Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 15:39
All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind] [of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.
39. All flesh is not the same flesh ] The same principle is now applied to animate which has been applied to inanimate nature. There are different varieties and forms of bodily life ( ). The Apostle in this and the two following verses lays down the doctrine (see note on 1Co 15:42) that the life hereafter will depend in every way upon the life here; that the body raised will correspond to the body sown; that the character impressed upon it during this life will remain with it throughout eternity. And this not merely in the broad general distinction between good and bad (see Gal 6:7-8) but in the minuter shades of individual character. Recent editors, following the best MSS. and versions, place fishes in their proper place, last in the text, as in zoological order.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
All flesh is not the same flesh – This verse and the following are designed to answer the question 1Co 15:35, with what bodies do they come? And the argument here is, that there are many kinds of bodies; that all are not alike; that while they are bodies, yet they partake of different qualities, forms, and properties; and that, therefore, it is not absurd to suppose that God may transform the human body into a different form, and cause it to be raised up with somewhat different properties in the future world. Why, the argument is, why should it be regarded as impossible? Why is it to be held that the human body may not undergo a transformation, or that it will be absurd to suppose that it may be different in some respects from what it is now? Is it not a matter of fact that there is a great variety of bodies even on the earth? The word flesh here is used to denote body, as it often is. 1Co 5:5; 2Co 4:11; 2Co 7:1; Phi 1:22, Phi 1:24; Col 2:5; 1Pe 4:6.
The idea here is, that although all the bodies of animals may be composed essentially of the same elements, yet God has produced a wonderful variety in their organization, strength, beauty, color, and places of abode, as the air, earth, and water. It is not necessary, therefore, to suppose that the body that shall be raised shall be precisely like that which we have here. It is certainly possible that there may be as great a difference between that and our present body, as between the most perfect form of the human frame here and the lowest repthe. It would still be a body, and there would be no absurdity in the transformation. The body of the worm; the chrysalis, and the butterfly is the same. It is the same animal still. Yet how different the gaudy and frivilous butterfly from the creeping and offensive caterpillar! So there may be a similar change in the body of the believer, and yet be still the same. Of a sceptic on this subject we would ask, whether, if there had been a revelation of the changes which a caterpillar might undergo before it became a butterfly – a new species of existence adapted to a new element, requiring new food, and associated with new and other beings – if he had never seen such a transformation, would it not be attended with all the difficulty which now encompasses the doctrine of the resurrection? The sceptic would no more have believed it on the authority of revelation than he will believe the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. And no infidel can prove that the one is attended with any more difficulty or absurdity than the other.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 39. All flesh is not the same flesh] Though the organization of all animals is, in its general principles, the same, yet there are no two different kinds of animals that have flesh of the same flavour, whether the animal be beast, fowl, or fish. And this is precisely the same with vegetables.
In opposition to this general assertion of St. Paul, there are certain people who tell us that fish is not flesh; and while their religion prohibits, at one time of the year, the flesh of quadrupeds and fowls, it allows them to eat fish, fondly supposing that fish is not flesh: they might as well tell us that a lily is not a vegetable, because it is not a cabbage. There is a Jewish canon pronounced by Schoettgen which my readers may not be displeased to find inserted here: Nedarim, fol. 40:
He who is bound by a vow to abstain from flesh, is bound to abstain from the flesh of fish and of locusts.
From this it appears that they acknowledged that there was one flesh of beasts and another of fishes, and that he was religiously bound to abstain from the one, who was bound to abstain from the other.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Flesh is a kind of body, but it is of various degrees of dignity and excellency, in respect of the qualities of it: the flesh of men is of a differing excellency from the flesh of beasts; and there is a difference in natural qualities between the corporeal substances of beasts, and of fishes, and birds; yet they are all bodies, they are all flesh; our distinction between flesh and fish, is but according to our idiom or propriety of speaking; we read of the flesh of fish, Lev 11:10,11.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
39-41. Illustrations of thesuitability of bodies, however various, to their species: the fleshof the several species of animals; bodies celestial and terrestrial;the various kinds of light in the sun, moon, and stars, respectively.
fleshanimal organism[DE WETTE].He implies by the word that our resurrection bodies shall be in somesense really flesh, not mere phantoms of air [ESTIUS].So some of the oldest creeds expressed it, “I believe in theresurrection of the flesh.” Compare as to Jesus’ ownresurrection body, Luk 24:39;Joh 20:27; to which ours shallbe made like, and therefore shall be flesh, but not ofanimal organism (Php 3:21) andliable to corruption. But 1Co15:50 below implies, it is not “flesh and blood” in theanimal sense we now understand them; for these “shall notinherit the kingdom of God.”
not the samenot fleshof the same nature and excellency. As the kinds of flesh, howeverwidely differing from one another, do not cease to be flesh, so thekinds of bodies, however differing from one another, are stillbodies. All this is to illustrate the difference of the new celestialbody from its terrestrial seed, while retaining a substantialidentity.
beastsquadrupeds.
another of fishes . . .another of birdsMost of the oldest manuscripts read thus,”another FLESH ofbirds . . . another of fishes“: the order ofnature.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
All flesh is not the same flesh,…. Or “equal”, as the Syriac version renders it; though all flesh is flesh, as to the nature and substance of it; agrees in its original, being by generation; and is supported by food, and is alike frail and mortal; all flesh is grass, rises out of it, or is maintained by it, or withers like that, yet not of equal worth, value, and excellency: “but” there is “one” kind “of flesh of men”; which is superior to, and more excellent than any other; being animated by a rational soul, and is set in the first place; so we read of , “the flesh of man”, for mankind, Job 12:10 see Ex 30:32.
Another flesh of beasts; as sheep and oxen, and other beasts of the field;
another of fishes: which may be observed against the Papists, who distinguish between flesh and fish, as if there was no flesh of fishes; and on their fast days prohibit flesh, but allow the eating of fish; thus flesh is attributed to fishes, as here, in Le 11:11 upon which text Aben Ezra observes, lo, fish is called flesh; but as our doctors say, according to the custom of those times; and so it is by the Jews, who say t,
“all flesh is forbidden to boil in milk, , “except the flesh of fishes”, and locusts; and it is forbidden to set it on a table along with cheese, except “the flesh of fishes”, and locusts:”
and another of birds; the fowls of the air. This is another similitude, illustrating the resurrection of the dead; and is not designed to point out the difference between the raised bodies of the righteous, and the wicked; as if the former were signified by the flesh of men, and the other by the flesh of beasts, fishes, and birds; nor among the wicked themselves, with whom there will be degrees of punishment; nor among the saints, as if the flesh of one should differ from that of another. The intent of this simile is only to show, that the resurrection of the dead will be in real flesh, in their own flesh, in the selfsame flesh, as to substance, with which they were clothed when on earth; but that it will, as to its qualities, be different from it, as one sort of flesh is now from another; and that if God can, as he does, make different sorts of flesh, and yet all for kind are flesh, there is no difficulty in conceiving, that God is able to raise the dead in their own flesh, and yet different from what it now is; being free from all weakness, frailty, corruption, and mortality.
t Misn. Cholin, c. 8. sect. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The same flesh ( ). Paul takes up animal life to show the great variety there is as in the plant kingdom. Even if evolution should prove to be true, Paul’s argument remains valid. Variety exists along with kinship. Progress is shown in the different kingdoms, progress that even argues for a spiritual body after the body of flesh is lost.
Of beasts (). Old word, from , to possess, and so property. See Lu 10:34.
Of birds (). Old word from , to fly, winged, flying. Only here in N.T.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
All flesh is not the same flesh. Still arguing that it is conceivable that the resurrection – body should be organized differently from the earthly body, and in a way which cannot be inferred from the shape of the earthly body. There is a great variety of organization among bodies which we know : it may fairly be inferred that there may be a new and different organization in those which we do not know. Flesh is the body of the earthly, living being, including the bodily form. See on Rom 7:5, sec. 3.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “All flesh is not the same flesh: (ou pasa sarks he aute sarks) “Not all flesh is the same (kind of) flesh.” Having disposed of the premise and its conclusions that all seed are not the same in form and kind, yet are continued after a divine pattern. Paul then presented the parallel premise regarding flesh -and its continuity — after a divine decree or pattern.
2) “But there is one-kind of flesh” (alla alle men) But other (flesh) indeed.” Four patterns or kinds of flesh life were introduced in creation, by divine decree, Gen 1:20-23, fish and fowls; then Gen 1:24-25, beasts; and fourth and last, man after his own kind, Gen 1:26-27; Gen 2:7. This is God’s order and any other order is out of order!
a) “Of men” (anthropon) “of human beings, humanity.” Ma was created “man-flesh,” to remain till death. He did not evolve into human flesh.
b) “Another flesh of beasts,” (alle de sarks ktenon) “And another (kind or order) of flesh of animals or beasts,” Gen 1:24-25; one who sexually lay with beast flesh was to be put to death, Lev 18:2-3; Lev 20:15-16; Deu 27:21.
c) “Another of fishes.” (alle de sarks ptenon) “Yet another (kind or order) of flesh of birds or fowls.” Gen 1:20-23; Rom 1:22-23.
d) “And another of birds,” (alle de ichtheon) “and another of fishes.” Rom 1:21-23. Thus four (4) kinds or orders of biological flesh life are ranked or classified each “after his kind.” There is Divine peace, order, and purpose for continuity in God’s universe, for all of His creation. Blessed are those who recognize and respect it.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
39. All flesh is not, etc. Here we have another comparison leading to the same conclusion, though there are some that explain it otherwise. For when he says, that under the name of flesh is comprehended the body of a man as well as of a beast, and yet the flesh in those two cases is different, he means by this that the substance indeed is the same, but there is a difference as to quality. The sum is this — that whatever diversity we see in any particular kind is a sort of prelude of the resurrection, because God clearly shows, that it is no difficult thing with him to renew our bodies by changing the present condition of things. (102)
(102) “Nearly allied to these are the examples of peculiar transformations undergone by various insects, and the state of rest and insensibility which precede those transformations; such as the chrysalis or aurelia state of butterflies, moths, and silkworms. The myrmeleon forniicaleo, of whose larva, and its extraordinary history, Reaumur and Roesel have given accurate descriptions, continues in its insensible or chrysalis state about four weeks. The libellula, or dragon-fly, continues still longer in its state of inaction. Naturalists tell us that the worm repairs to the margin of its pond, in quest of a convenient place of abode, during its insensible state. It attaches itself to a plant, or piece of dry wood, and the skin, which gradually becomes parched and brittle, at last splits opposite to the upper part of the thorax: through this aperture the insect, now become winged, quickly pushes its way, and being thus extricated front confinement, begins to expand its wings, to flutter, and, finally, to launch into the air with that gracefulness and ease which are peculiar to this majestic tribe. Now who that saw, for the first time, the little pendant coffin in which the insect lay entombed, and was ignorant of the transformation of which we are now speaking, would ever predict that, in a few weeks, perhaps in a few days or hours, it would become one of the most elegant and active of winged insects? And who that contemplates, with the mind of a philosopher, this current transformation, and knows that two years before the insect mounts into the air, even while it is living in water, it has the rudiments of wings, can deny that the body of a dead man may, at some future period, be again invested with vigor and activity, and soar to regions for which some latent organization may have peculiarly fitted it?” — Olythus Gregory’s Letters on the Evidences of the Christian Religion, page 225. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(39) All flesh is not the same flesh.Better, There is no flesh the same flesh. All organisms have the same basis; there is a structural unit in all animal life; but God gives this a vast variety of form in man, in beast, in fish. The same divine prescience which gives to all flesh here the form suited to its condition and surroundings can give hereafter another form to it suitable to the new conditions and surroundings in which it will then be placed. If we had only seen flesh in the form of an animal, and were told that flesh could live in the sea, we might have equally argued, How, with what body? but seeing as we do that there is a variety of bodies, we feel no such difficulty.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
39-41. As the necessary corruptness of all matter, and therefore the necessary corruptness of all bodies, here or hereafter, is the ground assumption of the Gnostical objector against the possibility of the resurrection, Paul now enlarges on the varieties of body, and the various glories which material bodies are made by God to assume. These are all to illustrate the difference between the dying body and the resurrection body.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
39. All not same flesh All are alike matter and flesh; but God’s power is competent to clothe the same matter with varied properties.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial. But the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars, for one star differs from another star in glory.’
He points out that there are also many types of body. There are fleshly bodies. Men, beasts, birds and fish all have differing types of terrestrial body. But there are also heavenly bodies as well as terrestrial. And their glory is above that of the terrestrial, and each differs in glory. Thus there are the sun, moon and stars, and they all differ in glory. So may we also expect that the resurrection body will be different again, and again differ in glory.
We note that the earthly bodies are described in terms of flesh, although they do have a certain level of glory, while he speaks of the heavenly bodies solely in terms of glory. Thus the movement from earth to the heavens is a movement from a lower glory to a higher one, as all can see simply by examining the heavens. This is in preparation for speaking of the fleshly, terrestrial body of man, as connected with earth, becoming the glorious, heavenly body of resurrected man, as connected with Heaven, where all is glory, and yet as having a glory even greater than that of the heavenly bodies.
Paul was almost certainly thinking back to Dan 12:2-3 where the resurrected dead were to shine as the stars for ever and ever. But he is careful not just to associate the new spiritual life with the glory of the stars, for they not only differ with each other in glory but are inferior to the resurrection body. At this stage he has on mind three types of body, fleshly, with its lower level of glory; heavenly and thus celestial and glorious; and spiritual, which we learn later has its own heavenly glory.
‘There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial.’ To catch his meaning here we may translate, ‘As well as terrestrial bodies there are also heavenly bodies.’ (Compare for a similar construction 1Co 16:18 a).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
1Co 15:39. All flesh is not the same flesh. The scope of the passage makes it evident, that by flesh St. Paul here means bodies; as much as to say, that God has given to the several sorts of animals, bodies in shape, texture, and organization, very different one from another, as he has thought good; and so he can give to men at the resurrection,bodiesofvery different constitutions and qualities from those which they had before. Mr. Locke, instead of beasts, reads cattle, .
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
1Co 15:39-41 . In order to make it conceivable that the same body need not come forth again, further reference is now made to the manifold diversity of organic forms in nature; so also faith in the resurrection cannot be bound up with the assumption of the sameness of the present and the future bodily organism. Very diverse are, namely: (1) the kinds of animal flesh (1Co 15:39 ); (2) the heavenly and earthly bodies (1Co 15:40 ); and (3) the lustre of the sun, of the moon, and of the stars (1Co 15:41 ).
] flesh of cattle, i.e . not quadrupedum generally (so de Wette and Osiander, following older interpreters), but also not simply jumentorum (van Hengel), but pecorum (Vulgate), which are kept for household use and for burden-bearing; Plato, Crit. p. 109 B; Herod. ii. 41; Xen. Anab . iii. 1. 19, 1Co 4:7 ; 1Co 4:17 ; Luk 10:34 ; Act 23:24 .
] heavenly bodies , i.e. bodies to be found in heaven. Comp. on Joh 3:12 ; Phi 2:10 . The bodies of the angels are meant by this (Mat 22:30 ; Luk 20:36 ; Phil. l.c. ). So, too, de Wette. [73] Were we to understand by these words, as is usually done (so, among others, Hofmann; Hahn, Theol. d. N. Test . I. p. 265; Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 66; Philippi, Glaubensl . II. p. 292 f.), the heavenly bodies (sun, moon, and stars), we should be attributing to the apostle either our modern use of language, or the non-biblical mode of regarding the stars as living beings (see Galen, de usu part . 17 in Wetstein [74] ), which is not to be proved even from Job 38:7 . The same holds in opposition to Billroth, who understands the words as meaning heavenly organisms generally and indefinitely, from which sun, moon, and stars are then named by way of example . Sun, moon, and stars are not comprehended at all under ., and are first adduced in 1Co 15:41 as a third analogue , and that simply in reference to their manifold . The whole connection requires that should be bodies as actual organs of life , not inorganic things and materials; as, for instance, stones (Lucian, vitt. auct . 25), water (Stob. fl. app . ii. 3), and material things generally (Plato, Polit . p. 288 D) are designated in Greek writers not, however, in the New Testament by . Had Paul meant heavenly bodies in the modern sense, he would in that case, by describing them as bodies , have committed a ; whereas, on the contrary, the bodies of the angels , especially when we consider the similarity of those who are raised up to the angels, which was taught by Jesus Himself, were essentially included as relevant to the subject in the list of the diversities of bodily organization here enumerated (in opposition to Hofmann’s objection). He then, 1Co 15:41 , brings forward in addition the heavenly bodies only in respect of the diversity not of their bodies , but of the lustre of their light .
] bodies to be found on earth , that is, the bodies of men and beasts .
Both kinds of bodies, the heavenly and earthly, are of different sorts of peculiar glory , the former encompassed with a heavenly radiancy (Mat 28:3 ; Act 12:7 , al. ), the latter manifesting strength, grace, beauty, skilful construction, and the like in their outward appearance. Notice that in 1Co 15:40 is used, because the subjects are of specifically different kinds and qualities. It is otherwise in 1Co 15:41 , comp. 1Co 15:39 . 1Co 15:41 . Sun-lustre is one thing, and moon-lustre another, and lustre of stars another ( i.e. another than solar and lunar lustre). Paul uses, however, , not , because the stars too among themselves have not one and the same lustre; hence he adds by way of explanation: for star differs from star in lustre . is thus simply differt (Vulgate), not excellit (Mat 6:26 ; Mat 10:31 ; Mat 12:12 ), which the context does not suggest. Regarding with , comp. Plato, Pol. viii. p. 568 A; Dem. 291, 17; Bremi, ad Isocr . I. p. 169. The accusative or dative of more precise definition is more usual (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 394). The design of 1Co 15:4 is not to allude to the different degrees of glory of the bodies of the saints (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theodoret, Calovius, Estius, al. ), which is neither indicated in what precedes nor adverted to in the application 1Co 15:42 ff., and hence has no foundation in the context; but Calvin rightly remarks: “Non disputat, qualis futura sit conditionis differentia inter sanctos post resurrectionem, sed quid nunc different corpora nostra ab iis, quae olim recipiemus ac si diceret: nihil in resurrectione futurum doceo, quod non subjectum sit jam omnium oculis.” Comp. also Krauss.
Generally, let us beware of forcing upon the individual points in 1Co 15:39-41 different individual references also, [75] contrary to the application which the apostle himself makes in 1Co 15:42-44 .
[73] Comp. also Kurtz, Bibel u. Astron . p. 157; Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr . p.72f.
[74] Chrysostom and Theophylact (comp. also Theodoret) go entirely astray, supposing that . . denotes the pious , and . the godless , in spite of the which is attributed to both.
[75] Tertullian, de resurr . 52, may serve as a warning; he says on ver. 39: “Alia caro hominis, i.e. servi Dei ; alia jumenti, i.e. ethnici ; alia volucrum, i.e. martyrum ; alia piscium, i.e. quibus aqua baptismatis sufficit .” On ver. 41, again: “alia solis gloria, i.e. Christi ; alia lunae, i.e. ecclesiae ; et alia stellarum, i.e. seminis Abrahae .”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
Ver. 39. All flesh is not the same ] This is another answer to the epicure, who might haply reply, and say, If man’s flesh, when rotted, shall revive, why not likewise the flesh of other creatures? The apostle answereth, “All flesh is not the same,” &c. Man’s flesh only is informed by a reasonable and immortal soul, not so the flesh of other creatures: and hence the difference.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
39 41 .] And the more, because we have examples from analogy of various kinds of bodies ; viz. (1) in the flesh of animals ( 1Co 15:39 ): (2) in celestial and terrestrial bodies ( 1Co 15:40 ): (3) in the various characters of light given by the sun, moon, and stars.
] animal organism (De W.). Dean Stanley’s former rendering (corrected in his 3rd edn.) of , , ‘no flesh is the same flesh,’ is contrary to the usage of the passages which he alleged to defend it, where the negative is always attached to the verb ; , Rom 3:20 ; Gal 2:16 . See Mat 24:22 [75] ; Act 10:14 ; ch. 1Co 1:29 ; 1Jn 3:15 ; Rev 7:16 ; Rev 9:4 . On the other hand, where the negative is attached to , as here , the sentence is a particular negative, not an universal: e.g. Rom 10:16 , : 1Co 9:6-7 ; Heb 3:16 ; Mat 7:21 , , where the rendering in question would involve portentous consequences indeed. I observe that Conyb, also, although disapproving on the ground of the sense, adds, “the words of the Greek text no doubt admit of such a rendering.”
[75] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25 , the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified , thus, ‘ Mk.,’ or ‘ Mt. Mk.,’ &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others .
] properly ( , ) animals possessed by man : but used in a wider sense for quadrupeds in general.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1Co 15:39 . The rest of the goes to sustain 1Co 15:38 b , showing the inexhaustible variety of organic forms in the Divine economy of nature and the fitness of each for the life it clothes. This is manifest, to begin with, in the varied types of animal life: , “All flesh is not the same flesh” in the zoological realm there is no uniformity, but endless differentiation. (Ed [2493] makes predicate “the same flesh is not all flesh,” i.e. , physical assimilation means differentiation getting out of the sentence a physiological idea obscure in itself and not very relevant to the context). Instead of men, cattle, birds, fishes , with their heterogeneous natures, being lodged in the same kind of corporeity, their frame and organs vary with their inner constitution and needs. If God can find a body for beast and fish, in the lower range, no less than for man, why not, in the higher range, for man immortal no less than for man mortal? (from ), denoting cattle as beasts of purchase in the first instance, is applied to four-footed beasts at large: cf. Gen 1:25 ff; Gen 2:20 .
[2493] T. C. Edwards’ Commentary on the First Ep. to the Corinthians . 2
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
All flesh, ! &c. = Not all flesh is the same flesh.
one. App-124.
another. Same as “one”. Greek. allos.
beasts. See Act 23:24.
birds. Greek. ptenon. Only here.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
39-41.] And the more,-because we have examples from analogy of various kinds of bodies; viz. (1) in the flesh of animals (1Co 15:39): (2) in celestial and terrestrial bodies (1Co 15:40): (3) in the various characters of light given by the sun, moon, and stars.
] animal organism (De W.). Dean Stanleys former rendering (corrected in his 3rd edn.) of , , no flesh is the same flesh, is contrary to the usage of the passages which he alleged to defend it, where the negative is always attached to the verb; , Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16. See Mat 24:22 [75]; Act 10:14; ch. 1Co 1:29; 1Jn 3:15; Rev 7:16; Rev 9:4. On the other hand, where the negative is attached to , as here, the sentence is a particular negative, not an universal: e.g. Rom 10:16, : 1Co 9:6-7; Heb 3:16; Mat 7:21, ,-where the rendering in question would involve portentous consequences indeed. I observe that Conyb, also, although disapproving on the ground of the sense, adds, the words of the Greek text no doubt admit of such a rendering.
[75] When, in the Gospels, and in the Evangelic statement, 1Co 11:23-25, the sign () occurs in a reference, it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in the other Gospels, which will always be found indicated at the head of the note on the paragraph. When the sign () is qualified, thus, Mk., or Mt. Mk., &c., it is signified that the word occurs in the parallel place in that Gospel or Gospels, but not in the other or others.
] properly (, ) animals possessed by man: but used in a wider sense for quadrupeds in general.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
1Co 15:39. , all not) This is a universal negative. Every kind of flesh is different from the others. Paul shows, that terrestrial bodies differ from terrestrial, and celestial from celestial, 1Co 15:41 : but in such a way as to make each of these refer to the further illustration of the difference of the body from its seed, and of celestial bodies from those that are terrestrial; for in the apodosis he lays down nothing respecting the degrees of glory, but leaves it as it were in an enigma to be considered by wise men, while he accounts it sufficient to have openly asserted the glory of the resurrection bodies.- , one kind of flesh of men) He elegantly omits the word flesh, when he places the flesh of brutes in opposition to that of man. here is applied to all quadrupeds; for fishes and birds are opposed to them.-, of fishes) Therefore those, who eat fishes, eat flesh, and that too the more sumptuously, as it is a delicate variety.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
1Co 15:39
1Co 15:39
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.-All flesh is no more the same flesh than all grains are the same grain. Man, beasts, birds, and fish are all different kinds of flesh. [The beast has a body which fits it for life on the earth, the bird for life in the air, and the fish for life in the water. If God from animal tissue can produce such a variety of forms of life, he certainly can, with his wisdom and inexhaustible resources, raise a body for the saints, perfectly adapted to the faculties of their minds, and to the new world in which they are to live.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Gen 1:20-26
Reciprocal: Gen 5:3 – in his
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1Co 15:39. To show that it is in keeping with the works of God to have the body of a saint take on another form (although it Is the same body), Paul refers his readers to other conditions in the creation, such as the different kinds of flesh.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
1Co 15:39. All flesh is not the same flesh. Take the members of the animal creation too; neither are they, any more than those of the vegetable world, all of one type,but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.[1] In the next two verses the illustrations rise into a higher region.
[1] The two last clauses stand in this order in the true text.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
St. Paul here proceeds farther to answer the question which the philosophers at Corinth put, namely, with what bodies do persons come forth out of the grave? He tells them, they shall be vastly different in qualities from what they are at present; and this he illustrates by similitude.
As, says he, there is difference in bodies here below, some more excellent, as the flesh of men, others less excellent, as the flesh of beasts and birds; and as there is a difference between celestial and terrestrial bodies, yea, a difference between celestial bodies among themselves, one excelling another in glory, as the sun excels the moon, and one star excels another; so will it be in the resurrection, the bodies that rise will vastly differ from those that died.
Here note, That all this is to be understood of the resurrection of the righteous, since it is their bodies alone that shall undergo this happy change, which in the next words the apostle describes.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
1Co 15:39-41. All flesh, &c. As if he had said, There is an immense variety in the works of God, even in those which fall under the inspection of our senses, feeble and limited as they are, while we dwell in flesh and blood. For we see even earthy bodies differ from earthy, and heavenly bodies from heavenly. What wonder then if heavenly bodies differ from earthy? or the bodies which rise from those that lie in the grave? As in the preceding verse, says the author last quoted, the apostle directs us to consider the greatness of the power of God, displayed in the production of that endless variety of vegetable substances for food to man and beast, with which we are surrounded; so in this verse he directs our attention to the same power of God displayed in that wonderful diversity of animal substances, which it hath formed into different sorts of organized bodies, each with members properly adapted to the instincts of its inhabitant, and to the manner of life for which it is designed; men, beasts, fishes, fowls. There are also celestial bodies, &c. As if he had said, The greatness of his power God hath likewise showed, in the formation of other bodies which are inanimate, both celestial, as the sun, moon, and stars, and terrestrial, such as fossils and minerals. But the glory of the celestial is one, &c. Different indeed is the glory of the one from that of the other, and the brightest lustre which the terrestrial can have, falls very short of that of the celestial. There is one glory of the sun, &c. Yea, and the heavenly bodies themselves differ from each other. From the whole of these principles, the apostle draws this conclusion; that since Gods power has been so gloriously manifested in the greatness and variety of the material substances which he has already formed, and in the diversity of their configuration, that person must be a fool indeed, (1Co 15:36,) who takes upon him to affirm that God cannot raise up bodies for his saints at the last day, in form and use similar to their present bodies, and perfectly adapted to the faculties of their minds, and to the new world in which they are to live. This last observation is peculiarly worthy the readers attention. Our new bodies, what qualities soever they may possess, will doubtless be perfectly adapted to the faculties of our minds, and to the new world in which we shall be placed: as our present bodies are adapted to the faculties we now possess, and to the world in which we now live; and as we see the bodies of all creatures are suited to the instincts God hath given them, and to the element or place in which they have their abode, whether fish in the water, fowls in the air, or cattle and creeping things on or within the dry land. Accordingly, when any living creature is destined to change the place of its abode, it receives a new body, adapted to its new situation: as, for example, the silk-worm, when it is no longer to be confined to the leaves of the mulberry-tree, but to have the freedom and pleasure of roaming at large in the spacious regions of the air, is furnished with a new and winged body, adapted to its new state and element. And here arises a question: Is it not probable that at least one important reason why we are to receive new bodies, and are not always to remain disimbodied spirits, (as we shall be in the intermediate state between death and judgment,) is, because we are destined to remove into a new world, far more perfect and glorious than this fallen and disordered one in which we now are? a world in which there will be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall serve him, and shall see his face. In this new world, God, who never sinks, but always rises to higher and higher perfection in his works, will certainly make a far more glorious display of his wisdom, power, and goodness, and other attributes, than he has done in this present world; and it is therefore necessary that we should have bodies furnished with senses and other members adapted to that world, and enabling us to hold connection and intercourse with it, and to apprehend, enjoy, and be instructed in the further knowledge of our glorious Creator, by the excellences of it, so superior to any we had witnessed in this present earth, the abode of our infancy and childhood. But suffice it at present to have given a hint of this.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Vv. 39. All flesh is not the same flesh; but the flesh of men is one, the flesh of beasts another, that of birds another, that of fish another.
, flesh, denotes the substance of the organism, and not merely its external form. In this series of examples, man is placed at the head; for, while belonging by his body to the animal kingdom, he alone of all living beings possesses the capacity of reaching a higher existence.
, strictly: cattle; a word coming from , to acquire, possess; here, no doubt, denoting all quadrupeds, among which cattle form the class nearest to man.
, birds; this class follows the preceding, perhaps by way of alliteration, the names of the two classes differing very little in Greek.
Fishes are put last, as being lowest in the scale.
These four classes may be united in a single group, that of terrestrial beings, to be contrasted with a higher group, celestial bodies. These latter differ from the former both in substance and splendour.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
This passage begins and ends by stressing the differences within kinds of bodies.
"(Pet lovers take note: Paul did not teach here that animals will be resurrected. He only used them as an example.)" [Note: Wiersbe, 1:620.]
The second and fifth sentences stress the differences within genus while contrasting the earthly with the heavenly. The central elements state the realities of earthly and heavenly "bodies." Structurally the passage is a chiasm. [Note: Fee, The First . . ., p. 783.]
A Not all flesh is the same (i.e., earthly bodies).
B Examples of different kinds of flesh: people, animals, birds, fish
C There are heavenly and earthly kinds of bodies.
C’ The splendor of heavenly bodies is of one kind and the splendor of earthly bodies is of another kind.
B’ Examples of different kinds of splendor: sun, moon, stars
A’ Not all stars (i.e., heavenly bodies) have the same splendor.
In 1Co 15:39 Paul used animal life to point out the different types (substance) of flesh: human, land animals, birds, and fish. This anticipates what he said later about the earthly and heavenly existence of believers. A body can be genuinely fleshly and still subsist in different forms for different environments. The fact that there are different kinds of bodies among animals should help us understand that there can also be different kinds of human bodies. Some human bodies are mortal and some are immortal. Some are corruptible and others incorruptible.
Likewise the fact that celestial bodies differ in glory (brightness) should help us realize that human bodies can also differ in glory. The glory of a perishable mortal human body is much less than that of an imperishable immortal human body. Also the differing glory of the heavenly bodies argues for differences among glorified believers.