¹ Cf. Schweitzer, A., Paul and His Interpreters (London, 1912), pp. 69–76.Google Scholar

² Cf. Charles, R. H., The Doctrine of a Future Life (London, 1913), pp. 437 ff.Google Scholar; Plummer, A., Second Corinthians, Edinburgh, 1915, p. 153Google Scholar; Windisch, H., Der Zweite Korintherbrief (Göttingen, 1924), p. 157Google Scholar; Robinson, H. W., The Christian Doctrine of Man (Edinburgh, 1926), p. 130Google Scholar; Goudge, H. L., Second Corinthians (London, 1927), pp. 45 ff.Google Scholar; Knox, W. L., St Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge, 1939), pp. 128 ff.Google Scholar; Lowe, J., ‘An Examination of Attempts to Detect Developments in Paul's Theology’, J. Theol. Stud. xlii (1941), pp. 129 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Guy, H. A., The New Testament Doctrine of the ‘Last Things’ (London, 1948), p. 117Google Scholar; Hatch, W. H. P., ‘St Paul's View of the Future Life’, Paulus Hellas-Oikumene (Athens, 1951), p. 96Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., New Testament Theology (1952), ii, 201Google Scholar; Dupont, J., ΣγΝ ェριΣΤωι, L'Union avec le Christ suivant Saint Paul (Paris, 1952)Google Scholar, Dodd, C. H., New Test. Stud. (Manchester, 1953), pp. 109 ff.Google Scholar; Hettlinger, R. F., ‘2 Corinthians 5. 1–10’, Scottish J. Theol. x (1957), 174 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, J. A. T., Jesus and His Coming (London, 1957), pp. 101, 160 f.Google Scholar

³ Davies, W. D., St Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1955), p. 319; cf. Charles, op. cit. p. 453. Hettlinger (op. cit. p. 192) takes the unusual view that II Cor. v represented only a temporary aberration caused by recent afflictions (II Cor. i. 8–9); in Philippians (iv. 6) Paul returns to his parousia hope.Google Scholar

⁴ Pfleiderer, O., Paulinism (London, 1891), i, 264Google Scholar; cf. Lowe, op. cit. p. 142: ‘[Paul] left the whole wonderful muddle unarranged and alive.’ This view, however, for which ‘from the whole range of the history of thought no analogy could be produced’, has been unsatisfactory to most. Schweitzer, op. cit. p. 77.

⁵ Robinson, J. A. T., The Body (London, 1952), pp. 17, 29, 77.Google Scholar

⁶ Cullmann, O., Christ and Time (London, 1951), pp. 238 ff.Google Scholar; Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead (New York, 1958), pp. 52 ff. Cullmann, however, equates the ‘naked’ (II Cor. v. 3) state with the ‘sleep’ of I Thess. iv and I Cor. xv: there is no change in Paul's understanding of the parousiaGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Schweitzer, A., The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (London, 1931), p. 131Google Scholar; Kennedy, H. A. A., St Paul's Conception of Last Things (London, 1904), pp. 266–70.Google Scholar

¹ I Thess. iv–v; II Thess. ii; I Cor. xv; cf. II Cor. i. 9, 14; Eph. i. 21 f.; ii. 7; vi. 8; Phil. i. 6, 10; ii. 16; iii. 11, 20 f.; iv. 5; Col. iii. 4, 24; II Tim. iv. 8. The distinction which Robinson (Jesus and His Coming, p. 20) draws between the parousia and the ‘day’ seems to me to be, in the Pauline letters, an unwarranted dichotomy.

² Sevenster, J. N., ‘Einige Bemerkungen über den “Zwischenzustand” bei Paulus’, New Test. Stud. i (1954–1955), 295Google Scholar. Cf. de Langhe, R., ‘Judaïsme ou Hellénisme’, L'Attente du Messie (Cerfaux et al.), Louvain, 1958, pp. 179–83.Google Scholar

³ I.e. at His coming (Robinson, Body, p. 76).

⁴ Cf. II Cor. i. 6; I Thess. iii. 3 f.; Phil. i. 29; II Tim. ii. 12.

⁵ The ‘unseen’, i.e. the new aeon, present now as the ‘hoped for’, as άρραβ́ων and έν Χρıστῷ, will be ‘manifest’ only in the parousia (cf. Hebrews xi. i, 39f.). Contrast άóρατος(Rom. i. 20; Col. i. 15 f.); cf. T.W.N.T. v, 370.

⁶ Dodd, C. H., Romans (New York, 1932), p. 134.Google Scholar

¹ Cf. Hamilton, N. Q., The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul (Edinburgh, 1957), pp. 68ff.Google Scholar; Cullmann, Christ and Time, pp. 102 ff.; I Thess. iv–v; I Cor. xv; cf. II Pet. iii. 10, 12 f.

² The use of φανερóω (II Cor. iv. 10) is not prejudicial to a parousia reference. ‘When Christ shall appear (φανερωθ̃η)…in his parousia…we shall be like him’ (I John ii. 28; iii. 2) and ‘will appear with him in glory’ (Col. iii. 4). A ‘crown of righteousness’ will be given ‘on that Day…to all who love his appearing (έπıφάνεαν) (II Tim. iv. 8; I Pet. v. 4). And ‘in the appearing (έπıφανεια̧) of his parousia’ (II Thes. ii. 8) Christ will ‘judge the living and the dead’ (II Tim. iv. 1; cf. I Tim. vi. 14).

³ Laeuchli, S., ‘Monism and Dualism in the Pauline Anthropology’, Biblical Res. iii (1958), 19. He treats Rom. vii. 22, I Cor. xii. 1 ff., II Cor. iii. 18 in similar fashion.Google Scholar

⁴ Rom. viii. 29; I Cor. xiii. 12 f.; cf. I John iii. 2.

⁵ Although the Holy Spirit does, in temporal healing, retard on occasion the powers of death even here and now. Cf. Cullmann, O., The Early Church (London, 1956), pp. 165–73.Google Scholar

⁶ Gal. ii. 20; Eph. ii. 5 f.; Col. i. 13; ii. 11 f.; Rom. viii. 30.

⁷ For a recent discussion cf. Kümmel, W. G., ‘Futurische und Präsentische Eschatologie im Ältesten Urchristentum’, New Test. Stud. v (1958–1959), 113–26.Google Scholar

¹ E.g. Rom. vi; cf. II Cor. v. 17; Gal. iv. 26; Col. ii. 11 f.; Phil. iii. 20. Gal. ii. 20 perhaps is best translated ‘I am con-crucified-with Christ’ (Robinson, Body, p. 63).

² Cf. Rom. vi. 8, 11; viii. 9, 13, 29; I Cor. vi. 14, 18; xv. 49, 53 f.; II Cor. iii. 18; iv. 4; v. 2–4, 14 f.; Eph. ii. 5ff.; iv. I, 22 ff.

³ Eph. iv. 15; cf. I Cor. xii. 27; Eph. i. 23; Rom. viii. 29.

⁴ Cf. the husband-bride analogy in I Cor. vii. 14 ff.; II Cor. xi. 2, Eph. v. 22 ff.

⁵ Robinson, , Body, p. 79Google Scholar.

⁶ Robinson, , Body, pp. 80 f.Google Scholar

⁷ The figure is that of an embryo coming to birth. Cf. Rom. viii. 29; Co1. i. 18; I Cor. xv. 22 f.

¹ It may be that ‘die Brücke zwischen Gegenwart und Eschatologie steckt in άπó δóξης έις δóξαν’, the latter referring to the consummation, T.W.N.T. II, 254; cf. Rom. viii. 18, 29; I Cor. xv. 43, 49, Phil. iii. 21. The other meaning is indicated in Mark ix. 2.

² Cf. T.W.N.T. II, 254f.; IV, 766.

³ Op. cit. p. 19.

⁴ It is not difficult to grasp Paul's distinction between the self in its mortality (ε̋ξω α̋νθρωπος, II Cor. iv. 16) and the self in its ethico-intellectual perversion (παλαıς α̋νθρωπος, Rom. vi. 6; Eph. iv. 22; Col. iii. 9). Both refer to man as he is determined by the old aeon. With the latter is contrasted ‘the new (καıνóς) man created in righteousness’ and the new (νέος) man ‘being renewed (άνακαıνοúμενον) in knowledge’ (Eph. iv. 22; ii. 15; Col. iii. 10). The inner (ε̋σω) man also is man in his ethical renewal and man in his ability to comprehend and know ‘the love of Christ’ (Rom. vii. 22; Eph. iii. 16ff.); and in II Cor. iv. 16 the inner man is contrasted with the outer (ε̋ξω) man. Nevertheless while ‘outer’ and ‘old’ are obviously not to be equated, both ‘new man’ and ‘inner man’ refer to the self in its new aeon status and, as a process, to the self in its moral transformation and in its increasing apprehension and comprehension of the mystery of Christ. This pattern does not lend itself in the least to an anthropological dualism.

⁵ II Cor. v. 10; cf. Rom. ii. 6 ff.; I Cor. ii. 13 ff.; Gal. v. 21; Eph. v. 5; Col. iii. 24.

¹ Cf. II Thess. i. 5; Phil. i. 29; I Thess. iii. 3.

² Cf. Rom. xii. I; Heb. xiii. 12 f.; I Pet. ii. 21; iv. I, 13.

³ Robinson, , Body, p. 74.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. Rom. viii. 17 f.; II Thess. i. 5, 7; II Tim. ii. 12; Heb. xiii. 13 f.; I Pet. iv. 13.

⁵ Rom. viii. 30; I Cor. xii. 26; cf. Eph. iii. 13; II Cor. iii. 18.

⁶ II Cor. i. 5–7; cf. I Thess. iii. 6 f.

⁷ II Cor. vi. 8–10.

⁸ I Cor. xv. 20 ff.; Rom. viii. 29; cf. Hebr. ii. 8 ff.

⁹ I Thess. iv. 14. Note the corresponding σúν αúῳ̃. Cf. Rom. v. II, 17; xv. 30; II Cor. i. 5; iv. 5 (WH mg.); v. 10; I Pet. ii. 5 where δıά appears to involve, not merely agency, but a sphere of corporate relationship. ‘To us the idea of being “with” Christ conveys something more external than that of being “in” him. But almost certainly it did not to Paul’ (Robinson, Body, p. 62). In Phil. i. 23 de Langhe (op. cit. p. 182) compares ‘with Christ’ to the Old Testament expressions ‘gathered to his people’ (e.g. Gen. xxv. 7, 17) and ‘slept with his fathers’ (e.g. Deuteronomy xxxi. 16). On the relation of μετά and σúν cf. Dupont, op. cit. pp. 17 ff. 99.

¹⁰ Lowe, , op. cit. p. 136.Google Scholar

¹ E.g. Selwyn, E. G., The First Epistle of St Peter (London, 1946), p. 190Google Scholar; Davies, , op. cit. p. 318Google Scholar; Hettlinger, , op. cit. pp. 193 f.Google Scholar; Masson, C., ‘Immortalité de l'âme ou resurrection des morts?’, Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie, viii (1958), 250–67.Google Scholar

² E.g. Goudge, op. cit. p. 47; Lietzmann, op. cit. pp. 118 f.; Bultmann, R., Exegetische Probleme des zweiten Korintherbriefes (Uppsala, 1947), p. 12Google Scholar; Filson, F. V., ‘Second Corinthians’, The Interpreters' Bible (Nashville, 1953), x, 327.Google Scholar

³ Cf. Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament (London, 1952), 1, 202 f.Google Scholar

⁴ E.g. Philo, , de praem. 120Google Scholar; de som. I, 122; cf. Wisd. ix. 15; Bultmann, Probleme, p. 6.

⁵ T.W.N.T. v, 135; cf. Job iv. 19.

⁶ ‘The fatal objection to taking verse I as speaking of the individual resurrection body is the present ε̋χομεν’, Robinson, Body, p. 77. See also A. Feuillet, ‘La demeure céleste et la destinée des chrétiens (II Cor. v. 1–10)’, Recherches de Science Religieuse, XLIV (1956), 161–92, 360–402.

⁷ Robinson, , Body, p. 76; cf. I Tim. i. 4 mg.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Ellis, E. E., Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh, 1957), pp. 90 ff., 108; Eph. ii. 19 ff; v. 31 f.; I Pet. ii. 5 ff.Google Scholar

¹ Cf. John, ii. 19; Acts xvii. 24. Also, ‘New Covenant’ circumcision, not made with hands, is the death of Christ into which Christians have been incorporated. Cf. Col. ii. 11; Eph. ii. 11; Robinson, Body, p. 41.Google Scholar

² Heb. viii. 2 is translated ‘servant of the saints’ by some Church fathers; this may be more accurate than is now realized, namely servant of the saints, i.e. of the ‘tent’. Cf. Heb. iii. 6; contra, O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebräer (Göttingen, 1955), p. 185.

³ Cf. T.W.N.T. IV, 887 f.; v, 149; Acts vii. 47 f.; I Tim. iii. 15; Heb. iii. 2 f., 6.

⁴ Cf. Feuillet, , op. cit.; Eph. ii. 21; iii. 6.Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. Matt. xxvi. 61; Mark xiv. 58. Bultmann (Probleme, pp. 10 f.) notes that καταλυθη̃ may refer to the final destruction of the old aeon at the parousia. Cf. Matt. xxvi. 61; Mark xiv. 58; Phil. iii. 19 (έπιγεıα).

⁶ Cf. I Thess. v. 8; Eph. iv. 24; vi. 11; Col. iii. 12.

¹ Nor is the qualification, ‘as a garment’, in Heb. i. 12 (if original) to be taken to suggest a Greek dualism. It is a familiar Old Testament word picture: Ps. cu. 26; Isa. I. 9; li. 6. Cf. Michel, Hebräer, p. 58; Bultmann, Probleme, pp. 6, 10.

² Hettlinger (op. cit. p. 187) poses the non sequitur that Paul, by abandoning ‘the identity of material elements’ in I Cor. xv, undermines the logic of a ‘material’ resurrection altogether. Identity of atoms and materiality are surely not to be equated, and the whole chapter presupposes some kind of identity between the body sown and the body raised. Cf. I Cor. vi. 19 where this identity is basic to the argument. Also, it misrepresents Paul to interpret ‘flesh and blood’ (I Cor. xv. 50) as materiality. Cf. J. Jeremias, ‘Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (I Cor. xv. 50)’, in New Test. Stud. II, 151 ff.; Robinson, Body, pp. 20 f., 31 f., 78; Bultmann, Theology, I, 233 f.; Methodius, Discourse on the Resurrection, III, ii, 5 f. (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids, 1951, VI, 374).

³ E.g. Plummer, , op. cit. pp. 147 ff.; Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 134; J. Hering, La Seconde Épitre de Saint Paul aux Corinthiens (Paris, 1958), p. 48; H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther, I–II (Tübingen, 1931), 120; cf. J. N. Sevenster, ‘Some Remarks on the ΓυΜΝΟΣ in II Cor. v. 3’, Studio Paulina (J. de Zwaan Festschrift), Haarlem, 1953, p. 211.Google Scholar

⁴ Kennedy, , op. cit. p. 266. This, as far as the present writer is aware, is the unanimous conclusion of the commentators.Google Scholar

⁵ T. W.N. T. II, 319; Cf. I, 744. So R. H. Charles, Revelation, I, 98: ‘The soul of the faithless will appear naked in the next world.’ Cf. Beyschlag, W., N.T. Theology (Edinburgh, 1896), ii, 270.Google Scholar

⁶ E.g. Plato, Cratylus 403B; Gorgias 523E, 524D; Philo, leg. alleg. II, 55 ff.; Origen, c. Celsum, II, 43.

⁷ Bultmann, , Probleme, pp. 11 f.; Theology, i, 202.Google Scholar

⁸ The attempts of Bultmann ibid., Hettlinger, op. cit. pp. 185, 191, Sevenster (‘On ΓγΜΝΟΣ’, p. 207), and others to ease this contradiction have not been particularly convincing.

¹ E.g. Isa. xlvii. 3; Ezek. xvi. 37; xxiii. 29; Dan. iv. 30b LXX; Hos. ii. 3; Amos ii. 16; cf. Isa. iii. 17; Habakkuk iii. 13; Zephaniah ii. 14.

² Cf also II Sam. xv. 30; xvi. 11 f.

³ The ethical element is to be inferred (cf. Ezek. xvi. 36 f.) although physical redemption from captivity may be the central thought.

⁴ Hos. ii. 3; Isa. xxxii. 11.

⁵ Isa. xx. 4 f.; cf. Gen. ii. 25; Micah i. 11; Isa. xlvii. 3. Its synonym άσχημοσúνη is sometimes substituted in LXX-A (e.g. Ezek. xxiii. 18; Nahum iii. 5).

⁶ Of further significance is the fact that cognates of (‘make naked’) are often translated αισχúνη by the LXX. Cf. Isa. xliii. 3; Ezek. xvi. 36 f., 39; xxii. 10; xxiii. 10, 18, 29; Nahum iii. 5. is always translated by γυμνóς.

⁷ This interpretation of some of the passages cited is present in the rabbis; e.g. Shab. 114a on Isa. xx. 2; Ex. R. 46, 4 on Ezek. xxiii. 26; Hos. ii. 5; Lam. R. 24, 2 on Isa. xxii. 8; xxxii. 11.

⁸ At least one of these passages (Hos. ii. 3) is within a testimonia ‘text plot’ in frequent use by the early Christian community and interpreted there, in a passage parallel to II Cor. v. 1–10 (i.e. I Cor. xv. 55; Hos. xiii. 14), of the eschatological ‘day of the Lord’. We may assume that other prophetic judgements of the old aeon were similarly understood (e.g. Joel ii. 26 f., 32; Acts ii. 19 ff.; Rom. x. 11 ff.).

¹ Rev. iii. 17 f.; cf. xvi. 15; Micah i. 11; Heb. iv. 13.

² Calvin, J., The Corinthians (Grand Rapids, 1948), ii, 218Google Scholar; Ewald, H., Die Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus (Göttingen, 1857), p. 271Google Scholar; Cremer, H., Biblio-Theological Lexicon (Edinburgh, 1880), p. 168Google Scholar; cf. Jülicher, A.Festschrift (1927), pp. 93 ff.Google Scholar; T.W.N.T. I, 744.

³ Cremer (op. cit.) points out that οú γυμνοι is co-ordinate with ένδυσάμενοı (not ένδεδυμένοı), i.e. to be found ‘clothed’ means to be found ‘not naked’, and, therefore, ‘if we are not found naked’ is the condition prerequisite to έπενδύσαθαı of v. 2. γυμνοı, then, must be taken in an ethical—not metaphysical—sense. Also, ‘we do not want to be stripped’ cannot properly be softened to ‘not that we would…’; cf. Hettlinger, op. cit. p. 191.

⁴ Cf. Rom. ix. 33. Isa. xxviii 16 refers to a deliverance from judgement, and the LXX (followed by the New Testament) translates (‘flee’) by καταıσχύνω, probably with the same sense as the above cited contexts. Cf. I Sam. xx. 38 f. and Ps. lv. 9 where may, as a double meaning, signify ‘flee’. So Brown-Driver-Briggs on Isa. xxviii. 16.

⁵ I Cor. xv. 37 is no support for the common exegesis of II Cor. v. 3. ‘Naked grain’ is a completely different imagery and, in any case, refers not to a disembodied soul but to the present body. Nor does the Pauline compound, άπεκδύομαı, when used of death (namely putting off ‘the body of flesh’ or ‘the old man’, Col. ii. 11; iii. 9), imply a dualism. Both ‘flesh’ and ‘the old man’, as a number of studies have shown (e.g. W. G. Kümmel, Das Bild des Menschen im Neuen Testament, Zürich, 1948, pp. 22 f.; Robinson, Body, pp. 17–26, 31 f.; Bultmann, Theology, I, 232 ff.), refer to the whole man in his sinful and mortal relation to the old aeon and mean here simply our identification with Christ's death. Perhaps judgement (of the body of the flesh) is the thought of Col. ii. 11; certainly so in Col. ii. 15. Cf. E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce, Ephesians and Colossians. (Grand Rapids, 1957), PP. 235, 239f.

⁶ Cf. Robinson, , Body, p. 77: ‘Εύρισκεσθαı is almost a technical term for being “dis-covered” at the parousia.’ Cf. I Pet. i. 7; II Pet. iii. 14; Phil. iii. 9.Google Scholar

¹ It is found as early as Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, IV, xxvi) and Tertullian (de resur. carnis, XLIII).

² E.g. II Cor. v. 4 (N.B. έκδύω).

² Cf. de Langhe, , op. cit. p. 182Google Scholar; Feuillet, op. cit. p. 395; Romans viii. 38; xiv. 8 f.; Phil. i. 23.

³ II Cor. v. 10; cf. Robinson, , Body, p. 29Google Scholar; Rom. viii. 13; Col. ii. 11; Heb. xiii. 3.

⁵ ibid.

⁶ Cf. Sevenster, , ‘Zwischenzustand’, p. 296 (cf. above, p. 212, n. 2); T.W.N.T. ii, 63.Google Scholar

⁷ Note also the repeated use of οιδα in v. i and v. 6.

⁸ The ‘vision of God’ is realized at the parousia. Cf. Rom. viii. 24; I Cor. xiii. 12; Heb. ii. 8 f. (I Cor. xv. 25 ff.); I Pet. i. 5, 8; I John iii. 2 f.

⁹ Some commentators, logically impelled by their ‘intermediate state’ exegesis of the preceding verses, take II Cor. v. 10 to refer to a judgement at death—a brand new concept in Pauline thought. Others, recognizing the incongruity of this interpretation with Paul's eschatology, more properly apply it to the ‘last day’. Cf. Kennedy, op. cit. p. 193; Lietzmann, op. cit. p. 122; Knox, op. cit. p. 141; Schweitzer, Mysticism, p. 310; Bultmann, Theology, I, 288; Cullmann, Christ and Time, p. 23; Robinson, Body, p. 19.

¹ Paul's concern that some Christians may be found ‘naked’ in the judgement is not contrary to his teaching on predestination or perseverance (Lietzmann, op. cit. p. 119). It is only the recognition, expressed elsewhere, that one's awareness of election is based upon subjective and existential criteria—genuine profession, witness of the Spirit, good works. One may deceive oneself. Cf. I Cor. ix. 27; II Cor. vi. 1; xiii. 5; Gal. iv. 11; Phil. iii. 12 f.; I Thess. iii. 5; II Tim. ii. 19; iv. 7. All in all, Paul is confident; II Cor. v. 5; cf. Phil. i. 6.

² Cf. the recent study of corporate solidarity in Pauline thought: Shedd, R. P., Man in Community (London, 1959), pp. 38 ff.Google Scholar

¹ Cf. Schweitzer, , Interpreters, p. 63.Google Scholar

² Davies, , op. cit. p. 318.Google Scholar

³ Cullmann, , Immortality, p. 57.Google Scholar