Garland on When We Receive our Resurrection Bodies

I’ve recently started writing an exegetical paper on 2 Corinthians 5:1-10, and have become intrigued with David Garland’s interpretation of verse 1 in his NAC commentary. The verse is as follows:

“For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.”

The issue comes in understanding how to interpret the “If…then…” clause. Essentially, Paul is saying that “if we die, then we have a spiritual body,” which reflects his discussion on the resurrection body in 1 Corinthians 15. Garland, rightfully, equates the phrase “we have a building from God…” (οἰκοδομὴν ἐκ θεοῦ ἔχομεν) as referring to the resurrection body. I think this is obvious not only from Paul’s prior discussion of it in 1 Corinthians 15, but also the context of 2 Corinthians 4 (especially verse 14), as well as the thrust of New Testament hope in the new creation, which our resurrection body is a part of. So far, no problem for me.

The problem, or at least the intrigue, comes from Garland’s interpretation of the present tense “we have” (ἔχομεν). Against the idea that the present tense is used to convey the certainty and hope of the future resurrection of the dead at Christ’s second coming, he argues that “it is more probably that Paul understands the Christian to receive the resurrection body immediately at death,” and “[t]he present tense of ‘we have’ means that there is no homeless interlude between the destruction of the earthly tent house and the receiving the building from God.” Interestingly enough, he cites Murray J. Harris earlier work which Harris later claims in his NIGTC volume to now disagree with. Garland defends his view by saying “[i]t would be a small consolation to know that this heavenly dwelling is only another partial fulfillment of what is to come and one must wait in limbo until the consummation” (pg 251-252 for all above quotes).

This hardly seems to follow, however. The fact that the resurrection body would be attained at the parousia is hardly a “small consolation.” In fact, regardless of when it occurs, it is a glorious truth that presents hope in the present time. The fact that the present tense occurs within an “if” clause does not necessarily need to be read as “when we die, we immediately receive” either. Certainly, the hope of the golden chain of salvation is considered so guaranteed that Paul refers to our glorification in the past tense (Romans 8:28-30) - which most understand to occur at the parousia as well. Most commentators seem to understand this verse in light of the parousia, including Furnish (Anchor Bible Commentary), Barnett (NITNC), and others.

Here are my questions: What reasons would we have for accepting Garland’s position in light of the teaching of Scripture? Is this a popular understanding that I’ve somehow missed? What other thoughts do you have?