^{page 174 note 2} Schweitzer, for example, writes with irony of ‘those who refuse to admit that Paul was a logical thinker, and proclaim as the highest outcome of their wisdom the discovery that he has no system’ (Mysticism, p. 139).

^{page 175 note 1} As a result of this assumption Plummer's customary clarity escapes him when discussing the general meaning of the passage, although his treatment of the text is, as usual, invaluable. On pp. 148, 152–3 he writes as if the nakedness of v. 3 were an actual possibility in the mind of the writer—though compensated for by the hope of being with the Lord; on pp. 144, 149 he seems to suggest that the Apostle's certainty of receiving a spiritual body had given him the assurance that he would not be left naked at death; on p. 161 he quotes with approval the saying of Wernle to the effect that death and resurrection are indistinguishable in St. Paul's expectation.

^{page 175 note 2} Other writers who accept this position are: L. S. Thornton, op. cit., pp. 284–6; Filson, F. V., The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 10, pp. 326–332Google Scholar; Cullmann, Oscar, Christ and Time, p. 239Google Scholar; A. M. Ramsey, The Resurrection of Christ, p. 108; Hanson, Richard, Torch Commentary, p. 47.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 1} Kennedy, H. A. A., St. Paul's Conception of the Last Things, apparently takes this view on pp. 265–266Google Scholar; but on p. 270 he rejects the view that γυμνο⋯ refers to believers who die before the Parousia and offers no alternative translation. Strachap, R. H., in the Moffait Commentary, p. 100, follows Kennedy.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 2} L. S. Thornton, for example, dismisses the contrast between vv. 2–4 and 6T8 as a ‘change of mood’ (op. cit., p. 285); but surely the Apostle would have been no less open to criticism if he had allowed emotional reactions to colour his theology than if, on the basis of further reflection, he had introduced a new theme into his eschatological doctrine.

^{page 176 note 3} J. N. Sevenster writes, ‘It is clear that Paul looks forward to this state of being γυμνóς shrinking from it. He can only think of that “being naked” with fear, because he longs to put on the heavenly dwelling’ (Studia Paulina p. 204).

^{page 177 note 1} Some scholars have minimised the problem by ignoring the close connexion between 2 Cor. 5.8 and Phil. 1.23. Schweitzer (op. cit., p. 135) makes the remarkable statement that it is only in Phil. 1.23 (in contrast with 2 Cor. 5.1–9) that Paul for the first time speaks of entering immediately on death into ‘the being-with-Christ’. Sevenster (op. cit., pp. 206–7) argues that in Philippians Paul is comparing death (which is desirable) with life (which is oppressive), whereas in 2 Corinthians he is comparing death (which is undesirable) with preservation alive to the Parousia (which is desirable)—but this ignores the vital fact that, on Sevenster's interpretation, both views of death stand in direct contrast in the one passage in 2 Cor. 5.

^{page 177 note 2} in v. 5 presumably refers back either to or to in v. 4, or to both.

^{page 177 note 3} Nor is the hope of being with Jesus at death one which first occurs to him when writing 2 Cor. 5.6–8. Cf. 1 Thess. 3.13, 4.14, 5.10.

^{page 179 note 1} Plummer, op. cit., p. 147, quotes Rom. 15.4 and Eph. 6.13 as other examples.

^{page 179 note 2} Dr Robinson, The Body, p. 77 note I, makes the interesting suggestion that εὑρ⋯σκεσθαι. may have been almost a technical term for being ‘dis-covered’ at the Parousia. In addition to the passages from 1 and 2 Peter quoted above, Mark 13.36 and Matt. 24.46 might seem to support this view. But it is doubtful whether it can be pressed in St. Paul. He nowhere else uses εὑρ⋯σκεσθαι unequivocally in an eschatological sense except in Phil. 3.9. 1 Cor. 4.2, 15.15, a Cor. 11.12 and Gal. 2.17 are conceivably but not certainly references to the Last Judgment. See below.

^{page 180 note 1} The parable of the Wedding Garment is not really germane to the argument, although Irenaeus associates 2 Cor. 5.4 with it in Adv. Haer. IV. 36.6, because the intruder in the parable (Matt. 22.11–14) is obviously not supposed to be naked and without any clothing. Similarly in the Apocalypse (7.g, 14) the saints are contrasted with sinners, not because they are clothed and the unrighteous unclothed, but because they have washed their robes. But see also Rev. 3.18.

^{page 181 note 1} Cf. Davies, op. cit., p. 316. The question whether all the dead or only some would be raised was a matter of debate among the rabbis. Cf. Strack-Billerbeck, IV.u66ff.

^{page 181 note 2} Stevens points out that the attribution to St. Paul of the belief in ‘a resurrection both of the just and of the unjust’ in Acts 24.15 is not, of course, decisive in view of the silence of his epistles on the subject.

^{page 182 note 1} The reference, which I owe to Lampe, G. W. H., Eschatology, p. 35Google Scholar, is to Methodius.

^{page 182 note 2} Schrenk seems to suggest that St. Paul feared physical death as such—even though he denies that he thought of it as leading to nakedness.

^{page 183 note 1} Cf. Matt. 1.18, ‘εὑεθη εν γαστρ⋯ εχονσα ’.

^{page 183 note 2} θγuψις occurs in 1.8 and 4.17 (cf. θγιβóμενοι, 4.8); ὑξαπορεω in 1.8 and 4.7, 17; δὺναμις in 1.8 and 4.7; βαρεω in 1.8 and 5.4 (cf. β⋯ρος 4.17); εξαπορεω in 1.8 and 4.8 and nowhere else in the NT; ζ⋯ω or ζω⋯ in 1.8, 4.10, 11 and 5.4; θ⋯νατοςos in 1.9 and 4.11.

^{page 183 note 3} It is extremely unlikely that the meaning is that God will deliver him from death in the future as he did in the instance in Asia mentioned in 1.8–11. Of the 38 other uses of εγε⋯ρω in St. Paul's writings 36 refer to the raising of Christ or of Christians from the dead. The only exceptions are Rom. 13.11 (awake from sleep) and Phil. 1.17 (raise up affliction).

^{page 184 note 1} διαφθε⋯ρω normally implies ‘a completed process of damage’ according to Moulton, and Milligan, Vocabulary, p. 157.

^{page 184 note 2} This latter criticism applies with even greater cogency to the view of Goudge discussed above. If Goudge is correct we have St. Paul saying in vv. 1–4, ‘If we die we have a habitation from God, for which we groan so long as we do not die but survive alive to the Parousia—for if we die now we are left naked without any habitation’!

^{page 185 note 1} In Goudge's exegesis we are left with the difficult idea that Paul expects (vv. 6–8) to enjoy (disembodied) the fellowship of Christ at death, and then to stand before His Judgment Seat to receive sentence for bodily action only at the Parousia.

^{page 186 note 1} Vide his use of σκηνος rather than σκην⋯ in this passage. The latter is used everywhere else in the NT and LXX, except here and in Wisd. 9.15, where σκηνος(also used by Plato, Hippocrates and Democritus) occurs.

^{page 186 note 2} W. D. Davies has shown conclusively that first-century Judaism had been ‘largely influenced and modified by Hellenistic conceptions of immortality’ (op. cit., p. 320).

^{page 187 note 1} Although some Rabbis had arrived at a less materialistic conception of the Resurrection (Davies, op. cit., pp. 316–8) the traditional view was widely held in popular thought, and it may well be that some of the Corinthians suspected St. Paul of teaching a crudely physical resurrection.

^{page 187 note 2} St. Paul's use of the analogy of the seed is obviously very loose. A seed is not strictly ‘naked’ (1 Cor. 15.37) even when sown, and the flower or plant is not something ‘put on’ over the seed (1 Cor. 15.53, 54; 2 Cor. 5.1) to ‘swallow it up’ (1 Cor. 15.54; 2 Cor. 5.4). The popular Jewish doctrine was revived by Tertullian, who sought to demonstrate, against the Gnostics, that flesh and blood can and do inherit the Kingdom of God (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 50), and St. Augustine devoted considerable ingenuity to the task of showing how the material particles of the physical body will be gathered together to form the Resurrection Body (City of God, XX.20; XXII. 12). The whole idea is now widely abandoned (cf. Doctrine in the Church of England, p. 209)

^{page 188 note 1} It is true, of course, that the tradition of the Empty Tomb does imply some relation between the physical elements of our Lord's natural body and His Resurrection. But it is questionable whether this can be regarded as determinative, since both the Empty Tomb and the Resurrection appearances in physical form were necessary to convey to men still in the natural body the truth of the Resurrection. In any case, St. Paul does not refer to the Empty Tomb as evidence of the Resurrection, nor does he argue from the Resurrection Appearances to the character of the Christian's Resurrection Body.

^{page 188 note 2} It is quite consistent with this change of emphasis that in those epistles which follow 2 Corinthians St. Paul's references to judgment are not associated particularly with the Parousia (e.g. Rom. 14.8–12; Col. 4.1; Eph. 6.5–9). The Parousia is no longer the point at which the sentence of God is passed, but the point at which it is proclaimed universally and its consequences perfectly achieved.

^{page 188 note 3} I cannot, however, follow Dr Robinson in his virtual identification of the Resurrection Body of Christ and the Church (op. cit., pp. 51, 52 note 1). St. Paul speaks of the Church as growing into the fulness of the Body (Eph. 4.11–16; cf 2.20–2); but he can hardly mean that the Resurrection of Christ is yet incomplete. There is surely a parallel here with the thought of the Church's suffering ‘filling up’ the Passion (Col. 1.24; cf. 2 Cor. 4.10). Just as the once-for-all suffering and death of Calvary overflows in the life of the Church, so Christ is already in ‘the body of His glory’ (Phil. 3.21) but by the Spirit continually conforms (2 Cor. 3.18) or cultivates (2 Cor. 4.16–18) the Church to that glory.

^{page 189 note 1} In the course of a most helpful correspondence Dr Robinson tells me that he understands the change of emphasis between 2 Cor. 5.3 where St. Paul fears ‘the inevitable prospect of nakedness’ (The Body, p. 77) and 2 Cor. 5.8 where he rejoices in the assurance of having ‘a body which cannot leave us entirely naked’ (op. cit., p. 78) as parallel to the change of emphasis between Rom. 7 and 8. But this interpretation is open to all the criticisms raised, convincingly in my view, against Goudge (see above).

^{page 189 note 2} Compare the reference to the building ‘in the heavens’ (2 Cor. 5.1) with 1 Cor. 15.49: ‘as we have borne the image of the earthly, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly (Man).’

^{page 190 note 1} I am greatly indebted to Professor C. F. D. Moule for much patient help in this connexion, as well as for suggestions and criticisms in other sections of this paper. He is responsible for delivering me from many errors, but is not responsible for my conclusions, with which he is not in complete agreement.

^{page 190 note 2} I assume that the ‘groaning’ (vv. 2 and 4) is the result of the failing and decay of physical powers mentioned in 4.16. There are striking parallels between this passage and Rom. 8 (cf. Rom. 8.8 and 2 Cor. 5.9; Rom. 8.18 and 2 Cor. 4.17; Rom. 8.23 and 2 Cor. 5.5), where the ‘groaning’ is concerned with deliverance from the natural body with its weakness and pains, and not with anxiety about the possibility of death before the Parousia.

^{page 190 note 3} V. 3 seems to be a parenthesis inserted to meet a possible misunderstanding arising from the new thought of vv. 1 and 2. It occurs to the writer (or perhaps to his amanuensis) that the idea of groaning for freedom from this body might be interpreted as a desire for total disembodiment on Platonic lines. He therefore interposes a caveat before taking up the thought of v. 2 in v. 4 by repeating the phrase εν τουτω στεναζομεν almost verbally. The meaning of v. 3, therefore, is not ‘if indeed, as we hope, we are clothed and not naked’, but ‘of course, on the supposition that being clothed we shall not be found naked’ (Plummer, in loc). It is not nakedness but embodiment in a fuller and freer life of which St. Paul is assured.

^{page 190 note 4} The reading εκδυσ⋯μενοι (D*, F, G, d, e, g, Tert.) is to be rejected as ‘an early alteration to avoid apparent tautology’ (Plummer, in loc).

^{page 190 note 5} The ideas of resurrection and justification are closely related in St. Paul's thought, as we may see from Phil. 3.9, 10 and Rom. 4.24, 25. By faith we already experience the first-fruits of this hope in baptism, and already enjoy both newness of life and peace with God (Rom. 6.4; 5.1); but there remains a future fulness of resurrection (Rom. 6.5) and a future confirmation of justification (Rom. 5.9). St. Paul here affirms that not only at the Parousia but also in death he is assured, by the indwelling of the Spirit, of both fuller embodiment and acceptance by God. There will be no interregnum of disembodied gloom or uncertainty about the final assurance of justification.

^{page 191 note 1} A further confirmation of the exegesis of vv. 2 and 4 as referring to the burden of the physical body, rather than to the burden of anxiety about survival to the Parousia is found in the fact that βαρεω is almost always, and notably in 2 Cor. 1.8, which is directly in the writer's mind, used for physical oppression rather than for mental anxiety or fear.

^{page 191 note 2} The weak point in this translation is the rendering of which ought strictly to mean ‘because we do not want’ rather than ‘not because we want’. But ὀυ does land up in some extraordinary positions in St. Paul, and in defence of my translation I can claim that both R.V. and R.S.V. assume that St. Paul meant to write .

^{page 193 note 1} It is a weakness of the otherwise invaluable treatment of the subject by W. D. Davies (op. cit., pp. 318–20) that he implies (following Dr Dodd) that the end of the age has no significance at all for eternity. Per contra, Charles, op. cit., p. 399, Baillie, John, And the Life Everlasting, pp. 246–251.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 2} Moule, C. F. D., The Meaning of Hope, p. 55.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 3} The fact that St. Paul does not use the word σωμα for the habitation mentioned in 2 Cor. 5.1, 2 is not an argument in favour of the alternative interpretations discussed above. If, as they maintain, he was referring to the final state of resurrection at the Parousia, his failure to use the natural and traditional term is the more remarkable.

^{page 193 note 4} Dr J. A. T. Robinson draws my attention to the fact that this phrase may suggest that for Calvin the ‘clothing upon’ begins at death, whereas in the NT it begins at baptism. That this was not his meaning is clear from passages quoted by DrTorrance, T. F., Kingdom and Church, pp. 92–96.Google Scholar On the other hand, although St. Paul speaks of the ‘building from God’ as something the Christian now has (2 Cor. 5.1) he still looks forward to a future ‘clothing upon’ (2 Cor. 5.2) at death (if the exegesis proposed in this paper is correct). In other words, although baptism and not death is the decisive moment for the Christian, he does enter at death upon a significantly new stage of that embodiment in Christ which will be consummated at the Parousia.