The next generation of British Tom Wright,
Paula Guder talks about the body!

Is the human element dualistic (body and soul) or trichotomy (body, soul, and spirit) correct? What will the resurrected body be like? Why did Paul specifically use the church as a metaphor for the body of Christ? Looking at Christian history, we see misunderstandings that, despite being completely unscriptural, have persisted within the church with a tenacious vitality.
‘Body’ and ‘spirit’ are representative examples.
Still, when people hear expressions like “spiritual” or “spirituality,” they immediately think of something immaterial or non-physical.
And in that process, the ‘body’ is often perceived as a negative object, such as a ‘passage of sin.’
However, the Bible describes the form of life we ​​receive after death as a 'body.'
It says that, like Jesus, we too will live in a resurrected 'body'.
Paul even likened the church, the community of Christians, to the 'body' of Christ.
If so, the body is an important topic that must be established accurately not only in each of our individual faiths, but also within the church community.
This book corrects popular misconceptions about the body and provides biblical teachings on it.
It will be of great help in establishing a biblical theology and faith regarding the ‘body.’

Often the word 'spiritual' is defined as something non-physical or immaterial.
For example, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the word "spiritual" as something relating to "the spirit or soul of man, as opposed to the material or physical."
In other words, unless the concept is redefined, the very word spiritual implies that it has nothing to do with our bodies.
This definition is often used to refer to the 'spiritual life' as opposed to the everyday life we ​​live with our bodies.
Many popular Christian traditions, which emphasize that the body and all material things are left behind at death, teach fasting and other methods of disciplining the body, and emphasize the "spiritual," naturally display a vague sense of uncertainty about the body and its significance, even if they are not overtly hostile to it...
(Omitted) The reason Paul has become so notorious for his attitude toward the body is because we often read one word over another.
When you see the word 'flesh', you read it as 'body', and when you see the word 'spirit', you read it as 'soul'.
This confusion about key terms in Paul's writings opens the door to interpreting Paul as saying things he did not say.
But Paul used his terminology carefully and deliberately.

--- p.26-28

Paul nowhere in his writings contrasts the word 'soul' with the word 'body'.
Nowhere does Paul speak of a soul continuing to exist after the death of the body.
Nowhere does Paul connect the soul with the mind.
In fact, if we look at how many times the word soul is used, we can see that for Paul it is not as dominant a category as it was for Plato.
In the Pauline epistles, the word soul is used four times in Romans, once in 1 Corinthians, twice in 2 Corinthians, once in Ephesians, twice in Philippians, once in Colossians, and twice in 1 Thessalonians.
For example, Paul uses the words "flesh" and "spirit" extensively and intensively in Romans 8, but nowhere else does he use the word "soul" so extensively and intensively.
It is significant that Paul does not contrast the soul with the body.
Consequently, the soul of which Paul speaks is not buried in the body, nor is it corrupted by the body or imprisoned in the body.
What Paul is contrasting clearly is flesh and spirit, not body and soul.

--- p.78-79

Those who dwell in Sheol are often described as "shades" (Hebrew: rephaim), who are lifeless, tremble before God (Job 26:5), and cannot praise Him (Psalm 88:10).
Nephesh is never actually described as being in Sheol.
Therefore, before a person becomes a spirit and enters Sheol, he is Nephesh.
And when he is rescued from Sheol, he becomes Nephesh once again.
Nephesh exists on this side of death, and the soul exists on the other side of death.
The implications of how the Hebrews viewed body and 'soul' are profound and central to our understanding of what makes us human.
When we look at humans under the influence of the Platonic philosophical tradition, we come to the conclusion that the difference between humans and animals is the rational soul.
The traditional answer to a child's question, "Do pets go to heaven when they die?" is "No," because only souls go to heaven, and animals cannot have rational souls.
But under the influence of Hebrew tradition, the answer is different.
The Hebrew tradition's answer offers both good news and bad news to the distraught child whose pet has died. The good news is that animals, as is clear throughout the Old Testament (e.g., Genesis 9:4), have souls (at least nephesh).
But the bad news is that Nephesh doesn't last beyond the grave.

--- p.91-92

One of the most common questions people have about the resurrection is whether those who are “disabled” in their bodies will be “healed” from their disabilities when they are resurrected.
(Omitted) The reason I don't like this question is because it assumes that people with "disabilities" are not "normal" and that there is something "wrong" with them, and that this wrongness needs to be fixed.
I think this is a wrong starting point.
Paul's use of the word "flesh" makes it clear that everyone has something "wrong."
Our bodies today are characterized by weakness and helplessness.
Our bodies are now described by the things we cannot do.
To put it another way, we are all “disabled” in different ways, waiting to be transformed into bodies that define the things we can do in the future.
(Omitted) The most amazing feature of Jesus' resurrected body was that it still bore the marks of his previous wounds.
In fact, what is even more surprising is that Jesus told Thomas to put his hand into the hole in his side.
Jesus' resurrected body was "handicapped" in that it still had the hole made by the spear when he was crucified.
But Jesus does not appear helpless because of his wounds.
(Omitted) What if our resurrection body would bear the marks of our present life, but if those marks were transformed into power rather than helplessness as they are now? What if our resurrection body would contain all the characteristics that make us who we are (both good and bad), but if those characteristics (unlike our present) were transformed into vitality, glory, and power? What if our resurrection body would contain all the marks of our entire being, but would no longer be prone to corruption, shame, and weakness?
--- p.157-158

Even the original writings of Paul would not have distinguished between the Spirit of God and the spirit of man.
This distinction was introduced much later and became a particular issue in the territorial versions.
Therefore, it is good to keep this in mind when the word “spirit” appears in the New Testament.
Of course, there are times when it is quite clear that Paul is speaking of the human spirit (“God I serve with my spirit” [Rom. 1:9 NIV]), and there are times when it is quite clear that he is speaking of the Spirit of God (“if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you” [Rom. 8:11]).
Of the 146 times the word "spirit" appears in Paul's letters, about 19 times it refers to the human spirit, and over 100 times it refers to the Spirit of God.
Yet there are passages where it is quite difficult to determine whether Paul is speaking of the Spirit of God or of the human spirit.
For example, 1 Corinthians 14:15 (“What then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with my mind,
“I will praise with my spirit, and I will also praise with my enlightened mind.”
When Paul spoke of praying and praising in the spirit, was he imagining the human spirit or the Spirit of God? Furthermore, in 2 Corinthians 4:13, Paul says, "We have the same spirit of faith." Does he mean that this same spirit of faith we have is God's Spirit, or is it our own? In Philippians 1:27, Paul says the Philippian believers will know that they are established in one "spirit" (the Revised Standard Version says "heart," the New Translation says "mind"). But whose spirit is he referring to?
--- p.164-165

Paul did not ask us to give our soul, spirit, or heart to God, but rather our body.
Declaring that it is a 'kind of' worship.
What kind of worship, exactly, does this refer to? The NRSV translates this passage as "spiritual worship."
The problem with this translation is that when we hear the word "spiritual" here, we are reminded of the word "spiritual" we see elsewhere in Paul's writings: pneumatikos.
Actually, that word wasn't used.
The word Paul uses to describe a specific type of worship in Romans 12:1 is the Greek word logikos.
The English word 'logical' comes from here, and is usually used to mean 'reasonable' or 'reasonable'.
With this in mind, Paul's statement becomes even more interesting.
The proper response to God is always worship, for the offering of our bodies is presented as the proper response to God's overwhelming mercy revealed in Romans 1-11.

--- p.227-228

The word koinonia (NRSV translates it as "sharing" and the New International Version translates it as "participation") has been widely discussed in New Testament studies as well as ecclesiology.1 The difficulty in finding an appropriate translation for koinonia stems from the vertical and horizontal connotations of this word.
Expressions like 'fellowship,' 'society,' 'community,' and 'sharing' do a good job of capturing the horizontal aspect of relationships (person to person), but none of them seem to capture the vertical aspect of relationships.
Likewise, the expression “participating in Christ” refers to the vertical aspect but not the horizontal aspect.
Thornton adds a useful addition to the concept of koinonia: the expression 'shareholder' or 'stakeholder'.
In fact, to properly convey what Paul is trying to say, the word koinonia should not be used separately from the word 'body of Christ.'
We have not just koinonia, but the koinonia of the Body of Christ.
The bread we break is the means by which we become stakeholders in the body of Christ.
Through this we participate in Christ and in one another.

--- p.256-257

As we know from 1 Corinthians 15, there were many people who had seen the “body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:5), and they knew what Jesus looked like.
How tall is Jesus, what color is his hair and eyes, etc.
That is why Paul’s words to them, “Now you are the body of Christ,” must have been a tremendous shock.
They were not simply called to an old body.
We are called to become the body of the One who changed the world through His life, death, and resurrection.
Of all the images that metaphorically symbolize belonging, there is perhaps no more powerful one.
The calling given to the Christian community at that time was to become the body of those who had wandered through Galilee and Judea just a few decades earlier.
The fact that it was an actual human body made the image of the body of Christ all the more resonant.
To put it another way, the outward actions and words of those in the community were to become the actions and words of Christ in the world.
This is why unity and harmony are so important.
Because a body that is shattered into pieces has no influence (1 Corinthians 12).
And this is precisely why love was important.
Because the way Christ existed in the world and toward the world was love (1 Corinthians 13).
And this is precisely why speaking in tongues must be done only when there is an interpreter present.
What good is the body's speech if no one understands it? (1 Corinthians 14)

--- p.262-263