Summary of text [comment] page 81

[Allow me to summarize:

The Old Testament metaphor of ‘flesh and bones’ (designating the essential person) was usurped (from the suprasovereign perspective) and tailored to fit an (infra)sovereign point of view.

The terms went from popular usage to propaganda.

This precisely follows Schoonenberg’s scenario of refusal and usurpation.

A change of the language, the symbolic order of society, became inevitable.

Schoonenberg did not have the analytical tools to explain why Paul opposed the ‘flesh’ against the ‘spirit’ (and not ‘flesh and bones’ against the ‘spirit’). He only noted that the Old Testament opposition applies to one situation and the New Testament opposition applies to another.

In addition, he limited his discussion to warning that the term ‘spirit’ does not simply replace the term ‘bones’.]