Boston University

OpenBU http://open.bu.edu
Theses & Dissertations Dissertations and Theses (pre-1964)

1959

Pauline eschatology in the writings

of R. H. Charles and Albert
Schweitzer

https://hdl.handle.net/2144/19816
Boston University
 ... d ···:· :···· • ·.:J·· ......~JW:··-~·F- ·)I~~

.
,J~'it'
,l

BOSTON UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE SCHOOL

Dissertation

PAULINE ESCHATOLOGY IN THE WRITINGS

OF

R. H. CHARLES AND ALBERT SCHWEITZER

by

Paul Richard Woudenberg

(A.B., Occidental College, 1949; S.T.B., Boston University, 1952)

Submitted in partial fulfi~ment of the

requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

1959
 wo

APPROVED

. BY .

First Reader
~,;z; p
• • • • -. Q 0 ••
/?
~9
...,__,-4
• ~" .......
PROFESSOR OF HISTORICAL THEOLOGY

Second Reader».t?.J~ .. 8 • • 8 • • • •

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PRACTICAL THEOLOGY

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION

1. The Problem of the Dissertation ..... .... 1

2. Definitions 3

3. Limitations • e • • • • • 4

4. Previous Research in the Field .. . ~ 4

5. The Methodology of the Dissertation .• 8

II. THE INTERPRETATION OF PAULINE ESCHATOLOGY BY

R. H. CHARLES

1. The Background of Developmental Thought " ... 10

2. · Definition of Developmental Thought • • .• ....• 12

3. The First Period - I and II Thessalonians . 14

4. The Second Period - I Corinthians .. ·• .. 17

s. The Third Period - II Corinthians and Romans .• 19

6. The Fourth Period - Philippians, Colossians and

Ephesians • . .... ..... 21

7. Suiilill.ary . ..... 0 .. .... 22

III. SCHWEITZER'S HISTORICAL SURVEY OF SCHOLARSHIP ON PAUL IN

PAUL AND HIS INTERPRETERS

1. Backgroun!f .. ........... 25

2. Methodology • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 26

3. The Beginning of Historical Method ..... 27

4. The Two Thought Concept • • • • • • 30

Chapter Page

5. External Relationships • • • • • • • • • 32

6. H. ]. Boltzmann e • • • • • " a • • e. • 37

7. The Radical Dutch School ..• • • 0 • 0 • •

• • • • 38

8. Comparative Religions •••••• o o ••••••• 40

9• SUDlDlary Q • • • • • • • • "" • •
41

IV. SCHWEITZER t S INTERPRETATION OF PAULINE ESCHATOLOGY IN

THE MYSTICISM OF PAUL THE APOSTLE

1. Background and Purpose • • • • ......... 43

2. Pauline Mysticism and Eschatology • • • 0 • 45

3. Questions of Authenticity and Dating • ... 47

4. Uniform Eschatology • · • • e • • • o e • • so
5. Eschatological Redemption . ... . . .. 53

6. The Background of Pauline Eschatology . . . . . . . 58

7. Baruch and Ezra 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • 61

8. · ~aul's Eschatological Chronology • ... 62

9. Summary .. • • • • • • • • • • • .. .. 66

V. A COMPARISON OF THE POSITIONS OF CHARLES AND SCHWEITZER

ON PAULINE ESCHATOLOGY

1. Developmental Eschatology .... ..• 68

2. Eschatological Chronology ........• . 70

3. Genuineness .. .. . .. • • . . . a .. 74

4. Chronology and Dating of Paul's Letters . . .. 76

5 .. Summary - The Problems Restated .. . . . . 79

Chapter Page

VI. THE GENUINENESS OF II THESSALONIANS

1. Introduction - A Criterion of Historicity 0 • • • • • 82

2. Background ~ G .. ~ ., » ~ ~ .. .. a .. • • • • . • • • • • 84

3. The Problem of II Thessalonians 2~1-12 85

4. The Similarity of Style, Structure and Phraseology • 89

5. Possible Solutions • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • 90

6. External Evidence .......... 91

7. Conclusion • • • • • • • • . • . ·• . • • • • . . • • 91

VII. THE GENUINENESS OF THE PASTORALS AND THE IMPRISONMENT

LETTERS

1. The Pastorals ............ .... ... .•. 93

2. Philemon .... ...... .... . . . ... . . 94

3. Philippians 94

4. Colossians .................. . 95

i. Introduction ... ..... .. ...... .. 95

H. External Evidence • • 0 •••o••••••••• 96

iii. Early Criticism ....... .. .. .... ~

97

iv. Recent Criticism • e •. • • • • • • • 9 • •

98

v. Questions of Style and Vocabulary .... 99

'tTi. Relationship to Ephesians .... .... 101

5. Ephesians 104

i. External Evidence. . . . .. 104

ii. Early Criticism •• . . • 0 .. 105

Chapter Page

iii. The Issues • • 106

6. Summary • • • 109

VIII. THE DATES OF THE LETTERS

1. Introduction ..
,. ~. 110
I

2. A Terminus a Quo 0
• • • • • • 110

3 •. The Three Periods 0

• 112

4. Galatians . 114

5. Summary 115,

IX. A SURVEY OF PAULINE ESCHATOLOGY

1. I Thessalonians • • 116

2. I I Thessalonians • • • 119

3. I Corinthians 120

4. II Corinthians 125

5. Romans . . 126

6. Galatians • • 129
•
7. Colossians • • • • 129
~ •
8. Philemon • • 131
•
9. Philippians . 131

10. Sub-Pauline Epistles 132

i. Ephesians . • • . • •
132

ii. The Pastorals 132

•
(1). I Timothy 133
"
 ,. ··'

Chapter Page

(2). II Timothy • • • • .. .. 133

(3). Titus .. 133

X. ANALYSIS OF THE EVID.ENCE

1. The Imminent Expectation of the Parousia ... 134

i. I Thessalonians • 134

ii. II Thessalonians ... .. 136

iii. I Corinthians • . .. 138

iv. I I Corinthians 139

v. Romans .. 140

vi. Galatians e e • • • e • e
140

vii. Colossians .. 141

viii. Philippians • • .. • • 9 • • • 0 "" • • 0

141

ix. A Summary of the Evidence • ... 142

2. The Eschatological Chronology • -o -o • • .. 143

i. I Thessalonians • 143

ii. II Thessalonians 145

iii. I Corinthians • • .. •
147

iv. I I Corinthians 149

v. Romans •. . ... ........ •

150

vi. Galatians 152

vii. Colossians .. ... ... 152

viii. Philippians 154

Chapter Page

SUiniJiary .. • • • • • 0 • • 154

3. Immediate Resurrection Upon Death • • ~ • • 4 0 • • • 157

i. I Thessalonians • • • • • • • • • • 4J • .. • • 157

ii. II Thessalonians • • • 0 .. • .. ..... 158

iii. I Corinthians • .... • • • e. • • e • 158

iv. II Corinthians .... 0 • • • • • • 160

v. Romans 162

vi. Galatians . 163

Vii. Colossians • ..• 164

viii. Philippians .• . • 9 • •
165

ix. Summary of Evidence·. . .. 166

XI. EVALUATION OF THE TWO POSITIONS

1 .. II Thessalonians . . 169

2. The Genuineness of the Imprisonment Letters 171

3. Imminent Eschatology . " .. 172

4. Eschatological Chronology • 173

"
s. Immediate Resurrection 177

6. Developmental Thought . .. "

179

7. Developmental Chronology ...• 180

8. Tabulation ~ • .. • . .. .• . 181

XII. FINAL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS • . • • • .• 183

Chapter Page

APPENDICES

A. Biographical Sketch of Robert Henry Charles • .. 185

B. Biographical Sketch of Albert Schweitzer • • • e • • 187

c. Diagram (with Key) - Nineteenth Century

Eschatological study • G • " .. • • • • • a e • • 189

D. Diagram (with Key) - 'rhe ~s~ha.tologic~l· SG:heme

Before Jesus According to Schweitzer .. • • • • • 191

E. Diagram - The. Eschatological Systems of Jesus and

Paul According to Schweitzer • • .. • • • .. • • • • • 193

BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • • • ~ 0 • • • • • 8 v- • • 0 • • • .. 194

ABSTRACT • • ••• • e • e • 9 eo.eee 202

AUTOBIOGRAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • " • • " o • • • • • • • 205

 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1. The Problem of the Dissertation

The primitive Christian hope of the immediate coming of the King-

dom of God was based on the memory of the teachings of Jesus.l The fact

that that hope remained unfulfilled did not vitiate the Christian faith.

But, the hope was transformed in such a way that the Christian faith was

able to survive the surrender of the original expectation.2

The study of this transformation has traditionally dealt with

three issues in the history of the I>rimitive church; the struggle for

unity, the conflict with Gnosticism, and the accommodation to Greek

metaphysics. A fourth factor recognized by Albert Schweitzer was the

1. Contemporary appreciation of this fact is especially connected

with the work of Albert Schweitzer, The est of the Historical
Jesus, (3rd. ed .. ; London: Adam and Charles Black, [1906 1954) •
See also William Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent Research
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1907), p .. 9lff .. A summary
of the eschatological questions with special note of the impact
of Schweitzer may be found in Cyril w. Emmet, The Eschatological
Qqestion in the Gospels (Edinburgh: T .. & T.. Clark, 1911), Chap. I.
For a recent statement see Werner Georg Kummel, P.romise>and·::Eui-: ..
filment; trans. Dorothea M. Barton (3rd. ed. rev.; Naperville,
Illinois: Alec R. Allenson, Inc4, [195~ 1957).
2. The non-occurence of the Parousia promised in Matthew 10:23 is
the first postponement and, in the opinion of Schweitzer, altered
the plans of Jesus, quest, p. 358.

1.
 ' .~

abandonment of the early hope of the speedy coming of the Kingdom

of God.l

The role of Paul in the decline of eschatology is uncertain.

The "TUbingen School" of New Testament criticism, begun by F.

! . - -
c. Baur

around 1831, maintained that Paul ttdeveloped his doctrine in complete

- .
opposition to the primitive Christian community.,••2 Thus the eschatol-

ogical thought of Paul was de-emphasized by Baur. R~ H. Charles, in

the Jowett Lectures of 1899 in London,3 held that Paul's eschatologi-

cal emphasis, initially found in I and II Thessalonians, declined as

his thought unfolded~ until in the Imprisonment Letters he had reached

a Gnostic Hellenism with little emphasis on the Parousia. On the other

hand, Albert Schweitzer-holds that Paul',s thought is uniformly dominated

by the Jewish eschatological framework.4

The Tubingen position has largely been abandoned, partly due to

recent interest in eschatology in the development of the primitive

church. However, the influence of R. H~ Charles may be seen in such

recent studies as the Interpreters Bible .. 5 Schweitzer's "thorough-

going eschatologyn continues to stimulate re&earch.

1. "The whole history of 'Christianity' down to the present day,

• • • is based on the delay of the Parousia, the abandonment of
eschatology, the progress and completion of the •de-eschatologizing'
of-religion which has been connected therewith,." Schweitzer, Quest,
P• 358.
2. Albert Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters, trans .. William Mont-
gomery (New York: The Macmillan Company, [19l.lj 1956), p. 12.
3. Robert Henry Charles, A Critical rlistory of the Doctrine of a
Future Life (2nd ed.; London: Adam and Charles Black, ~89~ 1913).
4. Albert Schweitzer, The Mysticism of Paul-The Apostle, trans ..
William Montgomery (New York: The Macmillan Company ~93~ 1956),
P• 52 ..
5. Francis Beare, commenting on Colossians 3:3,4 says "These verses
 3

The purpose of this dissertation, therefore, is to outline and

criticize the Pauline eschatological theory of Charles in the light of

Schweitzer's thorough-going eschatology with particular reference to the

Parousia. If Paul's interest did in fact decline as Charles contends,

then he may properly be placed within the process of Hellenization.

However, if Paul's interest in the Parousia is uniform, then he stands

apart from this process of Hellenization. This dissertation seeks to

examine the evidence for each view.

2. Definitions

"Eschatologyn may be defined as the study of the doctrines of

)/
the last or final things. The Greek word, €uXO.TOS, has the sense of

extremeness, the furtherest or the uttermost.! When used with suffer-

ings, there is the sense of last or worst. Eschatology suggests a

climax of extremes, the intense finish of events.

For the purpose of this dissertation, eschatology trill be de-

fined as the concepts dealing with those events which immediately pre-

cede and immediately follow the Parousia. "Parousiatt may be defined

reflect the remarkable modification, amounting to a transforma-

tion in the Pauline eschatology, which is imposed by the theo-
logical trend of this epistle." Francis Beare, "The Epistle to
the Colossians·," Introduction and Exegesis in The Interpreters
Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1955), Vol. XI, p. 211. ·
1. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament, translation and adaptition:··of. Walter Bauer's
Griechisch-Deutsches Worte~buch zu den Schriften Des Meuen Testa-
ments (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), PP• 313, 314.
 1
as th~ arrival or presence o£ the Lord, and it. commonly re£ers to the
N'enr Testalnent b.ope of the return ·of the Ghri&to
.;. Limitations

Due to their occasional natttre, the letters of Paul contain. n0

c.omplete system of theology1 and any attelllPt to describe the Apostle • s

thought faces this problem. 2 Part of the problem o£ the dissertation

is to evaluate the .fact o-r lack of etidence on eschatological matters
in certain of the. letters. Awgulll,ents from &ilence natu.rall:y will remain

somewhat in.conclueive ...

By focusing the analySis of Pau.l1n.e escha.tology pioinlal:'il.y on

events aro'll.nd the Parousia, a 1imitation is eVident. Esoha tology genet--

ally deals with the und~rst13.n&g of heaven and h_ell, the nature of the

future life.1 the mechardca .of resurrection, and ldndJ:•ed matters. The
use oX the Parousia as the focal point of eschatological study- permits
concentration upon a more sharp~ defined body of material, and is the

method adopted by the authoJ:.

The nature of the dissertation has .not made necessary the in-

volvement of the Qmnran documents.

h. Previous Research in the Field

The problem. of Pa.uline eschatology., a~ ;outlined a.bove, was first

posed by Albert Schweitzer in. ~911. In most of th~ worl.<$ on Paul which

l. Ibid., p .. 6,3;5.
2. '"fil~ idea that (Romans) .i~ a compendium of Pauliniam1 in which the
Apostle set d.,own his dogmatic theology and ethics, that cha:ra,cter-
istic idea beloved of many a Pauline scholar pi' earlier day, at the
Yery least implie$ a great .misunderatand.ing.u Gustav Adolf Deismna.n,
S:b. PaUl; A. S:tu in Social and Reli ious Risto ,; trans.- :Lionel
R • .ll, .strac an 1iew Yor l Bod er an ugh. on; 1911), p. 2,3.
 5

have appeared since then, attention has been directed toward non-

eschatological elements.! In the Pauline biographies, eschatology has

received only cursory treatment.2 An exception to this lack of atten-

tion to eschatology is The Pauline Eschatology by Geerhardus Vos which

appeared in 1930.3 Vos presents the four stages of Charles' thought in

Chapter VII.4 He regards Charles' position as nradical and deep-cutting,"5

and he attacks developmental theories regarding Paul's thought on escha-

tology. However, his arguments show no use of Schweitzer's position as

outlined in 1911.6

Though Vos rejects the developmental position of Charles, his

position is not that of Schweitzer. Schweitzer's study of 1930,7 was an

application of radical criticism. Vos regards the developmental position

from a conservative viewpoint. Thus Vos and Schweitzer stand on opposite

sides, critically, of Charles.

1. Typical studies are: Morton Scott Enslin, The Ethics of Paul (New
York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1930)e Francis Greenwood Peabody,
The Apostle Paul and The Modern World (New York: The Macmillan Co.,
1923). Charles Harold Dodd, The Meaning of Paul for Today (New York:
Living Age Books [l92Q] 1957). John Knox, Chapters in a Life of Paul
(New York: Abingdon-Gokesbury Press, 1950)o Archibald Thomas Robert-
son, Paul and the Intellectuals (Garden City, New York: Doubleday,
Doran and Company, 1928).
2. F. Jo Foakes-Jackson, The Life of Saint Paul (New York: Boni & Live-
right, 1926). Martin Dibelius, Paul, edo Werner Georg Kummel
(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953). Arthur Darby Neck,
St. Paul (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1937). Deissmann, Op. Cit.
3. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatolo (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Berd-
mans Publishing Company, 1930 1953).
4. Ibid., P• 172.
5. Ibid.
6. Schweitzer, Paul and His Interpreters.
7. Schweitzer, The Mysticism.
 6

An exception to the indifference to Pauline eschatology may

be found in Martin Werner's The Formation of Christian Dogma,l which

makes an application of Schweitzer's thorough-going eschatology to the

early development of the primitive church. The Theology of the New

Testament by Rudolph Bultmann2 reflects a recent growing appreciation

of the importance of eschatology in Paul's theology.

The paucity of Pauline literary investigation3 serves to em-

phasize the continuing relevance of the position of R. H. Charles.

His ideas have been perpetuated by such men as J. R. Cohu,4 H. A. A.

Kennedy,S A. D. Nock,6 c. H. Dodd,7 and Francis Beare.8

Dissertations in the general area of Pauline studies have

treated only parts of the eschatological problem. ••Paul' s Doctrine

1. Martin Werner, The Formation of Christian Dogma, trans. s. G. F.

Brandon (London:·Adam and Charles Black, 1957).
2. Rudolph Bultmann, Theology of·the New Testament, trans. Kendrick
Gobel (London: S. C. M. Ptess, 1952), Vol. I.
3. Pauline study, in general, has been limited in recent years. F. c.
Burkitt wrote in 1931:· "With the decay· of the popularity of
'evangelical' doctrine, Paul has gone out of favour, and his
letters are much too little·studied by modern Englishmen." F. c.
Burkitt in'a prefatory note, Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. v. and vi.
4. J. R. Cohu, St. Paul in the Light of Modern Research (New York:
Longmans, Green and·co., 1911).
s. Henry A. s. Kennedy, St. Paul's Conception of the Last Things
(London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1904).
6~ Nock; Op~ Cit~
7. Dodd, Op. Cit •.
8. Cf. footnote 5', p. 2.
 7

of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ .. by Thomas B. Wortham,! emphasizes

the events and significance of Jesus~ resurrection and appears to re-

gard the Pauline evidence uncritically. This study is paralleled by

those of John w. Oasley's ..Paults Doctrine of the Resurrectionn,2 and

Harvey King McArthur's ..The Apostle Paul and the Resurrection of the

Wicked".3 These dissertations approach the problem of the millennia!

reign and the general resurrection. t•Paul t s Conception of the Believers

New Standing•t by Jack L. Gratz,4 and "Paul's Doctrine of the Cosmic

Christu by Robert Leland Palmer,S are two other studies which examine

Pauline doctrines outside of their eschatological significances.

The use of the principle of developmental thought as an approach

to the understanding of Paul is partially treated in "Paul's Overcoming

His Jiewish Prejudices Against Gentiles" by Leonard L. Burkhalter.6

Another study aimed more at method than doctrine is "Was Paul Consistent

in His Planning?., by Warren T. Jones.,?

1. (unpublished Ph.D. dissertationt Southern Baptist Theological

Seminary Louisville , 1938).
2. (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theological
:::SeminarY Ft. Worth , 1948).
3. (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Hartford Theological Seminary,
1941).
4. (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary Louisville , 1941).
s. (unpublished Ph.D. dissert~t~on, Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary Louisville , 19441 ~·
6. (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological
SeminarY Louisville,, 1937).
7. (unpublished Ph.D• dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary Louisville , 1937).
 8

Studies of eschatology have been primarily general surveys

which treat Paul~ s thought in passing_. These are 11

Biblical Escha-

tologytt by J. Dwight Pentecost,l and "A Survey of Eschatology" by

Clarence C. Goen.2 Another study which treats II Thessalonians in

I
passing is "The Effect of the Expectancy of Christ's Coming on Chris_,
J
l
tians in the New Testament" by James Berry Lowe11.3

Studies about Schweitzer have emphasized his concepts of

reverence for life and his theory of religious experience.4 There

have been no dissertati.o;ns on R. H. Charles since his death.

s. The Methodology of the Dissertation

The method of the dissertation is a statement and examination

in Chapters II to IV of the positions of R. H. Charles and Albert

Schweitzer on the question of the interpretation of Pauline escha-

tology. These positions will be compared in Chapter V on the basis

of their relation to developmental eschatology, eschatological chron~

ology, and the genuineness and dating of Paul's letters. The proble~s
I

will then be located and restated in a preliminary summary.

1. (unpublished Ph~D. dissertation, Southern Methodist University

Dallas , 1956)~
2. (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Southwestern Baptist Theologica~
Seminary Ft. Worth , 1956).
3. (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary Louisville , 1940).
4. Reuben P. Jeschke, '~everence for Life as an Ethical Ideal with
Special Reference to Albert Schweitzer•;;- .(unpublished Ph.D~ dis-
sertation, Columbia University, 1952), and Margery w. Chan, "A
Study of Albert Schweitzer's Theory of Religious Experience,''
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1955).
 9

In order to judge the adequacy of each position, it will be

necessary to establish critical norms regarding the Pauline corpus.

In this first class of problems are the questions of the genuineness

and dating of the letters, dealt with in Chapters VI to VIII.

The second class of problems, in Chapters IX and X, has to do

with the specific eschatological material in the Pauline corpus. An

attempt will be made to isolate this eschatological material for the

purpose of analysis under the headings of the imminent expectation of

the Parousia, the eschatological chronology, and immediate resurrec-

tion upon death.

Using the critical findings of Chapters VI through X, the

author will then evaluate the positions of Charles and Schweitzer in

Chapter XI on the basis of the problems raised in the preliminary

summary at the end of Chapter V.

 CHAPTER II

THE INTERPRETATION OF PAULINE ESCHATOLOGY BY R. H. CHARLES

1. The Background of "Developmental'' Thought

Developmental thought, as a means of interpreting Paul's writings,

found acceptance only when it had been first demonstrated that contrary

ideas existed in the letters of Paul. The original statement of inter-

nal inconsistencies in the traditionally accepted Pauline Corpus was made

by F. c. Baur who outlined his 11

two-party 11 hypothesis in 1831.1 He main-

tained that the letters of Paul could be classified in terms of their re-

lationship to the thought of the "Petrine 11 party or the "Pauline" party.

It was Baur's view that the two parties moved together, gradually coales-

cing into the Second Century Catholic church.

The many problems in this view soon caused it to be modified~.2 In

place of two parties identified with two early Christian leaders, a dicho-

tomy was established in which primitive Jewish concepts were set beside

1. The history of Baur's statement and·the reaction which immediately

followed is set forth by Schweitzer, Interpreters, p. 12ff.
2. Baur pre-supposed that primitive dogma arose o~t of the teaching
of Jesus by an organic and logical process. When critical theo-
logy divided the study of the history of dogma into departments
such as Life of Jesus, Primitive Christianity, Paulinism, etc.,
Baur's assumption was shown to be false. Paul's system of thought
was compared with Jesus' teachings and many problems emerged. It
was to Baur' s credit that he endeavored to maintain a ''synoptic"

10
 11

the Hellenistic thought world. The duality of thought in Paul, as evi-

denced by comparing the concepts of eschatology with mysticism, sancti~

fication with justification, and law with grace, convinced the majority

of nineteenth century scholars that Paul played a major part in the

Hellenizing process. This Hellenizing influence gradually displaced

the primitive Jewish elements.l

It was Auguste Sabatier who first suggested the possibility that

Paul's thought 11
developed."2 Plfeiderer in 1873 noted the difference of

the early letters with the Imprisonment Letters.3 R. H. Charles made a

detailed statement in the Jowett Lectures of 1899.4 Because of Charles'

commanding knowledge of Apocryphal literature, he was in an unusually

view of the development of the Christian faith even though his

assumptions crumbled~ Schweitzer attempted to re-establish a
synoptic view upon the principle of consistent eschatology. The
absurd results of the fragmentary or departmental study may be
seen in the casual conclusions of modern amateurs such as Ignatius
Singer, The Rival Philosophies of Jesus and Paul (London: 1919),
or Lawrence W. Neff, The Final Failure of Christianity (Atlanta:
Banner Press, Emory University, 1935).
1. "I venture·to claim to have shown that a large part of what are
sometimes called Christian doctrines, and many usages which have
prevailed and continue to prevail in the Christian church, are in
reality Greek theories and Greek usages chru~ged in fonn and colour
by the influence of primitive Christianity, but in their essence
Greek still... So wrote Edwin Hatch in the Hibbert Lectures of 1888,
The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages, cited by Peabody, qp. Cit.,
p. 148.
2. August Sabatier, L'Apotre Paul, esquisse d'une histoire de sa pensee,
(1870; 2nd ed., 1881; 3rd ed., 1897; Eng. trans. A.M. Hellier, 1891),
cited by Schweitzer, Interpreters, p. 32.
3. Otto Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, Eng. trans. E. Peters (London:
Williams and Norgate [l890] , 1891).
4. Charles, Op. Cit.
 12

good position to evaluate eschatological influences.! The developmental

position has persisted with minor modification.2

2. Definition of Developmental Thought by R. H. Charles

Charles believes that Paults ideas on eschatology were in a state

of development.

He began with an expectation of the future that he had inherited

largely from Judaism, but under the influence of great formative
Christian conceptions he pa:tted gradually from this and entered
on a process of development, in the course of which the hetero-
geneous elements were, for the most part, silently dropped.3

Charles makes the observation that these influences were Christian

conceptions.4 He does not say "Hellenic.," Thus the argument about "where""

the influences come from is avoided. It was on this point that the eschato-

1. Charles was the editor of the Oxford Edition of the Apocrypha and
Pseudipigrapha, 1913.
2. The developmental position has been restated numerous times. •ryet
while these evidences of Messianic expectation are abundant in
Paul, the deeper note of spiritual and ethical teaching is not less
audible," Peabody. Op .. Cit., p. 144. "Christianity overcame the
competing religions of the East because it Hellenized itself more
thoroughly than they." Wilamowi tz-Mollendorf, ''Die griechische
Literature des Al tertums, n Die Kul tur der Gegen'Waxt ·:. (I • . viii,
3 te Auflage, 1912), quoted by Peabody, Op. Cit., p. 135. For
other similar opinions see Foakes-Jackson, Op. Cit., p. 276; Nock,
Op. Cit .. , p. 222; Bultmann, Op .. Cit., p .. 172ff; George Holley Gil-
bert, Greek Thought in the New Testament (New York: The Macmillan
Co., 1928), Chap. III; J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul's
Religion (New York: The Macmillan Co .. , 1921), p. 255ff. Though
Machen is attempting a defense of the unique independence of Paul's
thought, he finds it impossible to rule out the influence of Hellen-
istic pagan religion.
3. Charles, Op .. Cit.,, p. 437.
4. ~·
 13

logical debate turned in the last half of the nineteenth century.l

He proceeds to outline the four stages which are: (1) I and II

Thessalonians; (2) I Corinthians: (3) II Corinthians and Romans; (4)

Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians.2 Charles is careful to note that

there is not perfect consistency in these stagese This should not be ex-

pected because the Apostle's thought was in transition and did not reach

finality in his writings.3

1. For a discussion of this debate see Schweitzer, Interpreters,

p. 63ff. The first break-through in the study of Greek influence.
on Paul was the definition of "Hellenistic" and the understanding
that Jewish-Hellenisrii. is different from "Greek" thought. The end
result of this study, according to Schweitzer, was the demonstra-
tion that Greek thought had no influence on Paul. The arguments'
against this conclusion were generally put forward by Pfleiderer,
Teichmann, Holztmann, and others of the TUbingen school, (see dia-
gram, appendix C, ,pe:,l89). Though the issue of the influence of
Hellenism is outside the subject of this dissertation, it should
be noted that some scholars have not entirely agreed with Schweitr
zer's conclusion of 1911. See Dodd, Meaning of Paul, pp. 19,21f,87;
and Arthur Cushman McGiffert,·A History of Christian Thought (New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932), Vol .. I, Chap. II .. For a con-
servative conclusion which supports Schweitzer, see Machen, Op. Cit.,
pp. 211-290, especially·p. 271. See also Enslin, Op. Ci~., pp. 17-44.
Or note Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to·Paul, trans. William F. Stine-
spring (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1944)~ p. 464. "Hence it. was
inevitable that Paul should have been unconsciously influenced byi
Greek pagan teachings."
2. J~ R. Cohu in his Saint Paul in the Light of Modern Research, or-
ganizes Chap. XXIV on Pauline Eschatology in exactly the same way
as Charles, complete with the four stages. In spite of this simi-
larity, Cohu does not acknowledge a dependence on Charles in any
way, nor does he note him at any point in the discussion.
3. Charles, Op. Cit., p. 437.
 14

3. The First Period - I and II Thessalonians

Charles groups I and II Thessalonians together to make up his

beginning period of Paul's thought. He is aware that these two letters

offer conflicting views on the Parousia. He feels that despite some pro-

blems they can be considered together because some time elapses between

the composition of the epistles, and some of the eschatological views of

the Apostle "were in a constant state of flux."l Charles does not raise

the issue of the genuineness of II Thessalonians.

The beginning period covers three general topics: The first is

the Apostasy and the Antichrist. Here Charles draws .heavily on II Thessa-

lonians.2 The end of the wo.x:ld is built upon the "direct intervention of
God when evil has reached-its climax.tt3 The day of the. Lord depends upon

the initial coming of the man of lawlessness who is the son of perdition.4
He is the consummation of evil now present,5 and his coming will be accom-

panied with "pretended signs.and wonders ... 6 The son of perdition claims

himself to be God. 7 Charles suggests that he is the.; ii.ega:ticin. o£:cnrist as

we11.8 The Lord Jesus slays the son of perdition with the breath of his

lo Ibid., P• 438.
2. ~references to this topic are from II Thess. This would
strengthen the position ·Of those who find II Thess. out of
ha.x:mony with Paul's authentic lette.x:s, ~ ... g .. , Schweitzer.
3. Charles, Op. Cit., :P• 438.
4. II Thess. 2:3.
5. II Thess. 2:7.o
6. II Thess. 2:9.
7. II Thess. 2:4.
8. Charles, Op• Cit., P• 439.
 lS

mouth.l

The Antichrist is not to be equated with Rome for Charles be-

lieves that II Thessalonians 2:6 and 7, show that it is Rome which re-

strains the son of perditiom.2 Charles concludes this section by noting

that the concept of the son of perdition does not reappear in Paul's

later teachings.3
The second topic is that of the Parousia and Final Judgment. Paul

expects the Parousia of Christ in his own lifetime.4 It will follow im=

mediately after the son of perdition and will be preceded by certain

signs.5 Despite these signs, the "day of the final.catastrophe is uncer-

tain.u6

The Parousia itself will be marked by various events sucb as cry

of c6mmand, the archangel's call and sound of the trumpet of God.7 Judg-
ment also takes place• The Antichrist of II Thessalonians is annihilated.8

The godless, careless, and actively hostile are destroyed.9 Here Charles

suggests that Paul thinks within the narrow Jewish eschatological into!-

1. II Thess. 2:8.
2. ttThe power of Rome had repeatedly protected the Apostle from the
attacks of the Jews".(Acts 18:12-16, 19:35-41, 22:22-20). See
especially Romans 13:1. Charles, Op. Cit., p. 440. Cohu holds
the same opinion, Qp• Cit., P• 321.
3. Charles, Op. Cit., p .. 440.
4. I Thess. 2:15, 3:13, 4:15, 5:23.
s. II Thess. 2:1-4.
6. Charles, Op• Cit., P• 442. I Thess. 5:1-3.
7. I Thess. 5:16.
8. II Thess. 2:8.
9. I Thess. 1:9, 4:6 •. II Thess. 1:8.
 16

erance. 1

The reason for PaulTs eschatological statement in I Thessalonians

is occasioned by a concern of the church for those who were dying prior

to the Parousia. Paul solves this problem by having the dead rise first

and then nwe who are alive."2 It is possible that the risen saints are

those who accompany the Lord, but it may be angels~3 The meru1ing hinges

on the interpretation
. ,,
of a.yro£ , either as "faithfultt or ttangels. tr4
Charles believes that angels are but the agents of divine judgment,S

and hence the resurrection of the faithful should occur at such a time

that they can accompany Christ at his advent.6 In I Thessalonians 4:16

1. Charles, Op. Cit., p9 443. Cohu tends to restate Charles'

opinions with greater force and less discretion. ..In this
first stage we have the traditional Jewish apocalypse in
all its naked rigidity and materialism.u Cohu, Op. Cit.,
p. 320. On the same page is this opinion: "Paul is far
more modern than we are while we out-Jew Paul on his most
Jewish side and ignore his true revelation ...
2. I Thess. 4:16, 17e
3. I Thess. 3:13.
4. Note the detailed discussion of this matter by James Everett
Frame, ttThessalonianstt, International Critical Commentary
(New York: Charles Scribner~s Sons, 1912), p. 139. Favor-
ing "angels" is the intimate connection with the Parousia as
in I Thess. 4:16. General N. T .. usage favors "saints" (Col ..
1:26), but it is difficult to conceive of the departed and
living saints arriving with the Lord at his Parousia unless
the scene is placed later, perhaps at a judgment. In terms
of I Thess. 3:13, it seems probable that Cf.ycoc does not re-
fer to the dead in Christ who rise first in I Thess. 4:16.
s. II Thess. 1:17. Charles, Op. Cit., p. 444 ..
6. I Thess. 3:13.
 17

the resurrection occurs after the advent. Charles concludes that the

language is ,.vague" and "the teaching on this p0int is not quite clear. ul

Following the resurrection, those in Christ will meet him in the

air and remain with bim.2 A heavenly life follows in which the blessed

share in the glory of God and Christ.3

4. The Second Period - I Corinthians

The second stage of development .is found in I Corinthians.4 It

is in harmony with the Thessalonian Letters in many respects but with

the important exception of the omission of all reference to the Anti-

christ.S

Severe trials precede the Parousia which suggest that because of

the short time left, the believer ought to .give up the "legitimate joysn

of this life.6 The coming of the Lord includes a manifestation of his

glory.? Judgment is immediately connected.8 There is no time interval

between the Parousia and this judgment.

Charles acknowledges a contrary interpretation drawn from

15:22-24, in which the powe:bL:hpstH:e to God are stripped of their in-

fluence by the time of the Parousia.9 The Parousia is accompanied by

1. Charles, Op. Cit,., P• 443.

2. I Thess. 4:14.
3. I Thess. 2:12; II Thess. 2:14.
4. Cohu narrows this stage to I Cor. 15, Qp. Cit., p. 322.
s. Charles, Op. Cit., P• 445.
6. I Cor. 7:29.
7. I Cor. 1:7.
8. I Cor. 4:4,5.
9. Charles, qp. Cit., P• 447.
 18

the final judgment and resurrection which bring about the new age. Some

scholars, leaning heavily on verse 25, "for he must reign until he has

put all his enemies under his feet," have concluded that . this passage re-

fers to the millennium.! According to Charles, this is impossible for the

Parousia follows the period of Christ•s domination.2

The resurrection of man is connected directly with Christ. A com-

parison is made between Adam_ and Christ. Those in fellowship with Adam

died; those in fellowship with Christ shall be made alive.3 The rela-
tionship is ethical and spiritual, not natural or genealogical.4

The nature of the resurrection body precludes the possibility of

the resurrection of the dead.5 The nature of the resurrection body is

described in 42-44 in a series.of comparisons.6 It is clear that Paul's

concept of resurrection involves the successive.expression of personality

on a higher plane or in a different sphere.7 Hence, such expression

necessarily involves those who are in Christ. Without this relationship

there is no resurrection at all.

·The time of_ the resurrection follows Jewish tradition, namely

after the Parousia.8 However, Charles notes that the doctrine of the

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 66. Cf. below Chap. '-X, P• 148.

2. Charles, Op. Cit., .p. 448. Supporting Charles is Kennedy,
Op• Cit., pp. 322-324. A complete analysis of the issue
with support for Charles is found in.Vos, Qp. Cit., p. 235ff.
3. I Cor. 15:22.
4. Charles, Op• Cit., p. 449.
5. I Cor. 15:35-39.
6. Charles, Op. Cit., P• 450.
7. ~·, P• 452.
B. I Cor. 15:51,52.
 19

risen body has no organic connection wi.th the traditional Jewish view.

Charles concludes that thi.s doctrine of the risen body points to a re-

surrection occurring at the time of the death of the believer, and un-

connected with any future external event.l Paul is not fully conscious

of this implication in the second stage but brings it to full view in

the third stage.

The final consummation in I Corinthians is the overcoming of

death which follows on the resurrection of the.righteous.2 The resur-

recti.on of the righteous precedes.the transfiguration of the righteous

living in the manner of I Thessalonians.3 The perfected ~ngdam of God

ti?-en begins in a new and glorious world•. God is nall.in a11."4 The hos-
tile powers have been reduced to unwilling obedience.5

5. The Thi:t4 Perd,.ocL.A::n C.0'i'..iri.thians and Romans

The third period of Paul's eschatological thought is marked by

a change of view as to the time of resurrection. In addition, Paul en-

larges his conception of the universal spread and comprehensiveness of

Christ's Kingdom on earth.6 This third period is represented by two

letters, II Corinthians and Romans.

1. Charles, Op. Cit., p. 453. See below, Chap. :X, p. 157.

2. Ibid., P• 454.
3. !IGOr. 15:53.
4. I Cor. 15:28.
s. I Cor. 15:28.
6. Charles, Op• Cit., p. 455.
 20

Charles notes that Paul's previous views are under the influence

of Jewish inherited beliefs which look forward to a great apostasy and

revelation of the man of sin.l The Parousia follows upon the culmina-

tion of evil. In Romans 11, Paul proclaims the progressive transforma-

tion of mankind which culminates in the Parousia.2 The temporary re-

jection of the Jews simply brings about the conversion of the Gentiles,

and when the Gentiles are all saved, then Israel shall be saved.3 The

rise of evil power apparently is not an important matter prior to the

Parousia as in II Thessalonians.

The Parousia is close at hand, and all men must appear before

the judgment seat.4 Both Christ and God are judge.5 Romans emphasizes

works as the basis of judgment,6 for works is where faith operates.

How can a judgment operate when resurrection follows immediately

after death? Charles suggests that the individual resurrection is but a

partial fulfillment of blessedness. The final fulfillment comes when the

whole community has reached perfection.7 Hence, the initial individual

resurrection is sort of a "waiting period.. until the other matters work·

out.

In II Corinthians 5:1-8~ Paul clearly presents the new view that

1. Ibid.
2~ Romans 11:25.
3~ Romans 13:11~ 12.
4~ Romans 14:10.
5~ II Cor. 5:10, Romans 14:10.
6. Romans 2:6, but note "1:17~
7. Charles, 0)2 .. Cit., p. 457.
 21

resurrection follews immediately after death.l Paul wishes that he might

be alive when the Lord comes, but in any event, upen death ene comes into

the possession ef an immortal body in heaven. Likewise, at the Parousia

.
there is a full manifestatisn of glory already psssessedby the faithfu1.2
\

' .l?aul no longer speaks ef __ th~ resu~rect.ion sf the. faithful to glory at the

Parousia but rather speaks of manifestation of glory already possessed.

The phD.ase "spiritual resurrection" of the faithful becomes an equivalent

phrase for "manifestation of glorytr in the.later epistles.

6. The Fourth Period·~-~ P.li.i:iippialfrs., ::·c0io·S.Sians and Ephesians

The final stage of Pau~'s eschatological thought deals with the

cosmic significance of Christ. These ideas are found in Philippians,

Colossians, and Ephesians. In the earlier epistles the creation of the

world was effected through the Son,3 while the consummation was to be re-

alized in the Father. In these late epistles, the Son is "the principle

of cohesion and unity whereby it is a cosmos and not a chaos."4

The JCingdom of Christ is thus of everlasting duration and is not

ended by the Kingdom. of God who is "all in a.ll..'' All mediating functions

of the Kingdom of Christ are ended.5 The new goal of the universe is the

1. Ibid., P• 458.
2. ibid., P• 460. ·
3. IC'Or. 8:6.
4. Charles, qp. Cit., p.· 461. Col. 1:.16,17.
s. Charles believes I Cor. 15:~4-28 describes a kingdom of.
everlasting duration.
 22

Kingdom of Christ and God.l Charles elaborates this idea with several

references to I and II Timothy in which the new kingdom is called the

"Kingdom of jesus Christ."2

Along with the eternal Kingdom of Christ comes the complete

spiritual power of Christ over all. Christ is the consummation of all

powers.3 It is not clear if Christ's reconciling power embraces even the

angels of Satane However, at the end there is no room in the universe

for a wicked eeing, either human or angelic. Thus every being is finally

redeemed or destroyed. Charles suggests that this final punishment is not

external but subjective and self-executed.4

7. Summary

Certain main features distinguish each stage of Paults eschatol-

ogical thought, according to Ch.arles.• s In the first section, Charles de-

pends considerably upon Il Thessalonians, for the ttman of si:n" figures

prominently in the culmination of evil preceding the Parousiae ~he Parou-

sia is accompanied by the resurrection of the righteous into an internal

3lbode. There is no temporary messianic kingdOm.~

1. Ephesians 5:5.
2. Charles, Op. Cit., P• 462.
3~ Phil. 2:10.
4. Charles, Qp. Cit., P• 463.
s. See Cohu's parallel opinion: '~e can trace a clear development
in his eschatology from the.crude, popular, traditional views
of Thessalonians to the far more spiritual and quite modern
teaching of II Corinthians, Philippians and Colossians." Cohu,
Op• Cit., P• 318.
 23

The second stage of Paul's thought is quite similar to the first

stage except that all references to the "man of sin" are missing. The

suggestion of increase of evil prior to the Parousia is still present in

the "severe trials.,. Judgment f.ollows after the Parousia and Christ is

the judge. The new doctrine of the resurrection body clearly applies to

the righteous only, thus prohibiting any resurrection of the unrighteous,

even for judgment. Charles concludes that there is the implication that

resurrection follows immediately after death. This implication is in

conflict with I Corinthians 15:51,52, which places resurrection at the

Parousia, in the manner of the first stage. In addition, there is the

strong suggestion of a millennia! kingdom in I Corinthians 15:22-26,

which Charles depreciates. Nevertheless, he also notes that the Kingdom

of God replaces the Kingdom of Christ at the end of the world.

The third stage involves a shift of mood of the events preceding

the Parousia. Instead of evil culminating in the Parousia, the conver-

sion of the world takes place. It is a universal spread of the Gospel.

Despite the implications of this new idea, judgment still follows the

Parousia, a judgment based on works as the expression of faith. In the

third stage, Paul introduces the new doctrine of resurrection immediately

after death for the righteous only, II Corinthians 5:1-8. This doctrine

clearly states what was only hinted at in the preceding stage.. The ob-

vious difficulties raised by this view, when compared with a Parousia

resurrection, are harmonized by another doctrine of "partial" resurrec-

 ~,I ,

24

tion• The righteous are resurrected at death but are ••revealed" or

"glorified" at the Parousia.

The final stage of Paul's eschatological thought is marked by a

sharp departure from the issues considered above. Christ is the creator

and goal of the universe. The Kingdom of Christ is not equated completely

with the Kingdom of God and all sense of temporary millennialism, as sug...

~ested in the second stage, is gone.. Furthermore, Christ redeems all

beings since he created all beings. It is not entirely clear whether

this refers to Satanic beings for a judgment of some kind still remains.

Charles believes that such a judgment is subjective and self-executed and

"
outside of the earlier Jewish concept of external punishment.

It is clear that Charles believes that Paul introduces several im-

portant new ideas and that his thought shifts sharply to accommodate the

declining eschatological hope. The main ide~s which are lost are: (1)

The Antichrist. (2) Culmination of evil. (3) Immediate ·coming of the

Parousia. (4) Judgment of external punishment at the Parousia. (5) Mil-

lennial Kingdom of Christ.

The main ideas which are introduced aret (1) The resurrection

body. (2) The resurrection immediately following death. (3) Kingdom

of Christ identified with Kingdom of God. (4) Subjective judgment.

(5) Conversion of the world preceding Parousia.

 CHAPTER III

SCHWEITZER•s HISTORICAL SURVEY OF SCHOLARSHIP ON PAUL

IN PAUL AND HIS INTERPRETERS

1. Background

On September 19, 1911, Albert Schweitzer finished the Preface to

Paul and His Interpreters. He conceived of his study as a "continuation

of my history of the critical study of the life of Jesus which appeared

in 1906 under the title Von Reimarus zu Wredeo~·l Schweitzer felt that

his new approach to the life of Jesus, that of "thorough-going eschat-

ology,u demanded a continuing application to the history of the develo~

ment of Christian thought.2 Such an application must necessarily move

from Jesus to Paul and.finally to the ground of the history of dogma.

Schweitzer was aware that the history of dogma began with the second cen-

tury, specifically with Ignatius and Justin .. 3 He noted that Harnack:!s

History of Dogma, starts with "solid mason work'' only in the Greek perioo.•4.

1.. Schweitzer, Interpreters, p. v.

2. Ibid., p. ix.
3. Ibid., .P• vi.
4. ~f Harnack, Outlines of the History of Do~, trans. Edwin
Knox Mitchell (Beacon Hill, Boston: Beacon Press [189~, 1947).

25
 26

"What precedes is not placed on firm foundations Put only supported on

It was Schweitzer's intention in Pa~l and His Interpreters to "de-

fine the position of Paul."2 He was concerned with the place that Paul

occupied in the process of Hellenization. Perhaps Paul was the first

stage in this process, but on the other hand, his thought could be con-

ceived of as purely Jewish-eschatologica1 •. Usually the former was taken

for granted, for Paul's thought did not seem easily explainable. Also,

if Paul were thoroughly in the Jewish framework, the problem of explain-

ing the Hellenization of the Gospel would be more acute. Schweitzer ori-

ginally conceived of Paul andBis Interpreters as the opening chapter in

his major work of Pau-l;; but, as the research expanded, he decided to pre-

sent the book as a background study.

2. Methodology

Schweitzer's method wa$ that of his previous study of the life of

Jesus. He attempted to lay before the reader an historica1 survey of

scholarship on Paul to "promote the knowledge of the past periods of the

science.••3 However, Schweitzer did not develop his new view of Paul by

attaching his statement to the historical survey; rather, he proposed to

develop and defend his view in a separate work entitled Die Mystik des

1. Schweitzer, Interereters, p. vi.

2. Ibid., P• x.
3. Ibid., P• xi.
 27

•Apostels Paulus which was to appear at an "early date ."1 This early date

turned out to be 1930, though the first draft was completed in 1906.

Schweitzer further limited his survey to books in German for he

f ou~d that his limite~ acquai:r;ttance with the English language nraised a

barrier."2 The one exception was that of The Hibbert Lectures of 1888

by Edwin Hatch entitled The Influences of Greek Ideas and Usages Upon

the Christian Church.3 Several works in French were also cited.4

3. The Beginning of Historical Method

The first chapter of Schweitzer's historical survey traces the be-

ginning of the historical method through Semler, Schleiermacher, Eichhorn,

and Usteri. It was a time of definition of critical investigation. The

Reformation had a dogmatic interest in Paul and until the opening of the

nineteenth century, no real critical progress had been made~ At the con-

elusion of this first period, about 1820, literary criticism had reached

the point where the genuineness of the Pastorals was doubted.5 Semler had

noted the confusion within II Corinthians and had suggested that Romans

15 and 16 were not part of the original epistle.6

Among the important conclusions reached in this opening period was

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism. See above, footnote 4, p. 2.

2. Ibid., p .. xi.
3. ~., pp. 25, 82. Hatch was trm1slated into German in 1892 by
Erwin Preuschen.
4. Ibid., pp. 22, 23, 152, 179.
5. SChleiermacher was primarily responsible for this about 1807.
6. Schweitzer, Interpreters, P• 6.
 28

the presence of two systems of thought within the writings of Paul.

First, there was a juridical system based on the idea of justification,

and second, an ethical system, dominated by the idea of sanctification.

However, in this early period the relationshi~ of these two ideas was

not defined.

In 1831, Ferdinand Gpr.is.ti-an Baur "ga~e to the. study of Paulinism

a new direction!' with the publication of an article entitled "The Christ

Party .in the Corinthian. Church. nl He·::suggested that Paul "developed his

doctrine in complete opposition to that of the primitive Christian com-

munity, and that only when this is recognized can we expect to grasp the

peculiar character of the Pauline ideas."? There were two parties in the

early church, a Petrine Party oriented around the conservative Jewish

teachings of the original Apostles, and a Pauline Party which held diver-

gent views, especially on the subject of the redemption wrought by Ghrist.

These two parties gradually coalesced into the single united church under

the pressure of ..
Gnos~icism.3

Baur thus opened the way for a developmental understanding of

Pauline thought. ·He suggested that any letter of Paul~,,, may be evaluated

1. Ferdinand Christian Baur "Die Christuspartei in der korinthischen

Gemeinde," Tiibingen Zeitschrift f~r Theolog~, 1831, cited by
Schweitzer, InterEreters, P• 12.
2. Schweitzer, InterQreters, P• 12.
3. Baur was the foremost scholar of the TUbingen School of New Testa-
ment criticism from about 1831 to 1860. The influence of Hegelian
dialetic on Baur's "two party" system is. obvious., Hegel died in
1831 at the height of his fame, the very year in which Bau.r pub-
lished his theory. Though Hegel•s major professorship was at the
University of Berlin (1818-1831), it is noteworthy that he was first
educated at Tubingen.
 29

in terms of its relationship to the two parties. When this is done it may

be properly placed in the correct period.

His first apl'licationof this method of literary criticism, which

he called "positive criticism,n was to the Pastorals, which he judged to

be spurious, for they show evidence of the c.ombat against. Second Century

Gnosticism. A continuing .application of npositive criticism't led Baur to

declare only Galatians, Romans and I and II Corinthians as the four cer-

tainly genuine Pauline letters.. His criticism of Colossians and Ephesians

rested on the nsof:1;ening" of the Gentile principles and peculiarities in

order that the two parti~s might. coalesce.! Bau.r did not emphasize es-

chatology and the TUbingen School practically eliminated any significant

consideration of Paul's thought on this matter.

Albrecht Ritschl in 1857 provided a cogent criticism of Baur.2

He noted that in Paul • ~ thought there are some points which are in com-

mon with jewish Christianity, but Ritschl was not able· to say exactly

what.constituted the common element. He did note that the expectation

of the Parousia is a very important common element but he never really

"took it seriously.u3

This second period concludes with Baur's final statement published

posthumously in 1864.4 Schweitzer notes that Baur has re~evaluated the

1. Schweitzer, Inter_Qreters, p. 15.

2. Ibid., P• 17.
3. Ibid., P• 18. .
4. 'I'bld.. , P• 20. Ferdinand. Friedrich Baur published his father's
'WOrks under the title Vorlesungenuber.neutest.amentliche Theologi~
in 1864.
 30

importance of eschatology and has arrived at a new conception of its

importance.! Though eschatology now received more attention, Baur's sys-

tem of Paul's thought is still constructed speculatively. This specu-

lative approach soon becomes more difficult as progress is made in the

exact apprehension of Paul's ideas.

4. The 'rTwo Thought"' Concept

As the nineteenth century moved on, the definition of the genuine

Pauline letters was sharpened.2 Philippians and I Thessalonians were re-

habilitated from Baur's rejection. Holtzmann felt that Colossians was

based upon a genuine letter which had been worked over by a later hand.

The sharpening of these definitions served to point up to theologians the

radical shift in Paul's thought which occurred in Ephesians and Colossians

as compared to the earlier letters. It was felt that these ~~o letters

constituted a separate system of doctrine and consequently they were usually

considered apart from the other letters.

A consideration of Paul's anthropology in 1872 by Herman Ludemann

opened the way for further elaboration- of Pal.ll's development~Vthaug1it.3

LUdemann discovered two conceptions of man's nature. The first was a

broad conception of the flesh in which sin came about by free will.4 Re-

1. Ibid., P• 21.
2. ~ensuing discussion is graphically summarized in Appendix C,
P•189t which traces 19th century opinions on Pauline study.·
3. Schweitzer, Interpreters, P•; 28.
4. ~·• P• 29.
 31

demption consisted of a judgment and acquittal by God through. an act of

faith by man •. LUdemann called this set of ideas "juridical-subjective."

The death of Jesus was the important point of this system.

Ludemann's other system was ttethico-dualistic." It conceived of

flesh in a more narrow way with sin proceeding from it as a natural neces-

sity. Redemption came about only with the "abolitionof the flesh.nl The

redemptive act was baptism and the whole system rested particularly on the

resurrection of Christ.

These two ideas, existing side by side in Paul's thought, posed

problems. LUdemann believed that the ttethico-dualistictt system tended

to push aside the "juridical-subjective" system.~ As Paul's thought de-

veloped, his "'real .. view tended to assert itself. Thus Galatians empha~

sized Christ's suffering and death and righteousness by faith. Later on

in Romans 5, Paul's. thought veered toward the. ethico-d.ualistic. LUdemann

concluded that Paul "is carried in the direction of Hellenism.u3

Ludemann's theory was popular and was held in slightly modified

form by several scholars, especially Pfleiderer.4 It was Auguste Sabatier

who first attempted to prove the existence of different phases of thought

in the life of Paul.s He noted an initial.simple doctrine conditioned by

Paul's rabbinic training and conversion which was found in Galatians,

~··
1. P• 29.
2. ~-, P• 30.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., Po 31. See above, Chap. II, P• 11.
s. See above, Chap. II, Po 11.
~··
p. 32 ..
 32

Corinthians, and Romans.. In the Imprisonment Letters, Paul advanced to

a Gnostic speculative system.

Schweitzer observes that the basic problem in all of this work is

that the scholars of the post-Baur period all grouped Paul's thought un-

der dogmatic loci which prevented them from arriving at any essential

unity of comprehension.! The description of Paul's thought was very de-

tailed but t.hey failed 'to grasp the paradoxes and contradictions., For

example, they did not ·[email protected] whether the law was abolished by the death

of Jesus or by his resurrection•2 Underlying everything, however, was a

failure to grasp the notion that Paul's utterances.may have rested upon

a pre-supposition. Schweitzer thus regards the attempts to harmonize the

various contradictions as an admission of defeat.. The need for develoP-

mental theory may only have revealed the failure to understand the pre-

supposition.3

s. External Relationships

The next logical step in Pauline study was to determine the re-

lationship of Paul to Greek thought, primitive Christianity, Judaism,

and the milieu of his time. The conclusions of this line of study would

test the theories which had been spun by Ludemann, Pfleiderer, and the

others. Schweitzer notes that this comparative study had been delayed

1. Ibid., P• 35.
2. Ibid., P• 37.
3. Ibid., p. 38.
 33

because the scholars of the middle nineteenth century all assumed that

Paul's system of doctrine was, in the main, a purely personal creation.!

The comparison of Paul with Synoptic tradition.was done most skill-

fully by Ritschl, who reduced the difference between Paulinism and primi-

tive Christianity to a minimum.2 He believed that Jesus and Paul, at bot-

tom, taught the same thing.3 The question remained why Paul did not quote

the sayings of Jesus and thus shelter himself behind their authority. This

confusion was possible because primitive Christianity was still regarded as

essentially identical to the teachings of Jesus •. Paul belonged to primi-

tive Christianity and Ritschl's effort to reduce the differences showed his

failure to place Paul in his proper position. For Ritschl, Paul was still

an independent phenomenon.

Another result of the study of relationships was the unco'Vering of

the fact that Paul did not attach himself to Old Testament ideas. He was

rather a "child of late Judaism."

The claims of late Judaism on Paul were therefore taken to be dis-

charged. when his rabbinic dialetic and his exegesis, and to a cer-
tain extent his eschatology also, had been asco:ribed to it.5

Paul's eschatology was related to Rabbinism as a convenient way of explain-

ing some of the weird problems which presented themselves.

1. Ibid., P• 40.
2. ~., P• 41.
43.
~··
3. P•
4. Ibid., P• 45.
52.
~--
5. P•
 34

Characteristic of this period is the interpret"-tion of Pauline

eschatology by the developmental method. Paul has a "simple" eschat-

ology in I Thessalonians superceded by the more complicated view of

Corinthians. Schweitzer notes that the loci system of presenting Paul's

doctrine still prevented anyone from trying a new path in Pauline inter-

pretation,l

otto Everling in 1888 presented a comprehensive picture of Paul's

thought on angelology and demonology.2 Angels played a prominent part at

the giving of the law; Demons were the power behind the heathen gods.

Christ's death and resurrection abolished all evil powe~ and believers

in Christ were liberated from their sway. Legalism was the corruption

of the Gospel by angelic powers. Everling's conclusions pointed the way

for a reappraisal of ·Paul's concept of redemption. Redemption was'.

a deliverance from the powers which have their abode between

heaven and earth. It is therefore essentially a future good,
dependent on a cosmic event of universal scope.B?
Richard Kabisch's.Die Eschatologie des Paulus in 1893 was the first
to clearly point out and desc~be the eschatological. essence of Paul's
thought.4 He saw the Apostle's views about the future world expressed in
disconnected fragments throughout the text. Paul's thought on eschato•

logy did not develop; rather, the Apostle drew on it whenever he wished

just "as easily as an educated European uses the multiplication table.n5

1. ~., P• 54.
2. lli.!!·' P• 56.
3. ~., P• 57.
4. ~., P• 58.
5. ~., p .. 61.
 35

Kabisch pictured ~aul as ..

~hrilled with the eager desire fer 'life; shaken with the dread
fl.f destructi•n. His ·faith~ hope, and fear all revolve about
one center - the abelitien. of corruption and the bestowal of
incorruptien.1
Kabisch attempted to explain the Pauline doctrine of the Spirit purely on

the ground of the late Jewish metaphysic. In this he did not succeed,

partly because he failed to give a clear and simple picture of the order

and relation of the final event pre-supposed in the letters. However,

Kabisch did succeed in a new fDrmulation of Paul's thought and had sue~

cessfully avoided breaking up the Apostle's doctrine into·!!£!·

The relationship of Paul's thought to Greek ideas was next inves-

tigated. In this discussion there was a confusion between Jewish Hellen-

ism and Greek thoughte Scholars were continually. confusing the two ideas

because the exact definition of Hellenism had heretofore been blurredo

The issue in Pauline study was whether or not Paul received any influence

from Greek thought apart from Jewish Hellenism.

From the time of Baur onward, most scholars assumed that Greek

thought influenced Paul and none of them denied.the influence of Jewish

Hellenism on Pau1.2 These assumptions.were rarely supported with any re-

search into .Greek thought. The .p.oint at. which the principle was first

applied was in II Corinthians 5:1ff.. Here Pfleiderer considered the

Apostle's thought to depart from the Bharisaic mold. under the pressure of

1. Ibid., P• 59.
2. Ibid., P• 65.
 36

Alexandrian Platoriism.l Paul increasingly put his thaught of the Parousia

in a spiritual ferme Thus in I Thessalenians, Paul still conceived ef the

resurrectien in physical terms suchas were shared by the primitive Chris-

tian community. In I Carinthians 15, the Greek ideas were observable and

in II Corinthians and Philippians they became dominant.2 Pfleiderer thus

i
explained the reason for the developing thaught of Paul, namely, Platonic

irtfluence.

Schweitzer raises two strong abjectians to Pfleiderer's pesition.

First is the problem ef twa inconsistent pasitions, side by side in the

mind of Paul. Pfleiderer .saw no problem here, but Schweitzer considers

this condition impossible~3 Second, Pfleiderer assumed that Greek spirit-

ualizing future hape displaced the. Jewish Pharisaic hGlpe.. But Schweitzer

continues ta see them side by side, even in the final period.4

Teichmann's overstatement brought the whale idea of Hellenization

into disrepute and, Schweitzer concludes, w.ith Kabisch, that "A Helleniza-

tion of the eschatolegy is quite impossible te preve."S

Another impertant relationship was.c1arified about this time. If

Paul introduced Greek thought into the primitive Gospel, then the later

Greek theology would certainly look to Paul as .its spir.itual father. A

1. ~., P• 70.
2. Ibid., P• 71.
3. Ibi'd. t p. 12.
4. Ibid., p. 73.
s. Ibid., pp. 74, 76. Though Kabisch reached this conclusion in
1893, English schalarship has not generally.followed this opinion,
as has been shown above (Chap. II, P• 13).

. --~--- --- -- ----------~.- ·--.-=----~- --

 37

comparison of Justin and Paul indicated that there was no community of

thought between them. Harnack made this clear in his Dogmengeschichte

of 1885.1 The history of dogma began after Paul, not with Paul. Edwin

Hatch arrived at the same conclusion.2

Thus it was not Paul that recast the Gospel in the molds of Greek

thought. Rather, it was the Greek popular mind, as represented in the

Gentile church, which Hellenized the Gospel for itself. After a lengthy

analysis, Schweitzer concludes that Paulinism and Greek thought have

••nothing, absolutely nothing, in common. "3

6. H. J• Holtzmann

Heinrich Holtzmann~s Lehrbuch_der Neutestamentlichen Theologie,

1897, followed the !2£! method. Holtzmann took Paul's objective state-

ments, and, in order to interpret them, made some .subjective.4 He used

the Damacus experience as a source of theoretic knowledge which thus re-

moved the obligation of rendering an account to philesephic thought.S

It is clear that Holtzmann stood within the Baur tradition. Further-

more, he followed Pfleiderer in admitting a.cemprehensive influence of

Greek ideas upon Pau1.6 Holtzmann's treatment of eschatology was hesi-

1. ~., P• 81.
2. ~., P• 82.

~·· P•
3. 99.
4. !lli•t P• 106.
s. ~-
6. ~., P• 109~
 38

tant and thoroughly inadequatee He rejected with distaste Kabisch's

In summary, Holtzmaqn attempted to bring together Pfleiderer,

Holsten, and Harnack. From Pfleiderer he took the view of wide-reaching

Greek influence on Paulinism. From Holsten he took the theory that this

system had its birth in the Damascus road experiencee But though these

two views can be reconciled, Boltzmann could never bring into harmony

Harnack's position that Paulinism had no part in the formation of early

Greek theology. If Paulinism was Greek, how is it conceivable that the

Greeks should not have recognized and understood it? Thus Holtzmann's

work breaks down. Inasmuch as Boltzmann adopts the "developmental

thought" idea about Paul from Pfleiderer, Schweitzer regards ..develop-

mental thought" as inadequate and useless as a base for further study.

7. The Radical Dutch School

It was Bruno Bauer, in 1850, who led the way in the radical

criticism of the Pauline corpus.2 He declared all af Paul's letters

spurious.. Though his criticism was dismissed because of its careless-

ness and obvious problems, the "radical Dutch school" under Pierson,

Loman, Steck, and van Manen revived Bauer's position about 1880 and

1. Ibid., p. 108. Boltzmann's distaste for Kabisch is matched by

SC'iiWeitzer's distaste for Boltzmann .. "0ne therefore looks in
vain in his work for a fundamental statement and solution for
the problems, n ~-' p.. 107 0

,-
2. _Ibid .. , P• 120.
 39

pressed on with destructive criticism. Part Gf their argument was built

upon the internal t>roblems of Paul's writings,. Illogical transitions•

inconsistencies, and the impression of disconnectedness suggested to them

a patch-work literary effort of the Gnostic period in the second century.

Perhaps Paul's .. letters" were created by the Marcion School itself.l

The primary assumption of the radical Dutch critics was that

Paulinism signifies the Hellenization of the Gospel. In this they were

at one with the TUbingen School and Schweitzer concludes that if either

position must perish, the other would go down with it.2 The emphasis of

the Greek element in Paul's thought thus drew the two positions together.

The consideration of the time required for a transition of the Gospel from

Jewish to Greek thought, forced the radical critics into pushing the dating

of Paul's letters down into the second century. Whenever the TUbingen cri-

tics considered the time question, they, too, were forced into speculative

thought regarding dating and Gnostic influences and thus joined the radical

Dutch critics.

Steck believed that Paul was the starting point of the theology

which reached its development in the second century letters a~tributed to

the Apost1e.3 The question then became one of determining the interpola-

t:i.ons and reactions which had taken place on primitive authentic Pauline

letters. This criticism used as its method either style or content.

1. Ibid., P• 125.
2. Ibid., Po 137.
3.
-
Ibid., P• 141.
 40

Volter presented an ingenious analysis of genuine and non-authentic ele~

ments in Paul's letters. Yet the assumptions for his criticism still

rested upon the Baur hypothesis. 1

8. Compa-rative Religions

Wrede's restatement of Pauline redemption in objective terms

brought Pauline scholarshi~ to the study of comparative religions.2

Wrede conceived of redemption as a universal event in which the indivi-

dual has a place; his view turned attention again to the Parousia. Wrede's

conception of redemption applied to all mankind, not simply to the Pauline

"elect... Because redemption was so bound up in the person of Christ,

Wrede described it as a "physicaP' redemptian, directed toward future

events with super-natural powers, judgment, bodily resurrection and trans-

formation. Wrede saw here a close dependence upon late Judaism, but the

problem of the sacraments seemed to point bey0nd Judaism and so Wrede

turned to comparative religions.

There was a growing suspicion by Wrede that dying and rising with

Christ was "physical" and that late judaism did not provide this mysti-

cism. Since Paul did not create it out of his own consciousness, there

was no alternative but to search elsewhere for this idea.3

A thorough survey of the study of comparative religi.ons, especially

1. ~., P• 147.
2. Ibid., p. 166. Wrede's Paulus appeared in 1904.
3.
-
Ibid., P• 178.
 41

by Dieterich and Reitzenstein, served only to show that Paul was not de-

pendent upon the mystery religions in his sacramental interpretation.!

If this dependence could have been demonstrated,.it would have been no

more than a restatement of the original Baur thesis using "mystery reli-

gion" instead of ••Hellenism.'' Schweitzer returned to. the idea that Paul

cannot be detached from primitive Christianity and therefore cannot be

described as the Hellenizer of the Gospel. Insofar as the students of

comparative religions attempted to show this fact, they were wrong.

9. Summary

In the study of Paul, Schweitzer detects two essential problems:

1. What did Paul's doctrine have in common with primitive Christianity?

2'.. What did it have in coillll1on with Greek ideas?

From Baur to Holtzmann, the scholars were attempting to solve the

second question by a dogmatic belief that Paul was the Hellenizer of the

primitive Gospel. They were foiled by their loci method which served only

to categorize Paul's thought by mechanical techniques. Boltzmann brought

this technique to its highest point, and ironically, to a close. When-

ever the loci method was abandoned, by men such as Ludemann and Kabisch,

there was a breakthrough of understanding. It is clear to Schweitzer

that this methed prevented a unifying view of Paul.

The end result of eighty years of scholarship was the conclusion

1. ~., P• 228.
 42

that Paulinism and Hellenism had nothing in common in terms of ideas.

The religious terminology, however, was similar.

..
Eschatology never received much emphasis from the Tubingen School

for attention was fastened on Hellenism. A convenient method to explain

the presence of eschatological elements in Paul's thought was to picture

his Hellenistic doctrines as evolving from primitive Jewish hope. This

position reached its apog~e in Pfleiderer. Since it was later demonstra-

ted that Paul had little relationship with Hellenism. the notion of dev-

elopment in his thought was therefore rejected.

The rejection of Greek influence on Paul forced scholars to look

to comparative religions where little help was found. The relationship

to late Judaism remained confused.

With these fruitless conclusions, the scholars turn again to the

relationship of Paul to primitive Christianity. This now becomes the

central problem, according to Schweitzer, and study must now progress

from this standpoint alone. Paul's eschatol.ogy must .receive its full

recognition. It needs first of all to be explained. Sacraments and

Christ-mysticism must be re-evaluated in the light of eschatology •

. Paul's attitude toward the law, universalism and pre-destinarianism

needs to be reconsidered. And finally, the enigmatic silence of subse-

quent generations in regard to Paul must be explained. It is questions

such as these with which Schweitzer proposes to deal in his second work

on Paul.
 -~-:·.

'r.r

CHAP'l'ER IV

SCHWETTZBR • S INTERPRETATION OF PAULINE ESCHATOLOGY IN

THE MYSTICISM OF PAUL THE APOSTLE

1. Background and Purpose

The· second major work on Paul by Schweitzer was originally laid

out ·in 1906, but the cha]>ter which was to have served as the introduc-

tion grew to the book, Paul and His Interpreters, first published in
1911.1 At that time Schweitzer expected to complete his Pauline study

by 1913, but preparations for Lam.b?Xene overruled his plans. During his

first leave in Europe he was prevented from continuing his Pauline studies

by his illness caused by prison confinement. In addition, he was occupied

by work on his Philosophy of Civilization. Thus he was unable to take up

his studies on Paul until 1927, on his second leave in Europe. Work at

this time involved the reshaping of the original manuscript which had lain

idle for sixteen years.

·schweitzerts purpose in this second volume was to give a full ex-

position of the mysticism of Paul and so he gave up attempting to go into

the literature about Paul in the same way as in the 1911 volume. Neverthe-

less, he expresses his debt to Lietzmann, Dibelius and other commentators.

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• vii.

43 .
 44

Schweitzer believes that with his Mysticism of Paul the Apostle

he has brought to a completion the application of thorough-going escha-

tology to his theological work.l He believes that he has presented the

evolution of thought in the first generation of Christianity. The cardi-

nal principle in all of his writings is that the preaching of Jesus could

be interpreted only by an eschatological point of reference. The assump-

tion that there were uneschatological elements in Jesus' teachings is in-

correct.2 The central problem of the evolution of thought in the first

centu~ is thus how a purely eschatological belief developed into the He!-

lenistic one. The purpose of the book is to outline Paul's place in this

development. Schweitzer's premise is that Paul is thoroughly eschatolo-

gical along with Jesus and that the Hellenization process began after Paul.

The bridge from Jesus to Ignatius is through Paul, but Paul was not the

Hellenizer. Rather, Paul's eschatological concept of the "Being in Christ•tc

was re-interpreted in the second century in Hell~nistic terms by Ignatius

and others.3

It is important to note that Schweitzer considers it ess,ential to

link Paul's eschatological ideas with those of late Judaism in order to

show Paul's relationship with Jesus.4

P• viii.
~··
1.
2. .!Ei!!·
3. ~., P• ix.
4. Ibid.
 45

2. Pauline Mysticism and Eschatology

Schweitzer begins his study with a description of Pauline mysti-

cism. He notes that Paul is the only Christian thinker that knows only

Christ-mysticism unaccompanied by God-mysticism.! Schweitzer lists

twelve Pauline quotations illustrating Pauline mysticism on pages 3 and 4

but omits any reference from I and II Thessalonians.2

Paul does not use the concept of rebirth. but speaks only of resur-

rection. Schweitzer considers this to be but another demonstration of the

remoteness of Pauline thought to Hellenism. The eschatological world view

is what really conditions Paul's mysticism. This is further illustrated

by Paul's use of predestination in which the believer shares some of the

future glory through Christ.3

The recognition of Paul•s sacramental ideas also serves to high-

light the sharp distinction ~rlth Hellenism. Paul considers baptism as the

beginning of the being-in-christ and closely related to his return in glory.

In the Hellenistic mystery religionst the sacraments reach into the mys-

terious past. Paul conceives of sacraments as temporary and soon unneces-

sary.4 He illustrates this with Biblical incidents which happened only once

such as the Red Sea crossing? wanderings beneath the cloud, manna, and the

drinking of water from the rock, all of which occurred during the Exodus.S

1. Ibid., P• 5. This distinction appears to be unique with Schweitzer.

EVen Deissmann in his elaborate analysis of mysticism does not make
this observation. Op• Cit., p. l49ff.
2. These are Gal. 2:19-20; 3:26-28; 4:6; 5:24-25; 6:14; II Cor. 5:17;
Romans 6:10-11; 7:4; 8:1-2, 9-11; Romans 12:4-5; and Phil. 3:1-11.
3. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 16.
4. ~., P• 22.
5. ~-· p. 23.
 46

Thus the eschatological world view conditions the sacraments, particularly

baptism.l

Schweitzer then proceeds to a discussion of Paulinism as a tempor-

ary system of thought. He believes that Paul was so dominated by his es-

chatological conviction that he built for one generation only and that sue~

ceeding generations found him hard to understand. Far from being the Hel-

lenizer of Christianity, Paul was rather misunderstood by the Hellenizers

and was little used until Marcion, precisely because Paul's eschatological

hope was unusable. Marcion, the only one who did understand Paul, really

misunderstood him, to paraphrase Overbeck's well-known !2!•2 Schweitzer

thus again tries to show that eschatology is the most important thing in

understanding Paul and that he must be clearly separated from the Hellen-

istic trend.

1. Machen compares the Eleusian, Phrygian, Mithraic and Dionysian

mysteries and finds an "improbable" connection. Qp. Cit. pp.. 280...
283. Compare this opinion witli that of Enslin: "Again and again
Paul phrased his ethical ideals and goals in terms precisely simi-
lar to the other mysteries.n Op. Cit., p .. 58., The close identi-
fication of Christian sacraments with the mystery religions may be
found in many sources, e.g., ''If then the mystery religions supplied
st. Paul with some of his vocabulary, and molded the shape of some
of his ideas, it is not more than w~·should expect . . . . " A. H.
McNeile, Sto Paul, His Life, Letters 1 and Christian Doctrine (Cam-
bridge: University Press, 1920) 1 PPo 304-306e See also Deissmann 9
Op. Cit .. , p. 126, and Dibelius, Op. Cit., P• 121. But note the
strong contrary answer by Foakes-Jackson: "If the language bears
a superficial resemblance to the cults of heathenism .. • • it is
but a shallow foundation on which to build theories of Pauline
Sacramentarianism .. " Opo Cit., PP• 249-250.,
2. Overbeck coined this mot in table talk with Adolf Harnack in the
middle eighties imitating the current saying about Hegel and his
disciples. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 38.
 47

3. Questions of Authenticity and Dating

Schweitzer next discusses the authenticity of the Pauline epistles.

Absolutely authentic are Galatians, I and II Corinthians and Romans. Sch-

weitzer rules against TUbingen objections about I Thessalonians, Philip-

pians and Philemon and finds them unquestionably genuine.! A primary argu-

ment against II Thessalonians is that it opposes the idea that the return

of Jesus is immediately at hande II Thessalonians "enumerates all that

must happen before that Day can dawn."2 He considers II Thessalonians to

come from that period when Christian teachers were seeking to reconcile

believers to the day of the Parousia.

Schweitzer follows the traditional arguments against the Pastorals,

placing them in the midst of the Gnostic controversies of the second

century.

Schweitzer notes that Ephesians and Colossians present unusual

problems because they have so much in common with other genuine epistles

yet are clumsier and more elaborate in style. In Ephesians 3:5,·Paul

speaks of the .. holy Apostles" as though he did not belong to the same gen-

eration and did not hold himself to be an Apostle.3 Schweitzer's conclu-

sion is that neither Colossians nor Ephesians. along with II Thessalonians

and the Pastorals, is of primary importance in the exposition of Paul's

teaching. The teachings of Ephesians and Colossians do not coincide easily

with the rest of the Pauline letters and must be placed along-side of them.

1. Ibid., P• 41.
2. Ibid., P• 42e II Thess. 2:1-12.
3. ~., P• 42.
 48

Schweitzer then establishes an order of writing. Earliest is

I Thessalonians followed by Galatians. Galatians was probably written

in Ephesus during Paul's two and a quarter year's stay, in the midst of

his third journey.! Likewise I Corinthians was composed while at Ephesus,

Corinthians in the spring prior to Paul's leaving. II Corinthians was

written in Macedonia in the aut~and,in the following winter at Corinth,

the letter to the Romans was composed. "The three main epistles thus ori-

ginated at short intervals in the course of a few months."2

Philippians is the first Imprisonment Letter followed by PhilemGn

which may have been written in Caesarea or some other place of Paul's im~

prisonment. The phrase ttthey of Caesar's house .. most naturally refers to

a church formed among slaves of the Bmperorts house in Rome.3 Schweitzer

dates the· letters as follow~; 1. I Thessalonians - "beginning of the

fifties.u 2.. Galatians, I and. II Corinthians, Romans - umiddle and the

second ha1f of the decade. u 3. Philippians and Philemon - "beginning of

sixties." He next considers whether or not the letters of Paul have come

down to us in original form.4 I Thessalonians and Galatians give the im~

pression of a literary unity, but I and II Corinthians probably contain

1. Acts 19:8-10.
2. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 44.
3. Philippians 4:22.
4. This c±±tical problem is treated by most scholars who attempt an
analysis of the Pauline corpus, and the references to this issue
are many. James Maffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the
New Testament (3rd ed. rev.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark [191~ , 1949),
P• 89, is a good example of the fragmentary approach. Moffatt places
every letter under suspiciont even Galatians. Schweitzer's views are
moderate by comparison.
 49

four letters which have been assembled into the two bulky canonical lit-

erary units. The distribution of the four letters cannot be done with

certainty!>~ ·:

The first letter is probably contained in the so-called Four Chap-

ters Letter (II Corinthians 10-13). This is the tearful, scornful letter

in which Paul demonstrates his right to be an Apostle.

Another early letter mentioned in I Corinthians 5 :9 is probably

re-produced fragmentarily in II Corinthians 6::14, 7:1~f~~~th~ilgli·-idan£if.i-

cation is difficult. I Corinthians 10:1~33 is a possible fragment of an

earlier letter because of its disconnectedness with what precedes and

follows. Such disconnectedness is frequent in the Corinthian correspon-

dence and Schweitzer believes that these problems are best explained by

the interweaving of four letters in I and II Corinthians.2

Philippians shows some disconnectedness beginning at 3:2 and

there may possibly be two distinct sections. The greetings to friends

in Romans 16:1-23 are probably not original and may belong to a letter

to the Ephesians. The directions on the flesh and wine and other things

of Rome, 14:1-lSt 15:13, may well be part of another letter for the speci-

fie instructions there do not fit a church which is unknown to Paul.

Thus Corinthians, R~ans, and Philippians possibl~ contain frag-

ments of additional letters. There is little doubt that there has been

some working over of the Pauline text. Also, it is possible that some

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 48.

2. ~., P• 49.
 50

letters of Paul have been lost and the astonishing thing is how such

critical letters as Galatians would have been preserved at all.

4. Uniform Bschatol0gy

Schweitzer is certain that Paul's thought is dominated by the ex=-

pectation of the immediate return of Jesus. Quotations may be taken from

all of the genuine Pauline letters.!

1. I Thessalonians 1:10. "And to wait for his Son from heaven,

whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the

wrath to eome.u

2. I Thessalonians 2:19. ·~or what is our hope or joy or crown

of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not

you?'~

3. I Thessalonians 3~13.. "So that he may establish your hearts

unblamable in holiness before our God and Father, at the com-

ing of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.u

4. I Thessalonians 5:23. t'May the God of peace himself sanctit:y

you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept

sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.~•

In Galatians, Corinthians» and Romans, the eschatology, though incidental,

is clear.

1. Ibid., PP• 52, 53. The ngenuine" letters are those defined by
Schweitzer. II Thess., Colossians, and Ephesians are omitted.
 51

s. Galatians 1:4. ..Who gave himself for aitr sins to deli<ver

us from the present evil age, according to the will of our

God and Father;"

6.. Galatians 6:10. "So then, as we have opportunity, let us do

good to all men, and especially to those who are of the house-

hold of faith .. "

7. I Corinthians 7:29. "I mean, brethren, the appointed time has

grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live

as though they had none,"

8.. I Corinthians 10:11.. "Now these things happened to them as a

warning, but they were written down for our instruction, upon

whom the end of the ages has come."

9. I Corinthians 7:31. "And those who deal with the world as

though they had no dealings with itQ For the form of this

world is passing away .. "

10.. I Corinthians 6:3. ''Do you not. know that we are to judge an...

gels? How much more, matters pertaining to this lifet"

11. I Corinthians 3:13-15.. "Each man's work will become ma:hifest;

for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with

fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has

done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation

survives, he will receive a reward. . If any man's work is

.. burned u~, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be

saved, but only as through fire .. u

 52

12. I Corinthians 11:26.. uFor as often as you eat this bread

and drink the cup, you proclaim th~ Lord's death until he

comes."

13 • I Corinthians 1:7-8. "So that you are nat lackipg .in any

spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord

Jesus Christ:".' ·'Who will sustain you to the end, guiltless

in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.n

14. I Corinthians 16:22. "Tf any one has no love for the Lord,

let him be accursed.. OUr Lord, come!"

15. II Corinthians 1:14. nAs you have understood in part, that

you can be proud of us as we can be of you, on the day of

the Lord Jesus.,"

16., II Corinthians 5:10. "For we must all appear before the judg-

ment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or

evil, according towhat he has done in the body ...

17. II Corinthians 11:2. ui feel a divine jealousy for you, for

I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a ·pure bride to

her one husband."

18. Romans 8:19. nFor the creation waits with eager longing for

the revealing of the sons of God;"

19. Romans 13:11, 12. "Besides this you know what hour it is,

how it is full time now for you to. wake from sleep. For sal-

vation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; c'The

night is far gone, the day is at hand.. Let us then cast off

the works of darkness and put on the armor of light;"

 I
53

20. Romans 16:20. ''Then the God of peace will soon crush Satan

under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with

you ...

Likewise in Philippians the expectation is clear.

21. Philippians 1::6. "And I am sure that he who began a good work

in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.'*

22. Philippians 1:10. "So that you may approve what is excellent,

and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ,"

23. Philippians 2:10. "That at the name of Jesus every knee

should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,"

24. Philippians 3:20-22. "But our commonwealth is in heaven, and

from it we await a savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, ·~Who will

change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the

power which enables him. even to subject all things to himself. ••

25. Philippians 4:4-5. ''Rejoice in the Lord always, again I will

say, Rejoice.~:- >Let all.men know your forbearance. The Lord

If then 'Paul's thought underwent a development it certainly did not

consist in the slacking of his eschatological expectation as time
went on.l

5. Bschatological Redemption

nJesus Christ has made an end of the natural world and is bringing

in the Messianic Kingdom.•;2 The believer is transferred from one world to

1. Ibid., P• 54.
2. Ibi~.
 . ·•?.;}·

54

another and has a share in the final cosmic event. 1his eschatology

conditions all thinking on Christian redemption.!

The natural world is chaxacterized by the power of demons and

angels. The evil in the world is because the demons and the angelic

beings have come between God and mankind. Redemption puts an end to

this condition.2 Jesus and Paul both follow this Jewish eschatology.3
The historic Jesus did not die for humanity as a whole, but only

for the elect.4 Together, Jesus and the elect faced tribulation and death,

God having delivered them for a time into the power of the nevil One." The

anticipation of trials and troubles is clearly seen in Jesus' instructions

to his disciples.s His sending forth of the disciples begins the pre-Mes-

sianic tribulation at the end of which time the Kingdom of God shall come.

However, the disciples' return to Jesus occurs prior to the appearance of

the Son of Man.6 This is not what was planned. Jesus then withdraws and

re-interprets his eschatology in the light of Isaiah 53 and believes that

God has simply appointed him to die alone, a ransom to free the elect from

the pre-Messianic tribulation.

1. The Jewish eschatological view may be found in the later prophets,

Psalms of Solomon, ca. 63 BC; Book of Jubilees, ca. 120 BC; Testa-
ment of Twelve Patriarchs, ca. 120 BC; Book of Enoch, ca. 160-70 BC;
Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra, ca. 70 AD; and the Ascension of
Moses, 1st Century AD.
2. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 55.
3. On Jesus and demons note Matthew 12:22~20; unclean spirits, Matthew
10:1, Mark 6:13,30; the nwicked onet•, Matthew 6:13, 16:23, and 25:41.
4. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 58.
s. Mark 8:34-38, Matthew 10:34-39.
6. Matthew 10:23.
 ·•
;·

55

This original idea of Jesus was lost for two reasons. First,

Jesus was obscure about the matter simply because all would be clear

shortly following his death. Second, the failure of the Messianic King-

dom to arrive forced ideas to change. Thus Jesus' concept of his own death

as the substitute for the pre-Messianic tribulation was soon lost. Jesus

expects his immediate resurrection and the immediate coming of the Mes-

sianic Kingdom.! Without tribulation there can be no Messianic Kingdom.

If Jesus suffers death which God can accept as the equivalent of that tri-

bulation, he can bring the kingdom at once.2

Paul follaws the early Christians in the concept of the atoning

death of Jesus.3 Likewise, Paul understands Jesus as the resurrected

Messiah who will soon appear.4 By his death and resurrection he is exalted

above all angelic beings but full authority awaits the beginning of the

Messianic Kingdom.5

Paul expands his concepts in an important way. He steadily be-

lieves that because of the death of Jesus, his followers are no longer sub-

ject to angel powers as before, even though the evidence of the Messianic

Kingdom is not yet obvious. Paul understands the coming redemption to have

begun. Specifically, the elect now have Christ as a representative before

God instead of the angels of the Presence.6 Though the angels still have~

-e~,:- on earth to torment, before God, the elect are above the power of angels.

1. Mark 14:27~28, Mark 14:62.

2~ Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 60.
3~ I Cor. 15:2.
4. Romans 1:4, Philippians 2:8-11.
5~ I Thess. 1:10.
69 Romans 8:31-39.
 l '

56

Hence, earthly tribulation is of no real importance.!

The destruction of the dominion of the angels will be completed

by the sudden return of Jesus.2 The classic statement of this triumph is

in ;r Thessalonians 4:16-17. Messianic judgment follows.3

Though Paul does not give a description of the Messianic Kingdom,

he implies that it is not peaceful blessedness but a struggle with angelic

powers.4 Paul expects the whole of nature will pass through a transforma-

tion of mortality to immortality.5 Death is one of the angel powers and

with the final overcoming of Death, the Messianic Kingdom comes to a close.

The length of the Messianic .Kingdom is uncertain.. Paul does not saye The

Apocalypse of Ezra says 400 years;6 The Apocalypse of John says 1000 years.7

Paul has Satan bound at the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom.8 Revelation

has Satan bound and loosed again for further trouble.9

At the end of the Messianic Kingdom is a General Resurrection for

everyone who has ever lived on earth, unless they have already risen during

the Messianic Kingdom. Then follows the last judgment where the final de-

1. Illustrations of the earthly power of the angels and Paul's answers

in the light of temporary nature of the matter may be found in I Thesse
3:3-5, 2:18; I Coro 7:1-6; II Cor. 2:5~11; II Coro 12:1=7.
2G I Thess. 5:1-4.
3. Christ as Judge: II Coro 5:10; I Thesso 4:6; I Cor. 4:4-5, 5:5;
II Cor. 1:14; Philippians 1:10, 2:16. God as Judge: Romans 14:10;
Romans 1:18, 2:2-10, 3-6e God judging through Christ: Romans 2:16.
4. I Cor. 15:23-28.
5. Romans 8:19~22.
6. 4 Ezra 7:26-42.
7. Rev. 20:1-7.
8. Romans 16:20.
9. Rev. 20: 2,3; 7-10.
 ;f,_.t -·:·.

57

cisions are made.l Paul does not mention these events specifically in

I Corinthians 15:23-28, for they are grouped by him under the general cate-

gory t•The End. u2

At the conclusion of the judgment, the Messiah gives up his power

to God so that God will be all in all. World history then comes to a close.

Paul introduces a new interpretation of the Law which prepares the

way for Gnosticism.3 The Law was given by angels to make men subservient.4

With the death of Jesus, the angel pow~r is broken and the Law is no longer

in force. The death of Jesus was done in ignorance by the angel powers who

did not know that their power would thereby be lost.S The death of an un-

accursed Jesus on a tree in contradiction to the Law of Deuteronomy,6 marked

the end of the Law's power for here was a flat violation of the Law.7

This annulment of the Law is another demonstration of the beginning

of the Kingdom, the Messianic Period. The realization of this present re~

demption needs to be more clearly felto The elements of Gnosticism are here

present in Paul, awaiting development by future Hellenizers. Though Paul re-

mains strictly in the eschatological framework, the general structure is the

same as Hellenism. The primary difference was suggested by Marcion, namely,

that the God of the Jews is not the same as the supreme spiritual Being.

1. Rev. 20:6,14,15.
2. I Cor. 15:24.
3. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 71 ..
4. Gal. 3:19,20. •
5. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 71.
6. Deut. 21:22,23.
7. Gal. 3:13,14.
 ·... -- . ~ l..•~ .-?~

'!

58

6. The Background of Pauline Eschatology

Pauline eschatology revolved around two central ideas: 1. A

synthesis of the Prophetic eschatology and the Danielic uson of Man~, and

2. The appearance of the Messiah in the person of Jesus, a fact unfore-

seen in Jewish eschatology.!

The earliest period of Jewish eschatology, namely the pre~Exilic

and Exilic prophets, expected a Messiah of David's line to rule a terres-

tial kingdom with supernatural powers. This rule was to be the consumma-

tion of world history. Zerubbabel (520 B.C.), a prince of the House of

David, was the disappointment of these eschatological hopes. His failures

ended Messianic expectation for a time.

Eschatology then postulated a kingdom ruled directly by God to re~

place the Messianic Kingdom. Typical of this view was Malachi and Isaiah

24-27, dating from 400 to 300 B.c. This notion was refined by Daniel (168-

164 B.C.), so that the Kingdom of God was ruled by the Son of Man acting as

an angelic agent for God.

The time of tribulation was refined also. The original pre~exilic

.. sifting out" of God's people was expanded inta a revelation of glory among

the heathen in Isaiah.2 In Daniel, the God opposing world power wreaked its

rage upon the saints who are called to his kingdom. But most important,

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 76. The various eschatological systems

which are hereafter described are charted in Appendix D, P• 191.
• A comparison of these charts will summarize the argument.
2. ~., P• 77.
 ...... " ... ·-. ·r , , ., ~.

59

Daniel introduced the idea of resurrection. Before Daniel, only the imme-

diate living participated in the Kingdom of God. But with Daniel, the dead

rose and were judged.l Thus Daniel demonstrated the kingdom, not as the out-

come of a happy evolution brought on by God's omnipotence, but rather as a

result of a cosmic catastrophe. The kingdom was transcendent and super-

natural.

According to Schweitzer, the Book of Enoch was a further expansion

of the Danielic eschatology.2 There was no Messiah and the resurrection

was emphasized.

The Psalms of Solomon (63 B.C .. ) returned to the Davidic Messiah as

though Daniel and Enoch had never been written. This was because the wri-

ter of the Psalms of Solomon was a student of scripture and returned to the

pre-Exilic and Exilic thought-world. Furthermore 1 the restoration of the

Maccabean Kingdom restored the old Messianic hope. The destruction of that

kingdom by Pompey set up once again the same exilic conditions which fos-

tered the expectation of the Davidic Messiah.

The Psalms of Solomon did not have a resurrection of the dead prior

to judgment, and entrance into the kingdom was for those elect who were

alive at the time of the Messiah.3

The two historic views of eschatology existed side by side right

up to the time of Jesus~' John the Baptist's position is not cleart but

Jesus clearly follows the eschatology of Daniel and Enoch.

1. Daniel 12:1-3.
2. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 78.
3. Psalms of Solomon 17:44-45.
 60

There is a final judgment,! including angels.2 There is a resurrection.3

The resurrected life is supernatural and not in the Davidic terrestial

mood.4 Jesus' confidence in the resurrection makes the preservation-of

life unimportant.5
The final tribulation is not the work of God but of forces opposing

God.6 Daniel holds the elect to be immune from this evil power for they

are under the protection of the angel Michael.7 However, Daniel did al~ow

for the righteous to die as in the earlier exilic views. The elect come

under Michael's power only after a certain intensity is reached.8 Jesus

brings this notion to a consistent conclusion in which all the elect in

the kingdom partake.

The familiar question to the scribes of Mark 12:35-37 about David's

son is ~hus not a disputing of the Messiah's descent, but an attempt to

combine the Messiah with the pressing issue of the supernatural Son of Man.

In summary, Jesus' eschatology is straightforward. 1. A general

resurrection. 2. Appearance of Son of Man with immediate judgment.

3. The eternal Kingdom of God under the Son of Man.

1. Matthew 13:40.
2. Matthew 13:42, 15:41.
3. Matthew 8:11, 12:24-25. Daniel 12:3. Enoch 104:2.
4. Matthew 13:43.
5. Matthew 8:35, 10:28.
6. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 78.
7. Daniel 12:1, 7:25, 11:33.
B. Daniel 11:35.
 61

7. Baruch and Ezra

The Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra attempt to harmonize the

Danielic and Prophetic eschatologies. This is done by the simple method

of regarding the Messianic Kingdom as temporary, which is to give way to

the eternal Kingdom of God. The Messianic Kingdom is pictured exactly as tin

the Exilic prophets, the elect being those who are alive.

The Messianic Kingdom follows the usual tribulations and begins

with a judgment of the living by the Messiah~! The kingdom itself is a

happy time and will last for 400 years, according to Ezra~ The Messiah

finally returns to heaven and there is a general resurrection of the dead.

The living of the Messianic Kingdom are transformed into the resurrection

mode of existence.2 The Messiah is supernatural and not of the House of

David. The Son of Man does not figure in the eschatological scheme of

Baruch and Ezra.

There are two judgments, the judgment of the Messiah upon living

survivors at the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom and the final judgment

of God at the end of the Messianic Kingdom upon the whole of risen human-

ity. There are also two kingdoms, the temporary Messianic and the eternal

theocracy. Jesus accepts one judgment, that of the Messiah which is eter-

nal, and one kingdom, the eternal kingdom ef the Son of Man Messiah. Thus

Jesus places the resurrection at the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom and

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 85.

2. ~., P• 86.
 62

Baruch and Ezra place it at the end.l

8. Paul's Eschatological Chronelogy

The significance of the eschatology of Baruch and Ezra lies in

the fact that it approximates Paul's system. Though Baruch and Ezra date

after the fall of Jerusalem and thus could not have directly influenced

Paul, they nevertheless represent the thinking of the Scribes which Paul

apparently shared.

Paul believes that death is destroyed only at the end of the Mes-

sianic Kingdom and that the immediate living elect participate in the

Messianic Kingdom. Those who have died prior to the Messianic Kingdom

remain dead until the final resurrection and eternal blessedness.2 Paul

does not use the expression "Son of Man" (nor does Baruc:h)~ but he regards

the Messiah as supernatural and as appearing on the clouds of heaven.

Paul supplies a new interpretation to the elect of the tribulation

which may be considered a mid-way position between the Danielic eschato~

logy and that of the Scribes. The elect of the last generation have al~

ready obtained the resurrection mode of existence at their entry into the

Messianic Kingdom. : Even if they have died prior to the Messianic Kingdom,

they will be able, through the resurrection, to become participants in it.

Thus Paul introduces a second resurrection of the elect which takes place

at the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom.

1. See Chart in Appendix B, p. 193.

2. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 90.. .-
 ...
··~~.-.

<'
:i.

63

Because of the tempo~ary natu~e of the Messianic Kingdom as held

by the Sc~ibes, it will be evident that immortality is not yet attained

by the elect. Yet Paul talks about the resurrection mode of existence in

the Messianic Kingdom.! Inasmuch as the scribal eschatology holds no

possibility for a pre-Messianic resurrection, Paul is aware of the pro-

blems which he raises by his forced interpretation and he goes out of his

way to inform the Thessalonians on this matter in I Thessalonians 4:13-18.

He even appeals to a saying of the Lord.2 The dead which are in Christ

who arise first are the elect of the Messianic Kingdom. This special re-

surrection is added to the scribal eschatology because of the new presence

of Jesus, and is not foreseen in the original chronology. Belief in Jesus

seems to guarantee an entrance into the Messianic Kingdom even though death

comes before Jesus* return. The delay of jesus~ coming thus presents this

first problem which is responded to in I Thessalonians 4. Paul•s answer

is "that hy an earlier special resurrection they become participants in

the glory of the Messianic Kingdom just as much as the other elect of the

last generation. "3

The introduction of a pre-Messianic resurrection for the elect was

not accepted by all Christians. In the Corinth Church a body of conserva-

tives continued to follow the older view that only the living were able to

take part in the Messianic Kingdom. Paul counters this objection with

I Corinthians 15 by connecting the pre-Messianic resurrection directly with

1~ Ibid., p. 91.·
2. !Tii'ess. 4:15, "For this ·we declare to you by the word of the Lord • • ,.
3. Schweitzer, Mysticis~, Po 92.
 I ••

64

Christ's resurrection.! It is possible that these conservatives deny the

possibility of any resurrection at all, either before or after the Messianic

Kingdom thus severely limiting the eschatological hope to those who are

alive at the coming of the Messiah. Such an extreme view reflects the

Psalms of Solomon and the pre-exilic prophets.2 In any event, Paul may

be considered the creator of the doctrine of two resurrections.3

Participants in the Messianic Kingdom, whether the resurrected

elect or the living, are transformed into an eternal mode of existence.

Flesh and blood will not enter the kingdom.4 In this idea, Paul sounds

like Jesus but he could not have taken it from Jesus for his teaching does

not follow Jesus' much simpler eschatological scheme. Rather, Paul consi-

ders the death and resurrection of Jesus as the authenticating circumstance.S

Those who have died in Christ are resurrected. Thus, in the kingdom, Paul

conceives of all men in a resurrected state, even though only the dead were

literally resurrected.

The immediate problem then presented is how the living of the last

days can enter into a resurrected state without death when the Messiah comes.

Paul's answer is a mystical one - the "being in Christ .... Believers myster-

iously share the dying and rising of Christ and are swept up out of ordin-

ary humanity - be they living or dead, and f.orm a special category of human

1~ I Cor. 15:13,16.
2~ Schweitzer, Mysticis~, P• 93.
3~ Ibid.~ P• 94.
4~ ~r. 15:50-53.
s. I Thess. 4:14.
 65

beings. At the coming of the Messiah the dead in Christ rise first and

then the living are transformed. Paul's need for proving this doctrine

is the immediate cause for his emphasis on the "dying and risingu in

Christ.!

Paul further regards the resurrection of Jesus as the initial

event of the rising of the dead in general. Jesus is "the first fruits

of those that had fallen asleep.n2 Hence Paul concludes that he is liv-

ing in the supernatural age, the resurrection period, even though the

resurrection of others is yet to come. Though the world appeared to be

in natural form, Paul is convinced that the supernatural powers are at

work within the created world. The natural and supernatural are inter-

mingling in this, the beginni~~ of the Messianic age. The immediate re-

turn of Jesus would manifest the supernatural world which was already

under way. Thus Paul is able to develop a mystical concept of the present

age which does not obliterate the eschatological hope, but rather is buiit

upon an intensification of that hope. The time of waiting for the coming

of Jesus is a time of intermingling between the natural and supernatural.

Paul sets up a peculiar eschatologically conditioned mysticism - which

speru{s of outward appearances and inward reality. The powers which were

manifest in the death and resurrection of Jesus are already at work in the

elect of the Messianic Kingdom. The complete manifestation of the mysti-

cal powers awaits the coming of the lord.

1~ Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 97. ·

2. I Cor. 15:20.
 66

9. surmnary

Schweitzer does not believe that Paul~eschatology developed in

any way. The introduction of pronounced mystical elements, particularly

in the late letters, is but an expression of his eschatological expecta-

tion. The resurrection of Jesus began the Messianic Age and Paul seeks

to describe and explain the presence of the supernatural powers side by

side with the natural powers. The concept of '''being in Christ" and es-

pecially the doctrine of dying and rising with Christ, are not outside of

the eschatological framework, but stem directly from the unfulfilled hopes

of the last generation before the Parousia. Paul is thus not the Helleni-

zer despite some resemblance of his mystical doctrines with Hellenistic

thought forms.

Throughout Paul's letters, Schweitzer sees consistent evidence of

eschatological hope, occasionally "peeking out•~ from strong mystical sec-

tions which are seemingly unrelated to eschatology. His quotations are

from all of the letters with the exception of II Thessalonians, Colossians,

and Ephesians, wnich he feels are not related .to the primary streams of

Paul's thought. The mere presence or absence of direct eschatological

statements in no way changes the basic fundamental assumption of Paul.

Paul chooses the scribal eschatology of Baruch and Ezra and does

not follow the simpler eschatology of Jes~s. He introduces the new con~

cept of resurrection of the dead in Christ prior to the Messianic Kingdom

to explain the problem of the delay in the coming of Christ. The develop-

ment of this idea forces the reconstruction of the idea of existence in

 67

the Messianic Kingdom. A resurrection mode for both the living and the

dead evolves, which in turn is explained by dying and rising.

Paul's thought on this general topic does not change in his various

letters, but again is consistent throughout. The parallels from Baruch and

Ezra come from the period following the fall of Jerusalem and thus could

not have influenced Paul. Rather, Paul may be considered the creator of a

dual resurrection eschatology, wlrlch lays upon the scribal eschatology a

combination of Jesus' simple Parousia and Paul's own mystical re-interpre-

tation. Paul does not Hellenize nor does he show any accommodation for

increasing skeptical pressure caused by the delay of the Parousia. His

own interpretation may be considered a radical restatement of the whole

eschatological issue which was not really accepted by the early church

until the middle of the second century, namely with Mar cion. This restate-

ment hardly needed modification in the short time that Paul wrote, and cer-

taihly not in the direction of a lessened eschatology. If anything, Paul

is aware of his radical new ideas and is at pains to justify thc;mt.

In conclusion, Paul'· s eschatology is a consistent whole picture

in which his mysticism is developed in complete support and agreement.!

1. The above summary of Paul's eschatology scheme is charted in

Appendix B, ~· 193.
 • -· 'I ... 1 r""")~~~~"h

CHAPTER V

A COMPARISON OF THE POSITIONS OF CHARLES AND SCHWEITZER

ON PAULINE ESCHATOLOGY

The comparison of Charles and Schweitzer may be divided into

four different categories: le Developmental Eschatologye

2. Eschatological Chronology. 3. Authenticity and Genuineness.

4. Chronology and Dating of Paul~s Letters.

1. Developmental .Eschatology

Charles t position is built around his belief in the declining es-

chatological hope of Paul.,l His first stage, composed of I and II Thessa...

lonians shows strong eschatological hope and is modified only slightly in

the second stage, hamely I Corinthians.. Schweitzer would agree with Charles

on the eschatological emphasis, but only insofar as he holds that all of

Faults letters show eschatological conditioning. This agreement, however,

1. Charles' position finds continuing restatement.. ••The line I Thess. -

I Cor. - II Cor. 1-9 - Romans would still show to us the gradual wan~
ing of the immediacy of the Second Coming in Paul's mind • • • t• Nock,
Op. Cit., P• 222. "Paul, in his earlier letters, and no doubt in his
earlier preaching, made free use of this imagery, though:it is clear
that he was all the time re-interpreting it • • • the apocalyptic
imagery of the earlier days tended to disappear • • • u Dodd, Op. Cit.,
P• 136.

68
 69

is not very important because Charles and Schweitzer do not interpret the

eschatology in parallel ways.l

In Charles- third state, II Corinthians and Romans, the eschato-

logical hope continues, though with modification such as the new emphasis

of immediate resurrection upon death.2 Charles regards this emphasis as

Paul's conscious break with traditional belief. '~here is a diminishing

of the immediate hope of the Parousia in the face of delays'.~·3 Schweit-

zer does no:t regard II Corinthians 5: 1... 9, as a change of basic Pauline

thought and explicitly denies that the resurrection occurs immediately

after death. 4

According to Charles, the fourth and final stage of Paul's letters,

that of Philippians, Colossians, and Bphesians 9 has little left of the imw

minent hope. The cosmic Christ occupies Paul's attention and Charles does

not present any evidence of sharp eschatological hope. In contrast,

Schweitzer presents five quotations from Philippians to show eschatological

expectation.5 S~hweitzer does not accept Ephesians as genuine, nor does

Colossians figure in his study, so further comparisons are difficult.

The relative positions of Charles and Schweitzer may be summarized

with two quotations:

From his first letter to his last, Paul!s thought is always uniformly
dominated by the expectation of the immediate return of Jesus of the
Judgment, and the Messianic Glory.6

1. See Section 2 and 5 below.

2. II Cor. 5:1-9.
3. Charles, Op• Cit., Po 458.
4. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p .. 131 ..
5. Phil. 1:6, 1:10, 2:18, 3:20-22, 4:4-5. See Chap. IX, p.~for text.
6. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 52.
 70

(Paul) began with an expectation of the future which he had in-

herited largely from Judaism but under the influence of great
formative Christian conceptions he parted gradually from this and
entered on a process of development, in the course of which the
heterogeneous elements were, for the most part, silently dropped.!

2. Eschatological Chronology

A basic difference be~~een Charles ~nd Schweitzer is their des-

cription of eschatological chronology. Schweitzer believes that Paul is

the creator of the theory of two resurrections, which is based upon a

harmonization of two distinct eschatological traditions.2 Charles holds

no such theory but applies all of the eschatological evidence to one re-

surrection.

This basic difference produces some contradictions in interpret~

ing critical passages. Charles states flatly that there can be no resur~

rection of the wicked.3 The exceptions to this view found in Acts 24:15;

John 5:28, 29; and Revelations 20:12, 13~ are variously dismissed as being

an uinaccurate report, ... or ttcontrary t~ the spirit of the fourth Gospel, ..

or from the ~Judaistic source of the book ... 4 Thus when Paul speaks in

•
1. Charles, Op, Cit., P• 437. See Chapo II, P• 12.
2. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 94. See above p. 62.
3. Charles, Op. Cit., P• 444 -Footnote 1.
4. There are no exceptions to this view in the Pauline correspondence,
as will be shown below. Charles prefers not to defend his position
from the narrower base of Paul's writings alone but seeks to demon~
strate that the resurrection of the righteous is the universal teach~
ing of the New Testament. Though his arguments are well taken, the
passages, especially in Revelation and John, raise serious problems
which are beyond the scope of this dissertation. This distinction
is important because Schweitzer attempts to prove the opposite point
of view, namely a general resurrection, on the same non-Pauline evi-
 • . "1.1

71

I Corinthians 15:22 of these "in Christ" being made alive, it is obvious

to Charles that this precludes the wicked. nThere can be no resurrection

but in Christ.ttl

Schweitzer regards I Corinthians 15:22 as referring to the first

resurrection which precedes the temporary Messianic Kingdom. At the con-

elusion of the Messianic reign, a general resurrection takes place follow-

ing the pattern of Baruch and Ezra in which everyone is judged and the

final consignment is made.

It is noteworthy that Charles finds in Baruch the same evidence as

Schweitzer for the temporary nature of the Messianic Kingdom.2 But even

though the Messianic Kingdom is doomed to corruption, Charles does not see

a second resurrection.3 He rather speaks of apocalyptic literature finding

the Messianic period corrupt. The resurrection continues to follow the

Parousia.4 But Charles notes the problems in explaining the concept of

the risen body in Christ and the mechanical time-determination of the

Parousia. The handling of this problem results in Paul's development

of a new theory of immediate resurrection. Though this immediate resur-

rection is foreseen in the second stage,S it finds its full development

dence. The whole matter would have been greatly simplified if both
men had confined themselves to the Pauline evidence. This issue is
discussed pelow in Chap. XI, Section 4, p .. 173.
1. Charles, Op. Cit., p. 449.
2. ~., p. 451. ~oting Baruch 40:3, 74:2.
3. Baruch 41:55.
4. I Cor. 15:51, 52.
s. Charles, Op. Cit., P• 451.
 12

in the third stage.l Thus Charles is able to preserve a single resurrec-

tion from a chronological standpoint yet he can accommodate the mystical

"being in Christ" resurrection as occurring immediately after the death

of the individual.

Schweitzer is aware that "being in Christn makes for a special

resurrection but he never attributes to Paul the idea that this occurs

upon death. Rather, those in Christ are raised prior to the Messiahts

coming in the manner of I Thessalonians.2 Along with those yet alive,

the ones in Christ are transformed into a resurrection mode of existence

and participate in the temporary Messianic Kingdoma

Charles implies that the waning eschatological hope forced a radi-

cal revision of the eschatological hope by personalizing the resurrection.

Schweitzer suggests that the dead in Christ will be raised very soon with

the still living when the Messiah arrives.

At bottom this basic difference rests upon an understanding of

Pauline mysticism and the Kingdom of God. Both Schweitzer and Charles

ire aware that glory,66sd, is already the possession of the faithful.

Charles suggests that when Christ comes that glory will be manifested.3

There will be a spiritual resurrection of the faithfu1.4 All of these

events happen at the Parousia. Schweitzer~ however, suggests that Paults

mysticism is based on the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, which really

1. Ibid., p. 457. The argument rests on II Cor. 5:8.

2. Charles regards I Thess. 4 as referring to the final resurrection.
3. Charles, 0p. Cit., p. 460. Col. 3:4.
4. Romans 6:13, Col. 2:12; 3~1: Ephesians 2:6.
 73

began the Messianic age.l The coming of the Messiah simplY: manifests

the glory of the Messianic Kingdom which will include a resurrection of

the dead in Christ and a transformation of the living.2

A further elaboration of these differences of eschatological chron-

ology occuxsin Charles' fourth stage where the eternal duration of the King~

dom of Christ is found in Colossians and Ephesians. Christ is blended com-

pletely with God as "all in all.u3 Again Charles notes the Kingdom of

Christ as "mediatorial, .. but he does not dwell upon whatever temporary

duration is implied in this passage.4

Schweitzer, though he does not deal with Colossians, specifically

refers to I Corinthians 15:24-28, as the end of the Messianic Kingdom.5

The passages in Colossians could only refer to the post~general resurrec~

tion period of the cosmic age when history is finally concluded.

Charles sharply attacks this interpretation.6 He notes that the

I Corinthians, 15:24-28, puts the period of Cbrist~s domination before

the Parousiae The character of this domination is one of strife and

Charles suggests that in Apocaly~tic literature the Messianic reign is

peaceful. His final conclusion is that the Messianic reign is but a

temporary occurrence between Christ's ex&ltation and judgment.7 In the

later epistles Paul conceives of this reign as unending.

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, Pe 95 •
2. I Thess. 4:14.
3. Ephesians 1:23; Col. 3:11.
4. Charles, Op. Cit., p. 462•
5. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 313.
6. Charles, s:p. Cit., p. 447.
7. ~., P• 448.
 74

3. Genuineness

Schweitzer holds a more critical position than Charles and re-

jects the Pastorals and II Thessalonians as non-Pauline. His argument

on II Thessalonians is based on suspicions raised by language and by

the enumeration of events that must happen before the Parousia.l

Schweitzer believes that such arguments reflect a later period when

Christian teachers ttfound themselves obliged to find such means of re-

conciling believers to the delay of that event."2 The Pastorals reflect

the struggle with Gnosticism and must be dated at the beginning of the

second century.

Charles uses II Thessalonians as one of the distinguishing fea-

tures of his first stage. The first stage is delineated by the figure

of the "anti-Christ," the references to whom are found only in II Thes-

salonians. If it were not for this difference, the second stage, I Cor-

inthians, might well be included with the Thessalonian correspondence.3

However, Charles is conscious of the problem of reconciling I and

II Thessalonians and he has uwith some hesitation used both epistles as

depicting the first stage of St. Paul's eschatological views."4 Of par-

ticular trouble is the manner of the Parousia. In II Thessalonians the

Parousia is preceded by certain signs while in I Thessalonians it is

1. II Thess. 2:1-12.
2. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 42.
3. Charles, Op. Cit., P• 445.
4. Ibid., P• 438.
 75

wholly unexpected. Charles believes that even this contradiction does

not rule out II Thessalonians because "some time elapses between the

composition of the epistles, and some of the eschatological views of

the Apostle were in a constant state of flux.,ul

Charles does not use the Pastorals in the main body of his argu-

ment. In the fourth stage,2 he picks up a few references to I and II

Timothy, more as a commentary than a main argumente It is probable that

Charles either does not find much eschatological material in the Pastorals

or does not wish to draw upon this source, being aware of the doubtful

authenticity.

Schweitzer notes the special problem of Ephesians and Colossians,

with their similiarity to the genuine Pauline letters, yet with their

peculiar differences from Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, and

Philippians. The clumsier and more elaborate use of compound words and

the length of the periods set Ephesians and Colossians apart~3 Schweit-

zer believes that PauPs thought has undergone a transformation in these

two letters. Paul can speak of the .,Holy Apostles" as though he did not

belong to the same generation.4 In any event, Schweitzer believes that

neither Colossians nor Ephesians are of primary importance in the exposi-

tion of Paul's teaching. The material within the letters does not udove-

1. Ibid.
2. Ibid., footnote on p. 462.
3. ~eitzer, Mysticism, p. 42.
4. Ephesians 3:5.
 76

tail" into the rest of Paults letters "but must in some way be allowed

to take a place alongside of them."l

Charles has observed the same differences in thought in Colos-

sians and Ephesians but uses this fact to delineate the fourth stage.

It is precisely because Paul's thought has been transformed that the

eschatological emphasis of Colossians and Ephesians is so dim. Accord-

ingly, he leans heavily on Colossians and Ephesians. Though he includes

Philippians in his fourth stage, it is interesting to note that there is

not a single reference to it in the section.2

In summary, Schweitzer uses seven letters of Paul which he consi-

ders ncertainly genuine."3 They are Romans, I and II Corinthians, Gala-

tians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon. Charles accepts this

list and hesitatingly adds II Thessalonians. He footnotes the Pastorals

and adds Ephesians and Colossians.

4. Chronology and Dating of Paul's Letters

Charles' order of Paul's letters may be taken from his four stages.

It is: 1. I Thessalonians; 2. II Thessalonians; 3. I Corinthians;

4. II Corinthians; 5. Romans; 6. Philippians; 7. Colossians;

8. Ephesians.4 Galatians is omitted from his ordering along with any

references in his study.

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 43.

2. Charles, qp. Cit., PP• 461-463.
3. Schweitzer 1 Mysticism, p. 43.
4. Charles, qp. Cit., p. 438.
 77

Schweitzer's list is as follows: 1. I Thessalonians; 2. Gala-

tians; 3. I Corinthians; 4. II Corinthians; 5. Romans; 6. Philip-

pians; 7. Philemon.! There is thus basic agreement in the order of the

letters, allowing for the substitution of Galatians for II Thessalonians

by Schweitzer.

However, insofar as chronology is concerned, there is an important

divergence of opinion. Charles is convinced that the passage of time pro-

duced marked changes in the thought of Paul. Thus he explains the differ-

ence between I and II Thessalonians partly on the basis of the passing of

time.2 A whole stage separates I and II Corinthians, Paul's thought having

shifted during that time. Charles believes that between the writing of I

Thessalonians and Romans there is ,.an essential change in the Apostle's

views of the future,.tt3 Charles sees these changes taking place in an or-

derly fashion. In the final stage, Charles is convinced that Paul may not

have fully completed his eschatological development, but because of the

consistent movement his thought shows, Charles believes that it is possible

to extrapolate into the future to approximate a final picture of Paul's es-

chatological thought.4 Charles hints that he may attempt this in a later

work in which Paul would arrive at a Hellenistic position. There is no in-

dication as to exact dating or specific estimates of the gaps of time be-

tween the letters.

Schweitzer dates Thessalonians in the beginning of the fifties.

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, pp. 44-46.

2. Charles, Op. Cit. ,:'P• 438.
3. Ibid.; p~ 455~
4o
-Ibid., Po 437.
 :t

78

Galatians, I and II Corinthians and Romans belong to the middle of the fif-

ties or perhaps to the second haif of that decade. Philippians and Phile-

mon belong to the early sixties.,! Of particular importance is Schweitzer's

grouping of the Corinthian and Roman correspondence. During the stay in

Ephesus in the third missionary journey, Paul wrote the first letter to the

Corinthians in the spring. The second letter to the Corinthians was writ-

ten the following autumn in Macedonia. In the following winter at Corinth,

the epistle to the Romans was composedo Thus the three main epistles ori=

ginated ttat short intervals in the course of a,few months ... 2

Schweitzer further holds the multiple source theory of I and II

Corinthians, maintaining that at least four letters are preserved in the

two bulky letters which have come down to us. The distribution of the

contents of the four letters cannot be done with certainity. Schweitzer

sees evidence for the following distribution:3

1. I Corinthians.

2. "The Tearful Letter" contained in the t•four chapters"

letters, II Corinthians 10:1, 13:14, written before
II Corinthians 1-9.

3. Fragment of letter mentioned in I Corinthians 5:9 namely,

II Corinthians 6:14, 7:1, written prior to remainder of
II Corinthians~ Perhaps I Corinthians 10:1-33 belongs
to this letter.

4. II Corinthians 1-9.

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 47.

2. Ibid~; p. 44.
3. ~., p. 48.
 ·r:··· ~-'7"· .... -·-:-:·-· ·t•o- rl • ...,. ·:~~-~~;~--;..~-o·;····-'* .rf:;;;~- ... ,~
,;
.I

79

The disconnectedness of I and II Corinthians suggests these four letters

are interwoven into the two canonical letters.

Charles shows no evidence of discerning any fragmentation in the

Corinthian correspondence and treats both letters as complete and unified.

He separates I and II Corinthians as two distinct stages in Paul's thought.

However, in I Corinthians Paul anticipates the doctrine of the immediate

resurrection,! which is brought to its full flowering in II Corinthians.

Because Paul•s thought was in a state of flux, the fragmentation of the

letters would not prove nor disprove his thesis for "perfect consistency

within these stages is not to be looked for."2

5. Summary - The Problems Restated

A comparison of Charles and Schweitzer reveals several questions

which need further examination.

1. Have both Charles and Schweitzer fairly surveyed the evidence

at hand? It is interesting that Charles sees no eschatology in Philip-

pians, but neither does Schweitzer see any eschatology in Colossians.

Charles' unwillingness to admit eschatological evidence in the late let-

ters can be compared with Schweitzer•s refusal to consider Colossians be-

cause it is "not of primary importance."3 It is clear that a re-examina-

tion of the evidence would be fruitful.

1. I Cor. 15.
2. Charles, Op. Cit., p. 437.
3. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 42. No reason is given.
 80

2. Is there a consistent imminent expectation of the Parousia

as Schweitzer believes or does this hope fade in the later letters as

Charles holds?

3. Is II Thessalonians genuine? Schweitzer dismisses it on a

doctrinal basis and thus supports his case. Charles makes II Thessalonians

the defining feature of his first stage. Clearly, some more neutral stan-

dards must be found for measuring the worth of II Thessalonians than the

fact of its agreement or disagreement with a theory. If such neutral stan-

dards are available, it would help in measuring the relative worth of each

theory.

4. Is Colossians genuine? Is Ephesians genuine? Schweitzer dis-

misses both of these letters as unimportant. Charles uses the evidence of

these two letters as the basis of his fourth stage. Again, it appears

that the two theories may be determining the inclusion or exclusion of

these letters. Are there more neutral standards by which to measure these

letters?

5. Is the Messianic Kingdom of limited duration? Schweitzer's

main thesis is based upon a survey of two streams of eschatology theory

which Paul combines into a brand-new synthesis. Charles, surveying the

same material, sees only a single kingdom wa~ch is re-interpreted by Paul

from a temporary Messianic one into a permanent eternal cosmic kingdom.

6. And are there two resurrections or only one? Is there a gen-

eral resurrection or are only the righteous raised up?

7. Does Paul develop a theory of the resurrection immediately

following death~ as Charles believes?

 81

8. Is there any evidence concerning a growing disillusionment

about the Parousia in Paul~s letters? Charles sugges~such growth.

Schweitzer rejects II Thessalonians by utilizing this ~ery point. Is

there any other evidence?

9. Do the chronology and dating of Paul's letters allow time

enough for a change in Faults thought regarding the Parousia and im-

mediate resurrection after death?

 CHAPTER VI

THE GENUINENESS OF II THESSALONIANS

lw Introduction -A Criterion of Historicity

In a consideration of genuineness of the Pauline letters, the

central problem is the criterion of historicity. It is because Charles

and Schweitzer use different criteria that their conclusions about II

Thessalonians (and Colossians and Ephesians) are contradictory. S.chwei t-

zer's criteria is .. thorough-going eschatology" and the application of

this principle to II Thessalonians suggests that the work is of a later

. d •1
perl.o The delays expressed in II Thessalonians 2:1-3 point to a time

of disillusionment and declining eschatological expectation.

In II Thessalonians, Charles sees a strongly developed doctrine

of the second coming which does not necessarily conflict with I Thessa-

lonians or I Corinthians. Using his criteria of •~'developmentn in mea--

suring the genuineness of Paul's letters, he finds the heightened escha-

tology of II Thessalonians a first stage of Paults thought.2

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 42. For a sympathetic evaluation ef

Schweitzer's criterion of historicity see Werner, Op. Cit.,
Introduction p. 12ff. Werner holds that Schweitzer's criterion
is the most satisfactory solution of the Gospel problems. Werner
suggests that Schweitzer's rejection of II Thessalonians and Colos-
sians and Ephesians is but another example of his caution.
2. Charles, Op. Cit., P• 438.

82
 83

The real problem underlying Charles' and Schweitzer's opinions

is a criterion of historicity. In evaluating the genuineness of the

Pauline letters, it is impossible to use either the criterion of thor-

ough-going eschatology or developing eschatology. Application of these

criteria simply producesconformity with the theories of either Charles

or Schweitzer.! When dealing with the Pauline letters there is a firmer

ground for establishing a criterion of historicity than when dealing with

the Gospels. A definition of genuineness in Paul can begin with the uni-

versally accepted letters as a standard. Apart from the radical Dutch

School of Pierson, Loman, and Bruno Bauer, there has been unanimous

agreement that Romans, Galatians, and I and II Corinthians are genuine.2

F. c. Baur and the Tubingen School defended these four letters. In addi-

tion, I Thessalonians, Philippians and Philemon have been generally ac-

cepted since the turn of the century.3

These genuine letters may be used as a standard to test the ques-

tionable letters by comparing such matters as style, vocabulary, gram-

mar, syntax, and phraseology. By adhering to literary issues, the use of

an eschatological opinion as a criterion of historicity is avoided and a

1. The bold criteria which Johannes Weiss establishes in the opening

pages of his History of Primitive Christianit , trans. Frederick c.
Grant (New York: Wilson-Erickson, 1914 , 1937), p. 2, reveals the
earlier trust in the critical method. Weiss does not attempt to
prove his methods. "The proof lies in the process itself which
can be vindicated only by its results." Schweitzer approximates
this attitude in his attack of the Pauline issues.
2. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 41.
3. ~·
 84

more objective appraisal of the positions of Charles and Schweitzer may

be made.

2. Background

The problems of genuineness are not settled simply by holding that

a suit~ble criterion of historicity may be found. Literary analysis does

not entirely settle the matter, for opinions divide on Paul's grammar,

syntax, and vocabulary.

Though Charles and Schweitzer may be passing judgment on II Thes-

salonians essentially from a doctrinal position, their conclusions reflect

the general pattern of English versus German scholarship. Since F. c. Baur

there has been a more critical attitude t6ward ..~LI.:;Thess.a:t0rlians· a.moJ:lg, German

scholars than among the English scholars.. Pauline authorship of II Thes-

!i
!'
saloxlians has been rejected by H. J. Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Wrede, von
I~
Soden, Spitta and van Manen, among others.l
1\
r:
Among English speaking scholars, the rejection of the genuineness

of II Thessalonians has not found much support. ..Contemporary English

and 1unerican
,, scholars have held to the authenticity of both letters
ti

(TheJ~salonians) ·"'2 Opinion favoring Pauline authorship may be cited among

~~
I!
___
!i,,

1. ~~offatt, Op. Cit., p. 251.

Yet note the recent opinion of Dibelius
~'ho finds II Thess. "as coming from Paur.,•• Op. Cit., P• 8. Deiss-
~iann' s peculiar description of II Thess. as an "unliterary letter,"
~~haws ttbut little characteristic material for our task of displaying
i:he character of the Apostle Paul." This ·is more in line with the
{raditional German view. Op. Cit .. , p. 16.,
2. John w. Bailey, "The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, ..
~:ntroduction and Exegesis in The Interpreters Bible (Vol. XI, New

I
 85

such men as James Moffatt,! John w. Bailey,2 A. H. McNeile,3 Albert B.

Barnett,4 William Nei1,5 Ernest Findlay Scott,6 John Knox,7 c. H. Dodd,8

as well as the conservative opinion of Ronald Knox.9 Morton Scott Enslin

is an example of an American scholar who rejects the genuineness of II

Thessalonians.lO

It is clear that despite the possibility of finding a literary

criterion of historicity, opinion on II Thessalonians remains divided.

3. The Problem of II Thessalonians 2:1-12

Exhaustive treatments of the problems involved may be found in

several studies.ll There are two central issues which raise questions

about Pauline authenticity: The nature of II Thessalonians 2:1-12, and

the similarity of style, structure, and phraseology with I Thessalonians.

York: Abingdon Press, 1955), p. 251. Early opinion favoring Pauline

authorship may be cited among such scholars as Renan, Wernle,
Julicher, Barth, and Peake. See Moffatt, Op. Cit., p. 66.
1. Moffatt, ap. Cit~, p. 76ff.
2. Bailey, ap. Cit., P• 249ff.
3. McNeile, qp. Cit.,-p. 129ffo
4. Albert E. Barnett, The New Testament, Its Making and Meaning
(New York: Abingdon~Qkesbury Press, 1946), p. 39ff.
5. William Neil, 'tThe Epistle of Paul to the Thessa1onianstt in
The Moffatt Commentary (New York~ Harper and Brothers, 1948),
p. xxiii ff.
6. Ernest Findlay Scott, The Literature of the New Testament
(New York: Columbia University Presst 1932 , 1952), p. 172f.
7. John Knox, Op. Cit., p. 22.
8. Dodd, .Op. Cit., p ..
9. Ronald Knox, St. PauPs Gospel (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1951),
p. 2. Knox here is even arguing the authenticity of Hebrews.
10. Enslin, Op. Cit., P• 239.
11. A good discussion is the article by Frame, Op. Cit., pp. 39-54.
Moffatt's discussion in his Introduction is thorough and sugges-
tive, Op. Cit .. , pp .. 74-82.. Enslin's critical appraisal is in
his Christian Beginnings, pp. 239-244.
 86

II Thessalonians 2:1-12, notes that the day of the Lord will not come un~

til the rebellion comes first.! In addition, the man of lawlessness must

be revealed and take his seat in the temple of Gode2 Signs and wonders

will accompany these events .. 3 These passages may be contrasted with I

Thessalonians 5:2, in which 11

the Lord will come like a thief in the night.~•

Charles, noting these distinct differences, says "I have with some

hesitation used both epistles as depicting the first stage in st. Paul's

eschatological views."4 However, this issue is not in itself

sufficient ground for rejecting II Thessalonians because some time

elapses between the composition of the epistles, and some of the
eschatological views of the Apostles were in a constant state of
flux.5

Enslin cautions against exaggerating the differences of I and II

Thessalonians.6 Though II Thessalonians 2:1~12, looks like an apocalypse,

there is no reason to conclude that a large time delay is involved. Signs

• ) I
can go hand in hand with events. EnslJ.n notes that EV€CJH]KEV means tthas

come" and concludes that this would support the position that II Thessa-

lonians does not emphasize a long delay.? But Enslin warns that Paul no-

1. II Thess. 2:3.
2. II Thess. 2:4.
3. II Thess. 2:9.
4. Charles, Op. Cit., p. 438.
5.. Ibid.
6. Enslin, Op .. Cit., p. 24L
7. Ibid. II Thess. 2:2. Arndt and Gingrich support Enslin's views. The
three passages which suggest "imminence"' or tr:threateningn can all be
translated "presen1:" or nhas come ... Arndt and Gingrich, Op. Cit .. ,
p. 266. See also Gerhard Kittel, Theologisches Wortebuch zum Neuen
Testament, verlag von W. Kohlhammer (Stuttgart, 1942); Vol. ii,EYE~T~K€V
must not be rendered imminent, n p. 54\J. ·
 87

where else suggests that the day of the Lord has already come.l It has

been noted above that Schweitzer believes that this is what Paul ~ be-

lieve, that the resurrection of Jesus inaugurates the Messianic age, and

that in these last days, the believers are already partaking of the bene-

fits of the Messianic age.2 The coming of the Lord becomes the manifesta-

tion of the glory of the elect.

Neil maintains that to argueii Thessalonians 2!1-12, from the

standpoint of eschatological tttime sequencett is not germane: to the

basic issue. He suggests that in the nature of eschatological thought,

the "question of time sequence does not arise."3 The preliminary events

alluded to might well be extremely close to. the day of the Lord, so close
\
that there would be no essential lapse of time between the appearance of

the man of lawlessness and the coming of the Lord.

The identification of the man of lawlessness with the risen Nero

is no longer generally accepted since Bousset's study of the Anti-Christ

Legend and hence may be dismissed as an argument to putting the dating

of II Thessalonians in the post-Neronian period.4

A further objection to II Thessalonians 2:1-12, is on the basis

of its foreignness to Paul~s thought. The wild apocalypticism seems out

of character nwith the lofty religious teachings of the great Pauline

1. ·Enslin, Op~ Cita, p. 241. But see the opinion on Colossians in

Chap. x.
2. See Chap. IV, .P• 62ff.
3. Neil, Op. Cit., P• xxii.
4. Ibid.
 88

Epistles."! Yet the stream of apocalyptic prophecy in the New Testament

can hardly be dismissed as altogether outside of the Christian message.2

Schweitzer would find apocalypticism not too distant from the central cri-

terion of historicity, namely the eschatological hope. But the primary

objection to the rejection of Pauline apocalyptic is that there is no real

means of judging what Paul did or did not write. The criterion of histori-

city becomes subjective. The absence of eschatological material in Gala-

tians is no reason for rejecting that indisputably genuine letter. Simi-

larly, the·presence of an apocalyptic passage in II Thessalonians does not

automatically rule that letter out. Neil even believes that the apoca~

lyptic section may well be the most genuine and authentic bit of the whole

1etter .. 3

In summary, the arguments, pro and con, on the apocalypticism of

II Thessalonians 2:1-12, fall for lack of a.ny objective criterion by

which to measure the mind of Paul.4

1. Scott, Op. Cit., P• 123.

2. Mark.l3; Matthew 24:15; I John 2:18, 4:3; Revelation.
3. Neil, Op. Cit., p. xxii.
4. The danger always is that the modern critic attempts to read into
Paul his own views. ''The amazing thing is that this primitiVe es-
chatology, preached with so much energy, was able to produce a type
of Christianity so steadfast and amiable as that displayed by the
earliest converts in Macedonia.." So Foakes-Jackson remarks. on II
Thess. 2:1.-12, Op. Cit., p. 148. It is the reluctance of contemf)o-
rary scholars to see any relevance in primitive eschatology Which
has made Schweitzer's position so very strong at this point. While
Schweitzer'"s critics stumble over the eschatology of II Thess.t
Schweitzer does not hesitate to reject the letter by using the same
principle, albeit from the opposite point of view. This is why the
conservative approach to Pauline authenticity finds recurring favor
as those criterions of historicity, which seek to read the mind of
Paul, contradict one another and fall of their own weight.
 89

4. The Similarity of Style, Structure and Phraseology

The vocabulary by itself is not sufficient to excite commente

There are occasional words such as Kpfcrcs ··1.15, epof:w 212, which are not

found in the other genuine epistles of Paul, though they are common in

primitive Christian vocabulary.! Most of the single occurrences can be

attributed to the Septuaginte

The style, however~ is normal, almost official, with a ucurious

poverty of expression .. "2

In the treatment of a subject like this, it was inevitable that

one or two phrases and terms should recur fairly ofte~, e.g .. the
6Xi~IS -9,roup, the 1Ttaris -group, epyaSeaea.L and allied terms,·
rra.pa.ryEAAW andEtp~vyt .. Still, it may be. confessed elsewhere, e.g.
in the description of God and Christ, the giving of thanks, and
the repetition of THtpti.KAl)<ns , etc., there is a stereotyped adher-
ence to certain forms of expression or terms which admittedly is
unusual in Paul.3

In addition, the style of certain passages is different from all

other letters of Paul. In 1:6-11, the language is broad and inflated

and somewhat digressive.

other critics of Pauline authenticity declare that II Thessalonians

is a slavish reproduction of I Thessalonians.4 It would be possible to

consider this reproduction as simply another proof of genuineness were it

not for a subtle change in mood. The warmth and affection are absent and

1. On Kp£~15 , II Thess. 1:5, see Arndt and Gingrich, ap.

Cit~, p. 453.
On 8po~W, II Thess. 2:2, see Arndt and Gingrich, Op. Cit., p. 364.
2. Moffatt, Op. Cit., p. 79.
3. Ibid.
4. Enslin, Op. Cit., P• 242.
 90

••the impression is given that some other wri.ter is striving hard to

imitate I Thessalonians."! Hence similarities in style and language

constitute an objection to authenticity.

5. Possible Solutions

When considering the objections which have been raised, parti-

cular1y in the matter of style, several theories may be considered.

·1. The epistle is a forgerye This would explain 2:1-12, and

would also explain the similarities in style and language.

2. The letter was written by Timothy or Silvanus. This theory

ranges from independent creation and dispatching by either of the nvo

subordinates, to creation by them and approval by Paul.

3. Paul dictated the letter and in so doing made a subtle shift

in style and language.

4. II Thessalonians was written by Paul but intended for formal

public use and hence lacks the familiarity of the earlier letters.

5. II Thessalonians was written by'Paul but intended for a dif-

ferent audience, namely Jews. I Thessalonians was written for Gentiles.

It was Harnack who ably argued this view.2

For the purpose of this dissertation, all but the first of these·

1~ Ibid., p. 243.
2. For a detailed discussion of these·alternatives see Neil, Op.·cit.,
pp. xxiii- xxvi; Enslin, Op~ Cit., p. 243; Moffatt, Op. Cit.,
pp .. 76-81; Barnett, Op. Cit .. , pp. 3'9-,.41; McNeile, Op .. Cit., pp. 1~9-
133 (six theories); Scott, Op. Cit., ·p. 122; Bailey, Op. Cit .. ,
pp. 249-250.
 91

theories have no relevance to the final issue. Paul either wrote,

dictated, or approved or stamped his thought upon the letter in any

of several possible ways. The single alternative is that the letter

is a forgery which is non-Pauline.!

6. External Evidence

The external evidence for II Thessalonians is as good as that of

the certainly genuine letters. Polycarp appears to have been acquainted

with the letter.2 Justin Martyr may echo some of the eschatological sec-

tions.3 This evidence, along with its inclusion in the Canon of Marcion,

nprove the existence of the writing early in the second century and there-

fore tell against any theory of its composition between 100 and 120 A.D."4

Further evidence is that of the Muratorian Canon. II Thessalonians is

quoted in Tertullian,5 Irenaeus,6 Clement of Alexandria.?

7. Conclusion

Until F. c. Baur, the genuineness of II Thessalonians was never

1. If Timothy or Silvanus independently created II Thess., it may be

assumed that it is a "Pauline forgery." J. Weiss regarded Silvanus
as the author of both II Thess. and I Peter. Because of lack of
evidence, such interesting theories are more of a scholarly "tour
de forcett than anything else and have won little support. ·
2. Po1ycarp, Letter to Smyrna, 11:3 (quoting II Thess. 1:4), 11:4 9
(Quoting II Thess. 3:15).
3. Justin Martin, Dialogue t~~h Trypho, 23, 110, 116.
4. Moffatt, op. Cit., p. ·s2.
s. Tertullian, Scoq~. 13, resurr. · carnis 24.
6~ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:7, 2: 5:25, 1.
7. Clement, Stromata 5:3.
 92

questioned. Since then, the grounds for rejecting it have been shifted

from eschatological issues to the tone and content of the epistle as a

whole, that is to say, from doctrinal criticism to literary criticism.

Yet, when all the arguments are considered, the burden of proof

still seems to be upon those who would reject the genuineness of II

Thessalonians. Several reasons appear:

1. In terms of content, the arguments against authenticity and

in favor of forgery are mutually contradictory. On the one hand, it is

argued that the material in II Thessalonians is foreign to Paul's

thought, while on the other a slavish dependence upon I Thessalonians

is noted. In order to support these positions, it is necessary to frag-

mentize the letter and find different strands and layers of authorshi~,

redactions, and editings. Such theories produce more problems than they

solve.

2. External evidence is as good as the certainly genuine letters.

3. Matters of style, structure and phraseology are hardly decisive.

4. The solutions offered do not really eradicate Pauline author-

ship of II Thessalonians with the sole exception of the forgery idea. If

the letter was written by an amanuensis such as Timothy (Spitta), Silas

(Burkitt), Titus (R. Scott), or Silvanus (J Weiss), Paul's mood hovers

over the creation. Paul may have dictated directly, he may have simply

edited or approved, or he may have commissioned. In any event, if Paul

did not directly dictate or write the letter, we may consider it close

to his thought.
 CHAPTER VII

THE GENUINENESS OF THE PASTORALS .AND THE IMPRISONMENT LETI'BRsl

1,. The Pastorals

Since the rise of critical scholarship in the nineteenth century,

the three pastorals, I and II Timothy and Titus, have generally been re-

jected as authentic Pauline letters. Some scholars hold that there may

be fragments of authentic Pauline correspondence contained in the three

letters. ucritics generally admit • • • that fragments at least of ge~a-

uine letters of Paul to Timothy and Ti tu~ are here present. ''2 This posi-

tion has been held by such scholars as Harnack, von Soden, E. F. Scott,

McGiffert, Moffatt, arid Str~eter.3 The present tendency is to reject

the fragmentary the.ory along with Pauline authorship as a whole. Hold-

ing this position among others are Julicher, Enslin, Goodspeed, and

Dibelius.4 B. s. Easton notes cautiously: . non. the .possibility of genu-

ine Pauline fragments in the Pastorals - no final decision seems possible.••S

1. The Council of Trent aiso a:eclared Hebrews to.be Pauline. This posi-
tion is generally modified by modern Roman scholars such as Ronald
Knox, Op. Cit., p. 2. Its inclusion in the Pauline Corpus has not
been seriously considered since Calvin by non-Roman scholars.
2. Benjamin w. Bacon~ An'Introduction to the New Testament (New York:
Macmillan Company, 1900), p. 128.
3. Fred D., Gealy ~ tti and II Timothy, Titus'', Interpreters Bibl.e.,
Vol. 11, p. 344.
4. !.!?.,g.
s. B. s. Easton, The Pastoral Epistles (New York: Charles Scribner'.s
Sons, 1947), p. 16,.

93
 94

Neither Charles nor Schweitzer use the Pastorals in their argu-

ments although Charles has one footnote in which I and II Timothy .axe

quoted.l By rejecting the genuineness of the Pastorals, neither argu-

ment will be unduly prejudiced.

2. Philemon

The genuineness of Philemon is universally accepted. The only

serious attack in recent times was by Baur who reluctantly rejected it

for he believed that he thus exposed himself to the charge of hyper-

criticism.2 Baur's reJection was based upon his need to be consistent

with his rejection of the other imprisonment letters. Since Baur, this

Tiioingen position has found little support.

3. Philippians

Both Schweitzer and Chaxles use Philippians.in their arguments and

they both place this epistle among Paul's genuine lettersa There is gener-

a1 agreement among modern scholars that.the letter is authentic.3

Again the first serious attack on Pillippians began with F. c. Baur

2 •. Charles, qp. Cit., P• 462.

2. Marvin R. Vincent, ..Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon,"
.International Critical Commentary (New~ York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1897), p. 159. :) / ~ /
3. The only argument turns on the use of E:;'trluKOTrots and o(ctKOYOIS
in 1:1. "The titles appear suspicious ,only when we· read into them
the significance they came to acquire in the later ecclesiastical
system.'' Ernest F. Scott, "Introduction to Philippians," Inter~
preters Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1955), Vol. 11, p. 8.
 95

in 1845.1 Baur found evidence of the two-party controversy symbolically

represented by Euodia and Syntyche.2 This position has been abandoned.3

An attack on the letter by Holsten in 1875 turned mainly on ques-

tions of style and content. The chief objection was the lack of authen-

tic Pauline polemic without which no letter could be genuine. This cri-

terion has long since been seen to be faulty.4 The various objections

raised can all be readily handled and since the Tllbingen attack no cri-

tical questions haye succeeded in undermining the growing confidence

among scholars of the authenticity of this letter. Philippians may be

regarded as a prime example of Paul's imprisonment thought.

4. Colossians

i. Introduction

Charles bases his fourth stage upon Colossians, Ephesians and

Philippians. This stage he calls "the cosmic significance of Christ.••5

Schweitzer concludes that Colossians and Ephesians, though presenting

the thought of Paul,

have begun to undergo a process of transformation • • • Whatever

solution may be given, however, to the complicated problem of the
Colossians and Ephesian Epistles it is not of primary importance
for the exposition of Paul's teaching. There is so much that is
peculiar in their ideas that these cann6t in any case be simply

1. Vincent, Op. Cit., p. xxvi.

2. Phil. 4:2.
3. Moffatt, Op. Cit., p. 171.
4. Enslin, Op. Cit., p. 280.
5. Charles, Op. Cit., p. 461.
 96

dovetailed with those from the certainly genuine epistles, but

must in some way be allowed to take a place alongside of them.l

Because of these differing views as to the significance of Colas-

sians and Ephesians, it is clear that their admission or rejection as

genuine Pauline letters may have an important bearing upon the relative

merits of the positions of Charles and Schweitzer.

As in the case of II Thessalonians, the criterion of historicity

should again be literary inasmuch as Schweitzer's rejection of both

letters appears to be doctrinal.

ii. External Evidence

Though not equal to that of the earlier epistles, the external

evidence may be regarded as strong.2 Allusions to Colossians may be

found in Barnabas, Ignatius to the Ephesians, Polycarp and Justin,

though the relationships are limited.3 It was early thought to be in

the genuine works of Paul and is attested to by Irenaeus, Clement of

Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen •.4 Marcion and Valentinus also re-

cognized Colossians as did the Muratorian Canon.

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, PP• 42-43.

2. Beare, Op. Cit., p .. 143.
3. T. K.. Abbott, '•The Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians ..
of The International Critical .Commentary (New York: Charles Scrib-
ner's Sons, 1902), Intra. p. 50. See Barnabas 12:7 alluding to Col.
1:16. Ignatius to Ephesians 10:3 and;PolycarplO:l alluding to Col.
1:23. Ignatius to Smyrna 6:1 alluding to Col .. 1:16.. Po1ycarp 11:2
alluding to Col. 1:20, 23; 3:5. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho 75
alluding to Col. 1:15.
4. Abbott, Op. Cit •., Irenaeus Ad. Her., 3:14,. lff quoting Col. 1:21,22;
Clement, Stromata 1:1 citing Col. 1:28. Tertullian has numerous
citations. Origen, Against Celsus 5:8 quoting 2:18, 19.
 97

iii. Early Criticism

German criticism led by Mayerhoff first raised questions about

Colossians in 1838 and the TUbingen school generally followed.! The

issue was complicated by the close relationship to Ephesians. Some

scholars like Mayerhoff believed Colossians an abridgment of the genu-

ine Ephesians while others like De Wette believed that Ephesians was a

later expansion of a genuine Colossians.

The literary endeavors to prove the composite construction of

Colossians may be summarized by the brilliant work of H. ]. Holtzmann

who suggested that Colossians was an expansion of a small genuine

epistle. Other reconstructions were undertaken by von Soden and Mayer-

hoff. The end result of this elaborate criticism was to bring into sus-

picion the whole method and its conclusions. Furthermore, De Wette's

theory began to find support. Attention shifted from Colossians to

Ephesians. Goodspeed's theory of Ephesians as a "cover letter" to the

Pauline Corpus2 represents recent refinement of De Wett~'s position.

Similarly, the TUbingen criticism was weakened as the parallels

with Philippians were demonstrated.3 Baur believed that the Gnostic

thought which he found in Philippians argued against the authenticity

of Colossians. But since Philippians was shown to be genuine, the

1. The arguments may be traced in Abbott, ap. Cit., Intro. p. 51,

or Moffatt, Op• Cit., P• 144.
2. Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Meariing. of Ephesians (Chicago: University
Press, 1933).
3. Vincent, Op. Cit., P• lvii.
 98

opposite was true and the doctrinal objections on the basis of Gnosti-

cism were lessened.

_A further point in favor of Colossian authenticity was its close

relationship to Philemon. This relationship forced Baur to reject Phile-

mon despite overwhelming internal evidence favoring authenticity of the

small letter.l This extreme .position helped to bring about the general

discrediting of the Tllbingen criticism and the restoration of confidence

in the authenticity of Colossians.

iv. Recent Criticism

Though the initial criticism based on doctrinal considerations

brought by the Tiibingen school has now largely been. answered, the case

for the genuineness of Colossians cannot be said to have. been success-

fully concluded. Modern scholaxshave pointed out at least three major

difficulties which must be faced, namely, the difference in style be-

tween Colossians and the accepted epistles, the nature of the relation-

ship to the Ephesians, and the affinity of thought with post-Pauline

works such as the Fourth Gospel and the Hebrews.

It will be perceived that the first two problems are literary

while the last problem is a new issue relating to the general matter

of mysticism and Christology. If Paul's thought has pronounced affini-

ties with the Fourth Gospel in Colossians, it is possible that such a

shift in thought could produce shifts in eschatology. It is not un-

1. !£!£., P• lviii.
 99

reasonable to postulate a negative correlation between the Christ-

mysticism of Colossians and the eschatological hope. Schweitzer en-

deavors to demonstrate that the mysticism directly relates to escha-

tology. partly by his re-defining ·of mysticism.! It is outside the

scope of this dissertation for the author to enter into a discussion

of Pauline ~ysticism, however, the relationship to eschatology, if any,

will be reserved to succeeding chapters. The authenticity of Colas-

sians will be considered on the basis of the literary criticism as

raised in the first two problems.

v. Questions of Style and Vocabulary

The features which help to cast doubt upon the authenticity (of
Colossians) are • • • the long involved sentences; the concatena-
tion of genitives; the measured liturgical cadences; the absence
of the quick and eager dialectic.2

An example of cumbrous overweighted sentences may be found in

1:25-27, which might well be compared to I Corinthians. 2.:6-16. An ex-

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p .. 97. If Paul's mystical thought takes a

new turn in Colossians, a turn which is sharply different from
his earlier position, it might be strong evidence for the develop-
mental theory. Such development may be ~ssumed.to have taken place
not only in the matter of.Christ-mysticismbut.in the general area
of eschatology. In comparing the development ~f Christ-mysticism
and eschatology it is conceivable that they might move in negative
correlation, or reverse proportion:. the more eschatology, the less
need for any mystical real presence; the less eschatology, the more
need for a mystical re-statement of the presence of Christ. Such a
relationship has been observed in the Fourth Gospel where the es-
chatology has received very little emphasis and the real presence
of Christ defined as the 'l'l'a.ptLK.~"f)W~ has been introduced.
2. Beare, Op• Cit., p. 144.
 100

ample of involved sy;I;Itax may be seen in 2:8-15, a "concatenation of

genitives." The "nervous vigor" of Corinthians gives way to a diffi-

cult involved sentence structure which hardly seems.the working of the

same mind.l

The style is different from the earlier Pauline epistles. The

question that remains is whether or not such differences in style neces-

sitate the complete separation of the letter from the hand of Paul.

There is much to argue that evidence will not support such a radical

conclusion. Differences in style can be observed in all writers in

works composed at different times and places in their lives. If Paul

was in prison at the time of the writing of Colossians, there is reason

to suppose that he may have had the time for more reflective or specu-

lative thought. The "nervous vigor" of the earlier letters could well

have been caused by the pressures of his campaigning. It may well be

impossible to determine that degree of difference in style of a writer

which finally compels one to deny genuineness of authorship.

In addition, there are sufficient affinities of style between

Colossians and the major epistles to balance considerably the criti-

cisms raised. The involved long sentences of 2:8-15 and 1:9-20, have

their parallels in Romans 1:1-7, 2:5-10, 14-16, 3:23-26; Galatians 2:3-5,

6-9; Philippians 3:8-11.2 There are also many turns of expression which

are strikingly Pauline, such as 2:4, 8, 17, 23; 3:14; 4:6, 17.?·

1. ~-
2. Abbott, Op. Cit., P• liii.
3. ~·· p. lii.
 101

The lack of polemic in Colossians might be another reason for a

stylistic difference. Paul was under no attack and he is not writing

under the pressure which produced Corinthians or Galatians.

In summing up the stylistic differences, though it is clear that

Colossians differs from the larger letters, in the face of similarities

it cannot be concluded that genuineness .is to be denied by this test

cf !!! \ I
alone. A survey of vocabulary by Abbott reveals no more arr~~ AcYOJ!EVOl

than would be expected in a letter dealing with novel questions.! The

alleged absence of Paul's favorite terms and turns of expression are not

\~thout parallels in other letters.2 Altogether, the vocabulary of

Colossians, though possessing some few novelties, is hardly outside the

realm of Paul's experiences. His. presence. in prison in Rome could well

have added to his current choice of words and might bring some new ex-

pressions into his thought.

On matters of vocabulary and style, the burden of proof must re-

main upon those who would declare for non-genuineness of Pauline author-

ship.

vi. Relationship to Ephesians

The relationship between Colossians and Ephesians is close. A

reading of the two letters reveals agreement in the use of a number of

1. ~., P• lii. The complete survey and conclusions may be found

on pp. li - liii, lix - lx.
2. ~·
 102

technical words of a theological vocabulary which are not elsewhere

used by Paul. Goodspeed says that ..three fifths of Colossians is

reflected in Ephesians."! Again and again there are verbally identi-

cal phrases such as parallels between Colossians 4:7, 8, and .Ephesians

6:21, 22.2 Similarities of style are frequent and the liturgieal ca-

dences of Ephesians a~pear only less cons~icuously in Colossians.3

Two questions are important when considering these two epistles.

Is Ephesians dependent upon Colossians or is Colossians an abridgment

of Ephesians? Did the same author write both letters?

The problem of dependence has been attacked from both sides ever

since the genuineness of ~phesians was called into question by Schleier-

macher. 4 The priority of Ephesians was argued by llolt.zmann "with great

labour and minuteness. tt5 Be deduced that a genuine epistle to the Colos-

sians was used by the writer of :Bphesians and later interpolated. Bence

Ephesians became somewhat of a model for the edited Colossians.

This position has not generally been followed6 because other

difficulties attending the defense of the genuineness of :Bphesians seem

to weigh more heavily than the difficulties surrounding Colossians.7

1. Goodspeed, Op. Cit., p. 8. .

2. A list of 39
parallels compiled by De Wette appears in Abbott,
Op. Cit.• , P•
xxiii.
3. Beare, Qp. Cit., P• 145.
4. See below, P• 105. ·· ·
5. Abbott, Qp. Cit., p. xxiii.
6. Ibid., p. xxiv.
7. see-below, p. 106ff, for a statement of the evidence.
 108

Hence the problem centers on whether or not Ephesians is genuine.

If Ephesians is not genuine, it is more satisfactory to conclude that it

is based in some way upon Colossians.l The close relationship of Colos-

sians to Philemon, an unquestionably genuine letter, has tended to place

the three letters in a descending order of genuineness; i.e., Philemon,

Colossians, Ephesians.

In summary, the evidence for the genuineness of Colossians is

certainly not as complete as the attestation of the major letters and

the question of authorship must remain open.2 However, despite the fact

of textual corruption and the tendency of scribes to conform Colossians

to Ephesians,3 the objections, singly or cumulatively, are not sufficient

to set the work aside from the genuine writings of Paule The reaction to

the initial TUbingen criticism appears to have broadened the criterion by

which Pauline authenticity has been measured; the narrow confines of doc-

trine and style established in earlier days now appear to do injustice to

the breadth and creative power of Paul. In such an atmosphere, the authen-

ticity of Colossians tends to become more secure. For the purpose of this

dissertation, it shall be regarded as genuine.4

I. A detailed examination of the evidence may be found in MOffatt,

Qp. Cit., PP• 155-157; Abbott, Op. Cit., PP• xxiii-xxiv; and
Goodspeed, Op• Cit.
2. Beare, Qp• Cit., p. 145.
3. Moffatt, Op. Cit., P• 157.
4. Apartfrom the TUbingen criticism listed above, there is substan-
tial agreement on the authenticity of Colossians. The following
authorities all lioid for the Pauline authorship: . Deissmann, .9P..!.
Cit., "The results of Paul's contemplation flow in the clearest
Stream in the letter to the Colossians .. ", p. 107. Dibelius,
 104

5. Ephesians

The problems of ascribing the authorship of Ephesians to Paul

are many. The genuineness of Ephesians has been under heavy attack

ever since the TUbingen school opened the way on doctrinal grounds.

i. External Evidence

Allusion to Ephesians may be found in Clement of Rome,l the

Didache,2 and Ignatius.3 Polycarp's To the Philippians in Chapter I

contains two quotations f·rom Ephesians •.4 The Shepherd of Hermas has

an allusion.5

By the time of Irenaeus the epistle was accepted as Paul's.6

From the above external evidence it seems probable that the letter ex-

isted by 95 A.D. (Clement) or at least by 115 (Ignatius, Polycarp)

with absolute attestation by about 175.

Op. Cit.,. "Colossians peculiarities •• •., are explained by the

apostle's peculiar. situation.", P• 8. Dodd, Op. Cit., p. 10.
John Knox, Op. Cit~, p. 20~ Knox finds Colossians with II Thess.
"the most questionable ... Nock, Op. Cit., p. 226. Foalces-Jackson,
Op. Cit., p. 18. Scott, Literature of New Testament, p. 173ff.
Barnett, Op. Cit., p. 81. Moffatt, Op. Cit., P• 153ff. McNeile,
Op. Cit., P• 203. Abbott, Op. Cit., IntrGduction. Enslin, 0~. Cit.,
P• 292. The earlier critics agree such as Conybeare,and Howson,
Farrar, David Smith, c. T. Wood and R. D. Shaw.
1. c. 64, 46 compared with Ephesians 4:4-6, c. 36 cf. Ephesians 1:18 1
c. 38 cf. Ephesians 5:21.
2. Didache iv; 10, 11 cf. Epnesians 6:9, 5.
3. Epistle to Ephesians c. 12.
4. Cap. 1 cf. Ephesians 2:5, 8, 9, and Cap. 12 cf. Ephesians 4:26.
s. Mand. iii cf. Ephesians 4:25, 29.
6. ~aeus Ad. Her., 5:2, 3, "Just as the blessed Paul wrote in his
epistle to the Ephesians."
 105

ii. Early Criticism

Schleiermacher was the first who questioned the genuineness of

Ephesians! though Evanson is given this credit by Beare.2 The TUbin-

gen school rejected Ephesians along with the other Imprisonment Letters

on the grounds that they represented second century Gnosticism. Baur

even found traces of Montanism in Ephesians.3 A clarification of the

gnostic position brought about a shifting of the argument to literary

grounds. The TUbingen position has fallen with the almost universal

acceptance of the genuineness of Philemon and Philippians.

Though De Wette postulated the dependence of Ephesians on Colas-

sians, it was H. J. Holtzmann in 1872 that focused study on the related-

ness of the two epistles.4 He concluded that the writer of Ephesians

had before him a primitive Colossians which was subsequently inter-

polated. Since Holtzmann "the weight of the arguments inclines upon

the whole to favour the authenticity of Colossians and the sub-Pauline

origin of Ephesians.''5 Moffatt makes a detailed comparison of the

parallels passages with the conclusion tl1at Ephesians is a "set of

variations played by a master hand upon one or two themes suggested

by Colossians."6

1. Abbott, Op. Cit •., P• JO.l.:t. Moffatt, Op. Cit .. , P• 5.

2. Beare, Qe. Cit., p. 592.
3. Abbott, Op• Cit., p. xiv.
4. Ibid.
5. Moffatt, Op. Cit., P• 375 ..
6. ~·· pp. 375-381
 106

More recently, E. J. Goodspeed in his The Meaning of Ephesians

has brought forward the theory that Ephesians is a cover letter accom-

panying the initial collection and publication of the Pauline Corpus.l

Its address was not .Ephesus, but simply "to the saints who are also

faithful.'' The theory is attractive and to many scholars persuasive.2

The net effect is to reinforce the non-Pauline autherslii.p.

iii. The Issues

The study of Ephesians is a complicated literary w.atter. and there

is a great deal of confusion on matters of origin, dating, first readers

and occasion and purpose. Though these issues affect the question of

genuineness, the internal evidence seems decisive in demonstrating non-

Pauline authorship.

That evidence may be summarized as follows:

1. The author is non-Jewish. 3

2. The readers are Gentiles.4

3. The author has no personal knowledge of his readers, a most

unlikely circumstance in view of Paul's lengthy stay at Ephesus..s This

objection may be met by removing the reference to Ephesians but this in

turn provides a further argument against Pauline authorship.6

1. Goodspeed, Op. Cit.

2. See footnote 4 below, P• 108.
3. .Ephesians 2:3 c£, Galatians 2:15, II Cor. 11:22, Phil. 3:4.
4. Ephesians 2:2, 11.
s. Ephesians 1:15, 3:2, 4:21.
6. See below, Point 10, P• 107.
 107

4. The only relationship be~~een author and readers is through

written messages.!

s. The apostles are consciously heightened in importance when

compared with genuine Pauline letters.2

6. The church is the channel of revelation.3

7. Heretical sects are operating5 and the unity of the church

is endangered6 suggesting a second century situation.

8. The literary dependence. upon Colossians argues against genu-

ineness instead of for it. This may be demonstrated by subtle changes

which have occurred. Christ is the "head of the body" in both epistles.6

In Colossians the body is the t~O<iflOS while in Ephesians the body is the
) \ ,/
E: KK 1\ Yl_uW,

9. The anonymity of the Ephesianstaddres~ argued by those ~mo

would make the letter a circular, does not fit the personal method of

Paul's writing as typified by Colossians.

10. Nor does the substitute of ..Laodiceatt (following Marcion)

ease the situation for the question immediately arises why it is neces-

sary to send for it.7 Tychicus would probably have brought it to

Colossae with ~ Furthermore, the similarity of the letter to the

Colossian epistle would make its reading at Colossae redundant.

1. Ephesians 3:2, 3; 3:16-20.

2. Ephesians 2:20-22 cf .. , I Cor. 3:11, XI Cor. 3:17.
3. Ephesians 3:10.
4. Ephesians 4:14.
s. Ephesians 4:3-6.
6. Col. 2:10, 19, with Ephesians 4:16.
7. Col. 4:16.
 108

11. The vocabulary is strilcingly different from other Pauline

epistles. Almost every commentator has noted this fact, 1 with the typi-

cal frequent conclusions that "Another mind than that of the Apostle is

at work in Ephesians."2

The cumulative effect of the above arguments is considerable.

Against them is the general argument that Ephesians bears the stamp of

Paul's thought, albeit in a more advanced form. The similarity to Colos-

sians argues for, rather than against, Pauline authorship, and the com-

plicated style does resemble Romans which is not altogether lucid and

simple.3

For the purpose of this diss·ertation, Ephesians will be consi-

dered post-Pauline.4

1. Abbott, Op. C~t., P• xive Moffatt, Ope Cit., p. 385.

2. Moffatt, Ibid.
3. Ernest F. Scott, "Colossians, Phiiernon, Ephesians," Moffatt
Commentary (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1930), p. 121.
4. Some prominent scholars appear sharply critical of the genuine-
ness. Finding against authenticity are the following: Good-
speed:, Op. Cit. Enslin~- op~ Cit~ Commenting on Goodspeed's .
hypothesis that Ephesians is a cover letter to introduce the
publications of the Pauline Corpus, Enslin remarks .,The hypo-
thesis is of interest; nor is it easy to think of a more plaus-
ible one," p. 298. Nock, Op. Cit., "The writer of the letter
• • • can hardly have bee!l Paul," p. 230. Dibelius, Op. Cit.,
" ~ •• the simplest explanation is to • • • regard the letter.
to Ephesians as an imi~ation of. the one to Colossians, " p. 8.
John Knox, Op. Cit .. , "The post-Pauline character of Ephesians
is also very widely recognized,'' p. 20. Knox follows Goodspeed.
Barnett, Op. Ci~., Barnett's opinion is based upon a detailed
examination of literary indebtedness. He suggests Onesimus as
the author which to Barnett would become "an invaluable aid in
its ·interpretation," p. 185. Moffatt, 9P• Cit .. , pp. 373-395.

Finding for Pauline authoxship are the following: Deissmann,

 109

6. Summary

The Pastorals, I and II Timothy, and Titus, are set aside as

non-authentic letters of Paul. These letters have almost no bearing

upon the arguments of Charles or Schweitzer.

On the other hand, Philemon and Philippians are considered

genuine. No real opposition to these letters can be found in recent

scholarship and both Schweitzer and Charles rely upon Philippians.

Ephesians is a confusing issue. "It is only fair to say that

in our present stage of knowledge 'Ephesians' still remains one of the

great enigmas, nor is there much reason to hope that it wil~ ever be

otherwise."! Enslin's conclusion is cautious and critical. Despite

the lack of finality on the whole question, it seems better to declare

Ephesians post-Pauline. This conclusion supports Schweitzer and is

against Charles.

On the other hand, Colossians appears to be authentic in spite

of several difficulties. This conclusion supports Charles and is

against Schweitzer.

Op. Cit., Deissman allows the original .title to be nLaodiceans,n

p. 24. Dodd, Op. Cit., •1 The balance of probability is on the side
of the genuineness of Epl;J.esians,u p. 10. Scott,.Literature of New
Testaxilent, "The natural assumption is surely that an epistle so
like the work of Paul at his very best was written by no other man
than Paul himself, p. 180. McNeile, Op. Cit., "But it is doubtful
if the reasons adduced .are strong enough to force us to abandon
the traditional view that it contains the sublime outpouring of
the maturest thoughts of the apostle of the Gentiles,'' PP• 217-220.
Abbott, Op. Cit•, P• ixff.
1. Enslin, gp. Cit., p. 298.
 CHAPTER VIII

THE DATES OF THE LETTERS

1. Introduction

One further issue needs to be considered before an analysis

of the eschatological material can be made. It is necessary to date

the genuine letters of Paul as accurately as possible. If Paul's

thought developed in an orderly way, then dating the various letters

will determine whether his ideas developed gradually or in some sud-

den traumatic way. On the other hand, if evidence for similar stages

of Paul's thought is found to come from letters having wide differ-

ences in date, the developmental argument is sharply challenged. A

certain chronological coherence should reasonably be demonstrated,

if the theory of Charles is correct.

The dating of the letters is necessary to test the develop-

mental theory as well as to provide a general frame of reference in

which to examine consistent eschatology.

2. A Terminus a Quo

Paul's Christian activity may be divided into two periods:

The first is from his conversion to the crisis in Jerusalem•l the

1. Acts 15:36ff.

110
 111

second is from the crisis to the great mission in Asia Minor, Macedonia

and Achaia, followed by imprisonment and death. Paul's literary activity

is within the second period.

The first period may be said to occupy a'pput.lk,t.-o.J-7 Ye1=u::s,;;..

based on evidence of Galatians.! The date of conversion is uncertain,

but it is after the death of Jesus in the early apostolic period, the

history of which is chronicled in the opening cha~ters of Acts. The

actual date of the conversion is variously put between 31 and 38 A.D.,

with the earlier date being closest to the general consensus.2 By

adding 17 to this date, the crisis at Jerusalem is put somewhere around

48-49 A.D.

Accuraey of dating can never be ..assured and, for the purpose of

this dissertation, is not primarily essential. However, it should be

noted that the 17-year period, as an approximation, suggests that Paul

was well along in his mature consideration of the Christian faith.

This maturity would argue for Schweitzer's view that Paul had reached

a stability of thought and a reasonably coherent and well worked-out

theology.

Of more iinportance is the relationship of the letters to them-

selves. Though the terminus a quo of Paults correspondence must remain

vague, for lack of external evidence~ the internal evidence gives several

clues to the inter-relationship of the letters.

1. Gal. 1:18, 2:1.

2. Moffatt, Op• Cit., p. 62. See also Deissmann, Op. Cit.,
Appendix 1, p. 235.
 112.

3. The Three Periods

The letters of Paul may be said to fall into three periods. 1

The first period involves the writing of I and II Thessalonians. This

was in the middle of the second journey, no doubt during the eighteen

months' ministry in Corinth noted i~ Acts 18:1-17.2 The dating of this

Corinth stay varies from Harnack's 48 A.. D. to c. 53 A.D. of z;ahn, Light-

foot and Renan.3

The second period is during the third missionary journey when I

and II Corinthians and Romans were written. I Corinthians wa.s tW:i tten

from Bphesus,4 toward the end of his three-year stay.S Soon afterwards,

while in Macedonia, Paul wrote II Corinthians. After a th:re1~-month stay

in Macedonia,6 Paul wintered in Corinth and wrote Romans.. I·t is thus

conceivable that if I Corinthians was written at the very end of Paul's

stay in Ephesus, and Romans at the beginning of Paul's winter in Corinth,

the three major letters of Paul could all fall within a six-month period.

Schweitzer places I C<:>rinthians in the spring, II Corinthians in the

autumn, and Romans in the winter. In any event, these three letters

probably fall within a year's time and may be grouped together.

The amount of time separating the first period from this second

1. McNeile, O,E• Cit., p. 124.

2. Moffatt, 0£· Cit., p. 73.
3. ~., P• 63.
4. Acts 19:1-41.
s. Acts 20:31 ..
6 .. Acts 20:3.
 113

period is about four years, allowing approximately three years for the

Ephesian ministry and a few months £or. the campletion af the se.cond

missionary journey fallowing the writing of the Thessalonians letters.!

The third period of Paul's correspondence is. during the imprison-

ment when Colossians, Philippians, . and Philemon .were written.2 Paul was

"'h1o whole years" in Rome.3 The letters cauld.have been written any

time during this stay • The separation of time between the second and

third period is considered to be three ta four. years which includes such

events as the C()Jilpletian of the third joumey,.4 fifth visit to Jerusalem,S

arrest and imprisonment,6 the imprisoning at Caesarea,7. and the voyage to

Rome.8

It is possible that the Imprisonment.Letters may.have been written

from Caesarea or Ephesus •. Despite. some ingenious .arguments in favor af

these two places,· ••;. it • the old view that. the Epistle was sent from

Rome is still by far themost probable."9

Within the third. peri.ed,. Colossians .appears. to .. be slightly earlier

than Philippians despite the fuller theology ofthat epist1e.10 Hawever,

1. Acts 18:1~23.
2. Acts 28:14-31.
3. Acts 28:30.
4. Acts 20.
s. Acts 21:15...17.-
6. Acts 21:18-;;.23; 30.
1. Acts 23:26.
s. Acts 27:1-28; 16.
9. Scott, Phil:lppians, P• .6, Scott's balanced. evaluati.an .of the evidence
is persuasive. See also Moffatt., Op •. Cit., .p •. 169, who summarizes
the arguments against Caesarea.·
.10. .!!?.!2.•• P• 170. For a contr.ar.y.view note Barnett, Qg. Cit., P• 82.
 114

it is sufficient to state that these two letters fall closely together.

4. Galatians

It is impossible to accurately fix the time of the writing of

Galatians and it cannot be relied upon to give any exact clues as to

the development of Paul~s thought.

Galatians may have been written from Antioch at the close of

the first mission tour which makes it the earliest of the Pauline letters.

A second possibility is at Corinth during the second tour. A i;hird possi-

bility is Antioch at the close of the second tour. A fourth possibility

is Ephesus in the third mission tour during the three-years st;a..y. A

fifth possibility is Corinth in the winter at the time of the 1writing of

Romans. The letter thus can fall almost any time in the first and second

period of Paul's writing. Fortunately 7 the eschatological material in

Galatians is limited and the dating of this letter is not critically im-

portant.
 115

5. Sunnnary

The three periods may be summarized as follows:l

Letter Place or Time A.D.

First Period

I Thessalonians Acts 18~1-17 50

II Thessalonians (18 Months in Corinth)

Galatians ? ?

Second Period

I Corinthians Ephesus (Acts 19) 54

II Corinthians Macedonia (Acts 20:3) 54

Romans Corinth Winter 54-55

Third Period

Colossians Rome Imprisonment 58-60

Philemon Rome Imprisonment If

Philippians Rome Imprisonment 59-·60

1. McNeile's dates are slightly later. I and II Thess. 51; I Cor. 55;
II Cor. 56; Romans 57; Col. 61; Phil. 62. This would al:Low more
time for development between periods. Barnett, Op. Cit •., agrees
with the dates as given above excep_t_that he puts Co:l. at 61-62.
 t/'"'

CHAPTER IX

A SURVEY OF PAULINE BSCHA.TOLOOY

Passages of the genuine Pauline letters dealing with eschatology

will now be set forth. Some of the passages will be of distant relevance

but nevertheless are included so that in the ensuing discussion, no evi-

dence is overlooked. The purpose of the commentary is not tha.t of exe-

gesis. It has been included only to clarify or to justify the inclusion

of a passage with possible obscure meaning. The longer passages usually

need little comment.

1. I Thessalonians

1:3b Your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope
in our Lord Jesus Christ.
~ / /
It is possible to connect TOU. Ku.ptou. with Tt'CCST~ws or
) /
a.yo.rryts , but it seems better to let roQ t-<uplou. simply
. ; \ 'r
quall.fy 6/\'Titoos as an objective genitive.!

l:lOb And to wait for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from the
dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.

In Matthew 3:7, the phrase "wrath to come" is from f-r:),'l\ov..cra.,

which might better be translated "'wrath which is cert:ain to

come."

1. See Arndt and Gingrich, Op. Cit., p. 252, b.

'116
 117

Paul's use of EfXOfl~Vyts emphasizes immediacy, and accentuates

the eschatological hope.l

2:12 To lead a life worthy of God~ who calls you into his own kingdom
and glory.
f3a.crc!.eCQ , infrequently used by Paul, "denotes the redeemed
society of the future over which God rules."2

2:16b But God's wrath has come upon them at last:

ecs T€Ao.s cannot be used intensively in the sense of "utterly"

or "completely" but must be used in the sense of utemporarily."3

Schweitzer, following Moffatt and others, inclines to consider

the phrase a later gloss referring to the fall of Jentsa1em.4

The concensus of criticism seems to support immediacy ..

2:19 For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our
Lord at his coming?

Coming is here napou.cr(a, and is the term specifically used by

Paul for the advent.S

1. Ibid., p. 502; c.d. For parallels see below Col. 3:6, p.131
and Ephesians 5:6, p.· 132.
2. Frame, ap. Cit., p. 105. But note Romans 14:17 which puts the
kingdom into the present experience of the believer, though not
ruling out an eschatological interpretation. Schweitzer regards
the kingdom as beginning immediately though its manifestation
may be delayed, Mysticism, p. ·120.
3. Frame, Op. Cit., p. 114.
4. Ibid., P• 185. See a:so Bailey, Op. Cit., p. 279.
s. Other uses of na.pou<rCQ by Paul may be cited in I Thess. 3:13,
4:15, 5:23; II Thess. 2:1, 8; I Cor. 15~23.
 118

3:13 • so that he may establish your hearts unblamable in holiness

before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with
all his saints.

A confusing issue is the tr~slation ffytot as "saints" o:t nholy

ones.u In II Thessalonians 1:7, Christ appears with his mighty

, '"\ ( "'
angels in flaming fire. However, the phrase 1ro.VTWV TWV ay<WV

is also found in Colossians 1:26. In the light of the problem of

~I
r Thessalonians 4:13-17, a possible interpretation of aycot
would be those risen in Cl1rist just prior to his coming.! Frame

suggests that ~~VTWV places the event at a time after the Parousia.2

4:13-17 But we would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those
who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no
hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose ag<cin, even so,
through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.
For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are
alive, who are left until the coming of the L9rd, shall not precede
those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend
from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and
with the sound of 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.

5:2-5 For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord will come
like a thief in the night. When people say, "There is peace and
security,n then sudden destruction will come upon them as travail
comes upon a woman with child, and there will be no escape. But
you are not in darkness, brethren, for that day to surprise you.
like a thief. For you are all sons of light and sons of the day;
we are not of the night or of darkness ..

1. See below, p. 144.

2. Frame, Op• Cit., p. 139. This matter is considered in Chap. x~
p. 144.
 119

The surprise of the Parousia appeu:s to be .only for the :sons

of night. .This meaning would. tend to. diminish the sharp con-

tradictions of II Thessalonians 2:1~12,. which are noted above.l

5:23 May the God of peace himself sanctify. y.ou wholly; and may your
spirit and soul and body be kept sound and b1ame1ess at ·the com-
ing of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2. II Thessalonians

1:7-11 • • • and to grant rest with us to you who ar.e afflicted., :.when the
Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven .with.his .. mighty. . angels in flam-
ing fire, inflicting vengeance upon. those. who .. do not knoiW God and
upon those who do. not. obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall
suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the
presence of the L0rd and from. the . glor:y. Gf his. might, when he comes
on that day to be glorified in ..his saints,. and to.be.marveled at in
all who have believed, because our. tes.timony . to y.ou. was believed.
To this end we always pray. for. you, that.our. Goo may mal:e you worthy
of his call, and may. fulfill eveey.good. resolve and work of faith
by his·power,

2:1-12 Now concerning the c.oming. of .our Lord .Jesus. Christ. and .()Ur assem-
bling to meet him, we beg. .you,. brethren,. no.t. to. be quickly shaken
in mind or excited,.either by spirit or by. word,. or by Jletter pur-
porting to be from us, to the effect that. the day of the~ Lord has
come. Let no one deceive you in any .way; for that day vlill not
come, unless the rebellion comes first,. and .the man of :Lawlessness
is revealed, the son of perditioa, whG opposes . and exal·l;s himself
against every so-called god or.. object of worship, so th:a.t he takes
his seat in the temple of God,. proclaiming.. himself to be God. 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 time. For the myst.ery of law~essness. is. already at work;
only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way.
An4 then the lawless .one will. be reveaied,.and .. the.Lord Jesus will

1. Thue was a curious belief in the early church .that .the Lcl1rd was to
ret12;01 at night, especially on :Saster. ..Bve. So.Jerome on Matt. 25:6
·and Lactantius, Institutes .7:19. Frame, Op. Cit •• P• 180.,
 120

slay him with the bre~ "of hi.s mouth and destroy hlm by his
appearing and coming. The coming af t.he lawless one by ithe
activity of Satan wi.ll be with all power and with pretencled
signs and wonders t and with all' wicked·.· decepti:on for tho:~ who
are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be
saved. Therefore God sends upan .them ;t. .. st.r.ang delusion, to malte
them believe •hn is false., so that all.may. be condemned who di.d
not believe the truth but had pleasure in.unrighteousness •

2:13 • • •' because God chose. y.ou £r0111. the beginning to be saved.
The phrase .. to be saved".only. servesto.~ive.ageneral impression

of future action and_finds. its greatest eschatological signifi•

cance from the preceding section.

2:14 • • • so that you may obtain.the glory.of our Lord Jesu~~ Christ.

The glery af Christ should be differentiated from the glory of

God of I Thessalenians .2:12, .which is .mo.re clearly ideni:ifiable

as eschatological matez:ial.. The g.lory of. Christ. might 1.rell be

a pi:es~nt"cii:cumstance unrelated to the Parousia.

3. I Corinthians

1:7 • • • so that you are not. lacing .in any spi1:itual gift, a:s you
wait for the revealing of our. Lord Jesus Christ.

The thought parallels that of Romans 8:19.

1:8 • • • who will sustain you to .the end, gui1tless in the day of
our Lord Jesus Christ.

The recurring use af i\f-rlpa.. l:>y Paul, usually connected. with

"of our Lord" becomes a formal term. for the Parousia.l

2:6 • • • although it is not a wisdom. of this age or of thE! rulers

of this age, who are doomed to pass away.

1. For the many citations in'Volving -h]J-~pa... ~s the day of jud{~ent and
specifically Christ• s day,. see Arndt. and. Gingrich,. Qp. Cit•• p,. 347,
3t b.
 121

/ ) I
The •~passing away" Ka.Ta.pyov.Jlevwv refers to the o.pxovTwV

A double negative is not possible, thus showing a clear escha-

tological emphasisa

2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood this.

The use of the aorist

,,
eyvwK6V continues the thought of 2:6.
3:13 • e • each man""s work will become manifest; for the Day will
disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the
fire will test what sort of work each one has doneol

3:14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives,
he will receive a reward.

;;.cu$os usually means •tpay" or "wages" and the sense of ttre-

wardt• should have this connotation,.2

3:15 If any man•s work is burned up, he will suffer less, though he
himself will be saved, but only as through fire~

3:18 ... • If any one among you thinks that he is wise in this age, o ••

The two-age view is common in Paul,.3

3:22 . . • or life or death or~the present or the future • • •

Robertson and Plummer suggest that this passage has no eschatolo-

gi~al significance .. 4

1. For the eschat0l0gical use of rrvp (fire) see Arndt and Gingrich,
Op. Cit., P• 737, b ..
2. The eschatological use of .. reward" may be found in Arndt and Ging-
rich, Op. Cit., p. 525, ao
3. For example see 6~3, 10:11; Gal. 1:4. The extensive use of
is summarized in Arndt and Gingrich, Op~ Cit., PPa· 26, 27.
4.. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, "First Epistle of St. Paul
to the Corinthians," International Critical Commentary (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1911), p. 73. These scholars tend to find
little eschatological significance throughout their commentary, per-
haps representative of English criticism of 1910. For example, note
the laborious non-eschatological interpretation of lO:llb or 13:12.
 122

4:5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the
Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in
darkness and will disclose· the purpose of men's hearts.. Then
every man will receive his commendation from God.

4:9 For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all • o •

Paut•s personal sense of impending doom is in sharp contrast to

the mood of the Corinthians whom he here chides •

5:5 • • • that his spirit may be saved in the day of the I.ord Jesus.l
6;2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?
'
This passage may be a reference to the Messianic Kingdom of

Christ.2

6:3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more
matters pertaining to this life!

Angels are members of the KOG")lOS • Paul here sha.t:pens the

separation of those in Christ with those of the present age.3

6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom
of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolators;
nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of
God.

6:14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power.

7:26 I think that in view of the impending distress it is ,~ell for a

person to remain as he is.

7:29 I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short;

1. See Cor. 1:8 above, Po 120.

2. See below 15:23. The evidence for the Messianic Kingdo~ is con-
sidered in Chapter X under Section 2, "Eschatological Chronology,"
P• 143.
3. Robertson and Plummer, Qp. Cit., P• 112.
 123

The two verses above should not be considered as a personal

reference to Paul's impending death, but find their meaning

primarily in the general eschatological hope.l

7:3lb For the form of this world is passing away.

"Form" here means uoutward appearance," that which can

be apprehended with the senses.2 It is conceivable that the mean-

here refers only to the temporary or transient things of life with

no eschatological force.3

10:11 • • • but they were written down for our instruction, upon whom
the end of ages has come.

The defining of ages as t•successive periods'• in histo1:y with no

eschatological significance is forced.4 ·

10:13b • • • God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond
your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way
of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

The only reason for ascribing this verse to an eschat(:>logical list

. the use of
1.s '
rre<.pa~.tos (temJ!ltation) in connectioll with Mes-

sianic woes in I Peter 4:12 and Revelation 3:10. In Hebrews 3:8

it is a time of testing in the wilderness.

1. Robertson and Plummer, Qp. Cit., P• 155. William Sanday and Arthur
c. Headlam, "The Epistle to the Romans, .. The International Critical
Commentary (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895), p. 379.
2. Robertson and Plummer, Op. Cit., P• 156. See Arndt and Gingrich,
Op. Cit., P• 805.
3. Clarence T. Craig, '"'Exegesis on I Corinthians," Interpreters Bible
(New York: Abingdon Press, 1953), p. 85.
4. See above 2:6, 3:18. Robertson and Plummer, gp. Cit., p. 208.
 124

11:32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we
may_not be condemned along with the world.

Presumably this is the condemnation occurring at the Parousia.

1.3:10 • • • but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.

13:12 ~or now we see in a mirror climl.y, but then face to face. Now I
know in part; then I shall,understand fully • • •

lt is not entirely clear whether or not this verse refers to

the Parousia or simply death. Craig .s~ggests .the Parousia.l

Robertson and Plummer interpret the passage 11

symbolically.u2

15:13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has

not been raise~; ·

15:16-20 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ.ha.s not been raised.
If Christ has not been raised, your. faith is futile and you are
still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have
perished. lf in this .life we who are in, Christ have only hope,
we are of all men most~ to be pitied•. But.in fact Christ has been
raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen
asleep.

15:23-28 But each in his own order: Christ the first. fruits, then at
his coming those who belong to Christ. Then. comes the end, when
he delivers the kingdom. of God the Father. after destroying every
rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he
has put all his enemies under his, feet •. The last enemy to be
destroyed is death. "For God has put all things in subjection
und.er him.•• lt is plain that. he. is excepted who put all things
under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son
himself will also be subjected.to him who.put.all things under
hiln, that God may be everything to every one•

15:49 • • • we shall also bear the image .0£ .the man of heaven.•

The substitution 0f ¢ope.rrwp.EY for ¢opeu0)1€V , ''let us bear"

rather than '*we shall bear.,'' would suggest that the attainment

1. Craig, QP• Cit., P• 193.

2. Roberts0n and Plummer, Op. Ci_~•• P• 299.
 125

of the glorified body is through self effort. The use of tlie

hortatory subjunctive is out of ~lace and the meaning may best

be considered as a result of the anticipation of the Parousia.l

15:51,52 Lo! I tell you a mysterye 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 imperishable, and we shall be changed.

16:7 For I do not want to see you now just in passing; I hope to spend
some time with you, if the Lord permits.

The phrase "if the Lord permits" may not have any particular es-

chatological significance. Paults future may have seemed uncer-

tain to him.2

16:22 Our Lord, come!

The best form of this phrase is )J-ap6.va 80.. and should be consi-

dered typical of the expectation of the Parousia. The inferior

form Fua~tJ';.•V
r"" O.J e;:;...... is translated uThe Lord has come'• or "is

coming."3

4. II Corinthians

1:10 • • • on him we have set our hope that he will deliver us again.
It is possible that Paul here considered delivery only from the

recurring sins of his life and not from death or any future event.

1:14 • • • that you can be proud of us as we can be of you, on the day

of the Lord Jesus.4

1. !bidet P• 375.
2. ~s 1:10.
3. See Arndt and Gingrich, QE• Ci~., P• 492.
4. See I Cor. 1:8 above.
 126

4:14 Knowing tmthe who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also
with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.

This may be an echo of I Corinthians 6:14, the expression of

Paul•s doubt of his own living until the Parousia.

4;17 For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an

eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison • • •

5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so
that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he
has done in the body.

Both 4:17 and 5:10 may be interpreted in terms of personal

death and judgment apart from the Parousia.l

6:2 • • • Behold~ now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the

day of salvation.

is meant all the time between the_ moment of writing

an.d the Advent.••2

5. Romans

1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungod-
liness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress
the trt,tth.

2:5 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing wrath for
yourself oh the day of wrath when Godts righteous judgment will
be revealed ..

1. See Plummer, 0£._. Cit., pp. 155-160, for a lengthy commentary on 5:10.
Plummer's additional note on II Cor. 5:1~10, pp. 160-164, examines
the relationship of the above to I Cor. 15. The interpretation of
this passage depends upon the conclusions regarding immediate resur-
rection which will be considered in the following chapter, P• 157.
The conclusions of Plummer are presented. below, Chap. X, p. 161, n. 7 •
... ,, Stud;v.:m:t.ght-be.:.ma<,le,:.ofl the relationship of the vocabulary of the
Wisdom oisbiomon and this passage.
~. Plummer, Qe• Cit., P• 191.
 127

The day of wrath is generally equated with the Day of the Lord

or day of judgment.!

2:6 For he will render to every man according to his works;

The significance of this phrase is the allusion to a future judg-

ment, and not to any discussion of the relative efficaey of

faith and works.

2:9 There will be tribulation and dis.tress for every human being who
does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek.

A priority of privilege indicates a priority of penalty. This

passage should not be used to indicate any particular chronologi-

cal order of judgment.2

2:12 Ail who sinned without the law will. also perish without the law,
and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.

A repetition of the argument of 2:9 indicates a consistent anti-

cipation of judgment.

2:15,16 • • • and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse

them • • • on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges
the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

5:2b • • • and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God.

5:9b • • • much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

5:17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that
one man, much more will those who receive the abunqance of grace
and the free gift of righteousness reign 1n life through the one
man Jesus Christ.

· 1. Sanday and Headlam, OJ2.. Cit., P• 56. C. H. Dodd .. The Epistle of Paul
1:6 t.iie Rbi:IU:ilis,n The Moffatt New Testament Commentary (New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1932), P• 20.
2. J. B. Light£ oat, Notes on Epistles of St. Paul (London: Macmillan and
Qompany, 1895), p. 260.
 128

6:5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we
shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Though similar in appearance to I Corinthians 15 :13, Paul is .here

arguing forward from death to resurrection. In Corinthians Paul

starts with the resurrection in an argument about death.l
8:18-25 I conside~ that the sufferings of this present time. are not
worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For
the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the
sons of God; for the creatinn.was subjected to futility, not of
its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;
because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to
decay and obtain the glorious libert.y of the children of God. We
know that the whole creation has been groaning in.travail together
until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have
the first fruits 0f the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for
adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope
we were saved. Now P.ope that is seen is.notllope, for who hopes
for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do.not see, we wait
for it with patience •

9:28 • • • for the Lord will execute his sentence upon the earth with
rigor and dispatch."

11:26 . . . . and so all Israel ·will be saved; as. it is wrotten, •'The

Deliverer will come
,.._-
from
J '
Zion • • .2
:

13:11,12 Besides this you know what hour it is, how it is full time now
for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us.now
than ~hen we first believed; the night .is far gone, the day is at
hand. Let us then cast off the works of darkness and put on the
armor of light;

14:10b • • • For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God:

Compare this passage with the .. judgment. seat of Christ" in II

Corinthians 5:10. Paul apparently uses interchangeably the

1. John Knox, "Epistle to the.Romans,•• Intereretex:s Bible (New York:

Abingdon Press, 1954).
2. A discussion of the Jewish background of this passage may be found
in Sanday, Op. Cit., PP• 336, 337.
 129

terms God and Christ.l

14:12 So each of us shall give account of himself to God.

15:12 • • • and further Isaiah says, "The root of Jesse shall come,
he who rises to rule the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles
hope."

This passage may possibly be a reference to a Messianic King-

dom based on Isaiah 11:10. The Se~tuagint, which is here quoted,

paraphrases the Hebrew.2

6. Galatians

1:4 • • • who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the pre-
sent evil age, according to the will of our God and Father;3

6:9 And let us not graw weary in well-doing, for in due season we
shall reap, if we do not lose heart.

The use of an agricultural phrase brings to mind the uharvestn

with its eschatological implications.

7. Colossians

1:5 • • • because of the hope laid up for you in heaven • ••

Abbott finds diffioulty ih assigning the motive for Christian

love to hope for the future, presu¢ably the Parousia. Of tne

many explanations which are offered to explain this idea away,

1. ~., ~· 389.
2. Ibid., P• 399.
3. se;-note an I Cor. 3:18 above •. p. 121.
 130

none seems to adequately solve the problem, and the eschatol-

ogical force of the argument remains.l

1:12 • • • giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share

in the inheritance of the saints in light.

urn light.. is frequently a substitute for "heaven."2

1:13 He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred

us to the kingdom of his beloved Son,3

1:22,23 • • • in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproach-

able before him, provided that you continue in the faith, stable
and steadfast o • •

Though Beare suggests that a wider meaning may be attached to

this verse than simply the appearance of men before God on the

judgment day, the eschatological meaning is evident.4

2:17 These are only a shadow of what is to come.

This verse is probably not of eschatological importance despite

its appearance.5 . It may refer to the seasonal observances of

heretics.6

3:4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear
with him in glory.

There is some divided opinion as to whether this verse may be

interpreted chronologically in the Jewish framework or on the

1. Abbott, Op• Cit., P• 196.

2. Arndt and Gingrich, Op. Cit., PP• 879-880 B.
3. See 1:12 above.
4. Beare, Qp• Cit., p. 175.
5. Abbott, 0p. Cit.
6. Abbott, Ope Cit., P• 295. Beare, Op. Cit., P• 201.
 131

basis of manifestation of realms or orders of being in the

Hellenistic framework.!

3:6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming upon the sons
of disobedience,

"Thesen refers to the earthly impurities of verse 3:5. For an

understanding of the "wrath of God... see above, Romans 1:18.

3:24 .. . knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheri-
tance as your reward; • • •

There is a ready willingness of modern commentators to inter-

pret this passage non-eschatologically.2

8. Philemon.

There are no passages of eschatological importance in Philemon.

9.. Philippians

1:6 And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it
to completion at the day of Jesus Christ •

1:10 • • • so that you may approve what is excellent, and may be pure
and blameless for the day of Christ.

Note the uses of the phrase;. ''day of Christ" above.3

2:16 • • • holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ
I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.

1. Beare, Op. Cit., p. 211. This matter is considered below in

Chap. X in the section on "Eschatological Chronology:'; P• 143.
2. Ibid., P• 228. Scott, Colossians, p. 81.
3. 'ICor. 1:8.
 132

3:20 But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a

savior, the Lord Jesus Christ • • •

4:5 • • • The Lord is at hand.

might better be translated .. near ... l

10. Sub-Pauline Epistles

The passages cited below are not related to the main body of

the dissertation and are presented only in passing.

i. Ephesians

1:12 We who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed
to live for the praise of his glory •

1:14 • • • which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire

possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

1:21 • • • not only in this age but also in that which is to come • • •

2:7 That in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of
his grace • • •

4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed
for the day of redemption •

5:6b • • • for it 'is because of these things that the wrath of God
comes upon the sons of disobedience.

Apart from the tttwo-age view" of 1:21, and 2:7, there is little

distinctive eschatological material.

ii. The Pastorals

The eschatological hope appears occasionally in the Pastorals.

1. Arndt and Gingrich, OJ?. Cit., p. 213, d.2.

 133

When taken together there is the impression of some expecta-

tion of the Parousia.

1.. I Timothy

4:13 • • • godliness is of value in every way, as it hol4s promise

for the prese~t life and also for the life to come.

4:10 For to this end we toil and strive, because we have ou~ hope
set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, e~pecially
of those who belie~e.

6:14 I charge you to kee~ the commandment unstained and fre~ from
reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ • • •

:2.. II 'timothy

1:12 • • • I am sure that he is able to guard until that nay What

has been entrusted to me.

3:1 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times
of stress.

4:1 I charge you in the presence of Ood and of Christ jesus who is
to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his
kingdom.

4:3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching • • •

4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil and save me for his heavenly
kingdom • • •

2:13 • • • awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of

our great God atid SAv1or Jesus Christ,
 CHAPTBR X

ANALYSTS OF THE EVIDENCE

1. The Imminent Expectation of the Parousia

The first analysis of the evidence will be to determine if there

is an immd:nent expectation of the Parousia throughout Paul's letters.

The description of that Parousia will be established from Paul's thought

itself, in those letters where such an expectation is clear and unmis-

takable.

i. I Thessalonians

From I Thessalonians it may be concluded that Paul expected the

return of the Lord within his lifetime.! Inasmuch as Paul was certainly

in middle age, seventeen years having elapsed since his conversion, the

amount of time remaining to him could not reasonably be expected to ex-

ceed a few years. The anticipation of the Lord's coming was sufficiently

strong in Thessalonica to bring g:teat distress to those alive who were

worrying about those who had already died. The only reasonable explana-

tion of this concern, to which Paul address himself, was that it was the

1. I Thess. 4:15.

134
 135

common belief that the coming kingdom was inherited by the living only.l

In view of the fact that the Thessalonians were so convinced of

the immediacy of the return of the Lord that they had not even thought

out the implications of intervening death, it is conceivable that their

expectation may be thought of not in terms of years, but perhaps in terms

of .months. It is not improbable that there was a feeling of being on the

brink of the finale of history when Paul intimates that the judgment has

already commenced.2

Other references in I Thessalonians suggest that the event is very

near despite appearances to the contrary.3 Paul thus believes that the

Parousia may not be related to an impending calamity which may be detected,

charted, analyzed and tised as a prediction. The Lord· comes "like a thief

in the night,"4 and the mere fact that life proceeds as no~al is no indi-

cation that the eschatological hope is fading. Such an argument would have

been most useful in sustaining the eschatological hope as time passed.

I Thessalonians 5:2, may be considered as Paul's argument to disarm any

objectors who might point out a reason for delay. It thus falls into

1. Frame, Op. Cit., p .. 172 .. "Paul thus betrays the expectation that
he and his contemporary Christians will remain alive until Christ
comes... See also Neil, Op. Cit., p. 90.
2. I Thess. 2:16b. "But God's wrath has come upon them at last .. "
In view of the eschatological bearing of rl¢8a..G€V this disputed
passage cannot refer to a specific event in the past such as the
loss of Jewish independence or the famine (Acts 11:28) nor the
banishment from Rome (Acts 18:2) nor even to the destruction of
Jerusalem. The passage must refer ttsimply to the day of jldgment
which is near at hand.~· Frame, OJ.?.• Cit., p .. 114.
3. I Thess. 5:3.
4. I Thess. 5:2.
 136

line with the imminent expectation of the Parousia.

The remaining passages in I Thessalonians all indicate a strong

hope for the return of the Lord though none of them can be pressed into

proving a very imminent expectation.! These passages harmonize with the

references quoted above2 and suggest a consistent picture of very strong

hope for the imminent return of the Lord Jesus Christ.

ii. II Thessalonians

In the first chapter of I I Thessalonians the imminent hope is

sustained.3 The coming of the Lord Jesus is pictured more in judgmental

terms,4 with such elements as mighty angels and flaming fire.5 The con-

cept of revelation is more pronounced. Despite these additions to Paul•s

thought of I Thessalonians, the imminent hope of the Parousia remains.

However, in the second chapter there is a serious challenge to

the concept of imminence, so serious that many commentators consider it

a direct contradiction to I Thessalonians .. 6 The issue revolves about

the introduction of events which precede the Parousia, the effect of which

&s .to delay the day of the Lord.7 These events are the rebellion, there-

vealing of the man of lawlessness, and the proclamation of man of lawless-

1. I Thess. 1:3b, 1:10, 3:19, 3:13, 5:23.

2. See above, Chap. IX, P• ll6ff.
3. II Thess.·1:7-11.
4. II Thess. 1:8,9.
s. II Thess. 1:7.
6. Critica~ opinion on these matters may be found above, Chap. VI, p. 85.
7. II Thess. 2:3.
 137

ness as God in the temple seat.l Other signs and wonders will take

p1ace.2

These signs and wonders would seem to contradict the "thief in

the night' 7 idea of I Thessalonians.3 This section remains the strongest

evidence for discarding II Thessalonians as a genuine Pauline letter.

However the reasons for retaining the confidence in this epistle are out-

lined above4. and the thought of the second chapter may be related to the

previous concept of 1 Thessalonians.

Charles, having noted these problems, explains the difference in

thought on the basis of the passage of time.s The amount of time is not

suggested, .. some,.. time being the only word. Rather than attempt to ex-

plain the differences by a lengthy time lapse, it is more reasonable to

assume a very short time lapse in which the reaction to Paul's first let-

ter produces the immediate conditions for which the second letter was

written. A figure of five to seven weeks would not be unreasonable.6

The extreme sense of imminence in I Thessalonians has been noted above.7

.A likely reaction to this would be the belief and credulity which would

produce an agitation among the Thessalonian readers. This mood would fit

Paul's reaction precisely in 2:2: nwe beg you, brethren, not to be quickly

1. II Thess. 2:3,4.
2. II Thess. 2:9.
3. The sons of light, howevert are not surprised in I Thess. 5:4,5
which would accommodate II Thess. See above Chap. IX, p. 119.
4. See Chap. VI, P• 91.
s. Charles, ep.- Cit., Footnote, P• 438.
6. Frame, O_p. Cit., P• 19.
7. See above, p. 134ff.
shaken in mind or excited •• •" The .issue then resolves as to whether

or not Paul is allowed to be sufficiently flexible and c~eative in his

thought to shift his ground to meet the needs of a local situation. In

view of the diversity of the authentic letters, any attempt to confine

Paul's eschatological thought is less than reasonable,. A more logical

question is to attempt to discover if Paul's eschatology, having been

literally believed and producing some confusion in Thessalonica, would

not be modified a bit for future use. This would be the nat~ral conse-

quence of the Thessalonian experience.

In summary, II Thessalonians contains some evidence for suggest-

ing delay, but this evidence, when seen in the context of the situat_ion,

reveals again the imminent eschatological hope of the first letter, both

in the mind of Paul and of his readerso

iii. I Corinthians

There is ample evidence of I Corinthians to suggest a very imminent

eschatological hope. A striking example is 7:29: "I mean, brethren, the

appointed time has grown very short." other passages which reveal an im-

minent hope are 1:7, 4:5, especially 7:26, as well as much of the fifteenth

chapter, and also Paul's closing salutation of 16:22: uour Lord Come."

The Lord is t•revealed"l in the manner of II ~Thessalonians, but des-

pite this parallel and others, the general concept of the Parousia seems

1. I Cor. 1:7, 3:13, 4:5.

 139

to be that of I Thessalonians. In 15:52, Paul speaks of the change

occurring at the last trumpet "in the twinkling of an eye.u Admittedly,

this change could occur at the conclusion of the events of the "man of

lawlessness," but in the absence of other support or any continuation of

the ideas of II Thessalonians on this matter,•it is reasonable to conclude

that Paul retains a simple hope of the imminent conclusion of this age.l

iv. II Corinthians

The eschatological emphaSis of this letter is far less than that

of I Corinthians. There are but six passages with any reference to es-

chatology and these occur in the first six chapters.2

The eschatological hope remains,3 fol.t.owing the familiar phrase

"day of the Lord Jesus .. "4 This identification with the previously de-

fined idea argues for an imminent expectationo But one passage strongly

suggests immediacy and this is 6:2: "Behold, now .is the acceptable time;

now is the day of salvation... Paul here conceives of the new age, and

the nnow" rightly refers to the time between the writing of the epistle

and the advent.S

1. Paul's concept of the "two age'' view is clear in I Corinthians,

See 2:6, 2:8, 3:18, 7:3lb and 13:12.
2. This gives incidental support to the fragmentation theories on
Corinthians.. See Chap. IV, P• 49, for Schweitzer's opinion.
3. II Cor. 1:10, 4:17.
4. II Cor. 1:14• See I Cor. 5:15, 1:8, 3~13, etc.
s. Plummer, Op. Cit., p. 191.
 140

v. Romans

The general eschatological hope is assumed throughout Romans.l

There are two quite specific references dealing with imminence, 13:1lb.

12: "For salvation is nearer to us now than w:t;en we first believed; the

night is far gone, the day is at hand.'' The second reference is 8:22:

"we know that the whole creation has been gro-aiti:p:g i:n' traviil., togeth~it ilmtil

now. u It is clear from these passages that the·re is no decline in Paul's

imminent expectation of the Parousia and that the passage of time may well

have increased his ~ticipation. If Paul's eschatological thought declined,

it must have been after this letter.

vi. Galatians

There are but two references in Galatians which can be even dis-

tantly associated with eschatology and these give us no evidence of im-

minence. Verse 1:4 reflects the two-age view of Paul as noted above.2

The other reference employs the phrase "For in due season we shall reap,

if we do not lose heart.tt3 Both of these references can be interpreted

in a variety of ways without implying imminence.4 It must be concluded

that there is no direct evidence in Galatians for an imminent hope of

the Parousia, nor is there evidence to suggest a contrary conclusion.

1. See above, Chap. IX, p. 126ff.

2. See above p.129, footnote l.
3. Gal. 6:9.
4. The phrase .. in due season,'' though suggesting a fixed time of
perhaps a year, does not give any conclusive evidence.
 141

vii. Colossians

Of the several references with eschatological possibilities that

have been assembled,! there appears to be a general anticipation of an

eschatological event. Paul speaks of a ''hope laid up for you in heaven, "2

ttknowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your

reward."3

The most explicit reference to an innninent hope is 3:4: ttWhen

Christ who is our life appears~ then you also will appear with him in

glory." Note also 2:17: ..these are only a shadow of what is to comee ..

Though these verses probably have the urgency of a Romans 13:llb,l2, or

a I Corinthians 7:29, in view of the nature of Colossians and its handling

of the •~cosmic Christ,"4 these references are probably of greater signi-

ficance than their number might suggest. The continued anticipation of

a judgment time,5 coupled with the expectation as noted above, constitutes

a significant bit of evidence in this late imprisonment letter.

viii. Philippians

The evidence for an imminent eschatological.hape is clear in

Philippians. The familiar phrase ''day of the Lord Jesustt reappears

1. See above, Chap. IX, P• 129ff.

2. Col. 1:5.
3. Col. 3:24.
4. See above, Chap. II, P• 21.
s. Col. 3:6, 1:22.
 i

142

in 1:6 as "the day of Jesus Christ'' and in 1:10, 2::16, as nthe day of

Christ... In 3:20, Paul notes the continued expectation of the Savion:JO.

Likewise, in 4:5, there is the forceful "The Lord is at hand.'' Despite

the late date of Philippians, it is clear that the eschatological hope

is strong and imminent.

ix. A S~ of the Evidence

The preceding survey produces the following summary of evidence

concerning the imminent expectation of the Parousia:

I Thessalonians Conclusive

II Thessalonians Very probable

I Corinthians Conclusive

II Corinthians Possible to probable

Galatians Little evidence

Colossians Probable

Philippians Conclusive

It will be seen from the above table that the evidence for the

imminent expectation of the Parousia has no relationshi~ to the dating

of the letters· and appears from all three periods of Paul's writings.

This strongly suggests that a deciding factor in the determining of the

content of Paul's letters is not date but the particular circumstances

of the readers. This would apply very specifically to II Thessalonians,

Philemon and Galatians, all of which are aimed at a narrow and well-
 143

defined issue.1

2. The Eschatological ~hronology

It has been noted above that Schweitzer and.Charles have a dif-

ferent understanding of the eschatological chronology •.2 The main point

of disagreement revolves about a temporary Messianic Kingdom which is be-

gun by a resurrection of the righteous and ended with a resurrection and

judgment of all men.

The next question raised will be that of a general reconstruction

of the chronology of Pauline eschatology with particular reference to the

issues of a temporary Messianic Kingdom and a dual resurrection.

i. I Thessalonians

The Parousia is identified as the "wrath to come't from which Jesus

is the deliverer.3 This wrath apparently is upon those who oppose God

and ''all men,n Paul having himself in mind at this point.4 In terms of

imminence, the wrath appears to be immediate, or perhaps already begun.s

Judgment appears to be by God and the believer is encouraged to face God

1. It should be noted in passing that the imminent expectation is clear

in I Timothy 6:14; II Timothy 3:1; Titus 2:13. The presence of such
eschatological passages in sub-Pauline epistles adds weight to the
conclusion that dating does not particularly influence the eschatology
of the epistles.
2. Chap. v, P• 80.
3. I Thess. 1:10.
4. I Thess. 2:15,16.
s. I Thess. 2:16.
 144

"unblamable in holiness" at the coming of the Lord Jesus.l

The position of the previous dead is explicitly dealt with in

4:13-17. The dead are to be raised by God,2 prior to the living. In

both cases it will be those who are in Christ who are raised.3 The meet-

ing place of bGth groups is with the Lord in the air.4 It is not clear

if the dead are raised prior and descend with the Lord,5 or whether their

resurrection is immediately preceding those who are living in Christ.6

The end result of this resurrection is that all are with the Lord always.7

There is no suggestion of any temporary kingdom.

The events prior to the day of judgment give no hint as to what

is coming.s However, if one is in Christ, there is no need to fear the

moment of judgment.9

The eschatological events of I Thessalonians may be summarized

as follows:

1. Peace and security.

2. Sudden destruction - by God.

3. Resurrection of the dead in Christ.

4. :Rising into the air of those "alive in Christ."

s. Being with the Lord always.

1. I Thess. 3:13.
2. I Thess .. 4:14.
3. I Thess. 4:16-17.
4. I Thess. 4:17.
s. I Thess. 4:14.
6. I Thess. 4:16.
7. I Thess. 4:17.
s. I Thess. 5:3.
9. I Thess. 5:4,9.
 145

Tl~ relationship of the sudden destruction to the resurrection

of the dead is not clear but the implication is that the destruction is

first. Two reasons appear: (1) 2:16b speaks of the wrath in most im-

minent terms, the resurrection being clearly at some future time, and,

(2) the sudden destruction following on peace and security sets up the

dreadful conditions under which the resurrection of the dead in Christ

(along with the living) has any meaning.

There is no evidence of a second resurrection. The resurrection

at hand is only of the .iighteouse Apparently the sinful dead stay dead

and buried. There is no evidence of any temporary Messianic Kingdom.

ii. II Thessalonians

Conditions appear to be slightly different in II Thessalonians.

There is suffering among the readers of the epistle which Paul believes

is making them worthy of the Kingdom of God..l The "peace and securityn

. of I Thessalonians is not present. The figure of Jesus is strengthened

by the introduction of mighty angels and flaming fire who inflict ven-

geance upon those who do not know God.2 Their punishment is eternal

destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord at the Earousia.3

Thessalonians II notes those events which are to transpire before

the Parousia. A rebellion must come first and the man of lawlessness,

1. II Thess. 1:5.
2. II Thess. 1:8.
3. II Thess. 1:9.
 146

who takes the seat in the temple, proclaims himself to be God.l Jesus
will finally slay the lawless one.2

II Thessalonians does not give specific information on the condi-

tion of the blessed after the Parousia, apart from their presence in the

kingdom. There is no evidence of a second resurrection, and judgment aP-

pears to take place at the coming of the Lord. The resurrection is for

those who are saved, having been pre-destined by God from the beginning.3

There is no evidence of a Messianic Kingdom; however, the phrase nkingdom

of God'• is introduced in 1:15. This phrase re-occurs five times in I

Corinthians, and in I Corinthians 15:24, in a context of strong Messianic

implication.4 In the absence of any supporting ideas, it is not xe:a.-·-

sonable to press this common figUre into a special usage at this juncture.

The events of II Thessalonians may be tabulated as follows:

1. The rebellion.

2. The revealing of the man of lawlessness.

3. His various activities in the temple.

4. The coming of the Lord Jesus with angels in flaming fire.

s. Vengeance and judgment - eternal punishment.

6. The righteous in the glory of the LorO..

1. II Thess. 2:4.
2. II Thess. 2:8.
3. II Thess. 2:13.
4. See below, p- 149.
 147

iii. I Corinthians

There is a continuing expectation of the day of the Lord,l and,

as has been previausly noted, the expectation is imminent.2

Paul introduces the concept of the "two age" view and the contrast

is drawn sharply between "this age" and the "age to come."3 "This age"

·is headed by evil rulers who crucified the Lord of glory.4 The end of

this age is the coming of the Lord at which time there is a resurrection

of the righteous dead.S Paul here repeats the argument \rith which he re-

assured the Thessalonians .. 6 Christ is the first of the dead to be raised

and is equated with the resurrection of the righteous which occurs at the

coming of the Christ.?

After the resurrection of the righteous, Christ reigns until he

has put all his enemies under his feet.8 Every rule, authority and power

is destroyed,9 and finally death.lO Then Christ delivers the kingdom to

God and subjects himself to God's power ttso that God may be everything to

everyone."

The events of judgment could occur simultaneously and immediately

after the coming of the Lord if it were not for the evidence which suggests

1. I Cor. 1:8, 3:13, 5:5.

2 .. I Cor. 7:29.
3. I Cor. 3:6, 2:8, 3:18, 6::3, 10:11.
4. I Cor. 2:8.
5., I Cor. 15:12ff.
6. I Cor. 15:18.
7. I Cor. 15:22.
B. I Cor. 15:25.
9. I Cor. 15:24 ..
10. I Cor. 15:26.
 148

some sort of struggle.l It is in this context that Paul*s ideas on the

saints judging the world make greatest sense.2 Paul expects his Corin-

thian readers to take part in the judgment. The necessity of such a

judgment is redundant in the face of the Lord's mighty power unless some

sort of intervening time is conceived of in which the resurrected right-

eous are near the evil power and authority.

This evidence suggests a temporary Messianic Kingdom ~n which

Christ is the ruler and judge. The righteous in Christ are resurrected

to partake in this kingdom. The evil who are living are progressively

destroyed by Christ and his saints until death itself is subdued. Then

the Messianic Kingdom is delivered over to God. There is no evidence ef

a general resurrection of all mankind for final judgment is based on the

evidence of 15:24.

Charles m~intains that there is no mention of the Messianic Xing-

dominI Corinthians 15:22-24, because Christ's reign precedes the Parousiae

Charles places the resurrection at the conclusion of Christ's reign.3 But

clearly this is impossible in view of 15:23 and 24, in which the righteous

in Christ are raised and then Christ's reign begins: . •• • then at his

coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, • • • For he must

reign • • ." The only way to interpret this passage to support a non-

Messianic Kingdom is to insert verse 25 prior to the events of verse 23,

an unwarranted interpolation.'

1. I Cor. 115:25.,_
2. I Cor. 6:2.
3. Charles, Qp• Cit., P• 448.
 149

It is not clear whether ''Kingdom of God" refers to the temporary

Messianic period or the future moment when all powers are delivered to

God. ttFlesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, ttl but this does

not help to differentiate between the two because the resurrection occurs

at the beginning of the Messianic Kingdom. There is no way to tell what

the kingdom here means. "The kingdom" is the description of the Christ's

reign in 24; but not the "kingdom of God." In 4:20, the phrase seems to

be used with an imminent overtone. In 6:9,10, Paul speaks of those who

inherit the "kingdom of God.u These three verses make no differentiation

of any future condition. Though the evidence is inconclusive, the phrases

may point to the reign of Christ.

The events of I Corinthians may be summarized as follows:

1. Time of testing in the corruption of ttthis age .. "2

2. The coming of the Lord.

·~ ... -
3. The resurrection of the righteous.

4. The Messianic reign of Christ on earth - destruction

of evil power (Kingdom of God?)e

5. Destruction of death.

6. Christ delivers his Kingdom to God.

iv. II Corinthians

The chronalogy of II Corinthians is sketchy. The present is a

1. I Cor. 15:50.
2. I Cor. 1:8, 3:15, 7:26, 7:31b, ~sp. 10:13b, 11:32.
 150

time of "momentary affliction and testing."! The day of the Lord will

be a time of resurrection2 and judgment.3 There is no mention of the

ttkingdom of Godu nor any hint of a temporary Messianic reign.

In 5:10, Paul speaks of the judgment seat of Christ for all.

Paul here speaks of the living and there is no evidence to suggest any

general resurrection.4

The chronology of II Corinthians may be summarized as follows:

1. Testing and affliction.

2. The coming of the Lord.

3. Resurrection of righteous.

4. Judgment of living.

v. Romans

The concept of judgment dominates most of the eschatological

thought of Romans. The ""day ·of the Lord" becomes the "day of wrath

when God's righteous judgment will be revea1ed."5 The judgment is by

Christ Jesus6 and is based on works.? The judgment is for all men, Jew

and Greek, and although God is supposed to show no partiality, he will

render the honor and glory and peace to the .Jew first.8 The tribulation

1. II Cor. 4:17, 1:14.

2. II Cor. 4:14.
3. II Cor. 5:10.
4. II Cor. 4:14 resurrection of righteous.
s. Romans 2:5.
6. Romans 2:15.
7. Romans 2:6.
8. Romans 2:10.
 151

; .

and distress is connected with the judgment.l However, the judgment

will be with .. rigor and dispatch"2 which would preclude the extended

post-judgmental existence of the evil ones.

·-· .

The letter has but one reference, in 6:5, which suggests a res-

sturection of the righteous. The judgment of all men, Jew and Greek,3

may be assumed to refer to those living at the imminent coming of the

Lord,4 as in the previous letters. There is no evidence of a second

or general resurrection.

It is conceivable that the tribulation and evil could refer to

a temporary Messianic Kingdom.5 But the connection with the day of wrath6

points to the single quick judgment.? There is no further evidence for

any Messianic Kingdom.8 The phrase u~ingd?m of God" is mentioned once':

as meaning ••righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 11 9 This

description does not relate to I Corinthians 15:22-24 and, in the absence

of any other evidence, could not refer to a temporary Messianic Kingdom.

The chronology of Romans may be summarized as follows:

1. Romans 2:9.
2. Romans 9:28.
3. Romans 2:10.
4. Romans 13:12.
5. Romans 2:9.
6. Romans 2:5.
7. Romans 9:28.
s. But note Sanday's contrary opinion on 15:12~ 0£. Cit., P• 399.
9. Romans 14~!1.
 152

1. "Day of Wrathu (coming of the Lord).

2. Resurrection of righteous.

3. Judgment by Christ.

4. Glorious life with Clttist and God.

vi. Galatians

Galatians has one reference reflecting the two~age view (1:4),

but no information concerning any details of the eschatological chrono-

logy.

vi·i. Colossians

The two-age view continues to be present,l but is attentuated

by the presence of other references which suggest a shift in definition

of the kingdom.2 Paul suggests that the Kingdom of Christ is a

1. Col. 1:13, 2:17a

2. Beare, in a comment on 3:4, believes that the two-age view has
been abandoned by Paul in favor of a "hellenic conception of
realms or orders of beings." The whole eschatology of Paul has
undergone a transformation in which the Parousia is now conceived
of, not as the beginning of a new age~ but in.terms of the mani~
festation of the invisible. Op. Cit., p. 211. Beare's conclusion
is based upon his decision that ulittle more than a vestige of the
Jewish thistorical' eschatology remains.•t Cola 3:4 can hardly carry
this implication. Arndt and Gingrich specifically cite it as sug-
gesting the Second Advent, Op. Cit., p •. 860. Moreover, in view of
the strong imminent hope in Philippians, it is premature to suggest
 153

present reality! which is apparently going to extend through the coming

distresses.2 This kingdom has not begun by any judgment, but is a des-

cription of the Christian community. Paul speaks of his fellow workers

for the Kingdom of God.3 Though this may refer to some future event,

the abundant evidence elsewhere suggests a mystical definition of this

fellowship in Christ which is the kingdom.4

There is no specific reference to a Messianic period, but in 2:15,

there is an echo of the struggle of I Corinthians 15:22.. 24. If this pas-

sage is to be equated with the Messianic Kingdom of Corinthians, then that

kingdom has already begun and will be terminated at some future time. How~

ever, the concept of resurrection of the righteous is absent, the definition

heretofore, of the beginning of the new age. Furthermore, judgment is still

in the future or at least has not occurred.

Hence to force a Messianic concept out of 2:15 requires a radical

re-definition of resurrection, judgment and the two-age view. Inasmuch

as the continued anticipation of the Parousia is still evident? any re-

ferences to the present must be interpreted apart from the usual antici-

pation.

The chronology of Colossians may be summarized as follows:

the abandonment of eschatology in the third and final period of

Paul's writing.
1. Co1._1:13e
2. Col. 3:6, 3:24.
3. Col. 4:11.
4. Col. 1:13, 1:20, 1:22, 1:24, 1:27, 2:10.
5. Col. 1:22, 2:17, esp. 3:4, 3:6, 3:24.
 154

1. Mystical union of Christ now.

2. The coming of ~he Lord in Glory.

3• The glorification or recognition of those in Christ.

There is very little evidence for judgmerit or on the whole matter

of the resurrection. This shortened chronology perhaps hints at the shift

of the definition of the kingdom.

viii. Philippians

The figure of the nday of Christtt is prominent but there is very

little description about other events. There is suffering for Jesus'

sake in the present age.l Paul speaks of the power of Jesus' resurrec-

tion and his desire to know that power.2 There is no mention of the

Kingdom of God, or judgment.

The events of Philippians may be summarized as follows:

1. Suffering.

2. The day of Christ.

3. Resurrection (?).

ix. Summary

The various evidence on the matter of eschatological chronology

with particular reference to the Messianic Kingdom and the dual resur-
·'
rection may now be summarized.:

1. Phil. 1:29.
2. Philo 3:10.
 155

1 2 3 4 5

I Thess. peace and sudden des- resurrec- coming of with Lord

security truction by tion of Lord and always
God righteous rising in
air

II Thess .. rebellion man of law- coming of judgment righteous

lessness Lord in glory
revealed

I Cor. testing coming resur- messianic destruc- messianic

of the recti on reign tion of kingdom
Lord of the evil and delivered
righteous death to God

II Cor. testing coming resurrec- judgment

of the tion of of living
Lord righteous

Romans day of wrath- resurrec- judgment glorious

"coming" of tion of life with
the Lord righteous Christ

Col. mystical coming in manifesta-

union now glory tion of
with Christ glory among
believers

Phil. suffering day of resurrec-

Christ tion ·

It will be observed from the above summary that there is hardly

any over-all coherence of the eschatological chronology. The end result

of the eschatological scheme is a certain "glory in the Lordu which is

evident in all periods of Paul's thought. But this cannot be identified

with any second resurrection or blessedness for which there is no evidence.

An interesting development of Paul's thought which appears is the

advancement of the coming of the Lord relative to other events. In I

Thessalonians, a great deal occurs prior to the Lordts coming; the judg-
 156

ment and resurrection are by God alone and are all completed when the

Lord comes. In II Thessalonians, the judgment is placed after the com-

ing of the Lord along with the destruction of the man of lawlessness by

Christ with his mighty power.1 In I and II Corinthians, the coming of the

Lord is moved further forward in the eschatological chronology. The time

of testing precedes his coming. In Romans, the day of wrath is at the be-

ginning of the eschatological scheme.

By interpreting the mystic union of Colossians as the presence of

the Lord, there is a logical and coherent outcome of this advancement of

the coming of the Lord. However, there is also the persistent eschatol~

ogical hope in Colossians and Philippians, even in the presence of a new

mysticism, hence identification here is questionable.

A further comparison is at the point of Paul's conception of the

present age. In I Thessalonians, Paul conceives of this time as peaceful.

It is possible to assume the same condition in II Thessalonians, apart

from the unsettled minds of the people on the matter of the Parousia. In

all of the other letters, Paul is conscious of various trouble, suffering,

tribulation, afflictions and evil as indications of the impending Parousia.

Had troublesome conditions developed to such an extent in the

Pauline world that a new appraisal of the present age was necessary? Or

was Paul facing a peculiarly peaceful situation in Thessalonica? It may

1. The various events prior to that coming have been noted. See
above, P• 146.
 157

be that Paul's tension with society was increasing, culminating with his

imprisonment, and this would tend to foster a growing consciousness of

evil and suffering. As his difficult experiences built up and as his

churches facea persecutions, .his concern might naturally manifest itself

in his letters. The whole issue remains conjectural.

It will be observed that the evidence for the Messianic Kingdom

is confined to I Corinthians, but it is strong evidence. The obscurity

of Co~ossians permits a possible equation with the Messianic period, but

such identification is difficult in the light of persistent hope for the

Parousia.

Likewise, there is no evidence for a general resurrection in any

of Paul's letters. The righteous are raised, at one time or another, but

the evil dead remain dead. ~1 judgment apparently refers to the living

of the final age. The need for a general resurrection would not have been

necessary in view of the imminent hope of the Parousia.

3. Immediate Resurrection Upon Death

i. I Thessalonians

The earliest letters of Paul show no evidence of any concept of

immediate resurrection. As outlined above, the chronology of I Thessa-

lonians is distinct and the resurrection moment vividly portrayed in

terms of trumpets, meeting in the air, and the cry of command.l The

1. I Thess. 4:13-18.
 158

very issue raised in I and II Thessalonians precludes the doctrine of

immediate resurrection. The concern of the Thes'salonians about those

who had died prior to the Parousia could not have arisen if there was

any belief in immediate resurrection.

ii. II Thessalonians

Likewise, a vi~id chronolpgy of the Parousia precludes the possi-

bili ty. of any immediate resurrection in II Thessalonians. Although Paul

does not outline a specific moment when resurrection takes place, there

is no evidence that any immediate resurrection upon death will over-ride

the events listed in 2:1-12. The glory of the Lordl is something obtained

at the Parousia.

iii. I Corinthians

The identification of mants resurrection with that of Christ

opens the possibility of animmediate resurrection.2 It is the fellow-

ship with Christ that makes the resurrection possib1e.3 Hence, if the

fellowship is a present reality than it follows that the resurrection

can be immediate.4
In the discussion of the resurrection body,5 Charles makes the

1. II Thess. 2:14.
2. I Cor. 6:14, see also II Cor. 4:14 •. Robertson and Plummer,
Op. Cit., p. 347.
3. I Cor. 15:22.
4. Charles, Op. Cit., P• 448.
s. I Cor. 15:35-40.
 159

point that the sowing in corruption is the equivalent of.life on earth.l

The perishable body of this life cannot inherit the kingdom.2 The im-

perishable body or spiritual body is the clothing of the new age and this

takes place upon the death of the physical body.3 Charles does not see

the "sowing~ as mere burial but as the total life upon earth of the physi~

cal man:

At death the energies of the human spirit are set free to organize
from its new environment a spiritual body •• 9Thus in a certain
sense the resurrection of the faithful would follow immediately
on death, not to be adjourned to the Parousia.4

Some important objections must be noted to the above interpreta-

tion. No sooner has Paul finished his elaborate discussion of the resur-

rection body,-5 than he restates the familiar eschatological scheme. "For

the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised imperishable. •t6 If

Charles' interpretation is correct, then it flatly contradicts the evi-

dence of this adjacent passage for Paul conceives of the -state of death

as a perishable condition, the time in the grave being a sort of suspended

animation. There is no evidence to indicate that the imperishable nature

is granted at death to accompany the believer while he awaits the Parousia

in the grave. It is clearly granted upon resurrection.

1. I Cor. 15:42, see Romans 8:21, "creation of bondageu; II Cor. 4:16,

"Our outer nature is wasting away."
2. I Cor. 15:50.
3. I Cor. 15:44.
4. Charles, Op. Cit., p. 453.
5~ I Thess. 5:35-50.
6. I Thess. 15:52.
 160

Likewise, Charles' interpretation of the sowing is forced. The

obvious application of Paul's parable of the seed is that upon death the

individual is returned to the ground~ as the seed is. But Paul makes the

important point that the seed is not dead and hardly the form of what will

eventually grow.l To press this figure in terms of the two~age view re-

quires more imagination than this obvious simple application. Paul is not

talking about this life or this age as corruptible. He is talking about

the condition of dead persons.2 The interpretation should stay with this

idea. Paul is attempting to deal with the problem of death in the inter-

vening time preceding the Parousia. His illustration of the seed with its

seeming inactivity in the ground, yet with its miraculous regeneration,

perfectly illustrates the existing condition of the dead at the time Paul

was writing.

Hence, it would seem that Charles~ argument at this point is

forced and does not satisfactorily meet the evidence. There remains no

evidence for the immediate resurrection of the dead.

iv. II Corinthians

Ch~rles here believes that Paul explicitly states a doctrine of

the immediate resurrection of the body upon death based on 5:1-8: "For

we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a build-

ing from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens ... Charles

1. I Thess. 15:37.
2. I Thess. 15:35,42. Note Plummer, Op. Cit., p. 160f.
 161

emphasizes the ••we have", , as indicating immediate possession.

The new body in Christ is something which is put on at the time of conver-

sion; it is made manifest upon death.1

However, the passage does not support such a position so easily.

Charles is correct in assuming that Paul is concerned about the resurrec-

tion and the new body. As Charles rightly notes in verse 4, Paul prefers

to see the Parousia while still a~ive.2 But Paul's desire to be alive at

the Lord's coming springs from his reluctance to face death. Paul wants

to put on nthe heavenly dwellingtt so that he may not be found naked.3

Paul still is aware that some will die before the Lord comes and that bas own

Cl.eath-~. is a possibility. 'He, still holds the position that death brings

a "slight momentary afflictionn which "is preparing for us an eternal

weight of glory beyond all comparison."4 Paul is seeking to reassure his

readers that even if death comes and there is a time of disembod&me~t~ there

is a guarantee from the Spirit that the heavenly dwelling will soon trans-

form the dead at the time of resurrection.5

In view of the further references to the imminent hope of the

Parousia in II Corinthians, 6 as well as the notes above, the concept of

the immediate resurrection cannot find support in this epistle.7

1. Charles, Op. Cit., P• 459.

2. ~., p. 458.
3. II Cor. 5:3.
4. II Cor. 4:17.
5. II Cor. 5:5 ..
6. See above, P• 139.
7. For a contrary view note Plummer, Op. Cit., p. l61f. Plummer be-
lieves that Paul loses sight of the interval between death and
 162

v. Romans

There is ample evidence in Romans to indicate that Paul conceives

of the resurrection in terms of the Parousiao

Though Charles does not use Romans in the development of the idea

of immediate resurrection, there are some passages which might be pressed

into service. In 6:5, Paul compares the believers' resurrection with that

of Jesus. It could be assumed that resurrection takes place upon death or

within a day or two. In 8:21, creation is set free from decay into the

glorious liberty of the children of God. Similarly, ttwe ourselves, who

have the first fruits of the spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adop-

tion as som, the redemption of our bodies ... l Despite the possibilities

which are here for interpreting an immediate resurrection, other evidence

indicates that the resurrection remains as an event of the Parousiao All

of the previous passages on imminence are relevant here.2 "For salvation

resurrection. At death a ''closer communiontt with Christ takes place.

Yet Plummer notes that the interval between death and resurrection is
neither assumed nor denied. Generally speaking, English scholarship
has leaped to identify resurrection with death. See Cohu, Qp. Cit.,
p. 319: "This process culminates at the moment of death, when we en-
tirely cast aside the flesh body and put on the spirit body which is
awaiting us in heaven." See also J. Agar Beet, ·The· Last Things (5th
ed.; London: Hodder and Stroughton, 1905), p. 42ff. Beet notes the
declining expectation of Paul about his own survival until the
Parousia. In II Cor. 5:6-8, Paul ponders the possibility of his own
death. Yet Beet cautiously reminds the reader, in note B, P• 270:
nthat judgment will be p.t;onounced not at death, but at a definite
time beyond it. The difficulties he raises warn us not to hastily
dogmatize on the condition of the departed before judgment .. "
1. Romans 8:23 ..
2. See above, p. 140.
 163

is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone,

the day is at hand."!

Similarly, "for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of

God. 1'2 The emphasis on judgment in Romans tends to group the other es-

chatological events around that moment. Immediate resurrection of each

righteous individual indicates an individual judgment for each person

upon death. It is not possible to assume that "being in Christ" during

the present life does away with the need for judgment despite such pas-

sages as ttfor those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed

to the image of his Son.tt3 Judgment is for a11,4 and this judgment is

intimately connected with the Parousia.5

Hence, the epistle of Romans does not allow for an immediate re-

surrection upon death because of the imminent expectation of the Parousia,

the necessity for judgment, and the absence of any clear evidence to the

contrary.

vi. Galatians

The paucity of eschatological evidence in Galatians precludes any

firm conclusions about immediate resurrection. The phrase nin due season

we shall reap,. tends to confirm the anticipation of the Parousia and what-

1. Romans 13:11,12.
2. Romans 14:10b.
3. Romans 8:29.
4 .• Romans 2:6, 14:12, 14:10b.
5. Romans 2:5.
 164

ever implications that it may have for the future resurrection.!

vii. Colossians

Paul conceives of the Kingdom of Christ as a present reality into

which the children of darkness are delivered.2 There is reason to believe

that Paul conceives of the resurrection as part of this delivery into the

new kingdom: "• •• and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you

were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised

him from the dead."3 Note also "If you then have been raised with Christ

.. • "4 The cpQssibility of an immediate resurrection is set forth in 3:3:

"for you have died, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ,

who is our life appears, then you will also appear with him in glory."5

Paul here refers to some sort of consolation in death, a hidden

communion with Christ which will not be fully manifested until the Parousia.

The real issue is whether or not communion with Christ in the present carries

over directly after deathQ In view of the above evidence, such a possibility

is certainly suggested.

The confusion of evidence regarding imminent eschatology in

Colossians along with some doubts on eschatological chronology have

been outlined above.6 In the absence of a clearly stated eschatological

1. Gal. 6:9.
2. Col. 1:13, 1:22.
3. Col. 2:12.
4. Col. 3:1.
s. Col. 3:3, 3:4.
6. See above, P•
 165

hope, it may be assumed that the doctrine of immediate resurrection is

allowed to manifest itselfe This doctrine is connected with the anti-

cipating of the Parousia in such a way that Paul preserves much of his

previous thought while allowing for communion with Christ in the ublank"

period between death and the Parousia.

viii. Philippians

The doctrine of.inunediate resurrection finds support in Philip-

pians: ''My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far bet-

ter."l Paul considers the alternatives of life with further service, and

death with the presence of Christ, and though he prefers the latter, he

will do the former out of a sense of duty'.2 Paul insists that one put no

confidence in the flesh3 and that whatever losses come about in present

life simple help one to gain Christ.4 He further equates death and resur-

rection as a sharing with Christ, in the manner of Colossians 3:10,11.5

There is no confusion about any mystical change during one's life-

time as is suggested in Colossians. The changes take place at the

Parousia6 or at death.7 The presence of these two ideas, side by side,

is interesting inasmuch as in Colossians there is the suggestion that

one excludes the othere In Philippians there is a clear concept of im-

1. Phil. 1:23.
2. Phil. 1:19-26.
3. Phil. 3:3e
4.. Phil. 3:7.
s. Col. 3:1.
6. Phil. 3:21.
7. Phil. 1:21.
 166

minent eschatological hope, as noted previously.! But Paul can now also

conceive of death with hope. Gone is the feac and concern of I Thessalonians

in which the fact of death prior to the Parousia poses major problems.

It is conceivable that Paul equates the passages on immediate

death and its results with the imminent hope of the Parousia. Such an

explanation, though harmonizing these two ideas, does nof fit the evidence.

Paul conceives of death not in eschatological terms but as an alternative

to further service.2 Hence it is clear that the resurrection or some equi~

valent of "being with Christtt3 is placed side by side with the imminent

eschatological hopew4

ix. Summary of Evidence

The evidence for immediate resurrection after death may be

summarized as follows:

I Thessalonians no belief whatever

II Thessalonians no evidence but context supports

I Thessalonians

I Corinthians no evidence

II Corinthians some confusion; probably no

immediate resurrection

Romans strong eschatological judgment

suggests no immediate resurrection

1. See above, P• 141.

2. Phil. 1:25.
3. Phil. 1:23.
4. Phil. 1:6, 1:10, 2:16, 3:20, 4:5 ..
 ·.PCPSii?; JC .. »If.«. #Q. QU$.(

167

Galatians inconclusive evidence

Colossians real evidence for immediate resurrec-

tion as a rtconsolationtt for ublank"
period from death to Parousia.

Philippians strong evidence for immediate resurrec-

tion despite unquestioned imminent
eschatological hope.

The implication of this summary is that there is reason to believe

that Paul's thought develops in the direction of immediate resurrection.

The lack of evidence for an immediate resurrection in the first three let-

ters gives an accurate picture of Paul's early thought. The evidence of

Colossians and Philippians suggests an immediate resurrection. II Corin-

thians could be a turning point in Paul's thought. The difference of

opinion on this letter thus does not challenge the point of development;

the question is really only that of time of change.. The evidence in Romans

is not strong enough on this issue to bear upon the interpretation of II

Corinthians.!

This development appears to occur despite a consistent eschatolog-

ical hope. What appears to be a mutually exclusive statement in Colossians,

that is, eschatology giving way to immediate resurrection, is sharply re-

versed by Philippians.in which both doctrines appear together. Paul ap-

parent1y had reached the p0int in his thoughtwhere the problem of death,

raised first in I Thessalonians, had forced another solution apart from

1. Charles' arguments based on I and II Corinthians are generally

disappointing. It is interesting that he never uses Philippians
to buttress his position inasmuch as the strongest evidence for
his position seems to occur here.
 168

the hope of the Parousia. A further question is whether or not this may

suggest a decline in his imminent eschatological hope. Tlre evidence of

Philippians would indicate that this was not the case.

 CHAPTER XI

EVALUATION OF THE TWO POSITIONS

The results of the preceding chapters have brought to light

certain evidence regarding the positions of both Charles and Schweitzer.

This evidence will now be applied in a comparison and evaiuation of the

two positions.

1. II Thessalonians

Schweitzer rejects the genuineness of II Thessalonians for two

basic reasons, language and content.l The issues of language have been

discussed in Chapter VI with the conclusion that the evidence is insuffi-

cient to reject Pauline authorship.2 The argument from content has less

weight because it feeds on the very result it supports. The rejection

by Schweitzer of this epistle suggests a convenient method to remove con-

trary evidence. The establishing of a normative Pauline doctrinal system

on the basis of four or five primary letters places an unreasonable con-

finement on the creative power and imagination of Paul.3 Accordingly,

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 42.

2. See above, p. 89ff.
3. The use of I Thess. for a definition of imminent eschatology in
Chap. IX does not violate this principle but simply establishes a
starting reference point. The evidence there adduced is never
used critically to reject contrary evidence by the establishing
of some "norm." The priority of I Thess. allows its use as a be-
ginning point of definition.

169
 170

the critical position of the Tubingen school on II Thessalonians re-

fleeted in Schweitzer should be viewed with suspicion.

In his arguments, Schweitzer does not use II Thessalonians.

Charles makes the characteristics of II Thessalonians the defining ones

of his first stage. It should be noted that Charles' application here

of II Thessalonians is not coherente There is very little intermingling

of I and II Thessalonians. Part (a) of Charles' argument of the first

stage is based entirely on evidence from !I Thessalonians.!

The lack of coherence is to be expected inasmuch as I and II

Thessalonians have different approaches to the eschatological chronology.2

Charles notes the difference in the two e}i>istles on the matter of "signs 01

but the other divergences are not stated.3

In conclusion, Schweitzer's opinion, that II Thessalonians

neither enriches nor makes clearer the picture of Paul's doctrine aris-

ing from the other epistles, has some validity in view of the lack of

coherence.4 But !!Thessalonians does add evidence and the opinion that

this evidence should be rejected simply on the basis of its non-relation-

ship to the other epistles is unwarranted.

1. R. H. Charles, "The Apostasy and the Anti-christ, .. Qp. Cit., p. 438.

2. See Chap. IX, p •. 145~
3. Charles, Op• Cit., p. 438.
4. Supporting Schweitzer's opinion is Peabody who writes about II Thess.:
ttWhat does (Paul) say that has more than local or temporary importance?'·
One mustfrankly answer that little of such material is found.n
Op. Cit., P• 83.
 171

2. The Genuineness of the Imprisonment Letters

Schweitzer's rejection of Colossians because it is "not of prim-

ary importance for the exj;,osition of J;laul's teaching"! must be criticized

on approximately the same basis as II Thessalonians. Schweitzer's rejec-

tion here seems to be wholly doctrinal. He is aware of the problems of

style and grammar but makes his major objection from ~he doctrinal posi-

tion.2

A most significant statement is Schweitzer's admission that the

thought of Paul has begun a •tprocess of transformation"3 in Colossians

and no longer has the same clear outlines of the other epistles. This is

precisely what Charles argues and constitutes an admission of the develop-

mental principle. However, as a reason to dismiss the letter, obtuseness

of thought can hardly have much standingo Again the TUbingen criticism

should be judged too radical. Schweitzer uses Colossians but once.4

Charles uses Colossians five times in the fourth stage of his argument.5

The cumulative effect of the critical problems pertaining to

Ephesians seemsto argue against Pauline authorship. Fortunately, the re-

jection of Ephesians as a genuine epistle has no bearing upon the basic

issues of either position. Schweitzer quotes Ephesians nine times, five

of which are from a single passage refuting Pauline authorship.6

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 42.

2. Ibid~
3. Ibid.·
4. Ibid., P• 128.
s. Charles, op. Cit., pp~ 461, 462.
6. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 120.
 172

Charles quotes Ephesians four times, two of which are paralleled by

Colossians.! From the survey it is clear that the arguments from Bphe-

sians are not determinative.2 Apart from two references to the two-age

view,3 there is little eschatological material in the epistle.

Both Schweitzer and Charles use Philippians. Charles' use is

in name only, for despite his inclusion of Philippians in his fourth

stage, there is not a single quotat:l.en.frGim if., 'two,footnotes"Occnr in

previous sections.4 Charles' failure to use the eyidence of this impri-

sonment letter poses a major obstacle in the acceptance of his thesis, as

will be shown immediately below. In summary, both Charles and Schweitzer

tend to handle the imprisonment letters from a doctrinaire position.

3. Imminent Eschatology

It is clear from the evidence that there is a consistent im-

minent eschatological hope in all periods of Paul's writing. This hope

is not found in all letters but seems to occur at random in both early

and late writings. This is normal, for Paul should not be expected to

deal with eschatological matters in all correspondence.

The letters to the Galatians, Corinthiansi and Romans are in the

main so occupied with arguments about the law, righteousness of faith,
being in Christ, predestination, and the particular affairs of the
churches, that it is possible to forget the expectation which domin-
ates the soul of the writer. But suddenly, in some incidental saying,

1. Charles, Op. Cit.,· PP• 461, 462.

2. See above, P• 132.
3. Ephesians 1:21, 2:7.
4. Charles, Op. Cit., PP• 456, 460.
 173

the eschatological belief stands there in all its strength as some-

thing which underlies the whole.!

This is correct, especially in the imprisonment letters where

such evidence might seem unlikely. Accordingly, the eschatological testi-

many of Philippians is of central importance and is decisive. Chariest

complete omission of references to this epistle constitutes a major flaw

in his concept of development. His formal inclusion of Philippians in

his fourth stage conceals the fact that he does not draw upon it in any

way and indicates a failure to adequately consider the testimony of this

epistle.

We have noted that the evidence on imminent eschatology in Paul's

letter is of unequal strength. This does not work against the theory of

consistent eschatology because the lapses of eschatological emphasis occur

both in early and late letters, i.e., Galatians and Colossians or Philemon.

The issue is not uniformity of evidence but the assumption of the underly-

ing principle as a point of view. On this issue there can be no doubt

that Schweitzer is correct.

4. Eschatological Chronology

The consideration of the eschatological chronology raises three

issues: a. Resurrection of the righteous. b. Temporary Messianic King-

dam. c. Two resurrections.

In the analysis of the evidence, there is no reason to assume that

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 52.

 174

Paul's concept of the resurrection refers to anything but the righteous

in Christ. This conclusion agrees with that of Charles.l

The alternative view specified by Schweitzer is that a general

resurrection follows the temporary Messianic Kingdom which in turn has

followed the resurrection of the righteous. There is not a single re-

ference in the Pauline letters to a general resurrection. The only evi~

dence which Schweitzer can produce to support his position is I Corinthians

15:24, in which he takes the phrase "then comes the end • .. 1t

to mean the

general resurrection.2 He assumes that the events of the end, including a

general resurrection, are "taken for granted as we11-known."3 In view of

the lack of evidence, this is an unwarranted assumption.

It is true that there is other New Testament evidence on the

general resurrection:

• for the hour is co~ng when all who are in the tombs will hear
his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrec-
tion of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of
judgment.4

In this Johannine resurrection picture, the evil are raised simultaneously

with the righteous. There is no evidence to support this view in Paul's

writings.

A concept of general resurrection is clearly stated in Revelatiorr:

"And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books

1. Charles, Op. Cit., p •. 444.

2. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 68.
3. Ibid.
4. John 5:28,29.
 175

opened, • • ."1 This picture is of more importance to the Pauline argu-

ment for it follows upon a 1000 year Messianic Kingdom,2 a concept con-

ceivably suggested in I Corinthians 15:22-24. But again, it is an apoca-

lyptic idea with no support in the Pauline correspondence.

Of greatest importance is the testimony of Acts 24:15: tt

...
having a hope in God which these themselves accept, that there will be a

resurrection of both the just and the unjust.u These are the reported

words of Paul. If Paul actually said this, it would be a concept which

has no parallel in his letters.

There is no question that Schweitzer is correct in pointing out

the presence of a dual resurrection in New Testament thought. But he has

not demonstrated its presence in Paul's thought for there is no evidence

on this point.3

Schweitzer's analysis of Ezra and Baruch has been noted above.4

His synthesis of these two eschatological chronologies is a valuable dis-

covery and sheds light on the New Testament eschatology. Yet one cannot

dismiss the competence of R. H. Charles, who has thoroughly surveyed the

same materials. At this point should be noted Char~es' appraisal of

Schweitzer in his preface to the Second Edition:

1. Revelation 21:22ff.
2. Revelation 20:7.
3. "Nor does (Paul) show any literary dependence upon any non-canonical·
apocalypse, even the similitudes of Enoch," Foakes,..Jackson, Op. Cit.,
p. 277.
4. See above, Chap. IV, Section 6, "The Background of Pauline Eschatology,"
p. 58.
 176

Since Schweitzerts eschatological studies show no knowledge of

original documents and hardly any of first-hand works on the docu-
ments, and since further, they make no fresh contribution to the
s~bject, no notice is taken of him in this edition.!

These are strong words coming from a foremost authority of

apocryphal and apocalyptic writings. The criticism was applied to

Schweitzer's first book, Paul and His Interpreters, which was admittedly

an introduction. Charles died shortly after the publication of The

Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. The fact remains that however brilliant

Schweitzer's thesis may be in regard to the New Testament as a whole,

its application to Pauline thought is not demonstrated.

Despite the absence of evidence on a second general resurrection,

there is good reason to believe that a Messianic Kingdom is strongly in~

dicated from the testimony of I Corinthians.2 Although this is a singu-

lar proof, supported inferentially by Colossians, Charles' arguments to

dismiss the whole idea are not convincing.3 Schweitzer here is on much

firmer ground.4 He rightly notes that a description of this kingdom is

not found in Paul nor is there any hint of the duration of the kingdom.

However, Schweitzer again falls back on evidence from the Apocalypes of

Baruch and Ezra as a possible suggestion of Paul's position.5

We may now summarize the various issues raised in the study of

Pauline chronology.

1~ Charles, Op. Cit., p. viii, Preface.

2~ I Cor~ 15:22-24.
3. Ibid., p. 448. See above, p~ 18, 71ff.
4. Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 66.
5. ~., P• 67.
 177

Both Charles and Schweitzer have made accurate deductions from

the evidence but both have over-stated their positions. There is no evi-

dence for a dual resurrection. In addition, there is no evidence for a

general resurrection in the letters of Paul. ·Charles appears to be cor-

rect on these points. On the other hand, the evidence for a Messianic

Kingdom is not displaced by Charles' ~guments and Schweitzer appears to

be correct. In both instances, the disagreements have been brought about

by an overstepping of Pauline evidence. Schweitzer reads into Paul the

other New Testament evidence and the testimony of the Apocalypses of Ezra

and Baruch. Charles skips over the Messianic Kingdom by an unwarranted

interpolation of the events of I Corinthians 15:22-24.1 The arguments

from Ezra and Baruch are interesting and have been duly noted by Charles,

but cannot be applied to Paul without further evidence.

5. Immediate Resurrection

The evidence for the concept of immediate resurrection upon death

of the believer both supports and contradicts Charles' position. Charles

builds his case on I and II Corinthians,2 but the evidence will not sup-

port this interpretation. It would seem that Charles~ position is thus

refuted. But evidence for immediate resurrection appears in Colossians

and is very strong in Philippians. Charles uses neither of these sources

to buttress his position. It is hard to say why this is so. Perhaps he

1. See above~ P• 18, 7lff.

2. See above, p. 19ff.
 178

felt it unnecessary to add further proof to what he considered already

demonstrated. Or perhaps he was reluctant to draw support from another

stage of development from Paul's thought.

Schweitzer believes that the immediate resurrection passages of

Philippians are applied to Paul alone in some special way in the manner

of Enoch, Elijah, Ezra and Baruch.l Paul does not re-interpret his es-

chatology to produce an immediate resurrection for all men; he only does

this for himself. It is an attractive solution. The language of Philip-

pians 1:19-26, is very personal and lends credibility to Schweitzer's

theory. Paul goes so far in his personal resurrection that he can con-

ceive of himself as a sacrifice offered for his churches in the event of

his martyrdom.

To summarize, Charles' arguments on immediate resurrection are not

well taken, but the principle is demonstrated in Colossians and Philip-

pians. Schweitzer would not hold for any general change of eschatological

hope but only a re-interpretation on an intensely personal level. Thus

there is the novel conclusion that Charles rejects the evidence and admits

the principle, while Schweitzer rejects the principle and admits the evi-

dence.

In view of the evidence of Colossians, it seems probable to admit

the evidence with Schweitzer and the principle with Charles. Thus Paul

moves in Philippians to a re-statement of the resurrection in personal

and immediate terms.

1. Schweitzer, Mysticism, pp. 135-137.

 179

6. Developmental Thought

AltbDugh it is not the purpose of the author to assay Paul's

complete thought on the matter of development, a tentative conclusion

may be drawn from the evidence at hand.

The advancing of the time of the coming of the Lord relative to

other eschatological events might be one indication of developmental

thought.! The coming of the Lord tends to move toward the beginning of

the eschatological chronology. Because the events are so proximate to

one another, it is tmwise to press this evidence too far, but a coherent

picture is presented.

A more substantial proof for development is the evidence for the

immediate resurrection summarized above. There is no question that Paul

introduces a new understanding of the resurrection in the imprisornnent

letters. This is tacitly admitted by Schweitzer in his opinion on the

transformation process going on in Colossians.2

On the other hand, consistent eschatology argues against develop-

mental thought. This foundation position is absolutely clear from the

evidence and supports Schweitzer's position with great force.

The evidence on this issue may be s~ar~zed by concluding that

Paul's thought is both consistent and developing. On the basic eschato-

logical issue of the hope of the Parousia, Paul is consistent; on other

matters his thought shifts.

1~ See above,· Chap. IX, P• li55.

2. Schweitzer, Mysticism, P• 42.
 180

7. Developmental Chronology

The question is further raised about the time spans involved in

the writing of the letters. Are these sufficient to allow for the changes

which appear?

Paul's letters may be grouped into three categories chronologi-

cally.l These periods coincide with those of Charles except I Corinthians

is combined with II Corinthians and Romans. These three letters are all

written within about nihe months. This dating would argue against any

sharp separation between Charlest second and third period. Charles char-

acterizes Paul's changes in the third view as a changing of the time of

resurrection and "enlarged conceptions as to the universal spread and com-

prehensiveness of Christ's kingdom on earth.,u2 In view of the close rela-

tionship of I and II Corinthians, such changes or development as Charles

r
observes more probably are due to different foci in Paul's letters. To

this may be added the possibility of a multiple source theory of the Carin-

thian correspondence which makes the differentiation of Charles' second and

third stage more difficult.

A general appraisal of the sufficiency of time between the three

stages to allow for developing thought is more difficult. In three years

there should be ample opportunity for any person to shift his position,

particularly under the turbulent conditions which Paul faced. Yet it

1~ See above, Chap. VIII, Pi~l~a;..

2. Charles, ap. Cit., p. 455.
 181

should not be forgotten that seventeen years elapsed between Paul's con-

version and the writing of I Thessalonians. This would argue for consis-

tency and stability. Any conclusions here would be conjectural.

8. Tabulation

It will be convenient to tabulate the results of this evaluation

so that the arguments may be concluded.

Conclusion reached: Result on the position of:

Issue Schweitzer Charles

1. II Thessalonians accepted against support

2. Colossians accepted against support

3. Ephesians rejected support against

4. Philippians accepted support support

5. Consistent imminent eschatology support against

6. Resurrection of righteous only against support

7. T\'IO resurrections re:jected against support

8. Messianic kingdom accepted support against

with reservations

9. General resurrection rejected against support

10. Immediate resurrection of righteous against support

11. Immediate resurrection of Paul alone support against

Developing Thought

12. Updating Lord's coming against support

 182

Developmental ChronolOE[

13. Three periods af compostion no effect mixed support

14. Seventeen years support against

15. Three year gaps ne effect supporl

 CHAPT.FR XII

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Some conclusiens pertaining to the issues raised in the Intra-

ductionl and the preliminary questions of Chapter V,~ may now be drawn:

1. Paul stands autside the process ef Hellenization. The consis-

tent imminent hope for the Parousia throughout. Paul's letters supports

Schweitzer's general principle of thorough-going eschatology and contra-

diets the Tiibingen Schaal, R. H. Charles, and modern developmentalists.

2. Paul revises his concept of the time of the resurrection in

the Imprisonment Letters. Though his hepe in the imminent Parousiais

uniform, the passibility of his own death priGlr to that event opens the

way for the dactrine af the immediate resurrection upon death. This new

approach to the resurrectien could possibly reflect a growing disi11usian-

ment about the Pareusia. In addition, Paul's revisian cauld provide a

convenient point of departure for future Hellenists.

3. Paul may have held a belief in a temporary Messianic Kingdom.

The evidence is liml.ted to a few verses in Corinthians.

4. Paul believes in a single resurrectian for the righteous only.

Schweitzer's elaborate reconstruction of eschatological chronology based

on a synthesis af Enoch and Baruch-Ezra does nat find. support in the

1. See P• 3.
2. See p. 79-81.

183
 184

Pauline correspondence. There is no evidence far a general resurrectione

In addition to the above major conclusions, the following observa-

tions may be added.

1. There is a tendency to advance the date of the Lord's coming

relative to other events ef the eschatological chronology. The outcome

of this tendency c0nceivably could be the immediate resurrection and fac-

ing of the Lard upon the death of the individual as.suggested in the Im-

prisonment Letters.

2. Schweitzer's rejection of the genuineness of II Thessalonians

and Colossians appears ta be more from doctrinal than literary grounds.

3. Bath Charles and Schweitzer have failed to consider all of

the evidence of the Pauline letters .on eschatel.agy.. Charles' most glar-

ing oversight is his failure to admit the evidence of Philippians.

Schweitzer's eschatological chronology of two. resurrections can be ap-

plied only to certain non-Pauline portions ef the New Testament.

4. Charles' division of Paul's eschatological thought into four

periods is not altogether satisfactory in view of the close timing of the

major letters and the composite character.af Carinthians and other letters.

s. Schweitzer's belief that Paul identifies the immediate resur-

rection with himself only is a useful harmonization.of the contrary evi-

dence on this matter found in Philippians.

 APPENDIX A

BIOGRAPlliCAL SKETCH OF ROBERT RBNRY CHARLES

Robert Henrt. Charles was born August 6, 1855, in Country Tyrone,

Ireland, the son of D. H. Charles, M.D. He began his education at ael-

fast Academy and continued at QUeens College, Belfast, and Trinity Col-

lege, Dublin. He received his A.B. degree from Queen University in 1877,

with first honors in classics. In 1880, his M.A. followed. Honorary de-

grees were a D.D. in 1898, from Dublin, and a D. Li.tt in 1907, from Oxfard.

H,;s ecclesiastical career beganwith ardination i.n 1883. He was

Curate of st. Marks, Whitechapel from 1883-1885; St. Philips, Kensington,

1885-1886; and St. Marks, Kensington, 1886-1889. His academic career be-

gan in 1890.

His first published work was in Apacrypha~ $tudies, which soon

brought him wide recagnitian. He was invited to the Hibbert Lectures in

1898, and the Jowett Lectures in 1898-1899, and many lectureships there-

after. From 1898 ta 1906, he was Professar !i>f BiblicalGreek at Trinity

College, Oxfard. Fram 1906-1911, he was the Grinfieid Lecturer on the

Septuagint at Oxford, and from 1910-1914, he was the Speaker's Lecturer

in Biblical studies, Oxfard. In 29~, he was the Lecturer in Advanced

Theology at London University. Fr0111 1919, until his death, he was the

Warburton Lecturer at Lincoln Inn Chapel. .In 1919-1920, he delivered

the Schweich tectures.

 186

Charles• literary production may be divided into three periods.

Period one is from 1893-1900, during which time he edited and published

his major Apocryphal studies. These were the Book of Enoch translated

from the Ethiopic (1893), Book of Jubilees (1894), Apocalypse of Baruch

(1896), Assumption of Moses (1897), and the Ascension of Isaiah (1900).

In the second period from 1899 to 1920, Charles' work branched

out into varied fields. ·.His major writings from this period are The

Doctrine of Future Life, The Jowett Lectures (1899), Greek Version of

the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (1908), Drew Lectures on Immortal-

ity (1912), the Zadakite Fragments (1912), Religj:aus)1evelopment Between

the Old and New Testaments (1914), The Apacalypse, edited with text ;t~ans­

lations and cammentary (1920). In addition, he was the General Editor and

contributor to the Oxfard Edition of the Apocrypha and Pseudipigrapha

(1913).

The third and final period of Charles' writing included a new

interest in ecclesiastical matters. His major works were the Teaching

of the New Testament an Divorce (1921), Adventure Inta the Unknown (1923),

the Decalogue (1924), Gambling and Betting (1925), Divorce and Nullity

(1927), Critical Commentary on Book of Daniel (1929), The Resurrection

of Men and Other Sermons (1930), and Courage, Truth, and Purity (1931).

He died at his heme, 4 Little Claisters, Westminster Abbey,

London, on January 30, 1931.

 187

APPENDIX B

BIOORAPHICAL SKETCli OF ALBERT SCHW:BITZER

Albert Schweitzer was born in Xaysersberg, Upper Alsace, en

January 14, 1875, so:Q of Louis Schwei.tzer, pastor .a.t .Gunsbach. His

early education was at the Realschule. at Munst.e:r, .and. the Gymnasium at

Mulhouse. He received his Doctor~te.in Philosophy.from the University

of Strasbourg in 1899, and iillmediately therward becaiiie Licentiate ef

Theology. In 1912, he married Helene.Bress1au, whe di.ed in 1957. In

1913, he completed. his medical .s.tudies at. Strasbeurg and was awarded the

M.D.

In 1899, Schweitzer served as the Curate of St. Nicholas. Fram

1902-1912, he was Privatdozent at Strasbourg •. From. 1903-1906, he was

principal ~f St. Thomas College at. the. University. of Strasbourg. His.

varied talents allewed him to be . organist of. the Paris Bach Society

from 1905-1911.

The major service of his life began in 1913, with his first visit

to Lambarene where he established a hospital • . As a German citizen he was

interned by the Fre11ch during the. war and was unable to return to Lam-

barene for seven years. He resumed his wor~ in 1924,.and has continued

at the hospital since that time. He has made several visits to Europe

and one to America in 195.2. He was awarded the. Goethe Memorial Prize in

1928 at Frankfurt. He was the Hi.bbert Lecturer in.l934, at London and

 188

Oxford, and the Gifford Lecturer in.l934~1935. He was elected to the

French Academy in 1951. He was awarded"the Nebel.Peace Prize in 1952.

His major works include authoritative contribut~ons in three dis-

tinct fields: theology, music, and philosephy. . In .addition to the works

noted below, he has written numerous monegraphs. on .related topics, Afri-

can medical proble~s, and world events.

A partial list of his writings include:l

1899- The ·Religieus Philosophy of Kant

1901- Mystery of Kingdom of God

1905- J. s. Bach - Musician ~d Poet

From Reimarus to Wrede - The .Quest of the Historical Jesus

1911- Paul and His Interpreters

"
1913~ A Psychiatric Study ·of Jesus

1921~ On·the Edge of the Primeval Forest

1923- The Decay and Restoration of Civilization

Civilization and Ethics
Memoirs of Childhood and Youth

193o- The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle

1931- Out of My Life and Thought

The Forest Hospital at Lambarene
. J
1935- Indian Thought ~ Its Development

1939- From My African Netebook

1. The dates are those of the original publication in German.

 GROTIUS (1641), SEMLER (1760), SCHLBIERMACHBR (1777)
EICHORN (1814), USTERI (1822)

F. C. BAUR (1831) 2 Party, Loci

i
~

RITSCHL (1853)
I
SCHWEGLER (1846) PAULUS (1831)
()

z
H
•
..
Paul equals primitive Rationalislli, z
non Leci
ita
Christianity ,...._
I
WEISS (1860)
I
LIPSIUS (1853)
~
tb<•:
'<
Development g
I z ~
HOLSTEN (1868)
PFLEIDERER (1873)
Grkt 2 That, Loci.
Develop.
2 That, non Loci
./"..
a ~·
I'd
~·

I '' ~
qQ
~·
'' ('1)

I
TEICHMANN (1896) v
Loci ''
''"
EVERLING (1888) KABISCH (1893)
H
demonology non Loci, non
I devel. ~
HATCH (1888) HOL~~ (1897) Eschatology ti.)

Paul non-Greek Loci, Grk, Devel. 2 That. §l<l

I
HARNACK (1894)
I
R.H. CHARLES (1899)
I
ALBERT SCHWEITZER
Paul non-Greek (1910)

.....
00

"'
 190

KEY TO APPENDIX C

2 Party - Baur's thesis of Petrine and Pauline groups in tension

gradually coalescing into the Second Century Church.

2 Thot. - Greek and Jewish concepts within the mind of Paul in

tension. Resolved in various ways.

Devel. - Paul's thought develops in the resolving of two-thought ·

tensions.

Damascus -Holsten's unique method to resolve the two-thought

problems.

Grk. - The presence of strong Greek influences in the develop-

ment of Paul's thought.

Loci. - Method of investigating Paul's thought by dividing it

into various subjects, the least.af which was often
eschatology.

non Loci. -Method of trying to investigate Paul's thought from a

single perspective.

non Greek - That.position which seeks to bring Paul totally into

the primitive Jewish community.
 THE ESCHATOLOGICAL SCHEME BEFORE JESUS ACCORDING TO SCHWEITZER

Tribulation
t Davidic ~~ssiah
PRE :EXILIC
.Earthly Kingdom (no resurrection)

POST EXILIC
Sifting out

Tribulation
Revelation of Glory
r- King-of ~~ (no resurrectiot?-)
Malachi, Isaiah 24-27
;
~
t:1
Among Heathen
r-..
~
S of Man '<
DANIEL, .ENOCH . Death Tribulation tj SUPERNATURAL Kg • - g
Satan's Power J
R of-Elect ~
~
1-d
p.l

-
aq

PSALMS OF Mt
I
- !11

SOLOMON Tribulation l Davidic Messiah ..,....--.

~ M to Heaven
no son of Man Kg of-Ged
BARUCH, EZRA Tribulation Mf Messianic Kg for Elect
400 years - good time R - General .• "'
J - living only J - Final .

.....
\0
~
 192

KEY TO P:PPENDIX D

M Messiah

S of Man Son of Man

J Judgment

R Resurrectic:m
 ~
JESUS - primitive 'I
~
J MESSIANIC KINGDOM of God
~
~
~
t"t

Second Coming
~
t-4

.EARLY CHRISTIAN
!j! \,I------
. > ~
Cl)

~
' tdbulati0n ' Kg of God
Cl)

~ i'd-
~
Secend Coming TI1
Cl)
q
s
t:t
\~ of~
Cl)

PAUL - early
J.;l--t-r_i_b_u-::-1-a-:-ti:-o::-:n~-l
- - · · Kg
Mess1an1c
'-Sudden Judgment
5 b:l

~
8
fl
()
Secend Coming
Eternal Kg of God ~ ~

!
H

\ ~~----~---
~·
c;1
PAUL - final form
t
1
tribulation I Time of Transforming
.J· L ......!!!.
Temporary Messianic Kg/ ...or<l
~ina!
C5
Cl)
()
JUdg-
. ment ~
t Judgment / General Resurrection
H

1f ~
.....
-c>
w
 194

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbott, T. K. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles

to the Ephesians and to the Colossians, (The International
Critical Commentary). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1902.

Alexander, Archibald B.D. The Ethics of St. Paul. Glasgow: James

Maclehose and Sons, 1910.

Arndt, William F., and Gingrich, F. Wilbur. A Greek-English Lexicon of

New Testament. A translation and adaptation of Walter Bauer•s
Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen
Testaments. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

Bacon, Benjamin W. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York:

Macmillan and Company, 1900.

Bailey, John W. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians,

Introduction and Exegesis,- (The Interpreters Bible). Vol .. XI.
New York: Abingdon Press, 1955.

Barnett, Albert E. The New Testament, Its Making and Meaning. New York:
Abingdon Cokesbury Press, 1946.

Beare, Francis W. The Epistle to the Colossians, Introduction and

Exegesis, (The Interpreters Bible). Vol. XI. New York:
Abingdon Press, 1955.

The Epistle to the Ephesians, Introduction and Exegesis,

(The Interpreters Bible). New York: Abingdon Press, 1953.

Beet, Joseph Agar. A Commentary on St. Paults Epistles to the Corinthians.

New York: Thomas Whittaker, ~883. ·

The Last Things. 5th ed. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1905.

Bultmann, Rudolph. Theology of the New Testament. Vol. I, translated by

Kendrick Gobel. London: S. C. M. Press, 1952.

Case, Shirley Jackson. The Millennia! Hope. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 1918.

Charles, Robert Henry. A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future

Life. 2nd ed., 1899. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1913.
 195

--------· Studies in the Apocalypse. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913.

Cohu, J. R. St. Paul in the Light of Modern Research. New York: Long-
mans, Green and Company, 1911.

Conybeare, W. J., and Howson, J. s. The Life and E istles of Saint Paul.
Hartford, Conn.: S. S. Scranton and Company, 1852 1895.

Craig, Clarence Tucker. The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Introduc-

tion and.Exegesis, (The Interpreters Bible). Vol. X. New York:
Abingdon Press 1 1953.

Cullmann, Oscar. Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?

New York: The Macmillan Company, 1958!

Deissmann, Gustav Adolf. St. Pault A Study in Social and Religious

His~ory. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. New York:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1911.

Dibelius, Martin. Paul. Edited by Werner Georg Kummel. Philadelphia:

The WestminSter Press, 1953v

Dodd, Charles Harold. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, (The Moffatt
New Testament Commentary). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1932.

• The Meaning of Paul for Today. New York: Living Age Books,
---[192Ql 1957.

Duncan, George Simpson. The Epistle of Paul to the Galatians. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1934.

Easton, B. S. The Pastoral Epistles.. New York:: Charles Scribner's Sons,

1947.

Emmett, Cyril W. The Eschatological question in the Gospels. Edinburgh:

T. & T. Clark, 1911.

Enslin, Morton Scott.. Christian Beginningsv New York: Harper and

Brothers, 1930.

The Ethics of Paul. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1930.

Farrar, F. W. The Life and Work of St. Paul. New York: E. P. Dutton
and Company, 1880.

Filson, Floyd V. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Introduction

and Exegesis, (The Interpreters Bible).· Vol. X. New York:
Abingdon Press, 1953.
 196

Findlay, George G. The Epistles of Paul the Apostle. New York: Wilbur
B. Ketcham, n.d.

Foalces-Jackson, F. J. The Life of Saint Paul. New York:' Boni and Live-
right, 1926.

Frame, James Everett. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the

Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, (The International
Critical Commentary). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1912.

Gealey, Fred D. I and II Timothy, Titus, (The Interpreters Bible).

Vol. XI. New York: Abingdon Press, 1955.

Gilbert, George Holley •. Greek Thought in the New Testament. New York;
The Macmillan Company, 1928.

Glover, T. R.. Paul of Tarsus. London: S.C.M. Press, 1925 ..

Goodspeed, B. J. Paul. Philadelphia: J. C. Winston, 1947.

The Meaning of Ephesians. Chicago: University Press, 1933.

Goodwin, William W. Greek Grammar. Revised and enlarged. Boston:

Ginn and Company, 1898.

Harnack, Adolf. Outlines of the History of Dogma. Translated by Edwin

Knox Mitchell. Boston: Beacon Press, ~89~ 1957.

Jones, Maurice. The Epistle to the Philippians. London: Methuen and

Company, Ltd., 1918.

Kennedy, Henry A. A. St. Paul and the Mystery Religions. London:

Hodder and Stoughton, 1913.

St. Paul's Conception of the Last Things. London: Hodder

and Stoughton, 1904.

Kepler, Thomas S. Contemporary Thinking About Paul. New York:

Abingdon Cokesbury, 1950.

Kittel, Gerhard. Theologisches Wortebuch zum Neuen Testament, verlag

von w. Kohlhammer. Stuttgart: 1942.

Klausner, Joseph. From Jesus to Paul. Translated by William F. Stine-

spring. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1944.
 197

Knox, John. Chapters in a Life of Paul. New York: Abingdon Cokesbury

Press, 1950.

The Epistle to the Romans, Introduction and Exegesis, (The

Interpreters Bible) •. Vol. IX. New York: Abingdon Press, 1954.

Knox, Ronald. St. Paul's Gospel. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1951.

Kfimmel, Werner Georg. Studies in Biblical Theology, (Promise and Ful-

filment). Translated by Dorothea M. Barton. Naperville, Ill.:
Alex R. Allenson, Inc., [1953] 1957.

Lake, Kirsopp, and Lake, Silva~ An Introduction to the New Testament.

London: Christophers,.l938.

Lalre, Kirsopp. The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

Christ. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, n.d.

Liddell and Scott. Greek-English Lexicon (Abridged). Oxford: The

Clarendon Press, · [187.fj 1949.

Lightfoot, J. B. Notes on Epistles of St. Paul. London: Macmillan

and Company, 1895.

Saint Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon.

London: Macmillan and Company, g.875] 1890.

7th edition. London:

Saint Paul's Epistle to the Phili ians. 8th edition revised.

London: Macmillan and Company, IJ-868 1885.

Lowstuter, William J. Paul, Campaigner for Christ. New York: The

Methodist Book Concern~ ,1915.

Machen, J. Gresham. The Origin of Paul's Religion. New York: Mac-

millan Company, 1921.

Maritain, Jacques. The Living Thoughts of Saint Paul. New York:

David McKay Companyt Inc .. , 1941.

Matheson, George. Spiritual Development of St. Paul. New York: B. R.

Herrick and Company, 1890.

McGiffert~ Arthur Cushman. A History of Christian Thought. Vol. I.

New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932.
 198

McNeile, A. H. New Testament Teaching in the Light of St. Paul 1 s.

New York: The Macmillan Company, 1923.

St. Paul, His Life, Letters, and Christian Doctrine.

Cambridge: University Press, 1920.

An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd

edition revised C. S .. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
(1927] 1953.

Michael, J. Hugh. The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, (The Moffatt

Commentary). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1927.

Milligan, George. The New Testament Documents. London: Macmillan and

Company, 1913.

Moffatt, James. An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament.

3rd edition revised. Edinburgh: T.. & T. Clark, [19ljJ 1949.

The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, (The Moffatt

Commentary). New York: Harper and Brothers, n.d ..

Neff, Lawrence w. The Pinal Failure of Christianity. Atlanta: Banner

Press, Emory University, 1935.

Neil, William. The Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians, (The Moffatt

Commentary). New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948. ·

Nestle, D. Eberhard. Novum Testamentum Graece. Stuttgart: Privilegierte

Wurttembergische Bibelanstalt, ~89® 1949.

Nock, Arthur Darby. St. Paul. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1937.

Parsons, Ernest William. The Religion of the New Testament. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1939.

Peabody, Francis Greenwood8 The Apostle Paul and The Modern World.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1923.

Pfleiderer, Otto. Der Paulinismus. Leipzig: o. R. Reisland, 1890.

English translation by Edward Peters, 2 Vols. London:
Williams and Norgate, 1891.

Plummer, Alfred. A Commentary on St. Paul's First Epistle to the

Thessalonians. London: Robert Scott, 1918.

A Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians.

London: Robert Scott, 1919.
 199

A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Second Epistle

of St. Paul to the Corinthians, (The International Critical
Commentary. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1915.

Quimby, Chester w. Paul for Everyone. New York: Macmillan Company,

1944e

Rall, Harris Franklin. According to St. Paul. New York: Charles Scrib-
ner's Sons, 1944e

Ramsay, William M. St. Paul the Traveller and The Roman Citizen. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1900.

Riddle, Donald W. Paul Man of Conflict. New York: Abingdon Cokesbury

Press, 1940.

Robertson, Archibald, and PlUimUer, Alfred. First Epistle of St. Paul to

the Corinthians, (The International Critical Commentary). New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1911.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the

Light of Historical Research• New York! George H. Doran Company,
1914.

Paul and the Intellectuals. Garden City, New York: Doubleday,

Doran and Company, 1928.

Syllabus for New Testament Study. New York: George H. Doran

Company, 1923.

Robinson, B. w. The Life of Paul. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1918.

Robinson, Charles H. Studies in the Resurrection of Christ. London:

Lo]Jgmans, Green, and Company, 1909.

Rostron, s. Nowell. The Christology of St. Paul. London: Robert Scott,

1912 ..

Rowlingson, Donald T. Introduction to New Testament Study. New York:

Macmillan Company, 1956.

Sanday, William, and Headlam, Arthur c. A Critical and Exegetical

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, (The International
Critical Commentary). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1895.

Sanday: William. The Life of Christ in Recent Research. New York:

OxfordUniversity Press, 1907.
 200

Schweitzer, Albert. The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle. Translated by

William Montgomery. New York:· The Macmillan Company, [1931]
1956,.

Paul and His Interpreters. Translated by William Montgomery.

New York: Macmillan Company, "[191i] 1956.

Scott, Ernest Findlay. The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to the

Philemon, and to the Ephesians';. (The Moffatt Commentary).. New
York: Harper and Brothers~ 19309

The Literature of the New Testament. New York: Columbia

University Press, Ll932] 1952 ..

The Pastoral Epistles, (The Moffatt Commentary). New York:

Harper and Brothers, n.d.

The Epistle to the Philippians, Introduction and Exegesis,

(The Interpreters Bible). Vol. II. New York: Abingdon Press,
1955.

Shaw, R. D. The Pauline Epistles. Edinburgh: T. & T... Clark, 1903.

Simpson, W. J. Sparrow. The Resurrection and Modern Thought. London:

Longmans, Green, and Company, 1911 ..

Smith, David. The Life and Letters of St. Paul. New York: George H.
Doran Company, 1919_.•

Smith, Gamaliel, (Jeremy Bentham). Not Paul, But Jesus. London: John
Hunt, 1823.

Somerville, David. St. PaulTs Conception of Christ. Edinburgh: T. & T.

Clark, 1897.

Stamm, Raymund T. The Epistle to the Galatians, Introduction and Exe-

gesis, (The Interpreters Bible). New York: Abingdon Press, 1953.

Strachan, R. H. The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, (The

Moffatt New Testament Commentary). New York: Harper and Brothers,
1935.

Vincent~ Marvin R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles

to the Philippians and to Philemon, (The International Critical
Commentary). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897.
 201

Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Berdmans

Weiss, Johannes, and Knopf, Rudolph, The History of Primitive Christianity.

Edited by Frederick c. Grant. 2 Vols. New York: Wilson-Erickson,
[1914] 1937.

Werner, Martin, The Formation of Christian Dogma. Translated by s. G. F.

Brandon. Landon: Adam and Charles Black, 1957.

Wernle, Paul, The Beginnings of Christianity. Translated by G. A.

Bienemann. Edited by w. D. Morrison. New York: C. P. Putnam•s
Sons, 1903.

Westcott, Brooke Foss, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of

the New Testament. Cambridge and London: Macmillan Company, 1889.

Wood, C. T., The Life, Letters and Religion of St. Paul. Edinburgh:
T. & T. Clark, 1925.
 ABSTRACT

The primitive Christian hope of the immediate coming of the

Kingdom of God was based on the memo~ of the teachings of Jesus. The
fact that that hope remained unfulfilled forced a transformation of
the Christian faith which enabled it to survive the failure of the
original expectation.
The place of Paul in this transformation has been uncertain.

His early letters show a strong expectation of the Parousia, but scholar-
ly opinion on the later letters remains eontradictor,y. R.H. Charles has
suggested that in Paul's later letters there is a noticeable decline in
eschatological thought and, in effect, a transf0rmation 0f·Paul's ori-

ginal hope for the immediate Parousia. This transformation may be

clearly shown by arranging Paul's letters into four stages on the basis

of the diminishing emphasis of declining eschatology. .Allbert Schweitzer

has held that Paul maintains a consistent eschatological hope through-

out his letters.

The background of Charles' position was rooted in the work of
-
F. C. Baur and the TUbing en School and culmina ted with H. J. Hol tzmann.
- '

This background ce~tered about two questionffi of Pauline doctrine:

1. Its relationship to :Primitive Christianity, 2). Its relationship to
Hellenistic ideas. The TUbingen School explained the decline of
eschatology on the hypothesis that Paul introduced Hellenistic thought.

202
Schweitzer regarded this explanation as unfounded and attempted to

demonstrate that there were no clear affinities between the thought of

Paul and the Hellenistic world. Paul's thought thus did not develop
in any Hellenistic direction but remained consistently Jewish eschato-
logical throughout his literary production.

The purpose of this dissertation is to outline and criticize the

Pauline eschatological theory of R. H. Charles ·in the light of Schweit-
zer~s thorough-going eschatology with particular reference to the Parousia.

The two positions are first compared on the basis of their rela-
tionship to critical norms regarding the Pauline corpus. These norms re-
ject the authenticity of Ephesians and the Pastorals and establish the

genuineness of nine letters. These genuine letters are chronologically

arranged into three groups~ each group being separated by a period of

three or four years.

The eschatological material in the letters is then isolated and

analyzed under three headings: the imminent expectation of the Parousia,

the immediate resurrection upon death, and the eschatological chronology.

This last heading is subdivided into the problem of the temporary Mes-
sianic Kingdom and a dual resurrection. The results of this analysis are
applied to an evaluation of the two positions with the following results:

1. There is a consistent imminent hope for the Parousia through-

out ~aults letters sustaini?g Schweitzer's basic position. There is no

evidence for a correlation of this hope with the dating of the letters.

Charles' failure to acknowledge the eschatological evidence of Philip-

pians is a primary obijection to his developmental argument.
 ~ In the light of the possibility of his own death prior to

the Parousia, Paul revises his concept of the time of the resurrection
in the Imprisonment Letters, arriving at a new doctrine of immediate

resurrection. It is uncertain whether or not Paul wishes to apply

this new doctrine only to his own death.

3. Evidence for a Messianic Kingdom is limited to a single
passage in I Corinthians which does not adequatelY support Schweitzer's

theory, a theory which is based primarily on non-Pauline materials.

4. Paul believes in a single resurrection for the righteous
only. S~hweitzerts reconstruction of eschatological chronology, which
includes a dual resurrection, is based on non-Pauline materials •.

Insofar as the eschatological evidence is concerned, Paul

seems to stand apart from the process of Hellenization and, despite
the possibility of his introduction of the doctrine of immediate
resurrection, he remains within the Jewish eschatological framework.
 AUTOBIOGRAPHY

Paul R. Woudenberg was born at Highland Park, Illinois,

September 1, 1927. His father, John A. Woudenberg, is an electri-

cian with Warner Brothers S~dios.

The- author graduated from the public schools in Burbank,

California. In 1944, he entered The California Institute of Tech-

nology and after two semester?~ enlisted in the United States Navy.

Upon his discharge, he entered Occidental College in Los Angeles, and

received his A.B. degree in 1949. After one semester at the University

2Q5
 206

of Southern California Graduate School, he entered the School of

Theology at Boston University and received his S.T.B. degree in 1952.

He was elected the Reverend Bdmund M. Beebe Fellow at Boston

University School of Theology in 1952. He was ordained in 1952 at

Redlands, California, and is a member of the Southern California-

Arizona Conference of the Methodist Church.

He is presently pastor of the Echo Park Methodist Church in

Los Angeles, California.