Ferdinand Christian Baur.

Paul, the apostle of Jesus Christ: his life and work, his epistles ..., Volume 2 online

. (page 33 of 35)
Online LibraryFerdinand Christian BaurPaul, the apostle of Jesus Christ: his life and work, his epistles ..., Volume 2 → online text (page 33 of 35)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

the speedy termination of the Eoman empire, and after that the
appearance of Antichrist, and finally, but still in his own lifetime,
the second coming of Christ All this, however, fails to explain
how he formed this peculiar conception of a Karexo^v* The Soman
empire was the last ; and Antichrist might come sooner or later
during its existence. Now if the Eoman empire, or the Eoman
emperor, was held to be the Kare^cov, it must surely have had some
characteristic features showing it to be so, and contained some
definite symptoms of the impending catastrophe. But if, as is
generally assumed, the Epistle was written in the year 63 A.D., what
reason was there to deem the then reigning emperor Claudius
to be the Karex^^v, the power which alone stood in the way of the
appearance of Antichrist 1 Or if the Epistle be placed at the very
beginning of the reign of Nero, we know of nothing at that period
that could lead any one to suppose that that Emperor would be the
last. All that we find in this period is the general belief that the
end of the world was near, but so long as this expectation derived

Digitized by



no special strength or colour from anything personal to the then
reigning emperor, it is hard to see why he should be called the
Karix^V' Nor is it easy to explain why, if the apostle thought it
necessary at that time to give such a careful and circumstantial
opinion on the Parousia, he never returned to the subject in any of
his subsequent Epistles. In the later Epistles he entirely ignores,
on this hypothesis, the vivid expectation of Antichrist which he
had awakened, when he represented him as already working in
secret, and about to appear in the immediate future. Was it not
somewhat strange that having presented these ideas with such
emphasis to the Christian consciousness, he should all at once drop
the subject; that he should have nothing to say of the many
prophecies he had uttered and which had remained unfulfilled, and
pass at once to the announcement of the instant approach of the
Parousia of Christ (1 Cor. xv. 51) ? To explain all this, we are
reminded of the narrow limits of time, which the apostle spoke of
in his prophecy, and are even told that as the events which he
expected from the immediate future did not take place, it was
unreasonable to expect the fulfilment of the prophecy from a future
more remote. It is better, we are told, to acknowledge that Paul
made a mistake, that his characteristic impetuosity made him
imagine that he knew things which it is not given to man to know,
not even to an apostle though filled beyond all other men with the
spirit of Christ. If this be all that can be said, the Epistle stands
before us a riddle utterly unsolved. Would it not be far simpler
to refer it to the time to which all its characteristic features
obviously point, and to accept the conclusion that the apostle him-
self was not the writer? But, it may be objected, how could
another writer make the apostle say these things if he could not
possibly have said them himself? how could a later writer make
him speak of Nero as Antichrist, when this theory could have had
no evidence nor reason at the time when the Epistle was repre-
sented as having been written ? The answer to this question is
found in the precautions taken by the writer himself to meet it, if
it should arise. In such a point we see very distinctly how the

Digitized by



character of such an Epistle is insensibly determined by the double
personality of the writer. The writer is the apostle and yet at the
same time another person ; the form of the Epistle is from the pre-
tended, the contents from the real, author, and these two have to be
made to harmonize in some way. There are several things in the
Epistle which give us a tolerably clear glimpse of an age lying
beyond the apostle's time ; and yet these are so managed as not to
make its apostolic authorship too palpably impossible or impro-
bable. The special concrete individual elements of the later
history are as far as possible generalized, as we see in the concep-
tion of Antichrist. It is not till we take Nero to be the actual
subject of the predicates with which Antichrist is characterized,
that the picture appears before us as that of a real person ; and yet
it cannot be said that any of the traits of the picture is so specifi-
cally Neronian as to show the writer to have forgotten the part he
was playing. He does not mention a Korex^v without speaking
first of TO Kare'xpvy the abstract instead of the concrete, a phrase
which suggests nothing more than some hindrance or other in the
circumstances of the times. Again, we see the writer trying to
engraft his own interests on the personal history of the apostle, and
to keep up the fictitious personality, by asserting again and again
that the apostle had told his readers by word of mouth, when he
was present with him, what he was now writing, cf.ii 5 ; iii. 10.
Thus should there be anything in the Epistle that is not quite clear,
they are to imagine what he said orally as the commentary to it,
and to remember that the original readers had been already
acquainted with the apostle's meaning. The pretended apostle, as
author of the Epistle, is thus made to assure himself again and
again of his identity with the true apostle ; which simply shows
that the writer felt this to be the weak point in his literary under-
taking. In the same way the frequent allusions to passages of
the authentic Epistles are meant to confirm us in the belief that
we are altogether within the familiar circle of the Pauline ideas.
But the more pains such a production takes to prove itself a
Pauline Epistle (as liotably in the conclusion, iii 17, 18), the

Digitized by



more reason does there appear for holding its asserted origin to be

We must now look back from the second Epistle to the first.
If we have made up^ our minds about the second it will be less
difl&cult to arrive at a definite opinion with regard to the first
As we saw that the genuineness of the first is doubtful, and as
that of the second has even stronger evidence against it, we have
now to inquire what, in this view of their origin, is the relation
which they bear to each other.

The First Epistle deals in its exhortations with a wider range of
subjects, and is at more pains than the second to explain by con-
siderations personal to the apostle how the different topics it
contains came to be taken up. Yet the question of the Parousia
is evidently the foremost in the writer's mind, he thinks the time
calls urgently for instruction and explanation on the subject.
This point is kept prominently in view from the very beginning :
even in the introduction, i. 3, the writer speaks of the virofioprj r^
€X7r/So9 rov Kvpiov ^fi&v Irftrou Xpurrov efitrpoaOev rov Oeov teal
'rrccrpo^s t^/xAv, i.e. the hope of his return. He caUs Jesus, i 10, top
pvofiepov iJ/iS? dwo T^9 opyr]^ T^9 €p^ofiev7)<:, and God, ii 12, the
/ca\&v r}fias et9 Tif]v eavrov ^aaiXetav Koi Bd^av. He speaks re-
peatedly of the Parousia as the ultimate event which the efforts
of Christians are to keep in view, ii. 19 : rl^ yap 'qfi&v eKrrh —
€fnrpoa-0€V rov Kvpiov rjfi&v Irjaov Xpurrov — €V t© avrov irap-
ovtrla: iii 13, €t9 to avrjpl^ai vfi&v ra^ Kaphuv: — ev t^ irapovaia
rov Kvpiov rjfi&v 'Iiytrou fiera iravraif r&v arflfov avfov. When he
comes to speak of this subject specially, iv. 13, he makes the
transition with the same formula with which the apostle generally
introduces the more important passages of his Epistles : ov BiKofieif
h\ v/JLa<; ayvoelv. On comparing the sections in the two Epistles
which deal with the Parousia, we are struck by the fact, that
though there is said to be a very short interval of time between
the two, the first contains no trace of what the second treats as
a matter of the first importance. The first seeks to reassure its
readers concerning those who have fallen asleep, and to instruct

Digitized by



them when the Parousia is to be expected ; but there is not a
word of Antichrist nor of the circumstances which are to herald
his appearance. The interpreters have nothing to say on this
point that bears the least semblance of probability. De Wette,
for example, says that the strongly apocalyptical tendency of
the apostle's preaching produced an extraordinary sensation at
Thessalonica. The First Epistle did nothing to allay the excite-
ment, but on the contrary insisted on the duty of being constantly
on the watch for the immediate advent of Christ. The apostle
felt it necessary afterwards to do something to cool down the
fervour of the expectations the Thessalonians had formed. But
this cannot surely have been necessary, for the picture of Anti-
christ that is drawn with such care must have been a fresh source
of agitation. But why does Antichrist come on the scene at this
point ? According to 2 Thess. ii 5, the apostle had spoken of
Antichrist during his residence at Thessalonica, but even suppos-
ing the Second Epistle to be genuine, we cannot help asking why
the First Epistle does not contain the least allusion to the subject.
If the Second Epistle is to be fixed to the definite historical position
we have indicated, it becomes impossible to frame any rational
theory of the relation borne to it by the first, except on the as-
sumption that the first was written after the second, and at a
considerable interval after it. The expectation of Antichrist had
died away of itself, since Antichrist had failed to appear at the
time when everything in the Eoman empire seemed to be ready
for him. It was impossible to give up expecting the Parousia of
Christ himseK; but the longer it tarried, the more did doubts and
questions arise on the subject, and these it was necessary to satisfy .
This is what the First Epistle sets itself to do, and both the diflB-
culty which it discusses, and the considerations it brings forward to
meet them, belong to a later period. According to iv. 13, anxiety
was felt on behalf of those Christians who had fallen asleep having
waited in vain for the Parousia of Christ, and died before it came,
lest, when it did arrive, they should be worse off than those who
were living at the time. This might be (iv. 15) either by their


Digitized by



not rising again till later, or perhaps even by their continuing
permanently in the comfortless condition of the under-world,
which they had abeady endured since their death, so that there
would be no difference between them and the heathens (verse
13). In view of these anxieties the writer appeals to the resurrec-
tion of Christ as the warrant for believing in a resurrection of the
dead, and goes on to assure his readers that the resurrection of
those Christians who had died would be the first thing to take
place when the Lord should descend from heaven, after which those
who were alive should be united to those who had risen, and be
for ever with the Lord. It is very difficult to harmonize this de-
scription of the Parousia with the series of events connected with
the coming of Antichrist, as the Second Epistle, following the Ee-
velation, details them. But not to insist on this, we are forced to ask
when Christians began to regard the case of those who had
fallen asleep as a matter of such anxiety. If the Epistle
be genuine and was written to the young church at Thessa-
lonica only a few months after it was founded, how many
K€/coifirjfievot could there be — members of the church who had died
after their conversion to Christianity ? The question of the pro-
spects of their fellow-Christians who had died would naturally rise
into prominence with the church when there came to be a con-
siderable number who had died without seeing what all hoped that
they would live to see, when a whole generation perhaps had de-
parted from the midst of the Christian community. At a time
when the Parousia and the end of the world were thought to be
so close at hand, the idea that the Christian community consisted
of the dead as well as of the living could only arise gradually, and
could hardly become familiar till the continual replacement of the
dead by the living had come to show that a new order of things
was now prevailing.

The apostle had indicated a belief that he himself would live to see
the Parousia^ and an author writing after his death would still make
him express that belief, iv. 16, 17. Though the apostle had been
mistaken, yet what he had said W£is true of those who did live to

Digitized by



see the Parousia. But it marks a wide departure from the faith of the
first Christians, — that they would be alive at the Parousia, — when
instead of that expectation we find it urged that it did not make the
least difference whether one became partaker of the blessings of that
event in the ranks of the dead or of the living. The question
whether the Parousia was to happen sooner or later was no longer
one of paramoimt importance. The important thing was to cultivate
that attitude of mind which the writer of the Epistle recommends to
his readers, v, 1. The dogmatic significance of the question of the
Parousia is here reduced to the practical exhortation that since the
date of it was utterly uncertaim it was necessary to be prepared for
it every moment. This obviously implies, that a considerable time
had passed since the Parousia began to be expected. 'XP^^^^ ^^^
Kiupoi are spoken of, times and periods that have already passed
without its coming, times and periods which may still have to pass
before it comes, that is to say, simply the broad course of time, of
which the fniepa Kvplov constitutes the closing scene. The only
warning issued is against those who are seduced into toogreat security
because the Parousia is so long delayed, and who forget that the day
of the Lord comes suddenly and unexpectedly as a thief in the night,
verse 2. Christians must thus be exhorted simply to be watchful and
sober ; an exhortation which shows that the Christian consciousness
had now rejected the ecstatic and eccentric elements that entered
into the primitive belief of the Parousia. If the Parousia be con-
templated with composure, that means that it is beyond the im-
mediate sphere of vision ; and the further off it is conceived to be,
the more room is there left for the circle of Christian life and duty.
This sphere is filled up as much as possible by our author with
moral instructions and exhortations to Trepiirarelv a^m^ rov Oeov,
ii. 12 ; cf. iv. 1, 2. In this department as well as in the other he has
the Second Epistle before him, and borrows precepts which are
much more natural and appropriate there than here ; though they
had not ceased to be necessary at the later period. Such are vov-
derelv rov^ ard/crov^ verse 14, <f>CKoT(,fieladai ri<ruj(a^eiv, frpdaaew
ra iBui, Kol €pyd^€a-0ai rah x^paXv, iv. 11, and ii 9 ; cf. 2 Thess.

Digitized by



iii. 7-12. The writer takes special care to let the reason and
occasion of his moral precepts appear. For this purpose he avails
himself largely of the apostolical framework of his Epistle. The
apostle strives to stimulate his readers to be forward in the busi-
ness of their Christian calling, partly by praising them for their
good qualities, and partly by assuring them of his own love and
attachment to them.

As for the passages which have commonly been held to show
the dependence of the Second Epistle on the First, it is not difficult
to convert them into proofs of the opposite relation. (In some cases
they are obviously extensions and exaggerations of the parallels in
the Second Epistle, as, e.g. iv. 15-17 is simply an explanation of
the hruTwcuyarfiij 2 Thess. ii 1, and 1 Thess. v. 27, opKi^o} vfia^
TOP Kvpiop, etc., is an assertion of the importance of the Epistle
similar to that, 2 Thess. iii 14, €t Be tw ovx inraKovei, etc., only
stronger.) And there seems to be no further consideration of any
weight to be brought against the view we have sought to estab-
lish of the origin of the two Epistles, and their relation to each
other. The First Epistle must accordingly have been written after
the Second, and if we accept the most natural interpretation of the
passage 1 Thess. ii 16, we have the Epistle referring to the'destruc-
tion of Jerusalem as an accomplished fact^

^ If the Epistle be considered to be by Paol, we must say on this point that
he regards a thing, of which he merely foresaw the accomplishment, as already to
all intents accomplished. The grammar admits of this, but is it natural to speak
of an event, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, before it came about, as if it
had taken place already? The ordinary interpretation thus provides a new
proof, that the author of an Epistle like this could not indeed forbear to sp^ak
of the time in which he himself was living, but took care to choose expressions
"^hich should not be out of place as coming from the mouth of the author whose
name he was assuming.

Digitized by



Abraham, I. 45 8q. ; IT. 191 «g., 201.

Acts of the Apostles :

tendency of, I. 4 sq., 80, 87, 123,

134, 153, 174, 191, 208, 210, 214,

216, 222, 333, 344, 374.
credibiUty of, 9, 13, 109, 112, 130,

134, 143, 149, 191, 205, 226, 344;

II. 87.
speeches of, I. 38, 44, 56, 63, 182,

191, 220-223.

date of composition, I. 12, 200.

authorship, I. 11, 104, 153, 191.

conclusion of, I. 226.

Acta Pauli et Petri, I. 241.

Adam and Christ, I. 352 ; II. 183, 186,

214, 218.
Aeons, II. 8, 10, 18 «g., 47.
Agapae, I. 32.
Agrippa, the elder, v, Herod.

the younger, I. 166, 224.

Albinus, I. 166.

Alexander of Abonoteichos, I. 97.

Allegory, II. 283 sq,

Ambrose, commentator on, I. 367.

Ananias and Sapphira, I. 23 8q.

Ananias in Damascus, I. 73, 77.

Ananias the high priest, I. 220.

Ananns, I. 166.

Andronicus and Junia, I. 380.

Angels, II. 6, 29, 253 nq.

Antichrist, II. 90, 92, 323, 330 sq,

Antilegomena, Pauline, I. 256.

Antioch, I. 40, 94, 127, 133, 197.

in Pisidia, I. 105.

Antiochus Epiphanes, I. 168.

Apocalypse, II. 323 aq.
Apollooius of Tyana, I. 103.
ApoUos, I. 192, 195, 269.
Apostles, II. 24.

persecutions of, I. 15 «g., 39, 165.

miracles of, 15, 19, 28, 35, 197,


idealized, 22, 29, 193.

elder, Judaist, 60, 131, 207, 279,


ol toKovvT€s, 123, 128, 288.

8yioi, IL 32.

vir€p\lay airoor., I. 288, 297 ; II.


ylr€vbajr6fTToKoiy I. 277.

Aquila and Priscilla, I. 175, 196, 343,

Areopagus, I. 177.
Aretas, I. 110, 333.
Artemis, Ephesian, I. 200 sq,
Artemon, I. 368.

Athens, L 175 ; Athenians, 116 sq.y 181.
Augustine, I. 358, 367.

Baptism, IL 177.

Barnabas, I. 23, 31, 40, 94, 101, ll.'J,
118, 130, 134, 152, 334.

Epistle of, 144 «g.

Basilidians, II. 101.
Basnage, II. 292.
Bertholdt, I. 271 ; 11. 295.
Billroth, I. 298, 305.
Bleek, L 312.
BrUckner, II. 45, 76.

Digitized by




Gataphas, I. 16, 34.

Gains, the presbyter, I. 240, 247, 248 9q,

Galvin, I. 202 ; II. 297.

Ganon, L 257 ; IL 98.

Garpocratians, II. 101.

Gelsos, I. 181.

Gerinthus, IL 28.

Gharisms, II. 172, 280.

Ghrestus, I. 342 ; II. 82.

Ghrist :

prophet, I. 88.

and the pleroma, IL 10, 23.

as centre of the universe, II. 7, 35.

relation to the angels, II. 29.

Son of God, II. 124.

second Adam, IL 214.

Ghristology, Ebionite, IL 29.

of Paul, II. 213 «g., 239 fiq.

of Ephesian and Golossian Epistles,

II. 7 «?., 35 sq.

Ghristology and Soteriology, IL 31.

death of, L 106, 283, 368; IL 38,

41, 125, 149, 152 aq,

resurrection of, IL 124, 216.

ascension, II. 124, 216.

descent into hell, IL 15.

second coming, v. Parousia.

• sinleesness, IL 246, 251.

higher nature, 240 sq,

pre-existence, 242 *g., 247.

Ghrist-party, I. 271 «g.
Ghristians, name of, I. 94.

5yioi, IL 175 »g.

Ghristianity :

absolute religion, I. 265 ; IL 40,

124, 126, 128, 132, 212.

reunites the divided, II. 82 8q.

relation to Judaism and Heathenism,

L 265 ; IL 39 sq., 134, 182 aq., 212

Ghrysostom, I. 178.
Ghurch, bride of Ghrist, L 149; IL 11

aq., 177.
body of Ghrist, II. 12, 23, 37, 169,


Pleroma, IL 11, 23.

Ghurch, unity of, II. 36.

Gircumcision, I. 123, 135, 137, 143, 205,

207, 267, 370 ; IL 29.
Glaudius, I. 342 ; IL 333.
Glemens, Alex., I. 230, 358.
Rom., L 228, 237, 244, 278 ; IL 61,


Flavins Gl., IL 59.

as mediator, II. 63.

Glementine Homilies, I. 88, 135, 144 «g.,

150, 230, 231 «(7„ 358, 360, 363, 368 ;

U. 30, 69, 83.

Ebionitism of, I. 358.

Recognitions, L 293.

GoUn, IL 295.

Golossians, Epistle to, II. 1 sq.

Gnostic elements in, 6 ag., 17.

montamsm of, 22.

heretics of, 26 aq.

aim of, 27, 34.

relation to Ephesian Epistle, 2 aq.,

42 «g.
relation to the older Epistles, 9, 31,

38 «g.

origin of, 32, 38 aq.

Gonsciousness, Ghristian, principle of, IL

Gorinth, I. 175 aq., 239, 247, 268.

Paul at, 175.

later journeys to, 315.

parties in, 269.

disorders, 308.

Paul and Gorinthians, 268, 312.

Gorinthians, Epistles to, I. 268 aq.

date of, 315.

relation of Second to First, 309.

lost Epistles to, 311, 315.

Passages expounded —

1 Gor. i. 12— iii. 23, L 269, 304, 306 ; ii. 9

aq., IL 128; v. 3, L 312; viii. 3, IL
238 ; viu. 4 aq., IL 255 ; viii. 6, II.
242; ix. 19, L 276; x. 4, IL 244;
xi 3, IL 249 ; xi. 10, IL 254 ; xii 12,
IL 170; xiil, IL 232 ; xiil 12 aq., IL
236; XV. 8, IL 270; xr. 23 aq., IL
91 ; XV. 35 aq., IL 220.

2 Gor. ii 1, L 319 ; il 6, L 313; iii 1,
IL 292 ; iii. 6-18, IL 129 ; iii 17, IL
248; V. 1 aq., IL 265; v. 4, IL 186;

Digitized by




vuL 9, 11. 244 ; x. 7, I. 284, 305 ; xi.
1 «gr., I. 287 ; xii., I. 291.

Cornelius, I. 81 «g., r30, 196.

Oosmocrator, II. 19.

Council, Apostolic, I. 116; vide Jerusa-

Covenant, vide Testament.

Credner, II. 98.

Criticism, task of, I. 1.

Dahne, II. 117.
Damasus, I. 367.
David, I. 47.
Demetrius, I. 201.
Demons, I. 156 sq.^ 198 sq.
gods of heathenism, I. 145, 200,

358 ; II. 255 sq,
demoniac possession, I. 154 sq., 198

Descent into hell, IL 15.
Devil, I. 360 ; II. 226 ; cf. Demons.
De Wette, I. 92, 126, 128, 298, 323,

327; II. 1, 2, 14, 32, 33, 45, 57, 70,

76, 93, 98, 103, 105, 110, 131, 241,

298, 308, 326, 333, 337.
Ai/caioavvrjf notion of, II. 134.

kinds of, 136 ; diK, Oeov, 135.

Dio Cassius, II. 61.

Dionysius the Areopagite, I. 178.

of Corinth, L 178, 239, 246.

Domitian, II. 61.
Domitilla, II. 61.
Dualistic view of the world, I. ^86, 363,

Duumviri, I. 157, 160.

Ebionites, I. 32, 144, 213,233, 361 ; II.


in Rome, I. 357.

abstain from flesh and wine, 357,

360 ; IL 28.

their view of authority, I. 360.

of the present and the future world,

360, 363.
worship of angels and Christology,

II. 29 ; cf. Judaeo-Christians.

Eichhom, I. 272, 323, 347 ; II. 294.

Ellendorf, II. 296.

Elymas, I. 95.

Epaenetus, I. 380.

Epaphroditus, II. 68.

Ephesus, I. 174, 200.

Ephesian presbjrters, 187, 189.

*E(j>€(na ypdixfuiTaf 200.

Epistle to Ephesians, II. 1 sq,, 177.

Gnostic elements in, 6 «g., 17.

Montanist, 22 sq,

aim of, 36.

relation of Ephesians to Colossiaus,


to the older Epistles, 3, 9, 38 sq.

origin and date, 22, 32, 38.

Epiphanius, I. 32, 257, 357, 360, II. 17.

ETTtO-KOTTOt, I. 189.

Episcopal constitution, II. 102, cf, I. 189.
Epistles, criteria of genuineness of, II.

95, 106. Origin of spurious Epistles,

109 sq.
Ernesti; II. 45, 50.
Eschatology, Pauline, IL 223 sq., cf.

Resurrection, Parousia.
Eusebius, L 179, 227, 230, etc.
Eutychus, I. 201.

Fadus, Cuspius, L 35.

Faith, L 351 ; IL 148, 150, 157, 163,

228, 232, 235, 300.
and Works, L 351 ; IL 39, 136,

Felix, Procurator, I. 97, 223.
Festus, Porcius, I. 224 sq.
Macius, II. 293.
Flatt, I. 271 ; IL 284.
Freedom, Christian, I. 127, 265 ; II. 131,

Fritzsche, I. 322, 325.


Galatians, foundation of Church, I.

260 ; wavering in Christianity, 261 ;

II. 126.

Epistle to, L 260 sq.

contents and aim, I. 263.

Digitized by




Galatians, date, I. 266; discrepancies

Online LibraryFerdinand Christian BaurPaul, the apostle of Jesus Christ: his life and work, his epistles ..., Volume 2 → online text (page 33 of 35)