On Monday 3rd June, a conference of Scottish University PhD students in Biblical Studies took place at New College in Edinburgh. There were many 20-minute presentations, and I gave one on the interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, which is a major text in my thesis. So this blog is longer and more technical than usual, but I would be interested in reactions to it.

Introduction

In his 2003 NTL Commentary on 2 Corinthians, Frank Matera writes, “If [Paul’s] present bodily existence is destroyed – and it surely will be, since the outer self is wasting away – he knows that God has prepared a permanent form of bodily existence for him: the resurrection body that will be disclosed at the general resurrection.”[1] Matera believes that Paul is using a different metaphor to describe what he has already said in 1 Cor 15 and in this Matera is not alone. It is probably the prevailing interpretation of the text but he also recognises that there is “little agreement among commentators about their precise meaning.”[2] For many, this view seems to be the least worst option, despite the difficulties. The transformation from “tent-home” to “eternal dwelling” takes place at the parousia.

Today I want to challenge that view of Matera and others – without positing an alternative today – thereby eliminating one major view, which, in itself, is a way towards finding a more plausible interpretation.

Why is 2 Cor 5:1-10 not about Resurrection?

To achieve this aim, I will bring two arguments to bear, and will support them with details from this text and others.

• First, because Matera’s paradigm of interpretation does not fit the language and rhetoric of the text.
• Second, because Paul’s resurrection language elsewhere does not fit well with the language used here.

Language and rhetoric of the text

Before diving into the text, I urge a caution: many come to this text with a pre-formed anthropology and apply it to the text, rather than allowing this text to inform our understanding of Paul’s anthropology. This is one of the causes of confusion.

4:16-5:10 should be treated as a unit of text

The διὸ of 4:16 and the γὰρ of 5:1 and later uses of καὶ γὰρ, show 4:16-5:10 should be treated as a unit of text, building on what has gone before but developing Paul’s thought in new directions. And each section of this unit must inform the meaning of the others.

4:16-5:10 the flow and features of the text

4:16-18 makes some foundational statements about the frailty of human existence leading to abundant glory afterwards. In doing this Paul makes anthropological statements.

• While the “outer self” is deteriorating, the “inner” is being renewed, and he encourages his hearers not to focus on the passing suffering and what is seen but the abundant and eternal glory, that is unseen.
• The “outer/inner self” statements must be taken with due seriousness. Many, adducing little or no evidence, say these are looking at the whole person from a particular perspective, taking a “holistic” anthropological view. This might be legitimate looking at people in life, yet at death something happens to believers that separates the mortal body from whatever remains, and that which remains is still sustained “in Christ” through the downpayment of the Spirit. In death there is a division within the whole person. Paul, therefore, assumes some kind of dualism that is reflected in the “outer/inner self” language.
• This dualistic language is confirmed when Paul writes that when the “earthly tent” is being dismantled, he longs to be “overclothed” with his “heavenly dwelling” so that he will not be found “naked,” implying that there is some part of him within that tent that would be naked without the overclothing.
• When taken at face value, this more dualist form of language opens up the way to other interpretations of 5:1-10 that can reflect paradigms of human existence in the text that are about embodiment but not about resurrection. Are there ways in which the language of 5:1-10 would point towards another paradigm?

5:1-10 unpacks the statement in 4:18 regarding the things that are seen and not seen.

Please look with me at table 1 on your handout where I attempt to map out

• The body of the “outer person” that is seen
• The “outer” “inner” person references of 4:16 can map on to “tent” and “eternal dwelling,” “at home in the body, away from the Lord,” “away from the body, at home with the Lord.” When they are mapped in this way the flow of the text is better placed in a paradigm that interprets it as pre-parousia death rather than parousia transformation (see table 1).

The language of mortality:

In 4:16 and 5:1, there are two verbs that express the language of mortality.

• 4:16 διαφθείρεται is the language of human deterioration because of our mortality as it applies to the “outer person.”
• 5:1 καταλυθῇ is the language of destruction or dismantling as it applies to the “tent-house” (as the “outer person).

Effectively, these two verbs are talking about a process and the end of that process: deterioration and death. These vivid verbs are not the kind of language Paul uses in relation to what happens to a body in the transformational experience of the parousia or resurrection.

To interpret this passage within the resurrection/parousia paradigm, a time gap must be inserted in 5:1 between the destruction of the present body and the reception of the heavenly body. In order to do that “we have,” the present tense ἔχομεν, is given a future sense. Matera writes, “It is … likely that the present tense emphasises Paul’s firm conviction in what God has in store for him at the general resurrection of the dead.”[3] This use of “we have” is contrary to the natural meaning of the text and is only necessary because it is required in order to support the resurrection/parousia paradigm. If we give the text its natural meaning, a crucial plank of the paradigm disappears.

2 Corinthians 5:8 and Philippians 1:23

2 Cor 5:1-5, with its picture of “earthly tent” giving way to a “house not made with hands,” must also be read in the context of 5:6-10, in which Paul makes a statement similar to what he writes in Philippians 1:23. There he says, “my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.” In 2 Cor 5:8 he writes, “we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.” It appears that Paul wanted to die before the parousia to be in the presence of Christ as soon as possible.

The time gap between these two texts is indeterminate, but they illustrate that this was not a fleeting thought in Paul’s mind. He had an ongoing desire to leave this life in order to be with Christ, and it is likely, therefore, that he gave thought to what would happen to himself if he should die before the parousia. I believe that is what he expresses in this passage. 5:8 must be allowed to shed light on 5:1.

Conclusion

It seems to me that the language and flow of the text, together with its connection to Phil 1:23, undermine the resurrection/parousia interpretation and make it difficult to hold.

Paul’s resurrection language elsewhere

This section will be in two parts, focussing first on links between 2 Cor 5 and 1 Cor 15, then Paul’s resurrection language more widely.

“Links” between 2 Cor 5 and 1 Cor 15

One of the arguments used to sustain the resurrection/parousia paradigm is that there are strong links between ideas in 2 Cor 5 and 1 Cor 15. I will now examine several of these links to see if they are as strong as usually alleged.

Isaiah 25:8

Isaiah 25:7-8a NRSV reads, “And [the Lord] will destroy on this mountain the shroud that is cast over all peoples, the covering that is spread over all nations; he will swallow up death forever.”

1 Cor 15:54 quotes the “saying,” “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

2 Corinthians 5:4 reads “so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.”

In 1 Cor 15 Paul pictures death as an entity in itself, consistent with his view of Death and Sin as powers that Jesus has disarmed and will destroy through his own death and resurrection. This is cosmic, apocalyptic material, and the scenario is that of a battle.

In 2 Corinthians 5:4 the reference is to the individual believer, and what is being swallowed up is their mortal humanity.  While cosmic powers may be at work at some point along the way in the processes of suffering and frailty, here they are not at the forefront of Paul’s mind in the way they are in 1 Corinthians.

Σῶμα

I want to note two things. First, 1 Corinthians 15:35-41 Paul uses σῶμα several times to describe all kinds of living beings– humans, animals, fish, and birds – and celestial objects – sun, moon, stars and the like. In 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10 he uniformly uses σῶμα with the nuance that it is the site of the experience of human suffering, and as something frail and mortal. Second, 1 Corinthians 15 is speaking at the macro level while 2 Corinthians 4-5 is speaking at the personal, experiential level.

The meanings overlap but are differently nuanced.

Earthly and heavenly

1 Corinthians 15:40 Paul uses “earthly bodies,” to refer to the whole range of embodied earthly creatures, humans, animals, birds, and fish. The contrast he makes is with “heavenly bodies,” for sun, moon, and stars, with star differing from star. In using them to describe embodied objects on and above the earth, embodied living creatures on earth and embodied objects in the sky, Paul indicates that embodiment does not necessarily imply fleshly embodiment. He also uses them in 15:48 and 15:49 referencing the bodies of Jesus and Adam.

In 2 Corinthians 5:1, where Paul writes “our earthly tent-house may be dismantled,” he is solely referring to human bodies, specifically the frail and mortal bodies of believers, the tent-house we live in at the moment.

There seems, then, to be little difference in the way Paul uses earthly and heavenly in the two passages, save for the fact that 1 Corinthians 15 is more at the macro level than the micro level of 2 Corinthians 5. Once again it is the nuance that is different.

But an additional point to note is that given Paul’s wide-ranging use of σῶμα in 1 Cor 15, it is entirely possible that he has not exhausted his list of the possible types of embodiment possible for human beings.

Naked

In the case of 1 Corinthians 15:37 “naked” is being used to describe metaphorically the dead body of flesh of a believer as an individual seed kernel that will be buried for an unknown amount of time before being harvested at the resurrection. The idea in 2 Corinthians 5:3 is significantly different. “Naked” describes the possible reality of a believer’s “inner person” at death unless “over clothed with the “heavenly dwelling.” The word may be the same, but the referents and significance are totally different.

Clothed and Overclothed

1 Corinthians 15:53-4, Paul writes “It is necessary that what is perishable be clothed with imperishability, and what is mortal be clothed with immortality.” In order for a perishable and mortal believer to be able to exist within the fullness of the Kingdom of God, the body in which they exist needs to be clothed with immortality. This is the transformation that Paul says will take place at parousia, with resurrection for the dead and metamorphosis for the living.

On first examination, with its clothing metaphor, 1 Corinthians 15:53-4 sounds very similar to what Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5:2 , “For also in this [tent] we groan, longing to be overclothed with our heavenly [dwelling].” However, there are points of difference.

For the sake of time, I mention only one, and it is the article that is being clothed. In 1 Corinthians 15 the thing that is perishable is the believer’s body of flesh and blood, and it is this that will be clothed with immortality at the transformation of resurrection. In 2 Corinthians 5:2-4, Paul’s fear in death, when his clothing of flesh has been dismantled, is that whatever is left once his flesh has gone will be “naked.” It is what is within his body of flesh that he is most concerned to have covered, the “inner self.” Thus, his desire is for something new to overclothe him and therefore he will still have a covering for what remains when that flesh has gone.

Conclusion:

While there are points of overlap in the meaning of some common terms in the two passages, there is no one-for-one equivalence, and there are significant differences in how some other terms are utilised. It seems to me that the links are not as strong as usually asserted, and they do not necessarily support the idea that Paul is speaking to the same subject in the two texts.

A wider look: tabular comparison with Rom 6, Rom 8, 1 Cor 15, 2 Cor 4:7-15, 2 Cor 4:16-5:10

Turning from 1 Cor 15 specifically, I now invite you to look at table 2 on the handout, detailing Paul’s resurrection language across a wider series of passages in which he is indubitably writing about resurrection, and also 2 Cor 5.

• I have highlighted in red important and typical resurrection-theme language from elsewhere which is missing from 2 Cor 5.
• I have highlighted in blue: important language from 2 Cor 5 that is missing in the other passages.

There are a few points to note here:

• we should not assume that Paul has to use the same language all the time when speaking of the same theme. Yet…
• while in 2 Cor 5 Paul could in principle be talking about resurrection in other language, several of his explicit resurrection words are absent here, and the words that are used are so different to the norm that it seems less certain than usually asserted that he is talking about resurrection/parousia.
• Often, when Paul uses metaphors to describe death and resurrection, he specifically draws the comparison – Rom 6, water baptism is baptism into Christ’s death in order to be raised to newness of life; 1 Cor 15 as a seed is sown in the ground with a view to harvest, so a body is laid in the ground with a view to resurrection. In 2 Cor 5 he gives no explication that it is about resurrection.

Conclusion to this section

So, while Paul could in principle be referring to resurrection in 2 Cor 5, the significant differences in the words used and the way in which he utilises them seems to me to militate against it.

Conclusions

In conclusion, I believe that the resurrection/parousia paradigm Matera uses to interpret 2 Cor 5 is undermined by:

• the language and flow of thought in 4:16-5:10, and that…
• an analysis of Paul’s resurrection language elsewhere supports the idea that Paul is speaking of something other than resurrection/parousia in 2 Cor 5.

These arguments against this resurrection/parousia paradigm may vary in strength, and, if each is taken individually, they would not be sufficient to overturn it. However, taken together they point in the direction of needing to find a more convincing narrative to explain the text, and the strategy of setting the resurrection/parousia paradigm aside provides an opportunity to construct one.

2 Cor 4:16	2 Cor 5:1	2 Cor 5:2	2 Cor 5:3-4	2 Cor 5:6-8
Outer person	Earthly tent of flesh is dismantled-destroyed
Inner person	Takes on House from God not made with hands	To be overclothed with heavenly dwelling	Overclothed with heavenly dwelling and not found naked	In the tent body, away from the Lord; away from the tent body, at home with the Lord

Lexemes	Rom 6:1-12	Rom 8	1 Cor 15	2 Cor 4:7-15	2 Cor 4:16-5:10
ἀνάστασις	x		x
δόξα	x	x	x	x	x
ἐγείρω	x	x	x	x
ἐνδύοω			x		x[4]
θάνατος	x	x	x	x
θνητὸς	x	x	x	x	x
νεκρός	x	x	x
παρουσίᾳ			x
σῶμα	x	x	x	x	x
ἐπενδύοω					x
οἰκ – group					x

---

[1] Frank J. Matera, Second Corinthians: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 121.

[2] Matera, Second Corinthians, 118.

[3] Matera, Second Corinthians, 120.

[4] This is the generally preferred textual variant.