Would you say the sin nature/sinful nature is innate @TheologyNerd?
Thus saith the Apostle – by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men for that all have sinned, and Vs 14 death has reigned from Adam to Moses (and so down to us in our day) even over them that have not sinned after the similitude of Adams transgression.
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also came through a man. 22 For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
in Adam. T158, 1Co_15:45-49, Gen_2:17; Gen_3:6; Gen_3:19; Gen_5:5, *Jhn_5:21-29, Act_17:26, Rom_5:12-21. all die. FS171M, +Gen_6:12, 1Co_15:21, Gen_3:3; Gen_3:22-24; Gen_4:8, *Rom_5:12; *Rom_5:18; *Rom_5:19. in Christ. +Rom_8:1 note. shall all. FS171B, +Gen_24:10 note. There is absolutely nothing here to teach universal salvation. This passage only teaches a universal resurrection, a resurrection of the wicked as well as the righteous (see R. A. Torrey, The Fundamental Doctrines of the Christian Faith, p. 319). 2Co_5:14-15, +*1Ti_2:4. be made alive. +1Co_15:45, +*Isa_26:19 note. Dan_12:2, Hos_13:14, **Jhn_5:21; **Jhn_5:28; **Jhn_5:29; Jhn_6:57, Act_4:2, Rom_4:17; +*Rom_8:11; Rom_14:8.
1Co 15:22 For as ὥσπερ indeed γὰρ in ἐν - τῷ Adam Ἀδὰμ all πάντες die, ἀποθνήσκουσιν, so οὕτως also καὶ in ἐν - τῷ Christ Χριστῷall πάντες will be made alive. ζωοποιηθήσονται.
Latin Vulgate (Jerome, 382-405 CE)
“And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive”
In Adam omnes moriuntur (in Adam all die) — alongside Romans 5:12, this verse grounded the Western doctrine of original sin: all humanity dies in Adam because all share in Adam’s sin. The parallel in Christo omnes vivificabuntur (in Christ all will be made alive) shaped the Adam-Christ typology central to Western soteriology.
This is just between me and you and would appreciate how you understand, from a Lutheran perspective, these verses.
Confusion, confusion, confusion. That’s all that men’s terms like “sin nature” represents. The KJV translates properly the idea Paul taught in Romans 7 about the “law of sin” in connection with the flesh. Satan’s host, which have crept into positions within the Christian seminaries, and in Church pulpits, want us to believe our flesh can be immortal when God’s Word teaches it will be destroyed along with this present world.
Think about it. Satan wants to be the god of this present world with man in the flesh. Thus he exalts the flesh and its things. Yet God’s Kingdom that will manifest with Christ’s future coming will not involve our flesh, as Paul showed we shall all be changed to the “spiritual body” on the “last trump” per 1 Cor.15:49-54.
Just a couple of points that caught my attention. " Satan wants to be the god of this present world with man in the flesh." He does not want to be. He is. The Bible makes this very clear. Jesus even said he is. I get the point, though, and it is a brilliant point that Satan uses the very “church” to further separate us from God. This is why all these false churches are popping up all over the place. Some have always been here, but the increase lately is astounding.
Paul showed that we shall all be changed to the “spiritual body” on the “last trump.” Actually, not a spiritual body. Let’s look at the text.
"Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven. I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I’ll tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.
For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
Not a spiritual body, but a new imperishable body. Remember, we will not be up there living in heaven forever. The new Heaven and the new Earth will be created, so we will still need a body to exist in them.
Think of Jesus. Crucified, yet raised in the flesh. From a perishable body to His imperishable one. One in which you still eat, drink, live, and feel. Then we saw Him ascend in the same body.
Since I had a head-on car crash, I look forward to no more pain, sickness, or sorrow. I’m pretty sure you do too.
Peter
Peter, I agree with almost everything you’ve written. The only point I’d qualify is where you say, “Actually, not a spiritual body.”
Paul explicitly says, “It is raised a spiritual body” (1 Cor. 15:44). So I don’t think we should avoid Paul’s own wording. The question is what he means by “spiritual.”
The contrast isn’t between a physical body and a non-physical one, but between a body suited to this present age (σῶμα ψυχικόν) and a glorified body fully animated and empowered by the Holy Spirit (σῶμα πνευματικόν). It’s still a σῶμα, a body.
I think your strongest point is actually the context. Paul repeatedly says, “this corruptible must put on incorruption” and “this mortal must put on immortality” (vv. 53–54). The emphasis is on transformation, not replacement.
And as you rightly point out, Christ is the pattern. His tomb was empty. The same body that was crucified was raised, glorified, could be touched, could eat, and yet was no longer subject to death. Paul says our bodies will be conformed to His glorious body (Phil. 3:21), so our hope is not to become disembodied spirits but to be raised in glorified, imperishable bodies fit for the new heavens and the new earth.
NASB, NRSV,
NJB “perishable. . .imperishable”
NKJV "corruptible. . .incorruptible
TEV “mortal. . .immortal”
Often this term is used in the same context as its negated opposite (cf. Rom_1:23; 1Co_9:25; 1Co_15:50; 1Co_15:53). Notice the parallel contrasts between our earthly physical bodies and our heavenly eternal bodies.
corruptible vs. incorruptible, 1Co_15:42; 1Co_15:50
dishonor vs. glory, 1Co_15:43
weakness vs. power, 1Co_15:43
natural body vs. spiritual body, 1Co_15:44
first Adam vs. last Adam, 1Co_15:45
image of the earthly vs. image of the heavenly, 1Co_15:49
1Co 15:35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”
1Co 15:36 You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
1Co 15:37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain.
1Co 15:38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body.
1Co 15:39 For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish.
1Co 15:40 There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another.
1Co 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
1Co 15:42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable.
1Co 15:43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.
1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1Co 15:46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.
1Co 15:48 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.
1Co 15:49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
1Co 15:44 It is sown σπείρεται a natural ψυχικόν, body; σῶμα it is raised ἐγείρεται a spiritual πνευματικόν. body. σῶμα If Εἰ there is ἔστιν a natural ψυχικόν, body, σῶμα there is ἔστιν also καὶ a spiritual. πνευματικόν.
What body will we receive?
A spiritual body (v. 44).
What is that body like?
Imperishable.
Glorious.
Powerful.
Immortal.
Why?
Because it is conformed to the resurrected Christ, the “last Adam” (vv. 45–49).
Well, we do not become disembodied ghosts, and we absolutely need a physical, tangible body to live on the New Earth. Do we not?
I think you are interpreting the word “spiritual” in verse 44 as that. Perhaps you are reading it to mean made of spirit (like smoke or a ghost). But that is not how Paul uses the word at all.
To see what Paul means, we have to look at the two Greek words he contrasts in verse 44. Natural Body (Sōma Psychikon): This literally means a “soul-governed” or “breath-driven” body. It’s the physical body we have right now, powered by blood, oxygen, and natural biological processes. It gets tired, gets sick, and decays.
Then you have or will have a Spiritual Body (Sōma Pneumatikon). This does not mean a body made of spirit. It means a body “Spirit-driven” or “Spirit-powered.” Think of it like a car. If you have a “gasoline car” and an “electric car,” the word describes what powers the car, not what the car is made of. The electric car isn’t made of pure electricity; it’s still made of steel, glass, and rubber, but its power source has changed.
Our current bodies are powered by natural biology (psychikon). Our resurrection bodies will be fully physical, but completely powered and sustained by the Holy Spirit (pneumatikon). That is why it becomes imperishable, glorious, and powerful!
Then you have this fact that Scripture tells us that our resurrection bodies will be exactly like Jesus’ resurrection body (Philippians 3:21). So, to see what a “spiritual body” looks like, we just have to look at Jesus after He rose from the dead. No?
God is not destroying the physical universe to trap us in a foggy cloud-heaven forever. Revelation 21 and 22 tell us that God is creating a New Heaven and a New Earth, and that the New Jerusalem will physically descend to the earth. There will be a literal city with gates and foundations. There will be a literal river and literal trees yielding fruit.
God’s people will reign on the earth. You cannot walk on a New Earth, eat from the Tree of Life, or build a kingdom as a disembodied ghost. God created humans to be a perfect union of physical body and spiritual soul. Death tears them apart; Resurrection puts them back together permanently.
Or perhaps you are in the camp of "Absent the body, present with the Lord which means spirit in Heaven, then new body on the new earth? No argument, perhaps I’m wrong. Just curious about your view.
Peter
Peter, I think we’re actually in agreement on nearly everything you’ve written, which is why I’m struggling to see where you think we differ.
I have never argued that a “spiritual body” is a ghost-like body, a body made of spirit, or a disembodied existence. In fact, I’ve argued the exact opposite.
Paul explicitly says, σῶμα πνευματικόν (“spiritual body”) in 1 Corinthians 15:44. The noun is still σῶμα (“body”). The adjective πνευματικόν qualifies the body; it does not negate it. That has been my point from the beginning.
Where I think you’ve misunderstood me is that you’re treating “spiritual body” and “imperishable body” as though they are alternative descriptions. They aren’t. They are cumulative descriptions of the same resurrection body.
Look at Paul’s flow of thought:
v.42 - sown perishable, raised imperishable.
v.43 - sown in dishonour, raised in glory.
v.43 -sown in weakness, raised in power.
v.44 - sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body.
Those are four parallel contrasts describing one resurrection body.
Then in verses 50–54 Paul doesn’t abandon “spiritual body” in favour of “imperishable body.” He simply continues describing that same resurrection body by emphasizing its victory over death:
this perishable puts on imperishability;
this mortal puts on immortality.
So “spiritual,” “imperishable,” “glorious,” “powerful,” and “immortal” are not competing ideas. They are all characteristics of the one resurrection body.
I also agree entirely that Christ’s resurrection is the pattern. Philippians 3:21 says our lowly body will be conformed to His glorious body. His tomb was empty. The same body that was crucified was raised, glorified, could be touched, could eat, and yet was no longer subject to death.
Likewise, I agree that Revelation 21–22 presents a renewed creation in which redeemed humanity dwells bodily. Our hope is not eternal disembodied existence but bodily resurrection.
So I’m honestly not sure what position you’re arguing against, because it isn’t the one I’ve presented.
If anything, my only caution would be not to replace Paul’s own language. When Paul says “it is raised a spiritual body” (v.44), I think we should retain that expression and then define it biblically, rather than saying, “Actually, not a spiritual body, but an imperishable body.” Paul himself says it is both. The body is spiritual because it is fully fitted for the age of the Spirit, and it is imperishable because death has forever lost its hold on it.
I think if we simply let Paul’s argument unfold as he wrote it, there is no tension to resolve.
The underlying issue here is one of reading Paul’s discourse as a whole. You seem to isolate verses 53–54 (“imperishable”) and use them to reinterpret verse 44 (“spiritual”). Paul doesn’t do that. Verses 53–54 are not a correction of verse 44; they are the climax of the same argument.
I think you’re actually restating what I’ve been saying rather than responding to what I’ve written. It feels as though you’re answering a position I haven’t taken.
And…
… yes, I am “in that camp.” I believe that when a believer is absent from the body, they are immediately in the presence of Christ Jesus (2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23). That, however, is not the believer’s final hope. Our ultimate hope remains the resurrection of the body at Christ’s return and eternal life in the new heavens and the new earth.
So I don’t think we’re as far apart as your reply suggests.
That’s why the structure is so important:
Nature of the resurrection body: spiritual (v. 44).
Qualities of the resurrection body: imperishable, glorious, powerful, immortal (vv. 42–43, 53–54).
Pattern of the resurrection body: Christ Himself (vv. 45–49; Phil. 3:21).
There’s more, but this should suffice.
Brother @KPuff your input here would be appreciated.
I’m not sure I want into this discussion, but I will offer a reminder about developing a dogmatic opinon on some issue. Being dogmatic for The Truth is laudable, but we all should remind oursleves that much of any dogma that we believe is actually subconsciously built from our own experiences and environments.
There is a human phenomenon that should be considered when we begin to feel “dogmatic” on a Biblical subject, and that is the phenomenon of “cognitive shortcuts” Our wonderful human mind uses built-in pattern recognition, narrative construction, and cognitive rigidity to fill in blanks in our ideology where no actual facts exist. This ability is not a defect, but a glorious human asset, making a whole rational idea out of mere fragmentary facts. Our brain subconsciously constructs a world that makes sense by filling in what we cannot actually experience with inferences and memories of experiences we have had. Instead of processing every piece of objective data, the brain relies on pre-existing beliefs, prior experiences, and tribal affiliations to effortlessly fabricate missing information. What appears to us as a whole picture is really 80% to 90% fabrication, our subconscious minds connecting the pieces with assumptions. This is true of our visual perception as well. It is the whole picture, not just the fragments of facts that we consider to be reality. Kant explored this in his most famous work, “Critique of Pure Reason” and many neuroscientists have advanced his theory with scientific research. The bottom line is, what we believe is reality is not the actual world around us (Kant’s “Noumena”), but a clever construction of your own mind into a solid belief that makes sense to you (phenomena). “We do not see the world as it is; we see it as we are.”1 This can also be said about our personal dogmas. We have collected facts from the Holy Scripture, but our minds string them together with assumptions, some valid, and some less so. A well done contemporary expose on this subject is written by E. Randolph Richards, and Brandon J. O’Brien called Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes. Richards states that things that were clear to the original readers of Scripture are not always clear to us. Because of the cultural distance between the biblical world and our contemporary setting, we often bring modern Western biases to the text. This is worth the time and effort to read for any serious student of The Bible.
Respectfully
KP
Peter Gärdenfors Ph.D. What Is a Human?
Kant splits reality into two domains, Phenomena vs. Noumena. Phenomena comprise the world as humans perceive it through the lens of space and time. Noumena represent “things-in-themselves,” the ultimate objective reality that remains inherently unknowable to human reason
…At the same time, however, there are a number of significant weaknesses. I shall pinpoint four main areas.
First, the bulk of the book’s examples are based on Richards’ experience in Indonesia; however, Indonesia is not Israel in biblical times. Moreover, much of Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes is taken up with the idea of cultural distinctiveness as such. This is a necessary part of the hermeneutical process, but it’s not immediately relevant to the title of the book. As examples of cultural difference, Richards’ recollections of his Indonesian experiences serve to effectively open the question of cultural difference between the world of the Bible and that of the modern West. Nevertheless, the book contains so many that at times it seems more a manual for an intending missionary in Indonesia.
Second, there are a number of lexicographical assertions that are at best highly questionable. In chapter six, the authors draw a fine distinction between words for time such as chronos (which they consider to represent clock time) and kairos (referring to the appropriateness or fittingness of events). Again, we’re told that in the Bible there are four kinds of love, agape love being distinctive. Such assertions were often made in the past but have been undermined by the work of scholars such as James Barr. Perhaps it is significant that Barr isn’t mentioned. That this is no isolated mistake is made clear by the claim that a culture’s thought patterns are reflected in its lexical stock (138-145), a key point also challenged by Barr.
Third, there appears to be a theological deficit. The lack of a coherent covenantal framework leads to a certain relativizing of the law of God, seen in a polarity between law and relationships, with Scripture focusing on the latter rather than the former. This, however, is a false conflict. Adam’s disobedience to the law of God was simultaneously a breach of his covenantal relation to him, a breach demonstrated by his violation of the law God had given. This unfortunate dichotomy repeats itself in a similar polarity between the individual and the collective. Certainly, the West has lost its grasp of the corporate element so vital in understanding Scripture. Nevertheless, the biblical revelation of the corporate—Israel, the church, in Christ—is where the individual flourishes, and non-Western cultures where the individual is submerged by the group are no nearer to biblical balance than is the West.
Finally, Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes is influenced by Krister Stendahl’s thesis on the introspective conscience of the West, influenced (so the story goes) by Augustine. In contrast, Richards and O’Brien argue that the biblical authors had no problems with guilty consciences. David had no pangs of guilt about having Uriah effectively eliminated due to his adultery. His actions were culturally acceptable for a king. It was only when confronted by Nathan the prophet that he was brought to realize the gravity of his sin. Perhaps the authors should read carefully Psalm 32 and kindred passages. Since, as seems probable, the psalms were widely used in Israel’s liturgy, it would appear the effects of suppressed and unconfessed sin aren’t peculiar to the post-Augustinian Western world at all.
Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes is useful if used wisely by knowledgeable readers.
Sorry, brother. I won’t tag you again. I’ll continue to let the inspired text remain the primary authority, following its grammar, syntax, context, and argument wherever they lead. Your interpretive framework is sufficiently distinct that it deserves to stand or fall on its own exegetical merits.
I have to disagree about the idea of “spiritual body”, it is one made up of spirit, and not physical matter…
1 Cor 15:44
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
KJV
NT:4152 pneumatikos (pnyoo-mat-ik-os’); from NT:4151; non-carnal, i.e. (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concretely), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious:
When we put off the flesh body, we will never need it anymore. And Hebrews 4:12 defines our makeup that we have a flesh body, a spirit, and a soul. Our spirit with soul is from the Heavenly dimension of Spirit, from God Who gave it. But our flesh body is from the material elements of the earth, which is a different dimension.
Ecclesiastes 12:5-7 even reveals there exists an invisible “silver cord” that keeps our spirit and soul attached to our flesh body. And if that “silver cord” is loosed, or severed, the our flesh goes back to the earthly elements where it came from, but our spirit with soul goes back to God Who gave it. And in Matthew 10:28, Jesus showed our soul is non-material, of the Heavenly order, as did Apostle Paul also in 2 Corinthians 5.
That is what God’s written Word teaches about it, even though it tends to scare a lot of brethren who cannot dream of being without a flesh body.
Oh, and by the way. The idea that the future resurrection is to a new flesh body is from old Jewish traditions of how they interpret the Genesis 2:7 creation of Adam. They believe the soul is part of our flesh, and thus dies with our flesh and both our flesh and the soul are resurrected together. That is not what The New Testament teaches. Not what Ecclesiastes 12:5-7 teaches either.
Nor does a new flesh body align with what Apostle Paul said here…
1 Cor 15:48-50
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
KJV
Brother, throughout 1 Corinthians, can you point me to a single place where Paul uses πνευματικός to mean “composed of spirit” rather than “characterized or governed by the Holy Spirit”? If not, on what exegetical basis do you assign that meaning to σῶμα πνευματικόν in chapter 15?
And…
If the resurrection body is not physical, why did Paul spend the entire chapter arguing for the resurrection of the body rather than the immortality of the soul?
Whether I have read a particular work is actually secondary to the point at issue. My concern is methodological rather than bibliographical.
You suggest I have missed the forest by focusing on one tree. I would suggest the opposite: the validity of the forest is ultimately determined by the strength of its constituent trees. If an argument is presented in support of a thesis, then each argument must be capable of standing on its own exegetical merits.
My interest, therefore, is not in weighing theological traditions or surveying competing systems, but in asking whether a particular conclusion arises from the text itself. That remains the controlling question for me.
So rather than discussing the pedigree of an argument or the breadth of the literature, I would much rather examine the grammatical, syntactical, and contextual evidence of the relevant passages. If the exegesis is sound, it will stand regardless of whose name appears on the cover.
OK. Understood.
My question was “Did you read the book you critiqued?” If not, why trust R. Letham’s evaluation as valid? If, as you say, “the validity of the forest is ultimately determined by the strength of its constituent trees” have you examined the tree? How would you know if “an argument presented in support of a thesis,” IS “capable of standing on its own exegetical merits” if you haven’t examined the argument.
I mean no disrepect. I am simply validating your critique by your own standards. I have read the book, and although it does not bear the authority of scripture, I found the thesis valid and profitable as two authors admonishemnts to be more careful and exegetical in ones personal Bible Study. A thesis I expected you to wholeheartedly support.
Yes, and so am I. I’m genuinely confused by what appears to be a persistent need to prove your position… Instead of taking the discussion to a private message, you’ve chosen to continue it publicly. Whether that was your intention or not, it comes across to me as unnecessarily confrontational. That is my perception
The issue is not whether I have read every work that enters the discussion, but whether the claims being advanced can be substantiated from Scripture. Secondary literature has its place, but it is never the final arbiter of theological truth.
I have my own sources through which I engage the Scriptures, including works that intentionally approach the biblical text through its Ancient Near Eastern and Second Temple context. My interest is not in accumulating an ever-expanding bibliography, but in pursuing sound exegesis.
The critique was not intended as a comprehensive review of Richards and O’Brien’s work, nor was it dependent upon it. Rather, my concern was with the hermeneutical trajectory being discussed. Those are two different matters.
At some point, prolonged exchanges over which authors have or have not been read become a distraction from the substantive issue. I have little interest in a protracted discussion about bibliographies when the primary question remains, does a given interpretation arise from the grammar, syntax, literary context, and canonical argument of the biblical text?
That is the standard by which I evaluate every theological claim, irrespective of whether it comes from Augustine, Calvin, Harwood, Richards and O’Brien, or any other scholar.
You are heard, I understand.
I have no desire to “prove my position”. You asked for my input. I did not intend to be “confrontational”. I’m sorry I put you in that position. You’ll hear no more from me on this subject.
The sin nature is that aspect in humanity that makes us rebellious against God. When we speak of the sin nature, we refer to the fact that we have a natural inclination to sin; given the choice to do God’s will or our own, we will naturally choose to do our own thing.
Proof of the sin nature abounds. No one has to teach a child to lie or be selfish; rather, we go to great lengths to teach children to tell the truth and put others first. Sinful behavior comes naturally. The news is filled with tragic examples of mankind acting badly. Wherever people are, there is trouble. Charles Spurgeon said, “As the salt flavors every drop in the Atlantic, so does sin affect every atom of our nature. It is so sadly there, so abundantly there, that if you cannot detect it, you are deceived.”
The Bible explains the reason for the trouble. Humanity is sinful, not just in theory or in practice but by nature. Sin is part of the very fiber of our being. The Bible speaks of “sinful flesh” in Romans 8:3. It’s our “earthly nature” that produces the list of sins in Colossians 3:5. And Romans 6:6 speaks of “the body ruled by sin.” The flesh-and-blood existence we lead on this earth is shaped by our sinful, corrupt nature.
The sin nature is universal in humanity. All of us have a sinful nature, and it affects every part of us. This is the doctrine of total depravity, and it is biblical. All of us have gone astray (Isaiah 53:6). Paul admits that “the trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin” (Romans 7:14). Paul was in his “sinful nature a slave to the law of sin” (Romans 7:25). Solomon concurs: “Indeed, there is no one on earth who is righteous, / no one who does what is right and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20). The apostle John perhaps puts it most bluntly: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8).
Even children have a sin nature. David rues the fact that he was born with sin already at work within him: “Surely I was sinful at birth, / sinful from the time my mother conceived me” (Psalm 51:5). Elsewhere, David states, “Even from birth the wicked go astray; / from the womb they are wayward, spreading lies” (Psalm 58:3).
Where did the sin nature come from? Scripture says that God created humans good and without a sinful nature: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). However, Genesis 3 records the disobedience of Adam and Eve. By that one action, sin entered into their nature. They were immediately stricken with a sense of shame and unfitness, and they hid from God’s presence (Genesis 3:8). When they had children, Adam’s image and likeness was passed along to his offspring (Genesis 5:3). The sin nature manifested itself early in the genealogy: the very first child born to Adam and Eve, Cain, became the very first murderer (Genesis 4:8).
From generation to generation, the sin nature was passed down to all of humanity: “Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12). This verse also presents the unsettling truth that the sin nature leads inexorably to death (see also Romans 6:23 and Ephesians 2:1).
Other consequences of the sin nature are hostility toward God and ignorance of His truth. Paul says, “The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God” (Romans 8:7–8). Also, “the person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:14).
There is only one Person in the history of the world who did not have a sin nature: Jesus Christ. His virgin birth allowed Him to enter our world while bypassing the curse passed down from Adam. Jesus then lived a sinless life of absolute perfection. He was “the Holy and Righteous One” (Acts 3:14) who “had no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). This allowed Jesus to be sacrificed on the cross as our perfect substitute, “a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19). John Calvin puts it in perspective: “For certainly, Christ is much more powerful to save than Adam was to ruin.”
It is through Christ that we are born again. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6). When we are born of Adam, we inherit his sin nature; but when we are born again in Christ, we inherit a new nature: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (2 Corinthians 5:17).
We don’t lose our sin nature once we receive Christ. The Bible says that sin remains in us and that a struggle with that old nature will continue as long as we are in this world. Paul bemoaned his own personal struggle in Romans 7:15–25. But we have help in the battle—divine help. The Spirit of God takes up residence in each believer and supplies the power we need to overcome the pull of the sin nature within us. “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God” (1 John 3:9). God’s ultimate plan for us is total sanctification when we see Christ (1 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 John 3:2).
…here Paul does not contrast physical versus spiritual. He contrasts ψυχικός (psychikos) and πνευματικός (pneumatikos). Throughout 1 Corinthians, πνευματικός never means “made of spirit.” It means belonging to, characterized by, or governed by the Spirit (e.g., 2:13, 15; 3:1; 10:3–4; 12:1). If that is Paul’s consistent usage, and it is, so the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming that in chapter 15 he suddenly changes the meaning to “immaterial.” The immediate context gives no indication that he does. On the contrary, he repeatedly speaks of the same body being raised, transformed, and clothed with immortality.
tc ‡ A few significant witnesses have the future indicative φορέσομεν (phoresomen, “we will bear”; B I 6 630 1881 al sa) instead of the aorist subjunctive φορέσωμεν (phoresōmen, “let us bear”; P46 א A C D F G Ψ 075 0243 33 1739 Maj latt bo). If the original reading is the future tense, then “we will bear” would be a guarantee that believers would be like Jesus (and unlike Adam) in the resurrection. If the aorist subjunctive is original, then “let us bear” would be a command to show forth the image of Jesus, i.e., to live as citizens of the kingdom that believers will one day inherit. The future indicative is not widespread geographically. At the same time, it fits the context well: Not only are there indicatives in this section (especially vv. 42-49), but the conjunction καί (kai) introducing the comparative καθώς (kathōs) seems best to connect to the preceding by furthering the same argument (what is, not what ought to be). For this reason, though, the future indicative could be a reading thus motivated by an early scribe. In light of the extremely weighty evidence for the aorist subjunctive, it is probably best to regard the aorist subjunctive as autographic. This connects well with v. 50, for there Paul makes a pronouncement that seems to presuppose some sort of exhortation. G. D. Fee (First Corinthians [NICNT], 795) argues for the originality of the subjunctive, stating that “it is nearly impossible to account for anyone’s having changed a clearly understandable future to the hortatory subjunctive so early and so often that it made its way into every textual history as the predominant reading.” The subjunctive makes a great deal of sense in view of the occasion of 1 Corinthians. Paul wrote to combat an over-realized eschatology in which some of the Corinthians evidently believed they were experiencing all the benefits of the resurrection body in the present, and thus that their behavior did not matter. If the subjunctive is the correct reading, it seems Paul makes two points:
(1) that the resurrection is a bodily one, as distinct from an out-of-body experience, and (2) that one’s behavior in the interim does make a difference (see 15:32-34, 58). 1Cor 15 | ESV | STEP | Now I would remind you , brothers , of the gospel I preached to you , which you received , in which you stand ,).
No need for your kind of analysis, because the English translation of what Paul said is plenty good enough. He referred to the type body of the heavenly order, which you want to claim is a flesh body? What craziness is that? Don’t expect much response from me with your attempt to change what the Scriptures say in simplicity, and not just with this topic but with other Bible topics also.
You’ve been duped. Paul was speaking of the ‘resurrection body’, which according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 is… a “spiritual body” which is not… the flesh body, and not even a modification of our flesh body like you are trying to insert into the Scripture. One can see that you are still on that old Jewish tradition of thinking Salvation involves our flesh.
1 Cor 15:42-45
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; 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. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
What is that “It” which is sown in corruption of a flesh body? And what is that “It” that is raised in glory that is sown in weakness of the flesh, but raised in power? That “It” is about our spirit with soul that dwells inside our flesh body of corruption. The “spiritual body” is a body of incorruption, not flesh since it is indeed of that other dimension of spirit.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
KJV
The first man, Adam, was made a living soul by his spirit/soul sown into a body of corruption, i.e., the flesh body. His flesh did not become a soul, nor a spirit. Only Jesus’ flesh body was transfigured to a “quickening spirit”. Our flesh won’t be.
And Apostle Paul confirms the existence of a separate spirit body later on in 2 Corinthians 5…
2 Cor 5:1-6
5 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
4 For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
5 Now He That hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, Who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
KJV