Frequently in Scripture things that are closely related and have similar implications appear elsewhere in different form. See, for example, my The Correspondence between Romans 8:12-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10 and also The Correspondence between 2 Peter 3, Hebrews 12 & Curse at www.kenstothard.com /. There is yet a further correspondence which so far as I am aware has never been acknowledged. I refer to John 3:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:35-57. The reason for this omission or oversight is not far to seek since historically John 3 has been given an Augustinian interpretation by which sin, original sin in particular, is paramount. Consequently, the new birth has been considered not so much a ‘natural’ necessity as a moral imperative. In fact, however, sin is not mentioned in these verses and is quite irrelevant to them. The same is true of the Corinthian passage, at least until verse 54. (See further my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.)
Frequently in Scripture things that are closely related and have similar implications appear elsewhere in different form. See, for example, my The Correspondence between Romans 8:12-25 and 2 Corinthians 4:7-5:10 and also The Correspondence between 2 Peter 3, Hebrews 12 & Curse at www.kenstothard.com /. There is yet a further correspondence which so far as I am aware has never been acknowledged. I refer to John 3:1-8 and 1 Corinthians 15:35-57. The reason for this omission or oversight is not far to seek since historically John 3 has been given an Augustinian interpretation by which sin, original sin in particular, is paramount. Consequently, the new birth has been considered not so much a ‘natural’ necessity as a moral imperative. In fact, however, sin is not mentioned in these verses and is quite irrelevant to them. The same is true of the Corinthian passage, at least until verse 54. (See further my Two ‘Natural’ Necessities.)
The Subject
Two subjects are at issue in both of these passages: the kingdom of God and the nature of the body. Admittedly, Paul deals with the latter in far more detail that does Jesus in John 3. However, it is abundantly clear that the implication of both passages is that the body in the age to come or the kingdom of God will not be fleshly (dust) but spiritual.
| John 3:1-8 | 1 Corinthians 15:35ff | |
| The kingdom of God physically invisible (3:3, cf. v.8) | Same implication (15:50, cf. 2 Cor. 4:18) | |
| Physical regeneration dismissed (3:4f.) | Dust dismissed (vv.47,49) | |
| Spiritual regeneration from above (3:7) | Spiritual body heavenly (cf. vv.47f.) | |
| Spiritual regeneration a necessity for entry into the kingdom (3:5) | Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God (15:50) | |
| The spiritual replaces the natural/physical vv.3,5 | The spiritual replaces the physical vv.44,46 | |
| John 3:6 clearly corresponds with | 1 Corinthians 15:48 | |
Conclusion
The physical body which is naturally subject to corruption (1 Cor. 15:50) and destruction (1 Cor. 6:13; 2 Cor. 5:1) must be replaced by a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:44,46, cf. Phil. 3:21) either by redemption (Rom. 8:23) and/or transformation (1 Cor. 15:51ff.).