The Heart of the Gospel- The Resurrection

[Eleanor]

Let's take one error at a time, starting with this one: perishable does *not* mean sinful (as I'm sure you know), and your "perishable (due to sin)" is *your* interpretation. An interpretation that is *not* supported by the text.

Perishable is "to pass away, to die;" i.e., mortal.

We were made mortal by the sin of Adam.
We will be restored to immortality at the resurrection.

53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”

Note that both perishable and mortal are called "death" (mortal).

Do you not know the meaning of perishable and mortal?

Paul's contrast between the 'natural' non-resurrection body, and 'spiritual' resurrection body, is clearly between a perishable body (=as in mortal) vs an imperishable body (=as in immortal).
Your argument seems to be that the non-resurrection/natural body is perishable (mortal) "due to sin." Yet, this contradicts what Paul, himself, says earlier in the text:
"If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.

Paul is quoting Genesis 2.7
7 Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground [natural man] and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being [spiritual man].

Neither "natural man" nor "spiritual man" are in the Biblical text. On what authority do you add them?

Are not the sin and fall of Adam in your Bible?

The spiritual man is spiritual

More importantly, the "spiritual man" is not in the text of Ge 2:7.
On what authority do you add it?

God created both the natural man ("from the dust") and the spiritual man (that "became a living being") BEFORE the Fall.

That is your re-writing of the text for the sake of your theology.

That is not in the word of God in Ge 2:7.
Before you can ever understand the word of God correctly, you must stop making your personal unauthorized additions and/or subtractions to it.

 

[Josheb]

I haven't been tracking @Josheb.

Paul refers to the sinful nature as "the flesh," which would be the body (wherein the sinful nature resides).

Hi @Eleanor,

Yes! Paul does use the word "flesh" (Gk. = sarx) but no, there is no such thing as "sinful nature" as far as the specifics of scripture goes. The NIV and some of the dynamic equivalent English translations use that phrase but it's all ways sarx, and nowhere explicitly a phrase the Greek uses. I don't mean to split hairs, but I think it best to work first from what is specifically stated, uses scripture to render scripture and avoid extra-biblical phrases (especially any that are post-canonical doctrinal in nature).

Adam and Eve (A&E) were (presumably) made flesh.* God called everything He made the first six days "very good," (Gen. 1:31) thereby logically necessitating the conclusion the flesh A&E possessed was good. This is supported by the Romans 5 text that informs us it was by the disobedience of one man that sin entered the world. There was no sin in the world prior to the disobedience of one man. That act of disobedience can be found at Genesis 3:6. So... Adam (and Eve) had good and sinless flesh prior to Genesis 3:6. At Genesis 3:7 much had changed. They were no longer unashamed, they were no longer sinless, they were no longer good, they were no longer alive apart from sin, and any possibility they would not sin was non-existent. Furthermore, death would come to all people because all would sin. That possibility of not-sin was gone for everyone, not just A&E.

I won't go into detail here because it's extra-biblical, but when something as traumatic as the loss of goodness, unashamedness, and sinlessness occurs changes occur within the flesh of a person at a cellular level. The doctrine of "original sin" was decided centuries ago, long before the modern advances in biology. It was largely a theological position and one that has often been challenged by appeals to biology but, biologically, we now understand the biological protest is baeless because biology confirms an inescapable change right down to the very cells of a person. A&E were changed at a cellular level.

I'll add a third concern, again, one not explicitly stated in the words I'll use but one I think nearly every reader of the Bible will understand and except as an exegetically valid conclusion. The concern is that of communion versus estrangement. As the Genesis 3 account unfolds we find A&E hiding from God. This indicates a changing in their cognitive faculties by which they erroneously think the can hide from the Creator of all things. Hiding is shame-based behavior (Jn. 3:19), confirming what was stated in verse 7. Shame is an estranegment from oneself, an understand "I am something wrong," or "There is something wrong with me." So Adam is estranged from God and himself and tries foolishly to hide and not be honest or truthful. Then, when God provides an opportunity to be truthful and forthcoming Adam throws the bone of his bone under the proverbial bus, blaming both God and Eve for his deliberate wrongdoing. Eve follows suit blaming the serpent, and in the end God gives them over to their lusts and chases them out of Eden. They are estranged. They are estranged from God, estranged from themselves, estranged from others, and estranged from the creation (moments earlier they'd been divinely mandates stewards!).

So...

Adan and Eve are not-good and the not-goodness goes down the fiber of their being on a cellular level, manifesting as ontological and existential change they cannot recoup.

From the Trinitarian pov, Jesus is fully God and fully man, the logos of God made flesh (Jn. 1:14). Then there is Jesus. Jesus reported to be one who knew no sin. Jesus is the last Adam. Jesus has flesh and bone, even after death and resurrection. As God he cannot be tempted. As a human he is made as the pre-Genesis 3:6 human, not the post-Genesis 3:6 human. He cannot be made as a post-Genesis 3:6 human because that human knows sin on a cellular level, even if he does not know he knows it.

Apart from that there is not one other example of sinless flesh in the entire Bible.

And the reason that is important is because the interpretation our brother in Christ is suggesting is one nowhere else found in scripture. It would be the exception to the rule, not the rule, and an except based on a question-begging treatment of a single passage that supposedly defines itself apart from all other scripture.

And when I say "all other scripture," I don't mean merely the words written verbatim in scripture. There is no scripture explicitly stating "Not all human flesh beside pre-disobedient Adam and incarnate Jesus is sinful," but neither is there any precedent or example asserted in scripture. Instead, ALL have sinned and fall short of God's glory. Just as there are no humans on earth that do not have flesh, they are no humans that are not sinful.

1 Corinthians 15 is not an exception to the rule. 1 Corinthians 15 was written within the context of the well-established, repeatedly established, well-established, historically rooted inherent sinfulness of human flesh.

Dynamic equivalence translations call it "sin nature," which is an understandable and useful term, if not a very good translation of sarx.

I haven't been tracking @Josheb

Give the thread a read. The debate about the nature of "flesh" in 1 Cor. 15 began almost from the inception of the opening post. TB2's pov began with you at Post #24 and me at Post #40.










*I have traded posts with those who think A&E were not made flesh.

 

[Josheb]

And yet 1 Corinthians was written as an independent letter centuries before we had the completed, assembled Bible.

The first century Christians were not limited to the letters written to their locale. Neither was the early Christian's understanding of Christianity limited to the written letters. The completion of the Bible, the compiling of the sacred writings into a single volume is irrelevant. We have only two of the Corinthian letters but there were as many as five letters. The first one was written at least five years after Paul had visited Corinthin in person (Acts 18) and Paul made not have been the first person to preach the gospel there. According to the opening words of the first epistle the converts to Christ had already been enlightened in in speech, knowledge, gifts, and their testimony already established. The letter was not written in a vaccum and it was not read in a vacuum. It was not "independent."

Are you telling me it meant nothing on its own for centuries until we had the completed Bible?

Crooked question. The letter was never read apart from anything Paul, Aquila and Priscilla had already taught them when the three had visited. Nor was that letter read apart from what the Holy Spirit had taught them through the gifts it bestowed on those congregants. Neither was the letter read in isolation of the Jewish scriptures. One of the early converts in Corinth was the leader of the synagogue there, a man named Crispus. Not only did the early Church first meet in the outer courtyards of the local synagogues, but Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla were converted Jews and Paul used Tanakh throughout his epistles, including his first letter to the congregations in Corinth.

How then did the church at Corinth manage?

Crooked question.


More relevant factors are the fact that nowhere else in scripture does scripture ever report there has ever been a sinless person apare from the pre-disobedient Adam (and Eve) and the incarnate Jesus. Not only is it circular reasoning to interpret 1 Corinthians 15 only by itself; it's also question-begging. Exegetically, the premise that 1 Corinthians 15 can and should be read as one chapter completely different from everything else all scripture says in both word and precedent, the antithesis of exegesis, it makes the text the exception to the rule in direct contradiction to all else scripture repeatedly and consistently reports. Even if the Corinthians had not read the letters to Galatia or the Thessalonians (they likely had) nothing they correctly took from the text could contradict what was written elsewhere. To think so makes Paul contradict Paul, Paul contradict all the other apostles, and Paul contradict the whole of scripture (even if some of it hadn't yet been written).

1 Corinthians 15 cannot be taken to stand apart from all else that Tanakh says, nor to stand apart from all else that had been preached up to that point. Neither can it be read to contradict the letters that preceded it to other locales. Furthermore, unless it can be shown Paul changed his views, 1 Cor. 15 cannot be read to conflict with later-written letters.




All scripture speaks with as a cohesive whole to and about itself.

 

[TB2]

Perishable is "to pass away, to die;" i.e., mortal.

We were made mortal by the sin of Adam.
We will be restored to immortality at the resurrection

That's where we disagree. Whatever we may think about the 'sinful nature' that is not Paul's emphasis here in 1 Cor 15, and we can't force it to say what we want.

The entire focus is on the nature of the resurrection body. Paul starts by noting there are different types of bodies that God has created. God talks about the different bodies of different seeds, and the different celestial bodies, and in between those examples talks about the different types of body "flesh" and how human flesh is different from animals, and birds, and fish. Whatever Paul may say about 'flesh' elsewhere, here he is speaking of literal body flesh. The second reference to "flesh and blood" further confirms this, which is clearly a reference to the physical body.

Same thing with Paul's analogy to the natural and spiritual. What is the difference? The natural is formed from the dust of the earth, while the spiritual is of the Spirit. Whatever we may think about the sinful nature, that is not Paul's point here.

Just like the different bodies of seeds, and different flesh bodies of humans, animals, birds and fish, and the different types of celestial bodies, and the natural body that is formed from the dust of the ground, and the perishable body that is mortal, it is clearly all about the natural, physical, perishable mortal non -resurrection body contrasted with the spiritual (of the Spirit) imperishable, immortal resurrection body.

Even for sake of argument if we say that would include the sinful nature, that is not what Paul is teaching here.

According to Paul, the natural body in 1 Cor 15 is identified by fact that it is formed "from the dust of the earth"---which God created BEFORE the Fall. So at least in this passage in 1 Cor 15 natural does not equate with sinful but with the physical, perishable mortal body God *created* from the dust of the ground; which also matches the seeds, and celestial bodies, and different flesh bodies of humans, animals, birds and fish---all of which God created.

"42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven."

 

[TB2]

The first century Christians were not limited to the letters written to their locale. Neither was the early Christian's understanding of Christianity limited to the written letters. The completion of the Bible, the compiling of the sacred writings into a single volume is irrelevant. We have only two of the Corinthian letters but there were as many as five letters. The first one was written at least five years after Paul had visited Corinthin in person (Acts 18) and Paul made not have been the first person to preach the gospel there. According to the opening words of the first epistle the converts to Christ had already been enlightened in in speech, knowledge, gifts, and their testimony already established. The letter was not written in a vaccum and it was not read in a vacuum. It was not "independent."

Crooked question. The letter was never read apart from anything Paul, Aquila and Priscilla had already taught them when the three had visited. Nor was that letter read apart from what the Holy Spirit had taught them through the gifts it bestowed on those congregants. Neither was the letter read in isolation of the Jewish scriptures. One of the early converts in Corinth was the leader of the synagogue there, a man named Crispus. Not only did the early Church first meet in the outer courtyards of the local synagogues, but Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla were converted Jews and Paul used Tanakh throughout his epistles, including his first letter to the congregations in Corinth.

Crooked question.


More relevant factors are the fact that nowhere else in scripture does scripture ever report there has ever been a sinless person apare from the pre-disobedient Adam (and Eve) and the incarnate Jesus. Not only is it circular reasoning to interpret 1 Corinthians 15 only by itself; it's also question-begging. Exegetically, the premise that 1 Corinthians 15 can and should be read as one chapter completely different from everything else all scripture says in both word and precedent, the antithesis of exegesis, it makes the text the exception to the rule in direct contradiction to all else scripture repeatedly and consistently reports. Even if the Corinthians had not read the letters to Galatia or the Thessalonians (they likely had) nothing they correctly took from the text could contradict what was written elsewhere. To think so makes Paul contradict Paul, Paul contradict all the other apostles, and Paul contradict the whole of scripture (even if some of it hadn't yet been written).

1 Corinthians 15 cannot be taken to stand apart from all else that Tanakh says, nor to stand apart from all else that had been preached up to that point. Neither can it be read to contradict the letters that preceded it to other locales. Furthermore, unless it can be shown Paul changed his views, 1 Cor. 15 cannot be read to conflict with later-written letters.




All scripture speaks with as a cohesive whole to and about itself.

All that and yet you still haven't owned up to the fact you were in error and that 1 Cor 15.39 includes humans in a list of flesh types (along with animals, birds, and fish) that you said are created by God

 

[Eleanor]

Hi @Eleanor,

Yes! Paul does use the word "flesh" (Gk. = sarx) but no, there is no such thing as "sinful nature" as far as the specifics of scripture goes. The NIV and some of the dynamic equivalent English translations use that phrase but it's all ways sarx, and nowhere explicitly a phrase the Greek uses. I don't mean to split hairs, but I think it best to work first from what is specifically stated, uses scripture to render scripture and avoid extra-biblical phrases (especially any that are post-canonical doctrinal in nature).

Adam and Eve (A&E) were (presumably) made flesh.* God called everything He made the first six days "very good," (Gen. 1:31) thereby logically necessitating the conclusion the flesh A&E possessed was good. This is supported by the Romans 5 text that informs us it was by the disobedience of one man that sin entered the world. There was no sin in the world prior to the disobedience of one man. That act of disobedience can be found at Genesis 3:6. So... Adam (and Eve) had good and sinless flesh prior to Genesis 3:6. At Genesis 3:7 much had changed. They were no longer unashamed, they were no longer sinless, they were no longer good, they were no longer alive apart from sin, and any possibility they would not sin was non-existent. Furthermore, death would come to all people because all would sin.

That possibility of not-sin was gone for everyone, not just A&E.

Agreed.

I won't go into detail here because it's extra-biblical, but when something as traumatic as the loss of goodness, unashamedness, and sinlessness occurs changes occur within the flesh of a person at a cellular level. The doctrine of "original sin" was decided centuries ago, long before the modern advances in biology. It was largely a theological position and one that has often been challenged by appeals to biology but, biologically, we now understand the biological protest is baeless because biology confirms an inescapable change right down to the very cells of a person. A&E were changed at a cellular level.

Interesting.

I'll add a third concern, again, one not explicitly stated in the words I'll use but one I think nearly every reader of the Bible will understand and except as an exegetically valid conclusion. The concern is that of communion versus estrangement. As the Genesis 3 account unfolds we find A&E hiding from God. This indicates a changing in their cognitive faculties by which they erroneously think the can hide from the Creator of all things.

A leap too far for me. Nowhere stated and not necessary.

Hiding is shame-based behavior (Jn. 3:19), confirming what was stated in verse 7. Shame is an estranegment from oneself, an understand "I am something wrong," or "There is something wrong with me." So Adam is estranged from God and himself and tries foolishly to hide and not be honest or truthful. Then, when God provides an opportunity to be truthful and forthcoming Adam throws the bone of his bone under the proverbial bus, blaming both God and Eve for his deliberate wrongdoing. Eve follows suit blaming the serpent, and in the end God gives them over to their lusts and chases them out of Eden. They are estranged. They are estranged from God, estranged from themselves, estranged from others, and estranged from the creation (moments earlier they'd been divinely mandates stewards!).

So...
Adan and Eve are not-good and the not-goodness goes down the fiber of their being on a cellular level, manifesting as ontological and existential change they cannot recoup.

From the Trinitarian pov, Jesus is fully God and fully man, the logos of God made flesh (Jn. 1:14).

Jesus is not the "logos of God. He is the logos who is God.
Jesus never referred to himself as the Word of God, and nowhere in the NT is he ever called the Word of God.

Then there is Jesus. Jesus reported to be one who knew no sin. Jesus is the last Adam. Jesus has flesh and bone, even after death and resurrection. As God he cannot be tempted. As a human he is made as the pre-Genesis 3:6 human, not the post-Genesis 3:6 human. He cannot be made as a post-Genesis 3:6 human because that human knows sin on a cellular level, even if he does not know he knows it.

Apart from that there is not one other example of sinless flesh in the entire Bible.

Agreed.

And the reason that is important is because the interpretation our brother in Christ is suggesting is one nowhere else found in scripture. It would be the exception to the rule, not the rule, and an except based on a question-begging treatment of a single passage that supposedly defines itself apart from all other scripture.
And when I say "all other scripture," I don't mean merely the words written verbatim in scripture. There is no scripture explicitly stating "Not all human flesh beside pre-disobedient Adam and incarnate Jesus is sinful," but neither is there any precedent or example asserted in scripture. Instead, ALL have sinned and fall short of God's glory. Just as there are no humans on earth that do not have flesh, they are no humans that are not sinful.
1 Corinthians 15 is not an exception to the rule. 1 Corinthians 15 was written within the context of the well-established, repeatedly established, well-established, historically rooted inherent sinfulness of human flesh.

Dynamic equivalence translations call it "sin nature," which is an understandable and useful term, if not a very good translation of sarx.
Give the thread a read. The debate about the nature of "flesh" in 1 Cor. 15 began almost from the inception of the opening post. TB2's pov began with you at Post #24 and me at Post #40.

Wow! Thanks!

He doesn't understand Scripture and he can't because he won't accept the plain meaning of texts.

 

[TB2]

He doesn't understand Scripture and he can't because he won't accept the plain meaning of texts.

Again with the personal disparaging remarks. Disagree without being disagreeable

 

[Josheb]

All that and yet you still haven't owned up to the fact you were in error and that 1 Cor 15.39 includes humans in a list of flesh types (along with animals, birds, and fish)

It does not. I believe the sinless-flesh view the incorrect position. In point of fact the text clearly separate "the flesh of men" from the flesh of beasts, birds, and fish. They are NOT the same flesh. the same type of flesh, or identical or synonymous in any ways - especially not soteriologically. The reference to the flesh of men should not and cannot be read in any way that contradicts all the rest of scripture. It cannot be made the exception to the rule with self-reference.

that you said are created by God

Please do not misrepresent what I posted. I did say all flesh was created by God, but I ALSO stated the pre-disobedient flesh of Adam (Eve) is different than the post-disobedient flesh of sinful humanity. The former God made. The latter sin made and since all men have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, all post-Genesis 3:6 human flesh is sinful. The only exceptions found in scripture are the pre-Genesis 3:6 Adam and Eve and the incarnate Jesus.

The request for any other scriptural precedent has been ignored despite repeated inquiries.

All that and yet you still haven't owned up to...

Please keep the posts about the post and not the posters. Don't take an unnecessarily adversarial stance with me or I'll ignore the post. Try Eph, 4:29, Php. 2:3, instead.

 

[Josheb]

A leap too far for me. Nowhere stated and not necessary.

The mind of flesh is hostile to God; it does not and cannot please God. The thinking is futile in those who deny the power of God evident in what has been created and their hearts have been darked.

It is stated.

 

[Eleanor]

The mind of flesh is hostile to God; it does not and cannot please God. The thinking is futile in those who deny the power of God evident in what has been created and their hearts have been darked.

It is stated.

I was thinking in terms of what Adam and Eve knew about God before the Fall and after the Fall.
Finding it hard to see any loss of information about him.

 

[TB2]

With all due respect, then please don't misrepresent me. I believe I've been exceedingly clear about which of your comments I'm referring to.

This may be where the breakdown in exegesis and logic exists because God created the flesh Paul is referencing, but God did not create all types of flesh. Paul states there are different types of flesh and then cites a few examples (beasts, birds, flesh), none of which is human (or sinful). But Paul is not exhaustive, nor does he claim God made all types of flesh. The only other time Paul mentions "flesh" in that entire chapter is to say flesh and blood cannot enter the kingdom of God.

Animals are not humans. Animals do not need Jesus. Red herring of false equivalence. It's worth noting Paul mentioned beasts, birds, and fish..... but he did not mention human flesh. Not once. Beasts, birds, and fish would be examples of flesh that exists irrelevant of spirit/flesh, righteousness/sin and/or good/evil

But he does mention human flesh in the same list!! Listen, it's not a big deal. I miscite things too. But to insist you never said what you did and then to accuse me of misrepresentation, not cool.

And drawing attention to the fact that you had yet to address a point is not failing to "keep the posts about the post and not the posters," nor is it taking "an unnecessarily adversarial stance." If it is, then what do you call your relentlessly needling me to answer your question? (Which I DID answer on post #73 and also told you I *object* to the wording of your question).What do call it when you accuse me of "red herrings and false equivalence"? What do you call it when you tell me to "shed the bias?"

You tell me, which is more adversarial: me saying it's okay, "We can agree to disagree," or your response, "We could if a rational dissent was provided. There's no agreement of any kind with fiction." If someone said that to you, you wouldn't find that the least bit insulting, if I said you have yet to provide a 'rational dissent' and yours is a 'fiction?

I have been very polite to you, my friend. You and @Eleanor are the ones who are being dogmatically condescending and insisting that yours is the only correct way of seeing things, even though there are top notch scholars on the both sides of this.

Furthermore, Paul did not distinguish between human flesh on the one hand, and animals, birds, fish flesh on the other. Paul distinguished all four types from *each other*:

"38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 Not all flesh is the same: People have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another."

Four different kinds of flesh. To recognize that the bodies of different seeds and the different celestial bodies and the different flesh bodies of animals, birds and fish *all* are all referring to physical created things, but that human flesh is the sole exception amounts to special pleading.

To now say "The reference to the flesh of men should not and cannot be read in any way that contradicts all the rest of scripture. It cannot be made the exception to the rule with self-reference"--ignores the fact that the same word can be used to mean different things in different contexts like it clearly does here. That does not make it a contradiction in Scripture. When I brought this up to you before you got all bent out of shape and chastised me for supposedly making assumptions about you and putting words in your mouth and how you are well aware that flesh can mean different things in different contexts and that I would know this about you if I had seen some of your earlier posts.... And yet is this not what you're doing? Requiring 'flesh' to mean the same thing in the 'total' context of Scripture? And before you accuse me of failing to address the post instead of the poster, I'm serious. I find it confusing. I'm asking you to clarify. How can flesh mean different things in different contexts but must be the same thing in the 'total context' of Scripture?

Now as I've said, I am more than willing to be amicable (and non-adversarial) and can agree to disagree. Are you willing to do the same and recognize that even top scholars disagree on these things?

 

[Josheb]

I was thinking in terms of what Adam and Eve knew about God before the Fall and after the Fall.
Finding it hard to see any loss of information about him.

Can you be more specific? Am I to read that to say it is difficult to see any loss of information about God in Adam after Adam disobeyed God?

 

[Eleanor]

That's where we disagree. Whatever we may think about the 'sinful nature' that is not Paul's emphasis here in 1 Cor 15, and we can't force it to say what we want.

Not accepting the plain meaning of text in context of all of Paul.

Ir doesn't have to be his emphasis to include its meaning.
You put asunder what Paul joins.
Paul makes clear his meaning of human "flesh" in Gal 5:17, 24, 19-21, Eph 2:3, Ro 13:14, Gal 6:8, 12-13, Ro 7:5, 8:5-9.
Wherever Paul speaks of human flesh, that is the flesh to which he is referring.

The entire focus is on the nature of the resurrection body. Paul starts by noting there are different types of bodies that God has created. God talks about the different bodies of different seeds, and the different celestial bodies, and in between those examples talks about the different types of body "flesh" and how human flesh is different from animals, and birds, and fish. Whatever Paul may say about 'flesh' elsewhere, here he is speaking of literal body flesh. The second reference to "flesh and blood" further confirms this, which is clearly a reference to the physical body.

The resurrection spiritual body is also physical.

 

[Eleanor]

Again with the personal disparaging remarks. Disagree without being disagreeable.

I"m not responsible for disparaging facts.

 

[Eleanor]

Can you be more specific? Am I to read that to say it is difficult to see any loss of information about God in Adam after Adam disobeyed God?

Yes, it is difficult to see their "unseeing" what they formerly saw.

That their descendants never saw it is understandable.

 

[TB2]

Checked four different commentaries on 1 Corinthians 15 by Gordon Fee, Thomas Schreiner, Paul Gardner, and Anthony Thiselton. They all concur that the contrast is between the mortal non-resurrection body subject to decay vs the the immortal resurrection body. One commentary emphasized the point that the 'flesh' analogy is meant to be understood as the physical 'covering' of humans, animals, birds, and fish similar to how the body of the seeds is not the bare kernel that is sown, but the seed covering that results from the sowing. The point being that we are not meant to understand that the "flesh" will be destroyed, but transformed, and reconstituted by the Spirit. That is, our resurrection bodies will be the same flesh bodies but reconstituted flesh.

All four commentaries concur that 'flesh' is a reference to the mortal, physical flesh created by God. Three of the four noted how Paul's list of flesh examples comes from Genesis 1, and that whereas in Genesis 1 God creates fish then birds then animals then humans, that Paul reverses the order of this to humans, animals, birds, fish; further emphasizing that 'flesh' in 1 Cor 15.39 is indeed a reference to the different types of flesh created by God (including human flesh).

Thiselton's commentary does a great job bringing out the sense of Paul's meaning with the "natural" vs "spiritual" body, which can be very confusing to modern readers. To avoid this confusion, Thielston renders 1 Cor 15.44 "It is sown an ordinary human body, it is raised a body constituted by the Spirit," which more accurately conveys Paul's intended meaning to the modern reader (i.e., the difference is not between sinful vs sinless, but ordinary human body vs body reconstituted by the Spirit)

Thielston notes (what we all seem to agree on) that Paul's characteristic use of flesh (sarx) as exemplified in Romans and Galatians is a:

"heavily theological and ethical use of flesh [that] denotes a human mind-set of “trust in oneself as being able to procure life by the use of the earthly and through one’s own strength and accomplishment.” This use is far more characteristic of Paul, and in Galatians a “fleshly” mind-set can denote equally self-indulgent libertinism and making “religion” an end in itself for self-advantage (cf. Gal 3:3; 5:19-26; 6:1-6, 13, 14). In Gal 5:19 and 20 “the works of the flesh” include attitudes and actions which are not restricted to the realm of the physical or the sensual."

Thielston notes how Paul's characteristic use of flesh is *not* his usage here. Here, in 1 Cor 15.39 "flesh" "denotes the material that covers the bones of a human or animal body" or "the flesh substance common to human persons and to the animal kingdom."

Finally, Thielston notes that up to "seven distinct uses of the word flesh occur in the major Pauline epistles, and that confusion results when these are not held apart."

Thielston re-emphasizes this a second time, writing:

"flesh in Paul does not denote any “one general thing,” it serves as “a polymorphous concept, ” i.e., its meaning is always heavily context-dependent and variable. Hence Paul’s exposition of the varied context-dependent meanings even of flesh as substance (both human and animal, v. 39) paves the way admirably for his forceful argument that body (σῶμα) also depends on contextual and purposive factors for its meaning (v. 40)."

 

[Eleanor]

Checked four different commentaries on 1 Corinthians 15 by Gordon Fee, Thomas Schreiner, Paul Gardner, and Anthony Thiselton. They all concur that the contrast is between the mortal non-resurrection body subject to decay vs the the immortal resurrection body. One commentary emphasized the point that the 'flesh' analogy is meant to be understood as the physical 'covering' of humans, animals, birds, and fish similar to how the body of the seeds is not the bare kernel that is sown, but the seed covering that results from the sowing. The point being that we are not meant to understand that the "flesh" will be destroyed, but transformed, and reconstituted by the Spirit. That is, our resurrection bodies will be the same flesh bodies but reconstituted flesh.

All four commentaries concur that 'flesh' is a reference to the mortal, physical flesh created by God. Three of the four noted how Paul's list of flesh examples comes from Genesis 1, and that whereas in Genesis 1 God creates fish then birds then animals then humans, that Paul reverses the order of this to humans, animals, birds, fish; further emphasizing that 'flesh' in 1 Cor 15.39 is indeed a reference to the different types of flesh created by God (including human flesh).

Thiselton's commentary does a great job bringing out the sense of Paul's meaning with the "natural" vs "spiritual" body, which can be very confusing to modern readers. To avoid this confusion, Thielston renders 1 Cor 15.44 "It is sown an ordinary human body, it is raised a body constituted by the Spirit," which more accurately conveys Paul's intended meaning to the modern reader (i.e., the difference is not between sinful vs sinless, but ordinary human body vs body reconstituted by the Spirit)

Thielston notes (what we all seem to agree on) that Paul's characteristic use of flesh (sarx) as exemplified in Romans and Galatians is a:

"heavily theological and ethical use of flesh [that] denotes a human mind-set of “trust in oneself as being able to procure life by the use of the earthly and through one’s own strength and accomplishment.” This use is far more characteristic of Paul, and in Galatians a “fleshly” mind-set can denote equally self-indulgent libertinism and making “religion” an end in itself for self-advantage (cf. Gal 3:3; 5:19-26; 6:1-6, 13, 14). In Gal 5:19 and 20 “the works of the flesh” include attitudes and actions which are not restricted to the realm of the physical or the sensual."

Thielston notes how Paul's characteristic use of flesh is *not* his usage here. Here, in 1 Cor 15.39 "flesh" "denotes the material that covers the bones of a human or animal body" or "the flesh substance common to human persons and to the animal kingdom."

Finally, Thielston notes that up to "seven distinct uses of the word flesh occur in the major Pauline epistles, and that confusion results when these are not held apart."

Thielston re-emphasizes this a second time, writing:

"flesh in Paul does not denote any “one general thing,” it serves as “a polymorphous concept, ” i.e., its meaning is always heavily context-dependent and variable. Hence Paul’s exposition of the varied context-dependent meanings even of flesh as substance (both human and animal, v. 39) paves the way admirably for his forceful argument that body (σῶμα) also depends on contextual and purposive factors for its meaning (v. 40)."

I agree with all of the above.

Flesh, as the sinful nature which he refers to elsewhere, is not the point here.

Likewise, because that is not the point in 1 Co 15 does not mean it can be used to show that Paul did not regard the flesh (body) as sinful.

 

[TB2]

I agree with all of the above.

Flesh, as the sinful nature which he refers to elsewhere, is not the point here.

Likewise, because that is not the point in 1 Co 15 does not mean it can be used to show that Paul did not regard the flesh (body) as sinful.

Agreed, and I think that speaks to the importance of Thiselton's point about how context-specific Paul's use of "flesh" is.

 

[Eleanor]

Agreed, and I think that speaks to the importance of Thiselton's point about how context-specific Paul's use of "flesh" is.

Paul's use of everything is context specific.