Customer Reviews

The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

How can one approach the Bible accurately when not knowing the "philosophy" of its Author? And because the Bible is about God and man, we must figure out the definition of these two before we develop the associated doctrines. The issue of the body affects many doctrines in the Bible, including soteriology (salvation), resurrection, and covenants.

Robinson makes clear that whether reading OT Hebrew or NT Greek, the Bible is Hebraic in thought, not Greek or Western. Despite the use of the Greek language, which recognized man as a dychotomy, Hebraic thought does not recognize such a view of man. And so, as Paul uses the language of the Greeks, he still expresses the truth of the Hebrews.

There is much I could say about the contents of this book. But let me say subjectively that I read the book with the intent of one reading. But before I was finished, I knew I would immediately reread it, partly for a better understanding on some things, and more so because of the excitement. After the second reading, I wanted to read it yet again; but I controlled myself because of two other books (equaling over 1200 pages) waiting in the wings. But "The Body" will be read yet again and again.

I affirm the need of regeneration for the sinner (John 3; Titus 3; Romans 3)and that the unsaved are "dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2). But I deny the idea, propogated by the NIV, that man has a sin nature (which would make man be part nonhuman). "Sin nature" completely masks the Hebraic meaning of the word "flesh," and thus masks the doctrine of man, making him of two natures. This is another major flaw in the work of the adherents of dynamic equivalence "translation."

Robinson spoke to the issue of the sin nature and yet hadn't realized that his book properly refuted such a nature, replacing such an erronious idea with the Pauline weakness of the flesh spoken of in Romans 7. His discussion on whether or not Jesus had a sin nature, which is controversial among theologians, could have avoided the controversy by recognizing no nature existing, as the rest of the book actually affirms. His proper teaching of the body terms of the Greek used by Paul, and used in the OT, show that a Biblical understanding of what "flesh" means irradicates the possibility of a sin nature. "Flesh" and "mortal bodies" in the NT is essentially the whole person as related to the physical world in the realm of human possibility (Max King providing that latter idea). Innate weakness becomes an obvious reality of our being, especially as "flesh" is compared to the spiritual life and its demands. "Body" is essentially the person as "for the Lord, and the Lord for the Body."

I am delighted in Robinson's foundational work as it sets the bar for correcting the fallacious view of two resurrections: a soteriological/spiritual resurrection and a biological resurrection. Jesus is One Resurrection. Salvation is from sin, and the physical body is not sinful; rather, as Paul affirmed, all God made, including physical bodies, is still good (literally beneficial). The Body of our resurrection is far more glorious than a replacement body for each individual. Such individualism as taught in biological resurrection is not taught in scripture.

If only, somehow, this book could be resurrected from obscurity and placed back before the eyes of so many theologians who have become propogators of a pseudo-Christian, Occidental philosophy rather than of Biblical theology and humanity.

But this is the best book on Christianity and its existential relation(s) to the embodied life that I've ever read! Every paragraph of Robinson's closely reasoned interpretation of Paul, the most prolific Christian enscripturated writer, opened whole new vistas on how the body, existentially understood, ties together every facet of Christianity. I'll have more to say about this book in a subsequent review . . . But, if you can find a copy of this little jewel, grab it and see what I mean. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this too.