When Paul says in I Cor. i. 29
that the boasting of all flesh is excluded before God, ‘all flesh’ is
interpreted by Theodore as ‘every fleshy man with his mind set on fleshly
things’ (πας ανθρωπος σαρκικος επι σαρκικοις εχων το φρονημα) (Theod. on I Cor. i. 29; cf.
Ambst. In loc. [191 C]). In similar vein the words of I Cor. xv. 50 that
‘flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God’ are regularly
interpreted in a moral sense. This particular exegesis . . . was supported with
careful and detailed reasoning and was of fundamental importance to the understanding
of Paul’s resurrection doctrine (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5, 14, 4;
Tertullian, De Ros. Mort. 51, 5; Adv. Marc. 5, 10, 11; ibid.
5, 14, 4; Novatian, De Trinitate, 10; Chr. Hom. in I Cor. 42, 1
[10, 364]; Ambst. In loc. [270 B]; Pelagius in loc; Isidore, Epp.
1, 477).This insistence on the moral significance of the term ‘flesh’ in Paul’s
writings is undoubtedly a true and important insight. But it seems clear from
some of the examples just given that if it is applied too automatically and too
uniformly to every occurrence of the word in his letters it can give rise to
serious misinterpretation of his meaning many cases. (M. F. Wiles, The
Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church [Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1967], 29)
In the first instance the words
are defined to mean that flesh and blood by themselves, apart from the Spirit,
cannot enter the kingdom of God (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5, 9, 1-3).
Secondly, flesh and blood are defined as not bearing their straightforward meaning
but as implying the works of the flesh, and Gal. v. 19-21 is cited in evidence
(Ibid. 5, 11, 1; 5, 14, 4). These two lines of argument may be said to
be brought together in the declaration already quoted that Paul’s meaning is
that if you live as if you were flesh and blood and nothing more you cannot
inherit the kingdom of God (Ibid. 5, 9, 4. This shows the way in which
Irenaeus relates the two primary Pauline senses of flesh without implying any
derogation of the physical creation as such). Thirdly, though he clearly lays
much less emphasis on this line of argument, it would be incorrect in any sense
to speak of flesh and blood inheriting the kingdom; the relationship is the
other way round; it is they that are inherited (Ibid. Cf. Methodius on I
Cor. xv. 50; De Res. 2, 18, 9, where the interpretation is attributed to
Justin). (Ibid., 44)
