Summary of text [comment] page 82

Schoonenberg considered ‘the flesh’ in the context of concupiscence and bondage.

He asked: How does this word appear in history?

The term ‘flesh’ derives in part from the Greek world. The Greeks came to see that ‘the flesh’ was opposed to ‘reason’.

In the Old Testament, ‘the flesh’ was opposed to ‘the Providence of God’.

[Notably, Schoonenberg did not mention the older opposition, flesh versus blood & bones. Obviously, blood & bones were attuned to the Providence of God.]

In the New Testament, flesh joins desire as ‘belonging to the world’ as opposed to ‘belonging to the Father (1 John 2:16)’.

Schoonenberg concluded that ‘concupiscence’ is a pejorative term that represents the tendency toward sin within man or mankind as it stands under sin.

[If this is the mythos, then what is the logos?

What is the reference to be constructed on ‘the miracle of Paul’s insightful use of words ‘flesh’ and ‘spirit’?

If the word ‘flesh’ veils the history of ‘flesh and bones’, then a discussion of concupiscence does not follow, as it does here, in Schoonenberg’s book.

Instead, a discussion of the nested form self-justification₃( concupiscence₂(₁)) might better apply. A similar discussion appears in my blogs on Ted Peter’s book Radical Evil.

But even that is not enough. Here an even bigger question:

What does it mean to live in a world where the meanings of words can reconfigure like a flock of birds as the seasons change?]

Summary of text [comment] page 81

[Speech-alone words are birds in flight.

Paul searched for words in a language that was changing, like a flock of birds at the change of season.

Every bird veiled its own history. Every bird differed from every other bird.

The entire flock flew differently, each bird in its own way.

Paul spied one set of differences, ‘flesh as opposed to spirit’.

He seized upon it, freezing the moment, as well as each bird’s veiled history.]