(!tnurnrbta
UJ'1 rnlngiral itn .... _ ly
Continuing
LEHRE UND WEHRE
MAGAZIN FUER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILETIK
THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLy-THEOLOGICAL M ONTHLY
Vol. xm June, 1942 No.6
CONTENTS Page
Leading Thoughts on Eschatology in the Epistles to the Thessa-
lonians. L. Fuerbringer . ______ . _____________ __________________________________________ .__ 401
Verbal Inspiration - a Stumbling-Block to the Jews and Foolish-
ness to the Greeks. Th. Engelder __ ... ________ _____________________________ _ 414
Sermon Study on Rom. 10:1-15. Th. Lnet.ch . ________ ___________________ .. _________ 442
Outlines on the Wuerttemberg Epistle Selections _________ ___ _____________ _____ 452
Miscellanea _________ ___________________ ____ _______________________________________________________________ 459
Theological Obsener. - Kirchlich -Zeitgeschichtliches _____________________ 466
Book Review. - Liteu tur _______________________________________________________________________ 473
Ein Prediger muss nieht aIlein wei-
den, also dass er die Sehafe unter-
weise, wie sie reehte Christen sollen
sein, I'ondern aueh daneben den Woel-
fen w~hren, da sie die Sehafe nieht
8l4l'eIf und mit fa1scher Lehre ver-
tuebren und Irrtwn einfuehren.
Luther
Es 1st kein Ding, das ~ Leute
mehr bei der Kirehe bebaelt denI1
die gute Predigt. - Apoioll'ie, Art. 24
If the trumpet give an uneertain
sound, who shall prepare himself to
the battle? -1 Cor. 14:8
Published for the
Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States
CONCOROIA PUBLlSBINC HOUSE, St. Louis, Mo.
Concordia
Theological Monthly
Vol. XIII JUNE, 1942 No.6
Leading Thoughts on Eschatology in the Epistles
to the Thessalonians
IV
In the two previous articles of this series we have treated the
section 2 Thess. 2: 3-12, in which Paul points out that, although the
day of judgment will come suddenly, it will not come before the
great falling away and the Antichrist will have made his ap-
pearance, and in which the apostle also describes in greater detail
the nature and activities of Antichrist. This section has been the
subject of much controversy. Moreover, the very fact that many
will not recognize the Antichrist and will be deceived by him is an
important factor in the "deceivableness of unrighteousness" and
"strong delusion" to which the apostle refers, vv.9-11. For these
reasons we should like to go into this matter more thoroughly.
We shall briefly discuss the various interpretations and point out
on the basis of history that our Confessions are right in recognizing
the Roman Pope as the Antichrist foretold in Scripture, when, for
example, the appendix to the Smalcald Articles, "Of the Power
and Primacy of the Pope," states: "The marks (all the vices) of
the Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and
his adherents," basing that declaration primarily on 2 Thess. 2
(Triglotta, p. 515). Lengthy dissertations and entire books have
been written on this section of Scripture, and in commentaries we
often find a special excursus in which the various views are re-
corded and discussed. Eadie devotes forty pages to such an
excursus (A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistles of
Paul to the Thessalonians, pp. 329-370: ''The Man of Sin"). Like-
wise Wohlenberg (Kommentar zum Neuen Testament . .. heraus-
gegeben von Dr. Thea. Zahn. - Der erste ond zweite Thessalo-
nicherbrief ausgelegt von Lic. G. Wohlenberg, pp.170-214: Exkurs
zu 2 Thess. 2, 3-8). The discussion centers chiefly around the
26
402 Eschatology in the Epistles to the Thessalonians
question who the man of sin and the son of perdition is and, linked
up with that question, who the "who now letteth" is. It would lead
us too far afield to mention and refute all of the views expressed,
but the chief ones must be considered. We shall then the more
certainly find and establish the correct interpretation. In analyzing
the various interpretations we shall make special use of the ex-
cellent treatise by the younger Philippi (Ferdinand Philippi, Die
biblische und ki'1'chliche Leh'1'e vom Antichrist. Guetersloh, 1877).
If we proceed historically, we shall find four distinct interpreta-
tions: 1. The interpretation of the Church Fathers; 2. the inter-
pretation of the Reformation era; 3. the historical view; 4. the
chiliastic view.
We shall begin with the view held by the Church Fathers
as it appears in the writings of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Chrysostom,
Cyrill of Jerusalem, Augustine, Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsvestia,
Hippolytus (who wrote a dissertation on De Anti-Christo), Lac-
tantius, Origen, Ephraem the Syrian. While they differ greatly
in details, there is essential agreement among them in that a
personal Antichrist will appear before the return of Christ; in him
all the characteristics will appear that are mentioned in the section
of Scripture under discussion. Some of them think chiefly of some
temporal ruler, others of an archheretic and false Messiah or false
prophet. They are agreed that the Antichrist is still in the future
and that he is an individual. However, Augustine already takes
cognizance of a collective interpretation, that the term Antichrist
refers not only to the godless prince, but includes the whole number
of his adherents, the body of which he is to be the head. Already
prior to that time the well-known legend about Nero had originated,
that Nero, the bitter enemy and bloodthirsty persecutor of the
Christians, had not died, but had only withdrawn to reappear in
the course of time as the Antichrist (Nero redivivus.)
A second view is that held during the Reformation era, the
development of which began as early as the eleventh century.
According to this view the Antichrist prophesied in Scripture is
a collective person, the term designating the PapacY. This view
is found already among the so-called forerunners of the Reforma-
tion, the Waldensians, the Wyclifites and Hussites, also, as it would
seem, by the fiery Savonarola of Florence and by the burlesque
German popular preacher Geiler von Kaisersberg. Wyclif wrote
a tract "De Christo et Adversario Suo Antichristo," in which on
the basis of manifest and generally known facts he proves the
Pope to be the Antichrist. Only a short time before his death he
cried out: "Up! let us fight against this Antichrist!" Above all,
however, Luther sponsored, vindicated, and defended this inter-
pretation. Chiefly through his Smalcald Articles the doctrine that
Eschatology in the Epistles to the Thessalonians 408
the Pope is the 7'eal Antichrist has found a place in the Confes-
sions of the Lutheran Church. Similarly Melanchthon expresses
himself in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, as is evidenced
by the index in anyone of the various editions of the symbolic
writings. To my knowledge, aU Lutheran theologians of the 16th
and 17th centuries without exception follow in Luther's footsteps.
This view of the Reformation era is subsequently found in the
writings of Bugenhagen, Flacius, Hunnius, Lucas and Andreas
Osiander, Balduin, Erasmus Schmid, Quistorp, Calov, Wolf, Spener,
Joachim Lange, Bengel, to mention only the leading exegetes of
our Church. All regard the Pope, and not some specific Pope but
the Papacy as an institution, to be the man of sin and the SOn of
perdition. Bengel writes: "Thesis manet irrefragabilis, id est,
evidens et certa." According to this interpretation Paul's descrip-
tion of Antichrist refers not to one individual but to a collective
person. Paul portrays "non modo individuum aliquem hominem,
sed seriem aut 8'Uccessionem hominum in eodem gradu et nomine
constitutorum." (Not merely some one individual person, but a
series or succession of men occupying the same position and bearing
the same name.)
This same interpretation concerning the Papacy is found among
the leaders of the Reformed Church: Zwingli, Calvin, Beza, and
others.
The Westminster Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian
Church states in chap. 25, as quoted in Hovey's American Com-
mentary on the New Testament: ''There is no other Head of the
Church but the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can the Pope of Rome in
any sense be head thereof but is that Antichrist, that man of sin
and son of perdition that exalteth himself in the Church against
Christ and all that is called God" (Commental'y on the Epistles
to the Thessalonians by W. A. Stevens, V, 92).
Even several rationalists, such as Michaelis and Engelhardt,
have shared that interpretation, and also a number of modern
exegetes accept the concepts as collective, although they do not
apply them to the Papacy. We call attention to Nitzsch, who thinks
of atheism as it will in the course of time be publicly acknowledged
as an authoritative power, Schneckenburger, who remarks: ''The
Antichrist is Paul's way of personifying wickedness," and Heng-
stenberg. Otherwise, as far as we know on the basis of printed
publications, but very few outside the church bodies affiliated with
us still maintain this interpretation of the Reformation era. N ote-
worthy exceptions are F. A Philippi in his Ki7'Chliche Glaubens-
leh7'e and his son Ferdinand in the work referred to above, p. 402.
In his comprehensive work, Vol. 6, pp. 148-240, the older Philippi
inserted a "Brief Interpretation of Revelation." In it he remarks:
404 Eschatology in the Epistles to the Thessalonians
"It will not be superfluous to remind the Lutheran Church of
our day of several statements in the symbolic writings in which
our fathers with holy zeal and with convincing proof maintained
the view that the Pope is the Antichrist." (P.176.) He then quotes
the pertinent passages of the confessional writings. Philippi refers
also to Luthardt's statement in his Doctrine Concerning the Last
Things (p. 125): "Moreover, it is now universally [!] recognized
that the apostle (2 Thess. 2: 3,4) speaks not of a group but of an
individual person, who will appear in the latter days," and then
makes the following comment, "Alas, the handful of antichiliastic
exegetes no longer counts. They might as well take flight to the
primitive forests of America. Pars mawr meliorem vicit. And yet
there is no claim exegetically more arbitrary and unfounded
than that 2 Thess. 2: 3, 4 can apply only to a concrete, individual
person" (p.181).
And it is noteworthy that also Lenski, the well-known exegete
of the American Lutheran Church, maintains this truly Lutheran
pOSition. He remarks in his Interpretation of St. Paul's Epistles to
the Thessalonians: "The great apostasy is Romanism, its head, the
papal succession, called 'Antichrist' in 1 John 2: 18 in distinction
from 'many antichrists,' the lesser antichristian powers. All that
Paul says agrees with the Papacy and Romanism down to the
present day. . .. As the Papacy emerged and the Romish system
developed, the Antichrist's parousia and revelation occurred.
During nineteen centuries no greater apostasy has ever appeared
in the visible Church. Nor can a still greater one appear. In the
papal system the climax has been reached." He quotes approvingly
Dr. Franz Pieper's Christliche Dogmatik, where Pieper says: "From
my own experience I must confess that in my own conscience I was
not vitally convinced that the Pope is the antichrist until on the
one hand I realized what the doctrine of justification is and what
its significance is for the Church, and on the other hand that the
Papacy has its real essence in denying and cursing the doctrine of
justification and by its show of piety and its claim to be the only
saving Church binds to itself men's consciences." Finally Lenski
states: "Let me venture to state my personal opinion regarding
v.8: the Papacy received its mortal blow by 'the breath of the
Lord's mouth' (the Lord's Word) during the Reformation and has
shown the effects ever since, without prospect of recovery. Until
the time of the Reformation the Papacy ruled practically the entire
Church with its fearful deceit; this is not true since that time. The
Reformation cast a blight upon the papal rule, a blight that has
continued unchecked during the past four hundred years. Who is
able to say what the future, prior to the parousia, will bring as
a further fulfillment of Paul's prophecy? We cannot go beyond
Eschatology in the Epistles to the Thessalonians 405
Matt. 24: 12 and Luke 18: 8. I look for no superpope at the end,
for no pope who shall wield supreme secular power over the
world's states and governments." (pp.443-446.)
The third interpretation may be called the historical or ra-
tionalistic view. According to this opinion the words are to be
understood historically as referring to an individual in the past.
In that individual the words of Paul may have been fulfilled or not
fulfilled. In the latter case, so it is claimed, Paul was simply
mistaken. There is, however, a wide difference of opinion as to
the identity of that individual. Rationalists understood the man
of sin to be one of the Roman Caesars. Hugo Grotius, one of the
fathers of rationalism, likewise later Spitta and J. Weiss, thought
of Caligula, who commanded that a colossal statue of himself be
erected in the temple at Jerusalem. Wetstein thought of Titus,
who caused sacrifices to be brought to the Temple. Nero has been
particularly favored by many interpreters as the "Man of Sin" of
2 Thess. 2; we name only F. C. Baur, the founder of the Tuebingen
School, the Catholic Doellinger, and more recent exegetes, such as
Weiszsaecker, Holtzmann, Schmiedel. Other modern exegetes, as
Hilgenfeld and Pfleiderer, suggest an ancient heretic; Hammond
thought directly of Simon the sorcerer and the gnostics, whose
leader he is supposed to have been; Clericus named the leader of
the rioting Jews, Simon the son of Gioras, of whose depravity
Josephus tells; Whitby regarded the entire Jewish people as the
Antichrist; Schoettgen thought of the Pharisees and the rabbis;
Harduin surmised the high priest Ananias, who caused Paul to be
struck in the mouth. (Acts 23:2.) This great diversity of opinions
in itself proves the fallacy of the historical view. This interpreta-
tion also overlooks altogether that, according to the specific words
of the text, the Antichrist will be seated in the temple of God, in
the Church, "not in the hog stable," as Luther on one occasion
remarks sarcastically. Communism, Stalinism, Naziism, etc., are
not seated in the church, and Modernism does not perform miracles
but rather denies the possibility of miracles.
Finally, the fourth, the so-called chiliastic interpretation, needs
to be discussed. The chief advocates of that view are Olshausen,
v. Hofmann, Luthardt, Baumgarten, v. Gerlach, Thiersch, v.Oet-
tingen, Auberlen, Riggenbach, and others. Here in America this
view was formerly defended by members of the Iowa Synod. All
of these interpreters find antichristian features in the apostasy be-
ginning in apostolic times and continuing to our day, also more or
less in the Papacy. But this falling away will culminate towards
the end of the world in a particularly wicked enemy of God, the
great Antichrist. Riggenbach writes, "Every historical character
has been prepared in a thousandfold manner and appears, when
406 Eschatology in the Epistles to the 'nlesIIaloDians
he appears, as a son of his particular age; and again the trend of
the times will gain undisputed mastery only when some man,
perceiving clearly the climactic implications of the spirit of the
times, boldly gives expression to the ideas fermenting, only half
understood, in a thousand minds, and thus impresses upon his age
its distinctive mark and seal." (Quoted by Ferd. Philippi in the
treatise referred to above, p. 43.) Luthardt says: ''The earlier
teachers of our Church interpreted this prophecy of the Antichrist
as referring to the Pope and the position he has occupied in Chris-
tendom. And it must be admitted that the Papacy, despite all the
piety of a few individual representatives, is an anti-Christian in-
stitution, concerning which it is still too early to say whether it
will be overpowered or whether it will grow in influence. Perhaps
the latter is the more probable. Even so it is improper to call the
Pope the Antichrist. Doing so would be an injustice to the Pope
and a departure from the words of the apostle. For it must be
granted that the Papacy has retained the essentials of Christian
truth and it is possible for adherents and defenders of the same
to be saved, even though they are exposed to grave spiritual perils.
Moreover, it is now generally [?] acknowledged that the apostle
is not speaking of a number of persons but rather of one person to
appear at the end of history. It is true that the Popes have fre-
quently assumed names of honor to which only God and Christ are
entitled, and thus they have been guilty of blasphemy. Men have
called them God and Lord, and statements and prophecies of
Scripture have been applied to them that actually apply to Christ,
for example, Is. 28: 16; Ps. 72: 11; Matt. 28: 18; Rev. 5: 5; but that
is still a far cry from the complete usurpation of the place of God
and Christ and from the demand to be worshiped as God, both of
which are predicated of the Antichrist. No less is it true that the
future here foretold has its beginning in the present, in a godless
mode of thinking and philosophy of life coupled with a deification
of the creature, a tendency which will in ever increasing measure
strive with Christianity for ultimate supremacy. But that surely
is no more than a preparation for the extreme and final godlessness.
The words of the apostle suggest rather than that they actually
teach. Although they are clear enough if only we make a thorough
study of them, we would rather have them less brief, so that we
might be all the more sure of their meaning, also in details. The
reason for their brevity is the fact that when Paul had been with
the Thessalonians, he had instructed them orally and adequately
on that subject. He refers to such oral instruction in v. 5: 'Re-
member ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these
things?'" (The Doctrine Concerni1lg the Last Tki1lgB, pp.155, 156.)
Kliefoth says: "The question is: Is the Pope at Rome the
Eschatology in the Epistles to the Thessalonians 407
Antichrist? or, to define the question correctly: The question is
not whether antichrists are to be found within the Papacy and
the Roman Church as such, in its doctrine, in its organization, in
its worship, etc. - to that question every Lutheran would have to
answer in the affirmative, since every essential error in doctrine
is an Antichristian element. Nor is this the question whether any
one individual, in the past or in the future, might be the Antichrist,
an assertion which has never yet been made. But this is the
question, whether in the succession of Roman Popes. whether in
the Papacy and its rule over the Roman Church, whether in this
institution those manifestations have become, and will continue to
become, historical realities which Daniel, chap. 7, designates as the
'little horn,' and 9:26 as the ~tt ,.~~; which 1 John 2:18 calls 'the
Antichrist'; which Paul describes in 2 Thess. 2: 3-12; which Rev.
9: 11 presents as the ' AnoiJ.uwv and 11: 7 and 13: 1 if. as the beast
out of the abyss, and 19: 20 as being thrown into the lake of fire ..•.
In spite of what we have said at the beginning of this study, it will
not be superfluous to add this concluding remark: when now, for
reasons mentioned above, we contest the claim that the Papacy is
the Antichrist of prophecy, the other question, a question by itself,
whether, and what, and how much of, the Papacy is antichristian,
is in no wise touched upon. Whatever our confessional writings
and our older dogmaticians regarded as anti christian in the Papacy
and for that reason rejected, we regard and reject in like manner.
Only this is our claim, regardless of how many antichristian
features the Papacy reveals, in the light of prophecy, finally another
will come who will surpass those antichristian features." (Christ-
liche E8chatologie, pp. 217, 224.)
These chiliastic interpreters for the most part suppose the
Antichrist to be an earthly ruler. Hofmann speaks of an "Antiochus
Tedivivu8/' Olshausen thought of an incarnation of Satan. When
Napoleon I appeared, many believed him to be the Antichrist.
Dr. J. A. Seiss of Philadelphia in his day regarded Napoleon m
as the Antichrist. In times of great excitement, as for example,
in times of world wars, when many will turn to the Scripture,
especially to the apocalyptic chapters and books in the hope of
finding there a foundation for their hopes and fears, almost every
person of prominence is identified as the Antichrist.
Which of these interpretations is the correct one, which of
them agrees best with the text and history? If only we will note
carefully every word, all uncertainty as to their meaning disappears.
The Antichrist cannot be an individual, since the first traces of his
activity date back to apostolic times, 2 Thess. 2: 7, and he will con-
tinue until the return of Christ, v.8. Thus Calov, the able Lu-
theran exegete of the 17th century, remarks correctly in his Biblia
408 Eschatology in the Epistles to the Thessalonians
Illustrata: "du'l'at ille homo peccati usque ad diem ext'l'emi judicii,
quod de uno individuo dici nequit." Either the Antichrist is a
collective concept or Paul was totally in error or the Epistle is;
not genuine. It is objected that the various expressions of the text
must necessarily refer to individuals: man of sin, son of perdition,
that wicked, etc. But all these expressions may also be under-
stood collectively. In Scripture we find a vast array of analogous
expressions. We need only to recall the terms occurring again and
again in the Psalms: ''the righteous one," ''the wicked one," ''the
enemy," "the adversary," or the expression so frequently used by
the prophets: "daughter of Zion," or in the dissertations of the
Lord: "the hireling," "the wolf." We might compare passages like
Matt. 22: 21; "Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Not Julius
Caesar, but any govermnent is; meant.) Incidentally, this last pas-
sage sheds light on the change from the masculine Q XU.EXWV to
the neuter 'to xadxov (Caesar-govermnent). Cpo also John 19: 12;
Acts 25: 8, 10, 11, 12. Matt. 12: 35 might be used for comparison:
"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth
good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth
forth evil things"; also John 5:43: "I am come in My Father's
name, and ye receive Me not; if another shall come in his own
name, him ye will receive"; likewise 2 Tim. 3:17: "That the man
of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
In these passages the expressions which in most instances are
preceded by the definite article do not refer to a specific individual,
but are to be understood collectively. We might add that the very
section under consideration suggests the collective interpretation
by an analogy. We have seen that in 2 Thess. 2: 6,7 the masculine
and the neuter, Q XIl'tEXIllV, "he who letteth," and 'to xu'tlixov, "what
withholdeth," a person and a system, an order, are used inter-
changeably. All exegetes agree that by both expressions the same
thing is meant. Then certainly we are equally justified in accepting
as collective concepts the expressions "man of sin," "son of per-
dition," "who opposeth," and "that wicked," since they are used
interchangeably with the abstract neuter, impersonal terms, "falling
away," Wtocr'tacrw, and "iniquity," dvo!,La, which evidently designate
the same phenomenon. Finally, as we have seen, v. 8 plainly refers
to Is. 11:4. The words "Whom the Lord shall consume with the
spirit of His mouth and shall destroy with the brightness of His
coming" are but a free rendition of the Old Testament words: ' the
Messiah "shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and
with the breath of His lips shall He slay the wicked." It is plain
that the wicked one referred to by Isaiah is not some specific
individual, but a collective personality, a generic term; hence this
Eschatology in the Epistles to the Thessalonians 409
is the most natural interpretation of Paul's adaptation of the
prophetic words to the Antichrist. If, finally, we ask why Paul
chose this manner of expressing himself - which has caused so
much misunderstanding - that question, too, can be answered.
Repeatedly we have seen that Paul bases his portrayal and his ex-
pressions on Dan. 7-11. There Daniel first describes Antiochus
Epiphanus as a type of the Antichrist, and in close connection with
this description he adds a prophecy of the Antichrist himSelf,
chap. 12. Borrowing from that analogy, Paul here also speaks of
the Antichrist as of one person.
The fact is that in the Pope and his adherents we find all the
eannarks of the Antichrist, all the "notae antichristi," as our
fathers used to say. We need only think of the claim of the Pope
that he has the right to ignore all divine and human authority;
of his forbidding the use of the Bible; of his passionate lust for
temporal power and authority up to the point of claiming in-
fallibility; of his repeal of divine commandments and the imposition
of human commandments (celibacy). He pennits what God has
forbidden and forbids what God pennits. Not only does he take
it upon himself to prescribe the manner of divine worship or to
fonnulate articles of faith, but he even makes salvation dependent
on accepting his divine authority. We recall his condemnation
and anathematizing of the central doctrine of Christianity, justifi-
cation by grace for Christ's sake through faith. He makes himself
God, accepts and demands divine honor and worship, he is an
anti-God and Antichrist. Scripture passages which refer to
Christ (Is. 28: 16; Ps. 72: 11; Matt. 28: 18; Rev. 5: 5) he applies to
himself. We recall his tyranny over the Church, the temple of
God, his lying wonders in ancient and modern times, his fraud
with regard to relics, his digmatizations (Lourdes, Louise Lateau).
Some Popes were charged with sorcery. Although a mere man, the
Pope assumes the highest authority, not only on earth, but also
in heaven, by indulgences, canonization, transubstantiation, etc.
To expatiate on these and other statements in detail and cite
historical proof for each one would be a major assignment in itself.
Some valuable material is to be found in the recent book of
C. B. Gohdes: Does the Modern Papacy Require a New Evaluation?
One point, however, should be mentioned, namely, that under_
currents presaging the coming of the Antichrist were in evidence
already in apostolic times, the "semina erroris et ambitionis,"
particularly with reference to lust for power. We recall Paul's
warning to the elders of Ephesus: "For I know this, that after my
departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing
the flock," Acts 20: 29; Peter's warning: "Feed the flock of God
which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by con-
410 Eschatology in the Epistles to the Thessalonians
straint, but willirigly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples
to the Bock," 1 Pet. 5: 2, 3; and in connection with the latter the
testimony of the First Epistle of Clement, dating back as far as the
first century (1,44): "Our apostles recognized through our Lord
Jesus Christ that quarrelings would arise over the office of the
bishop." A detailed account of the gradual rise and later develop-
ment of Popery will fully substantiate the truth of Luther's state-
ment in the Smalcald Articles (quoted above): "The marks (all
the vices) of the Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the
Pope and his adherents."
It will be well to add a few words regarding Luther's position.
It is Luther to whom the Church is indebted for the correct ap-
praisal of the Antichrist and his exposure and unmasking. It is
very interesting and significant that Luther, as time went on,
gradually saw the facts more clearly and expressed himself more
definitely, as the following quotations show. As early as Decem-
ber 11, 1518, Luther wrote to a friend, W. Link: "I wish to send
you my humble observations that you may judge whether I am
right in suspecting that the true Antichrist, as portrayed by Paul,
is the one who rules at the court of Rome; that he is today more
vicious than the Turk, I believe I am able to prove" (St. Louis
Edition, XV: 2430) . These suspicions soon grew into certainties,
but for some time he was reluctant to express himself publicly,
Instead, he whispers his thoughts to his confidential friend Spalatin
in a letter dated February 13, 1519, in which he writes: "I am also
examining the decretal of the Popes in preparation for my debate,
and (I am whispering this into your ear) I do not know whether
the Pope is not the Antichrist or his apostle, so shamefully (I am
telling you the truth) does he pervert Christ and crucify Him in his
decretals." (XXI a: 156.) In the resolutions for the Leipzig Debate,
which he completed August 15, 1519, he goes a step farther when
he says: "If the Pope claims the sole authority to interpret Scrip-
ture, then he is worse than Lucifer and all heretics." But all the
while his utterances are still conditional, and even in the early
months of the year 1520 he is still reluctant and uses the hypothet-
ical form: "If the Pope. , . then he is the Antichrist." In February,
1520, when he received the treatise on the spurious donation of
Constantine, written by Laurentius Valla, published by Ulrich von
Hutten, Luther expressed his reaction to the contents in the fol-·
lowing words to Spalatin (XXa: 234): "I am in such anguish that
almost I do no longer doubt that the Pope is the real Antichrist,
whom, according to universal opinion, the world is expecting, so
accurately everything that he lives, that he does, that he speaks,
that he orders, agrees to this view." A short while later he again
Eschatology in the Epistles to the Thessalonians 411
expresses himself with great caution, proving that he did not
proceed rashly and without forethought in this whole matter. In
replying to the book of Prierias he says: "If this sentiment prevails
in Rome and if that is being taught with the knowledge of the Pope
and the cardinals (which I hope is not the case), then I must here-
with express myself freely and openly that the Antichrist is seated
in the temple of God and that he rules in yonder purple-colored
Babylon in Rome and that the Roman curia is the synagog of
Satan." (XXa: 184.) Soon thereafter, however, he published the
two writings "To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation
Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate" (X: 266) and "The
Babylonian Captivity of the Church" (XIX:4), in which he iden-
tifies the Papacy directly, without "ifs" or "buts," as the Antichrist,
and in a letter dated August 18, 1520, addressed to the Augustinian
Vicar John Lang, he confesses with regard to the first of the two
books just mentioned: "Here in Wittenberg we are convinced that
the Papacy is the seat of the true and real Antichrist, and we
believe that, for the sake of the salvation of souls, we are per-
mitted to take every possible action against his deception and
villainy. For myself, I declare that I owe the Pope no other
obedience than that which lowe the real Antichrist." (XV: 1638,
. 1639.) For that reason, from that time on, he repeatedly expressed
the conviction that Judgment Day would soon occur. His certainty
that the Pope was the Antichrist became forever unshakable when
the papal bull of excommunication was delivered to him. Then he
wrote at once to Spalatin under date of October 11, 1520: "Now
I am much freer, since I have finally become certain that the
Pope is the Antichrist and has become manifest as the seat of
Satan." (XV:2463,2464.) When in the beginning of November of
that same year he issued his reply "Against the Bull of the Anti-
christ," he gave that treatise the title "Adversus Execrabilem
Antickri.tti Bullam" and concluded with the words: 11£ the Pope
will not revoke this bull and condemn it and in addition punish
Dr. Eck and his associates, the followers of that bull, no one need
doubt that the Pope is God's enemy, the persecutor of Christ, the
disturber of Christianity, and the real Antichrist." (XV: 1475.)
From that time on the term "Antichrist" for the Pope becomes
Luther's slogan. When shortly thereafter the Reformer burned
the bull of excommunication and justified that burning in a special
publication, "Why the Books of the Pope and His Disciples Have
been Burned by Dr. Martin Luther" (XV: 1619), no trace of any
"ifs" or "buts" appeared, but throughout the entire book this thought
was stressed with all clearness: the Pope, not Leo X, not some
other Pope, no, the institution, the Papacy in itself is the "abomina-
tion and stench to which Christ refers Matt. 24: 15 and also St. Paul."
412 Eschatology in the Epistles to the Thessalonians
(XV:1627.) In the beginning of the year 1521, therefore, he asks
all booksellers and readers of his early books to burn his earlier
writings on indulgences since at that time he had not yet known
that the Pope was the Antichrist. Luther continued to hold to this
conviction to the very last, and to prove that would simply require
to copy the passages from Luther's writings. That he calls the
Pope the real Antichrist in the Smalcald Articles, twice referring
to 2 Thess.2, is universally known (Triglotta, 474,514). No ex-
pression is too strong for him. The Pope is to him more dangerous
than the Turk, yes, a very devil in disguise. Accordingly, when in
the year 1545, in his publication "Against the Papacy at Rome In-
stituted by the Devil," he breaks with the Pope, he writes: "Thank
God, no good Christian can now believe differently than that the
Pope is not and cannot be the head of the Christian Church nor
the representative of God or Christ, but that he is the head of the
accursed church of the worst knaves on earth, the representative
of the devil, an enemy of God, an adversary of Christ and disturber
of the Church of Christ, a teacher of all lies, blasphemy, and
idolatry; an archthief and robber of churches, of the power of the
, keys, of all possessions both of the Church and of earthly lords;
a murderer of kings, an instigator of all manner of bloodshed,
a pander above all dealers in prostitution and immorality, also
of that which dare not be mentioned; an Antichrist, a man of sin
and son of perdition, a real Baerwolf [Werewolf, AUXUv/}QUlJtOt; =
manwolf, monster]. Whoever is unwilling to believe it, let him
perish with his god, the Pope. As a called teacher and preacher
in the Church of Christ, obligated to speak the truth, I have here-
with done my part. He that wants to stink let him stink, he that
wants to be lost let him be lost; his blood be upon his own head"
(XVII: 1114).*} The Lutheran Church Quarterly (October 1937,
p.414) aptly remarks: "The unbounded rage of Das Papsttum zu
Rom vom Teufel gestiftet did not arise from any personal hatred
or from mere indignation at the attitude of the princes of the
Church, but it sprang from the conviction that here was an anti-
Christian principle which endangered his [Luther's] own salvation,
which would rob him of the certainty of his faith, which attacked
his very soul. Ir- every case it was a life question."
*) Luther's writings, we need hardly state, abound in passages in
which he uses the term "antichrist" in a wider sense. He says, ''The
Pope with the Turk" is the Antichrist, "the true Antichrist." He ex-
plains this by saying that the Turk, like the Pope, rejects Christ as
the Savior. Elsewhere he says that "the Turk is not such an Antichrist
as the Pope." No one who has read Luther is unfamiliar with this
grouping of the two antichristian powers - nor, let it be added, with
his identification of Man of Sin and the Papacy in the specific sense.
Eschatology in the Epistles to the Thessalonians 413
And why is the Pope the Antichrist? On what does Luther
base that claim in the Smalcald Articles? He recites not a long
list of -external and historical facts, although occasionally he makes
use also of this kind of evidence; nor does he quote chiefly the
Revelation of St. John; no, Luther turns to the Gospel and con-
cludes: The Gospel teaches that we are to be saved alone through
Christ and by faith. This doctrine the Pope will not tolerate but,
posing as Christ's representative, denies salvation to Christians
unless they obey his commandments. That is the worst, the most
diabolical, the most antichristian and ungodly wickedness of which
a man can be capable, to make his commandments the determining
factor in man's salvation. That is the greatest blasphemy of Christ
and the Gospel; and that is exactly what the Pope does, and for
that reason the Pope is the Antichrist and the worst of all of
Christ's enemies.
Now to return from this excursus to a final difficulty in 2 Thess.
2: 6,7, namely, to the question who is meant by 0 x(l't6;rov or
'to X(l't£X,OV. These terms also have been interpreted variously,
According to the text they evidently denote a power which can be
thought of in the masculine as well as in the neuter. Exegetes
have thought of Paul himself with his intercession, or of the
college of apostles (Zwingli), or of the office of the ministry as
such, or of Christ, the good Shepherd (Hengstenberg), or of the
proclamation of the Gospel (Calvin), or of the angels, or of the
Christians of that day, or of the spirit of true nationalism, by which
the spirit out of the abyss was held back (v. Hofmann and Lut-
hardt), and various other interpretations. I t is readily seen that
all such views fail to do justice to the text. In our opinion only
two interpretations come into serious consideration for a possible
choice. The one is the view that divine omnipotence is meant,
which orders and regulates everything, which also hinders and
holds back, which alone determines the time and the hour for
everything in the world and in the Church, which also determines
the appearance as well as the end of the Antichrist. This view
would explain perfectly the change from the masculine to the
neuter. Divine omnipotence is here personified, just as the Anti-
christian wickedness is personified. This is the interpretation of
Philippi and others. But this view also involves a difficulty. What
shall we make of the expression in v. 7 "Only he who now letteth
will let, until he be taken out of the way"? It would indeed be
unusual that God's omnipotence should be spoken of in so obscure
and indefinite a manner. And may God's omnipotence and God
Himself ever be said to be taken out of the way? For that reason
we regard the second interpretation as the more fitting and correct.
To X(l'tsx,ov, "what withholdeth," is the Roman Empire. with its
414 Verbal Inspiration-a Stumbling-Block: to Jews, Etc.
organization and administration of justice, 0 X(I.1:tix