VOS ON 2 CORINTHIANS 5 (Part 2)

PMW 2023-052 by Geerhardus Vos

Gentry Introductory Note:
I am continuing a three-part presentation of Geerhardus Vos exegesis of 2 Corinthians 5. He wrote this in opposition to the arising of the new (in his time) liberal view that Paul’s theology changed over time. He originally believed in a physical resurrection of the dead, but eventually began to believe that at the moment of death believers received their new resurrection body as a spiritual body. This is the second in the series. Let us hear Vos!

VOS PRESENTATION CONTINUED

“Our habitation from heaven.” A contact for the idea of pre-existence has further been sought in the closing words of 2 Corinthians 5:2: “our habitation from heaven.” But this “from heaven” is simply another form of statement for what is called in verse 1 “from God.” The resurrection-body is from heaven because it is in a special supernatural sense from God. Heaven is the seat and source of the Pneuma by which the resurrection-body is formed. [1]

On the other hand, the word ependusasthai, in this second verse is distinctly unfavorable to the view that Paul looked forward to or weighed the possibility of receiving the new body at or immediately after death. Endusasthai means “to put on,” and ependusasthai signifies “to put on one garment over another garment.” The preposition epi effects this plus in the meaning. The latter word expresses the same thing, which in 1 Corinthians 15:53, Paul calls endusasthai. There the subject of the act is the present earthly body: “this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” Here in 2 Corinthians 5, on the other hand, the subject is the self, the incorporeal part of the believer. It is conceived as already clothed upon with its present body-garment, and desiring to put on over this, as some over-garment, the eschatological body.

Now, how did or could Paul conceive of the realization of this desire? The answer seems plain. He could hardly conceive of it as taking place at death, for death is precisely the putting off of the first garment previously worn. On such a supposition room would remain for an endusasthai only, no longer for an ependusasthai. It yields an utterly incredible thought to assume that the Apostle expected at death to carry over, even only for a moment, the earthly body, and then to slip on over it the new body. In such a case there would have been no real death, nothing would have remained for burial. The only way in which we can intelligibly construe for ourselves this ependusasthai is that it takes place at the parousia, and then, in those to whom the parousia takes place before death. Under these circumstances alone Paul would still be wearing the old body, and therefore able to put on over it the habitation from heaven. Second Corinthians 5:2, therefore, is utterly irreconcilable with the modern exegesis of a reception of the new body at death.

The Truth about Salvation By Ken Gentry

A study guide for personal or small group Bible study. Deals with the Christian doctrine of salvation from a Reformed theological perspective. It opens with a study of God as loving Creator, the shows how the first man fell into sin. Shows God’s righteousness requires that sin be dealt with. Presents Jesus as both God and man so that he can be man’s Savior. Includes review questions and questions for further study.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

We wish to pass by verse 3 without comment for the moment. This is because it is exceedingly obscure, owing in part to the uncertain reading of two words. Thus it is incapable of yielding any definite conclusions on the question before us. We shall revert to it presently, when endeavoring to paraphrase the passage as a whole.

“We would not be unclothed.” Coming to verse 4, we notice several points entirely inconsistent with the idea that Paul is thinking of something to happen at death. He declares: “We that are in the tent do groan being burdened, because we would not be unclothed, but be clothed upon, that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life.” Here an alternative is formulated by Paul and a preference expressed. The alternative is between the two experiences, first of being unclothed, and then being clothed anew, the second of being clothed upon immediately. And he prefers the latter. the preference is a strong one. Under the influence of the uncertainty of its decision Paul groans.

Now the question arises: Does this situation fit the case of the bestowal of a new body at the moment of death or the case of bestowal of it at the parousia? In answer, let us make clear to ourselves that the groaning and the strong preference become entirely unintelligible, if we conceive Paul thinking of both members of this alternative as attached to the moment of death. For, how could the resolution of such an alternative at the moment of death become to him a matter of burdensome uncertainty? It would have certainly been regarded by him as pertaining to the formalities of getting into the proper apparel for a solemn occasion. In both cases the outcome would have been precisely the same. If once it was fixed that the new body comes immediately, it certainly, in comparison with that tremendous fact, must have appeared a matter of slight importance, whether it immediately (with the smallest of intervals between) shall succeed the old body or shell, casting a veil over all that goes on beneath, swallow up the old body, absorbing it, as it were, into itself.

For one who was assured that death without fail would bring with itself a new body, it would seem cowardly to groan on account of the trifling question whether the instantaneous occurrence should take place one way or the other. Paul was, with his entire perilous and painful life-experience behind him, hardly the man to let his mind be distracted to the point of groaning fear over such matters. All this vexing uncertainty and painful weighing of a small issue must have lacked real importance for a man of his temperament. The fear of death per se, as a momentary experience we have no reason to ascribe to him.

It follows, therefore, that the strong sense of uneasiness and the strong preference expressed must have revolved around another, far more serious and solemn question. That is: would there be awaiting him in the near future a protracted state of being unclothed, that is “naked” between his possible death and the arrival of the parousia? The uncertainty, therefore, arising from this cannot stand in direct contradiction to the “we know” in verse 1. In other words “we know” cannot, consistently with what follows, carry the meaning: we know that we receive a new body at the time of death. Such a conviction would from the outset have rendered all subsequent burdensomeness and groaning out of place. Thus, the simple sense of the verse must be as above intimated. In a general way Paul affirms that instead of the tent dissolved a new structure will be received, but he does not indicate here when or how it will be given.

“Being clothed upon.” It is said that verse 5 proves the “being clothed upon” to be in Paul’s view the common lot of all believers. This is because of the statement “He that wrought us for this very thing is God.” The plural “us” is on this view understood of all Christians. Likewise the further words “who gave us the earnest of the Spirit” are taken to bear out this exegesis. This is because all Christians are recipients of the Spirit and must consequently share in what this gift is the pledge of. He could not have affirmed these things, had he confined the “being clothed upon” to those found alive at the parousia.

To this our answer is that from the “us” and the statement concerning the gift of the Spirit as an earnest, no such conclusion can be legitimately drawn. But suppose that Paul does not use “us” here as a rhetorical plural, but actually includes all believers. This simply shows how he lived in the expectation, that the parousia might still find the great majority of the Christians of his day alive, and looked upon the cases of those who died in the interval as exceptions. After all, he could well say of believers in general, that they had been prepared by God to be “clothed upon,” at the last day. He could say this as easily as on the hypothesis under review affirm of his readers collectively, using the word “us,” that they had been prepared of God for investment with a new body at death. For on every view he must have been aware that some would be found alive at the parousia, whom God could not have prepared for that peculiar experience, and to whom He could not have given the Spirit as an earnest for such experience.

We have answered this argument on the assumption, that “this very thing” (auto touto) in 2 Corinthians 5:5 actually refers to the “being clothed upon,” as excluding the “being clothed” of verse 4. Of course, the affirmative answer brings us face-to-face with a difficult question: How Paul could so positively affirm that God had prepared the majority of the then-living believers to survive till the parousia, then to be changed in the way indicated by “being clothed upon”? For this reason we feel inclined to give to “this very thing” another reference. For the present, however, it suffices to have shown, that the usual interpretation of verse 5 does not compel us to place the “clothing upon” at death.

[image error]For more information and to order click here.

" data-image-caption="" data-medium-file="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." data-large-file="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." class="alignright size-full wp-image-254" src="https://postmillennialismtoday.files...." alt="When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyperpreterism" width="95" height="150">

When Shall These Things Be?
(ed. by Keith Mathison)
A Reformed response to the aberrant HyperPreterist theolgy.
Gentry’s chapter critiques HyperPreterism from an historical and creedal perspective.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

“At home in the body.” Finally, verses 6–8 are said to demand the modern exegesis. Here Paul declares himself of good courage, because immediately after death he will be with the Lord. For to be at home in the body is to be absent from the Lord, while being absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord. And this goal of his desire which he expects to reach at death is taken as identical with what is described in verses 2 and 4 as the “being clothed upon.” This is because the “therefore” connects it with the foregoing: “Being therefore always of good courage,” etc. Hence the conclusion drawn runs as follows: the being at home with the Lord is effected through the “being clothed upon” at death.

To this we reply as follows: Paul’s good courage in view of the fact that to die means to be at home with the Lord attaches itself to the preceding context in the general import of the latter. And that general import finds its clearest expression in 2 Corinthians 4:17–18 and 5:1. The general proposition, in regard to which Paul felt absolute assurance, was that after the present affliction, or in reward for it, there is eternal glory in store for the believer. And more specifically that, after this earthly tent-body shall have been dissolved, the believer will be put in possession of an eternal heavenly body. And the secondary question is whether this consummate state of glory would be reached with or without an intervening period of nakedness of death. As to this Paul felt no conviction, either one way or the other, but only a desire and a preference. Hence he contents himself with expressing this preferential desire as growing out of a strong dislike of the state of nakedness.

Now his assurance on the general question far outweighed the uncertainty on that one particular point. Thus, Paul could, notwithstanding the unresolved doubt of verses 2 and 4, proceed in verse 6 with the declaration that he was always of good courage. Of course, he had to put the ground of his good courage under the circumstances in the form of the minimum of what he felt sure about. He could not say: we are always of good courage, because to be absent from the earthly body means to be put immediately in possession of the heavenly body. His uncertainty as to whether he would survive till the parousia forbade him that. Therefore he says only as much as he could with full certainty profess: to be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord. Even in case that happened which appeared to him the less desirable, he would still be contented. This is because in this being with the Lord everything else was potentially given.

Why Not Full-Preterism? by Steve Gregg
This work exposes some of the key flaws in Hyperpreterism by someone who has formally debated them. Much insightful material for those who might be tempted to forsake historic Christian orthodoxy.

For more Christian educational materials: www.KennethGentry.com

Looking at it closely, the words of verses 6–8 even seem to disparage the idea of the new body being given at death. He speaks here of death as meaning absence from the body. Of course, he means the earthly body. Yet he would scarcely have expressed himself precisely thus, had he meant that immediately another body would be substituted. For the state in such a new body would hardly be describable as the state of one absent from the body. And likewise the phrase “to be present with the Lord” is so general that Paul, had he had in mind the presence with Christ in the new glorified body, would in all probability have chosen a more definite mode of expression in contrast to that of “being absent from the body.” Our conclusion, therefore, is that verses 6–8 do not favor the exegesis under review.

FOOTNOTE

[1] Cp. 1 Cor 15:47: “the Second man is (by virtue of the resurrection) from heaven.” Notice also the difference between ex ouranou (“from heaven,” singular) relating to the origin and en tois ouranois (“in the heavens,” plural) of locality in v. 1.

If you would like to support me in my research, I invite you to consider giving a tax-deductible contribution to my research and writing ministry: GoodBirth Ministries. Your help is much appreciated!