in the time between Paul's stay in the church and the moment at which he wrote the epistle. In the context of our text this is not alluded to further with so much as a word. We take it therefore that nyn belongs with to katechon and that with oidate Paul has in view the knowledge that the church already possessed or had received from him during his stay with it. To be sure, it is urged against this conception that if the apostle had earlier spoken to the church about this restraint, it is not clear why it had not kept to this knowledge and nevertheless expected the coming of the Lord at once. But this applies not only with respect to to katechon but also to the first appearance still to be expected of the man of lawlessness. For that matter, in both cases the apostle presupposes knowledge of to katechon now in the church, and its anticipatory posture thus remains equally unclear. We shall have to assume that the expectation of the immediate commencement of the parousia made it take too little account of the intermediate events that must still precede the parousia.
100. See, e.g., E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, p. 84; J. A. C. van Leeuwen, Paulus' zendbrieven aan Efeze, Colosse, Filémon en Thessalonica, 1926, p. 432. See also O. Betz, "Der Katechon," NTS, 1963, pp. 284ff.
101. Cf. W. Neil, The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians (Moffatt Comm.), 1950, p. 167. Cf. also E. von Dobschiitz, Die Thessalonicher-Briefe (Meyer Comm., 7th ed.), 1909, p. 283.
102. First in his essay "Le caractère eschatologique du devoir missionaire et de la conscience apostolique de S. Paul. Étude sur le [katechon(on)] de 2 Thess. 2:6-7" (Rame d'Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses, 1936, pp. 210ff.); often repeated in his later writings.
103. J. Munck, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, p. 40. See Berkhof, Christ the Meaning of History, pp. 130f. For that matter one finds this conception defended already by some exegetes of the last century, as, e.g., G. Lüdemann, in the Meyer Commentary on Thess., 1878.
104. Cf. Rigaux, Th., p. 276.
105. Cf., e.g., the explanation of Severianus of Gabala: to katechon phesi ten tou hagiou pneumatos charin (in K. Staab, Pauluskommentare aus der Griechischen Kirche, 1933, p. 334).
106. In the Jewish literature, too, there is mention of the "holding back" or retarding of the coming of the Messiah. Various answers are given to the question: who then holds it back? See Strack-Billerbeck, III, pp. 640ff.; II, pp. 588ff. Cullmann appeals to this terminology for his conception; cf. Schippers, Mythologie en Eschatologie, pp. 21ff. Betz thinks he finds some support in the Qumran writings ( NTS, 1963, pp. 279ff.).
107. Cf. Dibelius, Th., p. 48; Neil, Thessalonians, pp. 169ff.
108. See the reference to a late Egyptian prayer in Arndt-Gingrich-Bauer, pp. 423f., s.v. katecho, in which the god Horus is called the katechon drakonta, and from one of the so-called Zauberpapyri, in which there is mention of Michael... katechon hon kaleousi drakonta megan. Dibelius refers to Acta Pilati 22, 2, where Christ delivers up Satan to Hades with the words: labon auton kateche asphalos achri tes deuteras mou parousias (Th., p. 46).
109. Vos, too, makes a connection with Michael, a conception that was already advocated by Von Hofmann; see in Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 131 ff. Cf. also V. Hepp, De Antichrist, 1919, p. 168.
110. Cf. Hanse, TDNT, II, pp. 829f.
111. Schippers, Mythologie en Eschatologie, p. 22.
112. Cf. above, p. 521.
113. Cf, Schippers, Mythologie en Eschatologie, p. 23.
114. Sec on this point, e.g., Rigaux, Th., pp. 265ff.
115. For this idea see the extensive study of P. L. Schoonheim, Een semiasologisch onderzoek van Parousia met betrekking tot het gebruik in Mattheüs 24, 1953. Further Oepke, TDNT, V, pp. 859ff.; Rigaux, Th., pp. 196ft.
116. For the connection of this idea, stemming from the Greek world, with the Jewish-apocalyptic representation, see M. Sabbe, "De Paulinische beschrijving van de Paroesie," in Collationes Brugenses et Gandavenses, IX, 1961, pp. 105ff., as well as the conception mentioned there of R. de Langhe, according to whom parousia has not been taken over from the Greek usage, but is linked philologically with "day of the Lord"; in our view a rather labored explanation.
117. It only acquires this significance later when one came to speak of a first and second parousia; so, e.g., Justin Martyr.
118. In 2 Tim. 1:10 epiphaneia also alludes to the revelation of the glory of Christ at his first coming, in particular to his resurrection.
119. It is also thought that the Pauline expression "the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" does not directly have its origin in the Old Testament "day of Yahweh," but is derived from the theology of the Son of Man, where it denotes the enthronement of the Son of Man invested by God with all power (cf. S. Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 1956, p. 392).
120. Cf. Delling, TDNT, II, p. 952, s.v. hemera.
121. For these Old Testament (and late Jewish) parallels also see the full article by M. Sabbe cited above, Collationes Brugenses, IX, pp. 105ff.
122. Neil, Thessalonians, correctly writes: "In its deepest sense punishment is separation from God and reward is fellowship with Him" (p. 145).
123. So rightly Dibelius, Th., p. 25, and Neil, Thessalonians, p. 95.
124. On this in detail cf. Dupont, [SYN CHRISTO], l'Union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul, I, pp. 40ff., 84. With other writers he thinks of a possible Jewish idea present among the Thessalonians, according to which the resurrection only takes place at the end of the Messianic reign on earth. We have no certainty on this, but will surely be permitted to conclude from the answer that the dead at once and together with those still alive will go to meet Christ, that the church needed further instruction on this point.
125. The question is whether one is to connect the words dia tou Iesou with the preceding tous koimethentas, or with the following axei. For the arguments pro and con see, e.g., Rigaux, Th., pp. 535ff., and Neil, Thessalonians, pp. 94ff. With the majority we choose for the former view, in part because with axei one gets a double prepositional apposition, which both times has reference to Christ. To be sure, it is not easy to put into words what is meant by koimethentas dia tou lesou. The expression will very likely have to be understood by analogy with hoi nekroi en Christo (cf. Dupont, [SYN CHRISTO], p. 42, n, 2).
126. Cf., e.g., Lothar Schmid, TDNT, III, p. 658.
127. For the materials with respect to archangelos, see Kittel, TDNT, I, p. 87; Sabbe, Collationes Brugenses, IX, pp. 89ff.
128. For the rabbinic and pseudepigraphical literature, see, e.g., Strack-Billerbeck, I, pp. 672ff., 973ff.
129. Cf. Friedrich, TDNT, VII, p. 80.
130. The same is the case in the Jewish writings: "God will take a great horn in his hand.... At the first blast the whole earth shakes; at the second the dust is sifted out; at the third the bones are brought together; at the fourth the limbs are warmed; at the fifth their skin is put on; at the sixth the spirits and the souls enter their bodies; at the seventh they come to life and stand on their feet in their clothes, as it is said: The almighty Yahweh will blow the horn (Zech. 9:14), Alphabet-Midr. of R. Aqiba, 9." Quoted by Friedrich, TDNT, VII, p. 84.
131. For these ideas in detail see Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 138ff., and especially Sabbe, Collationes Brugenses, pp. 89ff.
132. G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 136ff., thinks that the union of Christ and his own in the air does not denote a provisional place as preparation for a further descent to the earth, but the beginning of their abode with him "in the supernal regions" (p. 138). He writes: "A position of some remoteness from the surface of the earth is after all the most natural to assume in this connection. The far reach and universal scope of the tremendous event here set in motion are in better accord with some central elevated place in the air than a standpoint on the flat surface on the ground" (p. 136). In our view it is difficult to debate about the spatial implications of these apocalyptic ideas. But that the place of glorified believers would be with Christ in the air appears to us a thought that finds no basis elsewhere. However inconceivable the coming of Christ on earth and all that is connected with it may be for us (so that one may ask himself whether discussions on the spatial "standpoint" of where Christ will act really make sense), yet the earth is the real object and in the representation the terrain of the eschatological drama. The meeting in the air has the significance of the "bringing in" of Christ by his own and of their fellowship with him when he shall come to the earth; see also Sabbe, Collationes Brugenses, IX, pp. 90ff.
133. Episynagoge; literally "being gathered" to him.
134. As Rigaux apparently thinks: "God will lead them to heaven with him" ( Th., p. 537; cf. Frame, Thessalonians, in loc.). Otherwise Dupont, SYN CHRISTO], pp. 42f.: "They will constitute the train of the Lord when he arrives on the earth."
135. Cf. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, p. 142: "It were wrong undoubtedly to reduce all the things mentioned to the rubric of figurative language, in regard to which the author is aware of painting freely, rather than of copying the solid content of prophecy given him by the Spirit. On the other hand we should not overlook the equally obvious fact, that in painting by words, even with the fullest intention of accuracy, the Apostle had to avail himself of a fixed medium of language, which left room for a margin of over-literalism, and whose interpretation by others, while seemingly in full accord with the words recorded, nevertheless may introduce an ingredient of inadequacy when compared with the actual intent of Paul. We have here before us a striking example of the possibility of over-stressing the literalness of the language and imagery used, and yet, while thus seeming to do justice to the writer s speech, missing in reality the deeper and finer qualities and objectives of his true conception."
136. Cf. above, pp. 534f.
137. Cf. above, Section 9.
138. On this point see, e.g., K. Deissner, Auferstehungshoffnung und Pneumagedanke bei Paulus, 1912; G. Vos, "The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit," Princeton Biblical and Theological Studies, 1912, pp. 211-259; N. Q. Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul; Ingo Hermann, Kyrios und Pneuma, 1961, pp. 114ff.
139. Cf. my The Coming of the Kingdom, pp. 86ff.
140. Cf. Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul, p. 12.
141. For this exegesis of Rom. 8:10 also see Bultmann, Theology, 1, pp. 208f.; TDNT, IV, p. 894, n. 29, s. v. nekros; and my Rom.
142. On the nature of this Corinthian heresy all kinds of hypotheses exist. The Tübingen school thought of Judaizers. Later on scholars sought the explanation more in the direction of a spiritualistic heresy. See, e.g., the exensive discussion of this question by J. Schniewind, "Die Leugner der Auferstehung in Korinth," in Nachgelassene Reden und Aufsätze, 1952, pp. 110ff.; W. Bieder, "Paulus und seine Gegner in Korinth," in TZ, 1961, pp. 319ff.; E. Brandenburger, Adam und Christus, 1962, pp. 70ff., according to whom it was primarily the resurrection of the dead as a future event that was at issue.
143. H. Riesenfeld contends that the principal theme of 1 Cor. 15 really is not "the resurrection of the dead" but "death as the presupposition for resurrection" ("Paul's Grain of Wheat Analogy," in The Gospel Tradition, ET 1970, p. 174). But this statement of the problem is incorrect. Paul does not argue the necessity of death (cf. v. 51), but the impossibility of receiving in this body the full salvation of Christ (vv. 19, 50ff.).
144. For what follows see also J. Jeremias, "Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God," NTS, II, 1955/56, pp. 151ff.
145. One of the most recent comprehensive investigations is that of M. Rissi, Die Taufe für die Toten, 1962. Rissi himself thinks of letting oneself be baptized in the place of believing, but unbaptized deceased persons, in order thus to bear witness as yet to the faith of these who have died in the resurrection. Jeremias, following up M. Raeder ( ZNW, 1955, pp. 258-260), wants to take hyper not in a substitutionary, but in a final sense. He thinks then of heathen who let themselves be baptized, with the intention of in this way becoming united with their Christian relatives or connections at the resurrection ( NTS, 1955/56, pp. 155ff.). But neither the one nor the other is very convincing; see also above, p. 25.
146. Agnosian gar Theou tines echousin.
147. Jeremias thinks that in vv. 36-49 and 50-54 Paul deals with the two questions of v. 35 in a strict chiastic order. This is bound up with his conception of v. 50a; see below.
148. That he hereby employs an analogy that in Jewish thinking had a certain tradition is proved not only by John 10:24, but also the rabbinic literature; cf. Hauck, TDNT, III, p. 132, s.v. therizo; see further at length on this metaphorical language H. Riesenfeld, "Paul's Grain of Wheat Analogy," loc. cit.
149. In so doing he has already introduced the word doxa, as denotation of the mode of existence of ta epourania, after sarx as denotation of that of the epigeia. Yet in v. 40 he also applies doxa to ta epigeia; see also H. Clavier, "Brèves remarques sur la notion de [SOMA PNEUMATIKON]," in The Background of the N.T. and Its Eschatology (in honor of C. H. Dodd), 1956, pp. 342-362, especially p. 348.
150. For the confusing multiplicity of interpretations of this antithesis in the history of the investigation see the article by Clavier (ibid.).
151. Meanwhile scholars think very differently about the origin of the contrast employed in this context. Those who are of the opinion that Paul borrowed the thought of the two "men," the earthy and the heavenly, from certain gnostic influences, think that the contrast psychical-pneumatic had already been given therein (cf. E. Brandenburger, Adam und Christus, p. 74 [he can appeal for that already to Reitzenstein]; cf. also Arndt-Gingrich-Bauer, p. 902, s. v. psychikos). But just as the whole of this reduction of the Adam-Christ parallel to pre-Christian, mythological thought (with which Paul is said to have had to do in the heresy at Corinth) is a very uncertain matter, so also the Hellenistic-gnostic derivation of the psychicalpneumatic antithesis. Dupont in particular has argued forcefully that this contention lacks any substantial basis and that here rather a Jewish antithesis is normative; see his detailed discussion of this theme in Gnosis, 1949, pp. 151-181; cf. also Schweizer, TDNT, VI, pp. 395f., s. v. pneuma. Paul in any case connects psychikos here with Gen. 2:7; cf. also the use of psychikos in Jas. 3:15.
152. It has rightly been pointed out that Paul here does not speak of the existence of the first man as it has been disfigured by sin, but of man in his original state (cf., e.g., G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, p. 167: "The passage is unique... in that it contrasts not the body affected by sin . . . with the future body, but the primordial body of Adam ['the first Adam'] and the body of the consummation"). This body was susceptible to death, perishable, whereby it is not said that man had to die. It does appear from this pronouncement that the pneumatic resurrection is more than the restoration of the original "psychical" man; cf. also H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, II, p. 525; H. Berkhof, De Mens Onderweg, 1960, p. 95. But one cannot say that psychikos here has "a pejorative sense" and that "the psychic
body, participating in this degradation, is not only living body but fallen body," as Clavier thinks (The Background of the N.T. and Its Eschatology, p. 351).
153. Over against other spiritualistic conceptions of soma pneumatikon, see Schweizer, TDNT, VI, p. 420.
154. Cf. Schweizer on 2 Cor. 3:17 (TDNT, VI, pp. 418f.). He correctly writes that it is plain from v. 17b that "v. 17a is not asserting the identity of two personal entities. Pneuma is defined as the mode of existence of the Kyrios... and this means the power in which He encounters His community. In so far as Christ is regarded in His significance for the community, in His powerful action upon it, He can be identified with the pneuma. In so far as He is also Lord over His power, He can be differentiated from it.
155. Against this see also Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, pp. I91f.
156. For the polemic significance of v. 46 see Brandenburger, Adam und Christus, p. 74, and the literature cited there; and Schweizer, TDNT, VI, p. 420.
157. It is of particular importance to keep in view that in the expression ho deuteros anthropos ex ouranou the last two (and not the last three) words are to be taken predicatively ("the second man is from heaven," and not: "the second is the man from heaven"). That this is the only acceptable translation is evident especially from the parallel with v. 47a ("the first man is from the earth, earthy," and not: "the first is the earthy man from the earth"). It follows from this that the repeated predicative speaking of "the man from heaven" in all kinds of literature on this subject (cf., e.g., Traub, TDNT, V, pp. 528f.) is not Pauline. It also forms a continuous obstacle to the right explanation of 1 Cor. 15:47; see Traub, loc. cit., who, despite the correct insight that Christ's exaltation is spoken of here, regards the pre-existence of Christ intended "secondarily" (!).
158. Vos, too, writes justly that if "from heaven" refers to Christ's preexistence, Paul contradicts himself; for this would reverse the order he indicates in v. 46, namely, that it is not the pneumatic but the psychical that is first. This would also make the pneumatic "the constituent principle of the human nature in Christ before the resurrection," of which thought no trace is elsewhere to be found in Paul (The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 167, 168).
159. In the same manner in 1 Cor. 10:3, 4, there is mention of the pneumatic food and the pneumatic drink, which is elsewhere called the bread "from heaven" (John 6:31, 32; cf. Ps. 78:24).
160. Cf. Clavier, The Background of the N. T. and Its Eschatology, p. 361: "The essential characteristic of the soma pneumatikon according to Paul is not being or not being a body with spirit, but an organ of the spirit, controlled by the Spirit, by the Holy Spirit." Yet he thinks (in my opinion on the basis of too "Greek" a conception of pneumatikos) that the formula soma pneumatikon was not entirely satisfactory and that Paul therefore uses it only once (p. 355). Cf. Schweizer: "Thus the soma pneumatikon of either Redeemer or believer is to be understood, not as one which consists of pneuma, but as one which is controlled by the pneuma. It must be realized, however, that this applies only to the concern of Paul. It is obvious in his terminology that like any Hellenist he thinks of power in terms of substance. Hence the matter in Paul is Jewish, his vocabulary Hellenistic" ( TDNT, VI, p. 421). Vos writes more radically: "Every thought of immaterialness or etherealness or absence of physical density ought to be kept carefully removed from the term. What
ever in regard to such qualifications may or may not be involved, it is certain that such traits, if existing, are not described here by the adjective in question" ( The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 166, 167).
161. So, e.g., Wendland, Cor,, pp. 103, 104; Lietzmann-Kümmel, Cor., p. 86.
Often the further thought is attached that here in Paul a more spiritual conception of the resurrection reveals itself (in comparison, e.g., with 1 Thess. 4); see further below, n. 165.
162. "Flesh and Blood Cannot Inherit the Kingdom of God," NTS, II, 1955/56, p. 152; indeed following A. Schlatter, Paulus der Bote Jesu, 1934, pp. 441ff.
163. Ibid., p. 157.
164. It is presupposed that the text pantes ou koimethesometha, pantes de allagesometha is original. There are many variants. But that the text we have followed (of Nestle) is original is hardly contested any longer, and has already been frequently elucidated in detail; cf., e.g., Lietzmann-Kümmel, Cor., pp. 195, 196, and the literature cited there. That one need not take pantes ou as a negation holding for all, but can also take it in the sense of "not all" has been demonstrated, e.g., by BI.-Debr., Par. 433, 2*. Pantes is first because it is so also in the second half. There is also something to be felt, to be sure, for the conception of Grosheide, who wishes to place ou koimethesometha between dashes and to translate: "we shall all — not sleep indeed — but all be changed." The exegesis, however, comes to the same thing. One can posit that Paul here — if in a concessive clause — expresses the expectation that he and his contemporaries will not all sleep. It only depends on how narrowly one wants to take "we." Elsewhere he says that God will raise "us" up (from the dead) (1 Cor. 6:14), or "will quicken your mortal bodies" (Rom. 8:11). This does not intend to say that the future perspective in Paul's pronouncements is unrestricted, but that he is not able to draw a line of demarcation between who would and who would not live to experience the parousia. He does not in any case promise this experience to any one of his contemporaries; such a promise does not pertain to his proclamation of redemption. See further above, Section 74, pp. 490f.
165. Jeremias points here to the influential publication of E. Teichmann, Die poulinischen Vorstellungen von Auferstehung und Gericht, 1896. He thinks that the spiritualistic conception of 1 Cor. 15:50a has played a "disastrous role" in New Testament theology. He attempts to counter this influence by his new conception of 1 Cor. 15:50a (according to which in the first part of v. 50 there is no mention
of the resurrection). But by understanding 1 Cor. 15:50a of the surviving and with respect to these still alive then assuming in Paul a certain (spiritualizing) turn with regard to 1 Thess. 4 (in the manner of Teichmann), his opposition to this spiritualizing interpretation of the close of 1 Cor. 15 (according to him "a commonplace in New Testament scholarship" [ibid., p. 158]) contains something half-hearted, especially in view of the unsatisfactory distinction he makes between v. 50a and v. 50b. One can get further only by taking v. 50 precisely as a continuation of the opposition to spiritualism; see above, the text. For the unwarrantedness of this "change of position" of Paul in the matter of the resurrection see further Section 74, pp. 491ff.
166. Cf. above, Section 19, pp. 115ff.
167. It has therefore rightly been observed by various interpreters that the confessional expression "resurrection of the flesh" is not in harmony with the Pauline usage and would not be possible in it. On this question in detail see W. Bieder, "Auferstehung des Fleisches oder des Leibes," TZ, 1945, pp. 105-112; cf. Cullmann,
" Unsterblichkeit der Seele und Auferstehung der Toten," TZ, 1956, p. 147; see also Schweizer, TDNT, VII, pp. 128f. G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, denies that one is allowed to call the words "resurrection of the flesh" un-Pauline. He appeals to 1 Cor. 15:53, where Paul says that this corruptible puts on incorruption (pp. 192ff.; see also his Man the Image of God, p. 232, n. 47). This corruptible is undoubtedly the same as the "flesh and blood" in v. 50. But it has not been proved therewith that, according to the Pauline usage, one could still call the corruptible, when it shall have put on incorruption, flesh. This does apply to "body," but (in Paul) certainly not to "flesh." Otherwise this is a question of usage. There need not be a material difference here between "resurrection of the body" and what the church means by "resurrection of the flesh." So Berkouwer, too (loc. cit.).
168. To be sure, another word is employed in Phil. 3:21 (metaschematizo) than in 1 Cor. 15:51 (allatto).
169. On this see, e.g., the old exegeses cited by Clavier, The Background of the N. T. and Its Eschatology, pp. 342, 347; also Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, pp. 188ff.
170. Cf. Schweizer, TDNT, VI, p. 421.
171. Cf. above, Section 75.
172. On this point also see Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul, pp. 19ff.; G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 200ff.; K. Deissner, Auferstehungsnoffnung, p. 69; Behm, TDNT, I, p. 475, s.v. arrabon; E. Schweizer, "Gegenwart des Geistes und eschatologische Hoffnung," in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology, pp. 504ff.
173. Cf. Section 77, p. 530.
174. So Delling, TDNT, II, p. 952, s. v. hemera.
175. Cf. above, Section 18, pp. 109ff.
176. Cf. above, Section 28, p. 169.
177. Others seek this evidence in their patience and faith; cf., e.g., Frame, Thessalonians, p. 226. But the context points clearly in another direction; see also Dibelius, Th., p. 41; cf. Phil. 1:28.
178. See above, Section 67, p. 427. For the element of judgment appearing here see Leon Morris, The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment, 1960, p. 45; C. F. D. Moule,
"The Judgment Theme in the Sacraments," in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology, pp. 476ff.
179. See above, Section 72, p. 471.
180. Above, Section 77.
181. So Lietzmann, Rom., pp. 39,40.
182. Cf. above, Section 31.
183. It is discussed at length and rejected by G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 226-260; cf. J. Héring, "Saint Paul a-t-il enseigné deux résurrections?," Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie religieuses, 1931, pp. 300-320; W. Masselink, Why Thousand Years?, 2nd ed., 1930, pp. 187ff.
184. See, e.g., H. Bietenhard, Das tausendjährige Reich, 1955, pp. 55ff.; G. Schrenk, Die Weissagung über Israel im Neuen Testament, 1951, pp. 54ff., 71. A detailed discussion of the new conceptions is also to be found in Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, pp. 301ff.
185. So, e.g., Lietzmann, Cor., p. 193.
186. So Lietzmann, in loc.
187. Bachmann (in Zahn's commentary) takes to telos as to telos tou zoopoieisthai.
188. E.g., in Lietzmann.
189. Cf. J. Dupont, [SYN CHRISTO], p. 84.
190. Cf. Kümmel in the "Anhang" to Lietzmann, Cor., p. 193.
191. Cf. above, pp. 340ff.
192. Vos writes correctly that eita "can be used as well as [ tote] to express momentary sequence of events" (The Pauline Eschatology, p. 243); cf. Arndt-Gingrich-Bauer, p. 233, s. v. eita: "In enumerations [ eita] often serves to put things in juxtaposition without reference to chronological sequence."
193. P. J. Du Plessis, [ TELEIOS], The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament: "the eschatological connotation of telos is an association and identification with the Parousia" (p. 163). And on p. 166, with an appeal to the investigations of A. Feuillet: "there is every reason to disregard [ telos] and [ synteleia] as synonyms." With respect to 1 Cor. 15:24 he writes: "One might say [ eita to telos], but then begins a new order of things with the subjection of every possible opposing power until the final state [ hina he ho Theos panta en pasin] (15:28). Christological mediation remains until this stage."
194. Cf. O. Cullmann, "The Kingship of Christ and the Church in the New Testament," in The Early Church, 1956, p. 112; Christ and Time, pp. 151f.
195. See also R. Schnackenburg, God's Rule and Kingdom, ET 1963, p. 296.
196. So also C. H. Lindijer, Kerk en Koninkrijk, 1962, p. 35.
197. For the appeal to 1 Thess. 4 see the cogent refutation by G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, pp. 246ff.
198. J. Dupont, [SYN CHRISTO], pp. 79-113.
199. Cullmann in particular has made this passage the point of departure for the conception that Christ's rule will finally end in that of God; that accordingly Christ's Messiahship will come to an end and that in general there is here a very radical indication for the functional character of the Pauline (and New Testament) Christology (cf. his Christ and Time, p. 109; "The Kingdom of Christ and the Church in the New Testament," loc. cit.; The Christology of the New Testament, pp. 268, 293). After the transfer of the kingdom and the subjection of the Son there would no longer be any sense in distinguishing between the Father and his Word of revelation, the Son. Others see in 1 Cor. 15:28 an indication for a definitive and exclusive incision in Christ's person and work. For this whole discussion (i.a., in connection with the views of Marcellus of Ancyra, Calvin, A. A. van Ruler), see Berkouwer, The Return of Christ, pp. 426ff. For Cullmann's "functional" Christology, also see above, p. 69.
200. So Lietzmann, Cor., p. 81.
201. In 2 Tim. 2:10 "eternal glory" is explicitly spoken of, and in Rom. 5:17 "reign in (eternal) life with Christ."
202. Cf. Berkouwer, who denies that in 1 Cor. 15:24 we have to do with an "exclusive aspect of the eschatological fulfilment" (The Return of Christ, p. 438, n. 37).