1 Corinthians 15:39

Contextual Overview

³⁵ But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? What kind of body will they have?" ³⁵ But some one will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" ³⁵ But some ma will saye: how aryse ye deed? with what bodyes come they in? ³⁵ But some one will say, "How are the dead raised?" and, "With what kind of body do they come?" ³⁵ But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? What kind of body will they have when they come back?"Ezekiel 37:3;">[xr] ³⁵ But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?" ³⁵ But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? What kind of body will they have?" ³⁵ But some one will say, How are the dead raised? and with what manner of body do they come? ³⁵ But some [man] will say, How are the dead raised? and with what body do they come? ³⁵ But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?"

Bible Verse Review
  from Treasury of Scripure Knowledge

Genesis 1:20-26

Reciprocal: Genesis 5:3 - in his

Gill's Notes on the 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 בשר איש, "the flesh of man", for mankind, Job 12:10 see Exodus 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 Leviticus 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, מבשר דגים, "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.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

All flesh is not the same flesh - This verse and the following are designed to answer the question 1 Corinthians 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. 1 Corinthians 5:5; 2 Corinthians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Philippians 1:22, Philippians 1:24; Colossians 2:5; 1 Peter 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.

Clarke's 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:

הנודר מן הבשר יהא אסור בבור רגים והגים

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.