Paul’s Eschatological Anthropology: The Esō Anthrōpos and The Intermediate State

Introduction

Students of Paul’s anthropology will be familiar with E Käsemann’s assertion, ‘in the whole of the New Testament it is only Paul who expounds what we should call a thoroughly thought-out doctrine of man.’ ¹ Throughout the apostle’s correspondence, we find an impressive array of anthropological terms liberally deployed. In the English-speaking world, the study of Paul’s view of humans parallels the scholarly trend regarding the relative significance accorded to theological content and context in the apostle’s letters. During the first half of the 20th century, while it was recognised that Paul’s letters were to some extent occasional, it was assumed that the given context functioned primarily as a catalyst for the actualisation of a consistent, implicit anthropology. ² Thus, it was assumed that the apostle’s anthropology could be distilled from his letters independently of context. This presupposition issued in a number of lexical studies, in which the apostle’s anthropological nomenclature was extracted from its epistolary and life-context and arranged in a number of predetermined categories. ³

However, it later became evident that this kind of approach did violence to Paul’s theologising, and failed to address a number of troubling issues centering around the deployment of his anthropological terms. Included here is the polysemy in the application of these terms, that is, the apostle attaches different meanings to the same term at various points in the corpus. For example, in his correspondence, the term sarx (‘flesh’) possesses a very wide semantic field, with at least three different applications. We can distinguish an ethical use, implying a negative mode of existence, ‘you are not in the flesh [sarx]; you are in the Spirit’ (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 3:3; 5:17, 19); a neutral use, emphasising human weakness, ‘God has done what the Law, weakened by the flesh [sarx], could not do’ (Rom. 8:3; 13:14; Gal. 4:13; 2 Cor. 4:11); and a genealogical use, ‘Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh [sarx]’ (Rom. 4:1; Rom. 9:5; 1 Cor. 10:18; 2 Cor. 1:17). ⁴ Now, considered in relation to the polysemy of other anthropological terms Paul employs, some scholars have accordingly claimed that Paul’s use of these terms is ‘quite careless,’ ⁵ and hence unsystematic. ⁶ Similarly problematic is the issue of incidence. Terms such as psychikos (‘en-souled’ or ‘natural,’ 1 Cor. 2:14; 15:44, 46) and esō anthrōpos/exō anthrōpos (‘inner human/outer human,’ 2 Cor. 4:16; Rom. 7:22) appear exclusively in particular letters; others, such as sōma (‘body,’ 1 Thess. 5:23; Gal. 6:17; 1 Cor. 6:13; 2 Cor. 10:10; Rom. 4:19) and sarx (1 Cor. 15:19; Gal. 4:13; Eph. 5:31), are employed throughout the correspondence. Related thereto is the problem of frequency in the application of these terms. Some terms, such as nous (‘mind’), kardia (‘heart’) and sōma, are employed copiously in the letters; others, such as psychē (‘soul’) and syneidēsis (‘conscience’) are rarely used. Similarly, Paul’s distribution of value to anthropological terms requires explanation. In putative ‘Hellenistic’ thinking, nous was accorded a constant, positive value; conversely, sōma and sarx were accorded a constant, albeit negative, value. However, in Paul’s letters, we often find different values ascribed to the same anthropological term. For example, the apostle speaks of a adokimon nous (‘depraved mind,’ Rom. 1:28) vis-à-vis a nous Christos (‘mind of Christ,’ 1 Cor. 2:16).

It was to address these issues that scholars sought a different approach to the apostle’s anthropology, one that considered context and theological content inextricably bound together. A proper understanding of the context in which Paul’s anthropological utterances are embedded, it was argued, is central to understanding these terms. With the emphasis on context, scholars sought to correlate Paul’s anthropological utterances with the concrete situations and parallel usages present in the first century Mediterranean world. Thus, R Jewett investigated the conflict situations in which the apostle’s anthropology was forged; ⁷ T Laato sought to uncover the anthropological presuppositions underlying Pauline and Jewish soteriology; ⁸ and GH Van Kooten situated the source of Paul’s anthropological terminology in a Greco-Roman context. ⁹ However, this approach was not without problems. By concentrating on external phenomena, insufficient attention is given to internal epistolary factors in the apostle’s deployment of any given term; and while each letter is treated as a discrete textual artifact, the possibility that there might be an underlying structure to Paul’s anthropology was not addressed; again, correlating Paul’s use of any given term with its putative parallel necessarily involved mirror-reading with all its accompanying problems; ¹⁰ and, insofar as scholars sought to ascertain whether the apostle’s anthropology was ‘Hellenistic’ or ‘Hebrew,’ this endeavor ultimately succumbed to the realisation that ‘Hellenism’ and ‘Hebrew’ are ideal types without correlates in the concrete world. Perhaps more importantly, the contextual approach was predicated on a number of assumptions that we find unsatisfactory, namely, that Paul did not possess a consistent anthropology; that he was dependent on his interlocutors for the terms he used; and, hence, his view of humans is ad hoc and unsystematic.

In the next section, we shall attempt to outline a new method of approaching Paul’s anthropology, one that is methodologically synthetic and accordingly treats the apostle’s letters as a single entity. It will be demonstrated that Paul was not dependent on parallel, extrinsic anthropological discourse, but instead possesses a surprisingly original view of humans. As a systematic thinker, the apostle employs anthropological terms very adeptly and precisely. Having outlined the apostle’s eschatological anthropology, we shall proceed to discuss the dynamic role of the esō anthrōpos (‘inner human,’ 2 Cor. 4:16; Rom. 7:22), the subject of transformation, instantiated in humans when they receive the Holy Spirit. Considered eschatologically, the esō anthrōpos is the proleptic sōma pneumatikon (‘spiritual body,’ 1 Cor. 15:44) assumed by believers at the Parousia. However, believers whose demise occurs prior to the end-time will jettison the exō anthrōpos (‘outer human’) and exist exclusively as an esō anthrōpos. Post-mortem they remain in an intermediate state where transformation continues until Christ returns. This will be the subject of the final section.

Eschatological anthropology

In the previous section we noted that, unlike putative ‘Hellenistic’ anthropology, Paul does not ascribe absolute values to different anthropological terms. For example, in Rom. 1:28, he refers to the adokimon nous (‘depraved mind’) of the Gentiles; conversely, in 1 Cor. 2:16, the faithful are described as having the nous Christos (‘mind of Christ’). Here we observe the same anthropological term predicated with diametric or binary values, dependent on context. But this is not an idiosyncrasy peculiar to the apostle’s use of nous. The application of binary values to the same anthropological terms can be observed throughout the corpus. Further examples include the eskotisthē kardia (‘darkened heart,’ Rom. 1:21) vis-à-vis the phōtismos kardia (‘illuminated heart,’ 2 Cor. 4:6); and the sōma psychikon (‘natural body,’ 1 Cor. 15:44) vis-à-vis the sōma pneumatikon (‘spiritual body,’ 1 Cor. 15:44). Thus, Paul applies binary predicates, both positive and negative, to each anthropological term. Moreover, each term subsumes a number of aspects that collectively represent the totality of that term’s potentiality. For example, the nous incorporates both a cognitive aspect – ‘their thinking [dialogismois] became futile [emataiōthēsan]’ (Rom. 1:21; Rom. 12:2; Eph. 4:17) – and an affective/volitional aspect – ‘He gave them over to a depraved mind [adokimon nous]’ (Rom. 1:28; Rom. 8:5, 6; 2 Cor. 3:14; 4:4; Col. 1:21). Similarly, the kardia includes a cognitive aspect – ‘their foolish [asynetos] hearts [kardia]’ (Rom. 1:21; Rom. 10:10; 1 Cor. 14:25) – and an affective/volitional aspect – ‘the sinful desires [epithymiais] of their hearts [kardiōn]’ (Rom. 1:24; Rom. 6:17; Eph. 6:5; 2 Thess. 3:5; 2 Tim. 2:22), and, further, what we refer to as a divine-receptive aspect – ‘[God] made this light shine in our hearts [elampsen en tais kardiais ēmōn]’ (2 Cor. 4:6; cf. 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:18) – thereby indicating that the kardia includes three discrete aspects.

Hence, we observe Paul applying binary predicates not only to each anthropological term, but also to each aspect constitutive of that term. Two important corollaries follow: (1) Paul does not ascribe intrinsic value to any particular anthropological entity, its value being dependent on some extrinsic phenomenon; (2) human renewal and transformation concern the whole human, and not any exclusive part. The faithful must possess a nous Christos (1 Cor. 2:16); a phōtismos kardia (2 Cor. 4:6); and ‘glorify God in their body’ (1 Cor. 6:20), albeit they continue to possess a sōma psychikon (1 Cor. 15:44) until the Parousia, when they will assume a sōma pneumatikon (1 Cor. 15:44). Indeed, for believers, positive values must apply to all aspects, i.e. the whole human. Similarly, those not in Christ attract uniformly negative values to all aspects constitutive of humans. As remarked, because the apostle does not ascribe an intrinsic value to any term, positive or negative, this value must depend on some condition or possibility extrinsic to humans. Moreover, this condition or possibility must be dynamic, and not static, if it is to be capable of giving rise to the variable predicates the apostle applies to the same anthropological terms in different contexts. What might this be? We contend that Paul’s anthropological utterances are embedded within an eschatological dynamic, which accounts for the varied valuations accorded any anthropological term.

It is not possible here to undertake a comprehensive investigation of so slippery and enigmatic a term as ‘eschatology,’ so we shall accordingly have to be satisfied with a brief outline of its main contours. In my work, Paul’s Eschatological Anthropology: The Dynamics of Human Transformation, ¹¹ I demonstrated that eschatology, considered schematically, is characterised by two ideas: (1) eschatology involves a particular view of time that construes the cosmos as progressing through discrete periods or aeons that move towards a distinct telos. ¹² In the death and resurrection of Christ, and the sending of the Holy Spirit, Paul witnessed the eschatological event that created a cleavage between the old and new aeons; ¹³ it was the primary focal point that determined the past and future. The new aeon is juxtaposed to the old aeon, ‘this age’ (1 Cor. 1:20; 2 Cor. 4:4; Rom. 12:12), ‘this world’ (1 Cor. 3:19), and ‘the present evil age’ (Gal. 1:4). Moreover, because the new aeon has already been inaugurated for Paul, albeit the old aeon persists, he introduces a third, additional, intermediate aeon between the old and new aeons, that is, where the old and new aeons overlap, albeit in different humans; ¹⁴ (2) eschatology is teleological in that it views history purposively. Those who respond in faith to the Christ-event are transferred to the dominion of the Holy Spirit and anticipate the future Parousia. For Paul, the resurrection of Christ, ‘the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep’ (1 Cor. 15:20) and the ‘first-born among many brethren’ (Rom. 8:29), heralds the end-time and the general resurrection. ¹⁵ JC Beker comments on the eschatos or telos towards which history tends:

The resurrection of Christ means primarily the ‘bodily’ exaltation of Christ by God and his enthronement to his heavenly lordship (Phil. 2:11). It signifies the exaltation of the crucified Christ, that is, a proleptic event that foreshadows the apocalyptic general resurrection of the dead and thus the transformation of our created world and the gift of new corporeal life to dead bodies. Resurrection is a historical-ontological category, manifesting in this world the dawning of the new age of transformation. ¹⁶

We now return to our assertion that it is the eschatological dynamic that underlies the values Paul ascribes to any given anthropological term. Those not in Christ remain in the old aeon, and hence the values the apostle ascribes to the anthropological terms predicated of non-believers are consistently negative; those in Christ inhabit the inaugurated new aeon or, more specifically, the overlapping aeon, and the values the apostle ascribes to the anthropological terms predicated of them are consistently positive. Because humans exist either as believers or non-believers, Paul applies only a single binary pair of predicates to each anthropological term. Hence, we observe a correlation between the two aeons (old and new) and the value accorded any constituent term situated within these respective aeons as they apply to humans. ¹⁷ Furthermore, as remarked, these values are predicated of the whole human and not, for example, exclusively of the nous or sōma.

At this point, the attentive reader might query: what is it that connects the aeons to humans so that the anthropological parts constitutive of humans take on the value dominant in those aeons? What, in other words, makes the aeons efficacious? The aeons are distinguished from one another by the dominant hypostatic power that operates on those subsisting within the respective aeons and is thus the carrier of anthropological value. ¹⁸ Paul’s symbolic universe contains only two such powers – Sin and the Holy Spirit. JMG Barclay comments, ‘when Paul pauses, midway through Romans 5, to redraw the map of the cosmos, he sees two, and only two, power structures at work within the cosmos (Rom. 5:12–21).’ ¹⁹ Sin is the dominant power in the old aeon. We learn from Rom. 5:12–21 that prior to Adam’s parabasis (‘transgression,’ Rom. 5:14), cosmological Sin existed only as a potentiality. Its actualisation occurred when Adam manifested the first sinful act, and it is subsequently manifested in every sinful human action (Rom. 5:12b). In Paul’s letters, these powers follow a distinct trajectory in the domination of humans. The entry-point of Sin in humans is the nous, where external stimuli are processed, which causes the cognitive aspect of the nous to become ‘futile [emataiōthēsan]’ (Rom. 1:21); and its volitional/affective aspect to become ‘depraved [adokimon]’ (Rom. 1:28). Next to succumb to cosmological Sin is the kardia, the divine-receptive aspect of which is ‘darkened [eskotisthē]’ (Rom. 1:21); and its cognitive aspect becomes ‘foolish [asynetos]’ (Rom. 1:21); and, finally, its volitional/affective aspect produces ‘sinful desires [epithymiais]’ (Rom. 1:24). Sin is then objectified in and through the sōma, ‘for the degrading [atimazesthai] of their bodies [sōmata]’ (Rom. 1:24). Under Sin, then, every anthropological term and its correlated constituent receives a negative value as Sin progresses through the whole human. Thus, we can say with W Barclay, ‘the rot . . . is all through human nature, the entire structure is tainted.’ ²⁰

The dominant power in the new aeon, present alongside Sin in the overlap of aeons, is the Holy Spirit, which reverses the anthropological debilitation wrought by Sin. Those who respond in faith to the Christ-event are transferred from the dominion of Sin, to the dominion of the Holy Spirit, which ‘dwells’ in them (1 Thess. 4:8; 1 Cor. 6:19; 14:24–25). The anthropological renewal wrought by the Holy Spirit once again commences with the nous. Its cognitive aspect is thereby enabled to ‘discern [dokimazein] . . . the will of God’ (Rom. 12:2); and its volitional/affective aspect is transformed into the ‘mind of Christ [nous Christos].’ Simultaneously, the Holy Spirit renews the cognitive aspect of the kardia, which ‘believe[s] [pisteuetai] . . . and so is justified’ (Rom. 10:10); and the volitional/affective aspect of the kardia, regarding which Paul declares, ‘[you] have become obedient from the heart [kardia] to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted’ (Rom. 6:17); and, finally, the ‘darkness’ of its divine-receptive aspect is dispelled as God ‘made this light shine in our hearts [elampsen en tais kardiais ēmōn]’ (2 Cor. 4:6). The renewal brought about by the Holy Spirit is finally manifested somatically, and believers are encouraged to, ‘glorify God in your bodies [sōmati]’ (1 Cor. 6:20). We reiterate, then, that it is the whole human, in Paul’s view, that succumbs to the dominant, cosmic hypostatic power. ²¹

It is these powers that connect ponderous aeons with ephemeral humans and, accordingly, determine the value accorded to any given anthropological term and its human constituent. The effective trajectory thus proceeds from the dominant aeon, through the hypostatic power, and to humans. Thus, in the apostle’s correspondence, we never find humans as they are in themselves, that is, independently of a power, but always subject to a hypostatic power, which interlaces the cosmos. Without the presence of such powers, humans would be accorded a purely neutral value, which is not possible in Paul’s universe. He sees value everywhere. But the domination of these powers is not restricted to humans, but is manifested throughout the entire cosmos (Rom. 8:19–22). ²² Nothing stands outside their influence. Both human (Rom. 3:9) and non-human creation (Rom. 8:20) succumbs to the pervasive influence of Sin, and together they ‘groan’ (2 Cor. 5:4; Rom. 8:19) in anticipation of the liberation inaugurated in the death and resurrection of Christ. For Paul, the cosmos is thus a plenum in which humans are ‘irrevocably knit.’ ²³ It must be remarked, however, that the redemption to be experienced by humans (and the cosmos) does not entail the destruction of existing phenomena – living bodies (and energised creation) – but instead their renewal, as we shall see in the next section.

The Esō Anthrōpos: Subject of transformation

Paul refers to the esō anthrōpos (‘inner human’) twice in his correspondence: (1) in 2 Cor. 4:16, where it is contrasted with the exō anthrōpos (‘outer human’); (2) and in Rom. 7:22, where it does not appear in juxtaposition to exō anthrōpos, but instead is contrasted with sarx and melesin (‘members,’ Rom. 7:23). Our interest here is 2 Cor. 4:16, ‘even though our outer nature [exō anthrōpos] is wasting away, our inner nature [esō anthrōpos] is being renewed day by day.’ We shall argue that the esō anthrōpos – the proleptic sōma pneumatikon (1 Cor. 15:44) – is instantiated exclusively in believers through the Holy Spirit, and thenceforth is developed in negative correlation with the exō anthrōpos which, accordingly, ‘wastes away.’

What, then, does Paul understand by esō anthrōpos and exō anthrōpos? Gundry interprets this contrast dualistically. The exō anthrōpos, he argues, ‘simply wastes away,’ and thus is to be identified with the ‘physical body subject to hardship, decay and death.’ ²⁴ Conversely, the esō anthrōpos refers to ‘the human spirit, the centre of psychical feelings.’ ²⁵ The distinction, he contends, is between ‘corporeal’ (exō anthrōpos) and ‘incorporeal’ (esō anthrōpos) aspects of humans. The ‘incorporeal’ includes the nous, whereas the ‘corporeal’ includes the sōma, the physical body. Similarly, VP Furnish seems to identify the exō anthrōpos with the ‘mortal flesh’ of 2 Cor. 4:11. ²⁶ He claims that weakness and mortality are attributable exclusively to sarx as substance – which is consequently a conduit for Sin – implying that the nous and kardia are not responsible for the human condition in the old aeon. However, in the previous section, we argued that the whole human is debilitated by Sin; and that the entry-point of Sin is the nous, and not some kind of substance denoted ‘sarx.’

When considered closely, the claim that sarx is responsible for human sinfulness and humans’ consequent debilitation appears nonsensical, even incoherent. For what does it mean for an inert material substance to embroil humans in sin? Can this substance act independently of the nous and kardia? Does it have a nous of its own distinct from the ‘incorporeal’ nous? Does it have a kardia where it can hatch its subterranean plots? If it is claimed that the nous and kardia are influenced by sarx – which then play out their part in the perpetration of sin – then we cannot attribute sinfulness exclusively to this substance, but instead to the whole human. Sinfulness would then be predicable of both putatively ‘corporeal’ and ‘incorporeal’ aspects of humans, as indeed Paul suggests in Rom. 8:5, where he speaks of the ‘mind of the flesh [phronēma tēs sarkos].’ Hence, it follows that it is the whole human that is implicated in sin and dominated by cosmological Sin, thereby attracting negative values throughout. Thus, there is an interrelation between these anthropological constituents, entailing that the dominant power implicates the entire human. When the apostle describes this entire human in its totality (where it is not referred to by synecdoche), he employs the terms sōma psychikon and sōma pneumatikon (1 Cor. 15:44), the human of the old and new aeons respectively. Thus, for Paul, human existence is always embodied. In the old aeon, the sōma is, of course, constituted by sarx, considered in its neutral usage, as outlined above. It remains a moot point, however, whether the sōma of the new aeon will be similarly constituted. In 1 Cor. 15:42–44, we learn that the resurrected sōma shall be characterised by aphtharsia (imperishability), doxa (glory) and dynamis (power). However, it is not impossible that these characteristics could be predicated of sarx. Prior to his fall, Adam may have possessed sarx of this nature, for there is no indication that the material of his body changed after the fall.

However, humans in both the old and new aeons do possess a sōma. Without the sōma, (regardless of its material constitution), humans would not be able to objectify the alterations occurring in the nous and kardia in response to external stimuli; conversely, without the nous and kardia, the sōma would have nothing to objectify. This suggests that the exō anthrōpos and its counterpart each describe the whole human, and not any particular anthropological entity. J Lambrecht might be implying this when he argues that the exō anthrōpos is a ‘remnant’ of the old aeon, no longer galvanised by Sin – it is what remains when this power ceases to dominate humans. ²⁷ However, he does not define this ‘remnant’ any further. Considered within the context of the hardships Paul endures (2 Cor. 4:8, 9, 10, 12), the exō anthrōpos has also been identified with that aspect of humans implicated in his apostolate and shared by all humans. ²⁸

A brief digression is necessary here. Some scholars appeal to the esō anthrōpos of Rom. 7:22 to interpret the esō anthrōpos of 2 Cor. 4:16. ²⁹ However, this is highly problematic because these texts function in very different ways. The exclusive concern of Rom. 7:7–25 is to defend the Law against the view that it is implicated in sin. ³⁰ The apostle needs to convince the Romans that the Law is not inherently sinful, but instead has been exploited by Sin. The anthropological vignette Paul constructs in this text is designed exclusively to satisfy this demand. This is evident from the view of humans the apostle contrives in this pericope, which is diametrically opposed to his otherwise consistent anthropological utterances expressed throughout the corpus. Nowhere does Paul suggest that there is a radical distinction between the esō anthrōpos/nous, which ‘delights in the law’ (Rom. 7:22), and sarx and melesin, which are ‘captive to sin’ (Rom. 7:23). ³¹ To reiterate, Sin and the Holy Spirit do not exclusively dominate any particular anthropological constituent of humans, but instead engulf the entire human. But, of course, the anthropology of Rom. 7:7–25 does not need to cohere with Paul’s authentic views. By exculpating the Law from sinfulness, its exclusive purpose is achieved, and its function exhausted, and hence it is to be laid aside.

We now return to 2 Cor. 4:16, where Paul declares, ‘though our outer nature [exō anthrōpos] is wasting away, our inner nature [esō anthrōpos] is being renewed day by day.’ HD Betz has argued that the esō anthrōpos describes, ‘the divine kyrios present in the heart through the pneuma,’ ³² a power experienced by believers that renews their cognitive ability to apprehend the truth, in opposition to ‘the contradictions of human life in this world.’ ³³ In contrast, he argues, the exō anthrōpos denotes the ‘visible’ aspect of humans receptive to hardships. Humans, he asserts, are thus a ‘composite entity’ ³⁴ in which “only the ‘outer’ is visible, the ‘inner’ invisible,” ³⁵ each component part nevertheless possessing equal value. Claiming that his interpretation is not ‘metaphorical,’ he does appear to emphasise the experiential character of this contrast, rather than the substrates of these experiences. He remarks, ‘there is at work in them [believers] as persons an abundance of divine energy, which averts losing heart by getting totally ground down and crushed by the antagonisms of day to day existence.’ ³⁶

However, what makes this approach problematic is that ‘renewal’ and ‘wasting away’ are cumulative processes, entailing a subject or substrate upon which the identity of ‘renewal’ or ‘wasting away’ is predicated. In other words, we need to ask: what is ‘being renewed’? What is ‘wasting away’? The terms anakainouta (‘being renewed’) and diaphtheiretai (‘wasting away’) demand a substratum of which they are affirmed; something is being renewed, and something is wasting away. Experiences, in contrast, are discrete, disconnected phenomena that cannot meaningfully be described in these terms. They may be ‘real,’ ³⁷ but they are also unique, existing independently of their predecessors and successors. However, Furnish supports this problematic position when he claims that ēmerai (‘day by day’) in 2 Cor. 4:16 indicates that anakainoō (‘to renew,’ cf. Col. 3:10) ³⁸ is neither a ‘secure possession,’ nor something accruing progressively. Hence, ‘renewal,’ he concludes, must be repeatedly appropriated in faith. ³⁹

Paul, of course, does provide the subjects of ‘renewal’ and ‘wasting away’ – the esō anthrōpos and exō anthrōpos respectively. For the apostle, the subject is always the whole human, albeit sometimes viewed from a particular aspect, whether under Sin or the Holy Spirit, and not any particular anthropological constituent. Temporally, this subject must be continuous, which is demanded by the presupposition that the human now existing in the overlap of aeons is the same human that will be resurrected in the new aeon. Paul confirms this in Rom. 8:11, ‘he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies [thnēta sōmata],’ that is, the bodies believers currently possess, which partially pass over to the esō anthrōpos. For God does not abandon any part of creation – there will be a reconciliation and renewal of ta panta (‘all things,’ Col. 1:15-20). The present is in continuity with the future. Kainē ktisis (‘new creation,’ 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15) ⁴⁰ does not stand in opposition to creation in the old aeon – they are one and the same creation, continuous through a process of transformation. ⁴¹ Renewal, then, implies taking up an existing material and transforming it. Hence, DO Via contends, ‘to be transformed (metamorphoō) is to be given a new form (morphos)’ ⁴² and, of course, a ‘new form’ (esō anthrōpos) presupposes an ‘old form’ (exō anthrōpos). It is the Holy Spirit who reverses the debilitation wrought by Sin in humans – it does not discard the old human and replace it with a new human. This understanding of anakainoō (‘renew,’ 2 Cor. 4:16; cf. Col. 3:10), applies likewise to anakainōsis (‘renewal,’ Rom. 12:2) ⁴³ and metamorphoō (‘be changed, transformed,’ 2 Cor. 3:18). ⁴⁴ The term describes an ongoing process of renewal, a process attested throughout Paul’s letters (1 Cor. 3:1; 2 Cor. 6:13; Phil. 1:25; 1 Thess. 4:1).

Taking all these points into consideration, when Paul asserts that there is a negative correlation between the exō anthrōpos and esō anthrōpos, these terms can be seen to each denote the whole human of the old aeon and new aeon respectively. The negative correlation implies that what is taken from the exō anthrōpos in transformed into the esō anthrōpos, whether partially or otherwise. Because the exō anthrōpos is transformed into the esō anthrōpos, it can thus be said to ‘waste away’ or deplete. What can be renewed of the exō anthrōpos is and will be renewed; what cannot is jettisoned at death. ⁴⁵ But, as earlier remarked, non-believers do not possess an esō anthrōpos. While under Sin, humans exhibit a unified anthropology – the division into ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ does not apply to non-believers. It is this unified human in its entirety that forms the humanity of believers, which ultimately becomes the exō anthrōpos if they respond to the Holy Spirit. The split into ‘outer’ and ‘inner’ occurs when humans come under the Holy Spirit, and what previously existed as a unified human under Sin becomes the exō anthrōpos, in distinction from an esō anthrōpos, the whole human of the new aeon (albeit transformation is already underway). However, both the exō anthrōpos and esō anthrōpos must be brought under the Holy Spirit if transformation is to occur. No longer under Sin, the exō anthrōpos subsists as the whole natural human (sōma psychikon, 1 Cor. 15:44), characterised by weakness and frailty, through which humans remain linked to the old aeon. However, the exō anthrōpos cannot be dominated by Sin unless the believer chooses to relinquish the Holy Spirit, in which case weakness becomes sinfulness. In contrast, the esō anthrōpos is the whole human, galvanised by the Holy Spirit, ⁴⁶ the proleptic sōma pneumatikon (1 Cor. 15:44) in process of renewal. This transformation will not be complete until the Parousia and, as we shall see in the next section, even continues post-mortem in those whose decease falls within the intermediate aeon. However, like the kainē ktisis (‘new creation,’ 2 Cor. 5:17) in which it is embedded, the esō anthrōpos remains essentially invisible, although its presence is visible in the ‘fruits’ it manifests (Gal. 5:22-23). We can now investigate the intermediate state where the esō anthrōpos persists following the death of believers.

The intermediate state: Continuing transformation

During the overlap of aeons, the Holy Spirit, in functional unity with Christ (Rom. 6:4, 11, 13; 2 Cor. 4:12; Eph. 2:5, 6; Col 2:13), is the agent of human transformation. However, while under the Holy Spirit, believers in the overlap of aeons remain susceptible to Sin (hamartia, Rom. 5:12a), even if they do not actually sin (hēmarton, Rom. 5:12b). This possibility is forcefully eliminated by death, which for Paul has a positive value. Death cannot separate believers from Christ and the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:35), ⁴⁷ because the Holy Spirit is “‘the inner connection between what Paul claims to be an activity of the Spirit now and what the same Spirit will do at the end that makes his pneumatology ‘eschatological.’” ⁴⁸ Accordingly, divested of the exō anthrōpos at death, the transformation of the esō anthrōpos continues through the intermediate state (2 Cor. 5:1–10).

Some scholars are apprehensive about attributing an intermediate state to Paul’s symbolic universe, a state inhabited by deceased believers prior to the Parousia. ⁴⁹ Recognising that the bodies of believers decompose after death, it seems to follow that if any anthropological constituent of believers survives death, and thus inhabits an intermediate state, this can only be some kind of disembodied spirit or ego. However, we have consistently argued that for Paul it is the whole human that is transformed. These two observations appear to be mutually exclusive, and thus it is sometimes concluded that the apostle’s anthropology is incompatible with an intermediate state. For example, J Murphy-O’Connor claims that the notion of an intermediate state contradicts ‘the most basic tenets of Pauline theology.’ ⁵⁰ Likewise, JW Cooper contends, ‘if human beings are monistic or ontologically holistic entities, then this eschatological scenario [an intermediate state] is a flat impossibility,’ ⁵¹ from which it has been concluded, ‘the adoption of the idea of the intermediate state was an unnecessary theological move.’ ⁵² An intermediate state appears to imply a dualist ontology, ⁵³ which contradicts Paul’s belief that the sōma belongs constitutively to humans. ⁵⁴

Recalling our discussion of 2 Cor. 4:16, we concluded that the exō anthrōpos is the whole human of the old aeon, albeit present and ‘wasting away’ in those no longer under Sin. Conversely, the esō anthrōpos is the whole human in process of transformation, an entity of the hidden, new aeon under the Holy Spirit. Thus, HAA Kennedy remarks, ‘pneuma [the Holy Spirit] is a regenerative principle or power for the whole existence.’ ⁵⁵ Human renewal is initiated with the reception of the Holy Spirit, ⁵⁶ and continues until the Parousia. The esō anthrōpos is the subject of transformation, the proleptic sōma pneumatikon (1 Cor. 15:44). ⁵⁷ Because, as noted, believers cannot be separated from Christ (Rom. 8:38-39), the ‘life-giving Spirit’ (1 Cor. 15:45), the process of transformation cannot be inhibited by death. ⁵⁸ Hence, there is no hiatus in the progressive approximation of believers to the ‘image of Christ’ (2 Cor. 3:18). What occurs at the resurrection is simply the acceleration, ⁵⁹ the bringing to fruition, of a process that commenced with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the dialectic of faith. Therefore, if the process of transformation that implicates the whole human has already commenced – as it has in the overlap of aeons – and this process is not inhibited by death, it follows that not only must we postulate an intermediate state for believers, but that this state does not entail – cannot entail – a dualist ontology. Indeed, it positively excludes a dualist ontology! It is only when the esō anthrōpos is identified with the nous, egō or some allegedly ‘essential’ part of humans that an intermediate state supports dualism. However, there are no grounds for this assumption in Paul’s correspondence.

The apostle discusses the intermediate state in 2 Cor. 5:1–10, only three verses after introducing the terms exō anthrōpos and esō anthrōpos (2 Cor. 4:16). Because of limitations of space, we shall restrict ourselves to 2 Cor. 5:1, where these terms are given another metaphorical expression: ⁶⁰

For we know [oidamen gar] that if [ean] the earthly [epigeios] tent [oikia] we live in is destroyed [katalythēi], we have [echomen] a building from God [oikodomēn ek theou], a house not made with hands [oikian acheiropoiēton], eternal in the heavens [aiōnion en tois ouranois]. (2 Cor. 5:1, NRSV)

That Paul is speaking of the intermediate state here can be observed in his use of the conditional, in which ean commands the subjunctive kataluō, ‘if [ean] the earthly tent we live in is destroyed [katalythēi], we have [echomen] a building from God.’ The apostle’s claim is that upon the demise of believers, the epigeios oikia (‘earthly tent’) is jettisoned and the oikodomēn ek theou (‘building from God’) is immediately assumed. In other words, as we shall see below, when the exō anthrōpos is relinquished, the esō anthrōpos remains. The apodosis is true when the protasis is fulfilled. ⁶¹ Scholars who presuppose that 2 Cor. 5:1–10 describes the assumption of the sōma pneumatikon (1 Cor. 15:44) at the Parousia (1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:16–17) attempt to weaken this conditional. P Barnett has argued that the present-tense echomen must be understood in terms of ‘permanency of having,’ rather than ‘immediacy of having,’ because “immediacy would raise the whole matter of the body (‘the intermediate state’) between death and the general resurrection.” ⁶² The phrase ‘we have,’ he argues, is sometimes employed of a future event or acquisition of which certainty exists ⁶³ to imply a ‘certain hope.’ ⁶⁴ Conversely, from a dualist perspective, DE Aune allows the conditional its full weight, and translates ean as ‘when.’ He argues that construing echomen (‘we have’) as a future certainty is a ‘laboured attempt to insert an intermediate state between the destruction of the earthly house and the possession of the heavenly habitation.’ ⁶⁵ When death occurs, believers immediately assume the oikodomēn ek theou, the ‘inner aspect or part of the person that will not be destroyed by death.’ ⁶⁶ Indeed, he identifies the oikodomēn ek theou with the esō anthrōpos, albeit that what he understands by the latter is a disembodied pneuma or psychē. ⁶⁷ This entity exists in an ‘analogous heavenly dwelling’ that believers are transferred to upon death. ⁶⁸ However, as we have reiterated throughout this article, for Paul it is the whole person, and not any given constituent of humans, that persists as the esō anthrōpos. Hence, the apostle describes the resurrection inheritance as a sōma pneumatikon (1 Cor. 15:44), where sōma is a synecdoche for the whole human. For Paul, transformation is a continuum initiated with the formation of the nascent esō anthrōpos by the indwelling Holy Spirit and continuing until death; upon their demise, believers proceed along this continuum when the residuum of the exō anthrōpos (what is not transformed into the esō anthrōpos) is jettisoned, and they inhabit the intermediate state; the esō anthrōpos progresses still further along this continuum until the Parousia, when transformation is accelerated and believers assume a sōma pneumatikon (1 Cor. 15:44).

Despite identifying the ‘earthly tent’ with the exō anthrōpos, some scholars do not take the further step of equating the ‘building from God’ with the esō anthrōpos, but equate it with the sōma pneumatikon (1 Cor. 15:44) assumed at the Parousia. ⁶⁹ This seems inexplicable, particularly because of the proximity of these two sets of terms in 2 Corinthians. Moreover, the adjectives Paul employs to describe the epigeios oikia and oikodomēn ek theou seem to support our equation of these terms with the exō anthrōpos and esō anthrōpos respectively. The apostle frequently uses the term epigeios (‘earthly’) in contrast to epouranios (‘heavenly,’ 1 Cor. 15:40; Phil. 2:10; 3:19), which thus is a relative term carrying the meaning, ‘belonging to this earthly state,’ ⁷⁰ ‘what is characteristic of the earth,’ ⁷¹ and ‘what exists on earth and is connected with the world.’ ⁷² It refers to human beings as they are currently constituted in transience and weakness. ⁷³ The term ‘destroyed [katalythēi],’ to ‘tear down, demolish,’ ⁷⁴ similarly evokes the image of a tent being forcefully dismantled at death. ⁷⁵ These characteristics describe the exō anthrōpos.

Maintaining the integrity of the parallelism in 2 Cor. 5:1, the oikodomēn ek theou similarly describes the esō anthrōpos. Revealing its transformative nuance, the term oikodomēn can be interpreted either as a process of construction or the result of construction (oikian). ⁷⁶ It is also employed in 1 Cor. 3:9, where believers are described as ‘God’s building’ – as a field is cultivated, those in Christ are an edifice built up by God. ⁷⁷ Paul seems to have the process of building in view in 2 Cor. 5:1. Perhaps he employs oikodomēn precisely because it carries this ambiguity. Until the Parousia, believers are in a continual state of transformation; they are both in possession of and not in possession of their renewed humanity. A Plummer suggests that in Paul’s use of oikodomēn, “we seem to be half-way between process and the result, ‘a building in course of erection.’” ⁷⁸ This view only becomes problematic if we demarcate the existing sōma of believers from the sōma pneumatikon. But we know that there is a negative correlation between the esō anthrōpos and exō anthrōpos (2 Cor. 4:16), involving a continuous process of renewal. ⁷⁹ While the phrase oikodomēn ek theou does not describe the sōma pneumatikon assumed at the Parousia, it does denote the proleptic sōma pneumatikon, albeit in a nascent state. ⁸⁰ What separates the former from the latter is a process of transformation, not the replacement of one body by another body. What the oikodomēn is not now and during the intermediate state it will be at the Parousia.

We argued above that the Holy Spirit, in functional unity with Christ, is the agent of transformation. This is also implied in 2 Cor. 5:1, where Paul states that the oikodomēn is ‘from God,’ that is, it has God, through Christ in the Holy Spirit, as its efficient cause. ⁸¹ Christ is a ‘life-giving Spirit [pneuma zōiopoioun]’ (1 Cor. 15:45), operative in believers in the transformation of their bodies. This is reflected in the terms Paul applies to describe the oikodomēn ek theou. Unlike the ‘earthly tent,’ the ‘building from God’ is ‘not made with hands [oikian acheiropoiēton],’ but ‘eternal in the heavens [aiōnion en tois ouranois].’ Whereas the ‘earthly tent’ has the characteristics of ‘what exists on earth and is connected with the world’ ⁸² – weakness, transience and mortality ⁸³ – the ‘building from God’ is acheiropoiēton, created by, and in conformity with, the Holy Spirit, and characterised by strength, permanence and immortality (cf. Col. 2:11). ⁸⁴ Being aiōnion (‘eternal’), the ‘building from God’ is immune to the effects of finitude, and thus of indefinite durability or timelessness. ⁸⁵ Whereas ‘earthly’ describes the mode of existence peculiar to the old aeon, ‘eternal in the heavens’ suggests a mode of existence peculiar to the new aeon. ‘Heaven’ does not denote a location inhabited by believers. ⁸⁶ For Paul, the context of renewed humanity is the renewed cosmos. ⁸⁷ This explains why both humans (2 Cor. 5:4) and creation (Rom. 8:22), ‘groan’ in anticipation of the Parousia. PG Ziegler remarks, ‘it is the whole creation . . . which longs and hopes for the eschatological resolution of God’s saving work (Rom. 8:9–24).’ ⁸⁸ We might assert that, in 2 Cor. 5:1, ‘earth’ = ‘the old aeon,’ and ‘heaven’ = ‘the new aeon.’ ⁸⁹

Recognising that the context of renewed humanity is the renewed cosmos makes the postulation of a spatial heaven superfluous. Because the future (human and cosmic) is the product of the present, in that the latter is transformed into the former, they are intimately connected. There is no discontinuity between the present and future. The future will only be actualised with the arrival of the new aeon. Moreover, humans do not receive the future as something extrinsic to them – they are the future, just as the existing cosmos is the future cosmos. In the overlap of aeons, the nascent new aeon – the proleptic sōma pneumatikon (esō anthrōpos) and its cosmic counterpart – remains invisible and exists as a parallel world emerging in the old aeon. EM Conradie remarks, ‘the dead may be with God on one axis [the ‘depth’ dimension of three-dimensional space-time] while their dead bodies remain on earth on another axis [the ‘length’ dimension of space-time].’ ⁹⁰ Not until the arrival of the new aeon, uncontaminated by the old aeon, will humans possess the capacity to apprehend this renewed cosmos, at which time it will become visible, ‘in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye’ (1 Cor. 15:52). The fulfilment of the transformative process, both of those alive at the Parousia and those in the intermediate state, will then be tremendously accelerated. The detritus of the exō anthrōpos (what cannot be transformed into the esō anthrōpos) will pass out of existence, leaving only the esō anthrōpos to be instantaneously changed into the sōma pneumatikon. Similarly with the transformative acceleration of the cosmos: all that belongs to sin, weakness, suffering and mortality (the debris, as it were, of the existing cosmos) will be swept away, ‘for the present form of this world is passing away’ (1 Cor. 7:3). When the renewed cosmos stands out in pristine newness, the prophecy of Isaiah shall be fulfilled, the ‘wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox’ (Is. 65:25).

What is the condition of believers in the intermediate state? Prior to their decease, they persist ‘in Christ’ (Rom. 6:8; 8:29; 14:8; 1 Cor. 15:31; 2 Cor. 13:4), a status that commences with the reception of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 6:4–8). When they jettison the exō anthrōpos, however, they are said to be ‘with Christ,’ and remain pros ton kyrion (‘with the Lord,’ 2 Cor. 5:8) until the Parousia. The phrase pros ton kyrion, applied in 2 Cor. 5:8 to those in the intermediate state, is predicable only of the ‘dead in Christ’ (1 Thess. 4:16; 1 Cor. 15:18). ⁹¹ In Paul’s correspondence, ‘with Christ’ is applied only to those who have died ‘in Christ.’ This implies that the apostle coined this expression because he believed that those ‘in Christ’ subsist in an intermediate state following their demise. But in 1 Thess. 4:16, Paul refers to ‘the dead in Christ [en Christos]’; in Phil. 1:23 (cf. 2 Cor. 5:8), speaking of his own demise, he declares, ‘my desire is to depart and be with Christ [syn Christos].’ ⁹² Accordingly, the latter may indeed indicate an intensification of a relationship established in life, rather than a distinct type of relationship. Accordingly, FF Bruce asserts, “‘to die’ and ‘to be with Christ’ are therefore in large measure synonyms,” and adds, ‘Christ is alive on the other side of death.’ ⁹³ Through death, believers are united with Christ, and thus what for non-believers is negative (death) is, for believers, positive (life) and desirable, even ‘greatly desired’ (epithymia). ⁹⁴ Paul desires death not for the cessation of suffering (negative), but for the supreme desideratum – union with Christ (positive). ⁹⁵

Here, then, as the esō anthrōpos progresses along the continuum leading to the Parousia and the assumption of the sōma pneumatikon, it subsists in intimate fellowship with Christ, ⁹⁶ in a more emphatic form of intercommunication that mitigates Paul’s anxiety concerning relative nakedness (2 Cor. 5:3) following death. ⁹⁷ Again, this occurs because of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:9), which guarantees that human renewal will not be suspended post-mortem – ‘the external force that will resurrect us is already in us.’ ⁹⁸ Thus, the intermediate state is akin to a bridge that carries believers to the new aeon. ⁹⁹ Beyond, on the other side of this bridge, a renewed cosmos awaits, scintillating with the grace of the Holy Spirit, resplendent with the glory of the Lord, and imbued with the love of God the Father, a cosmos in which there will be no more tears, no more sadness, illness and death, but everlasting joy and peace in the presence of the Holy Trinity.

Conclusion

The study of Paul’s anthropology has passed through two phases, one governed by the assumption that the apostle’s view of humans could be extracted from its epistolary context without detriment, and presented systematically, the other which sought to acknowledge the importance of context in the development and deployment of Paul’s view of humans. Both approaches fell short in that they omitted to address a number of problematic issues. We responded to these issues by advancing a new approach to the apostle’s anthropology. This synthetic method emphasises the importance of recognising a dynamic eschatological ground underlying Paul’s deployment of anthropological terms. It is its position on this ground that accords any given term its value. We then demonstrated that the human subject of transformation is the esō anthrōpos, incipient in believers upon reception of the Holy Spirit. This anthropological term, like its concomitant, exō anthrōpos, describes the whole person, that is, the nous, kardia and sōma. For Paul, it is the whole person that is to inherit the resurrection. These contrasting terms represent a negative correlation, whereby the exō anthrōpos is sequentially transformed (albeit partially) into the esō anthrōpos. With the demise of the believer, the exō anthrōpos is jettisoned, leaving only the esō anthrōpos, which then inhabits an intermediate state. The claims advanced by scholars that Paul does not subscribe to such a state were shown to be untenable. The esō anthrōpos continues to transform while in the intermediate state, until Christ’s Parousia when it arrives at its final metamorphosis, the sōma pneumatikon.