Add new comment

Andrew,

the “body is not meant for sexual immorality” (1 Cor. 6:13); the body will be raised up; Paul substitutes “body” for “flesh”

perhaps the “body” in view here is not the physical body of man.  Might it be a reference to the “body” of Christ?  Which would/could(?) drive it back to a kinship relation?  Another perspective it as follows.  I’m also not convinced that when Paul makes references to man’s “body” he has in mind the physical body, as we define it, but something else.  I once read John A.T. Robinson’s little book The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology which I need to go back and refresh my memory on, but he pointed out that from a Hebraic point of view (which he defends that Paul wrote from) that “man does not have a body, he is a body”.  If his assessment is correct than Paul would be referring more to the person, which would seem to allow the kinship sense to enter back into the picture rather than the physical aspect of man.

Have you ever read that book by Robinson?  Didn’t agree with some of his final conclusions towards the end, but very enlightening to say the least.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.