Did Paul Change His Mind, Too?

If we believe that Apostle Paul was inspired by God, how then can we explain his obvious slips and changes? Are these so-called 'changes of mind' also inspired? Or do we ignore blaring statements that show remarkable development in Paul's thought? And Paul is not in this alone; we could point out developing ideas in other authors too, but they are not as evident as they would be had they written more books. Fortunately, since Paul wrote much of the New Testament, we have him alone as a crystal-clear example of mental development. We see Paul's thought over a period of roughly fifteen years. To us are revealed his fears, joys, ambitions, spiritual improvements, and his changes. His changes, at least as far as we can tell, in his theology. Paul preached a few different things regarding afterlife, resurrection, and the parousia (Greek for "arrival." Also known as Christ's return).

Paul, early in his career, believed that Christ would return in his own lifetime. When writing one of his earliest letters, 1 Thessalonians, Paul tells the Thessalonians not to worry about those Christian members who have recently died. (They were grieving because Paul had potentially told them that Christ was soon to return in their lifetime. Unfortunately, they did not know what to do with the fact that some members have now died.)[1] He explains to them that these believers would soon rise, as Christ rose from the dead (4:14). He goes on to say:

For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.[2]

Paul uses the Greek word heymeis (Greek for "we") here. This clearly implies that he considers himself to be one of the witnesses of the event. In 5:23 Paul makes this curious statement, "May the God of peace himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."[3] Paul seems to say to the Thessalonians that they should watch after their body and keep it blameless, for Christ was coming [in their lifetimes]. In 2 Thessalonians 1:4-10, Paul seems to imply that the Thessalonians are suffering for the Lord, and, in effect, the suffering is the beginning of the end; Christ will soon return to set things right. Paul tells the Thessalonians that he wants them to "obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2:14). Does this imply the glorious coming of Christ? Does Paul want the Thessalonians to experience the Second Coming? It may be so.

Paul obviously believes in an imminent return of Christ. This is more so magnified by his use of the Aramaic word marana tha.[4] Which means "Our Lord, come!" (1 Cor. 16:22). This can be more so verified when one reads 1 Corinthians 7. The entire chapter presupposes an imminent return. Paul considers marriage as unimportant due to the fact that "the appointed time has grown short" (v.29). He wants virgins to remain virgin (unmarried) because of the "present crisis" (v.26). There is no doubt here that Paul believes in an imminent return. The time has grown short and those who want to get married should probably serve Christ for He is bound to return any minute. In fact, "the present form of this world is passing away."[5] Why, even if you desire a wife, Paul says, "Do not seek a wife" (v.27). Paul sees the end as more than just "near." It is almost here.

By the time Paul wrote Romans 13:11-12, he was a bit unsure about this entire 'imminent return' thing. He writes these verses with a sense of reservation regarding the 'how soon?' question. Paul believes that "salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers; the night is far gone, the day is near."[6] The time is short, but no one knows just exactly how short. And still later, when Paul wrote Philippians, he was doubting that he would be alive at the time of Christ's second coming. He had to say at this time, "For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain" (1:21 NRSV). Death was becoming something that Paul now thought about more often; he would not be alive or be "caught up" into heaven when Christ returned surrounded by glory and clouds. Nevertheless, Paul hopes that on "the day of Christ" (Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 1 Thess. 4:15-18) he would present the Philippians as a bride of Christ that is "pure and blameless" (1:10). The sense of urgency seems to fade in Colossians. Paul tells the Colossians that when Christ is revealed, they, too, will be revealed with Him in glory (3:4). Paul probably thinks that the Colossians will be alive at the time of the coming. And yet, Paul seems to now think that somehow maybe they have already been "seated with Christ." He tells the Colossians that they are already in the Son's kingdom (1:13). In Ephesians 2:5 Paul already thinks that God has placed the Ephesians in thrones; they have been "seated with Christ in heavenly places." This sounds almost as if Paul is now trying to make his believers see themselves as already in heaven. They should not focus so much on Christ's second coming (a time when they will go to heaven), rather they already are in heaven!

It appears that Paul has sided with his companion, and doctor who ministered to his needs, Luke. Luke, the author of Luke-Acts, when using Mark's Gospel as a source, absolutely reworked the imminent return of Christ. In Mark 13, the so-called 'messianic woes,' Mark (or Jesus) ties the parousia with the fall of Jerusalem. In Luke 21, Luke separates the fall of Jerusalem from the parousia. Where Mark has Jesus say that false prophets will falsely claim to be the Messiah and say, "I am he," Luke also has these false prophets proclaim, "The time [End] is at hand" (21:8). It appears that only the false prophets will proclaim the end of the world! In other words, the false prophets are being charged with prophesying falsely the imminent return of Christ! After Mark describes the fall of Jerusalem and the flight to the mountains (which occurred when the Jerusalem Church fled to Pella in the early 60's), he writes "in those days" (the days of the destruction of Jerusalem) the "sun shall be darkened" and the "stars will fall from heaven," and then the Son of Man will come coming on the clouds. He links the End, the destruction of Jerusalem, the flight to Pella (mountains of Judea) and the parousia all together.

Luke, when rewriting all of this material, totally separates the Destruction from the Return. Luke omits the phrase "He who endures to the end shall be saved" (Mark 13:13). He rewrites this phrase and turns it into, "By your endurance you will gain your souls" (21:19). Notice that now the "End" has been totally eliminated. In Acts 2:17-21, Luke tells us that Joel 2:28-32 (the passage about God "pouring out his spirit" and the moon being darkened) has already been fulfilled. This makes us wonder if Luke separated the fading light of the moon (which Jesus linked with the End) from the End (for Joel 2 had already been fulfilled, and it was not the End!).

Paul was a Christian living around the time of Luke. If his companion, Luke, had enough courage and wisdom to 'edit' what made the End look as if it was, should not have Paul likewise changed his mind? Though Luke also includes an embarrassing saying of Jesus (21:32- all these things shall occur "before this generation shall pass away"), he had separated the fall of Jerusalem from the End (which Mark had not done). Thus, the readers would not get the impression that Jesus should have returned during or after Jerusalem's destruction. Paul was writing roughly the same time Luke was writing. It seems that Christians were trying to make sense of all the data. Apparently, Jesus was not about to return any day. In fact, it has been suggested that the communist-like community of Acts, which shared all things (4:34-35), arose only because of the belief that Christ was going to return in their generation! Just like He promised. At least, that is how some of the early Christians (mis)understood the end-time sayings of Jesus. Paul, apparently, was one of them.

If Paul changed his mind, regarding the imminent return of Christ, he obviously considered himself one of the (living!) witnesses in 1 Thess. 4:15-18, how do we understand inspiration? In fact, what do we do with these changes? Do we annul and somehow 'uninspire' the passages which we know Paul later himself rejected? (And to change your mind does mean to reject previous beliefs.) What do we do with passages in (Holy) Scripture which may have been, if one thinks the evidence is not conclusive, later rejected by their very author? This question should serve as a question that stimulates thought regarding the problems of inspiration. An honest investigation must not overlook such problems.

Early in his career, Paul saw resurrection as imminent (though still future) too. He clearly believed in the resurrection of the fleshly body (contrary to what the Docetic Gnostics believed) at some point in his life, at least. In some ways, though, he appears to have mixed Greek notions with Jewish ideas: he believes in a fleshly resurrection, while holding the Greek dualistic idea that flesh and spirit are two separate things. Paul seems to have found a way around the obvious cultural differences. For the Jews, spirit and flesh were one and the same thing. The flesh was going to be, after the resurrection, immortal. In fact, the flesh had to be resurrected; our eternal existence had to do with the immortality of the (resurrected) fleshly body. The Greeks, however, maintained that the soul was immortal: human existence continued after death via the immortal soul. Platonic Greek philosophy did not have much to say regarding the flesh; the flesh was not relevant to the afterlife.

In ancient Judaism there was a, I dare simplify this and call it, 'dominant view' of the resurrection. According to this 'dominant view,' which is found primarily in the OT, the fleshly body would be resurrected as predicted by Daniel (12:1-2) and (potentially) I Samuel 2:6. Daniel writes, "Many of those who sleep in the land of dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (12:2 NRSV). Ancient Judaism did not have a developed view of the afterlife; everybody died, saint and sinner, and everybody went to the place of the dead: Sheol. In Sheol (the "Pit"), people could not praise God, as David says when complaining to God (Psalm 30:9) nor did they know anything (Eccl. 9:5). The Pit was the Jewish afterlife for everyone, both for Jacob the Righteous and the Sinners of Job (Eccl. 9:3, 10; Gen. 37:35; Job 24:19). The earliest possible interpretation of resurrection occurs in Ezekiel 37. Fragments of it are even found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q385 Frag. 2; 4Q388 Frag. 7; 4Q386 Frag. 1). Ezekiel is told by God to speak to "dry bones" which he sees in the valley (37:4). Ezekiel does and these bones come to life and are filled with new breath and then they (the people) return to the land of Israel. Though this text has no direct statement regarding resurrection, it has been (mis)interpreted to refer to resurrection. It, as the context itself suggests, refers to the return of the people of Israel "from" their so-called "graves" to the land of Israel.

Centuries later, the author of 2 Maccabees, after relating the story about the martyrdom of the seven brothers, has one of the brothers say to the king, by whom he was being tortured for his faith, "One cannot but choose to die at the hands of mortals and to cherish the hope God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!"[7] The author of 2 Maccabees also pointed out that the flesh, the very original earthly flesh, would be restored by God (7:11). As can be seen, the ancient biblical Jewish belief certainly promoted the view that the flesh, the original body, would be resurrected.

By the time of Jesus, there have developed a few different schools of thought. The Sadducees denied the existence of angelic/heavenly bodies and the resurrection of the flesh (Matt. 22:23). Some eccentric Jews even denied the immortality of the soul. The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed that God was in control, that there were angels, spiritual bodies, and that there was a resurrection of the physical body. About the time of Jesus, the author of 4 Maccabees talks about God giving, upon death, pure and immortal souls to His people (18:23).

The Greeks, now, generally believed in just the immortality of the soul. Upon death, the soul continued its existence; the body, on the other hand, was left to rot. If, when a person died, he was to go to heaven (whatever that was), did the body need to be resurrected (the Jewish view) or did the body just rot and the soul journey to Heaven? Was the body (flesh) separate from the soul? Or was it one with the soul (the standard Jewish view)? In fact, the Hebrew word nephesh (inseparable from the body) means "person," "soul" or "emotion." For the Jews, to put it in other words, the body was not separate from the soul: if a person went to Heaven, he would have to be resurrected! The flesh could not be left here on earth (for it was intimately connected to the soul). The Greeks, however, maintained a complete different view: the body had nothing to do with the afterlife. Of course, even among the Greeks, there was disagreement (Docetic dualism taught that both material things and the soul were eternal).

When ancient Christians were burned during severe persecution, their ashes would be scattered into the sea so that the "body" would not be resurrected. The Romans would make the Christians' belief regarding the resurrection of the body impossible to occur (there was no body; it was burnt, crushed, grinded, and tossed into the vast expanse of the ocean). It was one more way to defy the Christian faith.

…And along came Paul. He was raised Jewish, but he was engrossed in Greek thought. For him, then, it was necessary to strike a balance between Jewish theology and Greek philosophy; he had to find a way to please both groups of people. In Paul's earliest surviving epistles, he clearly believes in a sort of it-is-about-to-happen resurrection. 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17 completely presents a Jewish view of an imminent return and a resurrection of the body, "For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel's call and with the sound of God's trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we…" (16-17 NRSV). The dead in Christ will rise first, that is, the resurrection of the body will occur with Christ's second coming. Afterwards, those who are alive, Paul being one of them, will be caught up into the clouds with Christ. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul also lays out a fairly similar view regarding the resurrection. He says, when hearing that the Corinthians have begun to reject the resurrection of the physical body (suggesting that they were Docetic Gnostics), "For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised" (15:16 NRSV). The flesh will be resurrected upon Christ's return. Here, it is interesting to note that, along with the author of 2 Maccabees, Paul seems to agree that only the 'believers' will be resurrected ("those who belong to Christ"). Those who are sinners, or, in other words, those who are not in Christ, will not be resurrected.

A little while later, Paul presents a rather different view of resurrection/afterlife. In 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, Paul says:

"For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this tent we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling-if indeed, when we have taken it off [some ancient manuscripts read put it on] we will not be found naked. For while we are still in this tent, we groan under our burden, because we wish not to be unclothed, but to be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life."[8]

Paul seems to say that our earthly flesh will not really be resurrected, as the Jews had believed. Rather, he thinks that we will be given a new "building" which has not been made by human hands. If we are given a new "building" (is this a new "body"??), we will not need a resurrected earthly body then, right? Paul's language here is highly ambiguous and is, most likely, greatly misunderstood. Nevertheless, Paul does appear to take a fairly different approach towards the issue. What concerns us most is not this ambiguous passage in 2 Corinthians, but a similar passage in Philippians 1.

"For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which I prefer. I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you."[9]

Live "in the flesh"? What does that mean? Is not the flesh going to be resurrected? Does "depart" mean a separate (non-flesh) existence? What do we do with (biblical!) Jewish bodily resurrection? Is that now exchanged for the 'new and improved' Greek (immortal soul) heavenly existence? Our problem increases when we come to a more shocking passage in Colossians:

"For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead."[10]

Have we already been raised from the dead when baptized into Christ Jesus? That is what Paul seems to be saying here. Here, it appears, that Paul has now made use of realized eschatology. There is no future resurrection; in fact, we already have been raised with Christ. Some scholars hold that Paul is here speaking metaphorically. The problem, however, is how do they know that? We cannot, when a verse suggests a different view, say that it is speaking 'metaphorically.' Can I not also, to turn the tables, say, "No, this verse speaks about what will actually happen. In fact, I Corinthians is speaking metaphorically!" It should be kept in mind that Colossians is one of Paul's latter letters (along with Ephesians). In Ephesians, Paul makes a more blunt statement: "But God…made us alive together with Christ…and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (2:4-6 NRSV). We have already been seated with Christ in Heaven! We have already been raised! Is Paul, as in Romans 6:5 and 8:11, speaking, again, metaphorically? If such is the suggestion, it may by-pass what we may call a 'change in Paul's thinking.' But it is not the only interpretation. That must be kept in mind. For all we know, if we read the Bible literally (!), Paul changed his mind. Some scholars, most notably C.H. Dodd, have proposed that Paul, in fact, did change his mind.^[11]

Our primary concern is not Paul's change of mind per se, it is also how Paul changed and reinterpreted Scripture. What I mean is this: Did not Paul change the 'dominant view' regarding Jewish bodily resurrection? And by what authority did he do that? Did not Paul contradict Jewish teaching (namely, Daniel 12:2) and substitute it with his own Hellenized thought? These are pressing questions which must be sufficiently dealt with when speaking about inspiration. If we choose to say that Paul did not change his mind, we must agree that he contradicted the dominant Jewish view regarding resurrection. And that, too, opens up Pandora's box.

If Scripture is given to us by God, which it is, how do we understand such changes and adaptations? I propose that we look at what Paul has done in a holistic manner. Let us suppose, for a minute, that Paul does not contradict anyone or anything; in fact, Paul is absolutely inerrant and inspired by God. On the other hand, Daniel and Ezekiel are also thoroughly inspired, too. How do we reconcile the two different views? I would suggest that we not be dogmatic in asserting that Daniel and Paul refer to the same event. Daniel 12:2 may refer to the resurrection of Jesus and those with Him who were raised (Matt. 27:52). While Paul may be, quite correctly, speaking about a different resurrection event, which is not bodily resurrection per se. God may have planned a different resurrection before the destruction of the entire world (second coming of Christ). Though I do admit that this is rather speculative, it allows us to understand the complexity of the matter at hand. In fact, Paul's present ideas are heavily misinterpreted and (rightly) misunderstood; for Paul writes vaguely and ambiguously (and maybe even metaphorically!).

[1] Not everyone will agree with this interpretation. But it is interesting to note 4:13-14 where Paul seems to be clarifying some earlier views; views that made no sense with the death of Christian members. Maybe he was the source of them, but that is not certain.

[2] 4:15-18 NRSV

[3] NRSV

[4] The problem with this word is that it can also be read maran atha, which would then mean, "Our Lord has come." Thus this does not cast much weight in my argument.

[5] 7:31 NRSV

[6] Romans 13:12 NRSV

[7] 2 Macc. 7:14 NRSV

[8] NRSV

[9] 21-24 NRSV

[10] Colossians 2:9-12 NRSV

[11] C.H. Dodd, "The Mind of Paul: I; and "The Mind of Paul: II" in New Testament Studies (Manchester: University Press, 1953), 67-82 and 83-128.