A Paul question, and other things
Something I was thinking about as I was falling asleep last night: Paul uses the term "flesh" (sarx) to refer to the sinful, adamic nature of humanity in contrast to life by the Spirit for those who are in Christ. Now assuming that Paul doesn't equate sarx with physicality (i.e. the physical is what is sinful, the Spiritual is what is good), why does he choose to use the term sarx, out of all the possible terms he could have chosen? Such things keep a man awake at night.
I also recently came across the excellent blog Sacra Doctrina earlier this week, which is certainly one to add to your list of regular reads. I particularly liked this post called Tom Wright and Reactions, which is about as good a summary of the evangelical controversy over Wright's work on Paul as you're likely to find.
Kim Fabricius is guest posting over at Faith and Theology again, with a post entitled Ten Propositions on Penal Substitution. Here's a quote:
If the doctrine of penal substitution is to have any place in contemporary soteriology, there are certain elements of its demotic form that have to be eliminated: especially the notion that Jesus died to placate or appease God, or to secure a change in God’s attitude, or to settle a score or balance the books – and, indeed, the notion that the cross is itself a divine punishment. Rather than drive such a wedge a between God and Jesus, the cross expresses their unity and mutual love. It is not a matter of anger or honour but of rescue and risk, obedience and self-sacrifice, of putting the world (Anselm’s ordo universi) to rights and making it beautiful again. Penal substitution is often narrowly construed in individualistic terms, so that the cosmic scope of the atonement is marginalised or missed altogether.
Lastly, I'm super-happy this morning as yesterday I came home from work to find out that I've got the graduate job that I applied for (yay!) and that I also now have somewhere permanent to live now that the house deal I was waiting for has come through (yay again!). It's nice when things like that happen. Most importantly of all, having a house means I am getting closer to having regular net access again, which means the end of sneak-blogging from work like this.
Yay – Sven’s got a job 
And a place to live 
pax et bonum
John (Email) (URL) - 02 08 06 - 11:17 (Edit / Delete)
‘I came home from work to find out that I’ve got the graduate job that I applied for.’
Congratulations!
graham (Email) (URL) - 02 08 06 - 11:34 (Edit / Delete)
Telll us more. Tell us more. Like what are you doing and what field? We want it dished out because are totally excited for you Sven. Congratulations. AWESOME! You da’man.
Ben F. (Email) (URL) - 02 08 06 - 12:42 (Edit / Delete)
Sven, I was cruising through my blogroll when I came across your question on sarx. I, too, have been kept awake at night thinking about this!
My thoughts at present are that the “flesh-spirit” dichotomy in Paul is more eschatological than anthropological: in the present age people are characterized by the “flesh,” an innate moral opposition to God that manifests itself in our bodily actions; but people of the age to come are characterized by “Spirit,” the personal power and presence of God. So Paul uses “flesh” because this innate moral opposition to God is manifested in our bodies, not because our bodies are inherently evil. I would see a similar thing going on with kosmos in its negative uses. This use of “world” would be the collective humanity equivalent of “flesh”: an innate moral opposition to God that manifests itself in the values and actions of collective humanity. But again, it’s not that the physical “world” or “created order” is inherently evil, but that this moral opposition to God is manifested collectively within the world.
Michael Pahl (Email) (URL) - 02 08 06 - 16:46 (Edit / Delete)
I too have often wondered why paul used the term sarx for falleness. Indeed I asked Dr. Swanson about it. He said it was eschatologial, like Michael Phal, and I think he said that there was some jewish precident about it.
Maybe our trouble is that we associate sarx with physical and pneuma with non-physical and I doubt this would be a 1 century jewish dicotomy.
Richard
Richard McIntosh - 02 08 06 - 22:29 (Edit / Delete)
Thanks for the comments everyone.
Ben F,
I’m working as a trainee store manager for a massive department store that caters to the needs of well off middle class people hehehe. It’s a 12 month contract with an option to stay on afterwards but I think I’ll be ready for getting back to studying by then.
Michael,
Good point, I hadn’t really thought about the sarx-kosmos similarity before. Duh.
Steven Harris (Email) (URL) - 03 08 06 - 13:56 (Edit / Delete)
I remember thinking something similar when doing the ‘Romans’ intensive this summer – so many meanings for one word, why not just use one which is obvious? I seem to recall Dr. B saying that Paul sometimes deliberately changes the meaning of ‘sarx’ in the same sentence especially in those bits of Galatians where he mentions things “done in the flesh” and “according to the flesh”. Sometimes I think Paul is just creating a play on words to create irony etc?
Derek (Email) (URL) - 04 08 06 - 02:05 (Edit / Delete)
Sven,
So Waitrose then… 
(btw we shop there, but then that’s GP’s for you!)
Go well,
Richard (middle classed toff)
Richard Collins (Email) (URL) - 06 08 06 - 18:09 (Edit / Delete)
Close Richard….but no cigar. I’m actually going to be working for Marks and Spencer :)
Steven Harris (Email) (URL) - 07 08 06 - 11:01 (Edit / Delete)
Trackbacks to this entry:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
